Alcuin of York : $b Lectures delivered in the cathedral church of Bristol in 1907 and 1908Browne, G. F. (George Forrest)
Religion
Alcuin of York : $b Lectures delivered in the cathedral church of Bristol in 1907 and 1908
Browne, G. F. (George Forrest)
Alcuin, 735-804
That is a digression into times a hundred and a hundred and fifty years
after Alcuin. In his time, as has been said, the Heptarchy had for
practical purposes been consolidated into three main kingdoms, Wessex,
Mercia, and Northumbria.
This tri-partite arrangement of the seven kingdoms led to one of the most
curious episodes of Alcuin’s time, and, indeed, of English history.
Offa, the ambitious king of Mercia, who reigned from 757 to 796, saw
that there were two archbishoprics in England, one of which, Canterbury,
was centred in a conquered kingdom; while the other, York, had only been
created some twenty years before he began to reign. Bede had advised
that the bishopric of York should be raised to an archbishopric, with
Northumbria as its province, and on application made to the Pope the
thing had been done. Each of the two archbishops, as Offa saw, received
special recognition from the Pope in the grant of the _pallium_; a costly
luxury, no doubt, but a luxury of honour and dignity, worth a good deal
of money—which it certainly cost. There was no Emperor of the West in
those days, some fourteen years before the elevation of Karl to an
imperial throne; and the Pope was, by the mystery of his ecclesiastical
position, and in the glamour of pagan Rome, the greatest personage in the
then chaotic world of Western Europe.
Quite apart from the possession of the pallium, the constitutional
position of an English archbishop was very great. In our days it
is sometimes asked about a wealthy man, how much is he worth. In
Anglo-Saxon times that question had a direct meaning and a direct answer.
Men of all the higher grades at least had their money value, a very
considerable value, which any one who put an end to any of them must
pay. While the luxury of killing a bishop was as costly as killing an
ealdorman, that is, an earl, an archbishop was as dear as a prince of
the blood. The bishop or earl was worth 8000 thrimsas, the thrimsa being
probably threepence, say five shillings of our money, or £2000 in all;
that was what had to be paid for the luxury of killing a bishop; the
archbishop or royal prince rose to 15000 thrimsas, nearly twice as much,
say £3750 of our money; it does not sound quite enough to our modern
ears. The king was put at £7500. For drawing a weapon in the presence of
a bishop or an ealdorman, the fine was 100 shillings, say £100 of our
money; in the case of an archbishop it was 150 shillings, half as much
again. In the laws of Ina, for violence done to the dwelling and seat of
jurisdiction of a bishop, the fine was 80 shillings, in the case of an
archbishop 120, the same as in the case of the king. This was not the
only point in which the archbishop was on the same level as the king; his
mere word, without oath, was—as the king’s—incontrovertible. A bishop’s
oath was equivalent to the oaths of 240 ordinary tax payers. In the case
of the archbishop of Canterbury at the times of which we are speaking,
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account