[MISSION OF GEORGE AND THEOPHYLACT.] make the rumour of Offa's hostility hardly worth refuting, and would certainly seem to necessitate a warmer expression of friendship towards him than appears in this letter. The messengers of Offa may have been the envoys sent to request the pall for Higbert, or more probably an earlier mission, of which the legation of George and Theophylact would be the result. A.D. 786. Mission of George and Theophylact to England. SIM. DUN., ad ann. 786a. Tempore illo legati ab Apostolica Sede a domino Adriano Papa ad Britanniam directi sunt, in quibus venerabilis Episcopus Georgius b primatum tenuit, qui antiquam inter nos amicitiam et fidem catholicam quam Sanctus Gregorius Papa per beatum Augustinum docuit innovantes, honorifice suscepti sunt a regibus et a præsulibus sive a principibus et primatibus hujusce patriæ, et in pace domum reversi sunt cum magnis donis, ut justum erat. [M. H. B. 666.] The date as given by Simeon belongs apparently to the mission and arrival of the legates; they landed in Kent, and after conferring with the Archbishop proceeded to the court of Offa, where they were met by Kynewulf King of Wessex. Kynewulf was killed in A.D. 786, after a reign of thirty-one years, which began in A.D. 755. As the councils of the North and South were held, according to the most trustworthy evidence, in A.D. 787, the fact that he is no more heard of in connexion with the mission of the legates is thus accounted for. From the court of Offa Bishop George proceeded to Northumbria, where after some delay he got the King and the Bishops to hold a council, the report of which is given in his letter to Pope Adrian (below, p. 447). After the Northern council George returned to the court of Offa, under whose protection a council of the Bishops of the Southern province was held; and their confirmation, with that of Offa himself with his abbots and ealdormen, was procured to the decrees of the Northern council. The Northern council may be identified with great probability with that of Pincanhale, and the Southern with that of Chelsea or Cealchyth, the dates and authorities of which are given below. b George is called by Spelman Gregory, on the authority, as he says, of Hoveden. Hoveden however, in both printed copies and MSS., calls him George. The mistake is followed by Wilkins, and countenanced even by the editors of the M. H. B. The person meant is George Bishop of Ostia, who filled that see for many years, and discharged many important missions under Stephen III., Paul I., Stephen IV., and Adrian I. He has letters commendatory to Charles in A.D. 783 (Jaffé, Reg. Pontiff., p. 209). Theophylact, his companion (p. 445), was the Bishop of Todi (Tudertinus), who took part in the proceedings of the Council of Frankfort in A.D. 794. A.D. 787. Synod of Northumbria at Pincahalaa. SIM. DUN., ad ann. 787 b. Synodus congregata est in Pincahala IV. nonas Septembris. In quo tempore Alberht abbas Hripensis © ex rapidis flatibus hujus sæculi spiritum emisit ad superos æternæ felicitatis jubilos. [M. H. B. 666. See W., I. 153; S., I. 304.] A. S. C., ad annum 788. Her was sinoð gegaderad on Norðhymbra lande æt Wincanheale, on This year a synod was assembled in the land of the Northumbrians at Wincanheale, on the [LEGATINE SYNODS.] IIII. non. Septemb: and Aldberht a Pincahala, or Wincanheale, the place at which this synod of the Northern province was held, is identified by Spelman (p. 305), and after him by Wilkins, and generally, with Finchale, near Durham. Wincanheale seems to have been a place of frequent public meetings under the Northumbrian Kings; it was there that Ethelwald lost his kingdom, probably by deprivation, in A.D. 765 (Sim. Dun., M. H. B. 663), and another council was held there by Eanbald II. in A.D. 798 (Sim. Dun., M. H. B. 670). Smith (on Bede, H. E., III. 27) identifies it with Pægnalaech, the burialplace of Bishop Tuda, and both with Finchale: but Tuda's burial-place is called in the Chronicle Wagele (A. S. C., ed. Thorpe, I. 56), by which Whalley in Lancashire is probably meant. Alfred's translation of Bede turns Pægnalaech into Peginaleab (ed. Smith, 558). The printed copies of Matthew of Westminster read Finchale in mentioning the council. So far as name goes, Wincle in Cheshire, which is called in the Taxatio P. 4th of the nones of September, and abbot Aldberht died at Ripon. Nicolai Wynkhull, comes nearest to the mark. b The date of the council is given by Florence of Worcester and the Chronicle as Sept. 2, A.D. 788 (M. H. B. 337, 546); and by Henry of Huntingdon in the fifth year of Brihtric King of Wessex; but both writers draw their information from the Northumbrian Chronicle, which is represented by Simeon, and the authority of which in this matter is paramount. In all three the Northumbrian council is thus made to follow the Southern, supposing the identification of the one with that of Pincanhale and the other with that of Chelsea to be correct. • Albert succeeded abbot Botwin, the friend and correspondent of Lullus, in the abbacy of Ripon in A.D. 786 (Sim. Dun., M. H. B. 666). As his name appears among the abbots present at the Northumbrian council (below, p. 460), the mention of him here serves to confirm the identification of that assembly with this of Pincanhale. A.D. 787. Synod of Celchyth or Chelseaa. A. S. C., ad annum 785 b.-Her was geflitfullic senop æt Cealchype, and Jaenbryht Arcebisceop forlet sumne dæl his bisceopdomes, and from Offan kyninge Hygebryht was gecoren and Ecgferp to cyninge gehalgod. [M. H. B. 336, from six MSS.] A. S. C., ad annum 785.-And in pas tid wæron ærendracan gesend of Rome fram Adrianum Papan to Englalande, to niwanne pone geleafan, and pa sibbe pe Ses Gregorius us sende purh pone Biscop Augustinum; and hi man mid weorðscipe underfeang. [M. H. B. 336, from three MSS.] This year there was a contentious synod at Cealchythe, and Archbishop Jaenbryht gave up some portion of his bishoprick; and Higebryht was elected by King Offa; and Ecgferth d was consecrated king. And at this time messengers were sent from Rome by Pope Adrian to England, to renew the faith and the peace which S. Gregory had sent us by Augustine the Bishop, and they were worshipfully received. [LEGATINE SYNODS.] H. HUNT. Cujus [sc. Brichtric] anno secundo Adrianus Papa misit legatos in Brittanniam ad renovandam fidem quam prædicaverat Augustinus. Ipsi vero honorifice a regibus et populis suscepti, super fundamentum stabile ædificaverunt pulchre Christi misericordia cooperante. Tenuerunt autem concilium apud Cealchide, ubi Jambert dimisit partem Episcopatus sui. Ibi etiam Higebrit electus est ab Offa Rege. Eodem anno Egfert sacratus est in Regem Kentensis provinciæ. [M. H. B. 731.] LEO III., Epist. ad Kenulfum Regem.—* * * * * quod Offa Rex pro victoria regni quam tenuit Beato Petro auctori suo signiferum et comitem in ipso regno utens atque amplectens, coram synodo tam omnibus Episcopis seu principibus atque optimatibus cunctoque populo insula Brytanniæ morantibus, quamque et nostri fidelissimi missi Georgii et Theophylacti, sanctissimis Episcopis, votum vovit eidem Dei Apostolo Beato Petro clavigero regni cœlorum, ut per unumquemque annum scilicet quantos dies annus habuerit, tantos mancusas eidem Dei Apostolo ecclesiæ nimirum CCCLXV. pro alimonia pauperum et luminariorum concinnatione emittere, quod et fecit. [A. S., I. 461, from MS. Cotton, Vespasian A. XIV. fo. 172.] a Cealchythe was identified with Culcheth in Lancashire by Gibson (Anglo-Sax. Chron., App. 18), following Archbishop Parker (Antiqq. p. 93): Spelman preferred a Mercian site, in which he is undoubtedly right. Alford (Annales, II. 647) first pointed out Chelsea as the probable place, and on a comparison of the charters where the word occurs, there seems no reasonable doubt that this is right. Newcourt (Repertorium, I. 583) gives as the old forms of the name Chelsea, Chelcheth, Chelchybeth, Chelchyth, Chelchith; the form Chelsey appearing first in A.D. 1554. The form in the Taxation of Pope Nicolas is Chelcheth. Any site near London, which was regarded as locally in Mercia, would be a good place of meeting for the West-Saxon, Kentish, and Mercian Bishops. Henry of Huntingdon's date for this council, the second year of Brihtric, agrees with the computation by which it is placed under A.D. 787. The difficulties arising from the identification of the council of Chelsea with that of the legates, arises (1) from the fact that the former is placed by the three MSS. of the Chronicle that mention it, before the legatine council; and (2) that the report of the legates contains no mention of the act which created the Archbishopric of Lichfield, and which in all the authorities is fixed to the council of Chelsea. But (1) if the promotion of Higbert to the rank of Archbishop had taken place before the legatine council, it is most improbable that it would have left no trace among the attestations of the acts (below, p. 460), in which the name of Higbert occupies the place which the Bishop of Lichfield usually did in a Mercian Witenagemot; and (2) the omission of any mention of the act in the report of the legates may be accounted for by the fact that it is manifestly imperfect, concluding abruptly with the signatures of the Southern council. If it be granted, as seems certain, that the act by which the dignity of the see of Canterbury was so grievously impaired was not done before this council was held, it was merely the initiatory steps that could be taken at it; Jaenbert might be induced to give up his rights, and Higbert might be elected by Offa to the new archiepiscopate; but the recognition of the act by the see of Rome would be necessary to complete the measure by which S. Gregory's scheme of organization was so widely departed from, and the title of Archbishop could not safely be taken, in opposition to the protests of Canterbury, before the pall was brought from Rome. It is : [LEGATINE SYNODS.] As the natural to conclude that the mission of the legates, already sufficiently protracted, would not be prolonged until a second synod could be brought together, and that accordingly the tradition which Henry of Huntingdon represents may be the true one. Northern council was held as late as September, A.D. 787, it is possible that the Southern one may be pushed on to the beginning of A.D. 788 the journey to Rome for the pall, and the return of the messengers, would occupy great part of a year. This must account for the fact that there is a charter extant, dated at Celchyth in A.D. 788, and signed by Higbert as Bishop (K. C. D., CLIII.). In another (K. C. D., CLII.), dated in the same year, he appears as Archbishop. The former was probably issued before, the latter after, the reception of the pall; or the former may possibly belong to the council itself. e Higbert was the only person who ever bore the title of Archbishop of Lichfield. He had been Bishop since A.D. 779, in which year he appears in the Witenagemot of Hartleford as "electus præsul;" his predecessor Berhtun signing charters as late as A.D. 777 (K. C. D., CXXXI., CXXXVII.). He attests Offa's charter of A.D. 781 (K. C.D., CXLIII.), and the name is attached to several questionable ones. After his election to the archiepiscopate he signs as Archbishop, in A.D. 788 (K. C. D., CLII.), in A.D. 789 (K. C. D., CLV., CLVI., CLVII.); in A. D. 794 (K. C. D., CLXIV., CLXVII.), taking precedence of the Archbishop of Canterbury; in A.D. 798 (K. C. D., CLXXV.), and in A.D. 799 (K. C. D., MXX.). A questionable charter of A.D. 801 (K. C. D., MXXIII.) bears his attestation as Bishop; and in the important synod of Clovesho, held in A.D. 803, his name as Abbot follows that of his successor in the see of Lichfield, Aldulf. Notwithstanding the statements of the Chronicle, William of Malmesbury, for the error cannot be traced farther back, states that the name of the new Archbishop was Aldulf (G. P., ed. Hamilton, p. 16; G. R., ed. Hardy, p. 119). In this he was followed by Matthew Paris (Vitæ duorum Offanorum, ed. Wats, pp. 21, 22), who adds to the mistake by giving Aldulf a successor in the archiepiscopate named Humbert, or Berthun (Ibid., pp. 22, 28; M. Westm., p. 147). Ralph de Diceto (ed. Twysden, c. 445) was misled by the same authority, which was generally followed until Mr. Baron, in his edition of Johnson's Canons, pointed out and rectified the mistake. Even Henry Wharton was led into this error, and followed Alford in identifying Aldulf as Archbishop of Lichfield with a Bishop of the same name who was consecrated by the Northumbrian prelates at Corbridge in A.D. 786 (Sim. Dun., M. H. B. 666). This Aldulf however was another person, and unquestionably the Bishop who as Myiensis Episcopus attests the canons of the legatine council of Northumbria (below, p. 460). He was Bishop of the Saxon colony of Mayo on the west coast of Ireland, consecrated in succession to the Bishops Hadwin (A.D. 768) and Leuthferth (A. D. 773) (Sim. Dun., M. H. B. 663). This confusion led Wharton to reject all the charters to which the name of Higbert as Archbishop is appended (A. S., I. 429, 430), and may have been the origin of William of Malmesbury's initial mistake. The ancient lists of the Bishops of Lichfield, although they contain no notice of the archiepiscopate, avoid the error, and fully bear out the evidence of the charters (M. H. B. 623). Henry of Huntingdon also escapes it. d The nomination of Egferth as his father's colleague in this council is borne out by the evidence of charters, in the same way as the election of Higbert. The first charter in which he appears as King is the same as that in which Higbert first appears as Archbishop, that of Offa to Rochester of A.D. 788 (K. C. D., CLII.). He attests his father's charters of A.D. 789 (K. C. D., CLV., CLVII.) as King; but those of A.D. 794 (K. C. D., CLXIV.,CLXVII.) as filius regis only. Where he signs as King, it is of the Mercians, not of Kent, as Henry of Huntingdon supposed. In A.D. 796, on his father's death, he became sole King. Many charters of that year bear his name, some of them certainly spurious. From the fact that his promotion synchronizes with that of Higbert, it is natural to conclude that his assumption of the royal title awaited the Papal recognition, to which so much importance had become attached owing to the recent change in the Frank dynasty. e The statement that Jaenbert lost part of his bishopric is amplified by William of Malmesbury with a number of details which are inexact; the passage is as follows: "Simul regnum Merciorum archiepiscopatu insignire affectans, epistolis ad Adrianum Papam et fortassis muneribus egit ut pallio Licetfeldensem Episcopum contra morem veterum efferret, omnesque Mertiorum pontifices ei subjugaret; quorum hæc fuerunt nomina; Denebertus Wigornensis, Werenbertus Legecestrensis, Edulfus Sidnacestrensis, Wlferd Herefordensis, et duos Orientalium Anglorum Episcopos Allhard Helmanensem, Titfrid Dammucensem. Vocabatur autem Episcopus Licetfeldensis Aldulfus. Plures enim Episcopatus pro potentia sua Offa in Mertiis fecerat, [LEGATINE SYNODS.] et Orientales Anglos occiso rege eorum Ethelbrihto invaserat. Remanserunt autem quatuor Episcopi Archiepiscopo Cantuariensi, Landoniensis, Wintoniensis, Rofensis, Selesiensis" (G. P., ed. Hamilton, p. 16). In this instance, as in the more famous one of Plegmund's consecration of the seven Bishops, the Chronicler has been misled by his desire of filling up the outline drawn by his authorities: and he has been followed by Ralph de Diceto (c. 445), who however names the sees only, without identifying the Bishops; and by Matthew Paris (Vita Offanorum, p. 22). It is possible that the division of the sees is correct, with the exception of the omission of the see of Sherborne; but the identification of their occupants is wrong, as may be ascertained from charters. At Worcester, Denebert did not become Bishop before A.D. 798; at Leicester, Werenbert only became Bishop in A.D. 802; Eadulf of Lindsey was still "elec tus" in A.D. 796; Wulf hard of Hereford succeeded after A.D. 798; Alheard of Elmham certainly lived through the whole contest; Tidfrith of Dunwich succeeded about A.D. 798. It is possible that William of Malmesbury took the names from a charter of A.D. 803 (K. C. D., CLXXXV.), and that instead of naming those Bishops who were made subject to Lichfield he named their successors who returned to the obedience of Canterbury. The professions of obedience made by Bishops Eadulf, Denebert, Wulfhard, and Tidfrith to Archbishop Ethelheard are extant; and as these were made, according to the regular usage, during the office of consecration, it is possible that all these were consecrated by Ethelheard; and if so, it may be inferred that the authority of Lichfield collapsed at the death of Offa. On this however see more below. A.D. 787. Report of the Legates George and Theophylact of their Proxmium ad Adrianum Papam I. Nos, faventibus sanctis orationibus vestris, hilari vultu vestris jussionibus obtemperantes perreximus: sed impedivit nos is, qui tentat vento contrario; Ille vero Qui mitificat fluctus, exaudita vestra deprecatione, mitificavit cœrulea freta, et transvexit nos ad portum salutis: ac licet multis periculis afflictos, tamen illæsos. Anglorum appulit oris. Igitur suscepti primum ab Archiepiscopo Jaenbarcho sanctæ Dorovernensis ecclesiæ, quæ alio vocabulo Cantia vocitatur, ubi Sanctus Augustinus in corpore requiescit: inibi residentes admonuimus ea quæ necessaria erant. Inde peragrantes pervenimus ad aulam Offæ Regis Merciorum. At ille cum ingenti gaudio, ob reverentiam beati Petri, et vestri Apostolatus, honore suscepit tam nos quam sacros apices a summa sede delatos. Tunc convenerunt in unum consilium Offa Rex Merciorum, et Chuniulphus b Rex West-Saxonum: cui etiam tradidimus vestra syngrammata sancta; ac illi continuo promiserunt, se de his vitiis corrigendos. Tunc inito consilio cum prædictis regibus, pontificibus et senioribus terræ, perpendentes quod angulus ille longe lateque protenditur permisimus Theophylactum venerabilem Episcopum, Regem Merciorum et Britanniæ partes adire. Ego autem assumpto mecum adjutore, quem filius vester excellentissimus Rex Carolus |