IE EARLDOMS THE GREAT EARLDOMS UNDER EADWARD. 377 [055; "Siwardus Dux Northanhumbrorum obiit; . . . cujus filius Waldevus, postea martyr sanctus, factus est Comes Northamptoniæ; comitatus autem Northanhumbrorum datus est Tostio fratri Haroldi" (Giles, p. 50). But this is shown to be incorrect by the charter just quoted, which shows that Tostig was Earl in Northamptonshire. And the course taken by the Northumbrian rebels in 1065 (see p. 325) seems to point to a still abiding connexion between that shire and Northumberland. We can therefore hardly doubt that both Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire were obtained by Waltheof as a result of the Northumbrian revolt in 1065. About Nottinghamshire I do not feel quite certain. It appears from Domesday (280) that Tostig had certain rights in the town of Nottingham; but he is not distinctly spoken of as Earl of the shire. But the connexion between this shire and the Northumbrian Primate makes a connexion with the Northumbrian Earldom far from unlikely. Hertfordshire formed part of the Earldom of Beorn. We have no further account of it till after the redistribution in 1057 (see above, p. 280), when it appears in the hands of Leofwine. Two writs (Cod. Dipl. iv. 217, 218) are addressed to him as Earl, conjointly with Wulfwig, Bishop of Dorchester-the Prelate of the Middle-Angles-whose episcopate ranges from 1053 to 1067. In Domesday also (132) eighteen burghers in the town of Hertford are described as being "homines Heraldi Comitis et Lewini Comitis," perhaps a sign of the superiority exercised by Harold over the Earldoms of Gyrth and Leofwine. Men of Leofwine occur also in the town of Buckingham (143) and in other parts of that shire (144, 145), suggesting that Buckinghamshire also made part of his Earldom. Of Bedfordshire we seem to have no distinct account. Waltheof (Domesday, 210 b) held lands there, but it need not have been in his Earldom. Oxfordshire appears in 1051 (Flor. Wig. in anno) as part of the Earldom of Swegen (see above, p. 23). After 1057 it appears as an outlying appendage of the East-Anglian Earldom of Gyrth. Two writs for Oxfordshire are addressed to him conjointly with Bishop Wulfwig (Cod. Dipl. iv. 215, 217). The former is the well-known grant of Islip to the church of Westminster. Of the other East-Mercian shires we have no account. But I am inclined to believe that they must have reverted to Leofric, perhaps on the death of Beorn. I am led to this belief by the almost certain fact that Lincolnshire did. All history and tradition connects Leofric and his house with that shire; one of the great objects of his bounty, the minster of Stow, is within its borders, and it is plain that in 1066 (Flor. Wig. in anno) Lindesey formed part of the Earldom of his grandson Eadwine. The shiftings of the East-Mercian shires are thus frequent and perplexing, but those of West-Mercia are equally so. That the north-western shires of Mercia remained constantly under Leofric and his house there can be no reasonable doubt. Our one writ in those parts (Cod. Dipl. iv. 201) is addressed to Eadwine in Staffordshire, and the entries of property held in that shire and in Cheshire by him and his father are endless. The same may be said of Shropshire, but as soon as we get south of that limit, we are at once in the region of fluctuations. We have seen that Ranig was Earl of the Magesætas or of Herefordshire in 1041. We have another notice of him in that character in the Worcester Cartulary, p. 274 (Monasticon, i. 597); "Postquam Rex Eadmundus, cui prænomen erat Latus Ferreum, bellum contra Cnut ter in uno anno commiserat, et Angliam secum postremo partitus fuerat, provincia Vicecomitâtus de Herefordscire Comiti Ronig, cui sic vocabulum erat, tradita fuit." He and his "milites" rob the possessions of Worcester in that shire. But it is impossible to say whether his government extended beyond the limits of Herefordshire. One can hardly doubt that Ranig was succeeded by Swegen, whose Mercian possessions (Flor. Wig. 1051) consisted of the shires of Hereford, Gloucester, and Oxford. It is therefore not unlikely that Ranig's government was of the same extent, but we cannot be certain. But it is quite certain that Herefordshire was detached from the government of Leofric and his successors during the whole reign of Eadward. It is not clear what became of that shire during Swegen's first banishment. Something belonging to Swegen, either his Earldom or his private estate, was (see pp. 57, 65) divided during his absence between Harold and Beorn. It is therefore quite possible that one or other of them may have governed Herefordshire from 1046 to 1050. But it is equally possible that the shire was, during that interval, held by Ralph of Mantes, Ralph the Timid, the son of Walter and Godgifu. Indeed this last view becomes the more likely of the two, when we remember the firm root which the Normans had taken in Herefordshire before 1051 (see p. 90), which looks very much as if they had been specially favoured in these parts. That Ralph succeeded Swegen on his final banishment in 1051 I have no doubt at all. Sir Francis Palgrave (English Commonwealth, ii. ccxc.) calls this fact in question on the grounds that, at the time when William of Malmesbury (ii. 199) calls him "Comes Herefordensis,” Herefordshire was under the government of Swegen, and that, when Florence (1055) speaks of his doings in the Herefordshire campaign, he does not formally describe him as Earl of the shire. But surely, when a certain shire is invaded, and a certain Earl goes forth to defend it, the presumption, in the absence of some distinct evidence the other way, is that the Earl who so acts is the Earl in charge of the shire. The passage of William of Malmesbury is simply one of his usual confusions of chronology. Speaking of Eustace of Boulogne and his visit to England in 1051, he mentions his marriage with Godgifu, and adds, "quæ ex altero viro, Waltero Medantino, filium tulerat Radulfum, qui eo tempore erat Comes Herefordensis, ignavus et timidus, qui Walensibus pugnâ cesserit, comitatumque suum, et urbem cum episcopo, ignibus eorum consumendum reliquerit; cujus rei infamiam mature veniens Haroldus virtutibus suis abstersit. Eustachius ergo .. Regem adiit." Undoubtedly, according to strict grammatical construction, eo tempore" ought to mean in 1051, but William so jumbles together the events of 1051 and of 1055 that it is hardly safe to argue from this expression that he meant distinctly to assert that Ralph was Earl of Herefordshire in 1051. He may just as well have meant that he was so when he waged his unfortunate campaign with the Welsh, and certainly no one who got up his facts from William of Malmesbury only would ever find out that that campaign happened four years after the visit of Eustace. Ralph then, I hold, was certainly Earl of Herefordshire in 1055, and the natural inference is that he succeeded Swegen in 1051, and that, as Swegen never came back, he was allowed to retain his Earldom in 1052. That Ralph was succeeded by Harold in 1057 there can be no doubt. But Harold's Herefordshire Earldom is so important as a piece of national THE GREAT EARLDOMS UNDER EADWARD.. 379 policy, and it is connected with so many points in Harold's character, that I have spoken of it somewhat largely in the text. See pp. 263, 278, and, for writs addressed to Harold in Herefordshire, see p. 368. But we have also the fact that Ralph certainly held the rank of Earl in the year 1051, while Swegen was still acting as Earl of the Magesætas (see p. 91). We have also his signature as Earl as early as 1050 (see p. 81). Sir Francis Palgrave is therefore very possibly right in quartering him in Worcestershire. That shire, he is inclined to think, was in Cnut's time held by Hakon the doughty Earl, the first husband of Gunhild. I believe that this was the case; that Hakon held the Earldom of the Hwiccas, and I believe also that Eglaf (see vol. i. p. 299) preceded him. We come across several remarkable signs of Danish influence in Worcestershire, a shire where we should hardly have looked for it. In two Worcestershire documents, a deed of Bishop Ealdred in Cod. Dipl. iv. 137, evidently passed in a Worcestershire Scirgemót, and another in iv. 262, there is mention of Danish Thegns (“ ealla Xa yldestan þegnas on Wigeraceastrescire, Denisce and Englisce ") as a distinct class in Worcestershire. This again may possibly be taken in connexion with the complaints about Danish spoilers of the Church of Worcester, which we have seen in p. 364. We hear also in a deed of Abbot Eadric in 1022 (Cod: Dipl. vi. 180), of "multi, tam Angli quam Dani" in a Scirgemót held at Gloucester. This prevalence of Danes in the Hwiccian shires looks of itself like the effect of the administration of a Danish Earl. And in the document last quoted "Aglaf Comes" appears with Archbishop Wulfstan as one of the presidents of the Scirgemót. This seems to fix Eglaf's Earldom beyond doubt, and, as his signature ceases about 1024 (see Cod. Dipl. iv. 29), he was most likely succeeded by Hakon about that time. Sir Francis Palgrave rests his case for Hakon on a writ of Cnut (Cod. Dipl. iv. 56) addressed to him as Earl in Worcestershire. The writ is clearly spurious, but it is one of those cases in which a spurious document proves something. A forger would hardly have inserted a name so little known as that of Hakon in a spurious writ, unless he had seen it in a genuine writ. There is also another document in which we find what seems to be a distinct mention of a Hakon as holding a prominent position in Worcestershire. In a document of Bishop Æthelstan of Hereford in Cod. Dipl. iv. 234 we find, joined together in a transaction of a Worcestershire Scirgemôt in the time of Cnut, "Leofwine Ealdorman and Hacc . . and Leofric, and eal seo scir." In Mr. Thorpe's Diplomatarium, p. 376, the name is supplied in full, "Hacun," which one might almost have ventured to do without manuscript authority. Hakon is thus placed between Ealdorman Leofwine and his son and successor Leofric. This looks very much as if both Hakon and Eglaf before him were subordinate Earls of the Hwiccas under Leofwine as superior Earl of the Mercians. And we have a yet more distinct mention of Ranig as Earl, together with his wife, in the Worcester Cartulary, p. 251 (Monasticon, i. 593), where we read of his spoliation of lands, "Sed quum hæc provincia fuerat deprædata et atrocissime devastata, et Dani terras multorum hominum, nobilium et ignobilium, divitum et pauperum, et fere istius provinciæ omnium, rapientes caperent, et violenter possiderent, Comes Hacun et sui milites has prædictas terras et alias perplures crudeli vi rapientes invaserunt, et raptas pro suis propriis possiderunt. Quod denique uxor ejus Gunnild injuste factum fuisse recognoscens, pro servitio terræ quamdam imaginem Sanctæ Mariæ nobis aurifice ornare fecit, sicque tamen terras usque huc loco sancto alienavit." Hakon then was clearly Earl of Worcestershire; thence he may, or he may not, have been removed to the greater government of the East Angles. Still we have no means of bridging over the interval between Hakon's death in 1030 and Ralph's appearance in 1041. Ralph, I suspect, when he received Herefordshire, gave up Worcestershire to Odda. Of this Earl I must say a little more, and he forms a natural means of transition from Mercia to Wessex. The West-Saxon Earldom, during the administration of Godwine and Harold, seems, except during the year of their banishment, to have suffered no dismemberment beyond the surrender of certain shires to be held by the sons or brothers of its two Earls, doubtless under the superiority of the head of the family. Thus Swegen, during his father's life-time, held, besides his three Mercian shires, the government of Somersetshire and Berkshire (Flor. Wig. 1051). On the fall of Godwine, Wessex was for a moment dismembered (see p. 104). As we hear of no Earl of the WestSaxons being appointed, the eastern shires, Berkshire included, probably reverted to the Crown. But Somersetshire was joined with the other western shires to form a new government under the King's kinsman Odda ("Odo et Radulfus Comites et Regis cognati," says William of Malmesbury, ii. 199). He had already some connexion with that part of England, as he signs (Cod. Dipl. vi. 196) a charter of Bishop Ælfwold of Sherborne relating to matters in Dorsetshire and Devonshire, which, from the mention of Bishop Lyfing, must be older than 1046. He was now set as Earl over the whole of the ancient Wealhcyn, or as the Peterborough Chronicler (1048) puts it, "ofer Defenascire and ofer Sumersæton and ofer Dorseton and ofer Wealas." The Wealas are of course the Welsh of Cornwall. (There is something singular in the territorial form being applied to Devonshire and the tribe form to the Sumorsætas, but the same distinction is made by the Worcester Chronicler in the next year, and we see it also in Domesday.) Dr. Lappenberg (510) suspects this Odda to have been a Frenchman. I see no reason for this surmise. An "Odo Comes" is certainly mentioned in the list of Normans established in England in Eadward's time given in Duchesne, p. 1023, a list clearly made up of bits from Florence and elsewhere. But this Odo is said to have been "ante Edwardi tempora in exsilium ejectus." Henry of Huntingdon too (M. H. B. 761 E) speaks of an "Odo Consul as banished along with Archbishop Robert. But these are no great authorities. A banishment of Odda seems quite out of the question, and there is not a word in the Chronicles to imply that he was a foreigner. Foreigners are commonly spoken of as such, and a foreign descent is certainly not implied in Odda's kindred with the King. He may have sprung from some of the more distant branches of the royal family, or he may have been connected with the King through his grandmother Ælfthryth. His name, in its various forms, Odda, Oda, Odo, Oddo, Otto, Eudes, and the like, is one of the few names which are common to England, Germany, and France. But in the shape of Odda it is thoroughly English, and it appears in English local nomenclature in such names as Oddington. Odda had also a brother and sister, who bore the distinctively English names of Elfric (Cod. Dipl. iv. 137, 262; Chron. Wig. 1053) and Eadgyth ("Eddied soror Odonis Comitis," Domesday 186). He himself also, after his monastic profession, bore the no less truly English name of Ethelwine (Flor. Wig. 1056. A signature of " Odda monachus" in Cod. Dipl. iv. 132 cannot be his, by the date). His signatures as Earl are rare ; THE GREAT EARLDOMS UNDER EADWARD. 381 there is one in Cod. Dipl. iv. 139. But both Odda and Ælfric often sign charters as "minister" and "nobilis," sometimes, as in one of 1048 (Cod. Dipl. iv. 116, so also vi. 196), in company with one Dodda, whom one suspects to be a kinsman. Odda of course resigned his West-Saxon government on the return of Godwine, and both Somersetshire and Berkshire henceforth remained in the immediate possession of the Earl of the WestSaxons. (See writs to Harold in Somersetshire, Cod. Dipl. iv. 195 et seqq., in Berkshire, iv. 200, in Dorsetshire, iv. 200.) But Odda continues to be spoken of as Earl (Chronn. Ab. and Wig. 1056), and his connexion with the Hwiccian land and its monasteries points to Worcestershire, or possibly Worcestershire and Gloucestershire, as the district under his charge. He appears also in Domesday (184 b) as a landowner in Herefordshire, where one Meriwine is spoken of as his Thegn. Three of the documents just quoted as bearing his signatures are the deeds of Bishop Ealdred concerning lands in Worcestershire of which I have already spoken (Cod. Dipl. iv. 137, 138, 262, see above, p. 379). The signatures to be noted are "Leofric Eorl and Odda Eorl and Elfric his brotor," " Leofricus Dux, Ælfgarus Dux, Odda Dux," "Leofric Eorl and Odda and Ælfric his brocor." There is also a signature of Azor or Atsor, a well-known Thegn in those parts and elsewhere (see above, p. 365). The special mention of Danish Thegns in Worcestershire I have already spoken of (p. 379). It is therefore most probable that Odda held the Earldom of the Hwiccas from the return of Godwine till the time when he forsook the world. It must then have reverted to the House of Leofric, as in Domesday (172) we find that the city of Worcester made payments to Eadwine as Earl. In the East of England the ancient boundaries both of Wessex and of East-Anglia were freely tampered with when the younger sons of Godwine had to be provided with Earldoms. There can be no doubt that the Earldom of East-Anglia was conferred on Gyrth when Elfgar was translated to Mercia in 1057. The only question is whether he had not received some smaller government at an earlier time. Gyrth appears as "Eorl" in the Chronicles and as "Comes" in Domesday (Suffolk, 283 et al.). In one Suffolk entry (290) it is distinctly said that "Comes Guert tertiam partem habebat." That his Earldom took in Oxfordshire as an outlying possession we have already seen; his possession of the two strictly East-Anglian shires is shown by a variety of writs. In Cod. Dipl, iv. 208 he is addressed for Norfolk and Suffolk, in iv. 222 for Suffolk only, in iv. 223 and 225 for East-Anglia generally, in iv. 221 for Suffolk only, conjointly with Harold. In all these writs he is joined with Æthelmar, Bishop of the East-Angles from 1047 to 1070. The date of his appointment seems certain, as no earlier date is possible, and there is no reason to suspect one at all later. But the words in which the Biographer of Eadward describes Gyrth's elevation are not very clear. After speaking of the appointments of Harold and Tostig, he adds (Vita Eadw. p. 410), "Juniorem quoque Gyrth, quem supra diximus, immunem non passus est idem Rex a suis honoribus, sed comitatum ei dedit in ipso vertice Orientalis Angliæ, et hunc ipsum amplificandum promisit, ubi maturior annos adolescentiæ exuerit." This may mean that Gyrth was first invested with the government of some part of East-Anglia, perhaps under the superiority of Elfgar, and was encouraged to look forward to the possession of the whole. Or it may mean that, when he was invested with the government of all East-Anglia, he was encouraged to look forward to something beyond its |