The Bromley Charters

THE BROMLEY CHARTERS E. E. BARKER British Library Cotton Charter viii.33 is a grant by King Edgar to St. Andrew at Rochester of an estate at Bromley, Kent. It has been printed several times; 1 I make no apology for reproducing its text again because, although Prof. Dorothy Whitelock is quoted as saying that its text 'if genuine, shows how conservative a Kentish charter could be', 2 no one seems to have noticed that it is not merely conservative but also derivative. In the text printed below, the parts in italics after decem (line 11) are from a common formula in use in charters of Kin􀁳s Edmund and Eadred between 944 and 947.3 The earlier part of the italic text comes from a charter of 764.4 Now, while the charter-writers of Edgar's reign often re-hashed the formulae in use under his predecessors, they did not go so far back as the eighth century for their inspiration. This feature would in fact be sufficient by itself to cast doubt on the authenticity of this Bromley charter. Again, it is dated 955, indiction 9. The reign of King Edgar, however, lasted from 959 to 975, and the only year within this period to coincide with· the ninth year of the indiction cycle was 966. Accordingly, this date was adopted by the editor of the Facsimiles of Ancient Charters in the British Museum. 5 But there are many reasons why the charter cannot be ascribed to that year. Of its witnesses, Oswald, Archbishop of York, was appointed in 972, and Sideman, Bishop of Crediton, in the same or the following year. These facts no doubt led the editor, W. de Gray Birch, to date this charter 973,6 and his dating has received general acceptance. In 1930 Professor Whitelock wrote: 'the bishop's purchase of Bromley appears from an extant charter to have taken place in 973, as the list of witnesses belong to this year, although the charter is dated 955.' 1 In 1939 Dr. A. J. 1 Hreame, Textus Roffensis, p. 120; Kemble, Codex Diplomaticus /Evi Saxonici (Londo n, 1839-48; hereafter cited as K.), no. 518; Facsimiles of Ancient Charters in the British Museum, iii, plate 36; Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum (London, 1885-93; hereafter cited as B.), no. 1295; Campbell, Anglo-Saxon Charters: Roe/tester (London, 1973; hereafter cited as C.), no. 29. 2 Sawye r, Anglo-Saxon Charters; an annotated list and bibliography (London, 1968), p. 32 25. B. no. 791 and others. ;a. no. 195. Op. cit., heading to text facing plate 36. 􀁨 B. no. 1295, heading on p. 609. Anglo-Saxon Wills (Cambridge, 1930), p. 129. 179 E. E. BARKER Robertson was able to write of 'the purchase of Bromley ... of which an independent record survives, dated 955 for 973.'8 Furthermore, Birch described the MS. as an 'original charter'. Strictly, this can only mean 'the actual document issued by the king' - an assertion which cannot properly be made of any Anglo-Saxon diploma. These diplomas had neither seal nor autograph signature by which their authenticity could be tested. The whole text, including the witnesses' names, was written out in one handwriting - generally a bookhand whkh, although often very beautiful, is stereotyped and lacks individual characteristics. Accordingly, in recent times the use of 'original' has now been largely abandoned in this context; Professor Sawyer is content to assign this charter to the second half of the tenth century. 9 Birch's use of the word 'original' can in any case only be interpreted to mean that he thought this Bromley charter to be as authoritative as such a document can be. We might not be disposed to attach too much importance to Birch's verdict, for he seems to have been capriciously generous in his attributions of originality. He admitted as 'original' so notorious a forgery as the charter of Edgar to St. Denis, 10 and contradicts himself once with 'original charter ... (doubtful if authentic)'.11 And the Bromley charter is quite undeserving of the status that Birch gives it. Its witness list includes elements inconsistent with each other, with 973 or with any other particular date. The real betrayal of the charter's bad character comes in the third name in the list or witnesses: + Ego £/jj)ryp mater regis predictum donum confirmavi; for .rElfthryth was not 'king's mother' until her son ,;Ethelred succeeded to the throne in 978. The late Professor A. Campbell noticed this point but attributed it to mere carelessness on the part of the charter's compiler. 12 This view of the circumstances is indeed possible; mater reg is could be a slip in transcription, made perhaps in the 98Os or 990s by one who only knew tElfthryth as queen-mother. But it is in my view implausible. We might compare the situation at the present day; no-one copying a document thirty years old would introduce a description of Elizabeth as Queen Mother in a context which mentions George VI as alive. But in this Bromley charter .fElfthryth is not only given an anachronistic title. Her attestation, appearing as it does between those of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, is in the wrong place. It can easily be demonstrated from plenty of surviving charters of the latter years of King Edgar's reign that the queen generally attests in a rather 8 9 Anglo-Saxon Charters (Cambridge, 1939), p. 365. Sawyer, op. cit., p. 225. 10 B. no. !057. 11 B. no. 1266 (at p. 560). 12 C. pp. xxiv f. 180 THE BROMLEY CHARTERS humble position, after all the bishops. 13 Once, in 974, she attests after her husband but before both the archbishops. 14 Moreover, the charter includes other elements incompatible with each other or with a date of 973. It is attested by ealdormen including lEthelstan and Ordgar and by thegns beginning with the name of Byrhtferth. lEthelstan was an ealdorman in the Midlands and Ordgar, the father of Queen lElfthryth, was ealdorman of Devon. Both cease to attest genuine charters in 970, 15 and according to the twelfth-century chronicle attributed to Florence of Worcester, Ordgar died in 971.16 Byrhtferth's attestations also cease in 970. 1 7 It does not seem that any of these persons could properly appear in the same document with Oswald as Archbishop of York or with Sideman as Bishop of Crediton. Yet, with all its defects and inconsistencies, the charter is in a handwriting no later than the end of the tenth century. What conditions operative within that period gave the motive for forgery? The tenurial history of Bromley was complex. With other property at Fawkham, it had been bequeathed to Rochester Cathedral by a certain lElfric, apparently reserving a life interest to his wife Byrhtwaru. lElfric's will is not extant, but his bequest is mentioned and confirmed in another wilJ, that of a certain Byrhtric who was Byrhtwaru's kinsman. On the latter's death, the estate at Bromley and Fawkham was to go to St. Andrew's as her husband had bequeathed it.18 Light is also thrown on the matter by an extant ex parte vernacular statement.19 At one stage Bromley and Fawkham had been forfeited to King Edgar; lElfric's death had taken place (after 963) while an enquiry was going on into his possession of stolen charters. Later lElfric's widow had surrendered to King Edgar the charter of Bromley and Fawkham and the Bishop of Rochester had bought the charter and the estate from the King, leaving the widow in possession as life tenant. After King Edgar's death (975), the widow's kinsman Byrhtric had tried to upset these arrangements by an appeal to ealdorman Eadwine; this stage in the proceedin8s must have been reached by 982, in which year the ealdorman died. 2 It is clear from the context that the charter or charters of Bromley and Fawkham were pre-existing documents, and there is no mention of the issue of any charter by King Edgar in favour of the bishop. 13 B. nos. 1282, 1286, 1302, 1305, 1309, 1312, 1316. 14 15 8. no. 1303. 16 B. nos. 1266, 1268 f. 1 Flore111ii Wignorniensis Chronicon ex Chronicis, ed. Thorpe (London, 1848) i, p. 142. 7 B. no. 1266. 18 19 Whitelock, op. cit., no. XI; C. no. 35. K. no. 1258; B. no. 1296; Robertson, op. cit., no. LIX; C. no. 36. 20 Ang/1>-Saxon Chronicle, 982C. 181 E. E. BARKER I In 987 King }Ethelred granted Bromley to a certain /Ethelsige, l i and in 998 it came finally into the hands of the Bishop of Rochester. In a charter of the latter year the king admits that in his youth and inexperience he had been led astray by /Ethelsige into depriving Rochester of its rightful property. JEthelsige had not only given the king bad advice; he had also murdered a king's reeve. 22 Campbell, following previous writers, used the charter of 987 as a regulator for dating the will of Byrhtric and the ex parte statement; both must be earlier than 987, because by that' time the Bishop of Rochester had entered into possession of the premises and been deprived of them. 23 That would involve this chronology : Before 975: the bishop buys Bromley and Fawkham from King Edgar; leaving Byrhtwaru in possession as life tenant. 975-982: Byrhtric tries to have these arrangements set aside, but (later) dies, confirming them by his will; Rochester is to have the estates after the death of Byrhtwaru. Before 987: Byrhtwaru dies and the bishop enters into possession. 987: King JEthelred is 'conned' by JEthelsige into granting him the premises. We would dispute the last two of these statements. It is much more likely that in 987 Byrhtwaru was still alive and in possession; what the bishop was deprived of was no more than a reversionary right. Under such conditions it would be much easier for JEthelsige to persuade a young and inexperienced king that the premises were available for granting away by charter, than if the bishop had entered into actual possession. This JEthelsige seems to have been a thoroughly bad character in general; a 'con-man' and a murderer we have seen him to be, he also figures in other sources as a rustler. A charter of 995 preserved in the chartulary of Abingdon Abbey records how he stole pigs belonging to /Ethelwine, son of ealdorman JEthelmrer; for this offence he forfeited an estate at Dumbleton in Gloucestershire.24 Its westerly location helps to support the identification of this /Ethelsige with one whose name, corrupted to Edelisi, appears in the Annales Cambri