^{page vii note 1} Anglia Sacra, II, pp. 239 seq.

^{page vii note 2} Acta Ord. Bened., Saec. VI, ii., p. 836.

^{page vii note 3} Patrologia Latina, Vol. 179, p. 1734.

^{page vii note 4} MS. Cott. Claud. A.v. is a small volume, in. by in., originally somewhat larger than at present, and seems to comprise three books which once existed separately. The first two are a fourteenth-century Peterborough Chronicle and a twelfth-century copy of William of Malmesbury's Gesta Pontificum, perhaps the best extant MS. of the first recension. The former is certainly and the latter probably from the Library of Peterborough Abbey. The provenance of the third—fo. 135 to the end—is unknown. It is an early collection of saints' lives containing the Life of St. Erkenwald, Bishop of London, the Life and Miracles of St. Wenfred, the Life of St. Neot and the Life of St. Wulfstan. The MS., written towards the close of the twelfth century, is double-columned and, apart from a number of erasures, competently executed. The ornamentation is slight, for but few rubrics are given and the capitals coloured green and red at the beginning of the chapters are plain. The prefatory letter and the prologue to the Vita Wulfstani were placed at the end of the volume by the scribe but are restored to their proper places in the text below. The Vita seems to be written in two contemporary hands : “Pagus … incelebris ” (Bk. I, c. 1) and from “quidem ” at the opening of fo. 167 to the end of the volume, including the Letter and Prologue, are written in one hand, and the intervening part in the other.

^{page vii note 1} Bk. III, c. 16. Gesta Regum (Stubbs), p. 317 (Threatened Danish invasion of 1085). To “our other writings ” the reader is referred for the reason for the ban placed on Archbishop Stigand by the papacy. The reference may be to either the Gesta Regum, p. 244, or to the Gesta Pontificum (Ed. Hamilton), pp. 35–37. More probably the latter was intended.

^{page vii note 2} Nicholas, who was probably his predecessor, died in 1124 (Weaver, John of Worcester, p. 18). His successor Ralf is said to have died in 1143 (Anglia Sacra, I, p. 548). Warin was certainly prior in 1137 (Weaver, op. cit., p. 41), and according to the Charter of Ralph Pincerna of Oversley relating to the foundation of Alcester priory, Warwickshire, was in office in 1140 (Monasticon, IV, p. 175).

^{page vii note 3} Flor. Wig. (Thorpe), II, p. 66.

^{page vii note 4} There can be little doubt that it was Coleman's Life which was sent to the Pope during the negotiations to secure the canonization of Wulfstan in the early thirteenth century. Probably it was never sent back to England. See below, pp. xlvii, 149.

^{page ix note 1} References to Coleman are to be found in the following chapters of the Life : Book I, c. 1, c. 4 ; Book II, c. 1, c. 4, c. 9, c. 10, c. 13, c. 16, c. 18, c. 19, c. 22 ; Book III, c. 10, c. 16. The story of the plasterer who spurned the preaching of Coleman seems to come straight from the irate chaplain. William also states that he had translated back into Latin passages from the Life of St. Gregory which, together with many others, Coleman had put into English.

^{page ix note 2} He ended the first book with the Norman Conquest instead of with Wulfstan's elevation to the bishopric. He also suppressed long passages of rhetoric and quotations from saints' Lives (I, c. 16) and excluded the sections in which Coleman had described with much verbiage the episcopal office rather than Wulfstan's Life (III, c. 18).

^{page ix note 3} For material derived from Prior Nicholas, see III, c. 9, c. 10, c. 13, and c. 17.

^{page ix note 4} e.g. Ailsi of Longney (II, c. 17), Sewy of Ratcliffe (II, c. 22) and Swertlin of Wycombe (II, c. 9), concerning whom see the footnotes to the chapters.

^{page x note 1} See Stubbs, Gest. Reg. I, cxvii–cxix.

^{page x note 2} Printed as the fifth book of the Gesta Pontificum by Hamilton (pp. 330–443), but it is only in the MS. which the editor held to be William's autograph copy of the second recension that it appears as part of the Gesta Pontificum. In the best MS. of the first recension of the Gesta Pontificum a shorter form of the Life is given after the conclusion of the four books of the Gesta. There is reason to think that the date, 1125, at the end of the Life of St. Aldhelm, applies to this biography only and not, as is usually supposed, to the Gesta as well.

^{page x note 3} Printed by Giles (Sancti Aldhelmi Opera, pp. 354–382). In contrast to Malmesbury's high opinion of Coleman stands his estimate of Faricius, whose method he considered faulty, and whom as a foreigner he regarded as less suitably equipped than a monk of Malmesbury for the task of writing a Life of Aldhelm. While he follows Coleman very closely in both general plan and details, his plan in the Life of St. Aldhelm, though it exhibits certain similarities, is in the main different from that of Faricius, whose work William is at times consciously correcting.

^{page x note 4} Giso, Bishop of Wells (1061–1088), has left an autobiographical sketch (Hunter, See. of Somerset, Camden Series, 1840), and there is an early account of the work of Leofric (1046–1072) at Exeter (Warren, Leofric Missal, p. 2), but neither is a complete biography. The Life of Gundulf, Bishop of Rochester (1077–1108), written by a contemporary monk (Anglia Sacra, II, p. 271) is full but not comparable to the Life of Wulfstan as a source of historical information. Even Lanfranc had but a mediocre biographer, for Miles Crispin was dependent upon an earlier work, Gilbert Crispin's Life of Herlwin, Abbot of Bec, for much of his material (see Robinson : Gilbert Crispin, p. 58 seq.). Perhaps the closest parallel to Coleman's Life is the De Vita et Conversatione Anselmi archiepiscopi of Eadmer (Rule, p. 305 seq.), for each biographer was constantly in touch with the man whose career he described from personal knowledge. Of the first four Norman Archbishops of York, whose lives were written by Hugh the Chantor (Raine, Historians of York, II, pp. 98–227), only Thomas I was the contemporary of Wulfstan. Hugh's Life of Thomas, written in the third or fourth decade of the twelfth century, cannot be regarded as a contemporary account, and the author not only omits all details regarding the early lives of these prelates, but in describing their tenure of office, gives little information beyond that relating to the controversy between Canterbury and York. Of Herbert Losinga, Bishop of Norwich (1091–1119), the letters and sermons survive, and we have a contemporary account of one phase of the career of William, Bishop of Durham (Arnold, Simeon of Durham, I, p. 170). Of such important persons as Osmund of Salisbury and Walchelin of Winchester no contemporary lives appear to have been written. The historical material mentioned in this note has been confined to records relating to bishops, but it may be added that of one of the abbots of Wulfstan's diocese—Æthelwig of Evesham, the bishop's rival—a contemporary record has been preserved in a later work (Macray, Chronicle of Evesham, pp. 87–96) and introduces some facts relating to the reign of William the Conqueror the significance of which has not yet been recognized.

^{page xiv note 1} Among these may be reckoned the assertion that Wulfstan's mother persuaded him to become a monk, and that his unwillingness to become bishop of Worcester was overcome by the sharp words of a hermit named Wlsius. The story, “which we should hardly believe had we not heard it from his own mouth,” that Wulfstan, devoting himself to religious observances, passed four days and four nights without sleep, is the sort of anecdote with which any inmate of the house might be familiar and does not affect the conclusion that the writer of the chronicle did not base his account of Wulfstan on personal knowledge.

^{page xiv note 2} Thorpe, I, p. 228; II, pp. 10, 24–5. The omission of these incidents is not surprising when it is remembered that the Vita was intended for a monastic audience. The account of the rebellion of 1074 in this chronicle is the only record of this episode of Wulfstan's career, for the bishop is not mentioned in connexion with it in any surviving copy of the Saxon Chronicle. The account of the rebellion of 1088 in the Chronicle of Florence disagrees with the Saxon Chronicle in one important particular, for it states that Wulfstan went to the castle at the request of the garrison, whereas the Saxon Chronicle makes it clear that the custody of the castle was committed to Wulfstan. The error seems to lie in the Latin rather than the vernacular chronicle, which latter is followed by William of Malmesbury in the Gesta Regum (Stubbs, II, p. 361).

^{page xv note 1} The legates are made to go to Worcester by royal command, but it is, stated in the Vita that it was Ealdred who left them with Wulfstan in pursuance of his promise to find a suitable successor. Of these legates noinformation is given in the Vita except that they were cardinals. In the Chronicle of Florence it is stated that they were two in number and that Ermenfrid, bishop of Sion, was one. Though there seems to be no reason why he should not have been a cardinal, Ermenfrid is not usually so described and the statement may be a confusion with the events of 1070. The chronicler also asserts that the legates were sent by Pope Alexander. By the time they reached England Nicholas must have been dead (he died in 1061), but it was certainly Nicholas who sent them. Whereas in the Vita the cardinals recommend the appointment of Wulfstan to the king and the Witan, the normal procedure, they are described as urging the clergy and people of Worcester to elect Wulfstan in the Chronicle of Florence, which latter seems hardly reasonable.

^{page xv note 2} The chronicler (Thorpe, II, p. 36) places Wulfstan's appearance to Robert, bishop of Hereford, at Cricklade. The Vita shows that a vision took place at the royal court and the king is known to have spent Christmas at Wissant, passing over to Dover a few days later. The chronicle also records (Thorpe, II, p. 37) a second appearance to bishop Robert which is not mentioned in the Vita. Not improbably both stories are based upon genuine tradition.

^{page xv note 3} Printed in full at the end of this volume. Stubbs supplied a copy of it to Freeman, who printed part of it in his appendix on the ecclesiastical position of Stigand (Norman Conquest, Vol. II, App. CC). Freeman's attempt to explain away the language of the profession does not recommend itself to any modern critic.

^{page note 4} It is strange that such a renunciation if made was not used as an argument against archbishop Thomas, and it may be doubted whether Thomas would have ventured to put forward his claim if Ealdred had made so definite a public statement on the relation of the two sees as is implied in the words of the Chronicle of Florence.

^{page xvi note 1} In 1907 the late Mr. W. H. Stevenson pointed out in the English Historical Review (Vol. XXII, pp. 72 seq.) that the famous description of the Domesday Survey in this chronicle is derived from a tract written by Robert, bishop of Hereford, who introduced into England the Chronicle of Marianus, which forms the basis of that attributed to Florence. Nor is it derived directly from this tract, but through the medium of a continuation of Marianus' work, probably by bishop Robert himself. Had the writer been at work in the eleventh century he would not have used the account of another author in this way. Mr. Weaver in his edition of the Chronicle of John of Worcester brought to light a passage overlooked by Thorpe which indicates that the author of the Chronicle of Florence was engaged upon the early part of the work in 1103 (Chron. of John of Worc., p. 8 and note. Mr. Weaver has kindly informed me that the passage quoted in his footnote occurs in the preliminary tables).

^{page xvi note 2} The borrowings relate not only to Anselm and ecclesiastical affairs but even include the account of the punishment of false moneyers in 1108 and of the drying-up of the Thames and the Medway in 1114. The mere extent and position of these passages in the Worcester Chronicle prove that they cannot be interpolations, nor could it be argued that Eadmer was the borrower. The true extent of the dependence of the Worcester writer on Eadmer can be observed only when the relevant passages are set out in parallel columns, but for the present purpose it will suffice to indicate where these passages axe to be found :—

1095 (Thorpe, II, 37), Mission of Walter, bishop of Albano. See Eadmer (Rule, pp. 68–73). “juxta condictum … deosculatum ” verbal borrowing.

1098 (II, 43), “concilio plurima … consentiret ” almost verbal from Eadmer, pp. 104–6.

1099 (II, 43), “in adversarios … consummatum ” from Eadmer, p. 114.

1102 (II, 51), “duos de clericis … Herefordensi ” and “considentibus … non potuit ” from Eadmer, p. 141. Information concerning abbots deposed in co. of Westminster is probably from Eadmer, p. 142. “Lundoniae … subrogatus est” from Eadmer, p. 144.

1106 (II, 55), “Rex … Angliam rediit ” in part from Eadmer, p. 182.

1107 (II, 55, 56), “In kalendis Augusti … honoris privaretur” from Eadmer, p. 186. “Gerardus … Dunholmensi” from Eadmer, p. 187.

1108 (II, 57), “Monetam … aerumnas agebat,” from Eadmer, p. 193. Statutes for the correction of clergy from Eadmer, p. 193. Consecration of bishops of London and Rochester (II, 59) from Eadmer, pp. 197–8.

1109 (II, 59), “et sequenti die … ” from Eadmer, p. 206.

1114 (II, 67), “Fluvius Medewege … didicimus ” from Eadmer, p. 225.

1116 (II, 69), “Habita … fuisset ” from Eadmer, pp. 237–8 (abridged) and “Circa mensem … ingreditur ” largely from Eadmer, p. 239.

The borrowings in the annals 1118–1121 are printed by Mr. Weaver in small type.

^{page xvii note 1} Gest. Reg. (Ed. Stubbs), p. 2. Rule (Historia Novorum, p. xli) concluded that the first four books in their original form belong to 1112.

^{page xvii note 2} Rule, op. cit., p. 1, says of Book V of the Historia Novorum, “the final publication took place certainly as late as the spring of 1121 and probably not long before the summer of 1124.” Books V and VI cover the period 1109 to 1122 and were used by the Worcester writer for the composition of the annals 1114, 1116, 1118, 1119, 1120, and 1121.

^{page xvii note 3} Weaver, Chron. of John of Worc., p. 13, note 1.

^{page xvii note 4} Ed. le Prevost, II, p. 159. The mention of John is generally though not without reluctance regarded as an error for Florence, but it is not easy to understand how such a confusion could arise.

^{page xvii note 5} It will be noticed that the annal does not describe Florence as the author, but reads “obiit Domnus Florentius Wigornensis monachus. Huius subtili scientia et studiosi laboris industria, preeminet cunctis haec chronicarum chronica.” It is not impossible that this should be regarded as a tribute of the author John to an older and highly esteemed monk who had supervised his labours. Simeon of Durham copied the story of a storm at Momerfield from that part of the annal for 1118 which follows the record of the death of Florence. Arnold appears not to have noticed that the passage “Goffridus … tertiam ” on p. 254 comes from John of Worcester (1119) and that the quotation “Calixtus … multitudine ” from Eadmer is also in John's work. Simeon makes some use of Eadmer for his annal for 1119, but not for the years 1120–1122. Simeon and John give the same reading of the canons of the council at Westminster in 1126 and the fact that the account of the council which precedes the canons is almost identical in the two works possibly indicates that the copy of the Worcester Chronicle used for the compilation of the earlier annals covered the later period as well.

^{page xviii note 1} It was begun at the command of Wulfstan according to Orderic (le Prevost, II, p. 159). It may be assumed that what Wulfstan initiated was the transcription of the Chronicle of Marianus to which he had evidently been introduced by his friend Robert, bishop of Hereford (cf. Gest. Pont., p. 301), though the work was not performed until after his death.

^{page xviii note 2} The Chronicle of Florence is usually regarded as the earliest of the Latin histories based on the Old English Chronicle, and Stevenson (Asser's Life of Alfred, p. lx) held that William of Malmesbury used it, though Stubbs (Gesta Regum, II, cxxviii seq.) had arrived at the opposite conclusion. A careful analysis of the passages common to William and Florence and of Stevenson's arguments has led to the conclusion that though the exact significance of certain of the former is difficult to determine, the evidence taken as a whole strongly suggests that the Worcester writer employed both the Gesta Regum and the Gesta Pontificum much as he had used Eadmer's work. Though it is impossible to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion until the manuscripts of the chronicle and in particular the Corpus MS. have been examined from this point of view, it may be suggested that when William of Malmesbury wrote the Gesta Regum and the Gesta Pontificum the Chronicle of Florence was still in its early stages. William seems to have regarded himself as the successor of Bede not merely because he set out to be a historian rather than an annalist, but because when he wrote there existed no historical work other than the Saxon Chronicle to fill the gap between the point at which Bede's work terminated and the early twelfth century. Such is the most natural interpretation of the Prologue to the Gesta Regum (Stubbs, I, p. 1), and it may be doubted whether William would have made specific mention of the Chronicle of Ethelwerd and Eadmer's work if he had known of a complete Latin Chronicle at Worcester. Not improbably William had seen John at work on the preliminary matter and it is likely that it is the Worcester monk rather than Henry of Huntingdon whom he has in mind when he speaks at the conclusion of the fourth book of the Gesta Regum (Stubbs, II, p. 518) of imitators who owe him the debt due to a pioneer.

^{page xix note 1} Raine, Historians of the Church of York, II, p. 99.

^{page xix note 2} Plummer, I, p. 223 (Rebellion of 1088).

^{page xix note 3} In the Gesta Regum there appears the story of Wulfstan's reliance upon divine aid in the conflict with archbishop Thomas (Ed. Stubbs, pp. 354–5) and the writer refers to Wulfstan's part in the suppression of the rebellion of 1088 (Stubbs, p. 361) and his abolition of the slave trade at Bristol (p. 329). Two of these references come from Coleman's Life, of which a full summary is given in the Gesta Pontificum (Hamilton, pp. 278–289). The additional particulars in this précis not traceable to Coleman are the account of Wulfstan's share in the suppression of the rebellion of 1088, some further information regarding Aldwin at Malvern, the bishop's prediction of his own death after hearing of that of his sister, the description of Wulfstan's tomb and of its miraculous preservation (apparently during the fire of 1113), and the story of a certain merchant named Sewulf (Seuulf) who, in fulfilment of a prophecy made by Wulfstan, entered the monastery at Malmesbury.

^{page xix note 4} The chronicle is an early conflation of the Gesta Regum, Gesta Pontificum and the Chronicle of Florence of Worcester. The writer adds no new information about Wulfstan, but states erroneously that the bishop was born in the time of Cnut (fo. 13b, col. 2).

^{page xix note 5} Hemming (Ed. Hearne), pp. 403–8. The short life of Wulfstan describes his tenure of the various offices in the priory and enumerates the lands which at different times he acquired or recovered for the monastery. The writer also gives certain dates which serve as a check upon other authors.

^{page xxii note 1} The Bollandists (Acta Sanctorum, Vol. II, p. 602 seq., sub xix Jan.) printed as lives of Wulfstan (i) the passages in the Chronicle of Florence of Worcester, arranged in four chapters; (ii) the section in the Gesta Pontificum, divided into five chapters; and (iii) the life in Capgrave's Nov. Leg., arranged in four chapters.

^{page xxii note 2} The charter of Oswald is in Hemming's Chartulary (Hearne, p. 126).

^{page xxii note 3} Dean Hook (Archœological Journal, Vol. XX p. 1) assumed that Wulfstan was born at Long Itchington, probably because Bishop's Itchington derived its name from the bishops of Chester. However, Bishop's Itchington was an estate of Coventry abbey, one of the episcopal seats of that bishop, and is entered as the property of the abbey in the Domesday Survey (V.C.H., Warwickshire, I, p. 305b). According to the foundation charter (Monasticon, III, p. 190) it was granted to the abbey by Earl Leofric, the founder, whose father Leofwine is known to have taken possession of some of the manors of the church of Worcester. Bishop's Itchington may therefore have been the property of archbishop Oswald. Similarly with regard to Long Itchington, which was held in 1086 by the countess Christina, the sister of Edgar Etheling (V.C.H., Warwickshire, I, 341a), the fact that it came into the hands of the Limesi family later may suggest that, like other parts of their fee, it was once held by Earl Ælfgar and may have been among the lands of the church of Worcester which his ancestors had secured.

^{page xxiii note 1} His obit occurs in the Worcester calendar in MS. Bodl. Hatton 113.

^{page xxiii note 2} Gesta Pontificum, p. 287.

^{page xxiii note 3} The abbot when Wulfstan was there was probably Ælfward, afterwards bishop of London, or his predecessor Brihtmar (Chron. Evesh. ed. Macray, pp. 80, 81).

^{page xxiii note 4} See footnotes to Book I, c. 1 below.

^{page xxiv note 1} Hemming's Chartulary (Ed. Hearne), pp. 248–9, 254, 277.

^{page xxiv note 2} Ibid., p. 251.

^{page xxiv note 3} Ibid., p. 280.

^{page xxiv note 4} Acton Beauchamp was restored to him by a thegn named Ordwi, and Pendock by a certain Northman (Ibid., pp. 249–50).

^{page xxiv note 5} Ibid., p. 396.

^{page xxiv note 6} Ibid., pp. 406, 408–10.

^{page xxiv note 7} When Leofric's brother Godwin undertook on his death-bed to restore to prior Wulfstan the village of Salwarpe it was Leofric who upheld Godwin's son Agelwine in his refusal to carry out the promise (Ibid., p. 259). The same earl helped a certain Erngeat son of Grim to retain Hampton Lovett, which Wulfstan had recovered in a plea (Ibid., p. 260). So also it was one of Leofric's thegns, Simund a Dane, who owned part of Crowle and so impoverished the monks' part that prior Æthelwine gave him the other part in return for certain services (Ibid., p. 264). Edwin the brother of Leofric also took lands which Wulfstan attempted to recover, but without success (Ibid., p. 278).

^{page xxiv note 8} Ibid., p. 262.

^{page xxiv note 9} Ibid., p. 275.

^{page xxiv note 10} During his rule from 1033 to 1038 Brihtheah, a native of Berkshire, gave lands rightly the property of the monks to Ailric his brother (Ibid., p. 266), to his relative Brihtwinne (Ibid., p. 267), to his brother-in-law (Ibid., p. 255), to his relative and chamberlain Atsere (Ibid., p. 269), and to certain of his thegns (Ibid., p. 267). The evidence of Domesday Book bears out some of Hemming's statements and shows that in a number of instances these grants resulted in considerable losses to the monks.

^{page xxiv note 11} Ibid., pp. 256, 261.

^{page xxv note 1} For the Alveston charter, see Hemming (Ed. Hearne), p. 418. The admission at this date of the son of “Northman” is recorded by Hemming because it was accompanied by the gift or restoration of land. (Hearne, p. 249.) Prior Wulfstan refused admission to the son of one of the despoilers of the priory unless his entry was accompanied by the restoration of all or at least part of the lands which his father had seized. (Ibid., p. 260.) A passage in Domesday (V.C.H., Worc., I, 295b) records that a hide of land belonging to the monks had been leased to a nun Eadgyth who “on their number increasing under King William ” restored it to them. There is a reference to the admission of a monk during Wulfstan's episcopate in the passage (V.C.H., Worc., I, p. 291b) which records that Little Washbourne (3 hides) was held by Elmer who became a monk, the bishop receiving his land.

^{page xxv note 2} For this there was good historical precedent since Oswald had retained the see of Worcester after his promotion to York and his successors Aldulf and Wulfstan both held the two bishoprics which were thus united during the fifty years between 972 and 1023 (unless, as is probable, Leofsige, who was made bishop of Worcester in 1016, was independent of the northern metropolitan from the date of his appointment). In 1040 the see of Worcester was taken from bishop Lyfing for political reasons and given to Æilfric archbishop of York, who, however, surrendered it in the next year (Flor. Wig., Ed. Thorpe, I, pp. 194, 195.)

^{page xxvi note 1} Flor. Wig., anno 1062.

^{page xxvi note 2} Thomas, Antiquities, Appendix, p. 1. The charter which emanates from York is dated December 31, 1062, but it contains a number of obvious errors. It mentions a grant (said to have been destroyed in the Danish wars) by king “Eadward ” to archbishop Oswald and a papal privilege obtained by the archbishop from Formosus who was pope about a century before his time. The charter also mentions an alleged privilege of Pope Nicholas to Ealdred.

^{page xxvi note 3} This probably accounts for the view of Hugh the Chantor and other northern writers that Wulfstan was a mere assistant bishop. The independence of Wulfstan's position is proved not only by the Vita but by the language of Edward the Confessor's writ announcing his appointment to the bishopric, 1062.

^{page xxvi note 4} They were recovered in the dispute between Wulfstan and archbishop Thomas in an assembly at the Parret, c. 1070. Since the loss of these twelve villages was only temporary, it cannot be the “primary origin of the peculiar jurisdiction of the archbishops of York in Gloucestershire ” (Hamilton Thompson, Jurisdiction of the Archbishops of York in Gloucestershire, in the “Trans. of the Bristol and Glouc. Arch. Soc.,” Vol. XLIII, p. 87). Mr. Hamilton Thompson further suggests that Lessedune, Scipetune, and Hagepine may represent three of the villages, but none of them appears among the lost estates mentioned by Hemming, nor does the bishop of Worcester seem to have had any claim to them. The Heamtune to which the monks laid claim is not the Hagepine of Domesday but Hantone (Hampnett in Bradley Hundred) which Roger de Ivri held in 1086, for this village had been purchased for them by Ealdred (Hemming, p. 398) and was seized by Roger while Wulfstan was visiting the diocese of Lichfield (Ibid., p. 281). Since the twelve villages were recovered some time before 1086, it is unlikely that the Domesday record will assist in the identification of them. It may be suggested, however, that Bradley which the archbishop leased to his reeve T.R.E. (V.C.H., Worc., I. p. 290b), and Cutsdean to which the archbishop proved his right in the time of king William (Ibid., p. 291b), were among them. Another may have been Alveston over which Ealdred had rights in 1066 (V.C.H., War., I, p. 302b). These three villages had been recovered by Wulfstan in 1086.

^{page xxvii note 1} His famous curse, “Hattest þu Urs, haue þu Godes kurs,” pronounced against Urse the sheriff who built his castle “pene faucibus monachorum,” is preserved in the Gesta Pontificum (Hamilton, p. 253).

^{page xxvii note 2} See Appendix, no. 4.

^{page xxvii note 3} Flor. Wig. (Thorpe), II, p. 11.

^{page xxvii note 4} Ibid., pp. 24“26. Saxon Chron. (Plummer), I, p. 223.

^{page xxvii note 5} Davis, Regesta, nos. 106, 186, 282 (Worcestershire) ; 9, 186 (Gloucestershire) ; 104, 186 (Warwickshire).

^{page xxviii note 1} Davis, Regesta, no. 213.

^{page xxviii note 2} Vita, II, c. 8 ; II, c. 12 ; III, c. 4. For the description of the assembly see II, c. 12.

^{page xxviii note 3} Davis, Regesta, no. 315.

^{page xxviii note 4} See Appendix, no. 6.

^{page xxviii note 5} Flor. Wig. (Thorpe), II, pp. 5, 6. Archbishop Ealdred died September 11, 1069 (Ibid., p. 3).

^{page xxix note 1} Latin Acts of Lanfranc (Plummer, Saxon Chron., I, p. 288).

^{page xxix note 2} Ibid., and Gesta Pontificum, pp. 40, 41,

^{page xxix note 3} Gesta Regum (Stubbs, pp. 349–352). For facsimile see F. M. Stenton, William the Conqueror, p. 448.

^{page xxix note 4} The story of Wulfstan's reliance upon divine aid, derived from Coleman, is inserted by William of Malmesbury in his account of the settlement reached at Windsor in the Gesta Regum (Stubbs, p. 354).

^{page xxx note 1} Hemming (Ed. Hearne), p. 281. It is probable that the king and Lanfrano agreed that the see of Lichfield should be committed to Wulfstan, for it was desirable to the former that this region, hardly yet subdued, should be brought under the influence of a native prelate who had accepted the Norman rule. To Lanfranc the arrangement was acceptable because the see of Lichfield was vacant and by entrusting it to Wulfstan he avoided the necessity of creating a new bishop until he had decided with the help of Pope Alexander what should be done with regard to the former bishop (Leofwine), who had resigned his see to the king before Lanfranc's arrival rather than answer the charges brought against him by the legates. Lanfranc had not ventured to appoint a successor when he wrote to the Pope, probably in the year of his arrival in England (Giles, Opera Lanfranci, I, p. 21), and Peter the new bishop was not consecrated until the third year of Lanfranc's tenure of office. (Latin Acts, 3rd year), i.e. after August 1072. So long as the Conqueror's writ addressed to Peter, bishop of “Chester,” and Earl William FitzOsbern, who was killed in February, 1071, is regarded as genuine, it is necessary to assume that a long interval separated the election and consecration of Peter. However, for reasons set forth by Mr. Tait in his essay “An Alleged Charter of William the Conqueror ” (Essays Presented to R. L. Poole, p. 151), the charter must be regarded as a forgery. It was during the vacancy between 1070 and 1072 that the administration of the diocese was entrusted to Wulfstan. The story of Wulfstan's prophecy regarding the church of St. Peter at Shrewsbury (Vit. Wulst., II, c. 3) relates that the bishop often passed through that city while traversing the diocese of Lichfield in which it lay.

^{page xxxi note 1} The narrative in the Chronicle of Florence (Thorpe, II, p. 8) follows that in the Vita in placing the recovery of the lands and the safeguarding of the liberties of the see (according to this author, by the production of written evidence to confute Thomas) in the so-called council at the Parret. William of Malmesbury's summary of the incident in the Gesta Pontificum is not helpful.

^{page xxxi note 2} Chapter xxix. Ed. Bloch, pp. 116–120. The author inserted long speeches purporting to have been made by Wulfstan and others. It is perhaps noteworthy that the earliest Life of Edward the Confessor, though written, there is good reason to believe, in the early twelfth century (Bloch, p. 17 seq.), does not contain the story.

^{page xxxii note 1} Infra, Bk. I, c. 12.

^{page xxxii note 2} The alleged deposition is placed in a council “at Westminster ” in 1075 by Roger of Wendover (sub. an. 1095), but the author for the most part merely expands Florence. It should be noticed that Gundulf did not become bishop of Rochester until 1077. For the other writers who give the story of the deposition, see Freeman, Note II, Vol. IV, p. 819. Freeman regarded Ailred as the earliest authority for it.

^{page xxxii note 3} It would seem from Lanfranc's letter that the charges against Leofwine were set out in the summons which he received from the legates.

^{page xxxii note 4} Latin Acts (Plummer, p. 289). The letter to Wulfstan and Peter is preserved among the letters of Lanfranc (Giles, I, p. 35).

^{page xxxiii note 1} Gesta Pontificum, p. 284. No further details are given, and had the statement occurred in Coleman's work it could hardly have been omitted in both the Vita and the Chronicle of Florence. It seems therefore to be a gloss of William himself, who had already expressed the opinion that most of the English bishops at this time were illiterate (Gest. Pont., p. 36). The abstract of Coleman's narrative upon which this paragraph of the Gesta Pontificum was based appears to have been compiled hastily, for it is said that after Wulfstan had won his case, the archbishop of York requested him to visit those parts of his diocese which, through fear of enemies or ignorance of the language, he had not approached himself. This seems to be a confusion with the grant of the custody of the diocese of Lichfield to Wulfstan by Lanfranc, an important incident otherwise omitted in the Gesta Pontificum. In this same passage lies the origin of the story that Wulfstan was ignorant of French (Roger of Wendover, anno 1095). If the legend did not arise out of such a misunderstanding but was a deliberate invention, motive is not lacking in the desire of the biographers of St. Edward to glorify their hero.

^{page xxxiii note 2} The Vita (II, c. 21) also records that Wulfstan went to York at the command of the king to bless the chrism for archbishop Thomas. It is uncertain whether this journey is identical with that mentioned in Lanfranc's letters.

^{page xxxiii note 3} Cf. Frere, Visitation Articles and Injunctions, I, p. 53.

^{page xxxiii note 4} At the visit of the bishop, which was preceded by the admonition of the archdeacon, crowds assembled to hear him preach and say mass and bestow upon children and others the rites of baptism and confirmation, the recipients of the latter sometimes numbering as many as two or three thousand and even more, according to the computation of Coleman. The candidates at Gloucester were sufficiently numerous to be lined up in ranks in the cemetery, and these arduous duties often occupied the bishop from sunrise to sunset.

^{page xxxiv note 1} William of Malmesbury in his Gesta Regum (Stubbs, p. 329) expresses uncertainty as to whether this reform was due to Wulfstan or to Lanfranc.

^{page xxxiv note 2} The stories illustrate the lawlessness of the time, and there is one example of the survival of the blood feud—a man who committed homicide by accident was pursued by the victim's brothers who, refusing the wergild which was offered, would have killed the unhappy slayer but for the interposition of Wulfstan (Bk. II, c. 15). It is interesting to read of a wealthy priest who perished at the hands of his enemies after refusing to be reconciled with his neighbour (Bk. II, c. 22).

^{page xxxiv note 3} Bk. I, c. 14. Domesday Book shows that churches existed in most if not all the episcopal manors in 1086.

^{page xxxiv note 4} Bk. II, c. 17.

^{page xxxv note 1} Vita, II, cc. 9, 21. Cf. Haddan and Stubbs, Councils, III, p. 584 (canons of the Council at Celchyth, 816, cap. xi), and Weaver, John of Worcester, p. 21 (10th canon of Synod of London, 1125).

^{page xxxv note 2} In the record of Wulfstan's synod at Worcester in 1092, a document which is beyond suspicion, we read that a certain number of responsible persons to whom was delegated the enquiry into the rights of the cathedral priory, reported to the bishop that Oswald had granted to the prior and his successors the right of being deans over their churches and priests so that no dean or archdeacon should interfere except by the leave of the prior, adding “of these things we are witness as we have learned from our predecessors and have seen them observed in our own times under your predecessor Aldred and yourself.” From this it might be deduced that the archdeacon and rural deans were established under Ealdred and even in Oswald's time, but it is possible that the witnesses intended to assert the exclusion of the bishop's officials known in their own time but not necessarily at the date of which they speak by these names. The officer is mentioned in the Northumbrian Priests' Law which seems to belong to the archiepiscopate of Ealdred, and it may be significant that the manuscript was written at a time when there was a close connexion between York and Worcester. (Liebermann, Gesetze der Angelsachsen, III, 220, 221.) There is reference to a dean of Evesham in both the Evesham Chronicle (Macray, p. 83), and in version “D ” of the Saxon Chronicle (Plummer, I, p. 160), but it cannot be said whether he was a monastic dean or a rural dean (as is stated by the author of the Evesham Chronicle) until the Chronicon Abbatiae de Evesham has been subjected to a critical analysis.

^{page xxxv note 3} The first reference to Ailric occurs in Domesday Book, where he is recorded as holding of the bishop 1 hide at Bradley in the manor of Fladbury, 2 hides in Cutsdean, an outlying part of Bredon, and 1 hide at Huddington in the manor of Northwick (V.C.H., Worc., I, 290b, 291b, 294b). In the writ of William Rufus concerning the “relief ” exacted from the tenants of the see, the archdeacon is directed to pay 100s. (Hemming, p. 79). At one of his estates Ailric built a church which Wulfstan consecrated, and since he had a priest at Cutsdean in 1086 it is possible that the miracle recorded in the Vita should be placed in that village. Ailric witnessed the agreement between Wulfstan and the abbot of Evesham in 1086 and attests all three of the known charters of Wulfstan. His name appears next after the prior in those relating to Alveston and Westbury, and in the former he takes precedence of Coleman the bishop's chancellor. In the Tappenhall charter, to which the names of neither prior Thomas nor Coleman are appended, he heads the list of witnesses, and he and his brother Edwine were among those to whom was committed the enquiry made in the synod of 1092. It is probable that he died during the episcopate of Sampson and was succeeded by Hugh. Either at the death of Ailric or soon after, during the episcopate of either Sampson or Theulf, the diocese of Worcester was divided into two archdeaconries. Cf. a similar development in the diocese of Wells (Armitage Robinson, Somerset Historical Essays, p. 73 seq.).

^{page xxxvi note 1} The ancient record of St. Osmund's system at Salisbury merely states “Archidiaconi in sollicitudine parochiarum et in cura pollent animarum.” Register of St. Osmund (Ed. Rich Jones, Rolls Series, I, p. 214).

^{page xxxvi note 2} This Fritheric also attests the Tappenhall and Westbury charters and was present at the synod of 1092. To him was committed by the monks for the term of his life the church of St. Helen with all its appurtenances which belonged to their demesne support. This grant was made after the death of Wulfstan, and at the request of bishop Sampson the monks also gave Fritheric the land upon which he had built his house (Hemming, p. 427). The only other clerks whose names have been preserved are Frewin (Westbury charter ; Vit. Wulst., Bk. II, c. 13, c. 20 ; Bk. III, c. 4), and Maurice (Westbury charter). For Maurice see also Robinson—Gilbert Crispin, p. 31.

^{page xxxvi note 3} E.g. Alfwin (Westbury charter), and Ægelmer (present at the synod of 1092).

^{page xxxvi note 4} Alric the chamberlain witnesses the Westbury charter (1093), and Godric þirl, described as chamberlain, was present at the synod of 1092. Another witness of the Westbury charter was Alstan the constable.

^{page xxxvii note 1} Vit. Wulst., Bk. III, c. 16. Compare Abingdon Chronicle (Ed. Stevenson, II, p. 3).

^{page xxxvii note 2} Ibid., Bk. III, c. 8.

^{page xxxvii note 3} Wulfstan regarded himself as a member of the monastic community when he was residing at Worcester and therefore under the obligation to perform in his turn the weekly duties of the monk known as the hebdomadarian (see Const, of Lanfranc, c. xiii, Giles, I, p. 160), but also seems to have superseded the prior as head of the convent. It was he who punished with the rod the monks who came late to matins, and he is described as reciting the customary offices with the monk appointed to be on watch in the dormitory throughout the night. It was, moreover, his wont to withdraw from worldly occupations from midnight on Saturday until Monday morning. During this time he took part in the services of the monks and dined with them. Normally, however, he seems to have taken his meagre fare with his household, surrounded by his knights.

^{page xxxviii note 1} Hemming (Hearne, p. 407). Alfstan acquired for the monks Lench, Dunhamstead and Peachley in Worcestershire. Wulfstan himself as prior, his predecessor Æthelwine and also Ælfstan are called “deans ” of the priory, and the Vita records that the old name of the prior was “prepositus.” The terms are used in a similar sense in the records of other monasteries and only an examination of all the references would justify the expression of an opinion as to the origin and significance of the titles as used at Worcester. On the monastic provost see Plummer, Bede, I, pp. xxviii, xxix.

^{page xxxviii note 2} Wharton, on the strength of the following passage in Eadmer's Life of Dunstan (Mem. Dunst., pp. 163, 164), where he mentions those who supplied him with information, inserted another prior in the list (Anglia Sacra, I, p. 547) : “Horum unum Ægelredum scilicet qui supprioris et cantoris officium in ecclesia Cantuariensi strenuissime per multum temporis administrabat, quique postmodum ob religiosam prudentiam et prudentem religiositatem suam Wigornensi ecclesie sub beate memorie Wulstano episcopo prelatus erat, et multis qui adhuc supersunt. …” The suggestion that this Ægelred was Ailric the archdeacon may be ruled out, and it seems likely that the reference is to Nicholas, an Englishman brought up in the household of Wulfstan and by him sent to be trained under archbishop Lanfranc at Canterbury. Nicholas became prior under bishop Theulf and died in 1124. The exact meaning of “prelatus ” in the above passage is not certain, and if it is intended to signify prior it may be that Eadmer is in error. A letter from Nicholas to Eadmer concerning the mother of Edward the Martyr is printed by Stubbs, Mem. Dunst., p. 422 (no. xxxvi).

^{page xxxviii note 3} Flor. Wig. (Thorpe, II, p. 66).

^{page xxxviii note 4} Vit. Wulst., I, c. 1.

^{page xxxix note 1} Weaver, John of Worcester, p. 36.

^{page xxxix note 2} The list from the Durham book is given in Appendix III to Early Worcester Manuscripts (C. H. Turner), p. lii.

^{page xxxix note 3} This calendar is in MS. Hatton 113 in the Bodleian Library. It was believed to be of Evesham origin by Mr. Edmund Bishop (Bosworth Psalter, p. 161), but Mr. H. M. Bannister (Early Worc. MSS., Appendix IV, p. lx) has shown that it is undoubtedly of Worcester origin and was probably the personal property of Wulfstan, since it contains the obits of his mother, father and brother.

^{page xxxix note 4} Hemming (Ed. Hearne), p. 424. The short Life in Hemming (Hearne, p. 407) gives a fuller list of grants to Prior Thomas, including Mytton, Alston, the two Lindridges, Penhill and Grimley.

^{page xxxix note 5} Ann. Mon., IV, p. 373.

^{page xxxix note 6} Alveston charter (Hemming, Ed. Hearne, p. 418).

^{page xl note 1} Hemming, pp. 421–4 (Westbury charter) ; Vit. W-ulst., III, c. 10 ; Gesta Pontificum, p. 290.

^{page xl note 2} Pointed (Old English with translation) by Thorpe, Diplomatarium, p. 615. Concerning such associations see Rock, Church of Our Fathers, II, 306 ; Birch, New Minster and Hyde (Hampshire Record Society), p. 47 ; Archæologia, Vol. LXXV, pp. 19 seq.

^{page xl note 3} See Appendix, nos. 11 and 12.

^{page xl note 4} Evesham Chronicle (Ed. Macray), p. 89. The thirteenth-century compiler of this chronicle has incorporated a certain amount of early material including a contemporary record of Æthelwig's abbacy.

^{page xli note 1} The chief struggle between Wulfstan and Æthelwig's successor Walter was over Bengeworth and Hampton. In the end a compromise was arranged by which the abbot acknowledged the lands to be part of the bishop's hundred of Oswaldslaw while Wulfstan waived his claim to restore them to his demesne.

^{page xli note 2} Hemming (Ed. Hearne), p. 272.

^{page xli note 3} According to the chronicle in MS. Cot. Vit. C. viii, fo. 17, the change was made through the instrumentality of Wulfstan.

^{page xli note 4} Gest. Pont., p. 285.

^{page xli note 5} Printed (Latin) Monasticon, III, p. 440.

^{page xli note 6} Flor. Wig., I, p. 215.

^{page xli note 7} Vit. Wulst., II, c. 2.

^{page xli note 8} Ann. Mon., IV, p. 373.

^{page xli note 9} Armitage Robinson, Gilbert Crispin, p. 33; Monasticon, III, p. 448.

^{page xli note 10} V.C.H., Worc., I, p. 259.

^{page xlii note 1} The story is told in a Plea Roll of the time of Edward II (Monast., III, p. 447) that the priory was founded by Urse d'Abitot, with whose consent the abbot of Westminster planted there a prior and monks.

^{page xlii note 2} V.C.H., Worc., I, p. 292.

^{page xlii note 3} Red Book of the Exchequer, Ed. Hall, I, p. 300.

^{page xlii note 4} Hemming (Ed. Hearne), pp. 282–286. As Hearne observed, the leaves of the MS. (Cott, Tib., A. xiii) are misplaced owing to the binder, and since Hearne's copy was made the book has suffered by fire. Though a detailed discussion of the problem of the original form of the chartulary cannot be attempted here, the following outline may be suggested tentatively to illustrate the truth of Hemming's statements (the page references are to Hearne). Book I. Charters relating to bishop's estates—pp. 1–49, 50–58, 59–72, 218–231, 84–121. Book II. Charters of Oswald—p. 121 (without an opening rubric) to p. 247 (excluding pp. 218–231). Book III. Charters relating to monks' estates—pp. 369–392, and pp. 319–363. Book IV. History of the monks' estates after the time of Oswald—pp. 248–286 (with supplement pp. 395–426). A fifth book begins on p. 426 and was probably intended as an appendix to the original four books since it contains documents relating to the times after Wulfstan's death: only the first charter is in the original hand. Hemming probably wrote his part before 1100, since the list of kings (pp. 369–70) is written in the original hand to William II, but the number of years he reigned is filled in by a later continuator of the list.

^{page xliii note 1} The exact date of Wulfstan's death is a little obscure, for the scribe to whom we owe our only copy of the unabridged Vita has given it in a form which could not have come from William of Malmesbury. The event is placed “paulo post mediam noctem sabbati,” 14 kal. Feb. (January 19), 1087, in the “tenth year of the reign of William II,” 34 years 4 months and 13 days after he had received the bishopric. In the Chronicle of Florence Wulfstan's death is placed about the middle of the seventh hour on Saturday, January 18, 1095. The earliest authority, the brief Life in Hemming's Chartulary, merely states that Wulfstan held the see for 32 years 4 months and 3 weeks, which, reckoning four weeks to the month, fixes the date of his decease on January 19, 1095. It is significant that both the Vita and the Chronicle of Florence place the death of Wulfstan on Saturday night, for neither the 19th nor the 18th of the month in 1095 was a Saturday, and Wulfstan must therefore have died on January 20. It may be added that in a calendar (Bodl. Hatton 113) which at one time belonged to the bishop himself, his death is inserted in an eleventh-century hand on the day of Saints Fabian and Sebastian, January 20. The difference of one day does not materially affect Hemming's calculation.

^{page xliii note 2} Round, Feudal England, pp. 308–314.

^{page xliii note 3} Gest. Pont., p. 289, note 3.

^{page xliv note 1} Siward of Rochester died in 1075. Stigand, bishop of Selsey, was apparently not an Englishman; the name was common in both Normandy and England.

^{page xliv note 2} Eadmer (Ed. Rule), pp. 45, 46. Wulfstan was asked to inform the archbishop whether the metropolitan might consecrate churches situated in his lands outside his own diocese, for the bishop of London had disputed his claim to do so. Wulfstan replied that there were in the diocese of Worcester altars and churches in lands once the private property of archbishop Stigand, which the archbishop had consecrated without consulting the bishop of Worcester.

^{page xlv note 1} Folcard (Raine, Historians of York, I, pp. 240–242), The Northumbrian Priests' Law may also be regarded as evidence of Ealdred's reforms.

^{page xlv note 2} Raine, Hist, of York, II, p. 108.

^{page xlv note 3} Hunter, See of Wells (C.S.), pp. 15–20.

^{page xlv note 4} Book II, c. 10, p. 154 infra (reference to the pirate de Mareis).

^{page xlv note 5} The archdeacon of Gloucester was deputed to make such an enquiry and exacted an oath from the witnesses on the high altar on sacred relics and in the presence of all the people (II, c. 21). See also II, c. 12 and c. 15.

^{page xlvi note 1} This hypothesis is supported by the appearance of the same miracle twice over (once in each book) in precisely the same language (I, c. 29 and II, c. 20). Some of the chapters end with “amen ” and read like sermons.

^{page xlvi note 2} Ann. Man., IV, p. 395.

^{page xlvi note 3} Bk. I, c. 43.

^{page xlvi note 4} Gest. Pont., pp. 288–9.

^{page xlvi note 5} Flor. Wig. (Thorpe), II, p. 66.

^{page xlvi note 6} Weaver, p. 30.

^{page xlvi note 7} Ann. Mon., IV, p. 392.

^{page xlvii note} The chasuble had not perished, but of the mitre only the golden embroidery remained, while the shroud appears to have decayed. Some difficulty was experienced in separating the bones from one another and the hair from the head on which the corona was still visible. Having removed the clothing from the corpse, they placed the garments and ornaments in one shrine and the flesh and bones in another. Bishop John's death on September 28 of the same year (Ann. Man., IV., p. 389) was regarded as a punishment for his irreverent procedure.

^{page xlvii note 2} Mentioned in the Annals of Worcester (Ann. Mon., IV, p. 391) as well as in the Miracles (opening rubric) and Translation (par. 7).

^{page xlvii note 3} The Annals of Worcester incorrectly place this event under 1204 (Ann. Mon., IV, p. 392).

^{page xlvii note 4} Ann. Mon., IV, p. 391.

^{page xlviii note 1} A copy is given in the Miracles (Bk. II, c. 1). There is a transcript in MS. Royal 4, C. ii, fo. 146b in the British Museum.

^{page xlviii note 2} Ann. Mon., IV, p. 391.

^{page xlviii note 3} Portions of the relics were given to the prelates present so that the saintmight be honoured in many places.

^{page xlviii note 4} Ann. Mon., I, pp. 209–210.

^{page xlviii note 5} John was not the only king who paid special devotion to Wulfstan, for a number of passages in the Annals of Worcester show that Edward I visited the shrine and gave substantial offerings. Wulfstan seems to have retained considerable popularity throughout the Middle Ages, and many churches; boasted portions of his remains.

^{page xlix note 1} Book I, c. 18.

^{page xlix note 2} II, c. 5.

^{page xlix note 3} I, c. 34.

^{page xlix note 4} I, c. 41.

^{page xlix note 5} I, c. 19.

^{page xlix note 6} II, c. 4.

^{page xlix note 7} II, c. 6.

^{page xlix note 8} II, c. 14.

^{page xlix note 9} II, c. 13.

^{page xlix note 10} I, c. 33.

^{page l note 1} Book I, c. 37.

^{page l note 2} I, c. 19; II, c. 22.

^{page l note 3} II, c. 18.

^{page l note 4} e.g. I, c. 17.

^{page l note 5} e.g. I, c. 33; II, c. 9.

^{page l note 6} I, c. 13.

^{page l note 7} I, c. 15.

^{page l note 8} II, c. 19.

^{page l note 9} I, c. 34; II, c. 17.

^{page l note 10} e.g. II, c. 16, when the brilliance of her appearance was said to have exceeded by far that of Wulfstan.

^{page l note 11} I, c. 43.

^{page li note 1} Book I, c. 34.

^{page li note 2} I, c. 32.

^{page li note 3} II, c. 10. Vit. Wulst., II, c. 19.

^{page li note 4} I, c. 23.

^{page li note 5} Infra, p. 185.

^{page li note 6} I, c. 21.

^{page li note 7} II, c. 7.

^{page li note 8} I, c. 16.

^{page li note 9} I, c. 27.

^{page li note 10} Bk. I, c. 33.

^{page li note 11} II, c. 18.

^{page li note 12} I, c, 12.

^{page lii note 1} Book II, c. 18

^{page lii note 2} II, c. 11.

^{page lii note 3} II, c. 15.

^{page lii note 4} II, c. 16 and note.

^{page lii note 5} II, c. 15.

^{page lii note 6} I, c. 31.

^{page lii note 7} I, c. 43 and note.

^{page lii note 8} I, c. 44 and note.