The object of the First Book was generally to give a clear view of the principles upon which the original settlement of the Anglosaxons was founded. But as our earliest fortunes are involved in an obscurity caused by the almost total absence of contemporary records, and as the principles themselves are not historically developed in all their integrity, at least in this country, many conclusions could only be arrived at through a system of induction1, by comparing the known facts of Teutonic history in other lands, or at earlier periods, by tracing the remnants of old institutions in their influence upon society in an altered, and perhaps somewhat deteriorated2, condition, and lastly by general reasoning derived3 from the nature of society itself. This
2
Second Book is however devoted4 to the historical development of those principles, in periods whereof we possess more sufficient record, and to an investigation5 of the form in which, after a long series of compromises, our institutions slowly and gradually unfolded themselves, till the close of the Anglosaxon monarchy7. The two points upon which this part of the subject more particularly turns, are, the introduction of Christianity, and the progressive consolidation9 and extension of the kingly power; and round these two points the chapters of this Book will naturally group themselves. It is fortunate for us that the large amount of historical materials which we possess, enables us to follow the various social changes in considerable detail, and renders it possible to let the Anglosaxons tell their own story to a much greater extent than in the first Book.
In the course of years, continual wars had removed a multitude of petty kings or chieftains from the scene; a consolidation of countries had taken place; actual sovereignty, grounded on the law of force, on possession, or on federal compacts, had raised a few of the old dynasts above the rank of their fellows; the other nobles, and families of royal lineage, had for the most part submitted to the law of the comitatus, swelling11 the ranks, adorning12 the court, and increasing the power of princes who had risen upon their degradation13; and at the commencement of the seventh century, England presented the extraordinary spectacle of at least eight independent kingdoms, of greater or less power and
3
influence, and, as we may reasonably believe, very various degrees of civil and moral cultivation14. In the extreme south-eastern corner of the island was the Kentish confederation, comprising in all probability the present counties of Kent, Essex, Middlesex, Surrey, and Sussex, whose numerous kings acknowledged the supremacy15 of Æðelberht, the son of Eormanríc, a prince of the house of Æscings, originally perhaps a Sussex family, but who claimed their royal descent from Wóden, through Hengist, the first traditional king of Kent. Under this head three of the eight named kingdoms were thus united; but successful warlike enterprise or the praise of superior wisdom had extended the political influence of the Æscing even to the southern bank of the Humber. Next to Sussex, along the southern coast, and as far westward16 as the border of the Welsh in Dorsetshire or Devon, lay the kingdom of the Westsaxons or Gewissas, which stretched northward17 to the Thames and westward to the Severn, and probably extended along the latter river over at least a part of Gloucestershire: this kingdom, or rather confederation, comprised all or part of the following counties; Hampshire with the Isle18 of Wight, a tributary19 sovereignty; Dorsetshire, perhaps a part of Devonshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, a portion of Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Middlesex, up to the Chiltern Hills. Eastanglia occupied the extreme east of the island, stretching to the north and west up to the Wash and the marshes20 of Lincoln and Cambridgeshire, and comprehending, together with its marches, Norfolk and Suffolk, and part at least of Cambridge, Huntingdon,
4
Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. Mercia with its dependent sovereignties occupied nearly all the remaining portion of England east of the Severn and south of the Humber, including a portion of Herefordshire, and probably also of Salop, beyond the western bank of the former river: while two small kingdoms, often united into one, but when separate, called Deira and Bernicia, filled the remaining space from the Humber to the Pictish border, which may be represented by a line running irregularly north-east from Dumbarton to Inverkeithing[1]. In the extreme west the remains21 of the Keltic populations who had disdained22 to place
5
themselves under the yoke23 of the Saxons, still maintained a dangerous and often threatening independence: and Cornwall and Devon, North and South Wales, Cheshire, Lancashire, Cumberland, perhaps even part of Northumberland, still formed important fortresses25, garrisoned26 by this hardy27 and unsubjugated race. Beyond the Picts, throughout the north of Scotland, and in the neighbouring island of Ireland, were the Scots, a Keltic race, but not so nearly allied28 as the Cornish, Cymric and Pictish tribes.
It is probable enough that the princes who presided over these several aggregations29 of communities, had their traditional or family alliances and friendships, as well as their enmities, political and
6
personal, and that some description of public law may consequently have grown up among them, by which their national intercourse30 was regulated. But we cannot suppose this to have been either very comprehensive or well defined. Least of all can we find any proof that there was a community of action among them, of a systematic33 and permanent character. A national priesthood, and a central service in which all alike participated, had any such existed, might have formed a point of union for all the races; but there is no record of this, and, I think, but little probability of its having been found at any time. If we consider the various sources from which the separate populations were derived, and the very different periods at which they became masters of their several seats; their constant hostility35 and the differences of language[2] and law; above all the distance of their settlements, severed36 by deep and gloomy forests, rude hills, unforded streams, or noxious37 and pestilential morasses38, we can hardly imagine any concert among them for the establishment of a common worship; it is even doubtful—so meagre are our notices of the national heathendom—whether the same gods were revered39 all over England; although the descent of all the reigning40 families from Wóden would seem to speak for his worship at least having been universal. Again, there is reason to doubt that the priesthood occupied here quite so commanding a position as they may have enjoyed upon
7
the continent, partly because the carelessness or hatred41 of the British Christians42 refused to attempt the conversion43 of their adversaries[3], and thus afforded no opportunity for a reaction or combined effort at resistance on the part of the Pagans; and partly because we cannot look for any very deep rooted religious convictions in the breast of the wandering, military adventurer, removed from the time-hallowed sites of ancient, local worship, and strongly tempted44 to “trow upon himself,” in preference to gods whose powers and attributes he had little leisure to contemplate45. The words of Coifi, a Northumbrian high-priest, to Eádwini, do at any rate imply a feeling on his part, that his position was not so brilliant and advantageous46 as he thought himself entitled to expect; and the very expressions he uses, implying a very considerable degree of subordination to the king of one principality[4], are hardly consistent with the hypothesis of a national hierarchy47, which must have assumed a position scarcely inferior to that of the sovereigns themselves.
8
Finally, I cannot believe that, had such an organization and such a body existed, there would be no trace of the opposition48 it must have offered to the introduction of the new creed49: some record there must have been of a triumph so signal as that of Christianity under such circumstances; and the good believers who lavish50 miracles upon most inadequate51 occasions, must have given us some well-authenticated cases by which the sanctity of the monk52 was demonstrated to the confusion of the pagan. The silence of the Christian8 historian is an eloquent53 evidence of the insignificant54 power of the heathen priesthood.
Much less can we admit that there was any central political authority, recognized, systematic and regulated, by which the several kingdoms were combined into a corporate55 body. There is indeed a theory, respectable for its antiquity56, and reproduced by modern ingenuity57, according to which this important fact is assumed, and we are not only taught that the several kingdoms formed a confederation, at whose head, by election or otherwise, one of the princes was placed with imperial power, but that this institution was derived by direct imitation from the custom of the Roman empire: we further learn that the title of this high functionary58 was Bretwalda, or Emperor of Britain, and that he possessed59 the imperial decorations of the Roman state[5]. When this discovery was first made I know not, but the most detailed60 account that I have seen
9
may be given from the, in many respects, excellent and neglected work of Rapin. He tells us[6]:—
“The Saxons, Jutes, and Angles, that conquered the best part of Britain, looking upon themselves as one and the same people[7], as they had been in Germany, established a form of government, as like as possible to what they had lived under in their own country. They formed their Wittena-Gemot, or assembly of wise men, to settle the common affairs of the seven kingdoms, and conferred the command of their armies upon one chosen out of the seven kings, to whom, for that reason no doubt, some have given the title of Monarch6, on pretence61 of his having the precedence and some superiority over the rest. But to me that dignity seems rather to have been like that of Stadtholder of the United Provinces of the Low Countries. There was however some difference between the Saxon government in Britain and that in Germany. For instance, in Germany the governor of each province entirely62 depended on the General Assembly, where the supreme63 power was lodged64; whereas in Britain, each king was sovereign in his own dominions65. But notwithstanding this, all the kingdoms together were, in some respects, considered as the same state, and every one submitted to the resolutions of the General Assembly of the Seven Kingdoms, to which he gave his consent by himself
10
or representative.... A free election, and sometimes force, gave the Heptarchy a chief or monarch, whose authority was more or less, according to their strength[8]. For though the person invested with this office had no right to an unlimited66 authority, there was scarce one of these monarchs67 but what aspired68 to an absolute power.”
This description has at least the advantage of detail and of consistency69, even though it should unfortunately lack that of truth; but most of those who in more modern times have adopted the hypothesis, refrain from giving us any explanation of the fact it assumes: they tell us indeed the title, and profess70 to name those who successively bore it, but they are totally silent as to the powers of this great public officer, as to the mode of his appointment, the manner in which he exerted his authority, or the object for which such authority was found necessary. I must frankly71 confess that I am unable to find any evidence whatever in favour of this view, which appears to me totally inconsistent with everything which we know of the state and principles of society at the early period with which we have to deal. In point of fact, everything depends upon the way in which we construe72 a passage of Beda, together with one in the Saxon Chronicle, borrowed from him, and the meaning which history and philology73 justify74 us in giving to
11
the words made use of by both authors. As the question is of some importance, it may as well be disposed of at once, although only two so-called Bretwaldas are recorded previous to the seventh century.
Modern ingenuity, having hastily acquiesced75 in the existence of this authority, has naturally been somewhat at a loss to account for it; yet this is obviously the most important part of the problem: accordingly Mr. Sharon Turner looks upon the Bretwalda as a kind of war-king, a temporary military leader: he says[9],—
“The disaster of Ceawlin gave safety to Kent. Ethelbert preserved his authority in that kingdom, and at length proceeded to that insulary predominance among the Anglosaxon kings, which they called the Bretwalda, or the ruler of Britain. Whether this was a mere76 title assumed by Hengist, and afterwards by Ella, and continued by the most successful Anglosaxon prince of his day, or conceded in any national council of all the Anglosaxons, or ambitiously assumed by the Saxon king that most felt and pressed his temporary power,—whether it was an imitation of the British unbennaeth, or a continuation of the Saxon custom of electing a war-cyning, cannot now be ascertained77.”
To this he adds in a note:—
“The proper force of this word Bretwalda cannot imply conquest, because Ella the First is not said to have conquered Hengist or Cerdic; nor did the
12
other Bretwaldas conquer the other Saxon kingdoms.”
Again he returns to the charge: in the eighth chapter of the same book, he says[10]:—
“Perhaps the conjecture78 on this dignity which would come nearest the truth, would be, that it was the Walda or ruler of the Saxon kingdoms against the Britons, while the latter maintained the struggle for the possession of the country,—a species of Agamemnon against the general enemy, not a title of dignity or power against each other. If so, it would be but the war-king of the Saxons in Britain, against its native chiefs.”
Lappenberg, adopting this last view, refines upon it in detail: he believes the Bretwalda to have been the elected generalissimo of the Saxons against the Welsh or other Keltic races, and that as the tide of conquest rolled onwards, the dignity shifted to the shoulders of that prince whose position made him the best guardian79 of the frontiers. But this will scarcely account to us for the Bretwaldadom of Ælle in Sussex, Æðelberht in Kent, or Rǽdwald in Eastanglia; yet these are three especially named. Besides we have a right to require some evidence that there ever was a common action of the Saxons against the Britons, and that they really were in the habit of appointing war-kings in England, two points on which there exists not a tittle of proof. Indeed it seems clear to me that a piece of vicious philology lurks80 at the bottom of
13
this whole theory, and that it rests entirely upon the supposition that Bretwalda means Ruler of the Britons, which is entirely erroneous. Yet one would think that on this point there ought to have been no doubt for even a moment, and that it hardly required for its refutation the philological81 demonstration82 which will be given. Let us ask by whom was the name used or applied83? By the Saxons: but surely the Saxons could never mean to designate themselves by the name Bret, Britain; nor on the other hand could a general against the Britons be properly called their wealda or king, the relation expressed by the word wealda being that of sovereignty over subjects, not opposition to enemies.
Moreover, if this British theory were at all sound, how could we account for the title being so rarely given to the kings of Wessex, and never to those of Mercia, both of whom were nevertheless in continual hostile contact with the Welsh, and of whom the former at least exercised sovereign rights over a numerous Welsh population dispersed84 throughout their dominions? Again, why should it have been given to successive kings of Northumberland, whose contact with the British aborigines, even as Picts, was not of any long continuance or great moment[11]? Above all, why should it not have been given to Æðelfríð, who as Beda tells us was the most severe scourge86 the Kelts had ever met with[12]?
14
But there are other serious difficulties arising from the nature of the military force which, on any one of the suppositions we are considering, must have been placed at this war-king’s disposal: is it, for example, conceivable, that people whose military duty did not extend beyond the defence of their own frontiers, and who even then could only be brought into the field under the conduct of their own shire-officers, would have marched away from home, under a foreign king, to form part of a mixed army? still more, that the comites of various princes, whose bond and duty were of the most strictly87 personal character, could have been mustered88 under the banner of a stranger[13]? Yet all this must be assumed to have been usual and easy, if we admit the received opinions as to the Bretwalda. We should also be entitled to ask how it happened that Wulfhere, Æðelbald, Offa, Cénwulf, the preeminently military kings of the Mercians, should have refrained from the use of a title so properly belonging to their preponderating89 power in England, and so useful in giving a legal and privileged authority to the measures of permanent aggrandizement90 which their resources enabled them to take?
Another supposition, that this dignity was in
15
some way connected with the ecclesiastical establishment, the foundation of new bishoprics[14] or the presidency91 of the national synods, seems equally untenable; for in the first place there were Bretwaldas before the introduction of Christianity; and the intervention92 of particular princes in the foundation of sees, without the limits of their own dominions, may be explained without having recourse to any such hypothesis; again, the Church never agreed to any unity32 till the close of the seventh century under Theodore of Tarsus; and lastly the presidency of the synods, which were generally held in Mercia[15], was almost exclusively in the hands of the Mercian princes, till the Danes put an end to their kingdom, and yet those princes never bore the title at all. In point of fact, there was no such special title or special office, and the whole theory is constructed upon an insufficient93 and untenable basis.
It will be readily admitted that the fancies of the Norman chroniclers may at once be passed over unnoticed; they are worth no more than the still later doctrines94 of Rapin and others, and rest upon nothing but their explanation of passages which we are equally at liberty to examine and test for ourselves: I mean the passages already alluded95 to from Beda and the Saxon Chronicle. Let us see
16
then what Beda says upon this subject. He speaks thus of Æðelberht[16]:—
“In the year of our Lord’s incarnation six hundred and sixteen, which is the twenty-first from that wherein Augustine and his comrades were despatched to preach unto the race of the Angles, Æðelberht, the king of the men of Kent, after a temporal reign10 which he had held most gloriously for six and fifty years, entered the eternal joys of the heavenly kingdom: who was indeed but the third among the kings of the Angle race who ruled over all the southern provinces, which are separated from those of the north by the river Humber and its contiguous boundaries; but the first of all who ascended97 to the kingdom of heaven. For the first of all who obtained this empire was Ælli, king of the Southsaxons: the second was Caelin, king of the Westsaxons, who in their tongue was called Ceaulin: the third, as I have said, was Æðilberht, king of the men of Kent: the fourth was Redwald, king of the Eastanglians, who even during the life of Æðilberht, obtained predominance for his nation: the fifth, Aeduini, king of the race of Northumbrians, that is, the race which inhabits the northern district of the river Humber, presided with greater power over all the populations which dwell in Britain, Britons and Angles alike, save only the men of Kent; he also subdued99 to the empire of the Angles, the Mevanian isles100, which lie between Ireland and Britain: the sixth Oswald, himself
17
that most Christian king of the Northumbrians, had rule with the same boundaries: the seventh Osuiu, his brother, having for some time governed his kingdom within nearly the same boundaries, for the most part subdued or reduced to a tributary condition the nations also of the Picts and Scots, who occupy the northern ends of Britain.”
Certainly, it must be admitted that the exception of the Men of Kent, in the case of Eádwini, is a serious blow to the Bretwalda theory. I have used the word predominance, to express the ducatus or leadership, of Beda, and it is clear that such a leadership is what he means to convey. But in all the cases which he has cited, it is equally clear from every part of his book, that the fact was a merely accidental one, fully101 explained by the peculiar102 circumstances in every instance: it is invariably connected with conquest, and preponderant military power: a successful battle either against Kelt or Saxon, by removing a dangerous neighbour or dissolving a threatening confederacy, placed greater means at the disposal of any one prince than could be turned against him by any other or combination of others; and he naturally assumed a right to dictate103 to them, iure belli, in all transactions where he chose to consider his own interests concerned. But all the facts in every case show that there was no concert, no regular dignity, and no regular means of obtaining it; that it was a mere fluctuating superiority, such as we may find in Owhyhee, Tahiti, or New Zealand, due to success in war, and lost in turn by defeat. On the
18
rout104 of Ceawlin, the second Bretwalda, by the Welsh, we learn that he was expelled from the throne, and succeeded by Ceólwulf, who spent many years in struggles against Angles, Welsh, Scots and Picts[17]: according to Turner’s and Lappenberg’s theory, he was the very man to have been made Bretwalda; but we do not find this to have been the case, or that the dignity returned to the intervening Sussex; but Æðelberht of Kent, whose ambition had years before led him to measure his force against Ceawlin’s, stepped into the vacant monarchy. The truth is that Æðelberht, who had husbanded his resources, and was of all the Saxon kings the least exposed to danger from the Keltic populations, was enabled to impose his authority upon his brother kings, and to make his own terms: and in a similar way, at a later period, it is clear that Rædwald of Eastanglia was enabled to deprive him of it. I therefore again conclude that this so-called Bretwaldadom was a mere accidental predominance; there is no peculiar function, duty or privilege anywhere mentioned as appertaining to it; and when Beda describes Eádwini of Northumberland proceeding105 with the Roman tufa or banner before him, as an ensign of dignity, he does so in terms which show that it was not, as Palgrave seems to imagine, an ensign of imperial authority used by all Bretwaldas, but a peculiar and remarkable106 affectation of that particular prince. Before I leave this word ducatus, I may call attention to
19
the fact that Ecgberht, whom the Saxon Chronicle adds to the list given by Beda, has left some charters in which he also uses it[18], and that they are the only charters in which it does occur. From these it appears that he dated his reign ten years earlier than his ducatus, that is, that he was rex in 802, but not dux till 812. Now it is especially observable that in 812 he had not yet commenced that career of successful aggression107 against the other Saxon kingdoms, which justified108 the Chronicler in numbering him among those whom Camden and Rapin call the Monarchs, and Palgrave the Emperors of Britain. He did not attack Mercia and subdue98 Kent till 825: in the same year he formed his alliance with Eastanglia: only in 820 did he ruin the power of Mercia, and receive the submission109 of the Northumbrians. But in the year 812 he did move an army against the Welsh, and remained for several months engaged in military operations within their frontier: there is every reason then to think that the ducatus of Ecgberht is only a record of those conquests over his British neighbours, which enabled him to turn his hand with such complete success against his Anglosaxon rivals; and thus that it has no reference to the expression used by Beda to express the factitious preponderance of one king over another. Let us now inquire to what the passage in the Saxon Chronicle amounts, which has put so many of our historians
20
upon a wrong track, by supplying them with the suspicious name Bretwalda. Speaking of Ecgberht the Chronicler says[19], “And the same year king Ecgberht overran the kingdom of the Mercians, and all that was south of the Humber; and he was the eighth king who was Bretwalda.” And then, after naming the seven mentioned by Beda, and totally omitting all notice of the Mercian kings, he concludes,—“the eighth was Ecgberht, king of the Westsaxons.”
Now it is somewhat remarkable that of six manuscripts in which this passage occurs, one only reads Bretwalda: of the remaining five, four have Bryten-walda or-wealda, and one Breten-anweald, which is precisely110 synonymous with Brytenwealda. All the rules of orderly criticism would therefore compel us to look upon this as the right reading, and we are confirmed in so doing by finding that Æðelstán in one of his charters[20] calls himself also “Brytenwealda ealles ðyses ealondes,”—ruler or monarch of all this island. Now the true meaning of this word, which is compounded of wealda, a ruler, and the adjective bryten, is totally unconnected with Bret or Bretwealh, the name of the British aborigines, the resemblance to which is merely accidental: bryten is derived from breótan, to distribute, to divide, to break into small portions,
21
to disperse85: it is a common prefix111 to words denoting wide or general dispersion[21], and when coupled with wealda means no more than an extensive, powerful king, a king whose power is widely extended. We must therefore give up the most attractive and seducing112 part of all this theory, the name, which rests upon nothing but the passage in one manuscript of the Chronicle,—and that, far from equal to the rest in antiquity or correctness of language: and as for anything beyond the name, I again repeat that we are indebted for it to nothing but the ingenuity of modern scholars, deceived by what they fancied the name itself; that there is not the slightest evidence of a king exercising a central authority, and very little at any time, of a combined action among the Saxons; and that it is quite as improbable that any Saxon king should ever have had a federal army to command, as it is certainly false that there ever was a general Witena gemót for him to preside over. I must therefore in conclusion declare my disbelief as well in a college of kings, as in an officer, elected or otherwise appointed, whom they considered as their head. The development of all the Anglosaxon kingdoms was of far too independent and fortuitous a character for us to assume any general concert among them, especially as that independence is
22
manifested upon those points particularly, where a central and combined action would have been most certain to show itself[22].
But although I cannot admit the growth of an imperial power in any such way, I still believe the royal authority to have been greatly consolidated113,
23
and thereby114 extended, before the close of the sixth century. It is impossible, for a very long period, to look upon the Anglosaxon kingdoms otherwise than as camps, planted upon an enemy’s territory, and not seldom in a state of mutual115 hostility. All had either originated in, or had at some period fallen into, a state of military organization, in which the leaders are permitted to assume powers very inconsistent with the steady advance of popular liberty; and in the progress of their history, events were continually recurring116 which favoured the permanent establishment and consolidation of those powers. Upon all their western and northern frontiers lay ever-watchful and dangerous Keltic populations, the co-operation of whose more inland brethren was always to be dreaded117, and whose attacks were periodically renewed till very long after the preponderance of one crown over the rest was secured,—attacks only too often favoured by the civil wars and internal struggles of the Germanic conquerors118. Upon all the eastern coasts hovered119 swarms120 of daring adventurers, ready to put in practice upon the Saxons themselves the frightful121 lesson of piracy122 which these had given the Roman world in the third and fourth centuries, and ever welcomed by the Keltic inhabitants as the ministers of their own vengeance123. The constant state of military preparation which was thus rendered necessary could have no other result than that of giving a vast preponderance to the warlike over the peaceful institutions; of raising the practised and well-armed comites to a station yearly more
24
and more important; of leading to the multiplication124 of fortresses, with their royal castellans and stationary125 garrisons126; nay—by constantly placing the freemen under martial127 law, and inuring128 them to the urgencies of military command—of finally breaking down the innate129 feeling and guarantees of freedom, and even of materially ruining the cultivator, all whose energy and all whose time were not too much, if a comfortable subsistence was to be wrung130 from the soil he owned. It is also necessary to bear in mind the power derived from forcible possession of lands from which the public enemy had been expelled, and which, we may readily believe, turned to the advantage, mostly if not exclusively, of the king and his nobles. No wonder then if at a very early period the Mark-organization, which contained within itself the seeds of its own decay, had begun to give way, and that a systematic commendation, as it was called, to the adjacent lords was beginning to take its place. To the operation of these natural causes we must refer the indisputable predominance established by a few superior kings before the end of the sixth century, not only over the numerous dynastic families which still remained scattered131 over the face of the country, but also over the free holders132 in the gá or scýr.
To these however was added one of still greater moment. The introduction of Christianity in a settled form, which finally embraced the whole Saxon portion of the island, dates from the commencement of the seventh century. Though not unknown to the various British tribes, who had
25
long been in communication with their fellow-believers of Gaul and, according to some authorities[23], of Rome, it had made but little progress among the German tribes, although a tendency to give it at least a tolerant hearing had for some time been making way among them[24]. But in 595 Pope Gregory the Great determined134 upon giving effect to his scheme of a missionary135 expedition to Britain, which he had long revolved136, had at one time determined to undertake in person, and had relinquished137 only as far as his own journey was concerned, in consequence of the opposition manifested by the inhabitants of Rome to his quitting the city. Having finally matured his plan, he selected a competent number of monks138 and ecclesiastics139, and despatched them under the guidance of Augustine, with directions to found an episcopal church among the heathen Saxons. The progress and success of this missionary effort must not be treated of here; suffice it to say that, one by one, the Teutonic kingdoms of the island accepted the new faith, and that
26
before the close of the first century from the arrival of Augustine, the whole of German England was united into one church, under a Metropolitan140, who accidentally was also a missionary from Rome[25].
Strange would it have been had the maxims141 of law or rules of policy which these men brought with them, been different from those which prevailed in the place from which they came. Roman feelings, Roman views and modes of judging, the traditions of the empire and the city, the legislation of the emperors and the popes,—these were their sources both of opinion and action. The predominance of the kings must have appeared to them natural and salutary; the subordination of all men to their appointed rulers was even one of the doctrines of Christianity itself, as taught by the great apostle of the gentiles, and recommended by the example of the Saviour142. But the consolidation and advancement143 of the royal authority, if they could only form a secure alliance with it, could not but favour their great object of spreading the Gospel among populations otherwise dispersed and inaccessible144: hence it seems probable that all their efforts would be directed to the end which circumstances already favoured, and that the whole spiritual and temporal influence of the clergy145 would be thrown into the scale of monarchy. Moreover the clergy supplied a new point of approach between our own and foreign courts: to say nothing of Rome, communication with which soon became
27
close and frequent, very shortly after their establishment here, we find an increased and increasing intercourse between our kings and those of Gaul; and this again offered an opportunity of becoming familiar with the views and opinions which had flowed, as it were, from the imperial city into the richest and happiest of her provinces. The strict Teutonic law of wergyld, they perhaps could not prevail to change, and to the last, the king, like every other man, continued to have his price; but the power of the clergy is manifest even in the very first article of Æðelberht’s law, and to it we in all probability owe the ultimate affixing146 of the penalty of death to the crime of high-treason,—a marvellous departure from the ancient rule. Taking all the facts of the case into account, we cannot but believe that the introduction of Christianity, which not only taught the necessity of obedience147 to lawful148 authority, but accustomed men to a more central and combined exercise of authority through the very spectacle of the episcopal system itself, tended in no slight degree to perpetuate149 the new order which was gradually undermining and superseding150 the old Mark-organization, and thus finally brought England into the royal circle of European families[26].
The chapters of the present Book will be devoted to an investigation of the institutions proper to this altered condition, to the officers by whom the
28
government of the country was conducted, from the seventh to the eleventh centuries, and to the general social relations which thus arose. If in the course of our investigation it should appear that a gradually diminishing share of freedom remained to the people, yet must we bear in mind that the old organization was one which could not keep pace with the progress of human society, and that it was becoming daily less suited to the ends for which it first existed; that in this, as in all great changes, a compromise necessarily took place, and mutual sacrifices were required; after all, that we finally retained a great amount of rational and orderly liberty, full of the seeds of future development, and gained many of the advantages of Roman cultivation, without paying too high a price for them, in the loss of our nationality.
2
Second Book is however devoted4 to the historical development of those principles, in periods whereof we possess more sufficient record, and to an investigation5 of the form in which, after a long series of compromises, our institutions slowly and gradually unfolded themselves, till the close of the Anglosaxon monarchy7. The two points upon which this part of the subject more particularly turns, are, the introduction of Christianity, and the progressive consolidation9 and extension of the kingly power; and round these two points the chapters of this Book will naturally group themselves. It is fortunate for us that the large amount of historical materials which we possess, enables us to follow the various social changes in considerable detail, and renders it possible to let the Anglosaxons tell their own story to a much greater extent than in the first Book.
In the course of years, continual wars had removed a multitude of petty kings or chieftains from the scene; a consolidation of countries had taken place; actual sovereignty, grounded on the law of force, on possession, or on federal compacts, had raised a few of the old dynasts above the rank of their fellows; the other nobles, and families of royal lineage, had for the most part submitted to the law of the comitatus, swelling11 the ranks, adorning12 the court, and increasing the power of princes who had risen upon their degradation13; and at the commencement of the seventh century, England presented the extraordinary spectacle of at least eight independent kingdoms, of greater or less power and
3
influence, and, as we may reasonably believe, very various degrees of civil and moral cultivation14. In the extreme south-eastern corner of the island was the Kentish confederation, comprising in all probability the present counties of Kent, Essex, Middlesex, Surrey, and Sussex, whose numerous kings acknowledged the supremacy15 of Æðelberht, the son of Eormanríc, a prince of the house of Æscings, originally perhaps a Sussex family, but who claimed their royal descent from Wóden, through Hengist, the first traditional king of Kent. Under this head three of the eight named kingdoms were thus united; but successful warlike enterprise or the praise of superior wisdom had extended the political influence of the Æscing even to the southern bank of the Humber. Next to Sussex, along the southern coast, and as far westward16 as the border of the Welsh in Dorsetshire or Devon, lay the kingdom of the Westsaxons or Gewissas, which stretched northward17 to the Thames and westward to the Severn, and probably extended along the latter river over at least a part of Gloucestershire: this kingdom, or rather confederation, comprised all or part of the following counties; Hampshire with the Isle18 of Wight, a tributary19 sovereignty; Dorsetshire, perhaps a part of Devonshire, Wiltshire, Berkshire, a portion of Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, and Middlesex, up to the Chiltern Hills. Eastanglia occupied the extreme east of the island, stretching to the north and west up to the Wash and the marshes20 of Lincoln and Cambridgeshire, and comprehending, together with its marches, Norfolk and Suffolk, and part at least of Cambridge, Huntingdon,
4
Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire. Mercia with its dependent sovereignties occupied nearly all the remaining portion of England east of the Severn and south of the Humber, including a portion of Herefordshire, and probably also of Salop, beyond the western bank of the former river: while two small kingdoms, often united into one, but when separate, called Deira and Bernicia, filled the remaining space from the Humber to the Pictish border, which may be represented by a line running irregularly north-east from Dumbarton to Inverkeithing[1]. In the extreme west the remains21 of the Keltic populations who had disdained22 to place
5
themselves under the yoke23 of the Saxons, still maintained a dangerous and often threatening independence: and Cornwall and Devon, North and South Wales, Cheshire, Lancashire, Cumberland, perhaps even part of Northumberland, still formed important fortresses25, garrisoned26 by this hardy27 and unsubjugated race. Beyond the Picts, throughout the north of Scotland, and in the neighbouring island of Ireland, were the Scots, a Keltic race, but not so nearly allied28 as the Cornish, Cymric and Pictish tribes.
It is probable enough that the princes who presided over these several aggregations29 of communities, had their traditional or family alliances and friendships, as well as their enmities, political and
6
personal, and that some description of public law may consequently have grown up among them, by which their national intercourse30 was regulated. But we cannot suppose this to have been either very comprehensive or well defined. Least of all can we find any proof that there was a community of action among them, of a systematic33 and permanent character. A national priesthood, and a central service in which all alike participated, had any such existed, might have formed a point of union for all the races; but there is no record of this, and, I think, but little probability of its having been found at any time. If we consider the various sources from which the separate populations were derived, and the very different periods at which they became masters of their several seats; their constant hostility35 and the differences of language[2] and law; above all the distance of their settlements, severed36 by deep and gloomy forests, rude hills, unforded streams, or noxious37 and pestilential morasses38, we can hardly imagine any concert among them for the establishment of a common worship; it is even doubtful—so meagre are our notices of the national heathendom—whether the same gods were revered39 all over England; although the descent of all the reigning40 families from Wóden would seem to speak for his worship at least having been universal. Again, there is reason to doubt that the priesthood occupied here quite so commanding a position as they may have enjoyed upon
7
the continent, partly because the carelessness or hatred41 of the British Christians42 refused to attempt the conversion43 of their adversaries[3], and thus afforded no opportunity for a reaction or combined effort at resistance on the part of the Pagans; and partly because we cannot look for any very deep rooted religious convictions in the breast of the wandering, military adventurer, removed from the time-hallowed sites of ancient, local worship, and strongly tempted44 to “trow upon himself,” in preference to gods whose powers and attributes he had little leisure to contemplate45. The words of Coifi, a Northumbrian high-priest, to Eádwini, do at any rate imply a feeling on his part, that his position was not so brilliant and advantageous46 as he thought himself entitled to expect; and the very expressions he uses, implying a very considerable degree of subordination to the king of one principality[4], are hardly consistent with the hypothesis of a national hierarchy47, which must have assumed a position scarcely inferior to that of the sovereigns themselves.
8
Finally, I cannot believe that, had such an organization and such a body existed, there would be no trace of the opposition48 it must have offered to the introduction of the new creed49: some record there must have been of a triumph so signal as that of Christianity under such circumstances; and the good believers who lavish50 miracles upon most inadequate51 occasions, must have given us some well-authenticated cases by which the sanctity of the monk52 was demonstrated to the confusion of the pagan. The silence of the Christian8 historian is an eloquent53 evidence of the insignificant54 power of the heathen priesthood.
Much less can we admit that there was any central political authority, recognized, systematic and regulated, by which the several kingdoms were combined into a corporate55 body. There is indeed a theory, respectable for its antiquity56, and reproduced by modern ingenuity57, according to which this important fact is assumed, and we are not only taught that the several kingdoms formed a confederation, at whose head, by election or otherwise, one of the princes was placed with imperial power, but that this institution was derived by direct imitation from the custom of the Roman empire: we further learn that the title of this high functionary58 was Bretwalda, or Emperor of Britain, and that he possessed59 the imperial decorations of the Roman state[5]. When this discovery was first made I know not, but the most detailed60 account that I have seen
9
may be given from the, in many respects, excellent and neglected work of Rapin. He tells us[6]:—
“The Saxons, Jutes, and Angles, that conquered the best part of Britain, looking upon themselves as one and the same people[7], as they had been in Germany, established a form of government, as like as possible to what they had lived under in their own country. They formed their Wittena-Gemot, or assembly of wise men, to settle the common affairs of the seven kingdoms, and conferred the command of their armies upon one chosen out of the seven kings, to whom, for that reason no doubt, some have given the title of Monarch6, on pretence61 of his having the precedence and some superiority over the rest. But to me that dignity seems rather to have been like that of Stadtholder of the United Provinces of the Low Countries. There was however some difference between the Saxon government in Britain and that in Germany. For instance, in Germany the governor of each province entirely62 depended on the General Assembly, where the supreme63 power was lodged64; whereas in Britain, each king was sovereign in his own dominions65. But notwithstanding this, all the kingdoms together were, in some respects, considered as the same state, and every one submitted to the resolutions of the General Assembly of the Seven Kingdoms, to which he gave his consent by himself
10
or representative.... A free election, and sometimes force, gave the Heptarchy a chief or monarch, whose authority was more or less, according to their strength[8]. For though the person invested with this office had no right to an unlimited66 authority, there was scarce one of these monarchs67 but what aspired68 to an absolute power.”
This description has at least the advantage of detail and of consistency69, even though it should unfortunately lack that of truth; but most of those who in more modern times have adopted the hypothesis, refrain from giving us any explanation of the fact it assumes: they tell us indeed the title, and profess70 to name those who successively bore it, but they are totally silent as to the powers of this great public officer, as to the mode of his appointment, the manner in which he exerted his authority, or the object for which such authority was found necessary. I must frankly71 confess that I am unable to find any evidence whatever in favour of this view, which appears to me totally inconsistent with everything which we know of the state and principles of society at the early period with which we have to deal. In point of fact, everything depends upon the way in which we construe72 a passage of Beda, together with one in the Saxon Chronicle, borrowed from him, and the meaning which history and philology73 justify74 us in giving to
11
the words made use of by both authors. As the question is of some importance, it may as well be disposed of at once, although only two so-called Bretwaldas are recorded previous to the seventh century.
Modern ingenuity, having hastily acquiesced75 in the existence of this authority, has naturally been somewhat at a loss to account for it; yet this is obviously the most important part of the problem: accordingly Mr. Sharon Turner looks upon the Bretwalda as a kind of war-king, a temporary military leader: he says[9],—
“The disaster of Ceawlin gave safety to Kent. Ethelbert preserved his authority in that kingdom, and at length proceeded to that insulary predominance among the Anglosaxon kings, which they called the Bretwalda, or the ruler of Britain. Whether this was a mere76 title assumed by Hengist, and afterwards by Ella, and continued by the most successful Anglosaxon prince of his day, or conceded in any national council of all the Anglosaxons, or ambitiously assumed by the Saxon king that most felt and pressed his temporary power,—whether it was an imitation of the British unbennaeth, or a continuation of the Saxon custom of electing a war-cyning, cannot now be ascertained77.”
To this he adds in a note:—
“The proper force of this word Bretwalda cannot imply conquest, because Ella the First is not said to have conquered Hengist or Cerdic; nor did the
12
other Bretwaldas conquer the other Saxon kingdoms.”
Again he returns to the charge: in the eighth chapter of the same book, he says[10]:—
“Perhaps the conjecture78 on this dignity which would come nearest the truth, would be, that it was the Walda or ruler of the Saxon kingdoms against the Britons, while the latter maintained the struggle for the possession of the country,—a species of Agamemnon against the general enemy, not a title of dignity or power against each other. If so, it would be but the war-king of the Saxons in Britain, against its native chiefs.”
Lappenberg, adopting this last view, refines upon it in detail: he believes the Bretwalda to have been the elected generalissimo of the Saxons against the Welsh or other Keltic races, and that as the tide of conquest rolled onwards, the dignity shifted to the shoulders of that prince whose position made him the best guardian79 of the frontiers. But this will scarcely account to us for the Bretwaldadom of Ælle in Sussex, Æðelberht in Kent, or Rǽdwald in Eastanglia; yet these are three especially named. Besides we have a right to require some evidence that there ever was a common action of the Saxons against the Britons, and that they really were in the habit of appointing war-kings in England, two points on which there exists not a tittle of proof. Indeed it seems clear to me that a piece of vicious philology lurks80 at the bottom of
13
this whole theory, and that it rests entirely upon the supposition that Bretwalda means Ruler of the Britons, which is entirely erroneous. Yet one would think that on this point there ought to have been no doubt for even a moment, and that it hardly required for its refutation the philological81 demonstration82 which will be given. Let us ask by whom was the name used or applied83? By the Saxons: but surely the Saxons could never mean to designate themselves by the name Bret, Britain; nor on the other hand could a general against the Britons be properly called their wealda or king, the relation expressed by the word wealda being that of sovereignty over subjects, not opposition to enemies.
Moreover, if this British theory were at all sound, how could we account for the title being so rarely given to the kings of Wessex, and never to those of Mercia, both of whom were nevertheless in continual hostile contact with the Welsh, and of whom the former at least exercised sovereign rights over a numerous Welsh population dispersed84 throughout their dominions? Again, why should it have been given to successive kings of Northumberland, whose contact with the British aborigines, even as Picts, was not of any long continuance or great moment[11]? Above all, why should it not have been given to Æðelfríð, who as Beda tells us was the most severe scourge86 the Kelts had ever met with[12]?
14
But there are other serious difficulties arising from the nature of the military force which, on any one of the suppositions we are considering, must have been placed at this war-king’s disposal: is it, for example, conceivable, that people whose military duty did not extend beyond the defence of their own frontiers, and who even then could only be brought into the field under the conduct of their own shire-officers, would have marched away from home, under a foreign king, to form part of a mixed army? still more, that the comites of various princes, whose bond and duty were of the most strictly87 personal character, could have been mustered88 under the banner of a stranger[13]? Yet all this must be assumed to have been usual and easy, if we admit the received opinions as to the Bretwalda. We should also be entitled to ask how it happened that Wulfhere, Æðelbald, Offa, Cénwulf, the preeminently military kings of the Mercians, should have refrained from the use of a title so properly belonging to their preponderating89 power in England, and so useful in giving a legal and privileged authority to the measures of permanent aggrandizement90 which their resources enabled them to take?
Another supposition, that this dignity was in
15
some way connected with the ecclesiastical establishment, the foundation of new bishoprics[14] or the presidency91 of the national synods, seems equally untenable; for in the first place there were Bretwaldas before the introduction of Christianity; and the intervention92 of particular princes in the foundation of sees, without the limits of their own dominions, may be explained without having recourse to any such hypothesis; again, the Church never agreed to any unity32 till the close of the seventh century under Theodore of Tarsus; and lastly the presidency of the synods, which were generally held in Mercia[15], was almost exclusively in the hands of the Mercian princes, till the Danes put an end to their kingdom, and yet those princes never bore the title at all. In point of fact, there was no such special title or special office, and the whole theory is constructed upon an insufficient93 and untenable basis.
It will be readily admitted that the fancies of the Norman chroniclers may at once be passed over unnoticed; they are worth no more than the still later doctrines94 of Rapin and others, and rest upon nothing but their explanation of passages which we are equally at liberty to examine and test for ourselves: I mean the passages already alluded95 to from Beda and the Saxon Chronicle. Let us see
16
then what Beda says upon this subject. He speaks thus of Æðelberht[16]:—
“In the year of our Lord’s incarnation six hundred and sixteen, which is the twenty-first from that wherein Augustine and his comrades were despatched to preach unto the race of the Angles, Æðelberht, the king of the men of Kent, after a temporal reign10 which he had held most gloriously for six and fifty years, entered the eternal joys of the heavenly kingdom: who was indeed but the third among the kings of the Angle race who ruled over all the southern provinces, which are separated from those of the north by the river Humber and its contiguous boundaries; but the first of all who ascended97 to the kingdom of heaven. For the first of all who obtained this empire was Ælli, king of the Southsaxons: the second was Caelin, king of the Westsaxons, who in their tongue was called Ceaulin: the third, as I have said, was Æðilberht, king of the men of Kent: the fourth was Redwald, king of the Eastanglians, who even during the life of Æðilberht, obtained predominance for his nation: the fifth, Aeduini, king of the race of Northumbrians, that is, the race which inhabits the northern district of the river Humber, presided with greater power over all the populations which dwell in Britain, Britons and Angles alike, save only the men of Kent; he also subdued99 to the empire of the Angles, the Mevanian isles100, which lie between Ireland and Britain: the sixth Oswald, himself
17
that most Christian king of the Northumbrians, had rule with the same boundaries: the seventh Osuiu, his brother, having for some time governed his kingdom within nearly the same boundaries, for the most part subdued or reduced to a tributary condition the nations also of the Picts and Scots, who occupy the northern ends of Britain.”
Certainly, it must be admitted that the exception of the Men of Kent, in the case of Eádwini, is a serious blow to the Bretwalda theory. I have used the word predominance, to express the ducatus or leadership, of Beda, and it is clear that such a leadership is what he means to convey. But in all the cases which he has cited, it is equally clear from every part of his book, that the fact was a merely accidental one, fully101 explained by the peculiar102 circumstances in every instance: it is invariably connected with conquest, and preponderant military power: a successful battle either against Kelt or Saxon, by removing a dangerous neighbour or dissolving a threatening confederacy, placed greater means at the disposal of any one prince than could be turned against him by any other or combination of others; and he naturally assumed a right to dictate103 to them, iure belli, in all transactions where he chose to consider his own interests concerned. But all the facts in every case show that there was no concert, no regular dignity, and no regular means of obtaining it; that it was a mere fluctuating superiority, such as we may find in Owhyhee, Tahiti, or New Zealand, due to success in war, and lost in turn by defeat. On the
18
rout104 of Ceawlin, the second Bretwalda, by the Welsh, we learn that he was expelled from the throne, and succeeded by Ceólwulf, who spent many years in struggles against Angles, Welsh, Scots and Picts[17]: according to Turner’s and Lappenberg’s theory, he was the very man to have been made Bretwalda; but we do not find this to have been the case, or that the dignity returned to the intervening Sussex; but Æðelberht of Kent, whose ambition had years before led him to measure his force against Ceawlin’s, stepped into the vacant monarchy. The truth is that Æðelberht, who had husbanded his resources, and was of all the Saxon kings the least exposed to danger from the Keltic populations, was enabled to impose his authority upon his brother kings, and to make his own terms: and in a similar way, at a later period, it is clear that Rædwald of Eastanglia was enabled to deprive him of it. I therefore again conclude that this so-called Bretwaldadom was a mere accidental predominance; there is no peculiar function, duty or privilege anywhere mentioned as appertaining to it; and when Beda describes Eádwini of Northumberland proceeding105 with the Roman tufa or banner before him, as an ensign of dignity, he does so in terms which show that it was not, as Palgrave seems to imagine, an ensign of imperial authority used by all Bretwaldas, but a peculiar and remarkable106 affectation of that particular prince. Before I leave this word ducatus, I may call attention to
19
the fact that Ecgberht, whom the Saxon Chronicle adds to the list given by Beda, has left some charters in which he also uses it[18], and that they are the only charters in which it does occur. From these it appears that he dated his reign ten years earlier than his ducatus, that is, that he was rex in 802, but not dux till 812. Now it is especially observable that in 812 he had not yet commenced that career of successful aggression107 against the other Saxon kingdoms, which justified108 the Chronicler in numbering him among those whom Camden and Rapin call the Monarchs, and Palgrave the Emperors of Britain. He did not attack Mercia and subdue98 Kent till 825: in the same year he formed his alliance with Eastanglia: only in 820 did he ruin the power of Mercia, and receive the submission109 of the Northumbrians. But in the year 812 he did move an army against the Welsh, and remained for several months engaged in military operations within their frontier: there is every reason then to think that the ducatus of Ecgberht is only a record of those conquests over his British neighbours, which enabled him to turn his hand with such complete success against his Anglosaxon rivals; and thus that it has no reference to the expression used by Beda to express the factitious preponderance of one king over another. Let us now inquire to what the passage in the Saxon Chronicle amounts, which has put so many of our historians
20
upon a wrong track, by supplying them with the suspicious name Bretwalda. Speaking of Ecgberht the Chronicler says[19], “And the same year king Ecgberht overran the kingdom of the Mercians, and all that was south of the Humber; and he was the eighth king who was Bretwalda.” And then, after naming the seven mentioned by Beda, and totally omitting all notice of the Mercian kings, he concludes,—“the eighth was Ecgberht, king of the Westsaxons.”
Now it is somewhat remarkable that of six manuscripts in which this passage occurs, one only reads Bretwalda: of the remaining five, four have Bryten-walda or-wealda, and one Breten-anweald, which is precisely110 synonymous with Brytenwealda. All the rules of orderly criticism would therefore compel us to look upon this as the right reading, and we are confirmed in so doing by finding that Æðelstán in one of his charters[20] calls himself also “Brytenwealda ealles ðyses ealondes,”—ruler or monarch of all this island. Now the true meaning of this word, which is compounded of wealda, a ruler, and the adjective bryten, is totally unconnected with Bret or Bretwealh, the name of the British aborigines, the resemblance to which is merely accidental: bryten is derived from breótan, to distribute, to divide, to break into small portions,
21
to disperse85: it is a common prefix111 to words denoting wide or general dispersion[21], and when coupled with wealda means no more than an extensive, powerful king, a king whose power is widely extended. We must therefore give up the most attractive and seducing112 part of all this theory, the name, which rests upon nothing but the passage in one manuscript of the Chronicle,—and that, far from equal to the rest in antiquity or correctness of language: and as for anything beyond the name, I again repeat that we are indebted for it to nothing but the ingenuity of modern scholars, deceived by what they fancied the name itself; that there is not the slightest evidence of a king exercising a central authority, and very little at any time, of a combined action among the Saxons; and that it is quite as improbable that any Saxon king should ever have had a federal army to command, as it is certainly false that there ever was a general Witena gemót for him to preside over. I must therefore in conclusion declare my disbelief as well in a college of kings, as in an officer, elected or otherwise appointed, whom they considered as their head. The development of all the Anglosaxon kingdoms was of far too independent and fortuitous a character for us to assume any general concert among them, especially as that independence is
22
manifested upon those points particularly, where a central and combined action would have been most certain to show itself[22].
But although I cannot admit the growth of an imperial power in any such way, I still believe the royal authority to have been greatly consolidated113,
23
and thereby114 extended, before the close of the sixth century. It is impossible, for a very long period, to look upon the Anglosaxon kingdoms otherwise than as camps, planted upon an enemy’s territory, and not seldom in a state of mutual115 hostility. All had either originated in, or had at some period fallen into, a state of military organization, in which the leaders are permitted to assume powers very inconsistent with the steady advance of popular liberty; and in the progress of their history, events were continually recurring116 which favoured the permanent establishment and consolidation of those powers. Upon all their western and northern frontiers lay ever-watchful and dangerous Keltic populations, the co-operation of whose more inland brethren was always to be dreaded117, and whose attacks were periodically renewed till very long after the preponderance of one crown over the rest was secured,—attacks only too often favoured by the civil wars and internal struggles of the Germanic conquerors118. Upon all the eastern coasts hovered119 swarms120 of daring adventurers, ready to put in practice upon the Saxons themselves the frightful121 lesson of piracy122 which these had given the Roman world in the third and fourth centuries, and ever welcomed by the Keltic inhabitants as the ministers of their own vengeance123. The constant state of military preparation which was thus rendered necessary could have no other result than that of giving a vast preponderance to the warlike over the peaceful institutions; of raising the practised and well-armed comites to a station yearly more
24
and more important; of leading to the multiplication124 of fortresses, with their royal castellans and stationary125 garrisons126; nay—by constantly placing the freemen under martial127 law, and inuring128 them to the urgencies of military command—of finally breaking down the innate129 feeling and guarantees of freedom, and even of materially ruining the cultivator, all whose energy and all whose time were not too much, if a comfortable subsistence was to be wrung130 from the soil he owned. It is also necessary to bear in mind the power derived from forcible possession of lands from which the public enemy had been expelled, and which, we may readily believe, turned to the advantage, mostly if not exclusively, of the king and his nobles. No wonder then if at a very early period the Mark-organization, which contained within itself the seeds of its own decay, had begun to give way, and that a systematic commendation, as it was called, to the adjacent lords was beginning to take its place. To the operation of these natural causes we must refer the indisputable predominance established by a few superior kings before the end of the sixth century, not only over the numerous dynastic families which still remained scattered131 over the face of the country, but also over the free holders132 in the gá or scýr.
To these however was added one of still greater moment. The introduction of Christianity in a settled form, which finally embraced the whole Saxon portion of the island, dates from the commencement of the seventh century. Though not unknown to the various British tribes, who had
25
long been in communication with their fellow-believers of Gaul and, according to some authorities[23], of Rome, it had made but little progress among the German tribes, although a tendency to give it at least a tolerant hearing had for some time been making way among them[24]. But in 595 Pope Gregory the Great determined134 upon giving effect to his scheme of a missionary135 expedition to Britain, which he had long revolved136, had at one time determined to undertake in person, and had relinquished137 only as far as his own journey was concerned, in consequence of the opposition manifested by the inhabitants of Rome to his quitting the city. Having finally matured his plan, he selected a competent number of monks138 and ecclesiastics139, and despatched them under the guidance of Augustine, with directions to found an episcopal church among the heathen Saxons. The progress and success of this missionary effort must not be treated of here; suffice it to say that, one by one, the Teutonic kingdoms of the island accepted the new faith, and that
26
before the close of the first century from the arrival of Augustine, the whole of German England was united into one church, under a Metropolitan140, who accidentally was also a missionary from Rome[25].
Strange would it have been had the maxims141 of law or rules of policy which these men brought with them, been different from those which prevailed in the place from which they came. Roman feelings, Roman views and modes of judging, the traditions of the empire and the city, the legislation of the emperors and the popes,—these were their sources both of opinion and action. The predominance of the kings must have appeared to them natural and salutary; the subordination of all men to their appointed rulers was even one of the doctrines of Christianity itself, as taught by the great apostle of the gentiles, and recommended by the example of the Saviour142. But the consolidation and advancement143 of the royal authority, if they could only form a secure alliance with it, could not but favour their great object of spreading the Gospel among populations otherwise dispersed and inaccessible144: hence it seems probable that all their efforts would be directed to the end which circumstances already favoured, and that the whole spiritual and temporal influence of the clergy145 would be thrown into the scale of monarchy. Moreover the clergy supplied a new point of approach between our own and foreign courts: to say nothing of Rome, communication with which soon became
27
close and frequent, very shortly after their establishment here, we find an increased and increasing intercourse between our kings and those of Gaul; and this again offered an opportunity of becoming familiar with the views and opinions which had flowed, as it were, from the imperial city into the richest and happiest of her provinces. The strict Teutonic law of wergyld, they perhaps could not prevail to change, and to the last, the king, like every other man, continued to have his price; but the power of the clergy is manifest even in the very first article of Æðelberht’s law, and to it we in all probability owe the ultimate affixing146 of the penalty of death to the crime of high-treason,—a marvellous departure from the ancient rule. Taking all the facts of the case into account, we cannot but believe that the introduction of Christianity, which not only taught the necessity of obedience147 to lawful148 authority, but accustomed men to a more central and combined exercise of authority through the very spectacle of the episcopal system itself, tended in no slight degree to perpetuate149 the new order which was gradually undermining and superseding150 the old Mark-organization, and thus finally brought England into the royal circle of European families[26].
The chapters of the present Book will be devoted to an investigation of the institutions proper to this altered condition, to the officers by whom the
28
government of the country was conducted, from the seventh to the eleventh centuries, and to the general social relations which thus arose. If in the course of our investigation it should appear that a gradually diminishing share of freedom remained to the people, yet must we bear in mind that the old organization was one which could not keep pace with the progress of human society, and that it was becoming daily less suited to the ends for which it first existed; that in this, as in all great changes, a compromise necessarily took place, and mutual sacrifices were required; after all, that we finally retained a great amount of rational and orderly liberty, full of the seeds of future development, and gained many of the advantages of Roman cultivation, without paying too high a price for them, in the loss of our nationality.
1. There is not much positive evidence on this subject: but perhaps the following considerations may appear of weight. The distinctive151 names of Water in the two principal Keltic languages of these islands, appear to be Aber and Inver: the former occurs frequently in Wales, the latter never: on the other hand, Aber rarely, if ever, occurs in Ireland, while Inver does. If we now take a good map of England and Wales and Scotland, we shall find the following data.
In Wales:
Aber-avon, lat. 51° 36´ N., long. 3° 47´ W.
Abergavenny, lat. 51° 49´ N., long. 3° 2´ W.
Abergwilli, lat. 51° 52´ N., long. 4° 17´ W.
Aberystwith, lat. 52° 25´ N., long. 4° 4´ W.
Aberfraw, lat. 53° 12´ N., long. 4° 28´ W.
Abergele, lat. 53° 20´ N., long. 3° 38´ W.
In Scotland:
Aberlady, lat. 56° 0´ N., long. 2° 52´ W.
Aberdour, lat. 56° 3´ N., long. 3° 17´ W.
Aberfoil, lat. 56° 20´ N., long. 4° 21´ W.
Abernethy, lat. 56° 19´ N., long. 3° 18´ W.
Aberbrothie (Arbroath), lat. 56° 33´ N., long. 2° 35´ W.
Aberfeldy, lat. 56° 37´ N., long. 3° 51´ W.
Abergeldie, lat. 57° 3´ N., long. 3° 6´ W.
Aberchalder, lat. 57° 6´ N., long. 4° 46´ W.
Aberdeen, lat. 57° 8´ N., long. 2° 5´ W.
Aberchirdir, lat. 57° 34´ N., long. 2° 37´ W.
Aberdour, lat. 57° 40´ N., long. 2° 11´ W.
In Scotland:
Inverkeithing, lat. 56° 2´ N., long. 3° 23´ W.
Inverary, lat. 56° 15´ N., long. 5° 4´ W.
Inverarity, lat. 56° 36´ N., long. 2° 54´ W.
Inverbervie, lat. 56° 52´ N., long. 2° 21´ W.
Invergeldie, lat. 57° 1´ N., long. 3° 12´ W.
Invernahavon, lat, 57° 1´ N., long. 4° 9´ W.
Invergelder, lat. 57° 2´ N., long. 3° 15´ W.
Invermoriston, lat. 57° 12´ N., long. 4° 40´ W.
Inverness, lat. 57° 28´ N., long. 4° 13´ W.
Invernetty, lat. 57° 29´ N., long. 1° 48´ W.
Invercaslie, lat. 57° 58´ N., long. 4° 36´ W.
Inver, lat. 58° 9´ N., long. 5° 10´ W.
The line of separation then between the Welsh or Pictish, and the Scotch152 or Irish Kelts, if measured by the occurrence of these names, would run obliquely153 from S.W. to N.E., straight up Loch Fyne, following nearly the boundary between Perthshire and Argyle, trending to the N.E. along the present boundary between Perth and Inverness, Aberdeen and Inverness, Banff and Elgin, till about the mouth of the river Spey. The boundary between the Picts and English may have been much less settled, but it probably ran from Dumbarton, along the upper edge of Renfrewshire, Lanark and Linlithgow till about Abercorn, that is along the line of the Clyde to the Frith of Forth154.
2. In the very early periods the Saxon inhabitants of different parts of England would probably have found it difficult to understand one another.
3. Beda, Hist. Eccl. i. 22. “Qui, inter31 alia inenarrabilium scelerum facta, quae historicus eorum Gildas flebili sermone describit et hoc addebant, ut nunquam genti Saxonum sive Anglorum secum Brittaniam incolenti verbum fidei praedicando committerent.”
4. “Tu vide, rex, quale sit hoc quod nobis modo praedicatur: ego133 autem tibi verissime quod certum didici, profiteor, quia nihil omnino virtutis habet, nihil utilitatis, religio illa quam hucusque tenuimus; nullus enim tuorum studiosius quam ego culturae deorum nostrorum se subdidit, et nihilominus multi sunt qui ampliora a te beneficia quam ego, et maiores accipiunt dignitates, magisque prosperantur in omnibus quae agenda vel adquirenda disponunt. Si autem dii aliquid ualerent me potius iuvare vellent, qui illis impensius servire curavi.” Beda, H. E. ii. 13. That Coifi is a genuine Northumbrian name, and not that of a Keltic druid, is shown in a paper on Anglosaxon surnames, read before the Archæological Institute at Winchester by the author in 1845.
5. Palgrave, Anglos. Commonw. i. 562 seq. The Roman part of the theory is very well exploded by Lappenberg, who nevertheless gives far too much credence156 to the rest.
6. Vol. i. p. 42 of Tindal’s translation.
7. This seems very doubtful, at least until lapse157 of years, commerce, and familiar intercourse had broken down the barriers between different races.
8. In the second edition of Tindal’s Rapin there is a print representing the Kings of the Heptarchy in council. The president, Monarch or Bretwalda, is very amusingly made larger and more ferocious158 than the rest, to express his superior dignity!
9. Hist. Angl. Sax. bk. iii. ch. 5, vol. i. p. 319.
10. Hist. Angl. Sax. i. 378.
11. I am not aware of the Picts, Peohtas, having ever been numbered among the Bretwealhas.
12. Hist. Eccl. i. 34. “Nemo enim in tribunis, nemo in regibus plures eorum terras, exterminatis vel subiugatis indigenis, aut tributarias genti Anglorum, aut habitabiles fecit.”
13. Nearly the only instance recorded of a mixed army, is that of Penda at Winwedfeld; but it does not appear that this consisted of anything more than the Comitatus of various chieftains personally dependent upon, or in alliance with, himself. We do not learn that οἰOswiu’s victory gave him any rights over the freemen in Eastanglia, which could hardly have been wanting had the Eastanglian hereban or fyrd served under Penda.
14. Lappenberg seems to connect these ideas together.
15. The synods were mostly held at Cealchýð or at Clofeshoas. The first of these places is doubtful: all that can be said with certainty, is, that it was not Challock in Kent, as Ingram supposes: the Saxon name of that place was Cealfloca. I entertain little doubt that Clofeshoas was in the county of Gloucester and hundred of Westminster.
16. Hist. Eccl. ii. 5.
17. Chron. Sax. an. 591, 597.
18. Cod159. Dipl. Nos. 1038, 1039, 1041.
19. Chron. Sax. an. 827.
20. Cod. Dipl. No. 1110. “Ongolsaxna cyning ⁊ brytænwalda ealles ðyses iglandæs;” and, in the corresponding Latin, “Rex et rector totius huius Britanniae insulae.” an. 34.
21. The following words compounded with Bryten will explain my meaning to the Saxon scholar: Bryten-cyning (exactly equivalent to bryten-wealda), a powerful king. Cod. Exon. p. 331. Bryten-grund, the wide expense of earth. Ibid. p. 22. Bryten-ríce, a spacious160 realm. Ibid. p. 192. Bryten-wong, the spacious plain of earth. Ibid. p. 24. The adjective is used in the same sense, but uncompounded, thus; breotone bold, a spacious dwelling161. Cædm. p. 308.
22. I allude96 more particularly to the introduction of Christianity, the enactment162 of laws, the establishment of dioceses, and military measures against the Britons. In two late publications, Mr. Hallam has bestowed163 his attention upon the same subject, and with much the same result. His acute and well-balanced mind seems to have been struck by the historical difficulties which lie in the way of the Bretwalda theory, though he does not attach so much force as I think we ought, to its total inconsistency with the general social state of Anglosaxon England in the sixth and seventh centuries, or as seems justly due to the philological argument. He cites from Adamnan a passage in these words: “(Oswald) totius Britanniae imperator ordinatus a deo.” But these words only prove at the utmost that Adamnan attributed a certain power to Oswald, connected in fact with conquest, and implying anything but consent, election or appointment, by his fellow-kings. And Mr. Hallam himself inclines to the belief that the title may have been one given to Oswald by his own subjects, rather than the assertion of a fact that he truly ruled over all Britain. He conceives that the three Northumbrian kings, having been victorious164 in war and paramount165 over the minor166 kingdoms, were really designated, at least among their own subjects, by the name Bretwalda, or ruler of Britain, and “totius Britanniae imperator,”—an assumption of pompous167 titles characteristic of the vaunting tone which continued to increase down to the Conquest. (Supplemental Notes to the View of the Middle Ages, p. 199 seq.) This however is hardly consistent with Beda and the Chronicle. The only passage in its favour is that of Adamnan, and this is confined to one prince. Adamnan however was a Kelt, and on this account I should be cautious respecting any language he used. Again, I am not prepared to admit the probability of a territorial168 title, at a time when kings were kings of the people, not of the land. But most of all do I demur169 to the reading Bretwalda itself, which rests upon the authority neither of coins nor inscriptions170, and is supported only by one passage of a very bad manuscript; while it is refuted by five much better copies of the same work, and a charter: I therefore do not scruple171 to say that there is no authority for the word. In all but this I concur172 with Mr. Hallam, whose opinion is a most welcome support to my own.
23. See Schrödl, Erste Jahrhund. der Angl. Kirche, 1840, p. 2, notes. If the assertion of Prosper155 Tyro173 is to be trusted, that Celestine sent Germanus into Britain as his vicar, vice34 sua, the relation must have been an intimate one. See also Nennius, Hist. cap. 54. Neander however declares against the dependence24 of the British church upon Rome, and derives174 it from Asia Minor. Alg. Geschichte der Christ. Relig. u. Kirche, vol. i. pt. 1. p. 121. The question has been treated in late times as one of bitter controversy175.
24. This may be inferred from Gregory’s letters to Theódríc and Theódbert and to Brunichildis. “Atque ideo pervenit ad nos Anglorum gentem ad fidem Christianam, Deo miserante, desideranter velle converti, sed sacerdotes e vicino negligere,” etc.; again: “Indicamus ad nos pervenisse Anglorum gentem, Deo annuente, velle fieri Christianam; sed sacerdotes, qui in vicino sunt, pastoralem erga eos sollicitudinem non habere.” Bed. Op. Minora, ii. 234, 235.
25. Theodore of Tarsus.
26. Æðelberht of Kent married a Frankish princess, so did Æðelwulf of Wessex. Offa of Mercia was engaged in negotiations176 for a nuptial177 alliance with the house of Charlemagne, and several Anglosaxon ladies of royal blood found husbands among the sovereign families of the Continent.
In Wales:
Aber-avon, lat. 51° 36´ N., long. 3° 47´ W.
Abergavenny, lat. 51° 49´ N., long. 3° 2´ W.
Abergwilli, lat. 51° 52´ N., long. 4° 17´ W.
Aberystwith, lat. 52° 25´ N., long. 4° 4´ W.
Aberfraw, lat. 53° 12´ N., long. 4° 28´ W.
Abergele, lat. 53° 20´ N., long. 3° 38´ W.
In Scotland:
Aberlady, lat. 56° 0´ N., long. 2° 52´ W.
Aberdour, lat. 56° 3´ N., long. 3° 17´ W.
Aberfoil, lat. 56° 20´ N., long. 4° 21´ W.
Abernethy, lat. 56° 19´ N., long. 3° 18´ W.
Aberbrothie (Arbroath), lat. 56° 33´ N., long. 2° 35´ W.
Aberfeldy, lat. 56° 37´ N., long. 3° 51´ W.
Abergeldie, lat. 57° 3´ N., long. 3° 6´ W.
Aberchalder, lat. 57° 6´ N., long. 4° 46´ W.
Aberdeen, lat. 57° 8´ N., long. 2° 5´ W.
Aberchirdir, lat. 57° 34´ N., long. 2° 37´ W.
Aberdour, lat. 57° 40´ N., long. 2° 11´ W.
In Scotland:
Inverkeithing, lat. 56° 2´ N., long. 3° 23´ W.
Inverary, lat. 56° 15´ N., long. 5° 4´ W.
Inverarity, lat. 56° 36´ N., long. 2° 54´ W.
Inverbervie, lat. 56° 52´ N., long. 2° 21´ W.
Invergeldie, lat. 57° 1´ N., long. 3° 12´ W.
Invernahavon, lat, 57° 1´ N., long. 4° 9´ W.
Invergelder, lat. 57° 2´ N., long. 3° 15´ W.
Invermoriston, lat. 57° 12´ N., long. 4° 40´ W.
Inverness, lat. 57° 28´ N., long. 4° 13´ W.
Invernetty, lat. 57° 29´ N., long. 1° 48´ W.
Invercaslie, lat. 57° 58´ N., long. 4° 36´ W.
Inver, lat. 58° 9´ N., long. 5° 10´ W.
The line of separation then between the Welsh or Pictish, and the Scotch152 or Irish Kelts, if measured by the occurrence of these names, would run obliquely153 from S.W. to N.E., straight up Loch Fyne, following nearly the boundary between Perthshire and Argyle, trending to the N.E. along the present boundary between Perth and Inverness, Aberdeen and Inverness, Banff and Elgin, till about the mouth of the river Spey. The boundary between the Picts and English may have been much less settled, but it probably ran from Dumbarton, along the upper edge of Renfrewshire, Lanark and Linlithgow till about Abercorn, that is along the line of the Clyde to the Frith of Forth154.
2. In the very early periods the Saxon inhabitants of different parts of England would probably have found it difficult to understand one another.
3. Beda, Hist. Eccl. i. 22. “Qui, inter31 alia inenarrabilium scelerum facta, quae historicus eorum Gildas flebili sermone describit et hoc addebant, ut nunquam genti Saxonum sive Anglorum secum Brittaniam incolenti verbum fidei praedicando committerent.”
4. “Tu vide, rex, quale sit hoc quod nobis modo praedicatur: ego133 autem tibi verissime quod certum didici, profiteor, quia nihil omnino virtutis habet, nihil utilitatis, religio illa quam hucusque tenuimus; nullus enim tuorum studiosius quam ego culturae deorum nostrorum se subdidit, et nihilominus multi sunt qui ampliora a te beneficia quam ego, et maiores accipiunt dignitates, magisque prosperantur in omnibus quae agenda vel adquirenda disponunt. Si autem dii aliquid ualerent me potius iuvare vellent, qui illis impensius servire curavi.” Beda, H. E. ii. 13. That Coifi is a genuine Northumbrian name, and not that of a Keltic druid, is shown in a paper on Anglosaxon surnames, read before the Archæological Institute at Winchester by the author in 1845.
5. Palgrave, Anglos. Commonw. i. 562 seq. The Roman part of the theory is very well exploded by Lappenberg, who nevertheless gives far too much credence156 to the rest.
6. Vol. i. p. 42 of Tindal’s translation.
7. This seems very doubtful, at least until lapse157 of years, commerce, and familiar intercourse had broken down the barriers between different races.
8. In the second edition of Tindal’s Rapin there is a print representing the Kings of the Heptarchy in council. The president, Monarch or Bretwalda, is very amusingly made larger and more ferocious158 than the rest, to express his superior dignity!
9. Hist. Angl. Sax. bk. iii. ch. 5, vol. i. p. 319.
10. Hist. Angl. Sax. i. 378.
11. I am not aware of the Picts, Peohtas, having ever been numbered among the Bretwealhas.
12. Hist. Eccl. i. 34. “Nemo enim in tribunis, nemo in regibus plures eorum terras, exterminatis vel subiugatis indigenis, aut tributarias genti Anglorum, aut habitabiles fecit.”
13. Nearly the only instance recorded of a mixed army, is that of Penda at Winwedfeld; but it does not appear that this consisted of anything more than the Comitatus of various chieftains personally dependent upon, or in alliance with, himself. We do not learn that οἰOswiu’s victory gave him any rights over the freemen in Eastanglia, which could hardly have been wanting had the Eastanglian hereban or fyrd served under Penda.
14. Lappenberg seems to connect these ideas together.
15. The synods were mostly held at Cealchýð or at Clofeshoas. The first of these places is doubtful: all that can be said with certainty, is, that it was not Challock in Kent, as Ingram supposes: the Saxon name of that place was Cealfloca. I entertain little doubt that Clofeshoas was in the county of Gloucester and hundred of Westminster.
16. Hist. Eccl. ii. 5.
17. Chron. Sax. an. 591, 597.
18. Cod159. Dipl. Nos. 1038, 1039, 1041.
19. Chron. Sax. an. 827.
20. Cod. Dipl. No. 1110. “Ongolsaxna cyning ⁊ brytænwalda ealles ðyses iglandæs;” and, in the corresponding Latin, “Rex et rector totius huius Britanniae insulae.” an. 34.
21. The following words compounded with Bryten will explain my meaning to the Saxon scholar: Bryten-cyning (exactly equivalent to bryten-wealda), a powerful king. Cod. Exon. p. 331. Bryten-grund, the wide expense of earth. Ibid. p. 22. Bryten-ríce, a spacious160 realm. Ibid. p. 192. Bryten-wong, the spacious plain of earth. Ibid. p. 24. The adjective is used in the same sense, but uncompounded, thus; breotone bold, a spacious dwelling161. Cædm. p. 308.
22. I allude96 more particularly to the introduction of Christianity, the enactment162 of laws, the establishment of dioceses, and military measures against the Britons. In two late publications, Mr. Hallam has bestowed163 his attention upon the same subject, and with much the same result. His acute and well-balanced mind seems to have been struck by the historical difficulties which lie in the way of the Bretwalda theory, though he does not attach so much force as I think we ought, to its total inconsistency with the general social state of Anglosaxon England in the sixth and seventh centuries, or as seems justly due to the philological argument. He cites from Adamnan a passage in these words: “(Oswald) totius Britanniae imperator ordinatus a deo.” But these words only prove at the utmost that Adamnan attributed a certain power to Oswald, connected in fact with conquest, and implying anything but consent, election or appointment, by his fellow-kings. And Mr. Hallam himself inclines to the belief that the title may have been one given to Oswald by his own subjects, rather than the assertion of a fact that he truly ruled over all Britain. He conceives that the three Northumbrian kings, having been victorious164 in war and paramount165 over the minor166 kingdoms, were really designated, at least among their own subjects, by the name Bretwalda, or ruler of Britain, and “totius Britanniae imperator,”—an assumption of pompous167 titles characteristic of the vaunting tone which continued to increase down to the Conquest. (Supplemental Notes to the View of the Middle Ages, p. 199 seq.) This however is hardly consistent with Beda and the Chronicle. The only passage in its favour is that of Adamnan, and this is confined to one prince. Adamnan however was a Kelt, and on this account I should be cautious respecting any language he used. Again, I am not prepared to admit the probability of a territorial168 title, at a time when kings were kings of the people, not of the land. But most of all do I demur169 to the reading Bretwalda itself, which rests upon the authority neither of coins nor inscriptions170, and is supported only by one passage of a very bad manuscript; while it is refuted by five much better copies of the same work, and a charter: I therefore do not scruple171 to say that there is no authority for the word. In all but this I concur172 with Mr. Hallam, whose opinion is a most welcome support to my own.
23. See Schrödl, Erste Jahrhund. der Angl. Kirche, 1840, p. 2, notes. If the assertion of Prosper155 Tyro173 is to be trusted, that Celestine sent Germanus into Britain as his vicar, vice34 sua, the relation must have been an intimate one. See also Nennius, Hist. cap. 54. Neander however declares against the dependence24 of the British church upon Rome, and derives174 it from Asia Minor. Alg. Geschichte der Christ. Relig. u. Kirche, vol. i. pt. 1. p. 121. The question has been treated in late times as one of bitter controversy175.
24. This may be inferred from Gregory’s letters to Theódríc and Theódbert and to Brunichildis. “Atque ideo pervenit ad nos Anglorum gentem ad fidem Christianam, Deo miserante, desideranter velle converti, sed sacerdotes e vicino negligere,” etc.; again: “Indicamus ad nos pervenisse Anglorum gentem, Deo annuente, velle fieri Christianam; sed sacerdotes, qui in vicino sunt, pastoralem erga eos sollicitudinem non habere.” Bed. Op. Minora, ii. 234, 235.
25. Theodore of Tarsus.
26. Æðelberht of Kent married a Frankish princess, so did Æðelwulf of Wessex. Offa of Mercia was engaged in negotiations176 for a nuptial177 alliance with the house of Charlemagne, and several Anglosaxon ladies of royal blood found husbands among the sovereign families of the Continent.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
induction
|
|
| n.感应，感应现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
deteriorated
|
|
| 恶化，变坏( deteriorate的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
derived
|
|
| vi.起源；由来；衍生；导出v.得到( derive的过去式和过去分词 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
devoted
|
|
| adj.忠诚的，忠实的，热心的，献身于...的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
investigation
|
|
| n.调查，调查研究 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
monarch
|
|
| n.帝王，君主，最高统治者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
monarchy
|
|
| n.君主，最高统治者；君主政体，君主国 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
Christian
|
|
| adj.基督教徒的；n.基督教徒 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
consolidation
|
|
| n.合并,巩固 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
reign
|
|
| n.统治时期，统治，支配，盛行；v.占优势 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
swelling
|
|
| n.肿胀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
adorning
|
|
| 修饰，装饰物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
degradation
|
|
| n.降级；低落；退化；陵削；降解；衰变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
cultivation
|
|
| n.耕作，培养，栽培（法），养成 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
supremacy
|
|
| n.至上；至高权力 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
westward
|
|
| n.西方，西部；adj.西方的，向西的；adv.向西 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
northward
|
|
| adv.向北；n.北方的地区 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
isle
|
|
| n.小岛，岛 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
tributary
|
|
| n.支流；纳贡国；adj.附庸的；辅助的；支流的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
marshes
|
|
| n.沼泽，湿地( marsh的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
remains
|
|
| n.剩余物，残留物；遗体，遗迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
disdained
|
|
| 鄙视( disdain的过去式和过去分词 )； 不屑于做，不愿意做 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
yoke
|
|
| n.轭；支配；v.给...上轭，连接，使成配偶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
dependence
|
|
| n.依靠，依赖；信任，信赖；隶属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
fortresses
|
|
| 堡垒，要塞( fortress的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
garrisoned
|
|
| 卫戍部队守备( garrison的过去式和过去分词 )； 派部队驻防 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
hardy
|
|
| adj.勇敢的，果断的，吃苦的；耐寒的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
allied
|
|
| adj.协约国的；同盟国的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
aggregations
|
|
| n.聚集( aggregation的名词复数 )；集成；集结；聚集体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
intercourse
|
|
| n.性交；交流，交往，交际 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
inter
|
|
| v.埋葬 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
unity
|
|
| n.团结，联合，统一；和睦，协调 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
systematic
|
|
| adj.有系统的，有计划的，有方法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
vice
|
|
| n.坏事；恶习；[pl.]台钳，老虎钳；adj.副的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
hostility
|
|
| n.敌对，敌意；抵制［pl.］交战，战争 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
severed
|
|
| v.切断，断绝( sever的过去式和过去分词 )；断，裂 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
noxious
|
|
| adj.有害的，有毒的；使道德败坏的，讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
morasses
|
|
| n.缠作一团( morass的名词复数 )；困境；沼泽；陷阱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
39
revered
|
|
| v.崇敬，尊崇，敬畏( revere的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
reigning
|
|
| adj.统治的，起支配作用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
Christians
|
|
| n.基督教徒( Christian的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
conversion
|
|
| n.转化，转换，转变 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
tempted
|
|
| v.怂恿（某人）干不正当的事；冒…的险（tempt的过去分词） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
contemplate
|
|
| vt.盘算，计议；周密考虑；注视，凝视 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
advantageous
|
|
| adj.有利的；有帮助的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
hierarchy
|
|
| n.等级制度；统治集团，领导层 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
opposition
|
|
| n.反对，敌对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
49
creed
|
|
| n.信条；信念，纲领 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
50
lavish
|
|
| adj.无节制的；浪费的；vt.慷慨地给予，挥霍 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
51
inadequate
|
|
| adj.(for,to)不充足的，不适当的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
52
monk
|
|
| n.和尚，僧侣，修道士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
53
eloquent
|
|
| adj.雄辩的，口才流利的；明白显示出的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
54
insignificant
|
|
| adj.无关紧要的，可忽略的，无意义的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
55
corporate
|
|
| adj.共同的，全体的；公司的，企业的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
56
antiquity
|
|
| n.古老；高龄；古物，古迹 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
57
ingenuity
|
|
| n.别出心裁；善于发明创造 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
58
functionary
|
|
| n.官员；公职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
59
possessed
|
|
| adj.疯狂的；拥有的，占有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
60
detailed
|
|
| adj.详细的，详尽的，极注意细节的，完全的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
61
pretence
|
|
| n.假装，作假；借口，口实；虚伪；虚饰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
62
entirely
|
|
| ad.全部地，完整地；完全地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
63
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
64
lodged
|
|
| v.存放( lodge的过去式和过去分词 )；暂住；埋入；（权利、权威等）归属 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
65
dominions
|
|
| 统治权( dominion的名词复数 )； 领土； 疆土； 版图 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
66
unlimited
|
|
| adj.无限的，不受控制的，无条件的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
67
monarchs
|
|
| 君主，帝王( monarch的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
68
aspired
|
|
| v.渴望，追求( aspire的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
69
consistency
|
|
| n.一贯性，前后一致，稳定性；(液体的)浓度 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
70
profess
|
|
| v.声称，冒称，以...为业，正式接受入教，表明信仰 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
71
frankly
|
|
| adv.坦白地，直率地；坦率地说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
72
construe
|
|
| v.翻译，解释 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
73
philology
|
|
| n.语言学；语文学 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
74
justify
|
|
| vt.证明…正当(或有理)，为…辩护 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
75
acquiesced
|
|
| v.默认，默许( acquiesce的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
76
mere
|
|
| adj.纯粹的；仅仅，只不过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
77
ascertained
|
|
| v.弄清，确定，查明( ascertain的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
78
conjecture
|
|
| n./v.推测，猜测 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
79
guardian
|
|
| n.监护人；守卫者，保护者 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
80
lurks
|
|
| n.潜在，潜伏；（lurk的复数形式）vi.潜伏，埋伏（lurk的第三人称单数形式） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
81
philological
|
|
| adj.语言学的，文献学的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
82
demonstration
|
|
| n.表明，示范，论证，示威 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
83
applied
|
|
| adj.应用的；v.应用，适用 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
84
dispersed
|
|
| adj. 被驱散的, 被分散的, 散布的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
85
disperse
|
|
| vi.使分散；使消失；vt.分散；驱散 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
86
scourge
|
|
| n.灾难，祸害；v.蹂躏 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
87
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
88
mustered
|
|
| v.集合，召集，集结（尤指部队）( muster的过去式和过去分词 )；（自他人处）搜集某事物；聚集；激发 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
89
preponderating
|
|
| v.超过，胜过( preponderate的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
90
aggrandizement
|
|
| n.增大，强化，扩大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
91
presidency
|
|
| n.总统(校长，总经理)的职位(任期) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
92
intervention
|
|
| n.介入，干涉，干预 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
93
insufficient
|
|
| adj.(for，of)不足的，不够的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
94
doctrines
|
|
| n.教条( doctrine的名词复数 )；教义；学说；（政府政策的）正式声明 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
95
alluded
|
|
| 提及，暗指( allude的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
96
allude
|
|
| v.提及，暗指 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
97
ascended
|
|
| v.上升，攀登( ascend的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
98
subdue
|
|
| vt.制服，使顺从，征服；抑制，克制 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
99
subdued
|
|
| adj. 屈服的，柔和的，减弱的 动词subdue的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
100
isles
|
|
| 岛( isle的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
101
fully
|
|
| adv.完全地，全部地，彻底地；充分地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
102
peculiar
|
|
| adj.古怪的，异常的；特殊的，特有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
103
dictate
|
|
| v.口授；(使)听写；指令，指示，命令 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
104
rout
|
|
| n.溃退，溃败；v.击溃，打垮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
105
proceeding
|
|
| n.行动，进行，(pl.)会议录，学报 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
106
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
107
aggression
|
|
| n.进攻，侵略，侵犯，侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
108
justified
|
|
| a.正当的，有理的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
109
submission
|
|
| n.服从，投降；温顺，谦虚；提出 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
110
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
111
prefix
|
|
| n.前缀；vt.加…作为前缀；置于前面 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
112
seducing
|
|
| 诱奸( seduce的现在分词 )； 勾引； 诱使堕落； 使入迷 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
113
consolidated
|
|
| a.联合的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
114
thereby
|
|
| adv.因此，从而 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
115
mutual
|
|
| adj.相互的，彼此的；共同的，共有的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
116
recurring
|
|
| adj.往复的，再次发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
117
dreaded
|
|
| adj.令人畏惧的；害怕的v.害怕，恐惧，担心( dread的过去式和过去分词) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
118
conquerors
|
|
| 征服者，占领者( conqueror的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
119
hovered
|
|
| 鸟( hover的过去式和过去分词 )； 靠近（某事物）； （人）徘徊； 犹豫 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
120
swarms
|
|
| 蜂群，一大群( swarm的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
121
frightful
|
|
| adj.可怕的；讨厌的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
122
piracy
|
|
| n.海盗行为，剽窃，著作权侵害 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
123
vengeance
|
|
| n.报复，报仇，复仇 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
124
multiplication
|
|
| n.增加，增多，倍增；增殖，繁殖；乘法 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
125
stationary
|
|
| adj.固定的，静止不动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
126
garrisons
|
|
| 守备部队，卫戍部队( garrison的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
127
martial
|
|
| adj.战争的，军事的，尚武的，威武的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
128
inuring
|
|
| v.使习惯（于）( inure的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
129
innate
|
|
| adj.天生的，固有的，天赋的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
130
wrung
|
|
| 绞( wring的过去式和过去分词 )； 握紧（尤指别人的手）； 把（湿衣服）拧干； 绞掉（水） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
131
scattered
|
|
| adj.分散的，稀疏的；散步的；疏疏落落的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
132
holders
|
|
| 支持物( holder的名词复数 )； 持有者； （支票等）持有人； 支托（或握持）…之物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
133
ego
|
|
| n.自我，自己，自尊 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
134
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
135
missionary
|
|
| adj.教会的，传教(士)的；n.传教士 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
136
revolved
|
|
| v.（使）旋转( revolve的过去式和过去分词 )；细想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
137
relinquished
|
|
| 交出，让给( relinquish的过去式和过去分词 )； 放弃 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
138
monks
|
|
| n.修道士，僧侣( monk的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
139
ecclesiastics
|
|
| n.神职者，教会，牧师( ecclesiastic的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
|
140
metropolitan
|
|
| adj.大城市的，大都会的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
141
maxims
|
|
| n.格言，座右铭( maxim的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
142
saviour
|
|
| n.拯救者，救星 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
143
advancement
|
|
| n.前进，促进，提升 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
144
inaccessible
|
|
| adj.达不到的，难接近的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
145
clergy
|
|
| n.[总称]牧师，神职人员 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
146
affixing
|
|
| v.附加( affix的现在分词 )；粘贴；加以；盖（印章） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
147
obedience
|
|
| n.服从，顺从 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
148
lawful
|
|
| adj.法律许可的，守法的，合法的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
149
perpetuate
|
|
| v.使永存，使永记不忘 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
150
superseding
|
|
| 取代，接替( supersede的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
151
distinctive
|
|
| adj.特别的，有特色的，与众不同的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
152
scotch
|
|
| n.伤口，刻痕；苏格兰威士忌酒；v.粉碎，消灭，阻止；adj.苏格兰(人)的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
153
obliquely
|
|
| adv.斜； 倾斜； 间接； 不光明正大 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
154
forth
|
|
| adv.向前；向外，往外 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
155
prosper
|
|
| v.成功，兴隆，昌盛；使成功，使昌隆，繁荣 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
156
credence
|
|
| n.信用，祭器台，供桌，凭证 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
157
lapse
|
|
| n.过失，流逝，失效，抛弃信仰，间隔；vi.堕落，停止，失效，流逝；vt.使失效 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
158
ferocious
|
|
| adj.凶猛的，残暴的，极度的，十分强烈的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
159
cod
|
|
| n.鳕鱼；v.愚弄；哄骗 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
160
spacious
|
|
| adj.广阔的，宽敞的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
161
dwelling
|
|
| n.住宅，住所，寓所 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
162
enactment
|
|
| n.演出，担任…角色；制订，通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
163
bestowed
|
|
| 赠给，授予( bestow的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
164
victorious
|
|
| adj.胜利的，得胜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
165
paramount
|
|
| a.最重要的，最高权力的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
166
minor
|
|
| adj.较小(少)的，较次要的；n.辅修学科；vi.辅修 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
167
pompous
|
|
| adj.傲慢的，自大的；夸大的；豪华的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
168
territorial
|
|
| adj.领土的，领地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
169
demur
|
|
| v．表示异议，反对 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
170
inscriptions
|
|
| （作者）题词( inscription的名词复数 )； 献词； 碑文； 证劵持有人的登记 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
171
scruple
|
|
| n./v.顾忌，迟疑 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
172
concur
|
|
| v.同意，意见一致，互助，同时发生 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
173
tyro
|
|
| n.初学者；生手 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
174
derives
|
|
| v.得到( derive的第三人称单数 )；（从…中）得到获得；源于；（从…中）提取 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
175
controversy
|
|
| n.争论，辩论，争吵 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
176
negotiations
|
|
| 协商( negotiation的名词复数 )； 谈判； 完成（难事）； 通过 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
177
nuptial
|
|
| adj.婚姻的，婚礼的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |