Editing Æthelred the Unready (section)

== Legacy ==
Later perspectives of Æthelred have been less than flattering. Numerous legends and anecdotes have sprung up to explain his shortcomings, often elaborating abusively on his character and failures. One such anecdote is given by [[William of Malmesbury]] (lived {{circa}} 1080 – 1143), who reports that Æthelred had defecated in the [[baptismal font]] as a child, which led St Dunstan to prophesy that the English monarchy would be overthrown during his reign.<ref>{{cite book |last1=William of Malmesbury |first2=John (trans) |last2=Sharpe |first3=John Allen (trans) |last3=Gile |title=William of Malmesbury's Chronicle of the kings of England. From the earliest period to the reign of King Stephen |location=London |publisher=[[H. G. Bohn]] |pages=190–192 
|date=1847 |url=https://archive.org/details/williammalmesbu00gilegoog/page/n28/mode/2up}}</ref> This story is, however, a fabrication and a similar story is told of the [[List of Byzantine emperors|Byzantine Emperor]] [[Constantine V|Constantine Copronymus]] (the epithet means "dung-named"), another medieval monarch who was unpopular among certain of his subjects.<ref>{{cite web |last=Cartwright |first=Mark |author-link=Mark Cartwright |title=Constantine V |website=www.worldhistory.org 
|publisher=[[World History Encyclopedia]] |date=13 November 2017 |url=https://www.worldhistory.org/Constantine_V/ |access-date=26 October 2021}}</ref>

Efforts to rehabilitate Æthelred's reputation have gained momentum since about 1980. Chief among the rehabilitators has been [[Simon Keynes]], who has often argued that our poor impression of Æthelred is almost entirely based upon after-the-fact accounts of, and later accretions to, the narrative of events during Æthelred's long and complex reign. Chief among the culprits is in fact one of the most important sources for the history of the period, the ''[[Anglo-Saxon Chronicle]]'', which, as it reports events with a retrospect of 15 years, cannot help but interpret events with the eventual English defeat a foregone conclusion.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Lapidge |first1=Michael |title=The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Anglo-Saxon England |date=2014 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |page=n.p |isbn=9781118316108 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tZkzAQAAQBAJ&dq=anglo-saxon+chronicle+aethelred+reputation&pg=PT52 |access-date=5 December 2022}}</ref>

Yet, as virtually no strictly contemporary narrative account of the events of Æthelred's reign exists, historians are forced to rely on what evidence there is. Keynes and others thus draw attention to some of the inevitable snares of investigating the history of a man whom later popular opinion has utterly damned. Recent cautious assessments of Æthelred's reign have more often uncovered reasons to doubt, rather than uphold, Æthelred's later infamy. Though the failures of his government will always put Æthelred's reign in the shadow of the reigns of kings Edgar, Æthelstan, and Alfred, historians' current impression of Æthelred's personal character is certainly not as unflattering as it once was: "Æthelred's misfortune as a ruler was owed not so much to any supposed defects of his imagined character, as to a combination of circumstances which anyone would have found difficult to control."{{sfn|Keynes|1986|p=217}}

=== Origin of the jury ===
Æthelred has been credited with the formation of a local investigative body made up of twelve [[thegn]]s who were charged with publishing the names of any notorious or wicked men in their respective districts. Because the members of these bodies were under solemn oath to act in accordance with the law and their own good consciences, they have been seen by some legal historians as the prototype for the English [[grand jury]].{{sfn|Turner|1968|pp=''passim''}} Æthelred makes provision for such a body in the [[Wantage Code]] (''III Æthelred''), promulgations enacted at [[Wantage]] in 997, which states:

{{blockquote|{{lang|ang|þæt man habbe gemot on ælcum wæpentace; & gan ut þa yldestan XII þegnas & se gerefa mid, & swerian on þam haligdome, þe heom man on hand sylle, þæt hig nellan nænne sacleasan man forsecgean ne nænne sacne forhelan. & niman þonne þa tihtbysian men, þe mid þam gerefan habbað, & heora ælc sylle VI healfmarc wedd, healf landrican & healf wæpentake.}}|source={{harvnb|Liebermann|1903|pp=228–232|loc="III Æthelred" 3.1–3.2 }} }}

{{blockquote|that there shall be an assembly in every [[wapentake]],<ref group=n>Note that this terms specifies the north and north-eastern territories in England which were at the time largely governed according to Danish custom; no mention is made of the law's application to the [[Hundred (country subdivision)|hundred]]s, the southern and English equivalent of the Danish wapentake.</ref> and in that assembly shall go forth the twelve eldest [[thegns]] and the [[Reeve (England)|reeve]] along with them, and let them swear on [[Relic#Christian relics|holy relics]], which shall be placed in their hands, that they will never knowingly accuse an innocent man nor conceal a guilty man. And thereafter let them seize those notorious [lit. "charge-laden"] men, who have business with the reeve, and let each of them give a [[security]] of 6 half-marks, half of which shall go to the lord of that district, and half to the wapentake.}}

But the wording here suggests that Æthelred was perhaps revamping or re-confirming a custom which had already existed. He may actually have been expanding an established English custom for use among the Danish citizens in the North (the [[Danelaw]]). Previously, King Edgar had legislated along similar lines in his Whitbordesstan code:

{{blockquote|{{lang|ang|ic wille, þæt ælc mon sy under borge ge binnan burgum ge buton burgum. & gewitnes sy geset to ælcere byrig & to ælcum hundrode. To ælcere byrig XXXVI syn gecorone to gewitnesse; to smalum burgum & to ælcum hundrode XII, buton ge ma willan. & ælc mon mid heora gewitnysse bigcge & sylle ælc þara ceapa, þe he bigcge oððe sylle aþer oððe burge oððe on wæpengetace. & heora ælc, þonne hine man ærest to gewitnysse gecysð, sylle þæne að, þæt he næfre, ne for feo ne for lufe ne for ege, ne ætsace nanes þara þinga, þe he to gewitnysse wæs, & nan oðer þingc on gewitnysse ne cyðe buton þæt an, þæt he geseah oððe gehyrde. & swa geæþdera manna syn on ælcum ceape twegen oððe þry to gewitnysse.}}|source={{harvnb|Liebermann|1903|pp=206–214|loc="IV Edgar" 3–6.2 }} }}

{{blockquote|It is my wish that each person be in [[surety]], both within settled areas and without. And "witnessing" shall be established in each city and each [[Hundred (country subdivision)|hundred]]. To each city let there be 36 chosen for witnessing; to small towns and to each hundred let there be 12, unless they desire more. And everybody shall purchase and sell their goods in the presence of a witness, whether he is buying or selling something, whether in a city or a wapentake. And each of them, when they first choose to become a witness, shall give an oath that he will never, neither for wealth nor love nor fear, deny any of those things which he will be a witness to, and will not, in his capacity as a witness, make known any thing except that which he saw and heard. And let there be either two or three of these sworn witnesses at every sale of goods.}}

The "legend" of an Anglo-Saxon origin to the [[jury]] was first challenged seriously by [[Heinrich Brunner]] in 1872, who claimed that evidence of the jury was only seen for the first time during the reign of [[Henry II of England|Henry II]], some 200 years after the end of the Anglo-Saxon period, and that the practice had originated with the Franks, who in turn had influenced the Normans, who thence introduced it to England.{{sfn|Turner|1968|pp=1–2}}{{sfn|Wormald|1999a|pp=4–26, especially pp. 7–8 and 17–18}} Since Brunner's thesis, the origin of the English jury has been much disputed. Throughout the 20th century, legal historians disagreed about whether the practice was English in origin, or was introduced, directly or indirectly, from either [[Scandinavia]] or [[Francia]].{{sfn|Turner|1968|pp=''passim''}} Recently, the legal historians [[Patrick Wormald]] and Michael Macnair have reasserted arguments in favour of finding in practices current during the Anglo-Saxon period traces of the [[County of Anjou|Angevin]] practice of conducting inquests using bodies of sworn, private witnesses. Wormald has gone as far as to present evidence suggesting that the English practice outlined in Æthelred's Wantage Code is at least as old as, if not older than, 975, and ultimately traces it back to a [[Carolingian dynasty|Carolingian]] model (something Brunner had done).{{sfn|Wormald|1999b|pp=598–599, ''et passim''}} However, no scholarly consensus has yet been reached.