Early English Settlement
the first and earliest reliable reference which we have to these folk is contained in the Chronicle of Simeon of Durham, who died about the year 1139, and who compiled his record from earlier Saxon documents. Speaking of the Conquest of Wessex by Offa in the year 771, he says: "In these days Offa, King of the Mercians, subdued by force of arms the Race of Hastings." Assuming that this passage refers to a tribe which settled in the district where the present town of Hastings is situated (though we must bear in mind that this is a transcript by an author of the twelfth century), it appears to tell against the traditional foundation of the town and ceaster at Hastings by the Dane of that name, of whom it is recorded that he overran the neighbouring country about the year 893. In connexion with this conquest by Offa, we may mention the Charter and confirmation granted to the Abbey of St. Denis in the year 795, in which Hastings is described as a seaport. So much doubt, however, has been cast upon the authenticity of these documents, that they must be viewed with the greatest suspicion.[1]However, as they appear to date, at all events, from the twelfth century, they are extremely curious, and perhaps relate to real transactions, even though they may be forgeries. The following is an abstract of these documents, with their references :--
- 1. (Original now lost.) A.D. 795. A grant from Dux Berthualdus to St. Denis, of land at Ridrefelda in the country which is called Sussex, and of the ports of Hastingas, and Paevenesel, printed in Doublet, p. 718. Monasticon, vi. 1077 (Birch, Cart. Sax., i. 350).
Grant by Duke Berthuald to the Abbey of St. Denis in France, of land at Rotherfield, Hastings, and Pevensey, co. Sussex, A.D. (795, for) 788.
This grant purports to have been made in pursuance of a vow when Duke Berthuald was ill. The property granted to the Abbey is described as " my country-house which is called Ridrefelda (Rotherfield), situate on the river Saforda, Sussex, also the ports of my possessions which are in the same neighbourhood on the sea, Hastings and Pevensey, with their salt works." Signed by Berthuald and Eadbald, and eight witnesses, one of which, Aeanfric (Eanfric), " the chancellor," asserts that he has " written, re-read it and signed it." There is the entire seal of Duke Berthuald with his effigy in relief. Then follows confirmation of the above grant by Offa, given in the 33rd year of his reign, and King Ethelwulf, in the 19th year of his reign.
2. (Note, original lost.) A.D. 857. Confirmation by King Aedelwulfus (Ǽthelwulf), of the possession of St. Denis, in Ridrefelda, Hastingas, Pevensel, and " Lundenuic," printed in Doublet, p. 785 (Birch, ii. 97). Confirmation by Aedelulf, King of the English, to the Abbey of St. Denys in France, of all its possessions in England. i6th November, A.D. 857.
In the confirmation there is a recital that a monk of St. Denis had bitterly complained of the injuries which the King's men had miserably inflicted on the followers of the Saint in -
- 1. (Original now lost.) A.D. 795. A grant from Dux Berthualdus to St. Denis, of land at Ridrefelda in the country which is called Sussex, and of the ports of Hastingas, and Paevenesel, printed in Doublet, p. 718. Monasticon, vi. 1077 (Birch, Cart. Sax., i. 350).
- ↑ See Mr. W. H. Stevenson's article in the English Historical Re-view, vi. pp. 736, et seq., in which the authenticity of these deeds is ably criticized ; also Mr. Horace Round's "Note on the Early History of Rotherfield Church," vol. xli. p. 49, Sussex Arch. Collections. Mr. Stevenson thinks that, as the possessions are not mentioned in Domesday, the forgery of the Charter must have been of earlier date than this, otherwise there would be no object in the fraud. The supposition that the deeds were drawn up by Frankish monks, and attested by the King, is precluded by the fact that the writing in two of them is ascribed to imaginary English Chancellors. Thus we can only conclude that they are later Frankish fabri1c3ations, which may relate to real transactions, but which are certainly not copies of lost English originals. The Frankish charters always mention the name of the scribe, but the English never do. The Frankish seals on the deeds were old Roman portrait-gems, and are not supposed to be likenesses of donors. Mr. Stevenson bases his opinion on the verbal structure of the documents ; he had not seen the originals, but his arguments seem conclusive. It is but fair to state that Mr. Madden (see Arch. Journal, xiii. 361), who previously to the appearance of Mr. Stevenson's criticism examined some of the original documents in Paris, did not suspect them to be forgeries.
