Ernulf of Chelsfield confirms the gift of Pivindene and Godriscesdune

Ernulf de Chielsfelda (i.e. Chelsfield) confirms the gift of Pivindene and Godriscesdune, owned by ‘his man’ Ernulf de Strodes (i.e. Strood), to St Andrew’s and the monks at Rochester, with the consent of his wife Agnes and his sons, 1143. Transcription and translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 230v by Jacob Scott (pending review).

The hand is later than the original scribe’s. This gift was made with the proviso that Ernulf de Strodes’ son enter the monastic community at Rochester. The first person addressed in the document is Ascelin, Bishop of Rochester from 1142-1148.

Transcription

230v (select folio number to open facsimile)

Domino ascelino Rofensi episcopo . et Radulfo castellano . et omnibus civibus
Roucestrie . toti, que hundred de scamele. Ernulfus de chiel-
esfelda salutem. Notum uobis sit quod ego ernulfus et Agnes uxor
mea . et Symon primogenitus et heres meus . et helyas cle-
ricus et hugo miles filii mei . donationem quam ernulfus de Stro-
des homo meus sancto andree et monachis de rouecestria pro
filio suo in ecclesia rofensi ad monachatum suscepto dedit . par-
tem scilicet terre sue . que piuindene uocator . et terram illam quam
in suo dominico habebat in alio loco qui uocator Godricesdune .
liberam ab omni seruicio et quietam ęterno iure monachis eisdem
possidendam concessimus . Quod si predictus ernulfus uel aliquis
heredum aut successorum eius a solito quod michi de feudo suo
debet seruicio defecerit : a relique quam de me tenet ter-
ra exigeter . elemosina autem ab omni exactione et querela et ca-
lumnia libera permaneat . Et hanc quidem concessionem pro salute anime
mee . et uxoris . et liberorum . et patris . et matris mee . bono et deuo
to animo feci . et signo sancte crucis . + proprioque signaui
sigillo. Cuius rei testes sunt Syuuardus presbiter Symon. Hu-
go. Elyas . filii ernulfi . et Agnes uxor sua . Samson frater . Ricar-
dus nepos domini . Adalulfus miles. Willelmi dapifer. Ernulfus
dispensator. Haimo brito. Ernulfus clericus . Rainaldus secretarius
Ricardus de clouilla . Elfuuinus catere. Rodbertus filius bunde. Go-
defridus nepos goislani . Robertus cognatus clementis monachi .
et alii multi. Anno ab incarnatione domini . m . c . xl . iii . hec…

Translation

To Lord Ascelin, Bishop of Rochester, and Ralph of the Castle and to all the citizens of Rochester, to all that hundred of Scamele[?]. Salutations to Ernulf of Chielsfeld. It is well known that I Ernulf and Agnes my wife, and Simon the first-born and heir-apparent, and Helias the cleric and Hugo Miles my son, the donation which my man Ernulf of Strood gave to Saint Andrew and to the monks of Rochester for his son in the church of Rochester when he was accepted into monasticism, part of his land, called Pivindene, and that land which he had in his lordship in another place called Godricesdune. We have granted to the same monks the freedom from all service and eternal rest. But if the aforesaid Ernulf or any heirs or successors fails in the usual service which he owes to me of his fee: from the remainder that he holds of me by demand. Let the alms of others be free from all exactions and complaints and slanders. And this concession is made for the sake of my soul, and wife, and children, and my father and my mother. I did it with good and god, and with the sign of the holy cross. I signed it with my seal. To this the king's witnesses are the presbyters Symon of Syward, Hugo Elyas, son of Ernulf, and Agnes his wife, Samson his brother, Richard, the lord's nephew, Adalulf Miles, William the servant, Ernulf the steward, Hamo Brito, Ernulf the cleric, Rainald the secretary.

Richard de Clovilla, Elfwin the cook, Robert son of Bunde. Godfrey, nephew of Goislan, Robert a relative of Clement the monk, and many others. A year from the Lord's incarnation 1143. This…

Goldwine, priest of Rochester, grants a half burgage pertinent to Frindsbury

Goldwine, priest of Rochester, grants to the Church of St Andrew’s, Rochester, a half burgage pertinent to Frindsbury. Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folios 199v-200r by Jacob Scott (pending review).

Transcription

199v (select folio number to open facsimile)

_Golduuinus presbiter de rouecestra dedit
ęcclesię sancti andreę dimidiam hagam in roue-
cestra, pertinentem ad freondesberiam. Pro quo

200r

beneficio monachi sancti andreę iuxta pe-
titionem suam. >feceruit ibidem filium suum
monachum. Que terra reddit<

Translation

Goldwine, priest of Rochester, gave to the church of Saint Andrew half a haga in Rochester pertaining to Frindsbury, for the kindness of the monks of Saint Andrew’s, according to his request >he gave his son to be a monk there. That land’s rent […]<

Henry de Port grants financial gifts to the almshouse

Henry de Port grants financial gifts to the almshouse at St Andrew’s, Rochester, 1108. Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 198v by Jacob Scott (pending review).

Transcription

198v (select folio number to open facsimile)

De earhetha, et de halilei. Notum sit omnibus tam posteris quam pręsentibus
quod ego henricus de port anno ab incarna-
tione domini millesimo centesimo viii. indi-
ctione prima concedente uxore mea hathe-
uuis et filio meo hugone imperpetuum ut
elemosinam donaui deo et fratribus in ęcclesia
roffensi quę est constructa in honore sancti
andreę apostoli seruientibus xx. solidos de red-
ditione mea de earhethea et decimam totam
de halegele, de qua quidem prędictus sanctus dimi-
diam partem habuerat, cęteram uero pro amore Ra-
dulfi episcopi ut praedictum est supra taxato tempo-
re donaui. Hoc autem pro animabus tam predeces-
sorum quam successorum meorum donaui, et ex hoc
beneficium ipsius loci animę meę in fine ut
monacho concessum fuerit. Terminus uero dena-
riorum est in natiuitate domini, decimę autem
in augusto. Teste Hugone filio fulconis,
herberto de cænt, Ansfrido clerico, Ra-
dulfo clerico, Hosberno de mæruurthe.

Translation

Concerning Earith and concerning Halgel[?]:

Let it be known to all, both to posterity and to those present, that I, Henry de Port, in the year from the incarnation of our lord 1108, in the first indiction granted with my wife Hathewis and my son Hugo for ever as alms. I gave to God and the brothers in the church of Rochester, which was built in honor of the service of Saint Andrew the Apostle. Twenty shillings from my payment from Earith and the tithe of the whole of Halgel[?], of which the aforesaid saint had one-half part, the rest however, for the love of Radulf the bishop, as was given above, at the time assessed. And this I have given for the souls of both my predecessors and my successors, and from this the benefit of that place was granted at the end of my soul as a monk. The time of payment is at the birth of the Lord, and the tithe in August. Witnessed by Hugo the son of Fulco, Herbert of Kent, Ansfrid the priest, Ralph the priest, Hosbern of Mæruurthe[?].

The church at Rethavelda in Sussex

William II confirms Gilbert of Tunbridge’s gift of the church at Rethavelda (Sussex) to St Andrew’s, Rochester. Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 182v by Jacob Scott (pending review).

Transcription

182v (select folio number to open facsimile)

De rethrauelda. Willelmus rex anglorum, episcopo de suthsexa,
et uicecomiti, et cęteris baronibus suis
francigenis et anglis, salutem. Sciatis me
concessisse et confirmasse donum Gisleberti
de tonebrige quod dedit ęcclesię sancti andreę
de rouecestra, scilicet ęcclesiam de rethrauel-
da, et quicquid ad illam pertinet, siue in decimis,
siue in uenationibus, uel in aliis quibuslibet
rebus, testimonio Rogeri bigot, et haimonis uicecomitis,
apud uuentoniam.

Translation

Concerning Rethavelda:

William, King of the English, to the bishop of Sussex, and the sheriff, and to his other barons French and English, greetings. Know that I have granted and confirmed the gift of Gilbert of Tonbridge which he gave to the Church of Saint Andrew of Rochester, the very same church of Rethavelda, and whatever pertains to it, whether in tithes, or in hunting, or in any other circumstance, by the testimony of Roger Bigot, and Hamo the sheriff at Wenton.

The Church of St Felicity, Walton (Suffolk)

William II confirms Roger Bigot’s gift of the Church of St Felicity, Walton (Suffolk), to St Andrew’s, Rochester. Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 182r-182v by Jacob Scott (pending review).

St Felicity’s later became a cell of Rochester, and may have housed a small collection of books (Richards, Texts and Their Traditions, p. 58).

Transcription

182r (select folio number to open facsimile)

De Waletuna; WILLELMVS rex anglorum, episcopo de
suthfulca, et uicecomiti, et aliis
baronibus suis francigenis et anglis,

182v

salutem. Sciatis me concessisse et confirmas-
se donum Rogerii bigot quod dedit ęcclesię
sancti andreę de rouecestra, scilicet ęcclesiam
sancti felicis de waletuna, cum decimis et omnibus
aliis rebus quę ad illam pertinent, testimonio
eudonis dapiferi, apud wentoniam.

Translation

Concerning Walton:

William, King of the English, to the bishop of Suffolk, and the sheriff, and my other French and English barons, greetings. Know that I have granted and confirmed the gift of Roger Bigot, which he gave to the church of Saint Andrew of Rochester, namely, the Church of Saint Felicity of Walton, with tithes and all other things which pertain to it, by the testimony of Eudon the servant, at Wenton.

Grant by Godwin of half his abode

Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 192v by Jacob Scott.

Transcription

192v (select folio number to open facsimile)

Goduuinus filius edith dedit dimidiam man-
sam suam ęcclesię sancti andreę et monachis pro
filio suo ibidem facto monacho pertinentem
ad borcstelle. Testibus, Golduuino presbitero, Eaduui-
no fot, Gudredo filio diringi, et multis aliis.

Translation

Godwin son of Edith gave half his abode to the church of Saint Andrew and the monks, for his son having been a monk there, pertaining to Borstal. Witnessed by: Goldwin the presbyter, Edwin Fot, Gudred son of Diring, and many others.

The Church at Dartford

King William confirms his steward Haimo’s gift of the church at Dartford to St Andrew’s, Rochester. Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 181v by Jacob Scott. Commentary and notes by Dr Christopher Monk.

This charter was not copied by the main Textus Roffensis scribe, who was writing around 1123, but was added on a replacement folio sometime later in the twelfth century, possibly around 1170. It may not be a copy of an authentic charter.

It concerns the grant of the Church at Dartford, 15 miles from Rochester in the north-west corner of Kent. Domesday book shows that the church was held by the Bishop of Rochester in 1086.¹ The bishop at that time was Gundulf, who was also the prior of the community of monks at St Andrew’s, Rochester.

According to the charter, the gift was made by Haimo Dapifer (died. c.1100), the sheriff of Kent (1077 until his death), royal steward of both William I (‘the Conqueror’, reigned 1066-1087) and his son William II (‘Rufus’, reigned 1087-1100). It is unclear which King William is (purportedly) doing the granting in this charter.²

It is important to note that in the 1170s a dispute arose between the monks of St Andrew’s and their bishop, Walter, who was not also the prior of the community, as Gundulf had been. Bishop Walter gave the church to Roger, his nephew, but the monks claimed it had been granted to them in proprios usus, ‘for their own use’ (Flight, p. 219, n. 7). As Gundulf was both bishop and prior, this seems quite a reasonable claim: documents in Textus Roffensis demonstrate that the livelihood of his brothers was of utmost importance to Gundulf. Since Domesday confirms the bishop held the church, he as monk would have benefitted from the income generated from it, and so would have his fellow monks.

As things turned out, Roger retained the church but acknowledged that it was held from the monks (Flight, p. 219, n. 7, and p. 259, Appendix 3, no. 108).³ It is quite possible this Textus copy of a charter, transcribed and translated below, was fabricated and inserted around the time of the dispute in order to support the claim of the brethren. Sadly, for the monks, the church at Dartford continued to be a bone of contention with another of their bishops, Gilbert (Flight, p. 219 and p. 231, incl. n. 23).

Transcription

181v (select folio number to open facsimile)

De ęcclesia de tarenteford Willelmus dei gratia rex anglorum.
fidelibus suis francis et anglis salutem.
Sciatis me concessise eam donationem
quam haimo dapifer meus fecit ęcclesię quę
est in tarenteford manerio meo . et filii
ipsius haimonis . Rodbertus . et haimo .
me pręsente concesserunt eandem patris
sui donationem . Testes . Rodbertus
comes mellen .⁴ Rodbertus comes
de moritolio⁵ . et alii multi;

Translation

Concerning the Church of Dartford:

William, by the grace of God King of the English, to his faithful, French and English, greetings. Know that I have granted that gift which Haimo my steward has made of the church which is in my manor at Dartford, and the sons of Haimo himself, Robert⁶ and Haimo, in my presence conceded⁷ the aforesaid gift of their father. Witnesses, Robert, Count of Meulan⁸ Robert, Count of Mortain,⁹ and many others.

Cited Works

Colin Flight, The Bishops and Monks of Rochester 1076-1214 (Maidstone: Kent Archaeological Society, 1997).

Footnotes

1 Dartford | Domesday Book (opendomesday.org)

2 British History Online states it was William I: Parishes: Dartford | British History Online (british-history.ac.uk)

3 In Appendix 3, Flight lists a document (no. 108) which relates the settling of the Dartford church dispute by the bishop of Winchester and Baldwin, abbot of Ford, dating this document to c. 1170-c1180; he notes the document is not extant but is mentioned in the fourteenth-century Registrum temporalium.

4 Punctus mark added. There is an erasure at this point in the manuscript.

5 A scribal error for ‘moritonio’, Mortain.

6 Aka, Robert fitz Haimo (or, Fitzhamon), died 1107; he is a character in the Haddenham narrative, for which see Bishop Gundulf builds Rochester Castle for the king in return for the manor of Haddenham, c.1108-c.1114 AD — Rochester Cathedral.

7 Or ‘granted’. The sense here is that the two sons relinquish any claim to the church of Dartford.

8 Robert de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Leicester, Count of Meulan (c. 1040/1050-1118), a powerful Norman nobleman.

9 Robert, Count of Mortain, 2nd Earl of Cornwall (c. 1031-c.1095), half-brother (on their mother’s side) of William I, a great landholder in England.

Godric of the Delce grants an annual tithing

Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 192v by Jacob Scott (pending review).

Transcription

195r (select folio number to open facsimile)

Godricus de delcsa accepit sotietatem
nostram. Et ideo concessit nobis singulis
annis decimam de annona sua.

Translation

Godric of the Delce has received our society, and so he has given us a single tenth of his produce every year.

William I grants liberties from the time of Edward

William I grants to the church of St Andrew’s in the city of Rochester liberties from the time of King Edward (the Confessor). Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folios 174v-175r by Jacob Scott (pending review).

Transcription

174v (select folio number to open facsimile)

Concessio uuillelmi magni regis;

175r

Vvillelmus dei gratia rex anglorum, haimoni
dapifero et omnibus suis teignis in episcopatu
rofensi salutem. Mando et praecipio, ut eas con-
suetudines quas ęcclesia sancti andreę rofen-
sis ciuitatis habuit in terris uestris seu in
annona, seu in porcis, uel aliis rebus tempo-
re eduuardi regis, habeat, et uos exol-
uatis.

Translation

William, by the grace of God king of the English, to Haimo the steward and all his theigns in the bishopric of Rochester, greetings. I command you to have those customs which the church of Saint Andrew in the City of Rochester, had in your lands, or in corn, or in pigs, or other things in the time of King Edward, let him have it and you will be paid the price.

Henry I's commemoration of the feast of St Paulinus

Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 187v by Jacob Scott (pending review).

Transcription

187v (select folio number to open facsimile)

De feria sancti paulini. Henricus rex anglorum, Anselmo archiepiscopo,
et haimoni uicecomiti, et omnibus hominibus de cænt,
et omnibus baronibus suis totius anglię, salutem. Scia-
tis me dedisse et concessisse ęcclesię sancti andreę
apostoli, et sancti paulini confessoris, et episcopo Gundulfo
et monachis eiusdem ęcclesię, unam feriam omni
anno celebrandam duobus integris diebus in ci-
uitate rouecestra, id est ipsa die festiuita-
tis sancti paulini, et priori die ante ipsam festi-
uitatem, et totum theloneum quod inde eueniet
quietum cum omnibus consuetudinibus feriae tam
extra ciuitatem quam infra, in honorem praedictę
ęcclesię et ipsorum sanctorum. Testibus, Willelmo de Wereluuast,
et eudone dapifero, et haimone dapifero, et Willelmo peurel, et
haimone peuerel.

Translation

Concerning the feast of Saint Paulinus:

Henry, king of the English, to Anselm the archbishop, and Hamo the sheriff, and to all the men of the church, and to all his barons of the whole of England, greetings. Know that I have given and granted to the church of Saint Andrew the Apostle, and Saint Paulinus holy confessor, and Bishop Gundulf and the monks of the same church, one holiday to be celebrated every year for two days in the City of Rochester, that is, on the very day of the feast of Saint Paulinus, and the first day before the festival, and the whole toll which will result in peace with all the customs of the holiday both outside the city and within, in honor of the aforesaid church and their saints. Witnessed by: William of Werelwast, and Eudone the chief steward, and Hamo Dapifer, and William Peverel, and Hamo Peverel.

Agreement with Stephan Bidel concerning tithing

Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 232r by Jacob Scott (pending review).

The script is a later hand than the primary scribe of Textus Roffensis.

Transcription

232r (select folio number to open facsimile)

Ita conuenit inter nos et Donom Stephanus Bidel de decima de
Ifeld . got nos habebimus diminidium frumntum . et ettiam partem ordei . et auene .
Ipse uol de auena . de pisis . de fabis . et uescis : nil perapiet .solidos nos totum.

Translation

So it was agreed between us and the donor Stephen Bidel on the tithing of Ifield. We are to receive half of the grain, and also part of the barley, and oats. He wants the wheat, peas, beans, and feed: nothing will pass one shilling from us in total.

Agreement between Bishop Gundulf and Gilbert concerning land belonging to St Andrew’s, 1086-1088

An agreement, made in the presence of Lanfranc, between Gundulf and Gilbert concerning land held by Gilbert belonging to St Andrew’s Church (1086-1088). Translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, folio 175r by Jacob Scott.

Transcription

175r (select folio number to open facsimile)

De conuentione inter gundulfum et gislebertum;
Hęc est conuentio quę facta est cantuarię
in presentia domni archiepiscopi lanfranci, atque
eo precipiente scripta, inter gundulfum episcopum,
et gislebertum de tunebrigge. Iudicio ipsius
domni archiepiscopi debet gislebertus unoquoque
anno dare .L. solidos domno episcopo gundulfo
pro terra sancti andreę quam ipse gislebertus habet,
quo adusque dabit ei tantum de alia terra
sua unde habeat per singulos annos l. solidos,
uel ualens. Testante eodem archiepiscopo lanfran-
co, et episcopo Willelmo de dunhelma, et abbate
Gisleberto westmonasterii, et abbate paulo
sancti albani, et haimone uicecomite de cantor-
beria, et bertranno de uirduno, et maxima
parte de familia ipsius domni archiepiscopi.

Translation

Concerning the agreement between Gundulf and Gilbert:

This is the agreement which was made at Canterbury in the presence of lord Archbishop Lanfranc, and written by that order, between Bishop Gundulf and Gilbert of Tunbridge. At the judgment of the lord archbishop himself, Gilbert must each year give 50 shillings to the lord Bishop Gundulf for the land of Saint Andrew, which Gilbert himself has, until he will give him that land from which he has to pay every year 50 shillings, or of that value. The same Archbishop Lanfranc, and Bishop William of Dunhelm, and Abbot Gislebert of Westminster, and Abbot Paul of Saint Albans, and Haimo, sheriff of Canterbury, and Bertranno of Verdun[?], and for the largest part of the family of the lord archbishop himself.

Sulungs of the manor of the monks and bishop c.1235

Sulungs of the manor of the monks and bishop c.1235

September 7, 2022

Translation from Latin of Custumale Roffense, folios 10r-10v by Jacob Scott (pending review).

A sulung is a measurement of land used during the medieval period in the area of Kent. The term originates from the Anglo-Saxon period but obviously continues into the later medieval period. A sulung was approximately twice the size of a hide, the typical land measurement used elsewhere in England. The modern equivalent to a sulung is about 60 acres. Dictionary of Medieval Terms, ‘sulong’.

Transcription

10r (select folio number to open facsimile)

De sullingis ist maniorum monachorum et episcopi Roffensis. Suthfliet defendit se pro V sulingis cum dimidium
sulingii de Pole. Hoc manerium est in hundredo de
Hakestane. Denuit defendit se pro sulingis. Frendesberi
defendit se pro septem sulingis. Cum uno sulingis de Bromhethe,
et cum dimimdium sulingis de Heselingeham, et dimidium sulingis
de Wicham, et cum Adam pincerna et Grenestrete dimidium
sulingum Thorindini, dimidium sulingum. Stanes defendit
se pro II squatuor. Longefeld pro uno. Faucheham defendit se pro
duobus sulingis. Hec maneria sunt in hundredo de Hacstane.
Brumlega defendit pro tribus sulingis, et hoc idem est maneri-
um est ipse hundredus Mallinges defendit se pro sulingo et
dimidio. Rotesclive defendit se pro uno sulingo. Snodilande
defendit se pro tribus sulungis.
Hec maneria sunt in hundredo

10v

de Lanerkefeld. Hallinge defendit se pro duobus sulingis
et dimidium. Coclestane defendit se pro duobus sulingis.
Hec maneria sunt in hundredo de Schamele. Borestalle
defendit se pro sulingo et dimidio. Wldham defedendit
se pro tribus sulingis cum sullino de parua Wldham.
Et dimidio sullino Robertus nepotis. Stokes defendit se
pro tribus sulingis et dimidium cum terra hugonis.

Translation

Concerning the Sulungs of the manor of the monks and Bishop of Rochester:

Southfleet is assessed at 5 sulungs with half a sulung from Pole.

This manor is in the hundred of Hakestane.

Nuuit is assessed at one sulung.

Frindsbury is assessed at seven sulungs.

With one shilling of Bromhethe, and with half a shilling of Heslingeham, and half a shilling of Wicham, and with Adam the butler and Greenstreet half a sulungs of Thorindin, half a shilling.

Stanes is assessed at 2 sulungs. Longefeld for one. Faucheham is assessed at 2 sulungs.

These are the manors in the hundred of Hacstane.

Brumlega is assessed at for three sulungs, and this same manor in the same hundred Mallinges is assessed at one shilling and a half.

Rotescliff is assessed at for one sulung. Snodilande is assessed at three sulungs.

These manors are in the hundred of Lanerkefeld.

Halling is assessed at two and a half sulungs.

Coclestane is assessed at two sulungs.

These manors are in the hundred of Schamele.

Borstal is assessed at one shilling and a half.

Wouldham is assessed at three sulung with a short sulung from Wouldham. And a half-sulung to his nephew Robert.

Stokes is assessed at three and a half sulung with the land of Hugo.

The wine custom of St Andrew’s Priory, c.1235

The wine custom of St Andrew's Priory, c.1235

Transcript of the Latin of Custumale Roffense, folios 27v-28r, with a translation, by Christopher Monk.

The text outlines the customary payments of wine – the best wine available – made to St Andrew’s Priory by the ‘keepers’ and tenants of its various manors.¹ This ensured a regular supply to the monastery. Wine was needed in the celebration of Mass, but it was probably also consumed as a beverage on certain occasions.

The wine custom was set up in 1228 when Richard de Derente (Darenth) was the prior; this was just a few years before the Custumale Roffense was written. The text states that it was established that the wine should be given on the anniversary of the ‘blessed memory’, or death, of Gundulf, bishop of Rochester (1077-1108), which was commemorated on the 10th March. However, the arrangement that follows seems to imply that a system of monthly payments was set up, each manor providing a quantity of wine according to custom and the size of the manor. Some tenants would supply wine for one month, some for two, and it may have been different again for others.

Transcription

27v (select folio number to open facsimile)

Anno gracie millesimo ccxxviij, statutum est
in capitulo de uoluntate R. prioris ibidem tunc
Presidentis, et de consensu tocius conuentus hoc ipsum an-
nuentis, ut omni anno in anniuersario felicis memorie
Gundulfi episcopi, detur uinum sub hac forma. Custodes
Maneriorum et firmarij, de quolibet mense reddent di-
midium sextarium uini optimi quod fuerit in ciui-
tate, hoc ordine. Videlicet qui duos menses facit;
det integrum sextarium, qui autem unum men-
sem; det dimidium sextarium uini Conuentui; et

28r

sic de ceteris
iuxta consuetudinem et quantitatem firmarium.
Preterea sacrista dabit integrum sextarium, et Camera-
rius similiter. Celararius uero dabit sextarium
ad seruitores.

Translation

In the year of grace 1228 it was established in chapter,² according to the will of R[ichard de Derente],³ the prior presiding there at that time, and with the consensus of the whole monastery with nodding assent, that each year on the anniversary of the blessed memory of Bishop Gundulf, wine would be given following this pattern:

Keepers of the manors and tenants will render, for each month, half a sester⁴ of the best wine that there is in the city, according to this arrangement, that is to say, whoever does two months should give a whole sester but whoever [does] one month, should give half a sester of wine to the monastery; and of the rest, according to the custom and number of the tenants.⁵ In addition, the sacristan will give a whole sester, and the chamberlain likewise.⁶ The cellarer will certainly give a sester to the servants [of God].⁷

Dr Christopher Monk

Monk’s Modern Medieval Cuisine

Footnotes

1 Latin custos, ‘keeper’, probably meaning the local official responsible for the day-to-day running of a manor, which would indicate either a reeve – annually elected from amongst the tenants – or a bailiff, whose salary would have been paid by the monks; see Mark Bailey, The English Manor c.1200–c.1500 (Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 2002), pp. 241 and 245.

2 i.e. the chapter house of the priory.

3 Richard de Derente, prior of Rochester 1225-1239; see Henry Wharton, Anglia sacra, etc., part 1 (London: Richard Chiswel, 1691) p. 393, available online at Anglia sacra : Henry Wharton : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive [accessed 18 July 2023].

4 A sester of wine was generally 4 gallons; see sester in A Dictionary of Weights and Measures for the British Isles: The Middle Ages, A Dictionary of Weights and Measures for the British Isles: The Middle Ages ... - Ronald Edward Zupko - Google Books.

5 This appears to suggest that there was some leeway in the amount of wine each manor had to provide.

6 The sacristan was a senior monk in charge of the sacristy and so responsible for the care of sacred vessels and vestments. The chamberlain was the senior monk responsible for the provision and repair of the monks clothing, shoes and bedding. The offices of the sacristan and chamberlain both received their own rents directly from the manors and so the sacristan and chamberlain were to provide wine from those funds.

7 The cellarer was a senior monk responsible for the food supplies of the priory. He would receive the wine as it was brought to the priory court. This final sentence suggests that the cellarer would provide wine for the monks to be used in the refectory. In this context, servitors ‘servants’ signifies the monks, not the lay servants of the priory, who are dealt with separately in Custumale Roffense and are only allowed ale to drink.

The manor at Haddenham, 1088 AD

William II grants the manor at Haddenham, held by Archbishop Lanfranc, to the church of St Andrew, Rochester, and its monastic community; 213r, Lanfranc sanctions this grant, 1088.¹ Transcription and translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, ff. 212r-213r by Jacob Scott. Edited with additional notes by Dr Christopher Monk.

Introduction

Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury (r. 1070-1089), held the manor of Haddenham in Buckinghamshire when King William I (r. 1066-1087),² the father of King William II (r. 1087-1100),³ granted it to him around the time Lanfranc became archbishop. Haddenham is recorded in Domesday Book as held by Lanfranc in 1086.⁴

Subsequent to this, Lanfranc granted Haddenham for the living of the monks of St Andrew’s Priory (see Sharpe, p. 364). William II confirmed the grant to the Rochester monks in the summer of 1088 (Sharpe, p. 365); this is the charter transcribed and translated below. Haddenham was the most valuable manor held by the monks.

The witness list of the charter is, as Richard Sharpe points out, quite remarkable. Written in the Norman style, it begins with the king and Lanfranc and includes Thomas, archbishop of York (r. 1070-1100); five other bishops;⁵ an abbot;⁶ the king’s brother Henry (the future Henry I);⁷ Philip, son of the Count of Flanders;⁸ Alan, Count of Rennes;⁹ three earls;¹⁰ and seven other important laymen (Sharpe, p. 365).¹¹

This charter relates directly to the narrative record on folios 173r-174v of Textus Roffensis, which is a re-telling by one of the monks of St Andrew’s Priory of the background story that led to William II’s grant. In short, Lanfranc requested, along with Bishop Gundulf of Rochester, that the new king confirm Lanfranc’s gift to the monks and, moreover, that he change the terms of his father’s original grant. The original had only allowed for Haddenham to be held by Lanfranc whilst the archbishop was alive. Now it was to become a perpetual grant, meaning the monks would hold Haddenham forever. The king agreed, but in return Gundulf had to build for him a new stone castle at Rochester.

You can read a fuller account of this along with the transcription and translation of the Haddenham narrative here .

Lanfranc’s sanction document, 123r

This document was appended to William II’s grant of Haddenham on a replacement folio. It is not in the hand of the principal Textus scribe, though it is quite similar and of the same period. Replacing the original folio also meant that the second half of the witness list had to be recopied.

The replacement of the folio may initially rouse suspicion, but it seems quite likely that there was nothing more iniquitous than an initial oversight on the part of the principal scribe, or that his exemplar at the time did not include Lanfranc’s sanction. Once its omission was evident, therefore, it made complete sense to incorporate it, even if that did mean replacing a page.

Even though other surviving acts of William II do not have sanctions like this, there is nothing inherently controversial in its contents. Moreover, as Sharpe points out, Lanfranc’s sanction of the king’s confirmation may be authenticated by comparison with the equally unique confirmation of Henry I for Rochester with its sanctions by both Archbishop Anselm and Gundulf. The latter survives as an original, complete with seals of the king, the archbishop, and the bishop (Sharpe, p. 365, note 5). As Sharpe observes, we may conjecture that the original act of William II likewise bore the seals of both king and archbishop (Sharpe, p. 365).

Anathema and grammar

Charters quite often contain an anathema, a warning of the consequences to one who contravenes the charter’s directives. Though William II’s grant does not include such, Lanfranc’s sanction does. In the anathema he not only declares that the judgement of the traitor Judas shall befall any who flout the king’s grant, but that he will personally excommunicate them.

At this point, the future perfect tense is used for the series of verbs relating to all those who may in the future take away or attempt to take away the manor of Haddenham from the church of St Andrew, Rochester, and who may receive and retain it. The future perfect tense is used in charters and deeds to describe a time in the future when the document will be read.¹² By contrast, Lanfranc’s statement concerning his excommunicating of such theoretical persons is in the present tense. This juxtaposition of different tenses conveys the idea that Lanfranc’s illustrious spiritual presence would continue even after his death. He would, in effect, be still present to excommunicate the offenders!

Transcription

212r (select folio number to open facsimile)

De Hedenham; VVILLELMVS rex anglorum, archiepiscopis,
episcopis, abbatibus, comitibus, cęterisque
omnibus baronibus suis regni anglorum
salutem. Notum uobis omnibus esse uolo, quod
ego uuillelmus dei gratia rex anglorum filius

212v

uuillelmi regis anglorum concedo ęcclesię
rofensi sancti andreę apostoli ad uictum mona-
chorum manerium quod uocatur hedenham
quod situm est in comitatu de bokingeham
quod tenuit lanfrancus archiepiscopus de patre
meo et de me, quod donat eidem rofensi ęc-
clesię pro salute animę patris mei et ma-
tris meae, et pro salute animae meae et animae
suę. Et ideo eius rogatu et amore hoc do-
num suum praedictę ęcclesię concedo et regali
auctoritate propria manu confirmo, ita
quiete tenendum iure perpetuo, sicut praedi-
ctus archiepiscopus de patre meo et de me illud
quiete tenuit usque in pręsentem diem.
+ Signum Willelmi regis anglorum. + Signum
lanfranci cantuariensis archiepiscopi. + Signum
thomę eboracensis archiepiscopi. + Signum Re-
migii lincoliensis episcopi. + Signum Walcelini
uuentoniensis episcopi. + Signum mauricii lun-
doniensis episcopi. + Signum osmundi serberien-
sis episcopi. + Signum Rodberti herefordensis episcopi.
+ Signum Baldeuuini abbatis sancti eadmundi.
+ Signum henrici fratris regis. + Signum philip-
pi filii rodberti comitis flandrię. + Signum

213r

Alani comitis. + Signum hugonis comi-
tis. + Signum heinrici comitis. +
Signum Willelmi comitis. + Signum
eudonis dapifer. + Signum Rogerii bi-
gotis. + Signum Goffridi de magna
uilla. + Signum Rodberta filii haimo-
nis. + Signum hugonis de monte for-
ti. + Signum Gisleberta de tonebrig-
ge. + Signum hugonis de bello cam-
po. +; Confirmatio Lanfranci archiepiscopi. Ego Lanfrancus non meis meritis sed
gratia dei archiepiscopus, hoc donum
meum quod regia auctoritate confir-
matum est confirmo, et auctoritate
dei omnipotentis et omnium sanctorum
excommunico omnes illos qui prędictum
manerium de prędicta ęcclesia uel abstule-
rint, uel auferre temptauerint, uel abla-
tum ab aliis cognita ueritate receperint
uel retinuerint. Ęterna pęna cum
iuda proditore sit eis, nisi ad satisfacti-
onem uenerint.

Translation

Concerning Haddenham:

William, King of the English, to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and all the rest of his barons of the kingdom of the English. Greetings. I want it to be known to you all that I, William, by God’s grace, King of the English, son of William, King of the English, do grant to the church of Saint Andrew the Apostle, Rochester, for the living of the monks, the manor which is called Haddenham, which is situated in the county of Buckingham, which is held by Lanfranc, the archbishop of both my father and me, and which he now gives to the same church of Rochester for the salvation of the souls of my father and my mother, and for the salvation of my soul and his soul. And therefore, at his request and through love, this gift of his to the aforesaid church I grant, and with royal authority by means of my own hand I confirm it, thus to be held peacefully by right forever, just as the aforesaid archbishop of my father and of me has peacefully held it to this present day.

+ The sign of William, King of the English.

+ The sign of Lanfranc, Archbishop of Canterbury.

+ The sign of Thomas, Archbishop of York.

+ The sign of Remigius, Bishop of Lincoln.

The sign of Walkelin, Bishop of Winchester.

+ The sign of Maurice, Bishop of London.

The sign of Osmund, Bishop of Salisbury.

+ The sign of Robert, Bishop of Hereford.

+ The sign of Baldwin, Abbot of Saint Edmunds,

+ The sign of Henry, brother of the king.

+ The sign of Phillip, brother of Robert, Count of Flanders.

+ The sign of Count Alan.

+ The sign of Earl Hugh.

+ The sign of Earl Henry.

+ The sign of Earl William.

+ The sign of Eudo Dapifer.

+ The sign of Roger Bigod.

+ The sign of Geoffrey de Magnaville.

+ The sign of Robert fitz Haimo.

+ The sign of Hugh de Montfort.

+ The sign of Gilbert of Tonbridge

The sign of Hugh de Beauchamp.

+ [and others].

The confirmation of Archbishop Lanfranc:

I, Lanfranc, not by my own merits but by the grace of God, Archbishop; this gift of mine, which was by royal authority confirmed, I confirm; and by the authority of God Almighty and all the saints I excommunicate all those who will have either taken away¹³ the aforesaid manor from the aforesaid church or attempted to take it away, or received what was taken away and, knowing the truth, retained it. Eternal punishment with Judas the traitor is for them, unless to repentance they come.

Cited work

Sharpe, Richard, ‘Doing Business with William Rufus: The Haddenham Narrative’, in Textus Roffensis: Law, Language, and Libraries in Early Medieval England, ed. Bruce O’Brien and Barbara Bombi (Brepols, 2015).

Footnotes

Use your browsers 'back' button to jump back to the text.

1 Our grateful thanks to Elise Fleming for proofreading the English text; any mistakes remain our own.

2 Aka ‘the Conqueror’.

3 Aka William Rufus.

4 See Haddenham | Domesday Book (opendomesday.org)

5 These five are Remigius de Fécamp, bishop of Lincoln (r. 1067-1092); Walkelin, bishop of Winchester (r. 1070-1098); Maurice, bishop of London (r. 1085-1107); Osmund, bishop of Salisbury (r. 1078-1099); and Robert, bishop of Hereford (r. before 1079-1095).

6 Baldwin, abbot of St Edmunds (1065-1097/98).

7 Henry I, r.1100-1135.

8 Evidently, Philip of Loo, son of Robert the Frisian, Count of Flanders from 1071 to 1093.

9 Alan II, Count of Rennes (r. 1084-1112), also known as Alan Fergant; he was also Alan IV, Duke of Brittany (r.1072-1112).

10 These three are Hugh d’Avranches, Earl of Chester from 1071 to 1101; Henry de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Warwick from 1088 to 1102, and who is recorded as one of the two negotiators of the king in the Haddenham narrative document (see below); and William de Warenne, 2nd Earl of Surrey from 1088 to 1101 and 1103-1138. It seems unlikely that William de Warenne, 1st Earl of Surrey is meant, as he was mortally wounded in the Easter of 1088, though he evidently did not die until 24 June 1088 (see Sharpe, pp. 375-76).

11 These seven are Eudo Dapifer (d. 1120); Roger Bigod of Norfolk (d. 1107); Geoffrey de Magnaville, aka Geoffrey de Mandeville (d. c.1100), constable of the Tower of London; Robert fitz Haimo, or Fitzhamon (d. 1107), one of the king’s negotiators in the Haddenham narrative document (see below); Hugh de Montfort (d. c.1088); Gilbert of Tunbridge, aka Gilbert de Clare (d. c.1115); and Hugh de Beauchamp (d. after 1101), the sheriff of Buckinghamshire.

12 See The National Archives online: Lesson 4 - Future perfect tense - Latin (nationalarchives.gov.uk) [accessed 25 August 2022].

13 ‘will have either taken away’, translating ‘uel abstulerint’ of the following lines.

Bishop Gundulf builds Rochester Castle for the king in return for the manor of Haddenhamc.1108-c.1114 AD

William II confirms Archbishop Lanfranc’s grant of Haddenham, Buckinghamshire, to St Andrew’s Priory, Rochester, for which in return Bishop Gundulf builds Rochester Castle. From Textus Roffensis, folios 173r-174v; edited and translated by Dr Christopher Monk, 2022.¹

See general notes on editing and translation

Introduction

The manor of Haddenham in Buckinghamshire was the largest and single most important estate belonging to the monks of St Andrew’s Priory at Rochester. It produced rents, both monetary and food, which significantly contributed to the sustenance of the monks.

This record is a narrative account of King William II, also known as William Rufus, confirming Archbishop Lanfranc’s gift of Haddenham to St Andrew’s Priory. It is not, then, the royal act itself but rather a piece of, what we might call, reinforcing storytelling, a rehearsing of events known to the monks, events which bore directly on their livelihood and physical wellbeing.

Professor Richard Sharpe, in his excellent essay on this ‘Haddenham narrative’, explains the significance of this document:

If this were a tendentious story to justify the monks’ holding Haddenham, it is curiously off the point. It does nothing to establish either that Lanfranc was entitled to alienate [i.e. transfer the legal title to another] or even that the king confirmed the gift. And it has no value as evidence. It is, rather, a story from the collective memory of the community, a story that makes the wall of the castle, so visible from the cathedral priory, a tangible proof of the price they had paid for the king’s confirmation. What Gundulf got in return was security for the monks’ possession of Haddenham. (Sharpe, p. 377.)

William the Conqueror had previously granted Haddenham to Lanfranc. Lanfranc’s ownership is confirmed by the entry for Haddenham in Domesday Book.² We might at first think that this meant Lanfranc was free to dispose of the manor as he saw fit, but the story shows this was unlikely, as it points out that the king had granted it to him in uita sua tantum, ‘only in his lifetime’, evidently meaning the lifetime of Lanfranc rather than the king’s lifetime.

Intriguingly, a subsequent reviser attempted to score out the phrase in vita sua (‘in his lifetime’), as if to reinforce the idea that Lanfranc had the right to transfer the manor; though, in doing this, all he was doing was confusing the story. However, in the early fourteenth century the Domesday record was copied and added into another of Rochester’s books, Custumale Roffense (c.1235),³ suggesting there may have been a continuing uneasiness on the part of the monks over this particular aspect of the narrative details.

The relevant point is, nevertheless, that the new king evidently objected to the easy transference of the manor to the monks and, it being unwise to gainsay William Rufus, it must have been thought more pragmatic to gain his consent, though at a cost. Sharpe observes that the end of the story makes it clear that Gundulf and Lanfranc ‘wanted the king to change the terms of tenure, so that the monks should hold the gift for ever, not merely until Lanfranc died’. In other words, William was being asked to give up the reversion of Haddenham to the Crown upon Lanfranc’s demise (Sharpe, p. 374). The story tells us that the price for this, after negotiation, was Gundulf’s building of Rochester Castle.

Connection to charters

Though not a charter itself, this narrative record is connected directly to two charters. These are Archbishop Lanfranc’s deed granting Haddenham to the Rochester monks, which is the only authentic surviving charter in his name (Sharpe, p. 364), and which is copied into the fourteenth-century cartulary known as Registrum Temporalium;⁴ and the charter of confirmation of this grant by William II, which is preserved in Textus Roffensis. You can read the text and translation of this second charter here.

Lanfranc’s grant states that the manor is ad uictum monachorum ‘for the living of the monks’. It also notes that it was given to him pro anima defuncti regis Willemi, qui michi hoc dedit, et pro anima regis W. filii eius et pro mea ‘for the soul of the deceased king William, who gave this to me, and for the soul of king W[illiam] his son, and for mine’ (Brett & Gribbin, p. 8).

The second charter, running from the bottom of folio 212r to halfway down 213r of Textus Roffensis, is addressed ‘to the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls and all the barons in the kingdom of the English’. It has, as Sharpe notes, a quite remarkable witness list which includes the king, Lanfranc, Archbishop Thomas of York (r.1070-1100), five other bishops, the king’s brother Henry (the future Henry I), Philip, the son of the Count of Flanders, Alan, Count of Rennes, three earls, and seven other important laymen. The presence of Henry means we can date the charter to the summer of 1088 (Sharpe, p. 365).

On folio 213r of Textus Roffensis, this charter is followed by Lanfranc’s own sanction of William’s confirmation, though this was not the work of the main scribe but appears on a replacement folio.⁵ Sharpe sees no reason, however, to doubt its authenticity (Sharpe, p. 365, note 5).

One further document concerning Haddenham is also preserved in Textus Roffensis. Following on from the previous item, an act by Gundulf, addressed to the shire court of Buckinghamshire, records a subsidiary adjustment to holdings in Haddenham in favour of the monks (Sharpe, p. 365, including note 6).

The narrator

The events described in this narrative relate to the year 1088, when Lanfranc and Gundulf sought royal confirmation of the Haddenham gift. The narrator is not necessarily contemporary with the making of Textus Roffensis, the principal scribe of which was writing around 1123. The composition of the narrative was clearly after the bishop had died, since the phrase beatę memorie ‘of blessed memory’ is used of Gundulf. Sharpe suggests it may have been written ‘during the five-year vacancy in the archbishopric that followed Anselm’s death in April 1109’, which suggests a narrator-monk who very likely knew Gundulf (Sharpe, pp. 368 and 377). We might then give a date of the composition of this record of between 1109 and 1114, though it may have been a few years later.

Despite what might be understood as a fictionalising of some of the detail within the narration – Sharpe points to several instances where ‘the narrator did not really understand the character of the negotiations’ at court (Sharpe, p. 377) – this record in Textus Roffensis is a remarkable witness to the procedures of business that lay behind many royal acts of the Anglo-Norman kings (Sharpe, p. 382).

Transcription

173r (select folio number to open facsimile)

Quomodo Willelmus rex filius Willelmi regis
rogatu Lanfranci archiepiscopi concessit
et confirmauit Rofensi ęcclesię sancti ANDReę
apostoli ad uictum monachorum manerium nomine
Hedenham, quare Gundulfus episcopus castrum
Rofense lapideum totum de suo pro-
prio regi[s] construxit. _Aliud⁶ quoque beatę memorię gundulfus
episcopus non minus memorabile illis contu-
lit beneficium, sed omni potius omnibus seculis uentu-
ris dignum ueneratione. Castrum et enim
quod situm est in pulchriori parte ciuitatis
hrouecestrę pro regia concessione illius doni quod
sepedictus archiepiscopus praedictę ęcclesię ad uictum
monachorum disposuerat dare manerium ui-
delicet quod situm est in comitatu de bucin-
geham nomine hedenham,⁷ non enim aliter ut
ratum permaneret ipsi ęcclesię illud absque regis

173v

concessione potuit dare, quia pater regis illud
dederat archiepiscopo ( )⁸ tantum ut sul-
limatus fuit in archiepiscopio. Vnde uuil-
lelmo filio eius ipsum patrem succedente in re-
gno ab archiepiscopo et episcopo de eiusdem manerii
concessione requisitus, respondit centum libras
denariorum habere se uelle pro ipsa concessione.
Quod postquam archiepiscopus et episcopus simul audie-
runt, consternati ualde pariter responde-
runt, illam tantam pecuniam neque tunc in promtu
sese habere, nec etiam unde eam acquirere
potuissent sese scire. Duobus autem amicis u-
trique parte fauentibus, Rodberto uidelicet fi-
lio haimonis, et henrico comite de uuar-
uuic, hinc regium honorem et integram eius ob-
seruantibus uoluntatem, hinc uero amicitiae
fauorem et pro dei amore ęcclesię praedictę mag-
nificum ac profuturum honorem, regi consulu-
erunt quatinus pro pecunia quam pro concessione
manerii exigebat, episcopus gundulfus quia in
opere cementarii plurimum sciens et efficax
erat,⁹ castrum sibi hrofense lapideum de suo
construeret. Quod ubi archiepiscopo et episcopo in-
notuit, tunc proculdubio magis consternati

174r

dixerunt, et regię concessioni ex toto sese¹⁰ abnu-
ere, etiam et ipsum manerium in profundo maris
potius situm iri malle, quam prędictam ęcclesiam
sancti andreę futuris temporibus regiis exacti-
onibus mancipari debere. Nam quotienscunque
quilibet ex infortunio aliquo casu in castro
illo contingeret aut infractione muri, aut
fissura maceriei, id protinus ab episcopo uel ęcclesia
exigeretur usu reficiendum assiduo. Sicque episcopus
et ęcclesia futuri seculi temporibus omnibus, summa
districtione regię summitteretur exactioni. Isto itaque metu perterritus uterque, absit hoc a me
inquit archiepiscopus, absit quoque a me inquit et episcopus. Responsum hoc audiens¹¹ comes henricus, quasi modestę
stimulis irę commotus honestatis dans concito
fremitus, inquit, Hactenus mea ęstimatione
ratus sum archiepiscopum Lanfrancum unum ex uiris
uniuersi orbis extitisse sapientissimis, nunc
autem nec insipientem quod absit esse dico, neque illa
quidem qua dudum sapientia callebat in presentiarum uigere¹²
ullatenus¹³ asserere audeo. Quid enim grauedinis
inquit in hoc est, castrum ad ultimum maius
pro xL libris¹⁴ ad uoluntatem regis facere, fa-
ctum uero comiti uel uicecomiti comitatus seu aliis

174v

etiam quibus regi placuerit monstrare, mon-
stratum et ex omni parte integrum liberare, se-
mel uero liberato sese penitus expedire, nec unquam
ulterius inde se intromittere, nec etiam eo
respicere? Ad hoc, regem¹⁵ aduersus episcopum
uel ęcclesiam futurę seruitutis occasionem nul-
latenus quęrere, immo potius eos ab omni ser-
uitute liberare, atque sicut regem decebat
pro dei timore et seculi honore in summa libertate
eos conseruare uelle. His ergo et aliis nonnullis
huiuscemodi rationibus, tandem acquieuit
archiepiscopus. Igitur hoc pacto coram >rege< inito, fecit
castrum gundulfus episcopus de suo ex integro
totum, costamine ut reor Lx. librarum. Quod
quam diu in seculo subsistere poterit, pro gun-
dulfo episcopo manifesto indicio quasi loquens
erit, ęternum quidem illi ferens testimonium
quod manerium hedenham¹⁶ ęcclesię et mona-
chis sancti andreę ab omni exactione et ca-
lumnia regis et omnium hominum permane-
bit liberrimum et quietissimum in secula seculorum.¹⁷

Translation

How King William,¹⁸ son of William the king,¹⁹ at the request of Archbishop Lanfranc,²⁰ granted and confirmed the manor named Haddenham as the living of the monks of the Church of Saint Andrew the Apostle, for which Bishop Gundulf built Rochester Castle, completely of stone, by his own means, for the king.

Bishop Gundulf of blessed memory also brought another benefit, for them no less memorable but all the more worthy of veneration, for all ages to come. A castle – indeed! – which is situated in the more beautiful part of the city of Rochester, in return for the royal grant of that gift which the aforesaid archbishop had arranged to give for the livelihood of the monks of the aforesaid church, that is to say, the manor named Haddenham which is situated in the shire of Buckingham. For he could not otherwise have given it to the church, in a way that it would remain authorised, without the king’s consent, because the father of the king had given it to the archbishop only [for his lifetime],²¹ when he was elevated to the archbishopric; after which, William his son, on succeeding his father in the kingdom, was asked by the archbishop and bishop for the grant of the same manor. He answered that he would want to have one hundred pounds sterling for this very grant.

After the archbishop and bishop had together heard this, equally greatly dismayed, they answered that they neither had such an amount of money ready to hand nor indeed knew from where they would be able to acquire it. However, they consulted with two of the king’s counsellors, supporters of both sides, namely Robert fitz Haimo,²² and Earl Henry of Warwick²³ – on the one hand observing the honour and complete will of the king; on the other, indeed, observing the favour of friendship and, for the love of God, the magnificent and future honour of the aforesaid church – concerning whether instead of the money to the king, which was required for the granting of the manor, bishop Gundulf, seeing as he was in masonry work the greatest in understanding and the ablest, might from his own means build a stone castle for him in Rochester.

When this was made known to the archbishop and bishop, then they said, no doubt more appalled, that they refused the royal grant altogether, and, furthermore, would rather wish this very manor be allowed to go into the depths of the sea than that the aforementioned church of Saint Andrew should be surrendered to royal exactions for the future.

For whenever, from some misfortune, something should happen to the castle, either by weakening of the wall or splitting of masonry, it would immediately be demanded of the bishop and the church that it should diligently be repaired. Thus the bishop and the church at all times in the future would be subjected to utmost severity to meet royal demands.

And, therefore, both were terrified by this dread: “Far be this from me”, said the archbishop, and “Far be this from me also”, said the bishop.

Hearing this response, Earl Henry, stirred as if by spurs of restrained anger and wakened by honour, suddenly emitting roars, said:

Until now, by my estimation, I have regarded Archbishop Lanfranc to have been one of the wisest of men in the whole world; now, however, I do not say that he is foolish – far from it – but nor, indeed, dare I assert that the wisdom with which he had formerly been endowed is at this moment flourishing in every respect.

Indeed, one must ask, what is burdensome in this: to build, at the will of the king, a castle for, at the very most, 40 pounds; in truth, to show the deed to the earl or the sheriff of the country or to others, if it pleased the king, and having shown it to be complete on every side, deliver it; and once delivered, to set oneself completely free, never to deal with it or even to look back at it?

Further, the king would not in any way seek against the bishop or the church an occasion for future obligation. On the contrary, it is preferable to liberate them from every servitude; moreover, as a king it is fitting, for the fear of God and the honour of the world, to wish to keep them in the highest degree of liberty.

Well, with these and several other reasonings of this sort, the archbishop finally acquiesced. Consequently, by this agreement, entered upon in the presence of the king, bishop Gundulf made the castle out of all that he had, at the cost, I believe, of sixty pounds.

For as long as it will stand in the world, it will be clear proof on behalf of Bishop Gundulf, as if he were speaking, indeed, bearing eternal witness that the manor of Haddenham will continue to belong to the church and the monks of Saint Andrew, completely free and completely quit of all exactions and claims of the king and of all persons, for ever and ever.

Cited Works

Brett, Martin & Joseph Gribbin (eds.), English Episcopal Acta 28, Canterbury, 1070-1136 (Oxford University Press, 2004).

Sharpe, Richard, ‘Doing Business with William Rufus: The Haddenham Narrative’, in Textus Roffensis: Law, Language, and Libraries in Early Medieval England, ed. Bruce O’Brien and Barbara Bombi (Brepols, 2015).

Footnotes

1 My grateful thanks to Elise Fleming for proofreading the English text. Any errors remain my own.

2 See the entry for Haddenham in Open Domesday [accessed 23 August 2022].

3 The digitised facsimile of Custumale Roffense is available online [accessed 23 August 2022]. The Domesday document is written in a probably fourteenth-century hand, and is thus a later insertion into the book, the majority of which was penned around 1235.

4 Also called Liber Temporalium.

5 The replacement folio also meant that the second half of the witnesses’ signatures had to be recopied. The hand, though not that of the main scribe, is nevertheless roughly contemporary with it, I would suggest.

6 In the left margin, before the green letter A, there is a so-called gallows-pole, or a Greek letter gamma; in the right margin, there is a manicule, a pointing finger, beside gundulfus. These are likely later marks, though still medieval, intended to draw attention to the document.

7 The spelling has been altered from hederham to hedenham. This is suggestive of the document being read at a later stage by a monk who wished, perhaps through caution or nervousness, to modify the name of the manor to what was apparently the current spelling of his time.

8 Text has been erased but it is still just about visible; Richard Sharpe gives it as in vita sua.

9 episcopus… erat, underlined by a later hand.

10 The letters se have been inserted above the line.

11 audiens has been inserted above the line over the word comes.

12 ŭ uigere is appended in the margin.

13 ull is appended in the margin.

14 The letter a has been partly erased and replaced by i which is inserted above.

15 The scribe has left a space after regem but for what purpose is unclear.

16 Spelling altered, probably from ‘Hederham’.

17 The letters at the end of seculorum are stretched in the manuscript.

18 I.e. William II, aka William Rufus (r. 1087-1100).

19 I.e. William I, aka William the Conqueror (r. 1066-1087).

20 Lanfranc, archbishop of Canterbury (r.1070–89), appointed by William I.

21 ‘only [for his lifetime]’, translating ‘[in vita sua] tantum’; a reviser had attempted to erase ‘in vita sua’ but it is still visible; see Sharpe, pp. 373-34.

22 Also often spelt Robert Fitzhamon (d. 1107). He was the son of Haimo, sheriff of Kent, and one of the king’s household stewards (Sharpe, p. 376).

23 Henry de Beaumont, earl of Warwick from 1088 to 1119.

The Laws of Wihtræd, 695 AD

These are the judgements of Wihtræd, king of the Kentish people. Translation from Old English of Textus Roffensis folios 5r-6v by Dr Christopher Monk.

The text is known only through the copy that survives in Textus Roffensis (c.1123). Wihtræd ascended the throne of the kingdom of Kent probably in the autumn of 691 and reigned until his death on 23rd April 725. He was for a brief period joint ruler with Swæfheard, an invader, the son of King Sebbi of the East Saxons, who ruled Kent from 688. But by July 694 it seems that Wihtræd was sole ruler.¹

Note on the Old English text

The arrangement of the text approximates that of the manuscript though word division has been normalised according to modern editorial convention. Where a single word is split over two lines, this is indicated by a hyphen. The basic punctuation mark (the punctus) has been converted to a comma wherever appropriate, though there is no attempt to re-order punctuation. Abbreviations, wherever they can be clearly understood, have been expanded and the expanded part is written in italics; however, the Tironian nota ‘7’ is preserved (this is equivalent to the modern ‘&’). Scribal alterations (erasures and overwriting) of individual letters are not noted, with the exception of one very obvious erasure (see footnote 5). Letters or words inserted above the line or in a margin have been included in the line proper and have been italicised. The insertion mark and corresponding text in the bottom margin of folio 6r have been represented as they appear in the manuscript; the lines of the text have therefore not been re-ordered. Any scribal errors relating to grammar or spelling have not been corrected in the text but are noted in footnotes.

Transcription

5r (select folio number to open facsimile)

Ðis synd wihtrædes
domas cantwara cyninges.² _Ðam mildestan cyninge cantwara, wihtræde
rixigendum þe fiftan wintra his rices,
þy, niguðan gebanne, sextan dæge rugernes, in
þære stowe þy hatte berghamstyde, ðær wæs
gesamnad eadigra geheahtendlic³ ymcyme, ðær
wæs birhtwald bretone heahbiscop, 7 se ærnæm-
da cyning, eac þan hrofesceastre bisceop se ilca
gybmund wæs haten, andward wæs 7 cwæð, ælc
had ciricean ðære mægðe anmodlice mid þy
hersuman folcy. Þær ða eadigan fundon mid

5v

ealra gemedum ðas domas, 7 cantwara rihtum
þeawum æcton swa hit hyr efter segeþ 7 cwyþ.
Ciricean freolsdome⁴ gafola 7 man for cyning ge-
bidde, 7 hine buton neadhæse heora willum weor-
þige_n.⁵ Ciricean mundbyrd sie ·l· scll swa cin-
ges. Vnrihthæmde mæn to rihtum life mid syn-
na hreowe tofon, oþþe of ciricean genaman,⁶ ascadene
sieN. Æltheodige mæn gif hio hiora hæmed
rihtan nyllað, of lande mid hiora æhtum 7 mid
synnum gewiten, swæse mæn in leodum ciriclicæs
gemanan ungestrodyne þoligen. Gif ðæs geweor-
þe gesiþcundne mannan ofer þis gemot þæt he un-
riht hæmed genime ofer cyngæs bebod 7 biscopes
7 boca dom, se þæt gebete his dryhtne ·c· scll, an
ald reht. Gif hit ceorlisc man sie, gebete ·L· scll,
7 gehwæder þæt hæmed mid hreowe forlæte. Gif
priost læfe unriht hæmed, oþþe fulwihðe,⁷ untru-
mes forsitte, oþþe to þon druncen sie þæt he ne mæ-
ge, sio he stille his þegnungæ oþ biscopes dom.
Gif bescoren man steorleas, gange him an gest-
liðnesse gefe him man ænes 7 þæt ne geweorðe bu-
ton he leafnesse hæbbe þæt hine man læng feor-
mige. Gif man his mæn an wiofode freols gefe,
se sie folcfry, freolsgefa age his erfe ænde

6r

wergeld, 7 munde þare hina, sie ofer mearce ðær he
wille. Gif esne ofer⁸ dryhtnes hæse þeowweorc wyr-
ce an sunnan æfen efter hire setlgange oþ monan
æfenes setlgang ·Lxxx· scll se dryhtne⁹ gebete. Gif
esne deþ his rade þæs dæges ·vi· se wið dryhten gebe-
te oþþe sine hyd. Gif friman þonne an ðane for-
bodenan timan sio he healsfange scyldig, 7 se man
se þæt arasie he age healf þæt wite 7 ðæt weorc. Gif ceorl
buton wifes wisdome deoflum gelde, he sie ealra his
æhtan scyldig, 7 healsfange, gif butwu deoflum
geldaþ, sion hio healsfange, scyldigo 7 ealra æhtan.
Gif þeuw deoflum geldaþ ·vi· scll gebete, oþþe his hyd.
Gif mon his heowum in fæsten flæsc gefe, frigne ge
þeowne halsfange alyse. Gif þeow ete his sylfes
ræde ·vi· scll oþþe his hyd. Biscopes word 7 cynin-
ges sie unlægne buton aþe. Mynstres aldor
hine cænne in preostes canne, preost hine clæn-
sie sylfæs soþe in his halgum hrægle ætforan
wiofode ðus cweþende, Veritatem dico in christo non
mentior, swylce diacon hine clænsie. Cliroc
feowra sum hine clænsie his heafodgemacene
7 ane his hand on wiofode oþre ætstanden aþ
abycgan. Gest hine clænsie sylfes aþe on wiofode ⁜¹⁰
7 ðissa ealra að sie unlegnæ. Ðanne is cirican
⁜ swylce cyninges ðeng.¹¹ Ceorlisc man hine feowra
sum his heafodgemacene on weofode,

6v

canne riht, gif man biscopes esne tihte oþþe cy-
ninges cænne hine an gerefan hand oþþe hine
gerefa clensie oþþe selle to swinganne. Gif man
gedes þeuwne esne in heora gemange, tihte his
dryhten hine his ane aþe geclænsie gif he husl-
genga sie, gif he huslgenga nis hæbbe him in aþe
oðirne æwdan godne,¹² oþþe gelde, oþþe selle to swin-
ganne. Gif folcesmannes esne tihte ciricanman-
nes esne oþþe ciricanmannes esne tihte folces-
mannes esne, his dryhten hine ane his aþe ge-
clensige. Gif man leud ofslea an þeofðe, licge
buton wyrgelde. Gif man frigne man æt hæb-
bendre handa gefo þanne wealde se cyning ðreo-
ra anes, oððe hine man cwelle, oþþe ofer sæ selle,
oþþe¹³ hine his wergelde alese. Se þe hine gefo 7 ge-
gange healfne hine age, gif hine man cwelle, geselle¹⁴
heom man ·Lxx· scll. Gif þeuw stele 7 hi man¹⁵
alese ·Lxx· scll swa hweder swa cyning wille, gif
hine man acwelle þam agende hi man¹⁶ healfne
agelde. Gif feorran cumen man oþþe fræmde
buton wege gange, 7 he þonne nawðer ne hryme,
ne he horn ne blawe, for ðeof he bið to profi-
anne oþþe to sleanne, oþþe to alysenne.

Translation¹⁷

See Translation Notes

These are the judgements of Wihtræd, king of the Kentish people

To the most gracious king of the Kentish people, Wihtræd – reigning in the fifth winter of his rule,¹⁸ in the ninth indiction, ¹⁹ the sixth day of Rugern²⁰ - there was gathered, in the place which is called Bearsted,²¹ a council of noble men. There was present Berhtwald,²² archbishop of Britain,²³ and the aforementioned king, also the bishop of Rochester who was called Gebmund.²⁴ And every ecclesiastic of that people’s Church spoke in unison with the loyal populace.²⁵ There, with the agreement of all, the noble men instituted these judgements,²⁶ and they added to the lawful customs of the Kentish people as it hereafter states and declares:

[There is to be] freedom of the Church from taxation; and one should pray for the king and do him honour of their own free will, without compulsion.

Violation of the protection of the Church shall be 50 shillings,²⁷ as the king’s.

Persons in unlawful sexual unions should take up a lawful life with repentance of sins,²⁸ or be excommunicated from the Church.

Foreign persons, if they will not make their sexual union lawful, they must depart from the land with their possessions and their sins; our own countrymen should suffer excommunication, without forfeiture of property.

If afterwards, in contravention of this meeting, it should happen that a sith-born²⁹ person takes up an unlawful sexual union, against the command of the king and bishops and the decrees of the books,³⁰ he should pay to his lord 100 shillings, according to ancient law.

If it is a man of the rank of ceorl,³¹ he should pay 50 shillings, and both should give up the sexual union with repentance.³²

If a priest allows an unlawful sexual union,³³ or neglects the baptism of the sick,³⁴ or is so drunk that he is incapable, he should refrain from his ministry until the bishop’s judgement.

If a tonsured man, not under rule,³⁵ seeks for himself hospitality, one may give it him once but it should not happen that one sustains him for longer, unless he has permission.³⁶

If a person gives his man freedom at the altar, he will have the freedom of the people;³⁷ the freedom-giver shall have his inheritance and wergild and protection of the household;³⁸ he [the freed man] may be over the border where he wishes.³⁹

If an unfree labourer,⁴⁰ by his lord’s bidding,⁴¹ carries out slave-work between the sunset on the eve of Sunday and sunset on the eve of Monday,⁴² the lord should pay 80 shillings.⁴³

If an unfree labourer does it on that day by his own counsel, to his lord he should pay six [shillings], or his hide.⁴⁴

If a freeman [works] in this forbidden time, he should be liable for healsfang;⁴⁵ and the one who discovers it, ⁴⁶ he shall have half the fine or the work.⁴⁷

If a ceorl, without his wife’s knowledge, should make an offering to devils,⁴⁸ he shall be liable for all his property, or healsfang; if both make an offering to devils, they shall [both] be liable to healsfang or all [their] property.⁴⁹

If a slave makes an offering to devils, he should pay 6 shillings,⁵⁰ or his hide.

If a person gives meat to his household during fasting,⁵¹ he should redeem both freemen and slave with healsfang.

If a slave eats such, of his own counsel, 6 shillings or his hide.

The word of a bishop and a king shall be incontrovertible without an oath.⁵²

A head of a minster⁵³ should clear himself upon a priest’s exculpation;⁵⁴ a priest should acquit himself with his own truth in his holy vestments before the altar, declaring thus: ‘I speak truth in Christ, I do not lie’;⁵⁵ a deacon should similarly acquit himself.⁵⁶

A cleric should acquit himself as one of four of his rank,⁵⁷ but only his hand on the altar; the others should stand by to defend the oath.⁵⁸

A stranger should acquit himself with his own oath at the altar; similarly, a king’s thegn.⁵⁹ A person of the rank of ceorl,⁶⁰ as one of four of his rank, at the altar. And the oath of all these shall not be questioned.

Hereafter is the right of exculpation of the Church: if a person accuses an unfree labourer of a bishop or king, he should clear himself by the hand of the reeve;⁶¹ either the reeve acquits him or delivers him to be flogged.⁶²

If a person accuses a community’s bonded servant in their midst,⁶³ his lord should acquit him with his oath alone, if he is a communicant; if he is not a communicant, he should have with him another, an oath-supporter, otherwise he should pay, or deliver him to be flogged.⁶⁴

If a layman’s unfree labourer accuses a churchman’s unfree labourer, his lord should acquit him with his oath alone.

If a person slays a man who is thieving, [the one killed] is to lie [dead] without wergild.⁶⁵

If a person captures a free man red-handed,⁶⁶ then the king should rule one of three things: either one should kill him, or sell him overseas, or release him for [the price of] his wergild.

He who captures and delivers him should obtain half for [surrendering] him;⁶⁷ if he is killed, one should give them 70 shillings.

If a slave steals and one redeems him, that one should give 70 shillings; if he is killed, half of his [value] is to be paid to the owner,⁶⁸ whichever the king wishes.⁶⁹

If a person who comes from afar, or a foreigner, goes off the highway, and he then neither shouts out nor does he blow a horn, he should be considered a thief, to be either killed or redeemed.⁷⁰

Cited works

Blair, John, The Church in Anglo-Saxon Society (Oxford University Press, 2005).

Cheney, C. R. (ed.) and Michael Jones (revised by), A Handbook of Dates for Students of British History, New Edition (Cambridge University Press, 2000).

DOE, The Dictionary of Old English: A to I online, ed. Angus Cameron, Ashley Crandell Amos, Antonette diPaolo Healey, et al (Dictionary of Old English Project, 2018); available to subscribers or free but with limited access. Click here

Kelly, S. E. (ed.), Charters of St Augustine’s Abbey Canterbury and Minster-in-Thanet, Anglo-Saxon Charters IV (Oxford University Press, 1995).

Monk, Christopher, ‘Defending Rihthæmed: the Normalizing of Marital Sexuality in the Anglo-Saxon Penitentials’, in SELIM. Journal of the Spanish Society for Medieval English Language and Literature, vol. 18 (2011), pp. 7-48, published online 2019. Click here

Oliver, Lisi, The Beginnings of English Law (University of Toronto Press, 2002).

The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, ed. Michael Lapidge, John Blair, Simon Keynes, and Donald Scragg (Blackwell Publishing, 1999).

Whitelock, Dorothy (ed.), English Historical Documents c.500-1042, Second Edition (Eyre Methuen and Oxford University Press, 1979).

Footnotes

Use your browsers 'back' button to jump back to the text.

1 For a detailed chronology of the kings of Kent, see S. E. Kelly, pp. 195-203; Wihtræd and Swæfheard are discussed at pp. 196-98; a summary of the chronology is given on p. 203.

2 The rubric (heading in red ink) is provided by the Textus Roffensis scribe; it is not considered to be part of the original law code.

3 Oliver, p. 152, emends this to geþeahtendlic.

4 The word spacing here is particularly confusing, as noted by Oliver, p. 152 and p. 153, note e. I have followed Oliver’s example in order to give better sense.

5 The manuscript has an erasure between the letters e and n.

6 In line with Oliver, p. 154, this should be emended to gemanan, meaning ‘community’, and in the context here relates to excommunication; see the translation, below.

7 Oliver, p. 154, emends this to fulwihte.

8 Oliver, pp. 156-57, suggests this should read of not ofer, and thus translates it as ‘according to’ rather than ‘against’. Whitelock, p. 157 translates it the same. I follow their example in my own translation, below.

9 Oliver, p. 156, emends this to dryhten.

10 The main Textus Roffensis scribe realised he had omitted some text from his exemplar and so provided an insertion mark – a red dotted black cross with a long descender terminating in a red curl – to indicate where the omitted text, appearing in the bottom margin and correspondingly marked, should be.

11 Oliver, p. 158, corrects ðeng to ðegn, i.e. ‘thegn’.

12 The letter n is inserted above the line.

13 The letter þ is inserted above the line.

14 selle is added in the right margin.

15 Oliver, p. 162, emends this to hine man.

16 Oliver, p. 162, emends this to hine man and suggests him man may be preferable grammatically.

17 My thanks go to Elise Fleming for kindly proofreading the translation and notes.

18 Or, ‘fifth year’.

19 The indiction was a method of reckoning time, originally going back to imperial Rome, and was used as an element in the dating of documents. It is based on a cycle of fifteen years, the first being counted from the year 312. For a detailed explanation, see Cheney and Jones, pp. 2-4.

20 Rugern, meaning ‘rye-harvest’, giving us a probable date for Wihtræd’s law code of 6th September, in the year 695; see Whitelock, p. 396, introduction.

21 Near Maidstone, Kent.

22 There are various spellings of his name; I’m using that used in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England, p. 63; Oliver, p. 153, uses Brihtwald; Whitelock, p. 396, uses Brihtwold.

23 In effect, archbishop of Canterbury, as there was no archbishopric in York until 735. He was elected as archbishop in 692 (consecrated in 693) and his term ended at his death in 731.

24 Appointed about 678, died between 699 and 716.

25 Literally, ‘folk’, from Old English folc.

26 Or, ‘decrees’.

27 The mundbyrd was the legally recognised expectation of peace or ‘protection’ offered by any free person in their home or, as with the king, within their jurisdiction; here it is extended to the institution of the Church. In effect, were someone to cause a breach of the peace inside a church, they would have violated that protection and incur a penalty, a fine of 50 shillings, a considerable amount of money.

28 Unlawful sexual unions would not only have included those living together without marriage but any who were married to someone to whom they were too closely related, according to the rules of consanguinity of the Church at that time. In that sense, these unions would be irregular and unlawful, and anyone realising the unlawful status of their own union was expected to end the union and repent, otherwise be excommunicated. Also included would be bigamous or adulterous unions, where a spouse had been put away unlawfully to enable one to remarry someone else. Oliver discusses unlawful matrimony in Wihtræd’s law at pp. 167-8; for a more detailed and broader discussion of the concept of ‘unlawful sexual union’ in early medieval England, see Monk, pp. 23-34.

29 Or ‘gesith-born’, which appears to refer to an individual of a high rank, not a mere ceorl, the lowest rank of freeman. See Whitelock, p. 396, n. 4, where the comparison to eorlcund ‘of noble birth’ is made.

30 Probably referring to Scripture and canon law. Note Oliver’s comment, p. 167, that this clause may correspond to one laid out by the Synod of Hertford in 672: ‘On marriage. That nothing be allowed but lawful wedlock. Let none be guilty of incest, and let none leave his own wife except for fornication, as the holy gospel teaches.’ My own emphasis.

31 Translating ceorlisc man, a free person of the lowest rank, a ceorl.

32 Presumably meaning that both the higher and lower ranked persons are expected to end the unlawful union.

33 The inference is that the priest has officiated at an unlawful marriage.

34 Though ‘baptism’ is the clear meaning here, it seems likely that this stood for, or should be understood as alluding to, the neglect of any sacramental office for the sick, including the administering of confession. Oliver notes the similar rulings against clerical abuses in the roughly contemporaneous ‘Penitentials of Theodore’: Oliver, pp. 168-69.

35 I.e. not under monastic rule; one who has left his monastic community without permission.

36 Both Whitelock, p. 397, note 2, and Oliver, p. 169, make mention of the ruling at the Synod of Hertford in 672 against clerics wandering from diocese to diocese at will, perhaps suggesting that this law would have been applied to secular clerics as well as those in monastic orders. Interestingly, the synod ruling places equal culpability on the one showing undue hospitality; like the errant cleric, he risks excommunication should the cleric not return when summoned by his bishop.

37 Literally, ‘be folk-free’.

38 The wergild, ‘man-price’, was the amount of money legally equating to one’s life, and it had to be paid, by the slayer, to the next of kin should that one be killed; the amount varied according to rank. Oliver, p. 170, discusses the possible meanings of this clause: ‘First, the previous owner is responsible for protecting the claims to inheritance, wergild, and protection of the new freeman, who may well not have any free kinsmen to help guaranteed these rights. Second, should the newly freed man die without naming his beneficiaries, his inheritance reverts to the previous owner. If he has been killed, the wergild would also be paid to that owner; if anyone stands under the freedman’s protection, that protection is similarly taken up by the owner.’

39 Indicative of the fact that slaves were typically captives from warfare with other Germanic kingdoms in Britain, or indeed from among the colonised British natives. Such a manumitted person may wish to return to his own people, ‘over the border’.

40 An unfree individual who is temporarily bonded to a master to carry out agricultural work; see the discussion of esne at Slaves and the Unfree in the Laws of Æthelberht — Rochester Cathedral.

41 Following previous translators in amending Old English ‘ofer’ to ‘of’; see Oliver, pp. 156-7.

42 I.e. between Saturday sunset and Sunday sunset, marking the Sabbath period.

43 Oliver, p. 157, considers ‘shillings’ to be an error for ‘sceattas’ in view of what she reads as an unreasonably high fine. For a helpful discussion relating to this and the following clauses concerning the transgressing of Church laws concerning the Sabbath, pagan idolatry, and fasting, see Oliver, pp. 170-174.

44 Alternatively, ‘or be flogged’.

45 The healsfang is in essence a fine; it may have been at some point in history a monetary substitution for corporal punishment. DOE, heals-fang: ‘(in laws) a legal payment to be paid as a due or fine, or to be received by/on account of an injured party; a portion (possibly ten to twenty percent) of ‘wergild’; the term may originally have denoted a crime (lit. ‘seizing by the neck of throat’, cf. feaxfang ‘seizing by the hair’) for which it was also the penalty, or it may have described a form of corporal punishment for which it became a monetary substitution, i.e. the cost of saving one’s neck.’

46 This is overt encouragement for neighbours to expose one another if they fail to keep the sabbath laws.

47 Seemingly meaning half the profit from the work carried out, the other half presumably going to the public coffers. Oliver, p. 157, note g, observes that it is possible to translate Old English ‘and’ here as the adversative ‘or’, giving ‘half the fine or the work’.

48 The essential meaning of the Old English verb gyldan, used here, is ‘to pay (back), render’. It is used elsewhere in the context of worship of pagan deities: see DOE, gyldan, C. However, I am reluctant to translate it as ‘sacrifice’, as is given as an option in DOE (and, indeed, is Whitelock’s choice, p. 397), as this immediately biases our reading of what is actually being alluded to here in this text; it implies the killing of something in a ceremonial sacrifice and fosters rather melodramatic notions of devil worship, things that are not justified by the choice of wording. Thus, ‘make an offering’ seems to me more judicious.

49 The implication in this clause is that the wife does not lose her personal property or have to pay healsfang for herself should she be unaware of her husband’s actions, and, moreover, that the wife was viewed legally as a separate entity.

50 Both this clause and the one below concerning fasting are interesting for showing that slaves in Kent at this time could potentially have their own money.

51 A religiously determined period of fasting, such as during Lent, when meat was forbidden.

52 The bishop and king do not need to make an oath at the altar: their word was truth!

53 ‘Minster’ has quite a broad meaning in relation to early medieval England; note John Blair’s definition: ‘A complex ecclesiastical settlement which is headed by an abbess, abbot, or man in priest’s orders; which contains nuns, monks, priests, or laity in a variety of possible combinations, and is united to a greater or lesser extent by their liturgy and devotions; which may perform or supervise pastoral care to the laity, perhaps receiving dues and exerting parochial authority; and which may sometimes act as a bishop’s seat, while not depending for its existence or importance on that function.’ Blair, p. 3, italics his own. Note that during Wihtræd’s time, Minster-in-Thanet (founded in Kent around 660) was an abbey run by an abbess, so I would suggest that this law points to the probability that certain women at this time in Kent had the legal right to swear oaths.

54 DOE, cennan, B.2.c.ii: ‘with reflexive: to clear oneself, exculpate oneself’; the use of this verb in this very specific sense occurs only in Wihtræd’s laws. The exculpation, or clearance, refers to the public oath or declaration of one’s innocence in the face of an accusation of wrongdoing; it results in one’s acquittal. Note from the preceding clause that a bishop or king does not need to make such an oath. Oliver discusses exculpation at pp. 174-77.

55 The words to be uttered are in Latin: Veritatem dico in Christo, non mentior.

56 The verb clænsian, ‘to cleanse’, is used here in the sense of acquitting or clearing oneself, rather than in the sense of expiating or atoning for wrongdoing. See DOE, clǣnsian, 5.

57 Or, ‘order’; in this case one from among the minor ecclesiastical orders. Oliver, p. 159, note d, suggests ‘cleric’ ‘includes the positions of doorkeeper, psalmist, reader, exorcist, acolyte, and subdeacon’.

58 He has to bring along three others to defend his oath, though only he touches the altar. This seems similar to the arrangement for ‘oath-supporters’, referred to below in the clause concerning the accusation against a community’s bonded servant, and which is also in place in the Laws of Hlothere and Eadric.

59 A nobleman in service to the king; see Oliver, p. 175.

60 Or, ‘freeman’; literally, a ‘ceorlish man’.

61 The bailiff of the estate or area to which the unfree labourer belonged; see Oliver, p. 176.

62 Or, ‘beaten’.

63 The structure of the preceding clauses suggests the ‘community’ here equates to the ‘minster’, so this bonded labourer, an esne (see note 40, above), belongs to a monastery or other religious community.

64 A communicant (Old English husel-genga) is someone who receives Holy Communion. However, the precise use of the term here is unclear. Oliver, p. 176, discusses several possibilities. It may simply refer to whether the ‘lord’, or owner, of the bonded servant is a member of the particular religious community concerned. A possible alternative meaning is that this clause alludes to a clerical member, who regularly receives Holy Communion, as opposed to a member of the laity within the community who is not a regular communicant. Though perhaps more convoluted, I would also suggest a further possibility, that the ‘he’ who is or is not the communicant is actually the bonded servant. This would mean that this individual’s status as a Christian – one who receives Holy Communion – has a bearing on the determining of his innocence. If he is a Christian, his lord/owner’s oath is sufficient; if he’s not a Christian, then the owner must bring along an oath supporter to back up his swearing to the bonded servant’s innocence. As there are no other sources upon which we can draw to help us understand exactly what was happening in this regard in Kentish communities at the end of the seventh century, we have to leave the matter open.

65 I.e. no ‘man-price’ would be due to the slain person’s next of kin. A person had the right to kill someone who was attempting theft.

66 I.e. the thief has the goods on his person.

67 Presumably half of the money from selling him, or half the wergild.

68 Oliver, p. 163, note d, suggests the ‘owner’ here means the owner of the property that was stolen, not the slave-owner, who is legally culpable for allowing his slave to commit the crime. This makes sense. The choice before the king then is: the slave-owner can redeem his thieving slave with a payment of 70 shillings, which goes to the owner of the stolen goods; or, if the slave is executed, the owner of the stolen property is compensated with half that amount. See Oliver, pp. 178-79.

69 I have made the translation less awkward by moving ‘swa hweder swa cyning wille’, ‘whichever the king wishes’, from the middle to the end of the sentence.

70 This clause mirrors one in the laws of Ine, king of the West Saxons (r. 688-726). Dating to between 688 and 694, these laws slightly pre-date Wihtræd’s; see Oliver, pp. 179-80; Whitelock, p. 32, introduction.

The Laws of Hlothere and Eadric, c.673-c.686

These are the judgements which Hlothere and Eadric, kings of the Kentish people, set down. Translation from Old English of Textus Roffensis folios 3v-5r by Dr Christopher Monk.

The text is known only through the copy that survives in Textus Roffensis (c.1123). Hlothere reigned as king of Kent between July 673 and February 685, when he was killed by the South Saxons led by his nephew, Eadric. Eadric then reigned for about a year and a half, until the summer or autumn of 686. Though the laws, in the form in which they survive, might be interpreted as evidence of joint rulership of the two kings, not uncommon in late seventh-century Kent, it is nowhere stated in early histories that this was the case. It is probably more accurate to say that the text we now have is a conflation of their laws, originally issued separately by each king but, at some point, collated together. It is possible that Eadric reissued his uncle’s law code during his own reign and augmented it.¹

Transcription

3v (select folio number to open facsimile)

Þis syndon þa domas ðe hloþhæ-
re 7 eadric cantwara cyningas asettoN. _hloþhære, 7 eadric cantwara cyningas ecton þa
æ, þa ðe heora aldoras ær geworhtoN
ðyssum domum þe hyr efter sægeþ. Gif man-
nes esne eorlcundne mannan ofslæhð, þane ðe
sio þreom hundum scll gylde, se agend þone
banan agefe, 7 do þær þrio manwyrð to. Gif
se bane oþbyrste feorþe manwyrð he to gedo,
7 hine gecænne mid godum æwdum, þæt he þane
banan begeten ne mihte. Gif mannes esne

4r

frigne mannan ofslæhð þane þe sie, hund scillin-
ga gelde, se agend þone banan agefe, 7 oþer man-
wyrð þærto. Gif bana oþbyrste, twam manwyr-
þum hine man forgelde, 7 hine gecænne mid go-
dum æwdum, þæt he þane banan begeten ne mihte.
Gif frigman mannan forstele, gif he eft cuma,
stermelda secge an andweardne, gecænne hine
gif he mæge, hæbbe þare freora rim æwdaman-
na, 7 ænne mid in aþe, æghwilc man æt þam tune
þe he tohyre gif he þæt ne mæge gelde swa he gono
hage.² Gif ceorl acwyle be libbendum wife 7 bearne,
riht is þæt hit þæt bearn medder folgige, 7 him man
an his fæderingmagum wilsumne berigean ge-
felle³ his feoh to healdenne, oþ þæt he ·x· wintra sie.
Gif man oþrum mæn feoh forstele, 7 se agend hit
eft ætfo, geteme to cynges sele gif he mæge,
7 þane æt gebrenge þe him sealde, gif he þæt ne
mæge læte an, 7 fo se agend to. Gif man oþerne
sace tihte, 7 he þane mannan mote an medle oþþe an þin-
ge, symble se man þam oðrum byrigean, gesel-
le 7 þam riht awyrce þe to hiom cantwara de-
man gescrifen. Gif he ðonne byrigan forwær-
ne ·xii· scillingas agylde þam cyninge, 7 sio se⁴
sacy swa open swa hio ær wes. Gif man oþerne

4v

tihte siþþan he him byrigan gesealdne hæbbe,
7 ðonne ymb ·iii· niht gesecæn hiom sæmend bu-
ton þam, ufor leofre sio þe þa tihtlan age. Siþ-
þan sio sace gesemed sio an seofan nihtum se
man þam oþrum riht gedo, gecwime an feo
oððe an aþe, swa hwæder swa him leofre sio,
gif he þonne þæt nylle, gelde þonne ·c· buton aðe,
siþþan ane neaht ofer þæt, gesem hie. ⁵Gif man
mannan an oþres flette manswara hateþ, oððe
hine mid bismærwordum scandlice grete, scil-
ling agelde þam þe þæt flet age, 7 ·vi· scill, þam þe
he þæt word togecwæde, 7 cyninge ·xii· scll for-
gelde. Gif man oþrum steop asette, ðær mæn
drincen buton scylde, an eald riht, scll agelde
þam þe þæt flet age, 7 ·vi· scll þam þe man þone
steap aset, 7 cynge ·xii· scll. Gif man wæpn
abregde þær mæn drincen, 7 ðær man nan
yfel ne deþ, scilling, þan þe þæt flet age, 7 cynin-
ge ·xii· scll. Gif þæt flet geblodgad wyrþe, for-
gylde þem mæn his mundbyrd, 7 cyninge ·L·
scill. Gif man cuman feormæþ ·iii· niht an
his agenum hame, cepeman oþþe oðerne þe
sio ofer mearce cuman, 7 hine þonne his mete
fede, 7 he þonne ænigum mæn yfel gedo se man

5r

þane oðerne æt rihte gebrenge oþþe riht forewyrce.
Gif cantwara ænig in lundenwic feoh gebycge, hæbbe
him þonne twegen oððe ðreo unfacne ceorlas to
gewitnesse, oþþe cyninges wicgerefan, gif hit man
eft æt þam mæn in cænt ætfo þonne tæme he
to wic to cyngæs sele to þam mæn ðe him sealde, gif
he þane wite 7 æt þam teame gebrengen mæge, gif
he þæt ne mæge, gekyþe ðanne in wiofode mid his
gewitena anum oþþe mid cyninges wicgerefan,
þæt he þæt feoh undeornunga his cuþan ceape in wic
gebohte, 7 him man þanne his weorð agefe, gif he
þanne þæt ne mæge gecyþan mid rihtre canne, læte
þanne, an, 7 se agend tofo.

Translation

See Translation Notes

These are the judgements⁶ which Hlothere and Eadric, kings of the Kentish people, set down.⁷

Hlothere and Eadric, kings of the people of Kent, added to the law which their predecessors had made these judgments, which are stated hereafter:

If someone’s unfree labourer⁸ slays a man of noble birth – for whom one compensates with three hundred shillings⁹ – the owner should give up the killer and also add the value of three men.¹⁰

If the killer escapes, he should add the value of a fourth man and clear himself, with good oath-supporters,¹¹ [swearing] that he could not seize the killer.

If someone’s unfree labourer slays a free man – for whom one compensates with a hundred shillings – the owner should give up the killer and also the value of a man.

If the killer escapes, one should compensate with the value of two men and clear himself, with good oath-supporters, [swearing] that he could not seize the killer.

If a freeman steals someone, if the latter afterwards comes as informer, he should state what happened in front of him.¹² If he is able, he [the accused] should clear himself. Each man should have a number of free oath-supporters, and one with him during the oath [should be] from the village to which he belongs;¹³ if he cannot do that, he should compensate according to what he has.¹⁴

If a man¹⁵ should die leaving a wife and child, it is right that the child goes with the mother;¹⁶ and for him there should be one from among his father’s kin who willingly gives surety to uphold his property,¹⁷ until he is ten winters old.

If a person steals another person’s property, and the owner afterwards claims it, he [the accused] should vouch to warranty in the king’s hall, if he is able to, and bring there the one who sold it to him;¹⁸ if he cannot do that, let him relinquish [the property] and the owner take possession of it.

If anyone brings a charge against another, and he meets that person at an assembly or meeting, that person should always give surety to the other, and act according to the ruling which the judges of the Kentish people impose upon them.

If he then refuses surety, he should pay to the king 12 shillings,¹⁹ and the charge is to remain open as it was before.

If anyone brings a charge against another, after surety has been given him, then they should seek for themselves an arbitrator within three nights, unless the one who brings the charge prefers it to be later.

After the charge is settled, within seven nights the person should make it right by the other, satisfying him with property or an oath, whichever is preferable to him. If then he will not do that, he then should give 100 [shillings], without oath,²⁰ one night following the arbitration.

If anyone in another’s dwelling calls a person a perjurer or addresses him with shameful insults, he must pay a shilling to him who owns that dwelling, and 6 shillings to the one to whom he spoke that utterance, and he should pay to the king 12 shillings.

If, where people are drinking, anyone takes away the cup of another, who is without guilt,²¹ he should according to ancient rights give a shilling to the one who owns the dwelling, and 6 shillings to the one from whom the cup was taken, and to the king 12 shillings.

If anyone draws a weapon where people are drinking, but no harm is done there, a shilling to the one who owns the dwelling, and to the king 12 shillings.

If blood is shed at that dwelling,²² he should pay the man the fine for the breach of the peace,²³ and to the king 50 shillings.

If anyone provides for a stranger in his own home for three nights – a merchant or another who has come across the border – and he feeds him his food, and he [the guest] then does harm to any person, the man [the host] should bring the other to justice otherwise make forfeiture.²⁴

If any Kentish person buys property in London,²⁵ he should then have for himself two or three unblemished men,²⁶ or the king’s town-reeve, as witness. If a person afterwards lays claim to it [the goods] from the man in Kent, then the latter should, in the king’s hall of that town [i.e., in London], vouch to warranty concerning the person who sold it to him,²⁷ if he knows that one and is able to bring him to that vouching. If he cannot do that, then he should declare at the altar, along with one of his witnesses or with the king’s town-reeve, that he bought that property and be given back the price paid. If then he cannot declare that, in the knowledge of the law, he should relinquish the property, and the owner is to take possession.

Cited works

DOE, The Dictionary of Old English: A to I online, ed. Angus Cameron, Ashley Crandell Amos, Antonette diPaolo Healey et al. (Toronto: Dictionary of Old English Project, 2018); for limited online access to the dictionary Click here

Kelly, S. E. (ed.), Charters of St Augustine’s Abbey Canterbury and Minster-in-Thanet (Oxford University Press, 1995).

Oliver, Lisi, The Beginnings of English Law (University of Toronto Press, 2002).

Whitelock, Dorothy, English Historical Documents, Volume I c.500-1042, second edition (Eyre Methuen/Oxford University Press, 19789).

Footnotes

Use your browsers 'back' button to jump back to the text.

1 See the introduction to the laws in Whitelock, p. 394; and, more broadly, on the chronology of the Kentish kings, Kelly, pp. 195-203.

2 Lisi Oliver amends this to ‘gonah age’: Oliver, p. 128.

3 Oliver corrects this to ‘geselle’: Oliver, p. 128

4 Oliver amends this to seo: Oliver, p. 130.

5 Oliver amends this to ‘gesem[eþ] hie’: Oliver, p. 130 and p. 131, note b.

6 Or ‘decrees’.

7 The heading is provided by the Textus Roffensis scribe; it is not thought to be part of the original text of these laws.

8 The esne, here translated as ‘unfree labourer’, but for which ‘servant’ is also possible, was in early Kentish society someone who, though not a full slave, was nevertheless ‘owned’, or temporarily bonded to a master. For more information, see: Slaves and the Unfree in the Laws of Æthelberht.

9 The amount of compensation due any free person, sometimes called a wergild or ‘man-price’, is fixed by law according to rank.

10 Literally, ‘three man-worths’.

11 The oath-supporter, or oath-helper, publicly vouched for the truthfulness of the one swearing an oath. For further information, see Oliver, pp. 144-46.

12 I.e., the victim (or perhaps his owner, if he is unfree) is to make the accusation in the ‘presence’ (see and-weardnes DOE) of the perpetrator. Dorothy Whitelock captures the sense rather nicely: ‘he is to accuse him to his face’; see Whitelock, p. 394.

13 This clause is difficult to translate and interpret. I lean towards Oliver’s interpretation that the accused is ‘supported by a number of free oath supporters, at least one of whom must be from the accused man’s township’. Alternatively, as Liebermann, one of the earliest editors of this text, has it, ‘each of the oath supporters must be from the village to which the accused man belongs, but that only one of the oath-swearers is actually required to stand with the defendant in the oath’. See Oliver, pp. 145-46.

14 Oliver, p. 146, explains: ‘If the defendant is unable to swear that he is guiltless, he pays the fine to the extent to which he is able.’

15 The word ceorl is used, which has various meanings depending upon context. Oliver, p. 129, offers ‘freeman’; Whitelock, p, 394, gives ‘husband’.

16 Literally, the meaning is the child should ‘follow’ or ‘accompany’ the mother; the sense seems to be that the child remains under the protection of the mother. In other words, the mother takes on the role attributed legally to the father, i.e., that of protector.

17 Or, ‘maintain his property’.

18 He must publicly swear that he was openly, hence lawfully, sold the goods; see below for the similar scenario in London.

19 In effect, the fine is paid to the public coffers of the King.

20 Oliver, p. 140, explains that ‘without oath’ means the guilty person ‘gives up his right to swear his innocence at a later time’, which is the same conclusion Whitelock, p. 395, n. 2, reaches. Oliver, pp. 139-41, discusses and lays out the process of bringing a charge.

21 I.e., the act is unprovoked. To take someone’s cup is akin to a verbal insult, to dishonouring someone.

22 More literally, ‘if that dwelling should become bloodied’.

23 Mundbyrd more simply means ‘protection’, and is used in a legal sense to refer to the price for violating someone’s protection. In this case, according to the long-standing cultural traditions of the Kentish people, the owner of the dwelling owes his guests protection, so the act of violence is an infringement of this protection, therefore the perpetrator must compensate him for dishonouring the owner. There is no mention here of compensation for the victim which would have undoubtedly been due to any innocent person, so it seems, as Oliver notes, that we should understand the reckoning of such compensation as subsumed under the existing personal injury laws laid out in the laws of Æthelberht of Kent, for which see: Æthelberht’s Code, c.600 CE. For the full discussion of disturbances of the peace, see Oliver, pp. 136-38.

24 The phrase ‘riht forewyrce’ more literally has the sense of ‘for-work what is right’, that is, one should face justice on behalf of, or instead of, the wrongdoer.

25 The use of ‘feoh’ alludes to ‘property’ such as livestock or any moveable goods. London was a centre of commerce even in the seventh century. Though part of the kingdom of the East Saxons, it was subject to overlordship of Kent during the seventh century. For more on this, see Oliver, pp. 142-44.

26 Translating ‘ceorlas’, in this context indicating free men.

27 The purchaser must bring the seller to the king’s hall so that the seller can publicly confirm that he was the seller of the goods in the London market.

Fishings rights in the Thames, c.1103-1107

Henry I grants protection of fishing rights in the Thames to Rochester, c.1103-1107. Transcription and translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, f. 187r by Jacob Scott. Edited with additional notes by Dr Christopher Monk.

Transcription

187r (select folio number to open facsimile)

de niuue uuere; _Henricus rex anglorum, haimoni dapifero,
et Hugoni de bocham, salutem. Prohibeo ne pisca-
tores pescant in tamisia ante piscaturam
de rouecestra de niuuera. Et si ul-
terius inueniuntur piscantes, sint michi forisfa-
cti. Teste Waldrico cancellario, apud Westmoster.

Translation

Concerning the new weir:

Henry, King of the English, to Hamo Dapifer,¹ and Hugo of Bockham, greetings. I prohibit fishermen from fishing in the Thames in advance of the fishing from Rochester’s new weir.² And if they are found to be fishing beyond, they shall pay a fine to me. Witnessed by Waldric the Chancellor,³ at Westminster.

Footnotes

Use your browsers 'back' button to jump back to the text.

1 Dapifer, meaning ‘steward', indicative of royal office. Hamo Dapifer must here refer to the son of the better known Hamo Dapifer who held royal office under both William I (r. 1066-87) and William II (r. 1087-1100), but who died in 1100. The son succeeded his father as sheriff of Kent.

2 The prohibition is against fisherman fishing upstream of the Rochester weir.

3 Waldric was the eight Lord Chancellor and Lord Keeper of England, from 1103 to 1107, providing us with a date for this charter.

Henry I confirms Geoffrey Talbot's gift, c.1100-1109

Henry I confirms Geoffrey Talbot’s gift to St Andrew’s, Rochester, and Bishop Gundulf, Transcription and translation from Latin of Textus Roffensis, ff. 187r-187v by Jacob Scott. Edited with additional notes by Dr Christopher Monk.

Transcription

187r (select folio number to open facsimile)

de litle uuroteham. Henricus rex anglorum, Anselmo archiepiscopo,

187v

et haimoni uicecomiti, et omnibus baronibus suis
francigenis et anglis de chent, salutem. Sciatis
me concessisse donum illud quod gausfridus
talebot dedit ȩcclesiȩ Sancti Andreȩ et episcopo Gun-
dulfo de rouecestra pro anima sua, scilicet me
dietatem parui broteham.¹ Testibus, anselmo archiepiscopo,
et Roberto episcopo lincoliȩ, et Roberto comite de mel-
lent, et Roberto filio haimonis.

Translation

Concerning Little Wrotham:

Henry, King of the English, to Archbishop Anselm and Sheriff Hamo, and to all his barons, Frenchmen and Englishmen of Kent, greetings. Know that I have granted that gift which Geoffrey Talbot gave to the church of St Andrew and Bishop Gundulf of Rochester for his soul, namely, half of Little Wrotham. Witnessed by: Archbishop Anselm, and Robert, bishop of Lincoln, and Robert, Count of Meulan,² and Robert Fitzhamon.

Footnotes

Use your browsers 'back' button to jump back to the text.

1 Variant spelling of ‘Wroteham’. See Judith Glover, The Place Names of Kent, p. 213.

2 Robert de Beaumont, 1st Earl of Leicester, Count of Meulan (c.1040/50-1118).