Unformatted Attachment Preview
bs_bs_banner
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012), pp. 910–931
Fiscal policies and the institution of a
tax state in Anglo-Saxon England
within a comparative context1
By ANDREW WAREHAM*
This article begins by noting that military revolutions and civil wars in early modern
Europe provide an unduly narrow framework for understanding the transition from a
domain to a tax state.Taking Anglo-Saxon England as a case study, it is suggested that
political restrictions led to the establishment of direct and indirect taxation, thereby
providing rulers with revenues which surpassed those from domain resources. The
main section of the article uses sources from coinage and wills to poetry and letters in
order to give a general idea of the chronological development of a medieval tax state.
This analysis challenges the views of the new fiscal historians, who argue that a collapse
in a medieval domain state acts as the precondition for the emergence of a tax state.
Instead, this article suggests that new policies arose because of the need of AngloSaxon kings and their advisers to take account of the requirements of ecclesiastical
authorities, as well as a heavy revenue imperative, in paying for resistance against the
Vikings. The article ends with a discussion of the comparative applications of the
contexts and catalysts which lead to the adoption of pioneering fiscal policies.
I
t has been proposed that political crisis and military revolution provided the
catalyst and context for the destruction of the medieval domain state, leading to
the creation of the European tax state. Schumpeter made this argument in ‘The
crisis of the tax state’,2 and it has since been developed in a number of influential
works.3 Consensus contrasts the achievement of early modern Europe with the
fiscal failings of its medieval predecessor, and counterparts in early modern Asia.4
In early modern Europe, rulers in the pursuit of power and their own survival
sought to control resources in new ways which led them to tap the wealth of
markets and trade, especially that concentrated in urban areas, and, through the
provision of peace and various public goods, contributed to the remarkable growth
of the modern European economy.5 In general those working on continental
Europe have emphasized the importance of the military revolution, while those
* Author Affiliation: University of Roehampton.
1
I am grateful to the University of Winchester’s Wessex Centre for History and Archaeology seminar,
University of Roehampton, the London Library, and the editors of the Economic History Review for assistance. I
also wish to thank two anonymous referees, Elisabeth Wareham, and Dr Ryan Lavelle for commenting upon the
text; and Dr Chris Thornton and Dr Guillaume Sarrat de Tramezaigues for discussion of the Maldon campaign
and medieval coinage respectively.
2
Schumpeter, ‘Crisis of the tax state’, pp. 8–16.
3
Bonney and Ormrod, ‘Introduction’, pp. 1–16; Braddick, State formation, pp. 233–65; Hoffman and Norberg,
eds., Fiscal crises; Weiss and Hobson, States and economic development, pp. 17–49.
4
For example, Bonney, ‘Revenues’, pp. 504–5; Deng, Chinese premodern economy, p. 87; McNeill, Pursuit of
power, pp. 63, 69–79; Weiss and Hobson, States and economic development, pp. 42–54.
5
Good summaries are provided by Bates, Prosperity and violence, pp. 34–56; Glete, War and the state,
pp. 213–17; McNeill, Pursuit of power, pp. 102–16; Tilly, Coercion, pp. 45–66.
© Economic History Society 2011. Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main
Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
ANGLO-SAXON TAXATION
911
working on the British Isles have given more attention to major political upheavals.6 The model has been confirmed, added to, modified and qualified,7 but it has
not been subjected to a revision which questions the template of early modern
(European) political and military revolutions as the crucible for the creation of tax
states. Consequently, moral and intellectual issues have been neglected in seeking
to understand why pioneering fiscal policies were adopted.
It is worth considering the established narrative a little further, and then analysing
the issue through some key case studies.The European Science Foundation project
on European state finance between the twelfth and early nineteenth centuries
developed the subject of new fiscal history as a template for understanding the
evolution of the tax state.8 Bonney and Ormrod edited three collections of essays
from the project, and had a pessimistic view of fiscal transitions in medieval Europe.
They suggested that only in the early modern period did the fiscal imperative,
prompted by warfare, create a tax state in Europe.9 In a key contribution, Ormrod
and Barta commented: ‘the adoption of such tax systems—a development to which
modern historians give such prominence—was not so much a grand policy of
advancing state control as an ad hoc (and sometimes rather inadequate) response to
the shortfall resulting from a decline in domain revenues’.10 This view arose because
they placed considerable emphasis upon an example from fourteenth-century
Hungary, where a gradual disintegration of domain revenues was followed by the
establishment of indirect taxation.11 The traditional model was reaffirmed: the
domain state collapses as the pre-condition for the creation of tax states.
The model has been modified by work on medium and small states in northern
and southern Europe.12 Epstein suggested that the key turning point in the overall
performance of the European economy does not lie in the early modern period,
and instead argued that the inflection point was during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.13 In discussing long-run themes in economic history it makes
sense to study the medieval as well as the early modern period. Taking one
chronological step back from Epstein’s work turns our attention to the kingdom of
Sicily during the early middle ages. In the early twelfth century, revenues derived
6
Contributions from historians include Braddick, State formation, pp. 233–65; Brewer, Sinews of power,
pp. 137–66; Glete, War and the state; O’Brien and Hunt, ‘England 1485–1815’; Sacks, ‘Paradox of taxation’; and
from social scientists, D. Acemoglu, D. Cantoni, S. Johnson, and J. A. Robinson, ‘The consequences of radical
reform: the French Revolution’, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Economics, Working
Paper series, no. 09-08 (2009) http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1369681; Dinecco, ‘Fiscal
centralization’; Weiss and Hobson, States and economic development, pp. 27–48.
7
For a recent bibliography on the theme, see O’Brien, ‘Britain’s exceptional fiscal state’, pp. 440–6. For
contributions to the debate on parliamentary government/secure property rights as the key political condition for
the establishment of a tax state; and direct taxation, indirect taxation, or credit as more important for establishing
a reliable revenue base, see above, n. 3; Brewer, Sinews of power, pp. 95–100; Hoffman and Norberg, ‘Conclusion’;
O’Brien and Hunt, ‘Rise of a fiscal state’.
8
European Science Foundation scientific programme ‘The origins of the modern state in Europe, 13th–18th
centuries’ included among its outputs Bonney, ed., Economic systems; idem, ed., Rise of the fiscal state; Ormrod,
Bonney, and Bonney, eds., Crises.
9
A summary of the project’s work is provided by Bonney and Ormrod, ‘Introduction’, pp. 4–19 (esp. tab. 0.2,
pp. 4–8); for data and commentary, see Bonney, Capra, ’t Hart, Muto, and Schulze, ‘Evolution of the state
system’. A similar (but simpler) table to 0.2 is provided by Krüger, ‘Public finance’, tab. 3.1, p. 52.
10
Ormrod and Barta, ‘Feudal structure’, p. 79.
11
Ibid., p. 78; Barta and Barta, ‘Royal finance’.
12
For work that combines analysis of these states and European powers with global interests, see Dinecco,
‘Fiscal centralization’.
13
Epstein, Freedom and growth, pp. 1–37, 147–74.
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
912
ANDREW WAREHAM
principally from indirect taxation on trade passing through the city of Palermo
reputedly exceeded revenues collected in England under King Henry I (1100–35),
and a century later in Sicily a feudal aid in 1233 became a regular tax.14 The
parameters of this revenue system have been discussed from three perspectives:
first, the agricultural wealth of Sicily and its location at a maritime crossroads;
second, the extent of royal estates on the island of Sicily; and third, the contribution of administrative and fiscal systems established by the Greeks and Arabs.15
Detailed investigation of fiscal organization in Sicily in the early medieval period is
hindered by the incomplete survival of the records, but these references point
towards a high level of fiscal development.16
Case studies from northern Europe question the view that the collapse of the
domain state provided a catalyst for the establishment of the tax state. In midsixteenth-century Denmark cooperation between the monarch and the royal
council enabled the consolidation of fiefs, which contributed to a dramatic rise in
revenue especially in 1553–9, with the result that extraordinary taxes were only
needed to maintain mercenary troops.17 In the German state of Hessen, revenues
from property management rose from 58,000 guilders per annum to 101,000 per
annum between 1530–9 and 1560–8.18 In Hessen new direct taxes based upon
assessments and indirect excise taxes filled the gap that had previously been met by
medieval subsidies and loans, but domain and taxation revenues were in equilibrium between the mid-sixteenth and late seventeenth centuries.19 These examples
demonstrate that domain revenues continued in equilibrium with tax revenues,
with diversification rather than crisis explaining fiscal development.
A case study from Northern Song China (960–1127) also questions the traditional model.The new policies ofWang An-Shi (d. 1086), chief councillor (1070–3,
1075–6), led to a dramatic increase in revenues from indirect taxation that harvested
wealth from trade and crafts,20 and in 1085 income based upon commercial and
indirect taxes outweighed revenues from the land tax by two to one.21 Councillors
debated the relationship between revenue, expenditure, and economic growth, but,
fundamentally, revenue funded warfare, which in 1065 accounted for 50 out of 60
million strings of cash.22 The army increased in size from around 380,000 men in
975 to about 1.25 million in 1045,23 but after military defeats the state paid out
tribute payments to procure peace. Examples include the 1004 tribute paid to the
Liao, comprising 1,000 copper coins and 200,000 balls of silk; and the treaty of 1044
which fixed the tribute to the Xi Xia at 130,000 rolls of silk, 50,000 ounces of silver,
and 20,000 pounds of tea.24 Northern Song China provides an example of an early
tax state which financed payment of tribute to attackers from central Asia through
taxation of an agricultural and urbanized society, at a time when steppe societies
14
Smith, History of Sicily, p. 30; Matthew, Norman kingdom of Sicily, p. 241.
Matthew, Norman kingdom of Sicily, pp. 234–53; Abulafia, Two Italies, pp. 31–55.
16
Matthew, Norman kingdom of Sicily, pp. 337–8.
17
Lockhart, Denmark 1513–1660, pp. 34–5, 52–3; Petersen, ‘From domain state to tax state’, p. 144.
18
Krüger, ‘Public finance’, p. 59.
19
Ibid., pp. 54–9 (esp. tab. 3.2).
20
Gernet, History, pp. 300–29; Kühn, Die Song-Dynastie, pp. 83–6;Smith, ‘Shen-Tsung’s reign’, pp. 414–47.
21
Bao, Songdai difang, p. 318 (tabs. 7.9 and 7.10 on direct and indirect taxation).
22
Smith, ‘Shen-Tsung’s reign’, p. 349.
23
Kühn, Die Song-Dynastie, p. 97.
24
Ibid., pp. 88, 98.
15
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
ANGLO-SAXON TAXATION
913
experienced economic, social, and political crises as their states formed.25 These
dislocations provided opportunities for charismatic leaders to acquire fearsome
reputations when they led campaigns into China. Di Cosmo’s model is applicable to
the relationship between the kingdom of England and Scandinavian societies during
the Viking age.26
These examples modify the view that tax states came into being initially in early
modern Europe, as a consequence of political and military revolution. In discussing
these themes, it is vital to take account of the distinction between the wealth of
territories and states, and the revenues of their rulers.Wealthy countries today do not
necessarily provide the basis for wealthy governments, and nor is there is any reason
to suppose a simple connection in the pre-modern period. Abulafia commented on
the connection between the wealth of the island of Sicily and its rulers: ‘It is
surprising that such a simple question [the connection between the wealth of the
island and that of the king], so deeply concerned with the whole mechanics of
medieval royal finance, should never explicitly have been answered’, and called for
closer definitions in discussion of sources of revenue.27 These case studies point to
two important neglected points.The term ‘domain state’ refers to a type of revenue
system rather than only states in medieval Europe, and in some cases domain and
taxation revenues operated in tandem. As regards fiscal constitutions and frameworks, we might want to look for wider types of activity than parliamentary
assemblies (with limited suffrages) and property law as the criteria for maintaining
tax states.28
‘In the middle ages, rulers relied on their own estates or domain for resources,
and on the provision of goods and services by dependants’.29 This definition of the
medieval domain state has often been summarized by the idea that medieval rulers
should ‘live off their own’, but as Braddick pointed out, such economic definitions
are too narrow; domain or royal prerogative revenue ‘refers not simply to the lands
of the monarch, but to all revenues arising from a personal right belonging to the
monarch’.30 Theories of medieval state finance, as elaborated by medieval historians, focus upon domain revenue, and distinguish between payments exacted on
an ad hoc basis as tribute, rent derived from royal estates, and wealth collected
from subjects as a whole.31 St Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) articulated the long-held
view that medieval rulers had the right to draw upon these three domain revenues
to meet ordinary expenditure, including that required for the provision of justice,
court ceremonial, and state-building programmes.32 Nevertheless, from the late
twelfth century onwards rulers occasionally levied direct and indirect taxes on
land, moveables, and hearths to meet extraordinary expenditure on warfare.33
25
Di Cosmo, ‘State formation’.
For example, for Denmark, see Hybel and Poulsen, Danish resources, pp. 113–14, 150–4, 198–200, 230–3,
259–62; Randsborg, Viking age, pp. 45–103.
27
Abulafia, Two Italies, p. 33.
28
On the role of representative government in Britain, see, for instance, Jones, ‘Fiscal policies’; and in the
United Provinces, Tracy, Financial revolution, pp. 219–20. On mechanisms (which did not necessarily match the
blueprint of early modern Britain), see ’t Hart, ‘United Provinces’; eadem, ‘Merits’, pp. 22–7.
29
Daunton, Trusting Leviathan, p. 2.
30
Braddick, Nerves of state, p. 12.
31
Isenmann, ‘Medieval and Renaissance theories’, pp. 31–5.
32
Ibid., pp. 31–5.
33
Ibid., pp. 32–3, 43–4; Wolffe, Royal demesne, pp. 38–9, 42.
26
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
914
ANDREW WAREHAM
These ad hoc sources of revenue did not become part of the state’s regular and
permanent revenues, and often involved rulers in dialogues with specially convened consultative assemblies. A classic English example is the link in 1225
between the grant of a tax of a fifteenth on moveables and the re-issue of Magna
Carta.34
It is worth briefly discussing the state in late Anglo-Saxon England.Whether one
uses the word state or the term lordship of rulers, there is no Weberian conception
of the state involved here.35 Lords and their agents exercised authority over
communities with public obligations covering military service, bridge-building,
and work on fortifications.36 Reuter raised comparisons with Germany.37 The
weakness of imperial power in medieval Germany led rulers to give considerable
emphasis to social power, in the form of ritual, kinship, and friendship, often
through communal prayer and feasts, in maintaining authority and ensuring
obedience.38 Such customs and practices were present in late Anglo-Saxon
England and were especially visible in the ceremonies at Bath and Chester in
973,39 but ritual may have played a less pivotal role than in the Ottonian and Salian
Empire. Reuter joined others in arguing that a uniform coinage is the strongest
primary evidence for the power of the late Anglo-Saxon state,40 but Domesday
Book, its satellites, and geld rolls provide even stronger evidence, and it is curious
that Reuter’s critique passed over the latter evidence.41 In late Anglo-Saxon
England a powerful and decentralized state operated with a high degree of local
initiative; a sense of nationhood arose from a common language, culture, and
religious practice.42
I
The wars of King Alfred of Wessex (871–99) were waged through the resources of
royal lordship.43 It is, however, unhelpful to restrict discussion of the Alfredian
domain state to ninth-century Wessex, and the picture can be broadened to Wessex
and England as a whole from the accession of Alfred to the coinage reforms of
King Edgar in c. 973.44 The best surviving documentary evidence for assessing
royal wealth in this period comes from royal wills. Alfred’s will, drawn up between
872 and 888, includes properties that were part of the king’s estate during the
reign of Æthelred II (978–1016).45 This suggests that Alfred’s will dealt with
properties that were or came to be regarded as royal land. The majority of his land
bequests in Hampshire, Somerset, and Wiltshire, lying in the ancient heartlands of
34
Carpenter, Struggle for mastery, pp. 307–8.
Davies, ‘Medieval state’.
36
Brooks, Communities and warfare.
37
Reuter, ‘Making of England and Germany’.
38
Althoff, Family, friends and followers, pp. 14–15, 23–90, 136–59.
39
Jones, ‘Significance’.
40
Reuter, ‘Making of England and Germany’, p. 292; Carpenter, Struggle for mastery, p. 175; Metcalf,
‘Continuity and change, part 1’, p. 20.
41
For Domesday Book and taxation, see McDonald and Snooks, Domesday economy, pp. 51–76; cf. Wareham
and Wei, ‘Taxation and the economy’; for a geld roll, see below n. 71. (Braddick’s template (Braddick, State
formation, pp. 11–20) is applied to Anglo-Saxon England in Foot, ‘Historiography’, pp. 131–2.)
42
This perspective is suggested by Fletcher, Bloodfeud, pp. 13–29.
43
Lavelle, Alfred’s wars.
44
Dumville, Wessex and England.
45
Keynes and Lapidge, eds., Alfred the Great, pp. 175, 177; Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 166, 192.
35
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
ANGLO-SAXON TAXATION
915
the kingdom of Wessex, along with his bookland in Kent, were bequeathed to his
eldest son, Edward the Elder, the future king of England (899–924).46 By contrast
the majority of Alfred’s properties outside the core of Wessex were divided
between his younger son (Æthelwulf), maternal kin, and agnatic nephews.47 The
practice of commuting food rents into cash payments was not established on royal
estates in this period.48 Royal officials such as reeves and riding men organized
sustenance for the court for specified periods, most notably during the winter,
while some vills were also used as collection points for hundredal revenues.49 The
organization of a sophisticated system of food farms was linked to known royal
itineraries, which during the early tenth century came to be concentrated within
southern and midland England.50 The evidence indicates that Alfred bequeathed
land to ensure that his eldest son received the estates that were best suited to
meeting the needs of royal entourages, thereby seeking to control power and
succession after his death.51 This practice can also be seen in the bequests of one
of Alfred’s early tenth-century successors,52 and suggests that traditional attitudes
towards the functions of the domain state predominated.
Another way to look at Alfred’s wealth is to consider his bequests of cash and
heirlooms, valued at around £2,000.53 These goods were divided between Alfred’s
kin, followers, and the needy, generally mirroring his preferences for descent of
land: £1,000 was pledged to his two sons; £800 to his kinswomen and retainers;
and £200 was divided between the clergy, the poor, and the destitute.54 This
bequest of a tenth of his moveable wealth to the needy and the poor demonstrates
Alfred’s piety, but he was not sure if he had the means to make these payments: ‘I
do not know for certain whether there is so much money; nor do I know whether
there is more, although I suspect so’.55 This comment on the absence of coin may
refer to an anticipated development rather than the situation at the time of writing.
Nonetheless, it demonstrates the king’s uncertainty over the money that he had,
and points towards the absence of a developed fiscal system.
King Alfred responded to the Viking threat by investing in domain sources of
power, primarily by increasing labour services and public obligations. Favourable
terms were offered to lords entrusted with ‘the protection of all the people’, and to
peasants (ceorls) in encouraging them to take up the hard life of garrisoning
fortified towns (burhs), while the church took on responsibility for urban defence.56
It is not surprising that a domain state flourished under King Alfred since the
Heptarchy (the division of England into seven kingdoms) influenced the political
landscape, with limitations being placed upon the opportunity for innovation.57 A
more remarkable aspect of investment in the domain state by King Alfred and his
46
Keynes and Lapidge, eds., Alfred the Great, pp. 175, 177.
Ibid., pp. 175, 177.
48
See below, n. 121.
49
Stafford, ‘“Farm of one night”’, p. 500; Sawyer, ‘Royal tun’, pp. 281–2.
50
Sawyer, ‘Royal tun’, p. 281.
51
Abels, Alfred the Great, pp. 179–80.
52
See below, nn. 59–60.
53
Keynes and Lapidge, eds., Alfred the Great, p. 324, n. 97.
54
Ibid., p. 177.
55
Ibid., p. 177.
56
Abels, Alfred the Great, p. 205; Brooks, ‘Administrative background’, p. 134–5; idem, ‘Alfredian government’,
pp. 157–8, 162.
57
Keynes, ‘Heptarchy’; Brooks, ‘Administrative background’, pp. 120–1.
47
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
916
ANDREW WAREHAM
early tenth-century successors was the terms by which kings exchanged property
with the church.58 Delays in returning church property and exchanges favourable
to the Crown resulted in the distribution of the church’s lands to royal followers.
This helped King Alfred and his successors to defeat the Vikings, but it contributed
to the economic and social problems of the English church during the first age of
the Vikings and its aftermath.
Around 50 years after Alfred’s death, King Eadred (946–55) bequeathed money
and treasure valued at £1,400 to kin, prelates, ealdormen, and household officials
in a will drawn up between 951 and 955.59 These gifts were overshadowed by the
promise of £1,600 to redeem the English people from the disasters of famine and
an invasion by a Viking army. The money for these two purposes was held in
monastic treasuries, with £200 allocated to each county, while £400 was set aside
for the benefit of the people of Mercia. In addition, 2,000 mancuses of gold
(around £250), which was ‘to be taken and minted into mancuses’, was left for the
redemption of the king’s soul.60 In meeting the threats of famine and the Vikings,
Eadred relied upon traditional methods; county communities were given the
means to enter into negotiations with Viking war bands, perhaps with the intention
that they should be guided by the prelates who had custody of the bequeathed
monies. The treasury of the mid tenth-century English kings was more sophisticated than King Alfred’s, with a distinction between the state treasury and the
personal treasure of the king.61 Money was accounted for precisely with an awareness of the differentiation between payments in silver pence and gold mancuses.62
Nonetheless, there is little indication of a reorganization in the structure of the
revenue base, or a shift in royal attitudes to the use of royal wealth.
King Alfred and his immediate successors waged war with the resources of a
domain state, which in periods of military expansion lent itself to the collection of
tribute from neighbouring territories.63 The Prophecy of Britain (Armes Predein),
probably written in the 930s by a Welsh cleric, referred to the English as the ‘tax
gatherers of Cirencester (Gloucs.)’.64 But using a domain state to overcome the
Vikings required expropriation of the wealth of monastic houses. Since a domain
state flourished c. 871–973, the stages by which England became a tax state must
lie quite close to the early eleventh century. Political civil war cannot be put
forward as the explanation for this fiscal change. The royal council was united
politically during the first third of the eleventh century, with the exception of a
dispute between the king and his son in 1015–16.65 The evidence is no stronger for
military revolution. From the 980s the English state needed to mobilize its wealth
and that of its subjects to pay for ships, armour, swords, and other military
58
Fleming, ‘Monastic lands’, pp. 250–5, 261–4; Thacker, ‘Æthelwold’, p. 45; cf. Dumville, ‘Ecclesiastical
lands’.
59
Discussion based upon Whitelock, ed., English historical documents, no. 107, pp. 555–6.
60
Ibid., p. 155. Mancus was typically a weight but the word was also applied to a gold coin.
61
Brooks, ‘Career of St Dunstan’, pp. 169–70; Biddle, ‘Felix urbs Winthonia’, p. 133.
62
Whitelock, ed., English historical documents, no. 107, p. 555; Dolley, Anglo-Saxon pennies, p. 24.
63
Cf. Maddicott, ‘Trade’, pp. 21–31, argued that new profits from tin in south-west England augmented King
Alfred’s wealth. The argument meshed some ninth-century evidence with indirect indicators drawn from the
Roman and Angevin periods. In the absence of Anglo-Saxon data, there are no convincing grounds for arguing
that Alfred developed a fiscal power base. Nor is it clear how this putative wealth was generated, beyond general
comments on exports of metals, so the hypothesis cannot be linked to fiscal history.
64
Williams, Kingship and government, p. 85.
65
Lavelle, Aethelred II, pp. 73–134.
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
ANGLO-SAXON TAXATION
917
equipment against Viking threats organized at state level, as well as continuing to
provide coastal defence against independent war-bands.66 These developments
cannot be regarded as a military revolution, any more than rearmament in Northern Song China.67 The changing fiscal power base in late Anglo-Saxon England
cannot be readily connected to either political or military revolution. General
economic developments partly explain the process. The system of relying upon
royal estates to support an itinerant court was of less value because of the growth
of rural and urban settlements, and their widespread reorganization, combined
with the consequences of political unification during the tenth century.68
II
It is assumed that in early modern states there was a broad concordance between
state revenue and expenditure.69 For late Anglo-Saxon England this methodological necessity is compounded by the use of original terms to refer to both revenue
and expenditure, but it is vital to note that the words gafol, heregeld, and Danegeld
do not refer to one concept.70 Heregeld, under Æthelred II and the Anglo-Danish
kings (1016–42), refers to both stipends paid to warriors and land taxation,
whereas the Danegeld in sources such as the Northamptonshire geld roll and the
Leges Henrici Primi refers only to the land tax.71 Although the heregeld taxation
provided the basis for the development of Danegeld, these two taxes should be
regarded as distinct,72 with different systems of assessment and collection. It is no
less important to distinguish between tribute (gafol) which was paid to secure
peace with the Vikings, and stipendiary payments (heregeld) used to meet the
expenses of crews of warships and warriors of the royal household.73 According to
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, payments made on the order of Æthelred II and his
councillors in 991, 1002, 1007, 1012, and 1018 were gafol (tribute);74 for 1014
heregeld (stipendiary payments) was paid;75 and for the 994 entry there is a degree
of ambiguity.76 Finally, the payment made in 1009 by the people of East Kent was
phrased in terms of securing a local peace.77 In total, seven national stipendiary
and tribute payments were paid between 991 and 1018, with a median of £24,000
66
Brooks, ‘Arms, status and warfare’, pp. 150–1, 155–6; Metcalf, ‘Large Danegelds’; Randsborg, Viking age, pp.
96–103.
67
For instance, the Zhe military family supported itself through farming; Ong, ‘Zhe military family’, p. 11. I am
grateful to Prof. Ong for his permission to cite from his paper.
68
Dyer, Making a living, pp. 13–70; Stafford, Unification and conquest, pp. 45–68.
69
O’Brien and Hunt, ‘Rise of a fiscal state’, p. 133.
70
For a discussion of systems, see Lawson, ‘Collection’; Roffe, Decoding Domesday, pp. 183–209.
71
Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 221, n. 243, 283, n. 185. The confusion is partly caused by publications that refer to
Danegeld under Æthelred II, based upon the statement in the legal text drawn up between 1116 and 1118,
Downer, ed., Leges Henrici Primi, pp. 36, 121 (clause 15.1), which stated: ‘If Danegeld, which was formerly given
to Danish forces . . . ’. For the Northamptonshire geld roll, see Douglas and Greenaway, eds., English historical
documents, pp. 483–6.
72
Roffe, Decoding Domesday, pp. 309–10.
73
Keynes, ‘Historical context’, p. 101; Irvine, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 77.
74
O’Keeffe, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, pp. 86, 89, 92, 96, 104; Cubbin, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, pp. 48, 51,
54, 57, 63; Irvine, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, pp. 61, 64, 66, 69, 72–3.
75
O’Keeffe, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 99; Irvine, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 71.
76
O’Keeffe, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 87; Cubbin, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 49; Irvine, ed.,
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 62.
77
O’Keeffe, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 93; Cubbin, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 55; Irvine, ed.,
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 67.
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
918
ANDREW WAREHAM
(1002) (see tab. 1).78 In this article expenditure figures on gafol and heregeld are
used as the source framework to address the political context for the adoption of
pioneering fiscal policies, so it is important to consider the reliability of the figures
recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.79
For every annal between 983 and 1022 the C, D, and E versions of the
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle agree at least in part, which suggests that they drew upon a
common source.80 The discrepancies between C and E on the tribute payments in
1007 and 1012 arose from scribe E failing to add the second number in the
sequence, so that ‘xxxvi’ was rendered as ‘xxx’ and ‘forty’ was presumably omitted
from the number ‘forty-eight’, leaving only the number ‘eight’ when it was translated from the vernacular into Latin.81 These are scribal slips on the part of scribe
E, and confirm scribe C’s accuracy. Accuracy can be checked from another angle.
Scribe C’s reporting on the appointment of ealdormen, prelates, and other high
officials can be verified by charters and witness lists that have been subject to
comprehensive analysis.82 Gillingham rightly pointed out that the £1,600 left in
the will of King Eadred to deal with famine and the Vikings represented a poor
showing in comparison to the figures paid out c. 991–1018.83 However, Keynes’
summary has demonstrated a direct relationship between the size and ferocity of
the Viking attacks with rises in tribute and stipendiary expenditure.84 The fluctuations in expenditure mainly directed towards warfare between the late tenth and
twelfth centuries tell us about the ups and downs of the English financial system
and its relationships with the changing political framework; they do not provide a
uniform trendline against which to adjust stipend and tribute figures recorded in
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.85 This source needs to be understood critically and,
following a constructive debate, the figures recorded by scribe C are to be regarded
as accurate. The political context for the establishment of national expenditure on
tribute can now be probed by looking at two sources, which first need to be
contextualized.
The ‘Poem of the Battle of Maldon’ described the death of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and the defeat of his army at Maldon (Essex) in 991.86 The poem was
composed between the early 990s and the 1020s, with an earlier date generally
being preferred.87 Clark identified the geographical milieu of the poem as
England’s eastern counties, perhaps not that far from the area where the borders
of Essex, Suffolk, and Cambridgeshire converge.88 The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
written by scribe C covering the period 991–1022, provides contextual information, but it must be remembered that the entries for these years were written as a
78
If local payments are included, £21,000 (1014).
For debate, see Gillingham, ‘“Most precious jewel”’; idem, ‘Chronicles and coins’; cf. Lawson, ‘Those stories
look true’; idem, ‘Once more’.
80
Irvine, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, pp. lxvi–lxix.
81
O’Keeffe, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, pp. 92, 96; Irvine, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, pp. 66, 69.
82
Keynes, ‘Declining reputation’, p. 236; idem, Diplomas, pp. 154–231.
83
Gillingham, ‘“Most precious jewel”’, p. 379, n. 8.
84
Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 223–4.
85
Lawson, ‘Those stories look true’, pp. 388–90.
86
For the poem, see Scragg, ‘Battle of Maldon’, pp. 18–31; for its historical context, see Lavelle, Aethelred II,
pp. 68–73; Keynes, ‘Historical context’.
87
Scragg, ‘Battle of Maldon’, p. 32; Clark, ‘Dating the Battle of Maldon’, pp. 22–3.
88
Clark, ‘Dating the Battle of Maldon’, pp. 21–3.
79
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
© Economic History Society 2011
National
National
National
National
East Kent
National
National
National and London
991
994
1002
1007
1009
1012
1014
1018
Totals
£72,000
£206,000
£48,000
£10,000
£16,000
£24,000
£36,000
Tributes national
£10,500
£13,500
£3,000
Tributes local
£21,000
—
—
—
—
—
—
£21,000
Stipends
47 million
147 million
18 million
12 milllion
30 million
Long Cross, 997–1003
Helmet, 1003–9
Last Small Cross, 1009–17
Quatrefoil, 1017–23
40 million.
Estimated output of coins
Crux, 991–7
Coin issue
Tributes, stipendiary payments, and coinage data from England, c. 991–1018
0.90 g
1.44 g
1.25 g
1.13 g
1.36 g
Average silver weight
Sources: Based on: O’Keeffe, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, pp. 86–7, 89, 92–3, 96, 99, 104; Jonsson, ‘Coinage of Cnut’, tab. 11.8, p. 218; Jones, ‘Devaluation’, tab. 2, p. 602.
Payers and negotiators
Date
Table 1.
ANGLO-SAXON TAXATION
919
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
920
ANDREW WAREHAM
block in c. 1022.89 The impressionistic characterization and motivation of key
protagonists in scribe C’s version diminishes the reliability of his account as a
source for the political history of Æthelred II’s reign, but the author’s use of poetry
and irony invigorates our understanding of the climate of criticism that had formed
during the early years of the reign of King Cnut (1016–35).90 The arguments and
allusions that scribe C crafted around the payments to armies and royal appointments gives his version of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle considerable value as a near
retrospective view on King Æthelred’s rule.
Historians differ over whether the encounter at Maldon was one in which
powerful regional interests were being challenged, or whether the defence of the
English nation was at stake from a Viking army.91 Byrhtnoth was the second most
senior ealdorman c. 983–91, and in rank and ancestry he belonged to a small group
of tenth-century ealdormen who were accorded the titles of ‘princeps’ and ‘halfking’ (semirex), the latter on account of advice given to rulers.92 Byrhtnoth’s defeat
and death at Maldon was a momentous event independent of the size and intentions of the Viking army. For the purposes of our discussion the opening lines of
the poem are noteworthy. Apparently a Viking messenger sought to prevent hostilities by suggesting that the English ‘should buy off this onslaught of spears with
tribute-money’ and ‘a truce in return for the gold’.93 The poet was probably using
knowledge of what happened after the battle to provide the audience with the
context of the struggle. The linkage between defeat at Maldon and the payment of
tribute was also made by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, C version, 991: ‘in that year
it was determined that tribute (gafol) should be paid to the Danish men . . . the
first payment was £10,000. Archbishop Sigeric (of Canterbury) first advised that
course’.94 There is a concordance between the C version of the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle and the ‘Poem of the Battle of Maldon’ in linking the battle to the
payment of tribute, although the latter sees it as the prelude to battle and the
former as its outcome. Both sources were drawn up after the battle, perhaps even
contemporaneously,95 but provide differing perspectives. From a court perspective
in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,96 Maldon was remembered as the catalyst for the
national introduction of tribute, but the ‘Poem of the Battle of Maldon’ is most
profitably investigated as part of a series of local texts reaching into the early
twelfth century.97 By commemorating the death of ‘our own leader’ (eorl) Byrhtnoth,98 the composer of the poem contributed to a group of sources from the
southern Danelaw (East Anglia and the east midlands), which served to ensure
that religious houses in the region retained the properties which had been given by
89
Keynes, ‘Declining reputation’, p. 233; cf.Williams, Æthelred the Unready, p. 50, who views scribe C as an oral
history source.
90
Keynes, ‘Declining reputation’, p. 233; Clark, ‘Narrative mode’, pp. 11–12.
91
Keynes, ‘Historical context’, pp. 90–1; Lavelle, Aethelred II, pp. 70–1.
92
Keynes, Diplomas, tab. 6; Locherbie-Cameron, ‘Byrhtnoth’, pp. 253–5; Vita Sancti Oswaldi, in Raine, ed.,
Historians, pp. 428, 443; Macray, ed., Chronicon Abbatiae Ramesiensis, i, c. 4/iii, p. 11.
93
Scragg, ‘Battle of Maldon’, p. 19, lines 32, 35.
94
O’Keeffe, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 86 (trans. Whitelock, ed., English historical documents, p. 234).
95
See above, nn. 87, 89.
96
Brooks, ‘Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’. I am grateful to Prof. Brooks for supplying me with a copy in advance of
publication.
97
Clark, ‘Dating the Battle of Maldon’, p. 36, makes an illuminating comment in relation to the Gesta
Herewardi.
98
Ibid., pp. 21, 33.
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
921
ANGLO-SAXON TAXATION
Byrhtnoth, his descendants, and his companions.99 The combination of national
and local perspectives suggests that the loss of Byrhtnoth was a traumatic event
which prompted the introduction of tribute payments as a national policy. This
contrasted with leaving payments to local communities, as was envisaged under
King Eadred.100
The early payments of tribute were met through a combination of sources, but
as Keynes and Metcalf have suggested, from 1012/13 payments were raised from
land taxation as a regular source of revenue, with an estimated annual levy of 12d.
per hide (around 120 acres).101 It is possible that this was preceded by earlier
attempts to establish a land tax. Tantalizing inconclusive references point towards
a land tax in c. 973, 994, and 1006/7,102 and royal councillors may have been aware
of the national land taxes levied by Charles the Bald, as King of the West Franks
in 866 and as Carolingian emperor in 877, to pay off the Vikings.103 The Frankish
land taxation of 877 had a variable rate which provided relief for peasants at the
expense of alienating the aristocracy.104 The English land tax from 1012/13 was
simpler, with the tax being directly chargeable to warland, and in some shires upon
inland.105 Further important issues outside the scope of this article include the
proportion of the expenditure on gafol and heregeld which passed from England to
Scandinavia, and the ways in which procedures were altered and assessments
revised in the light of the meetings of the English royal council (witan) during the
early eleventh century.106
It is a moot point whether heregeld should be defined as ordinary or extraordinary military expenditure. Payment to ships crews can be regarded as extraordinary expenditure, but feeding and clothing housecarls who undertook to defend
England does not look qualitatively different from supporting the stipendiary
knights in the households of Anglo-Norman rulers, which formed part of ordinary
expenditure.107 Taxation and other revenue sources during the early eleventh
century provided income for ordinary and extraordinary military expenditure, and
achieved remarkable yields during the reign of Æthelred II and, most notably, two
years after his death when gafol of £82,500 was paid.108 Awareness of the complexity of current political and diplomatic issues may have led scribe C to phrase
his criticisms of gafol and heregeld carefully. In c. 1022 Viking warriors who had
served Cnut in his 1014–16 campaign were still presumably enjoying some of the
benefits of the 1018 tribute, and warriors, churchmen, townsmen, and peasants
may have been grateful that these monies were paid quickly and effectively.
Political questions arise: the predecessors of King Æthelred II and his son,
Edward the Confessor (1042–66), relied principally upon domain wealth,109
raising the question of why Æthelred II preferred fiscal innovation. The answer
99
Wareham, Lords and communities, pp. 67–74, esp. tabs. 8 and 9.
See above, section I.
101
Keynes, Diplomas, p. 221; Metcalf, ‘Ranking of boroughs’, p. 165.
102
Symons, ed., Regularis Concordia, c. 69, p. 69; O’Keeffe, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, pp. 87, 92.
103
Nelson, Charles the Bald, pp. 28–9.
104
Ibid., p. 29.
105
Roffe, Decoding Domesday, pp. 190–7; Faith, English peasantry, pp. 48–53, 105–6.
106
Campbell, ‘Some agents and agencies’, pp. 207–8; Keynes, Diplomas, 126–34, 269–72.
107
Bolton, Empire of Cnut, pp. 54–5; Prestwich, ‘War and finance’, pp. 22–9.
108
See tab. 1.
109
Above, section I; Grassi, ‘Lands and revenues’.
100
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
922
ANDREW WAREHAM
stems from the advice provided by Archbishop Sigeric in 991, but the pithy
account in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle can be supplemented by analysis of the role
of spiritual power within the political sphere, thanks to Cubitt’s work.110 Reflecting
in 993 upon the mistakes of his youth (between c. 984 and 993), King Æthelred
II admitted that he had seized estates from religious houses ‘on the advice of
greedy councillors’.111 Land was taken from pre-eminent religious communities,
such as Rochester Cathedral and the Old Minster at Winchester, with the result
that Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury (959–88), adopted a course which was
even more extreme than excommunication, namely he cursed Æthelred II formally.112 Dunstan’s use of cursing looks extraordinary to us, but it may be among
the factors that contributed to Æthelred II’s change of heart.113 Following the royal
council at Winchester in 993, the next 13 years can be considered to be ‘one of the
most prosperous for the advancement of the ecclesiastical cause before the
Norman Conquest’.114 In the middle stage of Æthelred’s reign there was a policy
reversal; during the late 980s the king and his councillors followed policies that had
been adopted by King Alfred during the first age ofViking invasions; royal property
was augmented from the resources of the church, but from c. 993 property was
returned and there was further enrichment of the church. Therefore, domain
wealth did not collapse in advance of the formation of tax state mechanisms.
Instead the opportunity for drawing upon landed wealth from the church to meet
the Viking threat was closed, raising the likelihood that other means would be
adopted. The political dialogue between the king and successive archbishops of
Canterbury created the circumstances for this policy change.
III
Land taxation could only function if there was sufficient money from which to pay
the tax, and it has been argued that the need to meet these payments led to the
prodigious increase in coinage output during the reign of Æthelred II.115 At its
most provocative, this argument tied the issue of new coinage types to specific
incidences of gafol and heregeld.116 Tribute and stipendiary payments accounted for
over half the coin produced between c. 1003 and 1016, but this cannot explain the
vast output of coin c. 973–1016, and especially for the period between c. 973 and
1003 when tribute and stipend payments at no point accounted for more than a
third of coinage output.117 Indirect taxation arose from royal management of
coinage, but before looking at this it is worth sketching in some of the principal
details of the development of coinage, following King Edgar’s c. 973 reform of the
coinage. Dolley and Metcalf identified three key aspects: first, the number of mints
was increased from 40 to around 70 to provide a national network so that most
places in midland and southern England were within 15 miles of a mint; second,
110
Cubitt, ‘Archbishop Dunstan’, pp. 146–55.
Keynes, Diplomas, p. 196.
112
Ibid., pp. 177–80; Cubitt, ‘Archbishop Dunstan’, pp. 152–3, 162–3.
113
Cubitt, ‘Archbishop Dunstan’, pp. 163–5.
114
Ibid., pp. 163–4; Keynes, Diplomas, pp. 186–93, 199.
115
Lyon, ‘Some problems’, pp. 197–203.
116
Gillingham, ‘“Most precious jewel”’, p. 373, n. 2.
117
Metcalf, ‘Ranking of boroughs’, pp. 171–2.
111
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
ANGLO-SAXON TAXATION
923
each coinage issue only remained in use for around six years before being called
back for exchange and reminting (subsequent research has shown that reminting
was prompted by events and not planned);118 and third, there were significant
variations in the weight of the coinage produced within the life-cycle of each
issue.119 In deciding whether these revenues are best defined as part of a domain
state or tax state, we need to consider the geographical distribution of mints and
their relationship with profits derived from minting. There was a reversion to the
Alfredian status quo ante under the c. 973 reform with a weight standard of 1.65g
per coin, linked to the establishment of 16 new mints by 983, but it was not until
the reign of Edward the Confessor that interior areas, including the lower Thames
valley and western Suffolk, were provided with a density of mints to match the
network of coastal mints running from Ipswich (Suffolk) to Totnes (Devon), and
the concentration of mints in Somerset and Wiltshire.120
The latter concentration of mints is unlikely to have been connected to the need
to ensure that every settlement within England was within 15 miles of a mint. The
realization as part of the c. 973 reforms that the king was spending less time on the
ancient demesne of Wessex meant that it made sense for the food rents there
to be commuted into coin with a corresponding requirement for more mints.121
Alternatively because Æthelred II spent so much time in Somerset and Wiltshire
it was necessary to establish a network of mints and secondary market centres to
meet exceptional needs for cash.122 Both explanations share the view that a
network of mints in these two shires was regulated by the king’s need to draw
revenues from his tenants, and are in line with the view that revenues from
recoinage comprised part of the domain state.
Such theories do not explain the network of coastal mints which were established between c. 973 and 1000. For instance, new mints were established at
Ipswich and Maldon within a decade of 973, but there appear to have been few
royal estates in the hinterlands of these towns.123 Instead, the foundation of these
mints was connected to high levels of population and economic activity, and
contributed to the revenues of the king.124 Since the publication of Dolley and
Metcalf’s key article there has been re-examination of data, much of it conducted
by Metcalf, which suggests that lighter coins tended to be produced later in an
issue, and from the mints in London, Southwark, and the southern Danelaw.125 In
contrast coins with a higher intrinsic value were produced at the beginning of an
issue and from mints in the heartlands of Wessex and Mercia, including those in
the towns of Winchester, Wallingford (Berkshire), and Oxford. Such calculations
enabled Metcalf to provide a model which differentiated between coinage mainly
minted from coins already circulating in England (and hence presumably required
118
For a discussion of one example, see below, nn. 142–4.
Dolley and Metcalf, ‘Reform of the English coinage’; Metcalf, ‘Continuity and change, part 2’.
120
Dolley and Metcalf, ‘Reform of the English coinage’, pp. 145, 149–51; Dolley, Anglo-Saxon pennies, p. 28;
Blackburn, ‘Æthelred’s coinage’, p. 159.
121
Dolley and Metcalf, ‘Reform of the English coinage’, p. 149; Stafford, ‘“Farm of one night”’, pp. 492–3.
122
Hill, ‘Trends’, pp. 217–22; Metcalf, ‘Taxation of moneyers’, p. 287; Stafford, ‘Historical implications’, p. 39.
123
Locherbie-Cameron, ‘Byrhtnoth’, pp. 255–60; Hart, ‘Eastern Danelaw’, pp. 70–1, 112; idem, ‘Ealdordom
of Essex’, pp. 129–35.
124
Hart, ‘Eastern Danelaw’, pp. 106; Dolley and Metcalf, ‘Reform of the English coinage’.
125
Following discussion based upon Metcalf, ‘Continuity and change, part 2’, pp. 61–4; Metcalf, ‘Ranking of
boroughs’, pp. 185–7; Lyon, ‘Variations in currency’, pp. 113–14.
119
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
924
ANDREW WAREHAM
for domestic use), and those coins mainly minted later in the issue as a consequence of the requirements of international trade.126
Money was used in late Anglo-Saxon England to pay rent, taxation, and legal
payments, and to maintain long-distance trading connections,127 but the small size
of the commercial economy meant that daily transactions depended upon barter.128 Debasement prompted a degree of inflation when transactions were based
upon the intrinsic value of the coins, but inflationary effects were curtailed when
coins were accepted at tale.129 Following the c. 973 reforms, England’s export
sector enjoyed an economic advantage over its continental West Frankish counterpart as the latter operated on the basis of weight.130 Coins minted with the
names and insignia of the Frankish rulers Lothair (954–86) and Louis V (986–7)
were issued by great feudatories, with payments being dependent upon the intrinsic value of the coins.131 The divergence between England and the Continent
meant that merchants after c. 973 enjoyed an advantage in exporting precious and
luxury items from England, as well as perhaps some bulk commodities.132 The
process may have received additional assistance from merchants’ use of lighter
coins acquired later in the cycle, and from mints in London, Southwark, and the
southern Danelaw, in exchange for continental bullion being brought into
England. These developments yielded profits for the moneyers and the king.133 In
short, a balance of trade surplus may have arisen from a fortuitous divergence in
exchange mechanisms, which drew silver into the English economy, and provided
the basis for a regular and general money tax.
Debasement of the coinage as a means to raising large sums of money is associated
with policies adopted in later medieval France.134 These initiatives differed substantially from debasement in early eleventh-century England. Between c. 979 and 985
(First Hand) and between c. 1016 and 1021 (Quatrefoil) there was a devaluation of
around 30 per cent in the English coinage, but it was rolled out over a 30- to 40-year
period in graduated steps.135 Spufford distinguished between strong, middle, and
weak currencies, and argued that the optimum situation for landlords was a strong
currency, for merchants the ideal was the middle type, and for tenants and
peasantries weak money provided the best option.136 The devaluation of English
currency c. 979–1021 provided a stable coinage (one that is gradually debased) as
distinct from a strong one. Over time the weight of the silver in each coin was
gradually worn down so that its value would eventually be less than the original tale
value, at which point silver was kept at home rather than being brought into mints,
and in order to prevent this it was vital for rulers to reduce the weight of the coinage
126
For consequences of devaluation, see Jones, ‘Devaluation’.
Campbell, ‘Was it infancy in England?’, p. 181; Dolley and Metcalf, ‘Reform of the English coinage’, p. 154;
Faith, English peasantry, p. 182.
128
Metcalf, ‘Continuity and change, part 1’, p. 20; Britnell, Commercialisation, p. 12.
129
Blackburn, ‘Æthelred’s coinage’, pp. 156–7. Tale means when payment was accepted according to the
number and given value of the coins, as distinct from payment by weight and by measure.
130
Dolley and Metcalf, ‘Reform of the English coinage’, p. 154.
131
Grierson and Blackburn, Medieval European coinage, pp. 246–9.
132
See Dolley and Metcalf, ‘Reform of the English coinage’, pp. 154–5.
133
Stafford, ‘Historical implications’, p. 36.
134
Spufford, Money, pp. 301–13.
135
Metcalf, ‘Ranking of boroughs’, pp. 179–80, 205 (tabs. j–k).
136
Spufford, Money, pp. 305–6.
127
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
ANGLO-SAXON TAXATION
925
periodically.137 Æthelred II and his advisers followed a steady devaluation policy. At
each devaluation four old coins were handed over in exchange for three new coins.138
That it was effective can be demonstrated by the fact that of the 54 hoards with coins
covering the period c. 973–1066, 15 hoards contained coins which were substantially from one issue, and none had ‘more than two types in any appreciable
quantity’.139 A regular tax of 25 per cent around every six years on capital held in the
form of coin was achieved, with the coinage output pointing to significant revenues
(see table 1), which may in Campbell’s view have contributed the most in enabling
King Æthelred II to pay off the Vikings.140
Spufford linked the introduction of national currencies in north-west Europe
during the eleventh century to the role of ecclesiastics in persuading rulers that
coins exalted the aura of kingship.141 The role of churchmen in advising Æthelred
II on coinage can be illustrated by the Agnus Dei issue, which flourished briefly.
The Lamb of God appeared on the obverse side and on the reverse the Holy Dove,
with the coin being launched at either the council of Enham (Hampshire) at
Pentecost (16 May) 1008 or at Michaelmas 1009.142 The Agnus Dei coinage was
manifestly issued by the Crown in association with the church. At Enham it was
agreed that every 310 hides would pay for manning a warship. Ecclesiastics were
responsible for the organization of shipsokes, as demonstrated by the bishop of
Sherborne’s concern, between c. 1002 and 1014, that he was 30 hides short of
meeting his obligation for a shipsoke, while an earlier St Paul’s document shows
how the church’s landholdings were organized to pay for the manning of a
warship.143 At Michaelmas 1009 there were three days of national prayers and
fasting, and it was agreed that each household would consume ‘bread, water and
raw herbs’. The food that would normally have been consumed, together with a
penny per household, was rendered to the church for distribution to the poor.144
Ecclesiastical advisers formulated advice which enabled the state to collect an
indirect tax on the use of money, but the preference for a stable rather than a
strong currency suggests that they took account of the needs of the merchants. II
Æthelred, probably dating from 994, recorded a treaty between the Vikings and the
English, in which peace was promised for trading ships.145 A generation later, at
Rome in 1027, King Cnut attended the coronation of the new western European
emperor. There he negotiated that all the Danes and English in his kingdom were
to be free of barriers and tolls when they travelled on the Continent to Rome.146
Fletcher has convincingly argued for political negotiation between the AngloDanish merchant community and Cnut in advance of the Rome summit.147 Cnut
encouraged Scandinavian watermen to forswear piracy in favour of trade.
137
Ibid., p. 312.
Ibid., p. 93.
139
Dolley and Metcalf, ‘Reform of the English coinage’, pp. 156–7.
140
Campbell, Observations on English government, p. 138.
141
Spufford, Money, pp. 82–3.
142
Discussion based upon O’Keeffe, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, p. 92; Fletcher, Bloodfeud, p. 94; Lawson, Cnut,
p. 59; Blackburn, ‘Æthelred’s coinage’, p. 160.
143
Lawson, Cnut, p. 60; O’Donovan, ed., Charters of Sherborne, no. 13, pp. 46–8; Kelly, ed., Charters of St Paul’s,
no. 25, pp. 192–201.
144
Whitelock, ed., English historical documents, no. 45, p. 447.
145
Clause 2/2.1 in ibid., no. 42, p. 438; Keynes, ‘Historical context’, pp. 103–7.
146
Whitelock, ed., English historical documents, no. 53, p. 477 (clause 6).
147
Fletcher, Bloodfeud, pp. 106–7.
138
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
926
ANDREW WAREHAM
IV
Before considering how our discussion of the institution of a tax state in AngloSaxon England can reconfigure understanding of the creation of pre-modern tax
states, two issues need to be commented upon. First, why was the late AngloSaxon tax state not sustained; and second does it matter that this tax state only
existed for a brief period? It would be very interesting to be able to speculate on
the extent of the tax burden in early eleventh-century England in comparison to
estimated fluctuations in domain revenues in relation to the yields from other
pre-modern revenue systems, but this lies outside the scope of this article.
Earlier experiments with the introduction of land taxation between c. 973 and
1006/7 assisted with its establishment within a national framework c. 1012, and
heregeld continued to prosper until abolished in 1051.148 Three factors account for
this; first, rulers were no longer able after 1039 to claim that dire circumstances
required the levying of heavy taxes; second, taxation privileges of exemption were
granted across the board, or through more specific reductions which generally
favoured the greater nobility and leading religious houses;149 and third, the productivity of the land tax was tied to the silver supply, at this time coming from the
Harz Mountains (Germany). Silver deposits were found at Goslar c. 961–8, and
production gathered momentum in the 990s, reaching a peak of production
c. 1025, before diminishing rapidly after 1040.150 The chronological concordance
between the effective payment of stipends and tribute, the money supply, and the
availability of silver from Goslar is striking, and is to be explained by international
trade.
The late Anglo-Saxon tax state flourished for a couple of generations, but
unsustainability is less important than it might appear to be. Bonney and Ormrod
observed that early nineteenth-century Britain was the first country to achieve a
fiscal breakthrough because levels of per capita public debt provided the basis for
the self-sustained growth of the fiscal state, in contrast to shortcomings in contemporary France, or for that matter other pre-modern states’ experiments in
fiscal innovation.151 Their definition of sustainability is correct, but its application
in defining the parameters of new fiscal history means that attention has been
focused upon the operation of tax states in the modern and contemporary period
during stages of maturity, at the expense of understanding the contexts for innovations and experiments.
The rulers of Anglo-Saxon England and their advisers took the view that all
subjects should contribute to the general welfare of the ruler and his realm,152
and new towns, agricultural innovation, and coinage provided the resources and
infrastructure for the establishment of a tax state.153 While the approach of kings
and ecclesiastical councillors differed from modern democracies and early
modern parliamentary governments, nonetheless, the former successfully set
about the establishment of a tax state in order to provide peace and protection
148
Above, section II; Cubbin, ed., Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, pp. 69–70.
Roffe, Decoding Domesday, pp. 193–5.
150
Spufford, Money, pp. 73–5, 94–5.
151
Bonney and Ormrod, ‘Introduction’, pp. 19–20.
152
Brooks, ‘Administrative background’, pp. 133–7.
153
Dyer, Making a living, pp. 43–70; Fleming, Britain after Rome, pp. 241–68.
149
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
ANGLO-SAXON TAXATION
927
for the whole country from the Vikings. Our argument has two points in focusing attention upon fiscal policies. Firstly, the transition to a tax state occurred at
a time when King Æthelred II had the resources of a domain state at his disposal. There was no collapse in domain revenues in advance of the establishment
of a tax state. Secondly, the transition arose from the narrowing of political
options in negotiations with the church. From the early 990s it was no longer a
viable option for the king to draw upon the church’s wealth as a means for
strengthening defences against the Vikings. The fiscal imagination of successive
archbishops in persuading Æthelred II and Cnut to turn to tax state mechanisms, in preference to despoliation of the church, contributed to the creation of
a new state in an old country.154
In Prosperity and violence, Bates suggests that the creation of prosperity
depends—whether one is dealing with medieval and early modern Europe or
twentieth-century Africa—upon the political accommodation that is reached
between rulers, kin, community, and political rivals, as well as upon the economic
environment.155 Hoffman and Rosenthal take up the same issue in suggesting that
rulers opt for new political and fiscal systems when faced by potential exile or
execution as a result of threats of invasion.156 Their work directs attention towards
politics, in line with our approach. King Æthelred II and his councillors established a direct land tax, in tandem with an expansion in indirect taxation on the use
of money, as the means for procuring peace, mercenaries’ stipends, and military
equipment. The key point is that the fiscal transition arose as a result of the
problems faced by King Æthelred II. The question becomes: what prompts new
policies at the expense of tried and trusted ones? In this case acute policy choices
were at the heart of innovation. It was not feasible to increase domain revenues
from existing landholdings sufficiently in the time available, and neither was it
possible to procure revenues from the church, as a result of the opposition led by
Archbishop Dunstan. A third option was adopted; acquiring revenues from the
wider population by a combination of direct and indirect taxation. In focusing
attention upon the role of ecclesiastical politics in the creation of a tax state, we
suggest that attention should not just be focused on military and political revolutions, and we provide readers with an opportunity to broaden the template for
understanding the emergence of the tax state in the pre-modern world. Our new
approach means that there may be less room for contrasting the fiscal achievements of Protestant, maritime, and free societies with the apparent failings of
Catholic, continental, and ancien régimes, and their counterparts. However, it
opens up further analysis of the contributions of figures such as Archbishop
Sigeric, Archbishop Wulfstan, Wang An-Shi, Sir William Petty (1623–87, a founding member of the Royal Society), and Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950, finance
minister in Austria during the First World War), whose academic and moral
154
Archbishop Wulfstan ofYork (1002–23), a transitional figure under Æthelred II and Cnut, preached against
the despoliation of churches (Bethurum, ed., Homilies of Wulfstan, p. 195, lines 40–3), and ordered excommunication in law codes for those who despoiled and violated churches (VI Æthelred, clause 15, and VIII Æthelred,
clauses 1–4, in Robertson, ed., Laws, pp. 96–7, 116–19). For discussion, see Lionarons, Homiletic writings, p. 100.
155
Bates, Prosperity and violence.
156
P. T. Hoffman and J.-L. Rosenthal, ‘Divided we fall: the political economy of warfare and taxation’ (2000)
www.hss.caltech.edu/~pth/Papers/newtaxunityapsr.doc (accessed on 12 Feb. 2011).
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
928
ANDREW WAREHAM
interests in taxation influenced their careers.157 A new institutional framework for
financial stability eluded these politicians, but recent events suggest that we
may—in common with them—not be able to take for granted the self-sustained
growth of the European fiscal state, in contrast to the optimistic views expressed
by new fiscal historians during the 1990s.
Date submitted
Revised version submitted
Accepted
18 June 2010
21 April 2011
5 May 2011
DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0289.2011.00624.x
157
Petty, Treatise of taxes and contributions, cited in Braddick, Nerves of state, document no. 36, p. 231, suggested
the poor should pay more taxation: ‘Now this (taxation) lighting upon some poor, though stubborn, stiffnecked
Refuser, charged with Wife and Children, gives the credulous great occasion to complain of Oppression . . . ’; but
the hearth tax, of which Petty was the architect, directed its attention towards the better-off payers.
Footnote references
Abels, R., Alfred the Great: war, kingship and culture in Anglo-Saxon England (1998).
Abulafia, D., The two Italies: economic relations between the Norman kingdom of Sicily and the northern communes
(Cambridge, 1997).
Althoff, G., Family, friends and followers: political and social bonds in early medieval Europe (Cambridge, 2004).
Bao, W., Songdai difang caizhengshi yanjiu (Shanghai, 2001).
Barta, G. and Barta, J., ‘Royal finance in medieval Hungary: the revenues of King Bela III’, in W. M. Ormrod,
M. Bonney, and R. Bonney, eds., Crises, revolutions and self-sustained growth: essays in European fiscal history,
1130–1830 (Stamford, 1999), pp. 22–37.
Bates, R. H., Prosperity and violence: the political economy of development (2nd edn. New York, 2010).
Bethurum, D., ed., The homilies of Wulfstan (Oxford, 1957).
Biddle, M., ‘Felix urbs Winthonia: Winchester in the age of monastic reform’, in D. Parsons, ed., Tenth century
studies: essays in commemoration of the millennium of the Council of Winchester and Regularis Concordia (1975),
pp. 123–40.
Blackburn, M., ‘Æthelred’s coinage and the payment of tribute’, in D. Scragg, ed., The Battle of Maldon AD 991
(Oxford, 1991), pp. 156–69.
Bolton, T., The empire of Cnut the Great: conquest and consolidation of power in northern Europe in the early eleventh
century (Leiden, 2009).
Bonney, R., ed., Economic systems and state finance (Oxford, 1995).
Bonney, R., ‘Revenues’, in R. Bonney, ed., Economic systems and state finance (Oxford, 1995), pp. 423–505.
Bonney, R., ed., The rise of the fiscal state in Europe, c. 1200–1815 (Oxford, 1999).
Bonney, R. and Ormrod, W. M., ‘Introduction: crises, revolutions and self-sustained growth: towards a conceptual model of change in fiscal history’, in W. M. Ormrod, M. Bonney, and R. Bonney, eds., Crises, revolutions
and self-sustained growth: essays in European fiscal history, 1130–1830 (Stamford, 1999), pp. 1–21.
Bonney, R., Capra, C., t’Hart, M., Muto, G., and Schluze, W., ‘Part II. The evolution of the state system after
1500’, in R. Bonney, ed., Economic systems and state finance (Oxford, 1995), pp. 163–390.
Braddick, M. J., The nerves of state: taxation and the financing of the English state, 1588–1714 (Manchester, 1996).
Braddick, M. J., State formation in early modern England c. 1550–1700 (Cambridge, 2000).
Brewer, J., The sinews of power: war, money and the English state, 1688–1783 (1989).
Britnell, R. H., The commercialisation of English society, 1000–1500 (Cambridge, 1993).
Brooks, N. P., ‘The administrative background to the burghal hidage’, in N. P. Brooks, Communities and warfare,
700–1400 (2000), pp. 114–37.
Brooks, N. P., ‘Arms, status and warfare in late Anglo-Saxon England’, in N. P. Brooks, Communities and warfare,
700–1400 (2000), pp. 138–61.
Brooks, N. P., ‘The career of St Dunstan’, in N. P. Brooks, Anglo-Saxon myths: state and church, 400–1066 (2000),
pp. 155–80.
Brooks, N. P., Communities and warfare, 700–1400 (2000).
Brooks, N., ‘Alfredian government: the West Saxon inheritance’, in T. Reuter, ed., Alfred the Great: papers from the
eleventh-centenary conferences (Aldershot, 2003), pp. 153–74.
Brooks, N. P., ‘Why is the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle about kings?’, Anglo-Saxon England, 39 (2011).
Campbell, J., ‘Observations on English government from the tenth to the twelfth century’, in J. Campbell, Essays
in Anglo-Saxon History (1986), pp. 155–70.
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
ANGLO-SAXON TAXATION
929
Campbell, J., ‘Some agents and agencies of the late Anglo-Saxon state’, in J. Campbell, The Anglo-Saxon state
(2000), pp. 201–26.
Campbell, J., ‘Was it infancy in England? Some questions of comparison’, in J. Campbell, The Anglo-Saxon state
(2000), pp. 179–99.
Carpenter, D., The struggle for mastery: Britain 1066–1284 (2003).
Clark, C., ‘On dating the Battle of Maldon: certain evidence reviewed’, in P. Jackson, ed., Words, names and history:
selected writings of Cecily Clark (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 20–36.
Clark, C., ‘The narrative mode of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle before the Conquest’, in P. Jackson, ed., Words, names
and history: selected writings of Cecily Clark (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 3–19.
Cubbin, G. P., ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: a collaborative edition, 6: MS D, a semi-diplomatic edition with
introduction and indices (Cambridge, 1996).
Cubitt, C., ‘Archbishop Dunstan: a prophet in politics?’ in J. S. Barrow and A. F. Wareham, eds., Myth, rulership,
church and charters: essays in honour of Nicholas Brooks (Aldershot, 2008), pp. 145–66.
Daunton, M., Trusting Leviathan: the politics of taxation in Britain, 1799–1914 (Cambridge, 2001).
Davies, R., ‘The medieval state: the tyranny of a concept?’, Journal of Historical Sociology, 16 (2003), pp. 280–300.
Deng, G., The Chinese premodern economy: structural equilibrium and capitalist sterility (1999).
Di Cosmo, N., ‘State formation and the periodization in Inner Asian history’, Journal ofWorld History, 10 (1999),
pp. 1–40.
Dinecco, M., ‘Fiscal centralization, limited government and public revenue in Europe, 1650–1913’, Journal of
Economic History, 69 (2009), pp. 48–103.
Dolley, M., Anglo-Saxon pennies (1964).
Dolley, R. H. M. and Metcalf, D. M., ‘The reform of the English coinage under Eadgar’, in R. H. M. Dolley, ed.,
Anglo-Saxon coins: studies presented to F. M. Stenton on the occasion of his 80th birthday 17 May 1960 (1961),
pp. 136–68.
Douglas, D. C. and Greenaway, G. W., eds., English historical documents, II: 1042–1189 (1st edn. 1953).
Downer, L. J., ed., Leges Henrici Primi (Oxford, 1972).
Dumville, D. N., ‘Ecclesiastical lands and the defence of Wessex in the first Viking-age’, in D. N. Dumville, Wessex
and England from Alfred to Edgar: six essays on political, cultural and ecclesiastical revival (Studies in Anglo-Saxon
History, 3, Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 29–54.
Dumville, D. N., Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar: six essays on political, cultural and ecclesiastical revival
(Studies in Anglo-Saxon History, 3, Woodbridge, 1992).
Dyer, C., Making a living in the middle ages: the people of Britain, 850–1520 (2003).
Epstein, S. R., Freedom and growth: the rise of states and markets in Europe, 1300–1750 (2000).
Faith, R., The English peasantry and the growth of lordship (Leicester, 1997).
Fleming, R., ‘Monastic lands and England’s defence in the Viking age’, English Historical Review, 100 (1985),
pp. 247–65.
Fleming, R., Britain after Rome: the fall and rise, 400–1070 (2010).
Fletcher, R., Bloodfeud: murder and revenge in Anglo-Saxon England (2003).
Foot, S., ‘The historiography of the Anglo-Saxon “nation-state”’, in L. Scales and O. Zimmer, eds., Power and the
nation in European history (Cambridge, 2005), pp. 125–42.
Gernet, J., A history of Chinese civilization (Cambridge, 2nd edn. 1982).
Gillingham, J., ‘“The most precious jewel in the English Crown”: levels of danegeld and heregeld in the early
eleventh century’, English Historical Review, 104 (1989), pp. 373–84.
Gillingham, J., ‘Chronicles and coins as evidence for levels of tribute and taxation in late tenth- and early
eleventh-century England’, English Historical Review, 105 (1990), pp. 939–50.
Glete, J., War and the state in early modern Europe. Spain, the Dutch Republic and Sweden as fiscal-military states,
1500–1660 (2002).
Grassi, J., ‘The lands and revenues of Edward the Confessor’, English Historical Review, 117 (2002), pp. 251–83.
Grierson, P. and Blackburn, M., Medieval European coinage: with a catalogue of the coins in the Fitzwilliam Museum,
Cambridge, I: The early middle ages (5th-10th centuries) (Cambridge, 1986).
Hart, C., ‘The ealdordom of Essex’ in C. Hart, The Danelaw (Stamford, 1992), pp. 115–40.
Hart, C., ‘The Eastern Danelaw’ in C. Hart, The Danelaw (Stamford, 1992), pp. 25–113.
Hill, D., ‘Trends in the development of towns during the reign of Ethelred II’, in D. Hill, ed., Ethelred the
Unready: papers from the Millenary Conference (British Archaeological Reports, British ser., lix, Oxford, 1978),
pp. 213–26.
Hoffman, P. T. and Norberg, K., ‘Conclusion’, in P. T. Hoffman and K. Norberg, eds., Fiscal crises, liberty, and
representative government, 1450–1789 (Stanford, Calif., 1994), pp. 299–310.
Hoffman, P. T. and Norberg, K., eds., Fiscal crises, liberty, and representative government, 1450–1789 (Stanford,
Calif., 1994).
Hybel, N. and Poulsen, B., The Danish resources c. 1000–1550: growth and recession (Leiden, 2007).
Irvine, S., ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: a collaborative edition, 7: MS E, a semi-diplomatic edition with introduction
and indices (Cambridge, 2004) .
Isenmann, E., ‘Medieval and Renaissance theories of state finance’, in R. Bonney, ed., Economic systems and state
finance (Oxford, 1995), pp. 21–52.
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
930
ANDREW WAREHAM
Jones, A., ‘The significance of the regal consecration of King Edgar in 973’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 33
(1982), pp. 375–90.
Jones, J. R., ‘Fiscal policies, liberties, and representative government during the reigns of the last Stuarts’,
in P. T. Hoffman and K. Norberg, eds., Fiscal crises, liberty, and representative government, 1450–1789 (Stanford,
Calif., 1994), pp. 67–95.
Jones, S. R. H., ‘Devaluation and the balance of payments in eleventh-century England: an exercise in dark-age
economics’, Economic History Review, 2nd ser., XLIV (1991), pp. 594–607.
Jonsson, K., ‘The coinage of Cnut’, in A. R. Rumble, ed., The reign of Cnut: king of England, Denmark, and Norway
(Leicester, 1994), pp. 193–230.
Kelly, S., ed., Charters of St Paul’s London (Anglo-Saxon Charters, 10, Oxford, 2004).
Keynes, S., ‘The declining reputation of King Aethelred the Unready’, in D. Hill, ed., Ethelred the Unready: papers
from the Millenary Conference (British Archaeological Reports, British ser., lix, 1978), pp. 227–53.
Keynes, S., The diplomas of King Æthelred ‘the Unready’, 978–1016 (Cambridge, 1980).
Keynes, S., ‘The historical context of the Battle of Maldon’, in D. Scragg, ed., The Battle of Maldon AD 991
(Oxford, 1991), pp. 81–113.
Keynes, S., ‘Heptarchy’, in M. Lapidge, J. Blair, S. Keynes, and D. Scragg, eds., The Blackwell encyclopaedia of
Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 2001), p. 233.
Keynes, S. and Lapidge, M., eds., Alfred the Great: Asser’s Life of King Alfred and other contemporary sources (1983).
Krüger, K., ‘Public finance and modernisation: the change from domain state to tax state in Hesse in the sixteenth
and seventeenth centuries—a case study’, in P.-C. Witt, ed., Wealth and taxation in central Europe: the history and
sociology of public finance (Leamington Spa, Hamburg, and New York, 1987), pp. 49–62.
Kühn, D., Die Song-Dynastie (960 bis 1279): eine neue Gesellschaft im Spiegel ihrer Kultur (Wenheim, 1977).
Lavelle, R., Aethelred II: king of the English (Stroud, 2002).
Lavelle, R., Alfred’s wars: sources and interpretations of Anglo-Saxon warfare in the Viking age (Woodbridge, 2010).
Lawson, M. K., ‘The collection of Danegeld and heregeld in the reigns of Aethelred II and Cnut’, English
Historical Review, 99 (1984), pp. 721–38.
Lawson, M. K., ‘ “Those stories look true”: levels of taxation in the reigns of Aethelred II and Cnut’, English
Historical Review, 104 (1989), pp. 385–406.
Lawson, M. K., Cnut. The Danes in England in the early eleventh century (1993).
Lawson, M. K., ‘Danegeld and heregeld once more’, English Historical Review, 105 (1990), pp. 951–61.
Lionarons, J. T., The homiletic writings of Archbishop Wulfstan (Woodbridge, 2010).
Lockhart, P. D., Denmark 1513–1660. The rise and decline of a Renaissance monarchy (Oxford, 2007).
Locherbie-Cameron, M. A. L., ‘Byrhtnoth and his family’, in D. Scragg, ed., The Battle of Maldon AD 991 (Oxford,
1991), pp. 253–62.
Lyon, C. S. S., ‘Variations in currency in late Anglo-Saxon England’, in R. A. G. Carson, ed., Mints, dies and
currency: essays dedicated to the memory of Albert Baldwin (1971), pp. 101–20.
Lyon, S., ‘Some problems in interpreting Anglo-Saxon coinage’, Anglo-Saxon England, 5 (1976),
pp. 173–224.
McDonald, J. and Snooks, G. D., Domesday economy: a new approach to Anglo-Norman history (Oxford, 1986).
McNeill, W. H., The pursuit of power: technology, armed force, and society since A.D. 1000 (Oxford, 1983).
Macray, W. D., ed., Chronicon Abbatiae Ramesiensis (Rolls ser., 1886).
Maddicott, J. R., ‘Trade, industry and the wealth of King Alfred’, Past and Present, 123 (1989), pp. 3–51.
Matthew, D., The Norman kingdom of Sicily (Cambridge, 1992).
Metcalf, D. M., ‘The ranking of boroughs: numismatic evidence from the reign of Aethelred II’, in D. Hill, ed.,
Ethelred the Unready: papers from the Millenary Conference (British Archaeological Reports, British ser., lix, 1978),
pp. 159–212.
Metcalf, D. M., ‘Continuity and change in English monetary history c. 973–1086, part 1’, British Numismatic
Journal, 50 (1980), pp. 20–49.
Metcalf, D. M. ‘Continuity and change in English monetary history c. 973–1086, part 2’, British Numismatic
Journal, 51 (1981), pp. 52–90.
Metcalf, D. M., ‘The taxation of moneyers under Edward the Confessor and in 1086’, in J.C. Holt, ed., Domesday
studies: papers read at the novocentenary conference of the Royal Historical Society and the Institute of British
Geographers Winchester, 1986 (Woodbridge, 1987), pp. 279–94.
Metcalf, D. M., ‘Large Danegelds in relation to war and kingship: their implications for monetary history and
some numismatic evidence’, in S. C. Hawkes, ed., Weapons and warfare in Anglo-Saxon England (Oxford, 1989),
pp. 179–89.
Nelson, J. L., Charles the Bald (1992).
O’Brien, P. K. and Hunt, P. A., ‘The rise of a fiscal state in England, 1485–1815’, Historical Research, 66 (1993),
pp. 129–76.
O’Brien, P. K. and Hunt, P. A., ‘England 1485–1815’, in R. Bonney, ed., Economic systems and state finance
(Oxford, 1995), pp. 53–100.
O’Brien, P. K., ‘The nature and historical evolution of an exceptional fiscal state and its possible significance for
the precocious commercialization and industrialization of the British economy from Cromwell to Nelson’,
Economic History Review, 64 (2011), pp. 408–46.
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
ANGLO-SAXON TAXATION
931
O’Donovan, M. A., ed., Charters of Sherborne (Anglo-Saxon Charters, 3, Oxford, 1988).
O’Keeffe, K. B., ed., The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: a collaborative edition, 5: MS C, a semi-diplomatic edition with
introduction and indices (Cambridge, 2001).
Ong, C. W., ‘The Zhe military family in the Northern Song’ (2007) http://www.humanities.uci.edu/eastasian/
SungYuan/Downloads/Warwick/OngChangWoei.pdf (accessed on 11 Feb. 2011).
Ormrod, W. and Barta, J., ‘The feudal structure and the beginnings of state finance’, in R. Bonney, ed., Economic
systems and state finance (Oxford, 1995), pp. 53–79.
Ormrod, W. M., Bonney, M., and Bonney, R., eds., Crises, revolutions and self-sustained growth: essays in European
fiscal history, 1130–1830 (Stamford, 1999).
Petersen, E. L, ‘From domain to tax state: synthesis and interpretation’, Scandinavian Economic History Review,
23 (1975), pp. 116–48.
Prestwich, J. O., ‘War and finance in the Anglo-Norman state’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser.,
4 (1954), pp. 19–43.
Raine, J., ed., Vita Sancti Oswaldi, Historians of the church of York and its archbishops, vol. I (Rolls ser., 1879),
pp. 399–475.
Randsborg, K., The Viking age in Denmark: the formation of a state (1980).
Reuter, T., ‘The making of England and Germany, 850–1050’, in J. Nelson, ed., Medieval polities and modern
mentalities (Cambridge, 2006), pp. 284–99.
Robertson, A. J., ed., The laws of the kings of England from Edmund to Henry I (Cambridge, 1925).
Roffe, D., Decoding Domesday (Woodbridge, 2007).
Sacks, D. H., ‘The paradox of taxation: fiscal crises, parliament, and liberty in England, 1450–1640’, in P. T.
Hoffman and K. Norberg, eds., Fiscal crises, liberty, and representative government, 1450–1789 (Stanford, Calif.,
1994), pp. 7–66.
Sawyer, P., ‘The royal tun in pre-Conquest England’, in P. Wormald, with D. Bullough and R. Collins, eds., Ideal
and reality in Frankish and Anglo-Saxon society: studies presented to J. M. Wallace-Hadrill (Oxford, 1983),
pp. 273–99.
Schumpeter, J., ‘The crisis of the tax state’, in A. T. Peacock, R. Turvey, W. F. Stolper, and E. Henderson, eds.,
International economic papers, vol. 4 (1954), pp. 5–38.
Scragg, D., ‘The Battle of Maldon’, in D. Scragg, ed., The Battle of Maldon AD 991 (Oxford, 1991), pp. 18–36.
Smith, D. M., A history of Sicily: medieval Sicily 800–1713, vol. I (1968).
Smith, P. J., ‘Shen-Tsung’s reign and the economic policies of Wang An-Shih, 1067–1085’, in D. Twitchett and
P. J. Smith, eds., The Cambridge history of China, 5: pt. 1, The Sung dynasty and its precursors, 907–1279
(Cambridge, 2009), pp. 347–483.
Spufford, P., Money and its use in medieval Europe (Cambridge, 1988).
Stafford, P. A., ‘Historical implications of the regional production of dies under Aethelred II’, British Numismatic
Journal, 48 (1978), pp. 35–51.
Stafford, P. A., ‘The “farm of one night” and the organization of King Edward’s estates in Domesday’, Economic
History Review, 2nd ser., XXXIII (1980), pp. 491–502.
Stafford, P. A., Unification and conquest: a political and social history of England in the tenth and eleventh centuries
(1989).
Symons, T., ed., Regularis Concordia: the monastic agreement of the monks and nuns of the English nation (1953).
Thacker, A., ‘Æthelwold and Abingdon’, in B. Yorke, ed., Bishop Æthelwold: his career and influence (Woodbridge,
1988), pp. 43–64.
’t Hart, M., ‘The merits of a financial revolution: public finance, 1550–1700’, in M. ’t Hart, J. Jonker, and J. L.
van Zanden, eds., A financial history of the Netherlands (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 11–36.
’t Hart, M., ‘The United Provinces, 1579–1806’, in R. Bonney, ed., The rise of the fiscal state in Europe,
c. 1200–1815 (Oxford, 1999), pp. 309–25.
Tilly, C., Coercion, capital, and European states, AD 900–1990 (Oxford, 1990).
Tracy, J. D., A financial revolution in the Habsburg Netherlands. Renten and renteniers in the county of Holland
1515–1565 (Berkeley, Calif., 1985).
Wareham, A. F., Lords and communities in early medieval East Anglia (Woodbridge, 2005).
Wareham, A. F. and Wei, X., ‘Taxation and the economy in late eleventh-century England: reviving the Domesday
regression debate’, Anglo-Norman Studies, 29 (2006), pp. 214–27.
Weiss, L. and Hobson, J. M., States and economic development: a comparative historical analysis (Cambridge, 1995).
Whitelock, D., ed., English historical documents, I: c. 500–1042 (2nd edn. 1979).
Williams, A., Kingship and government in pre-conquest England, 500–1066 (1999).
Williams, A., Æthelred the Unready: the ill-counselled king (2003).
Wolffe, B. P., The royal demesne in English history: the Crown estate in the governance of the realm from the Conquest
to 1509 (1971).
© Economic History Society 2011
Economic History Review, 65, 3 (2012)
Copyright of Economic History Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.