“E prœlio lapsus,” says William of Jumièges; “vix elapsus,” according
to William of Malmesbury; while, in William of Poitiers, it rises to
“turpissimè elapsus.”
Footnote 798:
“Cum magno equitatu,” says William of Poitiers (81).
Footnote 799:
The description given by William of Poitiers (u. s.) is remarkable;
“Brionium ... contendit. Oppidum hoc, quum loci naturâ, tum opere
inexpugnabile videbatur. Nam, præter alia firmamenta, quæ moliri
consuevit belli necessitudo, aulam habet lapideam arcis usum
pugnantibus præbentem, quam fluvius Risela nullo quidem tractu vadi
impatiens circumfluit.” This seems to show that the town had
fortifications of its own; and this again suggests the question, what
was the state of the point overhanging the town where the present
castle stands? The “aula lapidea” is a singular expression, seeming,
together with the words which follow, to imply something different
from the ordinary donjon, though capable of being put to purposes of
defence,—a crenellated house, as it might have been called in later
days. “Lapidea,” because an “aula” would doubtless be often of wood,
while “arces” were of stone.
Footnote 800:
See above, p. 206.
Footnote 801:
Will. Pict. u. s. “Castella utrimque ad ripas fluminis bipartiti
opponens.” So Will. Gem. “Stabilitis munitionibus in utrâque parte
fluminis vocabulo Risle.”
Footnote 802:
Will. Pict. 81. “Oppugnatione diurnâ territans.”
Footnote 803:
William of Poitiers merely says “postremò.” Orderic (687 B), in
describing the speedy capture of Brionne by Duke Robert in 1090, says,
“Sic Robertus Dux ab horâ nonâ Brionnam ante solis occasum obtinuit,
quam Guillelmus pater ejus, cum auxilio Henrici Francorum Regis, sibi
_vix in tribus annis_ subigere potuit, dum Guido filius Rainaldi
Burgundionis post prœlium Vallisdunensis illic præsidium sibi
statuit.” But there is nothing in any other writer to imply that Guy
held out for any such length of time, and it seems quite inconsistent
with the account of William of Jumièges. Moreover it is clear that
Henry took no part in the siege; “Quem [Guidonem] Dux, Rege Franciam
repetente, propere insequutus,” &c. (Will. Gem. vii. 17.)
Footnote 804:
Will. Pict. u. s. “Motus Dux consanguinitate, supplicitate, miseriâ
victi, non acerbiùs vindicavit. Recepto castro, in curiâ suâ commanere
eum concessit.” So Will. Gem. u. s.; “Dux, suorum consultu, miseriæ
misertus, clementer illi pepercit, et, recepto castello Brioci, cum
suis domesticis eum manere in domo suâ jussit.”
Footnote 805:
Will. Pict. u. s. “Supplicia item consociis, quæ capitalia ex æquo
irrogarentur, condonare maluit ob rationabiles caussas.” This distinct
statement cannot be shaken by the vastly inferior authority of Henry
of Huntingdon (M. H. B. p. 759 C), who says, “Quosdam exsulavit,
quosdam corpore minuit.”
Footnote 806:
See above, pp. 192–197, and compare the whole career of Eadric.
Footnote 807:
Compare the remarks of Palgrave, iii. 78.
Footnote 808:
William of Poitiers, speaking of a somewhat later stage of his life,
has the words (p. 93), “More suo illo optimo, rem optans absque cruore
confectum iri;” and he continues at length (94); “Monet equidem digna
ratio et hoc memoriæ prodere, quàm piâ continentiâ cædem semper
vitaverit, nisi bellicâ vi aut aliâ gravi necessitudine urgente.
Exsilio, carcere, _item aliâ animadversione quæ vitam non adimeret_,
ulcisci malebat: quos juxta ritum sive legum instituta cæteri
principes gladio absumunt, bello captos vel domi criminum capitalium
manifestos.” The words in Italics are clearly an euphemism for
mutilation, as we shall see by his conduct at Alençon. So the Abingdon
Chronicler (1076), speaking of his worst doings, tells us; “Sume hi
wurdon geblende, and sume wrecen of lande, and sume getawod to scande.
Þus wurdon þæs kyninges swican genyðerade.” Here is no mention of
capital punishment, save in the case of Waltheof only.
Footnote 809:
Will. Pict. 82. “Dein ad jussum ejus festinanter ac funditùs
destruxere munitiones novarum rerum studio constructas.” Will. Gem.
vii. 17. “Conspicientes itaque cuncti optimates qui deviârant à Ducis
fidelitate illum omne præsidium fugæ partìm destruxisse, partìm
interclusisse, datis obsidibus, rigida colla ei ut domino suo
subdidere. Sic castellis ubique eversis, nullus ultra ausus est contra
eum rebellem animum detegere.”
Footnote 810:
Will. Pict. u. s. “Nigellum _alio tempore_ [I do not understand this],
quoniam improbè offensabat, exsilio punitum fuisse comperio.” Wace
(9311) gives the place of his exile;
“Néel ne se pout acorder,
Ne el païz n’osa cunverser,
En Bretaigne fu lungement,
Ainz ke il fist acordement.”
Notwithstanding Wace’s “_lungement_,” he must have been restored in
the next year, when we find him consenting to certain grants to the
Abbey of Marmoutier which the Duke had made out of his estates in
Guernsey (insula quæ appellatur Grenesodium) during his banishment.
See the Charters in Delisle, Preuves, 21–25. By some evident slip of
dictation or copying, Neel is made in Palgrave, iii. 217, to defend
himself at Brionne instead of Guy. He died in 1092. Delisle, p. 24.
Footnote 811:
Will. Pict. u. s. “Guido in Burgundiam sponte rediit propter molestiam
probri. Ferre apud Normannos pigebat vilem se cunctis, odiosum esse
multis.”
Footnote 812:
Will. Pict. 82. Will. Malms. iii. 230. Mr. Thomas Roscoe, on the other
hand (History of William the Conqueror, p. 61), tells us that “at a
subsequent period he highly distinguished himself in the service of
the duke, and headed a large body of veteran troops at the famous
battle of Hastings.”
Footnote 813:
Roman de Rou, 9346;
“Se il le prist, il out raisun,
Kar il l’eust par traïsun,
Ce dist, à Valuignes murdri,
Quant un fol Golet l’en garni.”
Footnote 814:
Ib. 9362;
“A Baieues fu lors otréiée,
Quant l’iglise fu dediée,
De la terre Grimout partie
A Madame Sainte Marie,
Partie fu ki ke l’en die
Mise à chescun en l’abéie.”
See Pluquet and Taylor’s notes. The “abéie” must mean the cathedral
church, but it was a great sacrifice to the rhyme for one of its
canons to speak of it as an abbey. The grant of Plessis and other
possessions “Grimoldi perfidi” to Odo and his successors in the see of
Bayeux will be found in Gallia Christiana, xi. 64.
Footnote 815:
Will. Pict. 82. “Normanni superati semel universi colla subdidere
domino suo, atque obsides dedere plurimi.”
Footnote 816:
Ib. 113. “Ejus animadversione et legibus è Normanniâ sunt exterminati
latrones, homicidæ, malefici.... Caussam viduæ, inopis, pupilli, ipse
humiliter audiebat, misericorditer agebat, rectissimè definiebat. Ejus
æquitate reprimente iniquam cupiditatem vicini minùs valentis aut
limitem agri movere aut rem ullam usurpare, nec potens audebat
quisquam nec familiaris. Villæ, castra, urbes, jura per eum habebant
stabilia et bona.”
Footnote 817:
The dependence of Anjou on the Duchy of France is acknowledged in a
charter of Geoffrey Grisegonelle quoted in the _Art de Verifier les
Dates_, ii. 833. He calls himself “Gratiâ Dei, et Senioris Hugonis
largitione, Andegavensis Comes.”
Footnote 818:
On the Saxon occupation of Anjou, see Greg. Tur. ii. 18. Hist. Franc.
Epit. 1, 2.
Footnote 819:
On the Saxons of Seez, the _Saxones Diablintes_, see Stapleton, i.
xliii.
Footnote 820:
The history of the Counts of Anjou is given at length, but mixed up
with much legendary matter in the early parts, in the “Gesta Consulum
Andegavensium,” by an author of the time of Henry the Second, printed
in D’Achery’s Spicilegium, iii. 234. It is introduced by a most
curious fragment, namely a short Angevin history written or dictated
by Count Fulk, nephew and successor of Geoffrey Martel. A lay
historian is a phænomenon which we have not come across since the time
of our own Æthelweard, and it is not to be denied that the Count shows
much sounder sense, and a much nearer approach to historical
criticism, than the monk of Marmoutier. He had at least one advantage
in his princely rank, that he had nothing to gain by flattering his
own forefathers.
Footnote 821:
Gest. Cons. 235. “Datus est ei et dimidius comitatus Andegavis
civitatis ad defendendam regionem et urbem, sævisque prædonibus
oppositus est, et Comes ibi factus.” So in the fuller account in p.
239, which adds, “quia ultrà Meduanam in Andegavo alter Comes
habebatur.” The “sævi prædones” are explained to be Northmen and
Bretons.
Footnote 822:
The authors of the Art de Verifier les Dates (ii. 828), as also Sir F.
Palgrave (i. 502), place the enfeoffment of Ingelgar under Charles the
Bald in the year 870. But the story in the Gesta Consulum (238 et
seqq.) seems to make the reigning King to be Lewis the Stammerer.
Count Fulk himself (233) describes the benefactor of his ancestor as
“Rex Franciæ, non à genere _impii Philippi_, sed à prole Caroli
Calvi.” Fulk had excellent reasons for the epithet bestowed on Philip.
See Will. Malms. iii. 257.
Footnote 823:
Gest. Cons. 237. “Fuit vir quidam de Armoricâ Galliâ, nomine
Torquatius, genus cujus olim ab Armoricâ jussu Maximi Imperatoris à
Britonibus expulsum est. Iste à Britonibus, proprietatem vetusti ac
Romani nominis ignorantibus, corrupto vocabulo Tortulfus dictus fuit.”
We may be pretty sure that Tortulf, or something like it, of which his
son’s name Tertullus seems another and happier Latinization, was the
true name. Charles made Torquatius a forester, “illius forestæ quæ
Nidus-meruli nuncupatur.” The writer goes on to talk about Senators
and Emperors taken from the plough.
Footnote 824:
Gest. Cons. ib.
Footnote 825:
See vol. i. pp. 277, 278. The author of the Gesta Consulum becomes
eloquent on this head (p. 237); “Tempore enim Caroli Calvi complures
novi atque ignobiles, bono et honesto nobilibus potiores, clari et
magni effecti sunt. Quos enim appetentes gloriæ militaris
conspiciebat, periculis objectare et per eos fortunam temperare non
dubitabat. Erant enim illis diebus homines veteris prosapiæ
multarumque imaginum, qui acta majorum suorum, non sua, ostentabant;
qui quum ad aliquod grave officium mittebantur, aliquem è populo
monitorem sui officii sumebant, quibus quum Rex aliis imperare
jussisset, ipsi sibi alium imperatorem poscebant. Ideo ex illo globo
paucos secum Rex Carolus habebat; novis militaria dona et hæreditates
pluribus laboribus et periculis acquisitas benignè præbebat. Ex quo
genere fuit iste Tertullus, à quo Andegavorum Consulum progenies
sumpsit exordium.” See Palgrave, i. 404, 500–502; cf. ii. 11.
Footnote 826:
Gest. Cons. 239. “Alodium enim cognationis eorum erat Ambazium villa.”
Footnote 827:
Count Fulk (p. 233) says, with much good sense, “Quorum quatuor
Consulum virtutes et acta, quia nobis in tantum de longinquo sunt, ut
etiam loca ubi corpora eorum jacent nobis incognita sunt, dignè
memorare non possumus.” Ingelgar, in the legend (p. 239), slays the
accuser of a slandered lady—in this case his own godmother and
benefactress—much in the style of the ballad of Sir Aldingar or of the
story of Queen Gunhild.
Footnote 828:
Gest. Cons. 235 (so 244). “Integrum comitatum, qui priùs bipertitus
erat, recepit.” The Breton story (Chron. Briocense, ap. Morice,
Memoires pour servir de Preuves à l’Histoire de Bretagne, pp. 29, 30)
makes him—“vir maledictus et diabolicus”—marry the widow of the Breton
prince Alan, and procure the death of her son Drogo.
Footnote 829:
See the story of Fulk and King Lewis From-beyond-Sea in the Gesta, p.
245. The proverb was a favourite with our Henry the First, and was at
least approved by the Great William. See Will. Malms. v. 390.
Footnote 830:
“Grisa gonella” = “grisa tunica.” Gest. Cons. 246, 247.
Footnote 831:
See Appendix P.
Footnote 832:
Count Maurice, who, in the Gesta (249), comes between Geoffrey
Grisegonelle and Fulk Nerra, finds no place in the list given by Fulk
Rechin, and is rejected by the authors of the Art de Verifier les
Dates.
Footnote 833:
See Appendix P.
Footnote 834:
See vol. i. p. 520.
Footnote 835:
According to R. Glaber (iii. 2), he sent assassins, who murdered Hugh,
the courtier in question, before the King’s eyes. The murder is done,
according to good English precedent, at a hunting-party, which perhaps
makes the story a little suspicious. See vol. i. p. 366.
Footnote 836:
Fulk founded a monastery near Loches, in honour of the Cherubim and
Seraphim, and applied to Hugh, Archbishop of Tours, to consecrate the
church. The Primate refused, unless Fulk restored some alienated
possessions of his see. Fulk then went to Rome with well stored
moneybags, by the help of which he persuaded Pope John—which of all
the Johns contemporary with Fulk we are not told—to send a Cardinal to
consecrate it. The Bishops of Gaul were horrified at this invasion of
their rights, and divine vengeance showed itself by the church being
blown down on the night following its consecration. R. Glaber, ii. 4,
copied in the Gesta Consulum, 251. Rudolf takes this opportunity to
set forth his theory of the Papal authority, which is well worth
studying, and which breathes in its fulness the spirit of the later
Gallican liberties. The Bishop of Rome is the first of Bishops, but he
may not interfere with the diocesan jurisdiction of any of his
brethren.
Footnote 837:
On Fulk’s pilgrimage, see Fulc. Rech. p. 233. Gest. Consul. 252. Will.
Malms. iii. 235. The Chronicler of Saint Maxentius makes him die, “ut
dicitur,” on pilgrimage in 1032.
Footnote 838:
See at length Will. Malms. u. s.
Footnote 839:
See Art de Verifier les Dates, ii. 838.
Footnote 840:
Fulk, p. 233. “Propter quæ omnia bella, et propter magnanimitatem quam
ibi exercebat, merito Martellus nominatus est, quasi suos conterens
hostes.” William of Malmesbury (iii. 231) calls him “Gaufredus
cognomento Martellus, quod ipse sibi usurpaverat, quia videbatur sibi
felicitate quâdam omnes obsistentes contundere.” Another account makes
the name derived from the trade of Geoffrey’s foster-father, a
blacksmith, something like Donald of the Hammer in Scottish story.
Footnote 841:
On the whole story, see Appendix Q.
Footnote 842:
See the Chronicle in Duchèsne, Rer. Franc. Scriptt. iv. 97.
Footnote 843:
See above, p. 97.
Footnote 844:
See Appendix P.
Footnote 845:
See Appendix N.
Footnote 846:
Fulk (p. 233) describes the cession made by Theobald to Geoffrey, and
adds, “Pars autem alia Turonici pagi sibi contigerât possessione
paternâ.” We have seen that the Counts of Anjou held Amboise and
Loches.
Footnote 847:
This grant is distinctly asserted, not only by Fulk (u. s.), “Ex
voluntate Regis Henrici accepit donum Turonicæ civitatis ab ipso
Rege,” but also by R. Glaber (v. 2), followed by Gesta Cons. 256,
“Contigit ut ... Rex, ablato ab iisdem dominio Turonicæ urbis, daret
illud Gozfredo cognomento Tuditi, filio scilicet Fulconis jam dicti
Andegavorum comitis.” The Norman writers of course know nothing of all
this, and make Geoffrey an unprovoked aggressor.
Footnote 848:
R. Glaber (v. 2) describes Geoffrey’s victory and the captivity of
Theobald, and adds, “Nulli dubium est, beato Martino auxiliante, qui
illum piè invocaverat, suorum inimicorum victorem exstitisse.”
Footnote 849:
On the captivity of Theobald, see Fulk, p. 233. Gesta Cons. (largely
after R. Glaber), 256. Chronn. Andd. a. 1044, ap. Labbe, i. 276, 287.
Will. Pict. 86. Will. Gem. vii. 18. Will. Malms. iii. 231. R. Glaber
is also followed by Hugo Flav. (Labbe, i. 186. Pertz, viii. 403).
Footnote 850:
Will. Pict. 82. “Vicissitudinem post hæc ipse Regi fide studiosissimâ
reddidit, rogatus ab eo auxilium contra quosdam inimicissimos ei atque
potentissimos ad officiendum.” This writer is very confused in his
chronology of the war, placing the details about Domfront and Alençon
at a long distance from this passage which seems to record the
beginning of hostilities.
Footnote 851:
Ib. “Cernebant Francigenæ, quod invidia non cerni vellet, exercitum
deductum è Normanniâ solâ regio majorem, omnique collegio, quantum
adduxerant vel miserant Comites plurimi.”
Footnote 852:
Ib. 83. “Rex ei quam libenter proponebat consultanda, et maxima quæque
ad ejus gerebat sententiam, anteponens in perspicientiâ consulti
melioris eum omnibus.”
Footnote 853:
Ib. “Unicum id redarguebat, quod nimiùm periculis objectabat se, ac
plerumque pugnam quæritabat, decurrens palam cum denis aut
paucioribus. Normannos etiam primates obsecrabat, ne committi prœlium
vel levissimum ante municipium aliquod paterentur; metuens videlicet
occasurum virtutem ostentando, in quo regni sui præsidium firmissimum
et ornamentum splendidissimum reponebat.”
Footnote 854:
William of Poitiers’ theory of William’s rashness (83) is not very
clear; “Cæterum quæ velut immoderatam fortitudinis ostentationem
multoperè dissuadebat Rex atque castigabat, ea nos fervidæ atque
animosæ _ætati_ aut _officio_ adscribimus.”
Footnote 855:
See vol. i. p. 200.
Footnote 856:
Gesta Dom. Ambasiens. ap. D’Achery, iii. 273. “Quidam Comes pernimium
juvenis Herbertus, cognomento _Evigilans Canem_.” See Palgrave, iii.
240.
Footnote 857:
One might fancy from the words of William of Jumièges (vii. 18),
“Cœpit Normanniam rapinis vehementer demoliri, intra Danfrontis
castrum seditiosis custodibus immissis,” that Domfront was now Norman.
But it is clear from William of Poitiers (86) that it was, as a town
of Maine, in Geoffrey’s possession at the beginning of the war;
“Willelmus ... adibat cum exercitu terram Andegavensem, ut reddens
talionem primo abalienaret Gaufredo Damfrontum, post reciperit
Alentium.” So William of Malmesbury (iii. 231), “Damfruntum, quod erat
tunc comitis Andegavorum, obsidione coronavit.” So also Roman de Rou,
9382;
“Alençon ert de Normendie
E Danfronz del Maine partie.”
Footnote 858:
Will. Pict. 89. “Perhibent homines antiquioris memoriæ, castra hæc
ambo Comitis Ricardi concessu esse fundata, unum intra alterum,
proximè fines Normanniæ.”
Footnote 859:
See above, p. 186. So William of Malmesbury (iii. 231), “Pronis in
perfidiam habitatoribus.”
Footnote 860:
Will. Pict. 87. “Deferre haudquaquam volebant dominum sub quo licenter
quæstum latrociniis contraherint: quali caussâ fuerant seducti
inhabitantes Alentium.” He then goes on with one of his panegyrics on
William’s stern justice.
Footnote 861:
Ib. 86. “Inhabitatores ad se pronos reppererat.”
Footnote 862:
Ib. 87. “Ubi approximabatur Danfronto, cum equitibus divertit
quinquaginta, _acceptum quæ stippendium augerent_.” But this curious
euphemism for what one would have thought in those days hardly needed
apology is explained in the next sentence, “_Prædæ_ autem index
castellanis prodidit ipsum quidam ex Normannis majoribus, intimans quò
aut cur ierit, et quàm paucis comitatus, atque hunc esse qui mortem
fugæ præferret.”
Footnote 863:
Will. Pict. 87. “Captum suis unum manibus retinuit.”
Footnote 864:
Compare, on the chances of treason near William’s person, those
remarkable expressions of William of Jumièges (vii. 4) which have been
already quoted in p. 200.
Footnote 865:
Will. Pict. 87. “Celerem irruptionem situs oppidi denegabat omni
robori sive peritiæ; quum scopulorum asperitas pedites etiam
deturbaret, præter qui angustis itineribus duobus atque arduis
accederent.” There is here something of the Norman trust in cavalry;
there is a feeling as if a place where horsemen were of no use had
some unfairness about it.
Footnote 866:
Ib. “Castella circumponit quatuor.”
Footnote 867:
Will. Pict. 87. “Aliquando perdius et pernox equitans, vel in abditis
occultus explorat, si qui offendantur aut commeatum advectantes, aut
in legatione directi, aut pabulatoribus suis insidiantes.”
Footnote 868:
Ib. “Est regio illa silvis abundans ferarum feracissimis. _Sæpe
falconum, sæpissimè accipitrum_ volatu oblectatur.” The distinction
between the use of falcons and that of hawks—did William stoop to the
sparrow-hawk?—is worth the notice of those who are versed in the
minuter technicalities of animal torture.
Footnote 869:
Ib. “Non loci difficultas, aut sævitia hiemis,” &c.
Footnote 870:
See above, pp, 185, 196.
Footnote 871:
See above, p. 198.
Footnote 872:
Will. Pict. 88. “Præsignat qualem in prœlio equum sit habiturus, quale
scutum, qualem vestitum.” The device on the shield was therefore still
left to the fancy of the wearer. Had the Counts of Anjou already
possessed hereditary armorial bearings, the Normans could hardly have
needed to be told what kind of shield Geoffrey would carry.
Footnote 873:
Ib. “Illi contra opus non esse respondent instituto eum itinere
longiùs fatigari. Nam continuò propter quem vadit adfore. Equum
vicissim domini sui præsignant, vestitum, et arma.” Here, it may be
remarked, is no special mention of the shield; it comes under the
general head of “arma.”
It is almost profanation to compare warfare of this sort with the
patriot struggle at Maldon, yet there is in all this something
analogous to Brihtnoth’s over-chivalry in allowing the Northmen to
cross the river. See vol. i. p. 300. But Brihtnoth may after all have
had a reason for his conduct. Cf. Herod. v. 118.
Footnote 874:
The reason given by William of Poitiers (u. s.) for the Duke’s special
zeal is one of the most amazing things that I ever came across.
“Omnium acerrimus ipse Dux inurget accelerantes. Tyrannum fortasse
absumi desiderabat adolescens piissimus; quod ex omnibus præclaris
factis pulcerrimum judicavit Senatus Latinus et Atheniensis.” The
instances of Tyrannicide collected by Jean Petit (see Hist. Fed. Gov.
i. 383) are strange enough, but the idea of William gaining the
honours of a Timoleôn by slaying Geoffrey in battle beats them all.
Footnote 875:
Will. Pict. u. s. “Subitaneo tenore consternatus Gaufredus, adversâ
acie necdum conspectâ, profugio salutem suam cum agmine toto
committit.” Wace (9601) makes him make a little show of preparation
for battle, but he presently yields to the wiser advice of a knight
who counsels flight. Wace (9527–9628) puts this whole story later,
after the taking of Alençon. He adds a third to the two messengers in
William of Poitiers, namely William Fitz-Thierry (9539).
Footnote 876:
Will. Pict. 88. “Novit esse prudentium victoriæ temperare, atque non
satis potentem esse qui semet in potestate ulsciscendi continere non
possit.” William of Jumièges (vii. 18) adds another reason; “Ecce
adsunt exploratores, Alencium castrum absque suorum detrimento eum
capere posse nuntiantes.” This is his first mention of Alençon.
Footnote 877:
Roman de Rou, 9436 et seqq.
Footnote 878:
Will. Gem. u. s. “Totâ nocte equitans diluculo Alencium venit.”
Footnote 879:
William of Jumièges (u. s.) merely says, “In quodam municipio trans
flumen posito.” Wace is much fuller (9440 et seqq.);
“Alençon est sor Sartre asiz,
Iloec devize le païz;
Normanz sunt devers li chastel,
Et ultre l’ewe sunt Mansel.”
He then goes on to describe the bridge and its defences.
Footnote 880:
Will. Gem. vii. 18. “Pelles enim et renones ad injuriam Ducis
verberaverant, ipsumque pelliciarium despectivè vocitaverant, eò quod
parentes matris ejus pelliciarii exstiterant.” So Wace, 9458;
“Willeame unt asez convicié;
Plusurs feiz li unt hucié;
_La pel, la pel al parmentier_,
Pur ceo ke à Faleize fu nez,
U peletiers aveit asez;
Li unt cel mestier reprocé,
E par cuntraire è par vilté.”
Wace seems to wish to evade the Duke’s actual kindred with the
professors of the unsavoury craft.
Footnote 881:
Annales Angliæ et Scotiæ, ap. Riley, Rishanger, p. 373. The words
were,
“Kyng Edward, wanne þu havest Berwic, pike þe,
Wanne þu havest geten, dike þe.”
Cf. Peter Langtoft, ii. 272. Hearne. Compare William’s indignation at
the insults offered to him at Exeter (Will. Malms. iii. 248), though
he seems to have been in a much less savage mood there than that at
Alençon. Compare also the indignation of James the Second, at the
indignities offered to him by the fishermen (Macaulay, i. 569), and
that of William the Third at Sir John Fenwick’s impertinence to the
Queen (Ib. iv. 34).
Footnote 882:
Roman de Rou, 9466;
“Jura par la resplendor Dé,
Co ert suvent sun serement.”
Footnote 883:
This very expressive formula comes from Wace, 9468;
“S’il pot cels prendre, malement
Lur sera cel dit achaté:
Des membres serunt _esmundé_.
Ne porterunt ne pié ne puing,
Ne ne verrunt ne preus ne luing.”
Footnote 884:
Roman de Rou, 9477.
Footnote 885:
Will. Gem. vii. 18. “Illusores verò, coram omnibus infra Alencium
consistentibus, manibus privari jussit et pedibus. Nec mora, sicut
jusserat, triginta duo debilitati sunt.” So Roman de Rou, 9489 et
seqq. William of Poitiers is silent altogether both as to the
vengeance and as to the insult. Neither subject was perhaps altogether
agreeable to a professed panegyrist. But William cuts the whole story
of Alençon very short.
Footnote 886:
Roman de Rou, 9493;
“El chastel fist li piés geter
Por cels dedenz espoanter.”
Footnote 887:
Will. Gem. vii. 18. “Custodes autem castelli tam severam austeritatem
Ducis cognoscentes timuerunt, et ne similia paterentur, ilicò portas
aperuerunt, Ducique castellum reddiderunt, malentes illud reddere quàm
cum suorum periculo membrorum tam gravia tormenta tolerare.” Wace
(9500) makes the terms
“Quitement aler s’en porreient;
Salvs lur membres è salvs lur cors.”
So William of Malmesbury (iii. 231); “Alentini se dedidere, pacti
membrorum salutem.” But he had not mentioned the mutilation.
Footnote 888:
Will. Pict. 89. “Oppidum enim naturâ, opere, atque armaturâ
munitissimum adeò currente proventu in ejus manum venit ut gloriari
his verbis liceret, Veni, Vidi, Vici.”
Footnote 889:
Will. Pict. 89. “Percutit citissimè hic rumor Danfrontinos.
Diffidentes itaque alius clipeo se liberandos post fugam famosissimi
bellatoris Gaufredi Martelli,” &c.
Footnote 890:
Roman de Rou, 9624.
Footnote 891:
Ib. 9625;
“E li Dus fist sun gonfanon
Lever è porter el dangon.”
Footnote 892:
Will. Gem. vii. 18. Roman de Rou, 9631.
Footnote 893:
This Moretolium or Moretonium must be carefully distinguished from
Mauritania, Moretonia, or Mortagne-en-Perche, in the Diocese of Seez.
Footnote 894:
William of Jumièges (vii. 19) merely calls him “Willelmus cognomento
Werlencus, de stirpe Richardi Magni.” Orderic (660 B) calls him
“Guillelmum cognomento Werlengum, Moritolii Comitem, filium Malgerii
Comitis,” and Malger appears as an uncle of Duke Robert in Will. Gem.
vi. 7.
Footnote 895:
Will. Gem. u. s. “Quidam tiro de familiâ suâ nomine Robertus Bigot.”
The name Bigod or Bigot, which we have already seen (see above, p.
201) applied as a term of contempt for the Normans, has been connected
with Rolf’s “English” (see vol. i. p. 191) oath, “Ne se bigoth.”
Chron. Tur. ap. Duchèsne, iii. 360.
Footnote 896:
For the famous dialogue between Edward the First and the Earl Marshal
Roger Bigod, see Walter of Hemingburgh, ii. 121 (ed. Hamilton). Could
we suppose that either King or Earl _spoke_ English (doubtless both
_understood_ it), one might see in the King’s oath (“Per Deum, Comes,
aut ibis aut pendebis”) and the Earl’s retort (“Per idem juramentum, O
Rex, nec ibo nec pendebo”) an allusion to the punning derivation of
the name Bigod just mentioned.
Footnote 897:
See above, p. 205.
Footnote 898:
Will. Gem. vii. 19. “Per Richardum Abrincatensem cognatum suum
familiaritatem Ducis consequutus est.”
Footnote 899:
Ib. “Seditiosis tumultibus Normanniam perturbare decrevisti, et contra
me rebellans me nequiter exhæredare disposuisti, ideoque rapacitatis
tempus egeno militi promisisti. Sed nobiscum, cum dono Creatoris, ut
indigemus, maneat pax perennis.”
Footnote 900:
Will. Gem. vii. 19. “Sic tumidos sui patris parentes asperè
prostravit, humilesque matris suæ propinquos honorabiliter exaltavit.”
Footnote 901:
The whole story is highly coloured by Sir F. Palgrave, iii. 224.
William of Mortain may very likely have been guilty, but the evidence
was very weak.
Footnote 902:
Will. Gem. u. s. “Nec negare potuit, neque intentionem dicti declarare
præsumpsit.”
Footnote 903:
Ord. Vit. 534 B. “Ipse Guillelmum Guarlengum Moritolii Comitem pro uno
verbo exhæredavit et de Neustriâ penitus effugavit.” This comes in the
speech at the famous bride-ale of 1076, but the historian afterwards
says in his own person (660 B), “Guillelmum cognomento Werlengum ...
pro minimis occasionibus de Neustriâ propulsaverat.”
Footnote 904:
The grand old Teutonic name of Machthild had by this time become in
Latin Mathildis, and in French mouths and in the mouths of Englishmen
pronouncing French names, it became Mahtild, Mahault, Molde, Maud, and
so forth. The name is familiar to students of Saxon history, and to
the students, if there be any, of our own Æthelweard.
Footnote 905:
Concilia, ed. Labbe and Coss. ix. 1092. Stapleton, Arch. Journal, iii.
20. “Interdixit etiam Balduino Comiti Flandrensi ne filiam suam
Wilielmo Nortmanno nuptui daret, et illi ne eam acciperet.” On this
Council, see above, p. 112.
Footnote 906:
Chron. Wig. 1052. “Ða sone com Willelm Eorl fram geondan sǽ, mid
mycclum werode Frenciscra manna; and se cyning hine underfeng, and swa
feola his geferan swa him to onhagode, and let hine eft ongean.” See
also Roman de Rou, 10539 et seqq., where however the journey is put
much too late.
Footnote 907:
Flor. Wig. 1051. “His gestis Nortmannicus Comes Willelmus cum
multitudine Nortmannorum Angliam venit, quem Rex Eadwardus et socios
ejus honorificè suscepit, et magnis multisque donatum muneribus ad
Nortmanniam remisit.” Roman de Rou, 10548;
“Et Ewart forment l’énora;
Mult li dona chiens è oisels
El altres aveir boens è bels.
E kanke il trover poeit
Ki à haut hom cunveneit.”
Footnote 908:
According to modern laws of succession, the _heir_ of Eadward was
undoubtedly Walter of Mantes, the son of his sister Godgifu, and elder
brother of Ralph of Hereford. The Ætheling Eadward, it must always be
remembered, was not, according to our notions, the heir of the King,
but the King was the heir of the Ætheling. But, as female descent had
never been recognized, one can hardly suppose that the children of
Godgifu were looked on as Æthelings, or as at all entitled to any
preference in disposing of the Crown. I am therefore justified in
saying that Eadward had neither apparent nor presumptive heir. This is
a principle to which I shall have to refer again.
Footnote 909:
See the Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles, and Florence of Worcester,
under 1066.
Footnote 910:
Namely Wace, quoted above, p. 295. He must have got his account from
an English source.
Footnote 911:
When we come to Florence’s account of Harold’s election and
coronation, we shall see how carefully every word is weighed, with the
obvious intention of excluding some Norman misrepresentation or other.
The fables about Harold seizing the crown, about his crowning himself,
his being crowned by Stigand, and so forth, are all implicitly denied;
so is Eadward’s alleged _last_ bequest to William; but there is not a
word to exclude either an earlier promise on the part of Eadward or an
oath on the part of Harold, Both these subjects are avoided.
Footnote 912:
See vol. i. pp. 118, 291, 533.
Footnote 913:
I shall deal with these stories in my third volume.
Footnote 914:
See Appendix A.
Footnote 915:
See vol. i. pp. 209, 249.
Footnote 916:
See vol. i. p. 518.
Footnote 917:
I am indebted for the suggestion of Matilda’s descent from Ælfred as a
possible element in William’s calculations to Lord Lytton’s romance of
Harold. It is highly probable in itself, though I do not remember to
have seen it put forward by any ancient writer. Matilda was lineally
descended from Ælfthryth, daughter of Ælfred, wife of Count Baldwin
the Second, and mother, I am sorry to say, of the wicked Arnulf.
Footnote 918:
I suppose that this would have occurred to every one as the obvious
explanation of the difficulty, had not a passage of the false Ingulf
been held to settle the question another way; “De successione autem
regni spes adhuc aut mentio nulla facta inter eos fuit.” (Gale, i.
65.) Now certainly this strong negative assertion is one of those
passages which for a moment suggest the idea that the forger had some
materials before him which we have not. But so vague a possibility can
hardly be set against the whole probability of the case. It is curious
to see Lappenberg (ii. 251 Thorpe, 511 of the German) swaying to and
fro between the obvious probability and the supposed authority of
Ingulf. Before him, Prevost (Roman de Rou, ii. 100) had ventured, in
the teeth of Ingulf, to connect William’s visit with Eadward’s alleged
bequest.
Footnote 919:
See the Worcester Chronicle as quoted above, p. 294.
Footnote 920:
Chronn. Ab. Cant. 1051. Wig. Petrib. 1052. I need hardly remind any
reader that the Old Minster is Winchester Cathedral. The bones of Cnut
and Emma were among those which were so strangely exalted by Bishop
Fox in the chests which surround the presbytery. Between him, Henry of
Blois, and the Puritans, it is now impossible to distinguish the bones
of Cnut from those of William Rufus.
Footnote 921:
There is nothing specially to remark on the authorities for this
period, which are substantially the same as those for the seventh
Chapter. We have still to look, just in the same way as before, to the
Chronicles, the Biographer, and Florence, to William of Malmesbury and
the other subsidiary writers. Just as before, when Norman affairs are
at all touched on, the Norman writers should be compared with the
English. During these years we have little to do with Scandinavian
affairs, so that the Sagas are of little moment. Welsh affairs, on the
other hand, are of unusual importance, and the two Welsh Chronicles,
the Annales Cambriæ and the Brut y Tywysogion, or Chronicle of the
Princes, must be carefully compared with our own records.
Footnote 922:
At the same time, it is worth considering whether the whole of the
estates set down in Domesday as belonging to Godwine and his sons were
always their private property, and whether some parts may not have
been official estates attached to their Earldoms. Still, after any
possible deductions, their wealth was enormous.
Footnote 923:
Vita Eadw. 404. “Et quoniam suprà diximus eum ab omnibus Anglis pro
patre coli, subitò auditus discessus ejus exterruit cor populi. Ejus
absentiam sive fugam habuere perniciem suam, interitum gentis Anglicæ,
excidium insuper totius patriæ.”
Footnote 924:
Vita Eadw. 404. “Felicem se putabat qui post eum exsulari poterat.”
Footnote 925:
Ib. “Quidam post eum vadunt, quidam legationes mittunt, paratos se, si
velit reverti, eum cum violentiâ in patriâ suscipere, pro eo pugnare,
pro eo, si necesse sit, velle se pariter occumbere.”
Footnote 926:
Ib. “Et hoc accitabatur non clam vel privatim, sed in manifesto et
publicè, et non modo à quibusdam, sed penè ab omnibus indigenis
patriæ.”
Footnote 927:
Chron. Petrib. 1052. “Gerædde se cyng and his witan.” Abingdon and
Worcester do not mention the Witan.
Footnote 928:
See above, p. 99.
Footnote 929:
Chronn. Ab. Wig. Petrib. The number of the ships, “xl. snacca,” comes
from Worcester; the names of the commanders from Peterborough, “and
setton Raulf Eorl and Oddan Eorl to heafodmannum þærto.” Florence
seems to put these preparations later, after Harold’s landing at
Porlock. But surely the choice made both by Gruffydd and by Harold of
their points for attack, shows that the Earls of those districts were
already absent with the fleet.
Footnote 930:
Chron. Wig. and Flor. Wig. 1052. This incursion seems not to be
mentioned in the Welsh Chronicles. Its perpetrator is described only
as “Griffin se Wylisca cing;” “Walensium Rex Griffinus;” but the King
intended must be the Northern Gruffydd.
Footnote 931:
The Worcester Chronicle says, “þæt he com swyþe neah to Leomynstre.”
Florence speaks of the harrying, but does not mention the place.
Footnote 932:
Chron. Wig. “And men gadorodon ongean, ægðer ge landes men ge
Frencisce men of ðam castele.” So Florence, “Contra quem provinciales
illi et de castello quamplures Nortmanni ascenderunt.” “The castle” is
doubtless Richard’s Castle. Florence, who had mistaken the meaning of
the Chronicler in the entry of the former year (see above, p. 142),
now that he had got among Herefordshire matters, understood the
description. Here again the expressions witness to the deep feeling
awakened by the building of this castle.
Footnote 933:
Chron. Wig. 1052. “And man þær ofsloh swyþe feola Engliscra godra
manna, and eac of þam Frenciscum.” (The French get no honourable
epithet.) All this evaporates in Florence’s “multis ex illis occisis.”
Footnote 934:
See above, p. 56, and vol. i. p. 564.
Footnote 935:
I infer this from the way in which Harold’s expedition is spoken of as
happening almost immediately (“sona,” “parvo post hoc tempore”) after
Gruffydd’s victory, as if the two things had some connexion with each
other.
Footnote 936:
Vita Eadw. 405. “Mittit tamen adhuc pacem et misericordiam petere a
Rege domino suo [cynehlaford], ut sibi liceat cum ejus gratiâ ad se
purgandum legibus venire coram eo.” See above, p. 142, and vol. i. p.
573.
Footnote 937:
Ib. “Hoc quoque pro ejus dilectione et suo officio missis legatis
suis, Rex petit Francorum, et ipsum cum quo hiemabat idem persuadebat
Marchio Flandrensium.”
Footnote 938:
See above, p. 17. Eadward and Baldwin had a common ancestor, though
certainly a very remote one, in the great Ælfred. See above, p. 304.
Footnote 939:
Vita Eadw. 405. “Sed et illi hoc suggerebant satis frustra;
obstruxerat enim pias Regis aures pravorum malitia.”
Footnote 940:
Ib. “Mediante proximâ æstate.”
Footnote 941:
See above, p. 100.
Footnote 942:
See above, p. 152.
Footnote 943:
Leofwine is not mentioned in the Chronicles, but his name is given by
Florence, and the Biographer (405) speaks of “duo prædicti filii.”
Footnote 944:
The language of the Biographer is here remarkable. He had just before
spoken of the people of the East and South of England as “Orientales
sive Australes _Angli_.” He now calls the point where Harold landed
“Occidentalium _Britonum sive Anglorum_ fines.” So marked a change of
expression cannot be accidental; it must point to the still debateable
character of large parts of Somerset and Devon, neither purely Welsh
nor purely English. Compare the significant use of the word “Britanni”
by Thietmar, commented on in vol. i. p. 422.
Footnote 945:
I do not remember any mention in any ancient writer of this submarine
forest on the Somersetshire coast; but a forest of the same kind on
the other side of the British Channel is spoken of by Giraldus, Exp.
Hib. i. 36 (vol. V. p. 284 Dimock). In the year 1171 a violent storm
laid it bare.
Footnote 946:
The Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles (1052) have simply “neh
Sumer_sǽtan_ gemæran and Dafena_scíre_” (see the same forms in the
entries for the last year, and Appendix G); so Florence, “in confinio
Sumersetaniæ et _Dorsetaniæ_” this last word being a mistake for
_Domnaniæ_, as appears from the next sentence. The Peterborough
Chronicle gives the name of the spot, “and com þa úp æt Portlocan.”
Footnote 947:
See Appendix R.
Footnote 948:
The Worcester and Abingdon Chronicles (1052) give the numbers; “And
þær ofsloh má þonne xxx. godera þegena (“nobilibus ministris,” Flor.)
butan oðrum folce.”
Footnote 949:
Chronn. Ab. and Wig. “Ægðer ge of Sumersǽton ge of Defenescíre.”
Footnote 950:
Chron. Petrib. “And nam him on orfe _and on mannum_ and on æhtum, swa
him gewearð.” Were these captives dealt with as conscripts or
galley-slaves, or, considering whence the fleet came, were they
intended for the Irish slave-trade?
Footnote 951:
Chronn. Ab. and Wig. “And sona æfter þan for abutan Penwiðsteort.”
Chron. Petrib. “And gewende him þa eastweard to his feder.”
Footnote 952:
Vita Eadw. 405. See Appendix R.
Footnote 953:
On the narratives of Godwine’s return, see Appendix S.
Footnote 954:
Chron. Petrib. 1052. “Ða gewende Godwine eorl út fram Brycge mid his
scipum to Yseran;” so the Biographer (405), “paratâ multiplici classe
in fluvio Hysarâ.” It is clearly not Gesoriacum or Boulogne, as Mr.
Earle makes it in his Glossary.
Footnote 955:
Chron. Petrib. “And let út ane dæge ær midsumeres mæsse æfene
[“mediante æstate,” Vit. Eadw.] þæt he com to Næsse, þe is be suðan
Rumenea.”
Footnote 956:
William of Malmesbury (ii. 199) makes Eadward himself present; “Nec
segnem sensit Regem illa necessitas quin ipse in navi pernoctaret, et
latronum exitus specularetur, sedulo explens consilio quod manu
nequibat _præ senio_.” Eadward was now fifty at the most, and his
presence is hardly possible, according to the authentic narratives.
Eadward’s presence with the fleet is distinctly marked in 1049 (see
above, p. 99), but not now.
Footnote 957:
Chron. Petrib. “And wearð þæt wæder swiðe strang þæt þa eorlas ne
mihton gewitan hwet Godwine eorl gefaren hæfde.” The ignorance could
hardly fail to be mutual. So William of Malmesbury (u. s.); “Quum
cominùs ventum esset, et jam penè manus consererentur, nebula
densissima repente coorta furentum obtutus confudit, miseramque
mortalium audaciam compescuit.” William had just got one of his fits
of fine writing upon him.
Footnote 958:
Chron. Ab. “He [Godwine] heom ætbærst, and him sylfan gebearh þær þær
he þa mihte.” So Florence; “Quo in loco potuit se occultavit.” But
Peterborough says expressly, “And gewende þa Godwine eorl út agean þæt
he com eft to Brycge;” and so William of Malmesbury; “Denique Godwinus
ejusque comites eo unde venerant vento cogente reducti.” Mark the
cadence of an hexameter.
Footnote 959:
Chron. Petrib. “And sceolde man setton oðre eorlas and oðre hasæton to
þam scipum.” Mr. Thorpe translates “hasæton” by “chief officers,” Mr.
Earle by “rowers.” I commonly bow to Mr. Earle’s authority on such
matters; but the other version seems to make better sense.
Footnote 960:
See vol. i. p. 426 note.
Footnote 961:
See Appendix R.
Footnote 962:
Vita Eadw. 405.
Footnote 963:
On Hastings, as distinct from Sussex, see vol. i. p. 382.
Footnote 964:
“Eallne þæne east ende,” says the Abingdon Chronicle (cf. the words
“ofer ealne þisne norð ende” in the Worcester Chronicle, 1052 or
1051), which Florence translates by “East-Saxones.”
Footnote 965:
Chron. Ab. “Þa cwædon ealle þæt hi mid him woldon licgan and lybban.”
I transfer these emphatic words hither from the earlier place which
they have in the Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles, and in Florence.
See Appendix S.
Footnote 966:
That hostages should have been taken from such a friendly population
is a speaking comment on the inveterate custom of taking hostages on
all occasions.
Footnote 967:
Chron. Petrib., where see Mr. Earle’s note (p. 346), and Appendix R.
Footnote 968:
See vol. i. pp. 46, 427.
Footnote 969:
Vita Eadw. 405. “Pelagus operiebatur carinis, cœlum densissimis
resplendebat armis.” If this was so when they were in the open sea, it
must _à fortiori_ have been so when they were in the river.
Footnote 970:
See above, p. 150.
Footnote 971:
Chronn. Ab. and Wig. “He gefadode wiþ ða burhwaru.”
Footnote 972:
“Þæt hi woldon _mæst ealle_ þæt þæt he wolde,” say the Abingdon and
Worcester Chronicles. This answer to a message sounds to me like the
vote of an assembly of some kind, in which we may also discern the
opposition of a small minority. The Biographer (406) also witnesses to
the good disposition of the Londoners; “Sed omnis civitas Duci obviam
et auxilio processit et præsidio, acclamantque illi omnes unâ voce
prosperè in adventu suo.”
Footnote 973:
“Þa sende he up æfter maran fultume,” says the Abingdon Chronicle,
which Florence rather pathetically expands into “Nuntiis properè
missis, omnibus qui à se non defecerant mandavit ut in adjutorium sui
venire maturarent.”
Footnote 974:
The Peterborough Chronicle, which, just at this point, is less full
than Abingdon and Worcester, gives the number; “Ða hi to Lundene
comon; þa læg se cyng and þa eorlas ealle þær ongean mid L. scipum.”
Footnote 975:
The King’s ships were on the north bank of the river, “wið þæs
norðlandes” (Chron. Ab.); his land force (“se cyng hæfde eac _mycele
landfyrde_ on his healfe, to eacan his scypmannum”) was doubtless
drawn up on the same side, as the Southwark side was clearly in the
hands of Godwine. From the words in Italics, compared with the
expressions quoted just before, it would seem that some at least of
the northern levies came, perhaps under the command of their own
Earls.
Footnote 976:
The Abingdon Chronicle describes the day; “Ðæt wæs on þone Monandæg
æfter Sc̃a Marian mæsse.” Florence and Roger of Wendover (i. 491) mark
it as “dies exaltationis Sanctæ Crucis.”
Footnote 977:
Chron. Ab. “And seo landfyrd com ufenon, and trymedon hig be þam
strande.” Flor. Wig. “Venit et pedestris exercitus, ac se per oram
fluvii ordinatim disponens, spissam terribilemque fecit testudinem.”
“Pedestris exercitus” is only accidentally an accurate rendering of
“landfyrd.” Doubtless they were on foot, but the force of the word is
that the popular levies, the militia of the shires round London, came
unbidden to support Godwine. The King had only his housecarls and any
troops that may have come from the north.
Footnote 978:
Chron. Ab. “And hi hwemdon þa mid þam scypon wið þæs norðlandes,
swylce hig woldon þæs cynges scipa abutan betrymman.” Vita Eadw. 406.
“Et quoniam facultas undique superiores vires administrabat,
hortabantur quàm plures, ut etiam in ipsum Regem irruerent.” This
feeling was still stronger a little later in the day. We must remember
that, in this story, we are dealing, not with days but with hours.
Footnote 979:
Chron. Ab. “Ac hit wæs heom mæst eallon lað þæt hig sceoldon fohtan
_wið heora agenes cynnes mannum_.... Eac hig noldon þæt utlendiscum
þeodum wære þes eard þurh þæt þe swiðor gerymed þe hí heom sylfe ælc
oðerne forfore.” The words doubtless simply mean men of their own
nation. Roger of Wendover (i. 491) must have had this Chronicle before
him, and must have taken the words to mean _kinsmen_ in the later and
narrower sense; “Angli, quorum filii, nepotes, et consanguinei cum
Godwino erant, noluerunt contra eos dimicare.” Florence has the
intermediate expression “propinquos ac compatriotas.”
Footnote 980:
Chron. Petrib. “Þa sendon þa eorlas to þam cynge, and gerndon to him
þæt hi moston beon wurðe ælc þæra þinga þe heom mid unrihte ofgenumen
wæs.”
Footnote 981:
Ib. “Ða wiðlæg se cyng sume hwile, þeah swa lange, oð þet folc þe mid
þam eorle wes wearð swiðe astyred ongean þone cyng and ongean his
folc.”
Footnote 982:
See vol. i. p. 466. The Worcester and Abingdon Chronicles, a little
way before, have a singular remark that the only good troops on both
sides were English; “Forðan þar wæs lyt elles þe aht mycel myhton
buton Englisce men on ægþer healfe.” This sounds like a slur on the
military prowess alike of the King’s Frenchmen, of Harold’s Irish
Danes, and of any Flemings who may have come with Godwine.
Footnote 983:
Chron. Petrib. “Swa þæt se eorl sylf earfoðlice gestylde þæt folc.” So
the Biographer, in his more rhetorical way; “Verùm fidelis et Deo
devotus Dux _verbis et nutu_ admodum abhorruit.” William of
Malmesbury, a little later, pays a fine tribute to Godwine’s
eloquence, which is rather a favourite subject of his; “Senex ille et
linguâ potens [some read “et famâ clarus et linguâ potens”] ad
flectendos animos audientium.”
Footnote 984:
Vita Eadw. 406. “Dum,” inquit, “fidelitatis suæ in corde meo habeam
hodie testem, me scilicet malle mortem, quàm aliquid indecens et
iniquum egerim, vel agam, vel me vivo agi permittam in dominum meum
Regem [cynehlaforde].” William of Malmesbury is certainly justified in
saying of Godwine personally, if not of all Godwine’s followers,
“pacifico animo repatriantes.”
Footnote 985:
See Appendix S.
Footnote 986:
Chron. Ab. “And Godwine for upp, and Harold his sunu, and heora lið
swa mycel swa heom þa geþuhte.”
Footnote 987:
Harold certainly, perhaps Godwine also. See above, p. 154.
Footnote 988:
Chron. Petrib. “Sume west to Pentecostes castele, some norð to
Rodbertes castele.” Pentecost, as we gather from Florence, who speaks
of “Osbernus cognomento Pentecost”—what can be the meaning of so
strange a surname?—is the same as Osbern, the son of Richard of
Richard’s Castle, of whom we have already heard so much. Robert’s
castle must be some castle belonging to Robert the son of Wymarc, as
distinctly the most notable man of his name in the country after
Robert the Archbishop. Most of his lands lay in the East of England;
but he had also property in the shires of Hertford, Huntingdon, and
Cambridge, though I do not find any mention of a castle on any of his
estates there.
Footnote 989:
The Abingdon Chronicle, followed by Florence, makes William accompany
Robert and Ulf on their desperate ride; “Rodbeard bisceop and Willem
bisceop and Ulf bisceop uneaðe ætburstan mid þam Frenciscum mannum þe
heom mid wæron, and swa ofer sæ becomon.” But the Peterborough writer
speaks only of Robert and Ulf, and William’s restoration to his see, a
matter of which there is no kind of doubt, could hardly have followed
if he had any share in the murderous adventure of his brethren.
Footnote 990:
Chron. Petrib. “And Rodbert arcebisceop and Ulf bisceop gewendon út æt
æst geate, and heora geferan, and ofslogon and elles amyrdon _manige
iunge men_.” One might almost fancy London apprentices, as in after
times, zealous for the popular cause.
Footnote 991:
Walton-on-the-Naze in Essex; see above, p. 110.
Footnote 992:
Chron. Petrib. “And wearð him þær on anon unwræste scipe, and ferde
him on án ofer sæ.” See Mr. Earle’s note on “unwræste,” p. 346.
Footnote 993:
Chron. Petrib. “And forlet his pallium and Christendom ealne her on
lande, swa swa hit God wolde; þæ he ǽr begeat þone wurðscipe swa swa
hit God nolde.” English has not gained by dropping the negative verb,
which survives only in the saying “will he, nill he.”
Footnote 994:
Chron. Petrib. “Ða cwæð mann _mycel gemót_ wiðutan Lundene;” “Statutum
est magnum placitum” is the translation in the Waverley Annals, p. 186
Luard. Flor. Wig. “Mane autem facto, concilium Rex habuit.” Chron. Ab.
“And wæs þa Witenagemót.” But it is the Peterborough writer only who
dwells with evident delight on the popular character of the Assembly.
Footnote 995:
Compare the position of the Dutch Guards and other foreign troops who
accompanied William of Orange.
Footnote 996:
“Wiðutan Lundene,” says the Peterborough Chronicler. See Appendix S.
Footnote 997:
Chron. Petrib. “Þær þær Godwine Eorl úp his mal, and betealde hine þær
wið Eadward cyng his hlaford _and wið ealle landleodan_.”
Footnote 998:
We shall presently see that Godwine and Eadward were both armed; it is
not at all likely that they were singular in being so. We have already
heard enough of votes passed by the army and the like to make an armed
Gemót nothing wonderful.
Footnote 999:
I saw the armed Landesgemeinde of Appenzell-ausser-rhoden in 1864. The
Law requires each landman to bring his sword; it also forbids the
sword to be drawn. In Uri the custom of bearing arms has been given
up. Cf. Thuc. i. 5, 6.
Footnote 1000:
Vita Eadw. 406. “Destitutus inprimis fugâ Archipræsulis et suorum
multorum _verentium adspectum Ducis_.”
Footnote 1001:
Chron. Petrib. “And ealle þa eorlas and þa betstan menn þe wæron on
þison lande wæron on þam gemote.” Does this merely mean the Earls who
had been already spoken of, Godwine and Harold on the one side, Ralph
and Odda on the other? Or does it imply the presence of Leofric,
Ælfgar, and Siward? Their presence is perfectly possible; but, if they
had had any share either in this Gemót or in the earlier military
proceedings, it is odd that they are not spoken of.
Footnote 1002:
Il. Σ. 198;
ἀλλ’ αὕτως ἐπὶ τάφρον ἰὼν, Τρώεσσι φάνηθι,
αἴ κε σ’ ὑποδδείσαντες ἀπόσχωνται πολέμοιο.
“Verentes adspectum Ducis,” says the Biographer just above.
Footnote 1003:
Vita Eadw. 406. “Viso Rege protinùs abjectis armis ejus advolvitur
pedibus.” I conceive the weapon borne to have been the axe, as a sort
of official weapon. It appears in the Bayeux Tapestry in the hands of
the attendants upon Eadward; so also in the scene where the Crown is
offered to Harold, both Harold himself and one of those who make the
offer to him bear axes.
Footnote 1004:
Ib. “Orans suppliciter ut in Christi nomine, cujus signiferam regni
coronam gestabat in capite, annueret ut sibi liceret purgare se de
objecto crimine, et purgato pacem concederet gratiæ suæ.” This
surviving fragment of Godwine’s eloquence shows how well he could
adapt himself to every class of hearers. But what was the Crown like?
The allusion seems to point to something like the Imperial Crown with
a cross on the top, but the crowns in the Tapestry are quite
different.
Footnote 1005:
Chron. Petrib. “Þet he wæs unscyldig þæs þe him geled wæs, and on
Harold his sunu and ealle his bearn.” This is the “purgatio” of the
Biographer. So Will. Malms. ii. 199. “Probè se de omnibus quæ
objectabantur expurgavit.” Compurgators seem not to have been called
for.
Footnote 1006:
Will. Malms. u. s. “Tantum brevi valuit ut sibi liberisque suis
honores integros restitueret.”
Footnote 1007:
“Ealle landleodan.” We have lost this, and so many other expressive
words. “Landleute” is the old official name of the people of the
democratic cantons of Switzerland; but _Land_ is there used in its
ordinary opposition to _Stadt_.
Footnote 1008:
I refer to the oath of the people of Appenzell-ausser-rhoden in their
Landesgemeinde. The newly elected Landammann first himself swears to
obey the laws; he then administers the oath to the vast multitude
before him. The effect of their answer is something overwhelming in
its grandeur.
Footnote 1009:
Chron. Petrib. “And _cweð mann_ útlaga Rotberd arcebisceop fullice,
and ealle þa Frencisce menn, forðan þe hi macodon mæst þet unseht
betweonan Godwine Eorle and þam Cynge.” So William of Malmesbury;
“Prolatâ sententiâ in Robertum archiepiscopum ejusque complices quòd
statum regni conturbarent, animum regium in provinciales agitantes.”
Footnote 1010:
Chron. Ab. “And geutlageden þa ealle Frencisce men, þe ǽr unlage
rærdon, and undom demdon, and únræd ræddon into ðissum earde.” Modern
English utterly fails to express the power of the negative words,
which modern High German only partially preserves. So Florence; “Omnes
Nortmannos qui leges iniquas adinvenerant [a poor substitute for
“unlage rærdon”] et injusta judicia judicaverant, multaque Regi
_in_silia [an attempt at transferring the Teutonic negative to the
Latin] adversus Anglos [a touch from Peterborough] dederant,
exlegaverunt.”
Footnote 1011:
Chron. Ab. and Fl. Wig. I shall have to speak of this exception again.
Footnote 1012:
Ib. “And eallum folce góde lage beheton.”
Footnote 1013:
See Appendix S.
Footnote 1014:
Chron. Petrib. 1052. “And se Cyng geaf þære Hlæfdian eall þæt heo ær
ahte.” Chron. Ab. “And Godwine Eorl and Harold and seo Cwen [This
title is unusual, but not unique] sæton on heora áre.” She had just
before come in incidentally in the list of Godwine’s family; “his
sunum ... and his wife and his dehter.” Flor. Wig. “Filiam quoque
Ducis, Eadgitham Reginam, digniter Rex recepit et pristinæ dignitati
restituit.” The Biographer (406) of course waxes eloquent; “Modico
exinde interfluente tempore mittitur æquè regio, ut par erat, apparatu
ad monasterium Wiltunense [on this confusion see p. 156] et [I omit
metaphors about the sun, &c.] reducitur Regina, ejusdem Ducis filia,
ad _thalamum_ Regis.” This last expression should be noticed, and
compared with the account in R. Wendover.
Footnote 1015:
On the pilgrimage of Swegen, see Appendix T.
Footnote 1016:
“On þone Tiwesdæg hí gewurdon sehte, swa hit her beforan stent,” says
the Abingdon Chronicle.
Footnote 1017:
See the passage of William of Malmesbury quoted above, p. 161.
Footnote 1018:
See above, p. 160.
Footnote 1019:
See Appendix G.
Footnote 1020:
See above, p. 66.
Footnote 1021:
The Peterborough Chronicle seems to record his appointment in the same
breath with the other acts of September 15th. Immediately after the
outlawry of Richard and the French follow the words, “And Stigand
Bisceop feng to þam arcebisceoprice on Cantwarabyrig.” The Chronicler
then turns to other matters.
Footnote 1022:
Will. Malms. Gest. Reg. ii. 199. “Romam profectus et de caussâ suâ
sedem apostolicam appellans.” In Gest. Pont. 116, he adds that he
returned “cum epistolis innocentiæ et restitutionis suæ
allegatricibus.”
Footnote 1023:
Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 761 D. Of William’s three causes for his invasion
two are, “Primò, quia Alfredum cognatum suum Godwinus _et filii sui_
dehonestaverant et peremerant; secundò, quia Robertum episcopum et
Odonem consulem [see Appendix G.] et omnes Francos Godwinus et filii
sui arte suâ ab Angliâ exsulaverant.” The third count is of course the
perjury of Harold. So, in nearly the same words, Bromton, X Scriptt.
958.
Footnote 1024:
On the ecclesiastical position of Stigand see Appendix U.
Footnote 1025:
We shall find many examples as we go on, and the general fact is
asserted in the Profession of Saint Wulfstan to Lanfranc. See Appendix
U.
Footnote 1026:
Chron. Ab. 1053. See Appendix U.
Footnote 1027:
Unless indeed some such feeling lurks in the words of the Abingdon
Chronicler, 1053; “Se Wulfwi feng to ðam biscoprice þe Ulf hæfde be
him libbendum and of adræfdum.”
Footnote 1028:
Chron. Ab. 1053. See Appendix U.
Footnote 1029:
See above, p. 331.
Footnote 1030:
Thierry (i. 202) makes Godwine resist the retention of any Normans,
especially of Bishop William and of the Lotharingian Hermann, Bishop
of Ramsbury! For his authority he quotes “Godwinus Comes obstiterat
(Ranulphus Higden, p. 281).” To say nothing of going to R. Higden on
such a point, any one who makes the reference will find that the words
have nothing to do with the matter. They refer to a supposed
opposition on the part of Godwine to the union of the sees of Ramsbury
and Sherborne, of which more anon.
Footnote 1031:
Flor. Wig. in anno. “Willelmus, propter suam bonitatem, parvo post
tempore revocatus, in suum episcopatum recipitur.”
Footnote 1032:
See above, p. 122.
Footnote 1033:
Flor. Wig.
Footnote 1034:
Flor. Wig. 1052. “Osbernus verò, cognomento Pentecost, et socius ejus
Hugo sua reddiderunt castella, et Comitis Leofrici licentiâ, per suum
comitatum Scottiam adeuntes a Rege Scottorum Macbeothâ suscepti sunt.”
Footnote 1035:
In the writ of 1060 (Cod. Dipl. iv. 194), announcing the nomination of
Walter to the see of Hereford, the King greets “Haroldum Comitem et
Osebarnum et omnes meos ministros in Herefordensi comitatu
amicabiliter.” See Ellis, i. 460. He was apparently Sheriff; he is not
indeed directly called so, but the position in the writ in which his
name occurs is one which generally belongs to the Sheriff. The
appearance of a French Sheriff in this particular shire may be
accounted for by the presence of a French Earl. It is more remarkable
if Robert the son of Wymarc was Sheriff of Essex, as might be inferred
from the similar position of his name in a writ in Cod. Dipl. iv. 214.
Footnote 1036:
Flor. Wig. 1052. “Robertum diaconem et generum ejus Ricardum filium
Scrob.”
Footnote 1037:
Several Ælfreds occur in Domesday, as the great landowners, Ælfred of
Marlborough and Ælfred of Spain, but it is not easy to identify their
possessions with any holder of the name in Eadward’s time. The names
Ælfred and Eadward, and the female name Eadgyth, seem to have been the
only English names adopted by the Normans. The two former would
naturally be given to godsons or dependants of the two Æthelings while
in Normandy, and Eadgyth would gain currency as the name of the wife
of the sainted King.
Footnote 1038:
The possessions of Ralph the Staller were very large. He signs an
English document of Abbot Ælfwig of Bath in Cod. Dipl. iv. 172, as
“Roulf steallere.”
Footnote 1039:
He signs as “Huhgelin minister.” Cod. Dipl. iv. 173. Cf. Domesday,
Hunt. 208, where his title is “Camerarius.” Æth. Riev. X Scriptt. 376.
Footnote 1040:
Vita Eadw. 406. “Unde post tam grande malum absque sanguine sedatum
Ducis sapientiâ, sollennis celebratur lætitia tam à palatinis quam ab
omni patriâ.”
Footnote 1041:
On this point the Biographer becomes enthusiastic, and bursts forth,
after his manner, into no less than forty hexameters. Godwine
suffering under false accusations had been likened to Joseph and
Susanna; now that he spares and honours a King whom he has in his
power, he is likened to David doing the like towards Saul. Altogether
the comparison is not a very lucky one for either Godwine or Eadward.
Footnote 1042:
Chron. Ab. 1052. “Godwine þa gesiclode hraðe þæs þe he upcom.”
Footnote 1043:
Chron. Wig. 1053. “And man rædde þæt man sloh Rís þæs Wyliscean cynges
broþer, forðy he hearmas dyde.” Florence more fully; “Griffini Regis
Australium Wallensium frater, Res nomine, propter frequentes prædas
quas egit in loco qui Bulendun dicitur, jussu Regis Eadwardi,
occiditur.” There are Bullingdons both in Oxfordshire and in
Hampshire, but Welsh ravages could hardly reach to either of them.
Footnote 1044:
Chron. Wig. “And man brohte his heafod to Glewcestre [“Glawornam ad
Regem” Fl. Wig.] on Twelftan ǽfen.” William of Malmesbury (ii. 196)
makes Harold the agent, which is quite possible, but he mixes the
matter up in a strange way with the fate of Gruffydd of North Wales,
ten years later. “Haroldum West-Saxonum [Comitem], filium Godwini, qui
duos fratres Reges Walensium Ris et Grifinum sollertiâ suâ in mortem
egerit.” William, perhaps pardonably, confounds the two Gruffydds.
Footnote 1045:
Chron. Petrib. 1052. “And on þis ilcan tyme forlet Arnwi abbot of Burh
abbotrice be his halre life, and geaf hit Leofric munec be þes cynges
leafe and be þære munece.” The local writer, Hugo Candidus, seems
(Sparke, 41) to place Leofric’s appointment in 1057. So John of
Peterborough, a. 1057, who calls him “egregius pater Leofricus.” Hugo
is loud in his praises; among his other merits he was so high in the
favour of the King and the Lady that he held five abbeys at once,
Burton, Coventry, Crowland, and Thorney, besides Peterborough.
Footnote 1046:
See above, p. 67.
Footnote 1047:
Hugo Candidus, ap. Sparke, 42.
Footnote 1048:
Chron. Petrib. 1052. “And se abbot Leofric gildede þa þæt mynstre swa
þæt man hit cleopede þa gildene Burh; þa wæx hit swiðe on land and on
gold and on seolfer.” Cf. 1066.
Footnote 1049:
Chron. Petrib. 1066.
Footnote 1050:
See Appendix W.
Footnote 1051:
See Chron. Ab. 1052, and Appendix E. and W.
Footnote 1052:
Liber de Hydâ, 289. “Porro uxor ejus [she is “Geta, genus, ut aiunt,
ex _insulâ Norwegiâ_ ducens”], magnæ sanctitatis multæque religionis
tramitem incedens, omni die duas ad minus missas _studiosè_ [see
above, p. 28] audiebat, omnique fere sabbato per duo aut amplius
miliaria nudis pedibus vicina ambiebat monasteria, largis muneribus
cumulans altaria, largisque donis pauperes recreans.” Of her gifts for
her husband’s soul we read in the Winchester Annals, p. 26; “Githa,
uxor Godwini, fœmina multas habens facultates, pro animâ ejus multis
ecclesiis in eleemosynâ multa contulit, et Wintoniæ ecclesiæ dedit duo
maneria, scilicet, Bleodonam et Crawecumbam et ornamenta diversi
generis.” Of these lordships, Bleadon and Crowcombe in Somersetshire,
Bleadon still remained to the Church at the time of the survey
(Domesday, 87 _b_), but Crowcombe had been alienated to Count Robert
of Mortain (91 _b_). Another gift for her husband’s soul made by Gytha
to the church of Saint Olaf at Exeter is found in Cod. Dipl. iv. 264.
This charter, signed by her sons Tostig and Gyrth as Earls, must be of
a later date (1057–1065), and shows that her pious anxiety still
continued. Of Gytha’s religious scruples a specimen will be found in
Appendix E. She is said (Tanner, Notitia Monastica, Devon, xxv. New
Monasticon, vi. 435) to have founded a College at Hartland in Devon. A
secular establishment founded by Harold’s mother should be noted.
Footnote 1053:
Chron. Ab. 1053. “And he lið þær binnan ealdan mynstre.” Vita Eadw.
408. “Tumulatur ergo condigno honore in monasterio quod nuncupant
veteri Wintoniæ, additis in eâdem ecclesiâ multis ornamentorum
muneribus et terrarum reditibus pro redemptione ipsius animæ.”
Footnote 1054:
Vita Eadw. 408. “Exsequiis suis in luctum decidit populus, hunc
patrem, hunc nutricium suum regnique, memorabant suspiriis et assiduis
fletibus.”
Footnote 1055:
Vita Eadw. 408. “Dux felicis memoriæ.”
Footnote 1056:
See vol. i. p. 470.
Footnote 1057:
See vol. i. p. 432: cf. 456.
Footnote 1058:
Chron. Petrib. 1053. “And feng Harold Eorl his sunu to ðam eorldome
and to eallum þam þe his fæder ahte.” So the others in other words.
Footnote 1059:
See above, pp. 37, 43.
Footnote 1060:
See above, p. 101.
Footnote 1061:
Vita Eadw. 408. “Subrogatur autem regio favore in ejus [Godwini]
ducatu filius ejus major natu et sapientiâ Haroldus, unde in
consolationem respirat universus Anglorum exercitus.” Then follows the
panegyric quoted in Appendix D.
Footnote 1062:
See Appendix G.
Footnote 1063:
Chronn. Ab. Wig. Petrib. Cant. in anno.
Footnote 1064:
We have one panegyric on Ælfgar in Orderic (511 A), but it is a
panegyric by misadventure. Orderic clearly confounded Ælfgar with his
father. William of Malmesbury however (see above, p. 161) speaks well
of his government of East-Anglia during Harold’s banishment.
Footnote 1065:
See above, p. 347.
Footnote 1066:
That the number of Frenchmen who remained in England was considerable
is shown, as Lappenberg says (p. 514. ii. 255 Thorpe), by a passage in
the so-called Laws of William (Thorpe, i. 491. Schmid, 354), by which
it appears that many of them had become naturalized English subjects;
“Omnis Francigena, qui tempore Eadwardi propinqui nostri fuit in
Angliâ particeps consuetudinum Anglorum, quod ipsi dicunt _an hlote et
an scote_, persolvat secundum legem Anglorum.”
Footnote 1067:
See above, p. 346.
Footnote 1068:
I quote, as one example of many, the signatures to the foundation
charter of Harold’s own church at Waltham (Cod. Dipl. iv. 158). The
seemingly Norman names, besides Bishop William, are “Rodbertus Regis
consanguineus, Radulphus Regis aulicus [the two Stallers], Bundinus
Regis palatinus (?), Hesbernus Regis consanguineus, Regenbaldus Regis
cancellarius, Petrus Regis capellanus, Baldewinus Regis capellanus.”
But the deed is also signed by many English _courtiers_, as well as
Earls, Prelates, and Thegns.
Footnote 1069:
I do not ground this belief on the well-known saying of the false
Ingulf (Gale, i. 62), how in Eadward’s days “Gallicum idioma omnes
magnates in suis curiis tamquam magnum gentilitium [linguam
gentilitiam?] loqui [cœperunt].” Harold’s foreign travels, and his
sojourn at the Norman court, seem to imply a knowledge of French, and
I can well believe that at home King Eadward looked more favourably on
a counsellor who could frame his lips to the beloved speech.
Footnote 1070:
This seems implied in the famous poetical panegyric on Eadward and
Harold in the Chronicles for 1065.
Footnote 1071:
Chron. Wig. 1053. “And þæs ylcan geres, foran to alra halgena mæssan,
forðferde Wulsyg bisceop æt Licetfelda, and Godwine abbod on
Wincelcumbe, and Ægelward abbod on Glestingabyrig, ealle binnan anum
monþe.”
Footnote 1072:
Chron. Ab. and Flor. Wig.
Footnote 1073:
Leofric, it will be remembered, was the son of an Ealdorman Leofwine.
See vol. i. p. 456.
Footnote 1074:
See above, p. 344.
Footnote 1075:
On Abbot Æthelnoth see William of Malmesbury, Glastonbury History, ap.
Gale, ii. 324. Æthelweard spoiled the lands, Æthelnoth the ornaments,
of the house. “Ex illo res Glastoniæ retro relabi et in pejus fluere.”
He has much to tell about the miracles wrought by King Eadgar about
this time—Eadgar, it must be remembered, passed at Glastonbury, in
defiance of all legends, for a saint—specially in healing a mad
German, “furiosus Teutonicus genus.” Was he one of the suite of the
Ætheling?
Footnote 1076:
I infer that Ealdred’s holding of Winchcombe was something more than a
mere temporary holding till a successor could be found. The Worcester
Chronicle (1053) speaks of it in the same form of words as the
appointments of Leofwine and Æthelnoth; “And Leofwine feng to þam
bisceoprice æt Licedfelde, and Aldret bisceop feng to þam abbodrice on
Wincelcumbe,” &c. Florence however says, after mentioning the
appointments of Leofwine and Æthelnoth, “Aldredus vero Wigorniensis
episcopus abbatiam Wincelcumbensem tamdiu in manu suâ tenuit, donec
Godricum, Regis capellani Godmanni filium abbatem constitueret.”
Footnote 1077:
Fl. Wig. 1054.
Footnote 1078:
Chron. Ab. 1053. “Eac Wylsce menn geslogan mycelne dæl Englisces
folces ðæra weardmanna wið Wæstbyrig.”
Footnote 1079:
See above, p. 53.
Footnote 1080:
See vol. i. p. 588.
Footnote 1081:
See vol. i. p. 499.
Footnote 1082:
See above, p. 55.
Footnote 1083:
See above, p. 54.
Footnote 1084:
“Jussu Regis,” says Florence, 1054.
Footnote 1085:
On the war with Macbeth, see Appendix X.
Footnote 1086:
See Munch, Chron. Regum Manniæ, 46 et seqq. Burton, History of
Scotland, i. 374.
Footnote 1087:
Annals of Ulster, 1054. See Appendix X.
Footnote 1088:
Chron. Wig. 1054. “And lædde þonan micele herehuþe, swilce nan man ær
ne begeat.”
Footnote 1089:
See vol. i. p. 586.
Footnote 1090:
Now that the Housecarls are an established institution, wars are
carried on with much greater speed than they were in Æthelred’s time.
If the expedition was voted at the end of June, Siward could easily
have met Macbeth in the field before the end of July.
Footnote 1091:
Tac. Mor. Germ. c. 20. “Sororum filiis idem apud avunculum, qui apud
patrem honor. Quidam sanctiorem arctioremque hunc nexum sanguinis
arbitrantur, et in accipiendis obsidibus magis exigunt.”
Footnote 1092:
See above, p. 364, for Siward nephew of Siward, and vol. i. p. 300 for
Wulfmær nephew of Brihtnoth.
Footnote 1093:
See vol. i. p. 455.
Footnote 1094:
See Appendix Y.
Footnote 1095:
See Appendix Y.
Footnote 1096:
It is only through Margaret that our Kings from Henry the Second
onward were descended from Eadward the Elder, Eadmund, or Eadgar. But
it must not be forgotten that every descendant of Matilda of Flanders
was a descendant of Ælfred.
Footnote 1097:
See vol. i. pp. 118, 533.
Footnote 1098:
See vol. i. pp. 65, 117, 118.
Footnote 1099:
See vol. i. pp. 117, 291.
Footnote 1100:
I rely far more on the probability of the case than on the account
given by William of Malmesbury under the influence of those Norman
prejudices against which he sometimes struggles, but to which he
sometimes yields. He tells us (ii. 228), “Rex Edwardus, pronus in
senium [fifty, or a year or two older], quod ipse non susceperat
liberos, _et Godwini videret invalescere filios_, misit ad Regem
Hunorum ut filium fratris Edmundi, Edwardum, cum omni familiâ suâ
mitteret; futurum ut aut ille aut filii sui succedant regno
hæreditario Angliæ; orbitatem suam cognatorum suffragio sustentari
debere.” He then goes on to describe the Ætheling (“vir neque promptus
manu neque probus ingenio”), his family, his return, and his death. He
then adds, “Rex itaque, defuncto cognato, quia spes prioris erat
soluta suffragii, Willelmo Comiti Normanniæ successionem Angliæ
dedit.” I believe exactly the reverse to be the truth.
Footnote 1101:
See Appendix Y.
Footnote 1102:
See above, p. 115.
Footnote 1103:
See above, p. 113.
Footnote 1104:
See above, p. 362.
Footnote 1105:
So I understand the passage in the Evesham History, p. 87, about
Æthelwig’s appointment to the Abbey of Evesham in 1059. He is there
spoken of as one “qui multo antea tempore episcopatum Wigornensis
ecclesiæ sub Aldredo archiepiscopo laudabiliter rexerat.” See Mr.
Macray’s note. That Ealdred is called Archbishop need be no
difficulty. It is the old question about the days of Abiathar the
Priest.
Footnote 1106:
On Mannig, see above, p. 70. The Evesham History, p. 86, describes him
as skilful in all arts, and as practising them for the adornment of
the churches of Canterbury and Coventry as well as of his own Evesham.
Footnote 1107:
Chron. Wig. 1054. “And he lofode Leofwine bisceop to halgianne þæt
mynster æt Eofeshamme, on vi. Id. Oct.”
Footnote 1108:
Young Henry was crowned at the age of five at Aachen, July 17th, 1054,
by Hermann, Archbishop of Köln. Lambert in anno.
Footnote 1109:
Agnes, daughter of William the Great, Duke of Aquitaine, married King
Henry in 1043 (Lambert and Chron. And. ap. Labbe, i. 276) or 1045
(Hugo Flav. ap. Labbe, i. 187) or 1049 (Chron. S. Maxent. in anno).
Her father being dead, she is described as “filia Agnetis,” the Agnes
so famous in the history of Geoffrey Martel (see above, p. 276). Abbot
Hugh, in recording the marriage, cannot refrain from the strange
comment, “Quum enim esset [Heinricus] aliàs bonus, et omnes ejus
sitirent dominium, carnis tamen incontinentiam frænare non potuit.”
Was Henry the Third bound to imitate Henry the Second?
Footnote 1110:
See Appendix Y.
Footnote 1111:
Ib.
Footnote 1112:
See above, p. 100. We have no account of the time or circumstances of
his return from banishment.
Footnote 1113:
Chron. Ab. 1054. “Swa swa he on his reste læg.” Chron. Wig. “on his
bedde.”
Footnote 1114:
All the Chronicles and Florence, in anno.
Footnote 1115:
Hen. Hunt, M. H. B. 760 C. “Adhuc parvulus.” So Bromton, 946. But he
could hardly be “in cunis jacens” (R. Higden, lib. vi. Gale, ii. 281),
when we consider his importance twelve years later.
Footnote 1116:
We know her through a document in Cod. Dipl. iv. 265. “Godgiva vidua”
gives lands to Peterborough “pro redemptione animæ suæ per consensum
Regis Eaduuardi.” She then married Siward; “Postea accepit eam
Siuuardus Comes in conjugio; post tempus non multum mortua est.” The
singular story about these lands will be best told when discussing the
character of Waltheof.
Footnote 1117:
See vol. i. p. 587. Sim. Dun. X Scriptt. 81. “Nepos Aldredi Comitis
Comes Waltheof, erat enim filius filiæ illius.” Simeon (ib. 82) seems
to imply that Waltheof held Bernicia under his father (“filio suo
Waltheofo comitatum Northymbrorum dedit”); but he clearly was not in
possession in 1065. See Simeon’s own account, X Scriptt. 204. On the
question whether he received Northamptonshire on his father’s death or
ten years later, see Appendix G.
Footnote 1118:
Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 760 C. Bromton, 946. Ann. Wint. 26.
Footnote 1119:
Chronn. Ab. and Wig. 1055. “And he ligeð æt Galmanhó, on þam mynstre
þe he sylf let timbrian and halgian on Godes and Olafes naman [Gode to
lofe and eallum his halgum”]. Bromton, 946, using the language of
later times, says, “Sepultus est in monasterio sanctæ Mariæ apud
Eboracum in claustro.” There is still a parish church of Saint Olaf in
that part of the city.
Footnote 1120:
See vol. i. pp. 416, 449.
Footnote 1121:
See Appendix G.
Footnote 1122:
Vita Eadw. 408. “Agentibusque amicis potissimùm autem et pro merito
hoc ejus fratre Haroldo Duce et ejus sorore Reginâ, et non resistente
Rege ob innumera ipsius fideliter acta servitia, ducatum ejus suscepit
Tostinus, vir scilicet fortis et magnâ præditus animi sagacitate et
sollertiâ.”
Footnote 1123:
The Biographer, essentially a courtier, always likes to attribute as
much as possible to the personal action of the King, and to keep that
of the Witan, as far as may be, in the back ground.
Footnote 1124:
Plutarch. Apophth. Alex. 29. Τιμᾷν μὲν ἐδόκει Κρατερὸν μάλιστα πάντων,
φιλεῖν δὲ Ἡφαιστίωνα· Κρατερὸς μὲν γὰρ, ἔφη, φιλοβασιλεύς ἐστιν,
Ἡφαιστίων δὲ φιλαλέξανδρος. Eadward’s affection for Tostig is also
marked by William of Malmesbury, iii. 252; “Quia Tostinum
diligeret, ... ut dilecto auxiliari non posset.”
Footnote 1125:
This seems implied in the Biographer’s description of the state of
things when the Northumbrian revolt broke out in 1065 (421); “Erat ...
Tostinus in curiâ Regis, diutiùsque commoratus est cum eo, ejus
detentus amore et jussis in disponendis regalis palatii negotiis.”
Footnote 1126:
See vol. i. p. 416.
Footnote 1127:
See vol. i. p. 587.
Footnote 1128:
See above, p. 374.
Footnote 1129:
See vol. i. p. 588.
Footnote 1130:
He is called “adolescens” by Simeon of Durham (X Scriptt. 204) ten
years later. His father had now been dead fourteen years; Oswulf was
therefore probably a mere babe at the time of his death.
Footnote 1131:
See vol. i. p. 585.
Footnote 1132:
See Appendix Z.
Footnote 1133:
See above, p. 38.
Footnote 1134:
Vita Eadw. 409.
Footnote 1135:
Vita Eadw. 409. “At Dux Tostinus et ipse gravi quidem et sapienti
continentiâ, sed _acrior paullisper in persequendâ malitiâ_, virili
præditus et indissolubili mentis constantiâ.” In a writer who is
striving hard to make out a case for Tostig, the words in Italics mean
a great deal. We shall see, as we go on, reason to justify infinitely
stronger expressions; but the point is that Tostig was not a mere
wanton oppressor, but a ruler who carried a severe justice to such a
degree as to become injustice. This is the impression conveyed by the
no doubt flattering, but still very carefully drawn, portrait given by
the Biographer.
Footnote 1136:
Vita Eadw. 421. “Licet antecessor ejus Dux Siwardus ex feritate
judicii valdè timeretur, tamen tanta gentis illius crudelitas et Dei
incultus habebatur ut vix triginta vel viginti in uno comitatu possent
ire, quin aut interficerentur aut deprædarentur ab insidiantium
latronum multitudine.”
Footnote 1137:
Ib. 422. “Quos pacis deificæ filius et amator eximius Dux adeò illo
adtenuaverat tempore, patriam scilicet purgando talium _cruciatu_ vel
nece, et nulli quantumlibet nobili parcendo qui in hoc deprehensus
esset crimine, ut quivis solus etiam cum quâvis possessione ad votum
possent commeare, absque alicujus hostilitatis formidine.” This last
is the proverbial saying which is applied to the strict police of
William (Chron. Petrib. 1087); “Swa þæt án man þe himsylf aht wære
mihte faran ofer his rice mid his bosum full goldes ungederad.” It is
essentially the same as the story told of the vigilant administration
of the Bretwalda Eadwine; Bæda, Hist. Eccl. ii. 16.
Footnote 1138:
Vita Eadw. 409. “Propter eamdem regiæ stirpis uxorem suam omnium
abdicans voluptatem, _cœlebs_ moderatiùs corporis et oris sui
prudenter regere consuetudinem.” On this singular use of the word
_cœlebs_, see Appendix B.
Footnote 1139:
Vita Eadw. 409. “Quum largiretur, liberali effundebat munificentiâ, et
frequentiùs hoc hortatu religiosæ conjugis suæ in Christi fiebat
honore quam pro aliquo hominum labili favore.” Tostig and Judith had
much reverence for Saint Cuthberht, and were bountiful in their gifts
to his church at Durham. But Judith chafed under the discipline which
forbade women to pay their personal devotions at his shrine. She
accordingly, before venturing herself, sent a handmaid to try her
luck. The poor girl was sadly buffeted by the indignant saint, on
which Tostig and his wife offered a splendid crucifix with the usual
accompanying figures. Sim. Dun. Hist. Eccl. Dun. iii. 11.
Footnote 1140:
See above, p. 46. We shall come to the details in the next Chapter.
Footnote 1141:
I have no means of reckoning save the vague one which I have had to
follow throughout. As Godwine and Gytha were married in 1019, their
third or fourth child would probably be born about 1023 or 1024.
Footnote 1142:
Simeon of Durham (Gest. Regg. in anno) speaks of Malcolm being
Tostig’s “conjuratus frater” in 1061. The engagement must therefore
have been entered into before that year and after 1055. Tostig would
not become Malcolm’s sworn brother till he found himself his
neighbour.
Footnote 1143:
See vol. i. p. 436.
Footnote 1144:
See vol. i. p. 585.
Footnote 1145:
See Appendix X.
Footnote 1146:
Chron. Petrib. 1055. “Þa bead man ealre witena gemót vii. nihton ǽr
midlenctene.” Flor. Wig. “Habito Lundoniæ consilio.”
Footnote 1147:
Ib. “Utlagode mann Ælfgar eorl, forðon him man wearp ón þæt he was þes
cynges swica and ealra landleoda. And he þæs geanwyrde wæs ætforan
eallum þam mannum þe þær gegaderode wæron, þeah him þæt word ofscute
his unnþances.” So Chron. Cant.
Footnote 1148:
“Butan ælcan gylte,” Chron. Ab. “Forneh butan gylte,” Chron. Wig.
“Sine culpâ,” Florence. Just as in the case of the ballad charging
Godwine with the murder of Ælfred (vol. i. p. 546), these differences
look very much as if the Worcester writer had seen the Abingdon text,
and had altered a passage which might be construed into a
representation of Harold as a false accuser. One can hardly conceive
any other motive for the change. And care on such a point seems to
show that Harold had some hand in the accusation, whether true or
false. It is singular however that Henry of Huntingdon, who is
generally most bitter against Harold, should be the writer who
expresses the most distinct conviction of the guilt of Ælfgar (M. H.
B. 760 D); “Eodem anno Algarus consul _Cestriæ_ [a confusion of his
present and later offices] exsulatus est, quia de proditione Regis in
consilio convictus fuerat.” On the other hand, a later writer, John of
Peterborough (1055), commits himself to the banishment being done both
“sine caussâ” and “per Haroldi consilium.”
Footnote 1149:
Chron. Ab. 1055. “He gewende ða to Irlande, and begeat him ðær lið;
þæt wæs xviii. scipa butan his agenan.” So “xviii. piraticis navibus
acquisitis” in Florence. The part of Ireland whence they came is not
mentioned, but Diarmid, the protector of Harold, was still reigning at
Dublin, and he would doubtless be equally ready to protect Ælfgar. I
can find no mention of the matter in the Irish Chronicles.
Footnote 1150:
The language of the three Chronicles and of Florence is singularly
varied, but they all assert the same fact.
Footnote 1151:
Ann. Camb. 1055. “Grifinus filius Lewelin, Grifud filium Riderch
occidit et Herefordiam vastavit.” So Brut y Tywysogion, 1054.
Footnote 1152:
Fl. Wig. “Petivit [Algarus] ut contra Regem Eadwardum sibi esset in
auxilium.”
Footnote 1153:
Fl. Wig. “De toto regno suo copiosum exercitum congregans.” The Welsh
Chronicler says that “Gruffydd raised an army against the Saxons,” but
he takes care to say nothing of his English, Irish, or Danish allies.
Footnote 1154:
Domesday, 179. “In Arcenefelde habet Rex tres ecclesias; presbyteri
harum ecclesiarum ferunt legationes Regis in Wales.... Quum exercitus
in hostem pergit, ipsi per consuetudinem faciunt _Avantwarde_ et in
reversione _Redrewarde_. Hæ consuetudines erant Walensium T. R. E. in
Arcenefelde.” These customs are described at length, and they give a
curious picture of a border district, largely inhabited by Welshmen
living under English allegiance and bound to service against their
independent brethren.
Footnote 1155:
Domesday, 181. “Rex Grifin et Blein vastaverunt hanc terram T. R. E.
et ideo nescitur qualis eo tempore fuerit.” Blein is doubtless
Blethgent the brother of Gruffydd, to whom his kingdom was given by
Harold in 1063.
Footnote 1156:
Fl. Wig. 1055. “Duobus miliariis a civitate Herefordâ.”
Footnote 1157:
See above, p. 346.
Footnote 1158:
It is now that Florence introduces him as “timidus Dux Radulfus, Regis
Eadwardi sororis filius.”
Footnote 1159:
Chron. Ab. 1055. “Ac ǽr þær wære ænig spere gescoten, ær fleah ðæt
Englisce folc, forðan þe hig wæran on horsan.” Florence is more
explicit; “Radulfus ... Anglos contra morem in equis pugnare jussit.”
Footnote 1160:
See Macaulay’s remarks on Monmouth’s raw cavalry at Sedgemoor. Hist.
Eng. i. 588, 604.
Footnote 1161:
Fl. Wig. 1055. “Comes cum suis Francis et Nortmannis fugam primitùs
capessit. Quod videntes Angli ducem suum fugiendo sequuntur.” But the
Chronicles do not necessarily imply this.
Footnote 1162:
Chron. Ab. “And man sloh ðær mycel wæl, abutan feower hund manna oððe
fife, and hig nænne agean.” The Annales Cambriæ (1055) have simply,
“Grifinus ... Herfordiam vastavit,” without mention of the battle. The
Brut (1054) much fuller. It makes no mention of Ælfgar and his
contingent, but it speaks of Reinolf or Randwlf as the commander of
the English. It says nothing of the special reason for the flight of
the English, which it says happened “after a severely hard battle.”
Footnote 1163:
The battle, according to the Abingdon Chronicle and Florence, the
“harrying” according to the Worcester Chronicle, was on the 24th of
October, ix. Kal. Nov.
Footnote 1164:
So all the Chronicles under 792.
Footnote 1165:
See Appendix AA.
Footnote 1166:
Chronn. Ab. and Wig. and Fl. Wig. 1055.
Footnote 1167:
Flor. Wig. 1055. “Septem canonicis qui valvas principalis basilicæ
defenderant occisis.” Chron. Wig., without mentioning the number,
“Forbærude [Ælfgar] þæt mære mynster þe Æthelstan bisceop getimbrode,
and ofsloh þa preostas innan þan mynstre.”
Footnote 1168: