Comitis Godwyni," and the two similar endings got jumbled together. There is another case in which the name Godwine has been written instead of another name in Domesday (146), where a Thegn is described as "homo Goduini cilt Abbatis Westmonasteriensis," meaning of course Abbot Eadwine (see p. 505). But here another question arises. The alternation of the names Ælfnoth and Ælfwig in the list of Abbots suggests the conjecture that we have here a case of a man-or rather two men-resigning his office and taking it again. We have seen other examples in the case of Archbishop Eadsige (pp. 67, 112) and of Bishop Hermann (pp. 405, 406). If so, Ælfwig was first appointed in 1035, a much more likely time for the first promotion of a brother of Godwine than 1063. But, on the other hand, the fact that it is only the second entry of the name "Alwyus" which has the addition "frater Godwyni Comitis,” may be taken as distinguishing the Elfwig of 1063 from the Elfwig of 1035. Taken alone it certainly looks that way, but it is hardly conclusive. This point I do not undertake to decide; but I think we have quite evidence enough for the existence of an Elfwig, Abbot of New Minster, uncle of King Harold and dying by his side.

If the "Annales" did not distinctly call him "frater Godwyni Comitis," I should have been tempted to identify this Abbot Ælfwig, uncle of Harold, with the Elfric, kinsman of Godwine, who was elected to the see of Canterbury in 1050 (see p. 117). The word "avunculus" is sometimes used rather laxly, and it might perhaps mean what is sometimes called a "Welsh uncle," that is, the first cousin of a parent. We shall find "neptis" used in the corresponding sense; see vol. iii. p. 657. But the description of Ælfwig as Godwine's brother seems to exclude this. And if the two Elfwigs are the same, it is impossible, as, in 1050, Elfwig would be Abbot of New Minster, when Elfric was a monk of Christ Church. Still one would like, if one could, to find a career for a man of whom all that we know is that he once came so near to eminence as the Elfric of 1050.

HAROLD'S DISMEMBERMENTS FROM WALES. 683

NOTE SS. pp. 466, 473.

THE DISMEMBERMENTS FROM WALES AFTER THE DEATH OF GRUFFYDD.

I HAD not noticed when the first edition was published that there is distinct evidence that, besides the homage done by Bleddyn and Rhiwallon to the English King and Earl, a part of the former Welsh territory was directly incorporated with the Kingdom of England. This seems to have been the case with three distinct districts.

1. A large district of North Wales was ceded and became part of the shire of Chester, and therefore of the Earldom of Eadwine. This appears from Domesday 269, where we find Rhuddlan (Roelent) and a surrounding district held partly by Hugh Earl of Chester and partly under him by Robert of Rhuddlan, the former esquire of King Eadward (see Ord. Vit. 669 C). The only former proprietors spoken of are "Eduinus Comes" and "Rex Griffin." A large part of the land is, as might be expected, spoken of as "wasta" both T. R. E. and at the time of the Survey. In fact the same remark is attached to most of the lands spoken of in this note, a speaking witness to the effects of the various Welsh wars, and especially of Harold's last campaign.

Besides the places mentioned by name, we read that "Robertus de Roelent tenet de Rege Nortwales ad firmam pro XL libris, præter illam terram quam Rex ei dederat in feudo, et præter terras episcopatûs." He also held "Ros et Reweniou," of a large part of which district we read that "omnis alia terra est in silvis et moris, nec potest arari.”

I do not profess to fix the exact boundary of the district ceded, especially when we get an entry so wide as "Nortwales." But it is plain that it took in all Flintshire, the Vale of Clwyd ("aqua de Cloith"), and seemingly the coast stretching into the modern Caernarvonshire.

This cession must be distinguished from the cession of the lands beyond the Dee by Gruffydd in 1056; see p. 399. I do not profess to distinguish the exact limits of the two, and the former may perhaps have taken in most part of Flintshire. But it could not

have taken in the Vale of Clwyd, as Rhuddlan was in Gruffydd's possession in 1062; see p. 466.

2. Radnor (Raddrenove) appears as part of Herefordshire (Domesday, 181), as held by Earl Harold and as being waste. This points to another dismemberment in central Wales, of which again I do not profess to fix the exact bounds; but it should not be forgotten that nearly all Radnorshire has long spoken English. The other entry about Radnor under Cheshire (Domesday 268) I must confess that I do not understand. What could Gresford in Denbighshire have to do with Radnor ?

3. In Herefordshire also (180 b) we read that the King held the castle of Monmouth. Part of the district of Caerleon (castellaria de Carlion) is also placed in Herefordshire (185 b), another curious piece of geography. No earlier English or Welsh lord is mentioned. Here is probably another cession.

4. A more interesting question, as more directly connected with the history and with a very singular and disputed document, arises as to the position at this time of the low lands of Gwent, the modern Monmouthshire. We have seen (see above, p. 596) that at least one fact in our history looks as if the lands at the mouth of the Usk were looked on as English territory as early as 1049. But on the whole I am inclined to think that the lands between the Wye and the Usk were incorporated at this time with the English Kingdom and with the West-Saxon Earldom. There are two documents which bear upon the matter.

First there is in Domesday (162), as a sort of appendix, or rather preface, to Gloucestershire, the account of a district which has no more definite name than "Wales," but which pretty well answers to the part of Monmouthshire between the Wye and the Usk, the part which has long been English in speech and partially English in local nomenclature. In one case only do we find any possessions beyond the Usk. Toustain the son of Rou, he who bore the banner at Senlac (see vol. iii. p. 464), had seventeen carucates "intra Huscham et Waiam" and seven carucates "ultra Huscham." There is no division into hundreds, nor any such clear division into lordships as we see in most other parts of Domesday. Only a few places are mentioned by name, as Estrighoiel or Chepstow, Caerleon, and Caldecot, all sites of well-known castles. We also read, "In Wales sunt III Hardvices, Lamecare, Poteschivet [Portskewet], Dinan." In

HAROLD'S DISMEMBERMENTS FROM WALES.

685

no case do we hear of any earlier possessors, English or otherwise, T. R. E. The only earlier owners spoken of are Earl William FitzOsbern, the founder of Chepstow Castle, and a person bearing the royal Frankish name of Dagobert, a name unique in Domesday, and which is equally remarkable whether its owner were Norman, English, or British. The present owners seem all to hold their lands from William's own grant. All this points to an occupation which was still recent at the time of Domesday. Had the country become an English possession at some time earlier than 1049, we should surely have seen some traces of a more regular state of things, and especially of English ownership. On the other hand, the action of Harold at Portskewet seems to forbid the notion that the occupation recorded in Domesday was due wholly to the wars waged with the Welsh after William's accession. These two lines of argument seem to bring us to the conjecture which I have made in the text. A district which had been so lately incorporated would most likely still remain in the state of Folkland, or rather "Terra Regis," on the day when King Eadward was alive and dead.

There is also another well-known document, which seems to me to belong to this age and to lead to the same conclusion. This is the famous treaty called "Geraèdnes betweox Dúnsétan" and "Senatusconsultum de monticolis Walliae." See Schmid, lxi. 358; Thorpe, i. 352. There has been a good deal of controversy as to the date of this agreement, and as to the people who are intended by the Dunsætas. Sir Francis Palgrave (i. 464, ii. ccxxxiii.), misled by a false reading Deunsætas (which he reads as if it were Defnsætas), takes it to mean the British inhabitants of Devonshire, seemingly in the time of Æthelstan. This view is refuted by Thorpe and Schmid, but they do not give us anything positive instead. I am led to fix it at this time by the words in the last paragraph, which say that the Wentsætas formerly belonged to the Dunsætas, but now more rightly belong to the West-Saxons ("Hwilon Went-sæte hýrdon intó Dún-sætan, ac hit gebyred rihtor intó West-sexan, þyder hý scylan gafol and gislas syllan"). These words seem to agree with no other date. The Wentsætas must, as Schmid says, be the people of Gwent and none other. But there is no earlier time at which the Wentsætas could be said to belong to the West-Saxons, unless conceivably in times far too early, when Ceawlin and his immediate successors still kept the land of the Hwiccas. Any intermediate

conquest would allow them to be spoken of as belonging either to the English in general or to the Mercians in particular, but not to the West-Saxons. But if an Earl of the West-Saxons ruling on both sides of the Wye incorporated the lands between the Wye and the Usk with the West-Saxon Earldom, no description could be truer than that "Wentste gebyreð rihtor intó West-sexan." The boundary stream spoken of in the eighth clause I take to be the Usk.

There are difficulties about this document in any case, but they are not greater on my explanation of it than on any other. The unique description of the Welsh as "Dunsætas" is as odd in one case as in another, and it is strange at any time to find the treaty concluded between the legislative bodies of the two nations, without any mention of Kings or Princes on either side; "pis is seó gerædnes, þe Angel-cynnes witan and Wealh-peōde ræd-boran betweox Dúnsetan gesetton." But I am not clear that there is any time which it suits so well as the moment when Harold, seemingly without much reference to the King, was negotiating with the Welsh people ("pæet fole heom gislodon and to bugon," see p. 472) between the deposition of Gruffydd and the grant of Wales to his brothers.

I cannot pretend to point out the extent of these cessions except in a very rough and conjectural way, but I should recommend the study of them, and the determination of their exact boundaries, to those who combine historical criticism with local Welsh knowledge. Some such, I do not doubt, may be found among my friends of the Cambrian Archæological Association.

NOTE TT. p. 478.

THE REVOLT OF NORTHUMBERLAND.

WITH regard to the events which led to the banishment of Tostig, we have to make the same sort of comparison of authorities which we made in describing the banishment and the return of Godwine. Our fullest accounts are found in the Worcester Chronicle, in Florence, and in the Life of Eadward. Some further details are supplied by the Abingdon and Peterborough Chronicles and by