This early musical instrument,  called by the Anglo-Saxons a hearpe, is what we call today a round lyre. The triangular frame-harp came into use much later in the Anglo-Saxon period.

This pan-Germanic hearpe or lyre, the most famous example of which is the Sutton Hoo harp, is the musical instrument associated with the early Old English poetry, such as Beowulf. It is a simple yet very elegant musical instrument; aesthetically pleasing in its rounded shape.

This six-stringed instrument, light in weight and not too large in size would have been easy for the travelling scop to carry from place to place. The hollow sound-box looks alarmingly shallow, being no more than 25mm in the case of the Sutton Hoo harp, but it can produce a sound appropriate in volume for the germanic mead-hall.

Tuning

The wooden tailpiece at the foot of the hearpe, which restrains the strings, need not be much more than 50mm long, in order that the bridge may be moved to a position that will give the strings a vibrating length of about 575mm. This should give the sound a reasonably low and full tone, and, particularly when tuned to a suitable pentatonic scale, the compass of the instrument will lie within the normal tenor register. Because of the nature of the construction of the hearpe, it will in most cases go out of tune much quicker than most other instruments. This tendency can be avoided by making sure that the strings are held firm enough at the base and in the pegs. The  hearpe should then remain in tune without the need for adjustment for some weeks.

Hucbald

Information regarding the tuning of a six-stringed lyre is to be found in a work entitled De Harmonica Institutione (c 880) written by Hucbald (c840-930) who was a Flemish monk. This tuning, when starting from the first note of the C major scale, comprises the first six notes of that scale, namely CDEFGA. 

However, Hucbald is not describing, or providing, any information on, the tuning of the Anglo-Saxon or Germanic hearpe. Hucbald is explaining how the Roman philosopher, Boethius (480-524) would havge tuned the classical lyre; an instrument which, as Hucbald notes, additional strings were often added to accomodate the ranges of the various modes.

Whether the Anglo-Saxon scop tuned his harp to Hucbald’s scales later in the Anglo-Saxcon period is not known, but certainly in the pagan period the scop would not have been familiar with the modes used by Boethius.

The Pentatonic scales

It seems fairly certain that the Anglo-Saxon hearpe would have been tuned to a pentatonic scale. The notes of these scales lie naturally to the musical ear between the octave and the instrument has six strings, which gives the five notes of the scale plus the octave note.
Pentatonic scales are very common throughout the world, being much used in the early folk music of various countries.

Any scale comprising of five different notes may be termed ‘pentatonic,’ but there are a number of early forms of pentatonic scales. The G flat major pentatonic scale is the base of melodies that may be played using only the black notes of the piano. The scale C D E G A (c), is the scale used in the early music of China.

The minor pentatonic scale, C Eflat F G Bflat (c), is the scale used in Appalachian folk music and it is also the scale used in early English folk-song music. Tuned to this scale, quite a number of early English folk melodies may be played on the Anglo-Saxon hearpe. Because these early English folk-song melodies go back many centuries, it is I think reasonable to assume that the Old English Scop would have tuned his hearpe to this pentatonic scale. We can therefore, I believe, bring back to life the sound of the Sutton Hoo harp. This I have tried to do on my CD The Sound of the Sutton Hoo Harp.

Techniques

The main problem that remains is how was the hearpe played? Did it involve, as some have suggested, a technique called ‘block and strum? The problem with this technique is, if carried out for any length of time, it becomes very tedious to the ear. It is, I think, worth examining the Old English literature to see whether there is any mention of technique whilst playing the hearpe.

There is a late reference to ’singing to the harp,’ that is Old English salletan  (The Paris Psalter 104). But this term can also mean ‘to sing psalms’ (Latin psallere), and when sung with a harp it would have been the later triangular frame harp, such as is shown in the 11th century Psalter in St. John’s College Cambridge.

The Finnsburh Episode in Beowulf (Lines 1063-1065) seems to suggest that hearpe and song were conjoined:

∂ær wæs sang and sweg samod ætgædere  

Fore Healfdenes Hilde-wisan

Gomen-wudu greted gid oft wrecan

(There was song and sound together gathered  

before Half-danes battle leader  

Game-wood played, tale often repeated)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 But sweg here may mean the general sound in the Hall, the background noise, rather than hearpesweg (the sound of the harp). This interpretation is perhaps strengthened by gomen-wudu greted coming in the next line; gomen-wudu (joy-wood) being one of a number of kennings for the hearpe.

A passage in Widsi∂ provides another reference to the joining together of hearpe and voice:

Donne wit Scilling sciran reorde

For uncrum sigedryhtne song ahofan

Hlude bi hearpan hleo∂or swinsade                                                                                                

When Scilling and I with clear voice

raised a song for our victorious Lord

Loud was the sound of the harp’s melody )                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               In this passage Scilling is sometimes taken to be the name of Widsi∂’s hearpe rather than another person. But in either case it is not made absolutely clear that the hearpe and voice are heard together at the same time. 

In The Gifts of men the hearpe appears to be played quite quickly and skifully and separately from the voice of the Scop:

Sum mid hondum mæg hearpan gretan

Ah he gleobeames gearobrygda list

(One with his hands may play the harp

He has on the glee-wood a quick-playing skill)

Note here also the term gleobeames (glee-wood), another kenning for the hearpe, sometimes appearing as gliwbeam. The late equation of this term with the timbrel (tambourine or drum) is either by extension or error. A play-wood or pleasure-wood, or perhaps music-wood, is the meaning of the term; the hearpe, basically, being a thin wooden board in appearance. The term gleo in the form glee, has come down to the present day, but now with the meaning part-song.

An extract from The Fortunes of Men describes a lively hearpe-playing style:

Sum sceal mid hearpan æt his hlafordes fotum sittan

feoh ∂icgan ond a snellice snere wrætan

lætan scrælletan sceacol, se∂e hleape∂

nægl neomegende, bi∂ him neod micel.

(One shall with hearpe sit at his Lord’s feet,

receive treasure and rapidly twang

the harp-string, letting the plectrum loudly sound,

which leaping nail sounds sweet

and brings much pleasure.)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Here we see that the hearpe was, at least sometimes, played loudly and quickly leaping from one string to another.

Finally, some lines from the Riming Poem:

L 25   gellende sner  (harpstring resounding)

L 27/28  scyl wæs hearpe

hlude hlynede, hleo∂or dynede                                                                                                                                 

     (clear-sounding was harp

      loudly resounding)                                                                                                                    

Macrae-Gibson in his glossary (The OE Riming Poem, 1983) gives gellende, hlynede and dynede all as ‘resounding,’ but they must surely have had, at least, slightly different meanings. The sublety of meaning being lost means we have lost some information regarding the sound of the hearpe. Macrae-Gibson translates the lines as ‘ringing loudly so that the sound re-echoed;’ but this is a personal intepretation.

One thing to bear in mind is that, when the poetry is composed later in the period, it may well be that the references are to the triangular frame- harp rather than the earlier germanic round hearpe.

The Rhythm of the Poetry

Pope argues that the verse was rhythmically, rather than metrically, regular (J C Pope, The Rhythm of Beowulf, 1942 rev. 1966). He suggests that Old English verses ‘were chanted whilst being accompanied by a small harp which provided a drone.’ (ibid). However, the Old English extracts above do not support this suggestion. It does seem to be the case that, by slightly emphasizing the alliterated syllables, the natural rhythm of the poetry emerges.

Conclusions

We see from the Old English passages above that the hearpe was played in a number of different ways. It was played loudly, quickly, with leaping notes, sweetly and with a resounding sound. The technique was not restricted to a drone (though a sort of drone may be sustained if required), nor was it restricted to repetitive ‘block and strum,’ which soon becomes wearisome.

It is reasonable to assume that the hearperes would have had some differences in their techniques; there is no reason to assume that there was a standard method of playing the instrument. The hearpe would have been very useful during the recital of the poetry. It might have been played during short interludes, especially when the scop needed to collect his thoughts. It must surely have been used to reflect the various moods, actions and atmosphere of the poetry.

Peter C Horn

(Based on Article published in Withowinde, Spring 2005)

We will meet up around 12.30pm in the Abbey Hotel in Battle High Street, very close to the Abbey Gatehouse.

A wreath will be laid on behalf of the Fellowship and words of remembrance will be spoken by members of the Witan.

Leicester: Middle Engle meeting. 

Nottingham: Deorbi-Snotingaham scira meet at the Coronation Hall.

Richmond: Suthrige and Middel Seaxe scira. The Surrey and Middlesex group has now moved its monthly venue to The Waterman’s Arms, Richmond, Surrey.

Eastseaxa: Essex  group meets every other Tuesday evening  at the Rettendon Bell, Rettendon. Next meetings 31 August, 14 September, 28 September etc

See Withowinde Journal for details of all above meetings.

Whilst recognising its inaccuracies and omissions, its bias and limitations given its monkish authorship and its likely late ninth century West Saxon origin, a study of its content can lead to a whole new line of investigation into some hidden gems of history. Gesithas living in different parts of the country will undoubtedly be able to enhance our individual knowledge of events, people and places through their specialist interests and by familiarity with local sites and material and even local legends, so often found to have some basis in fact. Withowinde is a vehicle for expanding our knowledge and stimulating wider interest with the assistance of the Chronicle.

A reminder of origin and what now survives

The Chronicle, written between the end of the ninth century and the middle of the twelfth century, was in Old English rather than Latin even though it is likely that none of the documents consulted in its compilation were written in English. Nine versions, numbered “A” to “I”, survive in whole or in part; only a few leaves of version “G” survive due to it being burnt in the fire at Ashburnham House in 1731 where it formed part of the Cotton Library. Each version was written by a number of scribes with the exception of version “B” which was written by a single scribe, and version “E” which was written by a single scribe until a second scribe made the entries for the years 1132-1154. Version “F” has a Latin translation of each entry, and version “E” has the last entry written in Middle English – one of the earliest examples of this development in the language. It is thought that all nine versions derive from a common original – no longer extant – with variations caused by the use of additional material, such as Bede’s “Ecclesiastical History of the English People”, the “Annals of St Neots”, the Mercian Register, the “Battle of Brunanburh” poem and versions of the Chronicle, including the northern version, which have probably not survived.  Versions “A”, “G” (sometimes referred to as “A2” or “W”) and “H” were probably made at Winchester, versions “B” and “C” at Abingdon, version “D” at Worcester, version “E” at Peterborough, and versions “F” and “I” at Canterbury. Seven of these manuscripts are now housed in the British Library. Version “A”, the “Parker” (named after Matthew Parker, Archbishop of Canterbury 1559-1575 and Master of Corpus Christi College) or “Winchester” Chronicle is housed in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge. Version “E”, the Laud” (named after William Laud, Archbishop of Canterbury 1633-1654) or “Peterborough” Chronicle is housed in the Bodleian Library, Oxford.

Content Summary

The Chronicle records events including the first landings of the Anglo-Saxons and Jutes in England, the appointment, succession and deaths of kings, churchmen and important lay people, the conversion of England to Christianity, battles between kings and the nascent kingdoms of England, battles against the Picts, Welsh, Irish, Scots, the Vikings, the Normans and the French.

Some entries provide a commentary, for example:

999 – “Time after time the more urgent a thing was the greater delay from one hour to the next, and all the while they were allowing the strength of their enemies to increase; and as they kept retreating from the sea, so the enemy followed close on their heels. So in the end these naval and land preparations were a complete failure, and succeeded only in adding to the distress of the people, wasting money, and encouraging their enemy.”

1043 – After Edward is crowned king he confiscates from his mother Queen Emma of Normandy all the lands, gold and silver and all that she possessed because “she had been too tight-fisted with him”.

1085 – The Domesday Book and King William. “So very thoroughly did he have the inquiry carried out that there was not a single “hide”, not one virgate of land, not even – it is shameful to record it, but it did not seem shameful to him to do – not even one ox, nor one cow, nor one pig, which escaped notice in his survey.”

The Chronicle also records a variety of matters impacting on the population including increases in the price of wheat, great famines, the destruction of crops, eclipses of the sun and moon and the arrival of comets, severe winters with frost and snow and widespread storms, dry summers with wildfire and even an earthquake. Some entries are fuller than others, and whilst accepting they may have been within the personal experience of the scribe rather than simply a record, they do provide a greater insight to the mindset and experience of people living at that time. For example, on the 28 September 1014 “the swollen incoming tide swept far and wide through many places in this land; and it ran further inland than it had ever done before, and submerged many homesteads and drowned a countless number of human beings”; in 1046 “severe winter with frost and snow and widespread storms: it was so severe that no living man could remember another like it, because of the mortality of both men and cattle; both birds and fish perished because of the hard frost and from hunger”; in 1105 complaints about “the numerous taxes from which there was no relief”; and in 1114 “an ebb-tide which was everywhere lower than any man remembered before; so people went riding and walking across the Thames to the east of London Bridge”.

What interests you?

Which individual years and their contents are the most interesting and informative is a matter of personal choice. From a rich array of material, in order to illustrate what might spur one to further activity, I have set out a few examples with some questions, in italics, below – the spellings and dates are those used in the Chronicle:

656 - King Wulhere of Mercia provides a charter for the monastery at Medeshamstede dedicated to St Peter. (With the later addition of a burgh the town became St Peter’s Burgh – Peterborough). The charter is witnessed by King Oswy of Northumbria, King Sigehere and King Sebbie (joint kings of Essex) and Wulhere’s brother and sisters, among others. The charter was blessed by Pope Vitalian in Rome. The monastery at Medeshamstede was where at least one version of the Chronicle, “E”, was written. What is known about these people; does Peterborough Cathedral/Museum/Town commemorate this charter, this important Anglo-Saxon monastery and the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle?

672 - King Cenwalh of Wessex died and was succeeded by his Queen Seaxburh. What is known about her; under what circumstances did a queen succeed to a throne in Anglo-Saxon England?

912 – 921 Entries relating to Æthelflæd, “Lady of the Mercians”, who builds fortresses at Scergeat (location unidentified) and at Bridgnorth, Tamworth and Stafford. Sends an army into Wales and takes Brecenanmere (at Llangorse Lake, near Brecon). Captures Derby and Leicester, the Danes in the East Midlands and in the York area submit to her. She is buried in the east chapel of St Peter’s Church in Gloucester (Gloucester Cathedral). What is known of Æthelflæd; is there a biography of her; is she commemorated in any of these towns; where is “Scergeat”; does any evidence of the burhs identified survive; what commemoration is there of Æthelflæd in Gloucester Cathedral; where was she born; where did she live?

926 –  On 12 July King Athelstan receives the submission of all the kings on the island (of Britain), Hywel, King of the West Welsh, Constantine, King of Scots, Owain, King of Gwent, and Ealdred Ealdulfing from Bamburgh (Northumberland). These rulers “established a covenant of peace with pledges and oaths at a placed called Eamont Bridge (Cumbria): they forbade all idolatrous practices, and then separated in concord.” What is known of these people who submitted to Athelstan; what impact did these individuals have on Anglo-Saxon England; is the peace treaty at Eamont Bridge commemorated in any way; what were the idolatrous practices referred to; why were they such a cause of concern at this time?

973 – Coronation of King Edgar at Bath on Sunday 11 May after which King Edgar leads all his fleet to Chester where six kings made submission to him and “pledged themselves to be his fellow workers by sea and land”. Is this coronation commemorated in any way locally; what is known of the kings who submitted to Edgar; what impact did these individuals have on Anglo-Saxon England; is there any commemoration of these events in Chester?

978 – At a meeting of the leading councillors of England the upper storey of a building at Calne (Wiltshire) collapsed resulting in the injury and death of several people. The entry records that Archbishop Dunstan “alone remained standing on a beam”. Apart from drawing attention to Dunstan’s sanctity, this entry is often used as proof that secular buildings as well as churches had more than one storey at this time; can the site of this building now be identified; are there any other references or records of other two-storey-or-more buildings; can their sites now be identified – the hall at Bosham (Sussex) depicted in the Bayeux tapestry is another example?

1000 – King Æthelred marches into Cumberland and lays waste most of the county. His fleet go to Chester but are unable to contact him as planned and so they harry the Isle of Man. What records exist of where Æthelred went in Cumberland or where the sailors from his fleet went in the Isle of Man; is there any commemoration locally of the people and places involved in these events?

1014 – King Swein dies on 2 February. The English councillors in England send for King Æthelred “if only he would govern his kingdom more justly than he had done in the past”. King Æthelred agreed to address their concerns and “a complete and friendly agreement was reached and ratified with word and pledge on either side”. This agreement is sometimes cited as the prototype Magna Carta; what is the detail; who were the signatories – what role did they play in future events; was it used as source material when Magna Carta was drafted; was it cited as the precedent by proponents of Magna Carta?

1017 or 1020 – Eadwig, “king of the peasants” is banished and killed. Who was Eadwig; where did he come from; what did he do; were the peasants in revolt at that time, did they band together, and if so why; why did Eadwig and why did this occasion warrant a mention in the Chronicle; why not others on other occasions; what was so significant about Eadwig?

1046 – Earl Swein (the eldest son of Earl Godwine) successfully leads an army from Herefordshire into South Wales with King Gruffyd. On return he abducts, but eventually releases, the abbess of Leominster (Herefordshire). 1049 – King Edward and the whole army declare Earl Swein to be a “nithing” (a man without honour). Earl Swein sails to Bruges and spends the winter with Baldwin, Count of Flanders. What is known of Swein; is there a biography of him; what is known about his relationship with his father, his brother Earl Harold and his cousin Beorn (who he murders); his time spent in Scandinavia; his pilgrimage and his death on 29 September 1052 in Constantinople? Is he commemorated anywhere; who was the abbess of Leominster; what is known of her; what is known about his campaigns in Wales and the relationship with the Welsh King Gruffyd; how much use was made of declaring someone a nithing – is this equivalent to declaring him an outlaw, what special significance is there in a “nithing”?

1054 – Earl Siward of Northumbria invades Scotland and defeats King Macbeth of Scotland (Shakespeare’s Macbeth in which Earl Siward features). What is known about the people and places involved in these events; what was the relationship between Northumbria and Scotland at that time; where were the borders between the two?

1055 – The outlawed Ælfgar, son of Earl Leofric, raises levies from Ireland and Wales and attacks Hereford; “the English fled, because they had been made to fight on horseback” (by Earl Ralph the Frenchman). Does this mean that the Frenchmen in this country before 1066 tried to train significant numbers of their English levies to fight on horseback; were any lessons learnt which might have benefited the English in their later confrontations with the Normans; did no English leader try to train some of their men to fight on horseback?

1065 – The campaigns in Wales by Harold and Tostig. What is known of the detail of this campaign; the people and places involved; are any of the people or events now commemorated in the locality; what was the relationship between Anglo-Saxon England and Wales; how did it evolve and what were the consequences and impact on events recorded in the Chronicle?

1066 – “Leofric, abbot of Peterborough, took part in this campaign, and there fell ill and returned home; he died soon afterwards on the eve of All Saints (31 October). Leofric was the nephew of Earl Leofric of Coventry and Lady Godiva was his aunt. Leofric is one of an number of people who can be identified as having taken part in the autumn campaigns of 1066, what is known of Leofric; is he commemorated anywhere; what others who took part in the campaigns of 1006 are named elsewhere; what is known of them; and are any commemorated?

1073 – King William leads “an English and French host oversea, and conquered the province of Maine, and the English laid it completely waste; they destroyed the vineyards, burnt down the towns, and completely devastated the countryside, and brought it all into subjection to William”. What is known of this campaign and the people and places involved; are they commemorated anywhere?

1091 – When Malcolm, King of Scotland hears that an army is approaching “he left Scotland and went into Lothian in England with his levies and there waited”. What were the borders between Northumbria and Scotland at this time; how extensive was “Lothian in England”; what was the extent of Northumbria in modern day Scotland; what and where is the evidence today?

1097 – “Earl Hugh was slain in Anglesey by pirates”. The leader of the “pirates” was Magnus Bareleg, King of Norway, the son of Harald Hardrada. He was accompanied by Harold, son of King Harold II. The two sons of the vanquished and victor at Stamford Bridge. What is known about this Harold and the activities of the children of King Harold; are they commemorated anywhere?

1137 – King Stephen’s reign introduced a tax, “tenserie”, which was protection money paid by villages to save their homes and crops being plundered and their livestock taken by armies operating in their area. Apparently this was a local rather than national tax such as Dane geld; is this the first time such a tax was levied;  something similar might have been paid by the inhabitants of these islands when the English first arrived or during the Viking raids and invasions; what evidence is there for similar earlier payments?

….. and finally

I hope the references and questions above may be of some interest and trigger future contributions to Withowinde by gesithas. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is such a rich source of material to prompt and widen interest; it is a shame not to put it to good use!

In producing this article use was made of The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle translated by G N Garmonsway. The New Edition was first published in 1972 and there have been a number of further reprints.

This is the largest building with substantial remains to survive from the Anglo-Saxon period, but even so it is not now as large as it was when first constructed. The style of walling at the lower levels, and the results of archaeology, both suggest that the building originates from the eighth century; a time when Mercia was influential in national affairs. Since then it has been in continuous use, which has led some to claim that it is the oldest building still in use north of the Alps.

According to Hugh Candidas, a monk who wrote a chronicle at nearby Peterborough in the twelfth century, a monastery was founded at Brixworth as early as the latter part of the seventh century. However, it is unlikely that the earliest parts of the present structure are from that time; the remains we have now are of the eighth century monastic church, which is thought to have continued in use until the Danes laid the monastery to waste in the late ninth century. Subsequently the church building was restored as the parish church, probably in the tenth century.

The present church is about 160 feet long in total and the central structure consists of a nave, without aisles, and a presbytery, or choir. To the east is an apsidal chancel, surrounded on its outside by a sunken walkway, now roofless. This feature is sometimes described as an ambulatory or a ring crypt. A chapel adjoins the south side and to the west stands a tower and spire with an attached semi-circular stair turret giving access to the upper floors.

The eighth century parts of the church consist of the lower section of the nave and the presbytery up to the clerestory, the lower half of the tower and probably a small section of the north wall of the chancel. The ambulatory round the chancel is perhaps a little later while the stair turret and the upper section of the tower are of the tenth century. The south chapel is thirteenth century and the spire was added in the fifteenth. A major restoration was undertaken in the nineteenth century.

The large arches of the north and south walls of the nave suggest that they originally formed internal arcades and this has been confirmed by excavations which revealed the foundations of porticus, or side chapels, attached to each side of the nave. Excavations have also shown that two, probably single story, buildings flanked the early low tower to form a narthex, or entrance porch. The doorways to these side compartments can be seen at the base of the tower, the southern one still being in use. Following the Danish raids in the tenth century the side chapels and porches were demolished, the tower heightened and the chancel rebuilt to form the parish church.

The present church displays a number of particular features. One to note is the way the arches of the former arcades and the doors and windows use salvaged Roman tiles to form their heads. These tiles are laid in a non-radial fashion, which to our eyes seems to suggest poor workmanship. However, our judgments on this are perhaps conditioned by familiarity with the more regular appearance of Norman and later medieval buildings. It is prudent to remember that the arches at Brixworth have stood the test of time for several centuries longer than any of the Norman and medieval building that we now see. As there are no signs that the arches at Brixworth are about to fall down we can conclude, perhaps rightly, that the original construction was actually very sound indeed. If, as is thought, the walls were originally plastered, at least on the inside, then their ‘irregular’ appearance would not have been visible. These rounded arches, along with the round heads of the doors and surviving windows, must have given the interior a markedly Roman feel, something which the early church fathers would surely have welcomed.

Later features also add to the interest of this building, not least is the 10th century triple window on the inside of the tower looking into the nave. This cuts through the arch of a now blocked upper doorway which once gave access from the tower into an earlier gallery above the end of the nave. Sequences such as this throw an interesting light onto the changing uses of the church over the centuries.

The walkway outside the chancel is an intriguing feature. There are signs that it was once roofed with a stone barrel vault and access was gained to it at each end from doorways and steps in the east wall of the choir. The remains of these can still be seen both from inside the church and outside in the walkway. The layout is reminiscent of the arrangements in the reliquary crypts at Hexham, Ripon, Wing and Repton where a dark passage leads from the church underground to a place where a holy relic can be viewed while another passage returns the pilgrim back to the church. Here at Brixworth there is no obvious place for the relic to have been housed. Was there a chamber underneath the altar in the apse perhaps? None was found when the walkway was discovered during the nineteenth century excavations but it is just possible that the place for the relic was quite small and not recognised at the time. Crypts like these, with their dark, and possibly frightening, passageways leading underground to a venerated relic illustrate a mysterious, even mystical, side of Anglo-Saxon religious belief far removed from our world-view today.

A further puzzle surrounds Brixworth. A number of synods or councils of the church were held a place called Clofesho between the years 747AD and 825AD. Here many important church regulations were enacted, however, despite this historical importance the site of Clofesho has never been identified, although a number of candidates have been suggested and hotly debated over the years. The size and surviving early features of the church at Brixworth clearly suggest that it was once a place of some importance and this fact, along with it having a central position in lowland England, has led to some to put forward Brixworth as a candidate for the location of the missing ‘Clofesho’. The arguments for and against all the candidates are technical and very speculative but Brixworth cannot be easily dismissed as a possibility. If proved this would make Brixworth a very important place indeed in early English history. However, new and more certain evidence needs to be found if ‘Clofesho’ is to be satisfactorily identified.

The church at Brixworth is a remarkable building not only for its architecture but also for the evidence of devotional practices it provides and for its possible historical associations. It speaks of all of these but leaves many intriguing questions still unanswered. This makes it well worth a visit whether your interest is architectural, historical or religious.

Sources consulted
‘Anglo-Saxon Architecture’ by Taylor and Taylor
‘The Arts of Early England’ Vol II by Baldwin Brown
‘All Saints Brixworth. A visitor guide’ by Rev’d Nicholas Chubb
‘All Saints Brixworth’ Harold M. Taylor. Vaughan Paper No32: University of Leicester.
Brixworth Archaeological Research Committee: Two Interim Reports 1985

Æthelthryth, sometimes “Etheldreda”, now Audrey, was one of the daughters of Anna, King of East Anglia who reigned around 635 to 654. Anna had four daughters who became venerated as saints, Æthelthryth, Seaxburh (Seaxburga), Æthelburh (Ethelburga) and Wihtburh (Withburga). Æthelthryth married Tondberht, ealdorman of the South Gyrwas – a buffer zone on the western edge of the Fens in East Anglia. When he died she married Ecgfrith who was to become King of Northumbria. Encouraged by Bishop Wilfrid Æthelthryth entered the Northumbrian monastery at Coldingham. She eventually returned to her native East Anglia to found an abbey at Ely in Cambridgeshire. Her story is told in Bede’s “The Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation”, Book IV, Chapters XIX and XX, in the “Liber Eliensis” an account of the history of the Isle of Ely compiled by a monk of Ely in the late twelfth century, and in a number of other chronicles.

Æthelthryth was born in 630 in Exning in Suffolk at her father’s “palace” where she spent much of her early life. This palace formed part of a military base some two miles behind one of the four great defensive works built in the locality and today known as “Devils Dyke”.

East Anglia was constantly being threatened by King Penda of Mercia (632-655) and his activities had a direct bearing on the course of Æthelthryth’s life. It was the death of the East Anglian kings in battles against Penda that led to the succession of Anna and his own death in battle against Penda in 654 at Bulcamp near Blythburgh in Suffolk.

Æthelthryth’s mother, whose name is not known, already had a daughter Sethryd by her first husband before she married Anna. This Sethryd became a nun and ended as the abbess at the double monastery at Faremoutiers-en-Brie in northern France which was often used as a “finishing-school” for daughters of the aristocracy in Europe. Æthelthryth’s sister Ethelburga similarly went to Faremoutiers and eventually became the Abbess. Both these daughters became saints and were revered in France. The chapel near Faremoutiers is dedicated to Ethelburga who is known as “Saint Aubierge” in France.

Æthelthryth’s sister Seaxburga married King Eorcenberhrt (Erconbert) of Kent and founded a monastery at Sheppey. She became abbess at Ely after Æthelthryth’s death. Her sister Withburga founded a nunnery at Dereham in Norfolk and became venerated as a saint. Withburga’s body was interred at Dereham until it was removed by Ely monks in 974. Today there is a “Withburga’s well” in the churchyard at Dereham with an accompanying notice about her. A brother Iurminus was killed in battle at Bulcamp alongside their father in 654 and both were initially buried in Anna’s church at Blythburgh in Suffolk. Apparently there was once a shrine behind the high altar at Bury St Edmunds Abbey to St Jurmin, who it was assumed was Iurminus.

In 647, on her way to the monastery at Chelles, near Paris, Hild of Northumbria who was to become abbess of the double monastery at Strenæshalc (Whitby), came to Rendlesham in Norfolk to the court of King Anna. She stayed some time and during this time Æthelthryth would have had the opportunity to meet her. Whilst staying at Rendlesham Bishop Aidan of Lindisfarne sent a message to Anna asking him to dissuade Hild from going to Chelles and to encourage her to return to Northumbria.

Æthelthryth was married to ealdorman Tondberht to cement links with the frontier island of Ely in Cambridgeshire and its related territories. Ely was in the territory of the South Gyrwas a vassal state whose ealdorman were appointed by the East Anglian kings. Tondberht died in 655. Æthelthryth, now age twenty-five appointed “Ovin”, the head of her household as her steward. She then retired to Cratendune, a mile south of modern Ely where she had founded a church. However, Æthelthryth led an active life involving herself in the community and there is no concrete evidence to show that at that time she was contemplating entering a convent.

In 654 King Æthelhere of East Anglia, was killed fighting for Penda of Mercia at the Battle of Winwaed in Northumbria. Æthelthryth’s uncle, Æthelwald succeeded to the throne. To secure the new alliance between East Anglia and Northumbria, and to counter-balance any aspirations of a resurgent Mercia, King Oswy of Northumbria proposed that Æthelthryth, newly widowed, and aged 29, should marry his son Ecgfrith, a boy no older than fourteen or fifteen whom she had never met.

Æthelthryth journeyed north with Ovin and some chosen companions including Sewara and Swenna, both from Cratendune near Ely. Æthelthryth’s marriage ceremony at York in 660 was performed by Bishop Finan of Lindisfarne. As a wedding gift she received land around the town of Hexham and it was this land she later gave Wilfrid so that he could build a monastery. This munificence was a later source of friction between Ecgfrith and Wilfrid.

Renewed contact with Hild now at Whitby may have encouraged Æthelthryth in her thoughts on possibly entering a convent. This seems to have been the point at which her drive towards the monastic life became dominant. Was it born of a devout urge to serve Christ, or did the world of an aristocratic nunnery offer an acceptable means of escape from an unwelcome marriage? Certainly she pursued this new path with vigour and determination.

In 670 when Oswy died Ecgfrith became ruler of the whole of Northumbria and for reasons of propriety Æthelthryth agreed to her husband’s request to take a more visible role in secular affairs. She now saw her husband more frequently and used the opportunity to plead her case that she be released from her marriage so she could enter a convent. After several months Ecgfrith agreed to her request. We can surmise that this change of heart was influenced by the machinations of Eormenburga who was to become Ecgfrith’s new queen. Her marriage to Ecgfrith was dissolved before the end of 672.

At Coldingham in northern Northumbria (a double monastery) Æthelthryth offered herself and her followers as novices to the Abbess, Ebba (King Oswy’s sister and aunt to Ecgfrith). Æthelthryth was consecrated as a nun by Wilfrid, now Bishop of York. In encouraging Æthelthryth to leave Ecgfrith and enter a convent Wilfrid lost his main benefactor and supporter. From a political viewpoint Wilfrid’s interests would be better served if Æthelthryth had remained at the centre of the royal court.

When Æthelthryth left for Coldingham her faithful servant Ovin went to the monastery at Lastingham in Yorkshire and asked to be taken on as a labourer and novice. At Lastingham Ovin became a trusted companion of Bishop Chad accompanying him on a mission to the Mercian monastery at Lichfield. (There is a “St Ovin’s Well” in Lastingham as well as items of Anglo-Saxon interest in the church.) Ovin eventually returned to his home village of Haddenham in Cambridgeshire. Ovin died around 675 and on the site of the first church at Haddenham a tall cross was raised to his memory probably paid for by Æthelthryth. The cross has never been found but the base was brought to Ely Cathedral in the nineteenth century.

After about a year in Coldingham, Æthelthryth was forewarned by Abbess Ebba that Ecgfrith was planning to fetch her back. Ebba advised Æthelthryth to escape. Without the cooperation of Ebba Æthelthryth would have had to stay and accept her fate. Æthelthryth escaped with her two female companions, Sewara and Swenna.

What happened next is taken up by chroniclers keen to emphasise Æthelthryth’s saintliness as proven by the two miracles attributed as she journeyed south. Ecgfrith and his party caught up with Æthelthryth after she had left Coldingham. Æthelthryth and her party took refuge on a spur of rock linked only to the mainland by a narrow neck of sand. The rock became sea-covered at high tide. Why they took such action when they would probably have frozen in the night is unclear. While Ecgfrith’s party waited for the tide to recede the sea became tempestuous and instead of retreating rose even higher. Thinking this was the work of God they saw this as a sign, a “miracle”, and so let Æthelthryth make her escape. Having been brought up in the area, Ecgfrith would have been familiar with the way unexpected storms occurred and then died away, so perhaps he was half hearted in his attempt and was looking for an excuse to call the enterprise off?

Æthelthryth continued on her journey and, south of the Humber, at “Alftham”, now West Halton near Winteringham in Lincolnshire, she took refuge in the hall of an un-named chieftain whom she had met previously when she had travelled north. In gratitude she “built” a church, but this may mean she marked out the place of worship and promised to finance the church leaving construction to take place after she had left. It was here that the second of Æthelthryth’s miracles occurred. One night before sleeping Æthelthryth struck a staff in the ground, supposedly made out of ash but more likely made out of willow given the ensuing events. The following morning the staff had produced buds and new leaves. It is likely that Æthelthryth rested or sheltered from the weather for three or four weeks on her journey once she and her companions were in safe territory south of the Humber. It was during the totality of this period rather than “overnight” that the staff began to bud. This miracle took place at either Stow-in-Lindsey, north-west of Lincoln, where St Mary’s Church used to be called St Ethelreda’s, or Stow near Threekingham, north-east of Sleaford. The latter is now preferred on the basis that it is on the site of a crossroads unlike the alternative which is off a secondary Roman road.

Æthelthryth eventually reached the Cambridgeshire Fens and during a visit by Bishop Wilfrid she discussed with him her proposal to build a new monastery on her island of Ely. It was Æthelthryth who insisted the monastery be built at Ely on a deserted hill a mile to the north of Cratendune on land now occupied by buildings on the southern part of the cathedral complex close to some springs feeding a nearby stream. Given the similarity between the sites, was her sisters Seaburga’s foundation at Minster on Sheppey a model for Ely? The Ely monastery was the first double monastery in the south of England after the style of Coldingham and Whitby in Northumbria with nuns being in the majority. Little is recorded about Æthelthryth’s time as abbess although it is recorded that Wilfrid officiated at her installation 672 and that she was abbess for seven years before dying on the twenty-third of June 679. She was buried in accordance with her wishes in the nun’s graveyard in a simple wooden coffin. Bede records that sixteen years after her death the new abbess, her sister Seaxburga decided her bones should be raised, placed in a new coffin, and transferred to the Church. An existing stone coffin, with a close-fitting lid and with a head cavity that fitted precisely the contours of Æthelthryth’s own head was found in the “small deserted city not far away” of Grantchester (Cambridge). On examination Æthelthryth’s body was found to be incorrupt, the surgeon’s wound beneath her jaw with which she had been buried had healed and all the linen cloths in which her body had been wrapped were fresh.

Today in Ely “Saint Etheldreda” is acknowledged as the founder of the monastery. Inside the Cathedral today are a number of items of Anglo-Saxon interest, including some relating to Æthelthryth. In the north aisle is the “Cathedral Banner” depicting St Etheldreda, and there is a statue to “S Etheldreda” near “St Etheldreda Chapel” at the centre of the east end of the Cathedral. In the north choir, under the stone canopy to Bishop Bentham’s tomb, are stone fragments probably from the base of St Æthelthryth’s later medieval shrine.  To the west of the High Altar, the original site of the shrine to St Æthelthryth is marked by a large commemorative stone in the floor surrounded by candles in holders. By the Prior’s Door, in the south aisle, is a section from an Anglo-Saxon cross-shaft and cross-shaft base on which is inscribed in Latin “To Ovin give your light O Lord and rest. Amen.” This is “Ovin’s Cross” set up under the direction of Æthelthryth herself.

Finally, in Ely’s Roman Catholic Church Æthelthryth’s left hand is preserved in a reliquary: its provenance is attested but I have not visited this item. It is desiccated and darkened with age the fingers and thumb are curved as if picking up something of great delicacy, the hand is very small, almost childlike.

It is little wonder Æthelthryth’s name crops up across the land from East Anglia to Northumbria. She seems to have left her mark on people and places at significant periods of her life with the advantage of having Bede to embellish her story and set it all down for us to ponder. In a sense, she epitomises the period of shifting fortunes and alliances in which she lived and the emergence of a powerful Church. And what of the real story of the ever-faithful Ovin?

I want to talk today about the Anglo-Saxon joint Wearmouth-Jarrow monastery, its history, its key players, the extant remains and what else there is to see in Sunderland and Jarrow today. At the conclusion I hope you will agree with me that the Anglo-Saxon monastery is more than worthy of World Heritage Site status for which a bid is currently in preparation.

History

As Bede tells us in his “Lives of the Abbots of Wearmouth and Jarrow” the origins of the monastery began with Benedict Biscop who founded St Peter’s monastery Wearmouth in AD 674 on seventy hides of land given to him by King Ecgfrith of Northumbria.

Inspired by the monumental stone buildings he had seen on his travels in Europe Benedict Biscop had his new monastery built at Wearmouth in the same way using skilled stonemasons and glassmakers from Gaul. He built in stone from the start with fine cement floors, glass windows and lead roofs for the churches. Limestone tiles were used for the roofs of the other monastic buildings. He had the interior of the church elaborately furnished with items brought from his peregrinations: wall paintings, relics of martyrs, sacred icons, altar vessels and vestments. The latest liturgical practices of the church in Rome were followed and music was taught by the arch-chanter John, brought to Northumbria from Rome. According to Bede, “The Rule” for the monks at Wearmouth was derived from the best usages of seventeen English and Continental monasteries. Benedict Biscop also brought books from his Continental travels. These formed the basis of the monastic library that was to become amongst the best in Europe serving both Wearmouth and Jarrow and, in particular, the Venerable Bede and his fellow scholars. In 681 Benedict Biscop obtained from King Ecgfrith a further forty hides of land at Jarrow and sent Ceolfrith with other monks from Wearmouth to establish a new similar foundation of St Paul’s.

Under the combined sole abbacy of Ceolfrith the two foundations flourished, increasing the number of oratories, enhancing the furnishings, the collections of liturgical vessels and vestments, and doubling the size of the library. By 716 the combined monastery housed no fewer than six hundred brethren and held estates amounting to almost one hundred and fifty hides, i.e. land sufficient to support one hundred and fifty farming households.
The Wearmouth-Jarrow monastery was both a city and a university, providing an international cultural network that extended beyond political boundaries. It provided education and hospitality for travellers from all walks of life. It was exceptional because of its size, its great wealth, and its extensive library and, through Benedict Biscop, its international contacts.

The “Golden Age of Northumbria” was ended by the Vikings and during their activities the history of the Wearmouth-Jarrow monastery becomes obscure. Both sites were sacked and then abandoned in the second half of the ninth century. At some unknown later date there was some partial restoration. We do know that in 1022 Bede’s bones, which were buried in the north porticus of the monastic church at Jarrow, were stolen by the cleric Alfred Westou and taken to Durham Cathedral where they were placed in St Cuthbert’s coffin. On 11 December 1069, the coffin containing the bodies of St Cuthbert and the Venerable Bede rested at Wearmouth when the Bishop of Durham fled Durham to escape the Normans. The Wearmouth site was destroyed by the Normans in 1069. The Jarrow site was destroyed by the Scots in 1070.

In 1073-74, inspired by the writings of Bede, Prior Aldwin and Elfwy the Deacon from Winchcombe Abbey in Gloucestershire came to the north to revive the monasteries at Jarrow, Wearmouth, Tynemouth and Whitby. They established what might best be described as small cells of a Benedictine monastery on the Wearmouth-Jarrow sites. The Wearmouth-Jarrow monastery was Dissolved in 1536 along with other smaller monasteries.

People

I will now say something about the three of the most important people associated with the Wearmouth-Jarrow monastery Benedict Biscop, King Ecgfrith and the Venerable Bede.

Benedict Biscop

Without doubt the most important person involved in the foundation of the Wearmouth-Jarrow monastery, and why the World Heritage Site bid is underway, is the omnipresent Benedict Biscop. He was born into an aristocratic Northumbrian family around 628 and visited Rome six times during his lifetime. He clearly made an impression in Rome for in 668 he travelled back to England accompanying, and acting as translator, to Theodore the newly appointed Archbishop of Canterbury. For two years he stayed in Canterbury as abbot of the monastery of St Peter and St Paul before returning to Rome. In the early 670s Benedict Biscop returned to Northumbria where he persuaded King Ecgfrith to grant him land for a new monastery – the lands provided were at Wearmouth. He died at Wearmouth in 689.

King Ecgfrith

Benedict Bishop would not have been able to establish his monastery without the help and encouragement of King Ecgfrith of Northumbria who reigned from 670-685. His armies campaigned in Ireland, Cumbria and into much of present day southern Scotland. In 685 he was killed at the battle of Nechtansmere near Forfar in Scotland. Ecgfrith was the second husband of the saintly Æthelthryth, founder of the Abbey of Ely and friend of Saint Wilfred – the principal advocate of the practices of the Roman church at the Synod of Whitby in 664. It is Ecgfrith’s name which appears on the dedication stone in St Paul’s Church Jarrow and it was Ecgfrith who in 685 persuaded Saint Cuthbert to take up the appointment of Bishop of Lindisfarne.

The Venerable Bede

However, undoubtedly the most famous person associated with the Wearmouth-Jarrow monastery is the “Venerable Bede” who has been described as “one of the brightest stars in the whole firmament of Western civilisation”. Bede records that he was born 673 in the territory given to the monastery of Wearmouth and at the age of seven he was placed in the monastery to be trained as a monk.

Although Bede is generally associated with Jarrow it is clear that he spent considerable periods of his career at Wearmouth because it was the larger foundation and it held the main library. Bede produced some sixty works on ecclesiastical history – including his most famous “Ecclesiastical History of the English People”,  and books on chronology, geography, mathematics, science and medicine. He wrote almost entirely in Latin which enabled his works to be read right across Europe – he produced books on Latin grammar, spelling and verse composition.

• It was Bede who first used the term “English” two centuries before there was a united English nation.
• It was Bede who developed the calculation of the time of Easter still used today.
• It was Bede who popularised the BC/AD dating system.
• It was Bede who was the first author to recognise how the tides are “dragged” around the surface of the Earth by the moon.

Bede died in 735.  Cuthbert, a fellow monk, wrote shortly afterwards “The letter on the illness and death of the Venerable Bede the Priest”. An indication of Bede’s impact on European civilisation can be gauged by the fact that sixty-five medieval manuscripts of this letter survive in England and on the Continent. Copies of Bede’s “Ecclesiastical History of the English People”, made at the Wearmouth-Jarrow monastery shortly after his death, survive at the University Library in Cambridge and at the National Library of Russia in St Petersburg.

As the pre-eminent scholar Bede inevitably took a leading role in the production of the three single volume bibles commissioned by Ceolfrith and produced by the Wearmouth-Jarrow scribes 690-716. The intention was that there would be one copy each for Wearmouth and Jarrow with the third copy being taken by Ceolfrith to the Pope in Rome. Unfortunately he died on the way. This third bible was at some time acquired by the Italian monastery of Monte Amiato and became known as the “Codex Amiantinus”. The Codex Amiatinus is the oldest surviving single volume Latin bible in the world and is now held in the Laurentian Library in Florence in Italy. Sunderland City Library has a facsimile.

This concludes a brief introduction to three key personalities and I now turn to what can be seen today of the Wearmouth-Jarrow monastery.

Sunderland

St Peter’s church and monastery is situated in the centre of Sunderland, on the north bank of the River Wear with part of the University of Sunderland and the “National Glass Centre” as its near neighbours. After the Dissolution of the Monasteries, St Peter’s was used as a parish church and was generally neglected. Repairs were undertaken in 1866 and in 1874-5 there was an extensive restoration. After an arson attack in 1984 the church was further repaired and restored.

The seventh century fabric of the tall and narrow west wall of the nave incorporates distinctive Anglo-Saxon features including large, side alternate quoining and windows. The original seventh century west porch was incorporated into the present sixty feet high tower. The tower now comprises fabric dating from the seventh century to the eleventh century. The western entrance has a plain barrel-vaulted roof on the ground floor which is said to be the only surviving example of Anglo-Saxon vaulting above ground in England. Most important of all, the jambs of the western entrance have unique decoration:

The large vertical stone at the bottom – a “long” – is decorated with most of the slender bodies of two snake-like creatures whose tails meet and entwine to rise vertically and then diverge neatly to form two fish-tail ends of a bow.
The top halves of these two creatures are above on the flat horizontal stone – a “short”. They have bird-like heads and snake-like bodies. Their heads face inwards towards the centre and the ends of their long beaks entwine.
(Not only is the nature of this decoration rare, it is not surrounded or entwined by scroll or other designs as more often found with the more numerous examples of later decorated Anglo-Saxon stonework, but it is also rare that a non-abstract design is spread over two differently sized and shaped pieces of stonework. The craftsman made his task more difficult.)

Another rare feature of these jambs is the inclusion above the bird-headed serpents of a pair of baluster shafts decorated with grooves.

The external western face of the tower includes large side alternate quoining and is divided into five stages each separated by string courses; the lower one of which was originally richly decorated with panels depicting animals and possibly human figures. Remnants of this decorated frieze are now displayed in the north aisle. The third stage of the tower contains the gable of the roof line of the seventh century porch. This acts as a dividing line between the smaller stones used in the seventh century structure, and the larger stones used when the porch was incorporated into the tower in the early eleventh century. The fifth stage includes double belfry Anglo-Saxon windows with exemplar Northumbrian hooded heads and strip work. Above each of the belfry windows are small singular circular sound-holes to assist the amplification of the sound of the bells.

So much for the outside, we now turn to the inside where displays include:
A late seventh or eighth century consecration or dedication cross, one of a pair, the other is in the tower some forty-two feet up from the ground. It is not certain whether they were made for the dedication of the new church or the rebuilt tower.

Part of a ninth century wall panel or frieze decorated with two figures in relief facing each other. One has a raised shield in his left hand and an extended right hand, with his broken sword lying between him and the second figure who is thrusting a spear towards him. This is a rare record in stone of a dramatic action.

An early eight century Anglo-Saxon grave cover known as the “Herebericht” stone. It is decorated with a cross accompanied by a Latin inscription interpreted as: “Here in the tomb rests Herebericht the priest in the body”. This gravestone had originally been used for someone else – an older inscription has been erased and Herebericht’s name added in a different script.

A large and unusually diverse collection of twenty incomplete late seventh century baluster shafts mostly decorated with grooves. Their designs are very varied and some have traces of red and black paint decoration. Some may have flanked windows and entrances to side chapels; others may have formed a balustrade or canopy round the altar.
Two upright sides from different items of church furniture. Both are decorated with the figure of a lion in profile between two vertical columns, its tail turned back over the top half of its body. The face is cut away so that the head can be seen from the front and from the side. They are unlike anything else known from seventh or eighth century Britain.

Lastly, thirteen fragments of seventh or eighth century glass from Wearmouth. More fragments of window glass have been found here than at any other pre-Conquest site in England.

The Monastery

Next we look at the monastery. This has been more disturbed by later building work and landscaping than its counterpart at Jarrow. Consequently less material from the Anglo-Saxon period was discovered when the site was excavated between 1959 and 1988. As a result of these excavations, and the artefacts found, it is considered that the stone walls of the buildings were probably whitewashed on the exterior and plastered on the interior. Both plain and coloured glass was used in the windows. Roofs on the monastic buildings were mostly covered with stone flagstones and there was lead flashing along the edges of the roofs. The evidence of the flooring indicated that there large areas were floored with opus signinum.

Sunderland Museum

Now we move onto Sunderland Museum which displays artefacts from St Peter’s Church Monkwearmouth. These include:

Roofing materials and fittings: limestone roof tiles and a lead roof clip which still has its original iron nail used to hold the bottom layer of the tile to the roof beam. At the time most houses had thatched or turf roofs.
High-quality painted window glass.

Fragments of moulded plaster for the walls, some painted with red stripes others painted cream. Moulded plaster was very rare in England at this time.

Fragments of opus signinum flooring.

However, it is for the stonework that a visit is recommended. The displays include:

A unique Anglo-Saxon classical Ionic capital.

A late seventh century or early eight century grave marker. It is inscribed with letters in both runes and Latin spelling an incomplete personal name (EO… ÆID).

An early tenth century grave marker. It is decorated with two figures and inscribed lettering spelling the name “Tidfirđ” in runes.

Two late seventh century baluster shafts. These survive in full profile measuring around twelve inches high by over six inches in diameter.

The star of the exhibition is a three-dimensional, carved sandstone eight century terminal from a stone chair. It is decorated with an animal head that may represent a serpent. It measures twelve inches high, by twelve inches wide, by seven inches deep.

There is also a display containing a model of the excavated part of Wearmouth Monastery as it may have looked in about AD 750.

Roker-Bede Memorial Cross

Finally in Sunderland there is the modern Bede Memorial Cross. This is worth visiting because it serves as a reminder of how imposing some stone crosses would have looked in their heyday – although it is plain and not painted. It stands over twenty-six feet high on an expanse of grassland on the seaward side of the A183. It was unveiled on the 11th October 1904.

The cross is richly decorated with a variety of designs including inhabited vine scroll, step, ring work and interlace, as well as scenes from Bede’s life and the faces and names of ecclesiastics. There is text in Latin, runes and Old and modern English. The main inscriptions consist of extracts from Bede’s Ecclesiastical History and Life of St Cuthbert.

Jarrow

Having completed our tour of Sunderland I now turn to what there is to see in Jarrow which takes its name from the tribe of marsh-dwellers, the Gyrwe. Near the confluence of the rivers Don and Tyne, St Paul’s Church and monastery and Bede’s World are within the same overall site separated by a small public park.

St Paul’s Church and Monastery

Founded by Ceolfrith in 681 the main monastic church occupied the site of the present nave from 685 until its demolition and replacement in 1782. The central tower of the present church originated as a porch joining the main monastic church with what was at one time a separate seventh century chapel to the east. Today this Anglo-Saxon chapel is the chancel of the church. The lower part of the tower dates from the eighth century and the upper part dates from the early eleventh century.

The Church

As we go inside, the chancel contains late seventh century fabric comprising roughly-squared blocks of stone walling laid in regular Anglo-Saxon fashion with side alternate quoining. The centre window of the three original windows in the south wall contains the oldest stained glass in Europe – it dates from 681. What is known as “Bede’s Chair”, and now dated between eight and eleven hundred years old, was probably used by the monastery’s “master” in the later medieval period.

The most famous item displayed is the dedication stone of (Sunday) 23 April 685. The text of the dedication is in Latin and is translated: “The dedication of the basilica (church) of St. Paul on the ninth day before the Kalends of May in the fifteenth year of King Ecgfrith and the fourth (year) of Ceolfrith, abbot, founder, by the guidance of God, of the same church”.

In the north aisle, there is an important display of Anglo-Saxon stonework including:

A large collection of seventeen incomplete late 7C/early 8C baluster shafts which forms one of, if not, the largest, collections Anglo-Saxon baluster shafts in existence. They are all approximately the same height, nearly 29 inches high and the same diameter, just over twelve inches, and are decorated with grooves. It is clear that they were made to be together: possibly they formed a rail to enclose one of the altars in the church, or they formed the jambs of the arches separating the nave from side chapels, or they formed part of the jambs in the chancel arch.

Parts of architectural friezes dating from the late 7C/early 8C. These are decorated with a design depicting rows of balusters – balusters were obviously very important in Jarrow.

Part of the late seventh century or early eighth grave cover known as the “Jarrow Cross”. It is decorated with a cross and an inscription in Latin meaning “In this unique sign life is returned to the world”.
Part of an early eighth century frieze. It is decorated with vine scroll design enclosing the full figure of a hunter, parts of an animal, and a human head presumed to be female because of the styling of the hair.

The Monastery

Monastic remains include parts of the ruined cloisters, east range and refectory. These mostly date from the building period of 1074-83.  The foundations of the various periods of building are marked out in differently-shaped stones. Smooth flat paving stones mark out the lines of the walls of the buildings from the Anglo-Saxon monastery, including the refectory, a hall and a guesthouse that was later used as a workshop.  The floors from the Anglo-Saxon monastery are about twenty-four inches below the current ground level and extend for forty-three yards by nine yards. Tightly-packed cobbles indicate the foundations of building work undertaken 1074-83, widely-spaced cobbles indicate mid twelfth century to the mid sixteenth century building work. Arguably there are two doorways showing Anglo-Saxon building styles and techniques that survive, one has a round-headed arch and the other has a triangular-shaped head. No doubt other Anglo-Saxon material was also reused and it too may survive.

The site of the Anglo-Saxon monastery at Jarrow has been less disturbed by later building work and landscaping than its counterpart at Wearmouth. Consequently more material from the Anglo-Saxon period was discovered when the site was excavated between 1959 and 1988. As a result of these excavations it is considered that, like Wearmouth, the stone walls of the buildings were probably whitewashed on the exterior and plastered on the interior. Both plain and coloured glass was used in the windows. Roofs were mostly covered with stone flagstones and there was lead flashing along the edges of the roofs. The evidence of the flooring indicated that there large areas were floored with opus signinum. Anglo-Saxon artefacts found included jewellery, writing implements, craft and household implements.

Bede’s World Museum

Having visited the church and the monastic site it is now time to turn our attention to Bede’s World – a significant development as far as the knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon world is concerned for the public at large. Bede’s World comprises both a museum and a reconstructed Anglo-Saxon farmstead. The Museum tells the story of the Life and Times of the Venerable Bede through illustrated displays of original artefacts and replicas, model reconstructions, original and cast copies of stonework and audio and visual displays. Bede is described as: “the Scientist”, “the Historian”, “the Teacher” and “the Poet”.

The Displays

Among the displays there are:

A reconstruction of a bronze drinking cup for travellers (with water) and the quote from Bede: “The king cared so much for the good of the people that, in various places where he had noticed clear springs near the highway, he caused stakes to be set up and bronze drinking cups to be hung on them for the refreshment of travellers. No one dared to lay hands on them except for their proper purpose because they feared the king greatly, nor did they wish to, because they loved him dearly.” Bede. HEII.16   The origin of public drinking fountains.

A tableau showing the highlights of the life of Benedict Bishop and his travels.
A model of St Paul’s Monastery Jarrow showing how the centre of the Anglo-Saxon monastery may have looked in Bede’s time.

A reconstruction of three Anglo-Saxon glass windows. Glass, slag, glass drips and fused waster beads were found in the workshop area and demonstrate that glass working took place in the monastery.
A display with ninety-eight assorted original fragments of glass. Early coloured window-glass is very durable, cylinder-blown, made from sand and soda-lime (marine plant ash). Lead cames held the coloured window-glass and formed an integral part of the design. The colours included green and white, milky blue to amber, blue glass with white. Glass was also used to decorate book covers and metalwork. In 764 the Abbot, Cuthbert, sent abroad for more glassmakers. He wrote to a bishop in Mainz in Germany “if there is any man in your diocese who can make vessels of glass well……….send him to me when time is favourable….because we are ignorant and destitute of that art”.

A reconstruction, using original fragments found scattered over the Refectory floor, of a late seventh century or early eighth century eight-sided sandstone reading desk. It stands some fifty-two inches high with nearly a fourteen inch diameter at base. The surviving original stonework is decorated with scroll and leaf design with indications near its base of reddening from later fire damage.

A display about the Monastic Scriptorium reminding visitors: “the conditions of the past winter oppressed the island of our race very horribly with cold and ice and long and widespread storms of wind and rain, so that the hand of the scribe was hindered from producing a great number of books”. It contains a replica of a Pocket Gospel of St John decorated with leather binding. The original was made by the monks of Wearmouth-Jarrow and found in the coffin of St Cuthbert. There are also examples of original styli. The point was used to write on a wax tablet or mark lines on vellum: the flat end erased marks in wax. There are also examples of tweezers which might have been used as page turners to protect valuable manuscripts.

An eighth century building stone inscribed with the personal name “HELMGYT”. This inscription is unique and its meaning in the monastery is unknown.

A sheep-bone object, perhaps part of a bagpipe-type musical instrument, and a fragment from a bone flute. Abbot Cuthbert in 764 wrote: “It would delight me also to have a harpist who could play on the harp….for I have a harp and am without a player. If it be not a trouble, send one…..I beg that you will not scorn my request nor think it laughable”.
A screen showing a film about the written word and books in Wearmouth-Jarrow, their production, Bede and his books and the Codex Amiatinus.

The Farm and the Re-constructed buildings

The reconstructed Anglo-Saxon farmstead adjacent comprises replica buildings made of wood with wattle and daub or wooden planks forming the walls and with thatched roofs. They include an open-plan hall, partitioned off with hangings, to separate the hearth area from the sleeping area; a monastic workshop, and a grubenhaus – now thought of as workshops or grain stores rather than dwellings. The farm has sheep, oxen, pigs, ducks and geese; an orchard, vegetables; plants to produce dyes, reeds for thatching, hazel and willow for coppicing, and flax for oil and linen.

The intention is to reflect what an Anglo-Saxon farm that supplied its produce to a monastery would have looked like and what it produced based on the evidence of archaeology, contemporary documents and illustrations.

Durham Cathedral

Although not part of the Wearmouth-Jarrow World Heritage Site bid, Durham Cathedral also has connections with the Wearmouth-Jarrow monastery namely:
The Galilee Chapel displays the tomb chest containing the remains of the Venerable Bede.
The Cathedral Library holds volumes which belonged to Wearmouth-Jarrow monastery.
The Monks’ Dormitory displays seventy pieces of Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Danish stonework; including a couple of examples from Wearmouth-Jarrow.

World Heritage Status

So having heard something about the Wearmouth-Jarrow monastery, what is a “World Heritage Site”, and what is the bid? According to UNESO (United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organisation), “World Heritage Sites are places or buildings of outstanding universal value recognised as constituting world heritage for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate.”

The publicity material explains: “An Anglo-Saxon twin monastery is bidding to become a World Heritage Site – an accolade shared by the Taj Mahal, the Pyramids and the Great Wall of China, along with places in Britain already on the UNESO list such as Hadrian’s Wall and Durham Castle and Cathedral. Wearmouth-Jarrow’s outstanding universal value lies in its influence on learning, its part in the emergence of European identity, the survival of the original fabric, and as home of one of scholarship’s original giants – Bede. Inscription will heighten awareness of the site, the region, and Britain; bring uplift in tourism, potentially worth millions of pounds to the local economy, securing and creating many jobs; increase educational potential; and enrich community identity.

Wearmouth-Jarrow was once one of the most influential institutions in the western world, because of its contribution to learning, creativity and the shaping of European culture. Support is needed now to reawaken understanding of that fact, and so capitalise on the outstanding opportunity that exists to protect these unique places for future generations, and drive the cultural life and economy of the North East of England in which they stand.”

Wearmouth-Jarrow has been nominated for this status in 2010 and the final decision as to whether the bid will be successful will be taken by UNESCO in 2011. The public is invited to pledge their support and give their views on the website: www.wearmouth-jarrow.org.uk.

This concludes my talk.  I do have some publicity material from the Wearmouth-Jarrow bid for those interested.

This book sets out to reconstruct the Anglo-Saxon landscape of much of the former kingdom of the Hwicce covering the modern counties of Worcestershire, Warwickshire and Gloucestershire.

Use is made of place-names, contemporary documents (charters) and archaeological evidence. Commerce and trade, agriculture, including woodland resources, the economy, settlement patterns and the pattern of route ways are all explored. The Anglo-Saxon landscape determined the territorial patterns that were to form the basis of future administrative organisation. The book quotes Englisc, with translations, and is well illustrated with appropriate maps.

The origin of the Hwiccan kingdom is ascribed to the actions of King Penda of Mercia around 628 and reference is made to the exiled Northumbrian dynasties as noted in Emma Mason’s “St Wulfstan of Worcester”. The creation of the Diocese of Worcester is also discussed. An intriguing possibility is introduced concerning the donation of an estate for the purposes of the foundation of a minster church at Hanbury in North Worcestershire. This donation occurred sometime between 657 and 674 and involved an abbot whose name was Colman. Just possibly, this abbot might be one of the same as Colman, Bishop of Lindisfarne in Northumberland, who it is recorded, returned to Ireland after the decision of the church in 663 to follow the teachings of the Roman rather than the Celtic church. Did Bishop Colman come to Worcestershire before finally settling in Ireland?

Pagan cemeteries, ranging in size from one to over one hundred graves reveal a mainly Anglian presence in the sixth century, although the village of Pensax, the hill of the Saxons, indicate a distinctive group of non-Anglian settlers. The cemeteries lie upon good agricultural land indicating the Anglo-Saxons were not in a subordinate position in relation to any other (surviving) peoples in the area.

The elements important in the formation of English place names during 430 to 730 are discussed. The first of these elements, and most obvious, are typographical names, for example, burna for a brook or stream; dun for a hill; feld for open country and so on. Habitation names, including the element “tun” representing a farming community, were common after 730, often compounded with a personal name and the genitive ing, e.g., “Tredington”, from the thegn Tyrdda who held the estate prior to its donation to the church of Worcester in 757. (Tredington church, now in Warwickshire, contains Anglo-Saxon material.) Names are used to denote territorial groups or associations of peoples – the “ingas”. For example, the Stoppingas, which is either a personnel name of “Stoppa” or, “a bucket” in the sense of a hollow in the typographical context. In a description dating from 716, it is stated Wootton Wawen in Warwickshire, “lies in the territory of the Stoppingas”. (The present church incorporates an Anglo-Saxon tower.) In 736 Æthelbald of Mercia refers to Husmeræ, the people by the ice pool, whose name survives today as “Ismere” and “Ismere Grange” in Worcestershire. The present rural deanery of Kidderminster corresponds to the territory of the Husmeræ. “Worcester” means the city of the tribe called Wigoran or Weogoran. Fladbury in Worcestershire is “Flæde’s burh, Flæde’s stronghold.

The point is made that place names survive because they are noted as a landmark along the boundaries of estates and are recorded in boundary clauses in charters. Some features were deliberately erected to make or mark a boundary, for example, dykes were made to link the heads of two streams and stone markers were set up. The features described in the boundary clauses give an idea of the general character of the area of the landscape often following major natural features but equally often referring to particular hills, springs and streams. However, many clauses go into far more interesting detail, referring to sedge marsh, foul marsh, a yew ridge, a fenced enclosure, wolf ridge, wolf pit, hill of the hawk, roe deer’s lair, hart’s wallowing place, wood frequented by wolves, broad wagon way, even furrows, furlongs and headlands in fields with personal names.

Sites revealing Anglo-Saxon habitation range from sunken floored buildings at Baginton in Warwickshire, to substantial mid-tenth century timber-framed buildings at Fladbury, Worcestershire, and through to town houses of wattle and daub in Gloucester.

The charters record active stone, sand, and gravel and limestone quarries. With this material so readily available, a number of churches in the area retain Anglo-Saxon fabric and sculpture. Odda’s Chapel and St Mary’s Church in Deerhurst in Gloucestershire being among the most important examples, and the complete ninth century crosshead at Cropthorne in Worcestershire being among the most impressive.

The late seventh century Tribal Hidage identifies the Hwicce as a large group comprising some seven thousand hides. A hide of land was notionally the amount of land that would support one family. Hundred units were formed and regrouped to act as the means of defence and fiscal assessment, each ideally containing one hundred hides. The most common name for a hundred was a typographical name, although the use of the name of the chief manor was common. The meeting places of the hundreds, usually accessible and reasonably central, are commemorated in places such as “Moot Hill” in Lighthorne, Warwickshire.

Place names are discussed at length and the Red Horse at Tysoe in Warwickshire (commemorating the god Tiw), carved out on the slopes of Edge Hill overlooking the Tysoe estate, inevitably gets a mention. I recall a few years ago someone had thought they had found the site of the horse, does anyone know whether this was in fact the case, is the site now marked?

Kings recognised that revenue could be obtained from the control of trade, and efforts were made to prohibit trade outside the controlled environment of a port (burgh). As part of this control mechanism the development of currency began in earnest in the reign of King Offa of Mercia (757-96) with the establishment of mints in borough centres. The minting of coins in the area may have been stimulated by the salt trade emanating from Droitwich in Worcestershire. Indeed so important was Droitwich that early eighth century charters refer to salt works and salt ways, and the continued use of the Roman network of roads and routes beyond the Hwiccan frontiers.

The author observes that the church of Worcester’s estates appear to have been more heavily taxed than those of the king. This might be a conscious political decision, but it might mean that the royal and lay estates were in the more wooded and less well stocked north and west areas of Worcestershire. It could also indicate that the church may have been a more efficient and competent landlord.

The greatest revenue from cultivated land came from the south and southeastern regions of the West Midlands. These regions stand out as the prime agricultural areas in Anglo-Saxon times just as they did in Roman times and still do today. Early charters refer to loam pits suggesting the practice of marling the fields to improve fertility. The author discusses the soil conditions, the underlying rock type, and the effects these had on land use.

Although large areas of the Hwiccan kingdom were heavily wooded and little developed, few areas were devoid of any settlement and few habitations were that far distant from another. Route ways often utilised old pre-Roman or Roman roads. English “stræt” indicated a Roman road or a high road; “weg” indicated a path or lane, a road or a way of older than Roman origin; a “stig” indicated a narrow path, an unsurfaced track; “herepađ” or “fyrdstæt” indicated the army road, “cynges ferdstræte” indicated the king’s military road. These military roads had to be sufficiently wide and well surfaced for armies to march in defence of the region.

Woodland was considered a valuable asset placed in value  alongside fields, pastures, meadows and so on. They were managed as closely and carefully as in the later medieval period. The author concludes that the value of woodland is under represented in Domesday Book where arable cultivation is emphasised.  The seventh century laws of King Ine of Wessex protected woodland from indiscriminate felling and burning and the presumption is that such laws were common throughout the country. Woodlands provided sustenance for large herds of domesticated pigs and the numerous charter references to “honey” bournes, indicate honey was gathered from wild bees that frequented the riverbanks. Wood was used for all types of buildings and for fuel for domestic and industrial use – the Droitwich saltpans. Deer were hunted in the woods along with wolves and wild boar.

The charters refer to mill weirs specifically for the capture of fish. There seem to be two basic types of weir. The basket weirs, comprising rows of tapering baskets arranged in groups of six or nine, between upright stakes, and “hackle” weirs, comprising a barrier of wattle set across the current to produce an eddy in the river in which fish would be forced and then caught from a boat.

The last recorded King of the Hwicce was Ealdred, who, by 778, was described by King Offa of Mercia, as “my under-king, ealdorman of his own people of the Hwicce”. After 800 the Hwicce were governed by an ealdorman.

Inevitably, Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians 911-18, is rightly mentioned, and we are reminded that she and her husband, Æthelred of Mercia, first fortified Gloucester and made it their chief residence. They developed Gloucester both as a town and as an administrative centre. It is possible that her tomb has been found in the recent excavations, does anyone know if this is correct, and where the evidence is now displayed?

Place names also refer to the Hwicce outside their known boundaries, for example, Wychwood in Oxfordshire, an extensive wooded region, means “the woodland of the Hwicce”, recorded in a charter of 862. Nennius, when writing in the ninth century, listed among his wonders of Britain, “the Hot Lake where the baths of Badon are, in the country of the Hwicce” – clearly a reference to Bath.

Charter evidence suggests that dispersed hamlets and farmsteads away from any manorial nucleus were more numerous in Anglo-Saxon than in later medieval times. The concentration  of population in villages centres did occur in later Anglo-Saxon times, precipitated by improved agricultural techniques requiring a convenient local workforce, but the enforced “planning” post 1066, speeded up the process. We are reminded that the majority of charters that are accompanied by detailed boundary clauses compiled at the beginning of the tenth century and that these charters provide a snapshot at that particular time, the charters do not describe the prevailing situation throughout the Anglo-Saxon period.

Whilst this book is essential reading for anyone familiar with the area, and one wishes there were similar books on all the tribal territories, I would have appreciated more detail on the political dimension of the Hwicce and their relationship with neighbouring territories.

This book sets out to demonstrate “King Harold’s “true status and achievements which have been overshadowed by the events of October 1066 and the bias imposed by the Norman victory”.

The book sets out in some detail the life and career of Harold and the Godwine family, the main characters involved and some of the reasons behind their actions. The book contains family trees for the Godwine family, King Harold and his descendants, the English Succession and King Harold and his Scandinavian connections. These family trees are rightly placed before the text to assist understanding as the story unfolds.

The book begins with details of the Godwine family as they emerge into recorded history with Harold’s grandfather, Wulfnoth Cild, a Sussex thegn. The life of Godwine, Harold’s father, is more fully discussed. In particular I found the events after the death of Cnut surrounding the return in 1036 of Edward and Alfred, the sons of King Æthelred and Emma of Normandy, clearly set out. Alfred was arrested by Godwine at Guildford who then handed him over to the new king, Harold Harefoot. The subsequent murder of Alfred took place at Ely in Cambridgeshire among lands under Harold Harefoot’s, not Godwine’s, influence. Godwine was clearly responsible for Alfred’s initial arrest and handing him over to Harold Harefoot, but he was not guilty of Alfred’s murder. It is interesting to note that despite all their later efforts to discredit the House of Godwine, both William of Jumieges and William of Poitiers identify Harold Harefoot as the man responsible for the murder of Alfred.

The question of whether William visited King Edward during the Godwine’s exile in 1051 to discuss the succession is explored in full detail. The author rightly points out that at that time there were at least three likely successors with far stronger claims than William. The first of these, Earl Ralph a “Frenchmen” and Edward’s nephew, held lands in Herefordshire and the East Midlands. He was living in England and had married an Englishwoman. Interestingly they had a son called Harold. Ralph’s reputation was not enhanced by his poor military showing with the fleet and his defeat by the Welsh outside Hereford in 1052. (Earl Ralph died in 1057.) The second, Walter, Count of the Vexin, also a “Frenchman”, was Ralph’s elder brother. Walter was not living in England and had no direct English connection. During William’s conquest of Maine in 1052 he imprisoned Walter who subsequently died in suspicious circumstances, allegedly by poison. (This event was hardly likely to endear William to Edward.) The strongest claim of all to the throne, and Edward’s preferred successor, was Aetheling Edward, “the Exile”, son of Edward’s half-brother, King Edmund Ironside the popular hero. William’s only tenuous connection was through his great aunt Queen Emma (Edward’s mother).

For Edward to appoint William would represent a major breach of tradition and would not have received much support from England. The thought that Edward nominated William because he provided refuge in Normandy in 1016 and then helped in Edward’s restoration is clearly misplaced. In fact refuge was provided by William’s father and grandfather, Duke Robert appears to have attempted to invade England on Edward’s behalf in 1033/1034 but abandoned the idea through adverse weather conditions and a preference to raid Brittany, and Edward and his brother Alfred’s failed invasion attempt in 1036 had to rely on support from outside Normandy.

Following the 1051 crisis, when the Godwine’s returned, Robert of Jumieges, Archbishop of Canterbury, fled to Normandy and to William in 1052. With him he took the hostages, Godwine’s son Wulfnoth and his grandson Hakon (Sweyn’s son). It was Archbishop Robert, who, trying to ensure William’s favour and assistance in restoring him to his archbishopric handed over to him the two Godwine hostages and invented the story of Edward nominating William as his successor; no doubt emphasising the need for a compliant Archbishop of Canterbury to anoint the king at his coronation. Robert of Jumieges left William with the impression that Edward had designated him his successor and that Godwine’s hostages were his guarantee. Such a designation was unlikely to have been made by Edward, but, most important of all, William believed he had, which shows something of his lack of understanding of England and his willingness to believe things at face value. However, it is noteworthy that the Bayeaux Tapestry omits Edward’s “promise” in 1051. Everyone in England knew that Aethling Edward and then his son Edgar were was the unchallengeable heir and only those in William’s closest circle knew of the pledge invented by Robert of Jumieges and William’s intention to claim the throne.

Whilst admitting that the evidence is largely coincidental, the author suggests that Harold played a part in the mission in 1056 to bring Aetheling Edward and his family from Hungary. The author cites as evidence the visit of Harold to Flanders in 1056, his known visit to Rome (which prove he was at least on the Continent), and the fact that there is no recorded reference to Harold between August 1056 and September 1057.

Some interesting questions are posed about Stigand. When the Papal legates visited England in 1062, why did they take no action against Stigand? Why did William retain the services of Stigand until 1070 despite William supposedly holding a papal commission to depose Stigand? Why did William allow Stigand to consecrate Remigius, Bishop of Dorchester in 1067? Presumably the answer to these questions is that Stigand was an able administrator and William considered it politically expedient to use him. This continued use no doubt frustrated Normans who wanted Stigand’s power and influence and so used every means to vilify him. The dedication of Harold’s church at Waltham on 3 May 1060 by Archbishop Cynesige of York rather than Stigand, and Harold’s coronation as king by Archbishop Ealdred of York, confirms that Harold was well aware of the cloud over Stigand, and was certainly not crowned by Stigand as mischievously and inaccurately portrayed in the Bayeaux Tapestry. It is William, not Harold, who deserves any criticism associated with Stigand’s status.

The author reminds us that writing one hundred and fifty years later, Gerald of Wales speaks of Harold devastating all Wales and erecting standing stones to commemorate the event (are Harold’s Stones, south of Trelleck in Gwent, survivors of this commemoration?) Interestingly, Gerald of Wales attributes the later Norman success in Wales to the defeat of the Welsh inflicted by Harold.

The book emphasises a point often overlooked that Tostig successfully ruled the north for ten years. The fact that he campaigned with his brother in 1063 in Wales suggested he was secure. The reason for the northern revolt was Tostig attempt to impose the same level of taxation in his earldom as pertained in the rest of England. It should be remembered that the increase in revenue would benefit both Tostig’s and the king’s coffers. Rebellion centered on Yorkshire and was led by minor thegns who were not surprisingly reluctant to give up their favourable tax breaks and disliked Tostig’s interference in local matters, including blood-feuds. Harold came to negotiate with the rebels but realised Tostig had lost support and his restoration would only be achieved through what would amount to a civil war, it was shades of 1051-52 again and the only benefactor would be William. It is also noteworthy that the Vita Eadwardi, despite its sympathy for Tostig, believed Harold when he swore an oath clearing him of inciting the Northumbrian revolt. This adds to the explanation that the “oath” in Normandy was sworn under duress and totally out of character.

There was no widespread opposition to Harold’s succession in 1066, a credit to his diplomatic skills and pragmatism, particularly in reassuring the Northumbrians that he was not going to restore Tostig to his former earldom and his marriage to Aldith sister of Earls Edwin and Morcar. Version “D” of the Chronicle refers to Harold as “our king” and there is no mention of any contested succession. The fact that new replacement coinage was issued with new designs and manufactured in forty-six mints is an indication of the widespread support for Harold.

Harold was married in the Danish manner to Edith Swan–Neck. This involved the two parties agreeing a marriage contract in the knowledge that should the needs of family or state require; either could repudiate it later without the need for a complex Church divorce. Although this arrangement was accepted by the laity, it was because of the absence of a church blessing on the marriage that clerical authors described Edith as Harold’s mistress. This sort of marriage was relatively common in the eleventh century amongst those of Scandinavian descent. Indeed, King Cnut and Aelfgifu had the same relationship and their offspring were considered legitimate by the laity. Harold and Edith had at least six children. Edith’s name “Swan Neck” was a later elaboration of the description “Fair” or “Beautiful”. Edith Swan–Neck was heiress in her own right to extensive lands in Hertfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Suffolk and Essex. Harold met her when he was Earl of East Anglia, and perhaps this was one of the reasons why he founded Waltham Abbey and was apparently buried there (while noting the intriguing claims of Bosham to that privilege). What happened to Edith after 1066, where did she go, did she return to her families’ lands since all her husbands’ family had been wiped out or had fled the country? By Harold’s church wife, Alditha, he had a son, young Harold who was born in Chester in 1067. It surely was this Harold who became the hermit of Chester who called himself “King” Harold?

The author reminds us that there may have been a naval battle between Harold and William in September. William’s invasion fleet was supposedly blown by westerly winds from Dives to St Valery Sur Somme in early September. Had it set sail for England and begun the invasion from Dives as originally intended? The fleet arrived unintentionally at St Valery and there were apparently losses from drowning. Harold withdrew his fleet from the south coast on the 8 September, and it sailed back to London after apparently loosing many men; due to drownings in bad weather? Version E of the Chronicle says Harold went out with a naval force against William and there is a reference in Domesday to Aethelric who went away to a naval battle against William. Such a battle would certainly explain William’s retreat to St Valery and the losses sustained on both sides. Less interesting but I suppose still plausible, was that both fleets had the ill-fortune to be affected by the same bad weather, if so, this shows an unlikely ignorance of seamanship and understanding of the effects of weather conditions in the English Channel. With the winter storms approaching, and the losses sustained by both fleets and the failure of the “invasion” perhaps Harold thought that another invasion would definitely not take place that year.

A fact which needs to be repeated, is that contrary to views often expressed, the fyrd were relatively well-equipped and trained and comprised both thegns and freemen who had been nominated by their communities. Harold called up the fyrd on four separate occasions in 1066 and Earls Morcar and Edwin were also able to summon an army capable of taking on the Norse and inflicting upon them heavy casualties at Gate Fulford in York. This is hardly a disorganised, ineffective rabble as so often portrayed.

The suggestion that Harold was tempted into a premature attack because he was so concerned about the ravaging of his lands in Sussex is questioned. The author argues Harold was aware of Norman tactics, had shown caution in his dealings with Gruffydd of Wales, and had been quite prepared to withdraw support from his brother Tostig when the national interest required. William could not afford to wait but Harold could, William’s line of retreat could be cut by the English fleet or bad weather, once he had exhausted the forage in the Hastings vicinity he couldn’t forage inland for supplies without loosing touch with his base, he had to attack Harold.

After Harold’s death, the lack of military and political direction exhibited by Aethling Edgar and the northern earls proved how Harold had been the obvious choice for king. Although it must be remembered that Edgar was able to organise the successful defence of the Thames bridges at Southwark in London and force William to cross the Thames at Wallingford in Oxfordshire.

The author correctly reminds the reader that William only controlled the southeast; in December 1067 there were many areas in open revolt, Dover in Kent, the Welsh borders, Northumbria and the southwest. In the winter of 1068 William deployed his entire army against Exeter in Devon and spent eighteen days besieging the town. His army sustained substantial losses proving the effectiveness of the “burgh” as a defensive position provided the defenders had an authoritative leader as they had in this case, Gytha, Harold’s mother. We are reminded that such was William’s methodology in dealing with the English that in 1070 the Pope expressed concern about the events in England, particularly the Harrying of the North, and had issued by the “Penitential Ordinance” placing a penance on all who had participated in the Conquest.

What happened to Harold’s offspring is discussed in some detail. Whilst the stories surrounding his sons are relatively well known some interesting information about his daughters is provided. His daughter Gytha married the Prince of Somlensk and her eldest son was known in the Norse world by her father’s name Harold. This Harold had a daughter called Ingibiorg who married Cnut Lavard of Denmark and they had a son who became King Valdemar I of Denmark from whom the current monarchies in both Denmark and Britain are ultimately descended. King Harold’s daughter Gunhild became a nun at Wilton in Wiltshire, and in August 1093, in her late thirties/early forties she was abducted by Alan, Earl of Richmond in Yorkshire, and when he died, she married the earl’s brother, Alan. She clearly retained her status; there is evidence of correspondence in 1093 with Anslem, Archbishop of Canterbury, confirming her continued importance despite Norman vilification of the Godwine family.

The book is worthy of recommendation, it informs and stimulates other lines of interest that any good book should. It covers a period and subject we may think we know but it adds to our understanding. I say this in spite of quibbles about the author’s failure to mention matters such as Gyrth’s offer to lead the army against William at Hastings so that Harold could gather reinforcements, form a new larger field army and mobilise the fleet; his failure to mention the two Norman ships separated from the main fleet whose soldiers and sailors were killed by the inhabitants of Old Romney in Kent and on whom William later took his revenge; or his failure to mention the Norman knights cashiered by William for cutting off Harold’s “thigh”; the author’s shortcoming in making only an oblique reference to Malfosse; and the author’s failure to elaborate on matters of interest, such as, the burial of one of Harold’s infant, unbaptised, children, near St Dunstan’s tomb in Christ Church Canterbury in Kent (Is there any record or trace of this burial in Canterbury?); and his failure to ask questions such as, why did Tostig attempt to seek Earl Gyrth specifically to support him before Stamford Bridge?; and the author’s failure to ask what Leofwine did during the Stamford Bridge campaign when he was left in charge in the south.

Undoubtedly we can agree with the author’s conclusion “Harold was a remarkable man by any standards.”