Part 5

That this Werburghwick was in the Hoo, will become more likely by comparison with another charter.[84] This is, a grant of a privilege to the Bishop of Rochester, by Æthelbald, A.D. 734, which has an endorsed confirmation, by Beorhtuulf “regi merciorū in uico regali uuerbergeuuic,” which endorsement must have been added about A.D. 844. Turn also to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A.D. 851 or 853, where it is said that the Heathen men having held their winter in Thanet; in the same year came 350 ships into Thames mouth, and broke Canterbury, and London, and made this same Beorhtuulf King of the Mercians fly with his army, and went south over Thames into Surrey.[85] It is thought more likely that he was at his villa regalis, in the Hoo, than at Tamworth; where however he sometimes is also found.

The truth seems to be, that, when Mercia relapsed into a mere province or Ealdormanship, it still retained its hold in Kent as an appanage. Thus we have seen Ceoluulf at our Werburghwick in the Hoo, A.D. 823; and Beorhtwulf in the same place, A.D. 844, and again, apparently disturbed by the Danes, A.D. 853. In the paper, before referred to, Mr. Rashleigh has given an analytical table of a hoard of about 550 Anglo-Saxon Coins found at or near Gravesend in 1838, which must have been buried so late as A.D. 874-5. Of these 429 are of Burgred king of Mercia A.D. 852-874, and one of Ceoluulf (II.) of Mercia, A.D. 874. Probably the boundary of the latest holding of Mercians in Kent, answers to that of the diocese of Rochester, as it came down to the middle of the present century; somewhat abnormally consisting of only a part of a county. Dioceses were originally identical with civil provinces; and have been dormantly conservative of their boundaries, during those very times when political revolutions have been most active upon those of civil states.

* * * * *

It thus appears, that the three most frequent of the names, from which the series of Mercian synods are dated, can be accounted for as of places practically in the same locality; and that, the one to which tradition, before it had been tampered with by philological evolution, had already directly pointed; and on a piece of land, exceptionally given to Canterbury, encompassed by the lands of Rochester, for a purpose of which the circumstances here adduced are the only explanation and index. It is not inferred that all three names indicate the same building: probably not; for, in a later synod, “ad Clobeham,” (A.D. 825)[86] a judgment “prius at Cælchythe” is referred to. But so might, up to our time, a judgment at Westminster, or at Guildhall, be quoted in the Chancellor’s Court at Lincoln’s Inn; but all three would be at London.

* * * * *

Although the synods of the series are most frequently dated from Cloveshoe, Chalkhythe, and Acleah, other places have one or two each. There is “Berhford,” A.D. 685, usually placed at Burford, Oxon., for no other reason than the sound of the name, connected with the old prejudice for that neighbourhood as central for Mercia. “Baccanceld,” A.D. 798, was certainly in Kent, since there was also a council of the still self-acting king of Kent held there, A.D. 694. Another name “Bregentforda,” very doubtfully, upon no better ground, placed at Brentford. All these deserve to be closely re-considered; and if possible supported by some reason, added to these guesses from the merest outside likeness in the names.

Already, A.D. 680, Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, had presided at a general Council of the Bishops of England, said by Ven. Beda to be “in loco qui Saxonico vocabulo _Haethfelth_ nominatur.” Some have placed this at one of the various Hatfields or Heathfields that may have struck the taste of either; whether in Yorkshire, Herts, Essex, Sussex, or Somerset. But Archbishop Parker[87] says that it was “juxta Roffam,” apparently quoting “Roff. Histor.” This, at any rate, shews that near Rochester was at least not thought an unlikely place for a great general Council. Collier also gives the marginal title “The synod at Hatfield _or_ Clyff, near Rochester.” So much for Heathfelth. But where, after all, was “Herutford,” the place of the earlier synod (A.D. 673), also convened by Archbishop Theodore? This may be looked upon as the initial one of the long series of “Clofeshoch” synods: at which that series was first appointed. Mr. Kemble says[88] that it was “presided over by Hlothari the sovereign of Kent,” and this was probably the case, although Beda does not expressly say so. Beda only adds, to his account of the decrees of the council, a paragraph beginning with a statement that it was held A.D. 673, the year in which king Ecgberct had died and been succeeded by his brother Hlothere. Kent was still an independent kingdom; and, not only in the primacy, but in its instrument, the series of synods thus instituted, possessed within itself the heart of the now established church; which, having become an active political function of concentration, was a much coveted constituent of empire; and invited the impending aggression of Mercia. Within three years of the first institution and localisation of these councils, Æthered made a direct swoop upon this quarry, when he entered Kent at this very Hoo, the appointed place of the future councils.

The only reason for “Hertford,” as the usual interpretation of “Herutford,” is again the mere likeness of the name; and is not a strong one even of its kind. Any place with “Rod-,” “Reed-,” “Rote-,” and many the like initial syllable, would have a better claim. It is very much suspected that the method, hitherto practised of placing these old place-names, has been far too hasty. It may fairly be expected that some of them are no longer represented by any existing names. We have seen above by how close a shaving several have survived. But of this name “Herutford,” “Heorotford,” or “Heortford,” it might safely be assumed that the initial “He-,” is no more than a prefixed aspirate: that it is not of the essence of the name. And so Beda himself evidently thought; for when[89] he mentions a name, almost identical with this one, in Hampshire; he gives it with a Latin explanation, “_Hreutford_, id est _Vadum harundinis_,” evidently taking it for Reed or Rodford.[90] We might also expect to find such a name represented by a modern name beginning with “Wr-;” but an inconsiderable “Redham,” a farm, in Gloucestershire, is found written “Hreodham” in the tenth century.

The above had already been written, when it seemed to be at least a formal obligation to test this principle, by a direct application of it to the district under consideration; which has unexpectedly yielded, what is at any rate, an example of the principle. Whether or not it indicates an actual trace of the place “Herutford” itself, shall not at present be ventured to say. However,[91] in the charter, dated 778, already quoted, in which the level land north of Cliffe is called “Scaga;” the land-marks begin with the words “Huic uero terrae adiacent pratae ubi dicitur Hreodham.” The land itself, to which it is adjacent, is called “Bromgeheg;” a name which now remains as “Broomey,” a house only, at Cooling; and the chief land-limits are “Clifwara gemære” and “Culinga gemære.” The land is granted to the Bishop of Rochester, but evidently adjoins the eastern side of that including Cliffe itself, which had already been given to the Archbishop, as above quoted.

Even at first sight it would seem unaccountable, that, at a synod held at Hertford; what appears to amount to a periodical series of repetitions or continuations, or in fact adjournments of it should have been determined upon at so distant a place as Clofeshoch,--wherever that may prove to have been--must have been from Hertford. It would seem more likely, that the future place of assembly in view, would have been practically in the same place. This initial council was under the presidency of the Primate; and so were those that followed, except that when the King of Mercia was present the Primate yielded the first place to him. The permanently appointed place would also be likely to have in view the convenience of access, to the Primate, of his suffragans, from all the sub-kingdoms; and to this the Watling-street contributed, not only his own ready approach from Canterbury, to the very place where tradition has fixed it; but also, for those who were to meet him there; the most perfect road from London, and the entire north-west of the island; whilst immediate access from East Saxony, East Anglia, and the northern dioceses, has been shewn in the well frequented ferry, also to this very place. The Church of England is seen to have had an earlier approximation towards political unity than the Kingdom of England. The former was, in fact, contributory to the latter as, perhaps, one of its most efficient causes. This was not lost sight of by those who aimed at the supremacy; whose policy, therefore, was to have the Primate at his right hand in his councils; and to cultivate an identity of interest with him. Offa’s attempt to set up an Archbishop at Lichfield, only seven miles from his home-court at Tamworth, was in this direction.

* * * * *

This attempt to determine the true place of these synods, during the continuance of Mercian supremacy in England; was intended to confirm the statement, that wherever extraneous dedications of St. Werburgh are found, traces are also found of the energetic or active presence of Æthelbald. It may seem to be rather an elaborate implement for so small a purpose. It has been more extensive than was contemplated: but, if once successfully constructed, it may serve a greater purpose of its own: the setting at rest of a long dispute. And this purpose of its own will itself receive back all that it gives to ours: for if the presence of Æthelbald, accounts for our having found a St. Werburgh in this now secluded peninsula; the presence of that dedication, is a weighty confirmation of the much disputed fact, that he was busy and much resident there; and that we might reasonably expect his most important acts to be dated thence. At all events, it is hoped that our sixth and last remaining of the wandering dedications of St. Werburgh, in the Kentish Hoo, has been thus discovered to have been in the immediate company of Æthelbald; when, as it is said in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle:

“A.D. 742. Now was a great synod gathered at Cloueshou, and there was Æthelbald, King of the Mercians, and Cutbert, Archbishop, and many other wise men.”

But something more is to be said concerning this passage itself of the Chronicle. It appears to be only contained in one manuscript; consequently in the five-column edition, this year is only filled in in the fifth column; the other four being blank. Sir T. D. Hardy says of this solitary manuscript, that it is “apparently of the twelfth century;” and that it contains “various peculiar additions, chiefly relating to Kentish ecclesiastical affairs.”[92] Professor Earle also says of it: “There is no external tradition informing us as to what home it belonged, but the internal evidence assigns it to Christ Church, Canterbury.”[93] This is much more to our purpose than if it had been in all the manuscripts: for if it had been a part of the usual and received text of the Chronicle, it would have here been a mere retranscription, for ages, with an indefinite locality. As it is, standing only in a Chronicle of Canterbury; it had evidently claimed the special attention of the Annalist, from its direct local Kentish interest; and especially its concern with a piece of land, which, we have seen, was owned by the Cathedral Church to which the writer belonged. What has been already said about the “Dr. Hethe” note[94] applies with still greater force to this; which is indeed the same Canterbury tradition; only that it is in hand-writing of four hundred years earlier date.

But “Hoo-St.-Werburgh” is a parish adjoining to Cliffe; and our argument is, that when, as recorded in the Canterbury copy of the Chronicle, A.D. 742, there was a synod at Cloueshou, and that “Æthelbald was there;” he founded and dedicated this church, as we have found him to have done elsewhere. Added to this, we have seen reason, and shall presently see more, that the neighbouring church of Cliffe itself was founded by his great successor Offa, A.D. 774. It has been said, and with great likelihood, that Cliffe and Hoo-St.-Werburgh were the two most ancient churches in the Hoo; and that they are the mother churches of the five or six others in the peninsula, that have sprung up at some later times; their segregated portions, which, in due course, have consolidated into separate parishes.

As before said, the church at Cliffe-at-Hoo itself, has the dedication of St. Helen; and it is believed that, by a similar foretaste of chivalry, to that of Æthelbald’s for St. Werburgh; Offa habitually planted his standard under the name of this other female saint. It is, therefore, no wonder that we find these two, close together, in that very district wherein, during two long reigns, Æthelbald and Offa are recorded as constantly performing acts of sovereignty. Of this there are many evidences, besides the councils about which we are engaged, in the accounts of their dealings, in this district, and along the Medway, and throughout Kent, in the manner in which conquerors usually deal with newly-acquired land; as shewn in their numerous charters.

The reputed British-Roman nativity of St. Helen in Deira, appears to have given her name a prevalence in that province, with which the Anglian successors of the northern Britons were infected; like that of St. Alban, and the Kentish St. Martin, with his prolific eastern grafts.[95] And they accepted and improved the legacy. But the remains, of this acceptance, of a local aspect of religion, are the most conspicuous in Deira; and in Lindisse or Southumbria, a constituent of that kingdom. It did not extend to Bernicia. Of the known existing dedications of St. Helen, Durham contains only two, Northumberland one, Westmoreland and Cumberland none; and we learn from Bp. Forbes, that the name thinly re-appears beyond the border in Scottish Northumbria. But in Yorkshire we find twenty-two, and in Lincolnshire thirty; and these last, except two a little south of it, are all in Lindsey proper: Nottinghamshire also has ten. Lancashire has four or five. The tendency of Northumbrian hagiology to spread into Mercia proper, has been already mentioned; and a still pretty free, but reduced, scattering of St. Helens is found in that kingdom. Derbyshire has 5, Cheshire 3, Northants 6, Leicestershire 4, but Staffordshire none, Salop one--being near to [H]Elle[n]smere. Bedfordshire one at [H]El[len]stow. Herts one at Wheathampstead--near Offa’s St. Alban, and Essex (Colchester) one. The Wiccian counties, Warwick two, Worcester (city), and Gloucestershire (north) each one.

The above examples, of this dedication in England--about 96--have been recited, chiefly for the purpose of exhaustion. The residual seven or eight, still more scattered over the more southern counties, are what our lesson must be chiefly read from; that they are found in the footsteps of Offa, as marks of new possession; in a similar manner to the St. Werburghs in the tract of Æthelbald. No doubt each of the ninety six has its own story to tell, but it does not now concern us.

As we have already seen,[96] A.D. 774, Offa granted the land at Higham in Hoo, which includes the site of the church and town of Cliffe, to Jaenberht, Archbishop of Canterbury; exceptionally surrounded by lands of the Bishop of Rochester. At the same time, there can be no doubt, he founded and dedicated the church, which still bears the name of St. Helen. Again, in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, A.D. 777, it is written, “Now Cynewulf”--of Wessex--“and Offa fought around Bensington, and Offa took that town.” The church at Bensington on the left--or Offa’s--shore of the Thames is also a St. Helen at this day. At Albury, also in Oxfordshire, about nine miles north of Bensington, on the smaller river Thame, the church is St. Helen. Also, on the Thames, at Abingdon, as is well known, there is a St. Helen. With regard, however, to this last, the local monastic tradition gives an earlier origin, founded on a miraculous discovery of a Holy Rood. This must stand, against our use of this example, for whatever the tradition may be worth. Perhaps a fourth “Sancta Helena” is recorded,[97] as the sanctuary of a fugitive who had stolen a bridle, A.D. 995. The land, given in conciliation, must have been close to the chalk ridge south of the White Horse Vale, Berks; as, among the boundaries, is “Cwicelmes hlæw,” well known to be on this ridge; and the “grenanweg,” still called by the neighbours “the Green Way;” being a part of what is called “the Drover’s Road,” by which, until outdone by the rail, cattle from the west were driven, for many miles, turnpike free, and with peripatetic grazing. The St. Helen here referred to may, however, have been Abingdon itself.

At any rate, here are three, out of the few existing southern St. Helens, in the line of frontier then realised by Offa against Wessex. The same line of St. Helens, both eastward and westward, is also extended across the island, from the extreme north of Kent, as we have seen; by the well-known one in London; and another formerly at Malmsebury, and another at Bath. These last three--making six--also probably resulted from the same campaign of Offa as the Berkshire and Oxfordshire ones.

That at Bath, however, has a special claim to our attention; having been in that same suburb outside the north gate, where also was found the St. Werburgh, within the fork of the Foss-way and that now called Via Julia. Here then, as already in the Hoo of Kent, we once more find a St. Werburgh and a St. Helen in immediate companionship. The seal of Æthelbald endorsed by that of Offa, the inheritor of his policy.[98] But what is the significance of these emblems of Mercian territory, being both found outside the Roman walled town on the north side? Did this suburb become specially a Mercian quarter? The monastery, of which Offa was a reputed founder or re-founder about this very time, must have been a chief occupant of the area within the walls; and its possessions extended, in the opposite direction, beyond the river, on the Wessex side. We have already seen[99] signs of Æthelbald’s further south-west progress along the Foss-way as far as into East Devon.

Besides this line of St. Helens, along the frontier, which was the result of the campaign recorded in the Chronicle, under A.D. 777; there are still three outlying southward, along the south coast: the extreme natural limit of the Saxon nations. Although not recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, an earlier excursion of Offa is mentioned by others. A.D. 771, Simeon of Durham[100] says “His diebus Offa, rex Merciorum, Hestingorum gentem armis subegerat.” Dr. Lappenberg, in relating this feat of Offa’s, calls “the Hestingas, a people whose locality, like that of so many others among the Saxons, is not known with certainty. They have been sought for about Hastings in Sussex, and most probably inhabited the district around that town to which they gave their name.”[101] Roger of Wendover, however, reads “Anglorum gentem.”[102] Upon this, Sir F. Palgrave had already noted: “It is not easy to ascertain what people are meant. The name has inclined many writers to suppose that they were the inhabitants of Hastings, but they could scarcely be of sufficient importance. Perhaps we should read _East Anglorum_.”[103] Other recent historians, with or without hesitation, adopt the present town of Hastings as the scene of the conquest.

Here then we have another fully ripe historic doubt; so evenly balanced in the judgments of the most specifically learned, that after what has already been shewn, of the local coincidences of dedications of St. Helen with the feats of Offa; if the like should be found also to apply to the one here recorded, would be sufficient to give a considerable bias to the scale. And this is what we do find.

About a mile north of the town, which still bears a name that has since acquired other claims to places in history, Hastings; is a village called Ore; of which the church has another of our southern outlying dedications of St. Helen. If Offa’s conquest, as recorded by Simeon of Durham, refers to Sussex, it needs only to say so much, in order to account for this one; and to fulfil the promise of our theory; that the name of this saint and the written witnesses of Offa’s progress, shall be found to mutually confirm each other as evidence of his active presence. This village is situated on an elevation commanding the town itself; and on the southern edge of a ridge, along which, and close to the village, runs one of those great roads, of which the straight line is significant of a long, ancient, and arterial use. In fact it must have been always the almost sole approach to the town, whether from Kent or from the centre of England. Moreover, at whatever point of the neighbouring beach, at a later time, William landed; this road must have been his principal means of reaching Battle. Here, therefore, upon the door itself of the town, still remains the usual seal of Offa’s conquests. Sir Francis Palgrave’s objection, of the insufficient importance of the Gens Hestingorum, would not, it is thought, have been raised, if he had remembered that the large territory, called the “Rap de Hastings” of Domesday, and the Rape of Hastings of our own time, most likely had already existed from the first settlement of the South Saxons. Two or three years later, Offa is still found busy in that part of Kent which adjoins this most eastern of the Rapes of Sussex.

But although the Hæstingas only are mentioned, as the people first encountered, there are other evidences that he extended his conquests westward throughout Sussex. One of his St. Helens remains on the foot of the South Downs, between the peninsulated stronghold called The Devil’s Dike and the sea; and, within actual eyeshot, is another, on the opposite eastern coast of the Isle of Wight. Moreover he has, as was his practice in many parts of England, also left his own name along the line, in Offham, near Lewes, Offington, near Worthing, Offham, close to Arundel Park.

There are also one or two St. Helens or Elens, both in Cornwall and Wales: which would be in accordance with what otherwise has been said above, but as several local Celtic saints have names liable to become more familiar by corruption into this one, they will not be here called into evidence.

* * * * *

For the series of synods of which the acts are dated from Cloveshoe did not cease with the reign of Æthelbald. These, interspersed with occasional dates of Cealchythe and Aclea, continued throughout the other long and dominant Mercian reign of his successor Offa. Indeed they continued as long as Mercia remained supreme, and far into the ninth century: the date of “Clofeshoe” being last met with for a synod under Beornuulf, A.D. 825: about the time when both Kent and Essex are found to have been annexed by Wessex.