Page images
PDF
EPUB

times. We may quote the grant made by the convent, and which purchased the protection of Norman, the son of Earl Leofwine. At his demand a demise was made to him of the manor of Baddeley, for the term of one hundred years, to be holden of St. Guthlac, by the rent of a pepper-corn, payable on the feast of St. Bartholomew in every year.* No other instance was ever found of a demise for a term of years before the conquest; and it does not appear possible that the charter recited by Ingulphus could have even been grounded upon any Saxon grant.†

Towards the conclusion of the work, the adventures of the writer form a considerable and amusing portion of the history. Ingulphus was born of English parents, in the city of London. From his earliest years, he received a learned education. Beginning his studies at Westminster, he continued his labours in Oxford. Surpassing his contemporaries in his knowledge of the philosophy of Aristotle, he was equally versed in the rhetoric of Cicero. When he approached towards the age of manhood, he began to despise the humble home of his father, and, haunting the palaces of the great, he affected the dress and imitated the manners of a courtier. At this juncture, 1051, William, Earl' of Normandy, visited his cousin of England with a splendid train of followers. Ingulphus gained the favour of the future conqueror, and being retained in the service of the Earl, he returned with him to Normandy. There he rose most rapidly in power and dignity. Appointed secretary to William, he governed the court with unlimited power. Fortune depended upon the smiles or frowns of Ingulphus, the English favourite. It being announced in Normandy, that many of the Prelates and Barons of the Empire intended to proceed to the Holy Land, Ingulphus, and thirty others of the Norman court, determined to join the pilgrims. Seven thousand were assembled under the Archbishop of Mentz, who, after a long yet prosperous journey, arrived at Constantinople, where, according to the ceremonial of the Byzantine court, they 'adored' the Emperor Alexius. At Jerusalem they were received with great kindness by the Patriarch Sophronius. We have not space to pursue our recital of the adventures of Ingulphus, and it is only necessary to mention, that in the year 1075, he was instituted as abbot of Croyland, where he continued till his death.

[ocr errors]

Anachronisms which merely impeach the accuracy of the histo* Ingulph. 57.

+ Grants for one or more life or lives were not uncommon, and there are instances of conventions for the occupation of land for an indefinite term, which in practice were equivalent to grants for life. But demises for long terms of years are of subsequent ise given by Maddox (Formulare Anglicanum, p. 180.) term of thirty years.

introduction. The earli
is of the 7 Ric. I.
the 7 Ri

Ingulph. 73,:

[blocks in formation]

rian are entirely fatal to auto-biography. The passage respecting the education of Ingulphus long since roused the suspicion of Gibbon; and it still remains to be proved, that Aristotle formed part of the course of education at the university of Oxford, at a time when his works were studied in no other part of Christendom. An admission that some of the treatises of the Stagyrite were known to the curious few in imperfect translations or meagre abstracts, will not by any means confirm the assertions of Ingulphus. Language like his plainly implies that a proficiency in Aristotelian lore excited the emulation and rewarded the exertions of the Oxonian students.

But a more serious and insuperable error yet remains. The pseudo-Ingulphus, for we can no longer give any other name to the writer, does not state the exact year of his journey to Jerusalem. It took place, however, not long after his official promotion, and the mention made of the Patriarch Sophronius fixes the event between the years 1053 and 1059.* But the accession of Alexius I. did not happen till 1081,† long after Ingulphus was settled at Croyland. There is no possibility of explaining away this proof of falsification, unless by supposing that the name of Alexius is an erroneous reading for Michael or Isaac, but if this solution be adopted, what reliance can be placed on manuscripts which are so depraved?

[ocr errors]

Do we then bonâ fide consider the history of Ingulphus as being little better than an historical novel'? We must decidedly give an affirmative answer to the question. We believe it to be a mere monkish invention; and the object of the compilation may perhaps be guessed. It was intended to support St. Guthlac's title to the lands and possessions of which the deeds were lost, and to give a sterling value to the base metal of the golden charter. After the dissolution, the manuscript which had the reputation of being the autograph of Ingulphus, continued in the church of Croyland, where it was preserved with great care in a chest, locked with three keys, which were entrusted to the churchwardens of the parish. Selden endeavoured, but in vain, to obtain access to the treasure; and when Fulman made inquiries, he ascertained that it could no longer be found. Three ancient copies of this manuscript are known to have existed. One, in the possession of Marsham, was the basis of Fulman's edition, and appears to have been the most complete. Another, from whence Selden published the laws of the Conqueror, existed in the Cottonian

* Art de Vérifier les Dates, vol. i. p. 267. + Gibbon, Decline and Fall, vol. ix. c. 48.

Scriptores Rerum Anglicarum, Oxon. 1684. This volume is quoted as the second volume of Gale and Fell's collection.

library,

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

library, but it was burnt with the other manuscripts; and let it be observed, that the presses which contained the most valuable historical documents, were those which suffered most from the spiteful flames. A third manuscript was used by Sir Henry Saville:* we have no account of this codex, but it was imperfect, ending with the passage where the French text of the laws of the Conqueror is introduced; and, together with Marsham's copy, it has long since disappeared. Whilst the documents thus evade our inquiries, a curious accident enables us to pronounce upon the age of the Croyland' autograph' with tolerable certainty. Spelman states, that he consulted the autograph' manuscript, from whence he has transcribed the first five chapters of the Norman laws.‡ Now, in his transcript, this eminent antiquary has fallen into an error which renders his misprint equivalent to a fac-simile of the characters of the manuscript. For the word Euesqes, he reads -Euestres. The cause of this mistake will be easily understood when it is observed that in the current handwriting which prevailed during the reigns of Edward I. and II., the syllables esqes' bear so near a resemblance to the syllables estres,' as scarcely to be distinguishable from each other, as may be seen by inspection of the following examples, which are faithfully traced from a manuscript of that age:

(Euesqes) Encßer (Auncestres) ammeestes

[ocr errors]

But the mistake could hardly have been made by the transcriber,

Scriptores Rerum Anglicarum post Bedam, Lond. 1596.

+ The fate of Marsham's manuscript has not been ascertained. Bishop Gibson, writing July, 1694, to Dr. Arthur Charlett, Master of University College, says, Sir John Marsham's collection must be considerable. There is a curious Ingulphus in your library, which, as his family says, Obadiah Walker_stole from him. told him what they lay to his charge: his answer was, that Sir John gave it to him; and that as an acknowledgement he presented him with some copies of the Ingulphus printed at Oxford. It is very probable, though Sir John did not design to part with the booksnay, he used to be complaining of Mr. Walker for using him so unkindly. But the old gentleman has too much of the spirit of an antiquarie and a great scholar to think stealing a manuscript any sin. He has ordered me not to discover where it is lodged—' (Gough's Additions to Croyland, 283). Though it has often been suspected that collectors do not consider themselves under a strict obligation of obeying the eighth Commandment, yet we never heard this doctrine so plainly expressed and confessed. We are informed that the most diligent search has been made in the library of Univer sity College for the manuscript, but without success. Some other antiquarie and great scholar' may have followed the example of Obadiah, and acted with equal spirit.'

+ Adjiciendum censec aliud specimen quarundam prædictarum legum, ut Normannico habentur idiomate inter cæteras Confessoris leges ab Ingulpho, Abbate Croylandiæ datæ et post excidium illius monasterii in veterrimo M.S. ab ædituis superstitis illic ecclesiæ sub tertia clave conservatæ. Posuit has in lucem V. C. Johannes Selden in suis ad Edmerum notis, versionemque adjecit, quam jam accuratiorem exhibemus; sed leges ipsas ex ipso designavimus archetypo, castigatiores paululum, quam in impresso codice.-Concilia, vol. i. p. 313.

if the original manuscript had been written in the hands which prevailed in the age of Ingulphus; and we doubt whether the compilation was of much older date than the manuscript, that is to say, about the end of the thirteenth, or the first half of the fourteenth, century. In none of the chronicles anterior to that age can we trace a single line that is borrowed from Ingulphus. If the work had existed, it could scarcely have been neglected by these inveterate compilers. And subsequently to that period, the only work which exhibits a paragraph agreeing in substance with Ingulphus, is the Chronicle of Peterborough, compiled or interpolated by Robert of Boston, in the reign of Edward III. It is extremely probable that some history of Croyland existed in the archives of the abbey. Ordericus Vitalis, in his Ecclesiastical History, has given an abstract of the history of Croyland, perhaps deduced from genuine materials. Turketul is simply described as a certain clerk of London, of royal descent, a relative of Orketel Archbishop of York.' Had the biography consulted by Ordericus mentioned the name of Ethelward, he would scarcely have identified the clerk' by noticing the remoter and more obscure consanguinity; nor is it likely that the dignity of the chancellorship would have been omitted in the narrative. The deposition of Abbot Ulfketel, and the promotion of Ingulphus, are briefly told. Either Ordericus, or the documents used by him, may have furnished the outline of the romance published under the name of the reverend abbot. But to separate the gloss from the text, and the embellishment from the fact, is a task almost impracticable. The pseudo-Ingulphus, if quoted, must be quoted only in those passages where relations, not improbable in themselves, are uncontradicted by surer authorities. Ingulphus,' saith Dr. Henry, 'published an excellent history of the abbey of Croyland, from its foundation, A.D. 664 to A.D. 1091, with which he had introduced much of the general history of the kingdom, with a variety of curious anecdotes that are no where else to be found,'-but it is exactly these curious anecdotes which must be unsparingly rejected.

[ocr errors]

Much might be added respecting the treatment and interpretation of these ancient authorities. Their chronology in particular requires great attention. Years, amongst the heathen AngloSaxons, were reckoned by winters, and diurnal revolutions by nights. The winter began on the 'mother-night,' the festival of Yule. Their lunar calendar required the correction of an intercalary month, which was inserted in the summer season. The Roman missionaries certainly introduced the Roman calendar, but the period when it came into general use is unknown; and it is possible that the old national calendar may have been long retained

retained for civil purposes and in popular computation. All the Anglo-Saxon charters express their dates; the year of the King, of the Incarnation and the Indiction, are generally specified. But it is frequently difficult to reconcile the dates of these instruments to the chronicles, and the dates given by the chronicles as frequently offer discrepancies and varieties. Obvious as the convenience of denoting dates by a consecutive series of numbers may appear to us, this practice was by no means universal. Ethelweard reckons from event to event, and this rude and insecure chronology was probably the only mode of computation prevailing among the Anglo-Saxons before their conversion. There are even monastic chronicles in which the dates are entirely omitted. Instead of expressing the year, some scribes contented themselves with repeating the word 'annus,' without note, numeral, or particular of any description, and the date can only be supplied by conjecture. When the year of the incarnation is distinctly stated in an ancient chronicle, many perplexing difficulties still remain. On what day does the year begin? The year may begin either from the fixed feasts and days of Christmas, the kalends of January, the Annunciation, or Michaelmas-or else from the moveable feast of Easter. All these modes of computation prevailed. To increase the confusion, some chroniclers advanced upon their contemporaries by an entire year. If the year of the reign is to be calculated, our task will hardly be easier. It may have been reckoned from the king's accession, or from his consecration, and the date may change, not on the anniversary of the event from which it is reckoned, but with the beginning of the calendar year, whenever that beginning may have been reckoned.* The indiction

* In all regal tables and histories of England, the years of the reign of John are made to begin with the 6th April, 1199, the day of the death of Richard I. But John, notwithstanding the acknowledgment of his inchoate right, was only Duke of Normandy, until he was crowned as King of England, with the assent of the Baronage. In the period which elapsed between the death of Richard and the coronation, John had not the style of King, he exercised no acts of royal authority, nor did he become entitled to receive the royal revenue. His reign began with his coronation, which took place on the Ascension day (27th May, 1199), and he was then let into the receipt of the revenue. The years of his reign are calculated from Ascension day to Ascension day; and, as the date changes with the moveable feast, each year of his reign is of different length, and begins on a different day. Consequently, all the documents whose dates fall between the 6th of April and Ascension-day, in each year, have been referred to the wrong year of the reign, by those writers who have not noticed the ancient mode of calculation. A mistake of the same description has been made with respect to the reign of Edward I. which is usually calculated from the 16th November, 1272, the day of the death of Henry III. Edward's reign really commenced from the 20th November, 1272, when he was proclaimed at the New Temple, and upon that day the date of the year of his reign was changed. Full proof is afforded of this assertion by the date of the charter of homage executed by John Balliol, apud Norham die Jovis in festo Sancti Eadmundi Regis et Martiris (20th November) anno Incarnationis Dominicæ millesimo ducentesimo nonagesimo secundo et regni ipsius domini nostri

Edwardi

« PreviousContinue »