STAMFORD BRIDGE AND HASTINGS.
Upon the death of Edward the Confessor the election and coronation of
HAROLD, son of Godwine, followed with the briefest possible interval.
No serious notice seems to have been taken, at the time, of any claim
to the crown which might be made on behalf of Edgar the Etheling,
grandson of Edmund Ironside, the undoubted heir, on what we call
legitimist principles, of the house of Cerdic. Though the year of
Edgar’s birth is doubtful, he was certainly little more than a boy
at his great-uncle’s death, and it is probable that the ascertained
weakness of his character made the Wise Men of the kingdom unwilling to
entrust even the nominal government of England at such a critical time
to his nerveless hands.
The election of Harold was undoubtedly contrary to all the traditions
of West Saxon royalty, but there are some considerations which may
have made it seem a less revolutionary proceeding, and the new king
somewhat less of an upstart, than they have appeared to later ages. Let
the cloud which rests over Godwine’s birth and parentage be admitted,
but it must be remembered that Harold was on his mother’s side a near
kinsman of Canute, that in his veins flowed the blood of Gorm the Old
and Harold Bluetooth, kings of Denmark in the preceding century, and
that the then reigning King of Denmark was his own first cousin. As
has been already said, Godwine and his tribe must have always appeared
half-Danish to the Saxon people, and though the claims of the house
of Cerdic were disregarded by his election they had been equally
disregarded by the elections of Canute, Harold and Harthacnut of whom
Harold Godwineson may have seemed in some sort the natural successor.
But that this view of the case would not be accepted in Normandy,
all men knew full well, and none better than the new king himself.
The Bayeux Tapestry, almost immediately after its picture of
Harold enthroned, represents “an English ship coming to the land
of Duke William”. Whatever this may mean, whether the flight of
some Norman favourite to his native land, or a desperate attempt at
self-exculpation and reconciliation on the part of Harold, it is
followed with ominous rapidity by the picture, “Here William orders
ships to be built,” in which the axes of the woodmen are felling the
trees of the forest; that again by a picture, “Here they drag the
ships to the sea,” and that by a lively scene, “These men carry arms
to the ships and here they drag a cart with wine and arms”. After
this in a scene which is not pictorially represented and at a date of
which we are not accurately informed, William assembled his barons at
Lillebonne and endeavoured to obtain from them a vote in favour of an
expedition for the assertion of his rights to the throne of England.
The expedition, however, appeared to the Norman nobles too dangerous,
the naval power of England too great to give a hope of success, and
notwithstanding the eloquent pleadings of William’s trusty henchman,
William Fitz Osbern (son of one of the murdered guardians of his
childhood), the assembly broke up in confusion without giving the
desired promise of support. The assent, however, which he had been
unable to obtain from the united baronage of the duchy, he succeeded in
winning by entreaties and promises from the barons singly in private
conference. The contingents of men, the numbers of ships which each
baron undertook to furnish, were all set down in a book, in which were
found the names not only of William’s own subjects but of volunteers
from the neighbouring provinces of Brittany, Maine and Anjou. It was,
so to speak, the memorandum of a great Joint Stock Company of conquest,
which was entered in that “Domesday Book of the Conquerors,”[248]
and though the precise rate of dividend was not there set down, it
is evident that the lordships and estates in the doomed land, which
William promised to his shareholders, bore some definite relation to
the size of their contributions.
It remained only, according to medieval ideas, to get the blessing of
heaven’s representative on the great spoliation. William had himself
in his earlier days all-but brought an interdict on his realm by his
marriage with Matilda of Flanders who, for some reason not very clearly
explained, was held to be canonically unfitted to be his wife. But that
breach with the Holy See had been healed through the mediation of the
great churchman Lanfranc, Prior of the Abbey of Bec; and Lanfranc’s
influence may probably now have been employed to obtain from Pope
Alexander II. a formal approval of the invasion of England. The oath of
Harold, so solemnly taken and so flagrantly broken, and his marriage
to Aldgyth, after having promised to marry William’s daughter Adela,
may possibly have been pressed against him at the court of Rome and may
have helped towards the composition of the bull which was now issued
denouncing Harold as a usurper and proclaiming William as Edward’s
rightful heir. It is probable, however, that in the mind of Hildebrand,
the master-spirit of the papal court, though not yet actually Pope,
the independent attitude which the English Church had sometimes
assumed, and notably the unfortunate fact that Archbishop Stigand had,
during the lifetime of his own predecessor, received his pallium from
the anti-pope Benedict X., were the chief reasons for the Church’s
enthusiastic partisanship on the Norman side. The word Crusade was not
yet heard in the Christian world, nor was it to be heard till near
thirty years later, when Peter the Hermit at the Council of Clermont
was to utter his fiery declamation against the misbelievers; but a
virtual crusade was preached against Harold and his adherents, and all
Europe knew that whenever William’s shipbuilding should be ended and
he should be ready to sail, his troops would march to battle under the
protection of a banner consecrated by the successor of St. Peter.
The Norman preparations, begun in the early months of 1066, lasted on
through the summer and almost up to the autumnal equinox. Meanwhile, a
portent in the heavens and the attacks of another foe were depressing
the spirits of Englishmen. Soon after Easter “the comet star which some
men call the hairy star,” which had for some time been creeping nearer
to the sun, unnoticed in the early morning hours, began to blaze forth
in the north-west in the evening sky. From April 24 till May 1 was the
period of its greatest brilliancy, and it probably disappeared early in
June. In the Tapestry we see six men pointing fearful fingers towards
a star which trails a rudely drawn streamer of light behind it, and we
are informed that “These men are marvelling at the star”. The comet
here depicted is now known to be one which regularly returns to our
firmament at intervals of some seventy-five or seventy-six years. Its
return in 1758 verified the prediction of the astronomer Halley, then
no longer living, and it is expected that once more in the year 1910
Englishmen will be gazing upwards, and with less fearful hearts than of
old, will “wonder at the star”.
The less shadowy terror of the spring of that year came from the king’s
banished brother Tostig, who now by right or wrong was determined to
win back his lost earldom. He had gathered a considerable force of
ships and men, no doubt chiefly in “Baldwin’s land,” among the subjects
of his brother-in-law; and he had probably already made overtures of
alliance to the Duke of Normandy and the King of Norway. He came,
however, unaccompanied by allies “from beyond sea into Wight with as
large a fleet as he could procure and there people paid him both money
and provisions; and he went thence and did all the harm that he could
along the sea-coast until he came to Sandwich”. The naval armament
which Harold had collected in anticipation of the Norman attack availed
to keep the southern coasts clear from further ravages by Tostig, who
took on board a large number of _butse-carlas_, some willingly and some
unwillingly, and steering northwards entered the Humber, and began
to ravage Lincolnshire. The two northern earls, Edwin and Morkere,
however, having summoned the _fyrd_ succeeded in driving him out of the
country. Most of his _butse-carlas_ took the opportunity to desert,
and with a dwindled force of twelve smacks he sailed for the Forth.
The Scottish King, Malcolm Canmore, took him under his protection and
helped him with provisions, and there he abode all summer.
The delay of these summer months, during which invasion was impending
from two quarters at once, was disastrous for England. When Harold
had collected his fleet and army, “such a land force both by land and
sea as no king of the land had ever gathered before,” he went to the
Isle of Wight and there lay at anchor all the summer, keeping the
land force always close beside him on the coast. Had William made his
invasion then, it may fairly be conjectured that he would never have
sat on the throne of England. But when the day of the Nativity of St.
Mary (September 8) was come, the men’s provisions were exhausted, and
it was impossible to keep them longer under the standards. They were
accordingly allowed to go home, and the king rode up to London, while
his fleet sailed round to the Thames, and meeting unfortunately with
bad weather, many of the ships perished ere they reached their haven.
If Harold thought that peril from either of his foes was over for that
year he was terribly mistaken. Even while the fleet and army were
scattering from the Isle of Wight, the whole aspect of affairs in the
north was being changed by the sudden and unexpected arrival off the
northern coast of Harold, King of Norway, with an immense fleet of
more than three hundred ships. This Harold, surnamed Hardrada (the
man of hard counsel), was, even if we may not believe all that the
saga-men told concerning him, one of the most romantic figures of the
time. A half-brother of the sainted Olaf, by whose side he fought when
but fifteen years old at the fatal battle of Stiklestadt, he appears,
after some four or five years of a fugitive existence, as one of the
chiefs of the Varangian soldiery at the court of Constantinople. The
tall statured Scandinavian--his height is said to have been nearly
seven feet--rose rapidly in the Byzantine service, and it was hinted
that the inflammable Empress Zoe would have gladly welcomed him as
one of her numerous husbands or lovers. The life of a soldier was,
however, more to his taste than the dissipations of a luxurious court.
He wrought great deeds in the eastern waters and shared with the
veteran Byzantine general, George Maniaces, the glory of a temporary
re-conquest of Sicily. Even then, however, that element of keen egotism
in his character which won for him his title of Hardrada made itself
visible; and his country’s _skalds_ delighted to tell of the clever but
dishonourable stratagem by which he out-witted his brother general when
they were casting lots for choice of quarters. Strange to say, one of
the most interesting memorials of this Norwegian chief is still to be
seen amid the lagunes of Venice. There, in front of the noble gateway
of the arsenal, sit two great marble lions, brought by the Venetian
general Morosini from the Piraeus, trophies of that fatally memorable
expedition in which he converted the Parthenon into a ruin. On the
flanks of one of these lions is a nearly effaced Runic inscription,
recording the conquest of the port of Piraeus by three chieftains with
Scandinavian names. “These men,” says the inscription, “and Harold
the Tall, laid considerable fines on the citizens because of the
insurrection of the Greek people.” With difficulty Harold escaped from
the prison in which he was confined by the jealous caprice of Zoe, and
after charging over the great chain which was stretched across the
Bosphorus, sailed out into the Euxine and thence up one of the great
rivers into the heart of Russia. The king of Novgorod gave him his
daughter Elizabeth to wife, and in the year 1045 Harold reappeared
laden with treasure in his native Norway. He was sometimes the ally,
sometimes the foe of his nephew Magnus the Good, on whose premature
death in 1047 he succeeded peaceably to his throne. For fifteen years
he waged almost incessant, generally successful, war with the King of
Denmark, but in 1062 he concluded a treaty with that prince, which left
him free to attempt the larger and more daring enterprise to which he
was tempted by the example of Canute and the overtures of Tostig, even
the conquest of England.
Harold made first for the Orkneys, then under the rule of the sons of
the Norseman, Earl Thorfinn. From thence he sailed along the coast of
Scotland, till, either in the Forth or the Tyne, he met his promised
ally, Tostig, who “bowed to him and became his man”. They went both
together, landed in Cleveland, which they harried; set fire to
Scarborough; and at last reaching the mouth of the Humber, sailed with
all their enormous fleet up that river and the Ouse, and landed near
York. The Earls Edwin and Morkere came forth to meet them with as large
a force as they could muster, but were utterly defeated in a great
battle fought at Fulford, two miles from York, on September 20, 1066.
The two earls escaped alive from the field, but were unable to make any
further opposition to the invaders, who entered York in triumph and
received the submission of the city. “Then after the fight came Harold
and Tostig into York with as many people as to them seemed good, and
they took hostages from the city and also received provisions, and so
went thence to their ships, having agreed to full peace, that they [the
people of York] might all go south with them and conquer this land.” It
was to be an expedition of Northumbrians, Scots and men of Orkney, as
well as Norsemen, under the command of Harold Hardrada, against Harold
Godwineson and the men of Mercia and Wessex.
The invaders had in this instance reckoned without their host. They
thought they had only the young and somewhat inefficient sons of Elfgar
to deal with, whereas the namesake of Hardrada, “Harold our king” (as
one of the chroniclers calls him), had heard the unwelcome news of
their presence in his kingdom, and with almost Napoleonic swiftness of
decision, was bearing down upon them. It was only on September 8 that
he had dismissed his fleet and army in Hampshire. His journey to London
may have occupied a day or two, and we know not how soon the tidings
of the invasion reached him; but already on September 24, with all the
_fyrd_ that he could assemble in the south, he was at Tadcaster, and on
the following day he marched through York. Hardrada and Tostig, whom he
had perhaps hoped to surprise cooped up within the city, had marched
eastwards some seven or eight miles to Stamford Bridge, on the river
Derwent, where they expected to receive the hostages whom Yorkshire was
to offer for her fidelity. Against them marched the English Harold, so
suddenly, and with such successful precautions against their obtaining
information of his movements, that at first when Hardrada saw afar off
the steam of the horses and thereunder fair shields and white byrnies
(coats of mail), he asked Tostig what host that might be. Tostig
answered that they might be some of his kinsmen coming in to seek the
king’s friendship, but that he feared it meant “unpeace,” and so it
proved. The host drew nearer and nearer, and like the flashing of the
sunlight reflected from a glacier was the gleam of their weapons.[249]
There was a short parley ere the armies closed. English Harold sent
to offer his brother a third of his kingdom, that there might be
peace between them. “’Tis pity,” said Tostig, “that this offer was
not made last winter. Many a good man had then been living who now is
dead, and better had it been for the whole realm of England; but if
I accept these terms, what shall Harold of Norway have in return for
his labour?” Then came the celebrated answer (and it is worthy of note
that the Norse story-teller has preserved it): “Seven foot’s room, or
so much more as he may need, seeing that he is taller than other men”.
Tostig honourably refused to make any peace by the sacrifice of his
ally; and the battle was joined, a terrible battle which lasted all
day long and wrought great slaughter. The English at last succeeded in
breaking the invaders’ shield-wall, and, surrounding them on all sides,
poured their missiles upon them with deadly effect. Mad at this breach
in his ranks, Hardrada leapt in front of his men and made a clear space
round him, hewing with both his hands, but he was at last wounded in
the throat by an arrow and fell dead upon the field. There was a little
lull in the conflict, and Harold Godwineson offered peace to Tostig
and the surviving Northmen, but they all whooped out with one voice
that they would rather fall each one across the other than take peace
of the Englishmen. Tostig seems to have fallen in this second battle.
Then another pause, and a host of men, well-armed but breathless, came
rushing up from the Norwegian ships in the river. They wrought great
havoc in the English ranks, and had well-nigh turned the fortune of
the day; but it was not to be. The new-comers were so spent with their
march, that at last they threw away their “byrnies” and so fell an
easier prey to the English axes.
So ran the story of the fight of Stamford Bridge as told by the
descendants of the Norsemen. The English chronicler, with much less
detail, describes Harold Godwineson’s unlooked-for attack upon the
Scandinavians. According to him, the bridge itself was the key of
the position and victory was impossible for the English until it was
crossed. In its narrow entrance one Norwegian long held the English
host at bay: an arrow availed not to dislodge him, but at length one
of Harold’s men crept under the bridge and pierced him through the
corselet. Then the king of the Englishmen came over the bridge and
the victory was won. Great slaughter was made both of the Norsemen
and Flemings, but Olaf, the son of Harold Hardrada, was left alive.
With him, with a certain bishop who accompanied him, and with the Earl
of Orkney, the English Harold made terms. “They all went up to our
king,” says the chronicler, “and swore oaths that they would ever keep
peace and friendship with this land; and the king let them depart with
twenty-four ships. These two folk-fights [Fulford and Stamford Bridge]
were both fought within five days” (September 20 to 25, 1066).
Short time had Harold for rest at the great northern capital, York. It
was probably in the earliest days of October that news was brought to
him that on September 28 William of Normandy had landed at Pevensey.
Let us hear the story of what happened from that day to the fatal
October 14 in the few simple words which are all that the only Saxon
chronicler (he of Worcester) can bring himself to devote to the
subject. “Then came William, Earl of Normandy, into Pevensey, on the
eve of St. Michael (Sept. 28), and as soon as his men were fit [a
possible allusion to sea-sickness which they had endured], they wrought
a castle at Hastings-port. Tidings of this were brought to King Harold,
and he gathered then the great host and came towards him at the Hoar
Apple Tree, and William came against him at unawares ere his people
were mustered. But the king nevertheless withstood him very bravely
with the men who would follow him, and there was a mighty slaughter
wrought on both sides. There was slain King Harold and his brothers,
the Earls Leofwine and Gyrth, and many good men, and the Frenchmen held
the place of slaughter.”
“He dies and makes no sign.” This is all that the Saxon chroniclers,
whose guidance we have followed through six centuries, or any native
English historians have to tell us of the death of the Saxon monarchy.
One is half disposed to leave the matter there, and not to repeat
the stories, many of them, as we may suspect, falsely coloured or
absolutely untrue, and often quite inconsistent with one another, with
which the Norman chroniclers and poets have enriched their jubilations
over England’s downfall. But as this can hardly be, an attempt will
be made to present only the broad outlines of the story, omitting
all reference to recitals obviously fictitious, and for brevity’s
sake declining to enter into any of the controversies which have been
fiercely waged round certain parts of the narrative.
By about the middle of August William’s preparations were completed,
and his fleet, collected near Caen at the mouth of the river Dive,
was ready to sail. For a whole month the wind was contrary to them--a
fateful month during which, as we know, but as William possibly did
not know, Harold’s crews were being paid off and his army disbanded.
A slight westward veering of the wind enabled the ships to creep a
hundred miles up the Norman coast to St. Valery, at the mouth of the
Somme. Some vessels seem to have been lost by storm, but at last,
after a fortnight’s further detention at St. Valery, a favourable
breeze blew--men said as the result of the exhibition of the relics
of the saint and prayers for his intercession--and on the night of
September 27 the fleet set forth on the great expedition. Though one
chronicler puts the number of ships as high as 3,000, we are informed
on what seems to be good authority[250] that they were 696. William’s
own ship, named the _Mora_, the fastest of the fleet, had a lantern
at the mast-head to serve as a signal to her consorts, a vane above
the lantern to show the direction of the wind, and on the prow a
bronze figure of a child with bow and arrow aiming for England. When
dawn was breaking the _Mora_ found herself alone, having outsailed
all the others. A sailor sent to the mast-head reported that he saw
nothing but sky and sea. The duke cast anchor, told his companions not
to lose heart, and cheered them and himself with a mighty breakfast,
accompanied with copious draughts of wine. On a second journey to the
mast-head the sailor reported that he saw three or four ships; on a
third, that the whole fleet were in sight and approaching rapidly. By
nine o’clock in the morning, September 28, 1066, the fleet was all
assembled off the coast of Sussex, a few miles north-east of Beachy
Head, and the landing, absolutely unopposed, was effected without
difficulty on the long flat shore of Pevensey, in sight of the ruins of
Roman Anderida.
The most notable incident of the landing, if true, is the well-known
story of William’s fall. It is said that he, being first to spring to
land, stumbled and fell with both his hands on the shore, that all
round him raised a cry: “A bad omen is that,” but he with a loud voice
said: “Lords, by the splendour of God, I have taken seizin of this land
with my two hands. No property was ever let go without a challenge.
Now all that is here is ours.” From Pevensey the army marched eastward
to Hastings (a distance of about fifteen miles), and there entrenched
themselves in a strong camp with high earthen ramparts, fosse and
palisades. They also began to ravage the country for some miles round
Hastings, a fact which is attested both by the entries in Domesday
Book and by a picture in the Bayeux Tapestry, “Here a house is being
burnt”. The tidings of William’s landing, however swiftly carried to
York, can hardly have reached Harold before October 1. They, of course,
necessitated another forced march back to London, so rapidly had the
shuttle to fly backwards and forwards in the loom of war. Harold
reached London probably about October 6, and waited there for a short
week, expecting the arrival of the troops whom he summoned from all
quarters for the defence of the country. This summons seems to have
been well responded to from the home counties and East Anglia; and
some fighters came, we are told, from Lincoln and Yorkshire. But Edwin
and Morkere, the Earls of Mercia and Northumbria, are accused of not
having rallied as they should have done to the support of the king,
who had saved them from utter destruction at the hands of Hardrada.
The accusation which comes to us on the authority of so well-informed
and generally so impartial an historian as Florence of Worcester, is
one which cannot be passed over in silence. At the same time it is but
fair to observe that the troops of the two northern earls had suffered
severely at Fulford, and that there was very little time to collect new
levies and bring them into the field from Northumberland and Cheshire
before October 14. The impression left on one’s mind by the conduct of
these two young earls, is rather one of inefficiency than of deliberate
treachery. At the same time it must be admitted that when Harold broke
with Tostig, perhaps also with his sister Edith, and allied himself
with the house of Leofric, he adopted a policy which brought him little
help abroad or happiness at home.
On October 12--after a hasty visit to Waltham where he had built a
great minster in honour of the Holy Rood--Harold marched southward
and took up a position on the last spur of a low range of Sussex
hills, about seven miles to the north-west of Hastings. He is said to
have been earnestly entreated by his younger brother, Gyrth, Earl of
East Anglia, to adopt a more cautious line of policy, to anticipate
William’s ravages of Sussex and Surrey by ravaging them himself, and
to force the Norman to advance through a wasted land and attack him
in the strong position of London. The advice would seem to have
been wise; and surely a fortnight’s delay would have given Harold a
better fighting instrument than the hasty levies which reinforced the
war-wearied and march-wearied men of Stamford Bridge. But Harold was
exasperated by the ravages which William had already begun in the
country round Sussex. He patriotically refused to imitate those ravages
in counties which had ever shown a special affection for him and for
his father’s house. There are also some slight indications that he
somewhat under-rated the strength of William’s army, and hoped by a
sudden stroke like that at Stamford Bridge to sweep it into the sea.
However this may be, on the morning of Saturday, October 14, Harold’s
army was drawn up in line on the ridge now crowned by the abbey and
town of Battle, and William’s army, having marched forth that morning
from Hastings, confronted them on the hill which now bears the name of
Telham. As for the battlefield itself, the chronicler, as we have seen,
calls it “the Hoar Apple Tree”; one Norman historian, Orderic, calls it
Senlac or Epiton, but it will probably always be best known by the name
which is, of course, only approximately correct, the battlefield of
Hastings. There is no evidence that there was even a village there when
the battle was fought. The position of Harold’s army was on a hill of
moderate height, 260 feet above the sea level, so surrounded by narrow
valleys, which might almost be called ravines, as to make it singularly
difficult of approach by cavalry. In order to render it yet more secure
against such an attack, Harold had, according to one writer,[251]
strengthened it by a fence or palisade as well as by a fosse drawn,
perhaps somewhat lower down, right across the field.
As to the numbers engaged on each side we have no information that is
worth anything, only absurd and exaggerated estimates, especially on
the part of the Norman writers concerning the size of the English army.
As a mere conjecture, founded on the dimensions of the battlefield,
there is something plausible in the suggestion[252] of 10,000 to 15,000
as the number of William’s soldiers, and the same or a little less
for those of Harold. There cannot be much doubt that the quality of
the invading troops was superior to that of the defenders. William’s
men were Normans, trained and seasoned by twenty years of fighting,
supplemented by brave adventurers, with whom war was probably a regular
profession, drawn from all parts of France. The backbone of Harold’s
army was doubtless his bodyguard of house-carls, terribly thinned by
the fierce fight at Stamford Bridge, and these were reinforced by the
peasants of the _fyrd_, brave men but little used to arms and hastily
summoned from the neighbouring counties. Still they had the advantage,
such as it was, of standing on the defensive in a position which had
evidently been chosen with considerable military skill.
The chief weapon of the Normans was the sword, of the English the
great two-handed battle-axe, the use of which was borrowed from their
Danish antagonists. Both sides seem to have been armed with lances,
and the best troops in both armies were clothed in long coats of mail,
which were wanting, however, to the peasants of the English _fyrd_.
The long kite-shaped shield, covering the greater part of the person,
was carried by both nations, but the English were perhaps superior in
the defensive tactics of the shield-wall, formed by men standing close
together, shoulder to shoulder, and locking their shields into what
the classically educated Norman writers called a _testudo_. On the
other hand, William was evidently much the stronger in archers and in
cavalry, and it was this superiority which eventually won for him the
victory. The Normans fought of course under the standard blessed by
the Pope, the Saxons under the well-known Dragon-banner of Wessex, and
another which was perhaps of Harold’s own devising and which bore the
likeness of a full-armed fighting man. On the English side we hear of
no leaders besides Harold and his two brothers, Gyrth, Earl of East
Anglia, and Leofwine, Earl of Essex and Kent, both of whom seem to
have fallen early in the battle. The lack of a strong lieutenant, who
could have taken the direction of the defence when the king fell, had
probably something to do with the issue of the fight. On the Norman
side, as we might expect, the names of many leaders are given us, but
we need only notice here William’s half-brother, Odo, Bishop of Bayeux
(son of the tanner’s daughter), who salved his episcopal conscience
by fighting with a heavy mace instead of with a sword, thus hoping to
avoid the actual shedding of blood; Count Eustace of Boulogne, the hero
of the flight from Dover; and William Fitz-Osbern, the faithful friend
of the Norman duke as his father had been before him.
We may pass over the account of the messages which are said to have
been exchanged between the two rival chiefs, including a proposition by
Duke William that, to save the effusion of Christian blood, they should
settle their differences by single combat; and we may also pass over
the story of the diverse ways in which the two armies spent the night
before the battle, the English in song and revelry, crying “Wassail”
and “Drink to me”; the Normans in confessing their sins and receiving
absolution from the numerous priests who accompanied the army. Thus we
come to the morning of Saturday, October 14, at nine A.M., when, as
before said, the two armies stood fronting one another in battle array.
As to the positions of the various divisions of the English army, we
have no sufficient indication, except that we are told that the men of
Kent claimed the right to march in the van, and strike the first blow
in the battle, and that the Londoners made a similar claim to guard
the person of the king, being grouped round his standard which was
planted in the centre of the ridge. As to William’s army, we are told
that he put in his first line his archers (apparently light armed), in
his second his mail-clad infantry, and in a third, behind them all, he
ranged his cavalry. Moreover, there was in each of these lines another
threefold division according to nationalities: the Normans in the
centre, the Bretons on the left, and the Frenchmen (the men from the
central regions of France) on the right.
The prelude to the battle was a romantic incident which showed that the
day of chivalry had dawned. A minstrel--or as one narrator calls him,
an actor--named Taillefer craved of Duke William the boon of striking
the first blow. He had sung on the march some staves of the great Song
of Roland, describing the death of that hero and of Olivier in the
gorge of Roncesvalles, and now he pranced forth before the duke--
On the rough edge of battle ere it joined.
He took his lance by the butt-end as if it had been a truncheon, threw
it in the air and caught it by the head. Three times he did this and
then he hurled it into the hostile ranks and wounded an Englishman.
Then, after repeating this performance with his sword, while the amazed
English looked on as at a feat of conjuring, he set spurs to his horse
and galloped fiercely towards the ranks of the foe. One Englishman he
sorely wounded and one he slew, and then a cloud of darts and javelins
was hurled at him and the bold minstrel fell down dead.
For six hours the battle which was now joined raged with nearly equal
fortune on both sides. No doubt the first rank of light-armed archers
discharged their missiles, and the mailed foot-soldiers pressed forward
to take advantage of any impression which they may have made on the
hostile ranks; but also (if we may trust the Tapestry) even at this
early period of the battle the cavalry were charging (uphill, of
course) and dashing themselves against the English shield-wall. So
far, on the whole, they dashed themselves in vain, though already thus
early in the fight Gyrth and Leofwine seem to have fallen. At length
the Norman horsemen, recoiling from a fruitless charge, tumbled into
a fosse, ever after known as the Malfosse, which they had scarcely
noticed in their advance, and rolled over and over in dire confusion,
hundreds of them lying a crushed and helpless mass on the plain. Some
of the English who were pursuing shared the same fate; and one of the
most spirited pictures in the Tapestry shows how “Here the English and
French fell together”. This disaster had very nearly proved the ruin
of the invading army, for the large body of varlets or camp followers
stationed in the rear to guard the harness, or stores and baggage of
the troops, seeing what had befallen their masters, were about to quit
the field in headlong flight, and such a movement might well have
spread panic through the ranks of the army. But then Bishop Odo of
Bayeux, wielding his big mace, and with a coat of mail over his alb,
shouted out words of encouragement and reproof, and stayed the panic of
the varlets. About the same time apparently, and under the influence
of the same panic-fear, a rumour spread through the ranks that William
himself was slain. He had indeed three horses killed under him in the
long and dreadful struggle, but, as far as we know, he received no
wound at any time, and now lifting up the nose-piece of his helmet he
showed his full face to his followers whose confidence was at once
restored.
As has been said, for six hours the battle hung doubtful. From three
o’clock onwards victory began to incline to the Norman side, chiefly
owing to two manœuvres, the credit of both of which is assigned to
William personally. In the first place, finding himself otherwise
unable to break the terrible shield-wall, he took a hint from the
disaster of the Malfosse itself, and ordered his followers to feign
flight. After men have long stood on the defensive, galled by missiles
from afar, the temptation to believe that the victory is won and that
they may charge a flying foe is doubtless immense. At any rate Harold’s
troops yielded to it, apparently more than once, and each time when
pursuers and pursued had reached the plain, the Normans turned and
their cavalry encircled and destroyed numbers of the English. The other
manœuvre was, we are told, an order given to the archers to shoot high
up into the sky, so that their arrows might fall from on high on some
unshielded part of their enemies’ persons. Perhaps we have here another
illustration of the fact that, for a conflict with missile weapons, it
is not all gain to occupy a position on a hill. This is what the Scots
learned to their cost in 1402 at Homildon Hill and the English in 1881
at Majuba. At any rate it seems to have been by this change of tactics
that the decisive blow was struck. It was by an arrow falling from on
high that Harold’s right eye was pierced. The wound was mortal and the
king fell to the ground. Whatever life may have been left in him was
extinguished by four Norman knights (one of them the hateful Eustace of
Boulogne) who not only slew but mutilated their fallen foe.
The English seem still to have fought on for some time after the
death of their king, but without purpose or discipline. The Normans
were not disposed to give quarter, and apparently the greater number
of the mail-clad house-carls fell where they had been fighting. The
lighter-armed men of the _fyrd_ fled, and, according to one account,
their pursuers followed them into a part of the field where, from the
broken nature of the ground and the abundance of ditches, their own
ranks--they were evidently mounted warriors--fell into some confusion,
and seeing this the fugitives made a rally. Owing probably to the
fading light William and his comrades believed this to be a movement
of fresh troops brought up against them. They halted, and Eustace of
Boulogne counselled retreat, but a blow between the shoulders dealt
suddenly from behind caused him to fall to the ground, while William
pressed on undaunted and found that the victory was indeed his, and in
the old Saxon phrase the Normans “held the place of slaughter”. The
Norman duke caused his Pope-blessed standard to be planted on the brow
of the hill in the same place where Harold’s banner had floated. After
rendering thanks to God for his great victory, he ordered his supper to
be prepared on the battlefield in the midst of the thousands of corpses
of both armies, whom the survivors all through the following Sunday
were busily engaged in burying, or in removing from the field that they
might be carried to their homes for burial.
The body of Harold himself, grievously disfigured, but recognised,
according to a well-known story, by his lady-love, “Edith with the
swan’s neck,” is said to have been given by the Conqueror to William
Malet, a nobleman half Norman and half English, and a kinsman of the
house of Leofric, with instructions that it should be buried under a
great cairn on the coast of that Sussex which he had vainly professed
to guard. According to one story, Gytha, Godwine’s widow, vainly
offered to buy her son’s body back from his foe at the price of his
weight in gold; but it is probable that William before long relented
and allowed the body of his fallen rival to be disinterred and buried
with befitting solemnity in the great minster of the Holy Rood at
Waltham.
William himself, in fulfilment of a vow made on the eve of the contest,
founded on the field of slaughter a stately abbey which bore the name
of Battle, and in which masses were long said for the repose of the
souls of those who had fallen in the fight, whether conquerors or
conquered. The building of the abbey with all its dependencies must
have done much to alter the face of the battlefield; and now for near
four centuries the abbey itself has been hidden and changed by the
manor house reared within its precincts, in Tudor style, by the family
to whom it was granted on the suppression of the monasteries. Change
upon change has since befallen the noble dwelling-house which still
bears the name of Battle Abbey; and its gardens and groves, its tall
yew hedges and terraced lawns, though all most beautiful, make it hard
to reconstruct with the mind’s eye the eleventh century aspect of “the
place of slaughter”. Only the well-ascertained site of the high altar
of the Abbey Church on the crest of the hill enables us to say with
certainty, in the language of the Bayeux Tapestry--
HIC HAROLD REX INTERFECTUS EST.
With the battle of Hastings ends the story of England as ruled by
Anglo-Saxon kings. The causes of the change, so full of meaning for
all future years, which transferred the English crown from the race of
Cerdic to the race of Rollo, cannot be dwelt upon here: perhaps some of
them have been sufficiently indicated in the course of the preceding
narrative. It is enough to say that a great and grievous transformation
had come over the Anglo-Saxon character since the days of Oswald
and even since the days of Alfred. The splendid dawn of English and
especially of Northumbrian Christianity in the seventh century had
been early obscured. The nation had lost some of the virtues of
heathendom and had not retained all that it had acquired of the virtues
of Christianity. Of its political incapacity the whole course of its
history during the last century before the conquest is sufficient
evidence; and it is probably a symptom of the same general decay that
for two centuries after the death of Alfred no writer or thinker of any
eminence, with the doubtful exceptions of Dunstan and Elfric, appears
among his countrymen. A tendency to swinish self-indulgence, and the
sins of the flesh in some of their most degrading forms, had marred
the national character. There was still in it much good metal, but if
the Anglo-Saxon was to do anything worth doing in the world, it was
necessary that it should be passed through the fire and hammered on the
anvil. The fire, the anvil and the hammer were about to be supplied
with unsparing hand by the Norman conquerors.
APPENDIX I.
AUTHORITIES.
All that portion of archæological science which deals with prehistoric
man is of recent origin, and the conclusions arrived at as to our
own island, even by the most careful inquirers, must be accepted
provisionally, as liable to much modification by the labours of future
students. Meanwhile the results generally accepted by scholars may be
found well stated by Professor BOYD DAWKINS (_Early Man in Britain_,
1880), by Dr. JOHN BEDDOE (_The Races of Britain_, 1885), and by the
Rev. Canon GREENWELL and GEO. ROLLESTON (_British Barrows_, 1877).
All these authors deal chiefly with the results of excavation in the
caves and sepulchral barrows of Britain. The measurement of the skulls
disinterred from thence and the character of the vessels found in
proximity to the bodies, are the chief criteria by which they decide
on the racial character of the occupants. Professor JOHN RHYS (_The
Early Ethnology of the British Isles_, 1890, and _Celtic Britain_, 2nd
edit., 1884) approaches the subject of British ethnology rather from
the side of early traditions and the evidence, somewhat meagre and
unsatisfactory, of Celtic annalists, but with much help from philology.
Passing from the consideration of prehistoric man to the notices of
Britain furnished by the writers of classical antiquity we come first
to the Greek and Roman geographers. The chief Greek writers are Strabo
and Ptolemy. STRABO, who was a native of Asia Minor, lived at the
Christian era, and may be considered a slightly younger contemporary of
Augustus. His colossal work on geography was written in his old age,
and was probably finished about A.D. 19. Though he was an extensive
traveller, he never visited Britain: his knowledge of our island seems
to be chiefly derived from Cæsar, and he is altogether wrong as to its
geographical position, believing it to lie alongside of the coast of
Gaul from the Pyrenees to the mouths of the Rhine. He imagined Ireland
to be entirely north of Britain.
PTOLEMY, who was a native of Egypt, was a contemporary of the Antonine
emperors, and probably wrote about A.D. 150. He was essentially an
astronomical geographer, whose object was to fix the latitude and
longitude of every place of which he took note. His industry was
extraordinary, and his scientific conceptions were somewhat in advance
of his age; but owing to the inaccurate information upon which he had
often to rely, his results are sometimes very far from correct. Thus,
though he gets England and Ireland almost into their true position,
correcting the errors of Strabo concerning them, he pulls Scotland so
far round to the east that it is at right angles to England, and its
northernmost point almost touches Denmark.
PLINY, who was born in A.D. 23 and perished in the great eruption of
Vesuvius in A.D. 79, is the only Latin geographer who tells us much
about Britain, and his descriptions do not add much to our knowledge,
but relate chiefly to natural history and to the cultivation of the
soil.
For the Roman conquest of Britain our chief authorities are, of course,
CÆSAR and TACITUS. The former, in the fourth and fifth books of his
history of the _Gallic War_, describes in a few brief, soldier-like
sentences the incidents of his two invasions, hardly attempting to
conceal their ill-success. The latter, in the fourteenth book of his
_Annals_, gives us the story of the insurrection of the Britons under
Boudicca and its suppression by Suetonius Paulinus. An earlier book in
the same series undoubtedly gave the history of the conquest of Britain
under Claudius, but this is unfortunately lost. He gives us, however,
in his _Life of Agricola_, a pretty full account of the events which
signalised the command of his father-in-law, Julius Agricola (A.D.
78–84), and a slight notice of some events which occurred under his
predecessors. Unfortunately Tacitus, superb as he is in delineation of
character and scornful summaries of palace intrigues, fails grievously
as a military historian, which happens to be his chief function when
he is concerned with the history of Britain. Mommsen (bk. viii., chap.
5) says: “A worse narrative than that of Tacitus concerning this war
(Paulinus against Boudicca) is hardly to be found even in this most
unmilitary of authors”.
To make up for the loss of the earlier books of Tacitus’s Annals we
have the history of DION CASSIUS, a Greek rhetorician who wrote his
_Roman History_ about A.D. 222. Though a useful compiler, Dion is, of
course, no contemporary authority for the conquest of Britain under
Claudius. Such as he is, however, we have to depend on him almost
entirely for our knowledge of that event.
After we lose the guidance of Tacitus, our information as to Roman
Britain becomes excessively meagre. Even the work of Dion Cassius
after A.D. 54 is lost in the original, and only exists for us in an
epitome--a tolerably full one, it must be admitted--made in the twelfth
century by XIPHILINUS, an ignorant and careless monk of Constantinople.
In addition to this, however, we receive a feeble and flickering light
from the collection of memoirs called the HISTORIA AUGUSTA. This book,
the result of the joint labours of some five or six authors whose very
names are a subject of controversy, relates in clumsy and uncritical
fashion the chief events in the lives of the Roman emperors during
the second and third centuries. Poor as is the performance of these
authors, and though they were probably separated by an interval of one
or two centuries from the events which they record, we have reason
to be grateful to them for the information which they supply to us,
especially as to our two most illustrious conquerors, Hadrian and
Severus. For the reign of the latter emperor we may also glean a few
facts from the work of the Greek historian HERODIAN.
The story of the imperial pretenders, Carausius and Allectus, and of
the suppression of their independent royalty, is told in a certain
fashion by two panegyrists, called MAMERTINUS and EUMENIUS, in their
orations before the triumphant emperors; but it is hard to extract
solid history out of their windy rhetoric.
A historian to whom we owe much, and should doubtless owe far more if
a perverse literary fate had not deprived us of nearly half of his
work, is the life-guardsman AMMIANUS MARCELLINUS, who lived in the
latter half of the fourth century and wrote the history of the Roman
empire from A.D. 99 to 378. As it is, possessing only those books which
tell of the years from 353 to 378, we derive from him some valuable
information as to the British campaigns of the elder Theodosius. If we
possessed the earlier books of his history, we should almost certainly
know much more than we do as to the appearance of Roman Britain in
the second century and the mode of life of its native inhabitants,
for Ammianus is fond of showing off his geographical knowledge, and
resembles Herodotus in the interest which he takes in the manners and
customs of half-civilised races. His Latin style--he was a Syrian Greek
by birth--is extraordinarily affected and often obscure, but for all
that, few literary events could be more gratifying to the historical
student than the recovery of the lost books of Ammianus.
For the social, military and religious life of the Romans in Britain
an invaluable source of information is contained in the inscriptions
which are collected in the seventh volume of the _Corpus Inscriptionum
Latinarum_ (Berlin, 1873). Many of the most important will be
found in the _Lapidarium Septentrionale_, edited by Dr. Bruce
(Newcastle-on-Tyne, 1875). Inscriptions discovered more recently
must be looked for in the volumes of the _Ephemeris Epigraphica_,
published by the _Academie der Wissenschaften_ at Berlin, or in the
_Archæological Journal_ and the proceedings of local antiquarian
societies.
OROSIUS, a disciple of St. Augustine, has done something to lighten the
darkness which hangs over the end of Roman rule in Britain. In the last
book of his _Histories_, which were meant to show that the calamities
of the empire were not due to the introduction of Christianity, he
tells us with some little detail the story of the military revolt
of the year 406, of which we also learn some details from the Greek
historian Zosimus. A chronicler who generally bears the name of another
friend of St. Augustine’s, PROSPER TIRO, but who was evidently a
theological opponent of that saint, and whose personality is really
unknown, inserts in his Chronicle two all-important dates for the Roman
evacuation of Britain and for the Saxon invasions. The contemporary
poet, CLAUDIAN, writing in 403, also gives us in a few lines some
important information as to the former event. This is practically the
last trustworthy notice as to our island that we find in the works of
any classical writer. Henceforth our history for many centuries is
written for us entirely by ecclesiastics, and this must be the modern
historian’s excuse for the strongly ecclesiastical colour which he is
obliged to give even to a political narrative. One such ecclesiastical
authority is _The Life of Germanus_ by the presbyter CONSTANTIUS, as
has been previously said. This _Life_ has suffered much from later
interpolations. See an elaborate analysis of it by Levison in the
_Neues Archiv_, vol. xxix.
The next writer who lifts any portion of the pall which hides the
history of our island in the fifth and sixth centuries is GILDAS,
the author of the _Liber Querulus_ “concerning the ruin of Britain”.
Rightly is the book called querulous, for it is one long drawn out
lamentation over the barbarities of the Saxon invaders and the
irreligion of the Britons which had brought this ruin upon them. If
Gildas, who wrote probably between 540 and 560, had chosen to tell
us simply all that he had seen or heard from men of the preceding
generation concerning Saxon raids and Cymric resistance, his work
would have been one of the corner-stones of English history. As it
is, we have to be thankful for the few facts that he imparts to us
between sob and sob over the wickedness of the world. A critical
edition of this author by Mommsen will be found in vol. xiii. of the
_Auctores Antiquissimi_ in the _Monumenta Germaniæ Historica_. An
excellent edition with notes by the Rev. Hugh Williams, Professor of
Church History at the Theological College, Bala, is now in course of
publication for the Hon. Society of Cymmrodorion.
More perplexing, but fuller of matter, good, bad and indifferent, is
the work of the much later Welsh ecclesiastic, NENNIUS, who lived about
two centuries and a half after Gildas. This author exhibits a degree
of ignorance and puzzle-headedness which gives one a very unfavourable
idea of the intellectual condition of a Welsh monastery about the year
800. His chronology is wildly incorrect, and he intermingles with
solemn history stories of dragons and enchanters worthy of the _Arabian
Nights_; but he has inserted into the middle of his book extracts from
the work of a much earlier author (probably a Northumbrian Celt living
under Anglian rule) who described the contests of English and Welsh
between 547 and 679. This part of the book (to be found in chapters 57
to 65 of Nennius) has probably a real historic value. It is important
to note that it is in this portion that the name of King Arthur is
found. As already mentioned (p. 100) we are much indebted to the
labours of Prof. Zimmer (_Nennius Vindicatus_) with reference to this
important but most provoking writer.
Turning from the Welsh to the English authorities we come to the
illustrious name of BEDE, the greatest scholar of his age and the best
historian whom any European country produced in the early Middle Ages.
His main work, the _Historia Ecclesiastica_, was finished in the year
731, about four years before his death. There is an excellent edition
of this book and of some of the smaller historical works of Bede by the
Rev. Charles Plummer (2 vols.: Oxford, 1896). The historical importance
of this work begins with its account of the conversion of England to
Christianity; and, for all the events of the seventh century and the
early part of the eighth, it is priceless. As to the events which
marked the Roman occupation of Britain, Bede probably had no other
sources of information than those which we also possess. For the two
centuries of darkness between the departure of the last Roman soldier
and the arrival of the first Roman missionary he had evidently very
scanty sources to draw from, and in fact he springs, almost at one
bound, from the year 450 to 596.
For the closing years of the seventh century we have another valuable
authority in the _Life of Wilfrid_, written by his contemporary,
EDDIUS (_Historians of the Church of York_, edited by J. Raine, Rolls
Series): and this is the more important as, for some reason or other,
Bede shows sometimes a curious reticence as to Wilfrid’s career. There
is a very careful comparison of the two narratives, that of Bede
and that of Eddius, by Mr. B. W. Wells in the sixth volume of the
_English Historical Review_ (1891), pp. 535–50. His conclusions are not
favourable to Eddius’s veracity.
In the eighth century, after we have lost the invaluable guidance of
Bede, we may derive some help from the letters of two great Churchmen,
BONIFACE and ALCUIN, both published in _Monumenta Germaniæ Historica_
(_Epistolae_, vols. iii. and iv., 1892 and 1895).
For the whole period from the Saxon invasion onwards we rely with
increasing confidence on the great historical document, or collection
of documents, which is sometimes called the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle,
but which, following Freeman’s example, we generally designate by the
simple but sufficient name of _The Chronicle_ (Plummer, 2 vols., 1892).
The reason for introducing the notice of it here is that, according to
the opinion of its latest editor, we arrive, in the ninth century, at
the time of the first compilation of this work, so all-important for
the students of our national history. If he is right in thinking that
the impulse toward the commencement of this great undertaking was given
by King Alfred--a belief which seems to be shared by Mr. Stevenson,
the editor of Asser--it cannot have begun to assume its present shape
till near the year 900. Some materials, however, for the building of
such an edifice must have been gradually accumulating for at least two
centuries; in what shape, of what kind, of what degree of historical
trustworthiness, we shall, perhaps, never be able to determine. There
were probably rhythmical pedigrees of the kings and some stories of
their exploits handed down through generations of minstrels; and, at
any rate since the introduction of Christianity, some simple annals
such as that to which Bede alludes when he says that 634, the year
of the reign of two apostate Northumbrian kings, was, “by those who
compute the times of kings,” taken away from them and included in the
reign of their pious successor Oswald. This hypothesis, however, will
not help us much when we come to consider how Alfred’s literary friends
could recover accurate dates and details of events during the preceding
150 years of darkness, and we must probably admit that for that period
there may have been a good deal of imaginative chronology of the kind
suggested by Lappenberg, as already stated on p. 87. Thus all this
earlier portion of the Chronicle has to be used with caution, and we
dare not lay any great stress upon the historical character of its
statements; only let not its authority be unduly decried, seeing that
for a good part of the road it is the only light that we have.
Even after we emerge into the fuller light of the seventh century, and
when we have no reason to doubt the truly historical character of the
Chronicle, we cannot award it the praise of minute accuracy in matters
of chronology. Continually historians have found it necessary to
correct its dates by one, two, or three years; and even the foundation
date of Egbert’s accession, which used to be given on the authority of
the Chronicle to 800, has had to be shifted to 802.
The Chronicle, if begun under the influence of Alfred (probably
at Winchester), was continued in various monasteries on somewhat
independent lines, and thus, as its latest editor points out, “instead
of saying that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is contained in seven MSS.,
it would be truer to say that those MSS. contain four Anglo-Saxon
Chronicles”. These are represented by the four chief MSS. which are now
known to scholars by the four letters A, C, D, E. The first of these
MSS. is at Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, the second and third in
the British Museum, and the fourth in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.
Very briefly stated, the distinguishing characteristics of these four
MSS. are as follows:--
A (sometimes marked by an Anglo-Saxon letter in order to distinguish it
from a later and unimportant manuscript to which also that initial has
been given) is also called, from its former owner, Archbishop Parker’s
manuscript, or the Winchester Chronicle. There can be little doubt that
this manuscript was originally a native of Winchester, and began to be
compiled there in Alfred’s reign. A Winchester book it continued till
the year 1001, after which it seems to have been transferred to Christ
Church, Canterbury, where it was probably lying at the time of the
suppression of the monasteries. This manuscript, in many respects the
most valuable of all, ends with the year 1070.
C is associated on good authority with the monastery of Abingdon. “Its
language [says Professor Earle] is of the most ripe and polished kind,
marking the culmination of Saxon literature.” It closes in 1066, but
a short postscript has been added in the Northumbrian dialect. One
important feature in this manuscript is its inclusion of what is called
“The Mercian Register,” describing the great deeds of the Lady of
Mercia from 902 to 924. In the next century it is distinguished by the
hostile tone which it adopts towards Earl Godwine and his family.
D, which is generally called the Worcester Chronicle, but which seems
to have a closer connexion with Evesham, is, in its present shape, a
late compilation, none of it probably being of earlier date than 1100.
It seems to be closely allied to C, but differs from that manuscript by
its friendlier attitude towards Godwine. It is the only version which
gives us any account of the battle of Hastings. It ends thirteen years
after the Conquest.
E, the Laud manuscript or Peterborough Chronicle, is of great
importance, inasmuch as it alone continues the history down to so late
a date as 1154, and its great variety of style makes it a leading
authority for the history of the English language. In its present shape
it is emphatically a book of the Abbey of Peterborough, and loses no
opportunity of glorifying that religious house. It probably owes its
origin to a disastrous fire which happened at Peterborough in 1116, in
which all the muniments of the abbey perished. A manuscript akin to D
seems to have been then brought thither from some other monastery, and
this copy of it, with sundry interpolations, has been made to replace
the perished Chronicle. A and E are the two Chronicles which Plummer
and his predecessor Earle have chosen as the corner-stones of their
editions of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles, but passages are inserted from
C and D where these authorities give us important variations.
For the personal history of Alfred the Great and some information
as to the events of his reign, we have the very important treatise
by his contemporary, ASSER, _De Rebus Gestis Aelfredi_ (Stevenson,
1904). Asser was a Welsh ecclesiastic, belonging to the diocese of
St. Davids, who came about the year 880 to the court of King Alfred,
seeking protection from the tyranny of his native sovereigns, sons
of Rhodri Mawr. That protection was freely accorded, and the king,
perceiving Asser to be a learned man, stipulated that he should spend
at least half of every year in the land of the Saxons. Eventually he
became bishop of Sherborne, and no doubt ceased altogether to reside
in Wales. He died apparently in 910, about ten years after his patron.
Asser’s _Life of King Alfred_ which ends practically with the year 887,
giving no account of the last thirteen years of his reign, is a very
inartistic work, containing annalistic notices, taken apparently from
the Chronicle, strangely jumbled up with those interesting personal
details as to the character and habits of the great king which give
it in our eyes all its value. It has been singularly unfortunate in
its transmission, since the only copy of which we have any certain
knowledge perished in the great fire at the Cottonian Library in 1731.
Happily, it had been already printed three times, but unfortunately
those three editions all contained several large interpolations made by
its first editor, Archbishop Parker, from a mistaken desire to round
off its information by extracts from other authors. Partly owing to
these interpolations, its genuineness has been subjected to severe
attacks, which have sometimes seemed likely to be successful. Its
character, however, has been triumphantly vindicated by its latest
editor, Mr. W. H. Stevenson, who has succeeded in separating the
original text of the _Life_ from the interpolations of its editors, and
thus presenting it with all its naïve charm, often also, it must be
admitted, with all its provoking verbiage and obscurity, to the lovers
of the greatest Anglo-Saxon king. In the same volume Mr. Stevenson
has printed the _Annals of St. Neot’s_, which were formerly, without
justification, ascribed to Asser, and from which some of the worst
interpolations into his real work were derived. It is an important
testimony to the authentic character of Asser’s work that large
extracts have been made from it by so judicious a compiler as Florence
of Worcester.
For the reconstruction of English history in the tenth century our
materials are very unsatisfactory. The impulse given by Alfred to the
composition of the Chronicle seems to have soon exhausted itself, and
for fifty years after the death of his son (925 to 975) it is, as Earle
has said, “wonderfully meagre: a charge which is often unreasonably
alleged against these Chronicles in the most undiscriminating manner,
but which may be justified here by a comparison with the historical
literature of two earlier generations”. Its aridity is in some degree
atoned for by the ballads, such as that on the battle of Brunanburh,
which are inserted at intervals in its pages; but with all the poetic
interest attaching to these pieces they can hardly be considered a
satisfactory substitute for history. In these circumstances we have to
be thankful for such help as can be derived from biographies of the
saints; especially from the nearly contemporary _Life of Dunstan_,
by an anonymous Saxon priest who is known only by his initial B.
(_Memorials of St. Dunstan_, edited by Stubbs, Rolls Series), and the
similar anonymous but contemporary _Life of Oswald_, Archbishop of York
(_Historians of the Church of York_, edited by J. Raine, Rolls Series).
The later lives of Dunstan, by Adelard, Osbern and Eadmer (all included
in Stubbs’s _Memorials of St. Dunstan_), soon fade off into legend, and
must be used with caution.
We ought to have been greatly helped at this period by the work of
ETHELWEARD the historian (_Monumenta Historica Britannica_, Petrie,
1848), who was of royal descent, was apparently for a time Ealdorman
of Wessex, and wrote near the end of the tenth century. Unfortunately
the basis of his work seems to have been the Chronicle itself, and when
he has any additional facts to communicate, his style is so pompously
obscure that it is difficult to make out what he means. In default,
therefore, of adequate contemporary authorities, the historian is
obliged to lean more than he has yet done on the compiling historians
who wrote in the century which followed the Norman Conquest. Of these,
happily, there is a goodly number, and they are on the whole very
favourable specimens of their class.
(1) FLORENCE OF WORCESTER (edited by B. Thorpe, English Historical
Society, 1848–49), a monk of whom we know nothing save that he died in
1118, having earned a high reputation for acuteness and industry, took
as the staple of his narrative the work of an Irish monk named Marianus
Scotus, who was settled at Mainz and composed a World-Chronicle
reaching down to the year 1082. With the material thus furnished him
Florence interwove extracts specially relating to English history from
Bede, Asser and the Chroniclers, bringing down his recital to 1117,
the year preceding his death. His work was almost entirely that of
a compiler, but it was conscientiously and thoroughly done, and its
chief value for us is that though his story approaches most nearly to
that told in the Worcester Chronicle (D), it is not a mere transcript
of that work, and he evidently had access to some manuscript of the
Chronicle which is now lost. The important position which he holds in
relation to Asser has already been described.
(2) Some important facts concerning Northumbrian history may be gleaned
from the ill-arranged pages of SYMEON OF DURHAM (edited by T. Arnold,
Rolls Series, 2 vols., 1882–85). This author, who was born a few years
before the Conquest, became a monk at Durham about the year 1085, and
spent probably the rest of his life by the tomb of St. Cuthbert. Soon
after 1104 he wrote a _History of the Church of Durham_, which supplies
some valuable information not to be found elsewhere, as to the history
of events in the north of England during the thirty years following the
Danish invasion of 875. In his old age Symeon began, but apparently
did not finish, a _History of the Kings_, which in its present state
is a piece of patchwork put together from various sources, and in its
chaotic condition corresponds only too closely with the reality of
Northumbrian history during that dismal period. Its chief value for
the historian is that it incorporates an old Northumbrian Chronicle by
an anonymous writer (perhaps called _Gesta veterum Northanhymbrorum_)
describing the chief events which happened in that part of the country
from the end of Bede’s history to the accession of Egbert (731–802).
For a full discussion of the materials used by Symeon in this work the
reader is referred to Mr. Arnold’s preface and to Stubbs’s preface to
Roger Hoveden. It cannot be said that even his explanations make the
matter very clear. An interesting tract, _De Obsessione Dunelmi_,
which has been attributed on insufficient evidence to this author, is
bound up with his works.
(3) HENRY OF HUNTINGDON (edited by T. Arnold, Rolls Series, 1879) was
born about eighteen years after the Conquest and died soon after the
accession of Henry II. He was an archdeacon in the diocese of Lincoln,
and composed at the request of his bishop a _History of the English_,
of which various editions were published in his lifetime, the first
probably about 1130, and the last soon after 1154. Henry relies chiefly
on the Peterborough Chronicle, but he seems also to have possessed
some other manuscript, of which he occasionally gives indications.
Unfortunately he relies not only on manuscripts and Chronicles, but
also to a large extent on his own imagination. From materials not
much ampler than those which we possess, he is fond of constructing a
rhetorical narrative with many details, for which it is almost certain
that he had no authority. Occasionally there seems reason to believe
that he is repeating popular traditions or fragments of popular songs,
but upon the whole it is safer not to rely greatly on his facts, where
these are not corroborated by other historians.
(4) A much greater historian than Henry was his slightly younger
contemporary, WILLIAM OF MALMESBURY (edited by Stubbs, Rolls Series,
2 vols., 1887–89), who was probably born about 1095 and died, or at
any rate discontinued his literary labours, soon after 1142. For an
elaborate discussion of these dates see Bishop Stubbs’s preface. As he
remarks, William “deliberately set himself forward as the successor
of the Venerable Bede: and it is seldom that an aspirant of this sort
came so near as he did to the realisation of his pretensions”. His
most important work for our purpose is the _Gesta Regum_, but from
his _Gesta Pontificum_ (Hamilton, Rolls Series, 1870) some facts
relating to civil history may be gleaned. He is especially minute in
all points connected with his own monastery of Malmesbury and with that
of Glastonbury, in which he seems to have been for some time a guest.
He has a wide outlook over continental affairs, and though he has been
convicted of many inaccuracies and is unfortunately not sufficiently
careful as to the authenticity of the documents quoted by him, we must
admit his claim to be considered a really great historian. The _Gesta
Regum_ became at once a popular and standard history, and was the
source from which a crowd of followers made abundant quotations.
(5) A great patron of learned men, and especially of historians, was
Robert, Earl of Gloucester, natural son of Henry I. To him William
of Malmesbury dedicated his chief historical works, and it was from
materials contained in his library that GEOFFREY GAIMAR (edited by
Hardy and Martin, Rolls Series, 2 vols., 1888–89) wrote his _Estorie
des Engles_. Scarcely anything is known about the author, except that
he wrote before 1147, the date of the Earl of Gloucester’s death, and
that he was probably an ecclesiastic and a Norman. His history is a
rhymed chronicle in early French, and is to a large extent based on the
English Chronicle; a proof that he understood Anglo-Saxon, though it
was not his native tongue. He evidently, however, had access to other
sources of information now closed to us, and this gives his _Estorie_
a certain value, notwithstanding the author’s occasional tendency to
glide off into unhistorical romance, as for instance in the long and
legendary story which he tells about Edgar’s marriage with Elgiva. His
geographical indications are sometimes worthy of special notice.
For sixty years after 982 the fortunes of England were so closely
intertwined with those of Denmark and Norway that it is impossible
wholly to overlook the contributions which Scandinavian authors have
made to our national history. These consist chiefly of the great
collection of Icelandic Sagas popularly known as the _Heimskringla_,
and formerly made accessible to the English reader only by LAING’S
_Sea-Kings of Norway_, now in much completer form in the Saga Library
of MORRIS and MAGNUSSON. Three volumes of the Heimskringla have been
published: the fourth is still to appear. For a full and exhaustive
account, however, of the rich Dano-Icelandic literature of which the
so-called Heimskringla is only a portion, we must turn to the noble
work of VIGFUSSON and POWELL, the _Corpus Poeticum Boreale_ (two vols.,
Oxford, 1883), and to _Vigfusson’s_ Prolegomena to the _Sturlunga Saga_
(Oxford, 1879). It is shown by these authors that while the name of
Snorri Sturlason is rightly venerated as that of the chief literary
preserver of these sagas, an earlier Icelandic scholar named Ari,
born in the year after the Norman Conquest, was the first to bring
them into some sort of relation with exact chronological history. The
narratives seem to be wonderfully true in feeling but often false in
fact. Probably a good deal of rather tedious critical work has yet to
be done before the Heimskringla can be definitely and safely correlated
with the Saxon Chronicle, but we may safely go to that collection of
sagas and to the literature of which it forms part, the true Iliad
and Odyssey of the Scandinavian peoples, for a picture of the manner
of life, the characters and the ideals of those Danish and Norwegian
sea-rovers who were the terror of Angle and Saxon, but from whom we
ourselves are largely descended.
For the reign of Canute and his sons we are sometimes placed under
obligation by the author of the _Encomium Emmæ_ (_Monumenta Germaniæ
Historica_, vol. xix., 1866), a panegyric on the widow of Ethelred and
Canute, written apparently by an ecclesiastic of Bruges, who had shared
her bounty when she was living in exile. The author sometimes deviates
in the most extraordinary way from historic truth, but he seems to have
been well acquainted with the facts, though he dishonestly concealed
them to please his patroness.
With the extinction of the Danish dynasty and the revival of West
Saxon royalty we enter upon a new period, in which our historical
literature assumes a controversial character which it has not hitherto
possessed. In previous centuries there has been no practical danger
in speaking of _The Chronicle_, the amount of matter common to the
various copies being so large and the divergencies between them so
comparatively unimportant. Now, however, it is necessary to speak of
_The Chronicles_ in the plural, since they often give us absolutely
different versions of the same event. The Abingdon Chronicle, as before
remarked, is hostile to Godwine, while Worcester (or Evesham) and
Peterborough generally favour his cause. Winchester is almost silent
for this period. There is a nearly contemporary _Life of Edward the
Confessor_ in Latin by an unknown author (printed at the end of the
volume, _Lives of Edward the Confessor_, in the Rolls Series, 1858),
from which some noteworthy facts may be collected, but the value of the
work is lessened by the writer’s evident determination to praise to the
uttermost Godwine and all his family, in order to recommend himself to
Edward’s widow Edith, daughter of Godwine, to whom this _Vita Edwardi
Regis_ is dedicated. In comparison with his wife’s family the king
himself comes off rather poorly.
The life of the Confessor was soon caught up into the region of
hagiological romance, and loses historical value accordingly. It does
not seem possible to build any solid conclusions on the _Vita Edwardi
Regis_ by Aelred, itself borrowed from the twelfth-century biographer
Osbert, still less on the curious and interesting _Estoire de Seint
Ædward le Rei_, a French poem written about 1245 and dedicated to
Eleanor, queen of Henry III. (_Lives of Edward the Confessor_).
* * * * *
The Norman historians, who now of course become of first-rate
importance for the history, are fully described in the second volume.
It will be sufficient here to mention the names of the most important:
WILLIAM OF POITIERS, WILLIAM OF JUMIÈGES (both contemporaries of the
Conqueror), ORDERICUS VITALIS (a generation later) and WILLIAM WACE,
author of two French metrical Chronicles, the _Roman de Brut_ and
the _Roman de Rou_. The latter poem describes with much detail and
some poetic power the events of the Norman invasion of England, but
its author wrote about a century after the event, and the degree of
reliance which may be placed on his statements, where not supported
by more strictly contemporary authority, is still a subject of debate
among historians. Editions by Pluquet (1826) and Andresen (1877–79)
are mentioned with commendation, but the most convenient edition
for an English student is that prepared by Sir Alexander Malet with
a tolerably close translation of Pluquet’s text into English rhyme
(London, 1860).
The other all-important document for the story of the Conquest, the
BAYEUX TAPESTRY, has been reproduced in facsimile, with a valuable
illustrative commentary, by F. R. Fowke (London, 1875, reprinted in
abridged form in the Ex Libris Series, 1898). Discussing the date and
origin of this celebrated work, he rejects the traditional connexion
of the Tapestry with Queen Matilda, but believes it to be strictly
contemporary with the Conquest, having been “probably ordered for his
cathedral by Bishop Odo and made by Norman work-people at Bayeux”.
Refer also to Freeman’s _Norman Conquest_, vol. iii., note A, for a
discussion of the authority of the Tapestry.
* * * * *
Of the Welsh authorities for this period contained in this volume the
present writer cannot speak with confidence. The chief appear to be (1)
the _Annales Cambriæ_, supposed to have been compiled in the year 954
and afterwards continued to 1288.
(2) The _Brut y Tywysogion_, or Chronicle of the Princes, which
begins in 680 and ends with 1282. It is thought to be based on a
Latin chronicle written in the middle of the twelfth century by a
Pembrokeshire monk named Caradog of Llancarvan.
(3) The _Brut y Saesson_, or Chronicle of the Saxons (800–1382), seems
to be chiefly founded on the last-named work, but with some additions
from English sources; of no great value, at any rate for pre-Conquest
history.
It is to be wished that some scholar would carefully sift the Welsh
chronicles and poems, and tell us what are the solid historical facts
that may be gathered from their pages.
* * * * *
Without attempting to give a list, however imperfect, of modern books
dealing with the early history of England, it may be permitted to
mention a few of the chief land-marks.
The history of Roman Britain has yet to be written. Every year
excavations, inscriptions, coins add a little to our knowledge of
these tantalisingly obscure centuries. Perhaps the best short sketches
to which the student can be referred are the chapter on Britain in
MOMMSEN’S _Provinces of the Roman Empire_ (translated by Dickson:
London, 1886), and a similar chapter in EMIL HÜBNER’S _Römische
Herrschaft in West Europa_ (Berlin, 1890). Both these scholars are
complete masters of all that epigraphy has to tell concerning the Roman
occupation of Britain. In the early chapters of various volumes of the
_Victoria County History of England_, Mr. F. HAVERFIELD is bringing the
Roman archæology of the counties there described thoroughly up to date.
It is to be hoped that these may all before long be combined by him
into one great work on _Britannia Romana_.
For Anglo-Saxon history perhaps LAPPENBERG’S _Geschichte von England_
(translated by B. Thorpe: London, 1881) is still the most trustworthy
guide; but the _Making of England_ and the _Conquest of England_ by
JOHN RICHARD GREEN have all the characteristic charm of that author’s
historical work; perhaps also it should be said, his characteristic
tendency to translate a brilliant hypothesis into historical fact. The
truly monumental history of _The Norman Conquest_ by E. A. FREEMAN
will assuredly always remain the great quarry from which all later
builders will hew their blocks for building. Even those who differ
most strongly from his conclusions must bear witness to his unwearied
industry and single-minded desire for historical accuracy, whether
he always compassed it or not. One of Freeman’s antagonists, C. H.
PEARSON, offers some useful suggestions in his _History of England
during the Early and Middle Ages_; and the same author’s _Historical
Maps of England during the First Thirteen Centuries_ contain an immense
amount of carefully collected geographical material, and deserve to be
more widely known than they are at the present time. Another doughty
combatant, J. H. ROUND, in _Feudal England_ (London, 1895), has set
himself to demolish Professor Freeman’s theories as to the battle of
Hastings and some other matters.
SIR JAMES RAMSAY’S _Foundations of England_ (1898) is an extremely
careful digest of all the authorities bearing on the subject.
W. BRIGHT’S _Early English Church History_, C. F. KEARY’S _Vikings in
Western Christendom_ and C. PLUMMER’S _Life and Times of Alfred the
Great_ are all helpful books.
Where English and Scottish history touch one another the works of E. W.
ROBERTSON, _Scotland under Her Early Kings_ and _Historical Essays_;
W. F. SKENE, _Celtic Scotland_, and ANDREW LANG, _History of Scotland_,
will be found useful, and should be consulted in order to see the
arguments of the champions of Scottish independence.
For the history of institutions reference should be made to Bishop
STUBBS (_Constitutional History_); F. W. MAITLAND (_Domesday Book and
Beyond_); H. M. CHADWICK (_Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions_);
J. M. KEMBLE (_The Saxons in England_); F. PALGRAVE (_The Rise and
Progress of the English Commonwealth_); H. C. COOTE (_The Romans of
Britain_--worth studying, with distrust, as an extreme statement of the
survival of Roman customs in Britain); F. SEEBOHM (_The English Village
Community_); and P. VINOGRADOFF (_Villainage in England_, _The Growth
of the Manor_ and an essay on “Folkland” in the _English Historical
Review_ for 1893, which has been generally accepted as containing the
true explanation of that much-discussed term of Anglo-Saxon law).
A good edition of the Anglo-Saxon Laws was prepared in 1840 by BENJAMIN
THORPE and published by the Record Commission. A more complete edition,
with full commentary, was made by REINHOLD SCHMID and published in
Leipzig in 1858. Even this is now being surpassed by the work of
FELIX LIEBERMANN (Halle, 1898–1903), who has published an excellent
text, but whose commentary on the laws has yet to appear. For the
charters and other similar documents of the Anglo-Saxon kings we may
refer to KEMBLE’S _Codex Diplomaticus_ (6 vols., 1839–48); BIRCH’S
_Cartularium Saxonicum_ (3 vols., 1885–93), and HADDAN and STUBBS’S
_Councils_ (3 vols., 1869–78), which are splendid collections of this
kind of material for the historical student. As convenient manuals,
_Diplomatarium Anglicum Aevi Saxonici_ by BENJAMIN THORPE (1845);
STUBBS’S _Select Charters_ (1895), and EARLE’S _Handbook to the Land
Charters_, will be found useful.
For a much more detailed list of authorities than can here be given
the reader is referred to the excellent manual on _The Sources and
Literature of English History_ by Dr. CHARLES GROSS of Harvard
University (1900).
APPENDIX II.
GENEALOGY OF NORTHUMBRIAN KINGS.
[Illustration]
_DEIRA._ _BERNICIA._
Yffi.
|
+------------+---------------+
| |
Elfric. AELLE, IDA,
| †588. †560.
| | |
| | ETHELRIC,
| +-----------------+-----------------------+ †593.
| | | | |
OSRIC, N. Cwenburh,==EDWIN,==Ethelburga, Acha.==ETHELFRID,=Bebba.
†634. | daughter | †633. | daughter of | †617.
| | of King of | | Ethelbert, |
| | Mercia. | | King of Kent. |
| | | +------------+ +----------------------+---------------------+
| | | | 3.| 2.| 1.|
OSWIN, Hereric. Osfrid. 2° Eanfled.==OSWY,==1° Riemmelth, OSWALD,==Cyneburga, EANFRID,
†651. | | | †671.| perhaps a †642. | daughter of †634.
Hilda, Yffi. | | British | Cynegils,
abbess of | | princess. | King of
Whitby. +---------------------------+ | | Wessex.
| +--------------+ |
| | | |
ALDFRID, EGFRID, ALCHFRID, Alchfleda, ETHELWALD,
brother or nephew married King of Deira, married Penda, King of Deira,
of Egfrid, 1° Etheldreda, married son of Penda. †soon after 655.
†705. daughter of Anna, Cyneburga,
| King of East daughter of
OSRED, Anglia, Penda, King
†716.[253] 2° Ermenburga, of Mercia,
†685. †664 (?).
APPENDIX III.
GENEALOGY OF WEST SAXON KINGS BEFORE EGBERT
[Illustration]
CERDIC, †534.
|
CYNRIC, †560.
+---------+------------------------+
| |
CEAWLIN, †593. Cutha (or Cuthwulf).
| +------+-------------------------------------------+
| | |
Cuthwine. CEOLRIC, CEOLWULF,
+-------------+ †597(?) †611.
| | | |
Cuthwulf. Ceadda. CYNEGILS, †641(?). Cuthgisl.
| | +-------+--+-------------+------------------+ |
| | | | | | |
Ceolwald. CENBERHT, CWICHELM, CENWALH, CENTWINE, Cyneburga, Cenfrith.
| †661. †636. †672. married the sister of married |
| +--------+ | Ermenburga, Queen Oswald, Cenfus.
| | | | of Northumbria, King of |
Cenred. CADWALLA, Mul, CUTHRED I., †685. Northumbria. AESCWINE,
| †689. burnt 687. †661. †676.
|
|
| A descendant of
+-+----+ Cerdic.
| | +------------+
| | | | [A] [A]
Ingild. INE,==Ethelburh. ETHELHEARD, CUTHRED II., CYNEWULF,
| †726. †740. †754. a kinsman of Cuthred II.,
| †786.
Eoppa. N.
| +-----------+-----------+
Eaba. [A]| |
| SIGEBERT, Cyneheard,
EALHMUND, †757. the Avenger.
sub-King of Kent.
| [254]
EGBERT. BEORHTRIC,
†802.
FOOTNOTES.
[1] Geikie, _Prehistoric Europe_, p. 13.
[2] Geikie, p. 119.
[3] Bunbury (_History of Ancient Geography_, i., 591) disputes this
translation, and contends that Pytheas only said that he travelled (not
necessarily on foot) over such parts of the island as were accessible.
[4] See Note at the end of this chapter.
[5] Pre-eminently of Sir John Evans, on whose great work on ancient
British coins this chapter is founded.
[6] In B.C. 34, 27 and 25 (Dion Cassius, xlix., 38; liii., 22 and 25).
[7] The popular form of this prince’s name, Caractacus, is not
justified by the MSS., but one would not think it necessary to restore
the true form by the omission of one letter, were it not that the
correct spelling brings us nearer to the Welsh equivalent, Caradoc.
[8] That these four legions took part in the Plautian conquest of
Britain is undoubted. It may perhaps, however, be questioned whether
all sailed with Aulus Plautius at the very outset of the expedition.
The fact that the army was divided for the purpose of the crossing into
three portions looks rather as if it consisted of three legions: and
the fourth might form the nucleus of the reinforcements which came with
the Emperor Claudius.
[9] _Agricola_, xiv.
[10] The name of this tribe is doubtful.
[11] For the reasons in favour of the date 60 instead of 61 (given by
Tacitus), see Henderson, _Life and Principate of Emperor Nero_, p. 477.
[12] Her name seems to have been really Boudicca, meaning the
Victorious. The form Boadicea rests on no authority and conveys no
meaning, but it is now too late to change it.
[13] Several names of British gods begin like Andraste. A little
farther on Dion speaks of the sacred grove of Andate or Victory; and we
find dedications to Ancasta, Anociticus, and Antenociticus.
[14] From a misreading of this name is derived the modern Grampian.
[15] These sentences are quoted from Prof. Pelham’s paper on “The
Roman Frontier System” (_Transactions of Cumberland and Westmorland
Antiquarian Society_, xiv., 170–84), in which the reader will find an
admirable statement of the object of the Roman frontier defences and
the manner of their construction.
[16] Equivalent to seventy-three and a half English miles: the distance
from Wallsend to Bowness.
[17] The term “Menapian” may apply to either country.
[18] Notwithstanding the positive statement of the panegyrist that
the victory over Allectus was won by Constantius in person, the merit
of it is assigned by some of the historians to the Prætorian Prefect
Asclepiodotus. It is, perhaps, impossible to frame a satisfactory
narrative out of the very fragmentary materials at our disposal.
[19] It has been shown by Mr. Haverfield that Britannia Prima included
Cirencester (_Arch. Oxon._, p. 220).
[20] They were Branodunum (Brancaster in Norfolk), Gariannonum
(Caistor, near Yarmouth), Othona (at the mouth of the Blackwater in
Essex?), Regulbium (Reculver in Essex), Rutupiæ (Richborough), Dubræ
(Dover), Lemannæ (Lymne), Anderida (close to Beachy Head), Portus
Adurni (not yet identified).
[21] Epist. viii. 6.
[22] 2 Kings xvii. 27.
[23] See _English Historical Review_, xi., 420, for a list of these
evidences of Christianity in Britain, drawn up by Mr. Haverfield.
[24] Quotation from Haverfield, _Victoria History of Norfolk_, i., 282.
[25] See Stevenson’s _Asser_, p. 166, for reasons against it.
[26] Possibly their name may be connected with that of the Eudoces,
a tribe mentioned by Tacitus as neighbours of the Angli. But that
identification, if confirmed, would not add much to our knowledge.
[27] It is conjectured, but only conjectured, that it took place at
Maes Garmon (the field of Germanus?), near Mold in Flintshire.
[28] It will be observed that this date is eight years later than that
given by Tiro. It is probably derived from Bede (i., 15), who, however,
does not seem to have had any definite information as to the exact year
of the first invasion, though he certainly places it in the reigns of
the Emperors Marcian and Valentinian III., that is (according to his
inaccurate reckoning) somewhere between 449 and 455.
[29] The site of Fethan-lea is not ascertained. Dr. Guest’s
identification of it with Faddiley in Cheshire, and the large
consequences thence deduced by him (_Origines Celticæ_, ii., 287–309),
can hardly survive the strenuous attack made on them by Mr. Stevenson
in the _Eng. Hist. Rev._, xvii., 637.
[30] Probably in Wiltshire (_ibid._, 638).
[31] “Forwurdon,” not the usual peaceful and beautiful “forth-ferdon”
(fared forth).
[32] Or Agitius, as Gildas calls him.
[33] The name of Vortigern, inserted here in Gale’s edition, is absent
from the best, though found in a few manuscripts.
[34] Isaiah xix. 11.
[35] Nennius makes such a muddle of his chronology that he virtually
asserts that Christ was born A.D. 183; and he accepts the idle tales
about Brutus, ancestor of the Britons, and descendant of Aeneas,
which had been apparently fabricated by Irish students of Virgil two
centuries before he wrote.
[36] _Sed ipse erat dux bellorum._
[37] This may be either Chester or Leicester.
[38] Ep. i., 7. This is a very important passage, as showing at what an
early date British refugees were settled near the mouth of the Loire
in such numbers as to be an important element in Gaulish politics.
Arvandus, once Prætorian prefect of Gaul, was accused before the
Emperor of high treason because he had corresponded with the King of
the Visigoths, inviting him to attack “the Britons situated on the
Loire,” who were evidently loyal to the empire. In another letter of
the same writer (Ep. iii., 9) we find him pleading with his friend
Riothamus, a Breton chief (or king), for the restoration of some slaves
who have been coaxed away from a friend of his by “Britannis clam
sollicitantibus”. This same Riothamus, described by Jordanes as “rex
Brittonum,” fought with Euric, King of the Visigoths, on behalf of the
empire (_Jord. de rebus Geticis_, xlv.).
[39] _Excerpta e Prisci historia_, p. 199 (ed. Bonn).
[40] _De Bello Gothico_, ii., 6.
[41] _De Bello Gothico_, iv., 20.
[42] Between 575 and 578, or possibly between 585 and 590.
[43] This story is told in similar but by no means identical words in
an early life of Pope Gregory, probably written by a monk of Whitby
who was a contemporary of Bede’s, and discovered by Paul Ewald: _Hist.
Aufsätze an G. Waitz gewidmet_. It has been suggested that Bede copied
from this biography. To me it seems more probable that Bede and the
biographer, independently of one another, repeated the common _traditio
majorum_.
[44] Benedict I., if the earlier date is correct; otherwise Pelagius
II. On the fourth day of Gregory’s journey a grasshopper alighted on
the page of the Bible which he was reading during the noontide halt.
“_Ecce locusta_,” he said, and interpreted the sign as meaning _Loco
sta_, “Stay where you are”. In that hour arrived the papal emissary
commanding him to return to Rome.
[45] “Inter Langobardorum gladios”: a favourite expression of Gregory’s.
[46] Bede, _Hist. Eccl._, i., 25. Evidently the defeat sustained
(according to the Chronicle) in 568 at the hands of Ceawlin, king of
Wessex, had been more than made good.
[47] This follows from the date of St. Martin’s death, which was about
402.
[48] Archiepiscopus genti Anglorum ordinatus est (_Hist. Eccl._, i.,
27). Observe that Bede without hesitation uses the word _Angli_ to
denote the whole Anglo-Saxon-Jutish nationality.
[49] See Kemble, _The Saxons in England_, i., 148.
[50] In the county of Flint about ten miles south of Chester: not to be
confounded with Bangor on the Menai Straits or with the Irish monastery
of Bangor in County Down.
[51] See H. A. Wilson in Mason’s _Mission of St. Augustine_, pp. 248–52.
[52] As in the case of the _stigmata_ of St. Francis, modern science
has shown that it is possible to accept the historic truth of this
narrative without admitting the hypothesis, either of miracle or of
fraud.
[53] That of Richard of Hexham (_circa_ 1141. Prologue to his
_History_). Simeon of Durham (_circa_ 1104) says that “all the country
between Tees and Tyne was then [in the seventh century] a waste
wilderness, the habitation of wild animals, and therefore subject to no
man’s sway” (_Vita Oswaldi_, cap. i.).
[54] “_Ond rixode twelf gear, ond he timbrode Bebbanburh, seo waes
aerost mid hegge betyned, ond aefter mid wealle_.” Mr. Bates, whose
_History of Northumberland_ is a most helpful guide to this part of our
history, reminds us that this “hackneyed passage is an interpolation
of a Kentish scribe in the eleventh century”. Still, though we may not
quote it as a first-rate authority, there seems no reason for rejecting
it altogether.
[55] _Hist. Eccl._, i., 34.
[56] Or as the Saxon chronicler quaintly puts it, “that if Welshmen
would not be kith and kin (sibbe) with us they should by Saxon hands
perish”.
[57] We may probably conjecture that the rapid far-reaching campaigns
of early English kings, such as Ethelfrid, were rendered possible by
the still solid condition of the great Roman roads, which in the Middle
Ages fell grievously into decay. Thus even the civilisation of the
Roman empire fought for the barbarians.
[58] This remark was made by Professor Freeman.
[59] In telling this story Bede hints that Paulinus received by
supernatural means the particulars of an earlier supernatural
appearance; but he does not put forward this theory very confidently,
and we may, perhaps, sufficiently account for the incident if we
suppose that Paulinus himself, unknown at that time to Edwin, was the
chief actor in the first scene, the memory of which he revived at an
opportune time to strengthen the wavering faith of the king.
[60] It must be remembered that this is the Anglian version of the
story, possibly unjust to Cadwallon, and that the Britons had the
wrongs of two centuries to avenge.
[61] Skene, _Celtic Scotland_, ii., 89.
[62] By Skene, _u.s._, ii., 63.
[63] Nennius (_Hist. Brit._, § 64) says “in bello Catscaul”. _Cat_
is an old English word for battle; _caul_ is probably corrupted from
_guaul_, the word elsewhere used by Nennius for the Roman wall (_cf._
§§ 23 and 38).
[64] _Brut y Tywysogion_, _s.a._, 681.
[65] “Urbs regia” (Bede, iii., 6); “urbs munitissima” (Simeon of
Durham, _Historia Regum_, § 48).
[66] Generally identified with Oswestry (Oswald’s tree) in Shropshire.
[67] By Freeman: _Norman Conquest_, i., 36 (3rd ed.).
[68] Except parts of Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire surrounding
Dorchester.
[69] “A viro gentili nomine Ricberto” (Bede, _Hist. Ecc._, ii., 15).
[70] In some way which is not explained, Ethelhere was himself “the
author of the war”. Possibly as suggested by Mr. Bates (_Archæologia
Aeliana_, xix., 182–91), his marriage with a great niece of Edwin gave
him some claim to the throne of Deira.
[71] That of Swithelm.
[72] The whole of this story about the so-called Dalfinus, Archbishop
of Lyons, as related by Wilfrid’s biographer is encompassed with
historical difficulties. See Bright’s _Early English Church History_,
pp. 218 ff. (3rd ed.).
[73] An attempt to arrange the recurrences of Easter in a cycle of 19
years.
[74] The southern Irish conformed in 634; the northern Irish in 692;
the northern Picts, 710; the monks of Iona, 716; the Britons in Wales,
768.
[75] Chiefly Celtic. See Bright’s _Early English Church History_, p.
237, n. 2.
[76] For the reasons for dating Oswy’s death in 671 rather than a year
earlier according to the text of Bede, see Plummer’s note on _H. E._,
iv., 5.
[77] Hagustald.
[78] In Hrypum.
[79] This is Eddius’ account of the transaction. According to Bede a
dispute arose between Egfrid and Wilfrid. The latter was deposed and
then his diocese was divided.
[80] Site not known.
[81] P. 174.
[82] The identification of this place with Wanborough, near Swindon, is
disproved by Stevenson (_Eng. Hist. Rev._, xvii., 638).
[83] _Gesta Regum Anglorum_, i., 35 (first recension).
[84] Weorthige.
[85] Gaers-tun.
[86] Gedal-land. Mr. Seebohm translates “land divided into strips”.
[87] There is evidently an omission of some such words.
[88] Vinogradoff, _The Growth of the Manor_, p. 150.
[89] The nature of the difference between the tun and the ham has
perhaps yet to be discovered. For brevity’s sake the former word only
will be used in the following discussion. Neither “town” nor “township”
is a quite satisfactory translation.
[90] The theory that place-names containing the element _ing_
necessarily points to a settlement by a community, though generally
accepted, is contested by Prof. Earle and Mr. Stevenson, who consider
that _ing_ is sometimes merely the equivalent of the genitive singular
(_Eng. Hist. Rev._, iv., 356).
[91] Such as those in Seebohm’s _Village Community_.
[92] By Vinogradoff, _l.c._, 176; compare also Maitland, _Domesday Book
and Beyond_, p. 337.
[93] _Germania_, xxvi.
[94] From _caruca_, a plough. There is a general correspondence between
the two terms hide and carucate, but it would not be safe to treat them
as always precisely equivalent to one another.
[95] The size of a hide might partly depend on the nature of the soil.
Obviously in some soils a team of six oxen would accomplish a much
larger day’s work than in others. Kemble, _The Saxons in England_, i.,
101, argues for a hide of about 33 acres.
[96] From _virga_ = a yard.
[97] For convenience of reference the following table is appended,
but it must be remembered that these are rather average results than
scientifically exact formulæ. See Vinogradoff, _Villainage in England_,
p. 239, for varying sizes of Hides, Virgates and Bovates.
1 Bovate or Ox-gang = 15 acres.
2 Bovates = 1 Virgate or Yard-land = 30 acres.
8 Bovates or 4 Virgates = 1 Carucate or Hide = 120 acres.
[98] As alleged by Mr. Seebohm.
[99] The laws of Ine which speak of the subjection of a free man to a
lord are 3, 21, 27, 39, 67 and 74.
[100] Law 43.
[101] Law 16. _Ceorles birele_ evidently means a ceorl’s female slave.
[102] Vinogradoff (_Growth of the Manor_, 202) minimises the element
of personal slavery in the early Anglo-Saxon community: “Even in the
earliest stage of English life it could not be said that English
society was a slave-holding one.... Slavery turns out not to be a
fit economic and social basis for a primitive, half-agricultural,
half-pastural society: the slaves are difficult to keep and awkward to
deal with.... They are mostly provided with small households of their
own and used as coloni.”
[103] Ine, 70. The _amber_ is said to have contained four bushels, but
Maitland (_Domesday Book_, etc., p. 440, n. 6) doubts its having been
so large.
[104] Ine, 11, 12.
[105] There seems to have been a tendency as legislation advanced to
increase the distance in respect of _wergilds_ between the king and his
subjects.
[106] Chadwick, _Anglo-Saxon Institutions_, pp. 144–48.
[107] See Chadwick, chapter viii., for references on this point.
[108] Chadwick (_Excursus_, iv.) takes a different view and practically
denies the elective power of the _witan_.
[109] There are some indications that in early times the shilling of
Wessex may have contained only 4 peningas.
[110] Heinrich Leo.
[111] This name, or rather Cruland, was afterwards corrupted into
Croyland.
[112] Ep. 73 (Mon. Hist. Germ., Epist. iii., 340).
[113] It is now recognised that the dates in the Chronicle from 754 to
851 are two, or in some cases three years behind the true dates.
[114] The words from Haerethaland which follow in the text are thought
by Steenstrup (_Normannerne_, ii., 15–20) to be an interpolation. In
the following chapters the example of the Chronicle will generally be
followed, in calling the Scandinavian invaders Danes, without entering
on the debated question which of them came from Denmark proper and
which from Norway.
[115] See Keary, _The Vikings in Western Christendom_, pp. 139–42.
[116] _Here_ is simply the Anglo-Saxon equivalent for army; but in the
Chronicle it almost invariably means the Danish army, while _fyrd_ is
the word used for the English troops, which were in the nature of a
militia.
[117] This fact has been especially emphasised by Freeman, _Norman
Conquest_, i., 43–45.
[118] This date, as will be seen, is not that of his original burial,
which probably took place near the beginning of July, 862, but the
date of the “translation” of his remains to the cathedral, which was
accomplished more than a century later.
[119] Stubbs, _Const. Hist._, i., 249, and 258.
[120] The translation of some of the terms used is conjectural.
[121] _Liber Pontificalis_, ii., 148 (ed. Duchesne).
[122] This restoration of the Schola Saxonum rests only on the
authority of William of Malmesbury, and is doubted, but hardly
disproved, by Mr. Stevenson in his edition of Asser, pp. 245–46.
Notwithstanding the high authority of Monseigneur Duchesne, quoted
by Mr. Stevenson, it does not seem to me probable that the _scholæ
peregrinorum_ were essentially military establishments, though they may
have assumed somewhat of that character under the stress of the Saracen
invasions in the ninth century.
[123] Charles the Bald was at this time thirty-two years of age.
Ethelwulf cannot have been less than fifty and may have been
considerably older.
[124] The reader is referred to the Appendix for an account of the
controversies which have arisen respecting this book. It is enough
to say here that we seem to be justified in accepting it as a
contemporary, and in the main a truthful account of the life of the
great king. It ends, however, with the year 887.
[125] Tunc ille statim tollens librum de manu sua magistrum adiit et
legit. Quo lecto matri retulit et recitavit.--Asser, _De Rebus Gestis
Aelfredi_, § 23.
[126] As Mr. Stevenson suggests, if _et_ be a copyist’s mistake for
_qui_ (both represented by contractions), the difficulty would vanish.
[127] This is pointed out by Mr. Oman in “Collected Essays” in _Alfred
the Great_.
[128] Florence of Worcester’s words (borrowed from St. Edmund’s
earliest biographer Abbo), “Ex antiquorum Saxonum prosapia oriundus,”
seem, according to the usage of the time, to refer to the Old Saxons
of the continent. If he had meant merely to say “from an old Saxon
family,” he would probably have said “antiqua” rather than “antiquorum”.
[129] _Studies in Church Dedications_ (ii., 327), by Miss
Arnold-Forster.
[130] In describing the events of this year the writer follows the
guidance of the late Mr. W. H. Simcox, who personally identified most
of the battle-sites, and the results of whose investigations are
contained in an excellent paper in the _English Historical Review_, i.,
218–34.
[131] The title of the Danish battle leaders, next in rank to the king.
[132] On philological grounds Mr. Stevenson disputes the propriety of
this translation and asserts that Aesc must be the name of a person.
The present appearance of Ashdown Hills seems, however, to correspond
admirably with Asser’s description. It is better not to complicate the
discussion by an argument derived from the strange figure of a White
Horse (so-called) cut upon their northern side, as that figure, with
all its picturesque interest, is not a safe guide to a historical
identification.
[133] At this point the _Chronicle of St. Neots_, a late and
untrustworthy authority written perhaps early in the twelfth century,
inserts the well-known story of the burning of the cakes, which does
not form part of the genuine text of Asser’s _Life_.
[134] The site of this fortress has been much discussed but is not yet
satisfactorily settled. See Stevenson’s _Asser_, p. 262.
[135] Edington in Wiltshire, a little east of Westbury. Near this place
is another White Horse, at Bratton Castle, but we have not sufficient
evidence to connect this with Alfred’s victory.
[136] This was pointed out half a century ago by Dr. Reinhold Schmid,
the accurate German editor of the Anglo-Saxon laws.
[137] It is interesting to note that the Watling Street is still the
chief boundary between the counties of Warwick and Leicester. Through a
large part of its course the London and North Western Railway so nearly
coincides with this old Roman road that the traveller faring northwards
may consider himself to be looking forth from the right-hand window
over the “Danelaw” and from the left over “Saxony”.
[138] The value of the mark of pure gold is not yet clearly
ascertained. Mr. Chadwick (_Studies in Anglo-Saxon Institutions_,
p. 50) argues from this passage that a single mark of gold = 300
scillings, and that the fine hereby imposed was 1,200 scillings, equal
to the wergild of a West Saxon noble. But in that case one would
have expected to have some more distinct indication of rank than is
contained in the words “gif man ofslagen weorthe”.
[139] For some valuable suggestions on the mysterious subject of
Alfred’s diseases see Plummer’s _Life and Times of Alfred the Great_,
pp. 28, 214.
[140] Plummer, _Two Saxon Chronicles_, ii., civ.
[141] Quotations are given from Mr. Sedgefield’s translation, which
has the great merit of distinguishing Alfred’s interpolations by a
different type from the original text.
[142] Against the genuineness of the passage are its omission from Ã,
the earliest and best MS. of the Chronicle, from Asser, and from the
original text of Florence of Worcester. See Stevenson, _Asser_, pp.
287–90.
[143] Professor Vinogradoff in his essay on Folkland contributed to the
_English Historical Review_, vol. viii.; further illustrated by his
_Growth of the Manor_.
[144] “Terra popularis, communi jure et sine scripto possessa.” This
was Spelman’s definition (1626), and Vinogradoff shows good ground for
reverting to it with a slight modification, instead of adopting Allen’s
theory that the folkland was land owned by the nation like the _ager
publicus_ of Rome.
[145] See Cnut’s laws, ii., 13.
[146] Kemble, _Codex Diplomaticus_, No. 317; Birch, _Cartularium
Saxonicum_, No. 558.
[147] Not 893–97 as Chronicle.
[148] Earle, _Two Saxon Chronicles_ (1865), p. xvi.
[149] _Reginonis Chronicon_, _a._ 891.
[150] In _Eng. Hist. Rev._ (1898), xiii., 444, Mr. W. C. Abbott argues
that Hasting is possibly identical with Hásteinn, one of the first
settlers of Iceland.
[151] Probably; but the Chronicle gives the date 901, and Mr.
Stevenson, _Eng. Hist. Rev._ (1898), xiii., 71, argues strongly for 899.
[152] _Words and Places_, pp. 175–76.
[153] Might it not be added “and from the Humber?”
[154] _The Northmen in Cumberland and Westmorland_ (1856).
[155] Edward’s reign probably lasted from 900 to 924, but owing to
discrepancies between the MSS. of the Chronicles no date in the reign
can be stated with certainty, the differences varying from one to three
years.
[156] Offa calls it his _palatium regale_ in one of his charters
(Birch, _Cart. Sax._, 240).
[157] Especially Freeman, whose words are quoted in the rest of this
paragraph. But see also for a later vindication of the correctness of
the chronicler’s statement, Plummer, _Saxon Chronicles_, ii., 131.
[158] _Historical Essays_, i., 60, 62.
[159] _Norman Conquest_, i., 59.
[160] Robertson, Skene and Lang.
[161] Robertson, _Scotland under her Early Kings_, ii., 397.
[162] It was pointed out in the _Athenæum_ for Nov. 4, 1905, that
this place rather than Farringdon, in Berkshire, corresponds with the
Farndune of the Chronicle.
[163] Adolf, son of Baldwin of Flanders.
[164] Heinskringla, _Story of Haarfager_, 41 and 42.
[165] It was probably at this time that Athelstan, as we learn from
William of Malmesbury, rased to the ground the fortress which the Danes
had aforetime built in York, “that there might be no place in which
these perfidious ones could take refuge,” and generously divided among
his men the vast booty which he found there.
[166] By Symeon of Durham, not by the Chronicle, which here is
singularly barren of information except such as is contained in the
“Lay of Brunanburh”.
[167] The twelfth century chronicler, Florence of Worcester, says
that with these ships he entered the Humber; and this statement has
been frequently copied by later historians. It is not, however, to be
found in any contemporary or nearly contemporary record, and it is
now generally regarded with suspicion, for the obvious reason that an
invader, coming from Ireland with the intention of co-operating with
the Kings of Cumberland and Scotland, would be more likely to land on
the western than on the eastern coast of Britain.
[168] Especially since it was turned into spirited yet closely literal
English verse by Tennyson, from whose poem a few passages are here
quoted.
[169] William of Malmesbury, _Gesta Regum_, ii., 135.
[170] _Ibid._, 134.
[171] Probably of the tenth century, therefore nearly contemporary.
[172] See Plummer, _Saxon Chronicles_, ii., 137, and Freeman, _Hist.
Essays_, i., 10–15, for a full discussion of the question.
[173] See Birch, _Cartularium Saxonicum_, 656.
[174] Possibly Chesterfield.
[175] _Life of Dunstan_, by B. (a Saxon monk, nearly contemporary).
[176] The celebrated story of the Devil and the hot tongs is not told
by any contemporary of Dunstan’s, but by the much-romancing Osbern
about 130 years after his death. The identical pair of tongs with which
the saint is said to have seized the Devil’s nose is still shown at the
priory of Mayfield in Sussex.
[177] An excellent summing up of the whole case will be found in E. W.
Robertson’s _Historical Essays_, p. 192.
[178] The short reign of Edwy furnishes 150 pages to the _Cartularium
Saxonicum_.
[179] The Chronicle and the biographers agree in postponing Dunstan’s
return till after Edgar’s accession to the undivided realm, but his
signatures to charters seem to require an earlier date.
[180] See Robertson’s, _Historical Essays_, p. 211.
[181] As pointed out by Mr. W. H. Stevenson in the _English Historical
Review_ (1898), xiii., 506, an important attestation to the meeting
of the kings (though not to the water procession) is furnished by the
ecclesiastical author Elfric, himself a contemporary of Edgar and a
pupil and friend of bishop Ethelwold. In his poetical _Life of St.
Swithin_, written about 996, he contrasts the happy days of Edgar with
the disastrous reign of his son, and says: “All the kings of this
island of Cymri and of Scots, eight kings, came to Edgar once upon a
time on one day and they all bowed to Edgar’s government”.
[182] Robertson’s _Historical Essays_, p. 203.
[183] _Ibid._, p. 169.
[184] As stated by Robertson, _ibid._, p. 168.
[185] See Freeman’s _Historical Essays_, first series, 15–25, for a
refutation of the legend of Elfrida’s marriage.
[186] See Robertson’s _Historical Essays_, pp. 166–71. There is no
evidence that Elfrida shared her husband’s coronation, but she is the
first king’s wife after Judith to sign charters as _Regina_.
[187] Kemble’s _Codex Diplomaticus_, 700.
[188] Especially by Sir H. Howorth, _Archæologia_, xlv., 235–50.
[189] The following passages are almost all taken from the Peterborough
version of the Chronicle which was based for this part of the narrative
on a Canterbury Chronicle. Hence, doubtless, the fulness of the entries
relating to Kent.
[190] Now corrupted into Skutchamfly Barrow, eight and a half miles
from the White Horse in Berkshire.
[191] The term Danegeld seems to be properly applicable to the tax
imposed on the king’s subjects in order to provide for the payment
to the Danes. The payment itself is generally called _gafol_ in the
Chronicle.
[192] It is stated in Ethelred’s Treaty with Olaf (Liebermann, i.,
220–228) that the sum promised to the invaders was “22,000 pounds of
gold and silver”. The document is, on other grounds, an interesting
one, as it seems to show a serious effort to secure permanent peace
between the two nations.
[193] Stubbs’ _Constitutional History_, i., 118, 623.
[194] Freeman, _Hist. of Norm. Conq._, i., 279.
[195] Admirably told to English-speaking readers in Longfellow’s “Saga
of King Olaf,” which is, in fact, a paraphrase of this part of the
_Heimskringla_.
[196] The name of this well-known historical personage was undoubtedly
Knut or Cnut. It is so written both in the Scandinavian _Sagas_ and in
the English Chronicle. But the Latinised form Canutus preserves the
remembrance of a helping vowel which may have been often used, even by
contemporaries, at least in England. At this day the Danish name Knothe
is always pronounced Kinnoté in Northumberland. The important point is
to remember that the accent is on the last syllable: Canúte, not Cánute.
[197] In Hampshire, near Portsmouth.
[198] This is Freeman’s suggestion, _Norman Conquest_, i., 415.
[199] This also is Freeman’s suggestion (_u.s._, i., 411).
[200] See Freeman, _u.s._, i., 737–40.
[201] As suggested by J. R. Green, _Conquest of England_, 479.
[202] Author of the tract, _De Obsessione Dunelmi_, added to the
history of Symeon of Durham.
[203] See _supra_, p. 396.
[204] In the reign of Indulph (954–962) according to a Pictish
chronicle quoted by Skene, _Celtic Scotland_, i., 365.
[205] It does not appear necessary to discuss the previous question of
the alleged “cession of Lothian” by Edgar, the evidence for which is
very slender.
[206] As to this identification, see Skene, _Celtic Scotland_, i., 397,
405–6.
[207] Certainly not 1031, as stated in the Chronicle. Canute’s presence
at Conrad’s coronation makes this date impossible. So considerable an
error throws doubt on the chronological accuracy of, at any rate, this
part of the Chronicle.
[208] In Scania, which then belonged to Denmark.
[209] This story of the forged letter is taken from the author of
the _Encomium Emmæ_, who, as a contemporary, and as one who actually
conversed with Queen Emma, seems to be entitled to credence,
notwithstanding some strange misstatements, due, perhaps, rather to
insincerity than to ignorance.
[210] Mr. Plummer (_Saxon Chronicles_, ii., 210–15) argues that
Godwine’s hostile action towards the Etheling was taken in the interest
not of Harold but of Harthacnut.
[211] Freeman, _Norman Conquest_, i., 489–501 and 779–87.
[212] Son of Uhtred and nephew of Eadwulf Cutel.
[213] Or _Leges Mar chiarum_, a digest of which was published in 1705
by William Nicolson, Bishop of Carlisle (a later edition in 1747).
[214] It is perhaps not a mere coincidence that some even of the
special terms of the _Leges Marchiarum_ are also to be found in the
laws of Edgar and Ethelred. Such are _foul_ or _ful_ for “guilty,” and
_trod_ for the track of a stolen beast.
[215] Compare Vinogradoff, _The Growth of the Manor_, p. 144; Chadwick,
_Anglo-Saxon Institutions_, 239–48, and the remarkable article by Mr.
W. J. Corbett in vol. xiv. of _Transactions of the Royal Historical
Society_, N.S., on the “Tribal Hidage”.
[216] Cnut, ii., 15 (in Liebermann, i., 320).
[217] Rutland was not, however, formed into a separate county till
after the Norman Conquest.
[218] Edgar, iii., 5 (_ibid._, 202).
[219] _Burg_ is, of course, one of the best-known words of the common
Teutonic stock. It is enshrined in Luther’s hymn “Ein’ feste Burg ist
unser Gott,” and in hunting for the traces of Roman encampments in
Hesse and Nassau, I have found that the name by which they are best
known in the countryside is “Die alte Burg”.
[220] Ine, 45 (Liebermann, i., 108); Alfred, 40 (_ibid._, 72).
[221] Maitland, _Domesday Book_, etc., p. 184.
[222] IV., 2, 4 and 5 (Liebermann, i., 210).
[223] If Ethelfled’s fortress of Scergeat may be identified with
Shrewsbury.
[224] As Freeman puts it: “I believe the cause of this distinction
[between Somerset and Northamptonshire] to be that West Saxon England
was made only once, while Mercian England had to be made twice” (“The
Shire and the Gâ” in _English Towns and Districts_, p. 124).
[225] Some of these names are probably contained in that curious
document, the Tribal Hidage, on which Mr. Corbett has commented in
_Transactions of the Royal Historical Society_, vol. xiv., N.S.
[226] See Chadwick, _Anglo-Saxon Institutions_, 262.
[227] If any exception is to be made to this statement it will be with
reference to the half-independent earls of Bamburgh.
[228] The _wers_ are calculated in the Scandinavian or, perhaps,
Northumbrian money, the _thrymsas_, each equivalent to three penings.
[229] See Vinogradoff (_The Growth of the Manor_, p. 131) on this
illustration of “the arrogant superiority of the Danish conquerors”.
He remarks on the growth of the pretensions of the invaders since the
treaty between Alfred and Guthrum which put the Northmen warriors only
on the same level as the twelf-hyndmen, or ordinary thegns.
[230] Schmid, p. 371; Liebermann, p. 444.
[231] This is Professor Vinogradoff’s view, _Growth of the Manor_, p.
233.
[232] Edward, i., 1 (Liebermann, i., 138).
[233] Edgar, iv., 3 (Liebermann, i., 210). This law is important as it
helps us clearly to distinguish between _burh_, a borough, and _borh_,
an association for mutual defence and for the enforcement of mutual
responsibility.
[234] Cnut, ii., 20 (_ibid._, i., 322).
[235] Ethelred, viii., 22 (Liebermann, i., 266).
[236] See Maitland, _Domesday Book_, etc., p. 260. He thinks it
probable that many grants of similar privileges of an earlier date have
perished.
[237] The German _sache_, preserved in our expression “for God’s sake,”
and the like (Maitland, _Domesday Book_, etc., p. 84).
[238] _Sco ealde Hlaefdige_ is the term used in the Chronicle to
describe the queen-dowager. It will be remembered that there was in
Wessex a peculiar distaste to the title “Queen”.
[239] By Freeman, _Norman Conquest_, ii., 124–25 and 615.
[240] For some years the county of Huntingdon was strangely added to
Northumbria as a portion of his earldom. For the complicated question
of the limits of the earldoms under Edward, see Freeman, _Norman
Conquest_, vol. ii., note G.
[241] Freeman, _u.s._
[242] _Welisce menn._--Of course the word Wealas and its derivations
meant simply non-Teutonic and had no necessary connexion with the
British population of what we now call Wales.
[243] Some doubt has been thrown on the early connexion of Godwine with
Kent.
[244] “_Mycelne ende thes folces_,” says the Peterborough chronicler;
“thirty good thegns,” say the Abingdon and Worcester chroniclers,
“besides other folk.”
[245] Literally “had raised up un-law and deemed un-dooms”.
[246] This is Mr. Plummer’s excellent suggestion for the interpretation
of a passage in the Chronicle which had previously baffled the
commentators.
[247] It must always be remembered that we have nothing but bare
conjecture to go upon for the date of Harold’s visit to Normandy. There
are some reasons for placing it much earlier than 1064.
[248] Freeman, _Norman Conquest_, iii., 300.
[249] The following description of this battle is taken for the most
part from the Saga of Harold Hardrada in the Heimskringla, and has no
doubt a good deal of the character of fiction.
[250] Wace (ed. Malet, p. 60), who gives the number on his father’s
report.
[251] Wace, author of the _Roman de Rou_. The question of the existence
of this “palisade” has been discussed at great length by Mr. Round who
denies, and by Mr. Archer and Miss Norgate who affirm, its existence
(see _English Historical Review_, vol. ix., 1894). The question remains
full of difficulty, the doubt being whether to attach most weight to
the obscure utterance of one writer or to the silence of many. The
conclusion to which the present writer is disposed to come is that
there was some sort of hastily constructed fence, meant as a protection
against cavalry, but that in the actual battle, which was waged chiefly
between opposing bodies of infantry, it played an unimportant part and
may have been soon thrust out of the way, as much by the defenders as
by the assailants of the position.
[252] Made by Baring, _Eng. Hist. Rev._, vol. xx., 1905.
[253] After the death of Osred in 716 the genealogy of the Northumbrian
kings becomes uncertain.
[254] The pedigree of all these kings is uncertain. All that can be
said of them is that “their right ancestry goeth to Cerdic”.
INDEX.
Abercorn (Aebbercurnig), 192.
Abingdon, monastery at, 355, 419.
Acha of Deira, wife of Ethelfrid, 133, 153.
Adamnan, Abbot of Iona, 148, 151, 157.
Adela, daughter of William the Norman, 469, 476.
Adminius, son of Cymbeline, 28.
Adolf, son of Baldwin of Flanders, 330.
Ad Murum, royal villa at, 169, 175.
_Aelfredes and Guthrumes Frith_, 286–288.
Aelfric, Archbishop of Canterbury, 452.
Aelle, King of Deira, 94, 115, 133, 135, 171.
Aelle, King of Sussex, 89, 90, 110, 126.
Aesc, King of Kent, 88, 89.
“_Aestel_,” clasp or bookmarker? 292.
Aetius, 96, 97.
Agatha, wife of Etheling Edward, 461.
Agatho, Pope, 203.
Agilbert, Bishop, 182, 183, 193, 196.
Agricola, Calpurnius, 58.
Agricola, Gnæus Julius, conquers Ordovices, 47;
fortifies North of England, 50;
his Caledonian campaign, 50;
recalled to Rome, 50.
Aidan, King of the Scots, 133, 134, 148.
Aidan, missionary bishop, 155–169, 181, 182, 198.
Albinus, Abbot of Canterbury, 86.
Albinus, British usurper defeated at Lyons, 59.
Albion, 6, 9.
Alchfleda, daughter of Oswy, 168.
Alchfrid, son of Oswy, 168, 170–172, 180, 182, 183.
Alclyde. See Dumbarton, 130, 246.
Alcuin, Northumbrian scholar, 237, 252, 258, 498.
Aldfrid the Learned, 208.
Aldgyth, daughter of Elfgar, 467, 471.
Aldhelm, Abbot of Malmesbury, 178, 241.
Aldhun, Bishop of Lindisfarne, first Bishop of Durham, 406–408.
Alexander II., Pope, blesses Norman invasion, 476.
Alfhild, mother of Magnus of Norway, 444.
Alfred the Great, King of the English, birth (in 848?) at Wantage,
272;
journey to Rome (in 853), 272;
(in 855), 268, 273;
story of the book of poetry given to him, 273;
“secundarius” under his brother Ethelred, 275;
fights with the Danes at Ashdown, 279;
his accession to the throne (871), 281;
in hiding at Athelney, 283;
conquers the Danes, peace with Guthrum, 285;
renewed fighting and peace with Guthrum, 287;
family life, 289;
feeble health, 290;
literary culture, 291;
translation of the _Regula Pastoralis_, 292;
of Orosius, 293;
his connection with the _Saxon Chronicle_, 295;
translation of Bede’s _Ecclesiastical History_, 295;
of Boethius, 296;
expenditure, 298;
mission to India? 299;
laws, 299–395;
last wars with the Danes (892–896), 306–313;
death, 314;
buried in the New Minster, 314.
Alfred, an ealdorman, 304.
Alfred, son of Ethelred the Redeless, 386, 392, 418–420.
Alfwin, King of Deira, 191, 202.
Alfwold, defender of monks, 361.
Allectus, assassinates Carausius, 65;
slain by Constantius Chlorus, 66.
Aller, Guthrum baptised at, 285.
Alphege (or Elfheah), Archbishop, 384, 389, 390.
_Amber_, a measure, perhaps four bushels, 226.
Ambrosius, Aurelianus, 98, 99, 102, 103, 107.
Ammianus Marcellinus, historian, 52, 72, 73, 495.
Anastasius, anti-pope, 269.
Anatolius, cycle of, 185.
Anderida (Andredesceaster), 89, 110, 138, 483.
Andover, treaty with Danes at, 384.
Andraste, Celtic goddess, 40.
Andredesleag, or Andredesweald, forest of, 89, 177, 308.
Angles, 79–81, 114, 157.
Anglesey, or Mona, 35, 38, 47, 131, 138.
_Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, 87–94, 245–482 _passim_, 498–500, 505.
Anglo-Saxon money, 232–235.
Anjou, origin of Counts of, 370.
Anlaf, King of Irish Danes, 333.
Anlaf, son of Guthred, 332.
Anlaf, son of Sihtric, 333, 340.
Anna, King of East Anglia, 162–164, 174, 176.
_Annales Cambriæ_, 100, 506.
Antoninus Pius, Emperor, builds a wall of turf, 58, 94, 334.
Apollinaris Sidonius, Bishop of Clermont, 71, 84, 106.
Appach, on Cæsar’s British Expeditions, 24.
Appledore, Cæsar’s landing-place? 24;
Danish attacks, 307, 308.
Arcadius, Emperor, 72.
Archbishop of Mercia at Lichfield, 250.
Ari, an Icelandic scholar, 504.
Armorica. See Brittany.
Arnulf, King of the Franks, 306.
Arnulf the Old, Count of Flanders, 352, 369.
Arpad the Hungarian, 258.
Arthur, or Artorius, 104, 105, 107, 132.
Asclepiodotus, Pretorian Prefect, 66 n.
Ashdown (Aescesdune), 178, 278.
“Ashes,” Danish ships, 312.
Assandune, battle of, 383, 397.
Asser, Alfred’s biographer, 255, 272, 277, 284 n., 291, 292, 500.
Athelney, island of, 283, 284, 291, 295.
Athelstan, son of Edward the Elder (924–940), 328;
connection with rulers of France and Germany, 330;
friendship with Scandinavian powers, 331;
“lord of all Britain,” 332, 333;
battle of Brunanburh, 334–336;
his person and character, 337;
prayer of, 338;
death and burial, 338;
laws of, 425, 438.
Athelstan, Bishop of Hereford, 466.
Athelstan, son of Egbert, 265.
Athelstan, the half-king, 347, 352.
Athelstan, West Saxon almoner, 299.
_Ath-fultum_, or oath-helping, 229.
Atrebates, British tribe, 10.
Attacotti, allies of Picts and Scots, 68.
Attila, his raids a possible cause of Saxon migration, 97, 107, 109,
112.
Augustine, his mission, 118–125.
Augustine’s Oak, conference at, 123.
Avonmouth, 455.
Aylesbury (Aegelesburh), 92.
Aylesford, battle of, 88.
Avalon, vale of, 178.
Axminster (Ascanmynster), 74.
Badbury (Baddanburh), Ethelwald’s rebellion begins at, 319.
Badon. See Mount Badon.
Bagseg, Danish king, 279.
Bakewell (Badecanwiellon), 323, 326.
Baldred, King of Kent, 264.
Baldwin I. of Flanders marries Judith, widow of King Ethelbald, 274.
Baldwin II. of Flanders marries Elfrida, daughter of Alfred, 289.
Baldwin V. of Flanders, 418, 420, 450, 455, 471.
Baldwin’s land, 445, 450, 451, 455, 458, 477.
Bamburgh (Bebbanburh), built by Ida, 94, 132, 133, 153, 154, 175,
247, 281, 332, 408.
Bangor, monastery in Flint, 122, 124, 135.
Barbury (Beranbyrig), battle of, 91.
Bardney (Beardanig), monastery of, 159, 173.
_Basileus_, Athelstan’s title, 336, 339.
Basing, Danish victory at, 280.
Bass, a thegn of Edwin, 145.
Bates, Cadwallader J., 132, 170 n.
Bath (Bathanceaster), 92, 356, 392.
Battle Abbey, 490, 491.
Bayeux, Tapestry of, 468, 475, 484, 469, 488, 491, 506.
Beaurain, Harold, imprisoned at, 468.
Beddoe, Dr. John, 493.
Bede, the Venerable, 82, 85, 86, 88 n., 90, 114, 117 n., 120, 125,
133, 141 n., 156, 187, 189, 237–240, 497.
Bedford (Bedcanford), 92, 323.
Belgæ, a British tribe, 10, 91.
Belisarius, scoffing allusion to Britain, 113.
Benedict Biscop, 237, 238.
Benedictines, 115, 148, 155, 195, 354.
Benedict III., Pope, 269.
Benfleet (Beamfleot), Danish fort at, 309.
Bensington, Offa’s victory over Wessex at, 250.
Beorn, son of Ulf, 448, 450, 451.
Beorthelm, Archbishop, 352.
Beorhtric, King of Wessex, 254.
Beornwulf usurps the throne of Wessex, 264.
Beowulf, poem of, 228.
Bericus, an exiled British prince, 30.
Berkshire, the wood of Berroc, 272.
Bernhaeth, a leader of the Picts, 191.
Bernicia, kingdom of, 80, 94, 130–132, 134, 137, 160, 171, 179, 247,
281, 332, 408, 422.
Bertha, daughter of Charlemagne, negotiations for her marriage with
Ecgferth, son of Offa, 252.
Bertha, wife of Ethelbert of Kent, 117, 121, 127, 139.
Berthfrid, regent of Bernicia, besieged in Bamburgh, 210.
Bertwald, Archbishop of Canterbury, 211, 219.
Bewcastle Cross, 172.
Bideford Bay, Danes defeated at, 284.
Billingsley, conference at, 466.
Birinus, apostle of Wessex, 158, 161, 162, 179.
Birch, _Cartularium Saxonicum_, 338 n., 508.
Blois, Counts of, 370.
Boadicea (Boudicca), Queen of the Iceni, 40, 42, 43.
Boduni, a British tribe, 31.
Boethius’ _Consolation of Philosophy_, translated by Alfred, 296, 297.
Boniface, Archdeacon, Wilfrid’s teacher, 184.
Boniface (Wynfrith), apostle of the Germans, 203, 236, 237, 248, 250,
498.
Boniface V., Pope, 141.
“Bookland,” 304.
Border of Scotland fixed, 409.
_Borh_, association, 439.
Bosham, 450, 455, 468.
Bothgowanan, Duncan murdered at, 462.
Boulogne (Gesoriacum), 23, 64, 65, 67, 307, 418.