Note 901 — Chapter VIII · THE BISHOP.

There cannot be the slightest doubt that Ælfgyfu was Eádwig’s wife, or that she was separated from him on the ground of too near consanguinity. The charter, Cod. Dipl. No. 1201, which is in every respect an authentic document, mentions her as “Ælfgyfu, ðæs cynges wíf,” the king’s wife; and this, in addition to herself, was witnessed by her mother Æðelgyfu, by four bishops, and by three principal noblemen of the court. If that charter be not genuine, there is not one genuine in the whole Codex Diplomaticus, and I cannot see the shadow of a reason to question it, as Lingard has done. The reader will probably be glad to see it, as it occurs in two manuscripts, the Cotton MSS. Claud. B. vi. fol. 54. and C. ix. fol. 112, one copy being in the original Saxon, the other a statement in Latin drawn up from it.

“Ðis is seó gerǽdnes ðe Byrhtelm biscop and Æðelwold abbud hæfdon ymbe hira landgehwerf: ðæt is ðonne ðe se biscop gesealde ða hída æt Cenintúne intó ðǽre cyricean æt Abbendúne tó écan yrfe; and se abbud gesealde ðæt seofontyne hýda æt Crydanbricge ðán biscope tó écnesse, ge on lífe ge æfter lífe; and hí eác ealra þinga gehwyrfdon ge on cwican ceápe ge on óðrum, swá swá hí betwihs him gerǽddon. And ðis wæs Eádwiges leáf cyninges; and ðis syndon ða gewitnessa. Ælfgifu ðæs cininges wíf, and Æðelgyfu, ðæs cyninges wífes módur, Ælfsige biscop, Osulf biscop, Coenwald biscop, Byrhtnóð ealdorman, Ælfheáh cyninges discþegn, Eádríc his bródur.”

“This is the agreement that bishop Byrhthelm and abbot Æðelwold made about their exchange of lands: that is then, that the bishop gave the hides at Kennington to the church at Abingdon for an eternal inheritance; and the abbot gave the bishop the seventeen hides at Crida’s bridge, for ever both during life and after life: and they also exchanged every thing upon the lands, both live stock and other, as they agreed between them. And this was by leave of king Eádwig; and these are the witnesses: Ælfgyfu the king’s wife, and Æðelgyfu, the king’s wife’s mother, bishop Ælfsige, bishop Oswulf, bishop Coenwald, Byrhtnoð the ealdorman, Ælfheáh the king’s dapifer, Eádríc his brother.”

The Latin abstract of this important document is as follows:—“Dominus autem abbas Æðelwoldus commutationem eiusdem terrae, id est Cenintun, concedente eodem rege, egit apud Brihtelmum episcopum. In cuius vicissitudine ipse episcopus accepit illam villam quae appellatur Crydanbricge. Testes autem fuerunt huius commutationis Ælfgifa regis uxor, et Æðelgifa mater eius, Ælfsige episcopus, Osulfus episcopus, Kenwald episcopus, et multi alii.” The date of this document is 956, in which year Eádwig came to the throne, and therefore certainly subsequent to the coronation, the celebrated scene of Dúnstán’s insolence. The prelates and nobles present were Ælfsige bishop of Winchester, Oswulf bishop of Ramsbury, Cénwald bishop of Worcester, Byrhthelm bishop of London, Æðelwald then abbot of Abingdon and afterwards the celebrated bishop of Winchester—the Father of the Monks, as he was called; Byrhtnóð the ealdorman an equally decided patron of the monastic order; Ælfheáh no less a man than the dapifer regis, or seneschal of Eádwig’s house. This then was not a thing done in a corner, and the testimony is conclusive that Ælfgyfu was Eádwig’s queen. It is also beyond doubt that, in the year 958, Oda separated Eádwig from his wife on the ground of their being too nearly related: one of the MSS. of the Saxon Chronicle says clearly, “Her on ðissum geare Oda arcebiscop tótwǽmde Eádwi cyning and Ælfgyfe, forðám ðe hí wǽron tó gesybbe.” Chron. Sax. an. 958. And Florence of Worcester, drawing from an independent authority, but evidently confused by the slanderous tales which had been spread of Eádwig, confirms the Chronicle, saying:—“Sanctus Odo Doruberniae archiepiscopus regem Westsaxonum Eádwium et Ælfgivam, vel quia, ut fertur, propinqua illius extitit, vel quia illam sub propria uxore adamavit, ab invicem separavit.” Flor. Wig. an. 958. William of Malmesbury speaks of her as “uxor, proxime cognata” (Gest. Reg. § 147, i. 223), but soon after calls her ganea and pellex in choice monkish style. Wendover and Paris are even more insolent in their phraseology, but still there is the unlucky admission of a marriage:—“Huic [sc. Eádwig] quaedam mulier inepta, licet natione praecelsa [certainly very high birth indeed if Ælfgyfu was too near a relative of the king] cum adulta filia per nefandum familiaritatis lenocinium adhaerebat, ut sese vel filiam suam sub coniugali titulo sociaret.” Wendov. i. 404. They go on to insinuate that there was an improper familiarity between the king and both the women. With this I am not at all concerned: Eádwig may have been a disorderly young prince, as there have been other disorderly young princes,—as his much-belauded brother Eádgar was in the highest degree. The ladies may have been more than commonly depraved. But it may be observed that our general experience is not in favour of a wife’s permitting her husband to be guilty of lascivious conduct towards another woman in her presence, or of a married daughter’s conniving at her husband’s irregularities with her own mother. Not a word have we of this disgusting insinuation in the Chronicle, or Florence,—himself a monk,—or Æðelweard, or Huntingdon: and the two latter speak of Eádwig in terms very far removed from those in which the adherents of Dúnstán’s cause have chosen to characterize him:—“Quin successor eius Eáduuig in regnum, qui et, prae nimia etenim pulchritudine, Pancali sortitus est nomen a vulgo secundi. Tenuit namque quadriennio per regnum amandus.” Æðelw. Chronic. iv. 8. “Rex autem praedictus Edwi non illaudabiliter regni infulam tenuit. Edwi rex anno regni sui quinto cum in principio regni eius decentissime floruerit, prospera et laetabunda exordia mors immatura perrupit.” Hen. Hunt. lib. v. We must be excused for preferring this sort of record to the interested exaggerations of such biographers as Bridferð, whom the remainder of his work proves to have been either a very weak and credulous person or a very great rogue, or—as not unfrequently happens—perhaps both at once.