place naturally threw a great power of superintendence and interference
into the hands of the kings: from the beginning we find them taking a
very active part both in the formation of sees, the appointment of
bishops, and other public measures touching the government of the church
and—within this—the relation of the clergy to the state. The privileges
and rights conceded to the clerical body were granted by the king and
his witan, and enjoyed under their guarantee; and down to the last
moment of the Anglosaxon monarchy we find the episcopal elections or
appointments to have been controlled by them. Indeed as the clergy, the
people and the state may be said to have been duly represented by the
Witena gemót, an episcopal election made by them appears to possess in
all respects the genuine character of a canonical election: and in times
when there were no parliamentary struggles to make single votes
valuable, there seems no reason whatever to question that this mode was
found satisfactory. The loose manner in which the early writers mention
the appointment of the bishops, hardly permits us to draw any very
definite conclusions; yet it would seem natural that, where the whole
missionary work depended upon the goodwill of the king, the latter, with
or without his council, would exercise a paramount authority in all
matters of detail. Accordingly, though we do meet with instances in
which the free election of prelates may be assumed, we do far more
frequently find them both appointed and displaced by the mere act of the
royal will[863]. The case of Wessex in the seventh century is
instructive. Ægilberht, a Frank, had succeeded Birinus, the first
missionary bishop; but, from some cause or other, he lost the favour of
the king[864], who proposed to divide his diocese, which was too large
in fact for one prelate, and to appoint Wini, a native Westsaxon, to the
second see. Ægilberht then withdrew from England in disgust, and the
king committed the undivided bishopric to Wini: but on some subsequent
misunderstanding, this bishop was expelled from Wessex, and afterwards
_purchased_ the see of London from Wulfhari, king of the Mercians.
Coinwalh then applied for and obtained another bishop from Gaul in the
person of Liuthari or Lothaire, Ægilberht’s nephew. Equally great
irregularities seem to have been admitted in respect to the Northumbrian
sees in the time of Wilfrið; and indeed throughout the Anglosaxon
history it appears that the ruling powers, that is the king and the
witan, did in fact succeed in retaining the nomination of the bishops in
their own hands[865]. I have already mentioned instances of episcopal
nominations by the witena gemót[866], and called attention to the
significant fact of so many royal chaplains promoted to sees[867]. It is
difficult no doubt to withstand a royal recommendation, and though in
the case of the Anglosaxon prelates this does not always seem to have
ensured the canonical virtues, it perhaps very sufficiently supplied
their want. After the appointment or election had thus been made, it was
usual for the bishop elect to make his profession of faith to his
metropolitan; then to receive episcopal consecration from him, assisted
by such of his suffragans as he thought fit. He then most likely
received seizin of the temporalities in the usual way by royal writ. The
following is the instrument issued in 1060, for the temporalities of the
see of Hereford, on the appointment of Walther, queen Eádgyfu’s Lorraine
chaplain. “Eadwardus rex saluto Haroldum comitem et Osbearnum, et omnes
meos ministros in Herefordensi comitatu amicabiliter. Et ego notifico
vobis quod ego concessi Waltero episcopo istum episcopatum hic vobiscum,
et omnia universa illa quae ad ipsum cum iusticia pertinent infra portum
et extra, cum saca et cum socna, tam plene et tam plane sicut ipsum
aliquis episcopus ante ipsum prius habuit in omnibus rebus. Et si illic
sit aliqua terra extra dimissa quae illuc intus cum iustitia pertinet,
ego volo quod ipsa reveniat in ipsum episcopatum, vel ille homo ipsam
dimittat eidem in suo praetio, si quis ipsam cum eo invenire possit. Et
ego nolo ullum hominem licentiare quod ei de manibus rapiat aliquam suam
rem quam ipse iuste habere debet, et ego ei sic concessi[868].”
-----
Footnote 863:
See on this subject Lingard, Anglos. Church, i. 89 _seq._ His view
seems upon the whole satisfactory, and conformable to truth.
Footnote 864:
Lingard attributes this to the intrigues of Wini, whose simoniacal
bargain for the see of London does certainly not give a favourable
impression of his character. “The influence of the stranger was
secretly undermined by the intrigues of Wini, a Saxon ecclesiastic,
who possessed the advantage of conversing with the king in his native
tongue.” Anglos. Church, i. 90. But Beda says nothing of this: he
merely hints that Coinwalh was disgusted with the difficulties which
arose from Ægilberht’s ignorance of the Anglosaxon language. The whole
transaction is thus related in the Hist. Eccl. iii. 7:—“Cum vero
restitutus esset in regnum Coinwalch, venit in provinciam de Hibernia
pontifex quidam nomine Agilberctus, natione quidem Gallus, sed tunc
legendarum gratia Scripturarum in Hibernia non parvo tempore
demoratus, coniunxitque se regi, sponte ministerium praedicandi
adsumens: cuius eruditionem atque industriam videns rex rogavit eum,
accepta ibi sede episcopali, suae genti manere pontificem. Qui
precibus eius adnuens, multis annis eidem genti sacerdotali iure
praefuit. Tandem rex, qui Saxonum tantum linguam noverat, pertaesus
barbarae loquelae, subintroduxit in provinciam alium suae linguae
episcopum vocabulo Uini, et ipsum in Gallia ordinatum: dividensque in
duas parochias provinciam, huic in civitate Venta, quae a gente
Saxonum Uintancestir appellatur, sedem episcopalem tribuit; unde
offensus graviter Agilberctus, quod hoc ipso inconsulto ageret rex,
rediit Galliam, et accepto episcopatu Parisiacae civitatis, ibidem
senex et plenus dierum obiit. Non multis autem annis post abcessum
eius a Britannia transactis, pulsus est Uini ab eodem rege de
episcopatu; qui secedens ad regem Merciorum, vocabulo Uulfheri, emit
pretio ab eodem sedem Lundoniae civitatis, eiusque episcopus usque ad
vitae suae terminum mansit.” Wessex then remained for some time
without a bishop, till Coinwalh sent to Ægilberht and invited him to
return. The Frankish prelate replied that he could not desert his
church and see, but recommended his nephew Lothaire, as a proper
person to be ordained to Wessex: and he was accordingly consecrated by
Theodore: “Quo honorifice a populo et a rege suscepto, rogaverunt
Theodorum, tunc archiepiscopum Doruvernensis ecclesiae, ipsum sibi
antistitem consecrari.” Hist. Eccl. iii. 27. See also Will. Malm. de
Gest. Pontif. lib. ii.
Footnote 865:
Throughout every difficulty the English kings never lost sight of this
part of their prerogative, often as they were deceived in its
exercise. A writer of the twelfth century very justly calls it “the
custom of the realm.” “Cum autem _iuxta regni consuetudinem_, in
electionibus faciendis potissimas et potentissimas habeat partes,”
etc. Pet. Blesensis, Ep. de Henrico II. An. Trivet. 1154. p. 35.
Footnote 866:
Page 221 of this volume.
Footnote 867:
Page 115 of this volume.
Footnote 868:
Cod. Dipl. No. 833.
-----
As this is obviously, indeed professedly, a Latin translation, I subjoin
copies of the similar writs issued on the occasion of Gisa’s appointment
to the see of Wells[869].
-----
Footnote 869:
Gisa was a chaplain of the king, and also of Lotharingen or Lorraine.
-----
“✠ Eadward king grét Harold erl and Aylnóð abbot and Godwine schýre
réuen and alle míne þeynes on Sumerseten frendlíche; and ich kýðe eów
ðæt ich habbe geunnen Gisan mínan préste ðes biscopríche hér mid eów and
alre ðare þinge ðás ðe ðǽr mid richte tógebyrað, on wóde and on felde,
mid saca and mid sócna, binnon porte and bútan, swó ful and swó forð swó
Duduc biscop oð ány biscop hit firmest him tóforen hauede on ællem
þingan. And gif hér áni land sý out of ðám biscopríche gedon, ich wille
ðæt hit cume in ongeæn óðer ðæt man hit ofgo on hire gemóð swó man wið
him bet finde mage. And ich bidde eóu allen ðæt ge him fulstan tó dríuan
Godes gerichte lóck huer hit neod sý and he eówwer fultumes biðurfe. And
ich nelle nánne man geðefien ðæt him úram honde teó ánige ðáre þinge ðás
ðe ich him unnen habben[870].”
-----
Footnote 870:
The same in Latin. “✠ Eádwardus rex Haroldo comiti, Ailnodo abbati,
Godwino vicecomiti, et omnibus ballivis suis Somersetae, salutem!
Sciatis nos dedisse Gisoni presbytero nostro episcopatum hunc apud vos
cum omnibus pertinentiis, in bosco et plano, et saca et socna, in
villis et extra, ita plene et libere in omnibus sicut episcopus
Dudocus aut aliqui praedecessorum suorum habuerunt; et si quid inde
contra iustitiam fuerit sublatum, volumus quod revocetur, vel quod
aliter ei satisfaciat. Rogamus etiam vos ut auxiliari eidem velitis ad
Christianitatem sustinandam si necesse habuerit, nolumus autem ut
ullus hominum ei auferat aliquid eorum quae ei contulimus.” Cod. Dipl.
No. 835.
-----
“✠ Eadward king grét Harold erl, and Aylnóð abbot, and Godwine and
ealle míne þeines on Sumerseten frendlíche; ich queðe eóu ðæt ich wille
ðæt Gyse biscop beó ðisses biscopríches wrðe heerinne mid eóu. And álch
ðáre þinge ðe ðás ðár mid richte tógebyrað binnan porte and bután, mid
saca and mid sócna, swó uol and swó uorð swó hit éni biscop him tóuoren
formest haueð on ealle þing. And ich bidde eóu alle ðæt ge him beón on
fultome Cristendóm tó sprekene, lóc whar hit þarf sý and eówer fultumes
beðurfe eal swó ich getrowwen tó eów habben ðat ge him on fultume beón
willen. And gif what sý mid unlage out of ðán biscopríche geydón sý hit
londe óðer an oððer þinge ðár fulstan him uor mínan luuen ðæt hit in
ongeyn cume swó swó ge for Gode witen ðat hit richt sý. God eú ealle
gehealde[871].”
-----
Footnote 871:
The same in Latin. “✠ Eádwardus rex Haroldo comiti, Ailnodo abbati,
Godwino, et omnibus ballivis suis Sumersetac, salutem! Significamus
vobis nos velle quod episcopus Giso episcopatum apud vos possideat cum
omnibus dictum episcopatum in villis et extra de iure contingentibus,
cum saca et socna, adeo plene et libere per omnia sicut ullus
episcoporum praedecessorum suorum unquam habebat. Rogamus etiam vos ut
coadiutores ipsius esse velitis ad fidem praedicandam et
Christianitatem sustinendam pro loco et tempore, sicut de vobis
fideliter confidimus vos velle id ipsum. Et si quid de dicto
episcopatu sive in terris sive in aliis rebus contra iustitiam fuerit
sublatum, adiuvetis eum pro amore nostro ad restitutionem, prout
iustum fuerit habendam. Conservet vos Dominus.” Cod. Dipl. No. 838.
-----
The metropolitans themselves were to receive consecration from one
another, in order that the expense and trouble of going to Rome might be
avoided: but during the abeyance of the archiepiscopate of York, the
prelate elect of Canterbury appears to have been sometimes consecrated
in Gaul, sometimes by a conclave of suffragan bishops at home: thus in
731 Tátwine was consecrated at Canterbury by Daniel, Ingwald, Aldwine
and Aldwulf, the respective bishops of Winchester, London, Worcester and
Rochester[872]; and Pope Gregory the Third either made or acknowledged
this consecration to be valid by the transmission of a pall in 733. We
have no evidence by whom the consecrations were performed, in many
cases, but it is probable that the old rule was adhered to as much as
possible. In 1020, Æðelnóð was consecrated to Canterbury by archbishop
Wulfstán: the ceremony took place at Canterbury on the 13th of
November[873] in that year: and since in many cases the ordination of
archbishops is mentioned without any details, but yet as preliminary to
their going to Rome for their palls, it is likely that the chroniclers
tacitly assumed the custom of reciprocal functions in Canterbury and
York to be too well known to require description.
-----
Footnote 872:
Flor. Wig. an. 731.
Footnote 873:
Chron. Sax. an. 1020.
-----
When the nomination or election by the king and his witan had taken
place, it is probable that a royal mandate was sent to the metropolitan,
to perform the ceremony of consecration. We have yet the instrument by
which Wulfstán of York certifies to Cnut the performance of this duty in
the case of archbishop Æðelnóð[874]: the archbishop says:—“Wulfstán the
archbishop greets Cnut his lord, and Ælfgyfu the lady, humbly: and I
notify to you both, dear ones, that we have done as notice came from you
to us respecting bishop Æðelwold, namely that we have now consecrated
him.” He then prays that the new prelate may have all the rights and
dues granted to him, which have been usual, and enjoyed by his
predecessors: which perhaps is to be understood as a formal demand that
the temporalities may be properly conferred upon him. There can be no
manner of doubt as to the meaning of the word _swutelung_, which I have
rendered by _notice_, and Lingard by _order_[875]: it is a legal
notification, and the technical word in a writ is _swutelian_. But I do
not believe that Cnut was any more imperative in this matter than his
predecessors had been. An Anglosaxon archbishop would never have found
it a very safe thing to neglect a royal command by ancient right[876].
-----
Footnote 874:
Cod. Dipl. No. 1314. “✠ Wulfstán arcebisceop grét Cnut cyning his
hlaford, and Ælfgyfe ða hlǽfdian eádmódlíce; and ic cýðe inc leóf ðæt
we habbað gedón swá swá ús swutelung fram eów com æt ðám biscop
Æðelnóðe, ðæt we habbað hine nú gebletsod. Nú bidde ic for Godes lufon
and for eallan Godes hálgan ðæt gewitan on Gode ðam æðe and on ðám
hálgan háde, ðæt he mote beón ðǽre þinga wyrðe ðe óðre beforan wǽron,
Dúnstán ðe gód wæs, and mænig óðer; ðæt ðes mote beón eall swá rihta
and gerysna wyrðe ðæt inc byð bám þearflíc for Gode, and eác
gerysenlíc for worolde.”
Footnote 875:
Hist. and Antiq. i. 94. His whole account is well worth attention.
Footnote 876:
We have but one instrument:—granted. But what proportion have we of
instruments respecting matters which are entirely beyond doubt?
Supposing a royal mandate of consecration had issued on the election
of every bishop, between 802, when Ecgberht came to the throne, and
1066, there would have been once in existence 36 archiepiscopal and
224 episcopal writs, or a total of 260. But during the same period, in
the 32 counties south of the Humber there would have been held 25,344
shiremoots or county-courts. I will deduct one half of this number to
meet all conceivable accidents. Of the 12,672, of which beyond a doubt
records once existed, we still possess _three_ or at the utmost _four_
instruments: but do we on that account doubt that shiremoots were
held? When we look at these ratios of 1 : 260 and 4 : 12,672, we find
the authority for the writ of consecration more than ten times as
great as that for the existence of shiremoots.
-----
The bishops were in fact officers of the administration, and whatever
importance their ecclesiastical functions may have possessed, their
civil character was not of less moment. It is abundantly obvious that
men of such a class, possessing nearly a monopoly of what learning
existed, would be necessarily called to assist in the national councils,
and would be very generally employed in the diplomatic intercourse with
foreign countries: few persons of equal rank would have been competent
to conduct a negotiation carried on in writing: and there is no doubt
that their high position in the universal institution of the church
rendered them at that period the fittest persons to manage those affairs
which concerned the general family of nations. Moreover a close alliance
always existed in England between the aristocracy and the clergy:
faithful service of the altar, like faithful service of the state, gave
rank and dignity and privileges; and the ecclesiastical authority and
influence of the bishop, as well as his habits of business, and general
aptitude to advance the interests of the crown, frequently designated
him to discharge the somewhat indefinite, but weighty, duties of what we
now call a prime minister. Administration is in truth of such far
greater importance than constitution, that we can readily see how
greatly the social welfare of England did in reality depend upon this
class, to whom so much of administrative detail was committed: and it
was truly fortunate for the country that the clerical profession was one
that a gentleman could devote himself to without disparagement, and
therefore embraced so many distinguished members of the ruling class.
The civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions were, it is well known, not
separated in England until after the Conquest. William the Norman was
the first to establish that most questionable division, the consequences
of which were often so bitterly felt by his successors. Previous to his
reign the bishop had been the assessor of the ealdorman in the scírgemót
or county-court, and ecclesiastical causes, except such as were reserved
for the decision of the episcopal synods, were subjected, like those of
the laity, to the judgment of the scírþegnas or shire-thanes: thus even
probate of wills was given in the county-court. This participation of
bishops in the administration of justice, useful and necessary in the
early ages of Christianity, was very probably derived from the functions
of their heathen predecessors, the priests of the ancient gods. The old
Germanic _placita_ were held, as is well known, under the presidency of
the priests, and these were courts of law as well as courts of
parliament. In fact there is no reason whatever to doubt that, long
before the introduction of Christianity, the public pleadings were
opened with religious ceremonies, and that the course of procedure was
regulated by religious ideas[877]. The gods were present,—to secure the
peaceful administration of justice, to sanction the finding of the
freemen, to give a holy character to the act of _doing right_ between
man and man,—to terrify the perjurer and the criminal,—perhaps to
justify the extreme penalty of the law in extreme cases; for it is
probable that to the gods alone could the life of a great wrongdoer be
offered, as an atonement to the Law, of which God is the root and
guardian. The institution of the ordeal by which it was superstitiously
supposed that the Almighty would reveal the hidden truth or falsehood of
men, further tended to connect, first the pagan and afterwards the
Christian priesthood with the administration of justice. In that most
solemn appeal to the omniscience and justice of God, the clergy
necessarily took the prominent part; and although we cannot believe that
they always resisted the temptation offered by that most strange juggle,
it may charitably be asserted that their intervention not rarely saved
the innocent from the penal consequences of an uncertain and painful
test.
-----
Footnote 877:
“Omnis itaque concionis illius multitudo ex diversis partibus coacta,
primo suorum proavorum servare contendit instituta, numinibus
videlicet suis vota solvens ac sacrificia.” Hucbald. Vit. Lebwini,
cap. xii.
-----
I have remarked in an earlier chapter[878] upon the union of the
sacerdotal with the judicial power: at a very early stage of human
society, the functions of the priest and the judge seem in general to
have been inseparable; nor were they separated in fact upon the
introduction of Christianity. In the very commencement of our æra, when
the church really did exist as a brotherhood under the guidance of the
first disciples, it was most natural that all contentions between
members of the body should be settled by the arbitration of the whole
church, or such as represented it. Litigation before the ordinary
tribunals of the state, even could such have been resorted to by
Christians, was little consonant with the doctrine of charity which was
to prevail among the members of one mystical body, founded on almighty
Love. Accordingly St. Paul himself[879] expressly forbids the disciples
to carry their contentions before the secular authorities, implying that
it is their duty to bring them to the consideration of their
fellow-believers, that they may be amicably settled, in the spirit of
forbearance and Christian moderation. And as persecution gradually
threatened the terrified community, this course became unavoidable: it
was impossible for the Christian to submit to the pagan forms of the
tribunals, yet to refuse these was to proclaim the adoption of a
proscribed and illegal association. The establishment of a hierarchy
among the Christians themselves supplied some remedy for this
difficulty, and it was soon decided that the disputes of the brotherhood
were to be brought before the presbyter or bishop as a judge,—a course
which in itself was natural in countries where the Romans had permitted
the existence of some authority in the national tribunals, and had not
insisted upon dragging every cause before their own officers. The
peculiar situation of the Christians themselves as citizens of a new
state—viz. the religious state—tended to consolidate this system.
Christianity took cognizance of motives, of acts entirely beyond the
reach of mere human law, and the community claimed a right to judge of
the internal as well as the external state of its members. Immorality,
not cognizable by any positive law, was a proper subject for the
animadversion of a body whose duty it was to exclude from communion all
who pertinaciously refused to perform the duties of their profession. It
was thus that a twofold jurisdiction became lodged in the church,—and in
the bishop or presbyter, as its representative in each particular
locality,—long before the reception of Christianity among the
_religiones licitae_ transformed the customs of an obscure sect into
recognised laws of the empire. But no sooner had the terms of the great
alliance been arranged, than the state hastened to give the imperial
sanction to what had hitherto been merely the bye-laws of a sodality:
and the decisions of a council, if confirmed by the assent of the
emperor, were at once raised to the rank of imperial laws. Thus the
council of Carthage in 397 had threatened with excommunication any
clergyman who should pursue another before the secular tribunals; and
this decree, repeated in 451 by the fourth general Council—that of
Chalcedon—had received the sanction of Marcianus, and become part of the
law of the Roman empire. The jurisdiction of the bishops in the affairs
of the clergy was thus rendered legal; but it was at a later period
extended so as to include a much wider sphere. Justinian not only
commanded all causes in which monks were concerned to be referred to the
bishop of the diocese, but made him the only legal channel of
proceedings even in cases where laymen had claims against the
clergy[880].
-----
Footnote 878:
Volume i. page 146.
Footnote 879:
1 Corinthians vi. 1-7.
Footnote 880:
Novel. § 83.
-----
Arbitration by the bishop had thus grown up into a custom, at first
absolutely necessary, and afterwards always desirable, in a society like
the Christian. Accordingly Constantine permitted all contentions to be
so settled. But it was a rule of Roman law that there could lie no
appeal whatever from a voluntary arbitration; and in pursuance of this
rule, in the year 408, Arcadius and Honorius decreed that the sentences
of bishops should be without appeal[881]. In this manner was the
ecclesiastical jurisdiction founded in the Greek and Roman empires.
-----
Footnote 881:
Dönniges, Deut. Staatsr. p. 48 _seq._
-----
Happily for ourselves, this could not be admitted without modification
in the Germanic states. Had it indeed been so, every trace of
independence would long since have perished, and the whole civilized
world have found itself subject to the principles and regulations of an
effete scheme of jurisprudence. The antagonism of the Germanic customary
right it was that saved us from the consequences which must have
followed the universal prevalence of maxims elaborated by another race,
and sprung out of a different social condition. It was the conflict of
the Roman and Ecclesiastical laws with those of the Teutonic victors
that produced that modified system of relations, under which, by the
blessing of Providence, civilization has been maintained, the general
well-being of mankind advanced, and human society firmly established
throughout Europe, on a basis susceptible of progressive, perhaps
illimitable improvement. Useful as a counter-check to the somewhat
disruptive system of the Germans, the Roman and Ecclesiastical laws have
yet never been able to destroy the nationality, or abridge the freedom,
of our races; while they have tended to give consistency and method to
our own customs, and to reduce into form and harmony what, but for them,
might have been liable to fall asunder from its own internal vigour.
Like the centripetal and centrifugal forces, they have balanced one
another, and held our social state together as one majestic and
consistent whole.
The method of doing justice between man and man, which was the very
foundation-stone of the Teutonic polity, was in direct opposition to the
doctrines of Roman jurists and the practice of the church. Justice went
out from among the people themselves, not from the king or the bishop.
The people spoke both as to fact and law, the ancient customary law; nor
did they at any time allow their relations as Christians to abrogate the
older rights they had possessed as citizens, where the exercise of these
was clearly compatible with the recognition of the former. In respect to
their religion, they duly submitted to the ecclesiastical authority,
made confession, performed penance, and hearkened to advice tendered by
qualified functionaries; but they nevertheless still met in their folk-
and shire-moots to hold plea, declare folk-right, and superintend its
execution by their national officers. Not even to the clergy themselves
did they accord an immunity from the universal duties of freemen: and
although they may have been disposed to acquiesce in the claim to be
quit of personal military service, they never excused suit and service
to the popular courts. Only when the relation of a cleric to his
superior was that of an unfree man to his lord, did the state release
him from this duty, or rather did the state hold him unworthy of this
privilege.
The existence of such a body as the English clergy could not possibly be
ignored. As organized agents of a system which professed to exercise a
right of rule over the most secret desires and motives of men,—as
students distinguished by their knowledge, or remarkable for their
piety,—as landlords, in the enjoyment of great wealth, and chiefs of
numerous dependents,—lastly as advisers and ministers of the ruling
class, or intermediaries in the intercourse with foreign states,—they
formed a power whose claims to attention could not be neglected. But
their social position itself was that which brought them continually in
relation with the other aggregates of freemen, and they were therefore
called upon to take their place with other landowners, lords, or
ministerials in the popular councils.
With all their attachment to the customary law and the national
franchises, the Anglosaxons never lost sight of the fact that
Christianity had introduced new social relations: they were ready to
admit that there was now a godcund or _divine_ as well as woroldcund or
_secular_ right; and in the exposition of the former they were willing
to follow the guidance of those who professed to make it their especial
study. Moreover the system of Anglosaxon jurisprudence depended very
much upon the trustworthy character of witnesses, and the ordination of
the clergy was justly taken to have imposed upon them the obligation of
a peculiar truthfulness. The testimony of members of their class became
therefore a very important thing in the sight of the _moot-thanes_ who
might have disputed points to settle, or who, in mixed causes, might
shrink from doing wrong to the venerable body by too strict an
application of the principles by which themselves were bound. Lastly, as
there was a merciful tendency among the people to have disputes settled
by arbitration and on equitable grounds, rather than by the strict rules
of law, the clergy, whose jurisdiction extended to the motives of
Christians rather than the mere acts of citizens, were valuable
intermediaries between contending parties. The dignity of the class—the
_honor clericalis_—was cheerfully recognised, the wisdom and goodness of
the body acknowledged, and the propriety of being to a great degree
guided by the experience and enlightenment of their leaders, readily
conceded. Accordingly the bishop became an inseparable assessor of the
Frankish count and of the Anglosaxon ealdorman in their respective
courts[882].
-----
Footnote 882:
See Leg. Eádg. ii. § 5. Cnut, ii. § 18.
-----
The duties of a bishop as the officer of a state, and
contradistinguished from his merely ecclesiastical functions, were to
assist in the administration of justice between man and man, to guard
against perjury, and to superintend the administration of the ordeals;
further to take care that no fraud was committed by means of unjust
measures, to which end he was made the guardian of the standards, and
the judge of what work might be demanded from the serf; above all, to
watch over the maintenance of the peace, and the upholding of divine as
well as secular law[883]. The canons of the church did indeed prohibit
the presence of bishops on trials which might involve the penalties of
death or mutilation; and even the Constitutions of Clarendon, the object
of which was to place the clergy on their proper and ancient footing
towards the other members of the church and state, recognised this
exemption[884]: but there is little reason to suppose that it was
regarded by the Anglosaxons; indeed the popular courts had no power to
pass sentences of so deep a dye, until long after the custom of the
bishop’s presence therein had been established too firmly to be
questioned. It was otherwise among the Franks, and we may perhaps
attribute this to the strong nationality of the Frankish clergy, which
indisposed them to claim their canonical immunity.
-----
Footnote 883:
The ‘Institutes of Ecclesiastical Polity’ are very explicit upon these
points. They say:—“To a bishop belongs every direction, both in divine
and worldly things. He shall, in the first place, inform men in
orders, so that each of them may know what it properly behoves him to
do, and also what they have to enjoin to secular men. He shall ever be
[busied] about reconciliation and peace, as he best may. He shall
zealously appease strifes and effect peace, with those temporal judges
who love right. He shall in accusations direct the _lád_, so that no
man may wrong another, either in oath or ordeal. He shall not consent
to any injustice, or wrong measure, or false weight; but it is fitting
that every legal right (both ‘burhriht’ and ‘landriht’) go by his
counsel and with his witness: and let every burgmeasure, and every
balance for weighing be, by his direction and furthering, very exact;
lest any man should wrong another, and thereby altogether too greatly
sin.... It behoves all Christian men to love righteousness, and shun
unrighteousness; and especially men in orders should ever exalt
righteousness, and suppress unrighteousness: therefore should bishops,
together with temporal judges, so direct judgments, that, as far as in
them lies, they never permit any injustice to spring up there.... By
the confessor’s direction, and by his own measure, it is justly
fitting that the thralls work for their lords over all the district in
which he shrives. And it is right that there be not one measuring-rod
longer than another, but all regulated by the confessor’s measure; and
let every measure in his shrift-district, and every weight, be, by his
direction, very rightly regulated: and if there be any dispute, let
the bishop arbitrate.” Thorpe, ii. 312 _seq._
Footnote 884:
“Archiepiscopi, episcopi et universae personae regni, qui de rege
tenent in capite, habeant possessiones suas de rege sicut baroniam, et
inde respondeant iusticiariis et ministris regis, et sequantur et
facient omnes consuetudines regias; et sicut caeteri barones, debent
interesse iudiciis curiae regis quousque perveniatur ad diminutionem
membrorum vel ad mortem.” Rog. Wend. _anno_ 1164. Coxe, ii. 301.
-----
Another exemption which the bishops properly possessed, seems also to
have been often neglected in this country,—that namely of personal
service in the field. No doubt, all over Europe, as soon as the bishops
became possessed of lands liable to the _hereban_, or military muster,
they, like other lords, were compelled to place their armed tenants on
foot, for the public service, when duly required: but their levies were
mostly commanded by officers specially designated for that purpose and
known under the names of _advocati_, _vicedomini_, or _vidames_; being
in general nobles of power and dignity who assumed or accepted the
exercise of the bishop’s royalties, the management of his estates, the
administration and execution of his justice, and a remunerative share of
his revenues and patronage. In Saxon England, however, we do not meet
with these officers; and though it is probable that the bishop’s geréfa
was bound to lead his contingent under the command of the ealdorman, yet
we have ample evidence that the prelates themselves did not hold their
station to excuse them from taking part in the just and lawful defence
of their country and religion against strange and pagan invaders[885].
Too many fell in conflict to allow of our attributing their presence on
the field merely to their anxiety lest the belligerents should be
without the due consolations of religion; and in other cases, upon the
alarm of hostile incursions, we find the levies stated to have been led
against the enemy by the duke and bishop of the district.
-----
Footnote 885:
As late as 43 Edw. III. A.D. 1369, on an alarm of invasion, orders
were given to arm and array the clergy, as well as laity. Rym. Foed.
vi. 631.
-----
Attention has been called in another chapter to the fact that the
bishops did not universally (or indeed usually), make their residences
in the principal cities[886]. A remarkable distinction thus arose
between themselves and the prelates of Gaul and Germany. The latter,
strong in the support of the burgesses, and identified with the urban
interests, found means to consolidate a power which they used without
scruple against the king when it suited their convenience, or which
enabled them to extort from him the grant of offices that virtually
rendered them independent of his authority. This was generally effected
through the bishop’s obtaining the county, that is becoming the count,
and thus exercising the palatine power in his city, as well as that
which he might already possess _iure episcopii_, and as _defensor urbis_
or patron of the municipality. This, rare indeed under Charlemagne, but
not uncommon in the times which preceded and followed him, can at least
not be proved to have taken place in England before the Conquest[887].
There is indeed one instance which might seem at first sight to
contradict this assertion, but which upon closer investigation rather
confirms it. We learn that certain thieves, having attempted a
sacrilegious entry into the church of St. Eádmund, and being
miraculously delivered into the hands of the authorities, were put to
death by the orders of Ðeódred, then bishop of London and of
Eastanglia[888]. This event took place after the conquest of the
last-named province by Æðelstán, who about 930 drove the Danes from it
or reduced them under his own power. At that time it appears uncertain
whether the conquered kingdom had been duly arranged and settled, or
whether any ealdorman had been appointed to govern it. If not, we must
imagine that Ðeódred, the only constituted authority on the spot, acted
at his own discretion in a case of urgency, without absolutely
possessing the legal power to do so; that the act was in short one of
those examples of what in modern times we understand by the term
Lynch-law, that law which men are obliged to administer for themselves
in the absence of the regular machinery of government. But it is further
observable that, according to the terms of the legend itself, these
thieves were taken _in the manner_, and consequently liable to capital
punishment without any trial at all[889]; this justice we may suppose
Ðeódred to have executed, and to its summary character we may attribute
the regrets he expressed on the subject at a later time. It is also
possible to account for the act by supposing that even at this early
period the bishop possessed his sacu and sócn in the demesne of St.
Eádmund, and that he proceeded to execute his thieves by his right as
lord of the sócn: but there is no clear proof that the immunity did
exist before the time of Cnut, and I therefore incline to the second
explanation as the most probable. But if Ðeódred did not act in
pursuance of possessing the comitial power, we may safely say that there
is no evidence whatever of any Saxon bishop having exercised it[890]. As
assessor to the ealdorman, the bishop was especially charged to attend
to the due levy of tithe and other church imposts; but this was clearly
because he had a direct interest in the law that decreed their punctual
payment, and was certain not to connive at any neglect in its execution,
which the ealdorman out of favour or carelessness might possibly have
been disposed to do.
-----
Footnote 886:
The Normans adopted a different custom. Many of the cathedrals were
transferred from obscure sites to the cities which they now adorn, by
the first Norman bishops.
Footnote 887:
After the Conquest it did take place: Walcher bishop of Durham was
made also count of the same in 1075, upon the capture of Earl Wælþeóf.
Hist. Dunelm. Eccl. lviii. (lib. iii. cap. xxiii. p. 208). As late as
the time of Richard the First, we find a successor of Walcher, Hugo de
Pusac, purchasing the same county of the king, _anno_ 1189. Ric.
Divisiens. p. 8. One year later, Baldwin archbishop of Canterbury
suspended Hugo, bishop of Coventry, because “contra dignitatem
episcopalis ordinis, officium sibi vicecomitatus usurpaverat.” Rog.
Wend. an. 1190. Coxe, iii. 18.
Footnote 888:
“Hic fecit suspendi latrones volentes infregisse aecclesiam Sancti
Eadmundi, qui tamen erant miraculose impediti.” Chron. de Passione S.
Edmundi, cited by Wharton. Ep. et Dec. Lond. p. 29. See also Will.
Malm. Gest. Pont. lib. ii.
Footnote 889:
William of Malmesbury seems to allude to this point, when he says of
St. Eádmund: “Latrunculos, noctu sacram aedem expilare aggressos,
invisis loris in ipsis conatibus irretivit; formoso admodum
spectaculo, quod praeda praedones tenuit, ut nec coepto desistere, nec
inchoata valerent perficere.” Gest. Reg. i. 366, § 213.
Footnote 890:
By the law of Eádweard the Confessor, “cyricbryce” belonged to the
bishop. “Si quis sanctae aecclesiae pacem fregerit, episcoporum tum
est iusticia.” Leg. Eád. Conf. § vi. But this seems a different thing
altogether, and to be a violation of the “grið” only.
-----
But a still higher authority was placed in the hands of the bishop,
derived in fact from the assumed pre-eminence of the ecclesiastical over
the secular power. If the geréfa would not do justice, and maintain the
peace in the land, then the bishop was especially commanded to enforce
the fines which the king and his witan had apportioned to that officer’s
offence[891]. It was no doubt argued that no geréfa would be found bold
enough to incur the danger of offering violent resistance to the sacred
person of the prelate; and even the ealdorman, who might have set the
king at defiance, would tremble to encounter the substantial terrors of
excommunication and a laborious penance.
-----
Footnote 891:
“But if any of my reeves will not do this, and care less about it than
we have decreed, then let him pay my _oferhyrnes_ [that is the fine
for _disobedience_], and I will find another, who will. And let the
bishop exact the _oferhyrnes_ of the reeve in whose district it may
be.” Leg. Æðelst. i. § 26. Thorpe, i. 212. Again: “And let the judge
that giveth wrong judgment to another, pay to the king a _bót_ of one
hundred and twenty shillings; unless he will venture to prove on oath
that he knew no better. And let him forfeit his thaneship for ever,
unless he can redeem it from the king, as he may be willing to permit.
And let the bishop of the shire exact the _bót_ into the king’s hand.”
Leg. Eádg. ii. § 3. Thorpe, i. 266.
-----
The high station occupied by the bishop in the social hierarchy is
proved by the amount of his wergyld and of the fines assigned to
offences against his honour, his person, and his property. Although the
bishop and the presbyter are in fact but of one order in the church, yet
the state found it convenient to place the former on much the higher
scale. In the “North-people’s law” an archbishop is reckoned upon the
same footing as an æðeling or prince of the blood, at fifteen thousand
thrymsas, and a bishop upon the same footing as an ealdorman at eight
thousand. The breach of a bishop’s surety or protection, like the
ealdorman’s, rendered the offender liable to a fine of two pounds, which
in the case of an archbishop rose to three[892]. He that drew weapon
before a bishop or ealdorman was to be mulcted in one hundred shillings,
before an archbishop, in one hundred and fifty[893]. Under Ini the
violence done to a bishop’s dwelling, and the seat of his jurisdiction,
was to be compensated with one hundred and twenty shillings, while the
ealdorman’s was protected by a fine of only eighty: in this the
episcopal dignity was placed upon a level with that of the king
himself[894]. Similarly Wihtrǽd had declared his mere word, without an
oath, to be like the king’s, incontrovertible.
-----
Footnote 892:
Leg. Ælfr. § 3. Cnut, ii. § 59. Thorpe, i. 62, 408. In this last
passage, as in the North-people’s law of wergyld, the archbishop’s and
æðeling’s borh and mundbryce are reckoned alike at three pounds. So
also Ll. Æðelr. vii. § 11. Thorpe, i. 330.
Footnote 893:
Leg. Ælf. § 15. Æðelr. vii. § 12. Thorpe i. 70, 332.
Footnote 894:
Leg. Ini, § 45. Thorpe, i. 130. This overrated estimate is corrected
by Ælfred, who settles the sums thus: king, one hundred and twenty
scill.; archbishop, ninety scill.; bishop and ealdorman, sixty scill.
Leg. Ælf. § 40. Thorpe, i. 88.
-----
The ecclesiastical functions of the bishops were here the same as
elsewhere. To them belonged the ordination of priests and deacons, the
hallowing of chrism, the ceremonies of confirmation, the consecration of
churches and churchyards, nuns and monks; they had a right to regulate
the lives and conversation of their clergy, to superintend the monastic
foundations, and in general to watch that every detail of the
ecclesiastical establishment was duly regarded and maintained. In their
peculiar synods they could frame canons of discipline, to be enforced in
the several dioceses. They were the receivers-general of all
ecclesiastical revenue, which they distributed to the inferior clergy
under their government, according to certain specified regulations;
providing out of the common fund for the due maintenance of the priests,
the buildings, and minor accessories required for decent celebration of
the rites of religion.[895]
-----
Footnote 895:
Leg. Wihtr. § 16. Thorpe, i. 40.
-----
But the most important of their functions was that which is technically
called _iurisdictio fori interni_, their jurisdiction in matters of
conscience, their dealing with the motives and feelings, rather than the
acts of men. This—which practically they exercised through the several
presbyters who were, for the general convenience, dispersed over the
face of the country,—was the true source of their power, and measure of
their social influence. Positive law deals only with the actions of men,
and then only when they are perfected or completed: religion regulates
the inward impulses from which those actions spring, and its authority
extends both before and beyond them: intention, not act, is its proper
province. But the secret intentions and motives of men are known
perfectly to God alone; the man himself may, and often does possess but
an indistinct and fallacious notion of his own impulses; and as it is in
these, rather than in the acts which are their results, that the essence
of guilt lies, the Christian was taught to unbosom himself to one of
more experienced and disciplined feelings;—one whose profession was to
console the distracted sinner, and who, on genuine repentance, was
empowered to announce the glad tidings of reconciliation with God.
Confession of sins was the mode pointed out by the founder of the
church, to obtain the blessings of almighty mercy; but how were the
ignorant, the obstinate, or the despairing to know the right manner of
such confession? How could they know in what form confession was
effectually to be made to God? How could they, plunged in sin and
foulness, dare to approach the source of all purity and holiness? What
hope could the grovelling outcast have of being admitted to the throne
of his glorious King, even for the purpose of renouncing his state of
rebellion and apostasy? But the glorious King was a merciful sovereign,
who had commissioned certain of his servants, reconciled sinners
themselves, to be intermediaries between his own majesty and the
terror-stricken offender: they had been sent forth armed with full power
to receive the submission which the guilty feared to offer to Himself in
person, furnished with instructions as to the exact mode in which the
satisfactory propitiation was to be made. These commissioners were the
especial body of the clergy,—the successors and representatives of the
Levitical Priests under the Law,—the offerers of the sacrifices,—to whom
the spirit of God had been exclusively communicated in the ceremony of
their ordination, and who thereby became possessors of the divine
authority, to bind and loose, to forgive sins on earth and in the world
to come. The clergy therefore undertook to direct the suffering and
heart-broken outlaw to the throne of peace. Again, as the merely human
preacher of atonement possessed of himself no means of ascertaining the
genuineness of repentance, a system of penances was established which
might serve as a test of the penitent’s earnestness: and too soon a
miserable error grew up that, by submitting to self-inflicted
punishments, the sinner might diminish the weight of the penalties which
he had earned in a future state. But he might exceed or fall short of
the just measure, if not duly weighed and apportioned by those who were
in possession of the divine will in that respect: men had even without
their own knowledge become holy and justified by their works of
self-abasement and humiliation and charity: such men might exceed the
necessary limit of penance and mortification:—happily for the sinner and
the saint, the priest had a code of instructions at hand by which the
difficulties in all cases could be readily adjusted.
These codes of instructions, known by the names of Confessionalia,
Poenitentialia, Modus imponendi Poenitentiam, and the like, were
compiled by the bishops, to whom the _iurisdictio fori interni_ was
exclusively competent, as soon as the episcopal system became firmly
settled. The presbyter exercised it only as the bishop’s vicar, when it
became inconvenient for the penitent to visit a distant cathedral or
metropolis. The episcopal right was open to every bishop: each one
might, if he dared, embody his own ideas on the subject in a code, which
would derive its authority from conformity to the recognised customs of
the church, the personal reputation of its author, and the general
acceptance by his episcopal peers throughout the world. The differing
circumstances of differing states of society required skilful adaptation
of general rules; and therefore any bishop who felt in his conscience
that he was qualified for the task, might bring the light of his wisdom
to the consideration of this weighty matter, and make such regulations
as to himself seemed good, for the management of his own
diocese,—certain that, if the blessing of God rested upon his
endeavours, his views would be widely circulated and adopted by his
neighbours. There is perhaps no more melancholy evidence in existence of
the vanity and worthlessness of human endeavours than the celebrated
works which thus arose in various parts of Europe; and nothing can
demonstrate more strikingly the folly and wickedness of squaring and
shaping the unlimited mercy of God by the rule and measure of mere human
intelligence. With the contents of these Poenitentials we have of course
not here to deal; but I am bound to say that I know of no more fatal
sources of antichristian error, no more miserable records of the
debasement and degradation of human intellect, no more frightful proofs
of the absence of genuine religion. It was the evil tendency of those
barbarous early ages not to be satisfied with the simple promises of
divine mercy, and faith was clouded and confused by the crowd of
incongruous images which were raised between itself and its all-glorious
object. At one time terrified by the consciousness of sin, at another
deluded by the cheap hope of ceremonial justification, the human race
eagerly rushed to multiply the means of salvation, and franticly
rejoiced in the establishment of a host of mediators between themselves
and their crucified Redeemer, between the frightened but unconverted
sinner, and his offended Lord and Maker. The pure Word of God was not
then, as it now is, accessible to every reader; and those whose duty it
was to proclaim what the mass of men could not obtain access to
themselves, had erred into a devious labyrinth of traditions, through
which the weary wayfarer circled and circled in endless, objectless
gyrations, at every turn more distant only from the goal he pursued.
Pure and good were no doubt the objects sought by Cummian, and Theodore
and Ælfríc, and pious the spirit in which they wrought; but the
foundation of their house was upon sand, and when the rains fell and the
tempests roared around it vanished in a moment from before the sight of
God and man, never to be reconstructed, even until the closing of the
ages.
The sources of revenue by which the bishops supported their temporal
power will be considered in a subsequent chapter: it is enough that we
find them to have been amply endowed with fitting means, in every part
of Europe. During the Anglosaxon period, poverty and self-denial were
not the characteristics of the class, however they may have
distinguished certain members of the body. Nor will the philosophical
enquirer see cause for regret in this: far more will he rejoice in the
establishment of any system which tends to draw closer the bonds of
intercourse between the clerical and lay members of the church, which
leads to the identification of their worldly as well as their eternal
interests, and unites them in one harmonious work of praise and
thanksgiving, one active service of worship and charity and love, before
the face of Him in whom they are united as one holy priesthood. It is
the separation of the clergy from the laity, as a class, to which the
world owes so many ages of misery and error; and to the comparative
union of both orders in the church, we may perhaps attribute the general
quiet which, in these respects, characterized the Anglosaxon polity. On
these points of separation I shall also have something to say hereafter;
but for the present one more subject alone remains to be treated of in
this chapter, the last but not least remarkable function of the
episcopal authority and power. By far the most important point of the
public ecclesiastical jurisdiction,—for the _iurisdictio fori interni_
is quite another thing,—lay in the questions of marriage, which were
especially reserved for the bishop’s cognizance. The prohibitions which
the clergy enforced were obviously unknown to the strict Teutonic law,
which permitted considerable licence in these respects. From Tacitus we
learn that a sort of polygamy was not unknown on the part of the
princes; it was probably looked upon as a useful mode of increasing the
alliances of the tribe[896],—the only conceivable ground on which it
could have been allowed by a race so strict in the observance of
marriage. We do not know within what degrees the Germans permitted
unions which the Roman clergy considered incestuous, but we do know that
Gregory considered a relaxation of the strict rule necessary to the
success of Augustine in Britain; that he gave the missionary positive
instructions upon the subject, and, when blamed by his episcopal brother
of Messina for this concession, justified his course by the danger which
he apprehended for his plan of conversion, if the prejudices of the
Saxons on so vital a point were too hastily shocked[897]. From these
directions of Gregory we learn not only that the marriage of first
cousins was common, but—what is much more surprising—that the marriage
with a father’s widow was so likewise. Nor can we doubt this, when we
not only find recorded cases of its occurrence, but when we have a
Teutonic king distinctly affirming it to be the legal custom of his
people: in the sixth century Ermengisl king of the Varni can say, “Let
Radiger my son marry his step-mother, even as our national custom
permits[898];” and therefore when we find Beda speaking of a similar
marriage, and declaring Eádbald to have been “fornicatione pollutus tali
qualem nec inter gentes auditam Apostolus testatur, ita ut uxorem patris
haberet[899],” or Asser on another such occasion saying that it was
“contra Dei interdictum, et Christianorum dignitatem, nec non et contra
omnium Paganorum consuetudinem,” we can only suppose that they either
did not know, or that they deemed it advisable not to recognise, the
ancient heathen practice.
-----
Footnote 896:
“Nam prope soli barbarorum singulis uxoribus contenti sunt, exceptis
admodum paucis, qui non libidine, sed ob nobilitatem plurimis nuptiis
ambiuntur.” Tac. Germ. xviii.
Footnote 897:
See Felix’s letter, Bed. Op. Min. ii. 239. He not only expresses his
own surprise, but adds that other clergymen had been greatly disturbed
by Gregory’s departure from the rule of the church: “non modicum
murmur super hac re nobiscum versatur.” Gregory replies in some
detail, and especially says: “Quod autem scripsi Augustino, Anglorum
gentis episcopo, alumno videlicet, ut recordaris, tuo, de
consanguinitatis coniunctione, ipsi et Anglorum genti, quae nuper ad
fidem venerat, ne a bono quod coeperat metuendo austeriora recederet,
specialiter et non generaliter caeteris me scripsisse cognoscas.” Bed.
Op. Min. ii. 242. The following are the directions referred
to:—“Quinta interrogatio Augustini. Usque ad quotam generationem
fideles debeant cum propinquis sibi coniugio copulari? et novercis et
cognatis si liceat copulari coniugio? Respondit Gregorius. Quaedam
terrena lex in Romana republica permittit ut, sive frater et soror,
seu duorum fratrum germanorum, vel duarum sororum filius et filia
misceantur; sed experimento didicimus ex tali coniugio sobolem non
posse succrescere, et Sacra Lex prohibet cognationis turpitudinem
revelare. Unde necesse est ut iam tertia vel quarta generatio fidelium
licenter sibi iungi debeat; nam secunda, quam praediximus, a se omni
modo debet abstinere. Cum noverca autem miscere grave est facinus,
quia et in Lege scriptum est, ‘Turpitudinem patris tui non
revelabis’.... Quia vero sunt multi in Anglorum gente qui, dum adhuc
in infidelitate essent, huic nefando coniugio dicuntur admixti, ad
fidem venientes admonendi sunt ut se abstineant et grave hoc esse
peccatum cognoscant.” The correspondence with Felix apparently refers
to further regulations on the subject which are no longer found in the
copies of Gregory’s answers to Augustine.
Footnote 898:
Ῥαδίγερ δὲ ὁ παῖς ξυνοικιζέσθω τῇ μητρυιᾷ τὸ λοιπὸν τῇ αἰτοῦ, καθάπερ
ὁ πάτριος ἡμῖν ἐφίησι νόμος. Procop. Bel. Got. iv. 20.
Footnote 899:
Hist. Eccl. ii. 5. The words of St. Paul, here referred to, are in 1
Cor. v. 1. Asser, Vit. Ælf. 858. The very words of Beda himself seem
to prove that Eádbald’s marriage was closely connected with
heathendom,—perhaps was intended to be a public profession of it. He
says that the king, being terrified by Laurentius’s account of a
miraculous vision he had had, “anathematizato omni idolatriae cultu,
abdicato connubio non legitimo, suscepit fidem Christi, et baptizatus
aecclesiae rebus quantum valuit, in omnibus consulere et favere
curavit.” Hist. Eccl. ii. 6. In fact the politics of that day seem
generally to have consisted in the apostasy of a converted king’s
successor. The heathen priests could hardly be expected to yield quite
without a struggle. The cases are curious enough to merit a detailed
record. What the age of Æðelberht’s second wife may have been is
unknown to us; but there is some probability that Æðelwulf’s marriage
was never really consummated, that it was never a marriage at all.
Judith can hardly have been more than twelve when Æðelwulf married
her, and within two years he died.
-----
In both the cases referred to, the obvious scandal was put a stop to by
the separation of the parties[900],—Eádbald being evidently led to this
step by superstitious fears, rather than submitting to an episcopal
authority exercised by Laurentius. It is certainly strange in the case
of Æðelbald, if there really were a separation, that we hear nothing of
the interference of the Church to produce so important an event.
-----
Footnote 900:
Eádbald’s divorce is recorded, as we have seen, by Beda. Æðelbald’s
rests on much less sure authority,—that only of Matthew Westminster,
and Rudborne, Annal. Winton. Judith, after her return to France,
eloped with Baldwin of Flanders, to whom she bore Matilda, William the
Conqueror’s wife. See Warnkönig, Hist. Fland. i. 144.
-----
We learn that by degrees the time arrived at which the clergy thought
themselves strong enough to insist upon a stricter observance of the
canonical prohibitions, and various instances are on record where their
intervention is mentioned, to separate persons too nearly connected by
blood. It is probable that many more of these are intended than we
actually know; for unhappily the monkish writers are over-fond of using
strong expressions both of praise and blame, and not rarely fling
_pellex scortum_ and _concubina_ at the heads of women who were for all
that, legally speaking, very honest wives. One celebrated case has
obtained a worldwide reputation,—that of Eádwig, the details of whose
unhappy fate will probably for ever remain a mystery. Political
calculations, and unreconciled national jealousies were in all
probability the mainsprings of the events of his troublous life; but
that which lends it all its romance—his separation from Ælfgyfu—was the
act of a prelate determined upon upholding the ecclesiastical law of
marriage. It is to be regretted that we do not know the exact degree of
relationship between the royal victims. It may have been too close, in
the eyes of the stricter clergy; yet we cannot close our eyes to the
fact that it was long acquiesced in by the English nobles; nor, had
Eádwig shown himself more pliant to the pretensions of Dúnstán, might we
ever have heard of it at all. History, deprived of all its materials,
will here fail to do even late justice to the sufferers; but it will not
fail to stamp with its enduring brand the brutal conduct of their
persecutors[901]. However conscientious may have been the intentions of
archbishop Oda, it is to be lamented that a stain of barbarous cruelty
attaches to his memory, for the part he took in this transaction. It he
found it inevitable, after two years of wedded life further to humiliate
his already humbled sovereign, by insisting upon the removal of his
young consort, it was not necessary to disfigure her with hot
searing-irons, or on her return from exile to put her to a cruel death.
The asceticism of the savage churchman seems here to have been
embittered by even less worthy considerations.
-----
Footnote 901:
There cannot be the slightest doubt that Ælfgyfu was Eádwig’s wife, or
that she was separated from him on the ground of too near
consanguinity. The charter, Cod. Dipl. No. 1201, which is in every
respect an authentic document, mentions her as “Ælfgyfu, ðæs cynges
wíf,” the king’s wife; and this, in addition to herself, was witnessed
by her mother Æðelgyfu, by four bishops, and by three principal
noblemen of the court. If that charter be not genuine, there is not
one genuine in the whole Codex Diplomaticus, and I cannot see the
shadow of a reason to question it, as Lingard has done. The reader
will probably be glad to see it, as it occurs in _two_ manuscripts,
the Cotton MSS. Claud. B. vi. fol. 54. and C. ix. fol. 112, one copy
being in the original Saxon, the other a statement in Latin drawn up
from it.
“Ðis is seó gerǽdnes ðe Byrhtelm
biscop and Æðelwold abbud hæfdon
ymbe hira landgehwerf: ðæt is ðonne
ðe se biscop gesealde ða hída æt
Cenintúne intó ðǽre cyricean æt
Abbendúne tó écan yrfe; and se
abbud gesealde ðæt seofontyne hýda
æt Crydanbricge ðán biscope tó
écnesse, ge on lífe ge æfter lífe;
and hí eác ealra þinga gehwyrfdon
ge on cwican ceápe ge on óðrum, swá
swá hí betwihs him gerǽddon. And
ðis wæs Eádwiges leáf cyninges; and
ðis syndon ða gewitnessa. Ælfgifu
ðæs cininges wíf, and Æðelgyfu, ðæs
cyninges wífes módur, Ælfsige
biscop, Osulf biscop, Coenwald
biscop, Byrhtnóð ealdorman, Ælfheáh
cyninges discþegn, Eádríc his
bródur.”
“This is the agreement that bishop Byrhthelm and abbot Æðelwold made
about their exchange of lands: that is then, that the bishop gave the
hides at Kennington to the church at Abingdon for an eternal
inheritance; and the abbot gave the bishop the seventeen hides at
Crida’s bridge, for ever both during life and after life: and they also
exchanged every thing upon the lands, both live stock and other, as
they agreed between them. And this was by leave of king Eádwig; and
these are the witnesses: Ælfgyfu the king’s wife, and Æðelgyfu, the
king’s wife’s mother, bishop Ælfsige, bishop Oswulf, bishop Coenwald,
Byrhtnoð the ealdorman, Ælfheáh the king’s dapifer, Eádríc his
brother.”
The Latin abstract of this important document is as follows:—“Dominus
autem abbas Æðelwoldus commutationem eiusdem terrae, id est Cenintun,
concedente eodem rege, egit apud Brihtelmum episcopum. In cuius
vicissitudine ipse episcopus accepit illam villam quae appellatur
Crydanbricge. Testes autem fuerunt huius commutationis Ælfgifa regis
uxor, et Æðelgifa mater eius, Ælfsige episcopus, Osulfus episcopus,
Kenwald episcopus, et multi alii.” The date of this document is 956,
in which year Eádwig came to the throne, and therefore certainly
subsequent to the coronation, the celebrated scene of Dúnstán’s
insolence. The prelates and nobles present were Ælfsige bishop of
Winchester, Oswulf bishop of Ramsbury, Cénwald bishop of Worcester,
Byrhthelm bishop of London, Æðelwald then abbot of Abingdon and
afterwards the celebrated bishop of Winchester—the Father of the
Monks, as he was called; Byrhtnóð the ealdorman an equally decided
patron of the monastic order; Ælfheáh no less a man than the dapifer
regis, or seneschal of Eádwig’s house. This then was not a thing done
in a corner, and the testimony is conclusive that Ælfgyfu was Eádwig’s
queen. It is also beyond doubt that, in the year 958, Oda separated
Eádwig from his wife on the ground of their being too nearly related:
one of the MSS. of the Saxon Chronicle says clearly, “Her on ðissum
geare Oda arcebiscop tótwǽmde Eádwi cyning and Ælfgyfe, forðám ðe hí
wǽron tó gesybbe.” Chron. Sax. an. 958. And Florence of Worcester,
drawing from an independent authority, but evidently confused by the
slanderous tales which had been spread of Eádwig, confirms the
Chronicle, saying:—“Sanctus Odo Doruberniae archiepiscopus regem
Westsaxonum Eádwium et Ælfgivam, vel quia, ut fertur, propinqua illius
extitit, vel quia illam sub propria uxore adamavit, ab invicem
separavit.” Flor. Wig. an. 958. William of Malmesbury speaks of her as
“uxor, proxime cognata” (Gest. Reg. § 147, i. 223), but soon after
calls her _ganea_ and _pellex_ in choice monkish style. Wendover and
Paris are even more insolent in their phraseology, but still there is
the unlucky admission of a marriage:—“Huic [sc. Eádwig] quaedam mulier
inepta, licet natione praecelsa [certainly very high birth indeed if
Ælfgyfu was too near a relative of the king] cum adulta filia per
nefandum familiaritatis lenocinium adhaerebat, ut sese vel filiam suam
sub coniugali titulo sociaret.” Wendov. i. 404. They go on to
insinuate that there was an improper familiarity between the king and
both the women. With this I am not at all concerned: Eádwig may have
been a disorderly young prince, as there have been other disorderly
young princes,—as his much-belauded brother Eádgar _was_ in the
highest degree. The ladies _may_ have been more than commonly
depraved. But it may be observed that our general experience is not in
favour of a wife’s permitting her husband to be guilty of lascivious
conduct towards another woman in her presence, or of a married
daughter’s conniving at her husband’s irregularities with her own
mother. Not a word have we of this disgusting insinuation in the
Chronicle, or Florence,—himself a monk,—or Æðelweard, or Huntingdon:
and the two latter speak of Eádwig in terms very far removed from
those in which the adherents of Dúnstán’s cause have chosen to
characterize him:—“Quin successor eius Eáduuig in regnum, qui et, prae
nimia etenim pulchritudine, Pancali sortitus est nomen a vulgo
secundi. Tenuit namque quadriennio per regnum amandus.” Æðelw.
Chronic. iv. 8. “Rex autem praedictus Edwi non illaudabiliter regni
infulam tenuit. Edwi rex anno regni sui quinto cum in principio regni
eius decentissime floruerit, prospera et laetabunda exordia mors
immatura perrupit.” Hen. Hunt. lib. v. We must be excused for
preferring this sort of record to the interested exaggerations of such
biographers as Bridferð, whom the remainder of his work proves to have
been either a very weak and credulous person or a very great rogue,
or—as not unfrequently happens—perhaps both at once.
-----
The history of mediæval Europe show’s with what awful effect this
tremendous power was wielded by unscrupulous popes and prelates,
whenever it suited their purposes not to connive at marriages which,
according to their teaching, were incestuous. But amidst the striking
cases on record—the cases of kings and nobles—we look in vain for a true
measure of the misery which these prohibitions must have entailed upon
the humbler members of society, who possessed neither the influence to
compel nor the wealth to purchase dispensations from an arbitrary and
oppressive rule. The sense and feeling of mankind at once revolt against
restrictions for which neither the law of God, nor the dictates of
nature supply excuse, and which resting upon a complicated calculation
of affinity, were often the means of betraying the innocent and ignorant
into a condition of endless wretchedness. But they were invaluable
engines of extortion, and instruments of malice; they led to the
intervention of the priest with the family, in the most intolerable
form; they furnished weapons which could be used with almost
irresistible effect against those whom nothing could reach but the tears
perhaps and broken heart of a beloved companion. And therefore they were
steadily upheld till the great day of retribution came, which involved
so many traditions of superstition and error, so many engines of
oppression and fraud, in one common and undistinguishing ruin: τὰ πρὶν
δὲ πελώρια νῦν ἀϊστοῖ—things mighty indeed have perished away from the
world; but thrice blessed was the day which left us free and unshackled
to pursue the noblest and purest impulses of our human nature.