[892]. Leg. Ælfr. § 3. Cnut, ii. § 59. Thorpe, i. 62, 408. In this last passage, as in the North-people’s law of wergyld, the archbishop’s and æðeling’s borh and mundbryce are reckoned alike at three pounds. So also Ll. Æðelr. vii. § 11. Thorpe, i. 330.
[893]. Leg. Ælf. § 15. Æðelr. vii. § 12. Thorpe i. 70, 332.
[894]. Leg. Ini, § 45. Thorpe, i. 130. This overrated estimate is corrected by Ælfred, who settles the sums thus: king, one hundred and twenty scill.; archbishop, ninety scill.; bishop and ealdorman, sixty scill. Leg. Ælf. § 40. Thorpe, i. 88.
[895]. Leg. Wihtr. § 16. Thorpe, i. 40.
[896]. “Nam prope soli barbarorum singulis uxoribus contenti sunt, exceptis admodum paucis, qui non libidine, sed ob nobilitatem plurimis nuptiis ambiuntur.” Tac. Germ. xviii.
[897]. See Felix’s letter, Bed. Op. Min. ii. 239. He not only expresses his own surprise, but adds that other clergymen had been greatly disturbed by Gregory’s departure from the rule of the church: “non modicum murmur super hac re nobiscum versatur.” Gregory replies in some detail, and especially says: “Quod autem scripsi Augustino, Anglorum gentis episcopo, alumno videlicet, ut recordaris, tuo, de consanguinitatis coniunctione, ipsi et Anglorum genti, quae nuper ad fidem venerat, ne a bono quod coeperat metuendo austeriora recederet, specialiter et non generaliter caeteris me scripsisse cognoscas.” Bed. Op. Min. ii. 242. The following are the directions referred to:—“Quinta interrogatio Augustini. Usque ad quotam generationem fideles debeant cum propinquis sibi coniugio copulari? et novercis et cognatis si liceat copulari coniugio? Respondit Gregorius. Quaedam terrena lex in Romana republica permittit ut, sive frater et soror, seu duorum fratrum germanorum, vel duarum sororum filius et filia misceantur; sed experimento didicimus ex tali coniugio sobolem non posse succrescere, et Sacra Lex prohibet cognationis turpitudinem revelare. Unde necesse est ut iam tertia vel quarta generatio fidelium licenter sibi iungi debeat; nam secunda, quam praediximus, a se omni modo debet abstinere. Cum noverca autem miscere grave est facinus, quia et in Lege scriptum est, ‘Turpitudinem patris tui non revelabis’.... Quia vero sunt multi in Anglorum gente qui, dum adhuc in infidelitate essent, huic nefando coniugio dicuntur admixti, ad fidem venientes admonendi sunt ut se abstineant et grave hoc esse peccatum cognoscant.” The correspondence with Felix apparently refers to further regulations on the subject which are no longer found in the copies of Gregory’s answers to Augustine.
[898]. Ῥαδίγερ δὲ ὁ παῖς ξυνοικιζέσθω τῇ μητρυιᾷ τὸ λοιπὸν τῇ αἰτοῦ, καθάπερ ὁ πάτριος ἡμῖν ἐφίησι νόμος. Procop. Bel. Got. iv. 20.
[899]. Hist. Eccl. ii. 5. The words of St. Paul, here referred to, are in 1 Cor. v. 1. Asser, Vit. Ælf. 858. The very words of Beda himself seem to prove that Eádbald’s marriage was closely connected with heathendom,—perhaps was intended to be a public profession of it. He says that the king, being terrified by Laurentius’s account of a miraculous vision he had had, “anathematizato omni idolatriae cultu, abdicato connubio non legitimo, suscepit fidem Christi, et baptizatus aecclesiae rebus quantum valuit, in omnibus consulere et favere curavit.” Hist. Eccl. ii. 6. In fact the politics of that day seem generally to have consisted in the apostasy of a converted king’s successor. The heathen priests could hardly be expected to yield quite without a struggle. The cases are curious enough to merit a detailed record. What the age of Æðelberht’s second wife may have been is unknown to us; but there is some probability that Æðelwulf’s marriage was never really consummated, that it was never a marriage at all. Judith can hardly have been more than twelve when Æðelwulf married her, and within two years he died.
[900]. Eádbald’s divorce is recorded, as we have seen, by Beda. Æðelbald’s rests on much less sure authority,—that only of Matthew Westminster, and Rudborne, Annal. Winton. Judith, after her return to France, eloped with Baldwin of Flanders, to whom she bore Matilda, William the Conqueror’s wife. See Warnkönig, Hist. Fland. i. 144.
[901]. 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.