Already, A.D. 680, Theodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, had presided at a general Council of the Bishops of England, said by Ven. Beda to be “in loco qui Saxonico vocabulo _Haethfelth_ nominatur.” Some have placed this at one of the various Hatfields or Heathfields that may have struck the taste of either; whether in Yorkshire, Herts, Essex, Sussex, or Somerset. But Archbishop Parker[87] says that it was “juxta Roffam,” apparently quoting “Roff. Histor.” This, at any rate, shews that near Rochester was at least not thought an unlikely place for a great general Council. Collier also gives the marginal title “The synod at Hatfield _or_ Clyff, near Rochester.” So much for Heathfelth. But where, after all, was “Herutford,” the place of the earlier synod (A.D. 673), also convened by Archbishop Theodore? This may be looked upon as the initial one of the long series of “Clofeshoch” synods: at which that series was first appointed. Mr. Kemble says[88] that it was “presided over by Hlothari the sovereign of Kent,” and this was probably the case, although Beda does not expressly say so. Beda only adds, to his account of the decrees of the council, a paragraph beginning with a statement that it was held A.D. 673, the year in which king Ecgberct had died and been succeeded by his brother Hlothere. Kent was still an independent kingdom; and, not only in the primacy, but in its instrument, the series of synods thus instituted, possessed within itself the heart of the now established church; which, having become an active political function of concentration, was a much coveted constituent of empire; and invited the impending aggression of Mercia. Within three years of the first institution and localisation of these councils, Æthered made a direct swoop upon this quarry, when he entered Kent at this very Hoo, the appointed place of the future councils.
The only reason for “Hertford,” as the usual interpretation of “Herutford,” is again the mere likeness of the name; and is not a strong one even of its kind. Any place with “Rod-,” “Reed-,” “Rote-,” and many the like initial syllable, would have a better claim. It is very much suspected that the method, hitherto practised of placing these old place-names, has been far too hasty. It may fairly be expected that some of them are no longer represented by any existing names. We have seen above by how close a shaving several have survived. But of this name “Herutford,” “Heorotford,” or “Heortford,” it might safely be assumed that the initial “He-,” is no more than a prefixed aspirate: that it is not of the essence of the name. And so Beda himself evidently thought; for when[89] he mentions a name, almost identical with this one, in Hampshire; he gives it with a Latin explanation, “_Hreutford_, id est _Vadum harundinis_,” evidently taking it for Reed or Rodford.[90] We might also expect to find such a name represented by a modern name beginning with “Wr-;” but an inconsiderable “Redham,” a farm, in Gloucestershire, is found written “Hreodham” in the tenth century.