LIBRARIES AND LETTERS. 311 that shows how long a smattering of the language must have been retained. During the eighth century, England was even able to export books. After the Danish invasion, things changed, and instances of private libraries, such as that of one Athelstan, under Egbert, who possessed ten volumes of his own, are not to be looked for under Alfred. Yet, in the early part of the eleventh century, bishop Leofric gave sixty volumes to the church of Exeter. One of these, the "Codex Exoniensis," is the chief source of our knowledge of Anglo-Saxon poetry. The other volumes are mostly theological, but comprise Persius and Statius, with Porphyry, Isidore, Orosius, and Boetius.' While a single individual was able to accumulate such extensive stores of learning, the wealthy abbey of Croyland possessed, in a. D. 1091, three hundred large, and four hundred small volumes, which it assuredly did not owe to the Norman invaders. It is probable that the monastic revival had already borne fruit in promoting the transcription of manuscripts; the monks were at once more learned and had more leisure for such occupations than the secular clergy. A canon enacted under Edgar, which enjoins that no priest receive another's scholar without permission, and the fact that parish churches were often used as schools, are evidence that some general education was coveted and given.' Yet these instances taken alone would give too favourable an idea of the state of learning. A single active abbot might create a library. 1 Biog. Ang. Sax., pp. 37, 38. 2 Ingulfus, Gale, vol. i. p. 98. 3 Canons enacted under K. Edgar X; A. S. Laws, ii. p. 247. Wright's Domestic Manners and Sentiments, p. 119. Compare Ingulf's account of his going backwards and forwards to school, (Gale, vol. i. p. 62), and Orderic's statement that he was put under the care of the noble priest Siward, "litteris erudiendus," (vol. ii. p. 301). 312 NEED OF LITERARY RENAISSANCE. The highest laymen were ignorant of writing, and often, probably, of reading, down to the latest times of the Saxon monarchy; they sign charters with a cross.1 Even the knowledge of those who served as notaries to the witan and other gemots must commonly have been mechanical and unintelligent. Above all, such knowledge as there was, was rapidly petrifying; opinions were received and taught with Chinese docility; the country needed to be roused from its insular apathy by the shock of invasion, to bring up questions of law and right, by a larger acquaintance with the continent, with philosophy, and with the Pandects. "When we consider how improbable it is that any of the witnesses either did or could write his own name," &c. Kemble's Saxons in England; Cod. Dip., vol. i. p. xcviii. CHAPTER XX. THE ANGLO-SAXON CHURCH. RELATIONS Of Church anD STATE. POSITION OF THE CLERGY. CHURCH THE ment. HE Anglo-Saxon Church was missionary in its beginnings, monastic in its organization, and aristocratic by its connection with the king and chief nobles. The traces of its foreign origin were preserved in its filial connection with Rome. The monks and canons of the first diocesan cities remained, throughout Anglo-Saxon history, the centres of Church governTithes were paid to the bishop, and he licensed the confessional. In general, bishops and abbots were drawn from the highest families of the kingdom. This connection with the nobility associated the Church, in England beyond any other country, with the duties of civil government. By the practice which gradually prevailed, the Church might be said to exist separate from the State, but the State was interpenetrated by the Church. The synods, from an early time, adjudicated in civil cases where Church property was concerned. Towards the end of the monarchy they ob 314 1 FUNCTIONS OF THE CHURCH, tained the right of punishing priests who had offended against the criminal law; and this privilege was of course distinct from the feudal rights of judgment which the higher clergy possessed over their dependants. Moreover, although their lands were compelled to do military service to the State, the appearance of the clergy themselves in armour was repugnant to the better feelings of their countrymen; Odo appeared in the field to pray; Turketul even headed the London militia, himself slaying no man, although in the thick of the fight; but when bishop Leofgar "forsook his chrism and rood," and "took to spear and shield," the Saxon historian recorded it as a scandal. The bishop was named by the king and witan; ranking with an ealdorman, he took part in the great council of the nation, and presided conjointly over the seir-gemot. By a natural feeling, the minister of Christ was esteemed the proper person to see justice done between man and man, to interpose the warnings of the Church against perjury, and to superintend the ordeal; as chief of the educated class, he would speak with authority upon all questions of succession and contract; he guarded the standards of measure and weight; to him the serf 1 Cod. Dip., 184, 186, 256. Canute's Laws, S. 43; Leges Edw. Conf., 21; A. S. Laws, vol. i. pp. 401, 451. 2 Ingulf's remark (Gale, vol. iii. p. 37), that it was allowable for a clergyman to fight for his country, is against the whole spirit of the canons, and betrays Norman influences. The incidental explanation of the presence of churchmen in battles given in the Hist. Ram. is preferable: "Occubuerunt (in the battle of Assington) Ædnothus, Episcopus Dorcastriæ, et Wlfsius Abbas Ramesiæ, qui cum multis aliis religiosis, juxta morem Anglorum veterem ibidem convenerant non armis sed orationum suppetiis, pugnantem exercitum juvaturi." Gale, vol. i. p. 433 Compare p. 497. There is, however, one genuine exception in bishop Ealhstan, of Sherbourne, who went with an army against Kent (A. D. 823), and was in command at the battle of the Parrot (A. D. 845). A. S. Chron. AND ITS MINISTERS. 315 might appeal if he were overworked; and he controlled the revenues out of which the poor were relieved.1 Besides this, the whole correctional police of the country was in the hands of the Church; the State might inflict fines, or mutilate, or take away life, but only the bishop or the priest could enforce penance or seclude the criminal from the world. This importance of the heads of the Church was increased by the large size of their dioceses, and by the fact that learning and character belonged rather to the canons or monks, who commonly sided with the bishop, than to the mass-priests of the country villages. The ordinary Anglo-Saxon priest was no very dignified personage. He was commonly, in later times, of the semiservile class, and had probably, therefore, in an earlier period, been taken from the ceorls, or yeomanry, whose social degradation he shared. He had the habits and faults of the class from which he sprung. It was necessary in the tenth century to warn him that he should not be a public spoiler, or engaged in private feuds; that he should not drink in taverns, or greedily introduce himself at funeral feasts. Even the decencies of 2 'Kemble's Saxons in England, according to his birth. Canons under vol. ii. c. 8. 2 Mr. Kemble makes the parish priest equal to the head of the hundred. But he only supports this from Walafrid Strabo, a foreign authority of the ninth century. Saxons in England, vol. ii. c. 9. His oath and witnessing capacity were equal to those of a thane; but the sanctity of the seven church degrees is the reason given in the laws for this privilege, Oaths, 12; A. S. Laws, vol. i. p. 183. If he were married he forfeited this privilege, and was rated K. Edgar; A. S. Laws, vol. ii. p. 257; Laws of Cnut, vol. i. pp. 365, 6. In Domesday Book it is often spccially mentioned if the priest be free, and he "is often numbered with the villeins and borders." Morgan's Normans in England, pp. 106111. Again, though the expression in Elfric's canons (6), that the priest ought not to live like a ceorl, no doubt applies primarily to the question of marriage, the comparison may be fairly taken to indicate the ordinary social position of the mass-priest. |