Page images

again we have a connecting link between the two classes in the following curious and unique piece.

48. + EL ER ED RE A small cross; no inner circle. TILEVINE MONETA LONDONIA in monogram.

[blocks in formation]

On the Lincoln coin (42) we had the name of the mint in monogram, and that of the moneyer written at full length. On this, the order is reversed, the name of the mint is written at length, and that of the moneyer in monograms, for I read them HE RE BE the greater part of the name HEREBERT.


A small cross.

A large cross occupying the field of the coin with the letters CNVT attached to its extremities, and those of the word REX intercalated between them.

[blocks in formation]

By the type of its reverse this piece is connected with that numerous class of the Cuerdale coins which I have elsewhere ascribed to one of the sea-kings who invaded England in the days of Alfred; (not, as Mr Hawkins seems to think, to that Cnut who was so famous in English history more than a century later;) Cnut was a name exceedingly common amongst the Danish princes, and there certainly was one of this name, contemporary with Alfred, a son of Ragnor Lodbrog and a sea-king. It is no fanciful or anagrammatic way of reading which I propose, but one by no means uncommon in Byzantine coins of the same period. It is simply taking the letters in the order in which the cross is formed CNVT. This reading has the unanimous sanction of the most eminent Continental numismatists, and I believe is now generally admitted by our own. In fact, no other has been or can be proposed, which has even the slightest probability to recommend it. This coin is not the least important link in the chain of proof that the lately discovered coins of Siefred or Sievert, and of this Cnut, are English.



A small cross.
An ornament.


PL. IV, FIG. 11.

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]

This type seems to call for particular remark. Although in common with the rest it has the name and title of Alfred on the obverse, yet it has on its reverse a legend which seems to give us the name and title of Ethelstan followed by the name of a mint GELDA. This may be Geldestone in Norfolk, or it may be read EDELS tani Regis GELDA i. e. " tribute or money of king Ethelstan." I leave these conjectures to the reader's judgement, myself preferring the former as being most in analogy with other contemporary coins.



[blocks in formation]



A small cross with a pellet in each
In two lines.


Same types as the last.



PL. V, FIG. 5.

PL. V, FIG. 6.

[blocks in formation]

The reverse legend of this coin is in characters which have hitherto eluded all attempts to explain them.

[blocks in formation]


PL. V, FIG. 9.

[blocks in formation]

On this type we have the following names of moneyers:

[blocks in formation]

Some of the above readings are blundered, and there are others even more so. Some of these moneyers add to their names their designation MO. MON. MONE. MONET. or MONETA, and two, ELDA and SIMVN the words ME FECit.

The most remarkable feature on the coins 51 to 58 and indeed on 48 to 50 is the division of the obverse legend into four groups so as to give to the type a cruciform appearance. This is a feature so peculiarly English, being found only on these coins of Alfred, and on those of his contemporary Ethelstan (Guthrum) of East-Anglia, that its appearance on the money of Siefred, is another strong argument for their English origin. There is nothing of the kind to be observed on any continental coins; one of the emperor Otto III struck at Verona, about the close of the century, which at first sight might be taken to resemble these, is really of a very different design: it must in fact be read as the cross is formed, VE. RO NA and the letters are so placed that they

can be read at one view without turning the piece, just as in No. 50. Nos 59, 60 present a variation from this, dividing the obverse legend into three groups instead of four. This coinage, which from its resemblance to that of Ethelstan (Guthrum) of EastAnglia, I feel justified in supposing, commenced between A. D. 880 and 890, must have been continued until the end of the reign of Alfred. We do not indeed observe the peculiarity just noticed on the coins of Alfred's son and successor: for the greater length of the name Eadweard would not admit of such an arrangement: but some coins of this, ex. gr. No. 59, in every other respect correspond exactly with those of Edward the Elder.

As the work of which these pages form a part is devoted to the illustration of the life and writings of Alfred, this seems a proper place for introducing a few remarks supplementary to what I have advanced in my Essay on the coins of East-Anglia, and the result of subsequent research. I there endeavoured to shew the probability that Ethelstan, known in history as the eldest son of Ethelwulf, and king of Kent, was also a king of East-Anglia and a predecesser of S. Edmund. I was not then aware how intimate a connexion existed between this Ethelstan and his youngest brother Alfred, supposing as I then did that he died when Alfred was but two or three years old. Now however, I am convinced, and that chiefly by Dr Whitaker's arguments in his life of S. Neot, that S. Neot, who exercised so remarkable an influence over Alfred, was no other than this Ethelstan under a religious name.

In the year 823, Egbert King of Wessex sent his son Ethelwulf with an army into Kent, and the latter subdued and wrested from the Mercian yoke, not only that kingdom but those of Essex, Surrey and Sussex as well. These kingdoms then became and for many years continued to be an appanage of the West-Saxon crown. They were bestowed at first upon Ethelwulf, who upon the death of Egbert and his own accession to the throne of Wessex in 837, bestowed them upon Ethelstan his eldest son, by some supposed to have been of illegitimate birth, by others the fruit of an earlier marriage than that which produced the four brothers, Ethelbald, Ethelbert, Ethelred, and Alfred. Ethelstan continued to govern these kingdoms until the year 851, when he is mentioned as having defeated the Danes at Sandwich. But after that year he appears no more in history, and that about that time he ceased to govern Kent, seems probable from the fact that two

years later, A. D. 853, Duke Ealhere, who had been his colleague at the battle of Sandwich, is mentioned as fighting another battle but without him. Further, in the year 855, we find Ethelbald, his brother, the eldest son of the second marriage, styled king, and that whilst Ethelwulf was living; and his dominions would seem to be the same as those which Ethelstan had governed, viz. Kent, Essex, Surrey, and Sussex. In that year, Ethelwulf being then at Rome, King Ethelbald conspired with Alhstan, Bishop of Sherborne, and Eanwulf Earl of Somersetshire, to deprive his father of his dominions, and on his return they actually attempted to drive him from his kingdom. A compromise was made whereby Ethelbald was raised to the West-Saxon throne, and Kent with the other three provinces were left to his father Ethelwulf, who in the following year, A. D. 856, signs himself simply king of Kent, in a grant by himself of the Lordship of Lenham, to that Duke Ealhere who has already been mentioned in connection with Ethelstan. It appears, further, that about the year 851, Ethelwulf was a great benefactor to the monastery of Glastonbury, conveying thereto several manors, and that with his consent Earl Ethelstan gave other lands to the same monastery, together with his own person.

The life of St Neot, by John of Tynemouth, tells us that he was a son of Edulph, king of the West-Angles and of Kent, that he retired from the world and became a monk at Glastonbury : that some years afterwards with only one attendant he retired to a solitude in Cornwall; that after seven years spent there he went to Rome, and on his return gathered together a Society of monks and became their superior: that at this time he was frequently visited by Alfred for the purpose of obtaining his counsel and blessing that before his death, which must have taken place about the year 876 he foretold the troubles that were coming on Alfred: that after his death he appeared to Alfred on two occasions, once in his retreat in Athelney to announce the end of his troubles, and again before the battle of Ethandune to encourage him with the promise of victory.

Besides this life there are two others, both said to have been written by William Ramsay a monk of Croyland, (though for my part I cannot believe them to be by the same hand), one in verse the other in prose. The former speaks of St Neot as the son of Edulph king of Kent, and of his being of the same blood as king

« PreviousContinue »