Footnote 259: Ibid. Nos. 117, 118, 128, 148. Footnote 260: Beda, Hist. Eccl. iii. 21. Footnote 261: Flor. Wig. App. _Mercia_. Footnote 262: Beda, Hist. Eccl. iii. 24. “Inito ergo certamine, fugati sunt et caesi pagani, duces regii triginta qui ad auxilium venerant pene omnes interfecti.” The Saxon Chronicle is more detailed; an. 654: “Hér Óswiú cyng ofslóh Pendan cyng on Winwidfelda and þrittig cynebearna mid him; and ðǽr wǽron sume cyningas. Ðǽra sum wæs Æðelhere Annan bróðor, Eástengla cyningas.” Footnote 263: Cod. Dipl. No. 26. William of Malmesbury, it is true, says of him, “Non quidem rex potestate, sed subregulus in quadam regni parte.” Vit. Aldhelmi, Ang. Sacra, ii. 10. But it was not to be expected that Malmesbury would understand such a royalty as Baldred’s. Footnote 264: Will. Malm., Ant. Glast. an. 681, pp. 308, 309. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 20, 28, 71, 73. Footnote 265: Cod. Dipl. No. 76. Footnote 266: Ibid. No. 73. Footnote 267: Ibid. No. 987. ----- There was a kingdom of Elmet in Yorkshire, and even till the tenth century one of Bamborough. The same facts might easily be shown of Eastanglia[268], Essex and Northumberland, were it necessary; but enough seems to have been said to show how numerously peopled with kings this island, always _fertilis tyrannorum_[269], must have been in times whereof history has no record. As a chronicler of the twelfth century has very justly said, “Ea tempestate venerunt multi et saepe de Germania, et occupaverunt Eástangle et Merce sed necdum sub uno rege redacti erant. Plures autem proceres certatim regiones occupabant, unde innumerabilia bella fiebant: proceres vero, quia multi erant, nomine carent[270].” ----- Footnote 268: “Igitur rex unus ibi erat aliquando, multi aliquando reguli.” Henric. Hunt. lib. v. “Rex autem Eádmundus ipsis temporibus regnavit super omnia regna Eastanglorum.” Sim. Dunelm. an. 870. Footnote 269: εἶναι δὲ καὶ πολυάνθρωπον τὴν νῆσον ... βασιλεῖς τε καὶ δυνάστας πολλοὺς ἔχειν. Diod. Sic. v. 21. Footnote 270: Henric. Hunt. lib. ii. ----- From all that has preceded, it is clear that by the term King we must understand something very different among the Anglosaxons from the sense which we attach to the word: one principal difference lies indeed in this, that the notion of territorial influence is never for a single moment involved in it. The kings are kings of tribes and peoples, but never of the land they occupy,—kings of the Westsaxons, the Mercians or the Kentings, but not of Wessex, Mercia or Kent. So far indeed is this from being the case, that there is not the slightest difficulty in forming the conception of a king, totally without a kingdom: “Solo rex verbo, sociis tamen imperitabat”[271]