A HISTORY OF LONDON Thornev, by a wondering fisherman. Proceeding to the church he performed the rites of consecra- tion amid the chanting of celestial choirs, and on his return bade the awestricken boatman go to Bishop Mellitus of London, tell him what he had seen, and forbid him to repeat the cere- mony, which he was to have performed on the morrow. St. Peter also caused the fisherman to take an unprecedented draught of salmon, one of which he charged him to present to the bishop in token of the truth of his story.' When the next day broke Mellitus came to the abbey and found the holy water, oil and crosses, the half- burnt candles, and the Greek and Latin alpha- bets inscribed upon the walls. He therefore, says one writer, completed what remained to be done, and collecting the relics of apostolic con- secration, placed them in a shrine, where they still remained in the fourteenth century.* The first extant version of this story is to be found in a thirteenth-century transcript of a work purporting to be written by one Sulcardus, a monk of Westminster, at the end of the eleventh century ; ' but Richard of Cirencester, a monk of the house in the fourteenth century, gives the tradition in substantially the same form, and even William of Malmesbury, one of the most trustworthy of early English historians, and with no occasion for bias in this case, repeats the story at the end of the eleventh or the beginning of the twelfth century.* It is in- teresting also to note that Gervase of Canterbury and the annalists of Bermondsey and Waverley, as well as Matthew Paris and Ralph de Diceto, both members of houses of rival antiquity, without giving the legend of the miraculous consecration, refer the date of the foundation to the time of Ethelbert.' According to Sulcard the church, which was but a little one, was much neglected after the death of Ethelbert until King OflPa proposed to establish a monastic congregation, but was prevented by his pilgrimage to Rome. This story is suspicious, as there is evident confusion on the part of the writer between Offa of East Saxony (709) and OfFa of Mercia (757-96) who is really the next reputed benefactor of the house.' ' This was the origin of the tithe of salmon paid annually to the abbey from the Thames fishermen between Staines and Gravesend.
- Richard of Cirencester, Speculum Historiale (Rolls
Ser.), i, 92-3. ' Cott. MS. Titus, A. viii, fol. 2 et seq.
- Will. Malmesbur)', Gesta Pontijicum (Rolls Ser.),
141. ' This post-Conquest evidence cannot of course be taken as any guarantee of the authenticity of the story of the East Saxon foundation, but as an indica- tion of its wide acceptance within a few years of the death of the Confessor and for many years later, it has a certain value of its own. ' Cott. MS. Claud. A. viii, fol. 3. Cf. Plummer, Baedae Op. Hist, i, 322. OfFa's charter, however, which takes the form of a grant of 10 cassates of land at Aldenham to 'the needy people of God in Thornev, in the dreadful spot which is called aet Westminster ' has been accepted by several historians of the abbey as genuine.' This would seem to point to the existence of a monastery here before the year 785 — the date of the charter — for the grant was paid for by the abbot, and the ' needy people of God ' must certainly have been a monastic congregation. Accordingly Widmore considered that the house was probably founded between the years 730 and 740, about the time of the death of Bede, by whom, he argued, it must have been mentioned, had it existed earlier. He fiirther supposed it to have been a small foundation for under twelve monks, not sufficiently important to have been of royal foundation.^" Tradition goes on to say that the house was subsequently laid waste by the Danes, but restored by Edgar on the advice of Dunstan, who being a great reader, had made himself acquainted with the early history of the place. Edgar gave Dunstan control over the restored foundation, and the bishop, pursuing his usual policy, immediately placed in it twelve Bene- dictine monks.^^ One of Edgar's charters has been accepted by Widmore as genuine, but it has far less appearance of authenticity than that of OfFa. Not only is the date given as 951, whereas Edgar did not come to the throne until 958, but also Bishop Wulfred is wrongly men- tioned as a contemporary of OfFa. At the same time it is highly probable that the monastery was restored by Edgar and Dunstan. It was certainly in existence before the refoundation by Edward the Confessor, but it is hardly likely that it was founded in the stormy period between the death of Edgar and the accession of Edward, and if it was founded before that time it may be safely assumed, even apart from the authority of William of Malmes- bury,'* that the great bishop would not pass it over in his reforms. After this Westminster is supposed to have again fallen a prey to the Danes, but it would seem that the house was not wholly destroyed, ' See Widmore, Enquiry, 7 (the charter is printed in the Appendix), and Loftie, Westm. Abbey, I o. '" Widmore, Enquiry, 7. " Cott. MS. Titus, A. viii, fol. 4 seq. and Will. Malmesbury, Gesta Pontijicum (Rolls Ser.), 1 78. " See Widmore, Enquiry ; Loftie, U'cstm. Abbey, and Dep. Keeper's Rep. xl, 546. The charter given in Cott. MS. Faust. A. iii, fol. 1 7 seq. is a manifest forgery. " Lives ofEdu Confessor (Rolls Ser.), 417, and see charter of Ethelred dated 986 in Hist. MSS. Com. Rep. viii, App. ii, 28, and one of Leoftvine dated 998 in Kemble, Cod. Dip/, mccxciii. " See above, note 11. The statement that Dun- stan actually ruled the monastery is of course absurd. 434
