Chapter 8

Ecgwulf strator regis: cyninges horsþegn, an. 897[211].Ðored steallere, about 1020[212].Ésgár steallere, 1044-1066[213].Robert filius Wimarc steallere[214].Ælfstán steallere[215].Eádgár steallere, 1060-1066[216].Raulf steallere, 1053-1066[217].Bondig steallere, 1060-1066[218].stabulator[219].Eádnóð steallere[220].Lýfing steallere[221].Ælfred regis strator, 1052[222].Osgod Clapa steallere, 1047[223].

Ecgwulf strator regis: cyninges horsþegn, an. 897[211].

Ðored steallere, about 1020[212].

Ésgár steallere, 1044-1066[213].

Robert filius Wimarc steallere[214].

Ælfstán steallere[215].

Eádgár steallere, 1060-1066[216].

Raulf steallere, 1053-1066[217].

Bondig steallere, 1060-1066[218].

stabulator[219].

Eádnóð steallere[220].

Lýfing steallere[221].

Ælfred regis strator, 1052[222].

Osgod Clapa steallere, 1047[223].

The Steward, usually called Dapifer orDiscifer regis, answered to the Seneschal of the Franks (theTruchsessof the German empire); his especial business was to superintend all that appertained to the service of the royal table, under which we must probably include the arrangements for the general support of the household, both at the ordinary and temporary residences of the king. His Anglosaxon name was Discþegn, or thane of the table; and I find the following nobles recorded as holding this office:—

In the year 946 Florence tells us of a dapifer regis, whom he does not name. The queen and princes of the blood had also a similar officer for the management of their households. In 1060 we read of Godwine,reginae dapifer[229], and Æðelred’s son Æðelstán had aDiscþegnnamed Ælfmǽr[230]. High as this office was, we yet cannot expect to find in it that overwhelming power wielded in later times by the Seneschal orDapifer Angliae,—a power which might easily have converted the Grandmesnils and De Montforts into the Ebroins or Pepins of a newly established dynasty, and after their fall waswisely retained in the royal family by our kings. We have now, as is well known, only a Lord High Steward, or Major domus, on particular occasions, for which he is especially created: but the Lord Steward of the Household is an officer of great power and high dignity in the Court of our kings. A Major domus regiae occurs, as far as I know, but once in our Ante-Norman history, and may there probably denote only the dapifer or seneschal: he is mentioned by Florence, an. 1040, as “Stir, major domus ... magnae dignitatis vir”; but we hear nothing more of him, or of any such influence as the corresponding high officer exercised in the Frankish court. The title Regiae procurator aulae, borne by the great Esgár, whom we have also seen among the Marshals, may very likely only refer to his office of dapifer[231], which, from the list given above, it will be evident that he held.

The last great officer is the Pincerna, in Germany the Schenk or Buticularius,—the Butler. What his particular duties were, beyond his personal service at the royal board, and no doubt his general superintendence of the royal cellars, we cannot now discover; but the office was one of the highest dignity, and was held by nobles of the loftiest birth and greatest consideration. Óslác, a direct descendant from the royal Jutish blood of Stuff and Wihtgár, was the pincerna of king Æðelwulf; and by this prince’s daughter, “femina nobilis ingenio, nobilis et genere,”—his first wife Ósburh,—Æðelwulfbecame the father of Ælfred[232]. The Anglosaxon name of this officer may have been Byrele, or Scenca, but I am not aware of its occurrence. The following are among the Pincernae mentioned.

Dudda pincernus, about 780[233].Sigewulf pincerna, 892[234].Æðelsige pincerna, 959[235].Wulfgár pincerna, 1000[236].Wigod regis pincerna, 1062[237].

Dudda pincernus, about 780[233].

Sigewulf pincerna, 892[234].

Æðelsige pincerna, 959[235].

Wulfgár pincerna, 1000[236].

Wigod regis pincerna, 1062[237].

The queen, as she had a dapifer, had also a pincerna: in 1062, Herdingus is reported to have held that office[238].

There can be no doubt that these offices were entirely Palatine or domestic, that is that they were household dignities, and did not appertain to the general administration. Only when the spirit and feeling of the comitatus had completely prevailed over the older free organization, did they rise into an importance which, throughout the course of mediæval history, we find continually on the increase. They were the grades in the comitatus of which Tacitus himself speaks, which depended upon the good pleasure of the prince: and with the power of the prince their power and dignity varied. The functionaries who held them were the heads of different departments to which belonged all the vassals,leudesorfidelesof the king: and as by degrees the freemen perished away, and everyone gladly rushed to throw himself into a state of thaneship, the trusted and familiar friends of the prince became the most powerful agents of his administration: till the feudal system having seized on everything, converted these court-functions also into hereditary fiefs, and rendered their holders often powerful enough to make head against the authority of the crown itself. As long as a vestige of the free constitution remained, we hear but little of the court offices: what they became upon its downfall is known to every reader of history. It seems to me improbable that Godwine, or Harald, or Leófríc or Sigeward should ever have filled them: these men were ealdormen or dukes,geréfan, civil and military administrators; but not officers of the royal household, powerful and dignified as these might be. It is probable that the first and most important of their duties was the administration of justice to the king’s sócmen in their various departments; from which in later times were clearly derived the extensive powers and attributions of the several royal courts: but as the intimate friends and cherished counsellors of the king, they must have possessed an influence whose natural tendency was to complete that great change in the social state, which causes of a more general nature,—increasing population, commerce and the disturbance of foreign and civil discord,—were hurrying relentlessly onward.

In various situations of trust and authority, either by the side of these officers, or subordinated to them, we find a number of other persons underdifferent titles. Among these are the clergymen who acted as clerks or notaries in the imperial chancery. The Frankish court numbered among its members a functionary of the highest rank, and always a clergyman, from the very necessity of the case, who went by the name of Apocrisiarius, Archicapellanus, Capellanus[239], or at an earlier period, of Referendarius[240]; at a later again, of Archicancellarius, because he had a subordinate officer or deputy commonly called the Cancellarius. He was the head of those whose business it was to prepare writs and other legal instruments, and who went by the general names of Notarii or Tabelliones[241]. In a state which admitted of what are now called Personal laws, that is, where each man might be judged, not according to the law of the place in which he was settled, but that of his parents, that under which he was born,—where Frank, Burgundian, Alaman and Roman might claim each to be tried and judged by Frankish, Burgundian, Alamanic or Roman law respectively, whatever might be the prevalent character of the territory in which he was domiciled,—such an officer was indispensable. The administration of the customary, unwrittenlaw of the Teutonic tribes might have been left to Teutonic officers; but what was to be done when a Provincial claimed the application to his case of the maxims and provisions of Roman jurisprudence? What was to be done when a collision of principles and a conflict of laws took place, and must be provided for? A clergyman, whose own nation, whatever it might be, merged in the Romanper clericalem honorem[242], must necessarily become a principal officer of a state which numbered both Romans and clergymen among its subjects; and hence the Apocrisiarius had a seat in the Carolingian parliament[243], as well as in the Council of the Household, and ultimately became the principal minister for the affairs of the clergy[244]. But no such necessity existed in England, where there was no system of conflicting laws, and where the use of professional notaries was unknown[245], and I therefore see noà prioriprobability of there having been any such officer as the Referendarius or Apocrisiarius in our courts. Nor till the reign of Eádweard the Confessor is there the slightest historical evidence in favour of such an office[246]: under this prince however, whose predilection for Norman customs isnotorious, it is not improbable that some change may have taken place in this respect, and that a gradual approximation to the continental usage may have been found. The occurrence therefore of a Cancellarius, Sigillarius and Notarius among his household does not appear matter of great surprise, and may be admitted as genuine, if we are only careful not to confound the first officer with that great functionary whom we now call the Lord High Chancellor of the realm. We are told that, among his innovations, Eádweard attempted to introduce the use of seals; the uniform tenor of his writs certainly renders it not improbable that he had also notaries or professional clerks, and I can therefore admit the probability of his having appointed some faithful chaplain to act as his chancellor, that is, to keep his seal,—though not yet used for public instruments,—and to manage the royal notarial establishment. There are many persons named as royal chaplains; some, whose successive appointments to bishoprics appeared to our simple forefathers to encroach too much upon the proper and canonical mode of election. Among them are the following:—

Eádweard’s queen Eádgyfu and her brother Harald had also their chaplains; Walther, afterwards bishop of Hereford[264], and Leófgár who preceded him in the same see[265], and who, being probably of the same mind as his noble and warlike lord, was no sooner a bishop than “he forsook his chrism and rood, his spiritual weapons, and took to his spear and sword,” and so going to the field against Griffin the Welsh king, was slain, and many of his priests with him. The establishment of chaplains in the royal household is, of course, of the highest antiquity; it is probable that they were preceded thereby Pagan priests, and formed a necessary part of the royal comitatus in all ages[266].

Among the royal officers was also the Pedissequus or as he is sometimes called Pedessessor, whose functions I cannot nearer define, unless he were a king’s messenger. The following instances occur:—Æðelheáh pedessessor, who appears to have been a duke[267]: Bola pedisecus[268]: Ælfred pedisecus[269]. Eástmund pedisecus[270]. In Beówulf, Hunferð the orator is said tositat the king’sfeet, “ðe æt fótum sæt freán scyldinga.” (l. 994.)

In the year 1040, Hardacnut’scarnifexor executioner is described as a person of great dignity[271]. Other titles are also enumerated, some of which appear to denote offices in the royal household: thus we find Radulfus aulicus[272], Bundinus palatinus[273], Deórmód cellerarius[274], Wiferð claviger[275], Leófsige signifer[276], Ælfwine sticcere[277], Æðelríc bigenga[278]. It is uncertain whether the following are to be considered as regular members of the court, or whether their presence was merely accidental, on a particular occasion: Brihtríc and Ælfgár, consiliarii[279], Ælfwig[280]and Cyneweard[281]praepositi, Godricus tribunus[282],Aldred theloniarius[283]. Nor is it absolutely demonstrable that those who claimed consanguinity with the king formed part of his household, although they probably made their connexion valid as a recommendation to royal favour. “The king’s poor cousin[284]” seems at all events to have taken care that his light should shine before men, as we learn from the signatures, Ælfhere ex parentela regis[285], Leófwine propinquus regis[286], Hesburnus regis consanguineus[287], Rodbertus regis consanguineus[288], and similar entries.

But no such doubt applies to the household troops, or immediate body-guard of the king. These are commonly called Húscarlas, by the Anglosaxon writers, and continued to exist under that name after the Norman conquest. Lappenberg has very justly looked upon them as a kind of military gild, or association, of which the king was the master[289]. I doubt whether they were organized as a separate force before the time of Cnut; but it is certain that under that prince and his Danish successors they attained a definite and settled position. It is probable that this resulted from the circumstances under which he obtained the crown of England, and that the institution was not known to his Saxon predecessors: as an invader, not at all secure of histenure, and surrounded by nobles whose previous conduct offered but slight guarantee of their fidelity, it became absolutely necessary to his safety to organize his own peculiar force in such a way as to secure the readiest service if occasion demanded it. This was the object of the Witherlags Ret, by which the privileges and duties of the Húscarlas were settled. Of this law Lappenberg observes:—“With greater probability may be reckoned among the earlier labours of Cnut, the composition of the Witherlags Ret, a court- or gild-law, framed for his standing army, as well as for the body-guards of his jarls. As the greater part of his army remained in England, the Witherlags Ret was there first established, and as the introduction of strict discipline among such a military community must precede all other ameliorations in the condition of the country, the mention of this law in its history ought not to be omitted[290]. The immediate militaryattendants of a conqueror always exercise vast influence, and these originally Danish soldiers (thingamenn, thingamanna lith, by the English called Húscarlas) have at a later period, both as bodyguards of the king and of the great vassals, acted no unimportant part in the country. They were armed with axes, halberds and swords inlaid with gold, and in purpose, descent and equipment corresponded to the Warangian guard (Wæringer), in which the throne of the Byzantine emperors found its best security. In Cnut’s time the number of these mercenaries was not very great,—being by some reckoned at three thousand, by others at six thousand[291]—but they were gathered under his banner from various nations, and consequently required the stricter discipline. Even a valiant Wendish prince, Gottschalk, the son of Udo, stayed long with Cnut in England, and gained the hand of a daughter of the royal house[292]. Cnut himself appears rather as a sort of grand-master of this military gild, than as its commander, and it is said that, having in his anger slain one of the brotherhood in England, he submitted himself to its judgment in their assembly (stefn) and paid a ninefold compensation[293]. The degrading epithet of ‘nithing’applied to an expelled member of the gild, is an Anglosaxon word, which at a later period occurs in a way to render it extremely probable that the gild-law of the royal house-carls was in existence after the Norman conquest[294].”

The details of this law are of the most stringent description, regulating even the minutest points of social intercourse. Its extreme punishment was expulsion; but expulsion was nearly equivalent to death, situated as the Húscarlas were expected to be, among a hostile population. And though the offending brother had his election, whether he would retire from the gild by sea or land, yet the circumstances which attended his ejection were not those of mercy or alleviation. To the seashore, the whole body of his ancient comrades were to accompany him; then launching him in a boat, with oars or sails, they were to commit him to his fortune: henceforth he was not only a stranger but an enemy, an outlaw: if stress of weather or other accident brought him back to the shore, he might be fallen upon and slain without remorse or retribution. Or if he chose to retire by land, he was to be led to the nearest wood, and there to be watched till his form was lost in the darkness of the thickets: three successive shouts were then to be raised, to warn him of the direction in whichhis gild-brothers lay in wait. If then, through the devious error of the forest he returned into their presence, his life was forfeit. To insult, injure or dishonour a brother was an offence punished with the utmost severity; and if three of the Húscarlas concurred in accusing one of the body, there was neither denial nor exculpation allowed; the penalty followed inevitably. Such severe regulations as these fully explain their object; and it seems to have been successfully attained, for we are told that, at least during the life of Cnut, the penalties were never once incurred or enforced[295].

From the collocation of names among the witnesses to a very important charter of 1052-1054, we may infer that the Stealleras or Marshals were the commanding officers of the Húscarlas[296]. We cannot doubt that they did really exercise an important personal influence in England, although they filled no recognized position under the law: it is probable that they were reckoned as thanes or ministers, as far as their wergyld and heriot were concerned; but we have no evidence of this, and Ishould not dispute the assertion that from first to last they had a law of their own,—a personal right,—that they were not generally or originally landowners, and that their institution was a modified revival of the system of the Comitatus in its strictest form. But upon these points we cannot decide. It is very rarely that we find the Húscarlas acting as witnesses to charters, which perhaps may lead to the inference that they were not members of theWitena gemót[297]: but in 1041 we are told that Hardacnut sent two of his Húscarlas, Feader and Turstan, to collect an unpopular tax, and that a sedition was raised against them in Worcester, which was not suppressed till the force of several counties, under the most celebrated leaders of the day, was brought against the city[298].

In a charter of the Confessor, we find the word Húscarl translated by “praefectus palatinus[299],”—a title which scarcely seems applicable to all the members of a body numbering six, or even three, thousand men: but, however this may be, we must not confound thesepraefecti palatiniwith the other, earlierpraefectiwho occur in Anglosaxon history[300]: these are clearly onlygeréfanor reeves, and have nothing to do with the especial body of household troops.

It remains only to add that, in imitation of theking, the great nobles surrounded themselves with a body-guard of Húscarlas[301], who probably stood in the same relation to their lord, as he did to the king: in short the institution is only a revival of the Comitatus, described in the First Book, and must have gone through a similar course of development. Nay, the details which have reached us of the later establishment may possibly throw light upon the earlier, and serve to explain some of the peculiarities which strike us in the account of Tacitus. This difference indeed there is, that in the later form the king and the comites unite in a definite bond, with respective, stipulated rights; in the earlier form, the comites attach themselves to the king, without stipulation or reserve, although no doubt under the protection of a customary and recognized, although unwritten, law.

200. Speaking of the Pincerna regis Æðelstani, one of the great officers of the Household, in the early part of the tenth century, William of Malmesbury says, “Itaque cum forte die solenni vinum propinaret,” etc. Gest. Reg. § ii. 139.

201. Eichhorn, i. 197. § 25, b. Eichhorn argues the first from a passage in Greg. Turon. vii. 24. The latter portion of the Chamberlain’s duties is defined by Hincmar of Rheims, § 22. “De honestate vero palatii, seu specialiter ornamento reguli, necnon et de donis annuis militum, absque cibo et potu, vel equis, ad Reginam praecipue, et sub ipsa ad Camerarium pertinebat: et sollicitudo erat, ut tempore congruo semper futura prospicerent, ne quid, dum opus esset, defuisset. De donis vero diversarum legationum ad Camerarium aspiciebat.”

202. “Cubicularios regis duos.” Will. Malm., ii. § 180.

203. Cod. Dipl. No. 320.

204. Ibid. No. 1246.

205. Ibid. No. 715.

206. Flor. Wig. an. 1040.

207. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 771, 810.

208. Ibid. No. 809.

209. Ibid. No. 899, very doubtful.

210. Ibid. No. 904.

211. Flor. Wig. an. 897. Chron. Saxon,cod. an.

212. Cod. Dipl. No. 1328.

213. Ibid. Nos. 771, 828, 855, 864.

214. Ibid. Nos. 771, 822, 828, 859, 871, 904, 956, 1338.

215. Ibid. No. 773.

216. Ibid. No. 809.

217. Ibid. Nos. 822, 956, 1338.

218. Ibid. No. 822.

219. Ibid. No. 945.

220. Ibid. No. 845.

221. Ibid. Nos. 956, 1338.

222. Flor. Wig. an. 1052.

223. Chron. Sax. an. 1047.

224. Cod. Dipl. No. 149.

225. Ibid. No. 1224.

226. Ibid. No. 715.

227. Ibid. No. 808.

228. Ibid. No. 813.

229. Ibid. No. 813.

230. Ibid. No. 722.

231. Cod. Dipl. No. 813.

232. Asser, an. 849.

233. Cod. Dipl. No. 148.

234. Ibid. No. 320.

235. Ibid. No. 1224.

236. Ibid. No. 1294.

237. Ibid. No. 813.

238. Ibid. No. 813.

239. Hincmar. § 32.

240. “Qui referendarius ideo est dictus, quod ad eum universae publicae deferentur conscriptiones, ipseque eas annulo regis, sive sigillo ab eo sibi commisso muniret seu primaret.” Aimo. Gest. Franc. iv. 41. Eichhorn, i. 194, note f. § 25, b.

241. “Apocrisiario sociebatur summus cancellarius, qui a secretis olim appellabatur, erantque illi subiecti prudentes et intelligentes ac fideles viri, qui praecepta regia absque immoderata cupiditatis venalitate scriberent, et secreta illius fideliter custodirent.” Hincmar. § 16. Eichhorn,loc. cit.

242. “Landulfus et Petrus clericus germani, ... qui professi sumus ex natione nostra legem vivere Langobardorum, sed ego Petrus clericus per clericalem honorem lege videor vivere Romana.” Lupi. p. 223, cited by Savigny, Röm. Recht. i. 120.

243. Hincmar. § 16, 19, 21. Döninges, Deut. Staatsr. p. 24seq.

244. Eichhorn, § 25, b. i. 195.

245. “Quoniam tabellionum usus in regno Angliae non habetur.” Mat. Paris, Hen. III.

246. In Cod. Dipl. Nos. 3, 4, an Angemundus referendarius is mentioned, but these two charters are glaring forgeries.

247. Flor. Wig. an. 1038, Abp. Canterbury.

Back to Index Next