"Ego Wulfsius Abbas S Petri Westmonasterii extra London subnotavi."*

From this I would contend that he could not have been bishop before that date (966), and consequently that he could not have died in 958. Had he been bishop antecedently to 966 doubtless he would not have subscribed himself by his lesser dignity. Hutchins, the historian of Dorset,† would fix his consecration to Sherborne at 966" at the earliest." Now I think that would be too early, for he could hardly have been bishop while Alfwold was bishop; and Alfwold, according to Godwin's own account on the authority of Flor. Vig. did not die till 978.

The indefatigable and accurate bishop Tanner, speaking of Sherborne, says, "a bishoprick was erected here by king Ina, about A. D. 705, and here was a house of secular canons as early as the bishoprick, if not before; but A. D. 998, § Wulfsin, bishop of this see, by the consent of king Ethelred, changed these canons into benedictine monks, and built an abbey for

* Hist. p. 44. 1. 11. edit. Ox. 1684. Richardson quotes f. 501. b.

+ Hist. Dors. 2. p. 373. col. 1.

Not. Mon. Dorset xxv. Shireburn. See also Hearne in Leland Itin. vol. 2. p. 79. or folio 49.

§ lb.

them,* whose revenues were confirmed by pope Eugenius," &c. How, then, can Godwin place Wulfsin's death at 958? Add to the foregoing, that Hearne expressly says, " in this Godwin is to be corrected; that he makes him to have died in 958, whereas it is very probable he did not enter upon his bishoprick till some years after that time; since, according to the charter, he must have been living in the year 998."

The precise year of his succession, how long he sat, and when he died, historians are not agreed. If the constitutions for ordaining monks, written by him by command of Ethelred, in the Cotton Library, be genuine, and if Tanner be correct, it will be established that he was living and bishop in 998. Fleet fixes his death at 1004, with which Dart, in his Westmonasterium, also agrees.

But, on the other hand, if he lived to this period, what would then become of the seven bishops whom Godwin places as his successors from the year 958? Their names are Alfwold, Ethelric, Ethelsius, Brithwin, Elmer, Birnwin,

Though there is no dispute as to the date that Tanner assigns for this foundation, yet we must observe that his editor, Nasmith, corrects him as to the purpose of the foundation. The latter says it was only a priory, till bishop Roger united it to the abbey of Horton. See Mon. Ang. tom 1. p. 62, and Tanner Not. Mon. art. Sherborne.

G

and Ethelwold. Eadmer,* as we have already observed, adduces Alfwold as subscribing 'bishop' to a charter of Edgar in 966. Now if Sherborne had been his diocese, about which no one ever raised a doubt, how would that date agree with Wulfsinus being bishop in that year, as Hutchins supposes? There is nothing to warrant the idea of their having both been bishops in the same year; and, besides, Florentius tells us that Alfwold lived till 978.†

If with Godwin we admit him to have succeeded on bishop Alfred's death in 940, and to have died 958, what will become of the records and charters that bear his signature posterior to that period? Are they to be deemed forgeries? and are we also to suppose that Dunstan appointed him abbot of Westminster, when he was already bishop of Sherborne? And again, if he was bishop of Sherborne in 966, would he then have subscribed himself "Abbot of Westminster ?"

We have bishop Alfwold signing bishop' in 966. We have also Wulfsin signing only as abbot in the same year. We have Alfwold's death fixed by Florentius at 978; and relying on

Hist. Novel. fol. Lond. 1623. p. 160.

+ Edit. Lond. 1592. p. 362.

the constitutions referred to, as well as Tanner, we may safely assert that Wulfsin did not die before 998. How much longer he survived is another question. His succession may be placed at 978, and his death, with Fleet, &c. at 1004. To place Alfwold and Ethelsius after him, seems to me a direct violation of chronology.

Matthew of Westminster, and Capgrave,† relate, that this prelate at his death exclaimed, like the proto-martyr, Stephen, “I see the heavens opened, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God." The latter also records some miracles.

After the example of his patron he is said to have ejected the secular priests from the church of Sherborne, and brought in monks by charter of Ethelred, in 998, on which account he is a great favorite of our monastic writers, and highly extolled by Malmesbury, "tho'," as Hutchins says, he could not prevail on the monks to let him appoint an abbot over them. Now Hutchins's use of the word "tho'," implies detraction, and would convey the idea of a

De Pontif. p. 248.

+ Legenda. fol. cccxxxi.

Lel. Collect. 2. 251.

§ Hist. Dorset. 2. 373.

66

refractory spirit in the monks; but the very contrary, I apprehend, ought to have been expressed. This refusal, as in Aldhelm's case, no doubt was meant as a compliment. Malmesbury* says their reason was, quod ejus dulci dominatione dum adviverent carere nequirent." In Malmesbury's time, bishop Wulfsin's staff, and other pontifical insignia, were preserved at Sherborne.

Stubbs p.15.

XX. BRITHWIN.

SUCCESSIT FORTASSE CIR. A. D. 1004. NON ANTE 998.
OBIIT 1009.

Of the four bishops who followed after the death of Wulfsin, whenever that event might have taken place, little or nothing is known beyond their bare names (" præter nuda nomina") viz. XX. Brithwin, or Brithric, who died 1009, as Richardson, on the authority of Matthew of Westminster, states, without citing the passage. XXI. Elmer. XXII. Brinwin, alias Brithwyn. And XXIII. Elfwold. It is certain that all these flourished before 1058, but their respective periods can not be ascertained through the discrepancy of the Monkish writers.

De Pontif. lib. 2. p. 248.