THE GERÉFA.
The most general name for the fiscal, administrative and executive
officer among the Anglosaxons was Geréfa, or as it is written in very
early documents geróefa[358]: but the peculiar functions of the
individuals comprehended under it, were further defined by a prefix
compounded with it, as scírgeréfa, the reeve of the shire or sheriff:
túngeréfa the reeve of the farm or bailiff. The exact meaning and
etymology of this name have hitherto eluded the researches of our best
scholars, and yet perhaps few words have been more zealously
investigated[359]: if I add another to the number of attempts to solve
the riddle, it is only because I believe the force of the word will
become much more evident when we have settled its genuine derivation;
and that philology has yet a part to play in history which has not been
duly recognized. One of the oldest and most popular opinions was that
which connected the name with words denoting seniority; thus, with the
German adjective _grau_, Anglosaxon _grǽg_, grey. There was however
little resemblance between geréfa and grǽg, the Anglosaxon forms, and
the whole of this theory was applicable only to the Latino-Frankish form
graphio, or gravio. The frequent use of words denoting advanced age, as
titles of honour,—among which ealdor _princeps_, senior _seigneur_, ða
yldestan _primates_, and many others, will readily occur to the
reader,—favoured this opinion, which was long maintained: but especially
in Germany, it has been entirely exploded by Grimm in his
Rechtsalterthümer[360], and proof adduced that there cannot be the
slightest connection between _graf_ and _grau_.
-----
Footnote 358:
Cod. Dipl. No. 235. The Chronicle even calls Cæsar’s Tribune,
Labienus, geréfa.
Footnote 359:
The laws of Eádweard the Confessor show at how early a period the word
was unintelligible. “Greve autem nomen est potestatis; apud nos autem
nichil melius videtur esse quam praefectura. Est enim multiplex nomen;
greve enim dicitur de scira, de wæpentagiis, de hundredo, de burgis,
de villis: et videtur nobis compositum esse e grið anglice, quod est
_pax_ latine, et _ve_ latine, videlicet quod debet facere grið, i. e.
pacem, ex illis qui inferunt in terram ve, i. e. miseriam vel
dolorem.... Frisones et Flandrenses comites suos meregrave vocant,
quasi majores vel bonos pacificos; et sicut modo vocantur greves, qui
habent praefecturas super alios, ita tunc temporis vocabantur
eldereman, non propter senectutem, sed propter sapientiam.” Cap.
xxxii.
Footnote 360:
Page 753. Gloss. _in voc._ Grafio.
-----
More plausibility lay in the etymology of geréfa adopted by Spelman;
this rested upon the assumption that geréfa was equivalent to gereáfa,
and that it was derived from reáfan, to plunder; this view was
strengthened by the circumstance of the word being frequently translated
by _exactor_, the levying of fines and the like being a characteristic
part of a reeve’s duties. But this view is unquestionably erroneous: in
the first place geréfa could not have been universally substituted for
the more accurate ggereáfa, which last word never occurs, any more than
on the other hand does réfan for reáfan. Secondly, an Anglosaxon geréfa,
if for gereáfa, would necessarily imply a High-dutch garaupjo, a word
which we not only do not find, but which bears no sort of resemblance to
krávo and grávo which we do find[361]. Lambarde’s derivation of geréfa
from gereccan, _regere_, may be consigned to the same storehouse of
blunders as Lipsius’s _graf_ from γράφειν. Again, as words compounded
with _ge-_ and ending in _-a_, often denote a person who participates
with others in something expressed by the root, geréfa has been
explained to be one who shares in the roof, _i. e._ the kings roof: and
this has been supported by the fact that graf is equivalent to _comes_,
and that at an early period the comites are found occupying the places
of geréfan. But a fatal objection to this etymon lies in the omission of
the _h_ from geréfa, which would not have been the case had hróf really
been the root. Grimm says, “I will venture another supposition. In old
High-dutch rávo meant _tignum_, _tectum_ (Old Norse rǽfr, _tectum_),
perhaps also _domus_, _aula_; garávjo, girávjo, girávo, would thus mean
_comes_, _socius_, like gistallo, and gisaljo, gisello (Gram. ii.
736)[362].” There is however a serious objection to this hypothesis:
were it admitted, the Anglosaxon word must have been gerǽfa, not geréfa
for geróefa, that is, the vowel in the root must have been a long ǽ, not
a long é, springing out of and representing a long ó. I am naturally
very diffident of my own opinion in a case of so much obscurity, and
where many profound thinkers have failed of success; still it seems to
me that geréfa may possibly be referable to the word róf, _clamor_, róf,
_celeber_, _famosus_, and a verb rófan or réfan, _to call aloud_: if
this be so, the name would denote _bannitor_, the summoning or
proclaiming officer, him by whose summons or proclamation the court and
the levy of the freemen were called together; and this suggestion
answers more nearly than any other to the nature of the original office:
in this sense too, a reeve’s district is called his mánung,
_bannum_[363]. In this comprehensive generality lay the possibility of
so many different degrees of authority being designated by one term; so
that in the revolutions of society we have seen the German markgraf and
burggraf assuming the rank of sovereign princes, while the English
borough-reeve has remained the chief magistrate of a petty corporation,
or the pinder of a village has been designated by the title of a
hogreeve.
-----
Footnote 361:
Grimm seems to think the word was originally Frankish, and only
borrowed by the Alamanni, Saxons, and Scandinavians. Rechtsalt. p.
753. I am disposed to claim it for the Frisians and Saxons as well as
the Franks.
Footnote 362:
Rechtsalt. p. 753.
Footnote 363:
Æðelst. v. 8. § 2, 3, 4.
-----
Whatever were the original signification of the word, I cannot doubt
that it is of the highest antiquity, as well as the office which it
denotes. In all probability it was borne by those elected chiefs who
presided over the freemen of the Gá in their meetings, and delivered the
law to them in their districts[364]. Throughout the Germanic
constitutions, and especially in this country, the geréfa always appears
in connexion with judicial functions[365]: he is always the holder of a
court of justice: thus:—“Eádweard the king commandeth all the reeves;
that ye judge such just dooms, as ye know to be most righteous, and as
it in the doombook standeth. Fear not, on any account, to pronounce
folkright; and let every suit have a term, when it may be fullfilled,
that ye may then pronounce.” Again:—“I will that each reeve have a gemót
once in every four weeks; and so act that every man may have his right
by law; and every suit have an end and a term when it shall be brought
forward.”
-----
Footnote 364:
“Eliguntur in iisdem conciliis et principes, qui iura per pagos
vicosque reddunt.” Tac. Germ. xii. Some tribes may have called these
_principes_ by one name, some by another: ealdorman, ǽsaga, lahmon,
are all legitimate appellations for a geréfa.
Footnote 365:
Leg. Eádw. i. § 1. Thorpe, i. 158. Leg. Eádw. i. § 2. Thorpe, i. 160.
Leg. Eádw. i. §. 11. Thorpe, i. 164. See also Inst. Polity, § xi.
Thorpe, ii. 318.
-----
Upon this point it is unnecessary to multiply evidence, and I shall
content myself with saying that wherever there was a court there was a
reeve, and wherever there was a reeve, he held some sort of court for
the guidance and management of persons for whose peaceful demeanour he
was responsible. From this it is to be inferred that the geréfan were of
very different qualities, possessed very different degrees of power, and
had very different functions to perform, from the geréfa who gave law to
the shire, down to the geréfa who managed some private landowner’s
estate. It will be convenient to take the different classes of geréfan
_seriatim_, and collect under each head such information as we can now
obtain from our legal or historical monuments.
HEÁHGERÉFA.—In general the word coupled with geréfa enables us to judge
of the particular functions of the officer; but this is not the case
with the heáhgeréfa or _high reeve_, a name of very indefinite
signification, though not very rare occurrence. It is obvious that it
really denotes only a reeve of high rank, I believe always a royal
officer; but it is impossible to say whether the rank is personal or
official; whether there existed an office called the heáhgeréfscipe
(highreevedom) having certain duties; or whether the circumstance of the
shire- or other reeve being a nobleman in the king’s confidence gave to
him this exceptional title. I am inclined to believe that they are
exceptional, and perhaps in some degree similar to the Missi of the
Franks,—officers dispatched under occasional commissions to perform
functions of supervision, hold courts of appeal, and discharge other
duties, as the necessity of the case demanded; but that they are not
established officers found in all the districts of the kingdom, and
forming a settled part of the machinery of government. In this
particular sense, our judges going down upon their several circuits,
under a commission of jail delivery, are the heáhgeréfan of our day.
We are told in the Saxon Chronicle that in the year 778, Æðelbald and
Heardberht of Northumberland slew three heáhgeréfan, namely Ealhwulf the
son of Bosa, Cynewulf and Ecga: and the immediate consequence of this
appears to have been the expulsion of Æðelred, and the succession of
Ælfwold to the throne of Northumberland. These high-reeves were
therefore probably military officers of Æðelred, and Simeon of Durham,
in recording the events of the same year calls them dukes, _duces_.
Again, in 780, Simeon mentions Osbald and Æðelheard as dukes, but the
Chronicle calls them heáhgeréfan.[366]
-----
Footnote 366:
The instances cited are Northumbrian, and it is remarkable that the
chapter on Wergylds, § 4, reckons the heáhgeréfa as a separate rank,
having a high wergyld, but inferior to that of the ealdorman. I am
much inclined to think that these were sheriffs.
-----
In a preceding chapter I have shown that the _dux_ is properly
equivalent to the ealdorman, but this can hardly have been the case with
the heáhgeréfa. Again, in 1001, the Chronicle mentions three
high-reeves, Æðelweard, Leófwine and Kola, and apparently draws a
distinction by immediately naming Eádsige, the king’s reeve, not his
high-reeve. In 1002 the Chronicle again mentions Æfíc, a high-reeve, who
though a great favourite of the king, certainly never attained the rank
of a duke or ealdorman, or, as far as we know, ever performed any public
administrative functions. He was a minion of Æðelred’s, but not an
officer of the Anglosaxon state.
SCÍRGERÉFA OR SHERIFF.—The Scírgeréfa is, as his name denotes, the
person who stands at the head of the shire, _pagus_ or county: he is
also called Scírman or Scírigman[367]. He is properly speaking the
holder of the county-court, scírgemót or folcmót, and probably at first
was its elected chief. But as this geréfa was at first the people’s
officer, he seems to have shared the fate of the people, and to have
sunk in the scale as the royal authority gradually rose: during the
whole of our historical period we find him exercising only a concurrent
jurisdiction, shared in and controlled by the ealdorman on the one hand
and the bishop on the other. The latter interruption may very probably
have existed from the very earliest periods, and the heathen priest have
enjoyed the rights which the Christian prelate maintained: but the
intervention of the ealdorman appears to be consistent only with the
establishment of a central power, exercised in different districts by
means of resident superintendents, or occasional commissioners
especially charged with the defence of the royal interests. In the
Anglosaxon legislation even of the eighth century, the ealdorman is
certainly head of the shire[368]; but there is, as far as I know, no
evidence of his sitting in judgment in the folcmót without the sheriff,
while there is evidence that the sheriff sat without the ealdorman.
Usually the court was held under the presidency of the ealdorman and
bishop, and of the scírgeréfa, who from his later title of vicecomes,
vicedominus, was probably looked upon as the ealdorman’s deputy,—a
strange revolution of ideas. The shiremoot at Ægelnóðes stán in the days
of Cnut was attended by Æðelstán, bishop of Hereford, Ranig the
ealdorman, Eádwine his son, Leófwine and Ðurcytel the white, Tofig the
king’s _missus_ or messenger, and Bryning the scírgeréfa[369]. But in a
celebrated trial of title to land at Wouldham in Kent, where archbishop
Dunstán himself was a party concerned, the case seems to have been
disposed of by Wulfsige the shireman or sheriff alone[370]. The bishop
of Rochester, being in some sort a party to the suit, could probably not
take his place as a judge, and the ealdorman is not mentioned at all.
Again in an important trial of title to land at Snodland in Kent, there
is no mention whatever of the ealdorman: the king’s writ was sent to the
archbishop; and the sheriff Leófríc and the thanes of East and West Kent
met to try the cause at Canterbury[371]. It may then be concluded that
the presence of the sheriff was necessary in any case, while that of the
ealdorman might be dispensed with[372]. By the provisions of our later
kings it appears that the scírgemót or sheriff’s court for the county
was to be holden twice in the year, and before this were brought all the
most important causes, and such as exceeded the competence of the
hundred[373].
-----
Footnote 367:
Leg. Ini, § 8. Æðelst. v. c. 8. § 2, 3, 4. Æðelwine scírman. Cod.
Dipl. No. 761, but Æðelwine scírgeréfa. Ibid. No. 732. Wulfsige preóst
scírigman; and Wulfsige se scírigman. Ibid. No. 1288. Ufegeát
scíreman. Ibid. No. 972. Leófríc scíresman. Ibid. No. 929.
Footnote 368:
Leg. Ini, § 36.
Footnote 369:
Cod. Dipl. No. 755.
Footnote 370:
Ibid. No. 1288.
Footnote 371:
Ibid. No. 729.
Footnote 372:
The law of Æðelstán, i. § 12 (Thorpe, i. 206) assumes the presence of
the reeves in the folcmót as a matter of course; but this does not
particularise the shire-reeves, though these are probably included in
the general term. See also Æðelst. iv. § 1. Thorpe, i. 220.
Footnote 373:
Leg. Eádg. ii. 5. Cnut, ii. 18. Thorpe, i. 268, 386.
-----
But the judicial functions of the scírgeréfa were by no means all that
he had to attend to. It is clear that the execution of the law was also
committed to his hands. The provisions of the council of Greatanleah
conclude with these words:—“But if any of my reeves will not do this,
and care less about it than we have commanded, let him pay the fine for
disobeying me, and I will find another reeve who will do it[374];” where
reference is generally made to all the enactments of the council. And
the same king requires his bishops, ealdormen and reeves (the principal
shire-officer) to maintain the peace upon the basis laid down in the
Judicia civitatis Londoniae, that is to put in force the enactments
therein contained, on pain of fines and forfeiture[375]. In pursuance
also of this part of their duty, they were commanded to protect the
abbots on all secular occasions[376], and to see the church dues
regularly paid; viz. the tithes, churchshots, soulshots and plough
alms[377]. And Eádgár, Æðelred and Cnut arm them with the power to levy
for tithe and inflict a heavy forfeiture upon those who withhold
it[378]. It is also very clear from several passages in the Laws that
the sheriff might be called upon to witness bargains and sales, so as to
warrant them afterwards if necessary. Æðelstán enacts[379]:—“Let no man
exchange any property, without the witness of the reeve, or the
mass-priest, or the landlord, or the treasurer, or some other credible
man:” and though the scírgeréfa is not particularly mentioned here, it
is obvious that he is meant, for a subsequent law of Eádmund, following
this enactment of Æðelstán, directs that no one shall bargain or receive
strange cattle without the witness of the highest reeve (“summi
praepositi”), the priest, the treasurer or the port-reeve[380]. He was
further to exercise a supreme police in his county: it is declared by
Æðelred[381],—“If there be any man who is untrue to all the people, let
the king’s reeve go and bring him under surety, that he may be held to
justice, to them that accused him. But if he have no surety, let him be
slain, and laid in the foul,”—that is, I presume, not buried in
consecrated ground.
-----
Footnote 374:
Æðelst. i. § 26. So again Æðelst. iii. § 7; iv. § 1. Thorpe, i. 212,
219, 222.
Footnote 375:
Æðelst. v. § 11. Thorpe, i. 240.
Footnote 376:
“And the king enjoins the reeves in every place to protect the abbots
in all their worldly needs, as best ye may.” Æðelred, ix. § 32.
Thorpe, i. 346.
Footnote 377:
Æðelst. i. Introd. Thorpe, i. 194, 196.
Footnote 378:
Eádg. i. § 3. Æðelr. ix. § 8. Cnut, i. § 8. Thorpe, i. 262, 342, 366.
Footnote 379:
Æðelst. i. § 10. Thorpe, i. 204.
Footnote 380:
Eádm. iii. § 5. Thorpe i. 253. This law uses the word _ordalii_, which
I believe to be an error for _hordere_, as in Æðelstán’s law, and have
rendered it accordingly.
Footnote 381:
Leg. Æðelr. i § 4. Thorpe, i. 282.
-----
From this also it appears probable that the geréfa was the officer to
conduct the execution of criminals in capital cases, as he remains to
this day; but as far as I remember, there is no instance of this duty
recorded. The regulations respecting mints and coinage seem also to show
that this part of the public service was under the superintendence of
the scírgeréfa[382]. As the principal political officer, and chief of
the freemen in the shire, it was further his duty to promulgate the laws
enacted by the king and his witena gemót, and take a pledge from the
members of the county, to observe these: and it is to be concluded that
this was solemnly done in the county-court[383].
-----
Footnote 382:
Cnut, ii. § 8. Thorpe, i. 380.
Footnote 383:
Æðelst. v. § 10. Thorpe, i. 238.
-----
The scírgeréfa was also the principal fiscal officer in the county. It
was undoubtedly his duty to levy all fines that accrued to the king from
offenders, and to collect such taxes as the land paid for public
purposes. We have unhappily no _pipe-rolls_ of the Anglosaxon period,
which would have thrown the greatest light upon the social condition of
England; but we have a precept of Cnut, addressed to Æðelríc the sheriff
of Kent, and the other principal officers and thanes of the county,
commanding that archbishop Æðelnóð shall account only as far as he had
done before Æðelríc became sheriff, and ordering that in future no
sheriff shall demand more of him[384]. From this it appears that even
the lands of the archbishop himself were not exempt from the sheriff’s
authority in fiscal matters, although there can be little doubt that at
this period the prelate had a grant of sacu and sócn, or complete
immunity from the sheriff’s power in judicial questions. And we shall
have little difficulty in admitting that, if he possessed this authority
in the case of the archbishop, he exercised it in that of other less
distinguished landowners. It has been already shown that the king
possessed certain profitable rights in, and received contributions from,
the estates of folcland in private hands: these were exercised and
collected by the scírgeréfa. It is probable that the zeal of this
officer had sometimes overstepped the bounds of the law, and induced him
to burthen the free landowner for the benefit of the crown; for we find
Cnut enacting[385]: “This is the alleviation which it is my pleasure to
secure to all the people, of that which hath heretofore too much
oppressed them. First, I command all my reeves that they justly provide
for me on my own, and maintain me therewith; and that no man need give
them anything, as farm-aid, unless he choose. And if after this any one
demand a fine, let him be liable in his wergyld to the king.”
-----
Footnote 384:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1323. This writ is directed in the usual form, to the
archbishop, the bishop of Rochester, the abbot of St. Augustine’s, the
sheriff and the thanes of Kent.
Footnote 385:
Cnut. ii. § 70. Thorpe, i. 412. _Feorm_ is the king’s farm or support:
and _feormfultum_ a benevolence in aid of the same. It had become
compulsory in some cases, and this is what Cnut forbids.
-----
The law then goes on to regulate the king’s rights in case of intestacy,
the amount of heriot payable by different classes, the freedom of
succession in the wife and children, and the freedom of marriage both
for widow and maiden. And as all these laws, numbered respectively from
§ 70 to 75, appear to be dependent upon one another, and to form a
chapter of alleviations by themselves, I conclude that the sheriffs had
been guilty of exaction in confiscating the estates of intestates,
demanding extravagant heriots and reliefs, and imposing fines for
licence to marry,—extortions familiar enough under the Norman rule. It
was moreover the sheriff’s duty to seize into the king’s hands all lands
and chattels belonging to felons, which would, in the event of a
conviction become forfeit to the crown: of this we have instances. About
A.D. 900, one Helmstán was guilty of theft; Eanwulf Penhearding, who was
then sheriff, immediately seized all the property he had at Tisbury,
except the land which Helmstán could not forfeit, as it was only
Ordláf’s lǽn or _beneficium_[386]. At the close of the tenth century,
Æscwyn a widow had become implicated in the theft of some title-deeds by
her own son: judgment was given against her in one of the royal courts,
whereby all her property became forfeited to the king: Wulfstán the
sheriff of Kent accordingly seized Bromley and Fawkham, her manors[387].
There is of course every probability that the sheriff was charged with
certain disbursements, required by the public service, and that he
rendered a periodical account both of receipts and expenditure, to the
officers who then represented the royal exchequer; but upon this part of
the subject we are unhappily without any evidence.
-----
Footnote 386:
Cod. Dipl. No. 328.
Footnote 387:
Ibid. No. 1258.
-----
The sheriff was naturally the leader of the militia, posse comitatus, or
levy of the free men, who served under his banner, as the different
lords with their dependents served under the royal officers, the church
vassals under the bishop’s or abbot’s officer, and all together under
the chief command of the ealdorman or duke. It was his business to
summon them, and to command them in the field, during the period of
their service: and he thus formed the connecting link between the
military power of the king and the military power of the people, for
purposes both of offence and defence.
In the earliest periods, the office was doubtless elective, and possibly
even to the last the people may have enjoyed theoretically, at least, a
sort of concurrent choice. But I cannot hesitate for a moment in
asserting that under the consolidated monarchy, the scírgeréfa was
nominated by the king, with or without the acceptance of the
county-court, though this in all probability was never refused[388]. The
language of the laws which continually adopt the words, _our_ reeves,
where none but the sheriffs are intended, clearly shows in what relation
these officers stood to the king: and as the latter indisputably
possessed the power of removing, he probably did not want that of
appointing them[389]. On one occasion indeed Æðelstân distinctly
declares, that if his sheriffs neglect their duty, _he_, the king, will
find others to do it[390]. The means by which the dignity of the sheriff
was supported are similar to those noticed in the case of the ealdorman.
He received a proportion of the fines payable to the king: he was, we
may presume, always a considerable landowner in the shire; indeed,
several of those whom we know to have held the office, were amongst the
greatest landowners in their respective districts[391]. It is even
possible that there may have been some provision in land, attached to
the office, for I meet occasionally with such words as geréf-land,
geréf-mǽd, where the form of the composition denotes, not the land or
meadow of some particular sheriff, but of the sheriff generally. As
leader of the _shire-fyrd_ or armed force, the geréfa would have a share
of the booty; and it is not unreasonable to suppose that his influence
and good-will were secured at times by the voluntary offerings of
neighbours and dependents.
-----
Footnote 388:
In the Council of Baccanceld, Wihtred is made to say:—“It is the duty
of kings to appoint eorls and ealdormen, scírgeréfan and doomsmen.”
Chron. Sax. an. 694. “Illius autem est comites, duces, optimates,
principes, praefectos, iudices saeculares statuere.” Cod. Dipl. No.
996. The charter is an obvious forgery, but it shows the tendency of
opinion in the Anglosaxon times.
Footnote 389:
In some of the writs addressed to the shires, the place properly
filled by the scírgeréfa is given to noblemen of the king’s household,
as Eádnóð steallere in Hampshire. Cod. Dipl. No. 845. Esgár steallere
in Hertfordshire, Kent and Middlesex. Nos. 827, 843, 864. Rodbeard
steallere in Essex. No. 859. I believe these persons to have been
really the sheriffs, but to have been named by their familiar, and in
their own view, higher designations, as officers of the court.
Footnote 390:
Conc. Greatanl. Æðelst. 1. § 26.
Footnote 391:
Tofig Pruda, whom we recognize as scírgeréfa in Somersetshire, is
elsewhere described as “vir praepotens.” See Flor. Wig. an. 1042.
-----
The writs of the kings, touching judicial processes, and other matters
connected with the public service, were directed to the ealdorman,
bishop and sheriff of the district, as a general rule. From these writs,
which are numerous in the eleventh century, we learn some of the names
of the gentlemen who filled the office at that period: and as those
names are not without interest I have collected from such documents as
we possess a list of sheriffs for different counties.
Berks Cyneweard[392].
Gódric[393].
Devonshire Hugh the Norman[394].
Dorsetshire Ælfred[395].
Essex Leófcild[396].
Rodbeard steallere[397].
Hampshire Eádsige[398].
Eádnóð steallere[399].
Herefordshire Ælfnóð[400].
Bryning[401].
Osbearn[402].
Ulfcytel[403].
Hertfordshire Ælfstán[404].
Esgár steallere[405].
Huntingdonshire Ælfríc[406].
Cyneríc[407].
Kent Æðelríc[408].
Æðelwine[409].
Esgár steallere[410].
Leófríc[411].
Osweard[412].
Wulfsige preóst[413].
Wulfstán[414].
Lincolnshire Osgód[415].
Middlesex Ælfgeát[416].
Esgár steallere[417].
Ulf[418].
Norfolk Eádríc[419].
Norfolk and Suffolk Tolig[420].
Northampton Marleswegen[421].
Norðman[422].
Somersetshire Godwine[423].
Tofig[424].
Tauid or Touid[425].
Suffolk Ælfríc[426].
Tolig[427].
Warwickshire Uua[428].
Wiltshire Eánwulf Penhearding[429].
Worcestershire Leófríc[430].
-----
Footnote 392:
Cod. Dipl. No. 948.
Footnote 393:
Ibid. No. 840.
Footnote 394:
Flor. Wig. an. 1008.
Footnote 395:
Cod. Dipl. No. 871.
Footnote 396:
Ibid. Nos. 788, 869, 870.
Footnote 397:
Ibid. No. 859.
Footnote 398:
Ibid. No. 1337.
Footnote 399:
Ibid. No. 845.
Footnote 400:
Chron. Sax. 1056.
Footnote 401:
Cod. Dipl. No. 755.
Footnote 402:
Ibid. No. 833.
Footnote 403:
Ibid. No. 802.
Footnote 404:
Ibid. No. 945.
Footnote 405:
Ibid. No. 864.
Footnote 406:
Ibid. No. 903.
Footnote 407:
Ibid. No. 906.
Footnote 408:
Ibid. Nos. 1323, 1325.
Footnote 409:
Ibid. Nos. 731, 732.
Footnote 410:
Ibid. No. 827.
Footnote 411:
Ibid. No. 929.
Footnote 412:
Ibid. Nos. 847, 854.
Footnote 413:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1288. This is contrary to the provision of archbishop
Ecgberht’s Poenitential, iii. § 8: he says that a priest or deacon
ought not to be a geréfa, or a wícnere, or to have any concern with
secular business. “Nis nánum mæsse-preóste álýfed ne diacone, æt hí
geréfan beón né wícneras, né ymbe náne worldbysgunga ábysgode beón,
búton mid ðǽre ðe hig tó getitolode beóð.” Thorpe, ii. 198. Perhaps
however Ecgberht’s rule was construed to mean private, not public,
geréfan, when in process of time it might become useful to have the
assistance of priests learned in the law, as judges; especially as in
the tenth century the importance of missionary labours was less
strongly felt than in the eighth.
Footnote 414:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1258.
Footnote 415:
Ibid. No. 1319.
Footnote 416:
Ibid. No. 858.
Footnote 417:
Ibid. No. 855.
Footnote 418:
Ibid. No. 843.
Footnote 419:
Ibid. No. 785.
Footnote 420:
Ibid. Nos. 853, 875, 880, 881, 883, 908, 911.
Footnote 421:
Ibid. Nos. 806, 808.
Footnote 422:
Ibid. Nos. 863, 904.
Footnote 423:
Ibid. Nos. 834, 835, 836, 838.
Footnote 424:
Ibid. No. 821.
Footnote 425:
Ibid. Nos. 837, 839, 917, 926, 976.
Footnote 426:
Ibid. Nos. 832, 842.
Footnote 427:
Ibid. Nos. 874, 905.
Footnote 428:
Ibid. No. 493.
Footnote 429:
Ibid. No. 328.
Footnote 430:
Ibid. Nos. 757, 898, 923.
-----
It is possible that increased research may extend this list of sheriffs,
and much to be regretted that our information is so scanty as it is. We
have no means of deciding whether the office was an annual one, or how
its duration was limited. The Kentish list shows that the clergy were
neither exempt nor excluded from its toils or advantages: and the
position of Wulfsige the priest and sheriff recalls to us the earlier
times when priest and judge may have been synonymous terms among the
nations of the north[431]. I now proceed to a third class, the
-----
Footnote 431:
“Si iudex vel sacerdos reperti fuerint nequiter iudicasse,” etc. Leg.
Visigoth, ii. c. l. § 33.
-----
CYNINGES GERÉFA, or Royal Reeve.—There is some difficulty with regard to
this officer, because in many cases where the cyninges geréfa is
mentioned, it is plain that the scírgeréfa is meant. For example, Ælfred
twice mentions the cyninges geréfa as sitting in the folcmót and
administering justice there[432], which is hardly to be understood of
any but the sheriff. However it is consistent with the general
principles of Teutonic society that as there was a scírgeréfa to do
justice between freeman and freeman, so also there should be a cyninges
geréfa, before whom the king’s tenants should ultimately stand to right,
and who more particularly administered the king’s sacu and. sócn in his
own private lands. To this officer, under the ealdorman, would belong
the investigation of those causes which the king’s manorial courts could
not decide: perhaps he might possess some sort of appellate
jurisdiction: and it cannot be doubted that it was his duty to
superintend the management of the king’s private domains, and to lead
the array of the king’s private tenants in the general levy. It is
therefore not unlikely that this officer may be identical with the
heáhgeréfa already noticed. But in many cases where a king’s reeve is
mentioned, and where we cannot understand the term of the scírgeréfa, it
is clear that a wícgeréfa or burh- or túngeréfa are intended, and that
they are called royal officers merely because the wíc, burh or tún
happened to be royal property. The Chronicle under the year 787 mentions
a geréfa who was slain by the Northmen:—“This year king Beorhtríc took
to wife Eádburh, king Offa’s daughter: and in his time first came three
ships of Northmen from Hæretha land. And then the geréfa rode to the
place, and would have driven them to the king’s tún, for he knew not who
they were: and there on the spot they slew him. These were the first
Danish ships that ever sought the land of the English.”
-----
Footnote 432:
“Gif mon on folces gemóte cyninges geréfan ge-yppe eofot,” etc. § 22.
“And gebrengen beforan cyninges geréfan on folcgemóte ... gecýðe in
gemótes gewitnesse cyninges geréfan.” § 34. See also Æðelred, iii. §
13. Cnut, ii. § 8, 33. Thorpe, i. 76, 82, 380, 396. In Cod. Dipl. No.
789, appears a king’s reeve Wulfsige: but is not this the same
Wulfsige as we find sheriff of Kent at the same period?
-----
Now Florence of Worcester under the same date tells us that this officer
was “regis praepositus,” that is, a king’s reeve: and Henry of
Huntingdon improves him into a sheriff[433], “praepositus regis illius
provinciae:” Æðelweard however, who is obviously much better acquainted
with the details of the story than his Norman successors, records that
this officer’s name was Beadoheard, and that he was the royal burggrave
in Dorchester[434].
-----
Footnote 433:
Hen. Hunt. lib. iv.
Footnote 434:
Æðelw. lib. iii. “Exactor regis, iam morans in oppido, quod Dorceastre
nuncupatur.” Gaimar calls him a “un senescal al rei:” l. 2069.
-----
In 897 again we hear of the death of Lucemon, in battle against the
Danes: the Chronicle calls him “ðæs cyninges geréfa:” but Henry of
Huntingdon, “praepositus regalis exercitus[435],” which may merely mean
the officer appointed to lead the _royal_ force, that is a king’s reeve
in the sense which I have attempted to establish on a preceding page.
Other king’s reeves mentioned, are Ælfweard, (Chron. Sax. an. 1011), and
Ælfgár (Cod. Dipl. No. 693).
-----
Footnote 435:
Hen. Hunt. lib. v.
-----
It may admit of doubt whether in the parts of England which were subject
to Danish rule, and only re-annexed to the Westsaxon crown by conquest,
the same institutions prevailed as in the rest of the country. In the
laws of Æðelred[437] we hear of a king’s reeve in the Wapentake and in
the community of the Five Burgs. These are not sheriffs; the former
rather resembling the Hundred-man; the latter a Burhgeréfa, but with
extended powers, perhaps approaching those of a sheriff, or the
Northumbrian heáhgeréfa already alluded to in this chapter.
-----
Footnote 437:
Æðelr. iii. § 1, and iii. § 3. Thorpe, i. 292, 294.
-----
THE BURHGERÉFA.—In a fortified town, which I take to be the strict
meaning of _burh_, there was an officer under this title. We know but
little of his peculiar powers; but there is every reason to conclude
that they were similar to those of other geréfan, according to the
circumstances in which he was placed. If the town were free, it is
possible that he may have been the popular officer, a sort of sheriff
where the town is itself a county. But this is improbable, and it is
much more likely that the burhgeréfa was essentially a royal officer,
charged with the maintenance and defence of a fortress. Such a one I
take Badoheard to have been in Dorchester; similarly we hear of Godwine,
praepositus civitatis Oxnafordi[438], Æðelwig praepositus in
Bucingaham[439], and Wynsige also praepositus in Oxnaforda[439], Osulf
and Ylcærðon both praepositi in Padstow[440]; and finally Ælfred, the
reeve of Bath[441]. It was this officer’s duty to preside in the
burhgemót, which was appointed to be held thrice in the year[442], and
he was most likely the representative of the towns-people, so far as
these were unfree, in the higher courts. It is also probable that he was
their military leader, and that he was expected to be present at sales
and exchanges in order to be able to warrant transactions, if impeached.
Lastly he was to see that tithes were duly rendered from his
fellow-citizens[443]. From a very interesting document just now
cited[444], it may be inferred that he possessed considerable power in
his district, and that persons of rank and wealth were clothed with the
office. We there find the reeves of Buckingham and Oxford granting the
rites of Christian burial to some Saxon gentlemen who had perished in a
brawl brought on by an attempt at theft; and the intervention of the
king himself seems to have been necessary to prevent the execution of
their decree. The burhgeréfa may perhaps be said to have had some of the
rights of the Aedile and Praetor urbanus under the old, or those of the
duumvir under the later, provincial constitution of Rome. Still he seems
to have been in some degree subject to the supervision of the ealdorman.
I have sometimes thought that he might be compared in part with the
Burggraf, in part with the Vogt of the German towns under the Empire;
but unfortunately we know too little of our ancient municipal
constitution to enable us to carry out this enquiry. We have no means
now of ascertaining the duration of his office, the nature of his
appointment, or the actual extent of his powers.
-----
Footnote 438:
Cod. Dipl. No. 950.
Footnote 439:
Ibid. No. 1289.
Footnote 440:
Ibid. No. 981.
Footnote 441:
Chron. Sax. an. 906.
Footnote 442:
Leg. Eádg. ii. § 5.
Footnote 443:
Æðelst. i. § 1. Thorpe, i. 194.
Footnote 444:
See Note 439
-----
PORTGERÉFA.—The Portgeréfa is in many respects similar to the
Burhgeréfa: but as it appears that _Port_ is applied rather to a
commercial than a fortified town, there are differences between the two
offices. In some degree these will have depended upon the comparative
power, freedom and organization of the citizens themselves, and I can
readily believe that the portreeves of London were much more important
personages than the burhreeves of Oxford or Bath. In the smaller towns,
it is probable that the court of the portreeve was a sort of pie-powder
court; but in the larger, it must have had cognizance of offences
against the customs laws, the laws affecting the mint, and the general
police of the district. As a general rule I imagine the portgeréfa to
have been an elective officer: perhaps in the large and important towns
he required at least the assent of the king. In London he holds the
place of the sheriff, and the king’s writs are directed to the earl, the
bishop and the portreeve[445]. There are two cities in which we hear of
portreeves, viz. London and Canterbury: in the former we have
Swétman[446], Ælfsige[447], Ulf[448], Leófstán[449], and the great
officer of the royal household, Esgár the steallere[450], which alone
would be sufficient evidence of the importance attached to the post. In
Canterbury we read of Æðelred[451], Leofstán[452], and Gódric[453],
occupying the same station. Again we have Ælfsige portgeréfa in
Bodmin[454], and Leófcild portgeréfa in Bath[455]. It is worthy of
remark that the two, Ælfsige and Leófstán, served the office together in
London, and that Ulf also occurs as sheriff of Middlesex. In the smaller
towns especially it must have been a principal part of the portreeve’s
duty to witness all transactions by bargain and sale[456]. A portion of
his subsistence at least was probably derived from the proceeds of
tolls, and fines levied within his district.
-----
Footnote 445:
Cod. Dipl. vol. iv. _passim_. There is not the slightest reason to
suppose that there ever was a special ealdorman of London, as Palgrave
imagines. The city was governed by Portreeves, usually two at once,
until long after the Conquest, when it obtained mayors, like many
other towns.
Footnote 446:
Cod. Dipl. Nos. 857, 861.
Footnote 447:
Cod. Dipl. No. 856.
Footnote 448:
Ibid. No. 872.
Footnote 449:
Ibid. Nos. 857, 861.
Footnote 450:
Ibid. No. 872.
Footnote 451:
Ibid. No. 929.
Footnote 452:
Ibid. No. 799.
Footnote 453:
Ibid. No. 789.
Footnote 454:
Ibid. No. 981.
Footnote 455:
Cod. Dipl. No. 933. This evidence that the officer in Bath was a
portreeve and not a burhreeve may suggest the possibility of those
persons whom I have cited under the former head, belonging rather to
the present one. The Latin _praepositus civitatis_ will denote either
one or the other office, and indeed it is difficult to prove any
difference between them by direct testimony.
Footnote 456:
Leg. Eádw. § 1. Thorpe, i. 158. Eádm. iii. § 5. Thorpe, i. 253.
Æðelst. i. § 12. Thorpe, i. 206.
-----
WÍCGERÉFA.—The Wícgeréfa was a similar officer, in villages, or in such
towns as had grown out of villages without losing the name of a village.
I presume that he was not concerned with the freemen, but was a kind of
steward of the manor, and that his dignity varied with the rank of his
employer and the extent of his jurisdiction. However there is so much
difficulty in making a clear distinction between Port and Wíc, that we
find wícgeréfa applied to officers who ruled in large and royal cities.
Thus the Saxon Chronicle mentions Beornwulf under the title of Wícgeréfa
in Winchester[457], whom Florence in the same year calls Praepositus
Wintoniensium. And in the laws of Hloðhere and Eádríc[458], the same
title is given to the king’s officer in London, Cyninges wícgeréfa. In
general I should be disposed to construe the word strictly as a
village-reeve, and especially in any case where the village was not
royal, but ducal or episcopal property. Many places may indeed have once
been called by the name of _Wíc_ which afterwards assumed a much more
dignified appellation, together with a much more important social
condition.
-----
Footnote 457:
Chron. Sax. an. 897.
Footnote 458:
§ 16. Thorpe, i. 34.
-----
TÚNGERÉFA.—The Túngeréfa is literally the reeve of a tún, enclosure,
farm, vill or manor: and his authority also must have fluctuated with
that of his lord. He is the _villicus_ or bailiff of the estate, and on
the royal farms was bound to superintend the cultivation, and keep the
peace among the cultivators. In London he appears to have been
subordinate to the portgeréfa, and was probably his officer[459]; it was
his business to see that the tolls were paid. Ælfred commands, in case a
man is committed to prison in the king’s tún, that the reeve shall feed
him, if necessary[460]. This I suppose to be the túngeréfa, the officer
on the spot who would be responsible for his security. So Eádgár forbids
his reeves to do any wrong to the other men of the tún, in respect to
the tracking of strange cattle[461]. Here the túngeréfa represents the
king, among the class that would in earlier times have formed a court of
free markmen. That the túngeréfa was the manager of a royal estate
appears plainly from an ordinance of Æðelstán, respecting the doles or
charities which were to issue from the various farms’ domain[462]. “I
Æðelstán, with the consent of Wulfhelm my archbishop, and all my other
bishops and God’s servants, command all you my reeves, within my realm,
for the forgiveness of my sins, that ye entirely feed one poor
Englishman, if ye have him, or that ye find another. From every two of
my farms, be there given him monthly one amber of meal, and one shank of
bacon, or a ram worth four pence, and clothing for twelve months every
year. And ye shall redeem one wíteþeów: and let all this be done for the
Lord’s mercy, and for my sake, under witness of the bishop in whose
diocese it may be. And if the reeve neglect this, let him make
compensation with thirty shillings, and let the money be distributed to
the poor in the tún where this remains unfulfilled, by witness of the
bishop.”
-----
Footnote 459:
Æðelr. iv. § 3.
Footnote 460:
Ælfr. § 1. Thorpe, i. 61.
Footnote 461:
Eádg. Supp. § 13. Thorpe, i. 276.
Footnote 462:
Æðelst. i. § 1. Thorpe, i. 196.
-----
Lastly, in the law of Æðelred[463] I find the Tungravius, decimates
homines, and presbyter charged with the care of seeing certain alms
bestowed and fasts observed; which seems to denote a special authority
exercised by the Túngeréfa together with the heads of the tithings. The
geréfa in a royal vill may easily have been a person of consideration:
if the Æðelnóð who in 830 was reeve at Eastry in Kent[464], were such a
one, we find from his will that he had no mean amount of property to
dispose of.
-----
Footnote 463:
Æðelr. viii. § 2. Thorpe, i. 338.
Footnote 464:
Cod. Dipl. No. 191.
-----
SWÁNGERÉFA.—The Swángeréfa, as his name denotes, was reeve of that
forest-court which till a late period was known in England as the
_swainmoot_. It was his business to superintend the swánas or swains,
the herdsmen and foresters, to watch over the rights of pasture, and
regulate the use which might be made of the forests. It is probably one
of the oldest constitutional offices, and may have existed by the same
name at a time when the organization in Marks was common all over
England. From a trial which took place in 825, we find that he had the
supervision of the pastures in the shirewood or public forest[465], and
from this also it appears that he was under the immediate
superintendence and control of the ealdorman. The extended organization
which the swána gemót attained under Cnut, may be seen in that prince’s
Constitutions de Foresta[466]. It is probable that there were
Holtgeréfan and Wudugeréfan, holtreeves and woodreeves among the Saxons,
having similar duties to those of the Swángeréfa, but I have not yet met
with these names. They are, I believe, by no means extinct in many parts
of England, any more than the Landreeve, a designation still current in
Devonshire, and probably elsewhere.
-----
Footnote 465:
Cod. Dipl. No. 219.
Footnote 466:
Thorpe, i. 426.
-----
WEALHGERÉFA.—The last officer whom I shall treat of particularly is the
Wealhgeréfa or Welsh-reeve. This singular title occurs in an entry of
the Saxon Chronicle, _anno_ 897. “The same year died Wulfríc, the king’s
horse-thane, who was also Wealhgeréfa.” There can be no dispute as to
the meaning of the word, but the functions of the officer designated by
it are far from clear. It denotes a reeve who had the superintendence of
the Welsh; but the question where this superintendence was exercised is
a very important one. If in the king’s palace, Wulfríc was set over a
certain number of unfree Britons, _laeti_ or even serfs, as their judge
and regulator: or he may have had the superintendence of property
belonging to Ælfred in Wales, which is somewhat less probable: or lastly
he may have been a margrave, whose mission it was to watch the Welsh
border, and defend the Saxon frontier against sudden incursions. This I
think the least probable of all, inasmuch as I find no traces of
margraves (mearcgeréfan) in Anglosaxon history. On the contrary the
marches in this country seem to have been always committed to the care
of a duke or ealdorman, not a geréfa. Wulfríc’s rank however, which was
that of a mariscalcus or marshal, is not inconsistent with so great and
distant a command. On the whole therefore I am disposed to believe that
he was a royal reeve to whose care Ælfred’s Welsh serfs were committed,
and who exercised a superintendence over them in some one or in all of
the royal domains.
The geréfa was not necessarily a royal officer: on the contrary we find
bishops, ealdormen, nay simple nobles with them upon their
establishment. Of course the moment an immunity of sacu and sócn existed
upon any estate, the lord appointed a geréfa to hold his court and do
right among his men, as the scírgeréfa held court for the freemen in the
shire. And if any proof of this were necessary, we might find it in the
title _socnereve_ (sócne geréfa) which occurs at page 12 of the valuable
book known as ‘Liber de antiquis Legibus,’ but which would have been
much more justly entitled Annals of the Corporation of London. We may be
assured that in every vill belonging to a bishop or a lay lord, in every
city where there was a cathedral or a castle, there was found a
bisceopes or an ealdormannes geréfa, as the case might be, performing
such functions for the prelate or the noble, as the king’s geréfa
exercised for him; and if there were an immunity, performing every
function that the royal officer performed. Thus in some towns I can
conceive it very possible that the king’s, ealdorman’s and bishop’s
reeves may have met side by side and exercised a concurrent
jurisdiction: and as the bishop’s geréfa must have led his armed
retainers, (at least whenever it pleased the prelate to remember the
canons of his church,) this officer may be compared to the Vogt,
Advocatus, Vice-dominus or Vidame, who fulfilled that duty on the
continent. The bishop’s reeve is empowered by the king to aid the
sheriff in the forcible levy of tithe[467]; he is recognised in the law
of Wihtrǽd as an intermediary between a dependent of the bishop and the
public courts of justice[468]; the thane’s or nobleman’s reeve was
allowed on various occasions to act as his attorney: the great landowner
was admonished to appoint reeves over his dependents, to preserve the
peace and represent them before the law; and lastly so necessary a part
of a nobleman’s establishment is the geréfa considered to be, that Ini
enacts[469], “whithersoever a noble journeys, thither may his reeve
accompany him.” Of course in many cases these geréfan would be merely
stewards[470], but in nearly all we must consider them to have been
judges in various courts of greater or less importance, public or
private as it might chance to be. This one original character
distinguishes all alike; whether it be the scírgeréfa of a county-court,
the burhgeréfa of a corporation, the swángeréfa of a woodland moot, the
mótgeréfa[471] of _any court_ in which plea could be holden, or the
túngeréfa of a vill or dependent settlement, the ancient steward of a
manorial court.
-----
Footnote 467:
Æðelr. i. § 1. Cnut, ii. § 30.
Footnote 468:
Wihtr. § 22. Thorpe, i. 43.
Footnote 469:
Ini. §63.
Footnote 470:
Cod. Dipl. No. 931.
Footnote 471:
“Swá ðæt nán scírgeréfa oððe mótgeréfa hæbbe ǽnige sócne oððe mót,
búton ðæs abbudes ágen hǽse ⁊ unne.” Cod. Dipl. No. 841. The law of
Eadweard which commands the reeve to hold his court once a month, and
which can only apply to the hundred, makes it probable that as the
scírgeréfa was in some places called scírman, so the hundred-man may
in some places have been called hundred-geréfa: I have already alluded
to the geréfa in the Wapentake; and the law of Eadweard the Confessor
(§ 31) shows that in the counties where there were Triðingas or
Ridings, there existed also a Triðing-geréfa.
-----