Editing Æthelwulf, King of Wessex (section)

== Decimation Charters ==
[[File:Charter S 316, dated 855 of King Æthelwulf of Wessex.jpg|thumb|Charter S 316 dated 855, in which Æthelwulf granted land at [[Elham, Kent|Ulaham]] in Kent to his minister Ealdhere{{sfn|S 316}}]]

The early 20th-century historian [[W. H. Stevenson]] observed that: "Few things in our early history have led to so much discussion" as Æthelwulf's Decimation Charters;{{sfn|Stevenson|1904|p=186}} a hundred years later the charter expert Susan Kelly described them as "one of the most controversial groups of Anglo-Saxon diplomas".{{sfn|Kelly|2005|p=65}} Both Asser and the ''Anglo-Saxon Chronicle'' say that Æthelwulf gave a decimation,{{efn|"Decimation" is used here in the sense of a donation of a tenth part. This usually means a payment to the ruler or church ([[tithe]]),{{sfn|Oxford English Dictionary|1933}} but it is used here to mean a donation of a tenth part by the king. Historians do not agree what it was a tenth of.}} in 855, shortly before leaving on pilgrimage to Rome. According to the ''Chronicle'' "King Æthelwulf conveyed by charter the tenth part of his land throughout all his kingdom to the praise of God and to his own eternal salvation". However, Asser states that "Æthelwulf, the esteemed king, freed the tenth part of his whole kingdom from royal service and tribute, and as an everlasting inheritance he made it over on the cross of Christ to the [[Trinity|triune]] God, for the redemption of his soul and those of his predecessors."{{sfn|Kelly|2005|pp=65–66}} According to Keynes, Asser's version may just be a "loose translation" of the ''Chronicle'', and his implication that Æthelwulf released a tenth of all land from secular burdens was probably not intended. All land could be regarded as the king's land, so the ''Chronicle'' reference to "his land" does not necessarily refer to royal property, and since the booking of land&nbsp;– conveying it by charter&nbsp;– was always regarded as a pious act, Asser's statement that he made it over to God does not necessarily mean that the charters were in favour of the church.{{sfn|Keynes|1994|pp=1119–20}}

The Decimation Charters are divided by Susan Kelly into four groups:
# Two dated at [[Winchester]] on 5 November 844. In a charter in the Malmesbury archive, Æthelwulf refers in the [[proem]] to the perilous state of his kingdom as the result of the assaults of pagans and barbarians. For the sake of his soul and in return for masses for the king and ealdormen each Wednesday, "I have decided to give in perpetual liberty some portion of hereditary lands to all those ranks previously in possession, both to God's servants and handmaidens serving God and to laymen, always the tenth hide, and where it is less, then the tenth part."{{efn|The charters are S 294, 294a and 294b. Kelly treats 294a and b, which are both from [[Malmesbury Abbey]], as one text.{{sfn|Kelly|2005|pp=65, 180}} }}
# Six dated at [[Wilton, Wiltshire|Wilton]] on Easter Day, 22 April 854. In the common text of these charters, Æthelwulf states that "for the sake of his soul and the prosperity of the kingdom and [the salvation of] the people assigned to him by God, he has acted upon the advice given to him by his bishops, ''[[comites]]'', and all his nobles. He has granted the tenth part of the lands throughout his kingdom, not only to the churches but also to his [[thegn]]s. The land is granted in perpetual liberty so that it will remain free of royal services and all secular burdens. In return, there will be a liturgical commemoration of the king and his bishops and ealdormen."{{efn|The six charters are S 302, 303, 304, 305, 307 and 308.{{sfn|Kelly|2005|pp=65, 188}} }}
# Five from [[Old Minster, Winchester]], connected with the Wilton meeting but generally considered spurious.{{efn|The five Old Minster charters are S 309–313. Kelly states that there are six charters, but she only lists five and she states that there are fourteen in total, whereas there would be fifteen if there were six Old Minster charters.{{sfn|Kelly|2005|p=65}} }}
# One from Kent dated 855, the only one to have the same date as the decimation according to ''Chronicle'' and Asser. The king grants to his thegn Dunn property in Rochester "on account of the decimation of lands which by God's gift I have decided to do". Dunn left the land to his wife with a reversion to [[Rochester Cathedral]].{{efn|The Kent charter is S 315.{{sfn|Kelly|2005|p=65}} }}{{sfn|Kelly|2005|pp=65–67, 73–74, 80–81}}

None of the charters are original, and Stevenson dismissed all of them as fraudulent apart from the Kentish one of 855. Stevenson saw the decimation as a donation of royal demesne to churches and laymen, with those grants which were made to laymen being on the understanding that there would be reversion to a religious institution.{{sfnm|1a1=Kelly|1y=2005|1p=65|2a1=Stevenson|2y=1904|2pp=186–91}} Up to the 1990s, his view on the authenticity of the charters was generally accepted by scholars, except the historian [[H. P. R. Finberg]], who argued in 1964 that most are based on authentic diplomas. Finberg coined the terms the 'First Decimation' of 844, which he saw as the removal of public dues on a tenth of all bookland, and the 'Second Decimation' of 854, the donation of a tenth of "the private domain of the royal house" to the churches. He considered it unlikely that the First Decimation had been carried into effect, probably due to the threat from the Vikings. Finberg's terminology has been adopted, but his defence of the First Decimation is generally rejected. In 1994, Keynes defended the Wilton charters in group 2, and his arguments have been widely accepted.{{sfnm|1a1=Kelly|1y=2005|1pp=65–67 |2a1=Finberg|2y=1964|2pp=187–206|3a1=Keynes|3y=1994|3pp=1102–22|4a1=Nelson|4y=2004c|4p=15|5a1=Pratt|5y=2007|5p=66}}

Historians have been divided on how to interpret the Second Decimation, and in 1994, Keynes described it as "one of the most perplexing problems" in the study of 9th-century charters. He set out three alternatives:
# It conveyed a tenth of the royal demesne&nbsp;– the lands of the crown as opposed to the personal property of the sovereign&nbsp;– into the hands of churches, ecclesiastics and laymen. In Anglo-Saxon England property was either folkland or bookland. The transmission of folkland was governed by the customary rights of kinsmen, subject to the king's approval, whereas bookland was established by the grant of a royal charter, and could be disposed of freely by the owner. Booking land thus converted it by charter from folkland to bookland. The royal demesne was the crown's folkland, whereas the king's bookland was his own personal property which he could leave by will as he chose. In the decimation, Æthelwulf may have conveyed royal folkland by charter to become bookland, in some cases to laymen who already leased the land.{{sfnm|1a1=Keynes|1y=1994|1pp=1119–21 |2a1=Williams|2y=2014|3a1=Wormald|3y=2001|3p=267|4a1=Keynes|4y=2009|4p=467|5a1=Nelson|5y=2004c|5p=3}}
# It was the booking of a tenth of folkland to its owners, who would then be free to convey it to a church.{{sfn|Keynes|1994|pp=1119–21}}
# It was a reduction of one tenth in the secular burdens on lands already in the possession of landowners.{{sfn|Keynes|1994|pp=1119–21}} The secular burdens would have included the provision of supplies for the king and his officials and payment of various taxes.{{sfn|Keynes|Lapidge|1983|p=232}}

Some scholars, for example [[Frank Stenton]], author of the standard history of Anglo-Saxon England, along with Keynes and Abels, see the Second Decimation as a donation of royal demesne. In Abels' view, Æthelwulf sought loyalty from the aristocracy and church during the king's forthcoming absence from Wessex, and displayed a sense of dynastic insecurity also evident in his father's generosity towards the Kentish church in 838, and an "avid attention" in this period to compiling and revising royal genealogies.{{sfnm|1a1=Stenton|1y=1971|1p=308|2a1=Abels|2y=2002|2pp=88–89|3a1=Keynes|3y=2009|3p=467}} Keynes suggests that "Æthelwulf's purpose was presumably to earn divine assistance in his struggles against the Vikings",{{sfn|Keynes|2009|p=467}} and the mid-20th-century historian [[Eric John]] observes that "a lifetime of medieval studies teaches one that an early medieval king was never so political as when he was on his knees".{{sfn|John|1996|pp=71–72}} The view that the decimation was a donation of the king's own personal estate is supported by the Anglo-Saxonist [[Alfred P. Smyth]], who argues that these were the only lands the king was entitled to alienate by book.{{sfn|Smyth|1995|p=403}}{{efn|Smyth dismisses all the Decimation Charters as spurious,{{sfn|Smyth|1995|pp=376–78, 382–83}} with what the scholar David Pratt describes as "unwarranted scepticism".{{sfn|Pratt|2007|p=66, n. 20}} }} The historian Martin Ryan prefers the view that Æthelwulf freed a tenth part of the land owned by laymen from secular obligations, who could now endow churches under their own patronage. Ryan sees it as part of a campaign of religious devotion.{{sfn|Ryan|2013|p=255}} According to the historian David Pratt, it "is best interpreted as a strategic 'tax cut', designed to encourage cooperation in defensive measures through a partial remission of royal dues".{{sfn|Pratt|2007|p=68}} Nelson states that the decimation took place in two phases, in Wessex in 854 and Kent in 855, reflecting that they remained separate kingdoms.{{sfn|Nelson|2004c|pp=15–16}}

Kelly argues that most charters were based on genuine originals, including the First Decimation of 844. She says: "Commentators have been unkind&nbsp;[and] the 844 version has not been given the benefit of the doubt". In her view, Æthelwulf then gave a 10% tax reduction on bookland, and ten years later he took the more generous step of "a widespread distribution of royal lands". Unlike Finberg, she believes that both decimations were carried out, although the second one may not have been completed due to opposition from Æthelwulf's son Æthelbald. She thinks that the grants of bookland to laymen in the Second Decimation were unconditional, not with reversion to religious houses as Stevenson had argued.{{sfn|Kelly|2005|pp=67–91}} However, Keynes is not convinced by Kelly's arguments, and thinks that the First Decimation charters were 11th or early 12th century fabrications.{{sfn|Keynes|2009|pp=464–67}}