THE TITLES OF BISHOPS AND BISHOPRICKS.

397

a style as Bishop of Western New York." We cannot call it an exception when Theodore (Bæda, iv. 5) speaks of "Putta Episcopus Castelli Cantuariorum, quod dicitur Hrofescæstir." He is the only Prelate in the list besides the Primate himself who is called by the name of his see.

Canterbury commonly uses the local style, or rather, where the name of the kingdom and that of the city were so nearly akin, the local style hardly differed from the tribal or territorial. But when Augustine, at the very beginning (Bæda, i. 27), calls himself "Episcopus Cantuariorum ecclesiæ," and when Honorius (iii. 25) is also described as "Episcopus Cantuariorum," ""Kentishmen" would doubtless be the most accurate translation. On the other hand, there was from the beginning a tendency to use the more classical style of "Dorobernensis" (see the epitaph of Augustine in Bæda, ii. 3); sometimes, on the other hand, localism reaches its extreme point, as when we read in the Chronicles for 996 and 1020, in nearly the same words, of Elfric and Ethelnoth being "gehalgod to arcebisceope to Cristes cyrican." In opposition to this, we find in Bæda, ii. 3, the extreme territorial style of "Brittaniarum Archiepiscopus." But this is no more a regular title than the descriptions quoted in vol. i.

P. 37.

As long as the West-Saxon Kingdom formed only a single diocese, and sometimes even later, its bishop is called "Occidentalium Saxonum Episcopus," "West-Seaxna Bisceop." The latter title is even given in the Chronicles (812) to a Prelate later than the division, and whose see was not at Winchester but at Sherborne. The first division of the diocese is recorded in the Chronicles under 709, and the purely geographical description, as well as the expression of ❝ Bishopshires," is worth notice; “Her Ealdhelm forferde, se was be Westanwuda bisceop; and was todeled on foreweardum Danieles dagum on twa bisceopscira Wessexnaland; and ær hit was I; oder heold Daniel; oper heold Ealdhelm." This division separated what we should now call the dioceses of Winchester and Sherborne. Now of these two it happens, I believe invariably, certainly with very few exceptions, that Winchester takes the local style both in Latin and English. In Bæda (v. 23) Daniel is "Ventanus," "Episcopus Ventæ civitatis." I do not remember to have seen the words "Bisceop on Hantunscire," and it is hard to say what the Latin territorial style would be. The royal Bishoprick, like the royal shire (see vol. i. p. 562), takes its name from a town, though not from the same town. But all the other West-Saxon episcopal titles are either tribal or territorial, and a regular distinction seems to be observed in the use of the tribal and territorial names. Thus we naturally find "Bisceop on Cornwalon" (Chron. Wig. 1047), and we also find "on Dorsæton,' 99 66 on Sumersæton," but we do not find "on Defnsæton," or "on Wilsæton," but "on Defnascire," on "Wiltunscire." (Compare the analogous distinction in the language of the Chronicles for 1051, 1052.) This description "on Wiltunscire" is the most remarkable, as it does not take in the whole of the diocese whose see was at Ramsbury. I only remember one place where Berkshire is mentioned, namely where the Worcester Chronicle records the death of Bishop Hermann in 1078; "Se was Bisceop on Bearrucscire and on Wiltunscire and on Dorsætan." Florence commonly uses the style “Wiltuniensium Episcopus;" this must not be taken as meaning the town of Wilton but the`shire generally. As for the Dorsetshire Bishoprick, the late Canterbury Chronicler, recording Brihtwold's death in 1044,

inserts into the Peterborough record the words "pet was þæt bisceoprice of Scireburne"-an explanation which was needed in his own time when Sherborne had ceased to be a Bishop's see. In the same way in 1045 he prematurely calls Lyfing bisceop of Exceastre."

In the East-Anglian and South-Saxon dioceses the style is, I believe invariably, "Bishop of the East-Angles" or "of the South-Saxons."

The early Mercian Bishops are commonly spoken of by the name of the tribe. Thus in Bæda we find "Merciorum Episcopus" (iv. 6), "Episcopus provinciæ Merciorum" (iv. 5), “Episcopus Mediterraneorum Anglorum simul et Merciorum” (iii. 21), “episcopatus gentis Merciorum simul ac Lindisfarorum" (iv. 3). So, when there were several Mercian sees, we read in Bæda, v. 23, of "provinciæ Huicciorum," and "provinciæ Lindisfarorum Episcopus," while the diocese of Hereford is simply pointed at as "ii populi qui ultra amnem Sabrinam ad occidentem habitant." Yet in this very chapter we read of a "Lyccitfeldensis antistes," the earliest case of a local style in Mercia. After Mercia was mapped out into fresh shires, the tribal names die out. That of the Hwiccas, where the diocese so exactly corresponded with an ancient principality the memory of which was thereby kept up longer than usual, the old name lingered longest. "Hwicciorum Episcopus" (Cod. Dipl. iii. 50) is common in the charters of Archbishop Oswald, who once (Cod. Dipl. iii. 212) calls himself "Hwicciorum Archiepiscopus,” a title which reminds one of "Emperor of Austria." The Chroniclers however commonly call the Bishoprick after the city-" on Wigraceastre;" but in the Peterborough Chronicle (1038) Lyfing's appointment is described geographically; "Living Bisceop feng to Wigraceasterscire and to Gleaweceastrescire." Lichfield is, I think, always local. The diocese beyond the Severn, for which Bæda could not find a name, has in the Chronicles become the Bishoprick of Hereford or Herefordshire. In the Peterborough Chronicle for 1060 we read, "Walter feng to þam bisceoprice on Hereforda,” but in the Worcester Chronicle the words are "on Herefordscire," a form contrasted with "on Eoferwic" and "on Sumersætan" in the same entry. As for the remaining Bishoprick, the greatest Bishoprick of Mercia and of England, we read as early as 897 of a "Bisceop æt Dorceceastre," but in 1049 Eadnoth is described by his neighbour at Abingdon as se goda Bisceop on Oxnafordscire," a very inadequate description.

66

The analogy which may thus be traced between the history of the ecclesiastical and that of the civil nomenclature is certainly remarkable. And, by another analogy, as the territorial title of the King gradually. comes in after the Conquest, so at the same time the tribal and territorial descriptions of Bishops gradually die out before the purely local style. Thus we have seen one or two cases in which the late Canterbury Chronicler has translated the language of earlier times into the form usual in his own day. Florence sometimes does the same, even to the extent of such anachronisms as giving us a "Lindicolinensis Episcopus" in 1016 and 1034. In 1038 he gives us a "Cridiatunensis antistes," and in 1061 a "Wellensis Episcopus." In the later years of the Peterborough Chronicle the local form becomes universal; thus in 1130 we 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

SWEGEN AND EADGIFU.

399

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.

NOTE N. P. 57.

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 þa het he feccan him to pa abbedessan on Leomynstre, and hæfde hi þa while þe him geliste and let hi syþþan 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. "Suanus comes relictâ prius Angliâ, eo quod Edgivam Leonensis monasterii abbatissam, quam corruperat, in matrimonium habere non licuerit, Danemarciam adierat."

...

There is a strange story of Swegen in the Worcester Cartulary, p. 275 (Monasticon, i. 597), how he was so proud ("adeo deditus erat vanæ gloriæ, adeo letiferâ peste fatigabatur superbiæ ") that he professed to be the son not of Godwine but of Cnut, and Gytha proved that he was the son of Godwine by her own oath and that of many noble ladies of Wessex. The affair of Eadgifu is thus told; "Scilicet abbatissam de monasterio quod Leomynstre dicitur, vi abstractam, quod dici nefas est, suo per totius anni curriculum conjugio sociavit. Verum hanc Deo et hominibus rem nimium detestabilem venerabiles viri, Edsius Cantuariæ Archiepiscopus, et Lifingus hujus Uuigornensis ecclesiæ Episcopus, nullatenus ferentes, illum pro tali facto vehementer increpare cepere, et, nisi ab hoc citius resipisceret opere, eum se velle excommunicare, jurejurando, dixere. Quorum increpationem ipse non modicum pertimescens, licet invitus, a tam Deo re perosâ cœpit se abstinere." Swegen however, according to the story, avenged himself by seizing certain lands of the monastery of Worcester in Shropshire, which was not in his Earldom. If there is any truth in this intervention of Lyfing, it must have been the last act of his life, and the affair of Swegen and Eadgifu must have happened early in the year.

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. 193). 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.) in 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. 64.

THE PENANCE OF GODFREY OF LOTHARINGIA.

66

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 oðra 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

THE WELSH CAMPAIGN OF 1049.

401

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). 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. 71.

THE WELSH CAMPAIGN OF 1049.

66

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 namesakė (see p. 57). 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 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

VOL. II.

66

D d