Chapter IV: The Ealdorman or Duke

It is of much less importance to a people, what its constitution is, than what is its administration; nothing can be easier than to make what are called charters, and it is a rhetorical commonplace to talk of resting under a constitution, the growth of ages: but no nation rests, or ever did rest, under the one or the other. The source of a nation’s comfort,—of its success in realizing the great principle of the mutual guarantee of peace, lies in the administration of what is called its constitution, in the skill with which it has devised its machinery of government, in the balance of power which it represents in the election of its instruments. We shall therefore pass now to the members of the Anglosaxon administration.

The dignity next in importance to the royal, is that of the Ealdorman or Duke.

The proper Anglosaxon name for this officer, as ruler and leader of an army, is Heretoga, in Old-german Herizohho, and in modern German, Herzog,—a word compounded of _Here_ an army, and _toga_ a leader[302]. It is in this sense only that Tacitus appears to understand the word Dux, when he tells us that dukes (i. e. generals) are chosen for their valour, in contradistinction to kings, who are recommended by their birth. But inasmuch as the ducal functions in the Anglosaxon polity were by no means confined to service in the field, the peculiar title of Heretoga is very rarely met with, being for the most part replaced by Ealdorman or Aldorman, which denotes civil as well as military preeminence. The word Heretoga accordingly is nowhere found in the Saxon Chronicle, or in the Laws, except in one late passage interpolated into the collection called the Laws of Eádweard the Confessor, and to the best of my remembrance it is found but once in the Charters[303]. From a very extensive and careful comparison between the titles used in different documents, it appears that Latin writers of various periods, as Beda, the several compilers of Annals, and the writers of charters, have used the words Dux, Princeps and Comes, in a very arbitrary manner to denote the holders of one and the same office. It is indeed just possible that the grant of peculiar and additional privileges may have been supposed to make a distinction between the duke and the prince, as the charters appear to show something like a system of promotion at least among the Mercian nobility, the same person being found to sign for some time as dux, and afterwards as princeps. In consequence of this confusion, it is necessary to proceed with very great caution the moment we leave contemporaneous history, and become dependent upon the expressions of annalists long subsequent to the events described: for strictly and legally speaking, the words count, duke and prince express very different ranks and functions.

-----

Footnote 302:

In this sense the Sax. Chron. translates the word _duces_ applied by
Beda to Hengest and Hors, by _heretogan_: an. 448.

Footnote 303:

It occurs however in the document called “Institutes of Polity:”
Thorpe, ii. 319: but these can hardly be considered authority for a
strict _legal_ use of words.

-----

The pure Anglosaxon authorities however are incapable of making any such blunder or falling into any such confusion: where Simeon of Durham, Florence of Worcester, Æðelweard, Henry of Huntingdon, nay even Beda himself, use Consul, Princeps, Dux and Comes, the Saxon Chronicle and the charters composed in Saxon have invariably Ealdorman. A few instances, down to the time of Cnut, when a new organization, and with it a new title, was adopted, will make this clear[304].

-----

Footnote 304:

Beorht ealdorman. Chron. an. 684. Dux. Beda, iv. 26. Flor. 684. 699. Æðelhun 750. Dux. Æðelw. ii. Flor. 750. Consul. H. Hunt. iv. Beorhtfríð 710. Præfectus. Flor, 710. Cumbra 755. Dux. Æðelw. ii. 17. Flor. 755. Consul. H. Hunt. iv. Ósríc 755. Dux. Æðelw. ii. 17. Flor. 784. Beorn 780. Patricius. Sim. D. 780. Consul et justiciarius. H. Hunt. iv. Æðelheard 794. Wor 800. Æðelmund 800. Dux. Flor. 800. Consul. H. Hunt. iv. Weohstán 800. Dux. Flor. 800. Consul. H. Hunt. iv. Heábyrht 805. Comes. Flor. 805. Eádbyrht 819. Burghard 822. Dux. Flor. 822. Muca 822. Dux. Flor. 822. Wulfheard 823. Dux. Flor. 823. Consul. H. Hunt. iv. Ealdormen 825. Duces. Flor. 825. Dudda 833. Ósmód 833. Wulfheard 837. Dux. Flor. 837. Æðelhelm 837. Dux. Flor. 837. Herebyrht 838. Dux. Flor. 838. Eánwulf 845. Dux. Flor. 845. Ósríc 845. Dux. Flor. 845. Ceorl 851. Comes. Flor. 851. Ealhhere 851, 853. Comes. Flor. 851, 853. Æðelheard 852. Hunberht 852. Comes. Flor. 852. Huda 853. Comes. Flor. 853. Ósríc 860. Comes. Flor. 860. Æðelwulf 860, 871. Comes. Flor. 860, 871. Æðelred 886. Comes. Flor. 886. Dux. Flor. 894. Æðelhelm 886, 894, 898. Dux. Flor. 894. Beocca 888. Dux. Flor. 889. Æðelwold 888. Dux. Flor. 889. Æðelred 894. Dux. Flor. 894. Æðelnóð 894. Dux. Flor. 894. Ceólwulf 897. Dux. Flor. 897. Beorhtwulf 897. Dux. Flor. 897. Wulfred 897. Æðelred 901. Æðelwulf 903. Dux. Flor. 903. Sigewulf 905. Dux. Flor. 905. Sigehelm 905. Comes. Flor. 905. Æðelred 912. Dominus et subregulus. Flor. 912. Ælfgár 946. Ordgár 965. Dux. Flor. 964. Ælfhere 980, 983. Dux. Flor. 979. Æðelmǽr 982. Dux. Flor. 982. Eádwine 982. Dux. Flor. 982. Ælfríc 983, 985, 992, 993. Dux. Flor. 983. Birhtnóð 991. Dux. Flor. 991. Æðelwine 992. Dux. Flor. 992. Æðelweard 994. Dux. Flor. 994. Leófsige 1002. Dux. Flor. 1002. Ælfhelm 1006. Dux. Flor. 1006. Eádríc 1007, 1009, 1012, 1015, 1016. Dux. Flor. in an. Æðelmǽr ealdorman 1013. Comes. Flor. 1013. Ælfríc 1016. Dux. Flor. 1016. Godwine 1016. Dux. Flor. 1016. Æðelwine 1016. Dux. Flor. 1016.

The same thing is observable in the charters: thus Óswulf Aldormon,
Cod. Dipl. No. 226, but “Dux et princeps Orientalis Canciae,” No. 256.
Again the nobleman who in the body of the charter No. 219 is called
Eádwulf ealdorman, signs himself among the witnesses, Eádwulf Dux.

-----

The word _ealdor_ or _aldor_ in Anglosaxon denotes princely dignity without any definition of function whatever. In Beówulf it is used as a synonym for cyning, þeóden and other words applied to royal personages. Like many other titles of rank in the various Teutonic tongues, it is derived from an adjective implying age, though practically this idea does not by any means survive in it, any more than it does in the word Senior, the origin of the feudal term Seigneur[305]; and similarly the words “ða yldestan witan,” literally the eldest councillors, are used to express merely the most dignified[306].

-----

Footnote 305:

The Roman _Senatus_, the Greek γερουσία, the ecclesiastical
πρεσβύτεροι are all examples of a like usage.

Footnote 306:

Chron. Sax. an. 978.

-----

If we compare the position and powers of the ealdorman with those of the duke on the continent, we shall find several points of difference which deserve notice. In the imperial constitution of the German states, as it was modified and settled by Charlemagne, the duke was a superior officer to the comes, count or graf, and a duchy for the most part comprehended several counties, over which the duke exercised an immediate jurisdiction[307]. Occasionally no doubt there were counties without duchies, and duchies without counties, that is where the duke and count were the same person: sometimes the dukes were hereditary dynasts, representing sovereign families which had become subject to the empire of the Franks, and who continued to govern as imperial officers the populations which either by conquest or alliance had become incorporated with it; such were the dukes in Bavaria and Swabia. In other cases they were generals, exercising supreme military power over extensive districts committed to their charge, and mediately entrusted with the defence and government of the Markgraviats or border-counties which were established for the security of the frontiers. The variable, and very frequently exceptional, position of these nobles or ministerials, while it renders it difficult to give an accurate description of their powers which shall be applicable to all cases, often accounts for the events by which we are led to recognize modern kingdoms in the ancient duchies, and to trace the derived and mediate authority down to its establishment as independent royalty.

-----

Footnote 307:

I refer generally here to the doctrines of Eichhorn, Staats- und
Rechtsgesch. i. 460. etc.; and to the works of the great German
authors who have treated this subject and others connected with it,
more especially to Dönniges, Deutsches Staatsrecht, p. 96 _seq._

-----

But this state of things which was possible in an empire comprising a vast extent of lands held by tribes of different descent, language, and laws, and often hostile to one another, was not to be expected in a country like England. Neither were the districts here sufficiently large, nor in general was the national feeling in those districts sufficiently strong, to produce similar results. Strictly speaking, during what has been loosely termed the Heptarchy, the various kingdoms or rather principal kingdoms bore a much greater resemblance to the Frankish duchies, and the small subordinate principalities to the counties; and could we admit the existence of a central authority or Bretwaldadom, we should find a considerable resemblance between the two forms: but this is in fact impossible: the kings, such as they were, continued to enjoy all the royal rights in their limited districts; and the dukes remained merely ministerial officers, of great dignity indeed, but with well-defined and not very extensive powers. The rebellion of a duke in English seems nearly as rare as it is frequent in German history. We may therefore conclude that the Anglosaxon Ealdorman in reality represented the Graf or Count of the Germans, before the powers of the latter had been seriously abridged by the imperial constitution of the Carlovings, by the growing authority of the duke, the Missus or royal messenger and the bishop. And this will tend to explain the comparatively subordinate position of the geréfa, who answers, in little more than name, to the Graphio or Graf.

In the Anglosaxon laws we find many provisions respecting the powers and dignity of the ealdorman, which it will be necessary to examine in detail. It is highly probable that different races and kingdoms adopted a somewhat different course with respect to them,—a course rendered inevitable by the connection of the ealdorman with territorial government. The laws of the Kentish kings do not make any mention of such an officer: the ceorl, eorl and king are the only free classes whose proportionable value they notice; and if there were ealdormen at all, they were comprised in the great caste of eorls or nobles by birth, even as Æðelberht’s law uses _eorlcund_, that is of earl’s rank, as a synonym for _betst_, that is the best or highest rank[308]. In the law of Eádríc and Hlóðhere, though various judicial proceedings are referred to, we hear nothing of the ealdorman: suit is to be prosecuted at the king’s hall[309], before the stermelda[310], or the wícgeréfa[311], but no other officer is mentioned; probably because at this period, the little kingdoms into which Kent itself was divided, supplied ample machinery for doing justice, without the establishment of ealdormen for that or any other purpose. The law of Wihtræd has no provision of the sort, and it is remarkable that in the proem to his dooms, which a king always declares to be made with the counsel, consent and license of his nobles, the word _eádigan_, the wealthy or powerful, twice occurs[312], but not the word _ealdormen_. I therefore think it probable that Kent had no such officers at the commencement of the eighth century[313].

-----

Footnote 308:

“Mund ðǽre betstan widuwan eorlcundre, fiftig scillinga gebéte.” For
the mund of a widow of the highest class, that is of earl’s degree, be
the bót fifty shillings. Æðelb. § 75. Thorpe, i. 20.

Footnote 309:

Eád. Hlóð. § 5. Thorpe, i. 28.

Footnote 310:

Eád. Hlóð. § 7, 16. Thorpe, i. 30, 34.

Footnote 311:

Eád. Hlóð. § 16. Thorpe, i. 34.

Footnote 312:

Leg. Wiht. Thorpe, i. 36.

Footnote 313:

I do not think the expression of the Sax. Chron. an. 568 can be
considered to contradict this. The ealdormen recorded there are merely
princes in a general sense: as are Cerdíc and Cyneríc named an. 495,
just as the same Chronicle an. 465 mentions twelve Welsh ealdormen. So
also in 653, Peada the king of the Southangles is called aldorman. The
Kentish charters in which we find Hamgisilus, _dux_, and Graphio,
_comes_, are impudent forgeries. Cod. Dipl. Nos. 2, 3, 4.

-----

In general Beda uses the words _tribunus_ or _praefectus_ to express the authority of a royal officer either in the field or the city: with him _comes_ represents the old and proper sense of the king’s comrade, as we find it in Tacitus, and _dux_ is applied in the Roman sense to the leader or captain of a _corps d’armée_. But it is possible that in one passage he may have had something more in view, where he states that after the death of Peada, that is in 661, the dukes of the Mercians, Immin, Eaba and Eádberht rebelled against Osuuiu of Northumberland and raised Wulfhere to his father’s throne[314]; and he goes on to say that, having expelled the princes,—“principibus eiectis,”—whom the foreign king had imposed upon them, they recovered both their boundaries and their liberty. It is every way probable both that the Mercian dukes and Northumbrian princes mentioned in this passage were fiscal and administrative, not merely military officers[315]. Not much later than this we find dukes in Wessex[316] and Sussex[317]; and from this period we can follow the dukes with little intermission till the close of the genuine Anglosaxon rule with Eádmund Irensída.

-----

Footnote 314:

Beda, H. E. iii. 24.

Footnote 315:

The forged foundation charter of Peterborough mentions the following
ealdormen: Immin, Eádberht, Herefrið, Wilberht, Abon.—Chron. Sax. 657.
Cod. Dipl. No. 986.

Footnote 316:

Cod. Dipl. Nos. 31, 54, 987, etc.

Footnote 317:

Ibid. No. 994. Beda, H. E. iv. 13.

-----

From the time of Ini of Wessex we have the means of tracing the institution with some certainty; and we may thus commence our enquiry with the first years of the eighth century, nearly one hundred years before Charlemagne modified and recast the German empire. At first the ealdormen are few in number, but increase as the circuit of the kingdom extends; we can thus follow them in connection with the political advance of the several countries, till we find at one time no less than three dukes at once in Kent, and sixteen in Mercia. This number attended a witena gemót held by Coenwulf in the year 814.

The reason of this was, that the ealdorman was inseparable from a shire or gá: the territorial and political divisions went together, and as conquest increased or defeat diminished the number of shires comprised in a kingdom, we find a corresponding increase or diminution in the number of dukes attendant upon the king. Ælfred decides that if a man wish to leave one lord and seek another, (hláfordsócn, a right possessed by all freemen,) he is to do so with the witness of the ealdorman whom he before followed in his shire, that is, whose court and military muster he had been bound to attend[318]: and Ini declares that the ealdorman who shall be privy to the escape of a thief shall forfeit his shire, unless he can obtain the king’s pardon[319]. The proportionably great severity of this punishment arises, and most justly so, from the circumstance of the ealdorman being the principal judicial officer in the county, as the Graf was among the Franks. The fiftieth law of Ini provides for the case where a man compounds for offences committed by any of his household, where suit has been either made before the king-himself or the king’s ealdorman[320]. He was commanded to hold a shiremoot or general county-court twice in the year, where in company of the bishop lie was to superintend the administration of civil, criminal and ecclesiastical law: Eádgár enacts[321],—“Twice in the year be a shiremoot held; and let both the bishop of the shire and the ealdorman be present, and there expound both the law of God, and of the world:” which enactment is repeated in nearly the same words by Cnut[322]. And this is consistent with a regulation of Ælfred, by which a heavy fine is inflicted upon him who shall break the public peace by fighting or even drawing his weapon in the Folcmoot before the king’s ealdorman[323]. In the year 780 we learn from the Saxon Chronicle that the high-reeves or noble geréfan of Northumberland burned Beorn the ealdorman to death at Seletún[324]: but Henry of Huntingdon records the same fact with more detail: he says[325],—“The year after this the princes and chief officers of Northumberland burned to death a certain _consul_ and justiciary of theirs, because he was more severe than was right:” from which it would appear not only that this ealdorman had been guilty of cruelty and oppression in the exercise of his judicial functions, but, from the hint of Simeon, also that the king acquiesced in his punishment. We have occasional records in the Saxon charters which show that the shiremoot for judicial purposes was presided over by the ealdorman of the shire. In 825 there was an interesting trial touching the rights of pasture belonging to Worcester cathedral, which the public officers had encroached upon: it was arranged in a synod held at Clofeshoo, that the bishop should give security to the ealdorman and witan of the county, to make good his claim on oath, which was done within a month at Worcester, in the presence of Háma the woodreeve, who attended on behalf of Eádwulf the ealdorman[326]. Another very important document records a trial which took place about 1038 in Herefordshire: the shiremoot sat at Ægelnóðes stán, and was held by Æðelstán the bishop, and Ranig the ealdorman in the presence of the county thanes[327]. Another but undated record of a shiremoot held at Worcester again presents us with the presidency of an ealdorman, Leófwine[328].

-----

Footnote 318:

Leg. Ælfr. § 37. Thorpe, i. 86.

Footnote 319:

“Gif he ealdormon síe, þolie his scíre, búton him cyning árian wille.”
Log. Ini, § 36. Thorpe, i. 124.

Footnote 320:

Thorpe, i. 134.

Footnote 321:

Eádgar, ii. § 5. Thorpe, i. 268.

Footnote 322:

Cnut, Sec. § 18. Thorpe, i. 386. And so in the Frankish law the graff
or count was to hold his court together with the bishop. Dönniges, p.
29.

Footnote 323:

Ælfr. § 38. Thorpe, i. 86.

Footnote 324:

Chron. Sax. an. 780.

Footnote 325:

Hen. Hunt, book iv. “Anno autem hunc sequente principes et praepositi
Nordhumbre quendam consulem et justiciarium suum, quia rigidior aequo
extiterat, combusserunt.” This seems like a judicial execution, not a
mere act of popular vengeance. Simeon however says, “Osbald et
Æðelheard duces, congregate exercitu, Bearn patricium Elfuualdi regis
in Seletune succenderunt ix Kal. Jan.,” which can hardly be anything
but what is referred to in the entry of the preceding year, where
Simeon says of Ælfwald, “Erat enim rex pius et iustus, ut sequens
demonstrabit articulus.” Sim. Gest. Reg. an. 779, 780.

Footnote 326:

Cod. Dipl. No. 219.

Footnote 327:

Ibid. No. 755.

Footnote 328:

Ibid. No. 898.

-----

It is thus clear that the ealdorman really stood at the head of the justice of the county, and for this purpose there can be no doubt that he possessed full power of holding plea, and proceeding to execution both in civil and criminal cases. The scírmen, scírgeréfan or sheriffs were his officers, and acted by his authority, a point to which I shall return hereafter. That the executive as well as the judicial authority resided in the ealdorman and his officers seems to me unquestionable: Ælfred directs that no private feud shall be permitted, except in certain grave cases, but that if a man beleaguers his foe in his own house, he shall summon him to surrender his weapons and stand to trial. If the complainant be not powerful enough to enforce this, he is to apply to the ealdorman (a mode of expression which implies the presence of one in every shire), and on his refusal to assist, resort may be had to the king[329]. For this there was also good reason: the ealdorman in the shire, like the Frankish graf, was the military leader of the _hereban_, posse comitatus or levy _en masse_ of the freemen, and as such could command their services to repel invasion or to exercise the functions of the higher police: as a noble of the first rank he had armed retainers, thanes or comites of his own; but his most important functions were as leader of the armed force of the shire. Throughout the Saxon times we read of ealdormen at the head of particular counties, doing service in the field: thus in 800 we hear of a battle between the Mercian ealdorman Æðelmund with the Hwiccas, and the Westsaxon Weoxstán with the men of Wiltshire[330]: in 837, Æðelhelm led the men of Dorset against the Danes[331]: in 845 Eánwulf with the men of Somerset, and Osríc with the men of Dorset, obtained a bloody victory over the same adversaries[332]: in 853 a similar fortune attended Ealhhere with the men of Kent, and IIuda with them of Surrey, the latter of whom had marched from their own county into Thanet, in pursuit of the enemy[333]. In 860, Osríc with his men of Hampshire, and ealdorman Æðelwulf with the power of Berkshire, gave the Danes an overthrow in the neighbourhood of Winchester[334]; in 905 the men of Kent with Sigewulf and Sigehelm their ealdormen were defeated on the banks of the Ouse[335]: lastly in 1016, we find Eádríc the ealdorman deserting Eádmund Irensída in battle with the Magesætan or people of Herefordshire[336],—a treason which ultimately led to the division of England between Eádmund and Cnut, and later to the monarchy of the latter. Everywhere the ealdorman is identified with the military force of his shire or county, as we have already seen that he was with the administration of justice.

-----

Footnote 329:

Leg. Ælfr. § 42. Thorpe, i. 90.

Footnote 330:

Chron. Sax. an. 800.

Footnote 331:

Ibid. an. 837.

Footnote 332:

Ibid. an. 845.

Footnote 333:

Ibid. an. 853.

Footnote 334:

Ibid. an. 860.

Footnote 335:

Ibid. an. 905.

Footnote 336:

Ibid. an. 1016. Other instances of ealdormen as military leaders, but
without reference to particular localities, may be found in the Chron.
Sax. under the years, 684, 699, 710, 823, 825, 838, 851, 871, 894,
992, 993, 1003, etc., and in all the annalists.

-----

The internal regulation of the shire, as well as its political relation to the whole kingdom, were under the immediate guidance and supervision of the ealdorman: the scírgeréfa or sheriff was little more than his deputy: it is not to be doubted that the cyninges geréfan, wícgeréfan and túngeréfan were under his superintendence and command, and it would almost appear as if he possessed the right to appoint as well as control these officers: at all events we find some of them intended by the expression “ðæs ealdormonnes gingran,” literally the ealdorman’s subordinate officers; Ælfred having affixed a severe punishment to the offence of breaking the peace of the folcmoot, in the ealdorman’s presence, continues: “If anything of this sort happen before a king’s ealdorman’s subordinate officer, or a king’s priest, let the fine be thirty shillings[337].”

-----

Footnote 337:

Leg. Ælfr. § 38. Thorpe, i. 86.

-----

In the year 995 certain brothers, apparently persons of some consideration, having been involved in an accusation of theft, a tumultuary affray took place, in which, amongst others, they were slain: the king’s wícgeréfan in Oxford and Buckingham permitted their bodies to be laid in consecrated ground: but the ealdorman of the district, on being apprised of the facts, attempted to reverse the judgment of the wic-reeves[338]. It would therefore appear that these officers were subordinated to his authority. The analogy which we everywhere trace between the ealdorman and the graf, induces the conclusion that the former was the head fiscal officer of the shire; and that, in this as in all other cases, the scírgeréfawas his officer and accounted to him.

-----

Footnote 338:

Cod. Dipl. No. 1289.

-----

The means by which his dignity was supported were, strictly speaking, supplied by the state: they consisted in the first place of lands within his district[339], which appear to have passed with the office, and consequently to have been inalienable by any particular holder: but he also derived a considerable income from the fines and other moneys levied to the king’s use, his share of which probably amounted to one-third[340]. But as it invariably happened that the ealdorman was appointed from among the class of higher nobles, it is certain that he always possessed large landed estates of his own[341], either by inheritance or royal grant: moreover it is probable that among a people in that stage of society in which we find the Saxons, voluntary offerings to no small amount would find their way into the spence or treasury of so powerful an officer: no one ever approaches a Pacha without a present. One form of such gratuities we can trace in the charters; I mean the grant of estates either for lives or perpetuity, made by the clergy in consideration of support and protection; thus in 855, we find that Ealhhun, bishop of Worcester, and his chapter gave eleven hides of land to duke Æðelwulf and Wulfðrýð, his duchess, for their lives, on condition that he would be a good and true friend to the monastery, and protector of its liberties[342]. Fifty years later, in 904, Werfrið and the same chapter granted to duke Æðelred, his duchess and their daughter, a vill in Worcester and about 132 acres of arable and meadow land, for three lives, with reversion to the see, on condition that they would be good friends and protectors to the chapter[343]. It is likewise probable that even if no settled, legal share of the plunder were his of right, still his opportunities of enriching himself in his capacity of general were not inconsiderable: he must for instance have had the ransom of all prisoners of any distinction, or the price of their sale. And lastly in his public capacity he must always have had a sufficient supply of convict as well as voluntary labour at command, to ensure the profitable cultivation of his land, and the safe keeping of his flocks and herds. There cannot be the slightest doubt that he also possessed all the regalia in his own lands whether public or private, and that thus, wreck, treasure-trove, fines for harbouring of outlaws, and many other bóts or legal amerciaments passed into his hands. There are even slight indications that he, like many of the bishops, possessed the right to coin money; and in every case, he must have had the superintendence of the royal mint, and therefore probably the forfeiture of all unlicensed moneyers. In addition to all this, we cannot doubt that his power and influence pointed him out as the lord who could best be relied upon for protection and favour; and we may therefore conclude that commendation of estates to him was not unusual, from all which estates he would receive not only recognitory services, and yearly _gafol_ or rent in labour and produce, but in all probability also fines on demise or alienation.

-----

Footnote 339:

I cannot otherwise account for the mention of “ðæs ealdormonnes lond,
ðæs ealdormonnes mearc, gemǽro,” etc. which so often occur. The
boundaries of charters not being accidental and fluctuating, but
permanent, it follows that “the alderman’s mark” was so also.

Footnote 340:

“Dovere reddebat 18 libras, de quibus denariis habebat rex Edwardus
duas partes et comes Goduinus tertiam.” Domesd. Chenth. Whether all
the estates of folcland were charged with payments to the duke is
uncertain, but yet this is probable. The monastery lands appear to
have been so; for in 848 Hunberht, ealdorman, prince or duke of the
Tonsetan, released the monastery of Bredon from all payments
heretofore due from that monastery to himself, or generally to the
princes of that district. Cod. Dipl. No. 261. Again in 836, Wigláf of
Mercia granted to the monastery at Hanbury perfect freedom and
exemption from all demands, known and unknown, save the three
inevitable burthens: the ealdormen Sigered and Mucel, whose rights
were thus diminished, were indemnified, the first with a purse of six
hundred shillings in gold, the second with three hundred acres at
Croglea. Cod. Dipl. No. 237.

Footnote 341:

The highest rank, that is the ealdorman’s, appears to have implied the
absolute possession of land to the amount of 40 hides, or 1200 acres.
See Hist. Eliens. ii. 40: “Sed quoniam ille 40 hidarum terrae dominium
minime obtineret, licet nobilis esset, inter proceres tunc nominari
non potuit,” etc. The charters show what large estates were devised by
many of these ealdormen.

Footnote 342:

Cod. Dipl. No. 279.

Footnote 343:

Ibid. No. 339.

-----

Thus the position which his nobility, his power and his wealth secured to the ealdorman was a brilliant one. In fact the whole executive government may be considered as a great aristocratical association, of which the ealdormen were the constituent members, and the king little more than the president. They were in nearly every respect his equals, and possessed the right of intermarriage with him[344]: it was solely with their consent that he could be elected or appointed to the crown, and by their support, co-operation and alliance that he was maintained there. Without their concurrence and assent, their license and permission, he could not make, abrogate or alter laws: they were the principal witan or counsellors, the leaders of the great gemót or national inquest, the guardians, upholders and regulators of that aristocratical power of which he was the ultimate representative and head. The wergyld and oath of an ealdorman were in proportion to this lofty position: at first no doubt, he ranked only with the general class of nobles in this respect, and the Kentish law does not distinguish him from them: but at a later period, when the aristocratical hierarchy had somewhat better developed itself, we find him rated on the same level with the bishop, and above the ordinary nobles. From the chapter concerning wergylds[345], we find that the Northumbrian law rated the ealdorman at something more than thirty times the value of the ceorl, while in Mercia we hear only of thanes or twelve-hynde men, worth six times the ceorl or two-hynde man: and in Kent the eorl seems to have exceeded the ceorl by three times only.

-----

Footnote 344:

This would follow from their original nobility, which made them of
equal birth with the king: but there is a case which seems to show
that the rank itself of ealdorman sufficed to give this privilege.
Eádríc ealdorman of Mercia, who is said to have been of low
extraction, married a sister of Cnut; and Eádweard the Confessor had a
daughter of earl Godwine to wife. The other case was common: “And
Æðelflǽd æt Domerhamme, Ælfgáres dohtor ealdormannes, wæs ðá his
cwen,” _i. e._ Eádmund’s. Chron. Sax. an. 946. “Eádgár cyning genam
Ælfðrýðe him tó cwene; heó wæs Ordgáres dohtor ealdormannes.” Chron.
Sax. 965. The Anglosaxon kings were in fact very rarely married to
foreign princesses, though several of their beautiful daughters found
husbands on the continent.

Footnote 345:

Thorpe, i. 187. An ealdorman or bishop = 8000 thryms: a ceorl only
266.

-----

But the value of the wergyld was not the only measure of the ealdorman’s dignity. His oath bore the same proportion to that of the ceorl, and I think we may assume that this relative proportion was maintained throughout all ranks. The law respecting oaths declares that the oath of a twelve-hynde shall be equal to those of six ceorlas, because if one would avenge a twelve-hynde it can be fully done upon six ceorlas, and his wergyld is equal to their six[346]. His house was in some sort a sanctuary, and any wrong-doer who fled to it had three days’ respite[347]; if any one broke the peace therein, he was liable to a heavy fine[348]; his burhbryce, or the mulct for violation of his castle, was eighty shillings[349], which however the law of Ælfred reduces to sixty[350]; for a breach of his borh or surety, and his mundbyrd or protection, a fine of two pounds was imposed[351]; his Fihtwíte, or the penalty imposed upon the man who drew sword and fought in his presence, was one hundred shillings[352], which was increased to one hundred and twenty if the offence was committed in the open court of justice[353]. The only person who enjoys a higher state, beside the king, is the archbishop; and this pre-eminence may probably have once been due to the heathen high-priest; just as, indeed, the equality of the bishop and ealdorman may have been traditionally handed down from a period when the priesthood and the highest nobility formed one body. There is no very distinct intimation of any peculiar dress or decoration by which the ealdorman was distinguished, but he probably wore a beáh or ring upon his head, the fetel or embroidered belt, and the golden hilt which seems to have been peculiar to the noble class. The staff and sword were probably borne by him as symbols of his civil and criminal jurisdiction.

-----

Footnote 346:

Thorpe, i. 182.

Footnote 347:

Leg. Æðelst. iii. § 6, but seven days Æðelr. vii. § 5; iv. 4.

Footnote 348:

Leg. Ini, § 6.

Footnote 349:

Leg. Ini, § 45.

Footnote 350:

Leg. Ælfr. § 40.

Footnote 351:

Ibid. § 3. Leg. Cnut, Sec. § 69. Æðelr. vii. § 11.

Footnote 352:

Leg. Ælfr. § 15. Æðelr. vii. § 12.

Footnote 353:

Leg. Ælfr. § 38.

-----

The method then by which this rank was attained becomes of some interest. And first it is necessary to inquire whether it was hereditary or not; whether it was for life, or only _durante beneplacito_, or _benemerito_. That it was not strictly hereditary appears in the clearest manner from the general fact that the appointments recorded in the Chronicle and elsewhere are given to nobles unconnected by blood with the last ealdorman. There are very few instances of an ealdorman’s rank being held in the same county by a father and son in succession. This occurred indeed in Mercia, where in 983 Ælfríc succeeded his father Ælfhere: Harald followed Godwine in his duchy, and at the same period, Leófríc and Sigeweard succeeded in establishing a sort of succession in their families. But when this did take place, it must be looked upon as a departure from the old principle, and as a thing which in practice would have been carefully avoided, during the better period of Anglosaxon history, for which the feeble reign of Æðelred offers no fair pattern. Under his weak and miserable rule the more powerful nobles might venture upon usurpations which would have been impossible under his father. And Cnut’s system of administration was favourable to the growth of an hereditary order of dukes. A further examination of our history shows that in general the dignity was held for life; we very rarely, if ever, hear of an ealdorman removed or promoted from one shire to another, and the entries in the Chronicle as well as the signatures to the charters attest that many of their number enjoyed their dignity for a very large number of years, in spite of the chances of an active military life. But we do find, and not unfrequently, that ealdormen have been expelled from their offices for treason and other grave offences. In the later times of Æðelred, when traitorous dealings with the Danish enemy offered the means of serving private or family hostility, the outlawry of the ealdorman who led the different conflicting parties in the state was common, and similar events accompanied the struggles of Godwine’s party against the family of Mercia, for the conduct of public affairs in England[354]. But at a much earlier period we hear of ealdormen losing their offices and lands: in 901, Eádweard gave to Winchester ten hides at Wiley, which duke Wulfhere had forfeited by leaving his king and country without licence[355].

-----

Footnote 354:

See the Chronicle _passim_.

Footnote 355:

“Ista vero praenominata tellus primitus fuit praepeditus a quodam
duce, nomine Wulfhere, et eius uxore, quando ille utrumque et suum
dominum regem Ælfredum et patriam ultra iusiurandum quam regi et suis
omnibus optimatibus iuraverat sine licentia dereliquit. Tunc etiam,
cum omnium iudicio sapientium Gewissorum et Mercensium, potestatem et
haereditatem dereliquit agrorum.” Cod. Dipl. No. 1078.

-----

But if the dignity of ealdorman did not descend by regular succession, are we to conclude that it was attained by popular election? Such is the doctrine of the laws commonly attributed to Eádweard the Confessor. In these we are thus told:—

“There were also other authorities and dignities established throughout all the provinces and countries, and separate counties of the whole realm aforesaid, which among the Angles were called Heretoches, being to wit, barons, noble, of distinguished wisdom, fidelity and courage: but in Latin these were called _ductores exercitus_, leaders of the army, and among the Gauls, Capital Constables, or Marshals of the army. They had the ordering of numerous armies in battle, and placed the wings as was most fitting, and to them seemed most conducive to the honour of the crown and the utility of the realm. Now these men were elected by common counsel for the general weal, throughout all the provinces and countries, and the several counties, in full folkmote, as the sheriffs of the provinces and counties ought also to be elected: so that in every county there was one heretoch elected to lead the array of his county, according to the precept of our lord the king, to the honour and advantage of the crown of the realm aforesaid, whenever need should be in the realm[356].”

-----

Footnote 356:

Thorpe, i. 456.

-----

To this doctrine I deeply regret that I cannot subscribe. Whatever remembrance of the earliest periods and their traditions may have lurked in the mind of the writer, I am compelled to say that his description is not applicable to any period comprehended in authoritative history. A real election of a duke or ealdorman by the folcmót may have been known to the Germans of Tacitus, but I fear not to those who two centuries later established themselves in England. There cannot, I imagine, be the slightest doubt that the ealdormen of the several districts were appointed by the crown, with the assent of the higher nobles, if not of the whole witena gemót. But it is also probable that in the strict theory of their appointment, the consent of the county was assumed to be necessary; and it is possible that, on the return of the newly appointed ealdorman to his shire, he was regularly received, installed and inaugurated by acclamation of the shire-thanes, and the oath of office administered in the shiremoot, whose co-operation and assent in his election was thus represented. Whatever may have been his original character, it seems certain that at no time later than the fifth century could the ealdorman have been the people’s officer, but on the contrary that he was always the officer of that aristocratical association of which the king was the head[357].

-----

Footnote 357:

As the king and his witan could unquestionably depose or remove the
ealdorman, we can scarcely doubt their power to appoint him.

-----

Still I do not think that in general the choice of the witan could be a capricious or an unconditional one. There must have been in every shire certain powerful families from whose members alone the selection could be made; the instincts of all aristocracies, as well as the analogy of other great Anglosaxon dignities, render it certain that the ealdormannic families, as a general rule, retained this office among themselves, although the particular one from which the officer should at any given time be taken were left undecided, for the determination of the Witan. It was almost necessary policy to place at the head of the county one of the most highly connected, trustworthy, powerful and wealthy of its nobles,—less necessary, however usual, _now_ than then, when the functions of the Lord Lieutenant and the High Sheriff were united in the same person. It even appears probable, although the difficulty of tracing the Anglosaxon pedigrees prevents our asserting it as a positive fact, that the ducal families were in direct descent from the old regal families, which became mediatized, to use a modern term, upon the rise of their more fortunate compeers. We know this to have been the case with Æðelred, duke and viceroy of Mercia under Ælfred and Eádweard. In the ninth century we find Oswulf, ealdorman of East Kent, calling himself “Dei gratia dux;” and Sigewulf and Sigehelm, who appear in the tenth also among the dukes of Kent, were very probably descendants of Sigeræd, a king of that province.

The new Constitution introduced by Cnut reduced the ealdorman to a subordinate position: over several counties was now placed one eorl, or earl, in the northern sense a jarl, with power analogous to that of the Frankish dukes. The word ealdorman itself was used by the Danes to denote a class, gentle indeed, but very inferior to the princely officers who had previously borne that title: it is under Cnut, and the following Danish kings that we gradually lose sight of the old ealdormen; the king rules by his earls and his Húscarlas, and the ealdormen vanish from the counties. From this time the king’s writs are directed to the earl, the bishop and the sheriff of the county, but in no one of them does the title of the ealdorman any longer occur; while those sent to the towns are directed to the bishop and the portgeréfa or præfect of the city. Gradually the old title ceases altogether except in the cities, where it denotes an inferior judicature, much as it does among ourselves at the present day.