Footnote 133:
See again Mr. Kemble’s chapter on the Gerefa. The _Gerefa_ or _Reeve_
is an officer, especially a fiscal officer, of any kind, from a
_Shirereeve_ down to a _Dykereeve_—Mr. Kemble adds, to a _Hogreeve_.
In Northern English the word, under the form of _Grieve_, has changed
from a public to a private _exactor_. The word is the same as the
High-Dutch _Graf_; only the one title has risen and the other has
fallen. A _Burggraf_ is a greater man than a _Boroughreeve_.
Footnote 134:
See above, p. 48.
Footnote 135:
Tac. Germ. 11. “Si displicuit sententia, fremitu adspernantur; sin
placuit, frameas concutiunt. Honoratissimum adsensus genus est, armis
laudare.” Comparative Politics, 466.
Footnote 136:
I must again refer to Mr. Gladstone’s remarks on this subject. Cf.
Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 84.
Footnote 137:
[Changes made since this was written have pretty well got rid of the
ancient _scirgemót_. See vol. v. p. 465.]
Footnote 138:
See Appendix Q.
Footnote 139:
Hist. of Federal Government, i. 266. We may be sure however, both from
the smaller extent of the country and from the political instincts of
the Greek mind, that popular attendance never died out so completely
in Achaia as it did in England. And in both cases those who lived in
the neighbourhood of the place of meeting would doubtless often attend
when people from a distance did not. The frequent attendance of the
citizens of London in the Witenagemót may be compared with the
appearance of a vast crowd of Corinthian citizens of inferior rank in
an assembly held at Corinth, which is spoken of as unusual. Polybios,
xxxviii. 4. Hist. Fed. Gov. i. 263.
Footnote 140:
Cf. Arist. Pol. iv. 5. 3. οὐ δεῖ δὲ λανθάνειν ὅτι πολλαχοῦ συμβέβηκεν
ὥστε τὴν μὲν πολιτείαν τὴν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους μὴ δημοτικὴν εἶναι, διὰ δὲ
τὸ ἦθος καὶ τὴν ἀγωγὴν πολιτεύεσθαι δημοτικῶς, ὁμοίως δὲ πάλιν παρ’
ἄλλοις τὴν μὲν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους εἶναι πολιτείαν δημοτικωτέραν, τῇ δ’
ἀγωγῇ καὶ τοῖς ἔθεσιν ὀλιγαρχεῖσθαι μᾶλλον. I suspect that both these
descriptions are in a manner applicable to the Old-English
constitution. The latter is true on the face of it; the democratic
theory veiled an oligarchic reality. But it seems not unlikely that
the former may be true also, and that the narrow body into which the
ancient free assembly had shrunk up still in practice fairly expressed
the sense of the nation.
Footnote 141:
_Witena-Gemót_ = _Sapientum concilium_. Sir Francis Palgrave suggests
(i. 143) that _Witan_ is used in the sense of _witnesses_; but
_sapientes_ is the common Latin translation. The Senate of Bremen used
to be called “Die Wittheit,” and the Senators of all the three
Hanseatic Towns were till lately called “hoch- und wohl-Weisheit.”
Footnote 142:
One might say, in all seriousness, ψυχῶν σόφων τοῦτ’ ἐστὶ
φροντιστήριον.
Footnote 143:
In 1004 Ulfkytel, acting as Ealdorman of the East-Angles (see Appendix
HH), assembles the local Gemót; “Þa gerædde Ulfkytel wið þa witan on
East-Englum.” The letter from the Kentish men to Æthelstan, quoted in
a former note, reads like an act of acceptance, on the part of a local
Gemót, of resolutions passed by the general body.
Footnote 144:
See Appendix Q.
Footnote 145:
See above, p. 102.
Footnote 146:
[On the seeming difference on this point between myself and Professor
Stubbs, see vol. v. p. 406.]
Footnote 147:
The powers of the Witan are drawn out in form by Kemble, ii. 204.
Footnote 148:
See Appendix R.
Footnote 149:
See Appendix S.
Footnote 150:
I shall speak of this point when I come to the disputed election after
the death of Eadgar.
Footnote 151:
See Ælfred’s will in Cod. Dipl. ii. 112, v. 127; and the account of
Æthelwulf’s will in Florence, 855. See Pauli’s Life of Ælfred, pp.
103, 104 (Eng. Trans.).
Footnote 152:
Taxation, in our modern sense, is seldom a matter of great importance
in an early state of society. Public or demesne lands, various imposts
on lands, feudal dues and compositions of various kinds, largely
supply its place. Taxation in the modern sense is scarcely heard of in
our earliest history, except for one shameful and unhappy purpose,
that of buying off the Danish invaders. For this purpose a real tax,
the famous Danegeld, was levied, and levied, as appears by several
passages of the Chronicles, by the joint authority of the King and his
Witan. So, during the same unhappy reign of Æthelred, we shall find
the King and his Witan laying on an impost, of which I shall speak
more when I come to it in the course of my narrative, one of a kind
intermediate between ship-money and an Athenian λειτουργία.
Footnote 153:
There was a direct collision in the case of that “Good Parliament” of
the eleventh century, the famous _Mycel Gemót_ which restored Godwine
and his family and drove out the foreign favourites of Eadward. But
whether anybody voted against the enactment of the Laws of Æthelstan
or Eadgar we have no means of knowing. We have several clear cases of
parties among the Witan during a vacancy of the crown, and of
differences on questions of foreign policy; but these cases do not
touch the present question.
Footnote 154:
Laws of Æthelberht, Thorpe, i. 2. “Gif cyning his leode to him
gehated, and heom mon þær yfel gedo, II bote and cyninge L scillinga.”
Footnote 155:
See Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 32.
Footnote 156:
On Ælfred’s deference to the authority of his Witan, see the quotation
from his Laws, above, p. 52.
Footnote 157:
The reign of Æthelred in England reminds one of the generalship of
Epêratos in Achaia (Polyb. v. 30; Hist. of Fed. Gov. i. 550), but
happily for Achaia her General could not remain in office for
thirty-eight years.
Footnote 158:
See Appendix D.
Footnote 159:
See Appendix G.
Footnote 160:
A ceorl might have his own _loaf-eaters_ (_Hláf-ætas_. Laws of
Æthelberht, 25), and this looks very like a form of the _Comitatus_.
Footnote 161:
Waitz (iii. 87), recording the homage done by Tassilo to Pippin, “ut
vasses,” says, “So viel wir wissen ist es das erste Mal, dass
Gebräuche und Grundsätze, welche ursprünglich offenbar auf ganz andere
Verhältnisse berechnet waren, für die politisch so bedeutenden
Beziehungen eines Herzogs zu dem Oberhaupt des Staates zur Anwendung
kamen.”
Footnote 162:
Among a crowd of smaller princes the Kings of Denmark, Poland,
Hungary, and Bohemia stand out conspicuous. All these were at one time
or another vassals of the Empire, though all except Bohemia recovered
their independence. The Kings of Poland and Bohemia received the royal
title from an Imperial grant.
Footnote 163:
Widukind, i. 29, who however calls him _Imperator_ prospectively. The
date is fixed by the Annales Vedastini (Pertz, i. 525, ii. 205),
though they give a different colouring to the transaction.
Footnote 164:
See Edward’s own statement, tracing his right up to the Commendation,
in Trivet (p. 382, Hog) and Hemingford (ii. 196). It is a pity that
any nonsense about Brutus has found its way into some copies of these
documents.
Footnote 165:
A Highlander, with his notions (though grounded on a different
principle) of personal fidelity to a chief, might perhaps have
understood it; but the true Scots had very little to do with the
affairs of the kingdom of Scotland.
Footnote 166:
See Robertson, Scotland under her Early Kings, i. 55.
Footnote 167:
See Appendix H.
Footnote 168:
Ibid.
Footnote 169:
See Appendix I.
Footnote 170:
See History of Federal Government, i. 120.
Footnote 171:
Again I keep clear of all mazes about Picts and Scots. My division is
true upon any theory, except the wild one of Pinkerton. The Picts were
either Irish or Welsh—in the wide sense of those two words.
Footnote 172:
See Appendix G.
Footnote 173:
I refer to the transactions between Æthelred and Malcolm of
Cumberland, which I shall speak of in my fifth Chapter.
Footnote 174:
See Appendix Q.
Footnote 175:
See Appendix B.
Footnote 176:
That is of course not Constantine the Great, but Constantine the
“Tyrant” of the fifth century.
Footnote 177:
See Appendix B.
Footnote 178:
For a specimen of this style see Macaulay, Hist. of Eng. i. 358.
Footnote 179:
See Appendix B.
Footnote 180:
See Appendix B.
Footnote 181:
The word _Tyrant_ in those times bore a sense which may be called a
monarchical antitype of its old Greek sense. The Greek tyrant was a
man who obtained kingly power in a commonwealth; the tyrants of the
third and fourth centuries were men who revolted against a lawful
Emperor. “Licet apud nos incubator imperii _tyrannus_ dicatur,” says
Servius (ad Virg. Æn. vii. 266). In both cases, the word in strictness
expresses only the origin of power, and not the mode of its exercise.
Many of the so-called tyrants were excellent rulers. But the Imperial
tyrant had this great advantage over the Greek tyrant, that success
might turn him into a lawful Emperor, while the Greek tyrant remained
a tyrant always. In mediæval writers the word is constantly used in
this later Imperial sense, as equivalent to “usurper” or “pretender.”
Footnote 182:
After all the case of an Emperor or tyrant reigning in Britain and
Britain only was excessively rare. It could have happened only in the
case of those fleeting tyrants of whom the land was said to be
fertile, and who rose and fell without being recorded. All the more
famous men of the class, Carausius, Maximus, Constantine, possessed
some part of the continental dominions of the Empire, and sought to
possess the whole.
Footnote 183:
See above, pp. 38, 39.
Footnote 184:
See p. 39.
Footnote 185:
Grimm’s Gedichte auf König Friedrich (Berlin 1844), p. 65.
Footnote 186:
See Appendix B.
Footnote 187:
I would not be understood as asserting the justice or honesty of any
such claim. The Commendation of 924 was wiped out by the renunciation
of 1328. From that time Scotland must be looked on as an independent
kingdom, and, as such, she rightly entered into the Union with England
on equal terms.
Footnote 188:
For the Norman and French history of the tenth century there are three
principal authorities. The only writer on the Norman side is Dudo,
Dean of Saint Quintin, whose work will be found in Duchesne’s _Rerum
Normannicarum Scriptores_. His history is nearly coincident with the
century, going down to the death of Richard the Fearless. He is a most
turgid and wearisome writer, without chronology or arrangement of any
kind. He is in fact one of the earliest of a very bad class of
writers, those who were employed, on account of their supposed
eloquence, to write histories which were intended only as panegyrics
of their patrons. It is only just before the end of his narrative that
Dudo begins to be a contemporary witness; up to that time he simply
repeats such traditions as were acceptable at the Norman court. Of the
two French writers, Flodoard or Frodoard, Canon of Rheims (whose
Annals will be found in the third volume of Pertz), is a far more
valuable writer in himself, but his notices of Norman affairs are few
and meagre. He perhaps avoids speaking of the terrible strangers any
more than he can help. Flodoard is a mere annalist, and aspires to no
higher rank, but in his own class he ranks very high. He is somewhat
dull and dry, as becomes an annalist, but he is thoroughly honest,
sensible, and straightforward. His Annals reach from 919 to 966, the
year of his death, so that he is strictly contemporary throughout. The
other French writer is Richer, a monk of Rheims, whose work was
discovered by Pertz, and is printed in his third volume (also
separately in his smaller collection, and in a French edition by M.
Gaudet, with a French translation, 2 vols. Paris, 1845). He was the
son of Rudolf, a knight and counsellor of King Lewis the Fourth, and
derived much of his information from his father. He also makes use of
the work of Flodoard. He goes down to 998, which was seemingly the
year of his death. Richer is not content with being an annalist; he
aspires to be an historian. He is much fuller and more vivid than
Flodoard, but I cannot look on him as equally trustworthy. On this
writer see Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, i. 748. The
second volume of Sir Francis’ own work contains a most vivid, though
very discursive and garrulous, history of the time before us, full of
all the merits and defects of its author. I would refer to an article
of mine on it in the Edinburgh Review for April 1859; also to another,
“The Franks and Gauls,” in the National Review for October 1860, since
reprinted in my first series of Historical Essays.
Footnote 189:
See Appendix A.
Footnote 190:
See Appendix T.
Footnote 191:
Will. Pict. 145. “Hujus milites Normanni possident Apuliam, devicere
Siciliam, propugnant Constantinopolim, ingerunt metum Babyloni.”
Footnote 192:
Guil. App. apud Murat, vol. v. p. 274;
... “Sic uno tempore victi
Sunt terræ domini duo; rex Alemannicus iste,
Imperii rector Romani maximus ille:
Alter ad arma ruens armis superatur, et alter
Nominis auditi sola formidine cessit.”
Cf. Roger of Howden (404) with his wild account of Robert Wiscard,
copied from Benedict, ii. 200.
Footnote 193:
Matt. Paris, p. 804, Wats. “Principum mundi maximus Fredericus, stupor
quoque mundi et immutator mirabilis.” P. 806. “Stupor mundi
Fredericus.”
Footnote 194:
This time of struggle is the subject of the second volume of Sir
Francis Palgrave’s History of Normandy and England. The character of
the period cannot be better summed up than it is by Widukind, lib. i.
c. 29; “Unde usque hodie certamen est de regno Karolorum stirpi et
posteris Odonis, concertatio quoque regibus Karolorum et orientalium
Francorum super regno Lotharii.” On the force of these names see
Appendix T.
Footnote 195:
I understand by “modern France” the extent of territory which, before
the annexations at the expense of the Empire began, was held either by
the King of the French in domain or by princes who held of him in
fief. From the France of 1870 we must take away the French part of
Hennegau, Lothringen and the three Bishopricks, Elsass, the county of
Burgundy, Savoy, Lyons, Bresse, the Dauphiny, Provence, Nizza, and
Corsica. We must add the still independent part of Flanders, the
county of Barcelona, and the Channel Islands.
Footnote 196:
That is, Aquitaine was, up to the Peace of Bretigny, always held in
nominal vassalage to France, but, except during the momentary
occupation when Philip the Fair had outwitted Edmund of Lancaster, no
Parisian King was immediate sovereign of Bourdeaux till Aquitaine
finally lost its independence in the fifteenth century.
Footnote 197:
Charles the Third is commonly said to have reunited the whole Empire
of Charles the Great, and he certainly reigned over Germany, Italy,
Lotharingia, and the Western Kingdom; but he never obtained the
immediate sovereignty of the Kingdom of Burgundy, founded by Boso in
879. Boso was succeeded by Rudolf.
Footnote 198:
“The City of Revolutions begins her real history by the first French
Revolution.” Palgrave, i. 282. (References to “Palgrave” will, for the
future, mean the “History of Normandy and England,” not the “English
Commonwealth.”)
Footnote 199:
On the sieges of Paris and the origin of the Parisian dynasty, see
more in Historical Essays, first series, “The Early Sieges of Paris.”
Footnote 200:
Richer, i. 5. “Hic [Odo] patrem habuit ex equestri ordine Rotbertum;
avum vero paternum, Witichinum advenam Germanum.”
Footnote 201:
See Appendix V.
Footnote 202:
I use this familiar name prospectively, as I know not what other to
put in its place. I may add that _Capet_ was at no time really a
family name, as people fancied during the French Revolution, and
ludicrously described Lewis the Sixteenth as “Louis Capet.”
Footnote 203:
Sir Francis Palgrave has altogether upset the vulgar error which looks
on the later Karlings as a line of utterly incapable Kings, like the
later Merwings. No two sets of men could be more completely different
both in position and in character.
Footnote 204:
See the story of the taking of Luna by mistake for Rome, Dudo, 65.
Footnote 205:
Regino in Anno (Pertz, i. 602), and our own Chronicles.
Footnote 206:
On the battle of Saulcourt, see the Chronicle in Duchesne, p. 4.
Footnote 207:
The _Ludwigslied_ will be found in Max Müller’s German Classics, p.
37.
Footnote 208:
See Benoît de Ste. More, p. 76, and M. Michel’s note. Cf. Dudo, p. 66.
Footnote 209:
See Flod. A. 923, 930 (Pertz, iii. 379), et pass. On the Loire, as at
Bayeux, the Normans had Saxon forerunners. Greg. Tur. ii. 18, 19;
Zeuss, 386.
Footnote 210:
“Richardus pyratarum dux apoplexia minore periit” is one of the last
entries in the history of Richer (t. ii. p. 308, Guadet).
Footnote 211:
The genuine name is _Hrolfr_, _Rolf_, in various spellings. The true
French form is _Rou_. The love of the Old-French tongue for making all
nouns end in _s_, that is, for making them all of the second
declension, made this into _Rous_, and hence came a strange Latin form
_Rosus_. The true Latin form is _Rollo_, like _Cnuto_, _Sveno_, &c.
From this Latin form modern French writers have, oddly enough, made a
form _Rollon_. The strangest form is _Rodla_, which occurs in a late
manuscript of the English Chronicles (A. 876. Thorpe’s ed.). This was
clearly meant to be an English form of _Rollo_. The English masculine
ending _a_ was substituted for the Latin _o_, just as Giso and Odo are
in English _Gisa_ and _Oda_. The writer also clearly thought that
Rollo was a name of the same type as Robert and others, and he fancied
that by putting in a _d_ he was restoring it to its genuine Teutonic
shape.
Footnote 212:
Flodoard was perhaps contemporary with the settlement, but we have no
narrative of those years from his hand. Richer, if he was very old
when he died, may have been an infant at the time of the settlement,
but that is all.
Footnote 213:
Dudo, 75 C.
Footnote 214:
Lappenberg (Thorpe), ii. 60.
Footnote 215:
In some accounts he seems to appear even earlier than 876. Duchesne,
25 D.
Footnote 216:
Dudo, 75 D.
Footnote 217:
Ib. 77 C.
Footnote 218:
Ib. C, D.
Footnote 219:
Dudo, 80 B. Cf. Duchesne, 25 A, 34 B.
Footnote 220:
See above, p. 53.
Footnote 221:
Dudo, 84 A.
Footnote 222:
See Appendix W.
Footnote 223:
See Appendix W.
Footnote 224:
See Appendix T.
Footnote 225:
I cannot but think that Sir Francis Palgrave has made too much of this
last title, which is surely only a piece of Dudonian rhetoric, like
the “satrapæ” and “archontes” of our own charters.
Footnote 226:
See above, p. 164.
Footnote 227:
See the stories in Dudo, p. 85; Benoît de Ste. More, 7146 et seqq.
Footnote 228:
On the division of the land, just like the division of Northumberland
and Danish Mercia, see Depping, i. 125.
Footnote 229:
See further on in this Chapter.
Footnote 230:
See Palgrave, i. 700; Lappenberg’s Anglo-Norman Kings, 97; and, more
at large, Depping, ii. 339. Such names as _Dieppedal_ (Deep dale) and
_Caudebec_ (Cold beck) are good examples. In forming local names from
the proper names of men, the familiar Danish _by_ often appears under
the form of _bœuf_; but it is more usual to couple the Danish name
with a French ending. _Haqueville_, for instance, answers to the
English _Haconby_.
Footnote 231:
Palgrave, ii. 68, 259.
Footnote 232:
Dudo, 76 D. “Quo nomine vester senior fungitur? Responderunt, Nullo,
quia æqualis potestatis sumus.”
Footnote 233:
Several examples are collected by Lappenberg, p. 19. The dealings of
the Assembly touching the abdication of Rolf are given at large by
Dudo, 90 D, et seqq. So in 85 B we read, “Jura et leges sempiternas
voluntate principum sancitas et decretas plebi indixit.”
Footnote 234:
See Depping, ii. 128, 129.
Footnote 235:
Flod. A. 923. “Ragenoldus princeps Nortmannorum qui in fluvio Ligeri
versabantur, Karoli frequentibus missis jampridem excitus, Franciam
trans Isaram conjunctis sibi plurimis ex Rodomo prædatur.”
Footnote 236:
The well-known duchy of after times, with Dijon for its capital. This
part of the earliest Burgundy always retained its connexion with the
kingdom of the West-Franks, while the rest formed the Burgundian
kingdom of Boso.
Footnote 237:
Here Lewis the Eleventh was kept in durance by Charles the Bold, on
which Philip of Comines remarks (ii. 7), “Le roy qui se vid enfermé en
ce chasteau (qui est petit) et force archers à la porte, n’estoit
point sans doute: et se voyoit logé rasibus d’une grosse tour, où un
comte de Vermandois fit mourir un sien predecesseur roy de France.”
There is a curious notice of Charles’s imprisonment in Thietmar of
Merseburg (i. 13. Pertz, iii. 741); “Fuit in _occiduis partibus_
quidam rex, ab incolis _Karl Sot_, id est stolidus, ironice dictus,
qui ab uno suimet ducum captus, tenebris includitur carceralibus.”
Both Thietmar and Widukind (i. 33) attribute to the Eastern King a
powerful intervention in favour of Charles, which is perfectly
possible, but which it is hard to find in the French writers.
Footnote 238:
On the siege of Eu (Auga), see Flodoard, A. 925; Richer, i. 49. On Eu,
see vol. iii. ch. xii. § 2. The way in which Flodoard (A. 923)
mentions the first invasion of Normandy is remarkable; “Itta fluvio
transito ingressus est [Rodulfus] terram, quæ dudum Nortmannis ad
fidem Christi venientibus, ut hanc fidem colerent, et pacem haberent,
fuerat data.”
Footnote 239:
See Appendix T.
Footnote 240:
Flod. A. 924. On Maine, see vol. iii. ch. xii. § 3.
Footnote 241:
Dudo gives the account in full, p. 90 et seqq. He makes Rolf survive
his abdication five years. Florence of Worcester makes him die in 917,
probably by omission or misreading of a letter. Richer seems (but
compare his two versions) to kill him at Eu in 925. The one certain
thing is that William did homage to Charles in 927. “Karolus igitur
cum Heriberto colloquium petit Nortmannorum ad castellum quod Auga
vocatur, ibique se filius Rollonis Karolo committit, et amicitiam
firmat cum Heriberto.” Flod. in anno. So Richer, i. 53.
Footnote 242:
On the history of the Saxons of Bayeux, see Lappenberg, Anglo-Norman
Kings, p. 2. There were also Saxon settlements in Anjou and at Sens.
Footnote 243:
In the Capitulary of Charles the Bald in 843 (Pertz, Legg. i. 426),
which Lappenberg refers to, the “Ot lingua Saxonia” is distinguished
from the “Bagisinum.” It might seem that the Saxon speech survived in
some parts of the country, but not in the city. The document is a list
of royal _missi_ and of the districts to which they were sent.
Footnote 244:
There would be whatever difference there may have been—one probably
not very perceptible—between the Saxons of Bayeux and the Angles of
Eastern and Northern England; there also is greater chance of a
certain Celtic intermixture at Bayeux than there is at Derby or
Stamford.
Footnote 245:
No country is historically more interesting to Englishmen than
Aquitaine, on account of its long political connexion with England;
but the connexion was purely political; there are no such abiding
traces of real kindred as we see in Normandy, and especially in the
Bessin.
Footnote 246:
Benoît, v. 8342;
“Ici trespasse Rous li proz et li vaillanz
Od fin duce e saintisme, e pleins de jorz e d’anz.”
Footnote 247:
The tale is told by the Aquitanian chronicler Ademar (iii, 20, Pertz,
iv. 123), and M. Francisque Michel (note on Benoît, v. 8349) is
inclined to believe it. It runs thus; “Postea vero [Rosus, see above,
p. 165] factus Christianus a sacerdotibus Francorum, imminente obitu,
in amentiam versus, Christianos captivos centum ante se decollari
fecit in honore, quæ coluerat, idolorum, et demum centum auri libras
per ecclesias distribuit Christianorum in honore veri Dei in cujus
nomine baptismum susceperat.” But the manuscript which Pertz follows
in his text does not make the sacrifice take place immediately before
his death, and it is as well to see how Ademar’s whole story hangs
together. He makes his “Rosus” be defeated by King Rudolf in the
battle of Limoges in 930; he then retreats, and finding Rouen
unoccupied, takes possession.
Footnote 248:
Dudo, 77 D; Benoît, v. 4122.
Footnote 249:
Will. Gem. iii. 2. See Appendix X.
Footnote 250:
Will. Gem. ii. 22. “Repudiatam Popam ... iterum repetens sibi
copulavit.” See more in detail, Benoît, v. 7954. So Roman de Rou,
2037.
Footnote 251:
Dudo, 97 C; Will. Gem. iii. 3.
Footnote 252:
Ademar, iii. 27. “Roso defuncto, filius ejus Willelmus loco ejus
præfuit, a pueritia baptizatus, omnisque eorum Normannorum, qui juxta
Frantiam inhabitaverant, multitudo fidem Christi suscepit, et gentilem
linguam obmittens, Latino sermone assuefacta est.” So, in the same
words, in the Chronicle of Saint Maxentius, Labbé, iii. 202. On the
use of _Latinus_ for French, instead of _Romanus_, see Appendix V.
Footnote 253:
Flodoard, A. 928.
Footnote 254:
Ib. A. 929; Richer, i. 56.
Footnote 255:
Ib. A. 930. “Aquitanos sibi subditos fecit.” Of course this implies
nothing more than homage. Cf. above, p. 156.
Footnote 256:
Flodoard, A. 931. “Brittones qui remanserant Nortmannis in Cornu
Galliæ subditi consurgentes adversus eos qui se obtinuerant, in ipsis
solemniis sancti Michaelis omnes interemisse dicuntur qui inter eos
morabantur Nortmannos.”
Footnote 257:
Dudo, 93 B.
Footnote 258:
The Chronicle of Saint Maxentius, under 937 (Labbé, iii. 202), speaks
of Saint Michael’s Mount as founded “in ea Normannia quæ antea
vocabatur marchia Franciæ et Britanniæ.”
Footnote 259:
On these marriages see William of Malmesbury, ii. 126, 135. He
describes at length the splendid embassy sent by Hugh (see Flod. A.
926) to demand Eadhild. Oddly enough, in c. 135 he calls Hugh “Rex
Francorum,” while in c. 128 he utterly confounds the whole genealogy
and history of the Parisian Dukes.
Footnote 260:
Her name is by French writers tortured into Ethgiva, Ogive, and what
not. She is “Headtgiva” in Aimon of Fleury, Pertz, ix. 375. He says
that Lewis [see Appendix A.], “calamitatis paternæ procella semet
involvi metuens, ad Anglos-Saxones, maternæ affinitatis invitatus
gratia, se contulit, in transmarinis arbitratus se tutiorem manere
regionibus, quam inter suos dominus si foret in cubiculo, rex in
convivio.”
Footnote 261:
Richer, ii. 1, 73. He was carried out in a bundle of hay or some such
stuff (“in fasciculo farraginis”); but whither was he carried? “In
partes transmarinas et prope in Rifeos.” As Lewis certainly went as
far north as York, does this flourish mean the Cheviots, the
Grampians, or what?
Footnote 262:
Dudo, 93 C. “Ipse vero in Britannia, nec in tota Francia usquam morari
ob metum Willelmi ducis nequivit, sed profugus expetivit auxilium
Alstemi Anglorum regis.” Benoît, 8834;
“En Engleterre au rei engleis
Alestan, au proz, au corteis,
Là se remist, là s’en foï
Deserité e mauballi.”
Footnote 263:
Dudo, 97 B. “Franciscæ gentis principes Burgundionumque comites
famulabantur ei; Dacigenæ et Flandrenses, _Anglique et Hibernenses
parebant ei_.” Ib. D. “Non solum monarchiam, quam tenebat, regebat;
verum etiam affinia regna strenuo consilio moderabat. _Angli parebant
ejus mandatis_, Franci et Burgundiones ejus dictis.”
Footnote 264:
It is curious to compare the different ways in which the return of the
Bretons is told by Flodoard and by Dudo. Flodoard (A. 936) is willing
to magnify even an Englishman in comparison with a Norman. William is
not named. “Brittones a transmarinis regionibus Alstani Regis præsidio
revertentes terram suam repetunt.” Dudo mixes up their return with the
return of King Lewis, which in Flodoard follows it, and he makes
Æthelstan something like a suppliant to William (95 D.) He calls
Æthelstan “Anglorum Rex _pacificus_.” Was he thinking of Eadgar, who
may have come within his own memory?
Footnote 265:
Dudo, 98 A. “Ipseque Alanus postea Willelmi mandatis indesinenter
inhæsit.” Cf. 102 B, C; 113 D; 117 D.
Footnote 266:
Flodoard seems to imply that some of these independent Normans entered
Britanny, about the same time as this suppression of the Breton
revolt, perhaps even in concert with Duke William (A. 931); “Incon
Nortmannus, qui morabatur in Ligeri, cum suis Britanniam pervadit
victisque et cæsis vel ejectis Brittonibus regione potitur.” Of the
return of the Bretons he has two notices. The first is under the year
937; “Brittones ad sua loca post diutinam regressi peregrinationem,
cum Nortmannis, qui terram ipsorum contiguam sibi pervaserant,
frequentibus dimicant prœliis, superiores pluribus existentes et loca
pervasa recipientes.” The second is in the next year, 939; “Brittones
cum Nortmannis confligentes victoria potiuntur, et quoddam
Nortmannorum castellum cepisse feruntur.” See Palgrave, ii. 178–182.
Footnote 267:
The general line of thought in this paragraph is suggested by
Palgrave, i. 106.
Footnote 268:
See above, p. 155.
Footnote 269:
Dudo, 94 et seqq.
Footnote 270:
From this scheme he was dissuaded by the good sense of the Abbot
Martin. Those who care to read the Abbot’s sermon on the practical and
the contemplative life will find it in Latin (diversified with a
little Greek) in Dudo, p. 101 et seqq., and in Old-French in Benoît,
v. 11057 et seqq.
Footnote 271:
William of Jumièges (iii. 9) makes Harold Blue-tooth, driven from his
kingdom by his son Swegen, take refuge with William Longsword, who
allows him to settle in the Côtentin till he can recover his kingdom.
Now Harold’s expulsion by Swegen did not happen till long afterwards,
and Swegen could hardly have been born when William died. The story no
doubt arises from some confusion with Harold’s dealings with Normandy
in the next reign, but it may very well preserve a memory of some real
Danish colonization of the peninsula with or without William’s
permission.
Footnote 272:
Dudo, ii. 112 D. See Appendix V.
Footnote 273:
Richer (i. 47) distinctly calls the immediate subjects of Charles the
Simple “Germani.”
Footnote 274:
I of course assume that Hugh had no share in the murder of William, a
point which I shall discuss elsewhere.
Footnote 275:
Flod. A. 933. “Willelmus, princeps Nortmannorum eidem regi [Rodulfo]
se committit; cui etiam rex dat terram Brittonum in ora maritima
sitam.”
Footnote 276:
Flod in A. “Heribertus comes ad Heinricum proficiscitur, eique sese
committit.” The matter was serious enough for Rudolf and Hugh to make
special peace with Henry, and to give hostages.
Footnote 277:
Richer, ii. 1–4. See Appendix Y.
Footnote 278:
Richer, ii. 2. “Adelstanus rex in urbem quæ dicitur Eurvich, regnorum
negotia cum nepote Ludovico apud suos disponebat.” Mark the accuracy
of the plural form _regnorum_ (we shall come to it again), as applied
to the dominions of the Emperor of Britain.
Footnote 279:
Ib. 3. “Acsi _barbaris_ non satis credens.” The Persians in Æschylus
call themselves βάρβαροι, and Plautus says, “Menander scripsit, Marcus
vortit _barbarè_;” but why should Richer call his own people _barbari_
as contrasted with the English? Is the word put dramatically into the
mouth of Æthelstan, and does _barbari_ literally translate _Wealas_?
Footnote 280:
Richer, ii. 3. “Secus ipsas litoreas arenas collecti, tuguriorum
incendio præsentiam suam iis qui in altero litore erant
ostendebant.... Cujus [Adelstani] jussu domus aliquot succensæ, sese
advenisse trans positis demonstrabat.” The passion for setting fire to
everything sometimes seems to be specially Norman; here it is also
English and French.
Footnote 281:
Richer mentions Oda only, Flodoard mentions several Bishops and Thegns
(fideles).
Footnote 282:
Richer, ii. 4. “Quod si nolint, sese ei daturum suorum aliquod
regnorum, quo contentus et suis gaudeat et alienis non sollicitetur.”
Footnote 283:
Ib. “Dux cum reliquis Galliarum magnatibus id sese facturum asserit,
si rex creatus a suis consiliis non absistat.” The relation thus
mildly described is in cap. 6 called “procuratio.” So Flodoard, A.
937.
Footnote 284:
Richer is an excellent authority for all matters personally concerning
Lewis. He got his information from his father Rudolf, a brave and
trusty servant of the King. The description here (ii. 4) is highly
graphic.
Footnote 285:
Richer, ii. 5; Flod. in anno.
Footnote 286:
Flod. A. 937. “Ludowicus rex ab Hugonis principis se procuratione
separans, matrem suam Lauduni recipit.” Richer, ii. 6. “Rex felicium
rerum successu elatus, præter ducis procurationem absque eo jam
disponebat. Laudunum itaque tendit, ibique matrem suam Ethgivam
reginam ad urbis custodiam deputat. Ac exinde quæcumque præter ducem
adoriebatur.”
Footnote 287:
See above, p. 161.
Footnote 288:
On this siege, which is of some interest in a military point of view,
see Flodoard, A. 938; Richer, ii. 9, 10.
Footnote 289:
Flod. A. 939.
Footnote 290:
Dudo, 103 A.
Footnote 291:
Flod. A. 939; Richer, ii. 11–15. These writers know something of
William’s personal share in the campaign, which is asserted by Dudo,
103 B; Will. Gem. iii, 10. According to Benoît (11873 et seqq.), the
men of the Côtentin specially distinguished themselves.
Footnote 292:
Flod. A. 939. “Uxorem ipsius Herluini trans mare cum filiis ad
Alstanum regem mittit.” Richer, ii. 12. “Erluini uxorem cum natis
Ædelstano regi Anglorum servandos trans mare deportat.”
Footnote 293:
Flod. A. 939. William is excommunicated “ab episcopis qui erant cum
rege.”
Footnote 294:
Richer, ii. 18. “Cum ejus [Ottonis] pater Saxoniæ solum propter
Sclavorum improbitatem rex creatus sit, eo quod Karolus, cui rerum
summa debebatur, adhuc in cunis vagiebat.” But Henry was elected in
918, just before Charles’s troubles began, but when he had been a good
many years out of his cradle.
Footnote 295:
Flod. A. 959.
Footnote 296:
Ib. “Anglorum classis ab Alstano, rege suo, in auxilium Ludowici regis
transmissa mari transito loca quæquæ Morinorum mari deprædatur
contigua; nulloque negotio propter quod venerant peracto, remenso
mari, propria repetunt loca.” Richer, ii. 16. “Nec multo post et ab
Ædelstano Anglorum rege classis regi cum copiis missa est. Audierat
enim illum ab iis qui maritima incolebant loca exagitari, contra quos
classis dimicaret regique nepoti auxilium ferret. Comperto vero contra
regem illorum neminem stare, ipsumque regem in partes Germaniæ
prosperum secessisse, mari remenso ad propria remeat.”
There is a marked difference of tone in these two accounts. Flodoard
clearly wishes to make as little as he can of the English
intervention, while Richer is anxious to make the most. Nor are their
statements easy to reconcile. If Æthelstan’s fleet ravaged the Flemish
coast, while Arnulf was still not an avowed enemy, that would at once
explain Arnulf’s sudden defection. But, according to Richer, it would
seem that Æthelstan heard some rumour of Arnulf’s intended treachery,
but that, as it was not yet carried out, he had no excuse for action.
That we do not hear of English interference during the next stage of
the history is probably accounted for by Æthelstan’s death in 940.
Footnote 297:
Flod. A. 939. “Otho rex colloquium habuit cum Hugone et Heriberto,
Arnulfo et Willelmo Nortmannorum principe; et acceptis ab eis pacti
sacramentis, trans Rhenum regreditur.”
Footnote 298:
Ib. “Proficiscitur Elisatium, locutusque cum Hugone Cisalpino.”
Richer, ii. 17. “Rex in pago Elisatio eum Hugone Cisalpino principe
locutus.” On this use of the word “Cisalpinus,” see Appendix T.
Footnote 299:
Flod. A. 939.
Footnote 300:
Ib. A. 940. “Rex Ludowicus abiit obviam Willelmo principi
Nortmannorum, qui venit ad eum in pago Ambianensi et se illi commisit.
At ille dedit ei terram quam pater ejus Karolus Nortmannis
concesserat.”
Footnote 301:
Richer, ii. 20. “Wilelmus piratarum dux ... regis factus, tanto ei
consensu alligatus est ut jam jamque aut sese moriturum, aut regi
imperii summam restituturum proponeret.”
Footnote 302:
Flod. A. 940. Richer (ii. 22) does not mention the presence of William
at the siege.
Footnote 303:
Flod. A. 940. “Dedit autem rex Artoldo archiepiscopo, ac per eum
ecclesiæ Remensi, per præceptionis regiæ paginam Remensis urbis
monetam jure perpetuo possidendam; sed et omnem comitatum Remensem
eidem contulit ecclesiæ.”
Footnote 304:
Flod. A. 940; Palgrave, ii. 244.
Footnote 305:
Flod. A. 942. More fully, Richer, ii. 28.
Footnote 306:
See Appendix Z.
Footnote 307:
See above, p. 180, and Appendix X.
Footnote 308:
See above, p. 192.
Footnote 309:
Dudo, 112 D.
Footnote 310:
Flod. A. 943. “Rex Ludowicus filio ipsius Willelmi, nato de concubina
Brittanna, terram Nortmannorum dedit.” So more fully in Richer, ii.
34.
Footnote 311:
The original authority, such as it is, for these stories is of course
Dudo, with the metrical chroniclers, who mainly follow him, Benoît
sometimes adding details of his own. The English reader will find all
he can want in Sir Francis Palgrave. I cannot help also mentioning
Miss Yonge’s tale of the “Little Duke,” where the whole legend is very
pleasantly told, though with too great a leaning to the Norman side.
Footnote 312:
Richer, ii. 37; R. Glaber, i. 3.
Footnote 313:
See above, p. 206.
Footnote 314:
On the influence of Conrad, see Flodoard, A. 948, 949, 952; Richer,
ii, 82, 97. Conrad afterwards lost his duchy. Bruno, Archbishop and
Duke, brother of Otto, brother-in-law of Lewis and Hugh the Great,
uncle of Lothar and Hugh Capet, plays a most important part somewhat
later.
Footnote 315:
See above, p. 186.
Footnote 316:
Flod. A. 943; Richer, ii. 35. The Norman writers pass over their
Duke’s apostasy, which of course proves very little as to the personal
disposition of a mere child, though it proves a great deal as to the
general state of things in the country. But Flodoard and Richer are
both explicit. “Turmodum Nortmannum, qui ad idolatriam gentilemque
ritum reversus, ad hæc etiam filium Willelmi aliosque cogebat.”
(Flod.) “Ut ... defuncti ducis filium ad idolatriam suadeant, ritumque
gentilem inducant.” (Richer.)
Footnote 317:
Flod. A. 943. “Quidam principes ipsius se regi committunt, quidam vero
Hugoni duci.” Richer, ii. 34. “Potiores quoque qui cum adolescentulo
accesserant, per manus et sacramentum regis fiunt.... Alii vero
Nortmannorum, _Richardum ad regem transisse indignantes_, ad Hugonem
ducem concedunt.”
Footnote 318:
Flod. A. 943. “Rex ei ducatum Franciæ delegavit, omnemque Burgundiam
ipsius ditioni subjecit.” Richer (ii. 39) says, “Eum rex omnium
Galliarum ducem constituit.” This last cannot have been a formal
title; it is merely Richer’s characteristic way of affecting classical
language in his geography.
Footnote 319:
Flod. A. 943. “Hugo dux Francorum crebras agit cum Nortmannis, qui
pagani advenerant, vel ad paganismum revertebantur, congressiones; a
quibus peditum ipsius Christianorum multitudo interimitur at ipse
nonnullis quoque Nortmannorum interfectis ceterisque actis in fugam,
castrum Ebroas faventibus sibi qui tenebant illud Nortmannorum
Christianis, obtinet.” Richer does not mention this.
Footnote 320:
Flod. A. 943; Richer, ii. 35. The account of the battle is much fuller
in Richer.
Footnote 321:
Flod. A. 943.
Footnote 322:
Richer, ii. 38.
Footnote 323:
Flod. A. 943. “Hugo Arnulfum cum rege pacificavit, cui rex infensus
erat ob necem Willelmi.” Richer, ii. 40.
Footnote 324:
Dudo, 114 et seqq.; Benoît, 12809 et seqq.; Roman de Rou, 2799 et
seqq.
Footnote 325:
Dudo, 114 C. “Rotomagum properavit cum suis comitibus super his quæ
nefario Arnulfi comitis astu acciderant consulturus. Rotomagenses vero
adventu regis Ludovici hilares susceperunt eum volenter, putantes ut
equitaret super Flandrenses,” &c.
Footnote 326:
Ib. 115 C. “Richardo prædignæ innocentiæ puero largitus est terram
hæreditario avi patrisque jure possidendam.” Is not this a repetition
of the real grant and homage mentioned above, which did not take place
at Rouen?
Footnote 327:
“Poplites coquere.” Dudo, 117 B. “Poplites adurere.” Will. Gem. iv. 3.
See M. Francisque Michel’s note on Benoît, 13706.
Footnote 328:
That is, he was carried out in a truss of hay. One can hardly avoid
the suspicion that this is the story of Lewis’s own deliverance (see
above, p. 184), perhaps itself legendary, turning up in another shape.
Footnote 329:
Flod. A. 944. He seems to distinguish “Nortmanni cum quibus pactum
inierant” from “Nortmanni qui nuper a transmarinis venerant
regionibus.” Cf. Richer, ii. 41.
Footnote 330:
Flod. A. 944. “Hugo dux Francorum pactum firmat cum Nortmannis, datis
utrimque et acceptis obsidibus.”
Footnote 331:
Dudo, 120 B, D.
Footnote 332:
Flod. A. 944. “Baiocas ... civitatem ... quam rex ei dederat, si eum
ad subjiciendam sibi hanc Nortmannorum gentem adjuvaret.”
Footnote 333:
Ib. A. 944. “Rex Rodomum perveniens a Nortmannis in urbe suscipitur,
quibusdam mare petentibus qui eum nolebant recipere, cæteris omnibus
sibi subjugatis.” Richer, ii. 42. “Rex Rhodomum veniens, ab iis qui
fidei servatores fuere exceptus est. Desertores vero mare petentes,
amoliti sunt, municipia vero copiis munita reliquere.”
Footnote 334:
Flod. A. 944. “Unde et discordiæ fomes inter regem concitatur et
ducem.” From Flodoard it would seem that Hugh had fought with some
Normans, and from Richer that he received the homage of others,
earlier in the year. Hugh’s policy was always double, and Normandy was
now very much divided against itself.
Footnote 335:
Flod. A. 945. “Rex Ludowicus collecto secum Nortmannorum exercitu,
Veromandensen pagum depredatus.” So Richer, ii. 44.
Footnote 336:
Richer, ii. 47. “Rhodomum rediit, nil veritus cum paucis illic
immorari, cum idem consueverit.”
Footnote 337:
Dudo, 122 C.
Footnote 338:
The chronology of Gorm’s reign is of course mythical; some give him
quite a short reign; others make two or three Gorms. In short, we have
hardly any standing-ground in Danish history before the time of
Swegen.
Footnote 339:
See above, p. 191, for the rebellion of his son Swegen, which the
later Norman writers misplace. Of Swegen I shall have much to say in
my next Chapter.
Footnote 340:
I may for once quote an “Apostropha” of Dudo, 125 D;
“O pius, prudens, bonus, et modestus;
Fortis et constans, sapiensque, justus,
Dives, insignis, locuplesque, sollers
Rex Haygrolde.
Quamvis haut sis chrismate delibutus,
Et sacro baptismate non renatus:
En vale, salveque, et aucto semper
In deitate.”
Footnote 341:
See above, p. 210.
Footnote 342:
“Cæsaris burgus” is the approved etymology of our author’s, but I
suspect that the place is akin to our _Scarborough_ in name as well as
in natural position.
Footnote 343:
Flod. A. 945. “Haigroldus Nortmannus qui Baiocis præerat.” So Richer,
ii. 47.
Footnote 344:
Flod. u. s.; Richer, u. s. This last writer brings in Hugh the Great
as an accomplice; “Dolus apud ducem a transfugis paratus, qui ante
latuerat, orta opportunitate ex raritate militum, in apertum erupit.
Nam dum tempestivus adveniret, ab Hagroldo qui Baiocensibus præerat,
per legationem suasoriam accersitus, Bajocas cum paucis ad
accersientem, utpote ad fidelem quem in nullo suspectum habuerat,
securis accessit. Barbarus vero militum inopiam intuitus cum
multitudine armatorum Regi incautus aggreditur.”
Footnote 345:
Dudo, 123 C, D.
Footnote 346:
See vol. iii. ch. xii. § 2.
Footnote 347:
Flod. A. 945. “Rex solus fugam iniit, prosequente se Nortmanno quodam
sibi fideli. Cum quo Rodomum veniens, comprehensus est ab aliis
Nortmannis quos sibi fideles esse putabat, et sub custodia detentus.”
Footnote 348:
Dudo, 125 D. “Jura legesque et statuta Rollonis ducis tenere per omnia
cogebat.”
Footnote 349:
In Cnut’s time (Chron. A. 1018) the Witan at Oxford renewed “Eadgar’s
law;” so Harold, in answer to the demands of the Northumbrians in
revolt against Tostig (Chron. A. 1065), “renewed Cnut’s law.” So on
the conquest of Cyprus by Richard the First in 1191 the laws of the
Emperor Manuel were restored—on the payment by the islanders of half
their possessions. Ben. Petrib. ii. 168.
Footnote 350:
I confess that, once or twice, in writing this paragraph, a doubt has
crossed my mind whether “Haigrold who commanded at Bayeux” (see p.
217) was not, after all, some much smaller person than Harold King of
the Danes. The Northern writers, as far as I know, do not mention the
expedition, the motive of which is not very obvious. But very little
can be made out of the Northern stories in any case; the French
writers always slur over everything Norman; and the fiction would seem
almost too bold even for Norman invention. The details of course
cannot be accepted in any case.
Footnote 351:
Flod. A. 945; Richer, ii. 48; Widukind, ii. 39. “Hluthowicus rex a
ducibus suis [Hugh?] circumventus, et a Northmannis captus, consilio
Hugonis Lugdunum [confusedly for _Laudunum_, which is itself an error]
missus custodiæ publicæ traditur. Filium autem ejus natu majorem
Karlomannum Northmanni secum duxerunt Rothun; ibi et mortuus est.” On
the hostages, see Flodoard and Richer.]
Footnote 352:
Richer, ii. 49, 50. “Ob minas Anglorum nil se facturum; ipsos, si
veniant, quid in armis Galli valeant promptissime experturos; quod si
formidine tacti non veniant, pro arrogantiæ tamen illatione, Gallorum
vires quandoque cognituros et insuper pœnam luituros. Iratus itaque
legatos expulit.” Flodoard, contrary to the remark made in p. 203, is
less excited against insular intervention.
Footnote 353:
Widukind, ii. 39. “Audiens autem rex super fortuna amici satis doluit,
imperavitque expeditionem in Gallia contra Hugonem in annum secundum.”
Footnote 354:
Flod. A. 945. “Qui rex nolens loqui cum eo mittit ad eum Conradum
ducem Lothariensium. Cum quo locutus Hugo, infensus Othoni regi
revertitur.”
Footnote 355:
Flod. A. 946; Richer, ii. 51. Richer clearly connects the liberation
of Lewis with the negotiations with Otto. Widukind (iii. 2) is still
more explicit; “Certus autem factus de adventu regis Huga, timore
quoque perterritus, dimisit Hluthowicum.”
Footnote 356:
Flod. A. 946. “Qui dux Hugo renovans regi Ludowico regium honorem vel
nomen, ei sese cum cæteris regni committit primoribus.” Richer cuts
the matter shorter (ii. 51); “Unde et dimissus, data Lauduno,
Compendii sese recepit.”
Footnote 357:
Dudo, 126 C. See Appendix W.
Footnote 358:
Dudo, 128 D et seqq. See Appendix W.
Footnote 359:
Dudo, 138 A. “Burgundionibus imperat, Aquitanos arguit, et increpat
Britones, et Northmannos regnat et gubernat, Flandrenses minatur, et
devastat Dacos et Lotharienses, quinetiam Saxones sibi connectit et
conciliat. Angli quoque ei obedienter subduntur, Scoti et Hibernenses
ejus patrocinio reguntur.” Cf. p. 185.
Footnote 360:
See Appendix W.
Footnote 361:
Flod. 948. “Hugo, nullam moram faciens, collecta suorum multa
Nortmannorumque manu.” 949. “Hugo comes collecta suorum multa
Nortmannorumque manu.” “Hugo igitur non modico tam suorum quam
Nortmannorum collecto exercitu.”
Footnote 362:
Widukind (ii. 2) has a good deal to tell us about the threats
exchanged between Hugh and Otto, and about the straw hats worn by
Otto’s soldiers, but he cuts the details of the campaign very short.
See Palgrave, ii. 544.
Footnote 363:
Dudo, 129 D.
Footnote 364:
This Lotharingian dispute is not mentioned by Richer, but it appears
in Flodoard, A. 944. Lewis and Hugh both sent embassies to Otto, and
that of Hugh met with the more favourable reception. Things changed
greatly in the course of a year.
Footnote 365:
Dudo, 129 B, makes Henry still King, and presently—finding out his
mistake, but not correcting it—he goes on to talk of Otto. This year,
946, Otto lost his beloved English wife Eadgyth. Flod. A. 946;
Widukind, ii. 41, iii. 1.
Footnote 366:
See Appendix T.
Footnote 367:
Wid. iii. 3. “Lugdunum [Laudunum] adiit, eamque armis temptavit.”
Flodoard (946) says, “Considerata castri firmitate devertunt ab eo.”
So Richer, ii. 54.
Footnote 368:
Flod. A. 946; Wid. iii. 3; Richer, ii. 54–6. Widukind places the
taking of Rheims before the invasion of France.
Footnote 369:
The accounts here vary a good deal. Widukind says, “Inde Parisius
[this name is used, I know not why, by many mediæval writers as an
inclinable noun] perrexit, Hugonemque ibi obsedit, memoriam quoque
Dionysii martyris [Hugh was lay Abbot of his monastery] digne honorans
veneratus est.” Flodoard says, “Reges cum exercitibus suis terram
Hugonis aggrediuntur, et urbem Silvanectensem obsidentes, ut viderunt
munitissimam, nec eam valentes expugnare, cæsis quibusdam suorum,
dimiserunt. Sicque trans Sequanam contendentes, loca quæque præter
civitates gravibus atterunt deprædationibus, terramque Nortmannorum
peragrantes, loca plura devastant; indeque venientes regrediuntur in
sua.” Could Widukind have confounded Paris and Senlis? Richer, who has
some curious details (ii. 57), mentions the siege of Senlis (56) but
says nothing of Paris, and he quarters Hugh at Orleans (58). Dudo (130
B) makes the Kings meet at Paris, so far confirming Widukind. Dudo
doubtless did not care about the fate of Laon or Rheims.
Footnote 370:
Neither Flodoard nor Richer mentions Rouen. All that Richer (ii. 58)
has to say of the Norman campaign is, “Post hæc feruntur in terram
piratarum ac solo terras devastant. _Sicque regis injuriam atrociter
ulti_, iter ad sua retorquent.” But Widukind (iii. 4) has, “Exinde,
collecta ex omni exercitu electorum militum manu, Rothun Danorum urbem
adiit, sed difficultate locorum, asperiorique hieme ingruente, _plaga
eos quidem magna percussit_; incolumi exercitu, _infecto negotio_,
post tres menses Saxoniam regressus est, urbibus Remense atque Lugduno
[a clear error] cum cæteris armis captis Hluthowico regi concessis.”
Footnote 371:
Dudo, 131–5; Roman de Rou, 3914–4291; Palgrave, ii. 556–586. See also
Historical Essays, First Series, pp. 240–243.
Footnote 372:
Against Flanders (Flod. A. 947; Richer, ii. 60); against Rheims (Flod.
u. s.; Richer, ii. 62); against Soissons (Flod. 848; Richer, ii. 85).
Footnote 373:
Lewis in 947 (Flod. in anno; Richer, ii. 61); Gerberga in 949 (Flod.
in anno; Richer, ii. 86). This was a great meeting of German and
Lotharingian princes, and of ambassadors from Italy, England, and
Constantinople.
Footnote 374:
Flod. 947; Richer, ii. 63–5. It would seem that some bishops were
there in their _princely_ character, to whom Duke Hugh referred the
question about the archbishopric of Rheims, which the bishops referred
to a more regular synod to be held at Verdun. Widukind says (iii. 5),
“Huga autem expertus potentiam regis virtutemque Saxonum, non passus
est ultra terminos suos hostiliter intrare, sed _pergenti in eamdem
expeditionem anno sequenti_ [the French writers do not imply this]
occurrit juxta fluvium qui dicitur Char, manus dedit, juxtaque
imperium regis pactum iniit, utilisque proinde permansit.” This is
greatly exaggerated.
Footnote 375:
Flod. 947; Richer, ii. 66.
Footnote 376:
Flod. 948; Richer, ii. 67, 8.
Footnote 377:
Flod. 948; Richer, ii. 69–81.
Footnote 378:
I quote some passages from Flodoard illustrating the position of the
Kings. “Ingressis gloriosis regibus Othone et Ludowico et simul
residentibus ... exsurgens Ludowicus rex e latere et concessu domini
regis Othonis.” Lewis offers “inde se juxta synodale judicium _et
regis Othonis præceptionem_ purgaret, vel certamine singulari
defenderet.” “Interea rex Ludowicus deprecatur regem Othonem ut
subsidium sibi ferat contra Hugonem, et ceteros inimicos suos. Qui
petitioni concedens,” &c.
Footnote 379:
Flod. 948. The Synod adjourned from Engelheim to Laon and from Laon to
Trier, where the anathema against Hugh was pronounced. Flodoard was
himself present, being chaplain to Archbishop Artald. Richer, (ii. 82)
confounds the two adjournments, and makes the anathema be pronounced
at Laon.
Footnote 380:
See above, p. 222.
Footnote 381:
See above, p. 209.
Footnote 382:
Flod. A. 949; Richer, at great length, ii. 87–91.
Footnote 383:
Flod. A. 949; Richer, ii. 95.
Footnote 384:
Flod. A. 950. “Hugo ad regem venit et suus efficitur.” Richer, ii. 97.
“Dux ... regi humiliter reconciliari deposcit, eique satisfacturum
sese pollicetur.... Hugo itaque dux per manus et sacramentum regi
efficitur.”
Footnote 385:
Flod. A. 953.
Footnote 386:
Richer’s narrative (ii. 98) differs from that of Flodoard in
introducing Hugh as gathering the army for the Aquitanian expedition,
of which the King afterwards takes the command. But Richer’s French
translator seems to misconceive his meaning when he renders “_in
Aquitaniam_ exercitum regi parat” by “le duc leva une armée _en
Aquitaine_.”
Footnote 387:
Flod. A. 951; Richer, u. s., who says that Charles “ex regio quidem
genere natus erat, sed concubinali stemmate usque ad tritavum
sordebat.” Neither of them gives him the royal title which he
certainly bore. Is “Charles-Constantine” perhaps the earliest case of
a double Christian name, or is “Constantinus” a mere surname, derived
from one of the cities called Constantia?
Footnote 388:
Flod. A. 954; Richer, ii. 103.
Footnote 389:
Flod. A. 965; Richer, iii. 21.
Footnote 390:
Flod. A. 954. “Lotharius puer, filius Ludowici, apud Sanctum Remigium
rex consecratur ab Artoldo archiepiscopo, favente Hugone principe et
Brunone archiepiscopo, cæterisque præsulibus ac proceribus Franciæ,
Burgundiæ, atque Aquitaniæ.” Richer (iii. 1, 2) is fuller, but to the
same effect.
Footnote 391:
He married Gerloc or Adela, daughter of Rolf and Popo. Dudo (97 B, C)
has a curious story about his courtship.
Footnote 392:
See Flod. A. 942, 951; Richer, ii. 28, 98.
Footnote 393:
Flod. A. 954. “Burgundia quoque et Aquitania Hugoni dantur ab ipso
[Lothario].”
Footnote 394:
Flod. A. 955; Richer, iii. 3–5, who puts as good a face as he can on
Hugh’s discomfiture, and makes more of a subsequent victory over
William, and of a second more successful siege, of which Flodoard says
nothing.
Footnote 395:
Flod. A. 956. “Hugo princeps obiit.” Richer, iii. 5.
Footnote 396:
Dudo, 136 D.
Footnote 397:
Flod. A. 960. “Richardus, filius Willelmi Nortmannorum principis,
filiam Hugonis trans Sequanam [or ‘Transsequani’] quondam principis
duxit uxorem.” Dudo (136, 7) and Sir Francis Palgrave (ii. 690–4) have
much to say about this marriage.
Footnote 398:
See Appendix W.
Footnote 399:
Flod. A. 960. “Otto et Hugo filii Hugonis, mediante avunculo ipsorum
Brunone, ad regem veniunt ac sui efficiuntur. Quorum Hugonem rex ducem
constituit, addito illi pago Pictavensi ad terram quam pater ipsius
tenuerat; concessa Ottoni Burgundia.” So Richer, iii. 13.
Footnote 400:
Flod. A. 965. “Otto filius Hugonis, qui Burgundiæ præerat, obiit, et
rectores ejusdem terræ ad Hugonem et Oddonem clericum, fratres ipsius,
sese convertunt.” According to _L’Art de Vérifier les Dates_ (ii. 495,
ed. 1784), “Oddo clericus” is the same as Henry the Great, founder of
the first line of Capetian Dukes of Burgundy.
Footnote 401:
See Appendix W.
Footnote 402:
In 958 Arnulf either associated his son Baldwin with him in his
government, or else resigned in his favour. On his death in 962 he
again took possession. See _L’Art de Vérifier les Dates_, iii. 3.
Footnote 403:
See _L’Art de Vérifier les Dates_, ii. 611.
Footnote 404:
Flod. A. 962. “Seniorem suum [Tetbaldi] Hugonem.”
Footnote 405:
Ib. 945. “Committens [Hugo] eum [Ludowicum] Tetbaldo cuidam suorum.”
He had just before called him “Tetbaldus Turonensis.”
Footnote 406:
Dudo, 137 D et seqq.
Footnote 407:
Flod. A. 962. “Tetbaldus quidam.” 964. “Tetbaldum quemdam procerem.”
Footnote 408:
Dudo, 142 C.
Footnote 409:
Ib. 139 C et seqq.
Footnote 410:
Flod. A. 961. “Placitum regale diversorumque conventus principum
Suessionis habetur, ad quod impediendum, si fieri posset, Richardus
filius Willelmi Nortmanni accedens, a fidelibus regis quibusdam
pervasus, et, interemptis suorum nonnullis, in fugam versus est.”
Footnote 411:
Ib. 962. “Tetbaldus quidam cum Nortmannis confligens victus est ab
eis, et fuga dilapsus evasit. Qui seniorem suum Hugonem proinde
infensum habens ad regem venit, a quo, sed et a regina Gerberga
benigne susceptus, et miti consolatione refocillatus abscessit.”
Richer only mentions Theobald in connexion with his spoliation of the
Church of Rheims and his consequent excommunication, iii. 20. So Flod.
A. 964.
Footnote 412:
Dudo, 140 C et seqq.
Footnote 413:
The “Norman Kingdom” was, according to Dudo (147 C, D; 151 C),
confirmed by the King and his princes (“Optimates totius Franciæ”—a
new use of words seems creeping in) to Richard and his heirs for ever;
the question of homage is avoided.
Footnote 414:
Twenty-four years later, in 986, Dudo, then canon of Saint Quintin,
was of an age to take a prominent share in public business. Dudo, 155
D.
Footnote 415:
See the detailed narrative in Richer, iii. 67–81.
Footnote 416:
Did the very name of the country, “regnum Lotharii,” suggest to the
present Lothar the thought of recovering it? Such a motive would not
be out of character with a prince whose indignation was stirred up
simply because the Emperor was staying—with his pregnant wife—so near
the border as Aachen. So at least Richer tells us, iii. 68.
Footnote 417:
Richer, iii. 69. “Mox dux et aliis primates, sine deliberandi
consultatione sententiam regiam attollunt. Sese sponte ituros cum rege
et Ottonem aut comprehensuros aut interfecturos aut fugaturos
pollicentur.”
Footnote 418:
Ib. iii. 71. “Æream aquilam quæ in vertice palatii a Karolo magno acsi
volans fixa erat, in Vulturnum converterunt. Nam Germani eam in
Favonium converterant, subtiliter significantes Gallos suo equitatu
quandoque posse devinci.”
It is amusing to find the characteristic vanity of the great nation
showing itself thus early. Most likely neither Charles nor any later
German had ever thought of anything of the kind.
Footnote 419:
Richer, iii. 74–76. See Historical Essays, p. 243.
Footnote 420:
According to Thietmar of Merseburg (iii. 7) Lothar came in person,
accompanied by his son. Richer (iii. 79) makes him send ambassadors.
The speech put into their mouths seems quite to look on Otto and
Lothar as royal colleagues. Otto’s Imperial dignity is not hinted at;
I doubt whether Richer ever uses the word Emperor at all.
Footnote 421:
Richer, iii. 81. “Belgicæ pars quæ in lite fuerat in jus Ottonis
transiit.”
Footnote 422:
See the narrative, a most full, curious, and interesting one, of
Hugh’s journey to the Emperor at Rome, and the snares laid for him on
his return by Lothar. Richer, iii. 81–88.
Footnote 423:
Richer, iii. 89, 90.
Footnote 424:
Ib. iii. 91. “A duce reliquisque principibus Ludovicus rex
acclamatus.” Others place this event in 978 or 979.
Footnote 425:
Ib. iii. 92–95. Adelaide, widow of Raymond of Septimania or Gothia.
Lewis divorced her. Cf. Rud. Glaber, i. 3.
Footnote 426:
Richer, iii. 97–110.
Footnote 427:
Dudo, 155 C. Cf. Flod. A. 965.
Footnote 428:
Richer, iv. 1.
Footnote 429:
Richer, iv. 2, 3.
Footnote 430:
Ib. iv. 5.
Footnote 431:
This is alluded to in the words, “Qui tanta capitis imminutione hebuit
[any notion of the legal phrase of ‘_de_minutio capitis’?] ut externo
regi servire non horruerit.” Richer, iv. 11.
Footnote 432:
See Appendix S.
Footnote 433:
Richer, iv. 12, 13.
Footnote 434:
See the history of the war in Richer, iv. 14–49.
Footnote 435:
Ælius Spartianus, Pescennius, 1. “Quos tyrannos aliorum victoria
fecerit;” a good illustration of the use of the word. The same may be
said of Antipopes.
Footnote 436:
See pp. 206, 209, 223.
Footnote 437:
Neither Richer—he was not likely—nor Rudolf Glaber speaks of Richard
at all. Dudo, oddly enough, passes by the whole business very briefly;
“Nec illud prætereundum quod, Lothario rege defuncto [he forgets
Lewis], Hugo dux inthronizatus voluit super Albertum comitem
equitare.” (155 D.) William of Jumièges is fuller; “Mortuo Francorum
rege Lothario, in illius loco ab omnibus subrogatur Hugonis Magni
ducis filius Hugo Capeth, adminiculante ei duce Richardo.” (iv. 19.)
The Roman de Rou (5823) is fuller still;
“Par defaute de son lignage,
O le cunseil del grant barnage,
E por la force de Richart,
Par son conseil e par son art,
Fu Hugon Chapes recéu,
Et en France pour rei tenu ...
Par Richart è par sa valor,
Ki éu aveit sa seror,
Par sun cunseil è par s’amur
Fu de France Huon seignur.”
Footnote 438:
See above, p. 223.
Footnote 439:
See above, p. 154.
Footnote 440:
See Flodoard’s description of Lewis’s invasion of Normandy, A. 944;
“Ludowicus rex in terram Nortmannorum proficiscitur cum Arnulfo et
Herluino et quibusdam episcopis Franciæ ac Burgundiæ.”
Footnote 441:
The different circumstances which led to such different results in
France and in Germany I trust to point out in the second volume of my
History of Federal Government.
Footnote 442:
With the exception of the three portions of the kingdom which have
become wholly detached. See above, pp. 156, 187.
Footnote 443:
Dante, Purg. xx.
Footnote 444:
For this legend in full, see the early chapters of Oudegherst,
_Annales de Flandres_. Lyderic, the foundling, is of course of
princely birth. It is the same story as those of Cyrus and Romulus.
Footnote 445:
See _L’Art de Vérifier les Dates_, ii. 828.
Footnote 446:
Will. Gem. vii. 38. “Mater ejus Sprota, necessitate urgente,
contubernio [was there even a Danish marriage?] cujusdam prædivitis
nomine Asperlengi adhæsit. Hic, licet in rebus locuples, tamen
molendina vallis Ruelii ad firmam solitus erat tenere.” So M. Jourdain
measured cloth only for amusement; so, in some pious legends, Zebedee
was a mighty baron of Galilee, whose sons fished for pleasure and not
for profit.
Footnote 447:
There is something ludicrous in the way in which Dudo (137 B, C),
after spending all his powers of prose to set forth the marriage of
Emma, goes on to explain in verse that she was not fated to be the
mother of a Duke of the Normans.
Footnote 448:
Dudo, 152 C. “Subscalpenti voluptuosæ humanitatis fragilitati
subactus, genuit duos filios, totidem et filias, ex concubinis.”
Footnote 449:
Dudo (u. s.) makes her to be “ex famosissima nobilium Dacorum prosapia
exorta,” but he allows that the Duke “eam prohibitæ copulationis
fœdere sortitus est sibi amicabiliter.” He marries her (“inextricabili
maritalis fœderis privilegio sibi connectit”) at the advice of the
great men of the land. So William of Jumièges (iv. 18) vouches for the
nobility of her birth and for her marriage being celebrated
“Christiano more.” But his continuator (viii. 36) has a curious
legend—the same as one of the legends of our Eadgar—to tell about her
first introduction to Richard. See also Roman de Rou, 5390–5429, &c.,
5767–5812.
Footnote 450:
See Chron. S. Max. ap. Labbé, ii. 202. We there read, “Ricardus
Christianissimus factus,” probably not without an allusion to his
apostasy in his childhood.
Footnote 451:
So Wace, 5873;
“Clers establi ki servireient,
E provendes dunt il vivreient.”
Footnote 452:
See Neustria Pia, 210; Lincy, “Essai Historique et Littéraire sur
l’Abbayes de Fécamp” (Rouen, 1840), p. 6. The expressions of Dudo, 153
B et seqq., and of William of Malmesbury, ii. 178, might easily
mislead.
Footnote 453:
See p. 164.
Footnote 454:
See Hist. of Fed. Government, i. 574.
Footnote 455:
Roman de Rou, 5955–5974.
Footnote 456:
Will. Gem. v. 2; Roman de Rou, 5975–6118. See above, p. 172.
Footnote 457:
I do not mean merely because the word “parlement” occurs several times
in the Roman de Rou. It is there used in its primitive sense, as
translating “colloquium.” With this Norman revolt we may compare the
revolt in Britanny in 1675, described in the Count of Carné’s “Etats
de Bretagne.” See especially the “Code Paysan” at i. 377. The part of
Rudolf of Ivry is played by the Duke of Chaulnes.
Footnote 458:
Will. Gem. v. 2. “Nam rustici unanimes per diversos totius Normannicæ
patriæ comitatus plurima agentes conventicula, juxta suos libitus
vivere decernebant. Quatenus, tam in silvarum compendiis quam in
aquarum commerciis, nullo obsistente ante statuti juris obice, legibus
uterentur suis. Quæ ut rata manerent, ab unoquoque cœtu furentis vulgi
duo eliguntur legati, qui decreta ad mediterraneum roboranda ferrent
conventum.”
Footnote 459:
Roman de Rou, 6070;
“Asez tost oï Richard dire
Ke vilains _cumune faseient_.”
It does not necessarily follow that the word “commune” was used at the
time, though I know no reason why such may not have been the case. It
would be quite enough if Wace applied to the union of the peasants a
name which in his time had become perfectly familiar, in the
instinctive feeling that the earlier movement was essentially a
forerunner of the later. Compare the “conjurationes” so strictly
forbidden in the Carolingian Capitularies. See Brentano on Gilds, p.
lxxvi; and for a full account of these “conjurationes,” Waitz, iv.
362–364.
Footnote 460:
Roman de Rou, 6001–6015.
Footnote 461:
Mark the brutal levity with which Rudolf’s cruelties are dismissed by
William of Jumièges (v. 2); “Qui [Rodulphus] non morans jussa, cunctos
confestim legatos cum nonnullis aliis cepit, truncatisque manibus et
pedibus, inutiles suis remisit, qui eos talibus compescerent, et ne
deteriora paterentur suis eventibus cautos redderent. His rustici
expertis, festinato concionibus omissis, ad sua aratra sunt reversi.”
So Roman de Rou, where various other tortures are spoken of, vv.
6093–6118. The same sentiment comes out in the speech which Orderic
(713 A) puts into the mouth of the monks of Molesme; “Exinde principum
institutione, et diutina consuetudine usitatum est in Gallia, ut
rustici ruralia, sicut decet, peragant opera, et servi servilia passim
exerceant ministeria.... Absit ut rustici torpescant otio, saturique
lascivientes cachinnis et inani vacent ludicro, quorum genuina sors
labori dedita est assiduo.”
Footnote 462:
Albereda, the wife of Rudolf, built the famous tower of Ivry. See
Will. Gem. viii. 15.
Footnote 463:
See Palgrave, iii. 44.
Footnote 464:
Our main authorities for this period are essentially the same as those
to which we have to go for our knowledge of earlier times. The English
Chronicles are still our principal guide. For the present they may be
quoted as one work, as the differences between the different
manuscripts, pointed out by Mr. Earle in the Preface to his Parallel
Saxon Chronicles, are not as yet of much strictly historical
importance. Florence of Worcester gives what is essentially a Latin
version of the Chronicles, with frequent explanatory additions, which
his carefulness and sound sense render of great value. The Charters
and Laws of the reign of Æthelred are abundant, and, besides their
primary value as illustrating laws and customs, the signatures
constantly help us to the succession of offices and to a sort of
skeleton biographies of the leading men of the time. These, the
Chronicles, Laws, and Charters, form our primary authorities. The
later Latin Chroniclers, from William of Malmesbury and Henry of
Huntingdon onwards, supply many additional facts; but their accounts
are often mixed up with romantic details, and it is dangerous to trust
them, except when they show signs of following authorities which are
now lost. This is not uncommonly the case with both Henry of
Huntingdon and William of Malmesbury. Local histories, like those of
Ely, Ramsey, and Abingdon, supply occasional facts, but the same sort
of cautions which apply to the secondary writers of general history
apply to them in a still greater degree. We now also begin to draw
some little help from foreign sources. The Danish History of Saxo
Grammaticus, the Chronicles of Swegen Aggesson, the various Sagas,
especially the famous Saga of Olaf Tryggvesson, are very hard to
reconcile with the more authentic notices in our own Chronicles; but
among much that is doubtful and much that is clearly fabulous, they
often help us to facts, and to the causes and connexions of facts,
which our own writers leave obscure. The Norman writers also begin to
be of some importance for the events which connect England and
Normandy. For the early part of the reign of Æthelred we have no
contemporary Norman writer, but the accounts in the Roman de Rou and
in William of Jumièges at least show us what was the Norman tradition.
Later in the period, we have, in the Encomium Emmæ (reprinted in the
nineteenth volume of Pertz by the name of “Gesta Cnutonis”), the work
of a contemporary Norman or Flemish writer, which, though throughout
unfair and inaccurate, is worth comparing with our English writers.
Occasional notices of Danish and English affairs are sometimes to be
gleaned from the German writers, like Adam of Bremen and the
contemporary Thietmar of Merseberg.
On the whole the materials for this period are ample, and, as regards
England, they are fully trustworthy. The difficulty lies in
reconciling the English and continental narratives.
Footnote 465:
“Unready” must mean “lacking _rede_” or counsel. Walter Map (De Nugis,
199) calls him “Edelredus, quem Anglici _con_silium [_in_silium? see
below, p. 317] vocaverunt, quia nullius erat negotii.” “Magnificus,”
the epithet of Eadmund the First, means rather “worker of great
deeds”—the Greek μεγαλοπράγμων,—than “magnificent” in the vulgar
sense.
Footnote 466:
See Appendix AA.
Footnote 467:
Fl. Wig. A. 975. “Congregato exercitu, monasteria Orientalium Anglorum
maxima strenuitate defenderunt.”
Footnote 468:
“Amicus Dei.” Fl. Wig. 975, 991, 992, 1016. See Appendix AA.
Footnote 469:
See Appendix AA.
Footnote 470:
For a full examination of her story, I would refer to the first Essay
in my Historical Essays, first series.
Footnote 471:
“Fabius Quæstor Patricius Æthelwerdus,” as he thinks good to call
himself, the author of the earliest and most meagre of our Latin
Chronicles, was descended (see his own Prologue) from one of the sons
of Æthelred the First who were excluded to make way for Ælfred (see
above, p. 108).
Footnote 472:
Fl. Wig. 975. See Appendix BB.
Footnote 473:
The correct description is “the Old Lady.” See Chron. (Abingdon),
1051. Lady (_Hlæfdige_), it will be remembered, not _Queen_, is the
usual title of the wife of a West-Saxon King.
Footnote 474:
See Eadmer, Anglia Sacra, ii. 220, Osbern, 112, and Lingard’s note,
Hist. of England, i. 274.
Footnote 475:
Fl. Wig. A. 976. The poems in the Chronicles certainly seem to me to
connect the banishment of Oslac with the predominance of Ælfhere and
the anti-monastic party.
Footnote 476:
See Appendix KK.
Footnote 477:
The Chronicles bitterly lament the crime, without mentioning the
criminal. Florence distinctly charges Ælfthryth with it. In the hands
of William of Malmesbury (ii. 162) the story becomes a romance, which
gets fresh details in those of Bromton (X Scriptt. 873 et seqq.). The
_obiter dictum_ of William of Malmesbury (ii. 165), that Ælfhere had a
hand in Eadward’s death, is contrary to the whole tenor of the
history. See Chron. 980; Fl. Wig. 979.
Footnote 478:
I know not what to make of the incredible story in Goscelin’s Life of
Saint Eadgyth (Mabillon, Ann. Ord. Ben. vii. 622), that the Witan or
some of them (“regni proceres”) wished to choose his heroine, a
natural daughter of Eadgar and already a professed nun, as Lady in her
own right. A female reign had not been heard of since the days of
Sexburh.
Footnote 479:
Chron. and Fl. Wig. in anno. See also the charter of 998 in Cod. Dipl.
iii. 305, and Appendix AA. The beginnings of a legendary version may
be seen in William of Malmesbury (ii. 165) and Roger of Wendover (i.
423).
Footnote 480:
Fl. Wig. 987. The English and Welsh Chronicles both put the
cattle-plague a year earlier, and do not mention the disease among
men.
Footnote 481:
On the contradictory statements as to Æthelred’s first wife and her
children, see Appendix RR.
Footnote 482:
The full form of this name, _Swegen_, is always used by the English
Chroniclers; but in Danish pronunciation it seems to have been already
cut down into _Svein_ or _Sven_. The Latin forms are _Suanus_ and
_Sueno_.
Footnote 483:
This is in marked contrast to the affairs of the Empire, on which our
Chroniclers evidently kept a careful eye, and of which they contain
many notices.
Footnote 484:
See the Saga of Olaf Tryggvesson, c. 29; Laing, i. 395. Swegen is
called Suein Otto by Adam of Bremen, ii. 25.
Footnote 485:
Adam Brem. u. s.; Sax. Gram. lib. x. p. 185, ed. Hafn. 1644.
Footnote 486:
See the “Saga om Oloff Tryggwasson,” “Historia Olai Tryggwæ Filii,”
Upsala, 1691, or Laing’s Sea-Kings of Norway, i. 367.
Footnote 487:
Adam Brem. ii. 32; Saxo, lib. x. p. 188. Swegen, already King, is
driven out by Eric of Sweden. To reconcile the chronology is hopeless.
Saxo calls the English King _Eadward_.
Footnote 488:
Chron. A. 980. “And þý ilcan geare wæs Legeceasterscír gehergod fram
norð scipherige.” Florence has, more distinctly, “Civitatis Legionum
provincia a Norwegensibus piratis devastatur.” Northmen of all kinds
are often confounded under the name of Danes, but none but genuine
Norwegians are likely to be spoken of in this way. _Leicester_ here,
as often, is not the midland Leicester, but Chester.
Footnote 489:
Chron. and Fl. Wig. in anno. “Goda se Defenisca þegen” was killed,
according to the Chronicles. Florence calls him “satrapa Domnaniæ.”
Satrapa seems to be sometimes used as a formal title inferior to
Ealdorman. See Cod. Dipl. iii. 356, where Leofsige is raised from the
rank of _satrapa_ to that of _dux_.
Footnote 490:
The Chronicles give no names; Florence mentions Justin and Guthmund;
but the treaty presently to be mentioned, gives the name of Olaf as
well.
Footnote 491:
The original Old-English text is printed in Thorpe’s Analecta
Anglo-Saxonica, p. 131; there is a modern English translation in
Conybeare’s Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon poetry, xc. The poem, of
which unfortunately the beginning and ending are lost, is evidently
local and contemporary. I therefore do not hesitate to accept the main
facts of the battle and the names of the actors as trustworthy, much
more trustworthy than if they were found in a Latin prose chronicle a
century or two later. The speeches, no doubt, are, like most speeches
in history, the invention of the poet.
Footnote 492:
The church, a massive Romanesque building, may not unlikely have been
raised, like so many other churches on battle-fields, to commemorate
the event.
Footnote 493: