of the Conquest was, as Mr Freeman asserted in his preface, 'a period
of our history which is full alike of political instruction and of
living personal interest'. In one sense, it is an object-lesson never
more urgently needed than it is at the present hour. Only that lesson
is one which Mr Freeman could never teach, because it is the bitterest
commentary on the doctrines he most adored. In the hands of a patriot,
in the hands of a writer who placed England before party, the tale
might have burned like a beacon-fire, warning us that what happened
in the past, might happen now, today. The Battle of Hastings has its
moral and its moral is for us. An almost anarchical excess of liberty,
the want of a strong centralized system, the absorption in party
strife, the belief that politics are statesmanship, and that oratory
will save a people--these are the dangers of which it warns us, and to
which the majority of Englishmen are subject now as then. But Mr
Freeman, like the Bourbons, never learnt, and never forgot. A democrat
first, an historian afterwards, History was for him, unhappily, ever
'past politics'. If he worshipped Harold with a blind enthusiasm, it
was chiefly because he was a _novus homo_, 'who reigned purely by the
will of the people'. He insisted that the English, on the hill of
battle, were beaten through lack of discipline, through lack of
obedience to their king; but he could not see that the system in which
he gloried, a system which made the people 'a co-ordinate authority'
with their king, was the worst of all trainings for the hour of battle;
he could not see that, like Poland, England fell, in large measure,
from the want of a strong rule, and from excess of liberty. To him the
voice of 'a sovereign people' was 'the most spirit-stirring of earthly
sounds'; but it availed about as much to check the Norman Conquest as
the fetish of an African savage, or the yells of Asiatic hordes. We
trace in his history of Sicily the same blindness to fact. Dionysius
was for him, as he was for Dante, merely--
Dionisio fero
Che fe' Cicilia aver dolorosi anni.
But, in truth, the same excess of liberty that left England a prey to
the Normans had left Sicily, in her day, a prey to Carthage: the
same internal jealousies paralysed her strength. And yet he could not
forgive Dionysius, the man who gave Sicily what she lacked, the rule
of a 'strong man armed', because, in a democrat's eyes, Dionysius was
a 'tyrant'. That I am strictly just in my criticism of Mr Freeman's
attitude at the Conquest, is, I think, abundantly manifest, when even
so ardent a democrat as Mr Grant Allen admits that
a people so helpless, so utterly anarchic, so incapable of
united action, deserved to undergo a severe training from
the hard task-masters of Romance civilization. The nation
remained, but it remained as a conquered race, to be drilled
in the stern school of the conquerors.[159]
Such were the bitter fruits of Old-English freedom. And, in the teeth
of this awful lesson, Mr Freeman could still look back with longing
to 'a free and pure Teutonic England',[160] could still exult in the
thought that a democratic age is bringing England ever nearer to her
state 'before the Norman set foot upon her shores'.
But the school of which he was a champion has long seen its day. A
reactionary movement, as has been pointed out by scholars in America,
as in Russia[161] has invaded the study of history, has assailed
the supremacy of the Liberal school, and has begun to preach, as the
teaching of the past, the dangers of unfettered freedom.
Politics are not statesmanship. Mr Freeman confused the two. There
rang from his successor a truer note when, as he traversed the seas
that bind the links of the Empire, he penned those words that appeal
to the sons of an imperial race, sunk in the strife of parties or
the politics of a parish pump, to rise to the level of their high
inheritance among the nations of the earth. What was the Empire, what
was India--we all remember that historic phrase--to one whose ideal,
it would seem, of statesmanship, was that of an orator in Hyde Park?
Godwine, the ambitious, the unscrupulous agitator, is always for him
'the great deliverer'. Whether in the Sicily of the 'tyrants', or the
England of Edward the Confessor, we are presented, under the guise of
history, with a glorification of demagogy.
No man ever deserved a higher or a more lasting place in
national gratitude than the first man who, being neither King
nor Priest, stands forth in English history as endowed with
all the highest attributes of the statesman. In him, in
those distant times, we can revere the great minister, the
unrivalled parliamentary leader, the man who could sway
councils and assemblies at his will, etc., etc.[162]
We know of whom the writer was thinking, when he praised that
'irresistible tongue';[163] he had surely before him a living model,
who, if not a statesman, was, no doubt, an 'unrivalled parliamentary
leader'. Do we not recognize the portrait?--
The mighty voice, the speaking look and gesture of that old
man eloquent, could again sway assemblies of Englishmen at his
will.[164]
The voice which had so often swayed assemblies of Englishmen,
was heard once more in all the fulness of its eloquence.[165]
But it was not an 'irresistible tongue', nor 'the harangue of a
practised orator', of which England stood in need. Forts and soldiers,
not tongues, are England's want now as then. But to the late Regius
Professor, if there was one thing more hateful than 'castles', more
hateful even than hereditary rule, it was a standing army. When the
Franco-German war had made us look to our harness, he set himself at
once, with superb blindness, to sneer at what he termed 'the panic',
to suggest the application of democracy to the army, and to express
his characteristic aversion to the thought of 'an officer and a
gentleman'.[166] How could such a writer teach the lesson of the
Norman Conquest?
'The long, long canker of peace' had done its work--'vivebatur enim
tunc pene ubique in Anglia perditis moribus, et pro pacis affluentia
deliciarum fervebat luxus.'[167] The land was ripe for the invader,
and a saviour of Society was at hand. While our fathers were playing
at democracy, watching the strife of rival houses, as men might now
watch the contest of rival parties, the terrible Duke of the Normans
was girding himself for war. _De nobis fabula narratur._
[Footnote 1: Mr T. A. Archer (_Contemporary Review_, March
1893, p. 336).]
[Footnote 2: Mr Freeman saw nothing grotesque in Orderic's
description of Exeter, as 'in plano sita' (_Norm. Conq._, iv.
153), though its site 'sets Exeter distinctly among the hill
cities' (Freeman's _Exeter_, p. 6).]
[Footnote 3: That I may not be accused of passing over any
defence of Mr Freeman, I give the reference to Mr Archer's
letter in _Academy_ of November 4, 1893, arguing, as against
Mr Harrison, that the story of a great 'naval engagement' in
1066 may probably be traced 'to the seaside associations of
the name Hastings'. Unfortunately for him, Mr Freeman himself
had quoted this wild story (iii. 729) and suggested quite a
different explanation, namely, that it originated, not in the
Battle of Hastings, but in some real 'naval operations'.]
[Footnote 4: Since this passage appeared in print my opponents
themselves have written of the Battle of Hastings [_sic_], and
Mr Archer has admitted that 'to speak of Senlac in ordinary
conversation, or in ordinary writing, is a piece of pedantry'
(_Academy_ _ut supra_). On my own use of the word before I had
examined Mr Freeman's authority, see p. 273.]
[Footnote 5: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 444.]
[Footnote 6: _Ibid._, p. 757.]
[Footnote 7: Mr Archer writes: '_Pel_ is literally "stake",
and originally, of course, represented the upright or
horizontal stakes which go to make a palisade' (_English
Historical Review_, ix. 6).]
[Footnote 8: _Ibid._, p. 10. The word which Mr Freeman (and
others) rendered 'ash' is rendered 'windows of farm dwellings'
by Mr Archer (see below, p. 308).]
[Footnote 9: Mr Archer would have us believe that 'Mr Freeman
really had in his mind ... a real wall of real shields and
stakes' (_English Historical Review_, 16), and that the
English would 'strap up their shields to the stakes', would
combine 'their shields and poles', and so forth (20).]
[Footnote 10: This is Mr Oman's third and (up to now) final
explanation (_Academy_, June 9, 1894).]
[Footnote 11: _English Historical Review_, ix. 232.]
[Footnote 12: _Ibid._, ix. 232-3, 237-8, 240.]
[Footnote 13: The difficulty of hauling timber even a short
distance over broken and hilly ground 'in an October of those
days' (_N.C._, iii. 446) must not be forgotten.]
[Footnote 14: The italics are Mr Freeman's own.]
[Footnote 15: He even spoke of it as 'the main castle' (_Arch.
Journ._, xl. 359).]
[Footnote 16: Miss Norgate (_Angevin Kings_) follows him,
speaking of their assailants striving 'to assault them as if
besieging a fortress'. One is reminded of Mr Freeman's remark
as to Hastings, that Harold turned 'the battle as far as
possible into the likeness of a siege' (see above).]
[Footnote 17: 'Men ranged so closely together in the thick
array of the shield-wall' (iii. 471).]
[Footnote 18: _Cont. Rev._, March 1893.]
[Footnote 19: _English Historical Review_, ix. 12.]
[Footnote 20: My detailed reply to Mr Archer's attempt to
confuse the 'fosse' and the palisade will be found in _ibid._,
ix. 213, 214.]
[Footnote 21: He paraphrased 'escuz de fenestres è d'altres
fuz' as 'firm barricades of ash and other timber'.]
[Footnote 22: I supply the passage in square brackets (the
italics are my own) from the earlier volume to explain Mr
Freeman's reference.]
[Footnote 23: _Quarterly Review_, July 1892, p. 14.]
[Footnote 24: I am loth to introduce into the text the
wearisome details of controversy, especially where they are
_nihil ad rem_, and have no bearing on my argument. But, lest
I should be charged with ignoring any defence of Mr Freeman, I
will briefly explain in this note the attitude adopted by his
champions.
In the _Contemporary Review_ of March 1893, Mr T. A. Archer
produced a reply to my original article (_Quarterly Review_,
July 1892), or rather, to that part of it which dealt with the
Battle of Hastings. Declaring my attack on the palisade to
be my 'only definite and palpable charge against Mr Freeman's
account' (p. 273) which, it will be found, is not the case--he
undertook to 'show Mr Freeman to have been entirely right in
the view he took of the whole question' (p. 267). To do this,
he deliberately suppressed the fatal passage (iii. 763-4) I
have printed above--to which, in my article, I had prominently
appealed--in order to represent me as alone in seeing a
description of the shield-wall in Wace's lines (p. 267).
He then insisted that 'there are six distinct objections to
translating this passage as if it referred to a shield-wall'
(p. 270).
Instantly reminded by me (_Athenæum_, March 18, April 8,
1893), that Mr Freeman himself had taken it as a description
of the shield-wall, and challenged to account for the fact,
again charged (_Quarterly Review_, July 1893, p. 88), with
'ignoring a fact in the presence of which his elaborate
argument collapses like a house of cards', further challenged
(_Academy_, September 16, 1893) to reconcile Mr Freeman's
words (iii. 763-4), with his representation of the historian's
position, Mr Archer continued to shirk the point, till in the
_English Historical Review_ of January 1894, he grudgingly
confessed that 'the discovery that a shield-wall (of some sort
or other) was implied in this so-called "crucial passage", is
due to Mr Freeman' (p. 3), but he and Miss Norgate endeavoured
to urge that it could not be as I imagined, the shield-wall
that he had always spoken of (pp. 3, 16, 62). Even this
feeble evasion, now seems to be dropped since I disposed of it
(_ibid._, 225-7).]
[Footnote 25: _Quarterly Review_, July 1892, p. 15.]
[Footnote 26: See below, p. 284.]
[Footnote 27: _Quarterly Review_, July 1893, p. 84.]
[Footnote 28: _Athenæum_, March 18, 1893.]
[Footnote 29: _English Historical Review_, ix. 40.]
[Footnote 30: _Ibid._, p. 58.]
[Footnote 31: _Cont. Rev._, 351.]
[Footnote 32: _Quarterly Review_, July 1893, pp. 93-4.]
[Footnote 33: _Ibid._, ix. 27, 28.]
[Footnote 34: _English Historical Review_, 219-25.]
[Footnote 35: _Ibid._, ix. 607. The italics are Mr Archer's
own. His own trusted authority, Wace, posts the English in 'un
champ' (ii. 7729, 7769)!]
[Footnote 36: _Norman Conquest_, iii. 419, 420.]
[Footnote 37: No one, of course, would treat the Tapestry like
a modern illustrated journal; but if it be fairly treated,
in Mr Freeman's spirit, one's real wonder is that, under
such obvious limitations, the designer should have been so
successful as he has. Nowhere, perhaps, is the painstaking
accuracy of the Bayeux Tapestry better seen than in its
miniature representation of the fortress at Dinan. It shows us
the _motte_, or artificial mound, surrounded by its ditch,
and even the bank beyond the ditch, together with the wooden
bridge springing (as we know it did in such castles) from that
bank to the summit of the mound.
As to Mr Archer's attempts to show that Mr Freeman in one or
two instances did not value so highly as he did what he deemed
the supreme authority for the battle, I need only print Mr
Freeman's words, parallel with his own comments, to show how
their character is distorted.
MR FREEMAN MR ARCHER
The testimony of Florence is He rejects the Tapestry's account
confirmed by a witness more of Harold's coronation,
unexceptionable than all, by following Florence of Worcester's
the earliest and most statement--that Harold was
trustworthy witness on the crowned by Aldred, Archbishop
Norman side, by the of York--in avowed
contemporary Tapestry ... in opposition to his own reading of
every statement but one.... the Tapestry, i.e. that Harold
The Tapestry implies--_it can was crowned by Stigand.
hardly be said directly to
affirm_--that the consecrator
was Stigand (iii. 582). The
representation in the
Tapestry is singular. _It
does not show Stigand
crowning or anointing Harold_
(iii. 620).
It has been remarked by Mr He rejects _in toto_ the
Planché and others, that at Tapestry's version of Edward the
this point the order of time Confessor's death, for that
is forsaken; the burial of 'priceless record' makes _Edward
Eadward is placed before his buried before he died!_ Mr
deathbed and death. On this Freeman, and perhaps not
Dr Bruce says _very truly_: altogether without reason,
'the seeming inconsistency follows the saner notion of other
is very easily explained', authorities, that Edward died
etc., etc. (iii. 587) ... I before he was buried (_English
do not think that any one Historical Review_, ix. 607).
who makes the comparison
minutely (between the
Tapestry and the Life) will
attach much importance to
the sceptical remarks of Mr
Planché (_ibid._).
One would hardly imagine from Mr Archer's sneers that Mr Freeman
had really vindicated the Tapestry from its 'seeming inconsistency',
did one not know him, as a writer, to be _capable de tout_.]
[Footnote 38: _Cont. Rev._, p. 351.]
[Footnote 39: _English Historical Review_, ix. 607.]
[Footnote 40: I wish, as I have done throughout, to make
it absolutely clear that I am here concerned only with Mr
Freeman's rendering of Wace. If we are to go outside that
rendering and discuss Wace _de novo_, it is best to do so in a
fresh section. This I hope to do below, when I shall discuss
the question of his authority (which has not yet arisen),
and shall also propound my own explanation of the now famous
disputed passage.]
[Footnote 41: In my first article (_Quarterly Review_, July
1892, pp. 15-16) I pointed out that the great weight attached
to Mr Freeman's statements had of course 'secured universal
acceptance' for the palisade, and that it figures 'now in
every history'. Mr Archer, in his latest paper, refers to
these remarks (_English Historical Review_, ix. 602) and
triumphantly charges me with self-contradiction in having
myself once accepted it, like every one else. He refers to
an incidental allusion by me in the _Dictionary of National
Biography_ so many years ago that I was unaware of its
existence. I am particularly glad to be reminded of the fact
that I did allude, in early days, to the 'palisade' and to
'Senlac', for it emphasizes the very point of my case, namely,
that that mischievous superstition of Mr Freeman's unfailing
accuracy must be ruthlessly destroyed lest others should be
taught, as I was, to accept his authority as supreme.
My opponent writes:
'Mr Round ... in direct contradiction to the _Quarterly_
reviewer, has found for it [the palisade] an authority in
William of Poitiers, and _has gone far beyond Mr Freeman
himself in giving us the name of the man who first broke it
down_.'
How has Mr Archer produced the alleged 'contradiction'? He has
taken a passage from my notice of Robert de Beaumont, written
years before I had made any independent investigation of the
Battle of Hastings, and when I thought, like the rest of
the world, that I might, here at any rate, safely follow Mr
Freeman, when it was only a matter of a passing allusion to
the fight. The following parallel passages will prove, beyond
the shadow of doubt, that I here merely followed Mr Freeman,
accepting his own authority--William of Poitiers--for the
incident. Any one in my place would have done the same. But
Mr Archer asserts that, on the contrary, I went 'far beyond
Mr Freeman himself in giving us the name of the man who first
broke it down'. Let us see if this definite statement is true:
MR FREEMAN MY ARTICLE
The new castle was placed in Of these [sons] Robert fought at
the keeping of Henry, the Senlac ... [and] was _the first
younger son of Roger of to break down the English
Beaumont. A great estate in palisade_ ... he was rewarded
the shire also fell to with large grants in
Henry's elder brother, Warwickshire, and Warwick Castle
Robert, Count of Melent, who, was entrusted to his brother
at the head of the French Henry--_Dict. Nat. Biog._, iv. 64.
auxiliaries, had been _the (Mr Freeman's works, of course,
first to break down the are given among the authorities
English palisade_ at for the article.)
Senlac--_Norman Conquest_,
iv. [1871] 191-2. See also
iii. 486, and _Will. Rufus_,
i. 185, ii. 135, 402.
So much for Mr Archer's assertion that I made an independent
statement not found in Mr Freeman's pages. It is obviously
impossible to conduct a controversy with an opponent who does
not restrict himself to fact.]
[Footnote 42: _William the Conqueror_ (1888), p. 90.]
[Footnote 43: 'Had they done so, they must have been set so
close that they could not have used their weapons with any
freedom' (_Cont. Rev._, p. 346).]
[Footnote 44: _Short History_, p. 79.]
[Footnote 45: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763, _ut supra_.]
[Footnote 46: _Ibid._, iii. p. 471.]
[Footnote 47: _Ibid._, i. 271; cf. _W.R._, ii. 411.]
[Footnote 48: _Ibid._, iii. 732.]
[Footnote 49: _Cont. Rev._, 348.]
[Footnote 50: _Norman Britain_ (S.P.C.K.), p. vi.]
[Footnote 51: _Ibid._, pp. 79, 80.]
[Footnote 52: _Dict. Nat. Biography_ (1890), xxx. 424.]
[Footnote 53: _English Historical Review_, ix. 2.]
[Footnote 54: _Cont. Rev._, p. 348.]
[Footnote 55: _Ibid._, p. 346.]
[Footnote 56: _Quarterly Review_, July 1893, p. 90.]
[Footnote 57: _Old English History_, p. 335.]
[Footnote 58: Wace, of course, is the only one worth
mentioning of the three last, and even his 'decisive words'
prove to be only a personal opinion ('_ço me semble_') that
the axeman's shield must have hampered him (see _Cont. Rev._,
348, and _Norm. Conq._, iii. 765).]
[Footnote 59: _Q.R._, July 1893, p. 91.]
[Footnote 60: _English Historical Review_, ix. 607.]
[Footnote 61: Oman's _Art of War in the Middle Ages_, 24 (see
_Q.R._, July 1893, p. 90).]
[Footnote 62: Compare (as Mr Freeman does) Æthelred's
description of the English array of the Battle of the
Standard: 'lateribus latera conseruntur'.]
[Footnote 63: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 491.]
[Footnote 64: _Ibid._, p. 471.]
[Footnote 65: _Old English History_, p. 334.]
[Footnote 66: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 764; cf. _English Historical
Review_, ix. 18.]
[Footnote 67: 'This is the _shield-wall_, the famous tactic
of the English and Danes alike. We shall hear of it in all
the great battles down to the end.' (Freeman's _Old English
History_, p. 112.)]
[Footnote 68: _Ibid._, p. 155.]
[Footnote 69: _Ibid._, p. 196.]
[Footnote 70: _Norm. Conq._, iii. viii.]
[Footnote 71: _Ibid._, pp. 445-6.]
[Footnote 72: _Ibid._, p. 472.]
[Footnote 73: _Ibid._, p. 480.]
[Footnote 74: _Norm. Conq._, iii. pp. 488, 490.]
[Footnote 75: _Ibid._, p. 490.]
[Footnote 76: 'The battle was lost through the error of those
light-armed troops who, in disobedience to the King's orders,
broke their line to pursue' (_Ibid._, 505).]
[Footnote 77: 'The day had now turned decidedly in favour of
the invaders' (_Ibid._, 491). I am obliged to quote these two
passages, because my opponents have not shrunk from impugning
(_Cont. Rev._, 353; _English Historical Review_, ix. 70) the
accuracy of the words in the text (which are from _Q.R._, July
1892, p. 17).]
[Footnote 78: _Q.R._, July 1893, 101.]
[Footnote 79: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 472.]
[Footnote 80: To have placed some of them as an advanced post
on the 'small detached hill' in front would have been to leave
them _en l'air_, exposed to certain destruction from an attack
which they could not check. For Mr Freeman held that, even if
occupied by an outpost, it was only by the 'light-armed'. (See
_Q.R._, July 1893, pp. 99, 100.)]
[Footnote 81: On what ground are the Bretons so described?
Guy, quoted by Mr Freeman (iii. 459) writes of them here:
'Gensque Britannorum quorum decus exstat in armis, Tellus ni
fugiat est fuga nulla quibus'.]
[Footnote 82: I have replied in _English Historical Review_
(ix. 255) to Miss Norgate's characteristic quibble (_ibid._,
p. 75) that these quotations apply to the Scottish army
alone--for the principle applies alike to 'armati' and
'armatos', to 'milites' and to 'militibus'.]
[Footnote 83: Down to this point the present section is all
reprinted from my original article (_Q.R._, July 1892), as not
calling for any alteration or correction.]
[Footnote 84: 'The general mass of the less well-armed troops
of the shire in the rear.' (_England under the Angevin Kings_,
i. 290.)]
[Footnote 85: _English Historical Review_, ix. 611.]
[Footnote 86: When the Scotch, he writes, 'amentatis
missilibus et lanceis longissimis super aciem equitum
nostrorum loricatam percutiunt, quasi muro ferreo offendentes,
impenetrabiles [compare the 'impenetrabiles' ranks of
the English at Hastings, _supra_, p. 276] invenerunt....
Equitantes enim nulla ratione diu persistere potuerunt
contra milites loricatos pede persistentes et immobiliter
coacervatos' (pp. 264-5). Miss Norgate follows him, writing:
'The wild Celts of Galloway dashed headlong upon the English
front, only to find their spears and javelins glance off from
the helmets and shields of the knights as from an iron wall.']
[Footnote 87: 'Tota namque gens Normannorum et Anglorum in una
acie circum Standard conglobata, persistebant immobiles'
(Hen. Hunt). 'Australes, quoniam pauci erant, in unum cuneum
sapientissime glomerantur' (_Æth. Riv._).]
[Footnote 88: It is no less interesting than curious that
the Bayeux Tapestry enables us to see how the archers
were combined with the mailed knights at the Battle of the
Standard. It shows us (on its principle of giving a type) an
English archer of whom Mr Freeman has well observed: 'He is a
small man without armour crouching under the shield of a tall
Housecarl, like Teukros under that of Aias' (iii. 472). So
Æthelred writes that the mailed warriors 'sagittarios ita sibi
inseruerunt ut, _militaribus armis protecti_, tanto acrius
quanto securius vel in hostes irruerent, vel exciperent
irruentes'.]
[Footnote 89: 'Proceres qui maturioris ætatis fuerunt ...
circa signum regium constituuntur, quibusdam altius ceteris
in ipsa machina collatis' (_Æth. Riv._). 'Circum Standard in
pectore belli condensantur' (_Ric. Hex._).]
[Footnote 90: 'Reliqua autem multitudo undique conglomerata
eos circumvallabat' (_ibid._).]
[Footnote 91: _Norm. Conq._, i. 383.]
[Footnote 92: _Ibid._, iii. 472.]
[Footnote 93: _Old English History_, p. 331.]
[Footnote 94: _English Historical Review_, ix. 75.]
[Footnote 95: _Old English History_, p. 333.]
[Footnote 96: Miss Norgate, unable to deny the glaring
'self-contradiction' involved in Mr Freeman's words, dismisses
it as a 'matter of secondary importance' (_English Historical
Review_, ix. 74).]
[Footnote 97: _English Historical Review_, ix. 74.]
[Footnote 98: _Q.R._, July 1892, p. 19.]
[Footnote 99: _Q.R._, July 1893, pp. 102-3; cf. _Q.R._, July
1892, p. 18; _English Historical Review_, ix. 254.]
[Footnote 100: It might, for all we know, have formed a
crescent or semi-circle, its wings resting strongly on the
rear-slopes of the hill; or even a 'wedge', as, indeed, Mr
Freeman twice described it (i. 271, iii. 471).]
[Footnote 101: _English Historical Review_, ix. 74.]
[Footnote 102: _Cont. Rev._, p. 353.]
[Footnote 103: _Q.R._, July 1892, p. 19.]
[Footnote 104: Since this passage appeared (as it stands) in
my original article (_Q.R._, July 1892, p. 19), I have noted
a curious confirmation in Æthelred's words where he speaks
of the archers at the Battle of the Standard as 'militaribus
armis protecti [ut] tanto acrius quanto securius vel in hostes
irruerent, vel exciperent irruentes'. For, as I wrote (p. 20),
'it would naturally be they who, like cavalry in modern times,
would harass and follow up a retreating foe'.]
[Footnote 105: _Old English History_, p. 334.]
[Footnote 106: For Baudri's poem see _Q.R._, July 1893, pp.
73-5. As to Baudri's authority, I need only repeat what I
wrote in the _English Historical Review_ (ix. 217): 'Mr Archer
endeavours, of course, to pooh-pooh it. Now I call special
attention to the fact that the test I apply to Baudri is that
which Mr Freeman applied to the Tapestry, the obvious test of
internal evidence. But Mr Archer's ways are not as those of
other historians: instead of examining, as I did, Baudri's
account in detail he dismisses it on the ground that the
writer's "description _of the world_" at that date could
not be accurate (_ibid._, 29). We are not dealing with his
"description of the world"; we are dealing with his lines on
the battle of Hastings.']
[Footnote 107: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 467, 477.]
[Footnote 108: _English Historical Review_, ix. 42-3, 603.]
[Footnote 109: Though I have already done so in _English
Historical Review_, ix. 250.]
[Footnote 110: _English Historical Review_, ix. 42.]
[Footnote 111: Mr Freeman rendered the 'sagittis armatos et
balistis' of William by 'archers, slingers, and crossbowmen'.
'Balistæ' can hardly mean slings _and_ crossbows, and I think,
on consideration, it is best referred to the latter; but the
question is not of much importance.]
[Footnote 112: So, too, in _Arch. Journ._, xl. 359: 'You
may call up the march of archers and horsemen across the low
ground between the hills.']
[Footnote 113: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 462. I regret that I must
call attention to the fact that I gave (_English Historical
Review_, ix. 250) this precise reference for my statement
that, according to Mr Freeman, the infantry were all archers,
explaining that in another passage (p. 467) William of
Poitiers had led him to take a somewhat different view. Mr
Archer, however, has printed (_English Historical Review_, ix.
603) the other passage (p. 467) in triumph by the side of my
statement. He further denies that Mr Freeman held, even on p.
462, that the infantry were all archers. Anyone can test the
value of Mr Archer's denial for himself by referring to
_Norm. Conq._, iii. 462, where he will find that Mr Freeman,
describing the Norman host, mentions no infantry but archers.]
[Footnote 114: As he had merely copied from the Tapestry on p.
462, so he copied William of Poitiers on p. 467.]
[Footnote 115: The distinction between archers and crossbowmen
is of little or no consequence, the missile being common to
both.]
[Footnote 116: My opponents complain that in the former
passage Mr Freeman assigns this task to 'the heavier foot'
only; but my point is that no palisade is here mentioned,
and no attack on it by _any_ infantry, heavy or light, and no
weapons assigned to that infantry of any use for the purpose.]
[Footnote 117: This is an excellent instance of what I said
as to Mr Freeman's 'imaginary' references to the now famous
palisade. I have challenged my opponents to disprove my
statement that none of Mr Freeman's own authorities says
anything here of a palisade. And, of course, they cannot do
so.
Here is another instance in point. We read on pp. 486-7 that
Robert of Beaumont was specially distinguished in the work of
breaking down the 'barricade' (see also _supra_, p. 273). But
when we turn to William of Poitiers, the authority cited,
we find no mention of a 'barricade', but read only of him
'irruens ac sternens magnâ cum audaciâ'. As the writer had
just described how the Duke '_stravit_ adversam gentem', we see
that Robert, in his charge, laid low, not a barricade, but
'adversam gentem'.
This brings me to an extraordinary case of mediaeval
plagiarism. The author of the Ely history has applied this
description of Robert's exploits to the Conqueror himself at
Ely (_Liber Eliensis_, pp. 244-5). The passages 'Exardentes
Normanni--deleverunt ea', 'Egit enim quod--magna cum audacia',
'Scriptor Thebaidos vel Æneidos', _et seq._, are all 'lifted'
bodily from William's narrative of the Battle of Hastings and
applied to the storming of the Isle of Ely!]
[Footnote 118: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 467.]
[Footnote 119: 'The Norman infantry had now done its best, but
that best had been in vain' (_ibid._, 479).]
[Footnote 120: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 481.]
[Footnote 121: _Ibid._, 767-8.]
[Footnote 122:
'Un fosse ont d'une part fait
Qui parmi la champaigne vait
* * * *
En la champaigne out un fosse:
Normanz l'aueient adosse
En beliuant l'orent passé
Ne l'aueint mie esgarde.'
I had followed Taylor in my rendering of this passage; but
Miss Norgate (_English Historical Review_, ix. 46) would
prefer to say that the Normans did not heed, than that they
did not notice the fosse. 'The passage,' as she says, 'is
somewhat obscure.']
[Footnote 123: Miss Norgate has rightly pointed out (ix.
47) that Henry places the disaster during the great feigned
flight.]
[Footnote 124: _Cont. Rev._, p. 348.]
[Footnote 125: Compare the death of Robert Marmion, at
Coventry, under Stephen, when he fell into one of the ditches
he had dug to entrap the enemy's horse. The passage quoted by
Andresen in his Wace (ii. 713) from Michel's notes to Benoit
is very precise: 'Fecerant autem Angli foveam quandam caute et
ingeniose, quam ipsi ex obliquo curantes maximam multitudinem
Normannorum in ea præcipitaverant. Et plures etiam ex eis
insequentes et tracti ab aliis in eadem perierunt.']
[Footnote 126: See below, p. 292.]
[Footnote 127: _Early Oxford_, pp. 191, 192. And see my
preface.]
[Footnote 128: See above, p. 278, for Mr Freeman's view.]
[Footnote 129: 'Angli vero, illos putantes vere fugere,
c[oe]perunt post eos currere volentes eos si possent
interficere' (_Brevis Relatio_). 'Ausa sunt, ut superius,
aliquot millia quasi volante cursu, quos fugere putabant
urgere' (_Will. Pict._).]
[Footnote 130: Though admitting, in a footnote, that the
'Brevis Relatio' was opposed to this assumption.]
[Footnote 131: _Supra_, p. 278.]
[Footnote 132: _Q.R._, July 1892, p. 20.]
[Footnote 133: Miss Norgate has indignantly retorted (_English
Historical Review_, ix. 50) that Mr Freeman 'only' omitted
the words from 'sicque' onwards. But it is precisely on these
words that my statement is based. Mr Freeman, moreover, did
not even quote the rest _à propos_ of the feigned flight,
where we should look for it.]
[Footnote 134: So does Will. Gem., as quoted by Mr Freeman
(iii. 133): 'de suis miserunt si quos forte hostium a regio
c[oe]tu abstraherent, quos illi in latibulis degentes incautos
exciperent.' See also my Addenda.]
[Footnote 135: _Cont. Rev._, p. 354.]
[Footnote 136: See above, p. 251.]
[Footnote 137: See above, p. 259.]
[Footnote 138: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763-4.]
[Footnote 139: _Social England_, i. 299. 'Mr Oman, like Mr J.
H. Round, knows nothing of the famous "palisade", but only
of the "shield-wall" of the English' (_Speaker_, December 2,
1893).]
[Footnote 140: _Norman Britain_, p. 79.]
[Footnote 141: _Ibid._, p. 80.]
[Footnote 142: _Social England_, p. 300.]
[Footnote 143: _Cont. Rev._, p. 353.]
[Footnote 144: _Ibid._, p. 335.]
[Footnote 145: _English Historical Review_, ix. 607.]
[Footnote 146: _Ibid._, ix. 219-25.]
[Footnote 147: _Ibid._, 224, 257.]
[Footnote 148: _Norm. Conq._, ii. 469; and _supra_, p. 356.]
[Footnote 149: _Cont. Rev._, 352.]
[Footnote 150: _Ibid._, 348.]
[Footnote 151: _Cont. Rev._, 335-6.]
[Footnote 152: 'The Reviewer ... tells us that ... Mr Freeman
... is wrong, completely wrong, in his whole conception of the
battle.... His attack must be held to have failed' (_Cont.
Rev._, pp. 335, 353).]
[Footnote 153: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763.]
[Footnote 154: _Cont. Rev._, p. 349. Cf. Mr Archer's articles
_passim_.]
[Footnote 155: _English Historical Review_, ix. 22.]
[Footnote 156: _English Historical Review_, ix. 607.]
[Footnote 157: _Ibid._, ix. 606. _Supra_, p. 269.]
[Footnote 158: _Ibid._, ix. 606, 607. My readers are invited
to refer to this article and to that in the _Cont. Rev._
(March 1893), and test my statement for themselves.]
[Footnote 159: _Anglo-Saxon Britain_, p. 172.]
[Footnote 160: _Norman Conquest_, iii. 454.]
[Footnote 161: e.g. Vinogradoff and Dr Andrews.]
[Footnote 162: _Norm. Conq._, ii. 352.]
[Footnote 163: _Ibid._, 327.]
[Footnote 164: _Ibid._, 326.]
[Footnote 165: _Ibid._, 332.]
[Footnote 166: 'We shall get rid of the talk about "an officer
and a gentleman".' (_Macmillan's_, xxiv. 10).]
[Footnote 167: _Vita Wlstani_.]
MASTER WACE
MR FREEMAN MR ARCHER
Of the array of the shield-wall Now, there are six distinct
we have often heard already as objections to translating this
at Maldon, but it is at Senlac passage [of Wace] as if it
that we get the fullest referred to a shield-wall. These
descriptions of it, all the objections are, of course, of
better for coming in the unequal value; but some of them
mouths of enemies. Wace gives would, by themselves, suffice to
his description, 12941:--(_Norm. overthrow such a theory (_Cont.
Conq._, iii. 763). Rev._, 349).
In discussing Mr Freeman's treatment of the great battle, we saw
that the only passage he vouched for the existence of a palisade[1]
consisted of certain lines from Wace's _Roman de Rou_, which he
ultimately declared to be, on the contrary, a description of 'the
array of the shield-wall'.[2] The question, therefore, as to their
meaning--on which my critics have throughout endeavoured to represent
the controversy as turning--did not even arise so far as Mr Freeman
was concerned. Still less had I occasion to discuss the authority of
Wace, Mr Freeman's explicit verdict on the lines (iii. 763-4) having
removed them, as concerns his own narrative, from the sphere of
controversy.
The case, however, is at once altered when Mr Archer insists on
ignoring Mr Freeman's words, and makes an independent examination of
the lines, quoting also other passages which were not vouched by Mr
Freeman, as proving 'beyond the shadow of a doubt that Wace did
mean to represent the English at Hastings as fighting behind a
palisade'.[3] So long as I make it clearly understood that this
question in no way affects the controversy as to Mr Freeman, I am
quite willing to discuss the question thus raised by Mr Archer.
It is most naturally treated under these three heads:
(1) Did Wace believe and assert that there was a palisade?
(2) If so, what weight ought to be attached to his authority?
(3) If we reject it, can we explain how his mistake arose?
WACE'S MEANING
I have elsewhere[4] discussed 'the disputed passage' (_supra_, p.
267), and agreed with Mr Archer that there are 'four views which have
been suggested' as to its meaning.[5] Two of them, I there showed,
were successively held by Mr Freeman, and the two others successively
advanced by Mr Archer. When I add (anticipating) that, according to M.
Paris, 'le passage de Wace présente quelque obscurité',[6] and that
M. Meyer introduced yet another element of doubt in a special kind
of shield ('de grands écus') not previously suggested, it will be
obvious, quite apart from any opinion of my own, that the passage
presents difficulties.
So long as I only dealt with Mr Freeman's work, I found on his
admission that the passage described the shield-wall.[7] Now that we
are leaving his work aside, I fall back on my own conclusion, namely,
that the passage is with equal difficulty referred either to a
palisade or to a shield-wall. The word 'escuz', it will be seen,
occurs twice in the passage. Mr Archer held, at first, that in neither
case did it mean real 'shields',[8] but he afterwards assigned that
meaning to the second of the two 'escuz', while still rendering the
first 'in a metaphorical sense'.[9] It is obvious that when Mr Freeman
took the lines to describe 'the array of the shield-wall', he must
have done so on the ground that 'escuz' meant 'shields'. That is my
own contention. While fully recognizing the obstacles to translating
'the disputed passage' as if it referred throughout to a shield-wall,
I maintain that 'escu' means shield, as a term 'which is one of the
commonest in Wace' and invariably means shield.[10] But to cut short
a long story, it was decided by Mr Gardiner to settle this issue by
submitting the disputed passage to the verdict of MM. Gaston Paris
and Paul Meyer. In spite of my protest, this was done without my
articles and my solution of the problem[11] being laid before them
at the same time. A snap verdict was thus secured before they had
seen the evidence. I am sure that Mr Gardiner must have thought this
fair, and editors, we know, cannot err; but it seems to me quite
possible that these distinguished French scholars were not familiar
with the shield-wall, an Old English tactic, and were not aware that
this information was the great feature of the battle. Had all this,
as I wished, been duly set before them, their verdict would, of
course, have carried much greater weight.
But having said this much, I frankly admit that their verdict is in
favour of Mr Archer's contention, and, so far as the first 'escuz' is
concerned, against my own.[12] They may not agree in detail with each
other, or with either of Mr Archer's views, but, on the broad issue,
he has a perfect right to claim that their verdict is for him so
long as he does not pretend that it also confirms 'Mr Freeman's
interpretation', by ignoring the historian's own latest and explicit
words.[13] It must also be remembered that this admission in no way
diminishes the obscurity of the passage, which, as we have seen,
is beyond dispute, and which forms an important element in my own
solution of the problem.[14]
Having now shown how the matter stands with regard to 'the disputed
passage', I need not linger over those which Mr Freeman ignored,
and which Mr Archer adduced to strengthen his views as to the main
passage. I have dealt with these elsewhere,[15] and need here
only refer to ll. 8585-90, because that passage raises a point of
historical interest quite apart from personal controversy. I have
maintained that it can only be accepted at the cost of 'throwing
over Mr Freeman's conception of the battle',[16] and have proved, by
quoting his own words, that he placed the standard with Harold at his
foot 'in the very forefront of the fight'.[17] I do not say that he
was right in doing so: he was, I think, very probably wrong, and was
influenced here, as elsewhere, by his dramatic treatment of Harold.
But as this can only be matter of opinion, I have not challenged his
view; I only say that those who accept it cannot consistently appeal
to a passage in Wace which places the standard in the rear of the
English host.
WACE'S AUTHORITY
Assuming then, for the sake of argument, that Wace mentions a defence
of some kind,[18] even though not consistently[19] in front of the
English troops, let us see whether his statement is corroborated,
whether it is in harmony with the other evidence, and whether, if
it is neither corroborated nor in such agreement, his authority is
sufficient, nevertheless, to warrant its acceptance.
As to corroboration, Mr Archer undertook 'to produce corroborative
evidence from other sources';[20] but this at once dwindled down to
one line--'tending in the same direction'[21]--from Benoît de St Maur,
who does not even mention a palisade.[22] There is therefore, on his
own showing, not a shred of corroborative evidence.
As to the second point, I may refer to my arguments against the
palisade,[23] where I showed that none of our authorities is here in
agreement with Wace.
We come, therefore, to our third point, namely, the weight to
which Wace's testimony, when standing alone, is entitled. Here,
as elsewhere, I adhere to my position. As I have written in the
_Quarterly Review_:
Even if Wace, clearly and consistently, mentioned a palisade
throughout his account of the battle, we should certainly
reject the statement of a witness, writing a century after it,
when we find him at variance with every authority (for that
is our point), just as Mr Freeman rejected the bridge at
Varaville,[24] or the 'falsehood' of the burning of the ships,
or the 'blunder' of making the Duke land at Hastings, or his
anachronisms, or his chronology. For, 'of course', in the
Professor's own words, 'whenever he [Wace] departs from
contemporary authority, and merely sets down floating
traditions nearly a hundred years after the latest events
which he records, his statements need to be very carefully
weighed'.[25]
Let me specially lay stress upon the points on which, when Wace and
the Tapestry differ, the preference is given by Mr Freeman himself to
the Tapestry as against Wace:
Had the tapestry been a work of later date, it is hardly
possible that it could have given the simple and truthful
account of these matters which it does give. A work of the
twelfth or thirteenth century[26] would have brought in, _as
even honest Wace does in some degree_, the notions of the
twelfth or thirteenth century. One cannot conceive an artist
of the time of Henry II, still less an artist later than the
French conquest of Normandy, agreeing so remarkably with the
authentic writings of the eleventh century (iii. 573).
[In the Tapestry] every antiquarian detail is accurate--the
lack of armour on the horses (iii. 574). [But] Wace speaks of
the horse of William fitz Osbern as 'all covered with iron'
(iii. 570).
Wace again, is 'hardly accurate' (iii. 765), we read, as to the
English weapons, because he differs from the Tapestry. As to Harold's
wound, 'Wace places it too early in the battle' (iii. 497); Mr Freeman
follows the Tapestry. As to the landing of the Normans at Pevensey:
_Venit ad Pevenesæ_, says the Tapestry ... Wace ... altogether
reverses the geography, making the army land at Hastings, and
go to Pevensey afterwards' (iii. 402).
As to the 'Mora', the Duke's ship, the Tapestry shows 'the child with
his horn'; Wace describes him 'Saete et arc tendu portant'. Mr Freeman
adopts the 'horn' (iii. 382). Harold, says Mr Freeman, was imprisoned
at Beaurain.
This is quite plain from the Tapestry: 'Dux eum ad Belrem et
ibi eum tenuit'. Wace says, 'A Abevile l'ont mené....' This I
conceive to arise from a misconception of the words of William
of Jumièges (iii. 224).
This illustrates, I would remind Mr Archer, the difference between a
primary authority and a mere late compiler.
To these examples I may add Wace's mention of Harold's _vizor_
(_ventaille_). Mr Freeman pointed out the superior accuracy of the
Tapestry in 'the nose-pieces' (iii. 574), and observed that 'the
vizor' was a much later introduction (iii. 497).[27] Here again we
see the soundness of Mr Freeman's view that Wace could not help
introducing 'the notions' of his own time into his account of the
battle. Miss Norgate admits that he 'transferred to his mythical
battles the colouring of the actual battles of his own day', but
urges that these narratives illustrate the 'warfare of Wace's own ...
contemporaries'.[28] Quite so. But the battle of Hastings belonged
to an older and obsolete style of warfare. That is what his champions
always forget. If Miss Norgate's argument has any meaning, it is that
the men who fought in that battle were 'Wace's own contemporaries'.
But, even where Wace's authority is in actual agreement with the
Tapestry, Mr Freeman did not hesitate to reject, or rather, ignore it,
as we saw in the matter of the fosse disaster.
As to Wace's sources of information, and the _prima facie_ evidence
for his authority, a question of considerable interest is raised. Mr
Archer discusses it from his own standpoint.[29] On Wace's life,
age and work, facts are few and speculations many. These have been
collected and patiently sifted in Andresen's great work, with the
following result:
Wace was certainly living not merely in 1170,[30] but in 1174, for
he alludes to the siege of Rouen (August 1174) in his epilogue to the
second part of the 'Roman'.[31] It is admitted on all hands, though Mr
Archer does not mention it, that he did not even begin the third part
till after the coronation of the younger Henry (June 14, 1170).[32]
Allowing for its great length, he cannot have come to his account
of the battle _at the very earliest_ till 1171, 105 years after the
event. For my part, I think that it was probably written even some
years later. But imagine in any case an Englishman, ignorant of
Belgium, writing an account of Waterloo, mainly _from oral tradition_,
in 1920.
Mr Archer contends that Wace was born 'probably between the years 1100
and 1110' (_ante_, p. 31). Andresen holds that the earliest date we
can venture to assign is 1110,[33] forty-four years after the battle.
Special stress is laid by Mr Archer on Wace's oral information:
He had seen and talked with many men who recollected things
anterior to Hastings and the Hastings campaign. Among his
informants for this latter was his own father, then, we may
suppose, a well-grown lad, if not an actual participator in
the fight (_ante_, p. 32).
'We may suppose'--where all is supposition--exactly the contrary. If
Wace was born, as we may safely say, more than forty years after the
battle, 'we may suppose' that his father was not even born before it.
All this talk about Wace's father is based on ll. 6445-7, of which
Andresen truly remarks, 'Die Verse "Mais co oi dire a mon pere, Bien
m'en souient mais Vaslet ere, Que set cenz nes, quatre meins, furent",
u.s.w., sind viel zu unbestimmt gehalten, so dass wir aus ihnen streng
genommen nicht einmal entnehmen können, ob der Vater im Jahre 1066
schon auf der Welt war oder nicht' (p. lxx). I venture to take my own
case. Born within forty years of Waterloo, I can say with Wace that I
remember my father telling me, as a boy, stories of the battle. But
he was born after it. The information was second-hand. Over and over
again does Mr Archer lay stress on the fact (_ut supra_) that Wace
gives us 'the reminiscences of the old heroes who fought at Hastings
as no one else has cared to do'.[34] I must insist that Wace himself
nowhere mentions having seen or spoken to them. He does mention having
seen men who remembered the great comet (Mr Archer italicizes the
lines[35]); but this exactly confirms my point. For when Wace _had_
seen eyewitnesses he was careful, we see, to mention the fact. Men
would remember the comet, though little children at the time. One
of my own very earliest recollections is that of a great comet, even
though it did not create the sensation of the comet in 1066. Wace had
talked with those who had been children, not with those who had been
fighting men, in 1066.
I need only invite attention to one more point. Mr Archer assures
us that 'Wace is a very sober writer', with 'something of the shrewd
scepticism' of modern scholars.[36] What shall we say then, of his
long story (ll. 7005-100) of the night visit, by Harold and Gyrth,
to the Norman camp, to which Mr Archer appeals as evidence for the
_lices_ (l. 7010)? 'Nothing,' replies Mr Freeman (iii. 449), 'could be
less trustworthy.... No power short of divination could have revealed
it.'[37] Mr Archer tells us he has only space for one instance[38]
of Wace's conscientiousness. That instance is his story of the
negotiation between William and Baldwin of Flanders on the eve of the
Conquest. Of this story Mr Freeman writes:
Of the intercourse between William and Baldwin in his
character of sovereign of Flanders Wace has a tale which
strikes me as so purely legendary that I did not venture to
introduce it into the text.... The whole story seems quite
inconsistent with the real relations between William and
Baldwin (iii. 718-19).
Comment is superfluous.
Having now shown that Wace's evidence is not corroborated, is not
in accordance with that of contemporary witnesses, and cannot on
the sound canons of criticism recognized by Mr Freeman himself, be
accepted under these circumstances, I propose to show that my case can
be carried further still, and that I can even trace to its origin the
confused statement in his 'disputed passage' which is said to describe
a palisade or defence of some sort or other.
WACE AND HIS SOURCES[39]
In studying the authorities for the Battle of Hastings, I was led to a
conclusion which, so far as I know, had never occurred to any one. It
is that William of Malmesbury's 'Gesta Regum' was among the sources
used by Wace. Neither in Korting's elaborate treatise, 'Ueber die
Quellen des Roman de Rou', nor in Andresen's notes to his well-known
edition of the 'Roman' (ii. 708), can I find any suggestion to this
effect. Dr Stubbs, in his edition of the 'Gesta Regum', dwells on the
popularity of the work both at home and abroad, but does not include
Wace among the writers who availed themselves of it; and the late Mr
Freeman, though frequently compelled to notice the agreement between
Wace and William, never thought, it appears, of suggesting the theory
of derivation; indeed, he speaks of the two writers as independent
witnesses, when dealing with one of these coincidences.[40] The
more one studies Wace, the more evident it becomes that the 'Roman'
requires to be used with the greatest caution. Based on a _congeries_
of authorities, on tradition, and occasionally of course, on the
poetic invention of the _trouveur_ it presents a whole in which it is
almost impossible to disentangle the various sources of the narrative.
Before dealing with the passage which led me to believe that the
'Gesta Regum' must have been known to Wace, I will glance at some
other coincidences. We have first the alleged landing of William at
Hastings instead of Pevensey. On this Mr Freeman observed:
_Venit ad Pevenesæ_, says the Tapestry. So William of
Poitiers and William of Jumièges. William of Malmesbury says
carelessly, _Placido cursu Hastingas appulerunt_. So Wace,
who altogether reverses the geography, making the army land at
Hastings and go to Pevensey afterwards.[41]
Here William of Malmesbury, who was probably using 'Hastingas'
as loosely as when he applied that term to Battle, appears to be
responsible for the mistake of Wace, who may have tried to harmonize
him with William of Jumièges by making the Normans proceed to Pevensey
after having landed. Take again the hotly disputed burial of Harold at
Waltham. On this question Mr Freeman writes:
William of Malmesbury, after saying that the body was given to
Gytha, adds _acceptum itaque apud Waltham sepelivit_.... Wace
had evidently heard two or three stories, and, with his usual
discretion, he avoided committing himself, but he distinctly
asserts a burial at Waltham.[42]
This, then, is another coincidence between the two writers, while,
as before, Wace found himself in the presence of a conflict of
authorities. On yet another difficult point, the accession of Harold,
I see a marked agreement, though Mr Freeman did not. Harold, according
to William of Malmesbury, _extorta a principibus fide, arripuit
diadema_, and _diademate fastigiatus, nihil de pactis inter se et
Willelmum cogitabat_. Wace's version runs:
Heraut ki ert manant è forz
Se fist énoindre è coroner;
Unkes al duc n'en volt parler,
Homages prist è féeltez
Des plus riches è des ainz nes.
Not only is the attitude of Wace and William towards Harold's action
here virtually identical, but the mention of his exaction of homage
seems special to them both.
The passages, however, on which I would specially rest my case are
those in which these two writers describe the visit of Harold's spies
to the Norman camp before the battle of Hastings. This legend is
peculiar to William of Malmesbury and Wace, and though it may be
suggested that they had heard it independently, the correspondence--it
will, I think, be admitted--is too close to admit of that solution.
I print these passages side by side:
WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY WACE
Premisit tamen qui numerum Heraut enveia dous espies
hostium et vires specularentur. Por espier quels compagnies
E quanz barons e quanz armez
Aueit li dus od sei menez.
Ia esteient a l'ost uenu,
Quant il furent aparceu
Quos intra castra deprehensos A Guillaume furent mene,
Willelmus circum tentoria duci, Forment furent espoente.
moxque, largis eduliis pastos, Mais quant il sout que il quereient
domino incolumes remitti jubet. E que ses genz esmer ueneient,
Par tos les tres les fist mener
E tote l'ost lor fist mostrer;
Bien les fist paistre e abeurer,
Pois les laissa quites aler,
Nes volt laidir ne destorber.
Redeuntes percunctatur Haroldus Quant il vindrent a lor seignor,
quid rerum apportent: illi, verbis Del duc distrent mult grant enor.
amplissimis ductoris magnificam Un des Engleis, qui out veuz
confidentiam prosecuti, serio Les Normans toz res e tonduz,
addiderunt pene omnes in exercitu Quida que tuit proueire fussent
illo presbyteros videri, quod E que messes chanter peussent,
totam faciem cum utroque labio Kar tuit erent tondu e res,
rasam haberent; ... subrisit rex Ne lor esteit guernon remes.
fatuitatem referentinum, lepido Cil dist a Heraut que li dus
insecutus cachinno, quia non Aueit od sei proueies plus
essent presbyteri, sed milites Que chevaliers ne altre gent;
validi, armis invicti. (§ 239) De co se merueillout forment
Que tuit erent res e tondu.
E Heraut li a respondu
Que co sunt cheualiers uaillanz,
Hardi e proz e combatanz.
'N'ont mie barbes ne guernons,'
Co dist Heraut, 'com nos auons.'
(ll. 7101-34)
The story is just one of those that William of Malmesbury would have
picked up, and Wace has simply, in metrical paraphrase, transferred it
from his pages to his own.
Yet another story, on which Mr Freeman looked with some just
suspicion, is common to these two writers, and virtually to them
alone. It is that of 'the contrast between the way in which the night
before the battle was spent by the Normans and the English' (iii.
760). Wace, says Mr Freeman, 'gives us the same account' as William
'in more detail', while William 'gives us a shorter account'. I
here again append the passages side by side, insisting on the fact
mentioned by Mr Freeman, that Wace expands the story 'in more detail':
Itaque utrinque animosi duces Quant la bataille dut ioster,
disponunt acies.... Angli, ut La noit auant, c'oi conter,
accepimus, totam noctem insompnem Furent Engleis forment haitie
cantibus potibusque ducentes. Mult riant e mult enueisie.
Tote noit maingierent e burent,
. . . . . Onques la noit en lit ne jurent.
Mult les veissiez demener,
Treper e saillir e chanter.
. . . . .
Contra Normanni, nocte tota E li Normant e li Franceis
confessioni Tote noit firent oreisons
peccatorum vacantes, mane E furent en afflictions.
Dominico corpore communicarunt. De lor pechiez confes se firent,
(§§ 241, 242) As proueires les regehirent,
E qui nen out proueires pres,
À son ueisin se fist confes.
. . . . .
Quant les messes furent chantees,
Qui bien matin furent finees....
(ll. 7349-56, 7362-8, 7407-8)
This brings me to my destination, namely, § 241 of the 'Gesta Regum'.
We may divide this section into three successive parts: (1) the
description of the way in which the English spent the night--which is
repeated, we have seen, by Wace; (2) the array of the English, with
which I shall deal below; (3) the dismounting of Harold at the foot
of the standard. I here subjoin the parallels for the third, calling
special attention to the phrases, 'd'or e de pierres (auro et
lapidibus)' and 'Guil. pois cele victoire Le fist porter a l'apostoire
(post victorium papae misit Willelmus).'
Rex ipse pedes juxta vexillum Quant Heraut out tot apreste
stabat cum fratribus, ut, in E co qu'il uolt out commande
commune periculo aequato, nemo Enmi les Engleis est uenuz,
de fuga cogitaret. Vexillum Lez l'estandart est descenduz
illud post victoriam papae Lewine e Guert furent od lui
misit Willelmus, quod erat Frere Heraut furent andui,
in hominis pugnantis figura, Assez out barons enuiron;
auro et lapidibus arte Heraut fu lez son gonfanon.
sumptuosa intextum. Li gonfanon fu mult vaillanz,
D'or e de pierres reluissanz.
Guill. pois cele victoire
Le fist porter a l'apostoire,
Por mostrer e metre en memoire
Son grant conquest e sa grant
gloire.
(ll. 7853-66)
The only part of § 241 which remains to be dealt with is the second.
The two passages run thus:
Pedites omnes cum bipennibus Geldons engleis haches portoent
conserta ante se _scutorum_ E gisarmes qui bien trenchoent
testudine, impenetrabilem Fait orent deuant els _escuz_
cuneum faciunt; quod profecto De fenestres e d'altres fuz,
illis _ea die_ saluti fuisset, Deuant els les orent leuez,
nisi Normanni, simulata fuga Comme cleies joinz e serrez;
more suo confertos manipulos Fait en orent deuant closture,
laxassent. N'i laissierent nule iointure,
(§ 241) Par onc Normant entr'els venist
Qui desconfire les volsist.
D'escuz e d'ais s'auironoent,
Issi deffendre se quidoent;
Et s'il se fussent bien tenu,
Ia ne fussent _le ior_ uencu.
(ll. 7813-26)
Mr Freeman, of course, observed the parallel, but, oddly enough,
missed the point. He first quoted the lines from Wace, and then
immediately added, 'So William of Malmesbury' (iii. 764), thus
reversing the natural order. The word that really gave me the clue
was the _escuz_ of Wace. It was obvious, I held, that, here as
elsewhere,[43] it must mean 'shield'; and Mr Freeman consequently saw
in the passage an undoubted description of the 'shield-wall' (iii.
763). Moreover, the phrase _lever escuz_ is, in Wace, a familiar one,
describing preparation for action, thus, for instance:
Mult ueissiez Engleis fremir
. . . . .
Armes saisir, escuz leuer.
(ll. 8030, 8033)
On the other hand, there are, in spite of Mr Freeman, undoubted
difficulties in rendering the passage as a description of the
'shield-wall', just as there are in taking _escuz_ to mean
'barricades' (iii. 471). The result was that, perhaps unconsciously,
Mr Freeman gave the passage, in succession, two contradictory
renderings (iii. 471, 763). Now, starting from the fact that the
disputed passage supported, and also opposed both renderings, I
arrived at the conclusion that it must represent some confusion of
Wace's own. He had, evidently, himself no clear idea of what he was
describing. But the whole confusion is at once accounted for if
we admit him to have here also followed William of Malmesbury. His
_escuz_--otherwise impossible to explain--faithfully renders the
_scuta_ of William, while the latter's _testudo_, though strictly
accurate, clearly led him astray. The fact is that William of
Malmesbury must have been quite familiar with the 'shield-wall', if
indeed he had seen the fyrd actually forming it.[44] Wace, on the
contrary, living later, and in Normandy instead of England, cannot
have seen, or even understood, this famous formation, with which his
cavalry fight of the twelfth century had nothing in common. It is
natural therefore that his version should betray some confusion,
though his _Fait en orent deuant closture_ clearly renders William of
Malmesbury's _conserta ante se scutorum testudine_. There is no
question as to William's meaning, for a _testudo_ of shields is
excellent Latin for the shield-wall formed by the Romans against a
flight of arrows. Moreover, the construction of William's Latin
(_conserta_) accounts for that use by Wace of the pluperfect tense on
which stress has been laid as proof that the passage must describe a
'barricade'.[45] That Wace could, occasionally, be led astray by
misunderstanding his authority, is shown by his taking Harold to
Abbeville, after his capture on the French coast, a statement which
arose, in Mr Freeman's opinion, 'from a misconception of the words of
William of Jumièges (iii. 224)'. No one, I think, can read
dispassionately the extracts I have printed side by side, without
accepting the explanation I offer of this disputed passage in Wace,
namely, that it is nothing but a metrical, elaborate, and somewhat
confused paraphrase of the words of William of Malmesbury.
Passing from William of Malmesbury to the Bayeux Tapestry, we find a
general recognition of the difficulty of determining Wace's knowledge
of it. I can only, like others, leave the point undecided. On the
other hand, his narrative, as a whole, does not follow the Tapestry;
on the other, it is hard to believe that the writer of II. 8103-38
had not seen that famous work. His description of the scene is
marvellously exact, and the Tapestry phrase, in which Odo _confortat
pueros_--often a subject of discussion--is at once explained by his
making the _pueri_ whom Odo 'comforted' to be--
Vaslez, qui al herneis esteient
E le herneis garder deueient.
Of these varlets in charge of the 'harness' he had already spoken (ll.
7963-7). The difficulty of accounting for Wace, as a canon of Bayeux,
being unacquainted with the Tapestry is, of course, obvious. But
in any case he cannot have used it, as we do ourselves, among his
foremost authorities.
In discussing his use of William of Jumièges, we stand on much surer
ground. It certainly strikes one as strange that in mentioning the
obvious error by which Wace makes Harold receive his wound in the eye
early in the fight (l. 8185), before the great feigned flight, Mr
Freeman does not suggest its derivation from William of Jumièges,
though he proceeds to add (p. 771):
I need hardly stop to refute the strange mistake of William of
Jumièges, followed by Orderic: 'Heraldus ipse in primo militum
progressu ['Congressu', _Ord._] vulneribus letaliter confossus
occubuit'.
But a worse instance of the contradictions involved by the patchwork
and secondary character of Wace's narrative is found in his statement
as to Harold's arrival on the field of battle. 'Wace,' says Mr
Freeman, 'makes the English reach Senlac on Thursday night' (p. 441).
So he does, even adding that Harold
fist son estandart drecier
Et fist son gonfanon fichier
Iloc tot dreit ou l'abeie
De la Bataille est establie.
(ll. 6985-8)
But Mr Freeman must have overlooked the very significant fact that
when the battle is about to begin, Wace tells a different story, and
makes Harold only occupy the battlefield on the Saturday morning:
Heraut sout que Normant vendreient
E que par main se combatreient:
Un champ out _par matin_ porpris,
Ou il a toz ses Engleis mis.
_Par matin_ les fist toz armer
E a bataille conreer.
(ll. 7768-72)
I have little doubt that he here follows William of Jumièges:
'[Heraldus] in campo belli apparuit mane', and that he was thus led to
contradict himself.
Mr Freeman had a weakness for Wace, and did not conceal it: he
insisted on the poet's 'honesty'. But 'honesty' is not knowledge; and
in dealing with the battle, it is not allowable to slur over Wace's
imperfect knowledge. Mr Freeman admits that 'probably he did not know
the ground, and did not take in the distance between Hastings and
Battle' (p. 762). But he charitably suggests that 'it is possible
that when he says "en un tertre s'estut li dus" he meant the hill of
Telham, only without any notion of its distance from Hastings'.
But, in spite of this attempt to smooth over the discrepancy, it is
impossible to reconcile Wace's narrative with that of Mr Freeman. The
latter makes the duke deliver his speech at Hastings, and then march
with his knights to Telham, and there arm. But Wace imagined that they
armed in their quarters at Hastings ('Issi sunt as tentes ale'), and
straightway fought. The events immediately preceding the battle are
far more doubtful and difficult to determine than could be imagined
from Mr Freeman's narrative, but I must confine myself to Wace's
version. I have shown that his account is not consistent as to
the movements of Harold, while as to the topography, 'his primary
blunder', as Mr Freeman terms it, 'of reversing the geographical
order, by making William land at Hastings and thence go to Pevensey',
together with his obvious ignorance of the character and position of
the battlefield, must, of course, lower our opinion of his accuracy,
and of the value of the oral tradition at his disposal.
To rely 'mainly'[46] on such a writer, in preference to the original
authorities he confused, or to follow him when, in Mr Freeman's words,
he actually 'departs from contemporary authority, and merely sets down
floating traditions nearly a hundred years after the latest events
which he records'--betrays the absence of a critical faculty, or the
consciousness of a hopeless cause.
[Footnote 1: Dismissing _ut supra_ the 'fosse' passage, which
neither mentions nor implies it, together with the passage
from Henry of Huntingdon.]
[Footnote 2: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763-4. I have shown in the
_English Historical Review_ (ix. 225) that he meant here by
the shield-wall 'exactly what he meant by it elsewhere', a
shield-wall and nothing else.]
[Footnote 3: _Cont. Rev._, 344.]
[Footnote 4: _English Historical Review_, ix. 231-40.]
[Footnote 5: _English Historical Review_, ix. 2.]
[Footnote 6: _Ibid._, 260.]
[Footnote 7: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 763-4.]
[Footnote 8: _Cont. Rev._, p. 348.]
[Footnote 9: _English Historical Review_, ix. 17-20.]
[Footnote 10: I explained, in one of my replies to Mr Archer,
that this statement applied _only_ to its usage '_in Wace_'
(_Academy_, September 16, 1893), but, characteristically, he
has not hesitated to suppress this explanation, and renew his
sneers at my knowledge of 'Old French', on the ground of a
statement which, I had explained, was not my meaning (_English
Historical Review_, ix. 604). It is difficult to describe such
devices as these.
Common as the word is in Wace, I have never found any other
instance of its use (_i.e._ by him) in a metaphorical sense,
nor, if there is one, has Mr Archer attempted to produce it.]
[Footnote 11: _Infra_, pp. 313-18.]
[Footnote 12: _English Historical Review_, ix. 260.]
[Footnote 13: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 736-7.]
[Footnote 14: The word 'fenestres', for instance, which Mr
Archer first rendered 'ash', out of deference to Mr Freeman
and his predecessors, but subsequently 'windows' (_English
Historical Review_, ix. 18), is either a corruption or quite
inexplicable. 'If it pleases Mr Archer,' as I wrote (_ibid._,
236), 'to construct a barricade, of which "windows" are the
chief ingredient, on an uninhabited Sussex down, in 1066, he
is perfectly welcome to do so.' I may add that the rendering
adopted by the two French scholars does not in the least alter
my view as to the improbability, or rather absurdity, of the
suggestion.]
[Footnote 15: _Ibid._, ix. 244.]
[Footnote 16: _Q.R._, July 1893, p. 95.]
[Footnote 17: _English Historical Review_, ix. 251-3. I
was careful to add that 'if it be claimed that his text is
contradictory, this would but prove further how confused his
mind really was as to the battle' (p. 252). Mr Archer, as I
anticipated, now prints, as a conclusive reply (_ibid._, ix.
603), words which look the other way, ignoring, as usual, the
quotations on which I explicitly relied. He has thereby, as
I said, only proved how confused, here as elsewhere, Mr
Freeman's conception was.]
[Footnote 18: Mr Archer now prefers to leave its details
doubtful (_English Historical Review_, ix. 606).]
[Footnote 19: As I have shown in _ibid._, ix. 244-5.]
[Footnote 20: _Cont. Rev._, 344.]
[Footnote 21: _Ibid._, 346.]
[Footnote 22: I have shown (_Academy_, September 16, 1893) by
reference to Godefroi and Michel that either Mr Archer or
they must here have been ignorant of Old French. The former
alternative seems to be accepted.]
[Footnote 23: _Supra_, pp. 269-70.]
[Footnote 24: The case of the battle of Varaville, in 1058,
is precisely similar in this respect to that of the Battle of
Hastings. Of the former Mr Freeman writes: 'Wace alone speaks,
throughout his narrative, of a bridge. All the other writers
speak only of a ford' (iii. 173). Now Wace's authority was
better for this, the earlier battle, because, says Mr Freeman,
he knew the ground. Yet the Professor did not hesitate to
reject his 'bridge'. So again, in 'the campaign of Hastings',
Mr Freeman rejects 'the falsehood of the story of William
burning his ships, of which the first traces appear in Wace'
(iii. 408). So much for placing our reliance upon Wace, when
he stands alone.]
[Footnote 25: _Q.R._, July 1893, p. 96.]
[Footnote 26: Mr Archer's limit is 1066-1210.]
[Footnote 27: We have, I suspect, a similar instance, in
Wace's _gisarmes_ (ll. 7794, 7814, 8328, 8332, 8342,
8587, 8629, 8656). An excellent vindication of the Bayeux
Tapestry--oddly enough overlooked by Mr Freeman--namely, M.
Delauney's 'Origine de la Tapisserie de Bayeux prouvée par
elle-même' (Caen, 1824)--discusses the weapons, the author
observing: 'La hache d'armes ressemble à celle de nos sapeurs;
celle des temps postèrieurs au xi^{e} siècle à, dans les
monuments, une espèce de petite lance au-dessus de la douille
du côté opposé au tranchant' (see Jubinal, _La Tapisserie de
Bayeux_, p. 17). This exactly describes the true _gisarme_, a
later introduction. So again, Wace makes the _chevalier_ who
has hurried from Hastings exclaim to Harold:
'Un chastel i ont ia ferme
De _breteschese_ de fosse' (ll. 6717-8),
whereas _bretasches_ of course were impossible at the time.
One is reminded of the description, by Piramus, of the coming
of the English, when 'over the broad sea Britain they sought':
'Leuent bresteches od kernels,
Ke cuntrevalent bons chastels,
De herituns [? hericuns] e de paliz
Les cernent, si funt riulez
Del quer des cheygnes, forze e halz,
Ki ne criement sieges ne asalz.'
(_Vie Seint Edmund le Rey_, ll. 228-33.)]
[Footnote 28: _English Historical Review_, ix. 66.]
[Footnote 29: _Ibid._, 31-7, 17-18, and throughout his paper.]
[Footnote 30: _Ibid._, ix. 32.]
[Footnote 31: 'Al siege de Rouen le quidierent gaber' (l.
62).]
[Footnote 32: 'Demn nicht etwa am Schlusse, sondern gleich
zu Anfang des genannten Theiles' (l. 179) 'spricht er von den
drei Königen Heinrich die er gesehen und gekannt' (p. xciv).]
[Footnote 33: 'Nimmt man das Jahr 1110 als Geburtsjahr des
Dichters an', etc. (p. xciv).]
[Footnote 34: _English Historical Review_, ix. 33. It need
scarcely be said that these 'old heroes' would be found rather
in England than in Normandy.]
[Footnote 35: _Ibid._, ix. 17.
'Assez vi homes qui la virent,
Qui ainz e pois longues vesquirent.']
[Footnote 36: _Ibid._, ix. 33.]
[Footnote 37: Compare his scornful rejection (iii. 469-71) of
Wace's tales in ll. 7875-950.]
[Footnote 38: _English Historical Review_, ix. 34.]
[Footnote 39: Reprinted from _ibid._, October 1893.]
[Footnote 40: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 783.]
[Footnote 41: iii. 402, note 2.]
[Footnote 42: iii. 782.]
[Footnote 43: I mean, as I explained above, elsewhere in
Wace.]
[Footnote 44: He describes, as Mr Freeman observed, King Henry
bidding the English 'meet the charge of the Norman knights
by standing firm in the array of the ancient shield-wall'
(_William Rufus_, ii. 411).]
[Footnote 45: _Cont. Rev._, March 1893, p. 351.]
[Footnote 46: 'It is upon Wace that we shall mainly rely.'
_Cont. Rev._, p. 344.]
NOTE ON THE PSEUDO-INGULF
I owe to my friend Mr Hubert Hall the suggestion that the great battle
described by the Pseudo-Ingulf as taking place between the English
and the Danes in 870--and all accepted as sober fact by Turner in his
_History of the Anglo-Saxons_--may be a concoction based on the facts
of the battle of Hastings. This is also the theory Mr Freeman advanced
as to Snorro's story of the battle of Stamford Bridge. The coincidence
is very striking. In both narratives the defending force is formed
with 'the dense shield-wall';[1] in both it breaks at length that
formation; in both it is, consequently, overwhelmed; and in both cases
the attacking force consists of horsemen and archers. But the most
curious coincidence is found in the principal weapon of the defending
force. In Snorro's narrative, as Mr Freeman renders it, 'a dense wood
of spears bristles in front of the circle to receive the charge of the
English horsemen';[2] in the Pseudo-Ingulf the defending force 'contra
violentiam equitum densissimam aciem lancearum prætendebant'.[3] Such
a defence savours of the days when the knight, fighting on foot with
his lance,[4] had replaced the housecarl with his battle-axe: it was
not that of Harold's host, but one which we meet with in the twelfth
century.
There are marks, however, in the Pseudo-Ingulf, of study, not merely
of the Battle of Hastings, but of William of Malmesbury's account
of it. From him, it would seem, are taken the words 'testudo' and
'tumulus'. The first parallel passages are these:
WILLIAM 'INGULF'
Conserta ante se _scutorum In unum cuneum conglobati,
testudine_, impenetrabilem ... _testudinem clypeorum_
cuneum faciunt. prætendebant.
Again, after the disaster caused, in each case, by a feigned flight,
we have the rally thus described:
WILLIAM 'INGULF'
nec tamen ultioni suæ defuere, in quodam campi _tumulo_ cetera
quin crebro consistentes ... planitie aliquantulum altiore
occupato _tumulo_, Normannos, in orbem conferti, barbaros
calore succensos acriter ad arietantes diutissime
superiora nitentes, in vallem sustinuerunt ... suum sanguinem
dejiciunt. vindicantes.
The Pseudo-Ingulf alludes but briefly to the Battle of Hastings
itself. Yet here again we have traces of William of Malmesbury's words
in 'nec de toto exercitu, præter paucissimos eum aliquis concomitatur'
and 'more gregarii militis manu ad manum congrediens', which phrases
are applied to Harold.
[Footnote 1: _Norm. Conq._, iii. 367.]
[Footnote 2: _Ibid._, p. 365.]
[Footnote 3: Ed. 1684, p. 21.]
[Footnote 4: _Vide supra_, p. 279. Cf. the fight at Jaffa,
August 5, 1192.]
REGENBALD, PRIEST AND CHANCELLOR
No better illustration could be given of the fact that valuable
historical evidence may lurk, even in print, unknown, than the
charters printed, from the Cirencester Cartulary, by Sir Thomas
Phillips in _Archæologia_ (1836).[1] One can imagine how highly
prized they would have been by Mr Freeman, had he only known of their
existence.
Regenbald, of whom Sir Thomas would seem never to have heard, was the
first Chancellor of England.[2] Mr Freeman called him, I know not
on what authority, 'the Norman chancellor of Eadward'. Whatever
his nationality, it is well established that he was that king's
chancellor. He occurs repeatedly in Domesday, where he is
distinguished as 'Canceler', 'Presbyter', and 'de Cirencestre'.
We learn also from its pages that he held land in at least three
counties--Berkshire, Herefordshire, and Dorset T.R.E.--and that
he seems to have received further grants from King William in his
return.[3]
The three charters of which I treat are found in the Cirencester
Cartulary and are in Anglo-Saxon. The first is one of King Edward's in
favour of 'Reinbold min preost', and is a confirmation to him of soc
and sac, toll and team, etc., as his predecessors had enjoyed it 'on
Cnutes kinges daie'. The third is a notification from King William
that 'ic hæbbe geunnen Regenbald minan preoste eall his lond' as 'he
hit under Ed[w]earde hædde mine meie'. The chief points to be noticed
here are that the land is granted _de novo_, not confirmed, and that
the Conqueror speaks of Regenbald as 'minan preoste', implying that he
has taken him into his service.
It is the second of these charters that is of quite extraordinary
importance. I here append it _in extenso_ as printed by Sir Thomas
Phillips:
'Vyllelm king gret Hereman b. & Wulstan b. & Eustace eorl & Eadrich
& Bristrich & ealle mine þegenes on [W]yltoneshyre & on Glouc'shyre
fronliche & ic cuþe eo[w] ic habbe geunnan Reinbold mina preost [þt]
land æt Esi & [þt] land æt Latton & ealle þæra þinge [þt] þar to lið
binnan port & buten mið sace & mið socne s[w]a full and s[w]a forð
s[w]a his furmest on hondan stodan Harald kinge on ællan þingan on
dæge & æfter to atheonne s[w]a s[w]a ealra lefest ys & ic nelle nenna
men geþafian [þt] him fram honda teo ænig þære þinga þæs þa ic him
geunne habbe bi minan freonshype.'
The relevant entry in Domesday speaks for itself:
Reinbaldus presbyter tenet Latone et Aisi. Duo taini tenuerunt
pro II. Maneriis T.R.E. Heraldus comes junxit in unum.
Geldabat pro ix. hidis (68_b_).
If the charter were nothing more than a grant from the Conqueror to
a private individual of lands duly entered in Domesday, it would, I
believe, as such be unique. Historians have long and vainly sought
for any genuine charter of the kind; and here it has been in print for
nearly sixty years.
But the document, I hope to show, does far more for us than this: it
opens a new chapter in the history of the Norman Conquest.
We first notice that the writ is addressed not to Norman, but to
English authorities. The only exception is Count Eustace, who was, of
course, not a Norman, and who was known in England before the Conquest
as brother-in-law to Edward the Confessor. The obvious inference is
that, at the time this writ was issued, Norman government had not yet
been set up in the district. Urse d'Abetot, for instance, the dreaded
sheriff of Worcestershire, would probably have been addressed in
conjunction with Bishop Wulstan had he been then in power. But we know
that he came into power soon after the Conquest, for he had time to be
guilty of oppression and to be rebuked for it by Ealdred before that
Primate's death in 1069. But as our writ is of this early date, it
must be previous to the treason of Count Eustace in 1067. It must
therefore belong to the beginning of that year, when William had only
recently been crowned king.
We see then here, I think, the Conqueror, in his first days as an
English king, addressing his subjects, in a part of the realm not yet
under Norman sway, and doing so in their own tongue and in the forms
to which they were accustomed. As King Edward in his charter to
Regenbald had greeted bishops, earls, and sheriffs, so here his
successor greets two bishops, 'Eustace Eorl', and two Englishmen
representing the power of the sheriff. And so again in his charter to
London he began by greeting the Bishop and the Portreeve.[4]
The writ, it will be seen, is addressed to the authorities of
Gloucestershire and Wilts. The estate lay in the latter county, but
the connection of Regenbald de 'Cirencestre' with Glo'stershire may
account for the inclusion of that county. Can we identify 'Eadrich'
and 'Bristrich' with any local magnates? With some confidence I boldly
suggest that the latter was no other than the 'Bristricus' of the Exon
Domesday, that famous Brihtric, the son of Ælfgar, who, to quote from
the appendix Mr Freeman devotes to him, 'appears distinctly as a great
landowner in most of the western shires', one from whose vast domains
was carved out later the great Honour of Gloucester. Until now, all we
have known of him has been derived from the Domesday entries of his
estates T.R.E. and from the legend which associates his name with that
of Queen Matilda. But this charter enables us to say that he was
living and still holding his great position in the west in the early
days of William's reign.[5]
From 'Bristric' I turn to 'Eadric', and ask if we may not here
recognize 'Eadric the Wild' himself? This can only be matter of
conjecture, but it is certain that these two Englishmen are here
assigned the place that would be given to a sheriff, and that 'Eadric
the Wild'--'quidam præpotens minister', as Florence terms him--was a
magnate in the west (Herefordshire and Shropshire) at the time of the
Conquest. Mr Freeman terms him 'a man about whom we should gladly know
more'. It is stated by Orderic that he was one of those who came in
and submitted to William at the outset. But Mr Freeman held it 'far
more likely that he did not submit till a much later time',
because Florence says of him in William's absence: 'se dedere Regi
dedignabatur'. Orderic's statement, however, is not denied, and
Florence's words seem to me quite explicable by the hypothesis that
Eadric had refused the 'dangerous honour', as Mr Freeman terms it, of
following William to Normandy in 1067 among 'his English attendants
or hostages'. Harried, in consequence, by his Norman neighbours, he
retaliated by ravaging Herefordshire in August of that year; while
Count Eustace also threw off his allegiance and made his descent on
Dover.
If the identity of 'Eadric' is matter of conjecture, that of 'Eustace
eorl' is certain. But no one has known, or even suspected, that he
held, at this period, high position in the west. It may be that, as I
have already hinted, he was sent by William to a district, as yet
only nominally subject, as being, from his previous connection with
England, less obnoxious than a Norman was likely to prove. It would
be refining overmuch to suggest that William might also intend to
establish him as far as possible from his base of operations at
Boulogne.
In any case, we have in this charter a welcome addition to our scanty
knowledge of that obscure period when William, as it were, was feeling
his feet as an English king. Nor is it its least important feature
that it shows us William, contrary to what Mr Freeman held to be his
fundamental rule, speaking of his predecessor as 'Harald kinge'.
Before taking leave of Regenbald, we may glance at one of the Domesday
entries relating to his lands. Mr Freeman, in two distinct passages,
wrote as follows:
An entry in 99 reads as if the The rights of the antecessor are
same Regenbald had been defrauded handed on to the grantee of his
of land by a Norman tenant of his land.... So in Exon 432.
own. 'Ricardus tenet in Rode i. 'Ricardus interpres habet
hidam, quam ipse tenuit de i. hidam terræ in Roda quam ipse
Rainboldo presbytero licentia emit de Rainboldo sacerdote
regis, ut dicit. Reinbold vero [Eadward's chancellor?] per
tenuit T.R.E.' licentiam regis, ut dicit qui
(_Norm. Conq._, v. 751) tenuit eam die qua Rex E.
fuit[6] et mortuus.'
(_Ibid._, p. 784)
Although these two passages are found in two different appendices, the
entries thus diversely adduced, are, of course, one and the same. But,
it will be seen, the 'tenuit' of Domesday is equated by the 'emit' of
the Exon book. One of the two must be wrong. I should accept the
Exon text because 'emit licentia regis' is the right Domesday phrase,
because it makes better sense, and because it is a sound principle of
textual criticism that the Exchequer scribe was more likely to write
the usual 'tenuit' for the exceptional 'emit' than the Exon scribe
to do the converse. I should then read the passage thus: 'emit de
Rainboldo sacerdote--per licentiam regis, ut dicit--qui tenuit eam
die', etc.
If my view be adopted, we here detect noteworthy error in our great
and sacrosanct record.
The charter of Henry I to Cirencester Abbey--in which he had placed
Canons Regular, and of which he claimed to be the founder--sets, as it
were, the coping-stone on the story of Regenbald.[7] In it we read:
Dedi et concessi ... totam tenuram Reimbaldi presbyteri in
terris et ecclesiis, et ceteris omnibusquæ subscripta sunt....
De rebus autem predictis quæ fuerunt Rembaldi hec statuimus.
The details of Regenbald's possessions are given, and are of special
value for collation with Domesday. They set him before us not only as
a landowner in five different counties, but also as the first great
pluralist. Sixteen churches, rich in tithes and glebe--one might
really term them 'fat livings'--had passed into the hands of Regenbald
'the priest'. From the king's phrase, '_dedi_ et concessi', he would
seem to have been not merely confirming an endowment by Regenbald, but
granting lands which had escheated to himself.[8]
And this conclusion is confirmed by the fact that the king, while
granting them, especially reserved the life interest of the Bishop of
Salisbury and of two others--one of them, alas! a bishop's nephew--who
must have acquired their rights since Regenbald's death.
This charter, apart from its contents, is of great interest from its
mention of the place where and the time when it was granted, together
with its list of witnesses. These were the two Archbishops, the
Bishops of Salisbury, Winchester, Lincoln, Durham, Ely, Hereford, and
Rochester: Robert 'de Sigillo', Robert de Ver, Miles of Gloucester,
Robert d'Oilli, Hugh Bigot, Robert de Curci, Payne 'filius Johannis et
Eustacio et Willelmo fratribus ejus, et Willelmo de Albini Britone'.
The charter was granted 'apud Burnam in transfretatione mea anno
incarnationis Domini MCXXXIII. regni vero mei XXXIII.'; and 'Burna',
as I have elsewhere shown,[9] was Westbourne in Sussex, on the border
of Hampshire, then in the king's hands by forfeiture and near the
coast. Here therefore we see the king, when leaving England for the
last time, surrounded by his prelates and ministers, and are enabled
to say positively who were with him. I would note the predominance of
the official class represented by the Bishops of Salisbury, Lincoln,
and Ely, by the late chancellor, the Bishop of Durham, and by laymen
who are found specially entrusted with administrative work. A long
list of witnesses such as this is specially characteristic of the
closing period of the reign,[10] and, of course, always possesses
biographical value.[11]
Another English writ of the Conqueror, which may be profitably
compared with that we have discussed, is found in one of the
cartularies of Bury St Edmund's.[12] Its address, as rendered in the
transcript, runs:
William [_sic_] kyng gret Ægelmær Bischop and Raulf Eorl and
Nordman and ealle myne thegnaes on Sudfolke frendliche.
This writ is obviously previous to the deposition of Bishop Æthelmær
in April, 1070, but how far previous it is not easy to say. 'Nordman'
is clearly the sheriff of Suffolk, who appears in Domesday as
'Normannus Vicecomes' (II. 438). His name affords presumption, though
not proof, that he was of English birth;[13] and as his Domesday
holding consisted only of rights over two Ipswich burgesses (which he
may have acquired during his shrievalty) he is hardly likely to have
been one of the conquering race. Of the third official, Earl Ralf, we
know a good deal. Mr Freeman was much puzzled by this 'somewhat
mysterious person',[14] but eventually came to the conclusion that
'there were two Ralfs in Norfolk, father and son, the younger being
the son of a Breton mother: the elder was staller under Edward and
Earl under William'. The younger was the Earl of Norfolk (or 'of the
East Angles'), who rebelled and was forfeited in 1075; the elder was
that 'Rawulf' who, in the words of the chronicle, 'wæs Englisc and
wæs geboren on Norðfolce'. Putting our evidence together, I lean
strongly to the view that we have here, as in the case of Regenbald,
a writ addressed to English authorities before Norfolk had passed
into the hands of Norman authorities. Mr Freeman held that a passage
in Domesday (II. 194), to which he had given much attention, should
be read--'Hanc terram habuit A[rfastus] episcopus in tempore
utrorumque [Radulforum]', and that therefore 'the elder Ralph was
living as late as 1070, in which year the episcopate of Erfast
begins'. But the context clearly shows that we should read 'A[ilmarus]
episcopus', and that, therefore, the elder Ralf died before Æthelmær
was deposed. Moreover, Norwich, we are specially told, was entrusted
by the Conqueror to William fitz Osbern before his departure from
England in March 1067. William was placed, some two years later, in
charge of York castle, and we read in Mr Freeman's work that 'the man
who now (autumn, 1069) commanded at Norwich, and who was already,
or soon afterwards, invested with the East-Anglian Earldom, was the
renegade native of the shire, Ralf of Wader'.[15] This, it will be
seen, contradicts his own, and supports my reading of the Domesday
passage quoted above. Everything therefore points to the 'Raulf Eorl'
of our writ dying or being deposed shortly after the Conquest.
Before taking leave of this writ we may note that, dealing as it does
with Suffolk, it is addressed to Earl Ralf as Earl, not merely of
Norfolk, but of East Anglia. This is of some importance, because Mr
Freeman wrote, speaking of the Regents appointed in 1067:
There was no longer to be an Earl of the West Saxons or an
Earl of the East Angles.... Returning in this to earlier
English practice, the Earl under William was to have the rule
of a single shire only, or if two shires were ever set under
one Earl they were at least not to be adjoining shires. The
results of this change have been of the highest moment. (iv.
70.)
Yet on page 253, as we have seen, we read of 'the East Anglian
Earldom', and on page 573 that the younger Ralph 'had received the
Earldom of East Anglia'--Florence of Worcester distinctly terming him
'East-Anglorum comite'. Mr Freeman, indeed, was led by this passage to
style him 'Earl of Norfolk or of the East Angles'.[16] I believe this
latter style to be perfectly correct, and, as I have shown in my
_Geoffrey de Mandeville_ (p. 191), to apply even to the Bigod earldom
in the days of Stephen.
The curious English writ that has suggested these considerations ought
to be compared with a Latin one, also in favour of St Edmund's, on
which I lighted in examining the 'Registrum Album' of the Abbey. It is
one of those exceedingly rare documents that find their correlatives
in Domesday. The words of the writ are these:
W. rex Anglor' E. epo. B. Abbi W. Malet salm. sciatis vos
mei fideles me concessisse servitium de Liuremere quam Werno
hactenus de me tenuit sancto Ædmundo Et filia Guernonis in
vita sua de Abbate B. tenuit.[17]
The last clause is clearly an addition by the cartulary scribe.
Now this charter being addressed, like the other, to Æthelmær
('Ethelmerus'), Bishop of the East Angles, is, of course, previous to
April 1070. I should, therefore, also place it previous to the capture
of William Malet at York in September 1069. But this, unlike the
other date, is matter of probability rather than of proof. Mr Freeman
believed that William returned, and died 'in the marshes of Ely'
(1071), but this is only a guess in which I cannot concur.[18] In
any case, we have evidence here of this well-known man having held a
position in Suffolk (where he owned the great Honour of Eye) analogous
to that of sheriff. He may have succeeded Northman in that office.
The relevant Domesday entry is as follows:
Hujus terram rex accepit de abbate et dedit Guernoni depeiz
[de Peiz]. Postea licencia regis deveniens monachus reddidit
terram. (363_b_.)
The charter records, I take it, the 'licencia regis' of Domesday.[19]
[Footnote 1: Vol. xxvi., p. 256.]
[Footnote 2: Not counting Leofric, styled 'regis cancellarius'
by Florence in 1046.]
[Footnote 3: See my life of him in _Dictionary of National
Biography_.]
[Footnote 4: It might even be suggested that not only this
charter but the Essex writ in favour of Deorman (addressed to
Bishop William and Swegen the sheriff) belonged to the same
early period. Compare, however, the Conqueror's Old English
writ that I have discussed ('Londoners and the Chase') in the
_Athenæum_ of June 30, 1894.]
[Footnote 5: It is a noteworthy coincidence that 'Brihtricus
princeps' and 'Eadricus princeps' are among the witnesses to
Harold's Waltham charter in 1062, which Regenbald himself also
attests as Chancellor.]
[Footnote 6: _sic._]
[Footnote 7: See _Monast. Anglic._, ii. 177.]
[Footnote 8: It is possible, I think, that the only endowment
entered to the church at Cirencester in Domesday, viz., two
hides at Cirencester, had been originally given by Regenbald.]
[Footnote 9: Henry I, at 'Burne' (_English Historical Review_,
1895).]
[Footnote 10: As in the charters to Aubrey de Vere (_Baronia
Anglica_, 158) and William Mauduit.]
[Footnote 11: Here, it would seem, is further proof of
the Bishops of Ely and Durham assuming their styles before
consecration (_infra_, pp. 366-7).]
[Footnote 12: Harl. MS., 743, fo. 8_d_.]
[Footnote 13: Mr Freeman held him to be an Englishman.]
[Footnote 14: _Norm. Conq._ (2nd Ed.), iii. 773. Cf. 1st Ed.,
iii. 752-3; iv. 277.]
[Footnote 15: _Ibid._ (1st Ed.), iv. 252-3.]
[Footnote 16: _Ibid._ (2nd.), iii. 773.]
[Footnote 17: Add. MS., 14,314, fo. 32_b_ (pencil).]
[Footnote 18: See my letter on 'the death of William Malet' in
_Academy_ of August 26, 1884.]
[Footnote 19: Since this paper was written, there has
appeared the valuable Bath Cartulary (Somerset Record Society)
containing a most remarkable charter (p. 36), which should
be closely compared with those to Regenbald. It is issued by
William the King and William the Earl, and must undoubtedly be
assigned to the former's absence from England, March-December
1067. It shows us therefore William fitz Osbern acting
as Regent and anticipating the office of the later Great
Justiciar by inserting in the document his own name. This
charter, like that to Regenbald, is addressed to the still
English authorities of an unconquered district.]
THE CONQUEROR AT EXETER
'And y seide nay, and proved hit by Domesday.'[1]
For a companion study to the Battle of Hastings, one could not select
a better subject than the Siege of Exeter by William in 1068. It is
so, because, in the tale of the Conquest, 'No city of England', in Mr
Freeman's words, 'comes so distinctly to the front as Exeter':[2] and
because, as editor of 'Historic Towns', he chose Exeter, out of all
others, as the town to be reserved for himself.[3] 'Its siege by
William', we are told, 'is one of the most important events of his
reign';[4] but it was doubtless the alleged 'federal' character
of Exeter's attitude at this crisis that gave its story for him an
interest so unique. This episode, moreover, has many advantages: it
is complete in itself; it is rich in suggestion; it is taken from the
period in which the Professor described himself as 'most at home'; and
its scene is laid within his own borders, his own West Saxon land. It
presents an admirable test of Mr Freeman's work at the point where he
was admittedly strongest, and his thoroughly typical treatment of it
affords a perfect illustration of the method he employed.
The year 1067 was drawing to its close when the Conqueror, summoned
back from Normandy by the tidings of pressing danger, returned to
spend his Christmas at Westminster amidst 'the sea of troubles which
still awaited him in his half-conquered island-kingdom'.[5] Threatened
at once by foes within and without the realm, he perceived the vital
necessity of severing their forces by instant suppression of the
'rebellions' at home, _swift_ suppression before the invaders were
upon him, _stern_ suppression before the movement spread. Let us bear
in mind these twin motives, by which his policy must at this juncture
have been shaped, the need for _swiftness_, with invasion in prospect,
and the need for _sternness_ as a warning to 'rebels'.
Of all the 'rebellious' movements on foot, that at Exeter, as Mr
Freeman admits, was 'specially hateful in William's eyes'.[6] It was
against Exeter, therefore, that the Conqueror directed his first blow.
In the depths of winter, in the early days of the new year, 'he fared
to Devonshire'. Such is the brief statement of the English Chronicle.
We hear of William at Westminster; we next hear of him before the
walls of Exeter: all that intervenes is a sheer blank. Of what
happened on this long westward march not a single detail is preserved
to us in the Chronicle, in Orderic or in Florence. Now it is precisely
such a blank as this that, to Mr Freeman, was irresistible. We shall
see below how, a few months later, we have, in William's march from
Warwick to Nottingham, a blank exactly parallel.[7] There also Mr
Freeman succumbed to the temptation. He seized, in each case, on
the empty canvas, and, by a few rapid and suggestive touches, he has
boldly filled it in with the outlines of historical events, not merely
events for which there is no sufficient evidence, but events which can
be proved, by demonstration, to have had no foundation in fact.
The scene elaborated by Mr Freeman to enliven the void between
the departure from London and the entrance into Devonshire is THE
RESISTANCE AND THE DOWNFALL OF 'THE CIVIC LEAGUE'.[8] This striking
incident in the Exeter campaign I propose to analyse without further
delay.
It must, in the first place, be pointed out that we have no proof
whatever of this 'Civic League' having even existed. To apply Mr
Freeman's words to his own narrative:
The story is perfectly possible. We only ask for the proof.
Show us the proof;... then we will believe. Without such a
proof we will not believe.[9]
For proof of its existence Mr Freeman relies on a solitary passage in
Orderic.[10] But Orderic, it will at once be seen, does not say that
any such league was effected; he does not even say that the league
which was contemplated was intended to be an exclusively Civic League.
What he does say is that the men of Exeter sought for allies in the
neighbouring coasts (_plagæ_)[11] and in other cities. The Dorset
townlets, such as Bridport, with its 120 houses, would scarcely
represent these 'cities'. Mr Freeman assumed, however, that 'the Civic
League' was formed, assumed that the Dorset towns had 'doubtless'
joined it, and finally assumed that they were 'no doubt' besieged by
William in consequence.[12] These assumptions he boldly connected
with the entries on the towns in Domesday, entries which we shall
analyse below, and which are not only incorrectly rendered, but are
directly opposed to the above assumptions.
What, then, is the inference to be drawn? Simply this. The 'Civic
League' must share the fate of the 'palisade on Senlac'. The sieges
which took place 'probably' never took place at all; the League never
resisted; the League never fell; in short, there is not a scrap of
evidence that there was ever such a League at all. The existence of
such a League would be, unquestionably, a fact of great importance.
But its very importance imperatively requires that its existence
should be established by indisputable proof. Of such proof there is
none. One can imagine how severely Mr Freeman would have handled
such guesses from others. For he wrote of a deceased Somersetshire
historian who boldly connects the story of Gisa with the banishment of
Godwine:
One is inclined to ask with Henry II, 'Quære a rustico illo
utrum hoc somniaverit?' But these things have their use. Every
instance in the growth of a legend affords practice in the art
of distinguishing legend from history.
It should, however, in justice be at once added that this story did
not originate wholly with Mr Freeman himself. He refers us on the
subject of the League to his predecessor, Sir Francis Palgrave. The
brilliant imagination of that graceful writer was indeed led captive
by the fascinating vision of 'the first Federal Commonwealth', yet he
did not allow himself, when dealing with the facts, to deviate from
the exact truth. His statement that Exeter '_attempted to form_ a
defensive confederation' reproduces with scrupulous accuracy Orderic's
words. And even when he passed from fact to conjecture, there was
nothing in his conjecture at variance from fact. From him we have no
suggestion that the Dorset towns resisted William or 'stood sieges'.
It was left for Mr Freeman to carry into action Palgrave's line of
thought, and, by forcing the evidence of the Domesday Survey into
harmony with the story he had evolved, to show us, in his own words,
'the growth of a legend'. For, as he observed with perfect truth:
What we call the growth of a story is really the result of
the action of a number of human wills. The convenient metaphor
must not delude us into thinking that a story really grows
of itself as a tree grows. In a crowd of cases ... the story
comes of a state of mind which does not willingly sin against
historical truth, but which has not yet learned that there is
such a thing as historical truth.
Had Mr Freeman done so himself? Did he ever really learn to
distinguish conjecture from fact? One asks this because within the
covers of a single work, his _English Towns and Districts_, that Civic
League which in the _Norman Conquest_ is said to have existed 'no
doubt', is in one place said to have existed 'perhaps', and in another
is set forth as an undoubted historic fact:
Exeter stood forth for one moment ... the chief of a
confederation of the lesser towns of the West.... A
confederation of the western towns, with the great city of the
district at their head, suddenly started into life to check
the progress of the Conqueror.
Finally, in his 'Exeter' (1887), the same story again appears, without
a word of caution, as absolute historic fact. Exeter, we read, was
the head of a gathering of smaller commonwealths around her;
... the towns of Dorset were in league with Exeter.... We
have no record of the march, but it is plain that the towns of
Dorset were fearfully harried.
Through all Mr Freeman's work we trace this same tendency to confuse
his own conjectures with proved historic fact.
For the details of this fearful harrying we are referred to the
Domesday Survey. It was 'no doubt', we learn, when William marched on
Exeter (1068), that
Dorchester, Bridport, Wareham, and Shaftesbury underwent that
fearful harrying, the result of which is recorded in Domesday.
Bridport was utterly ruined; not a house seems to have been
able to pay taxes at the time of the Survey. At Dorchester,
the old Roman settlement, the chief town of the shire, only a
small remnant of the houses escaped destruction. These facts
are signs, etc., etc.
'These facts', we find, will not bear investigation. To refute them in
the case of Bridport, 'there is nothing to be done but to turn to the
proper place in the great Survey'. Following this, his own, precept,
we learn that there is nothing in Domesday of our author's 'utter
ruin'; and that so far from 'not a house' being 'able to pay taxes',
Domesday tells us that four-fifths of the houses then existing could
and did pay them. Here, again, the errors arose from not reading
Domesday 'with common care'. The entry runs: 'Modo sunt ibi c. domus,
et xx. sunt ita destitutæ', etc. The meaning, of course, is that
twenty houses were impoverished. Mr Freeman must have hurriedly
misconstrued his Latin, and read it as a hundred and twenty. No
error that he detected in Mr Froude could be worse than representing
Bridport, on the authority of Domesday, as the greatest sufferer among
the Dorset towns, when Domesday itself proves that it suffered least
of all. And so, too, with Dorchester. On turning to Domesday, we learn
with surprise that the 'small remnant' of houses remaining there was
eighty-eight as against one hundred and seventy-two in the days
of King Edward. From an appendix of our author's to which we are
referred, we glean the fact that
at Dorchester, out of a hundred and seventy-two houses no
less than a hundred and twenty-eight were 'penitus destructæ a
tempore Hugonis vicecomitis usque nunc'.
Here, again, Mr Freeman's error can be traced beyond the possibility
of question, to a misreading of Domesday: the entry runs, 'modo sunt
ibi quater xx. et viii. [88] domus, et c. [sunt] penitus destructæ'.
Mr Freeman must have hurriedly ignored the 'quater', and then added
the 'twenty-eight' thus evolved to the hundred houses that were
destroyed. All this Mr Freeman did, and we have in 'that great record,
from which there is no appeal', the proof of the fact. Clearly, in the
notable words of M. Bémont (_Revue Historique_), 'il est prudent de
revoir après lui les textes qu'il invoque'.[13]
The strange thing is that Sir Henry Ellis's work, though 'far from
being up to the present standard of historical scholarship', could
have saved him, here also, from error, as it gives the correct figures
from Domesday.
But passing from 'facts' to theories, we find Mr Freeman holding
that 'no doubt', 'doubtless', 'probably', the destruction recorded in
Domesday was wrought by the Conqueror himself in 1068. Why should this
guesswork be substituted for history, when we have 'always the means',
as our author himself wrote, 'of at once turning to the law and
testimony to see whether these things are so'? A glance at Domesday
effectually disposes of Mr Freeman's theory; for the Survey is here
peculiarly explicit: with anxious care, with painful iteration, it
assures us that, in the case of Wareham, the devastation was wrought
'a tempore Hugonis vicecomitis', and that, in the case of Shaftesbury
and in the case of Dorchester, it was wrought 'a tempore Hugonis
vicecomitis usque nunc'. These categorical statements are conclusive:
they place the whole of the devastation subsequent to the accession of
the Norman sheriff, Hugh FitzGrip. Mr Eyton, in his work on the Dorset
Domesday, held that they fix it as having occurred between 1070 and
1084; the words, however, 'usque nunc' carry it on down to 1086, and,
but that I must now come to Exeter, I could show the real bearing of
these allusions to Sheriff Hugh.
The breakdown, when tested, of the alleged 'Civic League' strangely
vindicates the sound insight of that sagacious historian who
explicitly asserted that the English boroughs
never, as was the case in Scotland and in Germany, adopted
a confederate bond of union, or organized themselves in
leagues.[14]
Yet, in his _English Towns and Districts_, Mr Freeman was led by his
own tale of the resistance of the western lands and their capital to
argue from it as from a proved historic fact:
When Exeter stood forth for one moment ... _the chief of a
confederation of the lesser towns of the West_ ... we see that
the path was opening by which Exeter might have come to be
another Lübeck, the head of a Damnonian Hanse, another Bern,
the mistress of the subject-lands of the western peninsula.
Such a dream sounds wild in our ears.[15]
It does indeed. But it does so for the reason that it is founded on
a fact which has no historic existence. Yet, for Mr Freeman, with his
fertile imagination afire with the glories of ancient Greece and of
countless mediaeval Commonwealths, this same 'wild dream' possessed an
irresistible fascination. 'It is none the less true', he hastened to
add, that
when a confederation of the western towns, with the great city
of the district at their head, suddenly started into life to
check the progress of the Conqueror, it shows that a spirit
had been kindled, etc., etc.... It is worth while to stop and
think how near England once was to running the same course as
other lands, etc., etc.[16]
Returning now to sober fact, let us ask how the city of Exeter came
into William's hands. This is the pivotal point on which the whole
story revolves. On this point Mr Freeman spoke with no uncertain
sound: the city was 'taken by means of a mine'.[17] It was, he wrote,
'by undermining the walls that William at last gained possession
of the city', the citizens being thus forced 'to submit
unreservedly'.[18] He added, contrasting the success of William with
the failure, in 1003, of Swend:
William might have been beaten back from Exeter as Swend had
been, if the military art of Normandy in William's days had
not been many steps in advance of the military art of Denmark
in the days of Swend.
This allusion to 'Swend' involves a perfect tangle of confusion.
Turning back a couple of pages, we are reminded that on Penhow,
'sixty-seven years before (1001), Swend, of Denmark, driven back from
the city, had found his revenge' (p. 154). Guided by a footnote, we
turn for information to the earlier volume to which the author refers
us, only to learn that it was not Swegen, but the adventurer Pallig
who was driven back from Exeter in 1001 (i. 307), while 'of
Swegen himself we hear nothing in English history for nine years
(994-1003)'.[19] Moreover, when Swegen did come--in 1003--invading
England to avenge the massacre of Saint Brice, he was not 'driven back
from the city', but, on the contrary, 'stormed and plundered it' (p.
315), for 'the citizens who had beaten back Pallig had no chance of
beating back Swegen' (_Exeter_, p. 27). Moreover, the suggestion
that the Danes would not have been able to attack and breach the city
wall is in direct conflict with the evidence quoted by Mr Freeman
himself. Not only did Pallig, in 1001, direct his attack against the
wall,[20] but 'Swegen', we read, in 1003, 'Civitatem Exanceastram
infregit'.[21] Now, speaking of 1063, Mr Freeman wrote that 'the
expression of Florence "infregit" seems to fall in with' his view
that William breached the wall. That is to say that, according to
Mr Freeman, 'Swend' was 'beaten back' (which he was not), because he
could not breach the walls, which is precisely what, on his showing,
Swegen succeeded in doing. Could confusion further go?
For his statement that 'William's mine advanced so far that part of
the wall crumbled to the ground, making a practicable breach' (p.
156), Mr Freeman relied on an ingenious combination of Orderic's
statement that the Conqueror 'obnixe satagit cives desuper impugnare
et subtus murum suffodere' with William of Malmesbury's assertion that
he triumphed 'divino scilicet adjutus auxilio, quod pars muralis
ultro decidens ingressum illi patefecerit'. He argued that, on
the supposition that 'Exonia' is the right reading in William of
Malmesbury, his 'story, allowing for a little legendary improvement,
fits so well into Orderic's as to support the theory of a breach'. The
argument is ingenuous and plausible, nor can it be lightly dismissed.
But whether the words of Orderic imply, of necessity, a mine or
not,[22] the real point is that he does not mention a breach. He
speaks of William's efforts, but he does not say they were successful.
It is difficult to suppose that William of Poitiers, of whom Orderic
is here the mouthpiece, would not have mentioned his hero's success,
had success rewarded his efforts. We are reduced then, as the sole and
unconfirmed authority for Mr Freeman's absolute statement--or rather
as the legend from which he 'infers' the facts he states--to the
words of William of Malmesbury. Now William was classed, by Mr Freeman
himself, among those writers whose 'accounts are often mixed up with
romantic details', so that 'it is dangerous to trust them' (i. 258);
and he pointed out of the murder of Edward that:
In the hands of William of Malmesbury the story becomes a
romance.... The _obiter dictum_ of William of Malmesbury that
Ælfhere had a hand in Edward's death is contrary to the whole
tenor of the history ... (i. 265).
If there is thus, on Mr Freeman's showing, need for accepting with
some caution a statement made by William alone, there is further, in
this special case, the consideration that even if his story does refer
to Exeter, the phrase, '_leviter_ subegit' is justly queried by Mr
Freeman;[23] and that William here deals in hyperbole and miracle.
Indeed, when we find Mr Freeman writing: 'I infer this from William
of Malmesbury', we are reminded of his words on his predecessor's
treatment of the legend of Siward: 'Such stuff would not be worth
mentioning, had not Sir Francis Palgrave inferred from it the
existence of an historical Tostig, Earl of Huntingdon' (iv. 768-9).
I will not express an opinion of my own, but will quote from Mr
Freeman's able essay on 'The Mythical and Romantic Elements in Early
English History'.[24] In it he expressly disclaimed
sympathy with the old pragmatizing or euhemeristic school
of mythological interpretation.... The pragmatizers take
a mythical story; they strip it by an arbitrary process
of whatever seems impossible; they explain or allegorize
miraculous details; and having thus obtained something
which possibly may have happened, they give it out as
something which actually did happen.... It will never
do to take the tale of Troy, to leave out all
intervention of the gods, and to give out the remnant as
a piece of real Grecian history (p. 3).
This criticism would seem to apply to the 'legendary' tale that the
walls of Exeter fell down, like those of Jericho, by supernatural
intervention. At least, we may say of the breaching of the walls, when
given out 'as something which actually did happen', what was said of
the possible siege of Oxford, this same year, by Mr Freeman:
The direct evidence for a siege of Oxford is so weak that the
tale cannot be relied on with any certainty (iv. 188).
Having now examined the direct evidence for the statement that the
citizens were forced to surrender unconditionally to William by
the successful breaching of their walls, I propose to show that the
acceptance of this statement does violence not only to the facts of
the case, but to all that is known of William's character, to the
English Chronicle, and to Domesday; and I shall prove that it rests
beyond dispute 'on the foundation of a single error'.
Assuming for the moment the accuracy of Mr Freeman's version, namely,
that the city had been placed, by a breach, absolutely at William's
mercy, what treatment of its citizens would his character and his
whole career lead us to expect? 'At all stages of his life,' as
Mr Freeman observed, paraphrasing the famous words of the English
Chronicle (1087), 'if he was _debonnair_ to those who would do his
will, he was beyond measure stern to all who withstood it' (ii. 167).
Again, speaking of his march on Exeter, the Professor insisted on the
fact that 'the policy of William was ever severity to those who
withstood him, and gentleness to those who submitted to his yoke'.[25]
How he applied this principle in practice was shown at Romney and at
Dover in 1066. Romney had successfully resisted the landing of a party
of Normans,[26] and William was resolved to avenge the deed.
It was his policy now, as ever, to be harsh whenever he met
with resistance, and gentle to all who submitted easily....
Harrying then as he went, William reached Romney. The words
which set forth his doings there are short, pithy, and
terrible. He took what vengeance he would for the slaughter of
his men (iii. 533-4).
Dover, on the contrary, made no resistance, but surrendered before he
'had thrown up a bank, or shot an arrow'. It was, therefore, 'plainly
his policy to show himself mild and _debonnair_ as it had been his
policy at Romney to show himself beyond measure stark'.[27]
Such being William's settled principle, what might the citizens of
Exeter expect? Even before the siege began the fear that they had
sinned too deeply for forgiveness made them disown the capitulation
their leaders had arranged.[28] The reference is doubtless to conduct
similar to that which had brought upon Romney William's merciless
vengeance.[29] But how stood the case at its close?
(1) They were rebels. And for these 'rebels, as they were deemed in
Norman eyes' (iv. 135), confiscation was the penalty (iv. 127-8).
(2) 'The movement at Exeter' was not merely a rebellion, but one which
was 'specially hateful in William's eyes' (iv. 140).
(3) They had been guilty of 'cruel and insulting treatment' to
William's earlier emissaries (iv. 138).
(4) They had offered William himself an 'insult as unseemly as it was
senseless' (iv. 155).
(5) They had flung to the winds their own capitulation with such
audacity that William 'ira repletus est' (iv. 152).
(6) They had offered a prolonged and desperate resistance, costing the
lives of many of his men (iv. 156).
Verily, in William's eyes, the cup of Exeter's iniquities must have
been exceedingly full.
Even in cases of ordinary resistance his practice, we learn, was so
uniform that Mr Freeman could take it for granted, 'after the fall of
Exeter', that
the heavy destruction which fell on the town of Barnstaple,
in the north-western part of Devonshire, and the still heavier
destruction which fell on the town of Lidford, might seem to
show that these two boroughs were special scenes of resistance
(iv. 163).[30]
Therefore, in the aggravated case of Exeter, we could but expect him
to deal with its citizens as he had dealt with those of Alençon,[31]
and as he was to deal, hereafter, with the sturdy defenders of
Ely.[32] A fearful vengeance was their certain doom. There was,
moreover, as I stated at the outset, a need for sternness at this
juncture that might justify William, apart from vengeance, in
inflicting such signal punishment as should deter all other 'rebels'.
Yet what do we find? The citizens, we read, were 'favourably
received', and 'assured of the safe possession of their lives and
goods'. Nay, William even 'secured the gates with a strong guard of
men whom he could trust in order to preserve the goods of the citizens
from any breaches of discipline'.[33] The dreaded Conqueror, 'post tot
iras terribilesque minas', had suddenly become mild as a lamb, and Mr
Freeman accepts it all quite as a matter of course.
Such conduct would, surely, have been a positive premium on revolt.
A castle, of course, was raised; but this was inevitable, whether
a town submitted peaceably or not. For instance, 'it is plain', Mr
Freeman wrote, 'that Lincolnshire submitted more peaceably, and was
dealt with more tenderly, than most parts of the kingdom' (iv.
216); but 'a castle was, of course, raised at Lincoln, as well as
elsewhere', and 'involved the destruction of a large number of houses'
(217-8), very many more than at Exeter.
One 'penalty', however, remains as the price that Exeter was called
upon to pay for all her guilt. This, we read, was 'the raising of its
tribute to lessen the wealth which had enabled it to resist'.[34] For
its wealth is admitted. Now, before criticizing Mr Freeman's view,
let us clearly understand what that view was. Taking, as is right,
his latest work--though his view had not altered--we read of Exeter in
1050:
The city which had been the morning-gift of Norman Emma
was now, along with Winchester, part of the morning-gift
of English Edith, daughter of Godwine, sister of Harold. At
Exeter she was on her own ground; the royal revenues within
the city were hers.[35]
In 1086, we learn: