feeling with which they were looked at by the mass of the people, we can
say very little in the absence of any direct evidence. They were a
standing army in days when a standing army was a new thing, and a
standing army, as long as it is a new thing, is never a popular
institution. And the housecarls at first were not only a standing army,
but a standing army largely made up of foreigners and conquerors. Still
everything both in the reign of Cnut and in the reign of Eadward would
tend to make the force grow more and more national and popular. The time
when it was likely to be abused, as we know that it was abused, was in
the days of Cnut’s sons. Still, even under Harold the son of Godwine, we
can perhaps discern a certain tinge of ill-will in the words
“stippendiarii” and “mercenarii,” which seem to breathe the same spirit
as the manifest dislike to Danegelds and _heregelds_, perhaps one might
say to taxes of every kind. But I see no sign of any strong ill-will
between the housecarls and the people at any time. I can find no
evidence for the highly-coloured picture given by Mr. St. John (ii. 99)
of their insolence in Cnut’s days, though it is likely enough that such
things sometimes happened. But the reference which he gives to the
Ramsey History (c. lxxxv. p. 441) is only a legend about Bishop Æthelric
making a Danish thegn—married, by the way, to an Englishwoman—drunk, and
so getting a grant of lands out of him. As for Bromton’s tales about
Englishmen having to stand on bridges while the Danes passed, having to
bow to the Danes, and the like (X Scriptt. 934), they prove very little
indeed. They are parts of an historical confusion which I shall
presently have to mention, and they seem to be placed in the time of
Cnut’s sons rather than in that of Cnut himself.
One point more remains with regard to the relations of the housecarls to
the people at large. Though there is no mention of the force in the
genuine English laws, yet in the so-called Laws of Eadward the Confessor
(Thorpe, i. 449) and in Bracton (iii. 15. 2, 3) the legal process of
“Murdrum,” and in Bracton the Presentment of Englishry also, is traced
up to the institutions of Cnut. When Cnut, we are told, sent away the
mass of his Danish troops, at the request of the Witan (“rogatu baronum
Anglorum,” “precatu baronum de terra”), the Witan pledged themselves
that the rest should be safe in life and limb (“firmam pacem haberent”),
and that any Englishman who killed any of them should suffer punishment.
If the murderer could not be discovered, the township or hundred was
fined. Out of this, we are told by Bracton, grew the doctrine, continued
under the Norman Kings, that an unknown corpse was presumed to be that
of a Frenchman—in Cnut’s time, doubtless, that of a Dane—and that the
“Englishry” of a slain person had to be proved. The “Laws of Eadward” of
course contain no notice of “Englishry” as opposed to Frenchry—if I may
coin such a word; but neither do they mention it as opposed to Danishry.
They simply record the promise of the Witan—not an unreasonable one—that
Cnut’s soldiers should be under the protection of the law. This is
likely enough; anything more is the mere carrying back of Norman
institutions into earlier times. In the Dialogus de Scaccario (i. 10)
there is no hint of the “Murdrum” and “Englishry” being older than the
Norman Conquest. See vol. v. pp. 443, 444.
We shall as we go on come across many passages in which the housecarls
both of the King and of the great Earls are spoken of. Among the
charters of Eadward are several (Cod. Dipl. iv. 201, 204, 221, cf. 200)
containing grants to the King’s housecarls. The three grantees spoken of
are called Thurstan, Urk, and Wulfnoth—the last at all events being an
Englishman, perhaps a kinsman of Godwine. The two latter writs are
addressed to Earl Harold. In the oldest (201), a Middlesex writ,
addressed to Bishop Robert, Osgod Clapa, and Ulf the Sheriff, Thurstan
is described in the English copy as “Ðurstan min huskarll,” in the Latin
as “præfectus meus palatinus Ðurstanus.” As Mr. Kemble says (ii. 123),
such a description could not apply to every man in so large a body; so
we may infer that Thurstan stood high in the service. There is also the
will of Wulfwig, Bishop of Dorchester (Cod. Dipl. iv. 290), which is
witnessed by a crowd of people, great and small, from the King and the
Lady downwards, including some signatures of large bodies of men; “On
eallra ðæs kynges húscarlan and on his mæsse-préostan ... and on eallra
ðára burhwara gewitnesse on Lincolne and on eallra ðæra manna ðe seceað
gearmorkett tó Stowe.” This immediately follows on the signatures of the
Stallers Ansgar, Ralph, and Lyfing, from which Mr. Kemble (ii. 122)
infers that the Stallers were the special commanders of the force.
Housecarls are also mentioned several times in Domesday (see Ellis, i.
91; ii. 151; Kelham, 238), and in Simeon of Durham (Gest. Regg. 1071;
see vol. iv. pp. 304, 513) we find a housecarl not only reckoned among
the “principales viri” of Northumberland, but high in personal favour
with William; “Eilaf huscarl apud regem præpollens honore.”
NOTE LLL. p. 448.
CNUT’S RELATIONS WITH SCOTLAND.
I. The authorities for the Battle of Carham are the Melrose Chronicle
(in anno), and two entries of Simeon of Durham, one in his general
History (Gest. Regg. in anno), the other in his History of the Church of
Durham (iii. 5; ap. X Scriptt. 30). The Melrose writer (p. 155) simply
says, “Ingens bellum inter Anglos et Scottos apud Carham geritur.” This
entry seems an abridgement of that in Simeon’s Annals; “Ingens bellum
apud Carrum gestum est inter Scottos et Anglos, inter Huctredum filium
Waldef comitem Northymbrorum, et Malcolmum filium Cyneth regem
Scottorum, cum quo fuit in bello Eugenius Calvus rex Lutinensium.” From
neither of these accounts should we learn which side was victorious. But
in the Durham History Simeon becomes explicit, if not exaggerated;
“Universus a flumine Tesa usque Twedam populus, dum contra infinitam
Scottorum multitudinem apud Carrum dimicaret, pene totus cum natu
majoribus suis interiit.” In the Durham Annals (Pertz, xviii. 507) there
is a further notice; “Fuit apud Carrum illud famosum bellum inter
Northanhymbros et Scottos, ubi pene totus sancti Cuthberti populos
interiit, inter quos etiam xviii sacerdotes, qui inconsulte se
intermiscuerant bello; quo audito præscriptus episcopus dolorem et vitam
morte finivit.” It is not clear whether this is the event referred to by
Fordun (iv. 40), where he tells us that Duncan was sent by Malcolm to
meet the Danes and Northumbrians (“qui tunc velut una gens coierant”),
who were on their march to ravage Cumberland. He met them and defeated
them with great slaughter. Fordun seems to place this before the death
of Æthelred; in so confused a writer the chronological difficulty is of
no great consequence; it is of more importance that a Northumbrian army,
marching to invade any part of Cumberland, would hardly pass by Carham.
There are several points to be noticed here. First, the event of 1018,
like the event of 1066, was ushered in by a comet which, though it is
not mentioned by our national Chroniclers, seems to have deeply affected
local imaginations. “Northanimbrorum populis,” says Simeon in his local
work, “per xxx. noctes cometa apparuit, quæ terribili præsagio futuram
provinciæ cladem præmonstravit. Siquidem paullo post, id est post
triginta dies,” &c. Then follows the account of the battle.
Secondly, Simeon, accurate as he commonly is, has gone wrong—who could
feel certain of not going wrong?—among the Earls of his own land. His
Uhtred ought (see above, p. 587) to be Eadwulf. It was he, “ignavus
valde et timidus,” who now, according to one view (see above, p. 585),
ceded Lothian to the victorious Malcolm.
Thirdly, for “Lutinensium” in Simeon we should, according to Mr.
Robertson (i. 99), read “Clutinensium.”
Fourthly, the extent of the district from which the English army came
should be noticed. It came from the land between Tees and Tweed, that is
from old Bernicia, without Lothian. This suggests the question why
Lothian, if it was not ceded for the first time till after the battle,
did not take a part in the war as well as the rest of the earldom.
Fifthly, the “natu majores” of Simeon are doubtless the “yldestan” of
our English Chronicles. See p. 591, and below, p. 777. On this slaughter
of the nobility, compare the same result at Assandun, p. 392.
II. With regard to Cnut’s later relations with Scotland, our own
Chronicles contain no entries on Scottish affairs earlier than the great
submission of 1031. So far as the sagas can be relied upon, they
certainly represent Cnut as exercising lordship in Scotland at an
earlier time. In Snorro’s Saga of Olaf Haraldsson (Laing, ii. 195) we
read how Cnut “reigned over Denmark and England and had conquered for
himself a great part of Scotland.” And again we read (Laing, ii. 196;
Johnstone, 148), both in prose and verse, how two Kings came to Cnut
from Scotland out of Fife, and how he received them to favour, restored
their lands, and gave them fresh gifts (“til hans komo tveir konungar
nordan af Skotlandi, af Fifi, oc gaf hann þeim upp reídi sína, oc lönd
þau öll, er þeir höfdo ádr átt, oc þar med stórar vingiafir”). This is
placed while Cnut is still only intriguing, and not yet fighting,
against Olaf, that is, at some time before the battle of the Helga in
1025. This story may be merely a transfer to a wrong date of the
submission of 1031, or it may be a record of some earlier submission. If
the sagas are extremely confused in their chronology, our Chronicles are
during this reign extremely meagre in their entries. The Knytlinga Saga
also (c. 17; Johnstone, 144) not only makes Cnut subdue a large part of
Scotland, but sets his son Harold over it as Under-king, as Swegen was
in Norway and Harthacnut in Denmark (see below, p. 775). This seems to
be put before the Roman pilgrimage, but the chronology is very confused.
The Roman pilgrimage seems to be put after the conquest of Norway. And
of a reign of Harold in Scotland nothing, as far as I know, is mentioned
elsewhere.
There is also the account in Fordun (iv. 41) of Cnut’s relations with
Cumberland, to which I have referred in the text (see p. 449). This
story may be true in itself; but the prominence which is given to it
certainly looks like an attempt to evade the fact of the submission of
Scotland itself. Fordun places the Cumbrian expedition after the Roman
pilgrimage, and that he places (iv. 40) in the eighth year of Conrad,
meaning seemingly 1032. The refusal of Duncan to do homage is thus
described; “Non enim hactenus Anglorum regi Cnutoni, quia regnum
invaserat, pro Cumbria Duncanus, quamquam iterum et iterum ab eo
submonitus, homagium fecerat, quia non inde sibi de jure, sed regibus
Angligenis fidem deberi rex rescripsit.” Cnut then marches against him;
that it was with the intention of incorporating Cumberland with the
English kingdom, of dealing with the dominions of the recusant as being,
in feudal language, a forfeited fief, I infer from the words “Cumbriam
suo subdendam dominio pedetentim advenit.” The terms on which peace was
finally made are thus described; “Ut regis [Scottorum sc.] nepos
Duncanus Cumbriæ dominio libere, sicut predecessorum aliquis liberius
tenuit, de cetero gaudeat in futurum, dum tamen ipse futurorumque regum
hæredes qui pro tempore fuerint regi Cnutoni ceterisque suis
successoribus Anglorum regibus fidem consuetam faciant.” There is
nothing unlikely in all this, except perhaps in the extreme loyalty
towards the house of Cerdic which is attributed to the Cumbrian
Under-king; but we must always remember the strong tendency of Scottish
writers to make too much rather than too little of the vassalage of
Cumberland to England.
III. We now come to the undoubted submission of Scotland to Cnut in
1031, as recorded in our own Chronicles. I do not understand Mr. Burton
(i. 368), when, after quoting Mr. Thorpe’s translation (ii. 128), which
is certainly made up confusedly from the Worcester and Peterborough
Chronicles, he says that “in only one of the four accepted versions of
the original is there anything resembling this.” The Abingdon Chronicle
is certainly silent, but Worcester and Peterborough both record the
submission, though in different words, and Canterbury follows
Peterborough. The Worcester entry runs thus; “Þa fór he [Cnut] to
Scotlande, and Scotta cyng eode him on hand and wearð his mann; ac he
þæt lytle hwile heold.” Peterborough says, “he [Cnut] for to Scotlande,
and Scotta cyng him to beah Mælcolm, and twegen oðre cyningas, Mælbæþe
and Iehmarc.” Mr. Robertson (i. 97, ii. 400) seems unable to identify
Jehmarc. Mr. Skene (Celtic Scotland, i. 397) makes him the same as
Imergi, from whom Somerled, who was killed in 1166, was fourth in
descent, and places him in Airergaidhel or Argyll, the old Scottish land
of Dalriada. His companion, “Mælbæþa,” “Mealbæaðe,” must be the same as
the “Macbeoðe” of the Worcester Chronicle in 1054, that is the Machabæus
of Fordun, the Macbeth of Shakespere. The words of the Worcester
Chronicler, “ac he þæt lytle hwile heold,” may refer to Malcolm’s death
soon after in 1033. Scotland soon fell into confusion, and before long
England also.
The submission recorded by our two Chroniclers is not to be doubted; but
I confess that I am not quite clear about the date. Both Chroniclers
pointedly connect the Scottish expedition with Cnut’s return from Rome
(“sona swa he ham com þa fór he to Scotlande,” Wig. “Þy ilcan geare he
for to Scotlande,” Petrib.); so it is possible that the true date may be
1027 or 1028 instead of 1031.
Lastly, there is the curious account of Rudulf Glaber (ii. 2) which I
have referred to in the text (see p. 450), and which comes in a passage
which I shall have to refer to again. In the year 996 a whale as big as
an island came out of the North towards Gaul and portended the troubles
which were to come upon Gaul and Britain. In Britain especially there
was frightful confusion; various Kings were striving and wasting the
land, till in the end one got the better of them all; “Viso ... Oceani
portento exorsus est bellicus tumultus in universali occidentali orbis
plaga, videlicet tam in regionibus Galliarum quam in transmarinis Oceani
insulis, Anglorum videlicet atque Brittonum necnon et Scotorum.
Siquidem, ut plerumque solet contingere, propter delicta infimi populi,
versi in dissensionem illorum reges ac cæteri principes, statimque
exardescentes in subjectæ plebis depopulationem scilicet usque dum
perducuntur ad suimet sanguinis effusionem. Quod videlicet tamdiu
patratum est in prædictis insulis, quousque unus regum earumdem vi solus
potiretur regiminis ceterarum.” This lucky King of course is Cnut, who
is conceived to be King of the West-Saxons. He seizes the kingdom of
Æthelred, who is conceived, it would seem, to be King of one of the
British islands called Denmark. “Denique mortuo rege Adalrado, in regno
scilicet illorum qui Danimarches cognominantur, qui etiam duxerat uxorem
sororem Ricardi Rotomagorum ducis, invasit regnum illius rex videlicet
Canuc Occidentalium Anglorum, qui etiam post crebra bellorum molimina ac
patriæ depopulationes, pactum cum Ricardo stabiliens ejusque germanam,
Adalradi videlicet uxorem, in matrimonium ducens, utriusque regni tenuit
monarchiam.” It might be refining too much to hint that this wonderful
turning about of the dominions of Cnut and Æthelred had anything to do
with the strangely reversed state of geographical parties in 1015–1016
(see p. 377). Then follows the account of the Scottish expedition, as
follows;
“Post hæc quoque idem Canuc cum plurimo exercitu egressus, ut subjugaret
sibi gentem Scotorum, quorum videlicet rex Melculo vocabatur, viribus et
armis validus et, quod potissimum erat, fide atque opere
Christianissimus. Ut autem cognovit quoniam Canuc audacter illius
quæreret invadere regnum, congregans omnem sui gentis exercitum,
potenter ei ne valeret restitit. Ac diu multumque talibus procaciter
Canuc inserviens jurgiis, ad postremum tantum prædicti Ricardi
Rotomagorum ducis ejusque sororis persuasionibus, pro Dei amore, omni
prorsus deposita feritate, mitis effectus, in pace deguit. Insuper etiam
et Scotorum regem amicitiæ gratia diligens, illiusque filium de sacro
baptismatis fonte excepit.” One does not quite see why either Emma or
Duke Richard or Rudolf Glaber should be seized with such a sudden fit of
interest in the affairs of Scotland. Still Rudolf’s account is less
wonderful than that of a contemporary German writer, Ekkehard the
historian of Saint Gallen, who boldly carries Cnut back into the tenth
century, and sends Otto the Great over into England to fight against him
(Pertz, ii. 119); “Ottone apud Anglos cum _Adaltage_, rege ipsorum,
socero suo, aliquamdiu agente, ut junctis viribus Chnutonem Danorum
debellaret regem.” Yet Ekkehard was born in 980 and died in 1036.
NOTE MMM. p. 454.
THE BATTLE AT THE HELGA.
This battle is not mentioned in the Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles.
Peterborough, followed by Canterbury, places it in 1025. No enemies but
Swedes are spoken of, and their commanders are called Ulf and Eglaf.
“Þær comon ongean Ulf and Eglaf and swiðe mycel here, ægðer ge landhere
ge sciphere of Swaðeode.” Many of Cnut’s men, both Danish and English,
are killed, “and þa Sweon hæfdon weallstowe geweald.” As for the place
of the battle, Cnut is said to go “to Denmearcon mid scipon to þam Holme
æt ea þære halgan.” See Earle, Parallel Chronicles, p. 342; only I do
not understand how the “Helge-Aa” could be “then the boundary between
Sweden and the Danish possessions,” as the old frontier of Sweden and
Scania lies some way to the north of that river.
Ulf and Eglaf are doubtless the sons of Rognvald and Ingebiorg, of whom
Snorro speaks in the Saga of Saint Olaf, c. 95 (Laing, ii. 119). At any
rate the Ulf spoken of cannot be Ulf the son of Thorgils and brother of
Gytha (see above, Note FFF), nor can Eglaf be the Eglaf whom we have
already heard of (see p. 447). But both Snorro in c. 159 (Laing, ii.
246) and Saxo (194, 195) agree in making no mention of the sons of
Rognvald, and in making Cnut fight the battle against the two Kings Olaf
of Norway and Omund of Sweden. They also agree in bringing in Ulf the
son of Thorgils; only they bring him in in quite different characters.
Saxo makes him a traitor who has invited the combined Swedish and
Norwegian invasion, while Snorro makes him redeem former misdeeds by
saving Cnut when in great danger. In the Annales Islandorum (Langebek,
iii. 40) the date is given as 1027 and the death of Ulf Thorgilsson is
placed in the same year.
We can hardly be wrong in accepting the presence of Omund and Olaf on
the combined witness of all the Scandinavian writers. But the two Ulfs
and Eglaf are puzzling. It has sometimes struck me that “Ulf and Eglaf”
in our Chroniclers may be a mistake for “Ulf and Olaf,” taking of course
Saxo’s view of the conduct of Ulf Thorgilsson. The Peterborough writer
might very easily get wrong in his Ulfs, but he was hardly likely to
mistake Saint Olaf, whose history he knew very well, for a man of such
small renown as Eglaf Rognvaldsson.
It must not be forgotten that it is to this battle that William of
Malmesbury and other writers have, with an utter misconception of the
result of the battle, transferred Godwine’s exploit of 1019. See above,
p. 743. Henry of Huntingdon translates the Peterborough Chronicle.
Florence, following Abingdon and Worcester, is silent.
NOTE NNN. p. 455.
CNUT’S RELATIONS WITH THE EMPIRE.
Cnut, according to Saxo (196), was lord of six kingdoms; “sex
præpollentium regnorum possessor effectus.” But he does not give their
names. His commentator Stephanius (p. 212) says, “nempe Daniæ, Sveciæ,
Norvegiæ, Angliæ, Sclaviæ, Sembiæ” [Semba or Samland in Eastern
Prussia?]. The Encomiast (ii. 19) says, “Quum rex Cnuto solum imprimis
Danorum obtineret regimen, quinque regnorum, scilicet Danomarchiæ,
Angliæ, Britanniæ, Scotiæ, Nordwegæ, vendicato dominio, _Imperator_
exstitit.” Swegen Aggesson (c. 5; Lang. i. 54) outdoes them all. Cnut’s
empire extends over the adjoining realms (“circumjacentia regna suo
aggregavit _Imperio_”) from Thule to the Byzantine frontier (“ab ultima
Thyle usque ad Græcorum ferme Imperium”), taking in, seemingly, not five
or six, but ten kingdoms; “quippe Hyberniam, Angliam, Galliam, Italiam,
Longobardiam, Teotoniam, Norwagiam, Sclaviam, cum Sambia sibi
subjugavit.” Swegen clearly believes in three Empires, Greek, German,
and Scandinavian. His exaggerations may be compared with the
exaggerations of Dudo and Rudolf Glaber with regard to the Norman Dukes.
On the other hand, Prior Godfrey (Satirical Poets, ii. 148) allows Cnut
only three kingdoms, the three most obvious,
“Sic insigne caput trino diademate cingit,
Dum Danos, Anglos, Northigenasque regit.”
The Danish writers thus paint Cnut as at least the equal of Conrad; but
I am not quite sure that Wipo, in a passage already quoted (see p. 752),
where he describes Conrad at his Imperial coronation as walking between
the two Kings Cnut and Rudolf, has not a lurking wish to imply that Cnut
stood in much the same relation to Conrad that Rudolf did. And the
circumstances of the visit, the sight of Pope and Cæsar in all their
glory in the old home of both, would be very likely to impress the mind
of the still newly-converted lord of Northern Europe, and to make him
feel somewhat less Imperial than he felt either at Winchester or at
Roskild. But even in Wipo’s account there is nothing to make us think
that Cnut did more than yield to Conrad the formal precedence to which
he was certainly entitled, and above all at such a moment.
As to the marriage of Gunhild to King Henry there is no kind of doubt;
but the plain fact has been clouded over with many fables. That the
betrothal took place during the reign of Cnut I infer from the account
of Adam of Bremen (ii. 54), who after talking largely of Cnut,
Archbishop Unwan of Hamburg, and the Emperor Conrad, goes on to say;
“Cum rege Danorum sive Anglorum, mediante archiepiscopo [Unwan], fecit
pacem. Cujus etiam filiam Imperator filio suo deposcens uxorem, dedit ei
civitatem Sliaswig cum marcha quæ trans Egdoram est, in fœdus amicitiæ;
et ex eo tempore fuit regum Daniæ.” But there is no doubt that the
marriage was not celebrated till 1036, when Cnut was dead. See Wipo, c.
35, who calls the bride Cunehildis, and the Hildesheim Annals in anno
(Pertz, iii. 100), where we read that “regina Cunihild nomine ... in
natali Apostolorum regalem coronam accepit et mutato nomine in
benedictione Cunigund dicta est.” See also Hepidanni Annales in anno
(ap. Duchesne, Rer. Franc. Scriptt. iii. 479). William of Malmesbury
(ii. 188) is so far accurate as to place the marriage after Cnut’s
death, but he tells the story with great confusion. He grows specially
eloquent on the splendour of the bride’s progress, just as Roger of
Wendover (iv. 332 et seqq.) does over the marriage of Isabella, daughter
of John, with Frederick the Second; but William makes Harthacnut send
his sister from England, though Harthacnut certainly was not there in
1036, and he seems to place the marriage after the trial and acquittal
of Godwine in 1041. It was probably this confusion which led him to
speak of Henry as “Imperator Alemannorum,” for though Henry did not
become Emperor till 1046, yet his father died in 1039, leaving to Henry,
as Wipo (c. 39) says, “regni rem, Imperii autem spem, bene locatam.”
Wace also (Roman de Rou, 6552) tells us;
“Gunnil fu à Rome menée,
Et à Rome fu mariée;
Fame fu à l’Emperéor;
Ne pout aveir plus halt seignor.”
Besides that Henry was not yet Emperor, the marriage was (see the
Hildesheim Annals, u. s.) not celebrated at Rome but at Nimwegen.
Gunhild died July 18th, 1038, “quasi in limine vitæ,” as Wipo (c. 37)
says, before the death of Conrad. There is another inaccurate account of
the marriage in Heming’s Worcester Cartulary, 267 (Monasticon, i. 596),
where the bridegroom is described as “Imperator Cono” and Brihtheah,
Bishop of Worcester, appears as one of the bride’s suite; “Idem vero
episcopus Brihtegus quodam in tempore ad Saxoniam Gunnildæ, Cnuti regis
filiæ, ductor exstitit, quum eam Imperator Cono uxorem duceret, et
quemdam ministrum sibi valde carum, Hearlewinum nomine, socium itineris
secus habuit.” But the mistakes of all these writers seem pardonable
when we turn to the wonderful romance which some of the Scandinavian
writers have devised by rolling together the Roman pilgrimage of Cnut,
the marriage of Gunhild, and seemingly also the Italian expedition of
Conrad and Henry, which happened (see Wipo, c. 35) soon after Henry’s
marriage. Saxo (196) is comparatively brief. After the description of
Cnut as lord of six kingdoms, he tells us how he married Gunhild to
Henry and then went and restored the authority of his son-in-law over
certain rebels in Italy. “Canutus ... eximio sui fulgore etiam Romanum
illustravit Imperium. Enimvero ejus principi Henrico filiam Gunnildam
nuptum tradidit, eumdemque paullo post Italica consternatione perculsum
auxilio prosequutus, pristinæ fortunæ, pressa rebellium conspiratione,
restituit.” Swegen Aggesson (c. 5; Langebek, i. 54) is much fuller.
Henry, already Emperor, marries Gunhild; he is driven from Rome by a
sedition, and comes to crave help of his father-in-law (“quem quum
Romani tumultuaria seditione a regio pepulissent solio, socerum adiens
ejus auxilium imploravit”). Cnut, seemingly glad of the chance (“nactus
occasionem illustris ille præcluisque Kanutus”), sets out to avenge his
wrongs. On the road, seemingly by way of pastime, he ravages Gaul
(“assumpto exercitu suo, primo Galliam depopulando invasit”); he then
harries Lombardy and Italy, which, it will be remembered, Swegen had
already reckoned as separate kingdoms, and compels the Romans to receive
their Emperor back again (“multimoda virtute compulit Romanos civitatem
sibi resignare, tandemque Imperatorem et generum throno suo restituit”).
He then goes to France, which is seemingly looked on as something
different from Gaul; yet most certainly Latin and not Teutonic _Francia_
is intended, for Cnut goes to Tours (“cum ingenti tripudio ad Franciam
usque commeavit, Turonisque profectus,” &c.) and carries off thence
(“potenter secum asportavit”) the relics of Saint Martin, which he
translates to Rouen, on account of his great love for that city; “eo
quod illam [Rothomagum] præ ceteris specialem diligeret.” This wild talk
about Rouen must be compared with another equally wild tale which I
shall have to mention presently about Cnut dying before Rouen.
It is no wonder that Swegen’s editor says, “Mirum est Suenonem et in hoc
et in plurimis historiæ Canuti M. momentis adeo hallucinatum esse.”
Swegen wrote about 1186, in the days of Frederick Barbarossa and Henry
the Sixth, and it is worth noting how thoroughly both he and his elder
contemporary Wace look on the Roman Emperor as the local sovereign of
Rome, in opposition to William of Malmesbury’s slipshod talk about
“Imperator Alemannorum.”
About Gunhild, William of Malmesbury has a legend which is the same as
that of Sir Aldingar and Queen Eleanor in Percy’s Reliques. The King’s
name in both tales is Henry. Gunhild left a daughter, Beatrice, Abbess
of Quedlingburg (see Struvius, i. 355). The only English princess,
Matilda daughter of Henry the Second, who was the mother of an Emperor,
was not the wife of an Emperor or even of a King.
On the cession of Sleswick, Adam, as quoted in the text, seems quite
explicit. On the Eider as the boundary of the Carolingian Empire, see
the Annals of Einhard, 808, 811, 815, 828, and the Annals of Fulda
(Pertz, i. 355 et seqq.), 811, 857, 873. Nothing can be plainer than the
last passage, “fluvium nomine Egidoram, qui illos [Danos] et Saxones
dirimit.” In saying that it remained the boundary till 1866, I should
perhaps except the time of confusion, 1806–1814, when the Roman Empire
had been dissolved and when the German Confederation had not yet been
founded. During these years Holstein, the “Transalbiana Saxonia” of
Einhard, was united to the kingdom of Denmark by an act as regular as
any act of that irregular time.
NOTE OOO. p. 469.
ÆLFRED THE GIANT.
Ælfred is a name so purely English that the presumption in favour of the
English birth of any one bearing it in this generation is extremely
strong. There is no doubt that Ælfred is the name intended. The giant is
“Alvredus cognomento gigas” in William of Jumièges, and “Alvredus” is
the name by which he calls the English Ætheling Ælfred. In the Roman de
Rou he is “Auvere,” “Alverei,” “Alvere;” the Ætheling is “Auvered” and
“Alvred.” So in Mary of France (see Roquefort, ii. 34 and vol. iii. p.
572, iv. p. 796, v. p. 594) Ælfred appears as “Auvert,” “Auvres,”
“Alurez,” “Affrus.” The only chance against Ælfred being an Englishman
is the chance—a somewhat faint one, I think—that the name may also have
been in use among the Saxons of Bayeux. M. Pluquet (Roman de Rou, ii.
17) says that the name is still common in the district, seemingly under
the form of “Auvray.” But “Auvray” may be “Alberic;” and we shall find
that Ælfred and Eadward were just the two English names which we shall
find that a later generation of Normans did adopt.
I have a note, but I cannot lay my hand on the reference, of a charter
of Hugh Capet in 967 signed by “Alfredus monachus;” and “Alfridus abbas
Sancti Vulmari” signs in 1026 (Chron. Sithiense, p. 175) a charter of
Baldwin, Bishop of Terouanne. These two can hardly be the same man, but
both may be Englishmen. It is more singular to find the name in Italy.
Yet we read in Donizo’s Life of the Countess Matilda (Murat. v. 372),
“Ac Mons Alfredi capitur certamine freni.”
Was the mount called from any English pilgrim, the great King himself
perhaps, or did any cognate name exist among Goths or Lombards? The
elfish names are mainly English; yet Elberich is said to be the same as
Ælfric, and Alboin as Ælfwine. See Miss Yonge’s Christian Names, ii.
346, 347.
Our Ælfred signs two charters with the title of “vicecomes,” one in 1025
and one in 1027. He afterwards became a monk at Cerisy. Roman de Rou,
8717 et seqq. He seems (see Neustria Pia, 660) to have left a son
William and a daughter who bears the odd-sounding name of _Athselinoc_.
Can this be a corruption of any English name beginning with _æðel_?
NOTE PPP. p. 473.
CNUT’S RELATIONS WITH NORMANDY.
The Norman and English writers do not mention the marriage of Robert and
Estrith. It is asserted by Saxo, Adam of Bremen, and Rudolf Glaber. But
the two former tell the story with much confusion, making Estrith marry,
not Robert, but Richard. They both connect this marriage with Cnut’s own
marriage with Emma. Saxo’s words (p. 193) are; “Quum Anglorum rebus
obtentis nectendam cum finitimis amicitiam decrevisset, Normanniæ
præfecti [an odd title] _Roberti_ filiam Immam matrimonio duxit,
_ejusque fratri Rikardo_ sororem Estritham conjugio potiendam permisit.”
The utter confusion of Saxo’s ideas about the Norman Dukes is manifest.
Adam (ii. 52) says; “Chnud regnum Adalradi accepit uxoremque ejus Immam
nomine, quæ fuit soror comitis Nortmannorum Rikardi. Cui rex Danorum
suam dedit germanam Margaretam pro fœdere. Quam deinde Chnut, repudiatam
a comite, Wolf duci Angliæ dedit.... Et Rikardus quidem comes, declinans
iram Chnut, Jherosolimam profectus, ibidem obiit, relinquens filium in
Nortmannia nomine Rodbertum, cujus filius est iste Willelmus quem Franci
Bastardum vocant.” Here we get a little light. The marriages of Richard
the Good with Judith and Papia are well ascertained, and there is no
room left for a marriage with Estrith. But, as Lappenberg remarks (479.
Eng. Tr. ii. 217), Adam’s mention of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem shows
that Robert is the person really meant among all this confusion. Lastly,
Rudolf Glaber, a better authority on such a point than Saxo or even than
Adam, steps in to settle the matter. He describes (iv. 6. p. 47)
Robert’s pilgrimage to Jerusalem and his death without lawful issue,
“quamlibet sororem Anglorum regis Canuc manifestum est duxisse uxorem,
quam odiendo divortium fecerat.” This seems to put the fact of a
marriage between Robert and Estrith on firm ground. Among the Danish
annalists, the Esrom Annals (Lang. i. 236) simply copy Adam of Bremen;
those of Roskild (Lang. i. 377) tell the same tale in different words;
“Kanutus victor exsistens, ipsam Ymmam duxit uxorem, genuitque ex ea
filium Hartheknud. Kanutus Ricardo suam dedit sororem nomine Estrid. Quæ
ab illo repudiata duci Ulf _sine fratris consensu_ [cf. Saxo’s tale
quoted in p. 746] est conjuncta.” The name Margaret given by Adam to the
Danish princess is remarkable. Estrith might possibly, like Emma and
Eadgyth the daughter of Malcolm, have been required to take a Norman
name on her marriage. But the name of Margaret, which became popular
only through Eadgyth’s mother, is rare throughout the century, and this
would perhaps be the first instance of it in the West.
As for the date of the marriage, see Lappenberg, ii. 217, and Pertz’s
note to Adam, ii. 52. A dispute between Robert and Cnut which could be
connected, even mythically, with Cnut’s death and Robert’s pilgrimage
must be placed quite late in their reigns. And as the offender is always
looked on as the reigning Duke, 1028, or (if we take the reckoning of
Florence under 1026 and the Peterborough Chronicle under 1024) 1026, is
the earliest year to which the transaction can be referred. Ulf was
killed in 1025. William the Bastard was born in 1027 or 1028. As for
Estrith’s dowry, Saxo tells us that Cnut, before her marriage with Ulf,
“sororem Sialandiæ redditam regiarum partium functione donavit” (p.
194). After Ulf’s death, execution, or murder, “Canutus violatæ
necessitudinis injuriam, ac sororis viduitatem, duarum provinciarum
attributione pensavit” (p. 197). He adds that she gave them to the
Church of Roskild. The Roskild Annals (Lang. i. 377) makes her rebuild
the church with stone, it having before been of wood; “Honorifice
sepelivit, ecclesiamque lapideam in loco ligneæ construxit, quam multis
modis ditavit.”
I need hardly say that Cnut’s expedition to Normandy is quite mythical.
We have already seen (see above, p. 768) a legendary account of a
campaign of Cnut in Gaul, including a visit to Rouen, which seems to
have grown out of his Roman pilgrimage. The present legend seems further
to mingle up with this the pilgrimage of Robert to Jerusalem and the
beginning of the Norman exploits in Sicily and Apulia. Saxo, so far as
anything can be made out of his chronology, seems to make two Norman
expeditions on the part of Cnut. The first (p. 194) seems to be early in
his reign; “Rikardum, acerrimum uxoris osorem effectum, patria exegit.”
Afterwards (pp. 200, 201) we have the story of his great expedition and
death before Rouen. Richard is still Duke, but, for fear of Cnut, he
flees to Sicily; “Cujus [Canuti] impetum Richardus Siciliam petens, fuga
præcurrere maturavit.” The mention of Sicily is of course suggested by
the exploits of the Normans in those regions. Adam, as we have seen,
makes Richard flee to Jerusalem. His scholiast adds that the conquest of
Apulia was begun by forty of his comrades on their return. The source of
confusion is obvious.
This wild story of Cnut’s death before Rouen seems peculiar to Saxo.
Several of the other Danish writers distinctly assert his death in
England. Chron. Esrom. ap. Langebek, i. 236 (which makes him die in
1037); Chron. Rosk. i. 377. The attempt of Robert against England is
described by William of Jumièges (vi. 10, 11) and Wace (Roman de Rou,
7897 et seqq.). I have followed their account in the text. Only two
English writers mention it, William of Malmesbury (ii. 180) and John of
Wallingford (Gale, 549–550). William mentions only the intended
invasion, and says nothing of the embassies before and after it. John of
Wallingford tells the story much as William of Jumièges does, only, with
the usual confusion, he talks of Richard instead of Robert. But it is
plain from the two Williams that Robert was the Duke concerned, so that
John of Wallingford is clearly wrong when he places the story in the
first years of Cnut—“in primordiis regni sui.”
William of Jumièges (vi. 10) thus describes the message sent by Robert
to Cnut; “Mandavit Chunuto regi ut jamjamque satiatus eorum [the
Æthelings] exterminio illis parceret, et _sua eis vel sero_ pro sui
amoris obtentu redderet.” So John of Wallingford; “Venerunt legati a
Normannia ... qui cum Cnutone de regni jure disceptantes juvenibus
prædictis regnum postulabant.”
William of Jumièges, it should be mentioned, distinctly implies the
personal presence of Robert on board the fleet, but says nothing of that
of the Ætheling. Wace (7941) speaks of both Robert and Eadward.
NOTE QQQ. p. 480.
THE DIVISION OF CNUT’S DOMINIONS.
That Cnut, like Charles, established a system of under-kingdoms, to be
held by his sons in subordination to his own Imperial authority, is
distinctly asserted by Saxo (196). “Inde [from Rome, see p. 768]
reversus, Haraldum natu majorem Angliæ, Daniæ Canutum, Norvagiæ
Suenonem, quem ex Alvina sustulerat, absque ulla majestatis suæ
diminutione præfecit. Nam etsi tres provincias totidem filiorum regimini
tradidit, nihilominus commune sibi trium _imperium_ reservavit, neque
summam penes alium consistere voluit. Præterea teneris adhuc ducibus in
officiorum tutelam fortissimorum præsidia sociavit.” The Knytlinga Saga
(c. 17; Johnstone, 144) gives a similar account, only instead of
England, it makes Harold Under-king over part of Scotland (see above, p.
761); “Knutr konungr hafdi oc til forrada mikinn hlut af Skotlandi, oc
setti hann þar Haralld son sinn konung ysir: enn þo var Knutr konungr
ysir-konungr [overkonge] allra þeirra.” Now this statement that Cnut
established his sons as Under-kings under the guardianship of some of
his chief men falls in exactly with the statement in our own Chronicles
that Thurkill was established in Denmark as guardian to one of Cnut’s
sons (see p. 429). The words of the passage (1023) are, “And he betæhte
Þurcille Denemearcan and his sunu to healdenne;” but the details of this
arrangement, as described both in Saxo and in the saga, seem open to
much doubt. There is not a shadow of evidence that Harold ever reigned
as Under-king in England, and the statement that he reigned in Scotland,
though very remarkable, is hardly to be accepted without better
authority than that of the Knytlinga Saga. The further question arises,
who was the son whom Cnut left in Denmark? Not Harthacnut, who succeeded
him there, for that kingly bairn was with his mother in England (see
Chron. Wig. in anno). It must have been one of the two doubtful sons,
Swegen and Harold, whom it may have been convenient to remove from
England, together with their mother, “the other Ælfgifu.” She and
Swegen, it is well known, were afterwards quartered in Norway, and this
looks as if Harold were now, in the like sort, quartered in Denmark.
This would prove a change of purpose on Cnut’s part as to the succession
of his children, as it was Harthacnut who actually succeeded him in
Denmark.
On Swegen’s reign in Norway under the guardianship of his mother, see
Saxo, 196; Snorro, c. 252; Laing, ii. 344. I suspect that Saxo conceived
the three sons as having been Under-kings in the several kingdoms to
which they actually succeeded; but if it be true, as seems likely, that
Harold was first quartered as Under-king in Denmark and afterwards
displaced to make way for Harthacnut, the fact becomes of importance
with reference to the disputed election which followed his death.
As to the division on Cnut’s death there seems no doubt at all. The
account given by Adam (ii. 72) runs thus; “Post cujus mortem, _ut ipse
disposuit_, succedunt in regnum filii ejus, Haroldus in Angliam, Svein
in Nortmanniam, Hardechnut autem in Daniam.... Suein et Harold a
concubina geniti erant; qui, ut mos est barbaris, æquam tunc inter
liberos Chnut sortiti sunt partem hæreditatis.” This is copied by the
Esrom Chronicle, Lang. i. 237; cf. Chron. Rosk. p. 377; Chron. Erici, p.
159. As Harold actually succeeded in England, foreign writers seem to
have taken for granted that his succession was in accordance with Cnut’s
will; but it is evident that Cnut latterly intended England for
Harthacnut.
On the expulsion of Swegen and Ælfgifu from Norway, see Snorro, Saga of
Magnus, c. 4; Laing, ii. 363.
NOTE RRR. p. 482.
THE CANDIDATURE OF HAROLD AND HARTHACNUT.
I have gathered my account of this disputed election wholly from our own
Chronicles, which are the only trustworthy guides. The cause of all the
difficulties and contradictions with which the subject is involved, is
the fact that the division of the kingdom between Harold and Harthacnut
proved a mere ephemeral arrangement, and was set aside within two years.
It seems therefore to have quite passed out of mind, except with the
very few writers with whom minute accuracy was really an object. No one
would find out the fact from Adam of Bremen, from the Encomiast, or even
from William of Malmesbury. Of the Danish writers it is needless to
speak. The Encomiast (iii. 1 et seqq.) sees, so does William of
Malmesbury (ii. 188) still more plainly, that a strong opposition was
made to the election of Harold; they do not see that that opposition was
so far successful that a temporary sovereignty over a part of the
kingdom was secured to Harthacnut. Even Florence, seemingly hesitating,
as he sometimes does, between two versions of a story, tells the tale
with some confusion. But on comparing the Abingdon, Worcester, and
Peterborough Chronicles, the matter becomes much clearer. The
Peterborough Chronicle is the primary authority for the division of
parties in the Witenagemót, for the division of the kingdom between the
two competitors, for the regency of Emma and Godwine on behalf of
Harthacnut. Its statements are copied, with more or less of confusion
and misconception, by the Canterbury Chronicle, Florence, and William of
Malmesbury. The Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles do not distinctly
mention the division of the kingdom under the year 1035; but they imply
it under 1037, in the words, “Hér man geceas Harald ofer eall to cinge,
and forsoc Harðacnut,” which, unless Harthacnut had before possessed
part of the kingdom, would be meaningless. Oddly enough, the
Peterborough Chronicler does not distinctly mention this second election
of Harold, though he perhaps alludes to it in the words, “And he
[Harold] wæs þæh full cyng ofer eall Englaland.” Thus the two accounts
in the Chronicles fill up gaps in each other, and between the two we get
a full and consistent narrative.
I believe the controversy to have lain wholly between the two sons of
Cnut, Harold and Harthacnut. That there was a party in favour of one of
the sons of Æthelred (see p. 476) is asserted by William of Malmesbury
(ii. 188); “Angli diu obstiterunt, magis unum ex filiis Ethelredi, qui
in Normannia morabantur, vel Hardecnutum filium Cnutonis ex Emma, qui
tunc in Danemarchia erat, regem habere volentes.” But in the Chronicles,
where the proceedings in the Witenagemót are described, we hear nothing
of any voices being raised on the side of the Æthelings, and William
himself says (u. s.) of a time a little later; “Filii Ethelredi jam fere
omnibus despectui erant, magis propter paternæ socordiæ memoriam, quam
propter Danorum potentiam.” These last words are at least a witness to
the freedom of election on this occasion.
The geographical division of parties is clearly marked in the
Peterborough Chronicle, which is also the only one which notices the
share taken by London in the election. We now hear only of the
“liðsmen,” not, as in the election of 1016, of the “burhwaru.” The
proposal for a division I understand to come from Harold’s supporters,
most likely from Leofric, the natural mediator between the two extreme
parties. I do not see what else can be the meaning of the expression in
the Peterborough Chronicle that Leofric and others chose Harold _and
Harthacnut_ (“Leofric eorl and mæst ealle þa þegenas be norðan Temese
and þa liðsmen on Lunden gecuron Harold to healdes Englelandes; _him and
his broðer Hardacnute_, þe wæs on Denemearcon”). This proposal—namely
the division—Godwine and the West-Saxons resist (“and Godwine eorl and
ealle þa yldestan menn on West-Seaxon lagon ongean, swa hi lengost
mihton; ac hi ne mihton nan þing ongean wealcan”); that is, they claim
the whole kingdom for Harthacnut. At last they are obliged to consent to
the division and the regency (“and man gerædde þa þæt Ælfgifu
Hardacnutes modor sæte on Winceastre mid þæs cynges huscarlum hyra suna,
and heoldan ealle West-Seaxan him to handa; and Godwine eorl was heora
healdest man”). Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 758 B) translates this
account, but he was evidently puzzled by the words about electing Harold
_and Harthacnut_, as he says, “elegerunt Haraldum, ut conservaret regnum
fratri suo Hardecnut”—a most unlikely story. The last clause he
translates; “Consilium ergo inierunt quod Emma regina cum regis defuncti
familia [huscarlum?] conservaret Westsexe apud Wincestre in opus filii
sui, Godwinus vero consul dux eis esset in re militari.” Henry says
nothing of the second election of Harold in 1037. William of Malmesbury
(ii. 188), though telling the story in a most confused way, seems quite
to take in the position of Godwine; “Maximus tum justitiæ propugnator
fuit Godwinus comes, qui etiam pupillorum [his notion about the sons of
Æthelred, as well as Harthacnut, here comes in] se tutorem professus,
reginam Emmam et regias gazas custodiens, resistentes _umbone nominis
sui_ aliquamdiu dispulit; sed tandem, vi et numero impar, cessit
violentiæ.” Mr. St. John (Four Conquests, ii. 106, 107) makes Godwine
first assert the rights of the Æthelings, which I suppose is his
interpretation of the words of William, and then himself propose the
compromise in favour of Harthacnut. For this he refers us to Simeon; but
Simeon (X Scriptt. 179) only copies the narrative of Florence, and that
narrative, as well as that of the “Saxon Chronicle” [Abingdon as opposed
to Peterborough?], Mr. St. John had just before cast aside as “confusing
the whole subject.”
I see that the idea of the Imperial supremacy being reserved to Harold
has also occurred to Mr. St. John (ii. 110). It was suggested to me by
the words of the Peterborough Chronicle (evidently misunderstood by the
Canterbury Chronicler), “And he [Harold] wæs þæh full cyng ofer eall
Englaland.” This however, as I remarked just above, may perhaps refer to
Harold’s second election in 1037. The same idea might also lurk in the
other words of the Peterborough Chronicler, quoted in the last page,
“gecuron Harold to healdes ealles Englelandes; him and his broðer
Hardacnute,” &c. But an Imperial supremacy on the part of Harold seems
quite consistent with the general tenor of events, and such a
supposition may perhaps render the account of the fate of the Ætheling
Ælfred one degree less obscure.
The story of Æthelnoth’s refusal to crown Harold comes wholly from the
Encomium Emmæ, iii. 1. But it is possible that the tale, if true, may
belong to the second election of Harold in 1037, and may have been
thrust back in the confused chronology of the Encomiast. A coronation,
sooner or later, seems quite certain. It is asserted by Ralph de Diceto,
ii. 238, ed. Stubbs; “Haroldus filius Cnutonis regnavit annis iii.
consecratus ab Ethelnodo Dorobernensi archiepiscopo apud Lundonias.” So
Roger of Wendover (i. 473); “Prævaluit pars Haroldi, et regni Angliæ
illum diademate insignivit.” According to Bromton (X Scriptt. 932),
Harold was “ab Ethelnodo Dorobernensi archiepiscopo apud Lundonias
consecratus.” But the higher authority of the list of coronations in
Rishanger (427) places it at Oxford, which seems to have been Harold’s
capital. Believers in the false Ingulf may also entertain themselves
with a story about Harold’s coronation robe, and a great deal more about
which authentic history is silent. See St. John, ii. 107–110.
NOTE SSS. p. 489.
THE DEATH OF THE ÆTHELING ÆLFRED.
I have stated in the text the chief versions as to the death of Ælfred.
The different statements may be grouped under two main heads, those
which put the event at its right date under the reign of Harold, and
those which move it to some other time. It is the former class whose
statements we must weigh against other; the latter are useful mainly as
illustrating particular points, and as examples of the way in which
legends grow.
The earliest English account is that which is found, in different
shapes, in the Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles. Peterborough is silent
about the whole matter. The story, except a few lines at the beginning,
takes the form of a ballad, as it appears in Mr. Earle’s Parallel
Chronicles. It is astonishing that Mr. Thorpe should have printed it as
plain prose, when it plainly is, not only, like the songs of Brunanburh
and Maldon, in rhythm, but actually in rime. This was seen long ago by
Dr. Ingram, who not only printed it as verse, but attempted a riming
version of his own in modern English. I have in the text analysed the
account thus given. The remarkable point is that the Abingdon Chronicle
distinctly accuses Godwine, while the Worcester version leaves out his
name. In the prose introduction, Ælfred the innocent (“unsceððiga”)
Ætheling lands and wishes to go to his mother, who sat at Winchester.
Then says Abingdon, “Ac hit him ne geþafode _Godwine eorl ne éc oþre
men_ þe mycel mihton wealdan: forþan hit hleoðrode þa, swiðe toward
Haraldes, þeh hit unriht wære.” But in Worcester it stands, “Ac þæt ne
geþafodon þa þe micel weoldon on þisan lande; forþan hit hleoþrade þa
swiðe to Harolde, þeah hit unriht wære.” So the beginning of the ballad
stands in Abingdon,
“Ac Godwine hine þa gelette,
And hine on hæft sette;”
while in the Worcester version it runs,
“Ða let he [Harold] hine on hæft settan.”
There can be no doubt that here the Abingdon version is the original,
and that the Worcester text, which destroys rhythm and rime, was altered
by an admirer of Godwine. But as to the prose introduction the case is
far less clear; the words “Godwine eorl ne éc oþre men” might just as
well be an interpolation. So in Florence the mention of Godwine comes in
very awkwardly; “Quod indigne graviterque ferebant potentes nonnulli,
quia, licet injustum esset, Haroldo multo devotiores exstitere quam
illis, _maxime, ut fertur, comes Godwinus_.”
Florence’s version is made up by modifying the account in the
Chronicles, with some touches from other quarters. He makes both
brothers come, changing the words “Ælfred se unsceððiga æþeling” into
“innocentes clitones Ælfredus et Eadwardus.” While in the Chronicles
Ælfred simply wishes to go to his mother (“wolde to his moder þe on
Wincestre sæt”), and is hindered by certain men, Godwine or others, in
this account both the Æthelings actually visit their mother (“ad suæ
matris colloquium, quæ morabatur Wintoniæ, venere”), and Godwine and the
other powerful men are simply displeased at their coming (“indigne
graviterque ferebant,” as above). Then comes the strangest part of his
statement; that Godwine seized and imprisoned Ælfred is simply
translated from the ballad, but Florence now introduces the almost
incomprehensible assertion that Ælfred, when he was seized, was going to
London for a conference with Harold; “Hic quidem [Godwinus] Ælfredum,
quum versus Lundoniam, ad regis Haroldi colloquium, ut mandarat,
properaret, retinuit, et arcta in custodia posuit [‘hine þa gelette and
hine on hæft sette’].” The companions of Ælfred, to the number of six
hundred, are sold, killed, or tortured at Guildford; the place is not
mentioned in the Chronicles. Emma then sends back her son Eadward, who
had stayed with her (“qui secum remansit”) and had not set out with his
brother, with all haste to Normandy. Then, at the bidding of Godwine and
certain others (“Godwini et quorumdam aliorum jussione”), Ælfred is
taken to Ely, and the rest of the story follows as in the ballad.
It is plain that Florence in writing this had one or both of the
Chronicles before him, and tried to work in details from other sources
which were really inconsistent with the account which the Chronicles
gave. One change is of special importance. The ballad simply mentions
the companions (“geferan”) of Ælfred without any account of their number
or who they were. Florence makes them six hundred, and adds the very
important statement that they were Norman knights or soldiers. The
Æthelings come, “multis Normannicis militibus secum assumptis, in
Angliam paucis transvecti navibus.” This touch clearly comes from the
Norman version, which represents the first attempt of the Æthelings as
an actual invasion, an idea which the Chronicles do not suggest. It is
also plainly from the same source that he got the idea that Eadward had
any share in the business.
The ballad in the two Chronicles has about it something of that
vagueness which is natural in a poem which is rather a pious lamentation
than a narrative. The Norman account, true or false, is at least fuller
and clearer. It first appears in William of Poitiers, the Conqueror’s
chaplain, the extant part of whose narrative begins at this point. He is
followed by William of Jumièges (vii. 8, 9), who is followed by Wace
(Roman de Rou, 9759 et seqq.). I have given the substance of their story
in the text, and I do not know that there is anything to remark, except
that at the end of his tale William of Poitiers turns round and reviles
Godwine in an address in the second person, much as at a later stage of
his narrative he reviles Harold.
We now come to the version of the Encomiast. He is a perplexing writer
to deal with; one knows not what to make of an historian who was either
so easily imposed upon or else so utterly reckless as to truth. A
contemporary writer who wipes out Emma’s marriage with Æthelred, who
looks on the Æthelings as sons of Cnut, who is ignorant that his heroine
was actually Queen-regent over Wessex, is really somewhat of a
curiosity. His astounding statement (ii. 18) that Eadward and Ælfred
were the sons of Cnut I have already spoken of in Note BBB. In his
present account (iii. 1) Emma remained in England after the death of
Cnut, grieving for the death of her husband and the absence of her sons
(“sollicita pro filiorum absentia”). He then goes on; “Namque unus
eorum, Hardecnuto scilicet, quem pater regem Danorum constituit, suo
morabatur in regno; duo vero alii in Normanniæ finibus ad nutriendum
traditi, cum propinquo suo degebant Rotberto.” These last are the sons
of whom one, Ælfred, the younger of the two (“Alfridus minor natu,” iii.
4), is the victim of the present story. It is plain therefore that the
“liberales filii” of Cnut, spoken of in the former passage, are meant to
be the same as the Æthelings. All three brothers being absent, “factum
est,” he goes on to say, “ut quidam Anglorum, pietatem regis sui jam
defuncti obliti, mallent regnum suum dedecorare quam ornare,
relinquentes nobiles filios insignis reginæ Emmæ, et eligentes sibi in
regem quemdam Haroldum,” &c., &c. (see above, p. 775). He then goes on
with Æthelnoth’s refusal to crown Harold (see above, p. 487), and with
Harold’s ungodly manner of life (see p. 504). Then comes the forged
letter and the rest of the story, as I have told it in the text. The
piece of detail most worthy of notice is the writer’s remarks (iii. 5)
on the _decimation_ of Ælfred’s companions (on the alleged decimation at
Canterbury in 1012, see above, p. 674);
“Traditi sunt carnificibus, quibus etiam jussum ut nemini parcerent nisi
quem sors decima offerret. Tunc tortores vinctos ordinatim sedere
fecerunt, satis supraque eis insultantes, illius interfectoris Thebææ
legionis exemplo usi sunt, qui decimavit primum innocentes multo his
mitius. Ille enim rex paganissimus Christianorum novem pepercit, occiso
decimo: at hi profanissimi falsissimique Christiani bonorum
Christianorum novem perimerunt, decimo dimisso.”
Now when a writer, whether through ignorance or through design, goes so
utterly wrong about the birth of his hero, about the position of his
heroine and the general condition of the kingdom, one hardly knows how
to accept anything that he tells us. Yet his account, if used with
caution, seems to supply some useful hints. His account is the only one
which, while consistent with Godwine’s innocence, explains the origin of
the belief as to his guilt. If we accept his account of what happened
between Godwine and Ælfred, the various statements become intelligible;
we see how the opposite stories could arise, which in any other way it
is hard to see. The tale of the forged letter has a very odd sound, and
the details may easily be mythical. Yet something of the kind would fill
up the gap in the Chronicles, in which Ælfred comes over to England
without any particular reason for his coming, better than William of
Poitiers’ wild tale of a Norman invasion, which is most likely a mere
repetition of the attempt of Robert.
The Encomiast seems to have had no notion that Emma was at Winchester,
but rather to have fancied that she was in London. Ælfred, before he has
landed, is recognized by his enemies, who wish to seize him (“volebant
eum adgredi,” iii. 4), but he escapes, lands elsewhere, and sets out to
go to his mother (“matrem parabat adire”). When he has got near to her
(“ubi jam erat proximus”), he is met by Godwine, who persuades him not
to go to London, and takes him to Guildford (“devians eum a Londonia,
induxit eum in villa Gildefordia nuncupata”). The mistake is remarkable,
for to quarter Emma in London instead of at Winchester implies utter
ignorance as to her real position. But it seems quite plain that the
Encomiast did not mean to identify Godwine either with the “adversarii”
of Ælfred whom he had mentioned just before, nor yet with the “complices
Haroldi infandissimi tyranni” (iii. 5), who are spoken of afterwards.
And he expressly shuts out the story of invasion and battle which
appears in William of Poitiers. The companions of Ælfred are indeed
called “commilitones” (iii. 4), but, when Baldwin offers him the help of
an armed force, he declines it (“cum marchione Balduino moratus, et ab
eo rogatus ut aliquam partem suæ militiæ secum duceret propter insidias
hostium”). This seems to forbid the notion of a force such as the Norman
writers speak of, a force which could dream of the conquest of England
or even of Wessex.
The only other independent witness is the strong partizan of Godwine,
the Biographer of Eadward (Vita Eadw. 401). He perhaps shows some wish
to slur the story over; but his account of the time between the death of
Cnut and the election of Eadward is throughout confused and meagre. He
brings in the story of Ælfred only incidentally, not in its
chronological place, but much later, when describing the attempts of the
Norman Archbishop Robert to sow dissensions between King Eadward and the
Earl. He merely says that Ælfred, incautiously entering the country with
some French companions, was seized and put to death by torture by order
of Harold, his comrades being killed, sold, and so forth. As Godwine was
still, under Harold as under Cnut, the chief counsellor of the King (“eo
quoque tempore, ut superius, regalium consiliorum erat bajalus.” See
above, p. 733), the slanderer Robert took occasion to affirm that the
deed was done by Godwine’s advice; but the Biographer strongly asserts
the Earl’s innocence.
These are the earliest accounts of the business, all of them written by
men who were alive at the time, and of whom the Encomiast of Emma
personally knew Cnut, while the Biographer of Eadward personally knew
Godwine. Their differences and contradictions are therefore the more
amazing; and their one point of agreement is more amazing still, namely,
that they all forget, as I said in the text, that Emma and Godwine were
ruling in Wessex in the name, not of Harold, but of Harthacnut. The
division of the kingdom, the regency of Emma and Godwine, are facts
which cannot be doubted; they are affirmed by two of the Chronicles and
they are implied by the other two (see above, p. 776). But in telling
the tale of Ælfred all this is forgotten. Even the Biographer of
Eadward, the formal apologist of Godwine, seems, in the very act of
defending him, to forget his real position. The Encomiast, whose version
is the most favourable to Godwine’s innocence, seems to know nothing of
any King but Harold; Godwine, if not Harold’s minister, is at least
Harold’s subject. On comparing all these writers, the question at once
arises, How far, when their main story involves so great a
misconception, can we trust any of their details? The inconsistency is
manifest; it seems to have been felt at the time. The ballad which
laments the fate of the Ætheling is found only in those Chronicles which
do not directly mention the division of the kingdom. And, even of these,
one inserts the ballad in a form which does not accuse Godwine. The
Peterborough Chronicler, who is so clear as to the division of the
kingdom, says nothing about the fate of the Ætheling. The Norman
writers, so eloquent about the fate of the Ætheling, know nothing of the
kingship of Harthacnut. Florence, who attempts to combine the two
stories, falls into all kinds of confusions and inconsistencies. It was
no doubt the feeling of this inconsistency, the feeling that the story,
as told, could not have happened at the time to which it is fixed, which
made later writers, from William of Malmesbury onwards, move it to
various other dates. William’s own account (ii. 188) is very remarkable.
He hardly believes the story, because it is not in the Chronicles, but
he tells it, because it was a common report; “Quia fama serit, non
omisi; sed _quia chronica tacet_, pro solido non asserui.” He therefore
had the Peterborough Chronicle before him. So just before; “Sane ne
silentio premam quod de primogenito [Ælfred was certainly the younger]
Ethelredi Elfredo _rumigeruli spargunt_.” The tale is placed by him in
1040, after the death of Harold and before the arrival of Harthacnut.
Sir Thomas Hardy, in his note, proposes to read “mortem Cnutonis” for
“mortem Haroldi,” but this is rather destroying evidence than explaining
it. Ælfred enters the kingdom; by the treachery of his countrymen,
chiefly of Godwine (“compatriotarum perfidia et maxime Godwini”), he is
blinded at Gillingham (probably a mistake for Guildford); thence he is
taken to Ely, where he soon dies. His companions are beheaded, save one
out of each ten, who are allowed to escape.
This date, if it rested on any authority, would be far more probable
than the other. Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 758 D) pushes on the story
yet a reign further. It is now placed after the death of Harthacnut in
1042. On that King’s death the English send for Ælfred, the elder of the
Æthelings, to succeed to the Crown. He comes, and brings with him a
great number of his mother’s kinsfolk and of other Normans. Now Godwine
(“quum esset consul fortissimus et proditor sævissimus”) has determined
that the new King shall marry his daughter. But he sees that Ælfred’s
high spirit (“quia primogenitus erat et magnæ probitatis”) will not
consent to this scheme, while he thinks that the milder spirit of
Eadward (“frater minor et simplicior”) will submit to the yoke. Godwine
then harangues the Witan (“intimavit igitur proceribus Angliæ”); Ælfred
has brought with him too many Normans; he has promised them lands in
England; it will not be safe to allow so valiant and so crafty a people
to take root in the land; the strangers must be punished lest other
strangers should venture to presume on their kindred with Kings to
meddle with Englishmen and English affairs (“ne alii post hæc audeant
pro regis cognatione se Anglis ingerere”). Ælfred’s Norman companions
are then decimated at Guildford, in the fashion above mentioned; but
even the tenth part seem to the English too many to be allowed to live
(“nimium visum est Anglis tot superesse”); so they are decimated again;
the Ætheling is blinded and sent to Ely, as before. Ralph the Black
(157) brings in his version incidentally. Under the reign of Harthacnut,
he says, “Edwardum fratrem suum a Normannis revocans, secum pacifice
aliquamdiu habuit. Nam alter frater, Alureclus scilicet, ad stipitem
ligatus a Godwino in Hely peremptus est, ter decimatis commilitonibus
apud Guldedune, port mortem Haroldi, antequam regnaret Hardecnutus,
_consilio Stigandi archiepiscopi_.” This last strange statement may be
taken in connexion with a scandal which charged Emma herself with a
partnership in the deed. (See p. 498 and Note SSS.) There is no need to
point out that Stigand was not Archbishop until long afterwards.
Bromton (X Scriptt. 934 et seqq.) gives several versions, but decides in
favour of one grounded on that of Henry of Huntingdon. He adds several
particulars, especially that the English nobles were so enraged against
Godwine that they vowed that he should die a worse death than Eadric the
betrayer of his _cyne-hlaford_ (“dominum suum naturalem regem”) Eadmund.
(It is a little remarkable that these words are used without any hint as
to the supposed kindred between Godwine and Eadric.) On this Godwine
flees to Denmark and remains there four years, his lands and goods being
meanwhile confiscated. But Bromton’s most remarkable version is one in
which the death of Ælfred, combined with an attempt to poison Eadward,
is attributed to the joint action of Godwine, Harthacnut, and Emma
herself. The same scandal turns up again in the Winchester Annals
(Luard, Ann. Mon. ii. 22) as part of the legend of Emma and the
ploughshares. So also in Bromton himself, X Scriptt. 942. But the
Winchester Annalist had just before (Ann. Mon. ii. 17) given his own
version. The tale is placed in the reign of Harthacnut. Godwine wishes
to open the succession to his own son Harold. He entices Ælfred
over—Duke Robert, notwithstanding his death and burial in the East,
keeps Eadward back in Normandy—and causes one tenth of his companions to
be beheaded, the rest to be tortured and crucified, and the Ætheling
himself to be embowelled. Godwine’s instructions to his agents are given
in two very graphic speeches. I trust that so pleasant a writer as
Richard of the Devizes is not answerable for this stuff. See Mr. Luard’s
Preface, p. xi.
Lastly, two charters ascribed to Eadward the Confessor, but of very
doubtful genuineness, speak of the murder of Ælfred in a way which ought
to be noticed. In the first (Cod. Dipl. iv. 173) Eadward is made to
attribute the death of his brother to Harold and Harthacnut conjointly,
and to speak of himself as being with difficulty rescued from them;
“Invadentibus regnum Swegeno et Cnuto filio regis [ejus?], regibus
Danorum, ac filiis ipsius Chnuti Haroldo et Hardechnuto, a quibus etiam
alter meus frater Ælfredus crudeliter occisus est, solusque, sicut Joas
occisionem Oðoliæ, sic ego illorum crudelitatem evasi.” In the other
(Cod. Dipl. iv. 181) the crime is attributed to the Danes generally;
“Dani qui ... fratrem meum alium Ælfredum miserabiliter interemptum
enecaverant.” Now, even if these charters be spurious, they still have a
certain value as witnessing to popular belief on the subject. Neither of
them mentions Godwine; had they done so, Godwine’s sons could hardly
have been represented as signing them. But the mention of the fact in
charters signed by them might imply that the subject was not one which
they at all sought to avoid. The second charter is perfectly vague; but
the language of the former, attributing the deed to Harold and
Harthacnut, is remarkable. That Harthacnut personally had no hand in it
needs no proof; neither was Eadward at any time in the least danger at
the hands of Harthacnut, who always acted towards him as an attached
brother. Is the charge against Harthacnut meant to convey an indirect
charge against the representative of Harthacnut, that is, against Emma
herself?
I have thus fairly put together, as far as I can, the evidence on this
most perplexing question. That Ælfred landed and was put to death by
order of Harold there can be no reasonable doubt. But one can hardly say
more, except that, of all the accounts of his coming, the least likely
is that which connects it with a Norman invasion under the command of
Eadward. The charge against Godwine implies a state of things which we
know not to have existed; on the other hand it is strange that his one
direct apologist should not have used so obvious an argument on his
behalf. In my whole history I know no more remarkable instance of
mistakes and contradictions on the part of writers who had every means
of being well informed.
NOTE TTT. p. 512.
THE BURIAL OF HAROLD THE FIRST.
The Peterborough Chronicle (1040) distinctly says that Harold died at
Oxford; “Her forðferde Harold cyng on Oxnaforda on XI. Kal. Apr. and he
wæs bebyrged æt Westmynstre.” Worcester and Abingdon say merely “Her
swealt Harold cyng,” without any mention of the place either of death or
of burial. Canterbury has, “Her forðferde Harold cing, and he wearð
bebyrged at Westmynstre.” Florence however says “obiit Lundoniæ.” That
the place of his death was Oxford can hardly be doubted, when we
remember the charter which I have quoted at pp. 505, 509. And the point
is of some importance in relation to the burial of Westminster, which
becomes still more remarkable in the case of a King who died so far off
as Oxford.
As for the disinterment of Harold’s body by order of Harthacnut, two
stories seem to have been afloat which Florence tried to put into one.
His words are;
“Mox ut regnare cœpit injuriarum, quas vel sibi vel suæ genitrici suus
antecessor fecerat rex Haroldus, qui frater suus putabatur, non immemor,
Ælfricum Eboracensem archiepiscopum, Godwinum comitem, Stir majorem
domus, Edricum dispensatorem, Thrond suum carnificem, et alios magnæ
dignitatis viros, Lundoniam misit, et ipsius Haroldi corpus effodere, et
in gronnam projicere jussit: quod quum projectum fuisset, id extrahere,
et in flumen Thamense mandavit projicere. Brevi autem post tempore a
quodam piscatore captum est, et ad Danos allatum sub festinatione, in
cœmeterio quod habuerunt Lundoniæ sepultum est ab ipsis cum honore.”
Here we find a mention both of a fen and of the river Thames as places
into which the body was successively thrown. If we look into other
accounts, we shall find one story speaking of the fen, and another of
the river. The Peterborough Chronicle is silent; the Abingdon and
Worcester speak of the fen; “He let dragan up þone deadan Harold; and
hine on fenn onsceotan.” William of Malmesbury (ii. 188) tells the story
like the second part of the story in Florence, except that he adds that
the body was beheaded, which Florence does not mention; also he does not
choose to mention any of the performers in the disinterment except
Ælfric. His account runs thus;
“Per Alfricum Eboracensem episcopum, et alios quos nominare piget,
Haroldi cadavere defosso, caput truncari, et miserando mortalibus
exemplo, in Tamesim projici jussit. Id a quodam piscatore exceptum
sagena, in cœmeterio Danorum Londoniæ tumulatur.”
The special mention of Ælfric is remarkable. It may be that the presence
of a prelate was needed to sanctify the insult to consecrated ground;
still Ælfweard would have been the more natural performer in his own
diocese. And William of Malmesbury elsewhere (De Gest. Pont. 250)
distinctly asserts that the deed was done by the special advice of
Ælfric; “Habetur [Ælfricus] in hoc detestabilis, quod Hardacnutus _ejus
consilio_ fratris sui Haroldi cadavere defosso caput truncari, et infami
mortalibus exemplo in Tamensem projici jussit.”
The burying-place of the Danes seems to be first mentioned by William of
Malmesbury. Ralph de Diceto (i. 186 ed. Stubbs) marks it as the same as
the church of Saint Clement Danes; “Brevi autem post a quodam piscatore
ad Danos allatum est, et in cœmeterio quod habuerunt Lundoniæ sepultum
est apud sanctum Clementem.” He is followed by Bromton (933), who
however only speaks of the church of Saint Clement without any special
mention of Danes.
Florence’s list of the dignitaries employed in this matter is followed
by most of the later writers. Roger of Wendover calls them “milites et
carnifices.” On the relation of the great Earls to the officers of the
King’s household, see above, p. 89. The mention of the “major domus” and
the seemingly dignified position of “Thrond carnifex” (cf. Jeremiah lii.
12) should be specially noticed.
It is really worth while to transcribe the narrative of M. de Bonnechose
(ii. 61); it is so amusingly coloured; “Le corps d’Harold, son frère,
fut déterré par ses ordres, décapité, jeté dans un marais, puis dans la
Tamise, et il exigea que le comte Godwin, principal ministre des
volontés d’Harold, fût un des instruments de la vengeance exercée sur
son cadavre et sur une population rebelle, Godwin cependant ne trouva
pas, dans son empressement à obéir, une sûreté suffisante; la clameur
publique s’élevait contre lui, et le désignait comme l’assassin
d’Alfred, frère utérin du nouveau roi; l’archevêque d’Yorck se porta son
accusateur devant Hardi-Canut.”
NOTE VVV. p. 516.
THE TRIAL AND ACQUITTAL OF GODWINE.
A point to be specially noticed in this trial is the form of words which
Florence, the only primary authority who records any form, puts into the
mouth of Godwine and his compurgators. They swear that it was not by
Godwine’s will or counsel that the Ætheling Ælfred was blinded, and
that, whatever Godwine did in the matter, he did at the bidding of his
lord King Harold (“Non sui consilii nec suæ voluntatis fuisse quod
frater ejus cæcatus fuisset, sed dominum suum regem Haroldum illum
facere quod fecit jussisse”). This is clearly an abridged, and it is
most likely an inaccurate, report of the oath really taken. It is
clearly abridged, because, when Godwine by implication confessed to have
done something, he could not fail to explain more at large what it was
that he confessed himself to have done. But such a form of words is
consistent with the view that Godwine met Ælfred, or even that he
arrested Ælfred, within his own earldom, but that he had no hand in the
barbarous cruelties which followed in a place out of his jurisdiction.
But the mention of Harold as Godwine’s lord again steps in to throw
doubt on the whole formula. The only character in which Harold could be
called Godwine’s lord was that of superior lord of all Britain, in which
character he was the lord rather of Harthacnut than of Godwine. Still,
whatever doubts the formula may be open to, it has its worth. It points
to the general likelihood that Godwine may have had a share in the
events which led to the death of Ælfred, and yet not a guilty share.
William of Malmesbury (ii. 188), though he mentions the oath, does not
give any form of words. Roger of Wendover (i. 478), seemingly following
Florence, leaves out the clause in which Godwine says that he had acted
by order of Harold; “Juravit quod neque ingenio suo nec voluntate frater
ejus fuerat interemptus et oculis privatus.” This is remarkable, as
Roger (i. 474) asserts the complicity of Godwine with Harold’s doings
perhaps more strongly than any other writer. The clause appears again in
the writer called Matthew of Westminster, p. 400.
I cannot resist giving some account of the grotesque legend into which
the compurgation of Godwine has grown under the hands of the so-called
Bromton (X Script. 937, 8). It is transferred to the reign of Eadward.
Godwine, it will be remembered (see above, p. 786), is, at his
accession, in Denmark. Meanwhile Eadward comes over to England, he is
crowned, and reigns justly and mercifully. Godwine, hearing of his
justice and mercy, ventures to hope that the latter princely virtue may
be extended to himself, and supplicates that he may be allowed to come
over and plead his cause. This he does in a “Parliament,” where the King
with his Earls and Barons talk a large amount of Norman law. Earl
Leofric at last cuts the knot; It is clear that Godwine is guilty; but
then he is the best born man in the land after the King
himself—therefore it may be presumed, neither the son of Wulfnoth the
herdsman nor yet the kinsman of the upstart Ealdorman Eadric—so he and
his sons, and I and eleven other nobles his kinsmen, will bring the King
as much gold and silver as we each can carry, and the King shall forgive
Earl Godwine and give him his lands back again. To this singular way of
observing his coronation oath to do justice the saintly monarch makes no
objection; Earl Godwine takes his lands, and King Eadward takes the
broad pieces. Perhaps they were the very pieces over which he afterwards
saw the devil dancing.
NOTE WWW. p. 520.
THE ORIGIN OF EARL SIWARD.
All that I can say of Siward (Sigeweard) is that he was most likely a
Danish follower of Cnut. A Siward, seemingly the same, signs as
“minister” in 1019 (Cod. Dipl. iv. 9) and 1032 (iv. 39). His name is
also attached to a doubtful charter of Archbishop Æthelnoth (iv. 53) as
“miles.”
The mythical history of Siward will be found in Langebek, iii. 288, also
in the Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, ii. 104. The pedigree there given
runs thus; “Tradunt relationes antiquorum quod vir quidam nobilis, quem
Dominus permisit, contra solitum ordinem humanæ propaginis, ex quodam
albo urso patre, muliere generosa matre, procreari, Ursus genuit
Spratlingum, Spratlingus _Ulsium_, Ulsius Beorn, cognomento Beresune,
hoc est _filius ursi_.” Beorn is Siward’s father. _Ulsius_ should of
course be _Ulfius_, and the pedigree of course comes from Florence (see
p. 423) or from the source from which Florence drew his pedigree of Ulf.
But there is something especially grotesque in making Siward a son of
Biorn Ulfsson, who was killed by Swegen the son of Godwine in 1049. The
bear who was the ancestor of Siward and Ulf had also, it would seem,
known ursine descendants; at least so I understand the legend of
Hereward, Chroniques Angl.-Norm. ii. 7. Hereward there kills a bear,
“quem incliti ursi Norweye fuisse filium ... affirmabant ... cujus
igitur pater in silvis fertur puellam rapuisse, et ex ea Biernum regem
Norweye genuisse.” Siward, in the story, after slaying dragons and other
such exploits in Orkney and Northumberland, comes to London in the reign
of Eadward; he then, under very odd circumstances, kills one Tostig,
Earl of Huntingdon, and gets his earldom. The church of Saint Clement
Danes (see above, p. 789) was built, we are told, to commemorate the
slain followers of Tostig. This Tostig, it seems, was a Dane, who was in
disfavour with King Eadward for a curious reason; “Rex eumdem habuit
odio, quia duxerat in uxorem filiam comitis Godwini, sororem reginæ.”
Afterwards, when an invasion from Norway was threatening (1045?), Siward
was made Earl over Northumberland, _Cumberland_, and Westmoreland. The
same story is found in Bromton, 945, only there “Bernus,” father of
Siward, is himself son of the bear. Such stuff would be hardly worth
mentioning, had not Sir Francis Palgrave (Engl. Comm. ii. ccxcvii.)
inferred from it the existence of an historical Tostig, Earl of
Huntingdon. See above, p. 667. It is, I think, plain that the Tostig of
this story (who is, not indeed brother, but brother-in-law of Eadward’s
wife Eadgyth) is meant for the son of Godwine, and that the slaying of
Eadwulf by Siward has got confounded with the career of Tostig in
Northumberland and his expulsion from the earldom. The one bit of
history which lurks in all this seems to be the fact of the union of the
earldoms of Northumberland and Huntingdon in the person of Siward. See
vol. ii. Note G.
NOTE XXX. p. 528.
TOFIG THE PROUD.
A certain amount of interest cannot fail to attach to Tofig as Harold’s
forerunner in the foundation of Waltham. Of the Waltham history, “De
Inventione Sanctæ Crucis,” I shall speak more at large when I come to
Harold’s time (see vol. ii. Appendix RR). All that is known of Tofig is
collected by Professor Stubbs in his edition of that tract. Nothing but
local partiality could describe him as “Tovi le Prude, qui totius Angliæ
post regem primus, _stallere_, vexillifer regis, monarchiam gubernabat.”
(c. 7; cf. c. 14.) Professor Stubbs does not seem quite clear as to his
being Staller, but he certainly was an important person. He appears in
Florence as “Danicus et præpotens vir Tovius, Pruda cognomento.” He
signs many charters of Cnut, one of them in 1033 (Cod. Dipl. iv. 44)
distinctly as “Tovi Pruda.” He appears also with the same surname in
Cod. Dipl. iv. 54, where he is sent by Cnut on a special mission into
Herefordshire to attend a Scirgemót held by Bishop Æthelstan and Earl
Ranig (see p. 520), the account of which, though not illustrating the
life or character of Tofig, gives us one of the most living pictures of
Old-English jurisprudence. Tofig’s surname was needed to distinguish him
from two namesakes, “Tovi hwita” and “Tovi reada,” who sign in 1024.
Cod. Dipl. iv. 31. “Tofig minister,” who signs under Eadward in 1054
(Cod. Dipl. iv. 135), and who was Sheriff of Somerset between 1061 and
1066 (see Cod. Dipl. iv. 171, 197, 199), must, if the Waltham narrative
be at all accurate, be a different man.
In the name of Tofig’s son Æthelstan, as in that of Ranig’s son Eadwine
(see p. 520), we see an instance of the tendency among the Danish
settlers under Cnut to identify themselves with England and to give
their children English names.
Tofig must have died soon after his marriage with Gytha (see De Inv. 14;
“Tandem consummatus in brevi expleverat tempora multa, cui successit
filius ejus Adelstanus”). There is, as Professor Stubbs (pp. 1, 13)
remarks, some difficulty in reconciling the chronology of the Waltham
writer with regard to the Invention of the Cross with the undoubted date
of Tofig’s marriage. The Waltham writer places the Invention in the time
of Cnut (“regnante Cnuto et Anglis _imperante_”), that is to say seven
years at the least before the time of the marriage, whereas Gytha is
represented in c. 13 as already Tofig’s wife and as a benefactress to
the church. As Harthacnut died at the wedding, we cannot even suppose,
what would otherwise be just possible, that by “Cnutus” we are to
understand Harthacnut. The easiest explanation seems to be that gifts
made by Gytha in her widowhood have been wrongly transferred to an
earlier date. I have elsewhere (see vol. ii. Appendix MM) thrown out a
hint that this Gytha may possibly be the same as Gytha the wife of Earl
Ralph of Hereford.
NOTE YYY. p. 530.
EVENTS AFTER THE DEATH OF HARTHACNUT.
The legend to which I have referred in the text has found a place in the
text of Thierry (i. 179) and also in that of Mr. St. John (Four
Conquests, ii. 127). According to Bromton (934) and Knighton (2326), the
English, wearied with the oppressions of the Danes under Harthacnut (see
above, p. 758), rose against them after his death, and drove them out by
force. Knighton calls the leader of the revolt Howne, and his forces
_Howneher_ [Hunanhere]. Thierry makes Godwine the leader instead of
Howne. M. de Bonnechose (Quatre Conquêtes, ii. 70–2), though seeing the
general absurdity of the story, admits it so far as to accept an
expulsion of the housecarls. Saxo (202, 203) has a more wonderful tale
than all. He has nothing to say about Howne or about Godwine. Harold,
the son of Godwine, is the deliverer (“Danicæ oppressionis simulque
domesticæ libertatis auctor”). He causes the Danish forces throughout
England to be invited to banquets in different places, so that they are
all slain in one night. Of all this there is not a word in any
trustworthy writer; the only passage which looks at all like it is a
rhetorical expression in the Life of Eadward (“reducto diu afflictis
Anglis barbarica servitute redemptionis suæ jubilæo”, p. 394), which
however most likely refers only to the extinction of the foreign dynasty
and the accession of a native King. Any one who has had any experience
of the growth of mythical and romantic tales will soon see what is the
origin of this legend. It is plainly nothing in the world but the
massacre of Saint Brice moved still further out of its place than it had
already been moved by Roger of Wendover (see above, p. 652), and further
mixed up with the legend of the death of Ælfred, with which it is
connected by both Bromton and Knighton. Knighton’s “Howne” is clearly
Roger’s “Huna” over again. Everything in our authentic narrative makes
us believe that the election of Eadward was perfectly peaceful. A
general driving out or massacre of Danes is simply ridiculous; even an
expulsion of the housecarls is supported by no kind of evidence. The
housecarls of Harthacnut no doubt became the housecarls of Eadward, and
the saintly King, if Godwine had not been at hand to restrain him, was
as ready to send them against Dover as his half-brother had been to send
them against Worcester.
A more marvellous version than all is to be found in the French Life of
Eadward, 532–581 (Luard, pp. 40, 41). Here the Danes, after committing
the usual atrocities, rebel against _Harthacnut_, who raises an English
army against them, and, after much fighting, overcomes them. Such wild
shapes did our history take when it fell into the hands of strangers.
END OF VOLUME THE FIRST.
-----
Footnote 1:
On this subject I must refer, once for all, to the papers of Dr. Guest
in the Archæological Journal and in the volumes of Transactions of the
Archæological Institute, especially to the paper on the Early English
Settlements in South Britain in the Salisbury Volume. On these
questions I have little to do except to profess myself, in all
essential points, an unreserved follower of that illustrious scholar.
On the difference between _historical_, _traditional_, _mythical_, and
_romantic_ narratives see Historical Essays, 1st Series, p. 3.
Footnote 2:
It is really hardly worth while to dispute about the _names_ of
Hengest and Horsa. The evidence for their historical character seems
to me at least as strong as the suspicion of their mythical character.
But whether the chiefs who led the first Jutish settlers in Kent bore
these names or any others does not affect the reality of the Jutish
settlement. I must confess however that there are names in the
Chronicles which strike me as far more suspicious than those of
Hengest and Horsa. I mean names like Port and Wihtgar, who figure in
the entries for 501 and 544. See Earle’s Parallel Chronicles, p. ix.
Footnote 3:
For all that is to be said on this side of the question, see the
eleventh Chapter of Palgrave’s English Commonwealth and the first
chapter of Kemble’s Saxons in England. On the other side see Dr.
Guest’s paper in the Salisbury Volume.
Footnote 4:
See Guest, Salisbury Volume, p. 35.
Footnote 5:
The account in Ammianus (xxxvii. 8) of the exploits of the elder
Theodosius does not speak of the Saxons or of any other Teutons as
invaders of Britain, but only as invaders of Gaul. But there seems
quite evidence enough to show that, at the end of the fourth and
beginning of the fifth centuries, Britain was constantly ravaged by
Saxon pirates. This is shown by the well-known phrases of _Limes
Saxonicus_ and _Littus Saxonicum_, for the true explanation of which I
must again refer to Dr. Guest. The Saxon shore or march, like the
Welsh march in England, like the Spanish, Slavonic, and other marches
of the later Empire, was, not a district occupied by Saxons, but the
march—in this case a _shore_—lying near to the Saxons and exposed to
their ravages. Ammianus himself, in the passage just referred to,
speaks of “Nectaridus comes maritimi tractus” as killed by the Picts
at this time. The phrase is analogous to that of “Scythici limitis
dux,” etc. in Vopiscus, Aurelian, 13. Claudian also constantly couples
the Saxons with the Picts and Scots as among the invaders of Roman
Britain who were repulsed by Theodosius and Stilicho;
... “Maduerunt Saxone fuso
Orcades: incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thule:
Scotorum cumulos flevit glacialis Ierne.”
Carm. viii. 31. Cf. xviii. 392; xxii. 255.
So Sidonius Apollinaris, Carm. vii. 370 (cf. Epp. viii. 6);
“Quin et Aremoricus piratam Saxona tractus
Sperabat, cui pelle salum sulcare Britannum
Ludus, et asserto glaucum mare findere lembo.”
Were our keels coracles, or was the British fashion transferred to the
Saxon?
Footnote 6:
Yet even this view seems to be pretty well disposed of by Dr. Guest in
his Salisbury paper.
Footnote 7:
I use the word “Saxon” throughout only in its correct sense, to
express one only among several Teutonic tribes which settled in
Britain. The name “Saxon” was never used by the people themselves to
express the whole nation, which was called, sometimes “Anglo-Saxon,”
but, far more commonly, simply “Angle” or “English.” I shall discuss
this point more at length in the Appendix, Note A.
Footnote 8:
I use, as a technical term, this correct and old-fashioned description
of the class of languages to which our own belongs. The English
language is simply Low-Dutch, with a very small Welsh, and a very
large Romance, infusion into its vocabulary. The Low-Dutch of the
continent, so closely cognate with our own tongue, is the natural
speech of the whole region from Flanders to Holstein, and it has been
carried by conquest over a large region, originally Slavonic, to the
further east. But, hemmed in by Romance, High-Dutch, and Danish, it is
giving way at all points, and it is only in Holland that it survives
as a literary language. It should always be borne in mind that our
affinity in blood and language is in the first degree with the
Low-Dutch, in the second degree with the Danish. With the High-Dutch,
the German of modern literature, we have no direct connexion at all.
Footnote 9:
The proper Scots, as no one denies, were a Gaelic colony from Ireland,
the original Scotia. The only question is as to the Picts or
Caledonians. Were they another Gaelic tribe, the vestige of a Gaelic
occupation of the island earlier than the British occupation, or were
they simply Britons who had never been brought under the Roman
dominion? The geographical aspect of the case favours the former
belief, but the weight of philological evidence seems to be on the
side of the latter. But the question is one which, as far as purely
English history is concerned, may safely be left undetermined.
Footnote 10:
It seems certain that the English seldom occupied a Roman or British
town at once. The towns were commonly forsaken for a while, though
they were in many cases resettled by an English population. The only
question is whether any of the towns preserved a sort of half
independence after the conquest of the surrounding country. See
Comparative Politics, 130, 422.
Footnote 11:
In Northern Gaul the name of the tribe is commonly preserved in the
modern name of its chief town, the original name of the town itself
being dropped. Thus Lutetia Parisiorum has become Paris. But in
Aquitaine and Provence the cities commonly retain their original
names, as Burdigala and Tolosa, now Bourdeaux and Toulouse.
Footnote 12:
Words like _street_ and _chester_; this class is excessively small.
See Max Müller, Science of Language, Second Series, p. 269.
Footnote 13:
Words like _Mass_, _Priest_, _Bishop_, _Angel_, _Candle_.
Footnote 14:
See Comparative Politics, 420.
Footnote 15:
I mean the extirpation of anything worthy to be called a nation, of
any people who had reached the position which all the inhabitants of
the Roman Empire had reached. The dying out of savage tribes before
the arts and arms of highly civilized Europeans is another matter.
Footnote 16:
Yet the legend of Hengest’s daughter, as told by Nennius—her name
Rowena is a later absurdity—absolutely worthless as a piece of
personal history, seems to point to the fact that the invaders not
uncommonly brought their women with them.
Footnote 17:
Prokopios, Bell. Goth. iv. 20. Βριττίαν δὲ τὴν νῆσον ἔθνη τρία
πολυανθρωπότατα ἔχουσι, βασιλεύς τε εἷς αὐτῶν ἑκάστῳ ἐφέστηκεν·
ὀνόματα δὲ κεῖται τοῖς ἔθνεσι τούτοις Ἄγγιλοί τε καὶ Φρίσσονες καὶ τῇ
νήσῳ ὁμώνυμοι Βρίττωνες. Prokopios’ account of Britain is mixed up
with a great deal of fable, but here at least is something clear and
explicit.
Footnote 18:
See the Chronicles under the years 443 and 449, and compare 473, where
Hengest and his Jutes are again called “Engle.”
Footnote 19:
It is necessary to make this limitation, because the Danish Kings, as
well as Harold the son of Godwine and William the Conqueror, were none
of them of the West-Saxon house. But all our earlier Kings were
descended from Cerdic in the male line and all our later Kings in the
female line.
Footnote 20:
I have given the boundaries somewhat roughly, as they do not always
exactly answer to those of the present counties. For details I must
refer to Dr. Guest’s paper already quoted, and to his two later papers
in the Archæological Journal, vol. xvi. p. 105, and vol. xix. p. 193.
Footnote 21:
Yet some of the passages collected by Sir Francis Palgrave (English
Commonwealth, i. 462) would seem to show that parties of independent
Welshmen held out in the fen country till a very late date.
Footnote 22:
On the quasi-insular character of East-Anglia, see Dr. Stanley’s paper
in the Norwich volume of the Proceedings of the Archæological
Institute, p. 58.
Footnote 23:
The Chronicles, under the year 547, record the accession of Ida, and
speak of him as the ancestor of the following line of Northumbrian
Kings. But we are not told, as in the cases of Hengest, Ælle, and
Cerdic, anything about his landing, and the phrase “Ida feng to rice”
(cf. 519) implies that this was not the beginning of the settlement. I
therefore cannot help suspecting that there is some truth in the
legend preserved by Nennius (38), according to which settlers of the
kindred of Hengest occupied Northumberland in the preceding century.
William of Malmesbury (i. 7) follows the same account, with additional
details, but he distinctly adds that no English chief in those parts
took the title of King before Ida. See Comparative Politics, 419.
Footnote 24:
The date of Offa is given by Henry of Huntingdon (Mon. Hist. Brit. 714
A). But he had before (M. H. B. 712 A) said, speaking of the days of
Cerdic, “Eâ tempestate venerunt multi et sæpe de Germaniâ, et
occupaverunt East-Angle et Merce: sed necdum sub uno rege redacta
erant. Plures autem proceres certatim regiones occupabant.” This marks
the transition from Ealdormanship to Kingship, of which I shall speak
in my next Chapter.
Footnote 25:
Crida or Creoda is mentioned in the Chronicles (593), but he is not
said to have been the first King of the Mercians. That he was so is a
conjecture of Henry of Huntingdon, M. H. B. 714 C.
Footnote 26:
Chronicles, 626. Cf. 654.
Footnote 27:
On the list of Bretwaldas and its historic value, see Appendix B.
Footnote 28:
Bæda, Hist. Eccl. i. 25, 26.
Footnote 29:
See Appendix C.
Footnote 30:
Prokop. Bell. Goth. iv. 20. οὐ πολλῷ πρότερον ὁ Φράγγων βασιλεὺς ἐπὶ
πρεσβείᾳ τῶν οἱ ἐπιτηδείων τινὰς παρὰ βασιλέα Ἰουστινιανὸν ἐς
Βυζάντιον στείλας ἄνδρας αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν Ἀγγίλων ξυνέπεμψε,
φιλοτιμούμενος ὡς καὶ ἡ νῆσος ἥδε πρὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρχεται.
Footnote 31:
The Goths in the fourth century were the first Teutonic nation to
embrace Christianity, but they were still a wandering tribe, while the
conversion of England was a distinct territorial conquest. Armenia
again, at the other end of the Roman world, was a territorial conquest
more ancient than that of England; but Armenia lay far more open to
Imperial influences than England did.
Footnote 32:
See above, p. 25.
Footnote 33:
See the Laws of Ine, 23, 24, 32, 33, 46, 54, 74. (Thorpe, Laws and
Institutes, i. 119–149; Schmid, pp. 30–55.) In the time of Ælfred the
distinction, at least within the strictly English territory, seems to
have died out.
Footnote 34:
Bæda, i. 34; Chron. 603, 605. The latter year is the date of his
victory over the Welsh near Chester and the famous massacre of the
monks of Bangor.
Footnote 35:
Bæda, ii. 5. See Appendix B.
Footnote 36:
See above, p. 27.
Footnote 37:
Chron. 628. “Her Cynegils and Cwichelm gefuhtan wið Pendan æt
Cirenceastre and geþingodon þa.” This I take to mean a cession of
territory, most probably of the north-western conquests of Ceawlin.
Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire must have been kept longer, as appears
from the position of Dorchester as originally a West-Saxon bishopric.
Footnote 38:
See Appendix B.
Footnote 39:
See Appendix D.
Footnote 40:
See Appendix D.
Footnote 41:
For the chronology between the years 752–849 I follow the Northumbrian
reckoning preserved by Simon of Durham. See Stubbs, Roger of Hoveden,
i. pp. xci, et seqq.
Footnote 42:
Ecgberht’s titles commonly run, “Rex,” “Regali fretus dignitate,”
“Occidentalium Saxonum rex,” once, in 820, “Rex Occidentalium Saxonum
necnon et Cantuariorum” (Kemble, Cod. Dipl. i. 289), but in one
charter of 828 (Cod. Dipl. i. 287) he appears as “Ecgberhtus gratiâ
Dei REX ANGLORUM.” In that year he had granted out Mercia to an
Under-king and had reduced all the Welsh to submission.
Footnote 43:
One can hardly describe these relations between the different states
without using such words as “homage,” “apanage,” and the like, though
of course the words were unknown in England at the time.
Footnote 44:
A local invasion of the _Hwiccas_ was repelled at Kempsford by the
Wilsætas. The Hwiccas are the people of the old diocese of Worcester.
They were therefore doubtless mainly of Saxon blood, yet they now act
as Mercian subjects. The war however seems to have been quite local,
carried on by the Ealdormen of the two shires.
Footnote 45:
I infer this from the description of the battle of Gafulford in 825,
which is said to have been fought between the Welsh and the men of
Devonshire, who must therefore have been English, or at least acting
in the English interest. Yet Devonshire, and even the city of Exeter,
remained partly Welsh as late as the time of Æthelstan.
Footnote 46:
_Norð-Wealas_ in the Chronicles means the inhabitants of Wales in the
modern sense, both North and South; they are opposed to the
_West-Wealas_, the Welsh of Cornwall.
Footnote 47:
See above, p. 12.
Footnote 48:
On the conquest of Northumberland, see Appendix KK.
Footnote 49:
It is hardly worth while to reckon the puppet Ceolwulf, not of the
royal house, set up for a moment by the Danes after the expulsion of
Burhred.
Footnote 50:
The exact boundary started from the Thames, along the Lea to its
source, then right to Bedford and along the Ouse till it meets
Watling-Street, then along Watling-Street to the Welsh border. See
Ælfred and Guthrum’s Peace, Thorpe’s Laws and Institutes, i. 152. This
frontier gives London to the English; but it seems that Ælfred did not
obtain full possession of London till 886. See Earle’s Parallel
Chronicles, p. 310.
Footnote 51:
See Appendix E.
Footnote 52:
The story which represents Ælfred as forsaken by his subjects on
account of cruelties in the early part of his reign, and as being thus
led to reformation, is part of the legend of Saint Neot, not of the
history of Ælfred.
Footnote 53:
No one can blame Ælfred for hanging (see Chron. 897) the crews of some
piratical Danish ships, who had broken their oaths to him over and
over again. His general conduct towards his enemies displays a
singular mildness.
Footnote 54:
“I then, Ælfred King, these [laws] together gathered, and had many of
them written which our foregangers held, those that me-liked. And many
of them that me not liked I threw aside, with my Wise Men’s thought,
and on otherwise bade to hold them. Forwhy I durst not risk of my own
much in writ to set, forwhy it to me unknown was what of them would
like those that after us were. But that which I met, either in Ine’s
days my kinsman, or in Offa’s the King of the Mercians, or in
Æthelberht’s that erst of English kin baptism underwent, those that to
me rightest seemed, those have I herein gathered and the others passed
by. I then Ælfred, King of the West-Saxons, to all my Wise Men these
showed, and they then quoth that to them it seemed good all to hold.”
Ælfred’s Dooms, Thorpe’s Laws and Institutes, i. 58–59; Schmid, p. 69
Footnote 55:
Guthrum of East-Anglia was a nominal vassal all along. But the
Northumbrians, whether Danes or English, seem not to have made
submission till 893, in the prospect of the last Danish invasion of
this reign. Their King Guthred had just died. See the two statements
in Simeon of Durham, X Scriptt. pp. 133 (M. H. B. 685), 151, and
Palgrave, ii. cccxv. Cf. Chron. and Fl. Wig. 894.
Footnote 56:
Ælfred was thus King of nearly all the Saxon part of England, of very
little of the Anglian part. Hence doubtless the title of “Rex Saxonum”
which he often uses. He was more than King of the West-Saxons; he was
less than King of the English.
Footnote 57:
See Appendix F.
Footnote 58:
Between Eadwig and Eadgar in 957, between Eadmund and Cnut in 1016,
between Harold and Harthacnut in 1035. All these arrangements were
short-lived, and they were probably not meant to be more than
temporary compromises.
Footnote 59:
Florence of Worcester (901) after a splendid panegyric on Ælfred,
continues, “Huic filius successit Eadwardus, cognomento Senior,
litterarum cultu patre inferior, sed dignitate, potentia, pariter et
gloria superior; nam, ut in sequentibus clarebit, multo latius quam
pater fines regni sui dilatavit,” &c. &c.
Footnote 60:
Ælfred was, according to custom, chosen in preference to the sons of
his elder brother Æthelred, who were minors at the time of their
father’s death. On Ælfred’s death one of these sons, Æthelwald, tried
to obtain the crown, but the Witenagemót elected Eadward the son of
Ælfred.
Footnote 61:
See Chron. 924, and Appendix G.
Footnote 62:
Ealdred the son of Ealdwulf, Lord of Bamburgh. His father had been
among the chiefs who did homage to Eadward in 924. On this family, see
Appendix KK.
Footnote 63:
See Earle, p. xix. It is much to be lamented that the prose entries in
the Chronicles for this important reign are so meagre. On the other
hand, William of Malmesbury evidently worked out the life of Æthelstan
with unusual care, seemingly from lost sources, and, amidst a great
deal of fable, we recover some truth.
Footnote 64:
I shall have to speak again of the foreign policy of Æthelstan in my
Chapter on the Early History of Normandy.
Footnote 65:
Florence has some special epithet for each of the conquering Kings of
this period—Eadward is “invictissimus,” Æthelstan “strenuus et
gloriosus,” Eadmund “magnificus,” Eadred “egregius,” Eadgar
“pacificus.”
Footnote 66:
The _Imperial_ character of the English royalty at this time will be
spoken of more largely in the next Chapter. See also Appendix B.
Footnote 67:
Leicester (Chron. 918), Stamford (922), and Nottingham (924) were all
in possession of Eadward, who built fortresses at the latter two.
Perhaps they had joined in the revolt of the Northumbrians in 941; but
the words of the Chronicles may lead us to think that Eadward accepted
the submission of the Confederation and built forts to keep the towns
from rebellion, without interfering with their internal
administration. A Danish civic aristocracy may therefore have gone on
down to the deliverance by Eadmund, holding the former English
inhabitants in more or less of subjection.
Footnote 68:
See Appendix H.
Footnote 69:
On the whole reign of Eadwig, see Mr. Allen’s Essay attached to his
work on the Royal Prerogative.
Footnote 70:
The entries in the Chronicles just at this time are singularly meagre.
Footnote 71:
See Brut y Tywysogion, a. 965. With this seems to be connected the
famous story of the tribute of wolves in William of Malmesbury, ii.
155.
An Irish campaign and victory of Eadgar (see the spurious charter of
964, Cod. Dipl. ii. 404) seem very doubtful.
Footnote 72:
Chron. 966.
Footnote 73:
With regard to Thanet, the Chronicles witness to the fact; Henry of
Huntingdon (M. H. B. 748 A) guarantees its justice; it was done “quia
jura regalia spreverant.” Roger of Wendover (i. 414) knows all about
it, and says it was because the men of Thanet plundered certain
merchants of York.
Footnote 74:
See the Pictish Chronicle, ap. Johnstone, Ant. Celt. Norm. 143.
Footnote 75:
The alleged cession of Lothian is surrounded with so many difficulties
that I reserve the question for fuller discussion. See Appendix I.
Footnote 76:
This is Dr. Lingard’s probable conjecture. Hist. of England, i. 262.
Footnote 77:
Laws of Eadgar, in Thorpe’s Laws and Institutes, i. 272, Schmid, p.
195.
Footnote 78:
The best of all authorities, the Chronicles (973), bear witness to the
meeting of Eadgar with six kings at Chester, where they renewed their
homage to him. Florence, the authority next in value, raises the
number to eight; he also gives their names (Kenneth of Scotland,
Malcolm of Cumberland, Maccus of the Isles, and five Welsh princes)
and describes the ceremony on the Dee.
Footnote 79:
In the ballad in the Chronicles (958) the only fault found with Eadgar
is his fondness for foreigners, who are said to have corrupted the
morals of the English in divers ways.
Footnote 80:
The scandalous stories told of Eadgar’s private life are, with one
exception, that of the abduction of the nun Wulfthryth, mere romances,
without a shadow of authority.
Footnote 81:
As long as Man retained its separate Kings or even its separate Lords,
it was strictly in the same position in which it was in the days of
Eadgar. Even now, as retaining its own Legislature and not being
represented in the Imperial Parliament, it is a dependency of the
British Crown, like the Channel Islands, not an integral part of the
United Kingdom, like England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.
Footnote 82:
I cannot, in this Chapter, lay claim to the same originality which I
hope I may fairly claim in the narrative parts of this history. The
early political and legal antiquities of England have been treated of
by so many eminent writers that there is really little more to be done
than to test their different views by the standards of inherent
probability and of documentary evidence, and to decide which has the
best claim to adoption. Among many other works two stand out
conspicuously, Sir Francis Palgrave’s History of the English
Commonwealth and Mr. Kemble’s Saxons in England. My readers will
easily see that I have learned much from both, but that I cannot call
myself an unreserved follower of either. Another most important work
is Dr. Reinhold Schmid’s _Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen_ (2nd ed.
Leipzig, 1858). The most valuable part is the Antiquarian Glossary,
the principal articles of which swell into essays on the most
important subjects suggested by the Old-English Laws, supported by the
most lavish array of references for every detail. On the whole I think
I shall be commonly found maintaining the same constitutional views as
Mr. Kemble, except on the point of the _Imperial_ character of the
Old-English monarchy, an aspect of it which Mr. Kemble has rather
unaccountably slurred over. This point, one which closely connects
itself with other studies of mine, is perhaps the one which I have
thought out more thoroughly for myself than any other. Sir Francis
Palgrave, with his characteristic union of research, daring, and
ingenuity, was the first to call attention to the subject; but I must
confess that many of his views on the matter seem to me not a little
exaggerated.
[I let this note stand as it was first written about eleven years ago;
since then the great Constitutional History of Professor Stubbs has
gathered together all knowledge on these subjects in a wonderfully
short compass. My special obligations to him are recorded in my Fifth
Volume. I have also, since this Chapter was written, studied the great
work of Waitz, _Deutsche Verfassungs Geschichte_, and other German
constitutional writers, some for the first time, others more carefully
than I had read them before. I am glad that I do not find more to
change than I do. I have not thought it needful to recast the Chapter;
but I have changed whatever seemed either inaccurate or misleading,
and I have added some fresh illustrations and references, chiefly to
Waitz and Sir Henry Maine.]
Footnote 83:
[This was first written in the year 1866.]
Footnote 84:
On the change from _Ealdormen_ or _Heretogan_ to Kings, see Appendix
K.
Footnote 85:
See above, p. 54.
Footnote 86:
On all these points see Appendix K.
Footnote 87:
See above, p. 26.
Footnote 88:
See above, p. 54, and Appendix F. Gneist, Englische Verwaltungsrecht,
i. 47; “Nach dem Aussterben oder der Verdrängung der mediatisirten
Häuptlinge aber treten nahe Verwandte des regierenden Hauses
(Athelingi) oder verschwägerte oder sonst nahestehende Grossthane in
die Stelling solcher Unterkönige ein, bis die fortschreitende
Reichseinheit diese Statthalter allmälig auf dem Fuss blosser
Reichsbeamten bringt.” Cf. K. von Maurer, Kritische Überschau, i. 86.
Footnote 89:
See above, p. 62.
Footnote 90:
The modern German princes represent nothing but modern dynastic and
diplomatic arrangements; otherwise one might compare this process with
the return to ealdormanship in Wessex and Lombardy. [This was written
early in 1866, before the reverse process had begun.]
Footnote 91:
On the word “King” see Appendix L.
Footnote 92:
See Appendix M.
Footnote 93:
_Englaland_, in its different forms, does not appear in the Chronicles
till the year 1014. _Angel-cyn_, which in 597 clearly means the
people, must, in 975 and 986, be taken for the country. So still more
plainly in 1002. In many places it may be taken either way. Cf.
Appendix A, T.
Footnote 94:
Il. ix. 160. καὶ μοὶ ὑποστήτω ὅσσον =βασιλεύτερός= εἰμι.
Footnote 95:
In tracing the origin and progress of the _Comitatus_ or _Thegnhood_ I
find no essential difference between the views of Sir Francis Palgrave
and Mr. Kemble. It is only when we draw near to more purely political
questions that their theories diverge in any marked way.
Footnote 96:
Tac. Germ. 11. “De minoribus rebus principes consultant; de majoribus
omnes; ita tamen ut ea quoque, quorum penes plebem arbitrium est, apud
principes pertractentur.” This is exactly the Greek βουλή and δῆμος.
Footnote 97:
For the Assembly of the Achaians, see Il. ii. 51; for that of the
Gods, see Il. xx. 4. Compare on the Homeric Assemblies, Grote, Hist.
of Greece, ii. 91, and Gladstone, Homer and the Homeric Age, iii. 114.
It certainly strikes me that Mr. Gladstone has understood far more
thoroughly than Mr. Grote the position of the simple freeman of the
Homeric age, which Mr. Grote is inclined to undervalue. So most people
are inclined to undervalue the position of our _Ceorlas_. See Hallam,
Supplementary Notes, p. 206 et seqq.
Footnote 98:
On the amount of freedom among the Macedonians, see Historical Essays,
Second Series, p. 188, and the passages there quoted.
Footnote 99:
See History of Federal Government, i. 37–38.
Footnote 100:
The story is in the _Rig’s-mal_, and will be found in the English
translation of Mallet’s Northern Antiquities, p. 365. Jarl, Karl, and
Thræll, all born on one day through the power of the God Helmdall, are
the respective ancestors of the three classes of men, eorls, ceorls,
and _thralls_ or slaves. Karl, among other sons, has Husbandman,
Holder, and Smith.
Footnote 101:
Of the history and constitution of these commonwealths I trust to
treat more at large in the second volume of my History of Federal
Government. I will now only say that, though the amount of
independence enjoyed by the ancient Cantons has often been greatly
exaggerated, there is evidence enough to show that, in some districts
at least, the old Teutonic system can be traced back uninterruptedly
as far as we have any records at all, so that we may fairly presume an
unbroken succession from the Germans of Tacitus. [See Growth of the
English Constitution, p. 161, ed. 3.]
Footnote 102:
This comparison may surprise some who have been accustomed to look on
the _ceorlas_ as a very degraded class. There can be no doubt that
among the _ceorlas_ there were men of very different positions, that
the general tendency of their position was to sink, and that, by the
time of the Norman Conquest, some classes of them had advanced a good
way on the road to serfdom. But this was not the condition of the
whole order even then; still less was it the original conception of
_ceorldom_. The original ceorl is a citizen and a soldier; he is, or
may be, a landowner; on the one hand he is free, on the other he is
not noble. See the remarks in Hallam’s Supplementary Notes already
referred to.
Footnote 103:
See Mr. Kemble’s Chapter on “The Mark” in the first volume of The
Saxons in England.
Footnote 104:
To Mr. Allen (Royal Prerogative, p. 129) belongs the honour of having
first explained what _folkland_ and _bookland_ really were.
Footnote 105:
In Latin _possessores_, the word so fertile in confusions as to the
Agrarian Laws. So Aristotle (Pol. vii. 10) lays down the rule,
ἀναγκαῖον εἰς δύο μέρη διῃρῆσθαι τὴν χώραν, καὶ τὴν μὲν εἶναι κοινὴν,
τὴν δὲ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν. [On this whole subject of communities and common
lands much has been said since this Chapter was written. The English
reader will find the cream in Sir Henry Maine’s Village Communities.]
Footnote 106:
Cæsar, Bell. Gall. vi. 22. Cf. Tac. Germ. 26; but from c. 16 it would
seem that in his time the institution of the _eðel_ had already begun.
Footnote 107:
In Glarus and Appenzell altogether so, and even in Uri to some extent.
Footnote 108:
On the _Comitatus_ see the classical passage of Tacitus, Germ. 13, 14
(cf. 25), and for the working out of the whole in detail, see Mr.
Kemble’s two Chapters, “The Noble by Service” in the first volume, and
“The King’s Court and Household” in the second.
Footnote 109:
Looked at philologically, this word _Hlaford_ is most puzzling, and
the feminine _Hlæfdige_ (Lady) is more puzzling still. But it is
enough for my purpose, if a connexion with _Hláf_ in any shape be
admitted, whatever may be thought of the last syllable.
Footnote 110:
Maine, Ancient Law, 303. “The person who ministered to the sovereign
in his court had given up something of that absolute personal freedom
which was the proudest privilege of the allodial proprietor.”
Footnote 111:
Hom. Od. iv. 22;
ὁ δὲ προμολὼν ἴδετο =κρείων= Ἐτεωνεὺς,
ὀτρηρὸς =θεράπων= Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιο,
βῆ δ’ ἴμεν ἀγγελέων διὰ δώματα ποιμένι λαῶν.
So Il. xxiv. 473;
=ἕταροι= δ’ ἀπάνευθε καθείατο· τῷ δὲ δύ’ οἴω
=ἥρως= Αὐτομέδων τε, καὶ Ἄλκιμος ὄζος Ἄρηος,
=ποίπνυον= παρέοντε.
Eteôneus is κρείων, Automedôn is ἥρως, yet they are the _Þegnas_ of
Menelaos and Achilleus respectively.
Footnote 112:
Bæda, ii. 9. “Lilla minister (þegn) Regis amicissimus.” He saves his
_hlaford’s_ life at the cost of his own.
Footnote 113:
See this most remarkable story in the Chronicles, 755; Florence, 784.
Footnote 114:
Herod. vii. 104. ἔπεστι γάρ σφι δεσπότης νόμος, τὸν ὑποδειμαίνουσι
πολλῷ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ οἱ σοὶ σε.
Footnote 115:
Of this feeling, and the gradual change as the Empire advanced, I have
spoken in Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 317. See the passages
quoted in the note, Tac. Hist. i. 58, and Spartianus (in Hist. Aug.
Scriptt.) Hadrian, 22.
Footnote 116:
Mr. Kemble however (ii. 112) remarks that the greatest men of the
kingdom, men like Godwine, Leofric, and Siward, seem never to have
held such offices. So in our own day a man who had any chance of
becoming First Lord of the Treasury would not stoop to become Lord
Chamberlain or Master of the Horse.
Footnote 117:
See Appendix O.
Footnote 118:
On the promotion of Ceorls to higher rank, the following passages are
explicit. “We witan þæt þurh Godes gyfe þrǽl wærð tô þegene and ceorl
wearð tô eorle, sangere tô sacerde and bôcere tô biscope,” (Be griðe
and be munde. Wilkins, 112; Thorpe, i. 334; Schmid, 386). “And gif
ceorl geþeàh þæt he hæfðe fullice fîf hîda agenes landes, cirican and
kycenan, bell-hûs and burh-geat-setl _and sunder-note on cynges
healle_, þonne wæs he þononforð þegen rihtes weorðe.” (Thorpe, i. 190;
Schmid, 388. “Be leôd-geþincð and lage.”) The whole of this last
document bears on the subject. Compare also the table of Wergilds
(Schmid, 396), ii. § 9. On the first extract I may remark that the
jingle of beginnings and endings has carried the lawgiver a little too
far. In strictness the Ceorl could not become an Eorl (in the older
sense of the word); but a Ceorl, or even a Thrall when once
manumitted, might become a Thegn, and, once a Thegn, he might
conceivably become an Eorl in the later sense.
Footnote 119:
On _Commendation_, see Appendix N.
Footnote 120:
See Appendix O.
Footnote 121:
“Homo”—whence “homagium,” “hommage”—is the constant technical name for
the vassal. See Domesday in almost every page.
Footnote 122:
Palgrave, English Commonwealth, i. 354. Maine, Ancient Law, 302, who
however seems to forget the _Comitatus_, and brings in the relation of
patron and client, which however is itself a form of the _Comitatus_.
Footnote 123:
This was found in a somewhat different form on the continent. See the
documents in Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, iv. 266, one of
Charles the Great, which speaks “de tribus causis, de hoste publico,
hoc est de banno nostro, quando publicitus promovetur, et wacta, vel
pontes componendum.” Waitz remarks, “Statt der Wachtdienste wird bei
den Angelsachsen und später auch auf deutschem Boden das sogenannte
Burgwerk, die Hülfe beim Burgenbau, genannt.” And to the repair of
bridges, some of his documents add that of churches and roads.
Footnote 124:
For continental exemptions under the Karlings, see Waitz, iv. 268.
Footnote 125:
See Appendix P.
Footnote 126:
See Allen, pp. 143, 153, et seqq.; also on the whole subject of the
change of Folkland into _Terra Regis_.
Footnote 127:
I have said more on this subject in Growth of the English
Constitution, pp. 139, 140.
Footnote 128:
See Eichhorn, Deutsche Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte, iii. 158.
Footnote 129:
This was written before the wonderful changes in Germany (August,
1866), which will supply me with abundant matter for another work.
Footnote 130:
On this whole subject I must again refer to Mr. Kemble, especially to
his chapters on the Mark and the Shire.
Footnote 131:
Many of our present shires are historically divisions of kingdoms (see
above, p. 48), and the word _Scír_, connected with _scérn_ or _shear_,
of course actually means division. But the word is most likely a
comparatively modern one; the _Shire_ or _Pagus_ answers to the German
_Gau_, on which see Kemble’s chapter on the _Gá_, and the chapter in
the first volume of Waitz, _Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte_, “Das
Dorf, die Gemeinde, der Gau.”
Footnote 132: