- Email: [email protected]
The stallers: administrative innovation in the reign of Edward the Confessor
The stallers: administrative innovation in the reign of Edward the Confessor Katharin
office in Scandinavia and examining continental parallels (Larson 1904: 146-71; Barlow 197 1: 158-73). While historians has contributed
the work of these much to our un-
derstanding of how institutions were shaped and administrations run, no specific duties or benefits have been attached to the title of staller. Indeed, the stallers remain an enigma, occupying a no-man’s land on the fringes of institutional and administrative history. By examining the men who bore the title rather than concentrating on the office, a clearer picture of the function and signifi-
Mack
cance of the stallers emerges. Traditionally, the epithet ‘staller’ has been viewed as an honorific title conferred on thegns specially
by the king. Most histo-
Cnut was accompanied to the throne by two groups of of3cials: housecarles and stallers. The role of
rians feel that the title carried prestige, king’s favor and a special seat among
the housecarles as a disciplined military guild bound by particularly strong oaths to the king is well known; the role of the stallers, however, is less clear. That the stallers enjoyed an intimate
witan; but was not indicative of any special role in the governance of the kingdom (Oleson 1955:56-g; Larson 1904: 146-52; Kemble 1876:2.165 n.2). Sir Frank Stenton con-
relationship with the king is attested by their frequent and prominent appearance in the sources. Yet, the nature and function of their position remains ambiguous. An examination of Domesday book,
of the cluded that, “the later development Old English royal household is obscured by the indiscriminate use of a word ‘staller’,...
royal charters and their witness lists, and royal wits, however, sheds valuable light on this, possibly the last administrative innovation of the AngloSaxon kings. ’
with a permanent and recognized position in the King’s company” (197 1:640). Indeed, Stenton’s rendering of ‘staller’ as
Cnut was accompanied
to the throne by two
groups of Scandinavian officials: housecarles and stallers. The role of the housecarles as a disciplined military guild bound by strong oaths to the king is well known; the role of the stallers, however, is less clear. Previous studies have sought to define the office of staller by looking for roots of an
Journal of Medieval History 12(1986) 123-134 0304.4181186153.50 0 1986 Elsevier Science Publishers
the the
as a term which could be applied to anyone
‘place-man’,
has
been
generally
accepted
(Barlow 1971:75). On the other hand, J.M. Kemble, J.H. Round, E.A. Freeman and W.A. Morris supposed that the title of staller was not unique to favored members of the royal house’hold, but was most frequently conferred on sheriffs. The title was not, they argue, an indication of additional duties, but a distinction of prestige bestowed on a favored member of the royal admini1876:2.111; Round stration (Kemble
B.V. (North-Holland)
123
1895:331;
1904:90-2;
Freeman 1977:3.51 n.3; 126, 129, 130; Barlow L.M.
Larson,
Morris
1927:37-S;
Oleson 1955:122, 1971:75, 164-5).
in his important
study of the
told only half the story. Little has been done to analyze the stallers as a group, or to assess their role in the events of late Anglo-
king’s household, slightly modified received opinion by arguing that the title staller was
Saxon England. There would, at first sight, seem little reason to view the stallers as a single, kingdom-wide group. In the narra-
awarded
tive sources, stallers appear only as powerful
to only the most favored and trus-
ted household members, asserting that staller was indeed the most prestigious title in the Old English household on the eve of the Norman Conquest (1904: 14). Because stallers appeared as addressees on eight of the Confessor’s writs, Kemble, Freeman, Round and Morris have mistakenly argued that the stallers
were in fact
sheriffs. They based their argument on the fact that no sheriff was addressed on these writs, and that stallers appeared in the address clauses in the position normally held by the sheriff (Kemble 1876:2.51-2; FreeRound man 1977:2.353 n.3, 3.742: 1892:353; 1904; Morris 1927:37 n.164). Building on this assumption, these and other scholars have gone so far as to call certain stallers the sheriff of a given county on the sole evidence that they were landholders of that shire, and that they bore the title of staller (Barlow 197 1: 165; Kemble 1876:2.165 n.2, 167-8; Round 1892:353). This tacit assumption that staller was a synonym for a favored sheriff, however, is not supported by the evidence, since none of the stallers are styled sheriff in any authentic pre-Conquest documents.’ Indeed, the evidence demonstrates that there were fundamental differences between those called stallers and sheriffs in the Confessor’s England. Previous studies have emphasized the stallers’ position as especially intimate and favored advisors of the king. Yet, they have
124
individuals,
never in the company,
or in the
context, of other stallers (ASC:s.a. 1046, 1049, 1054; VER: 74 n.5, 76). In diplomatic sources, stallers are often found witnessing as a distinct group at the head of the thegns. This is an indication, but not an explanation, of their position. Moreover, there is no evidence in the legal, homiletic or poetic literature of formal rights or obligations attached to the title of staller.2 If we turn to Domesday book, however, a clearer picture emerges. By recording the owner, value and location of nearly all estates the day that King Edward
in England on was alive and
dead (Ternpore regis Edwardi, T.R.E.), the Conqueror’s great survey discloses the English power structure on the eve of the Norman Conquest - a structure in which the stallers played an important role. Before turning to Domesday book, however, it is necessary to rehearse briefly some information regarding the office of the staller. Larson has demonstrated that the title was introduced into England by Cnut, yet there are only two mentions of stallers under the Anglo-Scandinavian kings (Larson 1904: 146-9). The first is of a Thored Staller, who appears as a witness on an entirely spurious charter dated 1035 (S 981). Although Thored Staller is never mentioned again, it is likely that he is the same person as the Thored who was one of the most frequently attesting thegns under Cnut. The second mention of a staller under Cnut is
from the De inventione S. Crucis . . . Waltham, where the original founder of the monastary, Tovi the Proud, is called a staller. The same source also called him “the first man in
the
kingdom
after
the
king”
(Stubbs
6; 135 n.a). Robert fitz Wimarc, probably of Breton descent, may have been a kinsman of the Confessor (VER: 76 n.4). He was certainly a close iriend, for it was to Robert’s stronghold in Essex that some
1861:6). This assessment of Tovi’s importance is doubtless an attempt by the monks of Waltham to exalt the founder of their es-
of Edward’s
tablishment.
the queen, Earl Harold and Archbishop Stigand at the Confessor’s deathbed (VER: 76). It was also Robert who allegedly took the news of Harold’s victory at Stamford
But that Tovi was close to the
king is certain, for it was at Tovi’s wedding feast that King Harthcnut died (Fl.Wig.:s.a. 1041). The other known stallers date not from Cnut’s reign but from the Confessor’s. They were: Osgod Clapa, Ansgar, Ralph, Robert fitz Wimarc,
AElfstan
of Boscombe,
Ead-
noth, and Leafing. Ansgar was the grandson of Tovi the Proud and appears to have been a powerful man in his own right (Stubbs 1861:13). According to Guy of Amiens’ Carmen de Hastinga proelio, it was Ansgar who negotiated with the Normans and finally handed control of London to William.3 Osgod Clapa was also
over con-
nected to Tovi the Proud; for it was Osgod’s daughter whom Tovi married (Fl.Wig.:s.a. 1042). Osgod appears to have been a powerful if recalcitrant man. In the Memorials of St Edmund’s Abbey, he is called major domus; and later in the same annal Hermanus relates that, “as standing next to the king, he was not to be feared less than the king himself’ (Arnold 1890-6:1.54, 135). In 1046, however, the Confessor banished Osgod (ASC:s.a. 1046, C,E). In 1049, Osgod mounted an unsuccessful attempt to reassert himself (ASC:s.a. 1049, C,D). But in 1054 the Anglo-Saxon chronicle relates that Osgod died in his bed, presumably having somehow reestablished himself in England (ASC:s.a. 1054, C,D; Arnold 1890-6: 1.135-
Norman
favorites
fled
after
Godwine’s return in 1052.” According to the Vita Edwardi Regis, Robert was present with
Bridge to William, the strength of
and warned the duke of King Harold’s army (Foreville 1952: 170). The Anglo-Saxon chronicle and Florence of Worcester record the death of Eadnoth the Staller, who died defending England against the sons of Harold (ASC:s.a. 1067, D; Fl.Wig.:s.a. 1067). Of the other stallers - Ralph, AElfstan, Bondi and Leafing - the narrative sources are silent. They appear only in the diplomatic evidence and Domesday book. Scholars have sometimes remarked on the wealth of certain stallers, but their calculations are in certain cases incorrect. For example, historians have not previously recognized Bondi and Eadnoth as ranking among the wealthiest men in pre-Conquest England (Oleson 1955:Appendix B). And although certain stallers were designated ‘very wealthy’ by previous studies, their wealth relative to the other landholders has not been discussed (Larson 1904:144, 1512; Morris 1927:35; Stenton 1975:487). Thus any comparisons made between stallers and other household or administrative officials based upon the few surviving narrative sources are ambiguous and inconclusive. The information preserved in Domesday book, on the other hand, provides a relatively ac-
125
curate and unbiased basis for comparison. When we turn to Domesday book and the royal charters and writs, it becomes clear that the stallers shared important characteristics
which suggest the role they played
in the Confessor’s administration. An analysis of Domesday book based on landed wealth reveals the existence of a group of thegns non-royal, non-comital, non-ecclesiastical landholders
- who are distinguishable
on
the basis of their landed revenues. After ranking all identifiable thegns in Domesday book according to the annual income from their estates, some forty clearly stand above
was a thegn ofgreat
means.
In 1049, he was
able to muster twenty-nine ships for his attack on England (Fl.Wig.:s.a. 1049). Although it is doubtful that he personally provided all twenty-nine ships, a man of only small means would have been unlikely to inspire such a grand act of disobedience. We do know that at one time Osgod held Lambeth, Surrey, which was assessed at and possibly estates at LlO in 1066; Pakenham, Barton and Rougham in Suffolk.6 Finally, the fact that his daughter married the influential Tovi the Proud, and that Osgod entertained King Harthcnut at
other thegnly landholders.5 Henry Loyn has estimated that there were between 4,000
his estate in Surrey, attests to his wealth and position (ASC:s.a. 1042, D; Fl.Wig.:s.a.
and 5,000 thegns in the Confessor’s England (Loyn 1962:320). If so, then this handful of thegns constitutes a kind of upper aris-
1042). The case of Leafing
tocracy
of great thegns. The six stallers who appear as landholders in Domesday book and were thus presumably alive in January 1066, number among this landholding elite. Indeed accoring to Domesday book, Ansgar was the wealthiest thegn in the Confessor’s England with an annual income of over 2400. By way of comparison, Edward the Confessor’s estates amounted to roughly X3000, the Godwines’ E7000, the Leofrics’ X2800, and the Siwards’ X300 (Fleming 1983; 1984: 185). Ansgar the Staller’s E400 would therefore, have ranked third after the king among all lay landholders in the Confessor’s England. Neither Osgod Clapa nor Leafing rank among the wealthiest landholders in Domesday book, but the reasons for this are clear. Osgod died in 1054, and was thus not a landholder in January 1066. Calculating Osgod’s exact wealth is difficult, but it is clear
126
from
oblique
references
that
he too
is less clear,
but it is
likely that he too died before King Edward. He disappears from view after attesting two charters in 1053 (S 1476, 1478). There are fewer than thirty references
to a Leafing
in
Domesday book, and there is no indication that these entries refer to a single thegn.7 One Leo&g possessed an estate valued at El 7 (DB, 1, f. 92b), but none of the other Leafing’s held even the minimum five hides which traditionally distinguished a thegn from a ceorl.8 The fact that all other known stallers
were wealthy,
makes it unlikely
that
Leafing would have been a pauper. If he was not dead before 1066, he had most certainly been dispossessed. The stallers’ wealth set them apart not only from other thegns, but also from those with whom they are most frequently compared: members of the royal household and sheriffs. There are minor officials, Wulfheah stirman, Alfraed burhthegn and Azur dispensator, for example, who held estates valued at less then E3 (DB, 1, fos,, 8b, 217b, 62b).
Yet, even the important
household
officials
were not wealthy by Domesday standards. Alfraed marescal and Hugh, Wynsige and AElfric,
all styled camerarius regis, possessed
land valued
at less than
X30 (DB,
63, 157, 208, 239, 151, 121b). priest, who probably served
1, fos.,
Reinbald the as Edward’s
chancellor (Barlow 1979: 132, 13&5), is the most celebrated member of the royal household; yet his lands were worth less than one third the value of the lands of Eadnoth, the poorest of the Domesday stallers (DB, 1, fos.,63, 79, 88b, 99, 143, 146, 174b, 180b).’ The stallers’ not only exceeded members of the royal household in wealth, they outstripped the sheriffs in their landholdings
Table 1. Sheriffs known to have served Edward the Confessor
under
Name
County
Approximate annual value of Domesday book estates (L)
Merleswegn Alwine Godric Alwine Tovi Heche Orgar Kyneweard Blaecwine Alfraed Eadwine Toli Ezi Godwine Thorold AElfric
Lincolnshire Gloucestershire Berkshire Warwickshire Somerset Devonshire Cambridgeshire Worcestershire Cambridgeshire Dorset Warwickshire Norfolk-Suffolk Hampshire Somerset Lincolnshire Huntingdonshire
Osweard
Kent
Eadric
Wiltshire
160 55 30 30 17 16 15 10 9 6 2 1 0.5 0.5 0.33 2 unvalued estates mentioned, but no lands recorded mentioned as leasing land
as well.
Twenty-two
sheriffs
can be iden-
tified as having served under Edward, eighteen of whom are mentioned in Domesday (see Table 1). Of the remaining book T.R.E. four, Alnoth sheriff of Herefordshire died in the Welsh campaign of 1056 (ASC:s.a. 1056, C,D). Ulf and AElfgeat, both styled sheriff of Middlesex
(S
1121,
1130,
1131),
and
Leofcild sheriff of Essex (S 1530, possibly 1531), appear as witnesses or addressees on diplomas of the Confessor, but are otherwise unknown. lo Despite the numerous clamores recorded in the survey, and the complaints of avaricious and unscrupulous reeves by monastic chroniclers, Edward’s sheriffs were surprisingly minor landholders. Only one, Merleswegn sheriff of Lincolnshire, with lands worth approximately El60 per annum, numbered among the wealthiest thegns of the Confessor’s England. The next wealthiest sheriff was Alwine of Gloucestershire, who controlled lands yielding an annual income of about L55. Godric sheriff of Berkshire, said to have died at Senlac, holds the dubious distinction of being the most greedy of the Confessor’s sheriffs (Stevenson 1858: 1.49) He is known to have stolen outright or diverted the revenues
from portions
of four royal
estates
(DB, 1, fos. 57b, 149). Yet for all his trouble, Godric was worth little more than 230.
Table 2. Sheriffs known to have served under Edward the Confessor but who do not appear Domesday book
in
Name
County
Reference
AElfgeat Ulf Leofcild AElfnoth
Middlesex Middlesex Essex Herefordshire
s. 1130,113l s. 1121 S. 1530, possibly 1531 ASCs.a. 1056, C,D
127
Alwine
sheriff
of Warwickshire
possessed
only slightly less than Godric, and the other Domesday sheriffs had landed incomes of less than E20 (see Tables 1 and 2). Thus, a comparison of Domesday
land-
holdings reveals that among Edward’s noncomital officials the stallers alone consistently
controlled
great
landed
estates.
Moreover, the fact that Edward’s stallers were among the wealthiest men of his kingdom suggests that their importance attributable also planted case,
was not
solely to royal whim, but was firmly on the ground - in their
on a great
deal of ground.
That
Ed-
ward did enrich his stallers is evident. For example, after the Confessor banished Spirites the priest in 1065, he bestowed one of Spirites’
confiscated
estates
on Robert
fitz
Wimarc (DB, 1, f. 52b). The Liber Eliensis bitterly laments that Ansgar the Staller had stolen lands from the monks of Ely, and that when they sought aid from the king, Edward sided with Ansgar (Blake 1962:96). In 1043, Edward granted land at Sevington in Grittleton, Wiltshire to his thegn AElfstan. This is clearly AElfstan of Boscombe, for Sevington numbers among AElfstan’s holdings recorded in Domesday book (S 999; DB, 1, f. 71 b). These examples suggest that Edward the Confessor was only adding to already established fortunes, not creating them. For example,
Tovi the Proud,
Osgod
Clapa and Ansgar gained initial prominence and land under Cnut and not the Confessor (see above p. 125). Indeed, it would have been impossible for Edward to have raised all these men from the dust and to have endowed them with such vast lands. An important clue to the administrative role stallers played is provided by an examination of the location and configuration of
128
their
landholdings.
The
phenomenon
of a
single landholder having estates scattered across several shires is a well known characteristic of late Anglo-Saxon land tenure. For example, Wulfric counties
the will of the tenth-century Spot disposed of lands (Sawyer 1979:xv-xliii) .
thegn
in eleven
Wlward White, a Domesday thegn whose wealth was second only to Ansgar’s, held land in thirteen shires (DB, 1, fos., 9, 44, 60, 62b, 66, 77b, 80b, 87, 129, 129b, 146b, 147, 151b, 153, 160, 212, 221, 36713). It is not surprising, therefore, to find individual staller’s lands were located in several shires. What is surprising is that they appear to have shared
similar
landholding
configurations.
With only one exception, Edward’s stallers held extensive lands outside Wessex, along with a small number of estates within the ancient West Saxon kingdom. The majority of Ralph’s lands lay in the eastern counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Lincolnshire (DB, 1, fos., 337b, 347b, 348, 348b; DB, 2, fos., 122b, 123, 126b, 127, 128, 128b, 129, 131, 144, 149, 217b, 218, 218b, 293), but he also held a El2 Cornish estate at Tybesta (DB, 1, f. 121b). Ansgar’s lands were centered in the midlands - in Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Warwickshire, Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire (DB, 1, fos., 129b, 139b, 140, 143b, 149b, 227, 227b, 24313). But Ansgar also held several estates in East Anglia (DB, 2, fos., 59b62b, lOOb, 149b, 247b, 411,41 lb, 412b) and (DB, 1, f. 62b). Bondi’s one in Berkshire lands were scattered over Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Dorset, Essex, Gloucestershire, Northamptonshire and Wiltshire (DB, 1, fos., 48, 49, 60b, 85, 151, 154b, 157b, 225, 228, 228b; DB, 2, f. 57). Robert fitz Wimarc held predominantly in
East
Anglia
(DB,
2, fos., 42, 43b,
44, 45,
with no discernible
setl, while the majority
45b, 46b, 47, 48, 395b, 401, 401b, 402), but he also held lands far away in Somerset and
held concentrated constellations within well defined regions. As for the members of the
Wiltshire
royal household
(DB,
1, fos., 92, 96b, 207b).
And,
Robert’s men and those holding from him held neighboring estates on the Cambridgeshire-Huntingdonshire
border
193b, 197, 197b, 198b, l99,199b,
(DB,
1, fos.,
200,20Ob,
and the sheriffs,
none ex-
cept Merleswegn held as extensively as these. With respect to the locations, however, they held where we would expect. The
205b) and in East Anglia (DB, 2, fos., 45, 47b, 28713, 392b, 401b, 402, 436b, 448). AElfstan of Boscombe, as his cognomen be-
majority of the household members’ lands were in the south or near royal manors. Likewise, most of the Domesday sheriffs’ estates were confined to the shire in which
trays, held extensively
they
in Wiltshire,
as well
as in the neighboring counties of Dorset, Gloucestershire, Hampshire and Somerset (DB, 1, fos., 39, 47, 61, 67, 71b, 75, 80b, 81b, 82, 83, 96b, 166b). However, he also possessed an impressive configuration of estates along the Hertfordshire-Bedfordshire border (DB, 1, fos., 138b, 139, 211b, 212). The exception to this pattern is Eadnoth, who held exclusively in the West Saxon earldom - in Berkshire, Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset and Gloucestershire (DB, 1, fos., 58b, 60, 60b, 68, 68b, 69, 72b, 80, 91b, 124b, 166b). Thus all, save Eadnoth, were major landholders outside of Wessex; in areas whose incorporation into the West Saxon kingdom was incomplete, and where the king’s control was less firm. If the stallers’ landholding patterns are compared to those of the wealthiest thegns in England, we find only three instances of similar configurations: Anskell of Ware (DB, 1, fos., 69b, 73, 138, 138b, 139, 211b, 212b, 213, 213b, 214, 218), Eadmaer Atre (DB, 1, fos., 79b, 80, 90b, 92b, 97b, 98, 99, 102b, 105, llOb, 129, 136b, 146), and Merleswegn sheriff of Lincoln (DB, 1, fos., 86, 95, 95b, 104, 113b, 121b, 122b, 32513, 326, 363). Of the thirty other wealthiest thegns T.R.E., a few had lands in several counties
served.
Only
two held lands
outside
the county of which they were sheriffs. Godric sheriff of Berkshire held lands along the border of the neighboring county of Buckinghamshire (DB, 1, fos., 144, 149, 151b). And held well
Merleswegn sheriff of Lincolnshire estates in -neighboring Yorkshire, as as
Cornwall
in (DB,
Somerset,
Devonshire
and
1, fos., 86b, 96b, 113b, 121b,
122, 122b, 124b, 298, 298b, 313, 32513, 326, 326b, 363, 374). Thus the stallers were distinguished from other officials, with the exception of Merleswegn, on the basis of their wealth, and from other great landholding thegns by the configuration of their estates. Yet the question remains, what role, if any, did the stallers play in the governance of the realm? That the stallers did indeed participate in the governance of England is suggested by their appearance as addressees on royal writs. Stallers were addressed in six extant authentic writs of the Confessor as officials responsible for carrying out royal orders within the shires.” Tovi the Proud acted as the king’s messenger on at least one occasion (S 1462), and is at one point referred to as uexillifer regis (Stubbs 1861:6). Domesday book further confirms that stallers acted as royal agents, for Bondi is recorded as
129
having
assigned
land
at Stratley
for the
Confessor’s
charters
indicates
that
their
king’s use (e)B, 1, f. 218b). Robert fitz Wimarc and Ansgar appear as the addres-
duties extended wide importance.
sees on a writ in which
the king declares
that
hold
charters discloses a definite change in the thegns the king chose to consult over the course of his reign. Moreover, this change
Westminster
will
Moulsham,
Essex, as was stipulated by its previous holder (S 1128). Although their holdings extended
to several
shires,
both
Robert
and
Ansgar held estates within Essex and thus would have been well placed to receive the royal writ. Unlike
the sheriffs, however,
the
areas in which the stallers acted did not necessarily coincide with the shires in which they held lands. For example, ;he king addresses Robert fitz Wimarc stallers in a writ announcing Kent
would
be given
and Ansgar as that Lessness,
to Westminster,
yet
neither Robert nor Ansgar held land in Kent (S 1120). I n another writ, Edward the Confessor informs the addressees, among them Eadnoth the Staller, that the monks of Westminster are to hold Eversley, Hampshire (S 1129). Eadnoth, however, held no estates in Hampshire. More important, perhaps, is that all writs in which stallers are addressed emanated from Westminster and are concerned solely with lands the Confessor had assigned to his new foundation (Harmer 1952:5 1). The absence of stallers on writs not concerned with Westminster may be an indication that Edward used his stallers to carry out business of special importance to himself. Thus the evidence suggests that the stallers were occasionally involved in administrative functions, but apparently only those which were of particular and personal interest to the king. Edward’s use of stallers suggests that they played an important role in administering the king’s personal interests, yet their frequent appearance as attestors on the
130
in personnel ward’s
into matters An analysis
is symptomatic
governing
policies.
of kingdomof Edward’s
of a shift in EdForty-two
au-
thentic royal charters survive from the Confessor’s reign. I2 Despite the paucity of charters, the evidence is sufficiently strong to suggest that the stallers
played and increas-
ingly important role as the reign progressed. From 1042 to 1050, the most frequent and prominent thegns on the witness lists of Edward’s charters
were important
his Anglo-Scandinavian
members
predecessors’
of
witan
(Mack 1984:386). But between 1050 and 1066 a major change occurred. By 1053 all but two of the most frequently attesting thegns of Edward’s early charters disappeared from the witness lists altogether. Of the remaining thegns, only two are known to have died before the Conquest, the others appear as landholders in Domesday book, and there is no reason to think that they were not alive in January 1066.i3 Yet the charters from 1053 to 1066 were characterized by a decrease
in
attesting
thegns
and
an
in-
creased appearance of stallers (see Table 3). Stallers were addressed in only two extant writs dating from 1042-1053 (S 1119, 1128), but Osgod Clapa alone of the stallers attested royal charters prior to 1053, and there he subscribes as minister, not as staller (S 999, 1001, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1010, 1012, 1013, 1016). Of the ten charters that date from 1053-1066, four are subscribed by a staller: Ansgar attests four charters; Ralph, four; Robert, four; and Bondi, two (see Table 4). As infrequent as
Table 3. Increasing attestors of Edward
quest forged charters.
appearance of stallers as the Confessor’s charters
Dates of extant authentic charters t
Number charters
1042-1053 1054-1066
25 10
of No. of times thegns attest
No. of times stallers attest
247 50
Table 4. Stallers as attestors Confessor’s charters Name of staller
Charters
Ansgar Ralph Robert Bondi
1028 1028 1028 1033
of Edward
In
the
(S no.)
1033 1033 1033
1034 1034 1034
this may appear, of the forty-four thegnly attestors, only one non-staller occurs more than once: Brictric himself - the only one aside from AElfstan of Boscombe from among the early contingent of the Confessor’s attestors who subscribes after 1053. As attestors of royal diplomas, these thegns were well placed
to influence
the king on
matters of war and the governance of the kingdom. The frequency with which the stallers appear on the royal witness lists after
1053,
coupled
charters as authentic as possible, Osbert copied witness lists of authentic charters, or fabricated
his own in which
the names
of
the most important ecclesiastical and secular members of the Confessor’s witan appear in the most prominent positions. For example, the witness list of S 1011 is clearly mod-
attested
1031 1031 1031 1034
the creation of the arch-forger, Osbert of Clare (Chaplais 1962). In order to make his
11* 14
* These eleven are Osgod Clapa’s attestations. every instance he signs as minister not as staller. 7 Five charters cannot be dated accurately.
There are eleven such
forgeries purporting to be grants of Edward the Confessor (S 1000, 1002, 1011, 1026, 1029, 1030, 1036, 1141, 1143, 1059, 1060). Seven of these can be shown to have been
with
their
prominent
positions at the head of the thegnly subscribers, indicates that the stallers served as intimate counsellors to Edward the Confessor. A further indication of the stallers’ role as important counsellors of the -Confessor comes from the unlikely source of post-Con-
eled on an early charter Osgod, Ordgar, Ordwulf
of Edward’s, as and Odda - the
most frequently attesting thegns of the Confessor’s early charters - are the only thegns to subscribe (R/lack 1984:387). Yet, none of these thegns is known to have attested an authentic charter after 1050. Osbert’s fabrications all bear the name of at least one of the stallers. Ansgar and Robert appear on five; Ralph on three; Bondi and Eadnoth on two and AElfstan on one. Moreover, with the exception of S 1011, the stallers attest before the thegns. Clearly, Osbert was trying to make the strongest possible case for his claims, and writing in the 113Os, he would likely have had access to documents since
lost.
Similarly,
the
stallers
Ralf
(S
1026, 1029, 1060), Ansgar (S 1026, 1029) and Leafing (S 1026) appear as attestors on three of the four remaining forgeries. Thus, the fact that these forgers made the stallers figure so promiaently in their witness lists suggests that in their understanding of the Confessor’s England, these men were powerful and intimate royal counsellors. The habitual appearance of stallers as attestors on royal charters represents a clear
131
departure from Edward’s The landholding patterns disclosed
in Domesday
earlier practices. of the stallers as
book,
coupled
with
their frequent charter attestations, and appearance on royal writs, suggest a royal effort to incorporate
the non-Wessex
regions
under royal control. By drawing wealthy landholders to his court from outlaying regions, who also held token estates in Wessex, the Confessor appears to have been extending the basis of royal power which had been severely diminished under Cnut (Mack 1984;
Fleming
1984:89-132).
At the same
time, because the stallers also held estates within the ancient West Saxon Kingdom, their landholding patterns reflect a kingdom-wide
concern.
The shift from personal
royal agent to prominent royal witan was gradual. But clearly, whatever the title of staller had meant to Cnut, Edward had given it a new, if not fully defined, meaning. This practice was, however, fatally flawed. Edward’s reign was plagued by aristocratic unrest which broke into open rebellion on more than one occasion. In 1046, Osgod Clapa was exiled; in 1049 he attempted to regain his position in England (ASC7s.a. 1046, 1049, C,D; Fl.Wig.:s.a. 1046, 1049). The ability of Earl Godwine to inspire thegnly support seriously disrupted England in 1051-1052 (ASC:s.a. 1051, 1052). Similarly, the revolt of the Northumbrian thegns in 1065 against Earl Tostig Godwineson and their subsequent choice of Mortar son of the Mercian earl Alfgar, points to a flawed royal decision rather than a rejection of West Saxon authority (ASC:s.a. 1065; F1.Wig:s.a. 1065). Finally, Domesday book records that King Edward outlawed Eadric of Laxfield, but had been obliged to restore him (DB, 2, f. 310b). In-
132
deed, Eadric,
a thegn of great wealth,
aged to extract
a royal writ conceding
manthat
any of his men who wished to return to him could do so (DB, 2, f. 310b). By 1066, in Domesday book, there are over 400 instances of men commended to Eadric - so many found it propitious to ally themselves with this former
outlaw.
The circumstances
sur-
rounding Eadric’s outlawry are mysterious, but they are likely to have been rooted in some animosity between the Confessor and this wealthy thegn. Despite his wealth and his influence over other men, Eadric does not appear as a witness on any extant royal charter, and yet he attests three (S 1224, 1228,
1530)
of the five
extant
non-royal
charters dating from Edward’s reign (S 1224, 1228, 1468, 1530, 1531). It is unlikely that the uneven distribution of surviving evidence alone can account for Eadric’s absence from the royal court, especially when his neighbors the stallers Ralph and Robert fitz Wimarc were so frequently present. Thus, an examination of the diplomas of Edward the Confessor in light of the late Saxon power structure disclosed by Domesday book, reveals what was perhaps the final administrative innovation of the West Saxon kings. The Norman Conquest put an end to the use of stallers in the English administration, and so the success of this short-lived official is difficult to gauge. When seen in the context of the frequent uprisings against Edward’s authority, however, it appears that royal practices were fostering rebellion, rather than cooperation, and were creating serious strains between monarchy and aristocracy.
Notes Abbreviations: ASC, Whitelock 1961; DB, Farley and Ellis 1783-1816; Fl.Wig., Thorpe 1848-9; S, Sawyer 1968. Anglo-Saxon diplomas are cited by their number in Sawyer; s.a., sub anno; VER, Barlow 1962.
* An earlier and abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Charles Homer Haskins Conference in November 1982. I wish to thank Professor C. Warren Hollister and Dr Robin Fleming for their rigorous criticism and suggestions. I Ralph and his son Swegn after him were made earls of Norfolk and Suffolk by the Conqueror (ASC: s.a. 1075, D,E; DB, 2, fos. 128b, 129; Davis 1913: nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44). And, Robert litz Wimarc did become sheriff of Essex under William (DB, 2, f. 98). It is clear, however, that these references are to postConquest events and cannot be used as evidence to suggest that these men held the same positions under Edward the Confessor. 2 Unlike other administrative positions or social distinctions, staller does not appear in the laws. Moreover, the title is not mentioned by Wulfstan in his Institutes of polity (Jest 1959), or in the eleventhcentury social tract, Rectitudines singulorum personarum (Douglas 198 1: 875-9) 3 Morton and Muntz 1972: 11679 ff. The date and authenticity of the Carmen has been questioned, and its authorship is a matter of scholarly dispute (Davis and Engels 1979:1-20, 165-7). Even if the Carmen is a product of a later age, the tradition of Ansgar having been the one who had the authority or the prestige to hand over London to the Conqueror is itself a testament to his position. 4 ASC:s.a. 1052,E. This entry in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle “... sume nora to Rodbertes castele”, is generally accepted to be a reference to Robert fitz Wimarc’s estate at Clavering, Essex (DB, 2, fos. 46b, 47). J.H. Round has suggested, on the basis of archeological evidence, that Clavering was the site of an AngloSaxon earthwork ( Victoria County History Essex 1: 345). 5 The Domesday survey itself is incomplete and William the Conqueror’s devastation of northern England in 1068 and 1070 makes the identification of thegns and the value of their estates approximate rather than exact. I have used overall values rather than number of hides as the basis for a comparison of the thegns in Domesday book for two reasons. First, the practice of beneficial hidation renders hides a misleading measure of the size or value of T.R.E. estates. Second, the uneven assessment across England
further distorts any comparison. The T.R.E. figures for value have been calculated by adding together the values given for the estates, whether they are stated as values or renders, in order to obtain an approximate annual revenue for these landholders. When no T.R.E. value is given, I have used the T.R.W. value. Occasionally, values are not given at all, yet the information provided in such entries for numbers of plowteams and peasant population confirm that those unvalued estates would not markedly increase overall annual value of these thegn’s landed wealth. 6 Pakenham, Suffolk was confirmed by Edward to Bury St Edmund’s “with all the privileges that Osgod Clapa had held” (S 1074). Barton and Rougham in Suffolk were bequeathed to Osgod son of Eaculf (S 1526). A.J. Robertson has argued that this Osgod was an ancestor of Osgod Clapa and that Osgod Clapa held these lands until his exile in 1046, at which time they were confiscated by the king (Robertson 1965:445; Harmer 1952:596; Whitelock 1962:102). 7 None of the Leolings listed sub nomine in von Feilitzen can be demonstrated to have been the same man (1937:312-13). A most common feature of the redistribution of land after the Conquest was that the lands of an Anglo-Saxon thegn were transfered in toto to a Norman individual. None of the Leolings, however, share a common T.R.W. successor. 8 That the possession of live hides of land was an important distinction between a thegn and a ceorl, is made explicit in the eleventh-century Gepyncao and in the Nordleoda Luga (Whitelock 1979: 468, 469). 9 It is impossible to calculate Reinbald’s T.R.E. wealth since not all of his estates were assigned a value in Domesday book, but he had a minimum annual revenue of El8 from his landholdings. 10 This Ulf is probably the same Ulf styled “portreeve” in S 1119 who gave land and a wharf to Westminster Abbey. II S 1119, 1121, 1128, 1129, 1135, 1142. The stallers Ansgar and Robert fitz Wimarc also appear on two spurious writs of Edward the Confessor (S 1120, 1137; Harmer 1952:286-395). 12 With respect to the authenticity of Edward the Confessor’s diplomas, I am following the evaluations made by H.P.R.,Finberg, Dr. Cyril Hart and Dorothy Whitelock (Finberg 1953, 1961, 1964; Hart 1957, 1966; Whitelock 1962, 1979). 130sgod Clapa died in his bed in 1054 (ASC:s.a. 1054 C,D). Odda of Deerhurst retired to a monastery and later died at Deerhurst in 1055 (ASC:s.a. 1056, C,D; Fl.Wig.; s.a. 1055). 14 Osgod’s appearance as a frequently attesting
133
thegn of Edward's early charters is likely to have been due to his preeminence among Cnut’s witan, rather than his having later been made a staller (Mack 1984:386-7).
Literature Arnold, T. (ed.) 1890-6. Memorials of St Edmund’s Abbey. 3 ~01s. RS. London. Barlow, F. (ed. and trans.) 1962. Vita Aedwardi regis qui apud Westmonasterium requiescit. London. Barlow, F. 197 1. Edward the Confessor. Berkeley. Barlow, F. 1979. The English church 1000-1066. Second edition. London. Blake, E.O. (ed.) 1962. Liber Eliensis. Camden Society third series, 92. London. Chaplais, I’. 1962. The original charters of Herbert and Gervase abbots of Westminster (112 l-l 157). A medieval miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton. Pipe Roll Society 36:39,110. Davis, H.W.C. (ed.) 1913. Regesta regum AngloNormannorum, 1. Oxford. Davis, R.H.C. and Engels, L.J. et al. 1979. The Carmen de Hastingae pro&o: a discussion. Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies 2: l-20. Sussex. Douglas, D.C. (ed. and trans.) 1981. Rectitudines singulorum personarum. English historical documents 1042-l 189. Second edition 2: 875-9. London. Farley, A. and Ellis, H. (eds.) 1783-1816. Domesday book seu Liber censualis. 4 ~01s. London. Feilitzen, 0. von. 1937. The pre-Conquest personal names of Domesday book. Uppsala. Finberg, H.P.R. 1953. The early charters of Devon and Cornwall. Leicester. Finberg, H.P.R. 1961. The early charters of the West Midlands. Leicester. Finberg, H.P.R. 1964. The early charters of Wessex. Leicester. Foreville, R. (ed. and trans.) 1952. William of de Guillame le Conquerant. Poitiers’ Histoire Paris. Fleming, R. 1983. Domesday estates of the king and the Godwines: a study in late Saxon politics. Speculum 58:987-1007. Flemmg, R. 1984. Royal and aristocratic landholding and alliance 871-1087. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California Santa Barbara. Freeman, E.A. 1977. The Norman Conquest of England. 6 ~01s. Third edition, revised. London.
134
Harmer, F.E. 1952. Anglo-Saxon writs. Manchester. Hart, C. 1957. The early charters of Essex; the Saxon period. Leicester. Hart, C. 1966. The early charters of Eastern England. Leicester. Hart, C. 1975. The early charters of Northern England and the Midlands. Leicester. Jost, K. (ed.) 1959. Die ‘Institutes of polity, civil and ecclesiastical’. Bern. Kemble, J.M. 1876. The Saxons in England. 2 ~01s. London. Larson, L.M. 1904. The king’s household in England before the Norman Conquest. Madison. Liebermann, F. (ed.) 1903. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen 1. Halle. Loyn, H.R. 1962. Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest. London. Mack, K. 1984. Changing Thegns: Cnut’s Conquest and the English aristocracy. Albion 16:376-87. Morton, C. and Muntz, H. (eds.) 1972. Carmen de Hastingae proelio. Oxford. Morris, W.A. 1927. The medieval English sheriff to 1300. Manchester. Oleson, TJ. 1955. The Witenagemot in the reign of Edward the Confessor. Toronto. Robertson, A.J. 1965. Anglo-Saxon charters. Cambridge. Round, J.H. 1892. Geoffrey de Mandeville. London. Round, J.H. 1895. Feudal England. London. Round, J.H. 1904. The officers of Edward the Confessor. English historical review 19:90-2. Sawyer, P. 1968. Anglo-Saxon charters: an annotated list and bibliography. London. Sawyer, P.H. (ed.) 1979. Charters of Burton Abbey. London. Stenton, F.M. 1971. Anglo-Saxon England. Third edition. Oxford. Stevenson, J. (ed.) 1855. Chronicon monasterii de Abingdon. 2 ~01s. RS. London. Stubbs, W. (ed.) 1861. The foundation of Waltham Abbey. London. Thorpe, B. (ed.) 1840. The ancient laws and institutes of England. London. Thorpe, B. (ed.) 1848-9. Chronican ex chronicis. 2 ~01s. London. Whitelock, D. et al. (trans.) 1961. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle. London. Whitelock, D. (ed.) 1932, repr. 1962. Anglo-Saxon wills. Cambridge. Whitelock, D. (ed.) 1979. English historical documcnts 1, c.500-1042. second edition. London.
office in Scandinavia and examining continental parallels (Larson 1904: 146-71; Barlow 197 1: 158-73). While historians has contributed
the work of these much to our un-
derstanding of how institutions were shaped and administrations run, no specific duties or benefits have been attached to the title of staller. Indeed, the stallers remain an enigma, occupying a no-man’s land on the fringes of institutional and administrative history. By examining the men who bore the title rather than concentrating on the office, a clearer picture of the function and signifi-
Mack
cance of the stallers emerges. Traditionally, the epithet ‘staller’ has been viewed as an honorific title conferred on thegns specially
by the king. Most histo-
Cnut was accompanied to the throne by two groups of of3cials: housecarles and stallers. The role of
rians feel that the title carried prestige, king’s favor and a special seat among
the housecarles as a disciplined military guild bound by particularly strong oaths to the king is well known; the role of the stallers, however, is less clear. That the stallers enjoyed an intimate
witan; but was not indicative of any special role in the governance of the kingdom (Oleson 1955:56-g; Larson 1904: 146-52; Kemble 1876:2.165 n.2). Sir Frank Stenton con-
relationship with the king is attested by their frequent and prominent appearance in the sources. Yet, the nature and function of their position remains ambiguous. An examination of Domesday book,
of the cluded that, “the later development Old English royal household is obscured by the indiscriminate use of a word ‘staller’,...
royal charters and their witness lists, and royal wits, however, sheds valuable light on this, possibly the last administrative innovation of the AngloSaxon kings. ’
with a permanent and recognized position in the King’s company” (197 1:640). Indeed, Stenton’s rendering of ‘staller’ as
Cnut was accompanied
to the throne by two
groups of Scandinavian officials: housecarles and stallers. The role of the housecarles as a disciplined military guild bound by strong oaths to the king is well known; the role of the stallers, however, is less clear. Previous studies have sought to define the office of staller by looking for roots of an
Journal of Medieval History 12(1986) 123-134 0304.4181186153.50 0 1986 Elsevier Science Publishers
the the
as a term which could be applied to anyone
‘place-man’,
has
been
generally
accepted
(Barlow 1971:75). On the other hand, J.M. Kemble, J.H. Round, E.A. Freeman and W.A. Morris supposed that the title of staller was not unique to favored members of the royal house’hold, but was most frequently conferred on sheriffs. The title was not, they argue, an indication of additional duties, but a distinction of prestige bestowed on a favored member of the royal admini1876:2.111; Round stration (Kemble
B.V. (North-Holland)
123
1895:331;
1904:90-2;
Freeman 1977:3.51 n.3; 126, 129, 130; Barlow L.M.
Larson,
Morris
1927:37-S;
Oleson 1955:122, 1971:75, 164-5).
in his important
study of the
told only half the story. Little has been done to analyze the stallers as a group, or to assess their role in the events of late Anglo-
king’s household, slightly modified received opinion by arguing that the title staller was
Saxon England. There would, at first sight, seem little reason to view the stallers as a single, kingdom-wide group. In the narra-
awarded
tive sources, stallers appear only as powerful
to only the most favored and trus-
ted household members, asserting that staller was indeed the most prestigious title in the Old English household on the eve of the Norman Conquest (1904: 14). Because stallers appeared as addressees on eight of the Confessor’s writs, Kemble, Freeman, Round and Morris have mistakenly argued that the stallers
were in fact
sheriffs. They based their argument on the fact that no sheriff was addressed on these writs, and that stallers appeared in the address clauses in the position normally held by the sheriff (Kemble 1876:2.51-2; FreeRound man 1977:2.353 n.3, 3.742: 1892:353; 1904; Morris 1927:37 n.164). Building on this assumption, these and other scholars have gone so far as to call certain stallers the sheriff of a given county on the sole evidence that they were landholders of that shire, and that they bore the title of staller (Barlow 197 1: 165; Kemble 1876:2.165 n.2, 167-8; Round 1892:353). This tacit assumption that staller was a synonym for a favored sheriff, however, is not supported by the evidence, since none of the stallers are styled sheriff in any authentic pre-Conquest documents.’ Indeed, the evidence demonstrates that there were fundamental differences between those called stallers and sheriffs in the Confessor’s England. Previous studies have emphasized the stallers’ position as especially intimate and favored advisors of the king. Yet, they have
124
individuals,
never in the company,
or in the
context, of other stallers (ASC:s.a. 1046, 1049, 1054; VER: 74 n.5, 76). In diplomatic sources, stallers are often found witnessing as a distinct group at the head of the thegns. This is an indication, but not an explanation, of their position. Moreover, there is no evidence in the legal, homiletic or poetic literature of formal rights or obligations attached to the title of staller.2 If we turn to Domesday book, however, a clearer picture emerges. By recording the owner, value and location of nearly all estates the day that King Edward
in England on was alive and
dead (Ternpore regis Edwardi, T.R.E.), the Conqueror’s great survey discloses the English power structure on the eve of the Norman Conquest - a structure in which the stallers played an important role. Before turning to Domesday book, however, it is necessary to rehearse briefly some information regarding the office of the staller. Larson has demonstrated that the title was introduced into England by Cnut, yet there are only two mentions of stallers under the Anglo-Scandinavian kings (Larson 1904: 146-9). The first is of a Thored Staller, who appears as a witness on an entirely spurious charter dated 1035 (S 981). Although Thored Staller is never mentioned again, it is likely that he is the same person as the Thored who was one of the most frequently attesting thegns under Cnut. The second mention of a staller under Cnut is
from the De inventione S. Crucis . . . Waltham, where the original founder of the monastary, Tovi the Proud, is called a staller. The same source also called him “the first man in
the
kingdom
after
the
king”
(Stubbs
6; 135 n.a). Robert fitz Wimarc, probably of Breton descent, may have been a kinsman of the Confessor (VER: 76 n.4). He was certainly a close iriend, for it was to Robert’s stronghold in Essex that some
1861:6). This assessment of Tovi’s importance is doubtless an attempt by the monks of Waltham to exalt the founder of their es-
of Edward’s
tablishment.
the queen, Earl Harold and Archbishop Stigand at the Confessor’s deathbed (VER: 76). It was also Robert who allegedly took the news of Harold’s victory at Stamford
But that Tovi was close to the
king is certain, for it was at Tovi’s wedding feast that King Harthcnut died (Fl.Wig.:s.a. 1041). The other known stallers date not from Cnut’s reign but from the Confessor’s. They were: Osgod Clapa, Ansgar, Ralph, Robert fitz Wimarc,
AElfstan
of Boscombe,
Ead-
noth, and Leafing. Ansgar was the grandson of Tovi the Proud and appears to have been a powerful man in his own right (Stubbs 1861:13). According to Guy of Amiens’ Carmen de Hastinga proelio, it was Ansgar who negotiated with the Normans and finally handed control of London to William.3 Osgod Clapa was also
over con-
nected to Tovi the Proud; for it was Osgod’s daughter whom Tovi married (Fl.Wig.:s.a. 1042). Osgod appears to have been a powerful if recalcitrant man. In the Memorials of St Edmund’s Abbey, he is called major domus; and later in the same annal Hermanus relates that, “as standing next to the king, he was not to be feared less than the king himself’ (Arnold 1890-6:1.54, 135). In 1046, however, the Confessor banished Osgod (ASC:s.a. 1046, C,E). In 1049, Osgod mounted an unsuccessful attempt to reassert himself (ASC:s.a. 1049, C,D). But in 1054 the Anglo-Saxon chronicle relates that Osgod died in his bed, presumably having somehow reestablished himself in England (ASC:s.a. 1054, C,D; Arnold 1890-6: 1.135-
Norman
favorites
fled
after
Godwine’s return in 1052.” According to the Vita Edwardi Regis, Robert was present with
Bridge to William, the strength of
and warned the duke of King Harold’s army (Foreville 1952: 170). The Anglo-Saxon chronicle and Florence of Worcester record the death of Eadnoth the Staller, who died defending England against the sons of Harold (ASC:s.a. 1067, D; Fl.Wig.:s.a. 1067). Of the other stallers - Ralph, AElfstan, Bondi and Leafing - the narrative sources are silent. They appear only in the diplomatic evidence and Domesday book. Scholars have sometimes remarked on the wealth of certain stallers, but their calculations are in certain cases incorrect. For example, historians have not previously recognized Bondi and Eadnoth as ranking among the wealthiest men in pre-Conquest England (Oleson 1955:Appendix B). And although certain stallers were designated ‘very wealthy’ by previous studies, their wealth relative to the other landholders has not been discussed (Larson 1904:144, 1512; Morris 1927:35; Stenton 1975:487). Thus any comparisons made between stallers and other household or administrative officials based upon the few surviving narrative sources are ambiguous and inconclusive. The information preserved in Domesday book, on the other hand, provides a relatively ac-
125
curate and unbiased basis for comparison. When we turn to Domesday book and the royal charters and writs, it becomes clear that the stallers shared important characteristics
which suggest the role they played
in the Confessor’s administration. An analysis of Domesday book based on landed wealth reveals the existence of a group of thegns non-royal, non-comital, non-ecclesiastical landholders
- who are distinguishable
on
the basis of their landed revenues. After ranking all identifiable thegns in Domesday book according to the annual income from their estates, some forty clearly stand above
was a thegn ofgreat
means.
In 1049, he was
able to muster twenty-nine ships for his attack on England (Fl.Wig.:s.a. 1049). Although it is doubtful that he personally provided all twenty-nine ships, a man of only small means would have been unlikely to inspire such a grand act of disobedience. We do know that at one time Osgod held Lambeth, Surrey, which was assessed at and possibly estates at LlO in 1066; Pakenham, Barton and Rougham in Suffolk.6 Finally, the fact that his daughter married the influential Tovi the Proud, and that Osgod entertained King Harthcnut at
other thegnly landholders.5 Henry Loyn has estimated that there were between 4,000
his estate in Surrey, attests to his wealth and position (ASC:s.a. 1042, D; Fl.Wig.:s.a.
and 5,000 thegns in the Confessor’s England (Loyn 1962:320). If so, then this handful of thegns constitutes a kind of upper aris-
1042). The case of Leafing
tocracy
of great thegns. The six stallers who appear as landholders in Domesday book and were thus presumably alive in January 1066, number among this landholding elite. Indeed accoring to Domesday book, Ansgar was the wealthiest thegn in the Confessor’s England with an annual income of over 2400. By way of comparison, Edward the Confessor’s estates amounted to roughly X3000, the Godwines’ E7000, the Leofrics’ X2800, and the Siwards’ X300 (Fleming 1983; 1984: 185). Ansgar the Staller’s E400 would therefore, have ranked third after the king among all lay landholders in the Confessor’s England. Neither Osgod Clapa nor Leafing rank among the wealthiest landholders in Domesday book, but the reasons for this are clear. Osgod died in 1054, and was thus not a landholder in January 1066. Calculating Osgod’s exact wealth is difficult, but it is clear
126
from
oblique
references
that
he too
is less clear,
but it is
likely that he too died before King Edward. He disappears from view after attesting two charters in 1053 (S 1476, 1478). There are fewer than thirty references
to a Leafing
in
Domesday book, and there is no indication that these entries refer to a single thegn.7 One Leo&g possessed an estate valued at El 7 (DB, 1, f. 92b), but none of the other Leafing’s held even the minimum five hides which traditionally distinguished a thegn from a ceorl.8 The fact that all other known stallers
were wealthy,
makes it unlikely
that
Leafing would have been a pauper. If he was not dead before 1066, he had most certainly been dispossessed. The stallers’ wealth set them apart not only from other thegns, but also from those with whom they are most frequently compared: members of the royal household and sheriffs. There are minor officials, Wulfheah stirman, Alfraed burhthegn and Azur dispensator, for example, who held estates valued at less then E3 (DB, 1, fos,, 8b, 217b, 62b).
Yet, even the important
household
officials
were not wealthy by Domesday standards. Alfraed marescal and Hugh, Wynsige and AElfric,
all styled camerarius regis, possessed
land valued
at less than
X30 (DB,
63, 157, 208, 239, 151, 121b). priest, who probably served
1, fos.,
Reinbald the as Edward’s
chancellor (Barlow 1979: 132, 13&5), is the most celebrated member of the royal household; yet his lands were worth less than one third the value of the lands of Eadnoth, the poorest of the Domesday stallers (DB, 1, fos.,63, 79, 88b, 99, 143, 146, 174b, 180b).’ The stallers’ not only exceeded members of the royal household in wealth, they outstripped the sheriffs in their landholdings
Table 1. Sheriffs known to have served Edward the Confessor
under
Name
County
Approximate annual value of Domesday book estates (L)
Merleswegn Alwine Godric Alwine Tovi Heche Orgar Kyneweard Blaecwine Alfraed Eadwine Toli Ezi Godwine Thorold AElfric
Lincolnshire Gloucestershire Berkshire Warwickshire Somerset Devonshire Cambridgeshire Worcestershire Cambridgeshire Dorset Warwickshire Norfolk-Suffolk Hampshire Somerset Lincolnshire Huntingdonshire
Osweard
Kent
Eadric
Wiltshire
160 55 30 30 17 16 15 10 9 6 2 1 0.5 0.5 0.33 2 unvalued estates mentioned, but no lands recorded mentioned as leasing land
as well.
Twenty-two
sheriffs
can be iden-
tified as having served under Edward, eighteen of whom are mentioned in Domesday (see Table 1). Of the remaining book T.R.E. four, Alnoth sheriff of Herefordshire died in the Welsh campaign of 1056 (ASC:s.a. 1056, C,D). Ulf and AElfgeat, both styled sheriff of Middlesex
(S
1121,
1130,
1131),
and
Leofcild sheriff of Essex (S 1530, possibly 1531), appear as witnesses or addressees on diplomas of the Confessor, but are otherwise unknown. lo Despite the numerous clamores recorded in the survey, and the complaints of avaricious and unscrupulous reeves by monastic chroniclers, Edward’s sheriffs were surprisingly minor landholders. Only one, Merleswegn sheriff of Lincolnshire, with lands worth approximately El60 per annum, numbered among the wealthiest thegns of the Confessor’s England. The next wealthiest sheriff was Alwine of Gloucestershire, who controlled lands yielding an annual income of about L55. Godric sheriff of Berkshire, said to have died at Senlac, holds the dubious distinction of being the most greedy of the Confessor’s sheriffs (Stevenson 1858: 1.49) He is known to have stolen outright or diverted the revenues
from portions
of four royal
estates
(DB, 1, fos. 57b, 149). Yet for all his trouble, Godric was worth little more than 230.
Table 2. Sheriffs known to have served under Edward the Confessor but who do not appear Domesday book
in
Name
County
Reference
AElfgeat Ulf Leofcild AElfnoth
Middlesex Middlesex Essex Herefordshire
s. 1130,113l s. 1121 S. 1530, possibly 1531 ASCs.a. 1056, C,D
127
Alwine
sheriff
of Warwickshire
possessed
only slightly less than Godric, and the other Domesday sheriffs had landed incomes of less than E20 (see Tables 1 and 2). Thus, a comparison of Domesday
land-
holdings reveals that among Edward’s noncomital officials the stallers alone consistently
controlled
great
landed
estates.
Moreover, the fact that Edward’s stallers were among the wealthiest men of his kingdom suggests that their importance attributable also planted case,
was not
solely to royal whim, but was firmly on the ground - in their
on a great
deal of ground.
That
Ed-
ward did enrich his stallers is evident. For example, after the Confessor banished Spirites the priest in 1065, he bestowed one of Spirites’
confiscated
estates
on Robert
fitz
Wimarc (DB, 1, f. 52b). The Liber Eliensis bitterly laments that Ansgar the Staller had stolen lands from the monks of Ely, and that when they sought aid from the king, Edward sided with Ansgar (Blake 1962:96). In 1043, Edward granted land at Sevington in Grittleton, Wiltshire to his thegn AElfstan. This is clearly AElfstan of Boscombe, for Sevington numbers among AElfstan’s holdings recorded in Domesday book (S 999; DB, 1, f. 71 b). These examples suggest that Edward the Confessor was only adding to already established fortunes, not creating them. For example,
Tovi the Proud,
Osgod
Clapa and Ansgar gained initial prominence and land under Cnut and not the Confessor (see above p. 125). Indeed, it would have been impossible for Edward to have raised all these men from the dust and to have endowed them with such vast lands. An important clue to the administrative role stallers played is provided by an examination of the location and configuration of
128
their
landholdings.
The
phenomenon
of a
single landholder having estates scattered across several shires is a well known characteristic of late Anglo-Saxon land tenure. For example, Wulfric counties
the will of the tenth-century Spot disposed of lands (Sawyer 1979:xv-xliii) .
thegn
in eleven
Wlward White, a Domesday thegn whose wealth was second only to Ansgar’s, held land in thirteen shires (DB, 1, fos., 9, 44, 60, 62b, 66, 77b, 80b, 87, 129, 129b, 146b, 147, 151b, 153, 160, 212, 221, 36713). It is not surprising, therefore, to find individual staller’s lands were located in several shires. What is surprising is that they appear to have shared
similar
landholding
configurations.
With only one exception, Edward’s stallers held extensive lands outside Wessex, along with a small number of estates within the ancient West Saxon kingdom. The majority of Ralph’s lands lay in the eastern counties of Norfolk, Suffolk and Lincolnshire (DB, 1, fos., 337b, 347b, 348, 348b; DB, 2, fos., 122b, 123, 126b, 127, 128, 128b, 129, 131, 144, 149, 217b, 218, 218b, 293), but he also held a El2 Cornish estate at Tybesta (DB, 1, f. 121b). Ansgar’s lands were centered in the midlands - in Hertfordshire, Middlesex, Warwickshire, Northamptonshire and Buckinghamshire (DB, 1, fos., 129b, 139b, 140, 143b, 149b, 227, 227b, 24313). But Ansgar also held several estates in East Anglia (DB, 2, fos., 59b62b, lOOb, 149b, 247b, 411,41 lb, 412b) and (DB, 1, f. 62b). Bondi’s one in Berkshire lands were scattered over Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Berkshire, Dorset, Essex, Gloucestershire, Northamptonshire and Wiltshire (DB, 1, fos., 48, 49, 60b, 85, 151, 154b, 157b, 225, 228, 228b; DB, 2, f. 57). Robert fitz Wimarc held predominantly in
East
Anglia
(DB,
2, fos., 42, 43b,
44, 45,
with no discernible
setl, while the majority
45b, 46b, 47, 48, 395b, 401, 401b, 402), but he also held lands far away in Somerset and
held concentrated constellations within well defined regions. As for the members of the
Wiltshire
royal household
(DB,
1, fos., 92, 96b, 207b).
And,
Robert’s men and those holding from him held neighboring estates on the Cambridgeshire-Huntingdonshire
border
193b, 197, 197b, 198b, l99,199b,
(DB,
1, fos.,
200,20Ob,
and the sheriffs,
none ex-
cept Merleswegn held as extensively as these. With respect to the locations, however, they held where we would expect. The
205b) and in East Anglia (DB, 2, fos., 45, 47b, 28713, 392b, 401b, 402, 436b, 448). AElfstan of Boscombe, as his cognomen be-
majority of the household members’ lands were in the south or near royal manors. Likewise, most of the Domesday sheriffs’ estates were confined to the shire in which
trays, held extensively
they
in Wiltshire,
as well
as in the neighboring counties of Dorset, Gloucestershire, Hampshire and Somerset (DB, 1, fos., 39, 47, 61, 67, 71b, 75, 80b, 81b, 82, 83, 96b, 166b). However, he also possessed an impressive configuration of estates along the Hertfordshire-Bedfordshire border (DB, 1, fos., 138b, 139, 211b, 212). The exception to this pattern is Eadnoth, who held exclusively in the West Saxon earldom - in Berkshire, Somerset, Wiltshire, Dorset and Gloucestershire (DB, 1, fos., 58b, 60, 60b, 68, 68b, 69, 72b, 80, 91b, 124b, 166b). Thus all, save Eadnoth, were major landholders outside of Wessex; in areas whose incorporation into the West Saxon kingdom was incomplete, and where the king’s control was less firm. If the stallers’ landholding patterns are compared to those of the wealthiest thegns in England, we find only three instances of similar configurations: Anskell of Ware (DB, 1, fos., 69b, 73, 138, 138b, 139, 211b, 212b, 213, 213b, 214, 218), Eadmaer Atre (DB, 1, fos., 79b, 80, 90b, 92b, 97b, 98, 99, 102b, 105, llOb, 129, 136b, 146), and Merleswegn sheriff of Lincoln (DB, 1, fos., 86, 95, 95b, 104, 113b, 121b, 122b, 32513, 326, 363). Of the thirty other wealthiest thegns T.R.E., a few had lands in several counties
served.
Only
two held lands
outside
the county of which they were sheriffs. Godric sheriff of Berkshire held lands along the border of the neighboring county of Buckinghamshire (DB, 1, fos., 144, 149, 151b). And held well
Merleswegn sheriff of Lincolnshire estates in -neighboring Yorkshire, as as
Cornwall
in (DB,
Somerset,
Devonshire
and
1, fos., 86b, 96b, 113b, 121b,
122, 122b, 124b, 298, 298b, 313, 32513, 326, 326b, 363, 374). Thus the stallers were distinguished from other officials, with the exception of Merleswegn, on the basis of their wealth, and from other great landholding thegns by the configuration of their estates. Yet the question remains, what role, if any, did the stallers play in the governance of the realm? That the stallers did indeed participate in the governance of England is suggested by their appearance as addressees on royal writs. Stallers were addressed in six extant authentic writs of the Confessor as officials responsible for carrying out royal orders within the shires.” Tovi the Proud acted as the king’s messenger on at least one occasion (S 1462), and is at one point referred to as uexillifer regis (Stubbs 1861:6). Domesday book further confirms that stallers acted as royal agents, for Bondi is recorded as
129
having
assigned
land
at Stratley
for the
Confessor’s
charters
indicates
that
their
king’s use (e)B, 1, f. 218b). Robert fitz Wimarc and Ansgar appear as the addres-
duties extended wide importance.
sees on a writ in which
the king declares
that
hold
charters discloses a definite change in the thegns the king chose to consult over the course of his reign. Moreover, this change
Westminster
will
Moulsham,
Essex, as was stipulated by its previous holder (S 1128). Although their holdings extended
to several
shires,
both
Robert
and
Ansgar held estates within Essex and thus would have been well placed to receive the royal writ. Unlike
the sheriffs, however,
the
areas in which the stallers acted did not necessarily coincide with the shires in which they held lands. For example, ;he king addresses Robert fitz Wimarc stallers in a writ announcing Kent
would
be given
and Ansgar as that Lessness,
to Westminster,
yet
neither Robert nor Ansgar held land in Kent (S 1120). I n another writ, Edward the Confessor informs the addressees, among them Eadnoth the Staller, that the monks of Westminster are to hold Eversley, Hampshire (S 1129). Eadnoth, however, held no estates in Hampshire. More important, perhaps, is that all writs in which stallers are addressed emanated from Westminster and are concerned solely with lands the Confessor had assigned to his new foundation (Harmer 1952:5 1). The absence of stallers on writs not concerned with Westminster may be an indication that Edward used his stallers to carry out business of special importance to himself. Thus the evidence suggests that the stallers were occasionally involved in administrative functions, but apparently only those which were of particular and personal interest to the king. Edward’s use of stallers suggests that they played an important role in administering the king’s personal interests, yet their frequent appearance as attestors on the
130
in personnel ward’s
into matters An analysis
is symptomatic
governing
policies.
of kingdomof Edward’s
of a shift in EdForty-two
au-
thentic royal charters survive from the Confessor’s reign. I2 Despite the paucity of charters, the evidence is sufficiently strong to suggest that the stallers
played and increas-
ingly important role as the reign progressed. From 1042 to 1050, the most frequent and prominent thegns on the witness lists of Edward’s charters
were important
his Anglo-Scandinavian
members
predecessors’
of
witan
(Mack 1984:386). But between 1050 and 1066 a major change occurred. By 1053 all but two of the most frequently attesting thegns of Edward’s early charters disappeared from the witness lists altogether. Of the remaining thegns, only two are known to have died before the Conquest, the others appear as landholders in Domesday book, and there is no reason to think that they were not alive in January 1066.i3 Yet the charters from 1053 to 1066 were characterized by a decrease
in
attesting
thegns
and
an
in-
creased appearance of stallers (see Table 3). Stallers were addressed in only two extant writs dating from 1042-1053 (S 1119, 1128), but Osgod Clapa alone of the stallers attested royal charters prior to 1053, and there he subscribes as minister, not as staller (S 999, 1001, 1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1010, 1012, 1013, 1016). Of the ten charters that date from 1053-1066, four are subscribed by a staller: Ansgar attests four charters; Ralph, four; Robert, four; and Bondi, two (see Table 4). As infrequent as
Table 3. Increasing attestors of Edward
quest forged charters.
appearance of stallers as the Confessor’s charters
Dates of extant authentic charters t
Number charters
1042-1053 1054-1066
25 10
of No. of times thegns attest
No. of times stallers attest
247 50
Table 4. Stallers as attestors Confessor’s charters Name of staller
Charters
Ansgar Ralph Robert Bondi
1028 1028 1028 1033
of Edward
In
the
(S no.)
1033 1033 1033
1034 1034 1034
this may appear, of the forty-four thegnly attestors, only one non-staller occurs more than once: Brictric himself - the only one aside from AElfstan of Boscombe from among the early contingent of the Confessor’s attestors who subscribes after 1053. As attestors of royal diplomas, these thegns were well placed
to influence
the king on
matters of war and the governance of the kingdom. The frequency with which the stallers appear on the royal witness lists after
1053,
coupled
charters as authentic as possible, Osbert copied witness lists of authentic charters, or fabricated
his own in which
the names
of
the most important ecclesiastical and secular members of the Confessor’s witan appear in the most prominent positions. For example, the witness list of S 1011 is clearly mod-
attested
1031 1031 1031 1034
the creation of the arch-forger, Osbert of Clare (Chaplais 1962). In order to make his
11* 14
* These eleven are Osgod Clapa’s attestations. every instance he signs as minister not as staller. 7 Five charters cannot be dated accurately.
There are eleven such
forgeries purporting to be grants of Edward the Confessor (S 1000, 1002, 1011, 1026, 1029, 1030, 1036, 1141, 1143, 1059, 1060). Seven of these can be shown to have been
with
their
prominent
positions at the head of the thegnly subscribers, indicates that the stallers served as intimate counsellors to Edward the Confessor. A further indication of the stallers’ role as important counsellors of the -Confessor comes from the unlikely source of post-Con-
eled on an early charter Osgod, Ordgar, Ordwulf
of Edward’s, as and Odda - the
most frequently attesting thegns of the Confessor’s early charters - are the only thegns to subscribe (R/lack 1984:387). Yet, none of these thegns is known to have attested an authentic charter after 1050. Osbert’s fabrications all bear the name of at least one of the stallers. Ansgar and Robert appear on five; Ralph on three; Bondi and Eadnoth on two and AElfstan on one. Moreover, with the exception of S 1011, the stallers attest before the thegns. Clearly, Osbert was trying to make the strongest possible case for his claims, and writing in the 113Os, he would likely have had access to documents since
lost.
Similarly,
the
stallers
Ralf
(S
1026, 1029, 1060), Ansgar (S 1026, 1029) and Leafing (S 1026) appear as attestors on three of the four remaining forgeries. Thus, the fact that these forgers made the stallers figure so promiaently in their witness lists suggests that in their understanding of the Confessor’s England, these men were powerful and intimate royal counsellors. The habitual appearance of stallers as attestors on royal charters represents a clear
131
departure from Edward’s The landholding patterns disclosed
in Domesday
earlier practices. of the stallers as
book,
coupled
with
their frequent charter attestations, and appearance on royal writs, suggest a royal effort to incorporate
the non-Wessex
regions
under royal control. By drawing wealthy landholders to his court from outlaying regions, who also held token estates in Wessex, the Confessor appears to have been extending the basis of royal power which had been severely diminished under Cnut (Mack 1984;
Fleming
1984:89-132).
At the same
time, because the stallers also held estates within the ancient West Saxon Kingdom, their landholding patterns reflect a kingdom-wide
concern.
The shift from personal
royal agent to prominent royal witan was gradual. But clearly, whatever the title of staller had meant to Cnut, Edward had given it a new, if not fully defined, meaning. This practice was, however, fatally flawed. Edward’s reign was plagued by aristocratic unrest which broke into open rebellion on more than one occasion. In 1046, Osgod Clapa was exiled; in 1049 he attempted to regain his position in England (ASC7s.a. 1046, 1049, C,D; Fl.Wig.:s.a. 1046, 1049). The ability of Earl Godwine to inspire thegnly support seriously disrupted England in 1051-1052 (ASC:s.a. 1051, 1052). Similarly, the revolt of the Northumbrian thegns in 1065 against Earl Tostig Godwineson and their subsequent choice of Mortar son of the Mercian earl Alfgar, points to a flawed royal decision rather than a rejection of West Saxon authority (ASC:s.a. 1065; F1.Wig:s.a. 1065). Finally, Domesday book records that King Edward outlawed Eadric of Laxfield, but had been obliged to restore him (DB, 2, f. 310b). In-
132
deed, Eadric,
a thegn of great wealth,
aged to extract
a royal writ conceding
manthat
any of his men who wished to return to him could do so (DB, 2, f. 310b). By 1066, in Domesday book, there are over 400 instances of men commended to Eadric - so many found it propitious to ally themselves with this former
outlaw.
The circumstances
sur-
rounding Eadric’s outlawry are mysterious, but they are likely to have been rooted in some animosity between the Confessor and this wealthy thegn. Despite his wealth and his influence over other men, Eadric does not appear as a witness on any extant royal charter, and yet he attests three (S 1224, 1228,
1530)
of the five
extant
non-royal
charters dating from Edward’s reign (S 1224, 1228, 1468, 1530, 1531). It is unlikely that the uneven distribution of surviving evidence alone can account for Eadric’s absence from the royal court, especially when his neighbors the stallers Ralph and Robert fitz Wimarc were so frequently present. Thus, an examination of the diplomas of Edward the Confessor in light of the late Saxon power structure disclosed by Domesday book, reveals what was perhaps the final administrative innovation of the West Saxon kings. The Norman Conquest put an end to the use of stallers in the English administration, and so the success of this short-lived official is difficult to gauge. When seen in the context of the frequent uprisings against Edward’s authority, however, it appears that royal practices were fostering rebellion, rather than cooperation, and were creating serious strains between monarchy and aristocracy.
Notes Abbreviations: ASC, Whitelock 1961; DB, Farley and Ellis 1783-1816; Fl.Wig., Thorpe 1848-9; S, Sawyer 1968. Anglo-Saxon diplomas are cited by their number in Sawyer; s.a., sub anno; VER, Barlow 1962.
* An earlier and abbreviated version of this paper was presented at the Charles Homer Haskins Conference in November 1982. I wish to thank Professor C. Warren Hollister and Dr Robin Fleming for their rigorous criticism and suggestions. I Ralph and his son Swegn after him were made earls of Norfolk and Suffolk by the Conqueror (ASC: s.a. 1075, D,E; DB, 2, fos. 128b, 129; Davis 1913: nos. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44). And, Robert litz Wimarc did become sheriff of Essex under William (DB, 2, f. 98). It is clear, however, that these references are to postConquest events and cannot be used as evidence to suggest that these men held the same positions under Edward the Confessor. 2 Unlike other administrative positions or social distinctions, staller does not appear in the laws. Moreover, the title is not mentioned by Wulfstan in his Institutes of polity (Jest 1959), or in the eleventhcentury social tract, Rectitudines singulorum personarum (Douglas 198 1: 875-9) 3 Morton and Muntz 1972: 11679 ff. The date and authenticity of the Carmen has been questioned, and its authorship is a matter of scholarly dispute (Davis and Engels 1979:1-20, 165-7). Even if the Carmen is a product of a later age, the tradition of Ansgar having been the one who had the authority or the prestige to hand over London to the Conqueror is itself a testament to his position. 4 ASC:s.a. 1052,E. This entry in the Anglo-Saxon chronicle “... sume nora to Rodbertes castele”, is generally accepted to be a reference to Robert fitz Wimarc’s estate at Clavering, Essex (DB, 2, fos. 46b, 47). J.H. Round has suggested, on the basis of archeological evidence, that Clavering was the site of an AngloSaxon earthwork ( Victoria County History Essex 1: 345). 5 The Domesday survey itself is incomplete and William the Conqueror’s devastation of northern England in 1068 and 1070 makes the identification of thegns and the value of their estates approximate rather than exact. I have used overall values rather than number of hides as the basis for a comparison of the thegns in Domesday book for two reasons. First, the practice of beneficial hidation renders hides a misleading measure of the size or value of T.R.E. estates. Second, the uneven assessment across England
further distorts any comparison. The T.R.E. figures for value have been calculated by adding together the values given for the estates, whether they are stated as values or renders, in order to obtain an approximate annual revenue for these landholders. When no T.R.E. value is given, I have used the T.R.W. value. Occasionally, values are not given at all, yet the information provided in such entries for numbers of plowteams and peasant population confirm that those unvalued estates would not markedly increase overall annual value of these thegn’s landed wealth. 6 Pakenham, Suffolk was confirmed by Edward to Bury St Edmund’s “with all the privileges that Osgod Clapa had held” (S 1074). Barton and Rougham in Suffolk were bequeathed to Osgod son of Eaculf (S 1526). A.J. Robertson has argued that this Osgod was an ancestor of Osgod Clapa and that Osgod Clapa held these lands until his exile in 1046, at which time they were confiscated by the king (Robertson 1965:445; Harmer 1952:596; Whitelock 1962:102). 7 None of the Leolings listed sub nomine in von Feilitzen can be demonstrated to have been the same man (1937:312-13). A most common feature of the redistribution of land after the Conquest was that the lands of an Anglo-Saxon thegn were transfered in toto to a Norman individual. None of the Leolings, however, share a common T.R.W. successor. 8 That the possession of live hides of land was an important distinction between a thegn and a ceorl, is made explicit in the eleventh-century Gepyncao and in the Nordleoda Luga (Whitelock 1979: 468, 469). 9 It is impossible to calculate Reinbald’s T.R.E. wealth since not all of his estates were assigned a value in Domesday book, but he had a minimum annual revenue of El8 from his landholdings. 10 This Ulf is probably the same Ulf styled “portreeve” in S 1119 who gave land and a wharf to Westminster Abbey. II S 1119, 1121, 1128, 1129, 1135, 1142. The stallers Ansgar and Robert fitz Wimarc also appear on two spurious writs of Edward the Confessor (S 1120, 1137; Harmer 1952:286-395). 12 With respect to the authenticity of Edward the Confessor’s diplomas, I am following the evaluations made by H.P.R.,Finberg, Dr. Cyril Hart and Dorothy Whitelock (Finberg 1953, 1961, 1964; Hart 1957, 1966; Whitelock 1962, 1979). 130sgod Clapa died in his bed in 1054 (ASC:s.a. 1054 C,D). Odda of Deerhurst retired to a monastery and later died at Deerhurst in 1055 (ASC:s.a. 1056, C,D; Fl.Wig.; s.a. 1055). 14 Osgod’s appearance as a frequently attesting
133
thegn of Edward's early charters is likely to have been due to his preeminence among Cnut’s witan, rather than his having later been made a staller (Mack 1984:386-7).
Literature Arnold, T. (ed.) 1890-6. Memorials of St Edmund’s Abbey. 3 ~01s. RS. London. Barlow, F. (ed. and trans.) 1962. Vita Aedwardi regis qui apud Westmonasterium requiescit. London. Barlow, F. 197 1. Edward the Confessor. Berkeley. Barlow, F. 1979. The English church 1000-1066. Second edition. London. Blake, E.O. (ed.) 1962. Liber Eliensis. Camden Society third series, 92. London. Chaplais, I’. 1962. The original charters of Herbert and Gervase abbots of Westminster (112 l-l 157). A medieval miscellany for Doris Mary Stenton. Pipe Roll Society 36:39,110. Davis, H.W.C. (ed.) 1913. Regesta regum AngloNormannorum, 1. Oxford. Davis, R.H.C. and Engels, L.J. et al. 1979. The Carmen de Hastingae pro&o: a discussion. Proceedings of the Battle Conference on Anglo-Norman Studies 2: l-20. Sussex. Douglas, D.C. (ed. and trans.) 1981. Rectitudines singulorum personarum. English historical documents 1042-l 189. Second edition 2: 875-9. London. Farley, A. and Ellis, H. (eds.) 1783-1816. Domesday book seu Liber censualis. 4 ~01s. London. Feilitzen, 0. von. 1937. The pre-Conquest personal names of Domesday book. Uppsala. Finberg, H.P.R. 1953. The early charters of Devon and Cornwall. Leicester. Finberg, H.P.R. 1961. The early charters of the West Midlands. Leicester. Finberg, H.P.R. 1964. The early charters of Wessex. Leicester. Foreville, R. (ed. and trans.) 1952. William of de Guillame le Conquerant. Poitiers’ Histoire Paris. Fleming, R. 1983. Domesday estates of the king and the Godwines: a study in late Saxon politics. Speculum 58:987-1007. Flemmg, R. 1984. Royal and aristocratic landholding and alliance 871-1087. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California Santa Barbara. Freeman, E.A. 1977. The Norman Conquest of England. 6 ~01s. Third edition, revised. London.
134
Harmer, F.E. 1952. Anglo-Saxon writs. Manchester. Hart, C. 1957. The early charters of Essex; the Saxon period. Leicester. Hart, C. 1966. The early charters of Eastern England. Leicester. Hart, C. 1975. The early charters of Northern England and the Midlands. Leicester. Jost, K. (ed.) 1959. Die ‘Institutes of polity, civil and ecclesiastical’. Bern. Kemble, J.M. 1876. The Saxons in England. 2 ~01s. London. Larson, L.M. 1904. The king’s household in England before the Norman Conquest. Madison. Liebermann, F. (ed.) 1903. Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen 1. Halle. Loyn, H.R. 1962. Anglo-Saxon England and the Norman Conquest. London. Mack, K. 1984. Changing Thegns: Cnut’s Conquest and the English aristocracy. Albion 16:376-87. Morton, C. and Muntz, H. (eds.) 1972. Carmen de Hastingae proelio. Oxford. Morris, W.A. 1927. The medieval English sheriff to 1300. Manchester. Oleson, TJ. 1955. The Witenagemot in the reign of Edward the Confessor. Toronto. Robertson, A.J. 1965. Anglo-Saxon charters. Cambridge. Round, J.H. 1892. Geoffrey de Mandeville. London. Round, J.H. 1895. Feudal England. London. Round, J.H. 1904. The officers of Edward the Confessor. English historical review 19:90-2. Sawyer, P. 1968. Anglo-Saxon charters: an annotated list and bibliography. London. Sawyer, P.H. (ed.) 1979. Charters of Burton Abbey. London. Stenton, F.M. 1971. Anglo-Saxon England. Third edition. Oxford. Stevenson, J. (ed.) 1855. Chronicon monasterii de Abingdon. 2 ~01s. RS. London. Stubbs, W. (ed.) 1861. The foundation of Waltham Abbey. London. Thorpe, B. (ed.) 1840. The ancient laws and institutes of England. London. Thorpe, B. (ed.) 1848-9. Chronican ex chronicis. 2 ~01s. London. Whitelock, D. et al. (trans.) 1961. The Anglo-Saxon chronicle. London. Whitelock, D. (ed.) 1932, repr. 1962. Anglo-Saxon wills. Cambridge. Whitelock, D. (ed.) 1979. English historical documcnts 1, c.500-1042. second edition. London.