THE KING’S COURT AND HOUSEHOLD.
The Anglosaxon Court appears to have been modelled upon the same plan as
that of the Frankish Emperors: our documents do not however permit us to
judge whether this was the case before a sufficient intercourse had
taken place to render a positive imitation probable.
It is not at all unlikely that, from the very first establishment of the
Comitatus, the possession of those household offices was coveted, which
brought the holder into closer personal connection with the prince: and
more or less of dependence could be of little moment with those who had
erected into a system the voluntary sacrifice of the holiest of all
possessions, their freedom of action. Hence we can readily account for
the assumption by men nobly born of offices about the royal person,
which were at first directly and immediately menial[200]. Nor, as the
opportunities of personal aggrandisement through favouritism or
affection were multiplied, does it seem strange to us that these offices
should assume a character of dignity and real power, which, however
little in consonance with their original intention, yet made them
objects of ambition with the wealthy and the noble. We do not any longer
wonder at the struggles of dukes and barons for the offices of royal
cupbearer at a coronation, or Steward or Chamberlain of the Household,
because time and the attribution of judicial or administrative functions
have given those offices a distinction which at the outset they did not
possess: and we see without surprise the electors of Germany personally
serving at his table the member of their body whom they had invested
with imperial rank; and, when they fixed the throne hereditarily in him,
providing for the succession in their own families of Butlers, Stewards,
Marshals or Chancellors of the empire.
-----
Footnote 200:
Speaking of the Pincerna regis Æðelstani, one of the great officers of
the Household, in the early part of the tenth century, William of
Malmesbury says, “Itaque cum forte die solenni vinum propinaret,” etc.
Gest. Reg. § ii. 139.
-----
As the progress of society drew larger and larger numbers of men into
the circle of princely influence, and, by withdrawing them from the
jurisdiction of the free courts, rendered a systematic establishment of
the Lord’s court more necessary, the officers who were charged with the
superintendence of the various royal vassals, rose immeasurably in the
social scale. Thus the Major Domus or Mayor of the palace, at first only
a steward, who had to regulate the affairs of the Household, gradually
assumed the management of those of the kingdom, and ended by placing on
his own head the crown which he had filched from his master’s. So was it
with the rest.
The four great officers of the Court and Household in the oldest German
kingdoms are the Chamberlain, the Marshal, the Steward and the Butler.
The names by which the Chamberlain was designated are Hrægel þegn,
literally thane or servant of the wardrobe, Cubicularius, Camerarius,
Búrþegn, perhaps sometimes Dispensator, and Thesaurarius or Hordere. It
is difficult to ascertain his exact duties in the Anglosaxon Court, but
they probably differed little from those of the corresponding officer
among other German populations, and there is reason to compare those of
the Frankish Cubicularius with the functions of the Comites sacrarum
largitionum and rerum privatarum of the Roman emperors. Hence we may
presume that he had the general management of the royal property, as
well as the immediate regulation of the household[201]. In this capacity
he may have been the recognized chief of the cyninges túngeréfan or
king’s bailiffs, on the several estates; for we find no traces of any
districtual or missatic authority to whom these officers could account.
At the same time it appears that this officer was not what we now call
the Lord Great Chamberlain, but rather the Lord Chamberlain of the
Household, and that more than one officer of the same rank existed at
the same time[202]. Hence we can hardly suppose that the dignity of the
office was comparable to that of the Lord Chamberlain at present, with
the great and various powers and duties which are now committed to that
distinguished member of the Court. Among the nobles who held this office
I find the following named:—
Ælfríc thesaurarius, under Ælfred, 892[203].
Æðelsige camerarius, ... Eádgár, 963[204].
Leófríc hræglþegn, ... Æðelred, 1006[205].
Eádríc dispensator regis, ... Hardacnut,
1040[206].
Hugelinus camerarius, ... Eádweard, 1044[207].
cubicularius ... Eádweard, 1060[208].
stiweard, ... Eádweard[209].
búrþegn ... Eádweard[210].
The Marshal (among the Franks Marescalcus, and Comes stabuli) was
properly speaking the Master of the Horse, and had charge of everything
connected with the royal equipments, in that department. But as he
gradually became the head of the active and disposable military force of
the palace, he must be looked upon rather as the general of the
Household troops. It was thus that the high military dignity of
Constable, or Grand Marshal, by degrees developed itself. This office
was held by nobles of the highest rank, and frequently by several at
once,—a sufficient explanation of a fact which otherwise would appear
strange, viz. that we never find the royal power endangered by that of
this influential minister. The Anglosaxon titles are Steallere and
Horsþegn, Stabulator and Strator régis. We have no evidence of the
existence of the office before the close of the ninth century, and it
might therefore be imagined that it was introduced into England after
the establishment of the family of Ecgberht had familiarized our
countrymen with the Frankish court and its customs, did we not find it
as an essential institution in all German courts, of all periods. Among
the Anglo-Saxon Marshals the following names occur:—
Ecgwulf strator regis: cyninges horsþegn, an. 897[211].
Ðored steallere, about 1020[212].
Ésgár steallere, 1044-1066[213].
Robert filius Wimarc steallere[214].
Ælfstán steallere[215].
Eádgár steallere, 1060-1066[216].
Raulf steallere, 1053-1066[217].
Bondig steallere, 1060-1066[218].
stabulator[219].
Eádnóð steallere[220].
Lýfing steallere[221].
Ælfred regis strator, 1052[222].
Osgod Clapa steallere, 1047[223].
The Steward, usually called Dapifer or Discifer regis, answered to the
Seneschal of the Franks (the Truchsess of the German empire); his
especial business was to superintend all that appertained to the service
of the royal table, under which we must probably include the
arrangements for the general support of the household, both at the
ordinary and temporary residences of the king. His Anglosaxon name was
Discþegn, or thane of the table; and I find the following nobles
recorded as holding this office:—
Eata dux et regis discifer, under Offa, 785[224].
Wulfgár discifer, ... Eádwig, 959[225].
Æðelmǽr discþegn, ... Æðelred, 1006[226].
Raulf dapifer, } ... Eádweard, 1060[227].
Ésgar dapifer, }
Atsur regis dapifer, } ... Eádweard, 1062[228].
Yfing regis dapifer, } ...
-----
Footnote 201:
Eichhorn, i. 197. § 25, b. Eichhorn argues the first from a passage in
Greg. Turon. vii. 24. The latter portion of the Chamberlain’s duties
is defined by Hincmar of Rheims, § 22. “De honestate vero palatii, seu
specialiter ornamento reguli, necnon et de donis annuis militum,
absque cibo et potu, vel equis, ad Reginam praecipue, et sub ipsa ad
Camerarium pertinebat: et sollicitudo erat, ut tempore congruo semper
futura prospicerent, ne quid, dum opus esset, defuisset. De donis vero
diversarum legationum ad Camerarium aspiciebat.”
Footnote 202:
“Cubicularios regis duos.” Will. Malm., ii. § 180.
Footnote 203:
Cod. Dipl. No. 320.
Footnote 204:
Ibid. No. 1246.
Footnote 205:
Ibid. No. 715.
Footnote 206:
Flor. Wig. an. 1040.
Footnote 207:
Cod. Dipl. Nos. 771, 810.
Footnote 208:
Ibid. No. 809.
Footnote 209:
Ibid. No. 899, very doubtful.
Footnote 210:
Ibid. No. 904.
Footnote 211:
Flor. Wig. an. 897. Chron. Saxon, _cod. an._
Footnote 212:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1328.
Footnote 213:
Ibid. Nos. 771, 828, 855, 864.
Footnote 214:
Ibid. Nos. 771, 822, 828, 859, 871, 904, 956, 1338.
Footnote 215:
Ibid. No. 773.
Footnote 216:
Ibid. No. 809.
Footnote 217:
Ibid. Nos. 822, 956, 1338.
Footnote 218:
Ibid. No. 822.
Footnote 219:
Ibid. No. 945.
Footnote 220:
Ibid. No. 845.
Footnote 221:
Ibid. Nos. 956, 1338.
Footnote 222:
Flor. Wig. an. 1052.
Footnote 223:
Chron. Sax. an. 1047.
Footnote 224:
Cod. Dipl. No. 149.
Footnote 225:
Ibid. No. 1224.
Footnote 226:
Ibid. No. 715.
Footnote 227:
Ibid. No. 808.
Footnote 228:
Ibid. No. 813.
-----
In the year 946 Florence tells us of a dapifer regis, whom he does not
name. The queen and princes of the blood had also a similar officer for
the management of their households. In 1060 we read of Godwine, reginae
dapifer[229], and Æðelred’s son Æðelstán had a Discþegn named
Ælfmǽr[230]. High as this office was, we yet cannot expect to find in it
that overwhelming power wielded in later times by the Seneschal or
Dapifer Angliae,—a power which might easily have converted the
Grandmesnils and De Montforts into the Ebroins or Pepins of a newly
established dynasty, and after their fall was wisely retained in the
royal family by our kings. We have now, as is well known, only a Lord
High Steward, or Major domus, on particular occasions, for which he is
especially created: but the Lord Steward of the Household is an officer
of great power and high dignity in the Court of our kings. A Major domus
regiae occurs, as far as I know, but once in our Ante-Norman history,
and may there probably denote only the dapifer or seneschal: he is
mentioned by Florence, an. 1040, as “Stir, major domus ... magnae
dignitatis vir”; but we hear nothing more of him, or of any such
influence as the corresponding high officer exercised in the Frankish
court. The title Regiae procurator aulae, borne by the great Esgár, whom
we have also seen among the Marshals, may very likely only refer to his
office of dapifer[231], which, from the list given above, it will be
evident that he held.
-----
Footnote 229:
Ibid. No. 813.
Footnote 230:
Ibid. No. 722.
Footnote 231:
Cod. Dipl. No. 813.
-----
The last great officer is the Pincerna, in Germany the Schenk or
Buticularius,—the Butler. What his particular duties were, beyond his
personal service at the royal board, and no doubt his general
superintendence of the royal cellars, we cannot now discover; but the
office was one of the highest dignity, and was held by nobles of the
loftiest birth and greatest consideration. Óslác, a direct descendant
from the royal Jutish blood of Stuff and Wihtgár, was the pincerna of
king Æðelwulf; and by this prince’s daughter, “femina nobilis ingenio,
nobilis et genere,”—his first wife Ósburh,—Æðelwulf became the father of
Ælfred[232]. The Anglosaxon name of this officer may have been Byrele,
or Scenca, but I am not aware of its occurrence. The following are among
the Pincernae mentioned.
Dudda pincernus, about 780[233].
Sigewulf pincerna, 892[234].
Æðelsige pincerna, 959[235].
Wulfgár pincerna, 1000[236].
Wigod regis pincerna, 1062[237].
The queen, as she had a dapifer, had also a pincerna: in 1062, Herdingus
is reported to have held that office[238].
There can be no doubt that these offices were entirely Palatine or
domestic, that is that they were household dignities, and did not
appertain to the general administration. Only when the spirit and
feeling of the comitatus had completely prevailed over the older free
organization, did they rise into an importance which, throughout the
course of mediæval history, we find continually on the increase. They
were the grades in the comitatus of which Tacitus himself speaks, which
depended upon the good pleasure of the prince: and with the power of the
prince their power and dignity varied. The functionaries who held them
were the heads of different departments to which belonged all the
vassals, _leudes_ or _fideles_ of the king: and as by degrees the
freemen perished away, and every one gladly rushed to throw himself into
a state of thaneship, the trusted and familiar friends of the prince
became the most powerful agents of his administration: till the feudal
system having seized on everything, converted these court-functions also
into hereditary fiefs, and rendered their holders often powerful enough
to make head against the authority of the crown itself. As long as a
vestige of the free constitution remained, we hear but little of the
court offices: what they became upon its downfall is known to every
reader of history. It seems to me improbable that Godwine, or Harald, or
Leófríc or Sigeward should ever have filled them: these men were
ealdormen or dukes, geréfan, civil and military administrators; but not
officers of the royal household, powerful and dignified as these might
be. It is probable that the first and most important of their duties was
the administration of justice to the king’s sócmen in their various
departments; from which in later times were clearly derived the
extensive powers and attributions of the several royal courts: but as
the intimate friends and cherished counsellors of the king, they must
have possessed an influence whose natural tendency was to complete that
great change in the social state, which causes of a more general
nature,—increasing population, commerce and the disturbance of foreign
and civil discord,—were hurrying relentlessly onward.
-----
Footnote 232:
Asser, an. 849.
Footnote 233:
Cod. Dipl. No. 148.
Footnote 234:
Ibid. No. 320.
Footnote 235:
Ibid. No. 1224.
Footnote 236:
Ibid. No. 1294.
Footnote 237:
Ibid. No. 813.
Footnote 238:
Ibid. No. 813.
-----
In various situations of trust and authority, either by the side of
these officers, or subordinated to them, we find a number of other
persons under different titles. Among these are the clergymen who acted
as clerks or notaries in the imperial chancery. The Frankish court
numbered among its members a functionary of the highest rank, and always
a clergyman, from the very necessity of the case, who went by the name
of Apocrisiarius, Archicapellanus, Capellanus[239], or at an earlier
period, of Referendarius[240]; at a later again, of Archicancellarius,
because he had a subordinate officer or deputy commonly called the
Cancellarius. He was the head of those whose business it was to prepare
writs and other legal instruments, and who went by the general names of
Notarii or Tabelliones[241]. In a state which admitted of what are now
called Personal laws, that is, where each man might be judged, not
according to the law of the place in which he was settled, but that of
his parents, that under which he was born,—where Frank, Burgundian,
Alaman and Roman might claim each to be tried and judged by Frankish,
Burgundian, Alamanic or Roman law respectively, whatever might be the
prevalent character of the territory in which he was domiciled,—such an
officer was indispensable. The administration of the customary,
unwritten law of the Teutonic tribes might have been left to Teutonic
officers; but what was to be done when a Provincial claimed the
application to his case of the maxims and provisions of Roman
jurisprudence? What was to be done when a collision of principles and a
conflict of laws took place, and must be provided for? A clergyman,
whose own nation, whatever it might be, merged in the Roman _per
clericalem honorem_[242], must necessarily become a principal officer of
a state which numbered both Romans and clergymen among its subjects; and
hence the Apocrisiarius had a seat in the Carolingian parliament[243],
as well as in the Council of the Household, and ultimately became the
principal minister for the affairs of the clergy[244]. But no such
necessity existed in England, where there was no system of conflicting
laws, and where the use of professional notaries was unknown[245], and I
therefore see no _à priori_ probability of there having been any such
officer as the Referendarius or Apocrisiarius in our courts. Nor till
the reign of Eádweard the Confessor is there the slightest historical
evidence in favour of such an office[246]: under this prince however,
whose predilection for Norman customs is notorious, it is not improbable
that some change may have taken place in this respect, and that a
gradual approximation to the continental usage may have been found. The
occurrence therefore of a Cancellarius, Sigillarius and Notarius among
his household does not appear matter of great surprise, and may be
admitted as genuine, if we are only careful not to confound the first
officer with that great functionary whom we now call the Lord High
Chancellor of the realm. We are told that, among his innovations,
Eádweard attempted to introduce the use of seals; the uniform tenor of
his writs certainly renders it not improbable that he had also notaries
or professional clerks, and I can therefore admit the probability of his
having appointed some faithful chaplain to act as his chancellor, that
is, to keep his seal,—though not yet used for public instruments,—and to
manage the royal notarial establishment. There are many persons named as
royal chaplains; some, whose successive appointments to bishoprics
appeared to our simple forefathers to encroach too much upon the proper
and canonical mode of election. Among them are the following:—
Eádsige capellanus, 1038[247]
Stigandus capellanus, 1044[248].
Heremannus capellanus, 1045[249].
Wulfwig cancellarius, Eádweard, 1045[250].
Reginboldus sigillarius, ... ... [251].
Reginboldus cancellarius, Eádweard, 1045[252].
Ælfgeat notarius, ... ... [253].
Petrus capellanus, ... ... [254].
Baldwinus capellanus, ... ... [255].
Osbernus capellanus, ... ... [256].
Rodbertus capellanus, ... ... [257].
Heca capellanus, 1047[258].
Ulf capellanus, 1049[259].
Cynesige capellanus, 1051[260].
Wilhelmus capellanus, 1051[261].
Godmannus capellanus, 1053[262].
Gisa capellanus, 1060[263].
Footnote 239:
Hincmar. § 32.
Footnote 240:
“Qui referendarius ideo est dictus, quod ad eum universae publicae
deferentur conscriptiones, ipseque eas annulo regis, sive sigillo ab
eo sibi commisso muniret seu primaret.” Aimo. Gest. Franc. iv. 41.
Eichhorn, i. 194, note f. § 25, b.
Footnote 241:
“Apocrisiario sociebatur summus cancellarius, qui a secretis olim
appellabatur, erantque illi subiecti prudentes et intelligentes ac
fideles viri, qui praecepta regia absque immoderata cupiditatis
venalitate scriberent, et secreta illius fideliter custodirent.”
Hincmar. § 16. Eichhorn, _loc. cit._
Footnote 242:
“Landulfus et Petrus clericus germani, ... qui professi sumus ex
natione nostra legem vivere Langobardorum, sed ego Petrus clericus per
clericalem honorem lege videor vivere Romana.” Lupi. p. 223, cited by
Savigny, Röm. Recht. i. 120.
Footnote 243:
Hincmar. § 16, 19, 21. Döninges, Deut. Staatsr. p. 24 _seq._
Footnote 244:
Eichhorn, § 25, b. i. 195.
Footnote 245:
“Quoniam tabellionum usus in regno Angliae non habetur.” Mat. Paris,
Hen. III.
Footnote 246:
In Cod. Dipl. Nos. 3, 4, an Angemundus referendarius is mentioned, but
these two charters are glaring forgeries.
Footnote 247:
Flor. Wig. an. 1038, Abp. Canterbury.
Footnote 248:
Ibid. an. 1044, Abp. Canterbury.
Footnote 249:
Ibid. an. 1045, Bp. Ramsbury.
Footnote 250:
Cod. Dipl. No. 779.
Footnote 251:
Cod. Dipl. No. 810.
Footnote 252:
Cod. Dipl. Nos. 813, 824, 825, 891.
Footnote 253:
Ibid. No. 825.
Footnote 254:
Ibid. Nos. 813, 825.
Footnote 255:
Ibid. No. 813.
Footnote 256:
Ibid. No. 825.
Footnote 257:
Ibid. No. 825, Abp. Canterbury.
Footnote 258:
Flor. Wig. an. 1047, Bp. Selsey.
Footnote 259:
Ibid. an. 1049, Bp. Leicester.
Footnote 260:
Ibid. an. 1051, Abp. York.
Footnote 261:
Ibid. an. 1051, Bp. London.
Footnote 262:
Ibid. an. 1053.
Footnote 263:
Ibid. an. 1060, Bp. Wells.
-----
Eádweard’s queen Eádgyfu and her brother Harald had also their
chaplains; Walther, afterwards bishop of Hereford[264], and Leófgár who
preceded him in the same see[265], and who, being probably of the same
mind as his noble and warlike lord, was no sooner a bishop than “he
forsook his chrism and rood, his spiritual weapons, and took to his
spear and sword,” and so going to the field against Griffin the Welsh
king, was slain, and many of his priests with him. The establishment of
chaplains in the royal household is, of course, of the highest
antiquity; it is probable that they were preceded there by Pagan
priests, and formed a necessary part of the royal comitatus in all
ages[266].
-----
Footnote 264:
Ibid. an. 1060.
Footnote 265:
Ibid. an. 1050, Chron. 1056.
Footnote 266:
“Desiderante rege [Alchfrið] ut vir tantae eruditionis ac religionis
sibi specialiter individuo comitatu sacerdos esset et doctor.” Beda,
H. E. ii. 19.
-----
Among the royal officers was also the Pedissequus or as he is sometimes
called Pedessessor, whose functions I cannot nearer define, unless he
were a king’s messenger. The following instances occur:—Æðelheáh
pedessessor, who appears to have been a duke[267]: Bola pedisecus[268]:
Ælfred pedisecus[269]. Eástmund pedisecus[270]. In Beówulf, Hunferð the
orator is said to _sit_ at the king’s _feet_, “ðe æt fótum sæt freán
scyldinga.” (l. 994.)
-----
Footnote 267:
Cod. Dipl. Nos. 196, 199, 207.
Footnote 268:
Ibid. No. 220.
Footnote 269:
Ibid. No. 227.
Footnote 270:
Ibid. No. 281.
-----
In the year 1040, Hardacnut’s _carnifex_ or executioner is described as
a person of great dignity[271]. Other titles are also enumerated, some
of which appear to denote offices in the royal household: thus we find
Radulfus aulicus[272], Bundinus palatinus[273], Deórmód
cellerarius[274], Wiferð claviger[275], Leófsige signifer[276], Ælfwine
sticcere[277], Æðelríc bigenga[278]. It is uncertain whether the
following are to be considered as regular members of the court, or
whether their presence was merely accidental, on a particular occasion:
Brihtríc and Ælfgár, consiliarii[279], Ælfwig[280] and Cyneweard[281]
praepositi, Godricus tribunus[282], Aldred theloniarius[283]. Nor is it
absolutely demonstrable that those who claimed consanguinity with the
king formed part of his household, although they probably made their
connexion valid as a recommendation to royal favour. “The king’s poor
cousin[284]” seems at all events to have taken care that his light
should shine before men, as we learn from the signatures, Ælfhere ex
parentela regis[285], Leófwine propinquus regis[286], Hesburnus regis
consanguineus[287], Rodbertus regis consanguineus[288], and similar
entries.
-----
Footnote 271:
“Ælfricum Eboracensem archiepiscopum, Godwinum comitem, Stir majorem
domus, Thrond suum carnificem, et alios magnae dignitatis viros,
Lundoniam misit.” Flor. Wig. an. 1040.
Footnote 272:
Cod. Dipl. No. 813.
Footnote 273:
Ibid. No. 813.
Footnote 274:
Ibid. No. 320.
Footnote 275:
Ibid. No. 346.
Footnote 276:
Ibid. No. 346.
Footnote 277:
Ibid. No. 799.
Footnote 278:
Ibid. No. 745.
Footnote 279:
Ibid. No. 811.
Footnote 280:
Ibid. Nos. 792, 793, 800.
Footnote 281:
Ibid. Nos. 792, 800.
Footnote 282:
Cod. Dipl. No. 945.
Footnote 283:
Ibid. No. 218.
Footnote 284:
Shaksp. Hen. IV. Pt. ii. sc. 2.
Footnote 285:
Cod. Dipl. No. 436.
Footnote 286:
Ibid. No. 436.
Footnote 287:
Ibid. No. 813.
Footnote 288:
Ibid. No. 813.
But no such doubt applies to the household troops, or immediate
body-guard of the king. These are commonly called Húscarlas, by the
Anglosaxon writers, and continued to exist under that name after the
Norman conquest. Lappenberg has very justly looked upon them as a kind
of military gild, or association, of which the king was the master[289].
I doubt whether they were organized as a separate force before the time
of Cnut; but it is certain that under that prince and his Danish
successors they attained a definite and settled position. It is probable
that this resulted from the circumstances under which he obtained the
crown of England, and that the institution was not known to his Saxon
predecessors: as an invader, not at all secure of his tenure, and
surrounded by nobles whose previous conduct offered but slight guarantee
of their fidelity, it became absolutely necessary to his safety to
organize his own peculiar force in such a way as to secure the readiest
service if occasion demanded it. This was the object of the Witherlags
Ret, by which the privileges and duties of the Húscarlas were settled.
Of this law Lappenberg observes:—“With greater probability may be
reckoned among the earlier labours of Cnut, the composition of the
Witherlags Ret, a court- or gild-law, framed for his standing army, as
well as for the body-guards of his jarls. As the greater part of his
army remained in England, the Witherlags Ret was there first
established, and as the introduction of strict discipline among such a
military community must precede all other ameliorations in the condition
of the country, the mention of this law in its history ought not to be
omitted[290]. The immediate military attendants of a conqueror always
exercise vast influence, and these originally Danish soldiers
(thingamenn, thingamanna lith, by the English called Húscarlas) have at
a later period, both as bodyguards of the king and of the great vassals,
acted no unimportant part in the country. They were armed with axes,
halberds and swords inlaid with gold, and in purpose, descent and
equipment corresponded to the Warangian guard (Wæringer), in which the
throne of the Byzantine emperors found its best security. In Cnut’s time
the number of these mercenaries was not very great,—being by some
reckoned at three thousand, by others at six thousand[291]—but they were
gathered under his banner from various nations, and consequently
required the stricter discipline. Even a valiant Wendish prince,
Gottschalk, the son of Udo, stayed long with Cnut in England, and gained
the hand of a daughter of the royal house[292]. Cnut himself appears
rather as a sort of grand-master of this military gild, than as its
commander, and it is said that, having in his anger slain one of the
brotherhood in England, he submitted himself to its judgment in their
assembly (stefn) and paid a ninefold compensation[293]. The degrading
epithet of ‘nithing’ applied to an expelled member of the gild, is an
Anglosaxon word, which at a later period occurs in a way to render it
extremely probable that the gild-law of the royal house-carls was in
existence after the Norman conquest[294].”
-----
Footnote 289:
Thorpe’s Lappenberg, ii. 202, and his references to Suen Aggonis,
Hist. Legum Castrens. Regis Canuti Magni, c. iv. ap. Langebek, iii.
146; ii. 454, note _d._ Palgrave, ii. p. ccclxxxi. Ellis, Introd.
Domesd. i. 91; ii. 151 _seq._
Footnote 290:
This observation requires to be taken with some caution. The
Witherlags Ret was a private and bye-law, not a public law, and had
little to do with the public law, except in as far as it connected the
conquering force by closer bonds, and secured their energetic action
as a body, upon emergency. It was devised to keep the household troops
together, not to apply in any way to their public relation towards the
Saxons. Its influence was therefore only such as derived mediately
from the fact of its maintaining the king at the head of a select
_prætorian_ cohort,—important occasionally, but always accidental.
There is no evidence that the great men of England, the Godwines, or
Leófrics, were ever Húscarlas, or that the leaders of this force were
ever Ealdormen or Geréfan. In fact it was the king’s “Army-club,” and
had neither constitutional place nor recognized power. The Húscarlas
were probably very like what the Mousquetaires and Gardes-de-corps
were in France before the first Revolution, and what the Lifeguards,
Leib-regimente, Guardia Real, and so on, have been in other states of
Europe; nor altogether unlike the Garde Impériale of Napoleon.
Footnote 291:
Three thousand men, all disciplined, all well-armed, all united by the
certainty that the struggle must be for life or death, formed a force
morally, if not physically and numerically, superior to any that could
be brought against them on a sudden. Such a body were amply secure in
a state which could only set on foot a clumsy and reluctant militia.
They were, in fact, nearly the only professional soldiers,—and as yet
there had been no Rocroy, Sempach or Morgarten.
Footnote 292:
Adam Bremen. ii. 48, 59; iii. 21.
Footnote 293:
Suen Aggon. i. cap. 10.
Footnote 294:
Sax. Chron. 1049. Will. Malm. lib. iv. de Willelmo Secundo, an. 1088
(Hardy’s ed. ii. 489). But Lappenberg’s conclusion is not justified by
the premises, for Niðing, which Mat. Paris declares to have been so
especially an Anglosaxon word as to be untranslatable, was probably in
use as a term of supreme contempt, long before the establishment of
the Húscarlas in England and long after their disbanding.
-----
The details of this law are of the most stringent description,
regulating even the minutest points of social intercourse. Its extreme
punishment was expulsion; but expulsion was nearly equivalent to death,
situated as the Húscarlas were expected to be, among a hostile
population. And though the offending brother had his election, whether
he would retire from the gild by sea or land, yet the circumstances
which attended his ejection were not those of mercy or alleviation. To
the seashore, the whole body of his ancient comrades were to accompany
him; then launching him in a boat, with oars or sails, they were to
commit him to his fortune: henceforth he was not only a stranger but an
enemy, an outlaw: if stress of weather or other accident brought him
back to the shore, he might be fallen upon and slain without remorse or
retribution. Or if he chose to retire by land, he was to be led to the
nearest wood, and there to be watched till his form was lost in the
darkness of the thickets: three successive shouts were then to be
raised, to warn him of the direction in which his gild-brothers lay in
wait. If then, through the devious error of the forest he returned into
their presence, his life was forfeit. To insult, injure or dishonour a
brother was an offence punished with the utmost severity; and if three
of the Húscarlas concurred in accusing one of the body, there was
neither denial nor exculpation allowed; the penalty followed inevitably.
Such severe regulations as these fully explain their object; and it
seems to have been successfully attained, for we are told that, at least
during the life of Cnut, the penalties were never once incurred or
enforced[295].
Footnote 295:
Except in his own case, where they were incurred, but not enforced.
The story (found in great detail in Saxo-Grammaticus, book x.) seems
exaggerated; but nevertheless it is easy to see that the strict
application of the law to the king would have caused the destruction
of the whole system. As they could not do without Cnut, and had no law
whereby to judge him, save the one whose application in his case was
impossible, they suffered him to assess his own penalty. He paid nine
times the wergyld of the brother he had slain.
From the collocation of names among the witnesses to a very important
charter of 1052-1054, we may infer that the Stealleras or Marshals were
the commanding officers of the Húscarlas[296]. We cannot doubt that they
did really exercise an important personal influence in England, although
they filled no recognized position under the law: it is probable that
they were reckoned as thanes or ministers, as far as their wergyld and
heriot were concerned; but we have no evidence of this, and I should not
dispute the assertion that from first to last they had a law of their
own,—a personal right,—that they were not generally or originally
landowners, and that their institution was a modified revival of the
system of the Comitatus in its strictest form. But upon these points we
cannot decide. It is very rarely that we find the Húscarlas acting as
witnesses to charters, which perhaps may lead to the inference that they
were not members of the Witena gemót[297]: but in 1041 we are told that
Hardacnut sent two of his Húscarlas, Feader and Turstan, to collect an
unpopular tax, and that a sedition was raised against them in Worcester,
which was not suppressed till the force of several counties, under the
most celebrated leaders of the day, was brought against the city[298].
Footnote 296:
Cod. Dipl. No. 956. After the testimonies of the king, queen,
archbishops, bishops, earls, and abbots, we have, “And on Esgáres
stealres, and on Raulfes stealres, and on Lifinges stealres, and on
ealra ðæs kynges húscarlan.” Then follow the subscriptions of
chaplains and others.
Footnote 297:
But Wulfnoð a húscarl is mentioned, Cod. Dipl. No. 845, and Urk, a
húscarl in No. 871, both as grantees. So again Þurstán húscarl, a
holder of land in Middlesex. Cod. Dipl. No. 843.
Footnote 298:
Flor. Wig. an. 1041.
-----
In a charter of the Confessor, we find the word Húscarl translated by
“praefectus palatinus[299],”—a title which scarcely seems applicable to
all the members of a body numbering six, or even three, thousand men:
but, however this may be, we must not confound these _praefecti
palatini_ with the other, earlier _praefecti_ who occur in Anglosaxon
history[300]: these are clearly only geréfan or reeves, and have nothing
to do with the especial body of household troops.
-----
Footnote 299:
Cod. Dipl. No. 843.
Footnote 300:
Cod. Dipl. Nos. 746, 751, 762, 767.
-----
It remains only to add that, in imitation of the king, the great nobles
surrounded themselves with a body-guard of Húscarlas[301], who probably
stood in the same relation to their lord, as he did to the king: in
short the institution is only a revival of the Comitatus, described in
the First Book, and must have gone through a similar course of
development. Nay, the details which have reached us of the later
establishment may possibly throw light upon the earlier, and serve to
explain some of the peculiarities which strike us in the account of
Tacitus. This difference indeed there is, that in the later form the
king and the comites unite in a definite bond, with respective,
stipulated rights; in the earlier form, the comites attach themselves to
the king, without stipulation or reserve, although no doubt under the
protection of a customary and recognized, although unwritten, law.
-----
Footnote 301:
Florence of Worcester, speaking of the revolt of the Northumbrians
against their duke Tostig, in 1065, says: “Eodem die primitus illius
Danicos húscarlas Amundum et Ravensueartum, de fuga retractos, extra
civitatis muros, ac die sequente plus quam cc. viros ex curialibus
illius in boreali parte Humbrae fluminis peremerunt.” an. 1065. One
manuscript of the Saxon Chronicle thus relates these events: “And sona
æfter ðison gegaderedon ða þegenas hi ealle on Eoforwícscyre ⁊ on
Norðhymbralande togædere, ⁊ geútlagedan heora eorl Tosti, ⁊ ofslógon
his hírédmenn ealle ðe hig mihten tócumen.” But another says:
“Tostiges eorles húskarlas ðar ofslógon, ealle ða ðe hig geáxian
mihton.” Hírédmen are _familiares_, those who live in the house, or
form part of the house or family; and this seems the original and
strict definition of the húscarl.
-----