Page:Somerset Historical Essays.djvu/53

 of that period at Glastonbury, and, having reasons for believing that there was at some time an Abbot Ælfric at Glastonbury, made this precarious identification. In his Life of St Dunstan he further says that it was Ælfric's elevation to the episcopate which had made the vacancy at Glastonbury which Dunstan was unexpectedly called to fill. As an Ælfric became bishop of Hereford in 940, and another citric became bishop of Ramsbury in 942, the suggestion was a tempting one.

But when we turn to our tenth-century list we find that Ælfric comes after Dunstan instead of before him, and we are unable to accept this explanation of the vacancy. In this list the two names which precede Dunstan's are Cuthred and Ecgwulf. Of the latter we know nothing: but there is a possible trace of the former. For in the St Gall Confraternity Book the list of English names entered on the occasion of Bishop Kynewald's visit in 929 mentions after the bishops two abbots, 'Kenod abb. Albrich abb.': then follow names with no distinctive designations and first among these is 'Cud ret '. Bishop Stubbs assumed that this Cudret was the abbot of Glastonbury who appears in the ancient list as Cuthred. It is however to be observed that, though he stands next to the abbots, he is not described as an abbot. Now in a charter of K. Athelstan of three years later we find the attestation of 'Cuðerð minister' If the 'royal island' of Glastonbury were at this time in the king's hand and ruled by a lay 'abbot', we could understand that he would not be styled 'abbas' in the St Gall Confraternity Book; and if his successor Ecgwulf were also a king's thegn we could understand that he should be removable at pleasure, and so present no obstacle when K. Edmund suddenly resolved to place Dunstan in the abbot's seat. But this is mere conjecture: the evidence does not warrant us in calling it more. And William of Malmesbury's example warns us of the danger of Writing down conjecture as history.

Guthlac, the name which precedes Cuthred in the tenth-century list, is placed at a much earlier point by William of Malmesbury, who dates him between 824 and 851. Here the balance of probability on the available evidence is against the tenth-century list; and possibly we are no longer justified in looking to it for the proper