Lords and Communities in Early Medieval East Anglia

LCEM-Prelims.qxd 8/20/05 1:31 PM Page i Lords and Communities in Early Medieval East Anglia The period between the ...

Author: Andrew Wareham

45 downloads 779 Views 1MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page i

Lords and Communities in Early Medieval East Anglia The period between the late tenth and late twelfth centuries saw many changes in the structure and composition of the European and English aristocracy. One of the most important is the growth in local power bases and patrimonies at the expense of wider property and kinship ties. In this volume, the author uses the organisation of aristocracy in East Anglia as a case study to explore the issue as a whole, considering the extent to which local families adopted national and European values, and investigating the role of local circumstances in the formulation of regional patterns and frameworks. The book is interdisciplinary in approach, using anthropological, economic and prosopographical research to analyse themes such as marriage and kinship, social mobility, relations between secular and ecclesiastical lords and ethnic groups, and patterns of economic growth; there is a particular focus too on how different landscapes – fenland, upland, coastal and urban – affected the pattern of aristocratic experience. The study, moreover, draws upon neglected sources, such as the libri memoriales of the great East Anglian royal abbeys, not only to investigate the contexts of these texts, but also to put forward new perspectives, such as the role of commemoration in lineage formation. Dr ANDREW WAREHAM is a Research Associate at the Centre for Computing in the Humanities at King’s College London.

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page ii

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page iii

Lords and Communities in Early Medieval East Anglia Andrew Wareham

THE BOYDELL PRESS

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page iv

© Andrew Wareham 2005 All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislation no part of this work maybe photocopied, stored in a retrieval system, published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast, transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means, without the prior permission of the copyright owner The right of Andrew Wareham to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 First published 2005 The Boydell Press, Woodbridge ISBN 1 84383 155 4

The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UK and of Boydell & Brewer Inc. 668 Mt Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA website: www.boydellandbrewer.com A CiP catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

This publication is printed on acid-free paper Printed in Great Britain by Athenaeum Press Ltd, Gateshead, Tyne & Wear

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page v

Contents List of maps

vii

List of family trees

viii

List of tables

ix

Acknowledgements

xi

Preface List of abbreviations Introduction: East Anglia and the Feudal Transformation

xiii xv 1

1 The Dynasty of Ealdorman Æthelwine and Tenth-Century Society

13

2 The Kindred of Wulfstan of Dalham and Tenth-Century Society

29

3 The Daughters of Ealdorman Ælfgar and the Localization of Power in the Late Tenth Century

46

4 Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s Kindred and the Formation of Lineage Identity in the Early Eleventh Century

61

5 The Social Order Reshaped and the Emergence of the Gentry in the Early Eleventh Century

78

6 The Formation of Lordships and Economic Transformations during the Mid Eleventh Century

95

7 Landscapes of Lordship and Political Transformations during the Mid Eleventh Century

112

8 The Regional Aristocracy and Social Mobility before the Norman Conquest

125

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

vi

1:31 PM

Page vi

CONTENTS

9 The Regional Aristocracy and Social Mobility during and after the Norman Conquest

139

Epilogue

155

Bibliography

160

Index

175

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page vii

List of maps 1 East Anglian topography and counties

xvii

2 Bishoprics and religious houses in East Anglia c. 900–1190

xviii

3 Major aristocratic residences in East Anglia c. 900–1150

xix

4 Dalham and its neighbourhood

42

5 Donations by Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and his kinsfolk to Ely Abbey

63

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page viii

List of family trees 1 Extended Family Tree of Ealdorman Æthelwine of East Anglia c. 915–1016

17

2 Extended Family Tree of Wulfstan of Dalham c. 842–1071

34

3 Extended Family Tree of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth of Essex c. 823–1066

48

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page ix

List of tables 1

Royal Donations to Ramsey Abbey c. 965–1052

15

2

Donations of Ealdorman Æthelwine to Ramsey Abbey c. 965x92

24

3

Donations by Kinsfolk of Ealdorman Æthelwine to Ramsey Abbey c. 969x90

26

4

Land donations of the Royal Family to Ely Abbey c. 970x1066

33

5

Donations and ‘sales’ of estates descending to Ely Abbey from Wulfstan of Dalham and his Kindred c. 955x983

36

6

Religious Benefactions of Ealdorman Ælfgar and his Daughters c. 946x1002

49

7

Bequests of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth to Ely Abbey

65

8

Donations of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s Kin to Ely Abbey c. 991x1044

68

9

Commemoration of the Anglo-Saxon laity in the Ely Calendar

69

10

Donations of estates to Ramsey Abbey by those associated with its monks c. 965x1066

82

11

Lay Donations of estates to Ely Abbey c. 996x1066

87

12

Estates of the Clare, Malet and Warenne families in Norfolk and Suffolk TRE and TRW

105

13

Relationships between rental valuations and key resources in Norfolk and Suffolk TRE and TRW

106

14

Resources and values of Clare, Hundon, Desning and Thaxted c. 1066–86

106

15

Resources and values on estates of the lordship and honor of Eye c. 1066–86

108

16

Wealth of the secular aristocracy in East Anglia TRE

127

17

Landed interests of earls in East Anglia TRE

128

18

Landed interests of stallers in East Anglia TRE

130

19

Landed interests of king’s thegns in East Anglia TRE

132

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

x

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page x

LIST OF TABLES

20

Landed interests of local lords in East Anglia TRE

134

21

Ancestral connections of local lords TRE

136

22

Distribution of wealth among Anglo-Norman aristocracy in Norfolk and Suffolk TRW

140

23

Landed resources of Class A barons in Norfolk and Suffolk

140

24

Stewardship of royal demesne in Norfolk and Suffolk TRW

143

25a

Roger Bigod’s manors in Norfolk c. 1066–86

145

25b Roger Bigod’s manors in Suffolk c. 1066–86

147

26

Landed resources of Class B ‘local’ barons in Norfolk and Suffolk TRW

151

27

Landed resources of Class B ‘non-local’ barons in Norfolk and Suffolk TRW

151

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page xi

Acknowledgements I would like to thank the staff of the Economic History Department at the London School of Economics and Political Science for their advice and conviviality during my stay with them as an Academic Visitor. That enabled me to complete this book as part of a research project on the comparison of medieval European and Chinese regions. In addition, Martin Aurell, Tony Baggs and Pauline Stafford have commented upon individual sections of the text, while Peter Jackson, John Gillingham, Paul Latimer and Ann Williams have generously read it in its entirely. I should also like to thank my colleagues in the Centre for Computing in the Humanities (King’s College London), David Rollason, Elizabeth Williamson and Ross Woollard. The production of the line drawings has been made possible through a grant from the Lynne Grundy Memorial Trust, and the publication of the book has been assisted by the Scouloudi Foundation in association with the Institute of Historical Research, London. Finally, Caroline Palmer at Boydell & Brewer and an anonymous reader of an earlier version have provided advice far beyond the call of their respective duties.

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page xii

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page xiii

Preface Lords and Communities in Early Medieval East Anglia seeks to address the issues raised by Power of Place: the Future of the Historic Environment, as part of the substantial consultation exercise being undertaken on the intersection between culture, heritage and social policy in order to improve the quality of life for those who reside in and visit the United Kingdom. Effective decisions by planners, government organizations and other institutions will depend upon the quality of the information provided by research in history and related disciplines, and in particular on the ability of regional studies to apply a range of methodologies in order to illuminate the richness of local communities’ historical pasts. The comments of Power of Place are instructive in this context. This ‘once-in-a-generation’ report, conducted by some twenty public and charitable organizations, notes that we need to remember that ‘the historic environment is seen by most people as a totality’, and while generally striking an optimistic note, comments that ‘many people feel excluded from a full appreciation of England’s cultural richness and diversity’. It recommends that we ‘should ensure that regional and local cultural strategies both identify and address previously neglected influences on the historic environment and identify opportunities to improve access to information’. Moreover, in relation to the East Anglian region, the report recognizes that the history of some of its localities, such as Great Yarmouth and its hinterland, has more in common with counterparts in the Low Countries than with other English areas. The implications for the scholarly community are clear enough: more work is urgently required on the historical dynamics of regional communities within a comparative framework of analysis which is initially related to western Europe, with an appropriate balance being struck in discussion between diversity and unity. The present study considers how lords and communities from a range of religious, ethnic and social backgrounds came together to forge workable societies within a regional framework between the ages of the Vikings and the Normans. Mostly the unfolding of these developments took place during periods of peace, and discussion will consider how these communities responded to the policies of rulers and outside powers, over which they exercised a negligible influence. As a result less emphasis is



  

English Heritage, Power of Place: the Future of the Historic Environment (London, 2000). Note the statement by the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and Transport, Local Government and the Regions on ‘The Future of the Historic Environment – A New Vision’, November, 2001, p. 1: ‘England’s historic environment is one of our greatest national resources.’ English Heritage, Power of Place, pp. 1, 25. Ibid., p. 48 (Recommendation 9). Ibid., p. 26 (Case Study 15).

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

xiv

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page xiv

PREFACE

placed upon some of the traditional academic fields of discourse: for example, the present narrative will not chronicle the strategies of great statesmen, such as King Alfred the Great and William the Conqueror, or reflect upon the consequences of the military and political initiatives of unsuccessful kings, such as Æthelræd II and Stephen, in the shaping of communities and identities as part of the struggle for domination over medieval Britain. This ground has been well covered by modern historical scholarship without requiring reiteration from the present writer. In recognizing the diversity in present-day communities and their relationships with a multitude of pasts, Power of Place opts for a case study methodology. This has three principal benefits. First, discussion is never too far removed from the experiences of individuals and communities; second, it enables the connection between actual events to be clearly and closely linked to various methodological approaches; and third, it enables interconnections between themes to be analysed in precise ways. As a result one of the classic weaknesses of regional studies can be avoided: ‘more a jumble of accumulated facts than a clear scholarly project that has sought to continually test facts against hypotheses’. The case study methodology then is used as the template for the present book in order to explain the dynamics of a regional community within an early medieval setting. Yet weaknesses remain. Only a selection of examples can be presented, and it is only feasible to illustrate one particular methodology in each case study. It is nonetheless virtually impossible to present within a single case study a series of ‘exceptions to the rule’, and although there is never an ‘average’ case study, the instances do comprise a network of representative events. In short, the effort to separate evidence from analysis implicit in the case study methodology leads towards ‘targeted, integrated research’, assessing the interactions of social, economic, ecclesiastical, political and cultural themes, in order to provide insight into the society of East Anglia during the late Anglo-Saxon period and the years of the Norman Conquest and settlement.

 

J. Herbst, States and Power in Africa: Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control (Princeton, NJ, 2000), p. 6. English Heritage, Power of Place, p. 5.

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page xv

List of abbreviations ANS

Anglo-Norman Studies

Anglo-Saxon Charters

Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed. A.J. Robertson, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1957)

ASC

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle: A Revised Translation, eds. D.C. Douglas, D. Whitelock and S.I. Tucker (London, 1961)

ASE

Anglo-Saxon England

ASW

Anglo-Saxon Wills, ed. D. Whitelock (Cambridge, 1932)

BL

British Library

Chron. Rames.

Chronicon Abbatiae Ramesiensis, ed. W.D. Macray, RS (London, 1886)

CUL

Cambridge University Library

Domesday Book

Domesday Book, ed. A. Farley for the Record Commission, 4 vols. (London, 1817–30)

ECEE

C.R. Hart, The Early Charters of Eastern England, Studies in Early English History V (Leicester, 1966)

EHR

English Historical Review

Heads of Religious Houses, I, The Heads of Religious Houses, England and Wales 940–1216, eds. D. Knowles, C.N.L. Brooke and V.C.M. London (Cambridge, 1972) Lib. El.

Liber Eliensis, ed. E.O. Blake, Camden Society, 3rd ser., xcii (London, 1962)

Monasticon

W. Dugdale, Monasticon Anglicanum: a history of the abbies and other monasteries, hospitals, frieries, and cathedral and collegiate churches, with their dependencies, in England and Wales, 6 vols. (London, 1817–30)

Orderic

Orderic Vitalis, Historia Ecclesiastica: The Ecclesiastical History of Orderic Vitalis, ed. M. Chibnall, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1969–80)

PRO

National Archives (formerly Public Record Office)

RS

Rolls Series

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

xvi

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page xvi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

S

P.H. Sawyer, ed., Anglo-Saxon Charters: an Annotated List and Bibliography, Royal Historical Society Guides and Handbooks VIII (London, 1968)

TRE

Tempore regis Edwardi (1066)

TRW

Tempore regis Willelmi (1066–86)

VCH

Victoria County Histories of England (London, 1899–)

VSO

Vita Sancti Oswaldi, Historians of the Church of York and its Archbishops, I, ed. J. Raine, RS (London, 1879), pp. 399–475

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page xvii

1 East Anglian topography and counties.

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page xviii

2 Bishoprics and religious houses in East Anglia c.900–1190.

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page xix

3 Major aristocratic residences in East Anglia c. 900–1150.

LCEM-Prelims.qxd

8/20/05

1:31 PM

Page xx

LCEM-Introduction.qxd

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 1

Introduction: East Anglia and the Feudal Transformation This book discusses the organization of aristocracy and society in medieval East Anglia, and takes as its central theme the role of the feudal transformation. The latter has been regarded by European historians as one of the key turning-points in the history of Europe, prefiguring and setting up the structures of power which would lead into the commercial and industrial revolutions. Yet on the whole it has not been taken up as a point of debate in relation to the history of the British Isles; perhaps the strong historiographical connections between the Norman Conquest and the establishment of feudalism within England account for this lack of interest. Nonetheless, the feudal transformation hypothesis remains the most convenient means by which to assess the reshaping of regional societies during the central Middle Ages, and hence provides the theoretical starting point for the present study. Before setting out some of the general features of East Anglia during this era, there follows a brief analysis of American, French and German scholars’ discussion of this theme. American scholars have explored relationships between the monasteries and their local environments, covering the period between the late tenth and thirteenth centuries, and have primarily directed their attention towards issues such as kinship and gift-giving. They suggest that European society would have become fragmented and dislocated had abbeys not provided social cohesion within regional frameworks following the breakdown of effective authority during the tenth century. The great strength of these studies lies in their analytical perspectives, linking a range of social processes, and noting the way in which changes took place at a local level within a community framework rather than being imposed from above.



  



E.g. J.-P. Poly and É. Bournazel, La mutation féodale. Xe–XIIe siècles (Paris, 1980) (trans. C. Higgitt, The Feudal Transformation 900–1200 (New York, NY, 1991)); Il Feudalismo nell’alto medioevo, Settimane di Studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo xlvii (Spoleto, 2000); Présence du féodalisme et présent de la féodalité. Actes du Colloque de Göttingen (30 juin-1er juillet, 2000), eds. N. Fryde, P. Monnet and G. Oexle (Göttingen, 2002); T.N. Bisson, ‘The “Feudal Revolution” ’, Past and Present cxlii (1994), pp. 6–42. Cf. D. Bates, ‘England and the Feudal Revolution’, Feudalismo nell’alto medioevo, Settimane di Studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo xlvii (Spoleto, 2000), pp. 611–49. E.g. F.M. Stenton, The First Century of English Feudalism 1066–1166, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1961). C.B. Bouchard, Sword, Miter and Cloister: Nobility and the Church in Burgundy, 980–1198 (Ithaca, NY, 1987); eadem, Holy Entrepreneurs: Cistercians, Knights and Economic Exchanges in Twelfth-Century Burgundy (Ithaca, NY, 1991); P.D. Johnson, Prayer, Patronage and Power: The Abbey of La Trinité (Vendôme), 1032–1187 (New York, NY, 1981); B.H. Rosenwein, To be the Neighbour of Saint Peter: The Social Meaning of Cluny’s Property 909–1049 (Ithaca, NY, 1989); eadem, Rhinoceros Bound: the Abbey of Cluny in the Tenth Century (Philadelphia, PA, 1982). E.g. Rosenwein, To Be the Neighbour, p. 202.


2

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 2

LORDS AND COMMUNITIES IN EARLY MEDIEVAL EAST ANGLIA

Meanwhile, French and German scholars have devoted immense studies to outlining the development of aristocracies and societies in regional contexts, which have provided the mainstay of the feudal transformation model. The Annales school has used this framework in order to address themes such as social mobility, the connection between the establishment of the nobility and the emergence of the European nation state, and the relationship between slavery and serfdom. Several of the main arguments of the feudal transformation hypothesis will be briefly set out without at this stage entering into the fray of the debate. Following the pioneering work of Duby, scholars have generally focused upon a breakdown of public order in French society, which gathered momentum from the close of the tenth century and ushered in a wider series of changes in society. These developments involved a range of factors, not all of which were present at any one time, but which are nonetheless generally typified by the phrase ‘the feudal transformation’. Although Barthélemy has provided powerful arguments for a degree of scepticism, the views of Bonnassie are particularly noteworthy. He suggests that public rights were strong before the year 1000, but afterwards they became private, while benefices (i.e. property and livings) were granted out to vassals by counts and castellans without requiring the authority of superior rulers. The debate on property, benefices and lordship has been widely discussed, and in the present context requires



Studies by French scholars include M. Aurell, Une famille de la noblesse provençale au Moyen Age: les Porclet (Avignon, 1986); D. Barthélemy, La société dans le comté de Vendôme, de l’an mil au XIVe siècle (Paris, 1993); P. Bonnassie, La Catalogne du milieu du Xe à la fin du XIe siècle (Paris, 1972); M. Bur, La formation du comté de Champagne v. 950–1150 (Nancy, 1977); A. Debord, La société laïque dans le pays de la Charente XeXIIe siècles (Paris, 1984); G. Devailly, Le Berry du Xe siècle au milieu du XIIIe siècle: Étude politique, religieuse, sociale et économique (Paris, 1973); G. Duby, La société au XIe et XIIe siècles dans la région mâconnaise, 2nd edn (Paris, 1971); R. Fossier, La terre et les hommes en Picardie jusqu’à la fin du XIIIe siècle, 2 vols. (Paris, 1968); M. Garaud,Les châtelains du Poitou et l’avènement du régime féodal (Poitiers, 1964); O. Guillot, Le comté d’Anjou et son entourage au XIe siècle (Paris, 1972); M. Parisse, Noblesse et chevalrie en Lorraine médiévale (Nancy, 1982); J.-P. Poly, La Provence et société féodale (879–1166) (Paris, 1976). A summary in English for the later Middles Ages is to be found in M. Aurell, ‘The Western Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: A Survey of the Historiography and some Prospects for New Research’, Nobles and Nobility in Medieval Europe: Concepts, Origins, Transformations, ed. A.J. Duggan (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 263–73; for the earlier Middle Ages, see M. Aurell, ‘La parenté en l’an mil’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale (numéros spéciaux ‘Regards croisés sur l’an mil’) xliii (2000), pp. 125–42. For studies in German, see the introduction in Karl Schmid’s posthumously published habilitation thesis: K. Schmid, Geblüt, Herrschaft, Geschlechterbewsstein. Grundfragen zum Verständnis des Adels im Mittelalter. Aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben und eingeleitet von Dieter Mertens und Thomas Zotz (Sigmaringen, 1998); below, p. 4 nn. 20–21.  G. Duby, ‘Les “jeunes” dans la société dans la France du Nord-Ouest au XIIe siècle’, idem, Hommes et structures du moyen âge: receuil d’artcles (Paris, 1973), pp. 213–25.  P. Contamine, La noblesse au royaume de la France de Phillipe le Bel à Louis XII (Paris, 1997); M.-T. Caron, Noblesse et pouvoir royal en France (XIIIe-XVIe siècle) (Paris, 1994); for a summary in English, see Aurell, ‘Western Nobility’, pp. 264–5.  Bonnassie, La Catalogne, passim; P. Freedman, The Origins of Peasant Servitude in Medieval Catalonia (Cambridge, 1991).  For historiogaphical studies of the context in which current orthodoxies have been established see for instance, E.A.R. Brown, ‘George Duby and the Three Orders’, Viator xvii (1986), pp. 51–64. For a controversial statement, derived from a case study in the Mâconnais, see G. Bois, The Transformation of the Year One Thousand: The Village of Lournard from Antiquity to Feudalism, trans. J. Birrell (Manchester, 1992). For a recent series of regional and national studies, see Europe Around the Year 1000, ed. P. Urbanczyk (Warsaw, 2001), including on England, S.D. Keynes, ‘Apocalypse then: England A.D. 1000’, pp. 247–70.  D. Barthélemy, La mutation de l’an mil a-t-elle eu lieu? Servage et chevalerie dans la France des Xe et XIe siècles (Paris, 1997).  Bonnassie, La Catalogne.


8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 3

INTRODUCTION

3

no further reiteration. Instead there follows a short summary of European historians’ explanations of the development of the European family as a result of the feudal transformation. The high aristocracy in continental Europe between the eighth and late ninth centuries can be regarded as forming part of an extended royal kin-network with multiple branches reaching out from the trunk of the Carolingian royal family. This pattern arose from marriages established between the Carolingian ruling house and leading dynasties, such as the Udalrichides, the Guelphs and Bosonides. Meanwhile, these aristocratic families also created numerous kinship ties with each other, thereby eventually strengthening relationships between cousins and distant kin. Noble dynasties acquired interests in different regions of Europe, such as the Widonides whose interests stretched from Brittany (France) to Spoleto (Italy) via the Carolingian heartlands, and they and their followers maintained peripatetic lifestyles. Königsnähe (i.e. proximity to the royal family), as enjoyed by these families, came to define the social order, and created an imperial aristocracy (Reichsaristokratie). Inheritance was not defined by agnatic criteria (i.e. descent through men), and assets were typically divided up between sons, daughters, other relations and members of the household. Moreover, individuals traced descent through both men and women from prestigious ancestors, with shared descent defining the horizons of these extended kindreds in relation to other kin-networks. Women of aristocratic status played a significant role within the family and society. As wives and as mothers they maintained households, and as widows they typically acquired dowry rights which included the lands, livestock and treasures of the extended family (Sippe). As holy and religious women, they



E.g. S. Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford, 1994); Property and Power in Early Medieval Europe, eds. W. Davies and P. Fouracre (Cambridge, 1995); M. Aurell, ‘Apprehensions Historiographiques de la féodalité Anglo-Normande et Méditerranéenne (XIe-XIIe s.)’, Présence du féodalisme et présent de la féodalité, eds. N. Fryde, P. Monnet and G. Oexle, pp. 175–94, at 177–8.  For other overviews, see Aurell, ‘La parenté’, pp. 125–42; C.B. Bouchard, ‘Family Structure and Family Consciousness among the Aristocracy in the Ninth to Eleventh Centuries’, Francia xiv (1986), pp. 639–58; eadem, “Strong of Body, Brave and Noble”: Chivalry and Society in Medieval France (Ithaca, NY, 1998), pp. 67–102.  Studies of the Frankish nobility in the period before the feudal transformation include: R. Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir dans le monde franc ( VIIe-X siècle). Essai d’anthropologie sociale (Paris, 1995); La royauté et les élites dans l’Europe carolingienne: début IXe siècle aux environs de 920, ed. eadem (Lille, 1998); K.F. Werner, Von Frankreich zur Entfaltung Deutschlands und Frankreichs (Sigmaringen, 1984); idem, ‘Bedeutende Adelsfamilien im Reich Karls der Grossen. Ein personengeschichtlicher Beitrag zum Verhältnis von Königtum und Adel im frühen Mittelalter’, Karl der Grosse, Lebenswerk und Nachleben. I: Persönlichkeit und Geschichte, ed. H. Beumann (Dusseldorf, 1967), pp. 83–142 (trans. T. Reuter, ‘Important Noble Families in the Kingdom of Charlemagne - a Prosopographical Study of the Relationship between King and Nobility in the Early Middle Ages’, The Medieval Nobility: Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth Century, ed. idem (Amsterdam, 1979), pp. 137–202); K. Schmid, ‘Zur Problematik von Familie, Sippe und Geschlecht, Haus und Dynastie beim mittelalterlichen Adel. Vortragen zum Thema: Adel und Herrschaft in Mittelalter’, Gebetsgedenken und adliges Selbstverständnis im Mittelalter, ed. idem (Simaringen, 1993), pp. 183–239; idem, ‘Über die Strukur des Adels im früheren Mittelalter’, Jahrbuch für Fränkische Landesforschung, xix (1959), pp. 1–23 (trans. T. Reuter, ‘The Structure of the Nobility in the Earlier Middle Ages’, Medieval Nobility, ed. idem, pp. 37–60). For an Englishlanguage summary of Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir, see P. Fouracre, ‘The Origins of the Nobility in Francia’, Nobles and Nobility in Medieval Europe: Concepts, Origins, Transformations, ed. A.J. Duggan (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 17–24, at 18.  Women from these three families were married respectively to the Emperors Charlemagne (768–813), Louis the Pious (814–40) and Charles the Bald (843–77).  Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir, pp. 248–9.


4

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 4


not only represented their families’ interests within and in relation to rich and powerful religious houses, but also played an important role in the commemoration of ancestors: for instance, the family origins of the Carolingian dynasty were recorded in the Annals of Metz because of the initiative of Giselle, sister of Charlemagne. Yet as a result of the feudal transformation, the European family came to be defined by a quite different set of principles. One important aspect of that change turned on the establishment of the ‘nuclear’ or ‘immediate’ family within a lineage structure. In contrast to the Sippe, a lineage is based on a vertical dynastic principle, whereby consanguinity (i.e. ties through cognates and agnates to relatives) is replaced by filiation (i.e. the vertical transmission of material goods and their associations between blood relatives). Primogeniture, which links the father and the eldest surviving son in an exclusive relationship, triumphed over the earlier collective ownership of property and the shared exercise of power. These lineages, or more accurately patrilineages, based their power upon castles and the exercise of public power, which had slipped out of the hands of counts appointed by Carolingian rulers. As a result of these and related changes, lords, their families and their followers abandoned their earlier geographical mobility. Each family settled itself in a castle, which became its base, and to which they sometimes added a castle-chapel or a monastic foundation in order to keep alive the memory of deceased ancestors. The extended kindred broke up into a multitude of independent families, whose interests became geographically localized. This is not the place to assess the importance and the validity of this outline and its relationship with the feudal transformation model, but it is worth noting in passing that these processes are thought to have reshaped social and cultural values, and created the circumstances for new paths of economic growth based upon great secular estates, linked to a depression in the status and condition of the free peasantry. The work of the Annales school was complemented by research undertaken at Freiburg (Germany) and Münster (Germany) universities from the 1960s to the 1980s. One approach discussed the interests of great noble dynasties and their followers in connection with the development of landscapes and communities. For example, volume one in the series on the house of Zähringer sets out their political, social, cultural and economic strategies, while another volume provides accounts of the topographical sites, texts and artefacts associated with the family in the triangle between the cities of Bern (Switzerland), Zurich (Switzerland) and Strasbourg (France). Studies of aristocracy and society demonstrated that monks, burgesses and peasantries were provided with a sense of community through regional frameworks of power, with their identities only being distantly shaped by the great struggles

 

Ibid., pp. 54–6. H.B. Teunis, ‘Negotiating Secular and Ecclesiastical Power in the Central Middle Ages: A Historiographical Introduction’, Negotiating Secular and Ecclesiastical Power: Western Europe in the Central Middle Ages, eds. A.J. Bijsterveld, H.B. Teunis and A.F. Wareham, International Medieval Research VI (Turnhout, 1999), pp. 1–16, at 1–4 provides an overview of these issues, identifying the connections between H. Breslau, Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches unter Konrad II, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1879–94) and G. Tellenbach, Die westliche Kirche vom 10. bis zum 12. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1988) (trans. T. Reuter, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1993).  K. Schmid et al., Die Zähringer: I, Eine Tradition und ihre Erforschung (Sigmaringen, 1986).  K. Schmid et al., Die Zähringer: II, Anstoss und Wirkung (Sigmaringen, 1986). The third volume comprises K. Schmid et al., Die Zähringer: III, Schweizer Vorträge und neue Forschungen (Sigmaringen, 1990).


8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 5

INTRODUCTION

5

between popes and emperors which had preoccupied many continental European historians during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. The Freiburg-Münster school’s second strand of research was concerned with the libri memoriales, which listed the names of thousands (sometimes tens of thousands) of patrons and friends associated with monasteries, as well as the names of monks who had lived and died in those houses. For example, in the Cluny necrologies by the close of the twelfth century there were around 90,000 names, but only 48,000 names comprised the deceased monks of Cluny, with the rest being drawn from other social groupings. The libri memoriales enable historians to reconstruct the catchment areas of monastic houses, and to assess the social organization of the lay groupings which came into contact with those religious communities. These studies demonstrate the importance of extended kinship structures and Königsnähe as the defining principles of social order before the year 1000. Together the Annales and Freiburg-Münster schools have provided historians with a clear model for the making of European society. Case studies from medieval Britain, though, have not formed part of the discussion. As Reuter observes: ‘its [the mutacion féodale] apparent absence from England and the Reich may reflect as much as anything else the absence of this kind of study for these regions’. Yet such an analysis has a potentially useful contribution to make. First, it might suggest that the processes associated with the feudal transformation operated on a Europe-wide basis rather than being diffused from core to periphery. Second, it raises opportunities for considering some of the dynamics of this process in conditions which are not available to scholars working with the continental European evidence. This point can be easily overlooked in the debate on the Norman Conquest. The great dynasties which dominated continental European society in the late medieval and early modern periods sought to elaborate on their origins from ancestors who had flourished during the eighth, ninth and tenth centuries in ways in which their counterparts in England did not. None of the great noble dynasties which maintained their power in medieval Britain after the Norman Conquest claimed descent from preConquest English dynasties. Thus, studies of aristocracy and society in continental Europe have to come to terms not only with later accounts setting out the achievements of the founders of subsequently powerful houses, but also with the ways in which records have been preserved in the archives associated with these dynasties. Although English archives present their own problems, in general the characteristics and interests of great aristocratic dynasties during the tenth and early eleventh centuries can be analysed without having to take account of the weighting of the evidence as a result of the subsequent achievements of these noble houses’ descendants. By turning to the 

G. Constable, ‘Commemoration and Confraternity at Cluny during the Abbacy of Peter the Venerable’, Die Clunianzer in ihrem politisch-sozialen Umfeld, eds. idem, G. Melville and J. Oberste (Münster, 1998), pp. 253–78, at 260.  A full bibliography is to be found at ⬍http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/dlv/⬎. The FreiburgMünster school’s work has also had a major impact upon other fields, such as the historical sociology of the living and the dead. Introductions in English are provided by M. McLaughlin, Consorting with Saints: Prayer for the Dead in Early Medieval France (Ithaca, NY, 1994); P.J. Geary, ‘Exchange and Interaction between the Living and the Dead in Early Medieval Society’, idem, Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY, 1994), pp. 77–92.  T. Reuter, ‘Debate: The “Feudal Revolution” ’, Past and Present clv (1997), pp. 177–95, at 194.  For an introduction, see M. Chibnall, The Debate on the Norman Conquest (Manchester, 1999).


6

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 6


English evidence, a new historical opportunity arises to understand the organization of aristocracy and society in the light of the feudal transformation hypothesis.

East Anglian Historical Context For the purposes of this book East Anglia is defined as Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex, Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire. Geologically the region is comparatively young and undistinguished in terms of popular perceptions of its physical features. It rests upon Jurassic limestone, which bulges out in north-west Norfolk at Hunstanton’s cliffs, while layers of clay, sand and peat cover the flat limestone basin. Almost all the eastern part of the region lies beneath the seventy-metre level, including Holme Fen (Hunts.), three metres below sea-level, the lowest point in the British Isles. The region’s water-catchment area includes the watersheds of the Little Ouse, Stour, Waveney and Yare rivers, with their shallow gradients being the cause of the profusion of windmills in preference to watermills before the Industrial Revolution. Well into the nineteenth century many of the region’s localities were regarded as being somewhat inhospitable. Marsh fever in the tidal marshes, poor heathland soils in the brecklands and the twin dangers of sea and fresh-water floods in the fens created harsh environments very different from the present-day coniferous forests in the brecklands and the prosperous and ordered farms of the fens. Each of these landscapes differs from the traditional image of East Anglia with its farms and manor houses, villages and small market towns, and fields which until the seventeenth century were dominated by flocks of sheep whose wool supplied the cloth industry of north-west Europe. In broad terms the rolling claylands of central Norfolk and Suffolk form the core of the region, surrounded by fenlands, brecklands and coastal sandlings, while the East Anglian heights run along the south-western edge of the region. These differences in landscape have always sustained a wide range of local economic activities, which in the late eleventh century provided livelihoods for around 350,000 people. Nevertheless such observations on the contrasts within the region should not be pushed too far. The prosperity of the region has long depended for the most part on agriculture, with the region having the highest proportion of grade I and grade II land in the United Kingdom (eleven per cent and thirty-three per cent respectively). Unity, though, has not only been created and sustained through economic processes. The phrase ‘silly Suffolk’, companion of ‘normal for Norfolk’, is a variant of seely, referring to a general reputation for piety. Only in the nineteenth century did ‘silly Suffolk’ acquire a derogatory meaning, as illustrated in Trollope’s novel The Way We Live Now. The round and square towers of many churches still dominate East



For topographical descriptions of the region from a historical perspective, see T. Williamson, The Origins of Norfolk (Manchester, 1993), pp. 11–19; P. Warner, The Origins of Suffolk (Manchester, 1996), pp. 1–19.  The figures from H.C. Darby, The Domesday Geography of Eastern England (Cambridge, 1952), pp. 111, 169, 198, 225, 292, 329, are 28,199 (Norfolk); 20,240 (Suffolk); 14,598 (Essex); 5,237 (Cambs.); 2,587 (Hunts.). The approximate total is reached by applying a multiplier of five on the aggregate sum of 70,861. The record of houses in Colchester and Maldon are taken as evidence of burgesses’ households.  ⬍http//:www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/⬎; P. Sager, East Anglia: Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk (London, 1994), p. 542.  A. Trollope, The Way We Live Now (London, 1875), c. 16: ‘ “We have to keep our name and reputation,” said the bishop; “Silly Suffolk”.’


8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 7

INTRODUCTION

7

Anglian skylines, while a twelfth-century monk commented that God himself had created the higher ground in the fens ‘with the intent that it should be the habitation of those servants of God who had chosen to dwell there’. Ecclesiastical power has served to forge unity across the East Anglian region, particularly during the Middle Ages. A kingdom of East Anglia, comprising Norfolk and Suffolk, was ruled by the Wuffingas dynasty during the seventh and early eighth centuries, but fell under Mercian domination before being invaded by the Vikings in the late ninth century. The region was then conquered in the early tenth century by a resurgent West Saxon monarchy, whose rulers established a great Anglo-Saxon ealdordom. Until the late eleventh century the exercise of comital power remained in the hands of a succession of leading families who had close connections with the royal houses of Cerdic of Wessex (519–34), Cnut (1016–35) and William I (1066–87). Following the rebellion and exile of Earl Ralph Guader II in 1075, the earldom ceased to be an effective office, apart from a brief revival under Hugh Bigod c. 1140–53. In considering whether the feudal transformation serves to explain the development of aristocracy and society within this region, adjustments will need to be made to some established historiographical models. For example, several medieval studies have applied concepts taken from anthropology, such as endogamy and exogamy, in order to explain the evolution of the family in Europe. In these studies endogamy is defined as marriage to a relative within a prohibited degree of kinship determined by ecclesiastical law, while exogamy is characterised as occurring when the bride and groom are not related according to canon law. These concepts are regarded as opposing categories which can be associated with local and supra-regional interests respectively. A number of case studies suggest, however, that these processes should be separated: preferences for endogamy and exogamy should be differentiated from whether power was focused upon the locality or the nation. In the following chapters a number of case studies will explore the development of aristocracy and society in relation to the feudal transformation. The first three chapters discuss the organization of the aristocracy and society during the tenth century in the hinterlands of religious houses. Chapter 1 analyses how a great tenth-century dynasty, which had benefited from Königsnähe, received offices and lands in East

     



The Peterborough Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, eds. C. Mellows and W.T. Mellows, 2nd edn (Peterborough, 1966), p. 2. More detailed coverage is to be found in B. Yorke, Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England (London, 1990), pp. 58–71; Williamson, Origins of Norfolk, pp. 73–161; Warner, Origins of Suffolk, pp. 60–177. C.R. Hart, ‘Athelstan ‘Half-King’ and his Family’, idem, The Danelaw (London, 1992), pp. 569–604, at 575–9. C.P. Lewis, ‘The Early Earls of Norman England’, ANS xiii (1990), pp. 207–23, at 215, 221. R.H.C. Davis, King Stephen 1135–1154 (London, 1967), pp. 141–2. G. Duby, Medieval Marriage: Two Models from Twelfth-Century France, trans. E. Forster, Johns Hopkins Symposia in Comparative History (Baltimore, MD, 1978); J. Goody, The Development of Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge, 1986); Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir, pp. 287–97. An introduction to the social anthropological literature on marriage is provided by L. Mair, Marriage (London, 1977). E.g. L. Musset, ‘Aux origines d’une classe dirigeante: les Tosny, grands barons normands du Xe au XIIIe siècle’, Francia v (1977), pp. 45–80; A.F. Wareham, ‘Two Models of Marriage: Kinship and the Social Order in England and Normandy’, Negotiating Secular and Ecclesiastical Power: Western Europe in the Central Middle Ages, eds. A.J. Bijsterveld et al., International Medieval Research VI (Turnhout, 1999), pp. 107–32.


8

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 8


Anglia, and took the lead in the foundation of Ramsey Abbey (Hunts.), as part of an alliance forged between royal, monastic and aristocratic interests. Investments in ecclesiastical frameworks stabilized this family’s power at the regional level. That in turn maintained peace and provided the conditions for economic growth. In Chapter 2 the strategies of another dynasty, whose interests were also defined by Königsnähe, are discussed in relation to the refoundation of Ely Abbey (Cambs.). It notes how investments in ecclesiastical structures not only served to transform patterns of landholding but also assisted the social strategies of this dynasty. Since by the year 1000 new foundations and refounded houses each accounted for around half of the forty Benedictine abbeys in England, these two case studies provide a balanced coverage of the relationship between monasticism and society during a period of religious renewal. Yet even at the high water-mark of an alliance between secular and ecclesiastical power, patronage strategies adopted by powerful lay women served to foster regional frameworks of power. Chapter 3, in assessing this change, draws attention to the beginnings of a major transformation in the social order. The next five chapters discuss the ways in which the organization of society based upon Carolingian and post-Carolingian models gave way to new frameworks of power and association. Such developments, though, cannot be realistically presented as a chain reaction following on from events at the close of the tenth century, in terms of both the surviving evidence and the current historiographical concepts. The significance of the Norman Conquest hangs over these issues. It is vital to distinguish between evolutionary developments within English society on the one hand, and on the other the changes which can be more closely connected to the particular events of the Norman Conquest. Chapters 4 and 5 discuss lineage formation and the establishment of the gentry as a distinct social category respectively, from the 990s to the 1050s, and suggest that henceforward Königsnähe only maintained the power of the court elite in national and local contexts rather than defining the regional social order as a whole. Such developments perhaps opened up divisions between a court elite and a regional aristocracy during the early eleventh century. In Chapters 6 and 7 the focus is upon the development of seigneurial complexes of lordship established by the regional nobility and the court aristocracy respectively. These comparisons suggest that these two categories of the nobility invested in secular built environments in different ways, reflecting divergences in their relationships with ecclesiastical institutions. In Chapter 8 the differences between the court aristocracy and the regional nobility during the reign of Edward the Confessor (1042–66) are presented within a more quantitative framework, notably drawing upon the evidence of Little Domesday Book. The final case study discusses social mobility during and immediately after the Norman Conquest. In short, these case studies suggest that East Anglia underwent a process of critical change in two stages, the first starting in the 1020s and largely complete by the 1050s, and the second more directly associated with the Norman Conquest. In the epilogue there is a discussion of the implications of the proposed model for assessing the development of English society during the tenth and eleventh centuries in relation to the feudal transformation hypothesis, and the issues raised by Power of Place. 

F. Barlow, The English Church 1000–1066. A History of the Later Anglo-Saxon Church, 2nd edn (London, 1979), p. 311.  Above, Preface, p. xiii-xiv.


8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 9

INTRODUCTION

9

Textual context On a number of occasions analysis will depend upon Old English documents which were translated into Latin on the instructions of twelfth-century prelates. Translation, though, involved editing, abbreviation and addition. It is necessary to recognize that these sources were not only translated in order to increase access to these communities’ Anglo-Saxon pasts; they were also deliberately doctored (in their view ‘improved’) in order to suit later conditions. This point can be illustrated by considering the sources associated with the abbeys of Ely and Ramsey. The Liber Eliensis, a cartulary-chronicle, was compiled by an Ely monk, probably Richard of Ely, who subsequently served as sub-prior and prior of Ely. The first book, concerned with the history of the abbey, covering the period when it was a double monastery, was completed c. 1131x54. The second and third books, which describe the history of the abbey as a reformed community and as a bishopric with a cathedral priory respectively, were finished before c. 1154 and 1174 respectively. The text survives in a late twelfth-century manuscript, Trinity College Cambridge MS O.2.1, and in the thirteenth-century CUL Ely Dean and Chapter MS 1, with all subsequent versions of the Liber Eliensis being copies of these manuscripts. In the Trinity MS, the Liber Eliensis (fols. 1–176) appears before the Inquisitio Eliensis and the lives of saints Sexburg, Ermenhilda, Ercongata, Werburg, Æthelburg and Wihtburg (fols. 177–240). In addition, at the front of the codex on leaves paged separately which were not originally part of the manuscript, there is found the Ely calendar, which is a necrological source rather than a liturgical calendar listing saints’ days. The fashion for gathering memorial, cartulary-chronicle, inventory and hagiographical sources within a single volume gathered momentum from the tenth century onwards, and the Ely codex provides one of the best and earliest examples of such a manuscript in European archives. This serves to demonstrate how a range of ecclesiastical, economic, administrative, social and hagiographical themes defined the community’s identity. It also illustrates the dangers of employing historical perspectives which focus upon one source within a codex in order to isolate a single historical theme. An effort should be made to engage with a group of texts within a codex in setting out how, for example, economic, social and cultural processes interacted with each other. The Liber Eliensis contains several narrative texts, such as an account of the complaints brought by the monks of the cathedral priory against Nigel, bishop of Ely (1133–69), and the Stetchworth dispute which involved the priory defending its rights at the papal court. The most notable source in this context is the Libellus         

For another discussion, see J. Paxton, ‘Textual Communities in the English Fenlands: a Lay Audience for Monastic Chronicles’, ANS xxvi (2004), pp. 123–37. Blake, ‘Introduction’, Lib. El., pp. xxiii–lx, at xlviii. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., pp. xxiii-iv. J. Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung der Angelsachsen: Mit einem Katalog der libri vitae und Necrologien, Arbeiten zur Frühmittelalterforschung: Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Frühmittelalterforschung der Universität Münster xx (Berlin, 1988), pp. 280–1. E. Friese, ‘Kalendarische und annalistische Grundformen’, Memoria: der historische Zeugniswert liturgischen Gedenkens im Mittelalter, eds. K. Schmid and J. Wollasch (Munich, 1984), pp. 441–577, at 544, 573. Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 288. Blake, ‘Introduction’, Lib. El., pp. xxxviii-xxxix.


10

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 10


Æthelwoldi Episcopi, which survives both as an independent manuscript source and as part of book two of the Liber Eliensis. Both the extant manuscript versions of the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi, written during the first third of the twelfth century, were based upon a vernacular work written by a member of the Ely community. The Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi, although written a century after the events which it describes, is nonetheless based upon authentic material and provides a reliable account of the circumstances surrounding the refoundation of Ely Abbey by Æthelwold (d. 984), bishop of Winchester (963–84), as well as being one of the texts which was employed in the dialogue between the bishops and priors of Ely during the twelfth century. Comparable issues arise in relation to the Ramsey archive and its two principal sources relating to the late Anglo-Saxon period. The Vita Sancti Oswald is a hagiographical account of the life of Ramsey Abbey’s co-founder Oswald (d. 992), bishop of Worcester (961–92) and archbishop of York (972–92), while the Liber Benefactorum is a cartulary-chronicle. Some writers have used these sources as accurate historical records without paying too much attention to questions of provenance, while others have suggested that their imperfections are so glaring that they have no role to play in the writing of historical studies. The Vita Sancti Oswaldi, written by the Ramsey monk Byrhtferth between c. 997 and c. 1002, includes slips and errors. For example, Æthelhelm (d. 923), bishop of Wells (909–14) and archbishop of Canterbury (914–23), is mistakenly identified as the brother of Æthelstan, king of England (924–39), and as a layman and thegn, confusing spiritual and physical brotherhood. Once the error is identified, however, the corrected version fits well with other sources, such as the libri memoriales, which record the names of King Æthelstan and prelates who flourished during his reign in confraternityship with monastic communities at Chester-le-Street, Pfäfers (Germany), Reichenau (Germany) and St. Gall (Switzerland). The Liber Benefactorum was compiled in its present form during the last quarter of the twelfth century, contemporary with the short tract, the Narratio de Abbate Gualtero, which was an account of the abbey’s misfortunes during the anarchy of the reign of King Stephen (1135–54). There are two manuscripts; one (Oxford Bodleian Library  

   





Lib. El., ii, cc. 4, 7–8, 10–27, 30–9, 41–9b, pp. 75–6, 79–101, 104–12, 114–17; appendix a, pp. 395–9. There is a forthcoming edition of and commentary on the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi by A. Kennedy and S.D. Keynes. The present writer has benefited from reading the editors’ draft translation in the pamphlet ‘The Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi (in usum scholarum)’, pp. 1–50. The two extant manuscripts of the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi (Trinity College Cambridge MS O.2.41, fols. 1–64, and BL Cotton MS Vespasian A. xix, fols. 2–27) are discussed by Blake, ‘Introduction’, pp. xxvii, xxxiv. E.g. Hart, ‘Athelstan’, Danelaw, pp. 569–600. E.g. M. Lapidge, ‘The Life of St Oswald’, The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg (Oxford, 1991), pp. 51–8. M. Lapidge, ‘The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth Century Anglo-Latin Literature’, ASE iv (1975), pp. 67–111, at 74, 91–4; Lapidge, ‘Life of St Oswald’, p. 51. R. Fletcher, The Conversion of Europe: from Paganism to Christianity 371–1386 AD (London, 1997), p. 393; cf. M. Lapidge, ‘Byrhtferth and Oswald’, St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence, eds. N.P. Brooks and C.R.E. Cubitt, Studies in the Early History of Britain: The Makers of England II (Leicester, 1996), pp. 64–83, at 67–8. E.E. Barker, ‘Two Lost Documents of King Athelstan’, ASE vi (1977), pp. 137–43; G. Althoff, Amicitae und Pacta: Bündnis, Einung, Politik und Gebetsgedenken im beginnenden 10. Jahrhundert (Hanover, 1992), p. 59; Libri confratentium Sancti Galli Augiensis Fabariesis, ed. P. Piper, Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Berlin, 1884), p. 100. W.D. Macray, ‘Preface’, Chron. Rames., pp. vii-lvi provides an introduction.


8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 11

INTRODUCTION

11

Rawlinson MS B.333 [s.xiii], fols. 1–53) is probably based upon a later version of the text than the other (PRO E 164/28 [s.xiv], fols. 132–61). The Bodleian manuscript abbreviates and omits narratives relating to the late Anglo-Saxon history of the abbey contained in the PRO manuscript, but adds speeches which summarize the views and opinions of the abbey’s co-founders. In general terms, the Bodleian version establishes stronger registers of title, complemented by a more rounded account of the relationship between the monastery, the monarchy and the local aristocracy than the PRO manuscript, which is less easy to read as a continuous narrative. These issues raise difficult questions in terms of authenticity when using the narrative portions of the text in contrast to the cartulary sections, where there are established procedures for identifying the reliability of charters. We are much more dependent upon experimenting with potential alternative contexts in which to place these narratives. The speeches included in the Bodleian manuscript can be regarded as invention, whether constructed in the late Anglo-Saxon period or in the AngloNorman era. When considering the narrative which outlines events at Ramsey between c. 965 and c. 1035, we are in slightly different territory. The test for authenticity turns upon whether the events which are described in books one and two are more convincingly placed in a late Anglo-Saxon context, indicating a degree of authenticity, or in a mid twelfth-century one, thereby pointing towards unreliability. Books one and two of the Liber Benefactorum include passages which are related to sections of the Vita Sancti Oswaldi. Since there is doubt as to whether there was a copy of the latter in Ramsey’s monastic library during the high Middle Ages, it is more likely that subtle divergences arose in an early eleventh-century context rather than in an AngloNorman one. Since the narrative sections of book three are concerned with themes such as the battle of Maldon (991), and drawing attention to the ways in which the diocesan bishop played the role of guardian over the community, it is probable that these texts were originally compiled in the late Anglo-Saxon period, rather than the during the Anglo-Norman era when tensions ran high between diocesan bishops and great royal abbeys within the region. These methods act as the basis for using sources such as the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi, the Liber Benefactorum and the Vita Sancti Oswaldi as evidence in the development of historical arguments. The feudal transformation model’s discussion of aristocracies and societies in regional contexts has two implications for the present study. First, it directs attention towards neglected sources, such as the libri memoriales of the great East Anglian royal abbeys, and second, it encourages a research approach which assesses the



For references to the Liber Benefactorum in Chron. Rames., arabic numerals refer to chapters in the PRO manuscript, while roman numerals refer to the Bodleian manuscript.  For critical analysis of the Ramsey foundation charter (S 798); see the ‘electronic Sawyer’, ⬍http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/chartwww/eSawyer/⬎; ECEE, p. 27; P. Chaplais, ‘The Original Charters of Herbert and Gervase, Abbots of Westminster (1121–1157)’, A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton, eds. P.M. Barnes and C.F. Slade, Publications of the Pipe Roll Society n.s. xxxvi (London, 1962), pp. 89–110, at 92–4. There is no equivalent website for the Anglo-Norman period, but for an exemplary modern critical edition, see Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: the Acta of William I (1066–1087), ed. D. Bates (Oxford, 1998).  Lambeth Palace MS 585, pp. 661–4 [s. xiii] contains no references, but ‘duo libelli de vita Sancti Oswaldi’ appear in BL Cotton Rolls, II.16 [s. xiv], as discussed by N. Ker, Medieval Libraries of Great Britain (London, 1964), pp. 153–54. Lambeth Palace, MS 585, pp. 661–4 is printed in Chron. Rames., pp. lxxxv-xci.


12

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 12


inter-connections between social, economic, political, cultural and religious histories. As it happens, that takes us closer to the holistic organization of the medieval codices designed to meet the requirements of monks, their patrons and wider communities. This perspective, based upon a close reading of the original sources, provides a means for assessing the reshaping of European society within a comparative framework, with East Anglia serving as an initial case study from the British Isles.

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

8/20/05

11:49 AM

Page 13

Chapter 1 The Dynasty of Ealdorman Æthelwine and Tenth-Century Society There is in the midland district of Britain a most dismal fen of immense size, which begins on the banks of the river Granta not far from the camp which is called Cambridge . . . It is a very long tract, now consisting of marshes, now of bogs, sometimes of black waters overhung by fog, sometimes studded with wooded islands and traversed by the windings of tortuous streams. Felix (fl. 713x49), Life of St Guthlac The marshland of which I am speaking is very wide and beautiful to behold, washed by many flowing rivers, adorned by many meres, great and small, and green with many woods and islands, among which are the church of Ely, the abbey of Ramsey . . .

Henry of Huntingdon (fl. 1129x54), History of the English The fenlands in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire were described as a watery wilderness in the eighth century, but by the twelfth century the richness of the area’s resources as well as the reputation of its monastic houses led to a more confident view in ecclesiastical circles. The fenlands benefited from the onset of increasingly favourable ecological conditions as sea levels fell after c. 800, and by c. 1100 at least eleven monastic communities stood on islands in the fens and on the fen-edge. These monastic houses had by then become the most important landholders in the region and had established economic and social ties with each other and with secular communities. The monks of Ramsey and Peterborough exchanged eels for Barnack limestone, and monastic landlords leased out everything from hundreds (i.e. local

   

Felix’s Life of St Guthlac: Introduction, Text, Translation and Notes, ed. B. Colgrave (Cambridge, 1956), p. 87. Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum: the History of the English People, ed. D. Greenway (Oxford, 1996), p. 321. The account in this and the following paragraph is based on H.C. Darby, The Medieval Fenland (Cambridge, 1940); J. Ravensdale, Liable to Floods: Village Landscape on the Edge of the Fens AD 450–1850 (Cambridge, 1974); VCH Cambs., x, pp. 1–24. ECEE, pp. 112–13.

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

14

8/20/05

11:49 AM

Page 14


government jurisdictions) to fishing boats on fenland meres to secular lords and local farmers respectively.5 Across the area secular and ecclesiastical communities shared access to fenlands under the authority of monastic landlords, who kept open the Roman waterways and dug new channels. Patterns of landownership and economic management established by the close of the eleventh century remained largely in place until the drainage of the fenlands in the late seventeenth century, and only in the late eighteenth century was an alternative means of managing the area within a collective framework successfully established on a permanent basis. There were two great turning-points in the relationships between land ownership and the management of the environment and the economy, with the first occurring during the tenth and early eleventh centuries. Without the investment by the AngloSaxon aristocracy in great religious houses, institutions would not have been developed to establish an effective and collective means of managing a landscape which was at once potentially affluent and periodically perilous. Analysis of the ways in which the environment and the economy were reshaped in the fenland shires in the late AngloSaxon period is bound up with understanding the nature of the alliance which was forged between monastic power, the Crown and great aristocratic dynasties. This can be illustrated through a study of the relationships between the dynasty of Æthelwine (d. 992), ealdorman of East Anglia (962–92), and Ramsey Abbey. After setting out the context of the foundation of the abbey, attention will be turned to the marriage strategies and the context of substantial investment by Ealdorman Æthelwine’s dynasty in Ramsey Abbey, and its effects upon the social and economic order.

The Foundation of Ramsey Abbey Ramsey Abbey was founded c. 965 by Bishop Oswald of Worcester and Ealdorman Æthelwine as part of a national programme of monastic reform launched by King Edgar (959–75) in that year at a royal council. King Edgar also convened an assembly which drew up an English version of the Benedictine rule, namely the Regularis Concordia, which regulated the activities of all the Benedictine monastic houses in England. The Regularis Concordia placed all of the reformed abbeys under the personal authority of King Edgar, and the nunneries under the rule of Queen Ælfthryth. Piety and the direct ties between king and abbeys encouraged the donation of extensive estates and of authority over hundreds to reformed abbeys. The wealth of these great reformed 

E.g. below, Chapter 8, p. 129; VCH Cambs, x, p. 513. For a discussion of the descent of estates to the abbey in this period, see L. Sage, ‘Patronage and Lay Society in the late Anglo-Saxon Fenlands: the Estates of the Abbeys of Ely and Ramsey’ (D.Phil. Dissertation, University of Oxford, 2001), pp. 186–224; for relationship with Ealdorman Æthelwine, see ibid., pp. 209–18.  E. John, ‘The Beginning of the Benedictine Reform Movement in England’, idem, Orbis Britanniae and Other Studies, Studies in Early English History IV (Leicester, 1966), pp. 249–64; J.S. Barrow, ‘The Community of Worcester, 961–c.1100’, St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence, eds. N.P. Brooks and C.R.E. Cubitt (Leicester, 1996), pp. 84–99, at 94.  The context is set out in D. Knowles, The Monastic Order in England: a History of its Development from the Times of St Dunstan to the Fourth Lateran Council 940–1216, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1963), pp. 31–46.  Regularis Concordia, the Monastic Agreement of the Monks and Nuns of the English Nation, ed. T. Symons (London, 1953), p. 1–2.  For donation of royal estates to Ramsey Abbey, see Table 1, nos. 1–3. 

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

8/20/05

11:49 AM

Page 15

THE DYNASTY OF EALDORMAN ÆTHELWINE AND TENTH-CENTURY SOCIETY

15

Table 1 Royal Donations to Ramsey Abbey c. 965–1052 Estate

Hundred

County

Hidage

Donor(s)

Date

1 2 3 4

Burwell Godmanchester Little Stukeley Broughton

Staploe Leightonstone Hurstingstone Hurstingstone

Cambs. Hunts. Hunts. Hunts.

5 hides 3 hides 1 hide 2 hides

965x75 965x75 969x75 975x78

5 6

Broughton Hurstingstone Hunts. Hemingford Grey Toseland Hunts.

2 hides -

7 8

Yelling Ringstead

Toseland Smethden

Hunts. Norfolk

5 hides -

9

Wimbotsham

Clackclose

Norfolk

-

Edgar Edgar Edgar Edward the ‘martyr’ Æthelræd Harthacnut & Emma Harthacnut Edward the Confessor Edward the Confessor Edward the Confessor

10 Broughton

Hurstingstone Hunts.

-

979x1016 1040x42 1040x42 1042x47 1042x57 1050x52



Table based on Chron. Rames., ii, c. 24, pp. 47–8 (nos. 1–2); c. 43/xli, pp. 73–4 (no. 3); iii, c. 43/xli, p. 74 (no. 4); c. 45/xliv, pp. 75–6 (no. 5); cc. 86–7/xcvii-viii, pp. 151–2 (no. 6); c. 89/c, pp. 152–3 (no. 7); c. 95/cvi, pp. 159–61 (no. 8); c. 95/cvi, pp. 159–61 (no. 9); c. 100/cxi, p. 165 (no. 10)

abbeys meant that their monastic scriptoria produced a vast outpouring of liturgical, hagiographical and historical texts which in turn communicated the ideologies of the reform programme. These texts equated monastic observance of the Benedictine rule with the loyalty of noble families to the royal dynasty. Ties were forged between reformed abbeys and leading dynasties in Wessex, Mercia and East Anglia, but this patronage is not only to be understood in terms of aristocratic adherence to the ideologies of the reform programme under the guidance of King Edgar. It was also connected to local alliance and unification strategies, which were in turn bound up with kinship and marriage. In short, the distant origins of the transformation from perilous wetlands to affluent farmlands in the fenlands of eastern England are to be found in the undertakings of the great tenth-century dynasties, as well as in the initiatives of rulers who commanded and mobilized the resources of the early English state. The experiences of Ealdorman Æthelwine’s dynasty provide a case study for understanding this theme in relating local and regional patterns to national developments. 

R. Deshman, The Benedictional of Æthelwold, Studies in Manuscript Illumination IX (Princeton, NJ, 1995), pp. 215–50.  E. John, ‘The King and the Monks in the Tenth-Century Reformation’, idem, Orbis Britanniae, pp. 154–80; for further discussion of this theme, see N. Banton, ‘Monastic Reform and the Unification of TenthCentury England’, Religion and National Identity: Papers Read at the Nineteenth Summer Meeting and the Twentieth Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, ed. S. Mews, Studies in Church History XVIII (Oxford, 1982), pp. 71–85.  For ties of Wulfric Spot and his kindred with Burton-upon-Trent Abbey (c. 1002–4), and of the family of Ealdorman Æthelweard the ‘Chronicler’ with the abbeys of Cerne (founded in 987), Eynesham (founded in 1005), see Knowles, Monastic Order, pp. 49–51; Charters of Burton Abbey, ed. P.H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters II (London, 1979).

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

16

8/20/05

11:49 AM

Page 16


The Dynasty of Ealdorman Æthelwine c. 930–9214 Ealdorman Æthelwine was descended on both his paternal and maternal lines from English families whose most prominent members had served as ealdormen, ruling over Wessex, south-east England and East Anglia, and who according to the Liber Benefactorum included royal ancestors. The most famous figure in the dynasty was Æthelwine’s own father, Æthelstan (d. after 956), ealdorman of East Anglia (932–56), who had taken over the territory which had been ruled by Danish rulers of East Anglia from 880 until 917. The ealdordom comprised East Anglia, and perhaps also parts of Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Northamptonshire. In the late ninth and early tenth centuries several of the boroughs and their localities within the region had been under the authority of Scandinavian earls, who established peace with King Edward the Elder (899–924)after his conquest of the southern Danelaw c. 916x17, leading to their continued exercise of local authority under Ealdorman Æthelstan. According to the Liber Benefactorum, Ealdorman Æthelstan won the gratitude of his countrymen because of his military successes and acquired the title ‘Half-King’ because of his role as an adviser to tenth-century kings. Meanwhile, Byrhtferth of Ramsey observed that the title was used by the leading nobles of the realm (proceres) because Æthelstan had held the ‘regnum et imperium’ with kings. The narratives, though, do not dwell upon his local administrative duties in East Anglia, which appear to have remained in the hands of the Scandinavian earls and their successors during his tenure of the ealdordom. Ealdorman Æthelstan’s patrimony lay in Devon, while he received estates in Somerset and Sussex from his brother. With the exception of two estates in Huntingdonshire, there is no record of Æthelstan holding estates in East Anglia. That suggests that he had not established close connections with religious houses in the region, in contrast to his ties with religious houses in the heartlands of Wessex.

      

     

For other discussions, see Hart, ‘Athelstan’, Danelaw, pp. 569–604; W.G. Searle, Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles: the Succession of the Bishops and the Pedigrees of the Kings and Nobles (Cambridge, 1899), pp. 406–7. For the family’s kinship and descent, see Figure 1. Ibid. Chron. Rames., i, c. 4/iii, p. 11. Hart, ‘Athelstan’, Danelaw, pp. 574–6; P. Stafford, Unification and Conquest: a Political and Social History of England in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London, 1989), pp. 37–8. Hart, ‘Athelstan’, Danelaw, p. 578 overstates the geographical extent of the ealdordom. Ibid., p. 577. For example, Earl Scule probably exercised delegated authority over the six hundreds attached to Sudbourne in eastern Suffolk c. 931x949 and attended the royal court; see D. Whitelock, ‘Foreword’, Lib. El., p. xiv; S.D. Keynes, ‘An Atlas of Attestations in Anglo-Saxon England’ (Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse and Celtic, University of Cambridge, 1998), table xxxviii (1 of 1) citing S 407; S 412–13; S 416–17; S 425; S 434. Chron. Rames., i, c. 4/iii, p. 11. VSO, p. 428. Lib. El., ii, c. 7, p. 80. Select English Historical Documents of the Ninth and Tenth Centuries, ed. F.E. Harmer (Cambridge, 1914), no. 20, p. 33, lines 19–20; S 442; S 498. Chron. Rames., ii, c. 28/xxiv, pp. 52–3; Table 2, nos. 4, 8. Hart, ‘Athelstan’, Danelaw, pp. 579, 581.

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

1. Extended Family Tree of Ealdorman Æthelwine of East Anglia c. 915–1016.

Page 17

Male family member

11:49 AM

?

8/20/05

Uccea


Leofsige

17

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

18

8/20/05

11:49 AM

Page 18


This absence of links with religious houses in East Anglia perhaps limited the opportunities to establish friendship bonds with other secular nobles in the region, and hence reduced the possibilities for strengthening his power at the local level through alliance and unification strategies. Yet the establishment of links with religious houses was not the only means by which nobles could consolidate power in local contexts. Marriage provided another means. In tenth-century England endogamous marriage among the aristocratic elite was likely to enhance political power at the national level and to involve unions between social equals. By contrast exogamous marriages raised greater opportunities for strengthening power at the local level and was more likely to involve a degree of social inequality between marriage partners. The marriages of Ealdorman Æthelstan and his sons Æthelwold, Ælfwold and Æthelwine will be discussed in turn in order to consider their relationships with Königsnähe and regional frameworks of power.

Matrimonial strategies Ealdorman Æthelstan’s marriage to Ælfwyn strengthened his interests at the national level, but probably did not lead to the acquisition of estates in East Anglia. Æthelstan and Ælfwyn were distantly related, and belonged to the same social rank. The marriage, moreover, enabled Ealdorman Æthelstan’s family to strengthen its ties with the royal family, after Ælfwyn became foster-mother to King Edgar. In gratitude for nurturing received, Edgar granted Ælfwyn a ten-hide estate at Old Weston (Hunts.), which she donated to Ramsey Abbey (in preference to the religious houses patronised by her husband). Ælfwyn was probably buried at Ramsey Abbey (rather than at Glastonbury Abbey to where her husband had retired). She was commemorated in the Ramsey necrology as ‘our sister’, donor of Old Weston, with her obit coinciding with King Edgar’s and that of Saint Mary, the co-patron saint of the abbey. Perhaps Ælfwyn had played a more central role in the development of Ramsey Abbey than the Liber Benefactorum suggests, similar to Queen Ælfthryth’s



For a contrast see BL Additional MS 40,000, fol. 10r; D. Whitelock, ‘Scandinavian Personal Names in the Liber Vitae of Thorney Abbey’, Saga-Book of the Viking Society xii (1937–45), pp. 127–53; Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, pp. 191–5.  Æthelstan’s father had married the great-niece of King Alfred: see Hart, ‘Athelstan’, Danelaw, p. 570 n. 3; A.F. Wareham, ‘The Transformation of Kinship and the Family in Late Anglo-Saxon England’, Early Medieval Europe x (2001), pp. 375–99, at 386. On the royal descent of Ælfwyn note the comment on the maternal descent of Ealdorman Æthelwine in the VSO, p. 428: ‘Progenitus ex regali prosapia inclytam genealogiam habuit in parte matris, quam laudans Dunstanus archiepiscopus, benedictam esse dixit mulierem, genusque ipsius’.  This is hinted at in the chapter on the ‘Genealogy of Ealdorman Æthelwine’ in the Liber Benefactorum where as much attention is devoted to Ælfwyn as to Ealdorman Æthelstan: see Chron. Rames., i, c. 4/iii, pp. 11–12.  Ibid., i, c. 4/iii, p. 11.  Ibid., ii, c. 28/xxiv, p. 53; Table 2, no. 9.  Ibid.  Her burial at Ramsey is suggested by Cartularium monasterii de Rameseia, eds. W.H. Hart and P.A. Lyons, 3 vols., RS (London, 1884–93), iii, p. 166; on Æthelstan and Glastonbury, see Hart, ‘Athelstan’, Danelaw, pp. 579, 581.  Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 342 for obit day on 8 July each year.  Ibid.; Cartularium monasterii de Rameseia, iii, p. 166; cf. VSO, p. 443.

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

8/20/05

11:49 AM

Page 19


19

intercession with King Edgar in order to secure his patronage of Ely Abbey. Ælfwyn may have played a vital role in the establishment of Ramsey Abbey on virgin territory, and hence in serving to redirect the interests of her family of marriage into a more regional framework of power.

Æthelwold and Ælfwold Before her marriage to King Edgar, Ælfthryth had been the wife of Æthelwold (d. 962), ealdorman of East Anglia (955–62), and eldest son of Ealdorman Æthelstan. Ælfthryth was the daughter of Ordgar, a powerful nobleman who had strong connections with Exeter and Tavistock. The marriage was probably an exogamous alliance, and strengthened Ealdorman Æthelstan’s power in the south-west and Königsnähe. Æthelwold’s younger brother Ælfwold married Ælfhild, perhaps the daughter of Ælfsige, in a union which was probably exogamous, and served to strengthen both national and local interests. Ælfsige’s family perhaps originated from Kent and Sussex, but in the 940s and early 950s kings of England had granted Ælfsige and his son Wulfstan Uccea four estates in Northamptonshire and Huntingdonshire. Ælfsige, though, was unable to establish an accommodation with local interests. A slave was stolen from his estate at Yaxley in Huntingdonshire, and a fenland widow drove an iron pin into an effigy of him and kept the image in her room. The death of Ælfsige’s father Brihtsige perhaps marked the point at which the family reorganized its affairs. Between 963 and 970 Brihtsige’s grandson Wulfstan Uccea entered

 





 

   

On Ælfthryth and Ely, see Lib. El., ii, c. 39, pp. 111–12. Chron. Rames., i, c. 4/iii, p. 12 sets out the order of birth of the four sons of Ealdorman Æthelstan and seeks to downplay questions of estrangement by suggesting that they were rivals only in the pursuit of justice; see ibid.: ‘Qui naturæ foedere copulati solo sectandæ justitiæ zelo pulchre sibi sine invidia contendebant.’ Yet there may have been a change in the seniority of Ælfwold and Æthelwine at the royal court. Keynes, ‘Atlas of Attestations’, table lvii (1 of 15) shows that in 958 Ælfwold appeared in a more senior position (see S 675; S 676a), but between 959 and 961 Æthelwine tends to witness in a more senior position (see S 673; S 688–9; S 690; S 695; cf. S 691; S 697). H.P.R. Finberg, ‘The House of Ordgar and the Foundation of Tavistock Abbey’, EHR lviii (1943), pp. 190–201. Following Ælfthryth’s marriage to King Edgar, Ordgar was appointed as ealdorman of the western shires (Devon, Cornwall and Dorset); see ASC, [D, (F), 965], p. 76; Keynes, ‘Atlas of Attestations’, tables lvi (3 of 3), lvii (6–7 of 15) (see S 673; S 684; S 691–3; S 704; S 713; S 725; S 729). Not only is there an absence of evidence for kinship ties between Æthelwold and Ælfthryth, but it is unlikely that Edgar would have married Ælfthryth if the marriage comprised an endogamous union; see also P. Wormald, The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century. I, Legislation and its Limits (Oxford, 1999), p. 334; Stafford, Unification and Conquest, pp. 47–50. Lib. El., ii, c. 7, p. 80. A Northamptonshire estate that Ælfhild (widow of Ælfwold) disposed of exclusively in her own right lay close to Kettering and one of Wulfstan Uccea’s estates (see Table 3, no. 9; Chron. Rames., ii, c. 35/xxxii, p. 64). The general congruence of the estates which she controlled with the localities where Ælfsige’s family held estates argues in favour of this identification. ASW, no. 11, pp. 28–9, lines 22–3 where forty mancuses of gold was given by a Kentish widow for Wulfstan to distribute ‘for us and our ancestors’. S 533 (Ailsworth, Nthants.); S 556 (Haddon, Hunts.); S 592 (Kettering, Nthants.); S 649 (Conington, Hunts.); and perhaps also the seven-hide estate at Yaxley, see Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 44, pp. 90–3. For royal grant of the other half of Yaxley, see S 595. Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 44, pp. 90–2. Ibid., no. 37, p. 68.

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

20

8/20/05

11:49 AM

Page 20


into an exchange with Bishop Æthelwold, who received Yaxley and Ailsworth (Nthants.), while Wulfstan acquired Washington (Sussex). This reorganization of the family’s affairs may not have been welcomed by other members of the family, such as Leofsige, brother of Ælfsige. He is depicted in the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi as a wealthy but unremarkable nobleman in the early 970s, but on the death of King Edgar he seized Kettering, Oundle and Peterborough in Northamptonshire from the monks of Peterborough Abbey, and cancelled sales and exchanges with the monks of Ely. Several of these estates may have formerly been in the ownership of his father, while he demanded the return of his father’s silver cup which the latter had given on his deathbed to Bishop Æthelwold. Leofsige may have been seeking to rescind his father’s post-obit bequests, and by insisting upon the return of the silver cup may have been attempting to break the contract of friendship between his father and Bishop Æthelwold, which was symbolized through the ritual of a personal gift suitable for use in the performance of mass. According to the Vita Sancti Oswaldi, at a royal council which had assembled in London c. 975x977, Ælfwold made an eloquent speech on the salvation of the souls of the lay nobility and on the Heavenly Judge’s protection of the kingdom being dependent upon the protection of his servants, the reform monks. That speech served to bring about Leofsige’s conviction for the breach of the king’s protection, resulting in a fine of £100, also covering damage to property. After the sentence was repeated without result at Northampton, Ælfwold killed Leofsige. In this passage of the Vita Sancti Oswaldi, Ælfwold is described as the ‘prince of the East Angles’ and ‘the friend of God’. Although Ælfwold was not dignified with the comital rank in the witness lists of royal diplomas, Byrhtferth of Ramsey suggests that he shared comital office with his brother Ealdorman Æthelwine.  This pattern is reflected in the partible inheritance of land. When the brothers Æthelwine, Ælfwold and Æthelsige gave up their claim to their father’s estate at Hatfield (Herts.), they divided the three estates received in compensation. Each brother received one property. Assumptions relating to equality between siblings lay behind this division. Yet such flexibility in inheritance customs also created the contexts for fierce rivalries between relatives. The vigour of Ælfwold’s  

S 714; Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 37, p. 68. C.R. Hart, ‘Oundle: Its Province and the Eight Hundreds’, idem, The Danelaw (London, 1992), pp. 141–76, at 151–2.  Lib. El., ii, c. 11, pp. 84–5.  Kettering had perhaps descended from Ælfsige to Bishop Æthelwold (see S 592), and Oundle may also have formerly been in the possession of Ælfsige. In Bishop Æthelwold’s ‘List of Gifts’ to Peterborough Abbey, Oundle appeared just before Kettering and the purchase of fens from one Ælfsige (see AngloSaxon Charters, no. 39, p. 72, lines 29–31).  Lib. El., ii, c. 11, p. 84.  VSO, pp. 444–5.  Lib. El., ii, c. 11, p. 85.  Ibid.; VSO, p. 446.  VSO, p. 446: ‘Defendit pius princeps Orientalium Anglorum omnia loca monasteriorum cum maximo honore, pro qua re amicus Dei dictus est’. Ælfwold’s role with Ealdorman Æthelwine in the defence of the monasteries is also discussed in the Liber Benefactorum, see Chron. Rames., ii, c. 41/xxxviii, p. 72.  Both brothers also acquired the epithet ‘friend of God’. For Ealdorman Æthelwine, see John of Worcester, The Chronicle of John of Worcester, eds. R.R. Darlington, P. McGurk and J. Bray, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1995–8), ii, pp. 490–2: ‘Atheluuardus dux, filius ducis Estanglorum Atheluuini Dei amici’.  Lib. El., ii, c. 7, p. 80; Chron. Rames., ii, cc. 28/xxiv, 34/xxxi, pp. 54–5, 63. The case is also discussed by Sage, ‘Patronage and Society’, pp. 32–5.

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

8/20/05

11:49 AM

Page 21


21

response to Leofsige’s actions may have been connected to such a dispute, which followed on from the descent of land from Ælfsige to his daughter. Ælfwold may have had personal reasons, as well as being motivated by piety, in taking up the case against Leofsige on behalf of the reform monks. He may have received estates in Huntingdonshire and Northamptonshire via his wife from Ælfsige, with Ælfhild receiving life-tenure of these estates during widowhood. Leland’s notes from the Ramsey necrology record the commemoration of Ælfhild in association with the donation of these dower estates, but there is no mention of Ælfwold. That omission may arise from a transcription error, but it still suggests that Ælfhild was at least as important as Ælfwold in terms of the monks’ memory of who donated these estates. Ælfhild was a powerful figure in her own right, while Ælfwold exercised coercive power in order to defend the interests of the monastic community at Ramsey.

Ealdorman Æthelwine The marriages of Ealdorman Æthelwine were probably exogamous unions, and led to the acquisition of estates in East Anglia. Æthelwine’s marriage to his first wife Æthelflæd (d. 977) was arranged by his father. Æthelflæd’s father had granted Ealdorman Æthelstan an estate at Sawtry (Hunts.) in exchange for unnamed property. After the deaths of Ealdorman Æthelstan and Æthelflæd’s father, she seized Sawtry and granted it, as a post-obit gift, to the monks of Ramsey, against the cost of her burial and towards the salvation of her soul. Æthelflæd had strong connections with the monks of Ramsey in her own right, which perhaps encouraged Ealdorman Æthelwine to donate two other estates in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire to the abbey on behalf of her soul. Æthelwine’s second wife Æthelgifu (d. 985) donated the Cambridgeshire estates of Bourn and Longstowe and two silver goblets for use in the refectory to Ramsey, while she and Æthelflæd perhaps encouraged other noblewomen to become the benefactors of the monks of Ramsey. Æthelwine’s third marriage was probably arranged c. 985 at around the time that he became the most senior ealdorman at court. Marriage to Wulfgifu enabled Ealdorman Æthelwine to extend his power into coastal Norfolk, where Scandinavian

  

       

On connections, see above p. 19 n. 40. Chron. Rames., ii, c. 35/xxxii, pp. 63–4; Table 3, nos. 3–9. Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 342. Note the error in the transcript where she is identified as the wife of Ealdorman Oswald. The mention, though, of the estates which are recorded in the Liber Benefactorum (see Chron. Rames., ii, c. 34/xxx, pp. 62–3) leaves no doubt that the person named Ælfhild refers to the wife of Ælfwold. Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, pp. 342–3. Note the way in which Æthelwold and Æthelsige do appear, see ibid. entries for 14 April and 13 October. Chron. Rames., ii, c. 28/xxiv, pp. 52–3; Table 2, no. 4. Ibid. Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 342. Chron. Rames., ii, c. 28/xxiv, pp. 52–3. Ibid., ii, c. 32/xxviii, p. 58; Table 3, no. 1. The church at Longstowe had probably been built by c. 1100; see VCH Cambs., v, p. 125. E.g. another Æthelgifu donated eighteen hides in Cambridgeshire to Ramsey c. 965x92; see Chron. Rames., ii, c. 26, p. 51, with the date being suggested by the location of her donations between the gifts of Oswald and Ealdorman Æthelwine. Keynes, ‘Atlas of Attestations’, table lxii (1 of 2) (see S 843; S 845; S 850; S 852; S 855–6; S 858; S 860 etc.).

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

22

8/20/05

11:49 AM

Page 22


settlement had been relatively deep-rooted in the late ninth century. Wulfgifu is consistently given the title of ‘countess’ in the Ramsey sources, and numbered amongst her friends the bishop of East Anglia. Following the death of Æthelwine, Wulfgifu arranged for her estate at Brancaster in north-west Norfolk to pass to the monks of Ramsey for the salvation of her soul, and was commemorated as the donor of the estate in the Ramsey necrology. Brancaster was distinguished in the late Anglo-Saxon period not only by the extant remains of a Roman fort, but also because it was exempt from taxation. It was also valued in the Middle Ages because whales’ carcasses were washed ashore there, with the bones being used for the making fine objects, such as caskets and combs, as well as being a substitute for building timber. The estate would have been greatly valued by a high status noblewoman as well as by a monastic community. The three marriages of Ealdorman Æthelwine did not establish links with families who can be shown to have had significant territorial interests in the political heartlands of the English kingdom, in the manner of the marriages of his father and elder brothers. The family had shifted its marriage strategies from alliances directed towards strengthening national interests to unions better suited to the consolidation of local and regional ties. This appears to have been linked to a change from endogamous to exogamous alliances, and represents a slightly different path of development from that found amongst the Reicharistokratie in the Carolingian world and their successors, where shifts can be detected from exogamous unions to endogamous alliances. Evidence from a comparative case study points in a similar direction with exogamy becoming more acceptable amongst the English elite at the very same time families in northern France were opting for endogamy. Yet the marriage strategies adopted by two prominent dynasties in late tenth-century East Anglia and Northumbria posed a problem: could exogamy on its own be relied upon to consolidate bonds of alliance in local contexts? Perhaps fears over estrangement from relatives with whom descent was not shared led to an upsurge in investment in religious houses. That milieu could provide one of the explanations for the extent of Ealdorman Æthelwine’s investment in Ramsey Abbey.

    

 

J. Campbell, ‘What is not Known about the Reign of King Edward the Elder’, Edward the Elder 899–924, eds. N.J. Higham and D.H. Hill (London, 2001), pp. 12–24, at 18–20. Cartularium monasterii de Rameseia, iii, pp. 166–7; Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 342; Chron. Rames., ii, c. 31/xxvii, p. 57. Ibid.; Table 3, no. 2. Domesday Book, ii, fol. 215b; Williamson, Origins of Norfolk, p. 47. English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I, ed. R.C. van Caenegem, Selden Society cvi–ii, 2 vols. (1990–1), i, no. 256, pp. 220–1; V.E. Szabo, ‘The Use of Whales in Early Medieval Britain’, Haskins Society Journal ix (1997), pp. 137–158, at 151–4. Its value led the monks of Ramsey to claim in the early twelfth century that it had been donated by King Cnut, see English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I, ed. van Caenegem, i, no. 256, pp. 220–1. The logic behind this presumably lay in Cnut’s associations with land taxation. An introduction to the latter is provided by M.K. Lawson, ‘Those Stories Look True: Levels of Taxation in the Reigns of Æthelred II and Cnut’, EHR civ (1989), pp. 385–406. For further disputes over this property in the twelfth century, see English Lawsuits, ed. van Caenegem i, nos. 141, 256, pp. 112–13, 220–1. Aurell, ‘La parenté’, passim; Le Jan, Famille et pouvoir, pp. 287–326. Wareham, ‘Two Models of Marriage’, passim.

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

8/20/05

11:49 AM

Page 23


23

Ealdorman Æthelwine and Ramsey Abbey According to the Liber Benefactorum, Ealdorman Æthelwine did not donate estates which he had inherited from his kin to Ramsey Abbey. Instead he granted lands which he had acquired through purchases, public exchanges and other transactions, in order to prevent heirs from claiming these donations as inheritances which they had been wrongfully deprived of. According to the text which sets out Ealdorman Æthelwine’s donations, three properties were purchases, one was an exchange, three were inherited from his kinsfolk, three were grants of bookland, one was a gift, while three properties had perhaps been acquired through marriage. The statement in the Liber Benefactorum on the origins of Ealdorman Æthelwine’s donations is misleading; purchase, exchange and other public transactions were probably much less important than it claimed, compared to estates acquired through marriage and gifts. Ealdorman Æthelwine’s wives and their families were quite willing to donate extensive estates to Ramsey Abbey, thereby securing the salvation of their souls and strengthening ties with the royal dynasty. In addition, such enrichment could be connected to the weakness of exogamous marriage in serving to consolidate local and regional frameworks of power, thereby prompting gifts to the Ramsey community in order to meet that objective. Ealdorman Æthelwine and his kinsfolk invested so much wealth in the endowment of Ramsey Abbey because it also brought practical benefits, notably through exchanges of property, and the establishment of dynastic status. In return for receiving the estates of Stukeley (Hunts.) and Toft (Cambs.) the monks of Ramsey granted Ealdorman Æthelwine the estate of Linton (Cambs.). Linton lay on the intersection of the Via Devana and the Icknield Way. The Via Devana was a secondary route connecting Godmanchester (Cambs.) and Haverhill (Suffolk) on a north-west to southeast axis, while the Icknield Way ran on a south-west to north-east axis, connecting southern England to the western half of East Anglia. Because of its location, Linton would have been highly valued by Ealdorman Æthelwine as a means of maintaining his power across the western part of East Anglia. Defence of the abbey’s interests enabled Ealdorman Æthelwine and Ælfwold to assert their power over other families. Bishop Oswald’s donation of five hides at Burwell



Chron. Rames., i, c. 22/xxi, p. 44: ‘Siquidem dux venerabilis non de his quidem quæ sibi in finibus hæreditariæ sortis cecidisse videbantur, ne successoribus suis conquerandi adversus ecclesiam præberet occasionem, sed de his quæ veno exposita, seu publica cambitione, seu domestica marsupii familiaris emunctione, libero juri suo accessuerunt . . .’. For another discussion of the passage, see J. Campbell, ‘The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England: Problems and Possibilities’, The Anglo-Saxon State (London, 2000), pp. 227–45, at 230–1.  Chron. Rames., ii, c. 28/xxiv, pp. 52–5; Table 2. Ealdorman Æthelwine’s bequests are set out in what purports to be a twelfth-century translation of the Old English text setting down his post-obit bequests.  Table 2: three purchases (nos. 10, 11, 16); one exchange (no. 17); one gift (no. 14); three inheritances (nos. 4, 8, 9); and three grants of bookland (nos. 1, 2, 3). The geographical location and the position in the text of Hilgay, Walsoken and Wellen (nos. 5, 6, 7) mentioned in Ealdorman Æthelwine’s bequests suggest that they comprised part of Wulfgifu’s inheritance from her parents. They lay in north-west Norfolk within thirty kilometres of Brancaster, donated by Wulfgifu to Ramsey Abbey, and in the text are immediately followed by Sawtry (no. 4), connected to Æthelflæd.  Chron. Rames., ii, c. 28/xxiv, p. 54.  VCH Cambs., vii, p. 17.

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

8/20/05

24

11:49 AM

Page 24


Table 2 Donations of Ealdorman Æthelwine to Ramsey Abbey c. 965x92 Estate

Hundred

County

Method of acquisition and comment

1

Ramsey

Hurstingstone

Hunts.

2 3 4

Upwood Little Raveley Sawtry

Hurstingstone Hurstingstone Norman Cross

Hunts. Hunts. Hunts.

5

Clacklose

Norfolk

6 7 8

Hilgay & Snowre Hall Walsoken Wellen Brington

Held in ‘perpetual and patrimonial right’ Royal grant Royal grant Inheritance from father due to earlier exchange and seized by first wife, Æthelflæd, who regrants it to monks –

Freebridge – Leightonstone

Norfolk – Hunts.

9

Old Weston

Leightonstone

Hunts.

10

Gidding

Leightonstone

Hunts.

11

Wood Walton

Norman Cross

Hunts.

12 13 14

Stukeley Toft Acleia

Hurstingstone Longstowe –

Hunts. Cambs. –

15

Wangford

Blything

Suffolk

16

Houghton

Hurstingstone

Hunts.

17

Hemingford

Toseland

Hunts.



– – Inheritance from father and for salvation of own and parents’ souls Inheritance from mother and for salvation of own and parents’ souls Purchase from Othengar under testimony of king and aristocracy Purchase from Othengar under testimony of king and aristocracy For the soul of Æthelflæd For the soul of Æthelflæd Gift from Kinemund the priest [Ramsey buys back land from claimants after seizure] Purchase from kinsman Sigeric Exchange with Bishop Æthelwold

Table based on Chron. Rames., ii, c. 28/xxiv, pp. 52–5. Breakdown of these estates in terms of extent comprises in the text: no. 2 (ten hides); no. 5 (mill and fishery); no. 6 (five hides); no. 9 (ten hides); nos. 10–11 (ten hides); no. 12 (seven hides); no. 13 (part of ten hides); no. 15 (six hides); no. 17 (thirty hides); and in Domesday Book no. 4 (seven and half hides); no. 5 (two and half hides); no. 8 (four and a half hides); no. 16 (eighty acres).

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

8/20/05

11:49 AM

Page 25


25

(Cambs.) had been claimed by Wynsige, heir of the original owner. He withdrew his claim after Ealdorman Æthelwine threatened him, but the case did not end there. Wynsige also granted the monks of Ramsey half a hide at Stukeley, two kilometres northwest of Huntingdon, in the presence of Ealdorman Æthelwine, his wife and his sons, followed by a further gift of the remaining half of that hide by Wynsige’s son. The circumstances of the donation look like an amiticia agreement forged between former enemies, but one in which Æthelwine’s superiority was acknowledged by the descent of the property to his favoured abbey. Meanwhile, Ealdorman Æthelwine’s dependant, Ælfsige, donated his property at Burwell with a ‘hall’ and a church to Ramsey Abbey for the souls of his ancestors, thereby joining not only his lord, but also King Edgar and Bishop Oswald in consolidating the property rights of Ramsey Abbey at Burwell. Ealdorman Æthelwine and his brother Ælfwold donated twenty-three estates to Ramsey Abbey, which were located in a fanlike sweep of properties from the vortex at Upwood and Ramsey to the rim running along the Great Ouse River. These holdings can be divided into nine estates dispersed across 280 square kilometres in the arable uplands between the Great Ouse and the Nene, and a block of four estates concentrated in 30 square kilometres along the banks of the River Great Ouse between Huntingdon and St Ives. The endowment of Ramsey Abbey was not, though, exclusively a one-way process by which wealth passed from this kindred to the Ramsey community. Exchanges with the monks also meant that Ealdorman Æthelwine and Ælfwold secured control of estates at key points of communication. These developments suggest that the dynasty was not concerned with the establishment and control of a great landed power base grouped around a secular centre of lordship. Instead the emphasis was upon the control of estates which could sustain a peripatetic lifestyle linked to their interests across the region. In that context it is worth assessing the family’s investment in the secular built environment. It may in turn be possible to relate such developments to the chivalric values and styles of address used by Ealdorman Æthelwine and Ælfwold, as set out in the Vita Sancti Oswaldi.

Investments in the built environment  According to the Liber Benefactorum Ealdorman Æthelwine had a hunting lodge at Upwood, three kilometres south-west of Ramsey, on the bookland which he had        

The estate had been granted to Oda, archbishop of Canterbury (942–58) by Edwin son of Æthulf c. 946x55 in connection with help in securing the approval of King Eadred (946–55) for Edwin’s marriage, and then passed from Oda to Oswald; see Chron. Rames., ii, c. 25/xxiii, p. 49. Ibid., pp. 49–50 for disputes; for further discussion, see below, Chapter 2, pp. 00. Chron. Rames., ii, c. 27, pp. 51–2. Ibid., ii, c. 25/xxiii, p. 51 records the donation by Ælfgar, familiaris of Æthelwine, of three hides and forty acres, a virgate of meadow, the church at Burwell, houses and his ‘hall’ for the souls of his ancestors. For King Edgar’s donations to Ramsey Abbey, see Chron. Rames., ii, c. 24/xxii, pp. 47–48; for Oswald’s donation of land at Burwell, see A.F. Wareham, ‘St Oswald’s Family and Kin’, St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence, eds. N.P. Brooks and C.R.E. Cubitt (Leicester, 1996), pp. 49–63, at 49. Tables 2–3. J. Gillingham, ‘Thegns and Knights in Eleventh-Century England: Who was then the Gentleman?’, idem, The English in the Twelfth Century: Imperialism, National Identity and Political Values (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 163–85, at 180. For a general discussion of residences before the Norman Conquest, see A. Williams, ‘A Bellhouse and a Burh-geat: Lordly Residences in England before the Norman Conquest’, Medieval

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

8/20/05

26

11:49 AM

Page 26


Table 3 Donations by Kinsfolk of Ealdorman Æthelwine to Ramsey Abbey c. 969x990

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Donors

Estate

Hundred

County

Date

Æthelgifu, wife of Æthelwine Wulfgifu, wife of Æthelwine Ælfwold via Ælfhild Ælfwold via Ælfhild Ælfhild from Ælfwold Ælfhild from Ælfwold Ælfhild from Ælfwold Ælfhild from Ælfwold Ælfhild via Ælfmær

Longstowe Brancaster Houghton Wyton Abbots Ripton Wennington Bythorn Brington Clopton

Longstowe Docking Hurstingstone Hurstingstone Hurstingstone Hurstingstone Leightonstone Leightonstone Navisford

Cambs. Norfolk Hunts. Hunts. Hunts. Hunts. Hunts. Hunts. Nthants.

965x85 985x1001 969x90 969x90 969x90 969x90 969x90 969x90 c. 990



Table based on Chron. Rames., ii, c. 31/xxvii, p. 57 (no. 2); c. 32/xxviii, p. 58 (no. 1); c. 34/xxxi (no. 4); c. 34/xxi, pp. 62–3 (nos. 4–9)

received from King Edgar. Although the text describes the woodlands, fisheries and marshes which lay nearby, there are no details about the house itself, but topographical evidence may point to the presence of an early medieval residence. Upwood Hall, a late sixteenth-century two-storey country house, built by Henry Cromwell, stands in a small parkland of around 30,000 square metres, enclosed by a ha-ha on three sides. Since the barn contains late medieval timber, the site may have been developed from earlier parkland. Just conceivably Ealdorman Æthelwine’s fen-edge hunting lodge stood within these earthworks, and he may have stayed there on the occasions of his visits to Ramsey Abbey. Ealdorman Æthelwine may have maintained several small-scale residences across the East Anglian region. During the reign of Edgar, Æthelwine and Ælfwold had received as bookland the two neighbouring estates in Bedfordshire: Apsley Guise and, two kilometres north of it, Shillington. The Liber Benefactorum records that a manor house stood on the highest site at Shillington, in a clearing in the wood, and that the village and all the surrounding fields could be seen from the gate (which perhaps had a gatehouse). In short, the aristocratic residences which Ealdorman Æthelwine may have maintained at Upwood and Shillington were not built as great administrative and military centres, but rather to sustain a peripatetic lifestyle. Such patterns may have meant that the family looked towards Ramsey Abbey in order to demonstrate its wealth and status.

Knighthood IV: Papers from the Fifth Strawberry Hill Conference, eds. C. Harper-Bill and R. Harvey (1992), pp. 221–40.  Chron. Rames., ii, c. 28/xxiv, p. 52.  VCH Hunts., ii, pp. 238–40; present writer’s field-work.  VSO, p. 467. If the hall at Upware served as Ealdorman Æthelwine’s headquarters for administering his estates across East Anglia and the East Midlands, as suggested in Hart, ‘Athelstan’, Danelaw, p. 595, then the area taken up by the buildings necessary to support such activities was quite small in comparison to the layouts of eleventh- and twelfth-century aristocratic centres of lordship.  S 772; Chron. Rames., iii, c. 77/lxxxvii, pp. 143–4. For historical descriptions, see VCH Berks., ii, p. 204; iii, p. 338.  Account based on Chron. Rames., iii, c. 77/lxxxxvii, pp. 143–4.

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

8/20/05

11:49 AM

Page 27


27

If then Ealdorman Æthelwine and Ælfwold did not invest much wealth in the establishment of great secular residences, perhaps they used the revenues at their disposal to acquire treasures. The donation by nobles of de luxe manuscripts and artefacts used in religious services communicated the power, piety and prestige of both donors and recipients, providing the material means for rituals which shaped and affirmed social relationships. Although Ealdorman Æthelwine and his family were not in a position to exercise lordship over the abbey, he paid for some of the abbey’s most valuable fixtures and fittings, including the main altar and its lamps inlaid with gems and an organ with the finest quality reeds. On visits to Ramsey Abbey, Ealdorman Æthelwine could well have heard the alternation of cantors and choir interspersed with music of the organ. One such occasion arose when Ealdorman Æthelwine was present at the dedication ceremony of Ramsey Abbey on 11 November 991. According to the Liber Benefactorum, Ealdorman Æthelwine chose the date for the consecration of the abbey church, and standing amongst guests drawn from Hertfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Bedfordshire, Huntingdonshire and Kent, made a speech on the circumstances leading to the foundation of the abbey. The Liber Benefactorum presented the foundation and consecration of the abbey as the project of Ealdorman Æthelwine, with events on 11 November 991 marking the celebration of his achievement in an absence of investment in great seigneurial complexes of lordship.

Discussion In the 960s and 970s monastic reformers generally established reformed Benedictine houses on sites formerly occupied by monastic communities, but Ramsey Abbey was a new foundation. At the core of the abbey’s foundation and early history were the relationships between its co-founders and within their kin-groupings. The investment by Archbishop Oswald’s kin in Ramsey Abbey was part of a long-term activity which provided the English church with prelates, abbots, priests and monks from the 920s to the 1060s. The investment by Ealdorman Æthelwine’s dynasty in Ramsey Abbey is more surprising as there was no tradition of service in the renewal of the English church. Of course, piety and adherence to a reform programme promulgated by the royal dynasty partly explain this patronage, but it was also related to the political

 

Chron. Rames., ii, c. 57/liv, p. 90. Ibid. For discussion of a related passage in the VSO, see J. Campbell, ‘England c. 991’, idem, The AngloSaxon State (London, 2000), pp. 157–78, at 157–8.  M. Berry, ‘What the Saxon Monks Sang: Music in Winchester in the Late Tenth Century’, Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. B. Yorke (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 149–60, at 158–9. There is no recent discussion of liturgical music at Ramsey Abbey, but comparison can be drawn with developments at Worcester; see S. Rankin, ‘Some Reflections on Liturgical Music at Late Anglo-Saxon Worcester’, St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence, eds. N.P. Brooks and C.R.E. Cubitt (Leicester, 1996), pp. 325–48.  Chron. Rames., ii, c. 58/lv, pp. 90–3.  Ibid., p. 93.  For an example of the way in which Bishop Æthelwold chose between sites at Oundle and Peterborough, see The Peterborough Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, eds. C. Mellows and W.T. Mellows, 2nd edn (Peterborough, 1966), p. 15.  On careers of Oswald’s kinsfolk in the early eleventh century, see Wareham, ‘St Oswald’s family and kin’, pp. 61–2.

LCEM-Ch-1.qxd

28

8/20/05

11:49 AM

Page 28


concerns of the dynasty, which in turn leads into analysis of the social order in tenth-century England. A shift from endogamous towards exogamous alliances may have encouraged substantial investment in Ramsey Abbey. The abbey provided a focal point around which to construct alliances with other families and social groupings, thereby bringing peace and order to communities across the region. There was, though, also an aggressive side to these strategies. Ealdorman Æthelwine and Ælfwold moved effectively against opponents of the abbey in order to protect the interests of the monks. Nonetheless, there were incidental benefits for these two lords since the humiliation of secular opponents took place in front of local communities, who were thereby provided with the opportunity to witness the power of the family. Although Ealdorman Æthelwine’s dynasty perhaps maintained a few small manor houses and controlled estates at key communications points, its investment in secular buildings probably did not compare with the gifts directed towards Ramsey Abbey. The dynasty communicated its prestige and authority through its investments in the ecclesiastical built environment. That strategy not only emphasized its ties with the king and the court, but also served to consolidate power at the local level, perhaps in a way which had remained beyond the grasp of Ealdorman Æthelstan. A parallel with the interests of a comital family in the post-Carolingian world is worthy of mention. Although the brothers Æthelwine and Ælfwold did not jointly exercise comital power in the manner of Geoffrey I (d. 897), Miro I (d. 896) and Radulf (d. 920), who together controlled the countships of Cerdagne and Besalu in the Pyrenees, the former still shared responsibilities for the exercise of coercive power, and were regarded as the co-defenders of the reform abbeys. Moreover, inheritance of land passed through male and female lines within a framework which recognized the equal claims of sons and perhaps even daughters. The interests of this extended family acted as a point of connection between central power and the locality, with the dependants of Æthelwine and Ælfwold and other social groupings being drawn into the networks of patronage which supported the growth of Ramsey Abbey. This was a world in which the strength of the alliance between secular and ecclesiastical power at the highest levels ensured that Königsnähe reached from the royal court to localities, and thereby led to the construction of great abbeys. Unity was achieved through social and cultural processes, thereby providing a context for political and economic integration, which in turn contributed to the transformation of fenland landscapes and environments during the late Anglo-Saxon age.

 See also the Liber Benefactorum’s (Chron. Rames., i, c. 22/xvii, p. 35–6) accounts of the illnesses and visions of Ealdorman Æthelwine leading the foundation of Ramsey Abbey.  M. Aurell, Les noces du comte: marriage et pouvoir en Catalogne (Paris, 1995), pp. 44–6.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 29

Chapter 2 The Kindred of Wulfstan of Dalham and Tenth-Century Society Indeed, when the mob of evil ones reaches the monastery of virgins which Æthelthryth the glorious virgin and bride of Christ had built, alas, it invades, pollutes the holy things, tramples and tears. The sword of the madmen is stretched out over the milk-white consecrated necks. Liber Eliensis, ii, c. 40, c. 1131x54 This account of the destruction of Ely Abbey by the Vikings at the end of the ninth century formed part of an Ely myth, which claimed that there had been a hiatus in monastic life between the achievements of the double monastery (founded in the late seventh century) and the re-establishment of monastic life in the late tenth century by Bishop Æthelwold. Although the Ely sources recognized that a community of priests had existed at Ely Abbey during the mid tenth century, their shortcomings led to the view that the period between 870 and 970 comprised a ‘missing’ century in terms of the correct observance of monastic life. As a result the Ely sources failed to elaborate upon the connections between the community and a number of secular families during the period of refoundation. Yet other narrative sources which were written at an earlier date before being embedded within the Liber Eliensis, as well as existing as independent texts, discuss the patronage of Ely Abbey by tenth-century families, and can be used to analyse the relationship between aristocracy and society during the tenth century. The realities of the social order in the hinterland of Ely Abbey cannot be understood unless it is appreciated that these independent sources were part of the Ely textual arsenal which was intended to direct attention away from the ‘missing’ century in the abbey’s history. Thus, the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi was interested in setting out the achievements of Bishop Æthelwold and Abbot Byrhtnoth (970–996x9) in the refoundation of the Ely community, but in so doing discusses the relationships with lay social groupings. This source provides extensive information on lords and peasants who donated, sold or exchanged estates with Bishop Æthelwold and Abbot  

Lib. El., ii, c. 40, p. 55 with translation by J.S. Barrow, ‘Survival and Mutation: Ecclesiastical Institutions in the Danelaw in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries’, Cultures in Contact: Scandinavian Settlement in England and Wales, eds. D.M. Hadley and J. Richards (Turnhout, 2000), pp. 155–78, at 155. For textual context, above, Introduction, pp. 9–10.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

30

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 30


Byrhtnoth, with these transactions then being subject to legal disputes on the death of King Edgar. More often than not those agreements resulted in the vindication of the monks of Ely and the humiliation of their secular opponents due to the interventions of Bishop Æthelwold and Abbot Byrhtnoth. This emphasis upon hard-headed ecclesiastical administrators in the acquisition of land served to turn attention away from the patronage of secular lords and their families. However, once these perspectives have been accounted for the relationship between laity and society can be assessed. The patronage strategies of Wulfstan of Dalham (d. 973x75), the king’s reeve in the fenland shires (c. 955x73), and members of his kindred will serve as a case study of the dynamics of a regional society in the hinterland of Ely Abbey during the period of its refoundation. Analysis of the circumstances surrounding the refoundation of Ely Abbey is followed by a discussion of the strategies of Wulfstan of Dalham and his relatives in their dealings with Ely Abbey, and structures of kinship and investments in the secular built environment. Finally, comparisons are drawn with the ways in which the kindreds of Wulfstan of Dalham and Ealdorman Æthelwine served to shape the landscapes and social horizons of communities within the region.

The refoundation of Ely Abbey Bishop Æthelwold refounded Ely Abbey in 970, three years before the three hundredth anniversary of its original foundation by Queen (and later Saint) Æthelthryth of Northumbria. By the mid eleventh century the abbey controlled land and men in around three hundred villages in East Anglia, including about five hundred hides in Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely. This endowment was largely created during the last quarter of the tenth century and the first quarter of the eleventh. This can be illustrated by considering the state of the abbey in the decades immediately preceding its refoundation. In the 940s Ely Abbey was served by a group of priests. The principal source for this is a discrete narrative in book one of the Liber Eliensis. Although the surviving version was written in the mid twelfth century, it was based upon an earlier text by an Ely priest, and has been regarded as a reliable source. According to this narrative, the Ely priests lived with their wives and servants and enjoyed a diet of herbs from their gardens, as well as traditional fenland staples of fish and dairy produce. In much the same way as the priests at Abingdon had exercised ecclesiastical authority in a dependent

     



E. Miller, The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely: the Social History of an Ecclesiastical Estate from the Tenth Century to the Early Fourteenth Century, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 2nd ser. I (Cambridge, 1951), pp. 10–12. Ibid., p. 16. For discussion of the abbey’s acquisition of estates in this period, see Sage, ‘Patronage and Society’, pp. 27–114. Lib. El., i, c. 49, pp. 60–1. Ibid., cc. 43–49, pp. 57–61. S.J. Ridyard, The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England: a Study of West Saxon and East Anglian Cults, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser. IX (Cambridge, 1988), pp. 183–4. For another discussion and summary, see S.D. Keynes, ‘Ely Abbey 672–1109’, A History of Ely Cathedral, eds. P. Meadows and N. Ramsay (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 3–58, at 16–17. Lib. El., i, c. 48, pp. 59–60.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 31

THE KINDRED OF WULFSTAN OF DALHAM AND TENTH–CENTURY SOCIETY

31

parochia in the early tenth century, so their counterparts at Ely may have been responsible for pastoral care in the two hundreds of the Isle of Ely. Linked to pastoral care was the Ely priests’ custodianship of the relics of Saint Æthelthryth, which performed a number of healing miracles for the benefit of the laity. Perhaps ecclesiastical authority across the fenlands of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely was shared by Ely Abbey with the minsters at Soham and Horningsea. The Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi recorded that Horningsea minster was served by a community of priests until it was destroyed by the Vikings. The community was then refounded by local families (including those which had converted to Christianity, presumably of Scandinavian descent), who also donated treasures and land. The early church building consisted of a single-celled main body with a small porticus projecting north and south west of the east end of the nave. By the mid tenth century the minster was endowed with seven hides, and perhaps served both Flendish and Staine hundreds, under the rule of a priest who had been appointed by King Æthelstan, and who was perhaps a kinsman of Archbishop Oswald. Soham Minster, according to William of Malmesbury, a reliable Anglo-Norman historian with access to good sources, was founded by Felix (d. c. 673), bishop of East Anglia, with his relics being moved from Dunwich (Suffolk) to Soham in the late ninth or early tenth century. The tenth-century monarchy was in a strong position to endow Soham Minster, since a quarter of the ninety hides in its hundred comprised part of the ancient royal demesne. Ely Abbey and Soham and Horningsea minsters formed a community of religious houses with strong links to their localities. These developments resulted from royal policies towards ecclesiastical institutions during the early tenth century, and contributed to making the second and third quarters of the century a period of relatively undistinguished achievements by the Ely community. The refoundation of Ely Abbey swept into place a series of changes which would break up this structure, but the Ely priests were probably not expelled from the community. The Liber Eliensis’ account was probably drafted long after the events it

            

A.T. Thacker, ‘Æthelwold and Abingdon’, Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. B. Yorke (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 43–64, at 46–8. The gathering of an assembly at Ely c. 955, although concerned with secular business, suggests this; see Lib. El., ii, c. 18, pp. 93–4. There may have been a minster at Cherry Hinton, as suggested by the Anglo-Saxon burials and the meaning of the name Hinton (i.e. monks’ or nuns’ tun); see VCH Cambs., x, pp. 100–1; E. Ekwall, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names (Oxford, 1960), p. 241. Lib. El., ii, c. 32, pp. 105–6. Ibid., p. 106. An Inventory of Historical Monuments in the County of Cambridge, ii, North-East Cambridge, Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (London, 1972), pp. 65–6. Lib. El., ii, c. 32, p. 106. VCH Cambs., x, pp. 2–7, 160, 167, 533. For links between hundreds and minsters, see J. Blair, ‘Introduction’, Minsters and Parish Churches: The Local Church in Transition 950–1200, ed. idem, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology XVII (Oxford, 1988), pp. 1–20, at 3. Lib. El., ii, c. 32, p. 106 and n. 3. William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, ed. N.E.S.A. Hamilton, RS (London, 1870), p. 147; Warner, Origins of Suffolk, p. 128. VCH Cambs., x, p. 6. Barrow, ‘Survival and Mutation’, pp.168–9; Blair, ‘Introduction’, p. 3; see also J. Campbell, ‘The East Anglia Sees before the Conquest’, idem, The Anglo–Saxon State (London, 2000), pp. 107–27. Cf. Lib. El., ii, c. 3, pp. 74–5.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

32

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 32


purported to describe, and was modelled on the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’s description of the eviction of the priests from the Old Minster in 963. The account can be rejected in favour of a more gradual process of transition. Priests at Ely certainly may have suffered a decline in status as a result of the refoundation, but the general process may have had much in common with events at Abingdon and Worcester. For example, Wulfweard the priest may have been one of the Ely priests who continued to enjoy connections with Ely after its refoundation. As more research is conducted on the tenth-century monastic reformation, it is becoming clearer that the expulsion of the priests from the Old Minster was the exception to the rule in tenth-century England. Nevertheless the refoundation of the Ely Abbey did involve a substantial degree of reorganization linked to investment by King Edgar and members of the royal family. The principal source for King Edgar’s patronage of Ely Abbey is his charter which set out the refoundation of the community in 970. Although written down by Ælfric in the early eleventh century, perhaps at Ely, it was based upon an earlier authentic text, which was probably also the source for the account of the refoundation in the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi. According to the extant version of King Edgar’s charter and the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi, Bishop Æthelwold received from King Edgar the site of Ely, estates in Cambridgeshire and Norfolk and jurisdictional rights over the two hundreds in the Isle of Ely and the Wicklaw hundreds in south-east Suffolk. Donations also came from King Edgar’s kinswomen: his grandmother, Queen Eadgifu (d. c. 946x47), his step-mother, Æthelflæd, and perhaps also his kinswoman Ælfgifu (d. c. 966x75) became indirect patrons of the abbey. Royal commitment to the refoundation of Ely Abbey was substantial, and encouraged aristocratic families to donate property to the abbey.

    

 





A. Gransden, ‘Traditionalism and Continuity During the Last Century of Anglo-Saxon Monasticism’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History xl (1989), pp. 159–207, at 204–5. E.g. Lib. El., ii, c. 24, p. 97. Wulfstan of Winchester, The Life of St Æthelwold, eds. M. Lapidge and M. Winterbottom (Oxford, 1991), pp. 18–20; Thacker, ‘Æthelwold and Abingdon’, passim; Barrow, ‘Community of Worcester’, passim. He appears at the end of the list of Ely Abbey’s priests and monks in confraternityship with the monks of the New Minster at Winchester as discussed by Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, pp. 283, 326. Barrow, ‘Community of Worcester’, passim; eadem, ‘English Cathedral Communities and Reform in the Late Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, Anglo-Norman Durham: 1093–1193, eds. D. Rollason, M. Harvey and M. Prestwich (Woodbridge, 1994), pp. 25–39, at 37–8; cf. P. Wormald, ‘Æthelwold and his Continental Counterparts’, Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. B. Yorke (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 13–42, at 34–5. Table 4, nos. 1–10. S 779; Lib. El., ii, c. 4, pp. 75–6. For further discussion of this charter, see ibid., pp. 414–15; J. Pope, ‘Ælfric and the Old English Version of the Ely Privilege’, England Before the Conquest. Studies in Primary Sources Presented to Dorothy Whitelock, eds. P. Clemoes and K. Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 85–113; Keynes, ‘Ely Abbey’, pp. 21–2. S 779. For discussion of the liberty of Ely arising from this grant, see VCH Cambs., ii, pp. 4–5. Evidence drawn from the West Midlands has been used to cast doubt on the likelihood of such a grant; see P. Wormald, ‘Oswaldslow: an “Immunity”?’, St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence, eds. N.P. Brooks and C.R.E. Cubitt (Leicester, 1996), pp. 117–28. Lib. El., ii, cc. 31, 47, 64, pp. 105, 116, 137–8; on kinship, see Wareham, ‘Transformation of Kinship and Family’, pp. 385–90; M. Gelling, The Early Charters of the Thames Valley, Studies in Early English History VII (Leicester, 1979), pp. 74, 178–81; cf. C.R. Hart, ‘The Will of Ælfgifu’, idem, The Danelaw (London, 1992), pp. 455–65, at 464–5.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 33


33

Table 4 Land donations of the Royal Family to Ely Abbey c. 970x1066

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Royal donor

Estate

Hundred

County

Extent

Date

King Edgar King Edgar King Edgar King Edgar King Edgar Ælfthryth King Edgar & Ælfthryth Æthelflæd Æthelflæd Æthelflæd King Æthelræd II King Edward the Confessor

Ely Northwold Melbourn Armingford Hatfield Holland Marsworth

Isle of Ely Grimsoe Armingford Armingford Broadwater Tendring Yardley

Cambs. Norfolk Cambs. Cambs. Herts. Essex Bucks.

20 hides 12 hides 5 hides 3.5 hides 40 hides 5 hides –

970 970 970 970 970 970x84 970x5

Fen Ditton Hadham Kelsall Littlebury Lakenheath

Flendish Edwinstree Odsey Uttlesford Lackford

Cambs. Herts. Herts. Essex Suffolk

– – – – _

975x91 975x91 975x91 1042x1066 996x1019

 Table based on S 779 (nos. 1–3); Lib. El., ii, c. 8, pp. 80–1 (no. 5); c. 31, pp. 104–5 (no. 6); no. 47, p. 116 (no. 7); c. 64, pp. 137–8 (nos. 8–10); c. 58, pp. 129–39 (no. 11); c. 92, pp. 161–3 (no. 12).

Wulfstan of Dalham and his kin Wulfstan of Dalham has usually attracted attention because of the orders which he received from King Edgar to expel the priests from the Old Minster at Winchester, thereby allowing the monks of Abingdon under the leadership of their former abbot, Bishop Æthelwold, to take possession. Wulfstan had connections with Kent, and his ancestors perhaps included Wihtgar I (fl. 844x62), a thegn of Æthelwulf, king of Wessex and Kent (839–55), and Wihtgar II (fl. 928x46), a thegn of King Æthelstan. Wihtgar I had connections with Kent, and Wihtgar II was a member of King Æthelstan’s entourage during the preparations leading to the battle of Brunanburh





  

ASC, [A, E, 964], p. 76; Lib. El., pp. xiii-iv; Wulfstan of Winchester, Life of St Æthelwold, pp. 32–3, 36; The Liber Vitae of the New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester: British Library Stowe 944: together with leaves from British Library Cotton Vespasian A. VIII and British Library Cotton Titus D. XXVII, ed. S.D. Keynes, Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile XXVI (Copenhagen, 1996), p. 25. Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 59, p. 122, line 14; p. 124, lines 8–9; p. 366; H.M. Chadwick, Studies on AngloSaxon Institutions (Cambridge, 1905), p. 231 n. 1; P. Wormald, ‘Charters, Law and the Settlement of Disputes in Anglo–Saxon England’, The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe, eds. W. Davies and P. Fouracre (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 149–68, at 157–63. S 294; S 315–16; S 322; S 331. Barker, ‘Two Lost Documents’, p. 142; Keynes, ‘Atlas of Attestations’, table xxxix (2 of 2) (see S 379; S 400; S 403; S 405; S 411–13; S 416–18; S 422–3; S 425; S 427; S 430; S 438; S 440–3; S 448–9). For Wulfstan of Dalham’s kinship and descent, see Figure 2. S 315–16; S 331.

11:50 AM

Page 34


2. Extended Family Tree of Wulfstan of Dalham c. 842–1071.

Ælfnoth

34

8/20/05

chusin

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 35


35

in 937. The ancestry of the family can perhaps be pushed back a little further. The name is a rare one: after references to Wihtgar, kinsman of Cerdic, king of Wessex in the early sixth century, the next occurrence of the name is when the name of Wihtred, king of Kent (690–725), was erroneously rendered as Wihtgar in 796. The next references are to three nobles named Wihtgar who flourished in the tenth century. Two comprised Wihtgar I and Wihtgar II, while the third (Wihtgar III) was the kinsman of Wulfstan of Dalham. The next occurrence of the name is in the second quarter of the eleventh century in the patronymic byname of Ælfric Wihtgarsson, steward of Queen Emma (d. 1052). Ælfric Wihtgarsson’s power was based upon western Suffolk, while his son and heir was named Wihtgar. Wihtgar III, kinsman of Wulfstan of Dalham, was perhaps an ancestor of Ælfric Wihtgarsson. A full genealogy cannot be reconstructed, yet it is possible that the name Wihtgar was adopted by a powerful Kentish aristocratic dynasty, with successive members distinguishing themselves in the service of the kings of Wessex and England between the ninth and eleventh centuries. Throughout the tenth century the family retained its connections with Kent, while also acquiring significant interests in East Anglia. The strategies adopted by Wulfstan of Dalham played an important role in these developments, and his career can be viewed in tandem with Bishop Æthelwold’s. Wulfstan is perhaps to be identified with the nobleman of the same name who had received land at Stretham in the Isle of Ely from King Æthelstan. King Æthelstan had called the young Æthelwold and future bishop of Winchester to his court and instructed that he should be tonsured. Wulfstan and Æthelwold both enjoyed close connections with Queen Eadgifu, originally from Kent, who may have played an important role in the politics of Kent and Sussex during the reign of Eadred (946–54). Perhaps Wulfstan and Æthelwold assisted each other in securing access to royal patronage in much the same way as the careers of Archbishop Dunstan of Canterbury (957–88) and



Barker, ‘Two Lost Documents’, p. 142. There is perhaps another nobleman Wihtgar during the reign of Æthelstan (see S 441).  Barker, ‘Two Lost Documents’, p. 142; W.G. Searle, Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum: a List of Anglo-Saxon Proper Names from the Time of Beda to that of King John (Cambridge, 1897), pp. 493–4.  Searle, Onamasticon, p. 493.  Lib. El., ii, c. 35, p. 110: ‘Wlstanus vero dedit eandem terram cognato suo Wiggaro multis annis ante finem vite sue.’  P. Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith: Queenship and Women’s Power in Eleventh-Century England (Oxford, 1995), pp. 110, 112, 113 n. 94; 150; for further discussion of the family’s interests in Suffolk, see below, Chapter 6, pp. 99–101, 106–7.  Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, p. 110.  The family also acquired interests in the heartlands of England. For example, Wihtgar II acquired an estate in Hampshire for four lives, see S 430. For other examples of tenth-century dynasties controlling lands which spanned the English realm, see A. Williams, ‘Princeps Merciorum gentis: The Family, Career and Connections of Ælfhere, Ealdorman of Mercia 956–83’, ASE x (1982), pp. 143–72; Hart, ‘Athelstan’, Danelaw, pp. 569–604.  Lib. El., ii, cc. 10, 11, pp. 84, 86 n. 4.  Wulfstan of Winchester, Life of St Æthelwold, pp. 10–11; B. Yorke, ‘Æthelwold and the Politics of the Tenth Century’, Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. eadem (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 65–88, at 68–9.  Lib. El., ii, c. 43, pp. 114–15; Wulfstan of Winchester, Life of St Æthelwold, pp. 18–19; Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, p. 202.  Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, p. 202 notes that three-fifths of Eadgifu’s appearances in witness lists relate to her own ancestral area of Kent and Sussex.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

8/20/05

36

11:50 AM

Page 36


Table 5 Donations and ‘sales’ of estates descending to Ely Abbey from Wulfstan of Dalham and his Kindred c. 955x9835

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Donor

Estate

Hundred

County

Extent

Date

Wulfstan Wulfstan Wulfstan Wulftan Wulfflæd (1) Wulfflæd (2) Wihtgar, cognatus Wihtgar, cognatus Æthelwine Æthelwine Æthelstan chusin Siferth Goding

Stapleford Stonea Hemingford Yelling Woodbridge Stretham Brandon

Thriplow Isle of Ely Toseland Hurstingstone Loes Isle of Ely Lackford

Cambs. Cambs. Hunts. Hunts. Suffolk Cambs. Suffolk

955 955 973x75 973x75 973x75 973x84 970x73

Livermere

Thedwestry

Suffolk

Swaffham Berlea Horningsea

Staine Flendish

Cambs. Cambs. Cambs.

15 hides fishery 30 hides 6 hides 3 hides 24 acres 5 hides with no. 8 5 hides with no. 7 2 hides 70 acres 2 hides

Downham Toft

Isle of Ely Longstowe

Cambs. Cambs.

2 hides 1 hide

975x83 955x75

970x73 975x78 975x78 975x78



Table based on Lib. El., ii, c. 7, p. 80 (nos. 3–4); c. 28, p. 102; appendix d, p. 416 (no. 1); c. 10, p. 84 (no. 6); c. 11, pp. 86–87 (no. 12); c. 18, pp. 93–94 (no. 2); c. 26, p. 100; c. 32, p. 107 (no. 11); c. 34, p. 109 (nos. 9–10); c. 35, p. 110 (nos. 7–8), c. 38 (no. 5).

his brother Wulfric a king’s thegn progressed together. Both secular nobles rose to prominence at court in parallel with the high-flying careers of kin and friends in clerical orders. Wulfstan of Dalham’s role as reeve of the fenland shires and riding on King Edgar’s missions provided the context for his and Queen Eadgifu’s joint purchase of estates in East Anglia, and their involvement in the revival of Ely Abbey. In 955x56 (contemporary with the grant by King Eadwig (955–59) of forty hides at Ely Abbey to Archbishop Oda (941–58)), Wulfstan had granted Ely Abbey fifteen hides at Stapleford



N.P. Brooks, ‘The Career of St Dunstan’, St Dunstan: His Life, Times and Cult, eds. N. Ramsay, M. Sparks and T. Tatton-Brown (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 1–23, at 8–11.  For the possibility that Wulfstan and Æthelwold were kinsmen, see below, p. 40.  Lib. El., ii, c. 43, pp. 114–15.  On his role as reeve and riding-man, see Whitelock, ‘Foreword’, Lib. El., pp. xiii-iv; Wormald, ‘Charters, Law and the Settlement of Disputes’, pp. 157–63; Sage, ‘Patronage and Sociey’, pp. xiii-iv. On purchases, see Lib. El., ii, cc. 4, 43, pp. 75–6, 114–15. Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, p. 133 suggests that Eadgifu held the Wicklaw hundreds. The account in chapter two of the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi (see Lib. El., pp. 396–7) of Wulfstan of Dalham’s intervention to prevent the refoundation of Ely Abbey by a secular lord, Thurstan, and a bishop of Greek origin named Sigewold could be important in this context. If recording a genuine incident, it fits into a wider European context of co-operation between lay and ecclesiastical co-founders in establishing a monastic house. If invented, it was perhaps some type of joke against Archbishop Oswald and Ealdorman Æthelwine, with some play just conceivably being made on the Danish and continental European monastic training not necessarily providing the best credentials for undertaking the reform of a great monastic house. For another discussion, see Keynes, ‘Ely Abbey’, pp. 19–20 and n. 20.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 37


37

(Cambs.), which he had received from King Eadred, and at his death granted the community a number of other properties, including thirty-six hides in Huntingdonshire. Wulfstan of Dalham also used the power at his disposal to augment the wealth of Ely: he donated a marsh and a fishery at Stonea that he had received from the widow Æscwyn, who had sought his protection, and encouraged Ogga of Mildenhall to grant the community a property in Cambridge. Seven estates passed from kinsmen of Wulfstan to Ely Abbey. Although some are described as sales in the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi, they can more accurately be regarded as gifts and counter-gifts: land was exchanged for money in a way which expressed the generosity of the secular donor and the arising obligations of recipient towards the patron. The use of money as a means of maintaining social relationships rather than as a medium of commercial activity can be illustrated by an example. Wulfstan had paid considerably more for land subsequently sold by his kinsman, Wihtgar III, to Bishop Æthelwold (with another estate also being included in the latter transaction). By reconfiguring gifts and counter-gifts as sales, the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi shifted attention away from patronage towards more business-like transactions. In order for this depiction to stand, though, it was also necessary to focus upon the disputes which followed, casting them in terms of the Ely leaders’ skills in establishing valid contracts of sale rather than in terms of negotiations over gifts. These issues are worthy of further attention on three counts. First, they establish the nature of the relationships between the different branches of Wulfstan’s kindred and other fenland families; second, they identify some of the contours of authority within Wulfstan’s kindred; and third, they explain a social context for the economic transformation of the Ely community. Wulfstan’s kinsman, Wihtgar III, sold three hides at Livermere and two hides at Brandon in western Suffolk to the Ely community. Earl Scule, probably of Scandinavian descent, had originally sold the Livermere estate to Ælfgar of Milton before it passed as a gift to Wulfstan and then to Wihtgar, with the result that no legal challenge was brought in relation to this property. Bishop Æthelwold, moreover, gave Wihtgar a substantial sum of money as a mark of his friendship (pro amiticia), following the resolution of the dispute over the land at Brandon. The use of amiticia in relation to a layman in the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi is striking, and points to

  

Lib. El., ii, c. 28, p. 102; p. 416; S 572; Table 5, no. 1. Lib. El., ii, c. 7, pp. 80; Table 5, nos. 3–4. Lib. El., ii, cc. 18, 24, pp. 94, 97–98; VCH Cambs., iv, p. 110. The legal dispute is also discussed by Wormald, Making of English Law, pp. 153–5.  Lib. El., ii, c. 18, p. 94.  Table 5, nos. 7–13.  Lib. El., ii, c. 34, pp. 109–10. Wulfstan had purchased the two hides at Swaffham for £8, which had then descended to his kinsman Æthelwine, son Æthelweard, who sold the property along with Berlea for eighty mancuses to King Edgar, who in turn sold it to Bishop Æthelwold for the same sum.  For another discussion of these issues, see J. Campbell, ‘The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England: Problems and Possibilities’, idem, The Anglo-Saxon State (London, 2000), pp. 227–45.  Lib. El., ii, c. 35, p. 110.  Ibid., ii, cc. 35–6, pp. 110–11.  Earl Scule is discussed by Hart, ‘Athelstan’, Danelaw, p. 577.  Lib. El., ii, c. 36, p. 111.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

38

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 38


a special relationship between Æthelwold and Wihtgar. Other estates also descended from Wulfstan of Dalham to Ely Abbey via his kinsfolk, but there was a degree of inequality in the size of estates and security from litigation following the death of King Edgar. Another kinsman, Æthelstan chusin, had received two hides in Horningsea parish, formerly part of the endowment of Horningsea Minster, which he then sold to Bishop Æthelwold. A claim, though, was brought against this estate, and Ely Abbey only retained it because of the intervention of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth. The descent of estates from Wulfstan of Dalham to Ely Abbey via various members of this extended family was a complex process invested with nuances which reflected and maintained social distinctions. There were not only differences in the size of property and distances from the abbey, but also qualitative differences in terms of the likelihood of legal challenges being raised over donors’ rights of ownership in relation to their gifts. This can be compared with the relationships which the king’s thegn Wulfric Spot had established between his kinsfolk and the reformed Benedictine community which he had founded at Burton-upon-Trent c. 1002x1004. Although Burton Abbey and Wulfric’s kin received roughly equal shares of Wulfric’s landed wealth, three-quarters of the estates which passed to his kin lay within 15 kilometres of the abbey, whereas three-quarters of the estates which the monks received were within 30 to 130 kilometres of Burton. Wulfric had arranged for his kin to make annual food renders from the estates which they had received to the monks of Burton for the duration of their lifetimes in exchange for prayers and masses offered for the souls of his ancestors. In these arrangements the division of wealth and ensuing responsibilities emphasized, for example, the seniority of Wulfheah over his brother Ufegeat. Wulfstan of Dalham may have wished to construct similar differences in the ties between his kin and the Ely community. Some of the estates, though, were claimed by members of other families, who also had connections with those lands. This evidence can be read in two ways: one view discusses the importance of local anti-monastic reactions as part of the development of English politics. Another is to consider these events in the light of explanations of similar incidents during the tenth and eleventh centuries as set out in continental European cartulary-chronicles. When claimants seized estates, whether the former belonged to the kindred of Wulfstan of Dalham or to other families, they may have been seeking to reconfigure social relationships with the Ely community, rather than to push back patterns of landholding to the status quo ante-970. This second approach will be discussed below, but first there follows a short

        

If the two men were in fact kinsfolk (see below, p. 40), then Bloch’s observation that true friendship only occurred between people linked by blood (see La société féodale, 6th edn (Paris, 1978), p. 183) is pertinent. Lib. El., ii. c. 32, p. 107: ‘Wlstanus vero dedit eas cum cyragrapho Æthelstano chusin, cognato suo . . .’. Account based on ibid., ii, c. 32, pp. 107–8; see also Table 5, no. 11. Ibid. On his career and influence, see S.D. Keynes, The Diplomas of King Æthelred ‘the Unready’ 978–1016. A Study in their Use as Historical Evidence (Cambridge, 1980), pp. 188–9; A. Williams, Æthelred the Unready: The Ill-Counselled King (London, 2003), pp. 33–5. Wareham, ‘Transformation of Kinship and Family’, p. 396; ASW, no. 17, pp. 46–50. ASW, no. 17, pp. 46–50, notably p. 50, lines 27–8. Wareham, ‘Transformation of Kinship and Family’, p. 396. D.J.V. Fisher, ‘The Anti-Monastic Reaction in the Reign of Edward the Martyr’, Cambridge Historical Journal x (1950–2), pp. 254–70.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 39


39

account of the organization of Wulfstan’s kindred in the context of its alliance with ecclesiastical power. Wulfstan of Dalham’s local power stemmed from several interconnected sources. His power as a king’s thegn and royal reeve enabled him to offer protection to dependants and to vindicate the rights of the monks of Ely. There may have been an intended link between monastic patronage and the strengthening of ties of kinship. One way in which hierarchy and organization were created within an extended family was through the circulation of gifts, linked to prayers offered for kin and their ancestors by monks. Heads of families, such as Wulfstan of Dalham, did not only transfer estates directly to the abbey; they also gave relatives different stakes in that process by giving them life tenure over estates of differing values. These strategies fulfilled two purposes: first, they helped to uphold social relationships between members of the family and the monks entrusted with praying for the salvation of souls; and second, they helped to define the boundaries of the kin-group and to clarify levels of seniority. Thus, the favoured status of Wihtgar was expressed through the descent of more extensive estates which were less subject to disputes in comparison to the holdings received by other kinsfolk, such as Æthelstan chusin and Æthelweard of Sussex. The continuing relevance of this theme can be further explored by examining the contrasting experiences of Siferth of Downham and Ælfnoth son of Goding in their relationships with the community. Siferth of Downham, Wulfstan’s putative son-in-law, enjoyed a close relationship with the monks of Ely, visiting not only the monastery itself but also the monastic graveyard, where his companions and kinsmen were buried. Siferth divided a little over four hides as post-obit bequests between Ely, his wife and their daughter. He bequeathed two hides at Downham to the monks of Ely in the presence of Queen Ælfthryth, her son Æthelræd (the future King Æthelræd II (978–1016)), Ælfric cild (brother-in-law of Ealdorman Ælfhere of Mercia) and other notables at Ely Abbey. Witnesses also recognized that Siferth had chosen his place of burial, while on another occasion he specifically linked the descent of Downham to his right to be buried in the monastic graveyard. His widow Wulfflæd, on becoming a ‘nun’, granted the monks twenty-four acres of bookland at Stretham, which she had received from her father. Siferth had also bequeathed two hides at Wilburton to their daughter in front of an assembly of local notables to ensure that her rights would be upheld, with the land subsequently descending to the monks of Ely. It was perhaps more acceptable for the author of the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi to focus upon the direct patronage and piety of Siferth and his immediate family because their donations post-dated the refoundation of the abbey. This branch of the family benefited from connections with the Ely community both materially and spiritually. Links with the abbey not only underpinned Siferth’s daughter’s rights to inherit land, but also ensured that his widow

      

Wareham, ‘Transformation of Kinship and Family’, pp. 377–81, 396–9. For the connection between Siferth of Downham and Wulfstan of Dalham, see Lib. El., ii, c. 11, p. 86 n. 4. Ibid., p. 86 Ibid., pp. 86–7; Table 5, no. 12. Ibid. Ibid., ii, c. 10, p. 84. Ibid., ii, c. 11, pp. 86–7.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

40

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 40


could retire as a holy and religious woman, being able to visit the graveyard where her deceased husband was buried amongst kin and friends. The only kinsman whose name is mentioned in Siferth’s last recorded visit to the Ely community was the deceased Goding of Gretton, probably to be identified with Goding, father of Ælfnoth. Goding was an important figure in the fenland shires who had witnessed several key transactions, and who had bequeathed a property at Toft to the monks of Ely. Ælfnoth sought to recover his father’s donation, and received financial compensation of 20s. at an assembly at Cambridge. The speedy settlement of the dispute and the amount paid – the maximum at which a hide was normally valued – suggest that Ælfnoth was not viewed as an opponent of Ely. Moreover, its resolution at the public court at Cambridge suggests that Ælfnoth may have been exerting social pressure on Ely Abbey, announcing his coming of age and the proclamation of his new status amongst his kin and neighbours. Another dispute which involved Ælfnoth, as set out in the Liber Benefactorum, enables analysis of a four-way negotiation between Ramsey Abbey, Ely Abbey and the kindreds of Ealdorman Æthelwine and Wulfstan of Dalham. Ælfnoth claimed two hides at Swaffham in Staine hundred (Cambs.) which a person named Æthelwold had exchanged with Ælfwold, brother of Ealdorman Æthelwine. Ælfwold then granted the property to Ramsey Abbey as a post-obit gift. The absence of any title in relation to ‘Æthelwold’ poses a problem, but he was probably a man of high status. If ‘Æthelwold’ was Bishop Æthelwold, it would provide an example of an exchange conducted between him and the kindred of Ealdorman Æthelwine for the benefit of the Ramsey community. The Liber Benefactorum identifies ‘Æthelwold’ as a kinsman of Wulfstan of Dalham, suggesting that Ælfnoth’s claim to the Swaffham estate arose from kinship claims. The assembly which was convened to resolve the dispute met at Wandlebury IronAge hill fort rather than at the ancient joint meeting-place for Staine and Staploe hundreds on the boundary between the two hundreds at a spur with a pillar on it, named Stapelhoo. Ælfnoth perhaps had a tactical advantage as Wandlebury lay within the boundaries of an estate granted to Ely Abbey by Wulfstan of Dalham. Ælfnoth sought to make the prior of Ramsey swear an oath to prove that Ælfwold had donated the Swaffham estate free from claim, but Ealdorman Æthelwine prevented the oath from being sworn, and Ælfnoth withdrew his claim after being threatened with loss of

       

 

Ibid., ii, c. 11, p. 86 and n. 4. Ibid., ii, c. 33, p. 108. Ibid., ii, c. 26, p. 100; Table 5, no. 13. Ibid. Lib. El., ii, c. 11, p. 91 states that a hide should be valued at no more than 20s. For comparative context, see Barthélemy, La mutation, p. 293. Account based on Chron. Rames., ii, c. 49/xlvii, pp. 78–80. The dispute arose following the death of Ælfwold in 991 but before the death of Æthelwine in 992. Ibid., pp. 78–79: ‘habuit terram quandam in Suafham, quam non modico probati æris pretio ab Æthelwoldo cognato Wlfstani de Delham’. (My emphasis.) The Swaffham estate had passed into the hands of Bishop Æthelwold via an exchange with a member of Wulfstan’s kin (Lib. El., ii, c. 34, p. 109). An alternative possibility, that Wulfstan of Dalham was the kinsman of Æthelwold, eldest son of Ealdorman Æthelstan, is unlikely given the chronology. VCH Cambs., x, p. 332. Ibid., viii, p. 227; Lib. El., ii, c. 28, p. 102.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 41


41

his property and chattels. Yet within a year he had seized the estate, following the deaths of Ealdorman Æthelwine and Archbishop Oswald. In neither the Toft nor the Swaffham dispute is it clear that Ælfnoth, son of Goding, was necessarily regarded as the inveterate foe of the monks of Ely and Ramsey. On both occasions he may have been seeking to secure recognition as his father’s heir by claiming estates which had been donated to Ely and Ramsey abbeys by his kindred, and thereby to establish his status publicly in front of fenland communities. After these actions the monks of Ely and Ramsey may have been inclined to treat Ælfnoth with the respect already afforded to those kin who had benefited more substantially from Wulfstan of Dalham’s bequests. Wihtgar, Sifterth of Downham and Ælfnoth, son of Goding, were powerful members of Wulfstan of Dalham’s kindred, and perhaps exercised considerable power in East Anglia during the reigns of Edward ‘the martyr’ (975–78) and his half-brother, Æthelræd II. The links which members of this family had with the royal court served local agendas, as well as maintaining interests at the court. The physical barriers which divided the fenland shires from the heartlands of royal power (in Hampshire and the Thames valley) were overcome through social relationships. Unification strategies also overcame social barriers: the fenland widow Æcwyn of Stonea and Ogga of Mildenhall, through their friendships with Wulfstan of Dalham, became involved in the development of Ely Abbey in alliance with members of the royal family. The relationship between Wulfstan of Dalham, his kindred and Ely Abbey illuminates some slightly different (as well as similar) aspects of the relationship between aristocracy and society from that discussed in the previous chapter. The most notable contrast is investment in the ecclesiastical built environment. There is no hint that Wulfstan contributed to the furnishings used in religious rituals at Ely Abbey, in contrast to the generosity of Ealdorman Æthelwine towards Ramsey Abbey. Did this mean that Wulfstan of Dalham and his dynasty sought to maintain status and rank through investment in the secular built environment? The traditional view that Anglo-Saxon toponymic bynames lead towards villages, whereas their Norman counterparts were associated with castles and lordships no longer passes muster. Toponyms form part of the personal names of high-ranking thegns, who exercised lordship over estates from which their toponyms were derived. Dalham’s name is derived from the Old English for homestead or village in a valley. Dalham can be plausibly identified with the parish of the same name in western Suffolk. It lies along the course of the River Kennett around twenty-five kilometres from Ely, and twelve kilometres from Bury St Edmunds. The Dalham area is in a small plateau with valleys to the east, south and west, and with a steepish slope running northwards to the breckland. Two kilometres north-west of Dalham at the

     

Chron. Rames., ii, c. 49/xlvii, p. 80. Ibid. In addition to Barthélemy’s studies of these issues, see A.J. Bijsterveld, ‘Conflict and Compromise: The Premonstratensians of Ninove (Flanders) and the Laity in the Twelfth Century’, Negotiating Secular and Ecclesiastical Power, ed. idem et al., International Medieval Research VI (Turnhout, 1999), pp. 167–84. Williams, ‘Bell-house and Burh-geat’, p. 237; cf. J.C. Holt, ‘What’s in a Name? Family Nomenclature and the Norman Conquest’, idem, Colonial England 1066–1215 (London, 1997), pp. 179–96, at 185–8. Williams, ‘Bell-house and Burh-geat’, p. 237. Anglo-Saxon Charters, p. 367.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

8/20/05

42

11:50 AM

Page 42


4. Dalham and its neighbourhood.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 43


43

highest point in the area stands Denham castle, whose northern access road is called Burgate. The name raises the possibility of an Anglo-Saxon manor house. The case for an ancient settlement in this locality is further strengthened by an early eleventhcentury reference to land at Denham being called Eggas, which is an early name. At Dalham itself there is a line of medieval houses set back from the eastern bank of the River Kennett, but the parish church stands around 800 metres to the north of the settlement, on a hill which overlooks it. The church contains twelfth-century fabric, and adjacent to it, opposite its western entrance, stands Dalham Hall. It was built in 1704 on the site of an earlier residence of the Stutteville family, and has impressive views in all directions. The sinuous boundaries dividing Dalham, Denham and Gazeley parishes follow no obvious topographical features and suggest that these three parishes together probably made up a larger unit during the early medieval period. The boundary between Gazeley and Dalham marks the boundary of a former medieval parkland attached to the predecessor of Dalham Hall. Although the fabric of the church post-dates the Anglo-Saxon period, an earlier building probably stood on the site. That church can be identified with the one mentioned in Domesday Book. The combination, moreover, of the road name Burgate and the presence of a boundary pointing to a medieval parkland at Dalham strengthens the case for a manor house and dependent church complex at Dalham in the late Anglo-Saxon period. More generally during the medieval and early modern periods this area of western Suffolk became a centre for the establishment of aristocratic centres. Its upland terrain was better suited to sustaining aristocratic lifestyles, in contrast to the brecklands to the north-east and the fens to the north-west. Topographical, cartographic and architectural evidence suggest the presence of an Anglo-Saxon manor house on the site at or close to Dalham Hall, perhaps connected to Wulfstan of Dalham’s toponymic byname. There is, though, no way of establishing the scale of such a residence. A minimalist view, drawing upon an analogy with the putative hall at Upwood, would point towards a relatively insubstantial building, whereas a maximalist perspective, taking its lead from the evidence of Little Domesday Book, would incline towards a more substantial aristocratic home. Whichever option is chosen the power and status of Wulfstan and his family may have been expressed through control of a secular residence which was not in the shadow of a great religious house, thereby perhaps reducing the need to invest in the ecclesiastical built environment.

Discussion The tenth-century reformation transformed the wealth and power of Ely Abbey, and placed it on a separate path of development from neighbouring Soham and

    

A. Page, A Supplement to the Suffolk Traveller (Ipswich, 1843), p. 899 citing a grant to Thetford Priory by William Bigod (d. 1120). Account based on field research; Map 4, p. 42; W.A. Copinger, The Manors of Suffolk: Notes on their History and Devolution, with Some Illustrations of the Old Manor Houses, 7 vols. (London, 1905–11), v, pp. 214–15, 234–6. Domesday Book, ii, fol. 390b. Above, Chapter 1 p. 26 Domesday Book, ii, fol. 390b.

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

44

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 44


Horningsea minsters. At the core of this repositioning was the idea that reformed monastic communities formed a national network, regulated by the Regularis Concordia, which was in an exclusive relationship with the monarchy, rather than forming part of a local network of monastic foundations providing pastoral care. Because the Ely community needed to turn its back on the latter tradition, a myth was constructed which had two interconnecting elements: one aspect suggested that monastic life had been brought to an end by the Vikings, while its counterpart claimed that Bishop Æthelwold and Abbot Byrhtnoth had used their business skills, supported by royal patronage, to re-establish Ely Abbey as a great community after 970. Yet the realities behind the myth were somewhat different. Religious life had continued at Ely perhaps for most of the tenth century, and the establishment of Ely as a monastic house with territorial and political interests depended in part upon the patronage of aristocratic dynasties, such as the kindred of Wulfstan of Dalham. In this context the refashioning of political and administrative authority within East Anglia as a result of the tenth-century reform movement can only be understood if attention is focused on aristocratic interests. The relationship between Wulfstan of Dalham and Ely Abbey was part of a longer association which linked his family to the house of Cerdic. Although the absence of a lineage structure makes it difficult to pinpoint the role of each generation, there are hints that from the mid ninth century to the mid eleventh century members of this dynasty served the kings and queens of Wessex and England. With this royal service came the acquisition of estates in other regions beyond the family’s initial power base in Kent. Thus, Wulfstan of Dalham’s patronage of Ely Abbey matched the upsurges of royal interest in Ely’s affairs during the mid 950s and early 970s, as part of a programme of religious and cultural renewal. Yet such initiatives also converged with the family’s social agendas. For example, gifts to monasteries secured burial rights, maintained lines of kinship and the status of widows and daughters. Such varied strategies, though, opened the way for negotiations between the monks and the kinsfolk of Wulfstan. Ælfnoth’s disputes with the reform abbeys were perhaps intended to shift power away from Wihtgar, favoured kinsman of Wulfstan of Dalham. The strategies of Wulfstan of Dalham’s kindred can be compared with the interests of Ealdorman Æthelwine and his dynasty. Both families had long established connections with the royal house. The records, which record patterns of royal service and association, can also be used to reconstruct the descent and wider kinship ties of these two families across the ‘long’ tenth century. When attention is turned to their interests in the region, there are some characteristics worthy of further comment. Neither kindred had ancestral connections with East Anglia, with their landholdings in the region forming part of the supra-regional interests acquired as a result of benefiting from Königsnähe. The weakness of their ties with the region meant that they needed to buttress control of local public offices with alliance and unification strategies. Exogamous marriages to local families could, though, perhaps only provide a partial solution. These issues then might be connected with substantial lay patronage of Ramsey and Ely abbeys in order to address a range of political and social needs, varying from alliance and domination strategies to the regulation of hierarchies of kinship  On this theme, see D.N. Dumville, Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar: Six Essays on Political, Cultural and Ecclesiastical Revival, Studies in Anglo-Saxon History III (Woodbridge, 1992).

LCEM-Ch-2.qxd

8/20/05

11:50 AM

Page 45


45

within kindreds. Perhaps divisions created by Viking invasions and the English conquest of the region led to an upsurge in investment in religious houses during the second half of the tenth century. Kindreds and communities from differing backgrounds and ethnicities sought to fashion a new social order in peacetime, capable of creating the circumstances for economic growth and cultural renewal. In a comparative setting there are several unifying themes in the organization of aristocracy and society in England and continental Europe during the tenth century. In everyday life members of these extended dynasties do not appear to have dwelt in great centres of secular lordship, and were quite familiar with peripatetic lifestyles, bringing them into contact with wide circles of kinsfolk. When attention is turned to the more exceptional events which shaped memories, the similarities are also more striking than the differences. The descent of property to women, as a result of partible inheritance, was complemented by brothers sharing the exercise of coercive power and negotiations between kinsfolk over status. The social order in European societies, from the High Pyrenees to the East Anglian fenlands, was shaped by Königsnähe and alliance and unification strategies. Together these factors succeeded in maintaining conditions of peace linked to effective communications over wide geographical areas, and thereby sustained cycles of growth and the transformation of landscapes.

LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 46

Chapter 3 The Daughters of Ealdorman Ælfgar and the Localization of Power in the Late Tenth Century And I humbly pray you, Sire, for God’s sake and for the sake of my lord’s soul and for the sake of my sister’s soul, that you will protect the holy foundation at Stoke[-by-Nayland] in which my ancestors lie buried, and the property which they gave to it as an immune right of God for ever . . .. Will of Ælfflæd, widow of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, c. 1000x1002 Ælfflæd set out a plea that King Æthelræd II should protect the small collegiate foundation of Stoke-by-Nayland which stands between Sudbury and Hadleigh on the crest of the ridge overlooking the valleys of the Stour and Box rivers in south-east Suffolk. The proportions of the present-day church coincide with an Anglo-Saxon layout, and the churchyard perhaps marks the boundaries of the pre-Conquest cemetery. Ælfflæd’s statement draws attention to her over-riding concern with the security of this community in preference to the great Benedictine abbeys associated with national frameworks of power, such as Ely Abbey, where her husband was buried. Such issues not only lead to questions of the relationships between gender and monasticism at the turn of the eleventh century, but also to key questions regarding the reshaping of medieval societies. One of the great changes in the social order during the tenth and eleventh centuries was encapsulated by a shift in aristocratic consciousness away from Königsnähe and national interests towards more local structures of power. Identifying the change has, though, always been easier than explaining why those who had benefited most from the former structure should have turned away from it. No evidence sets out the psychology of those involved in this change, but such issues can be explored indirectly through an analysis of the religious bequests of Ælfflæd, her sister Æthelflæd and their father Ælfgar. Such discussions lead, firstly, into an understanding of these sisters’ relationships with religious houses in East Anglia and beyond; secondly, the extent to which the social strategies of these women concurred with    

ASW, no. 15, p. 38, lines 7–10. Translation by Whitelock. Church of St Mary: Stoke-by-Nayland (Stoke-by-Nayland, 2000), p. 20. Lib. El., ii, c. 62, p. 136; John, ‘King and the Monks’, passim. E.g. P. Stafford, ‘Queens, Nunneries and Reforming Churchmen: Gender, Religious Status and Reform in Tenth- and Eleventh-Century England’, Past and Present clxiii (1999), pp. 3–35.

LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 47

THE DAUGHTERS OF EALDORMAN ÆLFGAR AND THE LOCALIZATION

47

bilateral structures of kinship; and, thirdly, how their gifts were instrumental in forging national and local associations amongst wider circles of kinsfolk and friends.

Ealdorman Ælfgar and his daughters From c. 930 until 991 Essex was administered as a distinct ealdordom. Ælfgar served as ealdorman of Essex between 946 and 951, and was succeeded by his son-in-law Byrhtnoth, who held the office from 956 until 991. He was the great-grandson of Beornoth Ætheling, whose son Byrhtsige was killed in 903 at the battle of Holme. Byrhtnoth’s marriage to Ælfflæd played a role in his succession to the ealdordom, while his own connections with the region – through his great-grandfather’s Mercian royal ancestors – explain why he might have been quite at ease with a matrilocal union (whereby he moved to the area associated with his wife’s family interests). The union of Byrhtnoth and Ælfflæd, though, needs to be assessed alongside the earlier marriage of her elder sister Æthelflæd. Her marriage to King Edmund (939–46) established a direct link between her father and the house of Cerdic and was probably linked to his appointment as ealdorman of Essex. The marriages of both sisters fit into a wider pattern of unions within a tenth-century aristocracy of royal service, which also served to strengthen the territorial interests of the families of Ælfgar and Byrhtnoth within East Anglia.



For further discussion, see L. Lancaster, ‘Kinship in Anglo-Saxon Society’, British Journal of Sociology ix (1958), pp. 230–50, 359–77; T.M. Charles-Edwards, ‘Anglo-Saxon Kinship Revisited’, The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, ed. J. Hines, Studies in Historical Archaeology II (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 171–204; C. Fell, Women in Anglo-Saxon England (London, 1984), pp. 74–88; H. Loyn, ‘Kinship in Anglo-Saxon England’, idem, Society and Peoples: Studies in the History of England and Wales, c. 600–1200 (London, 1992), pp. 45–64; J.C. Holt, ‘Feudal Society and the Family in Early Medieval England, I: the Revolution of 1066’, idem, Colonial England 1066–1215 (London, 1997), pp. 161–78.  C. Clover, ‘Regardless of Sex: Men, Women and Power in Early Northern Europe’, Speculum lxviii (1993), pp. 363–87, discusses the ways in which women became ‘honorary men’ within the family circle and on the wider stage. For a useful collection of essays on widowhood, see Veuves et veuvage dans le Haut Moyen Age: études réunies par M. Parisse; table ronde organisée à Göttingen par la Mission historique française en Allemagne, ed. M. Parisse (Paris, 1993).  The view of Chadwick, Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions, p. 188 that Uhtred served as ealdorman of Essex is to be preferred to Hart’s opinion that the ealdordom of Essex was held by Ealdorman Æthelwold c. 939x46 in conjunction with Kent, Surrey and Sussex: C.R. Hart, ‘The Ealdordom of Essex’, idem, The Danelaw (London, 1992), pp. 115–140, at 124. Æthelwold disposed of estates in Surrey and Sussex, but no properties in Essex are mentioned in his will; see Select English Historical Documents, no. 20.  Hart, ‘Ealdordom’, Danelaw, p. 135. In the intervening years the office was held by Byrhtferth, identified as a paternal uncle of Byrhtnoth: M. Locherbie-Cameron, ‘Byrhtnoth and his Family’, The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg (Manchester, 1991), pp. 253–62, at p. 254. Ealdorman Byrhtferth was involved in the Yaxley dispute in Huntingdonshire, discussed above; see Chapter 1, pp. 19.  Hart, ‘Ealdordom’, Danelaw, p. 129; M. Locherbie-Cameron, ‘Byrhtnoth and his Family’, The Battle of London, AD 991, ed. D. Seragg (, 1991), pp.253–62, at 254; ASC, [Main Chronicle, 903; (904 A; 905 B, C, D)], p. 60. For the context, see Campbell, ‘What is not Known’, p. 21. For kinship and descent of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, see Figure 3, p. 48.  Following the capitulation of East Anglia in 794, Byrhtnoth’s Mercian royal ancestors, Kings Beornwulf (823–5), Beorhtwulf (840–52) and Burghred (852–74) directly ruled over the area between the River Cam and the Devil’s Dyke, as well as exercising overlordship over East Anglia east of the Devil’s Dyke; see VCH Cambs., x, pp. 4–6, 24–25; Hart, ‘Ealdordom’, Danelaw, p. 131.  For discussion of royal marriages fulfilling a similar purpose, see Stafford, Unification and Conquest, pp. 41–4, notably 41 on the marriage of King Edward the Elder and Ælfflæd.

48

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 48


3. Extended Family Tree of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth of Essex c. 823–1066.

LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 49


49

Table 6 Religious Benefactions of Ealdorman Ælfgar and his Daughters c. 946x1002* No.

Estate

County

Ælfgar’s will

Æthelflæd’s will

Ælfflæd’s will

1 2 3 4

Rettendon Soham Cheveley Woodditton

Essex Cambs. Cambs. Cambs.

Ely Abbey

Ely Abbey Ely Abbey Ely Abbey Ely Abbey

5

Monks Eleigh

Suffolk

-

Christ Church, Canterbury

6

Baythorn

Essex

-

St. Mary’s, Barking

7

Cockfield

Suffolk

Ælfflæd; Bury St Edmunds Abbey

Bury St Edmunds Abbey

8

Peldon

Essex

Æthelflæd; then religious house of choice Ælfflæd; then Byrhtnoth & their children; then Æthelflæd; then Christ Church Æthelflæd; then Ælfflæd; then Æthelflæd’s child; then St Mary’s, Barking Æthelflæd; then Bury St Edmunds Abbey Æthelflæd; then Stokeby-Nayland Minster

Stoke-byNayland Minster

9

Colne

Essex

Ælfflæd & Byrhtnoth; then Stokeby-Nayland Minster -

10

Mersea

Essex


11

Tey

Essex

Ælfflæd & Byrhtnoth; then Stokeby-Nayland Minster -

Ælfflæd; then her children; then Byrhtnoth; then Stokeby-Nayland Minster Æthelflæd; then Stokeby-Nayland Minster Ælfflæd; then her child; then Byrhtnoth; then Stoke-byNayland Minster



LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

8/20/05

50

11:51 AM

Page 50


Table 6 (continued) No.

Estate

County

Ælfgar’s will


Ælfflæd’s will

12

Greensted

Essex

Æthelflæd; then Stokeby-Nayland Minster


13

Totham

Essex

14

Lavenham

Suffolk

Byrhtnoth & Ælfflæd; then Stokeby-Nayland Minster


15

Damerham

Wilts.

Byrhtnoth & Ælfflæd; to Mersea for my daughter Æthelflæd Æthelflæd; my daughter’s child if she has one, otherwise to Stoke-byNayland -

Ælfflæd & Byhrtnoth; then Stoke-byNayland Minster -

-

16

Ham

Essex?

-

17

Hadham

Herts.

-

18

Chelsworth

Suffolk

-

19

Fingringhoe

Essex

-

20

Polstead

Suffolk

-

Glastonbury Abbey Christ Church, Canterbury Ælfflæd & Byrhtnoth; then St Paul’s, London Ælfflæd & Byrhtnoth; then Bry St. Edmunds Abbey Ælfflæd & Byrhtnoth; then St. Peter’s, Mersea Ælfflæd & Byrhtnoth; then Stoke-byNayland Minster


St Paul’s, London

Bury St Edmunds Abbey

St Peter’s, Mersea


LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 51


51

Table 6 (continued) No.

Estate

County

Ælfgar’s will


Ælfflæd’s will

21

Withermarsh

Suffolk

-

22

Stratford

Suffolk

-

Stoke-byNayland Minster Stoke-byNayland Minster

23

Balsdon

Suffolk

-

24

Waldingfield

Suffolk

-

Stoke-byNayland Minster Ælfflæd & Byrhtnoth; then Stoke-byNayland Minster Ælfflæd & Byrhtnoth; Stoke-byNayland Minster Kinswoman, Crawe

25

Freston

Suffolk

-

-

26

Wiston

Suffolk

-

-

27

Heybridge

Essex

-

-

28

Hatfield

Herts.

[ancestors gave]

[sister gave]

*

Table based on ASW, nos. 2, 14, 15, pp. 6–9, 34–43.


Sudbury Minster, after death of Crawe, according to agreement made by my sister Stoke-byNayland Minster Stoke-byNayland Minster Stoke-byNayland Minster Stoke-byNayland Minster

LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

52

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 52


The marriages of Ealdorman Ælfgar’s daughters raise the issue of his own marriage. It was perhaps a matrilocal and exogamous union to a woman whose family had connections with the Stour valley, but who is otherwise unknown to history. This is suggested by a reference in Æthelflæd’s will, in which she bequeathed property to the church at Hadleigh in Suffolk for the benefit of her own and her ancestors’ souls. This was the only occasion when she mentioned ancestors’ souls, with an apparent and subtle distinction being drawn between ‘my’ ancestors and her father’s reference to his own and ‘our’ ancestors. Ealdorman Ælfgar established a close bond of friendship with Theodred (d. after 955), bishop of London (909x21–55?). He was involved in the renewal of the church in East Anglia in the immediate post-Viking Age. This alliance benefited both lords, their kindreds and religious houses in Suffolk and Essex. Ælfgar and Theodred nonetheless adopted different attitudes towards the use of post-obit bequests for wider social and political strategies. Around half of the thirty-one estates in Theodred’s will passed directly to religious communities, while the other half was divided between kinsfolk before descending to the bishopric of East Anglia, Bury St Edmunds Abbey and other local religious houses. In the will of Ælfgar, however, virtually all his bequests were earmarked initially for his kinsfolk, with these gifts for the most part forging relationships between Stoke-by-Nayland Minster and his daughters

   

 







For the suggestion that she was named Wiswyth, presumably on the basis of ASW, no. 2, p. 8, line 9, see Hart, ‘Ealdordom’, Danelaw, p. 128; Locherbie-Cameron, ‘Byrhtnoth and his Family’, p. 256. ASW, no. 14, p. 36, lines 19–20. Ibid., and no. 2, p. 6, lines 16, 23–4; p. 8, lines 3, 7. A parallel in the descent of important property in the female line is to be found in ibid., no. 3, p. 14, lines 27–30. For a discussion on the latter, see Wareham, ‘Transformation of Kinship and the Family’, pp. 381–3. Theodred of London may have been descended from an East Anglian family of Scandinavian origin, adopting his baptismal name for everyday use, or alternatively may have originated from Germany; see C.R. Hart, ‘The Eastern Danelaw’, idem, The Danelaw (London, 1992), pp. 25–113, at 33; D. Whitelock, ‘Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London’, eadem, History, Law and Literature in Tenth-Eleventh Century England (London, 1981), no. 2, pp. 3–34, at 20. See ASW, no. 1, p. 4, lines 12–16 for gifts by friends closely associated with the reform cause, namely Archbishop Oda, Abbot Dunstan of Glastonbury and Eadgifu, the Queen mother. For comment on the seniority of Bishop Theodred, see Whitelock, ‘Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London’, p. 20 n. 2; cf. S 505. Evidence of this friendship is provided by Theodred’s advice to Ealdorman Ælfgar that he should give King Eadred King Edmund’s sword, which had a sheath covered in four pounds of silver and was valued at £35, in order to make his will effective; see ASW, no. 2, p. 6, lines 3–7. For discussion of the donation of swords to register tenurial rights and retirement from the secular world, see M.T. Clanchy, From Memory to Written Record. England 1066–1307, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1993), pp. 35–43, 297. This differentiation, though, was not related to any great difference in territorial interests. The majority of the estates which Ealdorman Ælfgar and Bishop Theodred disposed of in their wills lay in Suffolk. Theodred was especially remembered at Bury St Edmunds Abbey because he ordered the hanging of thieves who had sought to plunder the shrine of Saint Edmund: Abbo of Fleury, Passio Sancti Eadmundi, Memorials of St Edmund’s Abbey, ed. T. Arnold, 3 vols., RS (London, 1890–96), i, pp. 3–25, at 20–1. Athelington (Suffolk) and Horham (Suffolk) to Hoxne (ASW, no. 1, p. 2, lines 30–31); Ickworth (Suffolk), Horningsheath (Suffolk), Nowton (Suffolk) and Whepstead (Suffolk) to Bury St Edmunds Abbey (ibid., p. 4, lines 4–5); Dunmow (Essex), Southery (Norfolk), St Osyth (Essex) and Tillingham to St Paul’s Cathedral (ibid., p. 2, lines 15–24); and Mettingham to Mendham church (ibid., p. 2, line 27). The estates of Great Barton (Suffolk), Pakenham (Suffolk) and Rougham (Suffolk) descended to Theodred’s kinsman Osgot son of Eadwulf, with these estates eventually passing to Bury St Edmunds (ibid., p. 4, lines 2–3; Domesday Book, ii, fols. 361b, 362 a); for Chickering (Suffolk), Mendham (Suffolk) and Syleham (Suffolk) to Hoxne Minster and Mendham church via Osgod (ibid., p. 2, lines 24–31; Domesday Book, ii, fol. 379b).

LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 53


53

and son-in-law. Under the terms of Ealdorman Ælfgar’s will his daughters and sonin-law received five estates which after their deaths were to pass to the minster at Stoke-by-Nayland. In Theodred’s will there was a much greater emphasis upon direct investment in religious houses, while Ælfgar was more interested in forging ties between kin and the collegiate foundation at Stoke-by-Nayland. The crucial issue for daughters was the competing demands of the kinsfolk of their parents and husbands, and hence to which religious houses they should bequeath estates. In addition, Ealdorman Ælfgar treated Æthelflæd and her sister Ælfflæd differently. Æthelflæd received nearly twice as many estates as Ælfflæd, who was referred to as his ‘younger daughter’. There was also a difference in the nature of their duties: Æthelflæd was given general responsibility of caring for ancestors’ souls, including the freedom to choose which religious houses to bequeath property to. The descent of Byrhtnoth’s and Ælfflæd’s estates was more restricted. Since Ælfgar recognized that Æthelflæd might have children as a result of a second marriage, her seniority was not dependent upon her continued status as the widow of King Edmund. These distinctions can be considered in the light of anthropological studies of bilateral kinship. In such kinship structures it is common to distinguish between elder and younger daughters, in contrast to patrilineal kinship systems, where order of birth is less important for daughters. Where an elder daughter associates herself more closely with her family of birth, notably in the context of widowhood, it is expected that she may well take on the role equivalent to a male family elder, giving advice to younger siblings. Aspects of this framework can be detected in Ælfgar’s family: Æthelflæd exercised the dominant role in overseeing the descent of wealth to religious houses. The hierarchies within Ealdorman Ælfgar’s will are consistent with a bilateral kinship structure. Nevertheless, Æthelflæd’s marriage to King Edmund could have upset that balance, potentially establishing much closer ties between the family and religious houses associated with the king, rather than maintaining the connections which Ealdorman Ælfgar had envisaged. By looking at Æthelflæd’s interests and bequests it is possible to investigate whether or not strong conjugal ties, generally associated with patrilinear frameworks of kinship, outweighed the values of bilateral kinship associations, more typically associated with weaker conjugal bonds.

Æthelflæd, widow of King Edmund Æthelflæd had a personal commitment to the renewal of the English church at the national level. She had received land from King Edmund which was to descend to          

ASW, no. 2, pp. 6–8; Table 6. The exceptions were the woodland at Ashfield, which passed directly to Stoke (ibid., p. 8, line 16), and Rushbrook (ibid., p. 8, lines 17–19), which descended to Ælfgar’s mother. Table 6, nos. 8–12. Table, 6: grants to Æthelflæd in the first instance comprised ibid., nos. 4, 6–8, 10, 12, 14; bequests to Ælfflæd comprised nos. 5, 3, 9, 11; and donations to Ælfflæd and Byrhtnoth, no. 13. ASW, no. 2, p. 6, lines 24, 29; p. 8 line 1. Ibid., p. 6, lines 9, 14–16; p. 8, lines 6–7, 10–11; Table 6, no. 4. ASW, no. 2, p. 6, line 29; p. 8, lines 1–3, 13–15; Table 6, nos. 9, 11. Ibid., p. 6, lines 17–18. E.g. Lancaster, ‘Kinship in Anglo-Saxon Society’, passim. On the descent of Baythorn to Æthelflæd, Ælfflæd and a grandchild, see ASW, no. 1, p. 6, lines 19–24. It has been suggested that Æthelflæd was married to Ealdorman Æthelstan ‘Rota’ of south-east Mercia (fl. 940x72); see Locherbie-Cameron, ‘Byrhtnoth and his Family’, p. 256; Hart, ‘Ealdordom’, Danelaw,

LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

54

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 54


Glastonbury Abbey, and c. 944 had donated Ham (Essex?) to the cathedral priory of Christ Church, Canterbury. Æthelflæd is the first recorded member of her family to have established connections with Christ Church, a fact which perhaps encouraged her father to give Ælfflæd and Byrhtnoth life tenure over that estate before its descent to Christ Church. Moreover, the suggested year of Æthelflæd’s and King Edmund’s marriage – 944 – also marked the beginnings of the king’s more personal involvement with the progress of the monastic reform programme for in that year Benedictine monks fleeing from St Bertin Abbey in north-east France, were installed by Edmund at the royal abbey at Bath. Meanwhile, a charter accompanying a Latin grant suggests that Æthelflæd and Bishop Theodred were instrumental in persuading King Edmund to free the land around Bury St Edmunds from taxation. Æthelflæd may have played an important role in the renewal of religious life at King Edmund’s court, as well as in assisting in the rebuilding of the East Anglian church, and thereby continuing the work which had developed as a result of the friendship between her father and Bishop Theodred. After the death of King Edmund, Æthelflæd maintained interests in several localities. One of her estates had a royal residence, formerly granted to the widow of King Alfred (871–99), and on another a royal abbey was founded in 986, perhaps shortly after her death. Her most important connection in widowhood was probably with the community of nuns at Damerham in Wiltshire. Æthelflæd arranged for Damerham to descend (for the benefit of her own, King Edmund’s and King Edgar’s souls) to Glastonbury Abbey. Damerham has since sunk into obscurity, but in the tenth century it was an important religious centre. Damerham Nunnery stood fifteen kilometres south of the royal nunnery at Wilton, along the Wilton Way, the principal north-south route through

     

 

p. 128. This identification is based on ASW, pp. 138–9 and Lib. El., ii, c. 63, p. 136: ‘Huius autem soror, nomine Æthelflæda, uxor Æthelstani ducis . . .’. It can be rejected because neither Æthelflæd’s and Ælfflæd’s wills, nor any of the other reliable sources, draw attention to links between these sisters and Ealdorman Æthelstan ‘Rota’, or any members of his household. The Ely author perhaps confused Æthelflæd with Ælfwyn, wife of Ealdorman Æthelstan of East Anglia. The commemoration of Æthelflæd regina, wife of Ealdorman Æthelstan, at Ramsey Abbey during the early eleventh century, as noted by A.T. Thacker, ‘Saint-making and Relic Collecting by Oswald and His Communities’, St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence, eds. N.P. Brooks and C.R.E. Cubitt (Leicester, 1996), pp. 244–68, at 257, arose from the confusion of the two women. S 513, possibly part of her marriage gift; Table 6, no. 15. S 1630; ASW, no. 14, p. 34, lines 20–1; p. 139, possibly part of her dowry; Table 6, no. 16. ASW, no. 2, p. 6, lines 24–9; no. 15, p. 38, lines 21–2; p. 139; Table 6, no. 5. D.N. Dumville, ‘Learning and the Church in the England of King Edmund I, 939–46’, idem, Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar: Six Essays on Political, Cultural and Ecclesiastical Revival, Studies in Anglo-Saxon History III (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 173–84, at 176. S 507; D.N. Dumville, English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism, A.D. 950–1030, Studies in Anglo-Saxon History V (Woodbridge, 1993), p. 38 n. 148; ECEE, p. 55. Select English Historical Documents, no. 11, p. 18, lines 9–10; ASW, no. 14, p. 34, lines 1–2; D.N. Dumville, ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Origins of English Square Miniscule Script: Appendix III: The Royal Estate at Bedwyn (Wiltshire)’, idem, Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar: Six Essays on Political, Cultural and Ecclesiastical Revival, Studies in Anglo-Saxon History III (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 107–12, at 110–11 n. 263; Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, p. 129 n. 162; VCH Berks., ii, p. 62. ASC, [D, 946], p. 72. Æthelflæd’s suffix of Damerham implies more than ownership of an estate. For further discussion, see Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, p. 95 n. 125; p. 129 n. 162. ASW, no. 14, p. 34, lines 19–20; S 513; Table 6, no. 15. For links between Kings Edmund and Edgar, see John of Worcester, Chronicle, ii, pp. 420–1.

LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 55


55

Wiltshire before the bridge was built at Salisbury. Wilton Way continued to be an important road until it was blocked off in the Tudor period in order to create Wilton Park. In the early and mid tenth century communications along Wilton Way would have enabled the nuns of Damerham and Wilton to work together. Wilton was traditionally the most important nunnery in Wessex, but at Damerham, Æthelflæd would have been able to take an interest in the intercessions that were offered for the souls of her noble kin buried at Wilton Nunnery. Wilton’s success may also have owed much to co-operation with neighbouring communities of nuns at Damerham and Shaftesbury. Connections between Æthelflæd, her kin and the royal family continued to be important. In 962 she received Chelsworth (Suffolk) from King Edgar, the grant being witnessed by the royal kinsmen Ælfgar and Byrhtferth. The property subsequently descended to Bury St Edmunds Abbey. This raises the possibility that during the era of three successive kings, Æthelflæd had in mind the bequest of property and power to Bury St Edmunds Abbey. Æthelflæd disposed of twice as many estates in East Anglia as her father did. One or two of these estates had been granted by King Edgar, but the remainder of the properties were acquired by Æthelflæd through inheritance or by other means. Under the terms of Æthelflæd’s will, thirteen estates descended to religious houses in East Anglia, with eight passing to Stoke-by-Nayland Minster. Five of these donations were regrants of her father’s bequests, but eight were new grants. Another way of looking at these issues is the speed at which the church acquired these estates. Although Ely Abbey received one estate immediately following Æthelflæd’s death, five estates which the church had been promised on her death, under the terms of Ælfgar’s will, in fact passed to her sister and her husband for the duration of their lifetimes. Ælfflæd and Byrhtnoth thus came to exercise control over a substantial landholding, but were left with no freedom of manoeuvre in the descent of these lands after their deaths. This practice was in contrast to the provisions of Ealdorman

              

Account based on VCH Wilts., vi, pp. 7–15. Ibid. For discussion that it may have been founded by Ecgberht (d. 839), king of the West Saxons (802–39), for his sister, see B. Yorke, Nunneries and the Anglo-Saxon Royal Houses (London, 2003), p. 54. E.g. ASC, [A, 962], p. 75. On Shaftesbury, see Yorke, Nunneries and the Anglo-Saxon Royal Houses, pp. 76–7, 86–9, 110–11, 151–2, 169–74. Damerham fulfilled a role as a residence for high status widows. S 703. Table 6, no. 18. S 703; the woodland at Hatfield (ASW, no. 15, p. 38, line 13) may also have been granted by King Edgar to Æthelflæd if it relates to Hatfield (Herts.); see Lib. El., ii, c. 7, pp. 79–80. Table 6, nos. 4, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18–24. Ibid., nos. 8, 10, 12, 14, 20–3. Ibid., nos. 7, 8, 10, 12, 14. It is difficult to know if Æthelflæd also bequeathed Totham (no. 13) to the church at Mersea as her father had intended, or initiated the change whereby it descended to Stoke-byNayland Minster. Ibid., nos. 4, 18–24. Ibid., no. 4. Ibid., nos. 7, 8, 10, 12, 14. A possible exception to the might be the estate at Cheveley; see ibid., no. 3, which, although not mentioned in Æthelflæd’s will, passed from her to her sister. Unfortunately, though, Ælfflæd’s will’s discussion of the estate ASW, no. 15, p. 40, lines 10–11 does not discuss any terms attached to this descent.

LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

56

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 56


Ælfgar’s will, which had allowed his grandchildren to receive life tenure of religious bequests in the event of Æthelflæd and Ælfflæd having issue. In addition, Æthelflæd established new ties with two communities in East Anglia, and donated property to the church on Mersea Island (Essex). Her marriage into the royal family had not resulted in religious donations being directed solely towards the religious houses associated with her husband and his agnates, as would have occurred within an agnatic kinship system. Within the parameters of a bilateral kinship model, she maintained a balance in donations to houses associated with her in-laws and with her family of origin. Yet at the same time she sought to forge closer ties between her kin and Stoke-by-Nayland than those envisaged by her father.

Ælfflæd, widow of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth Ælfflæd had to balance obligations towards her ancestors and religious houses favoured by her elder sister and father, with commitments which arose from the commemoration of her deceased husband at Ely Abbey. As with Æthelflæd’s interests and strategies, Ælfflæd had to meet commitments to kinship groupings which continued to have distinct interests, which in turn explains the survival of evidence in several monastic archives. By the time that Ælfflæd drew up her still extant will, these dilemmas had crystallized around the competing patronage demands of Ely Abbey and Stoke-by-Nayland Minster. Each of these demands will be examined in turn below. Following the chapter in the Liber Eliensis on Byrhtnoth’s death and post-obit donations to the monks of Ely, there is a Latin summary of Ælfflæd’s bequests to the monks. It recorded that at the time of Byrhtnoth’s burial she donated four estates, along with a tapestry which depicted his deeds. In her will, however, these lands only passed to the monks on her death, and there was no mention of a tapestry. The Latin summary presumes an order of descent and pattern of behaviour more appropriate to a patrilinear framework, whereas her will’s bequests fit more neatly within a bilateral framework. There are also particular differences between the two texts: in the will, Rettendon was identified as Ælfflæd’s morning-gift (morgengifu), but in the summary in the Liber Eliensis described it as dowry or dower (dos). In the Anglo-Norman era wealth

           

Table 6, nos. 5, 6, 9, 11, 14. Table 6, nos. 4, 24. Although Æthelflæd’s will only states that Waldingfield was to descend to her kinswoman Crawe (ASW, no. 14, p. 36, lines 29–30), her sister’s will (ibid., no. 15, p. 40, lines 3–5) states that it descended to Sudbury according to the agreement made by Æthelflæd. Table 6, no. 19. For further discussion, see below, Chapter 4, pp. 60–7. ASW, p. 141. Lib. El., ii, c. 62, pp. 133–6. Ibid., c. 63, p. 136. Ibid. ASW, no. 15, p. 40, lines 5–12. In the Ely text the point at which Byrhtnoth dies is the crucial moment for the descent of these estates, whereas in the will her own death is the critical juncture. ASW, no. 15, p. 40, line 8; Table 6, no. 1. Lib. El., ii, c. 63, p. 136.

LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 57


57

typically passed through the hands of a noble woman as dowry (dos) from the resources of her parents to her husband at marriage, but the word dos also referred to dower, comprising property set aside by husbands to provide for their widows. The concept that a husband would set aside landed wealth for his wife from his own patrimonial resources immediately after the marriage lay outside the framework of normal experiences within the Anglo-Norman world, hence leading to the translation of morgengifu as dos. This contrast also worked the other way, with Ælfric translating dos as morgengifu during the early eleventh century. These errors of translation suggest that in the transition from Anglo-Saxon to Anglo-Norman England, the dower replaced the morning gift as a woman’s best hope of acquiring estates from her husband over which she exercised freedom of disposition. These technicalities matter because they highlight the changes in the types of the gifts which sustained marriage in the AngloSaxon and Anglo-Norman periods, and pinpoint whether land was descending according to principles defined by agnatic or bilateral kinship. Ælfflæd’s morning-gift of Rettendon in south-east Essex descended to Ely Abbey. This was similar to Æthelflæd’s grant of Damerham to Glastonbury Abbey for the benefit of her own and her husband’s souls, as well as King Edgar’s. In a society where rules of inheritance were governed by agnatic kinship (such as Anglo-Norman England) wealth which had passed from the resources of the wife’s family typically descended to the couple’s heirs, or to religious houses associated with the husband and his ancestors. In these Anglo-Saxon cases, however, such patterns were confined to wealth which wives had received from the resources of their husbands, and which descended to the religious houses associated with the latter. It did not necessarily include the wealth which had passed to these women from their own ancestors. Other marginal but important differences between the will and its Latin summary are also significant. For example, Ælfflæd’s will drew attention to her sister’s patronage of Ely Abbey, and specified that a ring or bracelet donated to Ely Abbey was the second of a pair, the other having been previously given as a burial fee for Byrhtnoth. Neither of these details is recorded in the Liber Eliensis: here the stress is on Ælfflæd’s links with her deceased husband and his commemoration at Ely, rather than on Ælfflæd’s and Æthelflæd’s independent connections with religious houses in East Anglia, as set out in the vernacular wills.



Whitelock in ASW, pp. xlvii, 144 addressed these issues as either/or in terms of Roman and Germanic understandings of dos, following F. Pollock and F.W. Maitland, The History of English Common Law Before the Time of Edward I, 2nd edn, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1898), ii, pp. 420–8. However, dos was used to refer to dowry, dower and marriage gifts (from the groom and his family to the bride’s family); see Barthélemy, La société, pp. 543–9.  P. Wülcker and T. Wright, eds., Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, 2 vols. (London, 1883–4), i, ‘IV: Archbishop Ælfric’s Vocabulary of the Tenth Century’, Nomina Omnium Homina Communiter, 115 (10). I am grateful to Ros Faith for this reference.  Table 6, no. 15.  ASW, no. 15, p. 40, lines 11–12.  Ibid.

LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

58

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 58


Ælfflæd’s dower from Byrthtnoth perhaps comprised an estate at Soham, which she bequeathed to Ely Abbey in her will. She bequeathed two estates to Ely, acquired as marriage gifts and dower from her husband, and two properties inherited from her father and sister. Ælfflæd’s patterns of piety resembled Æthelflæd’s, with both sisters paying substantial attention to the interests of religious houses associated with their husbands, but within a bilateral kinship structure. Ælfflæd donated fifteen estates to Stoke-by-Nayland Minster. These comprised nine estates over which she had acquired life tenure as a result of her father’s and sister’s bequests, four which carried through the bequests of ancestors ‘after her own lifetime’, but which are not mentioned in the wills of Ælfgar and Æthelflæd, and two estates which fit into neither category. It is surprising that in her will that she did not call upon the help of members of Byrhtnoth’s kin based in East Anglia. Instead, Ælfflæd turned to her own kinsman, Æthelmær, ealdorman of the western shires (1002–14), who received two estates in return for providing her and her men with protection during the course of her lifetime. Æthelmær’s reputation for piety was established through his role in the foundation of Eynesham (Oxon.) and Cerne (Dorset), and presumably led to his inclusion in the Ely calendar. After the death of Ælfflæd he was to ensure that her will was upheld, and that Stoke-by-Nayland received his ‘true’ friendship and advocacy. Ælfflæd may also have had practical reasons for turning to Æthelmær rather than to one of her husband’s kinsfolk, nearer at hand, to act as the protector of the community at Stoke-by-Nayland. She may have feared that her husband’s kin would use the opportunities presented by protection of the community at Stoke-by-Nayland to establish its subordination to Ely Abbey, eventually leading to a downgrading of the minster’s status. Ealdorman Æthelmær’s obligations towards Stoke-by-Nayland Minster were, moreover, complemented by the way in which, on six separate occasions, Ælfflæd drew attention to her own ancestors, twice mentioning their burial there. Ælfgar and Æthelflæd had placed less emphasis upon such ancestral connections.



            

On Soham, see Domesday Book, i, fol. 189c: the ten and a half hide manor held by King Edward is probably to be identified with Byrhtnoth’s manor, whereas six and a third hides, ascribed to King William’s breve, probably refers to Isleham (ibid.), as discussed in VCH Cambs., x, p. 500 n. 75. Soham’s appearance with Rettendon in Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s list of bequests to Ely Abbey raises the possibility that he exercised legal control over the descent of these two estates. For further discussion of this text, below, Chapter 4, pp. 00. ASW, no. 15, p. 40, lines 5–10, notably 9. It also appear in Byrhtnoth’s list of bequests to Ely abbey: Lib. El., ii, c. 62, p. 135. Below, Table 6, nos. 1–2. ASW, no. 15, p. 40, lines 5–10. In terms of hidage a rough estimate suggests that table 6 nos. 1–2 comprised around thirty hides, and nos. 3–4 around ten hides. Lancaster, ‘Kinship in Anglo-Saxon Society’, passim. Table 6, nos. 8–14, 20–3, 25–8. Ibid., nos. 8–12, 14, 20–3. Ibid., nos. 25–8. Ibid., nos. 13. ASW, no. 15, p. 40, lines 17–18; p. 145. Ibid., p. 40, lines 11–12; 16–17. Knowles, Monastic Order, pp. 49–51. Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 286; Trinity College, Cambridge MS O.2.1, fol. K2v. ASW, no. 15, p. 38, lines 9–15, 20–1, 31–2; p. 40, lines 14–15, 21–2.

LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 59


59

Although Ælfflæd sought to balance commitments to Ely Abbey and Stoke-byNayland Minster, protection of the latter took on a notable importance. Her main concern was to put her spiritual and social affairs in order so as to maintain the independence of Stoke-by-Nayland Minster.

Discussion One of the characteristics of tenth-century western Europe was the desire to use alliance and unification strategies to establish unity within society. At the heart of these strategies lay donations to religious houses: the community of royalty, aristocracy and the church worked together to overcome the Vikings, Hungarians and other enemies of the Christian peoples. These strategies, moreover, overcame social divisions within regional societies when servants and dependants of powerful lords and other local families joined kings and ecclesiastics in supporting the development of religious houses. Yet these alliance and unification strategies depended upon the continual flow of gifts from the lay aristocracy to the church, and in that context widows came to play a very important political role. As it happened, these developments opened up opportunities for the emergence of values which could undermine the strength of these national strategies. Such patterns become apparent when attention is focused on Ealdorman Ælfgar’s daughters. Æthelflæd and Ælfflæd pursued their own independent ecclesiastical patronage strategies which did not entirely overlap with patterns of patronage adopted by their father, as would be expected in bilateral kinship systems. Nor did they concentrate the descent of their religious donations upon religious houses associated with their husbands, in line with patterns of behaviour associated with patrilinear kinship systems. The religious benefaction strategies of the sisters’ kinsmen cannot be explained by applying formulas derived from either patrilinear or bilateral models. Thus, Ealdorman Ælfgar established an equal balance between gifts to Stoke-by-Nayland Minster (perhaps initially associated with the family he had married into), and gifts to houses whose connections were probably with his own friends and associates. Moreover, he also envisaged that his elder daughter, Æthelflæd, would exercise a degree of freedom over her religious bequests. When the post-obit bequests in Ealdorman Ælfgar’s will are compared with those of his daughters it is notable that there was an increased focus upon religious houses within East Anglia: there was a nearly threefold increase from nine to twenty-five estates between c. 950 and c. 1002. These figures demonstrate that Æthelflæd and Ælfflæd invested a greater proportion of their wealth for the benefit of religious houses in East Anglia, notably Ely Abbey and Stoke-by-Nayland Minster. These developments were also linked to social strategies by which kinswomen sought to involve a wide circle of kin and companions within East Anglia. Twice as much of the landed wealth which Æthelflæd controlled in the Stour valley descended to three of her relatives, her reeve, her retainer and two priests, as had passed from

 

Althoff, Amicitae und Pacta, 69–87. If hidage and carucatage figures from Domesday Book are used, then possible figures range from around forty to 150.

LCEM-Ch-3.qxd

60

8/20/05

11:51 AM

Page 60


Ealdorman Ælfgar to his kinsman and a servant. Thus, the wide circle of local friends whom Æthelflæd sought to involve in relationships with a larger network of religious houses in the East Anglian region can be contrasted with the narrower circle and smaller group of local religious houses and companions mentioned in her father’s will. Yet the argument of localism should not be pushed too far. Ælfflæd, after all, turned to her distant kinsman Ealdorman Æthelmær as advocate and protector of herself, her men and Stoke-by-Nayland Minster. The general point, though, stands: the sisters used national frameworks of power in order to strengthen regional identities. Æthelflæd and Ælfflæd exercised a high degree of independence, each reorienting her own and her kinsfolk’s values more closely upon East Anglia, because both sisters were fortunate enough to outlive their father and husbands. It is not so surprising that these sisters sought to reorientate the interests of their relatives and kin more closely upon the region in place of national and royal associations. These women probably spent much more of their time, in the company of their households, visiting East Anglian religious houses. Their kinsmen had fewer opportunities to establish close ties with religious houses in the region because of duties at the royal court. When tenth century developments are looked at, it becomes apparent that the forging of alliances between dynasties with differing interests assisted in the formation of an aristocratic elite with supra-regional territorial interests. Gradually, though, amongst this elite, values associated with more regional frameworks of power emerged. In this case study women played a decisive role in initiating this change. Given the contrast which is often drawn between ‘medieval’ and ‘modern’ values, it is worth noting the contrast between the roles played by these two women and the Jerome sisters during the late nineteenth century. The latter made a lasting impact on English high society through their personalities, husbands and descendants, including Winston Churchill (d. 1965), but were still circumscribed ‘into channeling their abilities into social achievement’. A millennium earlier the sisters Æthelflæd and Ælfflæd had taken a lead in setting into motion key changes in the social and political order in one of medieval England’s most important regions. This divergence stems in part from the contrast between the relative importance of the church in the medieval and modern periods, but it also arose from the special attributes of the social order in tenth-century society.

  

ASW, no. 2, p. 8, lines 12–13, 17–19; no. 14, p. 36, lines 20–31. For a comparative study, see K.J. Leyser, Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society: Ottonian Saxony (Oxford, 1979), pp. 50–62. E. Kehoe, Fortune’s Daughters: The Extravagant Lives of the Jerome Sisters: Jennie Churchill, Clara Frewen and Leonie Leslie (London, 2004), p. 385.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 61

Chapter 4 Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s Kindred and the Formation of Lineage Identity in the Early Eleventh Century . . . he [Ealdorman Byrhtnoth] came into the chapter house in the morning for the purpose of receiving brotherhood and, giving thanks to the abbot and the community for their so generous charity, gave them, on the spot in recompense for their generosity, these head estates . . . Then, commending himself to the prayers of the brothers, he hastened to battle with his men. . .. The abbot, hearing the outcome of the battle, went with some monks to the place of fighting and found his body. He brought it back to the church and buried it with honour [in 991]. Liber Eliensis, ii, c. 62 (c. 1131x54) The twelfth-century account of the events surrounding the battle of Maldon established a myth which helped to separate secular and ecclesiastical responsibilities. From an Ely perspective lay benefactors donated estates in exchange for prayers, burial and other religious services carried out by the monks, but monastic power was not to be applied to the furthering of secular agendas. Although Byrhtnoth was killed in 991 at Maldon while campaigning against the Vikings, the reality of his historical relationships with the community at Ely does not square with the Liber Eliensis’ account. The arising task is threefold: first, to establish the nature of the actual relationship linking Ealdorman Byrhtnoth with Ely Abbey; second, the character of the ties forged between Byrhtnoth’s descendants and Ely Abbey; and third, the dynasty’s wider interests within the region during the second quarter of the eleventh century.   



For articles relating to the themes discussed in this chapter, see The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg (Oxford, 1991); The Battle of Maldon: Fiction and Fact, ed. J. Cooper (London, 1993); Hart, ‘Ealdordom’, Danelaw, pp. 131–35. Lib. El., ii, c. 62, pp. 135–6 with translation by A. Kennedy, ‘Byrhtnoth’s Obits and Twelfth-Century Accounts of the Battle of Maldon’, Battle of Maldon, ed. Scragg, pp. 59–80, at 68. For comment on the text, see Kennedy, ‘Byrhtnoth’s Obits and Twelfth-Century Accounts’, pp. 73–4; cf. E. John, ‘War and Society in the Tenth Century: The Maldon Campaign’, Transactions of Royal Historical Society, 5th ser. xxvii (1977), pp. 173–91. For the view that it was based upon a now lost Old English ‘epic’, see A. Gransden, Historical Writing in England c. 550–1307 (London, 1974), p. 274. ASC, [A, 991], p. 82.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

62

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 62


These discussions lead into an unexpected area in explaining the changes in European society during the tenth and eleventh centuries; namely the formation of lineage identity. Generally the latter has been linked to the emergence of more militaristic values, but in fact rituals associated with prayers for the dead may have played a no less important role in the formation of a lineage identity. Before exploring this theme, however, the historical relationship between the Ely community, Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and his kindred needs to be clarified and differentiated from the perspectives put forward in the Ely version of the Maldon myth.

Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and Ely Abbey One possible explanation for Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s donations towards Ely Abbey rests upon a suggested kinship identification. Byrhtnoth may have been the first cousin of Abbot Byrhtnoth of Ely, with the latter being commemorated by the monks of Ely on the same day as Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s son-in-law and heir Oswig (d. 1010). While this fact might be used as further evidence of a kinship link between Abbot Byrhtnoth and Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, it may equally only demonstrate the strength of the ties which developed between Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s family and the monks of Ely. One way by which we can get closer to the historical relationship between Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and Ely Abbey is to consider the accounts in the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi. Two case studies of his involvement in Ely law-suits help to explain his patronage of the Ely community. Bluntisham, twelve kilometres east of Huntingdon, lies at the junction of eastern Huntingdonshire, north-west Cambridgeshire and the south-western corner of the Isle of Ely, with a crossing over the River Ouse at Earith, which interconnected with important north-south and east-west roads. In 921 six and a half hides at Bluntisham had been held by Earl Toli of Huntingdon through his rights of wardship over a young woman. Toli had been one of the semi-independent Scandinavian rulers in the fenland shires, and following his death in battle, the Bluntisham estate was forfeited to King Edward the Elder, and descended to the king’s thegn Wulfnoth. On being required to undertake a mission overseas on behalf of the king, he sold the Bluntisham estate along with ten hides at Toft in Cambridgeshire to Bishop Æthelwold, with Bluntisham’s charter being handed over in the presence of King

    

Locherbie-Cameron, ‘Byrhtnoth and his Family’, p. 254; Heads of Religious Houses, I, p. 44. Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 346. Hart, ‘Ealdordom’, Danelaw, pp. 115–40, at 131–5 discusses his career. VCH Hunts., ii, pp. 153–4; see Map 5, p. 63. Lib. El., ii. c. 25, p. 98. VCH Hunts., ii, p. 154 establishes the link between Wulfnoth’s estate and Ely’s property TRE and TRW.  Lib. El., ii. c. 25, p. 98: ‘. . . quod avia eiusdem Tope, existens in flore virginitatis sue’.  The account is set out in ibid., ii, c. 25, pp. 98–9. For a summary, see VCH Hunts., ii, p. 154. For other discussions, see Whitelock, ‘Introduction’, Lib. El., p. xi; L. Abrams, ‘Edward the Elder’s Danelaw’, Edward the Elder 899–924, eds. N.J. Higham and J.C. Hill (Manchester, 2001), pp. 128–43, at 139; M. Innes, ‘Danelaw Identities: Ethnicity, Regionalism, and Political Allegiance’, Cultures in Contact: Scandinavian Settlement in England and Wales, eds. D.M. Hadley and J. Richards (Turnhout, 2000), pp. 65–88, at 82–3; Sage, ‘Patronage and Society’, pp. 36–42. In common with other members of the late Anglo-Saxon court nobility, Wulfnoth combined local interests with service at the royal court; see Lib. El., ii, c. 25, p. 98; S 722.  On his mission overseas, see Lib. El., ii, c. 25, p. 99; on Toft, see Lib. El., ii, c. 26, p. 100.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 63

EALDORMAN BYRHTNOTH’S KINDRED AND THE FORMATION OF LINEAGE

5. Donations by Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and his kinsfolk to Ely Abbey.

63

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

64

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 64


Edgar. In 975, however, the great-great-nephews of Earl Toli’s ward claimed that their grandmother had been wrongfully disinherited of Bluntisham, since she had submitted to King Edward the Elder personally before Earl Toli’s death. These were serious charges because the claimants were using oral testimony, reaching back over half a century, to invalidate the authority of a charter guaranteed by King Edgar. If the claimants had been successful, other families might have been tempted to launch similar claims, thereby undermining the rights of Ely’s ownership across the region. Bishop Æthelwold and Abbot Byrhtnoth called upon Ealdorman Byrhtnoth for assistance, perhaps because he controlled the soce to which Bluntisham was subject. The four hundreds of Huntingdonshire and two neighbouring hundreds were assembled under the authority of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, assisted by Ealdorman Æthelwine’s brother Ælfwold and the reeve Eadric. At this general assembly witnesses provided oral testimony which contradicted the claimants’ version of events in key respects, but neither their account nor that of the claimants, as set out in the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi, accords with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle’s description of the death of Earl Toli and King Edward the Elder’s conquest of Huntingdonshire. Nonetheless Wulfnoth brought one thousand men out in support of the validity of his sale of the estate, and the claimants’ case collapsed. The involvement of Byrhtnoth perhaps played a decisive role in one thousand men coming forward to provide support for the Ely community’s view of the past. In other cases decided by public assemblies which are reported in the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi, it was normal for Bishop Æthelwold or Abbot Byrhtnoth to pay compensation to the dispossessed or the aggrieved. The claimants in the Bluntisham dispute, however, received neither compensation nor tenancy rights, while Bishop Æthelwold gave Wulfnoth £2 and a horse. A gift to Ealdorman Byrhtnoth is not recorded, but close co-operation between Byrhtnoth and the Ely community had resulted in the enhancement of secular and ecclesiastical power for each respective party, and strengthened their bond of friendship. The king’s thegn Eadric the Long of Essex held seven and a half hides at Hauxton and Newton, four kilometres due south of Cambridge. At Hauxton there was a ford, later a bridge, where Ermine Street crossed the River Cam, while five local roads converged on the heathland where the settlement at Newton had grown up. Eadric bequeathed Hauxton and Newton to King Edgar, enabling Bishop Æthelwold to purchase the properties for Ely Abbey, but in 975 Eadric’s brother Ælfwold seized Newton on the basis that it had been his share of a joint estate. He had possession of the charters, and Ely Abbey was unable to recover the properties even though Ealdorman



After their appearances in ibid., ii, cc. 25–26, pp. 98–100, Wulfnoth and his son do not feature again in the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi.  This depends upon the assumption that Ealdorman Byrhtnoth controlled the soce attached to the estate of Somersham. For his rights over it, see Lib. El., ii, c. 63, p. 135; and for discussion, see below, p. 66. On the soce itself, see VCH Hunts., iii, pp. 223–4.  Lib. El., ii, c. 25, p. 99.  ASC, [A, 917 (920)], p. 65.  E.g. Lib. El., ii, cc. 12, 26, pp. 91, 100.  Ibid., ii, c. 25, p. 99.  Account based on Lib. El., ii, c. 27, pp. 100–1. For a summary see, VCH Cambs., viii, p. 196. For location, see above, Map 5, p. 63.  VCH Cambs., viii, pp. 194–5.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 65


65

Table 7 Bequests of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth to Ely Abbey

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 

Estate

Hundred

County

Sources

Spaldwick Trumpington Rettendon Hesberie Soham Occold Fulbourn Teversham Impington Pampisford Croxton Fimborough Thriplow Hardwick Somersham

Hurstingstone Thriplow Chelmsford Staploe Hartismere Flendish Flendish Northstow Chilford Grimshoe Stow Thriplow Longstowe Hurstingtone

Hunts. Cambs. Essex Cambs. Suffolk. Cambs. Cambs. Cambs. Cambs. Norfolk Suffolk Cambs. Cambs. Hunts.

Lib. El.; Ely cal. Lib. El.; Ely cal. Lib. El.; Ely cal. Lib. El. Lib. El.; Ely cal. Lib. El.; Ely cal. Lib. El.; Ely cal. Lib. El.; Ely cal. Lib. El. Lib. El. Lib. El. Lib. El. Lib. El.; Ely cal. Lib. El. Lib. El.; Ely cal.

Based on Lib. El., ii, c. 62, pp. 133–6.

Æthelwine’s support had been secured. Eventually when Ealdorman Byrhtnoth came to Ely Abbey he was asked by Abbot Byrhtnoth and the monks, for the love of God and Saint Æthelthryth, to purchase these charters, which he then donated to the Ely community. The Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi does not dwell upon the scene at the abbey, but it may have been similar to the meeting of Ælfwold, brother of Ealdorman Æthelwine, with the monks of Winchester c. 975x77. Such occasions strengthened the bonds of friendship between members of the high nobility and the reform monks. The Bluntisham and Hauxton disputes demonstrate the closeness of the ties between Byrhtnoth and Ely Abbey, which in turn explains the generosity of his patronage. The alliance which Byrhtnoth forged with the Ely community compares with lines of friendship linking Ealdorman Æthelwine and Ramsey Abbey. Both lords used the exercise of their public power at the local level in order to secure victories for the reform abbeys, which also fortuitously augmented their own secular status in front of local communities. This comparison, though, still leaves unanswered questions: for example, how much reliance can be placed upon the Liber Eliensis’ account of the donations of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth to Ely Abbey? Perhaps a will or other text drawn up before 991 set out Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s bequests, forming the basis for the list of fifteen estates which were donated by him to

  

Lib. El., ii, c. 27, p. 101: ‘. . . res etenim eadem multis annis in lite versabatur’. Ibid.: ‘Tunc abbas et omnis cetus fratrum accesserunt et petierunt ab eo, ut pro amore Die sancteque Æthelride predicta cyrographa ad opus ecclesie sue ab Alfwoldo fratre Eadrici emeret.’ VSO, p. 446 records that the monks walked out bearing the Holy Gospel, holy water, cross, censer and candelabras, and after praying, provided Ælfwold with a pair of shoes.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

66

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 66


the Ely community in 991, according to the Liber Eliensis. Such a testament would probably have included details of his involvement in bequests to religious houses in Wessex and Mercia, and perhaps also donations to other communities in East Anglia. That might explain why the Ely community sought to update and ‘improve’ the record of his piety so that it only dwelt upon his exclusive relationship with Ely Abbey. According to a reliable source, two of the estates listed in the Liber Eliensis’ account of Byrhtnoth’s donations had been promised to Ely before 991, but what of the remaining thirteen estates for which there is no independent evidence outside the Ely record? The issues can be addressed by looking at the location, organization and lordship of the estates. Two Huntingonshire estates donated by Byrhtnoth lay at the centre of the soces controlled by him. Somersham, lying on the ground rising above the fens, lay at the mid-point on the road between St Ives and Chatteris, while Spaldwick, nine kilometres to the west of Huntingdon, had developed around a river crossing over the Little Ouse, linking the two halves of Huntingdonshire’s most westerly hundred. Byrhtnoth’s grants in Cambridgeshire were no less valuable: four estates lay close to Cambridge, while others stood at the junction of important man-made features: Pampisford, twelve kilometres south-east of the borough, had three major roads running through it, and Thriplow, eleven kilometres south-west of Cambridge, lay at the junction of the Icknield and Brandon Ways. These eight estates were valuable in terms of their authority over churches, rents and services and access to communications’ points, and in general can be linked to the areas where Ealdorman Byrhtnoth exercised authority on behalf of the Ely community. While it is possible that the author of the Maldon myth was familiar with the details of the Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi, and hence carefully set out that correlation, it is as likely that it arose from an authentic historical linkage. The areas where Ealdorman Byrhtnoth was best placed to assist the monks in the resolution of disputes would clearly have been those areas where he held property. Perhaps some of the fifteen estates listed in the Liber Eliensis comprised actual donations of estates by Ealdorman Byrhtnoth. For the remaining estates, it is hard to judge whether these were subsequently added to the list of Byrhtnoth’s donations as a means to reinforce security of tenure, or whether they had in fact been donated by the ealdorman. In terms of descent there is no general pattern: three estates passed out of the control of the monks of Ely, one was transferred to another ecclesiastical landlord, while the remainder were divided between the Ely demesne and its sub-tenants. This absence          

For a discussion, see Hart, ‘Ealdordom’, Danelaw, p. 132. Table 6, nos. 1–2; Rettendon and Soham: ASW, no. 15, p. 40, lines 9–10. For the record of bequests in the Ely calendar, see Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 348. On Spaldwick, see VCH Hunts., iii, pp. 97–100; on Somersham, ibid., ii, pp. 223–30; on tenure, Lib. El., ii, c. 62, p. 135. Table 7, nos. 2, 7–9; Lib. El., c. 62, p. 135. VCH Cambs., vi, pp. 105–13. Ibid., viii, pp. 238–48. Ealdorman Byrhtnoth was also involved in a dispute over Fen Ditton on the outskirts of Cambridge, supporting the monks of Ely; see Lib. El., ii, c. 33, pp. 105–8. S 1051 provides an example of a forged document. Hart, ‘Ealdordom’, Danelaw, p. 131 suggests that Byrhtnoth’s patrimony lay in Cambridgeshire. Miller, Abbey and Bishopric, p. 25 n. 1; VCH Hunts., iii, pp. 197, 224; VCH Cambs., viii, p. 239; ix, p. 131; x, pp. 136, 173, 500.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 67


67

of a clear pattern of descent suggests that the list was perhaps drawn from authentic records of donations. One notable feature is that apart from the estate at Rettendon, none of the bequests listed in Byrhtnoth’s gifts to the abbey comprised estates in Essex, but they were distributed across the fenland shires. This geographical distribution invites comparison with Wulfstan of Dalham’s donations. Wulfstan and Byrhtnoth helped the monks of Ely to overcome their foes in disputes, and made gifts to the abbey which were mainly in Cambridgeshire and Huntingdonshire, but they did not grant out substantial landholdings in the localities where their own power was most likely concentrated. One possibility is that these nobles sought to donate estates in the immediate vicinity of the abbey, thereby contributing to Ely’s domination of the fenland shires. Another is that estates which lay in the heartlands of these two families’ interests in the East Anglian region descended to kinsfolk and other heirs, with a balance being maintained between secular and ecclesiastical strategies of investment.

Commemoration and donations of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s kin Patronage of Ely by Byrhtnoth’s descendants, as set out in the Liber Eliensis, was linked to intercessions for their souls by the monks of Ely, as recorded in the Ely calendar. The Ely calendar is a necrology which provides considerable information on late Anglo-Saxon history. Although the obits of abbots of Ely, prelates and kings from the Anglo-Norman era are included, the focus of the text is upon c. 979x1050, with the highest number of monks’ names perhaps dating from the abbacy of Leofric (10229). The general period coincides with the era when Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and members of his kindred became patrons of Ely Abbey. The 1020s, in the aftermath of Cnut’s conquest, may have been a particularly notable period of alliance between Ely Abbey and this kindred. Of the twelve lay benefactors who are listed in the calendar, nine belonged to Byrhtnoth’s family. Two points deserve attention when the accounts of the donations of these kinsfolk in the Liber Eliensis are compared with the Ely calendar. The first is the way in which the commemoration dates of members of this family were combined with those of important figures in the history of the community. Thus, Ealdorman Byrhtnoth was commemorated on the same day as Ælfric, a prior of the community, while his son-in-law Oswig was commemorated on the same day as Abbot Byrhtnoth and his reeve Leofric. More generally the commemoration of each



The congruence of the area where (according to the Ely sources) Byrhtnoth held estates with that in which his Mercian royal ancestors had exercised authority is interesting, providing a variation on the view expressed in Hart, ‘Ealdordom’, Danelaw, p. 131.  For kinship and descent of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s kinsfolk, see above, Chapter 3, Figure 3, p. 00.  Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, pp. 284–5.  Ibid., p. 283 notes that a comparison of the list in the Ely calendar with the lists of the Ely monks in the New Minster and Hyde Liber Vitae from the abbacy of Leofric (1022–29) shows that only three monks’ names which appear in the latter do not appear in the former.  Table 8. Problems are posed notably by ‘soror nostra’ names, which may refer either to nuns or lay women, as noted by Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 286.  The relevant materials are set out in Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, pp. 343–50; Trinity College Cambridge MS. 0.2.1, fols. K1–13; Lib. El., ii, cc. 62–4, 67, 88, pp. 133–6, 139, 157–8.  Trinity College Cambridge MS. 0.2.1, fol. K8v.  Ibid., fol. K5v.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

8/20/05

68

11:54 AM

Page 68


Table 8 Donations of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s kin to Ely Abbey c. 991x1044 Estate

Hundred

County

Donor

Date

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Rettendon Soham Woodditton Cheveley Stetchworth March Kirtling Dullingham Swaffham Cottenham Willingham Chedburgh Balsham Stetchworth

Chelmsford Staploe Cheveley Cheveley Radfield Isle of Ely Cheveley Radfield Staine Chesterton Papworth Risbridge Radfield Radfield

Essex Cambs. Cambs. Cambs. Cambs. Cambs. Cambs. Cambs. Cambs. Cambs. Cambs. Suffolk Cambs. Cambs.

c. 991x1002 c. 991x1002 c. 991x1002 c. 991x1002 c. 995x1010 c. 995x1010 c. 995x1010 c. 995x1010 c. 995x1010 c. 996x1010 c. 996x1010 c. 996x1010 c. 1017x35 c. 1017x35

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Wetheringsett Fen Ditton Knapwell Borough Green Weston Colville Kedington Pentlow Wimbish Yardley Hall South Hanningfield Ashdon Knapwell Weston

Hartismere Flendish Papworth Radfield Radfield Risbridge Hinckford Uttlesford Dunmow Chelmsford Freshwell Papworth Hinckford

Suffolk Cambs. Cambs. Cambs. Cambs. Suffolk Essex Essex Essex Essex Essex Cambs. Essex

Ælfflæd Ælfflæd Ælfflæd Ælfflæd Oswig & Leofflæd Oswig & Leofflæd Oswig & Leofflæd Oswig & Leofflæd Oswig & Leofflæd Uvi of Willingham Uvi of Willingham Æthelric Leofflæd Leofflæd, Ælfwyn & Æthelswyth Leofwaru Lustwine & Leofwaru Lustwine & Leofwaru Lustwine & Leofwaru Lustwine & Leofwaru Lustwine & Leofwaru Lustwine & Leofwaru Lustwine & Leofwaru Lustwine & Leofwaru Lustwine & Leofwaru Lustwine & Leofwaru Thurstan Thurstan

c. 1016x35 c. 1017x45 c. 1017x45 c. 1017x45 c. 1017x45 c. 1017x45 c. 1017x45 c. 1017x45 c. 1017x45 c. 1017x45 c. 1017x45 c. 1043x44 c. 1043x44

 Table based on Lib. El., ii, c. 63, p. 136 (nos. 1–4); c. 64, pp. 136–6; c. 67, p. 139 (nos. 5–9); c. 88, pp. 157–58 (nos. 13–15); c. 89 (nos. 16–25); ASW, no. 31, pp. (nos. 26–7)

member of this kindred, as recorded in this necrological source, can be linked to a chapter in the Liber Eliensis setting out the piety and patronage of the donor. Discussion now turns to some of the individuals involved, and the ways in which the rituals associated with the commemoration of the dead influenced the formation of lineage identity. Ælfflæd, wife of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, had inherited two estates in the Gog Magog hills from her ancestors, while her daughter Leofflæd (d. 1017x35) and the latter’s husband Oswig bequeathed four estates in the area to Ely, comprising around  

ASW, no. 15, p. 40, lines 10–11. Locherbie-Cameron, ‘Byrhtnoth and his Family’, p. 257.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 69


69

Table 9 Commemoration of the Anglo-Saxon laity in the Ely Calendar

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Name

Obit

Cal. gifts

Other obits on that day

Lib. El.

Æthelflæd Ælfflaed Byrhtnoth Leofflaed Oswig Uvi Æthelswyth Leofwaru Æthelmær Ælfwaru Æthelgyth Waltheof

20 May 20 May 10 August 12 October 5 May 16 February 28 June 18 October 19 February 27 February 11 March 31 May

3 estates 3 estates 9 estates 1 estate 4 estates 1 estate 1 estate 2 estates 1 estate 1 estate -

Sister, Ælfflaed Sister, Æthelflaed Ælfric, Godricus, Elfricus Abb. Byrhtnoth; Leo Thieburtus; Ribaldus Bp. Eadnoth and friends Herewen anchorite Thoti Alan - -

c. 64 c. 63 c. 62 c. 88 c. 67 c. 66 c. 88 c. 89 c. 61 -.

thirty-five hides. Oswig belonged to a local family with extensive territorial interests running across from the fens of north-east Cambridgeshire into the adjacent area of western Suffolk. The marriage may have been intended by Ealdorman Byrhtnoth to strengthen his family’s position in East Anglia, and was among the factors which contributed to the localization of that dynasty’s power in the late Anglo-Saxon period. Oswig was killed in 1010 in the unsuccessful battle against the Vikings at Ringmere, in which he had led the Cambridgeshire forces under the command of Ulfcytel of East Anglia. During the second half of the tenth century and the first quarter of the eleventh there was a shift in the types of estates donated to Ely Abbey by members of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s kindred. Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s donations had tended to comprise estates located at or close to key communications’ points across the fenland shires, whereas the most valued bequests of his descendants were properties which were concentrated in south-east Cambridgeshire on the borders with Essex. These changes can be connected to the changing personal circumstances of the individuals concerned. Byrhtnoth’s status as a great ealdorman differed from that of Oswig and his brothers, who did not hold public office. That led to differences not only in the ways in which they would have been received at Ely Abbey, but also in the ways in which their power and status were expressed. Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s need to maintain his local power through itineration and by links with a wide range of local communities led him to concentrate his power upon estates near to major roads and rivers. By contrast Oswig may have spent much more of his time in the Gog Magog hills area. This possible shift in power is reflected in records in the Liber Eliensis of the types of donations which passed from members of this family to the monks.   

Lib. El., ii, cc. 67, 88, pp. 139, 157–8 (Balsham, Dullingham, Kirtling and Stetchworth). As suggested by Lib. El., ii, cc. 67–8, pp. 139–40. ASC, [C, (D, E), 1010], p. 90; C.R. Hart, ‘The Battles of the Holme, Brunanburh and Ringmere’, idem, The Danelaw, pp. 511–32, at 525–6.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

70

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 70


As part of the negotiation of secular and ecclesiastical power, Byrhtnoth and his heirs could expect to receive counter-gifts. In parallel with a shift in the types of gifts which the monks received there was also a probable change in the form of the counter-gifts which they presented to their lay benefactors. During the late tenth century ealdormen resided at Ely Abbey during the normal course of events. Yet as the reformed ideology gathered momentum at the turn of the eleventh century, the monks of Ely may have become increasingly uncomfortable with providing countergifts in kind. Reform writers such as Ælfric, who commented on the writings of Bede, may have reflected upon Bede’s description of the monastic community at Lindisfarne during the golden age of English monasticism. Instruction may have been taken from the record that its monks ‘had no need to amass money or provide lodging for important people, since they only came to the church in order to pray or hear the word of God’. The reform agenda suggested that the monks should provide the laity with spiritual rather than material benefits. One purpose of the Maldon myth may have been to send out the message that the community of monks fully recognized their obligations to pray for the souls of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and his kinsfolk in exchange for donations. Equally, though, the laity needed to recognize that munificent hospitality had only been offered to Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and his household in the exceptional circumstances of war, and was not part of the established interaction between donors and patrons after c. 991. The genesis of the Maldon myth can be connected perhaps with the localization of the interests of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s family in the Gog Magog hills. Linked to that localization of power was the commemoration of ancestors’ souls by the Ely monks. Who was commemorated with whom, on what days, with what numbers of prayers and masses arose from decisions related to the observance of rituals which are reflected in texts such as the Ely calendar. These processes of commemoration in turn influenced the self-perception and the external identity of the family. One way in which this theme can be explored is by comparing the records of donations by members of Byrhtnoth’s kin with the entries in the Ely calendar. The degree of overlap between the memorial records and cartulary-chronicle is only partial, suggesting that the former fulfilled social and political functions and were not used merely as lists in which to enter benefactors’ names. Where there are records of donations by kin which are not correlated to the entry of their names in the Ely calendar it can be suggested that these kin were regarded as belonging to a lower rank than their relatives who are commemorated. By looking at these differentiations collectively, patterns of hierarchy within the kindred of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth can be mapped, identifying primary and secondary lines and the extent to which ties of kinship reached out to include cognates as well as agnates, and the values which informed marriages and career choices. Oswig’s brother Uvi of Willingham bequeathed properties to a number of churches, but Ely was probably the primary beneficiary, receiving Willingham itself and one  

Lib. El., ii, c. 11, p. 87 provides a chance reference in the context of the drawing up of a will. P. Jackson, ‘Ælfric and the Purpose of Christian Marriage: a Reconsideration of the Life of Æthelthryth, lines 120–30’, ASE xxix (2000), pp. 235–60.  Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, eds. L. Shirley-Price and D.H. Farmer, 3rd edn (London, 1990), iii, c. 26, pp. 193–4. For hospitality in the Anglo-Norman period, see J. Kerr, ‘Monastic Hospitality: The Benedictines in England, c. 1075-c.1245’, ANS xxiii (2000), pp. 97–114.  For a wider discussion of these themes in the tenth century, see Althoff, Amicitae und Pacta, passim.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 71


71

other estate in the fenlands of north-west Cambridgeshire. Uvi was an important local figure, witnessing agreements between Bishop Æthelwold and prominent members of the fenland aristocracy c. 970x84 and appearing in the Ely calendar, but he does not figure as a powerful and effective supporter of the monks before his brother’s marriage to a woman of higher status. The third brother, Æthelric, granted Ely two carucates at Chedburgh in Suffolk linked to the entry of his son as a monk into the Ely community, but neither one can be confidently identified with any person commemorated in the Ely calendar. Although Oswig’s kin did bequeath properties to other churches, a strong impression remains that their gifts were focused upon the abbey closely associated with Oswig’s wife’s father and family. In transferring this wealth to Ely, Oswig’s kin had a range of objectives. The prospects of sons as Ely novices were tied up with donations of land, and although the first cousins, Æthelmær and Ælfwine, did not rise to high office, their roles in the celebration of the Eucharist and in intercession for the souls of their ancestors would have been highly valued. There was also a commitment to regulating the lifestyles of daughters in the secular world, but there was no corresponding interest in daughters who wished to pursue a religious vocation. Leofflæd’s daughter Leofwaru was required to retain her virginity until marriage and to establish a lawful marriage contract. The choice of husband for Leofwaru resembled her mother’s. Lustwine, perhaps a local East Anglian man, may have been chosen in preference to someone from further afield. From the post-obit bequests of the third generation of this kindred’s patronage of Ely Abbey, taking effect from around c.1017x45, a change can be detected in the geographical patterns of patronage. Up to that stage gifts to Ely Abbey were concentrated in fenland localities and in the Gog Magog hills, but five of the ten estates donated by Lustwine and Leofwaru lay in Essex. Perhaps these Essex estates had descended as post-obit inheritances from Ealdorman Byrhtnoth via Leofflæd to Leofwaru, but it was only in the second quarter of the eleventh century that the family decided to invest those properties in Ely Abbey. If, on the other hand, they had originated from Lustwine’s resources, his relative unimportance in the Ely calendar is perhaps even more significant. Lustwine can only be identified through the summary in the Liber Eliensis of the couple’s joint bequests to Ely Abbey. Leofwaru’s obit was listed in the Ely calendar but there is no mention of Lustwine. These parameters of kinship meant that the monks of Ely

          

Lib. El., ii, c. 66, p. 138; VCH Cambs., ix, pp. 48–9, 398–99. Lib. El., ii, cc. 33, 35, pp. 108, 110; Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 344. Lib. El., ii, c. 68, pp. 139–40. On Æthelmær, son of Æthelric, becoming a novice at Ely, see ibid.; on Ælfwine, son of Oswy, see ibid., c. 67, p. 139. A contemporary novice, whose parents had also donated estates, served as abbot in the 1020s: Lib. El., ii, c. 74, pp. 143–4. For a wider discussion, see M. de Jong, In Samuel’s Image: Child Oblation in the Early Medieval West (Leiden, 1996). Lib. El., ii, c. 88, p. 157. Ibid., ii, c. 89, p. 158. The alternative possibility that they came from Oswig’s family’s resources seems less likely as his interests were concentrated further north. Lib. El., ii, c. 89, p. 158. Trinity College Cambridge MS O.2.1, fol. K10v.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

72

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 72


devoted far more attention to the higher status wives than to their husbands. The children of these unions would probably have regarded themselves as the direct heirs and descendants of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, rather than tracing descent back to their own paternal ancestors or through bilateral lines of descent to several groupings of ancestors. Close interaction between the monks of Ely and this kindred, as a result of the continuing flow of gifts, was among the processes which served to fashion a new set of attitudes towards descent and kinship. The starting point for these developments may have been the burial of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth at Ely. The monks of Ely had secured the burial of Byrhtnoth for a range of reasons (including the desire to protect their rights to the estates which he had donated), but the interment had also initiated a social process which perhaps contributed towards the formation of lineage identity. Kin would have gathered on the occasion of these funerals and burials, when the rituals of commemoration of the dead were carried out by the monks of Ely. In the Benedictine communities of the tenth and eleventh centuries, a new emphasis was placed upon the monks’ role in interceding for the souls of lay patrons and their kin as well as for themselves and their royal protectors. When lay kinsfolk gathered to witness prayers and masses offered by the monks for the soul of a particularly important ancestor they would have become more aware of their common descent. A series of such occasions, usually attended by current members of the family, would have served to further emphasize the importance of unilineal descent. Thus, Thurstan (d. c. 1044) and his relatives (discussed further below) would have been aware of a line of commemoration connecting his deceased mother (Leofwaru) with his great-grandfather (Ealdorman Byrhtnoth) via his grandparents (Oswig and Leofflæd). By the 1040s masses would have been performed for ten members of Byrhtnoth’s kin by the monks of Ely on nine separate obit days between February and November. This would have provided a cultural environment for focusing attention upon a lineage. Comparative studies demonstrate that such processes often lead to the writing of genealogies which begin with the founding ancestors around whom commemorative prayers are focused. Such genealogies often include fictional accounts of the deeds of the founding ancestors, which reflect issues paramount at the time the genealogy was written. If a genealogy of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s kindred was written in the preConquest period it does not survive, but the context for such a text may be relevant to the genesis of the Maldon myth. This myth celebrates the deeds of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth in a manner that would not be out of place in the opening of a genealogy written for this kindred during the early eleventh century. Generally the authors of early medieval genealogies, such as Ealdorman Æthelweard ‘the Chronicler’ and perhaps also his cousin, Abbess Matilda of Essen, identify themselves in their prologues, or can be picked out through references to their ancestors in the texts. Other myths associated with Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, such as the ‘Poem of the Battle of Maldon’,

   

For further comment, see McLaughlin, Consorting with Saints, p. 148. For discussion of these issues in other regions, see Wareham, ‘Transformation of Kinship and the Family’, pp. 375–99. Wareham, ‘Transformation of Kinship and Family’, pp. 377–8. E. van Houts, Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe 900–1200 (London, 1999), pp. 69–70.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 73


73

appear to have been constructed in the early eleventh century. Comparisons with Matilda’s putative role in the construction of Ealdorman Æthelweard’s genealogy directs attention towards Æthelswyth, grand-daughter of Byrhtnoth, as the type of person who may have filled out the substance of some of the myths which came to be associated with a famous ancestor.

Æthelswyth and Byrhtnoth Æthelswyth, elder sister of Leofwaru, may have exercised quite an important role within her family during the second quarter of the eleventh century. Under the terms of Oswig’s and Leofflæd’s wills the estate of Stetchworth was to provide clothing for their son Ælfwine the Ely monk, but by the time that Leofflæd drew up her own will, the estate was to pass to Æthelswyth and her sister. Æthelswyth became the sole beneficiary of this estate and its church. Instead of passing Stetchworth on to her sister, Æthelswyth granted it to the Ely community in order that she could devote herself to religion, receiving charge of Coveney, a cell of Ely, with its small community of nuns. This community would obviously not have been able to say masses for the souls of Æthelswyth’s father and grandfather, but given that they had both been killed by the Vikings she may have wanted to intercede in some manner, perhaps by reciting psalms and prayers as she worked on the white chasuble she made at her own expense. Such activities may have been accompanied by the telling stories of the deeds and life of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth. Æthelswyth may also have been responsible for producing a tapestry depicting Byrhtnoth’s deeds, which was recorded in the twelfth century as having been donated to Ely Abbey by his widow, Ælfflæd, although in fact it is not mentioned in her will. If a precious tapestry depicting Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s deeds had indeed been promised to Ely Abbey by Ælfflæd, it is hard to believe that it would not have been mentioned in her will. This omission has caused some difficulties, leading some scholars to the conclusion that such a tapestry showed either only Byrhtnoth’s pre-991 deeds or alternatively his death at Maldon. If the tapestry passed to Ely Abbey by some other



    

 

For a plausible case based on the language and terminology that it was composed close to 991, see C. Clark, ‘On Dating The Battle of Maldon: Certain Evidence Reviewed’, Words, Names and History: Selected Writings of Cecily Clark, ed. P. Jackson (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 20–36. An appropriate note is struck by D. Scragg, ‘The Battle of Maldon’, Battle of Maldon, ed. idem, pp. 15–36, at 32: ‘In sum, there is nothing in the language or the style of the poem which is at odds with the composition within a few years of the battle, and until safe evidence of a later date is produced the account should be regarded as contemporary.’ It was thus in a position to inform other genres. Scholars agree that it was composed in eastern England; see ibid., p. 32. Lib. El., ii, c. 67, p. 139. Ibid., ii, c. 88, pp. 157–8. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., ii. c. 63, p 136; ASW, no. 15, p. 40, line 11. The omission is surprising as other wills of Anglo-Saxon women mention tapestries; e.g. ibid., no. 3, p. 14, line 13; The Will of Æthelgifu: A Tenth Century AngloSaxon Manuscript, ed. D. Whitelock with appendices by N. Ker and Lord Rennell (London, 1968), p. 13, line 49. C.R. Dodwell, Anglo-Saxon Art: A New Perspective (Manchester, 1982), pp. 133–9. M. Budny, ‘The Byrhtnoth Tapestry or Embroidery’, Battle of Maldon, ed. Scragg, pp. 263–78, at 272.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

74

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 74


means, perhaps it was the work of Byrhtnoth’s grand-daughter, the nun Æthelswyth, and her companions. Some of their work with gold and thread was listed in a twelfthcentury inventory, but their role in the production of a tapestry may have been forgotten, as was work on other tapestries by Anglo-Saxon nuns. Æthelswyth and the nuns of Coveney perhaps produced an impressive tapestry which depicted the heroic achievements of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, including his donations to the Ely community in the monastic chapter-house, and his subsequent burial at the abbey. Several pieces of evidence need to be brought together to reconstruct Æthelswyth’s career. Although far from complete, that evidence suggests that she and the nuns of Coveney may have played a role in the formation of the Maldon myth. Thus, Byrhtnoth’s grand-daughter may have developed legends and traditions which complemented the liturgical commemoration at Ely of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and members of his kin. This did not give a shape to a patrilineage (i.e. linking fathers with eldest sons across a series of generations), but to a lineage running through women as well as men in order to emphasize descent from a high-status founding ancestor.

Thurstan and his ancestors One way in which the extent of that lineage identity can be measured is to examine patterns of religious gift-giving by Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s great-grandson, Thurstan, a king’s thegn. He married a noblewoman named Æthelgyth from an East Anglian dynasty with no preceding kinship ties being recorded. Yet the substantial betrothal gifts which she received suggest that she probably came from an equivalent rank within the regional aristocracy. There is a contrast between the marriages of Byrhtnoth and Thurstan who married their social equals, with the marriages of Thurstan’s mother and grandmother whose husbands were drawn from a lower social rank. Thurstan had received life tenure of six of the ten estates which his parents had bequeathed to Ely Abbey. By delaying the descent of these estates to the abbey, Lustwine and Leofwaru may not have been seeking to deprive Ely of property. Instead they were perhaps aiming to maintain the basis of their family’s bonds with the community through the agency of their son, his heirs and other kinsfolk. Thurstan had connections within the region rather than with the court nobility, and followed in the footsteps of his father and grandfather by not holding public office. This family’s power and status was not that closely linked with the control of offices, but to a range of ties with religious houses and other dynasties in East Anglia and beyond. Thus, Thurstan’s gift to Christ Church, Canterbury, was witnessed by senior members of the court nobility as well as local notables, while his will was witnessed by the shire commu-

       

Lib. El., ii, c. 88, p. 158. Ibid., iii, c. 50, pp. 293–4. D.N. Dumville, ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Origins of English Square Miniscule Script’, Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar: Six Essays on Political, Cultural and Ecclesiastical Revival, Studies in AngloSaxon History III (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 55–98, at 87 n. 153. Locherbie-Cameron, ‘Byrhtnoth and his Family’, p. 257; ASW, no. 31, pp. 80–4. ASW, no. 31, p. 82, lines 5–6. Table 8, nos. 17–20, 25; Lib. El., ii. c. 89, p. 158; ASW, no, 31, p. 80, lines 14, 16; p. 82, lines 2, 7, 11. ASW, no. 31, p. 80, lines 25–7; p. 82, lines 16–25. Ibid., no. 30, p. 78, lines 20–7.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 75


75

nities of Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Essex, with leading nobles witnessing from each shire along with the sheriffs of Essex and Cambridgeshire and Harold Godwineson (d. 1066), earl of East Anglia (1044-53). Thurstan’s post-obit bequests for the benefit of his spiritual salvation and the welfare of his widow were concentrated in Essex and Norfolk, particularly on the group of religious houses favoured by his maternal ancestors. Ely Abbey received two estates. One of these appears to have been the same property as that bequeathed by his parents to Ely Abbey, suggesting that Thurstan had acquired a life-interest, while the other lay close to another of his parents’ bequests. In addition, Bury St Edmunds and its sister community in Norfolk, St Benet of Holme, were favoured along with Barking Abbey and Canterbury. Thurstan’s status as a great lord led to connections with a wide range of religious houses but within a framework that looked back within a lineage to his fourth-generation maternal ancestor, Ealdorman Ælfgar, who had bequeathed estates to Christ Church, Bury St Edmunds and Barking.

Discussion The patronage of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and members of his family resulted in the transfer of substantial wealth to the community at Ely, extending its territorial interests into the Gog Magog hills, Essex and Norfolk. Although the Ely myth sought to claim that his patronage arose from the exceptional events linked to the Maldon campaign, the historical origins of that patronage were rooted in the tenth-century reform movement’s emphasis upon the court nobility’s obligations to endow and support royal monasteries. The Maldon myth, though, projected a clearer separation of interests, and reflected a key aspect of the relationship between the Ely community and Byrhtnoth’s descendants during the early eleventh century, namely the donation of property in return for the commemoration of the dead. In the 1020s, in the aftermath of the Danish Conquest of England, that exchange took on a considerable importance, and in time the Ely community, and perhaps Byrhtnoth’s family as well, preferred to view this exchange as providing the context for Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s patronage of Ely Abbey. Developments associated with the commemoration of the dead served to fashion a lineage identity in place of a loose horizontal alliance of kinsfolk. The ways in which different family members and ancestors were commemorated in a calendar of events by monks and descendants served to establish the importance of a unilineal descent to Thurstan from Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and his father-in-law. A five-generation lineage was perhaps established in the consciousness of descendants. These cultural factors were closely bound up with political processes. The same factors which led the English 

Ibid., no. 31, p. 82, lines 16–25. For Ælfric Wihtgarsson, see Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, pp. 110, 112; for Ogsot clapa the Staller, see ASC, [C, 1046], p. 109; for Ælfwine son of Wulfred, see S 1224; for Osgot Sweyn, see Chron. Rames., iii, c. 90/ci, pp. 153–4; for Eadric of Laxfield, see P.A. Clarke, The English Nobility under Edward the Confessor (Oxford, 1994), pp. 59–60, 94–6, 115–16.  ASW, no. 31, p. 80, lines 12, 14; table 8, nos. 26–7.  Table 8, nos. 17, 21, 26–7.  Table 6, nos. 5–7; ASW, no. 31, p. 80, lines 3–4, 10–11, 30. The pattern does not entirely fit as Ramsey and St Benet of Holme abbeys were also included as beneficiaries, but they were founded after Ealdorman Ælfgar drew up his will.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

76

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 76


state to equip forces with better armour and weapons, also led to investment in alliance and unification strategies through confraternityship and the commemoration of the dead. Other factors were also present, and appear to have played a critical role in lineage formation. Thus, the dynasty’s power became much more localized during the early eleventh century in terms of both territorial interests and marriage alliances. Moreover, as lower-status husbands attached themselves to this lineage, that may have given rise to a unilineal descent. Meanwhile, women played an important role in the formation of the traditions associated with this dynasty. The localization of power during the tenth century among this kindred, as a result of the strategies of Ælfflæd and Æthelflæd, as discussed in the previous chapter, preceded and abetted lineage formation during the early eleventh century, as suggested in this chapter. These issues matter because the formation of lineage structure has been regarded as one of the key social processes which placed European society on a new course of development, thereby marking off the second millennium from the first. It is important then that there is a clear and accurate understanding of the processes which gave rise to lineage formation. It has generally been suggested that the lineage was established because of the breakdown in public authority, with a diffusion model then explaining the adoption of these structures across Europe. Yet even without considering the evidence of this case study, there are grounds for doubting the linkage between the demise of public authority and lineage formation. Here is not the place to set out a region-by-region chronological chart to test the linkage, but the variety of evidence at least suggests that alternative hypotheses need to be considered. Such European examples span the tenth, eleventh and twelfth centuries, and it would be quite hard to suggest that the demise of public power as exercised by centralized states, especially during the twelfth century, was clearly linked to lineage formation. Cultural values, associated with variations in the institutions of intercession, direct and indirect, may have played a key role in lineage formation in European society. An upsurge in the commemoration of the dead can be traced across the regions of western Europe in this period, involving communities whose social hinterlands stretched across wide geographical areas. Of course, further research is needed to explore parallel examples and variations. Yet this preliminary case study suggests that the



N.P. Brooks, ‘Arms, Status and Warfare in Late-Saxon England’, idem, Communities and Warfare 700–1400 (London, 2000), pp. 138–61; Campbell, Anglo-Saxon State, passim; Althoff, Amicitae und Pacta, passim.  For instance, in the Biterrois (France), lineages combining patrilinear and matrilinear structures became established c. 1030–1100, followed by a tightening of descent, which was strictly agnatic between 1100 and 1170; in Durfort, Cabaret and Termes in the High Languedoc (France) dynasties adopted different forms of family organization based on cousinage, siblingship and lineage; in Piedmont (Italy), the narrowing of the family occurred early in the tenth century, with the grouping together of different lineages, united by an oath of parentela et societas; in Poitou (France) at around the same time primogeniture established itself largely among the viscounts and the castellans, although lifetime succession between brothers subsisted within the great families of Thouars and Mauleon; and in Catalonia (Spain) ‘underlineages’, cadet branches of families, all descended from a main founder, continued to be grouped together and to fight as a corporate entity: see Aurell, ‘La parenté’, passim; Garaud, Les châtelains du Poitou, pp. 71–82; C. Duhamel-Amado, ‘La famille aristocratique languedocienne: parenté et patrimonie dans les vicomtés de Béziers et d’Agde (900–1170)’ (Thèse d’Etat inédite de l’Université de Paris IV, 1995), pp. 525–604; J.E. Ruiz-Domenic, ‘Système de parenté et théorie de l’alliance dans la société catalane (1000–1240)’, Revue Historique cxxxii (1979), pp. 305–26, at 314; G. Tabacco, ‘La rapport de parenté comme instrument de domination consortiale: quelques exemples piémontais’, Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiéval, eds. G. Duby and J. Le Goff (Rome, 1977), pp. 153–8.

LCEM-Ch-4.qxd

8/20/05

11:54 AM

Page 77


77

localization of power and clearer divisions between secular and ecclesiastical responsibilities were serving to forge a lineage identity amongst the aristocracy, which would ultimately alter the structure of the family as a whole. In short, the evidence which is drawn from monastic cartularies to argue for a breakdown in public authority can be overplayed in explaining some of the critical changes in family organization between the tenth and twelfth centuries. That is to say, discussion in monastic cartularies of the violence and disorder caused by the secular aristocracy may have been part of a wider process in which the principal ecclesiastical agenda was to mark out the divergence of secular and ecclesiastical interests. These processes led towards more clearly formulated ideas on the social values surrounding gifts to monasteries and prayers for the dead, thereby refashioning attitudes towards family organization and descent. The origins of the lineage and the nuclear family are then perhaps to be found in the prayers and commemoration carried out in churches, monasteries and family chapels, rather than in violence and disorder commonly associated with aristocratic excess at the time of the feudal transformation.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 78

Chapter 5 The Social Order Reshaped and the Emergence of the Gentry in the Early Eleventh Century During the first third of the eleventh century there was a change in the social order in East Anglia. Patterns of power which had prevailed during the tenth century came to exercise a less dominant influence within communities and social groupings. There was not only a shift in the interests of the great dynasties who had formerly controlled comital offices, but there was also a transformation in the relationship between secular and ecclesiastical power, which acted as a catalyst for a wider series of changes. Taken with the evidence from the previous two chapters, there were three critical changes in the regional social order. First, the new alliance between the Crown and the reform abbeys did not reach out to include the court nobility; second, leading dynasties whose power had formerly been encompassed by Königsnähe increasingly looked towards more localized structures of power and lineage; and third, a gentry rank established a close relationship with the reform abbeys. Together these three developments changed the social order, setting up tensions between families whose power was focused upon the court and those dynasties who looked more towards local power structures. No less important was the way in which nobles of the gentry rank were able to articulate their power and status as part of their ties with the reform abbeys. Both of these changes can be compared to parallel developments in regions of continental Europe during the early eleventh century, when regional senses of identity and power were being more intensively forged, while a new social category of knights was carving out its position within the social order. These issues will be discussed by looking at three separate themes in turn, comprising the alliance between King Cnut and Ramsey Abbey; the dealings of several Danish lords and one English lord with Ramsey and Ely abbeys; and the relationship between East Anglian abbeys and families of gentry status. These discussions will draw attention not only to the changes in these areas, but will also highlight the significance of their inter-connections.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 79

THE SOCIAL ORDER RESHAPED AND THE EMERGENCE OF THE GENTRY

79

The Reconfiguration of Ramsey Abbey’s Identity The battle of Assandun in 1016 is identified as a turning-point in both the narrative and memorial records preserved at Ramsey. It was fought in north-west or south-east Essex. Amongst those killed by the Danish army were Eadnoth, bishop of Dorchester (1006–16) and formerly abbot of Ramsey (992–1006), Wulfsige, abbot of Ramsey (1006–16), and Æthelweard, son of Ealdorman Æthelwine. It is also quite likely that Ramsey’s lay tenants were amongst those who fought at Assandun, leading to the forfeiture of their estates. These changes broke the status quo and forced the Ramsey community to re-assess its position in relation to lay society and the nature of its own monastic leadership. In 1016 the prospects of a new alliance being forged between Ramsey Abbey, the king and his followers must have looked quite promising. Wythman, identified as a German, who may have followed Cnut from Denmark, was appointed abbot of Ramsey (1016–20). The appointment was perhaps intended to strengthen Cnut’s hold over Ramsey Abbey. Meanwhile, estates formerly held by nobles who had fought at Assundun, or who had been subsequently dispossessed, descended to Cnut’s followers. Yet almost from the beginning that political settlement began to unravel. After taking up office, Wythman complained that the Ramsey monks were disobedient, neglected the Benedictine rule and wandered far from the abbey.  Such claims threatened the independence of the Ramsey community, and if they had been upheld by the diocesan bishop, then senior monks within the community might have been deprived of their offices. According to the Liber Benefactorum, Abbot Wythman was sent away when he brought his complaint to the attention of the diocesan, Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester (1016–34), who had formerly been a novice at Ramsey. The same source sets out the subsequent events. Æthelric decided to investigate for himself and, after spending the night in a small house near Ramsey, arrived at the abbey the next morning. Disguising himself as a traveller he entered the abbey as if to pray; access was open and he met with no hindrance. He found some of the monks saying masses at their private altars; others he found reciting masses at the altars of Ramsey’s saints; others devoting themselves to silent reading; with all of the monks following the monastic life rather than idling. His secret investigation came to an end when he was recognized by his distinctive walk and gestures. He castigated Wythman, who resigned to go on pilgrimage to Jerusalem,

       

Chron. Rames., iii, c. 69/lxxii, pp. 117–18; Ramsey calendar for 19 October (see Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 343: ‘. . . Et Wulfsinus abbas, (et) Ethelwardus, filius Æthelwini ducis. Omnes isti fuerunt interfecti a Danis quando Cnuto venit in Angliam’. W. Rodwell, ‘The Battle of Assandun and its Memorial Church’, The Battle of Maldon: Fiction and Fact, ed. J. Cooper (London, 1993), pp. 127–58 provides a useful discussion of the respective claims of Ashdun and Ashingdon to be the site of the battle. ASC, [C, (D, E) 1016)], p. 96. E.g. Chron. Rames., iii, c. 74/lxxxiv, p. 129; for wider discussion, see Stafford, Unification and Conquest, pp. 71–3; R. Fleming, Kings and Lords in Conquest England (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 21–52. Chron. Rames., iii, c. 70/lxxv, pp. 120–1; M.K. Lawson, Cnut: the Danes in England in the Early Eleventh Century (London, 1993), p. 145. For suggestion that he was appointed by Cnut, see Barlow, English Church 1000–1066, p. 321. Account based on Chron. Rames., iii, c. 70/lxxvi–lxxviii, pp. 121–4. Ibid., iii, cc. 64/lxvii, 70/lxxv, pp. 112, 120.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

80

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 80


and on his return spent the remaining twenty years of his life as a hermit at Northey island close to Ramsey Abbey. The Liber Benefactorum used the account of these difficulties to validate the exemplary piety of the monks, but a Peterborough tradition claimed that the Ramsey monks had been accused of such crimes that King Cnut decided that the monastery should be closed and its monks expelled. He rescinded his judgment only after Abbot Ælfsige of Peterborough (1006x7–42) and Queen Emma begged for clemency. At around the same time, Leofwine, abbot of Ely (1019–22), was accused of unspecified crimes and misdemeanours, leading to his journey to Rome in 1022. Notably Abbot Leofwine and his predecessor, Ælfsige (996x99–1012x19), were the only abbots of Ely whose names were not included in the Ely calendar in an otherwise complete list from Abbot Byrhtnoth to Abbot Richard de Clare (1100x2–1103x7), the last abbot before the establishment of the bishopric and cathedral priory (1107). The misfortunes of Abbots Leofwine and Wythman highlight the seriousness of political and ecclesiastical struggles in the fenland shires c. 1016x21. Ramsey Abbey, though, weathered this crisis because Bishop Æthelric acted decisively to quash the accusations which had been brought against its monks. In the Liber Benefactorum the account of Wythman’s resignation is immediately followed by a chapter which records Cnut’s enactments of good laws and his commitment to the abbey through the foundation of a nunnery there. The ordering of the chapters suggests that in establishment of a peace agreement between the monks and the king was followed by Ramsey’s willingness to acknowledge Cnut as a worthy successor to King Edgar. For Ramsey Abbey the period between the election of Æthelstan as abbot in 1020 and the death of Bishop Æthelric in 1034 was a time of good fortune. The abbey received permission from King Cnut to translate the relics of Saint Felix, the missionary and first bishop of the East Angles, from Soham Minster to Ramsey, and acquired the jaw-bone of Saint Ecgwin, bishop of Worcester (693–711), founder of Evesham Abbey, and the blood-stained cowl of Ælfheah, archbishop of Canterbury (1006–12), murdered in 1012 by the Danes. No less significantly, the abbey acquired twelve estates because of the generosity and acumen of Bishop Æthelric. These accounts demonstrate that although Cnut established a close alliance with

       

 

Ibid., iii, c. 69/lxxix, p. 125. Peterborough Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, eds. Mellows and Mellows, p. 27; on Emma’s involvement, see Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, p. 146. Whether these two sources refer to the same or different incidents is difficult to discern. ASC, [E, (F), 1016], p. 99. Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 282. Lawson, Cnut, p. 145 suggests that this unrest was similar to the rebellions in the fenlands during the reign of King William I. Chron. Rames., iii, c. 64/lxxx-lxxxi, pp. 125–6. For discussion of his intention to found a nunnery, S. Foot, Veiled Women, II: Female Religious Communities in England, 871–1066, Studies in the Early History of Britain (Aldershot, 2000), p. 143. Chron. Rames., iii, c. 70/lxxix–lxxx, pp. 124–6. Note the comment on the significance of the ascendancy of Ramsey in terms of its relationship with Ely in Sage, ‘Patronage and Society’, p. xv: ‘Yet competition between the abbeys was a critical factor in their development – when one was ascendant, the other was in difficulty’. Chron. Rames., iii, c. 93/civ, p. 158; D. Cox, ‘St Oswald of Worcester at Evesham Abbey: Cult and Concealment’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History liii (2002), pp. 269–84. Table 10, nos. 9–20.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 81


81

Ramsey Abbey, in parallel with relationships forged with Ely and Thorney abbeys, that relationship did not extend to include his followers along the lines of earlier bonds linking king, monks and great noble families during the tenth century. Two case studies illustrate the point: the first relates to the sale of Elton (Hunts.) to Bishop Æthelric, while the second arises from the descent of Elsworth (Cambs.) to Ramsey Abbey. The second case study leads into discussion of the career of Thorkell of Harringworth, a procer, who belonged to the Anglo-Danish elite and who eventually emigrated to Denmark in the early 1070s.

Ramsey Abbey and the Danish Nobility According to the Liber Benefactorum, the estate of Elton ‘. . . lay in a most beautiful situation, well provided with streams of water, in a pleasant plain of meadows, abounding in grazing for cattle and rich in fertile lands’. This was due to its position on the River Nene. The same source relates that the property had belonged to an English nobleman by hereditary right, but since he lacked any heirs, the land descended as dower (dos) to his wife, who then, with King Cnut’s approval married a Danish lord. Bishop Æthelric then seized the opportunity to acquire the estate when Cnut visited the region.  Cnut stayed at Assington in Suffolk, eight kilometres south-east of Sudbury on the River Stour, but as there was insufficient accommodation, Bishop Æthelric and four notaries stayed at a manor house at Elton. After a meal Bishop Æthelric and the Danish lord spent the evening drinking, but with the connivance of the lord’s butler more alcohol was given to the Dane, who, when prompted by Bishop Æthelric, started to show off: he itemized how much stock there was on his ten-hide estate, the number of its ploughteams and the property’s rental value. When Æthelric offered to purchase such an estate with cash by the next morning, the Danish lord and his wife agreed, assuming it was a joke; but Æthelric sent out letters overnight, so that by the following morning the required cash was to hand. The question of whether a binding contract had been established was judged by King Cnut. Although the lord’s drunkenness excused his actions, his wife’s bond of agreement whilst sober upheld the contract of sale. The Danish lord gave up the claim, but his wife, in whom the greater rights of ownership were invested, continued to dispute the basis of the sale, and additionally claimed that two water-mills were her own personal property, and

   

Lib. El., ii, c. 85, pp. 153–4; BL Additional MS 40,000, fol. 10r. Above, chapters 1 and 2, pp. 1–45; John, ‘King and Monks’, passim. Other examples are set out in Chron. Rames., iii, cc. 76/lxxxvi, 77/lxxxvii, pp. 140–4. For his inclusion in this rank, see Lib. El., ii, c. 105, p. 179: ‘Sunt cum eo nobiliores patrie, Edwinus comes, Morchere, Thosti et duo proceres Orgarus et Turchitellus, illustres viri.’ (My emphasis). This status is also reflected in the landholdings of Thorkell of Harringworth; see Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 346–7.  The relationship between Ramsey Abbey and the Danes is also discussed by Sage, ‘Patronage and Society’, pp. 255–60.  Chron. Rames., iii, c. 75/lxxxv, p. 135; VCH Hunts., iii, p. 154.  Account based on Chron. Rames., iii, c. 75/lxxxv, pp. 135–40. A summary is also to be found in VCH Hunts., iii, p. 158. On King Cnut’s obligations to ensure that widows were not forced into new marriages against their own will, see P. Stafford, ‘The Laws of Cnut and the History of Anglo-Saxon Royal Promises’, ASE x (1982), pp. 173–90, at 177.  This can perhaps be connected to one of Cnut’s visits to Ely abbey, as set out in Lib. El., ii, c. 85, pp. 153–4. For a discussion of his visits to Ely, see Keynes, ‘Ely Abbey’, p. 36

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

8/20/05

82

11:55 AM

Page 82


Table 10 Donations of estates to Ramsey by those associated with its monks c. 965x1066

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Estate

Hundred

Linton Wilbraham Hickling Kinoulton Lockington Lawshall Hawstead Risby Elsworth Elton Therfield Shillington Barnwell Hemington Girton Longstowe Broughton Bottisham Offerthun Westmill Berewic Langton Wispington Martin Waddingwoth Over Barton Knapwell Horseheath Hemington Quarrington Cranwell Old Sleaford

Chilford Staine Bingham Bingham

County

Cambs. Cambs. Notts. Notts. Yorks. Babergh Suffolk Thingwell Suffolk Thingoe Suffolk Papworth Cambs. Norman Cross Hunts. Odsey Herts. Clifton Beds. Nthants. Polebrook Nthants. Northstowe Cambs. Longstowe Cambs. Hurstingstone Hunts. Staine Cambs. Kirton Lincs. Braughing Herts. Horncastle Lincs. Horncastle Lincs. Horncastle Lincs. Horncastle Lincs. Papworth Cambs. Flitt Beds. Papworth Cambs. Chilford Cambs. Polebrook Nthants. Aswardhurn Lincs. Flaxwell Lincs. Aswardhurn Lincs.

Donor(s)

Date

Wulfhun Wulfrun Ærnketel and Wulfrun Ærnketel and Wulfrun Ærnketel Ælfwine, son of Brightsige Ælfwine, son of Brightsige Ælfwine, son of Brightsige Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester Ælfric Leofsige of Langton, deacon Leofsige of Langton, deacon Leofsige of Langton, deacon Leofsige of Langton, deacon Eadnoth, bishop of Dorchester Eadnoth, bishop of Dorchester Eadnoth, bishop of Dorchester Ælfweard, bishop of London Ælfweard, bishop of London Jol of Lincoln Jol of Lincoln Jol of Lincoln

965x979 965x979 979x1020 979x1020 979x1020 971x992 971x992 971x992 1020x1034 1016x1034 1016x1034 1016x1034 1016x1034 1016x1034 1016x1034 1016x1034 1020x1034 1016x1034 1016x1034 1016x1034 1016x1020 1034x1049 1034x1049 1034x1049 1034x1049 1034x1049 1034x1049 1034x1049 1044 1044 1051 1051 1051



Table based on Chron. Rames., ii, c. 28/xxiv, p. 54; cc. 37–8/xxxiv, pp. 66–8; c. 44/xlii, pp. 74–5; c. 50/xlviii, p. 81; iii, c. 74/lxxxiv, p. 134; c. 75/lxxxv, pp. 139–40; c. 76/lxxxvi, p. 142; c. 77/lxxxvii, p. 144; c. 78/lxxxviii, pp. 144–5; c. 80/xc, pp. 145–6; c. 81/xci, p. 147; c. 90/ci, pp. 153–4; c. 94/cv, p. 159; c. 166, p. 198; c. 172, p. 199. Readers can also consult ECEE, s.n.

hence not subject to the agreement with Bishop Æthelric. Although her case failed, she did receive additional compensation in gold. Unwillingly the couple accepted the loss of their home, removed all their goods and chattels, stripped their nuptial bed of its decorations and left only the bare walls, before acquiring land elsewhere. The account ends with Bishop Æthelric’s journey to Ramsey Abbey, where he found that

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 83


83

the monks’ observance of the rule had grown lax. He criticized the monks, who threw themselves at his feet and begged for forgiveness. Their display of penitence led the bishop to donate Elton to the abbey, and the estate was retained in demesne by Ramsey until the Dissolution. Details in the Liber Benefactorum’s account arouse suspicion; for example, Elton lies one hundred kilometres from Assington, making the former an unlikely overnight resting-place if the king was staying at the latter. Yet other aspects of the account have an authentic ring. For example, the care with which Bishop Æthelric insisted upon the wife’s agreement, and her subsequent defence of her rights, fit with our knowledge of late Anglo-Saxon property law. Details were doubtless embellished over time in the telling, but the outline of events should not be neglected as historical evidence. The case demonstrates how the marriage of a widow enabled one of Cnut’s followers to establish himself on an important estate, which in turn led to the enrichment of Ramsey Abbey. The western half of the estate of Elsworth had descended to Thorkell, a Danish nobleman, as a result of the execution of its previous English owner on King Cnut’s orders. Thorkell, lord of Elsworth, can be more readily identified with Thorkell of Harringworth, who on Cnut’s orders divided the fens around Sawtry (Hunts.), than with Thorkell the Tall, earl of East Anglia (1016–21). According to the Liber Benefactorum, Thorkell’s wife died shortly after giving birth to their son. Thorkell then remarried, but during one of his absences on the king’s business his second wife killed her step-son in the inner quarters of her house, adjacent to the hall. Although Thorkell believed that his wife’s sorrow for the boy’s death was genuine, she was unable to quash rumours that she had murdered him. Bishop Æthelric became involved after a woman who had helped to conceal and bury the boy’s body, revealed the crime because she had not received money which had been promised her by Thorkell’s wife. She had assumed that no one would believe the testimony of a poor old woman against that of a woman of such worth. Bishop Æthelric summoned Thorkell on three occasions, without success, to answer the charges. After King Cnut was informed, he instructed Thorkell to answer the bishop’s summons. Thorkell was instructed to appear with eleven male oath-helpers, and his wife with eleven female oath-helpers respectively, at an ecclesiastical assembly at Lolworth meadow (adjoining

 

VCH Hunts., iii, pp. 159–60. Probably a degree of confusion arose between Elton in Huntingdonshire and Aethelington in Suffolk, which lay closer to Assington (forty kilometres away), with a common derivation perhaps incorrectly suggesting dependency and proximity to the author.  Chron Rames., iii, c. 75/lxxxv, pp. 136–7. Bishop Æthelric insisted that the Danish lord secure his wife’s agreement to the exchange of the property for fifty marks of gold by dawn the next morning, or Æthelric would accuse the Danish lord of recklessness. Is the latter to be compared with the accusation made in the ‘Poem of the Battle of Maldon’ on Ealdorman Byrthnoth’s pride? On the latter, see Scragg, ‘Battle of Maldon’, p. 20, line 89; H. Gneuss, ‘The Battle of Maldon 89: Byrhtnoð’s ofermod Once Again’, Studies in Philology lxxiii (1976), pp. 117–37. For statements on the property rights of women, see A. Klinck, ‘Anglo-Saxon Women and the Law’, Journal of Medieval History viii (1982), pp. 107–21.  Chron. Rames., iii, c. 74/lxxxiv, p. 129; VCH Cambs., ix, p. 307.  ECEE, pp. 236–7.  Barlow, English Church 1000–1066, pp. 273–4. This suggestion was also made by Sir Robert Cotton in the seventeenth century; see VCH Hunts., iii, p. 146.  Account based on Chron. Rames., iii, c. 74/lxxxiv, pp. 129–34.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

84

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 84


Elsworth parish), where it was claimed the boy’s body had been buried. Bishop Æthelric instructed Abbot Æthelstan (1020–43) to bring Ramsey’s most precious relics, which were placed on the site while a great multitude watched. Perhaps Abbot Æthelstan brought the relics of the seventh-century royal martyrs, Æthelræd and Æthelberht, who had been murdered during childhood. The Ramsey source claims that Thorkell sought to prevent his wife from taking the oath, and swore on his beard that she was innocent and that he had no knowledge of any such crime. But as he tugged on his beard, it came off in his hands, indicating that he had committed perjury. It is not stated whether agents of secular authority were present, but in any case no prosecution was brought against Thorkell for perjury, or his wife for murder. Nevertheless in view of their guilt the couple granted Elsworth to Bishop Æthelric, who donated it to Ramsey Abbey. It rendered two weeks of food farm to Ramsey annually, and remained one of the abbey’s most valuable properties until the Dissolution. Certain elements of this history were doubtless embellished over time, but the outline of events fits better with a late Anglo-Saxon milieu than with an AngloNorman one, validating its use as a historical record. If Thorkell, lord of Elsworth, is to be identified with Thorkell of Harringworth, it implies that the couple redeemed themselves, and became important patrons of Ramsey Abbey. But if that identification is rejected, the fortunes of Thorkell of Elsworth and Thorkell of Harringworth provide examples of two contrasting experiences of the relations between the monks of Ramsey and Danish lords and their wives. Thorkell of Harringworth’s wife, Thorgunnr, acting on her own behalf, granted Sawtry to Ramsey Abbey for the salvation of her soul. Her name suggests that she may have emigrated from Scandinavia. In addition, she granted the abbey a reliquary, an alb, a chasuble, a stole and an altar cloth. After her death her body was brought to Ramsey Abbey by Thorkell, who handed over the land at the high altar in the presence of the abbot and the community. The donation of Sawtry by Thorgunnr has attracted attention because it is the only recorded case in Anglo-Saxon history in which a testatrix acted on her own during the lifetime of her husband to secure the salvation of her soul without mentioning her husband. Meanwhile, Thorkell of Harringworth received life tenure of six hides at Conington (Hunts.) from Thorney Abbey in return for an annual money gift. During the reign



         

For the development of the cult of Æthelræd and Æthelberht at Ramsey, see Chron. Rames., ii, c. 29/xxv, p. 55; William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regvm Anglorvm. The History of the English Kings, eds. R.A.B. Mynors, R.M. Thompson and M. Winterbottom, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1998–9), i, p. 390; Thacker, ‘Saint-making and Relic Collecting’, p. 248. How many hairs came off for it to be acclaimed that he had failed the oath is not recorded. VCH Cambs., ix, pp. 309–12. E.g. the calling upon male and female oath-helpers was similar to a contemporary dispute when thirteen female oath-helpers and slightly fewer men were called upon; see Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 66, p. 136. Fleming, Kings and Lords, p. 42 cites the opening section of Chron. Rames., iii, c. 74/lxxxiv, p. 129 to demonstrate the changing composition of the English aristocracy. ECEE, pp. 236–7. Chron. Rames., iii, cc. 107/cxviii, 172, pp. 175–6, 199. Ibid. Ibid. J. Crick, ‘Women, Posthumous Benefaction, and Family Strategy in Pre-Conquest England’, Journal of British Studies xxxviii (1999), pp. 399–422, at 409. VCH Hunts., i, pp. 351, 355; iii, pp. 144–51; ECEE, pp. 38–9.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 85


85

of Cnut part or all of Conington was leased by the anchorite Mantat (whose name suggests that he originated from Germany) but the property then reverted to the community along with the grant of Twywell (Nthants.), in exchange for the pledge that the monks of Thorney would recite two hundred masses and two hundred psalters each year for the salvation of Mantat’s soul. Perhaps as a consequence of the life tenure of Conington which Thorkell had received in return for his gifts of money, his name and that of his wife were amongst the first to be entered into the Liber Vitae of Thorney Abbey. In 1069 Thorkell of Harringworth went over to the Danes, ‘his kinsmen’, joining Sweyn Esrithson, and then allied himself with Hereward the Wake of Bourne (Lincs.), to become one of the leaders of the fenland rebellion against King William I. Whether or not Thorkell of Elsworth is to be identified with Thorkell of Harringworth, both these incidents indicate that Danish lords were well integrated into the Anglo-Saxon polity, and therefore demonstrate some of the dangers that arise from assuming that there was a rigid clash of cultures between the English and the Danes in early eleventh-century England. The Liber Benefactorum dwelt upon the humiliation of the Danish lord Thorkell of Elsworth, but it and other monastic sources fully acknowledged the donations of Thorkell of Harringworth and his wife to fenland monastic communities. Ethnicity has become one of the key prisms through which to view early medieval history. Yet despite its value it can sometimes obscure from view more general trends. In the Ramsey texts two themes converge: anti-Danish sentiment and monastic assertions of independence from the influence and power of the court nobility. Of the two, the latter provides a better context for explaining the range of narratives in book three of the Liber Benefactorum: in short, the embarrassment and losses suffered by Danish lords signalled a weakening of ties with the court nobility in comparison to earlier patterns. Thus, the political fallout from the house of Cerdic’s loss of the throne of England not only raised a new set of issues in the relationship between ethnicity and identity in the fenland shires, but also provided Ramsey’s ecclesiastical leadership with the opportunity to reposition the community in relation to lay society. In regard to secular power, Bishop Æthelric outmanoeuvred Danish members of the court nobility, and maintained the rule of law in the fenland shires. In relation to

     

ASW, no. 23, pp. 66–7. The will has suspicious features, but note the comment of Whitelock at ibid., p. 177: ‘There is nothing improbable in the transaction, and it is possible that we ought to regard the will as the result of the tampering of the later copyists with a genuine original.’ BL Additional MS 40,000, fol. 10r; Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 327; Whitelock, ‘Scandinavian Personal Names’, p. 140. Lib. El., ii, c. 105, p. 179. For one introduction, see C.R. Hart, ‘Hereward ‘The Wake’ and his companions’, idem, The Danelaw (London, 1992), pp. 625–48. D.M. Hadley and J. Richards, ‘Introduction’, Cultures in Contact: Scandinavian Settlement in England and Wales (Turnhout, 2000), eds. Hadley and Richards, pp. 3–13, at 6; S. Reynolds, ‘What do we mean by “Anglo-Saxon” and “Anglo-Saxons”?’, Journal of British Studies xxiv (1985), pp. 395–414. E.g. W. Pohl and H. Reimitz, eds., Strategies of Distinction: The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300–800 (Leiden, 1998); for the post-Conquest period, see H. Thomas, The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation and Identity 1066–1220 (Oxford, 2003). There may of course an element here of twelfth-century back projection in relation to myths associated with the Danes concerning the issues being faced by the Normans and the English, but it does look as if these accounts in the Liber Benefactorum are based upon reliable traditions.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

86

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 86


ecclesiastical power, he ensured that the monks of Ramsey strictly observed the Benedictine rule and sought to limit the dangers posed by internal divisions between its abbot and the monks. Æthelric’s work also diversified the landed resources of the abbey, providing it with twice as many estates beyond the fenland shires as within, stretching from Lincolnshire to Hertfordshire. A collection of these estates was distinguished by the presence of manor houses. This in turn raised new questions for the community of how to organize the estates: was it, for example, best to retain this wealth in demesne to provide the existing number of monks with better food and clothes and to increase numbers, or to lease out the properties to the laity? Before turning to consider this question, we need to ask whether aspects of this process were unique to Ramsey Abbey, or whether they were part of a wider change in East Anglia during the early eleventh century. These issues can be assessed by looking more generally at evidence from other East Anglian cartulary-chronicles. Both the Liber Eliensis and the Liber de Miraculis de Sancti Eadmundi contain accounts of the conflicts between the monks of those houses and senior members of the court nobility during the second third of the eleventh century. The Liber Eliensis records its dispute with Asgar the Staller and his subsequent punishment at the hands of the Normans. Meanwhile, the Liber de Miraculis de Sancti Eadmundi recorded the punishment of Osgot clapa, who held the rank of staller, a household office similar to that of seneschal. According to that source Osgot dressed in the Danish fashion, decorated down to his feet and with rings on both arms, and was punished by Saint Edmund after bringing his Danish battle-axe into the abbey church rather than leaving it at the door or at home. Cartulary-chronicle sources from the three great East Anglian royal abbeys agree in highlighting a degree of tension between court nobles who had recently arrived in England from Denmark, had Danish family connections, or who simply dressed according to the Danish fashion. At this stage we may suspect that if we were to extend the search to include accounts in other cartulary-chronicles, a recurring image would be presented. The relationship between laity and monks needs to be differentiated from questions of status and ethnicity, thereby serving to highlight the respective importance of each. By moving attention away from Danish nobles who had benefited from Cnut’s patronage, a complementary perspective can be provided, notably by drawing upon the Liber Eliensis’s description of matricide within an English family. A nobleman named Leofwine, son of Æthulf, belonged to a wealthy East Anglian family which had property in northern Cambridgeshire, western Suffolk, north-west

   

Table 10, nos. 10–20. Lib. El., ii, c. 96, pp. 165–6; for further discussion, see, below, Chapter 7, pp. 116–17. On the rank of staller, see K. Mack, ‘The Stallers: Administrative Innovation in the Reign of Edward the Confessor’, Journal of Medieval History xii (1986), pp. 123–34. Hermann the Archdeacon, Miraculis de Sancti Eadmundi, Memorials of St Edmunds, ed. Arnold, i, c. 21, pp. 54–6. The account reports how he crossed the choir of the church, and as he hastened towards the shrine of St Edmund, he sought to swing his axe down so that he could rest upon it, but it was seized from his hand by the power of the saint. Osgod fell to the ground, writhing and suffering as if he were mad, leading King Edward (who was with the monks), on hearing the disturbance, to enquire as to its cause. Since Osgod was one of his chief councillors, he asked the monks to pray for him; he recovered after they had gathered around him and sung psalms. He recognized his error, and henceforth agreed to show reverence towards King Edmund, as long as he lived.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 87


87

Table 11 Lay Donations of estates to Ely Abbey c. 996x1066 Estate

Hundred

County

Donor

Date

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Kingston Rodings Undley Oswardala Whittlesey Estrea Cottenham Aboteshai Glemsford Hoo Hitcham

Carlford Lackford Lackford Isle of Ely Isle of Ely Chesterton London Babergh Loes Cosford

Suffolk Essex Suffolk Suffolk Cambs. Cambs. Cambs. Mdx. Suffolk Suffolk Suffolk

1002x1019 1002x1019 1002x1019 1002x1019 1002x1019 1002x1019 1002x1019 1002x1019 1002x1019 996x1001 996x1001

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Glemsford Hartest Barking Feltwell Shelford Snailwell Walpole Wisbech Debenham Woodbridge Thaxted

Babergh Babergh Bosmere Grimshoe Thriplow Staploe Isle of Ely Claydon Loes Dunmow

Suffolk Suffolk Suffolk Norfolk Cambs. Cambs. Norfolk Cambs. Cambs. Suffolk Essex

23 24 25 26 27 28 29

Bridgham Hengeham Weeting Rattlesden Mundford Little Thetford Drinkstone

Shropham Thedwastre Grimshoe Isle of Ely Thedwastre

Norfolk Norfolk Suffolk Norfolk Cambs. Suffolk

30

Freshwell

Essex

31

High Easter and Pleshey South Frambridge

Rochford

Essex

32

Terling

Witham

Essex

33

Barking

Bosmere

Suffolk

Leofwine, son of Æthulf Leofwine, son of Æthulf Leofwine, son of Æthulf Leofwine, son of Æthulf Leofwine, son of Æthulf Leofwine, son of Æthulf Leofwine, son of Æthulf Leofwine, son of Æthulf Leofwine, son of Æthulf Godwine Ælfmær, brother of Godwine Parentes of Leofsige Parentes of Leofsige Parentes of Leofsige Parentes of Leofsige Parentes of Leofsige Parentes of Leofsige Kin of Ælfwine Kin of Ælfwine Kin of Ælfwine Kin of Ælfwine Æthelgifu, mother of Brihtsige and Eadgyth Ælfwaru, widow Ælfwaru, widow Ælfwaru, widow Ælfwaru, widow Ælfwaru, widow Ælfwaru, widow Æthelstan, bishop of Elmham Godgifu, widow of an earl Godgifu, widow of an earl Godgifu, widow of an earl Godgifu, widow of an earl



Before 1029 Before 1029 Before 1029 Before 1029 Before 1029 Before 1029 Before 1019 Before 1019 Before 1019 Before 1019 996x1019 c. 1007 c. 1007 c. 1007 c. 1007 c. 1007 c. 1007 995x1001 1022x1029 1022x1029 1022x1029 1022x1029

Table based on Lib. El., ii, c. 60, pp. 131–2 (nos. 1–9); c. 69, p. 140 (no. 10); c. 70, p. 140 (no. 11); c. 74, pp. 143–4 (nos. 12–17); c. 75, p. 144 (nos. 18–21); c. 59, pp. 130–1 (no. 22); c. 61, pp. 132–3 (nos. 23–8); c. 65, pp. 137–8 (no. 29); c. 92, pp. 161–3 (nos. 30–3).

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

88

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 88


Essex, north-east Hertfordshire and London. Leofwine had witnessed important transactions in the fenland shires in the late 970s and 980s, and in 973 sold his third share of Whittlesey Mere (Nthants.) to Bishop Æthelwold, who granted it to the monks of Thorney. Leofwine’s last recorded appearance is in 990 when he attended a royal assembly in London which punished a nobleman who had seized the property of his step-mother. At some stage between this assembly and c. 1016, Leofwine quarrelled with his mother. He lost his temper and struck her on the head with a log, leading to prolonged and excruciating pain before her death. Leofwine sought absolution by making a pilgrimage to Rome. On his return he donated nine estates to Ely Abbey, while his eldest son Æthelmær became a monk at the abbey. Leofwine perhaps had another son Leofmær who became a prominent member of East Anglian lay society in the early eleventh century, and who in 1066 was a dependant of Stigand, bishop of East Anglia (1043–7) and archbishop of Canterbury (1052–70). In addition, Leofwine also paid for the enlargement of the monastic church’s walls, the extension of its aisle southwards, a new altar in a porch dedicated to the Virgin and a throne, adorned with gold, silver and gems, on which was mounted a statue of the Virgin holding the Child-Saviour on her lap. In exchange the monks of Ely pledged to perform masses for him, his wife and his children each Monday, and for the rest of his family each Tuesday. Leofwine is not specifically identified in the Ely calendar, but since the name occurs on seven occasions, one may well refer to him. Difficulties within the families of Thorkell of Elsworth and Leofwine, son of Æthulf, led to the murder of defenceless dependants. Although both incidents may have been remembered and recorded because of the shocking nature of the deaths, it is hard to believe that there was a notable increase in domestic violence between c. 955x992 and c. 990x1035. The change perhaps arises as a consequence of the shifting agendas of the East Anglian monasteries in relation to the lay aristocracy. Danish and English nobles who belonged to the uppermost ranks of the elite atoned for arrogance and anger through the loss of property. At this stage it would be tempting to revert to the default position of nineteenth-century historiography on the conflict between secular and ecclesiastical power. It might be suggested that a crucial change took place during the reign of Cnut and his sons, counterpoising the interests of laity and clergy, and that this new relationship remained in place until the Dissolution. That paradigm, however, will not do. First, Cnut visited East Anglian abbeys more than any other king in English history, according to the extant sources, and established important ties with

          

Lib. El., ii, c. 60, pp. 131–2. Ibid., ii, c. 34, p. 109; Chron. Rames., ii, c. 33/xxix, p. 61. ECEE, p. 168. Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 63, pp. 128–31, at p. 130, line 22. He can also perhaps be identified with one of the thegns named Leofwine who witnessed royal diplomas c. 980x1015; see ibid., p. 377. Account based on Lib. El., ii, c. 60, pp. 131–2; ECEE, p. 47. Table 10, nos. 1–9. ASW, no. 20, p. 60, line 16; p. 173. Lib. El., ii, c. 60, p. 132. Ibid. Keynes, ‘Ely Abbey’, pp. 28–30 discusses these events in the wider context of the acquisition of religious treasures by the Ely community under the rule of Abbot Ælfsige (996x99–1012x16). Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, pp. 345–8, 350. Lib. El., ii, c. 85, pp. 153–4; BL Additional MS 40,000, fol. 10r.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 89


89

a number of great abbeys. Second, and perhaps less well appreciated, is the way in which monks established close alliances with gentry families during the early eleventh century.

The Gentry, East Anglian Abbeys and the Norman Conquest In order to discuss this theme, attention needs to be turned to the wills preserved in the Bury St Edmunds archive. Eight of the eleven set out the bequests of gentry and middle-ranking thegns. Two case studies illuminate the ways in which the new alliance came to be forged between these lay ranks of only local importance and the reform abbeys. Ælfric Modercope, who had once been a dependant of the king, subsequently replaced this tie with more personal bonds of dependence with the abbots of Bury St Edmunds and Ely. In his will these two abbeys received two estates between ten and fourteen kilometres south-east of Norwich, while a third estate, twenty kilometres north-east of Norwich, passed to St Benet of Holme Abbey. The religious benefactions of Ælfric can be reckoned at no more than a couple of hides in Norfolk, and he perhaps belonged to the rank of thegns who controlled little more than five hides. The abbots of Ely and Bury St Edmunds thought it was worth their while to establish personal bonds of commendation with him, and took care to preserve his will in the monastic archive. One of Ælfric’s neighbours, Edwin (fl. 1042x66), was a demesne thegn and controlled around sixteen carucates. He may have lived on a fairly permanent basis at Bergh Apton in Norfolk. His plot on the king’s road (kinges stræte) was given to the monks of Ely, while two other plots backing onto the north and south sides of the road and a turf pit were granted to the two parish churches in the village. Grants of four-acre and fourteen-acre plots were bequeathed to parish churches in neighbouring villages up to twenty-five kilometres from Bergh Apton. Bonds of alliance linked Edwin, his brother Wulfric, Bury St Edmunds Abbey and St Benet of Holme Abbey. For instance, a transaction involved the two-carucate estate at Melton and a three-carucate estate eight kilometres away at Ashwell Thorpe. Each brother became the heir of the other, and on the survivor’s death Melton was to pass to the monks of St Benet of Holme for the salvation of both brothers’ souls. There was also the added stipulation that their nephew, Ketel, was to take over Ashwell Thorpe,

         

Lawson, Cnut, pp. 117–60. Two relate to the benefactions of the two leading established families, namely the wills of Leofgifu, kinswoman of Ælfric Wihtgarsson, and Thurstan, the direct descendant of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, see ASW, nos. 28–31, pp. 74–85. For a general discussion of this rank, see Gillingham, ‘Thegns and Knights’, pp. 163–79. Anglo-Saxon Writs, ed. F.E. Harmer (Manchester, 1952), no. 21, pp. 162–3. ASW, no. 28, p. 74, lines 16–19; VCH Norfolk, ii, p. 330. On status, see Williams, ‘Bell-house and Burh-geat’, pp. 221–40; Gillingham, ‘Thegns and Knights’, pp. 129–53. For another discussion of this family, see Fleming, Kings and Lords, pp. 141–2. For text and notes, see ASW, no. 33, pp. 86–8; 199–201; Domesday Book, ii, fol. 203 (for teinus domincus). ASW, p. 86, lines 17–23. Ibid., p. 86, lines 23–5; Domesday Book, ii, fol. 355b. ASW, no. 33, p. 86, lines 26–30; p. 88, lines 1–11.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

90

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 90


with £2 being paid annually for one mass to be said each day for their souls, with the estate passing on Ketel’s death to Bury St Edmunds. Kinship ties between brothers were highlighted, and suggest that Ketel was regarded as the extended family’s favoured heir, entrusted with overseeing rituals of commemoration for the souls of his agnatic kin. English nobles, such as Leofwine and Ketel, went on pilgrimage to Mediterranean cities in the pre-Crusading era. The search for salvation lay at the hearts of these journeys, but they also served as markers of status. By the early eleventh century, though, this particular marker did not separate lords of the highest status (proceres) from the middling ranks of the nobility. While Leofwine belonged to the former, Ketel sprang from the latter. Ulf and his wife Masdelin are also recorded as having planned a pilgrimage to Jerusalem, and Askill the thegn one to Rome, in the context of their donations to Peterborough Abbey. Ulf may have been a kinsman of Brand, abbot of Peterborough (1066–9), but otherwise nothing is else is known about the connections of these prospective pilgrims. Moreover, since pilgrimages are under-represented in the extant sources, those conducted by nobles of median and lower status may have been much more extensive than the few chance references suggest. Leofwine’s landed wealth would have provided him with the means to raise the necessary capital to conduct his pilgrimage, but it is hard to see how the resources of Ketel could have met the costs of outward and homeward journeys and gifts to saints’ shrines and to friends en-route. Moreover, in the pre-Conquest era the lesser ranks of the nobility could not call upon Jewish money lenders for loans because there were no established Jewish communities in England before 1066. Money could have been loaned through guilds, as suggested by the regulations of the Exeter Guild, which recorded each member’s obligation to contribute 5d. if one of them undertook ‘a pilgrimage south’. Another source could have been moneyers and goldsmiths, while monastic communities might have provided a third. Given that the cash was required for pilgrimage, abbots may have been quite forthcoming with money gifts, but these are unlikely to have left any trace in cartulary-chronicles. Another way of looking at this issue is to consider whether other evidence demonstrates the exchange of gifts between the reform monks and the median and lesser ranks of the nobility. The nature of the evidence inevitably follows the descent of land. Between the reigns of Cnut and Edward the Confessor, thegns of middle-ranking status became donors and lessees of Ramsey Abbey on a significant scale. In five case studies we will explore the consequences of those ties for both the abbey and their middle-ranking tenants. The Hertfordshire estate at Westhill which Bishop Æthelric had donated to the community was leased by Abbot Æthelstan to the king’s thegn, Osgot Sweyn, whose  

Ibid., p. 86, lines 1–4. For a discussion, see G. Ferraresi, ‘Viaggi e viaggiatori dall’Inghilterra a Roma nel periodo Anglosassone’ (Tesi di Laurea in Storia Medievale, Università degli Studi di Bologna, 2000).  ASW, no. 34, p. 90, lines 20–2; no. 39, p. 94, lines 1–2; ECEE, p. 104.  ASW, p. 208.  For a discussion of the representative nature of the evidence, see P.A. Halpin, ‘Anglo-Saxon Women and Pilgrimage’, ANS xix (1996), pp. 97–122.  C. Roth, A History of the Jews in England, 3rd edn (Oxford, 1964), p. 2.  English Historical Documents, I, c. 500–1042, eds. D.C. Douglas and D. Whitelock (London, 1979), no. 137.  Ramsey Abbey’s losses and leases are discussed by Sage, ‘Patronage and Society’, pp. 275–80.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 91


91

byname suggests Danish ethnicity. Osgot became a patron of Ramsey Abbey and his obit was included in the monks’ calendar, while he was a friend of Thurstan, the greatgrandson of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth. Within ten years of Osgot’s death Westhill was being leased out to another king’s thegn, Sexi of Walton, kinsman of Earl Leofric of Mercia, in return for the descent of five hides at Walton (later Wood Walton, Hunts.). The abbot of Ramsey made use of precarium numeratorium, whereby landed capital was temporarily transferred to lay tenants on the understanding that after their deaths those properties would be returned with additional post-obit bequests in exchange for prayers for the souls of the deceased and their kin. Such strategies were possible because Ramsey had sufficient capital not only to meet ‘running’ costs, but also to risk as loans. In the case of Westhill and Wood Walton the risk did not pay off. Sexi of Walton’s lands were confiscated by King William I, with Ramsey Abbey losing both Westhill and the promise of Wood Walton. Moreover, it was not until 1134 that the abbot of Ramsey persuaded both the tenant-in-chief and the widowed heiress of the subtenant of Wood Walton to grant their rights over the estate to the community, so that the five hides were henceforward held for the service of two knights’ fees. The widow’s sons, though, seized the property during the anarchy of King Stephen’s reign, and it was only in the late twelfth century that a satisfactory resolution was reached whereby the brother of the abbot of Ramsey married the widow of one of the sons who had seized the estate. Wood Walton merits attention because from the mid twelfth century there was a substantial castle there; its inner moat had a diameter of thirty metres and its outer moat was constructed from an ancient dyke. It is possible that the dyke was used in the later Anglo-Saxon period to establish an aristocratic residence at Wood Walton, which was then developed into a motte-and-bailey castle in 1144. Wood Walton’s location on the edge of Hurstingstone hundred overlooking the fens gave it a local importance, explaining both the appeal of the leasehold to lay tenants, and the efforts which the abbots of Ramsey made to recover it. Wulfwine, a king’s thegn, possibly the head of Edward the Confessor’s hunt and a wealthy landholder in Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Essex, granted five estates on his death to the Ramsey community in return for a lifetime grant of Hemingford and Yelling. This was followed by the lease of other estates at Hemingford and Yelling to Wulfwine’s kinsman, Aluric. The transaction, though, paid unwelcome dividends: following the death of Aluric at the battle of Hastings, Aubrey de Vere took possession of the kindred’s patrimonial estates and manors leased from the abbot of Ramsey.

         

Chron. Rames., iii, c. 80/xc, pp. 145–6. Ibid.; ASW, no. 31, p. 82, line 22; Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 342. Chron. Rames., iii, c. 80/xc, p. 146. J.A. Raftis, The Estates of Ramsey Abbey: A Study in Economic Growth and Organization, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies. Studies and Texts III (Toronto, 1957), p. 18. R. Lennard, Rural England 1086–1135: A Study of Social and Agrarian Conditions (Oxford, 1959), p. 164. Account based on VCH Hunts., iii, p. 236. Ibid., i, pp. 290–1; E. Cownie, Religious Patronage in Anglo-Norman England: 1066–1135 (London, 1998), p. 117. On the castle and the Mandeville connection, see VCH Hunts., i, pp. 290–1; Chron. Rames., p. 332. Chron. Rames., ii, c. 89/c, p. 152. For other discussions, see ECEE, pp. 36, 51, 70; Lennard, Rural England, p. 164 n. 5.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

92

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 92


Burwell in north-east Cambridgeshire had been an important estate throughout the Roman and Anglo-Saxon periods, with its name probably being derived from a late Anglo-Saxon fort or manor house, i.e. ‘spring by the burh or manor house’. The burh may have stood near Spring Close, west of the church, on the site subsequently occupied by the castle erected by King Stephen. Burwell church, granted to Ramsey Abbey c. 965x91, is to be identified with St Mary’s, originally in a small churchyard out of proportion to its west tower. The earliest surviving part of the tower, dating from the twelfth century, is fifteen metres high, with massive corner buttresses, and is part of a defensible solar block of a dwelling house, with two stories of chambers above the storage block. It can be compared with the two-storied late Anglo-Saxon chamber-block identified at Sulgrave. Any military purpose for the tower of St Mary’s during the anarchy is hard to discern since King Stephen’s castle was built to the west of the town. Perhaps a substantial tower was established at Burwell in the late Anglo-Saxon period, suitable for lay residential use, with additions then being made in the twelfth century. Ælfsige of Landwade and his wife Leofeva, both dependants of Eadgifu the Fair, had granted three and a half hides at Burwell to Ramsey Abbey c. 1043x65, and they were then let out to Ælfsige’s kinsman, Godwine. Godwine provided ward and watch at Burwell for the king’s service. In order to carry out his duties, Godwine was perhaps granted the use of the tower at Burwell, which would also have served to maintain his gentry status along with the five hides which he, his wife and his brother held under Eadgifu the Fair. Godwine, who received Burwell, is perhaps to be identified with Godwine cild, putative son of the wealthy Norfolk lord, Toki the king’s thegn. The Burwell leasehold agreement did not, however, work to the long-term enrichment of Ramsey Abbey because Godwine’s property was seized by Ralph I, earl of East Anglia (c. 1066–70). Yet before the Norman Conquest, a two-storied solar block had perhaps maintained the status of Godwine through the goodwill of the monks of Ramsey. Political historians have drawn upon the narratives in book three of the Liber Benefactorum to argue for a tenurial and political ‘revolution’ marking the transition from the rule of the house of Cerdic to that of Cnut’s dynasty. Meanwhile, economic historians have discussed the precaria numeratorum to demonstrate how the reform abbeys were able to establish domination over fenland economies. These two themes can be connected within the framework of a wider process of change. Together

         

VCH Cambs., x, p. 334. Ibid. Chron. Rames., ii, c. 25/xxii, p. 51; for comment, see above, Chapter 1, p. 25. VCH Cambs., x, p. 362. Ibid. Williams, ‘Bell-house and Burh-geat’, pp. 224–5, 240. Chron. Rames., iii, c. 107/cxviii, pp. 174–5. Domesday Book, i, fol. 195b. Ibid., fols. 193b, 195b. ECEE, p. 240; R. Liddiard, “Landscapes of Lordship”: Norman Castles and the Countryside in Medieval Norfolk, 1066–1200, British Archaeological Reports, British ser. cccix (Oxford, 2000), pp. 230–1. For discussion of Toki’s interests, see below, Chapter 6, pp. 102–3.  VCH Cambs., x, p. 341; Chron. Rames., iii, c. 107/cxviii, p. 175.  E.g. Fleming, Kings and Lords, p. 42.  E.g. Raftis, Estates of Ramsey Abbey, p. 18.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 93


93

narrative and administrative texts tell the story of a breaking of the link between Ramsey Abbey and the uppermost rank of the aristocracy and the forging of ties with lower aristocratic ranks, which gave a particular value to the precaria numeratorum. These developments also appear to provide the background to the depiction in the Liber Benefactorum of Norman barons and sheriffs, as the perpetrators of violencia and the despoilers of monastic property. Count Alan of Richmond, Earl Ralph I of East Anglia, William de Warenne, Odo of Bayeux, Walter Giffard and Eustace, sheriff of Huntingdon, are all recorded as seizing Ramsey Abbey’s estates by violencia. With the exception of Sheriff Eustace, all these men belonged to the very highest ranks of the post-Conquest Norman nobility, and even Eustace, as a curialis, was associated with the court nobility. A recent estimate puts the loss to Ramsey through these depredations at about the same value as the anticipated gains on the eve of the Norman Conquest from the precarium numeratorum (i.e. £70 and £56 TRE respectively). Although serious, these losses were manageable when measured against the abbey’s total wealth (£358 TRE), and did not undermine the community’s activities. In documenting this violencia, the Ramsey narrative was probably not setting out an anti-Norman perspective, or bewailing losses which threatened the very existence of the community. Instead it may have been intended to demonstrate that Eustace and members of great noble dynasties were men who had not established appropriate connections with Ramsey Abbey. At around the same time, the monks of Ramsey were establishing confraternity agreements with Norman nobles who belonged to the lesser ranks of sub-tenants, such as Pleines of Slepe and William Pecche, who along with their descendants were of gentry status. Qualitative continuity ran through the second and last thirds of the eleventh century, as the abbots of Ramsey established relationships through property and friendship, with gentry families in preference to members of the court elite.

Discussion Such conclusions move towards a point of view which regards c. 1000x35 rather than c. 1066x86 as the critical turning-point in the relationship between the great East Anglian abbeys and lay society. Yet local historical viewpoints which downplay the importance of arguably the greatest military conquest in the Middle Ages will only carry authority if they are based upon a reading of the full range of texts collected together in monastic codices, directing attention to the organization of the Liber Benefactorum. Thus, from one perspective its organization highlights the importance of

 Chron. Rames., ii, cc. 79/lxxxix, 90/ci, 107/cxviii, pp. 145, 154, 175; Domesday Book, i, fols. 203a, 208a, 208c, 212c, 216a, 348b, 377b; ii, fols. 159b, 419b.  J.A. Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, Public Record Office Handbooks xxiv (London, 1990), p. 48.  Cownie, Religious Patronage, p. 115.  Knowles, Monastic Order, p. 702.  H. Tsurushima, ‘Forging Unity between Monks and Laity in Anglo-Norman England’, Negotiating Secular and Ecclesiastical Power: Western Europe in the Central Middle Ages, eds. A.J. Bijsterveld et al., International Medieval Research VI (Turnhout, 1999), pp. 133–46.  Ibid.; A. Williams, The English and the Norman Conquest (Woodbridge, 1995), p. 198; J. Hudson, ‘Life-grants of Land and the Development of Inheritance in Anglo-Norman England’, ANS xii (1990), pp. 67–80.

LCEM-Ch-5.qxd

94

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 94


the Norman Conquest as a historical watershed: book three closes with the death of Edward the Confessor. One of the reasons, though, for this textual organization may derive from the types of record in book four. There may have been an incentive in terms of the hierarchy of the text to keep all the charters and other administrative records issued by the Anglo-Norman kings separate from pre-Conquest sources, notably those which had been translated from the vernacular into Latin. When, though, analysis is directed to the details, a somewhat different picture begins to emerge. At the core of book three of the Liber Benefactorum is the view that following the battle of Assandun, Ramsey entered a new period of general expansion and prosperity under the leadership of abbots and bishops trained at Ramsey and drawn from local families. A series of negotiations enabled Ramsey’s ecclesiastical leaders to stabilize their relationship with King Cnut, while at the same time taking advantage of difficulties faced by some Danish lords and entering into patronage relationships with other lords. These accounts, some of which are doubtless tinged with anti-Danish sentiments, reflected local feelings in some quarters, but they were included in book three of the Liber Benefactorum because they contributed to the wider issue of the negotiation of secular and ecclesiastical power. In place of dependence upon the court nobility, the community established ties with the median and gentry ranks of the nobility, perhaps as part of a wider shift in lay and monastic relationships during the early eleventh century. The gentry was able to supplement wealth at parish level with the cultural and social symbols of aristocratic life, which included being able to make pilgrimages to Rome and Jerusalem. Status within the elite was becoming more a matter of houses occupied, lifestyles maintained and social connections in local contexts, than of position within a national framework defined by Königsnähe. These developments can be compared to parallel developments in regions of France during the early eleventh century, where knights were establishing themselves as an independent social category, and great abbeys were becoming more aware of their place in regional society, while the great lords increasingly looked towards frameworks of power focused upon locality and lineage. Old networks of authority were being edged out of view as power and association came to be rooted in local and regional frameworks.

 Chron. Rames., iii, 109/cxx, pp. 178–80, at 178.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 95

Chapter 6 The Formation of Lordships and Economic Transformations during the Mid Eleventh Century In this manor [Hoxne] there was a market before 1066 . . . and it took place on Saturdays. W[illiam] Malet made his castle at Eye and, on the same day there was a market on the Bishop’s manor, W[illiam] Malet established another market in his castle. Because of this the Bishop’s market declined so that it is worth very little. Little Domesday Book, bishop of Thetford’s estate (Suffolk) c. 1086 The account of William Malet’s completion of a castle at Eye appears in Little Domesday Book because of its economic impact upon the market at Hoxne. The quotation serves to illustrate why medievalists have argued that the encastellation of the European landscape altered economic paths of growth, and reshaped military and political institutions. The next two chapters assess the circumstances in which lords invested in residence-church-market centres of lordship, such as that established at Eye c. 1066x86, and the ways in which they transformed economic relationships with dependent peasantries during the eleventh century. Before discussing the local contexts of these agglomerations of power focused upon castles, there is a brief historiographical analysis of the significance of the Norman Conquest and the place of castles and knights in early eleventh century England and France.

Historiographical perspectives on the Norman Conquest, castles and knights The most powerful tradition, as initially set out by Round, suggests that the Conquest was a turning-point because the Normans brought over feudal institutions from  

Domesday Book, ii, fol. 379a. Translation from Domesday Book Suffolk, eds. J. Morris and A. Rumble, 2 vols. (Chichester, 1986), ii, 18.1. J. Le Patourel, The Norman Empire (Oxford, 1976), pp. 318 comments ‘the castle-bourg-monastery complex seems to have served as a means of mutually interdependent feudal, economic, and ecclesiastical development’.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

96

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 96


Normandy, and through their energy reshaped the cultural, religious and social horizons of the one and a half million English people who supported and served around ten thousand French lords, knights and their followers. Its counterpoint, however, stresses the importance of the late Anglo-Saxon heritage in the making of AngloNorman institutions, such as knight service. To this debate can be added two current perspectives informed by comparative history. One approach, as elaborated by Bartlett and Bates, focuses upon the themes of conquest, colonization and domination by the Normans and other social groupings from northern France and Germany (which formerly comprised the Carolingian heartlands) in the creation of new societies in England, southern Italy, the Iberian peninsula and other outlying parts of southern and eastern Europe, in which Frankish and ‘post-Carolingian’ values gained the upper hand over divergent indigenous local traditions, thereby sustaining the ‘Europeanization of Europe’. Its counterpart, as perfected by Reynolds, uses the comparative method in order to call to account other historians’ perceptions of feudalism and its evolution, and in this instance seeks to highlight exactly what changed in terms of the performance of military service and property rights after 1066. These four historiographical perspectives have illuminated a wide range of historical themes, but in each case the part played by castles and knights and their interdependence takes on a central role. Knights, who first emerged around the year 1000, were defined by professional military occupation, rather than by gradations of social standing. This marked a critical change because profession rather than birth, riches and social rank determined status. At around the same time the first castles were constructed in France. One of their distinguishing characteristics was that they served not only as political and military strong points, but also as the family homes of noble dynasties. As a result patrilineages which came to be associated with these castles adopted hereditary topoynymic and patronymic surnames. Late Anglo-Saxon England’s social structure can be compared with its French counterpart, suggesting congruence and convergence. Yet few scholars would accept that



J.H. Round, Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, 3rd edn (London, 1994); R.A. Brown, The Normans and the Norman Conquest, 2nd edn (Woodbridge, 1985).  E.g. E.A. Freeman, The History of the Norman Conquest of England, its Causes and its Results, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1870–9); Campbell, Anglo-Saxon State, passim; C.W. Hollister, ‘The Significance of Scutage Rates in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century England’, EHR lxxv (1960), pp. 577–88; idem, ‘The Five Hide Unit and Old English Military Obligation’, Speculum xxxvi (1961), pp. 61–74.  R. Bartlett, The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950–1350 (London, 1993), notably pp. 24, 270; D. Bates, ‘The Rise and Fall of Normandy c. 911–1204’, England and Normandy in the Middle Ages, eds. D. Bates and A. Curry (London, 1994), pp. 19–35, notably p. 20: ‘of how Normandy became, and then ceased to be, the centre of a movement of conquest, colonization and domination’; see also Le Patourel, Norman Empire, passim, pp. 280–5.  Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals, passim, and notably pp. 342–52.  E.g. Bartlett, Making of Europe, p. 33; Brown, Normans and Norman Conquest, pp. 202–6; Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals, pp. 342–3.  For an overview of knighthood in Francia, see Bouchard, Strong of Body, Brave and Noble, pp. 1–27.  For an inter-disciplinary study, see G. Fournier, Le château dans la France médiévale: essai de sociologie monumentale (Paris, 1978).  Between 1080 and 1100, twenty-four out of thirty-one surnames in use by the nobility of the Mâconnais took as their toponym the landed domain of the family; see G. Duby, ‘Structure de parenté et noblesse dans la Franc du Nord aux XIe et XIIe siècles’, Hommes et structures du moyen âge: receuil d’artcles (Paris, 1973), pp. 267–85, at 283.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 97

THE FORMATION OF LORDSHIPS AND ECONOMIC TRANSFORMATIONS

97

Carolingian feudalism, as defined by Ganshof, was established in tenth-century England. That does not mean, however, that the social order differed to the point that nobles, monks, merchants and other social groupings did not go about their lives in a broadly similar fashion. Stenton noted the application of the English word cniht to the French mounted soldiers, and went on to observe that ‘it affords a clue as to the ways in which the native population regarded the professional mounted soldiers of eleventhcentury France’. The adoption of the word cniht, far from showing that the English were shocked by the arrival of these warriors, demonstrates that they were all too familiar with this type of noble. Moreover, Gillingham’s definitions of the function of the cniht and the knight highlight the variations between these two types of warrior, while at the same time demonstrating their unity of purpose. Riding-men, similar to cnihts, in the diocese of Worcester during the late Anglo-Saxon period received estates from which they could maintain themselves in return for assistance with administration and hunting duties. Turning to the institutional context, Reynolds persuasively demonstrates that although the formal organization of knights’ quotas owed by English tenancies-in-chief to the Crown arose from the particular crises faced during the reign of William I, it nonetheless drew upon pre-Conquest military obligations. Patterns of continuity and similarity are also present in the East Anglian evidence in relation to eleventh-century categories of warriors. The ‘seniores et juniores’ mentioned in the Vita Sancti Oswaldi can be translated as ‘thegns and cnihts’, while two cnihts in the ‘Poem of the Battle of Maldon’ are depicted as nobles, one releasing a hawk from his arm on the eve of the battle and the other distinguishing himself through his valour. Meanwhile, the cniht Brihtwæld was a beneficiary of the will of Æthelflæd, elder daughter of Ealdorman Ælfgar, and two cnihts based in neighbouring Hertfordshire travelled on their lord’s behalf in order to renegotiate a lease with Ælfsige, archbishop of Canterbury (1038–50). Furthermore, it is quite hard to sustain the view that the knight (miles) was viewed in a culturally different way from the cniht, when attention is turned to Little Domesday Book. In eastern Suffolk, for example, only one landholder was designated as a miles, namely Wulfwi, ‘miles Sancti Edmundi’. In short, the cniht and the knight carried out broadly similar functions in England and France during the early eleventh century.

  

Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals, pp. 332–3. Stenton, First Century of English Feudalism, pp. 132–3. J. Gillingham, ‘The Introduction of Knight Service into England’, idem, English in the Twelfth Century: Imperialism, National Identity and Political Values (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 187–208, at 187: ‘a well-armed soldier, a man who possessed horse, hauberk, sword and helmet’; Gillingham, ‘Thegns and Knights’, p. 171: ‘the Anglo-Saxon cniht was a retainer attached to the personal service of a nobleman, that his service might well require him to fight by his lord’s side, mounted and otherwise equipped for war’.  Gillingham, ‘Thegns and Knights’, pp. 172–3.  Reynolds, Fiefs and Vassals, pp. 342–52.  Gillingham, ‘Thegns and Knights’, p. 167; VSO, p. 446; English Historical Documents, i, eds. Douglas and Whitelock, no. 914 suggests ‘veterans and young men’.  Gillingham, ‘Thegns and Knights’, p. 175; Scragg, ‘Battle of Maldon’, p. 8, line 9; p. 24, line 153.  ASW, no. 14, p. 36, line 24.  Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 90, pp. 174–5.  Ç.L. Çelebi, ‘Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Changes in East Suffolk, 1066–1166’ (MA Dissertation, Bilkent University, 2002), p. 79 citing Domesday Book, ii, fol. 364a, and defining eastern Suffolk as the hundreds of Blything, Loes, Plomesgate, Wilford and the half-hundred of Parsham.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

98

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 98


Motte-and-bailey wooden castles represented one of the distinguishing characteristics of the Norman Conquest of England: they could be put up quickly, and defended by a handful of knights, thereby establishing the authority of new Norman lords over localities. There are no archaeological traces of such castles in England or Normandy before 1066, but that does not means that lords did not invest in the establishment of secular residences on both sides of the English Channel during the tenth and early eleventh centuries. In fact early English laws, charters, archaeology and architecture point to the existence in England before 1066 of substantial fortified aristocratic residences, such as at Goltho in Lincolnshire and Sulgrave in Northamptonshire. Yet doubts remain over whether aristocratic residences in England had the same range of functions as their French counterparts, notably in relation to the exercise of private justice and the uses of these residences in times of military crisis. Other differences are suggested by landscape studies. Norman castles in Norfolk from Castle Acre to Wymondham were located on slopes and false-crests so that they provided images of domination over landscapes, but in fact were poorly situated as centres of military defence. As Liddiard shows in relation to Castle Acre the landscape was remodelled during the era of the Norman Conquest in order to demonstrate the status and authority of its lord rather than to secure a military strong point. In short, the military and political needs of the elite do not provide exclusive explanations for the establishment of castles in medieval East Anglia since cultural processes, as discussed by Liddiard, partly explain their emergence. In the case studies below attention will be turned to the significance of economic factors in the establishment of aristocratic centres of lordship. In relation to knights and castles the evidence from England and France presents different conclusions. The cniht and the knight carried out broadly similar roles, but aristocratic residences appear to have been built with slightly different criteria in mind, albeit within a common framework which expressed the importance of the secular built environment to lay aristocracies. One way in which history can contribute towards a better understanding of the role of residence-monastery-market complexes in the transformation of the social order is to focus on the contexts in which these secular centres of lordship were first established and then maintained by different dynasties. These developments can be set out independently of the four main historiographical models discussed above. Three East Anglian case studies set out the chronology and the circumstances in which political, administrative, ecclesiastical and economic power were brought together in seigneurial centres of lordship.



R.A. Brown, ‘An Historian’s Approach to the Origins of the Castle in England’, Archaeological Journal cxxvi (1969), pp. 131–48; Bouchard, Strong of Body, Brave and Noble, pp. 15–16; M. Strickland, ‘Military Technology and the Conquest: The Anomaly of England’, ANS xix (1996), pp. 353–82, at 369–73; for a collection of studies concerned with castles in Anglo-Norman England, see R. Liddiard, ed., AngloNorman Castles (Woodbridge, 2002).  The first textual reference to a castle appears in ASC, [D, 1052], p. 122.  Williams, ‘Bell-house and Burh-geat’, p. 230; G. Beresford, ‘Goltho manor, Lincolnshire: The Buildings and their Surrounding Defences c.850–1150’, ANS iv (1981), pp. 13–36; B.K. Davidson, ‘Excavations at Sulgrave, Northamptonshire’, Archaeological Journal cxxxiv (1977), pp. 105–14.  Williams, ‘Bell-house and Burh-geat’, pp. 239–40.  Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, pp. 1–13, 123–4.  Ibid., pp. 50–1, 60–2.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 99


99

Seigneurial centres of lordship during the eleventh century The first case study relates to the heartlands of the Stour valley, and follows through the links between a leading English dynasty and a Norman family of equivalent status. Ælfric Wihtgarsson, perhaps descended from Wulfstan of Dalham, served as the steward of Queen Emma until her downfall in 1043. Between c. 1020 and 1044 he administered the Eight and Half Hundreds in western Suffolk on her behalf, and during the reign of Edward the Confessor became involved in litigation whereby he sought to prevent the descent of land to Ramsey Abbey. In 1043–4, following the downfall of Queen Emma, the immunity passed to Bury St Edmunds Abbey, but Ælfric remained as a powerful landowner in the region, and by 1066 his son Wihtgar Ælfricsson had taken over the family’s estates, which he probably retained until c. 1071x75. His successor, Richard FitzGilbert (d. 1090), was the great-grandson of Duke Richard I of Normandy (942–96). Richard’s grandfather Godfrey (d. 1015) had received the county of Eu sometime after c. 996 from his half-brother, Duke Richard II (996–1026), but neither Richard FitzGilbert nor his brother Baldwin held comital rank. Richard FitzGilbert held the lordship of Bienfaite and Orbec in Normandy, but it was in England that he acquired great wealth, placing him amongst the ten richest barons in England, following the acquisition of the honors of Clare in East Anglia and Tonbridge in Surrey and Kent c. 1066x75. From the 1050s until the 1130s members of this family used patronymic surnames (e.g. Richard FitzGilbert’s son’s surname was FitzRichard), but from the 1140s the family adopted the toponymic surname of Clare. There are several similarities between the dynasties of Ælfric Wihtgarsson and Richard FitzGilbert. Patronymic surnames were used during the eleventh century, while descent could be traced to prestigious ancestors reaching back into the tenth century. Although the ancestors of Richard FitzGilbert and Wihtgar Ælfricsson had benefited notably from Königsnähe during the tenth century, by the eleventh century these ties had begun to wane. Such diminishment was not, though, accompanied by an irredeemable loss of status and power, and it is not so surprising that there was continuity in the management of estates and investments in the seigneurial centre at Clare.

    

     

See above, Chapter 2, p. 34, Figure 2. Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, pp. 110, 112. Anglo-Saxon Writs, nos. 18, 24; Warner, Origins of Suffolk, p. 152. Chron. Rames., iii, c. 103/cxiv, pp. 169–71; Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, p. 150. Stafford, Queen Emma and Queen Edith, pp. 112, 132–4 n. 19; Warner, Origins of Suffolk, p. 152. The Eight and Half Hundreds were established as an administrative unit in the mid tenth century, being grouped around the borough and abbey of Bury St Edmunds. Stafford suggests that they provided marriage gifts and dowers for queens, with Wulfstan of Dalham serving as Queen Eadgifu’s reeve. Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 357–63. R. Mortimer, ‘The Beginnings of the Honour of Clare’, ANS iii (1980), pp. 119–41, at 130–1. For the early history of the family, see M. Altschul, A Baronial Family in Medieval England: The Clares, 1217–1314 (Baltimore, MD, 1965), pp. 17–20. Ibid., p. 17. Ibid., p. 18. Wareham, ‘Two Models of Marriage’, p. 122; Altschul, Baronial Family, family tree.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

8/20/05

100

11:55 AM

Page 100


The estates of Ælfric and his son Wihtgar were valued at £284 TRE, and were concentrated in Risbridge hundred in south-west Suffolk and in Dunmow hundred in central Essex. The core of this lordship comprised the four great demesne manors of Clare, Hundon and Desning in Suffolk, and Thaxted in the adjoining area of Essex. Those four manors, valued at £165 TRE, descended to Richard FitzGilbert, making up the core of the Anglo-Norman honor of Clare. Other major blocks of estates held by FitzGilbert belonged to the ‘honor’ of Phinn TRE, or to Wulfmer and other thegns who can be connected to Ælfric Wihtgarsson through ties of lordship. Clare lies on the River Stour, then in the centre of Ælfric’s estates, and it and its neighbour, Hundon, made up around forty hides of land, comprising the largest continuous block of land in secular ownership in East Anglia during the Anglo-Norman period. Ælfric Wihtgarsson established a collegiate church at Clare which had seven prebends under the rule of Leodmer the priest. Abbot Leofstan of Bury assumed spiritual responsibility for the collegiate church, but it was placed under the lordship of Ælfric’s son, Wihtgar. The foundation, moreover, compares with new monastic establishments founded by aristocratic dynasties in early-eleventh-century Normandy, which typically had around four to six canons. After the Norman Conquest Richard FitzGilbert retained the ecclesiastical organization at the collegiate church of Clare, but following his death in 1090, his son and heir Gilbert FitzRichard converted the college into a Benedictine priory, dependent upon Bec Abbey (Normandy). He commemorated his father and his brother by donating demesne resources to provide for an additional four monks, and exhorted his barons and the men on his honor to give as much as they possibly could to the refounded community, while his grandson promised his men a hundredfold spiritual reward in return for donations which were prompted by the progress of the community’s relics from village to village across East Anglia. Until 1124 the collegiate church and priory lay within the castle’s bailey, but were then moved to neighbouring Stoke-by-Clare. The transformation of the collegiate church into a Benedictine priory was part of a continuum, running through the eleventh and early twelfth centuries, in which lords signalled succession to the dynasty’s landholding through the renewal of ecclesiastical organization under their authority. At the south of the settlement stood a pre-Conquest manor house with a tower, which had been occupied by Wihtgar Ælfricsson, but between 1066 and 1090 a

            

Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 357–63. Domesday Book, ii, fols. 38b, 389b-90a. Ibid., ii, fols. 38b-41b, 389b-97b. Mortimer, ‘Beginnings of the Honor of Clare’, pp. 30–1. There is a contrast between the descent of estates in East Anglia, with estates passing from a few key antecessors, and patterns in Kent involving a less structured line of succession. Warner, Origins of Suffolk, p. 174; Domesday Book, ii, fols. 389b-90a. Stoke-by-Clare Cartulary: BL Cotton Appx. xxi, eds. C. Harper-Bill and R. Mortimer, Suffolk Charters iv-vi for the Suffolk Records Society, 3 vols. (Woodbridge, 1982–4), iii, p. 2. D. Bates, Normandy before 1066 (London, 1982), pp. 206–8. The principal change involved Norman monks taking over some of the prebends. Stoke-by-Clare Cartulary, iii, p. 2. Ibid., i, no. 137. Ibid. Ibid., nos. 35, 55. Ibid., nos. 70, 136–7.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 101


101

Norman motte-and-bailey castle was constructed to the north of the manor house, shifting the focus of the settlement into its present layout. Ælfric also established a market at Clare, which was the fourth largest in Suffolk during the late eleventh century. Clare developed into the caput of one of medieval England’s leading honors, and its success was in large measure due to the vision of its founder Ælfric Wihtgarsson, who was referred to in the archives of Bury St Edmunds as a ‘famous earl (comes famosus)’. A second case study provides an example of two dynasties who were at the forefront of political and military confrontations during the mid eleventh century, and who may have invested in seigneurial complexes of lordship at Eye in Suffolk in order to stabilize their power. Eadric of Laxfield controlled estates which made him the twelfth wealthiest landowner in England during the reign of Edward the Confessor. He was connected with Osgod clapa (the rough) the Staller, who may have been descended from Osgod, nephew of Theodred, bishop of London. In 1046 Osgod and Eadric were exiled from England, but following Eadric’s return from exile, he received a royal writ allowing free peasants to return to his lordship, with the result that he exercised commendation over around 390 freemen and socemen in Norfolk and Suffolk. He was perhaps appointed as the reeve of Blything double hundred. Eadric of Laxfield lost his estates in 1066x67, with his demesne wealth forming the core of the Malet honor of Eye: in Suffolk three-quarters of the Malet family’s estates had formerly been held by Eadric of Laxfield as demesne estates or through rights of commendation. William Malet’s father, lord of the honor of Graville-Sainte-Honorine (SeineMaritime, France), may have been married to an Englishwoman who had connections with Lincolnshire and the house of Leofric. William Malet (d. c. 1071) acquired estates in England which placed him among the twenty wealthiest tenants-in-chief, and in 1068 he was appointed as constable of York castle and sheriff of Yorkshire. Although he escaped with his wife and two of his children after York was sacked by an Anglo-Danish army in 1069, he was killed two years later while campaigning in the fenlands, and was succeeded by his son Robert Malet (d. c. 1107), sheriff of Suffolk (perhaps c. 1071x80; c. 1101x6). 

Warner, Origins of Suffolk, p. 174 suggests that the tower may also have been used to regulate the market at Clare, and draws an analogy with the wooden belfry attached to Adam of Cockfield’s manor house in the twelfth century; see also ECEE, p. 71. On the existence of the castle by 1090, see D. Renn, Norman Castles in Britain (London, 1968), p. 144.  Domesday Book, ii, fol. 389b.  ECEE, p. 71.  Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 283–302.  G. Tengvik, Old English Bynames (Uppsala, 1938), pp. 303–4.  A. Williams, ‘The King’s Nephew: the Family and Career of Ralph, Earl of Hereford’, Studies in Medieval History Presented to R. Allen Brown, eds. C. Harper-Bill, C. Holdsworth and J.L. Nelson (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 327–43, at 333–4.  Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 115–16; Williams, ‘King’s Nephew’, p. 334.  Domesday Book, ii, fol. 311a; Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 283–302.  For discussion of Blything double-hundred, see Warner, Origins of Suffolk, pp. 157–9.  Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 285–302; Domesday Book, ii, fols. 304a-30a.  The family’s territorial interests in England and Normandy are set out in K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, ‘Domesday Book and the Malets’, Nottingham Medieval Studies xli (1997), pp. 13–51.  Orderic, ii, p. 233.  R.A. Brown, The Norman Conquest of England, 2nd edn (Woodbridge, 1985), p. 169; Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, p. 76; COEL s.n.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

102

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 102


Eye lies around thirty kilometres from Norwich, Bury St Edmunds, Ipswich and Dunwich on the principal road which ran from London to Norwich, five kilometres north of a crossing over the Waveney River. It is, thus, equidistant from secular, ecclesiastical and commercial centres of power in East Anglia. A park was established at Eye before 1066, while the post-Conquest layout of Eye obscures earlier work. The first recorded reference to the castle at Eye, as set out in the opening quotation in this chapter, is when William Malet established a Saturday market to be held within its walls, which forced the bishop of East Anglia to move his market at neighbouring Hoxne to meet on Fridays. Eadric of Laxfield had also ruthlessly moved against episcopal power in order to establish his sway over Eye. He seized the soce which the bishop had exercised over the forty-eight freemen attached to the manor. In short, post-Conquest anti-ecclesiastical strategies at Eye developed from pre-Conquest initiatives. Precise details of development of Eye c. 1046x69 may not now be recoverable, but one possibility is that an Anglo-Saxon manor house stood on the site subsequently occupied by the castle. Nevertheless there was significant new building during the era of the Norman Conquest: the new wooden castle had probably been completed by 1071, and Eye Priory, a dependency of Bernay Abbey (Normandy), was in the early stages of development in 1088. This building programme had resulted in a fortyfour per cent decline in the woodland resources of the lordship between TRE and TRW, accounting for a quarter of the woodland lost in Suffolk c. 1066x86. The idea of establishing Eye as a seigneurial centre was probably Eadric of Laxfield’s, but the Malet dynasty created the residence-church-market complex. So far the two case studies point towards continuity in terms of strategies of investment in seigneurial centres at Clare and Eye. The lords who ruled over these centres either came from broadly similar backgrounds, as occurred in the first case study, or were seeking to stabilize their power in difficult political circumstances, as in the second case study. It is not then surprising that there was continuity in terms of strategies of lordship. The critical test is whether such patterns of continuity arose when lords who belonged to quite different circles succeeded one another. The third case study provides such an example in relation to Castle Acre under the lordship of Toki the king’s thegn and the Warenne dynasty. Toki was one of England’s wealthiest lords, ranking fortieth in terms of wealth as recorded in Domesday Book TRE. Yet there is no evidence to suggest that he held public office or had close connections with the royal court beyond witnessing two royal charters and the ties which his putative son Godwine cild established with Eadgifu the Fair and Archbishop Stigand. Yet even these ties can be connected as        

Its importance reaches back to the Roman period, with 650 gold coins up to the reign of Honorius being uncovered there in the eighteenth century, see Warner, Origins of Suffolk, pp. 57–8. Ibid., p. 176; Domesday Book, ii, fol. 319b. Above, p. 00. Domesday Book, ii, fol. 319b. Eye Priory Cartulary and Charters, parts one and two, ed. V. Brown, Suffolk Charters xii-xiii for the Suffolk Record Society, 2 vols. (Woodbridge, 1992–4), ii, p. 12; VCH Suffolk, ii, p. 72. Domesday Book, ii, fols. 153b-6a; 304a-30a. Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 348–9. On charters, see Keynes, ‘Atlas of Attestations’, table lxxv (2 of 2) citing S 998–9; Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, pp. 29–31 provides a discussion of five lords named Toki in Norfolk Domesday Book,

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 103


103

much with the aim of establishing bonds of friendship with powerful neighbours in a regional context as with the strengthening of ties with the royal court. By contrast the Warenne dynasty provides one of the best examples of a noble house whose interests were closely bound up with the royal family. William de Warenne I (d. 1088) had acquired the forfeited estates of William, count of Arques, and Mortemer castle in 1053–4 from Duke William. After 1066 Warenne was rewarded with extensive estates in Sussex (linked to the castellanry of Lewes) and in East Anglia, thereby placing him among the ten wealthiest barons in England TRW. He shared with Richard FitzGilbert command of the army which defeated Earl Ralph II of East Anglia’s army in 1075, and in 1088 he received the earldom of Surrey as a reward for his valour and loyalty to King William II (1087–1100) during the great baronial revolt of 1087–8. The link between the Warenne family and the royal house was a continuing theme: for example, the marriage of Ada, daughter of Earl William II (d. 1138) to Henry, son of David I (d. 1153), king of Scotland (1124–53), underpinned the Anglo-Scottish peace treaty following the battle of the Standard in 1138. The differences between the connections of Toki the thegn and the Warenne family affected strategies of investment at Castle Acre. Toki was probably responsible for constructing a late Anglo-Saxon wooden manor house, following the clearing of the heathland landscape during the eleventh century. Castle Acre stood roughly in the centre of Toki’s estates in Norfolk. Its location may have subsequently influenced Warenne’s strategies of acquisition, with the result that Castle Acre lay at the centre of his estates. Warenne, however, was not content simply to take over the manor house. Perhaps in the late 1070s the original wooden manor house at Castle Acre was replaced by a country house, constructed from mortared chalk rubble and flint, and boasting a ground-floor entrance, windows and a first-floor fire-place. A perimeter bank and palisade were added, and a timber gatehouse was replaced by one built from chalk and clunch. Meanwhile, the route of the Peddar’s Way was redirected from its straight-line course into a leftwards turn on a downwards incline before turning sharply to the right, so that the residence of Castle Acre appeared to dominate the Nar valley when approached from the south. The residence remained as a family house, and when Gundreda de Warenne became pregnant she took up residence

         

showing that Toki 1 (antecessor of William de Warenne) is to be identified with Toki 2 (father of Godwine cild). On the local East Anglia connections and national ties of Stigand, see N.P. Brooks, The Early History of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597 to 1066, Studies in the Early History of Britain (Leicester, 1984), pp. 304–10. Bates, Normandy before 1066, p. 166. Orderic, ii, p. 316. C.W. Hollister, ‘The Taming of the Turbulent Earl: Henry I and William of Warenne’, idem, Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London, 1986), pp. 137–44, at 140. Orderic, vi, pp. 522–5. I am grateful to Jessica Nelson for bringing this event to my attention. This event perhaps led to the entering of Henry’s name into the Durham Liber Vitae; see BL Cotton Domitian MS A. vii, fol. 16r. Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, pp. 29, 48. Ibid., p. 28. J. Coad and J.D.F. Streeten, ‘Excavations at Castle Acre, Norfolk’, Archaeological Journal cxxxix (1982), pp. 138–301. Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, pp. 60–2. Ibid., pp. 45, 50.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

104

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 104


there before dying in childbirth. The secular built environment was completely remodelled at Castle Acre during the era of the Norman Conquest, but not in a way which correlated with the concerns of holding down a territory in a hostile situation. In fact it was not until the early 1140s that Castle Acre’s defences were strengthened and that a new building programme was undertaken, with a great stone keep being partly completed on the motte. The reshaping of the built environment was not restricted to secular power. Toki was perhaps the patron of a church which lay adjacent to his manor house, but William de Warenne established Castle Acre as a major ecclesiastical centre. Following his foundation in Sussex of England’s first Cluniac community at Lewes c. 1072x82, some of its monks moved to Castle Acre in the early 1080s, and established a dependent priory there. Initially the monks were located close to the castle, but before 1088 they moved to a new site to the south-west of the settlement. Earl William II granted the monks two orchards and the cultivated land between the orchards and the castle, while new monastic buildings were constructed c. 1091x1118. Moreover, by placing the priory on the other side of the new route of the Peddar’s Way, the Warenne family recreated within a micro-landscape the relationship between comital and monastic power envisaged in the foundation of Cluny Abbey by Duke William V of Aquitaine (993–1030); namely, mutual support without interference.

Seigneurial centres and economic transformations Seigneurial lords can no longer to be depicted as entrepreneurs who introduced new technologies, but the establishment of castles may have led to the reorganization of land ownership and innovatory application of existing knowledge and technology, resulting in greater returns from land, labour and livestock. One hypothesis which needs to be considered is whether continuity in the descent of networks of estates provided a basis for economic gains for Norman lords. The first step is to pinpoint the extent to which the estates attached to Clare, Eye and Castle Acre under Edward the Confessor also comprised the landed wealth attached to the caputs of these AngloNorman honors. When measured in terms of value, perhaps between two-thirds and three-quarters of Richard FitzGilbert’s estates on the honor of Clare had formerly been held by

      

G. Cokayne et al., eds., The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, 14 vols. (London, 1910–59), xii, part i, p. 494. Coad and Streeten, ‘Excavations at Castle Acre, Norfolk’, p. 192; Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, p. 50. Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, p. 56. The community received Toki’s church, four other livings in Norfolk and Essex and tithes from Grimston manor. VCH Norf., ii, p. 356; VCH Sussex, ii, p. 64. Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, p. 56. Poly and Bournazel, Feudal Transformation, pp. 254–5. This is to be distinguished from the issue of descent of estates from those English lords referred to as ‘antecessors’ in Domesday Book, where lines of succession were often much weaker, as demonstrated by Fleming, Kings and Lords, pp. 107–44; cf. P. Sawyer, ‘1066–1086: a tenurial revolution?’, Domesday Book: A Reassessment, ed. idem (London, 1985), pp. 71–85. It would be worth exploring the link between the antecessor and the legal disputes over property; see R. Fleming, Domesday Book and the Law: Social and Legal Custom in Early Medieval England (Cambridge, 1998); R.W. Finn, Domesday Studies: The Eastern Counties (London, 1967), p. 38.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 105


105

Table 12 Estates of the Clare, Malet and Warenne families in Norfolk and Suffolk TRE and TRW

TRE TRW Increase

FitzGilbert (Clare)

Malet (Eye)

Warenne (Castle Acre)

Total

£236 £270 69%

£402 £441 63%

£289 £371 24%

£927 £1,082 17%

Wihtgar Ælfricsson. On the lordship of Eye there was a more varied pattern. In Suffolk all of the estates which were under the personal management of Eadric of Laxfield, valued at £198 TRE, became the demesne manors held by the Malet family. There was, however, a less neat line of succession to estates over which Eadric had exercised lordship through commendation, while in Norfolk the Malet family only retained one third of Eadric’s estates. When measured by TRE values, around fourfifths of the honor of Eye had descended from Eadric of Laxfield, while around a quarter of his estates passed to lords other than the Malet family. The consequence of these descents was that the honor of Eye was more closely focused upon Suffolk than the lordship of Eye had been. Lines of descent were not neat and tidy, but the cores of the honors of Eye and Castle Acre were constructed from the landholdings of the English lords who had exercised lordship over the seigneurial centres which became the caputs of Anglo-Norman honors. On the honor of Castle Acre there was no such link. Although all of Toki the thegn’s estates in Norfolk descended to William de Warenne, including Castle Acre, those estates made up one-quarter of the Warenne family’s estates in Norfolk TRW. These differences being set out, was there a positive or a negative correlation with increases in the value of lordships between TRE and TRW? There was an inverse correlation between the strength of succession and increase in rental valuations between TRE and TRW. On the honor of Castle Acre, the per centage increase was over three times that achieved on the honors of Clare and Eye. The descent of great landholdings linked to aristocratic residences did not then sustain continuing cycles of economic growth. Econometric models provide a way of checking and refining such issues. In TRE the estates which subsequently made up the honors of Clare, Eye and Castle Acre were valued in each case at around £37 above the norm in relation to the resources on those estates. In TRW, however, there was no

       

Domesday Book, ii, fols. 389b-97b; Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 357–63. The variation depends upon whether valuations or ploughteams are used as a measure of value. Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 285–6. Ibid., pp. 286–302. Ibid., pp. 283–5; Domesday Book, ii, fols. 153b-6a. Domesday Book, ii, fols. 157a-72b; Clarke, English Nobility, p. 349. Table 12. The models and the way in which they were established are set out in Wareham, ‘ “Feudal Revolution” ’, pp. 304–5. A useful introduction to the application of economics to history is provided by T.G. Rawski et al., Economics and the Historian (Berkeley, CA, 1996). Wareham, ‘ “Feudal Revolution” ’, p. 304, figure 3, dependent variable: castle

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

106

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 106


Table 13 Relationships between rental valuations and key resources in Norfolk and Suffolk TRE and TRW

Ploughteams Demesne labour Woodland Livestock

TRE co-efficient Effect of one unit upon rent

TRW co-efficient

Effect of one unit upon rent

0.113 0.166 0.0192 0.011

0.633 0.079 0.0411 0.014

12s 8d. 1s 7d. 9d. 3½d.

2s. 3d. 3s. 4d. 4d. 2½d.

Table 14 Resources and values of Clare, Hundon, Desning and Thaxted c. 1066–86

Bordars Slaves Demesne ploughteams Peasants’ ploughteams Villeins Free peasants Value £

Clare

Hundon

Desning

Thaxted

Total

10⇒30 20 12⇐7 36⇐24 40⇐30 0 40

30 24 9⇐7 31⇐23 44⇐1 0 30

91 20 10 32 28 2 30⇒40

24 16 8⇐7 34⇐18 55⇐52 1 30⇒50

155⇒175 80 39⇐31 133⇐97 167⇐111 3 130⇒160

such comparative advantage. This begins to provide an explanation for the contrast in the per centage figures. Ælfric Wihtgarsson and Eadric of Laxfield had succeeded in raising rents far above the norm on the lordships at Clare and Eye, but their successors were unable to maintain these rates of growth. The focus of discussion needs to be shifted to which investments offered the greatest returns in terms of increases in rent for aristocratic landlords. On average if an extra ploughteam was added to an estate, the rental valuation would increase by 2s. 3d. TRE, rising to 12s. 8d. TRW, and if an extra bordar or slave (demesne labour) was added that would be correlated to a rise of 3s. 4d. TRE and 1s. 7d. TRW. The variations in part arise from attempts to provide a best fit for inputs to rents: the key feature was the combination of ploughteams and demesne labour in sustaining increases in rental valuations. Developments on the lordships and honors of Clare, Eye and Castle Acre demonstrate the degree of success with which lords before and after 1066 managed to maximise the rental valuations of their estates by taking advantage of these trends. The strong demesne orientation of the estates at Desning, Clare, Hundon and Thaxted contributed to the exceptionally high TRE valuations on those estates, with a demesne labour force of 235 bordars and slaves working 137 ploughteams. In each case the manor coincided with the vill: Ælfric Wihtgarsson could have negotiated

 

Table 13 based on Wareham, ‘ “Feudal Revolution” ’, pp. 312–14. Domesday Book, ii, fols. 38b, 389b-90a; Table 14.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 107


107

collective increases in labour services and rents in return for other concessions, such as greater security of tenure, with both lord and peasants gaining from consolidated patterns of land ownership in the locality. This, combined with the benefits stemming from inter-manorial connections and the use of inventory accounting, could have been effective in producing increased quantities of grain, livestock and other agricultural produce, thereby leading to a rise in the valuation of the estates relative to their counterparts. Richard FitzGilbert made no revolutionary changes in the management of the great complex of demesne wealth. He retained in demesne Wihtgar’s great estates in the upper reaches of the Stour valley, along with a scattering of smaller estates stretching eastwards on the rolling Suffolk claylands, while rewarding his followers with lands formerly held by commended freemen and socemen. Although additional steps were taken to raise the output of the demesne at Clare by increasing the number of bordars, this had no marked effect. There was a relative falling back between TRE and TRW; for example, the reeve of Thaxted made a ten per cent loss between the rental valuation of the estate and aggregate worth of the dues and produce he collected. Surveying changes in the resources between TRE and TRW on these four estates and upon the honor as a whole, it is not at all clear why the lordship failed to benefit from the general increase in rental valuations. Perhaps the answer lies not in the actual resources on these estates, but with their management. Richard FitzGilbert received advice from members of his own household, whose names suggest that they had crossed over from Normandy with him. The wisdom of their counsel may not have extended to being able to sustain the exceptional profitability of the lordship of Clare, which would have required knowledge of soil types, micro-climate variations and the ways in which the inputs and outputs of these manors could be most effectively brought together to maximize production. This framework could explain similar developments on the lordship and honor of Eye. Eadric of Laxfield’s wealth was based upon a network of demesne-oriented estates, which ranged from five to thirteen carucates. Half of these estates were concentrated in the hinterland of the lower course of the Stour valley in Hartismere and Bishop’s hundreds, while the rest lay in Blything hundred on the Suffolk coastal plain between Ipswich and Dunwich. These eleven estates, valued at £122 TRE, accounted for two-thirds of Eadric’s demesne wealth, with six estates each being valued at £14 TRE, or over. On three of the estates in the hundreds under the lordship of Eadric there were around twice as many ploughteams on the demesne as on peasants’ land, and each of these estates had a bordar and villein force of between twenty and fifty men. Inter-manorial connections between these estates may well have been one of the key factors in pushing up the rents on the lordship of Eye above the norm, but the Malet dynasty was not able sustain this relative economic advantage in    

S. Fenoaltea, ‘Review of Domesday Economy’, Speculum lxiii (1988), pp. 955–6, at 956. Mortimer, ‘Beginnings of the Honour of Clare’, pp. 122–3. Domesday Book, ii, fol. 38b R. Mortimer, ‘Land and Service: The Tenants of the Honour of Clare’, ANS viii (1985), pp. 177–97, at 180–1.  Table 15.  Domesday Book, ii, fols. 304a-30a; Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 285–302.  Table 15.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

108

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 108


Table 15 Resources and values on estates of the lordship and honor of Eye TRE and TRW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Estate name

Bordars

Slaves

Demesne ploughs

Peasants’ ploughs

Villeins

Value £

Eye Leiston Hollesley Chiletuna Snape Huntingfield Staverton Denninton Tannington Laxfield Badingham Total

9⇒16 27 4⇒12 10 16 28 6⇒15 16⇒15 17⇒19 14⇒37 26 173⇒221

12⇐0 3⇒7 0 3⇐0 0 1 4 2 0 0 0 25⇐14

8⇐5 11⇐7 4⇐2 3⇐2 5⇐0 4 4⇐2 4 3 4⇐2 10⇐5 60⇐36

15⇐6 6⇐3 8⇐5 5⇐4 8⇐4 18 2 12⇐9 12⇐8 14⇐11 7⇐5 107⇐75

39⇐20 25 18⇐13 10 8 18⇐12 14⇐9 12⇒16 13⇒15 14⇐11 4⇒21 175⇐160

15⇒21 16⇒28 5⇒13 8⇒9 6 8⇐7 6⇐4 14 14 15⇐8 15⇐10 122⇒134

comparison to returns being accrued from other estates between the late 1060s and the early 1080s. On the lordship and honor of Castle Acre there was a somewhat different pattern of succession to estates, but no great variance in the pursuit of economic strategies. Toki the thegn’s estates were concentrated in Norfolk within a ninety-kilometre square block. His holdings accounted for around thirty-four per cent of the demesne ploughteams on the lands of William de Warenne, and with only two exceptions, on each of Toki’s estates the demesne: peasants’ ploughteams ratio stood at 1:1 or 2:1. Castle Acre, Harpley and Heacham were among the handful of estates in Norfolk which were exempt from taxation, and Harpley, Heacham and West Walton had large teams of bordars working demesne ploughteams and tending the flocks. In addition, these estates benefited from favourable environmental conditions in north-west Norfolk, as sea levels fell and embankments were created to manage the freshwater outflows running out from the peat fens, enabling specialization in the raising of livestock. After the Norman Conquest this commitment to demesne-oriented agriculture was maintained, with small increases in the numbers of bordars and sheep on the estates formerly held by Toki. The limits of growth on those estates, though, had perhaps been reached, and between TRE and TRW the value of Toki’s former estates increased by only nineteen per cent, whereas on the rest of the Warenne honor they rose by thirty-nine per cent. Toki’s estates were an important part of the honor of Castle Acre, but in terms of offering returns they were overshadowed by the estates which had been acquired through the exchange of Lewes and other transactions. As a consequence

 For a useful survey of these connections, see A.K. Astbury, The Black Fens (Cambridge 1958).  The exchange is referred to in different ways; e.g. Domesday Book, ii, fols. 157a, 163a, 164b, 166b; see also J.F.A. Mason, William I and the Sussex Rapes (Bexhill, 1966).

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 109


109

of those transactions the Warenne family acquired a far more extensive block of estates concentrated around Castle Acre when compared with the organization of Toki’s lordship. Consolidation of landholding in the construction of a new lordship may have contributed to a collective rise in the valuation of these estates between TRE and TRW. Such developments may have been complemented by the use from the late 1070s on the honor of Warenne of inventory accounting, which in the late 1080s appear to have provided William de Warenne II with quite an accurate figure for the worth of his property. It may then have been the application of accountancy skills, linked to the establishment of the Cluniac priory at Castle Acre, which enabled the Warenne dynasty to manage the lordship which it constructed around Castle Acre. In short, the consolidation and investment in demesne resources on networks of estates grouped around seigneurial centres of lordship lay behind micro-economic transformations in the decades before and after 1066.

Discussion The development of seigneurial complexes of lordship, whether addressed from a national or a regional perspective, cannot be explained in terms of a single factor, be it military, political, social or economic. Such perspectives inevitably mean that attention moves away from apparent military turning points, such as the Norman Conquest, or the break-down of public order in France around the year 1000, and towards broader understanding of the emergence of secular centres of power, running across the divide of 1066. The links which English manor houses and collegiate foundations had with Anglo-Norman castles and priories point towards continuity, and shared values in the establishment of seigneurial complexes of lordship at Clare, Eye and Castle Acre. For all the particular variations in these three case studies in terms of who took over from whom, there was a clear link between the foundation of these centres of lordship in the late Anglo-Saxon period and their development during the Anglo-Norman era, with a common concern to invest in residence-church-monastery complexes. These issues raise the question of whether castles sustained or hindered cycles of growth in local contexts. This link between new aristocratic centres of lordship and a reordering of local economies can be viewed from two contrasting perspectives. One view suggests that although the demands imposed upon peasantries by elites in the late Anglo-Saxon period were irksome, they were far surpassed by demands for rents and services imposed by Norman lords in tandem with increased taxation payments. Estate management, moreover, was disrupted by violence, and most Norman lords took little interest in the longer-term prosperity of their estates, seeking to extract as much revenue as possible through the running down of capital. In

 Orderic, vi, p. 13; G. Duby, ‘Economie dominaile et économie monétaire: le budget de l’abbaye de Cluny entre 1080 et 1155’, Annales vii (1952), pp. 155–71; Wareham, ‘ “Feudal Revolution” ’, pp. 318–19.  Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, passim; Fournier, Le château, passim.  The classic account is provided by S.P.J. Harvey, ‘The Extent and Profitability of Demesne Agriculture in the Later Eleventh Century’, Social Relations and Ideas: Essays in Honour of R.H. Hilton, eds. T.H. Aston, P.R. Coss, C.C. Dyer and J. Thirsk (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 45–73.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

110

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 110


that context castles served as symbols of oppression, and put the English economy on a path of development which, in combination with the demands of state taxation, was bound to lead to crisis. Yet there are difficulties with this view. A study specifically concerned with the economic effects of the Norman Conquest takes a more balanced view on the attitudes of the Normans: ‘The new lords, avid for profit, had been trying to exploit their lands to the full, but to ruin their tenants and peasantry would defeat their object.’ The same study discusses the consolidation of manors, and focuses upon regional variations in assessing the economies of English regions during the era of the Norman Conquest. In relation to the three cases studies discussed here the key questions turn on the extent to which these micro-economic developments can be regarded as being representative of regional and national developments. In Norfolk and Suffolk the landholdings of the secular nobility were dominated by those of a few powerful lords, including those discussed here. The Baynard, Bigod, Clare, Malet and Warenne dynasties and the count of Brittany controlled forty-nine per cent of the laity’s wealth in Norfolk and Suffolk TRW. Developments on these few great lordships mattered in terms of shaping patterns in the region’s rural economy more generally. In moving from the regional to the national, account has to be taken not only of the exceptional prosperity of East Anglia during the Middle Ages, but also of the particular circumstances of the Norman Conquest. The region was fortunate in terms of the impact of English revolts, Danish invasions and Norman campaigns, avoiding the devastation suffered, for example, by the south-east in 1066 and northern England in 1069–70. Instead the revolt of Hereward the Wake was fought out on waterways, causeways and islands of the fens and the fen-edge, with the events soon passing into legend. Nor did the Danish invasion of 1069 or the campaigns of Norman armies in 1075 have any discernable influence upon property values. Norfolk and Suffolk were amongst the fourteen counties which witnessed an overall rise in the value of property between TRE and TRW. Economic developments in East Anglia are then suggestive of lines of development in areas which enjoyed relative peace, and of upward cycles of prosperity during the era of the Norman Conquest. Taking stock of these economic processes throughout the mid eleventh century suggests that English and Norman lords opted for similar strategies of estate management in East Anglia, with seigneurial centres creating the circumstances for new paths of growth linked to ‘private enterprise’. The reorganization of landholding may have meant that some of the traditional problems faced by local communities in the maximization of rents for the benefit of lords were resolved, with possible counter-benefits

 Ibid.; S.P.J. Harvey, ‘Taxation and the Economy’, Domesday Studies, ed. J.C. Holt (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 249–64.  R.W. Finn, The Norman Conquest and its Effects on the Economy: 1066–86 (London, 1971), p. 264.  Ibid., pp. 29, 143, 146, 157, 177.  Ibid., pp. 39–305.  Tables 22–3, 26.  For the dealings of Hereward the Wake, Robert Malet and William de Warenne, see Gesta Herewardi c. 35 printed in Geoffrey Gaimar, L’Estoire des Engles solum la translacion Maistre Geffrei Gaimar, eds. T.D. Hardy and C.T. Martin, 2 vols., RS (London, 1888–9), i, pp. 339–404.  Cf. Finn, Norman Conquest, pp. 262–3.  Ibid., p. 35.

LCEM-Ch-6.qxd

8/20/05

11:55 AM

Page 111


111

for peasantries. On a few lordships in the late Anglo-Saxon period, notably those of Clare and Eye, this process had already taken shape before 1066, but in many other localities, such as around Castle Acre, there was room for reorganization. It was not then the military ‘revolution’ of 1066, but reorganization of land ownership linked to the emergence of seigneurial complexes of lordship, supplemented by administrative techniques such as inventory accounting, which provided a framework for new paths of growth. No precise figures are available, but a resulting intensification of local aristocratic expenditure presumably had a series of knock-on effects on markets and agricultural production. Micro-economic transformations can be linked into a wider economic advance. From a historiographical perspective the long-term economic benefits of the Norman Conquest arose from the combination of established pre-Conquest patterns with the particular circumstances of the Conquest. In short, the projection of a stagnant English economy waiting to be galvanized by a French aristocracy is an unlikely proposition. The emergence of a new secular built environment and its effects on the economic relationships between lords and peasants is best viewed as a medium-run historical transformation, which gathered momentum after the reshaping of the social order during the first third of the eleventh century, and had become established by the closing decades of the eleventh century.

LCEM-Ch-7.qxd

8/20/05

11:56 AM

Page 112

Chapter 7 Landscapes of Lordship and Political Transformations during the Mid Eleventh Century It was therefore obvious to everybody that the religious house [Walden], despite the unsuitability of the site, had been located there by its founder for the benefit of the castle alone. The Book of the Foundation of Walden Monastery (c. 1190x1203) The monks of Walden were sceptical of the commitment of their founder and principal patron, Earl Geoffrey de Mandeville II (d. 1144), to ensure that the community would have a prosperous future, thereby sustaining its religious and cultural activities for the benefit of the dynasty and its tenants. This apparent lack of concern on the part of the Mandeville family, whose interests and advancement in the Anglo-Norman period had been defined by Königsnähe, may be part of a spectrum of attitudes towards ecclesiastical power which differentiated the court nobility of the eleventh century from their tenth-century predecessors. After all the great tenth-century kindreds had expressed their local power through alliance and unification strategies with the great East Anglian abbeys. If the hypothesis raised by the Walden Foundation Book proves to be correct then there had been a change in the contours of power binding Crown, court aristocracy and church, that represents a significant shift in the social order, running in parallel with the economic changes discussed in the preceding chapter. If so, across the regions of Europe, lords and social groupings who had formerly expressed their power through one set of values in terms of practical arrangements with ecclesiastical power at the local level, turned to espouse new values in their relationships with ecclesiastical institutions. In this hypothesis the feudal transformation, becomes a significant turning point in history. The purpose of this chapter is to explore that theme through three case studies, beginning with patterns of ecclesiastical patronage by one of King Cnut’s followers, and following through patterns of investment in secular and ecclesiastical lordships by Danish, Breton and Norman families whose interests were defined by Königsnähe during Anglo-Danish and early Anglo-Norman periods.



The Book of the Foundation of Walden Monastery, eds. D. Greenway and L. Watkiss (Oxford, 1999), pp. 6–7.

LCEM-Ch-7.qxd

8/20/05

11:56 AM

Page 113

LANDSCAPES OF LORDSHIP AND POLITICAL TRANSFORMATIONS

113

Waltham Holy Cross, Tovi the Proud and his successors Tovi the Proud attracted historical attention in the twelfth century as the grandfather of Asgar the Staller, who (according to the Carmen de Hastingae Proelio) surrendered London to William I after the battle of Hastings in exchange for the promise that he would become the most senior royal councillor. The Waltham Chronicle described Tovi as ‘the first man in England after the king, a staller and a standard bearer of the king’. Although this description dates from the twelfth century, it is not entirely without foundation. Tovi had carried out important royal missions as the king’s messenger as far as the Welsh border, and he is probably to be identified with the nobleman of the same name who witnessed the charters of King Cnut in a senior position c. 1018x35. Tovi was a senior figure at Cnut’s court, but he was probably not an eleventh-century ‘mayor of the palace’. His marriage in 1042 to Gytha, daughter of Osgod clapa the Staller, attracted the attention of chroniclers because King Harthacnut (1040–42) died at the wedding while ‘standing at his drink’. Chronicles, though, should not be allowed to overemphasize the importance of court connections and events in London at the expense of local concerns. The Thorney Liber Vitae illuminates the regional context. On folio 10r there is a list of men’s names, beginning with Earl Thorkell of East Anglia, which includes the names of Tovi the Proud and Osgod clapa. This list is followed by a further group of names written in the same hand, probably in the same stint, which includes the names not only of men, but also of their wives and children. The names in these two groupings attract attention because of the high proportion of Scandinavian names throughout. Jørgensen suggested that they referred to members of Danish families who had recently settled in the area, but Whitelock concluded that they comprised 

John of Worcester, Chronicle, ii, p. 534 for his cognomen ‘Proud’ being used in sources drawn up outside East Anglia.  The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy, Bishop of Amiens, eds. C. Morton and H. Muntz (Oxford, 1972), p. 44. The dynasty has also attracted attention because of the ties of Asgar the Staller (Tovi’s heir) through land and people with the Norman baron, Geoffrey de Mandeville (d. c. 1100). On the connections, see Fleming, Kings and Lords, pp. 113–14; cf. P.H. Sawyer, ‘1066–1086: a tenurial revolution?’, Domesday Book: A Reassessment, ed. idem (London, 1985), pp. 71–85, at 73–4.  The Waltham Chronicle: an Account of the Discovery of Our Holy Cross at Montacute and its Conveyance to Waltham, eds. L. Watkiss and M. Chibnall (Oxford, 1994), p. 14.  Anglo-Saxon Charters, no. 78, pp. 150–3.  Keynes, ‘Atlas of Attestations’, table lxx (2 of 2) lists a thegn named Tovi, perhaps to be identified with Tovi the Proud, who attests the following charters, between first and ninth position in the witness lists: S 951; S 953 (1018) – third; S 955 (1019) – sixth; S 961–63 (1024, 1026, [10]31) – seventh, first, second; S 971 (1031) – ninth; S 964 (1032) – fifth; S 969 (1033) – third; S 970 (1033) – fifth; S 974 (1035) – fifth; S 975 (1035) – second. There was at least one other thegn named Tovi who witnessed charters between 1024 and 1042, but consistently in a lower position; see Keynes, ‘Atlas of Attestations’, table lxx (2 of 2): S 961 (1024), S 964 (1032), S 967 (1033).  John of Worcester, Chronicle, ii, pp. 532–4; ASC, [C, (D), 1041], p. 106. As the celebrations were held at Lambeth (in London), the hall may have been attached to Tovi’s estate at Lambeth. On the latter, see Waltham Chronicle, c. 12, p. 22.  The best introduction is to be found in C. Clark, ‘The Liber Vitae of Thorney Abbey’, Words, Names and History: Selected Writings of Cecily Clark, ed. P. Jackson (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 301–47. In terms of the laity this liber memorialis resembles the Ely calendar in concentrating its attention upon lay donors.  BL Additional MS 40,000, fol. 10r.  Ibid.  E. Jørgensen, ‘Bidrag til aeldre nordisk Kirke – og Literaturhistorie’, Nordisk Tidscrift för Bok – och Biblioteksväsan xx (1933), pp. 186–91, at 187–8.

LCEM-Ch-7.qxd

114

8/20/05

11:56 AM

Page 114


the names of Cnut’s personal household. Gerchow plausibly divides the list into two: he suggests that the first seventeen names fit Whitelock’s model, while Jørgensen’s hypothesis explains the remaining twenty-three. Although Tovi’s name appears amongst the companions of Cnut, it is linked to the regional Danish community’s ties with Thorney Abbey. This provides part of the context for Tovi’s foundation of the community at Waltham Holy Cross (Essex). According to the Waltham Chronicle the church of the Holy Cross at Waltham was founded when a smith on an estate of Tovi’s in Somerset had a vision in which it was revealed that a cross, subsequently known as the Holy Cross of Waltham, lay concealed under the topsoil of a nearby hill. The cross was covered with gold and silver leaf and studded with precious stones, and was adorned with an image of the crucified Christ. The Waltham Chronicle records that the priest and his parishioners did not dare to interfere with the Holy Cross following its unearthing, but after Tovi led prayers, it was placed in a wagon pulled by twelve red oxen in ornamented harnesses, accompanied by twelve white cows. The wagon and its attendant servants formed part of an impressive procession as it moved by way of Glastonbury, Winchester, Reading, Canterbury and London before crossing the Thames to reach Waltham, with numerous healing miracles occurring en route. The author claimed that Waltham was selected by a miracle: the oxen would not pull the cart unless the name of Waltham was mentioned. The site was depicted as virgin territory, with a humble hunting-lodge set amongst woodland, while the River Lea brimmed with fish. The account, however, owes more to ecclesiastical ideas of a perfect landscape than to the realities of the topography of Waltham Forest (known as Epping Forest after the Dissolution). An eighth-century stone church with a nave and porticus in the Brixworth style stood at Waltham, and in 895 a substantial fortress was built there, requiring the diversion of the River Lea. Through the donation of the Holy Cross, Tovi refounded the community at Waltham. Tovi was perhaps influenced by Cnut’s gift of a magnificent gold cross to the New Minster at Winchester and his foundation of the collegiate foundation at Ashingdon. Tovi’s donation of the Holy Cross and the foundation of Waltham strengthened Königsnähe, while also perhaps fulfilling local political agendas among the Danish community which had settled in East Anglia. His wife, Gytha, placed a crown and a girdle of purest gold upon the figure of Christ and provided ornaments for the decoration of the church, including the Holy Cross of Waltham’s gold stand inlaid with gemstones, produced by the London goldsmith Theodric. Tovi’s gifts

       

Whitelock, ‘Scandinavian Personal Names’, p. 136. Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, pp. 193–4. Account based on Waltham Chronicle, cc. 1–13, pp. 2–25. This account has given authority to the view that Tovi was the ancestor of Toli, sheriff of Somerset, under Edward the Confessor and William I: Waltham Chronicle, p. xvii; Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, p. 73. For wider discussion, see H.M.R.E. Mayr-Harting, ‘Artists and Patrons’, The New Cambridge Medieval History. III, c.900–c.1024, ed. T. Reuter (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 212–30, at 218–20. P.J. Huggins with contributions by K.N. Bascombe and R.M. Huggins, ‘Excavations of the Collegiate and Augustinian Churches, Waltham Abbey, Essex, 1984–87’, Archaeological Journal cxlvi (1989), pp. 476–537. Waltham Chronicle, p. xviii; Liber Vitae of the New Minster, ed. Keynes, p. 35. Barlow, English Church 1000–1066, p. 39. Waltham Chronicle, cc. 13, 24, pp. 22–5, 60–3.

LCEM-Ch-7.qxd

8/20/05

11:56 AM

Page 115


115

comprised a sword which he had received to mark his rite of passage as a warrior, thereby expressing the sanctity of Christ in terms of the values of a warrior aristocracy. It is unlikely that such an account was invented in the twelfth century. The details in the Waltham Chronicle concerning the gifts of Tovi and Gytha to the Waltham community fit better with patterns of gift-giving during the early eleventh century, and perhaps provide early eleventh-century evidence for lay involvement in prayer-leading. There is a general similarity between Tovi’s and Gytha’s relationship with the Waltham community and the links between Ealdorman Æthelwine, his wives and Ramsey Abbey. These two aristocratic couples were closely involved with the foundation of religious communities through personal acts of piety and munificent donations. Yet there were subtle and important differences. Tovi retained control of the Waltham estate, and his piety was linked to local and regional alliances between East Anglian abbeys and the Danish aristocracy. It is much harder to link these developments with a national movement, such as the tenth-century reformation. When the wider context of Tovi’s patronage in the foundation of Waltham Holy Cross is compared with Ealdorman Æthelwine’s establishment of Ramsey Abbey in the previous era, the former appears to be more locally focused and under the domination of secular interests than the latter. The Waltham Chronicle probably provides an authentic guide to the religious patronage of Tovi and Gytha during the early eleventh century, but its discussion of the descent of the couple’s wealth to their lay heirs is suspect. It was corrupted by the agendas of the monks of Waltham in the late twelfth century. The Waltham Chronicle records that only the estates which were attached to Tovi’s office of staller descended to his son Æthelstan, who was less capable than his father, before passing to Tovi’s grandson, Asgar, whose inheritance was then granted to the Norman baron Geoffrey de Mandeville I by King William I. The text established that the lands of the stallership belonged to Tovi and his heirs by hereditary right, with those rights then being passed on to the Mandeville family by William I’s grant. It is much more likely that estates which were attached to the office of staller would have passed to another royal official on Tovi’s death. The text is also suspicious because less successful sons (Æthelstan, William de Mandeville I) of the middle generation succeeded the founders of their respective dynasties (Tovi the Proud, Geoffrey de Mandeville I) before the heads of family in the next generation restored the fortunes of their dynasties (Asgar the Staller, Geoffrey de Mandeville II). The Waltham Chronicle was perhaps hoping to strengthen the hands of its twelfth-century patrons, Geoffrey de Mandeville II and his sons, to exercise hereditary rights over the lands attached to the shrievalties of Essex and Middlesex. The Waltham Chronicle made the case that there was an unbroken line of succession running from Tovi the Proud to Geoffrey de Mandeville II in the descent of estates in

    

Ibid., c. 12, p. 22–3. Above, Chapter 1, pp. 21–5. Waltham Chronicle, c. 14, pp. 24–7. There is the possibility that Æthelstan may have been invented in the late twelfth century to balance out the genealogies of the two families. On his career, see Davis, King Stephen, pp. 80–6.

LCEM-Ch-7.qxd

116

8/20/05

11:56 AM

Page 116


Essex, Hertfordshire and Middlesex associated with the stallership and the shrievalties and justiciarships of these three counties. That account provided evidence against twelfth-century kings, notably Henry I (1100–35) and Stephen, who had sought to withhold the estates from the Mandeville family, thereby overturning the recognition of hereditary rights by eleventh-century kings. Yet the account did not reflect the realities of inheritance in the late Anglo-Saxon period because Waltham belonged to the public fisc, and descended from Tovi to Earl Harold Godwineson. Harold, though, retained control of Waltham, even after he had ceased to be earl of East Anglia. In 1060 Earl Harold set about the refoundation of Waltham Holy Cross, with gifts being confirmed and the charter of endowment being issued in 1062, which was witnessed by Asgar the Staller among others. The refoundation of Waltham had implications for Asgar the Staller. Up until that point, he may have hoped to recover Waltham, or at least to establish a close association with the collegiate foundation, perhaps by initially claiming back some of the estates which the community had received from Tovi. Harold’s refoundation invalidated any such strategy, particularly as Asgar the Staller had been one of the witnesses of the refoundation charter. Asgar the Staller’s relationship with ecclesiastical power can be contrasted with the bonds of friendship which Tovi the Proud had established with the communities at Waltham and Thorney. Asgar the Staller became involved in a dispute with the monks of Ely. The dispute occurred some time during the period of the abbacy of Wulfric (c. 1044–66). Asgar had seized High Easter from Ely Abbey. It and its dependency, Pleshey, had been granted to the community along with two other estates by Godgifu, the widow of a ‘comes’, c. 1022x29. The monks of Ely tried to recover High Easter and Pleshey through pleas and prayers, followed by the excommunication of Asgar. (The narrative setting of the Ely text hints that the events took place within a relatively short time period, perhaps c. 1062–7.) After pleas, prayers and excommunication had failed to recover the estate, the monks turned to King Edward the Confessor for arbitration. The outcome was that Asgar retained possession of his estate, but on his death it was to pass to the monks of Ely free from the claim by his relatives. The monks of Ely may have been disappointed by their failure to right this wrong during the lifetime of the disseisor.

   

 

On the twelfth century context, see C.W. Hollister, ‘The Misfortunes of the Mandevilles’, History lviii (1973), pp. 18–28. Domesday Book, ii, fol. 15b. Ibid. Harold did not hold office during the period of his banishment, from September 1051 to September 1052; see Anglo-Saxon Writs, p. 563. Waltham Chronicle, pp. xxxviii-xliii; S 1036. Although the authenticity of this charter has sometimes been challenged, in the view of S.D. Keynes, ‘Regenbald the Chancellor (sic)’, ANS x (1987), pp. 185–222, at 202: ‘it contains nothing which one could not contemplate in the 1060s, and many of its “suspicious” features can be paralleled in other charters of the same decade’. For further discussion, see ⬍http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/chartwww/eSawyer/⬎. The appearance of Earl Ælfgar in the witness list may push the dating of the charter back to 1061. F. Barlow also draws upon the late-twelfth century Vita Haroldi to set out the context for Earl Harold’s refoundation; see Barlow, English Church 1000–1066, p. 59. For further discussion of this source and its relationship with the Waltham Chronicle, see Waltham Chronicle, pp. xlvi-xlviii. In S 1036 he is described as the steward (procurator) of the king’s hall. Account based on Lib. El., ii, cc. 81, 96, pp. 150, 165–66; Table 11, nos. 30–2. These events are also discussed by Keynes, ‘Ely Abbey’, p. 38.

LCEM-Ch-7.qxd

8/20/05

11:56 AM

Page 117


117

Godgifu cannot be identified with certainty, but the description of her as the widow of a ‘comes’ at least demonstrates her status. Tovi the Proud’s marriage to Gytha was his second, perhaps even his third marriage. In the Liber Eliensis the term ‘comes’ could conceivably refer to Tovi the Proud in much the same way as the Bury St Edmunds archive referred to Ælfric Wihtgarsson as a ‘comes famosus’ even though he did not hold comital rank. This raises the possibility that Godgifu may have been married to Tovi the Proud before his marriage to Gytha. Did Asgar’s claim to High Easter and Pleshey meet with such ineffective opposition because her rights to dower were being challenged by her stepson, or step-grandson? Such identification might explain why the monks failed to recover the estate, and would incidentally highlight some of the problems which arose from serial marriage among the court nobility. According to the Liber Eliensis, Asgar and his sons suffered punishment through their imprisonment by the Normans, with the author expressing sympathy for their plight. High Easter and Pleshey descended to Geoffrey de Mandeville, who was awarded possession of the estate after another lawsuit initiated by the monks of Ely. Asgar’s lordship over the estate in 1066 was regarded as proof of Mandeville’s rights of succession. Yet these events still do not explain why Asgar went to such lengths in order to seize High Easter and Pleshey. Adjacent to High Easter and Pleshey lay Asgar the Staller’s great manor at Great Waltham, valued at £50 TRE. It was the most valuable estate in Chelmsford hundred during the late eleventh century, and although its demesne was insignificant, comprising around an eighth of the manor, one hundred villeins and bordars and their families were attached to the manor. Together Great Waltham, High Easter and Pleshey were valued at £70 TRE, with one-third of High Easter and Pleshey lying in demesne. This centre of lordship was comparable to Tovi’s great estate at Waltham and Edmonton. Asgar the Staller may have been seeking to construct a new centre of secular power in central Essex. Pleshey, which descended to the Mandeville family, lies in the heart of Essex, fourteen kilometres north-west of Chelmsford, at the confluence of two streams flowing into the Chelmer. The thirty-acre settlement of Pleshey is encircled by a ditch, perhaps dating back to the late Anglo-Saxon period. Pleshey, though, did not lie at a strategic location, and no major campaigns were fought in its vicinity. There is a hint that there may have been some type of aristocratic residence at Pleshey during the eleventh century. The foundation charter of Hurley Priory (Berks.) noted that Geoffrey de Mandeville I retained land at Little Waltham (a dependency of Great Waltham) for          

Waltham Chronicle, p. xvii. ECEE, p. 71. Godgifu is perhaps the woman of that name mentioned in Glastonbury calendar, CUL MS Kk. 5. 32, fol. 50v; for further discussion, see Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, p. 222. Lib. El., ii, c. 96, p. 165. Domesday Book, ii, fol. 60b; see also Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: the Acta of William I, ed. Bates, no. 119 in which Geoffrey de Mandeville is summoned to account in the Ely land-plea of c. 1081x83. Domesday Book, ii, fol. 58a. Ibid. By comparison Chelmsford was an insignificant estate: ibid., fol. 10b. Ibid., fols. 58a, 60b. On its descent, see Lib. El., ii, cc. 81, 83, pp. 150–51; Book of Foundation, pp. 52–3. For further discussion, see D. Renn, Norman Castles in Britain (London, 1968), p. 280.

LCEM-Ch-7.qxd

8/20/05

118

11:56 AM

Page 118


‘his own hospitality’, thereby ensuring that he would not call upon the monks. Although this charter was written in its present form between 1144 and 1166, it is based upon authentic materials. A manor house, perhaps occupied by Godgifu, Asgar and Geoffrey de Mandeville I, may have preceded Pleshey castle, which was built by Geoffrey I’s son, William I (fl. c. 1101x15) on a raised plateau. Pleshey became the caput of the Mandeville honor, with the honorial court normally being held there. Geoffrey II entertained the royal court at Pleshey in the late 1130s, and in 1180, after the castle had been rebuilt, his younger son, William II (d. 1189), celebrated there his marriage with Hawise, the Aumale heiress. The castle served as a centre of local government and aristocratic hospitality, but in contrast to developments at Castle Acre, Eye and Clare there was no establishment of a monastic priory or a collegiate foundation. The Mandeville family’s investment in monastic houses was modest. Geoffrey had granted the estate of Eye to Westminster Abbey c. 1085x97, promising the monks that his body would be buried at Westminster, along with the remains of his first wife. In the late 1080s, though, Geoffrey founded Hurley Priory as a cell of Westminster Abbey. In the foundation charter Geoffrey explained that he had established the priory on the advice of his second wife, Athelais, for the well-being of her soul. The priory lay far from the family’s main concentration of wealth; it received several churches and the demesne tithes of several manors but no major estates. When Geoffrey II founded Walden Priory c. 1136x40, he redirected to the priory the tithes which his father had promised to Hurley Priory. Yet no substantial grants of land were set aside, and most of the priory’s income derived from the revenues of eighteen churches. Although Geoffrey gave the smaller portion of Walden manor to the monks, the land comprised the poorer clayland soils, while the family retained the better chalkland and alluvial soils, which were less subject to acidic conditions.

              

A. Charlton, ‘A Study of the Mandeville family and its estates’ (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Reading, 1977), p. 249. Chaplais, ‘Original Charters of Herbert and Gervais’, p. 98. This identification might be strengthened by the fact that three knights held a sub-manor of High Easter TRW; see Domesday Book, ii, fol. 60b. P. Morant, The History and Antiquities of the County of Essex: Compiled from the Best and Most Ancient Historians; From Domesday-Book, Inquisitiones Post Mortem, and Other Most Valuable Records, 2 vols. (London, 1748–68), ii, p. 451. Liber Feodorum: The Book of Fees, Commonly Called Testa de Nevill, eds. H. C. Maxwell-Lyte et al., 3 vols. (London, 1920–31), i, p. 477; ii, p. 855 refer to the honor of Pleshey and the countess of Pleshey. N. Denholm-Young, Collected papers of N. Denholm-Young (Cardiff, 1969), pp. 323–7. Sessions of the honorial court were also held in London and Hertford. Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum. iii, Regesta Regis Stephani ac Mathildis Imperatricis ac Gaufridi et Henrici Ducum Normannorum, eds. H.A. Cronne and R.H.C. Davis (Oxford, 1968), nos. 42, 240; The Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols., RS (London, 1876), ii, p. 3. BL Cotton MS Faustina A. iii, fols. 281v, 282; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066–1154. I, Regesta Willelmi Conquestoris et Willelmi Rufus, ed. H.W.C. Davis (Oxford, 1913), no. 402. VCH Berks., ii, p. 74 Charlton, ‘Mandeville Family and its estates’, p. 249; VCH Berks., ii, p. 74. VCH Berks., ii, p. 74; Book of the Foundation, p. xvii. Book of the Foundation, p. xv–xvii discusses the difficulties of providing a precise date for the ‘process’ of foundation. Charlton, ‘Mandeville Family and its estates’, p. 251 citing Westminster Abbey Muniments, no. 2185. Book of the Foundation, pp. xlv-vi, 192–205. Ibid., p. xlvii.

LCEM-Ch-7.qxd

8/20/05

11:56 AM

Page 119


119

The monks continued to complain that they almost completely lacked meadows, pasture and woodland. Only the patronage of Earl William de Mandeville II provides much evidence for the type of the generosity towards a religious institution which we might expect from a family of this status. He founded the Hospitaller Preceptory in 1184 at Chippenham (Cambs.). Yet even he required the monks to pay him an annual rent of £50 for the duration of his life for their tenure of the vill and rights at Chippenham. These developments had a corresponding effect upon the family’s reputation in monastic narratives. While the Walden Foundation Book recorded the history of the Mandeville dynasty in a generally positive manner, it also criticized some of its members for their ill-advice and lack of generosity. The family’s economical approach towards religious patronage perhaps influenced the ways in which it was portrayed in the major historical writings undertaken at wealthier and more influential religious houses. Monastic authors writing at Ely, Ramsey, Norwich, Peterborough and St. Albans had no special reason for praising the Mandeville family for its virtues and piety. How are we to explain that frugality? The sources do not present the answer, but by looking at the interests of Tovi the Proud’s dynasty and the Mandeville family we can attempt to reach an explanation. At first glance the paths of investment adopted in relation to the estates by the dynasty of Tovi the Proud and the Mandeville family look quite similar to those adopted on the lordships of Clare, Eye and Castle Acre; namely, a move towards the establishment of seigneurial centres of power, in which manor houses and castles complemented collegiate foundations and priories founded by those noble houses. Yet there was also a difference. In terms of following normative patterns of investment, the continuation of that dispute over High Easter and Pleshey into the reign of William I in effect placed Geoffrey de Mandeville on the wrong footing. Whereas the Clare, Malet and Warenne families could take over the religious houses and interests established by their English predecessors, there was no such template for the Mandeville family. That in turn may have led to the situation in which the dynasty neither established close ties with religious houses in East Anglia, nor founded religious houses with aristocratic residences on single sites in order to express the importance of secular and ecclesiastical power in equilibrium.

The houses of Guader and d’Albini Following the English defeat at Hastings, castles were erected at Norwich and Colchester, and Ralph I was appointed as earl of East Anglia. His victory over  

   

Ibid., p. 79. BL Cotton MS Nero C. ix, fol. 29; the Hospitaller monks, though, did not receive the church at Chippenham which had been granted by Geoffrey II to Walden Abbey. Members of the family also donated a number of smaller estates to religious houses in London, but not on a scale which led to their commemoration as exceptionally generous benefactors. For further details of the family’s benefactions, see Charlton, ‘Mandeville Family and its estates’, pp. 247–96. BL Cotton MS Nero C. ix, fol. 2. Book of the Foundation, pp. 34–6. B. Ayers, English Heritage Book of Norwich (London, 1994), p. 43. Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum. Acta of William I, ed. Bates, nos. 35–8. The wider context is set out in Lewis, ‘Early Earls’, passim.

LCEM-Ch-7.qxd

8/20/05

120

11:56 AM

Page 120


a Danish force which had sought to seize Norwich in 1069 represented a significant achievement for the Normans and their allies. He was identified as an Englishman in English and French sources (he may have been born in Norfolk), but perhaps had Breton connections through his mother. He had served as a staller at King Edward the Confessor’s court and held estates in eastern England valued at £212 TRE, with over half of this wealth being concentrated in Lincolnshire. The properties were probably acquired through royal grants, but Ralph did not establish himself as a major figure in East Anglia before 1066. Ralph’s appointment as earl of East Anglia led to the acquisition of public rights within Norwich, which in turn sustained a substantial building programme. The houses of half the burgesses previously under commendation to Earl Harold were pulled down in order to make way for the castle, while the clearance may also have involved the destruction of two churches. According to Sheriff Roger Bigod, all the land of the French burgesses had been in Earl Ralph’s lordship, and he had granted it to King William in common for their joint foundation of the new borough. The account suggests that Earl Ralph took the lead in the reconstruction of Norwich’s urban landscape. In particular he personally founded a collegiate church, and may have been responsible for the construction of a hall (palatium). The overhaul conducted after 1066 left the earl of East Anglia in a pre-eminent position in Norwich: castle, hall, church and associated buildings expressed his domination over the regional capital. This investment served social and political purposes. Earl Ralph’s son and successor, Ralph II, earl of East Anglia (c. 1070–75), celebrated his marriage to the daughter of William FitzOsbern at Norwich with the drinking of bride-ale, perhaps at the hall (palatium). Urban regeneration was accompanied by an ambitious programme in the management of rural estates. The estates of the Guader family rose in value from £259 TRE to £557 TRW. These developments, though, for the most part were not based upon antecessorial succession to comital estates formerly held by the house of Godwine.  

      

  

Orderic, ii, p. 226. ASC, [D, E, 1075], p. 157; Cokayne et al., Complete Peerage, ix, pp. 570–1 nn. e and j. Earlier views that Ralph II had a hereditary claim to the great lordship of Gaël in Brittany have been rejected; see K.S.B. Keats-Rohan, Domesday People: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents 1066–1166. I, Domesday Book (Woodbridge, 1999), p. 44. Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 333–5. The tenure of two Norfolk estates by Ralph’s brother is interesting in this context: Domesday Book, ii, fols. 127b, 131b. Ibid., fols. 116b-17b. Ayers, Norwich, p. 43; one lay beneath the ramparts of the south bailey and was excavated in 1979. Domesday Book, ii, fol. 118a. Ibid. Monasticon, iv, p. 13 records its presence in the time of Sheriff Roger Bigod; see R. Fleming, ‘Rural Elites and Urban Communities in Late-Saxon England’, Past and Present cxli (1993), pp. 3–37, at 24 suggests that it was built by Æthelwine of Thetford, or Ulfcytel the reeve (a figure of similar status), but a palatium was more probably the work of a noble of comital rank. An alternative possibility would be Ulfcytel (d. 1010), who exercised authority which led to him being referred to as an earl in later East Anglian sources. ASC, [D, E, 1075], p. 157. Domesday Book, ii, fols. 119b-141b; 284b-286b. Aylsham manor is the exception to the rule; ibid., fol. 132a. The descent of these estates and the uses to which they were put are discussed below, Chapter 8, pp. 127–9.

LCEM-Ch-7.qxd

8/20/05

11:56 AM

Page 121


121

Instead property was acquired through a combination of royal grants, exchanges, purchase and seizures. Although Ralph I had not been able to make much impact in acquiring estates in Norfolk before 1066, his family’s control of comital power led to a transformation in its position. Several estates held by Ralph I in Norfolk TRE provided central points for postConquest expansions of lordship, with the result that the power of the dynasty and the earls of East Anglia became more focused upon Norfolk. There was also a shift in orientation in patterns of land ownership: whereas the landed interests of the house of Godwine had been distributed along the East Anglian coastline, the lands of the house of Guader were more oriented on a north-south axis through the centre of Norfolk, congruent with the central watershed and its woodland resources, better suited to the development of seigneurial complexes of lordship. This process can be traced through the acquisition of estates in the area around Buckenham. Buckenham lies twenty kilometres to the south-west of Norwich, on the Roman Pye Road linking Colchester and Norwich though central East Anglia, crossing over the watershed between the Waveney and Deben rivers, and at the meeting point between claylands and brecklands. Before the Norman Conquest the lordship was divided between numerous lords, but after 1066, the Guader family took over the commendation of freemen, who held three-quarters of the land at Buckenham, and consolidated the ownership of Buckenham manor.  There was a one-fifth increase in the number of bordars, while a number of neighbouring estates were acquired, including Kenninghall, one of the most valuable estates in Norfolk TRE. These changes were accompanied by an upwards revaluation of the taxation assessment of Buckenham, and by fivefold increases in the monetary valuation of Buckenham and Kenninghall. This increase in valuation was achieved not only by the consolidation of land ownership and alterations to inputs. It was also probably linked to substantial capital investment in an administrative centre, similar to the linkage between manor houses and the generation of exceptional rents on the lordships of Clare, Eye and Castle Acre during the reign of Edward the Confessor. There was an aristocratic manor house at Buckenham, which perhaps stood on a small raised platform at the eastern end of Old Buckenham castle’s northern enclosure, and measured sixty metres by thirtyeight metres. Liddiard argues for a pre-Conquest dating for this manor house. The changes at Buckenham between 1066 and 1075 may have been intended as part of a programme to establish Buckenham as a centre of lordship, with consequent effects upon the value of the manor and its neighbours. The downfall of Ralph II in 1075 makes it difficult to assess the ways in which the family had intended to advance their interests at Buckenham. Yet by looking at the           

For pre-Conquest holdings, see Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 335–7. Fleming, Kings and Lords, pp. 75–7, 96–7. The importance of the central watershed is discussed by Williamson, Origins of Norfolk, pp. 14–19. I.D. Margary, Roman Roads in Britain, 3rd edn (London, 1973), p. 271. Domesday Book, ii, fol. 127 a. Ibid., fols. 127b. Ibid., fol. 127a. Above, Chapter 6, pp. 104–9. Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, pp. 48–9. Ibid., p. 47. Ibid.

LCEM-Ch-7.qxd

8/20/05

122

11:56 AM

Page 122


strategies adopted in the early twelfth century by the house of d’Albini at New Buckenham and at Wymondham, we can postulate a possible course of development. In the mid twelfth century New Buckenham became one of the best examples of an Anglo-Norman planned town linked to secular and ecclesiastical symbols of dynastic power. Its founder, William d’Albini II the Proud (created earl of Arundel in 1140), laid out the town of New Buckenham on land which comprised the former wastes between Carleton and Old Buckenham. The new site occupied 5,000 square metres, with streets laid out in a grid pattern and the borough being separated from the new castle of New Buckenham, while the site of the old castle was demolished to make way for Old Buckenham Priory, founded in 1146 as a symbol of the peace movement of King Stephen’s reign. Yet even before the establishment of a model centre of seigneurial power with its castle, church and market, there is evidence of steps being taken in that direction by the lord of Buckenham c. 1088x1107. Although Buckenham manor was farmed by Godric the steward c. 1075–88, it was granted by King William II (1087–1100) to William d’Albini I Pincerna, father of William d’Albini II. Between 1088 and his death in 1107 William I d’Albini constructed Buckenham castle as the caput of the honor, which in the late twelfth century was assessed at around seventy-five knights’ fees. William I d’Albini reconstructed the earthworks linked to the earlier manor to create the northern enclosure, while adding a larger southern enclosure and a wet moat. He also founded Wymondham Priory, seven kilometres north-east of Buckenham, as a dependent cell of St Albans Abbey, at the time under the rule of his kinsman, Abbot Richard d’Albini (1097–1119). William arranged to be buried at Wymondham, alongside his wife Matilda Bigod, and was generous towards his monastic foundation. Not only did the community receive lands, churches, tithes and rents, but he also granted the monks the adjoining lands and meadows, so that their services should not be disturbed by the noise of passing livestock. On first inspection there are obvious similarities between developments at New Buckenham, Old Buckenham and Wymondham, and the built environments at Clare, Eye and Castle Acre. Planned landscapes emphasized the power and status of lords, and contributed towards economic growth. Yet there were contrasts. Wymondham Priory and Old Buckenham castle did not occupy the same space in an attempt to express a balance between secular and ecclesiastical power. Of course, after 1146 Old Buckenham Priory complemented the castle, but by that stage William II had established the caput of his honor at Castle Rising in north-west Norfolk. The great stone castle there drew attention to the ‘ambiance of a quasi-regal state’, with a processional

       

Williamson, Origins of Norfolk, pp. 179–80. Ibid.; Facsimiles of Royal and Other Charters in the British Museum, ed. G. Warner (London, 1903), no. 27. Domesday Book, ii, fol. 127a; I.J. Sanders, English Baronies. A Study of their Origin and Descent, 1086–1327 (Oxford, 1960), p. 70; J.A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 229–30. Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, pp. 46–8; Sanders, English Baronies, p. 70. Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, pp. 46–8. VCH Norfolk, ii, pp. 336–7. Monasticon, iii, p. 323. Ibid. There is also a possibility that a castle at Wymondham was built by William I d’Albini Pincerna between 1088 and 1107: see Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, p. 89.

LCEM-Ch-7.qxd

8/20/05

11:56 AM

Page 123


123

stairway leading to the first-floor piano nobile. The evidence for investment in the ecclesiastical built environment at Castle Rising is less impressive. A leper house mentioned in 1203 may in fact have been founded in the 1130s or 1140s. Although the building techniques associated with the twelfth-century renaissance provided Castle Rising with its striking appearance, the cultural milieu for its development had been taking shape since the reign of Cnut. Tovi’s involvement in the foundation of Waltham Holy Cross had a much stronger secular emphasis when compared to the role of the comital rank in the establishment and protection of monasteries and collegiate foundations during the tenth century. The same trend is present amongst other members of the court nobility during the eleventh century. Although Ralph I did invest in a collegiate foundation at Norwich, the emphasis of his interests was weighted towards the secular built environment. There is a broadly consistent picture: the dynasties of Asgar the Staller, Guader, Mandeville and d’Albini invested in the development of centres lordship in ways which underlined the importance of secular power so as to overshadow its ecclesiastical counterpart.

Discussion The feudal transformation model highlights the way in which investment in great secular complexes of lordship transformed power in local and regional contexts, eventually leading to a reshaping of European society. Yet such concepts assume a degree of unity in the values and social structures of the lay aristocracy as a whole at a remarkably early date. While the Carolingian renaissance had elaborated royal and ecclesiastical ideologies of power, there was no such tradition for the secular aristocracy. It is more plausible to suggest that divisions within the lay aristocracy, which arose as a byproduct of other movements, led to the establishment of new frameworks of power which did not imitate the past. More research is required on these divisions in both insular and continental contexts, but case studies from this regional example identify a possible path of development. Danish members of the court aristocracy who acquired lands in East Anglia following Cnut’s conquest sought to use alliance and unification strategies to consolidate their power, leading, for example, to the foundation of Waltham Holy Cross. These developments in part resembled the strategies adopted by dynasties originally from Wessex and Kent which had acquired interests in East Anglia following on from Edward the Elder’s conquest of the region. Yet the wider context for these alliance and unification strategies had altered. Although Cnut’s donation of an ornamented cross to the New Minster at Winchester probably influenced Tovi’s gift of a Holy Cross, the foundation of Waltham did not take place as part of a national movement linking Crown, aristocracy and church in the manner of the initiatives of Ealdorman Æthelwine and Wulfstan of Dalham in the preceding era. Such differentiations were linked to a wider series of changes in cultural and social environments. Asgar the Staller and the Mandeville dynasty moved between taking

 

C. Coulson, ‘The Castles of the Anarchy’, The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign, ed. E. King (Oxford, 1994), pp. 67–92, at 83. Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, p. 57.

LCEM-Ch-7.qxd

124

8/20/05

11:56 AM

Page 124


no great interest in religious patronage to regarding their ecclesiastical foundations as ancillary to the future success of their castles and associated boroughs and markets. Although the Guader and d’Albini dynasties invested in collegiate foundations, those concerns were overshadowed by investments in secular and commercial landscapes of power. It might have been expected that dynasties which were more dependent upon regional frameworks of power would have invested in more overtly secular landscapes of lordship than members of the court nobility. After all counts and other royal agents in continental Europe sought to maintain Carolingian frameworks of power, associated with strong ties between royal and monastic power, while it fell to castellans to link the control of the public ban to castles, thereby establishing a new social order. Yet case studies within this regional example present the inverse of that model: it was the comital rank which invested in more secular statements of lay lordship through the construction of the secular built environment at Castle Rising, New Buckenham, Norwich, Old Buckenham and Pleshey in ways which highlighted the ascendancy of secular power over its ecclesiastical counterpart. The nobles traditionally associated as the guardians of the alliance between aristocratic, monastic and royal power turned towards the construction of new frameworks of power in which secular power was pre-eminent. Such a change lies at the heart of understanding the cultural context of the change in European society encapsulated by the feudal transformation.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 125

Chapter 8 The Regional Aristocracy and Social Mobility before the Norman Conquest In eleventh-century East Anglia lords who were associated with the regional aristocracy and the court nobility invested in seigneurial centres of lordship and in the land in ways which differed from the economic strategies of secular nobles during the tenth century. Such developments resemble the evolution of society in regions of France, as identified in studies of the feudal transformation, and thereby point to a real change in European society. This view argues against those who claim that the feudal transformation merely represents an appearance of change created by variations in the form and content of sources. The debate, though, is far from being closed, and further research on the boundary between history and linguistics may prove the sceptics’ case. Perhaps there was a shift across Europe in the linguistic fashions deployed by the clergy in describing the alleged torrent of aristocratic violence against the peasantry and the clergy, the horrors of which are minutely recorded in the new monastic cartularies and cartulary-chronicles of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. In the meanwhile, though, these issues can be approached from another direction, namely an analysis of social mobility based upon quantitative and qualitative studies of Domesday Book. Analysis of social mobility provides a means of testing the likelihood of whether a society has the resources to engender its own economic and political transformation. In the present context such an analysis needs to be connected with discussion on the balance between the court nobility and the regional aristocracy. First, though, there is a brief discussion on social mobility in the eleventh century from a national perspective, and the criteria for defining the presence of a regional community with interests which differentiated it from the court nobility.

Social Mobility and Regional Communities Historians and sociologists suggest that eleventh-century England was characterized by exceptional social mobility. Perhaps these perspectives are influenced by Bloch’s 

Gillingham, ‘Thegns and Knights’, passim; idem, ‘Some Observations on Social Mobility in England between the Norman Conquest and the Early Thirteenth Century’, The English in the Twelfth Century: Imperialism, National Identity and Political Values (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 259–76; W.G. Runciman, ‘Accelerating Social Mobility: The Case of Anglo–Saxon England’, Past and Present civ (1993), pp. 3–30.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

8/20/05

126

11:57 AM

Page 126


view on the ‘rise of the knights’ acting as a fundamental force for change, overturning the pre-eminence of existing nobility. Yet in the case of England, this prodigious social mobility arises from the combination of indigenous evolution and the particular circumstances of the Norman Conquest. Runciman has drawn attention to the way in which in the early eleventh century (for the first time in English history) there is evidence that advancement through pecuniary status provided merchants and free peasants with access into the nobility. Meanwhile, Godden has shown that a semantic shift in the meaning of rice to mean ‘rich’, as well as ‘powerful’, was under way by the end of the tenth century. The evidence for Runciman’s ‘accelerating social mobility’ depends of course in large measure upon a number of early eleventh-century legal codes on status, such as Northleoda Laga, which asserted that a ceorl (i.e. a free peasant) remained a ceorl even if ‘he possesses a helmet and a coat of mail and a gold-plated sword’. This richness is in contrast to both the earlier and the later periods, when historians have to rely upon less appropriate evidence. This variation in evidence does not necessarily prove that levels of social mobility were lower in the early and middle Anglo-Saxon periods than in the late Anglo-Saxon period, but it does demonstrate that English authorities from the end of the tenth century were seeking to regulate social mobility to a significant degree. In fact in the decades after 1066 the downfall of the English aristocracy provided opportunities for exceptional social mobility within the ranks of the Norman aristocracy who had settled in England. Thus, nobles of relatively modest status took over and created great landholdings, and became the ancestors of the Parliamentary Peerage of the United Kingdom. Such observations raise the question of whether social mobility operated within a regional framework and of its relationship with ‘county communities’. Historians of the medieval and early modern gentries identify three relevant criteria: first, did local landowners control local public offices; second, were they linked by bonds of affinity; and third, did some of their number participate in national assemblies? To this checklist we can add: did members of the regional aristocracy establish links with the leading monastic houses in the region? At issue is whether there was an established regional framework which shaped a sense of aristocratic community and social mobility, or whether we are only dealing with a court-based phenomenon. This chapter discusses these developments during the reign of Edward the Confessor by comparing the wealth and connections of different categories within the court nobility and the regional aristocracy, thereby identifying possible contexts for social mobility at the local level.

      

Runciman, ‘Accelerating Social Mobility’, passim. M. Godden, ‘Money, Power and Morality in Late Anglo–Saxon England’, ASE xix (1990), pp. 41–65. Northleoda Laga, as cited by Gillingham, ‘Thegns and Knights’, p. 170; R. Abels, Lordship and Military Obligation in Anglo-Saxon England (London, 1988), p. 165. E.g. Gillingham, ‘Thegns and Knights’, pp. 184–5. Gillingham, ‘Some Observations on Social Mobility’, pp. 263–4; J. Green, ‘The Sheriffs of William the Conqueror’, ANS v (1982), pp. 129–45; eadem, The Aristocracy of Norman England (Cambridge, 1997), pp. 126–40. Cokayne et al., Complete Peerage, passim. Gillingham, ‘Some Observations on Social Mobility’, p. 165 sets out this model, drawing upon P. Coss, Lordship, Knighthood and Locality. A Study in English Society c.1180–c.1280 (Cambridge, 1991), pp. 307–10.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 127

127

THE REGIONAL ARISTOCRACY AND SOCIAL MOBILITY

Table 16 Wealth of the secular aristocracy in East Anglia TRE A. Wealth of the Court Nobility in East Anglia Norfolk Suffolk Cambs. Earls £295 £225 £256 Stallers £48 £88 £73 King’s thegns £103 £99 £55 Total £446 £412 £384

Essex £404 £262 £120 £786

East Anglia £1,180 £471 £377 £2,028

B. Wealth of Regional Aristocracy in East Anglia Local lords £109 £605 £343 Others £105 £55 £25 Total £214 £660 £368

£369 £6 £375

£1,426 £191 £1,617

C. Wealth of secular aristocracy Remainder Total £660 £1,073

£15 £1,003

£30 £3,675

Burgesses 32 41 73

Toral 709.5 139 84.5 933

£15 £956

D. Nos. of dependants of Court Nobility in East Anglia Thegns Freemen Socemen Earls 8 364.5 305 Stallers 75 23 King’s thegns 84.5 Total 8 524 328 

Figures from Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 164–370.

Landed interests of the Court Nobility In this section the interests of the earls, stallers and king’s thegns will be discussed in turn. Around twelve per cent of the earls’ estates during the reign of Edward the Confessor lay in East Anglia, and accounted for a third of the estates held by the secular aristocracy in the region c. 1042–66. This was probably a much greater share of the lay nobility’s wealth than that controlled by the comital rank during the tenth century, and may have encouraged the earls under Edward the Confessor to rely upon their own resources in sustaining their power in preference to alliance and unification strategies. The houses of Godwine and Leofric carved out spheres of influence in different localities, with the former’s interests being concentrated in coastal areas while the latter’s property lay in an inverted triangle in the Stour valley. Although Leofric, the nephew of Earl Leofric (d. 1057), served as abbot of Peterborough (1052–66) and was

 

 

The statistics for Norfolk, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire and Essex in this chapter are taken from Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 181–363. The personal wealth of the house of Godwine, valued at £512 TRE (Clarke, English Nobility, p. 205 is lower than the £2,850 TRE in Fleming, Kings and Lords, p. 59 on account of the latter’s substitution of fiscal value for each night’s farm for (ibid., p. 63 n. 42), following Round, Feudal England, pp. 111–12. Thus, Fleming calculates sixteen nights’ farm in Essex at £1,600 TRE, and six nights in Norfolk at £600 TRE, but Domesday Book, ii, fols. 5, 235b for manors in Essex and Norfolk suggest that one night’s farm TRE in East Anglia was valued at around £10 TRW. Table 16. Table 17; Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 207–8, 211–12, 219.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

128

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 128


Table 17 Landed interests of earls in East Anglia TRE Personal wealth of house of Godwine in East Anglia Norfolk Suffolk Cambs. Harold £59 £30 £36 Gyrth £81 £24 £24 Total £140 £54 £60

Essex £252 £6 £258

East Anglia £377 £135 £512

Dependants’ wealth of house of Godwine in East Anglia Harold £99 £90 £46 Gyrth £24 £31 £1 Total £123 £121 £47

£17 £17

£252 £56 £308

Total wealth of house of Godwine in East Anglia Harold £158 £120 £82 Gyrth £105 £55 £25 Total £263 £175 £107

£269 £6 £275

£629 £191 £820

Personal wealth of house of Leofric in East Anglia Norfolk Suffolk Cambs. Ælfgar £32 £11 £58 Ælfgifu £33 Total £32 £44 £58

Essex £113 £113

East Anglia £214 £33 £247

Dependants’ wealth of house of Leofric in East Anglia Ælfgar £6 £76 Ælfgifu Total £6 £76

£1 £1

£83 £83

Total wealth of house of Leofric in East Anglia Ælfgar £32 £17 £134 Ælfgifu £33 Total £32 £50 £134

£114 £114

£297 £33 £330

Dependants’ wealth of house of Waltheof in East Anglia Waltheof £15

£15

£30




remembered as the abbey’s greatest patron, the dynasty and the house of Godwine did not establish close connections with the great East Anglian royal abbeys in the manner of the tenth-century ealdormen and their families. Instead the Godwinessons and Leofricssons chiefly directed their patronage towards the collegiate foundations of Waltham Holy Cross and Coventry Priory respectively.

 Barlow, English Church 1000–1066, p. 57.  Ælfgar’s sale of Barham (Suffolk) to Ely Abbey is interesting; see Lib. El., ii, c. 97, p. 166.  Waltham Chronicle, pp. xxxviii-xliii; cc. 14–18, pp. 24–39; S 1036; J. Hunt, ‘Piety, Prestige or Politics? The House of Leofric and the Foundation and Patronage of Coventry Cathedral’, Coventry’s First Cathedral: The Cathedral and Priory of St Mary: Papers from the 1993 Anniversary Symposium, ed. G.W. Demidowicz (Stamford, 1994), pp. 97–116.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 129


129

This pattern is partly repeated in relation to the third comital family with interests in the region. Siward (d. 1055), earl of Northumbria (1022x33–55), had served as earl of Northamptonshire probaby from the early 1040s, while his son, Waltheof, was appointed to that office in 1065. Earl Siward had been married to the Northamptonshire landowner, Godiva, who had earlier granted thirty-five hides to Peterborough Abbey. Siward managed to secure the lease of five of those hides which were divided between two properties, but on his death Waltheof was forced to cede control over one of these estates to the community of Peterborough. The relationship between the house of Siward and Peterborough had begun in a manner which did not bode well for the future. After 1066, when the abbot of Peterborough’s influence at the royal court waned, Earl Waltheof seized the second estate. Overall it would seem that during the second quarter of the eleventh century families of comital rank did not establish close bonds of friendship with the East Anglian abbeys. It is worth considering how the interests of the comital elite in the early eleventh century compared with those of their tenth-century predecessors. First, there was a shift in the focus of the landed interests of the comital rank. Whereas, for example, Ealdorman Byrhtnoth and Earldorman Æthelwine held estates in the same areas, and established ties with the same networks of religious houses, the evidence of Little Domesday Book does not reflect such senses of unity amongst the earls during the late 1050s and early 1060s. After Ælfgar stepped down as earl of East Anglia in 1057 his family sold its two manors on the eastern Norfolk shoreline, thereby further consolidating the interests of the house of Godwine in this area. There may have been a link between the weakness of earls’ links with great East Anglian abbeys and the carving out of discrete territorial interests. Whereas Ealdorman Æthelwine had been able to lease the hundreds attached to Sudbourne from the abbot of Ely in order to extend his power from the fenlands into eastern Suffolk, there is no evidence for a comparable link between the earls of the early eleventh century and the East Anglian abbeys. The closest that we come to it is the acrimonious relationship between the house of Siward and Peterborough Abbey. Yet for all the steps taken towards the localization of power by the comital rank, there was no investment in seigneurial complexes of lordship in line with patterns at Clare, Eye and Castle Acre. The opportunities to develop secular frameworks of power were not seized perhaps because East Anglia was not the principal power-base of any of the families who controlled the earldoms during the reign of Edward the Confessor. Three of Edward the Confessor’s stallers held estates in East Anglia TRE, namely Asgar and Ralph, discussed in the previous chapter, and Robert FitzWymarc. FitzWymarc was a Norman lord, identified as kinsman of Edward the Confessor in the

       

W. Kapelle, The Norman Conquest of the North: the Region and its Transformation (London, 1979), pp. 29, 101. ECEE, pp. 107–8. Ibid., p. 108. Ibid. Above, Chapters 1, 4, pp. 23–5, 63. Domesday Book, ii, fols. 194b-5; Fleming, Kings and Lords, pp. 75–7. Lib. El., ii, c. 41, p. 114. Table 18; Chapter 7, pp. 115–17.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

130

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 130


Table 18 Landed interests of stallers in East Anglia TRE Personal wealth of stallers in East Anglia Norfolk Suffolk Asgar £11 Ralph £43 £11 FitzWymarc £52 Total £43 £74 Wealth of stallers’ dependants in East Anglia Asgar £3 Ralph £2 £4 FitzWymarc £10 Total £5 £14 Total wealth of stallers in East Anglia Asgar £3 £11 Ralph £45 £15 FitzWymarc £62 Total £48 £88 

Cambs. -

Essex £143 £103 £246

East Anglia £154 £54 £155 £363

£57 £16 £73

£13 £3 £16

£73 £6 £29 £108

£57 £16 £73

£156 £106 £262

£227 £60 £184 £471


Life of King Edward, and had established his power in England by 1052. He had taken over the manor of Stoke-by-Nayland and several of the estates which had formerly formed part of the endowment of the collegiate foundation of Stokeby-Nayland, favoured by Ealdorman Ælfgar and his family. Perhaps FitzWymarc had acquired the endowment of Stoke-by-Nayland as part of a royal grant, while the community at Bury St Edmunds may have hoped in due course to use the wills of Ealdorman Ælfgar and his daughters, Æthelflæd and Ælfflæd, to recover these properties and to enforce authority over the collegiate foundation. Such concerns, moreover, may lie behind the accusations brought by the monks of Bury St Edmunds against FitzWymarc’s great-grandson, Henry of Essex, the royal standard-bearer, for his meanness in failing to make donations to the abbey. According to Jocelin of Brakelond: ‘But while other men who came from his part of the country were generous in making gifts of property and money to the church of the blessed Edmund, he not only ignored this as if he was blind, but even used force and illegality to dispossess the church of an annual rent of 5s., . . .’ 

   

The Life of King Edward Who Rests at Westminster attributed to a monk of St Bertin, ed. F. Barlow, 2nd edn (London, 1992), pp. 118–19; COEL s.n. draws upon a wide range of evidence including the cartulary of the Abbey of Montvilliers in order to demonstrate FitzWymarc’s Norman origins in preference to Breton ties. ASC, [E, 1052], p. 125. Ibid.; Domesday Book, ii, fol. 401a-b; above, Chapter 3, pp. 49–60. The wills are preserved in the Sacrist’s Register of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds: CUL MS Ff. 2. 33, fol. 46. Jocelin of Brakelond, Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, eds. D. Greenway and J. Sayers (Oxford, 1989), pp. 61–2.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 131


131

The author also noted how he used his jurisdiction over Nayland to ensure that a rape trial was judged in his court rather than at the abbot’s. Although the analogies are not exact, there are similarities between the criticisms which Jocelin levelled against Henry of Essex and the reservations and criticisms brought against Geoffrey de Mandeville II in monastic sources. FitzWymarc enforced a royal order in Essex, suggesting that he exercised authority in the shire. In north-west Essex he held a network of estates around his castle at Clavering, extant by 1052, when it provided refuge to some of the French companions of Robert of Jumièges (d. 1052x55), archbishop of Canterbury (1051–2), after he had been forced to resign his office. The castle occupied an impressive position on a bend in the River Stort, with its rectangular mound measuring one hundred metres by fifty metres. After FitzWymarc’s death the castle and its estates descended to his son, Sweyn of Essex, who served as the sheriff of the county, while Henry of Essex became one of the most powerful barons at the royal court during the reigns of Kings Stephen and Henry II (1154–89) until losing the latter’s favour. Nobles who belonged to a new rank of royal service adopted broadly similar strategies, and were either unable or unwilling to establish bonds of friendship with the great East Anglian abbeys. Instead they became involved in the foundation and refoundation of lesser religious houses. The analogies with the earls are striking. Yet there is also a difference between the strategies of the earls and the stallers. Robert FitzWymarc and perhaps Asgar the Staller had invested in the development of aristocratic centres of lordship in the region in contrast to the strategies of the earls. During the tenth century king’s thegns with interests in East Anglia controlled land holdings which stretched across southern and midland England, and regularly attained senior positions at the royal court. By the second quarter of the eleventh century, however, lords identified as king’s thegns in Little Domesday Book no longer fit this pattern in terms of the distribution of property, and nor as a group do they feature frequently in the witness lists of royal diplomas. From the perspective of Little Domesday Book king’s thegns in East Anglia appear to have occupied a lower status during the second third of the eleventh century than some of their counterparts had enjoyed during the tenth century and the first third of the eleventh century, as suggested by the law codes and charters.

  

Ibid., p. 62. E.g. Chron. Rames., iv, c. 411, pp. 329–32. Anglo-Saxon Writs, no. 84. The other writs relating to Kent and Surrey in which he is addressed (ibid., nos. 76, 93) are to be viewed with suspicion.  ASC, [E, 1052], p. 125; VCH Essex, ii, p. 345.  Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, p. 39.  Thomas, English and the Normans, p. 111.  E.g. Wulfstan of Dalham, Wulfstan Uccea and Ælfwold: above, chapters 1 and 2, pp. 17, 19–21, 25–6; for a general discussion, see Stafford, Unification and Conquest, pp. 152–4.  On the terminology of ‘king’s thegns’, see Godwine, Guthmund, Ingware and Ketil Alder, Leofwin of Bacton, Toki and Ulf as King’s Edward’s thegn in Domesday Book, i, fols. 196b, 201b; ii, fols. 52b, 402b, 416b, 427a. On possible connections with the court of thegns named Godwine, Leofwine, Toki and Ulf, see Keynes, ‘Atlas of Attestations’, table lxxv (2 of 2): S 998–1000; S 1003; S 1005; S 1019; S 1022; S 1027–9. The names Guthmund, Ingware and Ketil Alder do not feature in the witness lists.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

132

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 132


Table 19 Landed interests of king’s thegns in East Anglia TRE Personal wealth of king’s thegns in East Anglia Norfolk Suffolk Cambs. Toki £58 £5 £38 Guthmund £3 £30 Ingware £7 Leofwin of Bacton £5 Godwine £22 Ketil Alder £40 £2 £2 Ulf £11 £8 Total £101 £75 £55 Total wealth of king’s thegns in East Anglia Toki £1 Guthmund £19 Ingware £4 Godwine Ketil Alder £1 £1 Ulf Total £2 £24 Wealth of king’s thegns’ dependants in East Anglia Toki £59 £5 £38 Guthmund £3 £49 Ingware £4 £7 Leofwin of Bacton £5 Godwine £22 Ketil Alder £41 £3 £2 Ulf £11 £8 Total £103 £99 £55 

Essex £39 £61 £20 £120

East Anglia £101 £72 £68 £5 £42 £44 £19 £351

-

£1 £19 £4 £2 £26

£39 £61 £20 £120

£102 £91 £72 £5 £42 £46 £19 £377


King Edward the Confessor’s thegns, Toki, Guthmund, Ingware, Leofwin of Bacton, Godwine, Ketil Alder and Ulf held widely distributed estates in East Anglia, mirroring the dispersal of royal and ecclesiastical estates. Although the interests of the king’s thegns were now framed, according to Domesday Book, within a regional rather than a national context, they were still operating within a surprisingly wide geographical area. Such patterns can be associated with local administrative duties within the East Anglia, and perhaps also with connections to ecclesiastical frameworks of power. Other evidence supports that hypothesis. The king’s thegn Guthmund, brother of the abbot of Ely, needed to control forty hides of land in order to establish his status as  

Table 22 based on Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 311–16, 318–19, 348–9, 355–6; Domesday Book, ii, fols. 321a, 322b, 427a. For a general discussion, see J. Campbell, ‘Some Agents and Agencies of the Late Anglo-Saxon State’, idem, The Anglo–Saxon State (London, 1992), pp. 201–25.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 133


133

a procer, thereby facilitating his matrimonial designs upon the daughter of a noble house. This was achieved by transferring thirteen carucates and hides from the resources of Ely Abbey to complement the thirty-six carucates and hides which he already held, with his estates being collectively valued at £91 TRE. The account can be compared with the description of the matrimonial tribulations of the fenland nobleman Edwin son of Æthulf in the early tenth century; he had called upon the support of Archbishop Oda in order to secure the king’s approval for marriage to a noblewoman of high status. In this comparison during the early tenth century royal approval appears to have been the chief factor in enabling a nobleman to marry well, but in the second quarter of the eleventh century, suitability appears to have turned on the extent of landed wealth in a regional context, and hence led to the forging of ties with great monastic houses. Wealth had replaced court connections as the means to securing a prestigious marriage. This in turn suggests that the power and status of the king’s thegns Guthmund and Ketil Alder may not have been based upon their connections with the royal court but rather upon their ties with local public institutions and the abbeys of Ely and Bury St Edmunds respectively. (Guthmund based his power around Haughley, which developed into the caput of Haughley honor held by de Montfort family until 1107). Another model is perhaps provided by the interests of the king’s thegns Toki and Godwine. Toki established a lordship around Castle Acre (discussed above), benefiting from the economic boom in cattle-raising in the siltland fens. Although he may have had connections with Eadgifu the Fair, there is no evidence of his establishing close links with great monastic houses. Godwine controlled a great manor in the heart of the brecklands, with half of the ploughteams lying on demesne, complemented by around 2,100 sheep. The absence of any freemen on this estate supports the view that demesne flocks may well have been pastured on the common grazing-grounds. The continuing use of the title of king’s thegn in a range of sources between the eighth and eleventh centuries fits in with arguments of aristocratic continuities running through the earlier Middle Ages. Yet continuity in terminology may obscure substantial differences in the secular interests and status of this rank over time. In an East Anglian regional context there was perhaps a change in the status of kings’ thegns between the tenth and eleventh centuries. Ties with great ecclesiastical landlords and economic opportunities within a regional framework perhaps sustained the power and status of kings’ thegns in the second third of the eleventh century to a greater extent than a century earlier, when connections with the royal court and supra-regional territorial interests figure much more prominently in the extant sources.

 Lib. El., ii, c. 97, p. 167.  Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 312–14.  Ibid.  Chron. Rames., ii, c. 25/xxiii, p. 49.  Sanders, English Baronies, pp. 120–1.  See above, Chapter 6, pp. 108–9.  Liddiard, Landscapes of Lordship, p. 30; Clarke, English Nobility, p. 103.  Account based on Domesday Book, ii, fols. 402b–3a.  Ibid., ii, fol. 402b.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

134

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 134


Table 20 Landed interests of local lords in East Anglia TRE Personal wealth of local lords in East Anglia Norfolk Suffolk Eadric of Laxfield £32 £158 Siward of Maldon £34 Wihtgar Ælfricsson £105 Æthelgyth, widow £49 £17 Eadgifu the Fair £34 Total £81 £348

Cambs. £234 £234

Essex £113 £75 £53 £31 £272

East Anglia £190 £147 £180 £119 £299 £935

Wealth of local lords’ dependants in East Anglia (nos. of free peasants) Eadric of Laxfield (393.5) £28 £172 Siward of Maldon (28) £6 £76 Wihtgar Ælfricsson (183) £59 £16 Æthelgyth, widow (20) Eadgifu the Fair (302) £20 £109 £5 Total (926.5) £28 £257 £109 £97

£200 £82 £75 £134 £491

Total wealth of local lords in East Anglia Eadric of Laxfield £60 £330 Siward of Maldon £40 Wihtgar Ælfricsson £164 Æthelgyth, widow £49 £17 Eadgifu the Fair £54 Total £109 £605

£390 £229 £255 £119 £433 £1,426



£343 £343

£189 £91 £53 £36 £369


Regional aristocracy Little Domesday Book identifies a further twelve nobles who held the rank of thegn, or who on the basis of the value of their landholdings would have been placed amongst the proceres. Five of these controlled lands valued at over £100 TRE, and were amongst the forty wealthiest nobles in England on the eve of the Norman Conquest. The distinguishing characteristic of this group of five local lords was that they controlled around two-fifths of the wealth of the secular aristocracy in East Anglia c. 1042–66. One, perhaps two, of these lords, Eadric of Laxfield and Ælfric Wihtgarsson, had held important local offices during the second quarter of the eleventh century, and four of the five were probably descended from local families whose ties with the region reached back to at least the late tenth century. Another notable feature of this group is that two out of the five were noblewomen: Æthelgyth and Eadgifu the Fair.   

The identifications are drawn from Clarke, English Nobility, appendix II, pp. 227–370; Domesday Book, ii, fols. 285b, 349b, 350a, 351a, 419b. For discussion of proceres, see Clarke, English Nobility, 31–4. Tables 16, 20. Above, Chapter 6, pp. 99, 101; Table 21.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 135


135

Æthelgyth was the widow of Thurstan, a fifth-generation descendant of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth. She controlled estates valued at around £120 TRE, divided principally between western Norfolk, including two of the three estates at Shouldham with its hall, and a block of territories in the upper reaches of the Stour valley. The kinship of Eadgifu the Fair is harder to establish. She was perhaps a wealthy widow, connected to a powerful East Anglian kindred. It might be possible to get a little closer to her identity through a study of her property. Her most important estate was Exning (Suffolk), which included the settlement which became Newmarket, valued at £54 TRE. According to the Liber Eliensis, Saint Æthelthryth, the founder of Ely Abbey and daughter of Anna (d. 654), king of the East Anglia (635–54), was born at Exning, while in the early twelfth century a farmer at Exning was granted a vision in which he received instructions from the saint. This strong connection between Saint Æthelthryth and Exning in the Ely tradition raises the possibility that it may have formerly been in her possession. Eadgifu may have had connections with Saint Æthelthryth and the Wuffingas dynasty through property, and perhaps even through kinship, comparable to Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s connections with the ninth-century kings of Mercia. Exning developed into a market town during the central Middle Ages, and although Orderic Vitalis’s account of a great wedding-feast being held there in 1075 raises tantalizing possibilities it is not until the early seventeenth century that there is evidence for great secular residences in the town. On some of Eadgifu’s lesser estates, though, there is some evidence for investment in seigneurial centres of lordship during the tenth and eleventh centuries. At her manor of Swavesey (Cambs.) there was a reorganization of landholdings between the ninth century and early eleventh century, while a pre-Conquest minster preceded Swavesey Priory. The manor itself was an important administrative centre with outliers in five parishes. A castle was established there c. 1070x1130, with its inland port serving surrounding fenland communities. It and Eadgifu’s other key estate at Bassingbourn (Cambs.), where a post-Conquest castle was also established, were among those estates which the counts of Brittany retained in demesne during the central Middle Ages. The count of Brittany took over most of the rest of Eadgifu’s estates in Cambridgeshire, but in general he and his successors were much less likely to retain these estates in demesne; for example, he retained only four out of twelve manors       

    

See above, Chapter 4, p. 34, Figure 2. Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 235–6. She has sometimes been identified with Edith, mistress of Earl Harold, discussed by the Waltham Chronicle, c. 21, pp. 54–5. Edith (Eaditha), though, is a different name from Eadgifu (Eddiva). Domesday Book, i, fol. 202. Lib. El., ii, c. 3, p. 13. Ibid., iii, c. 32, p. 266. This identification would also explain why through the medieval and modern periods north-eastern Cambridgeshire was under the authority of the bishops of East Anglia and their successors, the bishops of Norwich, in contrast to the rest of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely, which lay within the diocese of Dorchester-upon-Thames and later Ely; see VCH Cambs., x, p. 8. See above, Chapter 4, Figure 3, p. 48. Orderic, ii, pp. xxxvii, 310–14; VCH Cambs., x, pp. 26–7. VCH Cambs., ix, pp. 375. Ibid., viii, pp. 14, 16. E.g. ibid., x, pp. 106, 136, 176, 255, 378, 556.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

8/20/05

136

11:57 AM

Page 136


Table 21 Ancestral connections of local lords TRE TRE lord

Connections with East Anglian dynasty

Likelihood of identification

Eadric of Laxfield Siward of Maldon Wihtgar Ælfricsson Æthelgyth Eadgifu the Fair

Kindred of Bishop Theodred Kindred of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth Kindred of Wulftstan of Dalham Kindred of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth East Anglian kindred with royal connections

Possible Possible Probable Certain Remote



Table based on Chapters 2, 6, 8, pp. 33–5, 101, 135–6.

in north-east Cambridgeshire, granting out the rest to sub-tenants. The castles which had been established at Bassingbourn and Swavesey did not develop into great postConquest aristocratic centres. Lack of investment in the post-Conquest period should not lead us to exaggerate the relative importance of developments in the preConquest time. Neither Eadgifu the Fair nor Æthelgyth, for all of their wealth and the regional focus to their estates, invested in residence-church-market complexes comparable to the built environments established by Eadric of Laxfield, Ælfric Wihtgarsson and Toki the thegn at Eye, Clare and Castle Acre respectively. Discussion now turns to the remaining lord in this category, namely Siward of Maldon, who forfeited his position after he joined the revolt of Hereward the Wake in 1070. He had enjoyed close bonds of friendship with Ely and Barking abbeys, leasing estates from the abbots of both houses and donating sixteen texts which were decorated with enamel, gold and silver to Ely Abbey. His ties with two abbeys favoured by the kindred of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth, the concentration of his estates in the Blackwater estuary and the lease of part of the marriage-gift of Ælfflæd (Byrhtnoth’s widow) point to the possibility that he belonged to a branch of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth’s kindred, although his absence from the will of Thurstan poses a problem for such an identification. There are some recurring features in the interests of the five lords, who were not that closely associated with the royal court during the 1050s and early 1060s, and who held most of their estates in the East Anglian region. First, there was a notable geographical concentration in their lordships; second, with varying degrees of probability, these lords can be connected through kinship to the great tenth-century East Anglian dynasties; third, on at least two occasions they invested in the establishment of great centres of lordship; and fourth, the men in this group on occasion controlled local public offices. The power of these lords was also reflected through their authority over dependants. These five lords exercised lordship over 926.5 dependants, comparable

    

VCH Cambs., x, p. 8. Lib. El., ii, c. 102, p. 173 n. 1; Hart, ‘Hereward “The Wake’’ ’, Danelaw, pp. 644–7. Lib. El., iii, c. 50, p. 291; Hart, ‘Hereward “The Wake’’ ’, Danelaw, p. 644 translates ‘texts’ as gospelbooks, but this is only one possible translation. Domesday Book, ii, fol. 17; ASW, no. 15, p. 40, line 8. ASW, no. 31.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 137


137

to the 933 dependants of the earls, stallers and king’s thegns. Königsnähe had ceased to define regional structures of power along the lines of patterns during the tenth century, when the high aristocracy connected to the court dominated patterns of local patronage, authority over local assemblies and lordship over dependants. Instead wealth and power were also concentrated in the hands of the regional aristocracy, whose interests were not defined in the sources by connections with the court or with the court aristocracy. As we move down the social scale the landholdings of the East Anglian pre-Conquest nobles are more exclusively concentrated upon parishes. Five other lords can be identified as nobles of significant status, but only Ælfric camp had wealth which would have established his status as a procer. His wealth was concentrated in the Tendring peninsula, which underwent an economic boom during the tenth and eleventh centuries as a result of Scandinavian settlement in the area and, proximity to Colchester.

Discussion Earls, stallers and king’s thegns appear at the top of English society in sources such as law-codes. In general, late Anglo-Saxon England was dominated by an aristocracy of royal service, in which Königsnähe was the critical feature, but there was a slightly different picture during the first half of the eleventh century. Narrative and documentary sources raise the possibility that control of wealth in regional contexts acted as a key marker of status. Moreover, although the court nobility’s share of the laity’s wealth (fifty-five per cent) during the reign of Edward the Confessor marginally outweighed the wealth of the regional nobility (forty-four per cent), the two categories become almost level (forty-five per cent and forty-three per cent respectively) when king’s thegns are excluded. (It can be suggested that the local connections of king’s thegns were as important as their duties of royal service.) From a statistical perspective the balance of power between the categories of the nobility associated with the court and the region was remarkably close by the end of Edward the Confessor’s reign. For a substantial number of lords, who controlled quite significant wealth and who exercised authority over dependants and communities, Königsnähe was probably not as important as it had been in the tenth century for maintaining status, power and authority. Instead connections with great East Anglian abbeys and economic opportunities perhaps provided new means by which to consolidate power and to achieve social mobility. These developments can be connected to the emergence of the gentry in alliance with the great East Anglian royal abbeys as a result of the reshaping of the social order during the reign of Cnut, and perhaps also to attempts by the state to regulate social mobility in this era through an exceptional amount of legislative activity. These issues can also be addressed from a qualitative perspective, thereby raising comparisons with the feudal transformation in regions of France. Members of the East     

Above, Chapters 1 to 4, passim. These comprise Ælfric camp, Bundi, Burghard of Mendlesham, Scalpi the thegn and Wulfmær the thegn; see Clarke, English Nobility, pp. 227–8, 268; Domesday Book, ii, fols. 285b, 349b, 350a, 351a, 419b. Domesday Book, ii, fols. 69b, 70b. For links between Colchester’s expansion during the tenth and eleventh centuries and the elaboration of the town’s origin myth, see VCH Essex, ix, pp. 20–1. Table 19.

LCEM-Ch-8.qxd

138

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 138


Anglian regional nobility could in some ways have regarded themselves as the true heirs of the great tenth-century dynasties who had sustained England’s political, cultural, social and religious unification during that century. That inheritance was both real, in the sense that some of the leading local lords were directly descended from tenth-century kindreds, and cultural, in the sense of ties established with leading East Anglian abbeys. The comital rank and the stallers were unable to break into that arena of power, except it would appear in the exceptional circumstances when a member of the family acquired control of an abbacy. Yet if Gerchow is right such tactics could misfire. The community of Thorney Abbey disliked the rule of Leofric, nephew of Earl Leofric, so much that all entries into the Thorney Liber Vitae ceased. The house of Leofric was not in a position to make use of its control of Thorney Abbey to sustain alliance and unification strategies to strengthen the power of the dynasty within the region. The supra-regional territorial interests of the comital rank in England were substantially different from patterns of power in France. That difference is, of course, to be explained by the power of state institutions in England, in contrast to the waning of equivalent structures in France. There are, though, also important similarities in terms of the relationships between aristocratic social groupings. During the eleventh century the power of the counts of Mâcon, Maine and Poitou narrowed as castellans extended their powers over localities, while in Anjou, Normandy and Flanders there were struggles for authority in which the counts were eventually successful. There are analogies with the exercise of public power by leading members of the regional aristocracy in East Anglia during the mid eleventh century. They controlled centres of lordship and local public offices, and drew upon social and family ties linking them to great ecclesiastical landlords. The ‘lords of East Anglia’ perhaps formed an affinity group, which potentially posed an indirect but implicit threat to the interests of the comital rank in the region. In the event of a national crisis this may have made a real difference. The shadow of 1066 looms over these issues. Nobles such as Siward of Maldon and Ælfric Wihtgarsson were not that closely bound to the comital elite through ties of lordship, friendship and association, whether the focus is upon secular lines of lordship (as set out in Little Domesday Book), or in terms of alliances (through associations with the great East Anglian abbeys). As far we can tell neither lord played a part in the campaign against the Normans in 1066. The failure by the comital rank during the second third of the eleventh century to dominate East Anglia through alliance strategies may have meant that in real terms their power was weaker than their tenth-century predecessors’ had been. The power which was accruing to these leading local lords, who perhaps formed an affinity group, ran in parallel with the formation of a local gentry as a consequence of social mobility. These two developments can be compared to the rise of the castellans and the knights in continental European regional societies, which also had the effect of diminishing the real power of some of the counts and the dukes in spite of their control of substantial wealth and delegated royal authority. Moreover, in East Anglia the great royal abbeys proceeded with strategies which served to reshape the organization of aristocracy and society so as to weaken the domination of the court nobility, and mostly reserved the wrath of the written word for earls, stallers, counts and their agents.  

Gerchow, Die Gedenküberlieferung, pp. 192–3. Campbell, Anglo–Saxon State, passim.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 139

Chapter 9 The Regional Aristocracy and Social Mobility during and after the Norman Conquest The Norman Conquest reshaped English society not only because Norman, Breton and other dynasties from France replaced English families, but also because of the changes in structures of lordship and property law. Other significant developments have been set out by archaeologists, diplomatic historians, palaeographers, numismatists and architectural historians, to name only the most obvious examples, with the result that academic syntheses are becoming that much harder to write. By focusing, though, upon social mobility during and after the Norman Conquest it is possible to address a wide range of themes, ranging from economic paths of growth to the relationships between the Normans and the English. A case study concerned with Roger Bigod enables connections between these various themes to be related to wider questions addressed in syntheses on Anglo-Norman aristocracy and society. Roger Bigod rose from relatively lowly origins to become one of the wealthiest barons in Anglo-Norman England, holding the office of royal steward. Although the fortunes of the family have been the subject of several studies, these have not devoted much attention to the means by which Roger Bigod established the fortunes of his dynasty. This discussion will look at: first, the effectiveness of Roger Bigod as a custodian of baronial and royal estates in the post-Conquest decades; second, the alliances which he established with lords from a range of social ranks; and third, the significance of an absence of investment by him in seigneurial complexes of lordship before c. 1100.

   

E.g. Fleming, Kings and Lords, pp. 145–82, 215–31; eadem, Domesday Book and the Law, passim; J. Hudson, Land, Law and Lordship in Anglo-Norman England (Oxford, 1994). A recent notable exception is H. Loyn, ‘1066: Should We have Celebrated?’, Society and Peoples: Studies in the History of England and Wales c. 600–1200 (London, 1992), pp. 322–38. E.g. J.A. Green, The Aristocracy of Norman England (Cambridge, 1997). For Roger Bigod and the formation of the Bigod honor, see ibid., pp. 8–9, 153. E.g. A.F. Wareham, ‘The Motives and Politics of the Bigod Family, c.1066–1177’, ANS xvii (1994), pp. 223–42; S.J. Atkins, ‘The Bigod Family: An Investigation into their Lands and Activities’ (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Reading, 1979).

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

8/20/05

140

11:57 AM

Page 140


Table 22 Distribution of wealth among Anglo-Norman aristocracy in Norfolk and Suffolk TRW

Class A Class B ‘local’ Class B other Class C Class D Total

Wealth range in England

East Anglian estates’ value (TRE)

East Anglian estates’ value (TRW)

Increase (%)

£750–3,000 £50–750 £50-£750 £5-£50 £1–5 -

£1,105 £1,954 £125 £349 £57 £3,590

£1,402 £2,472 £146 £366 £59 £4,445

27 27 17 5 3 24

Table 23 Landed resources of Class A barons in Norfolk and Suffolk TRW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Landholder

TRE value

TRW value

Increase (%)

Odo of Bayeux Eustace of Boulogne Alan of Brittany Hugh of Chester Robert of Mortain Geoffrey de Mandeville Richard FitzGilbert William de Warenne Total

£127 £29 £259 £93 £45 £27 £236 £289 £1,105

£158 £48 £316 £142 £70 £27 £270 £371 £1,402

24 65 22 52 55 14 28 27

Distribution of wealth and the career of Roger Bigod Around a third of East Anglia’s wealth was controlled by eight class A barons who were closely connected to William I through kinship and friendship. This grouping can be compared with the earls and stallers of the immediate pre-Conquest period. Although the social groupings who benefited most from Königsnähe shared broadly similar amounts of wealth before and after the Norman Conquest, there were important qualitative differences. First, there was no clear line of tenurial succession linking the earls and stallers with the class A magnates, and second, some of the class A





The Anglo-Norman aristocracy is divided in Table 22 into five categories on the basis of the value of their landholdings in Domesday Book. For further comment, see C.W. Hollister, ‘The Greater Domesday Tenants-in-Chief’, Domesday Studies, ed. J.C. Holt (Woodbridge, 1987), pp. 219–48, at 242; cf. J. Palmer, ‘The Wealth of the Secular Aristocracy in 1086’, ANS xxii (1999), pp. 279–91. The latter aggregates the wealth of the demesne holdings of tenants-in-chief with estates held through enfeoffment, which is in turn differentiated from the holdings of mesne tenants who did not hold estates directly from the Crown. Le Patourel, Norman Empire, pp. 335–6 identifies Bishop Odo of Bayeux, Count Robert of Mortain, William de Warenne, Richard FitzGilbert and Hugh d’Avranches as the kinsmen of William I. Of these William de Warenne can be discounted; see COEL, s.n.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 141


141

magnates held substantial estates in principalities in northern France. The first factor could have led to a watershed in the interests of the court elite, with the establishment of compact territorial lordships providing these dynasties with independent sources of power similar to lordships in Normandy. Yet that path of development was not realized, in part because of the second factor (i.e. territorial interests stretching across the Anglo-Norman world). Thus, for example, although a substantial share of the count of Brittany’s estates lay in East Anglia, these properties were peripheral to his interests as the ruler of a principality in France. As a result the counts of Brittany leased out a large proportion of their estates, which had formerly been held in demesne by Eadgifu the Fair in Cambridgeshire, Edric Grim in Suffolk and Godwine in Norfolk. Similarly the king’s half-brothers, Robert (d. 1095), count of Mortain (c. 1063–95), and Odo (d. 1097), bishop of Bayeux (c. 1049x50–97), had no real incentive for developing seigneurial centres of lordship or for retaining a significant number of their estates in demesne close to key regional communications’ routes. Meanwhile, Hugh d’Avranches (d. 1101), earl of Chester (1070–1101), retained only thirty-eight per cent of his estates in East Anglia in demesne, granting out the rest of his properties to tenants. His interests as earl of Chester and as viscount of Avranches meant that he had no great interest in using his estates in East Anglia in order to establish a power base. The territorial ambitions of the class A magnates differed significantly from those of the ealdormen and earls, who had been concerned with retaining important estates close to important communications’ routes, and of the stallers, who had been more concerned with the establishment of local power bases. One of the consequences of the lack of interest on the part of these class A magnates was to create the conditions of social mobility for their lower-status followers, such as Roger Bigod. In the space of a generation Roger Bigod rose from obscurity to become one of the twenty wealthiest barons in Anglo-Norman England. The family had established itself on the lowest rung of the ladder in Normandy before 1066. Roger Bigod had perhaps held Les Loges in Savenay (later assessed as part of a knight’s fee) from Bishop Odo of Bayeux before 1066, and may have been related to Robert Bigod, a poor household knight in the service of William Werlenc, count of Mortain. Following the dispossession and revolt of William Werlenc c. 1057, whose plans of rebellion (according to Orderic Vitalis) had been revealed by Roger Bigod to Richard d’Avranches and then to Duke William, Bigod perhaps became a dependant of Richard d’Avranches after he



Domesday Book, ii, fols. 144a–51a , 292b–8a. The establishment of the earl of Brittany’s estates fits with the ‘tenurial revolution’ model. On antecessorial connections with the house of Godwine in Norfolk, see ibid., fols. 145a–6a; but estates also descended from other notables; see ibid., fols. 146b–51a.  Ibid., fols. 152a–3a, 298b–302b.  Sanders, English Baronies, p. 32.  L.C. Loyd, The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, eds. C.T. Clay and D. Douglas, Harleian Society ciii (Leeds, 1951), p. 14.  The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni, ed. E. van Houts, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1992–5), ii, pp. 126–7; cf. COEL, s.n., where it is suggested, on the basis of manuscript sources which the present writer has not seen, that Robert Bigod was the son of the Norman lord of Pirou. This would suggest that Bigod came from the middle ranks of society, with his social ascent still being an impressive one.  Gesta Normannorum Ducum, pp. 126–7; E. Searle, Predatory Kinship and the Creation of Norman Power, 840–1066 (Berkeley, CA, 1988), pp. 224–5.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

142

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 142


became viscount of Avranches. He may have granted fiefs in the peninsula in order to offset earlier loyalties in the locality to William Werlenc’s grandfather, Count Robert d’Avranches. The Bigod family did not acquire great wealth in Normandy before 1066, but links established with the king’s half-brother and the d’Avranches family played an important role in providing Roger Bigod with considerable opportunities in England. As it turned out he proved to be a highly effective manager of estates. Roger’s effectiveness is brought out by comparing the two Suffolk estates of Framlingham with Framsden, both of which were granted out by Hugh d’Avranches, earl of Chester, heir of Richard d’Avranches. Framsden and Framlingham were broadly comparable estates TRE: each had been valued at £16 TRE with broadly similar resources, although Framsden had slightly more bordars and a lower taxation assessment. Earl Hugh placed Framsden at farm, while Framlingham was leased out to Roger Bigod. By 1087 the numbers of bordars and villeins at Framlingham had substantially increased, leading to a doubling in the value of the estate, while the value of Framsden only had increased by twenty per cent between TRE and TRW, accompanied by a marginal increase in the number of bordars. Across a network of estates Bigod had pursued a demesne-oriented strategy, thereby leading to an increase in the value of the estates of the earl of Chester. Yet even this achievement was overshadowed by the increase in the value of the royal demesne under the stewardship of Roger Bigod between TRE and TRW. William I’s policy to ‘let it [the land] go to any man who offered him more’ drove up the value of property above its real worth, or rather its perceived value in the view of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. The strategy, though, was only successful because some stewards presumably had the skills, whether through coercion or local knowledge, to achieve those rents and still to make a profit for themselves. Roger Bigod appears to have been one such royal agent. Roger Bigod was one of seven royal officials responsible for farming sections of the royal demesne in East Anglia. He perhaps took over the management of these estates after his appointment c. 1069 as sheriff of Norfolk, a position he held until the death of William I, while he also served as sheriff of Suffolk on at least two separate occasions. Although the value of the estates which formed part of the royal demesne in 1086 had doubled compared to their value in 1066, the highest rises were on the portion of the royal demesne farmed by Roger Bigod. As a result Roger Bigod’s share of the royal demesne increased by three per cent between TRE and TRW, while its actual value increased by 127 per cent. That steep ascent arose from the management strategies of Roger Bigod, and the type of estates which he took over. These developments are, moreover, reflected in the results from econometric models,

         

Searle, Predatory Kinship, pp. 135–6, 202. Account based on Domesday Book, ii, fols. 298b, 302b. Ibid. ASC, [E, 1086], p. 163. For the pre-Conquest period, see Campbell, ‘Some Agents and Agencies’, Anglo-Saxon State, passim. For a general study of the royal demesne see R.S. Hoyt, The Royal Demesne in English Constitutional History (Ithaca, NY, 1950). Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, p. 60. Ibid., p. 76. Table 23. Ibid.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 143

143


Table 24 Stewardship of royal demesne in Norfolk and Suffolk TRW Value

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Value as per cent of royal demesne

Increase in value

Steward

TRE

TRW

TRE (%) TRW (%) £

%

Roger Bigod Godric the steward William de Noyers William the chamberlain Peter de Valognes Ælfric Wanz Picot the sheriff Total

£204 £259 £214 £28 £6 £33 £19 £763

£463 £557 £435 £48 £7 £60 £32 £1,602

26 34 28 3.6 0.78 4.3 2.4 99.08

127 115 103 71 16 81 68 110

29 35 27 2.9 0.43 3.7 1.9 99.99

£259 £298 £221 £20 £1 £27 £13 £839

whereby an extra £39 TRW was generated above what would have been expected, given the resources on Bigod’s landholdings. Instead of attempting to increase rents across the board in Norfolk, Bigod concentrated his efforts upon raising rents in a few key estates, such as Fakenham, Holt, Southmere and Wighton. Those four estates had been valued at £52 TRE, but by 1086 they had increased in value by 108 per cent, when they accounted for around half the total valuation of the royal estates in Norfolk under his custodianship. All four estates lay in northern Norfolk, and three, Fakenham, Wighton and Southmere, lay within ten kilometres of each other on well-drained soils in the greensand belt in the north-west of the county. The rise in value of these three estates between TRE and TRW can in part be connected to favourable local conditions, and their proximity to the silt fens of north-west Norfolk, thereby facilitating the movement of livestock between uplands and fens. Administrative and commercial factors also played a role; each was either the ancient meeting-place of hundreds or (in Holt’s case) had a hundred attached to it, and outliers which had previously been independent appear to have been attached to these manors. Furthermore, on these estates the free peasants accounted for only around a quarter of the recorded population, but in Norfolk as a whole they made up nearly half of the peasantry. The reorganization of landholdings with a strong demesne orientation combined with an expanding economy and assisted by favourable ecological conditions contributed to the leap in the value of these properties. Roger also pursued demesne-oriented strategies in Suffolk at the manors of Bramford, Blythburgh, Diss, Gorleston, Mutford and Thorney. At Thorney there were forty free peasants TRE, comprising two-fifths of the vill’s population, but Roger

      

Wareham, ‘ “Feudal Revolution” ’, p. 309, figure 6, dependent variable: royal demesne. Account based on Domesday Book, ii, fols. 110a, 111–12a, 113a. Darby, Domesday Geography of Eastern England, p. 151. Ibid., pp. 134–5. Williamson, Origins of Norfolk, p. 100; Domesday Book, ii, fols. 110a, 111–12a, 113a. Darby, Domesday Geography of Eastern England, p. 111. For Diss, Gorleston and Mutford, see Domesday Book, ii, fols. 282a, 283a, 283b.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

144

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 144


Bigod detached thirty-three of these peasants, who may even have moved to other localities. On other occasions, though, Roger Bigod enjoyed much less success. At the royal manor at Blythburgh, the administrative centre of Blything double hundred, the rental valuation of the manor rose from £30 TRE to £50, but then fell back to £23 TRW. On occasion Bigod pushed up the rents owed by the free peasantry: the rents of the seventy-six freemen attached to Mutford increased from 13s. TRE to £30 TRW, but at East Bergholt he and his successor Robert Malet enjoyed much less success. Their attempts to increase substantially the rents owed by the free peasantry merely resulted in a decline in numbers, with the result that the estate was entrusted to Ælfric Wanz, who returned the rents owed by the free peasantry to TRE levels. The notable feature of these developments was that Bigod sought to increase the rents of large numbers of free peasants attached to substantial manors in Suffolk rather than trying to increase the rents owed by free peasants whose estates were dispersed across local territories. Errors were made, but Roger Bigod generally pursued effective and profitable strategies for the benefit of the Crown as well as for himself in the management of the royal demesne. If Bigod retained one third of the valuation of these estates, then his share would have stood at around £150 TRW, with perhaps a third being retained in coin TRW. The tumultuous politics of the Norman Conquest gave opportunities for nobles who had begun their careers as the followers of class A barons to quickly become tenants-in-chief. Roger Bigod had held East Anglian estates valued at around £40 TRW from Bishop Odo of Bayeux, but following the imprisonment of the latter in 1083, the terms of tenure were changed so that Roger held these estates directly from William I. This holding, though, was sub-divided between estates rather than comprising a series of wealthy manors. Moreover, on Roger Bigod’s East Anglian tenancy-in-chief only forty per cent of his wealth in Norfolk and around thirty-three per cent in Suffolk arose from control of manors, and he retained only a small proportion in demesne. The rest of his wealth was sub-divided between smallholdings and estates held via commendation. These interests did not provide the basis for the establishment of a seigneurial centre of lordship, and the Bigod honor of Framlingham did not begin to take shape until the early twelfth century. The slowness of this development, though, cannot be explained by Bigod’s concern for his interests in Normandy, since his territorial interests within the duchy were negligible. The absence of investment in

         

Ibid., fol. 281b. Ibid., fol. 282a. Ibid., fol. 288a. Ibid., fol. 287b. Ibid. There was a notable increase in the amount of rents specifically paid in coin in relation to Roger Bigod’s share of the royal demesne. It had stood at £130 TRE (Norfolk) and £30 TRE (Suffolk) rising to £281 TRW and £85 TRW respectively. Atkins, ‘Bigod Family’, p. 19. Tables 25 a and b. In the Phillimore Domesday edition, Roger Bigod has one hundred and thirty-four estates in separate entries, mostly arising from the estates of commended freemen: see Domesday Book, Norfolk: I, eds. J. Morris and P. Brown (Chichester, 1984), 9.1–234. Similar observations are made by Green, Aristocracy of Norman England, p. 153.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 145

145


Table 25a Roger Bigod’s manors in Norfolk c. 1066–86 Estate name 1

TRE tenure

Thetford

Æthelwine of Thetford 2 Toltington Æthelwine of Thetford 3 Narborough Æthelwine of Thetford 4 Little Hockham Æthelwine of Thetford 5 Snetterton Æthelwine of Thetford 6 Little Snarehill Æthelwine of Thetford 7 Hingham Æthelwine of Thetford 8 Hudeston Æthelwine of Thetford 9 Flitcham Algar under Stigand 10 Appleton Abba under Stigand 11 Shotesham Freeman under Stigand 12 Whitlingham Wulflet under Stigand 13 Bixley Genred under Stigand 14 Shimpling Thorbert under Stigand 15 Pirnhow Algar under Stigand 16 Forncett Coleman under Stigand 17 Tharston Wulfric under Stigand 18 Ringstead Tovi 19 Sutton 20 Hockham 22 Framingham 23 Watton 24 Hales 25 Alby

Eadric of Laxfield Edric Ulfketel under Earl Algar Aldreda Alsan, a thegn of Harold Asford under Harold

TRW tenure

TRE value TRW value

Demesne

£7

£8

Ralph son of Herlwin Demesne

£4

£3

£8

£8

Thorold

13s. 4d.

13s. 4d.

Ralph son of Herlwin Alstan

£1

£1

£1

£1

Stanhard

£1

£1 5s.

Robert of Courson

£2

£3 10s.

Robert of Vaux £5 Demesne £2 Ranulf son of Walter £2

£7 £2 10s. £4

Robert of Courson

£1

£1 10s.

Ranulf son of Walter £1

£2 10s.

Robert of Vaux

£1

£1

Godwine Demesne

10s £3

£1 £6

Robert of Vaux Ralph son of Herlwin Demesne Demesne Ulfketel

£6 6s. 10s.

£5 6s. £1

£6 11s. £4 £1

£10 £4 £3

£8

£7

£1

£2

£1

£2

Ranulf son of Walter Demesne Asford’s four sons

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

8/20/05

146

11:57 AM

Page 146


Table 25a (continued) Estate name

TRE tenure

TRW tenure

TRE value TRW value

26 Hunstanton

Freeman

£3

£4

28 29 30 31 32 33

Algar Trec Sweetman Ulf Alsi Alsi Cock Hagni

Ralph son of Herlwin Hugh of Courbon Robert of Vaux Demesne Alsi Alfred Thurstan son of Guy Humphrey of Curley Demesne Demesne Ranulf FitzWalter

£2 10s. 3s. £3 £3 £1 £4

£2 10s. 3s. £5 £3 10s. £1 10s. £6

£1

16s.

£4 £6 £2 10s.

£6 £8 £3

Osmodiston Claxton Lopham Lopham Blo Norton Creake

34 Burnham

Cock Hagni

36 Hanworth 37 Hethel 38 Ketteringham

Withri Ulf Ulf

seigneurial complexes of lordship by Bigod did not stem from the view that estates in Normandy served as the family’s home and seat. An explanation for why Roger Bigod was so slow to establish great centres of secular lordship is to be found in the alliance strategies forged with English families of gentry status. The alliances which he established with the Englishmen Northman and Æthelwine of Thetford serve to illustrate this point. Northman’s power had been focused upon south-east Suffolk, where he had exercised commendation over two hundred and twenty-six freemen, most of whom lived in the peninsula south-east of Ipswich, linked to control of the manor of Walton on the south-eastern outskirts of the town. Northman had shared responsibility with Toli the sheriff in the protection of freewomen in the Ipswich area, and had controlled a group of estates further north at Kelsale, Saxmundham and Sternfield in the central area of the Suffolk coastlands. He served as sheriff of Suffolk c. 1067–9, and after stepping down continued to play a role in local government: in 1075–6 it was he who received the king’s writ which implemented the grant of an estate in the Ipswich area to a new lord. Northman also retained control of five manors, and exercised

    



For a different view of the cultural values in the Norman ‘Empire’, see Le Patourel, Norman Empire, pp. 319–54. Domesday Book, ii, fol. 339b (Walton), followed by freemen in Colneis hundred; ibid., fols. 339b–43b. Domesday Book, ii, fols. 331a, 338a, 344b. Domesday Book, ii, fols. 331a (Kelsale); 332a (Peasenhall); 333a (Yoxford). Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, p. 76. The evidence of the writs relates to these office-holders as follows: Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: The Acta of William I, ed. Bates, no. 38 (1066x70) addresses Northman in relation to rights in Suffolk as the agent of Earl Ralph de Gaël I ; ibid., no. 138 (1069) lists William the sheriff witnessing a royal diploma with Earl Ralph I, with William perhaps being William Malet. The succession of Northman (c. 1067–9) by William Malet (c. 1069–70) and Robert Malet (c. 1071–87) is discussed by Round, Feudal England, pp. 427–9. Domesday Book, ii, fol. 377a. Perhaps Northman had served as the reeve of this area in the preConquest period and had then been elevated to a higher rank.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 147

147


Table 25b Roger Bigod’s manors in Suffolk c. 1066–86 Estate name

TRE tenure

TRW tenure

TRE value

TRW value

1

Barnham

Stanhard

£1 13s.

£2 13s.

2 3 4 5 6 7

Kelsale Peasenhall Saxmundham Yoxford Walton Falkenham

£24 £4 6s. £1 10s. £2 £6 £1 10s.

Sternfield

Demesne Northman Northman Hugh of Corbon Northman Ralph of Tourleville Northman

£12 £3 6s. £1 10s. £2 £6 £1 10s.

8

£1

£1

9 10 11 12

Stonham Denham Brome Ringshall

Æthelwine of Thetford Northman Northman Northman Northman Northman Edric under Northman Leofric under Northman Brown the reeve Stigand Goda, under Stigand Leofwin under Ely

£1 £2 4s. £1 10s. £1 10s.

£2 £2 14s. £3 1s. £2 10s.

13

Ringshall

Grim under Ely

£1

£1 10s.

14

Baylham

Munding under Ely

£1 10s.

£3

15

Offton

£3

£3

16 17 18

Baylham Buxhall Chediston

£1 20s. £1 10s.

£1 15s. 10s. £1 10s.

19

Chediston

10s.

10s.

20

Bruisyard

5 1/2s.

5 1/2s.

22

Coddenham

Warengar

£1 16s.

£1 16s.

23

Barsham

Northman

4s.

4s.

24

Willingham

Demesne

10s.

10s.

25 26

Shadingfield Redisham

Leofcild under Stigand Wihtric under Ely Freeman under Ely Robert Malet’s antecessor Ralph Baynard’s antecessor Brictmer under Edric, Malet’s predecessor freeman under Toli the sheriff Leofstan the priestunder patronage of Gyrth Gunnulf under commendation of Burghard Godwine son of Toki Godwine

Warengar Aitard Demesne William of Bourneville William of Bourneville William of Bourneville Hugh of Houdain Wulfmœr Demesne Robert of Vaux Robert of Vaux Ralph

10s. 10s.

20s. 30s.

28

Hinton

Æthelweard

Demesne Robert of Courson Robert of Blythburgh

12s.

12s.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

8/20/05

148

11:57 AM

Page 148


Table 25b (continued) Estate name

TRE tenure

TRW tenure

TRE value

TRW value

29

Bridge

Wulfsi

£2 18s.

£3 8s.

30

Brampton

Padda

£2 12s.

£2 12s.

31 32

Chediston Holton

Godwine Ailwin

10s. 12s.

10s. 12s.

33

Strickland

Swartling

16s.

16s.

34

Bruisyard

Wulfric

£1

£1 10s.

36 37

Benhall Swefling

Wulfnoth Wulfric

Robert of Courson Robert of Courson Robert of Vaux Robert of Courson Cus and Akile Suffering Ralph of Tourleville Northman Ralph

10s. 15s.

10s. 15s.

commendation over one hundred and twenty-five freemen as the sub-tenant of Roger Bigod. There had been no fundamental depression in the status of Northman between TRE and TRW. Northman and Roger Bigod were bound to one another through friendship forged through intercession for the dead, which may have stemmed from a marriage alliance. Northman was perhaps the father of Ralph FitzNorman, tenant of Roger Bigod and one of fifteen witnesses to the foundation charter of Thetford Priory, founded by Roger Bigod in 1106, while the Cantelupe family, a prominent gentry dynasty in twelfth-century East Anglia, may have been descended from Northman. Such arrangements not only point towards friendship between a Norman sheriff and his predecessor in Suffolk, but also hint at why the Bigod family was so slow to invest in a seigneurial lordship. As long as Northman and his heirs retained many of the estates around Kelsale, there was no great incentive to establish the latter as a centre

  

Table 25b, nos. 3, 4, 6, 8, 36; Domesday Book, ii, fols. 339b–41a. His rights and interests were valued at £25 TRE and £18 TRW. COEL, s.n. citing BL Cotton MS Domitian A. x, fols. 201v–2r in which Roger Bigod asked the beneficiaries (the monks of Rochester cathedral priory) to intercede for the salvation of Northman’s soul.  COEL, s.n. Northman the sheriff; for wider context, see also C. Clark, ‘Women’s Names in PostConquest England: Observations and Speculations’, Words, Names and History, pp. 117–43; cf. Thomas, English and the Normans, pp. 148–9.  BL Lansdowne MS 229, fol. 147v.  COEL, s.n.: Norman the sheriff and Roger Fitz Richard of Warkworth; cf. C.T. Clay, ‘The Ancestry of the Early Lords of Warkworth’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser. xxxii (1954), pp. 65–71. The issue turns on whether the surname ‘Candelent’ is to be connected with Candlet (Suffolk) formerly held by Northman the sheriff, and the nature of the uncle-nephew relationship between Roger FitzRichard of Warkworth and Earl Hugh Bigod.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 149


149

of lordship. Instead Bigod maximized revenues: the numbers of villeins and bordars were increased from seventeen to thirty-two and the manor doubled in value from £12 TRE to £24 TRW. A similar picture emerges from Roger Bigod’s relationship with Æthelwine of Thetford in Norfolk. Æthelwine may have been the reeve of the same name who had ruled over Thetford during the reign of Harthacnut, and hence may have been a powerful figure in Thetford from the late 1030s until the late 1060s. Æthelwine held estates in Norfolk which were valued at around £25 TRE, of which a third lay in the vicinity of Thetford, and served as sheriff of Norfolk in the late 1060s. During those years he acquired estates which other Anglo-Saxon nobles had forfeited, and seized property from the abbey of St Benet of Holme. Perhaps c. 1069 Æthelwine had stepped down as the sheriff of Norfolk, at around the same time that Northman ceased to be sheriff of Suffolk. It may have been at that stage that the Norman motteand-bailey castle was erected at the eastern edge of Thetford on the site of an Iron-Age hill fort. Yet Roger Bigod was not able to turn the control of Thetford castle into a focal point of lordship, and nor did the family of Æthelwine suffer such a decline in status. Two of Æthelwine’s five manors were held in 1086 by Stanhard son of Æthelwine, who is perhaps to be identified with the nobleman of the same baptismal name who served as a Domesday juror in Cambridgeshire. Another nobleman named Stanhard was the kinsman of the steward of Leofstan, abbot of Bury St Edmunds Abbey, and was probably the father of Richard son of Stanhard who witnessed the charters of the abbey of Bury St Edmunds in the early twelfth century. It is difficult to tell whether one, two or three nobleman named Stanhard flourished in the late eleventh century, and whether Æthelwine of Thetford was in fact related to the steward of Abbot Leofstan. There is a strong possibility, however, that a twelfthcentury East Anglian Norman family was descended from an English dynasty which had formerly been associated with Thetford. Ties between Roger Bigod and English dynasties help to explain not only the context for the establishment of the Bigod honor, but also an absence of investment in

    

Domesday Book, ii, fol. 331a; Table 25b, no. 2. Anglo-Saxon Writs, no. 56. Table 25a, nos. 1–8. Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, p. 60. E.g. the taking over of Oby from Ringwulf, which in this case descended to Æthelwine’s son Stanhard; see Domesday Book, ii, fol. 174b.  F.M. Stenton, ‘St Benet of Holme and the Norman Conquest’, EHR xxxvii (1922), pp. 225–35, at 227. Chronica de Johannis de Oxnedes, ed. H. Ellis, RS (London, 1859), p. 293 notes that in 1066 Ælfwold, abbot of Ramsey, had lent his support to King Harold, and had then fled England for the Danish court of King Sweyn Estrithson in the company of one of the secular nobles whose lands Æthelwine had taken over on royal orders.  Green, English Sheriffs to 1154, pp. 60, 76; eadem, Aristocracy of Norman England, p. 85 n. 195; Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: The Acta of William I, ed. Bates, no. 138 (1069).  Domesday Book, ii, fol. 119a; for a full account of the site, see P. Andrews, Excavations at Redcastle Furze, Thetford 1988–92, East Anglian Archaeology lxxii (1995), notably pp. 137–9.  Domesday Book, ii, fols. 179a, 330b; Table 25a, no. 7; Table 25b, no. 1.  Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, ed. N.E.S.A. Hamilton (London, 1876), pp. 197–8.  Monasticon, iii, p. 140.  COEL, s.n.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

150

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 150


a seigneurial complex of lordship. In 1103 Roger Bigod founded Thetford Priory on the site formerly occupied by the episcopal church, following its transfer to Norwich c. 1095. At the opposite end of the town stood the early Norman castle, of which Bigod perhaps had custody, but in the 1070s and 1080s, Bigod’s power may not have been that impressive. Roger and his family probably enjoyed the benefits of living in and making use of the royal castle and hall at Norwich, but both remained as royal property. Meanwhile, he continued to hold Framlingham as the sub-tenant of the earl of Chester during the reigns of William I and William II, and it was probably not until c. 1100 that its tenure was changed so that Bigod held it directly from the Crown. The motte-andbailey castle, which stood on a small bluff on the eastern bank of the River Ore, overlooked the town to the south and south-west. While the castle may have been built before 1100, it only developed into the caput of the family’s honor during the twelfth century, and it was probably not until c. 1140 that it was rebuilt in a style which was suitable for receiving high-ranking barons and prelates, such as Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury (1138–61), in 1147. The evidence from the late eleventh century does not support the view that Roger Bigod established a seigneurial complex of lordship. Instead the Bigod honor comprised a series of quite distinct interests as a result of the connections which Roger had established with a series of lesser Anglo-Saxon royal officials. Green asks how was Roger Bigod regarded by contemporaries? The absence of a seigneurial complex of lordship at the centre of his power presumably meant that he was not accepted as the social equal of the class A barons. Yet in 1095 Roger Bigod and Bigot of Loges witnessed the foundation charter of Earl Hugh of Chester’s new monastic foundation of Saint Werburg’s at Chester. Within a few years of witnessing that charter Bigod had established secular and ecclesiastical centres of power at Framlingham and Thetford respectively. Although Bigod’s skills as a manager of estates and the vicissitudes of politics during the reign of William I brought him great wealth, access into the elite group of barons probably remained closed to him until the foundation of Saint Werburg’s. This event, though, appears to have been part of a wider change in his fortunes, which most notably resulted in his appointment as the royal steward of William II. Thereafter Roger and his relatives enjoyed connections with the royal court. As the royal steward of William II and Henry I, Bigod enjoyed ‘wealth, lineage, eloquence, the smile of kings’. Meanwhile, one of his sons, Humphrey, became a royal chaplain

         

VCH Norfolk, ii, p. 363; T. Pestell, ‘Monastic Foundation Strategies in the Early Norman Diocese of Norwich’, ANS xxiii (2000), pp. 199–229. Pestell, ‘Monastic Foundation Strategies’, p. 227. Wareham, ‘Motives and Politics’, p. 224. F.J.E. Raby and P.K. Reynolds, Framlingham Castle (London, 1959), p. 5. Ibid., pp. 17–18. Ibid., p. 8. Green, Aristocracy of Norman England, pp. 8–9. The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester c. 1071–1237, ed. G. Barraclough, Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire cxxvi (Gloucester, 1988), no. 3, pp. 2–11, at 7. F. Barlow, William Rufus (London, 1983), p. 193. Orderic, vi, p. 146. For discussion of his relationship with Henry I, see C.W. Hollister, Henry I (London, 2001), pp. 328–30.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 151

151


Table 26 Landed resources of Class B ‘local’ barons in Norfolk and Suffolk TRW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Landholder

TRE value

TRW value

Change

Robert Malet Roger Bigod Ralph Baynard Hugh de Montfort Count of Poitou Raynald, son of Ivo Ranulf Peverel Peter des Valognes William of Ecouis Eudo dapifer Sweyn of Essex Aubrey de Vere Ralph de Beaufour Eudo, son of Spirwic Hermer de Ferrers Walter the deacon Godric the steward Robert Gernon Total

£402 £324 £191 £139 £146 £107 £72 £67 £65 £55 £41 £43 £91 £55 £63 £35 £35 £23 £1,954

£441 £431 £301 £173 £133 £119 £95 £89 £86 £79 £59 £58 £133 £79 £67 £56 £54 £19 £2,472

11% 33% 57% 24% ⫺9% 11% 31% 32% 32% 43% 43% 34% 46% 43% 6% 59% 56% ⫺17% 27%

Table 27 Landed resources of Class B ‘non-local’ barons in Norfolk and Suffolk TRW

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1

Landholder

TRE value

TRW value

Ralph de Tosny Walter Giffard Drogo of Beuvrière Humphrey the chamberlain Ivo Taillebois Hugh de Grandmesnil Walter de Saint-Valéry Gerald dapifer Total

£601 £27 £10 £13 £4 £3 £5 £3 £1252

£60 £36 £12 £17 £8 £5 £5 £3 £146

This figure has been substituted for six nights’ farm TRE owed from the estates of Ralph de Tosny; see Domesday Book, ii, fol. 235b; above, p. 127 n. 10 for further discussion. 2 This figure includes £60 TRE substituted for six nights’ farm; see Domesday Book, ii, fol. 235b.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

8/20/05

152

11:57 AM

Page 152


c. 1101x13, and perhaps dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral. The marriages of Roger’s daughters also served to strengthen the family’s ties with the royal court. By 1107 Cecily became the wife of William d’Albini Brito, who had prospered in the service of King Henry I, and distinguished himself at the battle of Tichebrai in 1106, according to later traditions. At around the same date, Cecily’s sister Matilda married another member of the royal household, William d’Albini Pincerna, with ten knights fees from the Bigod honor were transferred to him, thereby laying the foundations of the honor of New Buckenham. In short, the Bigod dynasty after several decades of managing estates effectively in alliance with English families, turned its attention to strengthening its links with the royal court. It is, though, also worth considering these issues from the perspective of William d’Albini Brito and William d’Albini Pincerna. William d’Albini Brito may not have expected to inherit his father’s patrimony. By distinguishing himself in royal service, he prepared the ground for an advantageous marriage. William d’Albini Pincerna’s fortunes in terms of inheritance may have been a little better, but it was through royal service that real opportunities lay in establishing his position as a wealthy landowner in England. The marriages of these two court nobles to the daughters of Roger Bigod enabled them to establish themselves as the founders of dynasties in local contexts. The marriages then fulfilled a two-way social movement. On the one hand they strengthened Bigod’s ties with the royal court, and on the other provided curiales with entry into a regional society. Roger Bigod, William d’Albini Brito and William d’Albini Pincerna established bonds of friendship. For instance, when it became apparent that the original site chosen for Thetford Priory in 1104 was too confined, Roger Bigod took the advice of William d’Albini Pincerna in choosing a new site, while Roger appeared as the first witness in the foundation charter of Wymondham Priory. In 1146, moreover, Roger’s son, Hugh Bigod, witnessed the foundation charter of Old Buckenham Priory, even though he and his kinsman William d’Albini the Proud were nominally fighting for rival claimants to the throne of England. In that framework marriage across the social divide consolidated the power of the elite, and thus was not regarded as a threat to the social order.

Discussion When the landed interests of the class A barons under William I are compared with the landed interests of the court nobility during the reign of Edward the Confessor,

         

Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066–1300: I, St. Paul’s, London, ed. D. Greenway (London, 1968), pp. 4, 79, 97–98. J.A. Green, The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986), p. 229; COEL, s.n. Green, Government under Henry I, p. 228. Ibid., p. 230. Ibid., pp. 228, 230; COEL, s.n.; for further discussion, see above Chapter 7, pp. 122–3. The prosopogrpaphical context is set out by J.H. Round, ‘The Belvoir Cartulary’, Historical Manuscripts Commission. The Manuscripts of His Grace Duke of Rutland, 4 vols. (London, 1888–1905), iv, pp. 105–71, at 106–7. Corpus Christi College Cambridge MS. 329, fol. 106b. Monasticon, iii, pp. 330–1. Facsmiles of Royal and Other Charters, no. 27. Wareham, ‘Motives and Politics’, pp. 234–5.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 153


153

there was no great divergence in terms of per centage shares of wealth in relation to the regional nobility. Eighteen tenants-in-chief who held at least half of their total wealth within Norfolk and Suffolk controlled around half of the lay aristocracy’s wealth within the region TRW. This was a slightly greater share than the wealth controlled by the regional nobility during the reign of Edward the Confessor, but the figures begin to even out if the king’s thegns are excluded from this equation. Nor was there any great difference in the distributions of wealth; in both cases amongst the regional aristocracy there were five immensely wealthy lords who held great lordships valued in the range of £100–£460, while the rest of the nobles in this category held estates of £50–£100, partly as a result of patterns of succession on landed estates. Yet behind these quantitative continuities there were important qualitative changes. At least three of the wealthy pre-Conquest local lords were descended from great tenthcentury dynasties who had once enjoyed the benefits of Königsnähe, some of whom continued to maintain close connections with leading East Anglian abbeys. Yet when attention is turned to their Anglo-Norman successors, there is a different picture. Although some with estates in East Anglia belonged to the more established families of northern France, such as the count of Poitou, Hugh de Montfort and Walter Giffard, they were the exception to the rule. More typical were figures such as Roger Bigod and Robert Malet, who had lacked much political and social capital before 1066, but who benefited immensely from the opportunities created by the Norman Conquest. Quantitative and qualitative analyses lead into the issues raised by the feudal transformation. First, the door was opened for exactly the type of social mobility which Bloch famously discussed in his La société féodale, in which the followers of great lords made their fortunes through service. Second, new social groupings of regional lords who controlled around half the region’s wealth before and after 1066 were no longer so closely defined by Königsnähe and social connections with great religious houses (whether in England or in Normandy) as had been the case in tenth-century society. The framework of society which had been established in tenth-century East Anglia in the aftermath of the Viking invasions had been broken. Although key stages in that change had taken place during the early eleventh century, with the abbeys breaking their ties with the court elite, so long as the alliance between these religious houses and leading local families remained strong, the old order remained in place. The Norman Conquest, though, marked a decisive change. Qualitative and quantitative assessments suggest that by the 1080s the community of interest linking the court, leading local dynasties and great religious houses had waned, requiring a renegotiation of secular and ecclesiastical power. In weighing up the characteristics of social mobility this case study suggests that the key issue is not just the amount of wealth controlled by lords, but opportunities for investment in secular and ecclesiastical built environments and the formation of

 Chapter 8, p. 127, Table 16; Chapter 9, p. 140, Table 22.  Chapter 9, p. 151, Table 26.  Chapter 8, p. 127, Table 16.  Chapter 8, p. 127, Table 16.  Chapter 9, p. 140, Table 22.  Table 26; Orderic, ii, p. 141; Green, Aristocracy of Norman England, pp. 27–8.  Bloch, La société féodale, passim.

LCEM-Ch-9.qxd

154

8/20/05

11:57 AM

Page 154


appropriate affinity groups. Taking part in the foundation of great abbeys, and establishing castles, markets and priories as linked developments in localities, were amongst the ways in which lords differentiated themselves from their followers, and pronounced their membership of social networks. The statistics provided by Domesday Book, then, need to be read in a nuanced fashion, and the evidence is misrepresented if it is suggested that because Bigod had a disposable expenditure which compared with the class A barons, he was regarded as one of their number. Roger Bigod did not invest in the built environment in a way which would have placed him amongst that group of lords in the immediate post-Conquest years. Indeed the connections which he established with English families of gentry rank checked the accrual of such status: on a practical level he was not able to gather together concentrations of estates of a suitable quality in order to invest in seigneurial complexes of lordship. Yet the route which Roger Bigod had taken to establish his position in society ultimately served to entrench his position within the very highest echelon of AngloNorman society. This case study then lends a degree of support to the view that assimilation lies at the heart of the Anglo-Norman experience in preference to themes such as colonization, and that local frameworks of power provided the means for remarkable social mobility.



Chibnall, Debate on Norman Conquest, pp. 122, 125–36.

LCEM-Epilogue.qxd

8/20/05

11:58 AM

Page 155

Epilogue Power of Place: the Future of the Historic Environment, calls for research which leads into ‘ “a revelation and appreciation of local ‘treasures’ ” ’. It illuminates its case by closing with two photographic images which depict medieval churches in Suffolk and Gloucestershire, thereby communicating the role of the medieval built environment in serving as a platform for association and community in the current age. New schools are built in the localities of medieval parish churches and named after them, and each year at the Glastonbury Music Festival around 250,000 people gather under the Tor, crowned by its fifteenth-century church tower. Meanwhile, around a fifth of the UNESCO World Heritage Sites in the United Kingdom comprise buildings which were primarily built during the Middle Ages. In short, the explanation and interpretation of the medieval past matters to a range of communities. Yet on occasion its importance has not been adequately communicated. The agencies and organizations which took part in Power of Place are not asking the academic community to ‘popularize’ medieval history, but they are encouraging research which pushes the boundaries of research on medieval history within a regional framework. This book addresses such issues. East Anglia was the richest and, after London, the most populous area of England during the Middle Ages, and its medieval cathedrals, abbeys and parish churches continue to provide the region with a rich heritage. Of course, many other European regions share similar heritages, which in turn shape their cultural and social values in the contemporary era. On one level a historical explanation is needed for why there was so much investment in the ecclesiastical built environment across Europe from the end of the ninth century. Yet these medieval societies did not come to be regulated by theological principles and dominated by clergies. There was a secular reaction, encapsulated by the process known as the feudal transformation. On a second level, there is a need to explain the context of the secular reaction against ecclesiastical power from within European society, and the ways in which it has shaped European society. To provide a comprehensive response to such issues, along the lines of various French regional monographs, would reach beyond the nature of this book. Yet the case studies presented may be sufficient to answer the two questions just posed, and to look at the significance of the feudal transformation hypothesis from a new perspective. To answer the first question – how great abbeys were established with landed interests stretching across the region – the role of Königsnähe and the power of the alliance between royal, aristocratic and monastic forces during the tenth century are central.

 

English Heritage, Power of Place, p. 39 for quotation from the Black Environment Network. Ibid., p. 44 and reverse cover.

LCEM-Epilogue.qxd

156

8/20/05

11:58 AM

Page 156


Royal power in states such as England, France or Germany was focused upon one or two key regions, where rulers directly expressed their power and where most of the assemblies took place, while the remaining regions maintained regional ethnic and social differentiations on account of distinctive transport infrastructures. In the outlying regions, as well as in the cores, secular and ecclesiastical communities developed relationships which provided the framework for the direction of national and aristocratic resources into the establishment of great abbeys and the forging of supraregional alliances across these realms. The relationship between monastic houses, aristocratic dynasties and local societies involved a complex series of negotiations. These initiatives may well have fulfilled some of their stated agendas, such as ensuring national unity and the salvation of the souls of the deceased, but they also had consequences which were perhaps not originally intended. These included maintaining the social order in a regional context, which in turn created the circumstances for cycles of growth, and the refashioning of landscapes and environments. The focus of attention in the opening three case studies on tenth-century society has been primarily concerned with the development of frameworks of power which sustained peace in the region during the tenth century, when great dynasties held sway over East Anglian society in alliance with important ecclesiastical institutions. The opening two case studies explored the interests of great tenth-century dynasties. The closeness of the ties forged between Ramsey and Ely abbeys and the kindreds of Ealdorman Æthelwine and Wulfstan of Dalham furthered the secular alliance and unification strategies of these dynasties within the region, and enabled them, for example, to express aristocratic status and to establish hierarchies of kinship within extended families. The following case study suggested that women who outlived husbands and fathers were able to take advantage of bilateral structures of kinship in order to orient the interests of extended kindreds more closely upon regional structures of power. This was a subtle but critical stage in the transformation of aristocracy and society. It only gathered momentum, though, because it was linked to other changes in social organization. The next case study argued that during the early eleventh century monastic rituals of commemoration served to fashion lineage identity, while the myth of the battle of Maldon served to separate and isolate secular and ecclesiastical responsibilities. Two of the great changes associated with the feudal transformation, namely the localization of the interests of aristocracies and the establishment of a lineage structure, were not related in East Anglia to a breakdown of public order. Nor can they be connected to the introduction of new values as a result of aristocratic diasporas from Norman, Frankish and Scandinavian heartlands. These two key features had arisen from the unfolding of events in a regional context as a consequence of the establishment of monasteries as great corporations, and perhaps created the cultural environment for the encastellation of the landscape. Perhaps, then, lineage formation was a cause, rather than a consequence, of the rise of castles.

   

E. Müller-Mertens, ‘The Ottonians as Kings and Emperors’, New Cambridge Medieval History. III, ed. T. Reuter (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 233–66, notably 249. Above, Chapters 1 and 2, pp. 13–45. Above, Chapter 3, pp. 46–60. Above, Chapter 4, pp. 61–77.

LCEM-Epilogue.qxd

8/20/05

11:58 AM

Page 157

EPILOGUE

157

Yet these developments might not have been so significant if other aspects of the social order had not been reshaped. In East Anglia, and perhaps in England in general, this shift is bound up with the events of Cnut’s reign. Following the battle of Assandun, ecclesiastical leadership in East Anglia became more confident of its power to overcome and on occasion to humiliate members of the court aristocracy. The alliance between royal, aristocratic and monastic forces had a wedge driven into it. Meanwhile, the abbots of the leading East Anglian royal abbeys forged ties with an emerging gentry rank, thereby diminishing the importance of the precepts on which tenth-century structures of power had been based. Horizontal ties between abbeys and persons of relatively low status may have provided the means for accelerating social mobility, and perhaps explain why Cnut’s second letter to the English, issued in 1027, addressed ‘the whole race of the English, whether nobles or ceorls’. There is a hint here not so much of a suppression of the free peasantry during the eleventh century, but of a widening gap between those who rose into the gentry, and those who were left behind. Yet changes in the political and cultural fields were not enough to transform the social order. Ecclesiastical and secular powers were in a constant state of dialogue during the earlier Middle Ages, in which crises were repeatedly followed by reversions to the status quo ante. The mid eleventh century became a turning point because economic processes interacted with political and cultural trends. This initially arose from the isolation of leading members of the regional aristocracy as a result of a sharper separation of secular and ecclesiastical interests, associated with the Maldon myth. Local lords of English descent neither benefited from close alliances with the royal court nor enjoyed the type of friendship which their tenth-century predecessors and ancestors had with the great abbeys. These developments connect with the second question, on the secular reaction: how were these lay dynasties to express their status and power now that it was no longer feasible to imitate the past? The establishment of residence-church-market complexes marked a crucial departure in two respects. First, secular lords acted as the principal driving force in the establishment of important ecclesiastical built environments; and second, they grouped networks of demesne-oriented estates around manorial centres. These concentrations of lordship sustained cycles of growth because inventory accounting was combined with the consolidation of land ownership. These processes can be connected to a wider series of economic changes across Europe’s regions as land and investment in it became more important to secular aristocracies. These interests replaced earlier preoccupations with treasure and raiding as the means to sustaining rituals of conspicuous consumption and display. These eleventh-century changes reconfigured the social order. Through the control of lordships and a substantial share of landed wealth, the regional aristocracy represented an implicit threat to the domination of regional

   

Above, Chapter 5, pp. 78–94. English Historical Documents, I, eds. Douglas and Whitelock, no. 49; for further discussion, see J. Campbell, ‘The Late Anglo-Saxon State: a Maximum View’, idem, The Anglo-Saxon State (London, 1992), pp. 1–30, at 22–3. Above, Chapter 6, pp. 95–111. J. Campbell, ‘Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England: Problems and Possibilities’, idem, Anglo-Saxon State, pp. 227–45.

LCEM-Epilogue.qxd

158

8/20/05

11:58 AM

Page 158


society by the comital rank, thereby to some degree mirroring the contemporary rise of castellans and local lords in regions of France at the expense of counts and dukes. Once in place these developments opened the door for other changes. The followers of great lords were able to carve out careers by demonstrating their effectiveness in acting for absentee barons and rulers during the Anglo-Norman period. In the last case study, it was shown how astutely Roger Bigod was able to manage networks of estates, and, after initially establishing alliances with English agents of a similar rank, how he rose into the highest echelons of the court nobility. Against the current of expectation during the eleventh century, it was members of the court nobility who were prominent in establishing landscapes of lordship which communicated more exclusively secular frameworks of power. The final blow had been dealt to the congruence between royal, aristocratic and monastic interests by the social grouping which had traditionally been at the forefront of supporting this very alliance. Although the great royal abbeys would remain the most important landowners in the region, their domination over society waned once lords established great centres of secular lordship. In this context it was not surprising that lineage was replaced by patrilineage: secular dynasties wished to preserve the integrity of their patrimonies attached to castles and manor houses from one generation to the next, and hence narrowed the line of inheritance so as to exclude younger sons, daughters and co-heirs. These developments were in contrast to patterns of partible inheritance among the leading dynasties based in the region during the tenth century. The change in family structure had other consequences for the social order: as Duby has observed, it introduced disputes within families, and created groups of landless younger sons who sought riches and fortunes through campaigns and tournaments, followed by marriage to rich heiresses, thereby leading to re-integration into the elite. Perhaps less often noted is a possible consequence for the donation of land to monasteries. The need to direct substantial wealth towards religious houses in order to secure rituals of remembrance for extended networks of ancestors and relatives was much reduced. Hierarchies of kinship within extended families, associated with the memorial records of great religious houses, were replaced by the focus upon the castle, the patrimony, and the priory entrusted with the commemoration of the lineage. The motive for recurring cycles of donations to great monastic houses, and negotiations over these gifts, had been removed, and a balance was struck between secular and ecclesiastical interests. In short, the reshaping of East Anglian society arose from the negotiations between secular and ecclesiastical powers and economic strategies linked to the establishment of secular centres of lordship, with the next step in European history comprising the movement from investment in land to capital. Power of Place encourages the research community to investigate the pasts of local communities, but these can sometimes be lost from view because of a poverty of sources and the difficulties which arise in interpretation. The early Middle Ages, and the tenth century in particular, are sometimes described as the ‘dark ages’ because of

   

Above, Chapter 8, pp. 125–38. Above, Chapter 9, pp. 139–54. Above, Chapter 7, pp. 112–24. G. Duby, ‘Les “jeunes” dans la société dans la France du Nord-Ouest au XIIe siècle’, idem, Hommes et structures du moyen âge: receuil d’artcles (Paris, 1973), pp. 213–25.

LCEM-Epilogue.qxd

8/20/05

11:58 AM

Page 159

EPILOGUE

159

an absence of sources, and the problems which arise in understanding those which have happened to survive. Studies which surmount such barriers, particularly in the context of comparative and regional models, address one of the key agendas identified by those organizations which took part in Power of Place. Such concerns lie behind the present book’s discussion of the organization of aristocracy and society in East Anglia during the tenth and eleventh centuries. Thus, I have not sought to deploy empirical evidence in order to demonstrate the weaknesses of other historians’ arguments in relation, for example, to the feudal transformation hypothesis. Instead, I prefer to apply it and other analytical tools as means by which to assess the development of the economic, political and social order. The collected data has been used to refine models and on occasion to put forward new hypotheses, which may in the fullness of time lead to reassessments of the reshaping of other regional societies in medieval Britain and continental Europe. The ambitions of Power of Place are considerable, and acknowledge implicitly that the ‘Big Picture’ can only be understood through exposition of the ‘Little Details’. Whether its objectives are met in the next generation will depend in part upon the success and shortcomings of studies such as this in seeking to push the boundaries of historical research within regional settings.

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

12:00 PM

Page 160

Bibliography MANUSCRIPT SOURCES Cambridge Corpus Christi College 329 Trinity College O.2.1 O.2.41 University Library Ely Dean and Chapter 1 Ff. 2. 33 Kk. 5. 32 London British Library Additional 40,000 Cotton: Domitian A. vii Domitian A. x Faustina A. iii Galba E. ii Nero C. ix Rolls II. 16 Vespasian A. xix Lansdowne 229 Lambeth Palace 585 National Archives (formerly PRO) E 164/28 WARD 7/74 Westminster Abbey Muniments, no. 2185 Oxford Bodleian Library, Rawlinson B. 333

PRIMARY SOURCES Abbo of Fleury, Passio Sancti Eadmundi, Memorials of Saint Edmund’s Abbey, ed. T. Arnold, 3 vols., RS (London, 1890–96) Anglo-Saxon Writs, ed. F.E. Harmer (Manchester, 1952) ‘The Battle of Maldon’, The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg (Oxford, 1991), pp. 15–36

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

12:00 PM

Page 161

BIBLIOGRAPHY

161

Bede, Ecclesiastical History of the English People, eds. L. Shirley-Price and D.H. Farmer, 3rd edn (London, 1990) The Book of the Foundation of Walden Monastery, eds. D. Greenway and L. Watkiss (Oxford, 1999) The Carmen de Hastingae Proelio of Guy, Bishop of Amiens, eds. C. Morton and H. Muntz (Oxford, 1972) Cartularium monasterii de Rameseia, eds. W.H. Hart and P.A. Lyons, 3 vols., RS (London, 1884–93) The Charters of the Anglo-Norman Earls of Chester c. 1071–1237, ed. G. Barraclough, Record Society of Lancashire and Cheshire cxxvi (Gloucester, 1988) Charters of Burton Abbey, ed. P.H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters II (London, 1979) Chronica de Johannis de Oxnedes, ed. H. Ellis, RS (London, 1859) Domesday Book, Norfolk, eds. J. Morris and P. Brown, 2 vols. (Chichester, 1984) Domesday Book, Suffolk, eds. J. Morris and A. Rumble, 2 vols. (Chichester, 1986) English Historical Documents, I, c. 500–1042, eds. D.C. Douglas and D. Whitelock (London, 1979) English Lawsuits from William I to Richard I, ed. R.C. van Caenegem, Selden Society, cvi, 2 vols. (1990–1) Eye Priory Cartulary and Charters, parts one and two, ed. V. Brown, Suffolk Charters xii–xiii for the Suffolk Record Society, 2 vols. (Woodbridge, 1992–4) Facsimiles of English Royal Writs to AD 1100 presented to V.H. Galbraith, eds. T.A.M. Bishop and P. Chaplais (Oxford, 1957) Facsmiles of Royal and Other Charters in the British Museum, ed. G. Warner (London, 1903) Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae, 1066–1300: I, St. Paul’s, London, ed. D. Greenway (London, 1968) Felix’s Life of St Guthlac: Introduction, Text, Translation and Notes, ed. B. Colgrave (Cambridge, 1956) First Register of Norwich Cathedral Priory, ed. H.W. Sanders, Norfolk Record Society xi (1939) Geoffrey Gaimar, L’Estoire des Engles solum la translacion Maistre Geffrei Gaimar, eds. T.D. Hardy and C.T. Martin, 2 vols., RS (London, 1888–9) The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni, ed. E. van Houts, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1992–5) Henry, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, Historia Anglorum: the History of the English People, ed. D. Greenway (Oxford, 1996) Hermann the Archdeacon, Miraculis de Sancti Eadmundi, Memorials of St Edmunds Abbey, ed. T. Arnold, 3 vols., RS (London, 1890–96) The Historical Works of Master Ralph de Diceto, ed. W. Stubbs, 2 vols., RS (London, 1876) Inquisitio Comitatus Cantabrigiensis, ed. N.E.S.A. Hamilton (London, 1876) Jocelin of Brakelond, Chronicle of the Abbey of Bury St Edmunds, eds. D. Greenway and J. Sayers (Oxford, 1989) John of Worcester, The Chronicle of John of Worcester, eds. R.R. Darlington, P. McGurk and J. Bray, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1995–8) Liber Feodorum: The Book of Fees, Commonly Called Testa de Nevill, eds. H.C. Maxwell-Lyte et al., 3 vols. (London, 1920–31) The Liber Vitae of the New Minster and Hyde Abbey, Winchester: British Library Stowe 944: Together with Leaves from British Library Cotton Vespasian A. VIII and British Library Cotton Titus D. XXVII, ed. S.D. Keynes, Early English Manuscripts in Facsimile XXVI (Copenhagen, 1996) Libri confratentium Sancti Galli Augiensis Fabariesis, ed. P. Piper, Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Berlin, 1884) The Life of King Edward Who Rests at Westminster attributed to a monk of St Bertin, ed. F. Barlow, 2nd edn (London, 1992)

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

162

12:00 PM

Page 162

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Memorials of Saint Edmund’s Abbey, ed. T. Arnold, 3 vols., RS (London, 1890–6) The Peterborough Chronicle of Hugh Candidus, eds. C. Mellows and W.T. Mellows, 2nd edn (Peterborough, 1966) Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum: The Acta of William I (1066–1087), ed. D. Bates (Oxford, 1998) Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum 1066–1154. I, Regesta Willelmi Conquestoris et Willelmi Rufus, ed. H.W.C. Davis (Oxford, 1913) Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum. III, Regesta Regis Stephani ac Mathildis Imperatricis ac Gaufridi et Henrici Ducum Normannorum, eds. H.A. Cronne and R.H.C. Davis (Oxford, 1968) Regularis Concordia, the Monastic Agreement of the Monks and Nuns of the English Nation, ed. T. Symons (London, 1953) Select English Historical Documents of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries, ed. F.E. Harmer (Cambridge, 1914) Stoke-by-Clare Cartulary: BL Cotton Appx. xxi, eds. C. Harper-Bill and R. Mortimer, Suffolk Charters iv–vi for the Suffolk Records Society, 3 vols. (Woodbridge, 1982–4) Trollope, A., The Way We Live Now (London, 1875) The Waltham Chronicle: an Account of the Discovery of Our Holy Cross at Montacute and its Conveyance to Waltham, eds. L. Watkiss and M. Chibnall (Oxford, 1994) Three Lives of English Saints, eds. M. Winterbottom (Toronto, 1972) The Will of Æthelgifu: A Tenth Century Anglo-Saxon Manuscript, ed. D. Whitelock with appendices by N. Ker and Lord Rennell (London, 1968) William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum Anglorum, ed. N.E.S.A. Hamilton, RS, (London, 1870) William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regvm Anglorvm. The History of the English kings, eds. R.A.B. Mynors, R.M. Thomson and M. Winterbottom, 2 vols. (Oxford 1998–9) William of Poitiers, Gesta Guillelmi, eds. R.H.C. Davis and M. Chibnall (Oxford, 1998) Wulfstan of Winchester, The Life of St Æthelwold, eds. M. Lapidge and M. Winterbottom (Oxford, 1991)

SECONDARY SOURCES Abrams, L., ‘Edward the Elder’s Danelaw’, Edward the Elder 899–924, eds. N.J. Higham and D.H. Hill (Manchester, 2001), pp. 128–43 Althoff, G., Amicitae und Pacta: Bündnis, Einung, Politik und Gebetsgedenken im beginnenden 10. Jahrhundert (Hannover, 1992) Altschul, M., A Baronial Family in Medieval England: The Clares, 1217–1314 (Baltimore, MD, 1965) Andrews, P., Excavations at Redcastle Furze, Thetford 1988–92, East Anglian Archaeology lxxii (1995) Astbury, A.K., The Black Fens (Cambridge, 1958) Aurell, M., Une famille de la noblesse provençale au Moyen Age: les Porclet (Avignon, 1986) Aurell, M., Les noces du comte: marriage et pouvoir en Catalogne (Paris, 1995) Aurell, M., ‘The Western Nobility in the Late Middle Ages: A Survey of the Historiography and some Prospects for New Research’, Nobles and Nobility in Medieval Europe: Concepts, Origins, Transformations, ed. A.J. Duggan (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 263–73 Aurell, M., ‘La parenté en l’an mil’, Cahiers de civilisation médiévale (numéros spéciaux ‘Regards croisés sur l’an mil’) xliii (2000), pp. 125–42

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

12:00 PM

Page 163

BIBLIOGRAPHY

163

Aurell, M., ‘Apprehensions Historiographiques de la féodalité Anglo-Normande et Méditerranéenne (XIe–XIIe s.)’, Présence du féodalisme et présent de la féodalité, eds. N. Fryde, P. Monnet and G. Oexle (Göttingen, 2002), pp. 175–94 Ayers, B., English Heritage Book of Norwich (London, 1994) Banton, N., ‘Monastic Reform and the Unification of Tenth-Century England’, Religion and National Identity: Papers Read at the Nineteenth Summer Meeting and the Twentieth Winter Meeting of the Ecclesiastical History Society, ed. S. Mews, Studies in Church History XVIII (Oxford, 1982), pp. 71–85 Barker, E.E., ‘Two Lost Documents of King Athelstan’, ASE vi (1977), pp. 137–43 Barlow, F., The English Church 1000–1066. A History of the Later Anglo-Saxon Church, 2nd edn (London, 1979) Barlow, F., William Rufus (London, 1983) Barrow, J.S., ‘English Cathedral Communities and Reform in the Late Tenth and Eleventh Centuries’, Anglo-Norman Durham: 1093–1193, eds. D. Rollason, M. Harvey and M. Prestwich (Woodbridge, 1994), pp. 25–39 Barrow, J.S., ‘The community of Worcester, 961-c.1100’, St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence, eds. N.P. Brooks and C.R.E. Cubitt (Leicester, 1996), pp. 84–99 Barrow, J.S., ‘Survival and Mutation: Ecclesiastical Institutions in the Danelaw in the Ninth and Tenth Centuries’, Cultures in Contact: Scandinavian Settlement in England and Wales, eds. D.M. Hadley and J. Richards (Turnhout, 2000), pp. 155–78 Barthélemy, D., La société dans le comté de Vendôme, de l’an mil au XIVe siècle (Paris, 1993) Barthélemy, D., La mutation de l’an mil a-t-elle eu lieu? Servage et chevalerie dans la France des Xe et XIe siècles (Paris, 1997) Bartlett, R., The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change 950–1350 (London, 1993) Bates, D., Normandy before 1066 (London, 1982) Bates, D., ‘The Rise and Fall of Normandy c.911–1204’, England and Normandy in the Middle Ages, eds. D. Bates and A. Curry (London, 1994), pp. 19–35 Bates, D., ‘England and the Feudal Revolution’, Il Feudalismo nell’alto medioevo, Settimane di Studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo xlvii (Spoleto, 2000), pp. 611–49 Beresford, G., ‘Goltho manor, Lincolnshire: The Buildings and their Surrounding Defences c.850–1150’, ANS iv (1981), pp. 13–36 Berry, M., ‘What the Saxon Monks Sang: Music in Winchester in the Late Tenth Century’, Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. B. Yorke (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 149–60 Bijsterveld, A.J., H.B. Teunis and A.F. Wareham, eds., Negotiating Secular and Ecclesiastical Power: Western Europe in the Central Middle Ages, International Medieval Research VI (Turnhout, 1999) Bijsterveld, A.J., ‘Conflict and Compromise: The Premonstratensians of Ninove (Flanders) and the Laity in the Twelfth Century’, Negotiating Secular and Ecclesiastical Power: Western Europe in the Central Middle Ages, eds. A.J. Bijsterveld et al., pp. 167–84 Bisson, T.N., ‘The “Feudal Revolution” ’, Past and Present cxlii (1994), pp. 6–42 Blair, J., ed., Minsters and Parish Churches: The Local Church in Transition 950–1200, Oxford University Committee for Archaeology XVII (Oxford, 1988) Blair, J., ‘Introduction’, Minsters and Parish Churches, ed. idem, pp. 1–20 Blake, E.O., ‘Introduction’, Liber Eliensis, pp. xxiii-lx Bloch, M., La société féodale, 6th edn (Paris, 1978) Bois, G., The Transformation of the Year One Thousand: The Village of Lournard from Antiquity to Feudalism, trans. J. Birrell (Manchester, 1992) Bonnassie, P., La Catalogne du milieu du Xe à la fin du XIe siècle (Paris, 1972) Bouchard, C.B., ‘Family Structure and Family Consciousness among the Aristocracy in the Ninth to Eleventh Centuries’, Francia xiv (1986), pp. 639–58

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

164

12:00 PM

Page 164

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bouchard, C.B., Sword, Miter and Cloister: Nobility and the Church in Burgundy, 980–1198 (Ithaca, NY, 1987) Bouchard, C.B., Holy Entrepreneurs: Cistercians, Knights and Economic Exchanges in TwelfthCentury Burgundy (Ithaca, NY, 1991) Bouchard, C.B., “Strong of Body, Brave and Noble”: Chivalry and Society in Medieval France (Ithaca, NY, 1998) Breslau, H., Jahrbücher des deutschen Reiches unter Konrad II, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1879–94) Brooks, N.P., The Early History of Canterbury: Christ Church from 597 to 1066, Studies in the Early History of Britain (Leicester, 1984) Brooks, N.P., ‘The Career of St Dunstan’, St Dunstan: His Life, Times and Cult, eds. N. Ramsay, M. Sparks and T. Tatton-Brown (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 1–23 Brooks, N.P., ‘Arms, Status and Warfare in Late-Saxon England’, idem, Communities and Warfare 700–1400 (London, 2000), pp. 138–61 Brooks, N.P. and C.R.E. Cubitt, eds., St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence, Studies in the Early History of Britain: The Makers of England II (Leicester, 1996) Brown, E.A.R., ‘George Duby and the Three Orders’, Viator xvii (1986), pp. 51–64 Brown, R.A., ‘An Historian’s Approach to the Origins of the Castle in England’, Archaeological Journal cxxvi (1969), pp. 131–48 Brown, R.A., The Norman Conquest of England, 2nd edn (Woodbridge, 1985) Brown, R.A., The Normans and the Norman Conquest of England, 2nd edn (Woodbridge, 1985) Budny, M., ‘The Byrhtnoth Tapestry or Embroidery’, The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg (Oxford, 1991), pp. 263–78 Bur, M., La formation du comté de Champagne v. 950–1150 (Nancy, 1977) Campbell, J., The Anglo-Saxon State (London, 2000) Campbell, J., ‘The Late Anglo-Saxon State: A Maximum View’, idem, The Anglo-Saxon State, pp. 1–30 Campbell, J., ‘The East Anglia Sees before the Conquest’, idem, Anglo-Saxon State, pp. 107–28 Campbell, J., ‘England, c. 991’, idem, Anglo-Saxon State, pp. 157–78 Campbell, J., ‘Some Agents and Agencies of the Late Anglo-Saxon State’, idem, Anglo-Saxon State, pp. 201–25 Campbell, J., ‘The Sale of Land and the Economics of Power in Early England: Problems and Possibilities’, idem, Anglo-Saxon State, pp. 227–45 Campbell, J., ‘What is not Known about the reign of King Edward the Elder’, Edward the Elder 899–924, eds. N.J. Higham and D.H. Hill (Manchester, 2001), pp. 12–24 Caron, M.-T., Noblesse et pouvoir royal en France (XIIIe–XVIe siècle) (Paris, 1994) Chadwick, H.M., Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions (Cambridge, 1905) Chaplais, P., ‘The Original Charters of Herbert and Gervase, Abbots of Westminster (1121–1157)’, A Medieval Miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton, eds. P.M. Barnes and C.F. Slade, Publications of the Pipe Roll Society n.s. xxxvi (London, 1962), pp. 89–110 Charles-Edwards, T.M., ‘Anglo-Saxon Kinship Revisited’, The Anglo-Saxons from the Migration Period to the Eighth Century: An Ethnographic Perspective, ed. J. Hines, Studies in Historical Archaeology II (Woodbridge, 1997), pp. 171–204 Chibnall, M., The Debate on the Norman Conquest (Manchester, 1999) Church of St Mary: Stoke-by-Nayland (Stoke-by-Nayland, 2000) Clanchy, M.T., From Memory to Written Record. England 1066–1307, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1993) Clark, C., ‘On Dating The Battle of Maldon: Certain Evidence Reviewed’, Words, Names and History: Selected Writings of Cecily Clark, ed. P. Jackson (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 20–36 Clark, C., ‘Women’s Names in Post-Conquest England: Observations and Speculations’, Words, Names and History: Selected Writings of Cecily Clark, ed. P. Jackson (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 117–43

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

12:00 PM

Page 165

BIBLIOGRAPHY

165

Clark, C., ‘The Liber Vitae of Thorney Abbey’, Words, Names and History: Selected Writings of Cecily Clark, ed. P. Jackson (Cambridge, 1995), pp. 301–47 Clarke, P.A., The English Nobility under Edward the Confessor (Oxford, 1994) Clay, C.T., ‘The Ancestry of the Early Lords of Warworth’, Archaeologia Aeliana, 4th ser. xxxii (1954), pp. 65–71 Clover, C., ‘Regardless of Sex: Men, Women and Power in Early Northern Europe’, Speculum lxviii (1993), pp. 363–87 Coad, J.G. and A.D. Streeten, ‘Excavations at Castle Acre, Norfolk, 1972–77: Country House and Castle of the Norman Earls of Surrey’, Archaeological Journal cxxxix (1982), pp. 138–301 Cokayne, G. et al., eds., The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, 14 vols. (London, 1910–59) Constable, G., ‘Commemoration and Confraternity at Cluny during the Abbacy of Peter the Venerable’, Die Clunianzer in ihrem politisch-sozialen Umfeld, eds. idem, G. Melville and J. Oberste (Münster, 1998), pp. 253–78 Contamine, P., La noblesse au royaume de la France de Phillipe le Bel à Louis XII (Paris, 1997) Cooper, J., ed., The Battle of Maldon: Fiction and Fact (London, 1993) Copinger, W.A., The Manors of Suffolk: Notes on their History and Devolution, with Some Illustrations of the Old Manor Houses, 7 vols. (London, 1905–11) Corbett, W.J., ‘The Development of the Duchy of Normandy and the Norman Conquest of England’, The Cambridge Medieval History, v, Conquest of Empire and Papacy, eds. J.R. Tanner, C.W. Previte-Orton and Z.N. Brooke (Cambridge, 1926) Coss, P., Lordship, Knighthood and Locality: A Study in English Society c.1180–c.1280 (Cambridge, 1991) Coulson, C., ‘The Castles of the Anarchy’, The Anarchy of King Stephen’s Reign, ed. E. King (Oxford, 1994), pp. 67–92 Cownie, E., Religious Patronage in Anglo-Norman England, 1066–1135 (London, 1998) Cox, D., ‘St Oswald of Worcester at Evesham Abbey: Cult and Concealment’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History liii (2002), pp. 269–84 Crick, J., ‘Women, Posthumous Benefaction, and Family Strategy in Pre-Conquest England’, Journal of British Studies xxxviii (1999), pp. 399–422 Darby, H.C., The Medieval Fenland (Cambridge, 1940) Darby, H.C., The Domesday Geography of Eastern England (Cambridge, 1952) Davidson, B.K., ‘Excavations at Sulgrave, Northamptonshire’, Archaeological Journal cxxxiv (1977), pp. 105–14 Davies, W. and P. Fouracre, eds., The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge, 1986) Davies, W. and P. Fouracre, eds., Property and Power in Early Medieval Europe (Cambridge, 1995) Davis, R.H.C., King Stephen 1135–1154 (London, 1967) Debord, A., La société laïque dans le pays de la Charente Xe–XIIe siècles (Paris, 1984) Denholm-Young, N., Collected papers of N. Denholm-Young (Cardiff, 1969) Deshman, R., The Benedictional of Æthelwold, Studies in Manuscript Illumination IX (Princeton, NJ, 1995) Devailly, G., Le Berry du Xe siècle au milieu du XIIIe siècle: Étude politique, religieuse, sociale et économique (Paris, 1973) Dodwell, C.R., Anglo-Saxon Art: A New Perspective (Manchester, 1982) Duby, G., ‘Economie dominaile et économie monétaire: le budget de l’abbaye de Cluny entre 1080 et 1155’, Annales vii (1952), pp. 155–71 Duby, G., La société au XIe et XIIe siècles dans la région mâconnaise, 2nd edn (Paris, 1971) Duby, G., Hommes et structures du moyen âge: receuil d’artcles (Paris, 1973)

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

166

12:00 PM

Page 166

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Duby, G., ‘Les “jeunes” dans la société dans la France du Nord-Ouest au XIIe siècle’, idem, Hommes et structures du moyen âge, pp. 213–25 Duby, G., ‘Structure de parenté et noblesse dans la Franc du Nord aux XIe et XIIe siècles’, idem, Hommes et structures du moyen âge, pp. 267–85 Duby, G., Medieval Marriage: Two Models from Twelfth-Century France, trans. E. Forster, Johns Hopkins Symposia in Comparative History (Baltimore, MD, 1978) Duggan, A.J., ed., Nobles and Nobility in Medieval Europe: Concepts, Origins, Transformations, (Woodbridge, 2000) Dumville, D.N., Wessex and England from Alfred to Edgar: Six Essays on Political, Cultural and Ecclesiastical Revival, Studies in Anglo-Saxon History III (Woodbridge, 1992) Dumville, D.N., ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Origins of English Square Miniscule Script’, idem, Wessex and England, pp. 55–98 Dumville, D.N., ‘The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle and the Origins of English Square Miniscule Script: Appendix III: The Royal Estate at Bedwyn (Wiltshire)’, idem, Wessex and England, pp. 107–12 Dumville, D.N., ‘Learning and the Church in the England of King Edmund I, 939–46’, idem, Wessex and England, pp. 173–84 Dumville, D.N., English Caroline Script and Monastic History: Studies in Benedictinism, A.D. 950–1030, Studies in Anglo-Saxon History V (Woodbridge, 1993) Ekwall, E., The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Place-Names (Oxford, 1960) English Heritage, Power of Place: the Future of the Historic Environment (London, 2000) Fell, C., Women in Anglo-Saxon England (London, 1984) Fenoaltea, S., ‘Review of Domesday Economy’, Speculum lxiii (1988), pp. 955–6 Finberg, H.P.R., ‘The House of Ordgar and the Foundation of Tavistock Abbey’, EHR lviii (1943), pp. 190–201 Finn, R.W., , Domesday Studies: The Eastern Counties (London, 1967) Finn, R.W., The Norman Conquest and its Effects on the Economy: 1066–86 (London, 1971) Fisher, D.J.V., ‘The Anti-Monastic Reaction in the Reign of Edward the Martyr’, Cambridge Historical Journal x (1952), pp. 254–70 Fleming, R., Kings and Lords in Conquest England (Cambridge, 1991) Fleming, R., ‘Rural Elites and Urban Communities in Late-Saxon England’, Past and Present, cxli (1993), pp. 3–37 Fleming, R., Domesday Book and the Law: Society and Legal Custom in Early Medieval England (Cambridge, 1998) Fletcher, R., The Conversion of Europe: from Paganism to Christianity 371–1386 AD (London, 1997) Foot, S., Veiled Women, II: Female Religious Communities in England, 871–1066, Studies in the Early History of Britain (Aldershot, 2000) Fossier, R., La terre et les hommes en Picardie jusqu’à la fin milieu du XIIIe siècle, 2 vols. (Paris, 1968) Fouracre, P., ‘The Origins of the Nobility in Francia’, Nobles and Nobility in Medieval Europe: Concepts, Origins, Transformations, ed. A.J. Duggan (Woodbridge, 2000), pp. 17–24 Fournier, G., Le château dans la France médiévale: essai de sociologie monumentale (Paris, 1978) Freedman, P., The Origins of Peasant Servitude in Medieval Catalonia (Cambridge, 1991) Freeman, E.A., The History of the Norman Conquest of England, its Causes and its Results, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1870–9) Friese, E., ‘Kalendarische und annalistische Grundformen’, Memoria: der historische Zeugniswert liturgischen Gedenkens im Mittelalter, eds. K. Schmid and J. Wollasch (Munich, 1984), pp. 441–577 Fryde, N., P. Monnet and G. Oexle, eds., Présence du féodalisme et présent de la féodalité. Actes du Colloque de Göttingen (30 juin-1er juillet, 2000) (Göttingen, 2002)

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

12:00 PM

Page 167

BIBLIOGRAPHY

167

Garaud,M., Les châtelains du Poitou et l’avènement du régime féodal (Poitiers, 1964) Geary, P.J., ‘Exchange and Interaction between the Living and the Dead in Early Medieval Society’, idem, Living with the Dead in the Middle Ages (Ithaca, NY, 1994), pp. 77–92 Gelling, M., The Early Charters of the Thames Valley, Studies in Early English History VII (Leicester, 1979) Gerchow, J., Die Gedenküberlieferung der Angelsachsen: Mit einem Katalog der libri vitae und Necrologien, Arbeiten zur Frühmittelalterforschung: Schriftenreihe des Instituts für Frühmittelalterforschung der Universität Münster xx (Berlin, 1988) Gillingham, J., The English in the Twelfth Century: Imperialism, National Identity and Political Values (Woodbridge, 2000) Gillingham, J., ‘Thegns and Knights in Eleventh-Century England: Who was then the Gentleman?’, idem, English in the Twelfth Century, pp. 163–85 Gillingham, J., ‘The Introduction of Knight Service into England’, idem, English in the Twelfth Century, pp. 187–208 Gillingham, J., ‘Some Observations on Social Mobility in England between the Norman Conquest and the Early Thirteenth Century’, idem, English in the Twelfth Century, pp. 259–76 Gneuss, H., ‘The Battle of Maldon 89: Byrhtnoð’s ofermod Once Again’, Studies in Philology lxxiii (1976), pp. 117–37 Godden, M., ‘Money, Power and Morality in Late Anglo-Saxon England’, ASE xix (1990), pp. 41–65 Goody, J., The Development of Family and Marriage in Europe (Cambridge, 1986) Gransden, A., Historical Writing in England c. 550–1307 (London, 1974) Gransden, A., ‘Traditionalism and Continuity During the Last Century of Anglo-Saxon Monasticism’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History xl (1989), pp. 159–207 Green, J.A., ‘The Last Century of Danegeld’, EHR xvcvi (1981), pp. 241–58 Green, J.A., ‘The Sheriffs of William the Conqueror’, ANS v (1982), pp. 129–45 Green, J.A., The Government of England under Henry I (Cambridge, 1986) Green, J.A., English Sheriffs to 1154, Public Record Office Handbooks xxiv (London, 1990) Green, J.A., The Aristocracy of Norman England (Cambridge, 1997) Guillot, O., Le comté d’Anjou et son entourage au XIe siècle (Paris, 1972) Hadley, D.M. and J. Richards, Cultures in Contact: Scandinavian Settlement in England and Wales (Turnhout, 2000) Hadley, D.M. and J. Richards, ‘Introduction’, Cultures in Contact, eds. Hadley and Richards, pp. 3–13 Halpin, P.A., ‘Anglo-Saxon Women and Pilgrimage’, ANS xix (1996), pp. 97–122 Hart, C.R., The Danelaw (London, 1992) Hart, C.R., ‘The Eastern Danelaw’, idem, Danelaw, pp. 25–113 Hart, C.R., ‘The Ealdordom of Essex’, idem, Danelaw, pp. 115–140 Hart, C.R., ‘Oundle: Its Province and the Eight Hundreds’, idem, Danelaw, pp. 141–76 Hart, C.R., ‘The Will of Ælfgifu’, idem, Danelaw, pp. 455–65 Hart, C.R, ‘The Battles of the Holme, Brunanburh and Ringmere’, idem, Danelaw, pp. 511–33 Hart, C.R., ‘Athelstan ‘Half-King’ and his Family’, idem, Danelaw, pp. 569–604 Hart, C.R., ‘Hereward ‘The Wake’ and his Companions’, idem, Danelaw, pp. 625–48 Harvey, S.P.J., ‘The Extent and Profitability of Demesne Agriculture in the Later Eleventh Century’, Social Relations and Ideas: Essays in Honour of R.H. Hilton, eds. T.H. Aston, P.R. Coss, C.C. Dyer and J. Thirsk (Cambridge, 1983), pp. 45–73 Harvey, S.P.J., ‘Taxation and the Economy’, Domesday Studies, ed. J.C. Holt (Woodbridge, 1987), pp. 249–65 Herbst, J., States and Power in Africa: Comparative Lessons in Authority and Control (Princeton, NJ, 2000)

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

168

12:00 PM

Page 168

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Higham, N.J. and D.H. Hill, eds., Edward the Elder 899–924 (Manchester, 2001) Hollister, C.W., ‘The Significance of Scutage Rates in Eleventh- and Twelfth-Century England, EHR lxxv (1960), pp. 577–88 Hollister, C.W., ‘The Five Hide Unit and Old English Military Obligation’, Speculum xxxvi (1961), pp. 61–74 Hollister, C.W., ‘The Misfortunes of the Mandevilles’, History lviii (1973), pp. 18–28 Hollister, C.W., ‘The Taming of the Turbulent Earl: Henry I and William of Warenne’, idem, Monarchy, Magnates and Institutions in the Anglo-Norman World (London, 1986), pp. 137–44 Hollister, C.W., ‘The Greater Domesday Tenants-in-Chief’, Domesday Studies, ed. J.C. Holt (Woodbridge, 1987), pp. 219–48 Hollister, C.W., Henry I (London, 2001) Holt, J.C., ed., Domesday Studies: Papers read at the Novocentenary Conference of the Royal Historical Society and the Institute of British Geographers, Winchester, 1986 (Woodbridge, 1987) Holt, J.C., Colonial England 1066–1215 (London, 1997) Holt, J.C., ‘Feudal Society and the Family in Early Medieval England, I: The Revolution of 1066’, idem, Colonial England, pp. 161–78 Holt, J.C., ‘What’s in a Name? Family Nomenclature and the Norman Conquest’, Colonial England, pp. 179–96 Hoyt, R.S., The Royal Demesne in English Constitutional History (Ithaca, NY, 1950) Hudson, J., ‘Life-grants of Land and the Development of Inheritance in Anglo-Norman England’, ANS xii (1990), pp. 67–80 Hudson, J., Land, Law and Lordship in Anglo-Norman England (Oxford, 1994) Huggins, P.J. with contributions by K.N. Bascombe and R.M. Huggins, ‘Excavations of the Collegiate and Augustinian churches, Waltham Abbey, Essex, 1984–87’, Archaeological Journal cxlvi, pp. 476–537 Hunt, J., ‘Piety, Prestige or Politics? The House of Leofric and the Foundation and Patronage of Coventry Cathedral’, Coventry’s First Cathedral: The Cathedral and Priory of St. Mary: Papers from the 1993 Anniversary Symposium, ed. G.W. Demidowicz (Stamford, 1994), pp. 97–116 Il Feudalismo nell’alto medioevo, Settimane di Studio del Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo xlvii (Spoleto, 2000) Innes, M., ‘Danelaw Identities: Ethnicity, Regionalism, and Political Allegiance’, Cultures in Contact: Scandinavian Settlement in England and Wales, eds. D.M. Hadley and J. Richards (Turnhout, 2000), pp. 65–88 An Inventory of Historical Monuments in the County of Cambridge, ii, North-East Cambridge, Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (London, 1972) Jackson, P., ‘Ælfric and the Purpose of Christian Marriage: a Reconsideration of the Life of Æthelthryth, lines 120–30’, ASE xxix (2000), pp. 235–60 John, E., Orbis Britanniae and Other Studies, Studies in Early English History IV (Leicester, 1966) John, E., ‘The King and the Monks in the Tenth-Century Reformation’, idem, Orbis Britanniae, pp. 154–80 John, E., ‘The Beginning of the Benedictine Reform Movement in England’, idem, Orbis Brittanniae, pp. 249–64 John, E., ‘War and Society in the Tenth Century: The Maldon Campaign’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th ser. xxvii (1977), pp. 173–91 Johnson, P.D., Prayer, Patronage and Power: The Abbey of La Trinité (Vendôme), 1032–1187 (New York, NY, 1981) Jong, M. de, In Samuel’s Image: Child Oblation in the Early Medieval West (Leiden, 1996)

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

12:00 PM

Page 169

BIBLIOGRAPHY

169

Jørgensen, E., ‘Bidrag til aeldre nordisk Kirke – og Literaturhistorie’, Nordisk Tidscrift för Bok – och Biblioteksväsan xx (1933), pp. 186–91 Kapelle, W., The Norman Conquest of the North: the Region and its Transformation (London, 1979) Keats-Rohan, K.S.B., ‘Domesday Book and the Malets’, Nottingham Medieval Studies xli (1997), pp. 13–51 Keats-Rohan, K.S.B., Domesday People: A Prosopography of Persons Occurring in English Documents 1066–1166. I, Domesday Book (Woodbridge, 1999) Kehoe, E., Fortune’s Daughters: The Extravagant Lives of the Jerome Sisters: Jennie Churchill, Clara Frewen and Leonie Leslie (London, 2004) Kennedy, A., ‘Byrhtnoth’s Obits and Twelfth-Century Accounts of the Battle of Maldon’, The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg (Oxford, 1991), pp. 59–80 Ker, N., Medieval Libraries of Great Britain (London, 1964) Kerr, J., ‘Monastic Hospitality: The Benedictines in England, c.1075-c.1245’, ANS xxiii (2000), pp. 97–114 Keynes, S.D., The Diplomas of King Æthelred ‘the Unready’ 978–1016. A Study in their Use as Historical Evidence (Cambridge, 1980) Keynes, S.D., ‘Regenbald the Chancellor (sic)’, ANS x (1987), pp. 185–222 Keynes, S.D., ‘The Historical Context of the Battle of Maldon’, The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg (Oxford, 1991), pp. 81–113 Keynes, S.D., ‘An Atlas of Attestations in Anglo-Saxon England’ (Department of AngloSaxon, Norse and Celtic, University of Cambridge, 1998) Keynes, S.D., ‘Apocalypse then: England A.D. 1000’, Europe Around the Year 1000, ed. P. Urbanczyk (Warsaw, 2001), pp. 247–70 Keynes, S.D., ‘Ely Abbey 672–1109’, A History of Ely Cathedral, eds. P. Meadows and N. Ramsay (Woodbridge, 2003), pp. 3–58 Klinck, A., ‘Anglo-Saxon Women and the Law’, Journal of Medieval History viii (1982), pp. 107–21 Knowles, D., The Monastic Order in England: a History of its development from the Times of St Dunstan to the Fourth Lateran Council 940–1216, 2nd edn (Cambridge, 1963) Lancaster, L., ‘Kinship in Anglo-Saxon Society’, British Journal of Sociology ix (1958), pp. 230–50, 359–77 Lapidge, M., ‘The Hermeneutic Style in Tenth Century Anglo-Latin Literature’, ASE iv (1975), pp. 67–111 Lapidge, M., ‘The Life of St Oswald’, The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg (Oxford, 1991), pp. 51–58 Lapidge, M., ‘Byrhtferth and Oswald’, St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence, eds. N.P. Brooks and C.R.E. Cubitt (Leicester, 1996), pp. 64–83 Lawson, M.K., ‘The Collection of Danegeld and Heregeld in the Reigns of Æthelred II and Cnut’, EHR lxxxxix (1984), pp. 721–38 Lawson, M.K., ‘Those Stories Look True: Levels of Taxation in the Reigns of Æthelred II and Cnut’, EHR civ (1989), pp. 385–406 Lawson, M.K., Cnut: The Danes in England in the Early Eleventh Century (London, 1993) Le Jan, R., Famille et pouvoir dans le monde Franc (VIIe-Xe siècle). Essai d’anthroplogie sociale (Paris, 1995) Le Jan, R., ed., La royauté et les élites dans l’Europe carolingienne: début IXe siècle aux environs de 920 (Lille, 1998) Le Patourel, J., The Norman Empire (Oxford, 1976) Lennard, R., Rural England 1086–1135: A Study of Social and Agrarian Conditions (Oxford, 1959) Lewis, C.P., ‘The Early Earls of Norman England’, ANS xiii (1990), pp. 207–23

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

170

12:00 PM

Page 170

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Leyser, K.J., Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society: Ottonian Saxony (Oxford, 1979) Liddiard, R., ‘Landscapes of Lordship’: Norman Castles and the Countryside in Medieval Norfolk, 1066–1200, British Archaeological Reports, British ser. cccix (Oxford, 2000) Liddiard, R., ed., Anglo-Norman Castles (Woodbridge, 2002) Locherbie-Cameron, M., ‘Byrhtnoth and his Family’, The Battle of Maldon AD 991, ed. D. Scragg (Oxford, 1991), pp. 253–62 Loyd, L.C., The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families, eds. C.T. Clay and D. Douglas, Harleian Society ciii (Leeds, 1951) Loyn, H., Society and Peoples: Studies in the History of England and Wales, c. 600–1200 (London, 1992) Loyn, H., ‘Kinship in Anglo-Saxon England’, idem, Society and Peoples, pp. 45–64 Loyn, H., ‘1066: Should We have Celebrated?’, idem, Society and Peoples, pp. 322–38 McDonald, J. and G. Snooks, Domesday Economy: A New Approach to Anglo-Norman History (Oxford, 1986) McLaughlin, M., Consorting with Saints: Prayer for the Dead in Early Medieval France (Ithaca, NY, 1994) Mack, K., ‘The Stallers: Administrative Innovation in the Reign of Edward the Confessor’, Journal of Medieval History xii (1986), pp. 123–34 Macray, W.D., ‘Preface’, Chron. Rames., pp. vii-lvi Mair, L., Marriage (London, 1977) Margary, I.D., Roman Roads in Britain, 3rd edn (London, 1973) Mason, J.F.A., William I and the Sussex Rapes (Bexhill, 1966) Mayr-Harting, H.M.R.E., ‘Artists and Patrons’, New Cambridge Medieval History. III, c. 900–1024, ed. T. Reuter (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 212–33 Miller, E., The Abbey and Bishopric of Ely: The Social History of an Ecclesiastical Estate from the Tenth Century to the Early Fourteenth Century, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 2nd ser. I (Cambridge, 1951) Morant, P., The History and Antiquities of the County of Essex: Compiled from the Best and Most Ancient Historians; From Domesday-Book, Inquisitiones Post Mortem, and Other Most Valuable records, 2 vols. (London, 1748–68) Mortimer, R., ‘The Beginnings of the Honour of Clare’, ANS iii (1980), pp. 119–41 Mortimer, R., ‘Land and Service: The Tenants of the Honour of Clare’, ANS viii (1985), pp. 177–97 Müller-Mertens, E., ‘The Ottonians as Kings and Emperors’, New Cambridge Medieval History. III, c. 900–1024, ed. T. Reuter (Cambridge, 1999), pp. 233–66 Musset, L., ‘Aux origines d’une classe dirigeante: les Tosny, grands barons normands du Xe au XIIIe siècle’, Francia v (1977), pp. 45–80 Page, A., A Supplement to the Suffolk Traveller (Ipswich, 1843) Palmer, J., ‘The Wealth of the Secular Aristocracy in 1086’, ANS xxii (1999), pp. 279–91 Parisse, M., Noblesse et chevalrie en Lorraine médiévale (Nancy, 1982) Parisse, M., ed., Veuves et veuvage dans le Haut Moyen Age: études réunies par M. Parisse; table ronde organisée à Göttingen par la Mission historique française en Allemagne (Paris, 1993) Paxton, J., ‘Textual Communities in the English Fenlands: a Lay Audience for Monastic Chronicles’, ANS xxvi (2004), pp. 123–37 Pestell, T., ‘Monastic Foundation Strategies in the Early Norman Diocese of Norwich’, ANS xxiii (2000), pp. 199–230 Pohl, W. and H. Reimitz, Strategies of Distinction: The Construction of Ethnic Communities, 300–800 (Leiden, 1998) Pollock, F. and F.W. Maitland, The History of English Common Law Before the Time of Edward I, 2nd edn, 2 vols. (Cambridge 1898)

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

12:00 PM

Page 171

BIBLIOGRAPHY

171

Poly, J.-P., La Provence et société féodale (879–1166) (Paris, 1976) Poly, J.-P. and É. Bournazel, La mutation féodale, Xe-XIIe siècles (Paris, 1980) (trans. C. Higgitt, The Feudal Transformation 900–1200 (New York, NY, 1991)) Pope, J., ‘Ælfric and the Old English Version of the Ely Privilege’, England Before the Conquest. Studies in Primary Sources Presented to Dorothy Whitelock, eds. P. Clemoes and K. Hughes (Cambridge, 1971), pp. 85–113 Raby, F.J.E. and P.K. Reynolds, Framlingham Castle (London, 1959) Raftis, J.A., The Estates of Ramsey Abbey: A Study in Economic Growth and Organization, Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies. Studies and Texts III (Toronto, 1957) Rankin, S., ‘Some Reflections on Liturgical Music at Late Anglo-Saxon Worcester’, St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence, eds. N.P. Brooks and C.R.E. Cubitt (Leicester, 1996), pp. 325–48 Ravensdale, J., Liable to Floods: Village Landscape on the Edge of the Fens AD 450–1850 (Cambridge, 1974) Rawski, T.G. et al., Economics and the Historian (Berkeley, CA, 1996) Reaney, P.H., The Place-Names of Cambridgeshire and the Isle of Ely (Cambridge, 1943) Renn, D., Norman Castles in Britain (London, 1968) Reuter, T., ed., The Medieval Nobility: Studies on the Ruling Classes of France and Germany from the Sixth to the Twelfth century (Amsterdam, 1979) Reuter, T., ‘Debate: The “Feudal Revolution” ’, Past and Present clv (1997), pp. 177–95 Reynolds, S., ‘What do we mean by “Anglo-Saxon” and “Anglo-Saxons”?’, Journal of British Studies xxiv (1985), pp. 395–414 Reynolds, S., Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted (Oxford, 1994) Ridyard, S.J., The Royal Saints of Anglo-Saxon England: A Study of West Saxon and East Anglian Cults, Cambridge Studies in Medieval Life and Thought, 4th ser. IX (Cambridge, 1988) Rodwell, W., ‘The Battle of Assandun and its Memorial Church’, Battle of Maldon: Fiction and Fact, ed. J. Cooper (London, 1993), pp. 127–58 Rosenwein, B.H., Rhinoceros Bound: The Abbey of Cluny in the Tenth Century (Philadelphia, PA, 1982) Rosenwein, B.H., To be the Neighbour of Saint Peter: The Social Meaning of Cluny’s Property, 909–1049 (Ithaca, NY, 1989) Roth, C., A History of the Jews in England, 3rd edn (Oxford, 1964) Round, J.H., ‘The Belvoir Cartulary’, Historical Manuscripts Commission. The Manuscripts of His Grace Duke of Rutland, 4 vols. (London, 1888–1905), iv, pp. 105–71 Round, J.H., Feudal England: Historical Studies on the Eleventh and Twelfth Centuries, 3rd edn (London, 1994) Ruiz-Domenic, J.E., ‘Système de parenté et théorie de l’alliance dans la société catalane (1000–1240)’, Revue Historique cxxxii (1979), pp. 305–26 Runciman, W.G., ‘Accelerating Social Mobility: The Case of Anglo-Saxon England’, Past and Present civ (1993), pp. 3–30 Sager, P., East Anglia: Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk (London, 1994) Sanders, I.J., English Baronies. A Study of their Origin and Descent, 1086–1327 (Oxford, 1960) Sawyer, P., ‘1066–1086: A Tenurial Revolution?’, Domesday Book: A Reassessment, ed. idem (London, 1985), pp. 71–85 Schmid, K., ‘Über die Strukur des Adels im früheren Mittelalter’, Jahrbuch für Fränkische Landesforschung xix (1959), pp. 1–23 (trans. T. Reuter, ‘The Structure of the Nobility in the Earlier Middle Ages’, The Medieval Nobility, ed. T. Reuter (Amsterdam, 1979), pp. 37–60) Schmid, K. et al., Die Zähringer. I, Eine Tradition und ihre Erforschung (Sigmaringen, 1986) Schmid, K. et al., Die Zähringer. II, Anstoss und Wirkung (Sigmaringen, 1986) Schmid, K. et al., Die Zähringer. III, Schweizer Vorträge und neue Forschungen (Sigmaringen, 1990)

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

172

12:00 PM

Page 172

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Schmid, K., ‘Zur Problematik von Familie, Sippe und Geschlecht, Haus und Dynastie beim mittelalterlichen Adel. Vortragen zum Thema: Adel und Herrschaft in Mittelalter’, Gebetsgedenken und adliges Selbstverständnis im Mittelalter, ed. idem (Simaringen, 1993), pp. 183–239 Schmid, K., Geblüt, Herrschaft, Geschlechterbewsstein. Grundfragen zum Verständnis des Adels im Mittelalter. Aus dem Nachlass herausgegeben und eingeleitet von Dieter Mertens und Thomas Zotz (Sigmaringen, 1998) Scragg, D., ed., The Battle of Maldon AD 991 (Oxford, 1991) Searle, E., Predatory Kinship and the Creation of Norman Power, 840–1066 (Berkeley, CA, 1988) Searle, W.G., Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicum: a List of Anglo-Saxon Proper Names from the Time of Beda to that of King John (Cambridge, 1897) Searle, W.G., Anglo-Saxon Bishops, Kings and Nobles: The Succession of the Bishops and the Pedigrees of the Kings and Nobles (Cambridge, 1899) Stafford, P., ‘The Laws of Cnut and the History of Anglo-Saxon Royal Promises’, ASE x (1982), pp. 173–90 Stafford, P., Unification and Conquest: a Political and Social History of England in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries (London, 1989) Stafford, P., Queen Emma and Queen Edith: Queenship and Women’s Power in Eleventh-Century England (Oxford, 1997) Stafford, P., ‘Queens, Nunneries and Reforming Churchmen: Gender, Religious Status and Reform in Tenth- and Eleventh-Century England’, Past and Present clxiii (1999), pp. 3–35 Stenton, F.M., ‘St Benet of Holme and the Norman Conquest’, EHR xxxvii (1922), pp. 225–35 Stenton, F.M., The First Century of English Feudalism 1066–1166, 2nd edn (Oxford, 1961) Strickland, M., ‘Military Technology and the Conquest: The Anomaly of England’, ANS xix (1996), pp. 353–82 Szabo, V.E., ‘The Use of Whales in Early Medieval Britain’, Haskins Society Journal ix (1997), pp. 137–158 Tabacco, G., ‘La rapport de parenté comme instrument de domination consortiale: quelques exemples piémontais’, Famille et parenté dans l’Occident médiéval, eds. G. Duby and J. Le Goff (Rome, 1977), pp. 153–158 Tellenbach, G., Die westliche Kirche vom 10. bis zum 12. Jahrhundert (Göttingen, 1988) (trans. T. Reuter, The Church in Western Europe from the Tenth to the Early Twelfth Century (Cambridge, 1993)) Tengvik, G., Old English Bynames (Uppsala, 1938) Teunis, H.B., ‘Negotiating Secular and Ecclesiastical Power in the Central Middle Ages: a Historiographical Introduction’, Negotiating Secular and Ecclesiastical Power: Western Europe in the Central Middle Ages, eds. A.J. Bijsteveld et al. (Turnhout, 1999), pp. 1–16 Thacker, A.T., ‘Æthelwold and Abingdon’, Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. B. Yorke (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 43–64 Thacker, A.T., ‘Saint-making and Relic Collecting by Oswald and His Communities’, St Oswald of Worcester: His Life and Influence, eds. N.P. Brooks and C.R.E. Cubitt (Leicester, 1996), pp. 244–68 Thomas, H., The English and the Normans: Ethnic Hostility, Assimilation and Identity 1066–1220 (Oxford, 2003) Tsurushima, H., ‘Forging Unity between Monks and Laity in Anglo-Norman England’, Negotiating Secular and Ecclesiastical Power: Western Europe in the Central Middle Ages, eds. A.J. Bijsteveald et al. (Turnhout, 1999), pp. 133–46 Urbanczyk, P., ed., Europe Around the Year 1000 (Warsaw, 2001) van Houts, E., Memory and Gender in Medieval Europe, 900–1200 (London, 1999)

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

12:00 PM

Page 173

BIBLIOGRAPHY

173

Wareham, A.F., ‘The Motives and Politics of the Bigod Family, c.1066–1177’, ANS xvii (1994), pp. 223–42 Wareham, A.F., ‘St Oswald’s Family and Kin’, St Oswald of Worcester: Life and Influence, eds. N.P. Brooks and C.R.E. Cubitt (Leicester, 1996), pp. 49–63 Wareham, A.F., ‘Two Models of Marriage: Kinship and the Social Order in England and Normandy’, Negotiating Secular and Ecclesiastical Power: Western Europe in the Central Middle Ages, eds. A.J. Bijsteaveld et al., International Medieval Research VI (Turnhout, 1999), pp. 107–32 Wareham, A.F., ‘The “Feudal Revolution” in Eleventh-Century East Anglia’, ANS xxii (1999), pp. 294–321 Wareham, A.F., ‘The Transformation of Kinship and the Family in Late Anglo-Saxon England’, Early Medieval Europe x (2001), pp. 375–99 Warner, P., The Origins of Suffolk (Manchester, 1996) Werner, K.F., ‘Bedeutende Adelsfamilien im Reich Karls der Grossen. Ein personengeschichtlicher Beitrag zum Verhältnis von Königtum und Adel im frühen Mittelalter’, Karl der Grosse, Lebenswerk und Nachleben. I: Persönlichkeit und Geschichte, ed. H. Beumann (Dusseldorf, 1967) (trans. T. Reuter, ‘Important Noble Families in the Kingdom of Charlemagne – a Prosopographical Study of the Relationship between the King and the Nobility in the Early Middle Ages’, The Medieval Nobility, ed. T. Reuter (Amsterdam, 1979), pp. 137–202) Werner, K.F., Von Frankreich zur Entfaltung Deutschlands und Frankreichs (Sigmaringen, 1984) Whitelock, D., ‘Scandinavian Personal Names in the Liber Vitae of Thorney Abbey’, SagaBook of the Viking Society xii (1937–45), pp. 127–53 Whitelock, D., ‘Foreword’, Lib. El., pp. ix–xviii Whitelock, D., ‘Some Anglo-Saxon Bishops of London’, eadem, History, Law and Literature in Tenth-Eleventh Century England (London, 1981), no. 2, pp. 3–34 Williams, A., ‘Princeps Merciorum gentis: The Family, Career and Connections of Ælfhere, Ealdorman of Mercia 956–83’, ASE x (1982), pp. 143–72 Williams, A., ‘The King’s Nephew: The Family and Career of Ralph, Earl of Hereford’, Studies in Medieval History Presented to R. Allen Brown, eds. C. Harper-Bill, C. Holdsworth and J.L. Nelson (Woodbridge, 1989), pp. 327–43 Williams, A., ‘A Bell-house and a Burh-geat: Lordly Residences in England before the Norman Conquest’, Medieval Knighthood IV: Papers from the Fifth Strawberry Hill Conference, eds. C. Harper-Bill and R. Harvey (Woodbridge, 1992), pp. 221–40 Williams, A., The English and the Norman Conquest (Woodbridge, 1995) Williams, A., Æthelred the Unready: The Ill-Counselled King (London, 2003) Williamson, T., The Origins of Norfolk (Manchester, 1993) Wormald, P., ‘Charters, Law and the Settlement of Disputes in Anglo-Saxon England’, The Settlement of Disputes in Early Medieval Europe, eds. W. Davies and P. Fouracre (Cambridge, 1986), pp. 149–68 Wormald, P., ‘Æthelwold and his Continental Counterparts’, Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. B. Yorke (Woodbridge, 1988), pp. 13–42 Wormald, P., ‘Oswaldslow: an “Immunity”?’, St Oswald of Worcester: His life and Influence, eds. N.P. Brooks and C.R.E. Cubitt (Leicester, 1996), pp. 117–28 Wormald, P., The Making of English Law: King Alfred to the Twelfth Century. I, Legislation and its Limits (Oxford, 1999) Wülcker, P. and T. Wright, eds., Anglo-Saxon and Old English Vocabularies, 2 vols. (London, 1883–4) Yorke, B., ed., Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence (Woodbridge, 1988) Yorke, B., ‘Bishop Æthelwold and the Politics of the Tenth Century’, Bishop Æthelwold: His Career and Influence, ed. eadem (Woodbridge, 1988)

LCEM-Bib.qxd

8/20/05

174

12:00 PM

Page 174

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Yorke, B., Kings and Kingdoms of Early Anglo-Saxon England (London, 1990) Yorke, B., ‘Edward as Ætheling’, Edward the Elder 899–924, eds. N.J. Higham and D.H. Hill (Manchester, 2001), pp. 40–56 Yorke, B., Nunneries and the Anglo-Saxon Royal Houses (London, 2003)

ELECTRONIC SOURCES COEL: Continental Origins of English Landholders 1066–1166: a Prosopography of PostConquest England compiled from the sources by K.S.B. Keats-Rohan ⬍http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/yourenv/⬎ ⬍http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/dlv/⬎ ⬍http://www.trin.cam.ac.uk/chartwww/eSawyer/⬎

UNPUBLISHED DISSERTATIONS Atkins, S.J., ‘The Bigod Family: An Investigation into their Lands and Activities’ (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Reading, 1979) Çelebi, Ç.L., ‘Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Changes in East Suffolk, 1066–1166’ (MA Dissertation, Bilkent University, 2002) Charlton, A., ‘A Study of the Mandeville Family and its Estates’ (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Reading, 1977) Duhamel-Amado, C., ‘La famille aristocratique languedocienne: parenté et patrimonie dans les vicomtés de Béziers et d’Agde (900–1170)’ (Thèse d’Etat inédite de l’Université de Paris IV, 1995) Ferraresi, G., ‘Viaggi e Viaggiatori dall’Inghilterra a Roma nel periodo Anglosassone’ (Tesi di Laurea in Storia Mediavale, Università degli Studi di Bologna dissertacione, 2000) Sage, L., ‘Patronage and Lay Society in the late Anglo-Saxon Fenlands: the Estates of the Abbeys of Ely and Ramsey’ (D.Phil. Dissertation, University of Oxford, 2001)

LCEM-Index.qxd

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 175

Index County locations are defined by administrative boundaries before 1974 Abba, dependant of Stigand 145 Abbots Ripton (Hunts.) 26 Abingdon Abbey (Berks.) 30, 32 Aboteshai (Mdx.) 87 accountancy 107, 109 Acleia 24 Ada de Warenne 103 Ælfflæd, wife of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth 46, 48–51, 54–60, 68–9, 73, 76 Ælfgar, ealdorman of Essex 46–50, 52–3, 58–60, 75, 97 family of 46–60 Ælfgar, earl 128–9 Ælfgar of Milton 37 Ælfgar, royal kinsman 55 Ælfgifu, wife of Ælfgar, earl of Mercia 128 Ælfgifu, wife of King Eadwig 32 Ælfheah, archbishop of Canterbury 80 Ælfhere, ealdorman of Mercia 39 Ælfhild, wife of Ælfwold 17, 19, 21, 26 Ælfmær, benefactor of Ramsey Abbey 26 Ælfmær, brother of Godwine 87 Ælfnoth, son of Goding 34, 39–41 Ælfric, abbot of Eynesham 32, 70 Ælfric camp, thegn 137 Ælfric cild, brother of Ealdorman Ælfhere 39 Ælfric Modercope 89 Ælfric, patron of Ramsey Abbey 82 Ælfric, prior of Ely 67 Ælfric Wanz 143–4 Ælfric Wihtgarsson 34–5, 99–101, 106, 117, 138 Ælfsige, archbishop of Canterbury 97 Ælfsige, dependant of Ealdorman Æthelwine 25 Ælfsige, father of Wulstan Uccea 17 Ælfsige of Landwade 92 Ælfstan, ealdorman of south-east Mercia 17

Ælfthryth, queen and wife of King Edgar 18–19, 33, 39 Ælfwaru, in Ely Calendar 69 Ælfwaru, widow 87 Ælfweard, bishop of London 82 Ælfwine, kin of 87 Ælfwine, monk of Ely 48, 71 Ælfwold, brother of Ealdorman Æthelwine 17, 19–21, 25–6, 28, 40, 64–5 Ælfwold, brother of Eadric the Long 64 Ælfwyn, kinswoman of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth 68 Ælfwyn, wife of Ealdorman Æthelstan ‘Half-King’ 17–18 Ærnketel, patron of Ramsey Abbey 82 Æscwyn, widow 37, 41 Æthelburg, Saint 9 Æthelfrith, ealdorman of south-east Mercia 17 Æthelflæd, wife of Ealdorman Æthelwine 17, 21, 24 Æthelflæd, wife of King Edmund 32, 46, 48–51, 53–60, 69, 76, 97 Æthelgifu, mother of Brihtsige 87 Æthelgifu, wife of Ealdorman Æthelwine 17, 21 Æthelgyth, husband of Thurstan 48, 74, 134–6 Æthelgyth, in Ely Calendar 69 Æthelmær, ealdorman of the western shires 48, 58, 60, 69 Æthelmær, monk of Ely 48, 71, 88 Æthelræd II, king of England 15, 33, 39, 41 Æthelræd, Saint 84 Æthelric, bishop of Dorchester 79–84, 90 Æthelric, brother of Oswig 48, 68, 71 Æthelsige, brother of Ealdorman Æthelwine 17, 20 Æthelstan, abbot of Ramsey 84, 90 Æthelstan, bishop of Elmham 87 Æthelstan chusin 34, 36, 38–9

LCEM-Index.qxd

176

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 176

INDEX

Æthelstan ‘Half-King’, ealdorman of East Anglia 17–18, 28 Æthelstan, king of England 10, 33, 35 Æthelstan, son of Tovi the Proud 115 Æthelthryth, Saint 30–31, 135 Æthelweard 147 Æthelweard of Sussex 34, 36, 39 Æthelweard, son of Ealdorman Æthelwine 17, 79 Æthelweard ‘the Chronicler’, ealdorman of the western shires 48, 72 Æthelwine, ealdorman of East Anglia 20–8, 41, 65, 115, 129, 156 family of 14–28 Æthelwine of Thetford 120 n. 7, 145–6, 148–9 Æthelwine, son of Æthelweard of Sussex 34 Æthelwine the Black 34 Æthelwold, bishop of Winchester 10, 20, 24, 29–30, 34–5, 37, 40, 44, 62, 64, 88 Æthelwold, ealdorman of East Anglia 16–17, 19 Æthelwulf, king of Wessex 48 Æthelswyth, sister of Leofwaru 48, 69, 73–4 Ailsworth (Nthants.) 20 Ailwin 148 Aitard 147 Alan of Richmond, count of Brittany 93, 140 Alby (Norf.) 145 Aldreda 145 Alfred 146 Alfred, king of Wessex 48, 54 Algar, dependant of Stigand 145 Algar Trec 146 Alsan, thegn 145 Alsi 146 Aluric, kinsman of Wulfwine 91 Anglo-Saxon Chronicle 31, 64 Anjou (Fr.) 138 Anna, king of East Anglia 135 Annals of Metz 4 Appleton (Norf.) 145 Armingford (Cambs.) 33 Asford’s four sons 145 Asgar the Staller 86, 116–18 Ashdon (Essex) 68 Ashingdon Collegiate Church (Essex) 114 Ashwell Thorpe (Norf.) 89 Askill, son of Thurstan 48 Askill, thegn 90 Assington (Suff.) 81, 83

Assandun, battle of 79, 94 Athelais, wife of Geoffrey de Mandeville I 118 Aubrey de Vere 91, 151 Badingham (Suff.) 108 Balsdon (Suff.) 51 Balsham (Cambs.) 63, 68 Barking Abbey (Essex) 49, 75 Barking (Suff.) 87 Barnack limestone 13 Barnham (Suff.) 147 Barnwell (Nthants.) 82 Barsham (Suff.) 147 Barthélemy, D. 2 Barton (Beds.) 82 Bartlett, R. 96 Bassingbourn (Cambs.) 135–6 Bates, D. 96 Bath Abbey (Soms.) 54 Baylham (Suff.) 147 Baynard family 110 Baythorn (Essex) 49 Bec Abbey (Fr.) 100 Bede 70 Benhall (Suff.) 148 Beornoth ætheling 47 Beornwulf, king of Mercia 48 Berewic 82 Bergh Apton (Norf.) 89 Berlea 36 Bernay Abbey (Fr.) 102 Bienfate (Fr.) 99 Bigod family 7, 110, 139–54 Bixley (Norf.) 145 Bloch, M. 125, 153 Blo Norton (Norf.) 146 Bluntisham (Hunts.) 62, 65 Blythburgh (Suff.) 143–4 Blything double hundred 101, 144 Bonnassie, P. 2 Borough Green (Cambs.) 68 Bosonid family 3 Bottisham (Cambs.) 82 Bourn (Cambs.) 21 Bourne (Lincs.) 85 Bramford (Suff.) 143 Brampton (Suff.) 147 Brancaster (Norf.) 22, 26 Brand, abbot of Peterborough 90 Brandon (Norf.) 36 Brandon Way 66

LCEM-Index.qxd

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 177

INDEX

Bridge (Suff.) 147 Bridgham (Norf.) 87 Brihtwæld, cniht 97 Brington (Hunts.) 24, 26 Brittany, counts of 135–6, 141 Brome (Suff.) 147 Broughton (Hunts.) 15, 82 Brown the reeve 147 Bruisyard (Suff.) 148 Brunanburh, battle of 33 Burnham (Norf.) 146 Burton-upon-Trent Abbey (Staffs.) 38 Bury St Edmunds Abbey (Suff.) 49, 50, 55, 86, 89, 99, 130, 133 Burwell (Cambs.) 15, 23, 25, 92 Bruisyard (Suff.) 147 Byrhtferth, royal kinsman 55 Byrhtferth, ealdorman of Essex 48 Byrhtferth, monk of Ramsey 10, 16, 20 Byrhthelm, brother of Byrhtferth 48 Byrhtnoth, abbot of Ely 29–30, 44, 48, 62, 64, 68 Byrhtnoth, ealdorman of Essex 47–51, 54–6, 61–7, 69–73, 135 family of 62–77 Byrhtsige, son of Beornoth ætheling 47–8 Bythorn (Hunts.) 26 Cambridge (Cambs.) 37, 40 Cam, River 64 Cantelupe family 148 Carleton (Norf.) 122 Carmen de Hastingae Proelio 113 Carolingian royal family 3–4 Castle Acre (Norf.) 98, 103–4, 108–9, 122 Castle Acre Priory (Norf.) 104 Castle Rising (Norf.) 122–3 Castle Rising leper house (Norf.) 123 castles 43, 91, 95, 98, 101–4, 118–23, 131, 135–6 Cecily Bigod 152 Cerdic, king of Wessex 7, 35, 44, 47 Cerne Abbey (Dors.) 58 Chedburgh (Suff.) 68, 71 Chediston (Suff.) 146–7 Chelsworth (Suff.) 50, 55 Chester-le-Street (County Durham), community of St Cuthbert 10; see also Lindisfarne Cheveley (Cambs.) 42, 47, 63, 68 childbirth 104

177

Chiletuna 108 Chippenham (Cambs.) 119 Chippenham Preceptory (Cambs.) 119 Christ Church Cathedral Priory, Canterbury 49, 54, 75 Clare (Suff.) 101, 105–7, 109, 122 Clare family 80, 99–101, 104–5, 110 Clavering (Essex) 131 Claxton (Norf.) 146 Clopton (Nthants.) 26 Cluny Abbey (Fr.) 5, 104 Cnut, king of England 7, 67, 78–80, 81, 83–5, 88, 94, 112–14, 157 Cockfield (Suff.) 49 Cock Hagni 146 Coddenham (Suff.) 147 Colchester (Essex) 119 Coleman, dependant of Stigand 145 Colne (Essex) 49 Conington (Hunts.) 84–5 conversion 31 Cottenham (Cambs.) 68, 87 Coveney (Cambs.), cell of Ely 73 Coventry Priory (Warws.) 128 Cowlinge (Suff.) 42 Cranwell (Lincs.) 82 Crawe 51 Creake (Norf.) 146 Croxton (Norf.) 63, 65 D’Albini Pincerna family 122–3 Dalham (Suff.) 41–3 Dalham Hall (Suff.) 42–3 Dalham Hall Park (Suff.) 42 Damerham (Wilts.) 50, 55 Damerham Nunnery (Wilts.) 54 Danes in England 81–9, 113–15; see also Vikings David, king of Scotland 103 Debenham (Cambs.) 87 Denham (Suff.) 147 De Montfort family 133 Denham (Suff.) 43 Denninton (Suff.) 108 Depden (Suff.) 42 Desning (Suff.) 42, 100, 106 Devon 16 diet 30, 81, 113, 120 disputes and dispute settlement 19–21, 23–5, 37–8, 40–1, 63–5, 81–4, 99, 116–17 Diss (Suff.) 143

LCEM-Index.qxd

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 178

178

INDEX

Domesday Book 125; see also Little Domesday Book Downham (Cambs.) 36 Drinkstone (Suff.) 87 Drogo of Beuvrière 151 Duby, G. 2, 158 Dullingham (Cambs.) 63, 68 Dunstan, archbishop of Canterbury 35 Dunwich (Suff.) 31 Eadgifu the Fair 92, 102, 133–6 Eadgifu, wife of King Edward the Elder 32, 35 Eadnoth, bishop of Dorchester 79, 82 Eadnoth, monk of Ramsey 17 Eadred, king of England 35, 37 Eadric, ealdorman of Central Wessex 17 Eadric of Laxfield 101–2, 105–7, 134, 136, 145 Eadric the Long, king’s thegn 64 Eadric the reeve 64 Eadwig, king of England 36 Eadwine, son of Ealdorman Æthelwine 17 ealdormen and earls 16–28, 37, 47, 62, 64–7, 127–9 East Anglia, bishopric of 52 kingdom of 7 East Anglian heights 6 East Bergholt (Suff.) 144 Ecgwine, Saint 80 economic growth 13–14, 28, 104–11, 121–2, 133, 142–4 Edgar, king of England 18–19, 26, 30, 32–3, 55, 57, 64 Edmund, king of England 47, 53–4 Edric 145, 147 Edward the Confessor, king of England 8, 15, 32, 94, 99, 116, 120, 130 Edward the Elder, king of England 16, 48, 62, 64 Edward ‘the martyr’, king of England 15, 41 Edwin, demesne thegn 89 Edwin son of Æthulf 133 Eight and Half Hundreds (Suff.) 99 Elsworth (Cambs.) 82–4 Elton (Hunts.) 81–3 Ely (Cambs.) 33 Ely Abbey (Cambs.) 7, 9–10, 29–32, 36–41, 44, 49, 55–8, 61–75, 81, 89, 116, 129, 133, 156

Ely calendar 9, 67, 69–70, 88 Emma, queen of England 15, 35, 99 Ercongata, Saint 9 Ermenhilda, Saint 9 Ermine Street 64 Estrea (Cambs.) 87 ethnicity 81–5, 88–91, 146, 148–50 Eudo dapifer 151 Eudo FitzSpirwic 151 Eustace of Boulogne 140 Eustace, sheriff of Huntingdon 93 Evesham Abbey (Worcs.) 80 excommunication 116 Exeter Guild 90 exile 135 Eye (Suff.) 95, 101–2, 105–9, 122 Eye Priory (Suff.) 102 Eynesham Abbey (Oxon.) 58 Fakenham (Norf.) 143 Falkenham (Suff.) 147 Felix, 13 Felix, bishop of East Anglia and saint, 31, 80 Feltwell (Norf.) 87 Fen Ditton (Cambs.) 33, 63, 68 feudal transformation 1–6, 76–7, 93–4, 96–7, 109, 123–5 Flanders 138 Flitcham (Norf.) 145 Fimborough (Suff.) 63, 65 Fingringhoe (Essex) 50 Forncett (Norf.) 145 Framingham (Norf.) 145 Framlingham (Suff.) 142, 144, 150 Framsden (Suff.) 142 Freiburg (Ge.) 4 Freston (Suff.) 51 Fulbourn (Cambs.) 63, 65 Ganshof, F.-L. 97 Gazeley (Suff.) 42–3 Genred, dependant of Stigand 145 Geoffrey I, count of Cerdagne and Besalu 28 Geoffrey de Mandeville I 115, 117–19, 140 Geoffrey de Mandeville II 112, 115, 118 Gerald dapifer 151 Gerchow, J. 114, 138 Gidding (Hunts.) 24 Gilbert FitzRichard 100 Gillingham, J. 97

LCEM-Index.qxd

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 179

INDEX

Girton (Cambs.) 82 Giselle, abbess and sister of Charlemagne 3 Glastonbury Abbey (Soms.) 54, 57 Glastonbury Music Festival (Soms.) 165 Glemsford (Suff.) 87 Goda 147 Godden, M. 126 Godfrey, count of Eu 99 Godgifu, wife of an earl 87, 116–17 Goding of Gretton 34, 36, 40 Godmanchester (Cambs.) 15, 23 Godric the steward 122, 143, 151 Godwine 145, 147 Godwine cild 92 Godwine, kinsman of Ælfsige of Landwade 92 Godwine, family of earl 127–9 Godwine, king’s thegn 132–3 Godwine, kinsman of Ælfsige 92, 102 Godwine, patron of Ely Abbey 87 Godwine son of Toki 147 Gog Magog hills 68–9 Goltho (Lincs.) 98 Gorleston (Suff.) 143 Graville-Sainte-Honorine (Fr.) 101 Great Ouse, River 25 Great Waltham (Essex) 117 Green, J. 150 Greensted (Essex) 50 Grim 147 Guader family 7, 119–21 Guelph family 3 Gundreda de Warenne 103 Gunnulf 147 Guthmund, king’s thegn 132–3 Gyrth, earl of East Anglia 128 Gytha, wife of Tovi the Proud 113–15 Hadham (Herts.) 33 Hadleigh (Suff.) 52 Hales (Norf.) 145 Ham (Essex) 50 Hanworth (Norf.) 146 Hardwick (Cambs.) 65 Hargrave (Suff.) 42 Harold, earl of East Anglia (later King Harold II) 75, 120, 128 Harpley (Norf.) 108 Hartest (Suff.) 87 Harthacnut, king of England 15, 113

179

Hatfield (Herts.) 20, 33, 51 Hastings, battle of 91, 113, 119 Haughley (Suff.) 133 Hauxton (Cambs.) 63–5 Haverhill (Suff.) 23 Hawise, wife of William de Mandeville II 118 Hawstead (Suff.) 82 Heacham (Norf.) 108 Hemingford Grey (Hunts.) 15, 24, 91 Hemington (Nthants.) 82 Hengeham 87 Henry Cromwell 26 Henry, earl of Northumberland 103 Henry I, king of England 116, 150 Henry II, king of England 131 Henry of Essex 130–1 Henry of Huntingdon 1 Hereward the Wake 85, 110, 136 Hermer de Ferrers 151 Hesberie 63, 65 Hethel (Norf.) 146 Heybridge (Essex) 51 Hickling (Norf.) 82 High Easter (Essex) 87, 117 Higham (Suff.) 42 Hilgay (Norf.) 24 Hingham (Norf.) 145 Hinton (Suff.) 147 History of the English 1 Hockham (Norf.) 145 Holland (Essex) 33 Hollesley (Suff.) 87 Holme, battle of 47 Holme Fen (Hunts.) 6 Holt (Norf.) 143 Holton (Suff.) 147 Horningsea (Cambs.) 36 Horningsea Minster (Cambs.) 31, 38, 43 Horseheath (Cambs.) 82 Houghton (Hunts.) 24, 26 Hoxne (Suff.) 95, 102 Hudeston (Norf.) 145 Hugh Bigod, earl of Norfolk 7, 152 Hugh d’Avranches, earl of Chester 140–1, 150 Hugh de Montfort 151, 153 Hugh of Courbon 146–7 Hugh of Houdain 147 Humphrey Bigod 150, 152 Humphrey of Curley 146

LCEM-Index.qxd

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 180

180

INDEX

Humphrey the Chamberlain 151 Hundon (Suff.) 106 Hunstanton (Norf.) 146 Huntingdon (Hunts.) 63 Huntingfield (Suff.) 108 Hurley Priory (Berks.) 117 Icknield Way 23, 66 Impington (Cambs.) 65 Ingware, king’s thegn 132 inheritance customs 3–4, 16, 20–1, 23–4, 40, 115–16, 152 Inquisitio Eliensis 9 Ipswich (Suff.) 146 Iron-Age hill forts 40, 149 Isle of Ely double hundred 32 Jerome sisters 60 Jerusalem 79, 90, 94 Jews 90 Jocelin of Brokeland 130 Jol of Lincoln 82 Jørgensen, E. 113–14 Jurassic limestone 6 Keddington (Suff.) 68 Kelsale (Suff.) 146–8 Kelsall (Herts.) 33 Kennett, River 41, 43 Kenninghall (Norf.) 121 Kent 35, 99 Kentford (Suff.) 42 Ketel 89–90 Ketel Alder, king’s thegn 132–3 Kettering (Nthants.) 20 Ketteringham (Norf.) 146 Kinemund the priest 24 Kingston (Suff.) 87 kings’ thegns 132–33 Kinoulton (Notts.) 82 kinship 3–4, 38–41, 56–9, 70–2, 89–90, 96, 149 Kirtling (Cambs.) 42, 63, 68 Knapwell (Cambs.) 63, 68, 82 knights and knight service 96–7, 126 Königsnähe 3–5, 7–8, 18, 28, 44–5, 78, 99, 112, 114, 137, 140, 153, 155 Lakenheath (Suff.) 33 Langton (Lincs.) 82 Lavenham (Suff.) 50

Lawshall (Suff.) 82 Laxfield (Suff.) 108 La société féodale 153 leasehold 91–3, 129, 133, 142 Lea, River 114 Leland, J. 21 Leiston (Suff.) 108 Leodmer the priest 100 Leofcild 147 Leofeva, wife of Ælfsige of Landwade 92 Leofflæd, wife of Oswig 48, 68–9, 71–3 Leofric 147 Leofric, abbot of Ely 67 Leofric, abbot of Peterborough 127–8, 138 Leofric, earl of Mercia 91, 127 family of 101, 127–9, 138 Leofric, reeve of Ely 68 Leofsige, brother of Ælfsige 17, 20 Leofsige of Langton 82 Leofsige, husband of Sifflæd 34 Leofsige’s parentes 87 Leofstan, abbot of Bury St Edmunds 100 Leofstan the priest 147 Leofwaru, wife of Lustwine 48, 68–9, 71 Leofwine 147 Leofwine of Bacton, king’s thegn 132 Leofwine, son of Æthulf 86–8, 90 Leofwine, son of Ealdorman Æthelwine 17 Les Loges (Fr.) 141 Lewes (Sussex) 103 Lewes Priory (Sussex) 104 Libellus Æthelwoldi Episcopi 9–10, 20, 29, 32, 37, 39, 62, 64–6 Liber Benefactorum 10–11, 16, 23, 26–7, 40, 79–81, 83, 85, 92–4 Liber Eliensis 9–10, 29–31, 56–7, 61, 65–8, 70–2, 86, 135 Liber Miraculis de Sancti Eadmundi 86 Liddiard, R. 98, 121 Lidgate (Suff.) 42 Life of St Guthlac 1 Lindisfarne (Nhumb.), community of St Cuthbert 70; see also Chester-le-Street Linton (Cambs.) 23, 82 Littlebury (Essex) 33 Little Domesday Book 8, 43, 95, 129, 131, 138; see also Domesday Book Little Hockham (Norf.) 145 Little Ouse, River 6 Little Raveley (Hunts.) 24

LCEM-Index.qxd

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 181

INDEX

Little Snarehill (Norf.) 145 Little Stukely (Hunts.) 15 Little Thetford (Cambs.) 87 Livermere (Suff.) 36–7 Lockington (Yorks.) 82 Lolworth (Cambs.) 83 London 20, 88, 113 Longstowe (Cambs.) 21, 26, 82 Lopham (Norf.) 146 Lustwine, husband of Leofwaru 48, 68 Mâcon, count of 138 Maine, count of 138 Maldon, battle of 61, 63, 74, 156 Malet family 101–2, 105, 110 Mandeville family 112–19, 140 manor houses 25–6, 43, 91–2, 98, 100–1, 103, 117–18, 121, 135 Mantat the anchorite 85 March (Cambs.) 63, 68 markets 95, 101 marriage and marriage gifts 7, 19–23, 28, 53–7, 56, 69, 83, 120, 129, 133, 148 Masdelin, husband of UIf 90 Marsworth (Bucks.) 33 Martin (Lincs.) 82 Matilda, abbess of Essen (Ge.) 72 Matilda Bigod 152 Melbourn (Cambs.) 33 Mersea (Essex) 49, 51 Mersea church (Essex) 50, 56 Miro I, count of Cerdagne and Besalu 28 Monks Eleigh (Suff.) 49 Mortemer (Fr.) 103 Moulton (Suff.) 42 Mundford (Norf.) 87 Münster (Ge.) 4 music 27, 155 Mutford (Suff.) 143 myth 6, 29, 44, 61–2, 66, 70, 72–3, 156 Narborough (Norf.) 145 Narratio de Abbate Gualtero 10 Newmarket (Suff.) 135 Newton (Cambs.) 63–4 Nene, River 25 New Buckenham (Norf.) 152 Nigel, bishop of Ely 9 Norman Conquest 5, 8, 92, 121, 138–40 Normans in East Anglia 93, 95–111, 117–24, 139–54

181

Northampton (Nthants.) 20 Northwold (Cambs.) 33 Norwich (Norf.) 119–20 Northleada Laga 126 Northmann the sheriff 146–9 Occold (Suff.) 63, 65 Oda, archbishop of Canterbury 36, 133 Odo, bishop of Bayeux 93, 140–1, 144 Offerthun 82 Offton (Suff.) 147 Ogga of Mildenhall 37, 41 Old Buckenham (Norf.) 121–2 Old Buckenham Priory (Norf.) 122, 152 Old Sleaford (Lincs.) 82 Old Weston (Hunts.) 18, 24 Orbec (Fr.) 99 Ordgar, ealdorman of the western shires 19 Osgod, nephew of Bishop Theodred 101 Osgod clapa, staller 86, 101, 113 Osgod Sweyn, king’s thegn 90 Osmodiston (Norf.) 146 Oswald, archbishop of York and bishop of Worcester 10, 14, 41 Oswardala (Suff.) 87 Oswig, husband of Leofflæd 48, 62, 67–9, 73 Othengar 24 Oundle (Nthants.) 20 Ousden (Suff.) 42 Over (Cambs.) 82 Padda 147 Pampisford (Cambs.) 65–6 parish churches 6–7, 25, 31, 43, 46, 52, 56, 89, 92, 118 Parliamentary Peerage 126 Peasenhall (Suff.) 147 Peddar’s Way 103–4 Peldon (Essex) 49 Pentlow (Essex) 68 Peterborough Abbey (Nthants.) 20, 90, 129 Peter de Valognes 143, 151 Phinn 100 Pfäfers Abbey (Ge.) 10 Picot the sheriff 143 pilgrimage 79, 88, 90, 94 Pirnhow (Norf.) 145 Pleines of Slepe 93 Pleshey (Essex) 116–18 Poem of the Battle of Maldon 73, 97 Poitou, counts of 138, 151, 153

LCEM-Index.qxd

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 182

182

INDEX

Polstead (Suff.) 50 Power of Place: the Future of the Historic Environment 8, 155, 159 precarium numeratorium 91–3 Pye Road 121 Pyrenees 45

Robert of Vaux 145–8 Roding (Essex) 87 Roger Bigod 120, 140–54, 158 Rome 88, 94 Round, J.H. 95 Runciman, W.G. 126

Quarrington (Lincs.) 82

St Benet of Holme Abbey (Norf.) 75, 89 St Bertin Abbey (Fr.) 54 St Gall Abbey (Sw.) 10 St Paul’s Cathedral Community, London 50, 152 St Werburg’s Abbey, Chester 150 sales and exchanges 21, 23–4, 29–30, 37, 81, 108 Salisbury (Wilts.) 55 Sawtry (Hunts.) 21, 24, 84 Saxmundam (Suff.) 146–7 Scule, earl 37 Sexburgh, Saint 9 Sexi of Walton, king’s thegn 91 Shadingfield (Suff.) 147 Shaftesbury Nunnery (Dors.) 55 Shelford (Cambs.) 87 Shillington (Beds.) 82 Shimpling (Norf.) 145 Shotesham (Norf.) 145 Shouldham (Norf.) 135 Siferth of Downham 34, 36, 39 Sifflæd, daughter of Siferth of Downham 34 Sigeric 24 Siward, earl of Northumbria and Northampton 129 family of 128–9 Siward of Maldon 134, 136 slaves and slavery 2, 19, 106 Snailwell (Cambs.) 87 Snape (Suff.) 108 Snetterton (Norf.) 145 Snowre Hall (Norf.) 24 social mobility 2, 78, 89–93, 96–7, 125–6, 133, 139–54, 158 Soham (Cambs.) 49, 58, 63, 65, 68 Soham Minster (Cambs.) 31, 43, 58, 80 Somerset 16 Somersham (Hunts.) 63, 65–6 South Frambridge (Essex) 87 South Hanningfield (Essex) 68 Southmere (Norf.) 143 Spaldwick (Hunts.) 65–6 stallers 86, 129–31

Ralph 147–8 Radulf, count of Cerdagne and Besalu 28 Ralph I, earl of East Anglia 92–3, 119–21 Ralph Guader II, earl of East Anglia 7, 103, 120–1 Ralph Baynard 151 Ralph de Beaufour 151 Ralph de Tosny 151 Ralph FitzNorman 148 Ralph of Tourleville 147–8 Ralph son of Herlwin 145–6 Ranulf FitzWalter 146 Ranulf son of Walter 146 Ramsey Abbey (Hunts.) 7, 10–11, 14–15, 18, 21–8, 40–1, 65, 78–85, 90–4, 99, 115, 156 Ramsey necrology 18, 21 Ranulf Peverel 151 Rattlesden (Suff.) 87 Raynald, son of Ivo 151 Redisham (Suff.) 147 Regularis Concordia 14, 44 Reichenau Abbey (Ge.) 10 Rettendon (Essex) 49, 56–7, 65, 67–8 Reuter, T. 5 Richard d’Albini, abbot of St Albans 122 Richard d’Avranches, earl of Chester 141 Richard de Clare, abbot of Ely 80 Richard II, duke of Normandy 99 Richard FitzGilbert 99–100, 103–4, 107, 140 Richard son of Stanhard 149 Ringmere, battle of 63, 69 Ringshall (Suff.) 146 Ringstead (Norf.) 15, 145 Risby (Suff.) 82 Robert, count of Mortain 140–1 Robert FitzWymarc, staller 129–31 Robert Gernon 151 Robert Malet 101, 144, 151 Robert of Blythburgh 147 Robert of Courson 146–8 Robert of Jumièges, archbishop of Canterbury 131

LCEM-Index.qxd

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 183

INDEX

183

Standard, battle of 103 Stanhard, Domesday juror 149 Stanhard, son of Æthelwine of Thetford 146, 149 Stanhard, steward of the abbot of Bury St Edmunds 149 Stapelhoo 40 Stapleford (Cambs.) 36 Staverton (Suff.) 108 Stenton, F.M. 97 Sternfield (Suff.) 147 Stephen, king of England 116 Stetchworth (Cambs.) 63, 68 Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury 88, 102, 147 Stoke-by-Clare Priory (Suff.) 100 Stoke-by-Nayland Minster (Suff.) 46, 49–53, 55–6, 58–60, 130 Stonea (Cambs.) 36–7 Stonham (Suff.) 147 Stour, River 6 Stratford (Suff.) 51 Stretham (Cambs.) 35–6, 39 Strickland (Suff.) 147 Stukeley (Hunts.) 23–5 Sudbourne (Suff.) 129 Sudbury Minster (Suff.) 51 Sulgrave (Nthants.) 98 Surrey 99 Sussex 16, 35 Sutton (Norf.) 145 Swaffham (Cambs.) 36, 40, 63, 68 Swartling 148 Swavesey (Cambs.) 135–6 Swavesey Minster and Priory (Cambs.) 135 Swefling (Suff.) 148 Sweetman 146 Sweyn Esrithson, king of Denmark 85 Sweyn of Essex 131

Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury 150 Theodred, bishop of London 52–4, 101 Therfield (Herts.) 82 Thetford (Norf.) 63, 145, 149 The Way We Live Now 6 Thorgunnr, wife of Thorkell of Harringworth 85 Thorkell of Elsworth, 83–5 Thorkell of Harringworth 83–5 Thorkell the Tall, earl of East Anglia 83, 113 Thorold 146 Thriplow (Cambs.) 65–6 Thurkill, husband of Æthelgyth 48 Thurstan, king’s thegn 48, 68, 72, 135 Thurstan son of Guy 146 Tichebrai, battle of 106 Toft (Cambs.) 23–4, 36, 62 Toki, the king’s thegn 92, 102, 105, 108, 132–3 Toli, earl of Huntingdon 62, 64 Toli the sheriff 147 Toltington (Norf.) 145 Totham (Essex) 50 Tovi 145 Trollope, A. 6 Trumpington (Cambs.) 63, 65

Tannington (Suff.) 108 taxation 22, 54, 121 Tendring peninsula (Essex) Terling (Essex) 87 Teversham (Cambs.) 63, 65 Tey (Essex) 49 Tharston (Norf.) 145 Thaxted (Essex) 87, 100, 106–7 The Book of the Foundation of Walden 112, 119 The Life of King Edward Who Rests at Westminster 130

Via Devana 23 Vikings 16, 21–2, 29, 31, 44–5, 59, 61–2, 73; see also Danes in England Vita Sancti Oswaldi 10–11, 20, 25, 97

Udalrichid family 3 Ulf 146 Ulf, husband of Musdelin 90 Ulf, king’s thegn 132 Ufegeat 38 Ulfcytel of East Anglia 69, 120 n. 70 Ulfcytel the reeve 120 Undley (Suff.) 87 UNESCO 155 Upwood (Hunts.) 24–6 Upwood Hall (Hunts.) 26 Uvi of Willingham 48, 68–9, 71

Waddingworth (Lincs.) 82 Walden Priory and Abbey (Suff.) 112, 118 Waldingfield (Suff.) 51 Walpole (Suff.) 87 Walsoken (Norf.) 24 Walter Giffard 93, 151, 153

LCEM-Index.qxd

184

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 184

INDEX

Walter de Saint Valéry 151 Walter the deacon 151 Waltham and Epping Forest (Essex) 114 Waltham Chronicle 114–15 Waltham Holy Cross (Essex) 114 Waltham Holy Cross Collegiate Church (Essex) 114–16, 128 Waltheof, earl of Northampton and Northumbria 128–9 Walton (Suff.) 147 Wandlebury (Cambs.) 40 Wangford (Suff.) 15 Warengar 147 Warennne family 102–4, 110 Washington (Sussex) 20 Watton (Norf.) 145 Waveney, River 6 Weeting (Norf.) 87 Wellen 24 Wennington (Hunts.) 26 Werburg, Saint 9 Westmill (Herts.) 82, 90–1 Westminster Abbey (London) 118 Weston (Essex) 68 Weston Colville (Cambs.) 68 West Walton (Norf.) 108 Wetheringsett (Suff.) 63, 68 Whitelock, D. 113–14 Whitlingham (Norf.) 145 Whittlesey (Cambs.) 87 Whittlesey Mere (Nthants.) 88 Wickhambrook (Suff.) 42 Wicklaw hundreds 32, 129 Wighton (Norf.) 143 Wihtburg, Saint 9 Wihtgar Ælfricsson 34, 99–100, 134–6 Wihtgar I, king’s thegn 33–5 Wihtgar II, king’s thegn 33–5 Wihtgar III 34–7, 39 Wihtred, king of Kent 35 Wihtric 147 Wilbraham (Cambs.) 82 Wilburton (Cambs.) 39 William, count of Arques 103 William de Mandeville I 115, 118 William de Mandeville II 118–19 William d’Albini Brito 152 William d’Albini Pincerna 152 William d’Albini the Proud 122, 152 William de Noyers 143 William de Warenne I 93, 101, 105, 108, 140

William de Warenne II 103 William V, duke of Acquitaine 104 William FitzOsbern 120 William I, king of England 7, 85, 115, 141–2 William II, king of England 103, 122, 150 William Malet 95, 101 William of Bourneville 147 William of Ecouis 151 William of Malmesbury 31 William Pecche 93 William the Chamberlain 143 William Werlenc, count of Mortain 141 Willingham (Cambs.) 68 Willingham (Suff.) 147 Wilton Nunnery (Wilts.) 54–5 Wilton Way 54 Wimbish (Essex) 68 Wimbotsham (Norf.) 15 Winchester, Old and New Minsters 32, 65, 114 Winston Churchill 60 Wisbech (Cambs.) 87 Wispington (Lincs.) 82 Wiston (Suff.) 51 Wiswyth 48 Withermarsh (Suff.) 51 Withri 146 Woodbridge (Suff.) 36, 87 Woodditton (Cambs.) 47, 68 Wood Walton (Hunts.) 24, 91 Worcester Cathedral Priory (Worcs.) 32 World Heritage Sites 165 Wuffingas dynasty 7, 135 Wulfflæd, wife of Siferth of Downham 34, 39 Wulfflæd, wife of Wulfstan of Dalham 34 Wulfgifu, wife of Ealdorman Æthelwine 17, 21–2, 26 Wulfheah 38 Wulflet, dependant of Stigand 145 Wulfmær, nephew of Ealdorman Byrhtnoth 19 Wulfmær, thegn 100 Wulfmær 147 Wulfnoth 148 Wulfnoth, king’s thegn 62, 64 Wulfric 148 Wulfric, abbot of Ely 116 Wulfric, brother of Edwin 89 Wulfric, dependant of Stigand 145 Wulfric, king’s thegn and brother of Archbishop Dunstan 36

LCEM-Index.qxd

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 185

INDEX

Wulfric Spot, king’s thegn 38 Wulfrun, patron of Ramsey Abbey 82 Wulfsi 147 Wulfsige, abbot of Ramsey 79 Wulfstan of Dalham, family of 33–45 reeve of the fenland shires 30, 33–41, 44, 67, 99, 156 Wulfstan Uccea 17, 19 Wulfweard the priest 32 Wulfwi ‘miles de sancti eadmundi’ 97 Wulfwine, king’s thegn 91

Wymondham Priory (Norf.) 122, 152 Wynsige 25 Wyton (Hunts.) 26 Yardley Hall (Essex) 68 Yare, River 6 Yaxley (Nthants.) 19–20 Yelling (Hunts.) 15, 36, 91 York 101 Yoxford (Suff.) 147 Zähringer family 4

185

LCEM-Index.qxd

8/20/05

11:59 AM

Page 186

Lords and Communities in Early Medieval East Anglia

Medieval East Anglia

The Castles of East Anglia

The Castles of East Anglia

Medieval women in their communities

Outlaws in Medieval and Early Modern England

Mozarabs in Medieval and Early Modern Spain

Holiness and Politics in Early Medieval Thought

Marianne and the Lords of the East

Early Medieval Philosophy

Early Medieval Society

Early Medieval Theology

Early Medieval Settlements: The Archaeology of Rural Communities in North-West Europe 400-900 (Medieval History and Archaeology)

Early Medieval Settlements: The Archaeology of Rural Communities in North-West Europe 400-900 (Medieval History and Archaeology)

Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe (The Wiles Lectures)

Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe

Social Identity in Early Medieval Britain

War and Society in Medieval and Early Modern Britain

Queens and power in medieval and early modern England

Coronations Medieval and Early Modern Monarchic Ritual

Coronations: Medieval and Early Modern Monarchic Ritual

Early Medieval Europe, 300-1000,

Samurai, warfare and the state in early medieval japan

Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society: Ottonian Saxony

Handbook To Life In Medieval And Early Modern Japan

Living Buddhist Statues in Early Medieval and Modern Japan

Pestilence in Medieval & Early Modern English Literature (Studies in Medieval History and Culture, 23)

Making Transcendents: Ascetics and Social Memory in Early Medieval China

Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe (History Series, 42)

Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan

Lords and Communities in Early Medieval East Anglia

Medieval East Anglia

The Castles of East Anglia

The Castles of East Anglia

Medieval women in their communities

Outlaws in Medieval and Early Modern England

Mozarabs in Medieval and Early Modern Spain

Holiness and Politics in Early Medieval Thought

Marianne and the Lords of the East

Early Medieval Philosophy

Early Medieval Society

Early Medieval Theology

Early Medieval Settlements: The Archaeology of Rural Communities in North-West Europe 400-900 (Medieval History and Archaeology)

Early Medieval Settlements: The Archaeology of Rural Communities in North-West Europe 400-900 (Medieval History and Archaeology)

Languages and Communities in Early Modern Europe (The Wiles Lectures)

Early Medieval Jewish Policy in Western Europe

Social Identity in Early Medieval Britain

War and Society in Medieval and Early Modern Britain

Queens and power in medieval and early modern England

Coronations Medieval and Early Modern Monarchic Ritual

Coronations: Medieval and Early Modern Monarchic Ritual

Early Medieval Europe, 300-1000,

Samurai, warfare and the state in early medieval japan

Rule and Conflict in an Early Medieval Society: Ottonian Saxony

Handbook To Life In Medieval And Early Modern Japan

Living Buddhist Statues in Early Medieval and Modern Japan

Pestilence in Medieval & Early Modern English Literature (Studies in Medieval History and Culture, 23)

Making Transcendents: Ascetics and Social Memory in Early Medieval China

Politics and Ritual in Early Medieval Europe (History Series, 42)

Samurai, Warfare and the State in Early Medieval Japan

Recommend Documents