find eleven Bishops of England and two of Normandy all described

by their sees.

I have drawn my instances chiefly from the Chronicles, because it is not always safe to trust the signatures in the charters. It often happened that a Bishop simply signed by his name, and that a later scribe added his description. It is no doubt mainly to this cause that we owe the vast number of local signatures to the charters of Eadward, while local descriptions are so rare in the contemporary Chronicles. But one obstinate see seems always to hold out. In all the charters of Eadward, genuine and spurious, the "Australium Saxonum Episcopus" still retains the ancient style, even when all his brethren are described by local titles. See Cod. Dipl. iv. 69, 83, 91, 93, 96, 103, 105.

In correcting the text of this edition I have in many places, where I had used the local title in the first edition, changed it into the tribal or territorial, as more characteristic of the times. I have not thought it necessary to make the change in the map, which is probably more intelligible as it is.

NOTE N. p. 88.

SWEGEN AND EADGIFU.

THE only Chronicle which mentions the affair of Eadgifu is that of Abingdon under the year 1046; "Pa he [Swegen] hamwerdes was pa het he feccan him to pa abbedessan on Leomynstre, and hæfde hi pa while pe him geliste and let hi syppan faran hám.” This writer does not directly mention the departure of Swegen, but he implies it (in his entry under 1049) while describing the events of the year 1050, as the Worcester Chronicler (1050) does more distinctly in the words, "Swegen Eorl þe for ær of þisan lande to Denmarcon and þær forworhte hine wid Denum." Florence, on the other hand, makes no mention of Eadgifu in 1046, but he tells the story under 1049, in order to explain the absence and return of Swegen. He also adds that Swegen wished to marry Eadgifu, and that he left England when this was not allowed. "6 'Suanus comes relictâ prius Angliâ, eo quod Edgivam Leonensis monasterii abbatissam, quam corruperat, in matrimonium habere non licuerit, Danemarciam adierat.”

That the monastery of Leominster was dissolved on account of the misconduct of Eadgifu is a matter of inference, but the inference seems very plain. The house had no existence in the time of Henry the First, when it was a "dirutum monasterium," which that King granted to his new abbey of Reading (Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. Scriptt. p. Bed. 144). I infer also from Domesday (180) that the house had no corporate being at the time of the Survey. Leominster was then held by the King; in King Eadward's time it had been held by the Lady Eadgyth. The monastery is only casually mentioned; it holds no land, but a rent is reserved for the "victus monialium." In the same folio we read, “Abbatissa tenet Fencote, et ipsa tenuit T. R. E." These two entries form the whole account of the monastery. They seem to me to show that the society was dissolved, a provision being made for the surviving members, like the pensions granted at the general Dissolution. Fencote is but a small dependency of Leominster, and it was probably a portion set aside for Eadgifu's personal maintenance. If so, she survived her error forty years.

With this story of Leominster we may compare the account of the dealings with the nunnery of Amesbury in 1177 (see Ben. Petrib. i. 135). The misconduct of the Abbess seems to have been worse than that of Eadgifu, and to have extended itself to the sisterhood in general. The house was not dissolved, but the visitors sent away ("disperserunt") the offending nuns. The Abbess was deposed, but the King gave her a pension of ten marks yearly for her maintenance (" ne prædicta abbatissa degradata fame et inopiâ periret") and allowed her to go where she would.

The story of Swegen and Eadgifu is worked up by Mr. St. John (ii. 148 et seqq.) into an elaborate romance, with a glowing picture of the beauty, accomplishments, and wickedness of Eadgifu and of nuns in general. M. de Bonnechose (ii. 85) tells us, Sweyn, cinquième fils de Godwin, fit violence (?) à Elgive, abbesse de Leominster; banni par le roi pour ce crime," &c.

NOTE O. p. 97.

THE PENANCE OF GODFREY OF LOTHARINGIA.

On the war of the Emperor Henry the Third against Godfrey and Baldwin, see Hermannus Contractus, 1044, 1050; Lambert, 1044-1050; Sigebert, 1044-1049 (ap. Pertz, vi. 358-9); Ann. Leodienses, 1044-1048 (ap. Pertz, iv. 19, 20); Otto Fris. Chron. vi. 33; Conrad Ursp. 1045-9 (p. 229, ed. 1537); Annalista Saxo ap. Pertz, vol. vi. p. 687); Struvius, i. 352. The destruction of the palace is mentioned in our own Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles, 1049, 1050; "Se Casere gaderode unarimedlice fyrde ongean Baldewine of Brycge purh þæt he bræc pæne palant æt Neomagan, and eac fela obra unpanca pe he him dyde." So Florence, 1049; "Quod apud Neomagum suum palatium combussisset atque fregisset pulcherrimum." The year of its destruction was 1046, according to Lambert ("inter alias quas rei publicæ intulit clades, Neumago domum regiam miri et incomparabilis operis incendit"), 1047, according to Sigebert ("Godefridus palatium Neomagi incendit et irreparabiliter destruit"). Both writers speak of the destruction of the church of Verdun; Lambert adds (under 1046) the singular penance of Godfrey, which must have followed his submission in 1049; 'Post modicum facti in tantum pœnituit, ut publice se verberari faceret, et capillos suos ne tonderentur [one is reminded of the Merwings] multâ pecuniâ redimeret, sumptus ad reædificandam ecclesiam daret, et in opere cæmentario per seipsum plerumque vilis mancipii ministerio functus deserviret." Abbot Hugh in the Verdun Chronicle (Labbé, i. 190) makes the destruction at Verdun still more extensive; "Templum Sanctæ Mariæ a Duce Godefrido et Balduino succensum est, vasa sacra ablata, civitasque destructa viii. Kal. Nov." So in another Verdun Chronicle (ib. 401); "Civitas Virdunensis a Duce Godefrido et Balduino Comite deprædatur et una cum monasterio Sanctæ Mariæ incenditur."

The submission of Godfrey's accomplice Baldwin is recorded in our own Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles; "Se Casere hæfde of Baldwine eall þæt he wolde." The reconciliation between him and the Emperor took place at Aachen (Sigebert, 1049; Hermann, 1050).

THE WELSH CAMPAIGN OF 1049.

595

Lambert seems to confound this reconciliation with the later synod at Mainz. William of Poitiers (90) boldly turns the tables; the father-in-law of Duke William could not have made submission, even to an Emperor; "Nomine siquidem Romani Imperii miles fuit, re decus et gloria summa consiliorum in summâ necessitudine

est enim et nationibus procul remotis notissimum quam frequentibus, quamque gravibus bellis Imperatorum immanitatem fatigaverit, pace demum ad conditiones ipsius arbitratu dictatas compositâ, quum Regum dominos terræ ipsorum nonnullâ parte mulctaverit violenter extortâ, sua quæque vel inexpugnatâ vel indefessâ potius manu tutans."

NOTE P. p. 109.

THE WELSH CAMPAIGN OF 1049.

THE whole account of this campaign is full of difficulties. It is mentioned by the Worcester Chronicler only, whose narrative is somewhat expanded by Florence. There are also some entries in the Welsh Chronicles which seem to refer to the same event, but the readings of the manuscripts are so different that it is hard to tell their exact meaning. The Worcester writer mentions the coming of thirty-six ships from Ireland to the Usk; there, with Gruffydd's help, they do much harm; then Bishop Ealdred gathers a force against them, but he is defeated, and many of his men are slain, by a sudden attack in the early morning. Florence is more detailed. First, he explains that the Gruffydd spoken of is Gruffydd of South Wales, Gruffydd the son of Rhydderch; "adjutorio Griffini Regis Australiam Brytonum." This is very likely; the last time we had to do with Welsh affairs, the Northern Gruffydd was leagued with England against his Southern namesake (see p. 87). But a difficulty immediately follows. The pirates, with Gruffydd's good will, begin plundering by sea, seemingly on the coast of Gwent. The words are "circa loca illa”—this immediately follows the mention of the Welsh Axe or Usk-" prædam agentes." This may mean the Somersetshire coast just opposite, but it would more naturally mean the coast by the mouth of the Usk. But Gruffydd ap Rhydderch would hardly consent to the harrying of his own

૨ ૧ 2

dominions; so we are led to suspect that Gwent must have passed into the hands of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, perhaps as a result of the campaign waged by him in concert with Swegen. Or is it possible that Gwent had already, for a time at least, passed into English hands? (See below, Note SS.) We should certainly infer as much from the language of the Chronicler, who seems to make Ealdred gather his force to defend the country at the mouth of the Usk. But it is more likely that this is only a confused way of telling the story, for Florence tells us very clearly that the invaders crossed the Wye and harried some district, which must therefore have been part of Gloucestershire. "Dein, conjunctis viribus, Rex [Griffinus] et ipsi [Hibernienses pirata] flumen quod Weage nominatur transeuntes Dymedham incenderunt, et omnes quos ibi reperiebant peremerunt." But what is Dymedham? One would expect it to be the name of a town in Gloucestershire, but I know of no such place. It almost looks as if Florence had got hold of some Welsh account, and had been led astray by some such word as Dyfed or Deheubarth. Anyhow we may accept the fact that they crossed the Wye, and so entered the Hwiccian diocese. It is then that Ealdred brings his force against them. In the Chronicle that force is simply called "folc," without further description; it is Florence who tells us that it consisted of small bodies from Gloucestershire and Herefordshire ("pauci de provincialibus Glawornensibus et Herefordensibus"), together with that body of Welshmen to whose treachery he attributes the defeat of the English.

The mention of these Welshmen in the English army raises some further questions. Were they mere mercenaries hired for the occasion, subjects possibly of the Northern Gruffydd, or were they men of Welsh blood and speech living under the immediate sovereignty of the King of the English? It can hardly be doubted that much Welsh blood must have still lingered among the inhabitants of Herefordshire and Western Gloucestershire, just as it lingered among the inhabitants of Somersetshire and Devonshire. A small part of modern Gloucestershire, and a larger part of modern Herefordshire, consists of the districts added to those shires at the dissolution of the Welsh Marches. This part of Herefordshire was, till quite recent ecclesiastical changes, included in the Diocese of Saint David's. But it would seem that, as late as the seventeenth