The Saxons in England, Volume 1 (of 2) - A history of the English commonwealth till the period of

By Author	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Title	[ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z \| Other Symbols ]
By Language

Download this book: [ ASCII ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Saxons in England, Volume 1 (of 2) - A history of the English commonwealth till the period of - the Norman conquest
Author: Kemble, John Mitchell
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.

*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Saxons in England, Volume 1 (of 2) - A history of the English commonwealth till the period of - the Norman conquest" ***

produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive/Canadian Libraries)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s Note:

This version of the text cannot represent certain typographical effects.
Italics are delimited with the ‘_’ character as _italic_. Superscripted
characters are indicated with the ‘^’ (e.g. Serg^t).

Footnotes, which were numbered consecutively on each page, have been
re-sequenced to be unique within the text. They have been repositioned
to follow the paragraph where they are referenced.

Depending on your font, the Tironian shorthand 'et', used in Anglo-Saxon
passages and which resembles '7', may not display properly.

Minor errors, attributable to the printer, have been corrected. Please
see the transcriber’s note at the end of this text for details regarding
the handling of any textual issues encountered during its preparation.

THE
SAXONS IN ENGLAND.

A HISTORY OF
THE ENGLISH COMMONWEALTH
TILL THE PERIOD OF
THE NORMAN CONQUEST.

BY
JOHN MITCHELL KEMBLE, M.A., F.C.P.S.,

MEMBER OF THE ROYAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AT MUNICH, AND OF THE ROYAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES AT BERLIN,
FELLOW OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF HISTORY IN STOCKHOLM, AND OF THE
ROYAL SOCIETY OF HISTORY IN COPENHAGEN,
ETC. ETC. ETC.

-----------------------

“Nobilis et strenua, iuxtaque dotem naturae sagacissima gens Saxonum, ab
antiquis etiam scriptoribus memorata.”

-----------------------

A NEW EDITION, REVISED BY
WALTER DE GRAY BIRCH, F.R.S.L.,

_Senior Assistant of the Department of Manuscripts in the British
Museum, Honorary Librarian of the Royal Society of Literature, Honorary
Secretary of the British Archæological Association, etc._

VOLUME I.

LONDON:
BERNARD QUARITCH, 15 PICCADILLY.
1876.

[Illustration:

PRINTED BY TAYLOR AND FRANCIS,
RED LION COURT, FLEET STREET.
]

TO
THE QUEEN’S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY,
THIS HISTORY
OF THE PRINCIPLES WHICH HAVE GIVEN HER EMPIRE
ITS PREEMINENCE
AMONG THE NATIONS OF EUROPE,
IS,
WITH HER GRACIOUS PERMISSION,
INSCRIBED BY
THE MOST HUMBLE AND DEVOTED
OF HER SERVANTS.

PREFACE.

--------------

The following pages contain an account of the principles upon which the
public and political life of our Anglosaxon forefathers was based, and
of the institutions in which those principles were most clearly
manifested. The subject is a grave and solemn one: it is the history of
the childhood of our own age,—the explanation of its manhood.

On every side of us thrones totter, and the deep foundations of society
are convulsed. Shot and shell sweep the streets of capitals which have
long been pointed out as the chosen abodes of order: cavalry and
bayonets cannot control populations whose loyalty has become a proverb
here, whose peace has been made a reproach to our own miscalled
disquiet. Yet the exalted Lady who wields the sceptre of these realms,
sits safe upon her throne, and fearless in the holy circle of her
domestic happiness, secure in the affections of a people whose
institutions have given to them all the blessings of an equal law.

Those institutions they have inherited from a period so distant as to
excite our admiration, and have preserved amidst all vicissitudes with
an enlightened will that must command our gratitude. And with the
blessing of the Almighty, they will long continue to preserve them; for
our customs are founded upon right and justice, and are maintained in a
subjection to His will who hath the hearts of nations as well as of
kings in His rule and governance.

It cannot be without advantage for us to learn how a State so favoured
as our own has set about the great work of constitution, and solved the
problem, of uniting the completest obedience to the law with the
greatest amount of individual freedom. But in the long and chequered
history of our State, there are many distinguishable periods: some more
and some less well known to us. Among those with which we are least
familiar is the oldest period. It seems therefore the duty of those
whose studies have given them a mastery over its details, to place them
as clearly as they can before the eyes of their fellow-citizens.

There have never been wanting men who enjoyed a distinct insight into
the value of our earliest constitutional history. From the days of
Spelman, and Selden and Twisden, even to our own, this country has seen
an unbroken succession of laborious thinkers, who, careless of
self-sacrifice, have devoted themselves to record the facts which were
to be recovered from the darkness of the past, and to connect them with
the progress of our political and municipal laws. But peculiar
advantages over these men, to whom this country owes a large debt of
gratitude, are now enjoyed by ourselves. It is only within eight years
that the “Ancient Laws and Ecclesiastical Institutes” of the Anglosaxons
have been made fully accessible to us[1]: within nine years only,
upwards of fourteen hundred documents containing the grants of kings and
bishops, the settlements of private persons, the conventions of
landlords and tenants, the technical forms of judicial proceedings, have
been placed in our hands[2]; and to this last quarter of a century has
it been given to attain a mastery never before attained over the
language which our Anglosaxon ancestors spoke. To us therefore it more
particularly belongs to perform the duty of illustrating that period,
whose records are furnished to us so much more abundantly than they were
to our predecessors; and it seemed to me that this duty was especially
imposed upon him whom circumstances had made most familiar with the
charters of the Anglosaxons.

Footnote 1:

Ancient Laws and Institutes of England; comprising Laws enacted under
the Anglosaxon Kings from Æðelbirht to Cnut, with an English
translation of the Saxon: the Laws called Edward the Confessor’s; the
Laws of William the Conqueror, and those ascribed to Henry the First;
also Monumenta Ecclesiastica Anglicana, from the seventh to the tenth
century: and the ancient Latin version of the Anglosaxon Laws. With a
copious Glossary, etc. (By B. Thorpe, Esq.). Printed by command of his
late Majesty, King William the Fourth, under the direction of the
Commissioners on the Public Records of the Kingdom. MDCCCXL.

Footnote 2:

Codex Diplomaticus Aevi Saxonici. Opera J. M. Kemble, M.A., vol. i.
London, 1839; vol. ii. 1840; vol. iii. 1845; vol. iv. 1846; vol. v.
1847; vol. vi. 1848. Published by authority of the Historical Society
of England.

The history of our earliest institutions has come down to us in a
fragmentary form: in a similar way has it here been treated,—in
chapters, or rather essays, devoted to each particular principle or
group of facts. But throughout these fragments a system is distinctly
discernible: accordingly the chapters will be found also to follow a
systematic plan.

It is my intention, at a future period, to lay before my countrymen the
continuation of this History, embracing the laws of descent and
purchase, the law of contracts, the forms of judicial process, the
family relations, and the social condition of the Saxons as to
agriculture, commerce, art, science and literature. I believe these
things to be worthy of investigation, from their bearing upon the times
in which we live, much more than from any antiquarian value they may be
supposed to possess. We have a share in the past, and the past yet works
in us; nor can a patriotic citizen better serve his country than by
devoting his energies and his time to record that which is great and
glorious in her history, for the admiration and instruction of her
neighbours.

J. M. K.

London, December 2nd, 1848.

PREFACE
TO THE NEW EDITION.

The original edition of this monumental work having for a long time been
out of print and of enhanced value, a great demand has arisen for the
issue of a new edition; and the welcome opportunity of amending a number
of oversights and typographical errors, and of verifying a large number
of references, has not been neglected. The book itself is of so standard
a character, and was so well digested in the first place, that no
apology is needed for its re-publication now—more than a quarter of a
century after its first appearance.

The principles laid down, the deductions gathered from the array of
recorded facts and examples, are as true and incontrovertible to-day as
they ever were. The work, therefore, does not labour under the
disadvantage of becoming obsolete, inasmuch as the researches which have
since been made in this branch of literary and historical enquiry have
not tended to weaken or destroy, but rather to support and strengthen,
the arguments applied by the author to the gradual unfolding of his
theories of the growth and consolidation of the Anglosaxon Commonwealth,
and the Royal Authority in England.

It is worthy of remembrance that one of the chief authorities for the
views advanced in this History is the celebrated _Codex Diplomaticus_,
the printing of which occupied nine years of the author’s life. The
re-editing of that great work, under new arrangement, with collations,
and incorporation of a large quantity of newly found material, has now
so clearly become a necessity, that steps should be taken to re-publish
the enormous collection of documents relating to Anglosaxon times and
Anglosaxon history.

No one can read the summary of Kemble’s investigations, which is
contained in the concluding chapter to the First Volume, without feeling
bound to acknowledge that its pages contain the heartfelt convictions of
one who has spared no pains to mature his own knowledge of the inner
springs which actuated the conduct of our forefathers’ lives and
advanced their culture, nor failed in his endeavour to impart to his
readers a correct view of these important elements of our own manners
and customs;—in Kemble’s own words, “the history of our childhood, the
explanation of our manhood.”

W. DE G. B.

London,
September 11th, 1876.

CONTENTS.

VOL. I.

--------------

BOOK I.

THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE ANGLOSAXON COMMONWEALTH.

CHAPTER Page

I. Saxon and Welsh Traditions 1

II. The Mark 35

III. The Gá or Scír 72

IV. Landed Possession. The Eðel, Híd, or Alod 88

V. Personal Rank. The Freeman. The Noble 122

VI. The King 137

VII. The Noble by Service 162

VIII. The Unfree. The Serf 185

IX. The Mutual Guarantee. Mægburh. Tithing. Hundred 228

X. Fǽhðe. Wergyld 267

XI. Folcland. Bócland. Lǽnland 289

XII. Heathendom 327

APPENDIX.

A. Marks 449

B. The Híd 487

C. Manumission of Serfs 496

D. Orcy’s Guild at Abbotsbury 511

E. Lǽnland 517

F. Heathendom 523

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE
SAXONS IN ENGLAND.

------------------------------------

BOOK I.
THE ORIGINAL SETTLEMENT OF THE ANGLO-SAXON COMMONWEALTH.

CHAPTER I.
SAXON AND WELSH TRADITIONS.

Eleven centuries ago, an industrious and conscientious historian,
desiring to give a record of the establishment of his forefathers in
this island, could find no fuller or better account than this: “About
the year of Grace 445-446, the British inhabitants of England, deserted
by the Roman masters who had enervated while they protected them, and
exposed to the ravages of Picts and Scots from the extreme and barbarous
portions of the island, called in the assistance of heathen Saxons from
the continent of Europe. The strangers faithfully performed their task,
and chastised the Northern invaders; then, in scorn of the weakness of
their employers, subjected them in turn to the yoke, and after various
vicissitudes of fortune, established their own power upon the ruins of
Roman and British civilization.” The few details which had reached the
historian taught that the strangers were under the guidance of two
brothers, Hengest and Hors: that their armament was conveyed in three
ships or keels: that it consisted of Jutes, Saxons and Angles: that
their successes stimulated similar adventurers among their countrymen:
and that in process of time their continued migrations were so large and
numerous, as to have reduced Anglia, their original home, to a
desert[3].

-----

Footnote 3:

Beda, Hist. Eccl. i. 14, 15. Gildas, Hist. § 14. Nennius, Hist. § 38.

-----

Such was the tale of the victorious Saxons in the eighth century: at a
later period, the vanquished Britons found a melancholy satisfaction in
adding details which might brand the career of their conquerors with the
stain of disloyalty. According to these hostile authorities, treachery
and fraud prepared and consolidated the Saxon triumph. The wiles of
Hengest’s beautiful daughter[4] subdued the mind of the British ruler; a
murderous violation of the rights of hospitality, which cut off the
chieftains of the Britons at the very table of their hosts, delivered
over the defenceless land to the barbarous invader[5]; and the
miraculous intervention of Germanus, the spells of Merlin and the
prowess of Arthur, or the victorious career of Aurelius Ambrosius,
although they delayed and in part avenged, yet could not prevent the
downfall of their people[6]. Meagre indeed are the accounts which thus
satisfied the most enquiring of our forefathers; yet such as they are,
they were received as the undoubted truth, and appealed to in later
periods as the earliest authentic record of our race. The acuter
criticism of an age less prone to believe, more skilful in the
appreciation of evidence, and familiar with the fleeting forms of
mythical and epical thought, sees in them only a confused mass of
traditions borrowed from the most heterogeneous sources, compacted
rudely and with little ingenuity, and in which the smallest possible
amount of historical truth is involved in a great deal of fable. Yet the
truth which such traditions do nevertheless contain, yields to the
alchemy of our days a golden harvest: if we cannot undoubtingly accept
the details of such legends, they still point out to us at least the
course we must pursue to discover the elements of fact upon which the
Mythus and Epos rest, and guide us to the period and the locality where
these took root and flourished.

-----

Footnote 4:

It is uncertain from the MSS. whether this lady is to be called Rouwen
or Ronwen. The usual English tradition gives her name as Rowena; if
this be accurate, I presume our pagan forefathers knew something of a
divine personage—Hróðwén—possibly a dialectical form of the _great_
and _glorious_ goddess Hréðe; for whom refer to Chapter X. of this
Book.

Footnote 5:

The story of the treacherous murder perpetrated upon the Welsh
chieftains does not claim an English origin. It is related of the
Oldsaxons upon the continent, in connexion with the conquest of the
Thuringians. See Widukind.

Footnote 6:

Conf. Nennius, Hist. 37 _seq._, 46 _seq._ Beda, Hist. Ecc. i. 14, 15.
Gildas, Hist. § 25.

-----

From times beyond the records of history, it is certain that continual
changes were taking place in the position and condition of the various
tribes that peopled the northern districts of Europe. Into this great
basin the successive waves of Keltic, Teutonic and Slavonic migrations
were poured, and here, through hundreds of years, were probably
reproduced convulsions, terminated only by the great outbreak which the
Germans call _the wandering of the nations_. For successive generations,
the tribes, or even portions of tribes, may have moved from place to
place, as the necessities of their circumstances demanded; names may
have appeared, and vanished altogether from the scene; wars, seditions,
conquests, the rise and fall of states, the solemn formation or
dissolution of confederacies, may have filled the ages which intervened
between the first settlement of the Teutons in Germany, and their
appearance in history as dangerous to the quiet of Rome. The heroic
lays[7] may possibly preserve some shadowy traces of these events; but
of all the changes in detail we know nothing: we argue only that nations
possessing in so preeminent a degree as the Germans, the principles, the
arts and institutions of civilization, must have passed through a long
apprenticeship of action and suffering, and have learnt in the rough
school of practice the wisdom they embodied in their lives.

-----

Footnote 7:

The Anglosaxon Traveller’s Song contains a multitude of names which
cannot be found elsewhere. Paulus Diaconus and Jornandes have
evidently used ancient poems as the foundation of their histories. The
lays of the various Germanic cycles still furnish details respecting
Hermanaric, Otachar, Theodoric, Hiltibrant and other heroes of this
troubled period. But the reader who would judge of the fragmentary and
unsatisfactory result of _all_ that the ancient world has recorded of
the new, had better consult that most remarkable work of Zeuss, Die
Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme. Munich, 1837. He will there see how
the profoundest science halts after the reality of ancient ages, and
strives in vain to reduce their manifold falsehood to a truth.

-----

Possessing no written annals, and trusting to the poet the task of the
historian, our forefathers have left but scanty records of their early
condition[8]. Nor did the supercilious or unsuspecting ignorance of
Italy care to enquire into the mode of life and habits of the barbarians
until their strong arms threatened the civilization and the very
existence of the empire itself. Then first, dimly through the twilight
in which the sun of Rome was to set for ever, loomed the Colossus of the
German race, gigantic, terrible, inexplicable; and the vague attempt to
define its awful features came too late to be fully successful. In
Tacitus, the city possessed indeed a thinker worthy of the exalted
theme; but his sketch, though vigorous beyond expectation, is incomplete
in many of the most material points: yet this is the most detailed and
fullest account which we possess, and nearly the only certain source of
information till we arrive at the moment when the invading tribes in
every portion of the empire entered upon their great task of
reconstructing society from its foundations. Slowly, from point to
point, and from time to time, traces are recognized of powerful
struggles, of national movements, of destructive revolutions: but the
definite facts which emerge from the darkness of the first three
centuries are rare and fragmentary.

Footnote 8:

“Celebrant carminibus antiquis, quod unum apud illos memoriae et
annalium genus est.” Tac. Mor. Germ. cap. ii.

Let us confine our attention to that portion of the race which settled
on our own shores.

The testimony of contemporaneous history assures us that about the
middle of the fifth century, a considerable movement took place among
the tribes that inhabited the western coasts of Germany and the islands
of the Baltic sea. Pressed at home by the incursions of restless
neighbours, and the urgency of increasing population, or yielding to the
universal spirit of adventure, Angles, Saxons and Frisians crossed a
little-known and dangerous ocean to seek new settlements in adjacent
lands. Familiar as we are with daring deeds of maritime enterprise, who
have seen our flag float over every sea, and flutter in every breeze
that sweeps over the surface of the earth, we cannot contemplate without
astonishment and admiration, these hardy sailors, swarming on every
point, traversing every ocean, sweeping every æstuary and bay, and
landing on every shore which promised plunder or a temporary rest from
their fatigues. The wealth of Gaul had already attracted fearful
visitations, and the spoils of Roman cultivation had been displayed
before the wondering borderers of the Elbe and Eyder, the prize of past,
and incentive to future activity. Britain, fertile and defenceless,
abounding in the accumulations of a long career of peace, deserted by
its ancient lords, unaccustomed to arms[9], and accustomed to the yoke,
at once invited attack and held out the prospect of a rich reward: and
it is certain that at that period, there took place some extensive
migration of Germans to the shores of England[10]. The expeditions known
to tradition as those of Hengest, Ælli, Cissa, Cerdic and Port, may
therefore have some foundation in fact; and around this meagre nucleus
of truth were grouped the legends which afterwards served to conceal the
poverty and eke out the scanty stock of early history. But I do not
think it at all probable that this was the earliest period at which the
Germans formed settlements in England.

-----

Footnote 9:

This is asserted both by Gildas and Nennius, and it is not in itself
improbable. The Romans did sometimes attempt to disarm the nations
they subdued: thus Probus with the Alamanni. Vopisc. cap. 14.
Malmsbury’s account of the defenceless state of Britain was probably
not exaggerated. He says: “Ita cum tyranni nullum in agris praeter
semibarbaros, nullum in urbibus praeter ventri deditos reliquissent,
Britannia omni patrocinio iuvenilis vigoris viduata, omni exercitio
artium exinanita, conterminarum gentium inhiationi diu obnoxia fuit.”
Gest. Reg. lib. i. § 2.

Footnote 10:

Prosper Tyro, a.d. 441, says, “Theodosii xviii. Britanniae usque ad
hoc tempus variis cladibus eventibusque latae [? laceratae] in
ditionem Saxonum rediguntur.” See also Procop. Bel. Got. iv. 20. The
former of these passages might however be understood without the
assumption of an immigration, which the movements of Attila render
probable.

-----

It is natural to believe that for many centuries a considerable and
active intercourse had prevailed between the southern and eastern shores
of this island, and the western districts of Gaul. The first landing of
Julius Caesar was caused or justified by the assurance that his Gallic
enemies recruited their armies and repaired their losses, by the aid of
their British kinsmen and allies[11]; and the merchants of the coast,
who found a market in Britain, reluctantly furnished him with the
information upon which the plan of his invasion was founded[12]. When
the fortune and the arms of Rome had prevailed over her ill-disciplined
antagonists, and both continent and island were subject to the same
all-embracing rule, it is highly probable that the ancient bonds were
renewed, and that the most familiar intercourse continued to prevail. In
the time of Strabo the products of the island, corn, cattle, gold,
silver and iron, skins, slaves, and a large description of dog, were
exported by the natives, no doubt principally to the neighbouring
coasts, and their commerce with these was sufficient to justify the
imposition of an export and import duty[13]. As early as the time of
Nero, London, though not a colony, was remarkable as a mercantile
station[14], and in all human probability was the great mart of the
Gauls. There cannot be the least doubt that an active communication was
maintained throughout by the Keltic nations on the different sides of
the channel; and similarly, as German tribes gradually advanced along
the lines of the Elbe, the Weser, the Maes and the Rhine, occupying the
countries which lie upon the banks of those rivers, and between them and
the sea, it is reasonable to suppose that some offsets of their great
migrations reached the opposite shores of England[15]. As early as the
second century, Chauci are mentioned among the inhabitants of the
south-east of Ireland[16], and although we have only the name whereby to
identify them with the great Saxon tribe, yet this deserves
consideration when compared with the indisputably Keltic names of the
surrounding races. The Coritavi, who occupied the present counties of
Lincoln, Leicester, Rutland, Northampton, Nottingham and Derby, were
Germans, according to the Welsh tradition itself[17], and the next
following name Κατυευχλανοι, though not certainly German, bears a strong
resemblance to many German formations[18].

Footnote 11:

Bell. Gal. iii. 8. 9; iv. 20.

Footnote 12:

Especially the Veneti: hέτοιμοι γὰρ ἦσαν κωλύειν τὸν εἰς τὴν
βρεττανικὴν πλοῦν, χρώμενοι τῷ ἐμπορίῳ. Strabo, bk. iv. p. 271. Conf.
Bell. Gall. iv. 20.

Footnote 13:

Book iv. p. 278.

Footnote 14:

Tacit. Ann. xiv. 33.

Footnote 15:

Caesar notices the migrations of continental tribes to Britain: he
says, “Britanniae pars interior ab iis incolitur, quos natos in insula
ipsa memoria proditum dicunt; maritima pars ab iis qui praedae ac
belli inferendi causa ex Belgis transierant; qui omnes fere iis
nominibus civitatum adpellantur, quibus orti ex civitatibus eo
pervenerunt, et bello inlato ibi remanserunt, atque agros colere
coeperunt.” Bell. Gall. v. 12.

Footnote 16:

Ptolemy, bk. ii. c. 2. It is true that Ptolemy calls them Καύκοι, but
this mode of spelling is not unexampled, and is found in even so
correct a writer as Strabo. The proper form is Καύχοι. Latin authors
occasionally write Cauci for Chauci, and sometimes even Cauchi: see
Zeuss, Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme, p. 138. It is right to add
that Zeuss, whose opinion on such a point is entitled to the highest
consideration, hesitates to include these Καυκοι among Germanic tribes
(p. 199). The Μανάπιοι, placed also by Ptolemy in Ireland, can hardly
be Germans.

Footnote 17:

Ptolemy, bk. ii. c. 3. μεθ’ οὗς Κοριταυοὶ, ἐν οἷς πόλεις, λίνδον,
ῥάγε· εἶτα, Κατυευχλανοὶ, ἐν οἷς πόλεις, σαλῆναι[al. σαλιοῦαι],
οὐρολάνιον. Others have preferred the form Κοριτανοὶ, but the
authority of the best manuscripts, not less than the analogy of the
names Ingaevones, Iscaevones, Chamavi, Batavi, confirms the earlier
reading. According to the Triads, these Coritavi (Coriniaidd) had
migrated from a Teutonic marshland. Thorpe’s Lappenberg, i. 15. The
word is thus in all probability derived from Hor, _lutum_, Horiht,
_lutosus_; equivalent to the “aquosa Fresonum arva.” Vit. Sci. Sturm.
Pertz. ii. 372. “Saxones, gentem oceani, in littoribus et paludibus
inviis sitam.” Oros. vii. 32.

Footnote 18:

Chatuarii, Heaðobeardan, Heaðoræmes. However Catu is a genuine British
prefix.

Without, however, laying more stress upon these facts than they will
fairly warrant, let us proceed to other considerations which render it
probable that a large admixture of German tribes was found in England
long previous to the middle of the fifth century. It appears to me that
the presence of Roman emperors recruiting the forces with which the
throne of the world was to be disputed, from among the hardiest
populations of the continent, must not only have led to the settlement
of Teutonic families in this island, but also to the maintenance, on
their part, of a steady intercourse with their kinsmen who remained
behind. The military colony, moreover, which claimed to be settled upon
good arable land, formed the easiest and most advantageous mode of
pensioning the _emeriti_; and many a successful Caesar may have felt
that his own safety was better secured by portioning his German veterans
in the fruitful valleys of England, than by settling them as doubtful
garrisons in Lombardy or Campania.

The fertile fields which long before had merited the praises of the
first Roman victor, must have offered attractions enough to induce
wandering Saxons and Angles to desert the marshes and islands of the
Elbe, and to call Frisian adventurers over from the sands and salt-pools
of their home. If in the middle of the fifth century Saxons had
established regular settlements at Bayeux[19]; if even before this time
the country about Grannona bore the name of Littus Saxonicum[20], we may
easily believe that at still earlier periods other Saxons had found over
the intervening ocean a way less dangerous and tedious than a march
through the territories of jealous or hostile neighbours, or even than a
coasting voyage along barbarous shores defended by a yet more barbarous
population. A north-east wind would, almost without effort of their own,
have carried their ships from Hêlgoland and the islands of the Elbe, or
from Silt and Romsey[21], to the Wash and the coast of Norfolk. There
seems then every probability that bodies more or less numerous, of
coast-Germans, perhaps actually of Saxons and Angles, had colonized the
eastern shores of England long before the time generally assumed for
their advent[22]. The very exigencies of military service had rendered
this island familiar to the nations of the continent: Batavi, under
their own national chieftains, had earned a share of the Roman glory,
and why not of the Roman land, in Britain[23]? The policy of the Emperor
Marcus Antoninus, at the successful close of the Marcomannic war, had
transplanted to Britain multitudes of Germans, to serve at once as
instruments of Roman power and as hostages for their countrymen on the
frontier of the empire[24]. The remnants of this once powerful
confederation cannot but have left long and lasting traces of their
settlement among us; nor can it be considered at all improbable that
Carausius, when in the year 287, he raised the standard of revolt in
Britain, calculated upon the assistance of the Germans in this country,
as well as that of their allies and brethren on the continent[25].
Nineteen years later the death of Constantius delivered the dignity of
Caesar to his son Constantine: he was solemnly elected to that dignity
in Britain, and among his supporters was Crocus, or as some read Erocus,
an Alamannic king who had accompanied his father from Germany[26]. Still
later, under Valentinian, we find an auxiliary force of Alamanni serving
with the Roman legions here.

Footnote 19:

Saxones Baiocassini. Greg. Turon. v. 27; x. 9.

Footnote 20:

_Grannona in littore Saxonico._ Notit. Imp. Occid. c. 86. Du Chesne
Hist. i. p. 3. The Tótingas, who have left their name to Tooting in
Surrey, are recorded also at Tótingahám in the county of Boulogne.
Leo, Rectitudines singularum personarum, p. 26.

Footnote 21:

Ptolemy calls the islands at the mouth of the Elbe, Σαξόνων νῆσοι
τρεῖς. Zeuss considers these to be Föhr, Silt and Nordstrand. Die
Deutschen, p. 150. Lappenberg sees in them, North Friesland,
Eiderstedt, Nordstrand, Wickingharde and Böcingharde. Thorpe, Lap. i.
87. It seems hardly conceivable that Frisians, who occupied the coast
as early as the time of Caesar, should not have found their way by sea
to Britain, especially when pressed by Roman power: see Tac. Ann.
xiii. 54.

Footnote 22:

Hengest defeated the Picts and Scots at Stamford in Lincolnshire, not
far from the Nene, the Witham and the Welland, upon whose banks it is
nearly certain that there were German settlements. Widukind’s story of
an embassy from the Britons to the Saxons, to entreat aid, is thus
rendered not altogether improbable: but then it must be understood of
Saxons already established in England, and on the very line of march
of the Northern invaders, whom they thus took most effectually in
flank. Compare Geoffry’s story of Vortigern giving Hengest lands in
Lincolnshire, etc.

Footnote 23:

Tac. Hist. iv. 12, about A.D. 69. “Diu Germanicis bellis exerciti; mox
aucta per Britanniam gloria, transmissis illuc cohortibus, quas vetere
instituto, nobilissimi popularium regebant.”

Footnote 24:

Dio. Cas. lxxi. lxxii. Gibbon, Dec. cap. ix. At a later period, Probus
settled Vandals and Burgundians here: Zosimus tells us (Hist. Nov. i.
68): ὅσους δὲ ζῶντας οἷος τε γέγονεν ἑλεῖν, εἰς Βρεττανίαν παρέπεμψεν·
ὃι τὴν νῆσον οἰκήσαντες, ἐπαναστάντος μετὰ ταῦτα τινος, γεγόνασι
βασιλεῖ χρήσιμοι. Procopius even goes so far as to make Belisarius
talk of Goths in Britain, but the context itself proves that this
deserves very little notice. Bell. Got. ii. 6.

Footnote 25:

Carausius was a Menapian: but in the third century the inhabitants of
the Menapian territory were certainly Teutonic. Aurelius Victor calls
him a Batavian: see Gibbon, Dec. cap. xiii. Carausius, and after him
Allectus, maintained a German force here: “Omnes enim illos, ut audio,
campos atque colles non nisi teterrimorum hostium corpora fusa
texerunt. Illa barbara aut imitatione barbariae olim cultu vestis, et
prolixo crine rutilantia, tunc vero pulvere et cruore foedata, et in
diversos situs tracta, sicuti dolorem vulnerum fuerant secuta,
iacuerunt.... Enimvero, Caesar invicte, tanto deorum immortalium tibi
est addicta consensu omnium quidem quos adortus fueris hostium, sed
praecipue internecio Francorum, ut illi quoque milites vestri, qui per
errorem nebulosi, ut paullo ante dixi, maris abiuncti ad oppidum
Londiniense pervenerunt, quidquid ex mercenaria illa multitudine
barbarorum praelio superfuerat, cum direpta civitate, fugam capessere
cogitarent, passim tota urbe confecerint.” Eumen. Paneg. Const. cap.
18, 19.

Footnote 26:

Aurel. Vict. cap. 41. Lappenberg, referring to this fact (Thorpe, i.
47), asks, “May not the name Erocus be a corruption of Ertocus, a
Latinization of the old-Saxon Heritogo, _dux_?” I think not; for an
Alaman would have been called by a high and not low German name,
Herizohho, not Heritogo. I think it much more likely that his name was
Chrohho or Hrôca, a _rook_.

By chronological steps we have now approached the period at which was
compiled the celebrated document entitled ‘Notitia utriusque
imperii’[27]. Even if we place this at the latest admissible date, it is
still at least half a century earlier than the earliest date assigned to
Hengest. Among the important officers of state mentioned therein as
administering the affairs of this island, is the Comes Littoris Saxonici
per Britannias; and his government, which extended from near the present
site of Portsmouth to Wells in Norfolk[28], was supported by various
civil and military establishments, dispersed along the whole sea-board.
The term Littus Saxonicum has been explained to mean rather the coast
visited by, or exposed to the ravages of, the Saxons, than the coast
occupied by them: but against this loose system of philological and
historical interpretation I beg emphatically to protest: it seems to
have arisen merely from the uncritical spirit in which the Saxon and
Welsh traditions have been adopted as ascertained facts, and from the
impossibility of reconciling the account of Beda with the natural sense
of the entry in the Notitia: but there seems no reason whatever for
adopting an exceptional rendering in this case, and as the Littus
Saxonicum on the mainland was that district in which members of the
Saxon confederacy were settled, the Littus Saxonicum per Britannias
unquestionably obtained its name from a similar circumstance[29].

Footnote 27:

Pancirolus would date this important record in A.D. 438. Gibbon,
however, refutes him and places it between 395 and 407. Dec. cap.
xvii. I am inclined to think even this date inaccurate, and that the
Romans did not maintain any such great establishment in Britain, as
that herein described, at so late a period. For even Ammianus tells us
in 364, “Hoc tempore Picti, Saxonesque et Scotti et Attacotti
Britannos aerumnis vexavere continuis,” (Hist. xxvi. 4), which is
hardly consistent with a flourishing state of the Roman civil and
military rule. The actual document we possess may possibly date from
390 or 400, but it refers to the arrangements of an earlier time, and
to an organization of Roman power in more palmy days of their
dominion.

Footnote 28:

The document itself may be consulted in Graevius, vol. vii. The
“littus Saxonicum per Britannias” extended at least from the Portus
Adurni to Branodunum, that is, from the neighbourhood of Portsmouth to
Branchester on the Wash. In both these places there were civil or
military officers under the orders of the Comes littoris Saxonici.

Footnote 29:

Professor Leo, of Halle, has called attention to a remarkable
resemblance between the names of certain places in Kent, and
settlements of the Alamanni upon the Neckar. A few of these, it must
be admitted, are striking, but the majority are only such as might be
expected to arise from similarities of surface and natural features in
any two countries settled by cognate populations, having nearly the
same language, religious rites and civil institutions. Even if the
fact be admitted in the fullest extent, it is still unnecessary to
adopt Dr. Leo’s hypothesis, that the coincidence is due to a double
migration from the shores of the Elbe. Rectitud. sing. person. pp.
100-104. It has been already stated that Constantius was accompanied
to Britain by an Alamannic king; and I cannot doubt that under
Valentinian, a force of Alamanni served in this country. Ammianus
says: “Valentinianus ... in Macriani locum, Bucinobantibus, quae
contra Moguntiacum gens est Alamanna, regem Fraomarium ordinavit: quem
paullo postea, quoniam recens excursus eundem penitus vastaverat
pagum, in Britannos translatum potestate tribuni, Alamannorum
praefecerat numero, multitudine, viribusque ea tempestate florenti.”
Hist. xxix. c. 4. The context renders it impossible that this “numerus
Alamannorum” should have been anything but genuine Germans.

Thus far the object of this rapid sketch has been to show the
improbability of our earliest records being anything more than
ill-understood and confused traditions, accepted without criticism by
our first annalists, and to refute the opinion long entertained by our
chroniclers, that the Germanic settlements in England really date from
the middle of the fifth century. The results at which we have arrived
are far from unimportant; indeed they seem to form the only possible
basis upon which we can ground a consistent and intelligible account of
the manner of the settlements themselves. And, be it remembered, that
the evidence brought forward upon this point are the assertions of
indifferent and impartial witnesses; statesmen, soldiers, men of letters
and philosophers, who merely recorded events of which they had full
means of becoming cognizant, with no object in general save that of
stating facts appertaining to the history of their empire. Moreover, the
accounts they give are probable in themselves and perfectly consistent
with other well-ascertained facts of Roman history. Can the same praise
be awarded to our own meagre national traditions, or to the fuller,
detailed, but palpably uncritical assertions of our conquered
neighbours? I confess that the more I examine this question, the more
completely I am convinced that the received accounts of our migrations,
our subsequent fortunes, and ultimate settlement, are devoid of
historical truth in every detail.

It strikes the enquirer at once with suspicion when he finds the tales
supposed peculiar to his own race and to this island, shared by the
Germanic populations of other lands, and with slight changes of
locality, or trifling variations of detail, recorded as authentic parts
of their history. The readiest belief in fortuitous resemblances and
coincidences gives way before a number of instances whose agreement
defies all the calculation of chances. Thus, when we find Hengest and
Hors approaching the coasts of Kent in three keels, and Ælli effecting a
landing in Sussex with the same number, we are reminded of the Gothic
tradition which carries a migration of Ostrogoths, Visigoths and
Gepidae, also in three vessels, to the mouths of the Vistula, certainly
a spot where we do not readily look for that recurrence to a trinal
calculation, which so peculiarly characterizes the modes of thought of
the Cymri. The murder of the British chieftains by Hengest is told
_totidem verbis_ by Widukind and others, of the Oldsaxons in
Thuringia[30]. Geoffry of Monmouth relates also how Hengest obtained
from the Britons as much land as could be enclosed by an ox-hide; then,
cutting the hide into thongs, enclosed a much larger space than the
grantors intended, on which he erected Thong castle[31]—a tale too
familiar to need illustration, and which runs throughout the mythus of
many nations. Among the Oldsaxons the tradition is in reality the same,
though recorded with a slight variety of detail. In their story, a
lapful of earth is purchased at a dear rate from a Thuringian; the
companions of the Saxon jeer him for his imprudent bargain; but he sows
the purchased earth over a large space of ground, which he claims and,
by the aid of his comrades, ultimately wrests from the Thuringians[32].

Footnote 30:

Widukind in Leibnitz, Rer. Brunsw. i. 73, 74; Repgow, Sachsensp. iii.
44, § 2. It is amusing enough to see how the number of ships increases
as people began to feel the absurdity of bringing over conquering
armies in such very small flotillas.

Footnote 31:

Galf. Monum. H. Brit., vi. 11. Thong castle probably gave a turn to
the story here which the Oldsaxon legend had not. The classical tale
of Dido and Byrsa is well known to every schoolboy. Ragnor Lodbrog
adopted the same artifice, Rag. Lodb. Saga, cap. 19, 20. Nay the
Hindoos declare that we obtained possession of Calcutta by similar
means.

Footnote 32:

Widuk. _in loc. citat._, also Grimm’s Deutsche Sagen, No. 547, 369,
and Deutsche Rechtsalt. p. 90, where several valuable examples are
cited: it is remarkable how many of these are Thuringian.

To the traditional history of the tribes peculiarly belong the
genealogies of their kings, to which it will be necessary to refer
hereafter in a mythological point of view. For the present it is enough
that I call attention to the extraordinary tale of Offa, who occurs at
an early stage of the Mercian table, among the progenitors of the
Mercian kings. This story, as we find it in Matthew Paris’s detailed
account[33], coincides in the minutest particulars with a tale told by
Saxo Grammaticus of a Danish prince bearing the same name[34].

Footnote 33:

Vit. Offae Primi, edited by Wats.

Footnote 34:

Saxo Gramm. bk. iv. p. 59 _seq._

The form itself in which details, which profess to be authentic, have
been preserved, ought to secure us from falling into error. They are
romantic, not historical; and the romance has salient and characteristic
points, not very reconcilable with the variety which marks the authentic
records of fact. For example, the details of a long and doubtful
struggle between the Saxons and the Britons are obviously based upon no
solid foundation; the dates and the events are alike traditional,—the
usual and melancholy consolation of the vanquished. In proportion as we
desert the older and apply to later sources of information, do we meet
with successful wars, triumphant British chieftains, vanquished Saxons,
heroes endowed with supernatural powers and blessed with supernatural
luck. Gildas, Nennius and Beda mention but a few contests, and even
these of a doubtful and suspicious character; Geoffry of Monmouth and
gossipers of his class, on the contrary, are full of wondrous incidents
by flood and field, of details calculated to flatter the pride or
console the sorrows of Keltic auditors: the successes which those who
lived in or near the times described either pass over in modest silence
or vaguely insinuate under sweeping generalities, are impudently related
by this fabler and his copyists with every richness of narration.
According to him the invaders are defeated in every part of the island,
nay even expelled from it; army after army is destroyed, chieftain after
chieftain slain; till he winds up his enormous tissue of fabrications
with the defeat, the capture and execution of a hero whose very
existence becomes problematical when tested by the severe principles of
historical criticism, and who, according to the strict theory of our
times, can hardly be otherwise than enrolled among the gods, through a
godlike or half-godlike form[35].

-----

Footnote 35:

Woden in the _gentile_ form of a horse, Hengest, _equus admissarius_,
the brother of Hors, and father of a line in which names of horses
form a distinguishing part of the royal appellatives. It is hardly
necessary to remind the classical reader of Poseidon in his favourite
shape, the shape in which he contended with Athene and mingled with
Ceres. In these remarks on Geoffry and his sources, I do not mean to
deny the obligation under which the reader of romance has been laid by
him; only to reject everything like historical authority. It is from
the countrymen of Geoffry that we have also gained the marvellous
superstructure of imagination which has supplied the tales of that
time, “when Charlemagne with all his peerage fell by Fontarabia,” and
which is recognised by history in the very short entry, “In quo
proelio Eggihardus regiae mensae praepositus, Anselmus comes palatii,
et Hruodlandus Brittanici limitis praefectus, cum aliis compluribus
interficiuntur.” Einhardi Vita Karoli, § 9. Pertz, ii. 448. Let us be
grateful for the Orlando Innamorato and Furioso, but not make history
of them.

-----

It is no doubt probable that the whole land was not subdued without some
pains in different quarters; that here and there a courageous leader or
a favourable position may have enabled the aborigines to obtain even
temporary successes over the invaders: the new immigrants were not
likely to find land vacant for their occupation among their kinsmen who
had long been settled here, though well-assured of their co-operation in
any attempt to wrest new settlements from the British. But no authentic
record remains of the slow and gradual progress that would have attended
the conquest of a brave and united people, nor is any such consistent
with the accounts the British authors have left of the disorganized and
disarmed condition of the population. A skirmish, carried on by very
small numbers on either side, seems generally to have decided the fate
of a campaign. Steadily from east to west, from south to north, the
sharp axes and long swords of the Teutons hewed their way: wherever
opposition was offered, it ended in the retreat of the aborigines to the
mountains,—fortresses whence it was impossible to dislodge them, and
from which they sometimes descended to attempt a hopeless effort for the
liberty of their country or revenge upon their oppressors. The ruder or
more generous of their number may have preferred exile and the chances
of emigration to subjection at home[36]; but the mass of the people,
accustomed to Roman rule or the oppression of native princes[37],
probably suffered little by a change of masters, and did little to avoid
it. At even a later period an indignant bard could pour out his
patriotic reproaches upon the Loegrians who had condescended to become
Saxons. We learn that at first the condition of the British under the
German rule was fair and easy, and only rendered harsher in punishment
of their unsuccessful attempts at rebellion[38]; and the laws of Ini, a
Westsaxon king, show that in the territories subject to his rule, and
bordering upon the yet British lands, the Welshman occupied the place of
a _perioecian_ rather than a _helot_[39]. Nothing in fact is more
common, or less true, than the exaggerated account of total
exterminations and miserable oppressions, in the traditional literature
of conquered nations; and we may very safely appeal even to the personal
appearance of the peasantry in many parts of England, as evidence how
much Keltic blood was permitted to subsist and even to mingle with that
of the ruling Germans; while the signatures to very early charters
supply us with names assuredly not Teutonic, and therefore probably
borne by persons of Keltic race, occupying positions of dignity at the
courts of Anglosaxon kings[40].

Footnote 36:

Many beyond a doubt found a refuge in Brittany among their brethren
and co-religionists who had long been settled there. Conf. Ermold.
Nigel. bk. iii. v. 11. in Pertz, ii. 490. The Cumbrians and Welsh had
probably been as little subdued by the Romans as they were by the
Saxons.

Footnote 37:

Gildas does not spare the native princes: see Epist. querul. _passim_;
and when every excuse has been made for the exaggerations of an honest
zeal, we must believe the condition of the people to have been bad in
the extreme.

Footnote 38:

“Quorum illi qui Northwallos, id est Aquilonales Britones dicebantur,
parti Westsaxonum regum obvenerant. Illi quondam consuetis servitiis
seduli, diu nil asperum retulere, sed tunc rebellionem meditantes,
Kentuuinus rex tam anxia caede perdomuit, ut nihil ulterius sperarent.
Quare et ultima malorum accessit captivis tributaria functio; ut qui
antea nec solam umbram palpabant libertatis, nunc iugum subiectionis
palam ingemiscerent.” W. Malmsb. Vit. Aldhelmi, Ang. Sac. ii. 14.

Footnote 39:

Leg. Ini, § 32, 33.

Footnote 40:

See a tract of the author’s in the Proceedings of the Archaeological
Institute, 1845, on Anglosaxon names. From some very interesting
papers read by the Rev. R. Garnett before the Philological Society in
1843, 1844, we learn that a considerable proportion of the words which
denote the daily processes of agriculture, domestic life, and
generally indoor and outdoor service, are borrowed by us from the
Keltic. Philolog. Trans, i. 171 _seq._ The amount of Keltic words yet
current in English may of course he accounted for in part, without the
hypothesis of an actual incorporation; but many have unquestionably
been borrowed, and serve to show that a strong Keltic element was
permitted to remain and influence the Saxon. That it did so especially
in local names is not of much importance, as it may be doubted whether
conquest ever succeeded in changing these entirely, in any country.

From what has preceded it will be inferred that I look upon the genuine
details of the German conquests in England as irrevocably lost to us. So
extraordinary a success as the conquest of this island by bands of bold
adventurers from the continent, whose cognate tribes had already come
into fatal collision with not only the Gallic provincials, but even the
levies of the city itself[41], could hardly have passed unnoticed by the
historians of the empire: we have seen however that only Prosper Tyro
and Procopius notice this great event, and that too in terms which by no
means necessarily imply a state of things consistent with the received
accounts. The former only says indefinitely, that _about_ 441, Britain
was finally reduced under the Saxon power; while Procopius clearly shows
how very imperfect, indeed fabulous, an account he had received[42].
Could we trust the accuracy and critical spirit of this writer, whom no
less a man than Gibbon has condescended to call the gravest historian of
his time, we might indeed imagine that we had recovered one fact of our
earliest history, which brought with it all the attractions of romance.
An Angle princess had been betrothed to Radigér, prince of the Varni, a
Teutonic tribe whose seats are subsequently described to have been about
the shores of the Northern Ocean and upon the Rhine, by which alone they
were separated from the Franks[43]. Tempted however partly by motives of
policy, partly perhaps by maxims of heathendom, he deserted his promised
bride and offered his hand to Theodechild, the widow of his father, and
sister of the Austrasian Theodberht[44]. Like the epic heroine
Brynhildr, the deserted lady was not disposed to pass over the affront
thus offered to her charms. With an immense armament she sailed for the
mouth of the Rhine. A victory placed the faithless bridegroom a prisoner
in her power. But desire of revenge gave place to softer emotions, and
the triumphant princess was content to dismiss her rival and compel her
repentant suitor to perform his engagement.

Footnote 41:

I borrow from Hermann Müller’s instructive work, Der Lex Salica und
der Lex Angliorum et Werinorum Alter und Heimat, p. 269, the following
chronological notices of the Franks in their relations to the Roman
empire:—

A.D. 250. Franks, the inhabitants of marshes, become known by their
predatory excursions.

280. Franks, transplanted to Asia, return.
287. Franks occupy Batavia; are expelled.
291. Franks in the Gallic provinces.
306. Constantine chastises the Franks. They enjoy consideration in the
service of Rome.
340. Wars and treaties with the Franks.
356. Julian treats with the Franks on the lower Rhine.
358. He treats with Franks in Toxandria.
359. Salic Franks in Batavia.
395. Stilicho treats with the Franks.
408. The Vandals invading Gaul are defeated by the Franks.
414. War with the Franks.
416. The Franks possess the Rhine-land.
437. Chlojo bursts into Gaul and takes Cambray.

Footnote 42:

Procop. Bel. Got. iv. 20.

Footnote 43:

Ουαρνοι μεν ὑπερ Ιστρον ποταμον ἱδρυνται· διηκουσι δε αχρι τε ες
Ωκεανον τον αρκτωον, και ποταμον Ῥηνον· ὁσπερ αυτους τε διοριζει, και
Φραγγους και ταλλα εθνη, ἁ ταυτη ἱδρυνται. ὁυτοι απαντες, ὁσοι
τοπαλαιον αμφι Ῥηνον ἑκατερωθεν ποταμον ωκηντο, ιδιου μεν τινος
ονοματος ἑκαστοι μετελαγχανον ... επικοινης δε Γερμανοι εκαλουντο
ἁπαντες.... Ουαρνοι δε και Φραγγοι τουτι μονον του Ῥηνου το ὑδωρ
μεταξυ εχουσιν. Bel. Got. iv. 20.

Footnote 44:

Procopius tells us that this was done by the dying father’s advice,
and in consonance with the law of the people. Ῥαδίγερ δὲ ὁ παῖς
ξυνοικιζέσθω τῇ μητρυιᾷ τολοιπὸν τῇ αὐτου, καθάπερ ὁ πάτριος ἡμῖν
ἐφίησι νόμος. Ibid. Conf. Bed. Hist. Eccl. ii. 5.

To deny all historical foundation to this tale would perhaps be carrying
scepticism to an unreasonable extent. Yet the most superficial
examination proves that in all its details, at least, it is devoid of
accuracy. The period during which the events described must be
placed[45], is between the years 534 and 547; and it is very certain
that the Varni were not settled at that time where Procopius has placed
them[46]: on that locality we can only look for Saxons. It is hardly
necessary to say that a fleet of four hundred ships, and an army of one
hundred thousand Angles, led by a woman, are not data upon which we
could implicitly rely in calculating either the political or military
power of any English principality at the commencement of the sixth
century; or that ships capable of carrying two hundred and fifty men
each, had hardly been launched at that time from any port in England.
Still I am not altogether disposed to deny the possibility of predatory
expeditions from the more settled parts of the island, adjoining the
eastern coasts. Gregory of Tours tells us that about the same time as
that assigned to this Angle expedition, Theodoric the Frank, assisted by
Sueves, Saxons and even Bavarians, cruelly devastated the territory of
the Thuringians; and although it would be far more natural to seek these
Saxons in their old settlements upon the continent, we have the
authority of Rudolf or Meginhart, that they were in fact inhabitants of
this island[47].

-----

Footnote 45:

The years 534 and 547 are the extreme terms of Theodberht’s reign. See
Gib. Dec. bk. 38.

Footnote 46:

This fact, which has escaped the accurate, and generally merciless,
criticism of Gibbon, is very clearly proved by Zeuss, Die Deutschen,
etc. pp. 361, 362.

Footnote 47:

The passage is sufficiently important to deserve transcription at
length. “Saxonum gens, sicut tradit antiquitas, ab Anglis Britanniae
incolis egressa, per Oceanum navigans Germaniae litoribus studio et
necessitate quaerendarum sedium appulsa est, in loco qui vocatur
Haduloha, eo tempore quo Thiotricus rex Francorum contra Irminfridum
generum suum, ducem Thuringorum, dimicans, terram eorum ferro vastavit
et igni. Et cum iam duobus proeliis ancipiti pugna incertaque victoria
miserabili suorum cede decertassent, Thiotricus spe vincendi
frustratus, misit legatos ad Saxones, quorum dux erat Hadugoto.
Audivit enim causam adventus eorum, promissisque pro victoria
habitandi sedibus, conduxit eos in adiutorium; quibus secum quasi iam
pro libertate et patria fortiter dimicantibus, superavit adversarios,
vastatisque indigenis et ad internitionem pene deletis, terram eorum
iuxta pollicitationem suam victoribus delegavit. Qui eam sorte
dividentes, cum multi ex eis in bello cecidissent, et pro raritate
eorum tota ab eis occupari non potuit, partem illius, et eam quam
maxime quae respicit orientem, colonis tradebant, singuli pro sorte
sua, sub tributo exercendam. Caetera vero loca ipsi possiderunt.”
Transl. Sci. Alexandri, Pertz, ii. 674. This was written about 863.
Possibly some ancient and now lost epic had recorded the wars of the
Saxon Heaðogeát.

-----

But if such difficulties exist in dealing with the events of periods
which are within the ascertained limits of our chronological system, and
which have received the illustration of contemporary history, what shall
we say of those whereof the time, nay even the locality is unknown? What
account shall we render of those occurrences, which exist for us only in
the confused forms given to them by successive ages; some, mischievously
determined to reduce the abnormal to rule, the extraordinary to order,
as measured by their narrow scheme of analogy? Is it not obvious that to
seek for historic truth in such traditions, is to be guilty of violating
every principle of historic logic? Such was the course pursued by our
early chroniclers, but it is not one that we can be justified in
repeating. In their view no doubt, the annals of the several Saxon
kingdoms did supply points of definite information; but we are now able
to take the measure of their credulity, and to apply severer canons of
criticism to the facts themselves which they believed and recorded. If
it was the tendency and duty of their age to deliver to us the history
that they found, it is the tendency and duty of ours to enquire upon
what foundation that history rests, and what amount of authority it may
justly claim.

The little that Beda could collect at the beginning of the eighth
century, formed the basis of all the subsequent reports. Though not
entirely free from the prejudices of his time, and yielding ready faith
to tales which his frame of mind disposed him willingly to credit, he
seems to have bestowed some pains upon the investigation and critical
appreciation of the materials he collected. But the limits of the object
he had proposed to himself, viz. the ecclesiastical history of the
island, not only imposed upon him the necessity of commencing his
detailed narrative at a comparatively late period[48], but led him to
reject much that may have been well known to him, of our secular
history. The deeds of pagan and barbarous chieftains offered little to
attract his attention or command his sympathies; indeed were little
likely to be objects of interest to those from whom his own information
was generally derived. Beda’s account, copied and recopied both at home
and abroad, was swelled by a few vague data from the regnal annals of
the kings; these were probably increased by a few traditions, ill
understood and ill applied, which belonged exclusively to the epical or
mythological cycles of our own several tribes and races, and the cognate
families of the continent; and finally the whole was elaborated into a
mass of inconsistent fables, on the admission of Cymric or Armorican
tales by Norman writers, who for the most part felt as little interest
in the fate of the Briton as the Saxon, and were as little able to
appreciate the genuine history of the one as of the other race. Thus
Wóden, Bældæg, Geát, Scyld, Sceáf and Beówa gradually found their way
into the royal genealogies; one by one, Brutus, Aurelius Ambrosius,
Uther Pendragon and Arthur, Hengest, Hors and Vortigern, all became
numbered among historical personages; and from heroes of respective epic
poems sunk down into kings and warriors, who lived and fought and died
upon the soil of England.

Footnote 48:

Beda attempts to give some account of the early state of Britain
previous to the arrival of Augustine; a few quotations from Solinus,
Gildas, and a legendary life of St. Germanus, comprise however nearly
the whole of his collections. Either he could find no more
information, or he did not think it worthy of belief. He even speaks
doubtfully of the tale of Hengest. Hist. Eccl. i. 15.

We are ignorant what _fasti_ or mode even of reckoning the revolutions
of seasons prevailed in England, previous to the introduction of
Christianity. We know not how any event before the year 600 was
recorded, or to what period the memory of man extended. There may have
been rare annals: there may have been poems: if such there were they
have perished, and have left no trace behind, unless we are to attribute
to them such scanty notices as the Saxon chronicle adds to Beda’s
account. From such sources however little could have been gained of
accurate information either as to the real internal state, the domestic
progress, or development of a people. The dry, bare entries of the
chronicles in historical periods may supply the means of judging what
sort of annals were likely to exist before the general introduction of
the Roman alphabet and parchment, while, in all probability, runes
supplied the place of letters, and stones, or the _beech_-wood from
which their name is derived, of _books_. Again, the traditions embodied
in the epic, are preeminently those of kings and princes: they are
heroical, devoted to celebrate the divine or half-divine founders of a
race, the fortunes of their warlike descendants, the manners and mode of
life of military adventurers, not the obscure progress, household peace
and orderly habits of the humble husbandman. They are full of feasts and
fighting, shining arms and golden goblets: the gods mingle among men
almost their equals, share in the same pursuits, are animated by the
same passions of love, and jealousy and hatred; or, blending the divine
with the mortal nature, become the founders of races, kingly because
derived from divinity itself. But one race knows little of another or
its traditions, and cares as little for them. Alliances or wars alone
bring them in contact with one another; and the terms of intercourse
between the races will for the most part determine the character under
which foreign heroes shall be admitted into the national epos, or
whether they shall be admitted at all. All history then, which is
founded in any degree upon epical tradition (and national history is
usually more or less so founded) must be to that extent imperfect, if
not inaccurate; only when corrected by the written references of
contemporaneous authors, can we assign any certainty to its records[49].

Let us apply these observations to the early events of Saxon history: of
Kent indeed we have the vague and uncertain notices which I have
mentioned: even more vague and uncertain are those of Sussex and Wessex.
Of the former, we learn that in the year 477, Ælli, with three sons,
Cymen, Wlencing and Cissa, landed in Sussex; that in the year 485 they
defeated the Welsh, and that in 491 they destroyed the population of
Anderida[50]. Not another word is there about Sussex, before the arrival
of Augustine, except a late assertion of the military preeminence of
Ælli among the Saxon chieftains. The events of Wessex are somewhat
better detailed; we learn that in 495 two nobles, Cerdic and Cyneríc,
came to England, and landed at Cerdices ora, where on the same day they
fought a battle: that in 501 they were followed by a noble named Port,
who with his two sons Bieda and Mægla made a forcible landing at
Portsmouth: and that in 508 they gained a great battle over a British
king, whom they slew together with five thousand of his people. In 514
Stuff and Wihtgár, their nephews, brought them a reinforcement of three
ships; in 519 they again defeated the Britons, and established the
kingdom of Wessex. In 527 a new victory is recorded: in 530, the Isle of
Wight was subdued and given to Wihtgár; and in 534, Cerdic died, and was
succeeded by Cyneríc, who reigned twenty-six years[51]. In 544 Wihtgár
died. A victory of Cyneríc in 552 and 556, and Ceawlin’s accession to
the throne of Wessex are next recorded. Wars of the Westsaxon kings are
noted in 568, 571, 577, 584. From 590 to 595 a king of that race named
Ceól is mentioned: in 591 we learn the expulsion of Ceawlin from power:
in 593 the deaths of Ceawlin, Cwichelm and Crida are mentioned, and in
597, the year of Augustine’s arrival, we learn that Ceólwulf ascended
the throne of Wessex.

Footnote 49:

The Homeric poems and those of the Edda are obvious examples: but
nothing can be more instructive than the _history_ which Livy and Saxo
Grammaticus have woven out of similar materials.

Footnote 50:

Sax. Chron. under the respective dates.

Footnote 51:

Cerdic and Cyneríc landed in 495, after forty years Cerdic dies, and
Cyneríc reigns twenty-six more!

Meagre as these details are, they far exceed what is related of
Northumberland, Essex or Eastanglia. In 547 we are told that Ida began
to reign in the first of these kingdoms; and that he was succeeded in
560 by Ælli: that after a reign of _thirty_ years[52], he died in 588
and was succeeded by Æðelríc, who again in 593 was succeeded by
Æðelfrið. This is all we learn of Northumbria; of Mercia, Essex,
Eastanglia, and the innumerable kingdoms that must have been comprised
under these general appellations, we hear not a single word.

-----

Footnote 52:

The chronology is inconsistent throughout, and it is inconceivable
that it should have been otherwise. Beda himself assigns different
dates to the arrival of the Saxons, though it is the æra from which he
frequently reckons.

-----

If this be all that we can now recover of events, a great number of
which must have fallen within the lives of those to whom Augustine
preached, what credit shall we give to the inconsistent accounts of
earlier actions? How shall we supply the almost total want of
information respecting the first settlements? What explanation have we
to give of the alliance between Jutes, Angles and Saxons which preceded
the invasions of England? What knowledge will these records supply of
the real number and quality of the chieftains, the language and blood of
the populations who gradually spread themselves from the Atlantic to the
Frith of Forth; of the remains of Roman cultivation, or the amount of
British power with which they had to contend? of the vicissitudes of
good and evil fortune which visited the independent principalities,
before they were swallowed up in the kingdoms of the heptarchy, or the
extent of the influence which they retained after that event? On all
these several points we are left entirely in the dark; and yet these are
facts which it most imports us to know, if we would comprehend the
growth of a society which endured for at least seven hundred years in
England, and formed the foundation of that in which we live.

Lappenberg has devoted several pages of his elaborate history[53] to an
investigation of the Kentish legends, with a view to demonstrate their
traditional, that is unhistorical, character. He has shown that the best
authorities are inconsistent with one another and with themselves, in
assigning the period of Hengest’s arrival in England. Carefully
comparing the dates of the leading events, as given from the soundest
sources, he has proved beyond a doubt, that all these periods are
calculated upon a mythical number 8, whose multiples recur in every year
assigned. Thus the periods of twenty-four, sixteen, eight and
particularly forty years meet us at every turn; and a somewhat similar
tendency may, I think, be observed in the earlier dates of Westsaxon
history cited in a preceding page. It is also very probable that the
early genealogies of the various Anglosaxon kings were arranged in
series of eight names, including always the great name of Wóden[54].

Footnote 53:

Thorpe’s Lappenb. i. 78 _seq._

Footnote 54:

Beówulf, ii. Postscript to the Preface, xxvii.

The result of all these enquiries is, to guard against plausible details
which can only mislead us. If we endeavour to destroy the credit of
traditions which have long existed, it is only to put something in their
place, inconsistent with them, but of more value: to reduce them to what
they really are, lest their authority should render the truth more
obscure, and its pursuit more difficult than is necessary; but to use
them wherever they seem capable of guiding our researches, and are not
irreconcilable with our other conclusions.

Far less in the fabulous records adopted by historians, than in the
divisions of the land itself, according to the populations that occupied
it, and the rank of their several members, must the truth be sought. The
names of the tribes and families have survived in the localities where
they settled, while their peculiar forms of customary law have become as
it were melted together into one general system; and the national
legends which each of them most probably possessed, have either perished
altogether, or are now to be traced only in proper names which fill up
the genealogies of the royal families[55]. To these local names I shall
return hereafter; they will furnish a strong confirmation of what has
been advanced in this chapter as to the probability of an early and wide
dispersion of Teutonic settlers in Britain.

Footnote 55:

Geát, the eponymus of a race, Geátas, is found in the common genealogy
previous to Wóden; his legend is alluded to in the Codex Exoniensis,
pp. 377, 378, together with those of Ðeódríc, Wéland and Eormanríc.
Witta in the Kentish line is found in the Traveller’s Song, l. 43.
Offa in the Mercian genealogy occurs in the same poem, l. 69, in the
fine epos of Beówulf, and in Saxo Grammaticus. Fin the son of
Folcwalda is one of the heroes of Beówulf. Scyld, Sceáf and Beówa are
found in the same poem, etc. These facts render it probable that many
other, if not all the names in the genealogies were equally derived
from the peculiar national or gentile legends, although the epic poems
in which they were celebrated being now lost, we are unable to point
to them as we have done to others.

CHAPTER II.
THE MARK.

All that we learn of the original principle of settlement, prevalent
either in England or on the continent of Europe, among the nations of
Germanic blood, rests upon two main foundations; first, the possession
of land; second, the distinction of rank; and the public law of every
Teutonic tribe implies the dependence of one upon the other principle,
to a greater or less extent. Even as he who is not free can, at first,
hold no land within the limits of the community, so is he who holds no
land therein, not fully free, whatever his personal rank or character
may be. Thus far the Teutonic settler differs but little from the
ancient Spartiate or the comrade of Romulus.

The particular considerations which arise from the contemplation of
these principles in their progressive development, will find their place
in the several chapters of this Book: it deals with land held in
community, and severalty; with the nature and accidents of tenure; with
the distinction and privileges of the various classes of citizens, the
free, the noble and the serf; and with the institutions by which a
mutual guarantee of life, honour and peaceful possession was attempted
to be secured among the Anglosaxons. These are the _incunabula_, first
principles and rudiments of the English law[56]; and in these it
approaches, and assimilates to, the system which the German conquerors
introduced into every state which they founded upon the ruins of the
Roman power.

Footnote 56:

“Incunabula et rudimenta virtutis.” Cic. de Off.

As land may be held by many men in common, or by several households,
under settled conditions it is expedient to examine separately the
nature and character of these tenures: and first to enquire into the
forms of possession in common; for upon this depends the political being
of the state, its constitutional law, and its relative position towards
other states. Among the Anglosaxons land so held in common was
designated by the names Mark, and Gâ or Shire.

The smallest and simplest of these common divisions is that which we
technically call a Mark or March (mearc); a word less frequent in the
Anglosaxon than the German muniments, only because the system founded
upon what it represents yielded in England earlier than in Germany to
extraneous influences. This is the first general division, the next in
order to the private estates or alods of the Markmen: as its name
denotes, it is something marked out or defined, having settled
boundaries; something serving as a sign to others, and distinguished by
signs. It is the plot of land on which a greater or lesser number of
free men have settled for purposes of cultivation, and for the sake of
mutual profit and protection; and it comprises a portion both of arable
land and pasture, in proportion to the numbers that enjoy its
produce[57].

However far we may pursue our researches into the early records of our
forefathers, we cannot discover a period at which this organization was
unknown. Whatever may have been the original condition of the German
tribes, tradition and history alike represent them to us as living
partly by agriculture, partly by the pasturing of cattle[58]. They had
long emerged from the state of wandering herdsmen, hunters or fishers,
when they first attracted the notice, and disputed or repelled the
power, of Rome. The peculiar tendencies of various tribes may have
introduced peculiar modes of placing or constructing their habitations;
but of no German population is it stated, that they dwelt in tents like
the Arab, in waggons like the Scythian, or in earth-dug caverns like the
troglodytes of Wallachia: the same authority that tells of some who
lived alone as the hill-side or the fresh spring pleased them[59],
notices the villages, the houses and even the fortresses, of others.

-----

Footnote 57:

“Agri, pro numero cultorum, ab universis per vices occupantur, quos
mox inter se, secundum dignationem, partiuntur; facilitatem partiendi
camporum spatia praestant.” Tac. Germ. 26.

Footnote 58:

“Sola terrae seges imperatur,” they raise corn, but not fruits or
vegetables. Tac. Germ. 26. “>Frumenti modum dominus, aut pecoris, aut
vestis, ut colono, iniungit; et servus hactenus paret.” Ibid. 25.
Hordeum, and frumentum. Ibid. 23.

Footnote 59:

“Colunt discreti ac diversi, ut fons, ut campus, ut nemus placuit.
Vicos locant, non in nostrum morem, connexis et cohaerentibus
aedificiis; suam quisque domum spatio circumdat.” Tac. Germ. 16. When
Tacitus speaks of caverns dug in the earth, it is as granaries (which
may to this day be seen in Hungary) or as places of refuge from sudden
invasion.

Without commerce, means of extended communication, or peaceful
neighbours, the Germans cannot have cultivated their fields for the
service of strangers: they must have been consumers, as they certainly
were raisers, of bread-corn; early documents of the Anglosaxons prove
that considerable quantities of wheat were devoted to this purpose. Even
the serfs and domestic servants were entitled to an allowance of bread,
in addition to the supply of flesh[60]; and the large quantities of ale
and beer which we find enumerated among the dues payable from the land,
or in gifts to religious establishments, presume a very copious supply
of cereals for the purpose of malting[61]. But it is also certain that
our forefathers depended very materially for subsistence upon the herds
of oxen, sheep, and especially swine, which they could feed upon the
unenclosed meadows, or in the wealds of oak and beech which covered a
large proportion of the land. From the moment, in short, when we first
learn anything of their domestic condition, all the German tribes appear
to be settled upon arable land, surrounded with forest pastures, and
having some kind of property in both.

Footnote 60:

On xii mónðum ðú scealt sillan ðínum þeówan men vii hund hláfa ⁊ xx
hláfa, bútan morgemettum ⁊ nónmettum: in the course of twelve months
thou shalt give thy þeów or serf, seven hundred and twenty loaves,
besides morning meals and noon meals. Sal. and Sat. p. 192. We should
perhaps read seven hundred and thirty, which would give daily two
loaves, probably of rye or barley. Compare the allowances mentioned in
the Rectitudines Singularum Personarum. Anc. Laws. Thorpe, i. 432
_seq._

Footnote 61:

So from the earliest times: “Potui humor ex hordeo aut frumento, in
quandam similitudinem vini corruptus.” Tac. Germ. 23.

Caesar, it is true, denies that agriculture was much cultivated among
the Germans, or that property in the arable land was permitted to be
permanent[62]: and, although it seems impolitic to limit the efforts of
industry, by diminishing its reward, it is yet conceivable that, under
peculiar circumstances, a warlike confederation might overlook this
obvious truth in their dread of the enervating influences of property
and a settled life. There may have been difficulty in making a new
yearly division of land, which to our prejudices seems almost
impossible; yet the Arab of Oran claims only the produce of the seed he
has sown[63]; the proprietor in the Jaghire district of Madras changes
his lands from year to year[64]: the tribes of the Afghans submit to a
new distribution even after a ten years’ possession has endeared the
field to the cultivator[65]; Diodorus tells us that the Vaccaeans
changed their lands yearly and divided the produce[66]; and Strabo
attributed a similar custom to one tribe at least of the Illyrian
Dalmatians, after a period of seven[67].

-----

Footnote 62:

“Agriculturae non student: maiorque pars victus eorum in lacte, caseo,
carne consistit: neque quisquam agri modum certum aut fines habet
proprios; sed magistratus ac principes in annos singulos gentibus
cognationibusque hominum, qui una coierint, quantum, et quo loco visum
est, agri adtribuunt, atque anno post alio transire cogunt. Eius rei
multas adferunt causas; ne, adsidua consuetudine capti, studium belli
gerundi agricultura commutent;” etc. Bell. Gall. vi. 22.

Footnote 63:

The administration of Oran. Times newspaper, Aug. 24th, 1844.

Footnote 64:

Fifth Rep., Committee, 1810, p. 723, cited in Mill’s Brit. India, i.
315.

Footnote 65:

Elphinstone’s Caubul, ii. 17, 18, 19.

Footnote 66:

Diodorus, v. 34.

Footnote 67:

Strabo, bk. vii. p. 315.

-----

But so deeply does the possession of land enter into the principle of
all the Teutonic institutions, that I cannot bring myself to believe in
the accuracy of Caesar’s statement. Like his previous rash and most
unfounded assertion respecting the German gods, this may rest only upon
the incorrect information of Gallic provincials: at the utmost it can be
applied only to the Suevi and their warlike allies[68], if it be not
even intended to be confined to the predatory bands of Ariovistus,
encamped among the defeated yet hostile Sequani[69]. The equally
well-known passage of Tacitus,—“arva per annos mutant, et superest
ager[70],”—may be most safely rendered as applying to the common mode of
culture; “they change the arable from year to year, and there is land to
spare;” that is, for commons and pasture: but it does not amount to a
proof that settled property in land was not a part of the Teutonic
scheme; it implies no more than this, that within the Mark which was the
property of all, what was this year one man’s corn-land, might the next
be another man’s fallow; a process very intelligible to those who know
anything of the system of cultivation yet prevalent in parts of Germany,
or have ever had any interest in what we call Lammas Meadows.

Footnote 68:

Harudes, Marcomanni, Tribocci, Vangiones, Nemetes and Sedusii. Bell.
Gall. i. 51.

Footnote 69:

Bell. Gall. i. 31.

Footnote 70:

Tac. Germ. 26.

Zeuss, whose admirable work[71] is indispensable to the student of
Teutonic antiquity, brings together various passages to show that at
some early period, the account given by Caesar may have conveyed a just
description of the mode of life in Germany[72]. He represents its
inhabitants to himself as something between a settled and an unsettled
people. What they may have been in periods previous to the dawn of
authentic history, it is impossible to say; but all that we really know
of them not only implies a much more advanced state of civilization, but
the long continuance and tradition of such a state. We cannot admit the
validity of Zeuss’ reasoning, or escape from the conviction that it
mainly results from a desire to establish his etymology of the names
borne by the several confederations, and which requires the hypothesis
of wandering and unsettled tribes[73].

Footnote 71:

Die Deutschen und die Nachbarstämme, von Kaspar Zeuss. München. 1837.

Footnote 72:

He cites the passage from Caesar which I have quoted, and also Bell.
Gall. iv. 1, which still applies only to the Suevi. His next evidence
is the assertion of Tacitus just noticed. His third is from Plutarch’s
Aemil. Paul. c. 12, of the Bastarnae: ἄνδρες οὐ γεωργεῖν εἰδότες, οὐ
πλεῖν, οὐκ ἀπὸ ποιμνίων ζῆν νέμοντες, ἀλλ’ ἓν ἕργον καὶ μίαν τέχνην
μελετῶντες, ἁεὶ μάχεσθαι καὶ κρατεῖν τῶν ἀντιταττομένων. A people
without agriculture or commerce, and who live only on fighting, may be
left undisturbed in the realm of dreams with which philosophers are
conversant. Zeuss proceeds to reason upon the analogy of examples
derived from notices of Britons, Kelts and Wends, in Strabo, Polybius
and Dio Cassius. See p. 52, etc.

Footnote 73:

Thus, according to his view, Suevi (Suáp, Swǽf) denotes the wanderers;
Wandal also the wanderers. Assuredly if nations at large partook of
such habits, single tribes could not have derived a name from the
custom. How much more easy would it be, upon similar etymological
grounds, to prove that the leading Teutonic nations were named from
their weapons! Saxons from _seax_, the long knife; Angles from
_angol_, a hook; Franks from _franca_, a javelin; Langobards and
Heaðobards from _barda_, the axe or halberd; nay even the general name
itself, Germans, from _gárman_ (Old Germ. _kérman_) the javelin- or
goad-man. Yet who would assert these to be satisfactory derivations?
Zahn, whose services to Old German literature cannot be overrated,
speaks wisely when he calls the similarity of proper names, a rock “on
which uncritical heads are much in the habit of splitting.” Vorrede zu
Ulphilas, p. 3.

The word Mark has a legal as well as a territorial meaning: it is not
only a space of land, such as has been described, but a member of a
state also; in which last sense it represents those who dwell upon the
land, in relation to their privileges and rights, both as respects
themselves and others. But the word, as applied even to the territory,
has a twofold meaning: it is, properly speaking, employed to denote not
only the whole district occupied by one small community[74]; but more
especially those forests and wastes by which the arable is enclosed, and
which separate the possessions of one tribe from those of another[75].
The Mark or boundary pasture-land, and the cultivated space which it
surrounds, and which is portioned out to the several members of the
community, are inseparable; however different the nature of the property
which can be had in them, they are in fact one whole; taken together,
they make up the whole territorial possession of the original
_cognatio_, kin or tribe. The ploughed lands and meadows are guarded by
the Mark; and the cultivator ekes out a subsistence which could hardly
be wrung from the small plot he calls his own, by the flesh and other
produce of beasts, which his sons, his dependents or his serfs mast for
him in the outlying forests.

-----

Footnote 74:

If a man be emancipated, his lord shall still retain the right to his
mund and wergyld, sý ofer mearce ðǽr he wille, _be he over the mark
wherever he may be_, be he out of the district where he may. Ll.
Wihtr. § 8. Thorpe, i. 38.

Footnote 75:

Grimm is of opinion that the word Marc itself originally denoted
_forest_, and that the modern sense is a secondary one, derived from
the fact of forests being the signs or marks of communities. Deut.
Gränzalterthümer; Berl. 1844. There can be no doubt that forests were
so: in Old Norse the two ideas, and the words by which they are
expressed, flow into one another: Mörk (f) is _silva_, Mark (n) is
_limes_. In the Edda and Sögur, Myrkviðr is the common name for a
wood: thus, sem þessi her kom saman, riða þeir á skóg þan er Myrkviðr
heitir, hann skilr Húnaland ok Reiðgota land; they ride to the forest
which is called Myrkviðr (mearcwidu in Anglosaxon) which separates
Huna land from Reidgota land. Fornm. Sög. i. 496. Though given here as
a proper name, it is unquestionably a general one. Conf. Edda, Völund.
cv. 1.

meyjar flugu sunnan
myrkvið igögnum.

and so in many passages. The darkness of the forest gives rise also to
the adjective _murky_.

-----

Let us first take into consideration the Mark in its restricted and
proper sense of a boundary. Its most general characteristic is, that it
should not be distributed in arable, but remain in heath, forest, fen
and pasture. In it the Markmen—called in Germany Markgenossen, and
perhaps by the Anglosaxons Mearcgeneátas—had commonable rights; but
there could be no private estate in it, no híd or hlot, no κλῆρος, or
_haeredium_. Even if under peculiar circumstances, any markman obtained
a right to essart or clear a portion of the forest, the portion so
subjected to the immediate law of property ceased to be mark. It was
undoubtedly under the protection of the gods; and it is probable that
within its woods were those sacred shades especially consecrated to the
habitation and service of the deity[76].

-----

Footnote 76:

Tacitus says of the Semnones: “Stato tempore in silvam, auguriis
patrum et prisca formidine sacram, omnes eiusdem sanguinis populi
legationibus coeunt, caesoque publice homine celebrant barbari ritus
horrenda primordia. Est et alia luco reverentia. Nemo nisi vinculo
ligatus ingreditur, ut minor, et potestatem numinis prae se ferens. Si
forte prolapsus est, attolli et insurgere haud licitum, per humum
evolvuntur: eoque omnis superstitio respicit, tanquam inde initia
gentis, ibi regnator omnium deus, cetera subiecta atque parentia.”
Germ. 39. Again: “Apud Naharvalos antiquae religionis lucus
ostenditur.” Ibid. 43. Without asserting the existence of the Mark
among the Greeks with all the peculiar German characteristics, we may
borrow from them an illustration and definition of its nature. Between
the territories of the Athenians and Megareans lay a tract of land,
the cultivation of which by the latter formed the pretext or
justification of the excommunication launched against them by
“Olympian” Pericles, which ultimately led to the Peloponesian war, and
the downfal of Athens. The Athenians, Thucydides tells us, refused to
rescind their intemperate decree, ἐπικαλοῦντες ἐπεργασίαν Μεγαρεῦσι
τῆς γῆς τῆς ἱερας καὶ τῆς ἀορίστου· (Lib. i. 139), where the Scholiast
explains ἀορίστου by οὐ σπειρομένης. _Sacred and not divided into
plots for cultivation by the plough_, is the exact definition of a
Teutonic Mark. Compare χοίριος νάπη (silva porcina) between Laconia
and Messenia. Paus. iv. 1. In the legend of St. Gúðlác, the saint is
said to occupy the desert wilderness, mearclond, the mark (Codex
Exoniensis, p. 112, l. 16), and this is accurately defined as ídel ⁊
ǽmen, éðelrihte feor, _empty and uninhabited, in which there were no
rights of property_. Ibid. p. 115. l. 9.

-----

If the nature of an early Teutonic settlement, which has nothing in
common with a city, be duly considered, there will appear an obvious
necessity for the existence of a mark, and for its being maintained
inviolate. Every community, not sheltered by walls, or the still firmer
defences of public law, must have one, to separate it from neighbours
and protect it from rivals: it is like the outer pulp that surrounds and
defends the kernel. No matter how small or how large the community,—it
may be only a village, even a single household, or a whole state,—it
will still have a Mark, a space or boundary by which its own rights of
jurisdiction are limited, and the encroachments of others are kept
off[77]. The more extensive the community which is interested in the
Mark, the more solemn and sacred the formalities by which it is
consecrated and defended; but even the boundary of the private man’s
estate is under the protection of the gods and of the law. “Accursed,”
in all ages and all legislations, “is he that removeth his neighbour’s
landmark.” Even the owner of a private estate is not allowed to build or
cultivate to the extremity of his own possession, but must leave a space
for eaves[78]. Nor is the general rule abrogated by changes in the
original compass of the communities; as smaller districts coalesce and
become, as it were, compressed into one body, the smaller and original
Marks may become obliterated and converted merely into commons, but the
public mark will have been increased upon the new and extended frontier.
Villages tenanted by Heardingas or Módingas may cease to be separated,
but the larger divisions which have grown up by their union, Meanwaras,
Mægsetan or Hwiccas[79] will still have a boundary of their own; these
again may be lost in the extending circuit of Wessex or Mercia; till a
yet greater obliteration of the Marks having been produced through
increasing population, internal conquest, or the ravages of foreign
invaders, the great kingdom of England at length arises, having wood and
desolate moorland and mountain as its mark against Scots, Cumbrians and
Britons, and the eternal sea itself as a bulwark against Frankish and
Frisian pirates[80].

Footnote 77:

Caesar appears to have understood this. He says: “Civitatibus maxima
laus est, quam latissimas circum se vastatis finibus solitudines
habere. Hoc proprium virtutis existimant, expulsos agris finitumos
cedere, neque quemquam prope audere consistere: simul hoc se fore
tutiores arbitrantur, repentinae incursionis timore sublato.” This is
true, but in the case of most settlements the necessity of maintaining
extensive pasture-grounds must have made itself felt at a very early
period.

Footnote 78:

Efese. Goth. Ubiswa. The name for this custom was Yfesdrype,
_Eavesdrip_. In a charter of the year 868 it is said: “And by the
custom (folces folcriht) two feet space only need be left for
eavesdrip on this land.” Cod. Dipl. No. 296. In Greece the distances
were solemnly regulated by law: see Plut. Solon, cap. 23.

Footnote 79:

The people in the hundreds of East and West Meon, Hampshire; in
Herefordshire; and in Worcester and Gloucester.

Footnote 80:

To a very late period, the most powerful of our nobles were the Lords
Marchers or Lords of the Marches of Wales and Scotland. Harald was
lord of the Marches against the Welsh. And so the hereditary
Markgraves or Counts of the Mark, Marchiones, have become kings in
Germany and Italy. Our only Markgraviats by land could be against the
Welsh on the west, the Picts and Scots on the north. There were
undoubtedly others among the Saxons while their kingdoms remained
unsettled: but not when once the whole realm became united under
Æðelstán. The consolidation of the English power has put down all but
transmarine invaders; hence the sea is become our Mark, and the
commanders of our ships, the Margraves. But, as Blackstone rather
beautifully says, “water is a wandering and uncertain thing,” and our
Margraves therefore establish no territorial authority. The reader is
referred to Dönniges, Deutsches Staatsrecht, p. 297, _seq._, for a
very good account of the Marches of the German Empire.

But although the Mark is waste, it is yet the property of the community:
it belongs to the freemen as a whole, not as a partible possession: it
may as little be profaned by the stranger, as the arable land itself
which it defends[81]. It is under the safeguard of the public law, long
after it has ceased to be under the immediate protection of the gods: it
is unsafe, full of danger; death lurks in its shades and awaits the
incautious or hostile visitant:

eal wæs ðæt mearclond all the markland was
morðre bewunden, with death surrounded,
feóndes fácne: the snares of the foe[82]:

punishments of the most frightful character are denounced against him
who violates it[83]; and though, in historical times, these can only be
looked upon as comminatory and symbolical, it is very possible that they
may be the records of savage sacrifices believed due, and even offered,
to the gods of the violated sanctuary. I can well believe that we too
had once our Diana Taurica. The Marks are called accursed; that is
accursed to man, accursed to him that does not respect their sanctity:
but they are sacred, for on their maintenance depend the safety of the
community, and the service of the deities whom that community
honours[84]. And even when the gods have abdicated their ancient power,
even to the very last, the terrors of superstition come in aid of the
enactments of law: the deep forests and marshes are the abodes of
monsters and dragons; wood-spirits bewilder and decoy the wanderer to
destruction: the Nicors house by the side of lakes and marshes[85]:
Grendel, the man-eater, is a “mighty stepper over the mark[86]”: the
chosen home of the firedrake is a fen[87].

Footnote 81:

If a stranger come through _the wood_, he shall blow his horn and
shout: this will be evidence that his intentions are just and
peaceful. But if he attempt to slink through in secret, he may be
slain, and shall lie unavenged. Leg. Ini. § 20, 21. Thorpe, i. 114,
116. If the deathblow under such circumstances be publicly avouched,
his kindred or lord shall not even be allowed to prove that he was not
a thief: otherwise, if the manslaughter be concealed. This raises a
presumption in law against the slayer, and the dead man’s kindred
shall be admitted to their oath that he was guiltless.

Footnote 82:

Cod. Vercel. And. l. 38.

Footnote 83:

Grimm has given examples of these, but they are too horrible for
quotation. They may be read in his Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, pp.
518, 519, 520.

Footnote 84:

I am inclined to think that the cwealmstow or place of execution was
properly in the mark; as it is indeed probable that all capital
punishments among the Germans were originally in the nature of
sacrifices to the gods. When Juliana is about to be put to death, she
is taken to the border, londmearce neáh, nigh to the landmark. Cod.
Exon. p. 280. Prometheus hung in the ἄβροτος ἐρημία: though perhaps
there is another and deeper feeling here,—that the friend of man
should suffer in the desert

“where no man comes,
Nor hath come, since the making of the world!”

Footnote 85:

Beów. l. 2822.

Footnote 86:

Beów. l. 2695. micle mearcstapan.

Footnote 87:

“Like to a lonely dragon, that his fen
Makes fear’d and talk’d of more than seen.”
Shaksp. Coriol. act iv. sc. 1.

The natural tendency, however, of this state of isolation is to give
way; population is an ever-active element of social well-being: and when
once the surface of a country has become thickly studded with
communities settled between the Marks, and daily finding the several
clearings grow less and less sufficient for their support[88], the next
step is the destruction of the Marks themselves, and the union of the
settlers in larger bodies, and under altered circumstances. Take two
villages, placed on such clearings in the bosom of the forest, each
having an ill-defined boundary in the wood that separates them, each
extending its circuit woodward as population increases and presses upon
the land, and each attempting to drive its Mark further into the waste,
as the arable gradually encroaches upon this. On the first meeting of
the herdsmen, one of three courses appears unavoidable: the communities
must enter into a federal union; one must attack and subjugate the
other; or the two must coalesce into one on friendly and equal
terms[89]. The last-named result is not improbable, if the gods of the
one tribe are common to the other: then perhaps the temples only may
shift their places a little. But in any case the intervening forest will
cease to be Mark, because it will now lie in the centre, and not on the
borders of the new community. It will be converted into common pasture,
to be enjoyed by all on fixed conditions; or it may even be gradually
rooted out, ploughed, planted and rendered subject to the ordinary
accidents of arable land: it will become _folcland_, public land,
applicable to the general uses of the enlarged state, nay even divisible
into private estates, upon the established principles of public law. And
this process will be repeated and continue until the family becomes a
tribe, and the tribe a kingdom; when the intervening boundary lands,
cleared, drained and divided, will have been clothed with golden
harvests, or portioned out in meadows and common pastures, appurtenant
to villages; and the only marks remaining will be the barren mountain
and moor of the frontiers, the deep unforded rivers, and the great ocean
that washes the shores of the continent.

-----

Footnote 88:

“Facilitatem partiendi camporum spatia praestant.” Tac. Germ. 26. But
as the space diminishes, so also diminishes the stability of a form of
society founded upon its existence.

Footnote 89:

History supplies numerous illustrations of this process. Rome grew out
of the union of the Rhamnes and Luceres with the Sabines: and
generally speaking in Greece, the origin of the πόλις lies in what may
be called the compression of the κώμαι. The ἀγορὰ is on the space of
neutral ground where all may meet on equal terms, as the Russians and
Chinese trade at Kiachta: but then when the πόλις has grown up, the
ἀγορὰ is in its centre, not in its suburbs.

-----

Christianity, which destroys or diminishes the holiness of the forests,
necessarily confines the guarantee of the Mark to the public law of the
state. Hence when these districts become included within the limits of
Christian communities, there is no difficulty in the process which has
been described: the state deals with them as with any other part of its
territory, by its own sovereign power, according to the prevalent ideas
of agricultural or political œconomy; and the once inviolate land may at
once be converted to public uses, widely different from its original
destination, if the public advantage require it. No longer necessary as
a boundary, from the moment when the smaller community has become
swallowed up and confounded in the larger, it may remain in commons, be
taken possession of by the state as folcland, or become the source of
even private estates, and to all these purposes we find it gradually
applied. In process of time it seems even to have become partible and
appurtenant to private estates in a certain proportion to the
arable[90]: towards the close of the tenth century I find the grant of a
mill and millstead, “and thereto as much of the markland as belongeth to
three hydes”[91].

-----

Footnote 90:

Most likely as commons are distributed now, under enclosure-bills;
allotments being made in fee, as compensation for commonable rights.

Footnote 91:

And se mylenham ⁊ se myln ðǽrtó, ⁊ ðæs mearclandes swá mycel swá tó
þrim hidon gebyrað. an. 982. Cod. Dipl. No. 633.

-----

The general advantage which requires the maintenance of the Mark as
public property, does not however preclude the possibility of using it
for public purposes, as long as the great condition of indivisibility is
observed. Although it may not be cleared and ploughed, it may be
depastured, and all the herds of the Markmen may be fed and masted upon
its wilds and within its shades. While it still comprises only a belt of
forest, lying between small settlements, those who live contiguous to
it, are most exposed to the sudden incursions of an enemy, and perhaps
specially entrusted with the measures for public defence, may have
peculiar privileges, extending in certain cases even to the right of
clearing or essarting portions of it. In the case of the wide tracts
which separate kingdoms, we know that a comprehensive military
organization prevailed, with castles, garrisons, and governors or
Margraves, as in Austria, Brandenburg and Baden, Spoleto and Ancona,
Northumberland and the Marches of Wales. But where clearings have been
made in the forest, the holders are bound to see that they are
maintained, and that the fresh arable land be not encroached upon; if
forest-trees spring there by neglect of the occupant, the essart again
becomes forest, and, as such, subject to all the common rights of the
Markmen, whether in pasture, chase or estovers[92].

-----

Footnote 92:

_Estoveria._ In this case, small wood necessary for household
purposes, as Housebote, Hedgebote and Ploughbote, the materials for
repairing house, hedge and plough. But timber trees are not included.
See Stat. West. 2. cap. 25; and 20 Car. II. c. 3.

-----

The sanctity of the Mark is the condition and guarantee of its
indivisibility, without which it cannot long be proof against the
avarice or ambition of individuals: and its indivisibility is, in turn,
the condition of the service which it is to render as a bulwark, and of
its utility as a pasture. I therefore hold it certain that some solemn
religious ceremonies at first accompanied and consecrated its
limitation[93]. What these may have consisted in, among the heathen
Anglosaxons, we cannot now discover, but many circumstances render it
probable that Wóden, who in this function also resembles Ἑρμῆς, was the
tutelary god[94]: though not absolutely to the exclusion of other
deities, Tiw and Frea appearing to have some claim to a similar
distinction[95]. But however its limit was originally drawn or driven,
it was, as its name denotes, distinguished by marks or signs. Trees of
peculiar size and beauty, and carved with the figures of birds and
beasts, perhaps even with Runic characters, served the purpose of
limitation and definition[96]: striking natural features, a hill, a
brook, a morass, a rock, or the artificial mound of an ancient warrior,
warned the intruder to abstain from dangerous ground, or taught the
herdsman how far he might advance with impunity. In water or in marshy
land, poles were set up, which it was as impious to remove, as it would
have been to cut or burn down a mark-tree in the forest.

-----

Footnote 93:

“Silvam auguriis patrum et prisca formidine sacram.” Tac. Germ. 39.
See Möser, Osnabrückische Geschichte, i. 57, _seq._

Footnote 94:

Ἑρμῆς, in this one sense Mercurius, is identical with Wóden. Both
invented letters; both are the wandering god; both are Odysseus. The
name of Wóden is preserved in many boundary places, or chains of
hills, in every part of England. See chap. xii. of this Book. The
Wónác (Cod. Dipl. No. 495), the Wónstoc (ibid. Nos. 287, 657), I have
no hesitation in translating by Wóden’s oak, Wóden’s post. Scyldes
treów (ibid. No. 436) may also refer to Wóden in the form of Scyld, as
Hnices þorn (ibid. No. 268) may record the same god in his form of
Hnicor, or Hnic.

Footnote 95:

Teowes þorn, Tiw’s thorn. Cod. Dipl. No. 174. Tiwes mére, Tiw’s lake.
Ibid. No. 262. Frigedæges treów (ibid. No. 1221), the tree of
Frigedæg, a name I hold equivalent to Frea or Fricge.

Footnote 96:

The boundaries of the Anglosaxon charters supply a profusion of
evidence on this subject. The trees most frequently named are the oak,
ash, beech, thorn, elder, lime and birch. The heathen burial-place or
mound is singularly frequent. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 247, 335, 476. The
charter No. 126 has these words: “Deinde vero ad alios monticulos,
postea vero ad viam quae dicitur Fíf ác, recto itinere ad easdem fíf
ác, proinde autem ad þreom gemǽran.” Here the boundaries of three
several districts lay close to a place called _Five Oaks_. That the
trees were sometimes marked is clear from the entries in the
boundaries: thus, in the year 931, tó ðære gemearcodan ǽc æt
Alerburnan, _the marked oak_. Cod. Dipl. No. 1102. ða gemearcodan
æfse, _the marked eaves_ or edge of the wood. Ibid. Also, on ða
gemearcodan lindan. Ibid. No. 1317. Cyrstelmæl ác, or Christ cross
oak. Ibid. No. 118. At Addlestone, near Chertsey, is an ancient and
most venerable oak, called the Crouch (crux, crois), that is Cross
oak, which tradition declares to have been a boundary of Windsor
forest. The same thing is found in Circassia. See Bell, ii. 58. The
mearcbeám, without further definition, is common: so the mearctreów.
Cod. Dipl. No. 436. The mearcbróc. Ibid. No. 1102. Artificial or
natural stone posts are implied by the constantly recurring háran
stánas, grǽgan stánas, _hoary_ or _grey_ stones. Among Christians,
crosses and obelisks have replaced these old heathen symbols, without
altering the nature of the sanction, and the _weichbild_, or mark that
defines the limits of a jurisdiction, can, in my opinion, mean only
the _sacred_ sign. On this point see Haltaus. Gloss. in voce, whose
derivation from wíc, _oppidum_, is unsatisfactory. See too Eichhorn,
Deutsche Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte, ii. 76. § 224 a. note _c_: with
whose decision Grimm and I coincide.

-----

In the second and more important sense of the word, the Mark is a
community of families or households, settled on such plots of land and
forest as have been described. This is the original basis upon which all
Teutonic society rests, and must be assumed to have been at first amply
competent to all the demands of society in a simple and early stage of
development: for example, to have been a union for the purpose of
administering justice, or supplying a mutual guarantee of peace,
security and freedom for the inhabitants of the district. In this
organization, the use of the land, the woods and the waters was made
dependent upon the general will of the settlers, and could only be
enjoyed under general regulations made by all for the benefit of all.
The Mark was a voluntary association of free men, who laid down for
themselves, and strictly maintained, a system of cultivation by which
the produce of the land on which they settled might be fairly and
equally secured for their service and support; and from participation in
which they jealously excluded all who were not born, or adopted, into
the association. Circumstances dependent upon the peculiar local
conformation of the district, or even on the relations of the original
parties to the contract, may have caused a great variety in the customs
of different Marks; and these appear occasionally anomalous, when we
meet with them still subsisting in a different order of social
existence[97]; but with the custom of one Mark, another had nothing to
do, and the Markmen, within their own limit, were independent,
sufficient to their own support and defence, and seised of full power
and authority to regulate their own affairs, as seemed most conducive to
their own advantage. The Court of the Markmen, as it may be justly
called, must have had supreme jurisdiction, at first, over all the
causes which could in any way affect the interests of the whole body or
the individuals composing it: and suit and service to such court was not
less the duty, than the high privilege, of the free settlers. On the
continent of Germany the divisions of the Marks and the extent of their
jurisdiction can be ascertained with considerable precision; from these
it maybe inferred that in very many cases the later courts of the great
landowners had been in fact at first Markcourts, in which, even long
after the downfall of the primæval freedom, the Lord, himself had been
only the first Markman, the patron or defender of the simple freemen,
either by inheritance or their election[98]. In this country, the want
of materials precludes the attainment of similar certainty, but there
can be no reason to doubt that the same process took place, and that
originally Markcourts existed among ourselves with the same objects and
powers. In a charter of the year 971, Cod. Dipl. No. 568, we find the
word _mearcmót_, which can there mean only the place where such a court,
_mót_ or meeting was held: while the _mearcbeorh_, which is not at all
of rare occurrence, appears to denote the hill or mound which was the
site of the court, and the place where the free settlers met at stated
periods to do right between man and man[99].

-----

Footnote 97:

For example in Manors, where the territorial jurisdiction of a lord
has usurped the place of the old Markmoot, but not availed entirely to
destroy the old Mark-rights in the various commons.

Footnote 98:

Numerous instances may be found in Grimm’s valuable work, Die
Deutschen Weisthümer, 3 vols. 8vo. These are the presentments or
verdicts of such courts, from a very early period, and in all parts of
Germany. It is deeply to be lamented that the _very early_ customs
found in the copies of Court Rolls in England have not been collected
and published. Such a step could not possibly affect the interests of
Lords of Manors, or their Stewards; but the collection would furnish
invaluable materials for law and history. We shall have to refer
hereafter to the Advocatus or Vogt, the elected or hereditary patron
of these and similar aggregations.

Footnote 99:

Mearcbeorh, the _Mark-hill_, seems too special a name to express some
hill or other, which happened to lie in the boundary. A Kentish
charter names the gemótbeorh (Cod. Dipl. No. 364. an. 934), but this
is indefinite, and might apply to the Shiremoot.

-----

It is not at all necessary that these communities should have been very
small; on the contrary, some of the Marks were probably of considerable
extent, and capable of bringing a respectable force into the field upon
emergency: others, no doubt, were less populous, and extensive: but a
hundred heads of houses, which is not at all an extravagant supposition,
protected by trackless forests, in a district not well known to the
invader, constitute a body very well able to defend its rights and
privileges.

Although the Mark seems originally to have been defined by the nature of
the district, the hills, streams and forests, still its individual,
peculiar and, as it were, private character depended in some degree also
upon long-subsisting relations of the Markmen, both among themselves,
and with regard to others. I represent them to myself as great family
unions, comprising households of various degrees of wealth, rank and
authority: some, in direct descent from the common ancestors, or from
the hero of the particular tribe: others, more distantly connected,
through the natural result of increasing population, which multiplies
indeed the members of the family, but removes them at every step further
from the original stock: some, admitted into communion by marriage,
others by adoption; others even by emancipation; but all recognizing a
brotherhood, a kinsmanship or _sibsceaft_[100]; all standing together as
one unit in respect of other, similar communities; all governed by the
same judges and led by the same captains; all sharing in the same
religious rites, and all known to themselves and to their neighbours by
one general name.

-----

Footnote 100:

Refer to Caesar’s expression _cognatio_, in a note to p. 39. It is
remarkable that early MS. glossaries render the word _fratrueles_ by
_gelondan_, which can only be translated, “those settled upon the same
land;” thus identifying the local with the family relations.

-----

The original significance of these names is now perhaps matter of
curious, rather than of useful enquiry. Could we securely determine it,
we should, beyond doubt, obtain an insight into the antiquities of the
Germanic races, far transcending the actual extent of our historical
knowledge; this it is hopeless now to expect: ages of continual
struggles, of violent convulsions, of conquests and revolutions, lie
between us and our forefathers: the traces of their steps have been
effaced by the inexorable march of a different civilization. This alone
is certain, that the distinction must have lain deeply rooted in the
national religion, and supplied abundant materials for the national
epos. Much has been irrecoverably lost, yet in what remains we recognize
fragments which bear the impress of former wealth and grandeur. Beówulf,
the Traveller’s Song, and the multifarious poems and traditions of
Scandinavia, not less than the scattered names which meet us here and
there in early German history, offer hints which can only serve to
excite regret for the mass which has perished. The kingdoms and empires
which have exercised the profoundest influence upon the course of modern
civilization, have sprung out of obscure communities whose very names
are only known to us through the traditions of the poet, or the local
denominations which record the sites of their early settlements.

Many hypotheses may be formed to account for these ancient aggregations,
especially on the continent of Europe. Perhaps not the least plausible
is that of a single family, itself claiming descent, through some hero,
from the gods, and gathering other scattered families around itself;
thus retaining the administration of the family rites of religion, and
giving its own name to all the rest of the community. Once established,
such distinctive appellations must wander with the migrations of the
communities themselves, or such portions of them as want of land and
means, and excess of population at home, compelled to seek new
settlements. In the midst of restless movements, so general and
extensive as those of our progenitors, it cannot surprise us, when we
find the gentile names of Germany, Norway, Sweden and Denmark,
reproduced upon our own shores. Even where a few adventurers—one
only—bearing a celebrated name, took possession of a new home, comrades
would readily be found, glad to constitute themselves around him under
an appellation long recognized as heroic: or a leader, distinguished for
his skill, his valour and success, his power or superior wealth, may
have found little difficulty in imposing the name of his own race upon
all who shared in his adventures. Thus Harlings and Wælsings, names most
intimately connected with the great epos of the Germanic and
Scandinavian races, are reproduced in several localities in England:
Billing, the noble progenitor of the royal race of Saxony, has more than
one enduring record: and similarly, I believe all the local
denominations of the early settlements to have arisen and been
perpetuated[101]. So much light appears derivable from a proper
investigation of these names, that I have collected them in an Appendix
(A.) at the end of this volume, to the contents of which the reader’s
attention is invited[102].

-----

Footnote 101:

The Harlings, in Anglosaxon Herelingas (Trav. Song, l. 224); Harlunge,
(W. Grimm, Deut. Heldensage, p. 280, etc.,) are found at Harling in
Norfolk and Kent, and at Harlington (Herelingatún) in Bedfordshire and
Middlesex. The Wælsings, in Old Norse Völsungar, the family of Sigurdr
or Siegfried, reappear at Walsingham in Norfolk, Wolsingham in
Northumberland, and Woolsingham in Durham. The Billings, at Billinge,
Billingham, Billinghoe, Billinghurst, Billingden, Billington, and many
other places. See Appendix A.

Footnote 102:

These local denominations are for the most part irregular
compositions, of which the former portion is a patronymic in -ing or
-ling, declined in the genitive plural. The second portion is a mere
definition of the locality, as -geat, -hyrst, -hám, -wíc, -tún,
-stede, and the like. In a few cases the patronymic stands alone in
the nominative plural, as Tótingas, Tooting, Surrey; Wócingas, Woking,
Surrey; Meallingas, Malling, Kent; Weðeringas, Wittering, Sussex. In a
still smaller number, the name of the eponymus replaces that of his
descendants, as Finnes burh, Finsbury; Wælses hám, Walsham, in
Norfolk; in which last name, as well as in Wælses eafora (Beówulf, l.
1787), we have a record of the progenitor of the Wælsings, who is
alike unknown to the Scandinavian and the German legends of that noble
race. In dealing, however, with these names, some amount of caution is
necessary: it is by no means enough that a word should end in -ing, to
convert it into a genuine patronymic. On the contrary it is a power of
that termination to denote the genitive or possessive, which is also
the generative, case: and in some local names we do find it so used:
thus Æðelwulfing lond (Cod. Dipl. No. 179, a. 801) is exactly
equivalent to Æðelwulfes lond, the estate of a duke Æðelwulf, not of a
family called Æðelwulfings. So again, ðæt Folcwining lond (Cod. Dipl.
No. 195, a. 811), ðæt Wynhearding lond (Cod. Dipl. No. 195, a. 811),
imply the land of Folcwine, of Wynheard, not of marks or families
called Folcwinings and Wynheardings. Woolbedington, Wool Lavington,
Barlavington, are respectively Wulfbæding tún, Wulfláfing tún,
Beórláfing tún, the tún or dwelling of Wulfláf, Wulfbæd and Beórláf.
Between such words and genuine patronymics the line must carefully be
drawn, a task which requires both skill and experience: the best
security is, where we find the patronymic in the genitive plural: but
one can very generally judge whether the name is such as to have
arisen in the way described above, from a genitive singular. Changes
for the sake of euphony must also be guarded against, as sources of
error: thus Abingdon in Berks would impel us strongly to assume a
family of Abingas; the Saxon name Æbban dún convinces us that it was
named from an Æbba (m.) or Æbbe (f). Dunnington is not Duninga tún,
but Dunnan, that is Dunna’s tún.

In looking over this list we are immediately struck with a remarkable
repetition of various names, some of which are found at once in several
counties; and most striking are those which, like the examples already
alluded to, give a habitation upon our own shores to the races
celebrated in the poetical or historical records of other ages and other
lands. There are indeed hardly any enquiries of deeper interest, than
those whose tendency is to link the present with the past in the bonds
of a mythical tradition; or which presents results of greater importance
to him who has studied the modes of thought and action of populations at
an early stage of their career. The intimate relations of mythology, law
and social institutions, which later ages are too apt scornfully to
despise, or superstitiously to imitate, are for them, living springs of
action: they are believed in, not played with, as in the majority of
_revivals_, from the days of Anytus and Melitus to our own; and they
form the broad foundation upon which the whole social polity is
established. The people who believe in heroes, originally gods and
always god-born, preserve a remembrance of their ancient deities in the
gentile names by which themselves are distinguished, long after the
rites they once paid to their divinities have fallen into disuse; and it
is this record of beings once hallowed, and a cult once offered, which
they have bequeathed to us in many of the now unintelligible names of
the Marks. Taking these facts into account, I have no hesitation in
affirming that the names of places found in the Anglosaxon charters, and
yet extant in England, supply no trifling links in the chain of evidence
by which we demonstrate the existence among ourselves of a heathendom
nearly allied to that of Scandinavia.

The Wælsings, the Völsungar of the Edda, and Volsungen of the German
Heldensage, have already been noticed in a cursory manner: they are the
family whose hero is Siegfried or Sigurdr[103], the centre round which
the Nibelungen epos circles. Another of their princes, Fitela, the Norse
Sinfiötli, is recorded in the poem of Beówulf[104], and from him appear
to have been derived the Fitelingas, whose name survives in Fitling.

-----

Footnote 103:

In Beówulf (l. 1743), Siegfried is replaced by Sígmund, his father.
Here occurs his patronymical appellation of Wælsing (l. 1747), and
Wælses eafora (l. 1787).

Footnote 104:

Lines 1752, 1772.

-----

The Herelingas or Harlings have also been noticed; they are connected
with the same great cycle, and are mentioned in the Traveller’s Song, l.
224. As Harlingen in Friesland retains a record of the same name, it is
possible that it may have wandered to the coast of Norfolk with the
Batavian auxiliaries, _numerus Batavorum_, who served under their own
chiefs in Britain. The Swǽfas, a border tribe of the Angles[105],
reappear at Swaffham. The Brentings[106] are found again in Brentingby.
The Scyldings and Scylfings[107], perhaps the most celebrated of the
Northern races, give their names to Skelding and Shilvington. The
Ardings, whose memorial is retained in Ardingley, Ardington and
Ardingworth, are the Azdingi[108], the royal race of the Visigoths and
Vandals: a name which confirms the tradition of a settlement of Vandals
in England. With these we probably should not confound the Heardingas,
who have left their name to Hardingham in Norfolk[109]. The Banings,
over whom Becca ruled[110], are recognized in Banningham; the
Hælsings[111] in Helsington, and in the Swedish Helsingland[112]: the
Myrgings[113], perhaps in Merring, and Merrington: the Hundings[114],
perhaps in Hunningham and Hunnington: the Hócings[115], in Hucking: the
Seringas[116] meet us again in Sharington, Sherington and Sheringham.
The Ðyringas[117], in Thorington and Thorrington, are likely to be
offshoots of the great Hermunduric race, the Thyringi or Thoringi, now
Thuringians, always neighbours of the Saxons. The Bleccingas, a race who
probably gave name to Bleckingen in Sweden, are found in Bletchington,
and Bletchingley. In the Gytingas, known to us from Guiting, we can yet
trace the Alamannic tribe of the Juthungi, or Jutungi. Perhaps in the
Scytingas or Scydingas, we may find another Alamannic tribe, the
Scudingi[118], and in the Dylingas, an Alpine or Highdutch name, the
Tulingi[119]. The Wæringas are probably the Norman Vǽringjar, whom we
call Varangians. The Wylfingas[120], another celebrated race, well known
in Norse tradition, are recorded in Beówulf[121] and the Traveller’s
Song[122].

-----

Footnote 105:

Trav. S. l. 121.

Footnote 106:

Béow. l. 5610.

Footnote 107:

Ibid. l. 60, 125, etc.

Footnote 108:

See Zeuss, p. 461 and pp. 73, 74; especially his note upon the
Astingi, p. 461, where he brings forward a good deal of evidence in
favour of the form Geardingas.

Footnote 109:

The Rune poem says that Ing was first known among the Eastdanes, and
that he was so named by the Heardings. This may refer to Norfolk: or
must we read heardingas, _bellatores_? See Anglos. Runes, Archæolog.
xxviii. 327, _seq._

Footnote 110:

Trav. S. l. 37.

Footnote 111:

Ibid. l. 44.

Footnote 112:

Zeuss, p. 544.

Footnote 113:

Trav. S. l. 45.

Footnote 114:

Ibid. l. 46

Footnote 115:

Ibid. l. 57, perhaps the Chauci.

Footnote 116:

Ibid. l. 150.

Footnote 117:

Ibid. l. 60.

Footnote 118:

Zeuss, p. 584.

Footnote 119:

Ibid. pp. 226, 227.

Footnote 120:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1135. Wylfinga ford.

Footnote 121:

Lines 916, 936.

Footnote 122:

Line 58. They are the Ylfingar of Norse tradition. Helg. Hund. l. 5.

-----

These are unquestionably no trivial coincidences; they assure us that
there lies at the root of our land-divisions an element of the highest
antiquity; one too, by which our kinsmanship with the North-german races
is placed beyond dispute. But their analogy leads us to a wider
induction: when we examine the list of names contained in the Appendix,
we see at once how very few of these are identified with the names
recorded in Beówulf and other poems: all that are so recorded, had
probably belonged to portions of the epic cycle; but there is nothing in
the names themselves to distinguish them from the rest; nothing at least
but the happy accident of those poems, which were dedicated to their
praise, having survived. In the lapse of years, how many similar records
may have perished! And may we not justly conclude that a far greater
number of races might have been identified, had the Ages spared the
songs in which they were sung?

“Vixere fortes ante Agamemnona
Multi; sed omnes inlachrymabiles
Urgentur, ignotique longa
Nocte, carent quia vate sacro!”

Whatever periods we assume for the division of the land into Marks, or
to what cause soever we attribute the names adopted by the several
communities, the method and manner of their dispersion remains a
question of some interest. The Appendix shows a most surprising
distribution of some particular names over several counties[123]: but
this seems conceivable only in two ways; first, that the inhabitants of
a Mark, finding themselves pressed for room at home, migrated to other
seats, and established a new community under the old designation; or,
secondly, that in the division of the newly conquered soil, men who had
belonged to one community upon the continent, found themselves thrown
into a state of separation here, either by the caprice of the lots,
supposing their immigration simultaneous, or by the natural course of
events, supposing one body to have preceded the other. Perhaps too we
must admit the possibility of a dispersion arising from the dissolution
of ancient confederacies, produced by internal war. On the whole I am
disposed to look upon the second hypothesis as applicable to the
majority of cases; without presuming altogether to exclude the action of
the first and third causes. It is no doubt difficult to imagine that a
small troop of wandering strangers should be allowed to traverse a
settled country in search of new habitations. Yet, at first, there must
have been abundance of land, which conduct and courage might wring from
its Keltic owners. Again, how natural on the other hand is it, that in
the confusion of conquest, or the dilatory course of gradual occupation,
men once united should find their lot cast apart, and themselves divided
into distant communities! Nor in this can we recognize anything
resembling the solemn planting of a Grecian, far less of a Roman,
colony; or suppose that any notion of a common origin survived to
nourish feelings of friendship between bodies of men, so established in
different lands. Even had such traditions originally prevailed, they
must soon have perished, when the Marks coalesced into the Gá or Shire,
and several of the latter became included in one kingdom. New interests
and duties must then have readily superseded maxims which belonged to an
almost obsolete organization.

-----

Footnote 123:

Æscings in Essex, Somerset and Sussex: Alings in Kent, Dorset,
Devonshire and Lincoln: Ardings in Sussex, Berks and Northamptonshire:
Arlings in Devonshire, Gloucestershire and Sussex: Banings in
Hertfordshire, Kent, Lincolnshire and Salop: Beadings in Norfolk,
Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex and the Isle of Wight: Berings in Kent,
Devonshire, Herefordshire, Lincolnshire, Salop and Somerset: Billings
in Bedfordshire, Durham, Kent, Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk,
Northamptonshire, Northumberland, Salop, Sussex and the Isle of Wight,
etc.

-----

But in truth, to this question of dispersion and relationship,
considered in its widest generality, there is no limit either of place
or time: it derives, indeed, some of its charm from the very vagueness
which seems to defy the efforts of the historian: and even the
conviction that a positive and scientific result is unattainable, does
not suffice to repress the anxiety with which we strive to lift the veil
of our Isis. The question of every settlement, large or small,
ultimately resolves itself into that of the original migrations of
mankind. Unless we can bring ourselves to adopt the hypothesis of
autochthonous populations,—an hypothesis whose vagueness is not less
than attaches to a system of gradual, but untraced, advances,—we must
fall back from point to point, until we reach one starting-place and one
origin. Every family that squats upon the waste, assumes the existence
of two families from which it sprang: every household, comprising a man
and woman, if it is to be fruitful and continue, presupposes two such
households; each of these continues to represent two more, in a
geometrical progression, whose enormous sum and final result are lost in
the night of ages. The solitary who wanders away into the uncultivated
waste, and there by degrees rears a family, a tribe and a state, takes
with him the traditions, the dispositions, the knowledge and the ideas,
which he had derived from others, in turn equally indebted to their
predecessors. This state of society, if society it can be called, is
rarely exhibited to our observation. The backwoodsman in America, or the
settler in an Australian bush, may furnish some means of judging such a
form of civilization; and the traditions of Norway and Iceland dimly
record a similar process: but the solitary labourer, whose constant
warfare with an exulting and exuberant nature does little more than
assure him an independent existence, has no time to describe the course
and the result of his toils: and the progress of the modern settler is
recorded less by himself, than by a civilized society, whose offset he
is; which watches his fortunes with interest and judges them with
intelligence; which finds in his career the solution of problems that
distract itself, and never forgets that he yet shares in the cultivation
he has left behind him.

Still the manner in which such solitary households gradually spread over
and occupy a country, must be nearly the same in all places, where they
exist at all. The family increases in number; the arable is extended to
provide food; the pasture is pushed further and further as the cattle
multiply, or as the grasslands become less productive. Along the banks
of the river which may have attracted the feelings or the avarice of the
wanderer, which may have guided his steps in the untracked wilderness,
or supplied the road by which he journeyed, the footsteps of
civilization move upward: till, reaching the rising ground from which
the streams descend on either side, the vanguards of two parties meet,
and the watershed becomes their boundary, and the place of meeting for
religious or political purposes. Meantime, the ford, the mill, the
bridge have become the nucleus of a village, and the blessings of mutual
intercourse and family bonds have converted the squatters’ settlement
into a centre of wealth and happiness. And in like manner is it, where a
clearing in the forest, near a spring or well[124],—divine, for its uses
to man,—has been made; and where, by slow degrees, the separated
families discover each other, and find that it is not good for man to be
alone.

-----

Footnote 124:

Water seems the indispensable condition of a settlement in any part of
the world: hence, in part, the worship paid to it. It is the very key
to the history of the East.

-----

This description, however, will not strictly apply to numerous or
extensive cases of settlement, although some analogy may be found, if we
substitute a tribe for the family. Continental Germany has no tradition
of such a process; and we may not unjustly believe the records of such
in Scandinavia to have arisen from the wanderings of unquiet spirits,
impatient of control or rivalry, of criminals shrinking from the
consequences of their guilt, or of descendants dreading the blood-feud
inherited from ruder progenitors. But although systematic and religious
colonization, like that of Greece, cannot be assumed to have prevailed,
we may safely assert that it was carried on far more regularly, and upon
more strict principles than are compatible with capricious and
individual settlement[125]. Tradition here and there throws light upon
the causes by which bodies of men were impelled to leave their ancient
habitations, and seek new seats in more fruitful or peaceful districts.
The emigration represented by Hengest has been attributed to a famine at
home, and even the grave authority of history has countenanced the
belief that his keels were driven into exile: thus far we may assume his
adventure to have been made with the participation, if not by the
authority, of the parent state.

-----

Footnote 125:

The solemn apportionment of lands and dwellings is nowhere more
obvious, or described in more instructive detail, than in Denmark.
Norway and the Swedish borderlands may have offered more numerous
instances of solitary settling. The manner of distributing the village
land is called Sólskipt or Sólskipti: the provisions of this law are
given by Grimm, Rechtsalt. p. 539. There is an interesting account of
the formalities used upon the first colonization of Iceland, in
Geijer, Hist. of Sweden, i. 159. (German translation of 1826.)

-----

In general we may admit the division of a conquered country, such as
Britain was, to have been conducted upon settled principles, derived
from the actual position of the conquerors. As an army they had obtained
possession, and as an army they distributed the booty which rewarded
their valour. That they nevertheless continued to occupy the land as
families or _cognationes_, resulted from the method of their enrolment
in the field itself, where each kindred was drawn up under an officer of
its own lineage and appointment, and the several members of the family
served together. But such a distribution of the land as should content
the various small communities that made up the whole force, could only
be ensured by the joint authority of the leaders, the concurrence of the
families themselves, and the possession of a sufficient space for their
extension, undisturbed by the claims of former occupants, and suited to
the wants of its new masters. What difficulties, what jealousies
preceded the adjustment of all claims among the conquerors, we cannot
hope to learn, or by what means these were met and reconciled: but the
divisions themselves, so many of whose names I have collected, prove
that, in some way or other, the problem was successfully solved.

On the natural clearings in the forest, or on spots prepared by man for
his own uses; in valleys, bounded by gentle acclivities which poured
down fertilizing streams; or on plains which here and there rose,
clothed with verdure, above surrounding marshes; slowly and step by
step, the warlike colonists adopted the habits and developed the
character of peaceful agriculturists. The towns which had been spared in
the first rush of war, gradually became deserted, and slowly crumbled to
the soil, beneath which their ruins are yet found from time to time, or
upon which shapeless masses yet remain, to mark the sites of a
civilization, whose bases were not laid deep enough for eternity. All
over England there soon existed a network of communities, the principle
of whose being was separation, as regarded each other: the most intimate
union, as respected the individual members of each. Agricultural, not
commercial, dispersed, not centralized, content within their own limits
and little given to wandering, they relinquished in a great degree the
habits and feelings which had united them as military adventurers; and
the spirit which had achieved the conquest of an empire, was now
satisfied with the care of maintaining inviolate a little peaceful plot,
sufficient for the cultivation of a few simple households.

CHAPTER III.
THE GÁ OR SCÍR.

Next in order of constitution, if not of time, is the union of two,
three or more Marks in a federal bond for purposes of a religious,
judicial or even political character. The technical name for such a
union is in Germany, a Gau or Bant[126]; in England the ancient name Gá
has been almost universally superseded by that of Scír or Shire. For the
most part the natural divisions of the country are the divisions also of
the Gá; and the size of this depends upon such accidental limits as well
as upon the character and dispositions of the several collective bodies
which we have called Marks.

The Gá is the second and final form of unsevered possession; for every
larger aggregate is but the result of a gradual reduction of such
districts, under a higher political or administrative unity, different
only in degree and not in kind from what prevailed individually in each.
The kingdom is only a larger Gá than ordinary; indeed the Gá itself was
the original kingdom.

But the unsevered possession or property which we thus find in the Gá is
by no means to be considered in the same light as that which has been
described in the Mark. The inhabitants are settled as Markmen, not as
Gá-men: the cultivated land which lies within the limits of the larger
community is all distributed into the smaller ones.

-----

Footnote 126:

Less usual are Eiba and Para. The Norse Herrad may in some sense be
compared with these divisions.

-----

As the Mark contained within itself the means of doing right between man
and man, _i. e._, its Markmót; as it had its principal officer or judge,
and beyond a doubt its priest and place of religious observances, so the
County, Scír or Gá had all these on a larger and more imposing scale;
and thus it was enabled to do right between Mark and Mark, as well as
between man and man, and to decide those differences the arrangement of
which transcended the powers of the smaller body. If the elders and
leaders of the Mark could settle the mode of conducting the internal
affairs of their district, so the elders and leaders of the Gá (the same
leading markmen in a corporate capacity) could decide upon the weightier
causes that affected the whole community; and thus the Scírgemót or
Shiremoot was the completion of a system of which the Mearcmót was the
foundation. Similarly, as the several smaller units had arrangements on
a corresponding scale for divine service, so the greater and more
important religious celebrations in which all the Marks took part, could
only be performed under the auspices and by the authority of the Gá.
Thus alone could due provision be made for sacrifices which would have
been too onerous for a small and poor district, and an equalization of
burthens be effected; while the machinery of government and efficient
means of protection were secured.

At these great religious rites, accompanied as they ever were by the
solemn Ðing, _placitum_ or court, thrice in the year the markmen
assembled unbidden: and here they transacted the ordinary and routine
business required. On emergencies however, which did not brook delay,
the leaders could issue their peremptory summons to a bidden Ðing, and
in this were then decided the measures necessary for the maintenance and
well-being of the community, and the mutual guarantee of life and
honour. To the Gá then probably belonged, as an unsevered possession,
the lands necessary for the site and maintenance of a temple, the supply
of beasts for sacrifice, and the endowment of a priest or priests:
perhaps also for the erection of a stockade or fortress, and some
shelter for the assembled freemen in the Ðing. Moreover, if land existed
which from any cause had not been included within the limits of some
Mark, we may believe that it became the public property of the Gá, _i.
e._, of all the Marks in their corporate capacity: this at least may be
inferred from the rights exercised at a comparatively later period over
waste lands, by the constituted authorities, the Duke, Count or King.

Accident must more or less have determined the seat of the
Gá-jurisdiction: perhaps here and there some powerful leading Mark,
already in the possession of a holy site, may have drawn the
neighbouring settlers into its territory: but as the possession and
guardianship of the seat of government could not but lead to the
vindication of certain privileges and material advantages to its
holders, it is not unreasonable to believe that where the Marks
coalesced on equal terms, the temple-lands would be placed without the
peculiar territorial possession of each, as they often were in Greece,
upon the ἐσχατιὰ or boundary-land. On the summit of a range of hills,
whose valleys sufficed for the cultivation of the markmen, on the
watershed from which the fertilizing streams descended, at the point
where the boundaries of two or three communities touched one another,
was the proper place for the common periodical assemblages of the free
men: and such sites, marked even to this day by a few venerable oaks,
may be observed in various parts of England[127].

-----

Footnote 127:

There are instances which show that the custom, afterwards kept up, of
“Trysting Trees,” was an ancient one. Probably some great trees marked
the site of the several jurisdictions: I find mentioned the scírác,
the hundredes treów and the mearcbeám.

-----

The description which has been given might seem at first more properly
to relate to an abstract political unity than to a real and territorial
one: no doubt the most important quality of the Gá or Scír was its power
of uniting distinct populations for public purposes: in this respect it
resembled the shire, while the sheriff’s court was still of some
importance; or even yet, where the judges coming on their circuit, under
a commission, hold a shiremoot or court in each shire for gaol-delivery.
Yet the Shire is a territorial division[128] as well as an abstract and
merely legal formulary, although all the land comprised within it is
divided into parishes, hamlets, vills and liberties.

-----

Footnote 128:

The Gau itself had a mark or boundary. Deut. Rechtsalt. p. 496.

-----

Strictly speaking, the Shire, apart from the units that make it up,
possesses little more land than that which the town-hall, the gaol, or
the hospital may cover. When for the two latter institutions we
substitute the fortress of the king, and a cathedral, which was the
people’s and not the bishop’s, we have as nearly as possible the
Anglosaxon shire-property, and the identity of the two divisions seems
proved. Just as the Gá (_pagus_) contains the Marks (_vicos_), and the
territory of them all, taken together, makes up the territory of the Gá,
so does the Shire contain hamlets, parishes and liberties, and its
territorial expanse is distributed into them. As then the word Mark is
used to denote two distinct things,—a territorial division and a
corporate body,—so does the word Gá or Scír denote both a machinery for
government and a district in which such machinery prevails. The number
of Marks included in a single Gá must have varied partly with the
variations of the land itself, its valleys, hills and meadows: to this
cause may have been added others arising, to some extent, from the
original military organization and distribution, from the personal
character of a leader, or from the peculiar tenets and customs of a
particular Mark. But proximity, and settlement upon the same land, with
the accompanying participation in the advantages of wood and water, are
ever the most active means of uniting men in religious and social
communities; and it is therefore reasonable to believe that the
influence most felt in the arrangement of the several Gás was in fact a
territorial one, depending upon the natural conformation of the country.

Some of the modern shire-divisions of England in all probability have
remained unchanged from the earliest times; so that here and there a now
existent Shire may be identical in territory with an ancient Gá. But it
may be doubted whether this observation can be very extensively applied:
obscure as is the record of our old divisions, what little we know,
favours the supposition that the original Gás were not only more
numerous than our Shires, but that these were not always identical in
their boundaries with those Gás whose locality can be determined.

The policy or pedantry of Norman chroniclers has led them to pass over
in silence the names of the ancient divisions, which nevertheless were
known to them[129]. Wherever they have occasion to refer to our Shires,
they do so by the names they still bear; thus Florence of Worcester and
William of Malmesbury name, to the south of the Humber, Kent, Wiltshire,
Berkshire, Dorset, Sussex, Southampton, Surrey, Somerset, Devonshire,
Cornwall, Gloucester, Worcester, Warwick, Cheshire, Derby, Stafford,
Shropshire, Hereford, Oxford, Buckingham, Hertford, Huntingdon, Bedford,
Northampton, Leicester, Lincoln, Nottingham, Cambridge, Norfolk, Suffolk
and Essex, comprising with Middlesex thirty-two of the shires, out of
forty into which England is now distributed.

-----

Footnote 129:

“Et ne longum faciam, sigillatim enumeratis provinciis quas
vastaverunt, hoc sit ad summam complecti, quod, cum numerentur in
Anglia triginta duo pagi, illi iam sedecim invaserant, quorum nomina
propter barbariem linguae scribere refugio.” Will. Malm., Gest. Reg.
lib. ii. § 165.

-----

Yet even these names and divisions are of great antiquity: Asser, in his
life of Ælfred, mentions by name, Berkshire, Essex, Kent, Surrey,
Somerset, Sussex, Lincoln, Dorset, Devon, Wiltshire and Southampton,
being a third of the whole number: unfortunately, from his work being
composed in Latin and his consequent use of _paga_, we cannot tell how
many of these divisions were considered by him as Scír.

The Saxon Chronicles, during the period anterior to the reign of
Ælfred, seem to know only the old general divisions: thus we have
Cantwara land, Kent[130]; Westseaxan, Súðseaxan, Eástseaxan,
Middleseaxan, Wessex, Sussex, Essex, Middlesex: Eástengle, Eastanglia:
Norðanhymbra land, Súðanhymbra land, Myrcna land, Northumberland,
Southumberland, Mercia: Lindisware and Lindisse, Lincolnshire:
Súðrige, Surrey; Wiht, the Isle of Wight; Hwiccas, the Hwiccii in
Gloucestershire and Worcestershire[131]; Merscware, the people of
Romney Marsh: Wilsætan, Dornsætan and Sumorsætan, Wiltshire,
Dorsetshire and Somersetshire[132]. But after the time of Ælfred, the
different manuscripts of the Chronicles usually adopt the word Scír,
in the same places as we do, and with the same meaning. Thus we find,
Bearrucscír, Bedanfordscír, Buccingahámscír, Defenascír, Deórabyscír,
Eoforwícscír, Gleáwanceasterscír, Grantabrycgscír, Hámtúnscír
(Southampton), Hámtúnscír (Northampton), Heortfordscír, Herefordscír,
Huntandúnscír, Legeceasterscír, Lindicolnascír, Oxnafordscír,
Scrobbesbyrigscír (but also Scrobsetan), Snotingahámscír,
Stæffordscír, Wæringwícscír or Wæringscír, Wigraceasterscír, and
Wiltunscír: Middelseaxe, Eástseaxe, Súðseaxe, Súðrige and Cent remain:
Eástengle is not divided into Norfolk and Suffolk. Thus, out of the
thirty-two shires south of the Humber, which Florence and William of
Malmesbury mention, the Chronicles note twenty-six, of which
twenty-one are distinguished as _shires_ by the word scír.

-----

Footnote 130:

The division of Kent into Eást Centingas and West Centingas is
retained by the charters till late in the eleventh century.

Footnote 131:

“Cirrenceaster adiit, qui Britannice Cairceri nominatur, quae est in
meridiana parte Huicciorum.” Asser, Vit. Ælfr. an. 879.

Footnote 132:

Where the country is considered as a territorial division, rather than
with reference to the race that possesses it, instead of sætan or
setan, _the settlers_, we have sæte, _the land settled_; thus
Sumorsæte. So Eástseaxe for Eástseaxan or Eástseaxna land; Cent for
Centingas or Cantware; Lindisse for Lindisware.

-----

In Beda nothing of the kind is to be found: the general scope of his
Ecclesiastical History rendered it unnecessary for him to descend to
minute details, and besides the names of races and kingdoms, he mentions
few divisions of the land. Still he notices the Provincia Huicciorum:
the Middelangli or Angli Mediterranei, a portion of the Mercians: the
Mercii Australes and Aquilonales: the Regio Sudergeona or Surrey: the
Regio Loidis or Elmet near York: the Provincia Meanwarorum, or Hundreds
of East and West Meon in Southampton; the Regio Gyrwiorum in which
Peterborough lies, and distinct from this, the Australes Gyrwii or South
Gyrwians.

The Appendix to the Chronicles of Florence of Worcester supplies us with
one or two names of small districts, not commonly found in other
authors. One of these is the Mercian district of the Westangles or West
Hecan, ruled over by Merewald; in whose country were the Mægsetan, or
people of Hereford, who are sometimes reckoned to the Hwiccas, or
inhabitants of Worcester and Gloucester[133]. Another, the Middleangles,
had its bishopric in Leicester: the Southangles, whose bishop sat at
Dorchester in Oxfordshire, consequently comprised the counties down to
the Thames. The Northangles or Mercians proper had their bishop in
Lichfield. Lastly it has been recorded that Malmesbury in Wiltshire was
in Provincia Septonia[134].

-----

Footnote 133:

“Civitas Wigornia ... et tunc et nunc totius Hwicciae vel Magesetaniae
metropolis extitit famosa.” App. Flor. Wigorn., Episc. Hwicciorum.

Footnote 134:

Vit. Aldh. Whart. Ang. Sacr. ii. 3, and MS. Harl. 356; but the
autograph MS., Ed. Hamilton in Rolls Series, reads rightly _Saxonia_.

-----

But we are not altogether without the means of carrying this enquiry
further. We have a record of the divisions which must have preceded the
distribution of this country into shires: they are unfortunately not
numerous, and the names are generally very difficult to explain: they
have so long become obsolete, that it is now scarcely possible to
identify them. Nor need this cause surprise, when we compare the
oblivion into which they have fallen with the sturdy resistance offered
by the names of the Marks, and their long continuance throughout all the
changes which have befallen our race. The Gás, which were only political
bodies, became readily swallowed up and lost in shires and kingdoms: the
Marks, which had an individual being, and as it were personality of
their own, passed easily from one system of aggregations to another,
without losing anything of their peculiar character: and at a later
period it will be seen that this individuality became perpetuated by the
operation of our ecclesiastical institutions.

A very important document is printed by Sir Henry Spelman in his
Glossary, under the head _Hida_. In its present condition it is
comparatively modern, but many of the entries supply us with information
obviously derived from the most remote antiquity, and these it becomes
proper to take into consideration. The document seems to have been
intended as a guide either to the taxation or the military force of the
kingdom, and professes to give the number of hides of land contained in
the various districts. It runs as follows[135]:

Hydas. Hydas.
Myrcna _continet_ 30000 Lindesfarona 7000
Wokensetna 7000 Súð Gyrwa 600
Westerna 7000 Norð Gyrwa 600
Pecsetna 1200 Eást Wixna 300
Elmedsetna 600 West Wixna 600
Spalda 600 Unecunga 1200
Wigesta 900 Arosetna 600
Herefinna 1200 Fearfinga 300
Sweordora 300 Belmiga 600
Eysla 300 Wiðeringa 600
Hwicca 300 Eást Willa 600
Wihtgara 600 West Willa 600
Noxga gá 5000 Eást Engle 30000
Ohtga gá 2000 Eást Seaxna 7000
Hwynca 7000 Cantwarena 15000
Cilternsetna 4000 Súð Seaxna 7000
Hendrica 3000 West Seaxna 100000[136]

-----

Footnote 135:

I have not adhered strictly to Spelman’s copy, the details of which
are in several cases incorrect, but have collated others where it
seemed necessary.

-----

The entries respecting Mercia, Eastanglia and Wessex could hardly belong
to any period anterior to that of Ælfred. For Mercia previous to the
Danish wars must certainly have contained more than 30,000 hides: while
Eastanglia cannot have reached so large a sum till settled by Guðorm’s
Danes: nor is it easy to believe that Wessex, apart from Kent and
Sussex, should have numbered one hundred thousand in the counties of
Surrey, Hampshire, Dorset, Wiltshire, with parts of Berkshire, Somerset
and Devon, much before the time of Æðelstán[137]. A remarkable variation
is found between the amounts stated in this list and those given by
Beda, as respects some of the entries: thus Mercia, here valued at
30,000 hides, is reckoned in the Ecclesiastical History at 12,000
only[138]: Hwiccas are reckoned at 300: they contained 600 hides; Wight,
reckoned at 600, contained 1200. On the other hand Kent and Sussex are
retained at the ancient valuation.

-----

Footnote 136:

The total sum thus reckoned is 243,600 hides.

Footnote 137:

About the year 647, Wessex numbered only 9000 hides.

Footnote 138:

The twelve thousand hides counted by Beda (Hist. Eccl. iii. 24) to the
South and North Mercians may however be exclusive of the Westangles
and other parts of the great Mercian kingdom.

-----

It is nevertheless impossible to doubt that the greater number of the
names recorded in this list are genuine, and of the highest antiquity. A
few of them can be recognized in the pages of very early writers: thus
Gyrwa, Elmet, Lindisfaran, Wihtgare, and Hwiccas, are mentioned by Beda
in the eighth century. Some we are still able to identify with modern
districts.

Mercia I imagine to be that portion of Burgred’s kingdom, which upon its
division by the victorious Danes in 874, they committed as a tributary
royalty to Ceólwulf; which subsequently came into the hands of Ælfred,
by the treaty of Wedmor in 878, and was by him erected into a duchy
under his daughter Æðelflǽd, and her husband. Wokensetna may possibly be
the Gá of the Wrocensetan, the people about the Wrekin or hill-country
of Somerset, Dorset and Devon. The Pecsetan appear to be the inhabitants
of the Peakland, or Derbyshire: the Elmedsetan, those of Elmet, the
ancient British Loidis, an independent district in Yorkshire:
Lindisfaran are the people of Lindisse, a portion of Lincolnshire: North
and South Gyrwa were probably in the Mark between Eastanglia and Mercia:
as Peterborough was in North Gyrwa land, this must have comprised a part
of Northamptonshire: and Æðelðrýð derived her right to Ely from her
first husband, a prince of the South Gyrwians; this district is
therefore supposed to have extended over a part of Cambridgeshire and
the isle of Ely. Spalda may be the tract stretching to the north-east of
these, upon the river Welland, in which still lies Spalding. The Hwiccas
occupied Worcestershire and Gloucestershire[139], and perhaps extended
into Herefordshire, to the west of the Severn. The Wihtgaras are the
inhabitants of the Isle of Wight; and the Cilternsetan were the people
who owned the hill and forest land about the Chilterns, verging towards
Oxfordshire, and very probably in the Mark between Mercia and Wessex.

-----

Footnote 139:

Cirencester was in the south of the Hwiccas. Gloucester, Worcester,
and Pershore were all in this district. It was separated from
Wiltshire in Wessex by the Thames, and the ford at Cricklade was a
pass often disputed by the inhabitants of the border-lands.

-----

I fear that it will be impossible to identify any more of these names,
and it does not appear probable that they supply us with anything like a
complete catalogue of the English Gás. Setting aside the fact, that no
notice seems to be taken of Northumberland, save the mention of the
little principality of Elmet, and that the local divisions of
Eastanglia, Kent, Essex, Sussex and Wessex are passed over in the
general names of the kingdoms, we look in vain among them for names
known to us from other sources, and which can hardly have been other
than those of Gás. Thus we have no mention of the Tonsetan, whose
district lay apparently upon the banks of the Severn[140]; of the
Meanware, or land of the Jutes, in Hampshire; of the Mægsetan, or West
Hecan, in Herefordshire; of the Merscware in West Kent; or of the
Gedingas, who occupied a tract in the province of Middlesex[141].
Although it is possible that these divisions are included in some of the
larger units mentioned in our list, they still furnish an argument that
the names of the Gás were much more numerous than they would appear from
the list itself, and that this marks only a period of transition.

-----

Footnote 140:

Cod. Dipl. No. 261.

Footnote 141:

Cod. Dipl. No. 101.

-----

It is clear that when William of Malmesbury mentions thirty-two shires
as making up the whole of England, he intends only England south of the
Humber. The list we have been examining contains thirty-four entries; of
all the names therein recorded, one only can be shown to lie to the
north of that river: from this however it is not unreasonable to suppose
that the whole of England is intended to be comprised in the catalogue.
Even admitting this, we cannot but conclude that these divisions were
more numerous than our shires, seeing that large districts, such as
Mercia, Wessex and Eastanglia, are entered only under one general head
respectively.

The origin of the Gá in the federal union of two or more Marks is
natural, and must be referred to periods far anterior to any historical
record: that of the division into Shires, as well as the period at which
this arose, are less easily determined. But we have evidence that some
division into shires was known in Wessex as early as the end of the
seventh or beginning of the eighth century, since Ini provides for the
case where a plaintiff cannot obtain justice from his shireman or
judge[142]; and the same prince declares that if an ealdorman compounds
a felony, he shall forfeit his shire[143]; while he further enacts that
no man shall secretly withdraw from his lord into another shire[144]. As
it will be shown hereafter that a territorial jurisdiction is
inseparably connected with the rank of a duke or ealdorman, I take the
appearance of these officers in Mercia, during the same early period, to
be evidence of the existence of a similar division there. Its cause
appears to me to lie in the consolidation of the royal power. As long as
independent associations of freemen were enabled to maintain their
natural liberties, to administer their own affairs undisturbed by the
power of strangers, and by means of their own private alliances to
defend their territories and their rights, the old division into Gás
might continue to exist. But the centralization of power in the hands of
the king implies a more artificial system. It is more convenient for
judicial and administrative purposes, more profitable, and more safe for
the ruler, to have districts governed by his own officers, and in which
a territorial unity shall supersede the old bonds of kinsmanship:
centralization is hardly compatible with family tradition. The members
of the Gá met as associated freemen, under the guidance of their own
natural leaders, and formed a substantive unit or small state, which
might, or might not, stand in relations of amity to similar states. The
Shire was a political division, presided over by an appointed officer,
forming part only of a general system, and no longer endowed with the
high political rights of self-government, in their fullest extent. I can
imagine the Gá, but certainly not the Shire, declaring war against a
neighbour. As long as the Gá could maintain itself as a little republic,
principality, or even kingdom, it might exist unscathed: but as the
smaller kings were rooted out, their lands and people incorporated with
larger unions, and powerful monarchies rose upon their ruins, it is
natural that a system of districts should arise, based entirely upon a
territorial division. Such districts, without peculiar, individual
character of their own, or principle of internal cohesion, must have
appeared less dangerous to usurpation than the ancient gentile
aggregations.

-----

Footnote 142:

Ini, § 8. Thorpe, i. 106.

Footnote 143:

Ini, § 36. Thorpe, i. 124.

Footnote 144:

Ini, § 39. Thorpe, i. 126.

-----

CHAPTER IV.
LANDED POSSESSION. THE EÐEL, HÍD OR ALOD.

Possession of a certain amount of land in the district was the
indispensable condition of enjoying the privileges and exercising the
rights of a freeman[145]. There is no trace of such a qualification as
constituted citizenship at Athens or Rome: among our forefathers, the
exclusive idea of the _city_ had indeed no sway. They formed voluntary
associations upon the land, for mutual benefit; the qualification by
birth, as far as it could be of any importance, was inferred from the
fact of admission among the community; and _gelondan_, or those who
occupied the same land, were taken to be connected in blood[146]. An
inquiry into the pedigree of a man who presented himself to share in the
perils of the conquest or the settlement, would assuredly have appeared
superfluous; nor was it more likely to be made, when secure enjoyment
came to reward the labours of invasion. In fact the Germanic
settlements, whether in their origin isolated or collective, are based
throughout upon the idea of common property in land. It is not the city,
but the country, that regulates their form of life and social
institutions: as Tacitus knew them, they bore in general the character
of disliking cities: “It is well enough known,” he says, “that none of
the German populations dwell in cities; nay that they will not even
suffer continuous building, and house joined to house. They live apart,
each by himself, as the woodside, the plain or the fresh spring
attracted him”[147]. Thus the Germanic community is in some sense
_adstricta glebae_, bound to the soil: its members are sharers in the
arable, the forest and the marsh, the waters and the pastures: their
bond of union is a partnership in the advantages to be derived from
possession of the land, an individual interest in a common benefit.

-----

Footnote 145:

Even till the latest period, personal property was not reckoned in the
distinction of ranks, although land was. No amount of mere chattels,
gold, silver, or goods, could give the Saxon franchise. See the
ordinance Be Wergyldum, § 10. Be Geþincðum, § 2. Thorpe, i. 189, 191.
This is a fundamental principle of Teutonic law: “Ut nullum liberum
sine mortali crimine liceat inservire, nec de haereditate sua
expellere; sed liberi, qui iustis legibus deserviunt, sine impedimento
haereditates suas possideant. Quamvis pauper sit, tamen libertatem
suam non perdat, nec haereditatem suam, nisi ex spontanea voluntate,
se alicui tradere voluerit, hoc potestatem habeat faciendi.” Lex Alam.
Tit. I. cap. 1. Lex Baiovar. Tit. 6. cap. 3. § 1. Eichhorn, i. 328,
note _d_. Loss of land entailed loss of condition in England, long
after the establishment of our present social system. A beautiful
passage to this effect occurs in the play of “A Woman killed with
kindness”: a gentleman refuses to part with his last plot of ground,
on this account:

“Alas, alas! ’tis all trouble hath left me
To cherishe me and my poor sister’s life.
If this were sold, our names should then be quite
Razed from the bedroll of gentility.
You see what hard shift we have made to keep it
Allied still to our own name. This palm, you see,
Labour hath glow’d within; her silver brow,
That never tasted a rough winter’s blast
Without a mask or fan, doth with a grace
Defy cold winter and his storms outface!”

Footnote 146:

In MS. glossaries we find _gelondan_ rendered by _fratrueles_. In
advanced periods only can there be a distinction between the family,
and the local, distributions: Suidas, citing Xanthus, says the Lydians
made a solemn supplication to the gods, παγγενεί τε καὶ πανδημεί. See
Niebuhr on the Patrician Houses, i. 267.

Footnote 147:

Mor. Germ. c. 16.

-----

The district occupied by a body of new settlers was divided by lot in
various proportions[148]. Yet it is certain that not all the land was so
distributed; a quantity sufficient to supply a proper block of
arable[149] to each settler, was set apart for division; while the
surplus fitted for cultivation, the marshes and forests less suited to
the operations of the plough, and a great amount of fine grass or
meadow-land, destined for the maintenance of cattle, remained in
undivided possession as commons. At first too, it is clear, from what
has been said in the second chapter, that considerable tracts were left
purposely out of cultivation to form the marches or defences of the
several communities. But those alone whose share in the arable
demonstrated them to be members of the little state, could hope to
participate in the advantages of the commons of pasture: like the old
Roman patricians, they derived from their _haeredium_ benefits totally
incommensurate with its extent. Without such share of the arable, the
man formed no portion of the state; it was his franchise, his political
qualification, even as a very few years ago a freehold of inconsiderable
amount sufficed to enable an Englishman to vote, or even be voted for,
as a member of the legislature,—to be, as the Greeks would call it, in
the πολιτεία,—a privilege which the utmost wealth in copyhold estates or
chattels could not confer. He that had no land was at first unfree: he
could not represent himself and his interests in the courts or
assemblies of the freemen, but must remain in the _mund_ or hand of
another[150],—a necessary consequence of a state of society in which
there is indeed no property but land, in other words, no market for its
produce.

-----

Footnote 148:

The traces of this mode of distribution are numerous. Hengest forcibly
occupying the Frisian territory, is said to do so, elne, unhyltme,
violently and without casting of lots. Beów. l. 2187, 2251. The Law of
the Burgundians calls hereditary land, “terra sortis titulo
acquisita,” in contradistinction to chattels taken by purchase. Lex
Burg. Tit. 1. cap. 1, 2. Eichhorn, i. 360, 400, note _a_. Godred,
having subdued the Manxmen, divided their land among his followers by
lot. “Godredus sequenti die obtionem exercitui suo dedit, ut si
mallent Manniam inter se dividere, et in ea habitare; vel cunctam
substantiam terrae accipere, et ad propria remeare.” Chron. Manniae.
(Cott. MS. Jul. A. VII. fol. 32.) Upon the removal of St. Cuðberht’s
relics to Durham, the first care was to eradicate the forest that
covered the land; the next, to distribute the clearing by lot:
“eradicata itaque silva, et unicuique mansionibus sorte distributis,”
etc. Simeon. Hist. Dunelm. Eccl. § 37.

Footnote 149:

Words denoting measures of land have very frequently reference to the
plough: thus geóc, furlang, sulung, aratrum, carucata, etc.

Footnote 150:

προστάτον γεγράφθαι, to be enrolled under some one’s patronage: to be
in his _mund and borh_. ὥστ’ οὐ Κρέοντος προστάτον γεγράψομαι. Œd.
Tyr. 411.

-----

From the mode of distribution it is probable that each share was
originally called Hlyt (_sors_, κλῆρος), it derived however another and
more common name from its extent and nature. The ordinary Anglosaxon
words are Higid[151] (in its contracted and almost universal form Híd)
and Hiwisc. The Latin equivalents which we find in the chronicles and
charters are, _familia_, _cassatus_, _mansus_, _mansa_, _mansio_,
_martens_ and _terra tributarii_. The words Híd and Hiwisc are similar,
if not identical, in meaning: they stand in close etymological relation
to Higan, Hiwan, the family, the man and wife, and thus perfectly
justify the Latin terms _familia_ and _cassatus_[152], by which they are
translated. The Híd then, or Hide of land, is the estate of one
household, the amount of land sufficient for the support of one
family[153]. It is clear however that this could not be an invariable
quantity, if the households were to be subsisted on an equal scale: it
must depend upon the original quality and condition of the soil, as well
as upon manifold contingencies of situation—climate, aspect,
accessibility of water and roads, abundance of natural manures,
proximity of marshes and forests, in short an endless catalogue of
varying details. If therefore the Hide contained a fixed number of acres
all over England, and all the freemen were to be placed in a position of
equal prosperity, we must assume that in the less favoured districts one
Hide would not suffice for the establishment of one man, but that his
allotment must have comprised more than that quantity. The first of
these hypotheses may be very easily disposed of: there is not the
slightest ground for supposing that any attempt was, or could be, made
to regulate the amount of individual possession beyond the limit of each
community; or that there ever was, or could be, any concert between
different communities for such a purpose. The second supposition however
presents greater difficulties.

-----

Footnote 151:

Cod. Dipl. No. 240.

Footnote 152:

_Cassatus_ or _casatus_, a married man, Span. _casado_. Othello speaks
of his _unhoused_ free condition, that is, his bachelor state. It is
by marriage that a man founds a house or family.

Footnote 153:

Henry of Huntingdon thus defines its extent: “Hida autem Anglice
vocatur terra unius aratri cultura sufficiens per annum.” lib. vi. an.
1008. But this is a variable amount on land of various qualities, as
every ploughman well knows.

-----

There is no doubt a strong antecedent improbability of the Hide having
been alike all over England: isolated as were the various conquests
which gradually established the Saxon rule in the several districts, it
can hardly be supposed that any agreement was at first found among
bands, engaged in continual struggles for safety, rather than for
extension of territory. It may indeed be objected that later, when the
work of conquest had been consolidated, when, under the rule of powerful
chieftains, the resistance of the Britons had ceased to appear
dangerous, some steps may have been taken towards a general arrangement;
those historians who please themselves with the phantom of a Saxon
confederation under one imperial head,—a Bretwaldadóm—may find therein
an easy solution of this, and many other difficulties[154]: but still it
seems little likely that the important step of dividing the country
should have been postponed, or that a successful body of invaders should
have thought it necessary to wait for the consent or co-operation of
others, whose ultimate triumph was yet uncertain. Experience of human
nature would rather incline us to believe that, as each band wrung from
the old masters of the soil as much as sufficed for its own support and
safety, it hastened to realize its position and marked its acquisition
by the stamp and impress of individual possession. It is moreover
probable that, had any solemn and general agreement been brought about
through the influence of any one predominant chief, we should not have
been left without some record of a fact, so beneficial in itself, and so
conclusive as to the power and wisdom of its author: this we might not
unreasonably expect, even though we admit that such an event could only
have taken place at the very commencement of our history, and that such
a division, or, what is more difficult still, redivision of the soil, is
totally inconsistent with the state of society in England at any period
subsequent to A.D. 600: but these are precisely the cases where the
mythus replaces and is ancillary to history.

-----

Footnote 154:

It does not seem very clear why the idea of _one_ measure of land
should suggest itself to either many such chieftains or one such
Bretwalda, while other arrangements of a much more striking and
necessary character remained totally different.

-----

Against all these arguments we have only one fact to adduce, but it is
no light one. It is certain that, in all the cases where a calculation
can be made at all, we do find a most striking coincidence with respect
to the size of the Hide in various parts of England; that such
calculation is applicable to very numerous instances, and apparently
satisfies the condition of the problem in all; and lastly that there
appears no reason to suppose that any such real change had taken place
in the value of the Hide, down to the period of the Norman conquest and
the compilation of Domesday, according to the admeasurement of at least
the largest and the most influential of the English tribes[155]. The
latest of these measurements are recorded in Domesday; the earliest by
Beda: the same system of calculations, the same results, apply to every
case in which trial has been made between these remote limits; and we
are thus enabled to ascend to the seventh century, a period at which any
equality of possessions is entirely out of the question, but at which
the old unit of measurement may still have retained and handed down its
original value: even as, with us, one farm may comprise a thousand,
another only two or three hundred acres, and yet the extent of the acre
remain unaltered.

-----

Footnote 155:

Beda almost invariably gives his numbers as “iuxta mensuram Anglorum.”
But in his works _Angli_ denotes all the Teutonic inhabitants of
Britain. H. E. i. cap. 1. Again, in Bk. i. cap. 15, he identifies
them, “Anglorum sive Saxonum gens.” He draws no distinction between
Angle and Saxon tribes, except where special reasons lead him to
particularize them. He does note discrepancies between them, which
would have appeared far less important to a scientific and
mathematical thinker, as he was, than differences in land-divisions. I
conclude then that no limitation can be admitted in his assertion, and
that the words “iuxta mensuram Anglorum” denote, “according to the
admeasurement common to all the Germanic inhabitants of Britain.”

-----

How then are we to account for this surprising fact, in the face of the
arguments thus arrayed against it? I cannot positively assert, but still
think it highly probable, that there was some such general measure
common to the Germanic tribes upon the continent, and especially in the
north. Whether originally sacerdotal, or how settled, it is useless to
guess; but there does seem reason to believe that a measure not widely
different from the result of my own calculations as to the Hide,
prevailed in Germany; and hence to conclude that it was the usual basis
of measurement among all the tribes that issued from the storehouse of
nations[156].

-----

Footnote 156:

I do not know the present average amount of a Frisian or Westphalian
_Hof_, but the peasant-farms a little below Cologne, on the left bank
of the Rhine, average from 30 to 50 acres. See Banfield, Agricult.
Rhine, p. 10. The Bavarian _Hof_ of two _Huben_ contains from 50 to 60
_juckert_ (each _juckert_ equal to 40,000 square Bavarian feet, or
nearly a _jugerum_). This brings the _Hof_ from about 36 to 40 acres.
See Schmeller, Baierisch. Wörterbuch, ii. 142, _voc._ Hueb.
Schmeller’s remarks on _Hof_ are worth consulting, and especially his
opinion that it may mean a _necessary_ measure or portion. See also
Grimm, Rechtsalt. p. 535.

-----

What was the amount then of the Hide among the Anglosaxons? Perhaps the
easiest way of arriving at a trustworthy conclusion will be to commence
with the Anglosaxon acre, and other subdivisions of the Hide and the
acre itself.

There is reason to believe that the latter measure implied ordinarily a
quantity of land not very different in amount from our own statute
acre[157]. I argue this from a passage in the dialogue attributed to
Ælfríc, where the ploughman is made to say: “ac geiúcodan oxan and
gefæstnodan sceare and cultre mid ðǽre syl ælce dæg ic sceal erian fulne
æcer oððe máre;” that is, “having yoked my oxen, and fastened my share
and coulter, I am bound to plough every day a full acre or more.” Now
experience proves[158] that a plough drawn by oxen will hardly exceed
this measure upon average land at the present day; an acre and a quarter
would be a very hard day’s work for any ploughman under such
circumstances. Hence for all practical purposes we may assume our actual
acre not to differ very materially from the Anglosaxon. And now, how is
an acre constituted?

-----

Footnote 157:

That it was a fixed and not a variable quantity, both as to form and
extent, seems to follow from the expressions, _three acres wide_ (Cod.
Dipl. No. 781), iii acera brǽde, i. e. _three acres breadth_ (Leg.
Æðelst. iv. 5), ix _acræ latitudine_ (Leg. Hen. I. cap. xvi.).

Footnote 158:

These calculations rest not only upon the authority of several large,
practical farmers, and the opinions of intelligent ploughmen who have
been consulted, but also upon experiments made under the author’s own
eye, on land of different qualities.

-----

It has many divisors, all multiplying into the required sum of 4840
square yards. Thus, it is clear that a length of 4840 yards, with a
breadth of one yard, is quite as much an acre as a length of 220 yards
with a breadth of 22 (in other words, ten chains by one, or 22 × 10 ×
22,) the usual and legal computation: that is to say, twenty-two strips
of land each 220 yards long and one wide, if placed together in any
position will make up an acre. Placed side by side they will make an
oblong acre whose length and breadth are as 10:1. A space rather more
than sixty-nine and less than seventy yards in each side would be a
square acre; it is however not probable that the land generally allowed
of square divisions, but rather that the portions were oblong, a
circumstance in favour of the ploughman, whose labour varies very much
with the length of the furrow.

The present divisors of the acre are 5·5 and 40; combinations of these
numbers make up the parts not only of the acre or square measure, but
also the measure of length. Thus 5·5 × 40 = 220, which taken in yards
are one furlong, and which with one yard’s breadth are 1⁄22 of an acre.
Again, forty times 5·5 yards with a breadth of 5·5 yards (or 220 × 5·5)
are 1210 yards square, ·25 of an acre: twice that, or forty times 5·5
with a breadth of eleven yards are ·5 acre: and twice that, or 220 × 20
(that is in modern surveying ten chains by one) = 4840 yards or the
whole acre. The same thing may be expressed in another way: we may
assume a square of 5·5 yards, which is called a rod, perch, or pole:
forty of these make a rood, which is a furlong with a breadth of 5·5
yards; and four such roods, or a furlong with a breadth of twenty-two
yards, are an acre of the oblong form described above, and which is
still the normal or legal acre.

My hypothesis goes on to assume that such, or nearly such, were the
elements of the original calculation: in fact, that they were entirely
so, with the substitution only of 5 for 5·5 as a factor. It remains to
be asked why these numbers should be fixed upon? Probably from some
notion of the mystical properties of the numbers themselves. Forty and
eight are of continual recurrence in Anglosaxon tradition, and may be
considered as their sacerdotal or mythical numbers: forty divided by
eight gives a quotient of five; and these may have been the original
factors, especially if, as there is every reason to believe, the first
division of lands (whether here or on the continent matters not) took
place under the authority and with the assistance of the heathen
priesthood.

If this were so, the Saxon acre very probably consisted of 5 × 5 × 40 ×
4 = 4000 square yards[159]; in which case the rod would be 25 yards
square, and the furlong 200 yards in length. At the same time as the
acres must be considered equal for all the purposes of useful
calculation, 4000 Saxon square yards = 4840 English, 5 Saxon = 5·5
English, and 200 Saxon = 220 English yards. Further, the Saxon yard =
1·1 English, or 39·6 inches. This I imagine to be the metgyrde or
measuring-yard of the Saxon Laws[160]. If then we take 5 × 5 × 40 yards
we have a block of land, 200 Saxon yards in length, and five in breadth;
and this I consider to have been the Saxon square Furlang or small acre,
and to have been exactly equal to our rood, the quarantena of early
calculations[161]. There is no doubt whatever of the Saxon furlang
having been a square as well as long measure[162]; as its name denotes,
it is the length of a furrow: now 220 (= 200 Saxon) yards is not at all
too long a side for a field in our modern husbandry[163], and is still
more readily conceivable in a less artificial system, where there was
altogether less enclosure, and the rotations of crops were fewer. Five
yards, or five and a half, is not too much space to allow for the turn
of the plough; and it therefore seems not improbable that such an oblong
block (200 × 5) should have been assumed as a settled measure or furlong
for the ploughman, two being taken alternately, as is done at this day,
in working, and forming a good half-day’s work for man and beast: the
length of the furrow, by which the labour of the ploughman is greatly
reduced, being taken to compensate for the improved character of our
implements.

-----

Footnote 159:

I think, for reasons to be assigned below, that there was a small as
well as large acre: in which case the small acre was probably made up
of 5 × 5 × 40 = 1000 sq. y.

Footnote 160:

The yard of land was a very different thing: this was the fourth part
of the Hide, the Virgata of Domesday.

Footnote 161:

This seems clear from a comparison of two passages already quoted in a
note, but which must here be given more at length. The law of Æðelstán
defines the king’s peace as extending from his door to the distance on
every side of three miles, three _furlongs_, three acres’ breadth,
nine feet, nine palms, and nine barleycorns. The law of Henry gives
the measurements thus: “tria miliaria, et tres _quarantenae_, et ix (?
iii) acrae latitudine, et ix pedes et ix palmae, et ix grana ordei.”
Thus the furlang and quarantena are identified. But it is also clear
that the series is a descending one, and consequently that the furlang
or quarantena is longer than the breadth of an acre. If, as is
probable, it is derived from _quarante_, I should suppose three
lengths and three breadths of an acre to have been intended; in fact
that some multiple of forty was the longer side of the acre.

Footnote 162:

In one case we hear of ða beán-furlang, the furlong under
bean-cultivation. Cod. Dipl. No. 1246.

Footnote 163:

A square of 220 yards would form a field of ten acres, which is not at
all oversized. Since the happy downfall of the corn-laws, which were a
bonus upon bad husbandry, hedges are being rooted up in every quarter,
and forty or fifty acres may now be seen in single fields, where they
were not thought of a few years ago.

-----

I think it extremely probable that the Saxons had a large and a small
acre, as well as a large and small hundred, and a large and small yard:
and also that the quarantena or rood was this small acre. Taking forty
quarantenae we have a sum of ten large acres, and taking three times
that number we have 120 quarantenae, or a large hundred of small acres =
30 large acres, giving ten to each course of a threefold system of
husbandry. This on the whole seems a near approximation to the value of
the Hide of land; and the calculation of small acres would then help to
account for the number of 120 which is assigned to the Hide by some
authorities[164].

-----

Footnote 164:

See Ellis, Introd. to Domesday.

-----

In the appendix to this chapter I have given various calculations to
prove that in Domesday the value of a Hide is forty Norman acres. It has
been asserted that 100 Saxon = 120 Norman acres, and if so 40 Norman =
33⅓ Saxon: which does not differ very widely from the calculation given
above.

It must be borne in mind that the Hide comprised only arable land: the
meadow and pasture was in the common lands and forests, and was attached
to the Hide as of common right: under these circumstances if the
calculation of thirty, thirty-two or thirty-three acres be correct, we
shall see that ample provision was made for the family[165].

Footnote 165:

The numbers given are assumed, upon the supposition that 3 × 40 were
taken: or that 4 × 8, that is four virgates of eight acres; or lastly
that thirty-three Saxon = nearly forty Norman were taken. As I am
about to test the actual acreage of England by these numbers, it is as
well to try them all. The practical result cannot vary much, and the
principal object is to show that the Saxon Hide was not very different
from the ordinary German land-divisions.

Let us now apply these data to places of which we know the hidage, and
compare this with the modern contents in statute-acres.

According to Beda[166] the Isle of Wight contained 1200 hides or
families: now the island contains 86,810 acres, which would give 72⅓
acres per hide. But only 75,000 acres are under cultivation now, and
this would reduce our quotient to 62·5 acres. On the hypothesis that in
such a spot as the Isle of Wight (in great portions of which vegetation
is not abundant) our Saxon forefathers had half as much under
cultivation as we now have, we should obtain a quotient of about
thirty-one acres to the hide, leaving 49,610 acres of pasture, waste,
etc.: the ratio between the cultivated and uncultivated land, being
about 37:49, is much too near equality for the general ratio of England,
but may be accounted for by the peculiar circumstances of the island.

-----

Footnote 166:

Hist. Eccl. iv. 16.

-----

Again, Beda estimates Thanet at 600 hides[167]. Now Thanet, at this day,
contains 23,000 acres of arable land, and 3500 of marsh and pastures.
The latter must have been far more extensive in the time of Beda, for in
the first place there must have been some land on the side of Surrey and
Sussex reserved as Mark, and we know that drainage and natural causes
have reclaimed considerable tracts in that part of Kent[168]; nor is it
reasonable to suppose that our forefathers ploughed up as much land as
we do. Yet even 23,000 acres will give us only 38⅓ acres to the hide;
and I do not think we shall be venturing too much in placing the 3200,
3800 or 5000 acres by which 23,000 respectively exceed 19,800, 19,200
and 18,000, to the account of pastures and commons. Seven or eight
thousand acres of common land would bear in fact so unusually small a
proportion to the quantity under crop, that we should be disposed to
suspect the islanders of having been less wealthy than many of their
neighbours, unless we give them credit for having sacrificed bread crops
to the far more remunerative pasturage of cattle[169].

-----

Footnote 167:

Hist. Eccl. i. 25.

Footnote 168:

The river Wantsum alone was three stadia wide, about a third of a
mile, and was passable at two points only. Bed. Hist. Eccl. i. 25.

Footnote 169:

The great fertility of Thanet is noticed by the ancients. Solinus
(cap. xxii.) calls it “frumentariis campis felix et gleba uberi.” But
corn is of no value without a market; and unless London or the
adjacent parts of the continent supplied one, I must still imagine
that the islanders did not keep so great an amount in arable. It is
true that at very early periods a good deal of corn was habitually
exported from Britain: “annona a Britannis sueta transferri.” Ammian.
Hist. xviii. 2.

-----

The whole acreage of Kent is 972,240 acres. What amount of this must be
deducted for waste, rivers, roads and towns I cannot say, but some
deduction is necessary. Now Kent numbered 15,000 hides: this gives a
quotient of 64 to 65 acres per hide; and at the least, one half of this
may fairly be taken off for marsh, pasture and the weald of Andred.

The calculation for Sussex is rendered uncertain in some measure,
through our ignorance of the relative proportion borne by the _weald_ in
the seventh century or earlier, to its present extent. The whole county
is computed at 907,920 acres, and the weald at 425,000 acres. We may be
assured that every foot of the weald was forest in the time of Beda: to
this must be added 110,000 acres which are still waste and totally unfit
for the plough: 30,000 acres now computed to be occupied by roads,
buildings, etc. may be neglected: our amount will therefore state itself
thus:

Whole acreage 907,920
Weald and waste 535,000
———-
372,920 acres.

Now Sussex contained 7000 hides[170], and this will give us a quotient
of 53·25 acres per hide. Here again, if we make allowance for the
condition of Saxon husbandry, we shall hardly err much in assuming
something near thirty to thirty-three acres to have been the arable hide
in Sussex.

-----

Footnote 170:

Beda, Hist. Eccl. iv. 13.

-----

When once we leave the accurate reports of a historian like Beda for the
evidence of later manuscripts, we must necessarily proceed with great
caution, and in reasonable distrust of our conclusions. This must be
borne in mind and fairly appreciated throughout the following
calculations.

An authority already mentioned[171] computes the number of hides in
Eastanglia at 30,000. It is difficult to determine exactly what counties
are meant by this, as we do not know the date of the document; but
supposing, what is most probable, that Norfolk and Suffolk are intended,
we should have a total of 2,241,060 acres in those two great farming
districts[172]. But even this large amount will only give us a quotient
of 73·7 acres per hide, and it may fairly be diminished by at least one
half, to account for commons, marshes, forests and other land not
brought under the plough from the seventh to the tenth centuries.

-----

Footnote 171:

See Chap. III. p. 82.

Footnote 172:

Norf. 1,292,300, Suff. 938,760, = 2,241,060. Of these I believe only
about 2,000,000 are actually under cultivation, which would reduce the
quotient to sixty-three acres and two-thirds per hide.

-----

The same table states Essex at 7000 hides. The acreage of that county is
979,000 acres[173], hence upon the whole calculation we shall have
1396⁄7 acres per hide. But of course here a very great deduction is to
be made for Epping, Hainault and other forests, and for marshy and
undrained land.

-----

Footnote 173:

Of which only 900,000 are computed to be now under cultivation: this
reduces the quotient to 128·5 acres per hide; and the ratio of
cultivated to uncultivated land is as 7:23, taking the hide at 30
acres; and as 77:223 taking the hide at 33 acres.

-----

I shall now proceed to reverse the order of proceeding which has
hitherto been adopted, and to show that the hypothesis of the hide
having comprised from thirty to thirty-three acres is the only one which
will answer the conditions found in various grants: that in a number of
cases from very different parts of England, a larger number of acres
would either be impossible or most improbable: that it is entirely
impossible for the hide to have reached 120 or even 100 acres, and that
the amount left after deducting the arable, to form pastures and
meadows, is by no means extravagant. The examples are taken from
different charters printed in the Codex Diplomaticus Ævi Saxonici, and
for convenience of reference are arranged tabularly. The comparison is
made with the known acreage, taken from the Parliamentary return of
1841[174]. The table is constructed upon the following plan. The first
column contains the name of the place; the second, the number of hides;
the third, the actual acreage; the fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and
eighth, the hides calculated at thirty, thirty-two, thirty-three, forty
and one hundred acres respectively; the ninth, tenth, eleventh and
twelfth, the excess of real over supposed acreage, at the first four
amounts; the thirteenth, the excess of hidage over real acreage on the
hypothesis of one hundred acres per hide; the fourteenth, fifteenth,
sixteenth and seventeenth, the ratios of hidage at thirty, thirty-two,
thirty-three and forty, to the excess, from which we deduce the
proportion between the arable, and the meadow, pasture and waste. In a
few instances, there is a double return, implying that it is uncertain
to which, of two synonymous districts, a grant must be referred.

-----

Footnote 174:

Enumeration Abstract, etc., 1841. I have also used the tables found in
Mr. Porter’s Progress of the Nation; in these however, the total
acreage, calculated apparently upon the square miles, differs slightly
from the results of the Government inquiry, Mr. Porter’s numbers
always exceeding those of the _Blue-book_.

-----

┌──────────────────────────────┬──────────┬──────────┐
│ Name │ No. of│ Actual│
│ │ hides.│ acreage.│
├───────────────────┬──────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│ Trotterscliff │Kent. │ 12│ 1150│
│ Dailesford │Kent. │ 6│ 540│
│ Sunningwell │Berks. │ 15│ 1200│
│ Denchworth │Berks. │ 30│ 2800│
│ Graveney │Kent. │ 32│ 1920│
│ Marcham │Berks. │ 50│ 4940│
│{ Kington │Wilts. │ 40│ 2320│
│{ Kington │Wilts. │ 40│ 3950│
│ Petersham │Surrey │ 10│ 660│
│ Brokenborough │Wilts. │ 50│ 2950│
│{ Alresford │Hants. │ 40│ 1250│
│{ Alresford │Hants. │ 40│ 3660│
│ Whitchurch │Hants. │ 110│ 7330│
│ Beddington │Surrey. │ 70│ 3830│
│{ Compton │Dorset. │ 40│ 1390│
│{ Compton │Dorset. │ 40│ 1520│
│ Sanderstead │Surrey. │ 32│ 2250│
│{ Clapham │Surrey. │ 30│ 1070│
│{ Clapham │Surrey. │ 30│ 1920│
│ Micheldever │Hants. │ 100│ 9340│
│ Wrington │Somers. │ 20│ 1530│
│ Barrow on Humb. │Linc. │ 50│ 4620│
│ Chertsey │Surrey. │ 200│ 10020│
│ Sutton │Surrey. │ 30│ 1830│
│ Aldingbourn │Sussex. │ 38│ 3800│
│ Ferring │Sussex. │ 12│ 1070│
│ Denton │Sussex. │ 25│ 890│
│ Bradfield │Berks. │ 48│ 4270│
│ Aston │Berks. │ 55│ 2030│
│ Charing │Kent. │ 60│ 4060│
│ King’s Worthy │Hants. │ 30│ 2190│
│ Hurstborne Prior │Hants. │ 60│ 3070│
│ Newnton │Wilts. │ 10│ 810│
│ Garford │Berks. │ 15│ 1170│
│ Mordon │Surrey. │ 20│ 1700│
│ Blewbury │Berks. │ 100│ 6950│
│ Sotwell │Berks. │ 15│ 1310│
│ Goosey │Berks. │ 10│ 850│
│{ Hanney, East │Berks. │ 20│ 600│
│{ Hanney, West │Berks. │ 20│ 1390│
│ Badgworth │Somers. │ 25│ 1470│
│ Drayton │Berks. │ 20│ 1950│
│ Barton │Berks. │ 40│ 3590│
└───────────────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────┘

┌───────────────────────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┐
│ Name │ Acreage│ Acreage│ Acreage│ Acreage│ Acreage│
│ │ at 30.│ at 32.│ at 33.│ at 40.│ at 100.│
├───────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┤
│ Trotterscliff Kent. │ 360│ 384│ 396│ 480│ 1200│
│ Dailesford Kent. │ 180│ 192│ 198│ 240│ 600│
│ Sunningwell Berks. │ 450│ 480│ 495│ 600│ 1500│
│ Denchworth Berks. │ 900│ 960│ 990│ 1200│ 3000│
│ Graveney Kent. │ 960│ 1024│ 1056│ 1280│ 3200│
│ Marcham Berks. │ 1500│ 1600│ 1650│ 2000│ 5000│
│{ Kington Wilts. │ 1200│ 1280│ 1320│ 1600│ 4000│
│{ Kington Wilts. │ 1200│ 1280│ 1320│ 1600│ 4000│
│ Petersham Surrey │ 300│ 320│ 330│ 400│ 1000│
│ Brokenborough Wilts. │ 1500│ 1600│ 1650│ 2000│ 5000│
│ Whitchurch Hants. │ 3300│ 3520│ 3630│ 4400│ 11000│
│ Beddington Surrey.│ 2100│ 2240│ 2310│ 2800│ 7000│
│{ Compton Dorset.│ 1200│ 1280│ 1320│ 1600│ 4000│
│{ Compton Dorset.│ 1200│ 1280│ 1320│ 1600│ 4000│
│ Sanderstead Surrey.│ 960│ 1024│ 1056│ 1280│ 3200│
│{ Clapham Surrey.│ 900│ 960│ 990│ 1200│ 3000│
│{ Clapham Surrey.│ 900│ 960│ 990│ 1200│ 3000│
│ Micheldever Hants. │ 3000│ 3200│ 3300│ 4000│ 10000│
│ Wrington Somers.│ 600│ 640│ 660│ 800│ 2000│
│ Barrow on Humb. Linc. │ 1500│ 1600│ 1650│ 2000│ 5000│
│ Chertsey Surrey.│ 6000│ 6400│ 6600│ 8000│ 20000│
│ Sutton Surrey.│ 900│ 960│ 990│ 1200│ 3000│
│ Aldingbourn Sussex.│ 1140│ 1216│ 1254│ 1520│ 3800│
│ Ferring Sussex.│ 360│ 384│ 396│ 480│ 1200│
│ Denton Sussex.│ 750│ 800│ 825│ 1000│ 2500│
│ Bradfield Berks. │ 1440│ 1536│ 1584│ 1920│ 4800│
│ Aston Berks. │ 1650│ 1760│ 1815│ 2200│ 5500│
│ Charing Kent. │ 1800│ 1920│ 1980│ 2400│ 6000│
│ King’s Worthy Hants. │ 900│ 960│ 990│ 1200│ 3000│
│ Hurstborne Prior Hants. │ 1800│ 1920│ 1980│ 2400│ 6000│
│ Newnton Wilts. │ 300│ 320│ 330│ 400│ 1000│
│ Garford Berks. │ 450│ 480│ 495│ 600│ 1500│
│ Mordon Surrey.│ 600│ 640│ 660│ 800│ 2000│
│ Blewbury Berks. │ 3000│ 3200│ 3300│ 4000│ 10000│
│ Sotwell Berks. │ 450│ 480│ 495│ 600│ 1500│
│ Goosey Berks. │ 300│ 320│ 330│ 400│ 1000│
│{ Hanney, East Berks. │ 600│ 640│ 660│ 800│ 2000│
│{ Hanney, West Berks. │ 600│ 640│ 660│ 800│ 2000│
│ Badgworth Somers.│ 750│ 800│ 825│ 1000│ 2500│
│ Drayton Berks. │ 600│ 640│ 660│ 800│ 2000│
│ Barton Berks. │ 1200│ 1280│ 1320│ 1600│ 4000│
└───────────────────────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┘

┌───────────────────────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┬────────┐
│ Name │ Rat.│ Rat.│ Rat.│ Rat.│
│ │ at 30.│ at 32.│ at 33.│ at 40.│
├───────────────────────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┼────────┤
│ Trotterscliff Kent. │ 36:79 │ 38:77 │ 39:75 │ 48:67 │
│ Dailesford Kent. │ 1:2 │ 15:29 │ 10:19 │ 4:5 │
│ Sunningwell Berks. │ 3:5 │ 5:8 │ 30:47 │ 1:1 │
│ Denchworth Berks. │ 9:19 │ 12:23 │ 96:181│ 3:4 │
│ Graveney Kent. │ 1:1 │ 8:7 │ 11:9 │ 2:1 │
│ Marcham Berks. │ 75:172│ 80:167│ 165:329│ 100:147│
│{ Kington Wilts. │ 15:14 │ 65:52 │ 67:50 │ 20:9 │
│{ Kington Wilts. │ 24:55 │ 130:267│ 134:263│ 32:47 │
│ Petersham Surrey │ 5:6 │ 16:17 │ 1:1 │ 20:13 │
│ Brokenborough Wilts. │ 30:29 │ 32:27 │ 33:26 │ 40:19 │
│{ Alresford Hants. │ 24:1 │ 128:5 │ 132:5 │ 0 │
│{ Alresford Hants. │ 20:41 │ 64:119│ 66:117│ 80:103│
│ Whitchurch Hants. │ 330:403│ 352:381│ 363:370│ 440:293│
│ Beddington Surrey.│ 210:173│ 224:159│ 231:152│ 280:103│
│{ Compton Dorset.│ 120:19 │ 128:11 │ 132:7 │ 0 │
│{ Compton Dorset.│ 15:4 │ 16:3 │ 33:5 │ 0 │
│ Sanderstead Surrey.│ 32:43 │ 512:563│ 528:547│ 128:97 │
│{ Clapham Surrey.│ 90:17 │ 96:11 │ 99:8 │ 0 │
│{ Clapham Surrey.│ 45:51 │ 1:1 │ 33:31 │ 15:9 │
│ Micheldever Hants. │ 150:317│ 160:307│ 165:302│ 200:267│
│ Wrington Somers.│ 20:31 │ 64:89 │ 66:87 │ 80:73 │
│ Barrow on Humb. Linc. │ 25:52 │ 80:151│ 55:99 │ 100:131│
│ Chertsey Surrey.│ 300:201│ 320:181│ 330:171│ 400:101│
│ Sutton Surrey.│ 30:31 │ 32:29 │ 33:28 │ 120:63 │
│ Aldingbourn Sussex.│ 57:190│ 304:485│ 627:913│ 38:57 │
│ Ferring Sussex.│ 36:71 │ 192:343│ 198:337│ 48:59 │
│ Denton Sussex.│ 75:14 │ 80:9 │ 165:13 │ 0 │
│ Bradfield Berks. │ 144:283│768:1367│792:1343│ 192:235│
│ Aston Berks. │ 165:38 │ 176:27 │ 366:43 │ 0 │
│ Charing Kent. │ 90:11 │ 96:107│ 99:104│ 120:83 │
│ King’s Worthy Hants. │ 30:43 │ 32:41 │ 33:40 │ 40:33 │
│ Hurstborne Prior Hants. │ 180:127│ 192:115│ 198:109│ 240:67 │
│ Newnton Wilts. │ 30:51 │ 32:49 │ 33:48 │ 40:41 │
│ Garford Berks. │ 45:72 │ 48:69 │ 49:67 │ 60:57 │
│ Mordon Surrey.│ 6:11 │ 32:53 │ 33:52 │ 8:9 │
│ Blewbury Berks. │ 60:79 │ 64:75 │ 66:73 │ 80:59 │
│ Sotwell Berks. │ 45:86 │ 48:83 │ 93:163│ 60:71 │
│ Goosey Berks. │ 6:11 │ 32:53 │ 33:52 │ 8:9 │
│{ Hanney, East Berks. │ 0 │ 0 │ 0 │ 0 │
│{ Hanney, West Berks. │ 60:79 │ 64:75 │ 66:73 │ 80:59 │
│ Badgworth Somers.│ 75:72 │ 80:67 │ 55:43 │ 100:47 │
│ Drayton Berks. │ 4:9 │ 64:131│ 22:43 │ 80:115│
│ Barton Berks. │ 120:239│ 128:231│ 132:227│ 160:99 │
└───────────────────────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┴────────┘

We have thus forty-nine cases in which the Hide is proved less than 100
acres, _a fortiori_ less than 120. Any one who carefully considers the
ratios arrived at in the foregoing table, which for any one of the
assumed cases rarely exceed _one to two_, will agree that there is a
remarkable coincidence in the results, in at least the rich, fertile and
cultivated counties from which the examples are derived. In some cases
indeed the proportion of arable to waste is so great, that we must
suppose other districts, now under cultivation, to have been then
entirely untouched, in order to conceive sufficient space for marks and
pastures. But lest it should be objected that these examples can teach
us only what was the case in fertile districts, I subjoin a calculation
of the Hidage and Acreage of all England, including all its barren
moors, its forests, its marshes and its meadows, from the Solent to the
utmost limit of Northumberland.

The total Hidage of England = 243,600
The total Acreage of England = 31,770,615 st. a.

Acreage at 30 7,308,000 Excess 24,462,615 Rat. 7:24 nearly.
32 7,795,200 23,975,415 1:3
33 8,038,800 23,731,815 8:23
40 9,744,000 22,026,615 3:8
100 24,360,000 7,410,615 24:7
120 29,232,000 2,538,615 14:1

This calculation leaves no doubt a bare possibility of the hide’s
containing 100 or 120 statute-acres: but those who are inclined to
believe that, taking all England through, the proportion of cultivated
to uncultivated land was as 29:3, or even as 24:7, it must be owned,
appreciate our ancient husbandry beyond its merits[175]. Cultivation may
very probably have increased with great rapidity up to the commencement
of the ninth century; and in that case, waste land would have been
brought under the plough to meet the demands of increasing population:
but the savage inroads of the Northmen which filled the next succeeding
century must have had a strong tendency in the opposite direction. I can
hardly believe that a third of all England was under cultivation at the
time of the conquest; yet this is the result which we obtain from a
calculation of thirty-two or thirty-three acres to the hide, while a
calculation of forty acres gives us a result of three-eighths, or very
little less than one-half. The extraordinary character of this result
will best appear from the following considerations.

Footnote 175:

I have taken the acreage as given in the Census of 1841, but there is
another calculation which makes it amount to 32,342,400; in which case
the several values must be corrected as follows. The general result is
not in the least altered by this change in the factors.

Acreage at 30 7,308,000 Excess Rat. 7:25
25,034,400

32 7,795,200 24,547,200 7:24

33 8,038,800 24,303,600 1:3

40 9,744,000 22,598,400 9:22

100 24,360,000 7,982,400 24:7

120 29,232,000 3,110,400 29:3

If we proceed to apply these calculations to the existing condition of
England, we shall be still more clearly satisfied that from thirty to
thirty-three acres is at any rate a near approximation to the truth. The
_exact_ data for England are I believe not found, but in 1827 Mr.
Couling, a civil engineer and surveyor, delivered a series of
calculations to the Select Committee of the House of Commons on
Emigration, which calculations have been reproduced by Mr. Porter in his
work on the Progress of the Nation. From this I copy the following
table:

┌──────────────┬───────────────┬──────────────┬───────────────┬───────────────┐
│ Arable and │ Meadow, │ Waste │ Waste │ │
│ garden. │pasture, marsh.│ capable of │ incapable of │ Summary. │
│ │ │ improvement. │ improvement. │ │
├──────────────┼───────────────┼──────────────┼───────────────┼───────────────┤
│Statute acres.│Statute acres. │Statute acres.│Statute acres. │Statute acres. │
│ 10,252,800 │ 15,379,200 │ 3,454,000 │ 3,256,400 │ 32,342,400 │
└──────────────┴───────────────┴──────────────┴───────────────┴───────────────┘

Now as the arable and gardens are all that can possibly be reckoned to
the hide, we have these figures:

Arable 10,252,800
Meadow, waste, forest, etc. 22,089,600

giving a ratio of 5:11 nearly between the cultivated and
uncultivated[176].

-----

Footnote 176:

This differs from the result obtained at forty acres, only by the
small advance of 7⁄88: or taking Mr. Porter’s tables, of 1⁄22.

-----

The actual amount in France is difficult to ascertain, but of the
52,732,428 hectares of which its superficial extent consists, it is
probable that about 30,000,000 are under some sort of profitable
culture: giving a ratio of rather less than 15:11 between the cultivated
and uncultivated: how much of this is arable and garden I cannot exactly
determine; but it is probable that a great deal is reckoned to
profitable cultivation, which could not have been counted in the hide.
Osieries, meadows, orchards, cultivated or artificial grassland, and
brushwood, are all sources of profit, and thus are properly included in
a _cadastre_ of property which may be tithed or taxed as productive: but
they are not strictly what the hide was, and must be deducted in any
calculation such as that which is the object of this chapter. We are
unfortunately also furnished with inconsistent amounts by different
authorities, where the difference rests upon what is reckoned to
profitable cultivation, on which subject there may be a great variety of
opinion. Still, for a time neglecting these considerations, and making
no deduction whatever, it appears that the excess of culture upon the
gross sum is only as 15:11 in France[177].

Footnote 177:

The hectare is about 2·5 acres. The calculations have been variously
made. One is as follows:

Total superficies 52,732,428 hect.
Profitably cultured, including gardens, osieries, }
willow plantations, orchards, meadows } 30,000,000 hect.
and cultivated pastures }
Forests and landes 10,000,000 ”
Useless land 7,000,000 ”
—————
47,000,000 ”

Another, and I believe sounder, calculation makes the forests and
landes amount to

Forest 8,623,128 hect.
Landes 8,000,00 ”
—————
16,623,128 ”

Where, probably, portions of the wood and lande are not reckoned to
the land under profitable cultivation. Still this is a very different
thing from being under the _plough_.

In the returns from Austria we can follow the same train of reasoning:
as the ensuing table will show.

┌───────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ │ Product. surf. in jochs. (joch = 1·4 acre).│
├───────────────┼──────────┬───────┬─────────┬─────────┬──────────┬──────────┤
│Provinces. │ Arable.│ Vines.│ Meadows.│ Commons.│ Forests.│ Total.│
├───────────────┼──────────┼───────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│Lower Austria │ 1,399,910│ 80,153│ 447,758│ 251,347│ 1,122,285│ 3,301,453│
│Upper Austria │ 834,556│ 27│ 530,601│ 517,683│ 1,141,823│ 3,024,690│
│Styria │ 709,147│ 54,875│ 456,960│ 596,341│ 1,773,564│ 3,590,887│
│Carinthia │ 477,492│ 16,814│ 556,973│ 763,846│ 1,528,942│ 3,344,067│
│Illyria │ 245,738│ 26,132│ 171,252│ 520,866│ 317,246│ 1,281,234│
│Tyrol │ 377,300│ 55,300│ 432,930│ 648,800│ 1,946,200│ 3,460,530│
│Bohemia │ 3,889,979│ 4,446│ 948,468│ 611,501│ 2,316,298│ 7,770,692│
│Moravia & }│ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Silesia }│ 2,213,855│ 51,793│ 390,152│ 463,098│ 1,114,849│ 4,233,747│
│Galicia │ 5,770,388│ 30│2,068,032│1,360,166│ 4,250,932│13,449,548│
│Dalmatia │ 161,228│100,530│ 28,728│ 568,538│ 300,874│ 1,159,898│
├───────────────┼──────────┼───────┼─────────┼─────────┼──────────┼──────────┤
│Total │16,079,593│390,100│6,031,854│6,302,186│15,813,012│44,616,746│
└───────────────┴──────────┴───────┴─────────┴─────────┴──────────┴──────────┘

Thus of the whole productive surface of the Austrian empire, the
_arable_ bears only the proportion of 4:11. But to this must clearly be
added an immense extent of land totally unfitted for the plough; by
which the ratio of arable to the whole territorial surface will be
materially diminished. Strange then as the conclusion may appear, we are
compelled to admit that England at the close of the tenth century had
advanced to a high pitch of cultivation: while the impossibility of
reckoning the hide at much above thirty Saxon acres is demonstrated. It
is clear, however the property of the land may have been distributed,
that the elements of wealth existed in no common degree[178].

-----

Footnote 178:

It is well known that great quantities of land were thrown out of
cultivation to produce chases and forests. And the constant wars of
the baronial ages must have had the same effect. However singular we
may think it, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that, in _some_
districts of England, the Saxons may have had more land in cultivation
than we ourselves had at the beginning of George the Third’s reign;
Mr. Porter calculates that from 1760 to 1814, no less than 7,076,610
acres have been brought into cultivation under Inclosure Bills. Pr. of
the Nation, 154.

-----

The number of forty acres has of course been taken solely for the
purpose of getting a common measure with the present acre assumed in the
parliamentary survey. Whether it corresponded exactly with thirty,
thirty-two or thirty-three Saxon acres, it is impossible to say, but I
have shown that the difference could not be very great. Something may be
alleged in favour of each of these numbers; but on the whole the larger
one of thirty-three acres seems to me the most probable. A valuable
entry of the year 967 may help us to some clearer conclusion[179]. In
this document Bishop Oswald states himself to have made a grant of seó
þridde hind at Dydinccotan, ðæt is, se þridde æcer,—the third _hind_ at
Didcot, that is, the third acre. It is certain that at some very early
period the word _hund_ denoted _ten_, whence we explain its occurrence
in such numerals as hundseofontig, hundeahtatig, etc. The word _hind_
then, I derive from this hund, and render by _tenth_, and the grant
seems to have conveyed the third _tenth_, which can only be said of a
quantity containing three times ten units of some description or other.
But this third tenth is further described as being every third acre,
that is, a third of the whole land; and ten units make up this third: it
seems therefore not unreasonable to suppose that the acre was the unit
in question, that ten such acres constituted the hind, and that the hind
itself was the third part of the hide. When we consider that thirty
acres are exactly three times an area of 40 × 40 square rods, there
appears a probability that the measure was calculated upon a threefold
course of cultivation, similar to that in use upon the continent of
Europe; this consisted of a rotation of winter corn, summer corn, and
fallow, and to each a block or _telga_ of ten large or forty small acres
(roods) was allotted. Thirty acres were thus devoted to cultivation; but
where was the homestall? Probably not upon the thirty acres themselves,
which we cannot suppose to have been generally enclosed and sundered,
but to have lain undivided, as far as external marks were concerned, _in
the general arable of the community_. The village containing the
homesteads of the markers, probably lay at a little distance from the
fields[180], and I do not think we shall be giving too much when we
allow three acres, over and above the thirty, for farm buildings,
strawyard and dwelling. For we cannot doubt that stall-feeding was the
rule with regard to horned cattle in general. In the same dialogue which
has been already cited, the ploughman is made to say: “I must fill the
oxen’s cribs with hay, and give them water, and bear out their
dung[181].” Moreover there must be room found for stacks of hay and
wood, for barns and outhouses, and sleeping-rooms both for the serfs and
the members of the family; nor are houses of more than one story very
likely to have been built[182]. With this introduction I proceed to
another grant of Oswald[183]. In the year 996, he gave three hides of
land to Eádríc: the property however lay in different places: “æt
Eánulfestúne óðerhealf híd, ⁊ æt úferan Strætforda, on ðǽre gesyndredan
híde, ðone óðerne æcer, ⁊ æt Fachanleáge ðone þriddan æcer feldlandes
... ⁊ on eásthealfe Afene eahta æceras mǽdwa, ⁊ forne gean Biccenclife.
xii. æceras mǽdwa, ⁊ þreo æcras benorðan Afene tó myllnstealle;” i. e.
“at Eanulfestun a hide and a half; at upper Stratford the second acre
(i. e. half a hide); at Fachanleah the third acre (i. e. a third of a
hide); on the east of the river Avon, eight acres of meadow, and onwards
towards Biccancliff, twelve acres; and to the northward of the Avon, the
three acres for a millstall.” Our data here are 1½ hide + ½ hide + ⅓
hide, or 2⅓ hides; but, if the calculations which precede are correct, 8
+ 12 acres or 20 acres = ⅔ hide, and thus make up three hides of thirty
acres each: three acres devoted to mill-buildings are not reckoned into
the sum, and it is therefore possible that a similar course was pursued
with regard to the land occupied, not by the millstall but by the
homestall[184].

-----

Footnote 179:

Cod. Dipl. No. 538.

Footnote 180:

“In the greater part (of Germany), especially in all the populous
parts of Southern Germany, the land is tilled by its owners, scarcely
any small holdings being farmed out. The possessions of the peasant
owners and cultivators are usually very diminutive, and those of the
richer lords of the soil, especially in the North, immensely
extensive. Lastly, the peasant scarcely anywhere lives upon his land,
but in the adjacent village, whatever may be its distance from his
fields.” Banfield, Agric. on the Rhine, p. 10.

Footnote 181:

Leo, Sprachproben, p. 7. Thorpe, Analect. p. 8.

Footnote 182:

In Hungary, where land is abundant, houses, even those of considerable
proprietors, are rarely of more than one story.

Footnote 183:

Cod. Dipl. No. 529.

Footnote 184:

It is to be remarked that the eight and twelve acres of meadow are
distinguished here from the feld-land or arable: and in strictness
they ought not to be calculated into the hide; but perhaps it was
intended to plough them up: or Oswald may even have begun to follow a
system in which arable and meadow should both be included in the hide,
which is equivalent, in other words, to the attempt to replace the
wasteful method of unenclosed pastures by a more civilized arrangement
of the land. He speaks indeed, on more than one occasion, of granting
gedál-land, and land tó gedále, which can hardly mean anything but
_new enclosures_.

-----

Having thus stated my own view of the approximate value of the hide, I
feel it right to cite one or two passages which seem adverse to it. By a
grant of the year 977, Oswald conveyed to Æðelwald, two hides, all but
sixty acres; these sixty acres the bishop had taken into his own demesne
or inland at Kempsey, as wheat-land[185]. Now if this be an accurate
reading, and not by chance an ill-copied lx for ix, it would seem to
imply that sixty acres were less than a hide; for these acres were
clearly arable.

-----

Footnote 185:

Cod. Dipl. No. 612.

-----

Again, Æðelred granted land at Stoke to Léofríc in 982: the estate
conveyed was of three hides and thirty acres, called in one charter
_jugera_, in another part of the same grant, _æcera_[186]. It may be
argued that here the acres were meadow or pasture, not included in the
arable. But there are other calculations upon the jugerum[187], which
render it probable that less than our statute-acre was intended by the
term. For example, in 839, king Æðelwulf gave Dudda ten _jugera_ within
the walls of Canterbury: now Canterbury at this day comprises only 3240
acres, and taking the area of almost any provincial town, it seems
hardly probable that ten full acres within the walls should have been
granted to any person, especially to one who, like Dudda, was of no very
great consideration. A town-lot of two acres and a half, or ten roods,
is conceivable.

-----

Footnote 186:

Ibid. No. 633.

Footnote 187:

According to Pliny, the jugerum was a day’s work for a yoke of oxen,
i.e. nearly an acre; but the Saxon jugerum can hardly have been so
large, for the reasons given in the text.

-----

The last example to be quoted is from a will of Ælfgár[188], a king’s
thane, about 958. In this, among other legacies, he grants to Æðelgár a
hide of 120 acres: “and ic Æðelgár an án híde lond ðes ðe Æðulf hauede
be hundtuelti acren, áteo só he wille.” In this instance I am inclined
to think that the special description implies a difference from the
usual computation: if a hide were _always_ 120 acres, why should Ælfgár
think it necessary to particularize this one hide? was there a large
hide of 120, as well as a small one of thirty? In the other
cases—looking at the impossibility of assigning more than forty
statute-acres to the Saxon hide, so plainly demonstrated by the tables—I
suppose the æcras to be small acres or roods.

-----

Footnote 188:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1222.

-----

It is scarcely necessary to say that where the number of hides mentioned
in any place falls very far short of the actual acreage, no argument can
be derived any way. The utmost it proves is that only a certain amount,
however inconsiderable, was under the plough. Thus Beda tells us that
Anglesey contained 960, Iona or Icolmkill, only five, hides[189]. The
acreage of Anglesey gives 150,000 acres under cultivation: this would be
156·33 per hide; but in this island a very great reduction is necessary:
taking it even as it stands, and calculating the hide at thirty acres,
we should have a ratio of 24:101; at forty acres, a ratio of 32:93 or
little more than 1:3.

-----

Footnote 189:

Hist. Eccl. ii. 9; iii. 4.

-----

Iona numbers about 1300 acres (nearly two square miles): this at five
hides would give 260 acres per hide: at thirty acres, a ratio of 3:23 or
nearly 1:8 between cultivated and uncultivated land: or at forty acres,
a ratio of 2:11. But the monks and their dependants were the only
inhabitants; and in the time of Beda, up to which there is no proof of
the land’s having been inhabited at all (in fact it was selected
expressly because a _desert_), sand, if not forest, must have occupied a
large proportion of the surface.

Let us now retrace our steps for a few moments. The hide was calculated
upon the arable: it was the measure of the alod,—the éðel, or inherited,
individual possession; it was the κλῆρος, lot, or share of the first
settler: it kept a plough at work during the year: and, according to its
etymology (_higid_) and the word _familia_ by which it was translated,
it was to suffice for the support of one Hiwisc or household.

Did it really so suffice, at first and afterwards? Unquestionably it
did. We may safely assert this, without entering into nice speculations
as to the amount of population in the Saxon kingdoms of the seventh,
eighth, ninth, or even eleventh centuries. We know that in the eighth
century, 150 hides were enough for the support and comfort of 600 monks
in Yarrow and Wearmouth[190]; there is no reason, from their history, to
suppose that they were at all sparingly provided for. But allowance must
be made also for serfs and dependants, the exercise of hospitality and
charity, the occasional purchase of books, vestments and decorations,
the collection of reliques, and the maintenance of the fabric both of
the church and monastery. Grants and presents, offerings and foundations
would do much, but still some portion of these necessary expenses must
be carried to the account of the general fund. At this rate however, one
hide was capable of maintaining four full-grown men.

-----

Footnote 190:

Anon. Abb. Gyrw. § 33. This at forty actual acres, is ten acres per
man.

-----

Now even at the present day an industrious man can very well support his
family upon, not thirty or forty, but ten acres of average land[191]. If
we look at the produce of such a threefold course as has been mentioned,
there can hardly be any doubt upon the subject; the cultivator would
have every year twenty Saxon (= 26⅔ Norman) acres under some kind of
corn, principally barley in all probability, though much wheat was
grown. Assuming the yield at only two quarters per acre, which is an
almost ludicrous understatement of the probable amount[192], we give
each householder forty quarters of cereals, at the very lowest, and
deducting his seed-corn and the public taxes, we still leave him a very
large amount. The average annual consumption of wheat per head in
England is now computed at one quarter: let us add one half to
compensate for the less nutritious qualities of barley, and we shall yet
be under the mark if we allow our householder at the close of the year,
a net receipt of thirty quarters, or food for at least twenty persons.
Add to this the cattle, and especially swine fed in the forests,—which
paid well for their own keep, and gave a net surplus—and the _ceorl_ or
owner of one hide of land, independently of his political rights,
becomes a person of some consideration from his property[193]: in short
he is fully able to maintain himself, his wife and child, the ox that
ploughs, and the slave that tends his land,—owning much more indeed,
than, in Hesiod’s eyes, would have sufficed for these purposes[194]. It
may be admitted that the skies of Greece and Italy showered kindlier
rays upon the Ionian or the Latin than visited the rough denizen of our
Thule; that less food of any kind, and especially less meat, was
required for their support[195], and that they felt no necessity to
withdraw large amounts of barley from the annual yield, for the purpose
of producing fermented liquors[196]; still, as far as the amount of land
is concerned, the advantage is incontestably on the side of the
Anglosaxon; and in this one element of wealth, our ceorl was
comparatively richer than the comrade of Romulus or the worshipper of
Athene.

-----

Footnote 191:

We need not enter upon the question whether such a plot of land can be
well cultivated (except as a garden), or whether it is desirable that
there should be such a class of cultivators. All I assert is, that a
man can support his family upon it.

Footnote 192:

The fertility of England was always celebrated, and under the Romans
it exported cereals largely. See Gibbon’s calculation of an export
under Julian. Dec. F. cap. xix. Our present average yield of wheat
exceeds 30 bushels or 3·75 qrs.

Footnote 193:

If he had a market for his surplus, he might accumulate wealth. Even
if he had not this, he insured a comfortable, though rude subsistence,
for his household. The spur to exertion, urging him to acquire
luxuries, might be wanting, and the national advancement in refinement
thus retarded: but he had a sufficiency of the necessaries of life,
and an independent existence in the body of the family and the Mark.
Such a state necessarily precedes the more cultivated stages of
society.

Footnote 194:

οἶκον μὲν πρώτιστα, γυναῖκα τε, βοῦν τ’ ἀροτῆρα.

Cited in Aristot. Polit. bk. i. cap. 1.

The land of a fullborn Spartan may have been somewhat less than the
Saxon hide: but let those who think these amounts too small, remember
the two jugera (under two acres) which formed the _haeredium_ of a
Roman patrician.

Footnote 195:

Hecataeus says the Arcadians fed upon barley-bread and pork, Ἀρκαδικὸν
δὲ δεῖπνον.... Ἑκαταῖος ... μάζας φησὶν εἶναι καὶ ὕεια κρέα. Athen.
iv. 148. But the Arcadians, both in blood and manners, probably
resembled the Saxons more than any other Greeks did; and what
Hecataeus says of them would not apply to the inhabitants of Attica.

Footnote 196:

After the Persian wars at least, when the Greeks prided themselves on
drinking wine, not beer:

ἀλλ’ ἄρσενας τοι τῆσδε γῆς οἰκήτορας
εὑρήσετ’, οὐ πίνοντας ἐκ κριθῶν μέθυ.
Æsch. Supp. 929.

-----

CHAPTER V.
PERSONAL RANK. THE FREEMAN. THE NOBLE.

The second principle laid down in the first chapter of this book, is
that of personal rank, which in the Teutonic scheme appears inseparably
connected with the possession of land.

The earliest records we can refer to, place before us a system founded
upon distinctions of birth, as clearly as any that we can derive from
the Parliamentary writs or rolls of later ages: in our history there is
not even a fabulous Arcadia, wherein we may settle a free democracy: for
even where the records of fact no longer supply a clue through the
labyrinths of our early story, the epic continues the tradition, and
still celebrates the deeds of nobles and of kings.

Tacitus, from whom we derive our earliest information, supplies us with
many details, which not only show the existence of a system, but tend
also to prove its long prevalence. He tells us not only of nobles, but
also of kings, princes and inherited authority[197], more or less fully
developed: and the unbiassed judgment of the statesman who witnessed the
operation of institutions strange to himself, warns us against
theoretical appeals to the fancied customs of ages not contemporaneous
with our own. The history of Europe knows nothing of a period in which
there were not freemen, nobles and serfs; and the institutions of
Europe, in proportion as we pursue them to their earliest principles,
furnish only the stronger confirmation of history. We may, no doubt,
theorize upon this subject, and suggest elementary forms, as the
necessary conditions of a later system: but this process is and must be
merely hypothetical, nor can such forms be shown to have had at any time
a true historical existence. That every German was, in the beginning,
Kaiser and Pope in his own house[198] may be perfectly true in one
sense; just as true is it that every Englishman’s house is his castle.
Nevertheless, the German lived under some government, civil or
religious, or both: and—to the great advantage of society—the process of
law surmounts without the slightest difficulty the imaginary battlements
of the imaginary fortress.

-----

Footnote 197:

The Cherusci feeling the want of a king sent to Rome for a descendant
of Arminius. Tac. An. xi. 17. The Heruli in Illyria having slain their
king, sent to their brethren in Thule (Scandinavia) for a descendant
of the blood royal. During his journey however they accepted another
king from the hands of Justinian. This person and their alliance with
the emperor they renounced upon the arrival of the prince from the
North. Procop. Bell. Got. ii. 15. “Reges ex nobilitate, duces ex
virtute summit.” Tac. Germ. vii. “Magna patrum merita principis
dignationem etiam adolescentulis assignant.” Ibid. xiii. Although mere
boys might be kings, they could hardly be _duces_, in the old Teutonic
sense.

Footnote 198:

Möser, Osnabrückische Geschichte (1780), 1^{er} Abschn. § 8. “Solche
einzelne wohner waren Priester und Könige in ihren Häusern und
Hofmarken,” etc. See his references to Tac. Germ. x. etc.

-----

The whole subject must be considered in one of two ways: with reference,
namely, to a man living alone with his family, or to the same man and
family, in a bond of union with others, that is in the _state_.

Could we conceive a permanent condition of society, such that each
particular family lived apart, without connection or communion with
others, we must admit the inevitable growth of a patriarchal system, of
which the eldest member of the family would be the head; a system
similar to that which we do find described as prevailing in the
wandering family of Abraham. But such a condition could only exist at a
period of time, and in a state of the earth, which admitted of frequent
migration, and while the population bore a small proportion to the means
of support, perhaps even in countries where water is of greater value
than land. Thus the moment the family of Abraham became too numerous,
and his herdsmen found it necessary to defend their wells and pastures
against the herdsmen of Lot, a separation took place and the Scheiks
parted, according to the provisions of a solemn compact, that there
might not be strife between them[199]. But, setting aside the mysterious
purposes for which the race of Abraham were made wanderers, and which
impress an exceptional character upon their whole history, it is clear
that even they were surrounded by a society, whose conditions were
totally different from any that could have existed in Germany. They fled
from the face of a depraved cultivation, prevalent in the cities, and
they were sojourners only from place to place, till the fulness of time,
when they were to found the normal theocracy of the world.

-----

Footnote 199:

Genesis xiii. 6, _seq._

-----

To a certain degree they resembled the squatters in the backwoods of
America; like them, they established a law for themselves, and acted
upon it:—with the nature of that law, divine or human, we have nothing
to do, for the purposes of this inquiry:—in this sense, indeed, they
could be kings and priests in their own house; but so are, or were, the
North American _Regulators_, who, in their own families and among all
over whom they could establish their power, acted as judges, and both
promulgated and executed a law which was necessary to their very
existence in the wilderness.

But I find it impossible to admit that the origin of our Germanic
nations is to be found in any such solitary households or families; were
it true, as Möser appears to argue[200], of some parts of Westphalia, it
would not be so of other districts in southern Germany, as he indeed
admits[201], and, particularly, it would not be true of England. In
these two cases there can be no doubt that some kind of military
organization preceded the peaceful settlement, and in many respects
determined its mode and character[202]. But, even if we admit to the
fullest extent, the doctrine of solitary settlements, we must still
contend that these are, in their very nature, temporary; that they
contain no possible provision for stability, in short that they are
excluded by the very idea itself of a state; yet it is as a member of a
state that man exists, that he is intended to exist[203], and unless as
a member of a state, he is incapable of existing as a man. He can as
little create a language as create a state: he is born to both, for
both, and without both he cannot exist at all.

-----

Footnote 200:

Osnab. Gesch. i. § 2.

Footnote 201:

Ibid. i. §. 7.

Footnote 202:

There cannot be any doubt respecting England, where the Germanic race
are not autochthonous. The organization of the Suevi may be learnt
from Caesar (Bell. Gall. iv. 1, 2, 3), and Möser very justly observes
that the Swabian law must necessarily have differed from the Saxon.
Osnab. Gesch. i. § 7. So, to a certain degree, must the Anglosaxon
from both.

Footnote 203:

Aristotle’s Politics, book i. cap. 1. Dahlmann, Politik, § 1, 2, 3.

-----

Each single family then is a state: two, three or four families are a
state, under larger conditions. How are these last to be settled?

Where a number of independent households are thinly dispersed over a
portion of the country, their reciprocal relations and position will
probably be more or less of the following kind.

Some arrangement will exist for the regulation of the terms on which the
use of the woods, waters and common uncultivated land may be enjoyed by
all the settlers: it is even possible that they may have some common
religious ceremonies as the basis of this arrangement[204]. But further
than this there need be no union or mutual dependence; each solitary
homestead is a state by itself, possessing the _jus belli_; in no
federal relation to, and consequently in a state of war with, every
other household, even though this right of war should not be in active
operation at any given moment[205].

-----

Footnote 204:

It is of course extremely difficult to conceive this apart from the
existence of a common priesthood; but such a priesthood is already the
commencement of a regular state.

Footnote 205:

In such a case, power or force being the only term of reference, each
household will be determined by that alone in its intercourse with
others. If A wants a slave, he will war upon and take B, if he can:
but to prevent this, B and C will unite: so that at last a regulated
union is found best for all parties, in respect to themselves as a
community, and against all other communities.

-----

In his own household every man may bear rule, either following his own
arbitrary will, or in accordance with certain general principles, which
he probably recognizes in common with his neighbours. He may have a
family worship of his own, of which he will be the chief priest[206],
and which worship may or may not be consistent with that of his
neighbours. If he is troublesome to them, they may root him out, slay or
enslave him, do with him what seems good in their eyes, or whatsoever
they have power to do. If he thrives and accumulates wealth, they may
despoil him, or he oppress them,—all, however, _jure belli_, for there
can be no _jus imperii_ in such a case.

-----

Footnote 206:

Tac. Germ. x. “Si publice consuletur, Sacerdos civitatis, _sin
privatim, ipse paterfamiliae, precatus Deos_....” This seems to
indicate, at the commencement, an independent priestly power in the
paterfamilias. Compare the remarkable history in Judges, cap. xvii,
xviii.

-----

This, however, cannot be the normal state of man. The anxious desire, it
might almost be called instinctive yearning, to form a part of a
civilized society, forbids its continuance, not less than the obvious
advantage of entering into a mutual guarantee of peace and security. The
production of food and other necessaries of life is the first business
of men: the attempt to take forcible possession of, or to defend,
accumulated property, presupposes the accumulation. While the land and
water are more than sufficient for the support of the population, the
institutions proper to peace will prevail. It is inconceivable, and
repugnant to the very nature of man, that such institutions should not
be established the moment that two or more separate families become
conscious of each other’s existence[207]: and in respect to our Germanic
forefathers, we find such in full vigour from their very first
appearance in history.

-----

Footnote 207:

The only place where I can admit of such solitary settlements is
Scandinavia, and even there they must have formed the exception, not
the rule. See Chap. II. p. 68.

-----

Some of the institutions essential to the great aim of establishing
civil society at the least possible sacrifice of individual freedom—such
as the _Wergild_, the _Frank pledge_, etc.—will be investigated in their
proper places: they seem to offer a nearly perfect guarantee for society
at an early period. But for the present we must confine ourselves to the
subject of personal rank: and as the centre and groundwork of the whole
Teutonic scheme is the individual freeman, it is with him that we must
commence our investigation.

The natural divisions into which all human society must be distributed,
with respect to the beings that form it, are the _Free_ and the
_Unfree_[208], those who can protect themselves and those who must be in
the protection of others. Even in the family this distinction must be
found, and the wife and son are unfree in relation to the husband and
the father; they are in his _mund_. From this mund the son indeed may be
emancipated, but not the wife or daughter: these can only change it; the
wife by the act of God, namely the death of the husband; the daughter by
marriage. In both cases the mund passes over into other hands[209].

-----

Footnote 208:

“Summa itaque divisio personarum hæc est, quod omnes homines aut
liberi sunt aut servi.” Fleta, bk. i. cap. 1. “Est autem libertas,
naturalis facultas ejus, quod cuique facere libet, nisi quod de jure
aut vi prohibetur.” Ibid. cap. 2.

Footnote 209:

See Fleta, bk. i. cap. 5, 6, 7, 9.

-----

Originally the Freeman is he who possesses at least as much land as,
being tilled, will feed him, strength and skill to labour, and arms to
defend his possession. Married to one free woman who shares his toils,
soothes his cares, and orders his household, he becomes the founder of
the family—the first unit in the state: the son who springs from this
marriage, completes the family, and centres in himself the blood, the
civil rights and the affections of his two progenitors. It is thus,
through the son, that the family becomes the foundation of the
state[210].

-----

Footnote 210:

It is probably in this sense that the Hindu Institutes assert, “Then
only is a man perfect when he consists of three persons united, his
wife, himself, and his son.” Manu, ch. ix. 45.

-----

The union of a greater or less number of free heads of houses upon a
district sufficient for their support, in a mutual guarantee of equal
civil rights, is the state itself: for man is evidently formed by God to
live in a regulated community, by which mode of life alone he can
develope the highest qualities of the nature which God has implanted in
him; and the first community is the union of free men for purposes of
friendly intercourse and mutual aid, each enjoying at the hands of every
other the same rights as he is willing to grant to every other, each
yielding something of his natural freedom in order that the idea of
state, that is of orderly government, may be realized. For the state is
necessary, not accidental. Man not living in a state, not having
developed and in some degree realized the idea of state, is, in so far,
not man but beast. He has no past and no future: he lives for the day,
and does not even accumulate for the days to come: he lives, thinks,
feels and dies like a brute. For man is free through the existence, not
the absence, of law; through his voluntary and self-conscious
relinquishment of the power to do wrong, and the adoption of means to
counteract and diminish his own tendency to evil. The amount of personal
liberty to be given up is the only question of practical importance, but
from the idea of Freedom itself results the law, that this amount must
be in all cases a minimum.

The ideas of freedom and equality are not, however, inseparable: a
nation of slaves may exist in sorrowful equality under the capricious
will of a native or foreign tyrant: a nation of free men may cheerfully,
wisely and happily obey the judge or the captain they have elected in
the exigencies of peace and war. Hence the voluntary union of free men
does not exclude the possibility of such union being either originally
based upon terms of inequality, or becoming sooner or later settled upon
such a basis. But, as the general term is the freedom, I take this as
the unity which involves the difference; the noble is one of the
freemen, and is made noble by the act of the free: the free are not made
so by the noble.

By these principles the divisions of this chapter are regulated.

The freeman is emphatically called Man, ceorl, _mas_, _maritus_; wæpned
man, _armatus_; after the prevalence of slavery, he is, for distinction,
termed _free_, frigman, frihals, i. e., _free neck_, the hand of a
master has not bent his neck[211]; but his oldest and purest
denomination is ceorl. Till a very late period the Anglosaxon law knows
no other distinction than that of ceorl and eorl[212]. The Old Norse
Rígsmál which is devoted to the origin of the races, considers Karl as
the representative of the freeman. His sons are Halr, Anglosaxon, Hæle,
_vir_; Drengr, Anglos. Dreng, _vir_; þegen, Anglos. þegn, _vir fortis_,
_miles_, _minister_; Höldr, Anglos. hold, _pugil_, _fidelis_; Búi,
Anglos. gebúr, _colonus_; Bondi, Anglos. bonda, _colonus_; Smiðr,
Anglos. Smið, _faber_; Seggr, Anglos. Secg, _vir_. Among the daughters
are Snót, Brúðr, Flioð and Wíf. Many of these terms yet survive, to
represent various classes of freemen in almost every Germanic
country[213].

-----

Footnote 211:

The converse is _collibertus_, _qui collum liberavit_, _culvert_,
_coward_.

Footnote 212:

Swá eác we settað be eallum hádum, ge ceorle, ge eorle: “so also we
ordain concerning all degrees of men, churl as well as earl.” Leg.
Ælfr. § 4.

Footnote 213:

Conf. Grimm, Deut. Rechtsalt. 283. The Latin laws of the Middle Ages
usually adopt the words, _Liber_, _liber homo_, _ingenuus_. In
reference to the noble, he is _mediocris_, _minofledus_,
καταδεέστερος; in respect of his wife, he is _baro_.

-----

The rights of a freeman are these. He has land within the limits of the
community, the éðel or hereditary estate (κληρος, hæredium, hýd) by
virtue of which he is a portion of the community, bound to various
duties and graced with his various privileges. For although his rights
are personal, inherent in himself, and he may carry them with him into
the wilderness if he please, still, where he shall be permitted to
execute them depends upon his possession of lands in the various
localities. In these he is entitled to vote with his fellows upon all
matters concerning the general interests of the community; the election
of a judge, general or king; the maintenance of peace or war with a
neighbouring community; the abrogation of old, or the introduction of
new laws; the admission of conterminous freemen to a participation of
rights and privileges in the district. He is not only entitled but bound
to share in the celebration of the public rites of religion, to assist
at the public council or Ðing, where he is to pronounce the customary
law, by ancient right, and so assist in judging between man and man;
lastly to take part, as a soldier, in such measures of offence and
defence as have been determined upon by the whole community. He is at
liberty to make his own alliances, to unite with other freemen in the
formation of gilds or associations for religious or political purposes.
He can even attach himself, if he will, to a lord or patron, and thus
withdraw himself from the duties and the privileges of freedom. He and
his family may depart whither he will, and no man may follow or prevent
him: but he must go by open day and publicly, (probably not without
befitting ceremonies and a symbolical renunciation of his old seats,)
that all may have their claims upon him settled before he departs[214].

-----

Footnote 214:

“Si quis liber homo migrare voluerit aliquo, potestatem habeat infra
dominium regni nostri, cum fara sua, migrare quo voluerit.” Leg. Roth.
177. The free folk on the Leutkircher Heide “are free and shall have
no _nachjagende Herr_,” (_i. e._ Lord hunting after them, the _Dominus
persequens_ of our early law-books). Lünig. Reichsarch. p. spec. cont.
4. p. 803. See further Grimm, Deut. Rechtsalt. 286, etc.

-----

The freeman must possess, and may bear arms; he is born to them,
_schildbürtig_; he wears them on all occasions, public and private,
“nihil neque publicae neque privatae rei nisi armati agunt[215];” he is
entitled to use them for the defence of his life and honour; for he
possesses the right of private warfare, and either alone, or with the
aid of his friends, may fight, if it seems good to him. This right is
technically named fǽðe, _feud_, from fá, _inimicus_; and to be exposed
to it is fǽðe beran, _to bear the feud_[216]. If he be strong enough, or
ill-disposed enough, to prefer a violent to a peaceful settlement of his
claims, he may attack, imprison and even slay his adversary, but then he
must bear the feud of the relations.

-----

Footnote 215:

Tac. Germ. xiii. A century ago gentlemen wore swords in France and
England, and courtiers still wear them. The Hungarian freeman
transacts no public business unarmed.

Footnote 216:

Lex. Fres. ii. 2.

-----

Beside the arms he wears, the sign and ornament of his freedom is the
long hair which he suffers to float upon his shoulders or winds about
his head[217].

-----

Footnote 217:

There were differences in this respect among the different races, and
in some, the long hair may have been confined to the noble families.
Among the Saxons, however, it seems that it was also used by the free:
gif freo wíf, locbore, lyswæs hwæt gedó, _if a free woman, that wears
long hair, do any wrong_. Lex Æðelb. § 73. To cut a freeman’s hair was
to dishonour him. Lex Ælfr. § 35. See also Grimm, Deut. Rechtsalt. pp.
240, 283. Eumenius speaks of the Franks as “prolixo crine rutilantes.”
Paneg. Constant. c. 18.

-----

His proper measure and value, by which his social position is
ascertained and defended, is the wergyld, or _price of a man_. His life,
his limbs, the injuries which may be done to himself, his dependants and
his property, are all duly assessed; and though not rated so highly as
the noble, yet he stands above the stranger, the serf or the freedman.
In like manner his land, though not entirely exempt from charges and
payments for public purposes, is far less burthened than the land of the
unfree. Moreover he possesses rights in the commons, woods and waters,
which the unfree were assuredly not permitted to exercise.

The great and essential distinction, however, which he never entirely
loses under any circumstances, is that he aids in governing himself,
that is in making, applying and executing the laws by which the free and
the unfree are alike governed; that he yields, in short, a voluntary
obedience to the law, for the sake of living under a law, in an orderly
and peaceful community.

In the state of things which we are now considering, the noble belongs
to the class of freemen; out of it he springs, in all its rights and
privileges he shares, to all its duties he is liable, but in a different
degree. He possesses however certain advantages which the freeman does
not. Like the latter he is a holder of real estate; he owns land in the
district, but his lot is probably larger, and is moreover free from
various burthens which press upon his less fortunate neighbour. He must
also take part in the Ðing, _placitum_, or general meeting, but he and
his class have the leading and directing of the public business, and
ultimately the execution of the general will[218]. The people at large
may elect, but he alone can be elected, to the offices of priest, judge
or king. Upon his life and dignity a higher price is laid than upon
those of the mere freeman. He is the unity in the mass, the
representative of the general sovereignty, both at home and abroad. The
tendency of his power is continually to increase, while that of the mere
freeman is continually to diminish, falling in the scale in exact
proportion as that of the noble class rises.

-----

Footnote 218:

“De minoribus rebus principes consultant; de majoribus omnes. Ita
tamen ut ea quoque quorum penes plebem arbitrium est, apud principes
pertractentur.” Tac. Germ. xi. Something similar to this probably
prevailed in the Dorian constitution, and in the old Ionian before the
establishment of the great democracy. The mass of the people might
accept or reject, but hardly, I think, debate the propositions of the
nobles. After all the πρόβουλοι seem necessary in all states. See
Arist. Polit. iv. § 15.

-----

The distinctive name of the noble is >Ëorl[219]. Æðele, _nobilis_, and
Ríce, _potens_, denote his qualities, and he bears other titles
according to the accidents of his social position: thus ealdor,
ealdorman, _princeps_; wita, weota, _consiliarius_; optimas; _senior_;
_procer_; _melior_, etc. In addition to his own personal privileges, the
noble possesses in the fullest extent every right of the freeman, the
highest order of whose body he forms.

-----

Footnote 219:

In the Rígsmál, Jarl is the progenitor of all the noble races, as Karl
is of the free.

-----

CHAPTER VI.
THE KING.

As the noble is to the freeman, so in some respects is the King to the
noble. He is the summit of his class, and completes the order of the
freemen. Even in the dim twilight of Teutonic history we find tribes and
nations subject to kings: others again acknowledged no such office, and
Tacitus seems to regard this state as the more natural to our
forefathers. I do not think this clear: on the contrary, kingship, in a
certain sense, seems to me rooted in the German mind and institutions,
and universal among some particular tribes and confederacies. The free
people recognize in the King as much of the national unity as they
consider necessary to their existence as a substantive body, and as the
representative of the whole nation they consider him to be a mediator
between themselves and the gods[220]. The elective principle is the
safeguard of their freedom; the monarchical principle is the condition
of their nationality. But this idea of kingship is not that which we now
generally entertain; it is in some respects more, in others less,
comprehensive.

-----

Footnote 220:

There is a tradition among the Swedes that if the gods expressed their
anger with the people by scarcity, or ill success in war, the most
acceptable offering to them was the King. See Yngling, Sag. c. xviii.
(Laing, i. 230); again, c. xlvii. (vol. i. p. 256), where the scene is
laid in Norway: because, says the Yngl. Sag., the Swiar were wont to
attribute to their kings the fruitfulness or dearth of the seasons.
Yet they did not interfere with the succession in the son of the
sacrificed king. See Geijer, Hist. i. 404.

-----

And here it seems necessary to recur to a definition of words. With us,
a king is the source both of the military and the judicial powers; he is
chief judge and general in chief; among protestants he is head of the
church, and only wants the functions of high priest, because the nature
of the church of Christ admits of no priestly body exclusively engaged
in the sacrifices, or in possession of the exclusive secrets, of the
cult[221]. But in the eye of the state, and as the head of a state
clergy, he is the high priest, the authority in which ultimately even
the parochial order centres and finds its completion. He is an officer
of the state; the highest indeed and the noblest, but to the state he
belongs as a part of itself: with us a commission of regency, a stranger
or a woman may perform all the functions of royalty; the houses of
parliament may limit them; a successful soldier may usurp them. With the
early Germans, the king was something different from this.

-----

Footnote 221:

1 Peter, ii. 5, 9.

-----

The inhabitants of the Mark or Gá, however numerous or however few they
may be, must always have some provision for the exigencies of peace and
war. But peace is the natural or normal state, that for which war itself
exists, and the institutions proper to war are the exception, not the
rule. Hence the priestly and judicial functions are permanent,—the
military, merely temporary. The former, whether united in the same
person, or divided between two or more, are the necessary conditions of
the existence of the state as a community; the latter are merely
requisite from time to time, to secure the free exertion of the former,
to defend the existence of the community against the attacks of other
communities.

We may admit that the father is the first priest and judge in his own
household; he has, above all other, the sacerdotal secrets, and the
peculiar rites, of family worship; these, not less than age, experience
and the dignity of paternity, are the causes and the justification of
his power. The judicial is a corollary from the sacerdotal authority.
But what applies to the individual household applies to any aggregate of
households: even as the family worship and the family peace require the
exertion of these powers for their own maintenance and preservation, so
do the public worship and the public peace require their existence,
though in a yet stronger degree. From among the heads of families some
one or more must be elected to discharge the all-important functions
which they imply. If the solemn festivals and public rites of the god
are to be duly celebrated, if the anger of the thunderer is to be
propitiated, and the fruits of the earth to be blessed,—if the wounded
cattle are to be healed, the fever expelled, or the secret malice of
evil spirits to be defeated,—who but the priest can lead the ceremonies
and prescribe the ritual? Who but he can sanctify the transfer of land,
the union of man and wife, the entrance of the newborn child upon his
career of life; who but himself can conduct judicial investigations,
where the deities are the only guardians of truth and avengers of
perjury, or where their supernatural power alone can determine between
innocence and guilt[222]? Lastly, who but he can possess authority to
punish the freeman for offences dangerous to the wellbeing of all
freemen? To what power less than that of God will the freeman condescend
to bow[223]?

-----

Footnote 222:

The various forms of the ordeal were undoubtedly pagan, though
retained by the Christian communities of the Germans.

Footnote 223:

Even in war the general had not at first the power of punishing the
freeman. The very urgencies of military discipline were subordinated
to the divine authority of the priests. “Duces exemplo potius quam
imperio, si prompti, si conspicui, si ante aciem agant, admiratione
praesunt. Ceterum neque animadvertere, neque vincire, ne verberare
quidem nisi sacerdotibus permissum; non quasi in poenam, nec ducis
jussu, sed velut deo imperante, quem adesse bellantibus credunt.” Tac.
Germ. vii.

-----

How then is it to be determined to whom such power, once admitted to be
necessary, shall be at first entrusted? The first claim clearly lies
with those who are believed to be descended from the gods, or from the
local god of each particular district[224]. They are his especial care,
his children; he led them into the land, and gave them the secret of
appeasing or pleasing him: he protects them by his power, and guides
them by his revelations: he is their family and household god, the
progenitor of their race, one of themselves; and they are the best,
indeed the only, expounders of his will. A single family, with which
others have by slow degrees united themselves, by which others have been
adopted, and which in process of time have thus become the nucleus of a
state, will probably remain in possession of this sacerdotal power; the
god of the land does not readily give place to others, and those with
whom his worship identifies him will continue to be his priests long
after others have joined in their ceremonies. Or it is possible that a
single household wandering from a more civilized community may be
admitted among a rude people, to whom they impart more perfect methods
of tillage, more efficient medical precepts, more impartial maxims of
law, better or more ornamental modes of architecture, or more accurate
computations of time, than they had previously possessed: the mysterious
courses of the stars, the secrets of building bridges[225], towers and
ships, of ploughing and of sowing, of music and of healing, have been
committed to them by their god: for the sake of the benefits they offer,
their god is received into the community; and they remain his priests
because they alone are cognizant of, and can conduct, the rites
wherewith he is to be served.

-----

Footnote 224:

“Diis genitos sacrosque reges.” Tac. Orat. 12.

Footnote 225:

It is a curious fact that _Pontifex_, literally the _bridge-maker_,
should be the generic Latin name for a priest. At Athens there was a
_gens_ of γεφυραίοι: were these ever a sacerdotal tribe?

-----

Even in periods so remote as not to be confounded with those of national
migrations, a small body of superior personal strength, physical beauty,
mental organization, or greater skill in arms, may establish a
preponderance over a more numerous but less favoured race: in such a
case they will probably join the whole mass of the people, receiving or
taking lands among them, and they will by right of their superiority
constitute a noble, sacerdotal, royal race, among a race of
freemen[226]. They may introduce their religion as well as their form of
government, as did the Dorians in the Peloponesus. Or if, as must
frequently be the case, a compromise take place, they and their god will
reserve the foremost rank, although the conquered or otherwise subjected
people may retain a share in the state, and vindicate for their ancient
deities a portion of reverence and cult: the gods of nature, of the
earth and agriculture, thus yield for a while to the supremacy of the
gods of mental cultivation and warlike prowess: Demeter gives way before
Apollo, afterwards however to recover a portion of her splendour: Odinn
obtains the soul of the warrior and the freeman; Ðórr must content
himself with that of the thrall.

Footnote 226:

Αἴτιον δὲ ... ὅτι τρόπον τινὰ ἀρετὴ τυγχάνουσα χορηγίας καὶ βιάζεσθαι
δύναται μάλιστα, καὶ ἔστιν ἀεὶ τὸ κρατοῦν ἐν ὑπεροχῆ ἀγαθοῦ τινὸς,
ὥστε δοκεῖν μὴ ἄνευ ἀρετῆς εἶναι τὴν βίαν.... Arist. Polit. I. cap. 6.
(Bekker.) We may remember the Incas in Peru.

-----

In all the cases described,—to which we may add violent conquest by a
migratory body, leaving only garrisons and governors behind it[227],—the
family or tribe which are the ruling tribe, are those in whom the
highest rank, dignity, nobility and power are inherent: but unless some
peculiar circumstances, arising within the ruling tribe itself, limit
the succession to the members of one household, as for example among the
Jews, the sanctity of the tribe will be general and not individual. They
will be alone qualified to hold the high and sacred offices; but the
will of the whole state[228], _i. e._ popular election, must determine
which particular man shall be invested with their functions. Out of the
noble race the election cannot indeed be made, but the choice of the
individual noble is, at first, free. This is the simplest mode of
stating the problem: history however is filled with examples of
compromise, where two or more noble tribes divide the supreme authority
in even or uneven shares: two kings, for instance, represent two tribes
of Dorians in the Spartan πολιτεια[229]. The seven great and hereditary
ministerial houses in the German empire, the five great Ooloos of the
Dooraunee Afghans, with their hereditary offices, represent similar
facts. Among the old Bavarians, the Agilolfings could alone hold the
ducal dignity, but three or four other families possessed a peculiar
nobility, raising them nearly as much above the rest of the nobles, as
the nobles were raised above the rest of the people. Under these
circumstances the attributes of sovereignty may be continually
apportioned: to one family it may belong to furnish kings or judges; to
another, generals; to a third, priests[230]; or this division may have
arisen in course of time, within a single family. Or again, the general
may only have been chosen, _pro re nata_, when the necessity of the case
required it, from among the judges or priests, or even from among those
who were not capable by birth of the judicial or sacerdotal power. We
are able to refer to an instance in support of this assertion; Beda[231]
says of the Oldsaxons, that is, the Saxons of the continent: “Non enim
habent regem iidem antiqui Saxones, sed satrapas plurimos, suae genti
praepositos, qui, ingruente belli articulo, mittunt aequaliter sortes,
et quemcumque sors ostenderit, hunc tempore belli ducem omnes sequuntur,
huic obtemperant; peracto autem bello, rursum aequalis potentiae omnes
fiunt satrapae.” And this throws light upon what Tacitus asserts of the
Germanic races generally[232]: “Eliguntur in iisdem conciliis et
principes, qui iura per pagos vicosque reddunt.”

-----

Footnote 227:

A fact abundantly familiar in the history of India, whether under
Afghan, Mogul or Mahratta rule.

Footnote 228:

The whole state may possibly consist only of the predominant tribe, as
Dorians or Ionians, or Anglosaxons: the rest of the population of the
country may be perioecian as were the inhabitants of Laconia, and the
British. The ruling tribe itself may have distinctions of rank; as for
instance the Hypomeiones among the Spartans, the Ceorlas among the
Anglosaxons.

Footnote 229:

The rule, _reges ex nobilitate, duces ex virtute_, ἀγαθοῦ τινος
ὑπεροχὴ, applies in strictness to this case. Agis or Agesilaus might
be generals, but Brasidas could not have been a king. Descent from
Heracles was to the Spartiate what descent from Wóden was to the
Saxon,—the condition of royalty.

Footnote 230:

In the Dooraunee empire, the Suddozyes had the exclusive right to
royalty. Sooja ul Moolk was the last of the race in Caubul. The
Essufzyes were hereditary viziers: the Barukzyes, the family of Dost
Mahomet Khan, hereditary commanders in chief: the union of the
vizierat with the military command in Dost Mahomet’s father, led to
the ultimate ruin of the Suddozye princes. In the Mogul empire, the
great offices of state became hereditary, and the historians of India
could speak of the Vizier of Oude, the Nizam, the Peishwa or the
Guicowar, long after the throne of Aurungzeb had crumbled to the dust.

Footnote 231:

Hist. Eccl. v. 10. Ælfred translates the word _satrapae_ by
_ealdormen_.

Footnote 232:

Germ. xii.

-----

The early separation of the judicial from the strictly sacerdotal
functions, to a certain degree at least, is easily conceived. It would
be mere matter of convenience, as soon as a population became numerous
and widely dispersed. Yet to a very late period among the Teutons we
find traces of the higher character. The ordeal or judgment of God, the
casting of lots and divination, are all derived from and connected with
priesthood. The heathen place of judgment was sanctified to the gods by
priestly ceremonies; nor can it be supposed that the popular councils
were held without a due inauguration by religious rites, or a marked
exertion of authority by the priests. Tacitus speaking of these
parliaments makes the intervention of the priest the very first step to
business: “Ut turbae placuit, considunt armati. Silentium per
sacerdotes, quibus tum et coercendi ius est, imperatur[233].” The
Witena-gemót of later times was opened by the celebration of mass[234],
and even yet Mr. Speaker goes to prayers. During the flourishing period
of Christianity among the Anglosaxons, synods of the bishops and their
clergy were commanded to be held twice a year, to act as supreme courts
of justice, at least in civil causes[235]. The law of the Visigoths,
while it recognizes a separation of the persons, implies a confusion of
the jurisdiction: “Si iudex vel sacerdos reperti fuerint nequiter
iudicasse[236].” The people, it is true, found the judgment or verdict,
but the judge declared the law, pronounced the sentence, and most
probably superintended the execution: in this he represented at once the
justice of the god, and the collective power of the state. Thus then we
may conclude that at first in every Mark, and more especially in every
Gá or Scír, when various Marks had coalesced, there was found at least
one man of a privileged family, who either permanently or for a time
conducted the public affairs during peace, and was, from his functions,
not less than his descent, nearly connected with the religion of the
people and the worship of the gods: whether this man be called
ealdorman, _iudex_, _rex_, _satrapa_ or _princeps_, seems of little
moment: he is the president of the freemen in their solemn acts, as long
as peace is maintained, the original King of the shire or small nation.
If he be by birth a priest, and distinguished by military talents, as
well as elected to be a judge, he unites all the conditions of
kingship[237]: and, under such circumstances, he will probably not only
extend his power over neighbouring communities, but even render it
permanent, if not hereditary, in his own: a similar process may take
place, if the priest or judge be one, the general another, of the same
household. We may conclude that the regal power grows out of the
judicial and sacerdotal, and that, whether the military skill and
authority be superadded or not, _king_ is only another name for the
judge of a small circuit[238]. It is only when many such districts have
been combined, when many such smaller kings have been subdued by one
more wise, more wealthy, powerful or fortunate than themselves, that the
complete idea of the German kingdom developes itself: that the judicial,
military, and even, in part, the priestly powers sink into a subordinate
position, and the kingdom represents the whole state, the freemen, the
nobles, and the _folcriht_ or public law of both. It is thus that the
king gains the ultimate and appellate jurisdiction, the right of
punishment, and the general conservancy of the peace, as well as the
power of calling the freemen to arms (cyninges ban, cyninges útware).
When this process has taken place the former kings have become
_subreguli_, _principes_, _duces_, ealdormen: they retain their
nobility, their original purity of blood, their influence perhaps over
their people; but they have sunk into subordinate officers of a state,
of which a king at once hereditary and elective is the head[239].

-----

Footnote 233:

Germ. xi.

Footnote 234:

“Quadam die multi tam nobiles quam privati primo mane ad ipsum locum
placitaturi convenerunt; sed ante placitum ut Presbyter eis missam
celebraret rogaverunt. At ille, qui ipsa nocte cum uxore dormierat, ad
sacrum altaris officium accedere formidabat; itaque negavit se id
facturum,” etc. about an. 1045. Sim. Dunelin. Hist. Eccl. Dun. cap.
xlv. (lib. iii. cap. 10. p. 169. Ed. of 1732.)

Footnote 235:

If Dönniges is right in his view, the Frankish clergy were to exercise
a similar jurisdiction in criminal causes of a grave nature. Deutsches
Staatsrecht. p. 30.

Footnote 236:

Leg. Visig. ii. 1. § 23.

Footnote 237:

“Hic etenim et rex illis et pontifex ob suam peritiam habebatur, et in
sua iustitia populos iudicabat.” Jornandes.

Footnote 238:

“Nec potest aliquis iudicare in temporalibus, nisi solus rex vel
subdelegatus: ipse namque ex virtute sacramenti ad hoc specialiter
obligatur, et ideo coronâ insignitur, ut per iudicia populum regat
sibi subiectum.” Fleta, lib. i. cap. 17. § 1.

Footnote 239:

“Le titre de roi était primitivement de nulle conséquence chez les
barbares. Ennodius, évêque de Paris, dit d’une armée du grand
Théodoric: '_Il y avait tant de rois_ dans cette armée, que leur
nombre était au moins égal à celui des soldats qu’on pouvait nourrir
avec les subsistances exigées des habitans du district où elle
campait.'” Michelet, Hist. France, i. 198, note.

-----

We are tolerably familiar with the fact that at least eight kingdoms
existed at once in Saxon England; but many readers of English history
have yet to learn that royalty was much more widely spread, even at the
time when we hear but of eight, seven or six predominant kings: as this
is a point of some interest, a few examples may not be amiss.

It is probable that from the very earliest times Kent had at least two
kings, whose capitals were respectively Canterbury and Rochester, the
seat of two bishoprics[240]. The distinction of East and West Kentings
is preserved till the very downfall of the Saxon monarchy: not only do
we know that Eádríc and Hlóðhere reigned together; but also that Wihtred
and his son Æðelberht the Second did so[241]. Óswine is mentioned as a
king of Kent during the period when our general authorities tell us of
Ecgberht alone[242]; contemporary with him we have Swæbheard, another
king[243], and all these extend into the period usually given to Eádríc
and Hlóðhere. The later years of Æðelberht the Second must have seen his
power shared with Eádberht[244], Eardwulf[245], Sigirǽd[246] and
Ecgberht[247], and Sigirǽd deliberately calls himself king of half Kent.
A very remarkable document of Eádbehrt is preserved in the Textus
Roffensis[248]; after the king’s own signature, in which he calls
himself Rex Cantuariorum, his nobles place their names, thus, “Ego
Wilbaldus comites meos confirmare et subscribere feci:” and in the same
words Dimheahac, Hósberht, Nothbalth, Banta, Ruta and Tidbalth sign. Now
the fact of these persons having _comites_ at all is only conceivable on
the supposition that they were all royal, kings or sub-kings. That they
were subordinate appears from the necessity of the grant being confirmed
by Æðelberht, which took place in presence of the grantor and grantee,
and the Archbishop, at Canterbury. Among the kings of this small
province are also named Æðelríc, Heardberht, Eádberht Pren[249] and
Ealhmund[250], the last prince, father of the celebrated Ecgberht of
Wessex.

-----

Footnote 240:

At a later period we find a duchy of the Merscware, or inhabitants of
Romney marsh, and this is certainly in favour of a third Kentish
kingdom. William of Malmesbury speaks of the reguli whom Æðelberht had
subdued, and it is probable that these were petty princes of Kent.
Gest. Reg. lib. 1. § 10.

Footnote 241:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 72, 77, 86, 108.

Footnote 242:

Ibid. Nos. 8, 10, 30.

Footnote 243:

Ibid. Nos. 14, 15. Beda, Hist. Eccl. v. 8.

Footnote 244:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 85, 106, 107.

Footnote 245:

Ibid. No. 96.

Footnote 246:

Ibid. Nos. 110, 114.

Footnote 247:

Ibid. Nos. 113, 132, 135, 160.

Footnote 248:

Ibid. No. 85.

Footnote 249:

Flor. Wig. an. 794.

Footnote 250:

Flor. Wig. App. _Wessex_.

-----

Among the territories which at one time or other were incorporated with
the kingdom of Mercia, one is celebrated under the name of Hwiccas: it
comprised the then diocese of Worcester. This small province not only
retained its king till a late period[251], but had frequently several
kings at once; thus Ósric[252] and Óshere[253]; Æðelweard[254],
Æðelheard[255], Æðelríc[256] and in all probability Óswudu, between an.
704-709. A few years later, viz. between an. 757 and 785, we find three
brothers Eánberht[257], Ealdred[258] and Uhtred[259] claiming the royal
title in the same district, while Offa their relative swayed the
paramount sceptre of Mercia. That other parts of that great kingdom had
always formed separate states is certain: even in the time of Penda (who
reigned from 626 to 656) we know that the Middle Angles were ruled by
Peada, his son[260], while Merewald, another son, was king of the West
Hecan or people of Herefordshire[261]. In the important battle of
Winwidfeld, where the fall of Penda perhaps secured the triumph of
Christianity, we learn that thirty royal commanders fell on the Mercian
side[262]. Under Æðilræd, Penda’s son and successor, we find Beorhtwald
calling himself a king in Mercia[263]. During the reign of Centwine in
Wessex, we hear of a king, Baldred, whose kingdom probably comprised
Sussex and part of Hampshire[264]; at the same period also we find
Æðilheard calling himself king of Wessex[265], and perhaps also a
brother Æðilweard[266] unless this be an error of transcription.
Friðuwald in a charter to the Monastery of Chertsey, mentions the
following _subreguli_ as concurring in the grant: Ósríc, Wighard and
Æðelwald[267].

-----

Footnote 251:

We lose sight of the Hwiccian kings about the time of Offa’s death, or
an. 796. In 802 we hear indeed of an ealdorman of the Hwiccas, but the
Latin authorities translate this by _dux_.

Footnote 252:

Cod. Dipl. No. 12.

Footnote 253:

Ibid. Nos. 17, 36.

Footnote 254:

Ibid. No. 56.

Footnote 255:

Ibid. No. 53.

Footnote 256:

Ibid. No. 57.

Footnote 257:

Ibid. Nos. 102, 105.

Footnote 258:

Ibid. Nos. 125, 131, 146.

Footnote 259:

Ibid. Nos. 117, 118, 128, 148.

Footnote 260:

Beda, Hist. Eccl. iii. 21.

Footnote 261:

Flor. Wig. App. _Mercia_.

Footnote 262:

Beda, Hist. Eccl. iii. 24. “Inito ergo certamine, fugati sunt et caesi
pagani, duces regii triginta qui ad auxilium venerant pene omnes
interfecti.” The Saxon Chronicle is more detailed; an. 654: “Hér Óswiú
cyng ofslóh Pendan cyng on Winwidfelda and þrittig cynebearna mid him;
and ðǽr wǽron sume cyningas. Ðǽra sum wæs Æðelhere Annan bróðor,
Eástengla cyningas.”

Footnote 263:

Cod. Dipl. No. 26. William of Malmesbury, it is true, says of him,
“Non quidem rex potestate, sed subregulus in quadam regni parte.” Vit.
Aldhelmi, Ang. Sacra, ii. 10. But it was not to be expected that
Malmesbury would understand such a royalty as Baldred’s.

Footnote 264:

Will. Malm., Ant. Glast. an. 681, pp. 308, 309. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 20,
28, 71, 73.

Footnote 265:

Cod. Dipl. No. 76.

Footnote 266:

Ibid. No. 73.

Footnote 267:

Ibid. No. 987.

-----

There was a kingdom of Elmet in Yorkshire, and even till the tenth
century one of Bamborough. The same facts might easily be shown of
Eastanglia[268], Essex and Northumberland, were it necessary; but enough
seems to have been said to show how numerously peopled with kings this
island, always _fertilis tyrannorum_[269], must have been in times
whereof history has no record. As a chronicler of the twelfth century
has very justly said, “Ea tempestate venerunt multi et saepe de
Germania, et occupaverunt Eástangle et Merce sed necdum sub uno rege
redacti erant. Plures autem proceres certatim regiones occupabant, unde
innumerabilia bella fiebant: proceres vero, quia multi erant, nomine
carent[270].”

-----

Footnote 268:

“Igitur rex unus ibi erat aliquando, multi aliquando reguli.” Henric.
Hunt. lib. v. “Rex autem Eádmundus ipsis temporibus regnavit super
omnia regna Eastanglorum.” Sim. Dunelm. an. 870.

Footnote 269:

εἶναι δὲ καὶ πολυάνθρωπον τὴν νῆσον ... βασιλεῖς τε καὶ δυνάστας
πολλοὺς ἔχειν. Diod. Sic. v. 21.

Footnote 270:

Henric. Hunt. lib. ii.

-----

From all that has preceded, it is clear that by the term King we must
understand something very different among the Anglosaxons from the sense
which we attach to the word: one principal difference lies indeed in
this, that the notion of territorial influence is never for a single
moment involved in it. The kings are kings of tribes and peoples, but
never of the land they occupy,—kings of the Westsaxons, the Mercians or
the Kentings, but not of Wessex, Mercia or Kent. So far indeed is this
from being the case, that there is not the slightest difficulty in
forming the conception of a king, totally without a kingdom:

“Solo rex verbo, sociis tamen imperitabat”[271]

is a much more general description than the writer of the line imagined.
The Norse traditions are full of similar facts[272]. The king is in
truth essentially one with the people; from among them he springs, by
them and their power he reigns; from them he receives his name; but his
land is like theirs, private property; one estate does not owe
allegiance to another, as in the feudal system: and least of all is the
monstrous fiction admitted even for a moment, that the king is owner of
all the land in a country.

-----

Footnote 271:

Abbo de Bello Paris. Civit. Pertz, ii. 779.

Footnote 272:

Langebek. ii. 77. Dahlmann, Gesch. d. Dänen, p. 51.

-----

The Teutonic names for a king are numerous and various, especially in
the language of poetry; many of them are immediately derived from the
words which denote the aggregations of the people themselves: thus from
þeód, we have the Anglosaxon þeóden; from folc, the Old Norse Fylkr; but
the term which, among all the Teutons, properly denotes this dignity, is
derived from the fact which Tacitus notices, viz. the nobility of the
king: the Anglosaxon cyning is a direct derivative from the adjective
cyne, _generosus_, and this again from cyn, _genus_[273].

-----

Footnote 273:

The Old High Dutch word is Chuninc; the Old Norse Konungr: the Gothic
equivalent has not been found, but certainly was Kuniggs.

-----

The main distinction between the king and the rest of the people lies in
the higher value set upon his life, as compared with theirs: as the
wergyld or life-price of the noble exceeds that of the freeman or the
slave, so does the life-price of the king exceed that of the noble. Like
all the people he has a money value, but it is a greater one than is
enjoyed by any other person in the state[274]. So again his protection
(mund) is valued higher than that of any other: and the breach of his
peace (cyninges handsealde frið) is more costly to the wrong-doer. He is
naturally the president of the Witena-gemót and the ecclesiastical
synod, and the supreme conservator of the public peace.

-----

Footnote 274:

In Kent, Mercia and Wessex, the king’s wergyld was 120 pounds: half
belonged to his family, half to his people.

-----

To the king belonged the right of calling out the national levies, the
_posse comitatus_, for purposes of attack or defence; the privilege of
recommending grave causes at least to the consideration of the
tribunals; the reception of a certain share of the fines legally
inflicted on evil-doers, and of voluntary gifts from the free men; and
as a natural and rapid consequence, the levy of taxes and the
appointment of fiscal officers. Consonant with his dignity were the
ceremonies of his recognition by the people, and the outward marks of
distinction which he bore: immediately upon his election he was raised
upon a shield and exhibited to the multitude, who greeted him with
acclamations[275]. Even in heathen times it is probable that some
religious ceremony accompanied the solemn rite of election and
installation: the Christian priesthood soon caused the ceremony of
anointing the new king, perhaps as head of the church, to be looked upon
as a necessary part of his inauguration. To him were appropriated the
waggon and oxen[276]; in this he visited the several portions of his
kingdom, traversed the roads, and proclaimed his peace upon them; and I
am inclined to think, solemnly ascertained and defined the national
boundaries[277],—a duty symbolical in some degree, of his guardianship
of the private boundaries. Among all the tribes there appear to have
been some outward marks of royalty, occasionally or constantly borne:
the Merwingian kings were distinguished by their long and flowing
hair[278], the Goths by a fillet or cap; among the Saxons the cynehelm,
or cynebeáh, a circle of gold, was in use, and worn round the head. In
the Ðing or popular council he bore a wand or staff: in wartime he was
preceded by a banner or flag. The most precious however of all the royal
rights, and a very jewel in the crown, was the power to entertain a
_comitatus_ or collection of household retainers, a subject to be
discussed in a subsequent chapter.

-----

Footnote 275:

“Levatus in regem: tó cyninge áhafen,” continued to be the words in
use, long after the custom of really chairing the king had in all
probability ceased to be observed.

Footnote 276:

The Merwingian kings continued to use this: perhaps not the Carolings.
Among the Anglosaxons I find no trace of it.

Footnote 277:

This duty of riding through the land, called by Grimm the “landes
bereisung” (Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, p. 237), is probably alluded
to by Beda in his account of Eádwine. Hist. Eccl. ii. 16.

Footnote 278:

θεμιτὸν γὰρ τοῖς βασιλεῦσι τῶν Φράγγων οὐπώποτε κείρεσθαι, ἀλλ’
ἀκειρεκόμαι τέ εἰσιν ἐκ παίδων ἀεὶ, καὶ παρηώρηνται αὐτοῖς ἅπαντες εὖ
μάλα ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων οἱ πλόκαμοι ... τοῦτο δὲ ὅσπερ τι γνώρισμα καὶ γέρας
ἐξαίρετον τῷ βασιλείῳ γένει ἀνεῖσθαι νεμόμισται. Agathias. bk. 1. 4.

-----

The king, like all other freemen, was a landed possessor, and depended
for much of his subsistence upon the cultivation of his estates[279]. In
various parts of the country he held lands in absolute property,
furnished with dwellings and storehouses, in which the produce of his
farms might be laid up, and from one to another of which he proceeded,
as political exigencies, caprice, or the consumption of his hoarded
stock rendered expedient. In each villa or wíc was placed a bailiff,
_villicus_, _wícgeréfa_, whose business it was to watch over the kings
interests, to superintend the processes of husbandry, and govern the
labourers employed in production; above all to represent the king as
regarded the freemen and the officers of the county court.

-----

Footnote 279:

“De victu ex regis praediis.” “Ðis is ðonne seó lihtingc ðe ic wylle
eallon folce gebeorgan ðe hig ǽr ðyson midgedrehte wǽron ealles tó
swýðe. Dæt is ðonne ǽrost. ðæt ic bebeóde eallum mínan geréfan ðæt hi
on mínan ágenan rihtlíce tilian ⁊ me mid ðám feormian. ⁊ ðæt him nán
man ne þearf tó feormfultume nán þingc syllan bútan he sylf wille. And
gif hwá æfter ðám wíte crafige beó he his weres scyldig wið ðone
cyningc.” Cnut, § lxx. Thorpe, i. 412, 413. “I command all my reeves
that they justly provide [for me] out of my own property, and maintain
me therewith; and that no man need give me anything as farm-aid
(feormfultum) unless he himself be willing.” We here witness the
natural progress of oppression.

The lot, share, or, as we may call it, τεμενος of the king, though thus
divided, was extensive, and comprised many times the share of the
freeman. We may imagine that it originally, and under ordinary
circumstances would be calculated upon the same footing as the wergyld;
that if the life of the king was seventy-two times as valuable as that
of the ceorl, his land would be seventy-two times as large; if the one
owned thirty, the other would enjoy 2160 acres of arable land. But the
_comitatus_ offers a disturbing force, which, it will hereafter be seen,
renders this sort of calculation nugatory in practice; and the
experience of later periods clearly proves the king to have been a
landowner in a very disproportionate degree. In addition to the produce
of his own lands, however, the king was entitled to expect voluntary
gifts in kind, _naturalia_, from the people, which are not only
distinctly stated by Tacitus[280] to have been so given, but are
frequently referred to by early continental historians[281]. In process
of time, when these voluntary gifts had been converted into settled
payments or taxes, further voluntary aids were demanded, upon the visit
of a king to a town or country, the marriage of a princess, or of the
king himself, and other public and solemn occasions; from which in
feudal times arose the custom of demanding aids from the tenants to
knight the lord’s son or marry his daughter.

-----

Footnote 280:

“Mos est civitatibus, ultro ac viritim conferre principibus, vel
armentorum, vel frugum, quod pro honore acceptum, etiam necessitatibus
subvenit. Gaudent praecipue finitiniarum gentium donis, quae non modo
a singulis, sed publice mittuntur: electi equi, magna arma, phalerae,
torquesque. Iam et pecuniam accipere docuimus.” Germ. xv.

Footnote 281:

“In die autem Martis campo secundum antiquam consuetudinem dona illis
regibus a populo offerebantur, et ipse rex sedebat in sella regia,
circumstante exercitu, et maior domus coram eo.” an. 753. Annal.
Laurishamenses Minores (Pertz, Monumenta, i. 116). See other instances
in Grimm’s Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, p. 245, etc.

-----

Another source of the royal revenue was a share of the booty taken in
war, where the king and the freemen served together. The celebrated
story of Clovis and the Soissons vase[282], proves that the king
received his portion by lot, as did the rest of his army; but there is
no reason to doubt that his share as much exceeded that of his comrades,
as his wergyld and landed possessions were greater than theirs.

-----

Footnote 282:

Greg. Turon. ii. 27.

-----

As conservator of the public peace, the king was entitled to a portion
of the fines inflicted on criminals, and the words in which Tacitus
mentions this fact show that he was in this function the representative
of the whole state[283]: it is a prerogative derived from his executive
power. And similar to this is his right to the forfeited lands of
felons, which, if they were to be forfeited, could hardly be placed in
other hands than those of the king, as representative of the whole
state[284].

-----

Footnote 283:

“Sed et levioribus delictis, pro modo poenarum, equorum pecorumque
numero convicti multantur, pars multae regi vel civitati, pars ipsi
qui vindicatur vel propinquis eius exsolvitur.” Germ. xii.

Footnote 284:

“Unam mansam quam fur quidam ante possederat, a rege cum triginta
mancusis auri emit.” Cod. Dipl. No. 580. Bishop Denewulf had leased
lands to a relative named Ælfred, for a fixed rent. “Is equidem
insipiens adulterans stuprum, propriam religiose pactatam abominans,
scortum diligens, libidinose commisit. Quo reatu omni substantia
peculiali recte privatus est, et praefatum rus ab eo abstractum rex
huius patriae suae ditioni avidus devenire iniuste optavit.” Cod.
Dipl. No. 601. The injustice complained of is in the king’s seizing
lands that were really not the offender’s: but so strong was the
king’s right, that the church was obliged to buy back its own land for
one hundred and twenty mancusses of gold. That these forfeitures
resulted from a solemn judicial act admits of no doubt. In 1002, a
lady who owned lands was found guilty of certain acts, her lands were
forfeited, and made over to the king, in the language of the
instrument, “vulgari traditione.” Cod. Dipl. No. 1296. In 938 Æðelstán
gave seven hides of land to the church at Winchester: “istarum autem
vii mansarum quantitas iusto valde iudicio totius populi, seniorum et
primatum, ablata fuit ab eis qui eorum possessores fuerunt, quia
aperto crimine furti usque ad mortem obnoxii inventi sunt; ideoque
decretum est ab omni populo ut libri illorum, quos ad has terras
habebant, aeternaliter dampnarentur,” etc. Cod. Dipl. No. 374.
Æðelsige stole Æðelwine’s swine: his land at Dumbleton was accordingly
forfeited to the king. “⁊ man geréhte Æðelrede cyninge ðæt land ⁊
ǽhta.” Cod. Dipl. No. 692. The law of the Ripuarian Franks seems to
have been somewhat different: see Tit. § lxxix. de homine penduto et
eius hereditate; and Eichhorn, i. 269.

-----

In proportion as this idea gains ground, the influence of the king in
every detail of public life necessarily increases, and the regalia or
royal rights become more varied and numerous: he is looked upon as the
protector of the stranger, who has no other natural guardian, inasmuch
as no stranger can be a member of any of those associations which are
the guarantee of the freeman. He has the sole right of settling the
value and form of the medium of exchange: through his power of calling
out the armed force, he obtains rights which can only consist with
martial law,—even the right of life and death[285]: the justice of the
whole country flows from him: the establishment of fiscal officers
dependent upon himself places the private possessions of the freeman at
his disposal. The peculiar conservancy of the peace, and command over
the means of internal communication enable him to impose tolls on land-
and water-carriage: he is thus also empowered to demand the services of
the freemen to receive and conduct travelling strangers, heralds or
ambassadors from one royal vill to another; to demand the aid of their
carts and horses to carry forage, provisions or building-materials to
his royal residence. Treasure-trove is his, because where there is no
owner, the state claims the accidental advantage, and the king is the
representative of the state. It is part of his dignity that he may
command the aid of the freemen in his hunting and fishing; and hence
that he may compel them to keep his hawks and hounds, and harbour or
feed his huntsmen. As head of the church he has an important influence
in the election of bishops, even in the establishment of new sees, or
the abolition of old established ones. His authority it is that appoints
the duke, the geréfa, perhaps even the members of the Witena-gemót.
Above all, he has the right to divest himself of a portion of these
attributes, and confer them upon those whom he pleases, in different
districts.

-----

Footnote 285:

I may again refer to the story of the vase at Soissons. Clovis put the
soldier to death on pretext of a breach of discipline; in reality,
because the man had opposed him with respect to the booty. But, except
in the field, it is not to be imagined that Clovis could have taken
his life; and certainly not without a legal conviction and
condemnation by the people.

-----

The complete description of the rights of Royalty, in all their detail,
will find a place in the Second Book of this work; they can only be
noticed cursorily here, inasmuch as they appertain, in strictness, to a
period in which the monarchical spirit, and the institutions proper
thereto, had become firmly settled, and applied to every part of our
social scheme. But whatever extension they may have attained in process
of time, they have their origin in the rights permitted to the king,
even in the remotest periods of which we read.

There cannot be the least doubt that many of them were usurpations,
gradual developments of an old and simple principle; and it is only in
periods of advanced civilization that we find them alluded to.
Nevertheless we must admit that even at the earliest recorded time in
our history, the kings were not only wealthy but powerful far beyond any
of their fellow-countrymen. All intercourse with foreign nations,
whether warlike or peaceful, tends to this result, because treaties and
grave affairs of state can best be negotiated and managed by single
persons: a popular council may be very properly consulted as to the
final acceptance or rejection of terms; but the settlement of them can
obviously not be beneficially conducted by so unwieldy a multitude.
Moreover contracting parties on either side will prefer having to do
with as small a number of negotiators as possible, if it be only for the
greater dispatch of business. Accordingly Tacitus shows us, on more than
one occasion, the Senate in communication with the princes, not the
populations of Germany[286]: and this must naturally be the case where
the aristocracy, to whose body the king belongs, have the right of
taking the initiative in public business[287].

Footnote 286:

“Adgandestrii, principis Cattorum, lectas in Senatu literas.” Annal.
ii. 88. “Maroboduum ... per dona et legationes petivisse foedus.”
Annal. ii. 45. “Misitque legatos ad Tiberium oraturos auxilia.” Ibid.

Footnote 287:

“De minoribus rebus principes consultant; de maioribus omnes: ita
tamen, ut ea quoque, quorum penes plebem arbitrium est, apud principes
pertractentur.... Mox rex vel princeps, prout aetas cuique, prout
nobilitas, prout decus bellorum, prout facundia est, audiuntur,
auctoritate suadendi magis quam iubendi potestate.” Mor. Germ. xi.

-----

But although we find a great difference in the social position, wealth
and power of the king, and those of the noble and freeman, we are not to
imagine that he could at any time exercise his royal prerogatives
entirely at his royal pleasure[288]: held in check by the universal love
of liberty, by the rights of his fellow nobles, and the defensive
alliances of the freemen[289], he enjoyed indeed a rank, a splendour and
an influence which placed him at the head of his people,—a limited
monarchy, but happier than a capricious autocracy: and the historian who
had groaned over the vices and tyranny of Tiberius, Nero and Domitian,
could give the noble boon of his testimony to the eternal memory of the
_barbarous_ Arminius.

-----

Footnote 288:

“Nec regibus infinita, nec libera potestas.” Mor. Germ. vii. “Auctore
Verrito et Malorige, qui nationem eam regebant, in quantum Germani
regnantur.” Tac. Annal. xiii. 54.

Footnote 289:

“Ceterum Arminius, abscedentibus Romanis et pulso Maroboduo, regnum
adfectans, libertatem popularium adversam habuit, petitusque armis,
cum varia fortuna certaret, dolo propinquorum cecidit.” Tac. Annal.
ii. 88.

-----

CHAPTER VII.
THE NOBLE BY SERVICE.

I have called the right to entertain a _Comitatus_, or body of household
retainers, a very jewel in the crown: it was so because it formed, in
process of time, the foundation of all the extended powers which became
the attributes of royalty, and finally succeeded in establishing, upon
the downfall of the old _dynasts_ or nobles by birth, a new order of
nobles by service, whose root was in the crown itself. A close
investigation of its gradual rise, progress and ultimate development,
will show that the natural basis of the Comitatus is in the superior
wealth and large possessions of the prince.

In all ages of the world, and under all conditions of society, one
profound problem has presented itself for solution; viz. how to
reconcile the established divisions of property with the necessities of
increasing population. Experience teaches us that under almost any
circumstances of social being, a body of men possessed of sufficient
food and clothing have been found to increase and multiply with a
rapidity far too great to be balanced by the number of natural or
violent deaths: and it follows therefore that in every nation which has
established a settled number of households upon several estates, each
capable of supporting but one household in comfort, the means of
providing for a surplus population must very soon become an object of
general difficulty. If the paternal estate be reserved for the support
of one son, if the paternal weapons descend to him, to be used in the
feuds of his house or the service of the state, what is to become of the
other sons who are excluded from the benefits of the succession? In a
few instances we may imagine natural affection to have induced a
painful, and ultimately unsuccessful, struggle to keep the family
together: here and there cases may have occurred in which a community
was fortunate enough from its position, to possess the means of creating
new estates to suit the new demand: and conquest, or the forcible
partition of a neighbouring territory, may have supplied a provision for
the new generation. Tacitus indeed tells us[290] that “numerum liberorum
finire aut quemquam ex agnatis necare, flagitium habetur:” yet tradition
contradicts this, and speaks of the exposure of children immediately
after birth, leaving it to the will of the father to save the life of
the child or not[291]. And similarly the tales of the North record the
solemn and voluntary expatriation of a certain proportion of the people,
designated by lot, at certain intervals of time[292]. However, in the
natural course of things, he who cannot find subsistence at home must
seek it abroad; if the family estate will not supply him with support,
he must strive to obtain it from the bounty or necessities of others:
for emigration has its own heavy charges, and for this he would require
assistance; and in a period such as we are describing, trade and
manufacture offer no resources to the surplus population. But all the
single hides or estates are here considered as included in the same
category, and it is only on the large possessions of the noble that the
poor freeman can hope to live, without utterly forfeiting everything
that makes life valuable. Some sort of service he must yield, and among
all that he can offer, military service, the most honourable and
attractive to himself, is sure to be the most acceptable to the lord
whose protection he requires.

-----

Footnote 290:

Mor. Germ. xix.

Footnote 291:

Grimm, Rechtsalt. p. 455.

Footnote 292:

“Cumque, ut dixi, sive parum compluta humo, seu nimium torrida,
torpentibus satis, ac parce fructificantibus campis, inediae languor
defectam escis regionem attereret, nullumque, parum suppetentibus
alimentis, trahendae famis superesset auxilium, Aggone atque Ebbone
auctoribus, plebiscito provisum est, ut senibus et parvulis caesis,
omnique demum imbelli aetate regno egesta, robustis duntaxat patria
donaretur; nec nisi aut armis, aut agris colendis habiles domestici
laris paternorumque penatium habitacula retinerent.” By the advice
however of Gambara, they cast lots, and a portion of the people
emigrate. “Igitur omnium fortunis in sortem coniectis, qui
designabantur, extorres adiudicati sunt.” Saxo Gram. p. 159. Under
similar circumstances, according to Geoffry of Monmouth, Hengest came
to Britain.

-----

The temptation to engage in distant or dangerous warlike adventures may
not appear very great to the agricultural settler, whose continuous
labour will only wring a mere sufficiency from the soil he owns. It is
with regret and reluctance that such a man will desert the land he has
prepared or the crops he has raised, even when the necessity of
self-defence calls the community to arms. Far otherwise however is it
with him who has no means of living by the land, or whom his means place
above the necessity of careful, unremitting toil. The prince, enriched
by the contributions of his fellow-countrymen, and the presents of
neighbouring states or dynasts, as well as master of more land than he
requires for his own subsistence, has leisure for ambition, and power to
reward its instruments. On the land which he does not require for his
own cultivation, he can permit the residence of freemen or even serfs,
on such conditions as may seem expedient to himself or endurable to
them. He may surround himself with armed and noble retainers, attracted
by his liberality or his civil and military reputation[293], whom he
feeds at his own table and houses under his own roof; who may perform
even servile duties in his household, and on whose aid he may calculate
for purposes of aggression or defence. Nor does it seem probable that a
community would at once discover the infinite danger to themselves that
lurks in such an institution: far more frequently must it have seemed
matter of congratulation to the cultivator, that its existence spared
him the necessity of leaving the plough and harrow to resist sudden
incursions, or enforce measures of internal police; or that the strong
castle with its band of ever-watchful defenders, existed as a garrison
near the disputable boundary of the Mark.

-----

Footnote 293:

“Erat autem rex Oswini et aspectu venustus, et statura sublimis, et
affatu iucundus, et moribus civilis, et manu omnibus, id est nobilibus
simul atque ignobilibus, largus: unde contigit ut ob regiam eius et
animi, et vultus, et meritorum dignitatem, ab omnibus diligeretur, et
undique ad eius ministerium de cunctis prope provinciis viri etiam
nobilissimi concurrerent.'” Bed. H. E. iii. 14.

-----

The Germania of Tacitus supplies us with a detailed account of the
institution of the Comitatus, which receives strong confirmation on
every point from what we gather from other authentic sources. In his own
words:—

“Illustrious birth or the great services of their fathers give the rank
of princes even to young men: they are associated with the rest who have
already made proof of their greater powers. Nor is there any shame in
appearing among the comites[294]. Moreover, the Comitatus itself has its
grades, according to the judgment of him they follow; and great is the
emulation among the comites, as to who shall hold the highest place in
the estimation of the prince, and among the princes, as to who shall
have the most numerous and the bravest comites. This is dignity, this is
power, to be ever surrounded with a troop of chosen youths, a glory in
time of peace, and a support in war. Nor is it only in their own tribe,
but in the neighbouring states as well, a name and glory, to be
distinguished for the number and valour of the comitatus; for they are
courted with embassies, and adorned with presents, and keep off wars by
their very reputation. When it comes to fighting, it is dishonourable
for the prince to be excelled in valour, for the comitatus not to equal
the valour of the prince; but infamous, and a reproach throughout life,
to return from battle the survivor of the prince. To defend and protect
him, to reckon to his glory even one’s own brave deeds, this is the
first and holiest duty. The princes fight for victory, the comites for
the prince. If the state in which they spring is torpid with long peace
and ease, the most of these young nobles voluntarily seek such nations
as may be engaged in war, partly because inaction does not please this
race, partly because distinction is more easy of attainment under
difficulties. Nor can you keep together a great comitatus, save by
violence and war: since it is from the liberality of the prince that
they exact that war-horse, that bloody and victorious lance. For feasts
and meals, ample though rude, take the place of pay. Wars and plunder
supply the means of munificence; nor will you so readily persuade them
to plough the land or wait with patience for the year, as to challenge
enemies and earn wounds; seeing that it seems dull and lazy to acquire
with sweat what you may win with blood[295].”

-----

Footnote 294:

This very assertion proves that the position of the comes was, _in
itself_, inferior to that of the freeman.

Footnote 295:

Mor. Germ. xiii. xiv.

-----

It would be difficult in a few lines to give anything like so clear and
admirable an account of the peculiarities of the Comitatus, as Tacitus
has left us in this vigorous sketch; and little remains but to show how
his view is confirmed by other sources of information, and to draw the
conclusions which naturally result from these premises.

To the influence and operation of these associations are justly
attributed not only the conquests of the various tribes, but the most
important modifications in the law of the people. As the proper name for
the freeman is ceorl, and for the born-noble eorl, so is the true word
for the comes, or comrade, gesíð. This is in close etymological
connection with síð, a journey, and literally denotes one who
accompanies another. The functions and social position of the gesíð led
however to another appellation: in this peculiar relation to the prince,
he is þegn, a thane, strictly and originally a servant or minister, and
only noble when the service of royalty had shed a light upon dependence
and imperfect freedom. Beówulf describes himself as the relative and
thane of Hygelác: but his royal blood and tried valour make him also the
head of a comitatus, and he visits Heort with a selected band of his own
comrades, swǽse gesíðas: they, like himself, belong however to his lord,
and are described as Hygelác’s beódgeneátas, heorðgeneátas
(tischgenossen, heerdgenossen), sharers in the monarch’s table and
hearth. A portion of the booty taken in war naturally became the
property of the gesíðas; this almost follows from the words of Tacitus;
and Saxo Grammaticus, who in this undoubtedly expresses a genuine fact,
although after a peculiar fashion of his own, says of one of his
heroes[296], “Proceres non solum domesticis stipendiis colebat, sed
etiam spoliis ex hoste quaesitis: affirmare solitus, pecuniam ad
milites, gloriam ad ducem redundare debere.” And again[297], “Horum
omnium clientelam rex liberali familiaritate coluerat. Nam primis apud
eum honoribus, habitum, cultos auro gladios, opimaque bellorum praemia
perceperunt.” Thus also Hialto sings[298],

“Dulce est nos domino percepta rependere dona,
Acceptare enses, famaeque impendere ferrum.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Enses theutonici, galeae, armillaeque nitentes,
Loricae talo immissae, quas contulit olim
Rolvo suis, memores acuant in praelia mentes.
Res petit, et par est, quaecumque per otia summa
Nacti pace sumus, belli ditione mereri.”

The same amusing author tells us[299] how on some occasion, in
consequence of there being no queen in a court, the comites were ill
supplied with clothes, a difficulty which they could only provide
against by inducing their king to marry: “Igitur contubernales Frothonis
circa indumentorum usum feminea admodum ope defecti, quum non haberent
unde nova assuere, aut lacera reficere possent, regem celebrandi
coniugii monitis adhortantur.” There seems no reason to doubt the fact
thus recorded, however we may judge respecting its occurrence in the
time of Frotho. Similarly when Siegfried set out upon his fatal marriage
expedition into Burgundy, he and his twelve comrades were clothed by the
care of the royal Síglint[300]. From this relation between the prince
and the comites, are derived the names appropriated to the former in the
epopoea, of hláford, lord, literally _bread-giver_: sinces brytta, beága
brytta, _distributor of treasure, rings_; sincgifa, _treasure-giver_,
and the like. It is clear also that a right to any share in the booty
could not be claimed by the gesíð, as it undoubtedly could by the free
soldier in the _Hereban_, but depended entirely upon the will of the
chief, and his notions of policy: a right could not have been described
as the result of his liberality. In the historical time of Charlemagne
we have evidence of this[301]: “Quo accepto ... idem vir prudentissimus
idque largissimus et Dei dispensator magnam inde partem Romam ad limina
Apostolorum misit per Angilbertum dilectum abbatem suum; porro reliquam
partem obtimatibus, clericis sive laicis, caeterisque fidelibus suis
largitus est:” or, as it is still more clearly expressed in the annals
of Eginhart[302], “reliquum vero inter optimates et aulicos, caeterosque
in palatio suo militantes, liberali manu distribuit.” And similarly we
are told of Æðelstán: “Praeda quae in castro reperta fuerat, et ea
quidem amplissima, magnifice et viritim divisa. Hoc enim vir ille animo
imperaverat suo, ut nihil opum ad crumenas corraderet; sed omnia
conquisita, vel monasteriis, vel fidelibus suis, munificus
expenderet[303].” The share of the freeman who served under his geréfa,
and not under a lord, was his own by lot, and neither by _largitio_ nor
_liberalitas_,—a most important distinction, seeing that where all was
left to the arbitrary disposition of the chief, the subservience of the
follower would very naturally become the measure of his liberality.

-----

Footnote 296:

Hist. Dan. p. 6.

Footnote 297:

Ibid. p. 144.

Footnote 298:

Sax. Gram. Hist. Dan. p. 33.

Footnote 299:

Hist. Dan. p. 68.

Footnote 300:

Nibelunge Nôt. 66. p. 10, Lachmann.

Footnote 301:

Annal. Laurish. an. 796. Pertz, Mon. Germ. i. 182.

Footnote 302:

An. 796. Pertz, i. 183.

Footnote 303:

Will. Malm. Gest. Reg. i. 213, § 134.

-----

The relation of the Comites was one of fealty: it was undertaken in the
most solemn manner, and with appropriate, symbolic ceremonies, out of
which, in later times, sprung homage and the other incidents of
feudality. All history proves that it was of the most intimate nature;
that even life itself was to be sacrificed without hesitation if the
safety of the prince demanded it: the gesíðas of Beówulf expose
themselves with him to the attack of the fiendish Grendel[304]; Wígláf
risks his own life to assist his lord and relative in his fatal contest
with the firedrake[305]; and the solemn denunciation which he pronounces
against the remaining comites who neglected this duty, recalls the words
of Tacitus, and the infamy that attached to the survivors of their
chief[306]:

Hú sceal sincþego How shall the service of treasure
and swyrdgyfu, and the gift of swords,
eall éðelwyn, all joy of a paternal inheritance,
eówrum cynne [all] support fail
lufen álicgean: your kin:
londrihtes mót of the rights of citizenship must
ðǽre mǽgburge of your family
monna ǽghwilc every one
ídel hweorfan, go about deprived,
siððan æðelingas when once the nobles
feorran gefricgean far and wide shall hear
fleám eówerne, of your flight,
dómleásan dǽd. your dishonourable deed.
Deáð bið sella Death is better
eorla gehwylcum for every warrior
ðonne edwitlif. than a life of shame.

But we are not compelled to draw upon the stores of poetry and
imaginative tradition alone: the sober records of our earlier annalists
supply ample evidence in corroboration of the philosophical historian.
When Cwichelm of Wessex sent an assassin to cut off Eáduuini of
Northumberland, that prince was saved by the devotion of his thane
Lilia, who threw himself between, and received the blow that was
destined for his master; in the words of Beda[307]: “Quod cum videret
Lilla minister regis amicissimus, non habens scutum ad manum quo regem a
nece defenderet, mox interposuit corpus suum ante ictum pungentis; sed
tanta vi hostis ferrum infixit, ut per corpus militis occisi etiam regem
vulneraret.” Again we learn that in the year 786, Cyneheard, an ætheling
of Wessex, who had pretensions to the crown, surprised the king Cynewulf
at the house of a paramour at Merton, and there slew him. He proffered
wealth and honours to the comites of the king, which they refused, and
with small numbers manfully held out till every one had fallen. On the
following morning a superior force of the king’s thanes came up: to them
again the ætheling offered land and gold, but in vain: he was slain on
the spot with all his own comites, who refused to desert him in his
extremity. This is the account given of these facts in the words of the
Saxon Chronicle itself[308]:

And ðá gebeád he him heora ágenne And then he offered them their own
dóm feos and londes, gif hie him desire of money and land, if they
ðæs ríces úðon, and him cýðde, ðæt would grant him the kingdom, and he
heora mǽgas him mid wǽron, ða ðe told them that their own relatives
him from noldon. And ðá cwǽdon hie, were with him, who would not desert
ðæt him nǽnig mǽg leófra nǽre ðonne him. Then said they, that no
heora hláford, and hie næfre his relative was dearer to them than
banan folgian noldon. And ðá budon their lord, and that they never
hie heora mǽgum ðæt hie him gesunde would follow his murderer. And then
from eódon. And hie cwǽdon, ðæt ðæt they offered their relatives that
ilce heora geferum geboden wǽre ðe they should leave him, with safety
ǽr mid ðám cyninge wǽron; ðæt hie for themselves: but they said, that
hie ðæs ne onmunden, ðon má ðe the same offer had been made to
eówre geferan ðe mid ðám cyninge their own comrades who at first
ofslægene wǽron. were with the king: that they paid
no more attention to it, than your
comrades who were slaughtered with
the king.

Æthelweard, Florence of Worcester, and Henry of Huntingdon all follow
the chronicle, which in some details they apparently translate. William
of Malmesbury seems to adopt the same account, but adds a few words
which have especial reference to this portion of the argument[309]:
“quorum (_i. e._ comitum) qui maximus aevo et prudentia Osricus,
caeteros cohortatus ne necem domini sui in insignem et perpetuam suam
ignominiam inultam dimitterent, districtis gladiis coniuratos irruit.”

-----

Footnote 304:

Beówulf, l. 1582 _seq._

Footnote 305:

Ibid. l. 5262 _seq._, 5384 _seq._

Footnote 306:

Ibid. l. 5763.

Footnote 307:

Hist. Ecc. ii. 9.

Footnote 308:

Chron. Sax. an. 755.

-----

Footnote 309:

Gest. Reg. i. § 42.

-----

It is obvious that from this intimate relation between the prince and
the gesíð must arise certain reciprocal rights and duties, sanctioned by
custom, which would gradually form themselves into a code of positive
law, and ultimately affect the state and condition of the freemen. In
the earliest development of the Comitatus, it is clear that the idea of
freedom is entirely lost; it is replaced by the much more questionable
motive of _honour_, or to speak more strictly, of rank and station. The
comes may indeed have become the possessor of land, even of very large
tracts[310], by gift from his prince; but he could not be the possessor
of a free Hide, and consequently bound to service in the general _fyrd_,
or to suit in the folcmót: he might have wealth, and rank and honour, be
powerful and splendid, dignified and influential, but he could not be
free: and if even the freeman so far forgot the inherent dignity of his
station as to carry himself (for his éðel I think he could not carry)
into the service of the prince,—an individual man, although a prince,
and not as yet the state, or the representative of the state,—can it be
doubted that the remunerative service of the chief would outweigh the
barren possession of the farmer, or that the festive board and
adventurous life of the castle would soon supply excuses for neglecting
the humbler duties of the popular court and judicature? Even if the
markmen razed him from their roll, and committed his éðel to a worthier
holder, what should he care, whom the liberality of his conquering
leader could endow with fifty times its worth; and whose total divorce
from the vulgar community would probably be looked upon with no
disfavour by him who had already marked that community for his prey? Nor
could those whom the gesíð in turn settled upon lands which were not
within the general mark-jurisdiction, be free markmen, but must have
stood towards him in somewhat the same relation as he stood to his own
chief. Upon the plan of the larger household, the smaller would also be
formed: the same or similar conditions of tenure would prevail; and the
services of his dependants he was no doubt bound to hold at the disposal
of his own lord, and to maintain for his advantage. We have thus, even
in the earliest times, the nucleus of a standing army, the means and
instruments of aggrandizement both for the King and the praetorian
cohorts themselves; practised and delighting in battle, ever ready to
join in expeditions which promised adventure, honour or plunder, feasted
in time of peace, enriched in time of war; holding the bond that united
them to their chief as more sacred or stringent than even that of
blood[311], and consequently ready for his sake to turn their arms
against the free settlers in the district, whenever his caprice, his
passion or his ambition called upon their services. In proportion as his
power and dignity increased by their efforts and assistance, so their
power and dignity increased; his rank and splendour were reflected upon
all that surrounded him, till at length it became not only more
honourable to be the unfree chattel of a prince, than the poor free
cultivator of the soil, but even security for possession and property
could only be attained within the compass of their body. As early as the
period when the Frankish Law was compiled, we find the great advantage
enjoyed by the Comes over the Free Salian or Ripuarian, in the large
proportion borne by his wergyld, in comparison with that of the
latter[312].

-----

Footnote 310:

Beówulf, l. 5984 _seq._

Footnote 311:

Ælfred excepts the lord, while he defines the cases in which a man may
give armed assistance to his relative. The right of private feud is
not to extend to that sacred obligation of fealty. Leg. Ælf. § 42.

-----

The advantage derived by the community from the presence and protection
of an armed force such as the gesíðas constituted, must have gradually
produced a disposition to secure their favour even at the expense of the
free nobles and settlers: and a Mark that wished to entrust its security
and its interests to a powerful soldier, would probably soon acquiesce
in his assuming a direction and leadership in their affairs, hardly more
consistent with their original liberty, than the influence which a
modern nobleman may establish by watching, as it is called, over the
interests of the Registration. Even the old nobles by blood, who
gradually beheld themselves forced down into a station of comparative
poverty and obscurity, must have early hastened to give in their
adhesion to a new order of things which held out peculiar prospects of
advantage to themselves; and thus, the communities deserted by their
natural leaders, soon sunk into a very subordinate situation, became
portions of larger unities under the protection, and ultimately the
rule, of successful adventurers, and consented without a struggle to
receive their comites into those offices of power and distinction which
were once conferred by popular election.

-----

Footnote 312:

Leg. Salic. Tit. lvii. cap. 1, 2. Leg. Rip. liii. cap. 1, 2.

-----

As the gesíðas were not free, and could not take a part in the
deliberations of the freemen at the folcmót, or in the judicial
proceedings, except in as far as they were represented by their chief,
means for doing justice between themselves became necessary: these were
provided by the establishment of a system of law, administered in the
lord’s court, by his officers, and to which all his dependants were
required to do suit and service as amply as they would, if free, have
been bound to do in the folcmót. But the law, administered in such a
court, and in those formed upon its model in the lands of the comites
themselves,—a privilege very generally granted by the king, at least in
later periods[313],—was necessarily very different from that which could
prevail in the court of the freemen: it is only in a lord’s court that
we can conceive punishments to have arisen which affected life and
honour, and fealty with all its consequences to have attained a settled
and stringent form, totally unknown to the popular judicature.
Forfeiture, or rather excommunication, and pecuniary mulcts, which
partook more of the nature of damages than of fine, were all that the
freeman would subject himself to under ordinary circumstances.
Expulsion, degradation, death itself might be the portion of him whose
whole life was the property of a lord, to be by him disposed of at his
pleasure. Hence the forfeiture of lands for adultery and incontinence,
and hence even Ælfred affixes the penalty of death to the crime of
hláfordsyrwe, or conspiracy against a lord[314], while manslaughter
could still be compounded for by customary payments. One or two special
cases may be quoted to show how the relation of the gesíð to his chief
modified the general law of the state.

Footnote 313:

Eádweard of Wessex in 904 transferred his royal rights in Taunton to
the see of Winchester. He says: “Concessi ut episcopi homines, tam
nobiles quam ignobiles (i. e. XII hynde and II hynde) in praefato rure
degentes, hoc idem ius in omni haberent dignitate (hád), quo regis
homines perfruuntur, regalibus fiscis commorantes: et omnium
saecularium rerum iudicia ad usus praesulum exerceantur eodem modo quo
regalium negotiorum discutiuntur iudicia. Praedictae etiam villae
mercimonium quod Anglice ðæs túnes cýping appellatur, censusque omnis
civilis, sanctae dei aecclesiae in Wintonia civitate sine
retractationis obstaculo cum omnibus commodis aeternaliter deserviat.”
Cod. Dipl. No. 1084. He had previously granted an immunity from regal
and comitial interference; the result of which was to place all
judicial and fiscal functions in the hands of the bishop’s reeve
instead of the sheriff, or the king’s burgreeve. The document
furnishes an admirable example of an _Immunity_, or, as it is
technically called in the Anglosaxon law, a grant of _Sacn and Sócn_.

The horse and arms which, in the strict theory of the comitatus, had
been the gift, or rather the loan of the chief, were to be returned at
the death of the vassal, in order, according to the same theory, that
they might furnish some other adventurer with the instruments of
service[315]. These, technically called Heregeatwe, _armatura bellica_,
have continued even to our own day under the name of Heriot, and
strictly speaking consist of horses and weapons. In later imitation of
this, the unfree settlers on a lord’s land, who were not called upon by
their tenure to perform military service, were bound on demise to pay
the best chattel (_melius catallum_, _best head_, in German beste haupt,
heriot-custom, as opposed to heriot-service) to the lord, probably on
the theoretical hypothesis that he, at the commencement of the tenancy,
had supplied the necessary implements of agriculture. And this differs
entirely from a Relief[316], because Heriot is the act of the leaving,
Relief the act of the incoming tenant or heir[317]; and because in its
very nature and amount Heriot is of a somewhat indefinite character, but
Relief is not.

-----

Footnote 314:

Leg. Ælfr. Introduction, and § 4.

Footnote 315:

This is necessary in a country where the materials of which weapons
are fabricated are not abundant, which Tacitus notices as the case in
Germany, “ne ferrum quidem superest, sicut ex genere telorum
colligitur.” Germ. vi. Adventurers, ever on the move, are prone to
realize their gains in the most portable shape. Kings, gems and arms
are the natural form, and a Teutonic king’s treasury must have been
filled with them, in preference to all other valuables.

Footnote 316:

Relief, _relevium_, from _relevare_, to lift or take up again. It is a
sum paid by the heir to the lord, on _taking_ or _lifting up again_
the inheritance of an estate which has, as it were, fallen to the
ground by the death of the ancestor.

Footnote 317:

Fleta, lib. iii. cap. 18.

-----

In the strict theory of the comitatus, the gesíð could possess no
property of his own; all that he acquired was his lord’s, and even the
liberalities of the lord himself were only _beneficia_ or loans, not
absolute gifts[318]: he had the usufruct only during life, the _dominium
utile_: the _dominium directum_> was in the lord, and at the death of
the tenant it is obvious that the estate vested in the lord alone: the
gesíð could have no _ius testamenti_, as indeed he had no family: the
lord stood to him in place of father, brother and son. Hereditary
succession, which must at first have been a very rare exception, could
only have arisen at all either from the voluntary or the compelled grant
of the lord: it could only become general when the old distinction
between the free markman and the gesíð had become obliterated, and the
system of the Comitatus had practically and politically swallowed up
every other. Yet even under these circumstances it would appear that a
perfectly defined result was not attained; and hence, although the
document entituled “Rectitudines singularum personarum” numbers the _ius
testamenti_ among the rights of the þegen[319], yet even to the close of
the Anglosaxon monarchy, we find dukes, præfects, kings’ thanes, and
other great nobles humbly demanding permission from the king to make
wills, entreating him not to disturb their testamentary dispositions,
and even bribing his acquiescence by including him among the legatees.
In this as in all human affairs, a compromise was gradually found
necessary between opposing powers, and the king as well as the comites,
neither of whom could dispense with the assistance of the other, found
it advisable to make mutual concessions. I doubt whether at even an
earlier period than the eleventh century, the whole body of thanes would
have permitted the king to disregard the testament of one of their body,
unless upon definite legal grounds, as for example grave suspicion of
treason: but still they might consent to the nominal application and
sanction of the ancient principle, by allowing the insertion of a
general petition, that the will might stand, in the body of the
instrument[320].

-----

Footnote 318:

Montesquieu has seen this very clearly, when he considers even the
horse and _framea_ of Tacitus in the light of _beneficia_. From a
charter of Æðelflǽd, an. 915-922, it would seem that in Mercia a thane
required the consent of the lord, before he could purchase an estate
of bookland: “Ego Æðelflǽd ... dedi licentiam Eádríco meo ministro
comparandi terram decem manentium æt Fernbeorgen, sibi suisque
haeredibus perpetualiter possidendam.” Cod. Dipl. No. 343. About the
close of the ninth century, Wulfhere, a duke, having left the country,
and so deserted the duties of his position, was adjudged to lose even
his private lands of inheritance: “Quando ille utrumque et suum
dominum regem Ælfredum et patriam, ultra iusiurandum quam regi et suis
omnibus optimatibus iuraverat, sine licentia dereliquit; tunc etiam,
cum omnium iudicio sapientium Geuisorum et Mercensium, potestatem et
haereditatem dereliquit agrorum.” Cod. Dipl. No. 1078. The importance
of this passage seems to me to rest upon the words “sine licentia.”

Footnote 319:

“Þegenes lagu is ðæt he sý his bócrihtes wyrðe; taini lex est ut sit
dignus rectitudine testamenti sui.” Thorpe, i. 432. And with this
Ælfred’s law of entails is consistent. Leg. Ælf. § 41. Thorpe, i. 88.

Footnote 320:

Toward the end of the tenth century, Beorhtríc, a wealthy noble in
Kent, devised land by will to various relatives. He left the king, a
collar worth eighty mancuses of gold, and a sword of equal value; his
heriot, comprising four horses, two of which were saddled; two swords
with their belts; two hawks, and all his hounds. He further gave to
the queen, a ring worth thirty mancuses of gold, and a mare, that she
might be his advocate (forespræce) that the will might stand, “ðæt se
cwide stondan mihte.” Cod. Dipl. No. 492. Between 944 and 946,
Æðelgyfu devised lands and chattels to St. Albans, “cum consensu
domini mei regis.” The king and queen had a very fair share of this
spoil. Cod. Dipl. No. 410. Between 965 and 975, Ælfheáh, an ealdorman,
or noble of the highest rank, and cousin of Eádgár’s queen Ælfðrýð,
left lands, a good share of which went to the king and queen: the will
was made, “be his cynehláfordes geþafunge,” by his royal lord’s
permission, and winds up with this clause: “And the witnesses to this
permission which the king granted (observe, not to the will itself,
but to the king’s permission to leave the property as he did,) are
Ælfðrýð the queen and others.” Cod. Dipl. No. 593. Æðelflǽd a royal
lady, left lands, some of which went to the king: she says, “And ic
bidde mínan leófan hláford for Godes lufun, ðæt mín cwide standan
móte,”—and I beg my dear Lord, for God’s love, that this my will may
stand. Cod. Dipl. No. 685. In the time of Æðelred, Wulfwaru, a lady,
commences her will in these words: “Ic Wulfwaru bidde míne leófan
hláford Æðelred kyning, him tó ælmyssan, ðæt ic móte beón mínes cwides
wyrðe;” _i. e._ that I may be worthy of my right of devising by will;
that I may enjoy my right of making a will. Cod. Dipl. No. 694.
Ælfgyfu the queen in 1012 commences her will in similar terms: “Dis is
Ælfgyfe gegurning tó hire cynehláforde. Dæt is ðæt heó hine bitt for
Godes lufun and for cynescipe ðæt heó móte beón hyre cwides wyrðe.”
Cod. Dipl. No. 721. Æðelstân, king Æðelred’s son, made also a will,
from which I take the following passage: “Now I thank my father, with
all humility, in the name of Almighty God, for the answer which he
sent me on the Friday after Midsummer day, by Ælfgár Æffa’s son; that
was, that he told me, upon my father’s word, that I might, by God’s
leave and his, grant my realty and chattels, as I thought best,
whether for spiritual or temporal ends. And the witnesses to this
answer are Eádmund,” etc. Cod. Dipl. No. 722. Lastly, Ælfhelm
concludes his will with these words: “Now I entreat thee, my dear
lord, that my will may stand, and that thou permit not that any man
should set it aside. God is my witness that I was ever obedient to thy
father, to the utmost of my power, and full faithful to him both in
mind and main, and have ever been faithful to thee, in full faith and
full love, as God is my witness.” Cod. Dipl. No. 967.

-----

The circumstances thus brought under review show clearly that the
condition of the gesíð was unfree in itself; that even the free by birth
who entered into it, relinquished that most sacred inheritance, and
reduced themselves to the rank of thanes, ministers or servants. Certain
rights and privileges grew up, no doubt, by custom, and the counts were
probably not very long subject to the mere arbitrary will of the chief:
they had the protection of others in a similar state of dependency to
their own, and chances, such as they were, of subservience to the king’s
wishes: a bond of affection and interdependence surpassing that of
blood, and replacing the mutual free guarantee of life and security, was
formed between them; and they shared alike in the joys and sorrows, the
successes and reverses of peace and war: but with it all, and whatever
their rank; they were in fact menials, housed within the walls, fed at
the table, clothed at the expense of their chief; dependent upon his
bounty, his gratitude or forbearance, for their subsistence and position
in life; bound to sacrifice that life itself in his service, and,
strictly considered, incapable of contracting marriage or sharing in the
inestimable sanctities of a home. They were his cupbearers, stewards,
chamberlains and grooms; even as kings and electors were to the emperor,
whom they had raised out of their own body. The real nature of their
service appears even through the haze of splendour and dignity which
gradually surround the intimate servants of royalty; and as the chief
might select his comites and instruments from what class he chose, it
was the fate of these voluntary thanes, not unfrequently to be numbered
in the same category with the unfree by birth, and thus, in their own
persons, to witness the destruction of that essential principle of all
Teutonic law, the distinction between the freeman and the serf[321].

-----

Footnote 321:

“Libertini non multum supra servos sunt, raro aliquod momentum in
domo, nunquam in civitate; exceptis duntaxat iis gentibus, quae
regnantur: ibi enim et super ingenuos et super nobiles ascendunt: apud
caeteros impares libertini libertatis argumentum sunt.” Tac. Germ.
xxv.

-----

Great indeed ought to be the advantages which could compensate for
sacrifices like these, and great in their eyes, beyond a doubt, they
were. In return for freedom, the gesíð obtained a certain maintenance,
the chance of princely favour, a military and active life of adventure,
with all its advantages of pillage, festivals and triumphs, poets and
minstrels, courtly halls and adventitious splendour; the usufruct at
least, and afterwards the possession, of lands and horses, arms and
jewels. As the royal power steadily advanced by his assistance, and the
old, national nobility of birth, as well as the old, landed freeman sunk
into a lower rank, the gesíð found himself rising in power and
consideration proportioned to that of his chief: the offices which had
passed from the election of the freemen to the gift of the crown[322],
were now conferred upon him, and the ealdorman, duke, geréfa, judge, and
even the bishop, were at length selected from the ranks of the
comitatus. Finally, the nobles by birth themselves became absorbed in
the ever-widening whirlpool; day by day the freemen, deprived of their
old national defences, wringing with difficulty a precarious subsistence
from incessant labour, sullenly yielded to a yoke which they could not
shake off, and commended themselves (such was the phrase) to the
protection of a lord; till a complete change having thus been operated
in the opinions of men, and consequently in every relation of society, a
new order of things was consummated, in which the honours and security
of service became more anxiously desired than a needy and unsafe
freedom; and the alods being finally surrendered, to be taken back as
_beneficia_, under mediate lords, the foundations of the royal, feudal
system were securely laid on every side.

-----

Footnote 322:

By this step, the crown became the real leader of the hereban, or
posse comitatus, as well as of the gesíðas and their power: and thus
also, the head of the juridical power in the counties, as well as the
lords’ courts. Moreover it extended the powers and provisions of
martial law to the offences of the freemen.

-----

CHAPTER VIII.
THE UNFREE. THE SERF.

We have considered the case of the wife, the son and the daughter[323],
as far as can be done until we come to deal with the family relations;
and we have examined the position of one peculiar class of the unfree,
namely the comites or gesíðas of the kingly leaders. Another, but less
favoured, class remain to be noticed, those namely whom the Latin
authors designate by the terms Libertus and Servus, and who, among all
the nations of Germanic origin, are found under the corresponding
denominations of Lazzi or Dió, Læt or Ðeów, Lýsingr or þræl. These have
no honourable, no profitable service to compensate for the loss of
independence, but form the large body of hired cultivators, the artizans
and handicraftsmen in various branches of industry, the prædial, even
the domestic or menial servants of the free landowner.

-----

Footnote 323:

Page 129.

-----

The grounds as well as the degrees of slavery (by which term I mean
dependence, the being in the mund of another, and represented by him in
the folcmót) are various; one, viz. poverty arising from
over-population, has been noticed in the last chapter; but I agree with
Eichhorn[324] and Grimm[325], in attributing the principal and original
cause of slavery in all its branches to war and subsequent conquest.
Another and important cause is forfeiture of liberty for crime; and the
amount of dependence, the gentler or harsher condition of the serf,
depends to a great extent upon the original ground of servitude. If the
victor has a right to the life of the vanquished, which by the law of
nature is unquestionably the case, he possesses _à fortiori_ a perfect
claim to the person, the property and the services of his prisoner, if
his self-interest or the dictates of humanity induce him to waive that
right[326]. These remarks apply no doubt, in their full force, only to
our pagan forefathers; but even Christianity itself did not at once
succeed in rooting out habits which its divine precepts of justice and
mercy emphatically condemn. Beda, in his desire to prove the efficacy of
the mass for the dead[327], tells an interesting story of a young noble
who was left severely wounded on the field, after a battle between
Ecgfrið of Northumberland and Æðelred of Mercia, in the year 679.
Fearful of the consequences should his rank be discovered, he disguised
himself in the habit of a peasant, and assumed that character, at the
castle of the earl into whose hands he fell; declaring that he was a
poor, and married man[328], who had been compelled to attend the army
with supplies of provisions. But his language and manners betrayed him,
and at length, under a solemn promise of immunity, he revealed his name
and station. The reply of the earl is characteristic; he said: “I knew
well enough from thy answers that thou wert no rustic; and now indeed
thou art worthy of death, seeing that all my brothers and relations were
slain in that battle: yet I will not kill thee, lest I should break the
faith that I have pledged.” Accordingly when his wounds were healed, his
captor sold him to a Frisian in London, who, finding that he could not
be bound, finally released him on his parole and permitted him to ransom
himself. Whatever the motive, it is thus clear that the victor possessed
the right of life and death over his captive, even when taken in cold
blood; and the traditions, as well as the historical records of the
northern nations are filled with instances of its exercise.

-----

Footnote 324:

Deut. Staatsges. i. 72, § 15.

Footnote 325:

Deutsche Rechtsalterthümer, p. 320, with the numerous examples there
given. So Fleta. “Fiunt autem homines servi de iure gentium
captivitate: bella enim orta sunt, et captivitates sequutae. Fiunt
etiam de iure civili, per confessionem in curia fisci factam.” Lib. i.
c. 3. § 3.

Footnote 326:

A whole army may be devoted as victims by the conquerors. “Sed bellum
Hermunduris prosperum, Cattis exitiosius fuit, quia victores diversam
aciem Marti ac Mercurio sacravere, quo voto equi, viri, cuncta, victa
occidioni dantur.” Tac. Annal, xiii. 57. “Lucis propinquis barbarae
arae, apud quas tribunos ac primorum ordinum centuriones mactaverant:
et cladis ... superstites, pugnam aut vincula elapsi, referebant ...
quot patibula captivis, quae scrobes,” etc. Tac. Annal. i. 61.

Footnote 327:

Hist. Eccles. iv. 22.

Footnote 328:

This is confirmatory of the statement in the last chapter, that,
strictly speaking, the _Comes_ could not marry. One cannot see why the
assertion should have been made on any other grounds: his great
anxiety was to prove himself not a comes or minister, and as one
argument, he states himself to be “uxoreo nexu constrictus.”

-----

It does not however by any means follow that the total defeat of a
hostile tribe resulted in the immediate and direct enslaving of all the
survivors: as in the example just cited, the blood-feud no doubt
frequently led to the murder of the captive chiefs and nobles, even if
less justifiable motives did not counsel the same miserable means of
removing dangerous competitors[329]; but the heavy doom of death must
have been one of the melancholy privileges of the noble class: and even
though many of the common freemen may have been sold or retained as
slaves at the caprice of the captors, still we cannot suppose this to
have been the lot of any but those who had actually taken part in
combat; no natural or national law could extend these harsh provisions
to the freemen who remained quiet at home. Nevertheless even these were
liable to be indirectly affected by the hostile triumph, inasmuch as the
conquerors appear invariably to have taken a portion, more or less
great, of the territory occupied by the conquered[330]: and wherever
this is the case to the extent of depriving the cultivator of means
sufficient for his support, he has no resource but to place himself in
dependence upon some wealthier man, and lose, together with his lot or
κληρος, the right to form an integral part of the state: the degree of
his dependence, and the consequent comparative suffering to himself, may
vary with a multitude of circumstances; but the one fact still remains,
viz. that he is in the mund or hand of another, represented in the state
by that other, and consequently, in the most emphatic sense of the word,
_unfree_.

-----

Footnote 329:

After a battle between Ragnachari and Chlodowich, in which the former
was taken prisoner, the victor thus addressed him: “Cui dixit
Chlodoveus, Cur humiliasti gentem nostram, ut te vinciri permitteres?
Nonne melius tibi fuerit mori? Et elevata bipenne, in caput eius
defixit, et mortuus est. Conversusque ad fratrem eius, ait: Si tu
solatium fratri tuo praebuisses, ille ligatus non fuisset! Similiter
et ipsum in capite percussum interfecit, et mortuus est.” Gest. Reg.
Franc. (Script. Rer. Gall. et Francic. ii. 555.) It was the interest
of Chlodowich to put these princes to death, but there must still have
been some _right_ acknowledged in him to do so. He seems however to
rest it upon the disgrace which they had brought upon the mǽgburh,
_gens_ or family, by suffering themselves to be captured and bound.

Footnote 330:

“Quod Ariovistus ... in eorum finibus consedisset, tertiamque partem
agri Sequani qui esset optimus totius Galliae, occupavisset; et nunc
de altera parte tertia Sequanos decedere iuberet.” Cæs. Bell. Gall. i.
32. The same proportion of a _third_, sometimes however in produce,
not land, occurs in other cases: Eichhorn, Deut. Staatsges. i. 161
_seq._ § 23, with the accompanying quotations.

-----

It is now generally admitted that this must have been the case with the
whole population in some districts, who thus became dependent upon a few
intrusive lords: but still these populations cannot be said to have
stood in that peculiar relation to the conquerors, which the word
_servus_ strictly implies towards an owner. The utmost extent of their
subjection probably reached no further than the payment of tribute, the
exclusion from military duty and the standing under a protectorate[331].
Inglorious and easy, when once the dues of the lord were paid, they may
even have rejoiced at being spared the danger of warfare and the
laborious suit of the folcmót, and forgotten that self-government is the
inherent right and dignity of man, in the convenience of having others
to defend and rule them. Moreover the territorial subjection was not
necessarily a juridical one: indeed some of the Teutonic conquerors
recognized as positive law, the right of even the dependent Romans and
Provincials to be judged and taxed according to the rules and maxims of
Roman, not Salic or Langobardic, jurisprudence: and this, when carried
out in the fullest detail with respect to the various tribes at any time
united under one supreme head, constitutes what is now called the system
of _Personal Right_, whereby each man enjoyed the law and forms of law
to which he was born, without the least reference to the peculiar
district in which he might happen to live; in other words, that he
carried his own law about, whithersoever he went, as a quality attached
to his own person, and not in the slightest degree connected with or
dependent upon any particular locality. In this way Alamanni, Baiowari,
Saxons, Frisians, Langobards, Romans, Gallic provincials and Slavonic
populations, were all united under the empire of the Salic and Ripuarian
Franks[332]. The peculiar circumstances under which the conquest took
place must, of course, have defined the relations under which the
subject stood to the ruling state. It is conceivable that the conquerors
might not want land, but be contented with glory and pillage; or they
might not be able to seize and retain the conquered territory: or again
they may have required new settlements for themselves and their allies,
to obtain which they waged a war of extermination. Thus the Suevi,
although unable to expel the Ubii altogether from their territory, yet
succeeded in rendering them tributary[333]; while in Thuringia, the
Franks and their Saxon allies seized all the land, slaying, expelling or
completely reducing the indigenous inhabitants to slavery. Another and
curious instance may be cited from a comparatively late period, when the
little island of Man was invaded, conquered and colonized by the
Norwegian Godred. “Godredus sequenti die optionem exercitui suo dedit,
ut si mallent Manniam inter se dividere et in ea habitare, vel cunctam
substantiam terrae accipere et ad propria remeare. Hiis autem magis
placuit totam insulam vastare, et de bonis illius ditari, et sic ad
propria reverti. Godredus autem paucis qui secum remanserunt de
insulanis australem partem insulae, et reliquiis Mannensium aquilonarem
tali pacto concessit, ut nemo eorum aliquando auderet iure haereditario
sibi aliquam partem terrae usurpare. Unde accidit ut usque in hodiernum
diem tota insula solius regis sit, et omnes redditus eius ad ipsum
pertineant[334].” The not being able to dispose of property hereditarily
is the true badge and proof of slavery.

-----

Footnote 331:

This is the condition of the Perioecians in Laconia, with the
exception that these were called upon for military service. The
Helotae or Penestae were more nearly praedial serfs.

Footnote 332:

This led by degrees to the vast power and influence of all the clergy,
who were originally Roman, and who, whatever their nation might be,
lived under the Roman law, “per clericalem clericalem

Footnote 333:

Caesar, Bell. Gall. iv. 3. The Franks imposed a tribute of hides upon
the Frisians: we hear also of tribute paid them by the Thuringians,
Saxons and Slavic races.

Footnote 334:

A.D. 1056. Chron. Manniae. MS. Cott., Jul. A. VII., fol. 32.

-----

Tacitus draws a great distinction between the different degrees of
servitude among the Germans. He tells us that the unsuccessful gambler
who had staked and lost his liberty and the free disposal of his own
body upon one fatal cast of the dice, would voluntarily submit to be
bound and sold[335], but that it was not usual for them to reduce their
other serfs to the condition of menials; they only demanded from them a
certain amount of produce (or, unquestionably, of labour in the field or
pasture), and then left them the enjoyment of their own dwellings and
property[336]. The general duties of the house, beyond such supplies,
which were provided for among the Romans by the _ministeria per familiam
descripta_, were left among the Germans to the wife and children of the
householder[337]. It will be desirable to follow a somewhat similar
distinction in treating of the different kinds of slaves; and having
shown that one class of the unfree are those who have been partially
dispossessed by conquest, but retain their personal freedom in some
degree, to proceed to those who are personally unfree, the mere chattels
of a lord who can dispose of them at his pleasure, even to the extent of
sale, mutilation and death. The class we have hitherto been observing is
that intended by the term Læt in Anglosaxon, Litus, Lito, Lazzo, etc. in
German monuments[338], and the Laeti of the Romans, applied by them to
the auxiliary Germans settled on imperial land, and bound to pay tribute
and perform military service. They formed, as Grimm has well observed, a
sort of middle class among the unfree; comprising the great majority of
those who, without being absolutely their own masters, were yet placed
somewhat above the lowest and most abject condition of man, which we
call slavery. This condition among our forefathers was termed þeówet;
the _servus_ was þeów, the _ancilla_ þeówen; or, as the original serfs
of the English were the vanquished Britons, Wealh and Wyln.

-----

Footnote 335:

“Servos conditionis huius per commercia tradunt, ut se quoque pudore
victoriae exsolvant.” Germ. xxiv. The last member of the sentence is a
bit of imaginative morality which we shall acquit the Germans of
altogether. The very word _caeteris_ in the next sentence shows
clearly enough that if they did sell some slaves _conditionis huius_,
they kept others for menial functions.

Footnote 336:

“Caeteris servis, non in nostrum morem, descriptis per familiam
ministeriis, utuntur. Suam quisque sedem, suos penates regit. Frumenti
modum dominus, aut pecoris, aut vestis, ut colono, iniungit; et servus
hactenus paret.” Germ. xxv. This amounts to no more than the
description of a certain class of our own copyholders, of the Slavonic
holder in Bohemia or Galicia, and the peasant on a _noble session_ in
Hungary.

Footnote 337:

This is the obvious meaning of the passage, which has however been
disputed, in defiance of sense and Latin: see Walther’s edition, vol.
iv. 58. The general rule in the text is true, but where there were
slaves they were used in the house, under the superintendence of the
family. This of course applies more strongly to later historical
periods, when the slaves (domestics) had become much more numerous,
and the ladies much less domestic.

Footnote 338:

Deut. Rechtsalt. p. 305.

-----

Without confining ourselves to the definition in the law of Henry the
First, we may distribute the different kinds of slaves into classes,
according to the different grounds of slavery[339]. Thus they are serfs
_casu_ or _natura_, and the serfs _casu_ comprise serfs by the fortune
of war, by marriage, by settlement, by voluntary surrender, by crime, by
superior legal power, and by illegal power or injustice. The remaining
class are serfs _natura_, or by birth.

-----

Footnote 339:

“Servi alii natura, alii facto, et alii empcione, et alii redempcione,
alii sua vel alterius dacione servi, et si quae sunt aliae species
huiusmodi, quas tamen omnes volumus sub uno servitutis membro
constitui, quem casum ponimus appellari, ut ita dictum sit, servi alii
casu, alii genitura.” Leg. Hen. I. lxxvi. § 3.

-----

The serfs by fortune of war were those who were not left under the
public law to enjoy a portion of their ancient freedom and possessions,
but were actually reduced to a state of prædial or menial servitude by
their captors, and either reserved for household drudgery or sold, at
their arbitrary will. The Cassandra and Andromache of Grecian story
stand here side by side with our own German Gudrún. This part of the
subject has received sufficient illustration from the tale of the thane
Imma, already quoted from Beda.

The serf by marriage was the free man or free woman who contracted that
bond with a slave: in this case the free party sank to the condition of
the unfree, among some at least of the German races. The Salic law is
explicit upon this point both with respect to man and woman[340]: among
the Ripuarian Franks it was enacted thus[341]: “If a free Ripuarian
woman hath followed a Ripuarian serf, let the king or the count offer
unto her a sword and a spindle: if she accept the sword, let her
therewith slay the serf; if the spindle, let her abide with him in
servitude.” In this case the Burgundian law[342] commanded both parties
to be slain; but if the relatives of the woman would not put her to
death, she became a serf of the king. Saxo Grammaticus cites a similar
law for Denmark[343]. There is no evidence of the Anglosaxon practice in
this respect, but it appears unlikely that the case should be of common
occurrence. Probably purchase and emancipation always preceded such
marriages, and the law of Henry the First makes no mention of this among
the grounds of slavery[344].

-----

Footnote 340:

“Si quis ingenuus ancillam alienam sibi in coniugium sociaverit, ipse
cum ea in servitutem inclinetur.” Lex Sal. xiv. 11. “Si ingenua femina
aliquemcunque de illis (i. e. raptoribus non ingenuis) sua voluntate
secuta fuerit, ingenuitatem suam perdat.” Lex Sal. xiv. 7.

Footnote 341:

Lex Rip. lviii. 18.

Footnote 342:

Lex Burg. xxxv. 2, 3.

Footnote 343:

Hist. Dan. lib. v. p. 85.

Footnote 344:

The following proverbs are founded upon this legal custom:—

“Trittst du meine henne, so wirst du mein hahn.”
“Die unfreie hand zieht die freie nach sich.”
“En formariage le pire emporte le bon.”

-----

The serf by settlement is he who has taken up his abode in a district
exclusively inhabited by the unfree; and to this refers the German
expression “Die luft macht eigen,” i. e. the air makes the serf. There
is no distinct Anglosaxon provision on the subject, but perhaps we may
include in this class some at least of those who taking refuge on a
lord’s land, and among his sócmen, without any absolute and formal
surrender of their freedom, did actually become his serfs and liable to
the services due to him from all their neighbours[345]. The generality
however of such cases fall under the next following head, viz.—

The serfs by surrender, the _sua datione servus_ of Henry’s law, the
_servus dedititius_, and giafþræl of the Norse law. Among these Grimm
numbers the serfs whose voluntary submission so much surprised the Roman
philosopher. Even the law of the Germans, so generally favourable to
liberty, contemplates and provides for the case of such a voluntary
servitude[346]. This might arise in various ways. For example, a time of
severe scarcity, such as are only too often recorded in our ancient
annals, unquestionably drove even the free to the cruel alternative of
either starvation or servitude: “Subdebant se pauperes servitio, ut
quantulumcunque de alimento porrigerent,” says Gregory of Tours[347];
Gildas tells us a similar tale of the Britons[348]; and even as late as
the Norman conquest we find Geatflǽd, a lady, directing by her will the
manumission of all those who had bent their heads in the evil days for
food[349]. Another was, no doubt, debt, incurred either through poverty
or crime; and when the days of fierce and cruel warfare had passed away,
this must have been the most fertile source of servitude. I have not
found among the Anglosaxon remains any example of slavery voluntarily
incurred by the insolvent debtor, but the whole course of analogy is in
favour of its existence, and Marculf supplies us with the formulary by
which, among the Franks, the debtor surrendered his freedom to the
creditor. It may be presumed that this servitude had a term, and that a
certain period of servile labour was considered equivalent to the debt.
The case of crime was undoubtedly a very common one, especially as those
whose necessities were the most likely to bring them in collision with
the law were those also who were least able to fulfil its requirements,
by payment of the fines attached to their offences. The criminal whose
own means were insufficient, and whose relatives or lord would not
assist him to make up the legal fine he had incurred, was either
compelled to surrender himself to the plaintiff, or to some third party
who paid the sum for him, by agreement with the aggrieved party. This
was technically called þingian[350], and such a serf was called a
witeþeów, convict, or criminal slave. These are the _servi redemptione_
of Henry the First.

-----

Footnote 345:

Such may also have been malefactors, who sought an asylum in church or
other privileged lands, and who sometimes formed a very considerable
number of dependants or retainers: thus, “Contraxit universam
iuventutem Houlandiae [Holland in Lincolnshire] strenuissimus comes
Algarus, ... unà cum cohorte Croylandiae monasterii, videlicet CC
bellatoribus robustissimis, eo quod maxima pars illorum de fugitivis
fuerat.” Hist. Ingulf, p. 865.

Footnote 346:

“Si liber homo spontanea voluntate vel forte necessitate coactus,
nobili, seu libero, seu etiam lito, in personam et in servitium liti
se subdiderit.” Lex Fres. xi. 1. “Ut nullum liberum liceat inservire
... quamvis pauper sit, tamen libertatem suam non perdat nec
hereditatem suam, nisi ex spontanea voluntate se alicui tradere
voluerit, hoc potestatem habeat faciendi.” Lex Bajuv. vi. 3. The
Anglosaxon law gave this power of voluntary surrender to a boy of
thirteen. See Theod. Poenit. xxix. Thorpe, ii. 19.

Footnote 347:

Gregor. Turon. vii. 45.

Footnote 348:

“Interea fames dira ac famosissima vagis ac nutabundis haeret, quae
multos eorum cruentis compellit praedonibus sine dilatione victas dare
manus, ut pauxillum ad refocillandam animam cibi caperent.” Hist.
Brit. cap. xvii.

Footnote 349:

“Ealle ða men ðe heónon heora heáfod for hyra mete on ðám yflum
dagum.” Cod. Dip. No. 925. The instance is, I believe, a solitary one
in our records, but the cases must have been numerous.

Footnote 350:

“And eác heó hafað gefreód ða men ða heó þingede æt Cwæspatrike;” And
she hath also freed the men whom she interceded for with Cospatrick.
Cod. Dip. No. 925. Marculf gives the Frankish formulary, as follows;
it is the case of one who has been redeemed from capital punishment:
“Et ego de rebus meis, unde vestra beneficia rependere debuissem, non
habeo; ideo pro hoc statum ingenuitatis meae vobis visus sum
obnoxiasse, ita ut ab hac die de vestro servitio penitus non
discedam.” Form. Marculf. ii. 28.

-----

Serfs by force or power are not those comprised in the first class of
these divisions, or serfs by the fortune of war: these of course have
lost their freedom through superior force. But the class under
consideration are such as have been reduced to servitude by the legal
act of those who had a right to dispose of them; as, for instance, a son
or daughter by the act of the father[351]. It is painful to record a
fact so abhorrent to our Christian feelings, but there cannot be the
least doubt that this right was both admitted and acted upon. The
father, upon whose will it literally depended whether his child should
live or not, had a right at a subsequent period to decide whether the
lot of that child should be freedom or bondage[352]. Illegitimate
children, the offspring of illicit intercourse with his wyln or þeówen,
may have formed the majority of those thus disposed of by a father: but
in times of scarcity, it is to be feared that even the issue of
legitimate marriage was not always spared[353]. The Frisians, when
oppressed by the amount of Roman tribute, sold their wives and children:
“Ac primo boves ipsos, mox agros, postremo corpora coniugum aut
liberorum servitio tradebant[354]:” this is however an exceptional case,
and the sale of wives and children appears only to have been resorted to
as a last resource. But the very restriction to the exercise of this
right, within particular limits of time—which we may believe the
merciful intervention of the church to have brought about—speaks only
too plainly for its existence in England. Even as late as the end of the
seventh century, and after Christianity had been established for nearly
one hundred years in this country, we find the following very distinct
and clear recognitions of the right, in books of discipline compiled by
two several archbishops for the guidance of their respective clergy. In
the Poenitential of Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, occurs this
passage: “Pater filium suum septem annorum, necessitate compulsus,
potestatem habet tradere in servitium; deinde, sine voluntate filii,
licentiam tradendi non habet[355].” In the somewhat later Confessionale
of Ecgberht, archbishop of York, we find: “Pater potest filium suum,
magna necessitate compulsus, in servitutem tradere, usque ad septimum
annum; deinde, sine voluntate filii, eum tradere non potest[356].” It is
however very remarkable that in the Poenitential of the same Ecgberht
the sale of a child or near relative is put down as an offence
punishable by excommunication[357]. These are the _servi alterius
datione_ of Henry the First.

-----

Footnote 351:

The wife, by the act of the husband, I think very doubtful, in point
of right. In point of fact this case may have occurred much more
frequently than our records vouch.

Footnote 352:

The illegitimate offspring of his own wife, a husband was not likely
to spare. An old German tale records this fact. Her lord returning
from a long absence and finding a child which could not be his own in
the house, was told by the faithless mother, that when walking in the
fields a flake of snow had fallen into her bosom and impregnated her.
Afterwards the husband took the child to Italy and sold him there,
excusing himself to the mother by the assertion that the heat of the
sun had melted the snow-child:—

“De nive conceptum quem mater adultera finxit;
Hunc dominus vendens liquefactum sole retulit.”

Footnote 353:

Lingard (A. S. Church, i. 45) accuses the pagan Saxons of selling
their children into foreign slavery. I am not sure that this is not
asserted too strongly by this estimable author, who appears unjustly
to depreciate the Saxons, in order to enhance the merit of their
convertors. I admit the probability of the fact, only because the
right is a direct corollary from the paternal power, and because
Archbishops Theodore and Ecgberht (the first a Roman missionary)
recognize it; but I cannot suppose its exercise to have been common.

Footnote 354:

Tac. Annal. iv. 72.

Footnote 355:

Theodori Arch. Cant., Liber Poenitentialis, xxviii. Thorpe, A. S.
Laws, ii. 19.

Footnote 356:

Confessionale Ecgberhti Arch. Ebor. xxvii. Thorpe, ii. 153.

Footnote 357:

The only way of getting rid of this strange contradiction is, either
to assume the passage to be a later interpolation, which there is no
ground for, save the contradiction itself; or to take the passage in
connection with Theodor. Poen. xlii. § 3, 4, 5, which refer to sale of
a Christian among Jews or Heathens, and generally to fraudulent or
illegal sale. But then, one cannot understand why the words “infantem
suum proprium, vel proximum suum cognatum” should have been introduced
by Ecgberht, though omitted by Theodore. Perhaps we may reconcile the
passages, by assuming Ecgberht to refer to an illegal sale, viz. when
the child was above seven years old, but still in the same category as
those for whose safety Theodore provides by the same ecclesiastical
penalty. The child or very near relation were precisely those who were
most liable to be in “alteram regionem seducti, furati,” etc.

-----

The next head includes the serfs by reason of crime. The distinction
between these and the class of criminals who became slaves through
compact or redemption, is that in their case servitude was the direct
punishment of their offence, and not merely an indirect and mediate
consequence. It seems to me at least that this sense strictly lies at
the foundation of two laws of Eádweard, Ælfred’s son; of these the
former says[358], “If any one through conviction of theft forfeit his
freedom, and deliver himself up, and his kindred forsake him, and he
know not who shall make bót for him; let him then be worthy of the
þeówwork which thereunto appertained; and let the wer abate from the
kindred.” Again, “If a freeman work upon a festival day, let him lose
his freedom, or pay the wíte or lahslite[359].” This alternative is an
alleviation of the strict law: but as forfeiture undoubtedly followed
upon theft and other offences, the thief could not expect to make bót
for himself, and was always exposed to the danger of incurring slavery,
should another make it for him. It is however possible that his
relations may have interfered to save him, without the reducing him to a
_servus dedititius_; or even if he were so reduced, he became the serf
of him that engaged (þingode) for him; whereas, if not rescued at all,
he must have been a fiscal serf, in the hands of the crown or the
geréfa, its officer. There exists therefore a perceptible difference
between the wíteþeów whom the law made so, (even though it permitted a
merciful alternative,) and the wíteþeów whose punishment would have been
a mulct which exceeded his means. The law of other German tribes numbers
slavery among its punishments without any reservation at all: thus among
the Visigoths, he that assisted in the escape of a serf, and neither
restored him nor his worth to the owner, was to become a slave in his
place[360]. By the Bavarian law, he that could not pay a wergyld due
from him, was to be enslaved together with his wife and children[361].
Grimm[362] cites the following case: “Richilda, quae libertatem suam
fornicando polluit, amisit ... filiae illorum liberae permaneant, ...
nisi forte adulterio vel fornicatione polluantur.” It is true that the
Anglosaxon laws do not give us any enactment of a corresponding nature:
nevertheless I entertain no doubt that incontinence was a ground of
slavery in the case both of man and woman. Toward the end of the ninth
century, Denewulf, bishop of Winchester, leased the lands of Alresford
to a relative of his own, on condition of a yearly rent: “Is equidem
insipiens, adulterans, stuprum, propriam religiose pactatam abominans,
scortum diligens, libidinose commisit. Quo reatu, omni substantia
peculiali recte privatus est, et praefatum rus ab eo abstractum rex
huius patriae suae ditioni avidus devenire iniuste optavit[363].”
However unjust the canons of Winchester might think it, it is clear that
the Witena-gemót did not; for the bishop was obliged to pay 120
mancusses in gold to the king, to have back his own land. Again in the
year 1002, we hear of a lady forfeiting her lands to the king, by reason
of incontinence[364]. The consequences of this destitution can hardly
have been other than servitude; and it may be at once admitted that
where there were no lands to forfeit, servitude was the recognized
punishment of the offence. Theodore[365] when apportioning the penance
due to it, says, “Si intra viginti annos puella et adolescens
peccaverint, i annum, et in secundo iii quadragesimas ac legitimas
ferias. Si propter hoc peccatum servitio humano addicti sunt, iii
quadragesimas.” Again, “Maritus si ipse seipsum in furto aut
fornicatione servum facit, vel quocunque peccato[366],” etc.

-----

Footnote 358:

Leg. Eádw. § 9.

Footnote 359:

Eád. and Guð. § 7.

Footnote 360:

Leg. Visig. ix. § 1, 2.

Footnote 361:

Leg. Bajuv. i. § 11.

Footnote 362:

D. Rechtsalt. p. 329.

Footnote 363:

Cod. Dip. No. 601.

Footnote 364:

Ibid. No. 1296.

Footnote 365:

Lib. Poenit. xvi. § 3. Thorpe, ii. 9.

Footnote 366:

Thorpe, ii. 9, note 4.

The last division of the _servi casu_ comprises those who have been
reduced to slavery by violence or fraud, in short illegally.
Illegitimate children, poor relations, unfriended strangers, young
persons without power of self-defence, may thus have been seduced or
forced into a servile condition of life, escape from which was always
difficult, inasmuch as there is necessarily a _prima facie_ case against
the serf, and he can have no standing in the court composed only of the
free. To this head seem referable the passages I have already alluded to
in Theodore’s Poenitential[367], and which I will now cite at length:
“Si quis Christianus alterum Christianum suaserit, ac in alteram
regionem seduxerit, ibique eum vendiderit pro proprio servo, ille non
est dignus inter Christianos requiem habere, donec redimat eum et
reducat ad proprium locum.” And again: “Si quis Christianus alterum
Christianum vagantem reppererit, eumque furatus fuerit ac vendiderit,
non debet habere inter Christianos requiem, donec redimat eum, et pro
illo furto septem annos poeniteat[368].”

-----

Footnote 367:

_Supra_, p. 200, note 2.

Footnote 368:

Lib. Poenit. Theod. xlii. § 4. 5. See also xxiii. § 13.

-----

The other great division includes all the _servi natura_, _nativi_, or
serfs by reason of unfree birth; and as these are necessarily the
children either of parents who are both unfree, or (under particular
circumstances) of one unfree parent, it follows that their hereditary
condition may arise from any one of the conditions heretofore under
examination. All the legitimate children of two serfs are themselves
irrevocably serfs[369]: but some distinctions arise where the parents
are of unequal condition, as where the mother is free, the father
unfree, and _vice versa_. In this respect the law was very different
among the different tribes: the Swedish law declared in favour of
liberty[370], the German generally the other way[371]. The
Sachsenspiegel decides that the children follow the father’s right[372],
and similarly the law of Henry the First[373] has, “Si quis de servo
patre natus sit et matre libera, pro servo reddatur occisus;” and again,
“Si pater sit liber et mater ancilla, pro libero reddatur occisus;” on
the general principle that “semper a patre non a matre generacionis ordo
texitur,” which Fortescue confirms, saying[374], “Lex Angliae nunquam
matris, sed semper patris conditionem imitari partum iudicat, ut ex
libera etiam ex nativa non nisi liberum liber generet, et non nisi
servum in matrimonio procreare potest servus.” Fleta’s argument rests
upon the same doctrine[375]. Glanville however appears to adopt the
contrary view[376], which agrees with the maxim of the civil law,
“Partus sequitur ventrem.” To the English principle I am bound to give
my adhesion, inasmuch as the natural and the original social law can
recognize none but the father, either in the generation, or in the
subsequent rule, of the family: whatever alleviation the practices of
chivalry, the worship of the Virgin mother, and the Christian doctrine
of the equality of man and woman before God, may have introduced, the
original feeling is on the father’s side, and the foundations of our law
are based upon the all-sufficiency of his right. A woman is in the mund
or keeping of a man; society exists for men only, that is, for women
merely as far as they are represented by a man.

-----

Footnote 369:

Theod. Poen. xvi. § 33. Ecgb. Poen. xxv.

Footnote 370:

Deut. Rechtsalt. p. 324.

Footnote 371:

Ibid. p. 324.

Footnote 372:

Sachs. iii. 73.

Footnote 373:

Leg. Hen. I. lxxvii. § 1, 2.

Footnote 374:

Commend. cap. xlii.

Footnote 375:

Lib. i. cap. 3. § 2.

Footnote 376:

“Sunt autem nativi a prima nativitate sua; quemadmodum si quis fuerit
procreatus ex nativo et nativa, ille quidem nativus nascitur. _Idem
est si ex patre libero et matre nativa._ Sed si ex matre libera et
patre nativo, idem est dicendum quantum ad status integritatem.” Lib.
v. cap. 6. But the passage in italic is wanting in some manuscripts,
and may possibly have been the gloss or addition of a civilian.

That this original right was interfered with by the law of property is
not denied. But here different cases are to be considered. First,
whether the serf or _nativa_ is the property of the party who unites
with him or her. Secondly whether the free party unite with some other
owner’s serf or neif; next, whether the issue are born in wedlock or
not; and lastly how far the public law and right is involved in the
question of freedom and servitude. The last consideration in fact
involves the first, because, under the first, except in the case of
hardly intelligible neglect, marriage could never take place between two
unequal parties at all: emancipation must have preceded the ceremony;
while the civil law would of course rule that the ceremony itself,
taking place by consent, was an act of emancipation not to be gainsaid.
It is therefore with regard to third parties only that a question can
arise[377]. There is no proof that such a question ever did arise among
the Anglosaxons, or that it was thought needful to provide for it by
law: and the earlier evidences with which this book has especially to do
are either entirely silent, or so general in their expressions that we
cannot decide from them upon a particular case. In fact the whole
argument is reduced to the second head, viz. where one parent is the
property of a third party, and where the child is born in lawful
wedlock; for a child not so born is not subject to any law which binds
the parents, is _nullius filius_, and can as little be injured as
advantaged by the law.

-----

Footnote 377:

Of course (except under circumstances which the Christian clergy, and
probably even the heathen priesthood,—and if neither of these, yet the
universal human feeling—would condemn,) the issue of such marriage
could not have been treated as unfree, during the life of the father.
But a question might arise after death, and on subsequent inheritance
by third parties. And cases might occur where the public right
rendered it necessary to take care that the unfree should not enjoy
the advantages of freedom.

-----

In the strict Anglosaxon law there is no definite decision on these
points: the codes of other German races, at the oldest period, are
equally silent. In later times indeed we have determinations; but these,
as we have observed, are contradictory. Perhaps we may take the doctrine
of the Sachsenspiegel, coinciding as it does with the opinion of many,
probably a majority, of our own law-sages, as the original one,
especially as it is the only one in accordance with other details of
family life, and with the supreme law of nature itself which leaves to
the father the decision as to the life or death of the child, as to its
liberty or slavery. In this sense then I agree with Sir John Fortescue
and Sir Edward Coke[378]. It is to be remembered that we are dealing now
with the condition of the offspring, not of the parent: the uncertainty
that prevails with respect to the latter, in the Anglosaxon law, and the
contradictory enactments of other German codes have been already
noticed.

But all that has been said applies solely to the case of children born
in lawful wedlock; and almost all the apparent contradictions which have
been noticed in our own law, arise from a want of clear distinction on
this point. The child of a free father and unfree mother, if the parents
were not married, remained to the lord of the neif, according to our
expressive proverb, “Mine is the calf that is born of my cow[379].” In
Fleta’s words[380] the distinction is drawn most clearly, and they may
therefore stand here in place of my own: “Servi autem aut nascuntur aut
fiunt; nascuntur quidem ex nativo et nativa solutis vel copulatis, et
eius erit servus in cuius potestate nasci contigerit[381]; dum tamen de
soluta nativa, domini loci, quia sequitur conditionem matris, a
quocunque fuerit genitus, libero vel nativo[382]. Si autem copulati
fuerint et genitus fuerit partus a libero, licet a nativa, partus erit
liber; et si de servo et libera in matrimonio, servus erit.” Thus, here
again the offspring follows the father, as soon as there is a marriage
to determine that there is an offspring at all, in law; but if there be
no marriage, the chattel thrown into the world, like any other waif or
stray belongs _domino loci_; it has a value, can be worked or sold; it
is treasure-trove of a sort, and as it belongs to nobody else, falls to
the lord, as a compensation probably for the loss of his neif’s services
during pregnancy and the nonage of the child[383].

-----

Footnote 378:

Co. Litt. § 187, 188.

Footnote 379:

Take an instance, though with a wider application, from Shakspeare,
King John, act i. sc. 2.

Footnote 380:

Lib. i. cap. 3. § 2.

Footnote 381:

That is, if the serfs of two different lords, then the child to follow
the mother.

Footnote 382:

In the event of there being no marriage. The case of a marriage is
very different, and provided for in the next sentence.

Footnote 383:

Mr. Allen in his valuable notes upon the law of Henry the First
(published by Thorpe in his Anglosaxon Laws, i. 609-631) has some
remarks upon the whole subject, as considered by our Norman jurists.
His conclusions coincide generally with mine, and he says (p. 628),
“The Mirror [Sachsenspiegel] makes the marriage of the parents an
essential condition to the liberty of the offspring,” etc.

-----

Whatever the origin of serfage may have been, it can hardly be
questioned that the lot of the serf was a hard one; and this perhaps not
so much from the amount of labour required of him, as from the total
irresponsibility of the master, in the eye of the law, as to all
dealings between himself and his þeów. The Christian clergy indeed did
all they could to mitigate its hardships, but when has even Christianity
itself been triumphant over the selfishness and the passions of the mass
of men! The early pagan Germans, though in general they treated their
serfs well, yet sometimes slew them, under the influence of unbridled
passion: “Verberare servum ac vinculis et opere coercere rarum. Occidere
solent, non disciplina et severitate, sed impetu et ira, ut inimicum,
nisi quod impune est[384].” The church affixed a special penance to the
manslaughter of a woman by her mistress, _impetu et ira_,—an event which
probably was not unusual, considering the power of a lord over his
þeówen or female slave,—and generally, a penance for the slaughter of a
serf by his lord without judicial authority[385].

-----

Footnote 384:

Tac. Germ. xxv.

Footnote 385:

“Si faemina, furore zeli accensa, flagellis verberaverit ancillam
suam, ita ut infra diem tertium animam cruciatu effundat, et quod
incertum sit, voluntate an casu occident; si voluntate, vii annos; si
casu, per quinquennii tempora, ac legitima poenitentia, a communione
placuit abstinere.” Poen. Theod. xxi. § 13. “Si quis servum proprium,
sine conscientia iudicis, occiderit, excommunicatione vel poenitentia
biennii reatum sanguinis emundabit.” Ibid. § 12. Even as late as the
seventeenth century in France, it appears that it was usual to flog
the valets, pages and maids, in noble houses. Tallemant des Réaux
mentions a riot which arose in Paris from a woman’s being whipped to
death by her mistress, in August 1651. See his Historiettes, viii. 80;
x. 255, etc.

-----

In contemplation of law, in fact, the slave is the absolute property of
his lord, a chattel to be disposed of at the lord’s pleasure, and having
a value only for the benefit of the lord, or of some public authority in
his place. The serf cannot represent himself or others: his interests
must be guarded by others, for he himself has no standing in any public
court. He is not in any friðborh, or association for mutual guarantee,
for he has nothing of his own to defend, and no power to defend what
another has. If he be slain by a stranger, his lord claims the damages,
and not his children: if the lord himself slay him, it is but the loss
of so much value,—a horse, an ox, gone—more or less. Out of his death no
feud can arise, for the relatives who allowed him to fall into, or
remain in slavery, have renounced the family bond, and forfeited both
the wergyld and the mund. If he be guilty of wrong, he cannot make
compensation in money or in chattels; for he can have no property of his
own save his skin: thus his skin must pay for him[386], and the lash be
his bitter portion. He cannot defend himself by his own oath or the
oaths of friends and compurgators, but, if accused, must submit to the
severe, uncertain and perilous test of the ordeal. And if, when thus
hunted down, he be found guilty, severe and ignominious
punishment,—amounting, in a case of theft, to death by flogging for men,
by burning for women,—is reserved for him[387]. Naturally and originally
there can be no limitation in the amount or the character of labour
imposed upon him, and no stipulation for reciprocal advantage in the
form of protection, food or shelter. Among the Saxons the wíteþeów at
least appears to have been bound to the soil, _adscriptus glebae_[388],
conveyed with it under the comprehensive phrase “mid mete and mid
mannum:” though in some few cases we can trace a power, vested perhaps
only in certain public authorities, of transferring the slave from one
estate to another[389]. Last, but most fearful of all, the taint of
blood descended to his offspring, and the innocent progeny, to the
remotest generations, were born to the same miserable fate as bowed down
the guilty or unfortunate parent.

Footnote 386:

The compensation for a flogging was called hídgeld.

Footnote 387:

Leg. Æðelst. iii. § 6. Thorpe, i. 219.

Footnote 388:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 311, 1079.

Footnote 389:

Ibid. No. 311. The serfs mentioned in this document were at first
attached to the royal vill of Bensington; but were now transferred to
the land of the church at Radnor, with their offspring, and their
posterity for ever.

But yet there was a gleam of hope: one solitary ray that made even the
surrounding darkness tolerable, and may have cheered the broken-hearted
serf through years of unrequited toil and suffering. The law that
reduced him to slavery made it also possible that he should be restored
to freedom. It did not shut from him this blessing, however distant it
might seem. Tacitus knew of _liberti_ among the Germans, men who had
been slaves, had been manumitted, and were free[390]. Thus in yet pagan
times, general kindliness of disposition, habits of domestic
intercourse, perhaps the suggestions of self-interest, may have tended
to raise the condition of the serf even to the restoration of freedom:
but it was the especial honour and glory of Christianity, that while it
broke the spiritual bonds of sin, it ever actively laboured to relieve
the heavy burthen of social servitude. We are distinctly told that
Bishop Wilfrið, on receiving the grant of Selsey from Caedwealha of
Wessex, immediately manumitted two hundred and fifty unfortunates, whom
he found there attached to the soil,—that those, whom by baptism he had
rescued from servitude to devils, might by the grant of liberty be
rescued from servitude to man[391]. In this spirit of charity, the
clergy obtained respite from labour for the þeów on the Sabbath, on
certain high festivals and on the days which preceded or followed
them[392]; the lord who compelled his þeów to labour between the sunset
on Saturday and the sunset on Sunday, forfeited him altogether[393];
probably at first to the king or the geréfa; but in the time of Cnut the
serf thus forfeited was to become _folkfree_[394]. To their merciful
intervention it must also be ascribed that the will of a Saxon
proprietor, laic as well as clerical, so constantly directs the
manumission of a number of serfs, for the soul’s health of the
testator[395]; Ælfred even goes so far as to give free power to the serf
of bequeathing to whomsoever he pleases, whatever may have been given
him for God’s sake, or he may have earned in his own moments of
leisure[396]; and this provision, which probably implies a prohibition
to the lord of removing his labourer arbitrarily from a plot of ground
well cultivated by his own efforts, tends to secure to the unfortunate
serf some interest in the produce of his industry: the Hungarian will
recognize in it the spirit of Maria Theresia’s _Urbarium_. It is
moreover obvious from many surviving documents, that, in the later
periods, the serf could purchase his own release[397], at least with the
lord’s consent[398], or be bought by another for the purpose of
manumission[399], or even be borrowed on pledge for a term of
years[400], during which his labour might be actively employed in laying
up the means of future freedom. It cannot indeed be denied that the
slave might be sold like any other chattel, and that even as late as
Æðelred and Cnut, the law ventured to prohibit no more than the selling
him into heathendom, or without some fault on his part[401]: nor can we
believe that acts of the grossest oppression and tyranny were
unfrequent. But from what has been already cited, it must be evident
that there was a constantly growing tendency in favour of freedom, that
the clergy suggested every motive, and the law made every possible
effort, at least to diminish the more grievous circumstances of
servitude. It is moreover to be borne in mind that a very large
proportion of the þeówas at any given time, were in reality criminal
serfs, convicts expiating their offences by their sufferings. Taking all
the circumstances into consideration, I am disposed to think that the
mere material condition of the unfree population was not necessarily or
generally one of great hardship. It seems doubtful whether the labour of
the serf was practically more severe, or the remuneration much less than
that of an agricultural labourer in this country at this day: his lord
was bound to feed him for his own sake, and if, when old and worn out,
he wished to rid himself of a useless burthen, he could by an act of
emancipation hand over his broken-down labourer to the care of a Church
which, with all its faults, never totally lost sight of the divine
precepts of charity[402]. We are not altogether without the means of
judging as to the condition of the serf, and the provision made for him;
although the instances which we may cite are not all either of one
period, or one country, or indeed derived from compilations having the
authority of law, they show sufficiently what opinion was entertained on
this subject by some among the ruling class. In the prose version of
Salomon and Saturn[403], it is said that every serf ought to receive
yearly seven hundred and thirty loaves, that is, two loaves a day,
beside morning meals and noon meals; this cannot be said to be a very
niggardly portion. Again, the valuable document entituled, “Rectitudines
singularum personarum[404],” gives details respecting the allowances
made to the serfs in various prædial or domestic capacities, which would
induce a belief not only that they were tolerably provided for, but even
enabled by the exertion of skill and industry to lay up funds of their
own towards the purchase of their freedom, the redemption of their
children, or the alleviation of their own poverty. From the same
authority and others, we may conclude that on an estate in general,
serfs discharged the functions of ploughman, shepherd, goatherd,
swineherd, oxherd and cowherd, barn-man, sower, hayward, woodward,
dairymaid, and beadle or messenger; while the geneát, cotsetla, gebúr,
beócere and gafolswán were probably poor freemen from whom a certain
portion of labour could be demanded in consideration of their
holdings[405], or a certain rent (gafol) reserved out of the produce of
the hives, flocks or herds committed to their care: and these formed the
class of the _Læt_ and _Esne_, poor mercenaries, serving for hire or for
their land, but not yet reduced so low in the scale as the þeów or
wealh. It is not only probable that there would be distinctions in the
condition of various serfs upon the same estate, but even demonstrable:
it can hardly be doubted that men placed in situations of some trust, as
the ploughman, oxherd or beadle, were in a somewhat higher class, and of
better condition, than the mere hewers of wood and drawers of water. Now
in a charter of the year 902, we find an interesting statement, which I
must take leave to cite[406]: Denewulf bishop of Winchester and his
Chapter had leased land at Eblesburne to Beornwulf, a relative of the
bishop: the Chapter sent word to Beornwulf that the men, that is the
serfs, were to remain attached to the land—“ðæt ða men móston on ðam
lande wunian”—whether he, or any other, held it: “ðonne wǽron ðǽr þreo
wíteþeówe men búrbǽrde, ⁊ þreo þeówbǽrde, ða me salde bisceop ⁊ ða hiwan
tó rihtre ǽhte ⁊ hira teám:” “Now there were three convicts búrbǽrde and
three þeówbǽrde, whom the bishop and the brethren gave me, together with
their offspring.” The expressions used in this passage seem to show that
some of the wíteþeówe men upon this estate enjoyed a higher condition
than others[407], being _cultivators_ or _boors_, while the others were
more strictly slaves. The very curious and instructive dialogue of
Ælfríc numbers among the serfs the yrðling or ploughman, whose
occupation the author nevertheless places at the head of all the crafts,
with perhaps a partial exception in favour of the smith’s[408].

-----

Footnote 390:

Tac. Germ. xxv.

Footnote 391:

Bed. H. E. iv. 13.

Footnote 392:

Leg. Wihtr. § 9, 10. Ini, § 3. Edw. Guð. § 7. Æðelr. viii. § 2.

Footnote 393:

Leg. Ini, § 3.

Footnote 394:

Cnut, Leg. Sec. § 45.

Footnote 395:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 716, 721, 722, 782, 788, 919, 925, 931, 946, 947, 957,
959, 981.

Footnote 396:

Leg. Ælf. § 43. Æðelred (viii. § 2) permits the serf to labour on his
own account, three days before Michaelmas. Theodore (Poen. xix. § 30)
and Ecgberht (Poen. Addit. § 35) forbid the lord to rob his serf of
what he may have acquired by his own industry. It was nevertheless
held by some that the serf could not purchase his own freedom.

Footnote 397:

This is true only of the Saxon, not of the Norman period. Glanville
expressly denies that the serf could redeem himself. “Illud tamen
notandum est, quod non potest aliquis, in villenagio positus,
libertatem suam propriis denariis suis quaerere. Posset enim tunc a
domino suo secundum ius et consuetudinem regni ad villenagium
revocari; _quia omnia catalla cuiuslibet nativi intelliguntur esse in
potestate domini sui_, [per] quod propriis denariis suis versus
dominium suum a villenagio se redimere non poterit.” Glanv. lib. v.
cap. 5.

Footnote 398:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 933, 934, 935, 936, 981 (the 31st paragraph).

Footnote 399:

Ibid. No. 981 (the 28th paragraph).

Footnote 400:

Ibid. No. 975.

Footnote 401:

Leg. Æðelr. v. § 2; vi. § 9. Cnut, Leg. Sec. § 3.

Footnote 402:

The Romans used to slay their infirm and useless serfs, or expose them
in an island of the Tiber. Claudius made several regulations in their
favour. “Cum quidam aegra et affecta mancipia in insulam Aesculapii
taedio medendi exponerent, omnes, qui exponerentur, liberos esse
sanxit, nec redire in ditionem domini, si convaluissent; quod si quis
necare mallet quem quam exponere, caedis crimine teneri.” Suet. in
Claud. 25.

Footnote 403:

See _supra_, p. 38, note 1.

Footnote 404:

Thorpe, A. S. Laws, i. 432, and a later edition by Dr. H. Leo of
Halle, 1842.

Footnote 405:

This is the _Robot_ of Slavonic countries, the _Operatio_ of our
Norman law; a mere labour-rent, necessary in countries where there is
no accumulated capital, and wealth (for want of markets) consists only
in land, and limbs wherewith to till it.

Footnote 406:

Cod. Dip. No. 1079.

Footnote 407:

The compounds of _bǽrde_ cannot denote anything but a permanent
condition or quality: they are nearly equivalent to the compounds of
_cund_, excepting that they are necessarily _personal_.

Footnote 408:

Thorpe, Analecta.

-----

Servitude ceased by voluntary or compulsory manumission on the part of
the lord; the latter case being that where the services of the slave
were forfeited through the misconduct of the master. And as loss of
liberty must be considered in the main as a consequence of the public
law, understood in the general, and expressed in the particular case, so
must it I think be asserted, that _at first_ emancipation depended in
some degree upon the popular will as well as the mercy or caprice of
private individuals. It is no doubt true, that at a period when what we
now call crimes were rather considered in the light of civil injuries,
for which satisfaction was due to the parties injured, it might seem
reasonable to leave the latter in possession of the power to assess the
minimum, at least, of his own satisfaction: to allow him to decide how
long a period of servitude he would content himself with, if he chose to
renounce the right he possessed of claiming an endless one; or lastly,
to reward good and faithful service by cancelling the consequences of an
earlier wrong. But emancipation has two very different effects: it not
only relieves the serf from personal burthens and disabilities, but it
restores or introduces a citizen to political and public rights. In a
state of society where landed possession and the exercise of such rights
are inseparable, a grave difficulty arises, viz. how can provision be
made for the newly emancipated, and now free man? If the community will
consent, and possess the means, to create a new free Hide for his
occupation, of course the matter can be managed; but this consent
renders the emancipation in reality the act of the state, not of the
manumittor. Or the lord on restoring freedom to his serf may endow him
with a portion of his own land, sufficient for easy or even wealthy
subsistence; but this will not make him fully a free man, give him his
full position in the πολιτευμα or polity, and place him on a level with
the free inhabitants of the Mark.

Till periods very late in comparison with that which is assumed in the
course of this argument, a similar principle prevails in our legislation
upon this subject. Glanville says, “It is also to be observed that a man
may enfranchise his serf in respect of the persons of himself or his
heirs, but not in respect of others. For if any one, having once been a
serf, and afterwards having attained to freedom in this manner, should
be produced in court against a third party to support a cause, or for
the purpose of making any law of the land, he may justly be removed
therefrom, if his birth in villenage should be objected to and proved
against him in the court, even though the serf so enfranchised should
have come to be promoted unto a knight’s degree[409].”

-----

Footnote 409:

Lib. v. cap. 5.

-----

Later still, liberty seems considered as a privilege the value of which
might be diminished by its extension; and Fleta gives as a reason why
the lord is bound to pursue his fugitive serf, “lest by _negligence_ of
the lords, serfs should prevail to assert their own freedom[410].”

-----

Footnote 410:

Lib. i. cap. 7, § 7, 8.

-----

On consideration therefore of all the facts, we must conclude that where
full and complete manumission was intended, the transaction could only
be completed in the presence and with the co-operation of the community,
whereby all claims besides those of the manumitting lord would be
formally estopped for the future. And this would be nearly equivalent to
the admission (rare indeed) of a metic or other stranger to the full
rights of citizenship at Athens, which could hardly have effect without
a ψήφισμα or deliberate vote of the whole people[411]. Accordingly even
in the laws of William the Conqueror and Henry the First we find
evidence that the completest publicity was given to formal
manumissions[412]; and it is not unreasonable to believe that this
refers back to a time when such publicity may have consisted in the
presentation of the serf before the assembled folcmót, and their
expressed or implied assent to the solemn act.

-----

Footnote 411:

The slaves who fought on the Athenian side at Arginusae were
manumitted and enrolled among the Plataeans, being thus admitted into
the πολίτευμα. We learn this from a fragment of Hellanicus, preserved
in the Scholiast on Arist. Ran. 694: the words are, τοὺς
συνναυμαχήσαντας δούλους Ἑλλάνικός φησιν ἐλευθερωθῆναι, καὶ
ἐγγραφέντας ὡς Πλαταιεῖς συμπολιτεύσασθαι αὐτοῖς. See also Niebuhr
(Hare and Thirlwall), p. 204. The Langobards upon a somewhat similar
occasion manumitted their serfs. “Igitur Langobardi, ut bellatorum
possint ampliare numerum, plures a servili iugo ereptos, ad libertatis
statum perducunt. Utque rata eorum haberi posset libertas, sanciunt,
more solito, per sagittam, inmurmurantes nihilominus, ob rei
firmitatem, quaedam patria verba.” Paul. Diac. de Gest. i. 13.

Footnote 412:

“Si qui vero velit servum suum liberum facere, tradat eum vicecomiti,”
etc. Leg. Wil. iii. § 15. “Qui servum suum liberat, in aecclesia, vel
mercato, vel comitatu, vel hundreto,” etc. Leg. Hen. I. 1, § 78.

Practically however, it is probable that the dissolution of servitude
did not absolutely confer all the privileges of freedom. The numerous
acts of manumission directed by the wills of great landowners are
totally inconsistent with the notion of any interference on the part of
the assembled people, as necessary to their validity: the instances, it
is true, are mostly of modern date, but still we hear of manumissions by
wholesale at very early periods, where nothing but the lord’s own will
can possibly be thought of[413]. It seems therefore probable that a
certain amount of dependence was reserved; that the freedman became
relieved from the harsher provisions of his former condition, but
remained in general under the protection and on the land of his former
lord, perhaps receiving wages for services still rendered. In the eighth
century Wihtraed of Kent enacted that even in the case of solemn
manumission at the altar, the inheritance, the wergyld and the mund of
the family should remain to the lord, whether the new freedman continued
to reside within the Mark or not[414]. The mode of provision for the
emancipated serf must, in a majority of cases, have led to this result.
The lord endowed him out of his own land, either with a full possession,
secured by charter, or a mere temporary, conditional loan, _lǽn_: the
man therefore remained upon the lord’s estate, and in his _borh_ or
surety, though no longer liable to servile disabilities[415].

-----

Footnote 413:

For example Wilfrið's, at Selsey; see above, p. 211.

Footnote 414:

Leg. Wihtr. § 8.

Footnote 415:

Wulfwaru in her will directs her legatees to feed twenty freolsmen or
freedmen. Cod. Dipl. No. 694. Ketel commands that all the men whom he
has freed shall have all that is _under their hand_,—probably all they
had received as stock, or had been able to gain by their industry.
Cod. Dipl. No. 1340.

-----

The full ceremonies used in the solemn act of emancipation by the
Anglosaxons are not known to us; but there is reason to suppose that
they resembled those of other Teutonic nations. Generally these may be
divided into civil and ecclesiastical; the former receiving their
sanction from the authority of the people or the prince, the latter from
the church and its peculiar influences. “He who would emancipate his
serf shall deliver him to the sheriff, by the right hand, in full
county, shall proclaim him free from all yoke of servitude by
manumission, shall show him open roads and doors, and shall deliver unto
him the arms of a free man, namely the lance and sword: thenceforth the
man is free[416].” Such is the law of William the Conqueror, and it is
repeated with little variation by Henry the First[417], except that
there is no limitation to the sheriff and the county. But this was also
one form of manumission among the Langobards. The person who was to be
made _Fulfreal_ was delivered over successively into the hands of four
different persons: the last of these brought him before witnesses to a
spot where four roads met, and his choice was given him of these roads.
He was then free, and _ámund_, that is removed from under the protection
of his former master[418]. But it appears that the master, even though
he gave the free roads, might reserve the mund of his freedman, by which
he retained the right of inheriting from him, if he died childless[419];
and this recalls to us the provision already cited from the Kentish
law[420]. The history of Ramsey informs us that Æðelstán, the son of
Manni, adopted this form in a very extensive emancipation of his
serfs[421], and we may therefore suppose it to have been a mode usual
among the Saxons. Among the Franks, the fullest and completest act of
emancipation was that which took place before the king, or in a popular
court; the freedman, from the ceremonies adopted on the occasion, was
called _Denarialis_, or _Denariatus_, “qui denarium ante regem
iactavit.” He became capable of a wergyld, of contracting marriage with
a free woman, and in general obtained all the rights of a free citizen.
But he still remained in some degree under the mund of the king, who
received his wergyld, and had certain rights over his inheritance[422].
I do not know whether this has any connexion with a law of Henry the
First, which provides that in _any case_ of manumission, the serf shall
give thirty pence to the lord, as a witness, namely the price of his
skin, for a testimony that he is thenceforth himself its master[423].
There was a form of manumission among the Franks by charter[424], which
however did not confer all the privileges of the _denarialis_. The
holder of such a charter was thence called Chartularius: I will not
assert that such a system prevailed here, although it is possible that
some of the many charters of emancipation, printed in the Codex
Diplomaticus, may be of this nature. Their general character however is
that of a record of bargain and sale between different parties: it may
be indeed presumed that emancipation would follow, but there is no
positive statement that it did. The following class of cases perhaps
approaches nearest to such a _charta ingenuitatis_: “By this book of the
Gospels it appeareth that Ælfwig the Red hath bought himself out, from
Abbat Ælfsige and all the convent, with one pound. Whereof is witness
all the brotherhood at Bath. Christ blind him who turneth away this
record[425]!” But this is only a memorandum in a copy of the Gospels, no
charter of manumission; and I presume that the sheriff would have
required some much more definite and legal act, before he looked upon
Ælfwig the Red as a freeman. Probably he was duly made free at the altar
of the abbey church or at the door[426]. Of this subsequent process we
have a good example in the book of St. Petroc.

-----

Footnote 416:

Leg. Will. Conq. iii. § 15.

Footnote 417:

“Qui servum suum liberat, in aecclesia, vel mercato, vel comitatu, vel
hundreto, coram testibus et palam faciat, et liberas ei vias et portas
conscribat apertas, et lanceam et gladium, vel quae liberorum arma
sunt, in manibus ei ponat.” Leg. Hen. I. lxxviii. § 1. Hence the
manumitted serf is called freo ⁊ færewyrð, _free and fareworthy_, that
is, having the right to go whither he chooses.

Footnote 418:

Leg. Rotharis, Langob, Reg. cap. 225.

Footnote 419:

Leg. Roth. Langob. Reg. cap. 226.

Footnote 420:

Leg. Wiht. § 8.

Footnote 421:

“Per omnes terras suas, de triginta hominibus numeratis, tredecim
manumisit, quemadmodum eum sors docuit, _ut in quadrivio positi
pergerent quocunque voluissent_.” Hist. Ram. 29.

Footnote 422:

See Eichhorn, i. 333. Such a person resembles the Langobardic freedman
_per impans_. Ibid. p. 331. I imagine the principle upon which the
wergyld went to the king, to be this: the freedman either never had a
free mǽgð, or they had forfeited the mǽgsceaft by suffering him to be
reduced to serfage. Compare Leg. Eádw. § 9.

Footnote 423:

Leg. Hen. I. lxxviii. § 3. That is, that he is no longer liable to
corporal punishment like a serf.

Footnote 424:

“Qui vero per chartam ingenuitatis dimissi sunt liberi,” etc. Capit.
Bajuvar. an. 788. cap. 7 (Georgisch. p. 548). Eichhorn, i. 332.

Footnote 425:

Cod. Dipl. 1350.

Footnote 426:

Every lawyer knows the value of the _ad ostium aecclesiae_, at any
rate in matters of dower. It implies perfect publicity.

-----

“This book beareth witness that Ælfsige bought a woman called Ongyneðel,
and her son Gyðiccæl, of Ðurcil for half a pound, at the church-door in
Bodmin: and he gave to Ælfsige the portreeve and Maccos the hundred-man,
fourpence as toll. Then came Ælfsige who bought these persons, and took
them, and freed them, ever sacless, on Petroc’s altar, in the witness of
these _good men_; that is, Isaac the priest[427],” etc.

Of all forms of emancipation I imagine this to have been the most
frequent, partly because of its convenience, partly because the motives
for emancipation were generally of a religious cast, and the sanctions
of religion were solemn and awful. Almost all the records which we
possess on this subject are taken from the margins of Gospels or other
books belonging to religious houses, and the few references in the laws
imply emancipation at the altar. Among the Franks this form, in which
the freedman was called Tabularius, conveyed only imperfect freedom: the
utmost it could do was to confer the privileges of a Roman provincial,
to which class the clergy were reckoned: but the _tabularius_ even so
was not fully free; he still remained in the mund of the church.
Wihtræd’s law, so often cited, shows clearly that this was not the case
in England; nor could it be, seeing that the clergy among us were
national, and the Frankish system of _personal_ rights did not prevail.
I am therefore disposed to think that gradually emancipation at the
altar was taken to convey all the privileges of manumission, and that it
was the mode generally, though not exclusively, in use. On this point,
the want of documents prevents our attaining certainty. The method was
probably this: the man was formally offered up before the high altar,
and there declared free in the presence of the officiating clergy and
the congregation. A memorandum was then made in some religious book
belonging to the church, and the names of the witnesses were recorded.
Whether a separate certificate was prepared does not appear.

-----

Footnote 427:

Cod. Dipl. 981. § 28.

-----

The full extent of the rights obtained by the freedman, especially in
respect of inheritance, is not to be gathered from any existing
Anglosaxon document. It is probable that these were limited, as among
the Langobards and Franks: his offspring however were free, and his
marriage with a free woman, equal: his other rights, duties and
privileges, in short his general condition, were in all probability
determined by certain arrangements between himself and his lord previous
to the act of manumission. In such a case neither party would find much
difficulty in settling the terms of a bargain.

-----------------------

NOTE.

The following pedigrees illustrate the care with which the relations
of the gebúr, and other dependent cultivators on an estate were
recorded. It is probable, nay even certain, that such records were
preserved in all lordships: they were the original court-rolls, by
copy of which the unfree tenants, perhaps also the poor freemen, held,
who were thus the ancient copyholders. The amount of the holdings was
undoubtedly settled by the custom of the county or the manor; and it
is probable that one measure prevailed for all tenants of similar
grades. A record of descents was necessary to regulate the claims of a
lord to the families of his _coloni_, and some extensive system of
registration very probably prevailed: it would be impossible without
it to secure the due operation of the law of _teám_.

“Dudda was a gebúr at Hǽðfeld, and he had three daughters, one was
named Deórwyn, the second Deórswýð, the third Golde. And Wulfláf at
Hǽðfeld hath Deórwyn to wife, Ælfstán at Tæccingawyrð hath Deórswýð to
wife, and Ealhstán, Ælfstán’s brother, hath Golde to wife. There was a
man named Hwíta, the beemaster at Hǽðfeld, and he had a daughter Táte,
the mother of Wulfsige, the bowman; and Wulfsige’s sister Lulle hath
Héhstán to wife, at Wealden. Wifús and Dunne, and Seoloce are inborn
to Hǽðfeld. Duding, the son of Wifús, is settled at Wealden; and
Ceólmund the son of Dunne, also sits at Wealden, and Æðelheáh the son
of Seoloce, also sits at Wealden: and Táte, Cénwold’s sister, Mæg has
to wife at Welgun; and Eádhelm, the son of Hereðrýð, hath Táte’s
daughter to wife. Wærláf, Wærstán’s father, was a right serf at
Hǽðfeld, he held the grey swine[428].”

“᛭ A man named Bráda was a gebúr at Hǽðfeld, and Hwíte was the name of
Brâda’s wife; she was a gebúr’s daughter at Hǽðfeld. Hwíte was
Wærstán’s Wǽðrýð's and Wynburh’s third mother[429]. And Wærstán sits
at Wádtún, and hath Wine’s sister to wife, and Wine hath Wærðrýð to
wife. And Dunne sat at Wádtún, she was inborn to Hǽðfeld: and Deórwyn
her daughter hath Cynewald to wife at Munden: and Deórnáð her brother
is with Cynewald. And Dudde, Wifús’s daughter sits at Wilmundesleá.
Cynhelm, Cénwald’s father, was a gebúr at Hǽðfeld, and Manna,
Cénwald’s son, sits at Wádtún under Eádwald.”

“᛭ Buhe, Dryhtláfs mother-in-law, was removed from Hǽðfeld into
Eslingaden: and Æðelwyn, Eádugu and Æðelgyð were three sisters; and
Tilwine and Dudda, these were all Buge’s children; and Ealhstán
Tilwine’s son, and Wulfsige Eádugu’s son, and Ceólhelm Æðelgyð's son,
and Ceólstán and Manwine. This kin came from [Hǽð]feld; Deórwulf,
Cyneburh’s son, and his two sisters; and Cyneríc at Clæfring is their
uncle. These men are the _magas_ of Táta, the gebúr at Hǽðfeld.” Cod.
Dipl. No. 1353.

It is probable that all these places are in Hertfordshire, or in
Essex. In both counties we find Hatfield and Walden: there is no
Clavering in Hertfordshire, that I know of. On the other hand I am not
aware of any Munden or Watton in Essex.

In 880 Æðelred, duke of Mercia, gave various estates to the bishopric
of Worcester. He also gave six persons with their offspring, who had
previously been _adscripti glebæ_ at the royal vill of Bensington.
“These are the names of the persons who are written from Bensington to
Readanora, to the bishopric of Worcester, with their offspring, and
the progeny that may come of them to all eternity: Alhmund, Tídwulf,
Tídleáh, Lull and Eádwulf[430].”

In 902, Beornwulf _homed_ (gehámette), that is attached, to his manor
of Eblesburne, a number of persons, of both sexes. Lufe and her three
children, Luha and his six children are named[431].

In the time of Eádgár we have the record of several persons
establishing by their oaths that their parents had not been serfs or
_coloni_ of the king[432]. An Appendix to this chapter contains
numerous examples of manumissions, of various periods.

-----

Footnote 428:

He was the ǽhteswán or _porcarius dominicalis_. I cannot explain the
distinction intended by ða grǽgan swín, literally the _grey_ swine.

Footnote 429:

Perhaps great-grandmother.

Footnote 430:

Cod. Dipl. No. 311.

Footnote 431:

Ibid. No. 1079.

Footnote 432:

Ibid. No. 981.

-----

CHAPTER IX.
THE MUTUAL GUARANTEE. MÆGBURH. TITHING.
HUNDRED.

The organization in Marks and in the Gá or Scír was a territorial one,
based upon the natural conformation of the country, common possession of
the soil and usufruct of its produce. It has been already said that both
of these divisions had their separate courts of justice or parliaments,
their judges and executive officers. But some further machinery was
required to secure the public peace, to provide for the exercise of
what, in modern society, we call the police, and to ensure the rights of
the individual markman, in respect to other markmen, as well as his
conformity to the general law. A corporate existence was necessary,
which should embrace a more detailed system of relations than was to be
found either in the Mark or in the Shiremoot. Strictly speaking, the
former of these was principally busied with the questions which arose
out of its own peculiar nature, that is, with offences against the
integrity of the frontier, the forest, the rights of common in the
pastures and meadows, and other delinquencies of a public character. On
the other hand, the Shiremoot, though it must have taken cognizance of
disputed questions between several Marks, and may, even from the first,
have exercised some description of appellate jurisdiction, must
naturally have considered the higher and more general attributes of
legislation and foreign policy, the national rather than municipal
administration, as belonging to its peculiar and appropriate province.
Perhaps also the exigencies of military discipline may gradually have
rendered a more complicated method of enrolment necessary, by means of
which companies and regiments might be kept upon a permanent footing,
and called into immediate action when occasion demanded their services;
while, at the same time, due provision was made for the tilling the
lands of those whose personal exertions were required in defence of the
public weal[433].

-----

Footnote 433:

For the Frankish custom see the Capitulary of the year 807. Pertz,
iii. 149, and Dönniges, Deut. Staatsr. pp. 92, 93.

-----

There were two forms in which these various objects might be attained;
these were, subordinate organizations of men, not excessive in number,
or too widely dispersed, and founded either upon the bond of blood or
the ties of family, including that of adoption, or merely upon an
arbitrary numerical definition. Each of these plans had advantages as
well as defects: the family bond alone did not secure a sufficient
territorial unity, although in practice it had at first considerable
influence upon the location of individual households; moreover it gave
rise to an inequality continually on the increase, and necessarily
threatening to the independence of the free men. On the other hand, any
merely arbitrary, numerical classification would have excluded a most
important social element, the responsibility of man to man in the bond
of kindred, the feelings and engagements of family affection, family
honour and family ambition. The problem was finally solved by a partial
union of the two methods: in all probability, the law of compromise
which reigns throughout all history, gradually brought about a fusion of
two separate principles, widely differing in point of antiquity, and
thus superinduced the artificial upon the natural bond, without entirely
destroying the influence of the latter.

For I think it unquestionable that the artificial bond was really later
in point of time: since, in the first place, indefinite and vague
arrangements usually precede the definite and settled; and next, because
Tacitus takes no notice whatever of any but the family bond, which he
represents as stringent in the highest degree. We have already seen that
Caesar declares the divisions of the land to have taken place according
to families or relationships, _cognationes_[434], from which we may
infer at first a considerable amount of territorial unity. From his far
more observant successor we learn that the military organization was
based upon the same principle; that the composition of the troop or
regiment depended upon no accidental arrangement, but was founded upon
families or relationships[435]; and that every man was bound to take up
the enmities as well as the friendships of his father or kinsman[436].
But leaving these earlier evidences, it still seems that the Mǽgburh or
_Family-bond_ is an institution whose full comprehension is necessary to
a clear conception of the Anglosaxon public and private life.

-----

Footnote 434:

See above, p. 39, note 1.

Footnote 435:

“Quodque praecipuum fortitudinis incitamentum est, non casus nec
fortuita conglobatio turmam aut cuneum facit, sed familiae et
propinquitates.” Germ. vii.

Footnote 436:

“Suscipere tam inimicitias seu patris seu propinqui quam amicitias
necesse est.” Germ. xxi.

-----

The idea of the family is at once the earliest and strongest of human
ties; in its development it is also the most ennobling to the individual
and salutary to the state; on it depend the honour and dignity of woman,
the unselfish education of man, the training of children to obedience
and love, of parents to protection and justice, of all to love of
country and enlightened subordination to the state. Where it does not
exist, man becomes an instrument in the hands of others, or the blind
tool of systems. In its highest form it is the representative of that
great mystery by which all Christians are one brotherhood, united under
one Father and King. Throughout the latter day of ethnic civilization,
when the idea of _state_ had almost ceased to have power, and the idea
of _family_ did not exist, there was a complete destruction both of
public and private morality; and the world, grown to be a sink of filth
and vice, was tottering to the fall which Providence in mercy had
decreed for its purification. The irruption of the German tribes
breathed into the dead bones of heathen cultivation the breath of a new
life; and the individual dignity of man as a member of a family,—the
deep-seated feeling of all those nations,—while it prepared them to
become the founders of Christian states which should endure, made them
the wonder of the philosophers and theologians of Rome, Greece and
Africa, and an example to be held up to the degenerate races whom they
had subdued[437]. The German house was a holy thing; the bond of
marriage a sacred and symbolic engagement[438]; holy above man was woman
herself. Even in the depths of their forests the stern warriors had
assigned to her a station which nothing but that deep feeling could have
rendered possible: this was the sacred sex, believed to be in nearer
communion with divinity than men[439]. In the superstitious tradition of
their mythology, it was the young and beautiful Shieldmays, the maiden
Wælcyrian, who selected the champions that had deserved to become the
guests of Wóden. The matrons presided over the rites of religion,
conducted divinations[440], and encouraged the warriors on the field of
battle[441]; Veledas and Aurinias, prophetesses in the bloom of youth
and beauty, led the raw levies of the North to triumph over the veteran
legions of Rome. Neither rank nor wealth could atone for violated
chastity[442]; nor were in general any injuries more severely punished
than those which the main strength of man enabled him to inflict on
woman[443]. That woman, nevertheless, _in the family_, held a
subordinate situation to men, lies in the nature of the family itself,
and in the disposition and qualities which have been implanted in woman,
to enable her to fulfil her appointed duties in the scheme of
Providence; qualities not different in _degree_, but _kind_, from those
of her helpmate, that they may be the complement of his, and, united
with his, make up the full and perfect circle of humanity. As an
individual, woman was considered a being of a higher nature; as a member
of the state, she was necessarily represented by him upon whom nature
had imposed the joyful burthen of her support, and the happy duty of her
protection,—a principle too little considered by those who, with a
scarcely pardonable sciolism, have clamoured for what they call the
rights of woman. Woman among the Teutons was near akin to divinity, but
not one among them ever raved that the _femme libre_ could be _woman_.

-----

Footnote 437:

What had struck Tacitus with astonishment and admiration in the first
century (Germ. xviii. xix.), seemed equally remarkable to the thinkers
of the Roman world in the fourth and fifth. Innumerable passages
confirmatory of the averments in the text might be cited from
Augustine, Orosius, Salvianus, or even Procopius,—testimonies all the
more valuable because supplied by hostile witnesses, by the conquered
of the conqueror, the orthodox of the Arian.

Footnote 438:

Tac. Germ. xix.

Footnote 439:

Ibid. viii.

Footnote 440:

Caes. Bell. Gall. i. 50.

Footnote 441:

Tac. Germ. vii. viii. After the defeat of the Cimbri by Marius, their
women applied to the Consul, to have their chastity respected, and
themselves assigned as serfs to the vestal virgins. On receiving a
refusal they put their children and then themselves to death. The dogs
that had accompanied them, long defended their corpses. See Florus,
iii. 3, and Orosius, v. 16.

Footnote 442:

Tac. Germ. xix.

Footnote 443:

For this a general reference to the _Barbarian_ laws must suffice.
Alaríc even went the length of putting to death a noble Goth, who,
during the sack of the city, had violated the daughter of a Roman
citizen.

-----

Hence the profound importance attached to chastity, and the undoubted
influence of alliances by marriage[444], through which separate kindreds
are fused into one body, adopting common interests, pursuing common
objects, and recognizing in the bond which unites its members,
obligations which are still exhibited in oriental countries, which we
trace throughout the middle ages of Europe, but which are gradually
vanishing under the conditions of our modern mercantile society.

-----

Footnote 444:

A beautiful evidence of this lies in the epic name for woman; in
Anglosaxon poetry she is called freoðowebbe, _the weaver of peace_.
Beów. l. 3880. Trav. S. l. 11.

-----

It lies in the very nature of things that among a people animated with
such principles as have now been described, and so placed by
circumstances on tracts of land far more than sufficient for their
support, the very earliest organization should be based upon the family
relations. Dwelling near to one another, united by a community of
interests and the endearing ties of mutual relationship, or the scarcely
weaker bond of adoption,—strong as regards other families in direct
proportion to their union among themselves,—the mǽgð or family offer all
the guarantees in their own natural position which the primitive state
can require. In the popular councils the largest and most distinguished
family has necessarily the greatest weight; but association of others,
severally less powerful, is always capable of counteracting danger which
might arise in a free state from the ambition of any of its portions. In
the absence of a central power,—or rather its dispersion through all the
several members of the community, the collection of revenue and the
maintenance of the peace must be left to the heads of the several
fractions, whether villages (as in the East), or families, which at one
time are identical with villages. The police therefore especially
belongs to the family, and is by it exercised over all the individuals
that compose it; hence also the grave misconduct of the individual may
justly have the effect of destroying the social position of the whole
mǽgð. In Beówulf, the warriors who deserted their prince in his utmost
need, are sternly told by his successor, that not only they, but their
whole mǽgburh will thenceforth have forfeited the rights of citizenship,

folcrihtes sceal
ðǽre mǽrge
monna ǽghwylc
ídel hweorfan,

not, _each of you individually_, but _each and every man_ of your kin,
cognation or mǽgsceaft, shall be deprived of his rights of citizenship:
from which we must infer that the misconduct of one person might
compromise his relatives, who are held responsible for his actions[445].
And this rule, coupled with the fact of all serving together, under one
selected from among themselves, and each under the eye of his nearest
and dearest friends, supplied a military organization capable of
enabling the _barbarians_ to cope with far more disciplined and
scientific military systems than their own; serving to explain the
almost irresistible power with which, like the Turks of more recent
times, the Teutons of old burst upon the nations exposed to their
onset[446]. The wergyld, or price of blood, the earliest institution of
this race, only becomes perfectly intelligible when considered from this
point of view: the _gens_ or family at large are injured by the loss of
their associate, and to them compensation must be made; so they, in
turn, must make compensation for him, since rights and duties are
commensurate. This principle, however darkly, is still involved in the
theory of our civil actions for seduction.

-----

Footnote 445:

See the remarkable passage cited at p. 188, note 1.

Footnote 446:

Weight and momentum combined are the secret of modern tactics, and
_morally speaking_ (i. e. the appearance in superior force on certain
points), of modern strategics also. Cavalry charging in successive
echelons would always break infantry but for the check which man and
horse experience in their speed from the file-firing of the squares:
the mere weight of the horse _falling dead into the first rank_ would
break it if he reached it. If the weight of the advancing body be
greater than that of the resisting, the latter is destroyed. A
successful charge of cavalry won the battle of Marengo, an
unsuccessful one lost that of Waterloo. Modern warfare was more
changed by the substitution of iron for wooden ramrods, by which the
momentum of musket-balls was increased, than by almost any other mere
change of detail. Steam-carriages and scythe-chariots, the Macedonian
phalanx—nay, even squadrons of horse, are only _larger bullets_, which
may be launched with more or less success: all these are mechanical
discoveries consequent upon the fact that the individuals of which
armies are composed are lower in the scale of moral dignity than of
old. Once group men in masses, and they become subject, more or less,
according as discipline has destroyed their individuality, to the
mechanical laws which govern the relations of all masses. No doubt a
stone wall will turn any charge of cavalry; and so will a regiment of
infantry, in exact proportion as you teach it to stand like a stone
wall, that is, as you destroy the individual action of each soldier.
The Romans stood above two feet apart; our men touch each other at the
elbows. Our armies are fitter perhaps for aggressive movements. The
Germans probably charged tumultuously; but the scyldburh, or _wall of
shields_, was hardly less capable of receiving a charge than our own
squares.

-----

It lies in the very nature of things that this, albeit a natural, cannot
be an enduring system. Its principal condition is neighbourhood, the
concentration of the family upon one spot: as population increases, and
with it emigration, the family bond gradually becomes weaker, and at
last perishes as a positive and substantive institution, surviving only
fragmentarily in the traces which it leaves upon the latter order that
replaces it. War, commerce, cultivation,—the effect and cause of
increasing population,—gradually disperse the members of the _sibsceaft_
or cognation, and a time arrives when neighbours are no longer kinsmen.
At this point the old organization ceases to be effective, and a new one
becomes necessary, unless the ancient principle is to be entirely
abandoned. But principles are not easily abandoned in early stages of
society; a young nation finds it easier to adopt artificial arrangements
founded upon the ancient form: nor is it necessary that the later should
have totally superseded its predecessor; it is enough that when the
earlier ceases to fulfil its object, the latter should be directed to
supply its obvious deficiency, and be united with it, as circumstances
best permit.

Throughout the earliest legislation of the Teutonic nations, and
especially in our own, we find arrangements, based upon two distinct
principles, in active operation. The responsibility of the family lies
ever in the background, the ultimate resort of the state against the
individual, of the individual against the state. But we also find small
bodies of men existing as corporations, founded upon number and
neighbourhood, and thus making up the public units in the state itself.
From the first, we find the inhabitants of the Mark classed in tens and
hundreds (technically in England, Tithings and Hundreds) each probably
comprising respectively a corresponding number of members, together with
the necessary officers, viz. a tithing-man for each tithing, and a
hundred-man for the hundred, thus making one hundred and eleven men, or
Heads of houses in the territorial hundred[447]. The Frankish law names
the officers thus alluded to: in it the tithing-man is _Decanus_, the
hundred-man _Centenarius_[448]. The Anglosaxon law does not indeed
mention its divisions by these names till a comparatively late period,
when their significations had become in some respects altered; but it
seems probable that it does imply them under the term Gegyldan,
_fellows, brothers of the gyld_. In a case of aggravated crime it is
provided that the offender’s relatives shall pay a third part of the
fine, his gegyldan a third part, and if he cannot pay the remainder
himself, he is to become an outlaw, _i. e._ forfeit his land and flee,
perhaps formally abjure the country[449]. Now it is perfectly clear that
a law expressed in such general terms as these, cannot be directed to a
particular and exceptional condition; that it does not apply to the
accidental existence of gegyldan, but on the contrary assumes every man
to have such: we cannot therefore construe it of voluntary associations
formed for religious, social or funereal objects[450], and for the
purposes of this law we must look upon gegylda as a general name borne
by every individual in respect of some gyld or association of which he
was taken to be a member. The only meanings which the root _gyld_
enables us to attach to the word gegylda are these; either, _one who
shares with others in paying_; or, _one who shares with others in
worshipping_. If we adopt the former rendering, we must suppose that
certain contributions were made by a number of persons to a common
purse, partly for festive purposes, partly as a mutual guarantee and
club-fund for legal costs, for the expenses of reciprocal aid and
defence, perhaps even for mortuary celebrations and charitable
distributions. Another, though perhaps a less probable, suggestion is
that such gegyldan may have been jointly responsible for taxes, or the
outfit of armed men who attended in the _fyrd_ or military expedition,
on behalf of them all. But this we cannot further illustrate, in the
absence of all record of the financial system of the early Teutonic
monarchs, even those of Charlemagne himself, which would have been
invaluable guides to us through the intricacies of that dark subject of
enquiry. The second meaning given to gegylda would rest upon the
assumption of some private and as it were hero-worship, common to the
gyld-brothers,—a fact familiar enough to us in the Athenian φυλαι and
Roman _gentes_; but the existence of any such foundation for the gyld
among the Anglosaxons is extremely improbable, when we consider the
small numbers that appear to have constituted the association, and that
no trace of any such worship remains in our heathen mythology[451]. I
therefore prefer the first rendering of the word, and look upon gegyldan
as representing those who mutually pay for one another; that is, under a
system of pecuniary mulcts, those who are mutually responsible before
the law,—the associates in the tithing and the hundred.

-----

Footnote 447:

There is some difficulty in deciding whether the head of the tithing
was included in the ten, or beside it. I have proceeded upon the
supposition that he was not included, consequently that there were
really eleven men in the tithing. The leading authority (Jud. Civ.
Lond. Æðelst. v. § 3. Thorpe, i. 230) is totally and irreconcilably
contradictory on the point.

Footnote 448:

The Decani appear to be the same as the _Decimales homines_ of
Æðelred’s law. Thorpe, i. 338.

Footnote 449:

Leg. Ælf. § 27.

Footnote 450:

Such voluntary associations were not unusual. Several deeds of
agreement of such clubs are given in an Appendix to this Chapter.
There seems to have been similar clubs among the Hungarians: they were
called “Kalender-Bruderschaften,” from usually meeting on the first
day of every month. Fessler, Gesch. der Ungern, i. 725.

Footnote 451:

The later guilds of trades, dedicated to particular Saints, are quite
a different thing; in form these bear a most striking resemblance to
the φυλαί.

-----

It is well known that in the later Anglosaxon law, and even to this day,
the tithing and hundred appear as local and territorial, not as
numerical divisions: we hear of tithings where there are more, and
tithings where there are fewer people; we are told of the _spoor_ of
cattle being followed into one hundred, or out of another[452]. I do not
deny that in process of time these divisions had become territorial; but
this does not of necessity invalidate the doctrine that originally the
numbers were calculated according to the heads of families, or that the
extent of territory, and not the taxable, military or corporate units,
formed at first the varying quantity. Had it been otherwise we should
naturally have found a much greater equality in the size of the
territorial hundreds throughout at least each Saxon kingdom; nor in all
probability would the numbers of the hundreds in respective counties
differ so widely,—a difference intelligible only if we assume
population, and not space, to have been the basis of the original
calculation. Moreover to a very late period, in one part of England the
abstract word Teoðung was replaced by the more concrete Tenmantale
(tyn-manna-tǽl)[453], to which it is impossible to give any meaning but
the simple one the words express, viz. the tale or count of ten _men_.
Again, as late as the tenth century, in a part of England where men, and
not acres, became necessarily the subjects of calculation, viz. in the
city of London[454], we find the citizens distributing themselves into
Friðgylds or associations for the maintenance of the peace, each
consisting of ten men; while ten such gylds were gathered into a
Hundred. The remarkable document known as “Judicia Civitatis
Londinensis” gives the following detailed account of the whole
proceeding:

-----

Footnote 452:

Leg. Eádg. Hund. § 5. Thorpe, i. 260.

Footnote 453:

Leg. Ed. Conf. xx.

Footnote 454:

I do not for a moment imagine that this was an entirely new
organization. The document which contains the record seems to be the
text of a solemn undertaking, almost a treaty of alliance, between the
City and king Æðelstan, for the better maintenance of the public
peace. It is perhaps worth attention that the Tyn-manna-tǽl was a
denomination peculiar to another large city—York: but the same
authority from which we learn this fact, identifies the institution
with that in common use throughout the land. Leg. Ed. Conf. xx.

-----

“This is the ordinance which the bishops and the reeves belonging to
London have ordained, and confirmed with pledges, among our friðgylds,
as well eorlish as ceorlish, in addition to the dooms which were fixed
at Greatley, at Exeter, and at Thundersfield.

“Resolved: That we count every ten men together, and the chief one to
direct the nine in each of those duties which we have all ordained, and
afterwards the hyndens of them together, and one hynden-man who shall
admonish the ten for our common benefit; and let these eleven hold the
money of the hynden, and decide what they shall disburse, when aught is
to pay, and what they shall receive, should money accrue to us at our
common suit[455]....

“That we gather to us once in every month, if we can and have leisure,
the hynden-men and those who direct the tithings, as well with
butt-filling, or as else may please us, and know what of our agreement
has been executed. And let these twelve men[456] have their refection
together, and feed themselves as they themselves think right, and deal
the remains of the meat for love of God[457].”

-----

Footnote 455:

Æðelst. v. 3, § 1. Thorpe, i. 230.

Footnote 456:

The MS. reads xii, twelve, but it seems almost certain that we ought
to understand eleven, that is one man for each tithing and one for the
hundred or hynden.

Footnote 457:

Æðelst. v. 8. § 1. Thorpe, i. 236.

-----

Now as this valuable record mentions also territorial tithings,
containing different amounts of population[458], it seems to me to
furnish important confirmation of the conclusion that the gegyldan of
Ini and Ælfred, the members of the London tithings or friðgylds of ten,
and the York _tenmantale_, are in truth identical. And it is further in
favour of this view that the citizens called the members of such
gildships, gegyldan[459]:—

“And we have also ordained, respecting every man who has given his
pledge in our gyldships, that, should he die, each gyld-brother
(gegylda) shall give a gesufel-loaf for his soul, and sing a fifty
(psalms), or cause the same to be sung within xxx days.”

-----

Footnote 458:

“Swá of ánre teoðung ðǽr máre folc sig.” Thorpe, i. 232.

Footnote 459:

“And we cwǽdon eác be ǽlcum ðára manna ðe on úrum gegyldscipum his wed
geseald hæfð, gif him forðsíð gebyrige, ðæt ǽlc gegylda gesylle ǽnne
gesufelne hláf for ðǽre sáwle, and gesinge án fíftig, oððe begite
gesungen binnan xxx nihtan.” Æðelst. v. 8. § 6. Thorpe, i. 236.

Upon a review of the preceding passages it may be inferred that the
hynden consisted of ten tithings, and consequently answered to what we
more commonly call a hundred: it may perhaps be suggested that, if any
distinction existed between these two terms, the hynden represented the
numerical, the hundred the territorial division. But their original
identity may be argued from an important passage in the law of Ini. He
ordains[460]: “He that is charged with mortal feud, and is willing to
deny the slaying on oath; then shall there be in the hynden one king’s
oath of thirty hides, as well for a noble as a churl, be it whichever it
be.“

-----

Footnote 460:

“Seðe bið werfǽhðe betogen, and he onsacan wille ðæs sleges mid áðe,
ðonne sceal beón on ðǽre hyndenne án cyningáð be xxx hída, swá be
gesíðcund men swá be ceorliscum, swá hwæðer swá hit sý.” Ini. § 54.
Thorpe, i. 136. Upon this passage the late Mr. Price had the following
note, which is interesting, though I cannot agree with his conclusion:
“It has been already observed that the hynden consisted of ten
persons, and, like hynde in the words twýhynde, sixhynde, twelfhynde,
appears to have been formed from hund, of which the original meaning
was _ten_. The hynden therefore will correspond to the _turba_ of the
Civil Law (‘quia Turba decem dicuntur.’ Leg. Præt. 4. § Turbam), the
_Tourbe_ of the French Coutumes: 'Coutume si doit verefier par deux
tourbes et chacun d’icelles par dix temoins.' Loisel. liv. v. tit. 5.
c. 13.” But the correspondence noted will entirely depend upon the
fact of the hynden really being a collection of ten men, which I do
not admit. There is no dispute as to the meaning of _Turba_ or
_Tourbe_: but if, as it is not impossible, _turba_ should be really
identical with þorp, _vicus_, it might deserve consideration whether
the original village was not supposed to consist of ten families and
so to form the tithing or gyldscipe.

-----

Now hynden can only mean one of two things, viz. a collection of ten or
a collection of a hundred, according as we render the word _hund_.
Admitting that at some very early period hund did mean ten, we yet never
find it with any such signification in any book or MS., or indeed at all
except in the numerals hundseofontig, hundeatatig, hundnigontig,
hundtwelftig, where its force is anything but clear, when we compare
those words with fíftig, sixtig, twentig, etc. On the other hand the
adjective hynde does clearly denote something which has the quality of a
hundred; thus a twyhynde or twelfhynde man is he whose life is worth
respectively two or twelve _hundred_ shillings. Again it is clear that
the Judicia Civitatis Londinensis intends by hynden a collection of a
hundred, and not of ten, men, inasmuch as it distinguishes this from the
tithings. And further, it must be admitted, upon the internal evidence
of the law itself, that a hundred and not a tithing is referred to,
since so small a court as that of the ten men could not possibly have
had cognizance of such a plea as manslaughter, or been competent to
demand a king’s oath of thirty hides. But as such a plea might well be
brought before the hundred-court, it is probable that such was meant.
Lastly it was the custom for the hundred-court to be holden monthly, and
we observe the same provision with the London hynden; at which it is
very probable that legal matters were transacted, as well as accounts
investigated; for it is expressly declared that their meeting is to
ascertain how the undertakings in the record have been executed; that
is, how the peace has been kept. I therefore conclude that the Hynden
and the Hundred are in fact and were at first identical; with the
hypothetical reservation, that at a later period the one word
represented a numerical, the other a territorial division, when these
two had ceased to coincide: in corroboration of which view it may be
observed that the word Hynden does not occur in the laws later than the
time of Æðelstán, nor Hundred earlier than that of Eádgár.

It is true that no division founded upon numbers can long continue to
coincide with the first corresponding territorial allocation, however
closely they may have been at first adjusted. In spite of every attempt
to regulate it, population varies incessantly; but the tendency of
land-divisions is to remain stationary for ages[461]; a holy horror
prevents the alteration of that which has been sanctified in men’s minds
by long continuance, was perhaps more deeply sanctified at the first by
religious ceremonies. The rights of property universally demand the
jealous guardianship of boundaries. Moreover the first tithings, or at
all events the first hundreds, must have had elbowroom enough within the
Mark to allow for a considerable elasticity of population without the
necessity of disturbing the ancient boundary; and thus we can readily
understand two very distinct things to have grown up together, out of
one origin, namely a constantly increasing number of gylds, yet a nearly
or entirely stationary tale of territorial tithings and hundreds. I
cannot but think that, under happier circumstances, this view might lead
us to conclusions of the utmost importance with respect to the history
of our race: that if it were possible for us now to ascertain the
original number of hundreds in any county of which Beda in the eighth
century gives us the population, and also the population at the period
of the original division, we should find the two data in exact
accordance, and thus obtain a clue to the movement of the population
itself down to Beda’s time. Looking to the permanent character of
land-divisions, and assuming that our present Hundreds nearly represent
the original in number and extent, we might conclude that, if in the
year 400 Kent was first divided, Thanet then contained only one hundred
heads of houses, or hydes, upon three thousand acres of cultivated land,
while in the time of Beda, three centuries later, it comprised six
hundred families or hides upon eighteen thousand acres.

-----

Footnote 461:

It is very remarkable how many modern parishes may be perambulated
with no other direction than the boundaries found in the Codex
Diplomaticus. To this very day the little hills, brooks, even meadows
and small farms, bear the names they bore before the time of Ælfred,
and the Mark may be traced with certainty upon the local information
of the labourer on the modern estate.

-----

It is a common saying that we owe the institution of shire, tithing and
hundred divisions to Ælfred. Stated in so broad a manner as this, I am
compelled to deny the assertion. No one can contemplate the life and
acts of that great prince and accomplished man without being filled with
admiration and respect for his personal energy, his moral and
enlightened policy, and the sound legislative as well as administrative
principles on which he acted. But we must nevertheless not in the
nineteenth century allow ourselves to be blinded by the passions and
prejudices which ruled in the twelfth. The people, oppressed by foreign
power, no doubt, long looked back with an affectionate regret to the
memory of “England’s Darling;” he was the hero of a suffering nation;
his activity and fortune had once cleared the land of Norman tyranny;
his arm had smitten the forefathers of those whose iron yoke now weighed
on England: he was the reputed author of those laws, which, under the
amended and extended form enacted by the Confessor, were now claimed by
the English people from their foreign kings: he was, in a word, the
representative, and as it were very incarnation, of English nationality.
We may smile at, but must yet respect, the feeling which made him also
the representative of every good thing, which connected every
institution or custom that his suffering countrymen regretted, with his
time-hallowed name. It is unnecessary to detail the many ways in which
this traditional character of Ælfred continually reappears; the object
of these remarks is merely to point out that the attribution to him of
the system of tithings, hundreds and the like, is one of many groundless
assertions connected with his name. Not one word in corroboration of it
is to be found in Asser or any other contemporaneous authority; and
there is abundant evidence that the system existed long before he was
born, not only in other German lands, but even among ourselves. Still I
am unwilling to incur the responsibility of declaring the tradition
absolutely without foundation: on the contrary it seems probable that
Ælfred may have found it necessary, after the dreadful confusion and
devastation of the Danish wars, to make a new muster or regulation of
the tithings, nay even to cause, in some districts, a new territorial
division to be established upon the old principle; and this is the more
credible, since there is reason to believe that the same causes had
rendered a new definition of boundaries generally necessary even in the
case of private estates: the strongest argument against this lies
however in the total silence of all contemporary writers. A less tenable
supposition is, that Ælfred introduced such divisions for the first time
into the countries which he united with Wessex; as it is impossible to
conceive any Anglosaxon state to have existed entirely without them.

The form and nature of the institution, long known in the English law
under the name of Frankpledge[462] may be compendiously described in the
words of the laws called Edward the Confessor’s[463]. According to that
document,—

“Another peace, the greatest of all, there is, whereby all are
maintained in firmer state, to wit in the establishment of a guarantee,
which the English call Friðborgas, with the exception of the men of
York, who call it Tenmannetale, that is, the number of ten men. And it
consists in this, that in all the vills throughout the kingdom, all men
are bound to be in a guarantee by tens, so that if one of the ten men
offend, the other nine may hold him to right. But if he should flee, and
they allege that they could not have him to right, then should be given
them by the king’s justice a space of at least thirty days and one: and
if they could find him they might bring him to justice. But for himself,
let him out of his own restore the damage he had done, or if the offence
be so grave let justice be done upon his body. But if within the
aforesaid term he could not be found, since in every friðborh there was
one headman whom they called friðborg-heved, then this headman should
take two of the best men of his friðborh, and the headman of each of the
three friðborgs most nearly neighbouring to his own, and likewise two of
the best in each, if he can have them; and so with the eleven others he
shall, if he can, clear both himself and his friðborh both of the
offence and flight of the aforesaid malefactor. Which if he cannot do,
he shall restore the damage done out of the property of the doer, so
long as this shall last, and out of his own and that of his friðborh:
and they shall make amends to the justice according as it shall be by
law adjudged them. And moreover the oath which they could not complete
with the _venue_, the nine themselves shall make, viz. that they had no
part in the offence. And if at any time they can recover him, they shall
bring him to the justice, if they can, or tell the justice where he
is[464].”

-----

Footnote 462:

An early confusion gave rise to the reading of Freoborh, _liberum
plegium_, free pledge, frank-pledge, for Friðborh, the pledge or
guarantee of peace, _pacis plegium_. The distinction is essential to
the comprehension of this institution.

Footnote 463:

This is given here only as the most detailed account: the principle
was as old as the Anglosaxon monarchy itself, or older. The law of
Eádgár thus expresses it: “Let every man so order, that he have a
surety, and let the surety (c) bring and hold him to every right; and
if any one then offend and escape, let the surety bear what he ought
to bear. But if it be a thief, and the surety can get hold of him
within twelve months, let him surrender the thief to justice, and let
what he before paid be restored to him.” Eádg. ii. § 6. Thorpe, i.
268.

“This then is my will, that every man be in surety, both within the
towns and without the towns.” Eádg. ii. supp. § 3. Thorpe, i. 274.

“Let every freeman have a true _borh_, who may present him to every
right, should he be accused.” Æðelred, i. § 1. Thorpe, i. 280.

“If he flee from the ordeal, let the _borh_ pay for him according to
his _wer_.” Æðelr. iii. § 6. Thorpe, i. 296.

“And we will that every freeman be brought into a hundred and into a
tithing, who desires to be entitled to _lád_ or _wer_, in case any one
should slay him after he have reached the age of xii years: or let him
not otherwise be entitled to any free rights, be he householder, be he
follower. And let every one be brought into a hundred and a surety,
and let the surety hold and lead him to every plea.” Cnut, ii. § 20.
Thorpe, i. 386.

The stranger or friendless man, who had no _borh_, i. e. could not
find bail, must be committed, at the first charge; and instead of
clearing himself by the oaths of his friends, must run the risk and
endure the pain of the ordeal. Cnut, ii. § 35. Thorpe, i. 396.

Footnote 464:

“De friðborgis, et quod soli Eboracenses vocant friðborch
Tenmannetale, i. e. sermo decem hominum,” etc. Leg. Edw. Conf. xx.
Thorpe, i. 450.

-----

Thus the object of the gylds or tithings was, that each man should be in
pledge or surety (_borh_) as well to his fellow-man as to the state for
the maintenance of the public peace: that he should enjoy protection for
life, honour and property himself, and be compelled to respect the life,
honour and property of others: that he should have a fixed and settled
dwelling where he could be found when required, where the public dues
could be levied, and the public services demanded of him: lastly that,
if guilty of actions that compromised the public weal or trenched upon
the rights and well-being of others, there might be persons especially
appointed to bring him to justice; and if injured by others, supporters
to pursue his claim and exact compensation for his wrong. All these
points seem to have been very well secured by the establishment of the
Tithings, to whom the community looked as responsible for the conduct of
every individual comprised within them; and coupled with the family
obligations which still remained in force in particular cases, they
amply answered the purpose of a mutual guarantee between all classes of
men. The system possessed the advantage of being necessarily regulated
by neighbourhood, and it was free from some disadvantages which might
have attended an exclusive reliance upon kinsmanship: the frðiborgas not
having the bond of blood between them, which might have induced an
improper partiality in favour of one of their members; and as they stood
under responsibility for every act of a gyldsman, being interested in
preventing an undue interference on the part of his family. We thus see
that the gyldsmen were not only bound to present their fellows before
the court of the freemen when specially summoned thereto, but that they
found their own advantage in exercising a kind of police-surveillance
over them all: if a crime were committed, the gyld were to hold the
criminal to his answer; to clear him, if they could conscientiously do
so, by making oath in his favour; to aid in paying his fine if found
guilty; and if by flying from justice he admitted his crime, they were
to purge themselves on oath from all guilty knowledge of the act, and
all participation in his flight; failing which, they were themselves to
suffer mulct in proportion to his offence. On the other hand they were
to receive at least a portion of the compensation for his death, or of
such other sums as passed from hand to hand during the progress of an
Anglosaxon suit. Being his neighbours, the _visnetum_, _vicinage_ or
_venue_, they were his natural compurgators or witnesses, and
consequently, being examined on oath, in some sense the _jurati_ or
_jurors_ upon whose verdict his weal or woe depended. And thus the
importance of character, so frequently appealed to even in our modern
jurisprudence, was carried to the highest extent.

We may reasonably conclude that the close intercourse thus created, was
improved to private and social purposes, and that these gylds, like the
much larger associations of the same name in after times, knew how to
combine pleasure with business. The citizens of London hint at a monthly
_symposium_ or treat, with _butt-filling_, when the tithingmen met
together to settle the affairs of their respective hundreds,—a trait not
yet extinct in the civic, or indeed the national, character. There can
also be little doubt that the gylds even formed small courts of
arbitration, as well as police, for the settlement of such trifling
disputes between members of the same gyld, as were not worthy of being
reserved for the interference of a superior tribunal[465]; and it is
also probable that the members considered themselves bound to aid in the
festivities or do honour to the obsequies of any individual
gyld-brother: the London gyldsmen were to distribute alms, and cause
religious services to be performed at the decease of a fellow; and it is
obvious that this sharing in a religious obligation, the benefits of
which were to extend even into another life, must have impressed
somewhat of a solemn and sacred character upon the whole
institution[466].

-----

Footnote 465:

The law of Eádweard the Confessor shows this clearly: “Cum autem
viderunt quod aliqui stulti libenter forisfaciebant erga vicinos suos,
sapientiores coeperunt consilium inter se, quomodo eos reprimerent, et
sic imposuerunt iusticiarios super quosque decem friðborgos, quos
decanos possumus dicere, Anglice autem tyenðe-heved vocati sunt, hoc
est caput decem. Isti autem inter villas, inter vicinos tractabant
causas, et secundum quod forisfacturae erant, emendationes et
ordinationes faciebant, videlicet de pascuis, de pratis, de messibus,
de certationibus inter vicinos, et de multis huiusmodi quae frequenter
insurgunt.” § xxviii. How clearly has the jurisdiction of the Tithing
here superseded that of the ancient _Mark_!

-----

Footnote 466:

In what may be called the Act of Constitution of Orcy’s Gyld at
Abbotsbury, this feature is very prominent. I have therefore appended
the instrument in an Appendix to this chapter, although as a voluntary
gyld it differs in some respect from those heretofore under
consideration. The trade-guilds of the Middle Ages paid also especial
attention to the religious communion of their members.

Much of what has been observed respecting the tithing, applies also to
the hundred. This, it has been seen, was originally a collection of ten
tithings, and was presided over by a hundredes ealdor[467], or
hundred-man, who exercised a jurisdiction over his circuit and its
inhabitants. From the concurrent practice of later periods we may
conclude that his court was holden monthly for the hearing of such civil
and lighter criminal causes as could not be settled in the tithing, or
interested more tithings than one[468]. It is not probable that the
higher criminal causes could at any period be pursued in the
hundred[469], but that they were necessarily reserved for the
consideration of the folcmót or shire-court, which met three times in
the year. In the later legislation, trial of capital offences was
reserved for the scyremót, and the words of Tacitus[470] seem to imply
that this was the case in his time also: perhaps even such causes as
involved the penalties of outlawry may have been beyond the jurisdiction
of the hundred. It is however less as a court of justice than as part of
a system for the maintenance of peace, that we are to contemplate the
hundred. It may be securely affirmed that where the tithing alone could
not be made responsible, or more tithings than one were involved in a
similar difficulty as to crimes committed by their members, resort was
had to the responsibility of the collective hundred,—a principle which,
it is well-known, subsists even to this day.

-----

Footnote 467:

The word Borseholder renders it probable that the _capitalis_,
tynmanna heáfod, yldesta, etc., bore among the Saxons the name of
Borgesealdor, _princeps plegii_.

Footnote 468:

This again we learn from the law attributed to Eádweard the Confessor.
“Cum autem maiores causae insurgebant (that is greater than those
which concerned the tithing), referebant eas ad alios maiores
iusticiarios, quos sapientes supradicti super eos constituerant,
scilicet super decem decanos, quos possumus vocare centenarios, quia
super centum friðborgos iudicabant.” § xxix.

Footnote 469:

I find no instance of a hundredes man having the _blut-bann_ or _ius
gladii_: but in the time of Eádgár, he seems to have had power to
administer the single and threefold ordeal; whether only in the case
of serfs does not appear. Inst. Hundr. Thorpe, i. 260.

Footnote 470:

“Licet apud concilium accusare quoque et discrimen capitis intendere.”
Germ. xii.

-----

At a comparatively late period, we occasionally find a consolidation of
hundreds into one body, for judicial purposes, presided over by the
ealdorman of the shire, or his geréfa, and forming a subsidiary court to
the shiremoot: and after immunities, or private jurisdictions, had
become rapidly extended, it is certain that such consolidations were not
unusual, in the hands of great civil or ecclesiastical authorities, and
that they, by means of their officers or geréfan, held plea in several
hundreds at once; they thus substituted their own power for that of the
ealdorman or the sheriff, in the last instance, throughout the district
comprehended by their immunity; either replacing the old hundred-men by
geréfan or bailiffs, or suffering the hundreds to be still governed and
administered in the way common to all such divisions, by the elective
officer[471].

It stands to reason that the system above described applied only to the
really free. It was the form of the original compact between the
independent members of an independent community. But as by the side of
the free landholders, there dwelt also unfree men of various ranks, so
also there existed modifications of the original compact, suited to
their condition. Those who in a more or less stringent degree were
dependent, could not be members of the tithing, the hundred or the
folcmót. They stood to right among themselves, in their lord’s court,
not in the people’s, and in the latter they could not appear for
themselves. The institution therefore which provided that the lord might
maintain a Comitatus or _following_, provided also that its members
should all be in his mund (protection) and borh (surety), and that he
should make answer for them in the courts from which they were
themselves excluded[472].

-----

Footnote 471:

Eádweard the Confessor granted the hundred of Hornmere in Berkshire to
Ordríc, abbat of Abingdon; “so that no sheriff or mootreeve may hold
therein any plea or moot, without the Abbat’s own command and
permission.” Cod. Dip. No. 840. He also granted the hundred of Godley
in Surrey to Wulfwold, Abbat of Chertsey, and forbade the sheriff to
meddle in the same. Cod. Dip. No. 840, 849.

Footnote 472:

“And let every lord have his household in his own _borh_. Then if any
of them should be accused, and escape, let the lord pay the man’s
_wer_ to the king. And if any accuse the lord that the escape was by
his counsel, let him clear himself with five thanes, being himself the
sixth. If the purgation fail him, let him forfeit his _wer_ to the
king; and let the man be an outlaw.“ Æðelr. i. § 1. Thorpe, i. 282.
“And let every lord have his household in his own _borh_, and if any
one accuse his man of any thing, let the lord answer for him within
the hundred, wherein he is cited, as just law is. And if he escape,”
etc. Cnut, ii. § 31. Thorpe, i. 394, 396. “Archiepiscopi, episcopi,
comites, barones et milites suos, et proprios servientes suos,
scilicet dapiferos, pincernas, camerarios, cocos, pistores, sub suo
friðborgo habebant, et ipsi suos armigeros et alios servientes suos
sub suo friðborgo; quod si ipsi forisfacerent, et clamor vicinorum
insurgeret de eis, ipsi haberent eos ad rectum in curia sua, si
haberent sacham et socam, tol et theam, et infangenethef.” Edw. Conf.
xxi. Thorpe, i. 451.

-----

It is difficult to decide whether the lords or nobles were at first
comprised within the popular corporations: it appears most probable that
they were not; that they were sufficient to their own defence, and, even
from the earliest historical periods, in possession of that _immunity_
which released their lands from the jurisdiction of the popular
tribunals. In respect therefore to the gylds, they may be supposed to
have held an independent, though not necessarily hostile, position,
regulated indeed by the public law: and if they stood to right with
their men, in the folcmót, it was the collective power and dignity of
the state with which they had to deal, and not the smaller associations,
founded upon necessities of which they were not conscious. Their
dependents were under their guarantee and surety, as the members of
every man’s household, his wife, children and serfs, were under _his_:
for them he was responsible to the community at large, but he owed no
suit or service to others, and if he persisted in upholding wrong, I
fear the only corrective was to be found in the inalienable _ius belli_,
which resumes its power instantly upon the violation of that tacit
understanding among men, that the well-being of society depends upon a
regulated mutual forbearance. Those were not ages in which acts of
self-defence or righteous retribution could be misnamed revolutions. But
all these remarks are intended to apply only to a state of society in
which the nobles were few and independent, the people strong and united;
where the people were in truth the aristocracy[473], and the nobles only
their chiefs. The holder of an immunity (having sacn and sócn) in later
times, under a consolidated royalty representing the national will, and
in a state from which the element of the people had nearly vanished,
through the almost total vanishing of small independent freeholds, was
necessarily placed in a very different position.

-----

Footnote 473:

The freeman is a member of an aristocracy in respect of _all_ the
unfree, whether these be temporarily so, as his children and guests,
or permanently so, as his serfs. To be in the πολίτευμα, which others
are not, to have the franchise which others have not, to have the
freedom of a city which others have not, all these are forms of
aristocracy,—the aristocracy of Greece, Rome and England. The Peers in
England are not themselves exclusively an aristocracy: they are the
born leaders of one, which consists now of ten-pound householders,
freemen in towns, and county tenants under the Chandos clause.

-----

It now remains only to bestow a few words upon the manner in which the
original obligations of the family bond were gradually brought to bear
upon the artificial organization.

Upon a careful consideration of the latter it appears that its principal
object was gained when either offences were prevented, or the offender
presented to justice: the consequences of crime, in all but a few
excepted cases, fell not upon the gegyldan (if they could clear
themselves of participation) but upon the mǽgas or relatives[474].

The laws of Æðelberht, Wihtræd and Hloðhere know nothing of gegyldan:
with them the mǽgas are still wholly responsible, and even their
intervention is noticed in three cases only: Æðelberht provided that in
the event of a manslayer flying the country, the family should pay half
the wergyld of the slain[475]. Again he enacts, that if a married woman
die without bearing children, the property she brought her husband, and
that which he settled upon her after consummation, shall return to her
paternal relatives[476]. According to the legislation of Hloðhere, if a
man died, leaving a wife and child, the mother was to have the custody
of the child till his tenth year, but the paternal kinsmen were to
administer his property, under satisfactory pledge for due discharge of
their duty[477]. The regulations of Ini allow us to enter still further
into the nature of the family engagement. He enacted that if a stranger
came through the wood out of the highway, and attempted to slink through
in secret, without shouting or blowing his horn, he should be taken to
be a thief, and might be slain or forced to pay according to his
presumed crime: and if the slayer were then pursued for his wergyld, he
might make oath that he slew him for a thief, and the lord and the
gegyldan of the dead man should not be allowed to make oath to the
contrary: but if the slayer had at the time concealed the deed, and it
was only afterwards discovered, a presumption of unfair dealing was
raised against him, and the kindred of the dead man were entitled to
make oath of his innocence[478]. Again if a stranger were slain, the
king was to have two parts of his wergyld, the son or relatives of the
dead man might claim the third; but if there were no relatives, the king
claimed half, the count half[479]. Besides a provision for a surviving
child, similar to that of Hloðhere[480], the law of Ini contains no
further regulation with regard to the mǽgas of the freeman. Four several
chapters referring to serfs who are guilty of theft, rest upon the
principle that his kin have renounced the mǽgburh by suffering him to
remain in serfage, and together with the obligations of kinsman have
relinquished their own right of avenging his injuries or making pursuit
for his wrongs[481].

-----

Footnote 474:

“And if any one charge a person in holy orders with feud (fǽhðe) and
say that he was a perpetrator or adviser of homicide, let him clear
himself with his kinsmen, who must bear the feud with him, or make
compensation for it. And if he have no kin, let him clear himself with
his associates or fast for the ordeal by bread, and so fare as God may
ordain.” Æðelr. ix. § 23, 24. Thorpe, i. 344. Cnut, i. § 5. Thorpe, i.
362. The associates or _geferan_ here are probably his fellows in
orders. But a monk being released from all family relations could not
be implicated in the responsibilities of the mǽgburh (ibid. § 25);
“for he forsakes his law of kin (mǽgðlage) when he submits to monastic
law.” Cnut, i. § 5. Thorpe, i. 362.

Footnote 475:

“Gif bana of lande gewíteð, ða mǽgas healfne leód forgylden.” Æðelb. §
23. Thorpe, i. 8.

Footnote 476:

“Gif heó bearn ne gebyreð, fæderingmǽgas feoh ágen and morgengyfe.”
Æðelb. § 81. Thorpe, i. 24.

Footnote 477:

“Gif ceorl ácwyle be libbendum wífe and bearne, riht is ðæt hit, ðæt
bearn, médder folgige; and him man an his fæderingmǽgum wilsumne
berigean geselle, his feoh tó healdenne oððǽt he tynwintre síe.”
Hloðh. § 6. Thorpe, i. 30.

Footnote 478:

“Gif feorcund man oððe fremde bútan wege geond wudu gonge, and ne
hrýme né horn bláwe, for þæóf he bið tó prófianne, oððe tó sleánne
oððe tó álýsanne. Gif mon ðæs ofslægenan weres bidde, he mót gecýðan
ðæt he hine for þeóf ofslóge, nalles ðæs ofslægenan gegildan né his
hláford. Gif he hit ðonne dyrneð, and weorðeð ymb lang yppe, ðonne
rýmeð he ðám deádan tó ðám áðe, ðæt hine móton his mǽgas unscyldigne
gedón.” Ini, § 20, 21. The collocation of gegyldan and mǽgas in this
law seems to show clearly that Ini looked upon them as the same thing:
hence that in the original institution the gyld and the family were
identical, though afterwards, for convenience' sake, the number and
nature of the gyld were otherwise regulated, when the kinsmen had
become more dispersed.

Footnote 479:

“Gif mon ælþeódigne ofslea, se cyning áh twǽdne dǽl weres, þriddan
dǽll sunu oððe mǽgas. Gif he ðonne mǽgleás síe, healf cyninge, healf
se gesíð.” Ini, § 23.

Footnote 480:

Ini, § 38.

Footnote 481:

Ini, § 24, 28, 35, 74. Thorpe, i. 118, 120, 124, 148.

-----

The duties of the mǽgsceaft or kinship are developed with considerable
detail in the law of Ælfred: the most general regulation is that which
acknowledges the right of a man to have the aid of his kindred in all
those excepted cases where the custom and the law still permitted the
waging of fǽhðe or private war: “After the same fashion, may a man fight
on behalf of his born kinsman, if any wrongfully attack him; except
indeed against his lord: that we permit not[482].” Other clauses provide
that where a wrongdoer is taken into custody, and agrees peaceably to
abide the decision of the law, his relatives shall have due notice[483]:
“If he pledge himself to a lawful act, and belie himself therein, let
him humbly surrender his arms and his goods to his friends, to hold for
him, and let him remain for forty days in prison in a king’s tún; let
him there suffer as the bishop may direct him; and let his kinsmen feed
him, if he have himself no food; but if he have no kinsmen, or no food,
let the king’s reeve feed him.” Again if a man is accidentally slain
while hewing wood with others, his kinsmen are to have the tree, and
remove it from the land within thirty days, otherwise it shall go to the
owner of the wood[484]. The most important case of all, however, is that
of a divided responsibility between the kinsmen and the gegyldan, which
Ælfred thus regulates: “If one that hath no paternal kindred fight and
slay a man, if then he have maternal relatives, let them pay a third
part of the _wer_, his gyldbrethren a third part, and for a third part
let him flee. If he have no maternal relatives, let his gyldbrethren pay
half, and for half let him flee. And if any one slay such a man, having
no relatives, let half be paid to the king, half to the
gyldbrethren[485].” It was also the principle of Ælfred’s law,
recognized but not introduced by him, that no man should have the power
of alienating from his mǽgsceaft, booklands whose first acquirer had
entailed them upon the family,—a principle which tends, as far as human
means seem capable of ensuring it, to ensure its permanent
maintenance[486].

-----

Footnote 482:

“Æfter ðǽre ylcan wísan mót mon feohtan mid his geborenum mǽge, gif
hine mon on woh onfeohtað; búton wíð his hláford, ðæt we ne lýfað.”
Ælf. § 42. Thorpe, i. 90.

Footnote 483:

“Gif he ðonne ðæs weddie ðe him riht sý tó gelǽstanne and ðæt áleóge,
selle mid eádmédum his wæpn und his ǽhta his freóndum tó gehealdanne,
and beó feowertig nihta on carcerne on cyninges túne; þrowige ðǽr swá
biscop him scrífe, and his mǽgas hine féden gif he self mete næbbe;
gif he mǽgas næbbe, oððe ðone mete næbbe, féde cyninges geréfa hine.”
Ælf. § 1. Thorpe, i. 60. There is a similar provision in Ælf. § 5.
Thorpe, i. 64. Ælf. § 42. Thorpe, i. 90.

Footnote 484:

Ælf. § 13. Thorpe, i. 70.

Footnote 485:

“Gif fæderenmǽga mǽgleás mon gefeohte and mon ofsleá, and ðonne gif he
médrenmǽgas hæbbe, gylden ðá ðæs weres þriddan dǽl, þriddan dǽl ða
gegyldan, for þriddan dǽl he fleó. Gif he médrenmǽgas náge, gylden ða
gegyldan healfne, for healfne he fleó. Gif mon swá gerádne mon ofsleá,
gif he mǽgas náge, gylde mon healfne cyninge, healfne ðám gegyldan.”
Ælfr. § 27, 28. Thorpe, i. 78, 80.

Footnote 486:

Ælfr. § 41. Thorpe, i. 88.

-----

The reciprocal rights and duties of the mǽgburh were similarly
understood by Eádweard: he enacted that if a malefactor were deserted by
his relatives, and they refused to make compensation for him, he should
be reduced to serfage; but in this case his wergyld was to abate from
the kindred[487]. And Æðelstan distinctly holds the mǽgð responsible for
their kinsman. He says, “If a thief be put into prison, let him remain
there forty days, and then let him be ransomed for 120 shillings, and
let the kindred go surety for him that he shall cease from theft for the
future. And if after that he steal, let them pay for him with his
wergyld, or replace him in prison[488].” But he goes further than this,
and imposes upon them the duty of finding a lord for him, or exposing
him to the penalty of outlawry: “And we have ordained respecting those
lordless men of whom no law can be got, that the kindred be commanded to
domicile him to folkright, and find him a lord in the folkmote; and if
then they will not or cannot produce him at the term, let him
thenceforth be an outlaw, and let whoso cometh at him slay him[489]:” a
provision which obviously cannot apply to free landowners, who would
have been included in a tithing, and could not have been thus
compulsorily commended to a lord. Where a man is slain as a thief, the
relatives are to clear him, if they can[490], inasmuch as they would
have a right to pursue the slayer and claim the compensation for their
kinsman’s death. Again it is provided that if a lord has so many
dependents that he cannot personally exercise a due supervision over
them, he shall appoint efficient reeves or bailiffs in his several
manors, to be answerable to him. And if need be, the bailiff shall cause
twelve relatives of any man whom he cannot trust, to enter into sureties
for him[491].

-----

Footnote 487:

Eadw. ii. § 9. Æðelst. v. cap. 12, § 2. Thorpe, i. 164, 242.

Footnote 488:

Æðelst. i. § 1, 6; v. cap. 1, § 4, cap. 9. Thorpe, i. 198, 202, 228,
238.

Footnote 489:

Æðelst. i. § 2. Thorpe, i. 200. Upon the just principle that “He may
die without law who refuseth to live by law.” “Utlagatus et weyviata
capita gerunt lupina [wolves’ heads] quae ab omnibus impune poterunt
amputari: merito enim sine lege perire debent, qui secundum legem
vivere recusant.” Flet. lib. i. cap. 27, § 12, etc.

Footnote 490:

Æðelst. i. § 11. Thorpe, i. 204.

Footnote 491:

“Ut omnis homo teneat homines suos in fideiussione sua contra omne
furtum. Si tunc sit aliquis qui tot homines habeat quod non sufficiat
omnes custodire, praeponat sibi singulis villis praepositum unum, qui
credibilis sit ei, et qui concredat hominibus. Et si praepositus
alicui eorum hominum concredere non audeat, inveniat xii plegios
cognationis suae qui ei stent in fideiussione.” Æðelst. ii. § 7.
Thorpe, i. 217.

-----

Eádmund permitted the mǽgð to avoid the consequences of their kinsman’s
act, by refusing to abet him in his feud[492]. I imagine that this law
must be taken in connection with that of Eádweard[493], and that it
implies a total desertion of the criminal by his kindred, with all its
consequences, viz. loss of liberty to him, and of his wergyld to them.
The troubled time of Æðelred, “the ill-advised,” supplies another
attempt to secure peace by holding the relatives strictly and personally
responsible: in his law we find it enacted, “If breach of the peace be
committed within a town, let the inhabitants of the town go in person,
and take the murderers, alive or dead, or their nearest of kin, head for
head. If they will not, let the ealdorman go; if he will not, let the
king go; if he will not, let the whole district be in a state of
war[494].” Though this perhaps is less a settled rule of law than the
convulsive effort of an authority striving in vain to maintain itself
amid civil discords and the horrors of foreign invasion, it still
consecrates the old principle, and returns to the true basis on which
Anglosaxon society was founded, namely treaties of peace and mutual
guarantee between the several parties that made up the State.

-----

Footnote 492:

Eádm. ii. § 1.

Footnote 493:

Eádw. ii. § 9.

Footnote 494:

Æðelr. ii. § 6. Thorpe, i. 286.

-----

Such were the means by which the internal peace of the land was
attempted to be secured, and it is evident that better could hardly have
been devised in a state of society where population was not very widely
dispersed, and where property hardly existed, save in land, and almost
equally unmanageable cattle. The summary jurisdiction of our police
magistrates, our recognizances and bail and binding over to keep the
peace, are developments rendered necessary by our altered circumstances;
but these are nevertheless institutions of the same nature as those on
which our forefathers relied. The establishment of our County-courts, in
which justice goes forth from man to man, and without original writ from
the Crown, is another step toward the ancient principle of our
jurisprudence, in the old Hundred.

A further inquiry now arises, as to the basis upon which all
calculations as to satisfaction between man and man were founded; in
other words to the system of Wergylds and its various corollaries: this
will form the subject of a separate chapter.

CHAPTER X.
FǼHÐE. WERGYLD.

The right of private warfare, technically called fǽhðe or _feud_[495],
was one which every Teutonic freeman considered inalienable; and which,
coupled with the obligations of family, was directly derived from his
original position as a freeman[496]: it was the privilege which he
possessed before he consented to enter into any political bond, the
common term upon which all freemen could meet in an equal form of
polity. It was an immediate corollary from that primæval law of nature,
that each man may provide for his own defence, and use his own energies
to secure his own well-being, and the quiet possession of his life, his
liberty and the fruits of his labour. History and tradition both assure
us that it did exist among the tribes of the North: and it is reasonable
to suppose that it must have done so, especially in any case where we
can conceive separate families and households to have maintained at all
an independent position toward one another. Where no _imperium_ yet
exists, society itself possesses only a _ius belli_ against its own
several members; and if neighbours will not be neighbourly, they must be
coerced into peace (the great and first need of all society and the
condition of its existence) by alliance of the many against the few, of
the orderly and peaceful against the violent and lawless. This right of
feud then lies at the root of all Teutonic legislation; and in the
Anglosaxon law especially it continues to be recognized long after an
imperial power has been constituted, and the general conservancy of the
peace has been committed to a central authority. It admits as its most
general term, that each freeman is at liberty to defend himself, his
family and his friends; to avenge all wrongs done to them, as to himself
shall seem good; to sink, burn, kill and destroy, as amply as a royal
commission now authorizes the same in a professional class, the
recognized executors of the national will in that behalf. Now it is
obvious that such a power, exercised in its full extent, must render the
formation of an orderly society difficult, if not impossible. The first
problem then is to devise means by which private vengeance may be
regulated, private wrong atoned, the necessity of each man’s doing
himself right avoided, and the general state of peace and security
provided for. For setting aside the loss to the whole community which
may arise from private feud, the moral sense of men may be shocked by
its results: an individual’s own estimate of the satisfaction necessary
to atone for the injury done to him, may lead to the commission of a
wrong on his part, greater than any he hath suffered; nor can the strict
rule of “an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth,” be applied, where
the exaction of the penalty depends upon the measure of force between
appellant and defender.

-----

Footnote 495:

Fǽhðe is etymologically derived from fá, _a foe_: it is the state or
condition of being fá with any one. “Gif hwá ofer ðæt stalige sý he fá
wið ðone cyning and ealle his freónd.” “If after that, any one steal,
be he foe (at feud) with the king, and all that love him.”

Footnote 496:

Tacit. Germ. xxii.

-----

In the feeling then of the omnipotence of the State, for paramount
purposes, over all the several individuals whose proximity to one
another necessarily caused the existence between them of relations,
amicable or hostile, the Teutonic nations set themselves the task of
regulating the _Right of Feud_. They could not entirely abrogate it, for
it was the very basis of that freedom which enabled every man to enter
into a contract or engagement as to the mode of its exercise; but they
defined, and as far as possible limited, its sphere and the extent of
its action.

The natural right of every man to do himself justice to the extent of
his own estimate[497], seems early to have received so much check as
could be given by the establishment of a _lex talionis_,—life for life,
and limb for limb. The eorl who captured the thane Imma, in the seventh
century, could say to him, “I might justly put thee to death, because my
kinsmen fell in the battle wherein thou wert made prisoner[498];” and
this principle was recognized even in the later legislation, after what
we may call a legal commutation of this right had been established: the
ordinance respecting oaths to be administered says, “A twelfhynde man’s
oath stands for six ceorls’ oaths; because if a man should avenge a
twelfhynde man, he will be fully avenged on six ceorls, and his wergyld
will be six ceorls’ wergylds[499].” The Teutonic nations generally
avoided the inconveniences of such a system by making the State itself
the arbitrator between the parties; that is, by establishing a tariff at
which injuries should be rated, and committing to the State the duty of
compelling the injured person to receive, and the wrongdoer to pay, the
settled amount. It thus engaged to act as a mediator between the
conflicting interests, with a view to the maintenance of the general
peace: it assured to the sufferer the legal satisfaction for his loss;
it engaged to his adversary that, upon due payment of that legal
satisfaction, he should be placed under the public guarantee and saved
from all the consequences of feud. For doing this, the State claimed
also some remuneration; it imposed a fine, called sometimes _fredum_,
from frið, peace, or _bannum_ from its proclamation (bannan)[500], over
and above the compensation between man and man. And this is obviously
what Tacitus means when he says[501], “They are bound to take up both
the enmities and the friendships of a father or relative. Nor are their
enmities implacable; for even homicide is atoned for by a settled number
of flocks or cattle, and the whole house receives satisfaction,—a useful
thing for the state, for feuds are dangerous in exact proportion to
freedom.” And again, “A portion of the fine goes to the king or state, a
part to him whose damages are to be assessed, or to his relatives.” Only
where the State would not, or could not, as may sometimes have happened,
undertake this duty, did the right of private warfare again resume its
course, and the family relations recover their pristine importance. The
man who presumes to fight, before he has in vain appealed to all the
recognized authorities for redress, is liable, under Ælfred’s law, to
severe punishment, except in one important case, which involved the
maintenance of the family itself, to secure which alone the machinery of
the State exists[502]. But where the offender refuses to avail himself
of the means of peaceful settlement which society has provided for him,
the person injured may make war upon him, and have the assistance of the
State in so doing. The most general expression of this right is found in
a proverbial formula retained in the law of Eádweard the Confessor, and
which may be said to comprise all the law of the subject: it says, “Let
amends be made to the kindred, or let their war be borne;” whence the
English had the proverb, ‘Bicge spere of síde óðer bere,’ that is to
say, _Buy off the spear or bear it_[503]. The mode however of applying
this general right was not left to individual caprice. The following
regulations made by successive kings will explain very fully the
practice and the theory of Feud or War. Ælfred ordains, “That the man
who knows his foe to be homesitting fight not, before he have demanded
justice of him. If he have power enough to beset his foe, and besiege
him in his house, let him keep him there for seven days, but not attack
him, if he will remain within-doors. If then, after seven days, he be
willing to surrender, and to give up his weapons, let him be kept safe
for thirty days, and let notice of him be given to his kinsmen and
friends.... But if the plaintiff have not power enough of his own to
besiege his foeman, let him ride to the ealdorman and beg aid of him:
and if the ealdorman will not aid him, let him ride to the king before
he fights. In like manner if a man come accidentally upon his foe, and
without previous knowledge of his homestaying; if the foe will surrender
his weapons, let him be kept safely for thirty days, and let notice be
given to his friends. If he will not surrender his weapons, he may
lawfully be attacked. But if he be willing to surrender and to deliver
up his weapons, and after that, any one attack him, let him pay _wer_
and wound, as well he may, and fine, and have forfeited his
mǽgship[504]. We also declare that it is lawful war, for a man to fight
for his lord, if any one attack his lord: and so also may the lord fight
for his man. And in like manner a man may fight for his born kinsman, if
any wrongfully attack him, except against his own lord: that we allow
not. And it is lawful war if a man find another with his wedded wife
within closed doors, or under one covering, or with his daughter born in
wedlock, or his sister born in wedlock, or his mother who was given to
his father as a wedded wife[505].”

-----

Footnote 497:

This is the wild right of every outlaw, the law of nature which
resumes its force when human law has been relinquished.

“I lost mine eye in laying the prize aboard,
And therefore, to revenge it, shalt thou die!”
Hen. VI. Part 2, act iv. sc. 1.

Such is the justice of him who has returned to the universal state of
war. Against such a one, Society, if it mean to be society, must on
its side declare a war of extermination.

Footnote 498:

Beda, Hist. Eccl. iv. 22.

Footnote 499:

“Twelfhyndes mannes áð forstent syx ceorla áð; forðám gif man ðone
twelfhyndan man wrecan sceolde, he hið full wrecen on syx ceorlum, and
his wergyld bið syx ceorla wergyld.” Oaths, § 12. Thorpe, i. 182.

Footnote 500:

The technical term is, _to set up the king’s protection_, “cyninges
munde rǽran.” Eádw. and Guð. § 13. Eádm. ii. § 7. Thorpe, i. 174, 250.
This is the engagement of the State that the arbitrament shall be
peaceably made, and it at once abrogates all right of feud, and fear
of violent revenge.

Footnote 501:

“Suscipere tam inimicitias seu patris seu propinqui quam amicitias
necesse est. Nec implacabiles durant; luitur enim etiam homicidium
certo armentorum ac pecorum numero, recipitque satisfactionem universa
domus: utiliter in publicum; quia periculosiores sunt inimicitiae
iuxta libertatem.” Germ. xxii. “Sed et levioribus delictis [including
homicide] pro modo poenarum equorum pecorumque numero convicti
multantur. Pars multae regi vel civitati, pars ipsi qui vindicatur,
vel propinquis eius exsolvitur.” Ibid. xii.

Footnote 502:

The Saxon law says, in accordance with the universal law of nature and
society, “A man may fight, without incurring the penalty of raising
war, against him whom he finds with his wedded wife, within closed
doors, or under one covering; or, with his daughter lawfully born, or
with his sister lawfully born, or with his mother, who was given to
his father as his wedded wife.” In these cases there is, and can be,
no murder before the law. It is needless to show from the history and
traditions of every European state, that this is a principle
universally recognized.

Footnote 503:

Leg. Eádw. Conf. xii. Thorpe, i. 447.

Footnote 504:

Probably, “Let him, forfeit all claim to the assistance of his
kinsmen, either in repelling feud or paying fine.”

Footnote 505:

Ælfr. § 42. I have slightly varied the form of expression in the last
sentences, on account of the difficulty of rendering the adjective
_orwige_. Ælfred says in these cases a man may fight _orwige_,
literally, _without incurring the guilt of making war_, without
becoming obnoxious to the penalties assigned to the crime of
war-raising.

-----

The inconveniences of this state of society induced Eádmund, about the
middle of the tenth century, to release the kindred from the
consequences of fǽhðe: he thus commences his secular laws:

“Eádmund the king makes known to all the people, old and young, that are
in his dominion, what I have deliberated with the counsel of my Witan,
both ordained and laic. First how I might best promote Christianity.
Then seemed it to us first most needful that we should most firmly
preserve peace and harmony among ourselves, throughout all my dominion.
Both I, and all of us, hold in horror the unrighteous and manifold
fightings that exist among ourselves: we have therefore decreed: If
henceforth any one slay another, let him bear the feud himself, unless
by the assistance of his friends, and within twelve months, he make
amends with the full _wer_, be he born as he may. But if his kindred
forsake him, and will not pay for him, it is my will that all the
kindred be _unfáh_ [out of feud] except the actual perpetrator; provided
that they do not give him either food or protection. But if afterwards
any of the kindred harbour him, he shall be liable in all that he
possesses to the king[506] and bear the feud with the kindred, because
they had previously forsaken him. But if any of the other kindred take
vengeance upon any man save the actual perpetrator, let him be foe to
the king and all his friends, and forfeit all that he has[507].”

-----

Footnote 506:

A forfeiture of this kind is recorded in the Codex Diplomaticus, Nos.
714, 719, 1304. A lady had harboured her brother, while an outlaw for
murder. Her lands were all forfeited and given to the king.

Footnote 507:

Eádm. Sec. Leg. § 1. Thorpe, i. 246.

-----

It is probable that this right thus reserved to the kindred of deserting
their guilty kinsman, was not often exercised, nevertheless the
subsequent laws of Æðelred and Cnut[508] may be considered to have been
understood in connexion with it, and subject to its limitations.

-----

Footnote 508:

See above, cap. ix. p. 264.

-----

The law of Eádweard the elder (about A.D. 900 to 915), regulates the
mode of proceeding when both parties are willing to forego the feud,
upon the established principles of compensation. He says[509]: “The
wergyld of a twelfhynde man is twelve hundred shillings. The wergyld of
a twýhynde man is two hundred shillings. If any one be slain, let him be
paid for according to his birth. And it is the law, that, after the
slayer has given pledge for the wergyld, he should find in addition a
_werborh_, according to the circumstances of the case; that is, for the
wergyld of a twelfhynde man, the werborh must consist of twelve men,
eight by the father’s, four by the mother’s side. When that is done, let
the king’s protection be set up; that is, all, of either kindred, laying
their hands together upon one weapon, shall pledge themselves to the
mediator, that the king’s protection shall stand. In twenty-one days
from that day let one hundred and twenty shillings be paid as
_healsfang_, at a twelfhynde man’s wergyld. The healsfang belongs to the
children, brothers and paternal uncles: that money belongs to no kinsman
except such as are within the degrees of blood. Twenty-one days after
the healsfang is paid, let the _manbót_ be paid; twenty-one days later,
the _fight-fine_; in twenty-one days from this, the _frumgyld_ or first
instalment of the wergyld; and so forth until the whole sum be
discharged at such fixed time as the Witan have agreed. After this they
may depart with love, if they desire to have full friendship. And with
respect to the wergyld of a ceorl, all that belongs in his condition
shall be done in like manner as we have said respecting the twelfhynde
man.”

-----

Footnote 509:

Eád. and Guð. § 13. Thorpe, i. 174.

-----

The law of Eádmund contains similar provisions[510]. “The Witan shall
appease feud. First, according to folkright, the slayer shall give
pledge to his advocate, and the advocate to the kindred of the slain,
that the slayer will make compensation to the kin. Then it is necessary
that security be given to the slayer’s advocate, that the slayer may
draw nigh in peace, and himself give pledge for the wergyld. When he has
given his wed for this, let him further find a werborh, or security for
the payment of the wer. When that is done let the king’s protection be
set up: within twenty-one days from that, let the healsfang be paid;
within other twenty-one days, the manbót; and twenty-one days from that,
the first instalment of the wergyld.”

-----

Footnote 510:

Eádm. Sec. Leg. § 7. Thorpe, i. 250.

-----

The wergyld then, or life-price, was the basis upon which all peaceful
settlement of feud was established. A sum paid either in kind or in
money, where money existed, was placed upon the life of every free man,
according to his rank in the state, his birth or his office. A
corresponding sum was settled for every wound that could be inflicted
upon his person; for nearly every injury that could be done to his civil
rights, his honour or his domestic peace; and further fines were
appointed according to the peculiar, adventitious circumstances that
might appear to aggravate or extenuate the offence. From the operation
of this principle no one was exempt, and the king as well as the peasant
was protected by a wergyld, payable to his kinsmen and his people. The
difference of the wergyld is the principal distinction between different
classes; it defined the value of each man’s oath, his mund or
protection, and the amount of his fines or his exactions: and, as we
have already seen[511], it regulated the equivalent for his value. And
as it is obvious that the simple wergyld of the free man is the original
unit in the computation, we have a strong argument, were any needed,
that that class formed the real basis and original foundation of all
Teutonic society.

-----

Footnote 511:

See above, p. 275.

-----

Although this principle was common to all the Germanic tribes, very
great variety exists in the amounts severally adopted to represent the
value of different ranks,—a variety easily understood when we reflect
upon the relative condition of those tribes at the period when this
portion of their law was first settled. A slight account of them will be
useful, as an introduction to the consideration of our Anglosaxon
values. It will be seen throughout that various circumstances have
tended to introduce changes into the early and simple order[512].

-----

Footnote 512:

The following numbers are taken from Grimm, Rechtsalt. p. 272.

-----

Salian Franks.—Ingenuus, 200 sol.: litus, 100 sol.: ingenuus in hoste
600: litus in hoste, 300 sol.: ingenuus in truste 1800: litus in truste,
900 sol.

Thus if engaged in actual warfare, the value of the freeman and the
emancipated serf was tripled; and if in the _trust_ or immediate service
of the king, their respective values were multiplied nine times. It is
probable that the Ripuarian Franks adopted the same numbers.

Angli et Werini.—Liber 200 sol.: adaling (noble) 600: libertus
(freedman) 80 sol.

Law of the Saxons.—Probably, the freeman 240 shillings: noble 1440:
freedman 120 shillings.

Law of the Bavarians.—The duke 960 shillings: the ducal family of the
Agilolfings, 640: the other five noble races, 320 shillings: the simple
free man 160 shillings.

Law of the Alamanni.—Primus (the first rank of the nobles) 240
shillings: medianus (the second rank of nobles) 200: minofledus (the
free man) 160.

Law of the Burgundians.—Noble 300 shillings: lower noble (mediocris)
200: freeman (minor) 150.

Law of the Frisians.—Noble 80 shillings: freeman 53⅓; freedman 26⅔
shillings.

Law of the Visigoths.—Freeman (between the years of twenty and fifty)
300 shillings: freedman 150.

In the North, 100 silfrs was the wergyld of the freeman, and there is no
account of the jarl’s. The Old Swedish laws generally assign 40 marks;
this is the reckoning of the Upland, Sudermanland, and Eastgothland
laws. The Westgothland law has 39 marks; the Jutish 54; and the Gutalag,
three marks of gold.

The wergyld of the clergy is slightly different: among the Salic Franks,
deacon 300, priest 600, bishop 900 shillings. A late addition to the
Ripuarian law computes,—clericus 200, subdeacon 400, deacon 500, priest
600, bishop 900.

This is sufficient to give a general outline of the system: it will be
observed that these continental computations give no reckoning for the
king. Beyond doubt they were for the most part settled after the royal
power had become so fully developed as to cast aside all traces of its
original character and nature.

The Anglosaxon equivalents for these computations are by no means clear;
nor, as far as we can judge, are they altogether consistent. It is
probable that they varied not only in the several Anglosaxon kingdoms,
but were also subject to change at various periods, as the relative
value of life and produce altered. The Kentish law which names only the
eorl and ceorl, as the two classes of free men, does not give us the
exact amount of their wergylds, but it supplies us with some data by
which perhaps an approximation may be made to it. In Æðelberht’s law (§
2, 5, 8) the king’s _mundbyrd_ or protection is valued at fifty
shillings, the eorl’s or noble’s at twelve (§ 13, 14, compared with §
10, 15, 16, 17), and the ceorl’s or simple freeman’s at six (§ 15, 25,
88). Thus the three classes stand in the relation of fifty, twelve and
six; or taking the ceorl as unity, their respective values are 8⅓, 2 and
1: that is,

Ceorl:eorl::1:2.
Ceorl:king::1:8⅓.
Eorl :king::1:4⅙.

Now the _medume leódgeld_ of the ceorl is stated to be one hundred
shillings (§ 7), and if Grimm and Thorpe were right in translating this
the _half_ wergyld, we should have the very improbable sums of 200, 400
and 1666⅓ Kentish shillings. _Meduma_ however does not signify _half_,
but _middling_, _moderate_: the enactment in Æðelberht’s law amounts in
fact to this: If a man slay another, he is to pay his wergyld; but not
so, if the slayer happen to be the king’s armourer or messenger; in that
case he is to pay only a moderated wergyld of one hundred shillings. It
was an exemption in favour of two most important officers of the royal
household; and shows partly the growing encroachment of prerogative,
partly the value set upon the talents of the officers themselves[513].
The common wergyld then was above one hundred, and I think it can be
shown that it was below two hundred, shillings. The case of a wergyld
paid for a king, though rare, is by no means unexampled[514]. In the
year 687, Múl Æðelweard, a scion of the royal race of Wessex, invaded
Kent, and having incautiously suffered himself to be surprised by the
country-people, was burnt to death in a house where he had taken refuge
with a few comrades. Seven years later the men of Kent made compensation
to Ini for Múl’s death. The sum given is very variously stated. William
of Malmesbury says it was thirty thousand mancuses[515]; which,
calculated at eight mancuses to the pound, would be three thousand,
seven hundred and fifty pounds, and this is the sum mentioned by
Florence of Worcester[516]. Æðelweard, the oldest Latin chronicler, but
still removed four centuries from the time, makes it amount to thirty
thousand solidi or shillings, each of which is to be calculated at
sixteen pence[517]. Some manuscripts of the Saxon Chronicle read thirty
thousand pounds[518], “þrittig þusend punda,”—others, thirty pounds,
“þrittig punda.” Now however contradictory all these statements may at
first sight appear (and there can be no doubt that some of them are
ridiculously exaggerated), it is not impossible to reconcile and explain
them. Every one of the authorities I have cited, except Florence, who
has evidently calculated his sum upon what he believed to be the value
of the mancus, reads thirty thousand of some coin or other. One will
have them pounds, another shillings, another mancuses, etc. Now they are
all wrong in their denomination, and all equally right in their number;
and for this very obvious reason,—the originals from which they derived
their information did mention the number, and did not mention the
denomination. Each author put the question to himself, “Thirty thousand
_what_?” and answered it by supplying the supposed omission with the
coin most familiar to himself. But there cannot be the least doubt that
the Saxon original read þrittig þusenda, thirty thousand, and nothing
else; and this is not only actually the reading of some MSS. of the
Chronicle, but most likely the cause of the error which lies in the
other copies, incautious transcribers having been misled by the
resemblance between the Saxon þ and _p_ and mistaken the contraction
þrittig þūnda for þrittig punda, thirty pounds. It is the custom of the
Anglosaxon tongue, in describing measures of land or sums of money, to
use the numerals only, leaving the commonest units to be supplied by the
reader. Thus if land were intended, thirty thousand would denote that
number of _hides_; and where money is intended, at least in Kent, thirty
thousand _scæts_[519]. This then I believe to have been the sum paid to
Ini, and the regular personal wergyld of a Kentish king. Let us now
apply this sum to elucidate the value of the other Kentish wergylds.
From a comparison of the compensation appointed for injuries done to the
nails of the fingers and toes, Mr. Thorpe, the late Mr. Allen, and I
concluded that the value of a Kentish shilling was twenty scæts. But
thirty thousand scæts would be fifteen hundred such shillings, and
assuming this to be the royal wergyld, we shall find the eorl’s to be
360, the ceorl’s 180 shillings, which amounts are exactly thirty times
the value of the several mundbyrds[520]. In the first volume of Mr.
Thorpe’s Anglosaxon Laws, at p. 186, there is a document which professes
to give the values of different classes in Northumberland. Its date is
uncertain, though it appears to have been generally assigned to the
commencement of the tenth century. I confess that I can hardly reconcile
myself to so early a date, and think it altogether a suspicious
authority. It tells us as follows:

“1. The Northpeople’s royal gyld is thirty thousand _thrymsas_; fifteen
thousand thrymsas are for the wergyld, and fifteen thousand for the
royal dignity. The _wer_ belongs to the kindred; the _cynebót_ to the
people.

“2. An archbishop’s and an æðeling’s wergyld is fifteen thousand
thrymsas.

“3. A bishop’s and an ealdorman’s, eight thousand thrymsas.

“4. A hold’s and a king’s high reeve’s, four thousand thrymsas,

“5. A mass thane’s and a secular thane’s, two thousand thrymsas.

“6. A ceorl’s wergyld is two hundred and sixty-six thrymsas, that is two
hundred shillings by Mercian law.

“7. And if a Welshman thrive so well that he have a hide of land, and
can bring forth the king’s tax, then is his wergyld one hundred and
twenty shillings; and if he thrive not save to half a hide, then let his
wer be eighty shillings.

“8. And if he have not any land, but yet is free, let him be paid for
with seventy shillings.

“9. And if a ceorlish man thrive so well that he have five hides of land
for the king’s _útware_, and any one slay him, let him be paid for with
two thousand thrymsas.

“10. And though he thrive so that he have a helm and coat-of-mail, and a
sword ornamented with gold, if he have not that land, he is
notwithstanding a ceorl.

“11. And if his son and his son’s son so thrive that they have so much
land after him, the offspring shall be of gesíðcund [noble] race at two
thousand.

“12. And if they have not that, nor to that amount can thrive, let them
be paid for as ceorlish.”

-----

Footnote 513:

The royal messengers were often of the highest rank. The heroic
character of the weapon-smith or armourer appears throughout the
traditions of the North, and indeed in the epic poetry of all nations.

Footnote 514:

In the year 679 a battle was fought between Ecgfrið of Northumberland
and Æðilræd of Mercia. “Anno regis Ecgfridi nono, conserto gravi
praelio inter ipsum et Aedilredum regem Merciorum, iuxta fluvium
Treanta, occisus est Aelfuini, frater regis Ecgfridi, iuvenis circiter
decem et octo annorum, utrique provinciae multum amabilis. Nam et
sororem eius quae dicebatur Osðryd, rex Aedilred habebat uxorem.
Cumque materies belli acrioris et inimicitiae longioris inter reges
populosque feroces videretur exorta, Theodorus, deo dilectus antistes,
divino functus auxilio, salutifera exhortatione coeptum tanti periculi
funditus exstinguit incendium: adeo ut pacatis alterutrum regibus ac
populis, _nullius anima hominis pro interfecto regis fratre, sed
debita solummodo multa pecuniae regi ultori daretur_. Cuius foedera
pacis multo exinde tempore inter eosdem reges eorumque regna durarunt.
In praefato autem praelio, quo occisus est _Rex_ Aelfuini,” etc. Beda,
H. Eccl. iv. 21, 22.

Footnote 515:

Will. Malm. Gest. Reg. lib. i.

Footnote 516:

Flor. Wigorn. an. 694.

Footnote 517:

Æðelw. Chron. ii. cap. 10.

Footnote 518:

Chron. Saxon, an. 694.

Footnote 519:

Conf. Leg. Hloðh. § 13. Æðelr. § 7. Ælfred’s Beda, iii. 5. So, án
fíftig, _one fifty_, means fifty _psalms_ to be sung or said. Æðelst.
iv. § 3. v. 8. § 6. No one mistakes the meaning of _five hundred, five
thousand a year_.

Footnote 520:

1500 Kentish shillings, which are equivalent to rather more than 7800
Saxon shillings, were a sufficient sum, at a period when an ewe with
her lamb was worth only one Saxon shilling. Leg. Ini, § 55.

-----

Another, and perhaps more trustworthy document, printed at p. 190 of the
same volume, gives us the following values as current in Mercia.

“A ceorl’s wergyld is by Mercian law, two hundred shillings. A thane’s
wergyld is six times as much, that is, twelve hundred shillings. Then is
a king’s simple wergyld, six thanes’ wer by Mercian law, that is thirty
thousand sceats and that is altogether one hundred and twenty pounds. So
much is the wergyld in the folkright by Mercian law. And for the royal
dignity such another sum is due, as compensation for cynegyld. The _wer_
belongs to the kindred, the cynebót to the people.”

A passage already cited in this chapter gives the wergylds of the
freeman and noble in Wessex as respectively two hundred and twelve
hundred scillingas, whence those classes are called twýhynde and
twelfhynde: these denominations correspond to the old and usual ceorl
and eorl; and as the original expression for all classes of society was,
_be it churl, be it earl_, Cnut could use as perfectly equivalent, _be
it twýhynde, be it twelfhynde_[521]. But in Wessex a third class is
mentioned, whose wergyld was half that of the twelfhynde, and three
times that of the ceorl: they are called sixhynde, men of six hundred.
It is difficult to say whether they are the original nobles, three times
as valuable as the freeman, and whether the twelfhynde are an exclusive
class of magnates, raised above them during the progressive development
of the royal power; or whether, on the contrary, the twelfhynde and
twýhynde are the original divisions, and the sixhynde a middle class of
ministerials, which sprang up when ceorls had entered the service of the
crown, and thus became raised above their fellow freemen. I incline to
the latter opinion, partly from the apparent absence of this sixhynde
class in Mercia, partly from the apposition noticed above, and the
omission of the sixhynde altogether from the passage in Eádweard’s law,
which regulates the payments for the other two classes. There is no
statement of a royal wergyld in Wessex, but from what has been said of
the composition made for Múl, it may be inferred that it was thirty
thousand sceattas or 120 pounds, like that of Mercia. The total
inconsistency of these several values will be apparent if we arrange
them tabularly:

┌───────────────┬────────────┬──────────┬──────────┬──────────
│ │ Northumb.│ Mercia.│ Wessex.│ Kent.
├───────────────┼────────────┼──────────┼──────────┼──────────
│ │ þrymsas.│ Scil.│ Scil.│ Scil.
│King │ 15000│ 7200│ 7200│ 1500
│ │ +15000│ +7200│ +7200│ +1500
│Archbishop │ 15000│ │ │
│Æðeling │ 15000│ │ │
│Bishop │ 8000│ 1200│ 1200│ 360
│Ealdorman │ 8000│ 1200│ 1200│ 360
│Hold │ 4000│ │ 600│
│Heáhgeréfa │ 4000│ │ 600│
│Priest │ 2000│ │ 600│
│Þegen │ 2000│ │ 600│
│Freeman │ 266│ 200│ 200│ 180
└───────────────┴────────────┴──────────┴──────────┴──────────

If these data be accurate, we must conclude that the ratio of the king
and noble to the ceorl in the different states varied as follows:

North. king: ceorl::113:1 nearly.
Merc. king: ceorl:: 72:1.
Wessex king: ceorl:: 72:1.
Kent king: ceorl:: 172⁄9:1.
North. noble, 1st class:ceorl::56 :1 nearly.
2nd class:ceorl::30½:1 nearly.
3rd class:ceorl::15¼:1 nearly.
4th class:ceorl:: 7½:1 nearly.
Merc. noble : ceorl::6 : 1.
Wessex noble, 1st class: ceorl::6:1.
2nd class: ceorl::3:1.
Kent noble : ceorl::2:1.

-----

Footnote 521:

“Swá eác we settað be eallum hádum ge ceorle ge eorle.” Ælf. § 4.
“Cnut cing grét ... ealle míne þegnast welfhynde and twýhynde
freóndlíce.” Cod. Dipl. No. 731.

-----

Now this variety, which is totally irrespective of the real value of the
þryms and the shilling, seems to involve this part of the subject in
impenetrable darkness. All that we can permit ourselves to guess is,
that circumstances had in process of time altered the original relations
between the classes, but in different ratios in the different kingdoms.
This however is not all the difficulty: we have to contend with the
complication arising from the fact, that the scilling, the currency in
which all the southern calculations are nominally made, really differed
in value in the several states: and thus when we attempt to compare one
freeman with another, we find their respective prices to be in Mercia
833⅓ sceats, in Kent 3600.

However the details were arranged, the principle itself is clear enough,
and we must now be content to remain in ignorance of the means adopted
to reconcile conflicting interests measured by a standard so imperfect.

But the wergyld or price of the whole man was not all that the law
professed to regulate. When once the principle had been admitted, that
this might be fixed at a certain sum, it was an easy corollary not only
that the sum in question should limit the amount of responsibility to
the State[522] but that a tariff for all injuries should be settled. In
the laws of Æðelberht and Ælfred we find very detailed assessments of
the damage which could be done to a man by injuries, either of his
person, his property, or his honour: many of these are amusing and
strange enough, and highly indicative of the rude state of society for
which they were adapted. But it seems unnecessary to pursue the details
they deal with: they may serve to turn a period about Teutonic
barbarism, or to point a moral about human fallibility; but the
circumstances under which they were rational and convenient arrangements
have passed away, and they are now of little interest as historical
records, and of none with a view to future utility.

-----

Footnote 522:

Capital punishments are necessarily rare in early periods. Tacitus
limits those of the Germans to cases of high-treason or effeminacy,
two crimes which strike at the root of all society. Hence the highest
punishment is payment of the wergyld: a capital thief is wergyld-þeóf.
If he cannot or will not pay, he is outlawed, that is excluded from
the benefits of the mutual guarantee among free men: he may be slain
as a common enemy, _iure belli_, or reduced to slavery, which is the
more usual result.

-----

CHAPTER XI.
FOLCLAND. BÓCLAND. LǼNLAND.

It was a wise insight into the accidents of increasing population which
limited the amount of the original éðel, or allodial estate. By leaving,
as it were, a large fund to be drawn upon, as occasion might serve, the
principle, that every freeman must be settled on land, was maintained,
without condemning society to a stationary condition, as to numbers. The
land thus left, of which the usufruct, under certain conditions, was
enjoyed by the freemen, was called Folcland, _terra publica, ager
publicus_. It was distinguished from the éðel by not becoming absolute
property in the hands of individuals, consequently by not being
hereditary. The _dominium utile_ might be granted; the _dominium
directum_ remained in the state, which was a perpetual feoffee for
certain trusts and uses. And hence folcland was subject to rents of
divers kinds, and reversion. The folcland could also be applied to
reward great public services, in which case estates of alod, or éðel,
were carved out of it, and presented to him whom the community desired
to honour[523]. The service which Wulf and Eofer did by slaying
Ongenðeów was rewarded with a grant of land and rings[524]. The clearest
view of the nature and object of folcland is given us by Beda, who
complains that it is diverted from its proper purpose,—which is, to be
granted as a support to those whose arms would defend the country,—under
pretence of erecting monasteries, which are a disgrace to their
profession. The following are his extremely important words:

-----

Footnote 523:

The τέμενος, or cut-off portion, _entail_, which service might earn
among the Greeks, is of the same character. According to tradition,
Pittacus was thus rewarded by the people of Mitylene, after overcoming
Phrynon, the Athenian champion, in single combat: τῶν δὲ Μιτυληναίων
δωρεὰς αὐτῷ μεγάλας διδόντων, ἀκοντίσας τὸ δόρυ, τοῦτο μόνον τὸ χωρίον
ἠξιώσεν, ὅσον ἐπέσχεν ἡ αἰχμή· καὶ καλεῖται νῦν Πιττάκιον. Plut. de
Malign. Herod. c. xv. The reward allotted to Horatius in the Roman
Ager ought now to be familiar to every one:

“They gave him of the corn-land
That was of public right,
As much as two strong oxen
Could plough from morn till night!”

Footnote 524:

“Geald ðone gúðræs
Geáta dryhten ...
ofer máðmum sealde
heora gehwæðrum
hund þusenda
landes and locenra beága.”
Beów. l. 5977.

-----

“And since there are both very numerous and very extensive tracts,
which, to adopt the common saying, are of use neither to God nor
man,—seeing indeed that in them there is neither maintained a regular
life according to God’s law, nor are they possessed by the soldiers or
comites of secular persons, who might defend our race from the
barbarians,—if any one, to meet the want of our time, should establish
an episcopal see in those places, he will be proved not to incur the
guilt of prevarication, but rather to perform an act of virtue[525].”

-----

Footnote 525:

Bed. Epist. ad Ecgbirhtum Archiepiscopum, § 11. (Opera Min. ii. 216.)

-----

And again, he continues:

“By which example it behoves also your Holiness, in conjunction with our
religious king, to abrogate the irreligious deeds and writings of our
predecessors, and to provide for the general advantage of our kingdom,
either in reference to God, or to the world: lest in our days, either
through the cessation of religion, the love and fear of an inspector at
home should be abandoned; or, on the other hand, the supply of our
secular militia decreasing, we should not have those who might defend
our boundaries from the incursions of barbarians. For, what is
disgraceful to say, persons who have not the least claim to the monastic
character, as you yourself best know, have got so many of these spots
into their power, under the name of monasteries, that there is really
now no place at all where the sons of nobles or veteran soldiers can
receive a grant[526]. And thus, idle and unmarried, being grown up to
manhood, they live on in no profession of chastity; and on this account,
they either cross the sea and desert the country which they ought to
serve with their arms; or, what is even more criminal and shameless,
having no profession of chastity, they give themselves up to luxury and
fornication, and abstain not even from the virgins consecrated to
God[527].”

-----

Footnote 526:

We know that these grants were regulated by the rank and condition of
the grantee. Beda, speaking of Benedict Biscop, a young Northumbrian
nobleman, says, “Cum esset minister Oswii regis, et possessionem
terrae suo gradui competentem, illo donante perciperet,” etc. Vit.
Sci. Bened. § 1. (Op. Min. ii. 140.)

Footnote 527:

Epist. § 11. (Op. Min. ii. 217, 218.)

-----

The evils of a course which, by preventing the possibility of marriage,
tends to the general neglect of morality, are as obvious in this state
of society, as in those where the indefinite partition of estates
reduces all the members of the higher classes to a state of poverty,—a
fact perfectly familiar in countries where the resources of trade are
not permitted to mitigate the mischief of subdivision.

The folcland then in England was the national stock. It is probable that
the same thing occurred in other Teutonic states, and that the folcland
there also formed a reserve from which endowments of individuals,
homeborn or foreign, and of religious houses, were made. Thus, “Princeps
de eius recuperatione simul et postulatione multum gavisus, et suum ad
hoc consensum et parentum adeptus est favorem; deditque illi in eisdem
partibus, multas possessiones _de publico_, quatinus viciniori potentia
soceris acceptior factus, non minori apud illos, quam in genitali solo
praecelleret dignitate[528].”

-----

Footnote 528:

Vit. S. Idae, Pertz, ii. 571.

-----

We cannot now tell the exact terms upon which the usufruct of the
folcland was permitted to individual holders. Much of it was probably
distributed in severalty, to be enjoyed by the grantee during his life,
and then to revert to the donor the State. As the holders of such lands
were most probably not included in the Marks, like the owners of
allodial property, they may have formed the proper basis of the original
gyldscipas, and have been more immediately subject to the jurisdiction
of the scírgemót; for it is impossible to believe that their condition
was one of such perfect freedom as that of the original allodial owners.

A portion also of the folcland may long have subsisted as common land,
subject to the general rights of all[529]. In this respect it must have
resembled the public land of the Romans. Only that, the true Roman
burghers or Patricians, being comparatively few, while the other
claimants were many, and self-defence therefore commanded the utmost
caution in admitting them to isotely,—the struggles between the
Patrician and Plebeian orders necessarily assumed in Rome a character of
exasperation and hostility which was wanting in England. But it does not
appear that in this country, the tribes of the Gewissas could have made
any claim to the folcland of the Mercians, or that those of the Welsh
would have found favour with any Saxon community.

-----

Footnote 529:

This seems the readiest way of accounting for the right of common
enjoyed by the king, ealdorman and geréfa, in nearly every part of
England; which right they could alienate to others. For the king’s
common of pasture, etc. see Cod. Dipl. Nos. 86, 119, 276, 288, etc.

-----

In whatever form the usufruct may have been granted, it was accompanied
by various settled burthens. In the first place were the inevitable
charges from which no land was ever relieved; namely military service,
alluded to by Beda, and no doubt in early times performed in person: the
repair of roads, bridges and fortifications. But besides these, there
were dues payable to the king, and the geréfa; watch and ward on various
occasions; aid in the royal hunting; convoy of messengers going and
coming on the public service, from one royal vill to another; harbouring
of the king, his messengers and huntsmen; lastly provision for his
hawks, hounds and horses. In addition to these, there were heavy
payments in kind, which were to be delivered at the royal vills, to each
of which, various districts were apparently made appurtenant, for this
purpose; and on which stores, so duly delivered, the king and his
household in some degree depended for subsistence. These were comprised
under the name Cyninges-feorm, or _Firma regis_.

It is from the occasional exemptions granted by the authority of the
king and his witan, that we learn what burthens the folcland was subject
to: it may therefore be advantageous to cite a few examples, which will
make the details clear.

Between 791 and 796, eighty hides of land at Westbury and Hanbury were
relieved by Offa from the dues to kings, dukes and their subordinates;
except these payments, that is to say, the _gafol_ at Westbury (sixty
hides), two tuns full of bright ale, and a comb full of smooth ale, and
a comb full of Welsh ale, and seven oxen, and six wethers, and forty
cheeses, and six langðero (?), and thirty ambers of rough corn, and four
ambers of meal, to the royal vill[530].

-----

Footnote 530:

Cod. Dipl. No. 166. Here, by the way, the comb is used as a liquid
measure; very probably of thirty-two gallons, the amount of the old
barrel of ale, (the present barrel is thirty-six gallons). So to this
day the hogshead is sixty-four gallons or twice thirty-two, the comb;
as the quarter is sixty-four gallons, or two combs of dry measure.
Even now in some parts of Surrey and Sussex, the peasants use peck for
two gallons of liquid measure: I have heard them speak of a peck, and
even half a bushel, of gin, brandy, beer, etc.

-----

In 863, an estate at Marsham was to pay by the year, twenty staters of
cheese, forty lambs, forty fleeces, and two days’ _pastus_[531] or
feorm, which last might be commuted for thirty silver shillings
(_argentea_)[532].

-----

Footnote 531:

The _pastus regis_ is the _gite du roi_ well known in French history.

Footnote 532:

Cod. Dipl. No. 288, see also No. 281.

-----

In 877, Bishop Tunberht, with the consent of his chapter, appropriated
lands at Nursling to the use of the refectory. His charter says he
grants it, “liberam ab omnibus terrenis difficultatibus omnium
gravitudinum, sive a pastu regis, principis, exactoris; et ab omni
aedificiorum opere, tributo, a paraveredis, a taxationibus quod dicimus
wíterǽdene; omnium rerum saecularium perpetualiter libera sit, excepta
expeditione et pontis aedificatione[533].” As he could not do this by
his own authority, he probably only means to record that they had been
so freed by the Witena-gemót.

-----

Footnote 533:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1063.

-----

In 883, twenty years later, a monastery is freed from all which the
monks were still bound to pay to the king’s hand, as cyningfeorm, both
in bright ale, beer, honey, oxen, swine and sheep, in short from all the
_gafol_, much or little, known or unknown, that belongs to the lord of
the nation[534].

-----

Footnote 534:

Ibid. No. 313.

-----

The dues from the monastery at Taunton were as follows: a feorm of one
night for the king, and eight dogs and one dog-keeper; and nine nights’
keep for the king’s falconers; and carriage with waggons and horses for
whatever he would have taken to Curry or Wilton. And if strangers came
from other parts, they were to have guidance to the nearest royal vill
upon their road[535].

-----

Footnote 535:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1084, an. 904.

-----

The payments reserved upon twenty hides at Titchbourn, which Eádweard in
901-909 granted to Denewulf of Winchester for three lives, were probably
the old royal gafol: they were now transferred to the church as
_double-commons_ for founder’s day. They amounted to, twelve sexters of
beer, twelve of sweetened Welsh ale, twenty ambers of bright ale, two
hundred large and one hundred small loaves, two oxen fresh or salted,
six wethers, four swine, four flitches, and twenty cheeses; but if the
day of payment should fall in Lent, an equivalent of fish might be paid
instead of flesh[536].

-----

Footnote 536:

Ibid. No. 1088.

-----

“Insuper etiam, hanc praedictam terram liberabo ab omni servitute
saecularium rerum, a pastu regis, episcopi, praefectorum, exactorum,
ducum, canum, vel equorum seu accipitrum; ab refectione et habitu
illorum omnium qui dicuntur Fæstingmen,” etc.[537]

-----

Footnote 537:

Ibid. No. 216, an. 822.

-----

“Sint liberati a pastu principum, et a difficultate illa quod nos
Saxonice dicimus Festingmen; nec homines illuc mittant qui accipitros
vel falcones portant, aut canes aut caballos ducunt; sed sint liberati
perpetualiter in ævum[538].”

-----

Footnote 538:

Ibid. No. 257, an. 844.

-----

“Ab opere regali et pastu regis et principis, vel iuniorum eorum; ab
hospitorum refectione vel venatorum; etiam equorum regis, falconum et
ancipitrum, et puerorum qui ducunt canes[539].”

-----

Footnote 539:

Cod. Dipl. No. 258, an. 845.

-----

“Ut sit liberatum et absolutum illud monasterium ab illis causis quas
Cumfeorme et Eafor vocitemus; tum a pastu accipitrorum meorum, quam
etiam venatorum omnium, vel a pastu equorum meorum omnium, sive
ministrorum eorum. Quid plura, ab omni illa incommoditate Æfres et
Cumfeorme, nisi istis causis quas hic nominamus: praecones si trans mare
venirent ad regem venturi, vel nuncii de gente Occidentalium Saxonum vel
de gente Northanhymbrorum, si venirent ad horam tertiam diei vel ad
medium diem, dabitur illis prandium; si venirent super nonam horam, tunc
dabitur eis noctis pastum, et iterum de mane pergent in viam suam[540].”

-----

Footnote 540:

Ibid. No. 261, an. 848.

-----

“Et illam terram iii manentium in Beonetlege, in occidentale plaga
Saebrine etiam liberabo a pascua porcorum re[g]is, quod nominamus
Fearnleswe[541].”

-----

Footnote 541:

Ibid. No. 277, an. 855.

-----

“Liberabo illud a pastu et ab refectione omnium ancipitrum et falconum
in terra Mercensium, et omnium venatorum regis vel principis, nisi
ipsorum tantum qui in provincia Hwicciorum sunt; etiam similiter et a
pastu et refectione illorum hominum quos Saxonice nominamus Wælhfæreld,
⁊ heora fæsting, ⁊ ealra Angelcynnes monna, ⁊ ælþeódigra rǽdefæstinge,
tam nobilium quam ignobilium[542].”

-----

Footnote 542:

Ibid. No. 278, an. 855.

-----

In 875, Ceólwulf, the intrusive king of Mercia, freed all the bishopric
of Worcester, “tota parochia Hwicciorum,”—in other words all the
churches belonging to it,—from the “pastus equorum regis,” and their
keepers[543].

-----

Footnote 543:

Cod. Dipl. No. 306, an. 875.

Many of the instances we meet with, both in England and upon the
Continent, are those of churches or monasteries: this is natural,
inasmuch as the clergy were most likely to obtain and record these
exemptions. But how, it may be asked, did it happen that such exemptions
were necessary? It seems to me that, when Christianity was introduced,
and folcland was granted for the erection or the endowment of a church,
the burthens were not always discharged; and that the piety of later
times was occasionally appealed to, to remedy the carelessness or alter
the policy of early founders.

Folcland may be considered the original and general name of all estates
save the hlot, _sors_ or alód of the first markmen: the whole country
was divided into Folclands, containing one or more hides, subject to
folcriht or the public law,—and hence having no privilege or immunity of
any sort; in many instances where Beda uses _terra unius tributarii_,
_terra familiae unius_, and similar expressions, he can only mean to
denote separate and distinct portions of folcland, and the words of
Ælfred’s translation imply the same thing.

The power of disposal over this land lay in the nation itself, or the
state; that is, in the king and his witan; but in what way, or by what
ceremonies, it was conferred, we no longer know. Still there is great
probability that it was done by some of those well-known symbols, which
survived both at home and abroad in the familiar forms of livery of
seisin,—by the straw, the rod or yard, the _cespes viridis_ and the
like[544]. We may however distinctly assert that it was not given by
book or charter, inasmuch as this form was reserved to pass estates
under very different circumstances.

-----

Footnote 544:

Perhaps in a case of this sort, even Ingulf may be trusted: he tells
us, with some reference however to the Norman forms of livery, with
which he was familiar, “Conferebantur etiam primo multa praedia nudo
verbo, absque scripto vel charta, tantum cum domini gladio, vel galea,
vel cornu, vel cratera; et plurima tenementa cum calcari, cum
strigili, cum arcu, et nonnulla cum sagitta.” Hist. Croyl. p. 70.

-----

The very fact that folcland was not the object of a charter causes our
information respecting it to be meagre: it is merely incidentally and
fortuitously that it is mentioned in those documents from which we
derive so much valuable insight into the antiquities of Saxon England.
But even from them we may infer that it was not hereditary.

Towards the end of the ninth century, Ælfred, who appears to have been
ealdorman or duke of Surrey, devised his lands by will. He left almost
all his property to his daughter; and to his son Æðelwald (perhaps an
illegitimate child,) he gave only three hides of hereditary land,
bócland, expressing however his hope that the king would permit his son
to hold the folcland he himself had held. But as this was uncertain, in
order to meet the case of a disappointment, he directed that if the king
refused this, his daughter should choose which she would give her
brother, of two hereditary estates which he had devised to her[545].

-----

Footnote 545:

Cod. Dipl. No. 317.

-----

Again, shortly before the Conquest, we find Abbot Wulfwold thus
informing Gisa bishop of Wells, Ægelnoð the abbot, Tofig the sheriff,
and all the thanes in Somerset[546]:

“Eádweard the king, my lord, gave me the land at Corfestige which my
father held, and the four farms at Æscwíc, and the fields of meadow-land
thereunto belonging, and in wood and field so much that I had pasture
for my cattle and the cattle of my men; and all as free in every respect
as the king’s own demesne, to give or sell, during my day or after my
day, to whomsoever it best pleases me.”

-----

Footnote 546:

Members of the scírgemót or county-court: hence the instrument is of a
solemn and legal description. Cod. Dipl. No. 821.

-----

In both these cases it is clear that the land was holden as a benefice;
that the tenant had only a life interest, which Wulfwold however
succeeded in converting into a _fee_.

As the State were the grantors, so also there appears to have been no
restriction as to the persons of the grantees. Of course this does not
include serfs, or others below the degree of freemen; although an
emancipated serf may sometimes have been provided with an estate of
folcland, by general donation. But there is no reason to doubt that
every other class might obtain grants of folcland. Those of a duke and
of various bishops have been mentioned; Wulfwold’s father was probably,
at least a thane. But even the king himself could and did hold land of
this description. The boundary of an estate is said to run to the king’s
folcland; “ab occidente Cyninges folcland quod habet Wighelm et
Wulfláf[547].”

-----

Footnote 547:

Cod. Dipl. No. 281.

-----

At a very early period however it became a practice to carve hereditary
estates out of the folcland, which thus became the private property of
the individual, and could by him be given, sold, or devised at his
pleasure; by which the reversion to the state was defeated, and the
common stock insofar diminished. It was also usual to release such land
from all the dues which had previously been rendered from it, and to
make it absolutely free[548], with the exception of the three services
which were inevitably incident to all landed possession, and which are
consequently known by the names of _Communis labor_, _Generalis
incommoditas_, _Onus inevitabile_, _Trinoda necessitas_, and similar
expressions. These estates were always granted by book or charter, and
hence bore the name of bócland: and it is questionable whether the two
descriptions did not, at a very early period, comprise all the land in
England, as the families of the first allodial possessors died out, and
their possessions either reverted to the state, or became alienated
under circumstances which included them in the category of bócland.

-----

Footnote 548:

Hence a free hide, _hida libera_, is properly called “án hiwisc
ægefæles landes,” a hide of land that pays no gafol or tax. Cod. Dipl.
No. 1070.

-----

We learn that the pretext upon which these conversions of folcland into
bócland were made at first, was the erection and endowment of a
religious house upon the land, by the grantee; and we also learn that
sometimes the conversion was made, the thane presented with the estate,
but the church or monastery not constructed. Soon after the introduction
of Christianity into Northumberland, it appears indeed to have been
customary to grant much greater privileges and immunities to
church-lands than were found advisable at a later period, or than seem
to have been permitted in the provinces south of the Humber. It stands
to reason that there could be no reversion in lands granted to a
corporation: hence folcland which had been presented to a church assumed
what may be called a hereditary character[549], and could only lapse by
total destruction of the particular body,—a circumstance which could
obviously never be contemplated, but which did actually occur during the
civil wars, internal dissensions and foreign invasions, which gradually
changed the face of the whole country[550]. But the lands which the
Northumbrian princes devoted to pious purposes, were most likely
relieved from all burthens whatsoever: we have conclusive evidence that
even military service was excused in that district before the time of
Beda. In all probability, it was not suspected how much the defences of
the country might become impaired by grants of the kind. The passages
already cited from Beda’s epistle to Ecgberht may be adduced in
corroboration of these assertions, but we have more direct evidence in
his history[551]. Oswiú on his conversion placed his daughter Eánflǽd in
the convent presided over by Hild, and with her he gave twelve estates,
“possessiunculae terrarum,” most likely folcland, each estate comprising
ten hides; in which, Beda continues, “Ablato studio militiae terrestris,
ad exercendam militiam coelestem locus facultasque suppeteret,”—or as
the Saxon translator expresses it, “Those twelve bóclands he freed from
earthly warfare and earthly service, to be employed in heavenly
warfare.” It is very clear that the duties of military service were
removed in this case, and that religious warfare was to be the
destination of those that held the lands. Similarly when Benedict Biscop
decided upon devoting himself to a monastic life, he surrendered his
lands to the king[552]. These must obviously have been folcland, the
retaining of which he considered impossible, under the circumstances;
and which, not being his own, he could not take with him into a
monastery: “despexit militiam cum corruptibili donativo terrestrem, ut
vero regi militaret;” and these words of Beda clearly show how we are to
understand what he says of Oswiú's grant to Whitby.

-----

Footnote 549:

Land is sometimes called Bishop-land, which I imagine to be the legal
designation of this particular estate.

Footnote 550:

This was the case with Peterborough, Ely and other ancient foundations
restored in the time of Eádgar. He himself says of Ely: “Nú wæs se
hálga stede yfele forlæten mid læssan þæówdóme ðonne ús gelícode nú on
úrum tíman, and eác wæs gehwyrfed ðám cyninge tó handa, ic cweðe be me
silfum.” Cod. Dip. No. 563.

Footnote 551:

Hist. Eccl. iii. 24.

Footnote 552:

Bed. Vit. Sci. Bened. § 1. (Op. Minor, ii. 140.)

-----

The gaining of a hereditary character for lands, and especially the
relief from heavy dues, were advantages which might speedily arouse the
avarice and stimulate the invention even of barbarians. Accordingly
those who could gain access to the ear of the king and his witan,
bought, or begged or extorted grants of privileged land, which they
either converted entirely into private estates, or upon which they
erected monasteries, nominally such: and over these, which they filled
with irregular and often profligate monks, they assumed the jurisdiction
of abbots; with such little advantage to the service of religion, that
we have seen Beda describe them as a public scandal, and recommend even
the desperate remedy of cancelling, by royal and episcopal authority,
the _privilegia_ or charters on which their immunities reposed.

To the growing prevalence of this fraud we probably owe it that, at
least in Wessex, the custom arose of confiscating land on which the
conditions of the grant had not been fulfilled. Thus Ini called in the
lands which Cissa had granted to Hean the abbot and Cille the abbess,
his sister, because no religious buildings had been erected thereon:
“Sed Ini rex eandem terram, postea dum regno potiretur, _diripiens ac
reipublicae restituit_, nondum constructo monasterio in ea, nec ullo
admodum oratorio erecto[553];” that is, as I understand it, folcland
they had been, and folcland they again became. But even this did not
meet all the exigencies of the case, and it therefore probably became
necessary, even in bócland granted to the church, to reserve the
military and other services, which the clergy could cause to be
performed by their own dependent cultivators or tenants, even if they
were not compelled to serve themselves,—a point which is by no means
clear[554].

-----

Footnote 553:

Cod. Dipl. No. 46.

Footnote 554:

“Quam videlicet terram Alhmundus abbas, expeditionem subterfugiens,
mihi reconciliationis gratia dabat.” Cod. Dipl. No. 161.

-----

A majority of the documents contained in the Codex Diplomaticus Ævi
Saxonici are conversions of folcland into bócland, or confirmations of
such conversions. They almost universally contain a clause declaring or
_proclaiming_—such is the technical word for this important public act,
by which prince and king, ealdorman and sheriff, were at once made
strangers to the land—the estate free from every burthen save the
inevitable three; a clause giving the fullest hereditary possession, and
the power to dispose of it by will at the testator’s pleasure; and
finally a clause stating that this is done by the authority of the king,
with the advice, consent and license of his Witan or counsellors. They
remain therefore to the last important public acts, and are, I believe
universally, to be considered acts of the assembled Witena-gemót or
great council of the nation[555]. And as by their authority folcland
could be converted into bócland, so it appears could the reverse take
place; and a change in the nature of two estates is recorded[556], where
the king gave five ploughlands of folcland for five of bócland, and then
made the folcland bócland, the bócland folcland.

-----

Footnote 555:

See hereafter the chapter which treats of the Witan and their powers.
Book ii. ch. 6.

Footnote 556:

Cod. Dipl. No. 281.

-----

In this general spoliation it is to be supposed that the kings would not
omit to share: accordingly we find them causing estates to be booked to
them by their witan; which estates, when thus become their private and
heritable property, they devise and deal with at their pleasure: and
indeed, as the king’s consent was necessary to all such conversions, he
was much better able to obtain that of his witan in his own case, than
bishops, thanes or others were in their cases: these generally found
themselves compelled to pay handsomely for the favour they required.
With respect to ecclesiastical lands, we frequently find a loss of very
large estates submitted to, in order to secure freedom to what remained.
There are also a few instances in which lands having descended,
encumbered with payments, the owners engage some powerful noble or
ecclesiastic to obtain their freedom,—that is, to persuade the witan
into abolishing the charges. The gratuity offered to the member whose
influence was to carry these ancient private acts of parliament, is
often very considerable. Towards the closing period of the Anglosaxon
polity, I should imagine that nearly every acre of land in England had
become bócland; and that as, in consequence of this, there was no more
room for the expansion of a free population, the condition of the
freemen became depressed, while the estates of the lords increased in
number and extent. In this way the ceorlas or free cultivators gradually
vanished, yielding to the ever growing force of the noble class,
accepting a dependent position upon their bócland, and standing to right
in their courts, instead of their own old county gemótas; while the
lords themselves ran riot, dealt with their once free neighbours at
their own discretion, and filled the land with civil dissensions which
not even the terrors of a foreign invasion could still. Nothing can be
more clear than that the universal breaking up of society in the time of
Æðelred had its source in the ruin of the old free organization of the
country. The successes of Swegen and Cnut, and even of William the
Norman, had much deeper causes than the mere gain or loss of one or more
battles. A nation never falls till “the citadel of its moral being” has
been betrayed and become untenable. Northern invasions will not account
for the state of brigandage which Æðelred and his Witan deplore in so
many of their laws. The ruin of the free cultivators and the overgrowth
of the lords are much more likely causes. At the same time it is even
conceivable that, but for the invasions of the ninth and tenth
centuries, the result which I have described might have come upon us
more suddenly. The sword and the torch, plague, pestilence and famine
are very effectual checks to the growth of population, and sufficient
for a long time to adjust the balance between the land and those it has
to feed.

An estate of bócland might be subject to conditions. It was perhaps not
always easy to obtain from the Witan all that avarice desired:
accordingly we sometimes find limitations in grants, to a certain number
of lives with remainders and reversions. And it was both law and custom
not only that the first acquirer might impose what conditions he pleased
upon the descent of the estate, but that to all time his expressed will
in that respect should bind those who derived their title from him[557].
Ælfred requires his Witan, who are the guarantees and administrators of
his will, to see that he has not violated the disposition of his
ancestors by leaving lands to women which had been entailed on the male
line, and _vice versâ_[558]; and we have cases of grants solemnly
avoided for like want of conformity. More questionable in point of
principle is the right attempted to be set up by some of these
purchasers, to bar escheat and forfeiture of the land upon felony of
their heirs or devisees.

-----

Footnote 557:

Leg. Ælfr. § 41.

Footnote 558:

Cod. Dipl. No. 314.

-----

It is to be presumed that a tenant of folcland was permitted to let the
same,—upon condition no doubt that he conveyed no estate superior to his
own. The holders must have been allowed to place poor settlers upon
their estates, whose rents and services, in labour and kind, would be
important to their own subsistence. Of course in bócland no limitation
could be thought of; it was the absolute, inheritable property of the
purchaser, and he could in general dispose of it as freely as if it were
alod itself. But there seems no reason to doubt that much the same
course was adopted in both descriptions of estate; the folcland being
held beyond question for term of life, at every period of which our
history takes cognizance, whatever may have been the case at first. A
portion called the inland, or _dominium_, _demesne_, was reserved for
the lord’s homestead, house and farms, and the dwellings of his serfs,
esnes, læts, and other unfree and poor dependents. This was cultivated
for him by their industry, and he repaid their services by protection,
food, clothing, and small perquisites, all of which now pass under the
general name of wages[559]. On the upland and in the forests, sometimes
his own, sometimes subject only to his rights of common, they tended his
sheep, oxen and steeds at the fold, or his swine in the mast, lying out
during the appointed season of the year[560], or within the circuit of
his own inclosures they exercised such simple manufactures as the
necessities of the household required. The spinner and weaver, the
glove- or shoemaker, the smith and carpenter, were all parts of the
family. The butter and cheese, bread and bacon, were made at home; the
beer was brewed and the honey collected by the household. The remainder
of the land the owner leased on various conditions to men who had no
land; demanding in return for that commodity, indispensable in a country
which has not yet learnt to manufacture, rents paid in kind, in labour,
and even in money. This labour-rent, yet called _robot_ in Slavonic
countries, as well as the other dues, naturally varied in various
districts, partly with the importance of land[561], to the cultivator,
and the value of its produce to the owner. And at last political motives
may have had some weight, when the number and condition of a man’s
dependents might affect his own influence and position in the state: but
in general we shall be justified in saying that land was very valuable,
and the conditions on which it was to be obtained harsh and
onerous[562]. Such land, whether in large or in small portions, whether
leased on long or short terms, large or small rents, was called by the
common name of Lǽn, or loan[563]. It was considered to be lent; and
where the lǽn was on folcland, it is obvious that no certain time could
be assigned, and that the after-tenant could have only a tenancy at
will. In any case it was reasonable that misconduct in the holder, which
would have entailed upon him the forfeiture of his own real property,
should not be permitted to interfere with the rights of the reversioner:
lǽnland therefore could not be taken from the owner, for the crime of
the tenant. In the year 900 a certain Helmstán was guilty of theft, and
the sheriff seized all his chattels to the king: and Ordláf entered upon
the land, “because it was his lǽn that Helmstán sat on: that he could
not forfeit[564].” A similar principle prevailed in grants for lives,
especially where ecclesiastical corporations were the grantors and
reversioners; and which, though to a certain extent they conveyed
estates of bócland, gave, strictly speaking, lǽn or beneficiary
tenures[565]. But as the clergy were not always quite sure of meeting
with fair treatment, we find them not unfrequently introducing into
their instruments a provision that no forfeiture shall be valid against
their rights; this, from the great strictness with which the provisions
of a book or charter were always construed, and in general from the fear
of violating what had been confirmed by the signature of the cross and
the threat of eternal punishment, may have had some effect. In such
cases it may be presumed that the guilt of the grantee entirely
cancelled the grant; the remaining lives, if any, losing the advantage
which they derived through the grantee; forfeiture really taking effect,
but for the benefit of the grantor, not the civil power[566]. The tenant
of lǽnland, who by his services acquired the good will of the lord,
might hope to have his tenure improved, if not into an absolute
possession of bócland, yet into one for his own or more lives. In a
translation of St. Augustine of Hippo’s Soliloquia, attributed like so
many other things to Ælfred of Wessex, there occurs this passage[567]:

-----

Footnote 559:

Wages of course need not comprise money, or be the result of a compact
between free parties. We pay a slave wages, though no _penny fee_. It
is a different question whether it is advisable that labourers should
be slaves: the Anglosaxons had their peculiar views on that subject,
which we are not to discuss now.

Footnote 560:

“Alio quoque tempore, in adolescentia sua, dum adhuc esset in populari
vita, quando in montanis iuxta fluvium, quod dicitur Leder, cum aliis
pastoribus, pecora domini sui pascebat,” etc. Anon. Cuðberht, cap. 8.
(Beda, Op. Min. ii. 262.) “Contigit eum remotis in montibus
commissorum sibi pecorum agere custodiam.” Beda, Cuðb. c. 4. Op. Min.
ii. 55. The Hungarian Salas on the Pusta is much the same thing, at
the present day.

Footnote 561:

The “Rectitudines Singularum Personarum” inform us that they were very
different in different places, which necessarily would be the case. We
can imagine that a butsecarl or fisherman of Kent was not so anxious
to have a holding as a peasant in Gloucestershire.

Footnote 562:

Even in the eighth century Ini found it necessary to enact, that if a
man took land on condition of gafol or produce-rent, and his lord
endeavoured to raise his rent also to service, he need not abide by
the bargain, unless the lord would build him a house: and he was, in
such a case, not to lose the crop he had prepared. Ini, § 67. Thorpe,
i. 146.

Footnote 563:

The transitory possessions of this life were often so described, in
reference to the Almighty: “ða ǽhta ðe him God álǽned hæfð.” Cod.
Dipl. No. 699. A lǽn for life, even though guarded by a very detailed
bóc or charter, is distinctly called _beneficium_ by the grantee,
Æðelbald of Wessex. Cod. Dipl. No. 1058.

Footnote 564:

Cod. Dipl. No. 328.

Footnote 565:

Thus Ealhfrið bishop of Winchester (871-877) making a grant for lives
to duke Cúðred, properly calls it a lǽn: “Ealferð ⁊ ða higan habbað
gelǽned,” etc. Cod. Dipl. No. 1062. They reserved ecclesiastical, but
no secular dues.

Footnote 566:

Oswald’s grants generally contain a special clause to that effect: see
Cod. Dipl. Nos. 494, 495, 506, 507, 509, 511, 529, 531, 538, 540, 552.

Footnote 567:

MS. Cott. Vitel. A. xv. fol. 2. “Ac ǽlcne man lyst, siððan he ǽnig
cotlif on his hláfordes lǽne mid his fultume getimbred hæfð, ðæt he
hine móte hwílum ðǽron gerestan, ⁊ huntigan, ⁊ fuglian ⁊ fiscan, ⁊ his
on gehwylicwísan tó ðǽre lǽnan tilian, ǽgðer ge on sǽ ge on lande, oð
oð ðone fyrst ðe he bócland ⁊ éce yrfe þurh his hláfordes miltse
ge-earnige.” Whether land so put out was called earningland, I will
not affirm; but at the close of a grant for three lives I find this
memorandum: “Two of the lives have fallen in; then Eádwulf took it,
and granted it to whomsover he would as earningland.” Cod. Dipl. No.
679. Cotlif seems in other passages to denote small estates not
necessarily on lǽn. The Saxon Chronicle, an. 963, for example uses
that term of the lands which Æðelwold gave to Ely, after purchasing
them of the king. This it is clear he could not have done, had they
been on any person’s lǽn. Were they not perhaps settlements of
unlicensed squatters who had built their cottages on the king’s waste
and deserted lands—the old Mark—in the isle of Ely and Cambridgeshire?
But again the Chronicle, an. 1001, speaks of the hám or vill at
Waltham, _and many other cotlifs_.

-----

“But it pleaseth every man, when he hath built himself some cottage upon
his lord’s lǽn, with his assistance, for a while to take up his rest
thereon, and hunt, and fowl and fish, and in divers ways provide for
himself upon the lǽn, both by sea and land, until the time when by his
lord’s compassion he can earn a bócland and eternal inheritance.”

And instances occur in more formal documents. In 977, Oswald, Archbishop
of York and Bishop of Worcester, made a grant of three hides at
Teddington, for three lives, to Eádríc his thane, with reversion to
Worcester: “Now there are three hides of this land which Archbishop
Oswald booketh to Eádríc his thane, both near town and from town, even
as he before held them as lǽnland[568].”

-----

Footnote 568:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 617, 651.

-----

In another grant of the same prelate, between 972-992, made to his
_client_ Ælfsige, of a dwelling in Worcester city, for three lives, he
adds, “Also we write [or book] to him the croft appurtenant to that
tenement, which lies to the east of Wulfsige’s croft; that he may hold
it in as large measure, for bócland, as he before held it for
lǽnland[569].”

-----

Footnote 569:

Ibid. No. 679.

-----

In 977, the same convent at Worcester booked three hides for three lives
to the monk Wynsige, even as his father had held them[570]; and in
978-992, they gave to Goding the priest, also for three lives, the
tenement which he himself had without the city gate[571]. In both these
cases lǽn appears to have been converted into estate for successive
lives.

-----

Footnote 570:

Ibid. No. 616.

Footnote 571:

Ibid. No. 683.

-----

Where there was lǽn, there could properly be no book, because the
possession of the charter itself was _prima facie_ evidence (indeed
nearly conclusive evidence) in favour of the holder. Hence, where from
any circumstance the books were withheld, the tenant had only a lǽn:
this was the case with Helmstán’s estates mentioned above: he had
deposited his charters with Ordláf as a security on an occasion when
this duke helped him to make oath to some property. On Helmstán’s
felony, Ordláf seized the land to himself, and the document from which
we learn this is obviously his appeal to Ælfred’s son and successor,
against an attempt to disturb Helmstán’s original title, under a
judgment given by Ælfred. Nor was it unusual for books to be thus
retained as securities, by which the tenant having only a lǽn could be
evicted, if not at pleasure, at least by legal process[572]. And the
same remarks apply to a very common mode of disposing of estates, where
the clergy were grantees. Either to avoid litigation with justly
exasperated heirs, or to escape from the commands of various synods, the
clergy used to take deeds of gift from living tenants, impounding the
books of course, and leaving the life-interest only to the owner. Such
an estate in technical Latin was named _praestaria_; but it was
obviously a lǽn, and was generally charged with recognitory
payments[573].

-----

Footnote 572:

See the case of the estate at Cowling, in the trial between Queen
Eádgyfu and Goda. Cod. Dipl. No. 499.

Footnote 573:

Examples of this are found in Cod. Dipl. Nos. 429, 754, 1351, 1354, §
6.

-----

It may not be uninteresting, before I close this chapter, to give some
examples of the gafol or rent paid upon lands whether held for lives, or
as, more strictly, lǽnland. They are extremely valuable from the insight
they give into the details of social life, and the daily habits of our
forefathers.

Twenty hides of land at Sempringham were leased by Peterborough to
Wulfred for two lives, on condition of his getting its freedom, and that
of Sleaford (both in Lincolnshire): upon this estate the following
yearly rent was reserved. First, to the monastery: two tons of bright
ale, two oxen, fit for slaughter, two _mittan_ or measures of Welsh ale,
and six hundred loaves. Secondly to the abbot’s private estate: one
horse, thirty shillings of silver or half a pound, one night’s _pastus_,
fifteen _mittan_ of bright and five of Welsh ale, fifteen _sesters_ of
mild ale[574].

-----

Footnote 574:

Cod. Dipl. No. 267. an. 852. The mitta and other measures are unknown.
However the sester of corn was one horse-load (Hen. Hunt. lib. vi. an.
1044); _quære_, What he could carry, or what he could draw? In the
middle of the eleventh century, the sester of honey was thirty-two
ounces. Cod. Dipl. No. 950.

-----

A little earlier, Oswulf, a duke in Kent, devised lands to Christchurch
Canterbury, which he charged with annual doles to the poor upon his
anniversary. Forty hides at Stanhampstead were to find one hundred and
twenty loaves of wheat, thirty loaves of fine wheat[575], one fat ox and
four sheep, two flitches of bacon, five geese, ten hens, and ten pounds
of cheese. If it fell on a fast-day, however, there was to be (instead
of the meat) a _wey_ of cheese, and fish, butter, eggs _ad libitum_.
Moreover, thirty ambers of good Welsh ale, on the footing of fifteen
_mittan_, and one _mitta_ of honey (perhaps to make into a drink) or two
of wine. From his land at Burnan were to issue one thousand loaves, and
one thousand raised loaves or cakes; and the monks themselves were to
find one hundred and twenty more of the latter[576].

Footnote 575:

They are called _clean_. These probably were made of flour passed
oftener through the boulter. The common loaf had no doubt still much
bran in it, and answers to our _seconds_. But it is probable that
bread was generally made of rye.

Footnote 576:

Cod. Dipl. No. 226. an. 805-831. The sufl-loaf which I have translated
_raised_, is I presume derived from the word _sufflare_, and was
probably carefully leavened. We unhappily have not the Anglosaxon
receipt for beer; but I presume the text implies that fifteen
_mittan_, whatever they were, of malt were to go to the amber.
Oswulf’s character for splendid liberality will induce us to believe
that he meant the monks to have an _Audit_ ale of their own, as well
as our worthy Fellows of Trinity College Cambridge.

-----

Werhard gave two juga or geoc of land to Canterbury. The rent of one at
Lambahám was forty _pensas_ (weys) of cheese, or an equivalent in lambs
and wool; the other, at Northwood, rendered one hundred and twenty
measures, which the English call ambers, of salt[577].

-----

Footnote 577:

Cod. Dipl. No. 220. an. 832.

-----

Lufe, in 832, charged the inheritors and assigns of her land at
Mundlinghám, with the following yearly payment to Canterbury, for ever;
that is to say: Sixty ambers of malt, one hundred and fifty loaves,
fifty white loaves, one hundred and twenty alms-loaves, one ox, one hog
and four wethers, two weys of bacon and cheese, one mitta of honey, ten
geese and twenty hens[578].

-----

Footnote 578:

Ibid. No. 231.

-----

In 835, Abba, a reeve in Kent, charged his heirs with a yearly payment
to Folkstone, of fifty ambers of malt, six ambers of groats (gruta?),
three weys of bacon and cheese, four hundred loaves, one ox, and six
sheep, besides an allowance or stipend in money to the priests[579]. And
Heregyð, his wife, farther burthened her land at Challock with payments
to Canterbury, amounting to: thirty ambers of ale, three hundred loaves,
fifty of them white, one wey of bacon and cheese, one old ox, four
wethers, and one hog, or six wethers, six geese and ten hens, one sester
of honey, one of butter, and one of salt; and if her anniversary should
fall in winter, she added thirty wax-lights[580].

-----

Footnote 579:

Ibid. No. 235.

Footnote 580:

Cod. Dipl. No. 235.

-----

In 902, Bishop Denewulf leased fifteen hides of church-land at Eblesburn
to his relative Beornwulf for forty-five shillings a year, with liberty
to Beornwulf’s children to continue the lease. One shilling (sixty of
which went to the pound) is so very small a rent for ten acres, that we
must either suppose the land to have been unusually bad, or Beornwulf’s
connection with the bishop much in his favour[581]. He was also to aid
in cyricbót, and pay the cyric-sceat. About the same time Denewulf
leased forty hides at Alresford to one Ælfred, at the old rent of three
pounds per annum, or four shillings and a half per hide. He was however
also to pay _church-shot_, the amount of which is not stated, and to do
_church-shot-work_, and find men to the bishop’s reaping and
hunting[582].

-----

Footnote 581:

Ibid. No. 1079.

Footnote 582:

Ibid. No. 1086. In both cases the rent is called gafol.

-----

Between 901-909, king Eádweard booked twenty hides of land to Bishop
Denewulf. The payments reserved have been already mentioned: instead of
going to the king as gafol or rent, they were to be expended in an
anniversary feast on founder’s day. I have already stated that this may
be the old charge on folcland: it was a grant from the monks to the
bishop, probably negotiated by Eádweard. All parties were satisfied: the
monks probably got from the land as much as they could expect from any
other tenant, or what, if folcland, they would themselves have had to
pay; the bishop got the land into his own hands, to dispose of at his
pleasure, and the king was rewarded for intervention with all the
benefits to be derived on his anniversary from the prayers of the
grateful fathers at Winchester.

At the close of the ninth century, Werfrið bishop of Worcester claimed
land under the following circumstances. Milred a previous bishop had
granted an estate in Sopbury, on condition that it was to be always held
by a clergyman, and never by a layman, and that if no clergyman could be
found in the grantee’s family, it should revert to the see. By degrees
the family of the grantee established themselves in the possession, but
without performing the condition. At length Werfrið impleaded their
chief Eádnóð, who admitted the wrong and promised to find a clergyman.
The family however all refused to enter into holy orders. Eádnóð then
obtained the intercession of Æðelred duke of Mercia, the lady Æðelflǽd,
and Æðelnóð duke of Somerset; and by their persuasion, Werfrið (in
defiance of his predecessor’s charter) sold the land to Eádnóð for forty
mancuses, reserving a yearly rent of fifteen shillings, and a vestment
(or perhaps some kind of hanging) to be delivered at the episcopal manor
of Tetbury[583].

-----

Footnote 583:

Cod. Dipl. No. 327.

-----

Ealdwulf bishop of Worcester leased forty acres of land and a fishery
for three lives to Leofenað, on condition that they delivered yearly
fifteen salmon, and those good ones too, during the bishop’s residence
in Worcester, on Ashwednesday[584].

-----

Footnote 584:

Ibid. No. 695. I have rendered “forme fæstenes dæg” as if it were
_Caput jejunii_.

-----

Eádríc _gafeled_ (gafelian), i. e. paid yearly rent or gafol for two
hides with half a pound, or thirty shillings, and a _gare_, a word I do
not understand[585].

-----

Footnote 585:

Ibid. No. 699.

-----

In 835, the Abbess Cyneware gave land to Hunberht, a duke, on condition
that he paid a _gablum_, gafol or rent of three hundred shillings in
lead yearly to Christchurch Canterbury[586].

-----

Footnote 586:

Ibid. No. 1043.

-----

The ceorlas or dependent freemen who were settled upon the land of
Hurstbourn in the days of Ælfred, had the following rents to pay; many
of these are labour rents, many arise out of the land itself, viz. are
part of the produce.

From each hide, at the autumnal equinox, forty pence. Further they were
to pay, six church-mittan of ale, and three sesters or horseloads of
white wheat. Out of their own time they were to plough three acres, and
sow them with their own seed, to house the produce, to pay three pounds
of gafol-barley, to mow half an acre of gafolmead and stack the hay, to
split four foðer orloads of gafolwood and stack it, to make sixteen rods
of gafol-hedging[587]. At Easter they were further to pay two ewes and
lambs, two young sheep being held equivalent to one old one: these they
were to wash and shear out of their own time. Lastly, every week they
were to do any work which might be required of them, except during the
three weeks, at Christmas, Easter and the Gangdays[588].

-----

Footnote 587:

Gafolbære, gafolmǽd, gafolwidu, gafoltúning. The Saxons knew well
enough that all these things were _rent_; and all land put out upon
rent of any kind was gafolland, gafolcund or _gavelkind_ land.

Footnote 588:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1077.

-----

The following customs and payments are recorded in various manors: some
of the words I cannot translate. “In Dyddanham there are thirty hides;
nine of these are inland (demesne), twenty-one are let[589]. In Stræt
are twelve hides, twenty-seven yards of gafolland; and on the Severn
there are thirty cytweras[590]. In Middleton are five hides, fourteen
yards of gafolland, fourteen cytweras on the Severn, and two hæcweras on
the Way. At Kingston there are five hides, thirteen yards of gafolland,
and one hide above the ditch which is now also gafolland, and that
without the ham[591], is still in part inland, in part let out on rent
to the ship-wealas[592]: to Kingston belong twenty-one cytweras on the
Severn, and twelve on the Way. In Bishopstún are three hides, and
fifteen cytweras on the Way: in Lancawet are three hides, two hæcweras
on the Way, and two cytweras.

“Throughout that land each yardland pays twelve pence, and four
alms-pence: at every weir within the thirty hides, every second fish
belongs to the landlord, besides every uncommon fish worth having,
sturgeon or porpoise, herring or sea-fish; and no one may sell any fish
for money when the lord is on the land, until he have had notice of the
same. In Dyddenham the services are very heavy. The geneát must work, on
the land or off the land, as he is commanded, and ride and carry, lead
load and drive drove, and do many things beside. The gebúr must do his
rights; he must plough half an acre for week-work, and himself pay the
seed in good condition into the lord’s barn for _church-shot_, at all
events from his own barn: towards _werbold_[593], forty large trees[594]
or one load of rods; or eight _geocu_ build[595], three _ebban_ close:
of field enclosure fifteen rods, or let him ditch fifteen; and let him
ditch one rod of burg-enclosure; reap an acre and a half, mow half an
acre; work at other works ever according to their nature. Let him pay
sixpence after Easter, half a sester of honey at Lammas, six sesters of
malt at Martinmas, one clew of good net yarn. In the same land it is
customary that he who hath seven swine shall give three, and so forth
always the tenth, and nevertheless pay for common of masting, if mast
there be[596].”

-----

Footnote 589:

_Geset land_ I have rendered by set out or let; as land is afterwards
said to be set out to rent, tó gafole gesett.

Footnote 590:

The cytweras and hæcweras were weirs or places for taking fish, but I
cannot distinguish their nature. The names would induce us to think
the former were shaped like a modern eel-trap, the latter were formed
with a slat or hatch.

Footnote 591:

An enclosure on the water. See Cod. Dipl. iii. p. xxvii.

Footnote 592:

Welsh navigators.

Footnote 593:

Werbold, the construction of the weir or place for catching fish.

Footnote 594:

Mǽra, of large wood in opposition to rods?

Footnote 595:

Let him build eight _yokes_ in the weir, and close three _ebban_. What
these geocu and ebban are, I cannot say.

Footnote 596:

Cod. Dipl. No. 461.

-----

Unquestionably these are heavy dues, and much aggravated by the
circumstances of the estate or yardland being but small, the tenant born
free, and some of the services uncertain. I shall conclude this chapter
with a few lines translated from that most valuable document called
“Rectitudines singularum personarum[597];” as far as the cases of the
Geneát, Cotsetla and Gebúr are concerned[598]. First of the Geneát or
comrade.

“The Geneát-right is various, according to the custom of the land. In
some places he must pay landgafol, and a grass-swine yearly; ride and
carry, lead load; work and feed his lord[599]; reap and mow; hew
deer-hedge and hold _sæte_[600]; build and enclose the burh [or
mansion]; make new roads to the farm; pay church-shot and alms-fee; hold
headward and horseward; go on errand, far or near, whithersoever he is
directed.” This is comparatively free, and it is only to be regretted
that we do not know what amount of land in general could be obtained at
such a rent. We next come to the Cotsetlan, whom Ælfred in a passage
already cited states to be on lǽnland, and who are obviously poor
freemen, suffered to settle on the lord’s estate.

“The Cotsettler’s right is according to the custom. In some places he
must work for the lord, every Monday throughout the year; or three days
every week in harvest; he need pay no landgafol. He ought to have five
acres; more if it be the custom. And if it be less, it is all too
little, for his service is often called upon. He must pay his
hearth-penny on holy Thursday[601] as it behoves every freeman to do;
and he must acquit[602] his lord’s inland, on summons, at seaward and at
the king’s deer-hedge[603]; and at such things as are in his competence:
and let him pay his church-shot at Martinmas.

“The customs of the Gebúr are very various; in some places they are
heavy, but in some moderate. In some places it is usual that he shall do
two days week-work, whatever work may be commanded him, every week
throughout the year; and three days week-work in harvest, and three from
Candlemas to Easter. If he carries[604], he need not work himself as
long as his horse is out. He must pay at Michaelmas ten gafol-pence, and
at Martinmas twenty-three sesters of barley, and two hens[605]; at
Easter one young sheep or two pence; and he shall lie out from Martinmas
till Easter at the lord’s fold[606]; and from the time when the plough
is first put in till Martinmas, he shall plough one acre every week, and
make ready the seed in the lord’s barn: moreover three acres on request,
and two of grass-ploughing[607]. If he require more grass, let him earn
it on such conditions as he may. For his rent-ploughing [gafolyrð] he
shall plough three acres and sow them from his own barn; and pay his
hearth-penny; and two and two shall feed one stag-hound; and each gebúr
shall give six loaves to the inswán [that is, the swain or swineherd of
the demesne] when he drives his herds to the mast. In the same land
where these conditions prevail, the gebúr has a right, towards first
stocking his land, to receive two oxen, one cow and six sheep, and seven
acres in his yard of land, ready sown. After the first year let him do
all the customs which belong to him; and he is to be supplied with tools
for his work, and furniture for his house. When he dies, let his lord
look after what he leaves.

“This land-law prevails in some lands; but, as I have said, in some
places it is heavier, in others lighter; seeing that the customs of all
lands are not alike. In some places the gebúr must pay honey-gafol, in
some meat-gafol, in some ale-gafol. Let him that holds the shire take
heed to know always what is the old arrangement about the land, and what
the custom of the country!”

-----

Footnote 597:

Thorpe, i. 432.

Footnote 598:

The ancient Latin version calls them Villanus, Cotsetle and Gebúr.

Footnote 599:

Feormian, _firmare_; give so much as _pastus_.

Footnote 600:

Help to make park-paling, and perhaps keep watch for game.

-----

Footnote 601:

Ascension Day. Observe that the Cotsetla is distinctly asserted to be
_free_.

Footnote 602:

“Werige his hláfordes,” etc.; that is, perform for his lord, the duty
of coast-guard, and attending the king’s hunt: from which it follows
that, where there was no special exemption, these services could be
demanded of the lord: that is in case of folcland. The old Latin
translates _werian_ by _acquietare_, which I have adopted.

Footnote 603:

Either in repairing the park-paling, or in service during the hunt.

Footnote 604:

Aferian, auerian, _facit averagium_, _averiat_.

Footnote 605:

This seems an immense amount of barley, but the Saxon clearly reads as
I have translated. The old Latin version has, “Dare debet in festo
Sancti Michaelis x. den. de gablo, et Sancti Martini die xxiii et
sestarium ordei et ii gallinas.” Twenty-three pence at Martinmas is a
considerable sum; however as a sester of corn must even in ordinary
years have been worth quite that sum, it is more reasonable to follow
the Latin than the Saxon.

Footnote 606:

The fold was often distant from the homestead, and required careful
watching, especially during the dark winter months. Sheep alone were
not folded, but oxen, cows, and particularly mares: hryðrafald,
cúafald, stódfald. This system may be still seen in full force in
Hungary; and we may add that, in the article of horse and cattle
stealing, the Hungarian presents a very marked likeness to the
Anglosaxon. While reading these services, one can hardly get rid of
the notion that one is studying the description of a Hungarian
_Session_.

Footnote 607:

“Tres acras precum et duas de herbagio: þreo æceras tó béne ⁊ twá tó
gærsyðe.” If requested he shall do three acres; but only two if a
meadow is to be broken up? This is always much harder work than
ploughing on old arable. But it is difficult to reconcile this with
the next sentence. The Saxon says, “Gif he máran gærses beþyrfe,
_earnige_ ðæs swá him man þafige:” the Latin, “Si plus indigeat
herbagio, _arabit_ proinde sicut ei permittatur.” From the word
_arabit_, Thorpe suggests _erige_ instead of _earnige_. The two
readings are however consistent if we consider the expression gærsyðe
as having no connection with the gærs of the following sentence. I
suppose the meaning to be this: on extraordinary occasions, he might
be called upon by the lord to plough three acres instead of one, or in
old meadow-land, two acres. If now he himself should want more
grass-land than he already possessed, he might make a bargain with the
lord, and earn it by this labour with the plough. He was bound to give
one day’s ploughing every week from the commencement of the ploughing
season till the 11th of November: but on pressing emergency, and on
request of the lord, he must give three days (for an acre a day was
the just calculation) or in old meadow two. If his services at the
plough were still further required, he was to make a bargain with his
lord; and a common case is supposed, viz. that he required more
grass-land than he had. In this way all seems intelligible.

-----

I can only add the expression of my opinion, that a careful study of the
condition of the peasantry in the eastern parts of Europe will assist in
throwing much light upon these ancient social arrangements in this
country. Hard as in some respects the condition of the dependent freeman
appears, it must be borne in mind that the possession of land was
indispensably necessary to life, unless he was to become an absolute
serf. In a country that has little more manufacture than the simple
necessities of individual households require, no wealth of raw material
and consequently little commerce,—where households rejoice in a sort of
self-supporting, self-sufficient autonomy, and the means of internal
communication are imperfect,—land and its produce are the only wealth;
land is the only means whereby to live. But the Saxon peasant knew his
position: it was a hard one, but he bore it: he worked early and late,
but he worked cheerfully, and amidst all his toils there is no evidence
of his ever having shot at his landlord from behind a stone wall or a
hedge.

CHAPTER XII.
HEATHENDOM.

An account of the Saxons which should entirely exclude the peculiarities
of their heathendom, would be deficient in an important degree. Religion
and law are too nearly allied, particularly in early periods, for us to
neglect either, in the consideration of national institutions. The
immediate dependence of one upon the other we may not be able to show in
satisfactory detail; but we may be assured that the judicial forms are
always in near connexion with the cult, and that this is especially the
case at times when the judicial and priestly functions are in the hands
of the same class.

The Saxons were not without a system of religion, long before they heard
of Christianity, nor should we be justified in asserting that religion
to have been without moral influence upon the individual man in his
family and social relations. Who shall dare to say that the
high-thoughted barbarian did not derive comfort in affliction, or
support in difficulty, from the belief that the gods watched over
him,—that he did not bend in gratitude for the blessings they
conferred,—that he was not guided and directed in the daily business of
life by the conviction of his responsibility to higher powers than any
which he recognized in the world around him? There has been, and yet is,
religion without the pale of Christianity, however dim and meagre and
unsatisfactory that religion may appear to us whom the mercy of God has
blessed with the true light of the Gospel. Long before their conversion,
all the Germanic nations had established polities and states upon an
enduring basis,—upon principles which still form the groundwork and
stablest foundation of the greatest empires of the world,—upon
principles which, far from being abrogated by Christianity, harmonize
with its purest precepts. They who think states accidental, and would
eliminate Providence from the world, may attempt to reconcile this truth
with their doctrine of _barbarism_; to us be it permitted to believe
that, in the scheme of an all-wise and all-pervading mercy, one
condition here below may be the fitting preparation for a higher; and
that even Paganism itself may sometimes be only as the twilight, through
which the first rays of the morning sun are dimly descried in their
progress to the horizon. Without religion never was yet state founded,
which could endure for ages; the permanence of our own is the most
convincing proof of the strong foundations on which the massive fabric,
from the first, was reared.

The business of this chapter is with the heathendom of the Saxons; not
that portion of it which yet subsists among us in many of our most
cherished superstitions, some of which long lurked in the ritual of the
unreformed church, and may yet lurk in the habits and belief of many
Protestants; but that which was the acknowledged creed of the Saxon, as
it was of other Germanic populations; which once had priests and altars,
a ritual and ceremonies, temples and sacrifices, and all the pomp and
power of a church-establishment.

The proper subjects of mythological inquiry are the gods and godlike
heroes: it is through the latter—for the most part, forms of the gods
themselves—that a race connects itself with the former. Among the
nations of our race royalty is indeed _iure divino_, for the ruling
families are in direct genealogical descent from divinity, and the
possession of Wóden’s blood was the indispensable condition of kingship.
In our peculiar system, the vague records of Tuisco, the earth-born
god[608], and Man, the origin and founders of the race, have vanished;
the mystical cosmogony of Scandinavia has left no traces among us[609];
but we have nevertheless a mythological scheme which probably yielded
neither in completeness nor imaginative power to those of the German or
the Norwegian.

-----

Footnote 608:

“Celebrant carminibus antiquis.... Tuisconem deum terrâ editum et
filium Mannum, originem gentis conditoresque.” Germ. ii. So sung the
earliest Greeks:

ἀντίθεον δὲ Πέλασγον ἐν ὑψικομοῖσιν ὅρεσσι
γαῖα μέλαιν’ ἀνέηκεν ἵνα θνήτων γένος εἴη.

Footnote 609:

There is no better account of this than Geijer gives in his History of
Sweden, vol. i. _passim_.

-----

In the following pages I propose to take into consideration, first the
Gods and Goddesses, properly so called: secondly, the Monsters or
Titanic powers of our old creed: thirdly, the intermediate and as it
were ministerial beings: and lastly the god-born and heroic personages
of the epopoea.

The prudence or the contempt of the earliest Saxon Christians has left
but sparing record of what Augustine and his brother missionaries
overthrew. Incidental notices indeed are all that remain in any part of
Teutonic Europe; and on the continent, as well as in England, it is only
by the collation of minute and isolated facts,—often preserved to us in
popular superstitions, legends and even nursery tales,—that we can
render probable the prevalence of a religious belief identical in its
most characteristic features with that which we know to have been
entertained in Scandinavia. Yet whatsoever we can thus recover, proves
that, in all main points, the faith of the island Saxons was that of
their continental brethren.

It will readily be supposed that the task of demonstrating this is not
easy. The early period at which Christianity triumphed in England, adds
to the difficulties which naturally beset the subject. Norway, Sweden
and Denmark had entered into public relations with the rest of Europe,
long before the downfall of their ancient creed: here, the fall of
heathendom and the commencement of history were contemporaneous: we too
had no Iceland[610] to offer a refuge to those who fled from the violent
course of a conversion, preached sword in hand, and coupled with the
loss of political independence; still the progress of the new faith
seems to have been on the whole easy and continuous amongst us; and
though apostasy was frequent, history either had no serious struggle to
record, or has wisely and prudently concealed it.

-----

Footnote 610:

Thus was Iceland colonized, by men who would neither relinquish their
old belief, nor submit to the growing power of a king. The Old-saxons
had no such place of refuge, and the arms of Charlemagne prevailed to
destroy their national independence and their religion together.

-----

In dealing with this subject, we can expect but little aid from the
usual sources of information. The early chroniclers who lived in times
when heathendom was even less extinct than it now is, and before it had
learnt to hide itself under borrowed names, would have shrunk with
horror from the mention of what to them, was an execrable impiety: many
of them could have possessed no knowledge of details which to us would
be invaluable, and no desire to become acquainted with them: the whole
business of their life, on the contrary, was to destroy the very
remembrance that such things had been, to avoid everything that could
recall the past, or remind their half-converted neophytes of the creed
which they and their forefathers had held. It is obvious that, under
such circumstances, the greater and more powerful the God, the more
dangerous would he continue to be, the more sedulously would all mention
of him be avoided by those who had relinquished his service or
overthrown his altars. But though this may be the case with the
principal deities, there are others whose power, though unacknowledged,
is likely to be more permanent. Long after the formal renunciation of a
public and national paganism, the family and household gods retain a
certain habitual influence, and continue—often under other names, nay
perhaps engrafted on another creed—to inform the daily life of a people
who are still unconsciously acted upon by ancient national feelings. A
spell or a popular superstition may yet recall some traces of the old
belief, even as the heathen temple, when purified with holy water and
dedicated in another name, retained the holiness which had at first been
attached to the site of its foundation.

What Paulus Diaconus, Jonas of Bobbio, Jornandes, Adam of Bremen,
Alcuin, Widukind, and the monks of St. Gall, assert of other German
races, Beda asserts of the Anglosaxons also, viz. that they worshiped
idols[611], _idola_, _simulacra deorum_; and this he affirms not only
upon the authority of his general informants and of unbroken tradition,
but of Gregory himself. Upon the same authority also he tells us that
the heathen were wont to sacrifice many oxen to their gods[612]. To Beda
himself we owe the information that Hréðe and Eostre, two Saxon
goddesses, gave their names to two of the months; that at a certain
season cattle were vowed, and at another season cakes were offered to
the gods[613]. From him also we learn that upon the death of Sǽbeorht in
Essex, his sons restored the worship of idols in that kingdom[614]; that
Eádwini of Northumberland offered thanks to his deities for the safe
delivery of his queen[615]; that Rǽdwald of Eastanglia sacrificed
victims to his gods[616]; that, on occasion of a severe pestilence, the
people of Essex apostatized and returned to their ancient worship[617],
till reconverted by Gearoman, under whose teachings they destroyed or
deserted the fanes and altars they had made; that incantations and
spells were used against sickness[618]; that certain runic charms were
believed capable of breaking the bonds of the captive[619]; that
Eorcenberht of Kent was the first who completely put down heathendom in
his kingdom, and destroyed the idols[620]; lastly that at the court of
Eádwini of Northumberland there was a chief priest[621], and, as we may
naturally infer from this, an organized heathen hierarchy.

-----

Footnote 611:

What Tacitus says of the Germans (Germ, ix.) not having temples or
images is to be taken with great caution. It is clear from other
passages of his own work that some tribes had such, even in his time;
yet if rare then, they may easily have become universal in the course
of two or three centuries, particularly among those tribes whom
military service or commerce had gradually rendered familiar with the
religious rites of Rome.

Footnote 612:

These facts are stated in a letter from Gregory to Mellitus, in the
following words: “Cum ergo Deus omnipotens vos ad reverentissimum
virum fratrem nostrum Augustinum episcopum perduxerit, dicite ei quid
diu mecum de causa Anglorum cogitans tractavi, videlicet, quia fana
idolorum destrui in eadem gente minime debeant; sed ipsa, quae in eis
sunt, idola destruantur, aqua benedicta fiat, in eisdem fanis
aspergatur, altaria construantur, reliquiae ponantur. Quia, si fana
eadem bene constructa sunt, necesse est ut a cultu daemonum in
obsequium veri Dei debeant commutari; ut dum gens ipsa eadem fana sua
non videt destrui, de corde errorem deponat, et Deum verum cognoscens
ac adorans ad loca, quae consuevit, familiarius concurrat. Et quia
boves solent in sacrificio daemonum multos occidere, debet eis etiam
hac de re aliqua solemnitas immutari; ut die dedicationis, vel
natalitii sanctorum martyrum, quorum illic reliquiae ponuntur,
tabernacula sibi circa easdem aecclesias, quae ex fanis commutatae
sunt, de ramis arborum faciant, et religiosis conviviis solemnitatem
celebrent, nec diabolo iam animalia immolent, sed ad laudem Dei in esu
suo animalia occidant, et donatori omnium de satietate sua gratias
referant; ut dum eis aliqua exterius gaudia reservantur, ad interiora
gaudia consentire facilius valeant.” Bed. H. E. i. 30.

Footnote 613:

De Natura Rerum, cap. 15.

Footnote 614:

H. E. ii. 5.

Footnote 615:

H. E. ii. 9.

Footnote 616:

H. E. ii. 15.

Footnote 617:

“Coeperunt fana, quae derelicta erant, restaurare, et adorare
simulacra; quasi per haec possent a mortalitate defendi.” H. E. iii.
30.

Footnote 618:

H. E. iv. 27.

Footnote 619:

H. E. iv. 22.

Footnote 620:

H. E. iii. 8. Malmesbury says that he destroyed also their chapels,
“sacella deorum.” De Gest. Reg. lib. i. § 11.

Footnote 621:

H. E. ii. 13.

-----

The poenitentials of the church and the acts of the witena-gemóts are
full of prohibitions directed against the open or secret practice of
heathendom[622]; from them we learn that even till the time of Cnut,
well-worship and tree-worship, the sanctification of places, spells,
philtres and witchcraft, were still common enough to call for
legislative interference; and the heavy doom of banishment, proclaimed
against their upholders, proves how deeply rooted such pagan customs
were in the minds of the people. Still in the Ecclesiastical History of
Beda, in the various works which in later times were founded upon it and
continued it, in the poenitentials and confessionals of the church, in
the acts of the secular assemblies, we look in vain for the sacred names
in which the fanes were consecrated, or for even the slightest hint of
the attributes of the gods whose idols or images had been set up.
Excepting the cursory mention of the two female divinities already
noticed, and one or two almost equally rapid allusions in later
chronicles, we are left almost entirely without direct information
respecting the tenants of the Saxon Pantheon. There are however other
authorities, founded on traditions more ancient than Beda himself, from
which we derive more copious, if not more definite accounts. First among
these are the genealogies of the Anglosaxon kings: these contain a
multitude of the ancient gods, reduced indeed into family relations, and
entered in the grades of a pedigree, but still capable of identification
with the deities of the North and of Germany. In this relation we find
Wóden, Bældæg, Geát, Wig, and Frea. The days of the week, also dedicated
to gods, supply us further with the names of Tiw, Ðunor, Fricge and
Sætere; and the names of places in all parts of England attest the wide
dispersion of their worship. These, as well as the names of plants, are
the admitted signs by which we recognize the appellations of the
Teutonic gods.

-----

Footnote 622:

See these collected in the Appendix at the end of this Volume.

-----

1. WÓDEN, in Old-norse OÞINN, in Old-german WUOTAN.—The royal family of
every Anglosaxon kingdom, without exception, traces its descent from
Wóden through some one or other of those heroes or demigods who are
familiar to us in the German and Scandinavian traditions[623]. But the
divinity of Wóden is abundantly clear: he is both in form and in fact
identical with the Norse Oþinn and the German Wuotan, the supreme god of
all the northern races, whose divinity none will attempt to
dispute[624]. Nor was this his character unknown to our early
chroniclers; Malmesbury, speaking of Hengest and Hors, says: “They were
the great-great-grandsons of that most ancient Wóden, from whom the
royal families of almost all the barbarous nations derive their lineage;
whom the nations of the Angles madly believing to be a god, have
consecrated unto him the fourth day of the week, and the sixth unto his
wife Frea, by a sacrilege which lasts even unto this day[625].” Matthew
of Westminster[626] and Geoffry of Monmouth[627] repeat this with
characteristic variations, both adding, apparently in the words of
Tacitus[628], “Colimus maxime Mercurium, quem Wóden lingua nostra
appellamus.” Æðthelweard, an Anglosaxon nobleman of royal blood, and
thus himself a descendant of Wóden, had previously stated the same thing
after the fashion of his own age,—the tenth century; he says of Hengest
and Hors: “Hi nepotes fuere Uuoddan regis barbarorum, quem post, infanda
dignitate, ut deum honorantes, sacrificium obtulerunt pagani, victoriae
causa sive virtutis[629].” Again, he says: “Wothen, qui et rex multarum
gentium, quem pagani nunc ut deum colunt aliqui.” Thus, according to
him, Wóden was worshiped as the giver of victory, and as the god of
warlike valour. And such is the description given by Adam of Bremen of
the same god, at Upsala in Sweden: “In hoc templo, quod totum ex auro
paratum est, statuas trium deorum veneratur populus, ita ut
potentissimus eorum Thór in medio solum habeat triclinium, hinc et inde
locum possident Wódan et Fricco. Quorum significationes eiusmodi sunt:
Thór, inquiunt, praesidet in aere, qui tonitrus et fulmina, ventos
imbresque, serena et fruges gubernat. Alter Wódan, id est _Fortior_,
bella regit, hominumque ministrat virtutem contra inimicos. Tertius est
Fricco, pacem voluptatemque largiens mortalibus. Cuius etiam simulachrum
fingunt ingenti Priapo. Wódanem vero sculpunt armatum, sicuti nostri
Martem sculpere solent. Thór autem cum sceptro Jovem exprimere videtur.”
The Exeter book names Wóden in a similar spirit:

Hǽðnum synne
Wóden worhte weohs,
wuldor alwealda
rúme roderas[630],

that is, “For the heathen Wóden wrought the sin of idolatry, but the
glorious almighty God the spacious skies:” and an early missionary is
described to have thus taught his hearers: “Wóden vero quem principalem
deum crediderunt et praecipuum Angli, de quo originem duxerant, cui et
quartam feriam consecraverant, hominem fuisse mortalem asseruit, et
regem Saxonum, a quo plures nationes genus duxerant. Huius, inquit,
corpore in pulverem resoluto, anima in inferno sepulta aeternum sustinet
ignem[631].”

-----

Footnote 623:

Roger of Wendover appears however to have made a distinction, which I
do not remember to have found in any other author, in the case of Ælli
of Sussex. He says: “Wodenus igitur ex antiquorum prosapia Germanorum
originem ducens, post mortem inter deos translatus est; quem veteres
pro deo colentes, dedicaverunt ei quartam feriam, quam de nomine eius
Wodenesday, id est diem Wodeni, nuncuparunt. Hic habuit uxorem, nomine
Fream, cui similiter veteres sextam feriam consecrantes, Freday, id
est diem Freæ, appellarunt. Genuit autem Wodenus ex uxore Frea septem
filios inclytos, ex quorum successione septem reges traxerunt
originem, qui in Britannia potenter, expulsis Britannis, postea
regnaverunt. Ex filio Wodeni primogenito, nomine Wecta, reges
Cantuariorum; ex secundo, Frehegeath, reges Merciorum; ex tertio,
Baldao, reges Westsaxonum; ex quarto, Beldago, reges Northanhumbrorum,
sive Berniciorum; ex quinto, Wegdego, reges Deirorum; ex sexto,
Kasero, reges Orientalium Anglorum; ex septimo, Saxnad, reges
Orientalium Saxonum originem habere dicuntur; octavus vero, id est,
rex Australium Saxonum, ex eadem gente, sed non ex eadem stirpe,
originem sumpsit.” Flor. Histor. i. 346.

Footnote 624:

It is a peculiarity of the Old-norse to omit the initial W; thus ormr
for wyrmr, a dragon or serpent: ulfr, for wulfr, a wolf: hence Oþinn
is literally Wóden. The identity of Wuotan is clearly shown in Grimm’s
Deut. Mythol. p. 120, _seq._

Footnote 625:

Will. Malm. De Gest. 1 § 5.

Footnote 626:

Mat. Westm. Flor. Hist. p. 82 (Ed. 1601).

Footnote 627:

Galf. Monum. lib. vi. p. 43 (Ed. 1587).

Footnote 628:

“Deorum maxime Mercurium colunt.” Germ. ix.

Footnote 629:

Æðelw. Chron. lib. ii. cap. 2.

Footnote 630:

Cod. Exon. p. 341.

Footnote 631:

Legend. Nova, fol. 210, b.

-----

To Wóden was dedicated the fourth or mid-day of the week, and it still
retains his name: this among other circumstances tends to the
identification of him with Mercurius[632]. The Old-norse Rúnatale þáttr
which introduces Oþinn declaring himself to be the inventor of
runes[633], is confirmed by the assertion in the dialogue of Salomon and
Saturn, which to the question “Who invented letters?” answers, “I tell
thee, Mercury the giant”—that is, “Wóden the god:” and this is further
evidence of resemblance. A metrical homily in various collections,
bearing the attractive title _De falsis diis_, supplies us with further
proof of this identification, not only with Wóden, but with the Norse
Oþinn: it says,

Sum man was geháten A man there was, called
Mercurius on life, Mercury during life,
se was swíðe fácenful who was very fraudulent
and swícol on dǽdum, and deceitful in deeds,
and lufode eác stala and eke loved thefts
and leásbrednysse: and deception:
ðone macodon ða hǽðenan him the heathen made
him tó mǽran gode, a powerful god for themselves,
and æt wega gelǽtum and by the road-sides
him lác offrodon, made him offerings,
and tó heágum beorgum and upon high hills
him bróhton onsægdnysse. brought him sacrifice.
Ðæs god wæs árwurða This god was honourable
betwux callum hǽðenum, among all the heathen,
and he is Oþon geháten and he is called Odin
óðrum naman on Denisc. by another name in Danish.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Ðone feorðan dæg
hí sealdon him tó frófre
ðám foresædan Mercurie
heora mǽran gode[634].

. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . .
The fourth day
they gave for their advantage
to the aforesaid Mercury
their great god.

-----

Footnote 632:

This probably was the case even before any German settlement was made
in Britain. But no argument can be raised on this ground against the
genuineness of the Wóden worship here; because, if the continental
Germans worshiped him, they probably carried his rites with them to
England. We know that he is one of the gods named in the celebrated
formulary of renunciation, which the missionary Christians prepared
for the use of the Saxon converts. Why the _interpretatio Romana_
(Tac. Germ. xliii.) fixed upon Wóden as the corresponding god to
Mercury we do not clearly see: but we are not acquainted with the
rites and legends which may have made this perfectly clear to the
Romans.

Footnote 633:

Namek úpp rúnar: Grimm seems to have some doubt of the accuracy of
this translation. Deut. Myth. p. 136 (edition of 1844), but I think
unnecessarily. At all events the invention of the Hugrúnar, or Runes,
the possession of which makes men dear to their companions, is
distinctly attributed to him in the Edda:

þær of hugdi Hroptr
af þeim legi
er lekiþ hafdi
or havfi Heiddravpnis
ok or horni Hoddropnis.
(Brynh.-qu. i. 13.)

But this is an additional point of approximation to the deities whom
we consider identical with Hermes, and in some respects with Mercury,
as for instance Thoth.

Footnote 634:

MS. Cotton, Julius E. vii. 237, b. etc. See the author’s edition of
Salomon and Saturn, p. 120, _seq._

-----

Thus we have Mercurius, Wóden and Oþinn sufficiently identified. A
careful investigation of the inner spirit of Greek mythology has led
some very competent judges to see a form of Hermes in Odysseus. This
view derives some corroboration from the Teutonic side of the question,
and the relation in which Wóden stands to Mercurius. Even Tacitus had
learnt that Ulixes had visited Germany, and there founded a town which
he called Asciburgium[635]; and without insisting on the probability
that Asciburgium grew out of a German Anseopurc or a Scandinavian
Asgard, it seems not unreasonable to suppose that some tales of Wóden
had reached the ears of the Roman, which seemed to him to resemble the
history of Odysseus and his wanderings. Such a tale we yet possess in
the adventures of Thorkill on his journey to Utgardaloki, narrated by
Saxo Grammaticus, which bears a remarkable likeness to some parts of the
Odyssey[636]; and when we consider Saxo’s very extraordinary mode of
rationalizing ancient mythological traditions, we shall admit at least
the probability of an earlier version of the tale which would be much
more consonant with the suggestion of Tacitus, although this earlier
form has unfortunately not survived. Wóden is, like Odysseus,
preeminently the _wanderer_; he is Gangradr, Gangleri, the restless,
moving deity. Even the cloak, hood or hat in which Oþinn is always
clad[637] reminds us both of the _petasus_ of Hermes and the broad hat
which Odysseus generally wears on ancient gems and pottery. That Wóden
was worshiped _æt wega gelǽtum_, and that he was the peculiar patron of
boundaries, again recalls to us this function of Hermes, and the Ἔρμαια.
When we hear that offerings were brought to him upon the lofty hills, we
are reminded that there was an ἄκριος, or Mountain Hermes too, though
little known; and the Ἑρμῆς προμάχος, perhaps as little known as his
mountain brother, answers to the warlike, victory-giving deity of our
forefathers in his favourite form.

-----

Footnote 635:

“Ceterum et Ulixen quidam opinantur longo illo et fabuloso errore in
hunc Oceanum delatum adiisse Germaniae terras, Asciburgiumque, quod in
ripa Rheni situm hodieque incolitur, ab illo constitutum nominatumque.
Aram quinetiam Ulixi consecratam adiecto Laertae patris nomine eodem
loco olim repertam, monimentaque et tumulos quosdam Graecis litteris
inscriptos in confinio Germaniae Rhaetiaeque adhuc exstare. Quae neque
confirmare argumentis, neque refellere in animo est; ex ingenio suo
quisque demat vel addat fidem.” Germ. iii.

Footnote 636:

Saxo Gram. Hist. Dan. lib. viii.

Footnote 637:

Oþinn is called heklumaðr, _the man with the cloak_. Forn. Sög. i.
325. “Kom þar maðr gamall, miök orðspakr, einsýnn [Oþinn was
_one-eyed_ only] ok augdapr, ok hafði hatt sídan.” Fornman. Sög. ii.
138. “Sá hann mann mikinn með síðum hetti ... ók þotti konúngi gaman
æt ræðum hans, þviat hann kunni af öllum löndum tiðindi at segja.”
Fornman. Sög. v. 250. He is called Síðhöttr even in the Edda. Through
this cloak or _Hackle_, Wóden becomes _Hacleberend_ or _Hackleberg_,
who rides at the head of the Wilde Jagd or wild hunt.

-----

From the godlike or heroic sons of Wóden descend all the races qualified
to reign, and some of those whose names are found in the Anglosaxon
genealogies may be easily recognised in the mythological legends of the
continent. In some one or other of his forms he is the _eponymus_ of
tribes and races: thus, as Geát or through Geát, he was the founder of
the Geátas; through Gewis, of the Gewissas; through Scyld, of the
Scyldingas, the Norse Skjoldungar; through Brand, of the Brondingas;
perhaps through Bætwa, of the Batavians[638]. It seems indeed not wholly
improbable that every name in the merely mythical portion of the
genealogies represents some particular tribe, under the distinctive
appellation of its tutelar god or hero; and that we may thus be led in
some degree to a knowledge of the several populations which coalesced to
form the various kingdoms.

-----

Footnote 638:

The MS. lists read Tætwa, but as the alliteration which prevails in
those pedigrees fails in this instance, Grimm threw out the suggestion
that the original reading was Bætwa. Selden, in the English Janus, p.
9, cites Heuter de vet. Belgio, lib. ii. cap. 8, for Bato (Bætwa) the
eponymus of the Batavians, but this does not appear to rest upon any
sound authority. On the subject of the names of Wóden, and the
Anglosaxon genealogies, the reader may consult a tract of the
author’s, Die Stammtafel der Westsachsen, Munich 1836, and Beówulf,
vol. ii., the Postscript to the Preface: together with a review of the
first-named book by Jacob Grimm, in the Göttinger Gel. Anz. for 1836.

-----

Legends describing the adventures of Wóden either in a godlike or heroic
form were probably not wanting here, or in Germany; it is only in
Scandinavia that a portion of these have been preserved, unless the
tales of Geát and Sceaf, to be hereafter noticed, are in reality to be
referred to him. Equally probable is it that he had in this country
temples, images and religious rites, traces of which we find upon the
continent[639]; and that trees, animals and places were consecrated to
him[640]. So numerous indeed are the latter, so common in every part of
England are names of places compounded with his name, that we must admit
his worship to have been current throughout the island: it seems
impossible to doubt that in every quarter there were localities (usually
rising ground) either dedicated to him, or supposed to be under his
especial protection; and thus that he was here, as in Germany, the
supreme god whom the Saxons, Franks and Alamans concurred in worshiping.
The following names of places may all be unhesitatingly attributed to
this cause, and they attest the general recognition and wide dispersion
of Wóden’s influence.

-----

Footnote 639:

The ancient Germans sacrificed human victims to him. “Deorum maxime
Mercurium colunt, cui certis diebus humanis quoque hostiis litare fas
habent.” Tac. Germ. xxxix. “Victores diversam aciem Marti ac Mercurio
sacravere, quo voto equi, viri, cuncta victa occidioni dantur.” Tac.
Annal. xiii. 57. King Ane or Avn the old, offered up in succession
nine of his sons to Oþinn, to increase the length of his own life.
Yngling. Sag. cap. xxix.; Geijer, Gesch. Schwed. i. 416. “Sunt etenim
inibi vicinae nationes Suevorum; quo cum moraretur et inter
habitatores illius loci progrederetur, reperit eos sacrificium
profanum litare velle, vasque magnum, quod vulgo cupam vocant, quod
viginti et sex modios amplius minusve capiebat, cerevisia plenum in
medio habebant positum. Ad quod vir dei accessit et sciscitatur, quid
de illo fieri vellent? Illi aiunt: deo suo Wodano, quem Mercurium
vocant alii, se velle litare.” Ion. Bobbiensis Vita Columbani. Compare
also what Saxo Grammaticus says of the immense tub of beer which
Hunding prepared to celebrate the obsequies of Hadding. Hist. Dan. p.
19. On festal occasions it was usual to drink to the health, _love_ or
_minne_ of the gods. Oþinn was generally thus honoured: the custom was
preserved among Christians, who drank _minne_ to St. John, St. Martin,
St. Gertrude and other saints. Grimm, Myth. p. 53 _seq._

Footnote 640:

Wolves and ravens appear to have been Oþinn’s sacred animals: the
Saxon legends do not record anything on this subject; but here and
there we do hear of _sacred_ trees, which may possibly have been
dedicated to this god: thus the Wónác (Cod. Dipl. No. 495), the
Wonstoc (Ibid. Nos. 287, 657), “ad quendam fraxinum quem imperiti
sacrum vocant.” Ibid. No. 1052. Respecting the sacred character of the
ash see Grimm, Myth. p. 617.

-----

_Wanborough_, formerly _Wódnesbeorh_, in Surrey, lat. 51° 14´ N., long.
38´ W., placed upon the water-shed which throws down streams to north
and south, and running from east to west, divides the county of Surrey
into two nearly equal portions, once perhaps two petty kingdoms; the
range of hills now called the Hog’s-back. It is a little to the north of
the ridge, nearly on the summit; the springs of water are peculiarly
pure and never freeze. In all probability it has been in turn a sacred
site for every religion that has been received in Britain. _Wanborough_,
formerly _Wódnesbeorh_ in Wiltshire, lat. 51° 33´ N., long. 1° 42´ W.,
about 3½ miles S.E. of Swindon, placed upon the watershed which throws
down the Isis to the north, and Kennet to the south. _Woodnesborough_,
formerly _Wódnesbeorh_, in Kent, lat. 51° 16´ N., long. 1° 29´ E.,
throwing down various small streams to north and south, into the Stour
and the sea. _Wonston_ (probably _Wódnesstán_) in Hampshire, lat. 51°
10´ N., long. 1° 20´ W., from which small streams descend to north and
south, into the Test and Itchen. _Wambrook_ (probably _Wódnesbróc_) in
Dorsetshire. _Wampool_ (probably _Wódnespól_) in Cumberland. _Wansford_
(probably _Wódnesford_) in Northamptonshire. _Wansford_ in the East
Riding of Yorkshire. _Wanstead_ (probably _Wódnesstede_) an old Roman
station in Essex. _Wanstrow_, formerly _Wódnestreów_ _Wanborough_ or
_Warnborough_, formerly _Wódnesbeorh_, two parishes in Hampshire.
_Wembury_, formerly _Wódnesbeorh_, in Devonshire. _Wonersh_ (probably
_Wódnesersc_), a parish at the foot of the Hog’s-back, a few miles from
Wanborough. _Wansdike_, formerly _Wódnesdíc_, an ancient dike or
fortification, perhaps the boundary between different kingdoms: it
extended in a direction from east to west through more than one of our
southern counties. Its remains are visible three or four miles W.S.W. of
Malmesbury in Wiltshire, and it crosses the northern part of Somerset
from the neighbourhood of Bath to Portshead on the Bristol Channel,
where it ends in lat. 51° 29´ N., long. 2° 47´ W.

In addition to these references, which might be made far more numerous,
if necessary, we have many instances in the boundaries of charters, of
trees, stones and posts set up in Wóden’s name, and apparently with the
view of giving a religious sanction to the divisions of land. In this,
as in other respects, we find a resemblance to Hermes. It is also to be
borne in mind that many hills or other natural objects may in fact have
been dedicated to this god, though bearing more general names, as
Ósbeorh, Godeshyl and so forth.

One of the names of Odin in the Old-norse mythology is _Osk_, which by
an etymological law is equivalent to the German _Wunsch_, the Anglosaxon
_Wisc_, and the English _Wish_. Grimm has shown in the most convincing
manner that _Wunsch_ may be considered as a name of Wuotan in
Germany[641]; and it is probable that _Wúsc_ or _Wísc_ may have had a
similar power here. Among the names in the mythical genealogies we find
Wúscfreá, _the lord of the wish_, and I am even inclined to the belief
that Oisc, equivalent to Ésk, the founder of the Kentish line of kings,
may be a Jutish name of Wóden in this form,—ésc, or in an earlier form
óski, _i. e._ Wunsch, Wýsc[642]. In Devonshire to this day all magical
or supernatural dealings go under the common name of _Wishtness_: can
this have any reference to Wóden’s name Wýsc? So again a bad or
unfortunate day is a _wisht_ day: perhaps a diabolical, heathen,
accursed day. There are several places which appear to be compounded
with this name; among them: _Wishanger_ (_Wíschangra_ or Wóden’s
meadow), one, about four miles S.W. of Wanborough in Surrey, and another
near Gloucester; _Wisley_ (_Wíscleáh_) also in Surrey; _Wisborough_
(probably _Wíscbeorh_) in Sussex; _Wishford_ (probably _Wíscford_) in
Wiltshire.

-----

Footnote 641:

Deut. Myth. p. 126 _seq._

Footnote 642:

Oisc in the form in which the earliest authorities give this name. Æsc
is certainly later, and may have been adopted only when the original
meaning of Oisc had become forgotten.

-----

2. ÞUNOR, in Old-norse ÞORR, in Old-german DONAR.—The recognition of
Ðunor in England was probably not very general at first: the settlement
of Danes and Norwegians in the ninth and following centuries may have
extended it in the northern districts. But though his name is not found
in the genealogies of the kings, there was an antecedent probability
that some traces of his worship would be found among the Saxons. Thunar
is one of the gods whom the Saxons of the continent were called upon to
renounce, and a total abnegation of his authority was not to be looked
for even among a race who considered Wóden as the supreme god. That the
fifth day of the week was called by his name is well known: Thursday is
Ðunres dæg, _dies Jovis_; and he is the proper representative of
Jupiter, inasmuch as he must be considered in the light of the
thundering god, an elemental deity, powerful over the storms, as well as
the fertilizing rains[643]. His peculiar weapon, the mace or hammer,
seems to denote the violent, crushing thunderbolt, and the Norse myth
represents it as continually used against the giants or elemental gods
of the primal world. In a composition whose antiquity it is impossible
to ascertain, we may still discover an allusion to this point: in the
Christian Ragna Ravk, or _Twilight of the Gods_, it was believed that a
personal conflict would take place between the divinity and a devil, the
emissary and child of Satan: in the course of this conflict, it is said:
“se Ðunor hit þyrsceð mid ðǽre fýrenan æxe,” the thunder will thresh it
with the fiery axe[644]; and I am inclined to see a similar allusion in
the Exeter Book, where the lightning is called _rynegiestes wæpn_, the
weapon of Avkv Ðórr, the _car-borne god_, Thunder[645].

-----

Footnote 643:

See the quotation from Adam of Bremen, p. 337.

Footnote 644:

Salomon and Saturn, pp. 148, 177.

Footnote 645:

Cod. Exon. p. 386. l. 8.

-----

The names of places which retain a record of Ðunor are not very
numerous, but some are found: among them _Thundersfield_, Ðunresfeld, in
Surrey[646]; _Thundersley_, Ðunresleáh, in Essex, near Saffron Walden;
_Thundersley_, Ðunresleáh, also in Essex, near Raylegh, and others in
Hampshire[647]. Near Wanborough in Surrey is _Thursley_, which may have
been a Ðunresleáh also: it is unlikely that it was ever Ðóresleáh, from
Ðórr (the Norse form of Ðunor), but it might have been Ðyrsleáh, the
meadow of the giant or monster. Very near Thursley is a hill called
_Thunder hill_, probably Ðunres hyl. A similar uncertainty hangs over
_Thurleigh_ in Bedfordshire, _Thurlow_ in Essex, _Thursby_ in
Cumberland, _Thursfield_ in Staffordshire, and _Thursford_ in
Norfolk[648]. The name of Ðunor was, to the best of my knowledge, never
borne by any man among the Anglosaxons, which is in some degree an
evidence of its high divinity. The only apparent exception to this
assertion is found in an early tale which bears throughout such strong
marks of a mythical character as to render it probable that some legend
of Ðunor was current in England; especially as its locality is among the
Jutish inhabitants of Kent. According to this account, Ecgbert the son
of Eorcenberht, the fourth Christian king of Kent, had excluded his
cousins from the throne, and fearing their popularity determined on
removing them by violence. The thane Thuner divined and executed the
intentions of his master. Under the king’s own throne were the bodies
concealed; but a light from heaven which played about the spot revealed
the crime: the king paid to their sister the wergyld of the slain
princes: a hind, let loose, defined the boundaries of the grant which
was to make compensation for the murder: forty-eight hides of land thus
became the property of Domneva, and the repentant king erected upon them
a monastery. The assassin Thuner, however, added to his guilt the still
higher atrocity of sneering at the king’s repentance and its fruits: the
earth suddenly opened beneath his feet and swallowed him; while the
church placed the names of his victims, Æðelred and Æðelberht, on the
list of its martyrs. Any comment upon this, as a historical transaction,
would be perfectly superfluous, but it may possibly contain some
allusion of a mythological nature; for it seems that the very fact of
Ðunor’s not being a god generally worshiped in England, would render him
likely to form the foundation of heroic stories. I will not absolutely
say that the dragon-slaughter of Beówulf is a direct reference to the
myth of Ðunor, though this is possible. Another hero of Anglosaxon
tradition bears the name of the “Wandering Wolf;” he slew
five-and-twenty dragons at daybreak, “on dæg-ræd;” and fell dead from
their poison, as Thórr does after slaying Midgard’s orm, and Beówulf
after his victory over the firedrake. The wolf however is a sacred beast
of Wóden, and these names of Wandering wolf, Mearcwulf, etc. may have
some reference to him, especially as we learn from Grimm that in some
parts of Denmark the wild huntsman, who is unquestionably Wóden, bears
the name of the flying Marcolf[649]. The heathen character of the whole
relation is proved by the fact of the “famous sailor on the sea,” the
“wandering wolf” being represented as the friend of Nebrond, probably
Nimrod[650].

-----

Footnote 646:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 270, 314, 363, 413.

Footnote 647:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 450, 781, 784, 1022, 1038. Some of these are not in
Essex, but Hampshire.

Footnote 648:

The analogy of Thursday, which was unquestionably Thundersday, must be
allowed its weight in considering these local names. Even Ðyrs itself,
at one period of Anglosaxon development, might represent Ðunor, and
the resemblance of names thus lead to a little straining of the true
one.

Footnote 649:

Deut. Myth. p. 530 (ed. 1835).

Footnote 650:

Sal. Sat. p. 156.

-----

One of the names by which Ðunor is known in Germany is Hamar[651], which
was perhaps originally derived from his weapon. This has become almost
synonymous with _devil_. Perhaps the same allusion lurks in one or two
names of places in England: in the immediate neighbourhood of Thursley
in Surrey, and at a short distance from Thunderhill, are some ponds
known by the name of the _Hammer-ponds_. It is remarkable that within
two or three miles of Thursley and the Hammer-ponds, three singular
natural mounds which form most conspicuous objects upon a very wild and
desert heath, should bear the name of the Devil’s Jumps, while at a
short distance a deep valley is known by that of the Devil’s Punchbowl,
probably at some early period, the Devil’s Cup, Ðunres-cup or the
Hamar-cup. The word Hamarden occurs in the boundaries of charters[652];
and other places recall the same name: thus _Hameringham_ in Lincoln,
_Hamerton_ in Huntingdon, _Homerton_ in Middlesex (hardly _Hammersmith_
in Middlesex), _Hamerton Green_ in Yorkshire, _Hamerton Kirk_ in
Yorkshire, _Hammerwick_ in Staffordshire.

-----

Footnote 651:

Deut. Myth. p. 166.

Footnote 652:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 999, 1039, 1189.

-----

3. TIW, the Old-norse TYR, and Old-german ZIU.—The third day of the week
bears among us the name of the god Tíw, the Old-norse Týr. In like
manner we find him also giving his name to places. In the neighbourhood
so often referred to in this chapter, and which seems to have been a
very pantheon of paganism[653], not far from Thursley or from
Wanborough, we find _Tewesley_, which I have no scruple to pronounce the
ancient Tíwesleáh. Tísleáh[654] seems to denote the same name, and it is
probable that even a race acknowledged this god as its founder,—the
Tiwingas, who gave their name to _Tewing_ in Herts. Tiwes mére[655]
seems to be the _mere_ or lake of Tiw, and in another charter we have
also Teówes þorn[656], which goes far towards substantiating the German
form Ziu.

-----

Footnote 653:

In a circuit of a few miles (taken from Elstead with a radius perhaps
of not more than four) we have Wanborough, Polstead, Thursley, the
Hammer-ponds, Waverley, Tewesley, Thunderhill, Dragonhill, Wonersh,
the Devil’s Jumps, the Devil’s Punchbowl, Wishanger, Eshing, Loseley
(Loces leáh ?), Godalming (Godhelminghám), and—as I believe, in close
connexion with these—Gyldhill, Guildford, Guilddown, Frensham
(Fremeshám), Tilford, Tilhill, Markwick, Ash, and Unstead.

Footnote 654:

Cod. Dipl. No. 739.

Footnote 655:

Ibid. No. 262.

Footnote 656:

Ibid. No. 174.

-----

The Anglosaxon glossaries are perfectly accurate when they give the
rendering _Mars_ for Tíw[657], and Tíwesdæg is rightly _dies Martis_. It
cannot be doubted that our forefathers worshiped this god, as a supreme
giver of victory, and especially a god of battle, in some parts of
Scandinavia and Germany; whether or not in England appears doubtful. In
the mythology of the North he is the bravest of the gods, the one who
did not scruple to place his hand in the mouth of the wolf Fenris, when
he demanded a pledge that the gods would unbind the chain they had
forged for him, and on their breach of faith Týr paid the penalty[658].
The Roman historian tells of the Hermunduri having vowed to sacrifice
the beaten Catti to Mercury and Mars, by which vow the whole of the
horses and men belonging to the defeated force were devoted to
slaughter. Jornandes says of the Goths, “Martem semper asperrima
placavere cultura; nam victimae ejus mortes fuere captorum, opinantes
bellorum praesulem aptius humani sanguinis effusione placatum[659].”
Procopius tells the same tale of his Θουλίται, that is the
Scandinavians: τῶν δὲ ἱερείων σφίσι τὸ κάλλιστον ἄνθρωπος ἐστιν, ὅνπερ
ἂν δοριάλωτον ποιήσαιντο πρῶτον· τοῦτον γὰρ τῷ Ἄρει θύουσιν, ἐπεὶ θεὸν
αὐτὸν νομίζουσι μέγιστον εἶναι[660]. The Norse traditions, although they
acknowledge Oþinn as the giver of victory, are still very explicit as to
Týr: he is particularly Wígaguð, _deus praeliorum_, and an especial
granter of success in battle, “rǽðr miöc sigri í orostom[661].” Perhaps
the Tencteri may be added to the number of those who paid an especial
honour to Týr (in German Ziu), since Tacitus makes them say, “communibus
deis et praecipuo deorum Marti grates agimus[662],” where it is not at
all necessary to suppose Wóden is meant; and Grimm has good reason to
number the Suevi among the worshipers of Ziu[663].

-----

Footnote 657:

Mone’s Epinal Glosses gives Tiig, _Mars_, No. 520, and Lye does the
same without a reference, but no doubt from some MS. glossary. The
form is in the same relation to Tiw as Higan to Hiwan, or gesegen
(_visus_) to gesewen; but the long vowel is assured by the double _i_.

Footnote 658:

Hence in Norse he is called the _one-handed_ god, as Oþinn is the
_one-eyed_. The Teutonic gods, unlike the Indian, have not a
superfluity, but on the contrary sometimes a lack, of limbs. It is
otherwise with their horses, etc.

Footnote 659:

Hist. Goth. cap. v.

Footnote 660:

Bell. Goth. ii. 15.

Footnote 661:

Grimm, D. Myth. p. 179.

Footnote 662:

Hist. iv. 64.

Footnote 663:

Deut. Myth. pp. 180, 181.

-----

The Anglosaxon runic alphabet, which in several letters recalls the
names or attributes of the ancient gods, uses Tír for T: the German
runes wanting a Z = T, apply Ziu: there is however another rune, similar
in shape to the runic T, but having the power of EA; this bears the name
of Ear, but sometimes also in MSS. that of Tír: there are etymological
grounds on which the word Tír, _gloria_, must be connected with Tíw, and
we are hence led to the supposition that Ear may have been another name
for that god. This gains a great importance when we bear in mind that in
some parts of south Germany, the third day of the week is called, not
Zistag, but Ertag, Eritag, Erichtag, for which we should indeed have
expected Erestag: and when we find in Saxon Westphalia an undeniably
heathen spot called Eresburg, _Mons Martis_, now Mersberg, i. e.
Eresberg, the hill of Er, Ziu or Mars.

Now the Anglosaxon poem on the runic characters has something to tell us
of Ear. It says of him,

Ear bið égle
eorla gehwylcum,
ðonne fæstlíce
flǽsc onginneð
hrá cólian,
hrúsan ceósan
blác to gebeddan.
Blǽda gedréosað,
wynna gewítað,
wera geswícað[664].

that is, “Ear is a terror to every man, when fast the flesh, the corpse
beginneth to become cold and pale to seek the earth for a consort. Joy
faileth, pleasure departeth, engagements cease.” It is clear that Ear,
_spica_, _arista_, will not explain this, and we may believe that our
forefathers contemplated the personal intervention of some deity whose
contact was death. This may have been Tíw or Ear, especially in the
battle-field, and here he would be equivalent to the Ἄρης βροτολοιγός
μιαιφόνος of Homer.

-----

Footnote 664:

On the Runes of the Anglosaxons, by J. M. Kemble. Archaeologia, vol.
xxviii.

-----

More than this we shall hardly succeed in rescuing: but there yet
remains a name to consider, which may possibly have tended to banish the
more heathen one of Tíw. Among all the expressions which the Anglosaxons
used to denote a violent death, none is more frequent than wíg fornam,
or wíg gesceód, in which there is an obvious personality, Wíg (_War_)
ravished away the doomed: here no doubt _war_ was represented as
personally intervening, and slaying, as in other similar cases we find
the feminines Hild, Gúð, which are of the same import, and the
masculines Swylt, Deáð, _mors_. The abstract sense which also lay in the
word _wíg_, and enabled it to be used without offence to Christian ears,
may have been a reason for its general adoption in cases where at an
earlier period Tíw would have been preferred. Old glossaries give us the
rendering Wíg _Mars_, and Hild, _Bellona_: it is therefore not at all
improbable that these words were purposely selected to express what
otherwise must have been referred to a god of perilous influence: Wíg
was a more general, and therefore less dangerous name than Tíw, to
recall to the memory of a people prone to apostasy. That the latter
survived in the name of a weekday serves only to show that it was too
deeply grounded to be got rid of; perhaps its very familiarity in that
particular relation rendered it safe to retain the name of any deity, as
was done by five out of the seven days. But Christianity was tolerant of
heathen names in other than heathen functions, and in the genealogy of
the kings of Wessex, Wíg is the father of Gewis, the eponymus of the
race. I have already expressed my belief that this name represented
either Wóden or Tíw, and think it very likely that it was the latter,
inasmuch as the paganism of the Gewissas seems to have been remarkable,
beyond that of other Anglosaxon tribes: “Sed Britanniam perveniens, ac
primum Gewissorum gentem ingrediens, cum omnes ibidem paganissimos
inveniret,” etc.[665] “Intrante autem episcopo in portum occidentalium
Saxonum, gentem qui antiquitus Gewisse vocabantur, cum omnes ibidem
paganissimos inveniret,” etc.[666] The events described are of the year
634. We find that Tíw enters into the composition of the names of a few
plants[667]; on the other hand it is never found in the composition of
proper names, any more than Tír; although _now_ Tírberht or Tírwulf
would seem quite as legitimate compounds as Eádberht, Sigeberht,
Eádwulf, Sigewulf.

-----

Footnote 665:

Beda, Hist. Ecc. iii. 7.

Footnote 666:

Johann. Tynem. Legend. Nova, fol. 38.

Footnote 667:

Thus Old-norse Týsfiola, Týrhjalm, Týsviðr.

-----

FREÁ, in Old-norse FREYR, in Old-german FRO.—The god whom the Norse
mythology celebrates under the name of Freyer must have borne among us
the name of Freá. It is probable that he enjoyed a more extensive
worship in all parts of Europe than we can positively demonstrate. At
present we are only enabled to assert that the principal seat of his
worship was at Upsala among the Swedes. In general there is not much
trace in the North of phallic gods; but an exception must be made at
once in the case of Freyr. One of the most beautiful poems of the
Edda[668] tells how Freyr languished for desire of the beautiful Gerdr;
it was for her love that he lost the sword, the absence of which brings
destruction upon him in the twilight of the Gods. The strongest evidence
of his peculiar character is found in the passage already cited from
Adam of Bremen[669], and what he says of the shape under which Frea was
represented at Upsala: “Tertius est Fricco, pacem, voluptatemque
largiens mortalibus; cujus etiam simulachrum fingunt ingenti Priapo.”
The fertilizing rains, the life-bringing sunshine, the blessings of
fruitfulness and peace were the peculiar gifts of Freyr[670]; and from
Adam of Bremen again we learn that he was the god of marriage: “Si
nuptiae celebrandae sunt, sacrificia offerunt Fricconi.” In his car he
travelled through the land, accompanied by a choir of young and blooming
priestesses[671], and wherever he came plenty and peace abounded. The
beast sacred to Freyr was the boar, and it is not improbable that
various customs and superstitions connected with this animal may have
had originally to do with his worship. It is not going too far to assert
that the boar’s head which yet forms the ornament of our festive tables,
especially at Christmas, may have been inherited from heathen days, and
that the vows made upon it, in the middle ages, may have had their
sanction in ancient paganism. But it is as an amulet that we most
frequently meet with the boar in Anglosaxon. Tacitus says of the Æstyi,
that, in imitation of the Suevish custom, “Matrem deum venerantur;
insigne superstitionis, formas aprorum gestant. Id pro armis omnium que
tutela; securum deae cultorem etiam inter hostes praestat[672].” The
relation between Freá and the _Mater deorum_ is a near one. Now the
Anglosaxon poems consider a boar’s form or figure so essential a portion
of the helmet, that they use the word eofor, _aper_part of the armour:

hét ðá inberan he commanded them to bring in
eofor heáfordsegn, the boar (i. e. helmet) the
heaðosteápne helm. ornament of the head,
the helmet lofty in battle[673].

And still more closely, with reference to the virtues of this sign:

eoforlíc scionon the forms of boars they seemed
ofer hleor beran above their cheeks to bear
gehroden golde, adorned with gold,
fáh and fýrheard various and hardened in the fire
ferhwearde heóld. it held the guard of life[674].

And again:

ac se hwíta helm but the white helmet
hafelan werede, guarded the head,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
since geweorðad, adorned with treasure,
befongen freawrásnum, set about with lordly signs,
swá hine fyrndagum as it in days of yore
worhte wæpna smið, the armourer made,
wundrum teóde, wondrously produced,
besette swínlícum, set it about with shapes of
ðæt hine syððan nó boars,
brond né beadomecas that afterwards neither
bítan né meahton. brand nor warknife
might penetrate it[675].

Grimm citing this passage goes so far as even to render “freá wrasnum”
by _Frothonis signis_, and thus connects it at once with Frea[676]; and
we may admit at all events the great plausibility of the suggestion. But
though distinct proof of Freá's worship in England cannot be supplied
during the Saxon period, we have very clear evidence of its still
subsisting in the thirteenth century. The following extraordinary story
is found in the Chronicle of Lanercost[677], an. 1268. “Pro fidei
divinae integritate servanda recolat lector quod, cum hoc anno in
Laodonia pestis grassaretur in pecudes armenti, quam vocant usitate
Lungessouth, quidam bestiales, habitu claustrales non animo, docebant
idiotas patriae ignem confrictione de lignis educere et simulachrum
Priapi statuere, et per haec bestiis succurrere. Quod cum unus laicus
Cisterciencis apud Fentone fecisset ante atrium aulae, ac intinctis
testiculis canis in aquam benedictam super animalia sparsisset, ac pro
invento facinore idolatriae dominus villae a quodam fideli argueretur,
ille pro sua innocentia obtendebat, quod ipso nesciente et absente
fuerant haec omnia perpetrata, et adiecit, et cum ad usque hunc mensem
Junium aliorum animalia languerent et deficerent, mea semper sana erant,
nunc vero quotidie mihi moriuntur duo vel tria, ita quod agricultui
pauca supersunt.”

-----

Footnote 668:

För Skirnis. The legend of Geát and Mæðhild however must have been of
this character: and thus Wóden may have been in some sort a phallic
Hermes.

Footnote 669:

M. Adami Bremensis lib. de situ Daniae. Ed. 1629, p. 23. Ihre, in his
Gloss. Sueogoth. mentions forms dug up in the North which clearly
prove the prevalence of phallic rites.

Footnote 670:

See Grimm, Mythol. p. 193 _seq._

Footnote 671:

Fornman. Sög. ii. 73 _seq._

Footnote 672:

Germ. xlv.

Footnote 673:

Beów. l. 4299 _seq._

Footnote 674:

Beów. l. 604 _seq._

Footnote 675:

Ibid. l. 2895.

Footnote 676:

Mythol. p. 195.

Footnote 677:

Edited in 1839 by the Rev. J. Stevenson for the members of the
Bannatyne and Maitland Clubs.

-----

Fourteen years later a similar fact is stated to have occurred in a
neighbouring district, at Inverkeithing, in the present county of Fife.

“Insuper hoc tempore apud Inverchethin, in hebdomada paschae [Mar.
29-Ap. 5], sacerdos parochialis, nomine Johannes, Priapi prophana
parans, congregatis ex villa puellulis, cogebat eas, choreis factis,
Libero patri circuire; ut ille feminas in exercitu habuit, sic iste,
procacitatis causa, membra humana virtuti seminariae servientia super
asserem artificiata ante talem choream praeferebat, et ipse tripudians
cum cantantibus motu mimico omnes inspectantes et verbo impudico ad
luxuriam incitabat. Hi, qui honesto matrimonio honorem deferebant, tam
insolente officio, licet reverentur personam, scandalizabant propter
gradus eminentiam. Si quis ei seorsum ex amore correptionis sermonen
inferret, fiebat deterior, et conviciis eos impetebat.”

It appears that this priest retained his benefice until his death, which
happened in a brawl about a year later than the events described above;
and it is very remarkable that the scandal seems to have been less at
the rites themselves than at their being administered by a person of so
high a clerical dignity. Grimm had identified Freyr or Frowo with Liber:
it will be observed that his train of reasoning is confirmed by the name
Liber Pater, given in the chronicler’s recital. The union of the
_Needfire_ with these Priapic rites renders it proper to devote a few
words to this particular superstition.

The needfire, nýdfýr, New-german nothfeuer, was called from the mode of
its production, _confrictione de lignis_, and though probably common to
the Kelts[678] as well as Teutons, was long and well known to all the
Germanic races at a certain period. All the fires in the village were to
be relighted from the virgin flame produced by the rubbing together of
wood, and in the highlands of Scotland and Ireland it was usual to drive
the cattle through it, by way of lustration, and as a preservative
against disease[679]. But there was another curious ceremony connected
with the lighting of fires on St. John’s eve,—probably from the context,
on the 23rd of June. A general reference for this may be made to Grimm’s
Mythologie, pp. 570-592, under the general heads of Nothfeuer, Bealtine
and Johannisfeuer; but the following passage, which I have not seen
cited before, throws light on Grimm’s examples, and adds some
peculiarities of explanation. It is found in an ancient MS. written in
England and now in the Harleian collection, No. 2345, fol. 50.

-----

Footnote 678:

See Jamieson’s Scottish Dictionary, voc. _Beltane_, and Boucher’s
Glossary by Stevenson.

Footnote 679:

In the Mirror of June 24th, 1826, there is the account of this having
been done in Perthshire, on occasion of a cattle epidemic. “A wealthy
old farmer, having lost several of his cattle by some disease very
prevalent at present, and being able to account for it in no way so
rationally as by witchcraft, had recourse to the following remedy,
recommended to him by a weird sister in his neighbourhood, as an
effectual protection from the attacks of the foul fiend. A few stones
were piled together in the barnyard, and woodcoals having been laid
thereon, the fuel was ignited by _will-fire_, that is fire obtained by
friction; the neighbours having been called in to witness the
solemnity, the cattle were made to pass through the flames, in the
order of their dignity and age, commencing with the horses and ending
with the swine. The ceremony having been duly and decorously gone
through, a neighbouring farmer observed to the enlightened owner of
the herd, that he, along with his family, ought to have followed the
example of the cattle, and the sacrifice to Baal would have been
complete.” The _will-fire_ has been used in Devonshire for the same
purpose, within the memory of man.

-----

“Eius venerandam nativitatem cum gaudio celebrabitis; dico eius
nativitatem cum gaudio; non illo cum gaudio, quo stulti, vani et
prophani, amatores mundi huius, accensis ignibus, per plateas, turpibus
et illicitis ludibus, commessationibus, et ebrietatibus, cubilibus et
impudicitiis intendentes illam celebrare solent.... Dicamus de tripudiis
quae in vigilia sancti Johannis fieri solent, quorum tria genera. In
vigilia enim beati Johannis colligunt pueri in quibusdam regionibus
ossa, et quaedam alia immunda, et insimul cremant, et exinde producitur
fumus in aere. Faciunt etiam brandas et circuunt arva cum brandis.
Tercium de rota quam faciunt volvi: quod, cum immunda cremant, hoc
habent ex gentilibus. Antiquitus enim dracones in hoc tempore
excitabantur ad libidinem propter calorem, et volando per aera
frequenter spermatizabantur aquae, et tunc erat letalis, quia quicumque
inde bibebant, aut moriebantur, aut grave morbum paciebantur. Quod
attendentes philosophi, iusserunt ignem fieri frequenter et sparsim
circa puteos et fontes, et immundum ibi cremari, et quaecumque immundum
reddiderunt fumum, nam per talem fumum sciebant fugari dracones.... Rota
involvitur ad significandum quod sol tunc ascendit ad alciora sui
circuli et statim regreditur, inde venit quod volvitur rota.”

An ancient marginal note has _bonfires_, intending to explain that word
by the bones burnt on such occasions. Grimm seems to refer this to the
cult of Baldr or Bældæg, with which he connects the name Beltane; but
taking all the circumstances into consideration, I am inclined to
attribute it rather to Freá, if not even to a female form of the same
godhead, Fricge, the Aphrodite of the North. Freá seems to have been a
god of boundaries; probably as the giver of fertility and increase, he
gradually became looked upon as a patron of the fields. On two occasions
his name occurs in such boundaries, and once in a manner which proves
some tree to have been dedicated to him. In a charter of the year 959 we
find these words: “ðonne andlang herpaðes on Frigedæges treów,”—thence
along the road to Friday’s (that is Frea’s) tree[680]; and in a similar
document of the same century we have a boundary running “oð ðone
Frigedæg.” There is a place yet called Fridaythorpe, in Yorkshire. Here
Frigedæg appears to be a formation precisely similar to Bældæg, Swæfdæg,
and Wægdæg, and to mean only Freá himself.

-----

Footnote 680:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1221.

-----

BALDÆG, in Old-norse BALDR, in Old-german PALTAC.—The appearance of
Bældæg among Wóden’s sons in the Anglosaxon genealogies, would naturally
lead us to the belief that our forefathers worshiped that god whom the
Edda and other legends of the North term Baldr, the father of Brand, and
the Phœbus Apollo of Scandinavia. Yet beyond these genealogies we have
very little evidence of his existence. It is true that the word
_bealdor_ very frequently occurs in Anglosaxon poetry as a peculiar
appellative of kings,—nay even as a name of God himself,—and that it is,
as far as we know, indeclinable, a sign of its high antiquity. This word
may then probably have obtained a general signification which at first
did not belong to it, and been retained to represent a king, when it had
ceased to represent a god. There are a few places in which the name of
Balder can yet be traced: thus Baldersby in Yorkshire, Balderston in
Lancashire, Bealderesleah and Baldheresbeorh in Wiltshire[681]: of these
the two first may very likely have arisen from Danish or Norwegian
influence, while the last is altogether uncertain. Save in the
genealogies the name Bældæg does not occur at all. But there is another
name under which the Anglosaxons may possibly have known this god, and
that is Pol or Pal.

-----

Footnote 681:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1059, 92.

-----

In the year 1842 a very extraordinary and very interesting discovery was
made at Merseberg upon the spare leaf of a MS. there were found two
metrical spells in the Old-german language: these upon examination were
at once recognized not only to be heathen in their character, but even
to contain the names of heathen gods, perfectly free from the ordinary
process of Christianization. The one with which we are at present
concerned is in the following words:

Phol endi Wódan Phol and Wódan
vuorun zi holza, went to the wood,
da wart demo Balderes volon then of Balder’s colt
sin vuoz birenkit; the foot was wrenched;
thu biguolen Sinthgunt, then Sinthgunt charmed him,
Sunná era suister, and her sister Sunna,
thu biguolen Frúá, then Frua charmed him,
Vollá era suister, and her sister Folla,
thu biguolen Wódan, then Wóden charmed him,
só he wola conda: as he well could do:
sosé bénrenki, sóse bluotrenki, both wrench of bone, and wrench of
sosé lidirenki; blood,
bén zi béna, and wrench of limb;
bluot zi bluoda, bone to bone,
lid zi geliden, and blood to blood,
sóse gelímida sín. limb to limb,
as if they were glued together.

The general character of this poem is one well known to us: there are
many Anglosaxon spells of the same description. What makes this valuable
beyond all that have ever been discovered, is the number of genuine
heathen names that survive in it, which in others of the same kind have
been replaced by other sanctions; and which teach us the true meaning of
those which have survived in the altered form. In a paper read before
the Royal Academy of Sciences in Berlin, Grimm identified Phol with
Baldr[682], and this view he has further developed in the new edition of
his Mythology[683]. It is confirmatory of this view that we possess the
same spell in England, without the heathendom, and where the place of
the god Baldr is occupied by that of our Lord himself. The English
version of the spell runs thus:

The lord rade,
and the foal slade;
He lighted
and he righted;
set joint to joint
and bone to bone,
sinew to sinew.
Heal, in the Holy Ghost’s name[684]!

-----

Footnote 682:

“Ueber zwei entdeckte Gedichte aus der Zeit des deutschen Heidenthums.
Von Jacob Grimm.” Vorgelesen in der Königl. Akademie der
Wissenschaften, am 3 Febr. 1842, pp. 10, 11.

Footnote 683:

Deut. Mythol. p. 205.

Footnote 684:

Chalmers’s Nursery Tales.

-----

It will be admitted that this is something more than a merely curious
coincidence, and that it leads to an induction of no little value. Now
it appears to me that we have reasonable ground to believe our version
quite as ancient and quite as heathen as the German one which still
retains the heathen names, and that we have good right to suppose that
it once referred to the same god. How then was this god named in
England? Undoubtedly Pol or Pal[685]. Of such a god we have some obscure
traces in England. We may pass over the Appolyn and Apollo, whom many of
our early romancers number among the Saxon gods, although the confused
remembrance of an ancient and genuine divinity may have lurked under
this foreign garb, and confine ourselves to the names of places hearing
signs of Pol or Pal. Grimm has shown that the dikes called Phalgraben in
Germany are much more likely to have been originally Pfolgraben, and his
conclusion applies equally to Palgrave, two parishes in Norfolk and
Suffolk:—so Wódnes Díc, and the Devil’s Dike between Cambridge and
Newmarket. Polebrooke in Northamptonshire, Polesworth in Warwickshire,
Polhampton in Hants[686], Polstead in Suffolk, Polstead close under
Wanborough (Wódnesbeorh) in Surrey,—which is remarkable for the
exquisite beauty of its springs of water,—Polsden in Hants, Polsdon in
Surrey, seem all of the same class. To these we must add Polsley and
Polthorn, which last name would seem to connect the god with that
particular tree: last, but not least, we have in Poling, in Sussex, the
record of a race of Polingas, who may possibly have carried up their
genealogy to Bældæg in this form.

Footnote 685:

Though little fond of modern Anglosaxon verses, of modern Latin
hexameters or modern Greek iambics, I shall give a translation of
these two spells, for the purpose of comparison:

Pol and Wóden
tó wuda fóron
Bealdres folan wearð
fót bewrenced;
ða hine Síðgúð begól,
Sunne hire sweoster,
ðá hine Frýe begól,
Folle hire sweoster,
ðá hine Wóden begól
swá he wel cúðe:
swá sý bánwrence, swá sý blodwrence,
swá sý liðwrence;
bán tó báne,
blód tó blóde,
lið tó liðe,
swá swá gelímede sýn.

And thus the English one:

Dryhten rád,
fola slád;
se lihtode
and rihtode;
sette lið tó liðe
eác swá bán to báne,
sinewe tó sinewe.
Hál wes ðú, on ðæs Hálgan Gástes naman!

Footnote 686:

Polhǽmatún. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 642, 752, 1136, 1187. Polesleáh in Wilts.
Cod. Dipl. No. 641. Polstede in Suffolk. Cod. Dipl. No. 685. Polþorn
in Worcester. Cod. Dipl. No. 61. Pollehám, No. 907.

-----

The myth of Baldr in the North is one of the most beautiful and striking
in the whole compass of their mythology: it is to be lamented that no
trace of it remains in our own poems. Still Baldr’s lay may not have
been entirely without influence upon the progress of Christianity among
the Saxons, if, as is probable, it resembled in its main features the
legend of the Scandinavians. For them he was the god of light and grace,
of splendour, manly excellence and manly beauty. A prophecy that Baldr
would perish afflicted the gods; Frigga took an oath from all created
nature that no individual thing would harm the pride of the Æsir, the
darling of the Asyniar. A sprig of mistletoe, at that time too young to
enter into so solemn an obligation, was alone, and fatally, excepted.
The invulnerability of the god induced him to offer himself as a mark
for the practice of his relatives and friends. Maces, axes and spears
fell innocuous from his sacred frame; but Loki placed a sprig of
mistletoe in the hand of the blind Haudr[687], and with this, the sole
thing that could not be forsworn, he slew his brother. An effort still
remained to be made. Oþinn himself descended to the abode of Hel, in
hopes of persuading the goddess of the dead to relinquish her prey. He
was successful, and returned with the joyful intelligence that Baldr
would be restored to the gods, if all created nature would weep for him.
All nature did weep for the loss of the god of beauty, save one old
crone. When called upon to do her part in his restoration she answered,
“What have the gods done for me, that I should weep for Baldr? Let Hel
keep her dead!” It is thought that it was Loki who had assumed the old
woman’s form. Thus Baldr’s fate was sealed. The faithful Nanna[688]
would not survive her beautiful lord, and the gods and goddesses
attended round the pile on which their two cherished companions were
reduced to dust together. But the slain god could hope for no
resurrection: his throne was placed in the shadowy realm of Hel, and
weeping virgins spread the eternal pall that was to give dreary honour
to the god of light in the cold kingdom of darkness and the invisible.
The posthumous son, or more likely re-birth, of the god, avenged his
father upon the wretched instrument of Loki’s wiles. Yet those who had
fathomed the deeper mysteries of the creed knew well enough that Baldr
was to rise again in triumph: after the twilight of the gods and the
destruction of the ancient world, he was to return in glory and joy, and
reign in a world where there should be neither sin nor sorrow, nor
destruction.

-----

Footnote 687:

In Anglosaxon, Heaðo, which however has almost always the abstract
sense of _war_.

Footnote 688:

In Anglosaxon, Nóð: this occurs rarely save in composition, where it
seems to denote bravery or courage. But it is to be observed that nóð
is the name of a ship or large boat; and it is worth inquiry whether
the Teutonic goddess Zíza, probably in Anglosaxon Táte, may not have
been identical with this Nanna, instead of Frouwa. The dragging about
a boat or ship was peculiar to Zíza’s worship. Deut. Myth. p. 237,
_seq._

-----

Of these details, the Anglosaxon mythology knows nothing, in the forms
which have survived: and perhaps in this peculiar myth we may recognize
something of an astronomical character, which can certainly not be
attributed to other Northern legends. However this may be, we must
content ourselves with the traces here given of Pol, as one form of
Baldr, and with the genealogical relation which has been noticed. Meagre
as these facts undoubtedly are, they are amply sufficient to prove that
the most beloved of the Northern gods was not altogether a stranger to
their children in this island. Perhaps the adoption of another creed led
to the absorption of this divinity into a person of far higher and other
dignity, which, while it smoothed the way for the reception of
Christianity, put an end for ever to even the record of his sufferings.

GEÁT, in Old-norse GAUTR, in Old-German KÓZ.—A cursory allusion has
already been made to Geát, probably only another form of Wóden, since in
the mythology of the North, Oþinn is Gaútr, but certainly the eponymus
of the Geátas, that tribe of whom Beówulf was the champion and
afterwards the king. Geát appears in the Westsaxon genealogy as a
progenitor of Wóden, but this collocation is unimportant in mythological
inquiries. It is probable that Gapt, whom Jornandes places at the head
of the Gothic genealogy, is only a misreading of Gavt, which is the
equivalent Gothic form of Geát, and that Sigegeát, Angelgeát, Waðelgeát,
which occur in other Anglosaxon genealogies, are identical with
him[689]. His love for Maðhild, a legend unknown to all the nations of
the North, save our own forefathers, is noticed in the Exeter Book: it
is there said,

We ðæt Mæðhilde To Mǽðhild, we the tale have
monge gefrunon heard, that endless was the
wurdon grundleáse love of Geat, so that the pain
Geátes frige of love took all sleep from
ðæt him seó sorglufu him[690].
slǽp ealle binom.

It is much to be regretted that this is all we learn on this subject,
which becomes very interesting when we remember how little trace there
is of phallic gods in the Northern mythology. But that Geát was a god,
and not merely a hero, is not left entirely to inference: it is
distinctly asserted by various and competent authorities: Nennius has
declared him to have been _filius dei_, not indeed the God of Hosts, and
God of Gods, but of some idol[691]. But Asser, who was no doubt well
acquainted with the traditions of Ælfred’s family, says[692], “Quem
Getam dudum pagani pro deo venerabantur,” which is repeated in the same
words by Florence of Worcester[693] and Simeon of Durham[694], and is
contained in a Saxon genealogy preserved in the Textus Roffensis,
“Geáta, ðene ða hǽðenan wurðedon for God.” We can therefore have no
scruple about admitting his divinity; and a comparison of the Gothic and
Scandinavian traditions proves the belief in it to have been widely
held. The name, which is derived from _geotan_, to pour, most probably
denotes only the special form in which Wóden was worshipped by some
particular tribes or families; and the occurrence of it in the
genealogies, only the fact that such tribes or families formed part of
the national aggregates, to whose royal line it belongs. But
nevertheless we must admit the personality attributed to him by those
tribes, and the probability of his having been, at least for them, the
national divinity. The circumstance of his name having left such deep
traces as we perceive in the quotations given above, proves not only the
especial divinity of the person, but perhaps also the political power
and importance of the worshippers[695].

-----

Footnote 689:

And see Geijer, Gesch. Schwed. i. 30. Gaut, Gautrek, Algaut,
Gauthilld. Yngl. Sag. cap. 38.

Footnote 690:

Cod. Exon. p. 378. If Geát really be Wóden, this is another
approximation to Hermes in his phallic character. Altogether the myth
of the ἱερός γάμος, so constant in Greek mythology, is scarcely
traceable in the North. The Wóden worship, at least, may have had
something more of the character of the Apollo worship among the
Dorians.

Footnote 691:

Nennius, § 31. Huntingdon follows Nennius, Hist. Angl. bk. ii.

Footnote 692:

De Reb. Gest. Ælfredi, an. 849.

Footnote 693:

Flor. Wig. Chron. an. 849.

Footnote 694:

De Reb. Gest. Regum, an. 849.

Footnote 695:

See the author’s edition of Beówulf, vol. ii. Postscript to the
Preface. Leo’s Beówulf, etc.; and Ettmuller’s Beówulf, etc., with the
last of whom, upon the maturest consideration, I find it impossible to
agree.

-----

SÆTERE.—Among the Gods invariably mentioned as having been worshipped by
our forefathers is one who answered to the Latin Saturnus, at least in
name. From the seventh week-day we may infer that his Anglosaxon name
was Sætere, perhaps the _Placer_ or _Disposer_[696]; for Sæteresdæg
seems a more accurate form than Sæternesdæg which we sometimes find.
There are both names of places and of plants formed upon the name of
this god: as Satterthwaite in Lancashire, Satterleigh in Devonshire and
Sæteresbyrig[697] in the same county, of which there appears to be no
modern representative; while among plants the _Gallicrus_, or common
crowfoot, is called in Anglosaxon Satorláðe. The appearance of Saturnus
as an interlocutor in such a dialogue as the Salomon and Saturn[698] is
a further evidence of divinity; so that, taking all circumstances into
account, it is probable that when Gregory of Tours, Geoffry of Monmouth
and others, number him among the Teutonic gods, they are not entirely
mistaken. Now there has been a tradition, in Germany at least, of a god
Chródo, or Hruodo, whose Latin name was Saturn, and whose figure is said
to have been that of an old man standing upon a fish, and holding in one
hand a bundle of flowers, while the other grasps a wheel. Grimm imagines
herein some working of Slavonic traditions[699], and following the
Slavonic interpreters connects this Chródo with Kirt or Sitivrat, and
again with some Sanskrit legend of a Satjavrata[700]. But the reasoning
seems inconclusive, and hardly sufficient to justify even the very
cautions mode in which Grimm expresses himself about this Slavo-Germanic
godhead[701]. More than this we cannot say of the Anglosaxon Sætere,
whose name does not appear in the royal genealogies; nevertheless we
cannot doubt the existence of some deity whom our forefathers recognized
under that name.

-----

Footnote 696:

Grimm seems rather to imagine _insidiator_. Myth. p. 226.

Footnote 697:

Cod. Dipl. No. 813.

Footnote 698:

An edition of the Anglosaxon dialogues on this subject has been put
forth by the author for the Ælfric Society. To this reference may be
made for full details respecting Saturnus.

Footnote 699:

It is with no disrespect to the unrivalled powers of Scott that I
enter my protest here against the false _costume_ of Ivanhoe; a far
more serious objection no doubt is the way in which his brilliant
contrast, necessary to the success of a romance, has misled the
historian. Had Ivanhoe not appeared, we should not have had the many
errors which disfigure Thierry’s Conquête de l'Angleterre par les
Normands. But when Scott makes Ulrica (Ulrica a Saxon female name!)
calling upon Zernebock, as a god of her forefathers, he makes her talk
absolute nonsense. Some Mecklenburg or Pomeranian Saxons, in the
immediate neighbourhood of Slavonic populations, or mingled with them,
may possibly have heard of _their_ god Czerny Bog, (_the black god_)
contrasted with Bjala Bog, (_the white god_), but assuredly no
Anglosaxon ever heard the name of any such deity; nor does the chaunt
of the vindictive lady bear one single trace of Saxon character. In
every matter of detail, the romance is only calculated to mislead; and
this is to be regretted, inasmuch as the beauty of the whole work
renders it a certain vehicle of error;—has rendered it already a snare
to one estimable author. M. Thierry has related the effect produced
upon his mind by Ivanhoe. See his Dix Ans d'Études Historiques:
Preface.

Footnote 700:

Deut. Myth. p. 227.

Footnote 701:

See Salomon and Saturn, p. 129.

-----

From the Gods we pass to the Goddesses: of these we have indeed but
scanty record in England. Of the great and venerable goddess Fricge,
Wóden’s wife, we are only told that she gave her name to the sixth day
of the week; and we must admit that this is all we know of her, unless
she be implied under some other name, which is possible.

Beda in acquainting us with the ancient names of the Anglosaxon months
tells us of four which were called from their especial reference to the
gods: these are Solmónað or February; Hréðmónað, March; Eóstermónað,
April; and Blótmónað, November. Solmónað he says received its name from
the cakes which were offered to the gods at that time[702]; Blótmónað
from the victims (cattle) that were vowed for sacrifice; of the others
he says[703], “Hréðmónað is called from a goddess of theirs,—Rheda, to
whom they sacrificed in that month. Eóstermónað, which is now
interpreted by the ‘Paschal month,’ had its name of old from a goddess
of theirs named Eostre, to whom in this month they offered
celebrations.”

-----

Footnote 702:

Can this word _sol_ (perhaps _sól_) be a contracted form of _sufl_? If
not, I cannot offer an explanation of it.

Footnote 703:

De Natura Rerum, cap. xv.

-----

The Scandinavian and German mythology are alike destitute of these
names; although among the many goddesses they recognize some two may
perhaps be identical with ours. The name Hréðe may possibly mean
_severe_, _fierce_, and denote a warlike goddess; but still I am more
inclined to connect it with the adjective Hróð, glorious, famous, and to
see in it the meaning of the _great_ or _glorious_ goddess, that is, in
some form or other, Fricge, Wóden’s wife: it is however not to be
forgotten that the German Chrodo, in Anglosaxon Hróð or even Hréðe, is
now admitted, and that this god was in fact Saturn. It is true that we
have more than one fragmentary legend in which the name of Saturn
survives, but in a heroic rather than a godlike form, and this may have
been the cause of its preservation: the Church found Saturn useful, and
kept him; nor is it at all surprising that a change of sex should have
taken place: the same thing happened with the German goddess Nerthus,
who reappears in the Norse god Niördr, and the classical scholar will at
once remember the god Lunus, as well as the goddess Luna[704]. Whatever
explanation we may attempt to give of Hréðe, it is clear that she was a
Saxon goddess to whom at stated periods sacrifice was offered. The same
thing may be said of Eóstre or Eástre, whose name must be etymologically
connected with Eást, _oriens_, and who therefore was in all probability
a goddess of brightness and splendour, perhaps also a Beorhte or Bright
goddess: she may have been a goddess of light, of the morning beams, of
the newly awakening year, when the sun first begins to recover power
after the gloom and darkness of winter. That she was deeply impressed
upon the mind and feelings of the people follows from her name having
been retained for the great festival of the church: it may also be
fairly argued that she was a mild and gentle divinity, whom the clergy
did not fear thus to commemorate.

-----

Footnote 704:

The name of Nerthus stands in all the best MSS. of Tacitus’ Germania,
and the change of it into Herthus, though very plausible, was
unnecessary. One easily sees the cause of error: it was thought that
Herthus, _terra mater_, was the Gothic Airthus, in Old-german Erdu, in
Anglosaxon Eorðe. But there is no H in these words; if there were we
should have had a Teutonic Vesta. The goddess’s name was Nairthus,
Nerdu, Nerðe, and her corresponding form in Old-norse, Niördr.

-----

Lye’s dictionary cites another goddess, Ricen, with the translation
Diana, which he seems to have taken from some Cotton MS. It stands too
isolated for us to make any successful investigation, but I may be
excused for calling to mind the fact that Diana is mentioned by the
versifying chroniclers as among the Saxon gods, and also that the
superstition known in Germany as the “Wild Hunt,” and which is properly
connected with Wóden, goes very generally among us by the name of Ludus
Dianae. This, which became the foundation of many a cruel persecution,
under the name of witchcraft, is spread over every part of Germany in
one form or another: sometimes it is [the daughter of] Herodias who is
compelled for ever to expiate her fatal dancing; at other times we have
Minerva or Bertha, Holda, Habundia, Dame Abonde, Domina, Hera—the Lady,
and so on. It is true that our fragmentary remains of Saxon heathendom
do not contain any immediate allusions to this superstition, but yet it
can scarcely be doubted that it did exist here as it did in every part
of the continent[705], and one therefore would not willingly decide at
once against there having been some deity who might be translated by
Diana in the _interpretatio Romana_.

-----

Footnote 705:

“In contrariam partem est auctoritas decreti xxvi. 9. y. c. epi. Ita
ibi legitur. Illud non est obmittendum, quod quedam scelerate mulieres
retro post Sathan converse, demonum illusionibus et fantasmatibus
seducte, credunt se et profitentur cum Diana nocturnis horis dea
paganorum, vel cum Herodiade et innumera multitudine mulierum,
equitare super quasdam bestias et multa terrarum spatia intempeste
noctis silentio pertransire, eius iussionibus obedire veluti domine,
et certis noctibus ad eius servitium evocari.” Hieronymi Vicecomitis
opusculum Lamiarum vel Striarum. Mediol. 1490. John of Salisbury
notices this in his Polyczaticus, and Henry More in his Mystery of
Godliness. See Salom. Sat. p. 125, _seq._

-----

FIENDS and MONSTERS.—The community of belief, between the Germans of
this island, of the continent, and their Scandinavian kinsmen, does not
appear to have been confined to the beneficent gods of fertility or
warlike prowess. In the noble poem of Beowulf we are made acquainted
with a monstrous fiend, Grendel, and his mother, supernatural beings of
gigantic birth, stature and disposition, voracious and cruel, feeding
upon men, and from their nature incapable of being wounded with mortal
weapons. The triumph of the hero over these unearthly enemies forms the
subject of one half the poem. But Grendel, who, from the characteristics
given above, may at once be numbered among the rough, violent deities of
nature, the Jotnar[706] of the North and Titans of classical mythology,
is not without other records: in two or three charters we find places
bearing his name, and it is remarkable that they are all connected more
or less with water, while the poem describes his dwelling as a cavern
beneath a lake, peopled with Nicors and other supernatural beings of a
fiendish character. The references are Grindles pyt[707], Grindles
bece[708], and Grendles mere[709]. Grimm, by a comparison of
philological and other data, identifies Grendel with the Norse Loki, the
evil-bringer, and in the end destroyer of the gods[710]. The early
converted Anglosaxons who possessed another devil to oppose to the
Almighty in the Ragnaravkr[711], could easily reconcile themselves to
the destruction of Grendel by an earthly hero; although the ancient
heathendom breaks out in the supernatural powers attributed to the
latter, and which placing him very near the rank of the gods, induce a
belief that Beówulf contains only the shadow of an older myth which may
have been current far beyond the limits of this island[712]. It will be
sufficient to call attention to the many German tales in which the
devil’s mother figures as a principal actor, nay to our own familiar
expression, _the devil’s dam_, to show how essential this characteristic
of the fiend was: the devil of the Church had certainly no mother; but
the old Teutonic evil spirit had, and Loki and Grendel are alike in
this. Even the religious view, which naturally shaped itself to other
influences, could not escape the essential heathendom of this idea: the
devil who is so constant an agent in the Anglosaxon legends, has, if not
a mother, at least a father, no less than Satan himself; but Satan lies
bound in hell, as Loki lies bound, and it is only as his emissary and
servant that the devil his son[713] appears on earth, to tempt and to
destroy. In Cædmon, the legend of St. Andrew, Juliana, Gúðlác, etc., it
is always the devil’s son and satellite who executes his work on earth,
and returns to give an account of his mission to him that sent him.

-----

Footnote 706:

In Beówulf he is continually called Eoten.

Footnote 707:

Cod. Dipl. No. 59.

Footnote 708:

Ibid. No. 570.

Footnote 709:

Ibid. No. 353.

Footnote 710:

Mythologie, p. 222.

Footnote 711:

The Devil and the Pater Noster were to contend together at Doomsday:
each was to assume fifteen different forms. Sal. Sat. p. 145.

Footnote 712:

See Beówulf, ii. Postscript, and the Stammtafel der Westsachsen.

Footnote 713:

In the legend of Juliana, the subordinate devil speaks of Satan as his
father and king. Cod. Exon. pp. 261, 273. And so also in Salomon and
Saturn (p. 141), he is called Satan’s thane. Again, in the same
composition, Satan is called the devil’s father: “The Pater Noster
will shoot the devil with boiling shafts; and the lightning will burn
and mark him, and the rain will be shed over him, and the thick
darkness confuse him, and the thunder thrash him with the fiery axe,
and drive him to the iron chain wherein his father dwelleth, Satan and
Sathiel.” p. 149. In the legend of St. Andrew, Satan himself appears,
which may be owing to its Greek origin. See Vercelli Poems, Andr. l.
2388: still, in another passage Satan sends his children. Ibid. l.
2692.

-----

Thus throughout the strange confusion which besets all Anglosaxon
compositions in which the devil is introduced either as a tempter or a
persecutor of the holy and just, we may perceive a ray of ancient
heathendom, gloomy enough, no doubt, but far less miserable than the
vile materialism of the notions with which it has been mixed up. The
rude _Eoten_ or Titan is not nearly so repugnant to our Christian ideas
as the gross corporeal fiends who have grown out of him, and who play so
conspicuous a part in Anglosaxon hagiology or purgatorial legends: nor
is it easy to conceive any superstition more degrading than that which
Eastern or perhaps even Roman traditions thus engrafted upon the ancient
creed. With these we are not called upon to deal in any further detail,
for though they have no claim whatever to be called Christian, they
certainly have nothing to do with Anglosaxon heathendom. The Grendels
and Nicors of our forefathers were gods of nature, the spirits of the
wood and wave: they sunk into their degraded and disgusting forms only
when the devils of a barbarous superstition came to be confounded and
mixed up with them. There is still something genuine and poetical in the
account which a monk of St. Gall gives of the colloquy between the
ancient gods when the missionaries settled on the shores of the lake of
Constance; when in the dead of night, the holy anchoret watching at his
nets,

Heard how the spirit of the flood
Spake to the spirit of the hill:

“Volvente deinceps cursu temporis, electus Dei Gallus retia lymphae
laxabat in silentio noctis, sed inter ea audivit demonem de culmine
montis pari suo clamantem, qui erat in abditis maris. Quo respondente,
‘Adsum!’ montanus e contra: ‘Surge,’ inquit, ‘in adiutorium mihi! Ecce
peregrini venerunt, qui me de templo eiecerunt;’ nam Deos conterebant,
quos incolae isti colebant; insuper et eos ad se convertebant; ‘Veni,
veni, adiuva nos expellere eos de terris!’ Marinus demon respondit: ‘En
unus illorum est in pelago, cui nunquam nocere potero. Volui enim retia
sua ledere, sed me victum proba lugere. Signo orationis est semper
clausus, nec umquam somno oppressus.’ Electus vero Gallus haec audiens,
munivit se undique signaculo crucis, dixitque ad eos: ‘In nomine Jesu
Christi praecipio vobis, ut de locis istis recedatis, nec aliquem hic
ledere praesumatis!’ Et cum festinatione ad littus rediit, atque abbati
suo, quae audierat, recitavit. Quod vir Dei Columbanus audiens,
convocavit fratres in ecclesiam, solitum signum tangens. O mira dementia
diaboli! voces servorum Dei praeripuit vox fantasmatica, cum heiulatus
atque ululatus dirae vocis audiebatur per culmina [montium[714]].”

-----

Footnote 714:

Vit. Anon. Sci. Galli. Pertz, Monum. ii. 7. Pertz has justly called
attention to the metrical form of this colloquy. It is deeply to be
lamented that we no longer possess it in its earliest shape, and in
the language of its earliest composition.

-----

But words are hardly strong enough to express the feeling with which an
educated mind contemplates the fantastical, filthy and hideous images
which gross fanaticism strove to force into the service of a religion
whose end and means are love; the material terrors which were
substituted for the sanctions of the most spiritual, pure and holy
creed; the vulgar, degrading and ridiculous phantasmagoria devised to
destroy the essential selfishness and impurity of men, and startle them
into justice and righteousness of life! The Teutonic Titans, though
terrible from their rude strength, and dangerous even to the gods
themselves, are neither disgusting nor degrading: they are like Chronos
and Saturn, full of power and wisdom; they are in constant warfare with
the gods, because the latter are the representatives of a more humane
order; because the latter was more civilised: but as the giant race were
mighty at the beginning, so are they to triumph at the end of the world;
and it is only when they shall have succeeded in destroying the gods of
Oþinn’s race, that they will themselves vanish from the scene, and the
glorious reign of Allfather commence. Loki alone has something mean and
tricksey in his character, something allied to falsehood—a slight spice
of the Mephistopheles. But it is not probable that this belongs to his
earliest form, and it appears rather to mark the deterioration of a myth
becoming popular, and assuming traits of the popular, humorous spirit,
which takes delight in seeing power counteracted by cunning, and
revenges itself for the perfection of its heroes by sometimes exposing
them to ludicrous defeat. But even Loki was at first the friend and
associate of the gods: he was united with them by the most sacred bonds
of brotherhood, and his skill and wisdom secured them victory in many a
dangerous encounter. Like Lucifer, he had been a tenant of heaven: why
he and the gods ultimately parted in anger we are not told; but we find
him pursuing them with the utmost malice, till at length he causes the
death of Baldr. He is then bound and cast beneath the worlds, the
poisonous snake hangs over him distilling torturing venom: his faithful
wife sits by and catches the drops as they fall, but when the vessel in
which she receives them is full and she turns for a moment to empty it,
the deadly juice reaches the prostrate god, and in his agony he trembles
in every limb. This convulsion is known to men as the earthquake. It is
only in the twilight of the gods that he will break his chain and lead
the sons of Muspel to avenge him upon the race of Oþinn.

But Loki is no devil in the Anglosaxon sense of Satan and his son; he is
no deceiver or persecutor of men; least of all is he their torturer in
another world. He suffers indeed, but like Prometheus, or Entelechus, or
Ægeon, and his hour of triumph is to come. There is in his genuine
character nothing mean or little,—much indeed that is terrible, gloomy
and vague, but nothing ridiculous or disgusting. The Saxon devil with
horns, tail, cloven feet, sulphur and pitch, torches, red-hot tongs,
pincers and pitchforks is less creditable to the imagination, and more
dangerous to the moral being, of his inventors.

Nor are the occupations of such a fiend less vulgar than his form: he
blasts the corn, wounds the cattle, fetters the hands of the doomed,
enters the mouth of those who have not guarded it by the sign of the
cross, and in a future state becomes the torturer—in the most material
and mechanical way—of those whose life has been spent in the service of
sin. The coarse fancy of Marlowe himself halts after the descriptions of
the Anglosaxon divines and poets, revelling in this fruitful theme.
Unpleasant as such records are, and revolting to our sense of right, it
is necessary that we should know what was taught or permitted by the
clergy, if we are to know anything of the mode of life and mode of
belief of our forefathers.

As early even as the eighth century, we find so great a man as Beda
condescending to admit into his ecclesiastical history, such melancholy
evidence of Manichæan materialism as the vision of Drihthelm. He tells
how such a man in Northumbria, lying at the point of death, had fallen
into a trance, recovering from which and being restored to health, he
had entered the monastery of Melrose, in which he continued till his
death. During his trance he had seen visions which he afterwards
communicated to Hamgisl a priest, Aldfríð king of the Northumbrians, and
others. He related that on being released from the body his soul had
been led by one, bright of aspect, gloriously clothed, towards the east,
into a valley wide and deep and of a length that seemed infinite: one
side glowed terribly with flames, the other was filled with furious hail
and freezing snow. Either side was full of human souls which were tossed
from left to right as by a tempest. For when they could not bear the
violence of the immense heat, they rushed wretchedly into the midst of
the dreadful cold; and when they could find no rest there, they sprung
back again, again to burn in the midst of inextinguishable flames. When
Drihthelm saw them thus eternally tormented by a crowd of deformed
demons, he thought within himself, “This is surely hell, of whose
intolerable tortures I have often heard tell!” But his companion said,
“This is not the hell thou thinkest!” and proceeding further, he beheld
how the darkness began to thicken around and fill the whole space before
him. Suddenly in this deep night he perceived globes of dusky fire cast
up from what seemed to be a vast well, into which they fell again,
without intermission. In the midst of these horrors his conductor left
him. On looking more intently, he now perceived that the tongues of fire
were all full of human souls, tossed aloft like sparks in smoke, and
then dragged back into the abyss. And an incomparable stench, which
bubbled up with the vapours, filled all those abodes of darkness. Around
him sounded the shouts and taunts of fiends, like a vulgar mob exulting
over a captive enemy: suddenly a host of evil spirits dragged through
the darkness five souls, one of a laic, one of a woman, one tonsured
like a cleric, and plunged them into the abyss amidst a confused roar of
lamentation and laughter. Then certain malignant spirits ascending from
the deep, surrounded the trembling spectator, terrifying him with their
flaming eyes and the fire which burst from their mouths and noses, and
threatening to seize him with fiery pincers which they held in their
hands. From this danger he was rescued by the return of his companion,
who conducted him to two corresponding regions of eternal bliss, every
one of whose details is in the strongest contrast to those already
described, but just as material, as gross and sensual. The moral of this
is too important to be given in any but Beda’s own words. “And when, on
our return, we had reached those happy mansions of spirits clothed in
white, he said unto me, ‘Knowest thou what all these things are which
thou hast beheld?’ I answered, ‘No.’ Then said he, 'The valley which
thou sawest, horrible with its boiling flames and its stiff cold, that
is the place where shall be tried and chastised the souls of those men,
who delaying to confess and to amend their sins, yet fly to penitence in
the hour of death, and thus leave the body: yet since they had
confession and penance even in death, shall all, at the day of judgment,
reach the kingdom of heaven. But many, both the prayers of the living,
and their alms and fasts, and most of all the celebration of masses,
assist, so that they shall be freed even before the day of judgment. But
that flame-belching, putrid well which thou hast seen is the mouth of
hell itself, into which whoever shall fall, shall never be set free for
ever and ever. And that flowery place in which thou sawest those most
beauteous youths enjoy themselves in splendour, is that wherein are
received the souls of those who indeed leave the body in good works, but
yet are not of such perfection that they may at once enter the kingdom
of heaven; who yet shall all, in the day of judgment, enter into the
sight of Christ, and the joys of the heavenly kingdom. For they who are
perfect in every word and act and thought, immediately on leaving the
body shall reach the heavenly kingdom; to whose precincts that place
belonged, where thou heardest the sound of pleasant singing, together
with the smell of sweetness and the splendour of light[715].'” Having
thus seen and heard, Drihthelm was allowed to return to the body, where
no doubt he became a powerful champion of Purgatory. But Beda is not
satisfied with this tale: he goes on to tell of a Mercian noble, who
would not go to confession. At the point of death, he sees two angels
enter his room, bearing the record of his good deeds, which fill but a
small roll: having caused him to read this, they make way for a crowd of
fiends, black and foul, who bear the enormous tale of his sins of word,
work and thought, which also he is compelled to read. Then the leader of
the fiends turning to the sons of light exclaims, “Why sit ye here,
knowing assuredly that he is ours?” to which they reply, “Ye say truly:
take him, and lead him with you into the accumulation of your own
damnation!” Upon this the good spirits vanish, and two demons, a sort of
Occidental Munkir and Nekir, smite him with ploughshares on the head and
feet, and creep into him; when they meet within him, he dies and passes
into everlasting torments[716]. This tale, which Beda heard from the
venerable bishop Pecthelm[717], he refines upon, explains, and finishes
by declaring that he relates it simply for the salvation of those who
shall read or hear it. No doubt the distempered ravings of monks, made
half mad by inhuman austerities, unnatural restrictions, and wretched
themes of contemplation, would in themselves be of little worth: we can
comprehend the visions of a Saint Francis de Salis, an Ignatius Loyola,
a Peter the Hermit, a Santa Theresa, and even more readily those of a
Drihthelm or a Madame Guyon: but how shall we understand the record of
them by a Beda or a Fenelon?

-----

Footnote 715:

Beda, H. E. v. 12.

Footnote 716:

Beda, H. E. v. 13.

Footnote 717:

The first Bishop of Whiterne in Galloway, who died in 737. Any one who
desires to learn more of the miserable superstitions which Beda could
recommend, may see the account of Fursæus (H. E. iii. 19), and the MS.
lives of the saint of which Mr. Stevenson has given a notice in his
edition of Beda, pp. 197, 199, notes.

-----

Such authority as this was likely to be followed with zeal; once open,
the career of unbridled fancy was sure to find no limit; the more sure,
since then, as now, the fears and miseries of the mass were sources of
profit to the few. Then, as now, there were rogues found who dared to
step between man and God, to clothe themselves in the coat without seam,
to make themselves the mediators between eternal mercy and the perishing
sinner. Accordingly in later times we find variation upon variation in
the outline already so vigorously sketched; William of Malmesbury
furnishes an ample field for collectors of this kind of literature. I
shall content myself here with citing from the so often quoted Salomon
and Saturn two passages, which to me are redolent of heathendom,
disguised after the fashion which has been described.

Mæg simle se Godes cwide Ever may the God’s word[718]
gumena gehwylcum, for every man,
ealra feónda gehwone every fiend
fleónde gebringan, put to flight,
ðurh mannes múð, through mouth of man,
mánfulra heáp the troop of evil ones,
sweartne geswencan; the black troop, oppress;
næfre híe ðæs syllíce let them never so strangely
bleóum bregdað change their colours
æfter báncofan, in their body,
feðerhoman onfóð. or assume plumage.
Hwílum flótan grípað, Sometimes they seize the sailor,
hwílum híe gewendað sometimes they turn
on wyrmes líc into the body of a snake
scearpes and sticoles, sharp and piercing,
stingað nýten they sting the neat
feldgongende, going about the fields,
feoh gestrúdað; the cattle they destroy;
hwílum híe on wætere sometimes in the water
wicg gehnǽgað, they bow the horse,
hornum geheáwað with horns they hew him
oððæt him heortan blód, until his heart’s blood,
fámig flódes bæð, a foaming bath of flood,
foldan geséceð. falls to the earth.
Hwílum híe gefeterað Sometimes they fetter
fǽges monnes handa, the hands of the doomed,
gehefegað ðonne he they make them heavy when he
æt hilde sceall is called upon in war,
wið láðwerud against a hostile troop
lifes tiligan: to provide for his life:
áwrítað híe on his wæpne they write upon his weapon
wælnóta heáp. a fatal heap of marks[719].

-----

Footnote 718:

That is, the Paternoster.

Footnote 719:

Sal. Sat. pp. 143, 144.

-----

Again we are told, in the same composition: “And when the devil is very
weary he seeketh the cattle of some sinful man, or an unclean tree; or
if he meeteth the mouth and body of a man that hath not been blessed
with the sign of the cross, then goeth he into the bowels of the man who
hath so forgotten, and through his skin and through his flesh departeth
into the earth, and from thence findeth his way into the desert of
hell[720].”

-----

Footnote 720:

Ibid. p. 149.

-----

NICOR.—To the class of elemental gods must originally have been reckoned
the Nicor, or water-spirit, whose name has not only been retained in the
_Water Nixes_ of our own country, and in the _Neck_ of Germany, but in
our own common name for the devil, _Old Nick_. According to the account
given in Beówulf, these were supernatural, elvish creatures haunting the
lakes, rivers and seas, ever on the watch to injure the wayfarer, and
apparently endowed with the power of creating tempests. In this
semi-Christian view they were fiendish and savage enemies of the sailor,
whom they pursued with horns and tusks, dragged to the bottom of the
waves and then no doubt devoured[721]. Probably, like other supernatural
beings dreaded by our forefathers, they were included in the family of
ogres and monsters descended from the first homicide. Yet it may be
doubted whether this, was the original and heathen sense of the word
Nicor. As late as the thirteenth century I find in an old German
glossary Neckar translated by _Neptunus_, the god of the sea; and it is
notorious that one of the names borne by Oþinn, whenever he appears as a
sea-god is Hnikuþr and Nikuz. Hence it is not unlikely that in their
ancient creed, the pagan Saxons recognized Nicor as Wóden. The name
Hwala which occurs in the genealogies, and like Geát may be assumed to
be only another name of Wóden, confirms this view. Hwala is formed from
Hwæl, _cetus_, just as Scyldwa is from Scyld, _clypeus_, and was
probably only a name of Wóden as a sea-god. The danger attending the
whale or walrus fishery[722] made the first at least of these animals an
object of superstitious dread to the Anglosaxon sailor; perhaps, as in
the case of the bear, natural peculiarities which are striking enough
even to our more scientific eyes, helped to give an exceptional
character to the monarch of the Northern seas. Be this as it may, it is
not without importance that Hwala should appear in the genealogies among
names many of which are indisputably Wóden’s, that in Scandinavia and
Germany Nikuz or Necker should be names of the sea-god, and that till a
very late period,—when the heathen gods had everywhere assumed the garb
of fiends and devils,—the Nicor should appear as the monster of the deep
_par excellence_. The miraculous power attributed to the Nicor,—in
Beówulf he is called “wundorlíc wǽgbora,” a supernatural bringer of the
waves,—is in itself evidence of earlier godhead; and in this sense I am
disposed to identify him with the _demon marinus_ whom St. Gall defeated
by his constant watchfulness. In his altered and degraded form we may
also recognize the demon of the lines lately cited, who stabs the horse
with his horns while crossing the water. The beautiful Nix or Nixie who
allures the young fisher or hunter to seek her embraces in the wave
which brings his death, the Neck who seizes upon and drowns the maidens
who sport upon his banks, the river-spirit who still yearly in some
parts of Germany demands tribute of human life, are all forms of the
ancient Nicor; but more genuine perhaps,—certainly more pleasing,—is the
Swedish Stromkarl, who from the jewelled bed of his river, watches with
delight the children gambol in the adjoining meadows, and singing
sweetly to them in the evening, detaches from his hoary hair the sweet
blossoms of the water-lily, which he wafts over the surface to their
hands.

-----

Footnote 721:

Beówulf, _passim_.

Footnote 722:

The fisherman in Ælfric’s dialogue disclaims any intention of
whale-fishing, on account of its dangers. Thorpe, Anal. p. 24.

-----

HEL.—Among the fearful beings whose power was dreaded even by the gods,
was Hel, mistress of the cold and joyless under-world. Called, through
the fate of battle, to the glories of Wælheal, the Teutonic or Norse
hero trembled at a peaceful death which would consign him to a dwelling
more desolate and wretched than even that which awaited the fallen
warriors of heroic Greece[723], and many a legend tells of those whose
own hand saved them from a futurity so abhorred[724]. But Hel was not
herself the agent of _death_; she only received those who had not earned
their seat in Oþinn’s hall by a heroic fall, and the Wælcyrian or
Shieldmays were the choosers of the slain. The realm of Hel was all that
Wælheal was not,—cold, cheerless, shadowy; no simulated war was _there_,
from which the combatants desisted with renovated strength and glory; no
capacious quaighs of mead, or cups of the life-giving wine; no feast
continually enjoyed and miraculously reproduced; no songs nor narratives
of noble deeds; no expectation of the last great battle where the
_einherjar_ were to accompany Allfather to meet his gigantic
antagonists; no flashing Shieldmays animating the brave with their
discourse, and lightening the hall with their splendour: but chill and
ice, frost and darkness; shadowy realms without a sun, without song or
wine or feast, or the soul-inspiring company of heroes, glorying in the
great deeds of their worldly life.

-----

Footnote 723:

Odyssey, book xi.

Footnote 724:

This is so completely familiar to the student of antiquity, that I
shall not multiply examples: they may be found in Bartholinus. But one
instance I may be excused for citing, inasmuch as it proves how long
the heathen spirit survived despite the peaceful hope and promise of
Christianity. Henry of Huntingdon, in the sixth book of his history,
relates of Sigeweard the great duke of Northumberland, that hearing of
the loss of his son in battle, he exclaimed, “Recepitne vulnus lethale
in anteriori vel posteriori corporis parte? Dixerunt nuntii: In
anteriori. At ille: Gaudeo plane, non enim alio me, vel filium meum
digner funere.” In 1055 however, oppressed with sickness, he found
that his desire was not to be fulfilled. “Siwardus, consul
rigidissimus, profluvio ventris ductus, mortem sensit imminere,
dixitque: Quantus pudor me tot in bellis mori non potuisse, ut
vaccarum morti cum dedecore reservarer! Induite me saltem lorica mea
impenetrabili, praecingite gladio, sublimate galea: scutum in laeva,
securim auratam mihi ponite in dextra, ut militum fortissimus modo
militis moriar. Dixerat, et, ut dixerat, armatus honorifice spiritum
exhalavit.” Through every word of this passage breathes the old
heathen spirit of Haralldr Hilditavn, and one feels that to
Christianity alone it was owing, that Sigeweard did not prevent an
inglorious by a voluntary violent death.

-----

For the perjurer and the secret murderer Nástrond existed, a place of
torment and punishment—the strand of the dead—filled with foulness,
peopled with poisonous serpents, dark, cold, and gloomy: the kingdom of
Hel was _Hades_, the invisible, the world of shadows[725]: Nástrond was
what we call _Hell_. Christianity however admitted no goddess of death,
and when it was thought necessary to express the idea of a place of
punishment after death, the Anglosaxon united the realm of Hel with
Nástrond to complete a hideous prison for the guilty: the prevailing
idea in the infernal regions of the Teuton is cold and gloom[726]; the
poisonous snakes, which waking or sleeping seem ever to have haunted the
Anglosaxon, formed a convenient point of junction between his own
traditional hell and that which he heard of from the pulpit, in
quotations from the works of the Fathers; and to these and their
influence alone can it be attributed when we find flames and sulphur,
and all the hideous apparatus of Judaic tradition, adopted by him. In
this fact seems to me to lie a very important mark of ancient
heathendom, and one which the clergy themselves admitted, a belief in
which they shared, and which they did not scruple to impress upon their
flocks, even in spite of the contrary tendency of their authorities: it
will be sufficient to refer to the description given of hell in the
poetic Salomon and Saturn, a composition redolent of heathendom: on the
defeat of the rebel angels, it is said, God

him helle gescóp, for them he made hell,
wælcealde wíc, a dwelling deadly cold,
wintre beðeahte: with winter covered:
wæter insende water he sent in
and wyrmgeardas, and snake-dwellings,
atol deór monig many a foul beast
írenum hornum; with horns of iron;
blódige earnas bloody eagles
and bláce nædran; and pale adders;
þirst and hungor thirst and hunger
and þearle gewin, and fierce conflict,
eácne egesan, mighty terror,
unrótnisse. joylessness[727].

-----

Footnote 725:

So the Greeks:

Πῶς ἔτλης Ἄϊδόσδε κατελθέμεν, ἔνθα τε νεκροὶ
Ἀφραδέες ναίουσι, βροτῶν εἴδωλα καμόντων;
Odyss. xi. 473.

Footnote 726:

Fire was too cheerful in the North to be sufficiently an object of
terror: it appeared otherwise in the East, where coolness is the
greatest of luxuries.

Footnote 727:

Sal. Sat. p. 173.

-----

Even in their more orthodox descriptions, ecclesiastical poets, though
naturally adopting the Judaic notions, cannot always shake off the old,
habitual tradition of their forefathers, but recur to the frost, gloom
and serpents of Nástrond, and the realm of Hel; of which a passage
already quoted from Beda is ample evidence.

As far as we can judge from the descriptions which survive, the
Anglosaxons represented Hell to themselves as a close and covered
dwelling, a prison duly secured as earthly prisons are by locks, bolts
and bars[728]. But the popular fancy had probably even then adopted the
notion of a monstrous beast whose _mouth_ was the entrance to the place
of torment: this appears not only from the illustrations to Cædmon[729],
but from the common expression, so long current, of Hell-mouth. From
this peculiar feature however we may believe that a remembrance still
lurked among our forefathers of the gigantic or Titanic character of the
ancient goddess, who, in Norse mythology, was Loki’s daughter. In nearly
every case, the word Hel in Anglosaxon, and especially Anglosaxon prose,
has merely the abstract sense we now give it; but here and there a
passage may be found in which we discover traces of the personal
meaning: thus perhaps in Beówulf where we find these lines,

siððan dreámaleás when reft of joy
in fenfreoðo in his fen-refuge
feorh álegde, he his life laid down,
hǽðene sáwle, his heathen soul,
ðǽr him Hel onfeng. there Hel received him[730].

-----

Footnote 728:

Beda himself speaks of “inferni claustra” (H. E. v. 13), and for this
there was supposed to be sufficient authority in the figurative
expression, Matt. xvi. 18.

Footnote 729:

Published by the Society of Antiquaries.

Footnote 730:

Beów. l. 1698: and perhaps similarly l. 357, “Helle gemundon.” they
worshipped Hel.

-----

However as a death in battle did not consign the warrior to Hel, it is
usually Hild or Wig who is represented as ravishing away the doomed
hero. Hel was no desired object, to be introduced into the epic as the
portion of chieftains and kings.

FATES.—The Northern creed, and, as it now seems established, the German
also, admitted the intervention between man and the gods, of subordinate
deities or Fates. I call them subordinate from their peculiar position
in the fragmentary portions of mythology that survive; in their nature
we must believe them to be of a higher order than the gods, who
themselves are doomed one day to perish, and who can probably as little
avoid their doom as men, the frailer creatures of their power. It may be
that in this, different views prevailed among different classes of men;
the warlike princes and their followers, who exulted in tales of battle
and feasting, may have been willing to see in Oþinn the supreme disposer
of events, while a deeper wisdom lurked in the sacerdotal songs that
told how Urðr, Werðandi and Skuld (the Norns of the Past, the Present
and the Future) bore inevitable sway over the inhabitants of heaven and
earth, and slowly waited for the period which was to confound gods, man
and nature in one vast destruction[731]. The Norse view admits however
of more than three Norns, though it names those only who have been
mentioned; and from the extraordinary relation of those three, it can
hardly be doubted that the others are of a different order; moreover it
attributes human passions to them which are hardly consistent with the
functions of the venerable Fates; in this case it is possible that the
Valkyriur, a race of beings whose functions might in some respects be
confounded with those of the Nornir, have been so mixed up with them.
Man, dealing with the daily affairs of troubled life, thinks more of the
past than of the future: to him the present is the child of the past,
the past the excuse for or cause of all he does and suffers; his
intellect comprehends the events that are completed or in course of
completion, but not the indefinite, illimitable probabilities of the
undiscovered _to be_; hence perhaps Urðr is considered the oldest and
most powerful of the Fates; her work is done, the others are doing or
yet to do. Through this progress of opinion it became possible for the
conception of the older Fate to include and finally supersede those of
the others, as soon as the living belief in their personal agency became
weakened. I do not know that any certain trace of these Fates can be
found in the High-german countries[732], but in the Low-german the
eldest Norn still survives long after the introduction of Christianity,
in a sense little removed at times from that of Necessity itself. That
this should still have been coupled with a lively feeling of personality
only proves how deeply rooted the old Heathen creed had been. In the
following instances from the Oldsaxon Héljand[733], Wurth might almost
in every case be replaced by dód, _mors_: “Thiu Wurth is at handun, dód
is at hendi;”—the _wierd_[734], or death, is at hand, i. e. so near that
she might lay hold of the doomed. “Thiu _Wurth_ nahida thuo,”—the
_weird_ drew nigh. “_Wurth_ ina benam,” _Wierd_, i. e. the goddess of
death, ravished him away; as in Anglosaxon we have Swylt benam, Deáð
benam, and similar expressions.

-----

Footnote 731:

The Greek Fates are also three, and stand in a very similar position
towards the Gods. Zeus himself is not exempt from their power.
Prometheus, it is true, will not distinctly assert Zeus to be _weaker_
than the Fates, but he answers very decisively that even Zeus cannot
escape his Fate.

Χο. Τίς οὖν ἀνάγκης ἐστὶν οἰακοστρόφος;
Πρ. Μοῖραι τρίμορφαι, μνήμονές τ' Ἐριννύες.
Χο. Τούτων ἄρα Ζεύς ἐστιν ἀσθενέστερος;
Πρ. Οὔκουν ἂν ἐκφύγοι γε τὴν πεπρωμένην.
ÆSCH. Prom. Vin. 517-520.

The Μοῖραι here are only ministers of a deeper necessity, yet they
seem to wield it themselves, and that it is inseparable from justice
seems to follow from the venerable goddesses being joined in the task.
Plato however distinctly names three Μοῖραι, the daughters of Αναγκη,
who _spin_ the life of man: what is more to our purpose is that to
each of the three, the past, the present and the future are severally
distributed, as to Urðr, Werðandi and Skuld. He says, ἄλλας δὲ
καθημένας πέριξ δι’ ἴσου τρεῖς, ἐν θρόνῳ ἑκάστην, θυγατέρας τῆς
Ἀνάγκης, Μοίρας, λευχειμονούσας, στέμματα ἐπὶ τῶν κεφαλῶν ἐχούσας,
Λάχεσίν τε καὶ Κλωθὼ καὶ Ἄτροπον, ὑμνεῖν πρὸς τὴν τῶν Σειρήνων
ἁρμονίαν, Λάχεσιν μὲν τὰ γεγονότα, Κλωθὼ δὲ τὰ ὄντα, Ἄτροπον δὲ τὰ
μέλλοντα. The spindle however lies and revolves upon the knees of
Ἀνάγκη. De Repub. lib. x. ad fin. The white garments, garlands and
throne, as well as the singing, are wanting to our Norns, but the
resemblance in other respects is very striking. It deserves notice
also that the _Weird sisters_ in Macbeth are three; and even the
Odyssey may intend that number,

ἔνθα δ’ ἔπειτα
πείσεται, ἅσσα οἱ αἶσα, κατακλῶθές τε βαρεῖαι.
γεινομένῳ νήσαντο λίνῳ, ὅτε μιν τέκε μήτηρ.
Odyss. vii. 196-198.

It is well known what controversy has arisen as to the real number of
Εριννυες intended by Æschylus in his Eumenides.

Footnote 732:

Grimm, Mythol. p. 377, does not seem to lay much stress upon the _two_
instances which he gives, one of which is extremely doubtful, and the
other of no certain authority.

Footnote 733:

Héljand. Poema Saxonicum Saeculi Noni. Ed. A. Schmeller. Munich. pp.
146, 2; 92, 2; 163, 16; 66, 18; 111, 4.

Footnote 734:

We are fortunate in being able to use not a translation of Wurth, but
the word itself; I am not aware of its continuing to exist in any
other German dialect.

-----

The Anglosaxon equivalent is _Wyrd_, an expression of the very commonest
and most frequent occurrence. It should however be borne in mind that
there are two separate uses of this word, one a more abstract one, in
which it is capable of being used in the plural, and which may generally
be rendered _eventus_[735], another more personal, similar to the
Oldsaxon _Wurth_, and in which it never occurs but in the singular[736].
In the following most remarkable passage the heathen and Christian
thoughts are strangely mingled, Wierd being placed in actual apposition
with God,

swá he hyra má wólde
nefne him witig God,
Wyrd forstóde,
⁊ ðæs mannes mód[737].

“As he would more of them had not wise God, Wierd forstood him, and the
man’s courage.” How very heathen the whole would be, were we only to
conceive the word _God_ an interpolation, which is highly probable;
nefne him witig—Wyrd forstóde[738]! The following examples will show the
use of Wyrd:—“hine Wyrd fornam,”—him _Wierd_ ravished away[739]: just as
in other passages we have guð fornam[740], Wíg ealle fornam[741], swylt
fornam[742], deað fornam[743]. “Wyrd ungemete neáh[744],”— _Wierd_ was
immeasurably near him; as in the Oldsaxon passages above cited, and as
Deað ungemete neáh[745]. “Ac unc sceal weorðan æt wealle, swá unc Wyrd
geteóð, métod manna gehwǽs[746],”—it shall befal us as _Wierd_ decideth,
the lord of every man. “Swá him Wyrd ne gescráf[747],”—_Wierd_ did not
appoint. “Ealle Wyrd forsweóp[748],”—_Wierd_ has swept away. “Ús seó
wyrd scýðeð, heard and hetegrim[749],”—us doth _Wierd_ pursue, hard and
grim in hate.

-----

Footnote 735:

Ne wæs wyrd ðágen
ðæt he má móste
manna cynnes
þicgean ofer ða niht. (Beów. l. 1462.)
wyrd ne cúðon. (Ibid. l. 2467.)

Footnote 736:

One exception to be hereafter noticed seems more apparent than real.
If however it be taken in its fullest and ordinary grammatical sense,
it will show that all three or more sisters were in contemplation, and
that the name of the eldest had become a general expression for them
all.

Footnote 737:

Beów. l. 2104.

Footnote 738:

Ibid. l. 2411.

Footnote 739:

Ibid. l. 2240.

Footnote 740:

Ibid. l. 2154.

Footnote 741:

Ibid. l. 2872.

Footnote 742:

Ibid. l. 4234, 4468.

Footnote 743:

Ibid. l. 4836.

Footnote 744:

Ibid. l. 5453.

Footnote 745:

Ibid. l. 5048.

Footnote 746:

This is a most remarkable passage, for Wyrd is distinctly called
Metod, a word generally appropriated to God; but I am disposed to
think that Metten, another word for Fate, was uppermost in the poet’s
mind,—perhaps found in some heathen copy of the poem. “Ða gráman
mettena,” _saevae parcae_. Boet. p. 161. (Rawl.)

Footnote 747:

Beów. l. 5145.

Footnote 748:

Beów. l. 5624.

Footnote 749:

Cod. Vercel. Anal. l. 3121.

-----

These examples will suffice to show how thoroughly personal the
conception of _Wierd_ remained; and in this respect there is no
difference whatever between the practice in Beówulf and in the more
professedly Christian poems of the Exeter and Vercelli codices, or
Cædmon. But one peculiarity remains to be noticed, which connects our
_Wierd_ in the most striking manner with the heathen goddesses
generally, and the Scandinavian Nornir particularly. We have seen that
_Wierd_ opposes, that she stands close to the doomed warrior, that she
ravishes him away, that she sweeps away the power of men, that she
decides or appoints the event, that she is hard and cruel and pursues
her victims. But she also _weaves_, weaves the web of destiny, as we can
say even to this day without violence. It is necessary to give examples
of this expression: “Me ðæt wyrd gewæf[750],”—_Wierd_ wove that for me;
similar to which is, “Ac him dryhten forgeaf wígspéda gewiofu[751],”—but
the Lord gave him the weft of victory; where undoubtedly an earlier
weaving Wyrd was thought of. “Ðonne seó þrag cymeð, wefen
wyrd-stafum[752],”—when the time cometh, woven with _wierd_-staves, or
letters, probably _runes_. There is a remarkable passage in the same
collection[753], “Wyrmas mec ne áwǽfon, Wyrda cræftum, ða ðe geolo
godwebb geatwum frætwað,”—Worms wove me not, with the skill of _Wierds_,
those namely which the yellow silk for garments beautifully form. Here
weaving is especially put forward as that in which _Wierd_ excels, her
own peculiar craft and business[754].

-----

Footnote 750:

Cod. Exon. p. 355.

Footnote 751:

Beów. l. 1386.

Footnote 752:

Cod. Exon. p. 183.

Footnote 753:

Ibid. p. 417.

Footnote 754:

I am almost inclined to think the words searorúna gespon, _the web of
various runes_, merely a periphrasis for wyrd, taken in the abstract
sense of _event_. Cod. Ex. p. 347.

-----

Spinning and weaving are the constant occupation of Teutonic goddesses
and heroines: Holda and Bertha spin[755], and so do all the
representatives of these goddesses in popular tradition even down to the
fairies. But the Valkyriur or Shieldmays also weave, and in this
function, as well as their immediate action in the battle-field, as
choosers of the slain[756], they have some points of contact with the
Norns and Wyrd[757]. Gray has transferred to our language from the Nials
Saga a fine poem[758] which throws some light upon the weaving of the
Valkyriur, the wígspéda gewiofu. The Anglosaxon belief in the
Shieldmaidens comes to us indeed in a darkened form, yet we can hardly
doubt that it survived. The word Wælcyrge occurs in glossaries to
explain _Bellona_, the goddess of war, and one gloss calls eyes
Wælcyrigean, _gorgonei_, terrible as those of Gorgo; the flashing of the
eyes was very probably one mark of a Wælcyrge in the old belief[759], as
she floated or rode above the closing ranks of battle. In the
superstitions of a later period however we find a clear allusion to
these supernatural maidens. A spell preserved in a Harleian
manuscript[760] contains the following passages:

Hlúde wǽon hí lá hlúde, ðá hý
ofer ðone hlǽw ridon;
wǽron anmóde, ðá hý
ofer land ridon.

“Loud, lo! loud were they, as they rode over the hill: bold were they,
as they rode over the land.”

Stód under linde
under leóhtum scylde
ðǽr ða mihtigan wíf
hyra mægen berǽddon,
and hý gyllende
gáras sendon.

“I stood beneath my linden shield, beneath my light shield, where the
mighty women exercised their power, and sent the yelling javelins!”
Another spell from a MS. in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, appears
to name them more distinctly:

Sitte ge, sígewíf,
sígað tó eorðan,
næfre ge wilde
tó wuda fleógan;
beó ge swá gemindige
mínes gódes,
swá bið manna gehwilc
metes and éðeles.

-----

Footnote 755:

“As tems ou Berte filait,” i. e. in a period anterior to the memory of
man: in the days of heathendom, of the _goddess_ Bertha, not the
queen.

Footnote 756:

Wælcyrige is derived from Wæl _the slain_ and ceósan _to choose_.

Footnote 757:

I do not know whether the expression Hine Wyrd gecéas, can be found in
Saxon poetry; but ceósan is a very common word in phrases denoting
death, though by Christian poets transferred to the doomed hero, from
the god or goddess: ǽr ðon forðcure, wintrum wæl reste. Cædm. p. 99.
“Priusquam annis [i. e. vita] praetulerit mortiferam quietem.”

Footnote 758:

The Fatal sisters. See vol. i. p. 70, Mitford’s edition.

Footnote 759:

When Ðorr visits Ðrymr under the disguise of Freya, the giant is
suspicious of the flashing eyes which he sees under the veil. Loki
explains them by the sleeplessness arising from Freya’s desire for the
giant’s embraces.

Laut und línu
lysti at kyssa;
en hann útan stökk
endlangan sal:
“Hwí eru öndótt
augu Freyju?
þikki mér or augum
eldr of brenna!”

Sat in alsnotra
ambótt fyrir,
er orð um fann
við jötuns máli:
“Svaf vætr Freyja
átta nóttum,
svá var hon óðfús
í jötunheima.”

Hamarsheimt. xxvii. xxviii.

Footnote 760:

MS. Harl. 585, fol. 186.

-----

“Sit, ye victorious women (or women of victory) descend to earth, never
fly ye wildly to the wood: be ye as mindful of good to me, as every man
is of food and landed possession.” Grimm has remarked with great
justice[761] that the sígewíf here recalls the names of Wælcyrian,
Sigrdrífa, Sigrún and Sigrlinn. I certainly see in Sigewíf, _women who
give victory_; and the allusion to the _wild_ flight and the _wood_ are
both essentially characteristic of the Wælcyrian, whom Saxo Grammaticus
calls _feminae_ and _nymphae sylvestres_. For many examples of this
peculiar character, it is sufficient to refer to the Deutsche
Mythologie[762].

-----

Footnote 761:

D. Myth. p. 402. He cites this spell, but proposes on grammatical
grounds to read _wille_ for _wilde_. If any change is necessary I
should prefer _fleógen_.

Footnote 762:

Deut. Myth. p. 401, _seq._

-----

CREATION AND DESTRUCTION.—The cosmogony of the Pentateuch was
necessarily adopted by the Saxon converts; yet not so entirely as to
exclude all the traditions of heathendom. In the mythology of the
Northern nations, the creation of the world occupied an important place:
its details are recorded in some of the most striking lays of the
earlier Edda; and several of them appear unconsciously to have acted
upon the minds of our Christian poets. The genius of the Anglosaxons
does not indeed seem to have led them to the adoption of those energetic
and truly imaginative forms of thought which the Scandinavians probably
derived from the sterner natural features that surrounded them: the rude
rocks and lakes of Norway and Sweden, the volcanoes, hot springs, ice
plains and snow-covered mountains of Iceland, readily moulded the
Northmen to a different train of thought from that which satisfied the
dwellers in the marshlands of the Elbe and the fat plains of Britain.
But as in the main it cannot be doubted that the heathendom of both
races was the same, so even in many modes of expression we meet with a
resemblance which can hardly be accidental. Like almost every other
people, the Northmen considered a gigantic chaos to have preceded the
world of order. While the giant Ymer lived, the earth was “without form
and void.” Listen to the words of the Vaulu Spá, or Prophetess’s Song:

Ár var alda When Ymer dwelt here,
þar er Ýmir bygði: 'twas the dawn of time:
vara sandr né sær cool streams were not,
né svalar unnir: neither sands, nor seas:
jörð fannsk æva earth was not
né uppkiminn, nor o’er it heaven,
gap var ginnunga, yawned the gap,
en gras hvergi[763]. and grass was nowhere.

The sons of Bur however, Oþinn, Vile and Ve, created the vast Midgard,
or realm of earth:

Sól skein sunnan The sun shone southward
á salar steina on the stone halls,
þá var grand gróin then was earth grown
grœnum lauki[764]. with green produce.

The constellations however as yet had no appointed course:

Sól þat ne vissi But the sun knew not
hvar hon sali átti, where her seat should be,
máni þat ne vissi and the moon knew not
hvat hann megins átti, what his might should be,
stjörnur þat ne vissu planets knew not
hvar þær staði áttu[765]. where their place should be.

So the holy Gods went to council, and divided the seasons, giving names
to night and noon and morning, to _undern_ and evening, that the years
might be reckoned[766].

-----

Footnote 763:

Vaulu Spá, st. 3.

Footnote 764:

Ibid. st. 4.

Footnote 765:

Ibid. st. 5.

Footnote 766:

Ibid. st. 6.

-----

The construction of the world out of the fragments of Ymer’s body, the
doctrine of the ash Yggdrasil, and of wondrous wells beneath its roots,
could of course find no echo here, after the conversion. But it is very
remarkable how nearly the description of creation given in Cædmon
sometimes coincides with the old remains of heathendom:

Ne wæs hér ðágiet There had not here as yet
nymðe heólstersceado save cavern shade
wiht geworden, aught existed,
ac ðes wída grund but this wide abyss
stód deóp and dim, stood deep and dim,
drihtne fremde, strange to its lord,
ídel and unnyt; idle and useless;
on ðone eágnm wlát on which looked with his eyes
stíðfrihð cining, the king firm of mood
and ða stowe beheóld and beheld the place
dreáma leáse. devoid of joys.
Geseah deorc gesweorc He saw the dark cloud
sémian sinnihte, lour in endless night,
sweart under roderum, swart under heaven,
wonn and wéste ... dusky and desert ...
folde wæs ðágyt the earth was yet
græs ungréne; not green with grass;
gársecg þeahte but ocean covered
sweart synnihte dark in endless night
wíde and síde far and wide
wonne wægas[767]. the dusky ways.

-----

Footnote 767:

Cædm. p. 7, l. 8 _seq._

-----

Then follows the creation of light, the separation of evening and
morning, and the production of organic life, as in the first chapter of
Genesis. The Wída grund, or _vast abyss_, is the Ginnunga gap, _yawning
gulf_, of the Edda, and a very remarkable parallel lies in the assertion
that there was no _grass_ anywhere to make green the earth.

The world was created out of the portions of Ymer’s body; but it seems
to be a remnant of ancient heathendom when we find in later times a
tradition that Man was created out of the great natural portions of the
world itself. An ancient Frisic manuscript quoted by Grimm in Haupt’s
Altdeutsche Blätter[768] says, “God scóp thene éresta meneska, thet was
Adam, fon achta wendem; thet bénete fon tha sténe, thet flásk fon there
erthe, thet blód fon tha wetere, tha herta fon tha winde, thene thochta
fon tha wolken, thene suét fon tha dáwe, tha lokkar fon tha gerse, tha
ágene fon there sunna, and tha blérem on thene helga óm.” That is,—God
created him of eight things: his bones from stone, his flesh from earth,
his blood from water, his heart from wind, his thought from cloud, his
sweat from dew, his hair from the grass, his eyes from the sun, and then
breathed into him the breath of life. In the prose Salomon and Saturn we
are also told that Adam was created of eight pounds by weight: a pound
of earth from whence his flesh; a pound of fire, whence his red and hot
blood; a pound of wind, whence his breathing; a pound of cloud, whence
his unsteadiness of mood; a pound of grace, whence his stature and
growth; a pound of blossoms, whence the variety of his eyes; a pound of
dew, whence his sweat; and a pound of salt, whence his salt tears[769].

-----

Footnote 768:

Vol. i. Part i. p. 1.

Footnote 769:

See the Authors edition, p. 181, and the notes at p. 194.

-----

But a much more striking proof of heathendom lies in the Anglosaxon
belief that after the destruction of this creation a more beautiful one
would arise; not only a metaphysical kingdom of heaven, but a concrete
world like our own, on a more imposing and glorious scale. It was the
belief of the Northmen that in the closing evening of the ages, the
Ragna-rauk, or twilight of the Gods, the old Titanic powers would burst
their fetters; Loki, the Northern Satan, would be released from his
bondage; Midgard’s orm, the serpent that surrounds the world, would rise
in his giant fury; the wolf Fenrir would snap his chain and move against
the gods; the ship Naglfar, made of the nails of the dead, and steered
by Loki, would convey the sons of Muspelheim to Vigrid, the plain on
which this heathen Armageddon was to be fought: at their head the
terrible Surtr, the black, the destroyer of the gods, beneath whose
sword of fire the whole world should perish.

Kjóll ferr austan, Eastward the ship
koma munu Muspells shall shape its journey,
um laug lýðir, Muspell’s sons
en Loki stýrir[770]. the sea shall travel,
o’er the lakes shall
Loki steer her.

-----

Footnote 770:

Vaulu Spá, st. 50.

-----

Oþinn, Thórr, and the other gods shall perish, but not unrevenged: the
wolf and the serpent will fall, one by the hands of Viðarr, Oþinn’s son,
the other under the terrible battle-maul of Thórr. The sun and moon and
earth will be destroyed, and the ash Yggrdasil wither under the flames
of Surtr.

Sól tekr sortna, Black wanes the sun,
sígr fold í mar, in waves the earth shall sink,
hverfa af himni from heaven shall fall
heiðar stjörnur; the friendly stars;
geisar eimr round the tree
við aldrnára, red fire shall rustle,
leikr hár hiti high heat play
við himin sjálfan[771] against the heaven.

But the Gods will be found again in Iðavelli; the earth will arise again
from the ocean; the sun that perished will have left a yet more
beauteous daughter to perform her task; the deities will remember their
ancient power, and the secrets of the great god; the golden tablets will
be found in the grass; Baldr, the slain god, will arise from the tomb;
Havdr, that unconsciously slew him, will return with him from the realms
of Hel, the goddess of the dead. Viðarr and Vale, sons, or rather new
births of Oþinn; Mode and Magne, sons of Thórr, will survive the
universal destruction; Allfather’s glorious kingdom will be renewed, and
the power of death and evil vanish for ever.

Sér hon uppkoma Then sees she rise
öðru sinni, a second time
jörð or œgi the world from ocean
iðjagrœna[772]. wondrous green.

Eína dóttur One bright child shall
berr Álfröðull bear Álfröðull,
áðr hana Fenrir fari; ere her form doth
sú skal ríða, Fenrir ruin;
þá er regin deyja, thus shall go,
móður brautir mær[773]. when gods have perished,
the maiden on
her mother’s journey.

Finnask Æsir Æsir meet
á Iðavelli, in Iðavelli,
ok um moldþinur doom with power
mátkan dœma, the great disasters,
ok minnask þar there remember
á megindóma, mighty judgements,
ok á fimbultýs and Fimbultýrs
fornar rúnar. former secrets.

Þar munu eptir After, shall be
undrsamligar all together
gullnar töflur found in the grass
í grasi finnask, the golden tablets,
þærs í árdaga which in time past
áttar höfðu possessed among them
fólkvaldr goða gods that ruled
ok Fjölnis kind. the race of Odin.

Munu ósánír Then unsown
akrar vaxa, the swath shall flourish
böls mun alls batna, all bale mend, and
Baldr mun koma; back come Baldr:
búa þeir Höðr ok Baldr with him Höðr dwell
Hropts sigtóptir in Hropter’s palace,
vel valtivar[774]. shrines of gods
the great and holy.

Sal sér hon standa There sees she stand
sólu fegra, than sunlight fairer,
gulli þakðan Gimli’s hall
á Gimli: with gold all covered:
þar skolu dyggvar there the just shall
dróttir byggja, joy for ever,
ok um aldrdaga and in pleasure
ynðis njóta[775]. pass the ages.

-----

Footnote 771:

Vaulu Spá, st. 56.

Footnote 772:

Ibid. st. 57.

Footnote 773:

Wafþrudnis Mál, st. 47. Álfröðul is a name of the Sun, and is said to
denote _divine splendour_. Edd. Lex. Myth. in voc.

Footnote 774:

Vaulu Spá, st. 57, 58, 59, 60.

-----

The conviction that the virtuous would rejoice with God in a world of
happiness was of course not derived by our forefathers merely from their
heathendom; but to this we may unhesitatingly refer their belief, that
after doomsday the sun and moon would be restored with greater
splendour. The Saxon Menology[776] says very distinctly:

“At doomsday, when our Lord shall renew all creatures, and all the race
of men shall rise again, and never more commit sin, then will the sun
shine seven times brighter than she now doth, and she will never set;
and the moon will shine as the sun now doth, and never will wane or wax,
but stand for ever on his course[777].” That this belief was not unknown
in Germany may be argued from an expression of Freidank,

Got himel und erde lát zergán,
unt wil dernách ein schoenerz hán[778].

Dim and fragmentary as these rays of light may be which straggle to us
through the veils of bygone ages, it is impossible not to recognize in
them traces of that primæval faith which teaches the responsibility of
man, the rule of just and holy beings superior to himself, and a future
existence of joy and sorrow, the ultimate consequence of human actions.
With what amount of distinctness this great truth may have been placed
before their eyes, we cannot tell, but it is enough that we see it
admitted in one of the most thoroughly heathen poems of the Edda, and
confirmed by an Anglosaxon tradition totally independent of
Christianity. Weak as it is while unsupported by the doctrine of a
gracious Redeemer, it is not wholly inoperative upon the moral being of
men; and its reception among the nations of the North must have tended
to prepare them for the doctrine which in the fulness of time was to
supersede their vague and powerless desires by the revelation of the
crucified Saviour.

-----

Footnote 775:

Vaulu Spá, st. 62.

Footnote 776:

MS. Corp. Christi, No. 179.

Footnote 777:

See Salomon and Saturn, p. 177. It may be observed here that the
feminine gender of the sun, and masculine of the moon, have their
origin in our heathen mythology.

Footnote 778:

Freydanck, Beschied. p. 8.

-----

HEROES.—It now remains that we should bestow a few words upon the heroic
names which figure in the Epopœa of the North, and which probably in
many cases belong to the legends and the worship of gods now forgotten,
or which at least represent those gods in their heroic form and
character; even as the Iliad in Achilles may celebrate only one form of
the Dorian Apollo, and the legends of Cadmus and Theseus may be echoes
from an earlier cult of Jupiter and Neptune.

The hero Scyld or Sceldwa[779] has been mentioned as the godlike
progenitor of the Scyldingas, the royal race of Denmark; but he also
appears among the mythical ancestors of Wóden, in the genealogy of
Wessex. It is a singular fact that the Anglosaxons alone possess the
fine mythus of this hero; the opening division or canto of Beówulf
relates of him that he was exposed as a child in a ship upon the ocean;
a costly treasure accompanied the sleeping infant as he floated to the
shores of the Gardanes, whose king he became; after reigning gloriously
and founding a race of kings, he died, and was again sent forth in his
ship, surrounded with treasures, to go into the unknown world, from
which he came; he came to found a royal race[780], and having done so,
he departs and nothing more is known of him. That this mythus was deeply
felt in England appears from its being referred to even by the later
chroniclers: Æðelweard[781] and William of Malmesbury[782] mention it at
length, and a desire to engraft a national upon a biblical tradition not
only causes Sceaf to be called by some authors the son of Shem, but
leads to the assertion of the Saxon chronicle that Sceaf was the son of
Noah, born in the ark[783], in obvious allusion to the miraculous
exposure on the waters. The mention of Scani by Æðelweard may be taken
in connection with a Norse tradition that Skjold was Skanunga goþ, a god
of the Scanings. An Anglosaxon riddle in the Codex Exoniensis[784], and
of which the answer seems to me to be only _a shield_, concludes with
the very remarkable words,

nama mín is mǽre, mighty is my name,
hæleðum gifre, rapacious among men,
and hálig sylf. and itself holy.

The second line seems to exclude the supposition of there being any
reference to Almighty God, though Scyld, like Helm, is one of his names,
examples of which are numerous in all Anglosaxon poetry. There are one
or two places in England which bear the name of this god or hero: these
are Scyldes treów[785], Scyldmere[786], and Scyldes heáfda[787]; but
except in the genealogy of Wessex and the tradition recorded by
Æðelweard and William of Malmesbury, there is no record of Sceaf.

Footnote 779:

From which form we must conclude for the reading Scyldu (as Wudu,
Duru).

Footnote 780:

ðone God sende whom God sent
folce tó frófre, to the people for their comfort,
fyrenþearfe ongeat the evil need he understood
ða híe ǽr drugon which they before had suffered
aldorleáse. while without a king.

Beów. l. 26.

Footnote 781:

Æðelw. lib. iii. He attributes the legend to Sceaf, Scyld’s father;
his words are: “Ipse Scef cum uno dromone advectus est in insula
oceani quae dicitur Scani, armis circumdatus, eratque valde recens
puer, et ab incolis illius terrae ignotus; attamen ab eis suscipitur,
et ut familiarem diligenti animo eum custodierunt, et post in regem
eligunt: de cuius prosapia ordinem trahit Athulf rex.”

Footnote 782:

William of Malmesbury (G. R. ii. 116) adds another peculiarity to the
legend, which however he gives to Sceaf, Scyld’s father; he says,
“Iste, ut ferunt, in quandam insulam Germaniae Scandzam, de qua
Jordanes historiographus Gothorum loquitur, appulsus, navi sine
remige, puerulus, posito ad caput frumenti manipulo, dormiens, ideoque
Sceaf nuncupatus, ab hominibus regionis illius pro miraculo exceptus,
et sedulo nutritus, adulta aetate regnavit in oppido quod tunc
Slasvic, nunc vero Haithebi appellatur. Est autem regio illa Anglia
Vetus dicta, unde Angli venerunt in Britanniam, inter Saxones et
Gothos constituta.” Wendover (Flor. Hist.) copies Malmesbury, with the
explanation of the name Sceafa, from Sceaf a sheaf of corn; others
derived it from scúfan, _trudere_, “quia fortunae commissus.” Die
Stammtafel der Westsachsen, p. 33.

Footnote 783:

“Se wæs geboren in ðǽre earce Noes.” Chron. Sax. 855.

Footnote 784:

Cod. Exon. p. 407.

Footnote 785:

Cod. Dipl. No. 436.

Footnote 786:

Ibid. Nos. 356, 762.

Footnote 787:

Ibid. No. 721.

-----

As in the poem of Beówulf, Scyld is said to have a son called Beówulf
from whom the kings of Sleswig are descended, so in the genealogy of
Wessex, Scyld is followed by Beaw: there is some uncertainty in the form
of the name, but upon comparison of all the different versions given by
various chroniclers, we may conclude that it was Beówa or Beów, a word
equivalent to Beówulf. The original divinity of this person is admitted
by Grimm, but he suffers himself to be misled by some over-skilful
German lexicographer who has added _Beewolf_ to the list of English
names for the woodpecker, and would render Beówulf as a sort of Latin
Picus. I am not aware that any bird in England was ever called the
_beewolf_, or that there are any superstitions connected with the
woodpecker in England, as there are in Germany; the cuckoo and the
magpie are our birds of augury. When Grimm then declares himself
disposed not to give up the termination -_wulf_ in the name, he has only
the authority of the poem on his side, in defence of his theory: against
which must be placed every other list or genealogy; and it seems to me
that these are strongly confirmed by the occurrence of a place called,
not Beówulfes hám, but Beówan hám[788], in immediate connection with
another named Grendles mere[789]: Whatever the name, this hero was
looked upon as the eponymus of various royal races, and this, though the
names which have survived are obviously erroneous[790], is distinctive
of his real character.

-----

Footnote 788:

Cod. Dipl. No. 353.

Footnote 789:

Ibid.

Footnote 790:

Stammtafel der Westsachsen, p. 18 _seq._

-----

There are various other heroes mentioned in the poem of Beówulf and in
the Traveller’s Song, some remembrance of which is still preserved in
local names in various parts of England. A few words may not be
misplaced respecting them. In the first-named poem, the hero’s lord and
suzerain is invariably named Hygelác; after whose death Beówulf himself
becomes king of the Geátas. As Hygelác is said to have perished in fight
against the Franks, and as history records the fall of a Danish king
Chochilachus in a predatory excursion into the Frankish territory about
the beginning of the seventh century[791], Outzen, Leo and others have
identified the two in fact as well as name, and drawn conclusions as to
the mythical hero, from the historical prince. The coincidence is not
conclusive: if Hygelác’s name were already mythical in the seventh
century, it may easily have been given to any leader who ventured a
plundering expedition into the Frankish territory, especially as the
warlike records of an earlier Hygelác would be certain to contain some
account of Frankish forays: nor was Hygelác, in Danish Hugleikr[792], by
any means an uncommon name. On the other hand, if we admit the
historical allusion, we must assign a date to, at any rate, that episode
of the poem which is hardly consistent with its general character. I am
therefore inclined to think that in this instance, as in so many others,
an accidental resemblance has been too much relied upon: it is in fact
quite as likely (or even more likely) that the historian should have
been indebted to the legend, than that the poet should have derived his
matter from history. It does seem probable that Hygelác enjoyed a
mythical character among the Germans: in the “Altdeutsche Blätter” of
Moriz Haupt[793], we find the following statement, taken from a MS. of
the tenth century. “De Getarum rege Huiglauco mirae magnitudinis.—Et
sunt mirae magnitudinis, ut rex Huiglaucus, qui imperavit Getis et a
Francis occisus est, quem equus a duodecimo anno portare non potuit,
cuius ossa in Rheni fluminis insula, ubi in oceanum prorumpit, reservata
sunt et de longinquo venientibus pro miraculo ostenduntur.”

-----

Footnote 791:

Leo, in his Beowulf, p. 5, cites Gregor. Turon. iii. 3, and the Gest.
Reg. Francorum, cap. 19, for the details of Chochilach’s invasion and
death.

Footnote 792:

The name Huhlék, given in Langebeke, and by Geijer, from the Ynglinga
Saga, as Hugleck. Hist. Swed. p. 378, tab. ii.

Footnote 793:

Book v. part i. p. 10.

-----

But Hygelác is not known in Germany only: even in England we have traces
of him in local names: thus Hygeláces geát[794], which, as the name was
never borne by an Anglosaxon,—so far at least as we know,—speaks
strongly for his mythical character. That the fortunes, under similar
circumstances, of a historical prince, of the same name or not of the
same name, should have become mixed up with an earlier legend, is by no
means unusual or surprising.

-----

Footnote 794:

Cod. Dipl. No. 566.

-----

Another hero of the Beówulf cycle is Hnæf the Hócing, whose fate is
described in a fine episode[795], and is connected with the poem called
“The battle of Finnesburh[796].” Of him too England has something to
tell: I find a place was called Hnæfes scylf[797], and further that
there was a Hóces byrgels[798], obviously not a Christian burial-place,
a Hóces ham[799], and a Hócing mǽd[800]. But unless resemblances greatly
deceive us, we must admit that this hero was not entirely unknown to the
Franks also; Charlemagne’s wife Hiltikart, a lady of most noble blood
among the Swæfas or Sueves (“nobilissimi generis Suavorum puella”) was a
near relation of Kotofrit, duke of the Alamanni[801]: in her genealogy
occur the names Huocingus and Nebi in immediate succession, and it seems
difficult not to see in these Hócing and Hnæf. If, as has been
suggested, the Hócings were Chauci or Frisians, their connexion with the
Sueves must be of an antiquity almost transcending the limits of
history, and date from those periods when the Frisians were neighbours
of the Swæfas upon the Elbe, and long before these occupied the
highlands of Germany, long in fact before the appearance of the Franks
in Gaul, under Chlodio.

-----

Footnote 795:

Beów. l. 2130 _seq._

Footnote 796:

Printed in the first volume of the author’s edition of Beówulf, p.
238.

Footnote 797:

Cod. Dipl. No. 595.

Footnote 798:

Ibid. No. 1267.

Footnote 799:

Ibid. No. 1142.

Footnote 800:

Ibid. No. 1091.

Footnote 801:

Thegan. vit. Hludov. Pertz, Monum. ii. 590, 591. Eginhart, § 18.
Pertz, Mon. ii. 452, 453.

-----

Among the heroes of heathen tradition are Wada, Weland and Eigil. All
three, so celebrated in the mythus and epos of Scandinavia and Germany,
have left traces in England. Of Wada the Traveller’s Song declares that
he ruled the Helsings[802]; and even later times had to tell of Wade’s
_boat_[803], in which the exact allusion is unknown to us: the
Scandinavian story makes him wade across the Groenasund, carrying his
son upon his shoulder; perhaps our tradition gave a different version of
this perilous journey. The names of places which record his name are not
numerous, but still such are found, thus Wadanbeorgas[804],
Wadanhlǽw[805]. It is otherwise, however, with his still more celebrated
son, Weland, the Wieland of German, Völundr of Norse and Galand of
French tradition. Weland is the most famous of smiths, and all good
swords are his work. In Beówulf, the hero when about to engage in a
perilous adventure, requests that if he falls his coat-of-mail may be
sent home, _Welandes geweorc_, either literally the work of Weland, or a
work so admirable that Weland might have made it.[806] Ælfred in his
Boetius[807] translates _fidelis ossa Fabricii_ by “ðæs wísan goldsmiðes
bán Welondes,” where, as Grimm[808] observes, the word Fabricius
(_faber_) may have led him to think of the most celebrated of smiths,
Weland. The use made by Sir W. Scott of Weland’s name must be familiar
to all readers of Kenilworth: from what has been said it will appear how
mistaken in many respects his view was. The place in Berkshire which
even yet in popular tradition preserves the name of _Wayland smith_, is
nevertheless erroneously called; the boundary of a Saxon charter names
it much more accurately Welandes smiððe, i. e. _Weland’s smithy_, his
workshop[809]. The legend of Weland, identical in many respects with
that of the Wilkina Saga and other Northern versions, is mentioned in
the Cod. Exon. p. 377. Here we find notice taken of his mutilation by
Niðaudr, the violence done by him to Bödhildr, and other acts of his
revenge[810], all in fact that is most important in this part of his
history. Grimm reminds me[811] that the Wilkina Saga makes Weland the
constructor of a wondrous boat, and that the act of the son may thus
have been transferred to the father, Weland’s boat to Wade.

-----

Footnote 802:

Line 44. See also Cod. Exon. pp. 320, 514. Ettmüller, Scópes wídsíð.

Footnote 803:

Chaucer once or twice refers to this in such a way as to show that the
expression was used in an obscene sense. Old women, he says, “connen
so moche craft in _Wades bote_.” Again of Pandarus:

“He song, he plaied, he told a _tale of Wade_.”
Troil. Cressid.

In this there seems to lie some allusion to what anatomists have
termed _fossa navicularis_, though what immediate connection there
could be with the mythical Wada, now escapes us. It is sufficiently
remarkable that the Greeks made a similar application of σκάφος.

ω παγκατάπυγον θἠμέτερον ἅπαν γένος·
οὐκ ἐτὸς ἀφ’ ἡμῶν εἰσὶν αἱ τραγῳδίαι.
οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐσμὲν πλὴν ποσειδῶν καὶ σκάφη.
Aristoph. Lysistr. 137.

Footnote 804:

Cod. Dipl. No. 55.

Footnote 805:

Ibid. No. 18.

Footnote 806:

Beów. l. 901

Footnote 807:

Boet. de Cons. ii.

Footnote 808:

D. Myth. p. 351.

Footnote 809:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1172.

Footnote 810:

Weland him be wurman
wræces cunnade
. . . . . . . . . .
siððan hine Niðhad on
néde legde
swoncre seonobande,
onsyllan mon.
. . . . . . . . . .
Beadohilde ne wæs
hyre bróðra deáð
on sefan swá sár
swá hyre sylfra þing,
ðæt heó gearolíce
ongieten hæfde
ðæt heó eácen wæs, etc.

Footnote 811:

D. Myth. p. 351.

-----

In the Northern tradition appears a brother of Weland, named Eigil or
Egil, who is celebrated as an archer, and to whom belongs the
wide-spread tale which has almost past into accredited history in the
case of William Tell; this tale given by Saxo Grammaticus to Toko, by
the Jomsvíkínga Saga to Palnatoki, and by other authorities to other
heroes from the twelfth till the very end of the fifteenth century, but
most likely of the very highest antiquity in every part of Europe, was
beyond doubt an English one also, and is repeated in the ballad of
William of Cloudesley: it is therefore probable that it belongs to a
much older cycle, and was as well known as the legends of Wada and
Weland, with which it is so nearly connected. Eigil would among the
Anglosaxons have borne the form of Ægel, and accordingly we find places
compounded with this name,—thus Æglesbyrig, now Aylesbury in
Buckinghamshire; Æglesford, now Aylsford in Kent; Ægleslona, in
Worcester[812]; Ægleswurð, now Aylsworth in Northamptonshire[813]; also
Ægleswyl; and lastly Aylestone in Leicestershire.

-----

Footnote 812:

Cod. Dipl. No. 549.

Footnote 813:

Ibid. Nos. 591, 423.

-----

The Wilkina Saga and the Scald’s Complaint already cited from the Codex
Exoniensis, lead us next to the legends of Ðeódríc (Dietrich von Bern)
and Eormenríc, (Hermanaríc), and through the latter to Sigfried and the
other heroes of the Nibelungen cycle. The heroic or even godlike
character of Dietrich has been well made out by Grimm[814], and the
historical Theodoric the Ostrogoth vanishes in his traditional
representative. The Anglosaxon poet evidently refers to the latter, not
indeed from the story he tells, but from the collocation of Ðeódríc
among merely mythical personages. Perhaps, as the whole scope of his
poem is to relate the misfortunes of the great and thus draw consolation
for his own, the thirty years’ residence in Mæringaburg may be
considered as a reference to Ðeódríc’s flight from before Otachar[815]
and long-continued exile. In a Saxon menology[816] of great antiquity,
the author, after stating the eighteenth of May to be the commemoration
of St. John, Pope and Martyr, goes on to say, that an anchoret on Lipari
told certain sailors how at a particular time he had seen king
Theodoric, ungirt, barefoot, and bound, led between St. John and St.
Finian, and by them hurled into the boiling crater of the neighbouring
island Vulcano. That on their return to Italy the sailors discovered by
comparison of dates that Theodoric died on the day on which the anchoret
noticed his punishment by the hands of his victims. The author expressly
tells it was Theodoricus, the king of the Goths in Ravenna; and he
concludes by saying, “That was Theodoricus the king whom we call
Ðeódríc,” which we can only understand by supposing him to allude to the
mythical Ðeódríc. Ælfred seems also to have known something of the
mythical Ðeódríc when he says, “he wæs Amaling,” a fact historically
true of the Ostrogoth Theodoric, but yet unlikely to have been contained
in Ælfred’s Latin authorities. The Traveller’s Song says[817], “Ðeódríc
weóld Froncum,” Theodoric ruled the Franks, but this I should rather
understand of one of the historical Merwingian kings, than of the
Ostrogoth.

-----

Footnote 814:

D. Myth. p. 346.

Footnote 815:

The Hiltibrants Lied says,

Hiltibrant haetti min fater. ih heittu Hadubrant.
forn her ostar gihueit. floh her Otachres nid.
hina mit Theotrihhe. enti sinero degano filu.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
sid Detrihhe. darba gistontum.
fateres mines, dat uuas so friuntlaos man.

For remarks on Ðeódríc’s exile see W. Grimm, Deutsche Heldensage, pp.
22, 24, 34, 36, 37, 201, 204.

Footnote 816:

MS. C. C. C. Cantab. No. 179. “On ðone eahtateóðan dæg ðæs monðes byð
Sce Johannes týd ðæs pápan ⁊ ðæs martyres, se gedyde þurh Godes myht
blyndum men gesyhðe. Ðone Johannes for ǽfstum [héht cwellan]
Theodoricus se wæs Gotena cyning in Rauenna ðǽre ceastre; ⁊ sum
wéstensetla on ðám ealonde ðe is nemned Liparus, he sæde sciplíðendum
mannum ðæt he gesáwe Johannes sáwle ðæs papan lǽdan ðone cyning ðe
hine ofslóh gebundenne on écum wítum. He cwæð, se Godes þeów, tó ðám
sciplíðendum: Girsan dæg on ða nigoðan tíd dæges, ðæt is on ðone nón,
Þeodricus wæs gelǽded ungyrd ⁊ unsceód ⁊ eác gebunden be ðám handum,
betweoh Johanne ðám pápan ⁊ Finianum ðám ealdormen, ⁊ he wæs fram heom
áworpen on byrnende seáð on ðysum neáh-ealande, ⁊ ðæt is nemned
Ulcania. And ða sciplíðende ða ðæt gehýredon, hig ymbhydelíce
ámearcodon ðone dæg, ⁊ him ðá cyrdon eft tó Etelwara mǽgðe, ðǽr hig
ðone cyning ǽr lyfigende forlǽton; ⁊ hig ðá eft hine ðǽr deádne
gemétton, ðý ylcan dæge ðe his wíte ðám Godes þeówe ætywed wæs. Ðæt
wæs swíðe riht ðæt he fram ðám twám mannum wǽre sended on ðæt éce fýr,
ðaðe he hér unrihtlíce ofslóh on ðisim life. Ðæt wæs Þeodoricus ðone
we nemnað Ðeódríc.” See further illustrations of this strange tale in
the Deutsche Heldensage, p. 38, where Otto of Freisingen is quoted,
but who does not give nearly so many details as the Anglosaxon legend.

Footnote 817:

Trav. Song, l. 47.

-----

The legends of Eormanríc were obviously familiar to the Anglosaxons: in
the so often quoted poem of the Traveller’s Song, this celebrated prince
is mentioned more than once, as well as in the poem which contains the
notices of Weland, Beadohild and Ðeódríc. The character given of him in
both these compositions denotes a familiarity with the details of his
history, as we find them almost universally in the Northern traditions,
and more particularly those of his wealth, his cruelty and his
treachery.

In Beówulf we have a somewhat further development of his history. We
there learn incidentally that Háma (the Ammius of Saxo Grammaticus)
carried off from him the Brósinga-mén or mythical collar of the goddess
Freya. There can be no doubt that this necklace, called in the Norse
traditions Mén Brísínga, is of a most thoroughly mythological
character[818], and any reference to it in Saxon poetry is welcome
evidence of ancient heathendom: moreover the Anglosaxon poet alone
mentions it in connection with Eormanríc. This peculiar feature is as
little known to the other Germanic nations as the beautiful legend of
Scyld Scéfing, the loves of Geát and Mǽðhild, the dragon-slaughter of
Sigmund, the wars of Hengest and Finn Folcwalding, or the noble epos of
Beówulf itself: unfortunately we have no detail as to the circumstances
under which the necklace of the goddess came into the possession of
Eormanríc.

-----

Footnote 818:

When Loki announced to Freya that Thórr would not recover his hammer
unless she married the giant who had become possessed of it, she
trembled with rage, so that the halls of the gods shook under her, and
the Mén Brísínga burst from her neck: again when Thórr disguises
himself in her distinctive dress, he does not forget the necklace,
Hamarsheimt, xiii. xv. xix. I am inclined to think the Saxon reading
erroneous, and that Brósinga is a mere error of copying. The meaning
of the word is obscure: Brising in Norse denotes a fierce flame, and
the name of the collar has been explained from its bright and burning
colour. Grimm suggests a derivation from a verb _brísan_ (found in
Middle German under the form _brísen_) _nodare_, _nodis_
_constringere_, in reference to the form of its links. But the main
difficulty in my opinion is found in the plural genitive of the
patronymic, and I would almost prefer the hypothesis of our having
entirely lost the lay which described its origin: others we certainly
have lost which had reference to it, as for instance Loki’s and
Heimdallr’s contention for it. Saxo Grammaticus has a story probably
about its origin (p. 13) which is totally unsatisfactory. Were the
Brísingas (sons of fire?) its first possessors or makers?

-----

The Traveller’s Song however has traces of many heroes who are closely
connected with the traditional cyclus of Eormanríc: among these are
Sifeca (the false Sibich of Germany) and Becca, the Bikki of the
corresponding Norse versions, whom it makes chieftain of the Baningas,
perhaps the “sons of mischief” from _Bana_. Háma, already named, and
Wudga, the Wittich and Heime of Germany, occur in the same poem: so also
the terrible Ætla, Attila the Hun, the Ætli of Scandinavia, the Etzel of
the Nibelungen cycle. In the same composition we find Gúðhere, king of
the Burgundians, the Norse Gunnar, and German Gunther; and Hagena,
probably the Norse Högni, and Hagen the murderer of Sigfried. The
Traveller’s Song, and the Scóp’s Complaint contain no mention of the
great hero of the Norse and German epos, Sigurdr Fafnisbani, Sigfried,
the betrothed of the Shieldmay Bryhyldur, the husband of the fairhaired
Chriemhilt.

All the more welcome to us is the episode in Beówulf, which not only
records the tale of Sigurdr, though under the name of his father
Sigmund, and makes particular mention of the dragon-slaughter
(Fafnis-bani)—which is a central point in the Norse tradition, although
hardly noticed at all in the Nibelungen Lied,—but also refers to the
fearful adventures which the Edda relates of the hero and his kinsman
Sinfiötli (Fitela) which appear totally unknown in Germany.

Having said thus much of the heroic personages to whom so large a
portion of Northern and Germanic tradition is devoted, it becomes
possible for me to refer to the great work of James Grimm on German
mythology for a demonstration of the connection between these heroes and
the gods of our forefathers. I regret that my own limits render it
impossible for me to enter at greater length upon this part of the
subject; but it requires a work of no small dimensions, and devoted to
it exclusively: and it is therefore sufficient to show the identity of
our own heroic story and that of Scandinavia and the continent, and thus
enable the English reader to adapt to his own national traditions the
conclusions of learned enquirers abroad, with respect to their own[819].

-----

Footnote 819:

I would particularly call attention to W. Grimm’s Deutsche Heldensage,
P. Müller’s Sagabibliothek, and J. Grimm’s Deutsche Mythologie; the
last, a very storehouse of all that bears upon this most interesting
and important subject, important whether we consider it merely in a
literary point of view, or in the far higher one of a revelation of
the creed of our forefathers, the sources of their hope and fear, the
basis of their moral being and directing motive of their actions. If
it be true that nothing human can be without interest for a man,
surely that which tells of the religious belief of our forefathers
must be of the deepest and nearest interest. It has had something to
do with making us what we are.

-----

DIVINATION AND WITCHCRAFT.—The attachment of the Germanic races to
divination attracted the notice of Tacitus[820]: he says: “They are as
great observers of auspices and lots as any. The way they use their lots
is simple; they cut into slips a branch taken from an oak or beech, and
having distinguished them by certain marks, scatter them at random and
as chance wills over a white cloth. Then if the enquiry is a public one,
the state-priest,—if a private one, the father of the house
himself,—having prayed to the gods, and looking up to heaven, thrice
raises each piece, and interprets them when raised according to the
marks before inscribed upon them. If they turn out unfavourable, there
is no further consultation that day about the same matter: if they are
favourable, the authority of omens is still required. Even here they are
acquainted with a mode of interrogating the voices and flight of birds;
but it is peculiar to this race to try the presages and admonitions of
horses. These, white in colour and subject to no mortal work, are fed at
the public cost in the sacred groves and woods: then being harnessed to
the sacred chariot, they are accompanied by the priest, the king or the
prince of the state, who observe their neighings and snortings. Nor has
any augury more authority than this, not only among the common people,
but even the nobles and priests: for they think themselves the
ministers, but the horses the confidants, of the gods. There is another
customary form of auspices, by which they inquire concerning the event
of serious wars. They match a captive of the nation with which they are
at war, however they can come by him, with a select champion of their
own, each armed with his native weapons. The victory of this one or that
is taken as a presage.”

Footnote 820:

Germ. x.

The use of lots as connected with heathendom, that is, as a means of
looking into futurity, continued in vogue among the Saxons till a late
period, in spite of the efforts of the clergy: this is evident from the
many allusions in the Poenitentials, and the prohibitions of the secular
law. The augury by horses does not appear to have been used in England,
from any allusion at least which still survives; but it was still
current in Germany in the seventh century, and with less change of
adjuncts than we usually find in the adoption of heathen forms by
Christian saints. It was left to the decision of horses to determine
where the mortal remains of St. Gall should rest; the saint would not
move, till certain unbroken horses were brought and charged with his
coffin: then, after prayers, we are told, “Elevato igitur a pontifice
nec non et a sacerdote feretro, et equis superposito, ait episcopus:
‘Tollite frena de capitibus eorum, et pergant, ubi Dominus voluerit.’
Vexillum ergo crucis cum luminaribus adsumebatur, et psallentes, equis
praecedentibus, via incipiebatur[821].” It may be imagined that the
horses infallibly found the proper place for the saint’s burial-place;
but what is of importance to us is the use of horses on the occasion. In
this country however we have some record of a divination in which not
horses but a bull played a principal part; and as bulls were animals
sacred to the great goddess Nerthus, it is not unlikely that this was a
remnant of ancient heathendom. St. Benedict on one occasion appeared to
a fisherman named Wulfgeat, and desired him to announce to duke
Æðelwine[822], his lord, that it was his the saint’s wish to have a
monastery erected to himself, to the pious mother of mercy and All
virgins. The spot was to be where he should see a bull stamp with his
foot. To use the words of the saint to the fisherman, “Ut ei igitur haec
omnia per ordinem innotescas exhortor, sermonem addens sermoni, quatenus
scrutetur diligentius in loco praedicto quomodo noctu fessa terrae sua
incumbant animalia, _ac ubi taurum surgentem pede dextro viderit
percutere terram_, ibidem proculdubio xenodochii sciat se aram erigere
debere.” Obedient to the order, duke Æðelwine set out in the morning to
find the spot: “Mira res, et miranda, ubi vir praedictus insulam est
ingressus, ... _animalia sua in modum crucis, taurum vero in medio eorum
iacere prospexit_. Et sicut quondam sancto Clementi agnus pede dextro
locum fontis, sic viro isti taurus terram pede percutiendo locum mensae
futuri arcisterii significavit divinitus[823].” St. Clement’s fountain
never rolled such floods of gold as found their way to the rich abbey of
Ramsey!

-----

Footnote 821:

Vit. Anon. Sci. Galli. Pertz, Monum. ii. 17.

Footnote 822:

The same whom the grateful monks have distinguished by the name of
_Dei amicus_.

Footnote 823:

Cod. Dipl. No. 581.

-----

Other details of heathendom in the practices of ordinary life must be
left to the appendix to this chapter; but a cursory reference may be
made to what appears to show a belief in the evil eye, and that practice
which in Latin is called _invultuatio_. The former of these is mentioned
in the poem of Beówulf[824], where Hróðgár, warning Beówulf of the frail
tenure of human life, adds, “eágena bearhtm,” _the glance of eyes_, to
the many dangers the warrior had to fear:

Nú is ðínes mægnes blæd Now is the bloom of thy strength
áne hwíle, for a little while,
eft sona bið soon will it be
ðæt ðec adl oððe ecg that sickness or the sword
eafoðes getwǽfeð, shall part thee from thy power,
oððe fýres feng, or clutch of fire,
oððe flódes wylm, or wave of flood,
oððe grípe meces, or gripe of sword,
oððe gáres fliht or javelin’s flight,
oððe atol yldo, or ugly age,
oððe eágena bearhtm, or glance of eye,
forsitteð and forsworceð. shall oppress and darken thee!

-----

Footnote 824:

Beów. l. 3520.

-----

_Invultuation_ is defined by Mr. Thorpe in the following words: “a
species of witchcraft, the perpetrators of which were called
_vultivoli_, and are thus described by John of Salisbury: Qui ad
affectus hominum immutandos, in molliori materia, cera forte vel limo,
eorum quos pervertere nituntur effigies exprimunt[825]. To this
superstition Virgil alludes:

“Limus ut hic durescit, et haec ut cera liquescit,
Uno eodemque igni, sic nostro Daphnis amore.

-----

Footnote 825:

De Nugis Curial. lib. i. cap. 12.

-----

“Of the practice of this superstition, both in England and Scotland,
many instances are to be met with; among the most remarkable, that of
Eleanor Cobham, duchess of Gloucester, and Stacey, servant to George
Duke of Clarence[826].”

-----

Footnote 826:

Anc. Laws and Inst. vol. ii. Gloss.

-----

But it seems to include also the practising against the life of an enemy
by means of a waxen or other figure, in which pins were stuck, or
against which a sharp bolt was shot. It is against this crime that the
law of Henry the First enacts[827]: “Si quis veneno, vel sortilegio, vel
invultuacione, seu maleficio aliquo, faciat homicidium, sive illi
paratum sit sive alii, nihil refert, quin factum mortiferum, et nullo
modo redimendum sit:” and this is perhaps also intended by the word
_liblác_ used by Æðelstân[828]. It is also probable that this was the
crime for which in the tenth century a widow was put to death by
drowning at London Bridge, and her property forfeited to the crown[829].
Anglosaxon homilies however also mention philtres of various kinds,
which the people are warned against as dangerous and damnable
heathendom.

-----

Footnote 827:

Leg. Hen. lxxi. § 1.

Footnote 828:

Æðelst. i. § 6.

Footnote 829:

Cod. Dipl. No. 591.

-----

Such are the fragments of a system which at one time fed the religious
yearnings and propped the moral faith of our forefathers,—faint notes
from a chorus of triumphant jubilation which once rose to heaven from
every corner of the island.

How shall we characterize it? As a dull and debasing _Fetish-worship_,
worthy of African savages? or as a vague and colourless _Pantheism_, in
which religion vanishes away, and philosophy gropes for a basis which it
cannot find? I think not.

Contemplate the child who bounds through the wood, or pauses in delight
upon the meadow, where he wantons in the very joy of life itself: to him
this great creation is full of playmates, beings animate or inanimate,
with whom he shares his little pleasures, to whom he can confide his
little sorrows. He understands their language, and in turn he has a
language for them, which he thinks they understand: he knows more of
their peculiarities than the halting step of scientific observation is
always able to overtake; for he knows what science haughtily refuses to
contemplate or, it may be, is unable to appreciate. The birds speak to
him, the forests whisper to him, the shadows and the low tones of the
hill and valley lull him to repose, the winds wanton with his curled
locks and blow them over his shoulders, the streams and brooks have
spray to play with and sprinkle in his laughing eyes. He stands before
the great spirit of nature, face to face, and knows him as he reveals
himself in every one of his divine forms; for the child sees and knows
the secrets of God, which the man, alas! is condemned to forget. Such as
the child is, has the child-like nation been, before the busy hum of
commerce, the crashing strokes of the piston, the heavy murmur of
innumerable spinning-jennies necessarily banished more natural music
from our ears. An age that thinks about itself and its own capacity,
that reflects upon its own processes of thought, and makes great
combinations of powers, and anatomizes nature till it becomes familiar
with every secret of creation, may be an earnest puritanical age, a
stern protestant age, one that will not be fed with imaginative
religions, but it cannot be one of implicit, trusting, fearing,
rejoicing, trembling belief: the age of faith ceased where the age of
knowledge began. Man knows too much, perhaps believes too little: he
will not, and he must not, yield his privilege of calm, determined,
obstinate enquiry: he will, and should, judge for himself, weigh
evidence, compare and reason, and decide for himself how much or how
little he will receive as true. How can he wonder at the stars, their
rising, their setting or their eclipse? He calculates where new planets
may be found: he weighs them in his balances when found, and tells not
only their circumference or their density, but how long the straggling
ray of light that started from them was on its journey, before it
reached the eye of the gazer. What can these wavering fragments of time
and space be to him who calculates duration by the nutation of suns, or
the scarcely appreciable difference of millennial changes? Let us
remember what our fathers were, and consider what we are. For them there
was indeed a time, a period to tell of,

“when the Sun
Knew not her dwelling, nor the Moon his power,
And the Stars knew not where their place should be!”

We know their places, and their dwellings, and their power. They are
subordinated to a hypothesis of gravitation. For us there is no wavering
bridge of the Gods, no _Bifröst_ or _Asbrú_; our rainbow is a shadowy
thing, a belt of deceptive colours, the reflection of a sunbeam in the
multitudinous prisms of a shower-cloud. We have no _Hammer_, wielded by
the Thunder-god, and dreaded by the giants; our _Miölner_ has vanished
into the indifference of opposing electricities. Apothecaries’ Hall
prepares its simples without the aid of charms, or invocation of
divinities; and though we stand as yet but on the threshold of science,
we have closed for ever behind us the portals of mystery and belief. For
we are raised upon the shoulders of the times gone by, and cast a calm
and easy view over the country which our forefathers wandered through in
fear and trembling. We fear not what they feared; we cling not to what
they clung to, for relief and comfort; we have set up our own idol, the
_Understanding_, fortified by laborious experience, taught by repeated
struggles and victories, firmly based on conquered, catalogued and
inventoried nature, on facts, the stern children of a passionless
reality. I know not whether we have gained or lost in this inevitable
career of humanity; I have faith only that He who rules the purpose of
the ages, has thus cast our lot in the infinite love and wisdom of his
own thought. But not to us, or in our finite forms of thought, can the
world be as once it was, and the “dull catalogue of common things”
admits no admixture of a fancied divinity; nay, so far are we from
seeking to instil spirit into matter, that the informing soul itself
ceases to be the object of our contemplation, while we are busied with
the nerves and tendons, or charmed with the wonderful combination of
details that form the perfect whole. We stand supreme among the subjects
of our knowledge; and the marvels of science itself will now not form
the stock in trade of a second-class conjuror. Observe the man who
threads his way with imperturbable security and speed through the
thoroughfares of a densely-peopled metropolis: the crowd throng about
him, yet he yields here, he advances there, till at length, almost
unconsciously, he has attained the goal of his desire. He is familiar
with the straight lines and angles that surround him, he measures his
position and stands upright, mistaking, if indeed he think at all, the
inconceivably rapid calculations of the understanding for acts of his
own spontaneous volition. The unaccustomed eye of the child cannot do
this; and he wavers in his steps and stumbles from point to point,
helpless, but charming in his helplessness, till practice brings him
power, and he too walks and stands upright among men. So is it with the
minds of men in early and uninstructed periods, stumbling from belief to
belief, resting for support upon every circumstance of surrounding life,
and unfurnished with the elements of scientific reasoning, which, by
assuring certainty, destroy the vague, indefinite basis of faith, or
bring within a narrow and constantly decreasing circle, its vague and
indefinite object. We believe the results of Geometry, the theorems of
analytic mathematics, because we cannot help ourselves, cannot escape
from the inevitable conclusion involved in the premises; but we cannot
call this acquiescence faith, or establish upon it a moral claim before
our own conscience and our God. And as there can be no reason save in
the unintelligible, no faith save in the impossible, all that is brought
within the realm of the intellect, or the sphere of the possible, is
just so much withdrawn from the circle of religion.

The basis of the religious state in man is the sensation of
weakness,—whether that weakness be or be not distinctly traced in the
consciousness to the ignorance which is its cause, or to the ultimate,
more abstract and more philosophical conviction of sinfulness, in the
conscience. Man cannot rest for his anxious desire to know the why and
how of every phænomenon he observes: this restlessness is the law of his
intellect, that is, the condition of his humanity: he interrogates the
phænomena themselves, but if they will give no answer to his question,
he will seek it without them. In himself he will seek it in vain. At no
time, at no stage of his development can he understand the relation of
the subject and the object, or comprehend the copula that unites them.
The philosopher the most deeply trained in watching abstract forms of
thought, acknowledges with a sigh that even the intuitions of the reason
halt in the fetters of the understanding, and that to give objective
reality to what can be known only in the forms and through the powers of
the subjective, is at best to be guilty of a noble treason to the laws
of pure reasoning. And what shall he do, who is not trained in watching
abstract forms of thought? Is he more likely to find the answer in
himself? Alas, no! he feels only too surely that his nature can give no
satisfying response; that his confined and bounded being is itself full
of problems which remain unsolved.

And now let this state be considered with reference to the early
inhabitant of a world, whose secrets are yet undiscovered, and on whom
no light of heavenly radiance has fallen. For him, as for us, there is
no answer either in the phænomenon or in the observer: but he has no
reason to reject the supposition of a supernatural influence: everything
that surrounds him is filled with evidence of supernatural power. He
lives in nearer communion than we do with the world about him: his
frame, not yet clogged and vitiated by the habits of an advanced
cultivation, is more alive than ours to the external effects of natural
causes: the world itself, existing under different conditions of
climate, different electrical combinations, not yet subdued by the
plough, or the axe of the forester, not yet bridled and trained by the
canal, the manufactory or the railroad, has effluences which act upon
the nerves and fluids of the man, and which seem to him divine
emanations, revelations of the divinity within the lake, the mountain
and the tree: the lake, the mountain and the tree he peoples then with
gods,—with Nymphs and Nereids, with Oreads and Hamadryads—to whose
inward and spiritual action the outward owes its power and its form. But
the outward and visible is not a sign only, of the inward and spiritual;
it is a symbol, a part of that which it denotes; it is at once the sower
and the seed.

In no age can man be without the great ideas of God, of right, of power,
of love, of wisdom; but an age that has not learnt to feed upon
abstractions, must find the realization of those ideas in the outward
world, and in a few familiar facts of human nature. It strives to give
itself an account of itself, and the result of its efforts is a
paganism, always earnest and imaginative, often cruel and capricious, as
often gentle, affectionate and trusting—for even in spite of cruelty and
caprice, the affections will have their way, and trust will find a home.
Its inconsistence is the offspring not of guilt, but of imperfect
knowledge: it seeks the great solution of all religious problems, a
mediator between God and man: it is its error, but not necessarily its
crime, that it finds that mediator in the complex of the world itself:
no other has been revealed to it; and the reveries of philosophy that
haunt the sounding Portico or the flowery swathes of Hymettus, cannot
tell of the “Unknown God” to the agriculturist, the huntsman or the
pirate.

I believe in two religions for my forefathers: one that deals with the
domestic life, and normal state of peace; that sanctifies the family
duties, prescribes the relations of father, wife and child, divides the
land, and presides over its boundaries; that tells of gods, the givers
of fertility and increase, the protectors of the husbandman and the
herdsman; that guards the ritual and preserves the liturgy; that
pervades the social state and gives permanence to the natural, original
political institutions. I call this the sacerdotal faith, and I will
admit that to its teachers and professors we may owe the frequent
attempt of later periods to give an abstract, philosophic meaning to
mythus and tradition, and to make dawning science halt after religion.

The second creed I will call the heroic; in this I recognize the same
gods, transformed into powers of war and victory, crowners of the brave
in fight, coercers of the wild might of nature, conquerors of the
giants, the fiends and dragons; founders of royal families, around whom
cluster warlike comrades, exulting in the thought that their deities
stand in immediate genealogical relation to themselves, and share in the
pursuits and occupations which furnish themselves with wealth and
dignity and power. Let it be admitted that a complete separation never
takes place between these different forms of religion; that a wavering
is perceptible from one to the other; that the warrior believes his
warrior god will bless the produce of his pastures; that the cultivator
rejoices in the heroic legend of Wóden and of Baldr, because the
cultivator is himself a warrior, when the occasion demands his services:
still, in the ultimate development and result of the systems, the
original distinction may be traced, and to it some of the conclusions we
observe must necessarily be referred: it is thus that spells of healing
and fruitfulness survive when the great gods have vanished, and that the
earth, the hills, the trees and waters retain a portion of dimmed and
bated divinity long after the godlike has sunk into the heroic legend,
or been lost for ever.

I can readily believe that the warrior and the noble were less deeply
impressed with the religious idea than the simple cultivator. In the
first place, the disturbed life and active habits of military
adventurers are not favourable to the growth of religious convictions:
again, there is no tie more potent than that which links sacred
associations to particular localities, and acts, unconsciously perhaps
but pervasively, upon all the dwellers near the holy spots: the tribe
may wander with all its wealth of thought and feeling; even its gods may
accompany it to a new settlement; but the _religio loci_, the
indefinable influence of the local association, cannot be transported.
Habits of self-reliance, of a proud and scornful independence, are not
consistent with the conviction of weakness, which is necessary to our
full admission of the divine pre-eminence; and the self-confident
soldier often felt that he could cope with gods such as his had been
described to be. In the Greek heroic lay Tydides could attack, defeat,
and even wound Ares: I do not know that the Teutonic mythology ever went
so far as this; but we have abundant record of a contemptuous disregard
with which particular heroes of tradition treated the popular religion.
Some selected indeed one god in whom they placed especial trust, and
whom they worshipped (as far as they worshipped at all) to the exclusion
of the rest; but more must have participated in that feeling which is
expressed in a Danish song,

“I trust my sword, I trust my steed,
But most I trust myself at need[830]!”

while to many we may safely apply what is said of a Swedish prince, “han
var mikit blandinn i trunni,” he was mightily confused in his belief.
Still it is certain that a personal character was attributed to the
gods, as well as an immediate intervention in the affairs of life. The
actual presence of Oþinn from time to time on the battle-field, in the
storm, in the domestic privacy of the household, was firmly believed, in
Scandinavia; and it is reasonable to assume that Wóden would have been
found as active among our German progenitors, had not the earlier
introduction of Christianity into Teutonic Europe deprived us of the
mythological records which the North supplies. Beda tells us that
Eádwini of Northumberland sacrificed and offered thanks to his gods upon
the birth of a daughter. Rǽdwald of Eastanglia, even after his nominal
conversion, continued to pay his offerings to idols, and the people of
Essex, when labouring under the ravages of a pestilence, abjured the
faith of Christ and returned to the service of the ancient gods. But in
the personality of God alone resides the possibility of realizing the
religious idea.

Footnote 830:

“Först troer jeg mit gode svärd,
og saa min gode hest,
dernäst troer jeg mine dannesvenne,
jeg troer mig self allerbedst.”

Many examples are given in Grimm, Mythol. p. 7.

We possess no means of showing how the religion of our own progenitors
or their brethren of the continent, had been modified, purified, and
adapted in the course of centuries to a more advanced state of
civilization, or the altered demands of a higher moral nature; but, at
the commencement of the sixth century we do find the pregnant fact, that
Christianity met but little resistance among them, and enjoyed an easy
triumph, or at the worst a careless acquiescence, even among those whose
pagan sympathies could not be totally overcome. Two suppositions,
indeed, can alone explain the facile apostasy to or from Christianity,
which marked the career of the earliest converts. Either from a
conviction of the inefficacy of heathendom had proceeded a general
indifference to religious sanctions, which does not appear to answer
other conditions of the problem, or the moral demands of the new faith
did not seem to the Saxons more onerous than those to which they were
accustomed; for it is the amount of self-sacrifice which a religion
successfully imposes upon its votaries, which can alone form a measure
of its influence. The fact that a god had perished, could sound
strangely in the ears of no worshipper of Baldr; the great message of
consolation,—that he had perished to save sinful, suffering
man,—justified the ways of God, and added an awful meaning to the old
mythus. An earnest, thinking pagan, would, I must believe, joyfully
accept a version of his own creed, which offered so inestimable a boon,
in addition to what he had heretofore possessed. The final destruction
of the earth by fire could present no difficulties to those who had
heard of Surtr and the Twilight of the Gods, or of Allfather’s glorious
kingdom, raised on the ruin of the intermediate divinities. A state of
happiness or punishment in a life to come was no novelty to him who had
shuddered at the idea of Nástrond: Loki or Grendel had smoothed the way
for Satan. Those who had believed in runes and incantations were
satisfied with the efficacy of the mass; a crowd of saints might be
invoked in place of a crowd of subordinate divinities; the holy places
had lost none of their sanctity; the holy buildings had not been
levelled with the ground, but dedicated in another name; the pagan
sacrifices had not been totally abolished, but only converted into
festal occasions, where the new Christians might eat and drink, and
continue to praise God: Hréðe and Eóstre, Wóden, Tiw and Fricge, Ðunor
and Sætere retained their places in the calendar of months and days:
Erce was still invoked in spells, Wyrd still wove the web of destiny;
and while Wóden retained his place at the head of the royal genealogies,
the highest offices of the Christian church were offered to compensate
the noble class for the loss of their old sacerdotal functions. How
should Christianity fail to obtain access where Paganism stepped half
way to meet it, and it could hold out so many outward points of union to
paganism?

We dare not question the decrees of omnipotence, or enquire into the
mysterious operations of omniscient God; it is not for us to measure his
infinite wisdom by the rules of our finite intelligence, or to assume
that his goodness and mercy can be appreciated and comprehended by the
dim, wavering light of our reason; but man feels that in every age man
has had a common nature, a common hope and a common end of being; and we
shall do no wrong either to philosophy or to religion, if we believe
that even in the errors of paganism there lay the germs of truth; and
that the light which lighteth every one that cometh into the world, was
vouchsafed in such form and measure as best to subserve the all-wise,
all-holy, and all-merciful objects of creation!

APPENDIX.

APPENDIX A.
MARKS.

The following patronymical names I believe to be those of ancient Marks.
The first portion of them is derived from the Codex Diplomatics and
other original authorities: the second portion contains names inferred
from the actual local names in England at the present day.

Æslingas. Kent. Cod. Dipl. No. 111.
Æscingas. Surrey. 314.
Anningas. Northamptonshire. 445.
Antingas. Norfolk. 785.
Æfeningas. 1073.

Berecingas. Essex. 38.
Besingas. 994.
Banesingas. Oxfordshire. 81.
Boerlingas. Kent. 152.
Beardingas. Kent. 207.
Beadingas. Sussex. 314.
Billingas. 1000.
Bruningas. 374, 1113.
Brahcingas. Hertfordshire. 410.
Brytfordingas. Hampshire. 421, 985, 1108.
Brydingas. Wiltshire. 436.
Brydingas. Dorsetshire. 447.
Bydelingas. Northamptonshire. 445.
Beaddingas. Isle of Wight. 475.
Beorhfeldingas. 1175.
Beringas. Kent. 518.
Buccingas. Chron. Sax. 918.
Bulungas. Somersetshire. Cod. Dipl. No. 569.
Birlingas. Worcestershire. 570.
Brómleágingas. Kent. 657.
Beorganstedingas. Sussex. 663.
Boccingas. Essex. 698.
Beorhtingas. Sussex. 782.
Bercingas. Suffolk. 907.
Byrtingas. Warwickshire. 916.

Culingas. Kent. 132.
Centingas. Chron. Sax. 999.
Crangas. Kent. Cod. Dipl. No. 179.
Ceanningas. 1193.
Colingas. Wiltshire. 336.
Cearningas. 1212.
Ciwingas. Hertfordshire. 410.
Cytringas. Northamptonshire. 443.
Cnyllingas. Northamptonshire. 480.
Cystáningas. Kent. 657.
Cateringas. 722.
Coringas. Lincolnshire. 953.
Cyceringas. 957.

Dicelingas. Sussex. 314.
Dentúningas. Northamptonshire. 445.
Doccingas. Norfolk. 759.

Eohingas. Kent. 121.
Englungas. 123.
Eástringas. Northamptonshire. 480.
Earmingas. Cambridgeshire. 563.
Earningas. 1320.
Embasingas. Hampshire. 673.
Eastúningas. 1023.
Eofordúningas. Northamptonshire. 736.
Erpingas. Norfolk. 785.
Effingas. Surrey. 812.
Erningas. Cambridgeshire. 907.

Ferlingas. Somersetshire. 73.
Fullingas. 987.
Focingas. Kent. 207.
Fasingas. 1083.
Fearningas. Hampshire. 450.
Fearnbeorgingas. Kent. 657.
Fingringas. Essex. 685.
Fearningas. Somersetshire. 723.
Frinningas. Kent. 896.

Glæstingas. Somersetshire. 49.
Geddingas. Middlesex. 101.
Gumeningas. Middlesex. 116.
Gustingas. Wiltshire. 174.
Getingas. Surrey. 318.
Garungas. Kent. 364.
Grundlingas. Worcestershire. 548.
Gildingas. Kent. 790.
Gillingas. 809. Chron. Sax.
1010.
Gyrstlingas. 967.

Hallingas. Kent. 160.
Hæstingas. Chron. Sax.
1050.
Heallingas. Worcestershire. Cod. Dipl. No. 209.
Heretúningas. Dorsetshire. 412.
Hrepingas. 990.
Hoppingas. Surrey. 537.
Hæglingas. 1193.
Heántuningas. 1212.
Heartingas. Cambridgeshire. 533.
Hwæssingas. Sussex. 591.
Hohtúningas. Hampshire. 633.
Hnutscillingas. Hampshire. 642.
Holingas. Kent. 722.
Heningas. Northamptonshire. 733.
Herelingas. Norfolk. 782.
Hodingas. Hampshire. 783.
Hanningas. Norfolk. 785.
Hellingas. Norfolk. 809.
Horningas. Hampshire. 556.
Horningas. Norfolk. 740.
Horningas. Oxfordshire. 775.
Horningas. Somersetshire. 816.
Horningas. Cambridgeshire. 907.
Hicelingas. 971.
Hæcingas. Kent. 364.

Ircingas. Chron. Sax. 918.

Lingas. Middlesex. Cod. Dipl. No. 159.
Lællingas. Essex. 715.
Lamburningas. Berkshire. 792.
Linfrodingas. 1133.
Lacingas. 1153.

Merlingas. Somersetshire. 73.
Mundlingas. Kent. 107.
Mallingas. Kent. 240.
Módingas. Kent. 287.
Michǽmingas. Surrey. 537.
Meringas. 809.
Mæssingas. 953.

Nessingas. 813.
Neddingas. Suffolk. 907.

Oddingas. Worcestershire. 209.

Pegingas. 257.
Pæccingas. Sussex. 414.
Purbicingas. Dorsetshire. 418.
Palingas. Sussex. 432.
Puningas. Sussex. 481.
Piccingas. 812.
Piperingas. 1001.
Peartingas. 1016.

Rícingas. Essex. 35.
Roegingas. Kent. 196.
Reádingas. Berkshire. 685.
Rodingas. 907.
Rocingas. 1014.
Ruwanoringas. 1163.

Stoppingas. Warwickshire. 83.
Sunningas. Berkshire. 214.
Sempingas. Lincolnshire. 267.
Stǽningas. Sussex. 314.
Scearingas. Berkshire. 357.
Suntingas. Northamptonshire. 445.
Snotingas. Chron. Sax. 922.
Súðtúningas. Hampshire. Cod. Dipl. No. 578.
Stameringas. Berkshire. 762.
Seaxlingas. Norfolk. 782.
Scealdedeningas. Hampshire. 783.
Stutingas. Kent. 773.
Scitingas. 1042.

Terringas. Sussex. 1138.
Terringas. Kent. 405.
Tótingas. Surrey. 363.
Tótingas. Norfolk. 785.
Teofuntingas. Wiltshire. 379.
Tudingas. Sussex. 593.
Terlingas. Essex. 907.
Ticcingas. 928.

Uggafordingas. Wiltshire. 778.

Wócingas. Surrey. 168.
Wígingas. Kent. 225.
Wígingas. Hertfordshire. Chron. Sax. 921.
Wealthǽmingas. Hampshire. Cod. Dipl. No. 342.
Weodúningas. Northamptonshire. 399.
Wrætlingas. 399.
Wellingas. Hertfordshire. 410.
Wealingas. 716.
Wealingas { 1016; 1061.
{ Chron. Sax.
1013.
Wealingas. Hampshire. Cod. Dipl. No. 442.
Welingas. Wiltshire. 462.
Welingas. 1069; 1154.
Witringas. Sussex. 464.
Wyrtingas. Hampshire. 481.
Woðringas. Kent. 492.
Wudutúningas. Hampshire. 638.
Wealdingas. Suffolk. 685.
Wanetingas. Berkshire. 698.
Witeringas. 992.
Weopingas. 721.
Westmoringas. Chron. Sax. 966.
Wilringas. Suffolk. Cod. Dipl. No. 759.
Wælsingas. Norfolk. 759.
Wylfingas. 1135.
Wratingas. 907.
Wanhæmingas. 1135.
Winlingas. 907.
Wasingas. 1159; 1173.
Wedringas. 907.
Watingas. 907.
Wintringas. 953.
Weargeburningas. Hampshire. 783.
Wimbedúningas. Surrey. 537.

Ytingas. 1228. Chron.
Sax. 906.

Ðutingas. Hampshire. Cod. Dipl. No. 752.
Ðorningas. Kent. 207.
Ðristlingas. Worcestershire. 570.

Writolas. Essex. 35.
Hogebúra. Hampshire. 589.
Holigan. 952.
Momelas. 952.
Wægelas. Somersetshire. 774.

Beohhǽme. Kent. 657.
Burhhǽme. Kent. 688.
Cethǽme. Kent. 688.
Cynghǽme. 1212.
Crohhǽme. Worcestershire. 507.
Díchǽme. Wiltshire. 778.
Hinhǽme. Worcestershire. 764.
Middelhǽme. Hampshire. 648.
Monninghǽme. Worcestershire. 645
Leófeshǽme. Kent. 657.
Micghǽme. Hampshire. 638.
Polhǽme. Hampshire. 642; 1136.
Secghǽme. Worcestershire. 764.
Uppinghǽme. Hampshire. 590.
Wíchǽme. Kent. 657; 1038.
Ðornhǽme. Worcestershire. 511.
Beonotsetan. Worcestershire. Cod. Dipl. No. 266.
Brádsetan. Worcestershire. 289.
Brádsetan. Gloucestershire. 274.
Crægsetan. Kent. 287.
Crudsetan. Wiltshire. 460.
Grimsetan. Worcestershire. 561.
Incsetan. Worcestershire. 511.
Mósetan. Worcestershire. 266.
Wreocensetan. Worcestershire. 277.

------------------

MARKS INFERRED FROM LOCAL NAMES IN ENGLAND.

Æbingas. Abinger, _Surr._; Abinghall, _Glouc._; Abington,
_Camb._
Æblingas. Ablington, _Glouc._; Ablington, _Wilts._
Æcingas. Oakington, _Camb._
Æceringas. Accrington, _Lanc._; Eakring, _Notts._
Æclingas. Acklington, _Nthld._
Aldingas. Aldingbourn, _Sussx._; Aldingham, _Lanc._;
Aldington, _Kent_ and _Worc._
Aldringas. Aldringham, _Suff._; Aldrington, _Sussx._
Ælcingas. Alkington, _Glouc._ and _Salop._
Ælcringas. Alkrington, _Lanc._
Ælingas. Allington, _Devon_, _Dors._, _Hants_, _Kent_,
_Linc._, _Wilts._
Ælmingas. Almington, _Staff._ and _Warw._
Ælmodíngas. Almodington, _Sussx._
Ælfingas. Alphington, _Devon_; Alvington, _Glouc._,
_Somers._ and _Devon_; Alvingham, _Linc._
Ælpingas. Alpington, _Norf._
Ælwingas. Alwington, _Devon_.
Angmeringas. Angmering, _Sussx._
Antingas. Antingham, _Norf._
Ardingas. Ardingly, _Sussx._; Ardington, _Berks._
Arlingas. Arlingham, _Glouc._; Arlington, _Devon_, _Glouc._
and _Sussx._
Armingas. Armingford, _Camb._; Arminghall, _Norf._
Arringas. Arrington, _Camb._
Arðingas. Arthington, _York._; Arthingworth, _Nhamp._
Artingas. Artington, _Sussx._
Æscingas. Ashingdon, _Essex_; Ashington, _Sussx._, _Somers._
and _Nthld._; Ashendon, _Bucks_.
Æsclingas. Ashling, _Sussx._
Æðeringas. Athrington, _Devon_ and _Sussx._
Ætingas. Attington, _Oxf._
Æfingas. Avington, _Berks._ and _Hants_.

Bæbingas. Babbingley, _Norf._; Babington, _Somers._
Bædingas. Baddington, _Chesh._; Badingham, _Suff._
Bæcgingas. Badgington, _Glouc._; Baginton, _Warw._
Bædlingas. Badlingham, _Camb._
Balcingas. Balking, _Essex_.
Bælingas. Ballingdon, _Essex_; Ballingham, _Heref._
Baningas. Banningham, _Norf._
Beorcingas. Barking, _Essex_, _Suff._ and _Mddx._
Beorlingas. Barling, _Essex_; Barlings, _Linc._
Beormingas. Barming, _Kent_; Birmingham, _Warw._
Beorningas. Barningham, _Suff._, _York._ and _Norf._
Beorringas. Barrington, _Camb._, _Somers._, _Berks._, _Glouc._
Beortingas. Bartington, _Chesh._
Basingas. Basing, _Hants_; Basingstoke, _ibid._
Bassingas. Bassingbourn, _Camb._; Bassingfield, _Notts_;
Bassingham, _Linc._; Bassingthorpe, _Linc._;
Bassington, _Nthld._
Bafingas. Bavington, _Nthld._
Bealingas. Bealings, _Suff._
Bebingas. Bebington, _Chesh._
Beceringas. Beckering, _Linc._
Beccingas. Beckingham, _Essex_, _Linc._, _Notts_; Beckington,
_Somers._
Beadingas. Beddingham, _Sussx._; Beddington, _Surr._;
Bedingfield, _Suff._; Bedingham, _Norf._
Bædlingas. Bedlington, _Drhm._
Bécingas. Beeching Stoke, _Wilts._
Bédingas. Beeding, _Sussx._
Bellingas. Bellingdon, _Bucks_; Bellinger, _Hants_;
Bellingham, _Nthld._
Beltingas. Belting, _Kent_.
Benningas. Benningbrough, _York._; Benningholme, _York._;
Bennington, _Herts_, _Linc._; Benningworth,
_Linc._
Bensingas. Bensington, _Oxf._
Berringas. Berrington, _Drhm._, _Glouc._, _Salop_, _Worc._
Bessingas. Bessingby, _York._; Bessingham, _Norf._
Beofingas. Bevington, _Warw._
Biccingas. Bickington, _Devon_.
Billingas. Billing, _Nhamp._; Billinge, _Lanc._; Billingford,
_Norf._; Billingham, _Drhm._; Billinghay,
_Linc._; Billingley, _York._; Billingsgate,
_Mddx._; Billingshurst, _Sussx._; Billingside,
_Drhm._; Billingsley, _Salop_; Billington,
_Bedf._, _Staff._, _Lanc._
Bilsingas. Bilsington, _Kent_.
Bingas. Bing, _Suff._; Bingfield, _Nthld._; Bingham,
_Nhamp._, _Somers._; Bingley, _York._
Binningas. Binnington, _York._
Bircingas. Birchington, _Kent_.
Bridingas. Birdingbury, _Warw._
Birlingas. Birling, _Kent_, _Nthld._; Birlingham, _Worc._
Biteringas. Bittering, _Norf._
Blæcingas. Blatchington, _Sussx._; Blatchinworth, _Lanc._
Blædingas. Bleddington, _Glouc._
Bleccingas. Bletchingley, _Surr._; Bletchington, _Oxf._
Bliclingas. Blickling, _Norf._
Bobbingas. Bobbing, _Kent_; Bobbington, _Salop_, _Staff._;
Bobbingworth, _Essex_; Bobinger, _Essex_.
Bocingas, Bocking, _Essex_, _Suff._
Boddingas. Boddington, _Glouc._, _Nhamp._
Bolingas. Bolingbroke, _Linc._
Bollingas. Bollington, _Chesh._
Bondingas. Bondington, _Somers._
Bonningas. Bonnington, _Kent_ and _Notts._; Boningale,
_Salop_; Boninghall, _Salop_.
Bosingas. Bossingham, _Kent_; Bossington, _Hants._,
_Somers._
Bofingas. Bovingdon, _Herts._
Bradingas. Brading, _Hants._
Brentingas. Brantingham, _York._; Brentingley, _Leic._
Brahcingas. Braughin, _Herts._
Bressingas. Bressingham, _Norf._
Bridlingas. Bridlington, _York._
Brihtlingas. Brightling, _Sussx._; Brightlingsea, _Essex_.
Brimingas. Brimington, _Derby._
Bringas. Brington, _Hunt._ and _Nhamp._; Bringhurst,
_Leic._
Bríningas. Briningham, _Norf._
Brinningas. Brinnington, _Chesh._
Brislingas. Brislington, _Somers._
Britingas. Brittenton, _Oxf._
Bucingas. Buckingham, _Bucks_.
Budingas. Buddington, _Sussx._
Bulcingas. Bulkington, _Warw._, _Wilts._
Bullingas. Bullingdon, _Oxf._; Bullingham, _Heref._;
Bullington, _Hants_ and _Linc._
Buntingas. Buntingford, _Herts_.
Burlingas. Burlingham, _Norf._; Burlington, _York._
Burmingas. Burmington, _Warw._
Burringas. Burringham, _Linc._; Burrington, _Devon_,
_Heref._, _Somers._
Buslingas. Buslingthorpe, _Linc._
Byttingas. Butting Hill, _Sussx._

Cædingas. Caddington, _Bedf._, _Herts_; Keddington, _Linc._
Kedington, _Essex_, _Suff._
Callingas. Callington, _Cornw._
Cægingas. Keyingham, _York._
Cameringas. Cameringham, _Linc._; Cammerton, _Cumb._
Canningas. Cannings, _Wilts_; Cannington, _Somers._;
Kenninghall, _Norf._; Kennington, _Berks._,
_Kent_, _Surr._
Ceardingas }
(? Heardingas) } Cardington, _Bedf._, _Salop_; Cardinham, _Cornw._
Cearlingas. Carlingcot, _Somers._; Carlinghow, _York._
Cerringas. Carrington, _Chesh._, _Linc._, _Notts_; Charing,
_Kent_; Cherrington, _Salop_, _Wilts._
Cersington. Carsington, _Derby._
Cæssingas. Cassington, _Oxf._
Ceadlingas. Chaddlington, _Oxf._
Cealfingas. Chalvington, _Sussx._; Kilvington, _York._
Ceandlingas. Chandlings, _Berks._
Ceadingas. Cheddington, _Bucks_, _Dors._
Cyllingas. Chellington, _Bedf._; Chillingford, _Staff._;
Chillingham, _Nthld._; Chillington, _Devon_,
_Somers._; Kelling, _Norf._; Kellingley,
_York._; Kellington, _York._
Ceassingas. Chessington, _Surr._; Kessingland, _Suff._
Cifingas. Chevington, _Suff._, _Nthld._
Cyrclingas. Kirklington, _Notts._, _York._
Cidingas. Chiddingfold, _Surr._; Chiddingly, _Sussx._;
Chiddingstone, _Kent_, Kiddington, _Oxf._
Cirmingas. Kirmington, _Linc._
Ciltingas. Chiltington, _Sussx._
Cemesingas. Kemsing, _Kent_.
Cypingas. Chipping, _Herts_, _Lanc._, _Glouc._, _Berks._,
_Oxf._, _Essex_, _Nhamp._, _Bucks_.
Cenesingas. Kensington, _Mddx._
Ceopingas. Choppington, _Drhm._
Cetringas. Kettering, _Nhamp._; Ketteringham, _Norf._
Clæfringas. Clavering, _Essex_, _Norf._
Cyrtlingas. Kirtling, _Camb._; Kirtlington, _Oxf._
Climpingas. Climping, _Sussx._
Cýslingas. Kislingbury, _Nhamp._
Coceringas. Cockerington, _Linc._
Cnudlingas. Knedlington, _York._
Cocingas. Cocking, _Sussx._; Cockington, _Devon_.
Codingas. Coddington, _Chesh._, _Heref._, _Notts_;
Coddenham, _Suff._
Codringas. Codrington, _Glouc._
Collingas. Collingbourne, _Wilts_; Collingham, _Notts_,
_York._; Collington, _Heref._; Collingtree,
_Nhamp._
Cnossingas. Knossington, _Leic._
Cnottingas. Knotting, _Bedf._; Knottingley, _York._
Culingas. Cooling, _Kent_; Cowling, _Suff._, _York._
Copingas. Copping-Syke, _Linc._; Coppingford, _Hunt._
Coringas. Corringham, _Essex_, _Linc._
Cosingas. Cossington, _Leic._, _Somers._
Cotingas. Cottingham, _Nhamp._, _York._; Cottingley,
_York._; Cottingwith, _York._
Cofingas. Covington, _Hunt._
Cramlingas. Cramlington, _Nthld._
Creótingas. Creeting, _Suff._
Cressingas. Cressing, _Essex_; Cressingham, _Norf._
Cridlingas. Cridling-Stubbs, _York._
Crucgingas. Crudgington, _Salop_.
Cubingas. Cubbington, _Warw._
Cublingas. Cublington, _Bucks_.
Cwædringas. Quadring, _Linc._
Cycelingas. Cucklington, _Somers._
Cwæringas. Quarrington, _Drhm._, _Linc._
Cydingas. Cuddington, _Bucks_, _Chesh._, _Surr._
Cydlingas. Kidlington, _Oxf._
Cullingas. Cullingworth, _York._
Cweningas. Quenington, _Glouc._
Culmingas. Culmington, _Salop_; Kilmington, _Devon_,
_Somers._
Cylingas. Killingbeck, _York._; Killinghall, _York._;
Killingholm, _Linc._; Killingworth, _Nthld._

Dædlingas. Dadlington, _Leic._
Dæglingas. Daglingworth, _Glouc._
Dællingas. Dalling, _Norf._; Dallinghoo, _Suff._; Dallington,
_Nhamp._, _Sussx._
Deorlingas. Darlingscott, _Worc._; Darlington, _Drhm._
Deorringas. Darrington, _York._
Dartingas. Dartington, _Devon_.
Dæfingas. Davington, _Kent_.
Deoplingas. Debtling, _Kent_.
Deddingas. Deddington, _Oxf._
Denningas. Dennington, _Suff._
Deorsingas. Dersingham, _Norf._; Dorsington, _Glouc._, _Warw._
Dicringas. Dickering, _York._
Diddingas. Diddington, _Hunt._
Didlingas. Didling, _Sussx._; Didlington, _Dors._, _Norf._
Dillingas. Dillington, _Norf._
Dimlingas. Dimlington, _York._
Dinningas. Dinnington, _Nthld._, _Somers._, _York._
Dintingas. Dinting, _Derby._
Dissingas. Dissington, _Nthld._
Distingas. Distington, _Cumb._
Dicelingas. Ditchling, _Sussx._
Docingas. Docking, _Norf._
Dodingas. Doddinghurst, _Essex_; Doddington, _Camb._,
_Chesh._, _Kent_, Linc., _Nthld._, _Nhamp._;
Doddingtree, _Worc._; Dodington, _Glouc._,
_Salop_, _Somers._
Doningas. Donington, _Linc._, _Leic._, _Salop_; Donnington,
_Berks._, _Glouc._, _Heref._, _Leic._, _Salop_,
_Sussx._
Deorcingas. Dorking, _Surr._
Dormingas. Dormington, _Heref._
Dorringas. Dorrington, _Linc._, _Salop._
Drihlingas. Drighlington, _York._
Dycingas. Duckington, _Chesh._; Dykings, _Linc._
Dyclingas. Ducklington, _Oxf._
Dylingas. Dullingham, _Camb._
Dyningas. Dunningley, _York._; Dunnington, _Warw._, _York._;
Dunningwith, _Suff._
Dyringas. Durrington, _Sussx._, _Wilts._

Ealingas. Ealing, _Mddx._; Eling, _Hants_.
Eardingas. Eardington, _Salop_; Erdington, _Warw._
Esingas. Eashing, _Surr._; Easington, _Bucks_, _Drhm._,
_Glouc._,
_Nthld._, _Oxf._, _York._; Easingwold, _York._
Eastingas. Eastington, _Dors._, _Glouc._, _Worc._
Eastlingas. Eastling, _Kent_.
Eastringas. Eastrington, _York._
Eberingas. Ebrington, _Glouc._
Ecgingas. Eckington, _Derby._, _Worc._; Eggington, _Bedf._;
Etchingham, _Sussx._
Edingas. Edingale, _Staff._; Edingley, _Notts._;
Edingthorpe, _Norf._; Edington, _Berks._,
_Nthld._, _Somers._, _Wilts._; Edingworth,
_Somers._
Eadlingas. Edlingham, _Nthld._; Edlington, _Linc._, _York._
Eafingas. Effingham, _Surr._
Ecglingas. Eglingham, _Nthld._
Elcingas. Elkington, _Nhamp._, _Linc._
Elringas. Ellerington, _Nthld._
Ellingas. Ellingham, _Hants_, _Norf._, _Nthld._;
Ellingstring,
_York._; Ellington, _Hunt._, _Kent_, _Nthld._, _York._
Elmingas. Elmington, _Nhamp._
Elsingas. Elsing, _Norf._
Eltringas. Eltringham, _Nthld._
Elfingas. Elvington, _York._
Empingas. Empingham, _Rutl._
Eppingas. Epping, _Essex_.
Earmingas. Ermington, _Devon_.
Eorpingas. Erpingham, _Norf._
Eorringas. Erringden, _York._
Essingas. Essington, _Staff._
Ettingas. Ettinghall, _Staff._
Eoferingas. Everingham, _York._
Efingas. Evingar, _Hants_; Evington, _Glouc._, _Leic._
Escningas. Exning, _Suff._

Fealcingas. Falkingham, _Linc._; Felkington, _Drhm._
Fealdingas. Faldingworth, _Linc._; Fawdington, _York._
Fearingas. Faringdon, _Devon_; Farringdon, _Dors._, _Hants_,
_Berks._, _Somers._; Farrington, _Lanc._,
_Somers._
Feorlingas. Farlington, _Hants_, _York._
Feormingas. Farmington, _Glouc._
Fearningas. Farningham, _Kent_.
Felmingas. Felmingham, _Norf._
Ferringas. Ferring, _Sussx._
Fiddingas. Fiddington, _Glouc._, _Somers._, _Wilts_.
Fillingas. Fillingham, _Linc._
Fincingas. Finchingfield, _Essex_.
Fingringas. Fingringhoe, _Essex_.
Finningas. Finningham, _Suff_.; Finningley, _Notts_, _York._;
Vennington, _Salop_.
Fitlingas. Fitting, _York._
Fleccingas. Fletching, _Sussx._
Fobingas. Fobbing, _Essex_.
Folcingas. Folkingham, _Linc._; Folkington, _Sussx._
Fordingas. Fordingbridge, _Hants_; Fordington, _Dors._,
_Linc._
Foðeringas. Fotheringay, _Nhamp._
Framingas. Framingham, _Norf._; Fremington, _Devon_, _York._
Framlingas. Framlingham, _Suff._; Framlington, _Nthld._
Frescingas. Fressingfield, _Suff._
Fringas. Fring, _Norf._; Fringford, _Oxf._
Frodingas. Frodingham, _Linc._, _York._
Funtingas. Funtington, _Sussx._
Fylingas. Fylingdales, _York._; Fylingthorpe, _York._

Gægingas. Gagingwell, _Oxf._; Ginge, _Berks._
Galmingas. Galmington, _Somers._
Gamelingas. Gamlingay, _Camb_.; Gembling, _York._
Gárlingas. Garlinge, _Kent_.
Gærsingas. Garsington, _Oxf._; Grassington, _York._;
Gressingham, _Lanc._; Gressenhall, _Norf._
Gealdingas. Yalding, _Kent_; Yielding, _Bedf._
Geddingas. Gedding, _Suff._; Geddington, _Nhamp._; Yeading,
_Mddx._; Yeddingham, _York._
Gearlingas. Yarlington, _Somers._
Gædlingas. Gedling, _Notts_.
Gearingas. Yarrington, _Oxf._
Gestingas. Gestingthorpe, _Essex_.
Geofoningas. Yeavening, _Nthld._
Giddingas. Gidding, _Hunt._
Geátingas. Yettington, _Devon_.
Gildingas. Gildingwells, _York._
Gillingas. Gilling, _York._; Gillingham, _Dors._, _Kent_,
_Norf._; Yelling, _Hunt._
Gimingas. Gimingham, _Norf._; Gimmingbrook, _Kent_.
Gipingas. Gipping, _Suff._
Gislingas. Gislingham, _Suff._
Gitlingas. Yetlington, _Nthld._
Glæstingas. Glastonbury, _Somers._
Glæferingas. Glevering, _Suff._
Goddingas. Goddington, _Oxf._
Goldingas. Golding Stoke, _Leic._; Goldings, _Surr._;
Goldington, _Bedf._, _Bucks_.
Gáringas. Goring, _Oxf._, _Suff._
Goðringas. Gotherington, _Glouc._
Grǽgingas. Grayingham, _Linc._
Gystlingas. Guestling, _Sussx._
Gytingas. Guyting, _Glouc._

Hæcingas. Hackington, _Kent_.
Hædingas. Haddington, _Linc._
Hallingas. Hallingbury, _Essex_; Hallington, _Linc._,
_Nthld._
Haningas. Hanningfield, _Essex_; Hannington, _Hants_,
_Nhamp._, _Wilts._
Hæpingas. Happing, _Norf._
Heardingas. Hardingham, _Norf._; Hardington, _Somers._;
Hardingstone, _Nhamp._; Harden, _York._;
Hardendale, _Wmld._; Hardenhuish, _Wilts._
Herelingas. Harling, _Norf._; Harlington, _Bedf._, _Mddx._,
_York._
Hearingas. Harrington, _Cumb._, _Linc._, _Nhamp._;
Harringworth, _Nhamp._
Heortingas. Harting, _Sussx._; Hartington, _Derby._, _Nthld._;
Hertingfordbury, _Herts_.
Heortlingas. Hartlington, _York._
Heorfingas. Harvington, _Worc._
Hæslingas. Haslingden, _Lanc._; Haslingfield, _Camb._;
Haslington, _Chesh._; Heslington, _York._
Hæsssingas. Hassingham, _Norf._
Hæstingas. Hastings, _Sussx._, _Berks._, _Warw._, _Nhamp._;
Hastingleyt, _Kent_; Hastingwood, _Essex_.
Hæferingas. Havering, _Essex_; Haveringham, _Suff._;
Haveringland, _Norf._
Hafocingas. Hawkinge, _Kent_.
Hæglingas. Hawling, _Glouc._; Hayling, _Hants._
Heáfodingas. Headingley, _York_; Headington, _Oxf._;
Heddington, _Wilts_; Hedingham, _Essex_.
Healingas. Healing, _Linc._
Hæcingas. Heckingham, _Norf._; Heckington, _Linc._;
Heighington, _Drhm._, _Linc._
Hellingas. Hellinghill, _Nthld._; Hellingly, _Sussx._
Helmingas. Helmingham, _Suff._; Helmington, _Drhm._
Helpringas. Helprington, _Linc._
Helsingas. Helsington, _Wmld._
Hemlingas. Hemblington, _Norf._; Hemlingford, _Warw._;
Hemlington, _York._, _Drhm._
Hemingas. Hemingbrough, _York._; Heminghy, _Linc._;
Hemingfield, _York._; Hemingford, _Hunt._;
Hemingstone, _Suff._; Hemington, _Nhamp._,
_Somers._
Hanesingas. Hensingham, _Cumb._; Hensington, _Oxf._
Heorringas. Herring, _Dors._; Herringby, _Norf._;
Herringfleet, _Suff._; Herringstone, _Dors._;
Herringswell, _Suff._; Herringthorpe, _York._;
Herrington, _Drhm._
Heofingas. Hevingham, _Norf._
Hicelingas. Hickling, _Norf._, _Notts_.
Hillingas. Hillingdon, _Mddx._; Hillington, _Norf._
Hindringas. Hindringham, _Norf._
Hócringas. Hockering, _Norf._
Hodingas. Hoddington, _Hants_.
Holdingas. Holdingham, _Linc._
Holingas. Hollingbourn, _Kent_; Hollingdon, _Bucks_;
Hollinghill, _Nthld._; Hollington, _Derb._,
_Staff._, _Sussx._; Hollingworth, _Chesh._
Homingas. Homington, _Wilts_.
Honingas. Honing, _Norf._; Honingham, _Norf._; Honington,
_Linc._, _Suff._, _Warw._
Horblingas. Horbling, _Linc._
Horningas. Horning, _Norf._; Horninghold, _Leic._;
Horninglow, _Staff._; Horningsea, _Camb._;
Horningsham, _Wilts_; Horningsheath, _Suff._;
Horningtoft, _Norf._
Horingas. Horrington, _Somers._
Horsingas. Horsington, _Linc._, _Somers._
Hoferingas. Hoveringham, _Notts_.
Hofingas. Hovingham, _York._
Hucingas, or } Hucking, _Kent_.
Hocingas. }
Hudingas. Huddington, _Worc._
Huningas, or } Hunningham, _Warw._; Hunnington, _Salop_.
Hundingas. }
Hunsingas. Hunsingore, _York._
Hyrstingas. Hurstingstone, _Hunt._

Icelingas. Icklingham, _Suff._
Illingas. Illington, _Norf._; Illingworth, _York._
Ilmingas. Ilmimgton, Glouc., _Warw._
Ilsingas. Ilsington, Devon., _Dors._
Immingas. Immingham, _Linc._
Impingas. Impington, _Camb._
Ipingas. Iping, _Sussx._
Irmingas. Irmingland, _Norf._
Irðingas. Irthington, _Cumb._
Irðlingas. Irthlingborough, _Nhamp._
Islingas. Islington, _Norf._, _Mddx._
Issingas. Issington, _Hants_.
Iccingas. Itchingswell, _Hants_; Itchington, _Glouc._,
_Warw._
Iteringas. Itteringham, _Norf._
Ifingas. Ivinghoe, _Bucks_; Ivington, _Heref._; Jevington,
_Sussx._

Læcingas. Lackington, _Somers._; Latchingdon, _Essex_.
Larlingas. Larling, _Norf._
Leortingas. Lartington, _York._
Leamingas. Leamington, _Warw._; Leeming, _York._; Lemington,
_Glouc._, _Nthld._
Leasingas. Leasingham, _Linc._; Lissington, _Linc._
Leafeningas. Leavening, _York._
Leafingas. Leavington, _York._; Levington, _Suff._
Læpingas. Leppington, _York._
Leðringas. Letheringham, _Suff._; Letheringsett, _Norf._
Læferingas. Leverington, _Camb._
Lexingas. Lexington, _Notts._
Lidingas. Liddington, _Rutl._, _Wilts_.
Lidlingas. Lidlington, _Bedf._
Lidesingas. Lidsing, _Kent_.
Lillingas. Lillings, _York._; Lillingstone, _Bucks_;
Lillington, _Dors._, Oxf., _Warw._
Limingas. Limington, _Somers._; Lyminge, _Kent_; Lymington,
_Hants_.
Lingas. Lings, _York._; Lingbob, _York._; Lingen,
_Heref._; Lingfield, _Surr._; Lingham, _Chesh._;
Lingwell Gate, _York._; Lingwood, _Norf._; Lyng,
_Norf._
Lytlingas. Littlington, _Camb._, _Sussx._
Locingas. Locking, _Somers._; Lockinge, _Berks._;
Lockington, _Leic._, _York._
Lodingas. Loddington, _Kent_, _Leic._, _Nhamp._
Loningas. Loningborough, _Kent_.
Lopingas. Loppington, _Salop_.
Lofingas. Lovington, _Somers._
Lucingas. Luckington, _Somers._, _Wilts_.
Ludingas. Luddington, _Linc._, _Warw._, _Hunt._, _Nhamp._
Lullingas. Lullingfield, _Salop._; Lullingstane, _Kent_;
Lullingstone, _Kent_; Lullington, _Derb._,
_Somers._, _Sussx._

Mædingas. Maddington, _Wilts_; Madingley, _Camb._
Mallingas. Malling, _Kent_, _Sussx._
Manningas. Manningford, _Wilts_; Manningham, _York._;
Mannington, _Dors._, _Norf._; Manningtree,
_Essex_; Monnington, _Heref._
Myrcingas. Marckington, _Staff._; Markington, _York._;
Markingfield, _York._
Mærlingas. Marlingford, _Norf._
Mæringas, or } Marrington, _Salop._; Mering, _Notts._;
Myrgings? Merrington, _Drhm._, _Salop_.
Mæssingas. Massingham, _Norf._; Messing, _Essex_; Messingham,
_Linc._
Mæccingas. Matching, _Essex_.
Mætingas. Mattingley, _Hants_; Mettingham, _Suff._
Mægdlingas. Maudling, _Sussx._
Mécingas. Meeching, _Sussx._
Mellingas. Melling, _Lanc._
Meðringas. Metheringham, _Linc._
Millingas. Millington, _Chesh._, _York._
Mintingas. Minting, _Linc._
Mollingas. Mollington, _Chesh._, _Oxf._, _Warw._
Mottingas. Mottingham, _Kent_.
Mycgingas. Mucking, _Essex_.

Næcingas[831]. Nackington, _Kent_; Nedging _Suff._
Næssingas. Nassington, _Nhamp._; Nazeing, _Essex_.
Nydingas. Needingworth, _Hunt._
Níwingas. Newington, _Kent_, _Notts_, _Oxf._, _York._,
_Glouc._, _Surr._, _Mddx._
Norðingas. Northington, _Hants_.
Nottingas[832]. Notting, _Bedf._; Nottington, _Dors._; Nottingham,
_Notts_, _Berks._

Oddingas. Oddingley, _Worc._; Oddington, _Glouc._, _Oxf._
Oldingas. Oldington, _Salop_.
Orlingas. Orlingbury, _Nhamp._
Orpedingas. Orpington, _Kent_.
Osmingas. Osmington, _Dors._
Ossingas. Ossington, _Notts_.
Oteringas. Otterington, _York._; Ottringham, _York._
Ofingas. Oving, _Bucks_, _Sussx._; Ovingdean, _Sussx._;
Ovingham, _York._, _Nthld._; Ovington, _Essex_,
_Hants_, _Norf._, _Nthld._, _York._

Pæccingas. Packington, _Derb._, _Leic._, _Staff._, _Warw._;
Patching, _Sussx._
Pædingas. Paddington, _Mddx._ (? Padan tún.)
Pællingas. Palling, _Norf._; Pallingham, _Sussx._;
Pallington, _Dors._
Pæmingas. Pamington, _Glouc._
Peartingas. Partington, _Chesh._
Pætringas. Patrington, _York._
Pætingas. Pattingham, _Salop_, _Staff._
Pæfingas. Pavingham, _Bedf._; Pevington, _Kent_.
Petlingas. Peatling, _Leic._
Pædlingas. Pedling, _Kent_.
Penningas. Pennington, _Hants, Lanc._
Piceringas. Pickering, _York._
Pidingas. Piddinghoe, _Sussx._; Piddington, _Nhamp._, _Oxf._
Pilcingas. Pilkington, _Lanc._
Pillingas. Pilling, _Lanc._
Pitingas. Pittington, _Drhm._
Poclingas. Pocklington, _York._
Podingas. Poddington, _Bedf._; Podington, _Dors._
Puntingas. Pointington, _Somers._
Polingas. Poling, _Sussx._; Pollington, _York._
Poringas. Poringland, _Norf._
Porcingas. Porkington, _Salop_.
Portingas. Portington, _York_.
Postlingas. Postling, _Kent_.
Potingas. Poting, _York._
Pucingas. Puckington, _Somers._
Púningas. Poynings, _Sussx._
Pydingas. Puddington, _Bedf._, _Chesh._, _Devon_.

Rædingas. Raddington, _Somers._; Reading, _Berks_;
Reading-street, _Kent_.
Rætlingas. Ratlinghope, _Salop_.
Ræfningas[833]. Raveningham, _Norf._
Rædlingas[833]. Redlingfield, _Suff._
Renningas. Rennington, _Nthld._
Ricingas. Rickinghall, _Suff._
Riclingas[833]. Rickling, _Essex_.
Ridingas. Riddinge, _Derb._; Riding, _Nthld._
Ridlingas. Ridlington, _Norf._, _Rutl._
Rillingas. Rillington, _York._
Rimmingas. Rimmington, _York._
Riplingas[833]. Riplingham, _York._; Riplington, _Hants_, _Nthld._
Ripingas[833]. Rippingale, _Linc._
Risingas[833]. Rising, _Norf._; Rissington, _Glouc._
Rifingas. Rivington, _Lanc._
Rocingas[833]. Rockingham, _Nhamp._
Rodingas. Roddington, _Salop._; Roding, _Essex_.
Rollingas. Rollington, _Dors._
Roringas. Rorrington, _Salop._
Rossingas. Rossington, _York._
Rotingas. Rottingdean, _Sussx._; Rottington, _Cumb._
Rowingas[834]. Rowington, _Warw._
Rucingas[834]. Ruckinge, _Kent_.
Rudingas[834]. Ruddington, _Notts_.
Runingas. Runnington, _Somers._
Ruscingas[834]. Ruskington, _Linc._
Rustingas. Rustington, _Sussx._

Sædingas. Saddington, _Leic._
Sælingas. Saling, _Essex_.
Sealfingas. Salvington, _Sussx._
Sandingas. Sandringham, _Norf._
Seaxlingas. Saxlingham, _Norf._
Scealingas. Scaling-dam, _York._
Scearningas. Scarning, _Norf._
Scearingas, or { Scarrington, _Notts_; Sharrington, _Norf._;
Sheering
Seringas. { _Essex_; Sheringford, _Norf._; Sherringham,
_Norf._;
{ Sherrington, _Bucks_, _Wilts_.
Scearðingas. Scarthingwell, _York._
Scrǽgingas. Scrayingham, _York._
Screadingas. Scredington, _Linc._
Seafingas. Seavington, _Somers._
Secgingas. Seckington, _Warw._
Seáðingas. Seething, _Norf._
Syllingas. Selling, _Kent_; Sellinge, _Kent_.
Seámingas. Semington, _Wilts_.
Sempringas. Sempringham, _Linc._
Setringas. Settrington, _York._
Syfingas. Sevington, _Kent_.
Sceabingas. Shabbington, _Bucks_.
Sceadingas. Shadingfield, _Suff._
Sceáfingas. Shavington, _Chesh._; Shevington, _Lanc._;
Skeffington, _Leic._
Sceaningas. Shenington, _Glouc._
Scyllingas. Shilling-Okeford, _Dors._; Shillingford, _Berks._,
_Oxf._, _Devon_; Shillingstone, _Dors._;
Shillingthorpe, _Linc._; Shillington, _Bedf._;
Skellingthorpe, _Linc._; Skillington, _Linc._
Scylfingas. Shilvington, _Dors._, _Nthld._
Scymplingas. Shimpling, _Norf._, _Suff._
Scytlingas. Shitlington, _Bedf._, _Nthld._, _York._
Scolingas. Sholing, _Hants_.
Scyrdingas. Shurdington, _Glouc._
Scytingas. Shuttington, _Warw._
Scylingas. Sicklinghall, _York._
Sídingas. Siddington, _Glouc._
Silfingas. Silvington, _Salop._
Sinningas. Sinnington, _York._
Sittingas. Sittingbourne, _Kent_.
Sceaclingas. Skeckling, _York._
Sceaflingas. Skeffling, _York._
Scyldingas. Skelding, _York._
Scyrlingas. Skirlington, _York._
Sleaningas. Sleningford, _York._
Snoringas. Snoring, _Norf._
Somtingas. Sompting, _Sussx._
Sunningas. Sonning, _Berks._, _Oxf._; Sunninghill, _Berks._;
Sunningwell, _Berks._
Súðingas. Southington, _Hants_.
Spaldingas. Spalding, _Linc._; Spaldington, _York._
Specingas. Speckington, _Somers._
Spyringas. Spirringate, _Glouc._
Sprættingas. Spratting-street, _Kent_.
Sprydlingas. Spridlington, _Linc._
Steallingas. Stalling-busk, _York._; Stallingborough, _Linc._;
Stallington, _Staff._
Stǽningas. Stanningfield, _Suff._; Stanninghall, _Norf._.;
Stanningley, _York._; Stannington, _Nthld._,
_York._; Steyning, _Sussx._
Steorlingas. Starling, _Lanc._
Stebbingas. Stebbing, _Essex_; Stibbington, _Hunt._
Steápingas. Steeping, _Linc._; Steppingley, _Bedf._
Stellingas. Stelling, _Kent_, _Nthld._; Stillingfleet,
_York._; Stillington, _Drhm._, _York._
Stefingas. Stevington, _Bedf._
Stocingas. Stocking, _Herts_; Stockingford, _Warw._;
Stokingham, _Devon_.
Storningas. Storningley, _York._
Storringas. Storrington, _Sussx._
Stútingas. Stouting, _Kent_.
Strellingas. Strellington, _Sussx._
Stubingas. Stubbington, _Hants_.
Sulingas. Sullington, _Sussx._
Surlingas. Surlingham, _Norf._.
Swaningas. Swannington, _Leic._, _Norf._.
Sweorlingas. Swarling, _Kent_ (? Sweordhlincas).
Sweðelingas. Swathling, _Hants_.
Swefelingas. Sweffling, _Suff._
Swillingas. Swillington, _York._
Sydlingas. Sydling, _Dors._

Tædingas. Taddington, _Glouc._, _Derby._; Teddington,
_Mddx._, _Worc._; Tiddington, _Oxf._, _Warw._
Tælingas. Tallington, _Linc._
Tæningas. Tannington, _Suff._
Teorringas. Tarring, _Sussx._; Tarrington, _Heref._;
Terrington, _Norf._, _York._; Torrington,
_Devon._, _Linc._
Tætingas. Tattingstone, _Suff._
Tendringas. Tendring, _Essex_.
Teorlingas. Terling, _Essex_.

Ðegningas. Thanington, _Kent_.
Ðeódingas. Thedingworth, _Leic._, _Nhamp._
Ðocingas. Thockington, _Nthld._
Ðoringas, or } Thorington, _Suff._; Thorrington, _Essex_.
}
Ðorningas. Thornington, _Nthld._
Ðrecgingas. Threckingham, _Linc._
Ðredlingas. Thredling, _Suff._
Ðristlingas. Trislington, _Drhm._
Ðryscingas. Thrussington, _Leic._
Ðurningas. Thurning, _Hunt._, _Norf._, _Nhamp._
Ðwingas. Thwing, _York._

Tibbingas. Tibbington, _Staff._
Tidmingas. Tidmington, _Worc._
Tilingas. Tillingham, _Essex_; Tillington, _Heref._,
_Staff._, _Sussx._
Tissingas. Tissington, _Derby._
Titlingas. Titlington, _Nthld._
Teofingas. Tivington, _Somers._
Tocingas. Tockington, _Glouc._
Todingas. Toddington, _Bedf._, _Glouc._
Toltingas. Toltingtrough, _Kent_.
Tótingas. Tooting, _Surr._; Tottington, _Lanc._, _Norf._
Torcingas. Torkington, _Chesh._
Tortingas. Tortington, _Sussx._
Trimingas. Trimingham, _Norf._
Tringas. Tring, _Herts_.
Tritlingas. Tritlington, _Nthld._
Trumpingas. Trumpington, _Camb._
Tucingas. Tucking Mills, _Somers._; Tuckington, _Hants_.
Tuscingas. Tushingham, _Chesh._
Tuttingas. Tuttington, _Norf._
Twiningas. Twining, _Glouc._
Twicgingas. Twitching, _Devon_.
Tyrringas. Tyrringham, _Bucks_.
Tyðeringas. Tytherington, _Chesh._, _Glouc._, _Wilts_.

Ucingas. Uckington, _Glouc._, _Salop._
Uffingas. Uffington, _Berks_, _Linc._, _Salop._
Ulingas. Ullingswick, _Heref._
Ultingas. Ulting, _Essex_.
Upingas. Uppingham, _Rutl._; Uppington, _Salop._

Wadingas. Waddingham, _Linc._; Waddington, _Linc._, _York._;
Waddingworth, _Linc._; Weddington, _Warw._
Wæceringas. Wakering, _Essex_.
Wealdingas. Waldingfield, _Suff._; Woldingham, _Surr._
Wealdringas. Waldringfield, _Suff._
Wealcringas. Walkeringham, _Notts_.
Wealcingas. Walkingham, _York._; Walkington, _York._
Wealingas. Wallingfen, _York._; Wallingford, _Berks_;
Wallington, _Hants_, _Herts_, _Norf._, _Surr._,
_Nthld._; Wallingwells, _Notts_?; Wellingboro',
_Nhamp._; Wellingham, _Norf._; Wellingley,
_York._; Wellingore, _Linc._
Wælsingas. Walsingham, _Norf._; Wolsingham, _Drhm._;
Woolsington, _Nthld._
Wæplingas[835]. Waplington, _York._
Wæppingas[835]. Wapping, _Mddx._
Wearblingas[835]. Warblington, _Hants_.
Weardingas. Wardington, _Oxf._
Wearlingas. Warlingham, _Sussx._
Wearmingas. Warmingham, _Chesh._; Warminghurst, _Sussx._;
Warmington, _Nhamp._, _Warw._
Wearningas. Warningcamp, _Sussx._
Wæringas. Warrington, _Bucks_, _Lanc._; Werrington,
_Devon._, _Nhamp._
Weartingas. Warthing, _Sussx._
Wæsingas. Washingborough, _Linc._; Washingley, _Hunt._;
Washington, _Derby._, _Durh._, _Sussx._; Wasing,
_Berks_; Wessington, _Derby._
Wætringas. Wateringbury, _Kent_.
Wætlingas. Watlington, _Norf._, _Oxf._
Weotingas. Weeting, _Norf._
Weolingas. Wellington, _Heref._, _Salop._, _Somers._,
_Wilts_.
Wendlingas. Wendling, _Norf._
Weningas. Wennington, _Essex_, _Hunt._, _Lanc._
Weðeringas. Wittering, _Sussx._; Wetheringsett, _Suff._;
Witherington,
_Wilts_.
Westingas. Westington, _Glouc._
Westoningas. Westoning, _Bedf._
Wætlingas[836]. Whatlington, _Sussx._
Welpingas[836]. Whelpington, _Nthld._
Werringas[836]. Wherrington, _Staff._
Wippingas[836]. Whippingham, _Hants_.
Witlingas[836]. Whitlingham, _Norf._
Witeringas[836]. Whittering, _Nhamp._
Wittingas[836]. Whittingham, _Lanc._, _Nthld._; Whittington,
_Derb._,
_Glouc._, _Lanc._, _Norf._, _Salop._, _Staff._, _Warw._,
_Worc._, _Nthld._
Widingas. Widdington, _Essex_, _Nthld._, _York._
Willingas. Willingale, _Essex_; Willingdon, _Sussx._;
Willingham,
_Camb._, _Linc._, _Suff._; Willington, _Bedf._,
_Chesh._, _Derb._, _Drhm._, _Nthld._, _Warw._
Wylmingas. Wilmington, _Kent_, _Salop._, _Somers._, _Sussx._
Winingas. Winnington, _Chesh._, _Staff._
Wintringas. Winteringham, _Linc._, _York._
Wiscingas. Wissington, _Salop._, _Suff._
Wiccingas. Witchingham, _Norf._
Wiclingas. Witchling, _Kent_; Wychling, _Kent_.
Wiðingas. Withington, _Glouc._, _Heref._, _Lanc._, _Salop._,
_Staff._,
_Chesh._
Wocingas. Woking, _Surr._; Wokingham, _Berks_, _Wilts_.
Weorcingas. Workington, _Cumb._
Wyrlingas. Worlingham, _Suff._; Worlington, _Suff._,
_Devon._;
Worlingworth, _Suff._
Wyrmingas. Wormingford, _Essex_; Worminghall, _Bucks_;
Wormington,
_Glouc._
Weorðingas. Worthing, _Norf._, _Sussx._; Worthington, _Lanc._,
_Leic._
Wramplingas. Wramplingham, _Norf._
Wrættingas. Wratting, _Camb._, _Suff._
Wræningas. Wreningham, _Norf._
Wrestlingas. Wrestlingworth, _Bedf._
Wrihtingas. Wrightington, _Lanc._
Wrihtlingas. Writhlington, _Somers._
Weomeringas. Wymering, _Hants_.
Wymingas. Wymington, _Bedf._

-----

Footnote 831:

These may properly have commenced with an H, thus Hnæcingas,
Hnuttingas. Similarly Hnutscillingas, now Nutshalling or Nursling in
Hants.

Footnote 832:

See note, p. 469.

Footnote 833:

All these words commencing with an R may have originally had an H, in
which case we should have had these formations: Hræfuingas,
Hréðlingas, Hrycglingas, Hreóplingas, Hreópingas, Hrísingas,
Hrócingas, Hróringas, Hreáwingas, Hrycingas, Hreódingas, Hryscingas.

Footnote 834:

See note in the preceding page.

Footnote 835:

As the whole of these names might commence with an H, we should have
the following forms: Hwæplingas, Hwæppingas, Hwearflingas, Hwætlingas,
Hwelpingas, Hwerringas, Hweopingas, Hwitlingas, Hwiteringas,
Hwitingas.

Footnote 836:

See note in the preceding page.

-----

The total number of the names thus assumed from local denominations
amounts to 627, but as several occur once only, while others are found
repeated in various counties, I find the whole number reaches to 1329,
which are distributed through the counties in a very striking manner, as
the following table will show.

Bedford 22
Berks. 22
Bucks. 17
Cambridge 21
Cheshire 25
Cornwall 2
Cumberland 6
Derby. 14
Devon. 24
Dorset. 21
Durham 19
Essex 48
Gloucester 46
Hereford 15
Hertford 10
Huntingdon 16
Kent 60
Lancashire 26
Leicester 19
Lincolnsh. 76
Middlesex 12
Monmouth 0
Norfolk 97
Northampton 35
Northumberland 48
Nottingham 22
Oxford 31
Rutland 4
Salop 34
Somerset 45
Southampton 33
Stafford 19
Suffolk 56
Surrey 18
Sussex 68
Warwick 31
Westmoreland 2
Wilts 25
Worcester 13
York (3 Ridings) 127

There are two slight causes of inaccuracy to be borne in mind in using
the foregoing tables: the first arises from the insertion of names which
probably do not, the other from the omission of names which probably do,
belong to this class. But I think these two errors may nearly balance
one another, and that they do not interfere with the general correctness
of the results.

It is remarkable how many of these names still stand _alone_, without
any addition of -wíc, -hám, -worðig, or similar words. The total number
of patronymical names thus found (in the nominative plural) is 190, or
very nearly one-seventh of the whole; they are thus distributed: in
Kent, 25; Norfolk and Sussex each 24; Essex 21; Suffolk 15; Yorkshire
13; Lincoln 7; Southampton 6; Berks and Surrey, 5 each; Bedfordshire,
Lancashire, Middlesex and Northampton, 4 each; Hertford, Huntingdon,
Northumberland and Nottingham, 3 each; Cambridge, Derby, Dorset,
Gloucester and Oxford, 2 each; Bucks, Devon, Leicester, Salop, Somerset,
Warwick, and Wilts, 1 each; and none at all in the remaining ten
counties. When now we consider that of 190 such places, 140 are found in
the counties on the eastern and southern coasts; and that 22 more are in
counties easily accessible through our great navigable streams, we shall
be led to admit the possibility of these having been the original seats
of the Marks bearing these names; and the further possibility of the
settlements distinguished by the addition of -hám, -wíc and so forth to
these original names, having been filial settlements, or as it were
colonies, from them. It also seems worthy of remark that they are hardly
found to the north of the Humber, or about 53° 40´ N. Lat., which
renders it probable that the prevailing mode of emigration was to take
advantage of a N.E. wind to secure a landing in the Wash, and thence
coast southward and westward as far as circumstances required. Sailors,
who in the ninth century could find their way from Norway to Iceland in
sufficient numbers to colonize that island, who in the tenth could
extend their course from Iceland to Greenland, and who had noble spirit
enough to confront the perils of the Polar ocean rather than submit to
oppression at home, were not likely to find any insurmountable
difficulty in a voyage from the Elbe or Skager Rack to England: and the
conquest of the Orkneys and Hebrides, of the south of Ireland and Man,
nay of large tracts of England by the Scandinavians in the ninth, tenth
and following centuries, may supply the means of judging how similar
adventures were conducted by populations of the same race, and as noble
spirit, nine hundred or a thousand years before.

The following additions may be made to the evidences given in this
chapter.

A _marked_ linden or lime-tree is noticed in Cod. Dipl. No. 1317. Again
in Kent we hear of earnes beám, the eagle’s tree, _ibid._ No. 287: it is
more probable that this was a tree marked with the figure of an eagle,
than that a real bird of that species should have been meant. Further in
the boundary of the charter No. 393 we have, on ðán merkeden ók, to the
_marked oak_.

The sacred woods are again mentioned by Tacitus, Annal, i. 59, where he
tells us that Arminius hung up the captured Roman ensigns to the gods of
the country, in the woods, _lucis_: we hang them up in cathedrals. See
also Tac. Germ, vii., Annal. iv. 22.

The character of the Mark or March is very evident in the following
passage: “Siquidem in Lindeseia superiori extat prioratus qui Marchby
dicitur, longas ac latas pasturas pro gregibus alendis inhabitans, non
omnino privato iure, sed communem cum compatriotis libertatem ex dono
patronorum participans,” etc. Chron. Lanerc. an. 1289. See also the
quotations from the Indiculus Pagan. and Synod. Leptin. an. 742, in
Möser, Osnab. i. 52, and the whole of his twenty-ninth chapter, for the
religious rites with which boundaries were dedicated, especially vol. i.
p. 58, note _c_.

It is more than one could now undertake to do, without such local
co-operation as is not to be expected in England as yet, but I am
certain that the ancient Marks might still be traced. In looking over a
good county map we are surprised by seeing the systematic succession of
places ending in -den, -holt, -wood, -hurst, -fold, and other words
which invariably denote forests and outlying pastures in the woods.
_These are all in the Mark_, and within them we may trace with equal
certainty, the -háms, -túns, -worðigs and -stedes which imply settled
habitations. There are few counties which are not thus distributed into
districts, whose limits may be assigned by the observation of these
peculiar characteristics. I will lay this down as a rule, that the
ancient Mark is to be recognised by following the names of places ending
in -den (neut.), which always denoted _cubile ferarum_, or pasture,
usually for swine. Denu, a valley (fem.), a British and not Saxon word,
is very rarely, perhaps never, found in composition. The actual surface
of the island, wherever the opportunity has been given of testing this
hypothesis, confirms its history. But there are other remarkable facts
bearing upon this subject, which are only to be got at by those who are
fortunate enough to have free access to manorial records, before the act
of Charles II. destroyed all feudal services in England. A striking
example of the mark-jurisdiction is the “Court of Dens,” in Kent. This
appears to have been a mark-court, in the sense in which mark-court is
used throughout this second chapter, and which gradually became a lord’s
court, only when the head markman succeeded in raising himself at the
expense of his fellows: a court of the little marks, marches, or
pastures in Kent, long after the meaning of such marks or marches had
been forgotten: a court which in earlier times met to regulate the
rights of the markmen in the _dens_ or pastures. I am indebted (among
many civilities, which I gratefully acknowledge) to the Rev. L. Larking
of Ryarsh for the following extracts from Sir Roger Twisden’s journal,
which throw some light upon what the court had become in the middle of
the seventeenth century, but still show its existence, and lead us to a
knowledge of its ancient form.

The reader who feels how thoroughly English liberty has become grounded
in the struggles between the duties and privileges of various classes,
how entirely the national right has been made up and settled by the
conflict of private rights, how impossible it was for the union of
empire and freedom to exist,—or for _imperium_ and freedom to co-exist,
without the battle in which the several autocracies measured their
forces and discovered the just terms of compromise,—will value this
record of the reluctance with which a staunch country squire submitted
to the duties of his position. It is not only amusing, but instructive,
to watch these men of the seventeenth century, fighting on the minutest
grounds of squabble: very amusing, to those who take the world as it is,
to have been always as it is, and likely always so to remain: very
instructive to those who know the miserable condition from which such
“squabbles” have raised us. There are people, who having no sense of
right, but a profound sense of the wrong done _them_, raise barricades,
and overturn dynasties in moments of irrepressible and pardonable
excitement: there are people on the other hand who steadily and coolly
measure right and wrong, who take to the law-book rather than the sword,
who argue the question of ship-money, on which a system of government
depends, as calmly as if it were a question of poor-rates in a parish
attorney’s hands, and having brought their right, the ancient right of
the land, into light, fall back into the orderly frame of society in
which they lived before, as if no years of desperate struggle had
intervened,—the law being vindicated, and the work of the workmen done.
This work without distinction of Parliamentarian or King’s Man was done
by the Seldens and the Twisdens, and men of more general note and name,
but not more claim to our gratitude and respect. But to do this,
required that study which unhappily our English gentlemen no longer
think absolutely necessary to their education, the study of the law, of
which they are the guardians, though a professional class may be its
ministers; and most amusing now it is to see how zealously these old
champions of the law did battle in its defence, even in the most minute
and now unimportant details. It was then a happy thing for England that
there were courts of Dens, and squires who did not like them: it is now
an admirable thing for England that there are courts of all sorts and
descriptions, and people who do not like them, who are constantly trying
their right against them, constantly winning and losing at the great
game of law, or perhaps the greater game, of the forms under which law
is administered,—litigious people,—people liking to argue the right and
the wrong in a strict form of logic, the legal form; who are always
arguing, and therefore never fighting. If there had not been courts of
Dens to argue about,—and unhappily, at last, to fight about,—there would
most certainly not now be a “High Court of Parliament,” for there would
never have been those who knew how to establish it. The
country-gentlemen of the seventeenth century appeal to the experience of
the nineteenth, in every land but this of England, whose steady, legal
order the country-gentlemen of the seventeenth century founded; and the
grateful middle class of the nineteenth century in no country but this
respond to that appeal in this year 1848, by declaring that no force,
whether of king or not of king, shall be known in England, except that
of the law,—the great and ancient law,—that all associations of men are
united in a guarantee of mutual peace and security.

It is now time to return to Sir R. Twisden and the Court of Dens. It
appears that this was held at Aldington, and that it claimed
jurisdiction over a considerable space. If we follow the main road from
Hythe to Maidstone, a little to the north of Aldington[837], and running
to the east of Boughton, we find a tract of country extending to the
borders of Sussex and filled with places ending in -den, or -hurst; this
country of the Dens runs exactly where we should expect to find it, viz.
along the edge of the Weald, within whose shades the _swains_ found mast
and pasture. I will enumerate a few of the places so named: they can
readily be found on a good map of Kent, and form a belt of mark or
forest round the cultivated country, quite independent of the woods
which once lay between village and village.

Ashenden. Castleden.
Bainden. Chiddenden.
Benenden. Cottenden, _Sussex_.
Bethersden. Cowden.
Biddenden. Frittenden.
Godden. Greenhurst, _Sussex_.
Hazleden. Hawkhurst.
Hernden. Henhurst.
Hiffenden. Hophurst, _Sussex_.
Hollenden. Lamberhurst.
Horsmonden. Midhurst, _Sussex_.
Iden, _Sussex_. Nuthurst, _Sussex_.
Marden, _Sussex_. Penhurst, _Sussex_.
Newenden, Penshurst.
Rolvenden. Sandhurst.
Romden. Shadoxhurst.
Smarden. Shiphurst.
Surrenden. Sinkhurst.
Tenterden. Sissinghurst.
Wisenden. Speldhurst.
Staplehurst.
Ashurst. Ticehurst, _Sussex_.
Billinghurst, _Sussex_. Wadhurst, _Sussex_.
Collinghurst, _Sussex_. Warminghurst, _Sussex_.
Crowhurst, _Sussex_.
Dodhurst. Alfold, _Sussex_.
Duckhurst. Arnisfold, _Sussex_.
Ewhurst, _Sussex_. Cowfold, _Sussex_.
Fenchurst. Chiddingfold, _Surrey_.
Goudhurst. Shinfold, _Sussex_.

-----

Footnote 837:

Aldington is about 57´ east of Greenwich.

-----

It is not likely that all these various places, the list of which might
be greatly increased, were ever reduced under one judicial unity; but,
even with the aid of Sussex, I have been able to mention only
twenty-five _dens_, and we know that at least thirty-two, if not
forty-four, were subject to the court of Aldington.

The entries in Twisden’s Journal are to the following effect:—

“18th September 1655. I was at Aldyngton Court, at the chusing the
officers to gather the Lord’s Rent, where grew a question, whither, if
the Lord released our Rent, Sute, and Service, to the Court, we were
subject to the slavery of attendance, and whither the Tenants could
prescribe men, &c., &c., &c., or impose an office upon them,—and it was
the whole resolution of the Court, the Lord might sell his quit-rents
and all manner of attendance on the Court, and then he could not be tyed
to any office, nor the Tenants impose any office upon him....

“The 16th September 1656, I went to Aldyngton Court, but came too late,
there beeing layd on me the office for collecting the 32 Denns, for my
land in them. I desired to know what land it was ... in the 32 Dens upon
which the office was laid, but this I could not learn ... the issue was,
that if they can name the land or descry it, I am to do it,—if not, I
refused to gather it.”

“1658. I was at Aldynton Court again, and then there was much stir about
this land which could not bee found. I still insisted the Denne of
Plevynden held of Wye, that the 16_s._ 2_d._ _ob._ I payd was for light
money in time past. The Conclusion was, They will distrain me if they
can find the land, and then come to a trial in their Court which is held
at Smethe.”

“1659. I was at Aldington Court, where I came before the Steward sate,
yet were they then chusing for the 32 Denns, and Mr. Short brought me a
note for chusing Mr. John Maynard, Serg^t at Law ... he was not chosen
after the ancient custom of the Court, that is, to present two to the
Steward, and he to take one.... The tenants of the 12 Denns pretended if
it were sometime a Custom it had been long interrupted, and refused to
follow the example of the 32 ... after dinner, this grew a great
dispute, Mr. Short complaining of partiality, that the choice of one man
was received for the 12 and not for the 32 Dennes. This drew on the
manner of chusing of the 32 Dennes, which was, that they usually met at
9 o’clock long before the Steward himself could reach the Court, made
choice of one man before there was a Court.... This brought forth an
excellent order, that the Denns should chuse and present the person by
them chosen after the manner the other Culets did.... Coming away, the
Bailiff told me he had a writ to distreyn me for the rent of the 32
Denns. I told him I had no land held of it that I knew.... Sir Edward
Sydnam, Lord of the Manor, and who is to answer the rents to the
Exchequer, told me I would be distreyned for it,—my answer was, I was
not willing to make my land chargeable with a burthen more than my
ancestors had paid—that there was a Court of Survey to be kept in the
Spring,—that if I could not then discharge myself of having land, held
of the 32 Denns, I would and must pay it.”

“Aldington Court. 1664. S^r John Maynard Serg^t at Law was chosen to the
Great Office though it were affirmed, he being Kings Serg^t would
procure a discharge. The order before mentioned of 6_s._ 8_d._ for such
Culets as received from the Steward a transcript of what they were to
collect, and 10_s._ for the Great Office was at this Court willingly
assented to.”

This determined refusal of a Markgraviat in the Mark of Kent is amusing
enough; the Alberts, Berchtholds and Luitpolts did not make quite so
much difficulty about Brandenburg, Baden or Ancona. How the dispute
ended I do not know, but the right was not in question: all that Sir
Roger doubted was its applicability to himself. Still the nature of the
jurisdiction seems clear enough, and the transition of an old Mark Court
into a Lord’s Court, with a steward, is obvious from the custom of the
Tenants chusing “before the Steward himself could reach the Court;” the
abolition of which, Sir Roger naturally considered an excellent thing.

APPENDIX B.
THE HÍD.

From the tables in the above chapter, it appears that we cannot allow
one hundred actual acres to the Híd, and still less one hundred and
twenty. A similar result will be obtained if we examine the entries in
Domesday. Thus

┌─────────────────────────┬─────┬────────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┬──────┐
│Name │Hides│Acreage.│ At 30│ At 40│At 100│At 120│Excess│Excess│
│ │ │ │acres.│acres.│acres.│acres.│at 30.│at 40.│
├─────────────────────────┼─────┼────────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┼──────┤
│Keynsham, _Somers._ │ 50│ 3330│ 1500│ 2000│ 5000│ 6000│ 1830│ 1330│
│Dowlish, _Somers._ │ 9│ 680│ 270│ 360│ 900│ 1080│ 410│ 320│
│Easton in Gordano, │ 20│ 1440│ 600│ 800│ 2000│ 2400│ 840│ 640│
│ _Somers._[838] │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Babington, _Somers._[839]│ 5│ 600│ 150│ 200│ 500│ 600│ 450│ 400│
│Lullington, │ 7│ 840│ 210│ 280│ 700│ 840│ 630│ 560│
│ _Somers._[840] │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
│Road, _Somers._[841] │ 9│ 1010│ 270│ 360│ 900│ 1080│ 740│ 650│
│Pilton, _Devon._[842] │ 20│ 1210│ 600│ 800│ 2000│ 2400│ 610│ 410│
│Taunton, _Somers._[843] │ 65│ 2730│ 1950│ 2600│ 6500│ 7800│ 780│ 130│
│Portshead with │ 11│ 1610│ 330│ 440│ 1100│ 1320│ 1280│ 1170│
│ Westbury,_Somers._[844]│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │
└─────────────────────────┴─────┴────────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┴──────┘

-----

Footnote 838:

Here are to be added 125 acres of meadow and wood, and one leuga of
pasture. (Domesd. iii. p. 133.)

Footnote 839:

Add 27 acres of mead and pasture, and a wood, 6 quadragenæ long by 2
quadr. wide. (Ibid. p. 137.)

Footnote 840:

Add 20 acres of mead and pasture, and a wood, 6 quadragenæ long by 2
wide. (Ibid. p. 137.)

Footnote 841:

Add 91 acres of mead, pasture and forest. (Ibid. p. 138.)

Footnote 842:

Add 86 acres of mead, etc., and a forest a leuga and a half square.
But there was also land not geldable which sufficed for 20 ploughs;
and the 20 geldable hides were calculated at 30 ploughs. Taking the
same proportion, we ought to reckon not 30 but 33⅓ hides in Pilton,
which at 30 acres would give 1000 arable; at 40 would give 1333⅓,
while the whole acreage is but 1210. This would exclude the
calculation of 40 acres; but we cannot trust the merely approximate
supposition that the land of 20 ploughs was to be reckoned in the same
proportion as that for 30.

Footnote 843:

Taunton properly is 52½ geldable hides, and land for 20 ploughs not
geldable. The 65 hides are made up subject to the same error as the
last calculation. The appendant manor of Lidgeard, with the meadow
pastures, etc., amounting to 519 acres, is also to be added, as well
as forest a leuga long, by a leuga wide, and pasture two leugæ long by
one wide.

Footnote 844:

To these add 149 acres of mead, etc. Forest 12 quad. long by 3 wide:
again forest 12 quad. long by 2 wide, and 6 quadragenæ of marsh.

-----

I have intentionally selected one or two examples where the whole
acreage exactly makes up the sum of hides multiplied by 120, because it
is probable that such instances may have led to that calculation: but it
is necessary to bear in mind that the Híd is exclusively _arable_ land,
and that in the case where the number of hides equalled the whole
acreage, there could have been neither forest, nor meadow nor pasture.
The notes on some of the entries will show how erroneous any such
calculation would necessarily be. And lest this assertion that the híd
is exclusive of unbroken land should appear unsupported, I wish the
following data to be considered. But first we must see how the híd is
distributed into its component parts. In Domesday the híd consists of
four yard-lands, virga or virgata: and the virga of four farthings or
farlings, ferlingus, ferlinus, ferdinus, fertinus: thus

1 fertin.
4 fertin. = 1 virg.
16 fertin. = 4 virg. = 1 hide,

whatever may have been the number of acres in the ferling. Again in
Domesday, the amount of an estate held by any one is given, together
with the amount of wood, meadow and pasture in his hands. If these be
_included_ in the amount of the híd, or its parts, which the tenant
held, we shall arrive at the following results; which (even for a moment
taking the híd at 120 acres) are a series of _reductiones ad absurdum_.
In the Exeter Domesday, fol. 205^b (vol. iii. 187) I find an estate
valued at 11 acres: the pasture etc. mentioned as belonging to it is
counted at 20 acres: these, it is clear, could not be comprised in the
eleven. But let us take a few examples tabularly.

─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Exon. Domesd. Holding. Pasture, At least.
etc.
─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
f. 210. vol. iii. 191. ½ hide. 93 acres. ∴ hide = 186 acres.
f. 211. 191. 1 virg. 55 ∴ hide = 220
f. 211, b. 191. ⅓ ferl. (1⁄48 h.) 6 ∴ hide = 288
f. 211, b. 191. 1 virg. 40 ∴ hide = 160
f. 212. 191. ⅓ ferl. 4 ∴ hide = 192
f. 212. 192. 3 ferl. 40 ∴ hide = 213⅓
f. 213. 192. 1 hide. 164 ∴ hide = 164
f. 214. 193. 1 virg. 40 ∴ hide = 160
f. 216. 196. 1 virg. 37 ∴ hide = 148
f. 217. 197. 1 virg. 84 ∴ hide = 336
f. 218. 198. 1 hide. 310 ∴ hide = 310
f. 224. 203. 1 hide. 500 ∴ hide = 500
f. 224, b. 203. 1 ferl. 106 ∴ hide = 1696
f. 325. 204. 1 ferl. 103 ∴ hide = 1648

Now it is particularly necessary to bear in mind that these ridiculous
amounts are the minimum; that in every case the arable land remains to
be added to them, and in some cases whole square miles of forest and
moorland. I conclude then that the wood, meadow and pasture were not
included in the híd or arable, but were appurtenant to it. Sometimes
indeed they bear a very small proportion to the arable, and to the
number of cattle owned—a fact perhaps to be explained by the existence
of extensive commons.

Let us now endeavour to settle the amount, as well as the proportions of
the híd and its several parts. As I have said the híd consisted of four
virgates, the virgate of four ferlings[845]. I do not give examples,
because they may be found in every other entry in Domesday; but I may
add that the gyld or tax payable to the king from the land, is based
upon precisely the same calculation: the híd paid 6 shillings (worth now
about 18_s._ 6_d._), the virgate 1_s._ 6_d._, and the ferling 18⁄4 or
4½_d._ Thus (Exon. D. f. 80, 80, b. vol. iii. p. 72) in the hundred of
Meleborne, the king had £18 18_s._ 4½_d._ as geld from 63 hides and 1
ferling of land:

now 63×6_s._ = 378_s._

1 ferl. ×4½_d._ = 0_s._ 4½_d._ ... 378_s._
4½_d._ or 18_l._ 18_s._ 4½_d._

Again (fol. 80, b. iii. p. 73) the king had £9 10_s._ 8¼_d._ for 31 h. 3
v. ½ ferl.

_i.e._ 31 × 6_s._ = 186_s._

3 × 1_s._ 6_d._ = 4_s._ 6_d._

½ × 4½_d._ = 0_s._ 2¼_d._ 190_s._
8¼_d._ or 9_l._ 10. 8¼_d._

in which passage, ferlingus is used for the coin as well as the measure
of land. Again (fol. 81, b. vol. iii. p. 74) the geld for 60 h. 3 v. 1½
ferl. was £18 5_s._ 0¾_d._ (“unum obolum et unum ferling”).

_i.e._ 60×6_s._ = 360_s._

3×1_s._ 6_d._ = 4_s._ 6_d._

1½×0_s._ 4½_d._ = 0_s._ 6¾_d._ 365_s._
0¾_d._ or 18_l._ 5_s._ 0¾_d._

Or to test it another way; the híd = 16 ferlings, ∴ 60 h. 3 v. 1½ ferl.
= 973½ ferl. But the ferl. paid 4½_d._ ∴ 973½ ferl. paid 4380¾_d._ which
gives us the same value 18_l._ 5_s._ 0¾_d._

-----

Footnote 845:

From _feower_, four. _Feorling_ or _Feorðing_ are similar formations,
and denote a fourth, or farthing in money or land: also in corn (a
quarter of corn), and in the wards of a city. Ellis. Introd. p. l.

-----

Now if we can obtain the value of any one of these denominations, we can
calculate all the rest with security. The value of the virga or yardland
we can obtain: it consisted of _ten_ Norman agri, acræ or acres, perhaps
eight or eight and a third Saxon.

In the Exeter Domesday, fol. 48 (vol. iii. p. 42) we find ten hides of
land to be made up of the following parcels, 4 hides + 1 virg. + 10 agri
+ 5½ hides + 4 agri;

then 10 h. = 9½ h. + 1 v. + 10 a.
or 10 - 9½ h. = 1 v. + 10 a.
or ½ h. = 1 v. + 10 a.

But

½ h. = 2 v.
∴ 2 v. = 1 v. + 10 a.
2 - 1 v. = 10a. ∴ 1 virga = 10 agri.

But

1 hyd = 4 virg. = 16 ferling.
∴ 1 hyd = 40 acres = 33⅓ Saxon.
1 ferl. = 2½ acres = 21⁄12 Saxon.

It will now be seen why I have given a column in which the whole acreage
was measured by a calculation of forty acres to the híd. That this
result is a near approximation to the truth appears from the following
considerations. In the Cornish Domesday, (a county where arable land
bore a very small proportion to the markland, forest and pasture,) there
are a great number of estates, valued at one ager or acre. These are
generally said to pay geld for half a ferling. Thus in Treuurniuet, one
ager paid geld for half a ferling[846]: so in Penquaro[847], in
Trelamar[848], in Lantmatin[849], in Chilo^rgoret[850], in Roslet[851],
in Pengelli[852], in Telbricg[853], in Karsalan[854], in Dimelihoc[855];
and similarly in Widewot, two agri paid geld for one ferling[856]. Now
throughout Domesday there are innumerable examples of land being rated
at less than its real value, or even at its real value; but I have not
detected any instance in which it is rated at more: and in Cornwall
especially the rating seems to have been in favour of the tenant. I do
not therefore believe that one ager was _less_ than half a ferling: it
was either more than half a ferling or equal to it. But ½ ferl. = 1¼
Norman acre, which is more than one statute acre; therefore we may
conclude that the ager or acre was equal to half a ferling. The way I
understand this, is by the assumption that the Saxon acre was somewhat
larger than the Norman: we know that they differed in point of
extent[857], and it is possible that the original Saxon calculation was
founded upon multiples of eight, while the Norman was reduced to a
decimal notation: if this were so, we may believe that the híd was the
unit, and that its principal subdivisions remained, being familiar to
the people, but that the value of the acre was slightly changed. Hence
that the

Saxon híd = 32 Saxon acres = 40 Norman acres.
—— virg. = 8 —— —— = 10 —— ——
—— feorðing = 2 —— —— = 2½ —— ——

The document entituled “Rectitudines singularum personarum” says[858],
that the poor settler on first coming in, ought to have seven acres laid
down for him in seed, out of his yardland; and the same authority
implies that his grass-land was usually short of his need: this it might
be, if he had only one acre to support the two oxen and one cow with
which his land was stocked on entry. The lot of meadow and pasture
attached to these small plots of one ager, is so frequently quoted at
thirty agri, in Cornwall, that one could almost imagine an
enclosure-bill to have been passed just previous to the Conquest, under
which the possession of even so small a quantity as one acre qualified
the owner to receive a handsome share of the waste.

-----

Footnote 846:

Exon. D. f. 227. vol. iii. 206.

Footnote 847:

Ibid. f. 233. vol. iii. 212.

Footnote 848:

Ibid. f. 234. vol. iii. 213.

Footnote 849:

Ibid. f. 235. vol. iii. 214.

Footnote 850:

Ibid. f. 236, b. vol iii. 216.

Footnote 851:

Ibid. f. 240. vol. iii. 220.

Footnote 852:

Ibid. f. 245. vol. iii. 225.

Footnote 853:

Ibid. f. 245, b. vol. iii. 225.

Footnote 854:

Ibid. f. 254. vol. iii. 233.

Footnote 855:

Ibid. f. 254, b. vol. iii. 234.

Footnote 856:

Ibid. f. 254, b. vol. iii. 234.

Footnote 857:

Ellis, Introd. p. 1. The fractions, and the admixture of a decimal
with the quarterly division, seem to imply that the later or Norman
measure was the smaller of the two.

Footnote 858:

Thorpe, i. 434.

-----

It is obvious that all these calculations are ultimately founded upon
the value of the acre relatively to our own statute measure, in which
the survey of 1841 is expressed. That ager and acra are equivalent terms
appears from their being used interchangeably in various entries of
Domesday. Nor is there any good reason to suppose that the Normans made
any violent change in the values of these several denominations,
although they might adopt more convenient subdivisions of the larger
sums. They did just the same thing in respect to the Saxon money.
Besides, as it was from the Saxons that they derived the information
which the Survey contains, it is reasonable to believe that the Saxon
values were generally adopted, at least as far as the híd was concerned.
The minute subdivision of land consequent upon the Conquest probably
rendered it necessary to pay especial attention to the smaller units,
and I can conceive nothing more likely than a slight change in the value
of the acre, while the híd and virgate remained unaltered. Then where an
estate comprised only one Saxon acre, it might readily be considered
equal to half a ferling, or 1¼ acre, Norman measure, for it would have
been difficult and complicated to express it in other terms. In fact
where small fractional parcels of land were to be subtracted, the
Commissioners were generally glad to avoid details, and enter “A. has so
much in demesne, and the Villani have aliam terram, _the rest of the
land_.” If the Saxon ager paid for half a ferling in the time of the
Confessor, it was likely to be taken at that value in the Survey; for
the law, _quæ de minimis non curat_, could hardly notice so trifling a
deviation. The approximate value of the Saxon acre, however, I have
given; it was one day’s work for a plough and oxen, in other words very
nearly our own statute-acre.

That the value of the hide became gradually indistinct, when reckonings
ceased to be made in it, and the calculation was taken upon knights’
fees, is very intelligible. We consequently find surprising variations
in the amount of hides counted to a knight’s fee, as well as the acres
contained in this last measure. In the time of Edward the Third it was
computed that there were 60,215 knight’s fees in England, which taking
the present acreage of 31,770,615 gives rather more than 527 acres to a
fee: hence those who believed a hide to contain 100 acres, calculated
five hides to a knight’s fee, in accordance with the Saxon law which
made that amount the minimum of a thane’s estate, and also to the
entries in Domesday, from which it appeared that one _miles_ went from
five hides: but here it was overlooked that the hide was exclusively
_arable_ land. To such erroneous modes of calculation we owe such
entries as the following:—

“Decem acrae faciunt fardellum, iv fardelli faciunt virgatum, quatuor
virgatae faciunt hydam, quatuor hydae faciunt unum feodum.” MS. Harl.
464. fol. 17, b.

where 1 fardel = 10 acres.
4 fardels = 40 acres = 1 virgate.
16 fardels = 160 acres = 4 virgates = 1 hide.
64 fardels = 640 acres = 16 virgates = 4 hides = 1 knight’s fee.

Again we are told (Regist. Burgi Sci. Petri, fol. 81, b) that

“Quinque feoda fuerunt antiquitus una baronia; et quinque hydae unum
feodum; et quinque virgatae terrae una hyda, quaelibet virgata de
viginti acris.”

Or tabularly,—

1 virgate = 20 acres.
5 virgates = 100 acres = 1 hide.
25 virgates = 500 acres = 5 hides = 1 knight’s fee.
125 virgates = 2500 acres = 25 hides = 5 fees = 1 barony.

which results neither coincide with the last, nor with those of
Domesday, nor with those derived from Saxon authorities.

The hidage of various ancient Gás which has been given in Chapter III.
could naturally not be sufficient guide under the new shire divisions.
Unfortunately we have not a complete account of the hidage in the
shires: nor does what we have coincide with the conclusion arrived at in
the course of the fourth chapter.

In the Cotton. MS. Claud. B. vii. (fol. 204, b), which appears to have
been written in the time of Henry III., we have the following entries:—

Hydae.
In Wiltescyre continentur 4800
In Bedefordscyre sunt 1200
In Cantebrigescyre sunt 2500
In Huntedunescyre sunt 800½
In Northamptescyre sunt 3200
In Gloucesterscyre sunt 2400
In Wirecesterscyre sunt 1200
In Herefordescyre sunt 1500
In Warewycscyre sunt 1200
In Oxenefordscyre sunt 2400
In Salopescyre sunt 2300
In Cesterscyre sunt 1300
In Staffordescyre sunt 500

The Cotton MS. Vesp. A. xviii. fol. 112, b, written in the reign of
Edward I., gives a different list of counties, among which the following
variations occur:—

Bedfordshire 1000
Northamptonshire 4200
Gloucestershire 2000
Worcestershire 1500
Shropshire 2400
Cheshire 1200

If we pursue the plan heretofore adopted, we shall have these results:—

┌───────┬────────┬───────┬────────┬────────┬───────┬───────┬───────┬───────┐
│County.│Acreage.│Hidage.│ H. at│ H. at│Excess │Excess │Ratio │Ratio │
│ │ │ │ 30.│ 40.│at 30. │at 40. │at 30. │at 40. │
├───────┼────────┼───────┼────────┼────────┼───────┼───────┼───────┼───────┤
│Wilts. │ 868,060│ 4800│ 144,000│ 192,000│724,060│676,000│1:5 │1:3·5 │
│Bedf. │ 297,632│ 1200│ 36,000│ 48,000│261,632│249,632│1:7 │1:5 │
│Camb. │ 536,313│ 2500│ 75,000│ 100,000│461,313│436,313│1:6 │1:4·5 │
│Hunt. │ 242,250│ 800½│ 24,015│ 32,020│218,235│210,230│1:9 │1:7 │
│Nrhm. │ 646,810│ 3200│ 96,000│ 128,000│550,810│518,810│1:5·77 │1:4 │
│Glouc. │ 790,470│ 2400│ 72,000│ 96,000│718,470│694,470│1:10 │1:7·25 │
│Worc. │ 459,710│ 1200│ 36,000│ 48,000│423,700│411,710│1:11·75│1:8·5 │
│Heref. │ 543,800│ 1500│ 45,000│ 60,000│502,800│483,800│1:11 │1:8 │
│Warw. │ 567,930│ 1200│ 36,000│ 48,000│531,930│519,930│1:14·75│1:10·75│
│Oxf. │ 467,230│ 2400│ 72,000│ 96,000│395,230│371,230│1:5·5 │1:4 │
│Salop. │ 864,360│ 2300│ 69,000│ 92,000│795,360│772,360│1:11·5 │1:8·4 │
│Chesh. │ 649,050│ 1300│ 39,000│ 52,000│610,050│597,050│1:15·62│1:11·5 │
│Staff. │ 736,290│ 500│ 15,000│ 20,000│721,290│716,290│1:48 │1:36·8 │
└───────┴────────┴───────┴────────┴────────┴───────┴───────┴───────┴───────┘

Now either these figures cannot be relied on, or we must carry the hide
in this calculation to a very different amount. If we take it at 100
acres, we shall find the whole hidage of these thirteen counties amounts
to 25,300 × 100 or 2,530,000 acres, while the whole actual acreage is
7,669,905; giving an excess of 5,139,905, and consequently a ratio of
25:51 nearly, or 1:2. This would a little exceed the present ratio,
which is 5:11, a result which appears very improbable indeed in the
reign of Henry III. But when we consider the numberless errors of
transcription, so unavoidable where merely numbers, and not words, are
given, and the totally inconsistent accounts contained in different
manuscripts, we can hardly rest satisfied that the figures themselves
are trustworthy. Even on the hypothesis that in the time of Henry III.
or Edward I. the hide was calculated on the new footing of 100 acres, we
yet could not reconcile the conflicting amounts assigned to the counties
themselves.

APPENDIX C.
MANUMISSION OF SERFS.

The following examples of Manumission are illustrative of the assertions
in the text.

And he wylle ðæt man freoge æfter And it is his will that ye shall
his dæge ǽlcne wítefæstne man ðe on manumit, after his life, every
his tíman forgylt wǽre.—_Archbishop convict who has been ruined by
Ælfríc_, 996-1006. crime, in his time.—_Cod. Dipl._
No. 716.

Bútan ðæt heó wylæ be ðínre Except that she wills, with thy
geþafunga ðæt man freoge on ǽlcum permission, that they shall
túnæ ǽlcne wíteþeównæ mann ðæ under manumit, in every one of her farms,
hiræ geþeówud wæs.—_Queen Ælfgyfu._ every convict who was reduced to
1012. slavery under her.—_Cod. Dipl._ No.
721.

Ðæt is rest, ðæt ic geann ðæt man Firstly, I grant that they shall
gefreoge ǽlcne wítefæstne man, ðe free every convict whom I got in
ic on sprece áhte.—_Æðelstán suits.—_Cod. Dipl._ No. 722.
Æðeling._

And beón heora mann frige æfter And let their serfs be free, after
heora beira dæge.—_Ðurstan_, 1049. both their lives.—_Cod. Dipl._ No.
788.

Dimidiam vero partem hominum qui in memorata terra sub servitute degunt
libertate donavimus.—_Cod. Dipl._ No. 919.

Geatfleda geaf freols for Godes Geatflæd freed, for God’s sake and
lufa ⁊ for heora sáwla þearfe, ðæt for her soul’s need, namely Ecceard
is Ecceard smið, ⁊ Ælstán ⁊ his the smith and Ælfstan and his wife
wíf, ⁊ eall heora ofsprinc boren ⁊ and all their offspring born and
unboren; ⁊ Arcil ⁊ Cole, ⁊ Ecgferð unborn; and Arcil and Cole and
Eádhúnes dohter, ⁊ ealle ða men ða Ecgferð Eádhun’s daughter, and all
heónon heora heáfod for hyra mete, the men who bent their heads for
on ðám yflum dagum. Swá hwá swá ðis food in the evil days. Whoso shall
áwende ⁊ hyre sáwla ðises bereáfie, set this aside and deprive her soul
bereáfige hine God ælmihtig ðises of this, may Almighty God deprive
lifes ⁊ heofona ríces: ⁊ sy he him both of this life and of the
áwyrged deád ⁊ cwic aa on écnysse. kingdom of heaven; and be he
And eác heó hafað gefreód ða men ðe accursed, quick or dead, for ever
heó þingede æt Cwæspatrike, ðæt is and ever. And she hath also freed
Ælfwald, ⁊ Colbrand, Ælsie, ⁊ Gamal the men for whom she interceded
his sune, Eádred Tredewode ⁊ Uhtred with Cospatrick, namely Ælfwald,
his steópsunu, Aculf ⁊ Ðurkyl ⁊ and Colbrand, Ælfsige and Gamal his
Ælsige. Hwá ðe heom ðises bereáfie son, Eadred Tredewood and Uhtred
God ælmihtig sie heom wráð ⁊ sancte his stepson, Aculf and Thurkill and
Cúðberht.—_Geátflæd_; about 1060. Ælsige. Whoso depriveth them of
this, may he have the wrath of
Almighty God and Saint
Cuthbert.—_Cod. Dipl._ No. 925.

And ic wille ðæt alle míne men bén And I will that all my serfs be
fré on hirde and on túne for me and free, both in manor and farm for my
for ðó ðe me bigeten.—_Leófgyfu._ sake and the sake of them that
begot me.—_Cod. Dipl._ No. 931.

Her swutelað on ðisse Cristes béc Here witnesseth in this book of
ðæt Leófenóð, Ægelnóðes sunu æt gospels, that Leofenoð, Æðelnoð's
Heorstúne, hæfð geboht hine ⁊ his son of Harston, hath bought out
ofspring út æt Ælfsige abbod ⁊ æt himself and his offspring, from
eallon hirede on Baðon, mid fíf abbot Ælfsige and all the
oran and mid xii heáfdon sceapa, on brotherhood at Bath, with five ores
Leáfcildes gewitnesse portgeréfan, and twelve head of sheep, by
and on ealre ðǽere burhware on witness of Leófcild the portreeve,
Baðon. Crist hine áblende ðe ðis and all the commonalty of Bath.
æfre áwende.—_Convent of Bath._ Christ blind him that ever setteth
this aside!—_Cod. Dipl._ No. 933.

Her swutelað on ðisse Cristes béc Here witnesseth in this book of
ðæt Ægelsige æt Lintúnne hæfð gospels, that Æðelsige of Linton
geboht Wilsige his sunu út æt hath bought out Wilsige his son
Ælfsige abbod on Baðon, and æt from Ælfsige abbot at Bath, and all
eallon hirede tó écean the brotherhood to eternal
freóte.—_Convent of Bath._ freedom.—_Cod. Dipl._ No. 934.

Her swutelað on ðisse Cristes béc Here witnesseth in this book of
ðæt Ægelsige Byttices sunu hæfð gospels, that Æðelsige, Byttic’s
geboht Hildesige his sunu út æt son, hath bought out Hildesige his
Ælfsige abbod on Baðon, and æt son from Ælfsige, abbot at Bath,
eallon hirede mid syxtigon penegon and all the brotherhood, with sixty
tó écean freóte.—_Convent of Bath._ pence, that he may be free for
ever.—_Cod. Dipl._ No. 935.

Her swutelað on ðisse Cristes béc Here witnesseth in this book of
ðæt Godwig se bucca hæfð geboht gospels, that Godwig the buck hath
Leófgife ða dágean æt Norðstoce ⁊ bought Leófgifu the doe at
hyre ofspring mid healfan punde æt Northstock, and all her offspring,
Ælfsige abbod tó écean freóte, on with half a pound from abbot
ealles ðæs hiredes gewitnesse on Ælfsige, that she may be free for
Baðon. Crist hine áblende ðe ðis ever, by witness of all the
æfre áwende.—_Convent of Bath._ brotherhood in Bath. Christ blind
him who ever setteth this
aside.—_Cod. Dipl._ No. 936.

Her swutelað on ðisse Cristes béc Here witnesseth in this book of
ðæt Ælfsige abbod hæfð gefreód gospels, that abbot Ælfsige hath
Godwine bace æt Stántúne for hinc ⁊ freed Godwine Back of Stanton, for
for ealne ðone hired on Baðan, on his own sake and that of all the
Sémannes gewitnesse ⁊ Wulwiges æt brotherhood at Bath, by witness of
Prisctúne ⁊ Ælfríces Séman and Wulfwig of Prisctún and
cermes.—_Convent of Bath._ Ælfríc Cerm.—_Cod. Dipl._ No. 937.

An ic an míne landseðlen here And to my tenants I give their
toftes tó ówen áihte ⁊ alle míne tofts to be their own property, and
men fré.—_Sigeflæd._ all my serfs free.—_Cod. Dipl._ No.
947.

And ic an ðæt land æt Tit intó And I grant the land at Tit to the
seynte Paules kirke ðen hewen tó brotherhood at St. Paul’s church
bédlonde mid al ðæt ðéron stant, for the support of their table,
búten ðe men ðe ðǽr áren fré men with all that is upon it, except
alle for míne sóule.... And ic an the serfs there; let them
ðæt land æt Súðereye mid alle ðe emancipate these for my soul’s
fiscoðe ðo ðértó bireð ðen hewen sake.... And I grant the land in
intó sancte Paules kirke, and frie Surrey with all the fishery
men ðo men for ðe biscopes thereunto appertaining to the
sóule.... And ic an ðæt lond æt brotherhood of St. Paul’s church,
Luðinglond Offe míne sustres sune ⁊ and let the serfs be freed for the
his bróðer, ⁊ fré men ðo men halue, bishop’s soul.... And I grant the
and æt Mindhám alsó for ðe biscopes estate at Luðingland to Offe my
sóule.... And lete mon stondon só sister’s son, and his brother, and
mikel só ic ðéron fond, and fré men let half the serfs there be freed,
ðo men alle for míne and so also at Mendham for the
sóule....—_Bishop Ðeódred._ bishop’s soul.... And [at Hoxne]
let them leave as much stock as I
found there, and let all the serfs
be freed for my soul.—_Cod. Dipl._
No. 957.

Erst for his sáule Palegráue intó First for his soul, Palgrave to St.
Seynt Eádmund, ⁊ Witinghám half, ⁊ Edmund, and half Witingham, the
half ðe bisscop: and alle míne men other half to the bishop: and all
fré, and ilk hæbbe his toft ⁊ his my serfs free, and let each have
metecú ⁊ his metecorn.—_Ðurcytel._ his toft, and his meatcow and his
meatcorn.—_Cod. Dipl._ No. 959.

Her swutelað on ðisum gewrite ðæt This writing witnesseth that
Ægelsi on Wuldehám hæfð geléned be Æðelsige of Wouldham hath borrowed
Siwordes dæge biscopes his dóhter ⁊ for the life of Bishop Sigeward,
heore dóhter út of Totteles cynne, his daughter and her daughter out
⁊ hæfð óðra mænn ðǽrin gedón, be of Tottle’s kin, and hath replaced
ðǽre burhware gewitnesse on them by other serfs, by witness of
Hroueceaster ⁊ be ealle ðæs all the commonalty of Rochester,
biscopes geferan.—_Æðelsige._ and the bishop’s comrades.—_Cod.
Dipl._ No. 975.

And alle ðo men fré for unker bóðer And all the serfs free, for both
sóule.—_Wulfsige._ our souls.—_Cod. Dipl._ No. 979.

Ðurkil and Æbðlgit unnen Wigorhám Thurkill and Æðelgið grant Wigorham
intó seynt Eádmunde só ful and só to St. Edmund, as full and as forth
forð só wit it ówen, after unker as we two owned it, after both our
bóðer day, ⁊ ðo men half fré, þeówe lives, and let them free half the
⁊ lísingas.—_Ðurcytel._ men, both þeóws and lísings.—_Cod.
Dipl._ No. 980.

-----------------------

The following manumissions from a religious book, formerly the property
of St. Petroc’s, are selected from a much larger number found in the
Codex Dipl. No. 981. The British names which occur in them are of great
interest.

Ðes ys ðæs manes nama ðe Byrhsie This is the man’s name whom
gefreáde et Petrocys stowe, Byhstán Byrhtsige freed at St. Petroc’s,
háte Bluntan sunu, on Æðelhíde Byhstán he was called Blunta’s son,
gewitnyse hys ágen wíf, and on by witness of Æðlhið his own wife,
Byrhisiys mæsepreóstes, and on and Byrhtsige the mass priest, and
Riol, and Myrmen, and Wunsie, Riol, Myrmen, Wynsige, Morhæððo and
Morhæððo, and Cynsie, preóst. Cynsige the priest.

Wuenumon and hire teám, Móruið hire Wuenumon and her offspring, Moruið
swuster and hire teám, and her sister and her offspring, and
Wurgustel and his teám, warun Wurgustel and his offspring were
gefreód hér on túne for Eádryde manumitted here in the town, for
cynigc and for Æðel[geard] biscop Eadred the king and Æðelgeard the
an ðas hirydes gewitnesse ðe hér on bishop, by witness of all the
túne syndun. brotherhood here in the town.

Marh gefreóde Leðelt and ealle hire Marh freed Leðelt and all her
teám for Eádwig cyningc on his ǽgen progeny for Eádwig the king, upon
reliquias: and he hie hét lǽdan his own reliques: and he caused her
hider tó mynstere, and hér to be led hither to the minster,
gefreógian on Petrocys reliquias, and here to be freed on Petroc’s
on ðæs hirydes gewitnesse. reliques, by witness of the
brotherhood.

Hér kýð on ðissere béc ðæt Æilsig This book witnesseth that Ælfsige
bohte ánne wífmann Ongyneðel hátte bought a woman named Ongyneðel and
and hire sunu Gyðiccæl æt Ðurcilde her son Gyðiccæl from Ðurcild for
mid healfe punde, æt ðǽre cirican half a pound, at the church-door in
dura on Bodmine, and sealde Æilsige Bodmin, and gave Ælfsige, the
portgeréua and Maccosse hundredes portreeve and Maccos the
mann .IIII. pengas tó tolle; ðá hundred-man, four pence as toll;
ferde Æilsig tó ðe ða men bohte, then went Ælfsige, who bought the
and nam hig and freóde úpp an serfs, and freed them at Petroc’s
Petrocys weofede, ǽfre sacles, on altar, ever _sacless_, by witness
gewitnesse ðissa gódera manna: ðæt of the following good men: namely,
wæs, Isaac messepreóst, and Bleðcuf Isaac the masspriest, Bleðcuf the
messepreóst, and Wunning masspriest, Wunning the masspriest,
messepreóst, and Wulfgér Wulfgér the masspriest, Grifiuð the
messepreóst, and Grifiuð masspriest, Noe the masspriest,
messepreóst, and Noe messepreóst, Wurðicið the masspriest, and
and Wurðicið messepreóst, and Ælfsige the deacon, and Maccos, and
Æilsig diacon, and Maccos, and Teðion Modred’s son, and Cynehelm,
Teðion Modredis sunu, and Kynilm, Beórláf, Dirling, Gratcant and
and Beórláf, and Dirling, and Talan. And whoso breaketh this
Gratcant, and Talan. And gif hwá freedom, let him settle it with
ðás freót ábrece, hebbe him wið Christ! Amen.
Criste geméne. Amen.

Hér kýð on ðissere béc ðæt Ælfríc This book witnesseth that Ælfríc
Ælfwines sunu wolde þeówian the son of Ælfwine wanted to
Putraele him tó nýdþæówetlinge. Ðá enslave Putrael as a need-serf.
cum Putrael tó Boia and bed his Then came Putrael to Boia and
forespece tó Ælfríce his bréðere: begged his intercession with his
ðá sette Boia ðes spece wið brother Ælfríc: and Boia made this
Ælfríce; ðæt wæs ðæt Putrael sealde agreement with Ælfríc; namely that
Ælfríce .VIII. oxa æt ðére cirican Putrael gave Ælfríc viii oxen at
dura æt Bodmine, and gef Boia the church-door in Bodmin, and gave
sixtig penga for ðére forspæce, and Boia sixty pence for the
dide hine sylfne and his ofspreng intercession, and so made himself
ǽfre freols and saccles fram ðám and his offspring ever free and
dæge, wið Ælfríce and wið Boia and _sacless_ from that day forth, as
wið ealle Ælfwines cyld and heora to Ælfríc, Boia, and all Ælfwine’s
ofspreng, on ðissere gewittnisse: children and their offspring, by
Isaac messepreóst, and Wunning this witness: Isaac the masspriest,
presbyter, and Séwulf presbyter, Wunning the Presbyter, Séwulf the
and Godríc diacon, and Cufure presbyter, Godríc the deacon,
prauost, and Wincuf, and Wulfwerd, Ceufur the provost, Wincuf,
and Gestin, ðes bisceopes stiwerd, Wulfwerd, Gestin the bishop’s
and Artaca, and Kinilm, and Godríc steward, Artaca, Kinilm, Godríc
map, and Wulfgér, and má gódra Map, Wulfgár and other good men.
manna.

Hér cýð on ðyson béc ðæt Ælwold This book witnesseth that Ælfwold
gefreóde Hwatu for hys sáwle a[t] freed Hwatu for his soul, at St.
Petrocys stow á degye and æfter Petroc’s, both during life and
degye. An[d] Ælgér ys gewytnesse, after life. And Ælfgár is a
and Godríc, and Walloð, and witness, and Godríc, and Walloð,
Gryfyið, and Bleyðcuf, and Salaman. and Griffið, and Bleyðcuf, and
And hebbe he Gode curs and sanctes Salaman. And let him who breaketh
Petrocus and æalle welkynes sanctas what is done have the curse of God
ðe ðæt brece ðæt ydón ys. Amen. and St. Petroc and all the saints
of heaven. Amen.

Ðes sint ðe menn ðe Wulfsige byscop These are the men whom Wulfsige the
freóde for Eádgár cinig and for bishop freed for Eàdgàr the king
hyne sáwle, æt Petrocys wefode: and for his own soul, at Petroc’s
Leuhelec, Welet, ... nwalt, Beli, altar: Leuhelec, Welet ... nwalt,
Iosep, Dengel, Proswite, Beli, Josep, Dengal, Proswite,
Tancwuestel: an ðás gewitnese, Tancwuestel: by witness of Byrhsige
Byrhsige mæssepróst, Mermen the masspriest, Mermen the
massepróst, Mar, Catuuti, Wenwiu, masspriest, Mar, Catuuti, Wenwiu
Puer, Meðwuistel, Iosep. Puer, Meðwuistel, Josep.

Ðys syndun ðára manna naman ðe These are the names of the men whom
Wulfsige byscop gefreódet æt Wulfsige the bishop freed at
Petrocys wefode for Eádgár and for Petroc’s altar for Eádgár and
hine silfne, and Byrhsi ys himself, by witness of Byrhsi the
gewitnese massepróst, and Mermen masspriest, Mermen the masspriest
massepróst, and Morhi: Diuset and and Morhi: Diuset and all her
ealle here teám. offspring.

Ðys sindum ðára manna naman ðe These are the names of the serfs
Wunsie gefreóde at Petrocys stowe, whom Wunsige freed at St. Petroc’s,
[for] Eádgár cinig, on ealle ðæs for king Eádgár, by witness of all
hiredys gewitnesse: Conmonoc, the brotherhood: Conmonoc,
Iarnwallon, and Wenwærðlon and Iarnwallon, Wenwærðlon and Mæiloc.
Mæiloc.

-----------------------

Ælfred by his will manumitted all his unfree dependents, and with great
care provided for their enjoyment of this liberty: he says[859]:—

And ic bidde on godes naman and on And I pray in the name of God and
his háligra, ðæt mínra maga nán né of his saints, that none of my
yrfewearda ne geswence nán nǽnig kinsmen or heirs oppress any of my
cyrelif ðára ðe ic foregeald, ⁊ me dependents for whom I paid, and
Westseaxena witan tó rihte whom the witan of the Westsaxons
gerehton, ðæt ic hí mót lætan swá legally adjudged to me, that I
freo swá þeówe, swáðer ic wille; ac might leave them free or þeów,
ic for Godes lufan and for mínre whichever I chose; but I for God’s
sáwle þearfe, wylle ðæt hý sýn love and my own soul’s need, will
heora freolses wyrðe, ⁊ hyre cyres; that they shall enjoy their freedom
and ic on Godes lifiendes naman and their choice; and I command in
beóde, ðæt hý nán man ne brocie, né the name of the living God, that no
mid feos manunge né mid nǽningum one disquiet them, either by demand
þíngum, ðæt híe ne mótan céosan of money, or in any other way, so
swylcne mann swylce híe wyllan. that they may not choose whomsoever
they please [as a protector].

-----

Footnote 859:

Cod. Dipl. No. 314.

-----

_Cyrelif_ is a person who has a right of choice, or who has exercised a
choice: these must have been poor men, free or unfree, who had attached
themselves personally to Ælfred, voluntarily or not. He provides that
these as well as his serfs may have full liberty to select any other
lord, without disquiet through demands of arrears or any other claims.
This is confirmatory of the view taken in the text, that the manumitted
serf was obliged to find himself a lord, and so did not become fully
free.

And freoge man Wulfware, folgige And let Wulfwaru be free, and
ðám ðe hyre leófo[st sý,] ... follow whom she best pleases, and
ealswá, and freoge man Wulflǽde on also ... , and let Wulflǽd be freed
ðæt gerád ðæt heó folgige Æðelflǽde on condition that she follow
⁊ Eádgyfe: and heó becwæð Eádgyfe Æðelflǽd and Edith: and she
áne crencestran ⁊ áne sémestran, bequeathed to Edith one weaving
óðer hátte Eádgyfu, óðer hátte woman and one sempstress, the one
Æðelgyfu; ⁊ freoge man Gerburg ⁊ called Edith, the other Æðelgifu;
Miscin, ⁊ his ... el, ⁊ Burhulfes and let them free Gerburg, and
dóhtur æt Cinnuc, ⁊ Ælfsige ⁊ his Miscin, and his ... and Burhwulf’s
wíf ⁊ his yldran dohter, ⁊ daughter at Cinnuc, and Ælfsige and
Ceólstánes wíf; ⁊ æt Ceorlatúne his wife and elder daughter, and
freoge man Pifus ⁊ Eádwine, ⁊ ... e Ceólstán’s wife; and at Charlton
... an wífe; ⁊ æt Faccancumbe let them free Pifus and Eádwyn, and
freoge man Æðelm ⁊ Man ⁊ Iohannan, ... wife; and at Faccombe let them
⁊ Sprow ⁊ his wíf, ⁊ Ene fætte, ⁊ free Æðelm, and Man, and Johanna,
Gersande ⁊ Suel; ⁊ æt Colleshylle and Sprow and his wife, and Ene the
freoge man Æðelgýðe ⁊ Biccan wíf, ⁊ fat, and Gersand and Suel; and at
Æffan ⁊ Bedan, ⁊ Gurhannes wíf, ⁊ Coleshill let them free Æðelgýð and
freoge man Wulfware swystor Bicca’s wife, Æffe and Bede, and
Bryhsiges wíf, ⁊ ... ðisne wyrhtan, Gurhan’s wife, and let them free
⁊ Wulfgýðe Ælfswýðe dóhtor: ⁊ gif Wulfware’s sister Byrhsiges wife
ðǽr hwylc wíteþeówman sý búton and ... this wright, and Wulfgýð
ðyson, ðe heó geþeówede, heó gelýfð Ælfswýð's daughter: and if there be
tó hyre bearnon ðæt hí hine wyllon any other convicts besides these,
lihtan for hyre sáulle.... whom she reduced to slavery, she
trusts that her children will give
them this alleviation for her
soul’s sake.

Ðenne an hió ðán hiwum ðára gebúra Then she grants the convent the
ðe on ðám gafollande sittað, ⁊ ðéra boors who sit on rent-paying land,
þeówra manna hió an hyre syna and the serfs she gives to her
déhter Eádgyfe ⁊ ðæs yrfes, bútan son’s daughter Edith, and also the
ðám sáulsceatte ðe man tó Gifle chattels, except the soul-shot
syllan sceal; ⁊ hió wylle ðæt man which they are to pay to Gifle. And
læte on ðám lande standan vi oxan ⁊ it is her will that they shall
iiii cý mid iiii cealfum; ⁊ of ðám leave on the land six oxen and four
þeówan mannan æt Cinnuc heó becwið cows with four calves; and of the
Eádwolde, Céolstán Eástánes sunu, ⁊ serfs at Cinnuc she bequeaths to
Æffan sunu; ⁊ Burhwynne, Martin ⁊ Eádwold, Céolstán Eástán’s son, and
his wíf; ⁊ hió becwið Eádgyfe ðǽr Æffe’s son; and to Burhwyn she
angean Ælfsige ðene cóc ⁊ Tefl gives Martin and his wife; and she
Wareburgan dóhtor, ⁊ Herestán ⁊ his bequeaths again, to Edith, Ælfsige
wíf, ⁊ Ecelm ⁊ his wíf, ⁊ heora the cook, and Tefl, Wærburge’s
cild, ⁊ Cynestán ⁊ Wynsige, ⁊ daughter, and Herestán and his
Bryhtríces sunu, ⁊ Eádwynne, ⁊ wife, Eghelm and his wife and their
Buneles sunu ⁊ Ælfweres dóhtor; and child, Cynestán and Wynsige and
hió becwið Æðelflǽde Elhhelmes Brihtric’s son, and Eádwyn, and
déhter ða geóngran.—_Wynflæd_, Bunel’s son, and Ælfweres daughter;
about 995. and she bequeaths to Æðelflǽd
Ealhhelms younger daughter.—_Cod.
Dipl._ No. 1290.

-----------------------

The next passage which I have to cite is unhappily very corrupt, but as
the sense is obvious I have given such corrections as were required: the
readings of the MS. may be seen in the copy printed Cod. Dipl. No. 1339.

And ic wille ðæt míne men beón And I will that my serfs shall all
ealle freo.... And ic wille ðæt be free.... And I will that all the
ealle ða men ða ic an freo, ðæt hí men to whom I grant freedom shall
hæbben ealle þing ða hý under hande have everything which is under
habbað, bútan ðæt lond æt their hand, except the land at
Herelingum Stigande arcebisceope Harling which I give to archbishop
mínum hláforde, swá hit stent, Stigand my lord, as it stands, only
bútan ða men beón ealle that the serfs are all to be
freo.—_Cytel_, about 1055. free.—_Cod. Dipl._ No. 1342.

-----------------------

The following manumissions are recorded by the Convent in Bath. They
will be found in the Codex Diplomaticus, No. 1351.

Hér swutelað on ðissere Cristes béc Here witnesseth on this book of
ðæt Eádríc æt Fordan hæfð goboht Gospels that Eádríc at Ford hath
Sægýfu his dóhtor æt Ælfsige abbod bought Sǽgyfu his daughter from
and æt ðám hirede on Baðan tó écum Ælfsige the abbot and the convent
freóte, and eall hire ofspring. at Bath, that she may be free for
ever, and all her offspring.

Hér swutelað on ðisse Cristes béc Here witnesseth on this book of
ðæt Ælfríc Scot and Ægelríc Scot gospels, that Ælfric the Scot and
synd gefreód for Ælfsiges abbodes Æðelríc the Scot are made free, for
sáwle tó écan freóte. Ðis is gedón the soul of Abbot Ælfsige, that
on ealles hiredes gewitnesse. they may be free for ever. This is
done by witness of all the convent.

Her swutelað on ðissere Cristes Here witnesseth on this book of
béc, ðæt Ælfwig se réd hæfð geboht gospels, that Ælfwig the red hath
hine selfne út æt Ælfsige abbot and bought himself out from Ælfsige the
eallon hirede mid ánon punde. Ðár abbot and all the convent for one
is tó gewitnes eall se hired on pound. To this is witness all the
Baðan. Crist hine áblende ðe ðis convent in Bath. Christ blind him
gewrit áwende. who setteth this writ aside!

Her swutelað in ðisre Cristes béc, Here witnesseth on this book of
ðæt Iohann hæfð geboht Gunnilde, gospels, that John hath bought
Þurkilles dóhter, æt Góde, Gunhild, Thurkill’s daughter, from
Leofenáðes láfe, tó healfan punde, Góde Leofenáð's widow, for half a
on ealles hiredes gewitnysse. Crist pound, by witness of all the
hine áblende, ðe ðis gewrit áwende. convent. Christ blind him who
And he hæfð hí betéht Criste ⁊ setteth this writ aside! And he
sancte Petre for his móder sáwle. hath given her to Christ and St.
Peter for his mother’s soul.

Her swutelað on ðissere Cristes Here witnesseth on this book of
béc, ðæt Sǽwi Hagg æt Wídecumbe gospels, that Sǽwig Hagg of Widcomb
hæfð gedón út his twegen suna æt hath done out his two sons from
Ælfsige abbude, on ealles hiredes Ælfsige the abbot, by witness of
gewitnesse. all the convent.

Her swutelað on ðissere Cristes Here witnesseth on this book of
béc, ðæt Ægylmǽr bohte Sǽðrýðe æt gospels, that Æðelmǽr bought Sǽðrýð
Sǽwolde abbude, mid .III. maxan on from Sǽwold the abbot for two
ealles hiredes gewitnysse; and ofer mancuses, by witness of all the
his dæg and his wífes dæg beó se convent; and after his and his
man freoh. Crist hine áblende, ðe wife’s life let the serf be free.
ðis gewrit áwende. Christ blind him who setteth this
writ aside!

Her swutelað on ðissere Cristes Here witnesseth on this book of
béc, ðæt Wulfwine Háreberd bohte æt gospels, that Wulfwine Hoarbeard
Ælfsige abbude, Ælfgýðe mid healfan bought Ælfgýð from abbot Ælfsige
punde on ealles hiredes gewitnysse: for half a pound, by witness of all
and Crist hine áblende ðe ðis the convent: and Christ blind him
gewrit áwende. who setteth this writ aside!

Her swutelað on ðissere Cristes Here witnesseth on this book of
béc, ðæt Ægylsige bohte Wynríc æt gospels, that Æðelsige bought
Ælfsige abbude mid ánon yre goldes. Wynríc from abbot Ælfsige for an
Ðysses ys tó gewitnysse Ælfryd ore of gold. The witnesses of this
portgeréua and eal se hired on are Ælfred the portreeve and all
Baðon. Crist hine ablende ðe ðis the convent at Bath. Christ blind
gewrit awende. him who setteth this writ aside!

Her swutelað on ðissere Cristes Here witnesseth on this book of
béc, ðæt Siwine Leófwies sunu æt gospels, that Sigewine Leófwige’s
Lincumbe hafað geboht Sydeflǽde út son of Lincomb hath bought Sydeflǽd
mid fíf scyllingam and ... penegam out with five shillings and ...
æt Iohanne biscope and æt eallon pence from bishop John and all the
ðám hirede on Baðon tó écum freóte: convent at Bath to be free for
and her tó is gewitnesse Godríc ever: and witness thereof are
Ladda and Sǽwold and his twegen Godríc Ladda, and Sǽwold and his
sunan Scírewold and Brihtwold. two sons Scírewold and Brihtwold.

Her swutelað on ðisse Cristes béc, Here witnesseth on this book of
ðæt Lifgíð æt Forda is gefreód, and gospels, that Lifgið at Ford is
hire twá cild, for ðone biscop freed, with her two children, for
Johanne and for ealne ðone hired on bishop John and all the convent at
Baðon, on Ælfredes gewitnesse Bath, by witness of Ælfred Aspania.
Aspania.

Her cyð on ðisse béc ðæt Here witnesseth in this book that
H[un]fl[ǽd] gebohte Wulfgýðe æt Hunflǽd bought Wulfgýð from Ælfríc
Ælfríce Æðelstánes su[na] the son of Æðelstán the son of
Æðelminges, on Winemines gewitnisse Æðelm, by witness of Winemine the
eald-portgeréfan, and on Godríces old portreeve, and of Godríc his
his suna, and on Ælfwines Mannan son, and Ælfwine Manna’s son, and
suna, and on Leófríces cildes æt Leófríc the child at Hymed, and
Hymed, and on Ælfríces Ælfhelmes Ælfríc Ælfhelm’s son, the young:
sunu geóngan: and Brún bydel nam and Brún the beadle took the toll
ðæt toll on Ælfstánes gewitnisse by witness of Ælfstán the
mæssepreóstes and on Leófríces masspriest, of Leófríc Winemine’s
Winemines suna, and on má l[ǽweda ⁊ son and more persons both lay and
gehádodra.] ordained.—_Cod. Dipl._ No. 1353.

These examples, so numerous and varied, supply a very clear view of the
mode of emancipation, and its objects, in the Anglosaxon time. It is to
be regretted that we have not more of them, and from other places: but
still, as it is probable that the system adopted by the clergy prevailed
throughout England, these may serve as a very satisfactory specimen of
the usual course on these occasions,—both as to the form of manumission
and the method of providing for the emancipated serf.

APPENDIX D.

ORCY'S GUILD AT ABBOTSBURY.

(_From the Cod. Dipl. No. 942._)

“This writing witnesseth that Orcy hath granted the guildhall at
Abbotsbury and the site thereof, to the honour of God and St. Peter, and
for a property to the guild, both during his life and after his life,
for a long lasting commemoration of himself and his consort. Let him
that would set it aside, answer it to God in the great day of judgment!

“Now these are the covenants which Orcy and the guildsmen of Abbotsbury
have ordained, to the honour of God, the worship of St. Peter, and the
hele of their own souls. Firstly; three days before St. Peter’s mass,
from each guildbrother one penny, or one pennyworth of wax,—look which
the minster most needeth; and on the mass eve, from every two
guildbrothers one broad loaf, well sifted and well raised, towards our
common alms; and five weeks before Peter’s mass, let each guildbrother
contribute one guildsester full of clean wheat, and let this be paid
within two days, on forfeiture of the entrance, which is three sesters
of wheat. And let the wood be paid within three days after the
corn-contribution, from every full guildbrother one load of wood, and
from those who are not full brothers, two; or let him pay one
guildsester of corn. And let him that undertaketh a charge and
performeth it not accordingly, be mulcted in the amount of his entrance;
and be there no remission. And if one brother misgreet another within
the guild, in hostile temper, let him atone for it to all the fellowship
with the amount of his entrance, and after that to him whom he
misgreeted, as they two may arrange: and if he will not bend to
compensation, let him lose our fellowship and every other advantage of
the guild. And let him that introduceth more guests than he ought,
without leave of the steward and the caterers, forfeit his entrance. And
if any of our fellowship should pass away from us, let each brother
contribute a penny over the corpse for the soul’s hele or pay ...
brothers: and if any one of us should be afflicted with sickness within
sixty ... we are to find fifteen men who shall fetch him, and if he be
dead, thirty, and they shall bring him to the place which he desired to
go to, while he lived. And if he die in this present place, let the
steward have warning to what place the corpse is to go; and let the
steward warn the brethren, the greatest number that he can ride or send
to, that they shall come thither and worthily accompany the corpse and
bear it to the minster, and earnestly pray there for the soul. It is
rightly ordained a guildship if we do thus, and well fitting it is both
toward God and man: for we know not which of us shall first depart.

“Now we have faith through God’s assistance, that the aforesaid
ordinance, if we rightly maintain it, shall be to the benefit of us all.
Let us earnestly from the bottom of our hearts beseech Almighty God to
have mercy upon us, and also his holy apostle St. Peter to make
intercession for us, and take our way unto eternal rest, because for his
sake we have gathered this guild together: he hath the power in heaven
to admit into heaven whomso he will, and to exclude whomso he will not,
even as Christ himself spake unto him in his gospel: Peter, I give to
thee the keys of heaven, and whatsoever thou wilt have bound on earth,
the same shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou wilt have unbound
on earth, the same shall be unbound in heaven. Let us have hope and
trust in him, that he will guide us here in this world, and after death
be a help to our souls. May he bring us to eternal rest! Amen!”

THE GUILD AT EXETER.

“This assembly was collected in Exeter, for the love of God, and for our
soul’s need, both in regard to our health of life here, and to the after
days, which we desire for ourselves by God’s doom. Now we have agreed
that our meeting shall be thrice in the twelve months; once at St.
Michael’s Mass, secondly at St. Mary’s Mass, after midwinter, and
thirdly at Allhallows Mass after Easter; and let each gild-brother have
two sesters of malt, and each young man[860] one sester, and a sceat of
honey; and let the mass-priest at each of our meetings sing two masses,
one for our living friends, the other for the dead: and let each brother
of common condition sing two psalters of psalms, one for the living and
one for the dead; and at the death of a brother, each man six masses, or
six psalters of psalms; and at a death, each man five pence; and at a
houseburning each man one penny. And if any one neglect the day, for the
first time three masses, for the second five, and at the third time let
him have no favour, unless his neglect arose from sickness or his lord’s
need. And if any one neglect his subscription at the proper day let him
pay double. And if any one of this brotherhood misgreet another, let him
make boot with thirty pence. Now we pray for the love of God that every
man hold this meeting rightly, as we rightly have agreed upon it. God
help us thereunto.”

-----

Footnote 860:

The meaning of _cniht_ is not certain in this passage. It may imply a
servant, but I think it more likely that merely young freemen are
intended, who were not full citizens, and were therefore not reckoned
full gegyldan.

-----

THE GUILD AT CAMBRIDGE.

“In this writ is the notification of the agreement which this
brotherhood hath made in the thanes’ gild of Grantabrycg. That is first,
that each gave oath upon the relics to the rest, that he would hold true
brotherhood for God and for the world, and all the brotherhood to
support him that hath the best right. If any gild-brother die, all the
gildship is to bring him where he desired to lie; and let him that
cometh not thereto pay a sester of honey; and let the gildship inherit
of the dead half a farm, and each gild-brother contribute two pence to
the alms, and out of this sum let what is fitting be taken to St.
Æðelðrýð. And if any gild-brother have need of his fellows’ aid, and it
be made known to the reeve nearest the gild (unless the gild-brother
himself be nigh) and the reeve neglect it, let him pay one pound; if the
lord neglect it, let him pay a pound, unless he be on his lord’s need or
confined to his bed. And if any one steal from a gild-brother, let there
be no boot, but eight pounds. But if the outlaw neglect this boot, let
all the gildship avenge their comrade; and let all bear it, if one
misdo; let all bear alike. And if any gild-brother slay a man, and if he
be a compelled avenger and compensate for his insult, and the slain man
be a twelve-hundred man, let each gild-brother assist ... if the slain
be a ceorl, two ores; if he be a Welshman, one ore. But if the
gild-brother with folly and deceit slay a man, let him bear his own
deed; and if a comrade slay another comrade through his own folly, let
him bear his breach as regards the relatives of the slain; and let him
buy back his brotherhood in the gild with eight pounds, or lose for ever
our brotherhood and friendship. And if a gild-brother eat or drink with
him that slew his comrade, save in the presence of the king, the bishop
or the ealdorman, let him pay a pound, unless he can clear himself with
two of his dependents, of any knowledge of the fact. If any comrade
misgreet another, let him pay a sester of honey, except he can clear
himself with his two dependents. If a servant draw a weapon, let his
lord pay a pound, and recover what he can from the servant, and let all
the company aid him to recover his money. And if a servant wound
another, let the lord avenge it, and the company, so that seek what he
may seek, he shall not have his life. And if a servant sit within the
spence, let him pay a sester of honey, and if any one hath a footsitter
let him do the same. And if any gild-brother die or lie sick out of the
country, let his gild-brethren fetch him alive or dead, to the place
where he desired to lie, under the same penalty as we have before said,
in case of a comrade’s dying at home, and a gild-brother neglecting to
attend the corpse.”

-----------------------

The following document, which seems justly referable to the reign of
Eádgár, that is to the close of the tenth century, gives the regulations
under which the Hundred was constituted[861].

“This is the Ordinance how the Hundred shall be held.

“First that they meet every four weeks, and that each man do right to
other.

“That a thief be pursued, if necessary. If there be present need, let it
be told to the hundredman, and let him afterwards make it known to the
tithingmen, and let them all go forth whither God may direct them to
their end: let them do justice on the thief as it was formerly Eádmund’s
law. And be the _ceápgild_ paid to him that owns the chattel; and be the
rest divided in two, half to the hundred, half to the lord, except men;
and let the lord take possession of the men.

“And if any man neglect this, and deny the judgment of the hundred, and
the same be afterwards proved against him, let him pay to the hundred
thirty pence; and the second time, sixty pence; half to the hundred,
half to the lord. If he do it a third time, let him pay half a pound:
the fourth time, let him lose all that he hath, and be an outlaw, unless
the king will allow him to remain in the land.

“And we have ordained respecting unknown cattle, that no man should have
it without the witness of the hundredman or the tithingman; and that he
be a well trusty man; and unless he have one or other of these, let no
vouching to warranty be allowed him[862].

“We have also ordained, that, if the hundred pursue a track into another
hundred, notice be given to the hundredman, and that he then go with
them. If he neglect this, let him pay thirty shillings to the king.

“If any one flinch from justice and escape, let him that had him in
custody pay the _angild_. And if he be accused of having aided the
escape, let him clear himself according to the custom of the country.

“In the hundred as in every other _gemót_, we ordain that folkright be
pronounced in every suit, and that a term be appointed when it shall be
fulfilled. And if any one break that term, unless it be through the
lord’s decree, let him make amends with thirty shillings, and on a set
day fulfil that which he should have done before.

“An ox’s bell, and a dog’s collar, and a blast horn, each of these three
shall be worth a shilling, and each is reckoned _an informer_.

“Let the iron for the threefold ordeal weigh three pounds; and for the
single, one pound.”

-----

Footnote 861:

Thorpe, i. 258, etc.

Footnote 862:

Compare the further provisions of Eádgár’s law. Supp. 11. § 6, 7, 8,
9, 10, 11. Thorpe, i. 274, 276.

-----

APPENDIX E.
LǼNLAND.

The following documents throw light upon the nature of Lǽland, and the
conditions under which it was held. The first is a detailed account
given by Oswald, bishop of Worcester, to king Eádgár, of the plan which
he adopted in leasing the lands of his church: it is reprinted here from
the sixth volume of the Codex Diplomaticus, No. 1287. The second is a
statement of the way in which an estate of six ploughlands at Wouldham
in Kent became the property of the Cathedral at Rochester: it is No.
1288 in the same collection.

“Domino meo karissimo regi Anglorum Eadgaro, ego Osuualdus
Uuigornensis aecclesiae episcopus omnium quae mihi per ipsius
clementiam munerum tradita sunt, apud deum et apud homines gratias
ago. Igitur si dei misericordia suppeditet, coram deo et hominibus
perpetualiter ei fidelis permanebo, reminiscens cum gratiarum actione
largifluae benignitatis eius, quia per meos illud quod magnopere
expetebam mihi concessit internuntios, id est reverentissimum
Dunstanum archiepiscopum et venerandum Æðeluuoldum Uuintoniae
episcopum et virum magnificum Brihtnoðum comitem, quorum legatione et
adiutorio meam et sanctae dei aecclesiae querelam suscepit, et
secundum consilium sapientum et principum suorum iuste emendavit, ad
sustentamen aecclesiae quam mihi benigne et libens regendam commisit.
Quare quo modo fidos mihi subditos telluribus quae meae traditae sunt
potestati per spatium temporis trium hominum, id est duorum post se
haeredum, condonarem, placuit tam mihi quam ipsis fautoribus et
consiliariis meis, cum ipsius domini mei regis licentia et
attestatione, ut fratribus meis successoribus, scilicet episcopis, per
cyrographi cautionem apertius enuclearem, ut sciant quid ab eis
extorquere iuste debeant secundum conventionem cum eis factam et
sponsionem suam; unde et hanc epistolam ob cautelae causam componere
studui, ne quis malignae cupiditatis instinctu hoc sequenti tempore
mutare volens, abiurare a servitio aecclesiae queat. Haec itaque
conventio cum eis facta est, ipso domino meo rege annuente, et sua
attestatione munificentiae suae largitatem roborante et confirmante,
omnibusque ipsius regiminis sapientibus et principibus attestantibus
et consentientibus. Hoc pacto eis terras sanctae aecclesiae sub me
tenere concessi, hoc est ut omnis equitandi lex ab eis impleatur quae
ad equites pertinet; et ut pleniter persolvant omnia quae ad ius
ipsius aecclesiae iuste competunt, scilicet ea quae Anglice dicuntur
ciricsceott et toll id est theloneum et tace, id est swinsceade, et
caetera iura aecclesiae, nisi episcopus quid alicui eorum perdonare
voluerit; seseque quamdiu ipsius terras tenent in mandatis pontificis
humiliter cum omni subiectione perseverare etiam iureiurando
affirment. Super haec etiam ad omnis industriae episcopi indigentiam
semetipsos praesto impendant; equos praestent; ipsi equitent; et ad
totum piramiticum opus aecclesiae calcis atque ad pontis aedificium
ultro inveniantur parati; sed et venationis sepem domini episcopi
ultronei ad aedificandum repperiantur, suaque quandocumque domino
episcopo libuerit venabula destinent venatum; insuper ad multas alias
indigentiae causas quibus opus est domino antistiti sepe frunisci,
sive ad suum servitium sive ad regale explendum, semper illius
archiductoris dominatui et voluntati qui episcopatui praesidet,
propter beneficium quod illis praestitum est, cum omni humilitate et
subiectione subditi fiant, secundum ipsius voluntatem et terrarum quas
quisque possidet quantitatem. Decurso autem praefati temporis
curriculo, videlicet duorum post eos qui eas modo possident haeredum
vitae spatio, in ipsius antistitis sit arbitrio quid inde velit, et
quomodo sui vello sit inde ita stet, sive ad suum opus eas retinere,
si sic sibi utile iudicaverit, sive eas alicui diutius praestare, si
sic sibi placuerit velit; ita dumtaxat ut semper aecclesiae servitia
pleniter ut praefati sumus inde persolvantur. Ast si quid praefatorum
delicti praevaricantis causa defuerit iurum, praevaricationis delictum
secundum quod praesulis ius est emendet, aut illo quod antea potitus
est dono et terra careat. Si quis vero, diabolo instigante, quod
minime optamus, extiterit, qui per nostrum beneficium aecclesiam dei
fraude, seu in sua possessione aut servitio debito privare
temptaverit, ipse nostra omnique benedictione dei et sanctorum eius
privetur, nisi profundissima emendatione illud corrigere studeat et ad
pristinum statum quod defraudavit redigat, scriptum est enim ‘Raptores
et sacrilegi regnum dei non consequentur.’ Nunc autem propter deum et
sanctam Mariam, in cuius nomine hoc monasterium dicatum est, moneo et
praecipio, ut nullo modo quis hoc praevaricare audeat, sed sicut a
nobis statutum est, ut praefati sumus, perpetualiter maneat. Qui
custodierit omni benedictione repleatur; qui vero infringerit,
maledicetur a domino et ab omnibus sanctis, Amen. Gratanter,
reverentissime domine, quo tantis tuae donis clementiae, secundum quod
totius creatoris cosmi est velle, praeditus sum, meae operam
voluntatis, ut pro te tuisque deum iugiter interpellem, devotus
impendam, meosque successores ad hoc hortari studebo, ut domini
misericordiam pro te deprecari non desinant, ut Christus pace qui
perhenni regnat ethrali in arce te consortio dignum haberi dignetur
sanctorum omnium in aula coelesti. Valeat in aevum qui hoc studuerit
servare decretum. Harum textus epistolarum tres sunt ad
praetitulationem et ad signum, una in ipsa civitate quae vocatur
Uuigraceaster, altera cum venerabili Dunstano archiepiscopo in
Cantuaria, tertia cum Æðeluuoldo episcopo in Uuintonia civitate.”

-----------------------

“Æðelbryht cinc hit gebócode ðám “King Æðelberht granted it by his
apostole on éce yrfe and betǽhte charter for ever to the apostle,
hit ðám biscope Eárdulfe tó and gave it in charge to bishop
bewitenne and his æftergæncan. Ðá Eardwulf and his successors.
betweonan ðám wearð hit úte, and However in process of time it
hæfdon hit cynegas oð Eádmund became alienated, and the kings
cinc; ðá gebohte hit Ælfstán had it down to Eádmund; then
Heáhstáninc Ðá for ðǽre Ælfstán son of Heáhstán bought it
bróðorsibbe geúðe he him Eárhiðes of the king for a hundred and
and Crǽgan and Ænesfordes and twenty mancuses of gold and thirty
Wuldahámes his dæg. Ðá oferbád pounds, and Ælfheáh his son gave
Ælfeh ðæne bróðor and feng tó his him nearly all the money. After
lǽne: ðá hæfde Ælfríc suna Eádríc king Eádmund, king Eádred booked
hátte and Ælfeh nǽnne. Ðá geúðe it to Ælfstán as an inheritance
Ælfeh ðám Eádríce Eárhiðes and for ever: now after Ælfstán’s day,
Crǽgan and Wuldahámes, and hæfde Ælfheáh his son was his heir, and
himsylf Ænesford. Ðá gewát Eádríc that he proved with a whole
ǽr Ælfeh cwídeleás, and ₮520.25 tongue, and deprived Ælfríc his
Ælféh Ælfeh₮ feng tó his lǽne. Ðá brother both of land and chattels,
hæfde Eádríc láfe and nán beárn; but what he might deserve at his
ðá geúðe Ælfeh hire hire hands. Now for brotherly love he
morgengife æt Crǽgan; and stód granted him Erith, Cray, Ænesford,
Eárhið and Wuldahám and Lytlanbróc and Wouldham, for his life. Then
on his lǽne. Ðá him eft geðúhte, Ælfheáh survived his brother, and
ðá nám he his feorme on Wuldahám re-entered on his lǽn: but Ælfríc
and on ðám óðran wolde, ac hine had a son called Eádríc, and
geyflade, and he ðá sænde tó ðám Ælfheáh had none. Then Ælfheáh
arcebiscope Dúnstáne, and he cóm granted to Eádríc Erith, Cray, and
tó Scylfe tó him: and he cwæð his Wouldham, and kept Ænesford for
cwide beforan him, and he sætte himself. Now Eádríc died before
ǽnne cwide tó Cristes cyrican, and Ælfheáh without making a will, and
óðerne tó sancte Andrea, and ðane Ælfheáh re-entered on his lǽn.
þriddan sealde his láfe. Ðá bræc Eádríc had a widow but no child;
sýððan Leófsunu þurh ðæt wíf ðe he then Ælfheáh granted her her
nám, Eádríces láfe, ðæne cwide, _morning-gift_, at Cray; and
and herewade ðæs arcebiscopes Erith, Wouldham and Littlebrook
gewitnesse, rád ða innon ða land stood on his lǽn. When he
mid ðám wífe bútan witena dóme. Ðá bethought him, he took his feorm
man ðæt ðám biscope cíðde, ðá at Wouldham, and meant so to
gelǽdde se biscop áhnunga ealles do at the other places, but he
Ælféhes cwides tó Eárhiðe, on fell ill, and sent to archbishop
gewitnesse Ælfstánes biscopes on Dúnstán, and he came to him at
Lundene, and ealles ðæs hiredes, Scylf: and Ælfheáh declared his
and ðæs æt Cristes cyrican, and will before him, and he deposited
ðæs biscopes Ælfstánes an one will at Christchurch, another
Hrofesceastre, and Wulfsies at St. Andrews, and the third copy
preóstes ðæs scírigmannes, and he gave his widow. But afterwards
Bryhtwaldes on Mǽreweorðe, and Leofsunu broke through the will,
ealra Eást Cantwarena and West through the wife he married,
Cantwarena. And hit wæs gecnǽwe on namely Eádríc’s widow, and set at
Súð-Seáxan and on West-Seáxan and nought the archbishop’s testimony,
on Middel-Seáxan and on and rode in upon the land with the
Est-Seáxan, ðæt se arcebiscop mid woman, without any judgment of the
hisselfes áðe geáhnode Gode and witan. Now when this was reported
sancte Andrea mid ðam bócan on to the bishop, he took all the
Cristes hróde, ða land ðe Leófsunu claims of ownership under
him tóteáh. And ðæne áð nám Ælfheáh’s will, to Erith, in
Wulfsige se scírigman, ðá he nolde witness of Ælfstán bishop of
tó ðæs cinges handa: and ðǽre wæs London, and all the convent, and
God eáca ten hundan mannan ðe ðane that at Christchurch, and Ælfstán
áð sealdan. bishop of Rochester, and Wulfsige
_Rubric._ Ðús wǽron ða the priest who was sheriff, and
seox sulung æt Wuldahám sancte Bryhtwald of Mereworth, and all
Andrea geseald intó the men of East Kent and of West
Hrofesceastre.” Kent. And it was well known in
Sussex and Wessex, and Middlesex
and Essex, that the archbishop
with his own oath upon the cross
of Christ, recovered the land
which Leofsunu had invaded,
together with the books, for God
and St. Andrew. And Wulfsige the
sheriff received the oath, since
he would not go to the king’s
hand: and there was a good
addition of a thousand men who
gave the oath.
_Rubric._ Thus were the six
ploughlands at Wouldham given to
St. Andrew at Rochester.”

APPENDIX F.
HEATHENDOM.

The following passages of the Anglosaxon Laws contain general enactments
against heathen practices, or references to heathen superstitions.

“Gif ceorl búton wífes wísdóme deóflum gelde, he sie ealra his ǽhta
scyldig, and healsfange. Gif butwu deóflum geldað, síon héo healsfange
scyldigo, ⁊ ealra ǽhta.”—_Ll. Wihtr._ § 12. _Thorpe_, i. 40.

“Gif þeów deóflum geldað .vi. scill. gebéte, oððe his hýd.”—_Ll. Wihtr._
§ 13. _Thorpe_, i. 40.

“Gif hwá Cristendóm wýrde, oððe hǽðendóm weorðige, wordes oððe weorces,
gylde swá wer swá wíte, swá lahslite, be ðám ðe seó dǽd sý.”—_Eádw.
Gúð._ § 2. _Thorpe_, i. 168.

“Gif wiccan oððe wigleras, mánsworan oððe morðwyrhtan, oððe fúle,
áfýlede ǽbære horcwenan áhwar on lande wurðan ágytene, ðonne fýsie hí
man of earde ⁊ clǽnsie ða þeóde, oððe on earde forfare hý mid ealle,
búton hí geswícan ⁊ ðe deóppor gebétan.”—_Eádw. Gúð._ § 11. _Thorpe_, i.
172.

“Ond we cwǽdon be ðǽm wiccecræftum, ⁊ be liblácum, ⁊ be morðdǽdum, gif
man ðǽr ácweald wǽre, ⁊ he his ætsacan ne milite, ðæt he beó his feores
scyldig.”—_Æðelst._ i. § 6. _Thorpe_, i. 202.

“Ðá ðe mánsweriað ⁊ lyblác wyrcað, sýn hí á fram ǽlcum Godes dǽle
áworpene, búton hý tó rihtre dǽdbóte gecyrran.”—_Eádm._ i. § 6.
_Thorpe_, i. 246.

“And gif wiccan oððe wigleras, scíncræftigan oððe horcwenan, morðwyrhtan
oððe mánsworan áhwar on earde wurðan átigene, fýse hí man georne út of
ðysan earde, ⁊ clǽnsige ðás þeóde, oððe on earde forfare hí mid ealle,
bútan hí geswícan ⁊ ðe deóppor gebétan.”—_Æðelr._ vi. § 7. _Thorpe_, i.
316. _Cnut_, ii. § 4. _Thorpe_, i. 378.

“And we forbeódað eornostlíce ǽlcne hǽðenscipe. Hǽðenscipe bið ðæt man
idola weorðige, ðæt is ðæt man weorðige hǽðene godas ⁊ sunnan oððe
mónan, fýr oððe flód, wæterwyllas oððe stánas, oððe ǽniges cynnes
wudutreówa, oððe wiccecræft lufige, oððe morðwerc gefremme, on ǽnige
wisan, oððe on blóte, oððe on fyrbte, oððe on swylcra gedwimera ǽnig
þing dreóge.”—_Cnut_, ii. § 5. _Thorpe_, i. 378.

“Si quis veneno, vel sortilegio, vel invultuacione, seu maleficio
aliquo, faciat homicidium, sive illi paratum sit, sive alii, nihil
refert, quin factum mortiferum et nullo modo redimendum sit.”—_Ll. Hen.
I._ lxxi. § 1.

-----------------------

The well- and tree-worship noticed in these laws continued to be
retained, though in a somewhat altered form, until a very late period;
and especially it was usual to perform religious ceremonies at the
salt-springs, spots always looked upon as holy[863].

-----

Footnote 863:

Thoms, Anecd. and Traditions, p. 93. The holy character of the
salt-springs is noticed by Tacitus.

-----

The confessional however was more likely to be in the secret of the
popular heathendom than the civil legislator. Accordingly the
Poenitentials supply us with a variety of information upon this subject.
The Poenitential of Theodore has a long chapter devoted to the heathen
practices of communicants, and their appropriate penances.

“xxvii. De Idolatria et Sacrilegio, et qui Angelos colunt, et maleficos,
Ariolos, Veneficos, Sortilegos, Divinos, et vota reddentes nisi ad
aecclesiam Dei, et in Kalendas Januarii in cervulo et in vitula vadit,
et Mathematicos, et Emissores tempestatum.”

The points principally noted here are, sacrificing to dæmons, that is,
the ancient gods; eating and drinking near heathen temples, _fana_, in
honour of the god of the place; or eating what has been sacrificed to
dæmons; or celebrating festal meals in the abominable places of the
heathen[864]; seeking auguries by the flight of birds, making
philacteries or philtres. Other forms may be gathered from the following
heads:—

Si quis maleficio suo aliquem perdiderit vii. annos poeniteat. Si quis
pro amore veneficus sit et neminem perdiderit, etc. Si autem per hoc
mulieris partum quis deceperit, etc. Si quis ariolos quaerit, quos
divinos vocant, vel aliquas divinationes fecerit, quia et hoc
daemoniacum est, etc. Si quis sortes habuerit, quas Sanctorum contra
rationem vocant, vel aliquas sortes habuerit, vel qualicunque malo
ingenio sortitus fuerit, vel divinaverit, etc. Si qua mulier
divinationes vel incantationes diabolicas fecerit, etc. Si qua mulier
filium suum vel filiam super tectum pro sanitate posuerit, vel in
fornace, etc. Qui grana arserit ubi mortuus est homo, pro sanitate
viventium et domus, etc. Si quis, pro sanitate filioli, per foramen
terrae exierit, illudque spinis post se concludit, etc. Si quis ad
arbores, vel ad fontes, vel ad lapides, sive ad cancellos, vel
ubicunque, excepto in aecclesia Dei, votum voverit aut exsolverit, etc.,
et hoc sacrilegium est vel daemoniacum. Qui vero ibidem ederit aut
biberit, etc. Si quis in Kalendas Januarii in cervulo aut vetula vadit,
id est, in ferarum habitus se communicant[865], et vestiuntur pellibus
pecudum, et assumunt capita bestiarum; qui vero taliter in ferinas
species se transformant, etc., quia hoc daemoniacum est. Si quis
mathematicus est, id est, per invocationem daemonum hominis mentem
converterit, etc. Si quis emissor tempestatis fuerit, id est, maleficus,
etc. Si quis ligaturas fecerit, quod detestabile est, etc. Qui auguria
vel divinationes in consuetudine habuerit, etc. Qui observat divinos,
vel praecantatores, philacteria etiam diabolica, et somnia vel herbas,
aut quintam feriam honore Jovis, vel Kalendas Januarii, more paganorum,
honorat, etc. Qui student exercere quando luna obscuratur, ut clamoribus
suis ac maleficiis sacrilego usu eam defendere confidunt, etc. Qui in
honore lunae pro aliqua sanitate ieiunat, etc.

-----

Footnote 864:

Refer to Gregory’s letter, cited at p. 332 of this volume.

Footnote 865:

Probably “commutant.”

-----

Other fragments of Theodore contain this additional provision:—

“Qui nocturna sacrificia daemonum celebraverint, vel incantationibus
daemones invocaverint, capite puniantur.”

Archbishop Ecgberht has further details: he says[866]:—

“Si quis daemonibus exigui quid immolaverit, annum unum iciunet.
Quicunque cibum daemonibus immolatum comederit, etc. Quicunque grana
combusserit in loco ubi mortuus est homo, pro sanitate viventium et
domus, etc. Si mulier filiam suam super domum, vel in foornace posuerit,
eo quod eam a febri sanare velit,” etc.

The Saxon version in the MS. at Brussels, applies this to other illness
besides fever: “Gif hwylc wíf seteð hire bearn ofer hróf oððe on ofen,
for hwylcere untrymðe hǽlo .vii. gear fæste.”

The same prelate in his Poenitential ordains[867]:—

“Gif ǽnig man óðerne mid wiccecræfte fordó, fæste .vii. gear,” etc.

“Gif hwá drífe stacan on ǽnigne man, fæste .iii. gear, and gif se man
for ðǽre stacunge deád bið, ðonne fæste he .vii. gear, ealswá hit hér
búfpon áwriten is[868].”

-----

Footnote 866:

Confessionale, 32, 33; see also his Poenitentiale, ii. 22, 23. Thorpe,
ii. 157, 190.

Footnote 867:

Poenit., iv. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20. Thorpe, ii. 208, 210.

Footnote 868:

This is repeated in the same words in the collection called Canons
enacted under king Eádgár, in that portion entitled “Modus imponendi
poenitentiam.” But as Dr. Kunstman, an authority of the highest
character on this point, informs me, these Canons are founded upon and
contain portions of the very ancient Poenitential of Cummianus; and we
may suppose Ecgberht to have adopted these passages from him.

-----

This “stacan drífan” or “stacung” is the _invultuatio_ which has been
explained in the text, and of which an example has been given from a
charter of Eádgár. Mr. Thorpe’s explanation of Stacung is as follows:—

“_Stácung_, a sticking. The practice of sticking pins or needles into a
waxen image of the person against whom the witchcraft was directed,
consisted probably at first in sticking them actually into the body of
the individual, ‘gif hwá drífe stácan on ǽnigne man;’ but as this
process was no doubt sometimes attended with inconvenience and danger to
the operator, the easier and safer method was devised of substituting a
waxen proxy, instead of the true man. This practice was known under the
name of _defixio_, ‘quod eiusmodi incantores acus subinde _defigerent_
in imagines cereas, iis locis quibus viros ipsos pungere decreverant,
qui puncturas ipsas, ac si ipsi pungerentur persentiebant.’ Du Cange. To
it Ovid alludes:

‘Devovit absentes, simulacraque cerea fingit,
Et miserum tenues in iecur urget acus.’”

Ecgberht thus continues respecting philtres and other magical
practices:—

“Gif hwá wiccige ymbe ǽniges mannes lufe, ⁊ him on æte sylle oððe on
drince, oððe on ǽniges cynnes gealdorcræftum, ðæt hyra lufu forðon ðe
máre beón scyle,” etc.[869]

“Gif hwá hlytas oððe hwatunga begá, oððe his wæccan æt ǽnigum wylle
hæbbe, oððe æt ǽnigre óðre gesceafte bútan æt Godes cyricean, fæste he
.iii. gear,” etc.

“Wífman beó ðæs ylcan wyrðe, gif heó tilað hire cilde mid ǽnigum
wiccecræfte, oððe æt wega gelǽton ðurh ða eorðan tihð: eala ðæt is
mycel hǽðenscipe.”

-----

Footnote 869:

Repeated in nearly the same words in the ‘Modus imponendi
poenitentiam,’ § 39. Thorpe, ii, 274.

-----

The Canons enacted under Eádgár give the following full details of
popular heathendom[870]:—

“And we enjoin, that every priest zealously promote Christianity, and
totally extinguish every heathenism; and forbid well-worshippings, and
necromancies, and divinations, and enchantments, and man-worshippings,
and the vain practices which are carried on with various spells, and
with ‘frithsplots,’ and with elders, and also with various other trees,
and with stones, and with many various delusions, with which men do much
of what they should not.”

-----

Footnote 870:

Thorpe, ii. 249. “And we lærað ðæt preosta gehwilc cristendóm
geornlíce árære, ⁊ ælcne hæðendóm mid ealle ádwǽsce, ⁊ forbeóde
wilweorðunga ⁊ lícwiglunga ⁊ hwata ⁊ galdra ⁊ manweorðunga ⁊ ða
gemearh ðe man drífð on mislícum gewiglungum, ⁊ on fríðsplottum, ⁊ on
ellenum, ⁊ eác on óðrum mislícum treówum, ⁊ on stánum, ⁊ on manegum
mislícum gedwimerum ðe mon ondreógað fela ðæs ðe hi ná ne scoldon.”

A various reading adds:—“treówwurðunga ⁊ stánwurðunga ⁊ ðone deófles
cræft ðǽr man ða cild þurh ða eorðan tihð, ⁊ ða gemear ðe man drihð on
geares niht:”—“tree-worshippings and stone-worshippings, and that
devil’s craft, whereby children are drawn through the earth, and the
vain practices which are carried on on the night of the year.” The
_fríðsplot_ was a patch or plot of ground sanctified, _gefríðod_, by
some heathen ceremony, a kind of _Taboo_.

-----

Many of these heathen practices still continue to subsist, at least in
the memory and traditions of the peasantry in remote parts of England.
Devonshire, for example, still offers an unexhausted field for the
collector both of popular superstitions and popular tales, counterparts
of which are current in Germany. The Anglosaxon herbals[871] furnish
various evidences of heathendom connected with plants, but I pass over
these in order to give one or two detailed Saxon spells, which are of
the utmost value, as bearing unmistakeable marks of Anglosaxon paganism.
The following spells are taken from a MS. in the Harleian collection,
No. 585.

1. “Wið Cyrnel. Neogone wǽran Noðþæs sweoster, þá wurdon ða nygone tó
viii. ⁊ þa viii. tó vii. ⁊ þa vii. tó vi. ⁊ þa vi. tó v. ⁊ þa v. tó
iiii. ⁊ þa iiii. tó iii. ⁊ þa iii. tó ii. ⁊ þa ii. tó i. ⁊ þa i. tó
nánum. þis þe libbe cyrnneles ⁊ scrofellef ⁊ weormeþ ⁊ ǽghwylces yfeles.
Sing benedicite nygon síþum[872].”

2. “Se wífman se hire cild áfédan ne mǽg, gange tó gewitenes mannes
birgenne ⁊ stæppe ðonne þriwa ofer ða byrgenne, ⁊ cweðe ðonne þriwa ðás
word: Ðis me tó bóte ðǽre láðan lætbyrde: Ðis me tó bóte ðǽre swæran
swært byrde: Ðis me tó bóte ðǽre láðan lambyrde. And ðonne ðæt wíf seó
mid bearne, ⁊ heó to hire hláforde on reste gá, ðonne cweðe heó:

“Up ic gonge,
ofer ðe stæppe,
mid cwican cilde,
nalæs mid cwellendum,
mid fulborenum,
nalæs mid fǽgan.”

And ðonne seó moder geféle ðæt ðæt bearn sí cwic, gá ðonne tó cyrican, ⁊
ðonne heó tóforan ðán weofode cume, cweðe ðonne:

“Criste ic sǽde
ðis gecýðed.”

3. “Se wífman se hyre bearn áfédan ne mæge, genime heó sylf hyre ágenes
cildes gebyrgenne dǽl, þrý æfter ðon on bláce wulle, ⁊ bebicge tó
cépemannum, ⁊ cweðe ðonne:

“Ic hit bebicge
ge hit bebicgan,
ðás sweartan wulle
and ðisse sorge corn.”

4. “Se [wíf]man se ðe [ne] mæge bearn áfédan, nime ðonne ánes bleós cú
meoluc on hyre handæ, ⁊ gesúpe ðonne mid hyre múðe, ⁊ gange ðonne tó
yrnendum wætere, ⁊ spíwe ðǽr in ða meolc, ⁊ hláde ðonne mid ðǽre ylcan
hand ðæs wæteres múð fulne ⁊ forswelge. Cweðe ðonne ðás word: Gehwér
ferde ic me ðone mǽran maga þihtan, mid ðysse mǽran mete þihtan, ðonne
ic me wille habban ⁊ hám gán. Ðonne heó to ðán bróce gá, ðonne né beseó
heó nó, né eft ðonne heó ðanan gá, ⁊ ðonne gá heó in óðer hús óðer heó
út ofeóde, ⁊ ðǽr gebyrge metes[873].”

5. “Wið hors oman ⁊ mannes, sing ðis þriwa nygan síðan on æfen ⁊ on
morgen, on ðæs mannes heáfod úfan, ⁊ horse on ðæt wynstre eáre, on
yrnendum wætere, ⁊ wend ðæt heáfod ongean streám. In domo mamosin in
chorna meoti. otimimeoti. quod dealde otuuotiua el marethin. Crux mihi
vita. ē. tibi mors inimici. alfa et o initium et finis, dicit
dominus[874].”

6. “Wið oman. Genim áne gréne gyrde, ⁊ læt sittan ðone man on middan
húses flóre, ⁊ bestric hine ymbútan, ⁊ cweð: O pars et o rilli A pars et
pars iniopia. ē. alfa et o. īitium[875].”

7. “Gif wænnas eglian mæn æt ðǽre heortan, gange mǽden man tó wylle ðe
riht eást yrne, ⁊ gehlade áne cuppan fulle forð mid ðám streáme, ⁊ singe
ðǽron Credan ⁊ Paternoster, ⁊ geóte ðonne on óðer fæt, ⁊ hlade eft óðre,
⁊ singe eft Credan ⁊ Paternoster, ⁊ dó swá ðæt ðú hæbbe þreo. Do swá
nygon dagas: sona him bið sel[876].”

8. “Wið færstice, Feferfuige, and seó reáde netele, ðe ðurh ærn inwyxð,
and wegbrǽde: wylle in buteran.

“Hlúde wǽron hy lá hlúde
ðá hy ofer ðone hlæw ridan;
wǽron anmóde, ðá hy
ofer land ridan.
Scyld ðú ðe nú, ðú ðisne níð
genesan móte.
Ut lytel spere,
gif her inne síe!
Stód under linde,
under leóhtum scylde,
ðǽr ða mihtigan wíf
hyra mægen berǽddon,
and hy gyllende
gáras sændan:
ic him óðerne
eft wille sændan,
fleógende fláne
forane tógeanes.
Ut lytel spere,
gif hit her inne sý!
Sæt smið, slóh seax lytel,
íserna wund swíðe.
Ut lytel spere,
gif her inne sý!
Syx smiðas sǽtan,
wælspera worhtan;
út spere, nǽs in spere,
gif her inne sý
ísenes dǽl,
hægtessan geweorc,
hit sceal gemyltan:
gif ðú wǽre on fell scoten,
oððe wǽre on flǽsc scoten,
oððe wǽre on blód scoten,
oððe wǽre on lið scoten,
næfre ne sý ðín lif átǽsed;
gif hit wǽre ésa gescot,
oððe hit wǽre ylfa gescot,
oððe hit wǽre hægtessan gescot;
nú ic wille ðín helpan!
Ðis ðe tó bóte ésa gescotes,
ðis ðe tó bóte ylfa gescotes,
ðis ðe tó bóte hægtessan gescotes!
Ic ðín wille helpan.
Fled Þr̃ on fyrgen!
heáfde hálwes tú!
Helpe ðín drihten!
Nim ðonne ðæt seax, ádó on wætan[877].”

9. “Her[878] is seó bót, hú ðú meaht ðíne æceras bétan, gif hí nellað
wel wexan, oððe ðǽr hwilc ungedéfe þing ongedón bið, on drý oððe on
libláce.

“Genim ðonne on niht, ǽr hyt dagige, feower tyrf on feower healfa ðæs
landes, and gemearca hú hí ǽr stódon. Nim ðonne ele and hunig and
beorman, and ǽlces feos meolc, ðe on ðǽm lande sí, and ǽlces treówcynnes
dǽl, ðe on ðǽm lande sí gewexen, bútan heardan beáman, and ǽlcre
namcúðre wyrte dǽl, bútan glappan ánon: and dó ðonne hálig wæter ðǽron,
and drype ðonne þriwa on ðone staðol ðára turfa, and cweðe ðonne ðás
word: _Crescite_, wexe, _et multiplicamini_, and gemænigfealda, _et
replete_, and gefylle, _terre_, ðás eorðan, _in nomine patris et filii
et spiritus sancti, sit benedicti_; and _pater noster_, swá oft swá ðæt
óðer; and bere siððan ða turf tó cyrcean, and mæsse preost ásinge feower
mæssan ofer ðán turfon, and wende man ðæt gréne tó ðám weofode; and
siððan gebringe man ða turf ðǽr hí ǽr wǽron, ǽr sunnan setlgange; and
hæbbe him geworht of cwicbeáme feower Cristes mǽo, and áwríte on ǽlcon
ende _Mattheus_ and _Marcus_, _Lucas_ and _Johannes_. Lege ðæt Cristes
mǽl on ðone pyt neoðeweardne; cweðe ðonne: _Crux Mattheus_, _Crux
Marcus_, _Crux Lucas_, _Crux Sc’s Johannes_. Nim ðonne ða turf and sette
ðǽr ufon on, and cweðe ðonne nigon síðon ðás word, _Crescite_, and swá
oft, _Pater noster_; and wende ðe ðonne eástweard, and onlút nigon síðon
eádmódlíce, and cweð ðonne ðás word:

“eástweard ic stande,
árena ic me bidde:
bidde ic ðone mǽran dñe,
bidde ðone miclan drihten,
bidde ic ðone háligan
heofonríces weard:
eorðan ic bidde
and up heofon,
and ðá sóðan
sancta Marian,
and heofones meaht
and heáh reced,
ðæt ic móte ðis gealdor,
mid gife drihtnes,
tóðum ontýnan,
ðurh trumne geþanc,
áweccan ðás wæstmas ús
tó woruld nytte,
gefylle ðás foldan
mid fæste geleáfan,
wlitigigan ðás wancg turf;
swá se wítega cwæð,
ðæt se hæfde áre on eoðrice
se ðe ælmyssan
dǽlde dómlíce,
drihtnes þances.

“Wende ðe ðonne þriwa sunganges, ástrecce [ðe] ðonne on andlang, and
árim ðǽr _Letanias_, and cweð ðonne, _Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus_, oð
ende. Sing ðonne _Benedicite_ áþenedon earmon, and _Magnificat_, and
_Pater noster_ iii, and bebeód hit Criste and sancta Marian, and ðære
hálgan róde, tó lofe and tó weorðinga, and ðám [tó] áre ðe ðæt land áge,
and eallon ðám ðe him under-þeódde synt.

“Ðonne ðæt eall síe gedón, ðonne nime man uncúð sǽd æt ælmesmannum, and
selle him twa swyle swylce man æt him nime and gegaderie ealle his
sulhgeteógo tógædere: borige ðonne on ðám beáme stór and finol and
gehálgode sápan, and gehálgod sealt. Nim ðonne ðæt sǽd, sete on ðæs
sules bodig. Cweð ðonne:

“Erce, Erce, Erce,
eorðan módor,
geunne ðe se alwealda
éce drihten,
æcera wexendra
and wridendra
eácniendra
and elniendra:
sceafta hen
se scíre wæstma,
and ðǽre brádan
bere wæstma,
and ðǽre hwítan
hwǽte wæstma,
and ealra
eorðan wæstma,
Geunne him
éce drihten,
and his hálige ðe
on heofenum sint,
ðæt ðis yrð sí gefriðod wið ealra
feónda gehwǽne,
and heó sí geborgen wið ealra
bealwa gehwylc,
ðára lybláca
geond land sáwen.
Nú ic bidde ðone waldend
se ðe ðás weoruld gesceóp,
ðæt ne sí nán tó ðæs cwidol wíf,
né tó ðæs cræftig man,
ðæt áwendan ne mæge
worud ðús gecwedene.

“Ðonne man ða sulh forð drífe and ða forman furh onsceóte, cweð ðonne:

“Hál wes ðú, Folde,
fira módor!
beó ðú grówende
on Godes fæðme,
fódre gefylled,
firum tó nytte!

“Nim ðonne ǽlces cynnes melo, and ábacæ man innewerdne handa brádne
hláf, and gecned hine mid meolce and mid háligwætere, and lecge under ða
forman furh. Cweðe ðonne:

“Ful æcer fódres
fira cinne
beorht blówende,
ðú geblétsod weorð
ðtæs háligan noman
ðe ðás heofon gesceóp,
and ðás eorðan
ðe we on lifiað.
Se god se ðás grundas geworhte,
geunne ús grówende gife,
ðæt ús corna gehwylc
cume tó nytte.

“Cweð ðonne þriwa _Crescite in nomine Patris sit benedicti. Amen_: and
_Pater noster_ þriwa.”

-----

Footnote 871:

Edited by the Rev. T. O. Cockayne for the Master of the Rolls’ Series,
1864-1866, under the title of “Leechdoms, Wortcunning and Starcraft of
Early England.”

Footnote 872:

Fol. 193.

Footnote 873:

MS. Harl. 585. fol. 196. 196 b.

Footnote 874:

MS. Harl. No. 585. fol. 197.

Footnote 875:

Ibid. fol. 197.

Footnote 876:

Ibid. fol. 200.

Footnote 877:

MS. Harl., No. 585, fol. 186.

Footnote 878:

MS. Cott., Caligula, A. vii., fol. 171_a_; Cockayne, i. 398.

-----

The greater number of these pieces will be found printed very carefully
from the MSS., and translated into English, in the Rev. O. Cockayne’s
_Leechdoms_.

END OF THE FIRST VOLUME.

Printed by Taylor and Francis, Red Lion Court, Fleet Street.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Transcriber’s Note

A large analytical table spanning pp. 106-107 has been split into
multiple tables, and the first column (containing county names) repeated
in each. It has also been moved to fall on a paragraph break.

On two occasions (‘downfal’ and ‘recal’), a second ‘l’ has been added,
though it’s possible that each was spelled with an obsolete variant.

Errors deemed most likely to be the printer’s have been corrected, and
are noted here. The references are to the page and line in the original,
not counting any embedded tables. Where a third reference is employed,
the reference is to the line within the designated footnote (e.g.
166.1.1 refers to the first line in the first footnote on p. 166, as
printed).

3.4 prevent the downfal[l] of their people Added.

100.1.3 “per clericalem honorem[.”] Added.

112.12 while the impossib[i]lity of reckoning Inserted.

124.15 to their very existence in the wi[l]derness Inserted.

133.15 a[u/n]d to be exposed to it Inverted.

165.1 [f/F]ar otherwise however Replaced.

166.1.1 was, _in [its]elf_, inferior Added.

226.24 and Wine hath Wærðrýð to wife[,/.] Replaced.

226.29 was removed [f]rom> Hǽðfeld Restored.

276.23 within other twenty-one da[sy/ys] Transposed.

300.13 king’s own demes[m/n]e Replaced.

354.33 to recal[l] to the memory Added.

364.5 Merseberg _sic_
Merseburg?

373.3.1 See Salomon a[u/n]d Saturn, p. 129. Inverted.

374.18 E[o/ó]stermónað, which is now interpreted Replaced.

399.4 a general expression for them[ ]all Added.

425.16 is of a most thoroughly mythological Inserted.
cha[r]acter

429.25 ubi Dominus voluerit[”/’] Replaced.

432.7 a sharp bolt was shot[,/.] Replaced.

451.27 809. Chron. [Sax.] 1010. Added.

470.22 Peartingas. _sic_
Pærtingas?

491.14 being famil[i]ar to the people inserted.

503.25 Wincuf, Wulfwer[p/d] Replaced.

520.25 and Ælf[é/e]h feng tó his lǽne. Replaced.

521.19 all the claims of ow[n]ership Inserted.

528.10 an unexhausted field for the collect[e/o]r Replaced.

529.9 nalæs mid fǽgan.” Added.

*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Saxons in England, Volume 1 (of 2) - A history of the English commonwealth till the period of - the Norman conquest" ***

Home