An Early Welsh Microcosm: Studies in the Llandaff Charters 0901050334

Citation preview

ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY STUDIES IN HISTORY SERIES

No. 9

AN EARLY WELSH MICROCOSM : Studies in the Llandaff Charters

Other volumes in this series The Politics of Stability: A Portrait of the Rulers in Elizabethan London

2

The Frankish Church and The Carolingian Reforms, 789-895 John Burns

Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Scotland,

Frank F. Foster R o s a m o n dMcKitterick

Kenneth Brown

AN EARLY W E L S H

David Stevenson

MICROCOSM

1644-1651

5

The Queen's Tw o Bodies: Drama and the E l i z a b e t h a nSuccession

6

Great Britain and International Security,

Marie Axton

S t u d i e s in the Llandaff C h a r t e r s

Anne Orde

1920-1926

7

Legal Records and the Historian

8

Church and State in Independent Mexico: A Study of the Patronage Debate

J. H. Baker (ed.) Michael P. Costeloe

1821-1857

Wendy Davies Lecturer in History University College, London

LONDON C o p i e sobtainable on order from

Swift Printers, 1-7 Albion Place, Britton Street, London EC1M SRE

ROYAL HISTORICAL SOCIETY 1978

© Wendy Davies 1978 ISBN 0 901050 33 4

FOR

BILL TOM AND PETE

The Society records its gratitude to the following, whose generosity made possible the initiation of t h i s series: The British Academy; The Pilgrim Trust; The Twenty-Seven Foundation; The United States Embassy's bicentennial funds; The Wolfson Trust; several private donors. This volume is published with the help of a grant from the late Miss Isobel Thornley's Bequest to the University of London.

Printed in England

by Swift Printers Ltd London E.C.1.

CONTENTS

List of maps Preface

Conventions and abbreviations

ix

X

PART ONE: THE SOURCES Introduction - The Problem of Source Material 2

2

The Landaff Charters and the Making of the Liber Landavensis

7

PA RT TWO: AN EARLY MEDIEVAL HISTORY OF S O U T H E A S T WALES 3

Land and Land Use

24

4

The Changing Pattern of Exploitation Kings and Kingship

43

5

65

6

Social Organisation

108

7

Churches and Religious Communities

121

8

The Problem of Ecclesiastical Authority

139

Postscript: Land, State a n dChurch

160

Appendix: Calendar o fcharters

164

I n d e x of Charters

190

Index

194

vili

ix

MAPS Map 1 Map 2

Size and Distribution o f all Locatable Grants

27 31

Royal Appearances and Grants, Sixth to Eleventh Centuries

Map 3

This book is the product of a decade of pondering over the meaning of the Landaff charter material, and was written • largely in the

Roman Roads o f south-east Wales and

focal points of Charters Maps A•L

P R E FA C E

S o u t h - e a s t Wa l e s

76-87 189

summer of 1974 - after a long period devoted t odetailed critical analysis of those charters. I had hoped to publish it together with the analysis, on which the validity of its viewpoint must rest, b u tsuch are the economics of publishing that this has become an unrealisticproject. I can but lament the divorce of my comment from both text and critical apparatus, and its appearance before the appearance of the essential tools, and hope the deficiency will be partially remedied by the National Library of Wales through its project to reprint the text of Evans's Liber Landavensis, and my The Llandaff Charters. In the meantime, the Calendar o fCharters included here may provide a brief guide to the primary material. The present work is offered as an interpretation of the development of south-east Wales in the early medieval period, by exploiting the full potential of the charter material. Its writing • and the questions it asks - dependsvery much on the stimulus provided by my former colleagues in the University

of Birmingham, their constant questioning, and their willingness to

discuss common or related problems. Although I would not wish to implicate any individuals in my formulation of the problems - or my particular answers - I should like to record the especial debt I owe to the vigour of my medieval colleagues, and especially to Michael Hendy who first provoked me to write the book; to Tom Davis, whose pungent criticism has saved it from the worst excesses of my cumbersome style; to Lorna Watts, who drew the maps with such care

and copedpatiently with the economic limitations; and to the

University of Birmingham Publications Fund which covered the cost of making the maps. I am grateful for the continued support of many other people, particularly those who worked so hard to ensure publication and the officers of the Royal Historical Society w h omade

it possible. I would mention especially the valuable comments of Christopher Brooke, thelate Kathleen Hughes, Dafydd Jenkins, Morfydd Owen, and Liam de Paor, who read early drafts, and of Janet Godden, who has seen the book through the press; the practical assistance and

encouragement offered by the late Professor Richards, who generously made available all his material on place-names; and the enthusiasm and

inspiration of the late John Morris, who initially stimulated my interest

in the Llandaff material. Lastly, in this as in all of my work, nothing

would have been completed without my mother, whose confide nce has been unfailing and whose assistance has always been gladly offered. Wendy Davies

University College London January 1978

xi

X

C O N V E N T I O N S A N D A B B R E V I AT I O N S Though the records of the transactions which form the essence of the material discussed in this book are different in form from the bulk

of western European diplomatic material, they do not lack any of the essentials of a charter; I therefore see no reason to refer to them as anything other than charters. They are numbered in accordance with the page of Evans's edition of the Liber Landavensis on which each begins, distinguishing a, b, c etc. where more than one begin on the

same page, though I have also numbered them consecutively ni the Appendix. When quoting I have modernised the punctuation and

EHR

English Historical Review.

Gildas, De Excidio

Gildae De Excidio Britanniae,

Professor Richards in

his Welsh Administrative and

HB

HE

Historia Brittonum cum additamentis Nenni, in Chronica Minora saec. iv.v.vi.vii, ed. .T Mommsen, ii, MGH AA, x i , Berlin, 1898, гер. 1961. Venerabilis Baedae Historiam Ecclesiasticam, ed.

C .

Plummer, Oxford, 1896. Latin Texts

H.D. Emanuel, The Latin Texts of the Welsh Laws, Cardiff, 1967.

LL

Territorial Units (Cardiff, 1969) and in Rhestr o Enwau Leoedd, ed. E. Davies (2nd. ed., Cardiff, 1958). Personal names have been modernised (without discussion) where the modern form is obvious; but since this is arguable in many cases, a high proportion has been left in the form

H . Williams,

1901.

expanded abbreviations. I have used the forms of modern place-names

preferred by

ed.

Cymmrodorion Record Series, i , London, 1899.

The Text of the Book of Llan Dav, ed.

J.G.

Evans

with .J Rhys,Oxford, 1893. Llyfr Blegywryd

S.J. Williams and J.E. Powell, Cyfreithiau HywelDda

yn dl Llyfr Blegywryd, Cardiff, 1942.

Llyfr Iorwerth

Llyfr Iorwerth, ed. A.R. Wiliam, Cardiff, 1960.

texts, I have only used one form to refer to each individual.

NLWJ

National Library o f Wales Journal.

The following abbreviations are used: Annales Cambriae, ed. E. Phillimore, Y Cymmrodor, AC ix (1888), 152-69, for entries to 954; Annales Cambriae, ed. J. Williams ab Ithel, Rolls Series, 1860, for entries after 954.

Sawyer

P.H. Sawyer, Anglo-Saxon Charters. An Annotated List and Bibliography, Royal Historical Society, 1968.

VC Vita Pauli

Vita Cadoci, ni VSB. 'Vie de S. Paul de Léon', ed. Ch. Cuissard, Revue Celtique, v (1881-3), 417-59.

Vita Samsonis

La Vie de S. Samson, ed.

VSB

A.W. Genealogiae, Cardiff, 1944.

WHR

Welsh History Review.

of the manuscript; whatever the variations of the different charter

Armes Prydein

Armes Prydein, ed. Ifor Williams, Cardiff 1955; English version by Rachel Bromwich, Dublin, 1972.

ASC

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, trans. and ed. D. Whitelock with D.C. Douglas and S.I. Tucker, London, 1961.

Bartrum

Early Welsh Genealogical Tracts, ed. P.C. Bartrum, Cardiff, 1966.

BBCS

Bulletin o f the B o a r d o f Celtic Studies.

Birch

Canu Aneirin

W . de Gray Birch, Cartularium Saxonicum, London, 1885-93. Canu Aneirin, ed. Ifor Williams, Cardiff, 1938.

C a n u Ta l i e s i n

Canu Taliesin, ed. Ifor Williams, Cardiff, 1960.

1-111,

Domesday Book Domesday Book, seu liber censualis, ed. A. Farley, London, 1783. ECMW

V.E. Nash-Williams, The Early Christian Monuments of Wales, Cardiff, 1950.

R . Fawtier, Paris, 1912. Wade-Evans, Vitae Sanctorum Britanniae et

PA RT O N E

THE SOURCES

of pre-Conquest origin, although that proportion remains difficult to define; and there is a significant corpus of Welsh poetry, which is

Introduction - The Problem of Source Material

clearly pre-Conquest but whose precise date si far from beingagreed?

The history of early medieval Wales is intrinsically no less interesting and no less significant than that of any other part of early medieval Europe. Indeed, it has a particular interest because Wales is one of the

ni non-Welsh sources like Bede's Ecclesiastical History, the Anglo-

few areas of the West Roman Empire which did not experience Germanic settlement in the migration period; because it reared a isolated from the main society which was - on the whole -

political and economic developments of the early medieval period; and because - though not without its contacts - it housed a small but

complete world of its own. It allows us to investigate, therefore, not merely the devolution of Roman society, once the apparatus of central state control was removed, but also a very special type of preindustrial society.

Despite its interest, the early medieval development of Wales has remained essentially obscure because of the paucity of source material and the difficulties of understanding that which we have. There is some very brief annalistic material, which appears to be contemporary at least from the late eighth century; the works of Gildas in the early sixth and of 'Nennius' in the early ninth; a corpus of stone

inscriptions from the late fifth to the eleventh centuries; a corpus of

Both archaeology and place-name studies have much to offer but although the groundwork is now being established, no synthesis will be

possible for some years.Apart from the very fewincidental references

Saxon Chronicle, Asser's Life of Alfred and Domesday Book, all that

remains si a body of charter material.. This comprises six marginalia

in the 'Lichfield Gospels', dating from the eighth and ninth centuries, and fourteen charters attached to the Vita Cadoci, whose date is not established but which probably belong to the late seventh and eighth

centuries; and 158 charters in the Liber Landavensis. Given the scantiness and problematic nature of the other source

material, the

Llandaff charters present an extremely important,

detailed corpus of precise material, localised to the south east and referring to much of the pre-Conquest period. Potentially, they provide

access to a systematic analysisof the society and locality to which they

relate. The Landaff charters, however, are not without their own problems. They occur in a large and miscellaneous episcopal collection,

the Liber Landavensis. This is a substantial book, of 336 columns,

written for the most part in twelfth-century hands. Its contents are

various, but all pertain in some way to the bishopric: 'Lives of Dyfrig,

genealogies of the mid-tenth century and later; a few Welsh glosses of

Teilo and Euddogwy, the founding bishops and patron saints of

some

papal bulls of the early and mid-twelfth century; extracts from twelfth-

the ninth century and later; some post-Conquest Welsh Vitae and Breton

Vitae

of

earlier date but more distant

provenance.

There are both textual and chronological problems surrounding much of this material, and these still require elucidation.' Beyond this, there is a large corpus of legal material of which a proportion must be

AC; see K. Hughes, The Welsh LatinChronicles: Annales Cambriae and

related texts', Proc.

Brit. Acad., lix (1973), 3-28. Gildas, De Excidio;see . Miller, 'Relative and absolute publication dates of Gildas's De Excidio in M scholarship', BBCS, xxvi(1974-6), 169-74; and Gildas's 'Preface on medieval

Penance' , i nThe Irish Penitentials, ed. I. Bieler Qublin, 1963), 6.e ODB i, "Nennius" Historia hp a n dtP attributed to Nennius; see David Dumville,

Brittonum' , Studia Celtica, x-xi (19756), 78-95.ECMW; the datingof the later monuments of this corpus si much disputed. British LibraryMS. Harley 3859, printed with o t h e r genealogical collections in Bartrum.

Whitley Stokes. "The

Welsh glosses and verses i nt h e Cambridge Codex o fJuvencus, The Old-Weish glosses at Oxford', Trans. Philol. Soc. (1860-1), 204-49,288-93; id, 'The OldWelsh glosses o nMartianus Capella',i n Beiträgezur Vergleichenden Sprach-

forschung, ed. A. Kuhn, vi (1873), 385410; Ifor Williams, 'Glosau Rhydychen:

Mesuran physau?, BBCS. y (1929.31), 22648. VSB and J.W. James,

Rhigyfarch's Life of St.David (Cardiff, 1967). The seventh-century Vita Samsonis a n dninth-centuryVita Pauli; Vie de S. Malo in F. Lot, Melanges d'histoire bretonne (Paris, 1907); Vita S. Winwaloei, ed. C. de Schmedt, Analecta Bollandiana, vii (1888), 167 f.

Llandaff, and of Samson and Elgar, saints associated with Dyfrig;

1 Llyfr Blegywryd, Llyfr Iorwerth, Llyfr Cyfnerth, Llyfr Colan, Latin Texts. Canu Aneirin, CanuTaliesin, Canu Llywarch Hen, A r e s Prydein; see D.

Greene, 'Linguistic considerations i n the dating of Early Welsh verse', Studia

Celtica, vi (1971), 1-11; K.H. Jackson, 'Somequestions i n dispute about Early Welsh literature and language', ibid., vil-ix (1973-4), 1-32; and P.K. Ford, The Poetry ofLlywarch Hen (Berkeley, 1974). 3 For a summary of recent archaeological evidence see G.R.J.Jones, 'PostRoman Wales', in The Agrarian History of England and Wales, ed. H.P.R.

Finberg, i, p a r ti (Cambridge, 1972), pp.283-99. There is one excavation report of great value for the early medieval period, L .Alcock, Dinas Powys (Cardiff, 1963). ProfessorRichards published a large number of separate studies of placenames; particularly helpful are 'Places and persons of the early Welsh church', WHR, v (1971), 333-49; 'Some Welsh place-names containing elements which are found in ContinentalCeltic', Etudes Celtiques, x i(1972-3), 364-410;

Early Welsh territorial suffixes', Journ. Roy. Soc. Ant. Ireland, xev (1965), 205-12

4 HE; ASC; Asser's Life of King Alfred, ed. W.H. Stevenson (Oxford, 1904); Domesday Book. 5 LL, pp.xliüi-xlvi; VSB, pp.124-40. See Wendy Davies, 'Land and power in early medieval Wales', forthcoming, Past and Present.

5

century councils; episcopal and other letters; a few brief narrative passages - on Rome, the origin of Landaff, bishop Urban's journeys; a list of Herewald's consecrations in Ergyng; and the charters, purporting

to record grants to the bishopric of Llandaff.' These account for

consistencies. Moreover, there is no corroborative evidence of the existence of a bishopric of Landaff for most of the period covered. Bishop Urban was consecrated to t h e see of Glamorgan (or Llandaff) in

1107 by the archbishop of Canterbury, the first Glamorgan bishop to

profess obedience to Canterbury.' He was involved in disputes with

something over two-thirds of the total content of the book, and run in an implied chronological order from Dyfrig, the first bishop, who is supposed to have been consecrated in the mid-fifth century and to

over diocesan boundaries from at least 1120 until his d e a t hon his way

twelfth-century work has a two-fold character: a central composition

had been confirmed to him in the 1120s was reversed by the decision

have died ni 612, to Herewald, who died in 1104.2 It si clear that the

with additions. The central composition is entirely written by Hand A, the earliest hand (c. 1125-50), and comprises all the charters and the

'Lives' of the three founding bishops. It occupies 242 of the total 336 columns, and, beginning with the foundation of Landaff, makes an

apparently coherent exposition of the history of the diocese from the fifth/sixth century to the eleventh. It is this work, defined by Hand A, which is therefore the original Liber Landavensis. The additions, which include the 'Lives' of Samson and Elgar, papal bulls, letters and miscellanea, are written in and around the Hand A material in a

further eight hands of late twelfth- and early thirteenth-century date. There are more copies of papal bulls, forms of profession, episcopal and regnal lists, and lists of episcopal dues and benefices, in late twelfth- to fifteenth-century hands, now bound together. These are not

a part of the original manuscript, and Evans printed them as an appendix to the main work. 5 The problem of the charters is quite simple. They are undated; and it is clear that the chronological sequence implied by their arrangement

ni the manuscript si impossible, for there are many internal ni1 National Library of Wales MS. 17110E. For a full manuscript and its contents see E.D. Jones, The Booko iv (1945-6), 123-57; see also Wendy Davies, "St. Mary's Liber Landavensis', Journ. Soc. Archivists,i v (1972), esp.

description of the

fLlandaff, NLWJ,

the bishops of St. David's and Hereford over episcopal properties and to Rome in 1134, but, although he had some early success, much that

of the bishops as papal legates ni London and Winchester in 1133. This was, effectively, the end of the dispute.? Since Hand A includes lists of property claimed by Urban but lost in 1133, and since the miscellanea of

the

other main hands nearly all relate t o Urban's

episcopate, it is clear that the original Liber Landavensis was compiled

ni the context of the property disputes, during the course of the argument or shortly after. It is most likely to have been composed in

the period 1120-c. 1129.3 Consequently it has been assumed that the work itself is in many senses a clever forgery produced to support the

claims of the diocese, certainly the first diocese ni the south east to be

organised on strict Roman lines, and to demonstrate the antiquity of a diocese which had a more recent origin. But although the work is in some senses a forgery, this does not limit its value for it is quite clear

that much of its charter material is based onearlier manuscripts.* The charters cannot, therefore, have been completely invented ni the twelfth century. The fact that they have been copied, and copied

from relatively archaic material, is quite easily demonstrable; the process of establishing the nature of the originals is somewhat more complex. However, rigorous and systematic examination of their two crucial and distinctive constituents - diplomatic formulae and witness lists - allows us to establish both the extent o f twelfth-century

Worcester and the

tampering and the essential content of the original texts.5 A corpus of

459-61; id, 'Liber

material is therefore deducible which is of unparalleled value in sketching the historical development of south-east Wales in the early

Landavensis: its construction and credibility', EHR, Ixxxvii (1973), esp. 335-7. 2 Consecrationof Dyfrig bybishop Germanus of Auxerre(in Britain in 429 and 440-7),LL, p.69; deatho fDyfrig, LL, p.84; death of Herewald, LL, p. 280.

medieval period. This is difficult to use because the chronological

Herewald is well-evidenced in other sources.

problems cannot be definitively resolved, because the Latin is often

3 LL, pp.68-86, 97-241, 249-75.The hands were analysed by Evans and are listed in his edition, LL, pp.xxix.F o rsomerefinements of hisdating - c. 1125-50 for Hand A,thirteenth century for Hand C - see Davies, EHR, Ixxxvii (1973),

in the late tenth century;see below, pp. 154 f., and Davies, BBCS, xxvi (1974-6),

336, n.5 and id., 'The consecration of bishops of Llandaff in the tenth and

eleventh centuries', BBCS, xxvi (1974-6), 53, n.5.

- LL,pp.27-9; Da - LL, pp.25f,30; Db - LL, pp.30-53 B - LL, pp. 1-24; C 4. , pp.54-61, 65-7; Fa - LL, pp.275-80; Fb . 61-5, 87-96;

l, and fossors'uilan Bolwn waer remarked' upon the sintlart; st aD and P

Professor Julian Brown agrees that they are probably the same hand.

5 LL, pp.281-334. A finallist si in sixteen different hands, called R by Evans,

and represents additions made up to the early seventeenth century.

It is possible that Gwgon was consecrated by the archbishop of Canterbury

67 f. 2 See Episcopal Acts and Cognate Documents relating to Welsh Dioceses, 1066-1272, ed. J . Conway Davies (Historical Society o ft h e Church in Wales,

1946-8), pp. 147-90, esp. pp. 172-80, for a detailed description of the cause.

3 See Davies, EHR, Ixxxvii (1973), 337-9.

4 Ibid., 340-2, for full discussion of this point. 5 See my The LlandaffCharters for detaileddiscussion.

6

bad and the meaning of each word really needs detailed and separate consideration, and because the material is fragmentary and sometimes obscure. Despite all of this, the charters remain the largest single corpus of Welsh historical source materialof indisputably pre-Conquest

2 THE LLANDAFF CHARTERS AND THE MAKING O F T H E LIBER L A N D AV E N S I S

origin, and its evidence is therefore central to the problems of postRoman Wales and of early Welsh society.

The present work sets out to explore the potential of that source

material for writing a history of south-east Wales ni the early medieval period; I have tried to interpret the Landaff materialas an independent

corpus in an attempt to define and clarify the evidence which it supplies. It permits comment on three major areas of historical investigation -

the economic, the socio-political and the ecclesiastical - contributing little to purely spiritual, literary, and artistic areas. Its evidence is, of course, primarily relevant to south-east Wales, an area geographically

and in many ways historically distinct from the rest of Wales; its import is not therefore necessarily relevant to the early medieval problems of northern and western Wales. But it does reveal, within that small area, a distinctive and complex society which was a

functioning organism: a tiny world of its own. I have prefaced the enquiry with a comprehensive summary of the critical analysis of the charters since the critical problems are complex and the validity of the historical interpretation rests, in no small part,on the validity of the textual criticism. The content of the following

chapters is, necessarily, dictated by the content of the charters, and

although I have tried to take into account the evidence of other

sources the amount is too slight to alter significantly either the results

or the pattern of the enquiry.

Liber Landavensis proper contains 158 charters purporting to be records of transactions carried out in and around south Wales between the sixth and eleventh centuries. These lie consecutively between pages

27 and 78, 121 and 129, 140 and 275 of Evans's edition, although

there are some notes of consecrations interspersed among the charters

of the latter group.' The number includes the fragment on p.179, the general confirmations beginning on pp.123, 152, 192, 240, 253, 269, and the largely narrative records beginning on pp.127, 141, 193, 196.

Although most of these lack a witness list, they contain many of the

formulae characteristic of the

more uniform records and are clearly

intended to be legitimising documents in just the same way. The number does not include the memorandum of the agreement between Morgan Hen and Edgar beginning on p. 247, which is clearly of a quite different type.

The great majority of the charters are consistent ni form, a recognisable charter form, which corresponds with the bulk of medieval western

European diplomatic material both in the function of the different sections included and in the type of formulae used to express them. At

this point,though, the similarity ends:the consistent use of the third

person and the past historic tense, and the omission of protocol and dating clauses, which is characteristic of the Landaff charters and of

other "Celtic' charter material, si not a normal feature of medieval diplomatic.? The sections which constantly recur are: Notification or Preamble, Disposition, Attestation, Sanction, and Boundary Clause, as

in the following example: Notification:

Disposition:

Sciatis quod

Elfin dedit agrum Estrat Age, di est Tollcoit pro anima

sua

cum

s ex

modiis

terrae

deo

&

sanctis

Dubricio Teliauo et Oudoceo & Berthguino episcopo & omnibus successoribus suis in ecclesia Landauiae

in perpetuo, cum tota sua liberate & omni communione uerbo ludhali regis et consensu.

1 LL, pp. 206, 217, 237, 240, 246 (twice), 252 (twice), 265.

2 For an extended comparative treatment, see my article ' S t .Mary's Worcester

and the Liber Landavensis', Journ. Soc. Archivists, i v(1972), 459-85.

9

8

Attestation:

De clericis testes sunt: Berthguinus episcopus, Gunnuiu

lector, Confur, Conguaret. De laicis: Concar, Guor-

hoidil, Aironbrit, Confice, Guorbuth, Hinbiu. Boundary Clause: Finis ab oculo fontis Tollcoit usque ad fossam paludis in capite, et ab occidente per transuersum usque ad

petram iacinthinum uallo ducente usque ad petram Onnbrit.

Sanction:

Quicunque custodierit custodiat illum deus. Qui autem uiolauerit, anathema sit.

Amen. (188b)

In addition, some charters include a more or less lengthy Narration, which contains material pertinent to the reason for making the grant.

In most of these, as in the general confirmations and narrative records

hs the mentioned above, the amount of historical material far outweig n of proportio t other sections. Apart from these deviations, a significan

the charters have no Preamble or Notification, and/ornoBoundary

stent.! Clause, and the order of the last three sections is somewhat inconsi Analysis of formulae

Even without detailed analysis, ti is apparent that some of the formulae recur throughout the collection of charters. There appears to

be virtually no consistent chronological or regional practice in formulation and such formulae as are used exclusively in different parts of the

book - of which there are a fair number - only rarely have enough counterparts in every section of the charter to suggest any coherent and distinctive diplomatic practices. Charters with the same Notifications will have differing Sanctions, and so on. However, with the appearance of cum omni sua liberate, sine ullo censu terreno nisi, in perpetuo, cur omni communione, and in campo et ni aquis in siluis et in pascuis ni

nearly every charter, with Qui autem ab ecclesia Landauiae separauerit running through the whole sequence, and with the saints Dyfrig, Teilo and Euddogwy included as beneficiaries in charters from p. 140, in

are some formulae which are used in exclusive contexts. The most outstanding examples of this are as follows:-

.1 Al charters appended to the Vita Teliaui (121-127b), a very high proportion of those appended to the Vita Oudocei (140-159b), and nearly all from the episcopate of Gwgon onwards (240-274), have neither Notification nor Preamble.

2. Nearly all charters appended to the Vita Dubricit (72a-77) and a high proportion of those of the episcopate of Libiau onwards (237b-

274) place their Boundary Clauses before the Attestation. 3. Of Notifications, the formula sciendum est quod does not occur in

the charters appended to the Vita Teliaui (121-127b), nor ni those

between no. 207 and 233, and ti does occur overwhelmingly between no. 161 and 206, in different chronological and regional contexts; the other gerundives, although most only occur once, have a similar distribution - there are none after no.200.

4. None o f the charters attached to the Vita Dubrici (72a-77) include Narrations, but a very high proportion of those from the episcopate

of Gwgon onwards (no. 244 ff) do so; uncta penitentia is much

more frequent from no. 212 onwards.

5. Of disposition formulae, pro anima sua occurs preponderantly

between nos. 159b and 208, and not before c.700; pro salute animarum occurs between nos. 150b and 239, preponderantly between nos. 203b and 239; largitus est scarcely occurs before 188a,

and does so predominantly from the mid-eighth century; dedit rarely

occurs after no. 190a; immolauit hardly occurs before no. 176b, and is predominant from the mid-eighth century; u r b o et consensu

occurs rarely before no. 170 and before the mid-eighth century, and uerbo rarely before no. 169b. The patterns of formulae definingthe

beneficiaries are complex, but significant. The complete formula deo

& sanctis Dubricio Teliauo Oudoceo & episcopo et omnibus suis

successoribus only occurs between nos. 176b and 191, with one

accordance with the chronological arrangement of the book, one cannot

exception; deo & sanctis Dubricio Teliauo Oudoceo & episcopo &

developments in formulation over the five hundred years which the

exceptions, and with the substitution of presulibus from nos. 225

medieval Wales. Nevertheless, systematic analysis does reveal that there

episcopi et omnibus episcopis between nos. 1986 and 235b. Of the constituent elements, in manu episcopi only occurs between nos. 159a and 235b, with seven exceptions; successoribus between nos. 74

escape a feeling of uniformity.? Since we can perceive no consistent

charters are supposed to cover, the form in which they are now preserved cannot represent an untouched charter tradition of early 1 For a complete analysis of the constituent parts of each charter, see my The Llandaff Charters.

2 As pointed out by Professor Brooke, 'The archbishops of St. David's, Llandaff

and Caerleon-on-Usk', in N.K.Chadwick et al., Studies inthe Early British

Church(Cambridge, 1958), p.237. For acomplete analysis of the formulae,see op. cit. n. 1 above.

episcopis omnibus Landauiae between nos. 216a and 239, with three and on to 272; deo et sanctis Dubricio Teliavo Oudoceo et ni manu

and 191, omnibus episcopisbetween nos. 192 and 239, and presulibus from no. 225 - all with a few exceptions. For the rest, cum omni

dignitate does not occur between nos.

156 and 240; incolis is

frequent from no. 216b,and almost invariable from no. 244; liberam

11

10

ab omni seruitio si very common between nos. 195 and 229b, from mid-eighth to tenth centuries; ni elemosina is common from no.217, and does not appear before 146.

times; once these groups have been defined, then some orthographicand regional differences between them become apparent. The specification

of each group emerges as follows:

6. Of Sanctions, the double formulae Quicunque custodierit custodiat illum deus. Oui autem ab ecclesia Landauiae separauerit anathema

A . 72a-77 (Dyfrig): Ergyng source; grants mainly in Ergyng, with the south west too (76a, 77); mid-sixth to mid-ninth century.

sit occur between nos. 141 and 264b, frequently; and Quicunque

B. 121-1276 (Teilo): Gwent or south-western source; grants ni Gwent

custodierit benedicetur/-dictus sit. Qui autem uiolauerit maledicetur 1-dictus sit occur between nos. 175 and 262, though there are

proportionately fewer after no.

234.

The element Qui autem

ab ecclesia Landauiae separauerit occurs throughout, although there are only four appearances before no. 141. The elements seruaturis, benedictione facta, uiolaturis, maledictionefacta, perpetua anathemate only occur between nos. 726 and 159a, 225. and 272. There is far greater variety in the construction of the Sanction in the charters at the beginning and end of the collection.

These distinctive usages require explanation, as does the fact that they seem to contradict the general impression of uniformity. Charters

with the same distinctive formulae only rarely have the same geographical

or temporal provenance; ni fact, the only other obvious association that

they have in common is the position that they now have in Liber

Landavensis:

they occur on consecutive pages. Where we can find

distinctive similarities between charters, therefore, they are merely stylistic similarities - associations reflecting the imprint of the writer.

Given the regional and chronological diversity of these groupings, we

must suppose some editorial embellishment; and given the demonstrable manuscript origin of much of the material, we must suppose that records had been collected and edited - by different people - prior to

their assimilation in Liber Landavensis. We must therefore be dealing with a number of editors who have imposed similarities on otherwise unrelated texts. Besides this, it is rare to find charters with the same Notification that also have the same Disposition or Sanction; it is this

which prevents the definitionof different, coherent, diplomatic practices. Nevertheless, the frequent occurrence of distinctive formulae ni some sections of the book can hardly be fortuitous. Now, ti may be noted that particular charters occur again and again at the beginning or end of a run of formulae and, moreover, that the points of change are points at which there is a real chronological dislocation in the arrangement of the charters, although they are apparently arranged in accordance with

(121-123) and the south west; early sixth to late eighth century.

C. 140-1596 (Euddogwy); source unknown; grants from the whole of the south east, including Gower; early seventh to early eighth c e n t u r y.

D. 160-166; Ergyng source; grants in Ergyng, with north Gwent (166); late sixth to early seventh century.

E. 167-174a; Ergyng source; grants ni Ergyng, with Brecon (167); mid-eighth to mid-ninth century.

F. 174b-(211b-212)-216b; source unknown; grants from the whole of

the south east, and possibly one in the south west (189); late seventh

to late eighth century and mid- to late ninth century.

G. 217-224; Gwent source; grants from Gwent, with Glamorgan (224); mid-tenth century. H. 225-239; Gwent source; grants in Gwent, with Gloucestershire(229b), Brecon (237b) and Gower (239); mid-ninth to early tenth century.

J. 240-274; Gwent source initially, changing to Glamorgan; grants in Gwent a n dGlamorgan; late tenth to late eleventh century.

Now although there are distinctions in the use of formulae between the above groups it is quite clear that most usages are not peculiar to any one group of charters. This can only be explained by a process of accumulation that was complex, for the groups must have been through some degree of assimilation before their incorporation in Liber Landavensis. Further investigation of the incidence of distinctive

formulae suggests that groups C, D, E, and F were gathered together in

or later than the third quarter of the ninth century, after an initial collection of D and E from Ergyng and C and F from elsewhere, and that there is a high probability that the collecting house was in south Glamorgan. Later, the Gwent-oriented groups G, H , and J were added to the previous collection, but added while J was still in the process of being gathered. This is unlikely to have been later than the mid-

consecutive episcopates.' This combination of changes ni formulae and

eleventh century, and, on historical grounds, is very likely to have taken

chronological dislocation permits the definition of a number of separate different groups, collected at different places by different editors at

place during the episcopate of Joseph (c.102245) at Landaff.' Eventually, the 'Lives' of the three principal saints were added, with

1 For discussion of absolute chronology, see below, pp. 15-20.

1 Or c. 1026-49/50; see below, p. 155 n.

13

12

the small collections of charters now associated with the first two, A and B; group C was placed after them; and a large number of standard formulae were added to the whole run of charters. Since many of these formulae are also to be found in other parts of Hand A of Liber

Landavensis it is quite clear that this final process of collecting and

The analysis, however,

points to more than this, for the very fact

which allows us to define different stages of e d i t i o n allows us to define the existence of an original and early set of texts which was there to be

edited. The remarkable fact about the Landaff charter material is that its editors tended to interpolate rather than rewrite. Hence, wheneach

stage of editorial sophistication si removed, what is left si a coherent

editing took place at the time of the compositio n of Liber Landavensis proper. Since some of these formulae were influenced by Worcester

and syntactically complete record, a record of a type which has its

Latin version of the Teilo privilege which was constructed at Landaff

removing the editors' additions, to reconstruct a large corpus of

from the practice of the late eleventh century,' and some were taken

between c.1110 and 1128,2 and since the final version included

extracts from a list of consecrations compiled at Llandaff between

c.1124 and 1129,3 the period of collection may be established as the 1120s.

precise parallels all over the Celtic West.' It si therefore possible, by

original southeast

original records into something very much more imposing. This may be Stage :3

Sciendum est quod

Original:

Conuilius filius Gurceniu uerbo Morcanti & filii eius

been through a number of stages of editing prior to its emergence ni the

Ithail dedit willam ni qua sepulcrum est Gurai, di est

Liber Landavensis. The occasions for making such collections, and for

Uillam C o n u cd e o

recopying charter material that was extant, must ultimately be explained

Stage 5: Stage 7:

in terms of the ecclesiastical politics of early medieval Wales and must ultimately reflect the rise and fall in the fortunesof different monastic

and/or episcopal houses. The phenomenon • the collection, transcription, recopying, and editing of charter material • si scarcely

Stage :5

unfamiliar in the medieval world and we have plenty of evidence of the

practice of keeping charters ni western Britain, Brittany and Ireland.5 F

Original:

bE

Stage 3: after c.872 Stage 5: c. 1022-46

DECFGHJ

Stage 6: ABCDEFGHJ

1 See Davies, Journ. Soc. Archivists, vi (1972). 2 See Wendy Davies, 'Braint Teilo', BBCS, xxvi (1974-6), 123-37. 3 See Wendy Davies, 'The consecration of bishops of L a n d a f f in the tenth and eleventh centuries', ibid., 53-73.

4 See further below, pp. 151-9, for some practical suggestions. 5 See Wendy Davies, art.cit. n. 1 above, and The Celtic charter tradition in

Britain, Brittany and Ireland', forthcoming.

et Berthguino episcopo et episcopis omnibus Landauiae in perpetuo, & cum data elemosina, precepit Cormil (sic] filio suo Conuc et filiis suis a

Finis illius a uertice montis Gurai usque ad amnem

Berthguinus episcopus, Sulgen abbas Carbani Uallis,

GHO

Stage 6: c.1107-28 Stage 7: c. 1124-8

et ni aquis ni silua et ni pascuis,

Euenhi; latitudo autem a fossa magna usque ad mare. De clerics testes sunt: fossam contra

DECE

Stage 4: after c.975

et tribus sanctis Dubricio, Teliauo et Oudoceo cum sua tota libertate et tota communione in campo

generatione in generatione ut semper seruirent altari Landauiae de predicto agro.

In this case the collecting process may be summarised as follows: D

This process of successive

demonstrated by the following grant from group F, no. 176a:

Analvsis of the charter formulae therefore allows us to establish that the Landaff collection is a composite collection of charters, which had

Stage :1 different periods A B Stage 2: after c.872

Welsh charter texts.

editing would therefore have effected a transformation of rather brief

Saturn abbas Docguinni, Gurhaual abbas Ilduti. De laicis: Morcant rex et filius eius Ithail, Conuil, lunet, Condiuit, etc., etc. Quicunque custodierit custodiat illum deus. Qui autem ab ecclesia Landauiae separauerit, anathema

sit. Amen.

This definition of editorial activity is a useful tool in sorting out the

charter formulae but is of little use in assessing the origin and value of the Narrations which preface many charters, and which are of particular interest because of their incidental detail.They are, of course, more difficult to treat, since much of their content is specific to the

1 Ibid.

15

14

different situations they describe. Even in this material, however, there are standard recurrent formulae and some surprisingly recurrent stories.

It si quite clear, from systematic analysis, that some element of the composition of the longest Narrations - particularly those detailing excommunication, a request for pardon and the ensuing penance - must belong to the latest stages of the construction of the Landaff charters. On the other hand, a number of tenth- and eleventh-century charters

have very brief Narrations, and also have a proportion of unique, of issues and precise detail; there is, moreover, a very real change some of the that likely concerns in these later stories. It is therefore

of the generations can to some extent be cross-checked by the occurrence of patronymics and of people who appear in other, datable, contexts. Though there may sometimes be problems in establishing the identity of individuals, both patronymics and details of associated

places are sufficient to establish an adequate corpus of material on which the sequences may depend. These sequences revealed by analysis of the Landaff lists are very largely concealed by their present arrangement in the book; hence, the chronological relationship between the charters would appear to have been unknown to their editors. This is scarcely surprising, since the charters are undated, but it does of course

provide additional indication of the archaic nature of the material when

century and after have characterist ics which would associate them with

finally copied. There are in fact, three sequences, represented in Table :1 each successive horizontal line represents a chronological stage which is demonstrably later, though the actual order of t h echarters withineach line is arguable. I have placed them here in what appears to be the most

Analysis of witness lists

short sequences, are only to be placed within the outside limits of a part of the main sequence; these are here related to the relevant parts of the main sequence by the device of brackets. Numbers 166, 121 and 122 form an independent sequence, several of whose witnesses appear

Narration material existed in written form long before stage 7 and that

many of the more elaborate and verbose records are really later em-

bellishments of brief originals; further, the Narrations of the late ninth their original charter records. These, therefore, are far more likely to be original than the elaborate narratives of the seventh- and eighth-century records.'

likely order, but there si no conclusive evidence.' Some charters, and/or

Analysis of the formulae si sufficient to demonstrate, ni principle, that the Landaff charters are a collection composed of a number

ni the main sequence; these are not enough to place the charters in the main progression, but they must be approximately contemporary.

sufficient, however, ot assess the validity of each charter within each

but also makes quite clear where major irregularities lie, especially in

of different collections, gathered and edited at different times. It is not

This process of analysis not only establishes a relative chronology

collection since the opportunities for conscious as well as unconscious

cases in which witnesses have been added to the original in order to establish a more impressive list.

appear ni charter texts and witness lists. Whether true or false, it is the

Absolute chronology The Landaff charters almost entirely lack indication of any form of date. The exceptions are the dates of eight episcopal consecrations and deaths interspersed among the later charters, and the date of 955, in the thirteenth indiction, attributed to the events of no. 218. In a

corruption during copying must have been almost unlimited. Some considerable refinement of our assessment of each individual charter can be achieved by investigating the chronology of the people who implication of each separate witness list that all individuals there named

were alive and witnessing at hte same moment; the collection of

different lists implies progression over time, for fi one individual occurs

ni two lists, with different associates, a chronological relationship is

implied between the lists. The transactions there witnessed took place

ondifferent occasions; one list is therefore older than the other. Since, moreover, the witnesses at any one time will have been of different ages,

any one individual will have appeared with one set of associates when

been young and another when old, some of whom would then have comthe occasions, enough young, and so on. Given enough lists and the binations of lifespans there recorded will permit us to deduce

sequence of occasions. By a fortunate circumstance, it happens that

to there are enough lists and enough names in the Llandaff charters

relatively small number of cases individuals and events mentioned in

the Landaff charters appear in dated contexts in other sources.The commonest of these occasions are the accessions a n ddeaths of kings, which sometimes provoke mention in the Annales Cambriae. The list, however, is far from complete and in many cases it is necessary to deduce the approximate length of a reign by reference to a king's position in the genealogies, allowing a conventional thirty years per generation. Applying this rather inadequate apparatus, dates can be

arrange the witness lists in coherent sequences; the passage and length

1

1 See op. cit, p. 8, n. 1 above, for detailed discussion.

Charter Memorandaof the Book of Llandaff, University of London, 1970.

Ibid. for a complete statement of the progression of the witnesses i neach Sequence. The first two Sequences a r edetailed in my Ph.D. thesis,'The Early

17

16

deduced for most of the kings and therefore for the charters in which they appear. The whole corpus can thence be approximately dated

Table 1. The Sequences First sequence:

from the kings, ni association with the progression of combinations

75

720 76a 726 73а 71

166

736/163* 1626

121

1636 164 165

of lifespans.This is clearly less than ideal: and one must expect an error of a few years in the case of each charter, and sometimes more: apply-

122

ing absolute dates to the charters is undeniably prone to error ni a way

161 1 6 2 a

76 3160

that the relative chronology is not. Given such difficulties, some sort of logical corroboration for the process of dating is provided by the progression of generations: ti is indeed remarkable that combinations

Second s e q u e n c e :

of generations o f witnesses remain credible within series covering

144

several hundreds of years, that external dates consistently produce the

140 143

same answers, and that there are relatively few real chronological

147

problems.

152 155

Most of the kings of the Landaff charters belong to the known major dynasties of south-east Wales. For the greater part of the period covered by the charters the area was dominated by a single dynasty,and

1516

149 151a 1596 152 148 146 154 1506

150a 1746

145 156

this considerably simplifies the problems of dating. Since the sequence

1766 1836 176/1906* 1806 205 2046

of charters si determined by the progression of witnesses, the series of

180a?

1796/191* 183a 185 187 188b 189 190a

179c?

178 184 186a 188a

158 175/1866 * 195 202

1986 199bi 200 201 203a 2036

197 199a 198a 204a

121062096 211a 209a

207?

5210a 208 +

206 2116

Third sequence:

170 1696 17la 174a 1716/74* 173

kings can be deduced independently of recorded genealogies, and the

¡identification of individuals is assisted by the fact that most kings' names include a patronymic.

The First Sequence is especially difficult to date since we lack a securely-dated beginning. The kings of this sequence do not belong to

the dominant dynasty, and many are recorded as kings of Ergyng. The

representatives of the main Ergyng dynasty are Erb, Peibio, Cinuin and

Gwyddgi, and Gwrgan. The occurrence of Dyfrig ni the witness lists

of nos. 75 (Erb), 72a and 76a (Peibio), might just suggest dates in the

mid-sixth century for these two kings, though the clerical witnesses

226 212 214 227a 225 2306 168 169a 199bii 2166 216a 2276 229a 228 2296 230a

of these

236 237a 234 2356 235a 232a 233 231 2326

includes a king of Ergyng, Gwrfoddw (161, 162a), who does not belong

239 2376

224 223 222 245 244 243 251 2496 246

262 257 255 258 263 249a 259

south-east Wales. His floruit can be assessed as c.625-55.2 The sum

approximate dates for the main Ergyng dynasty: Erb c.525-55;

272 271 274 o

to the main dynasty but who fought against the Saxons and whose grants preceded those of Gwrgan. His activities against the Saxons are

o f these separate indications is such as to suggest the following very

269 267 D

Sequence also

features in the Second Sequence as a member of the main dynasty of

264a 2646

~

The First

unlikely to have taken place much before c.580.' This would suggest that Gwrgan, whose grants follow his, was ruling ni the early seventh century. Secondly, the last grant of the First Sequence, 165, was made by Athwys of Gwent, who was the grandson of Gwrgan and who also

221 218 217

261

charters are extremely suspect.

i

ne

r

s

+There is no real sequence deducible from the charters of the sons and grandsons of Ithel; see p. 18.

1 ASC 577, and then intermittently through theseventh century. 2 See below, pp. 18f and pp. 67-84.

19

18

Peibio c.555-85; Cinuin and Gwyddgi c.585-615; Gwrgan .c 615-(45); with Gwrfoddw intruding at c.615 and Athwys following c.625-55. Of the remaining First Sequence kings, Merchwyn (76b) must have

been active c.605 because of the appearance of some of his witnesses in

other charters; Iddon (121, 122, 166) must have been active c.595-600,

Meurig ap Hywel; Cadwgon ap Meurig. Meurig ap Arthfael w o u l d seem + have died in 874 and Hywel ap Rhys in 886.' Brochfael ap Meurig

was alive c.880-86;2 Gruffydd ap Owain died in 935 and his brother

Cadwgon ni 950;3 Morgan died ni 974 and was witnessing English charters from 931;4 Cadell ap Arthfael died ni 942;5 Hywel ap Owain

for similar reasons, and because of his activities against the Saxons;

died ni 1043;6 Meurig ap Hywel was alive and active ni 1039:7 Cadwgon ap Meurig seems to have been dead by 1072.8 This provides

of the Second Sequence, but there is insufficient evidence to be sure of this; Nowy (77) flourished ni Dyfed and ni reality has nothing to do

precise dates for a very high proportion of the Third Sequence kings and an approximate floruit may be relatively easily suggested for the

Meurig (160) may conceivably be identifiable with Meurig ap Tewdrig

with this Sequence.

remainder.

The dynasty

may

therefore be approximately dated as

el and Meurig ap Ithel; Gurgauarn and Athwys ap Fiernfael. Ffernfa of Aethelbald f o y died in 775 and Ithel ap Morgan was a contemporar

follows: Meurig ap Arthfael ruling .c 848-74; Brochfael ap Meurig .c 870910; Hywel ap Rhys c.856-86; Arthfael ap Hywel c.886-916; Cadell ap Arthfael c.916-943; Gruffydd ap Owain ap Hywel c.916-35; Cadwgon ap Owain c.920-50; Morgan ap Owain c.930-74; Idwallon ap Morgan c. 974-1005; Rhys ap Owain ap Morgan c. 1005-35; Hywel ap Owain c. 1010-43; Meurig ap Hywelc. 1035-65; Cadwgon ap Meurigc. 1055-72.

for there is an unbroken succession of witnesses from the grants of Meurig to those of his grandson Morgan; this suggests that the floruit

witnessed Englishcharters in 934 and his father was ruling in the period

The Second Sequence introduces the main Gwent/Glywysing dynasty. Its representativesin Liber Landavensis are Tewdrig; Meurig; Athwys;

Ithel ap Athrwys; Morgan; Ithel ap Morgan; Ffernfael, Rhodri, Rhys Mercia, 715-57.' Athrwys does not appear to have survived his father

Of the remaining kings, Tewdwr ap Elise (237b) of Brycheiniog

of Meurig and Morgan was unusually long. The sum of indications si again to suggest the following approximate dates: Tewdrig alive c. 555-

c.880-86.° Nowy ap Gwriad (217, 218, 221) and his son Arthfael

alive c.605-655, active c.625-55; Ithel ap Athwys alive c.635-705;

Rodri and Gruffydd, sons of Elise (251), who must have flourished ni

625; Meurig alive .c 585-665, active from c.620 or even earlier; Athwys

Morgan alive c.635-710, active c.665-710; Ithel ap Morgan alive c.675745, active c.710-45; Fferfael alive c.705-775, active c.745-75; his brothers Rodri and Rhys and Meurig similarly; Gurgauarn and Athrwys alive c. 735-805, active c. 770-805. There remains Awst of Brycheiniog (146, 154). He was father of Elgist, who was a contemporary of Tewdwr, who was a contemporary of Tewdws of Dyed. Tewdws was ruling c.750, ni the generation

before Maredudd,who died ni 796.? Tewdwr and Elgist, then, would appear have been ruling c.750 and Awst c.720.

(243, 244) should be dated mid- to late tenth century ni accordance

with the Sequence; they were followed by the grandsons of Now,

1 AC s.a. 873 and 885. It is arguable to which Meurig the 873 reference applies,

but t h eclaims of the relativechronology of the witness sequence are such a sto suggest

that Meurig ap Arthfael, the king Meurig o f grants 169b-171b,

reads'Meurig ap Ithel', but - as pointedout by Dr. James - this isunlikelyand is probably n i error for Meurig apArthfael, whose relationships a r ecorrectly stated

in 199bi: Meurig ap Arthfael, together with his sons Brochfael and Ffernfael.

The disposition of witnesses and their continued appearance u n d e rBrochfael

make itclear that the same Meurig is intended throughout.Although Dr. Miller has suggested that Meurig ap Ithelis correct in 214,this requires ust o createa

ninth-century Ithel who was not Ithel ap Athwys of Harleian MS. 3859, no. 28. See further, op. cit. above, p. 8, n. 1 for detailed discussion of these difficult

The Third Sequence continues the line of the main dynasty, though it ceases to be dominant in the eleventh century and there is a hiatus in the late eighth and ninth centuries. Its representatives in Liber

points.

Rhys, contemporaries; Brochfael ap Meurig; Arthfael ap Hywel; Gruffydd and Cadwgon and Morgan ap Owain ap Hywel; Cadell ap

(Cardiff, 1941), 935; Birch, no. 883. 4 Birch, nos. 675, 689, ?702, 703, 716, 882, 883, 909, 937; AC 974. 5 ACs.a. 943. 6 AC 1043. 7 AC 1039.

Landavensis are (?Meurig ap Ithel); Meurig ap Arthfael and Hywel ap Arthfael; Idwallon ap Morgan; Rhys and Hywel ap Owain ap Morgan; AC 775; charter no. 192.

2 Jesus College MS. 20, no. 8: Bartrum, p. 45; C A s.a. 797; charter no. 167.

Seealso Bartrum, p. 127,for discussion of some of these problems.

199bil

(?214), 2166, 225died ni 874 rather than 849 (AC). In fact,thetext of 214

2

Asser's Lifeo fKing Alfred, ed. W.H. Stevenson, c. 80, p. 66: for t h edate of

Asser's work, see Stevenson, ibid., p.Ixxiv, and D. Whitelock, The Genuine Asser (Reading, 1968). 3

A S C 9 2 7 . A C 9 5 1 . B r u t y T y w y s o g y o n P e n i a r t h MS.

2 0 V e r s i o n ,e d . T . J o n e s

8 See Glamorgan County History, in, ed. T.B. Pugh(Cardiff, 1971),p. 6. 9 Birch, no. 702; Asser's Life of King Alfred, ed. W.H. Stevenson, c .80,p .66.

21

20

the early eleventh century. Edwin ap Gwriad (249b) made grants to

Bleddri and shared witnesses with Joseph, which gives him a floruit in

the early eleventh century. The line of Rhydderch ap lestyn provided

three kings: Rhydderch (264b) was active in the south in 1023 and died in 1033;1 his son Gruffydd (264a) was active in Dyed from 1045 and

was killed ni 1055;2 and his son Caradog (272) wasactive ni the south

east in 1065 and 1072 and killed in 10813 Finally, Gruffydd ap Llywelyn was active in south Wales from 1039-63 and was particularly active in the south east from 1055. 4

place ni a precise chronological context.Nevertheless, since the present charter texts include long witness lists, there is enough information available by which to deduce a relative chronological sequence for a

high proportion of the whole corpus. Since this sequence i sconcealed by the present arrangement of the charters, since it deals with combinations o f lifespans -

i.e. time -

and since it is contained in

records which must have several original provenances, then the probability that that sequence represents the real passage of time is statistically very high indeed. By the application of dates supplied from other sources, some absolute chronology can be deduced and most charters can therefore be very roughly dated; accurate, that is, to

With this framework of datable appearances, approximate dates can be assigned to the charters as detailed in the Appendix. It cannot be stressed too much that these dates are approximate, liable to error, and capable of infinite discussion and emendation. Each single date must

within a generation. It is therefore possible, by the use of two

therefore be understood to imply an error of fifteen years on either side:

study of the formulae, and approximately to date them by a study of

c.700 implies 700 ‡ fifteen years, and so on. Although we must expect

some error of a few years, ti is remarkable that the progression of generations, as revealed by the witness sequence, is consistent with

those dates. Moreover, as the substance of this book must demonstrate,

there are very real changes in donation practice and in social behaviour during the whole period covered by the charters: since those develop-

ments are gradual, consistent, and intelligible on the basis of the dates

here. assigned to the charters, we may have enough confidence in the relative chronology to support the credibility, at the least, of the absolute dating until such time as new evidence - or more sophisticated m e t h o d s- makes it more secure.

The making of the Liber Landavensis The definition of different stages of composition of the charter texts has the corollary that editing comprised augmentation of and interpolation in existing texts. There is every reason to suppose that the

originals which have been so edited are genuine records of transactions in south-east Wales and its neighbourhood, made not long after the events they purport to record. Such records are adequately paralleled

by the fragments which survive in the 'Lichfield Gospels' and in other

parts of the Celtic world. There is a recognisable 'Celtic' charter form, and a very small proportion of the formulae must represent original practice.

These records were undated and are therefore difficult to

1 AC 1023, 1033; cf. LL, p. 252.

. .2 2 AC 1045, 1055; cf. ASC 1049, 1052/3; see BBCS, xxvi (1974-6), 64, n 3 ASC 1065; AC s.a. 1070, 1079 C 1045, 1039, 1044; ASC 1052, 1063. 4 A

very technical analytical tools to deduce the existence of original texts which lie behind the Landaff material, to reconstruct those texts by a their witness lists.

Moreover, the very process of deduction in itself

provides a critical apparatus for assessing each charter: some texts, are revealed as entirely composed of editors' formulae, with no original at their base; some witness lists are revealed as wild agglomerations, of complete chronological inconsistency; some texts have no witness

lists and therefore lack any means of authentication - they belong to

no sequence. In the last analysis, however, the number which lack convincing indication of the existence of some original is only in the order of 15%.

It is therefore clear that a number of separate charters, of different ultimate provenance, were collected at different centres in south-east Wales long before the Norman Conquest. Nine such separate collections are discernible, which may be labelled A to .J Groups D and and E, from Ergyng, and groups C and F seem to have been brought together at some point later than c. 872, but probably not much later, at some place in south Glamorgan, possibly Llancarfan. This stage may

well have seen the composition of the long standard Narrations of groups C to F, those dealing with perjury. Subsequently groups G and H, from Gwent, were added to J and the two main collections were then brought together while J was still being enlarged. It is highly likely that this took place during the episcopate of Joseph.Charters of groups H a n d J seem to have been ordered in accordance with extant episcopal

obits of the tenth a n dearly eleventh century; clearly the personnel of G had already been forgotten. The sudden accretion of Landaff associations around the person of Joseph suggests verystrongly that he was properly and genuinely associated with Landaff: the Annals have him die in 1045, episcopus Landauensis, many of the Liber Landavensis grants to him are from the Llandaff area; witnesses to his grants appear

22

.' The absence of any variously as presbiter Sancti Telia uiLand auiae clear Llandaff association before this does suggest most forcibly that

Joseph was responsible, if not for the founding of Llandaff, at least for its association with a bishopric and considerable expansion. If so, then

major collection of charters there is every reason to suppose that the it is probable that many of and ty, of this activi

was made at the time at this period. the ninth/tenth-century Narrations were embellished integral to the s i which ion Narrat a have rs charte tury th-cen Most eleven out the through ned text. The collection, groups DECFGHJ, was maintai

eleventh century and may have been subject to some minor glossing in

theearly twelfth. Eventually, however,the whole collection was The reorganisareorganised and groups A and B and the Vitae added.

tionestablished the precedence of the three saints, Dyfrig, Teilo, and

augmented 'Braint Teilo' and Euddogwy, and included the recently dates. It accoun ted for the con-

embro idered obits and consec ration

ly for the siderable elaboration of many of the charters and probab

the long Narrations. All standard synod/penance/weeping passages of comp ositio n of Liber the with ated of this activity was clearly associ d by Hand A, and define cript manus Landavensis itself, that part of the the diocese can only have been intende d as arecord of the antiquit y of

ofLandaff - an antiquity which bishop Urban was anxiousto demon-

taken strate. The final editing of the charters, therefore, must have h his establis to ts attemp s Urban' of t contex the place in the 1120s in diocese on a firm financial and territor ial basis.

long Urban's part in the construction of the Liber Landavensis has

be no doubt that he or his clerks the shape of the final work. What is the nature of the material with history of interference with that it the basis of his claim. The make to material before Urban chose ; neverthematerial as we now have it is undoub tedly very very corrupt

been acknowledged, and there can played a crucial part in determining has not always been acknowledged which they worked and the long

and their evidence is less, the originals are recoverable and are usable, from which they society sufficient to approach an understanding of the emerged.

, See Wendy Davies, art. cit. .p 20 .n 2, above 66 f.

PA RT TWO

AN EARLY MEDIEVAL HISTORY OF SOUTH-EAST

WALES

25

3

evidence cannot be tied to a precise location, but its general import is of a diversified agrarian economy and a system of production to some extent dependent on a servile population.Such fragments as we have,

LAND AND LAND USE The paucity of references to urban, commercial and industrial activity

indicates that the economy of early medieval Wales was predomina ntly of this economy agrarian. This is hardly controversial. Any discussion its product s and land, the with ed must therefore be primarily concern how its worked, was t i how know to need their exploitation. We resources were used and allocated, whether or not its inhabitants comso. The sparse and bined to exploit it, and how they may have done al prohibits any materi source le fragmentary nature of the availab e of changes in estimat real any and this of quantit ative discussion of the economy, s working the since eless, Neverth . capacity productive

however unsophisticated, remain fundamental to an understanding of it is important to the workings of a society and its development,

attempt some assessment of it. The Landaff charters owe their existence to the desire to record the transfer of property rights and the

evidence of this corpus is therefore particularly significant. Professor Jones has recently drawn together the archaeological evidence and some incidental literary references bearing on the early Welsh economy.' He has stressed the weight of evidence for the culti-

vation of arable, in addition to pastoral activities; pointed out the

importance of cattle-rearing and pig-breeding, as well aspasturing

points, sheep; and argued for seasonal transhumance. In addition to his nt of wme endo the to refers y it si worth noting that early Welsh poetr

therefore, argue against the predominance of a purely subsistence

economy, and even more of any primitive nomadic pastoralism. All of this needs to be remembered when examining the Landaff evidence. The charter evidence

The preceding chapters set out to demonstrate that a significant proportion of most charters was derived from pre-twelfth-century records,

and to define that part. In considering their evidence for economic activity, there is a further problem of chronology: even if we accept

that each Landaff charter contains a core from a pre-twelfth-century record, how do we treat the patently incredible implicit claim that in the twelfth century Llandaff owned most o f t h e lands so recorded? We

know that the grants may well have been made from the sixth century

onwards, but all but the latest were not made to Llandaff; moreover, it si quite clear that Llandaff did not own many of these lands ni the twelfth century, for they do not all occur even ni the lists of properties confirmed by the generous papal bulls of 1119, 1128 and 1129; further, it is clear that even the large churches did not all survive to become post-Conquest parish churches. How long, then, can we reasonably suppose that the units which were granted continued in existence?

A very small proportion of estates survive to become Domesday

manors. There is, however, abundant evidence of devastation in the period c. 1050-70, and of appropriation by Norman conquerorsof lands for their ownusesand as endowments for English or foreign churches,

faithful retainers with land and homestead (usually trefi), and the early Breton Vitae refer to the endowment of saints with estates in working

after about 1070. There is thus every reason to suppose dislocation, not

to the servile dependants who worked such estates.3 Much of this

south-east Wales before the twelfth century.

order.? Both poetry and the tenth-century (?)Cornish Colloquy refer

', in The Agrarian History of England and 1 G.R.J. Jones, 'Post-RomanpartWales ii, pp. 283-99.

Wales, ed. H.P.R. Finberg, i,

19, p. 18; Vita Samsonis, c. 38, P. 135 2 Canu Taliesin, p.1 line 2, p. 4 line ia'; Vita Pauli, c. 1 2 , p.439, in which he 'monasterium . . cum omni substant

he receives builds an oratory and cells on a fundus, and c. 19, p. 452, in which centu m tribus (i.e. trefi) (a ninth-century 'Life").

only i nthe pattern of ownership but also ni the structure of estates, in

We cannot therefore know how long an estate remained in the hands

of its receiving church. Many may have been lost at an early period, as different churches and bishoprics rose to prominence and then fell on

harder times. A few, like Bishton and Bishopston, seem to have survived the upheavals and remained episcopal property; but these are rare. In

R .

such a situation, the evidence of the charters can only really be valid

andline 57- ar nyn swnelyn vrowyr gorwyr owein, 'He who will notmakeus

evidence pertaining to ownership of the properties at any subsequent

3 I. Williams .

'Etmic D i n b y c h ' in

The beginnin gs o f Welsh Poetry. ed.

Bromwich (Cardiff, 1972), p. 164 line 24 - kaeth dyfet, 'the slaves of Dyfed'

D ' e Raris Fabulis', Oxford Bodley MS, 572; the cowherdsof wain's grandson; ed. W.H. Stevenson (Oxford, 1929), 5, p. ,2 and

i n Early Scholastic Colloquies, y argued convincingly for the Cornishorigin 27, p. 11. David Dumville has recentl nal Congress of Celtic Studies, Penance, 1975). Colloquy (Fifth Internatio

o fthe Deer (Cambridge, 1972), Cf. K.H. Jackson, The Gaelic Notes in the Book of to a parcel of l a n d a n d p. 114, where he comments that in those notes pett refers the commu nity which lives and works i t .

for the time of granting; their existence in the collection si in no way

stage

The distribution o f estates

With a few exceptions, the Landaff charters grants of land from the modern districts of south-west Hereford, record Monmouth, the Vale

27

26

of Glamorgan, and Gower; the exceptions are from Brecon,Carmarthen and Pembroke. The northern part of Ergyng (south west Hereford)

subsequently drops out of view after the mid-ninth century and was

kms.

4); ni the twelfth nos. 169b, 170, 174a, 171b, 229a, and 230b (c. 850-87 mented that the writer of the 'Life' of Euddogwy com

miles

drawn into the English orbit. The last grants to be made from there are the

century, Mochros to the Dore to saint's parroc hia was lost to the Saxons from the Worm to the Tarader. '

than land;? there are privilege or persons rather some charters grant more

than one piece of grants unidentified. Since of previous ations confirm or ts land (while others are either double f charters; o er numb the than r grants), the total of grants is greate

Of these, hence, 184 separate places are named as the object of grants. all of the f o re, therefo 80% tified; uniden thirty-five are at present le to determine the grants of land are locatable. It is therefore possib of their distrito gain some idea position of the majority of grants and high proportion of these have a Since covered. area bution within the

their boundaries or size stated, it si also possible to determine the a heavy extent of many grants. As can be seen from Map 1, theret siHere ford/ -wes south n i and itself scattering in Gower, round Llandaff

north Monmouth (Ergyng and Gwent Uwchcoed), while the land

is almost between the lower Usk and lower Wye (Gwen t Iscoed)

thereforeappear that were English by 1086. It would affiliations of north Ergyngpolitica l and religious domin ationin or after the mid-

English settlement and/or of the area. By 1086 Archenfield - the ninth century changed the chara cter See The Domesday Geography of forest. by off closed was southern part ge, 1971), esp. pp. 67, 87. Cambrid edn., (2nd Darby . H . d e Midland England, men. 243: and 236 2 152 and 253: privilege; my The Llandaff Charters. 3 For discussion of all identifications, see 4 See below, pp. 36, 61.

ogo), 195 eilo Bertholau), 154 (Landeilo'sfan), 156 (Land 5 1 2 2r(Lland au), and 209a (Merthy Clodock), 222 (Aber-carn), 240v (Llanfihangel Crucorn

z

6 0 0 0 acres)

hidation of north Ergyng and from 1 LL, p. 134. It is clear from the Domesday to south Ergyng that the cultural eld Archenfi ay Domesd of ment confine the

KNOWN SIZE KNOWN (40 -

of identifiable lands landing rights.* The overwhelming proportion only seven go above and feet 500 below are 90% approx imatel y Landeilo'r fan 850 feet.5 The highest - Landeilo Bertholau (122) and

UNKNOWN S I Z E& B O L I N D A R I E S

are The areas granted are all well-provided with water; many or fishing specify some and bounded on two or more sides by streams -

A SIZE &BOUNDARIES

entirely covered.

Map .1

Size and distribution of all locatable grants

Of the 158 charters, 123 record grants which are to some extent and four are grants of identifiable on the ground, five are doublets, therefore twenty six

29

28

(154) - include land of. approximately 1300-1500 feet within their Nearly all bounds, though most of each estate is very much lower. is rarely variation the but ground, lower and estates include higher Landeilo Bertholau greater than 200-300 feet. Llandeilo F a r (77), (122), Landeilo Tal-y-bont (140), Landeilo'r fan (154), Llandogo (156), Cemais (Kemeys, 183b), Merthyr Clodock (195), Aber-carn variation.' (222), Llanbedr (261), and Garth Maelwg (271) have a wider

above,' a boundary may be expressed briefly, noting the extreme limits, or as a lengthy perambulation. The brief notes are nearly always integral to the text of their charters, but the perambulations are more

usually appended. Moreover, since the orthography of the latter is considered to be no earlier than the tenth century, it is doubtful if the perambulations associated with pre-tenth-century charters were a part

of the original records; they are probably subsequent additions.? Given

/ There are no distinctively characteristic soil-types, and the drift

these doubts, it may be better to assume their evidence appropriate to the tenth- and eleventh-century landscape rather than that of an earlier

larly in Glamorgan. There is, moreover, no apparent chronological

Wells, springs, streams, hills, and slopes abound. Woods and woodland feature in about a third of the boundaries (or grants).3 They occur at all periods, though rarely in association with the large number of

t. There is no noticeable geology of the estates is remar kably incon sisten kinds of soil, although worse the or preference for either the better alluvial soil, particusome include grants le about 40% of all identifiab

there distincti on between estates characte rised by different soil types: less ally potenti to good is no appare nt change from the potenti ally hand, other the On versa. vice or , heavier good soil, nor from lighter to

able estates it is perhaps worth pointing out that virtually all identifi

Land occur on land which is classified as good on modern Agricultural

Classification maps. A very high proportion are on land of grades 2 and 3, with a little of grades 1 and 4. It would, of course, be false to argue

from the modern classification to earlier land use, since modern techni-

al, but it is ques may well have realised formerly unrealised potenti from best quality land nevertheless worth noting that virtually all grants ified

are on lands now class are early, and that virtually all early grants y notable in the case especiall s i This value.? as of the best agricultural contain some signiwhich f o all grants, of the early Ergyng and Gower

ficant proportion of grade 1 in areas of slightly lesser quality: Valley

Dore (736/163a, c.595; 1626, c.605), Dorstone (72b, c.580), Bellimoor

Landinabo (161, c.610), Madley (76a, c.575), Ballingham (164, c. 620),(76b, c.605; (73a, c.585), Pencoed (75, c.555); Bishopston and Pennard 144, c.650; 145, c. 695).

The landscape

permits The provision of detailed boundaries for many of the grants noted

some observations about the early medieval landscape. As 271 (Llanwynno), if the identification be correct; 140 (Llandeilo Tal-y-bont) and

p e ri o d

eighth-century charters, and ni all areas, though less frequently ni

Glamorgan; the latter point is probably not significant, since there are fewer Glamorgan charters. There are four early instances • Welsh

Bicknor c.575 (72a), ? Rhosili c.655 (140), Tidenham c.703 (174b), and Llansoy c. 725 (187) - which suggests that the grant was essentially composed of arable land between a stretch of woodland and pasture (or

the sea, ni the case of Tidenham).4 Since all of these occur ni short expressions of limits and not ni long perambulations they almost certainly belong to the original records and may therefore suggest quite large stretches of woodland at these earlier periods. Other hints of extensive woodlandcome from the perambulations of Landinabo (73a)

2

Pp. 7-9. SeeK.H. Jackson, Language and History i nEarly Britain (Edinburgh, 1953),

p. 58;Jackson cites Loth's opinion of a tenth/eleventh-century date, though he himself considers the boundaries not much earlier than the early twelfth century. There are serious problems here, however: I am n o tcompetent to comment on

orthography or soundchange, but if north Ergyng slipped out of Welshhands in or after the mid-ninth century, the perambulations of 72b, 73a are hardly likely

to have been added in the tenth or eleventh o r early twelfth century.Neither are

appended to the text. Moreover, it si not inherently inconceivable that the perambulationsare earlier, for there are perambulations in The Bookof Armagh, ed. J. Gwynn (Dublin, 1913), f. 1 7 r- an early ninth-century manuscript, b u tat least a n

eighth-century

record

fbid..

p.

Ixx);

there

are

also e i g h t h - c e n t u r y

Carolingian perambulations, Die U r k u n d e n d e r Karolinger, i, ed. E. Mühlbacher.

MGH, Dip., ser. 2, i (Berlin,1956), pp. 114 f, no. 80; theninth-century Vita Pauli remarks that the names and b o u n d s of the treft he received were transcribed in

(Garth Maelwg) both rise to about 850 feet.

charters (c.

156: 50-1000 feet; 1836: 0-750feet;195: 425-1200feet; 240y: 425-1100 feet;

72a, 726,73a,7 4 ,121, 122,140,143,145,155,157, 160, 165, 171b, 1716Ш, 174а,1746, 1836,187, 206, 218, 228, 2296, 239,240vi, 240Х, 171и,

1 7 7 : 77-550 feet; 122: 300-1500 feet; 140: 0-850 feet; 154: 750-1375 feet;

222: approximately300-900 feet; 261: 100-750 feet; 271: 200-850 feet.

t are lands in southern 2 The only notable exceptions to the former statemen rably improved by conside been ably presum has capacity ural agricult whose Gwent, the case of Welsh Bicknor s i latter the to on excepti only The e. drainag modern may (72a) - though there is some reason to suppose that the focus of that estate

well have been at Huntsham, which would fit the general pattern.

19, p . 452); a n d there are perambulations in the ninth-century

charters of the Lichfield marginalia, LL, pp.xlv-vii. 257, 261, 262, 267, 271.

4 72a, 187 inter siluam et camp um. ;. 140 a dorso montis diuidente siluam et

campum, in mare . ; 174b a silua usque ad mare; cf.the text of the regrant of Cemais, c. 860/70, inter siluam &campumet aquam (183b).

31 30

and Crick (262), which refer to 'the great wood', Lanbedr (261), which

refers to Wentwood, and possibly from land on the river Gamber (174a)

which refers to part of Mamilad wood, and land near Whitchurch (257), is Peithan. For the most part, howwhich grants a third of the wood Yntenth and eleventh centuries clearly

ash (171b, 173, 201, 249b), thorn (201), apple (206), willow (74/171b, Marshland 240, 251, 267), broom (212), hazel (246), and gorse (218). . There ntered encou ntly freque more e r a pools but rare,? was evidently

2.0.

..

were occasional meadows. Bridges were few - near Landenni (208),

Aber-carn (222) and Llanmelin (244) - but fords common.3 About a

third of the perambu lations refer to roads:

the boundaries often

touched the road, sometimes crossed it, sometimes ran along it. Most

references invoke not merely a road but a main road (ffordd mawr/ui a

magna or uia lata), and, as Map 2 demonstrates, these were not confined

ilo'r f a nwas to the coastal areas one might expect. The road at Llande

hen ffordd, the old road, and the estate lay not far off the line of the Roman road.

These were clearly the major features of the landscape, but other landmarks were often utilised. Banks and ditches are recurrent as

boundary marks, the latter appearing ni just over a quarter of all

often ran from perambulations, the former in slightly less. Boundaries

stone ot stone, occasionally from cairns (123, 171b, 233, 235b, 240ix),

and once from a tumulus (223).4 Two boundaries used Dew'sresting

. Darby, p. 87. Midland, ed. H

2 Welsh Bicknor (72a), Pencoed (75), Howick (143), river Thaw (147),

Bishton (1806).? (223).

3 Near Landinabo (73a), St. Maughan's (74), Bishopston (145), ? (155), Llan(164),Llan-gwm (173),river Gamber dogo (156), Llanerthill(159a), Ballingham (216b), ? (223),Dingestow (227b),Llan-

(174a),Wonastow(201), St-y-Nyll wytherin(228), Llanmelin (244), Rockfield(246),Whitchurch(257),river Thaw (260), Garth Maelwg (271).

4 Cf. cumulum lapidum (148) and cumulus (121, 165, 174a), though cumulus

is also 'mound'i nthetext of 123; cf. nant bed ir alltudion, 'stream of the grave of the strangers/foreigners' (225); ? perhaps also crug, 'mound' (77, 122, 141, 154,

155,195, 212, 228,235b, 255, 257, 259, 262, 267, 271).

zE

* ROAD ^ LARGE ROAD O ROAD

borders of 1 In 1086 there was apparently extensive woodland round the takeEnglish the to subsequent reversion some suggest might which , Archenfield to over of north Ergyng; one Domesday vill (Harewood) was actually converted Geography, Domesday also see 187; f . Book, Domesday waste, from woodland

- KNOWN ROMAN

place, Powisfa Dewi (157 and 259). There was one dinas (140), Sxi

caerau (187, 221, 224, 226, 237a, and 255) and eight cestyll (74, 123, 127a, 171b-twice, 1806, ?205, 235b), all presumably indicating a

R o m a n roads of south-east Wales and focal points of charters

Occasionally there are explicit references to the flora: yew (165),

Map 2.

and sometimes through two.'

miles

kms.

imply short stretches: boundaries commonly run right through a wood,

1 0i s2 02 5

20

ever, references to woodland in the

33

32

of fortified or fortifiable place of some sort. Caer and castell are used

distance of about three miles (140). It is possible to trace every detail

the same place ni 226. Of buildings of any sort there si little mention,

o f some perambulations,

churches c.655 and 970 (140, 240ii and 240viii), the urbs of 233, c.905 - presumably Caerwent' - and the biblical comment quandiu

exceptional, are a villa/ager and land of one modius each, s o m e t h i n gof

uncommon among the later perambulations; their primary meaning in this text would seem to be 'estate', but they do of course also imply

c h a r t e r s are dealing with the transfer of large and small e s t a t e s or f a r m s .

except for two stone houses c.775 and 970 (206 and 240vii), three

lapis fuerit super lapidem, c.745 (198a).*Villae and treft are not

residence.? The sole hint of any industrial activity is contained in the

references to Cyngen's kiln, near Whitchurch c. 1033 (257),

and

Lunbiu's kiln near Matharn (undatable; 141).

The general impression, then, is of a landscape o fundulating

nd countryside, cleared but largely unenclosed, with patches of woodla

and plenty of streams and pools, crossed by recognisable highways. Some boundary banks and ditches, stones and cairns would have hill-fort or earth. varied the norm, as would the occasional prominent

work. Settlements must have been totally unremarkabl e or impermanen t or well away from the boundaries.

The grants

From the outset ti si clear that the Landaff charters record grants of

land of estate size rather than of o d d small fields. There are boundaries

and in such cases the areas enclosed varied

between 125 and 1000 acres, and were, exceptionally, greater. In other cases, a size is given ni the charter: the smallest single grants, which are the order of forty acres? Others were as large as fourunciae; that is, of of the order of 2000 acres. It is quite clear, then, that the Landaff and, moreover, that most grants comprised a single parcel of land. 3

The size of the farms is stated in eighty-four charters, just over half of the total. It is expressed either in unciae or in m o d i , the latter

being preferred ni 70% of the measurements. There are 12 modi to the uncia, a measure of the order of 500 acres.* There is a single mention of ingera ni 233, and of 'acres' ni 123. The latter is unlikely to be an early record. A handful of estates were very large - one was four unciae (approximately 2000 acres) and nine were three unciae (approximately 1500 acres) -

but by far the commonest size was three m o d i

(approximately 125 acres); this comprises 44% of all measurements

cited. There are only eight instances of anything smaller than this: three estates of two modi (171a, 230b, 262), twoestates of one and a half modi (246, 249a), two of one modius (227a, 239) and a fragment of a half modius added to another grant (212). Where the size is not stated but the bounds can be traced - as

the Villa Breican/ which ran from one villa to another, like that oaf willa Guoidhearn est illius 'finis 745: . c ydd, Ellgnou in Gwrin

happens in a further sixteen cases - an approximate area is deducible.

usque willam Marchleu' (202). And there are thoset h a tutilise the boundary cairns of other villas or trefi, like that of Castell Conscuit,

201, 240i, 240iü, 240iv, 240v, 240viii. See also Wendy Davies, 'Unciae: land

longitudine eius ad villam Congint; latitudine eius a uilla Conlipan

Caldicot, c.895: *.. .ad dexteram dir cruc arall, or cruc dir carnou fin

tref Peren, or carn. '. (235b).3 Many bounds unquestionablyreter to places a mile or more apart: Bolgros, Bellimoor, was 'next to' Mochros,

Moccas, though the modern settlements are actually nearly 3 miles

apart (161); the boundary of Merthyr Clodock ran from Mynydd Ferddin to the river Monnow and across to the other side, a distance of ran from at least two miles (195); the bounds of Llandeilo Tal-y-bont

the river Loughor to the source of the Camffrwd to the Dulais, a

Urbs, however, usually means 'monastery' rather than 'town'; see below, p. 122;

cf. Taui urbis (149).

2

See below, pp. 38-40.

3 'to the right to the other mound; fromt h emound to the cairns o fthe boundary of Tref Peren; from the cairn. . . Cf. also 144, 1596, 218, 224, 233, 239, 240ix, 251.

Thereare particularly goodexamplesfrom thebounds of 122, 160,183a, 187,

measurement i nthe Liber Landavensis', Agric. Hist.Rev.,xxi(1973), 115-7, for three published examples; and Lynda Rollason, 'The boundaries of the Hereford-

shirecharters of the Book of Llandaff, University of Birmingham B.A. dissertation, 1975.

2 227a and 239.

3 216b, 233, 239, 244 and 257, however, are obviously not single parcels; cf. the fragmentation cited below, p. 58.

4 The figure of 500 acres si deduced; see Wendy Davies, art. cit. n . 1 above.

Cf. unciae insixth-centuryRavenna: 'et tradedit, Deusdedit.; iure directo ni perpetuum, heredibus posterisque eius, id est fundi, cui

vocavalum est Custinis, uncias quinque i r i s sui et portionem aedifici, s e det casalis ad s e pertinentis nomine Bassianum uncias duas, cum omni iure. ,' Chartae Latinae Antiquio res, ed. A. Bruckner and R . Marichal, iii (Olten and Lausanne, 1963), p.6, no. 181.

Where charters state both size a n dboundary, and where that boundary si wholelyor partiallydiscoverable,it is clear that modius usually refers to an area in the order of forty acres and uncia to one in the order of 500 acres. The acreage is only approximate, however, and it would be misleading to assumeany

precision intended in this, as in any other early medieval land unit. Actual size is bound to vary with productive capacity. A few estates appear to be bigger than

implied by these suggested figures: 208, 2096, 212, 2356,240vil, 262.

35 34

eilo Fawr at approxiThe sixteen include a few huge estates - Lland about 4000 (140), t a ont Tal-y-b mately 6000 acres (77), Llandeilo

2100 Llandeilo'r fan at about 3500 (154), and Landogo at about with a those to rable compa s i sizes of range l genera the - but

(156) specified measurement.

three The frequency of the three m o d i estate is notable. A further have ds boun le verab disco with grants without any statement of size but three m o d i the rule in just appro ximat ely the same area, which makes

in under a half of all given sizes. Moreover, most of the others are to Withou t attachi ng too much import ance

multiples of three!

eless looks figures which can hardly have been very precise, it neverth of

of standard unit, as fi the three modi estate represents some sort about 125 acres in area.

There are only three instances of a grant of anything smaller than

in the Clodock area the above estates. These are the pratum given elin

occasional grant 'with its wood', like ecclesiam Mable habens (sic)

vi modios cum silua et campo (Llanfable, c.860, 171b), alios tres

modios t e r r a e terram Riubrein

.cum silua sua (Llanwytherin, c.876, 228), and

, cum tertia parte siluae Ynis Peithan (near Whit-

church, .c 1033, 257).' Again, if woods are being specified separately,

ti is difficult to imagine what was the object of the grant other than arable or pasture. In a few cases the point si explicit: at Cil Tudwg near Tenby, a man's pig is supposed to have gone into the corn (127a, undatable); the first cultivators are mentioned in the grant of Merthyr

Clodock (195, c.740); the villa near St-y-Nyll was granted with its

church and three modi of land and sex modis tritici (c.870, 216b);? the Villa Branuc was granted together with the monks pasture and cum aratris suis in oper Humir (c.866, 230b); ni 955, at harvest time, a deacon met a peasant coming through the com (218). Some arable use is therefore demonstrable, and the tenor of the evidence is

to suggest that some proportion of arable use was the norm in the

c.980 near Llanm (196, undatable); the third of the pratum given

lowland estates. The great variety of soil-types indicates that all land included within these estates cannot have been equally suitable for

it is impossibleto estimate hte precisesizeof these grants, but the

arable use. Large areas of alluvium and river gravel in south Gwent may well have been intensively cultivated, as also similar areas of the

(257). (244); and the third of the wood given c. 1033 near Whitchurch

terms ofreference suggest something smaller than the norm.

Explicit reference to land use on these estates is tantalisingly rare.

of donors The odd mention of grants which included inhabitants and were essentially who remained in occupation suggests that the gifts There si only

tracts? gifts of land ni working order andnot of-t virgin o the first cultiva tors one referen ce - which is retrosp ective

of an

d appear that in many estate (193, repeated ni 195. Further, it woul word ager itself

grants the intention was to convey arable land: the particular has arable implications, and this was used not only in the

sense of a distinctive land unit but generally to describe land appurten are there above, noticed s A centres. estate described variously ant to four early grants and one middle-period grant which appear to consist

it is difficult to of land between the wood and the pasture, and the most part the For arable. than other this for conceive of a use

ant to our purposes appurtenances quoted in each charter are irrelev

early Glamorgan grants by the river Thaw. (228) and Llanfable (171b), on the other alluvium in the Red Marl, but their bounds the easily-workable land. The estates in presumably unsuitable for predominantly

Places like Llanwytherin hand, utilised pockets of went beyond the limits of mountainous areas were

arable usage, but these

were few, usually much larger, and were clearlyabnormal (Llandeilo Fawr, Landeilo Bertholau, Landeilo Tal-y-bont, Lan-gors, Landeilo' fan, Llandogo, Merthyr Clodock, ?Llanwynno, Aber-carn, Llanfihangel Crucornau,Garth Maelwg).

The woods, meadows, and pasture mentioned occasionally must themselves have been a significant element in the pattern of land use: they are, of course, a means of feeding stock. They occur frequently a m o n g t h e b o u n d s of p r o p e r t i e s , a n d o c c a s i o n a l l y in t h e t e x t s t h e m

selves, as indicated above.3 Once, at Lansoy c.725, the value of the

but a few charters specity

wood is explicitly stated for the grant was made cum glandine &

suppose such details to be other than original. Hence, we find the

1 Also 125a, 156, 174a, 1806, 187, 1906, 218. 2 This might mean 'sown land' or the seed corn, where modius would b ea

sincethey are late

interpolations,

reason to appurtenances alongside the interpolations; there is no

Theexceptions are 76b (4 modi), 171a (2), 183a (4), 175/186b (4), 204a (4), 212 (4 and ½), 227a (1), 2306 (2), 237a (4),239 (4 and 1), 244 (4), 262 (2) 2 See below, pp. 62 ff.

3 See above, p. 29

4 See above, pp. 8 f, 22.

measure of dry weight rather than area.

3 In the texts, seesilua72a (140), 156,171b,1746,180b, 1836, 187, 1906,

228, 257;pratum196,244; campum12a(140),165, 1716, 1836, 187, 218, 225, 230b. In the boundaries, see woods, above p. 29 and n. 3; and meadow

218, 171bili, 240v, 244, 264a, 267, and additionally 72b, 157, 195, 240vi, 240viü, 257, 259 fi ynys signifies'water-meadow'.

36

37

ancipitre in silua, 'with pannage and hawking in the wood' (187).

(Hawking si also mentioned c.595 and 955 [166, 218]. There si a vaguer reference to hunting ni the Merthyr Clodock area [193, un-

datable], while hawks, hounds, horses and horns - the objects of the chase - featured in payments of the eighth century.') As for stock-

rearing, pigs themselves only occur ni the story of Cil Tudwg already referred to, and in the 'sow's track' in the bounds of Chepstow (165). There si a 'shepherd's hill' ni the bounds of Landeilo'r fan (154); domesticated and wild flocks and/or herds are mentioned at Llandenni

mainaur less than 2%, domus, locus, and tellus less than 1% each.

Very occasionally the vernacular tir is used as an alternative for another term, for example for ager in 76a and 232a, and ni the bounds of 251. Uncia appears to have been used as a term for a land unit - and

not as a measurement - in two cases.' Some of these terms are used

interchangeably in the same charter - ager a n dterra, ager and uilla, and once ager and ecclesia -

so that it is clear that every term does not

have a consistently precise a n d exclusive usage. Despite this, there are a number of valid distinctions to be made between the units to which

(207) and Aber-carn (222); and there is a vague reference to yoked

they normally refer.

a standard of value, ni itself an indication of their value ni the total economy. The aristocracy, at least, rode about on horses: king Tewdrig mounted his horse for battle (141); king Ithel was thrown

the measurement alone may in itself imply that the land was not

cattle near Merthyr Clodock (193).? Cattle were sometimes used as

from his horse (157); and the wicked Rhiwallon was thrown after a raid on St. Maughan's because his horse noticed a large fish (264b). Fish were clearly an important source of food, and fishing rights are

often specified along with properties.3 For the most part, however, livestock are startlingly absent, but their presence must be assumed from the very mention of woods, pastures, and meadows. It si impossible, ni the last analysis, to make any comment on the relative proportion of cattle to sheep or on the relative significance of arable and pastoral activities because of the lack of statistical information .

Though there appear to be no marked differences ni land use,

different terms are employed to refer to the estates granted. The object of the grant may also be expressed simply as a measurement (N. gave three unciae of land), or it may be defined by a place-name. The relative proportion of occurrences of these different practices is as

follows: uilla 27%, place-name 16%, ecclesia 14%, ager 12%, measure-

ment 8%, podum 6%, tref, territorium, and terra under 5% each,

1 See below, p. 53. in 2 Cf. the sheep renders of 1086 supplied by Kings Caple and the king's men Archenfield (Domesday Book, f. 181); pigs rendered from Gwent and Ewas (ibid., ff. 162 and 184); and cows from Gwent (ibid., f. 162).

3 125a, 146, 204a, 243, 257; and also weirs, which probablyhad afishing use,in

141, 146, 150a, 156, 158, 165, 1746, 183a, 2096, 221, 225, 234, 235b. Cr.firstly, three fisherieso nt h eriver Dore, ten and a half on the Wye, seven ontheUskand

ed. Wye, and a half beyond the Usk, ni 1086 (DomesdayGeography,Midland,V H. Darby, p. 91); secondly, fishingrights in the rivers Uskand Neath, ita Cadoci, c. 24 (VSB, p. 78); and thirdly,fish from weirs on theWye intheAnglo-

Saxon Tidenham charters,Anglo-SaxonCharters, ed. A.J. Robertson (Cambridge, 1939), pp. 204-6, 216-8, CIX and CXVII.

Dinas Powys, pp. 36-40, 191-4: 20% cattle, 13% sheep, 61% pig, 1% deer, 4% birds, and horse very rare.

We may begin by lookingat the non-terminological practices. Use of

worked as a coherent single estate at the time of granting.? Its use si

restricted to the period c. 575-770 (76a-209a), with two later occur-

rences, c.862 (212) and c.925 (239), both in western Glamorgan. It si therefore an essentially early usage. Use of the place-name happens at

all periods, though rarely in the late seventh and eighth centuries: where it is genuine it implies, at the least, that the place - be it

settlement or estate - was known at the time of granting. It so happens that nearly all of these place-names are 'Llan-' names and

nearly all have appurtenant land; that is, they suggest a religious

settlement with appurtenant land. The practice may therefore be merely an alternative way of referring to existing ecclesiae or poda,

and may not imply any significant difference in the nature of the estates. Two are called poda subsequently in the texts, and two are referred to as agri.

The terms fall essentially into three groups: those implying religious settlements or buildings; those implying secular settlements; and those implying cultivable land. To take firstly the religious: ecclesia means 1 Since some lands have alternativedescriptions, the total number of terms si greater than the total o f grants; the proportions are p r o p o r t i o n sof a l loccurrences

e l l u s i sused in association with another t e r mi n5% of cases. Tir:

198b, 201,

224, 251. Cf. tref and mainaur inthe Lichfield marginalia, LL pp.xiiv-vii. Uncia: 169a and 173, glossing ager; cf. 203a; see Ag. Hist. Rev., xxi (1973), 119. 2 But not 179c and 186a, which are also uillae. Measurement alone: 73b, 76a,

76b, 123, 140, 158, 1596, 163a, 179c =( uilla), 185 (= terra), 186a =( uilla),

2036, 204a, 209a, 212, 239 =( tellus). (Terms in brackets refer to incidental

references in the same charters, in this and subsequent lists; some charters use

several methods of reference, so each incidence is not exclusive).

Place-name alone: 726*, 74(=podum)*, 77*, 122*, 125a, 140*, 146*, 154*

155*, 156 (= podum)*, 159a*, 1626, 166*,, 167 (tren*,173*, 180a, 1806* ( ecclesia)*, 221,2 2 6 ,229a, 234, 244*, 246* 188b, 207,210a, 210b, 212, 216a =

*, 264a,267; those starred are 'Llan-' names. 4 See below, p. 73 f, for the meaning and use of ecclesia andpodum.

39

38

land associated church. Nearly all grants of ecclesiae have appurtenant around the being s a ed describ in the grant, land which is often e (1696). 1' s circa suo agro cum c Cilpede 'church'; hence, ecclesiam This suggests that the term was used literally to indicate the building, as

is explicit ni one case:

'Istam ecclesiam quam uideo cum suatota

tellure, & villam Guocof ni qua sto . . . (157). Poda similarly have appurtenant land associated, as in podum sancti Budgualan cum

must mean estate in this text, though the word itself implies an estate

dependent on some (secular) settlement; ni modern terms, a 'farm'. 1 Since, with three exceptions, trefi which are the object of a grant are

always described as uillae in the text, it is reasonable to assume that willa has the same import. The bounds of uillae run across country like those of trefi, and are not infrequently introduced by finiseiusdem

agri, 'the boundary of that land is. . . A uilla grant is clearly a land

(164).? Thepodum is duabus uncis, & media uncia in circuitu podi

grant too.? Like tref, the word of itself implies a settlement, and in the a place where people lived. Both

monasteries of Llantwit and Lancarfan are podum sancti Ilduti and

terms, t h e r, would seem to mean an estate dependent on a (secular) settlement, that is worked from or making returns to that settlement;

Llan-arth in 123. The word must therefo religious settlement, and this si the explicit use of it in the tenth-

they appear to be Latin and Welsh equivalents of the same unit. (There is some reason to think that in the later period, as in the

alternatively called cella ni 144, and ecclesia ni 183a and217. The

resided at his podum of podum carbani uallis in 152, and Teilo re indicate some sort of

e 'Llan-' century Colloquy. Both ecclesiae andpoda usually becom in the later place-name and in the subsequently-added titles to the

grants: podum Loudeu (Llanloudy, 163b), ecclesia merthir maches

tently small units (Llanfaches, 211b). The lands associated were consis acres.* Locus 500 above rose (usually three modi) and only rarely

Colloquy a uilla is undoubtedly

Colloquy, the term uilla may often have been restricted to the house or settlement, for from the mid-ninth century uillae were commonly granted in association with appurtenant land, a usage absent from the

early charters; uilla and 'church' are associated ni 253,c. 1025). The maiority of uillae/trefi consisted of three modi of land (about 125

similarly implies a religious building, but the examples are few and with

acres); they were never very large, and the only uilla larger than one

141, 192, 193).

trefi, then, like most ecclesiae,were a standard size. It there fore looks as if the standard unit of production was one dependent on a single

two exceptions (121 and 162a) occur in dubious charters (127a, 127b,

The second group comprises uilla and tref. Tref means homestead,

later town and township; that is, a place where people live. It is quite

clear fromthe context, however, that grants of trefi were grants of

bounds ran from land, and not purely grants of settlements, since their

uncia was Garth Maelwg, c. 1075, about 650 acres (271). Most uillae/ settlement. Moreover, it is remarkable that nearly all uilla/tref/ecclesia units which are still locatable today enclose only one principal modern

settlement and church within their bounds, with or without outlying farms. Such a coincidence may suggest some direct correlation with the

wood to stream, as did the bounds of any other estate. Tref, then,

pre-Conquest situation.

170, 1716, 1746 (193), Ecclesiae : 143, 145, 157, 165 (=mainaur) , 1696,216b (217(=podum, and

The willa of south-east Wales was clearly not the uilla of the Continental polyptyquesof the same period: it was much too small. Nor was it like a mansus: in Frankia the small households of five or six people

200=( ager), 201, 205,206,208,211b(216a),

1996, 240, 253, 263;cf. Wila intitle -? ni error]), 2276,228, 2296, 230a, 231, 235b, ecclesia), 123, 125a the incidental references to ecclesiae in 72a (mainaur and

(mainaur and ecclesia), 226 (castellum and ecclesia), 269.

cella), 149 (152, 156), 2 Poda: 73a (74, 1 2 1 , 1 2 3 , 1 2 5 b , 1276), 144 (=ager and

160, 1636,164, 165 (174b), 175, 183a(gloss, = ecclesia). 186b,187, 192,199a

(217 (Fecclesia]). (Numbers in brackets here, andin later lists, refer to charters in and is not which the podum is mentione d incidental ly in the text or boundary

itself the specified object of t h e grant). 3 'Ubi est abbas huius podi

>? Early Scholastic Colloquies, ed. W.H.

psthe word podumrefers tothe physical elevation of p. 2. PerhaTeilo's son, S,monasteries: Steven podumin 123is on a mons; cf.Aethelwulf, Someearly

De Abbatibus, ed. A. Campbell (Oxford, 1967), p.

13, lines 131-9, of a

monastery - collis n o n magnus.

4 The exceptions are as follows:

podum - 73a: 500 ac.: 164: 1250; ecclesia -

171b: 900; 201: 750; 240m: 500;

240v: 6 0 0 : 2 4 0 v i i : 675.

§ Compare the boundary cairns of Tref Peren above, p. 32 n. 3. C.f J.Lloyd, A

History of Wales (3rd. ed., London, 1939), p. 295. Note the tribus sinus sabrinae

(i.e. trefi) in L L . p. 69.

1 Tref: 125a,125b (=uilla,159b), 167 (212), 222 (= uilla), 224 ni title

=( uilla), 2 3 2 b , 2 3 3 = uilla) ( 2 3 5 b ) , 237b =(

uilla, 244, 249a), 253 ( =uilla), 255

=( uilla), 258=( uilla), 259 (= uilla), 272 (= uilla).

2 Villa: 125b (= tref, 127a, 147, 148 (= ager), 151a, 1516, 157, 1596,168

(170),176a, 179a, 1796, 179c, 184, 186a, 190a,1906 (=ager), 191, 197, 198a, 202, 203a (3 uillaeare anager), 2046,211a,214,216b, 217(in title = ecclesia),

222 (= tref), 223, 224 (= tref in title), 227ai n title=( ager i ntext), 2306, 233 (Etref), 235a,237a, 2376 (=tref), 244, 245, 249a, 249b, 253 (=tref),255 (=tref), 258 (=tref), 259 (=tref), 260, 262, 269, 271, 272 (-tref), 274. 3 'Uolo, utexeasad equos meos, et defer nobis duos equos. • ; ut equitamus in

proximamullam, in qua habetur celea (i.ceruisa)', Early Scholastic Colloquies,

ed. W.H. Stevenson, 3, p. .2 Cf. Et aedificata est villa Cardiviae, s.a. 1081, "Annales de Margan' i n Annales Monastici, i, ed. H.R. Luard (Rolls Series, 1864), р. 4.

41

4 0

that worked eighth- and ninth-century mansi were dealing with units of

the order of fifteen to twenty acres. Strict comparison with these - if

valid - would suggest that a Landaff uilla of three modi, the standard unit, might have supported a working population of forty people, including children, besides providing a surplus for the o w n e r.

One

LIlandaff ecclesia of the ninth century, Kilpeck (169b), boasted fifty-

seven men ni 1086.2 Neither analogy is necessarily relevant, since

comments very explicitly in the seventh century that 'Rura veteres incultos agros dicebant, id est silvas et pascua; agrum vero, qui colebatur and later that • . . provincias in regionibus, regiones in locis, loca in territoriis, territoria in agris, agros in centuris, centurias in

iugeribus, iugera i nclimatibus,deinde climata in actus, . . . palmos,

uncias et digitos dividerunt'.! There might conceivably, then, eb some

late Roman origin for the use of the term in these charters and some

conditions can vary so much with productive capacity, but both would suggest that the standard unit required a working population of at

process of development comparable to that of theContinent.? Terra

identified - Tref Ili, Tref Marchan, Tref Eliau, Villa Conuc, Villa Ellgnou, Villa Tancuor fi l i Condu - must, then, have referred to owner or tenant who ran the uilla as a unit of production, and do not hold.3 There is imply that the units were the lands of a single house

There is no reason to suppose agri more cultivable than any other estates and there is nothing distinctive about their bounds. What then distinguishes an ager from a willa? The difference is unlikely to be merely a reflection of different practices in recording since both terms

least thirty or forty people - far more than the single nuclear family. The personal names by which uilla and tref were so frequently

therefore no reason to suppose that the Llandaff uillae of the middle

and latest periods were distinct from the Domesday vills of Gwent, or

that they were essentially different from the treft of the Laws. The third group of terms carries no implication of settlement. Ager and terra are both used in at least two ways: vaguely, to mean

"and' associated with a measurement (three modi terrae or half an unciae agri), or in order to express appurtenant land; and, more specifically, to describe and refer to a coherent u n i to restate immolauit deo . . . agrum Tencucum duabus uncis agri(176b). There is an ager, presumably of the latter type, mentioned o na n early Welsh stone inscription. It is these specific usages which are considered here. Both words mean no more than land'.

The fact that

ager is occasionally used as a synonym for uilla (190b) or podum (144) emphasises that it did denote an integrated unit. The word

itself reminds us of the technical Roman term for the arable, 'soil'

and 'productive land', and large units called agriwere frequent enough

in Continental surveys of the very early medieval period? Isidore 1See

G. Duby, RuralEconomy and Country Life in the Medieval West, trans.

is used less frequently than ager and tended to replace it in the tenth and eleventh centuries. 3

appear ni most editorial groups. Agri tended to be large, but were not

exclusively large. They tend to have occurred early rather than late.

They were therefore a larger and earlier phenomenon than thevilla,

the standard unit. Further, the uilla estate wasdefined by its relation to

a settlement; the ager was not. There is, ni fact, a single grant of an

agrumin deserto on the river Monnow, c.855 (171a), which may imply that it was devoid of any notable settlements.4

The bounds of very few agri are traceable today. Of those few that

are locatable, only two conform to the settlement pattern of villae and

ecclesiae, that is, of one main modern settlement, plus outlying farms, 228= ecclesia),232a (=tir intitle,239). Terra: (76b), 77(125a), 1276, 185, 189 (= ager), 198b (207, 218=[ ager], 247), 251, 257, 264b, 269. Isidori HispalensisEpiscopi Etymologiarum sive Originum, ed. W.M. Lindsay

2 In the Macon ni the tenth century the ager was a subdivisionof the pagus, and

was itself divided into villae, administeredby one of the count's officers; it sub-

sequently dropped outof use,but is thought t obe 'very ancient' a n dthe 'genuine

economic unit; Cartulaire de Saint-Vincent de Macon, ed. M-C Ragut (Macon,

1864),pp. co-cci;G .Duby, LaSociêtéauxXIee t XII° sièclesdans la résion

maconnaise (Paris, 1971), pp. 99f. Cf. G. Duby, The Early Growth o fthe

C. Postan (1968), esp. pp. 365-73; cf. the unusually large manse of 68 acres

European Economy (London, 1974), pp. 19 ff, and the agri of fifth-century North

2 Domesday Book, .f 181. 3 Cf. the Gloucester Domesday entries for Gwent: 'Sub Wasuuic preposito sunt xili willae. Sub Elmui x i willae . . . Berdic joculator regis habet i uillas . .

(GreggInternational, 1975), pp. 217-23.

associations with the family is, however, suggestive.

bridge Codex of Juvencus', Trans, Philological Soc. (1860-1),221.

arable which supported twenty people (ibid., p. 33).

its Domesday Book, f. 162. The coincidence with the English 120acre hide and 4 ECMW, no. 255.

Ager:144=( podum), 150a, 1506,155, 161, 162a, 169a, 171a, 1715, 174a,

176b. 178. 1836,188a, 1886 (189 = terra), 190b=( uilla), 200(= ecclesia),

203a

= ( 3uillae),2096, 210a (211a =( uilla]), 218=( terra, 221),227a (= uilla ni title,

Africa discussed by J. Percival, 'Culture Mancianae: field patterns in the Albertini tablets' i n The Ancient Historian and his materials, ed. B . Levick

Cf.terrae and tira s 'farmstead/holding in late medieval Senghennydd,

Glamorgan County History, in, ed. T.B. Pugh (Cardiff, 1971), p. 323. Cf. tir 'The Welsh glosses and verses in the Cam-

4 In the Vita Pauli the 'desert' is where no-one lives: 'cujusdam loci deserti p. 70, for deserted land: building and tillage denote occupied as opposed to

qui paternis finibus adhaerebatsecessum petit', c.7, p. 430. Cf. Llyfr Blegywryd, waste land.

42 4

on the for every willa and ecclesia estate. The ager has not left its mark settlement landscape. It would therefore appear that the difference between ager and uilla has to do with the relationshi p between settle-

THE CHANGING PATTERN OF EXPLOITATION

ment and land use; moreover, that the larger size, earlier occurrence, and difficulty of precise location may have to do with changes in that relationship and in the consequent pattern of land use. C.615 king

There are a few charters which explicitly mention slaves. The rich man

Gwrfoddw gave an ager to Dyfrig's church, and then built a church in the middle and put his priest Guoroe there; that ager then became known

as

Lann

Guorboe .

G u o r u o e ' s 'lIan'

(Garway ).

It

lost

its

identity as an ager (162a). 1 Comparably, about 752 Bricon granted an ager composed of three uillae (203a), and several poda comprised an ager r o u n d a b o u t 6 5 0 (144).

Of the remaining terms, territorium and tellus really belong to the

Tudwg gave himself, his offspring and his two uillae into perpetua

seruitute in recompense for an evil deed (127a, undatable). A Saxon woman was handed over in payment for a purchase, c.740 (185). King Ffernfael gave his wife the estate of Landenni along with flocks and

herds, and she thengave theland and its inhabitants, with theiroffspring,

to the church, c.760 (207). In 955, ni recompense for breaking the sanctuary of St. Arvans, four men were given to the church of Teilo, together with some land with its inhabitants, after a judgement that each offender's land and substance should be handed over (218). Charter 236, c.885, is an unexplained grant of two men and their offspring to the

latter group. Territorium is used to indicate land appurtenant to a of small church, podum, 'Ilan-' place-name, or a saint. It is never used

church of Landaff by king Hywel in sempiterna seruitute, while charter

for most of i t s occurrences before c.860 are in dubious charters and it occurs frequently in the twelfth-century portions of Liber Landavensis. Te l l s is used to indicate land appurtenant to ecclesiae. There remain

brothers, with their paterna hereditate and with fishing rights (captura piscium), by a prominent layman so that he might merit beata tranquillitate adipisci perhenne gaudium!

properties (below one uncia).? It si probably not a genuine early term

mainaur and domus, both of which occur too rarely to permit general comment. 3 Llandaff It is clear, therefore, that the land grants recorded in the charters were grants of estates, of no mean size, even by modern some standards; and that the estates supported some arable and pastoral exploitation.

Moreover, the terms used to describe these

estates appear to be significantly different and to change significantly over time:the estate centred on a single settlement, religious or secular, came to predominate.

243, c.980, is an unusually verbose grant (with an awful pun) of two

There are a number of other cases in which a man, termed heres or hereditarius, appears to have been given together with his land. This

presents a complex problem, of importance, which requires some con-

siderable discussion. King Morgan gave uillam Guilbiu cum hereditario

suo Gurhytyr, c.688 (148); Ffernfael's gift of Llandenni was cum

heredibus suis C r i nnomine filio Morciuanv (sic) & omnibus pecudibus

suis, c.760 (207); king Rhys gave land at (?) Lanwynno cum Domnguaret hereditario, c.770 (209a); king Gruffydd gave land at Rhosili cum heredibus suis Boduc atque Eimin, c.925 (239);' one Conuil bought a villa on the Ewenny river from king Morgan and then gave it to bishop Berthwyn, ordering that his son Cynwg and his sons, from generation to

generation, semper seruirent altari Landauiae de predicto agro, c.705

(176/190b).? It seems highly unlikely that the family had bought

itself into slavery, and we can trace them through subsequent generations, continuing to donate lands to the church. Cynwg himself was granting

the Villa Breican /Ellgnou forty years or so later (202). Other occurrences of heredes and hereditarii make it perfectly clear that a different 1 See further below, p. 58 f.

2 Territorium: 77, 141,193, 195, 225 (235a), 269; alsousedin association

with anothertermi n77,121, 122, 123, 145, 146, 154, 159a, 1596, 165, 1716, 217 (227a), 231, 240, 253. 3

Tellus:

75 (208, 239); used in association in 143, 144, 157, 160, 170, 171b,

1746, 180b, 216a, 229a, 231, 269. Mainaur: 72a,125a (165, 180a - title), 253

(263 - title). See also above, p. 37, n. 1. Domus: 121.

1 There i s a boundary interpolated between disposition a n dt h e heredes phrase, which phrase could therefore refer t oo n eof the agri of the boundaryand

not Gruffydd's gift, though this makesconsiderably less sense than the meaning I have assumed.

? Not strictly comparable,since the service phrase is probablyan eleventh-century

interpolation;see pp. 13 f.

44

relationship from slavery is implied by the terms. In some cases the heres or hereditarius was associated in the making of the gift: king Meurig gave the church at Howick uerbo et consensu heredis Liliau simul cum dono illius, c.660 (143); king Ithel and his sons gave land and landing rights at Chepstow and Gurdocius hereditarius filius Catdem simul cum eis, c.722 (158); king Ithel and ludon hereditarius

45

The problem lies with the hereditarit: Iddon of 1796 and Iddig of 150a were both prominent men, who appeared in more than one witness

list and made more than one grant. Iddig was actually rex in 150b. Though they may have been tenants, therefore, they can hardly have been occupying tenants. Moreover, the hereditari of 264b witnessed the alienation of another layman's inheritance c. 1025, so the term does

filius Ceriau gave a villa near Mounton, c.730, though the doubletof the

not seemto have indicated the natural heir of property; and Leufryd,

Judhailet Freudur, c.740 (195). In furthercases, c.575, c.693, c.720,

Cariou and returning a sester of honey and other goods per annum without some additional labour. It would therefore appear that the hereditarius had some responsibility for production within an estate, a

record states that Iddon first bought the land from the king (179b/ 191); king Ithel gave Merthyr Clodock hereditariorum consensu

c.878 charters recording royal gifts included heredes and hereditarii in

the witness lists (76a [heres], 150a, 180a, 2296 [heres]); and c. 1025,

c. 1030 lay charters did so too (264b, 264a). Another lay charter,one of

a grant by the same Cynwg son of Conuil mentioned above, included an

Elgnou heres ni the witness list, while the villa itself took the name of

the heres, Villa Ellgnou; the land had first been purchased from the

king by Cynwg, c. 745 (202). nI only one charter si the meaning of

either term made precisely clear: about 780 king Athwys gave land at

Llanfannar to bishop Cadwared, and this land was then received by

Ileufryd hereditarius in return for an annual render o f six modit of

beer, with bread, flesh and a sester of honey at the bishop's pleasure, from him and from his offspring in perpetuity (210a). It is quite clear

that Leufryd was a tied hereditary tenant. Now the function of both the heredes Elgnou and Conloc (76a) is easily explicable: neither were owners but both appear to have been occupiers since they gave their names to the lands: it is the Villa Ellgnou and ager/tir Conloc which were granted away. The interpolated eleventhor twelfth-century provisos sine herede nisi ad uoluntatem episcoporum

Landauiae would seem to make the same point;' and the eleventh-

century list of bishop Herewald's consecrations refers consistently to consecration of a church sub heredibus.?. .. Heredes were tenants,

tenants who occupied the land, while the term itself suggests that they were hereditary. They were often clerical tenants: Talan was clericus et

heres in 2296 and the heredes of 143 and 207 were associated with

gifts of churches. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that heredes were occupying hereditary tenants, often clerical, whose acquiescence in the alienation of the property was sometimes noted. 1 165; cf. 74, 75, 195.

2 LL, pp. 275 ff. 3 Cf. priests whoare heredes in Lombard Italy, and heredes who are heads

of monastic p a r u c h i a ein Ireland, Book of Armagh, ed. J. Gwynn, f.9v, 161. I am

very grateful to Dr. C.J. Wickham for pointing out that there are many examples of families who select priests, usually family members, as heirs (heredes) to

the hereditarius of 210a, can hardly have been farming 500 acres at

responsibility passed on to his heirs, but that he was not necessarily an occupier working the land himself. Iddon and Iddig had their own properties as well as tenancies: these tenancies must presumably have

been acquired as valuable property rights ni themselves. Iddon, ni fact,

appears to have purchased the property (or part of i t from the king before making the gift (191/179). The tenancy, then, may have been marketable. Some comparable and more explicit transactions are recorded in the

Vita Cadoci charters: though Gualluuir gave Pencarn to Cadog, his heirs

(heredes) were to continue ni occupation and supply an annual render,

quatinus ipse et heredes ipsius seruirent familie Cadoci ex sumptibus

huius agri preter ipsos'. They were to maintain the tenancy, and presumably reap the profits. In another, Guorcinnim bought Reathr from the king ni propriam hereditatem and gave ti away to Cadog, but he

also had to make a payment to Mesic who held Reathr by hereditary

right, hereditario iure. Initially the king was the owner but Mesioc was an hereditary tenant, and Guorcinnim purchased both property and tenancy for Cadog.?

churches in eighth- and ninth-century Tuscany, and a few in which priests adopt their (non-related) successors as their heirs. In one, the incumbent formally adopted his successor into his kindred, and in another heconfirmedh i ma shis adopted son and heir. The significanceof the parallels si primarily in stressing the treatment of churches as property - like anyother. See below, pp. 58 f. 1 Compare the sale of inherited tenancies of mansi in Frankia in this period, G.

Duby, RuralEconomy and Country Life, p . 373, and of other tenures, E. Levy, West Roman Vulgar Law (Philadelphia, 1951), pp. 93 ff. 2 VSB, pp. 128, 132; see also below pp. 114 .f for Gualluuir and Guorcinnim. Cf. thecomparably complex transactions recorded in the 'Book o f Deer', K.H. Jackson, Gaelic Notes, pp. 114-24; Professor Jackson points o u tt h a tthereare threetypesof grant: the land itself, though even this is not freehold; the cuit or

share duet o the king,mormaer or toisech.and quenching, thepayment of necessary dues b ya thirdparty. It is not, of course, inconceivable thatthe king's

function in these gifts is as guarantor rather than donor, particularly those cases in which the grant has previously been purchased from the king;in see further

below, pp. 51-4. There si no reason tosuppose thattheking owned ail land or that

47

46

It would therefore appear that the heres was an occupying tenant,

tied hereditarily, and that the hereditarius was a man with some

hereditary rights to the produce of an estate, rights which could ni some circumstances be acquired and exchanged, and also that the value

of the produce might be more or less limited by fixed annual renders

payable to other parties. Whether or not it si valid to make a strict

distinction between hereditary rights and obligations, or between heres

and hereditarius, is problematic. The use of two terms and the apparent

difference in social level between them may suggest that the hereditarius had more heritable rights and the heres more heritable obligations.

Given the changeable nature of early medieval terminology, the lack of

comparable material from any area close at hand increases the problem. to For what it is worth, however, in classical Roman law heres can refer

anyone who takes over property from the deceased - even a slave who

those works the property in absentia - and heredita rius can be used of who perform functions for the owner in a lacuna. Ninth-cen tury Breton

subiecti as servi or captivi.' The ninth-century record of manumission among the Lichfield marginalia makes the same point.? There are . notably - no records of manumission among the Llandaff records. The tied tenant farmers were presumably a sort of hereditary colonate.

There are no indications of labour service ni Landaff or other material,

although, interestingly, labour services were expected from the large

estate at Tidenham when it changed (English) hands in the mid-tenth century. This - or some part of it - was ni the hands of Welsh kings in

the early eighth and late ninth centuries (174b and 2296).3 There is no way of assessing the servility of the tenant farmers though the regrants and recovery of lands already donated to the church in the past suggests

that the situation was not inflexible. I thappened twice within 200 years

in the case of Cemais (183), and, ni one case, the regrant was of property associated with heredes in the first grant (207 and 208). Apparently-tied coloni, heredes, and manentes seem to have been given with land in early Brittany and these may represent some comparable

material would imply that heredes were rather small-scale tiedtenants,

system of agrarian organisation." Apart from these two groups, the

Frankish formularies used heres both for the hereditary tenant and his

of lay grants while the existence of untied, completely free peasantry si neither demonstrable nor deniable.5 Dependentsof one sort or another

though coheredes might sometime s exercise limitation s on alienation .

be heirs, and also for the heirs of the donor/dominus.' Hence there may with tenant tied the some justification in seeing the heres as the colonus, hereditary obligations, and ni seeing the hereditarius as the man with

some hereditary interest ni the profits and with rights of alienation,but

the distinction, if valid, was probably far from clear to contemporaries.

It si therefore clear that the working of the land depended to some tenant farmers, extent on a slave population, to some extent on tied The system of tenants. g managin untied, on and to some extent tenancies and the size of estates argues for some degree o ftenurial

complexity. C.1030, there was a preposit us episcopi, a bishop's representative, at Llangynfyl, as well as a priest and heredita ri (264a). The existence of a servile population in early medieval Wales is independently has evidenced by odd fragmentary references in other sources. Reference ' Dinbych 'Etmic poem the in Dyed of already been made to the slaves

and the (? Cornish) Colloquy explicitly includes dependents (subiecti) and herdsmen in the familia of its monastery; later it refers to the

existence of a free propertied aristocracy is implicit in the large number

were obviously responsible for working much of the land, but we cannot know how much. The proportion must, however, have been large in the

areas in which there were many grants: Gower, around Landaff, Gwent

Uwchcoed, Ergyng (before the mid-ninthcentury) and especially Gwent

Iscoed

The single example of Llanfannar and its hereditarius,c.780, suggests

that what the new owner gained from his property was an annual return from the tenant (210a). In this particular case it was fixed at six measures

of beer and a sester of honey, with unspecified amounts of bread and

1 I. Williams, The Beginnings of WelshPoetry, ed. R. Bromwich, p. 164 line 24; . . Stevenson, 5,p .2 and 27,p. 11: cf. the Early Scholastic Colloquies, ed. WH gift of familias et possessionesprerogativas, Vita Samsonis, .c 59,p .153.

2 LL, p. xlvi.

3 Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed.A.J. Robertson, CIX and CXVII. he was consistently the only person with powers of alienation; royal presence

cannot thereforebe explained in this way. Nor can ti b eexplained purely in terms of the alienation of royal rights; see further below, pp. 98-101

. Zeumer, MGH, Legum, 1 Formulae Merowingici et Karolini Aevi, ed. K v (Hannover, 1886), pp. 25, 96 f etc., and see Levy, op.cit., p. 93.Latin translations o fthe later Welsh laws use heres for the heir to the throne, Latin Texts, pp. 110, 194.

"dedit...presbyter, alodum suum...cum massis et manentibus ibi habitantibus'*,

'vendidi...it modios...cum suis terris cultis et incultis, heredibus, silvis, pratis,

pasouis... 5; Cartulaire de l'Abbaye de Redon en Bretagne, ed. A .de Courson (Paris, 1863), pp. 43, 117 (863/4, c.865). Gildas uses thetermcoloniwhen

writing o f the agricultural population of Britain, De Excidio, c. 24, p. 56. Cf. G . Jones in The AgrarianHistory of England and Wales, ed. H.P.R. Finberg, p. 374.

5 See further below, pp. 110-20.

49

48

flesh. These may have been adjustable.' The honey render is reminiscent

of the honey renders from Domesday Archenfield and Gwent, and its value is emphasized by comments in the Historia Brittonum, and the

'Lives' of Samson and Paul? The case of king Caradog's man Rhydderch, who went to St. Maughan's and ate up the bishop's conuinium, reducing himself to a nightlong state of drunken stupor, demonstrates that as

We must therefore enquire whether or not all grants brought immunity from fiscal obligations, in addition to other benefits. There are several indications that exemption from royal taxation was not

late as .c 1072 the owner would normally have expected his rent in con-

automatically included ni every grant. Firstly, ti is clear that monastic property was not necessarily exempt from taxation since, round about 670, the monastery at Llantwit was absolved from the payment - a bag of honey and iron cauldron - owed to the king (152); either the found-

There are no other explicit statements of rents due. There is no reason

subsequently.' Secondly, the complete absence of reference to a king

sumables and would have expected hospitality on visitations (272)3

to suppose however, that this was always the pattern: sometimes the

owner may have taken the profits rather than a fixed return. In nearly ion every grant, moreover, t h e new owner also appears to acquire exempt

from the obligation to pay any census.* In Liber Landavensis the word census is, on one occasion, explicitly used to denote payment due to the kingas king: totus ager. . . cum campo & fontibus cum siluis et

ancipitribus cum omni censu qui antea dabatur regi. . . in potestate

ecclesia Sancti Teliaui' (218). In modern terms this would mean

exemption from taxation; in the medieval vernacular uses of the Laws it

would mean exemption from gwestfa, the food rent expected from landholders by Welsh kings.5 The standard formula, however, which si not the onlyone, implies exemption not merely from royal but from

any other exactions - sine ullo censu ulli homini terreno - a n d we may

ing grant ot Lantwitcarried royal burdens, or they were imposed

in any capacity from some grants must mean that to grantor and grantee the transaction was conceptually a matter for them alone - as si ni any case the import of all the charters. Thirdly, and most significantly,

the phrase exempting the grantee from census is nearly always a twelfth-century interpolation.? Although they may sometimes be based on an earlier original, the present exemption phrases must be more representative of late eleventh- and twelfth-century ideas than of earlier ones. This does not make census-exemption impossible or even unlikely before that date, but it does mean that we cannot assume that all grants bought fiscal immunity with their other benefits.

Despite the obscuring factor of the late interpolations it si quite

clearthat some grants did guarantee such immunities, particularly in the eichth and ninth centuries. Charters recording lay grants, which

note that the charters of the Lichfield marginalia cite census ni Latin but cet, not gwestfa, in the vernacular. The term census, therefore, will often

specify a royal guarantee or consent, might therefore entail fiscal

landlord.

amounted to a diversion of the food-rent from a king to the new owner,

refer to royal dues - that is, to fiscal obligations to the king - but it does not necessarily do so. It may have referred to any due payable to any

* The present text explicitly saysso, but the curious syntax suggests very strongly that ad woluntatem...clamabat is a later interpolation. Cf.also Vita Cadoci, cc. 56, 59, 61, 62, 64, VSB, pp. 126-32.

2 Domesday Book, ff. 162, 179, 181, 184 etc.; HB: 'Romaniautem adimperium

auxiliumque et ad vindicandum veniebant et spoliata Brittanniaauro argentoque c u ma e r ee tomni pretiosa veste et melle...revertebantur', c. 30, p. 170; Vita . 132; Vita S a m s o n i s : 'lenternas melle plenas indecenter evacuaverat c .35, p Pauli, c. 15, p . 443; cf. the honey and iron (?) cauldron owed annually to the

king by Llantwit, LL 152. Sesters of h o n e y feature in the notes on weights and

measures

in

Oxoniensis Prior, Ifor Williams, 'Glosau Rhydychen', BBCS,

immunity. Grants which were made by kings might do so too: many of

the royal grants recorded ni the Landaff charters must in practice have

the church, as si explicit ni the case quoted above, and ni 175/186b and 198a (c.733, c. 745); ni any case, whether or not contemporaries

20, 21; in the Lichfieldmarginalia, LL, p. x l v ;i n t h eVita Pauli, cc. 18, 19, pP. 449, 452; in theVita Cadoci charters, cc.56, 59, 62, 68, VSB, pp. 126-34;and

in the Bretoncharters of Redon and Landévennec, Wendy Davies,Journ.Soc.

iv (1972), 470. Other useso fthetermimply royal interest: census Archivists, regalis in Frankia, F.Ganshof,FrankishInstitutions under Charlemagne, trans. 3. M. Lyon (New.York,1970), pp.4 2l ; De censu regidanda, Decensu non and d a n d o super e c c l e s i a m '

(1929-31), 226-8.

3 Conuiuim also occurs in 184 and 237b, i n which the kingtook the bishop's conuiuim away. Cf. Vita Pauli, c. 18, p. 449, where count Withur prepares a

convivium for saint Paul.

4 For a complete list of occurrences of the exemption formula see my The

Llandaff Charters.

5 Llyfr Blegywryd, pp. 6? ff; see also dawnbwyd, ibid., pp. 68 ff; cf. the Anglo-Saxon equivalent, the form (de firma), in Domesday Archenfield, Domesday Book, f. 181.

6 Cf. references to the payment of census or exemption from ti in HB, cc. 19,

System in Wales, (second ed., London, 1904),p .177.

1Cf. in Ireland,monastic lands either sub censu or not,while Armaghlaid claim to a l l those which w e r e f r e e o fsuch obligations, K H u g h e s , The Church i nEarly IrishSociety(London, 1966),pp. 139 I ,87.In theCadogcharterspaymehts were

gain e x e m p t i o n s ; t h e s e are a d d i t i o n a l sometimes made t othe king, transaction, Vita Cadoci cc.55, 62, 68, VSB, pp. 126, 130, 134. 2 See further, pp. 8-14, 22.

to the m a i n

3 T h e phrases which record e x e m p t i o n from r o y a l t r i b u t u m a n d s e r u i t i u m in charters 170. 1 7 4 a ,184, 191, 201, 202, 203а 205, 2096 are ,

198a, 30 probably original; so too the cum omnicensu of 175/1866, 2046,

50

51

really distinguished between payments due to the king as king and those

due to the king as landlord si something of a moot point. Grants with no royal presence, on the other hand, may well represent grantsmade

in times or in areas with no effective royal authority, or grants of land

still liable to royal dues.

The explicit association of king and heres/hereditarius ni the making

(143, 148, 150a, 158, 1796, 195, 209). As indicated above, the

The transactions recorded by these charters run in time from c.555

(75) to c. 1075 (274), omitting three dubious charters which purport to come from c.500 (125b, 127a, 127b). The temporal distribution is Hence, twenty-three charters (15%) come from the period

c.500-625, with 8% from c.590-625; sixty-five charters (42%) from c.650-785, with 37% from c.680-785; and sixty-three charters(40%) from c.850-1075, with 20% from c.850-910 and 8% from c. 1020-45.

The remaining 3% comprise doublets and undated material. Just over a third of the charters, therefore, come from the century c.680-785 and

a fifth come from the second half of the ninth century. On the face of it, this could be significant, or could be the effect of chance survival.

Al genuine grants before c.700 were made by kings, occasionally

together with their close family, wives and sons.? There was then a

major change. For a decade from 700 members of royal

south-east Wales ni the late eleventh century, after the Norman Conquest. of a gift is restricted to the period c.660-770 and t h eoccasions are few

The transfer of property rights: sale and donation

irregular.

grant made with the consent of Roger FitzWilliam, lord of Gwent (274); these very neatly reflect the acutely changed political situation in

dynasties

grants with hte consent o f the king (1836, 190b) Then, made slowly at first but commonly by the 730s, other laymen began to make

c. 725; 191, grants, with the consent of the king (204b, c. 715; 187, This continued

c. 730; 175 and 186b, c. 733; 184, c.738 and so on).

until the end of the series. The first grants by laymen alone, without

king's associate may often have been the occupying tenant, but the

inclusion of individuals known to have had several properties means that this cannot always be the explanation.' Some hereditari must have had hereditary interests in the properties, in addition to those of the owners. The two may have been associated in the grant because

they both contributed positively to it, the king waiving his share and

the tenant/hereditarius alienating his share; or they may have been associated because the king acted as guarantor. In the caseof Iddon who

previously purchased his grant, or some part of it, from the king, the

latter would appear to be the more likely explanation (1796/191).2 But in cases where the tenant's consent is specified, on the other hand,

this is less likely. We cannot, therefore, be entirely sure of the precise

circumstances surrounding such associations. Whichever explanation is

more often true, however, it is clear that these peculiar transactions were limited to the period c.660-770; their occurrences at this time only could well be a reflection of the new involvement of the laity in

the process of making grants and the major socio-political change that

that implies.

Nearly

all

the

transactions

recorded are apparently straight-

forward gifts from one owner to another, although, as discussed above,3

any expression of royal consent or appearance of the king among the witnesses, came not long after, c.738 (188a). The proportionof grants

in some cases this may in practice have amounted to a diversion of food-rent from king to church. In a very few cases there is evidence

(258). Once laymen began to make grants, the proportion of lay to royal gifts was rather more than two to one, though there was a

There is a further reference to a sale in c.925 when king Gruffydd did penance for selling a church in Bishopston, Gower, which properly

made by laymen alone is very small: there are only fifteen of these, just under 10%, and none were made between c.868 (169a) and c. 1038

phase from c.885 (236) to c.935 (224) when royal grants far outnumbered those made by the laity. Lay grants came from all areas, and there appears to have been no difference in the practice of Ergyng,

Gwent, and Glywysing. The series ends with two lay grants of about

of the sale of property rights; these are shown in Table 2. belonged to Dyfrig's church (239). With the exception of the last example,the list is curious for the sales are few, restricted to the period

c. 705-765, and the purchasers appear to buy only ni order to pass on

the property to the church.* There is nothing odd about the

1075: one which has no reference to any king (271),and the other a lay

1 S e e above, pp. 44-6; cf.

1 See further below, pp. 93, 98-101.

2 766. 127a, 1276 are very d u b i o u s charters: 159b (c.685) is p r o b a b l y royal;

3 P. 49.

cf.151a. 2046 (below) si dubious too.

isa grantmadeafterpurchasefrom the king; 205 (c.708) (c.705) 3 176/1906 may b e incorrectly dated as the witnesslist appears to be corrupt (see below,

silver, gold, pigs, s h e e p , a n dc l o t h i n g ) in the 'Book of Armagh, a n dVita Cadoci(see

p.52, n ." below)- all presumablyof a comparableperiod,LL,P .XIII;Book

p. 178), but Brochfael in any case appears to beroyal.

cuoleiduc,

74, a lay grant made simul cum dono filiorum

presumably by a lay o w n e r with the c o n c u r r e n c eo f a t e n a n t .

2 Cf. Vita Cadoci, c. 65, VSB, pp. 132 ff.

4 Cf. the sales (for horses a n d for silver) i nt h eLichfield marginalia,f o r

of Armagh, ed. Gwynn, f. 17v.

53

52

distinct from the other parts of each transaction.' Significantly, nearly all the charters recording sales have an (otherwise rare) original tax.

Table 2. Sales Conuil

who later gave it to (1906) bishop Berthwyn

.c 705 king Morgan

sold land to

c. 715 king Ithel

sold land to

Conuil

who later gave it to Tyrchan (204b)

c. 730 king Ithel

sold land to

Iddon

who later gave it to

(191)

Berthwyn

c. 740 Gwyddgi and Conuin sold land to Rhiadaf

who later gave it to

(185)

Berthwyn

c. 745 king Ithel

sold land to

Cynwg ap Conuil

who later gave it to (202) Tyrcha n

c. 750 king Ffernfael

sold land to

Cynfor

who later gave it to

c. 752 king Ffernfael

sold land to

Bricon

c. 758 king Ffernfael

sold land to Madog

who later gave it to (2036) Tyrchan

c. 765 king Rhodri

sold land to

who later gave it to

Tyrch an Ty r c h a n

Cynfelyn ap Cynwg

(201)

who later gave it to

Cadwared

(203a)

(2096)

properties themselves: they are mostly uillae, with one ager and one ecclesia; there is no reason to suspect that they were not genuine transactions since most have elaborate details of the price. Since the vendors were all royal -

Gwyddgi and Conuin belong to a junior

branch of the ruling dynasty - we must ask if the formula of sale does not

in

fact conceal some other transaction. The series begins at

approximately the same time as the practice of lay grants. Since the alienation of non-royal land appears to have been a new departure in the early eighth century it is not improbable that pious individuals who wished to secure a place in heaven were sometimes constrained from

alienating family property by the power of the family. In such

cases the persistently pious might have no option but to purchase land or property rights from the king in order to make a grant to

exemption phrase.? There si more evidence to support this latter explanation, particularly when a sale was followed by a hereditarius gift, but there is no reason to suppose that all transactions necessarily followed the same pattern.

It would be unreasonable to suppose that there were no genuine

sales during the period covered by the charters, since there would be no reason to record in detail sales between laymen in a collection such as this. There is, however, nothing in this evidence or in any other evidence to suggest a vigorous land market, and such a phenomenon would be

highly unlikely given our knowledge of the economic structure of

south-east Wales.

In a society in which the market for land was apparently negligible, it is only valid to discuss the value of land in terms of the people it

could support. The charters themselves, however, record the valueof

sales in absolute terms so that it is clear that some people in the eighth century had a concept of worth. Only one sale (190b) has no price stated. Five of the others (201, 202, 203a, 203b, 204b) state not only

the price, but the value in terms of cows,3 while two of these (203b,

204b) quote values in silver as well. Hence: 1½ unciae (c. 750 acres), Lanngunguarui, at Wonastow (201) for a best horse worth 12 cows and a hawk worth 12 cows and a hunting dog worth 3cows and a horse worth 3 cows Villa Breican (Glam) (202) for a horse worth 8 cows and a horse worth

3 cows and a sword worth 12 cows and a horn worth 10 cows and a h o r n w o r t h 14 c o w s

3 unciae, i.e. Villa Tancuor, Villa Deui, Villa Iliman (203a) for 7 horses worth 28 cows and clothing for one man worth 14 cows and a sword worth 12 cows and a hawk worth 6 cows and 4 dogs worth 14 COWS

the

1 uncia, Turion (2036) for a hawk worth 12 cows and 2 horses worth 6

Cadog charters.' The changes and upheavals of the eighth century may thenhave made alienation more easy in subsequent generations.? Alternatively, tenants may have bought off the king's interest ni the

cows and a horn worth 6 ounces of silver and scripulum^ worth 12 cows

the church. Such a transaction is recorded explicitly in one o f

land as owner, or they (or others) may have bought off his interest as king. Again the Cadog charters record occasions when payments were

made to the king ni respect of such rights, and these payments are 1 C. 65, VSB, pp. 132 f.

2 There appear to be plenty of subsequent grants in which there is no family

restraint o nalienation; see below, pp. 55 f.

and red linen

1 Cc. 55, 62, 68,VSB, pp. 126-34. Cf. also the notes in the 'Book of Deer

K.H. Jackson, Gaelic Notes, pp. 114-24.

2 See above,p. 49,n. 3.

3 Cf. Vita Cadocicc. 22, 62, 65, VSB pp. 68 ff 103 ff,and theeleventh-century Legesi n t e rBrettoset Scottos for dues and payments expressed in termsof cows. Loth, 'Persistance des Institutionse t langue desBrittons duNord', R e v u e Celtique.,; xlvii,(1930), 393-6;cf. K.H. Jackson,"The

Antiquity, xxix(1955), 88. Ci. p. 51, n. 4 above.

Britons in souther n Scotland*

4 I cannot suggest a reasonable meaning for this word; ti occurs ni early Irish

55

54

Villa Procliui (Glam) (204b) for 2 horses worth 8 cows and a trumpet

worth 24 cows and a cloak, given to the queen, worth 6 ounces (? of silver) and a horse worth 4 ounces (? of silver). It is notable that although the objects themselves have an approxi-

are mately consiste nt valuatio n the measure ments do not. Best horses

worth twelve cows, but others are worth three or four; dogs are worth about three; swords twelve; horns ten and fourteen. One uncia of land,

on the other hand, works out at thirty cows and six ounces of silver

(perhaps twelve cows); one and a half unciae work out at thirty cows; three unciae work out at seventy-four cows. The payments are surely

is worth a valuable, however, by any standard of reckoning; one estate sizable herd.'

The remaining prices, which have no standardised equivalents, are: 1 uncia Guruarch (185) for 24 (???) and a Saxon woman and a precio us sword and a valuab le horse

Uilla Guennonoe (Mon.) (191) for 22 wild horses

and 2 sets of 3 modii at Louhai, Tintern (2096) for 2 valuable horses clothing.

The transfer of property rights: inheritance

story of 193 explains contemporary division of land into five portions as the portions of the five sons of the founder, and this suggests a con-

cept, at least, of strict partibility.

Property, including land, was clearly heritable, but there is really no

usable evidence on partibility. suspect that

There may be some slight reason to

in the more servile families brothers cohabited or co.

operated closely: slave brothersand tenant brothers are noticeable. Both the slave brothers mentioned above appear to have been supported from their paternal inheritance. Three brothers are the object of the

slave grant of 955 (218). Two brothers are the object of the slave grant of c.885 (236).

There are a few instances of the participation of several relations in a

single transaction. C.708, four brothers gave the church Lann Helicon

(205); a lay grant of c.750 was made with the consent of two sons of Rhydderch and theirgeneratio (199a); three brothers and another man were the donors of the land in deserto on the river Monnow c.855 (171a); the sons of Guoleiduc concurred in the lay grant of St.

Maughan's c.860 (74); three brothers fought the bishop's familia at

Llan-arth and made a grantin penance c. 864 (225); much later, c. 1030,

two brothers were hereditarii (264a). Somewhat more explicitly the bishop made an agreement with Rhiwallon's parentes that he hand over

his hereditary land c. 1033 (257); Cadwallon acknowledged his guilt ni

Evidence which has a bearing on the normal process ofinheritance,

the presence of his parentes, father and cousin (consobrinus), and

of two brothers into of the charters, is extremely scanty. The grant mentioned.? Five been already has ate heredit slavery with their paterna

terms generatio and parentes appear to be u s e d in these cases to denote

subiect of most as opposed to the abnormal transmission which is the

individuals, two royal and three lay, made grants de propria sua (75, 183b, 187, hereditate, c.555, c.700, c.725, c.743 and c.1075 itariam suam 186a, and 274). Two laymen granted away their hered

consent c.1033 (257) and terram in penance, one with explicit royal it royal consent c.1025 implic ore theref and s one with king as witnes the (264b). There is no reason to suppose that these grants comprised to purporting whole of their inheritance. In the curious document is t i ff Llanda of diocese the of ation record king Edgar's confirm

Ewias...sicuti remarked that Edgar gave Morgan's son Owain Jstradiu et

suam propriam hereditatem (LL, pp. 247 ff.). Lastly, the legendary

bishop -house s o f D y f e d ' , BBCS.

(1970-2], 261) but one would 'hardly

lve cows. e x p e c t a s m a l l u n i t o ic u r r e n c y t o b e w o r t h t w e

in 1 Of course, this i snothing like modern land values: before the dramatic drop al land cattle priceso f 1974 a milk cow w o u l d sellf o r about €100 while agricultur wouldsell for anything from €600 to £1000 per acre. 2 See above, p. 43.

made his consequent grant with his father'sconsent,c. 1040 (263). The

the kindred.1 The ager generationis Guoruot given in 218 may therefore

be familyland. The associations of two, non-royal, people ni grants ni c.850, c.855, c.860 and c.876 (1696, 174a, 74, and 228) may con-

ceivably be an association of people from the same kindred, though they might equally represent tenant and owner.

The examples from c.750 and c.1033 are very explicit in involving

the kindredin the making of a grant, and the six cases quoted above suggest the closeassociation of brothers in the disposal of property. The

association of brothers - as automatic inheritors of their father's portion - is what one would expect from Welsh law. There are, moreover,

several examples of (royal) fraternal contention, ni theeyes of Giraldus

Cf. 224,pronepotibus, 233, 251, anetd 260 'benedixitfilis suis...etomnibus suisposteribus 1nepotibus omnibus s u a generationis', and 122 parentum regum

but in 243parentes= parents': c f .parentela forgwelygorddin etprincipum'; Lat in t e x t s t h e Laws: hereditatis sue parentela aliqua, id est,

suelysord, Latin Texts.Red. B., p.230; cf. the parentesoccisiwhoaret otake

action in cases of killing,in thecustoms of the Archenfield,Domesday Book,f. 179.

56

57

the bane of Welsh inheritance customs in the twelfth century.' The

distribution of examples might, perhaps, suggest an increasing sig. nificance in the role of the kindred, but the number is too few to maintain this with a n ydegree of certainty. It must be admitted that the involvement of the kindred occurs in a very slender proportion of the

total number of lay grants: most of them would imply that alienation

was entirely free and that the kindred, wide or confined, had no limiting function. from Welsh law.?

This is very definitely not what one would expect

Women are equally hard to find.

In c.655 king Meurig's wife

Ombraust was associated with him in the grant of land in Gower and at

Llandeilo Tal-y-bont, and she appears in the witness list (140). C.705 king Morgan and his wife Ricceneth sold land in Glamorgan to Conuil

(190b). C. 760 king Ffernfael gave his wife Ceincair land at Llandenni; later, with his consent, she gave that land to the church, and she too appears ni the witness list (207). On this slender evidence it would appear that royal women, at least, could have rightsin landed

property. Apart from this, king Hywel made a grant c.885 for the

souls of his wife and two daughters (236), Meirchion did so c.980 for

the soul of his wife and (named) parents (243), and a Saxon woman

was handed over in payment c.740 (185). Otherwise, women appear as objects of seduction and violation (193, undatable; 189, c.735; 231,

c.910; 259, c.1040; 271, c.1075), occasionally of holiness (76b) and rarely - as willing party to the lustful advances of their men (1276 and

196). There is nothing to suggest that non-royal women had any role ni

the disposal of property.

The changing structure of estates

W e have plenty of evidence of changing practice in the transfer

of property; wealso have evidence, especially ni the terminology, that the nature of the estates granted changed over time. Firstly, the

use of the terms uncia and modius varies with time and place. Uncia

was not used after c.780 (210a), though there is one odd instance c.950 (221); ti is only found in Gwent and Ergyng. Modius occurs at all periods and in all areas, but before the eighth century is only found in Glywysing. It would therefore appear that in the sixth a n dseventh

centuries East and West had a distinctive practice; in the eighth century modius started to be used ni the East, from c.710 (188b); and that after seventy years or so of both, modius came to be used exclusively. Since the terms have a different meaning, the change si not purely terminological:

it is the smaller unit that takes over. Correspondingly

we find fractions of unciae being used c.750 (199a and 201) before

the term disappeared altogether.

Just as it is the smaller unit that became predominant, so the grants

themselves tended to be smaller after the late eighth century. Thereare

no grants bigger than 1,000 acres (two unciae) after c.740 (195), and

there are only six grants bigger than 250 acres (six modit) which are not

confirmations of previous grants afterc. 760.1

Comparable changes are indicated by changes in the use of terms

employed to describe the estates. Agri tended to be large and are rare

ni the latest period: the term si used between c.600 and c.950, but is not used as a proper term for a unit after that. Estates so termed are far

more common in Gwent than Glywysing. The geographical and temporal

distribution of uillae and trefì is quite different:

though there are

fewer Glywysing charters, there are slightly more uillae ni Glywysing than ni Gwent and Ergyng, and there are about equal numbers of trefi ni Gwent and Glywysing. Villae occur in the latter area from c.665 (147) but not ni Gwent till c.722 (179c); in both areas they continue

until the end of the series. The term is notably absent from the early

* 1806 and 274: Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, vi, ed. J.F. Dimock (Rolls Series,

1868), pp. 211 ff, 225.

2 See Llyfr Blegywryd,pp. 74-8; Llyfr Iorwerth, 82, pP. 53f .D rCharles-Edwards has pointed out thatthere is, nevertheless, a triad which refers tothreelegal

inheritances. one o f which was consequent upon an agreement with the owner for gwerth. A.W. Wade-Evans, Welsh Medieval L a w (Oxford, 1909), p. 53, lines 11-13.

In the late medieval period it is clear that acquired land could be alienated by the

owner without reference to anyone. In the Llandaff charters the kindred clearly

has s o m e social responsibility, even if it plays no p a r t in most transfers; see 186a,

223, 257, 263, andbelow, p. 111.

Outside theroyal familymentionofrelationpatruus); 1806, 1906, 274 frater; 127a, 267, 271 nepos; 193 sororius; (189

ships othert h a n father/son are veryrare: (72a),235a, 263 consobrinus; (152

nouerca).

3 There is provision in some Welsh law tracts for the ownership of land by royal

women: Llyfr Blegywryd, p. 61, 1.13; Latin Texts,'Merces filie regis...Cowyll eiuserit terra, scilicet, quantammaritus viderit', p. 346.

Ergynggrants. (Although there are two possible genuine uses of tref

c.685 [159b] and c.750 [167], hte term does not become common

until the tenth and eleventh centuries. The use of the vernacular,

however, does imply that the settlements were well established by then

and the term is found once in the Lichfield marginalia.) The varying

distribution of agri and villa/t refi is extremely interesting. The essential patternof development is that grants o fagri - which are larger gave way to grants of uillae in Gwent and Ergyng, while Glywysing was

dominated by uillae from the first. This might suggest changes in the pattem of exploitation in Gwent and Ergyng in the eighth century and

211а, 375 ас., с.765; 210a,500ас., с. 780;223, 375 ас,. с.940; 221, 750 ас.,

с.950; 261, 625 ac., c. 1045; 271, 650 ас., .с 1075.

58

59

later, and the formation of new smaller estates or farms dependent on and possibly worked from the single settlement. Given that the early

estates of Gwent and Ergyng were larger than the later, and than those of Glywysing, ti looks as fi the larger estates tended to break up ni the eighth and ninth centuries into smaller units.

There is some evidence of changes in structure in the later period, from

c.850, because of the augmentation of estates by attaching extra pieces of land. Hence, the grant of Little Dewchurch,c.850, was increased by an augmentum trans uiam from one Morgen's uilla (170); confirmation

of the grant of Llangynfyl with its three modi, c.860, included 'agrum quem dedit Iudhail et augmentum preterea quam Biuon dederat huic

ecclesiae' (171b); Abraham gave the Villa Branuc and two modi, and the campum monachorum c.866 (230b); after the grant of Lanwytherin, c.876, *alios tres modios terrae supra uiam iuxta alium agrum supradictum' were added (228); while the one and a half m o d i at (Rockfield) granted c.1020 (246) were presumably Llanoronwy additional to the 250 or so acres confirmed to that church c.970

(240iti). The corollary of this, of course, may be the fragmentation of estates from which they were taken, and such fragmentation is implied by grants of alium agrum de sua uncia, c.868 (169a), and one and a half unciae at Cair Nonui, id est dimidiam partem totius agri Cair Nonui, c.950 (221), not to mention the third of the wood cited above

(257).' All the above examples, except the wood, are from Gwent and Ergyng.

(165), and are frequent fromc.758 (200) until c.910 (231). Most come

from Gwent. It would therefore appear that the giving of churches and monasteries is particularly characteristic of Gwent and Ergyng and of the late sixth to ninth centuries, but is rare subsequent to that. Those

grants with a 'llan' place-name ni the text, but no proper term, probably

also refer to the gift of churches, but these are similarly rare ni tenth and eleventh centuries. This may be explained by the commenthe ts in 1696 and 170 that king Meurig ordered all ecclesiastical property in lay hands to be released, c.850, an order which si curiously contem. porary with the Carolingian attempt of the synod of Valence to abolish lay ownership in 855.' It is conceivable, therefore, that the

lack of grants of churches in the tenth and eleventh centuries

genuinely reflects a situation in which the lay ownership of churches

was no longer condoned. Grants of villae and treft predominated in

this later period and the few church grants that were made tend to be

called uillae: their religious character was no longer distinctive.?

Production for the market

As pointed out above, the society of early medieval Wales was

predominantly non-commercial and non-urban. There si not a single

reference to a market, an omission remarkable in any early medieval

context, and there are only a few dubious hints of any urban or

All this relates to the secular exploitation of property. It is worth noting that about 24% of all grants are of churches or religious settlements, with their appurtenant land. Such grants were made by ordinary laymen as well as by members o f royal dynasties: it is clear, therefore, that churches could be in the hands o f the laity and were viewed as

disposable property, as was common ni western Europe throughout the medieval period? Cynfor actually bought the church at Wonastow c.750 (201), and occasionally there are detailed references to what a later

Gwent and Ergyng, and its usage is therefore directly comparable to the

early, easterly usage o f uncia. Grants of ecclesiae occur from c.625

period

would

call

rights

of

presentment', as

in

king

Gwrfoddw's installation of Guorue at Garway, c.615.3 Grants of poda occur from c.585 (73a) to c.750 (199a), with one much later

pre-urbannuclei. Nevertheless, ti si clear from hte sales and values

mention ed already that the econom y was not entirely without exchang e mechanisms. In the eighth century both cattle and silver were quoted as standards of value,3 and these standards have some consiste nt

application. The society was at least conceptually prepared for the market, even if there is not much evidence of its activity, and the very

existence of the cattle standard is significant. The actual objects of payment in the eighth century could clearly be almost anything of value and portable, though the most frequently used were horses, dogs, hawks, and horns.

confined to

It is difficult to make any quantitative assessmen t, but there is some evidence that metals began to replace miscellaneous objects of exchange

1 Cf. the half ager granted in VCc. 56, VSB, P. 126. . Levison, England and the continent in the eighth century (Oxford, 2 See W

1 Barraclough, op. cit., pp. 48 .f 2 (167), 233, 237b - 'Ilan' names which are willae. Cf. the association of uilla and ecclesia in 216b and the

reference

1946), pp.

c.960 (217). The

term is almost entirely

28 f.; U. Stutz, 'The proprietary church as an element of medieval

Germanic ecclesiastical law', n i MedievalGermany, trans. and ed. G. Barraclough, ni (Oxford, 1938), pp. 35-70; see further below, pp. 129 f. 3 162a; see above, p. 42.

lists of 253 and Tr e f c a r n uilla tantunt um

sine ecclesia there; this might suggest that willa and ecclesia were considered part(sic) of one unit in the early eleve nth centu ry.

3 See above, pp. 53 .f

60

61

in the later period. Precious metals, which are used as a standard in the sales of c.715 and c.758 (204b and 203b), featured more frequently from the early tenth century. Compensation due to bishop Cyfeilliog from king Brochfael was assessed in puro auro, though it was eventually

paid in land, c.905 (233), and compensation to bishop Libiau from king Tewdwr was assessed as seven mancuses of gold, though again ti was paid ni land, c.925 (237b). Seven pounds of silver, ni addition to land,

were claimed for the violation of sanctuary at St. Arvans, c.955 (218), and king Meurig actually handed over four pounds of silver, as well as

a uilla and other gifts, ni recompense for the violation of Llandaff's

protection, c. 1040 (260). Twenty years later king Gruffydd promised to improve his life and give alms in different precious metals (269).

Reference, then, to payment in precious metals replaced reference to

payment in other objects in the tenth and eleventh centuries, though

there is only one instance of such payments actually being made.

The new role of precious metals in the later period is in accordance with hints from other sources: there are probably six coin hoards of the Viking period in Wales. Though small, two are in Glamorgan, at

Pennard c.830 and Penrice c. 1008, the former having one Englishand two Carolingian coins, the latter mostly coins of Aethelred I ; recently,

tenth-centu ry English coins have also been found at Caerwent.' We

also have the single, curious, Hywel Dda penny, bearing the head of a

Welsh king but minted ni Chester, and Maredudd ap Owain is said to have levied a tax of a penny a head ni the late tenth century.? In

926/7 Athelstan certainly demanded an annual tribute from theWelsh

of 20 1b. of gold, 300 lb. of silver, as well as hounds, hawks,and 25,000 oxen, whether or not he ever received it; and Domesday Archenfield and Gwent rendered hawks, dogs, honey, cattle, and swine to their landholders but also some money.? All of this combines to suggest 1 R.H.M. Dolley, The Hiberno-Norse Coinsin the British Museum (London, 1966) p p . 48-54, and J.D.A. Thompson, Inventoryof BritishCoin Hoards,

A.D.

600-1500 (Roval Numismatic Society, 1956).

The six are Dolley nos. 3,

70, 99, 117, 143, 153. See also M .Dolley and J.K. Knight, 'Somesingle finds o ftenth- and eleventh-century English coins from Wales', Arch. Camb., cxix

greater liquidity and more commercial activity ni the century before the Conquest, but it si again impossible t oestimate the amount of such activity, and all the signs are that it was comparatively slight; though the Welsh must have used coins issued by other people, there is nothing to suggest that they minted coinage themselves until after theConquest. It is likely that coinage was used by weight and that there was therefore

no standard currencyavailable. nI western Europe ni the eleventh

century this was undoubtedly backward. 1

Specification of landing rights ni charters may well have a commercial

significance. This occurs on the Severn, at Caldicot, Pwllmeurig, and

Matharn, from the late ninth century (234, 235b, 141)? Land given at Chepstow,c. 722, was associated with navigable stretches of the Wye (158), while the inclusion of sea rights inthe grants of land on the

river Ewenny, at Bishton, and at Caerleon (180b, 1906, 255), may have the same significance - though it may equally have been for fishing. There si certainly enough cumulative evidence to suggestthat

it was customary for ships to come to the lower reaches of the Wye and the eastern part of the coast of Gwent Iscoed from the late ninth

century, and these must have had at least a partially commercial

function. The story of the English merchants who used to come and

trade wares a t t h emouth of the Usk, who once refused t opay toll ni

the reigns of Gruffydd and Edward the Confessor, amply illustrates the point and it has its corollary in the account of the Welsh (or foreign) sailors (scipwealan) who were allowed to rent part of the English manor of Tidenham - across the Wye - in 956 or c. 1050. 3

Caerwent is always referred to as urbs, and was the meeting place for king Nowy and bishop Pater in 955 (218, cf. 221 and 243) and

presumably the urbs which features ni the bounds of Llanfihangel,

c.905 (233). It is c a r in 274. We cannot automatica lly assume from this that Caerwent was a town. Urbs may signify a large monast ic

settlement rather than a secular one - as civitas does in Irish and

occasionally Welsh contexts* - and Caerwent undoubtedly housed an important monastery. It must have been a significant agglomeration to

(1970), 75-8, for three pre-Conquest English silver pennies from Caerwent. The use of delu, 'image', to gloss nummismatis is an interesting comment on the early

occasion the unusual term, and, though primarily religious, may well

reproduces - precisely - the imperial Roman attitude. I am grateful to colleague Mr M.F. Hendy for this latter observation.

poor by comparison with England; even in those areas which provide Domesdawas statistics, Archenfield had fewer ploughs and fewer people than the norm, yDomesd ay

Welsh approach to coinage,Whitley Stokes, Trans. Phil. Soc., 1860-1, 223, and

2 Brut yTywysogyon Peniarth MS. 20 Version, trans. I. Jones (Cardiff, 1952)

p. 10; BT Red Bookof Hergest Version,ed. and trans. I. Jones (Cardiff, 1955),

pp. 16-17. The Annals, however, say that Maredudd paid a pennya head for the

captives: 'Maredutredemit captivosa gentilibusnigris, nummoprounoquoque dato',AC, p .21.SeealsoWendyDavies,Braint Teilo', BBCS, xxvi (1974-6), 130. 3 William of Malmesbury, D e Gestis Regum Anglorum, ed. W . Stubbs, i (Rolls

Series, 1887), p . 148; Domesday Book, ff.162, 180-7.

Cf. C.W. Atkin's judgement that ni 1086 south-west Herefordshire

Geog., Midland, ed. H . Darby, p. 111.

2 The Matharn grant (141) is not an original seventh-century record. 3 Vita Gundleii, c. 13, VSB, pp. 185 ff; Anglo-Saxon Charters, ed.

Robertson, pp. 204, 451.

A.J.

4 See K . Hughes, Church in Early Irish Society, p. 87; cf. urbs for monastery in the Vitae,below, pp. 122, 147.

62

63

have performed an urban or proto-urban function. The number of grants in and around Monmouth, from the eighth century, may suggest some nucleus there. Domesday Book reports twenty-seven

burgesses at Hereford in 1066, sixteen at Clifford in 1086, and two at

Ewias ni 1086, the latter from the castle.' Hereford must have been a

significant urban centre by 1066, but it was,o f course, outside the

cultural area considered here by that period.? Indications of urban development are therefore negligible.

To complete this picture, there is really no usefulevidence of specialisation o f occupation. People are more usually defined by t h e i r social status than by their occupation, and though there are many varieties of cleric the only secular occupations we hear o f are a pigman, a smith (but one who is also a priest), and a doctor (127a, 151b, 267).

Continuity and change

There is nothing in the Llandaff charters to suggest that the gifts they record provoked any changes in land use. Only the legend of 193/195 mentions - in retrospect - the first cultivators of the land

granted, and only the sixth-, seventh- and early eighth-century estates which were granted as amounts of land without descriptive term could imply any sort of development within the early medieval period. Though there may be changes in the structure of the units, the charters

are concerned with complete units of production and not with fragments or with undeveloped land. Grants to the church do n o t therefore imply new development, but the redirection o f surplus produce. Thus we cannot be dealing with a subsistence economy • or development

from a subsistence economy - in south-east Wales, as the existence of a slave population and of well-endowed donors emphasises.

It is Ergyng of their Roman

tempting to associate the early large estates of Gwent and with the heritage of the Roman period, particularly in view superior productive capacity; and the characteristic use of the terms uncia and ager there in that period may increase the temptation. There is, however, no direct evidence to link the two and we are much hampered by the fifth-century lacuna. The relation between the estates and the Roman settlement pattern is not close

enough to support any suggestion of total continuity of land use and 1 DomesdayBook, ff. 179, 183; C.W. Atkin in Domesday Geog., Midland, ed. H. Darby, p. 72. 2 See above, pp. 25 f, and see M. Biddle, 'The development of the Anglo-Saxon town', Settimane di studio del Centro italiano di studi sull' alto medioevo, xxi

(1974), 218, 226.

3 See art, cit. above p. 33, n. 1 and above, pp. 40 f.

settlement, although

the

row

of

estates along

the line of

the

Abergavenny/Kenchester road is impressive. The relationship is, finally, u n c l e a r.

What are clear, without any doubt, are the immense changes of the

eighth century. tI may not therefore be purely fortuitousthat there are more eighth-century charters than any others. At that period we find

not only Glywysing practice spreading to Gwent and Ergyng - which

has presumably

a political and/or cultural

explanation

- but the

beginnings of grants by the laity. The emergence of the non-royal

layman as a donor of land after at least 150 years of royal mono. poly of this function is in itself a fundamental social change. The reasons for such a change are difficult to decide, though it is easy enough to speculate about them. We may simply be dealing with the fact of religious impact on the society,' though it is difficult to explain the stark royal/non-royal distinction purely in these terms. We may be dealing with a situation in the sixth and seventh centuries in which the

king owned all the land,? though this is difficult to believe in such a fragmented and unstable political situation. We may be dealing with a situation ni which inherited land was not normally alienable; if so, it

might explain the ease of alienation subsequently. Both t h esales of the eighth century and the king/hereditarius associations of the late seventh and eighth centuries would appear to be symptoms of the pro. cess of change and may have been essentially mechanisms for involving the laity in transactions. One might tentatively postulate a process by which royal land and inalienable family land in the sixth a n dseventh centuries gave way to tenancies (i.e.

rights to profits) of royal land

over the seventh century which were alienable, which ni turn gave

way - by purchase of royal rights (i.e. the render) - to free alienation of once-royal land by laymen, and that this made possible free alienation of inherited land by the mid-eighth century.

From the mid-eighth century, as we have seen, the tendency is for grants to become smaller.

This again may well be symptomatic

of the spread of the power of alienation to lower levels of society, though it is noticeable that royal grants of the late period are not

distinctively bigger. It is the small (125 acre) unit dependent on the single settlement - the uilla/tref- which spreads to Gwent and Ergyng and

becomes the characteristic unit of production. The large estates of Cf.

the comments of Miss Hughes, op. cit., pp. 74-8, 158-61, and also id,

Early Christian I r e l a n d :Introduction to the Sources (Sources o f History Ltd.

1972), pp. 72-5.

2 Cf. Samsoni nBrittany, where Childebert of the Franks appears to be thought to have control of the disposal of allproperty, Vita Samsonis, c. 59, p. 153.

64

Gwent and Ergyng seem to break up. Although parish boundaries very rarely have any relation to the pattern of estates - an effect presumably of post-Conquest parochial organisation - the modern settlement pattern in rural areas is consistently that of a single principal settlement and church, with one or more outlying farms, corresponding to each uilla and ecclesia of the early medieval grants. It is a change, then, in Gwent and Ergyng, which may itself have determined the settlement pattern. The economy of south-east Wales, as far as we can perceive it in the early medieval period, was undoubtedly underdeveloped by western

5 KINGS AND KINGSHIP Al early grants are royal and 79% of non-royal grants include a king as

witness or guarantor. There si therefore every reason to suppose that people with - at the least - political pretensions appeared in south.

European standards, although there is some evidence of increasing

east Wales throughout the period covered by the charters. The terminology of political authority is strictly limited: the holders of power are kings, reges, until the appearance of the new Norman lord of

an agrarian economy serving the needs of a rural population. But, though

the term rex si echoed in the usage of the other Latin sources of early

commercial activity in the tenth and eleventh centuries. It appears to be underdeveloped, it was neither a static nor a simple economy. The transactions of the Landaff charters are concerned essentially with the

Gwent ni the lastand latest charter, c.1075 (274). The preference for

medieval Wales?

disposal of surplus produce, and they disclose a complexity of interests

in each land unit, which can hardly fail to remind u sof the complexities of ownership and tenure a ta similar period on the continent? The simple grant, then, may conceal a grant of profits, or renders, or tax exemption,

or some combination of all three. The complete transfer of all property rights might in itself involve a complex series of transactions. Some units, large or small, seem to have been worked purely for the benefit

of the owner, who may or may not have resided there; others were run to supply the owner with a render and a tenant with the profits, or

vice-versa. Some tenants held more than one property and presumably

stood to gain considerably from their tenancies. Kings certainly expected a return from all land, unless it was specifically exempted, by

the tenth and eleventh centuries, though quite possibly this was not so ni the earliest period.? King, owner, tenants, and workers all had to be supported:

most of the lands granted in these charters must therefore

have commanded a high level of exploitation at the beginning of the period covered. Changes in the structure of estates do not necessarily

imply, therefore, any increasing level of exploitation; they do imply

changes in the units of ownership; and they may imply changes in the working of the land and the relationship between owner and worker.

The fact of change in the eighth and ninth centuries may therefore have a social and tenurial as well as a purely economic significance. 1 See E . Levy, West Roman Vulgar Law, pp. 90-4; cf.'......ad filio meo duas partes.

Political units

Though the existence of kings appears to be a constant, the number of kings active at any one time within south-east Wales is very variable;

and there are clear fluctuati ons in the limits of the kingdoms. Table 3

presents the appearances of all the kings ni Liber Landavensis. The dates represent the dates of the charters with which they are associated, and not necessarily the dates of their period of power.3

It si perfectly clearthat the single dynasty of Meurig ap Tewdrig

dominated

the

area

from the mid-seventh

until

the

late eleventh

century. Two branches of the dynasty emerge from the lacuna of the early ninth century, but only one of these survived the early tenth; another branch (Gwrgan and his son Iestyn) was still active, though not

kings, ni the eleventh century. Meurig himself, on the evidence of a charter, married into the existing dynasty of Erb, which had already produced four generations of kings before the mid-seventh century 1 See above, p. 50.

2 Gildas, De Excidio, cc. 21,26, 27, pp. 48, 62, 66, his normal term for British

as o p p o s e d t o R o m a n rulers; H B . cc. 16, 22. 27 a n d 28 ( R o m a n r u l e r s ) , 3 2 , 35.

propinquis reservans,ea tamen condicione, u t ,dum advixero, mihi in omnibus,

37, 40,42,43, 49, 51, 53, 54,56, 57, 59, 61-5, pp. 158,164,166 f , 173,176, 193 ff, 199 ff, from a variety of different early sources; ECMW,nos. 13 (c.625), 182 (mid-ninth century), 223 (tenth/eleventh centuryOr earlier), 281(mid-twelfth century), pp. 57, 123, 1 4 4 ,169; AC, s.a. 547, 595 629. 644. 6 6 9 . 704. 714, 717. 7 3 6 750, etc.;cf.Early Scholastic Colloquies, ed.

absquae preiudicio sancti illius, cuius terre esse v i d e t u r. . ., F o r m u l a e Merowingict,

3 See above, pp. 15-20; hte appearanceof many of these kings ni independent

per hanc epistola cessione...trado ad possedendo...tercia vere parte ad heredis

tam d evicto quam et de vestito, soniare mihi debiat...et quicquid de ipsis duas partes facerevoluerit, abendi, tenendi, donandi, vindendi seu conmutandi.

ed. K. Zeumer, p. 25.

2 See above, pp.48 f and further, below

p. 101; for comparable complexity

of transactions see the more explicit provisions of the Cadog charters.

W.H. Stevenson, 23 and 24, p.9;cf. Vita Samsonis, .c 1, p. 99.

sources,withdates, in association with thededucible progression ofwitnesses and deducible succession, is ultimatelyresponsible for thedatingof the charters. Dates

of appearances given here, therefore, are often ultimately deduced from royal dates cited elsewhere.

Main Dyn asty

Junior Branches

Other Dominant

Dynasties

500

66

Table 3. The Kings of Liber Landavensis Dyna sties from

Surrounding Areas

Aergol'

c.500 510

520

530 540

550

Brb? c.555

560 570

Peibio ap Erb3

c.575-85

1 1256, 127a, 1276. 2 75.

з 72a, 76а, 726, 73а.

Main Dy nas ty

Junior Branches

Other Dominant

Dynasties 580 590|

Iddon3

Cinuin and Gwyddgi? ap Peibio c.595-605

Constantine' c.580

c.595-600

Merchwyn*

600

c.605 Gwrfoddw 5 c.610-15

610 620

Dynasties from

Surrounding Areas

Meurig

Gwrgan ap Cinuin?

c.620 (?)-65

c.6 2 0

Athwys ap Meurig

630

c. 6 2 5

c.625

640 1 72a.

2 736 /16 3a, 162b. 3 166, 121,1 2 2 , 123. 4 76b. 5 161, 162a.

6 141, 144,140, 143, 147; possibly also 160 (c.620), but this may not be the same king Meurig. > 163b, 164. ; 165.

9 77.

67

Main Dynasty

Junior Branches

Other Dominant Dynasties

Dynasties from Surro undin g Areas

650

660 670

Morgan ap Athrwys'

c.670-710 680

Ithel ap Athrwys3

c.685

690

Gwyddien? c.680

Brochfael ap Gwyddien® c.685-708(?)

700

710

Iddig and CynanS c.690

Ithelap Morgan"

Idwallon® c. 700

c.710-45

1 152, 155, 1516, 149, 148,150a, 145, 156, 1766, 1836, 1746,176a/1906, 180b. 2 151a; cf. note 4 below. з 157, ? 159a. 159b; 205 - a suspect charter. Brochfael and G w y d d i e n (15 la) both grant from the Llandaff area, though 159b claims that Brochfael had made G w y d d i e n ' s grant. There is clearly some confusion here, b u t b o t h G w y d d i e n and Brochfael occur in other reputable witness

lists in entirely crediblechronological contexts. See below, pp. 169-70. 1506.

5

176b. o

7 1886/179a, 204b, 180a, 179c, 1 5 8 , 187, 190a, 1796/191, 175/186b, 183a, 189, 195, 185, 192, 202.

Main Dynasty

Junio r Branc hes

Other Dominant

Dynasties 720

Awsti c. 720

730

740

Meurig and Rhys ap Ithel

750

c.748 c.748-70 Ffernfael ap Ithel?

760

с.750.60

Elgist ap Awst

Rhodri ap IthelS

and Te w d w r A c. 750

c.765 770

Gurgauarn ap Fiernfael®

780

Athrwys ap Ffernfael?

790

Dynasties from

Surrounding Areas

c.7 75

c.780-5

Mareduda& c.7 85

1 146,1 5 4 . 2 204a: 211a, 209a.

з 201, 203a, 1986, 199bi, 2036, 200, 207. 4 167.

5 2106, 2096. в 206, 2116. 7 210a, 208. 8 125a. For the d a t e of Maredudd, see below, p. 167. 69

850 860

Junior Branches

Other Domin ant Dy nas tie s

Dynasties from

71

Main Dynasty

Surrounding Areas

Meurig"

Hywel?

c.850-70

c.860-85 870

Brochfael ap Meurig c.872-910

880 890

Arthfael ap Hywel^ c.890

900

910 920

Gruffydd ap Owain ap HywelS

Tewdwr6 c.9 25

c.925

1 170, 1696, 1716/74, 214, 225, 199bii, 216b. 2 226, 212, 227a, 2306, 2276, 229a, 228, 2296, 230a, 236.

3 216a, 234, 2356, 235a, (232a), 233c,231), (2326).

4 237a.

5 239. 6 237b.

Main Dynasty

Junio r Branc hes

Other Dominant

Dynasties 930

Cadwgon ap Owain ap Hywel' c.935

940 950

Cadell ap Arthfael?

C9.40-2 r0ga-n7 0ap Owani pa Hywei M с9 5o

960 970

Dynasties from Surrounding Areas

Nowy* c.950-60

Idwallon ap Morgan®

c.975 980 990

1000

{224. 2 223, 222. з (p.247). 240. 4 221, 218, 217.

Arthfael ap Nowy 6

c.980

Rhodri and Gruffydd ap Elised? c. 1005

71

5 245;cf. p.252, where the four sons of Morgan supposedly witnessed Bleddri's consecration. 6 244, 243. > 251; the sons of Elised, Arthfael's brother.

Main Dynasty

Junior Branches

Other Dominant

Dynastiesf r o m

Dynasties

Surrounding Areas

Edwin

1010

c. 1 0 1 5 1020

Rhys ap Owain ap Morgan?

Rhydderch3

c.1020 1030

c. 1025

Gruffydd ap Rhydderch*

Hywel ap Owain ap MorganS

c.1033 1040

1050

c.1030

Meurig ap Hywel®c. 1035.40 Cadwgon apMeurig? c.1 0 4 5 - 7 0

1 249b. 2 246.

3 2646, 253. 4 264a.

5 257. 6 255, 263, 249a, 259, 260. 7 261, 267.

Main Dynasty

Junior Branches

OtherD o m i n a n t Dynasties

1060

1070

Gruffydd' (lestyn ap Gwrgan)?.

c. 1072-5

1080

Dynasties f r o m

Surrounding Areas

Caradog ap Gruffyad?

c. 1060

c. 1072

Roger FitzWilliam FitzObern Count of Hereford and Lord ofGwent c. 1075

1 269; Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, from west and north Wales; see above, p. 20.

2 272.

3 272,271; not king, but a member of the ruling dynasty; seebelow, pp. 96-8. 4 274.

73

74

75

(140). Apart from these, the only other royal dynasties which make any impression are that of N o w, which survived for three generations through his sons Arthfael and Elised in the tenth and early eleventh centuries, and that of Rhydderch, which survived for three generations in the eleventh century. This dominant dynasty is the same as that

recorded for Gwent, Glywysing and Morgannwg in genealogical collections, which trace the line back through Erb and Meurig son of Enynny

to different founders.' The early stages of these genealogies are very

suspect, but the supposed descent from Erb is, at the least, interesting

ni the light of the charter evidence?

Though the main dynasty is dominant, there are a number of other kings to be accommodated in south-east Wales: some are members of dominant dynasties from the surrounding kingdoms but others belong to no independently-evidenced lines. Since the charters in which they occur are concerned with the transfer of property rights, there is plentiful evidence of the area of operation of many kings. Maps A - L utilise this evidence to demonstrate those areas within

the south east,

distinguishing grants made by each king from grants

witnessed or guaranteed by him. Capital letters symbolise a royal grant

and lower case a royal presence; purchases from the king are symbolised as a royal grant. Map A presents the early Ergyng dynasty, B the remaining early kings, C Meurig and his son ni the seventh century.

Meurig's grants of Cilcyuhynn and Conuoy were in Gower, but cannot. be precisely identified; the text of 150a has Meurig as donor, though the witness list has Morgan as king - see below, p. 169. Athwys's grant of Lann Calcuch is unidentified. Both were present at the Gower grants.

Map D shows Morgan and his contemporaries in the late seventh and early eighth centuries. Morgan's grants of Villa Lath, Lann Cincirill, and

Ager Cynfall and Brochfael's of Lann Helicon are unidentified; for 150a, see above and p. 169. Map E shows Ithel and his contemporaries in the

mid-eighth century.

Ithel's grants of Villa Bertus and Colcuch are

unidentified; so is the grant of Guruarch, at which he was present.

Map F presents the sons and grandsons of Ithel. Ffernfael's grant of

Tir Dimuner and Rhys's grant of Villa Gueruduc are unidentified; so

are the grants of three willae and Turion, at which Ffernfael was

present, and of Dinbirrion, at which Rodri was present. Map G presents the kings of the late ninth century. Grants of Cairduicil and Ecclesia Riu, atwhich Hywel was present, are unidentified; so are Tir Cunir and Tref Ili, at which Brochfael was present. Map H presents the kings of theearly and mid-tenth century. Morgan's grant of Lann Gunnhoill andthe grant of Villa Segan, at which Cadell was present, are unidentified. Map I shows the intrusive kings and dynasties of the tenth

and early eleventh centuries. The grant of Caironui, at which Nowy

was present, is unidentified. Maps J and K show the kings of intrusive

and main dynasties in the eleventh century. Iestyn is not called 'king',

although he belonged to the dynasty. Map L presents the several kings of Dyfed. Maredudd's grant of Trem Canus is unidentified; Aergol gave three uillae near Tenby and consented to the grant of two more there.

King Constantine (72a),Iddig and Cynan (150b), Idwallon (176b),

Elgist (167), Idwallon (245), Clydog and Pennbargaut (193) are not represented since their grants cannot be precisely located on Maps A - L. Constantine's kingdom lay across the Wye,c.575, in the area soon to be

conquered by the English. Iddig made a grant at Porthcaseg, Mon., c.693, when he was not called king (150a); and Cynan was son of

Cynfedw, who was killed by king Meurig near the river Thaw, Glam., before c.665 (147); the grants of Iddig and Cynan as kings, however, are not locatable.' The first Idwallon was killed by Clodri, before c.700; no geographical detail is associated with him, though his son (?) Idnerth witnessed in Ergyng and Gwent Uwchcoed;? Clodri's consequent grant cannot belocated, though his base was clearly in Gwent.Elgist was

killed by Tewdwr of Brycheiniog, and was presumably a king there

since he was the son of Awst of Brycheiniog (146, 154). The second Idwallon was one of the four sons of Morgan Hen; there are no indica-

tions of associated regions. Clydog and Pennbargaut are associated with

Ewias in a record which is essentially composed of undatable legendary

material; elsewhere, Clydog is supposed to have been the grandson of Brychan of Brycheiniog.3 The historicity of their kingship is very

suspect, since it rests on such dubious material

In considering the significance of the distribution of royal grants and

references to kings, an additional factor is potentially relevant: some kings are associated with named regions, and these may have been

1 Jesus College MS. 20,n o .9 (Bartrum, p. 45) andVita Cadoci, c. 46 (VSB,

intended as kingdom names. The practice is rare, and tends t ooccur ni

perspectives o f the compilers o f the genealogies in H i s t o r i c i t y and the Pedigrees of the Northcountrymen', BBCS, xxvi (1974-6), 255-80; see also her 'Date-

2 See below, p. 117.

p. 118); see also 'AchauBienhinoedda Thywysogion Cymru', no. 15 (Bartrum, p. 105). There si confusion between Meurigs;see Bartrum, pp. 138 f .Dr Miller has made some valuable comments o nthe effects o f the varying historical Guessing and Pedigrees, Studia Celtica, x-xi (1975-6),96-109.

2 See further below, pp. 99 f.

See further below, pp. 93 .f

3 D ' e Situ Brecheniauc', 1 1(Bartrum, p .15); cf. 'Cognatio (Bartrum, p. 18); Jesus College MS.20,no. ¿(Bartrum, p. 42).

Brychan',

14

9L LAND OVER 8 0 0 ft.

A ERB

C.CINUIN

BPFIBIO

D.GWRGAN!

kms.

miles

Map A. - The Ergyng dynasty

LAND OVER 8 0 0 ft.

B.

MERCHWYN

kms.

5

055

C. G W R FO D D W .Map B

Early Kings of Gwent

LL

IDDON 5

A.

8L LAND

00

OVER

8 0 0 ft.

A. MEURIG ap TEWDRIG

kms. 7 03 5

B. ATHRWYS

15

Map C . - Meurig and Athrwys

LAND OVER 8 0 0 ft.

A MORGAN ap ATHRWYS

kms.

1 01 52 02 5 20

miles

- Morgan and contem porarie s

SL

Map D.

A DD

5

B. GWYDDIEN C . BROCHFAEL ap GWYDDIEN D ITHELap ATHRWYS

08 LAND OVER 80 0 ft.

A

AWST

B.

TEWDWR

C.

ITHEL ap MORGAN

5.

nu

kms.

miles

Map E. - Ithel and contemporaries

LAND OVER 8 0 0 ft.

A. FFERNFAEL D rHYS

E GURGAUARN

C. MEURG I

F. ATHRWIS Map F. -

kms. 10

15

20

m ile s

Thes o n s and grandsons of Ithel

18

B. RHODRI

28 LAND OVER

)

800 ft.

A.

HYWEL ap RHYS

B.

MEURIG paARTHFAEL

C.

kms.

BROCHFAEL ap MEURIG

Map G. - Kings of the late ninth century

D

LAND OVER 8 0 0 ft.

, GRUFFYDD ap OWAIN CADWGON ap OWAIN CADELL ap ARTHFAEL. MORGAN ap O WA I N

Map H. - Kings of the early tenth century

kms. S

3 0> 5

miles

E8

TEWDWR

84

LAND OVER 8 0 0 ft.

€

A Nowy B. ARTHFAEL ap NOWY

RHODRI & GRUFFYDD ap

kms. 10

15

20

25

07

ELISED miles

D. EDWIN Map I. - Intrusive dynasties of the t e n t h and early eleventh centuries

LAND

OVER 8 0 0 ft.

ns su

A. RHYDDERCH ap IESTYN

B. GRUFFYDD pa RHYDDERCH C. CARADOG pa GRUFFYD D

miles

85

Map J. - Intrusive dynasties of the eleventh century

kms. 1 01 52 02 5

86

LAND OVER 8 0 0 ft.

RHYS ap OWAIN HYWEL ap OWAIN

kms. 2 02 5

MEURIG a HYWEL

C

CADWGON ap MEURIG IESTYN a GWRG AN.

miles

Map K - T h e main dynasty in the eleventh century

LAND OVER 8 0 0f t .

A

AERGUL

kms. 2 02 5

NOWY

(

MAREDUDD

2 0

miles 87

Map L - The kings o f D y e d

89

88

the texts of charters rather than in the witness lists. There is therefore a

Gwent

possibility that the occurrence of geographical terms is an aspect of late

Erb

interpolation; in most cases, however, this seems unlikely for the terms occur occasionally and eratically, a practice which does not echo the

Athrwys Cadell

222 244 251

c. 1045

261

seniores Guenti & Ercicg

c. 755 c.895

234

Morgannwg Meurig Morgan

c.655

140

Arthfael

Rhodri, Gruffydd

high proportion o f late formulae and are therefore unlikely to be original records, with original early associations.

Edwin Cadwgon

Awst Tewdwr Te w d w r

c.720 c.750 c.925

146*. 154* 167*

2376

regionem Guenti

Meurig

the region is named

Morgan

in c. 1025, 1060

Rhys

253, 269

Dyfed

Aergol Maredudd

Rhydderch Gruffydd

c.500

c.785

1256* 125a*

Meurig

Erb Peibio Gwrfoddw

Gwrgan seniores Ercycg seniores Guenti & Ercicg

c.555 c.595 c.610-15 c.620 c.740 c.755

75* (Gwent and Ergyng) 163a

161, 162at

1636

185 1986

Cadwgon Caradog seniores morcannuc also:

2496, 255 (Gwent Iscoed) 1986

c.695

145

c.870

2166

c970

240

c.1020 c.1025 c.1030 .c 1035.45

246

(Gulatmorcant in 249a, 255, 259)

Ithel

Ergyng

75* (Gwent and Ergyng)

c.942

with named regions, and their regions. Charters with asterisks have a

Brychein iog

165*

c.980 c.1005 c.1015-35

behaviour of the late interpolators. Table 4 cites all kings associated

Table 4 . Kings Associated with Named Regions

c.555 c.625

c.1040 c.1070 c.1072

253 264at

249a, 255, 259, 261,263 259 (retrospective) 267

c.670,c.710

272 152*, 180b

sons of Morgan Hywel

983

p.252

1022

p.252

Pennbargaut

undatable

193

T h e term also occurs in the witness-list of this charter.

Glyw ysing

Morgan

c.698

Ithel

c.715-48

Rhys

c.770

Hywel

c.862

212

Brycheiniog (anglice Brecknockshire) and Dyed are terms applied to mid- and south-west Wales in medieval and modern periods, and the term Demetia (Dyfed) has a pre-medieval origin in the name of the tribe Demetae of that area.\ With the exception of Awst, the kings

Meurig

c.862

214

.878 c.728 c.685

2296 (retrospective)

1 Demetae: Ptolemy,Geographia,2.3.23.

Morgan

seniores Gleuissicg regionem Gleuissic

156

191, 195, 204a,2046

209a

190a

157

filiorum regis Gleuissicg (i.e. Ithel) late VIII, p.206

Dyfed/Demetia: Gildas, D eExcidio, c. 31, p. 72 Demetarum tyranne Vortipori;

Vita Samso nis,

Dementia (i.e.

c. 1, p. 99 'pater. . de Ve n t i a ) provincia

. D e m e t i a n o

proxima

e x

genere.

ejusdem

.

.et

elus

Demetiae'; A C

mater

796

Morgetiud rex Demetorum;HB, c. 47, P. 191 'quae est in regione Demetorum, luxta

fl u m e n

Teibi';ASC914,Then they went fromthere t oDyfed

(eomed)'; AC 952 vastaverunt Dewet. Brycheiniog: Asser's Life o fKing Alfred, ed. W.H. Stevenson, .c 80, p. 66 Helised. . .rex Brecheniauc; AC 848 'Tudhail rex Guent a wiris Broceniauc occisus est'; AC 983 vastaverunt

Brecheiniauc.

†The term also occurs in the witness-list of this charter.

See also Melville Richards,Welsh Administrative and Territorial Units, pp.21, 62,

241f; W. Rees, An. Historical Atlas of Wales (London, 1959), plates 22, 23.

91

90

associated with those areas belong to the major dynasties known to have been dominant in them.'

It must be noted that most of the

charters recording them are themselves highly suspect, but, since the distribution of grants associated with the kings is within the bounds of the well-authenticated limits of Brycheiniog and Dyed there is no

reason to suppose the associations other than genuine? Along with Now who appears in Dyfed and Elgist in Brycheiniog they are,

however, incidental to the main area of interest of the corpus, and there is insufficient information in Liber Landavensis to allow comment

on the extent and timespan o f these kingdoms and o nchanges in their political geography.

The remaining terms relate to the south east. All four are evidenced in other early medieval sources; Gwent has a clear pre-medieval origin in the name of the Roman town of Caerwent, Venta Silurum, Gwent and Morgannwg (or Gwladmorgan/Glamorgan) have a continuing late and post-medieval use

3

south-west Herefordshire, the land between Monnow and Wye, and

since all kings associated with the term in Liber Landavensis made | See Bartrum, pp. 9 ff, 45, 106, and above, pp. 18 f.

2 See below, pp. 100 f. 3 Ergyng: HB, .c 73, p .217 in regione quae vocatur Ercing; ASC 9 1 4'Cyfeiliog.

bishop of Archenfield (Yrcingafelda)'; Domesday Book, f.

179, 181 et seq.

Gwent: Vetera Romanorum Itineraria, sive Antonini Augusti

Itinerarium, ed. P.Wesselingius(1785), 485.9 Venta Silurum; Asser, c. 80, p.66 Brochmail atque Fernmailfilii Mouric,reges Guent; ASC 927 'Owain, king of the people o f G w e n t ' ; c f . above, p. 89 n. 1 - Vi t a Samsonis, c. 1 Glywysing: HB, 41, pp. 182 f in regione, q u a evocatur Gleguissing;AC 864 Duta vastaunt Gliuisigng,

Asser, c. 80, p .6 6 Houil quoque fi l i u s Ris, r e x Gleguising.

Morgannwg: Eadmer, Historia Novorumi nAnglia,ed. M . Rule (Rolls Series,

1884), p.1 8 7 'Urbanus quoque Glamorgatensiecclesiae quae in Gualis est'; Jesus

College MS. 20,no. 9 'o enw Morgant vchot y gelwir Morgannwe'(Bartrum, p . 45).

Cf.

B L

MS. Cotton Domitian v i i , which includes twelfth/thirteenth-century

material (see J.E. Lloyd, History o f Wales, p. 280) Breheienauc. . .Deneta (i.e.

Demetia). . Morgannok. . Cantref Gwent.. CantrefErgyn (J.G. Evans,Reports on MSSin the Welsh Language, Historical Manuscripts Commission, 1898/1910, . Richards, Welsh Administrative and Territorial Units, pp. 269, 274 f, ii. 942 f; M 2770.

anywhere other than south-west Hereford in the charters, or that the references are other than original. The usage si both limited and consistent

'Glywysing' is more of a problem. Though its use is chronologically limited, which suggests that it si probably an original feature, kings associated with 'Glywysing' made grants from all over the south east and

there is nothing in the Landaff evidence to suggest any clear territorial limits within the south east. Asser's use of the terms 'Gwent' and "Glywysing in the late ninth century, and the Vita Cadoci in the twelfth century, might suggest some territorial distinction between

them on the lines of the modern Monmouth/Glamorgan division, but it

is notable that Asser's king of Glywysing, Hywel, made far moregrants

from Monmouthshire than from Glamorgan? Moreover, those very

grants which name Morgan, Ithel (191 and 195) and Meurig as kingsof

Glywysing refer to places in Monmouthshire, while even the Preface to

the Vita Cadoci includes regions o f medieval Monmouth and Carmarthen

In the charters of Liber Landavensis both 'Ergyng' and 'Glywysing' are used (with kings) within a restricted period, the former in association with kings of the sixth and early seventh century, the latter in association with kings of the late seventh to mid-ninth centuries. In both cases, the restriction to certain periods, in a collection of charters whose dates were not apparent to the latest collectors, suggests that the references belonged to the original records and are not later interpolations. Since the term 'Ergyng' is consistently used in all other sources to refer to

Arcenefelde.

to grants from that area, there is no reason to suppose that it refers

within the area of Glywysing - Gwynllwg, Edeligion, Cedweli and

Camwyllion? It therefore looks as if 'Glywysingis a term used of

Glamorgan and Monmouth in the eighth and n i n t hcenturies although there is nothing to suggest that Glywysing had the very wide limits of

the Vita Cadoci Preface ni that period. fI this deduction is incorrect,

then the usage implies a very strongconnection between the Glamorgan area and the dominant dynasty: Morgan and Ithel and Rhys (late seventh to late eighth century) were considered kings o fGlywysing even though they were dominant and very active i nGwent. In the absence of further evidence, the point cannot be resolved, but the changing use of

the term 'Morgannwg' would support the former explanation.3

'Gwent' itself has a clear connotation in late and post-medieval periods - essentially the area till recently called Monmouthshire - and takes its name from the principal Roman town of that area. In Liber Landavensis it is only used twice in association with pre-tenth-century kings, and these are very early - and also suspect - references.* In the tenth and eleventh centuries it was only used in association with

Llandaff kings who granted from Monmouthshire: Cadwgon was king of Gwent when he granted from there and king of Morgannwg when he Asser, c. 80, p. 66; Vita Cadoci, .c 6 9(VSB, p. 138). 2 VSB, p. 24; see M. Richards, Welsh A d m i n i s t r a t i v ea n d Pp. 274, 297, 253. з See below, p . 92.

Territorial Units,

.4 75; see below, p. 166. The occurence of hte term ni 165 may eb an effectof eighth/ninth-century editing; see above, p. 21.

92

93

granted from Glamorgan. It is therefore highly likely that in Liber Landavensis it signifies the same area as subsequently. Once, in the eleventh century, there is reference to one of its later consistent

subdivisions, Gwent Iscoed (255).

The name 'Morgannwg' refers to Morgan, presumably a king of that name, and it is presumably intended to signify his land. There are two

so named ni south-east Wales ni the pre-Conquest period: Morgan ap Athwys of the late seventh and early eighth centuries and Morgan ap Owainof the tenth century. The absence of the term 'Morgannwg from all very early medieval sources other than Liber Landavensis - and

notably from Asser and the early tenth-century poem Armes Prydein, both of which use 'Glywysing' - suggests that it is not a very early term. It would therefore appear that it derives from the later Morgan,

as is the implication of the comment in Jesus College MS. 20, no. 9,

and its occurrence in pre-tenth-century charters must therefore be an

interpolation or indication of a suspect charter.' The Landaff kings associated with the term made grants from all over the south east. Morgan appears to have had authority in Gwent (240), and the supposed

seven cantreds of Morgannwg include Gwent (240 and pp. 247f). Morgannwg and the diocese of Llandaff - which tried to assume its boundaries - are consistently described as running from rivers Tywy to

greatest ni the first and last centuries of the series. Despite this, a

pattern of political change si perceptible.

The kings of the sixth and early seventh century are only to be found

ni small, distinct areas.The descendants of Erb, over four generations, c.555-620, are exclusively referred to sa kings of Ergyng and are con-

fined to Ergyng, as is Gwrfoddw, c.610-15. Iddon, c.595-600, is confined to northern Monmouthshire, and Merchwyn, c.605, appears ni Gower. The kingdoms appear to be minute and self-contained. There si no hint of any royal activity ni the greater part of present-day Glamorgan, and the comment in the Vita Samsonis that the province of Gwent lay next to the Demetae suggests there was no powerful political element there. '

It is clear that there was some major change round about 600: this is

indicated by odd references to the Saxons and by the emergence of the dynasty which came to dominate the whole of the south east, the dynasty of Meurig.The charters recording grants to Iddon and Gwrfoddw

refer to victories over the Saxons, as does the tradition about Tewdrig, Meurig's father. Iddon supposedly enlisted the assistance of St Teilo

while giving chase to Saxon raiders in the Llan-arth area, and Teilo duly

sent them packing (123). Gwrfoddw made his grant ni thanks for his victory over the Saxons (161). Tewdrig emerged from retirement near

Matharn, after an angelic visitation, and led his son's army to victory,

Tarader, thereby including Monmouth as well as Glamorgan. Morgan's

though he himself was wounded and died three days later (141). Whatever the truth of the legends, the Saxon associations of these kings are interesting, and chronologically consistent, and, since we know that

lordship of Glamorgan were distinct areas, approximating to the later

round about 577, Saxon pressure at this period si entirely credible? It si likely that this Saxon aggression disturbed the equilibrium of the south-easter kingdoms, throwing up at least one usurper ni Ergyng, Gwrfoddw, round about 600. It is impossible to tell how long the

land - 'Morgannwg' - would therefore appear to have included the whole of the south east in the tenth century. This must have changed in the eleventh century: after the Conquest, the lordship of Gwent and administrative areas of Gwent/Monmouthshire and Glamorgan. A high proportion of eleventh-century charters have one term or the other. It

therefore seems unlikely that 'Morgannwg' meant the whole of the south

east in the late eleventh century, and likely that it was restricted approximately to the area of Glamorgan. It may be that this distinction

was retrospectively applied to Glywysing - as forerunner of Morgannwg

- in parts of the late eleventh-century Vita Cadoci.

We are now in a position to consider the existence of political units. With the exception of the kings from the surrounding kingdoms, the majority of kings appear within surprisingly ill-defined regions. There are two areas of confusion:

the incidence of kings who are not members of

the dominant dynasty within the area controlled by that dynasty, and the complications occasioned by royal brothers. The confusion is 1 Bartrum, p. 45, and above p. 90 n. 3; seefurther, Wendy Davies, 'The con-

secration of bishops of Llandaff in the tenth and eleventh centuries', BBCS, xxvi (1974-6), 66.

there was a major Saxon victory over Gloucester, Cirencester and Bath

pressure continued, but the emergence of Meurig may have been conse-

quent upon similar victories; there is certainly no hint of trouble from the Saxons after his reign, apart from some border warfare ni the mideighth century (192), and English aggression in the early eleventh (255). Whatever the reason for Meurig's emergence, he clearly used it to establish a kingdom or a hegemony larger than anything we know to have existed previously in the area. He acquired property from all over

the southeast and himself made grants from places as farapart as Gower and the Wye. He may have made an early marriage into the family of 1 See above, p. 89 n. 1; the area was clearly not unoccupied, however: seethe excavation o f Dinas P o w s in L. Alcock, Dinas Powys, esp. pp. 26-73, and Pro-

fessor Alcock's commentson the political situation 2 ASC; see above, p. 17.

94

95

Glywys, establishing himself in the Gower area.' He certainly married Onbraust, daughter of Gwrgan, king of Ergyng (140); no further descendants of Gwrgan through the male line appeared as kings in that area, though they possibly continued as aristocrats;? Meurig's son by

Onbraust, Athwys, later appeared as king confirming grants ni Ergyng.

It would therefore appear that Meurig made at least one marriage

connection with an established dynasty of a small area, and proceeded to exert power over the whole of the south east. His line subsequently

replaced the earlier one.

Meurig's son Athrwys appears to have died before him,3 but references to his grandson Morgan are also to be found all over the south east. Throughout his reign there are occasional grants from or

references t oother kings within his area - Gwyddien, Clodri, Iddig,

Cynan, Idwallon, Brochfael, and his brother Ithel ap Athwys. Since they very clearly operated within the area in which Morgan himself was

active, and sometimes made grants or witnessed in association with him

or hisfather or grandfather," they would appear to have been sub-kings, perhaps representatives

of older and originally independent dynasties. Morgan's son Ithel continued to operate throughout the south east.

Like Morgan he was rex Glywysing. Charters of his reign are notably lacking in references to any other kings, and there are no further

appearances of kings who are not members of the dominant dynasty until the tenth century. Sub-kings seem to have been eliminated. It

therefore appears that over four generations Meurig and his family not only established themselves in south-east Wales but also established

their authority over a relatively wide area and eliminated all rivals: they

created a kingdom.5

There are four sons of Ithel who are named king. They are clearly

not strictly successive and some of them must have been wielding authority at the same time. The evidence is not sufficient to suggest any strictly territorial division of responsibility: all four appear in Monmouth-

shire; Rhys may also appear ni Glamorgan, and is called king of Glywysing, perhaps because he was the senior brother: later generations traced their ancestry through him. Fferfael's associations are strong

enough to suggest a Monmouthshire orientation, which could furnish a S e e further below, pp. 99 f. His ultimate origin si obscure; see also below,

hint of division into two principal areas:Gwent andGlywysing/ Glamorgan.

His two sons only appear in Monmouthshire and his

grandson Ithel si calledking of Gwent. It is unfortunatethat only a

relatively small proportion of thegrants associated with these six kings

can be identified with any confidence. There is enough evidence to whether or suggest, however, that there was some change under them: not it was divided territorially, responsibility clearly was divided

between them, and the steady centralising policy of Meurig, Morgan, and Ithel lapsed. The last grant of Ithel's grandson occured c.785 (208). There followed a period of some 65 years for which we have no records. When the series begins again there were two branches of the main

dynasty. Both representatives, Hywel and Meurig, arecalled rex Glywysing and appear all over thesouth east, though Meurig's son

Brochfael was confined to Gwent. Meurig's branch did not last beyond Brochfael. The genealogies suggest that both branches were descended from the same son of Ithel, so there is no reason to suppose that any fixed territorial division was made by the sons of Ithel. Though Asser refers to kings of Gwent and Glywysing and the Anglo Saxon Chronicle refers to Owain of Gwent s.a. 927, there is nothing ni the Llandaff

evidence to suggest anything other than extreme flexibility in the

apportioning of responsibility.? There is, however, some suggestion of

dislocation in the south east in the intervening period, f o rthere were a number of regrants in the mid-ninth century of property previously

granted to the church, at Mafurn, Ballingham, Tidenham, and Tryleg

(1626, 164: 171b; 1746: 229b; 199bi: 199bii. Three grandsons of

Hywel appear ni Glamorgan only - though one, Cadell, is called king of Gwent - while the fourth, Morgan, appears ni Gwent. We know from other evidence that Morgan was regarded as principal king by external observers, and it is Morgan who appears to give his name to the new

Morgannwg.3

There is nothing, however, to suggest any institutional orpolitical development contemporary with the change of name. Indeed, it si at this time that intrusive elements began to appear. A certain Nowy. ap

Gwriad established himself in southern w e n t c.950 and his family

succeeded him there for two generations, called kings of Gwent. After

p. 100. 2 See below, p. 114. 3 See above, p. 18.

1 Bartrum, pp. 12, 45; there is, however, clear corruption ni the genealogies; see

Gwyddien: 144,145, 147, 149, 152; Clodri: 176b, 183b; Iddig: 150a, 1806; Cynan: 150b; Idwallon: 152; Brochfael: 148, 157.

further below, p. 102 n.2. 2 Cf. AC 848 'Iudhail rex Guent. .occisus est'

5 S e ef u r t h e rbelow, pp. 99 f; they do not in fact appear to exterminate the ruling families they replaced.

3 He witnessed grants in the English court, see above. p. 19;cf. above p. 90

п. 3.

96

97

them one Edwin appears as king of Gwent, in the region of Gwent. 1

And after and perhaps contemporary with Edwin, oneRhydderch ap

lestyn took over, to be followed by son and grandson into the 1070s. In Liber Landavensis Rhydderch's family only appear in Gwent, though

they are calledkings of Morgannwg; and c. 1025 Rhydderch was held to be ruling all Wales, with lago a p Idwal of Gwynedd merely holding Anglesey from him(253, p. 252)? His son Gruffydd was also king of

Dyfed, c. 1046-55.3

Despite

the

intrusions ni Gwent and then

Morgannwg, the main dynasty, the sons and grandsons of Morgan,

The pattern of change is therefore discernible in broad outline.

Throughout the period, political units only existed in the loosest of senses and the terms of reference were geographical rather than political. Kings had no strict relation to social aggregates: they were not kings of

groups of people like the earlySaxon kings, but kings within fluctuating geographical areas; not king of the East Angles, but king of Glywysing One king's successor might be king of part of Gwent.

The major changes in political direction are emphasised by the

existence of documents recording general royal confirmations: Athwys in Ergyng, c.625 (165); Ithel in Ergyng after Saxon attack, c.745 (192); Morgan ni Gwent, c.970 (240); Rhydderch all over t h e southeast,

nevertheless continued, appearing ni both Gwent and Glamorgan. Hywel, Morgan's grandson, is called subregulus, king of Morgannwg. under Rhydderch, on p. 252. His son Meurig killed the intruder Edwin (255) and was king of Morgannwg; but only appeared himself in Glamorgan. Meurig's son Cadwgon appeared in both Gwent and Glamorgan, as did Morgan's great grandson Iestyn, though the latter si

c. 1025 (253); Gruffydd ap Lywelyn similarly, c.1060 (269). These

of Morgannwg ni Glamorgan.

gradually eliminating minor kings within the area. The work of consolidation seems to have been essentially complete by the early

not called king. Cadwgon was king of Gwent when ni Gwent but king Several things seem to have been happening during the period c.1020-70; other dynasties acquired property in Gwent, while the ancient dynasty clearly retained some property ni both Gwent and

changes may be summarised as follows: the minute kingdoms of the

sixth century were replaced by the new dynasty of the seventh century, which established a general hegemony over the whole of the south east, eighth century, and the dynasty then remained dominant until the

mid-tenth century, responsibility often being divided between sons or

even between different branches of the dynasty. There is, however,

Glamorgan; the general title of king of Morgannwg was appropriated

nothing which suggests firm territorial division and the terms used in

hegemony,the effects of these contradictory tendencies were to

were several changes in the later period. 'Glywysing' gave way to 'Morgannwg' as a general term, and fi the precise implication of 'Glywysing' is uncertain, 'Morgannwg' clearly meant from Tywy to Wye

by groups who had a general hegemony and whose power base happened to be in Gwent, i.e. the family of Rhydderch; the ancient dynasty retained the title as well, though they must have been effectively confined to Glamorgan; by c.1070, when no-one had a general

restrict hte kingship of Morgannwg ot Glamorgan. Though the original

dynasty had continued all along, ti was not a member of Meurig's line

whocontended with the great Gruffydd ap Llywelyn, when he des-

cended from the north and west, but Gruffydd ap Rhydderch, and the latter was even in aposition to make a grant from Ergyn g, lost since the ninth centur y. Gruffydd ap Llywelyn made one grant himself on the

Wye, presumably after his victory of 1055. The main dynasty, then lost their dominance after the late tenth century, and lost their exclusive possession of the Morgannwg title. The south east became the spoil of

association with the kings of the south east would therefore seem to refer to geographical areas rather than to distinctive kingdoms. There

in the late tenth century. The main dynasty continued, but with ever-

decreasing predominance. Control of Ergyng seems to have been lost after the mid-ninth century;' control of Gower seems to have been

lost in the mid-tenth century;? and new dynasties established themselves

in Gwent from about 950, and continued there until the Norman Conquest. The old dynasty had no monopoly even of Morgannwg -

Morgan's land - for Rhydderch, Gruffydd and Caradog, members of

one of the intrusive dynasties, were kings of Morgannwg. Intruders

the dynasties of south west and north.

intervened from other kingdoms. There was considerable political instability and consequent confusion in the use of terms; grants made

1 See above, pp. 20, 84. 2 Cf. AC 1033; Rhydderch was killed and lago and the sons of Edwin held his

Gwent were from kings of Morgannwg. Though this last is not

regio (i.e. Gwynedd and Dyfed).

3

See above, p. 20.

Gruffydd ap Llywelyn attacked Dyfed in1039 and Hereford in 1052, and

killed Gruffydd ap Rhydderch in 1055; he was himself killed in 1063. See above,

p. 20.

by kings of Gwent were invariably from Gwent, but some grants from 1 See above,pp. 25 .f 2 AC 958, 970, 977. Einon's attacks may well have reached further than Gower for he was killed through the nobles of Gwent in 984 (AC). AC 9 9 3.. 'regiones Maredut, le. Demetiam et Keredigeaun, Guhir et Kedweli . . . .• Ci. Vita Oudocei,

. 133, in which the kingdomsare said to divide at the river Towy. LL, p

99

98

necessarily inconsistent, at least one king si referred to by both terms, depending on hislocation. During the early part of the eleventh century it is clear that kings who saw themselves as, or were seen to be, more

powerful called themselves king of Morgannwg, wherever they were (Rhydderch, Gruffydd, Caradog), while the lesser kings of Gwent called themselves kings of Gwent. By the time of the Conquest Cadwgon - of the old line - was calling himself now king of Gwent, now king of Morgannwg. The general implications of the wider term had therefore

become limited by that time, as had the existence of any wider authority over the south east, or the automatic right of one dynasty to assume it.

Royal income It is perfectly clear that kings were in possession of large landed

estates: grants which comprised a straightforward giftfrom king ot

church, and involved no other people, must represent the transfer of property rights from one to the other, though this may have meant no more than

the diversion of either profits or a render. They are unlikely to represent adiversion of royal rights since the areas from which they were made are very limited, as is demonstrated below. Such grants

occured throughout the period covered by the charters, thoughthere were

none between c.728 and

7 5 5 . ' Where there is sufficient

information it would appear that the properties were widely scattered:

Peibio (c.575-85) granted from the length of Ergyng; Meurig ap Tewdrig

(c.620-665) granted from Gower, the Vale of Glamorgan, Gwent Iscoed

lower Wye and coastal Gwent, and occasionally Ergyng. It would therefore appear thatthere were blocks of property,belonging to the dynasty, ni those areas. These seem to have beenestablished during the lifetime

of the founder of the dynasty, that si Meurig, from the mid-seventh century, with the exception of Ergyng and the Landaff area, which were added a little later.

The process of acquisition of such widespread properties is a matter

for speculation though there are some indications of how it was accom-

plished. There were significant concentrationsat theextremities ofthe

area dominated, Gower and theLower Wye. Thisalone suggests somoef conscious policy of acquisition. It is highly suggestive that the lands

the petty kings, who were contemporary with Meurig and Morgan, are ni the areas of the later major royal blocks:the new dynasty may then

have established itself by acquiring the properties of the royal dynasties it eliminated. It is quite possible that Gower and the western Vale was

the first area acquired, the basis of power, and the source of the name Glywysing. One Merchwyn ap Glywys si found in Gower a little

earlier, c.605 (76b),and there si a Merthyr Glywys near Merthyr Maw.

If West Glamorgan/Gower were associated with Glywys in the sixth and seventh centuries, and were then acquired and used as a base by Meurig's dynasty, ti would explain the association of the term Glywysing with the dynasty in the late seventh and eighth centuries and the term's expansion - with the dynasty - to denote the entire south east.1 Gower could well have been acquired from Cynfedw, who

and Uwchcoed; Morgan ap Athrwys (c.670-710) granted from Gower,

the Vale, the lower Wye, and Radnor, though, with theexception of the

The origin of the name Glywysing is a serious problem: as far as the late

latter, the areas are not dissimilar from Meurig's; Ithel ap Morgan

eleventh-century'Life' of Cadog was concerned, the name represented thearea

Gwent and Ewias; and Hywel ap Rhys (c.860-85) granted from the Vale and Ergyng. Most later kings did not make enough grants to show

four generations from Maximian/Magnus Maximus or six generationsfrom

(c.710-45) made new grants or sold from the Vale, the lower Wye,

a comparable spread, but what is interesting is the recurrence of royal

grants from those same areas already noted,even if they are themselves

widely scattered: Brochfael ap Meurig (c.872-910) made several grants from coastal Gwent; Gruffydd ap Owain (c.925) granted from Gower;

Cadwgon ap Owain (c.935) granted from Merthyr Maw, and Meurig ap

Hywel (c1035-40) from the river Thaw; Arthfael ap Hywel(c.890)

granted from the Landaff area, as did Meurig ap Hywel and Cadwgon ap Meurig (c. 1045-70). The dominant dynasty, then, tended to make grants from Gower, the western part of the Vale (R. Thaw/Merthyr

Mawr), the eastern part of the Vale (Landaff and the estuary), the 1 Except by Tewdwr of Brycheiniog, c.750 (167).

once ruled by Glywys, grandfather of Cadog, and divided between his sons, a classic tale of eponymous origins. The twelfth-century and later genealogies which maintain the same association - tracehis descent from Roman emperors, Constantine. in both cases therefore suggesting a floruit c.500/510 (Bartrum,

pp. 18, 29 f, 44, 69, 82; VSB, pp. 24, 118, cf.172). T h eMerchwyn ap Glywys

grant of c.605 has a clear Gower location, and Merthyr G l y w y sappears in the

bounds of 224 (near Merthyr Maw).There i samemorialstoneat Ogmore,granting land to God andGlywys (Gliguis), and bishop Fili (ECMW, no. 255). There therefore appear to be clear local Glywys associations in We s tGlamorgan, and Merthyr Glywys may i n fact be Merthys Maw itself: 'Glywys's Merthyr' could equally be the great Merthyr', the notable one. While one may suspect the actual r e l a t i o n s h i p p o s t u l a t e d b e t w e e n G l y w y s a n d K o m a n e m p e r o r sin t h e g e n e a l o g i e s ,

i tis nevertheless true that the genealogies consistently suggest that Glywys was

alive in theearly sixthcentury;a n dthe Merchwyngrantwould placeGlywysin the mid-sixth century. On theface of it, therefore, there seems to b en or e a s o nto

doubt that the name Glywysing has its origin in West Glamorgan and that the Meurig dynastysucceeded by getting possession of this; further, Merchwyn's

father could well be the supposed eponym. Cf. also Mar ap Glywys, t h esupposed eponym o f Morgannwg and Margam; the tradition is confused but at least suggests a West Glamorgan focus (Bartrum, p. 45).

100

witnessed there c.650 (144) and whose son later made an unidentified

grant as rex, c.690 (150b); Cynfedwhimself was killed by Meurig

c.665 (147). The lands of the kings Iddon in Gwent Uwchcoed and of

Idwallon ni East Gwent may have been similarly acquired. Ergyng would appear to have been added by the marriage of Meurig into the Ergyng dynasty; and his son Athwys made several regrants from the region. The Landaff area seems to have been added during the reign of

Morgan. Again, two of the petty kings, Gwyddien and Brochfael, were

dominant there in the early years of Morgan and then disappeared. It is tempting to see Meurig's dynasty acquiring royal property round Llandaff from a displaced royal family, as they appear to have done in

Ergyng, and probably ni Gower and East Gwent. The lands of king Clodri in West w e n t may have been the final acquisition for Cemais,

in south-west Gwent, emerges as one of the main dynasty's principal centres in the later eighth century.

The whole tenor of the evidence suggests that Meurig established his

dynasty anew in the seventh century and created the kingship of the south east, by acquiring a sufficient scatter of properties to support

himself and his line.' The major blocks appear tohave been established by the early eighth century. Some were certainly acquired f r o mearlier

royal families; others are not so demonstrably acquired, but the

coincidences of time and place are highly suggestive of a similar process. No other major block appears to have been added subsequently. Changes came in the later period, however: there were no grants from Gower after Gruffydd ap Owain and no grants from Gwent after

101

evidence that Gower was attacked frequently from about 958 by the kings of Dyfed, descendants of Hywel Dda, and that Gower was considered part of Maredudd's kingdom of Dyed in 993; intrusive dynasties appeared in Gwent after c.950.' The close relationship between the holding of royal property and politicalcontrol in these two

areas suggests very strongly that throughout the pre-Conquest period

the maintenance of a kingship depended on the maintenance of an

adequate block of personal property, and that this was ultimately more

significant as a source of income than any rudimentary fiscal system.

There is a further aspect of royal income which has already been

discussed in part: census/gwestfa - the right of the king, as king, to demand hospitality and consequently food or other render from all property.? Since the general exemption-phrase is a late interpolation in

most Llandaff charters, it is impossible t odetermine whether or not the right was normally operative throughout the whole period the charters

cover.

It is clear from scraps of evidence that this was certainly so in

955 (218), and almost certainly so in the mid-eighth and mid-ninth

centuries.3 As pointed out above, many of the sales of the mid-eighth century may ni fact have represented the purchase of royal rights, that is, of immunities, although they may well have arisen ni a period of

some conceptual confusion; fi the king owned the land both his rights as owner and his rights as king may have been purchased in one act.

Before that the honey and the iron vessel owed the king by Llantwit,

Morgan ap Owain ni the tenth century, whereas the dynasty of Nowy

c.670 (152), need not represent distinctively royal dues: Lantwit could have been royal property and does not therefore furnish evidence of early royal fiscal rights. On balance, it would appear highly likely that,

Gower was lost in or after the mid-tenth century and properties in

have been so before that period;

granted from coastal Gwent as did Edwin ap Gwriad. (Ergyng appears to have been lost in the mid-ninth century.) It is likely that property in

Gwent lost to Nowy at about the same time. We know from independent

from the reign of Ithel onwards (c.710-45), kings normally expected a render from all land unless specifically exempted. It may or may not

both possibilities are conceivable

and the point cannot be resolved on evidence available a t present.

" T h egenealogies naturally associate Meurig with prestigious ancestors, b u t the oldest (Harley MS. 3859, no. 28;Bartrum, p. 12) goes no further than Tewdrig,

whereas the rest diverge beyond Tewdrig;seeabove, p.74 n. .1 There is therefore difficulty in determining the origin of the dynasty. The suggestion of Meurig's origin contained in Vita Cadoci, c. 25 (VSB, p. 80), and JesusCollege MS. 20,

no. S - that Meurig was son of Enynny and married Dibwndaughter of Glywys are not as inherently incredible as has often been suggested. As Mr. Bartrum has

See above, p. 97, n . 2 ;cf. also king Edgar's devastation o f Glamorgan recalled in the VitaI t u t i .c 2 5(VSB, p. 228).

2 See above, pp. 48-50.

The royal/fiscal exemption phrasesof 140, 161, 170, 171b,174a,184, 191 195, 199b. 205. 2096, 2166. 237a, 267 (secular and r o y a l ) .2 6 9 (c.655. 610. 850, 860,855, 738, 730,740,755, 708, 765, 870, 890,1070, 1060) appear to be

pointed out, Enynnywas daughter of Cynfarch and sister of Urien Rheged, who was alive i n north Britain in t h el a t e sixth century (Bartrum, pp. 138 f). Chronologicallythere is n o reason why Enynny should not have beenmother of Meurig ap Tewdrig and Dibwn should not have been his first wife, fi her brother

genuine; see below pp.

objections to the use of genealogies for historical purposes are of course, both more general and more reasonable; see above, p. 74, n 1.

to any layman. Cf.199b: 'fre ni 175/186b, 198a, 218

Merchwyn were alive c.605. The usual objections to this are that itmakes Cadog, Dibwn's nephew, alive in the early to mid-seventh century (rather than the sixth), buti nfact no early source contradicts this chronological scheme. Dr. Miller's

104 ff. and my The L l a n d a f fCharters Cf. 147,

201.

204a, 204b, 225, 228, 229a, 2296, 240 (c.665, 750, 745,752,758, 748, 715, 864, 876, 874, 878, 970)where theexemption phrases are probablygenuine but not necessarily royal; the render could have been

pt prayer' and cumomni censu

102

103

Kingship

The Landaff evidence si quite inconclusive about many of the problems of early Welsh kingship and can only make a limited contribution to our understanding of it. Once the line of Meurig became

established in the mid-seventh century, the kingship of south-east Wales

was the property of the dynasty until the mid-tenth century. The succession normally passed from father to sons, who were frequently

associated ni the activities of the king. Meurig ap Hywel was certainly king in the lifetime of his father, c.1035 (255). It is perfectlyclear that

number of examples of royal murders: Morgan removed his uncle

Friog, before c.670 (152); Gwyddnerth,not kingbut probably a c.710 member of the ruling dynasty, removed his brother Meirchion before c. 980

(180b); and Arthfael ap Now removed his brother Elised

(244). The procedure si strictly comparable to that determining the inheritance of land according to Welsh land law and it seems highly

likely, therefore, that the kingship' wInas treated asheritable propertyin the supposed confirmation by

accordance with such principles. king Edgar, Morgan's son Owain received Ystradyw and Ewias sicuti. propriam hereditatem (p.248); and the (probably late) details of the

sons shared the kingship: Cinuin and Gwyddgi ap Peibio, c.595-605; Morgan and Ithel ap Athrwys, c.685; Meurig, Rhys, Rhodri, and

Narration of 167 comment that, ni case of perjury, Tewdwr must quit

c.775-85; Brochfael and Ffernfael ap Meurig, c.890; Gruffydd and Cadwgon and Morgan ap Owain, c.930-35;Idwallon, Owain, Cadell, and

that kingdom and inheritance are the same. The concept is also expressed in the inscription on the pillar of Eliseg: 'Ipse est Eliseg qui necxit hereditatem Pouo(i)s.'. ? The same principles appear to have

Ffernfael ap Ithel, c.750-70;, Gurgauarn and Athwysa p Ffernfael,

Cinuinap Morgan, 983; (Rhodri and Gruffydd ap Elised, 983-c.1005);

and Rhys and Hywel ap Owain, c.1030. It was, however, very rarely

shared over more than one degree of kinship. Meurig and his son Friog

and grandson Morgan, son of Athwys, appeared together c.665 (147);

Morgan and Cadwgon ap Owain and their first cousin Cadell ap Arthfael were all kings in the period c.930-42 (222, 223, 224).' In the middle

totam suam hereditatem, leaving his kingdom void: the implication si

been invoked by the dynasties which began to establish themselves as

kings in the tenth and eleventh centuries: Arthfael removed his brother Elised, c.980, but Elised's two sons Rhodri and Gruffydd succeeded him. Of course, the very emergence of contending dynasties in the later period serves to underline the concept of kingship as property rather

and late ninth century Hywel and Meurig, two descendants of Rhys ap Ithel, were kings, but the lacuna in the Llandaff evidence and hiatus in the genealogies makes it impossible to be completely sure of their

than as office.

degree of kinship; Meurig is called Hywel's patruelis ni LL 212, but he is perhaps more likely to have been his uncle? These cases are compara-

inheritance of property. It is worth remarking, however, that Meurig, the apparent founder of the dominant dynasty, married into an existing

tively rare, however, and there does not seem to be any major consequent fragmentation. There is no suggestion of any mechanism t o limit the succession to these narrow degrees of kinship and it must be assumed that the selection

was achievedeither naturally or by some careful liquidation.There are a See above, pp. 18 f. 2 Harley MS. 3859, no.29, would make Meurig's father A r t h f a e lthe son of R h y s and grandson of Ithel. The Jesus College MS. 20, genealogy no.9, inserts an extra

two generations between Arthfael and Rhys, andthis versionseemspreferable; see

If the kingship was viewed as personal property then any notion of legitimate kingship si irrelevant, except with reference to the legitimate dynasty, and this was presumably intended to give some semblance of

legitimacy to the new ruler and his family: secondly, that the compilers

of the genealogies of Morgan ap Owain sought to demonstrate his

descent from legendary heroes, Caradog Fraichfas and Eudaf hen, from Constantine the great, from Glow the eponym of Gloucester, and from Vortigern, and to demonstrate his connection with the royal lines of other British kingdoms.3 Whatever the truth of such assertions, it

betokens some attempt in the tenth century or later to claim an ancient authority. As far as Liber Landavensis is concerned the activities of the kings

Ärthfaelwouldseem t o be Hywel's grandfather, ie. Meurig was Hywel's patruus

were, principally, to donate land to the church, confirm previous donations, guarantee other people's gifts, and engage in a variety of violent

two Meurigs, the second being son o f Ithel ap Arthfael and therefore literally p a t r u e l s o f Hywel, 1.e. his uncle Ithel's offspring. While there is no d o u b t that a

1 Cf. above, pp. 55 f, and giraldus cited there.

furtherBartrum, pp.

139 f ,a n da b o v e ,pp.

18 .f I ne i t h e rcase Meurig's father

not patruelis. Dr. Miller (andDr. James) would resolve the problem by postulating

Meurig ap Ithel is mentioned in 214, and that we know of an Ithel who died in 848 -

and that this explanation makes better sense of the word patruelis - the

total distribution of a n dassociationsof witnessesdoes make it extremely unlikely that there were two kings of this name at the same period. I therefore think it

more likely that patruelis is an error for patruus.

2 Bartrum, p.2. 3 Jesus College MS. 20, nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 (Bartrum, pp. 45 f and

. Bromwich, Trioedd Ynys Prydein (Cardiff, 1961), pp. 299 f, for 139). See R

Caradog.

105

104

and aggressive pursuits. It is perfectly clear that the kings were in a

position to make massive donations of land to the church throughout

the period covered by the charters. Only a proportionof the guarantee phrases would appear to be original, but this certainly seems to be so where their function is to guarantee royal sales and/or exemption from

royaldues,a n dpossibly also in the cases of 188b, 208 (a former royal grant), 211b, 223,243,263. The frequent occurrence of the guarantee/ consent phrase is more usually a reflection of the desire of the recorder to have royal acquiescence than of any institutional royal power. It may or may not reflect actual royal power at the various times of recording. This desire is not necessarily alate concern and was present when Group F was collected (between the late eighth and early eleventh centuries,

probably earlier rather than later)? Since a king was nearly always

present when lay grants were made, and recorded in the witness list with or without consent phrase - the essential point seems to be that

1 It is impossible to determine on present evidence if the royal sales are sales of royal rights or of land. See above, pp. 51-3. 2 Many lay charters include a phrase indicating royal guarantee and consent: uerbo et consensu regis N o rmore r a r e l yuerbo regis N. There is some reason to

think that this phrase si usually an interpolation: it is a stock Llandaff phrase; it occurs elsewhere ni Hand A (LL,p. 84); in onecharter it occurs with ablank left

for the king'sname (262). In 216b, forexample, the phrase is an obvious interpolation revealed by t h e syntax. It is fairer to suppose, therefore, that the phrase normally indicatesthe desire of the recorder to secure royal acquiescencerather than the capacity of the king to authorise or the need for his a u t h o r i t y. It is in any

case clear that royal authority was not essential to the performance of transactions since some grants lack any royal presence. It si notable, moreover, that all grants other than royal ones - between 1986 and 217 include a guarantee phrase

(Group F), whereas many of those of the following pages (Group H) include a king ni the witnesslist but not a guarantee phrasein the text. Hence it would

appear that the collector of Group F in particular was concerned with this guarantee though later collectors were not so concerned; it was therefore an early concern and is not necessarily a twelfth-century interpolation. Many of the

guarantee/consent phrases in Group F are either a slightvariant, reading uerbo

regis et consensu rather than u r b o et consensu regis, or merely uerbo regis. Et consensu in these charters may therefore be a subsequentaddition to conform to laterrequirements and practice; it represents, after all, a different idea; cf. hereditariorum consensu (195). Royal guaranteesat least, however, appear to have

been recorded by t h em i d - n i n t h to early eleventh century, the time of t h ecollec tion of Group F. It is moreover notable that (i) a fair proportion of Group F r e l a t e t o sales, in w h i c h t h e king m i g h t b e t h o u g h t t oh a v e a r e a lp e r s o n a l i n t e r e s t

(201, 202, 203a,2036, 204, 209); (i) on occasion theguarantee is explicitly associated with the tribute/census exemption phrase (169b, 170, 203a) and on

others it is arguably - because the phrase OccUrs between e x e m p t i o n and disposition - associated (171b, 201, 202, 204b, 205, ?175/186b), so that the royal guaranteer e f e r si nf a c t to exemption from royal demands;( i ) four charters (74, 127b, 188b, 211b) have t h e phrase but no appearance of a king in the witness list, and since the witnesses are consistent with others o f the same

period (except for the dubious 127b) the phrase mustb en e a rcontemporary f o r a late interpolator could hardly have known which king to insert; and (iv) there are

occasional variations from the stock formula (208, 211b, 223,243, 263). Al four

considerations suggest that the guarantee phrase is genuine in thesefew cases.

most grants were madein public meetings at which a kloose ingwaway.! s present, This and royal authority was thereby conveyed ni a rather authority si further invoked bythe occasional intercession with the church for relations, sub-kings or dependants (176b, 180b, 189, 212)

Most details other than the record of bare transfer derive from long

Narrations which often do not belong to the original records? They are not necessarily untrue, for the essence of the stories - the reason for making the gifts - may well have been remembered, but this evidence h. cannot carry the weight of the simpler charters. This warning notwit

standing, the tenth- and eleventh-century Narrations are verylikely ot

derive from contemporary records and may well be largely original. Occasionally the kings proceeded in war against the enemies of the

g against the people, as in the case o fIddon, Gwrfoddw, and Tewdri lbald of Aethe with pact his made Ithel 600. Saxons, round about

Mercia, c.745, but Meurig and Edwin broketheirpact to defeat the English ni favour of fighting each other, c.1035 (255), and onlythe intrusive Gruffydd ap Lywelyn appears to have fought the Danes (269).

Much more frequently the kingsproceeded against theirkin, or fellows,

or against clerics. In addition to the examples of royal fratricide above, 3 we find kings Meurig killing Cynfedw c.665 (147),Clodri killing king [dwallon c.700 (176b), Maredudd killing Gufrir c.785 (125a), Hywel killing Gallcun c.862 (212); and there are countless examples ofdisputes

with clerics, attacks on the church,and violation ofsanctuaryrights,

particularly in the later period (217, 231, 233, 237b, 239, 249b [259],

267, 272 - al after c.905). Thereis no hint of action againstthe

Scandinavians in the later period, other than a reference in praise of Gruffydd, though we know ofquite serious attack from other sources.4 Kings had their familiae and comites, sodales and milites, and occasionally had to take responsibility for the actions of these companions.5 T h eonly limitation on their arbitrary use of the physical power which such companions gave them appears to be that imposed by

other kingsand by the church. Horizons were undoubtedly wider ni the

tenth and eleventh centuries: Hywel Dda is mentioned more than once See further below, pp. 108-10. See above, pp. 13 .f

Seeabove, p. 103. 4 Brut y Tywysogyon, ed. T. Jones, s.a. 991; AC 9 8 8and1039; VitaCadoci, c . 40

(VSB, p.110); there are far more references to raids on Dyfedand Gwynedd than on the south east. Cf. the coin hoards mentioned above, pp. 59 f.

5 Familiae: 125b, 233, 2496, 267, 272;comites: 261,267;sodales: 193; milites: 125b; suis: 151a, ?159b. Responsibility for their actions: 218, 261,263, 267. See furtherbelow, pp. 113-6, for companions.

106

107

(218, 240, pp. 247 f) as is Edgar of England (240, pp. 246, 247 f);

Gwgon may even have been consecrated ni the English court, and Herewald certainly seems to have been consecrated by the archbishop of York, n i h t e presence o f ki n g Edward;' Rhydderch claimed contacts with Cut and

archbishop Aelnod of Canterbury (253, p. 252). Intervention, however, by kings from other areas was rare; the only

effective intervention came from the Dyed intruders and Gruffy dd ap Llywelyn in the early/mid-eleventh century.

According to the Llandaff evidence, the church tried very hard to

limit royal abuse, though a high proportion of these narratives, especially. the early ones, must be suspect because of the formulaic nature of their

writing.? The church appears to have forced kings ot penanceof

account of murder, perjury, violation of sanctuary, and violation of

ecclesiastical privilege (braint. The restriction of acts o f violation to the

period after c.905 may be significant: this is a period from which there

are fewer charters and so the predomina nce of violent acts is unlikely

to be an aspect of the survival of more records; it is also a period which sees the beginning of the keeping of contemporary collections and so

the Narrationsaremore credible than those of earlier periods; and the chronologically limited incidence itself suggests that the records are not arbitrary late inserts. There is, therefore,rather more reason to believe the records narrating tales of the violator brought to penan ce. Even

allowing for the natural tendency of the clerics to write up their own powers, it is reasonable to deduce that at times during the tenth and eleventh centuries ecclesiastical authorities were in a position to limit the powers of kings. This could also be true of some periods before the tenth century, but evidence about this is quite inconclusive.

Though the evidence is obviously very limited, one cannot avoid the impression of lawlessness and of the arbitrary use of royal power by those who held it. The possible exceptions to the genera l pattern are Ithel ap Morgan, who is associated with no acts of aggression and who

actually reached agreement with Aethelbald of Mercia; Meurig ap Arthfael, who appears to have attempted to guarantee ecclesiastical immunity ni the mid-ninth century (169b, 170); and Morgan ap Owain and Rhydderch ap lestyn, who at least attempted to enter into treaty relations with other powers. These four exceptions are a small proportion.

The evidence we have suggests, overwhelmingly, that kingship was 1 See BBCS, xxvi (1974-6), 64-8. 2 See above, pp. 13 f. 3 Groups G, H, .J

for office; that the functions sought for power and property and notderab ly less notable than their and responsibilities of kings were consi powers for the benefit their used kings rights; and that the majority of who had the of self, family, and companions rather than for those misfortune to be subject to them.

109

б SOCIAL O R G A N I S AT I O N

are efw but they are enough ot suggest firstlythat there were

recognisable groups of leading men ni the regions of Ergyng, Gwent, and Glywysing, and that these retained their regional identity despite the consolidation of the kingship, and secondly that transactions were

The regulation of society

There are three references to a king and his court (125b, 199b, and p. 248), of which the first and last are unlikely to be original or early records.The second may well be: ti refers to king Ffernfael in his court

conducted ni their presence! The intention of such phrases in the suspect charters and of the phrases legitimis uiris, idoneis testibus

(149), and consilio principum (196) was clearly to add authority to

at Cemais, c. 755, and the association of king and place was repeatedat

the transactions. The recognition of groups of leading men implies the existence of some responsible bodieswho mayhavehad thepower of regulating social relationships ni addition to witnessing, and thereby legitimising, the transfer of property, thoughthere si nothing to suggest

of king Clodri (183b) and is therefore, presumably, a royal residence.

performed any royal functions or offices. The role of hte degion, 'good

about the time when Ffernfael made a grant in the presence of elders, at Cemais (198b). Theplace originally appears to have been the property

The term 'court' si clearly abnormal, but it does carry some implication

of a public meeting at a royal residence, a much commoner idea. The term also occurs in association with a bishop (263). The elders of Cemais have their counterparts:

meliores c.575, c. 738, c.740, c. 1035, (76a*, 184, 185, 255)

that they had any effective powero f limiting the king or that they

men', in resolving the dispute recorded in the Lichfield marginalia, in an eighth- or ninth-century context, is presumably directly comparable.?

The tenth- and eleventh-century references are much m o r evague and they lack territorial associations (except 240, which has the optimates

of Morgannwg). Nevertheless, we know of at least one occasion on which the nobles (uchelwyr) of Gwent acted as a body, when they

principes c.500, c. 595 (125b*, 1276*, 166)

procured the murder of Einon, ni 984.

optimates c.955, c.970 (218, 240) primores & magnates 1056 (pp. 265f)

(Phrases in charters with asterisks are very suspect).

There is scarcely a reference to judicial process. In 144, c.650, king Meurig and his son arbitrated in an ecclesiastical dispute. Round about 876 one Cors gave woods and placitis suis along with his grant: on the face of it this looks like rights of jurisdiction but it may merely refer to

Though a number of these records are dubious, there are several

of Blegywryd is enough to suggest that there were lawyers around: he

seniores c. 670, c. 710,c. 728, c. 755, (152*, 1806*, 190a, 198b) cf. attestantibus legitimis uiris c. 600 (122*)

apparently unquestionable references to 'better men' and 'elders' in the mid-eighth century and several terms used sporadically in the hundred

years from the mid-tenth to mid-eleventh century! In the eighth century we find the meliores of Ergyng meeting to hear Mabsu's commendation of a villa to bishop Berthwyn (184); the elders of Ergyng present at Rhiadaf's gift of land (185); the elders of Gwent and Ergyng present at Ffernfael's gift (198b); and the elders of Glywysing present at king Ithel's gift of a villa (190a). The occasions 1 The terms are comparable to those found in English and Continental sources;

ci. HB, c . 37, p. 178 'inito consilio cum suis senioribus, q u i venerunt secum de

insula Oghgul' and c. 45, p. 189 cum suis maioribus natu consilium: Enelish

charters o fthe ninth centuryand later, Birch 535, 513, 514, 524 =( Sawyer

209/1782, 212,211, 214) optimates, seniores, magnates; optimates, proceres,

primores, primates, maiores natu in Carolingian Frankia, cited by W. Levison,

agreements, perhaps written (228).3 In 955 the famous incident

held king Nowy responsible for the violation of sanctuary occasioned by six of the king's men (218). Bishops appear to have had powers and

places of imprisonment c.955 (218) and c. 1040 (263),and king Meurig imprisoned his enemy Edwin c. 1035 (255). It is reasonable to suppose that judgements were made and some sanctions enforced, on this slender

evidence, and further, that judgement was made ni accordance with some recognised body of law, since compensation was occasionally made for injury." The comment - though ti is a late one - that Morgan 1 See further below, pp. 112-5. 2 LL, pp. xlii.

Cf. my comments in BBCS, xxvi(1974-6), 129, on private jurisdiction,where I suggest that there si no evidence of it in pre-ConquestWales and fail to mention this possible instance. There is other evidence for legal process conducted by

nobles in the Lichfield marginalia cited above, LL, pp. xli.

Englandandthe Continent,P .8 5 andD .Bullough, EHR, Ixxxv (1970), 76 ff. Ci. mathe, g o o d m e n ' , in I r i s hc

4 186a, 223, 257, and possibly someof the compensations due to t h echurch for

Leabhar Cheanannais (1961),p. 28.

process.

h a r t e r material, R.I. Best, 'An early monastic

. MacNiocaill,Notitiae as grant in the Book of Durrow', Eriu, x (1928), 137 f; G

infringements. It is virtually impossible, however, to assess the truth of these latter ecclesiastical claims and therefore the independent functioning of legal

111

11 0

and Friog could only redeem themselves by exile and not by agro or argento (152, cf.176b) suggests that some such arrangement was the norm, that is, that there were standard procedures. T h e ease of

assessing the worth of the bishop and his familia c.925 suggests the

same (237b), as do the terms of that arrangement, which include

Apart from the hints of legal activity and of socially-responsible

bodies mentioned above there si some slight evidence of social groupings

and relationships ni hte fragmentary materialrelating ot therole of the

kindred. Firstly, there are a number o fkinship terms beyond those ofthe first degree: nepos(127a, 144, 147, 260, 267), pronepos (260),

compensation for insult. Assessment of injury to Cyfeilliog's familia 'ad condignum honorem suum et nobilitatem parentelae suae', c.905

patruus (152),patruelis (212), consobrinus (72a, 263), sororius (193), auus (148, 149), socer (72a). Secondly, sa already described, there are

one would of standard no evidence were forced

of the same family appear to have been associated ni a grant. In addition to these, one Elias received a villa in compensation for the

refers explicitly to a fixed scale of worth in accordance with status, as

expect from Welsh law (233)? Despite this evidence legal procedures, there are no references to royal officers, of royal association with judicial process unless the kings to take responsibility for the acts of their own men, very

to occasions on which the kindred had a limiting function with regard members several which on s occasion and the alienation of property,

murder of his brother, c. 743 (186a); c.900, March ap Peibio did

little evidence of any sort of government process, and very little evidence of social responsibility on the part of the kings - even as

penance for the murder of his cousin (235a); c.940 the families

despite the pious introductions of 141 and 193. I twas left

latter (223); c.1033 Rhiwallon concluded an agreement withthe bishop and the kin of amember of the bishop's familia whom he had

warleader -

to the nobles of Gwent, after all, to accomplish the murder of Einon ap Owain of Dyed ni 984, and we only hear of royal powers of imprisonment when they are used against enemies. Insofar as social

relations

were

regulated,

they

appear

to

have

b e e n self- or

church-regulated.

of Asser and Gulagguin came to agreement after Asser had killed the

wounded (257); c. 1040 Cadwallon's family were present to hear his admission of guilt after a fight ni the bishop's household (263).The number of instances is slight but it does suggest some kin responsibility for the acts of its members; and it si incidentally interesting that

murder within the kindred group as in the first two cases apparently carried no civil penalty and that membership of a religious household

Social structu re

The very existence of estates worked by people other than owner.

did not negate secular bonds. It is, further, notable that there si much

more evidence of the active social role of the kindred in later, that is

occupiers, and of slavery, indicates some economic and social stratification in the early medieval period.3 The occasional reference to a potens or dives (193, 196, 259; 127a, 226) and to a rusticus (218) stresses the economic difference; the social differentiation is made explicit by the

effect of the more detailed evidence available for the later periodbut it is certainly worth considering the possibility that the power of aristocratic kindreds became more rather than less significant in the

people of noble birth (127b, 193), of which the former were noble but

society.

use of the term'noble' for elders (185), a noble kindred (233), and

poor. Procedures for compensation in accordance with status,

as

tenth- and eleventh-century, contexts. This may, of course, be an

later period, unlike those of contemporary English or west Frankish

mentioned above, make the same point. Though the f a c t of stratification

is clear, it is impossible to comment on the social structure in any detail and to consider the problem of social mobility. There is no useful evidence bearing upon these issues. . Charles-Edwards onexile as a civil penalty, 'The social background to 1 Cf. T

Irish peregrinatio', Celtica, xi (1976), 43-59.

2 Cf. sarhad, galanas and gwerth in Llyfr Blegywryd, pp. 57 f. The assessment

of worth of the bishop's face in 237b expresses precisely in Latin the concept

which lies behind the rareWelsh legal term wynebwerth; seeLlyfrBlegywryd, pp. 64, 83, 119; Latin Texts, pp. 129, 145, 343,etc. The idea behind

The Aristocracy

Though information about the social structure itself is hard to find, a high proportion o f the people named in the L a n d a f f c h a r t e r s who are

neither clerics nor kings are aristocrats of greater or lesser pretensions, that is, landowners. By the nature of the evidence, it is impossible to

determine if there were significant aristocratic groups who were not

landowners. Comment on the aristocracy therefore pertains to the clearly-perceivable property-owning group.

wynebwerth - compensation forinsult - si more usually expressed by sarhad in

the Laws. Cf. thecomparable Irish concept, enech, Crith Gablach, ed. D.A. Binchy (Dublin, 1941), pp. 84 ff. 3 See above, pp. 43-50.

1 See above, pp. 55 f.

11 2

In the later period the Narrations occasionally give details of aristocratic behaviour: Ithel had his sodales (196); c.735 Gwrgan put away his wife, Elffin's daughter, in favour of his stepmother (189): c.862 Eli killed Camog (214); at about the same time one Gallcun

rebelled against king Hywel (212); a few years later the familia of the

three sons of Beli attacked bishop Nudd at Llan-arth (225); c.870 Aguod

and hisfamilia were throwing stones at the church door(216b); c. 940 Asser killed Gulagguin (223); a couple of years later Llywarch seized Eicolf and all his goods and animals (222);c.975 Laur and his son killed Merchi (245); .c 1025 Rhiwallon ap Tudfwlch and his familia attacked the church at St. Maughan's and attempted to make off with booty (264b); c. 1033 Rhiwallon ap R u n fought with bishop Joseph's familia

113

and whose associations are locatable, noting occasions on which they

also made grants. Those who only appear oncebut made a grant, or

whose relations appear or made grants, are also included. The explanation of the difference would seem to bethat those who

ns of the king, who appear throughout the south east werecompanio appear ni distinct regional travelled as he travelled, while those who

contexts werethe leading men of the area who naturally met to transact localbusiness - the seniores who have already appeared as distinctive ni Ergyng, Gwent, and Glywysing! The area ni which most individuals appear, however, si much more restricted than this: people

like Gurdauau and Pasgen occurred with several, unrelated, kings in a

(257); c. 1045 Caradog ap Rhiwallon carried off Seisyll's wife (261), and

very small area. In hte sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries there are no

court (263); c. 1075 lestyn sent his familia to Landaff, where two of

Glamorgan; smaller localities are the norm. Moreover, in most cases quoted above, there arenear contemporary grants from other areas ni

thirty years later one of his sodales murdered his own brother (274); .c 1040 Cadwallon ap Gwriad and Rhydderch fought in the bishop's them raped a virgin (271). The selection of material is obviously biased in favour of the church, but powerful nobles - like kings - -clearly had households capable of causing damage to their enemies and, in the

late ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries, were not averse to killing and to despoiling church and other property. The conclusion is unavoidable that in the later period at least, the aristocracy was capable of lawless, aggressive, and entirely self-interested behaviour. By definition, the aristocracy in this corpus owned land: estates and

churches. There is nothing to suggest that the size of lay grants was essentially smaller than that of royal grants: as was pointed out above, 1 all grants tended to be smaller after the mid-eighthcentury - the period when the laity began to make grants - but there were as many large grants made by lay donors in the later period as by royal donors

(171b, 183b, 187, 201, 261, 271). Both witness lists and the text of the

grants, when collated, supply some significant information about the

properties and behaviour of the landholding group, especially from the

eighth century onwards, though information from the tenth century is comparatively slight. Witness lists are useful since many witnesseswere also donors and the pattern of witnessing is therefore in itself a significant comment on property interests. There are two quite distinct types of behaviour among lay witnesses: some are only found in a

non-royal individuals who appear convincingly all over Gwent or

which the respective individuals do not appear. Appearances are clearly very localised. It therefore seems that meetings in which transactions were conducted did not necessarily draw the lay population for miles

around, and, more significantly that the king could not necessarily call on allthe leading notables of Gwent or Glamorgan to attend his

meetings. Even allowing for the loss of some names from some lists or for persons at large meetings to have gone unrecorded - cum multis

alits(154) - the distinctions are too clear to be irrelevant.

It is notable that there are no people who appear all over the south

east after the eighth century, apart from the three curiousinstances of Seisyll ap Gistrerth, Iestyn ap Gwrgan, and Caradog ap Gulbrit ni the mid-eleventh century, who occur ni all areas and withrepresentatives of several dynasties. Seisyll's appearances are rare and their distribution cannot carry much weight. lestyn is a member of the once-dominant dynasty of the south east; Caradog is presumably comparably

powerful. This apparent absence of royal companions in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries may be misleading: since there are so many more kings, with narrower regional pretensions, the distinction

between the area covered by r o y a lcompanions and that covered by

locals would not necessarily be apparent. In fact, the only later individuals who couldconceivablybelong in this category are Caratguinn,

of this chapter classifies such individuals who appear more than twice,

who frequently appears in unidentifiable places, and could conceivably be a companion of Brochfael; Edrit, though only two of his

1

1 See above,pp. 108 .f

limited area; some are found all over the south e a s t .The list at t h eend

Above, p. 57.

appearances are locatable and he appears with two members of one

115

114

dynasty; and the three Domesday prepositi and the Domesday ioculator, on the basis of Domesday not Landaff evidence. Even Caradog ap Rhiwallon, Meurig's comes, si only to be found outside east Gwent when he accompanies Gruffydd ap Llywelyn - an occasion which presumably drew everyone of any account in the south east; he

to have had land in appears all over; Seisyll ap Gistrerth, who appears

Ergyng, but witnessed in Glamorgan; lestyn apGwrgan,who hent ad family lands in Glamorgan but witnessed in Gwent. The promin ni t elemen landowners of an area, therefore, appear to be the constant ers l memb the lay witness group, and presumably therefore the norma

does not appear at transactions further west in Glamorgan at which Meurig himself was present.

of local meetings ni which business was transacted.

About half of the regular witnesses also appear as donors of land at some stage of their lives, though it is notable that very few of those

are rare, and i tis unfortunate that when this did happen both grants

who are closely associated with the kings do so. This suggests, like the

The occasions on which one individual made more than one grant

are not alwayslocatable (as in hte cases of Bonus, Clodri, Cynfelyn, Cynfor, Elias, Elffin,Erbic,Iddig, Gwrgan); wheretheyare, theyare has two purchases i n west

witnessing pattern, that the landed aristocracy were independent of kings, and did not owe their position to them, and, further, that

invariably in the same area: Conuil

landed, hereditary aristocratic position. We know from the 'Life

LIanmelin (east coast Gwent), Caradog ap Rhiwallon has grants at Cemais and Llan-gwm Isaf (west Gwent). There therefore appear to be coherent family lands ni distinct areas. The same point is made by the

kings played very little part ni the elevation of new families into a

of Cadog, for example, that Gwengarth was endowed with land, but

there i sno evidence of any subsequent landed family descended from him. Meurig's comes Caradog appears to have been firmly settled in eastern Gwent. but we do n o t know if his lands were family lands or his

own endowment from the king. Notably, those individuals who did not

belong to the main dynasty but who had royal associations in the late seventh/early eighth century nearly always left a son to survive and witness or donate. The case of Briafael ap Llywarch, apparently a

member of ajunior branch of the Ergyng dynasty, is especially notable:

Glamorgan, Cinuin ap Gwrgan has two grants on the Monnow and at Llangiwa, Meirchion ap Rhydderch has two grants from Crick and

grants of families who can beseent o grantover severalgenerations:

Gwrgan ap Ithel and his cousin Cadwallon ap Gwriad from east

Glamorgan; Gwyddnerth ap Guallonir and his father from west Gwent; the family of Conuil in east Glamorgan, though the last generation

purchased in Gwent; the once-royal family of Gwyddien in east

Glamorgan, though the last generation (the fifth) againgranted from

Gwent; Gafran ap Cors and his father in north Gwent/Ergyng;

the line survived to provide the wife of one of the kings of the main

Gwrgan ap Meirchion and his father in east coast Gwent. The only

lands, of these once-royal families may have been appropriated, the families remained prominent aristocrats, presumably by virtue of their

families, ni the late eighth century, when both seem to have acquired property i n Gwent after confinement to Glamorgan.

dynasty, probably Morgan.' Though hte kingships, and part of the landed power.

In nearly all cases, the relationship of the area i nwhich a landowner witnessed to the area from which he granted is simple: the two are

coincident. The exceptions are Gwyddnerth ap Guallonir, and his father, who witnessed all over but appear to have had land in west

Gwent;? Elffin ap Gwyddien, who had family land in Glamorgan, but

1 Briafael was great great or g r e a t g r a n d s o n of Peibio according to the later

genealogies, and fatherof Kenethlon/Genedhlon/Kenedion,wifeo f Arthfaeland

motherof Rhys or mother of Arthfael(Bartrum,pp. 45and 139 f.). There si

o b v i o u s c o r r u p t i o n in t h e genealogies, b u t the related witnesses a n d

mention

evidence for change comes from the activities of the two long-lasting

The two families of Conuil and Gwyddien, both of the seventh and

eighth centuries, are the only families whose history can be traced over any long period, with the exception of the junior branch of the main

dynasty in the eleventh century (Gwrgan ap Ithel, Iestyn ap Gwrgan, and Cadwallon ap Gwriad). They are lost with the hiatus in the evidence of the late eighth to mid-ninth century. Both the major families appear

to have been acquiring property in Gwent, as opposedt o t h eold family land ni Glamorgan, when they disappeared. One - that of Gwyddien - was, of course, an older royal family. The other may have descended from a presbyter of the mid-seventh century, and is notable for the number of purchases that its members made; this

of Ricceneth,wife ofMorgan, in 1906 might suggest that she was the wife of

suggests that the members were not in fact alienating family land. The

2 They may be connected with the dominant dynasty:Gwyddnerth killed his

conceivably have been representatives of the old Ergyng royal family:

Morgan. See above, p. 102, n. 2.

brother causa contentionis regni, and is frater Morcanti in 176a a n dfilius Morcanti

frater (sic) in the doublet at 190b.

dominant Gwrgan and Cinuin of Ergyng in the mid-ninth century may the names are t h e same.

117

11 6

The evidence is therefore insufficient to give a clear picture of any changing pattern of family landholding, of any changes ni economic

position. Such as it is, it suggests a clear distinction between landed aristocrats of local standing and the companions of the king, in the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, but not at a later period. It suggests the continuing entrenchment of landed families in their own separate localities and little elevation of new families by the kings. It

suggests that ni the early period the aristocrats' position was secure, irrespective of their relationship to the king - though fi they claimed kingships they might well be deprived of them; and that a king could

notcall upon all to attend him whenever he felt like it. It suggests, therefore, a degree of social stability.

The comparative frequency

of aristocraticlawlessness in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries,

Bonus c.850-68 (169b, 170; 169aand 171a - grants). Guincum .c 850 (169b; 170 - grant). Nyr .c 850-55 (169b, 170; 171a - grant); brother ofCinuin, below; ? son of Gwrgan, who also granted with Bonus, c. 868 (169a)

North Ergyng

Cintiuit c. 580-605 (72b,73a, 1626, 163a).

Collfyw c. 580-605 (726, 73a, 73b,1626, 163a). Aergol c. 585-605 (73a, 73b/163a, 1626).

Ergyng/Gwent

Cinuinc.850-95 (1696, 170, 234, 235b; 171a, 216a - grants); brother of Nyr, above;? son of Gwrgan of 169a.

of meetings of elders, may suggest that society was much less secure ni

Meirchion c. 874-90 (228, 229a, 2296, 230a, 236, 237a). Seisyll and Rhydderch ap Elcu of S.t Maughan's .c 1025-72 (264a,

that period; that an aristocrat's or a king's position was much more open to attack, open to change. We know that there was greater fluidity in the structure of estates and some fragmentation from the ninth century onwards.' The reasons for such insecurity are difficult to divine, but increasing instability is not surprising in a society in

Idnerth c. 720-38 (175/186b, 179c, 180a, 184, 187); s o nof Idwallon, c.670 (152), rex, killed before c. 700 (176b) Mabsu c. 705-43 (175/186b, 179c, 187, 190b, 186a, 184, 195, 158);

coupled with the evidence ofintrusive dynasties and the lack of evidence

which rules for the transmission of property appear to have changed

fundamentally in the century before, at a time when there were greater opportunities for exchange, in an area in which there was to all intents and purposes no government. In the long run, the self-

regulating mechanisms o fthat society seem to have fragmented, but,

unlike developments in the rest of western Europe, they were not

replaced by rules imposed from above. Society, therefore, became

increasingly anarchic.

264b, 272). Ergyng/North Gwent

there are at least two people of this name and it is impossible to know if all references refer to the same man.!'

Pasgen c. 740-65 (185, 209b, 211a). Gwent

Iddig ap Nudd c.690-710 (180b; 150a, 150b - grants; rex in 150b, hereditarius in 150a); father of Deunerth, below.

Clodri c.700 (176b, 183b - grants; rex; killed Idwalton); father of Conuin and Gwyddgi, below.

List of recurrent witnesses ? 1. Restricted Occurrence Ergyng

Condiuill c. 555-75 (75, 72a); ? father of Cynog, below.3 Gurdauau c. 610-620 (161, 163b, 164). Cynog c. 620 (163b, 164).

Gurdoc c. 720-38 (180a, 183a, 184; ?158). Rhiadaf .c 73840 (184; 185 - purchase).

Elias c. 733-43 (175/186b - grant; 186a - compensation and grant); possibly also c. 775 (206, 211b). Conuin and Gwyddi ap Clodric. 740 (185 - sale). Glesni c.765-75 (206, 211a, 211b). Eli c. 862-72 (216a; 214 - grant).

Branud c. 890-95 (234, 235b, 237a). Caratguinn c.900-10 (231, 232a, 2326, 233, 235a). Caradog ap Rhiwallon c. 1045-75 (269, 272; 261, 274 - grants); comes.

Berdic .c 1060-75 (269, 272, 274); ioculator regis, held 3vills in Gwent.? Ithel .c 1060-75 (269, 272, 274); praepositus, held 14 vills in Gwent.

1 ' See above, pp. 57 f.

2 Where identification, identity, and associates are uncertain, this si indicated

by "?'.

158190b isromis seexceptional xchetionaver(c.. 705,

. 166); it si just possible 3 The witness list of 75 is very suspect (see below, p fi 75 be discounted, that he was the father of Cy nog below.

3

2 Domesday Book, f. 162. bid

West Glamorgan), and may not belong here;

119

118

Elinui c. 1072-75 (272, 274); praepositus, held 14 vills ni Gwent."

Guasfuith c. 1075 (274); held 13 vills ni Gwent and his son held one.? N.B. Cynfelyn and Cors ap Gafran below, under 'West Glamorgan' and 'kings Morgan' and 'Ithel'.

Coastal Gwent

Biuhearn c. 700-03 (174b, 176b, 1836).

Nudd c. 895-905 (233, 234, 235b; 232a - grant). M o n m o u t hL o w e r W v e l E a s t G w e n t

Cynfor c. 720-55 (198b, 199b, 203a, 180a, 185; 186a - grant; 201 purchase); cf. Vita Cadoci, c. 65. Meirchion c.980-1022 (244; 243, 262 - grants); father of Gwrgan, below.

Gwrgan ap Meirchion .c 1020-22 (246 [243], 262 - grant). North Gwent

Cerio c. 720-33 (175/186b, 180a, 187; ?156 - c. 698); son Iddon granted c.730 (1796/191).

Gwrfoddw c. 720-33 (180a, 186b, 187, [158 - Chepstow]). Deunerth ap Iddig c.722-33 (175/186b, 179c); see Iddig, above.

Gl am orga n

Gwyddien c.650.95 (144,145,Cadoci, 147 [149 -Radnor];. 152,155; c.60, 64, 65, 68; father of Vita 151a - grant, rex); cf.

Brochfael and Elffin, below. Brochfael ap Gwyddien c. 685-708 (148,157;159b - grant; 205 - rex). Elffin pa Gwyddien c. 710-40 (179a/188b, 188a - grants; but see below under 'king Morgan/king Ithel' for witnessing); son Erbic, below.

Erbic ap Elffin c. 71548 (202, 204a, 204b; 197, 198a - grants); father of Cors, belo w.

Cors ap Erbic c. 775 (211b - grant, Gwent). Gellanc. 715-45 (202, 204b; 157): Aguod .c 870 (216b - grant); ?.father of Owain, c.942 (222).

Edrit c.935-42 (222, 223, 224).

lestvn ap Gwrgan .c 1072-5 ([272, Gwent] ; 271 - grant).

East Glamorgan

Tewdwr c. 1040 (249a, 259, 263). Gwrgan ap Ithel c. 1038-40 (263; 258 - grant); cousin of Cadwallon ap Gwriad (263 - grant); father of lestyn, above.

Conhaec. 725-33 (186b; 187 - grant). West Glamorgan

Conuetu c.650-65 (144; killed, 147); son Cyman, rex, granted c. 690 (150b).

Gindog c. 650-88 (144, 147, 148 [149 - Radnor], 1516, 152). Dewi c. 708-52 (202, 203a, 204b, 205); cf. Villa Deui, 203a.

Freudur c. 715-45 (202, 204b [195 hereditarius - Clodock]). Conuil ap Gurceniu c. 705-15 (176a/1906, 2046 - purchases); ? son

of Gurceneu clerical witness of c.670-90 (149, 1506, 151b, 152); father of Cynwg and Gurniuet, below.

Cynwg ap Conuil c. 70545 (176a [195 - Clodock]; 202 - purchase); father of Cynfelyn, below. Gurniuet ap Conuil c. 715 (204b - purchase); ? 211a, c.765.

Cynfelyn ap Cynwg c. 755-65 (198b; 210b - grant [2096 - purchase, Gwent]).

2. Widespread occurrence King Meurig Guallonir c.650-60 (144; Vita Cadoci, cc. 59, 64, 65, 68), father of Gwyddnerth, below.

KingMeurig/King Morgan Briafael c.660-695 (143, 145, 147, 149, 151b); ? father of king Morgan's wife. Gwengarth c.665-710 (147, 148, 156, 157, 180b; Vita Cadoci, c. 64, 65 - procurator regis, 62 - alumpnus regis and endowed by the king).

King Morgan

lunet c.670-705 (148, 149, 1516, 152, 156, 145, 176a/190b); ?

father of Ilbri, c.752 (203a). Rihedl ? c.675-98 (148, 155, 156, 151b).

Samuel c.675-710 (155, 176a/1906, 180b).

Gwyddnerth ap Guallonir c. 680-710(176a/1906, 176b, 145, 148, 149,

?195, 183b; 1806 [= Vita Cadoci, .c 67] - grant, Gwent, and killed brother Meirchion); ? royal.?

1 Ibid. 2

1010.

3 There is some confusion in this charter; see below, p. 185. 4 Two of these charters (204b, 205) have very doubtful witness lists, and the

chronology si difficult to ascertain; see below, p. 178.

157, notionally dated c.685, si corrupt and has an appropriatedwitnesslist;

this may therefore intend to indicate the same man, see below, p. 170.

2 See below, p. 173.

120

7

King M o r g a nKing Ithel

Eliog c. 700-45 (176b, 1806, 1836, 202, 2046; ?207, king Ffernfael) Elffin ap Gwyddien c. 710-40 (175, 180a, 180b,195, 158;179/1886,

CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS COMMUNITIES

188a - grants; daughter's marriage • 189; family land in Glamorgan see 'Glamorgan').

Gafran c. 710-35 (180a, 180b, 187, 189, 158; hereditarius 180a); son

Cenguri c.705 (1906); father of Cors, c.748 (204a - grant, ? Glamorgan); grandfather of Gafran, c. 775 (206 - grant, Gwent)

Eleventh century

Seisyll ap Gistrerth c. 1030-40 (259,Glamorgan [Meurig]; 264a -grant, Ergyng [Gruffydd]; quidam potens vir, wife seized, 259); son of

Gistrerth, c. 1022 (262, Gwent).

Caradog ap Gulbrit c. 1040-75 (259, 261, 267, 269, 271, 272 - kings Meurig, Cadwgon, Gruffydd, Caradog; Wye to Glamorgan). Iestyn ap Gwrgan c. 1072-5 (272, Gwent [Caradog]; 271 - grant, Glamorgan).

The distribution o fchurches and monasteries

existence of There is abundant evidence ni the charter material of the scarcely any i s there although s, settlements devoted to religious purpose supposed were um cimiteri and m oraculu n A them. physical detail about

to have been constructed at Matharn after Tewdrig's death (141) and an oraculum similarly at Clodock, in honour of the martyr Clydog (193). There are three churches mentionedin boundaries and the entrance to another was attacked by Aguod (140, 240ii and 240viii, 216b). There must have been some sort of shrine at Powisfa Dewi, near St. Lythan's and (157, 259), as also probably at the various merthyrs: Merthyr Maw

Merthyr Buceil c.862 (212); Merthyr Glywys, near Merthyr Maw,

C.935 (224,? = Merthyr Mawr):' Merthyr Clodock .c 740 (195), where

there was at least an oraculum; Merthyr Tegfedd (Landegfedd) c.750 (199a); Merthyrmaches (Lanfaches) c.775 (211b); MerthyrCinfall

(Llangynfyl) c.860 (171b); Merthyr J u l iand Aaron (St Julians,

Caerleon) c.864 (225); Merthyr Tewdrig (Matharn) c.900 (235a); Merthyr Gereint (unidentifiable) c.905 (233).? There appears to have at been some sort of prison at one of the places called 'Llandeilo' and Landaff, c.955 and c.1040 (218 and 263). 'Landeilo' in the former case may actually mean Llandaff.3 There was clearly an altar within the church at St. Arvans, c.955 (218) and at Madley (193).Though w ecan

be sure enough of the existence of these few buildings, structural details arecompletely lacking.

We know of religious buildingsand communities from records of the donation of estates called ecclesiae and poda, from incidental references to churches and monasteries, and from references to their officers in

witness lists. Ecclesia means 'church' and podum a 'religious settlement'. 4

W e also find monasteria: these are Landaff in c.862 (214), ni what is clearly an eleventh-

or twelfth-century interpolation (144), and as

1 See above, p. 99. C . Thomas, TheEarly ChristianArchaeology of NorthBritain (University

2 See

of Glasgow, 1971), pp. 89, 138-41, for discussionof early Christian martyria, into which class the Welsh 'merthyrs' presumably fell. The meaning of martyrium extended from indicating a place possessinga martyr's bones t o denoting a church or cemetery possessing the remains of a k n o w n saint or martyr.

3 See below, p. 136. 4 See above, pp. 37 .f 5 This referencemay not be original to the ninth century.

123

122

"archmonastery" ni interpolations (74,127b);Lan-gors ni c.925 (2376);

St Cynwal andS t Cynfwr, Rhosili and Bishopston, in c.925 (239); St Teilo's, and all monasteries of the diocese, ni c 955 (218).There si

nothing to suggest that the different terms podum and monasterium

represent a difference of kind; indeed, the monasterium of St Cynwal ni

239 is podum Cyngualan in 144. The two words probably reflect the usage of different periods: podum is early while monasterium only occurs in tenth-century and later contexts. Both words refer to similar institutions, settled communities, devoted to a religious life, ruled b yan abbot or other principal officer. (Urbs is also used for 'monastery' in the

particular cases of Taui urbis and Caerwent [149, 218, 221, 243, 244]. It may imply something bigger, or be an oblique reference to Roman ancestry and/or the fortifications of a Roman site.') In addition, as

argued below, ecclesia was also sometimes used to refer to communities and not just to church buildings.

It is therefore very difficult to know

how truly 'monastic' these communities were since we cannot know by

what, if any, rules they were regulated; what, if any, vows were taken;

and whether or not entry involved a life-long commitment to that single

institution. Nevertheless, the English term 'monastery' is a convenient one and will be used to refer to them, but it should not be taken as

implying a difference between secular and monastic religious communities which can neither be sustained nor demonstrated. It would be

e no way of determinespecially in the early period. There appears to b those specifically

ing which ecclesiae housed communities, other than

mentioned, or indeed i f all ecclesiae estates included some religious community and ifthepriestswhichsome servedsugge the stion churches wereoccas memional bers ni the of larger communities. There is

that the church was association of uilla and ecclesia in the later period nity at that time: Mainaur there to serve the needs of a secular commu

m ecclesia Brunus cum ecclesia, ?c.785 (125a), castellum Dinduicil cuTilull c.870 Lann sua a ecclesi cum n O Penn uillam (226), sua c.860 implied the and a, ecclesi sine (216b), Trem car, uilla tantuntum (sic) similar associations in the same list, c.1025 (253, cf. 123).' It si certainly possible, therefore, that some ecclesiae were not monasteries, and there are indications that this was more likely to be so in the later have underperiod. The nature and function of churches may therefore

ology. gone some change, as si perhaps implied by the changing termin There is a total of thirty-six monasteries mentioned, thirty-eight s ecclesiae, and twelve 'Llan-' names. There were far more religiou settlements in Gwent and Ergyng than ni Glamorgan, and many of these are only noticed once. The date and length of notice is not, of course, a

comment on the lifespan of any particularreligious house, though those

which are often noticed were presumably larger and/or more significant than the rest. Since churches and monasteries were treated as real

inappropriate to imply such a distinction in a society in which monastic practice was far more flexible than that of later ages, as indeed was the

property and were transferable, the record of a grant does not in itself

case throughout early medieval Europe.

Bellimoor and Garway; a grant does not therefore supply a foundation date? No Ergyng monasteries are mentioned after the ninth century and very fewGwent monasteries before the eighth century; this si not necessarily remarkable as it reflects the total distribution of all grants.

All monasteries mentioned in Liber Landavensis are listed at the end

of this chapter, along with all ecclesiae and place-names beginning

'Llan-, which do not appear ni either category. Since so many poda become Lan- in the later place-name, ti si highly likely that many

place-names beginning ' L a n denote former monasteries or churches There is a further complication: some monasteries are alternatively

referred to as ecclesiae - Rhosili (144), Bishopston (145), Ballingham, St. Maughan's, Dore (171b), Welsh Bicknor (178), Dixton (183a), and

Tryleg Grange (217) - and the abbot of St Michaels is called abbas ecclesiae sancti Micaelis (221); some proportion of the ecclesiae donated must therefore have been monasteries. Moreover, ecclesiae are rare and poda common in Ergyng, and vice versa in Gwent; and podum is an early usage. There are obviously regional differences in the use of terms and it seems highly likely that there was no real difference in institution, C f . Aethelwulf,D e Abbatibus, ed. A. Cameron, line 505, p. 41, and Vita

Cadoci, cc.9 , 21, 39 (VSB, p p .46, 66, 110). In the Vita Cadoci urbs is used in contexts which clearly denote a fortification.

imply the foundation of the institution , except in the particular cases of

There were only six monasteries in Glamorgan. This very small number,

on the other hand, is worth noting, for those that do occur seem to be particularly dominant,and this may suggest some difference ni monastic

organisation. Those monasteries that are mentioned over a significantly

1 Cf. ecclesia Elidon and uilla Guocof c.685 (157), though there are difficulties

withthisrecord and its present form is unlikely to be original t ot h eseventh to bean century; see below, pp.168, 170. 125a has no witness list a n dis unlikely eighth-century record. Cf. willam tref Peren with an addition to the title id est Lann Mihacgel Maur (233), and willamtref Ceriau with an addition to the title di est Lann Mihachgel Meibion Gratlaun(237b). 2 See above, pp. 41 .f 3 The dominance is to some extent reflected in the accumulation o fstone monuments at some Glamorgan churches and their virtual absencefrom Gwent. Thought h e presentprovenance si n onecessary comment on their original provenance, there a r eseven (of the ninth century and later) from Llantwit, ten

from Merthyr Maw (mostly of the eleventh century), and eight from Port Talbot (from the sixth century onwards); seeECMW, pp. 140-4, 154-7, 161-5.

125

124

long period a r eWelsh Bicknor, c.575-866, Llandogo c.625.942,

Llancarfanc.65O-1075, Llandoughc.650-1075, Llantwit .c650-1075, Rhosilic.650-925, Bishopston c.650-925, Landaff ?c.680++, Llan-gors

c.720-925, Llan-gwm c.860-1075, St. Maughan's c.360-1072, Caerwent c.950-1075. Churches were as rare as monasteries ni Glamorgan (only four) andrather rare in Ergyng (five); the Ergyng gap may well represent a terminological rather than a real difference, as suggested above. The ecclesiae noticed over along period are Tidenham c. 703-878, Langynfyl c. 860-1030, Penterry c.955-1075.The distribution and disposition of

'Llan-' names is similar to that of ecclesiae. The most useful general comments that can be made about distribution, then, are the rarity of any

sort o f religious institution in Glamorgan by comparison with

ascetic movements.'

Both Gildas and the 'Life' of Samson refer

explicitly ot monastic rules andvows, discipline, work,and(common)

e havelittle idea of hte sizes ofthe communities, save for the meals. W three 'disciples' left at the foundation of Welsh Bicknor, c.575 (72a),

and for the observation that those with lectors must have been rs communities of some size. We do not know fi women or lay membe were normally or ever a part of the monastic community, though there

are three references ot monastic virgins c.605, c.910, .c 1075 (76b, 231,

271).

A number of different officers are mentioned.

There were abbots

(abbates) of Bellimoor, Caerwent, Dewchurch, Garway, Llancarfan,

Gwent and Ergyng and the persistence of a dozen or so institutions in

Llandogo, Landough, Lantwit, Moccas,St. Michaels, Welsh Bicknor,

the records, half of which are ni Glamorgan. The total number of monasteries and churches ni Gwent and Ergyng ni the seventh and eighth

one,c.620(160).? There were principes of Doward c.620, Welsh

centuries, and in Gwent in the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries is unexpectedly large, considering the size of the regions. The later witness lists are much more detailed than earlier o n e sand

those of c. 1030-75 are almost entirely composed of representatives from

Llandaft, Lancarfan, Llandough,Llantwit, and Caerwent, presumably

still the predominant houses. Lack of detail may obscure the fact that this was often so at an earlier period: a few very short early witness

lists are content to mention Iohannes cum clericis suis c.620 (160), Biuan cum sua familia. . . Eutigir abbas. .cum suis clericis c.650 (144),

Catgen abbas. . .sum sua familia and lacob abbas...cum suis senioribus c.655 (140), the three abbots cum suis clericis c.670 (152); and also cum familia eorum (sic) (151b) and episcopus cum clericis suis c.868 (169a)

- a shorter way of making the same point!' This adds weight to the impression of a few, large, powerful institutions, and a large number of very small ones. Clericaland monastic offices

and probably Lancaut, Dixton, Foy, and Sellack, and also an unlocated

Bicknor c.620, Penally c.675 and 680, Taui urbis c.680, and Bishopston

c.695.3 Since the same man si alternatively called abbot andprinceps of Welsh Bicknor, the term princeps would seem to be an early word for abbot or head of a monastery.* There were also magistri, unlocated c.620, 655, and 703, and of Lancarfan c.1075; Teilo, patron saint of

Llandaff, si once called patronus and magister.5 The precise import of the term magister is unclear but it appears to have signified a ruling officer c. 1075 and may have done so earlier. It si very curious to find that no-one is called princeps or 'abbot' after c.950: representatives of Llandough ni c.1033 and 1040 and of Lantwit in c.1035 werenot abbots but sacerdotes; the representatives of St. Maughan's in c. 1025,

Landaff inc.1030, 1033, 1072, Langynfyl ni .c 1030, Lancarfan ni c. 1033, 1070, 1072, 1075, Caerwent in c.1060, 1075, Bassaleg ni c. 1072, Landough in c. 1072 and 1075, Lantwit, Matharn, a n dPenterry

1 Gildas Penitential: Irish Penitentials, ed. L. Bieler, pp. 60-4; Vita Samsonis, cc. 13-20, pp. 111-9, and cc. 20, 21, 35. 36, pp. 120 f, 132 f; J.W.James,

Rhigyfarch's Life of St. David (Cardiff, 1967), cc. 21-31, pp. 12-14 - this is a

late Life', buti t presents, at least, an ideal standard of moderate asceticism in

a tradition w h i c h h a d been sustained.

There is scarcely any information about the internal composition of

these institutions, apart from reference to officers. We know very little about the essentials of monastic life. The questions of rules, vows, qualifications for entry, obligations, isolation, obedience, and stability are essentially obscure, although there are hints in such sources as the Gildas Penitential, and the 'Lives' of Samson and Dewi, of a rather

comfortable, secure, monastic existence, sometimes challenged by more 1 Cf. 7 4 ,77 (151a, 159b), 240 - e tpresentibus clericis suis innumerabilibus - all r a t h e r s: uspicious charters by reason of their vagueness. Cf. Teilo'sfamilia

witnessing, in the charters of the Lichfield marginalia,LL, p. xliii

2

140, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 151a, 151b, 152, 155, 156, 157, 158,

1596,1636,164, 165, 175, 176а, 1766,179с, 180а, 1836,1866, 190а,1906,

195, 204b, 205, 212, 214, 221,222, 228, 2296, 230a (230). See the list pp 134-8 below for the dates o feach appearance.

3 1636, 164, 151b, 149, 145; there appears to be a conflation of two abbotsin

the witness list of 145: Guencat (princeps aluni capitis, Merguallt princeps) lann 4 Its usual meaning at this period; cf. K. Hughes, Church in Early Irish Society,

,B. 2. Jb es adbas Gils pour Berpriscept tr. iloguies, ed. W H . Stevenson, 5 164, 140, 1746, 271, 274; 127b. Illtud si called magisterin theVita Samsonis,

c. 7, p. 105, and there is a magister and alumnus at Llancarfan in the Vie de Saint Malo, c. 3, in F. Lot, Mélangesd'histoirebretonne, pp. 298 f.

126

in c.1075 were all presbyters! This means that monasteries that were previously represented by abbots came to be represented by priests ni

the last century covered by the charters. If priests had become the

natural representatives of their communities, then, by implication, the ruling officers of those communities must have been priests. Hence, ni the late tenth and eleventh centuries, heads of houses normally seem to have been in orders? and this may imply a major change in the late

period. Certainly, the podum at Landinabo takes its name from the

priest Inabwy, which might suggest that there was a priest in charge of a community already at the early date of c.585 (73a. Clearly there is no reason to suppose this impossible but the absence of references to abbots in the late tenth and eleventh centuries and the prevalence of priests is in marked contrast to the practice of previous centuries and does suggest some change.

The use of both of the terms sacerdos and presbiter introduces further problems. Presbiter always means 'priest', but sacerdos means

the 'priestly office, the highest office ni Old Testament terms, and can

be used of priest or bishop in hte early medieval period. The meaning here is therefore open to question. The term sacerdos occurs in the

witnesslists ofcharters of c. 610, 615 (and ni the text), 872, 925, 935,

127

no occurs significantly ni the seventh and eighth centuries. There si

reason ot suppose that presbiter denotes anything other than the priests who wouldnormally havebeena part ofanyreligiouscommunity, whether or notthey were also heads of houses. On the other hand,the of a former description of Dewi as summussacerdos, ni c.615, sonphrase is used

sacerdos, can only mean 'bishop' at that period. The same

of S.t Samson of Dol. There si no secure means of determining whether

sacerdos retained this special meaning ni the tenth and early eleventh centuries, though there aer indications that there was a real distinction

implied by the two terms in the period c.925-1040: one charter has both sacerdos and presbiter in its witness list (257), and this distinction si

paralleled ni hte Colloquy, whose monastic familiaincluded sacerdotes Moreover, some and presbiteri as well as small boys and dependents.'

individuals held both offices: Diuin presbiter c.925-40,sacerdos c.935-60;

Fuderm presbiter c.980, sacerdos c.975; Ruid presbiter c. 1025-33,

sacerdos c.1035-40. In most cases the office o f sacerdos followed that of

sacerdos presbiter. It is therefore quite conceivable that the term

represented some higher honour in the period c.925-1040. It may

the administra. perhaps have referred to consecration as bishop without the 'Life' of n i implied practice a episcopus, tive function of an

eleventh-century term; presbiter is used less frequently than sacerdos in

Samson? If so, there were undoubtedly bishops within monasteries in south-east Wales, and also bishops as heads of the houses a tLlandough and Lantwit c. 1030-40. On the other hand, the text of 218, in which sacerdotes, diaconi, and omnes gradusecclesiastici met together, and the account of Herewald's consecration, in which it is noted that he had been ordained priest (sacerdos) previously by Joseph (LL, p. 265), suggest a use to mean 'priest'. Both comments are probably from the

1 249a, 255, 257, 264a, 2646, 267, 269, 271, 272, 274. ¿ Cf. abbots who were priestsand those who were not, K . Hughes, Church ni

England. Before then, and particularly ni the tenth and early eleventh centuries, i t may well have signified more than 'priest.

942,950, 955,960, 975, 1033, 1035, 1038, 1040 (thrice), ni association

with the houses mentioned above.T h e term presbiter occurs in the

witness lists of charters of c. 585, 650, 675, 690, 738, 745, 748, 750, 758 (twice), 925(twice), 940, 980, 1020, 1022, 1025, 1030, 1033, 1060, 1070, 1072, 1075 (twice), in association with the houses

mentioned above.5 The former is therefore essentially a tenth- a n dearly

the tenth century and more frequently in the eleventh century, but it also

Early Irish Society, p. 159. For abbot priests, see also below, p. 128 n. 3. 3 I.e. he who gives the sacraments. The early Irish canons note that episcopi are sacerdotes in the old law but sacerdotes are presbiter in the new (1.i), and that presbiteri are sacerdotes in the Old Testament, whileprincipes sacerdotum in the

Old Testament are nowepiscopi(2.il), H. Wasserschleben, DieIrische Kanonensammlung, pp. 3, 12 f .Cf. Gildas, DeExcidio, c .6 6 , p. 168 sacerdotalem

mid/late eleventh century. It is clear that, whatever its precise import, the term was completely discarded in the second half of the eleventh ts with century, presumably under the influence of the new contac

A range of other monastic offices and clerical orders are mentioned:

asingle faber c.675 (151b), a man who was elsewhere a presbyter (150b); a single cocusc.975 (245); a single medicus, Berthutis, bishop Herewald's nephew, and a member of his household, c. 1070 (267); a single

episcopatus vel presbyterii sedem, and Vita Samsonis,

Samson wasdestined to be summus sacerdos. Cf. Aethelwulf, DeAbbatibus,

ed. A. Campbell: bishop Egbert is addressed as sacerdos but abbots Sigbald and Wulfsig are presbyteret sacerdos (pp. 3, 35, 45). Cf. sacerdos and episcopus in the Lichfield marginalia, LL, pp.xlvf.

1 Early Scholastic Colloquies, ed. W.H. Stevenson, .5 p. 2: 'tota familia

4 161, 162a, 2276, 239, 224, 222, 221, 218, 217, 245, 257, 255, 258, 249а,

pueri cum omnibus monasterii illius, seniores et sacerdotes et prespiteri et minimi pastoribus, exceptis t e portatorio, cum pistore uel coco subiectis, excepto uno qui custodiunt greges ouium, caprarum, suium equorumque et omnium armen-

259, 263.

torum'.

5 73a, 144,1516, 1506, 188a,198, 197, 199a, 200, 2036, 2376, 239, 223, 244,

the rank o fbishop, quite clearly as an honour without any administrative

246, 262, 2646, 264a, 257, 269, 267, 272, 271, 274.

I n the Vita Samonis Dyfrig and the bishops annually consecrated three men to

function implied, cc.43, 44, pp. 138 f.

128

129

monachus, of Lan-gwm, c. 1075 (274). There were three doctores.

c.655, 942, and 1072, the last being doctor of Lancarfan (140, 222, 272); two scriptores, c.925 and 935, and c.975 (239, 224, 245); several equonimi, c. o610, 866,r, 925, 960 and 980, and c. 1030, 1035, 1040 Cyfeill ios, son f Bledgu na earlier equoni mus (161, 230b, 239, 217,244, 264a, 255, 263); and a lay praepositus episcopi c.1030 (264a)'

Further, the very existence of charters implies writing officers at some houses.! There are relatively few references to clerical orders other than bishopand priest, with the exception of lectores. There was a deacon

c.955 (218), a dean who was also a presbyter c. 1020 (246), archdeacons of Gwent .c 1060 and c.1075 - Abraham - and of Glamorgan c. 1075 -

Lifris,who was also magister of Llancarfan and hte bishop's son (269,

271, 274). Clerics of Landaff are sometimes called canons, canonici,

ni hte eleventh century: Cyfeilliog, the equonimus, .c 1025 (264b), and

Morfarch, Merchfyw, and Tudnerth, canons of Landaff, c. 1060 and 1070 (267, 269); Morfarch and Merchfyw were subsequently priests.

Lectores were comparatively common, appearing c. 610/615;710; 733;

850; 862; 910; 925; 935; 940, 942, 950, 955, 960 and 975; 980 of Caerwent; 1060; 1070 of Lancarfan.? The presence of a lector must imply an establishment of some size.

tI si impossible to deduce the composition of any single monastery.

son Mei appears ni the lay witness lists of 271, 272! The phenomenon of family control holds good formuch of the periodcovered by the charters, and there were a number of prominent clerical families,

particularly ni the later period.? nI Ergyngthere were at least two such

families in the early period, c.610: Dewi sacerdos, son of Circan sacerdos (161, 162a), and Uuelauc, son of Guordbrit equonimus (161).

Guernonoe and his son occur ni a clerical witness list of c.862 (214), and the cleric Guingual and his progeny, c.866, were to serve the church from land at uilla uallis/hirpant ni perpetuity - apparently neither church nor monastery (168). There si one family of clerics traceable through four generations in the ninth and tenth centuries: Bleinwydd

c.860-885 (226, 216b, 236); his son Cadien c.895-910 (234, 235b, 235a, 232a, 233,?231,232b), lector(231); Cadien's three sons Marchi c.925-55 (239, 221, 218), Enim c.925-55 (239, 224, 218)andHeinif c.925-42

(2376, 223, 222); Marchi's son Gwrgi c.980 (244, 243). Others are

less persistent, but we have Brein c.955 (218) and his son Gorui c.980

(244); Disaeth c.925-75, scriptor then lector (239, 2376, 224, 223, 222, 221, 218, 217, 245), and his son Cadien c.980 (244,243);Duna c.980 (243) and his son Gwrgan c.1015-22 (249b, 262); and Bledgur equonimus c.980 (244, 243) and his sonCyfeilliog equonimus, canonof

Llandaff c.1015-40 (249b, 264b, 264a, 255, 258, 263). Reference to

Llandaff in the 1070s and this might suggest communities of secular clergy ni the later eleventh century. The tenor of the evidence, with its later stress on priests, si to suggest an increasing preponderance of

clerics by patronymic is extremely rare in the Second Sequence, and there is therefore no comparable evidence from the seventh and eighth centuries. Gurceniu presbiter of c.670-90 (152, 151b, 149, 150b) may be the ancestor of the powerful lay family of Conuil in the late seventh and eighth centuries."

Family interests

Clerical marriage and the family possession of clerical offices were clearly not uncommon, and there are yet further indications of the

There were at least two priests simultaneously at both Lancarfan and

houses of secular clergy, but it is far from conclusive

There si ample evidence of religious communities with along history,

and the material already quoted is sufficient to demonstrate the family hold on such places as Llandaff and Lancarfan in the later eleventh

century: bishop Herewald had his nephew within hisfamilia, and his son as archdeacon of Glamorgan and magister of Lancarfan; another 1 Cf. the Lichfield marginalia, LL, p. xlvi: 'Sulgen scholasticusqui he fideliter

scripsit'.

162a; 180band 188b; 175;1696 and170; 224,and 222,161 218, 217 and 243: 243 and 244;269, 267.

212; 231; 239; 224; 223,

3 The Colloquy classifies the members of its monastery as seniores, sacerdotes,

essentially hereditary nature of ecclesiastical institutions. Churches and monasteries were property as well as religious institutions and were

therefore often in the possession of the laity; as such they would presumably have been subject to the normal rules of inheritance, usually passing from father to sons. In addition to these owners, we find heredes and hereditarit in possession and it has been argued above that the

terms must refer to people with hereditary rights and obligations in the properties.5 Some of the estates associated withheredes and hereditarit were churches: ecclesia Guruid (Howick) c.660, given with the consent 1 See. .J Conway Davies, Episcopal Acts and Cognate Documents,i, pp. 506-37. 2 Cf. the Lichfield marginalia, LL, p. xlvi, filius episcopis (sic).

prespiteri,a n d minimipueri; elsewhere there are references in i t t odeacons, clergy,a n dpriests of the monastery,but no reference to monks not in orders;

same n a m e

430.

4 See above, pp. 115 .f 5 See above, pp. 43-7

Early Scholastic Colloquies, ed. W.H.Stevenson, 26-8 pp. 10 f and above, p. 126, n. 2. Cf. Vita Pauli, c. 7, in which Paul lived in ascetic lifewith twelve priests,

3 Or two sons: Enim and Heinif may well be orthographical variants of the

131

130

of the heres Liliau (143); ecclesia Mathenni (Landenni) c.785, given with the consent of the heres Cron c. 760, who was a lay witness c.752

(208, 207, 203a); ecclesia Ystrat Hafren (Tidenham) c. 878, with the clericus et heres, Talan, in the lay witness list (229b); Herewald's consecrations of churches in Ergyng in the eleventh century sub heredibus (pp. 275ff).' Of these Talan, at least, was acleric, though he

occurs in alay witness list,and itwould therefore appear that the clergy,

like the laity, could have hereditary possession of churches. These several indications of the hold of clerical families add weight to the suggestion that the clas - the hereditary property-holding religious community, so denounced i ntwelfth-century and later Wales - was both widespread and powerful? Income and appointments

There are very few indications apart from suggestions of inherited office, of the method of making appointments. In three cases, c.575.

c.615, c.866, two monasteries and ? a church received their incumbents, one of whom was a sacerdos, because of lay presentment (72a, 162a, 168). Inabwy, the priest who received Welsh Bicknor c.575, was actually

the king's cousin? Maintenance and income for the incumbents must have been derived from the land which invariably accompanied the

donation of churches and monasteries. There is nothing ni the Llandaff evidence to suggest that this land was worked by clerics or monks themselves, and plenty to suggest that it was worked by lay depen-

dents. Support, therefore, came from surplus produce, though the

deployment of surplus was obviously a complex process. Places like Landinabo and Bishopston, granted c.585 and c.695, were already monasteries at the time of their grants, made in the latter case simul cum. . .ecclesiae principe (73a, 145). Some larger churches and monasteries were therefore accumulating all types of property by the

therefore seventh century, including established churches! They must given to s churche smaller the f o surplus the have drawn income from

them as well as from renders supplied from avariety of non-ecclesiastical

Guoruse properties. Hence, when king Gwrfoddw placed the sacerdos

at Garway, he did so seruiendum ad utilitatem ecclesiae permansurum (162a);? there si an implication, even ni installation ni clerical office, that the office involves an obligation to maintain the productive

capacity of any attached land

The church and the laity

The evidence of the Landaffcharters is mostly relevant to the doings

of bishops and abbots, who are a significant but small part of the whole the ecclesiastical framework. We cannot know from this evidence of

power of priest or monk over the ordinary layman; we cannot even

know if there was regular ministration to the laity; we cannotbegin to

assess superstition or spirituality. We may find the odd hint of popular

cult and tradition but these are too few to allow any real investigation of their meaning. The non-aristocratic laity certainlyknew clerics as landlords; whether or not they also knew them as the key to salvation is a virtually-unanswerable question.

W e have odd stories of martyrdoms - in war and in the chase; of saintly intervention -

in war, ni civil dispute and in ordinary life on

account of moral peccadillos; and of the power of saintlyshrines (123, 125b, 127b, 141, 193, 196). These make the obvious hagiographic

control points - the superna tural powers of saints and relics and their over death, and life over behaviour, human over elements, the over peace and plenty - but there is too little material to allow any assess-

ment of the social origin of such stories, the date of origin, or the meaning and role of the saint in the religiousculture.

was in the interests of the eleventh-cen tury community of

Llancarfan, for example, to claim great powers for theirsaint, Cadog, ni 1 Cf. Cair Riou (Llanfannar) c.780 and the hereditarius Leubrit, ? cleric o r lay (210a) - later Lann Vannar,c.970 (240); 4 modi Pennibei (Rhosili), c.925, cum

h e r e d i b u s suis B o d u c a t q u e Bimin

(239):

Lann

B o c h a (St. M a u g h a n ' s ) .c . 8 6 0 .

the Vita Cadoci, since they had widespread properties to protect; but, as argued below, there is no real evidence in the pre-Conquest period of the veneration of local Welsh saints over a wide area. Local saints

given simul cum dono filiorum Guoleiduc (74). See J. Conway Davies,Episcopal Acts, i , pp. 457-65; James, Rhigyfarch's Life of St. David, c. 20, monastica classis; Vita Samsonis, c. 16, p .115 a suo

undoubtedly existed: Buddwalan (164), Cingualan (144), Cynfwr (144) and Cynfarch (165) in the seventh century; Cadog, Iltud and Dogwin

. Hughes, Church in Early Irish Society, pp. 77, 161-6 and W. Levison, Europe; see K England a n d the Continent, pp. 81f. Cf. lay interference in appointments, Gildas, D e Excidio, cc. 66-7, pp. 162-72; Vita Ituti, c. 17 (VSB, p. 218). 4 Seeabove, pp.46-54, and the herdsmen a n dsubiectiattached to the monastery

(VSB, pp. 130 ff).

hereditario privaretur. The phenomenon si common inearly medievalIreland and

in the Colloquy,Early Scholastic Colloquies, ed. W.H. Stevenson, 5 , 27, pp. 2, 11.

Monks work according to the Vita Samsonis, however.

1

Cf. the church given to Llancarfan in the Cadog charters, Vita Cadoci,c. 63

2 Cf. rex deditLann Cerniu. omnibus sibi (i.e. Llandaff)seruituris(72b); Conuil ordered his son Cynwg and progeny to a generatione i n generatione seruirent altari Landauiae (176a); Guingual and progeny were given seruiturum ecclesiae Landauiae (168).

133

132

from the seventh to the eleventh centuries; Titiuc in the eighth and

Guoruce there c.615 (162a), and Cuchein gave the Villa Vallis and hte

cleric Guingual and his progeny to serve it c.866 (168). nI the later period, from c.860, kings and aristocracy were frequently

ninth centuries (183a, 230b); larmen and Febric c.955 (218); ?Dingad *ni the ninth century (227b); Clydog ni ? the eleventh century (193); Tatheus, c. 1060, and the four saints of Lan-gwm Mirgint, Cinficc, Huni

involved ni disputes with the church, and sometimesengaged ni physical

Dewi ni the seventh and eighth centuries (163b, 164, 165, 190a);

of sanctuary (125a, 217, 239, 259); more frequently unexplained

and Eruen, c.1075 (269, 274). Moreover, there was clearly also some cult of the European saints: Holy Trinity c.610, 615 (161, 162a);

Michael, five times, from c.750-950, 970, 980(167, 221,240, 244);

Mary c.910 (231); Bridget twice, c.895, c. 1040 (235b, 263); Peter,

assault. The issues were sometimes property (231, 233, 239); sometimes devouring the bishop'sconuiuium (237b, 267, 272); sometimes violation

attack, especially from the aristocracy (259; 225, 216b, 264b, 257,

(263], 271)' The attacks, fi nothing else, reflect the enviable wealth -

c.1045 (261).' But, again, who can say who was responsible for their

in food and goods - of religious communities and hardly reveal much respect for the church's position.

Normalburial practice is similarly obscure. The merthyrs presumably held - or purported to hold - the relics of their saints in their shrines.

The church as an institution certainly claimed its privilege - braint and there is no reason to suppose that it was not entitled to do so, like any other body, in accordance with its status and in accordance with the concepts of Welsh law.? But whether or not it had the power to assess its own damage, and impose its own penalties, is a complex

promotion - monk, priest or believer?

Clydog's tomb was at Merthyr Clodock, and Cynfarch's at Chepstow,

in ecclesia Cynmarchi (165). Otherwise we know of a cemetery at Clodock and at Mathar, but from material which si clearly late; we know possibly of king Meurig's tomb at Landaff (149); one Gurai's sepulcrum and mons in the Villa Cynwg (176a); and Gwrgan's gift from

his father's tomb c.620 (164). This might just be enough to suggest

royal burial at principal centres, but says nothing about the general populace? One aristocrat, however, certainly made a grant from his deathbed for the purposes of his burial, in honore sepulturae suae (221). As for kings and aristocracy, both appear to have been concerned to patronise t h echurch and make grants for the good of their souls - hence the charters. The grants recorded here, however, must cover but a fraction of the total properties and churches they owned. Despite Meurig's efforts in the mid-ninth century to free all ecclesiastical property from lay control he cannot have been totally effective; churches went on being granted in the tenth and eleventh centuries.

Twice only do we have hints of lay presentment, but they are clear

enough: Gwrfoddw built a church in his ager and placed the sacerdos

problem. The purport of the great body of long Narrations was to establish such powers to the bishop of Landaff. Since, however, the pre-tenth-century Narrations are highly suspect, it si difficult to determine whether this was really so. The bishops claimed power to

excommunicate and exile erring kings ni the earlier Narrations (147, 152, 167, 176b, 180b) and powers in synodto exact heavypenances

throughout this period (147, 152, 1766, 1806, 189, 212, 214, 217, 218, 222, 231, 233, 2376, 244, 2496, 259, 267). nI 955 and .c 1040 they certainly seem to have had prisons (218, 263), ni which, of course, they were not unlike other early medieval bishops. In the early period,

their concern was perjury (147, 152, 167, 176b, 212, 214, 255) and

murder ([125a, 127a], 180b, 244) and abduction (189). In the late period, most of the bishops invoked the apparatus of synod to protect their own interests, not thoseof other churches or clerics or wronged lay. men (except 217, 218, 239). fI the change of concerns issignificant, the earlier bishops had greater powers, but everything makes the early records less credible. The great synod of 955 is more credible than most,

All these examples come from the texts and not the titles. Cf. the invocation of Dew and the Holy Trinity in the early tenth century in Armes Prydein, .1 41, 98, 129.

ni that it actually mentions a lawyer, and the compensation payments of 218, 233, 237b, 260 have a precision which certainly looks more

3rightTheofVita Cadoci, c. 28, si interesting: Gwynllyw gave as privilege ot Cadog the burial of kings,

Both the nature o f the records and their content suggest that the powers

This sounds as if, in the late eleventh century at least, aristocrats wereburied in cemeteries by monasteries, and this was an advantage to the monastery (? because

exercised. Though, doubtless, there were many gifts given in penance

nobles, and domestics ni the Llancarfan cemetery,

reservingexilesand women in childbirth for Gwynllyw's monastery (Newport).

convincing than the vague requirements to penance of earlier Narrations.

attributed to tenth- and eleventh-century clerics are credible, and were

of fees) (VSB, p. 90). There is a similar suggestion in LL 146: Awst and his sons

gave L l a n - g o r s , a n d

their

bodies

for

burial; b o t h

are included

in

the

f a v o u r.

Cadog'smonastery had a cemetery within the rampart for burial of the faithful, and Gwynllyw was buried in his own monastery, by the wall (cc. 9, 28; VSB, pp. 46, 90).

See above, pp. 111 .f SeeWendyDavies, 'Braint Teilo', BBCS, xxvi (1974-6), 123-33.

134

135

for sins at all periods, it is extremely difficult to believe that bishops had the power to demand such compensation, much less the power to

enforce exile throughout the pre-Conquest period. Ultimately, the import of the evidence is of unknown powers in the early period,

limited but real power to gain compensation ni the later period, and of wildly excessive claims in the later eleventh and twelfth centuries.

LIST OF MONASTERIES AND CHURCHES All are in chronological order of appearance.

A . Monasteries'

WELSH BICKNOR (Lanncustenhinngarthbenni) c.575 grant, episcopalis locus; c.700, 743 meetings; c.620, 866 abbots (72a, 163b, 164, 165, 1766, 178, 230b). LLANDINABO (Lann lunabui) c.585 grant, podum; c.625, 745 regrants (73a, 165, 192). LLÄN-ARTH (Lanngarth) c.600 grant, podum; Teilo ni residence, podum; c.864 bishop Nudd ni residence (121, 123, 225). VALLEY DORE (Mafurn) c.605 grant; c.625, 745, regrant, podum; c.860 regrant (162b, 165, 171b, 192). BELLIMOOR (Bolgros) c.610 (foundation) grant; c.620, 625 abbots (161, 163b, 164, 165). GARWAY (Lannguorboe) c.615 foundation grant; c.620, 625 abbots

(162a, 1636, 165).

LLANCILLO(Lann Sulbiu) c.620 grant, podum (160). BALLINGHAM (Lann Budgualan) c.620 grant, podum; c.860 regrant (164, 171b). DEWCHURCH (Lanndeui) c.620, 625, ?728 abbots; ?c.728 podum

(163b, 164, 165, ?190a); 190a may not be the same church of Dewi. DOWARD (Lanndougarth) c.620 abbots (163b, 164). 1 In identifying monasteries, mention of meetings or synods at religious houses si

obviously significant; such mentions nearly always occur in Narrations. As discussed above, p. 14, the evidence of the pre-tenth-century Narrations is highly dubious because of their formulaic nature. There is no reason why the essence of

the stories they relate shouldnot be true - remembered over a long period - even

ifa substantialproportion of the recordis late, and no reason why many of the

tenth- and eleventh-century ones should n o tin fact be contemporary records. 152, f o rexample, has obvious eleventh/twelfth-century interpolations, so at least

a part of it must have an earlier origin.Since, in all cases, reference to a bishop or cleric officiating at some place other than Llandaff is so contrary to the interests

of eleventh- and twelfth-century Llandaff it seemshighlylikely that such references,whether early or late, are credible, and significant.They are there fore noted below.

LLANLOUDY (Lann Loudeu) c.620 grant, podum; c.745 regrant

(1636, 192). MOCCAS (Mochros) c.620 abbots (1636, 164). LANCAUT (Lannceuid) c.625 (abbot) or representative; c.703 podum (165, 174b). LLANDDOWROR (Lanndyfrguyr; territorium aquilentium super ripam

Tam fluminis) c.625 grant; c.500, boys supposedly fostered there (77, 127b); cf. Taui Urbis below. LLANDEILO FAWR (Lann [Teiliau] maur) c.625 grant; ??? c.500

podum (77, 127b). Cf. p. 133, the place where Teilo lived and died.

LLANDOGO (Lannenniaun) c.625 (abbot) or representative; c.698

grant, podum,glossed Lannoudo cui; (Lannoudocui) c.942, meeting

(156, 165, 222). PENALLY (Pennalun, Aluni capitis) c.625 grant; c.675, 680 princes; ??? c.500, Teilo ni residence, podum (77, 125b, 149, 151b); Teilo's birthplace.

LLANCARFAN (Carbani uallis, Nantcarban, . . [sancti] Catoci) c.650. 1075; c.670 meeting, podum (152);c.980 simul cum dignitate ponti-

ficalis cathedrae abbati totius dignitatis ecclesiae sancti Catoci Lann

Caruaniae (243); abbots and officers (140, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148,

149, 151a, 151b, 152, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159b, 175/186b, 176a,

176b, 179c, 180a, 1836, 190b, 195, 2046, 205, 212, 214, 257,

267, 271, 272, 274).

LLANDOUGH (. [sancti] docunni, docguinni, Dochou) c.650-1075;

abbots, sacerdotes, presbiteri (140, 143, 144, 145, 147, 149,151a,

151b, 152, 155,156, 157, 158, 159b, 175/186b, 176a, 1766, [179c, 180a] 183b, 1906, 195,2046, 205, 249a, 257, 267, 271).

LLANTWIT (..sancti Ilduti) c.650-1075; c.650 dispute (144); c.670 meeting, podum, dues to king (152); abbotsand officers (140, 143, 144, 145, 147, 148, 149, 151a, 1516, 152, 155, 156, 157, 158, 1596. 175/186b, 176a, 176b, 179c, 180a, 183b, 190b, 195, 204b,

205, 212, 214, 228, 229b, 230a, 255, 271).

RHOSILI (..sancti/lann cingual/an) c.650 grant, podum;c.925 violation

(144, 239).

LLANDAFF (Landauia) - the obvious late interpolations in Dispositions and Sanctions are not included here; c.670, 7 1 0 , 775, 862, 905, 925,

1015, 1035, 1072, 1075 meetings and synods; c.680, tomb;c.1040,

1070, 1075 violation; c.1040 fighting; c.1020, 1025, 1030, 1060

presbyters, canons,dean (149, 152, 1806,2116, 212, 214, 233, 237b,

246, 249b, 255, 259, 263, 264a, 2646, 267, 269, 271, 272). Al

pre-tenth-century references are extremely dubious by reason of

their context; 152, for example, has Llandaff clearly interpolated

into a document which is really dealing with three other monasteries.

Sancti Teliaui - c. 1033, presbyter, clearly refers to Landaff since

136

137

the same presbyter si elsewhere Landauiae (257); hence, a meeting

B. Ecclesiae

Taui urbis - c.680 princeps (149). This might refer to Llandaff, on

). MERTHYR CLODOCK (Merthir Clitauc) ?(193c. 1075 presbyter (274). (141), MATHARN (Merthir Teudiric) ? c.620 CHEPSTOW (Cynmarchi) c.625 (165). HOWICK (?) (Guruid) c.660 (143).

at St Teilo's monastery c.955 may refer to Landaff or elsewhere (218).

the river Taf, or to some place like Llanddowror on the river Taf in Carmarthen: cf. Gabalfa (near Cardiff) super ripam Taf (151a) or

Llanddowror super ripam Tam fluminis, in Taf flumine (77, 1276).

The context suggests that 'sedis episcopalis famosissimae quae ad ripam Taui fluminis posita est' in 218 is the same place as the monastery of Teilo in 218, which would suggest that both refer to Llandaff rather than Llanddowror, which has no episcopal tradition.

The grant of 149 is nowhere near Llanddowror, and is not made by Dyfed kings, like 77 and 127b; this would also support a Llandaff

rather than Llanddowror location. Use of urbs to describe the monastery might, by analogy with Caerwent, imply a former Roman

site, i.e. the fort at Cardiff.

Hence, there would appear to be a

ST. LYTHANS (Elidon) c.685(157).

TIDENHAM (Istrat Hafren) c.703, c.878 regrant (174b, 229b). ? (Lan n Heli con) c.708 (205).

WONASTOW (Lanngunguarui Gurthebiriuc)c.750(201). TRYLEG (Trilecc) c.755, c.868 regrant (199bi, 199bii). LLANWARNE (Hennlennic) c.758 (200). LLANFACHES (Merthirmaches) c.775 (211b).

LLANGOFEN (Mamouric, Lannuuien) c. 775 (206). LLANDENNI (Mathenni) c.785 (208).

monastery at Llandaff from c.680,? with episcopal associations

KILPECK (Cilpedec) c.850 (169b).

the e l e v e n t h c e n t u r y

LLANDDEINIOL (Diniul), LLANFABLE (Mable), LLANGYNFYL (Methirchinfall), ? (Tipallai) near S.t Maughan's,

from c.955, but it does not become the scene of many activities until

LLOWES (Liuhesi) c.680 grant, podum (149).

BISHOPSTON (Lann Cinuur/Sancti Cyngur/Conguri/Conuur) c.650 cella, grant; c.695 grant, princes; c.925 violation (144, 145, 239). LLAN-GORS (Lann Cors) c.720(?) grant; c.925 meetings(146, 237b). LLANSOY (Lann Tisoi) c.725 grant,podum (187).

LITTLE DEWCHURCH (Cum Mouric) c.850 (170).

c.860 (171b); presbiter Lann Cinfall c. 1030 (264a).

ST-Y-NYLL (Lann Tilull) c.870 (216b). DINGESTOW (Dincat) c.872 (227b).

LLANGIWA (Lann Culan) c.872 (216a).

MONMOUTH (Aper Myngui) c. 733 grant, podum (175/186b). DIXTON (Hennlann, glossed Sancti Tituuc) c.735 grant, podum; c.866,? abbot (183a, 2306).'

LLANWYTHERIN (Gueithirin) c.876 (228).

LLAN-GWM (Lanncum) c.860, grant; c. 1075 monachus (173, 274). ST. MAUGHAN'S (Lann Bocha) c.860 grant, podum; c. 1025, 1072 attacked (74/171b, 264b, 272).

ST. ARVANS (sanctorum larmen et Febric) c.955 violation (218).

LLANDEGFEDD (Merthir Tecmed) c.750 grant. podum (199a).

FOY (Lann Timoi) c.866,? abbot (230b).? SELLACK (Lann Suluc) c.866,? abbot (230b).3

CAERWENT (Urbs/Cair Guenti. Tathiu) c.950-1075; c.955 meeting (218); abbots,presbiteri (221, 243, 244, 269, 274). ST. MICHAELS ( ? ,Cemais Inferior)c.950 abbot (221); cf. 'Llanfihangel' in the bounds of 261, i.e. Cemais.

TRYLEG GRANGE .( mainuon) c.960 podum, violation, meeting (217). 1 Lutinnd e Hennlann Titiuc, Concum de Lann Suluc, Mailseru de Lann Timoi

in the clerical witness list; if not abbots, they are presumably the representatives of their houses.

2 Mailseru de Lann Timoi n i the clerical witness list; as above, n. .1 3 Concum de Lann Suluc n i the clerical witness list; as above, n. .1

? (Riu) c.880 (230a).

CALDICOT (Castell Conscuit and Brigidae) c.895 (235b). ST. MARY'S MONMOUTH (sanctae Mariae) c.910 (231) PENTERRY (Lannuedeui) c.955(218); c. 1075 presbyter (274).

LLANFANNAR (Lann uannar), LLANFIHANGEL CRUCORNAU (Lann Mihacgel Cruc Cornou), LLANISIEN (Lann Nissien), LLAN LLWYD (Lann Liuit), LLWYN DERI (Lann Tituil), PWLL MEURIG (Lann Mihacgel i Pull), ROCKFIELD (Lann Guoronoi) (also c.1020 [2461). ? (Lann Gunnhoill), ? LLANWERN (Lann G u e r Tiuauc) c.970 (240).

Near LLANGYNFYL (Cecin Penn Ros) c. 1030 (264a). ST. BRIDE'S SUPER ELY (sanctae Brigidae) c. 1040 (263). BASSALEG (Bassalec) c.1072 presbyter (272).

C. Placenames beginning 'Lan-' DORSTONE (Lann Cerniu) c.580 grant; c.625, 745 regrants (72b, 165, 192). ? Brecknock (Lanncoit) c.595 grant (166).

138

LLANDEILO BERTHOLAU (Lann Teliau Port Halauc) c.600 grant

8

LLANDEILO TAL-Y-BONT (Lan Teliau Talypont) c.655 grant (140). ? Glam. (Lann Cincirill) c.675 grant (155).

THE PROBLEM OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY

(122).

LLANERTHILL (Lann Efrdil) c.685 grant (159a). BISHTON (Lann Catgualatyr) c.710 grant (180b).

LLANDEILO'R FAN (Lann Guruaet) ? c.720, grant (154).

LLANFIHANGEL CWMDU (Lann Mihacel tref Ceriau) c.750 grant; c.925 grant (167, 237b).' ? LLANMELIN (Lann Mihacgel Lichrit) c.980 grant (244). ? , Glam. (Lanntinauc) c . 1035 grant (255). LLANBEDR (Lannpetyr) c. 1045 grant (261).

Monastic federations

Liber Landavensis si constructed in such a way that it implies full

diocesan organisation in south-east Wales, throughout the period covered by the charters, under the guidance of a single bishopric, located at Llandaff. The twelfth-century clerics of Llandaff, therefore, claimed that all clerics and religious houses between the rivers Tywy and Tarader, a tributary of the Wye, had been subject to the authority of the bishop of Llandaff for nearly seven centuries. For reasons

stated above, this premise si highly suspect.'I t si therefore difficult to determine from the evidence of Liber Landavensisalone whether or not there was a single authority in south-east Wales for all or part

of the period; whether there were several authorities or none; where,

the if any, were the centres of administration; and what were

relationships between religious institution s. There are nevertheless

many hints within the Landaff charters which, taken together with all other available evidence, help to illuminate a situation which appears to

have been strictly comparable neither to the Irish nor the English pattern; that is, powers of direction and control were neither vested in

abbots who were the heads of monastic federations (paruchiae) nor in

diocesan bishops of the Roman type. There were, however, species of monastic federation and of bishopric in Wales. The very existence of charter collections, made from the seventh

century onwards, suggests that there were some major religious houses

ni south-east Wales, holding considerable and carefully-guarded properties. The relationship between these houses and their properties can be nicely demonstrated by the case of Teilo. In the twelfth century Llandaff claimed to be the house of St Teilo.Though other saints are

cited, ti was Teilo who lay at the base of all Llandaff claims; it was the privileges of Braint Teilo which were sometimes incorporated into

charters;? and ti was cyrografum sancti patroni nostri Teiliaui which

Urban adduced as his ancient authority, when he wrote to Calixtus in or before 1119 (LL, p. 87). The same document is cited i nthe fictitious record of an agreement between Morgan and king Edgar c.950 - gref Teliau - and in the privilege confirmed by king Gruffydd

1 See below, p. 184.

Pp. 4f. 2 Seeabove, pp. 12, 22.

140

141

c. 1060 - cirografo (pp. 248, 270).' Gruffydd's privilege refers ot properties i n Brycheiniog supposedly detailed in the chirograph Further, Teilo's properties are twice listed in Liber Landavensis, after the supposed grant of Landeilo Gressyni from Iddon to Teilo in the

late

sixth

century

(123),

and

after

Rhydderch's confirmation of

privilege, c.1025 (253). Landaff was therefore claiming possession of Teilo's properties by virtue of claiming to be Teilo's house

The notion of a saint's house and a saint's property require

explanation. The practice of identifying monastic houses by the name

of their real orsupposed founder was common: podum sancti Catoci,

podum sancti Ilduti, podum uocatum ab eodem (Ilduto) Lann Ildut

(p. 71), lann Guorboe, presbitersancti Docunni, lector Catoci,

presbiter sancti Teliaui, are all ot be found ni Liber Landavensis itself, in entirely credible c o n t e x t s .M o r e o v e r , t h e c o n v e n t i o n a l n o t i o n t h a t

of ecclesiastical discipline and control, as explicitly stated in some Vitae.'

Whoever

originally

received

the grants of churches and

monasteries recorded ni the Landaff charters must ni this way have been accumulating ecclesiastical powers as well as income. Hence, the charters themselves provide evidence in such grants of the growth of a type of ecclesiastical federation, while the case of Teilo allows us to

perceive the significance of hte saint ni defining hte members of hte

federation.

Now it is notable that a significant proportion of the properties listed as Teilo properties in fact bear Teilo's name: Lann Teliau

. . Lann Teliau mainaur Brunus . . . Lann Teliau Aper Coguin, Lann Teliau Penntiuinn and so on; moreover, those prefixes often survive ni the modern place-name: Landeilo Faw, Landeilo Rwnws,

m a u r

grants were made both to God and the founding or patron saint of a

Llandeilo Abercywyn, Landeilo Pentywyn. Teilo place-names therefore often represent former Teilo properties. Hence, the distribution of Llandeilo names is at least representative of the distribution of Teilo

throughout early medieval Europe: hence, deo et sancto Patricio

properties.

house, when land was really given to that house, was quite normal

obtulerunt, to Armagh; deo et sancto Eliudo, to Llandeilo Fawr; deo et

Gliguis, to ?Merthyr Glywys; deo et sancto Petro monachisque veteris

Teilo is not the only early saint whose name is preserved in medieval

is, to the house founded by him. Llandaff, therefore, by claiming t o be

and later place-names. Cadog, Iltud, Dogwin, and Dew have a significant scatter of places recording their names ni south-east Wales, though there are far fewer Langatwgs, Lanilltuds, and Landoughs

Teilo's house to accord her use of the properties.

had dependent properties, and consequent areas of ecclesiastical control.

cenobii Wentane civitatis, to the Old Minster Winchester.* Hence, a

saint's property consisted of grants notionally made to that saint, that

Teilo's monastery, could claim possession of all grants ever made to Teilo, alive or dead; and it was sufficient argument if Landaff was

than Llandeilos. By analogy, it would seem that the house of Cadog,

the house of Illtud, the house of Dogwin, and the house of Dewi also

was a body of 'Teilo property' dependent on the house of Teilo,

There is a further aspect of their influence. Not merely places but sometimes the churches themselves preserve the name of the appropriate saint in their dedications. It is not uncommon to find the saint

relationship implied between properties and house is primarily financial:

in both

Teilo properties rendered their profits, or their rent, to the mother

Langatwg-nigh-Usk si dedicated to St Cadog, for example. Now, the

It is therefore perfectly clear that in the early twelfth century there

whether or not Landaff rightly claimed to be Teilo's house. The

house. If those properties also happened to be churches or monasteries, then, further, there are implied rights of presentment and some measure

The record of the agreement has chronological inconsistencies and its formulae are comparable with the very latest stages of interpolation in the charters.

2 See J. Conway Davies, Episcopal Acts, pp. 152 .f 3 The power of the saint is a commonplace: compare the invocation of the

and protectionof Dew in Armes Prydein, 1.105, and thestatement power of the general principle, 1.139; at Bury St Edmunds c. 1095 a bishop was teachingt h e l a i t ya b o u tthe power of the saint to intercede and bring rain, Memorials o f St. Edmund's Abbey, ed. T. Arnold (Rolls Series, 1890), i ,p. 90.

4 See WendyDavies,'St. Mary's Worcester and the Liber Landavensis', Journ.

Soc. Arch., vi (1972), 467. For Merthyr Glywys, see above, p.99.

the place-name and the church dedication: the church of

Cantref Gwarthaf properties in the Teilo lists all have churches dedicated to Teilo, except for Landeulyddog, which is dedicated to

Teilo's 'disciple'. Two of Dyfrig's foundations, according to his 'Life' Hentland and Moccas - have dedications to Dyfrig.

In the case

of Cadog, there si sufficient early evidence to demonstrate that a high

proportion of the Cadog dedications represents Cadogproperty. Many of these are in places cited in the Vita Cadoci as property belonging

c. 54,thefamilia of Cadogwere giventhe power I nominating nthe VitaaCadoci, b b o t s a n d priors of the churches given

of

to Cadog, a n d by

implicationrights of jurisdiction and visitation. In the Vita Ituti, c. 10, the

abbot of Llantwit gave permission for a journey to be made and

w a s gIven

freedom to hold the parrochia; Wade Evanstranslates this as 'district', but this

is n o t obvious from the context (VSB, pp. 124, 206 ff).

142

143

ot Cadog or ni places mentioned ni a context of Cadog's visitation, thereby implying property;

hence, Llancarfan, Llanfaes, Pentyrch, Barry,Llanspyddid, and Gelligaer (Gwladus)! Moreover, hte charters

arisen for cult reasons ni the later medieval period - Cadog and Dewi and Illtud certainly had significant later medieval cults' - there si in fact nothing ni the early evidence to suggest that the earliest dedications

Llanelli, Llangatwg, Caerleon, and the river Thaw area? tI is therefore

Garway is dedicated to the Holy Trinity though the founder was

appended to the Vita record grants to Cadog; those places which can be identified - which are few - again correlate with Cadog dedications:

to local saints arose purely in honour of them, or because of the saint's necessary association with their foundation. In Liber Landavensis

perfectly clear - though the correlation is not completel y exact -t h a t a

Gwrfoddw and first incumbent - who gave his name to the place Guoruoe (162a). The situation is much aggravated by the paucity

stage property belonging to Cadog's house. Some other local saints also

of early Welsh evidence, but there si enough to suggest that some

significant proportion of churches dedicated to Cadog were at some

have a scatter of dedications: Dewi, Dyfrig, Illtud. We do not have such helpful Vitae and ancilliary material for these three, but the pro-

bability must remain that the spread of dedications to those saints

represents properties once dependent on the mother houses and, since

they are churches, must also represent some consequent ecclesiastical control.3 Though we must always allow for some dedications to have

proportion of dedications to an oft-recurring local saint must represent

properties gradually acquired by the principal house of that saint.? There is therefore evidence of the existence of major religious

houses with scattered dependent properties, and consequent control of clerical personnel associated with those properties, in the preConquest period. Villa Cyuiu is actually called a member o f the

territorium Merthir Teudiric (235a). In the South East, these major

1 Vita Cadoci, co.11, 1 8 ,24, 29; cf. his mother Gwladus,c. 54, and

Capel Gwladusand Gelligaer (VSB, pp. 50, 62, 78, 90, 92; 124).Cf. also the Cadog dedicationat Trevethin, nearMamheilad,the house to which the familia

fled with Cadog's shrine, c.

40 (VSB, p. 110).

The distribution b o t ho f

dedicationsa n dpropertiesmentioned in t h e Life, focuses on the Vale o f Glamorgan and round theriver Usk. Some places ni the 'Life' appear as

property appendant toLlancarfan in thetwelfthcentury, on theevidence of the properties i nt h e c o n t r o l o f t h e Llancarlan family, still left in possession by Gloucester: Llancarfan, Llanfeithin (cf. Meuthi'splace, cc.1 ,4 ,6,7), Newport

(Prol., .c 54, VSB, pp. 28-38, 124). Some twelfth-century properties have Cadog dedications, e.g. Pendeulwyn; see further, .J Conway Davies, Episcopal

Acts, ii, pp. 506-30.

I am grateful to Oliver Padel for pointing out the

houses are those associated with Cadog, Illtud, Teilo, Dewi, Dyfrig, 142. He was confused in later medieval hagiography with Cyngar; see G.H. Doble, The Saints of Cornwall, i v(Oxford,

of Docco in the s o u t h west c. 45, p.

1965),p. 106. The Vita Oudocei mentionsLlandogo, and the gift o fPenally,

Llandeilo Fawi, and Llanddowror, but the latter three weregiven to Euddogwy as

former Dyfrig property, along with the territorial diocese; there is only one

Euddogwyplace-name,Llandogo,a n d t w odedications, a tLlandogo and

Llandaff.H e is unexpectedly rare in the availableevidence; Llandogo'sdedication

is actually to 'Dochoe' and ti isquiteconceivable that there has been some

confusion between Euddogwy and Dogwin. For Dyfrig, see below, pp. See

the

several

later

medieval

breviaries a n d

p o e m sw h i c h

include them,

ninth/tenth-century list o fCornish dedications still preserved in the modern

S. Baring-Gould and J. Fisher, Lives, ii, pp. 37-42 (Cadog), 318-22 (Dewi),and

omnie practition eb buses flaccogue and dedication aslo 00o38l d s'ggooodo dfSoo,;r cCornish h1

2 Dr Hughes pointed out to me that Aed o f Sletty made over his church on

place-names, J. Vendryes, 'Une liste de noms bretons', Etudes Celtiques, i

.R S. Gildas-de-Rhuis andtheLocquénolés associatedwithLandévennec in Brittany, Largillière, LesSaints et l'organisation chrétienne primitivedans l'armorique

bretonne (Rennes, 1925), pp. 144 .f

2 Vita Cadoci, cc. 63,60, 62 (VSB,pp. 128 ff). Bishopston, .c 67 (=LL 180b),

si not a Cadog dedication or property because, as thecharter says, the returns, redditus, were given to Dogwin; the English name Bishopston reveals the

episcopal connection. 3 The Cadog'Life' i s particularly rich in local topographical detail. James, Rhigyfarch's Life of Saint David, c. 13, mentions David's foundation of Raglan

and Llangyfelach - which have David dedications; S. Baring-Gould andJ. Fisher,

The Lives of The British Saints (London, 1907-13), list a total of fifty-three Dewi dedications in the diocese of St. David's (i, pp. 316f ) and a further eighteen outside; there are twenty-seven Llanddewi places in M. Richards,Welsh Administrative and Territorial Units. The Vita Ituti lacks local detail; Richards listssix Llantwits, all of which have Illtud dedications, of which there are a

o ffifteen, mostly in Glamorgan(Baring-Gould and Fisher, iù,p. 315).We total know of no

'Life'of Dogwin; there are two Llandochaus, both dedicated to Dogwin; the Vita Cadoci mentions that the returns of Bishopston were given to Dogwin(c. 67) and that Cadog gave him Llanddowror (c. 22);there is

no correlation between these places. The Vita Samsons mentions a monastery

lil, pp. 315-7 (Illtud ).

his death to Patrick; hence, at least some Patrick dedications represent Patrick's, that is, Armagh'sproperty. For early dedication practice, see O. Chadwick, The evidence of dedicationsi nthe early history of the Welshchurch', inN.K. Chadwick e ta l ,Studies in Early British History (Cambridge, 1954), pp. 173-88, where he points out the thirty-five churches dedicated to St Stephen by the

bishop of St Stephens. Professor Bullough has pointed out to me that innorthern Italy there i sa correlation between dedications and Bobbio property of the ninth

century. There is some material in LL which has a bearing on the p r o b l e m , for which see below, pp. 144-6. It is c l e a rf r o mthe material a l r e a d ycited that ' L l a nN' d o e sn o t a l w a y s refer to the n a m e of a saint and many present dedications

in the south east can only have arisen from somehopeless corruption: Dinebo at

Llandinabo, Goven at Llangofen and so on. Hence, the explanations for the

present pattern of dedications are several, and cannot therefore be easily explained as the original foundations of the saint, pace E.G. Bowen, The Settle-

ments of the Celtic Saints in Wales (2nd ed., Cardiff, 1956); some early saints

clearly d i d m a k e

f o u n d a t i o n s , h o w e v e r , for

the

V i t aS a m s o n i s m e n t i o n s n i n e

attributable t oSamson himself, quite apart fromthe lay gifts made to him, and

hte estch contid otn / ((ic ola. Хулеі Ерівор», чоб ст 0.аасодав 1,таке.

Dumfriess, and Galloway Nat. Hist. and Ant. Soc., xxxvii (1959-60), 25, 11. 72 г, 84 г.

145

144

and to a lesser extent Dogwin. W e have already noted the persistent

role of the houses of Cadog,Illtud, and Docgwin • Lancarfan, Lantwit,

and Llandough - in the Llandaff charters.

With

this knowledge,

it

becomes possible to

discuss certain

problematic aspects of the Landaff material. Teilo and Dyfrig were Llandaff saints by the twelfth century. Collections A and B are quite clearly Dyfrig and Teilo collections of charters, associated with their

respective Vitae, recording grants made to those saints alone, and presumably originally collected by a Dyfrig and a Teilo house. (B has very few genuine charters.) We can reconstruct Dyfrig property not only from Collection A but also from a number of charters which record regrants of property 'which formerly belonged to Dy frig':These are Valley Dore c.595 (163a), Llan-arth c.600 (121), near Rhosili

c.650 (144), Lansoy c. 725 (187), Mounton c. 730 (191), St. Julians Caerleon .c 864 (225), ecclesia Riu (unidentified) c.880 (230a), Madley (undated, 193); and the general confirmation c. 1025 (253). Landeilo'r fan si held to have belonged to Dyfrig and Teilo c. 720, but ti si part of a highly doubtful grant (154). I see no reason at

present to suspectthe comments aboutformer Dyfrig property,since

they are very haphazardly scattered; it is unlikely that a late inter-

polator would treat this phrase in such an inconsistent way, when his normal practice was to interpolate straight through a run of charters

covered by the charters; one record, c.650, mentions that Dyfrig had

lost property in the yellow plague, that is, in the mid-sixth century (144); the complete absence of references to him .between the ninth and eleventh centuries suggests that Dyfrig's authority ceased to be

highly valued ni that period. The distribution of Teilo properties is quite different. Collection B

has grants from Gwent Uwchcoed, Gower, and west Wales (Llan-arth, Llandeilo Bertholau, Landeilo Gressyni, Lanegwad, near Llandeilo Fawr, Trefgarn and Laethdy Deilo and Menechi all near Tenby, Cil Tudwg and Penclegyr near Tenby, Mathri and Cenarth Mawr), which supposedly date from the sixth to the late eighth century; the Teilo

lists on p. 254 include properties in Cantref Mawr, Cantref Gwarthaf,

Penfro, Rhos, Pebidiog, Cantref Selyf, Talgarth and Elfael, and that on

p. 124 ni Cantref Mawr, CantrefGwarthaf, Penfro, and Rhos, that si ni

the modern counties of Carmarthen, Pembroke, Brecknock, and Radnor. Teilo dedications occur ni Gwent Uwchcoed, Gower, Merthyr Maw, Brecknock and overwhelmingly in Carmarthen and Pembroke.'

Teilo's 'Life' is most closely associated with Penfro and Cantref Mawr. The saint's influence had a clear south-western orientation, and the saint only rarely held property in the south east. There were no grants

made to him after the late eighth century, and no regrants of Teilo property; but the idea of Teilo was undoubtedly important ni

The lands are confined to Gwent, Ergyng, and Gower, and no references are later than the ninth century, except for some revival of the idea in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The grants of collection A are very similar: the lands are concentrated in Ergyng, Gwent

eleventh- and twelfth-century contexts.

Uwchcoed, and Gower (Welsh Bicknor, Dorstone, Landinabo, S.t

the house of Dyfrig, possibly a tWelsh Bicknor, which did not continue to dominate outside Ergyng after the seventh century: the house of Teilo, Landeilo Faw, the main interest of which lay ni south-west

Maughan's, Pencoed,

Madley, Bishopston), with

the addition of

Penally, Landeilo Fawr and Llanddowror ni the south west, and the grants range from the sixth to the ninth century. Together they suggest that Dyfrig's property was concentrated in Ergyng, with several lands in northern w e n t and some in Gower. Dyfrig dedications are almost

entirely confined to Ergyng,' and later tradition, as preserved in the Lectiones, associates him with that area.? The very early regrants of Dyfrigproperty, from the late sixth century, suggest that the house of Dyfrig was in no strong position for most of the period

1 See E.G.

Bowen, Settlements, p. 38, fig. 8A, for a distribution map.

2 Lectiones Dubrici, L L ,pp.

names; S. Baring-Gould and .J

78-84. There are apparently no Dyfrig place.

Fisher list nine Dyfrig dedications o t h e r than

Llandaff, mostly in Ergyng (i, p. 380). The Hentlandand Moccasfoundations

mentioned n i the Lectiones both have Dyfrig dedications.

It has therefore been possible to isolate certain predominant religious houses in south-east Wales in the pre-Conquest period, which had dependent property and some consequent widespread authority:

Wales and which seems to have disappeared after the eighth century,

leaving a strong tradition; the house of Cadog, Lancarfan, with properties ni Glamorgan and Gwent, and a major power in the South East from the seventh to eleventh centuries; the house of Illtud, Llantwit, a major power in the south east from the seventh to eleventh

centuries, with properties ni Glamorgan;? and the house o fDewi-St.

David's, Meneviaor Mynyw -only rarely mentioned ni Liber Landavensis,

See E.G. Bowen, Settlements, p. 56, fig.15, for a distribution map. Seealso .J Conway Davies,Episcopal Acts, i, pp. 153-61. CollectionB containsvery

few credible charters: all the south-western ones are suspicious and only those from Gwent have real witness lists.

. 42, fig. 9A and 9B, for Cadogand Illtud 2 See E.G. Bowen, Settlements, p

distribution maps; see above, pp. 141-3, for Cadog property.

147

146 but a major power in the south west from the eighth to eleventh centuries.' There remain those other predomina nt houses in Liber

Landavensis - Llandough especially, Landogo, Bishopston, Rhosili,

as against that of abbots ni the latter. There is scarcely an abbatial obit

in the Welsh Annals, though the Irish Annals are full of them. The late eleventh- and twelfth-century Vitae of Welsh saints consistently stress

and Llan-gors, all i nthe early period, and Caerwent, Langynfyl,

episcopal jurisdiction rather than abbatial.' Rhigyfarch's 'Life' of

they were less powerful or were taken over at an early stage. Since there were so few churches and monasteries in Glamorgan, the power

Teilo, and Padarn, working from different centres, withDavidcalling synods and Teilo and Padarn working as suffragans. The 'Life' of Padarn has the same story.? The 'Lives' of Padarn, Gwynllyw, and Tatheus incidentally refer to episcopal control of foundations.3 The

Penterry, St. Maughan's, and Landaff, all ni the later period - for whom there is no comparable place-name, property, and dedication evidence. The implication, in the absence of such material, is that of the main houses in that area may well have been considerable and

there may have been few unaffiliated churches or houses to be granted away. The early Ergyng witness lists include far more abbots than do those from Glamorgan, again stressing the number of independent institutions. Gwent and the East was far more open to change.

David stresses the division of episcopal responsibilities between David,

"Lives of Carannog and Cybi have bishop monks in control of

monasteries, and the whole corpus of Vitae has references to the

bishop of St. David's. definitely episcopal'.

The tenor of the available evidence is very

The word parrochia in Liber Landavensis is used frequently in the

fI we can point to powerful monasteries, are we identifying monastic

sense of territorial diocese, not in the sense of the area of monastic

paruchiae of the Irish type? On any count, only a proportion of the dependent properties of these houses were themselves religious institutions. Although properties associated with dedications do at least imply a church, the essence of the connection between dependencies

of Dewi, Padarn, and Cadog means episcopal see, not monastery. The

and the mother house was property itself: dependencies brought income. Although this must necessarily have brought power, both ecclesiastical and political, it does not of itself imply any jurisdiction

and powers o f direction over the clerics and churches who were not a

part of the dependency, any monopoly of authority or of burial rights in well-defined areas.? And it doesnot mean that abbots were the onlv people with power: heads of houses might in any case be priests, or

bishops, and Merewald was princes sub episcopo in no. 145. There si

jurisdiction, and this si not confined to the twelfth-century passages.5

The word civitas when used in the Liber Landavensis and the 'Lives'

see itself - episcopalis sedes - isexplicitly mentioned in the episcopal 'Life of Teilo, ni pre-LL and LL versions? The terminology then, though much of the evidence is late, is Roman rather than Irish, and t h econcepts Roman rather than Irish.

There is, further, were not subject to bishop alive in the episcopal functions

explicit evidence of bishops in south Wales who the jurisdiction of abbots. Dyfrig himself was a first part of the sixth century, exercising the of inspection and ordination, appearing at the

nothing in the evidence to suggest powers of action comparable to those wielded so effectively by Irish abbots. The situation is therefore similar, ni some respects, but not in all, and the possible existence

Sancti Paterni, c. 20 (VSB, pp. 258-60).

undermine any real comparability.

176, 274)

of some superior, whom the abbots of such houses recognized, would

2

James, Rhigyfarch's Life o f Saint David, cc. 44, 46, 48, pp.

19-21; Vita

VitaS. Paterni, .c 30; Vita Gundleii, c. 5; Vita Tathei, c. 6 (VSB, pp. 266,

4 Vita Carantoci I, cc. 2, 6; Vita Kebii, cc. 4, 6 (VSB, pp. 142-6, 234-6).

Episcopal powers

The role of bishops is far less comparable with the Irish pattern. Any comparison of the available Welsh and Irish evidence reveals that it is the role and function of bishops which are stressed in the former 1 See Bowen, op.

1 Except in the case of Cadog; see above, p. 141 n . 1, and below, pp. 156 .f

5

*de omni parrochia eiusdem ab hostio Taratir super ripam Gui usque ad

ripam Tiugui', c. 1060(269); 'per totam parrochiam Gulatmorcanensem' (p. 85);

'parrochia diuidente Tyui duos episcopatus s i c u tdiuidebat duo regna'(p. 133). Cf.176b, 205, 212, 214, 217,218, 222, 233, 2376, 249b, 255, 2 5 9 ,267; 167,244 192; cf. also Tarader to Tywy omitting parrochia: 147, 180b, 189, 231. in episcopum Bancorensiciuitate ( L L , p. 71); Minuensem ciuitatem (p. 100);

Doroborensem ciuitatem (p.

132).

Vita S.

Paterni, cc. 10, 22, 29, 30 (VSB,

pp. 254, 260, 264-6); Vita Cadoci, cc. 37, 39 (VSB, pp. 104, 106); the Vita

cit., p. 52, fig.

13, for Dewi distribution map; see

further below, pp. 156 f. 2 The Vita Cadoci, however, does stress the abbot's powers of jurisdiction and

visitation o f affiliated properties; see above, p. 141, n. 1, and further below, pp. 156 .f This si exceptional.

Cadoci has one monastery in a civitas and another civitas f o ra k i n g(pp. 54); James, Rhigyfarch's Life of Saint David, cc. 53, 62, 63, 65, pp. 2 4 , 26 f. The 'Lives' of Tatheus, Carannog and Illtud, however, use civitas f o r monastery

(VSB, pp. 274, 278; 142; 224).

7 L L ,pp. 112, 114, 116; 218.

148

149

monasteries of Llantwit and Caldey!

Gildas complained of bishops

seeking office for its own sake.? Teilo's bishop was avile

and

witnessing charters with the familia of Teilo, and no abbot, ni the early ninth century.3 The (Welsh) bishop of Ergyng was captured by the Danes in 914.4 A bishop in the Vale of Glamorgan was receivin g

and whether the interlocking spheres of influence of the monasteries simply represented control of scattered properties or some wider powers. Relationships between bishops seem to have been regulated by no

land grants in the tenth or eleventh century, as evidenced by an

ecclesiastical hierarchy: as in the early church the bishop was himself

stantial lists of episcopal obits from both south-east and south-west

bishops, with both Libiau and bishop Lunberth of St. David's c.925 (237b), the latter interceding for king Tewdwr of Brycheiniog. The

inscription at Ogmore.§ There are, moreover, incomplete but sub-

Wales. The Annals have S.t Davids' bishops through the ninth, tenth, and eleventh centuries . Llandaff and Canterbury between them preserve a south-eastern list of obits from 927 through the tenth and

eleventh centuries;?

There is therefore ample evidence from sources other than Llandaff of the existence of bishops in pre-Conquest south Wales, who seem to have occurred in well-defined regions and who do not appear to have

been ni any way subject to abbots. The terminology of ecclesiastical jurisdiction does not

parallel the Irish. The very few non-Llandaff

references to their functions suggests the exercise of administrative as well as ritual duties: Dyfrig inspected monasteries and gave

permission for monks to make journeys, as well as performing

ordinations and consecrations; a bishop visited monasteries in the

Colloquy; Herewald called synods, as well as baptising, consecrating

the

ultimate

authority.

occasional 'archbishops' to be

one

L a n d a ff charter

mentions two

found in the early Welsh church •

Elfoddw of Bangor and Nobis of St. David's - have no distinctive administrative roles: they are archbishops because they are highly honoured or chief bishops;' they are not metropolitans. The role of the bishops themselves in regulating ecclesiastical relationships

appears very limited. There si one explicit statement of the bishop's

overseeing role - princeps sub episcopo (145) - although one member

of the bishop's familia certainly maintained close connections with his

own kindred, c. 1033, despite his membership of the episcopal household (257). Nearly all synods seem to have been called to

protect the interests of the bishop himself and for no other reason. Only in the mid-tenth century were synods called to mitigate violation

ofTryleg's sanctuary and S.t Arvans sanctuary (217, 218).?

and ordaining; the Vitaemention episcopal control of foundations,

The bishoprics

and David called synods.T h e r e is therefore no reason to suppose

that monasteries housed bishops to perform ritual functionsonly,

Only

Episcopal familiae are mentioned in texts of c. 864, 870, 905, 925,

although it is quite possible that the sacerdotes who appear as heads of houses in the tenth and eleventh centuries were consecrated bishops and that there were consecrated bishops resident within some houses. There were bishops, therefore, who had a clear administrative role. This much is easy to determine; there remains the problem of whether they had precisely-defined territories, in which they had exclusive

Landavensis also produced bishops: the house of Dyfrig, with Dyfrig in

whether the powerful monasteries were subject to episcopal visitation;

the early ninth century. Though the houses may have been no different

powers of jurisdiction, and a monopoly of ecclesiastical authority;

1015, 1033, 1040, 1070.3 There si nothing to suggest that these

familiae were in essence any different from those of houses with abbots, that is, monastic houses. It may be noted that two of the prominent m o n a s t i chouses o f Liber

the early sixth century, and the house of Teilo, which hada bishop ni

1 Vita Samsonis, cc. 13, 33, 34, 43, 44, pp. 112f, 131f, 138ff.

2 Gildas, DeExcidio, cc. 65, 66, 67, pp. 156, 162, 168. 3 Lichfield marginalia, LL, p. xlvi. 4 ASC 914.

5 ECMW, no. 255, p. 160: 'dedit. . .deo et Gliguis et Nertat et Fili epi(scopo)'. 6 A C s.a. ? 8 3 1 , 840 (873), 944, 946, (964), 982, ?1025, 1040, 1066, 1071, 1076, 1078, 1083 - episcopus (in) MiniuMeneviae.

7 See Wendy Davies, 'The consecration of bishops of Llandaff in the tenth and

eleventh centuries', BBCS, xxvi (1974-6),53-73, and above, pp. 12, 22. 8 Vita Samsonis, cc. 34,3 7 , pp. 131, 133 -episcopo permittente; Early scholastic Colloquies, ed. W.H. Stevenson, 21, p. 8; LL, pp. 275 ff; see above,

pp.

147f for the 'Lives', and

cc. 49-52, pp. 214.

James,

Rhigyfarch's Life of Saint David,

Asser, .c 79, pp. 65 .f Nobis archiepiscopum; AC 809 Elbodgarchiepiscopus

Guenedote regione.Llandaff is the 'archmonastery' occasionally in LL (1276,

74).

References to Teilo, archbishop, and Dyfrig, archbishop, are unlikely t o be

original to the records, and are an effect of the very latest s t a g eo f editing

(121, 122, 127a; 72a, 74, 75, 76a, 76b, 77, 192). 2 See above, pp. 133f. The Synod of Victory and the saga of the Easter

question suggest that there were larger synods in the very earlyperiod. (HE, ii, 25, 27; Irish Penitentials, ed. L. Bieler, pp. 66-8).

3 225, 2166, 233, 2376, 249b, 257, 259, 267.

151

150

from monasteries in character and organisation, these were, in effect,

There are several clerics of mid-ninth century date who only appear

endowment rather than monastic. There were, then, episcopal houses,

ni Gwent and/or Ergyng, but this si in a period when there are no grants outside these two areas, so the distribution si hardly significant. We

episcopal familiae rather than monasteries, and their property episcopal

with significant endowments. Welsh Bicknor is actually called episcopalis

locus ni charter 72a, though ti had abbots ni the seventh century, and the phenomenon can be found elsewhere in Wales and the west.!

Even if we can identify episcopal houses, we are still left with the

problem of exclusive areas of jurisdiction and of the relationship

between the bishops of those houses and the abbots of prominent

monasteries: did these bishops have powers of control outside their own peculiar properties?

The material relevant to this problem is so fragmentary and corrupt

that it si impossible to answer the question with any degree of certainty.

However, there does seem to be a strong probability that in the south

east, at least, there were a few bishops, resident ni episcopal houses,

with a vaguely-defined territorial responsibility. There are, in fact, very few episcopal houses or bishoprics which may be noted, even on the largest count. Even fi we assume that all recipients of Llandaff charters were bishops, there are rarely two or more contemporary bishops, and

this cannot be an effect of twelfth-century manipulation, f o r the

compiler of Liber Landavensis clearly had no idea of the dates of his

charters. The so-called Landaff bishops, moreover, are never associated with the familiae of the large monastic houses; several have their own

familiae, as noticed above. Besides this, transactions appear to have drawn clerical witnesses from all over the south east: most clerics who

witnessed frequently have a pattern of appearances quite unlike that of the lay witnesses; none appear in strictly localised contexts. This is particularly noticeable in the case of the clerical families discussed

above, with people like Disaeth and Cyfeilliog who witnessed frequently.

The exceptions are:

Elwared c. 595-600 who only appears ni Brycheiniog and Gwent, ni a

group of mainly Ergyng charters;

Cyngen of Lancarfan c.665-88, Sulien of Llandough c. 665-85, Sedog c.665-85, Colfrid of Llantwit c.670-88, and ludhurb of Landough

c.680-85 who only appear in Glamorgan, except for one odd grant in Radnor;

Eluod of Llantwit .c 722-40, Dagan of Llancarfan c. 722-40, Eli c. 738-55,

and Conuoe c. 743-75 who only appear in Gwent/Ergyng;

Elguoid c.864-7 and Guinda c.890-900 who only appear in Gwent/ Ergyng.

1 Bishops live ni monasteries ni Rhigyfarch's Life of Saint David, cc. 46-8, and

Vita Sancti Paterni, c. 22 (VSB, p. 260); S t David's is also amonasterium to Asser,

might expect some of these charters merely to reflect the bishop's household, but the identification of abbots and of otherofficers in the later charters makes it clear that there are many cases in which all the

clerical witnesses cannot have been entirely supplied from the bishop's household. Meetings in which transactions were conducted, then, must often have drawn clerics - including the abbots of the major monastic houses - from the whole of the south east and this implies some disciplinary control on the p a r tof a single bishop.

There is therefore some possibility that the bishops at the head of episcopal houses had some loosely-defined territorial authority. How many such houses were there in the south east and was the number

constant? The exceptions to the witnessing pattern noted above indicate restricted areas of appearance in the seventh or eighth centuries and

therefore the possibility of divided episcopal responsibility in that

period. Consideration of the total corpus o fLandaff material suggests

some explanation, though, in the nature of the evidence, this is highly speculative.

Firstly, ti would appear that some proportion of the Landaff charters are genuine episcopal records, though not episcopal records from Llandaff. Groups A andB have records proper to the episcopal

houses of Dyfrig and Teilo; bishop Euddogwy of Group C and bishop Berthwyn of Group F are both called bishops in the Cadog charters;1 bishop Arwystyl of Group D also appears as recipient of a grant in

Group A, the records from the house of Dyfrig; bishop Cyfeilliog

of Group H appears as bishop in Ergyng ni the Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle; (bishop Lunberth of St. David's of Group H appears as

bishop of St. David's ni the Welsh Annals); bishopHerewald of Group J is recognised as bishop by Anselm;? and all the bishops ofGroup J are the bishops whose obits are recorded. Therefore, some recipients from all groups except E and G are demonstrably bishops on evidence other Asser's Life of King Alfred, ed. W.H. Stevenson, c. 79, pp. 65 .f Bishop Kenstec was e l e c t e dt o 'episcopalem sedem in monasterio quod

lingua Brettonum appellatur Dinnurrin',

883-70, Birch, no. 520,aste bishop

houses of Dyed may be a comparable institution; see T.M.Charles-Edwards,

'The seven bishop-houses of Dyed', BBCS, xxiv (1970-2), 247-62. The Welsh

Bicknor term may well be of tenth-century origin; see below, p. 165.

1 Vita Cadoci, cc. 65, 67 (VSB, pp. 132, 134). See Wendy Davies, 'Consecration o fbishops of Llandaff in the tenth and

eleventh centuries', BBCS, xxvi(1974-6), 66. 3 Ibid.

153

152

than Llandaff evidence. There must therefore be a high probability that the collections which lie behind Liber Landavensis are in fact episcopal collections; and the centres at which they were collected

episcopal houses. If the areas in which the groups of recipients received

properties are clearly exclusive of each other, then there must be some possibility that they represent exclusive episcopal territories.

This is ni fact so until about the mid-eighth century, for there appears to be a northern-oriented and a southern-oriented series of recipients/bishops. Hence, Group A, the Dyfrig group, which is

mainly composed of sixth-century grants but whose last grant was made c.860, draws most of its grants from Ergyng, with the addition of grants from Gwent Uwchcoed, Gower and Carmarthen; it avoids most of Gwent and most of modern Glamorgan. Group D, whose grants run from c.595 to 625, has grants from Ergyng only; some

must suppose, therefore, either that they reflect the competence of Teilo's bishop from the late sixth to the late eighth century - in which case episcopal territories cannot have been very clearly defined, for though Teilo may have replaced Dyfrig in Carmarthen he did not

do so in Gwent - or that they are the late, corrupt attempts of a Teilo

house to establish a suitable collection.' There is a further possible

explanation, which decreases the objections to the former point: the bishop of the south may actually be Teilo's bishop, i.e. Groups C and F may ultimately be Llandeilo collections. This suggestion is supported

by a note ni Liber Landavensis that bishop Nobis followed Cerenny (ofGroup F), while we know that a Nobis was Teilo's bishop from the Lichfield marginalia.

It is clear from a number of different sources that there was major

ecclesiastical change in the south east in the eighth/ninth centuries. Firstly, Tyrchan extended the competence of the southern bishopric to

of these are doublets of grants in Group A. There is therefore no doubt that the two groups have a distribution which is confined to one part of the south east: Ergyng and the north.

Ergyng, receiving from Ergyng, south Gwent, and the Vale. Bishop Grecielis of Group E, ni the mid-ninth century, received fromthe

Group C, the grants attached to the Vita Oudocei, runs from c. 620-722, with grants in south Gwent, Glamorgan, Gower, and Brecon. It si therefore exclusive of Ergyng and north Gwent. Group

ninth century, received from a similar area; bishop Cyfeilliog, also of group H, ni the late ninth and early tenth century • who was bishop in Ergyng in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle - received from Gwent.

Fl runs from c. 700-785. Its early grants are exclusive of Ergyng but its later ones are not: under bishop Tyrchan competence clearl

extended to Ergyng, round about750. The last of the group, Cadwared, only received grants in Gwent. Until c. 750, when there was a change, t h esphere of the centres collecting groups C and F was therefore

confined to southern parts of the south east.

whole of Gwent and Ergyng; bishop Nudd, of Group H, in the late

By the late ninth century the orientation had changed from Ergyng with north Gwent (as opposed to south Gwent with Glamorgan) to

Ergyng with the whole o f Gwent. Secondly, there is a major hiatus ni the records from c. 785-850; and the last grant from Group A was made c.860 and from Group B c.785: the house of Dyfrig stopped collecting in the mid-ninth century and the house of Teilo in the late

Groups A and D both presumably pertained to the house of Dyfrig. Since we know that the house of Dyfrig appears to have become restricted in its sphere of operations in or shortly after the late sixth century,' we may assume that Dyfrig's bishop once had relatively

wide powers, which were soon confined to north Gwent and Ergyng

Since Welsh Bicknor is called episcopalis locus and continued as a

prominent house till c.866, ti may well be the actual house of Dyfrig We do not know the principal seat of the other - southern - putative

bishopric. However, Group B represents the few charters attached to

eighth. Thirdly, the community and episcopal role of Landeilo Fawr

appear to have been displaced by the late tenth century: the Gospels found their way to Lichfield; Landeilo Fawr seems to have lost all episcopal pretensions in the central medieval period - there are no such hints in the Vitae; when the Liber Landavensis charter titles were

written, Llandeilo Bertholau ni Gwent, not Landeilo Faw, was called Lanfawr (the great monastery) among Teilo houses; and Landaff itself was clearly Teilo's house by the early eleventh century.? At some

the Vita Teliaui and Teilo's house, Landeilo Faw, was certainly

1Arwystyl, the second clerical witness o f 121 and 122, si bishop and recipient ni charters 736/163a, 166(Groups A and D), i.e. he wasa tsome

c. 500-785; they are distributed in north Gwent, Carmarthen, and the

another bishop present at the transaction.

episcopal in the early ninth century. The charters of Group B run from south

west, a distribution

not

dissimilar

to

that

of the Teilo

dedications. Most of these charters are, however, very suspect. W e

1 See above, pp. 144f.

use te waaslater sence:hwas sty preTeilo unizi anishila. "Then there si us problemini teIf,alyhowever,

insertion, as Dyfrig si ni some charters (see above p. 17 and below, pp. 165),

then these grants must have been made to Arwystyl, i.e. to the house of Dyfrig,

but collected somewhere else, presumably a Teilohousein Gwent, for some undivinable reason. I can see no w a yof resolving this problem.

2 See M. Richards, The "Lichfield" Gospels (Book of "Saint Chad"', Nat.

155

154

stage between the early ninth century, when episcopus Teilo was

Herewald. Since Cyfeilliog si the first of the tenth/eleventh-century obit series, but also the last of the Ergyng bishops, the move to

were removed, Landeilo Fawr lost its bishop. Fourthly, the assimilation of Groups DEF appears to have been made between the late

Gwent

witnessing charters, and the late tenth,

by which time the Gospels

ninth and late tenth centuries, before their own assimilation to G H J

Fifthly, Ergyng disappears from therecords after the mid-ninth century.

A number of possibilities suggest themselves. In the early sixth cen-

tury, on the evidence of the Vita Samsons, Dyfrig appears to have been exercising episcopal functions all over the south east, and as far west as Caldey. The simplest explanation of the subsequent develop-

ment si that there were two episcopal houses, of Dyfrig and Teilo,

from the late sixth to the late eighth centuries, each with a roughly defined exclusive competence, the former in north Gwent and Ergyng

the latter in south Gwent and Glamorgan! In the ninth century the areas became confused, and eventually the Ergyng bishopric took over the whole of Gwent. Nudd and Cerennyr were contemporaries in the mid-ninth century, Nudd in Gwent and Ergyng, Cerennyr in Gwent and the Vale. In the ninth or early tenth century both episcopal houses

changed: the community andrecords of Landeilo dispersed; the Ergyng

bishop moved to Gwent. fI Groups C and F are Llandeilo groups, the Llandeilo dispersal must have been after c.862/72, the period of Cerennyr, the last bishop of group F. The Ergyng move may have been later: Welsh Bicknor si noticed up till c. 866 but Cyfeilliog was still called bishop ni Ergyng ni 914. The move may even have been occasioned by his capture in that year. It might have been made to Landogo

- a place where bishop Gulbrit called a synod ni c. 942, miles away from the land granted, and associated with the early bishop Euddogwy

though there was an abbot

may - again • have been associated with his episcopate. Tenth-century evidence is very slender but there is nothing to suggest

there was more than one episcopal house.!

That house may well

have been Llandogo: there are no other obvious candidates. The situation becomes clearer in the eleventh century. Everything combines to suggest that Landaff was adopted as the new home of the Gwent bishopric in the late tenth or early eleventh century: the f area bishops began to receive massive endowments in the Llandaf

and Glamorgan under Joseph, especially c. 1030/40; Llandaff had become the house of Teilo by the 1030s; and there was a new concentration on the authority of Teilo.? There is obvious change: there was

a meeting at Llandaff c. 1015, and canons of Landaff from c. 1020;

RhydderchconJoseph was consecrated with English approval;3 c. 1025main business of

firmed all possessions with great pomp; and the

collecting charters began, perhaps about 1040. Llandaff had become

the seat of a single bishopric with competence in the south east, and

had contrived to appropriate the dormant episcopal traditions of the house of Teilo.

The establishment of a single bishopric in the south east, based on

Llandaff, seems to date essentially from the episcopate of Joseph. There

are clearly wider contacts from his time onwards, and some tendencies Joseph was dean and towards stricter diocesan developments:

presbyter c. 1020 and Herewald, at least, had archdeacons.^ The

bishops may have found their way to Landaff before this date but the

of L a n d o g o in 942. The only other

evidence is too thin to be at all certain: there was already a monastery

a house of some

of Teilo, and a place on the river Taf with episcopal associations,in 955 (218); and Gwgon may have been consecrated in the English

possibility would seem to be St. Maughan's,

prominence in the area, twice attacked in the eleventh century.

The list of obits records dates of bishops from 927. These bishops also have charters recorded in Liber Landavensis: their sphere of

court c.963,

thereby implying change and reorganisation, perhaps

associated with king Morgan. What is absolutely clear, however, si the obvious development under Joseph and the persistence of the

operation was confined to Gwent ni the tenth century, but extended to Glamorgan ni the eleventh century, with bishops Joseph and

Teilo association from that date.

Lib. Wales Journ., xvii (1973), 135-46and G. Jones, 'Post-RomanWales', in The Agrarian

1 Except for Libiau, in Brecon and Gower. 2 See above, pp. 21 .f 3 See Wendy Davies, art. cit.,p .2 0 , n

History, ed. H.P.R. Finberg, i, parti ,p p .308-20, o nthe identification of the Lichfield marginalia lands (i.e. Teilo lands) in Carmarthen;

the Lichfield Gospels haveLlandeilo marginalia of the eighthand ninth centuries, but Lichfield marginalia of the late tentha n deleventh centuries and reference to bishop Wynsi of Lichfield, 974.92. LL 122: Lann maur id est Lann Teliau Porth

Halauc. For Llandaff in the eleventh century, seeabove. pp. 21f.

1 T h e range of Tyrchan's activities in the mid-eighth century is undoubtedly different from those o f his predecessors, but the number of examples are very few and inadequate as a basis for suggestingany major change.

.2 aboveT h e record of Joseph's

consecration isgarbled ni LL: the date is given as 1022, in the first yearo fthe

decennoval cycle; the first year of the cycle was, in fact, 1026. We shouldthere-

fore either emend 1022 to 1026, and place Joseph'sepiscopate from 1026-

49/50, or e m e n d the year of the cycle to 16. The A.D. date has been used in this work, though there are equally good arguments for preferring the year

of the cycle.

4 269, 271, 274; Herewald seems to have been consecrated by the archbishop

of York, see art. cit., n.3 above.

156

157

The means by which Landaff came to appropriate the Teilo tradition are hard to divine, but there is some reason to think that the house of Llancarfan was instrumental. Cadog si unusual among Welsh saints in that his 'Life' claims jurisdiction for the abbot

of Llancarfan.

This si quite outside the normal pattern of south

Welsh saints' 'Lives' which • as pointed out above - normally stress

episcopal jurisdiction. There is, moreover, a curious comment ni

charter 243 that the abbot of Llancarfan should always be worthy

of episcopal honour, c.980, though there si never any evidence to

suggest thatthe head of the houseat Lancarfan was a bishop; ni both

the Vita Cadoci and the Llandaff charters abbots of Llancarfan always have a separate familia from the bishop. We have already seen that connectio ns between Lancarfan and Landaff were particularly close

ni the eleventh century, and I have suggested above that Llancarfan si

the source of the collections C and F. It therefore seems at least possible

that when the community of Llandeilo was scattered, the archive was too, and that some charter material, and presumably some people, ended up at Llancarfan. We might suppose that, as a consequence, Llancarfan herself laid claims to jurisdiction exercised by the bishops of Teilo, and carefully preserved the archive material, without be. coming a bishop's seat. Much of the episcopal property must

inevitably have been lost, and that in the south west was soon claimed

by the other episcopal see of Dewi; the bishop of St. David's appears in one Llandaff charter c.925 in Brecon (237b), and there is explicit

reference to Teilo properties in the diocese of St. David's .c 1025 and

c. 1060 (253, 269). When the seat of the w e n t bishopric was removed

to Llandaff t o become the exclusive south-eastern see, both archive and jurisdiction were once more transferred, though the circumstances whichmade this possible are difficult to reconstruct. They are probably a combination of personal connections and political flight.

The fact that the bishoprics of the south east seem to jump around is at first sight disturbing, but it is not of course impossible over a

period of 500 years; changes of see are, after all, recorded ni the 1 Vita Cadoci, c. 37 (VSB, p. 104) 'Hoc uobis in nomine Domini iubeo,

quatinusnullus mundanus potens rex, neque episcopus, nec optimas,de aliqua controuer sias e u iniuria super o s umquam diudicet. Sed, si quispiam uobis quotlibet nefas irrogauerit, siue quilibet uestrum alium iniuriauerit, uel in qualibetalia causa que quoquomodo super u s dicatur,ex uobismetipsis iudices uestri fiant.

better-documented course of early English history. The reasons for the

moves must be essentially political. The origin of the Ergyng bishopric is maddeningly obscure:

the geographical proximity of Welsh Bicknor

and the Roman town of Ariconium, the source of the name Ergyng,

suggests the transfer of some late Roman see - though why Ariconium

should have had a bishopric is yet another problem. It is not im-

possible, however, that there si some Roman origin here. The competence of the Ergyng bishopric was confined essentially because of the rise of Llandeilo. This house emerged in a period approximately contemporary with the emergence of Meurig's dynasty and it had a similar West Glamorgan focus: there may be a direct connection. Welsh Bicknor must have relinquished its bishop to ?Llandogo,

c.900, because Ergyng was lost to the Welsh kings, and the bishop of Hereford took over. The border was clearly very unsettled in the

early tenth century and further subject to English pressure. Landogo is a preferable candidate as episcopal house since it is the Euddogwy connection which was stressed by Llandaff in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. The end of Landeilo Fawr is a difficult and much

discussed problem.'

There were considerable political upheavals from

the late ninth century: Hyfaidd of Dyed attacked St. David's c. 870

and expelled its bishop; Rhodri of Gwynedd took over Seisyllwg c.871, and Hywel did so c.904; half a century later, Gower, once south-eastern territory, became irretrievably south-western, and the realignment of political boundaries put Landeilo F a r into the

south-western rather than south-eastern orbit? The course of one of these attacks clearly broke any connection between Llandeilo and

the kings of Glywysing, and this may have been the reason for its end. There may or may not have been bishops operating in the ecclesiastical

vacuum left ni Glamorgan. Lastly, the move from ?Llandogo to Llandaff may well have been connected with Morgan and the establish-

ment of Morgannwg: he might have fled from a Gwent full of intrusive dynasties to establish a new religious centre which could both be fully under his control and revive the old competence of the Landeilo bishopric.

It would be attractive to suppose that bishoprics consistently went

with kingdoms, as si the supposition of the late writer of the Euddogwy 'Life'

"diuidente Tyui duos episcopatus sicut diuidebat duo regna,

Locus autem iudicii sub umbra Corili mei sit, quam iuxta

monasterium ipsemet plantaui, detquereus suum pignus iudicio recto stare in

abbatis manu

in tempore iuditi. Abbas uero super aram illud ponat, et

iudicent u e r i t a t e m s e c u n d u m u e r a m sinodi rationem, et seriem iudic ialis libri mei, quem ego scripsi. Chapters 16, 22, 33, 34 are, in effect, claims

o f jurisdiction.

1 See Richards,art. cit., p. 153 n 2 above, for a recent discussion. 2 Asser, c. 79, pp. 65 f; see also above, pp. 100£.

3 Perhaps Cerennyr, Libiau, Gulbrit, and the bishop on the Ogmore stone

(above, p. 148 n. 5).

158

159

Mourici exista parte, Catgucauni ex alia' (p. 133)' - and of charter

253. The continuing Ergyng and Landeilo bishoprics do not conform

to any political divisions; both bishops received from the several

contemporary kings of the ninth century; the Gwent bishopric ni the tenth century occasionally seems to have conformed to the confines of the new Gwent dynasties, but most bishops also received from the

Glywysing kings; in the eleventh century there was absolutely no

correlation between the Llandaff bishopric and the miscellaneous and complex kingdoms of the south east.

Much of the above is inevitably speculative, for the evidence si undoubtedly inadequate. I have suggested a Welsh Bicknor bishopric

from c.500 (or before) moving to ?Landogo c.900 and Landaff

?c.950/1020; another southeastern bishopricc.590-890, possibly centred on the episcopal house of Landeilo, revived at Llandaff by c. 1020: and if not centred on Llandeilo, then a third there in the late sixth to the early ninth century. The sources of groups of charters would then

type of episcopal system, subject to no higher metropolitan authority.

The principal seats of such bishoprics were communities which cannot

have been distinguishable from those of the larger monasteries; even late Llandaff interpolations refer to Landaff as archmonastery (74,

127b) and charters 144 and 214 have Llandaff as monastery not cathedral. Members of that familia must have accompanied the

bishop on his travels, as is explicit ni some of the clerical witness lists.

The bishoprics were supported by the renders and income from scattered properties, as were the larger monasteries and, as in the case

of the kings, the render was often f o rconsumption: Caradog ate up the

bishop's conuiuium prepared at S.t Maughan's c. 1072 (272).' The

church was therefore indubitably monastic but ultimate powers of direction seem to have lain in the hands of bishops, and those powers were exercised for much of the pre-Conquest period within exclusive territories.

have been as follows: groups A, D, and E originally from Welsh Bicknor, with

A not

discovered and copied till the late eleventh/

twelfth century and D and E copied by ?Llancarfan in or after the

late ninth century; groups C and F originally from ?Llandeilo, copied

by Llancarfan in or after the late ninth century; group B, ?from a

Teilo house in Gwent, not copied till the late eleventh/twelfth century; group H from Welsh Bicknor, collected at ?Llandogo in the

early tenth century; group G from ?Llandogo, collected at Llandaff in the early eleventh century; group I from Llandaff continuously from c. 1040.

There remain many serious problems, not least among them the source of Group B . There is enough to indicate, however, whatever the truth of these suggestions, that there were bishops with what was essentially a territorially-defined competence in the south east through-

out the period covered by the charters. It was clearly flexible, and the authority of Ergyng and Teilo bishoprics undoubtedly overlapped in some areas of w e n t between the sixth and ninth centuries. The bishoprics do not really therefore approximate to dioceses and there is

no suggestion of diocesan apparatus until the reconstitution of Llandaff in the early eleventh century. They represent an alternative and looser 1 , The Cadwgon mentioned here was presumably Cadwgon ap Cathen of Dyfed, w h omust havebeen an approximate contemporary o f Meurig ap Tewdrig (Harley MS. 3859, no. 2 ) .This i sa curious scrap o f entirely consistent, credible, information in a very late 'Life'. Cf. Vita Sancti P a t e r n i .c.

30. which

implies a correlation between thedioceses of Padarn,David, and Teilo and the Kingdoms ofSeisyllwg, Rheinwg, and Morgannwg (VSB, p. 266).

1 Cf. 184,2376; and theColloquy,i n whichthecommunityconstantlymoved

Stevenson, in. If measl prepared ofr it, Early Scholastic Coloquies, ed. Wi.l

161

POSTSCRIPT

Wales with a significant concentration of villa sites. It is reasonable to

assume, therefore, some large-scale agricultural production for distribuLAND, STATE, AND CHURCH

The charters of Liber Landavensis are a curious collection, which cannot

but be termed corrupt by anyone's standards. They are even more

curious, however, for - although corrupt - they undoubtedly derive from early material whose content can be perceived after rigorous and

systematic analysis. The very peculiar nature of their present form is not

to be explained as the rather unintelligent invention of twelfth-century

clerks at Llandaff, but as the effects of collecting at different episcopal centres over a long period; collections tend to have been made when new episcopal houses were established or when episcopal claims were extended: collecting involved copying, and copying meant both corruption and embellishment. Their present form is therefore by no means an arbitrary thing.

The questions which are always asked of this material are very largely

unanswerable: we do not know much about the relationship between

the church of early medieval Wales and the late Roman church; we can make some comments about the role of bishops in that church. but

these depend on the evidence of non-Llandaff material; we can attempt an explanation of the origin of the bishopric of Llandaff, but the complex history ofearly episcopal interests which lies behind it can only be sketched in a most tentative manner. The evidence is inadequate for

this purpose and we delude ourselves if we imagine otherwise. It is reasonable, however, to suppose that Landaff was a bishop's see from the early eleventh century, absorbing the traditions of earlier episcopal

houses;and we may point quite confidently to the existence of monastic federations but also to episcopal direction, even fi we cannot always define episcopal roles precisely.

Despite these unanswerable, or only partly answerable, questions, the

charters are a rich and valuable source fi other questions are asked;what they reveal about the early medieval society of the south east is at first

sight surprising but, on reflection, entirely credible in the contextof late Roman and early medieval Europe. Wales h a sa Roman background, and shared a common culture and political system with much of continental

Europe at earlier stages of its history. Its early medieval development reveals a pattern of gradual devolution from late Roman society and is as valuable a comment on post-Roman problems as is that of other parts

of the erstwhile Empire. The high

agricultural potential of south-east Wales was clearly

exploited in the Roman period, for the south east is the one area of

tion. In this the south east was almost certainly distinct from the rest of Wales. There si absolutely nothing to suggest any change in the fact of

agricultural exploitation ni the south east after the Roman period: at no

time for which we have evidence is there the slightest suggestion of reversion to any simple subsistence economy, and there is every suggestion that much of the land was worked as large estates and worked by a politically and economically dependent population, ultimately

controlled by a small aristocracy, of which the early kings were but more ambitious members. The Llandaff charter material provides quite explicit evidence of

major changes in the nature of property transactions in the course of the

eighth century: not only did more land change hands but non-royal individuals began to grant land to the church, and from then until the Conquest grants made by the non-royal laity exceeded those made by kings in the unusual proportion of about two to one. There were, more-

over, changes in the nature of the grants themselves, both in size and in structure, subsequent to the changes ni donation practice, and there si

some explicit evidence of the fragmentation of estates. Changes in structure may well have accompanied social and tenurial change, for it is the estate centred on the single settlement (religious and secular) which came to predominate, and this in itself may imply some change in the relationship between owner and worker. Whatever the truth of the

latter point, it si these changes in structure which appear to have

determined the subsequent and extant settlement pattern. This i snot all. In the following centuries other changes are apparent: reference to assemblies and meetings of elders decrease, while aristocratic behaviour became as lawless and self-interested as the actions of kings; at the same time the hold of clerical families on office and on church property becomes very apparent, and religious houses seem to have taken on a predominantly secular character. Ultimately, aristocratic pretensions found their expression in the establishment of new kingships: Now ap

Gwriad and his line in Gwent from c.950, Edwin ni the early eleventh eleventh century, and Rhydderch ap lestyn and his line from the early century, the latter calling themselves kings of Morgannwg. By the

eleventh century there was realconfusion in the political terminology as well as in the powers and limits of kingship - and little to modify a picture of manifest political chaos and a suspicion of widespread social chaos. Though kings had always treated the kingship as property, and seem to have exercised little governmental function in the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, at least in that period there had been local assemblies who appear to have administered standard legal procedures

162

163

and to have been responsible for the local regulation of society. It is quite clear that the members of these assemblies were the local

propertied families, an independent aristocracy who did not owe their social and economic position to the king. Until the eighth century, therefore, social relationships had been regulated, but regulated apart

from the king; ni the later ninth century that earlier modicum of self. regulated social stability began to collapse. By the tenth century however, the increasing political power of the bishops in synodis apparent, and insofar as we have evidence of judgements made and penalties imposed, bishops had a powerful role. This increasing power of bishops had its ultimate expression in the establishment of the single bishopric of Landaff - ni many ways a more successful monarchy than

that achieved by any kingship - although that too was ultimately defeated by the anarchic behaviour of the eleventh-century aristocracy.

The questions which an analysis of the Landaff charter material poses are very simple: to what extent was this major social upheaval in the life of the south east in the early medieval period attributable to

changes in the practice of donation in the eighth century; and to what

extent, and in what way, was the Christian church responsible? It is

clear that before the eighth century only the kings had powers of perpetual endowment, of alienating land: either they had an interest in all land so that outright ownership (dominium) was impossible for the private individual, or land was not normally alienable and needed the

special powers of kingship to supersede its inalienability. As I have

argued elsewhere, the latter explanation is much more credible in the case of south-east Wales and it is worth noting that land normally

remained inalienable outside the kindred in Welsh law of a later period. Now, alienation appears to have become increasingly difficult ni the

late Empire and restrictions on alienation only became rescindable by

direct imperial action, even where private property was concerned. This

presumably applied in the Roman provinces of Britain - and therefore in

Wales - as much as elsewhere. If so, then the unique capacity of early

Welsh kings to alienate property is best explained by their assumption of quasi-imperial powers in order to release their own lands - and the eventual evocation o f quasi imperial consent to n o n - r o y a lalienation. In

this, of course, their actions belong in the context o fother post-Roman western kingships, both English and Continental, and it implies the

assumption of such powers in some late fifth- or early sixth-century context. This is entirely consistent with known and well-documented developments in Britain and on the Continent.

It is not until the eighth century that there is much to suggest any large-scale drive by the non-royal laity to endow religious foundations

in south-east Wales, but at that point it becomes very apparent. The

Llandaff material suggests the explicit acquisition of once-royal land by the laity - by purchase and tenancies - for the specific purpose of alienation, a process which eventually led the way to much freer donation of inherited lands. This must have led to the fragmentation of

blocks of land, the increase of mobility, and the destruction of economic increase in commercial

cooperation. The lack of any significant processes -

and of any notable trend towards urbanisation -

would

itself indicate no increase in productive capacity, no intensification of economic exploitation. Such changes would go some way to explaining

the determining change ni settlement pattern and the social and

political chaos of the later period, a chaos which occurred when the landed possessions of the kingship (which had no tradition of government anyway) were too depleted to allow for the development of any

alternative system.

There is much in the Llandaff material to suggest

that the church, because of heavy endowment in the eighth century, reached a position of potentially-significant political power, and that in the chaos which was apparent in the tenth century it began to use that

power to play a major social and political role in the locality. Though

Liber Landavensis makes wildly excessive claims for the powers o f its

bishops in the early period, it is the precise and detailed process whereby

meetings were called, injury and compensation assessed, and such judgements enforced, i n the tenth and early eleventh centuries, which finally emerges as the credible side of later episcopal pretensions. Insofar as governmental functions were exercised between about 900 and 1050, they seem to have been exercised by the church. The Landaff material makes certain aspects of socialand economic change very clear in the pre-Conquest period. It raises, of course, more

questions than it answers and explanations for the phenomena will remain arguable for some time. It must raise the question of the status

of native law within the provinces in the late Empire, of the means by which the early kingships were established, of the strength of the Christian mission in the seventh and eighth centuries, of the increasing role and strength of the kindred in the later period, and of the significance of changes in donation practice. In the end, however, it is clear that the Welsh way of treating the Roman legacy began much as did the English and the Continental; but it diverged at an ever-increasing rate once the European change in political and religious relationships which did not touch the extreme west eighth and early ninth century.

had taken place in the later

165

APPENDIX CALENDAR OF CHARTERS

It is the purpose of this appendix to summarise the credible content of each charter and to indicate corruptions over and above the standard editorial additions. In most cases, the text of the original charters is clear, since the added formulae only rarely disturb the original syntax The credible content of each charter is therefore derived from this

original. Where no original si apparent, such si stated, but a summary of the record is included for ease of reference.

All charters which are at all dubious are marked by an asterisk; these

are

discussed

Charters.

in detail

Detectable

ni

copying

my

errors

forthcoming have

not

The ni

Llandaff themselves

been considere d sufficient reason to doubt the charter texts, nor has

the addition of the patron saints to the witness lists. The latter is common procedure in the early medieval period and does not

necessarily mean that the scribe wished to imply the living, physical presence of the saint. Doubts about the charters arise from the relatively-minor issue of a few interpolated witnesses in an otherwise

credible charter to total falsification. The single asterisk therefore

encompasses many degrees ofcorruption and it is important to consider

the nature of this corruption before dismissing any piece of evidence. nI Group A, for example, charters like 72a, 76a and 77 have corrupt

the reason for the grant, without embellishment, as still survives in a charter like 235a. The presence of a Narration is therefore not in itself a reason for disbelieving the transactions which ensue; in nearly all cases it is followed by a detectable charter form, with witness list. Lastly, one must needs remember that these comments pertain to

the authenticity of the records: however genuine the record might be,

we have no guarantee of the veracity of its content unless we have corroborative evidence. We are therefore dealing with probabilities rather than absolutes.

nI the following pages I give, under each entry, the charter number

firstly according to the pages of Evans's edition and secondly (in brackets) consecutively, followed by a letter indicating the editorial group. There follows a summary of essential content; modern place-

name and grid reference; date; and indication of the existence of a

boundary clause where appropriate. Where there is no indication of size within the charter, but the bounds are locatable, the figure in brackets denotes a very approximate acreage. *72a (1) A

King Peibio gave Mainaur Garth Benni to archbishop Dyfrig and his(suo) cousin Inabwy, and held a charter (grafium) that it be a house of prayer. and an episcopal place (episcopalis locus) for ever; three disciples were

witness lists, but nevertheless seem to depend on some early record. Several charters have no witness lists: since the presence of witnesses

left there and (Dyfrig) consecrated the church; (title: Lann Custenhinngarthbenni), Welsh Bicknor, SO 593177;c.575.The clerical witness list

was apparently of great significance ni transactions, the omission si in itself a serious objection, and has the added disadvantage of excepting

much of this charter owes its origin to the time o fcompilation o f Group

such charters from the deduced sequences. Although, therefore, the transactions recorded ni such documents may well have taken place, their veracity - short of the discovery of corroborative evidence - is quite undemonstrable, and the record of the transaction is unlikely to

is highly suspect and so are many parts of the text; it is possible that

A but that an original brief record of Peibio's gift to Inabwy, with

witness list reading from lunapius (sic) onwards, lies behind the ninthor tenth-century amplification.

726 (2) A

derive from an early charter.

King Peibio gave Lann Cerniu with an uncia of land to (Dyfrig);

Those charters which have long Narrations need especial attention It has been argued above that some Narrations are of standard type and

Dorstone, SO 315418; c.580; bounds. The grant was presumably made

to Dyfrig's church rather than his person; there are errors of transcrip-

appear to have been composed between the late ninth and early

tion in the clerical witness list.

eleventh century, and embellished further subsequently. SomeNarra-

73a (3) A King Peibio gave podum Junabui with an uncia of land to (Dyfrig); Llandinabo, SO 519285;c.585; bounds. The grant was presumably made to Dyfrig's church rather than his person; there are errors of

tions, particularly those of the tenth and early eleventh centuries, are clearly pre-Landaff records since they preserve stories not in Llandaff's

interest; whether or not we believe them, those stories must arise from

early records. Others seem to be lengthy embellishments on a single idea; in many cases there is no real reason to doubt that that single idea

may have been a part ofthe original charter, a phrase or two expressing

transcription in the lay witness list. 73b (4) A

Cinuin and Gwyddgi gave three unciae of land (at) Cum Barruc to

167

166

(Dyfrig); Valley Dore, SO 33; c.595; bounds; doublet of 163a. The grant was presumably made to Dyfrig's church rather than his person; there are errors of transcription in the lay witness list.

*123 (12) B

King Iddon gave three modi of land around the mound in the middle of Crissinic to saint Teilo, in thanks for his reversal of the Saxons;

Llandeilo Gresynni, SO 399149; c.600; bounds and a list of Teilo

74 (5) A

Britcon and Iliuc gave Lann Mocha to (archbishop Dyfrig) with the

consent of king Meurig, together with the gift of Caradog and Cincu,

Maughat,50564170.

sons of Guoleiduc; St. Maughan's, SO 461171; c.860; bounds; doublet of part of 171b. The grant was presumably made to Dyfrig's church rather than his person - the doublet has Grecielis as recipient; there are errors o f transcription in the clerical witness list.

*75 (6) A

King Erb gave a tellus called Cil Hal to (archbishop Dyfrig);? Pencoed, SO 517266; c.555; bounds. The clerical witness list is corrupt and the text almost entirely composed of editors' formulae.

churches. This narrative has no witness list and nothing to suggest an

original charter at its base. *125a ( 1 3 ) B

King Maredudd gave Mainaur Brunus, Telichclouman, and Trem Canus

to saint Teilo; Llanegwad, near Landeilo Fawr, and ,? SN 494204,

SN 6322, ?; ?c.785. This record has no witness list and nothing to

suggest an original charter at its base. It is uncertain if Maredudd ap

Rhain o f Dyfed is in error for the well-known Maredudd ap Tewdws ap

Rhain of Dyfed who died in 796; no Maredudd ap Rhain is known. *125b (14) B

King Peibio gave four unciae of land (at) Conloc to (archbishop Dyfrig);

King Aergol gave three uillae, i.e. Tref Car, Laith ty Teliau, and Menechi, to saint Teilo; all near Tenby, SN 1300; c.500; bounds. This narrative has editors' formulae and a rudimentary witness list added to

(title: Tir Conloc), Madley, SO 420388; c.575. The lay witness list includes heredes Conloc, Congual. . . The clerical witness list is corrupt,

it, but there is no reason to suppose that any original c h a r t e rlies at its base.

*76a (7) A

and lay witness list has errors in transcription.

*76b (8) A Guorduc gave his daughter Dulon and four modi of land to (archbishop

Dyfrig), ni the time of king Merchwyn; (title: Porth Tvlon), Bishopston,

SS 578893; c.605. The tale is suspiciously eponymous and there is little in the text to suggest any original charter at i t sbase. #77 (9) A

Nowy gave terra Pennalun with its territorium, and Lann Maur with its two territoria, and territorium aquilentium super ripam Tam fluminis

to (archbishop Dyfrig); Penally, Landeilo Fawr, and Llanddowror, SS 118992, SN 630223, SN 255147; c.625; bounds of ?Landdowror and Landeilo Fawr (6000ac.). The text is almost entirely composed of editors' formulae and the clerical witness list is a corrupt conflation of two others.

121 ( 1 0 ) B

King Iddon gave Lanngarth and its territorium, previously owned by Dyfrig, to (archbishop) Teilo; Llan-arth, SO 376109; c.600; bounds. 122 (11) B

King Iddon gave Lann maur, ie. Lann Teliau Port Halauc, with its territorium, to (archbishop) Teilo; Landeilo Bertholau, SO 311163; c.600; bounds (900 ac.).

#127a (15) B

Tudwg gave himself and his progeny and his two uillae Ciltutuc and

Penclecir, to saint Teilo, with king Aergol's consent; both near Tenby, SN 1300; c.500; bounds. This record combines the story of the martyrdom of Typhei with that of the eponymous origins of Ciltutuc. There is nothing to suggest an original charter and it is impossible to determine whether or not attached to the record.

the lay

witness list has been correctly

*127b (16) B

The seven sons of Cynguaiu gave their terra of Mathru and Cenarth Maur, with the consent of king Aergol, to saint Teilo; Mathri and

Cenarth, SM 879320 and SN 2641; c.500. This is a conglomeration of traditions about places in west Wales, and has no witness list.

140 (17) C King Meurig and his wife Onbraust gave three modi of land (at) Cilcyuhynn and six modii (at) Conuoy, i.e. Lann Gemei, and returned

Lan Teliau Talypont, to bishop Euddogwy; Gower, and Landeilo

Tal-y-bont, SN 6004; c.655; bounds of Lann Gemei and Landeilo Tal-y-bont (4000ac.).

*141 (18) C

Meurig gave king Tewdrig's territorium to bishop Euddogwy; Matharn,

168

169

ST 523909; c.620; bounds (525ac.). This narrative has no witness list and nothing to suggest an original charter at its base; the place is not named, but the bounds are of Matharn.

143 (19) C King Meurig gave ecclesia Guruid with its tellus to bishop Euddogwy with the consent and gift of the heres Liliau; ?Howick, ST 502955 c.660; bounds. 144 (20) C

Athwys, under his father king Meurig, awarded the ager, which

formerly belonged to Dyfrig, consisting of podumcella Cyngualan with its tellus, cella Arthuodu and Conguri, and Penncreic, to bishop Euddogwy in his dispute with the abbot of Lantwit; ?Rhosili, ?Pennard,

?Llanrhidian or Bishopston, SS 417880, SS 567887, SS 497922 or SS 578894; c.650; bounds of Lann Cyngualan. There are errors of

transcription in the lay witness list. 145 (21) C

King Morgan returned ecclesia Cyngur Trosgardi, with its territorium, which formerly belonged to Teilo, to bishop Euddogwy, together with

Merguald, princeps of the church (title: Lann Merguall); Bishopston, SS 578894; c.695; bounds. There are errors of transcription in the clerical witness list.

149 (25) C

King Morgan gave podum Liuhesi to bishop Euddogwy; Lowes,

SO 193418; c.680. 150a (26) C

King Meurig (recte Morgan ?) together with Iddig ap Nudd, hereditarius, gave ager Porthcassec; with its two weirs, to bishop Euddogwy;

Porthcaseg, ST 524981; c.693. The text reads 'Meurig' but the witness list 'Morgan'; the list includes knownassociates of Morgan. 150b (27) C

Kings Iddig ap Nudd and Cynan ap Cynfedw gave ager Redoc and ager Hiernin to bishop (Euddogwy); ?Lanegwad, SN 519214; c.690. Euddogwy appears in the witness list but not in the text. #151a (28) C

Bishop Euddogwy received Villa Greguri, called Coupalua, i.e. Penny-

porth, with its ager of three modi, from Gwyddien ap Brochfael; Gabalfa, ST 165784; c.680. The witness lists and text are suspicious, and 159b records a different donor of Gabalfa. Similarities in the form of 151a and 159b suggest that the two charters derive from one original record recounting the grant of Gabalfa by Gwydden and his son Brochfael, and of more land near Llandaff by the son shortly after.

151b (29) C

King Morgan gave Villa Lath to bishop Euddogwy; ?; c.675. There are

*146 (22) C

errors of transcription in the lay witness list.

King Awst and his sons Eiludd and Rhiwallon gave Lann Cors, with its territorium, to bishop Euddogwy; Llan-gors, SO 135276; c.720; bounds (over 1000ac.). The witness lists appear to have been appropriated and the text has a very high proportion of editors' formulae; cf. 154.

King Morgan confirmed the freedom of Lancarfan, Llantwit, and

147 (23) C

King Meurig gave four villas - Riugraenauc, Nantauan, in qua occisus

est Cynuetu ultra Nadauan, trans Nadauan ubi filius regis mechatus

est. . .i.e. uilla Gurberdh -

to bishop Euddogwy, ni penance for the

murder of Cynfedw, 24 modi altogether; near Llansanwyr, SS 994775; c.665; bounds of Villa Gurberdh and Riugraenauc. The record is preceded by a Narration, of standard type, recounting Meurig's murder; it is unlikely to be original to the record.

*148 (24) C

KingMorgan, together with the hereditarius Gurhytyr, gave Villa Guilbiu to bishop Euddogwy; near the river Thaw,Vale of Glamorgan; c.688; bounds. There is corruption in the clerical witness list.

#152 (30) C

Llandough from royal exactions, in penance for the murder o f his uncle

Friog; c.670. This is a composite document containing, at the least, a

witness list of c.670, some record of seventh- to late tenth-century origin about the freedom of the three monasteries, a standard Narration about perjury and penance, and a set of Llandaff interpolations. It is impossible to determine fi any part of it were originally associated with the witness list.

*154 (31) C

King Awst and his sons Eiludd and Rhiwallon returned Lannguruaet with its territorium, which previously belonged to Dyfrig and Teilo, to

bishop Euddogwy; Landeilo'r fan, SN 896347; c.720; bounds (3500ac.).

The witness list is appropriated and the text almost entirelycomposed of editors' formulae; cf. 146. 155 (32) C

King Morgan gave Lann Cincirill and ager Cynfall to bishop Euddogwy,

171

170

for the soul of Friog; ?; c.675; bounds.

bounds. The lay witness list has errors of transcription.

156 ( 3 3 ) C

1 6 3 a(42) D

King Morgan returned Lannenniaun, glossed Lannoudocui, with its four

King Cinuin and his brother Gwyddgi returned three unciae of land(at) Cumbarruc to bishop Elgistus =( Arwystl); Valley Dore, SO 33; c.595; doublet of 73b; The first clerical witness and receiving bishop is called Elgistus/-il, though the doublet has Arguistil; the latter is receiving bishop in 166, a grant o fapproximately the same time.

weirs, to bishop Euddogwy; Landogo, SO 527041; c.698; bounds (2100ac.). *157 ( 3 4 ) C

King Ithel ap Athrwys gave ecclesia Elidon and Villa Guocof to bishop

Euddogwy; St. Lythan's and Wenvoe, ST 110729 and 122728; c.685; bounds. The syntax of the text is particularly chaotic and there is little to associate it with the -

otherwise credible - witness list.

*158 (35) C

King Ithel ap Morgan and his sons Ffernfael and Meurig, together with

Gurdocius, hereditarius, gave three unciae of land on the navigable stretches of the river Wye, i.e. Emricorua, to ? ; Chepstow, ST 535940; c.722; bounds. Euddogwy has been added to the clerical witness list. *159a (36) C

1636 (43) D

King Gwrgan gave podum Loudeu with three unciae of land to bishop

Inabwy; Lanloudy, SO 498208; c.620.

transcription in the witness lists.

There may be errors of

164 (44) D

King Gwrgan gave podum sancti Budgualan with two and a half unciae

around it to bishop Inabwy; Ballingham, SO 576317; c.620; bounds. There are errors of transcription in the witness lists.

*165 (45) D

King Ithel gave Lann Efrdil with its territorium to bishop Euddogwy; Lanerthill, SO 434045; ?c.685; bounds. There is no witness list. The

King Athrwys gave ecclesia Cynmarchi with its territorium, i.e. Manaur Tnoumur, and Lann Deui, Lann lunabui, Lann Guoruoe, podum Mafurn, Lann Calcuch, and Lann Cerniu, to bishop Comereg; Chepstow ST

1596 (37) C Brochfael ap Gwyddien gave to bishop Euddogwy Villa Meneich, with six modit of land bordering on the Villa Giurgit, which he had previously

Dorstone; c.625; bounds of Mainaur (sic) Tnoumur. There are errors of transcription in the witness lists and a very highproportion of editorial

ST 1578; c.685; bounds of both. This was copied from a very unclear

these clerics would stretch the chronology to the limits of probability; and the simultaneous grant of Chepstow with confirmation of housesof the Dyfrig federation in Ergyng is, to say the least, curious.

only Ithel who was a contemporary of Euddogwy was Ithel ap Athwys.

given him, and a further three modi, with its territorium; near Landaff,

exemplar, preventing the transcription of all words; the exemplar may also have been the source of charter 151a. 160 (38) D

King Meurig gave podum Lann Suluiu with its tellus to bishop Ufelfyw;

Llancillo, SO 367255; c.620; bounds (200ac.). 161(39) D

King Gwrfoddw gave an ager called Bolgros, measuring three unciae, to

bishop Ufelfyw, who founded a church there; Bellimoor, SO 394407;

c.610. There are errors of transcription in the clerical witness list. 162a (40) D

King Gwrfoddw gave an ager of one uncia to bishop Ufelfyw and he (?

the bishop) founded a church and put his sacerdos, Guoruoe, there to serve it (title: Lann Guorboe); Garway, SO 455225; c.615. 1626 (41) D

King Cinuin gave Mafurn to bishop Aidan; Valley Dore, SO 33;c.605;

535940, Dewchurch SO 483311, Landinabo, Garway, Valley Dore, ,?

formulae in the text; the adult p r e s e n c eo f A t h w y s in association with

166 ( 4 6 ) D

King Iddon gave Lancoit, with three unciae of land and hawking rights,

to bishop Arwystl; Langoed, ?? SO 113394; c.595. *167 (47) E

King Tewdwr gave Lann Mihacel Tref Ceriau and its terra to bishop

Gwrfan; Lanfihangel Cwm Du, SO 180239; c.750; bounds. The record of the grant is preceded by a long Narration of standard type, and the

witness lists contain unique individuals which cannot, therefore, be

placed in any sequence. Charter 237b records a later grant, by a later king Tewdwr, of the same land - with no reference to a previousgrant and this must throw some doubt on the veracity of the transaction here

recorded, in the absence of any corroborative material. 168 (48) E

Cuchein gave Villa Vallis with its three modi to bishop Guodloiu, with

172

173

Gwynwal and his progeny to serve it; (title: Villa Hirpant) ?; c.866. 169a (49) E

Gwrgan gave partem agri trans uiam to bishop Eddylfyw, and Bonus gave another ager from his uncia as Gwrgan had done; ?; c.868.

recording that Morgan's son Ithel returned the land to Berthwyn after it had been appropriated.

There are two short boundaries, whose

relationship is not clear.

1696 (50) E

Fauu gave ecclesia Cilpedec with its ager around ti to bishop Grecielis, and he and Gideon proclaimed it free, with the guarantee of king Meurig who had ordered everyone to release all the churches in his land

from obligations; Kilpeck, SO 445305; c.850.

1746 (56) F King Morgan gave ecclesia Istrat Hafren with an uncia of land to bishop Berthwyn; Tidenham, ST 556959; c.703; bounds. There is a final note

There are errors of

transcription in the witness lists. 170 (51) E

Guinncum gave ecclesia Cum Mouric with king Meurig's guarantee, and returned ti with its tellus to bishop Grecielis, and Morien gave an additional piece from his villa across the road; ?Little Dewchurch, SO 529318; c.850; bounds. There are errors of transcription in the clerical witness list.

171a (52) E

Gulferi and Cinuin and Nyr, sons of Gwrgan, and Bonus and his sons, gave an ager in deserto super ripam Meinbui, with two modi, to bishop Grecielis; ?river Monnow; c.855.

1716 (53) E

175 (57) F

Elias gave a podum (with) four modit of land around it and its census to bishop Berthwyn, with the consent of king Ithel and his sons;? (at) Monmouth, SO 510130; c.733; doublet of 186b. This text states quite explicitly that the transaction was made in Monmouth, though the doublet is confused and suggests that thepodum itself was in Monmouth. 176a (58) F

Conuil gave the uilla in qua sepulcrum est Gurai, ie. VillaConuc, to

bishop Berthwyn with the consent of king Morgan and his son Ithel, and

he ordered his son Cynwg and his sons after him to serve the church (of

Landaff) from that land; Ewenny river, Vale of Glamorgan; c. 705;

bounds; doublet of 190b.

Line 8 reads Cormil for Conuil, and the

description of Gwyddnerth as 'Morgan's brother' may be an error for Morgan's brother's son', the reading of the doublet. 1766 (59) F

King Clodri gave ager Helic. ., with three unciae of land, and ager Tencu, with two unciae, to bishop Berthwyn; ?,?; c.700. The record is preceded

Britcon gave six churches with their territoria to bishop Grecielis, ecclesia Lannbudgualan, which previously belonged to Dyfrig, Methirchinfall with its tellus, i.e. three modi, and an ager which Ithel gave

by a long Narration, of standard type, of Clodri's murder of king Idwallon and subsequent penance; it is unlikely to be an original

Diniul, Mafurn, and ecclesia Mable with six modi; and Britcon and

178 (60) F

and an addition which Bywon(wy) made, ecclesia Tipallai, ecclesia

f e a t u r e o f the r e c o r d .

liwg gave Lann Bocha with its ager to bishop Grecielis, with king Meurig's guarantee; Ballingham SO 576317, Langynfyl SO 495167, ?, ?, Itton ST 493953, Valley Dore SO 33, Lanfable SO 367141, St. Maughan's SO 461171; c.860; bounds of all except Ballingham (Itton:

Conblus gave an ager of three modi on the river Wye to bishop

900ac.). This is a composite record consisting of a note of a grant of six

Elffin gave Uilla Strat Hancr to ?; fragment of a doublet of 188b:

churches by Britcon and a charter recording the joint grant o f Britcon

T 138779;c.710. Fairwater, S

and Iliwg, inserted ni the middle of the note; the charter is a doublet of 74.

173 ( 5 4 ) E

Berthwyn, and the grant was made at ecclesia Garthbenni; at Welsh

Bicknor; c.743. 179a (61) F

1796 (62) F

King Ithel and Iddon hereditarius gave Villa Guinnou to bishop

Berthwyn; ?Mounton, ST 513930; c.730; doublet of 191. There are

Cynfelyn freed Lann Cur and gave ti with its ager, glossed uncia, of three modi, to bishop Grecielis; Lan-gwm, ST 425999; c.860; bounds.

errors o f classification in the witness lists.

174a (55) E

King Ithel and his sons Fferfael and Meurig gave three unciae agri pleni

Mainerch and Guiner gave an ager of three modi, super ripam amhyr fluminis, to bishop Grecielis, river Gamber, SO 52; c.855; bounds.

179c (63) F

in medio Cumcerruc id est villam quae fuit Guroc to bishop Berthwyn;

?Cilgwrwg, ST 454982; c.722.

174

180a (64) F

175

the bishop, with the acquiescence of Elias; it is possible, however, that

King Ithel gave Aper Menei, previously given him by king Morgan, to bishop Berthwyn; Monmouth, SO 510130; c.720.

some further property was handed over, whose name has been omitted.

180b ( 6 5 ) F

Elias gave a podium. ..in medio aper Myngui with four modit of land around it and its census to bishop Berthwyn, with the consent of king

Gwyddnerth gave Lann Catgualatyr with its tellus and woodland and

shore rights to bishop Berthwyn; Bishton, ST 387873; c.710; bounds. The record is preceded by a Narration of standard type, recounting the

murder of Meirchion and Gwyddnerth's consequent penance; it is unlikely to be original to the charter. The record itself is also preserved

among the Vita Cadoci charters, c.67, which suggests that the grant was made to Llancarfan and returns given to Landough. 183a (66) F

King Ithel gave podium Hennlann, glossed i.eccla Tituucfc'i (sic), with

four modi of land around it and its weirs, to bishop Berthwyn, for the soul of his son Athwys; Dixon, SO 520136; c.735; bounds.

1866 (71) F

Ithel and his sons Ffernfael and Meurig; Monmouth, SO 510130; c.733; doublet of 175. There is a gap between podium and in, and the doublet remarks that the transaction was made at Monmouth; it therefore seems more likely that the actual grant was of some place near Monmouth, and not of Monmouth itself. 187 (72) F

Conhae gave podum Sancti Tisoi, with its wood and pannage and

hawking rights, which formerly belonged to Dyfrig, to bishop Berthwyn Llansoy, SO 442024; c.725; bounds (500ac.). 188a (73) F

1 8 3 6 ( 6 7 )F

Elffin gave ager Pennhellei to bishop Berthwyn;?;c.738.

Clodri gave ager Cemeis with two unciae of land to bishop Berthwyn, with the consent of king Morgan; Cemais, ST 381928; c.700; bounds. An endorsement adds that after a long time the land was returned to bishop Grecielis by Ouleu, and again after a while it was returned to bishop Cerentir (i.e. Cerennyr)by Fau. The text reads Rotri for 'Clodri?.

Elffin gave ager Estrat Ager, ie. Tollcoit, with six modi of land to bishop Berthwyn, with the consent of king Ithel; Fairwater, ST 138779;

184 (68) F

Mabsu gave Villa Iuduiu to bishop Berthwyn; and he made over the foodrent (conuiuium) to him in an assembly of the better men (meliores) of Ergyng, and commended that villa to him free from all tribute; ?Peterstow, SO 565249; c. 738. 185 (69) F Rhiadaf bought an uncia of land (at) Guruarch from Gwyddgi and Conuin, sons of Clodri, for twenty four unspecified objects, a Saxon woman, a precious sword, and a valuable horse, with the consent of

king Ithel, ni the presence of Ithel and the elders of Ergyng; then Rhiadat, in the presence of the king and the two brothers, gave terra

Gurmarch to bishop Berthwyn; ?;c.740. 186a (70) F Elias received an uncia of land, Villa Nis, as the price of his brother Catgen whom Cynfor had murdered; then Cynfor made a grant to bishop Berthwyn, for Catguen's (sic) soul, together with the gift of Elias, ?; c.743. The object of Cynfor's grant to Berthwyn is not stated. At present the text seems to suggest that Cynfor made compensation to Elias, retaining rights in the property himself which he then alienated to

1886 (74) F

c.710; bounds; doublet of 179a. 189 (75) F

Gwrgan gave terra Machinis, an ager of six modi, to bishop Berthwyn, and took back his proper wife, the daughter of Elffin; ?Lanelli, SN 505005; c.735. The record of the grant is preceded by a Narration,

of standard type, recounting Gwrgan's abduction of his step-mother and subsequent penance, after the intercession of king Ithel; ti is unlikely to b eoriginal to the charter. 190a (76) F

King Ithel, ni the presence of (his son)Meurig and of the elders of

Glywysing, gave Villa Bertus to bishop Berthwyn;?; c.728. There are errors of classification in the clerical witness list. 1 9 0 6(77) F

Conuil bought an ager, ie. the villa ni which Gurai is buried, from king Morgan and his son Ithel and wife Ricceneth, and he thengave it, with

its woodland and shore rights (maritimis), with the king's consent, to bishop Berthwyn; Ewenny river, Vale of Glamorgan; c.705; bounds; doublet of 176a. The charter is incorrectly headed Maerv (Marshfield,

Mon.) and has the bounds of Marshfield appended; the reference to Ewenny in the doublet reveals the inconsistency. The last word of the

lay witness list should presumably be emended to fratris, notfrater.

176

177

191 (78) F

197 (83) F

Iddon bought Villa Guennonoe, which formerly belonged to Dyfrig,

Erbic gave Villa Ellcon to bishop Tyrchan; ?; c.748. Ellcon may be an

from king Ithel and his sons Fernfael, Meurig, and Rhodri, for twenty two wild horses; he then gave it, free of tribute, to bishop Berthwyn; ?Mounton, ST 513930; c.730; doublet of 179b. The doublet omits the record of sale. There are errors of classification in the clerical witness list, and o f transcription in the lay witness list. *192 (79) F

King Ithel returned eleven churches, which had previously belonged to Dyfrig, to bishop Berthwyn, after Saxon devastation in the Hereford area: Cumbarruc with three unciae o f land, i.e. Cenubia, Colcuch with

three unciae of land, Cenubia Cornubium, i.e. Lann Cerniu, podum Mafurn, Lann Guoruoe, Lann Iunabui, Lann Deui, Mochros, Lann

Ebrdil, Bolgros, Lann Loudeu, Lann Garan; Valley Dore, SO 33; ?;

Dorstone, SO 315418; Valley Dore, SO 33; Garway, SO 455225; Landinabo, SO 519285; Dewchurch, SO 483311; Moccas, SO 358433;

Lanerthill, SO 434045; Bellimoor, SO 394407; Lanloudy, SO 498208;

Langarren, SO 530211; c.745. This record is not a charter but an elaborated note of Ithel's grant; it has no witness list. Eleven churches are mentioned, but apparently twelve are named: either the figure should read xii not xi, or the punctuation mark should be removed between

Cenubia and Colcuch, making Cenubia Colcuch an alternative name for Cumbarruc. Other references do not clarify the point. *193 (80) F

King Pennbargaut gave territorium exutraque parte Myngui to the brothers Libiau and Gwrfan and their sororius Cynfwr, at the church of

the martyr Clydog; river Monnow, ?near Merthyr Clodock, SO 327275; undatable. This record is preceded by a long Narration on the martyrdom of Clydog; it has no witness list, and there is nothing to suggest any original charter at its base. :195 (81) F

King Ithel gave territorium Merthirclitauc to the martyr Clydogand bishop Berthwyn, with the guarantee of his sons Ffernfael and Meurig and consent of the hereditari Ithel and Freuddwr; Merthyr Clodock, SO 327275; c.740; bounds (1100ac.). *196 (82) F

Ithel gave a pratum super ripam Mingui to the martyr Clydog, and the sons of Cinbleidiou gave Lechluit; river Monnow; undatable; bounds. This record is preceded by a Narration about the sins of Ithel; it has no

witness list and nothing to suggest any original charter at its base.

error for Elfin, Erbic's father, who appears as Elcun in 175. 1 9 8 a(84) F

Erbic gave Villa Cathouen filii Hindec, with its census, to bishop

Tyrchan;?; c.745. There are errors of classification in the lay witness list.

198b (85) F

Ffernfael gave a terra of one uncia of land, called Tir Dimuner, to bishop Tyrchan, in the presence of the elders of Gwent and Ergyng, at Cemais; ?;c.755. 199a (86) F

Bri gave podum Merthir Te r e d , with half an uncia of land around it, to bishop Tyrchan, with the consent of the two sons of Rhydderch, Ceredig and Iddig, and their kindred; Landegfedd, ST 338958; c. 750. 1 9 9 6 ( 8 7 )F

i. King Fferfael, at Cemais, gave ecclesia Trilecc, with three modit of land, to bishop Tyrchan; Tryleg, SO 500055; c.755; bounds. in. King Meurig ap Arthfael freed this church, ni the presence of his

sonsBrochfael and Ffernfael, andreturned i t to bishop Cerennyr;

c.868. The endorsement has a complete witness list, and shows every sign of originating ni a separate document. 200 (88) F

Catuuth gave an ager of three modi (that is, a quarter of an uncia), i.e. ecclesia Hennlennic, ie. Lannguer, to bishop Tyrchan, with king Ffernfael's guarantee; Llanwarne, SO 505281; c.758; bounds. 201 ( 8 9 ) F

Cynfor bought ecclesia Gurthebiriuc, with one and a halfunciae of land around it, from king Ffernfael, for a best horse worth twelve cows, a hawk worth twelve cows, a dog worth three cows, and another horse worth three cows; then, with Fferfael's guarantee, he gave it to bishop

Tyrchan; (title: Gvrthebiriuc Lanngunguarui super Trodi) Wonastow, SO 486108; c.750; bounds.

202 (90) F

Cynwg bought Uilla Breican, also called Villa Ellgnou, from king Ithel, for two horses worth eight cows and three cows respectively, a sword worth twelve cows, a horn worth ten cows and one worth fourteen;

then, with Ithel's guarantee, he gave it to bishop Tyrchan; ?Breigan, SS 994798; c.745; bounds. The lay witness list includes Elgnou heres.

178

179

203a (91) F

207 (97) F

Bricon bought an ager of three unciae, i.e. Villa Tancuorfilii Condu and Villa Deui filii lust and Villa Miman filii Samson, from king Ffernfael and his sons Meurig and Gwrgan, for seven horses worth twenty eight cows, clothing worth fourteen cows, a sword worth twelve cows, a hawk worth six cows, and four dogs worth fourteen cows; then, with Ffernfael's guarantee, he freed them for bishop

King Ffernfael gave his wife Ceingar Brinnluguni, with the heredes(sic) Crin and all its (animal) stock, and Mathenni with three modi of land; then, with the king's guarantee, she gave them with their inhabitants and offspring to bishop Cadwared; Landenni, SO 416039; c.760. The

Tyrchan; ?; c.752. 2036 (92) F

Madog bought an uncia of land called Turion from king Ffernfael, in the presence of his (the king's) sons Meurig and Gwrgan, for a hawk

syntax is confused.

By analogy with other references to heredes, it

seems more likely that Crin was associated in making the grant and was not part of it, as the text seems to suggest. #208 (98) F

worth twelve cows, two horses worth six cows, a horn worth six ounces

Morcim( b)ris returned ecclesia Mathenni with three modi of land, with the guarantee of king Athwys; Landenni, SO 416039; c.785; bounds. The witness list is vestigial, and the record seems to derive from an

of silver, a scripulum worth twelve cows, and red linen; then, with the guarantee of the king and his sons, he gave it to bishop Tyrchan; ?;

endorsement to the previous charter and not from any independent record.

c.758 .

204a (93) F

Cors gave four modit of land (at) Strat Elei, with all its fisheries, to

209a (99) F

King Rhys, together with Dynwared hereditarius, gave three modi of land (at) Guinna to b i s h o p Cadwared; ? Llanwynno, ST 030957; c.770.

bishop Tyrchan, with the consent of kings Meurig and Rhys; ?Ely,

ST 132763; c.748; bounds.

2096 (100) F

* 2 0 4 6( 9 4 ) F

valuable horses and two sets of clothing; then, with the king's guarantee, he gave it to bishop Cadwared; Tintern, SO 531008; c.765; bounds.

Conuil and his son Gurniuet bought Villa Procliui from king Ithel for

two horses worth eight cows, a trumpet worth twenty four cows, a cloak

Cynfelyn bought ager Louhai,of three modit, from king Rodri for two

given to the queen worth six ounces, and a horse worth four ounces;

210a (101) F

then, with the king's guarantee, they gave ti to bishop Tyrchan; river

King Athrwys gave Cariou, with an uncia of land, to bishop Cadwared,

Thaw, Vale of Glamorgan; ?c.715. Donor, king, bishop, abbots, and the long list of witnesses can hardly have been contemporary; either the abbots have been added to a list of c.745, or the rest of the witnesses attached to a record of a grant of c.710/15. It is impossible to determine the nature of the error with any confidence. *205 (95) F

Elivid, Conone, G u i d e n , and Erdtibiu gave an ecclesia cum castello agri circa eam to bishop Tyrchan, with king Brochfael's guarantee; (title: Lann Helicon);?; c.708. There is a high proportion of editorial formulae in this record, and, since the charter occurs nineteen in

sequence before the first of Tyrchan's appearances as bishop, it is

somewhat unlikely that he received this grant as bishop.

2 0 6 (96) F

Gafran gave ecclesia Mamouric, i.e. Lannuuien, with six modi of land

around it, to bishop Cadwared, with king Gurgauar's guarantee Llangofen, SO 457055; c.775; bounds.

and L e u f r y dhereditarius received the land from the bishop on condition

that he return six modi of beer every year, with the due bread and flesh and a sester of honey; Lanfannar, SO 435158; c.780; bounds. 2106 (102) F

Cynfelyn gave Dinbirrion with three modi of land to bishop Cadwared, with king Rodri's guarantee;?; c.765. The same grant is recorded among the charters attached to the Vita Cadoci, c. 66, where the recipient is the church of Cadog and the place called Lisdin Borrion. 211a (103) F

King Rhys gave Villa Gueruduc, with nine modi of land, to bishop Cadwared, and made that land a sanctuary; ?; c.765. 2116 (104) F

Cors gave ecclesia Merthirmaches, with three modit of land around it, to bishop Cadwared, with the agreement and confirmation of king Gurgauarn; Lanfaches, S T434918; c.775.

181

180

212 (105) F

King Hywel gave Merthir Buceil and Merthir Miuor, with four modi of land around it, and half a modius (at) Tir Collou to bishop Cerennyr; ? and Merthyr Maw, SS 884776; c.862; bounds of Merthyr Maw. This record is surrounded by a Narration, of standard type, recounting Hywel's murder of Gallun after his rebellion and Hywel's subsequent

penance, on the advice of his patruelis Meurig; it is unlikely to be original to the charter, whose framework si only barely discernible. 214 (106) F

Eli gave Villa Guliple Minor to bishop Cerennyr, with king Meurig's

guarantee; near Bishton (ST 387873); c.862. This record is preceded by an unusually verbose Narration, with standard features, recounting Eli's murder of Camog and subsequent penance. There is some contamination in the witness lists, and Meurig is called 'son of Ithel', a probable error

parcels attached to the territorium. The record includes the long Narration of the murder of a peasant by the deacon Eli, of the deacon's

sanctuary at S.t Arvans and its violation by Now's familia, of Now's subsequent meeting with the bishop at Caerwent, of the subsequent imprisonment of the offenders in the monastery of Teilo, and of the eventual settlement which forestalled the provisions of the final judgement. There are a few brief interpolated passages in this account,

but there is little reason to doubt that the greater part of it was recorded shortly after the events described. 221 (111) G

Bledrys gave Cairnonui, with one and a half unciae of land (i.e. half

of the whole ager), and its weirs, to bishop Pater, with king Nowy's consent;?;c.950.

for Arthfael; see above, p. 18 .f

222 (112) G

216a (107) F

Wulfrith, with king Cadell's guarantee; near Aber-carn, ST 215950;c.942.

Cinuin gave Lannculan, with all its ager and three modi of land (i.e.

half a half-uncia), with rights to sanctuary, and with its tellus, to bishop

Cerennyr, with king Brochfael's guarantee; Langiwa, SO 390258; c.872. 2166 (108) F

Aguod gave Villa Penn O n with its ecclesia, Lann Tilull, and three

Llywarch gave Villa Treficar Pont, with three modi of land, to bishop The record is preceded by a Narration, recounting Lywarch's depredations and the synod called at Landogo as a consequence; it has some

standard interpolations, but the initial statement of the offence may

well be original to the charter.

223 (113) G

Asser and his father Marchudd gave Villa Segan, with nine modi of land,

modi of land and six modit of ?corn (tritici) to bishop Cerennyr, with king Meurig's guarantee; St-y-Nyll, ST 097782; c.870; bounds. The

to bishop Wulfrith, king Cadell agreeing;?; c.940; bounds. The record is

record is preceded by a brief Narration, recounting Aguod's damage to Llandaff and reparation; it may well be original, although the syntax of the account is a little curious and suggests some contamination.

the agreement reached between both families.

217 (109) G

King Nowy gave Villa Guidcon with its territorium, i.e. three modi of land, to bishop Pater; (title: Ecclesia Mainuon id est Villa Guicon)

Tryleg Grange, SO 492017; c.960. The record is preceded by a short

preceded by a short Narration detailing Asser's murder of Gulagguin and 224 (114) G

King Cadwgon gave Villa Ret, with three modi of land, to bishop Wulfrith; (title: Tref Ret iuxta Merthi Miuor in Marcan), near Merthyr Maw, SS 884776; c.935; bounds. There are errors of classification in t h e c l e r i c a l w i t n e s s list.

Narration, recounting Now's violation of sanctuary; it has a few

225 (115) H

standard interpolations. There is an error of transcription in the clerical witness list.

Gulfert, Hegoi, and Arwystl, sons of Beli, gave the whole territorium of the martyrs Julius and Aaron, which had previously belonged to Dyfrig, with its weirs and shore rights (maritimis), to bishop Nudd; St. Julians, Caerleon, ST 3390; c.864; bounds. The record is preceded

218 (110) G

In 955, indiction 13, Idwallon and the three sons of Ceredig - Gwynan, Ionathan, and Wilfrith - and the whole ager of the kindred of Guoruot,

with woods and hawking rights and the census previously paid the king,

were handed over to bishop Pater and into the power of the church o f

Teilo, with king Now's affirmation; (title: Territorium Lann Bedeui),

Penterry, ST 522998; 955; bounds of Lann Vedeui, with a note of

by a brief Narration, recounting the conflict of the donors with the bishop's familia, residing at Lan-arth; there are some standard interpolations in this otherwise unquestionable account. 226 (116) H

Engistil gave castellum Dinduicil, ie. Cairduicil, with its church and

183

182

three modi ofland, with king Hywel's guarantee; ?; c.860. No recipient

greater part of the Narration was composed much later than the charter.

is mentioned, though bishop Nudd occurs in text and witness list.

232a (125) H

227a (117) H

Nudd gave ager Cinir to bishop Cyfeilliog, with Brochfael's guarantee; ?; c.900.

2276 (118) H

Eiset gave Tref M i with three modi of land to bishop Cyfeilliog, with Brochfael's guarantee; (title: Tref Lili) ?; c.910.

Eliav). Eliau gave an ager of one modius to bishop Nudd; (title: Villa ?Splott, ST 196768; c.864; bounds.

Tudfab gave ecclesia Dincat, with three modi of land, to bishop Nudd, for the soul of his father Paul, with Dingestow, SO 458104; c.872; bounds.

king Hywel's guarantee;

228 (119) H

Corsand Morudd gave ecclesia Gueithirin with an ager of three modi around it, and later Cors gave another three modi across the road beside

the other ager, with its wood and placitis (? pleas or documents), to

bishop Nudd, with king Hywel's guarantee; Lanwytherin, SO 363172; c.876; bounds. 229a (120) H

2326 (126) H

233 (127) H After disagreement between Brochfael's familia and Cyfeilliog's at Llandaff, it was judged that the bishop should receive the worth of his

face (pretiumfaciei suae - i.e. insult price), lengthwise and breadthwise, in pure gold, and reparation should be made to hisfamilia in accordance with their status and the nobility o f their kindred; king Brochfael could

not meet this requirement and paid the gold in another way by giving Villa Tref Peren with six modit of land to bishop Cyfeilliog; Lanfihangel, ST 452878; c.905; bounds. There are a few interpolations in the early part of this Narration, but, for the most part, there is little to suggest that it is anything other than contemporary with the charter. The

King Hywel gave Penncreic, with its tellus, to bishop Nudd; (title: Penncreic in Ercig super Gui), near Goodrich, SO 566208; c.874.

very close to certain fundamental premises of Welsh law. The bounds

2296 (121) H

demonstrate that the estate was in two parts.

m, King Hywel returned ecclesia Strat Haffren to bishop Nudd; Tidenha ST 556959; c.878; bounds. There are errors of classification in the lay w i t n e s s list.

230a (122) H

Guorai returned ecclesia Riu with three modi of land around it, which formerly belonged to Dyfrig, to bishop Nudd;?; c.880. 230b ( 1 2 3 ) H

Abraham gave Uila Branuc, with two modit of land, ot bishop Nudd,

and with it he gave the monks' field beside the arable, at the influx of the Gamber, and his ploughs/ploughlands (aratris) there; near the Gamber, SO 5222; c.866. 231 (124) H

around Brochfael gave ecclesia Sanctae Mariae, with three modi ofland

it, to his daughter, a holy virgin; there was then a dispute over the

church and its territorium between Brochfael and bishop Cyfeilliog,and

judgement was made in favour of Cyfeilliog and endorsed by Brochfael;

(title: Lann Meiripenn Ros), ?Monmouth, SO 510130; c.910. The

record includes a confused Narration, recounting the holy life of Brochfael's daughter and her seduction by Edgar; there are some standard interpolations, but there si no reason to think that the

provisions of the judgement, though written in Latin, are conceptually

234 (128) H

Brochfael returned Yscuit Cyst, with three modi of land, with its weirs

on the Severn and on the Meurig on both banks, with free landing rights at the mouth of the Meurig, and with rights of shipwreck, to bishop Cyfeilliog; Pwllmeurig, ST 519925; c.895. 235a (129) H

March returned Villa Cyuiu, an ager of three m o d i and part of the territorium of Merthir Teudiric, to bishop Cyfeilliog, having been pardoned for killing his cousin Beorhtwulf; near Bishton, ST 387873; c.90 0.

235b (130) H King Brochfael gave two churches, ecclesia Castell Conscuit and

ecclesia Brigidae, both with six modi of land, together with free landing rights for ships at the mouth of the Troggy, and with their weirs, to

bishop Cyfeilliog; Caldicot, ST 483886; c.895; bounds, which include reference to rights of shipwreck 236 (131) H

King Hywel gave Ermint and Catharuc and their progeny to bishop Cyfeilliog, for the souls of his wife Lleugu, sons Owainand Arthfael,

184

and daughters Ermithridh and Nest; c.885.

185

ST 371879; c.970; bounds of all except Lann Gunnhoill. This is

237a (132) H

merely a note recording the supposed return of the named churches; it has no witness list and shows no sign of any charter at i t sbase.

King Arthfael gave Villa Cair Birran, with four modi of land, to bishop

243 (136) J

Cyfeilliog; ?; c.890; bounds. 2376 (133) H

After a dispute between bishop Libiau and king Tewdwr of Brycheiniog,

who stole the bishop's foodrent (conuiuium), they eventually met at Llan-gors and ti was judged that the bishop receive five times the worth

of his whole familia when the foodrent was taken and seven times the

worth of the bishop, i.e. 700 mancuses of gold; Tewdwr could not meet this requirement, but, by the intercession of Lunberth bishop of St. David's, he was pardoned and gave Villa Tref Ceriau to Libiau; Ulanfihangel Cwm Du, SO 180239; c.925; bounds. The long Narration has some standard interpolations, but they are few and do not suggest that the main part o f the record is other than original to the charter.

I Meirchion give two brothers Gustin and Ebba, with their inheritance

and with fishing rights, to the abbot of Llancarfan, for the souls of my

wife and of my parents Rhydderch and Angharad; c.980. The adult presence of Meirchion's son Gwrgan is extremely unlikely on this occa. sion.

244 ( 1 3 7 ) J

King Arthfael gave Lann Mihacgel Lichrit, with a thirdof the meadow and four modit (at) Villa Stifflat to bishop Gwgon; ?Llanmelin, ST 460920; c.980; bounds. The record is preceded b ya Narrationof standard type, recounting Arthfael's murder of his brother and his consequent penance; little of this is likely to be original to the charter. 245 (138) J

The same land was granted by an earlier king Tewdwr in c.750 (167) and the title of this grant (237b) reads Villa Tref Ceriav id est Lann Mihachgel Meibion Gratlaun, ti is possible that there has been some confusion between two different Brecon grants.

Laur and his son Deheueint gave Villa Sean, with three moditof land, to bishop Gwgon, in penance for the killing of Merchi, with king

239 (134) H

246 (139) J

King Gruffydd gave four modi of land (at) Pennibei to bishop Libiau

because of three offences against God and the saints: holding Idfab in the monastery of St. Cynwal, attacking Ciuarheru in the monastery

of St Cinuuri, i.e. Bishopston, and selling Portus Dulon, one of Dyfrig's churches; Paviland, Rhosili, SS 446865; c.925; bounds. The syntax of the boundary clauses is confused, but it seems to imply that two

further agri (at) Meinporth were granted together with the heredes

Boduc and Eimin; and then a further modius of land beside Telich. It is not clear fi the heredes were themselves granted or simply acquiescent in the grant. All places mentioned are themselves objects of earlier grants, and are in Gower. There are errors of classification in the lay w i t n e s s list.

*240 (135) J

King Morgan returned all territoria to bishop Gwgon, and the following churches with their territoria, ecclesiae Machumur i.e. Lann Liuit, Lann Uannar, Lann Guoronoi, Lann Tituil, Lann Mihacgel Cruc Comou, Lan Mihacgel i Pull, Lann Gunnhoill, Lann Nissien, Lann Guern Tiuauc, and

many more, with the consent of his sons Owain, Idwallon, Cadell, and

Idwallon's guarantee;?; c.975. The four alumni of Eli -

Elmoin, Nudd, Melwas, Arwyst\ - gave

Lannguronoi, with a modius and a half of land, to bishop Bleddri, with King Rhys's guarantee; Rockfield, SO 482149; c.1020; bounds. The bounds differ from those o f the estate granted in no.240. 249a (140) J

King Meurig returned Villa Elcu, with one and a half modit of land, to bishop Joseph; near Llandaff, ST 157781; c. 1040; bounds. 2496 (141) J

King Edwin gave Villa Junuhic, with three modi of land, to bishop Bleddri in recompense for shedding blood; ?Undy, ST 440870; c.1015; bounds (twice). The record is preceded by a long Narration,of standard

type, recounting Edwin's dispute witht h e bishop's familia, and the

bloodshed ensuing, and subsequent synod and penance.

251 (142) J Kings Rhodri and Gruffydd gave terra Penn Celli Guenhuc to bishop

Bleddri; (title: Penn Celli Guennhvec iuxta Lisguern) ?near Llan-wern,

Cinuin; Lanllwyd, SO 416179; Lanfannar, SO 431170; Rockfield,

ST 371879;c. 1005; bounds, and bounds o fHenlenic Cinauc (Llangynog, ST 454998). Penn Celli must b enear Llan-wern since it is mentioned

325207; Pwllmeurig, ST 519925; ?; Lanisien, SO 476032; Lan-wern,

of Llangynog are attached to the record.

SO 482149; Llwyn Deri, SO 383130; Lanfihangel Crucornau, SO

in the bounds of that grant (240); there is no indication why the bounds

187

186 *253 (143) J

from a note attached to the previous charter, 259. Cf. also 261.

King Rhydderch confirmed bishop Joseph and Llandaff ni possession of all their churches and territories, even those within the diocese of St.

261 (149) J

David's, with the support of Aethelnoth archbishop of Canterbu ry and with letters from C u t , ruling in England; c. 1025; list of Teilo properties appended. The record has no witness list and a high proportion of twelfth-century interpolations; there is nothing to suggest that it

derives from a charter, but, since there are interpolations, it may well

Caradog, a comes of king Meurig, violated sanctuary by seizing Seisyll's

wife at the church door, while in Meurig's retinue; he sought pardon at Llandaff, and gave Lannpetyr in Hennriu to bishop Joseph, with king Cadwgon's guarantee; Langstone, Lanbedr, ST 371891; c. 1045; bounds (625ac.). The Narration has some standard interpolations. Cf.

259, 260.

derive from a note made during Joseph's episcopate.

262 (150) J

255 (144) J

Meirchion and his son Gwrgan gave Villa Carnou, with two m o d i of

villa, Tref E l i a in Senghennydd, i.e. Villa filiorum Quichtrit, land of three modi, and also Lann Tiuauc, an ager of three modi, to bishop

formula of royal consent, but no name.

King Meurig gave Villa Penn i prise, i.e. Difrinn Anouid, and another

land, and Villa Crucou Leuguirn, with three modi of land, to bishop Joseph; Crick, ST 488902; c. 1022; bounds.

The text includes a

Joseph; Cwm Nofydd, ST 146835; ?Splott, ST 196768; (title:. Lanntinauc in Pennichen) ?; c.1035; bounds. The record si preceded by a Narration, of standard type, recounting Meurig's perjury in seizing

Cadwallon quarrelled with Rhydderch. in bishop Joseph's court at

and binding king Edwin, and his subsequent penance.

presence of his father Gwriad and cousin Gwrgan, he sought pardon

257 (145) J Rhiwallon fought with bishop Joseph's familia and wounded one member of it; eventually he and his family reached agreement with the bishop and the wounded man's family (parentela), and he gave his hereditary terra, Riubrein, with a third of the wood, Ynis Peithan, to bishop Joseph, with king Hywel and his son Meurig's guarantee; north

and offered ecclesia Sanctae Brigidae, with three modi of land, to

of Whitchurch, ST 1382; c. 1033; bounds of both (225 ac.).

263 (151) J

Llandaff, and drew blood; the bishop imprisoned him, and, ni the

bishop Joseph, with his father's guarantee and king Meurig's agreement;

(title: Lann Sant Breit ni Mainaur Crucmarc), St. Bride's super Ely, ST 098776; c. 1040; bounds.

The Narration has a few standard inter-

polations. 264a ( 1 5 2 ) J

Gwrgan gave Villa Tref Ginhill to bishop Joseph; on the river Ely,

258 (146) J

SeisylI gave Cecin Penn Ros, on the Monnow on the other side of Llangynfyl, to bishop Joseph and to the church of Cynfyl, with king Gruffydd's guarantee; near Llangynfyl, SO 495168; c. 1030; bounds.

Glamorgan; .c 1038; bounds.

2646 (153) J

259 (147) J

King Meurig violated Landaff's sanctuary by seizing Seisyll's wife and wounding one of bishop Joseph's familia, eventually he was pardoned, returned the woman, and returned Villa Tref Gulich, with three modi

of land, to the saints (of Llandaff), whose ti had been since the time of king Ithel ap Athwys, contemporary of Euddogwy; Dyffryn Golych, ST 0972; c. 1040; bounds. The Narration has some standard interpolations. Cf. 260 and 261. *260 (148) J

King Meurig gave Villa Fratrus to the saints, and also four pounds of silver to bishop Joseph, and bound his sons Cadwgon and Rhys and all his family (generatio) to keep it safe for ever; river Thaw, Vale of Glamorgan;c. 1040; bounds. This record has no witness list, and

little indication of any original charter at its base; it appears to derive

Rhiwallon attacked St. Maughan's, but was thrown from his horse when leaving and broke his arm; he therefore gave up the booty, and gave his

hereditary terra, Cecin Pennicgelli to bishop Joseph; near St. Maughan's SO 461171; c. 1025; bounds. 267 (154) J

King Cadwgon gave Henriugunua to bishop Herewald, in penance for the attack made on Berthutis, familiaris and nepos of the bishop, at

Llandaff, by his familia; ?near Landaff, ST 1578; c. 1070; bounds.

There are a very few interpolations in the long and verbose Narration. 269 (155) J

King Gruffydd proclaimed the freedom of all the territories belonging to Llandaff, and Lann Teliaumaur and Pen Alun with many other churches and their lands, and those in Brycheiniog which were in the

189

188

diocese of St. David's, and gave Villa Pennros to bishop Herewald, at

Ystum Guy; ?; c. 1060. The charter has an extremely long and verbose

miles

kms.

0- 3

dir

South-east Wales Map 3.

GLAMORGAN E

Lc

VATE oF Clandaff

GWENT

SS ICOED GLAMORGAN

Beans

GWENT UWCHCOED

CN

GOWER

Caradog, remembering his evil deeds on his sickbed and especially the killing of his brother Cynan, gave Villa Gunnue in Guarthaf Cum to the four saints of Llan-gwm - Mirgint, Cinficc, Hui, and Eruen - and to bishop Herewald, with the guarantee of Roger fitzWilliam fitzOsbern, Count of Hereford and Lord of Gwent, in the time of William the elder; Lan-gwm Isaf, SO 433007; c. 1075; bounds (100ac.).

CARMARTHEN

bishop Herewald, in penance for his familia's consumption of the bishop's foodrent (conuiuium) at St. Maughan's; near Llandegfedd, ST 339958; c. 1072. 274 (158) J

R.W ye

King Caradog gave Villa Tref Rita in Edelicion, near Llandegfedd, to

g

BRECON

3

bounds (650ac.). 272 (157) J

ERG HEREFORD YNG

800 f r

LAND

271 (156) J

lestyn gave Villa Miluc to bishop Herewald, ni penance for the raping of the virgin, Ourdilat, in violation of sanctuary, by two o fhis retinue, Turguert and his nephew Einion; Garth Maelwg, ST 0283; c. 1075;

OVER

preamble, which is very reminiscent of English charters of the tenth century. For the confirmation, cf. 253.

190

191

INDEX OF C H A RT E R S

161, 11, 16, 17, 28, 32, 40n, 67, 88, 101n, 116, 128,

72a, 9, 11, 16, 17, 28n, 29, 30n, 35n, 38n, 42n, 56n, 66, 67, 75, 111, 116, 125, 130, 134, 137, 1 4 9 , 150, 164, 165

726, 9 , 11, 16, 28, 29n, 35, 37п, 66, 117, 131, 165

73a, 9, 11, 16, 28, 29, 30n, 38n, 58,

66, 117, 126, 130, 134, 165 73b, 9, 11, 16, 28, 37n, 67, 117, 153, 165f

94n, 100, 109, 111, 118, 119,

121, 122; 124, 125n, 126n, 131,

135,

136,

144, 145,

159, 168

145, 11, 16, 28, 29n, 30n, 38n, 42n,

1626, 11, 16, 28, 37n, 67, 95, 117,

147, 11, 16, 30n, 39n, 57, 67, 75,

1636, 11, 16, 38, 67, 88, 116, 125п,

75, 88, 132n, 136, 168, 169

94n, 100,

101n, 102,

105, 111,

118, 119, 125n, 133, 135, 147n,

148, 11, 16, 30n, 39n, 43, 51, 6 8

75, 9, 11, 16, 17, 28, 30n, 42n, 44n, 50, 54, 66, 88, 91n, 116, 149n,

149, 11, 16, 32n, 38n, 68, 94n, 109,

166

76a, 9, 11, 16, 17, 28, 37, 44, 66, 108, 149n, 164, 166

76b, 9, 11, 16, 18,28, 34n, 37n, 41n,

50n, 56, 67, 99, 125, 149n, 166 77, 9, 11, 16, 28, 30n, 34, 37n, 41n, 42n, 67, 124n, 135, 136, 149п,

164, 166 121, 9, 11, 15, 16, 29n,3 0 n ,38, 42n, 67, 134, 144, 149n, 153, 166 122, 9, 11, 15, 16, 26, 28, 29n,

30n, 33n, 37n, 42n, 55n, 67, 108, 138, 149n, 153, 154п, 166

123, 9, 11, 30, 33, 37n, 38, 42n, 67, 93, 123, 131, 134, 140, 167

125a, 9, 11, 35, 36n, 37n, 38n, 39n,

168

94n, 111, 118, 119, 125n, 135, 168

111, 118, 119, 122, 125, 129

132, 135, 136, 169 150a, 11, 16, 36n, 40n, 44, 45, 51,

68, 74, 75, 94 n, 117, 169

1506, 11, 16, 40n, 45, 68, 75, 94n,

100, 117, 118, 126n, 127, 129, 169

35n, 37n, 56, 67, 74, 94, 101n, 121, 124, 125n, 128, 135, 138, 167

141, 11,30п, 32, 36, 38, 42п, 61, 67,

93, 110, 121, 131, 137, 167f 143, 11, 16, 29n, 30n, 38n, 42, 44, 51, , 67,

119,

125n,

130,

135,

137, 168 144, 11, 16, 28, 32n, 38, 40, 42, 67,

132, 134, 135, 171

164, 11;

16, 28, 30n, 38, 67, 95, 125n, 131, 132, 134,

116, 135,171 165, 11, 16, 17, 29n, 30, 35n, 36, 38n, 42n, 44n, 59, 67, 91n, 97, 125n,

131, 132,

134, 135, 137,

191

166,11, 15, 16, 36, 37п, 67, 108,

137, 153, 171 167, 11, 18, 37n, 39n, 57, 59, 69, 75, 88, 98n, 103, 132, 133, 138, 147n, 171, 184

168, 11, 16, 39n, 129, 130, 131n,

1696, 11, 16, 19n, 26, 38, 40, 55, 59, 70, 104n, 106, 117, 128n,

169

152, 11, 16, 26n, 38, 49, 56n, 68,

94n, 101, 103, 108, 110, 111, 117, 118, 119, 124, 125n, 129, 133, 134n, 135, 169

1 3 8 , 144, 169 155, 11, 16, 29п, 30, 37п, 40,

104n, 108, 110, 122, 1 2 5 , 131, 135, 136, 159, 167 140, 11, 16, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 34,

153.171

124, 125n, 126n, 127, 129, 135,

1516, 11, 16, 39n, 68, 118, 119,

125b, 9, 11, 38n, 39n, 50, 66, 88, 127a, 9, 11, 30, 35, 38, 39n, 43, 50, 56n, 66, 110, 111, 133, 149n, 167 1276, 9, 11, 38, 41n, 50, 56, 66,

163a, 1, 16, 28, 37n, 67, 117, 144,

133. 171f 169a, 11, 16, 37n, 40n, 50, 58, 117,

154, 11, 16,18, 26n, 28, 30, 34,

105n, 108, 131, 135, 167

134. 170f

15la, 11, 16, 39n, 50n, 68, 105n, 119, 124n, 125n, 135, 136, 169

41n, 42n, 69, 88, 105, 123, 133, 167

162a, 11, 16, 17, 38, 40n, 42, 58n, 67, 88, 128n, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 143, 170

68, 94n, 119, 122, 125, 130, 135, 136, 146, 149, 168 146, 11, 16, 18, 36n, 37n, 42n, 69,

74, 9, 11, 16, 29n, 30, 37п, 38п, 44n, 51n, 5 5 , 70, 104n, 122, 124n, 130n, 136, 149n, 159, 166, 172

170

129, 132, 134,

36, 37n, 42n, 69, 75, 88, 113

68,

119.

125n,

135, 138,

169f

156, 11, 16, 26n, 28, 30n, 34, 35n, 36n, 37n, 38n, 68, 88, 119, 125n, 135. 170

157, 11, 16, 29n, 30, 35п, 36, 38, 39n, 42n, 68, 88, 94n, 119, 121, 123n, 125n, 135, 137, 170

158, 11, 16, 36n, 37n, 43, 51, 61, 68, 116,117, 118, 120, 125n, 135, 170 159a, 11, 30n, 37n, 42n, 68, 138, 170

159b, 11, 16, 32n, 37п, 39п, 42п, 50n, 57, 68, 105n, 119, 124n, 125n, 135, 170

160, 11, 16, 18, 29п, 33п, 38, 42п, 67, 124, 125, 134, 170

124.172

137.172

170, 11, 16, 19n, 26, 38n, 39, 42n, 49n, 58, 59, 70. 101n,

104n,

106, 117, 128n, 137, 172 171a, 11, 16, 19n, 33, 34n, 40n, 41,

110, 117, 118, 119, 120, 125п, 133, 134, 135, 147n, 173 178, 11, 16, 40n, 122, 134, 173

179a, 1, 39n, 68, 119, 120, 173, 175

1796, 11, 16, 39n, 44, 45, 51, 68, 118, 173, 176

179c, 11, 16, 37n, 39n, 57, 68, 117, 118, 125n, 135, 173

180a, 11, 16, 37n, 42n, 44, 68, 116, 117, 118, 120, 125n, 135, 174

1806, 11, 16, 30, 35n, 37n, 4 2 , 56n,

61, 68, 94n, 103, 105, 108, 117, 119, 120, 128n, 133, 138, 147п, 174

183a, 11, 16, 33, 34, 36n, 38, 68,

116, 122, 132, 136, 174 183b, 11, 16, 28, 29n, 35n, 40n, 47, 50, 54, 68, 94n, 108, 112, 117, 118, 119, 120, 125n, 135, 174 184, 11, 16, 39n, 49n, 50, 101n, 108, 116, 117, 159n, 174

185, 11, 16, 37n, 41n, 43, 52, 54, 56, 68, 88, 108, 110, 116, 117, 118, 174

186a, 11, 16, 37n, 39n,

54, 56n,

109n, 111, 117, 118, 174f

186b, 11, 16, 34n, 38n, 49, 50, 68, 101n, 104n, 117, 118, 125n, 135, 136, 175

187, 11, 16, 29, 30, 33, 35п, 36,

38n, 50, 54, 68, 112, 117, 118, 120, 136, 144, 175

188a, 11, 16, 40n, 50, 119, 120, 126n, 175

55, 117, 172

1886, 7f, 11, 16, 37n, 40n, 57, 68,

38n, 40n, 42n, 58, 70, 95, 101n, 104n, 112, 121, 122, 134, 136,

189, 11, 16, 40n, 41n, 56, 68, 105, 112, 120, 133, 147n,175

171b, 11, 16, 19n, 26, 29n, 30, 35, 137, 172

173, 11, 16, 30, 37n, 136, 172 174a, 11, 16, 26, 29n, 3 0 , 35n, 40n,

49n, 55, 101n, 172

174b, 11, 16, 29, 35n, 36n, 38n, 42n, 47, 68, 95, 125n, 135, 137,

175, 11, 16, 34n, 38n, 49, 50, 68,

101n, 104n, 117, 118, 120, 125n, 135, 136, 173, 175

176a, 11, 13, 16, 39n, 43, 50n, 68, 114n, 118, 119, 125n, 131n, 132,

135, 173 176b, 11, 16, 40, 68, 75, 9 4 , 105,

104, 119, 120, 128n, 175

190a, , 11, 16, 39n, 68, 88, 108, 125n, 132, 134, 175 1906, 11, 16, 35n, 39n, 40, 43, 50, 52, 53, 56, 61, 68, 114n, 117,

118, 119, 120, 125, 135, 173,

175

191, 11, 16, 39п, 44, 45, 49п, 50,

51, 52, 54, 68, 88, 91, 101n, 118, 144, 173, 176

192, 11, 18, 38, 68, 93, 97, 134, 135, 137, 147n, 149n, 176 193, 11, 34, 38, 42n, 55, 56, 62, 75,

105n, 110, 111, 121, 123, 131, 132, 137, 144, 176

193

192

195, 11, 16, 26п, 28, 30п, 32, 34,

211a, 11, 16, 39, 40, 57n, 69,

91, 101n, 104n, 117, 118, 119,

211b, 11, 16, 38, 69, 104, 117, 119,

35, 42n, 44, 51, 57, 62, 68, 88,

120, 121, 1 2 5 , 135, 176 196, 11, 34, 35n, 56, 109, 110, 112,

117, 118, 179

121, 135, 137, 179

212, 11, 16, 30, 33, 3 4 , 37, 39n, 70,

88, 102, 105, 111, 112, 121.

131,176

197, 11, 16, 39n, 119, 126n, 177 198a, 11, 16, 32, 39n, 49, 101n,

119, 126n, 177 1986,11, 16, 37n, 41n, 69, 104, 108, 118, 177

199a, 11, 16, 38n, 55, 57, 58, 121, 126n. 136, 177

199bi, 11, 16, 38n, 69, 95, 101n, 108, 118, 137, 177

199bii, 11, 16, 19n, 38n, 70, 95, 101n, 108, 137, 177

200,11, 16, 38п, 40п, 59, 69, 126, 137,177

201, 11, 16, 30, 33, 37n, 38n,

125n, 128n, 133, 135, 1 4 7 , 180

214,11, 16, 19п, 39п, 70, 88, 102, 112, 117, 121, 125n, 129, 133, 135, 147n, 180

216a, 11, 16, 37n, 38n, 42n, 70, 117, 137, 180 216b, 11, 16, 19n, 30n, 33n, 35, 39n, 59, 70, 101n, 104n, 112, 121,

123, 129,133, 137,149п, 180 217, 11, 16, 19, 38, 39n, 42n, 58, 71, 104n, 105, 122, 126n, 128, 129, 133, 136, 147n, 149, 180

218, 11, 15, 16, 19, 29п, 30, 32п, 35, 36, 40n, 41n, 43, 48, 49n,

55, 60, 61, 71, 101, 105n, 106,

49n, 52, 53, 57, 58, 69, 101n, 104n, 112, 118, 137, 177

108, 109, 110, 121, 122, 126n,

127, 128, 129, 132, 133, 136, 137, 147n, 149, 155, 180f

202, 11, 16, 32, 39п, 43, 44, 49п, 52, 53, 68, 101n, 104n, 118, 119,

120, 177 203a, 11, 16, 37n, 39, 40, 42, 49n, 52, 53, 69, 101n, 104n, 118, 119, 130, 178

2036, 11, 16, 37n, 49, 52, 53, 60, 69, 101n, 104n, 126n, 178 204a, 11, 16, 34n, 36n, 37, 69, 88, 101n, 119, 120, 178

2046, 11, 16, 39n, 49n, 50, 52, 53, 60, 68, 88, 101n, 104n, 118, 119,

230a, 11, 16, 38n, 70, 117, 125n,

135, 137, 144, 182 2306, 11, 16, 26, 33, 34, 35, 39n, 58, 70, 125n,

128, 132,

134,

136, 182 231, 11, 16, 38n, 42, 56,59, 70,

105, 117, 125, 128n, 129, 132,

133, 137, 147n, 182f

232a, 11, 16, 37, 41n, 70, 117, 118, 129, 183

232b, 11, 16, 39n, 70, 117, 129, 183 233, 11, 16, 30, 32, 33, 39n, 55n, 59,

261, 11, 16, 28, 29n, 30, 37, 5 7 , 72, 105n, 112, 117, 120, 132,

137,183

236, 11,16, 26n, 43, 50, 55, 56, 70,

223, 11, 16, 30,39, 56, 57n, 71,

41n, 42n, 43, 51, 70, 105, 122

102, 104, 109n, 111, 112, 119, 126n, 128n, 129, 181 224, 11, 16, 30, 32n, 37n, 39n, 50, 55n, 71, 99n, 102, 119, 121, 126n, 128, 129, 181

225, 11, 16, 19п, 30n, 35п, 36п, 42n, 55, 70, 101n, 112, 121, 133, 134, 144, 149, 181

110, 123,129, 181f

125n, 135, 137, 182

101n, 104n, 117,

229a,11, 16, 26, 37n, 42, 70,

210a, 11, 16, 37n, 40n, 44, 45, 47,

2296, 11, 16, 29п, 38, 44, 47, 70, 88, 95, 101n, 117, 125n, 130,

52, 54, 69, 11 8 . 1 7 9

57, 69, 130, 179 210b, 11, 16, 37n, 69, 118, 179

136, 138, 187

128, 129, 133, 135, 147n, 181

222,, 101, 25, 19, 1251, 26n,

132, 137,182

2096, 11, 16, 33n, 36n, 40п, 49п,

133. 186f

119, 121, 126n, 128, 129, 132, 133, 135, 137, 187.

128n, 129, 132, 136, 181

228, 11, 16, 29n, 30, 35, 38n, 41n, 55, 58, 70, 101n, 109, 117,

137, 179

104,

105, 110, 119, 120, 121, 126n,

237b, 11, 16, 19, 30n, 39n, 59, 60, 70, 88, 105, 110, 122, 123n, 126n, 129, 133, 135, 136, 138, 147n, 149, 156, 159, 171, 184

221, 11, 16,19, 30, 36п,37п, 40п, 57, 58, 61, 71, 122, 125n, 126п,

209a, 11, 16, 26n, 37, 43, 51, 69, 88, 179

33, 380,

129. 186

262,11, 16, 29п,30, 33, 34п, 39п,

42n, 70, 182 2276, 11, 16, 30n, 38n, 70, 126,

95,

72, 109n,1 1 1 ,112, 126, 127,

117, 129, 183f 237a, 11, 16, 30, 34n, 39n, 70,

130,

69,

16, 29п, 30, 32, 33п, 34,

36n, 41n, 54, 55, 56n, 58,

39n, 61, 70, 117, 118, 129, 132,

235b, 11, 16, 30, 32, 33n, 36n, 38n,

101n, 117, 184

239, 11 , 16, 29п, 32п, 33, 34 п, 37,

126n, 128, 129, 130, 133, 135, 136.184

244, 11, 16, 19, 30, 33п, 34, 35п,

47,

35,

133, 135, 147n, 186, 187 260, 11, 30n, 39n, 55n, 60, 72, 111,

227a, 11, 16, 33, 34n, 39n, 40n,

42n,

257, 11,

235a, 11, 16, 39n, 42n, 56n,70, 111, 117, 129, 143, 165, 183

47, 56, 69, 120, 130, 179

208, 1 1 ,1 6 , 30,

128, 129, 133, 135, 138, 147n,

186

259, 11, 16, 30, 35, 39, 56, 72,

149n. 183

11, 16, 30, 32, 37n, 38n, 70,

207, 11, 16, 36, 37n, 41n, 43, 44,

93, 96, 102, 105, 108, 109, 126n,

234, 11, 16, 36n, 37n, 61, 70, 117, 118, 129, 183

226,

135, 137, 147n, 178 206, 11, 16, 29n, 30, 32, 38n, 69,

255, 11, 16, 30, 37п, 39п, 61,72,92,

133, 135, 136, 149, 186 258, 11, 16, 39n, 50, 119, 126n,

117, 120, 137, 178

205, 11, 16, 30, 38n, 49, 50n, 55, 68, 101n, 104n, 118, 119, 125,

55n, 71, 185 253, 11, 26n, 38n, 39, 42n, 59, 72, 88, 96, 97, 106, 123, 140, 144, 156, 158, 186

60, 61, 70, 105, 110, 117, 118, 121, 123n, 129, 133, 135, 147n,

240, 11, 26n, 28n, 29n, 30, 32, 3 3 , 35n, 38n, 42n, 58, 71, 92, 97, 101n, 106, 108, 109, 121, 124п, 130, 132, 137, 184f 243, 11, 16, 19, 26n, 36n, 43, 55, 56, 61, 71, 104, 118, 122, 128n,

120, 125n, 135, 178

251, 11, 16,19, 30, 32, 37, 41n,

101n, 117, 182 135, 137, 182

129, 136, 156, 185

37n, 39n, 71, 103, 118, 122, 126n, 128, 129, 132, 133, 136,

138, 147n, 185

245, 11, 16, 39n, 71, 75, 112, 126n, 127, 128, 129, 185

246, 11, 16, 30, 33, 37n,58, 72, 118, 126n, 128, 135, 137, 185

249a,1 1 , 16, 33, 39п, 72, 119, 126n, 135, 185

2496,11,16, 20, 30, 39п, 72, 105, 129, 135, 147n, 149n, 185

104n, 118, 120, 126n, 129, 187 263, 11, 16, 38n, 42n, 55, 56n,72, 104, 105n, 108, 109, 111, 112,

264a, 11, 16, 20, 35n, 37, 44, 46, 55, 72, 117, 120, 126n, 128, 129, 135, 137, 187

2646, 11, 16, 20,36, 41n, 44, 45, 54, 72, 112, 117, 126n, 128, 129, 133, 135, 136, 187

267, 11, 16, 29n, 30, 35n, 37n, 56n,

72, 101n, 105, 111, 120, 126n,

127, 128, 133, 135, 147n,149n,

187

269, 11,16,38п, 39п, 41п, 42п, 60, 73, 88, 97, 101n, 105, 117, 120, 126n, 128, 132, 135, 136, 155n, 156, 187f

271, 11, 16, 28, 2 9 ,30, 39, 50, 56, 57n, 73, 112, 119, 120, 125,

126n, 128, 129, 133, 135, 155n, 188

272, 11, 16, 20, 3 9 , 48, 73, 105, 117, 119, 120, 126n, 128, 129,

133, 135, 136, 137, 159, 188 274, 11, 16, 39n, 50, 51, 54, 56n, 61, 65, 73, 112, 117, 125n, 126n, 128, 132, 135, 136, 137, 155n, 188

195

194

G E N E R A L INDEX

obits of, 21f, 148, 151, 154, 155

Welsh place- and personal names are indexed by English and not Welsh alphabetical order and are italicised where no modern form can be

supplied. The Latin names of estates are included in this index only if m o d e r n n a m e s a r e u n k n o w n .

powers of, 133f, 136, 146-9, 1625

property of, 25, 150, 156 also

S e e

Aidan,

Fili.

Arthfael ap Hywel, 18f, 70, 98, 183,

Aber-carn(Mon.), 26n, 28, 30, 35,

Arthfael ap Nowy, 19, 71, 74, 84, 89, 103, 185

136, 139, 141n, 146, 148, 149, 150, 151, 154, 156, 168, 185 36, 181

Abergavenny (Mon.), 63

Abraham (fl. c. 866), 58, 182 Abraham (archdeacon), 128 Aed,of Sletty, 143n Aelnod, 106, 186 Aergol (fl. c. 585-605), 117 Aergol (king), 66, 75, 87, 88, 90, 167

Aethelbald, of Mercia, 18, 105, 106 Aethelred I1, 60 Aethelwulf, 38n, 122n, 126n Ager Cinir, 183 Ager Cynfall, 74, 169. Ager Helic, 173 Ager Pennhellei, 175 Ager Tencu, 173

Arwystl, 151, 171

-

Life of Alfred by, 3, 19n, 89n,

90n, 91, 92, 151n, 157n

95, 149n,

Aguod, 112, 119, 121, 180

150n,

Athelstan, 60

Athrwys ap Ffernfael, 18, 44, 69, 81, 102, 179 Athrwys ap Ithel, 174

Athrwys ap. Meurig, 17f, 67, 74, 78, 89, 94, 97, 100, 168, 171

Awst, 18,69, 75, 80, 88, 89, 132n, 168, 169 Ballingham(Her.), 28, 30n, 38, 95, 122, 134, 171, 172

Bath (Som.), 93

Aidan, 170 alms, 60

Anglesey, 96

Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, 3, 17n, 19n, 20n, 89n, 90n, 93n, 95, 148n, 151,153

Annales Cambriae, 2n, 15, 18n, 19n,

20n, 21, 60n, 65n, 89n, 90n, 95n,

96n, 97n, 105n, 147, 148, 149

Anselm (archbishop), 151 arable, see farming archbishops,see clerics archdeacons, see clerics

aristocracy, 36,47, 94,109,110, 132,

133,

battle, 36, 93, 105, 131, 135 Beli, 112, 181 Bellimoor(Bolgros, Her.), 28, 32, 123, 125, 134, 170, 176 Beorhtwulf, 183 Berdic, 114, 117

Berthutis, 127, 187 Berthwyn, 43, 52, 108, 151, 173-6 bishoprics, 147, 149-59

161-3

optimates, 108f

Armagh, Book of, 29n, 44n, 51n, 140

Armes Prydein, 3n, 92, 132n, 140n

Nobis,

Nudd,

Wulfrith, Wynsi

144, 146, 166, 168, 184 Bishton (Mon.), 25, 30n, 61, 138, 1 7 4 . 1 8 0 . 183

Biuhearn, 118 Biuon, 58, 172 Bleddri, 20, 185 Bledrys, 181 Blegywryd, 109

buildings, 32, 37, 38 burial, 121, 132; 135

Bury St. Edmunds (Suffolk), 140n Cadell ap Arthfael, 18f, 71, 75, 83, 89, 95, 102, 181 Cadell ap Morgan, 102, 184 Cadien ap Bleinwydd, 129 C a d i e nap Disaeth, 129

Cadog, 99n, 100n, 131, 132n, 141-3 church of, 45, 131, 135, 140, 142, 145, 179 see also Llancarfan

Cadwallon ap Gwriad, 55, 111, 112, 115, 119, 187

102, 181

Caerleon (Mon.), 61, 121, 142, 144,

Bolgros, see Bellimoor

Caerwent(Mon.), 32, 60, 61, 90, 122,

Boduc, 43, 130n, 184

181

Bonus, 115, 117, 172

boundaries, 28-30, 321, 34, 35, 36,

37, 38, 39, 41, 121, 136, 165

s e ealso estates

braint, 106, 133f - Teilo, 12, 22, 139

cairns, 30, 32, 38

Caldicot (Mon.), 32, 61, 137, 183

Calixtus, 139

Brecon, 11, 26, 137, 145, 152, 155n,

156, 189 seealso Brycheiniog Breigan (Glam.), 177

Camog, 112, 180 canons, see clerics

Cantref Gwarthaf, 141, 145 Cantref M a w , 145

Cantref Selyf, 145 CanuAneirin, 3n

Brein, 129

C a n uLlywarch Hen, 3n

Canu Taliesin, 3n, 24 n

Caradog ap Gruffydd, 20, 48, 73, 85,

Brii. 177

see also Vitae

124, 125, 128, 136, 146, 181

Cairduicil, 75, 123, 181 Cair Nonui, 58, 75, 181

Caldey, 148, 154

see also sanctuary Branud, 117

Britcon, 166, 172 Brittany, 12, 46, 47, 63n,

89, 120, 159, 188 Caradog ap Gulbrit, 113, 120 142n

courts of, 108 dues of, 4

Brochfael ap Gwyddien, 50n, 68, 74,

e p i s c o p a t e sof, 10f, 21 familiae of, 55. 110, 111

"Brochfael ap Meurig, 18f, 60, 70, 75,

houses of, 12, 149-59, 160 lists of, 4

88-90, 98n,

Bleinwydd, 129

bishops, 5, 48, 55, 109, 110, 126, 127, 133, 146, 147-9, 151-9, 162f

f u n c t i o n s of. 148f

18f, 75,

140, 149, 150, 184, 187 Buddwalan, 131

Cadwared, 44, 52, 152, 178f Cadwgon ap Cathen, 158 Cadwgon ap Meurig, 19, 72, 86, 89, 91, 96-8, 120, 186, 187 Cadwgon ap Owain, 18f, 71, 83, 98,

Bledgur, 129

. see also consecrations, dioceses,

consecrations of, 15

Pater,

Bishopston (Glam.), 25, 28, 30n, 51,

Briafaela pLlywarch, 114, 119 Bricon, 42, 52, 178 Bridget, St, 132

Llanda ff

Archenfield, 26n, 30n, 36n, 48, 55n, 60, 61, 90n, see also Ergyng Ariconium, 157

Libiau,

praepositus, St. David's, Teilo, Tyrchan, Ufelfyw, Urban,

122, 124, 125, 130, 136, 142,

Asser (fl. c. 940), 111, 112, 181

Asser (bishop)

Barry (Glam.), 142 - Bassaleg (Mon.), 125, 137

agri, see estates

111-20,

184

Guodloiu, Joseph, Hereford,

Grecielis,

Gwgon,

abbots, 122, 124, 125-8, 134, 135,

Arwystl,

Berthwyn, Bleddri, Cadwared, Cyfeilliog, Dyfrig, Eddylfyw,

Brycheiniog,

79, 94, 100, 119, 169, 170, 178

82, 90n, 95, 98, 102, 113, 177, 180, 182, 183

Brut y Tywysogyon, 19n, 60n, 105n Brychan, 75

Caradog ap Rhiwallon, 112, 114, 115,

117, 187 Caradog Fraichfas, 103

Caratguinn, 113, 117 Cardiff (Glam.), 136

Cariou, 45

Carmarthen, 26, 91, 136, 145, 152, 153, 154n, 189

Carnwyllion, 91

196

197

Castell Conscuit, 32, 137, 183 Catgen, 174

Catharuc, 183 cattle, see livestock Catuuth, 177

Cecin Pennicgelli, 187 Cecin Penn Ros, 137, 187 Cedweli, 91, 97n Ceincair, 56, 179

Cemais (Mon.), 28, 47, 100, 108, 115, 136, 174, 177

cemeteries, see burial

Cenarth Mawr (Carm.), 145, 167 Cenguri, 120 census, 48-50, 101, 104 n see also taxation

Ceredigion, 97n

58f, 64, 112, 137f, 141f

121-4,

129-32,

altars in, 121

see also Cadog, Cingualan, Dyfrig, Llandaff, Teilo

Cilcyuhynn, 74, 167

Cilgwrwg (Mon.), 173

Cil Tudwg (Pemb.), 35, 36, 145, 167 Cinbleidiou, 176 Cingualan, 131 church of, 135, 168 Cintiuit, 117 Cinuin ap Gwrgan, 115, 117, 172, 180

Concum, 136n Condiuill, 116 Conhae, 118, 175 Conloc, 44, 166

tir of, 44, 116 Conone, 178

consecrations, 7, 12, 15, 22, 127, 148, 155n

Constantine, the great, 99n, 103

Constantine (king),67, 75

Conuil, 43,44, 52, 56, 115, 118, 129,

131n, 173, 175, 178 Conuin, 52, 117, 174

conuiuium, 48, 133, 159, 174, 184,

Cinuin ap Morgan, 102, 184 Cinuin ap Peibio, 17f, 67, 76, 102, 165, 170, 171

188 Conuce, 150

Conuoy, 74, 157

Cerenny, 153, 154, 157n, 174, 177,

Circan, 129

Cornwall, 142n, 151n

Cors (fl. c. 876), 109, 182

Cerio, 118 cet, 48

Cirencester (Glos.), 93 civitas, 61, 147

180

see also taxation

charters

English, 19, 108n, 151n Llandaff, 139, 155-9, 160, 164-88: chronology of, 14-21,

65n groups of, 11f

A, 22, 144, 151, 152, 153, 158, 164, 165f

B, 22, 144, 145, 151, 152, 153, 158, 1 6 6 f

C, 2 1 , 151, 152, 153, 154, 156.158. 167-9

D, 21f, 151, 152, 153n, 154,

158. 1 7 0 f

E, 21, 151, 153, 154, 158, 171f

F, 21, 104, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 158, 173-80 G, 21f, 106n, 151, 154, 158, 180f

H, 21f, 104n, 106n, 151, 153,

154, 158, 181-4 J, 21f, 106n, 151, 154, 158, 184-8

sequences of, 15-21, 129, 164 Chepstow (Mon.), 36, 44, 61, 118,

132, 137, 170, 171

Chester, 60

church, the, 51, 103f, 105, 106, 110, 112, 121-34, 149, 160, 161-3

churches, 25, 32, 35, 38, 42, 44, 51,

clas, 130

clerics, 44, 62, 105, 106, 124-8, 133, 139, 146, 150, 151 archbishops, 149

o fCanterbury, 5, 106, 186

of York, 106, 155n archdeacons, 128, 155

canons, 128, 129, 135, 155

deacons, 35, 127, 128 dean, 128, 135, 155 lectors, 125, 128, 140 presbiteri, 22, 126-8, 135, 136, 137, 140, 155 priests, 46, 62, 126-8 sacerdotes, 125-7, 148 see also bishops

Clifford (Her.), 62 Clodri, 75, 94, 100, 105, 108, 115, 117, 173, 174 Clydog, 75, 121, 132, 176 church of, 176

Cut, 106, 186 coins, 60f - hoards, 60, 105n

Cors ap Erbic, 119, 179

Cors a p Gafran, 115, 118, 120, 178 Crabtree, 143 Crick (Mon.), 30, 115, 187 Crin, 43, 130, 179 Crith Gablach, 110n Cuchein, 133, 171

cults, 143 Cwm Nofydd (Glam.), 186

Cyfeilliog ap Bledgur, 128, 129, 150 Cyfeilliog (bishop), 60, 90n, 110, 151, 153, 154, 1824 Cynan (king),68, 75,94, 118, 169 Cynan (fl. c. 1075), 188

Cynfarch (father of Enynny), 100n

Cynfarch, St, 131, 132 churchof, 137

Cynfedw, 75, 99, 105, 118, 168 Cynfelyn (fl.

c. 860), 172

Cynfelyn ap Cynwg, 52, 115, 118, 179

Cynfor, 52, 58, 115, 118, 174, 177 Cynfwi, of Ewias, 176 C y n f w, St, 131

Cyngen (fl. c. 1033), 32

Collectio Canonum Hibernensis, 49n,

Cyngen (abbot), 150 Cynguaiu, 167

Collfyw, 117

Cynwg, 43, 44, 52, 118, 131n, 173,

Colfrid, 150

126n

Colloquy, 24, 38, 39, 46, 65n, 125n,

127, 128n, 130n, 148, 159n

coloni, 46, 47 companions, 105 Conblus, 173

Cynog, 116 177

Dagan, 150

Danes, 105, 148

David, see Dewi, St deacons, see clerics

dean, see clerics

dedications, 141-3, 144, 145, 152 'Deer, Book of, 45n, 53n

degion, 109 see also aristocracy

Demetia, 89, 97

dependants, servile, see peasants Deunerth ap Iddig, 117, 118

Dewchurch (Her.), 125, 134, 176

171,

Dewi,S t ,132, 140n, 141-3, 146n,

147,148 Dewi (fl. c.708-52), 118

"Dewi (sacerdos), 127, 129

Dibwn, 100n Dinas Powys, 3n, 36n, 93n Dinbirrion, 75, 179 Dingad, 132

Dingestow (Mon.), 30n, 137, 182

dioceses, 147, 158 boundaries of, 5 Llandaff, 22, 139 organisationof, 5

Disaeth, 129, 150

Diuin, 127

Dixton (Mon.), 122, 125, 136, 174

Docco, 143n Docgwin, 131, 141-4 church of, 135, 140, 144 see also Llandough

Dochoe, 143n

doctor, 62, 127 Domesday Book, 3, 25, 26n, 30n, 36n, 40, 48, 55n, 60, 61, 62, 90n, 114, 117n, 118n

Domnguaret, 43 Dore

river, 2 6 ,36n

Valley (Mafurn), 28, 95, 122, 134, 144, 166, 170, 171, 172,

176

Dorstone (Her.), 28, 137, 144, 165, 171, 176

Doward(Her.), 125, 134

Duna, 129

Durrow, Book of, 108n Dyfed, 1 8 , 2 0 ,2 4 n ,4 6 , 7 5 ,87, 88-90,96, 101, 105п, 106, 110, 136, 151

s e e also Demetia Dyffryn G o l y c h(Glam.), 186 Dyfnwared, 179

Dyfrig, 4, 8, 17, 22, 127n, 141, 144,

198

147f, 149, 154, 165, 166, 168, 175, 176, 181, 182

church of, 42, 51, 143, 144f, 149, 151ff, 154, 165, 166,

171, 172

see also Lectiones, Vitae

dynasties, 17-20, 50, 52, 58, 65-73,

90, 92-8, 102, 103, 113, Ergyng, 17, 93, 114, 115

114

Gwent/Glywysing, 18f, passim Eadmer, 90n Ebba. 185

ecclesiae, see churches, estates Ecclesia Riu, 75, 137, 144, 182

economy, Welsh, 24, 25-64, 161 gold, 51n, 60 kilns, 32

market, 59-62, 163 mer chan ts, 61

prices, 52-4, 59-61 ships, 61

silver, 51n, 53f, 5 9 , 110 tolls, 61

towns, 32n, 38, 59, 61f, 163

Eddylfyw, 172 Edeligion, 91

Edgar, 7, 54, 101n, 103, 106, 139 Edrit, 113, 119 Edward, the Confessor, 61, 106 Edwin ap Gwriad, 20, 72, 84, 89, 96,

100,105, 109, 161, 185, 187

Eicolf, 112

Eiludd ap Awst, 168, 169 Eimin, 43, 130n,184 Einon, 97, 109, 110 Eiset, 183

elders, 108f, 110, 113-6, 174, 175, 177

seniores, 88, 89, 1081, 113 Elfael, 145

Elffin, 114, 119, 120, 173, 175, 177 daughter of, 112

Elfoddw, 149

Elgar, see Vitae Elgist ap Awst, 1 8 ,69, 75 Elgnou, 44 Elguoid, 150

Eli Eli Eli Eli

(fl. c.1020), 185 (fl. c.738-55), 150 (deacon), 181 (fl. c.862), 112, 117, 180

Elias, 111, 115, 117, 173, 174, 175

Eliau, 182 Elidon, see St. Lythan's Elinui, 114, 118

Eliog, 120 Elise (d), of Brycheiniog, 19 Elise (d), of Gwent, 19, 74, 103

Eliseg, 103

Elivid, 178 Eluod, 150 Elwared, 150

Ely (Glam.), 178 Ely, river, 186 Empire, Roman, 162, 163

uillae, 32, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38-40, 43, 52, 57, 59, 60, 63f, 108, 117,118, 123 see also b o u n d a r i e s , slaves

Eudaf Hen, 103

Euddogwy, 8 , 22, 143n, 151, 154, 167, 168, 169, 170, 186 see also Vitae

Eudeyrn, 127

Ewenny, river, 43, 61, 173, 175 Ewias, 36n, 54, 62, 75, 98,

excommunication, 14, 133 exile, see

law

166

Erbic, 115, 119, 177 Ercicg, Ercycg, see Ergyng Erdtibiu, 178

Ergyng, 4, 11, 17, 26, 28, 29n, 47, 50, 57, 58, 59,6 2 ,6 3 ,64, 74,

75, 88-90, 93f, 96f, 98, 99,100, 108, 113, 115, 116, 117, 122-4, 129, 130, 144, 145, 148, 150, 151-5, 157, 158, 171, 174, 177, 189

Ermint, 183

estates, 25-8, 32-42, 45, 46, 54, 56-9, 62-4, 110, 112-6, 129, 161 acreage of, 33f, 38f, 57f, 161, 165 agri, 33, 36, 37, 39, 40-2, 43n, 44, 52, 57, 58n, 62, 132 domus. 3 7 . 4 2

ecclesiae, 36-8, 39, 40, 41f, 52, 59, 64, 121-4, 137 heredes of, 43-7, 51, 129f, 166,

168, 179, 184 hereditarit of, 43-7, 51, 53, 55

63, 104n, 117, 118, 120, 129,

168, 169, 170, 173, 179

locus, 37, 38 mainaur, 37, 38n, 42

Gabalfa (Glam.), 136, 169

Gafran (fl. c.775), 115, 120, 178

familiae

Gallcun, 105, 112, 180 Gamber, river, 30, 172, 182

aristocratic, 112

episcopal, 55, 110, 111, 127, 128,

148, 149, 150, 151, 156, 159 monastic, 124, 127, 128, 141n, 142n, 156

royal, 105

families, 40, 43, 52, 55, 111, 1141, 150, 161 lands of, 115f, 128ff, 161

see also k i n d r e d s

farming

arable, 24, 29, 34-6, 40f corn, 35 cultivators,34f, 62 farms, 33, 39, 41, 58, 64

land use, 34-7, 42, 46, 62 meadows, 30, 34, 35, 36 pasture, 29, 34-6 shepherd, 36

soils, 28, 35 transhumance, 24 see also estates, livestock

Fauu, 172, 174 Febric, 132, 137

Ffernfael ap Ithel, 18, 43, 52, 56, 69, 74f, 81, 94f, 102, 108, 120,

170, 173, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179

terrae, 36, 37, 40f

fishing, see rights

trefi, 24, 29n, 32, 36, 37n, 3840, 57,59,63

Friog, 102, 103, 110, 169, 170

galanas, see law

Ffernfael ap Meurig, 90n, 102, 177

territoria, 36, 42, 143 tir, 37,41n

Sanctions, 7f, 10, 135 Foy (Her.), 125, 136

Fairwater (Glam.), 173, 175

poda, 36, 37£, 42, 58, 121f, 126, 134, 135, 136, 140 tellus, 37,42

Notifications, 7f, 9, 10

Preambles, 7f, 9

Gafran (fl. c.710-35), 120

Engistil, 181

Enim, 129 Erb, 17, 65, 66, 74, 76, 88, 89, 93,

43n, 165

Dispositions, 7, 9f, 10, 43n, 135 Narrations,7 f ,9, 13, 21f, 105, 106, 112, 133£, 164, 165

Frankia, 39f,63n, 108n

103

emperors of, 99n

English, 19, 105, 106, 111, 127, 155

199 Boundary Clauses, 7f, 9, 29-32,

Ffreuddwi, 44, 118, 176 Fili, 99n, 148n

formulae,7-14, 34, 43n, 48£,88, 92, 101, 104, 106, 122, 134п, 135, 140, 144, 164f Attestations, 7f, 9

Garth Maelwg (Glam.), 28, 30n, 35,

39, 188 Garway (Lann Guorboe, Her.), 42, 58, 123, 125, 131, 134, 140, 143, 170, 171, 176 Gellan, 119 Gelligaer (Glam.), 142

genealogies, 2, 15, 17-19, 74n, 75n, 92, 95, 99n, 100n, 102, 103, 114n, 158n

G e r m a n u s ,4 n

Gideon, 172 Gildas, 2, 47n, 65n, 89n, 124f, 126n, 130n. 148

Gindog, 118 Giraldus Cambrensis, 55f, 103n Gistrerth, 120

Glamorgan, 11, 21, 28, 29, 35, 37, 56, 60, 90-2, 93, 94-6, 101n, 113, 114, 115, 117n, 118, 119, 123f,

145, 146, 150, 152, 154, 155, 157, 186, 189

archdeacons of, 128 lordship o f ,92

see of, 5, 90n

Vale of, 25f, 98, 99, 142n, 148, 153, 154, 168, 173, 175, 178, 186,189

see also Morgannwg Glesni, 117

Gleuissic(g), see Glywysing

glosses,2, 41n, 60n

Gloucester,93, 103, 142n - shire, 11

Gloyw, 103

201 200

Glywys, 94, 99, 100n,1 4 8

Glywysing, 50, 57, 58, 63, 74, 88, 91f, 95, 97, 99, 108Г, 113, 157, 158, 175 gold, see econom y Goodrich (Her.), 182

Gorui, 129 government, 110, 116, 161, 162, 163

Gower, 11, 26, 28, 47,51,56, 74,

931, 97, 98-101, 144, 145, 152, 155n. 157, 167, 184, 189 Grecielis, 153, 166, 172, 174

Gruffvdda pElise, 19, 71, 84, 89, 102, 103, 185

Gruffyddap Llywelyn, 20, 60, 73,

96f, 105, 106, 114, 120, 139, 1876

Gruffydd ap Owain, 18f, 43, 51, 70,

83, 98, 100, 102, 184 Gruffvdd ap Rhydderch, 20, ?61, 72, 85, 89, 96-8, 120, 187 Guallonir, 45, 115, 119 Guasfuith, 118

Guernonoe, 129 Gufrir, 105 Guincum, 117, 172 Guinda, 150

Guiner, 172 Guingual, 129, 131 n, 133, 172 Gulagguin, 111, 112, 181

48, 50, 51,57, 58,59, 60, 62

63,64,74,88-93, 95-101, 108-10, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118,122-4 144, 145, 146, 150, 151-5, 157, 158, 177 archdeacons of, 128

lordship of, 92, 188

- Iscoed, 26, 47, 61, 89, 92, 98, 189

- Uwchcoed, 26, 47, 75, 98, 100, 144, 145, 152, 189

gwestfa, see taxa tion

Gwgon, 5n, 9, 106, 155, 184 f Gwladus, 142 Gwrfan, of Ewias, 176 Gwrfan (bishop), 171 Gwrfoddw (f1. c.720-33), 118

Gwrfoddw (king), 17f, 42, 58, 67, 77, 88, 93, 105, 131, 132, 143, 170

Gwrgan ap Duna, 129

Gwrgan (fl. c.735), 112, 175

Gwrgan (fl. c.868), 115,117, 172

Gwigan ap Cinuin, 17f, 67, 76, 88, 94, 132, 171 Gwrgan ap Ffernfael, 178

Gwrgan ap Ithel, 65, 115, 119, 186, 187

Gwrgan ap Meirchion, 115, 118, 185, 187

Gulatmorcant, see Morgannwg Gulferi, 172

•Gwrgi, 129 Gwrinydd, 32

Guoidcen, 178

Gwyddgi ap Peibio, 17f, 67, 102,

Guodloiu, 171

Gwyddsi a pClodri, 52, 117, 174

Guoleiduc, 51n, 55, 130n, 166

165, 171 Gwyddien, 68, 79, 94, 100, 115,

Guorai, 182 Guorcinnim, 45 Guordbrit, 129 Guorduc, 166

Guoruoe, 42, 58, 131, 133, 143, 170 Guoruot, 55, 180 Gurai, 132, 173, 175 Gurceneu, 118, 129 Gurdauau, 113, 116 Gurdoc(ius), 44, 116, 170

Gurgauarn ap Ffernfael, 18, 69, 81, 102, 178, 179

Gurhytyr, 43, 168 Gurniuet, 118, 178

Guruarch, 54, 74, 174 Gustin, 185

Gwengarth, 119 Gwent, 11, 17, 21, 28n, 35, 36n, 40,

119, 169

Gwyddnerth, 103, 114, 115, 119, 173.174

Gwynedd, 96, 105n, 157 Gwynllwg, 91

Gwynllyw, 132n Harewood (Her.), 30n hawks, see hunting

Heinif, 129

Henriugunua, 187 Hentland (Her.), 141, 144 n heredes, see estates hereditari, see estates

Hereford, 25, 26, 62, 96n, 176, 188, 189

bishop of, 5, 157

Herewald, 4, 44, 106, 127, 128, 148, 151, 154, 155, 187f hide, 4 0 n hillforts, 32 hounds, see livestock

households, see familiae

Howick (Mon.), 30n, 44, 129, 137, 168

hunting, 36 hawks, 36, 53, 59, 60 hawking, 36 horns, 53f, 59f Huntsham (Her.),28n Hyfaidd, 157 Hywel ap Owain, 18f, 72, 86, 89, 96, 102, 186

Hywel ap Rhys, 181, 43, 56, 70, 75, 82, 88, 90n, 91, 95, 98, 102,

105, 112, 180, 182, 183

Hywel Dda, 60, 101, 105, 157 lago ap Idwal, 96 larmen, 132, 137 Iddig ap Nudd, 45, 68, 75, 94, 115, 117, 169

Iddon (king), 67, 77, 93, 100, 105, 140, 166, 167, 171 Iddon (ludon, hereditarius), 44, 45, 51, 52, 173, 176 Idnerth, 75, 117

Idwallon (fl. c.700), 68, 75, 94, 100,

105, 117, 173 Idwallon ap Morgan, 18f, 71, 75, 102, 184, 185

lestyn ap Gwrgan,65, 73, 75,86, 96, 112, 113, 115, 119, 120, 188

Ibri, 119

Пис, 166, 172 Illtud, 131, 1414 church of, 135, 140, 144, 145 see also Llantwit

Inabwy, 126, 130, 165,171 inheritance, 45, 54-6, 63, 103, 129, 163

inscriptions, stone, 2, 40, 65n, 99n, 103, 123n, 148, 157n

ioculator, 114, 117 Ireland, 12, 44n, 49n, 143n

Isidore, 40f Italy, 44n, 143n Ithel (hereditarius), 44, 176

Ithel, of Llangynfyl, 58,172 Ithel, of Ewias, 112, 176

Ithel (praepositus), 114, 117

Ithel ap Athrwys (fl. c.635-705), 18, 36, 68, 79, 89, 94f, 102, 170, 186

Ithel ap Athrwys (saec. ix), 19n, 95, 102n

Ithel ap Morgan, 16, 18, 44, 52, 68,

74,80, 88, 91, 94f, 97, 98, 101, 105, 106, 108,1 2 0 , 170, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178 Itton (Mon.), 172 ludhurb, 150 ludon, see Iddon lunet, 119

Joseph, 11, 20ff, 112, 127, 154, 155, 185-7

jurisdiction, see law

Kemeys,see Cemais Kenchester(Her.),63 Kenstec, 151

Kilpeck (Her.), 38, 40, 137, 172 kindreds, 45n, 55f, 105, 110, 111,

149, 162f kinship terms, 56n, 111 seealso families kings, 47, 65-107, 114, 116, 117,

119, 132, 133, 157, 158, 161-3

accessions of, 15

activities of, 103-5, 110 coins of, 60

companions of, 105, 107, 113-6, 117

consento f , 54 dates of, 17, 19f deaths of, 15

grants by,49, 50-3, 63,93,985 income of, 48-50, 98-101,135

kingdoms of, 88-98 limitations on, 106f, 109, 161 residence of, 108 rights of, 45n, 46n, 52, 58, 64, 98Í, 101, 106

sales by,52f sub-kings, 94, 96, 105 succession of, 102f

taxation by,48-50, 101

titles of, 88-90, 93-6 also Aergol, see

Aethelbald,

Aethelred, Arthfael ap Hywel,

Arthfael ap N o w, Athelstan, Athrwys ap Meurig, Athrwys ap Ffernfael, Awst, Brochfael

ap Gwyddien, Brochfael ap

203

202 Meurig, Cadell ap Arthfael, Cadwgon ap Meurig, Cadwgon Caradog ap ap Owain, Gruffydd, Cinuin ap Peibio, Chut, Constantine, Clodri, Cynan, Edward, Edwin, Erb, Ithel, Ffernfael

Ffernfael ap

ap Meurig, Gruffydd ap Elise,

Gruffydd

Llywe lyn,

ap

Gruffydd ap Owain, Gruffydd ap Rhydderch,

Gurgauarn ap

Ffernfael, Gwrfoddw, Gwrgan ap Cinuin, Gwyddgi ap Peibio, Gwyddien, Hywel ap Owain,

Hywel ap Rhys, Hywel Dda, Iddig, Iddon, Ithel ap Athrwys, Ithel

ap

Morgan, Maredudd,

Merchwyn, Meurig/ap Arthfael lap Hywel/ap Ithel/ap Tewdrig, Morgan ap Athwys, Morgan ap Owain, Nowy, Nowy ap Gwriad, Peibio, Rhodri ap Elise, Rhodri ap Ithel, Rhydderch ap lestyn, Rhys ap Ithel, Rhys ap Owain, Tewdrig, Tewdwr, William I kingdoms, see kings

Lanncoit, 137, 171 Lann Gunnhoill, 75, 137, 184 Lann Guorboe, see Garway Lann Helicon, 55, 74, 137, 178 Lanntiuauc, 138, 186

Welsh, 3,40, 48, 55, 56, 103, 110,

133, 162, 183

concepts of

enech, galanas, sarhad, wyneb -werth, 110n problems of

compensation, 60, 109, 110, 111, 133f, 163 exile, 110, 134 judgements, 109f, 162f

105;

113f, 115, 151, 161f, 163

see also Llyfr Blegywryd, Llyfr

forwerth, rights

151f

donors of, 34, 43, 44, 45, 49, 62, 63, 103f, 112-6, 161

ownership of, 40, 48, 49, 51f, 55, 56n, 59, 64, 101, 111-6, 161f partibility of, 55

sales of, 36, 43, 45, 50n, 514, 59-61, 101, 104, 115, 163

values, 53

see also estates, rights Landévennec, 49n, 142n landing rights, see rights landscape, 28-32, 42 see also buildings

land use, see farming

Lann Calcuch, 74, 171, 176 Lann Cincirill, 74, 138, 169

47, 48, 49n, 51n, 57, 109, 124 m 126n,

128n,

129n,

148n, 153,

154n

Lifris, 128 Liliau, 44, 130, 168 Little Dewchurch (Her.), 58, 137, 172 livestock, 36, 43, 112 cattle, 24, 36, 53f, 59f horses, 36, 51n, 53f, 59

hounds, 36, 53f, 59f

pigs, 24, 35, 36, 51n, 60, 62

sheep, 24, 36, 51n

Llanddowror, 135, 136, 142n, 143n, 144, 166

Llaethdy Deilo (Pemb.), 145, 167

Llangatwg-nigh-Usk, 141 Llangiwa, 115, 137, 180

Llangofen, 137, 143n,178 Llan-gors, 35, 122, 124, 132n, 136,

Llanisien, 137, 184

Llan Llwyd, 137, 184

Llanloudy, 38, 135, 171, 176

Llandegfedd, 121, 136, 177, 188

Llandeilo Bertholau, 26, 28, 35, 138,

Llandeilo Gressyni, 140, 145, 167

Llandeilo'r fan, 26, 28, 30, 34, 35, 56, 138, 167 Llandenni, 30, 36, 43, 56, 130, 137, 179

Llandeulyddog, 141 Llandinabo, 28, 29,

26n, 35,

137, 184 Llanfihangel Cwm Du, 123n, 138, 171, 184 Llangarren, 176

Llangynog, 185

Llanddewi, 142n

36, 138, 144, 169

see also charters, Llandaff Libiau, of Ewias, 176 Libiau (bishop), 9, 60, 149, 155n, 157n, 184 'Lichfield Gospels', 3, 20, 29n, 37 n,

Llanfihangel Crucornau,

137, 146, 172, 187

Llanddeiniol, 137

Llandeilo Tal-y-bont, 28, 32, 34, 35,

Hand A, 4, 5, 12, 22, 104n

184

146, 168, 184 Llan-gwm, 30n, 124, 128, 132, 136, 172, 188 Llan-gwm Isaf, 115, 188 Llangyfelach, 142n Llangynfyl, 46, 58, 121, 124, 125,

141, 143n, 144, 145, 153, 154, 156, 157, 158, 166, 167, 187

Liber Landavensis, 3-5, 7-22, 139, hands of, 3, 4

133,

139, 155, 158, 160, 162 canons of, 128, 129, 155 charters, passim church of, 43 diocese of, 22, 54, 92 monastery of, 135f

145, 153, 154n, 166 Llandeilo Fawr, 28, 34, 35, 135, 140,

lawyers, 109, 133

editingof, 10-14, 20-2

132, 153, 180,

98, 99f, 112, 121, 124, 125, 134, 135f, 139f, 143n,146, 155, 156, 159, 169, 170, 183, 185, 186, 187 bishopric of, 4, 5, 11, 21f,

see also c h a r t e r s

108,

репостол3, 10:96, 13

d o n a t i o nof. 50-4

market, 53

Llancillo, 134, 170

Roman, 46

laity, 131-4, 140n, 163

heritability of, 54-6

Llanfeithin, 142n Llanfihangel, 61, 123n, 183

Llandaff, 12, 21f, 25, 26, 4 7 ,60, 68,

lectors, see clerics

grants of, 34, 114-6, 140f guarantorsof, 103f

Llanbedr, 28, 138, 187 Llancarfan, 21, 38, 124, 125, 128, 131, 132n, 135, 142, 144, 145, 150, 156, 158, 169, 174, 185

Laur, 112, 185 law, 109f

Kings Caple (Her.), 36n

Lancaut (Glos.), 125, 135

Llanfannar, 44, 47, 130n, 137, 179,

145, 166, 181

Lanngunguarui, see Wonastow

Lechluit, 176 Lectiones Dubricit, 144

land, 40, 161-3

Llan-arth, 38, 55, 93, 112, 134, 144,

Llanmelin, 30, 34, 115, 138, 185 Llanrhidian, 168 Llansanwyr,

168

Llansoy, 29, 35, 136, 144, 176 Llanspyddid,

142

Llantwit, 38, 48, 49, 101, 123n, 124,

125, 127, 135, 141, 142n, 144, 145, 148, 150, 168, 169 Llanwarne, 137, 177

Llanwern, 137, 184, 185 Llanwynno, 28n, 35, 43, 179 Llanwytherin, 30n, 35, 58, 137, 182 Lleufryd, 44, 45, 130n, 179 Llowes (Radn.), 136, 169

30,

126,

130, 134, 143n, 144, 165, 171,

176

LIwyn Deri(Mon.), 137, 184 Llyfr Blegywryd, 3n, 41n, 48n, 56n, 110n

Llandogo, 26n, 28, 30n, 34, 35, 124,

Llyfr Iorwerth, 3n, 56n Llywarch, 112, 181

Llandough, 124, 125, 127, 135, 141,

L o u h a i ,see Ti n t e r n

Llanfable, 35, 137, 172 Llanfaches,38, 121, 137, 179

Mabsu, 108, 117, 174

Llandochau, 142n

125, 135, 1 4 3 , 146, 154, 155, 157, 158, 170, 181

locus, see estates

Loughor,river, 32

144, 146, 150, 169, 174 Llanegwad, 145, 167, 169 Llanelli, 142, 175 Llanerthill, 30n, 138, 170, 176

Lunberth, 149, 151, 184 Lunbiu, 32 Lutinn, 136n

Llanfaes, 142

Madley (Her.), 28, 121, 144, 166

Macon, 41n

204

205

Madog, 52, 178 Mafurn, see Dove magistri, 125 Mailseru, 136n mainaur, see estates Mainaur Brunus, 123, 141, 167 Mainerch, 172 Mamilad (Mon.), 30, 142n manors, 25

Mesioc, 45 Meurig (fl. c.620), 18, 170

Meurig ap Arthfael, 18f, 59, 70, 82, 88, 89, 91, 95, 102, 106, 132, 166, 172, 177, 180

Meurig ap Enynny, 74, 100n

Morudd, 182

Mounton (Mon.), 44, 144, 173, 176

murder, 106, 111, 112, 133 Nantauan, 168 Neath, river, 36n

Nennius, 2, 48, 65n, 89n, 90n, 108n

mansus, 39f

Meurig ap Ffernfael, 178 Meurig ap Hywel, 19, 60, 72, 86, 89, 96, 98, 102, 105, 109; 114, 120, 185, 186, 187

March ap Peibio, 111, 183 Marchi, 129

Meurig ap Ithel (saec. ix), 18f, 102n

Nowy (fl. c.625), 18, 67, 87, 166 Nowy ap Gwriad, 19, 61, 71, 74;, 75,

102, 103, 105, 109, 119, 132,

Nudd (fl. c.895-905), 118 Nudd (bishop), 112, 134, 153, 154, 181,182, 183

Mar ap Glywys, 99n

Meurig ap Ithel (fl. c.745-75), 18, 69,

81, 102, 170, 173, 175, 176, 178

Maredudd (?fl. c.785), 18, 69, 75, 87, 88, 89n, 90, 105, 167

Maredudd ap Owain, 60, 97n, 101

Margam (Glam.), 99n market, see economy, land marriage, 129 Marshfield (Mon.), 175 martyrdom, 131

157. 167.168. 169

Michael, St, 132 Moccas (Mochros, Her.), 26, 32, 125,

135, 141, 144n, 176

Mochros, see Moccas

see a l s o m e r t h y r s

modi, see measurements

Mary, St, 132

Matharn(Mon.),32, 61, 93, 121, 125, 132, 137, 143, 167, 183

Mathri (Pemb.), 145, 167 meadows, see farming measurements

monasteries, 32n, 38n, 46, 59, 61, 1214, 125-8, 134-6, 141, 143, 145f, 147, 148, 149, 155

archmonastery, 122, 149n, 159

unciae, 33, 3640, 42, 53f, 51, 59, 62

meetings, public, see law Mei. 129

Meinporth, 184 Meirchion (fl. c.874-90), 117

Meirchion (fl. c.700), 103, 119, 174

Meirchion ap Rhydderch, 56, 115,

118, 185, 187 Menechi (Pemb.), 145, 167 merchants, see economy

Merchfyw, 128

77,

93, 99,

100n, 166

Merewald, 146, 168 merthyrs, 121, 132

Merthyr Buceil, 121, 180

Merthyr Clodock, 26n, 28, 32, 34, 35; 36, 44, 118, 121, 132, 137, 176

Merthyr Gereint, 121

Merthyr Glywys, 99n, 121, 140

Merthyr MawI, 98, 99, 121, 123n, 145, 180, 181

Nobis, 149, 153

nobles, see aristocracy

Norman Conquest, 21, 51, 61,92, 97 84, 95, 100,109, 161, 180, 181

shire, 91-5, 189

Monnow, river, 32, 41, 55, 90, 115,

172, 176, 187, 189 Morcannuc, see Morgannwg Morcim(b)ris, 179 Morfarch, 128 Morgan ap Athwys, 18, 43, 52, 56,

68, 74, 79, 88, 89, 91, 92, 941, 98-100, 102, 103, 109, 114, 119Г, 168, 169, 170, 173, 174, 175 Morgan ap Owain (Hen), 7, 18f, 71,

75,83,89, 90n, 92,95f,97, 100,

102, 103, 106, 139, 155, 157,

184f

Morgannwg (Morcannuc), 74, 89, 91f, 95-8, 109, 157, 158n, 161

Gulatmorcant, 89, 147n see also Glamorgan Morgen, 58, 172

Peterstow (Her.), 174

place-names, 3, 36-8, 42, 59, 122-4, 137f, 141-3

placitis, 109 poda, see estates

poetry, Welsh, 3, 24f polyptyques, 39

Porthcaseg (Mon.), 75, 169

Port Talbot (Glam.), 123 n Powisfa Dewi, 30, 121

Ourdilat, 188 Owain ap Hywel, 90n, 95, 183

prices, see economy

Onbraust, 56,94, 167

Owain ap Morgan, 54, 102, 103, 184 Padarn, 147

parishes, 64

pasture, see farming Pater,61, 180f Paviland (Gower), 184

peasants, 35, 47, 110

dependants, 24, 43-9, 55, 127, 130, 161 see also slaves, tenants

Pebidiog, 145

Peibio, 17f, 66, 76, 88, 98, 114n, 165, 166

Pembroke, 26, 145 Penally (Pemb.), 125, 135, 143n,

144, 166, 187 penance, 14, 22, 54, 55, 106, 111, 133

see also law

Pencarn, 45 Penclegyr (Pemb.), 145, 167 Pencoed (Her.), 28, 30n, 144, 166 Pendeulwyn (Glam.), 142n Penfro, 145

Pennard (Glam.), 28, 60, 168 Pennbargaut, 75, 89, 176

boundaries.

pigs, see livestock

presbiteri, see clerics

paruchiae, 139, 141n, 146, 147 Pasgen, 113, 117

monks, 35, 58, 128, 136, 147, 148 Monmouth, 25, 26, 62, 118, 136, 137, 173, 174, 175, 182

see

Ogmore (Glam.), 99n, 148

offices in, 124-8, 161 see also civitas, clas, estates (poda),

perambulations, formulae

praepositus, 114, 117, 118

papal bulls, 3, 4, 25

principes

180

Pentyrch(Mon.), 142

NyI, 117, 172

federations of, 139-46, 150, 159, 160

modi, 33-5, 38-40, 54, 57

Merchi, 112, 185 Merchwyn, 18, 67,

Meurigap Tewdrig,18, 44, 56, 65, 67, 74, 75, 78, 89, 93-5, 98-100,

Newport (Mon.), 132n, 142n Ninian, 143n

Penrice (Glam.), 60

Penterry (Mon.), 124, 125, 137, 146,

episcopi, 46, 128

presentment, see rights

priests, see clerics

principes (monastic), 125, 135, 136, 146, 149 prisons, 109, 121, 133 procurator, 119

Pwilmeurig (Mon.), 61, 137, 183, 184 Radnor, 98, 118, 119, 145, 150

Raglan (Mon.), 142n

Reathr, 45 Redon, 47n, 49n

renders, 44,45, 46, 47ff, 63f, 101, 131, 140f, 142n, 159 of honey, 45, 47ff, 60, 100 Rheinwg, 158n

Rhiadaf, 52, 108, 116, 174 Rhigyfarch's Life of St.

David, see

Vi t a e

Rhiwallon ap Awst, 168, 169

Rhiwallon ap Rhun, 55, 111, 112, 186

Rhiwallon ap Tudfwich, 36, 112, 187 Rhodri Mawr, 157

Rhodri ap Elise, 19, 71, 84, 89, 102, 103, 185

Rhodri ap Ithel, 18, 52, 69, 75, 81, 102, 176, 179

Rhos, 145

Rhosili (Glam.), 29, 43, 122, 124, 130n, 135, 144, 146, 168, 184

Rhydderch ap Elcu, 48, 117

206

207

Rhydderch (fl. c.750), 55, 177

Rhydderch ap Beli, 112, 187

Rhydderch ap Iestyn, 20, 72, 74, 85, 89,96, 106, 140, 155, 161, 186

Rhys ap Ithel, 18, 43, 69, 74, 81, 88, 91, 94, 102, 178, 179 Rhys ap Meurig, 186

Rhys ap Owain, 18f, 72,86, 89, 102, 185

Ricceneth, 56, 114n, 175 rights,

fishing, 26, 36, 43, 61 landing, 26, 61

property, 45, 50-6, 98

sea, 61 of jurisdiction, 109, 141n, 146 of presentment, 58, 130, 132f, 140f

see also law, kings, sanctuary

Rihedl, 119

Riubrein, 35, 186 Riugraenauc, 168 roads. 3 0 f

Roman, 30f, 63

Rockfield (Mon.), 30n, 58, 137, 184, 185

Roger FitzWilliam, 51, 65, 73, 188 Ruid, 127

Samson, 63n, 127, 143n see also Vitae

Samuel, 119

sanctuary, 105, 106, 109, 133, 149, 179, 180, 186, 188

sarhad, see law

Saxons, 17f, 26, 43, 54, 56, 93, 97, 105, 167

scriptores, 128 scripulum, 53 Sedog, 150 Seisyll ap Elcu, 117, 187

Seisyll ap Gistrerth, 112, 113, 114, 120, 186, 187

Seisyllwg, 157, 158n Sellack (Her.), 125, 136 Senghennydd, 41n, 186 seniores. see e l d e r s

settlements, 32, 37, 38-42, 58, 62-4,

121-3, 161 Severn, river, 61, 183 sheep, see livestock

shrines, 121, 131, 132, 142n silver, see e c o n o m y

slaves, 24n, 43, 46, 54, 55, 62, 110 l a b o u r o f .4 7

manumission of, 47

smith, 62 social structure, 110f

St. Arvans (Mon.), 43, 60, 121, 137,

soils, see farming Splott (Glam.), 182, 186 StratElei, 178

St. Bride's Super Ely (Glam.), 137,

sub-kings, see kings Sulien, 150

St. David's, 143, 145 bishop of, 5, 147, 151, 156, 157,

synods, 133f, 135, 147, 148, 149, 154, 162 Taf, river, 134, 135, 155 Talan, 44, 130

sacerdotes,see clerics 149, 181 187

184

diocese of, 142n, 156, 158n, 186, 188

St. Julians (Mon.), 121, 144, 181

St. Lythan's (Elidon, Glam.), 121, 123n, 137, 170

St. Maughan's (Mon.),30n, 36, 48, 55, 112, 117, 122, 124, 125,

130n, 136, 137, 144, 146, 154,

159, 166, 172, 187, 188

St. Michaels, 122, 125, 136 St-y-Nyll (Glam.), 30n, 35, 123, 137, 180

saints, 24, 42, 131f, 140ff, 143, 188 see also Bridget, Dewi, Mary, Michael, Vitae

sales, see land

Talgarth (Brec.), 145 Tarader,river, 26, 92, 139, 147n Tatheus, 132

church of, 136

Taui urbis, 32, 122, 125, 135, 136

taxation, 48-50, 53, 60, 64, 101, 104

gwest fa, 48, 101 see also conuiuium

Teilo, 8, 22, 38n, 93, 125, 134, 135, 140, 144, 147, 155, 166, 167, 168 church of, 4 3 ,48, 122, 124n, 136,

see also 'Braint Teilo', Vitae Telich, 184

Telichclouman, 167

tenants, 40, 44-7, 51f, 55, 63f, 110, 163 see also p e a s a n t s , slaves

Tenby (Pemb.), 35, 46, 75, 145, 167 territoria, see estates

Tewdrig, 18, 121, 167

36, 93,

Villa Cathouen, 177

Villa Villa Villa Villa

Conuc, 40, 173, 175 Cyuiu, 143, 183 Deui, 53, 118, 178 Elcu, 185

Villa Ellcon, 177

Tewdwr (fl. .c 1040), 119 Tewdwr (fl.c.750), 18, 69,75, 80, 88, 90, 98n, 103, 171, 184

Villa Fratrus, 186

Tewdws, 18

Villa Guocof, 38, 123n, 170

Tewdwr ap Elise, 19, 60, 70, 83, 88, 90, 149, 171, 184

Thaw, river, 30n, 35, 75, 98, 142, 168, 178, 186 Tidenham (Glos.), 29, 36n, 47, 61,

124; 130, 137, 173, 182 Tintern (Louhai, Mon.), 54, 179 Tipallai, 137, 172 Tir Collou, 180 Tir Cynir, 75

Tir Dimuner, 74, 177

Titiuc, 132

church of, 136

tolls, see e c o n o m y

towns, see economy

Villa Greguri, 169, 170

Villa Guennonoe, 54, 173, 176

Villa Gueruduc, 74, 179 Villa Guilbiu, 43, 168

Villa Iliman, 53, 178 Villa Lath, 74, 169 Villa Meneich, 170 Villa Nis. 174

Villa Pennros, 188

Villa Procliuii, 54, 178 Villa Ret, 181

Villa Villa Villa Villa Villa

Segan, 75, 181, ?185 Stifilat, 185 Tancuor, 40, 53, 178 Tref Ginhill, 186 Tref Rita, 188

Villa Vallis, 129, 133, 171

transhumance, see farming trees, 30

unciae, see measurements Undy (Mon.), 185

TrefIli, 40, 75, 183 Tref Marchan, 40

urbs, 32, 61, 122, 136 Urien Rheged, 100n

Tref Eliau, 40, 186

t r e fi , see e s t a t e s

Urban, 4, 5, 22, 90n, 139 Usk, river, 26, 36n, 61, 142n

TremCanus, 75, 167

Vuelauc, 129

Troggy, river, 183 Tryleg (Mon.), 95, 137, 149, 177

Valence, synod o f ,59 Vie de S.Malo, see Vitae, Breton Villa Eliav, 182 villas, see Villa N, willae

Trem Carn, 123, 145, 167

Grange, 122, 136, 180

Tudfab, 182 Tudnerth, 128 Tudwg,43, 167 Turguert, 188 Turion, 53, 7 4 ,178 Typhei, 167

Tyrchan, 52, 152, 153, 154, 177f

Tywy, river, 92, 97, 139, 147n, 157, 189

13941, 143, 144f, 148, 149, 151,

uchelwyr, see aristocracy

167,180

uillae, see estates

152ff,154, 155, 157, 158, 166,

100n, 105,

Villa Bertus, 74, 175 Villa Branuc, 35, 58, 182 Villa Breican/Ellgnou, 32, 40, 43f, 53, 177

Ufelfyw, 170

Roman, 161

Vita Cadoci, see Vitae, Welsh

Vita Pauli, see Vitae, Breton Vita Samsonis, see Vitae, Breton Vita S. Winwaloei, see Vitae, Breton Vitae, 141, 148, 153 Breton:

Vie de S.Malo, 2n, 125n

Vita Pauli, 2n, 24n, 29n, 41n, 48, 49n, 128n VitaS. Winwaloei, 2n Vita Samsonis, 2n, 24n, 47n,

48, 63n, 65n, 89n, 90n, 93,

208

124f, 126n, 127, 130, 142,

143п, 1 4 8 , 154 Welsh: 'Life' of Dyfrig, 3, 4, 9, 11, 22, 141, 144 'Life' of Elgar, 3, 4

145,150,151, 152, 154, 157,

158, 165,173 Wenvoe (Glam.), 170

Whitchurch (Glam.), 30, 32, 34, 35, 186

'Life' of Euddogwy, 3, 4, 9,

11,22,26,97n, 143n, 152, 157

William I, 188

'Life' of Samson, 3,,

Winchester, 140

'Life' of Teilo, 3, 4, 9, 11, 22,

witnesses, 18, 19n, 50, 54, 65n, 109,

144, 145, 152 Rhigyfarch's Life o fSt. David, 2n, 124, 125n, 1 3 0 , 1 4 2 , 147, 149n, 1 5 0 Vita Carantoci, 147

Vita Cadoci, 3, 45, 48n, 49n,

51n, 52, 53n, 58n, 64n, 7 4 ,

91, 92, 99n, 100, 105n, 118, 119,

122n,

131,

132n,

141-3,146n, 147п, 151, 156, 174.179

William of Malmesbury, 60n 164

clerical, 17, 150, 151, 159 lay, 113-20

lists, 14f, 17, 21, 44, 56, 74, 88, 104,112, 124, 126, 127, 145п, 164, 165

women, 43, 50, 54, 56, 112, 125

Wonastow

(Lanngunguarui,

30n, 53, 58, 137, 177 woodland, 29f, 34, 35, 36, 38

Mon.),

Worcester, 12

Vita Gundleii, 61n, 147

Worm, river, 26

Vita Kebii, 147 Vita S. Paterni, 147, 150n,

Wye, river, 26, 36n, 61, 75, 90, 93, 96, 97, 98, 99, 118, 139, 170, 173, 188, 189

Vita Ituti, 101n, 130n, 141n, 142n, 147n 158n Vita Tathei, 147

Vortigern, 103

WelshBicknor (Her.), 28n, 29, 30n, 122, 124, 125, 130, 134, 144,

Wulfrith, 154, 157n, 181

wynebwerth, see law Wynsi, 154n

Ynis Peithan, 30, 35, 186 Ys t r a d y w . 5 4 , 103

Ystum Guy, 188