Chapter I

have had of course mainly to depend on the Norman writers as my authorities. The Latin writers are to be found in the great collection of Duchèsne. The first place is of course due to William of Poitiers. His _Gesta Guillelmi_ has every advantage which can belong to the writings of a well-informed contemporary. But the work is disfigured by his constant spirit of violent partizanship (see above, p. 4). He must therefore be always followed with great caution, and in all purely English matters he is utterly untrustworthy. The beginning of his work is lost, so that we have no account from him of his hero’s birth and childhood. William Calculus, a monk of Jumièges, according to Orderic (Prol. ad Lib. iii. p. 458), abridged Dudo, and continued the History of Normandy, through the reigns of Richard the Good, Richard the Third, Robert, and of William himself down to the Battle of Senlac (Ord. Vit. 618 D), presenting his work to William himself. This portion of the existing work ends at lib. vii. c. 42. He seems afterwards to have added the account of William’s death (vii. 44), in which William of Poitiers and Guy of Amiens are spoken of. An eighth book, together with many interpolations in the earlier books, were added by a later hand, apparently by Robert of Torigny, Abbot of Saint Michael’s Mount, commonly called Robert de Monte (see Pertz, vi. 475). William of Jumièges begins to be a contemporary writer in William’s reign; with perhaps smaller opportunities of information than William of Poitiers, he is less violently prejudiced, and his work is of great value. His narrative forms the groundwork of the poetical history in the Roman de Rou. Its author, Robert Wace, Canon of Bayeux in the time of Henry the Second, seems to have been a really honest and painstaking inquirer, and I do not look on his work as being any the less trustworthy on account of its poetical shape. But of course, whenever he departs from contemporary authority, and merely sets down floating traditions nearly a hundred years after the latest events which he records, his statements need to be very carefully weighed. I have used M. Pluquet’s edition (Rouen, 1827) and the English Translation of part of the work by Mr. Edgar Taylor, whose genealogical and topographical notes are of great value. The other rhyming chronicler, Benoît de Sainte-More, is of a far more romantic turn than Robert Wace, and is therefore of much smaller historical authority. Still he also preserves many curious traditions. Orderic Vital, whose work becomes afterwards of such preeminent importance, is just now beginning to be of use, but as yet his main value is for information about Norman families and Norman monasteries. But his constant repetitions and utter lack of arrangement make him still more difficult to read or consult than William of Malmesbury himself.

Footnote 498:

Chron. Petrib. 1087. “Gif hwa gewilnigeð to gewitane hu gedon mann he wæs, oððe hwilcne wurðscipe he hæfde, oððe hu fela lande he wære hlaford, þonne wille we be him awritan swa swa we hine ageaton, _þe him on locodan and oðre hwile on his hirede wunedon_.”

Footnote 499:

See the article “Lucius Cornelius Sulla” in the National Review, January, 1862.

Footnote 500:

Chron. Petrib. 1087. “He wæs milde þam godum mannum þe God lufedon, and ofer eall gemett stearc þam mannum þe wiðcwædon his willan.” The former clause is rather oddly altered in the version of Robert of Gloucester (p. 374);

“To hem þat wolde his wylle do, debonere he was and mylde, And to hem þat hym wyþ seyde strong tyrant and wylde.”

Footnote 501:

Chron. Petrib. 1087. “Betwyx oðrum þingum nis na to forgytane þæt gode frið þe he macode on þisan lande, swa þæt án man þe himsylf aht wære mihte faran ofer his rice mid his bosum full goldes ungederad.” This last is of course the same traditional formula which is used to set forth the good government of Eadwine, Ælfred, and others. The writer carries out the panegyric on William’s strict police at some length. All this is of course praise of exactly the same kind as that bestowed on Godwine and Harold. See above, pp. 34, 40, and the passages there referred to.

Footnote 502:

I conceive that this idea owes its prevalence mainly to the false Ingulf; still we have to account for the notion presenting itself to the mind of the forger.

Footnote 503:

See Palgrave, iii. 522.

Footnote 504:

On the surnames of William, see Appendix M.

Footnote 505:

Rod. Glab. iv. 6. “Fuit enim usui a primo adventu ipsius gentis in Gallias, ut superiùs pernotavimus, ex hujusmodi concubinarum commixtione illorum Principes exstitisse.” He goes on, if not to justify, at least to palliate, the practice, by the examples of the patriarch Jacob and the Emperor Constantius. British patriotism would perhaps not have endured that the mother of Constantine should be dragged down to the level of the mother of William.

Footnote 506:

See vol. i. p. 203.

Footnote 507:

See vol. i. p. 232.

Footnote 508:

For the sieges of Falaise in 1417 and 1450, see Monstrelet, i. 263 and iii. 30 _b_ (ed. Paris 1595). Talbot was not actually present during the defence against the French King.

Footnote 509:

More probably, I think, of the twelfth than of the eleventh. Not that I at all think the building of such a castle to have been impossible in the eleventh century, but because it seems likely that Falaise was one of the castles which were destroyed and rebuilt in the wars of William and his successors. This point is well put by M. Ruprich-Robert, the architect employed by the powers which at present bear rule over Falaise and all Normandy in the “restoration”—that is, of course, the destruction—of this venerable keep. See his “Rapport,” 1864, p. 27.

Footnote 510:

Will. Brit. Philipp. lib. viii. Duchèsne, Hist. Franc. Scriptt. v. 183;

“Vicus erat scabrâ circumdatus undique rupe, Ipsius asperitate loci Falesa vocatus, Normannæ in medio regionis, cujus in altâ Turres rupe sedent et mœnia, sic ut ad illam Jactus nemo putet aliquos contingere posse.”

Footnote 511:

Stapleton, Roll of the Norman Exchequer, i. xcvi.; ii. cix.

Footnote 512:

See Appendix N. On the Birth of William.

Footnote 513:

Herod. iii. 2.

Footnote 514:

Malcolm’s History of Persia, i. 70.

Footnote 515:

Will. Malms. iii. 229. R. Wend. i. 469. Cf. Chron. Alberici, 1035 (ap. Leibnitz, Accessiones, ii. 66), and Appendix N.

Footnote 516:

Benoît de Ste. More, 31216 et seqq. (vol. ii. p. 555), who becomes rapturous in his description of her beauty. He makes Robert see her on his return from hunting. Local tradition, endowing Robert with a singular power of discerning beauty at a distance, makes him see her from a window of the castle.

Footnote 517:

Benoît, 31276.

Footnote 518:

Roman de Rou, 7998. Bromton, 910. Benoît, 31441 et seqq.

Footnote 519:

See Appendix N.

Footnote 520:

Will. Gem. vii. 3. “Willelmus ex concubinâ Roberti Ducis, nomine Herlevâ, _Fulberti cubicularii Ducis_ filiâ, natus.”

Footnote 521:

Ord. Vit. 656 D.

Footnote 522:

Will. Gem. vii. 3. See Appendix N.

Footnote 523:

See Appendix N.

Footnote 524:

Roman de Rou, 8021. Will. Malms. iii. 229.

Footnote 525:

Ib. 8037. Will. Malms. iii. 229.

Footnote 526:

See Appendix N.

Footnote 527:

See vol. i. p. 479.

Footnote 528:

Will. Gem. viii. 36.

Footnote 529:

Ord. Vit. 566 B. “Conjugem nomine Herlevam _ut Comes_ habuit, ex quâ tres filios Ricardum, Radulfum, et Guillelmum genuit, quibus Ebroicensem comitatum et alios honores amplissimos secundum jus sæculi distribuit.”

Footnote 530:

Ord. Vit. 566 C. This church was finished by Maurilius in 1063. Ib. 568 B. See Pommeraye, Concilia Ecclesiæ Rotomagensis, p. 73. Bessin, Concilia, p. 49. No part of the building remains. The account of the Archbishops of Rouen in Mabillon (Vet. Anal. ii. 438), written while Robert’s church was standing (“Ecclesiam _præsentem_ miro opere et magnitudine ædificare cœpit”), gives him much the same character. “Ante obitum suum, gratiâ Dei præveniente, vitam suam correxit. Feminam enim reliquit, et de hoc ceterisque pravis actibus suis pœnitentiam egit, et sic bono fine, in quantum humana fragilitas capere potest, quievit.”

Footnote 531:

See vol. i. p. 514.

Footnote 532:

See vol. i. p. 508.

Footnote 533:

Will. Gem. vii. 7.

Footnote 534:

Will. Gem. u. s. Will. Malms. iii. 232. William of Malmesbury says “patruus ejus, sed nothus,” but William of Jumièges distinctly calls Papia the wife of Richard; “aliam uxorem nomine Papiam duxit.” So Chron. Fontanellense, ap. D’Achery, iii. 289; “Papia matrimonio Richardi potita.”

Footnote 535:

See vol. i. p. 518.

Footnote 536:

See vol. i. p. 518.

Footnote 537:

See Palgrave, ii. 536.

Footnote 538:

“Willame Talevaz,” according to the Roman de Rou, 8061. “Willelmus Talvacius,” Will. Gem. vi. 7.

Footnote 539:

Roman de Rou, 8062. “Ki tint Sez, Belesme, è Vinaz.”

Footnote 540:

Ivo, son of the elder William, a Prelate of whom Orderic draws a very favourable picture (469 D), did not scruple to attack and burn his own church, when it had been turned into a fortress by certain turbulent nobles. He tried to repair it, and reconsecrated it; but the walls, being damaged by the fire, fell down. He was then charged with sacrilege at the Council of Rheims, and defended himself by the necessity of the case. He was bidden by Pope Leo, as a penance, to rebuild the church. He went as far as Apulia, and even as Constantinople, collecting contributions and relics, and he began the work on such a scale that, forty years later, the efforts of his three successors had not enabled them to finish it. Will. Gem. vii. 13–15. No part of his building now remains.

Footnote 541:

Will. Gem. viii. 35. See Palgrave, ii. 313, 536.

Footnote 542:

Will. Gem. vi. 4. See vol. i. p. 518.

Footnote 543:

Will. Gem. vi. 7. “Ipse cunctis fratribus suis in omnibus flagitiis deterior fuit, et in ejus seminis hæredibus immoderata nequitia usque hodie viguit.” So vii. 10. “Hic à parentum suorum perfidiâ nequaquam sua retorsit vestigia.”

Footnote 544:

Ib. vii. 10.

Footnote 545:

Ib. Orderic (460 D) adds, “amputatis genitalibus.” These stories of the extreme wickedness of the house of Belesme are doubtless not without foundation, but one cannot help suspecting exaggeration, especially when we remember that Orderic writes in the interest of the hostile house of Geroy. This particular outrage of William Talvas can hardly be an invention; but it must surely have had some motive which does not appear in our authorities.

Footnote 546:

Ib. 12. The tale is that he one day went out with his followers (clientes) to rob, and seized on the pig of a certain nun (“inter reliqua porcum cujusdam sanctimonialis rapuit”). The holy woman pleaded earnestly for the restoration of her favourite (“gemens eum insecuta est, ac, ut porcellus quem nutrierat, sibi pro Deo redderetur, obnixè deprecata est”), but all was in vain; the oppressor killed the pig and ate him for supper. The same night he was strangled in his bed. In those times no alternative was thought of except a supernatural intervention, and an assassination by Arnulf’s brother Oliver. But our historian altogether rejects this last view, as inconsistent with the high character of Oliver, who passed many years as a brave and honourable knight, and at last died in the odour of sanctity as a monk of Bec.

This story contains nothing absolutely incredible; yet one is tempted to see in it a slightly ludicrous version of Nathan’s parable, assuming a form impossible under the elder dispensation. Arnulf too does not seem to have had even the poor excuse of the presence of a wayfaring man.

Footnote 547:

Roman de Rou, 8059 et seqq. Palgrave, iii. 149.

Footnote 548:

Will. Gem. vi. 12. “Robertum ergo archiepiscopum cum optimatibus sui Ducatûs accersivit.” This looks as if Robert were the only churchman present. See vol. i. p. 197. Wace (8081) gathers together Bishops, Abbots, and Barons, but perhaps only in conformity with the custom of his own time.

Footnote 549:

Roman de Rou. 8091 et seqq.

Footnote 550:

Roman de Rou, 8107 et seqq.

“Il est peti, mais il creistra, E se Deu plaist amendera.

· · · · ·

Cil est de vostre norreture.”

Footnote 551:

Ib. 8105.

“Par li cunseil el Rei de France, Ki l’maintiendra o sa poessance.”

Footnote 552:

Will. Gem. vi. 12. “Exponens autem eis Willelmum filium suum, quem unicum apud Falesiam genuerat, ab eis attentissime _exigebat, ut hunc sibi loco sui dominum eligerent_, et militiæ suæ principem præficerent.” A good precedent for the _congé d’élire_ and letter missive.

Footnote 553:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Juxta decretum Ducis protinùs eum promptâ vivacitate suum collaudavere principem ac dominum, pangentes illi fidelitatem non violandis sacramentis.” Cf. Roman de Rou, 8117 et seqq. The events which followed make one doubt as to the genuineness of the “prompta vivacitas.”

Footnote 554:

Roman de Rou, 8125.

“Li Dus por la chose afermer, E por fere lunges durer, Al Rei de France l’ad mené, E par li puing li a livré; Sun home le fist devenir E de Normendie seisir.”

There is nothing however to imply that William stayed longer at Paris than was needed for the ceremony. It is an exaggeration when we read in the Winchester Annals (p. 19 Luard), “Willelmo filio Roberti Ducis juvenculo morante cum Rege Francorum in Galliis.” Rudolf Glaber (iv. 6) describes the accession of William in much the same way as the national writers; “Cui [Willelmo] antequam proficisceretur, universos sui ducaminis principes militaribus adstrinxit sacramentis, qualiter illum in Principem pro se, si non rediret, eligerent. Quod etiam statim ex consensu Regis Francorum Henrici unanimiter postmodùm firmaverunt.” Does the phrase “militaribus sacramentis” mean “on their knightly honour,” or is it merely a pedantic reference to the Roman military oath?

Footnote 555:

See vol. i. p. 529.

Footnote 556:

Will. Malms. iii. 230. “Clarissima olim patria, intestinis dissensionibus exulcerata, pro latronum libito dividebatur, ut merito posset querimoniam facere, ‘Væ terræ cujus Rex puer est.’” See Ecclesiastes x. 16. The same text is used by R. Glaber, iv. 5, with a more general application.

Footnote 557:

William of Jumièges (vii. 1) distinctly makes the building of these castles one of the main signs and causes of the general disorder of the country. “Sub ejus ineunte ætate, Normannorum plurimi aberrantes ab ejus fidelitate, plura per loca aggeres erexerunt, et tutissimas sibi munitiones construxerunt. Quarum dum auderent fisi munimine, protinùs inter eos diversi motus exoriuntur, seditiones concitantur, ac sæva patriæ incendia ubique perpetrantur,” &c. So William of Malmesbury (iii. 230); “Mox quisque sua munire oppida, turres agere, frumenta comportare, caussas aucupari quibus quamprimùm à puero dissidia meditarentur.” The “agger” is the “mote” or mound on which the Norman castles were so often built. The word came almost to be used for the castle itself. In the Roman de Rou, 8847, a knight is described as standing at his gate “Entre li mostier è _sa mote_,” that is, between the church and his own castle. According to Mr. Clark, the “agger” or “mote” was commonly an earlier earthwork made use of by the builders of the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Old London, p. 16). Yet the rebellious nobles are here clearly described as throwing up “aggeres” for the express purpose of building their castles, and we can hardly believe that the “tutissimæ munitiones” were of wood.

Footnote 558:

See above, p. 138.

Footnote 559:

Chron. Wig. 1066. “And Oda biscop and Wyllelm eorl belifen her æfter, and worhton castelas wide geond þas þeode, and earm folc swencte, and á syððan hit yflade swiðe.” Chron. Petrib. 1087. “Castelas he lét wyrcean, and earme men swiðe swencean.” The famous description of the castle-building in the year 1137 is familiar to readers even of the commonest English histories.

Footnote 560:

See above, p. 140.

Footnote 561:

See the story quoted in p. 185.

Footnote 562:

See vol. i. p. 526.

Footnote 563:

Roman de Rou, 8131;

“A Alain qui esteit sis huem, Par l’Archeveske de Ruem, Livra sa terre à cumandise, Cum à senescal è justise.”

Footnote 564:

The “Turoldus” of William of Jumièges (vii. 2), and the “Turchetillus” of Orderic (656 C), certainly seem to be the same person.

Footnote 565:

See vol. i. p. 284.

Footnote 566:

Will. Gem. viii. 37. “Gislebertus fuerat filius Godefridi Comitis Aucensis, naturalis videlicet filii primi Richardi Ducis Normannorum.” See vol. i. p. 279.

Footnote 567:

See vol. i. p. 198. Gilbert is called “Comes Ocensis” by William of Jumièges (vii. 2), and the same writer (iv. 18) also says, “Licet Comes Gislebertus filius Godefridi Comitis ipsum comitatum parumper tenuerit, antequam occideretur.” But see Stapleton, i. lvi.

Footnote 568:

Will. Gem. vii. 33. “Alanum patrem meum apud Winmusterium in Normanniâ veneno peremisti.” But the Breton Chronicle in Morice (Memoires pour servir de Preuves à l’histoire de Bretagne) says only, “1039. Obiit Alanus Dux Britanniæ filius Gauffredi. 3 Kal. Oct.” Cf. Roman de Rou, 8139;

“Murut Alains a Normandie; A Fescamp jut en l’Abéie.”

See Prevost’s note, i. 403.

Footnote 569:

Roman de Rou, 8136.

Footnote 570:

Orderic (567 A) says distinctly, “Alannum Comitem Britonum suique Ducis tutorem Normanni veneno perimere.”

Footnote 571:

Will. Gem. vii. 2. Will. Malms. iii. 230. “Interfecto Gisleberto a Radulpho patruele suo, ubique cædes, ubique ignes versabantur.”

Footnote 572:

This seems the meaning of the context of the passage from William of Jumièges quoted just above.

Footnote 573:

Ord. Vit. 686 D.

Footnote 574:

Will. Gem. vii. 2.

Footnote 575:

Ib. “In Normanniâ summoperè inserviebant diris facinoribus.”

Footnote 576:

Ib. viii. 37.

Footnote 577:

Ib. viii. 35.

Footnote 578:

Ib. vii. 16. See above, p. 185. William gives the daughters of Roger and Mabel a good character. Of the sons he says, “Illi ferales et cupidi, et inopum rabidi oppressores exstiterunt. Quam callidi, vel militares, seu perfidi fuerint, aut quantùm super vicinos paresque suos excreverint, iterumque sub eis pro facinoribus suis decederint, non est nostrum in hoc loco enarrare.”

Footnote 579:

Ib. “Præfata mulier erat corpore parva, multùmque loquax, ad malum satis prompta, et sagax atque faceta, nimiùmque crudelis et audax,” Above, vii. 10, she is “Mabilia, crudelissimæ sobolis mater.” So Ord. Vit. 470 A; “Præfata Mabilia multùm erat potens et sæcularis, callida et loquax, nimiumque crudelis.”

Footnote 580:

Ord. Vit. 667 B. “Rogerius Merciorum Comes.”

Footnote 581:

Will. Gem. vii. 2. See Palgrave, iii. 198. Stapleton, i. cxxvi.

Footnote 582:

Will. Gem. ib. “Deinde [after the death of Gilbert] Turoldus teneri Ducis pædagogus perimitur à perfidis patriæ desertoribus.”

Footnote 583:

This is the way in which I read the story in William of Jumièges (vii. 2), compared with that put into Duke William’s own mouth by Orderic (656 C). Sir Francis Palgrave seems to make Thorold and Osbern be murdered at once (199). But William of Jumièges seems to make these murders two distinct events. After the passage just quoted he goes on, “Osbernus quoque ... quâdam nocte, dum in cubiculo Ducis cum ipso in Valle Rodoili securus soporatur, repente in stratu suo à Willelmo Rogerii de Monte-gumeri filio jugulatus.” Orderic puts the murders of Gilbert, Thorold (or Thurcytel), and Osbern together in general terms; “Turchetillum nutricium meum et Osbernum Herfasti filium, Normanniæ dapiferum, Comitemque Gislebertum patrem patriæ, cum multis aliis reipublicæ necessariis fraudulenter interfecerunt.” The murder of Osbern can hardly fail to have been one of the occasions so pathetically referred to in Orderic; “Noctibus multotiens cognatorum timore meorum à Gualterio avunculo meo de camerâ principali furtim exportatus sum, ac ad domicilia latebrasque pauperum, ne à perfidis, qui ad mortem me quærebant, invenirer, translatus sum.”

Footnote 584:

Will. Gem. vii. 2. “Barno quippe de Glotis, præpositus Osberni, injustam necem domini sui cupiens ulcisci, nocte quadam expeditos pugiles congregavit, et domum, ubi Willelmus et complices sui dormiebant, adiit, ac omnes simul, sicut meruerant, statim trucidavit.”

Footnote 585:

See vol. i. p. 514.

Footnote 586:

Will. Gem. vii. 3. “Comperiens autem quod Willelmus puer in Ducatu patri successerit, vehementer indignatus est, et tumidè despexit illi servire, dicens quod nothus non deberet sibi aliisque Normannis imperare.”

Footnote 587:

See Will. Gem. vii. 3; viii. 37. Ord. Vit. 460 C.

Footnote 588:

Garnier, Vie de S. Thomas, 1830 (p. 66 ed. Hippeau); “E cil [quens] de Leicestre, ke mut par est senez.” So William Fitz-Stephen (i. 235 Giles); “Comes Legecestriæ Robertus, qui maturitate ætatis et morum aliis prominebat;” and Herbert of Bosham (i. 147 Giles); “Nobilis vir Robertus, tunc Leicestræ Comes, inter honoratos honoratior.”

Footnote 589:

Amicia, daughter of Robert, third Earl of Leicester, married Simon the Third, Lord of Montfort. She was the mother of Simon the leader of the Crusade against the Albigenses, and the grandmother of our own Simon the Righteous. See Pauli, Simon von Montfort, 19, 20.

Footnote 590:

Will. Gem. vii. 4. “Rodulphum de Wacceio ex consultu majorum sibi tutorem eligit, et principem militiæ Normannorum constituit.”

Footnote 591:

See above, p. 195.

Footnote 592:

The expressions of William of Jumièges (vii. 4) are remarkable; “Henricum igitur Regem Francorum adeunt, et titiones ejus per Normannicos limites hac illacque spargunt. Quos nominatim litteris exprimerem, si inexorabilia eorum odia declinare nollem. Attamen non alii exstiterunt, vobis in aure loquor circumstantibus, quam hi qui fideliores se profitentur et quos nunc majoribus Dux cumulavit honoribus.”

Footnote 593:

See vol. i. p. 247.

Footnote 594:

Vol. i. p. 272.

Footnote 595:

Vol. i. pp. 250, 269.

Footnote 596:

Vol. i. p. 519.

Footnote 597:

See above, p. 189.

Footnote 598:

See vol. i. pp. 187, 216.

Footnote 599:

Roman de Rou, 9907 et seqq. The great offence was calling the Normans “bigoz è draschiers.” The first name has given cause to much controversy; the second is said to mean drinkers of ale, a wholesome witness of their Teutonic descent. But cf. Æsch. Suppl. 930;

ἀλλ’ ἄρσενάς τοι τῆσδε γῆς οἰκήτορας εὑρήσετ’, οὐ πίνοντας ἐκ κριθῶν μέθυ.

Footnote 600:

See vol. i. p. 189. The whole feeling between France and Normandy is best summed up in the passage from Wace referred to in p. 201, especially the lines,

“Sovent les unt medlé al Rei, Sovent dient: Sire, por kei Ne tollez la terre as bigoz? A vos ancessors e as nos La tolirent lor ancessor, Ki par mer vindrent robéor.”

The feeling is thus represented as mainly a popular one.

Footnote 601:

See vol. i. pp. 509–511.

Footnote 602:

Art de verifier les Dates, ii. 670.

Footnote 603:

Will. Gem. vii. 5. “Duxit se placabilem ei nullo modo fore, quamdiu Tegulense castrum videret in pristino statu persistere.”

Footnote 604:

Will. Gem. vii. 5. “Cujus fraudes animi ob salutem pueri vitare cupientes, in fide stantes Normanni decreverunt fieri quod egisse postmodum pœnituit.”

Footnote 605:

On the family of Crispin or of Tillières see Stapleton, i. cxx.; ii. xliv. There is a special treatise, “De nobili Crispinorum Genere,” which will be found in Giles’ Lanfranc, i. 340. This Gilbert must not be confounded with Count Gilbert of Brionne, who seems also to be called Crispin. See Prevost, note on Roman de Rou, ii. 5.

Footnote 606:

Will. Gem. vii. 5. “Mox ut molestissimum agnovit decretum.”

Footnote 607:

Ib. “Exercitibus tam Francorum quam Normannorum contractis.”

Footnote 608:

Ib. “Gislebertus tandem, precibus Ducis victus, mœrens castrum reddidit.”

Footnote 609:

Ib. “Quod [castrum] sub oculis omnium sub maximo dolore cordis confestim igne concremari perspexit.” The speedy restoration of the fortress, of which we shall hear directly, shows what is really meant by this burning. That the castle was wholly of wood is inconceivable. But all the wooden appendages, all the roofs, floors, and fittings of the main building, were burned. The principal tower would thus remain dismantled, blackened, perhaps a little damaged in its masonry, but quite fit to be made available again in a short time.

Footnote 610:

Will. Gem. vii. 5. “Sacramenta quæ Duci juraverat ne à quoquam suo in quatuor annis reficerentur, irrita fecit.”

Footnote 611:

Ib.

Footnote 612:

Ib. vii. 6. “Turstenus cognomento Goz, Ansfridi Dani filius, qui tunc præses Oximensis erat.”

Footnote 613:

See vol. i. pp. 211, 216, 243, 262. Without trusting all Dudo’s details, there can be no doubt as to the general fact of these later settlements.

Footnote 614:

Will. Gem. vii. 6. “Zelo succensus infidelitatis, regales milites stippendiis conduxit, quos complices ad muniendum Falesiæ castellum, ne inde Duci serviret, sibi adscivit.” The presence of the French soldiers is thus plain enough, and their presence seems to imply the complicity of the French King; but there seems to be no sufficient authority for bringing in a second devastating invasion of the County of Hiesmes by Henry in person, as we find described in the Roman de Rou, 8526, where I do not understand Prevost’s note.

Footnote 615:

Will. Gem. vii. 6. He founded St. Gabriel’s Priory near Bayeux, the small remains of which are among the finest Romanesque work in Normandy. See De Caumont, Statistique Monumental du Calvados, i. 306.

Footnote 616:

See Will. Gem. viii. 38. Ord. Vit. 488 B, 522 A, B.

Footnote 617:

Will. Malms. iii. 240. “At ille, ubi primùm per ætatem potuit, militiæ insignia à Rege Francorum accipiens, provinciales in spem quietis erexit.”

Footnote 618:

See above, p. 172. William of Poitiers (Giles, Scriptt. Will. Conq. 80; Duchèsne, 179 B) gives him, as might be expected, a splendid panegyric. Among other virtues we read, “Summo studio cœpit ecclesiis Dei patrocinari, caussas impotentium tutari, jura imponere quæ non gravarent, judicia facere quæ nequaquam ab æquitate vel temperantiâ deviarent. Imprimis prohibere cædes, incendia, rapinas. Rebus enim illicitis nimia ubique, ut suprà docuimus, licentia fuit.” See also the later panegyrics on his administration of justice, p. 88, and on his piety in 113, to which I shall have again to refer.

Footnote 619:

See vol. i. p. 220.

Footnote 620:

Ord. Vit. 566, B, C. See above, p. 180.

Footnote 621:

Robert was succeeded at Evreux by his son Richard and his grandson William. On the death of William his inheritance passed to his sister Agnes, wife of Simon the Second of Montfort, ancestor of the great Simon. See the pedigrees in Duchèsne, pp. 1084, 1092, and Pauli, 19.

Footnote 622:

Will. Gem. vii. 7. Ord. Vit. 566 D. The verses on him in the series of Archbishops are,

“Malgerius juvenis sedem suscepit honoris, Natali clarus, sed nullo nobilis actu.”

See, for a fearful description of his misdeeds, Will. Pict. 116 ed. Giles. Amongst other things, he never received the pallium. The list of Archbishops in Mabillon (Vet. An. ii. 439) says, “Non electione meriti, sed carnali parentum [_parents_ in the French sense] amore et adulatorum suffragio in pueritiâ sedem adeptus est pontificalem; omni destitutus tutelâ, potiùs adquievit carni et sanguini quam divinis mandatis.”

Footnote 623:

Will. Pict. 118 Giles. Will. Gem. vii. 3, 17. Ord. Vit. 660 B. See Appendix N.

Footnote 624:

See vol. i. p. 230.

Footnote 625:

A son of Herlwin and Herleva could not be born before 1036; Odo therefore, at the time of his appointment, could not have been above twelve years old.

Footnote 626:

Will. Gem. vii. 17. Ord. Vit. 664 D.

Footnote 627:

See especially the portrait of him in Orderic, u. s. William of Poitiers (118 Giles) ventures to say, “Odonem ab annis puerilibus optimorum numero consona præconia optimorum inseruerunt. Fertur hic in longinquas regiones celeberrima fama; sed ipsius liberalissimi atque _humillimi_ multa et industria et bonitas amplius meretur.”

Footnote 628:

Ord. Vit. 646 D. Here Odo is “præsumptor episcopus, cui principatus Albionis et Neustriæ non sufficiebat.”

Footnote 629:

Ib. 665 A. Up to this time scriptural names seem to have been hardly more usual in Normandy than in England. The sons of Archbishop Robert bore names of the usual Teutonic cast, but his successor Malger called his son Michael. Ib. 566 D.

Footnote 630:

On these works of Odo see Will. Gem. vii. 17. Ord. Vit. 665 A. Orderic’s words might seem to assert a more complete rebuilding of the cathedral than those of William. Orderic says, “Ecclesiam sanctæ Dei genitricis Mariæ à fundamentis cœpit, eleganter consummavit.” William has only, “Pontificalem ecclesiam in honorem sanctæ Dei genitricis Mariæ _novam auxit_.” Perhaps this means that he rebuilt it on a larger scale. It was consecrated, like many other Norman Churches, in 1077. Ord. Vit. 548 D. Compare the many dedications of English churches in 1258. See Matt. Paris, 449, 481, Wats.

Footnote 631:

Ord. Vit. 765 C.

Footnote 632:

Ord. Vit. 460 A. “Quisque potentum se derisione dignum judicabat, si clericos aut monachos in suâ possessione ad Dei militiam rebus necessariis non sustentabat.” So also Will. Gem. vii. 22. “Unusquisque optimatum certabat in prædio suo ecclesias fabricare, et monachos qui pro se Deum rogarent rebus suis locupletare.” Each adds a long list of the foundations of the time. The expressions “clerici” and “ecclesias fabricare” would seem to apply to parish churches also. But few parish churches of so early a date exist in Normandy. The great mass seem to have been built or rebuilt in the next century.

Footnote 633:

This seems recognized by William of Jumièges (vii. 22). Roger of Montgomery founded monasteries, “indignans videri in aliquo inferior suis comparibus.”

Footnote 634:

Ord. Vit. 547 C. “Ego de extremis Merciorum finibus decennis Angligena huc advectus, barbarusque et ignotus advena callentibus indigenis admixtus, inspirante Deo Normannorum gesta et eventus Normannis promere scripto sum conatus.” So 548 A; “De Angliâ in Normanniam tenellus exsul, ut æterno Regi militarem, destinatus sum.” See also pp. 579–581. His father Odelerius was a priest of Orleans. Of the importance of these passages I shall have to speak again.

Footnote 635:

See Orderic 492 B, and Appendix D.

Footnote 636:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. “A Danis igitur qui Normanniam primi obtinuere pater ejus originem duxit.” So Milo Crispin, Vitæ Abb. Becc. (Giles, Lanfranc, i. 261), who copies William. Both give the name Ansgotus. I know not why pedigree-makers (see one quoted by Taylor, Wace 209, and another in Sir A. Malet’s Wace 269) identify this Ansgod with “Crispinus of Bec.”

Footnote 637:

See above, p. 205.

Footnote 638:

See vol. i. pp. 191, 192.

Footnote 639:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. “Mater proximam Ducum Morinorum, quos moderni Flandros cognominant, consanguinitatem attigit.” Milo is satisfied with the description of “Ducum Flandriæ,” without the flourish about the Morini. Herlwin may thus have been, in the female line, a descendant of our Ælfred.

Footnote 640:

Milo, ap. Giles, i. 262. Orderic, 460 B. Herlwin, hard pressed in the battle, vows that, if he survives, he will serve God only—“nulli ulteriùs nisi soli Deo militaret.”

Footnote 641:

Milo, i. 264. The Count was seeking the destruction of some neighbour; “de cujusdam compatriotæ sui damno agens, quod in illius vergebat perniciem.”

Footnote 642:

Ib. “Continuò abripiuntur omnia sua, nec curat, vastantur quoque pauperes sui, unde non parvâ sollicitatur curâ.”

Footnote 643:

See the description in Orderic, 574 D et seqq. His words are remarkable. After describing the marriage or concubinage of the clergy and even of the Bishops, he goes on (575 A); “Hujusmodi mos inolevit tempore neophytorum, qui cum Rollone baptizati sunt, et desolatam regionem non litteris sed armis instructi violenter invaserunt. Deinde presbyteri de stirpe Dacorum litteris tenuiter edocti parochias tenebant, et arma ferentes laicalem feudum militari famulatu defendebant.”

Footnote 644:

Milo, i. 266. “Quidam monachus monachum pugno repercussum avertit, ac impulsum supinis dentibus demisit ad solum; adhuc enim, ut dictum est, omnes omnium per Normanniam mores barbari erant.”

Footnote 645:

Milo, i. 266, 267.

Footnote 646:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. Ord. Vit. 549 A. Herbert was Bishop of Lisieux from 1026 to 1050. He began to rebuild the Cathedral, which was finished by his successor Hugh. No part of their work remains.

Footnote 647:

Milo, i. 264, 265. The release of the lands seems implied in the foundation of the monastery.

Footnote 648:

Will. Gem. u. s. Milo, i. 265.

Footnote 649:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Ipse non solum operi præsidebat, sed opus ipsum efficiebat, terram fodiens, fossam efferens, lapides, sabulum, calcemque humeris comportans, ac ea in parietem ipsemet componens.” The church of Burneville then, like Cnut’s church on Assandun (see vol. i. p. 472), was clearly a minster of stone and lime. For a like example of humility, take Saint Hugh of Lincoln, who worked at the building of his own cathedral church. (Metrical Life of St. Hugh, ed. Dimock, p. 32.) Compare the penance imposed on Duke Godfrey for his sacrilege at Verdun; see above, p. 98. In somewhat the same spirit Edward the First worked personally in making the ditch at Berwick in 1296. Rishanger, ed. Riley, p. 375.

Footnote 650:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Ab eodem præsule sacerdos ordinatus atque Abbas constitutus est.” Cf. Milo, i. 267. The last writer seems to make Herlwin delay his monastic profession till the consecration of the church, but it seems from William of Jumièges and Orderic (549 A) that an interval of three years passed between his first profession and his ordination and benediction as Abbot. Milo himself, though in a confused way, recognizes an interval of three years.

Footnote 651:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. Milo, i. 265.

Footnote 652:

Milo, i. 268. “Simili se inibi propter Deum servituti nobilis mater ejus addixit, et concessis Deo prædiis, quæ habebat, ancillæ fungebatur officio.”

Footnote 653:

Chron. Becc. ap. Giles, i. 194. “Quia campestris et inaquosus est locus.” On the necessity of wood and water for monks, we have the witness of Orderic (461 A) in the case of his own house. “Locus iste,” says William the son of Geroy, “ubi cœpistis ædificare, habitationi monachorum aptus non est, quia ibi aqua deest et nemus longè est. Certum est quod absque his duobus elementis monachi esse non possunt.” The description of Bec in William of Jumièges enlarges on the advantages of the spot. It is “omni opportunitate humano usui commodus. Propter densitatem ac rivi recreationem, ferarum illic multus erat accursus.”

Footnote 654:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Locus, qui à rivo illic mananti Beccus appellatur.” So Chron. Becc. ap. Giles, i. 194; “Locus qui dicitur Beccus, et ita vocitatus à rivulo ibi decurrente, qui adhuc hodiernis temporibus decurrit juxta muros prati.”

Footnote 655:

It must be remembered that Herlwin’s _first_ church at Bec was on a different site from the existing remains, which represent his _second_ building.

Footnote 656:

Milo, i. 268. “Comes Gilbertus nil usquam eo saltu pretiosius possidebat.” The only human habitations in the valley were three mills, in two of which Herlwin had the right of a third part. Partly by gift, partly by purchase, he obtained possession of the whole valley. For his own gifts at Burneville and elsewhere, see his Charter in Neustria Pia, 437.

Footnote 657:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. Milo, i. 269. “Consecratâ, paucis exstructâ annis, non parvâ ecclesiâ, columnis ex ligneis claustrum construxit.” The church then was of stone.

Footnote 658:

Milo, i. 270. “Abbas peritus erat in dirimendis caussarum sæcularium controversiis, prudens in iis quæ ad exteriora pertinent, ... legum patriæ scientissimus.”

Footnote 659:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. Ord. Vit. 549 A.

Footnote 660:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Gentium transmarinarum summus Pontifex.” Milo, i. 275. “Gentium transmarinarum Apostolicus.” Ib. 272. “Summus antistes et in ecclesiis transmarinis vices apostolicas gerens.” See vol. i. pp. 146, 627.

Footnote 661:

Will. Malms. iii. 246. “Omnium gentium benignissimi advenas æquali secum honore colunt.”

Footnote 662:

Chron. Fontanellense (Saint Wandrille), ap. D’Achery, iii. 286.

Footnote 663:

Orderic’s description of him (519 A) begins, “Hic ex nobili parentelâ ortus, Papiæ urbis Italiæ civibus, ab annis infantiæ in scholis liberalium artium studuit, et secularium legum peritiam ad patriæ suæ morem intentione laicâ fervidus edidicit.” Gervase (X Scriptt. 1652), from whom we get the names of his parents, says, “natus in urbe Papiensi civibus egregiis et honestâ conditione; pater ipsius Hanbaldus, mater Roza vocabatur.” William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 116 _b_) says only, “non adeò abjectâ et obscurâ progenie oriundus erat.” Milo’s description (i. 281) points to a sort of nobility of the robe; “Parentes illius, ejusdem urbis cives, magni et honorabiles habebantur inter suos concives. Nam, ut fertur, pater ejus de ordine illorum qui jura et leges civitatis asservabant fuit.” Dr. Hook (Archbishops, ii. 74) refers to his letter to Queen Margaret of Scotland (Giles, i. 59), in which he calls himself “hominem extraneum, vilem, ignobilem.” A sort of civic nobility seems to reconcile the different descriptions.

Footnote 664:

I suppose that a knowledge of Greek is implied in the description given by William of Jumièges (vi. 9); “Ortus Italiâ quidam vir erat, quem Latinitas, in antiquum ab eo restituta scientiæ statum, tota supremum debito cum amore et honore agnoscit, nomine Lanfrancus. Ipsa quoque in liberalibus studiis gentium magistra Græcia discipulos illius libenter audiebat, et admirabatur.” The odd expression of “Latinitas” occurs also in the passage in the Saint Wandrille Chronicle just referred to. “Potestas secundi Richardi, velut amore diluculi, in toto Latinitatis orbe serena refulsit.” I suppose it takes in all nations of Romance speech.

Footnote 665:

See the quotation from Orderic just above, and Dr. Hook’s (ii. 75) discussion as to his exact position.

Footnote 666:

Ord. Vit. 519 A. “Adolescentulus orator veteranos adversantes in

## actionibus caussarum frequenter præcipitavit, torrente facundiâ

appositè dicendo senes superavit. In ipsâ ætate sententias promere statuit quas gratanter juris periti aut judices aut prætores civitatis acceptabant.”

Footnote 667:

Milo, i. 282. “In primævâ ætate patre orbatus, quum ei in honorem et dignitatem succedere _deberet_.” Was Hanbald’s post, whatever it was, hereditary?

Footnote 668:

Dr. Hook (ii. 76, 80) discusses the question at length. I cannot infer from the use of the word “exsilium” by Orderic (519 A), that Lanfranc was driven from Pavia by any political revolution, any more than Orderic himself, when “tenellus exsul” in Normandy. See above, p. 216.

Footnote 669:

Chron. Becc. i. 195. Hook, ii. 77.

Footnote 670:

The sojourn at Avranches comes from Milo, i. 282. The other accounts seem to bring him to Bec at once.

Footnote 671:

The Bishoprick of Avranches is now merged in that of Coutances, and the cathedral is destroyed; Lisieux is also merged in Bayeux, but the cathedral remains.

Footnote 672:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. “Beccum itaque adiit, quo nullum usquam pauperius æstimabatur vel abjectius cœnobium.” Ord. Vit. 519 B. “Cœnobiolum Beccense loci situ et paupertate elegit.” Milo, i. 282, 283. “Locum adire nolebat, ubi litterati qui eum honori ac reverentiæ haberent.... Rogavit sanè ut vilius et pauperius cœnobium quod in regione nossent sibi demonstrarent.” Will. Malm. Gest. Pont. 116 _b_. “Multis diu locis circumspectis, ex omni abbatiarum copiâ Beccum apud Normanniam potissimùm elegit, paupertate loci et monachorum religione captus.”

Footnote 673:

The legend is found in a simpler form in Milo, i. 282, 283, and in a fuller shape in the Chronicon Beccense, i. 195, 196, followed by Hook, i. 81, 82. I do not see the chronological difference spoken of by the Dean, except that the Chronicler, like most of the other writers, leaves out the sojourn at Avranches. The two versions are worth comparing, as illustrating the growth of a legend, which is not the less plainly a legend because it contains nothing miraculous. The earlier form is the more consistent with the general story, as it represents Lanfranc as ignorant of Scripture and divine things. The meeting between Lanfranc and Herlwin is well conceived and well told.

Footnote 674:

Milo, i. 285.

Footnote 675:

Milo, i. 286. “Lanfrancum Priorem constituit, et quidquid ditioni monasterii subjacebat, interiùs et exteriùs ipsius curæ commisit.”

Footnote 676:

Ib. 284. “Vir sapiens sciens magis obedientiam Christo debere quam Donato, dimisit quod bene pronunciaverat, et dixit quod non rectè dicere jubebatur. Nam producere brevem vel longam corripere syllabam non capitale noverat crimen; verùm jubenti ex parte Dei non parere culpam non levem esse sciebat.”

Footnote 677:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. “Accurrunt clerici, Ducum filii [one would like to know their names], nominatissimi scholarum Latinitatis magistri, laici potentes, altâ nobilitate viri. Multi pro ipsius amore multas eidem ecclesiæ terras contulere.”

Footnote 678:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. “Adunatam etenim illic fratrum multitudinem quia domorum spaciositas jam capere non valebat, et quia situs loci degentium incolumitati contrarius exsistebat.”

Footnote 679:

William of Jumièges (u. s.) describes the work, and says that “post triennii completionem, solâ necdum completâ basilicâ,” Lanfranc became Abbot of Saint Stephen’s. This last appointment did not happen till 1066 (Ord. Vit. 494 B). Did the rebuilding not begin till 1063?

Footnote 680:

I reserve the account of Lanfranc’s connexion with William till I come to the history of the Duke’s marriage.

Footnote 681:

See above, p. 116.

Footnote 682:

See Hook, ii. 89.

Footnote 683:

Orderic (519 D) describes the work of Lanfranc against Berengar as “dilucido venustoque stilo libellum, sacris auctoritatibus ponderosum, et indissolubiliter constantem consequentiis rationum, veræ intelligentiæ adstructione de Eucharistiâ copiosum, facundo sermone luculentum, _nec prolixitate tædiosum_.” One could wish that the excellent Orderic had, in this last respect, imitated the work which he so much admired.

Footnote 684:

The whole early history of his house is given by Orderic at great length, 609 et seqq. So also Will. Gem. vii. 23.

Footnote 685:

Ord. 609 C. “Degens adhuc sub laicali habitu vitam instituerat ut nihil ab his discrepare videretur, quos imperium regulare coercebat.” His piety however was not wholly after the type of Eadward the Confessor, for we read (609 D), “conjugem, ut patris nomen haberet, acceperat.”

Footnote 686:

One legend of Saint Ebrulf (611 C) is the same as the well known story of Ælfred and his last loaf.

Footnote 687:

Ord. Vit. 623 C. “Olim dum Daci, qui adhuc pagani erant, cum Hastingo Neustriam vastaverunt, et rursus Rollone cum suis sæviente, plures ecclesiæ cum urbibus et oppidis desolatæ sunt; nos, suffragante Deo, in silvestri sterilique rure latuimus, et debacchantium gladios, licèt in timore nimio et egestate, sospites evasimus.” This must have been forgotten when it is said in Neustria Pia, p. 90, that Saint Evroul was ravaged by the Danes.

Footnote 688:

See vol. i. pp. 237, 238. Orderic gives his version of these events in p. 619. He calls Hugh “Hugo Magnus _Aurelianorum_ Dux,” and Lewis receives his surname of “Ultramarinus,” which we do not find in contemporary writers. Most names of the kind were doubtless used in common discourse during the lifetime of the princes designated by them, but they did not find their way into written history till later.

Footnote 689:

Ord. Vit. 619 D, 622 D.

Footnote 690:

Ib. 621 B. “Rusticorum pecudes sive supellectilem non curaverunt; sed _Uticensis hospitii memores_, illuc reversi sunt, et ex insperato cum suis in cœnobium irruerunt.” Then follow the details of the plunder.

Footnote 691:

Ord Vit. 622 D.

Footnote 692:

Ib. 624 C. This holy man, like Orderic’s own father, was married. “Uticum perrexit, ibique cum conjuge et Ilberto filio suo primus habitavit.” (625 A.) He afterwards had a companion named Ingram. (461 A.)

Footnote 693:

Ib. 625 C, D.

Footnote 694:

He is described as “Ernaldi Grossi de Corte Sedaldi Abonii Britonis filii filius.” (Ord. Vit. 463 A.) He goes on to say that he “ex magnâ nobilitate Francorum et Britonum processit, mirâque probitate et audaciâ temporibus Hugonis Magni [clearly a mistake for Hugh Capet] et Roberti Regum Francorum nobiliter viguit.”

Footnote 695:

Ib. 463 A.

Footnote 696:

Orderic (464 A, B) tells a curious story about these lordships. When they were granted to Geroy, they were, by what accident does not appear, not included in the diocese of any Bishop. Geroy’s conscience was troubled at a state of things so contrary to all ecclesiastical rule. He accordingly inquired which of the neighbouring Bishops was the most worthy, and, hearing much of the virtues of Roger, Bishop of Lisieux (990–1024), he annexed his lands to that diocese. He procured however certain privileges for the clergy of his lordships, especially an exemption from the oppressive jurisdiction of the Archdeacons; “Ut clerici terræ suæ non irent ad placitandum extra potestatem eorum, nec opprimerentur injustis circumventionibus Archidiaconorum.” He might well make this stipulation, if the Archdeacons of his time were like those described by John of Salisbury some generations later (Ep. clxvi. ap. Giles, i. 260).

In Mr. Stapleton’s map Escalfoy is marked in the diocese of Lisieux, but Montreuil in that of Seez.

Footnote 697:

William of Jumièges (vii. 11.) makes him receive these lordships from Duke Richard, “Richardi Ducis, cujus dono in Normanniâ duo municipia obtinuit,” but it seems from Orderic (463 B) that the ducal grant was only a confirmation of the will of Helgo; “Liberalis Dux agnitâ virtute ejus honoravit, eique totam terram Helgonis hæreditario jure concessit.”

Footnote 698:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Ex his filiorum et nepotum militaris turma propagata est, quæ barbaris in Angliâ vel Apuliâ seu Trachiâ vel Syriâ nimio terrori visa est.”

Footnote 699:

Ib. vi. 7.

Footnote 700:

Compare his dealings with Herlwin, above, pp. 217, 218.

Footnote 701:

He held lands of Count Geoffrey of Mantes, who was taken prisoner by William Talvas, who required the destruction of the castle of Montacute as his ransom. This castle belonged to William the son of Geroy, who at once destroyed it to bring about the liberation of his lord. Ord. Vit.

Footnote 702:

Ord. Vit. 464 A. “Episcopales consuetudines Monasterioli et Escalfoii fundo habebat, nec ullus Archidiaconorum ibidem presbyteros ejusdem honoris circumvenire audebat.”

Footnote 703:

See above, p. 185.

Footnote 704:

578 A.

Footnote 705:

According to William of Jumièges (vii. 23), he died at Gaeta on his return from a mission of some sort (pro quibusdam rationalibus caussis) to Apulia.

Footnote 706:

Ord. Vit. 461 A. Chron. Becc. i. 195. This is doubtless the grange which Lanfranc found greatly troubled by rats. His biographer (i. 284, 285) cites it as a proof of his humility that he personally carried a cat to make war upon them.

Footnote 707:

They were the sons of Robert of Grantmesnil (see above, p. 199) and Hadwisa, daughter of Geroy (Orderic, 465 B). After Robert’s death Hadwisa married William, son of Archbishop Robert. Their daughter Judith, having taken the veil, afterwards married Roger, Count of Sicily (484 B), but, as a punishment for her sacrilege, remained childless.

Footnote 708:

See above, p. 220.

Footnote 709:

William of Jumièges (vii. 23) puts into his mouth a long historical discourse, in which, I am sorry to say, he speaks of Charles the Simple as “filius Ludovici cognomine Nihil-fecit.”

Footnote 710:

Ord. Vit. 461 C et seqq., 625 D. Will. Gem. vii. 23. He was the only monk for whom the cruel Mabel had any reverence. Ord. Vit. 470 A.

Footnote 711:

See his character, Ord. Vit. 467 D; his intrigues, 474 C et seqq.; his election, 477 A. He began a new church, but did not finish it, 480 C. He also gave to the house (468 B) an illuminated psalter—doubtless of English work—which the Lady Emma had given to her brother Archbishop Robert. His son William seemingly stole it from his father, and gave it to his wife Hadwisa, mother of Robert of Grantmesnil; “de camerâ patris sui familiariter sustulerat, dilectæque suæ conjugi Hadwisæ omnimodis placere volens detulerat.” On Abbot Robert see also Will. Gem. vii. 26.

Footnote 712:

Ord. Vit. 481 B.

Footnote 713:

The whole story is given at some length in Neustria Pia, pp. 104–110. But remark the expression of William of Jumièges (vii. 23), “multos labores postea in procuratione servorum Dei perpessus est.” There were probably two sides to his story, as to most others.

Footnote 714:

Was the Truce of God ever preached, or ever needed, in England? I am not aware of any mention of it, unless the so-called Laws of Eadward, c. 2 (Schmid, 492), at all refer to it. See below, p. 238.

Footnote 715:

See above, p. 218.

Footnote 716:

See History of Federal Government, i. 128.

Footnote 717:

The account is in R. Glaber, iv. 5. “Tunc ergo primitùs cœpere in Aquitaniæ partibus ab Episcopis et Abbatibus, ceterisque viris sacræ religionis devotis ex universâ plebe, coadunati conciliorum conventus.” He goes on to give a summary of their legislation; “In quibus potissimum erat de inviolabili pace conservandâ, ut scilicet viri utriusque conditionis, cujuscumque antea fuissent rei obnoxii, absque formidine procederent armis vacui. Prædo namque aut invasor alterius facultatis, legum districtione arctatus, vel donis facultatum seu pœnis corporis acerrimè mulctaretur. Locis nihilominùs sacris omnium ecclesiarum honor et reverentia talis exhiberetur, ut si quis ad ea cujuscumque culpæ obnoxius confugium faceret, illæsus evaderet, nisi solummodò ille qui pactum prædictæ pacis violâsset, hic tamen captus ab altare præstitutam vindictam lueret. Clericis similiter omnibus, monachis, et sanctimonialibus, ut si quis cum eis per regionem pergeret nullam vim ab aliquo pateretur.” He adds some more purely religious provisions about fasting and the like.

Footnote 718:

R. Glaber, iv. 5. “Quibus universi, tanto ardore accensi ut per manus Episcoporum baculum ad cœlum elevarent, ipsique palmis extensis ad Deum, Pax, pax, pax, unanimiter clamarent. Ut esset videlicet signum perpetui pacti de hoc, quod spoponderant inter se et Deum.”

Footnote 719:

R. Glaber, iv. 5. “In hâc tamen ratione ut evoluto quinquennio confirmandæ pacis gratiâ id ipsum ab universis in orbe fieret mirum in modum.”

Footnote 720:

Ib. “Dehinc per Arelatensem provinciam atque Lugdunensem, sicque per universam Burgundiam usque in ultimas Franciæ partes, per universos episcopatus indictum est qualiter certis in locis à præsulibus magnatisque totius patriæ de reformandâ pace et sacræ fidei institutione celebrarentur concilia.” In Martène and Durand’s Thesaurus, i. 159, is a circular letter on the subject from Ragenbald, Archbishop of Arles, and other Burgundian Prelates.

Footnote 721:

Rudolf, under the year 1041 (v. 1, Duchèsne, Rer. Franc. Scriptt. iv. 55 A), recurs to the subject; “Contigit verò ipso in tempore, inspirante divinâ gratiâ, primitùs in partibus Aquitanicis, deinde paullatim per universum Galliarum territorium firmari pactum propter timorem Dei pariter et amorem. Taliter ut nemo mortalium, à feriæ quartæ vespere usque ad secundam feriam incipiente luce, ausu temerario præsumeret quippiam alicui hominum per vim auferre, neque ultionis vindictam à quocumque inimico exigere, nec etiam à fideijussore vadimonium sumere. Quod si ab aliquo fieri contigisset contra hoc decretum publicum, aut de vitâ componeret aut à Christianorum consortio expulsus patriâ pelleretur. Hoc insuper placuit universis, veluti vulgò dicitur, ut Treuga Domini vocaretur.” I conceive this relaxation to mark a change from the _Pax Dei_ to the _Treuga Dei_. See Ducange in _Treuga_, and Palgrave, iii. 201. Something must be allowed to the inherent confusion of Rudolf’s way of expressing himself.

Footnote 722:

Hugo Flav. Chron. ap. Pertz, viii. 403.

Footnote 723:

Gest. Epp. Cam. ap. Pertz, vii. 474, 485. Gerard’s objections are given at great length, and are well worth studying, as a setting forth of the _Regale_ and _Pontificale_. Some of the French Bishops seemed to have ventured on a pious fraud; “Unus eorum cœlitùs sibi delatas dixit esse literas, quæ pacem monerent renovandam in terra.” The chronicler of Cambray quite approves the opposition of the local Prelate; “Alia quoque importabilia quamplurima dederunt mandata, quæ oneri visa sunt replicare. Hâc novitate pulsatus mandati præsul noster, infirmitatique peccantium condescendens, secundùm decreta sanctorum patrum ad singula suum formavit eloquium.”

Footnote 724:

Hugo Flav. ap. Pertz, viii. 403. “Quam quum noluisset recipere gens Neustriæ, viro Dei Richardo prædicante, et ut eam susciperent, quia voluntas Domini erat, et à Deo non ab homine decretum, hoc processerat, admonente divino judicio cœpit in eos desævire ignis qui eos torquebat; eo anno ferè totus orbis [was the whole world plagued for the sins of Normandy?] penuriam passus est pro raritate vini et tritici. Sequuta est è vestigio mortalitas hominibus præmaxima ab inc. Dom. 1042.” This passage is made up out of R. Glaber (u. s.), where however Richard is not mentioned.

Footnote 725:

Hugo Flav. u. s.

Footnote 726:

The decree of the synod of Caen is given at length in the Concilia Rotomagensis Provinciæ, p. 39. The Fathers are stringent against “caballicationes et hostilitates.” The main decree runs, “In pace quæ vulgò dicitur Trevia Dei, et quæ die Mercurii sole occidente incipit, et die Lunæ sole nascente finit, hæc quæ dicam vobis promptissimâ mente dehinc inantea debetis observare. Nullus homo nec femina hominem aut feminam usquam assaliat, nec vulneret, nec occidat, nec castellum, nec burgum, nec villam in hoc spatio quatuor dierum et quinque noctium assaliat nec deprædetur nec capiat, nec ardeat ullo ingenio aut violentiâ aut aliquâ fraude.” See Roman de Rou, 10485 et seqq. The church of Sainte Paix at Caen was built to commemorate the event, but Prevost (note to Roman de Rou, ii. 99) places its building in 1061.

Footnote 727:

Will. Pict. 113 (Giles). “Sanctissimè in Normanniâ observabatur sacramentum pacis quam Treviam vocant, quod effrænis regionum aliarum iniquitas frequenter temerat.”

Footnote 728:

Ord. Vit. 552 A. It was confirmed again for Christendom generally at the Council of Clermont in 1095. Will. Malms. iii. 345.

Footnote 729:

Will. Pict. 80 (Giles). “Hujus vesaniæ signifer prosiluit Guido.” Will. Malms. iii. 230. “Sator discordiarum erat Guido quidam.”

Footnote 730:

Will. Pict. u. s. “A puerilibus annis cum ipso familiariter nutritus.” Will. Gem. vii. 17. “Crudelem convivam ... qui cum eo à puerilibus annis educatus fuerat.” Will. Malms. u. s. “Convictus familiaritatem, familiaritas amicitias, paraverat.” So Roman de Rou, 8758 et seqq.

Footnote 731:

See above, p. 194

Footnote 732:

See vol. i. p. 404.

Footnote 733:

William, in his autobiography in Orderic (657 A), is made to say, “Ille [Guido] verò verbis et actibus mihi derogavit, me nothum degeneremque et principatu indignum detestatus judicavit et hostiliter diffamavit.” Roman de Rou, 8770;

“De Willeame aveit grant envie, Ki sor li aveit seignorie, Cumenca sei à corucier, Et Normendie à chalengier; Reprovout li sa batardie.”

So again, 8782;

“N’i a, dist il, plus proçain eir, Ki Normendie deie aveir: Pere sa mere fu Richart, D’espuse esteit, n’ert pas bastart.”

Footnote 734:

Roman de Rou, 8786;

“E ki li voldreit fere dreit, Normendie li apendreit, E se meintenir le voleient Ensemle od li le partireient.”

So Will. Pict. 80. “Sed aut principatum aut maximam portionem Normanniæ ambiebat.”

Footnote 735:

Roman de Rou, 8896 et seqq.

Footnote 736:

See vol. i. p. 199.

Footnote 737:

See vol. i. p. 216.

Footnote 738:

Both Neals bear the title of Viscount of the Côtentin, but others also bore it in their lifetime. See Delisle, Histoire du Château et des Sires de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte (Valognes, 1867), p. 23. The collection of Charters in this work is most valuable.

Footnote 739:

See vol. i. p. 330. The three chief conspirators, Neal, Randolf, and Hamon, are mentioned in various accounts. Will. Pict. 80. Will. Malms. iii. 230. Roman de Rou, 8748, 8778. William of Jumièges (vii. 17) speaks of Guy and Neal (“Nigellus Constantiensis præses”) only.

Footnote 740:

In 1040 or 1042. Delisle, p. 3.

Footnote 741:

The Abbey was founded by Neal himself in the next year, 1048, according to Neustria Pia, 540. Cotman, Antiquities of Normandy, i. 9. But what seems to be Neal’s foundation charter in Delisle (Preuves, p. 42; cf. 55, 59) is placed by him in 1080.

Footnote 742:

See vol. i. p. 243, for Harold Blaatand’s occupation of Cherbourg. I cannot however believe that _Cherbourg_ is really “Cæsaris burgus.” Is it not rather the same word as _Scarborough_?

Footnote 743:

This very curious fact comes out in a Charter of the Abbey of the Holy Trinity at Caen, printed by Mr. Stapleton in the Archæologia, xxvi. 355. “Adeliza, Ricardi Comitis filia, Ricardi Comitis soror, contra eumdem prædictum fratrem suum, scilicet Robertum Comitem, castrum quid dicitur Hulme in Constantino situm cum omnibus ibidem pertinentibus mercata est. Quod postea Guido filius suus, injustè sibi auferens, dedit illud Nigello Vice-comiti.” See also Stapleton, Roll of Exchequer, ii. xxix. The charter bears date in 1075, when Adeliza was still living.

Footnote 744:

Roman de Rou, 8938.

Footnote 745:

Ib. 9182;

“Dan As Dens esteit un Normant De fié è d’homes bien poissant, Sire esteit de Thorignie E de Mezi è de Croillie.”

On Creuilly church and castle, see Cotman, ii. 91. De Caumont, i. 320.

Footnote 746:

William of Malmesbury introduces him (ii. 230) as “Haimo Dentatus [Dan As Dens], avus Roberti quo nostro tempore in Angliâ multarum possessionum incubator exstitit.” Robert died of a wound received at Tinchebrai, 1106 (Will. Malms. v. 398), and his daughter Mabel married the famous Robert Earl of Gloucester (Hist. Nov. i. 3).

Footnote 747:

Benoît, 32, 742;

“Per cel Rannol de Beiesin, E par Neel de Costentin, E par Hamun _uns Antecriz_.”

The expression is very strange, but it is so taken by M. Le Cointe (see Appendix O), and I see not what else it can mean.

Footnote 748:

Taylor’s Wace, 11. Castle Rising is eminently the castle of dowager Queens, the earlier parts having been built for Adeliza, and the later for Isabella, mother of Edward the Third.

Footnote 749:

Roman de Rou, 8796;

“Issi unt lur chastels garniz Fossez parcéz, dreciéz paliz.”

Footnote 750:

See above, p. 197.

Footnote 751:

See Roman de Rou, 9347 et seqq. For the present story see vv. 8800–8895, and Palgrave, iii. 212.

Footnote 752:

Roman de Rou, 8803. “Par li boiz chacié et bersé.” “Berser” is explained (Roquefort, Glossaire de la Langue Romaine) by “tirer de l’arc.” On William’s skill with the bow, see Will. Malms. iii. 279.

Footnote 753:

See above, p. 197.

Footnote 754:

On the church of Rye, parts of which may be as old as this time, see De Caumont, iii. 572.

Footnote 755:

Roman de Rou, 8846;

“Hubert de Rie ert à sa porte, Entre li mostier et sa mote, Guillame vit désaturné E sun cheval tuit tressué.”

Hubert seems to have been an early riser and a good church-goer. The “mote” is the mound or “agger” (see above, p. 191), whence the name is sometimes transferred to the castle itself. Thus we find in the Gesta Com. Andeg. (D’Achery, iii. 257), “Domum munitissimam quæ usque hodie ‘Mota Fulcoii’ a vulgo vocatur.”

Footnote 756:

Ib. 8860 et seqq. I see no reason to doubt the general truth of the story, but there is a passage in the sequel which sounds mythical. William’s pursuers presently ask Hubert which way the Bastard is gone, and he puts them on a wrong scent (vv. 8874). This story is as old as the babyhood of Hermês.

Footnote 757:

On Eudes see Ellis, Introduction to Domesday, i. 415. Orderic (489 C) calls him “Normannici Ducis dapiferum, qui in pago Constantino divitiis et potestate inter Normanniæ proceres eminebat.” The good character of Eudes comes from the Colchester History of the Monasticon, iv. 607, which I shall have to refer to again. He married Roberia, daughter of Richard son of Count Gilbert (Ib. 608).

Footnote 758:

We learn the place of meeting from Orderic (372 A); “Unde coactus juvenis Dux Pexeium convolavit, ibique pronus ad pedes Henrici Regis corruit, et ab eo contra malefidos proceres et cognatos auxilium petivit.” So Roman de Rou, 8942;

“Par pleintes ke Willame fist, E par paroles ke il dist, Fist li Reis asembler son ost.”

Other writers are less eager to set forth William’s humiliation. William of Jumièges (vii. 17) says, “Necessitate coactus Henricum Francorum Regem expetiit pro subveniendi obtentu.” The Brevis Relatio (ap. Giles, Scriptt. 3) says simply, “Contulit se ad Regem Franciæ.” William of Poitiers (81) slurs over William’s application to the King, and takes no further notice of Henry’s share in the campaign, beyond adding, after his account of the battle, “Interfuit huic prœlio Franciæ Rex Henricus, victrici caussæ auxilians.”

Footnote 759:

The original writers of course do not greatly trouble themselves about the seeming inconsistency of Henry’s conduct. There is perhaps a slight touch of sarcasm in the words of William of Jumièges (vii. 17), “_Tunc tandem Rex memor beneficii_ quod a patre ejus sibi quondam impensum fuerat, vires Francorum simul coëgit.” So William of Malmesbury knows no motive but pure gratitude (iii. 230); “Necessitas Regem tutorem excivit ut desperatis partibus pupilli succurreret. Itaque paternæ benevolentiæ recordatus, quod eum favore suo in regnum sublimaverat, apud Walesdunas in defectores irruit.” We then find ourselves in the thick of the battle. Orderic (372 A) seems to make it an act of simple magnanimity on the King’s part; “At ille [Henricus], ut erat clemens, desolato adolescenti compatiens, robur exercitûs Francorum excivit, et in Neustriam Duci auxiliaturus perrexit.” William, or Orderic, in the death-bed summary (657 E), leaves out the French aid altogether; “Tunc auxiliante Deo, qui justus judex est, inter Cadomum et Argentias hostes vici.”

Footnote 760:

Roman de Rou, 8997. “La s’asemblerent li cumunes.” For the list of the districts which helped William see vv. 8946 et seqq.

Footnote 761:

See Appendix O.

Footnote 762:

My account of the field and battle of Val-ès-dunes is drawn from an examination made on the spot in May, 1867. In company with Mr. J. R. Green, I went over the whole ground, Wace in hand. No modern description can do more than amplify Wace’s few topographical touches (Roman de Rou, 8978 et seqq.), and his minute and spirited account of the battle. Every detail shows in how thoroughly honest and careful a spirit he set to work. On the topography, see De Caumont, Statistique Monumental du Calvados, ii. 84 et seqq., and Appendix O.

Footnote 763:

I should greatly like to come across some explanation of this puzzling name (see De Caumont, i. 53). Nothing is more likely than a Teutonic colony anywhere in these parts, but such a colony would hardly be called Allemannia. The name is ancient, as it occurs in William’s foundation charter of Saint Stephen’s. See Neustria Pia, 626. The copy there is not very accurate, as I can witness from having (for once) examined an original manuscript.

Footnote 764:

Roman de Rou, 8986;

“Maiz encuntre soleil levant Se funt la terre en avalant.”

Footnote 765:

Ib. 8982;

“Li plaines sunt lunges è lées, N’i a granz monz ne granz vallées.”

Footnote 766:

Ib. 8988:

“Une riviere l’avirone, Deverz midi è devers none.”

Footnote 767:

Roman de Rou, 8990;

“A Saint-Briçun de Valmerei Fu la messe chanteé el Rei, Li jor ke la bataille fu; Grant poor i unt li cler éu.”

Footnote 768:

Ib. 9001.

Footnote 769:

Ib. 9004;

“La gent Willame fu à destre, E Franceiz furent à senestre; Verz ocident tornent lor vis, Quer là sourent les anemis.”

Footnote 770:

Benoît, 33490;

“Or fait son estandart drecier, La fu l’eigle d’or qui resplent.”

Footnote 771:

Roman de Rou, 9020;

“En sa main chescun un baston.”

Footnote 772:

Roman de Rou, 9012;

“Set vingz chevaliers out od sei Tant dut aveir en sun cunrei, Tuit aloent lances levées, Et en totes guimples fermeés.”

Footnote 773:

Ib. 9042;

“Cil lor aveit ainz asseuré, Et à Baex sor sainz juré, Ke Guillame sempres ferreit En kel lieu il le trovereit.”

One might wish that another oath on the saints at Bayeux could have found as easy and convenient fulfilment.

Footnote 774:

Ib. 9050;

“Guillame est son natural sire, Et il sis homs ne puet desdire, Pensa ke il li fist homage Véant sun pere et sun barnage; N’a dreit el fié ne à l’onor, Ki se cumbat à son seignor.”

The feudal scruple is stronger in the minds of the inferior tenants, a point worth noticing, whether the tale be trustworthy in detail or not. This agrees with Wace’s former statement that, even in the revolted provinces, the popular feeling was on William’s side. The poor gentleman might need the protection of the common sovereign no less than the peasant.

Footnote 775:

I wish I could believe, with Thierry (i. 150) and Pluquet (Wace, ii. 32, 528), that this war-cry was an invocation of Thor, “Thor aie,” as opposed to the “Dex aie” of the French Normans. But I fear we must see in it nothing more profound or venerable than the lordship of Thury. See Prevost, Wace, p. 528, and Taylor, 21. Palgrave, iii. 216.

Footnote 776:

Examples of entrapping men to destruction by the literal fulfilment of an oath are common enough. This opposite case may be compared with Aurelian’s way of discharging his oath when besieging Thyana; “Canem in hoc oppido non relinquam.” The city was taken, and the Emperor slew all the dogs. Vopiscus, Aurelian, 22, 23 (Hist. Aug. ii. 472).

Footnote 777:

Arrian, vi. 11. 9. Ἀλλὰ πρὸς Γρανίκῳ μὲν ξυνέβη μαχὴ ἱππική. iv. 8. 11. ἡ ἱππομαχία ἡ ἐπὶ Γρανίκῳ.

Footnote 778:

Roman de Rou, 9074;

“Willame va par la campaigne; Des Normanz meine grant compaigne, Li dui Viscuntes vait quérant, E li perjures demandant.”

Footnote 779:

Ib. 9094;

“Cil de France crient, _Montjoie_; Ceo lor est bel ke l’en les oie; Willame cri, _Dex aie_; C’est l’enseigne de Normendie.”

Footnote 780:

See Taylor, 22.

Footnote 781:

See vol. i. p. 244. Wace seems rather to delight in opposing his own province to the French. 9108;

“El Rei de France et as Franceiz Si vint ensemb Costentineiz.”

So 9128;

“Constentineiz è Franceiz sunt Li uns as altres contrestunt.”

Footnote 782:

Roman de Rou, 9144;

“De ço distrent li païsant, E dient encore en gabant: _De Costentin iessi la lance Ki abati le Rei de France_.”

I have found the rhyme remembered in a Norman cottage, close by the field of Val-ès-dunes.

Footnote 783:

See vol. i. p. 425. But William’s overthrow was real, though his death was imaginary; in the case of Eadmund all was an invention of Eadric. But the effect on the army would be the same in all three cases.

Footnote 784:

The narrative in the Roman de Rou (9134–9207) clearly implies that Henry was overthrown twice, first by a nameless knight of the Côtentin, secondly by Hamon himself. At the same time there certainly is, as Mr. Taylor (p. 25) says, a certain confusion in the way of telling the story, and one might be tempted to believe that the one overthrow was a mere repetition of the other. But each story seems to receive a certain amount of corroborative evidence. The first overthrow is supported by the Côtentin rhyme, the second by the independent testimony of William of Malmesbury (iii. 230); “Haimo in acie cæsus, cujus insignis violentia laudatur, quod ipsum Regem equo dejecerit; quare a concurrentibus stipatoribus interemtus.”

Footnote 785:

Roman de Rou, 9199. “Mez sor l’escu fu mort levé.”

Footnote 786:

Will. Malms. u. s. “Pro fortitudinis miraculo Regis jussu tumulatus est egregiè.” Wace (9200) mentions the place. He is buried “devant l’iglise,” seemingly not _in_ the church.

Footnote 787:

Roman de Rou, 9258;

“Néel se cumbati cum pros; Si tiex les trovast li Reis tos, Mar i fussent Franceiz venuz, Descunfiz fussent è veincuz.”

So again, 9280;

“Mais ço sai ke li Reis veinki.”

Footnote 788:

Ib. 9173;

“E Franceiz Normanz envaïr, E Normanz torner è guenchir.

So 9266;

“Franceiz de tutes parz espeissent, Normanz décheient è décreissent.”

We must remember that all the local feelings of Wace, a native of Jersey and Canon of Bayeux, would be on the side of the rebels, however much they might be balanced by loyalty to the memory of the great William.

Footnote 789:

Benoît, 33, 660;

“Hardrez uns chevalier hardiz, De Baiues nez e norriz, Preissiez d’armes e concuz.”

Footnote 790:

The anatomical precision of Wace (9222) is quite in the style of the Iliad;

“Willame verz li s’eslessa, Un glaive tint, bien l’avisa; Parmi li cors lez le menton, Entre la gorge et le gotron, Li fist passer le fer trenchant; Ne li pout rien aveir garant, Willame empoint è cil chaï, Li cors envers, l’alme en issi.”

These are spirited lines; so is the whole description of the battle; yet how feebly does the Romance of Gaul, even in this its earliest and most vigorous shape, sound beside the native ring of the Ludwigslied and the Song of Maldon.

Footnote 791:

Roman de Rou, 9249. “La bataille mult li desplait.”

I suppose this means something more than mere sorrow at ill success; it seems to imply the loss of the “certaminis gaudia,” which he had doubtless enjoyed in the opening charge of the battle. Through the whole of this paragraph I do little more than translate the life-like description of Wace.

Footnote 792:

Roman de Rou, 9254;

“Lessa la lance è puiz l’escu, Fuiant s’en vait, _col estendu_.”

Footnote 793:

Ib. 9288. “En Béessin volent torner.”

Footnote 794:

Roman de Rou, 9295–8. The Orne plays an important part in the destruction of the rebels in most of the accounts. Will. Pict. 81. “Absorbuit non paucos fluvius Olna equites cum equis.” Will. Gem. vii. 17. “Rex cum Duce ... tantâ eos illicò strage delevit, ut quos gladius non extinxit, Deo formidinem inferente, fugientes fluvius Olnæ absorberet.” Will. Malms. iii. 230. “Multi fluminis Olnæ rapacitate intercepti, quod, in arcto locati, equos ad transvadandos vortices instimularent.”

Footnote 795:

Ord. Vit. 657 B. “Guidonem vulneratum et de bello fugâ elapsum.”

Footnote 796:

The only writer, I think, who introduces Guy personally in his account of the war is William of Malmesbury (u. s.); “Cum his per totam Normanniam grassabatur prædo improbissimus, inani spe ad comitatum illectus.”

Footnote 797:

“E prœlio lapsus,” says William of Jumièges; “vix elapsus,” according to William of Malmesbury; while, in William of Poitiers, it rises to “turpissimè elapsus.”

Footnote 798:

“Cum magno equitatu,” says William of Poitiers (81).

Footnote 799:

The description given by William of Poitiers (u. s.) is remarkable; “Brionium ... contendit. Oppidum hoc, quum loci naturâ, tum opere inexpugnabile videbatur. Nam, præter alia firmamenta, quæ moliri consuevit belli necessitudo, aulam habet lapideam arcis usum pugnantibus præbentem, quam fluvius Risela nullo quidem tractu vadi impatiens circumfluit.” This seems to show that the town had fortifications of its own; and this again suggests the question, what was the state of the point overhanging the town where the present castle stands? The “aula lapidea” is a singular expression, seeming, together with the words which follow, to imply something different from the ordinary donjon, though capable of being put to purposes of defence,—a crenellated house, as it might have been called in later days. “Lapidea,” because an “aula” would doubtless be often of wood, while “arces” were of stone.

Footnote 800:

See above, p. 206.

Footnote 801:

Will. Pict. u. s. “Castella utrimque ad ripas fluminis bipartiti opponens.” So Will. Gem. “Stabilitis munitionibus in utrâque parte fluminis vocabulo Risle.”

Footnote 802:

Will. Pict. 81. “Oppugnatione diurnâ territans.”

Footnote 803:

William of Poitiers merely says “postremò.” Orderic (687 B), in describing the speedy capture of Brionne by Duke Robert in 1090, says, “Sic Robertus Dux ab horâ nonâ Brionnam ante solis occasum obtinuit, quam Guillelmus pater ejus, cum auxilio Henrici Francorum Regis, sibi _vix in tribus annis_ subigere potuit, dum Guido filius Rainaldi Burgundionis post prœlium Vallisdunensis illic præsidium sibi statuit.” But there is nothing in any other writer to imply that Guy held out for any such length of time, and it seems quite inconsistent with the account of William of Jumièges. Moreover it is clear that Henry took no part in the siege; “Quem [Guidonem] Dux, Rege Franciam repetente, propere insequutus,” &c. (Will. Gem. vii. 17.)

Footnote 804:

Will. Pict. u. s. “Motus Dux consanguinitate, supplicitate, miseriâ victi, non acerbiùs vindicavit. Recepto castro, in curiâ suâ commanere eum concessit.” So Will. Gem. u. s.; “Dux, suorum consultu, miseriæ misertus, clementer illi pepercit, et, recepto castello Brioci, cum suis domesticis eum manere in domo suâ jussit.”

Footnote 805:

Will. Pict. u. s. “Supplicia item consociis, quæ capitalia ex æquo irrogarentur, condonare maluit ob rationabiles caussas.” This distinct statement cannot be shaken by the vastly inferior authority of Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. p. 759 C), who says, “Quosdam exsulavit, quosdam corpore minuit.”

Footnote 806:

See above, pp. 192–197, and compare the whole career of Eadric.

Footnote 807:

Compare the remarks of Palgrave, iii. 78.

Footnote 808:

William of Poitiers, speaking of a somewhat later stage of his life, has the words (p. 93), “More suo illo optimo, rem optans absque cruore confectum iri;” and he continues at length (94); “Monet equidem digna ratio et hoc memoriæ prodere, quàm piâ continentiâ cædem semper vitaverit, nisi bellicâ vi aut aliâ gravi necessitudine urgente. Exsilio, carcere, _item aliâ animadversione quæ vitam non adimeret_, ulcisci malebat: quos juxta ritum sive legum instituta cæteri principes gladio absumunt, bello captos vel domi criminum capitalium manifestos.” The words in Italics are clearly an euphemism for mutilation, as we shall see by his conduct at Alençon. So the Abingdon Chronicler (1076), speaking of his worst doings, tells us; “Sume hi wurdon geblende, and sume wrecen of lande, and sume getawod to scande. Þus wurdon þæs kyninges swican genyðerade.” Here is no mention of capital punishment, save in the case of Waltheof only.

Footnote 809:

Will. Pict. 82. “Dein ad jussum ejus festinanter ac funditùs destruxere munitiones novarum rerum studio constructas.” Will. Gem. vii. 17. “Conspicientes itaque cuncti optimates qui deviârant à Ducis fidelitate illum omne præsidium fugæ partìm destruxisse, partìm interclusisse, datis obsidibus, rigida colla ei ut domino suo subdidere. Sic castellis ubique eversis, nullus ultra ausus est contra eum rebellem animum detegere.”

Footnote 810:

Will. Pict. u. s. “Nigellum _alio tempore_ [I do not understand this], quoniam improbè offensabat, exsilio punitum fuisse comperio.” Wace (9311) gives the place of his exile;

“Néel ne se pout acorder, Ne el païz n’osa cunverser, En Bretaigne fu lungement, Ainz ke il fist acordement.”

Notwithstanding Wace’s “_lungement_,” he must have been restored in the next year, when we find him consenting to certain grants to the Abbey of Marmoutier which the Duke had made out of his estates in Guernsey (insula quæ appellatur Grenesodium) during his banishment. See the Charters in Delisle, Preuves, 21–25. By some evident slip of dictation or copying, Neel is made in Palgrave, iii. 217, to defend himself at Brionne instead of Guy. He died in 1092. Delisle, p. 24.

Footnote 811:

Will. Pict. u. s. “Guido in Burgundiam sponte rediit propter molestiam probri. Ferre apud Normannos pigebat vilem se cunctis, odiosum esse multis.”

Footnote 812:

Will. Pict. 82. Will. Malms. iii. 230. Mr. Thomas Roscoe, on the other hand (History of William the Conqueror, p. 61), tells us that “at a subsequent period he highly distinguished himself in the service of the duke, and headed a large body of veteran troops at the famous battle of Hastings.”

Footnote 813:

Roman de Rou, 9346;

“Se il le prist, il out raisun, Kar il l’eust par traïsun, Ce dist, à Valuignes murdri, Quant un fol Golet l’en garni.”

Footnote 814:

Ib. 9362;

“A Baieues fu lors otréiée, Quant l’iglise fu dediée, De la terre Grimout partie A Madame Sainte Marie,

## Partie fu ki ke l’en die

Mise à chescun en l’abéie.”

See Pluquet and Taylor’s notes. The “abéie” must mean the cathedral church, but it was a great sacrifice to the rhyme for one of its canons to speak of it as an abbey. The grant of Plessis and other possessions “Grimoldi perfidi” to Odo and his successors in the see of Bayeux will be found in Gallia Christiana, xi. 64.

Footnote 815:

Will. Pict. 82. “Normanni superati semel universi colla subdidere domino suo, atque obsides dedere plurimi.”

Footnote 816:

Ib. 113. “Ejus animadversione et legibus è Normanniâ sunt exterminati latrones, homicidæ, malefici.... Caussam viduæ, inopis, pupilli, ipse humiliter audiebat, misericorditer agebat, rectissimè definiebat. Ejus æquitate reprimente iniquam cupiditatem vicini minùs valentis aut limitem agri movere aut rem ullam usurpare, nec potens audebat quisquam nec familiaris. Villæ, castra, urbes, jura per eum habebant stabilia et bona.”

Footnote 817:

The dependence of Anjou on the Duchy of France is acknowledged in a charter of Geoffrey Grisegonelle quoted in the _Art de Verifier les Dates_, ii. 833. He calls himself “Gratiâ Dei, et Senioris Hugonis largitione, Andegavensis Comes.”

Footnote 818:

On the Saxon occupation of Anjou, see Greg. Tur. ii. 18. Hist. Franc. Epit. 1, 2.

Footnote 819:

On the Saxons of Seez, the _Saxones Diablintes_, see Stapleton, i. xliii.

Footnote 820:

The history of the Counts of Anjou is given at length, but mixed up with much legendary matter in the early parts, in the “Gesta Consulum Andegavensium,” by an author of the time of Henry the Second, printed in D’Achery’s Spicilegium, iii. 234. It is introduced by a most curious fragment, namely a short Angevin history written or dictated by Count Fulk, nephew and successor of Geoffrey Martel. A lay historian is a phænomenon which we have not come across since the time of our own Æthelweard, and it is not to be denied that the Count shows much sounder sense, and a much nearer approach to historical criticism, than the monk of Marmoutier. He had at least one advantage in his princely rank, that he had nothing to gain by flattering his own forefathers.

Footnote 821:

Gest. Cons. 235. “Datus est ei et dimidius comitatus Andegavis civitatis ad defendendam regionem et urbem, sævisque prædonibus oppositus est, et Comes ibi factus.” So in the fuller account in p. 239, which adds, “quia ultrà Meduanam in Andegavo alter Comes habebatur.” The “sævi prædones” are explained to be Northmen and Bretons.

Footnote 822:

The authors of the Art de Verifier les Dates (ii. 828), as also Sir F. Palgrave (i. 502), place the enfeoffment of Ingelgar under Charles the Bald in the year 870. But the story in the Gesta Consulum (238 et seqq.) seems to make the reigning King to be Lewis the Stammerer. Count Fulk himself (233) describes the benefactor of his ancestor as “Rex Franciæ, non à genere _impii Philippi_, sed à prole Caroli Calvi.” Fulk had excellent reasons for the epithet bestowed on Philip. See Will. Malms. iii. 257.

Footnote 823:

Gest. Cons. 237. “Fuit vir quidam de Armoricâ Galliâ, nomine Torquatius, genus cujus olim ab Armoricâ jussu Maximi Imperatoris à Britonibus expulsum est. Iste à Britonibus, proprietatem vetusti ac Romani nominis ignorantibus, corrupto vocabulo Tortulfus dictus fuit.” We may be pretty sure that Tortulf, or something like it, of which his son’s name Tertullus seems another and happier Latinization, was the true name. Charles made Torquatius a forester, “illius forestæ quæ Nidus-meruli nuncupatur.” The writer goes on to talk about Senators and Emperors taken from the plough.

Footnote 824:

Gest. Cons. ib.

Footnote 825:

See vol. i. pp. 277, 278. The author of the Gesta Consulum becomes eloquent on this head (p. 237); “Tempore enim Caroli Calvi complures novi atque ignobiles, bono et honesto nobilibus potiores, clari et magni effecti sunt. Quos enim appetentes gloriæ militaris conspiciebat, periculis objectare et per eos fortunam temperare non dubitabat. Erant enim illis diebus homines veteris prosapiæ multarumque imaginum, qui acta majorum suorum, non sua, ostentabant; qui quum ad aliquod grave officium mittebantur, aliquem è populo monitorem sui officii sumebant, quibus quum Rex aliis imperare jussisset, ipsi sibi alium imperatorem poscebant. Ideo ex illo globo paucos secum Rex Carolus habebat; novis militaria dona et hæreditates pluribus laboribus et periculis acquisitas benignè præbebat. Ex quo genere fuit iste Tertullus, à quo Andegavorum Consulum progenies sumpsit exordium.” See Palgrave, i. 404, 500–502; cf. ii. 11.

Footnote 826:

Gest. Cons. 239. “Alodium enim cognationis eorum erat Ambazium villa.”

Footnote 827:

Count Fulk (p. 233) says, with much good sense, “Quorum quatuor Consulum virtutes et acta, quia nobis in tantum de longinquo sunt, ut etiam loca ubi corpora eorum jacent nobis incognita sunt, dignè memorare non possumus.” Ingelgar, in the legend (p. 239), slays the accuser of a slandered lady—in this case his own godmother and benefactress—much in the style of the ballad of Sir Aldingar or of the story of Queen Gunhild.

Footnote 828:

Gest. Cons. 235 (so 244). “Integrum comitatum, qui priùs bipertitus erat, recepit.” The Breton story (Chron. Briocense, ap. Morice, Memoires pour servir de Preuves à l’Histoire de Bretagne, pp. 29, 30) makes him—“vir maledictus et diabolicus”—marry the widow of the Breton prince Alan, and procure the death of her son Drogo.

Footnote 829:

See the story of Fulk and King Lewis From-beyond-Sea in the Gesta, p. 245. The proverb was a favourite with our Henry the First, and was at least approved by the Great William. See Will. Malms. v. 390.

Footnote 830:

“Grisa gonella” = “grisa tunica.” Gest. Cons. 246, 247.

Footnote 831:

See Appendix P.

Footnote 832:

Count Maurice, who, in the Gesta (249), comes between Geoffrey Grisegonelle and Fulk Nerra, finds no place in the list given by Fulk Rechin, and is rejected by the authors of the Art de Verifier les Dates.

Footnote 833:

See Appendix P.

Footnote 834:

See vol. i. p. 520.

Footnote 835:

According to R. Glaber (iii. 2), he sent assassins, who murdered Hugh, the courtier in question, before the King’s eyes. The murder is done, according to good English precedent, at a hunting-party, which perhaps makes the story a little suspicious. See vol. i. p. 366.

Footnote 836:

Fulk founded a monastery near Loches, in honour of the Cherubim and Seraphim, and applied to Hugh, Archbishop of Tours, to consecrate the church. The Primate refused, unless Fulk restored some alienated possessions of his see. Fulk then went to Rome with well stored moneybags, by the help of which he persuaded Pope John—which of all the Johns contemporary with Fulk we are not told—to send a Cardinal to consecrate it. The Bishops of Gaul were horrified at this invasion of their rights, and divine vengeance showed itself by the church being blown down on the night following its consecration. R. Glaber, ii. 4, copied in the Gesta Consulum, 251. Rudolf takes this opportunity to set forth his theory of the Papal authority, which is well worth studying, and which breathes in its fulness the spirit of the later Gallican liberties. The Bishop of Rome is the first of Bishops, but he may not interfere with the diocesan jurisdiction of any of his brethren.

Footnote 837:

On Fulk’s pilgrimage, see Fulc. Rech. p. 233. Gest. Consul. 252. Will. Malms. iii. 235. The Chronicler of Saint Maxentius makes him die, “ut dicitur,” on pilgrimage in 1032.

Footnote 838:

See at length Will. Malms. u. s.

Footnote 839:

See Art de Verifier les Dates, ii. 838.

Footnote 840:

Fulk, p. 233. “Propter quæ omnia bella, et propter magnanimitatem quam ibi exercebat, merito Martellus nominatus est, quasi suos conterens hostes.” William of Malmesbury (iii. 231) calls him “Gaufredus cognomento Martellus, quod ipse sibi usurpaverat, quia videbatur sibi felicitate quâdam omnes obsistentes contundere.” Another account makes the name derived from the trade of Geoffrey’s foster-father, a blacksmith, something like Donald of the Hammer in Scottish story.

Footnote 841:

On the whole story, see Appendix Q.

Footnote 842:

See the Chronicle in Duchèsne, Rer. Franc. Scriptt. iv. 97.

Footnote 843:

See above, p. 97.

Footnote 844:

See Appendix P.

Footnote 845:

See Appendix N.

Footnote 846:

Fulk (p. 233) describes the cession made by Theobald to Geoffrey, and adds, “Pars autem alia Turonici pagi sibi contigerât possessione paternâ.” We have seen that the Counts of Anjou held Amboise and Loches.

Footnote 847:

This grant is distinctly asserted, not only by Fulk (u. s.), “Ex voluntate Regis Henrici accepit donum Turonicæ civitatis ab ipso Rege,” but also by R. Glaber (v. 2), followed by Gesta Cons. 256, “Contigit ut ... Rex, ablato ab iisdem dominio Turonicæ urbis, daret illud Gozfredo cognomento Tuditi, filio scilicet Fulconis jam dicti Andegavorum comitis.” The Norman writers of course know nothing of all this, and make Geoffrey an unprovoked aggressor.

Footnote 848:

R. Glaber (v. 2) describes Geoffrey’s victory and the captivity of Theobald, and adds, “Nulli dubium est, beato Martino auxiliante, qui illum piè invocaverat, suorum inimicorum victorem exstitisse.”

Footnote 849:

On the captivity of Theobald, see Fulk, p. 233. Gesta Cons. (largely after R. Glaber), 256. Chronn. Andd. a. 1044, ap. Labbe, i. 276, 287. Will. Pict. 86. Will. Gem. vii. 18. Will. Malms. iii. 231. R. Glaber is also followed by Hugo Flav. (Labbe, i. 186. Pertz, viii. 403).

Footnote 850:

Will. Pict. 82. “Vicissitudinem post hæc ipse Regi fide studiosissimâ reddidit, rogatus ab eo auxilium contra quosdam inimicissimos ei atque potentissimos ad officiendum.” This writer is very confused in his chronology of the war, placing the details about Domfront and Alençon at a long distance from this passage which seems to record the beginning of hostilities.

Footnote 851:

Ib. “Cernebant Francigenæ, quod invidia non cerni vellet, exercitum deductum è Normanniâ solâ regio majorem, omnique collegio, quantum adduxerant vel miserant Comites plurimi.”

Footnote 852:

Ib. 83. “Rex ei quam libenter proponebat consultanda, et maxima quæque ad ejus gerebat sententiam, anteponens in perspicientiâ consulti melioris eum omnibus.”

Footnote 853:

Ib. “Unicum id redarguebat, quod nimiùm periculis objectabat se, ac plerumque pugnam quæritabat, decurrens palam cum denis aut paucioribus. Normannos etiam primates obsecrabat, ne committi prœlium vel levissimum ante municipium aliquod paterentur; metuens videlicet occasurum virtutem ostentando, in quo regni sui præsidium firmissimum et ornamentum splendidissimum reponebat.”

Footnote 854:

William of Poitiers’ theory of William’s rashness (83) is not very clear; “Cæterum quæ velut immoderatam fortitudinis ostentationem multoperè dissuadebat Rex atque castigabat, ea nos fervidæ atque animosæ _ætati_ aut _officio_ adscribimus.”

Footnote 855:

See vol. i. p. 200.

Footnote 856:

Gesta Dom. Ambasiens. ap. D’Achery, iii. 273. “Quidam Comes pernimium juvenis Herbertus, cognomento _Evigilans Canem_.” See Palgrave, iii. 240.

Footnote 857:

One might fancy from the words of William of Jumièges (vii. 18), “Cœpit Normanniam rapinis vehementer demoliri, intra Danfrontis castrum seditiosis custodibus immissis,” that Domfront was now Norman. But it is clear from William of Poitiers (86) that it was, as a town of Maine, in Geoffrey’s possession at the beginning of the war; “Willelmus ... adibat cum exercitu terram Andegavensem, ut reddens talionem primo abalienaret Gaufredo Damfrontum, post reciperit Alentium.” So William of Malmesbury (iii. 231), “Damfruntum, quod erat tunc comitis Andegavorum, obsidione coronavit.” So also Roman de Rou, 9382;

“Alençon ert de Normendie E Danfronz del Maine partie.”

Footnote 858:

Will. Pict. 89. “Perhibent homines antiquioris memoriæ, castra hæc ambo Comitis Ricardi concessu esse fundata, unum intra alterum, proximè fines Normanniæ.”

Footnote 859:

See above, p. 186. So William of Malmesbury (iii. 231), “Pronis in perfidiam habitatoribus.”

Footnote 860:

Will. Pict. 87. “Deferre haudquaquam volebant dominum sub quo licenter quæstum latrociniis contraherint: quali caussâ fuerant seducti inhabitantes Alentium.” He then goes on with one of his panegyrics on William’s stern justice.

Footnote 861:

Ib. 86. “Inhabitatores ad se pronos reppererat.”

Footnote 862:

Ib. 87. “Ubi approximabatur Danfronto, cum equitibus divertit quinquaginta, _acceptum quæ stippendium augerent_.” But this curious euphemism for what one would have thought in those days hardly needed apology is explained in the next sentence, “_Prædæ_ autem index castellanis prodidit ipsum quidam ex Normannis majoribus, intimans quò aut cur ierit, et quàm paucis comitatus, atque hunc esse qui mortem fugæ præferret.”

Footnote 863:

Will. Pict. 87. “Captum suis unum manibus retinuit.”

Footnote 864:

Compare, on the chances of treason near William’s person, those remarkable expressions of William of Jumièges (vii. 4) which have been already quoted in p. 200.

Footnote 865:

Will. Pict. 87. “Celerem irruptionem situs oppidi denegabat omni robori sive peritiæ; quum scopulorum asperitas pedites etiam deturbaret, præter qui angustis itineribus duobus atque arduis accederent.” There is here something of the Norman trust in cavalry; there is a feeling as if a place where horsemen were of no use had some unfairness about it.

Footnote 866:

Ib. “Castella circumponit quatuor.”

Footnote 867:

Will. Pict. 87. “Aliquando perdius et pernox equitans, vel in abditis occultus explorat, si qui offendantur aut commeatum advectantes, aut in legatione directi, aut pabulatoribus suis insidiantes.”

Footnote 868:

Ib. “Est regio illa silvis abundans ferarum feracissimis. _Sæpe falconum, sæpissimè accipitrum_ volatu oblectatur.” The distinction between the use of falcons and that of hawks—did William stoop to the sparrow-hawk?—is worth the notice of those who are versed in the minuter technicalities of animal torture.

Footnote 869:

Ib. “Non loci difficultas, aut sævitia hiemis,” &c.

Footnote 870:

See above, pp, 185, 196.

Footnote 871:

See above, p. 198.

Footnote 872:

Will. Pict. 88. “Præsignat qualem in prœlio equum sit habiturus, quale scutum, qualem vestitum.” The device on the shield was therefore still left to the fancy of the wearer. Had the Counts of Anjou already possessed hereditary armorial bearings, the Normans could hardly have needed to be told what kind of shield Geoffrey would carry.

Footnote 873:

Ib. “Illi contra opus non esse respondent instituto eum itinere longiùs fatigari. Nam continuò propter quem vadit adfore. Equum vicissim domini sui præsignant, vestitum, et arma.” Here, it may be remarked, is no special mention of the shield; it comes under the general head of “arma.”

It is almost profanation to compare warfare of this sort with the patriot struggle at Maldon, yet there is in all this something analogous to Brihtnoth’s over-chivalry in allowing the Northmen to cross the river. See vol. i. p. 300. But Brihtnoth may after all have had a reason for his conduct. Cf. Herod. v. 118.

Footnote 874:

The reason given by William of Poitiers (u. s.) for the Duke’s special zeal is one of the most amazing things that I ever came across. “Omnium acerrimus ipse Dux inurget accelerantes. Tyrannum fortasse absumi desiderabat adolescens piissimus; quod ex omnibus præclaris factis pulcerrimum judicavit Senatus Latinus et Atheniensis.” The instances of Tyrannicide collected by Jean Petit (see Hist. Fed. Gov. i. 383) are strange enough, but the idea of William gaining the honours of a Timoleôn by slaying Geoffrey in battle beats them all.

Footnote 875:

Will. Pict. u. s. “Subitaneo tenore consternatus Gaufredus, adversâ acie necdum conspectâ, profugio salutem suam cum agmine toto committit.” Wace (9601) makes him make a little show of preparation for battle, but he presently yields to the wiser advice of a knight who counsels flight. Wace (9527–9628) puts this whole story later, after the taking of Alençon. He adds a third to the two messengers in William of Poitiers, namely William Fitz-Thierry (9539).

Footnote 876:

Will. Pict. 88. “Novit esse prudentium victoriæ temperare, atque non satis potentem esse qui semet in potestate ulsciscendi continere non possit.” William of Jumièges (vii. 18) adds another reason; “Ecce adsunt exploratores, Alencium castrum absque suorum detrimento eum capere posse nuntiantes.” This is his first mention of Alençon.

Footnote 877:

Roman de Rou, 9436 et seqq.

Footnote 878:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Totâ nocte equitans diluculo Alencium venit.”

Footnote 879:

William of Jumièges (u. s.) merely says, “In quodam municipio trans flumen posito.” Wace is much fuller (9440 et seqq.);

“Alençon est sor Sartre asiz, Iloec devize le païz; Normanz sunt devers li chastel, Et ultre l’ewe sunt Mansel.”

He then goes on to describe the bridge and its defences.

Footnote 880:

Will. Gem. vii. 18. “Pelles enim et renones ad injuriam Ducis verberaverant, ipsumque pelliciarium despectivè vocitaverant, eò quod parentes matris ejus pelliciarii exstiterant.” So Wace, 9458;

“Willeame unt asez convicié; Plusurs feiz li unt hucié; _La pel, la pel al parmentier_, Pur ceo ke à Faleize fu nez, U peletiers aveit asez; Li unt cel mestier reprocé, E par cuntraire è par vilté.”

Wace seems to wish to evade the Duke’s actual kindred with the professors of the unsavoury craft.

Footnote 881:

Annales Angliæ et Scotiæ, ap. Riley, Rishanger, p. 373. The words were,

“Kyng Edward, wanne þu havest Berwic, pike þe, Wanne þu havest geten, dike þe.”

Cf. Peter Langtoft, ii. 272. Hearne. Compare William’s indignation at the insults offered to him at Exeter (Will. Malms. iii. 248), though he seems to have been in a much less savage mood there than that at Alençon. Compare also the indignation of James the Second, at the indignities offered to him by the fishermen (Macaulay, i. 569), and that of William the Third at Sir John Fenwick’s impertinence to the Queen (Ib. iv. 34).

Footnote 882:

Roman de Rou, 9466;

“Jura par la resplendor Dé, Co ert suvent sun serement.”

Footnote 883:

This very expressive formula comes from Wace, 9468;

“S’il pot cels prendre, malement Lur sera cel dit achaté: Des membres serunt _esmundé_. Ne porterunt ne pié ne puing, Ne ne verrunt ne preus ne luing.”

Footnote 884:

Roman de Rou, 9477.

Footnote 885:

Will. Gem. vii. 18. “Illusores verò, coram omnibus infra Alencium consistentibus, manibus privari jussit et pedibus. Nec mora, sicut jusserat, triginta duo debilitati sunt.” So Roman de Rou, 9489 et seqq. William of Poitiers is silent altogether both as to the vengeance and as to the insult. Neither subject was perhaps altogether agreeable to a professed panegyrist. But William cuts the whole story of Alençon very short.

Footnote 886:

Roman de Rou, 9493;

“El chastel fist li piés geter Por cels dedenz espoanter.”

Footnote 887:

Will. Gem. vii. 18. “Custodes autem castelli tam severam austeritatem Ducis cognoscentes timuerunt, et ne similia paterentur, ilicò portas aperuerunt, Ducique castellum reddiderunt, malentes illud reddere quàm cum suorum periculo membrorum tam gravia tormenta tolerare.” Wace (9500) makes the terms

“Quitement aler s’en porreient; Salvs lur membres è salvs lur cors.”

So William of Malmesbury (iii. 231); “Alentini se dedidere, pacti membrorum salutem.” But he had not mentioned the mutilation.

Footnote 888:

Will. Pict. 89. “Oppidum enim naturâ, opere, atque armaturâ munitissimum adeò currente proventu in ejus manum venit ut gloriari his verbis liceret, Veni, Vidi, Vici.”

Footnote 889:

Will. Pict. 89. “Percutit citissimè hic rumor Danfrontinos. Diffidentes itaque alius clipeo se liberandos post fugam famosissimi bellatoris Gaufredi Martelli,” &c.

Footnote 890:

Roman de Rou, 9624.

Footnote 891:

Ib. 9625;

“E li Dus fist sun gonfanon Lever è porter el dangon.”

Footnote 892:

Will. Gem. vii. 18. Roman de Rou, 9631.

Footnote 893:

This Moretolium or Moretonium must be carefully distinguished from Mauritania, Moretonia, or Mortagne-en-Perche, in the Diocese of Seez.

Footnote 894:

William of Jumièges (vii. 19) merely calls him “Willelmus cognomento Werlencus, de stirpe Richardi Magni.” Orderic (660 B) calls him “Guillelmum cognomento Werlengum, Moritolii Comitem, filium Malgerii Comitis,” and Malger appears as an uncle of Duke Robert in Will. Gem. vi. 7.

Footnote 895:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Quidam tiro de familiâ suâ nomine Robertus Bigot.” The name Bigod or Bigot, which we have already seen (see above, p. 201) applied as a term of contempt for the Normans, has been connected with Rolf’s “English” (see vol. i. p. 191) oath, “Ne se bigoth.” Chron. Tur. ap. Duchèsne, iii. 360.

Footnote 896:

For the famous dialogue between Edward the First and the Earl Marshal Roger Bigod, see Walter of Hemingburgh, ii. 121 (ed. Hamilton). Could we suppose that either King or Earl _spoke_ English (doubtless both _understood_ it), one might see in the King’s oath (“Per Deum, Comes, aut ibis aut pendebis”) and the Earl’s retort (“Per idem juramentum, O Rex, nec ibo nec pendebo”) an allusion to the punning derivation of the name Bigod just mentioned.

Footnote 897:

See above, p. 205.

Footnote 898:

Will. Gem. vii. 19. “Per Richardum Abrincatensem cognatum suum familiaritatem Ducis consequutus est.”

Footnote 899:

Ib. “Seditiosis tumultibus Normanniam perturbare decrevisti, et contra me rebellans me nequiter exhæredare disposuisti, ideoque rapacitatis tempus egeno militi promisisti. Sed nobiscum, cum dono Creatoris, ut indigemus, maneat pax perennis.”

Footnote 900:

Will. Gem. vii. 19. “Sic tumidos sui patris parentes asperè prostravit, humilesque matris suæ propinquos honorabiliter exaltavit.”

Footnote 901:

The whole story is highly coloured by Sir F. Palgrave, iii. 224. William of Mortain may very likely have been guilty, but the evidence was very weak.

Footnote 902:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Nec negare potuit, neque intentionem dicti declarare præsumpsit.”

Footnote 903:

Ord. Vit. 534 B. “Ipse Guillelmum Guarlengum Moritolii Comitem pro uno verbo exhæredavit et de Neustriâ penitus effugavit.” This comes in the speech at the famous bride-ale of 1076, but the historian afterwards says in his own person (660 B), “Guillelmum cognomento Werlengum ... pro minimis occasionibus de Neustriâ propulsaverat.”

Footnote 904:

The grand old Teutonic name of Machthild had by this time become in Latin Mathildis, and in French mouths and in the mouths of Englishmen pronouncing French names, it became Mahtild, Mahault, Molde, Maud, and so forth. The name is familiar to students of Saxon history, and to the students, if there be any, of our own Æthelweard.

Footnote 905:

Concilia, ed. Labbe and Coss. ix. 1092. Stapleton, Arch. Journal, iii. 20. “Interdixit etiam Balduino Comiti Flandrensi ne filiam suam Wilielmo Nortmanno nuptui daret, et illi ne eam acciperet.” On this Council, see above, p. 112.

Footnote 906:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “Ða sone com Willelm Eorl fram geondan sǽ, mid mycclum werode Frenciscra manna; and se cyning hine underfeng, and swa feola his geferan swa him to onhagode, and let hine eft ongean.” See also Roman de Rou, 10539 et seqq., where however the journey is put much too late.

Footnote 907:

Flor. Wig. 1051. “His gestis Nortmannicus Comes Willelmus cum multitudine Nortmannorum Angliam venit, quem Rex Eadwardus et socios ejus honorificè suscepit, et magnis multisque donatum muneribus ad Nortmanniam remisit.” Roman de Rou, 10548;

“Et Ewart forment l’énora; Mult li dona chiens è oisels El altres aveir boens è bels. E kanke il trover poeit Ki à haut hom cunveneit.”

Footnote 908:

According to modern laws of succession, the _heir_ of Eadward was undoubtedly Walter of Mantes, the son of his sister Godgifu, and elder brother of Ralph of Hereford. The Ætheling Eadward, it must always be remembered, was not, according to our notions, the heir of the King, but the King was the heir of the Ætheling. But, as female descent had never been recognized, one can hardly suppose that the children of Godgifu were looked on as Æthelings, or as at all entitled to any preference in disposing of the Crown. I am therefore justified in saying that Eadward had neither apparent nor presumptive heir. This is a principle to which I shall have to refer again.

Footnote 909:

See the Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles, and Florence of Worcester, under 1066.

Footnote 910:

Namely Wace, quoted above, p. 295. He must have got his account from an English source.

Footnote 911:

When we come to Florence’s account of Harold’s election and coronation, we shall see how carefully every word is weighed, with the obvious intention of excluding some Norman misrepresentation or other. The fables about Harold seizing the crown, about his crowning himself, his being crowned by Stigand, and so forth, are all implicitly denied; so is Eadward’s alleged _last_ bequest to William; but there is not a word to exclude either an earlier promise on the part of Eadward or an oath on the part of Harold, Both these subjects are avoided.

Footnote 912:

See vol. i. pp. 118, 291, 533.

Footnote 913:

I shall deal with these stories in my third volume.

Footnote 914:

See Appendix A.

Footnote 915:

See vol. i. pp. 209, 249.

Footnote 916:

See vol. i. p. 518.

Footnote 917:

I am indebted for the suggestion of Matilda’s descent from Ælfred as a possible element in William’s calculations to Lord Lytton’s romance of Harold. It is highly probable in itself, though I do not remember to have seen it put forward by any ancient writer. Matilda was lineally descended from Ælfthryth, daughter of Ælfred, wife of Count Baldwin the Second, and mother, I am sorry to say, of the wicked Arnulf.

Footnote 918:

I suppose that this would have occurred to every one as the obvious explanation of the difficulty, had not a passage of the false Ingulf been held to settle the question another way; “De successione autem regni spes adhuc aut mentio nulla facta inter eos fuit.” (Gale, i. 65.) Now certainly this strong negative assertion is one of those passages which for a moment suggest the idea that the forger had some materials before him which we have not. But so vague a possibility can hardly be set against the whole probability of the case. It is curious to see Lappenberg (ii. 251 Thorpe, 511 of the German) swaying to and fro between the obvious probability and the supposed authority of Ingulf. Before him, Prevost (Roman de Rou, ii. 100) had ventured, in the teeth of Ingulf, to connect William’s visit with Eadward’s alleged bequest.

Footnote 919:

See the Worcester Chronicle as quoted above, p. 294.

Footnote 920:

Chronn. Ab. Cant. 1051. Wig. Petrib. 1052. I need hardly remind any reader that the Old Minster is Winchester Cathedral. The bones of Cnut and Emma were among those which were so strangely exalted by Bishop Fox in the chests which surround the presbytery. Between him, Henry of Blois, and the Puritans, it is now impossible to distinguish the bones of Cnut from those of William Rufus.

Footnote 921:

There is nothing specially to remark on the authorities for this period, which are substantially the same as those for the seventh Chapter. We have still to look, just in the same way as before, to the Chronicles, the Biographer, and Florence, to William of Malmesbury and the other subsidiary writers. Just as before, when Norman affairs are at all touched on, the Norman writers should be compared with the English. During these years we have little to do with Scandinavian affairs, so that the Sagas are of little moment. Welsh affairs, on the other hand, are of unusual importance, and the two Welsh Chronicles, the Annales Cambriæ and the Brut y Tywysogion, or Chronicle of the Princes, must be carefully compared with our own records.

Footnote 922:

At the same time, it is worth considering whether the whole of the estates set down in Domesday as belonging to Godwine and his sons were always their private property, and whether some parts may not have been official estates attached to their Earldoms. Still, after any possible deductions, their wealth was enormous.

Footnote 923:

Vita Eadw. 404. “Et quoniam suprà diximus eum ab omnibus Anglis pro patre coli, subitò auditus discessus ejus exterruit cor populi. Ejus absentiam sive fugam habuere perniciem suam, interitum gentis Anglicæ, excidium insuper totius patriæ.”

Footnote 924:

Vita Eadw. 404. “Felicem se putabat qui post eum exsulari poterat.”

Footnote 925:

Ib. “Quidam post eum vadunt, quidam legationes mittunt, paratos se, si velit reverti, eum cum violentiâ in patriâ suscipere, pro eo pugnare, pro eo, si necesse sit, velle se pariter occumbere.”

Footnote 926:

Ib. “Et hoc accitabatur non clam vel privatim, sed in manifesto et publicè, et non modo à quibusdam, sed penè ab omnibus indigenis patriæ.”

Footnote 927:

Chron. Petrib. 1052. “Gerædde se cyng and his witan.” Abingdon and Worcester do not mention the Witan.

Footnote 928:

See above, p. 99.

Footnote 929:

Chronn. Ab. Wig. Petrib. The number of the ships, “xl. snacca,” comes from Worcester; the names of the commanders from Peterborough, “and setton Raulf Eorl and Oddan Eorl to heafodmannum þærto.” Florence seems to put these preparations later, after Harold’s landing at Porlock. But surely the choice made both by Gruffydd and by Harold of their points for attack, shows that the Earls of those districts were already absent with the fleet.

Footnote 930:

Chron. Wig. and Flor. Wig. 1052. This incursion seems not to be mentioned in the Welsh Chronicles. Its perpetrator is described only as “Griffin se Wylisca cing;” “Walensium Rex Griffinus;” but the King intended must be the Northern Gruffydd.

Footnote 931:

The Worcester Chronicle says, “þæt he com swyþe neah to Leomynstre.” Florence speaks of the harrying, but does not mention the place.

Footnote 932:

Chron. Wig. “And men gadorodon ongean, ægðer ge landes men ge Frencisce men of ðam castele.” So Florence, “Contra quem provinciales illi et de castello quamplures Nortmanni ascenderunt.” “The castle” is doubtless Richard’s Castle. Florence, who had mistaken the meaning of the Chronicler in the entry of the former year (see above, p. 142), now that he had got among Herefordshire matters, understood the description. Here again the expressions witness to the deep feeling awakened by the building of this castle.

Footnote 933:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “And man þær ofsloh swyþe feola Engliscra godra manna, and eac of þam Frenciscum.” (The French get no honourable epithet.) All this evaporates in Florence’s “multis ex illis occisis.”

Footnote 934:

See above, p. 56, and vol. i. p. 564.

Footnote 935:

I infer this from the way in which Harold’s expedition is spoken of as happening almost immediately (“sona,” “parvo post hoc tempore”) after Gruffydd’s victory, as if the two things had some connexion with each other.

Footnote 936:

Vita Eadw. 405. “Mittit tamen adhuc pacem et misericordiam petere a Rege domino suo [cynehlaford], ut sibi liceat cum ejus gratiâ ad se purgandum legibus venire coram eo.” See above, p. 142, and vol. i. p. 573.

Footnote 937:

Ib. “Hoc quoque pro ejus dilectione et suo officio missis legatis suis, Rex petit Francorum, et ipsum cum quo hiemabat idem persuadebat Marchio Flandrensium.”

Footnote 938:

See above, p. 17. Eadward and Baldwin had a common ancestor, though certainly a very remote one, in the great Ælfred. See above, p. 304.

Footnote 939:

Vita Eadw. 405. “Sed et illi hoc suggerebant satis frustra; obstruxerat enim pias Regis aures pravorum malitia.”

Footnote 940:

Ib. “Mediante proximâ æstate.”

Footnote 941:

See above, p. 100.

Footnote 942:

See above, p. 152.

Footnote 943:

Leofwine is not mentioned in the Chronicles, but his name is given by Florence, and the Biographer (405) speaks of “duo prædicti filii.”

Footnote 944:

The language of the Biographer is here remarkable. He had just before spoken of the people of the East and South of England as “Orientales sive Australes _Angli_.” He now calls the point where Harold landed “Occidentalium _Britonum sive Anglorum_ fines.” So marked a change of expression cannot be accidental; it must point to the still debateable character of large parts of Somerset and Devon, neither purely Welsh nor purely English. Compare the significant use of the word “Britanni” by Thietmar, commented on in vol. i. p. 422.

Footnote 945:

I do not remember any mention in any ancient writer of this submarine forest on the Somersetshire coast; but a forest of the same kind on the other side of the British Channel is spoken of by Giraldus, Exp. Hib. i. 36 (vol. V. p. 284 Dimock). In the year 1171 a violent storm laid it bare.

Footnote 946:

The Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles (1052) have simply “neh Sumer_sǽtan_ gemæran and Dafena_scíre_” (see the same forms in the entries for the last year, and Appendix G); so Florence, “in confinio Sumersetaniæ et _Dorsetaniæ_” this last word being a mistake for _Domnaniæ_, as appears from the next sentence. The Peterborough Chronicle gives the name of the spot, “and com þa úp æt Portlocan.”

Footnote 947:

See Appendix R.

Footnote 948:

The Worcester and Abingdon Chronicles (1052) give the numbers; “And þær ofsloh má þonne xxx. godera þegena (“nobilibus ministris,” Flor.) butan oðrum folce.”

Footnote 949:

Chronn. Ab. and Wig. “Ægðer ge of Sumersǽton ge of Defenescíre.”

Footnote 950:

Chron. Petrib. “And nam him on orfe _and on mannum_ and on æhtum, swa him gewearð.” Were these captives dealt with as conscripts or galley-slaves, or, considering whence the fleet came, were they intended for the Irish slave-trade?

Footnote 951:

Chronn. Ab. and Wig. “And sona æfter þan for abutan Penwiðsteort.” Chron. Petrib. “And gewende him þa eastweard to his feder.”

Footnote 952:

Vita Eadw. 405. See Appendix R.

Footnote 953:

On the narratives of Godwine’s return, see Appendix S.

Footnote 954:

Chron. Petrib. 1052. “Ða gewende Godwine eorl út fram Brycge mid his scipum to Yseran;” so the Biographer (405), “paratâ multiplici classe in fluvio Hysarâ.” It is clearly not Gesoriacum or Boulogne, as Mr. Earle makes it in his Glossary.

Footnote 955:

Chron. Petrib. “And let út ane dæge ær midsumeres mæsse æfene [“mediante æstate,” Vit. Eadw.] þæt he com to Næsse, þe is be suðan Rumenea.”

Footnote 956:

William of Malmesbury (ii. 199) makes Eadward himself present; “Nec segnem sensit Regem illa necessitas quin ipse in navi pernoctaret, et latronum exitus specularetur, sedulo explens consilio quod manu nequibat _præ senio_.” Eadward was now fifty at the most, and his presence is hardly possible, according to the authentic narratives. Eadward’s presence with the fleet is distinctly marked in 1049 (see above, p. 99), but not now.

Footnote 957:

Chron. Petrib. “And wearð þæt wæder swiðe strang þæt þa eorlas ne mihton gewitan hwet Godwine eorl gefaren hæfde.” The ignorance could hardly fail to be mutual. So William of Malmesbury (u. s.); “Quum cominùs ventum esset, et jam penè manus consererentur, nebula densissima repente coorta furentum obtutus confudit, miseramque mortalium audaciam compescuit.” William had just got one of his fits of fine writing upon him.

Footnote 958:

Chron. Ab. “He [Godwine] heom ætbærst, and him sylfan gebearh þær þær he þa mihte.” So Florence; “Quo in loco potuit se occultavit.” But Peterborough says expressly, “And gewende þa Godwine eorl út agean þæt he com eft to Brycge;” and so William of Malmesbury; “Denique Godwinus ejusque comites eo unde venerant vento cogente reducti.” Mark the cadence of an hexameter.

Footnote 959:

Chron. Petrib. “And sceolde man setton oðre eorlas and oðre hasæton to þam scipum.” Mr. Thorpe translates “hasæton” by “chief officers,” Mr. Earle by “rowers.” I commonly bow to Mr. Earle’s authority on such matters; but the other version seems to make better sense.

Footnote 960:

See vol. i. p. 426 note.

Footnote 961:

See Appendix R.

Footnote 962:

Vita Eadw. 405.

Footnote 963:

On Hastings, as distinct from Sussex, see vol. i. p. 382.

Footnote 964:

“Eallne þæne east ende,” says the Abingdon Chronicle (cf. the words “ofer ealne þisne norð ende” in the Worcester Chronicle, 1052 or 1051), which Florence translates by “East-Saxones.”

Footnote 965:

Chron. Ab. “Þa cwædon ealle þæt hi mid him woldon licgan and lybban.” I transfer these emphatic words hither from the earlier place which they have in the Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles, and in Florence. See Appendix S.

Footnote 966:

That hostages should have been taken from such a friendly population is a speaking comment on the inveterate custom of taking hostages on all occasions.

Footnote 967:

Chron. Petrib., where see Mr. Earle’s note (p. 346), and Appendix R.

Footnote 968:

See vol. i. pp. 46, 427.

Footnote 969:

Vita Eadw. 405. “Pelagus operiebatur carinis, cœlum densissimis resplendebat armis.” If this was so when they were in the open sea, it must _à fortiori_ have been so when they were in the river.

Footnote 970:

See above, p. 150.

Footnote 971:

Chronn. Ab. and Wig. “He gefadode wiþ ða burhwaru.”

Footnote 972:

“Þæt hi woldon _mæst ealle_ þæt þæt he wolde,” say the Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles. This answer to a message sounds to me like the vote of an assembly of some kind, in which we may also discern the opposition of a small minority. The Biographer (406) also witnesses to the good disposition of the Londoners; “Sed omnis civitas Duci obviam et auxilio processit et præsidio, acclamantque illi omnes unâ voce prosperè in adventu suo.”

Footnote 973:

“Þa sende he up æfter maran fultume,” says the Abingdon Chronicle, which Florence rather pathetically expands into “Nuntiis properè missis, omnibus qui à se non defecerant mandavit ut in adjutorium sui venire maturarent.”

Footnote 974:

The Peterborough Chronicle, which, just at this point, is less full than Abingdon and Worcester, gives the number; “Ða hi to Lundene comon; þa læg se cyng and þa eorlas ealle þær ongean mid L. scipum.”

Footnote 975:

The King’s ships were on the north bank of the river, “wið þæs norðlandes” (Chron. Ab.); his land force (“se cyng hæfde eac _mycele landfyrde_ on his healfe, to eacan his scypmannum”) was doubtless drawn up on the same side, as the Southwark side was clearly in the hands of Godwine. From the words in Italics, compared with the expressions quoted just before, it would seem that some at least of the northern levies came, perhaps under the command of their own Earls.

Footnote 976:

The Abingdon Chronicle describes the day; “Ðæt wæs on þone Monandæg æfter Sc̃a Marian mæsse.” Florence and Roger of Wendover (i. 491) mark it as “dies exaltationis Sanctæ Crucis.”

Footnote 977:

Chron. Ab. “And seo landfyrd com ufenon, and trymedon hig be þam strande.” Flor. Wig. “Venit et pedestris exercitus, ac se per oram fluvii ordinatim disponens, spissam terribilemque fecit testudinem.” “Pedestris exercitus” is only accidentally an accurate rendering of “landfyrd.” Doubtless they were on foot, but the force of the word is that the popular levies, the militia of the shires round London, came unbidden to support Godwine. The King had only his housecarls and any troops that may have come from the north.

Footnote 978:

Chron. Ab. “And hi hwemdon þa mid þam scypon wið þæs norðlandes, swylce hig woldon þæs cynges scipa abutan betrymman.” Vita Eadw. 406. “Et quoniam facultas undique superiores vires administrabat, hortabantur quàm plures, ut etiam in ipsum Regem irruerent.” This feeling was still stronger a little later in the day. We must remember that, in this story, we are dealing, not with days but with hours.

Footnote 979:

Chron. Ab. “Ac hit wæs heom mæst eallon lað þæt hig sceoldon fohtan _wið heora agenes cynnes mannum_.... Eac hig noldon þæt utlendiscum þeodum wære þes eard þurh þæt þe swiðor gerymed þe hí heom sylfe ælc oðerne forfore.” The words doubtless simply mean men of their own nation. Roger of Wendover (i. 491) must have had this Chronicle before him, and must have taken the words to mean _kinsmen_ in the later and narrower sense; “Angli, quorum filii, nepotes, et consanguinei cum Godwino erant, noluerunt contra eos dimicare.” Florence has the intermediate expression “propinquos ac compatriotas.”

Footnote 980:

Chron. Petrib. “Þa sendon þa eorlas to þam cynge, and gerndon to him þæt hi moston beon wurðe ælc þæra þinga þe heom mid unrihte ofgenumen wæs.”

Footnote 981:

Ib. “Ða wiðlæg se cyng sume hwile, þeah swa lange, oð þet folc þe mid þam eorle wes wearð swiðe astyred ongean þone cyng and ongean his folc.”

Footnote 982:

See vol. i. p. 466. The Worcester and Abingdon Chronicles, a little way before, have a singular remark that the only good troops on both sides were English; “Forðan þar wæs lyt elles þe aht mycel myhton buton Englisce men on ægþer healfe.” This sounds like a slur on the military prowess alike of the King’s Frenchmen, of Harold’s Irish Danes, and of any Flemings who may have come with Godwine.

Footnote 983:

Chron. Petrib. “Swa þæt se eorl sylf earfoðlice gestylde þæt folc.” So the Biographer, in his more rhetorical way; “Verùm fidelis et Deo devotus Dux _verbis et nutu_ admodum abhorruit.” William of Malmesbury, a little later, pays a fine tribute to Godwine’s eloquence, which is rather a favourite subject of his; “Senex ille et linguâ potens [some read “et famâ clarus et linguâ potens”] ad flectendos animos audientium.”

Footnote 984:

Vita Eadw. 406. “Dum,” inquit, “fidelitatis suæ in corde meo habeam hodie testem, me scilicet malle mortem, quàm aliquid indecens et iniquum egerim, vel agam, vel me vivo agi permittam in dominum meum Regem [cynehlaforde].” William of Malmesbury is certainly justified in saying of Godwine personally, if not of all Godwine’s followers, “pacifico animo repatriantes.”

Footnote 985:

See Appendix S.

Footnote 986:

Chron. Ab. “And Godwine for upp, and Harold his sunu, and heora lið swa mycel swa heom þa geþuhte.”

Footnote 987:

Harold certainly, perhaps Godwine also. See above, p. 154.

Footnote 988:

Chron. Petrib. “Sume west to Pentecostes castele, some norð to Rodbertes castele.” Pentecost, as we gather from Florence, who speaks of “Osbernus cognomento Pentecost”—what can be the meaning of so strange a surname?—is the same as Osbern, the son of Richard of Richard’s Castle, of whom we have already heard so much. Robert’s castle must be some castle belonging to Robert the son of Wymarc, as distinctly the most notable man of his name in the country after Robert the Archbishop. Most of his lands lay in the East of England; but he had also property in the shires of Hertford, Huntingdon, and Cambridge, though I do not find any mention of a castle on any of his estates there.

Footnote 989:

The Abingdon Chronicle, followed by Florence, makes William accompany Robert and Ulf on their desperate ride; “Rodbeard bisceop and Willem bisceop and Ulf bisceop uneaðe ætburstan mid þam Frenciscum mannum þe heom mid wæron, and swa ofer sæ becomon.” But the Peterborough writer speaks only of Robert and Ulf, and William’s restoration to his see, a matter of which there is no kind of doubt, could hardly have followed if he had any share in the murderous adventure of his brethren.

Footnote 990:

Chron. Petrib. “And Rodbert arcebisceop and Ulf bisceop gewendon út æt æst geate, and heora geferan, and ofslogon and elles amyrdon _manige iunge men_.” One might almost fancy London apprentices, as in after times, zealous for the popular cause.

Footnote 991:

Walton-on-the-Naze in Essex; see above, p. 110.

Footnote 992:

Chron. Petrib. “And wearð him þær on anon unwræste scipe, and ferde him on án ofer sæ.” See Mr. Earle’s note on “unwræste,” p. 346.

Footnote 993:

Chron. Petrib. “And forlet his pallium and Christendom ealne her on lande, swa swa hit God wolde; þæ he ǽr begeat þone wurðscipe swa swa hit God nolde.” English has not gained by dropping the negative verb, which survives only in the saying “will he, nill he.”

Footnote 994:

Chron. Petrib. “Ða cwæð mann _mycel gemót_ wiðutan Lundene;” “Statutum est magnum placitum” is the translation in the Waverley Annals, p. 186 Luard. Flor. Wig. “Mane autem facto, concilium Rex habuit.” Chron. Ab. “And wæs þa Witenagemót.” But it is the Peterborough writer only who dwells with evident delight on the popular character of the Assembly.

Footnote 995:

Compare the position of the Dutch Guards and other foreign troops who accompanied William of Orange.

Footnote 996:

“Wiðutan Lundene,” says the Peterborough Chronicler. See Appendix S.

Footnote 997:

Chron. Petrib. “Þær þær Godwine Eorl úp his mal, and betealde hine þær wið Eadward cyng his hlaford _and wið ealle landleodan_.”

Footnote 998:

We shall presently see that Godwine and Eadward were both armed; it is not at all likely that they were singular in being so. We have already heard enough of votes passed by the army and the like to make an armed Gemót nothing wonderful.

Footnote 999:

I saw the armed Landesgemeinde of Appenzell-ausser-rhoden in 1864. The Law requires each landman to bring his sword; it also forbids the sword to be drawn. In Uri the custom of bearing arms has been given up. Cf. Thuc. i. 5, 6.

Footnote 1000:

Vita Eadw. 406. “Destitutus inprimis fugâ Archipræsulis et suorum multorum _verentium adspectum Ducis_.”

Footnote 1001:

Chron. Petrib. “And ealle þa eorlas and þa betstan menn þe wæron on þison lande wæron on þam gemote.” Does this merely mean the Earls who had been already spoken of, Godwine and Harold on the one side, Ralph and Odda on the other? Or does it imply the presence of Leofric, Ælfgar, and Siward? Their presence is perfectly possible; but, if they had had any share either in this Gemót or in the earlier military proceedings, it is odd that they are not spoken of.

Footnote 1002:

Il. Σ. 198;

ἀλλ’ αὕτως ἐπὶ τάφρον ἰὼν, Τρώεσσι φάνηθι, αἴ κε σ’ ὑποδδείσαντες ἀπόσχωνται πολέμοιο.

“Verentes adspectum Ducis,” says the Biographer just above.

Footnote 1003:

Vita Eadw. 406. “Viso Rege protinùs abjectis armis ejus advolvitur pedibus.” I conceive the weapon borne to have been the axe, as a sort of official weapon. It appears in the Bayeux Tapestry in the hands of the attendants upon Eadward; so also in the scene where the Crown is offered to Harold, both Harold himself and one of those who make the offer to him bear axes.

Footnote 1004:

Ib. “Orans suppliciter ut in Christi nomine, cujus signiferam regni coronam gestabat in capite, annueret ut sibi liceret purgare se de objecto crimine, et purgato pacem concederet gratiæ suæ.” This surviving fragment of Godwine’s eloquence shows how well he could adapt himself to every class of hearers. But what was the Crown like? The allusion seems to point to something like the Imperial Crown with a cross on the top, but the crowns in the Tapestry are quite different.

Footnote 1005:

Chron. Petrib. “Þet he wæs unscyldig þæs þe him geled wæs, and on Harold his sunu and ealle his bearn.” This is the “purgatio” of the Biographer. So Will. Malms. ii. 199. “Probè se de omnibus quæ objectabantur expurgavit.” Compurgators seem not to have been called for.

Footnote 1006:

Will. Malms. u. s. “Tantum brevi valuit ut sibi liberisque suis honores integros restitueret.”

Footnote 1007:

“Ealle landleodan.” We have lost this, and so many other expressive words. “Landleute” is the old official name of the people of the democratic cantons of Switzerland; but _Land_ is there used in its ordinary opposition to _Stadt_.

Footnote 1008:

I refer to the oath of the people of Appenzell-ausser-rhoden in their Landesgemeinde. The newly elected Landammann first himself swears to obey the laws; he then administers the oath to the vast multitude before him. The effect of their answer is something overwhelming in its grandeur.

Footnote 1009:

Chron. Petrib. “And _cweð mann_ útlaga Rotberd arcebisceop fullice, and ealle þa Frencisce menn, forðan þe hi macodon mæst þet unseht betweonan Godwine Eorle and þam Cynge.” So William of Malmesbury; “Prolatâ sententiâ in Robertum archiepiscopum ejusque complices quòd statum regni conturbarent, animum regium in provinciales agitantes.”

Footnote 1010:

Chron. Ab. “And geutlageden þa ealle Frencisce men, þe ǽr unlage rærdon, and undom demdon, and únræd ræddon into ðissum earde.” Modern English utterly fails to express the power of the negative words, which modern High German only partially preserves. So Florence; “Omnes Nortmannos qui leges iniquas adinvenerant [a poor substitute for “unlage rærdon”] et injusta judicia judicaverant, multaque Regi _in_silia [an attempt at transferring the Teutonic negative to the Latin] adversus Anglos [a touch from Peterborough] dederant, exlegaverunt.”

Footnote 1011:

Chron. Ab. and Fl. Wig. I shall have to speak of this exception again.

Footnote 1012:

Ib. “And eallum folce góde lage beheton.”

Footnote 1013:

See Appendix S.

Footnote 1014:

Chron. Petrib. 1052. “And se Cyng geaf þære Hlæfdian eall þæt heo ær ahte.” Chron. Ab. “And Godwine Eorl and Harold and seo Cwen [This title is unusual, but not unique] sæton on heora áre.” She had just before come in incidentally in the list of Godwine’s family; “his sunum ... and his wife and his dehter.” Flor. Wig. “Filiam quoque Ducis, Eadgitham Reginam, digniter Rex recepit et pristinæ dignitati restituit.” The Biographer (406) of course waxes eloquent; “Modico exinde interfluente tempore mittitur æquè regio, ut par erat, apparatu ad monasterium Wiltunense [on this confusion see p. 156] et [I omit metaphors about the sun, &c.] reducitur Regina, ejusdem Ducis filia, ad _thalamum_ Regis.” This last expression should be noticed, and compared with the account in R. Wendover.

Footnote 1015:

On the pilgrimage of Swegen, see Appendix T.

Footnote 1016:

“On þone Tiwesdæg hí gewurdon sehte, swa hit her beforan stent,” says the Abingdon Chronicle.

Footnote 1017:

See the passage of William of Malmesbury quoted above, p. 161.

Footnote 1018:

See above, p. 160.

Footnote 1019:

See Appendix G.

Footnote 1020:

See above, p. 66.

Footnote 1021:

The Peterborough Chronicle seems to record his appointment in the same breath with the other acts of September 15th. Immediately after the outlawry of Richard and the French follow the words, “And Stigand Bisceop feng to þam arcebisceoprice on Cantwarabyrig.” The Chronicler then turns to other matters.

Footnote 1022:

Will. Malms. Gest. Reg. ii. 199. “Romam profectus et de caussâ suâ sedem apostolicam appellans.” In Gest. Pont. 116, he adds that he returned “cum epistolis innocentiæ et restitutionis suæ allegatricibus.”

Footnote 1023:

Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 761 D. Of William’s three causes for his invasion two are, “Primò, quia Alfredum cognatum suum Godwinus _et filii sui_ dehonestaverant et peremerant; secundò, quia Robertum episcopum et Odonem consulem [see Appendix G.] et omnes Francos Godwinus et filii sui arte suâ ab Angliâ exsulaverant.” The third count is of course the perjury of Harold. So, in nearly the same words, Bromton, X Scriptt. 958.

Footnote 1024:

On the ecclesiastical position of Stigand see Appendix U.

Footnote 1025:

We shall find many examples as we go on, and the general fact is asserted in the Profession of Saint Wulfstan to Lanfranc. See Appendix U.

Footnote 1026:

Chron. Ab. 1053. See Appendix U.

Footnote 1027:

Unless indeed some such feeling lurks in the words of the Abingdon Chronicler, 1053; “Se Wulfwi feng to ðam biscoprice þe Ulf hæfde be him libbendum and of adræfdum.”

Footnote 1028:

Chron. Ab. 1053. See Appendix U.

Footnote 1029:

See above, p. 331.

Footnote 1030:

Thierry (i. 202) makes Godwine resist the retention of any Normans, especially of Bishop William and of the Lotharingian Hermann, Bishop of Ramsbury! For his authority he quotes “Godwinus Comes obstiterat (Ranulphus Higden, p. 281).” To say nothing of going to R. Higden on such a point, any one who makes the reference will find that the words have nothing to do with the matter. They refer to a supposed opposition on the part of Godwine to the union of the sees of Ramsbury and Sherborne, of which more anon.

Footnote 1031:

Flor. Wig. in anno. “Willelmus, propter suam bonitatem, parvo post tempore revocatus, in suum episcopatum recipitur.”

Footnote 1032:

See above, p. 122.

Footnote 1033:

Flor. Wig.

Footnote 1034:

Flor. Wig. 1052. “Osbernus verò, cognomento Pentecost, et socius ejus Hugo sua reddiderunt castella, et Comitis Leofrici licentiâ, per suum comitatum Scottiam adeuntes a Rege Scottorum Macbeothâ suscepti sunt.”

Footnote 1035:

In the writ of 1060 (Cod. Dipl. iv. 194), announcing the nomination of Walter to the see of Hereford, the King greets “Haroldum Comitem et Osebarnum et omnes meos ministros in Herefordensi comitatu amicabiliter.” See Ellis, i. 460. He was apparently Sheriff; he is not indeed directly called so, but the position in the writ in which his name occurs is one which generally belongs to the Sheriff. The appearance of a French Sheriff in this particular shire may be accounted for by the presence of a French Earl. It is more remarkable if Robert the son of Wymarc was Sheriff of Essex, as might be inferred from the similar position of his name in a writ in Cod. Dipl. iv. 214.

Footnote 1036:

Flor. Wig. 1052. “Robertum diaconem et generum ejus Ricardum filium Scrob.”

Footnote 1037:

Several Ælfreds occur in Domesday, as the great landowners, Ælfred of Marlborough and Ælfred of Spain, but it is not easy to identify their possessions with any holder of the name in Eadward’s time. The names Ælfred and Eadward, and the female name Eadgyth, seem to have been the only English names adopted by the Normans. The two former would naturally be given to godsons or dependants of the two Æthelings while in Normandy, and Eadgyth would gain currency as the name of the wife of the sainted King.

Footnote 1038:

The possessions of Ralph the Staller were very large. He signs an English document of Abbot Ælfwig of Bath in Cod. Dipl. iv. 172, as “Roulf steallere.”

Footnote 1039:

He signs as “Huhgelin minister.” Cod. Dipl. iv. 173. Cf. Domesday, Hunt. 208, where his title is “Camerarius.” Æth. Riev. X Scriptt. 376.

Footnote 1040:

Vita Eadw. 406. “Unde post tam grande malum absque sanguine sedatum Ducis sapientiâ, sollennis celebratur lætitia tam à palatinis quam ab omni patriâ.”

Footnote 1041:

On this point the Biographer becomes enthusiastic, and bursts forth, after his manner, into no less than forty hexameters. Godwine suffering under false accusations had been likened to Joseph and Susanna; now that he spares and honours a King whom he has in his power, he is likened to David doing the like towards Saul. Altogether the comparison is not a very lucky one for either Godwine or Eadward.

Footnote 1042:

Chron. Ab. 1052. “Godwine þa gesiclode hraðe þæs þe he upcom.”

Footnote 1043:

Chron. Wig. 1053. “And man rædde þæt man sloh Rís þæs Wyliscean cynges broþer, forðy he hearmas dyde.” Florence more fully; “Griffini Regis Australium Wallensium frater, Res nomine, propter frequentes prædas quas egit in loco qui Bulendun dicitur, jussu Regis Eadwardi, occiditur.” There are Bullingdons both in Oxfordshire and in Hampshire, but Welsh ravages could hardly reach to either of them.

Footnote 1044:

Chron. Wig. “And man brohte his heafod to Glewcestre [“Glawornam ad Regem” Fl. Wig.] on Twelftan ǽfen.” William of Malmesbury (ii. 196) makes Harold the agent, which is quite possible, but he mixes the matter up in a strange way with the fate of Gruffydd of North Wales, ten years later. “Haroldum West-Saxonum [Comitem], filium Godwini, qui duos fratres Reges Walensium Ris et Grifinum sollertiâ suâ in mortem egerit.” William, perhaps pardonably, confounds the two Gruffydds.

Footnote 1045:

Chron. Petrib. 1052. “And on þis ilcan tyme forlet Arnwi abbot of Burh abbotrice be his halre life, and geaf hit Leofric munec be þes cynges leafe and be þære munece.” The local writer, Hugo Candidus, seems (Sparke, 41) to place Leofric’s appointment in 1057. So John of Peterborough, a. 1057, who calls him “egregius pater Leofricus.” Hugo is loud in his praises; among his other merits he was so high in the favour of the King and the Lady that he held five abbeys at once, Burton, Coventry, Crowland, and Thorney, besides Peterborough.

Footnote 1046:

See above, p. 67.

Footnote 1047:

Hugo Candidus, ap. Sparke, 42.

Footnote 1048:

Chron. Petrib. 1052. “And se abbot Leofric gildede þa þæt mynstre swa þæt man hit cleopede þa gildene Burh; þa wæx hit swiðe on land and on gold and on seolfer.” Cf. 1066.

Footnote 1049:

Chron. Petrib. 1066.

Footnote 1050:

See Appendix W.

Footnote 1051:

See Chron. Ab. 1052, and Appendix E. and W.

Footnote 1052:

Liber de Hydâ, 289. “Porro uxor ejus [she is “Geta, genus, ut aiunt, ex _insulâ Norwegiâ_ ducens”], magnæ sanctitatis multæque religionis tramitem incedens, omni die duas ad minus missas _studiosè_ [see above, p. 28] audiebat, omnique fere sabbato per duo aut amplius miliaria nudis pedibus vicina ambiebat monasteria, largis muneribus cumulans altaria, largisque donis pauperes recreans.” Of her gifts for her husband’s soul we read in the Winchester Annals, p. 26; “Githa, uxor Godwini, fœmina multas habens facultates, pro animâ ejus multis ecclesiis in eleemosynâ multa contulit, et Wintoniæ ecclesiæ dedit duo maneria, scilicet, Bleodonam et Crawecumbam et ornamenta diversi generis.” Of these lordships, Bleadon and Crowcombe in Somersetshire, Bleadon still remained to the Church at the time of the survey (Domesday, 87 _b_), but Crowcombe had been alienated to Count Robert of Mortain (91 _b_). Another gift for her husband’s soul made by Gytha to the church of Saint Olaf at Exeter is found in Cod. Dipl. iv. 264. This charter, signed by her sons Tostig and Gyrth as Earls, must be of a later date (1057–1065), and shows that her pious anxiety still continued. Of Gytha’s religious scruples a specimen will be found in Appendix E. She is said (Tanner, Notitia Monastica, Devon, xxv. New Monasticon, vi. 435) to have founded a College at Hartland in Devon. A secular establishment founded by Harold’s mother should be noted.

Footnote 1053:

Chron. Ab. 1053. “And he lið þær binnan ealdan mynstre.” Vita Eadw. 408. “Tumulatur ergo condigno honore in monasterio quod nuncupant veteri Wintoniæ, additis in eâdem ecclesiâ multis ornamentorum muneribus et terrarum reditibus pro redemptione ipsius animæ.”

Footnote 1054:

Vita Eadw. 408. “Exsequiis suis in luctum decidit populus, hunc patrem, hunc nutricium suum regnique, memorabant suspiriis et assiduis fletibus.”

Footnote 1055:

Vita Eadw. 408. “Dux felicis memoriæ.”

Footnote 1056:

See vol. i. p. 470.

Footnote 1057:

See vol. i. p. 432: cf. 456.

Footnote 1058:

Chron. Petrib. 1053. “And feng Harold Eorl his sunu to ðam eorldome and to eallum þam þe his fæder ahte.” So the others in other words.

Footnote 1059:

See above, pp. 37, 43.

Footnote 1060:

See above, p. 101.

Footnote 1061:

Vita Eadw. 408. “Subrogatur autem regio favore in ejus [Godwini] ducatu filius ejus major natu et sapientiâ Haroldus, unde in consolationem respirat universus Anglorum exercitus.” Then follows the panegyric quoted in Appendix D.

Footnote 1062:

See Appendix G.

Footnote 1063:

Chronn. Ab. Wig. Petrib. Cant. in anno.

Footnote 1064:

We have one panegyric on Ælfgar in Orderic (511 A), but it is a panegyric by misadventure. Orderic clearly confounded Ælfgar with his father. William of Malmesbury however (see above, p. 161) speaks well of his government of East-Anglia during Harold’s banishment.

Footnote 1065:

See above, p. 347.

Footnote 1066:

That the number of Frenchmen who remained in England was considerable is shown, as Lappenberg says (p. 514. ii. 255 Thorpe), by a passage in the so-called Laws of William (Thorpe, i. 491. Schmid, 354), by which it appears that many of them had become naturalized English subjects; “Omnis Francigena, qui tempore Eadwardi propinqui nostri fuit in Angliâ particeps consuetudinum Anglorum, quod ipsi dicunt _an hlote et an scote_, persolvat secundum legem Anglorum.”

Footnote 1067:

See above, p. 346.

Footnote 1068:

I quote, as one example of many, the signatures to the foundation charter of Harold’s own church at Waltham (Cod. Dipl. iv. 158). The seemingly Norman names, besides Bishop William, are “Rodbertus Regis consanguineus, Radulphus Regis aulicus [the two Stallers], Bundinus Regis palatinus (?), Hesbernus Regis consanguineus, Regenbaldus Regis cancellarius, Petrus Regis capellanus, Baldewinus Regis capellanus.” But the deed is also signed by many English _courtiers_, as well as Earls, Prelates, and Thegns.

Footnote 1069:

I do not ground this belief on the well-known saying of the false Ingulf (Gale, i. 62), how in Eadward’s days “Gallicum idioma omnes magnates in suis curiis tamquam magnum gentilitium [linguam gentilitiam?] loqui [cœperunt].” Harold’s foreign travels, and his sojourn at the Norman court, seem to imply a knowledge of French, and I can well believe that at home King Eadward looked more favourably on a counsellor who could frame his lips to the beloved speech.

Footnote 1070:

This seems implied in the famous poetical panegyric on Eadward and Harold in the Chronicles for 1065.

Footnote 1071:

Chron. Wig. 1053. “And þæs ylcan geres, foran to alra halgena mæssan, forðferde Wulsyg bisceop æt Licetfelda, and Godwine abbod on Wincelcumbe, and Ægelward abbod on Glestingabyrig, ealle binnan anum monþe.”

Footnote 1072:

Chron. Ab. and Flor. Wig.

Footnote 1073:

Leofric, it will be remembered, was the son of an Ealdorman Leofwine. See vol. i. p. 456.

Footnote 1074:

See above, p. 344.

Footnote 1075:

On Abbot Æthelnoth see William of Malmesbury, Glastonbury History, ap. Gale, ii. 324. Æthelweard spoiled the lands, Æthelnoth the ornaments, of the house. “Ex illo res Glastoniæ retro relabi et in pejus fluere.” He has much to tell about the miracles wrought by King Eadgar about this time—Eadgar, it must be remembered, passed at Glastonbury, in defiance of all legends, for a saint—specially in healing a mad German, “furiosus Teutonicus genus.” Was he one of the suite of the Ætheling?

Footnote 1076:

I infer that Ealdred’s holding of Winchcombe was something more than a mere temporary holding till a successor could be found. The Worcester Chronicle (1053) speaks of it in the same form of words as the appointments of Leofwine and Æthelnoth; “And Leofwine feng to þam bisceoprice æt Licedfelde, and Aldret bisceop feng to þam abbodrice on Wincelcumbe,” &c. Florence however says, after mentioning the appointments of Leofwine and Æthelnoth, “Aldredus vero Wigorniensis episcopus abbatiam Wincelcumbensem tamdiu in manu suâ tenuit, donec Godricum, Regis capellani Godmanni filium abbatem constitueret.”

Footnote 1077:

Fl. Wig. 1054.

Footnote 1078:

Chron. Ab. 1053. “Eac Wylsce menn geslogan mycelne dæl Englisces folces ðæra weardmanna wið Wæstbyrig.”

Footnote 1079:

See above, p. 53.

Footnote 1080:

See vol. i. p. 588.

Footnote 1081:

See vol. i. p. 499.

Footnote 1082:

See above, p. 55.

Footnote 1083:

See above, p. 54.

Footnote 1084:

“Jussu Regis,” says Florence, 1054.

Footnote 1085:

On the war with Macbeth, see Appendix X.

Footnote 1086:

See Munch, Chron. Regum Manniæ, 46 et seqq. Burton, History of Scotland, i. 374.

Footnote 1087:

Annals of Ulster, 1054. See Appendix X.

Footnote 1088:

Chron. Wig. 1054. “And lædde þonan micele herehuþe, swilce nan man ær ne begeat.”

Footnote 1089:

See vol. i. p. 586.

Footnote 1090:

Now that the Housecarls are an established institution, wars are carried on with much greater speed than they were in Æthelred’s time. If the expedition was voted at the end of June, Siward could easily have met Macbeth in the field before the end of July.

Footnote 1091:

Tac. Mor. Germ. c. 20. “Sororum filiis idem apud avunculum, qui apud patrem honor. Quidam sanctiorem arctioremque hunc nexum sanguinis arbitrantur, et in accipiendis obsidibus magis exigunt.”

Footnote 1092:

See above, p. 364, for Siward nephew of Siward, and vol. i. p. 300 for Wulfmær nephew of Brihtnoth.

Footnote 1093:

See vol. i. p. 455.

Footnote 1094:

See Appendix Y.

Footnote 1095:

See Appendix Y.

Footnote 1096:

It is only through Margaret that our Kings from Henry the Second onward were descended from Eadward the Elder, Eadmund, or Eadgar. But it must not be forgotten that every descendant of Matilda of Flanders was a descendant of Ælfred.

Footnote 1097:

See vol. i. pp. 118, 533.

Footnote 1098:

See vol. i. pp. 65, 117, 118.

Footnote 1099:

See vol. i. pp. 117, 291.

Footnote 1100:

I rely far more on the probability of the case than on the account given by William of Malmesbury under the influence of those Norman prejudices against which he sometimes struggles, but to which he sometimes yields. He tells us (ii. 228), “Rex Edwardus, pronus in senium [fifty, or a year or two older], quod ipse non susceperat liberos, _et Godwini videret invalescere filios_, misit ad Regem Hunorum ut filium fratris Edmundi, Edwardum, cum omni familiâ suâ mitteret; futurum ut aut ille aut filii sui succedant regno hæreditario Angliæ; orbitatem suam cognatorum suffragio sustentari debere.” He then goes on to describe the Ætheling (“vir neque promptus manu neque probus ingenio”), his family, his return, and his death. He then adds, “Rex itaque, defuncto cognato, quia spes prioris erat soluta suffragii, Willelmo Comiti Normanniæ successionem Angliæ dedit.” I believe exactly the reverse to be the truth.

Footnote 1101:

See Appendix Y.

Footnote 1102:

See above, p. 115.

Footnote 1103:

See above, p. 113.

Footnote 1104:

See above, p. 362.

Footnote 1105:

So I understand the passage in the Evesham History, p. 87, about Æthelwig’s appointment to the Abbey of Evesham in 1059. He is there spoken of as one “qui multo antea tempore episcopatum Wigornensis ecclesiæ sub Aldredo archiepiscopo laudabiliter rexerat.” See Mr. Macray’s note. That Ealdred is called Archbishop need be no difficulty. It is the old question about the days of Abiathar the Priest.

Footnote 1106:

On Mannig, see above, p. 70. The Evesham History, p. 86, describes him as skilful in all arts, and as practising them for the adornment of the churches of Canterbury and Coventry as well as of his own Evesham.

Footnote 1107:

Chron. Wig. 1054. “And he lofode Leofwine bisceop to halgianne þæt mynster æt Eofeshamme, on vi. Id. Oct.”

Footnote 1108:

Young Henry was crowned at the age of five at Aachen, July 17th, 1054, by Hermann, Archbishop of Köln. Lambert in anno.

Footnote 1109:

Agnes, daughter of William the Great, Duke of Aquitaine, married King Henry in 1043 (Lambert and Chron. And. ap. Labbe, i. 276) or 1045 (Hugo Flav. ap. Labbe, i. 187) or 1049 (Chron. S. Maxent. in anno). Her father being dead, she is described as “filia Agnetis,” the Agnes so famous in the history of Geoffrey Martel (see above, p. 276). Abbot Hugh, in recording the marriage, cannot refrain from the strange comment, “Quum enim esset [Heinricus] aliàs bonus, et omnes ejus sitirent dominium, carnis tamen incontinentiam frænare non potuit.” Was Henry the Third bound to imitate Henry the Second?

Footnote 1110:

See Appendix Y.

Footnote 1111:

Ib.

Footnote 1112:

See above, p. 100. We have no account of the time or circumstances of his return from banishment.

Footnote 1113:

Chron. Ab. 1054. “Swa swa he on his reste læg.” Chron. Wig. “on his bedde.”

Footnote 1114:

All the Chronicles and Florence, in anno.

Footnote 1115:

Hen. Hunt, M. H. B. 760 C. “Adhuc parvulus.” So Bromton, 946. But he could hardly be “in cunis jacens” (R. Higden, lib. vi. Gale, ii. 281), when we consider his importance twelve years later.

Footnote 1116:

We know her through a document in Cod. Dipl. iv. 265. “Godgiva vidua” gives lands to Peterborough “pro redemptione animæ suæ per consensum Regis Eaduuardi.” She then married Siward; “Postea accepit eam Siuuardus Comes in conjugio; post tempus non multum mortua est.” The singular story about these lands will be best told when discussing the character of Waltheof.

Footnote 1117:

See vol. i. p. 587. Sim. Dun. X Scriptt. 81. “Nepos Aldredi Comitis Comes Waltheof, erat enim filius filiæ illius.” Simeon (ib. 82) seems to imply that Waltheof held Bernicia under his father (“filio suo Waltheofo comitatum Northymbrorum dedit”); but he clearly was not in possession in 1065. See Simeon’s own account, X Scriptt. 204. On the question whether he received Northamptonshire on his father’s death or ten years later, see Appendix G.

Footnote 1118:

Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 760 C. Bromton, 946. Ann. Wint. 26.

Footnote 1119:

Chronn. Ab. and Wig. 1055. “And he ligeð æt Galmanhó, on þam mynstre þe he sylf let timbrian and halgian on Godes and Olafes naman [Gode to lofe and eallum his halgum”]. Bromton, 946, using the language of later times, says, “Sepultus est in monasterio sanctæ Mariæ apud Eboracum in claustro.” There is still a parish church of Saint Olaf in that part of the city.

Footnote 1120:

See vol. i. pp. 416, 449.

Footnote 1121:

See Appendix G.

Footnote 1122:

Vita Eadw. 408. “Agentibusque amicis potissimùm autem et pro merito hoc ejus fratre Haroldo Duce et ejus sorore Reginâ, et non resistente Rege ob innumera ipsius fideliter acta servitia, ducatum ejus suscepit Tostinus, vir scilicet fortis et magnâ præditus animi sagacitate et sollertiâ.”

Footnote 1123:

The Biographer, essentially a courtier, always likes to attribute as much as possible to the personal action of the King, and to keep that of the Witan, as far as may be, in the back ground.

Footnote 1124:

Plutarch. Apophth. Alex. 29. Τιμᾷν μὲν ἐδόκει Κρατερὸν μάλιστα πάντων, φιλεῖν δὲ Ἡφαιστίωνα· Κρατερὸς μὲν γὰρ, ἔφη, φιλοβασιλεύς ἐστιν, Ἡφαιστίων δὲ φιλαλέξανδρος. Eadward’s affection for Tostig is also marked by William of Malmesbury, iii. 252; “Quia Tostinum diligeret, ... ut dilecto auxiliari non posset.”

Footnote 1125:

This seems implied in the Biographer’s description of the state of things when the Northumbrian revolt broke out in 1065 (421); “Erat ... Tostinus in curiâ Regis, diutiùsque commoratus est cum eo, ejus detentus amore et jussis in disponendis regalis palatii negotiis.”

Footnote 1126:

See vol. i. p. 416.

Footnote 1127:

See vol. i. p. 587.

Footnote 1128:

See above, p. 374.

Footnote 1129:

See vol. i. p. 588.

Footnote 1130:

He is called “adolescens” by Simeon of Durham (X Scriptt. 204) ten years later. His father had now been dead fourteen years; Oswulf was therefore probably a mere babe at the time of his death.

Footnote 1131:

See vol. i. p. 585.

Footnote 1132:

See Appendix Z.

Footnote 1133:

See above, p. 38.

Footnote 1134:

Vita Eadw. 409.

Footnote 1135:

Vita Eadw. 409. “At Dux Tostinus et ipse gravi quidem et sapienti continentiâ, sed _acrior paullisper in persequendâ malitiâ_, virili præditus et indissolubili mentis constantiâ.” In a writer who is striving hard to make out a case for Tostig, the words in Italics mean a great deal. We shall see, as we go on, reason to justify infinitely stronger expressions; but the point is that Tostig was not a mere wanton oppressor, but a ruler who carried a severe justice to such a degree as to become injustice. This is the impression conveyed by the no doubt flattering, but still very carefully drawn, portrait given by the Biographer.

Footnote 1136:

Vita Eadw. 421. “Licet antecessor ejus Dux Siwardus ex feritate judicii valdè timeretur, tamen tanta gentis illius crudelitas et Dei incultus habebatur ut vix triginta vel viginti in uno comitatu possent ire, quin aut interficerentur aut deprædarentur ab insidiantium latronum multitudine.”

Footnote 1137:

Ib. 422. “Quos pacis deificæ filius et amator eximius Dux adeò illo adtenuaverat tempore, patriam scilicet purgando talium _cruciatu_ vel nece, et nulli quantumlibet nobili parcendo qui in hoc deprehensus esset crimine, ut quivis solus etiam cum quâvis possessione ad votum possent commeare, absque alicujus hostilitatis formidine.” This last is the proverbial saying which is applied to the strict police of William (Chron. Petrib. 1087); “Swa þæt án man þe himsylf aht wære mihte faran ofer his rice mid his bosum full goldes ungederad.” It is essentially the same as the story told of the vigilant administration of the Bretwalda Eadwine; Bæda, Hist. Eccl. ii. 16.

Footnote 1138:

Vita Eadw. 409. “Propter eamdem regiæ stirpis uxorem suam omnium abdicans voluptatem, _cœlebs_ moderatiùs corporis et oris sui prudenter regere consuetudinem.” On this singular use of the word _cœlebs_, see Appendix B.

Footnote 1139:

Vita Eadw. 409. “Quum largiretur, liberali effundebat munificentiâ, et frequentiùs hoc hortatu religiosæ conjugis suæ in Christi fiebat honore quam pro aliquo hominum labili favore.” Tostig and Judith had much reverence for Saint Cuthberht, and were bountiful in their gifts to his church at Durham. But Judith chafed under the discipline which forbade women to pay their personal devotions at his shrine. She accordingly, before venturing herself, sent a handmaid to try her luck. The poor girl was sadly buffeted by the indignant saint, on which Tostig and his wife offered a splendid crucifix with the usual accompanying figures. Sim. Dun. Hist. Eccl. Dun. iii. 11.

Footnote 1140:

See above, p. 46. We shall come to the details in the next Chapter.

Footnote 1141:

I have no means of reckoning save the vague one which I have had to follow throughout. As Godwine and Gytha were married in 1019, their third or fourth child would probably be born about 1023 or 1024.

Footnote 1142:

Simeon of Durham (Gest. Regg. in anno) speaks of Malcolm being Tostig’s “conjuratus frater” in 1061. The engagement must therefore have been entered into before that year and after 1055. Tostig would not become Malcolm’s sworn brother till he found himself his neighbour.

Footnote 1143:

See vol. i. p. 436.

Footnote 1144:

See vol. i. p. 585.

Footnote 1145:

See Appendix X.

Footnote 1146:

Chron. Petrib. 1055. “Þa bead man ealre witena gemót vii. nihton ǽr midlenctene.” Flor. Wig. “Habito Lundoniæ consilio.”

Footnote 1147:

Ib. “Utlagode mann Ælfgar eorl, forðon him man wearp ón þæt he was þes cynges swica and ealra landleoda. And he þæs geanwyrde wæs ætforan eallum þam mannum þe þær gegaderode wæron, þeah him þæt word ofscute his unnþances.” So Chron. Cant.

Footnote 1148:

“Butan ælcan gylte,” Chron. Ab. “Forneh butan gylte,” Chron. Wig. “Sine culpâ,” Florence. Just as in the case of the ballad charging Godwine with the murder of Ælfred (vol. i. p. 546), these differences look very much as if the Worcester writer had seen the Abingdon text, and had altered a passage which might be construed into a representation of Harold as a false accuser. One can hardly conceive any other motive for the change. And care on such a point seems to show that Harold had some hand in the accusation, whether true or false. It is singular however that Henry of Huntingdon, who is generally most bitter against Harold, should be the writer who expresses the most distinct conviction of the guilt of Ælfgar (M. H. B. 760 D); “Eodem anno Algarus consul _Cestriæ_ [a confusion of his present and later offices] exsulatus est, quia de proditione Regis in consilio convictus fuerat.” On the other hand, a later writer, John of Peterborough (1055), commits himself to the banishment being done both “sine caussâ” and “per Haroldi consilium.”

Footnote 1149:

Chron. Ab. 1055. “He gewende ða to Irlande, and begeat him ðær lið; þæt wæs xviii. scipa butan his agenan.” So “xviii. piraticis navibus acquisitis” in Florence. The part of Ireland whence they came is not mentioned, but Diarmid, the protector of Harold, was still reigning at Dublin, and he would doubtless be equally ready to protect Ælfgar. I can find no mention of the matter in the Irish Chronicles.

Footnote 1150:

The language of the three Chronicles and of Florence is singularly varied, but they all assert the same fact.

Footnote 1151:

Ann. Camb. 1055. “Grifinus filius Lewelin, Grifud filium Riderch occidit et Herefordiam vastavit.” So Brut y Tywysogion, 1054.

Footnote 1152:

Fl. Wig. “Petivit [Algarus] ut contra Regem Eadwardum sibi esset in auxilium.”

Footnote 1153:

Fl. Wig. “De toto regno suo copiosum exercitum congregans.” The Welsh Chronicler says that “Gruffydd raised an army against the Saxons,” but he takes care to say nothing of his English, Irish, or Danish allies.

Footnote 1154:

Domesday, 179. “In Arcenefelde habet Rex tres ecclesias; presbyteri harum ecclesiarum ferunt legationes Regis in Wales.... Quum exercitus in hostem pergit, ipsi per consuetudinem faciunt _Avantwarde_ et in reversione _Redrewarde_. Hæ consuetudines erant Walensium T. R. E. in Arcenefelde.” These customs are described at length, and they give a curious picture of a border district, largely inhabited by Welshmen living under English allegiance and bound to service against their independent brethren.

Footnote 1155:

Domesday, 181. “Rex Grifin et Blein vastaverunt hanc terram T. R. E. et ideo nescitur qualis eo tempore fuerit.” Blein is doubtless Blethgent the brother of Gruffydd, to whom his kingdom was given by Harold in 1063.

Footnote 1156:

Fl. Wig. 1055. “Duobus miliariis a civitate Herefordâ.”

Footnote 1157:

See above, p. 346.

Footnote 1158:

It is now that Florence introduces him as “timidus Dux Radulfus, Regis Eadwardi sororis filius.”

Footnote 1159:

Chron. Ab. 1055. “Ac ǽr þær wære ænig spere gescoten, ær fleah ðæt Englisce folc, forðan þe hig wæran on horsan.” Florence is more explicit; “Radulfus ... Anglos contra morem in equis pugnare jussit.”

Footnote 1160:

See Macaulay’s remarks on Monmouth’s raw cavalry at Sedgemoor. Hist. Eng. i. 588, 604.

Footnote 1161:

Fl. Wig. 1055. “Comes cum suis Francis et Nortmannis fugam primitùs capessit. Quod videntes Angli ducem suum fugiendo sequuntur.” But the Chronicles do not necessarily imply this.

Footnote 1162:

Chron. Ab. “And man sloh ðær mycel wæl, abutan feower hund manna oððe fife, and hig nænne agean.” The Annales Cambriæ (1055) have simply, “Grifinus ... Herfordiam vastavit,” without mention of the battle. The Brut (1054) much fuller. It makes no mention of Ælfgar and his contingent, but it speaks of Reinolf or Randwlf as the commander of the English. It says nothing of the special reason for the flight of the English, which it says happened “after a severely hard battle.”

Footnote 1163:

The battle, according to the Abingdon Chronicle and Florence, the “harrying” according to the Worcester Chronicle, was on the 24th of October, ix. Kal. Nov.

Footnote 1164:

So all the Chronicles under 792.

Footnote 1165:

See Appendix AA.

Footnote 1166:

Chronn. Ab. and Wig. and Fl. Wig. 1055.

Footnote 1167:

Flor. Wig. 1055. “Septem canonicis qui valvas principalis basilicæ defenderant occisis.” Chron. Wig., without mentioning the number, “Forbærude [Ælfgar] þæt mære mynster þe Æthelstan bisceop getimbrode, and ofsloh þa preostas innan þan mynstre.”

Footnote 1168:

“_Nonnullis_ è civibus necatis, _multis_que captivatis,” says Florence, but the Worcester Chronicle, after mentioning the slaughter of the clergy, adds, “and manege þærto eacan;” while Abingdon says, “and þæt folc slogan, and sume onweg læddan.”

Footnote 1169:

The Brut y Tywysogion plainly distinguishes the “gaer,” or castle, which was demolished, from the town, which was burned. The castle was doubtless of stone, while the houses of the town would be chiefly of wood.

Footnote 1170:

Chronn. Ab. and Wig. and Fl. Wig. 1055, 1056.

Footnote 1171:

See Appendix Y.

Footnote 1172:

Florence, at this point, seems quite to boil over with admiration for Harold. “Quod ubi Regi innotuit, de totâ mox Angliâ exercitum congregari jussit, cui Glawornæ congregato strenuum Ducem Haroldum præfecit, qui, devotè jussis obtemperans, Griffinum et Algarum impigrè insequitur, ac fines Walanorum audacter ingressus, ultra Straddele castrametatus est; sed illi, quia virum fortem et bellicosum ipsum sciebant, cum eo committere bellum non audentes, in Suth-Waliam fugerunt.”

Footnote 1173:

See Flor. Wig. u. s. “Straddele” or “Stratelei” (see Domesday, 187) is a border district reckoned along with Herefordshire in Domesday. Roger of Wendover (i. 494), in a fine fit of exaggeration, carries Harold as far as Snowdon; “Castra usque ad Snaudunam perduxit.” Mr. Woodward (History of Wales, 210) makes Straddele to be Ystrad-clwyd, the southern Strathclyde of Denbighshire, but the witness of Florence and Domesday seems decisive.

Footnote 1174:

Fl. Wig. 1055. “Majorem exercitûs partem ibi dimisit, mandans eis ut suis adversariis, si res exposceret, viriliter resisterent.”

Footnote 1175:

I infer this from a comparison of the Chronicles, Florence, and Domesday. The Abingdon Chronicle says, “And Harald Eorl let dician ða dic abutan þæt port þa hwile.” Florence says more distinctly, “Herefordam rediens, vallo lato et alto illam cinxit, portis et seris munivit.” These accounts, as well as the probability of the case, point to a mere “vallum.” But in Domesday, 179, we read of there being a “murus” at Hereford in the time of King Eadward, which seems to imply a stone wall. Nothing is more likely than that Harold should throw up a hasty mound now, and afterwards make a more elaborate fortification, when, as I shall presently show, Hereford came under his immediate government. On the walls of Exeter and Towcester see vol. i. pp. 338, 346.

Footnote 1176:

One hundred and three burghers held of the King, twenty-seven of Earl Harold, whose customs were the same as those of the King’s men. The customs are detailed at great length. The burghers were liable to military service against the Welsh, and paid a fine of forty shillings to the King in case of disobedience to the Sheriff’s summons for that purpose. Some served with horses. The Reeve paid twelve pounds to the King and six to Earl Harold, that is the Earl’s third penny. The King had a mint, and also the Bishop. The whole details are exceedingly curious, and I shall probably have to refer to them again.

Footnote 1177:

Chronn. Ab. and Wig. Flor. Wig. 1056. “Cujus corpus Herefordam delatum, in ecclesiâ quam ipse a fundamentis construxerat, est tumulatum.” Yet he had the year before said, “monasterio quod ... Æthelstanus construxerat ... combusto.”

Footnote 1178:

Chron. Ab. 1055. “And þæt sciplið gewende to Legeceastre, and þær abiden heora males þe Ælfgar heom behét.” So Florence.

Footnote 1179:

The Worcester Chronicle, which, as well as (still more strangely) that of Peterborough, wholly leaves out Harold’s exploits, seems to record Ælfgar’s restoration with some degree of sarcasm; “And þa þa hi hæfdon mæst to yfele gedón, man gerædde þone ræd, þæt man Ælfgar Eorl geinnlagode, and ageaf him his eorldom, and eall þæt him ofgenumen wæs.”

Footnote 1180:

The Annales Cambriæ has “Magnus filius Haraldi vastavit regionem Anglorum, auxiliante Grifino Rege Britonum.” The Brut gives him the strange description, “Magnus uab Heralt, _brenhin Germania_” which I do not understand. Was he Ælfgar’s Irish ally, defrauded of his pay? The entry the year before, about waiting at Chester, looks like it.

Footnote 1181:

Fl. Wig. 1056. “In episcopali villâ quæ vocatur Bosanbyrig decessit.” A fine thirteenth century church and some remains of the episcopal manor still exist.

Footnote 1182:

The Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles here get poetical; Peterborough is, just here, strangely meagre; “And man sette Leofgar to biscupe; se wæs Haroldes Eorles mæsse-preost; se werede his kenepas on his preosthade, oððæt he wæs biscop. Se forlet his crisman and his hrode, his gastlican wæpna, and feng to his spere and to his sweorde æfter his biscuphade, and swa fór to fyrde ongean Griffin þone Wyliscan Cing.” Yet a fighting Bishop was not so wonderful a thing in those times. See vol. i. p. 432. William of Malmesbury, Gest. Pont. 163, makes some confusion, when he says, “Leovegar. Hunc tempore Regis Edwardi Grifin Rex Walensium urbe crematâ expulit sede et vitâ.” And Roger of Wendover makes some further confusion or other when he writes (i. 495), “Ethelstanus Herefordensis præsul obiit, et Levegarus, Ducis Haroldi capellanus, successit; hunc præsulem, in omni religione perfectum, Griffinus Rex Walensium, Herefordensi civitate crematâ, peremit.”

Footnote 1183:

Was Ælfnoth succeeded by Osbern? See p. 346.

Footnote 1184:

Chron. Ab. 1056. “Eaforðlic is to atellanne seo gedrecednes, and seo fare eall, and seo fyrdung, and þæt geswinc and manna fyll and eac horsa, þe eall Englahere dreah.”

Footnote 1185:

See above, pp. 153, 362, 372. The Chronicles distinctly say, “Ealdred bisceop feng to þam bisceoprice þe Leofgar hæfde.” Florence rather softens this into, “Aldredo Wigornensi præsuli, donec antistes constitueretur, commissus est episcopatus Herefordensis.” He kept it for four years, holding also the see of Ramsbury during part of the time.

Footnote 1186:

Fl. Wig. “Idem episcopus et Comites Leofricus et Haroldus cum Rege Eadwardo Walanorum Regem Griffinum pacificaverunt.”

Footnote 1187:

See above, p. 86.

Footnote 1188:

Chron. Ab. 1056. “Swa þæt Griffin swor aðas þæt he weolde beon Eadwarde Kinge hold Underkingc and unswicigende.”

Footnote 1189:

Domesday, 263. “Rex Eadwardus dedit Regi Grifino totam terram quæ jacebat trans aquam quæ De vocatur. Sed postquam ipse Grifin forisfecit ei, abstulit ab eo hanc terram, et reddidit episcopo de Cestre [the see had been moved thither before the Survey. See Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. 164 _b_] et omnibus suis hominibus qui antea ipsam tenebant.” A “forisfactio” on the part of Gruffydd can hardly refer to his loss of his whole kingdom in 1063, and this moment of reconciliation and homage is obviously the most natural time for a

## partial surrender. We have here also another example of church lands

being dealt with for political purposes in a way which would naturally give rise to those charges of sacrilege against Harold and others of which I have spoken elsewhere. See Appendix E.

Footnote 1190:

See above, p. 87.

Footnote 1191:

See the whole account in W. Rishanger, 90, ed. Riley.

Footnote 1192:

The see was at Ramsbury, but the Bishop is often called “Episcopus Wiltoniensium,” that is “of the men of _Wiltunscír_.” In Mercia and Northumberland the Bishopricks (much like the shires, see vol. i. p. 51) seem commonly to be spoken of by the names of the episcopal towns; in Wessex and East-Anglia it is as usual, or more so, to use the name of the tribe or district. See below, p. 406.

Footnote 1193:

See above, pp. 79–81, and 358.

Footnote 1194:

Will. Malm. Gest. Pont. ap. Scriptt. p. Bed. 142. “Ejus animi magnitudini, vel potius cupiditati, quum non sufficeret rerum angustia, quoniam apud Ramesberiam nec clericorum conventus, nec quo sustentaretur erat.”

Footnote 1195:

Ib. “Antecessores suos indigenas fuisse; se alienigenam nullo parentum compendio vitam quo sustentet habere.”

Footnote 1196:

See above, p. 115.

Footnote 1197:

Will. Malms. u. s. “Episcopum Schireburnensem ... cujus episcopatum suo uniendum antiquis Edgithæ Reginæ promissis operiebatur.”

Footnote 1198:

On the history of Savaric and his designs on Glastonbury, see the History of Adam of Domersham in Anglia Sacra, i. 578, and Mr. J. R. Green and Professor Stubbs in the Somersetshire Archæological Proceedings for 1863, pp. 39–42.

Footnote 1199:

Fl. Wig. 1055. “Offensus quia ei sedem episcopalem transferre de villâ quæ Reamnesbyrig dicitur ad abbatiam Malmesbyriensem Rex nollet concedere.” There is nothing in this short notice inconsistent with the fuller account given by William of Malmesbury.

Footnote 1200:

I have spoken above (p. 84) of the changes made by Leofric at Exeter, and I shall have to speak in my next Chapter of the like changes made by Gisa at Wells.

Footnote 1201:

Will. Malms. Scriptt. p. Bed. 142. “Excellentis prudentiæ monachi, audito quid in curiâ actum, quid justitiæ surreptum esset, ad Comitem Godwinum _ejusque filium_ summâ celeritate contendunt.” William is here mistaken in mentioning Godwine, who of course was dead. The story cannot be removed to a time before Godwine’s death, as it is fixed to 1055 by the witness of Florence.

Footnote 1202:

Ib. “Id Rex pro simplicitate, cui pronior quam prudentiæ semper erat, legitimè concedendum ratus, tertio abhinc die dissoluit.”

Footnote 1203:

Ib. “Antequam Hermannus in re vel saisitione inviscaretur.”

Footnote 1204:

Ib. “Illi [Godwine and Harold, or, more truly, Harold only], rei indignâ novitate permoti, Regem adeunt, et à sententiâ deducunt; facile id fuit viris summis amplissimâ auctoritate præditis, quibus et caussæ rectitudo, et Regis facilitas suffragaretur. Ita Hermannus, necdum planè initiatus, expulsus est.”

Footnote 1205:

See above, p. 42.

Footnote 1206:

Fl. Wig. 1055. “Episcopatum dimisit, marique transfretato, apud Sanctum Bertinum monachicum habitum suscepit, ibique in ipso monasterio tribus annis mansit.” Saint Omer, it must be remembered, was at this time Flemish, and Flanders, and lands south of Flanders, were still largely Teutonic.

Footnote 1207:

William of Malmesbury (Scriptt. p. Bed. 142) makes himself merry over the grievances of a Bishop who had turned monk in a momentary fit of pique; “Sed ut ferè fit talibus, repentino illo impetu relligionis frigescente, indies in Angliam reditum meditabatur. Figebat [Pigebat?] hominem assuetum obsequiis, innutritum deliciis, carere delinimentis quæ ab ineunte fuerat expertus ætate.”

Footnote 1208:

William, strangely confounding his dates, fancies that Godwine died during Hermann’s absence at Saint Omer, and that Hermann was more likely to gain his point after Godwine’s death. He is followed by R. Higden, XV Scriptt. ii. 281, the passage so oddly perverted by Thierry. See above, p. 345.

Footnote 1209:

See Flor. Wig. 1058.

Footnote 1210:

William of Malmesbury continues to jeer at him to the last; “Accepit ergo Hermannus Schireburnensem episcopatum integrum cum tribus pagis, Edwardo Rege dante, vivacitateque suâ datoris annos transcendens ad Willielmi tempora duravit.” The three “pagi” are the three shires of which the united diocese was formed, Berkshire, Wiltshire, and Dorsetshire. So the Abingdon Chronicler recording his death in 1078; “Se wæs Biscop on Bearrucscire and on Wiltunscire and on Dorsætan.” Cf. note on p. 401.

Footnote 1211:

See vol. i. p. 349. Will. Malms. u. s.

Footnote 1212:

See above, p. 160.

Footnote 1213:

See Appendix G.

Footnote 1214:

Flor. Wig. 1056. “Ecclesiarum amator, pauperum recreator, viduarum et pupillorum defensor, oppressorum subventor, virginitatis custos, comes Agelwinus, id est Odda.” Cf. above, p. 161.

Footnote 1215:

Ib. “Ab Aldredo Wigornensi episcopo, ante suum obitum, monachizatus.” So Chronn. Ab. and Wig. 1056. “He wæs to munece gehadod ær his ende.”

Footnote 1216:

Flor. Wig. u. s. “Apud Deorhyrste decessit, sed in monasterio Persorensi honorificè sepultus quiescit.” So Chronn. Ab. and Wig. “His lic lið on Perscoran.” His brother Ælfric, for whose soul Deerhurst church was built (see above, p. 161), who died in 1053 (Fl. Wig. in anno), also died at Deerhurst and was buried at Pershore.

Footnote 1217:

See vol. i. p. 588. According to the Worcester Chronicle under the years 1041 and 1073, and the Peterborough Chronicle under 1072, Æthelric was consecrated to York, and was unjustly deprived of the metropolitan see (hit wæs mid unrihte him ofgenumon), on which he took Durham. Hugo Candidus, the Peterborough writer (ap. Sparke, 46), attributes his loss of the see of York to the natural dislike of the seculars to a monk; “facientibus quibusdam ex canonicis vel ex clericis, quia penè naturale est eis semper invidere monachis, quia monachus erat, noluerunt pati eum archiepiscopum esse.” But what vacancy was there at York in 1041 or 1042? Hugh is loud in his praise, but Simeon of Durham (Hist. Dun. Eccl. iii. 9, X Scriptt. 34) has much to say against him, charging him with robbing his church. In the third year of his episcopate he was driven out, but was restored by Earl Siward, on the receipt of a bribe (munere oblato). Digging at Chester-le-street to build a stone church on the site of the old wooden one, he found a treasure, which he spent in building churches and repairing roads near Peterborough.

Footnote 1218:

Flor. Wig. and Chronn. Wig. 1072. Petrib. 1073. Sim. Dun. u. s.

Footnote 1219:

Sim. Dun. u. s.

Footnote 1220:

These two brother monks and Bishops remind one of the opening of the Ormulum;

“Nu, broþerr Wallterr, broþerr min Affterr þe flæshess kinde; And broþerr min i Crisstenndom Þurrh fulluhht and þurrh trowwþe; And broþerr min i Godess hus Ȝet o þe þride wise.”

Æthelwine, according to Simeon, had administered the Bishoprick of Durham under his brother.

Footnote 1221:

Chronn. Wig. and Petrib. 1059. The former breaks out into song, and gives us good authority for the surname of Ironside;

“Se wæs Eadwerdes Broðor sunu kynges Eadmund cing· Irensíd wæs geclypod For his snellscipe.”

Florence says, “Ut ei mandârat suus patruus Rex Eadwardus, de Ungariâ ... Angliam venit. Decreverat enim Rex illum post se regni hæredem constituere.”

Footnote 1222:

The death of the Emperor Henry the third is recorded in the Abingdon Chronicle under 1056, under the name of _Cona_, that is, of course, Conrad. The mistake in the name is odd, but there is no need to have recourse to Mr. Thorpe’s strange conjecture, A. S. Chronicles, ii. p. 159. The Peterborough Chronicle has a Latin entry with the true name “Henricus.”

Footnote 1223:

See vol. i. pp. 445, 455.

Footnote 1224:

The Tongues most familiar to Eadward would naturally be Magyar and _High_-Dutch.

Footnote 1225:

Chron. Ab. 1057;

“Wála þæt wæs hreowlic sið And hearmlic Eallre þissere þeode, Þæt he swa raðe His lif geendade, Þæs þe he to Englalande cóm; For ungesælhðe Þissere earman þeode.”

Footnote 1226:

Chron. Petrib. 1057. “Her ... com Ædward æðeling, Eadmundes sunu cynges, hider to lande, and sona þæs gefor.” So Florence; “Ex quo venit parvo post tempore vitâ decessit Lundoniæ.”

Footnote 1227:

The song in the Abingdon Chronicle says;

“Ne wiston we For hwylcan intingan Þæt gedón wearð, Þæt he ne moste His mæges Eadwardes Cynges geseón.”

Footnote 1228:

Lappenberg, p. 517 (ii. 259 Thorpe); “Doch ehe er noch seinen königlichen Oheim erblickte, von dessen Augen eine ihm ungünstige Partei, vermuthlich Earl Harolds, des nachherigen Königs, Freunde, ihn fern zu halten wusste, starb er plötzlich zu London.” He goes on however distinctly to absolve Harold from all share in his death.

Footnote 1229:

See Will. Gem. vii. 36. Ord. Vit. 500 C. Still more strongly, Guy of Amiens (129 et seqq.) and Liber de Hydâ, p. 293.

Footnote 1230:

Palgrave, Hist. Ang. Sax. 352. “He was buried in St. Paul’s Cathedral; and sad and ruthful [rueful?] were the forebodings of the English, when they saw him borne to his grave.—Harold gained exceedingly by this event. Did the Atheling die a natural death?—The lamentations of the chroniclers seem to imply more than meets the ear.” Mr. C. H. Pearson (Hist. of Eng. in the Early and Middle Ages, i. 244) does not scruple to repeat the insinuation.

Footnote 1231:

Unless indeed some tradition of the sort had found its way into the confused mind of Saxo (p. 203), when he made Harold murder King Eadward? He _may_ have been thinking of Eadward the Ætheling, or he may have been writing purely at random.

Footnote 1232:

This is well put by Lappenberg in the passage quoted above, p. 411.

Footnote 1233:

William was charged with poisoning Conan of Britanny (Will. Gem. vii. 33), and also Walter of Mantes (Eadward’s nephew), and his wife Biota (Ord. Vit. 534 B). I shall have to speak of these matters in their proper place.

Footnote 1234:

Chron. Wig. 1057. Petrib. and Cant. 1058. Fl. Wig. 1057.

Footnote 1235:

Fl. Wig. 1057. “Laudabilis _Comes_ Leofricus, _Dusci_ Leofwini filius [_Earl_ Leofric, son of _Ealdorman_ Leofwine, see vol. i. pp. 456, 461], in propriâ villâ quæ dicitur Bromleage, in bonâ decessit senectute ii. Kal. Sept.” He had been Earl at least twenty-five years, perhaps thirty-three.

Footnote 1236:

Besides Bromton and Knighton quoted above (p. 48), Godgifu’s ride through Coventry appears in Roger of Wendover, i. 497.

Footnote 1237:

Florence (u. s.) distinctly says that Leofric and Godgifu built the church; “de suo patrimonio à fundamentis construxerunt.” But Orderic (511 A) says, “Elfgarus Comes Coventrense cœnobium construxit,” and goes on to speak of Godgifu’s gifts of ornaments; he is clearly confounding father and son.

Footnote 1238:

Fl. Wig. 1057. “Adeo ditaverunt ut in Angliâ tanta copia auri, argenti, gemmarum, lapidumque pretiosorum in nullo inveniretur monasterio, quanta tunc temporis habebatur in illo.” The charter about Coventry in Cod. Dipl. iv. 253 can hardly be genuine as it stands. Pope Alexander was not reigning in 1043.

Footnote 1239:

See Appendix BB.

Footnote 1240:

Chron. Wig. and Flor. Wig. in anno.

Footnote 1241:

Hugo Candidus, p. 44.

Footnote 1242:

See above, p. 367.

Footnote 1243:

See Appendix BB.

Footnote 1244:

See Appendix G.

Footnote 1245:

See Appendix CC.

Footnote 1246:

See vol. i. pp. 33, 34. Harold however did not command the whole Severn valley, as Worcestershire was now held by Ælfgar. See Appendix G.

Footnote 1247:

See Appendix G.

Footnote 1248:

See Appendix G.

Footnote 1249:

See above, p. 296 et seqq.

Footnote 1250:

This seems implied in the way in which William’s preparations are spoken of by the Chroniclers and Florence under 1066.

Footnote 1251:

Flor. Wig. 1066. “Quem Rex _ante suam decessionem_ regni successorem elegerat.” I shall discuss this point at length in the third volume.

Footnote 1252:

See Appendix DD.

Footnote 1253:

He is “subregulus” in Florence, 1066.

Footnote 1254:

See vol. i. p. 533.

Footnote 1255:

Compare on the other hand the joint Kingship of Hugh and Robert in France (see vol. i. p. 269). So in England in after times we find Henry the son of Henry the Second crowned in his father’s lifetime. In the Empire the cases are endless. See above, p. 373, for that of the reigning King Henry the Fourth.

Footnote 1256:

See above, p. 188.

Footnote 1257:

De Inv. c. 14. “Quem [Haroldum] indigenæ præ cæteris postulabant et ardenter sitiebant post sanctum Regem Edwardum, ipsius morum et vitæ hæredem. Quod quidem divinâ miseratione processu temporis videre meruerunt qui tunc præsentes fuerunt.” When the Waltham writer wrote, “Eadwardus Simplex” had become a canonized saint.

Footnote 1258:

The authorities for this chapter are essentially the same as those for the last. With regard to the Chronicles, it may be noticed that the Abingdon Chronicle, which must be looked on as in some degree hostile to Godwine, is in no sort hostile to Harold. The Peterborough Chronicler, who seems rather to keep himself for great occasions, is rather meagre during this period. As Welsh matters are still prominent, the Welsh Chronicles have still to be consulted, and, towards the end of the period, the Northern Sagas again become of some little importance. But the characteristic of the period is the prominence of ecclesiastical affairs, which brings several local and legendary writers into a position of some consequence. Thus, for the history of Westminster, the tales of Æthelred of Rievaux and his followers have to be compared with the authentic narratives of contemporary chroniclers, and, as Harold’s great foundation comes within these years, we now begin to make use of the local Waltham writers. The main facts and fictions belonging to the local Waltham history are found in the two tracts, _De Inventione Sanctæ Crucis_ and _Vita Haroldi_, which were first published by M. Francisque Michel in his _Chroniques Anglo-Normandes_ (Rouen, 1840). From these I endeavoured in 1857 to put together the early history of Waltham, and of Harold in relation to Waltham, in a paper in the Transactions of the Essex Archæological Society, vol. ii. p. 34. But M. Michel’s editions are by no means accurate, and of the _De Inventione_ he left out many chapters altogether. I was therefore led into some errors of detail. Since that time, a perfect edition of the _De Inventione_ has been published, with a Preface, by Professor Stubbs (Oxford, 1861). The _Vita Haroldi_ was written after 1205. In its essence, as regards the main facts of English history, it is a mere romance, but, like other local romances, it has its value for points of local description, and even for purely local facts. The _De Inventione_ is a work of higher character. It was written by an anonymous Canon of Waltham, who was born in 1119, who entered the College in 1124, who was made a Canon before 1144, and who wrote after 1177, when he lost his prebend at the change in the foundation of Waltham under Henry the Second. This tract contains a good deal of legend, but no romance. The author writes in evident good faith, and with a manifest desire to be fair and accurate. He repeats the legends of his house as he heard them from his childhood; he was inclined, like the rest of his contemporaries, to see, and even to expect, miracles where we see only natural causes. But, making the necessary deductions on these scores, he is distinctly more trustworthy than the average of local historians. On his general character as an historian, and especially on the miraculous element in his narrative, see the remarks in Professor Stubbs’ Preface, p. xxvii.

As we have to deal with Westminster and Waltham, we have also to deal in a less degree with Wells and Worcester, two churches which figure prominently in the ecclesiastical history of these years. For Wells we have Gisa’s own narrative of his controversy with Harold, in the “Ecclesiastical Documents” published by the Camden Society. For Worcester we have the Life of its great Bishop Saint Wulfstan, by William of Malmesbury, in the second volume of Anglia Sacra, and the shorter Life by the contemporary Heming. This last is given in Old-English in Hearne’s edition of Heming’s Worcester Cartulary (a book which ought to be reprinted), p. 403, and in Latin in the first volume of Anglia Sacra.

Footnote 1259:

See Appendix EE.

Footnote 1260:

Ib.

Footnote 1261:

All our Chronicles save Abingdon, which is just now silent for a few years, mention the death of Stephen and the accession of Benedict. None of them imply any doubt as to Benedict’s legitimacy, but they use three different words to express his appointment. He is “to Papan geset” in Worcester, “gehalgod to Papan” in Peterborough, “gebletsod þarto” in Canterbury—in the last entry of that chronicle.

Footnote 1262:

See the Cardinal of Aragon’s Life of Nicolas, Muratori, iii. 301. He does not allow Benedict a place in his list. Yet the next Pope who assumed the name, in 1303, was called Benedict the Eleventh. Muratori, iii. 672. On these Popes, see Milman, Latin Christianity, iii. 47.

Footnote 1263:

Our Chronicles (Worcester and Peterborough) record the fact in nearly the same words under the year 1059; “Her on þisum geare wæs Nicolaus to Papan gecoren; se wæs biscop æt Florentie þære burh; and wæs Benedictus ut adrifen, se wæs ær Papa.” These last words may seem to imply a certain cleaving to Benedict. It is a pity that the strict and orthodox Abingdon writer (see above, p. 343) is silent, as he might have employed some other formula.

Footnote 1264:

Chronn. Wig. Petrib. Cant. 1058. See above, pp. 343, 344. Benedict was “corruptus pecuniâ,” according to John of Peterborough, 1058.

Footnote 1265:

The long-lived Godwine, or the latter of the two Godwines, vanishes in 1046. We hear nothing, as far as I know, of the disposition of the see in the meanwhile. The Godwine who (Chronn. Wig. Petrib.) died in 1061 seems to be a different person, a Suffragan Bishop of Saint Martin’s near Canterbury.

Footnote 1266:

The Chronicles significantly connect the consecration of Æthelric and Siward with the receipt of the pallium by Stigand. The Peterborough writer (1058) seems specially to mark it; “Her on þisum geare forðferde Stephanus Papa, and wæs Benedictus gehalgod to Papan. Se ylca sænde Stigande Arcebiscope pallium hider to lande. And on þisum geare forðferde Heaca biscop on Suðseaxan, and Stigand Arcebiscop hadode Ægelric monuc æt Christes cyrcean to biscop to Suðseaxum, and Siward abbot to biscop to Hrofeceastre.”

Footnote 1267:

Of these dangers we shall hear more distinctly in the case of the pilgrimage of Tostig in 1061. The Biographer now (410) tells us that Harold, “potenti munificentiâ veneratus sanctorum limina, per medios insidiantes cautus derisor more suo Dei gratiâ pervenit ad propria.” These words _might_ have a deeper meaning; the visit to Normandy and the oath _might_ be on his return; but the chances are the other way.

Footnote 1268:

Chron. Wig. 1058. “Her man ytte ut Ælfgar Eorl, ac he cóm sona inn ongean mid strece þurh Gryffines fultum; and her com scyphere of Norwegan. Hit is langsum to attellane eall hu hit gefaren wæs.” So Florence; “Algarus Merciorum Comes a Rege Eadwardo secundò exlegatus est; sed Regis Walanorum Griffini juvamine et Norreganicæ classis adminiculo, quæ ad illum venerat ex improviso, citò per vim suum comitatum recuperavit.” Is this the fleet mysteriously referred to by Tigernach (O’Conor, i. 301) under the same year? “Classis cum filio Regis Danorum [he probably means Norwegians] cum alienigenis Insularum Orcnensium et Ebudensium et Dubliniensium, ut subigeret sibi regnum Saxonum. Sed Deus contrarius fuit ei in re istâ.”

Footnote 1269:

This would apply to the entry in the Chronicle; but, if so, Florence, who marks the repetition of the word by the word “secundò,” was misled by it.

Footnote 1270:

When Morkere heads the Northumbrian revolt in 1065, the Biographer (p. 421) says of the sons of Ælfgar, “inter eos regiæ stirpis pueros et eumdem Ducem Tostinum ex veteri simultate odio [odia?] erant.” The “regia stirps” can refer only to some possible descent of the House of Leofric from ancient Mercian Kings. (Cf. vol. i. p. 456.) There is no sign of any connexion between them and the West-Saxon royal family.

Footnote 1271:

Hist. Mon. S. Petri Glouc. (ed. Hart), i. 1. et seqq. Cf. vol. i. p. 39.

Footnote 1272:

Ib. i. 7. “Sub potestate sæculari, usque ad tempus Wolstani episcopi Wygorniensis ... mirificè tradebatur.”

Footnote 1273:

See vol. i. p. 485.

Footnote 1274:

Hist. Mon. Glouc. i. 8. “Anno Domini millesimo vicesimo secundo Wolstanus Episcopus Wygorniensis, qui postea factus est Archiepiscopus Eboracensis, concedente Rege Cnuto, Duce Danorum, qui Ecclesiam Sanctam exaltavit, et libertates suas antiquas renovavit et promovit, ut dicit Petrus Pictavensis, hic Wolstanus clericos qui ecclesiam Sancti Petri antea rexerant et custodierant, sub protectione Dei et Apostolorum Petri et Pauli et regulâ beati Benedicti in eâdem ecclesiâ regulariter collocavit.” In this case the canons seem not to have been driven out, but to have taken the monastic vows on themselves. This was partly the case at Bury. See vol. i. p. 486.

Footnote 1275:

Hist. Glouc. i. 8. “Multa bona dissipavit.” Two lordships had to be sold to make good the losses caused by him.

Footnote 1276:

Chron. Wig. 1058. “On þam ilcan gere Ealdred bisceop halgode þæt mynster on Gleawcestre þe he sylf geforðode, Gode to lofe and Sc̃e Petre.” Florence mentions that the church was built by Ealdred “a fundamentis,” and adds, “postea Regis licentiâ, Wlstanum Wigornensem monachum à se ordinatum, Abbatem constituit ibidem.” The local history (p. 9), which calls him Wilstanus, gives the same account. The prominence here given to the Bishop of the Diocese is remarkable; we hear nothing of any election by the monks, but only of an Abbot chosen by the Bishop and confirmed by the King. One might fancy that Wulfstan, as founder, had retained some special rights of patronage over the monastery of Gloucester.

Footnote 1277:

Fl. Wig. 1058. See above, p. 406.

Footnote 1278:

See above, p. 372.

Footnote 1279:

After the consecration at Gloucester, says the Worcester Chronicler (1058), “swa ferde to Hierusalem, mid swilcan weorðscipe swa nan oðer ne dyde ætforan him;” “quod nullus,” adds Florence, “archiepiscoporum vel episcoporum Angliæ eatenus dinoscitur fecisse.”

Footnote 1280:

“Per Ungariam,” says Florence.

Footnote 1281:

Chron. Wig. “And hine sylfne þær Gode betæhte, and wurðlic lac eac geoffrode to ures Drihtenes byrgene, þæt was an gylden calic, on fíf marcon swiðe wundorlices geworces.” The chronicler, just as at the time of the mission to Köln, clearly rejoices in the splendour and bounty of his own Bishop.

Footnote 1282:

Oddly enough, it is the Worcester and not the Peterborough Chronicler who records this purely local fact; “on þisan gere wæs se stypel gehalgad æt Burh on xvi. kal. Novemb.”

Footnote 1283:

See above, p. 350.

Footnote 1284:

Chron. Mon. Evesham, p. 88. “Transiit quoque vir ille Mannius eâdem nocte et horâ quâ Rex gloriosus Æduuardus, festivitate scilicet sanctæ Epiphaniæ Domini.” But Eadward died on the eve of the Epiphany not on the Epiphany itself.

Footnote 1285:

Ib. 87. “Nunc sub eo jure præpositi totius abbatiæ hujus curam agebat.”

Footnote 1286:

There is here a chronological difficulty. The Evesham Chronicle fixes the date to April 23, 1059. Mannig died on the same day as Eadward, that is January 5, 1066; seven years, so the historian says, after his resignation. This makes the year of Æthelwig’s appointment 1059. For day and place we are told (88), “Rex ... fecit eum apud Glocestre, ubi tunc curiam suam tenebat, coram multis principibus hujus patriæ ab Aldredo Archiepiscopo honorabiliter in paschali sollemnitate die festivitatis sancti Georgii martyris consecrari.” Now it is hardly likely that Ealdred, who had left for Jerusalem seemingly not very early in the year before, could have been again in England so soon as Saint George’s Day, 1059. Also it was not the Easter but the Christmas festival which was commonly held at Gloucester. That Ealdred is called Archbishop before his time is a common slip. Perhaps (see Mr. Macray’s note on p. 87) the reckoning of seven years is wrong, and the date was really 1058, before Ealdred left England; or the wrong season may be given (though this seems hardly likely, and the usual places of the Gemóts were sometimes departed from); or the ceremony may have been really performed by some other Bishop, and Ealdred’s name may have been carelessly inserted because he was known to be Bishop of the Diocese at the time.

Footnote 1287:

See above, p. 42.

Footnote 1288:

When I say that this mistake is found in Sharon Turner (Hist. of England, i. 79, 81, 84), in Sir Francis Palgrave (Hist. of Anglo-Sax. 378, 388), and in Lappenberg (p. 556 of the original, ii. 302 of Mr. Thorpe’s translation), it is not wonderful that it is found also in Thierry (lib. iii.) as well as in Dr. Vaughan (Revolutions in English History, i. 298), in M. Emile de Bonnechose (ii. 283), and in Mr. St. John (ii. 275). Yet, without looking to the local historians, or to the writers who record the change of foundation under Henry the Second, they need only have turned to William of Malmesbury, iii. 247; “Ecclesiam ... _canonicis_ impleverat.”

Footnote 1289:

See R. Hoveden. Scriptt. p. Bed. 320. Rad. de Dic. X Scriptt. c. 598. R. Wend. ii. 387. Gervase (X Scriptt. 1434). Cf. Vita Haroldi (Chron. A. N. ii. 164).

Footnote 1290:

See vol. i. p. 590.

Footnote 1291:

De Inv. c. 14. There is something strange in the statement of the Waltham writer that Æthelstan did not succeed to all his father’s estates, but only to those attached to the stallership.

Footnote 1292:

See above, p. 63.

Footnote 1293:

De Inv. c. 14. “Adelstanus, pater Esegari qui stalre inventus est in Angliæ conquisitione à Normannis.” He was staller as early as 1044, as appears from a writ in Cod. Dipl. iv. 221, where he is addressed along with Bishop Ælfwold, who died in that year. He signs many charters, among others the Waltham charter of 1062 (Cod. Dipl. iv. 159), with the title of “regiæ procurator aulæ,” equivalent, according to Professor Stubbs, to “dapifer.” See his note to De Inv. c. 14.

Footnote 1294:

De Inv. c. 14. So in the Waltham Charter (iv. 155), “Cuidam meorum Comitum, onomate Haroldo, quamdam terram quæ antiquitùs ab incolis illius loci nuncupatur Waltham, hæreditario jure concessi.”

Footnote 1295:

The building of the church is affirmed in the Charter (iv. 155); “In præscripto loco monasterium ad laudem Domini nostri Jesu Christi et sanctæ Crucis construxit ... fundatum ... monasterium ... dedicari fecit.” So De Inv. 16; “Venusto enim admodum opere a fundamentis constructam [ecclesiam].” The romantic Biographer (p. 161) is much fuller in his description. On the application of the word “monasterium” to a secular church, see vol. i. p. 472.

Footnote 1296:

See Appendix EE.

Footnote 1297:

The nature of the foundation, the offices of its several members, and the discipline to be observed, are set forth at large in the 15th chapter of the De Inventione, and are fully commented on by Professor Stubbs in his Preface, pp. xiii. xiv.

Footnote 1298:

The charter first mentions the building of the church, then adds, “_Primum_ concedens ei terram quæ vocatur Norðlande, unde ecclesiam villæ antiquitùs dotatam invenit;” then comes the consecration, then the ornaments and the relics; then “Quid plura? suæ denique conditionis non immemor, ibidem quorumdam catervulam fratrum secundum auctoritatem sanctorum patrum canonicæ regulæ [_canonical_, as opposed to monastic] subjectam constituit.” Cod. Dipl. iv. 155.

Footnote 1299:

The legendary Biographer very well describes the object of the foundation (pp. 160–161); “At vir magnificus, locum et loci cultum omnimodis cupiens cum suis cultoribus sublimare, novam ibi basilicam fabricare, ministrorum augere numerum, redditusque eorum proponit ampliare; utque celebriorem famâ, illustriorem clericorum frequentiâ, cœlestibus nobilitatam muneribus, locum terrigenis exhibet, scholas ibidem instituere ... dispositione satagebat prudenti.”

Footnote 1300:

See above, p. 41.

Footnote 1301:

On Adelard see De Inv. c. 15, and Stubbs, Preface, p. ix. In c. 25 the author calls Adelard, “institutor et ordinator præsentis ecclesiæ.” The Biographer (pp. 155–9) has a legend, which makes him a physician, sent over by the Emperor to cure Harold of a paralysis, which baffled the skill of English doctors. It baffled the skill of Adelard also, but, being a devout man, he recommends the Holy Rood of Waltham as the best resource, and by its virtue Harold is cured. Harold then founds the College, and puts Adelard at the head of the school. All this is made to follow Harold’s great Welsh campaign of 1063. The writer may have confounded it with the campaign of 1055. Harold, as we shall see, did suffer from the gout.

Footnote 1302:

De Inv. 25. His son Peter was Master when the author was a boy. He was a “fons uberrimus disciplinis doctrinam scaturiens.”

Footnote 1303:

Cod. Dipl. iv. 155. “Ut non solùm Dei cultor efficiatur, verùm etiam canonicæ regulæ strenuus institutor fieri credatur.”

Footnote 1304:

In 1857 I showed that the year must have been either 1059 or 1060. Professor Stubbs has now incontestably fixed it to the latter year.

Footnote 1305:

Professor Stubbs shows that the list of persons present at the consecration, as given in the De Inventione, c. 16, is taken from the list of signatures to the Charter. The author evidently thought that it was drawn up and signed at Waltham at the time. But he has thus fallen into some mistakes, as he introduces Walter and Gisa as Bishops, which they were in 1062, and therefore sign the charter as such, but which they were not in 1060. He also calls Gisa Bishop of Chichester instead of Wells.

Footnote 1306:

See vol. i. p. 471.

Footnote 1307:

The Waltham writer (De Inv. c. 16) goes so far as to say that Cynesige officiated “quia tunc vacabat sedes Cantuariæ.” See Appendix U.

Footnote 1308:

Chronn. Wig. and Petrib. 1060. Flor. Wig. 1060. Hugo Candidus (Sparke, 45). This last writer is loud in Cynesige’s praise, and records his gifts to Peterborough, which the Lady Eadgyth took away.

Footnote 1309:

Fl. Wig. 1060. “Wigornensis episcopus Aldredus ad archiepiscopatum in Nativitate Domini eligitur.” It may perhaps be thought that such speed is impossible, and that “eligitur” must be taken of a capitular election at York on Christmas-Day, which would be confirmed by the King and his Witan at some later Gemót. We have certainly heard of capitular elections thus confirmed or rejected, in one case at Durham (vol. i. p. 565) and in one case at Canterbury (see above, p. 119); but the grant of the Bishoprick of Hereford to Walter is so clearly connected with the promotion of Ealdred to York that we must suppose the two to have taken place in the same Assembly. I do not know why “eligere” may not be said of the Witan as well as of the Chapter; or, if any one pleases, it is quite possible that enough members of the Church of York may have been present in the Gemót to go through a canonical election at Gloucester, which the King and his Witan would at once confirm.

Footnote 1310:

Flor. Wig. 1060. “Herefordensis præsulatus ... capellano Edgithæ Reginæ Waltero Lotharingo est datus.” His writ of appointment is given in Cod. Dipl. iv. 194.

Footnote 1311:

In 1060, according to the Worcester Chronicle and Florence; in 1061 according to the Peterborough Chronicle.

Footnote 1312:

Flor. Wig. 1060. His writ is given in Cod. Dipl. iv. 195. The local historian of Wells (Ang. Sac. i. 559), with the notions of the fifteenth century, makes Gisa receive his appointment, as well as his consecration, from the Pope; “Hic quum in quâdam ambassiatâ cum aliis à dicto Rege ad Apostolicam Sedem missus fuisset pro quibusdam negotiis conscientiam dicti Regis moventibus, Apostolicus sibi contulit sedem Wellensem.” Gisa was born (see his own account, Ecclesiastical Documents, p. 16) at Saint Trudo, a town of the district of Hasbain in the Bishoprick of Lüttich. Florence says of Duduc and Gisa that they were “ambo de Lotharingiâ oriundi,” but Duduc was certainly a Saxon.

Footnote 1313:

On the dispute between Harold and Gisa, see Appendix FF.

Footnote 1314:

See his language in pp. 18, 19 of his narrative.

Footnote 1315:

Matth. Paris. Vitt. xxiii. Abb. ii. 47.

Footnote 1316:

Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. Scriptt. p. Bed. 163.

Footnote 1317:

Hist. Ep. Som. 16–19. “Tunc ecclesiam sedis meæ perspiciens esse mediocrem, clericos quoque quatuor vel quinque absque claustro et refectorio esse ibidem ... Quos publicè vivere et inhonestè mendicare necessariorum inopia antea coegerat.”

Footnote 1318:

See Appendix FF.

Footnote 1319:

Among other things, he bought Combe from “Arsere” (p. 18), who on reference to Domesday (89) appears as Azor, seemingly the same Thegn of whom Earl Godwine bought Woodchester in Gloucestershire. See Appendix E. Azor signs many charters, and in the Waltham document (Cod. Dipl. iv. 159) he appears as “Regis dapifer.”

Footnote 1320:

See above, p. 84.

Footnote 1321:

On these synods, held April 13th and May 1st, 1059, see Stubbs, Mosheim, ii. 47.

Footnote 1322:

We have seen that he found his Canons “absque claustro et refectorio,” things with which they could perfectly well dispense. Then he goes on (p. 19), “Quos publice vivere ... canonicali, ditatos, instruxi obedientiâ. Claustrum verò et refectorium et dormitorium illis præparavi, et omnia quæ ad hæc necessaria et competentia fore cognovi, _ad modum patriæ meæ_ laudabiliter advocavi.” On the Provostship of Wells, part of this institution, see Professor Stubbs in Gentleman’s Magazine, November 1864, p. 624.

Footnote 1323:

See above, p. 446.

Footnote 1324:

Fl. Wig. 1061. Vita Eadw. 411. Æthelred Riev. X Scriptt. 387. The reason for these Bishops going to Rome for consecration is most clearly expressed in an incidental entry in Florence under the year 1070; “Ambo Romæ à Nicolao Papâ ordinati sunt, quando Aldredus Eboracensium archiepiscopus pallium suscepit: vitabant enim a Stigando, qui tunc archiepiscopatui Doruberniæ præsidebat, ordinari, quia illum noverant non canonicè pallium suscepisse.” See Appendix U. The King’s orders seem implied in the words of Gisa himself (Hist. Ep. Som. 16); “Ego quem Rex Edwardus, licet vitæ meritis indignum, Romæ direxit et à Nicolao Papâ ordinatum ... honorificè recepit.”

Footnote 1325:

See above, p. 113.

Footnote 1326:

W. Thorn. X Scriptt. 1785.

Footnote 1327:

Chron. Petrib. 1061. “And on þam sylfan geare forðferde Wulfric abbod æt Sc̃e Augustine innon þære Easter wucan on xiv. Kal. Mai.” It is remarkable how many eminent persons—Earl Godwine, Archbishop Cynesige, and King Eadward himself are the most remarkable—died while the Witan were actually sitting, to the great convenience of those who had to elect their successors.

Footnote 1328:

The story continues, “Ða com þam cynge word þæt se abbot Wulfric forðgefaren wæs, þa geceas he [no mention of capitular election] Æðelsige munuc þærto.” On Windsor see Cod. Dipl. iv. 178, 209, 227.

Footnote 1329:

See above, pp. 113, 372.

Footnote 1330:

Hist. Rams. c. 119. We shall hear of Æthelsige again.

Footnote 1331:

Chron. Wig. 1061. “Her for Ealdred biscop to Rome æfter his pallium.”

Footnote 1332:

The Worcester Chronicle merely says, “And se Eorl Tostig and his wif eac foron to Rome.” The Biographer (410, 411) adds Gyrth, Gospatric, and others, as their companions. On Burchard, son of Ælfgar, see Appendix BB.

Footnote 1333:

Vita Eadw. 410. “Transfretavit, et per Saxoniam et superiores Rheni fines Romam tetendit.”

Footnote 1334:

Ib. 411. “Venerant quoque ex præcepto Regis ... Gyso et Walterius.”

Footnote 1335:

Æthel. Riev. 386. Est. de Seint Ædward, 2324 et seqq. But the fact rests on better authority. The Biographer (411) speaks of Ealdred as going to Rome—“ut ibi scilicet et regiæ legationis caussam peroraret, et usum pallii obtineret.” So Gisa himself (Hist. Ep. Som. 16) says that he came back “privilegium apostolicæ auctoritatis mecum deferens.”

Footnote 1336:

Vita Eadw. 410. “Romæ ab Apostolico Nicolao, honore quo decebat susceptus, à latere ejus in ipsâ Romanâ synodo ab eo coactus sedit secundus.” So Gisa (u. s.) says “post peractam ibi synodum.” William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont. 154) calls it “synodus quam contra simoniacos coegerat [Nicolaus].” He also mentions the honours shown to Tostig. But this synod cannot have been, as Æthelred (387) makes it, the Second Lateran Council. That assembly, according to the Chronicle of Bernold of Constanz (Pertz, v. 427), was held in 1060, but the real date was April 13, 1059. See its Acts in Pertz, Legg. ii. Ap. 177. Milman, iii. 49. And cf. above, p. 452.

Footnote 1337:

See what profess to be the letters in Cod. Dipl. iv. 183.

Footnote 1338:

Gisa himself (u. s.) fixes the day to April 15th.

Footnote 1339:

Vita Eadw. 411. “Apostolicis et pontificalibus decretis examinantibus et omni synodo censente, à petitione suâ repulsus, non solùm usum pallii non obtinuit, verùm ab episcopatûs gradu dejectus in hâc confusione recedere habuit.”

Footnote 1340:

Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. 154. “Gisonem et Walterum voti compotes reddidit, qui essent non usquequaque contemnendæ scientiæ et nullius notati ignominiâ simoniæ. Aldredum suâpte responsione culpabilem utrobique repertum omni honore severus exspoliavit.” But, in his Life of Wulfstan (Ang. Sac. ii. 250), he says, “Nam nec ille Wigornensi præsulatui renunciare, nec Papa nisi cederet Eboracensi eum pallio insignire volebat.” The Biographer (411) is not very clear, but he seems rather to make the translation the objection; “Perscrutatus ergo qualiter ad sacros accessisset ordines, eo gratuitu confitente inventus est à primo ordinationis suæ Episcopo [episcopatu?] ad alium [aliud MS.] commigrâsse contra canones.”

Footnote 1341:

Vita Eadw. 412. “Quum caussâ Aldredi Episcopi Dux in Româ prehendinaret diutiùs, uxorem suam et omnem regiæ dignitatis suæ comitatum præmiserat cum suis majoris numeri hominibus, et hi processerant prosperè.”

Footnote 1342:

The Biographer, who first (411) calls them “latrones,” afterwards (412) promotes them into “militares.”

Footnote 1343:

“Adolescens Gaius Patricius nomine” (411). The same strange perversion of the name is made by Orderic (512 C). This may be the Gospatric mentioned there as taking a part in the resistance to William in Northumberland. It is to be hoped for Tostig’s sake that it was.

Footnote 1344:

“Suis propriis rebus donatus,” says the Biographer, 412.

Footnote 1345:

Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. 154. “Ita differenti effectu quum regrederentur [he conceives Gisa and Walter to have been of the party], una pariter ærumna omnes involvit; nam prædonibus irruentibus, præter simplices vestes exspoliatis omnibus, ad nummum valens corporibus tamen illæsis Romam refugere.”

Footnote 1346:

Vita Eadw. 412. “Confusè ergo et miserabiliter reversis Romana pietas indoluit, veritusque Dominus Papa maximè clarissimi Ducis petitionem,” &c.

Footnote 1347:

Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. 154. “Futurum ut hæc Rex Anglorum audiens tributum Sancti Petri meritò Nicolao subtraheret, se non defuturum rerum veritati exaggerendæ. Hoc minarum fulmine Romani territi Papam flexerunt.” This follows a good hearty English denunciation, of which I have given the substance in the text. To the same effect in the Life of Wulfstan, ii. 250.

Footnote 1348:

Such is William of Malmesbury’s account. The Biographer, in his rhetoric, leaves out the condition.

Footnote 1349:

Vita Eadw. 412. “Ducem consolatus est caritativâ allocutione, allatis insuper magis xeniis ex beati Petri largitate.”

Footnote 1350:

See Appendix BB.

Footnote 1351:

See above, p. 116.

Footnote 1352:

Sim. Dun. Gest. Regg. 1061. “Interim Rex Scottorum Malcolmus sui conjuncti fratris, scilicet Comitis Tostii, comitatum ferociter depopulatus est, violatâ pace sancti Cuthberti in Lindisfarnensi insulâ.”

Footnote 1353:

Vita Wlst. 250. Ealdred is to resign Worcester, and a good successor is to be chosen; “Hujus igitur conditionis arbitros, et quædam alia ecclesiastica negotia in Angliâ expedituros, Cardinales adductos Archiepiscopus Regi exhibuit.” Florence (1062) calls them “legatos sedis apostolicæ ... Armenfredum scilicet, Sedunensem Episcopum, et alium, qui a Domino Papâ Alexandro pro responsis ecclesiasticis ad Regem Anglorum Eadwardum missi ... Wigorniæ ... degebant.” I quote the fuller Life by William of Malmesbury as “Vita Wlstani,” and the shorter one by Heming by name.

Footnote 1354:

Vita Wlst. 250. “Adeò illum amor Wigorniæ devinxerat.”

Footnote 1355:

Florence mentions their sojourn at Worcester, and their admiration of Wulfstan; the Life makes them actually his guests.

Footnote 1356:

Fl. Wig. “Exspectantes responsum suæ legationis usque ad curiam regalem proximi Paschæ.” So the Life, but less clearly.

Footnote 1357:

See above, pp. 372, 436.

Footnote 1358:

Vita Wlst. 251. “Maximæ quantùm ad sæculum prudentiæ, quantùm ad religionem non minimæ.” But the Evesham historian (p. 87) calls him “honestis moribus valde probatum, tam generis nobilitate quàm divinâ lege ac sæculari prudentiâ plurimum valentem.”

Footnote 1359:

Hist. Evesh. pp. 88, 89.

Footnote 1360:

Vit. Wlst. 251. “Quamvis Æthelwius sollicitè anniteretur partibus.”

Footnote 1361:

Ib. “Aldredus, pro pacto quod fecerat Apostolico, nonnullo tempore fluctaverat animo; utrum ad episcopatum eligeret Ethelwii perspicacem industriam in sæculo, an Wlstani simplicem religionem in Deo. Erant enim illi viri Wigornensis diœcesis diverso respectu præstantissimi.”

Footnote 1362:

Flor. Wig. 1062. “Anno ætatis suæ plus quinquagesimo.”

Footnote 1363:

Æthelstan in the Life, Eatstan according to Florence.

Footnote 1364:

Vita Wlst. 244. Ervenius was a skilful illuminator, and wrote a Sacramentary for King Cnut and a Psalter for the Lady Emma. Cnut (249) gave both the books to the Emperor Conrad; his son Henry the Third gave them to Ealdred, who brought them back from Köln and gave them to Wulfstan. Emma had another Psalter whose adventures in Normandy we have already come across. See above, p. 233.

Footnote 1365:

The story is given at length in the Life, p. 245.

Footnote 1366:

Brihtheah was Bishop from 1033 to 1038 (Chron. Wig. 1033. Ab. 1038). This fixes the date of Wulfstan’s ordination and profession. Brihtheah was one of the embassy which took Gunhild to Germany (Heming, Cart. 267). He had a brother Æthelwig, who enlarged the presbytery of Saint Peter’s Church in Worcester (Ib. 342).

Footnote 1367:

Vita Wlst. 246. “Obtulit ei plusquam semel Antistes ecclesiam suburbanam, cujus opulenti reditus ad quotidianam stipem satis superque sufficerent.”

Footnote 1368:

Ib. 247. “Præpositus, ut tunc, Prior, ut nunc dicitur, monachorum constitutus.” “Prior et pater congregationis,” says Florence, adding “ab Aldredo episcopo ponitur.” It will be remembered that, in a cathedral monastery, the Bishop was Abbot, so the Prior was the immediate head of the society.

Footnote 1369:

Ib. 248. “Jam enim venalitas ex infernalibus umbris emerserat, ut nec illud gratis presbyteri præberent infantibus sacramentum, si non infarcirent parentes marsupium.” Adam of Bremen (iv. 30) brings the same charge against the Norwegian and Danish clergy; but he allows it to be their only fault, and attributes it to the unwillingness of the “barbarians” to pay tithe.

Footnote 1370:

Heming, Vita Wlst. Angl. Sacr. i. 541. “Venerabilis interea Comitissa Godgiva, famâ bonitatis ejus auditâ, totis illum cœpit diligere visceribus, et diversis hujus sæculi subvenire necessitatibus.” See Appendix E.

Footnote 1371:

Will. Malms. Vit. Wlst. 248. See above, p. 41.

Footnote 1372:

Fl. Wig. 1062. “Fit unanimis consensus tam cleri quam etiam totius plebis in ejus electione, Rege videlicet annuente ut quem sibi vellent præsulem eligerent.” He goes on to mention the coming of the Legates and their visit to Worcester, and adds; “Hi videntes, dum ibi morabantur, ejus laudabilem conversationem, in ejus electione non tantùm consentiebant, immo etiam tam clerum quam plebem maximè ad hoc instigabant, suâque auctoritate ejus electionem firmabant.” This seems, especially considering the passage about the King, certainly to imply a preliminary election by the clergy and people of Worcester, which the Witan had to confirm or reject. It is hardly possible that by “clerus et plebs” he can mean the Gemót itself. He speaks of the Legates waiting for the Gemót, but it is from the Life that we get the details of the debate.

Footnote 1373:

Vita Wlst. 251. “Ad Curiam reversi, dum Wigornensis Episcopi ventilaretur electio, nomen ejus tulerunt in medium.” It must have been a wholesome thing for Roman Cardinals to come face to face with an Assembly in whose proceedings order and freedom had already learned to kiss one another.

Footnote 1374:

Ib. “Adstipulabantur votis Cardinalium Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis et Eboracensis, ille favore, iste testimonio [I suppose this means that Ealdred spoke from his own knowledge, and Stigand from the report of others], ambo judicio. Accedebant laudibus etiam Comites Haraldus et Elgarus, par insigne fortitudinis, non ita religionis.”

Footnote 1375:

Ib. “Sanctus ergo ad Curiam exhibitus jubetur suscipere donum Episcopatûs [the King’s writ?]. Contra ille niti, et se honori tanto imparem cunctis reclamantibus clamitare.”

Footnote 1376:

Fl. Wig. 1262. “Illo obstinatissimè renuente, seque indignum acclamante et cum sacramento etiam affirmante se multò libentiùs decollationi quàm tam altæ ordinationi succumbere velle.”

Footnote 1377:

“Frustra Cardinales cum Archiepiscopis trivissent operam, nisi refugienti prætendissent Papæ obedientiam.” So says the Life, p. 251, and the argument is one which would doubtless be used, though one may doubt whether Stigand was specially eloquent on behalf of the Papal claims. But the matter was clearly not settled at once in the Easter Gemót. Florence witnesses to the final persuasion wrought by the “inclusus” Wulfsige, who, after his long solitude, was not likely to be among the assembled Witan. (We shall hear of Wulfsige again.) The dates also prove the delay. Florence tells us that the canonical confirmation was on August 29th, the consecration on September 8th.

Footnote 1378:

See Appendix U.

Footnote 1379:

Fl. Wig. 1062. “Coram Rege et regni optimatibus.” Or, as Florence, when he speaks of the Witan, is rather fond of using popular language, this may mean some smaller Council.

Footnote 1380:

Ib. “Se nullum jus ecclesiasticæ seu sæcularis subjectionis super eum deinceps velle clamare, nec propter quod ab eo consecratus est, nec quia ante consecrationem ejus monachus factus est.”

Footnote 1381:

Vita Wlst. 251. “Rex ergo Edwardus Wlstanum Wigornensi episcopatu ex solido investivit; licet illum Aldredus potentiâ quâ vigebat multis et penè omnibus ... prædiis vellicaverit.” The Gloucester historian (i. 9) charges him with having dealt in the same way with that Monastery on his appointing the other Wulfstan to be its Abbot.

Footnote 1382:

This is the charter in Cod. Dipl. iv. 154, already so often quoted. The signatures are very numerous. Stigand, though excluded from the consecration of the minster, signs the charter; so does the Norman Bishop William, also Bishop Gisa, various French courtiers, Esegar the Staller, and Earl Ælfgar. Harold’s own signature takes a very practical shape; “Ego Haroldus Dux _operando consolido_.”

Footnote 1383:

See Appendix GG.

Footnote 1384:

This seems implied in the verses of the Biographer, p. 425;

“Quis canit occiduos modulator in orbe Britannos, Gentem Caucasiis rupibus ingenitam, Indomitam fortemque nimis regnante Griphino, Nec jam contentam finibus occiduis? Ultra sed sceleris cursum tulit arma Syvernæ, Vimque ejus regnum pertulit Angligenûm.”

Footnote 1385:

This is implied in the Worcester Chronicle, 1063. “On þissum geare for Harold Eorl æfter Middanwintre of Gleaweceastre to Rudelan.” Florence is fuller. Harold goes “jussu Regis Eadwardi,” and the reason assigned is “ut Regem Walanorum Griffinum, propter frequentes depopulationes quas in Anglorum finibus agebat, ac verecundias quas domino suo Regi Eadwardo sæpe faciebat, occideret.” A bill of attainder was seemingly passed against Gruffydd, just like that which, at another Gloucester Gemót, nine years before, had been passed against Rhys, the brother of the other Gruffydd. See above, p. 349.

Footnote 1386:

Fl. Wig. 1063. “Equitatu non multo secum assumpto.” The Housecarls were clearly the only troops fitted for a sudden enterprise of this kind. Riding to the field, but fighting on foot, they were _dragoons_ in the earlier sense of the word.

Footnote 1387:

Flor. Wig. “Eodemque die rediit.”

Footnote 1388:

Joan. Sarisb. Polyc. vi. 6 (iv. 16—18 Giles). His general argument is, “Videsne quantùm electio ducis et exercitium juventutis militiæ conferant?” He introduces Harold thus; “Anglorum recens narrat historia, quod, quum Britones, irruptione factâ, Angliam depopularentur, à piissimo Rege Edwardo ad eos expugnandos missus est Dux Haraldus, vir quidem in armis strenuus [his common epithet with Florence], et laudabilium operum fulgens insignibus, et qui tam suam quam suorum posset apud posteros gloriam dilatare, nisi meritorum titulos, nequitiam patris imitans, perfidè præsumpto regno, decoloraret.”

Footnote 1389:

He enlarges at some length on the inadequate preparations made in his time to resist the invaders; “Nivicollini Britones irruunt, et jam protendunt terminos suos, et egressi de cavernis suis latebrisque silvarum, plana occupant, nobilium procerum, videntibus ipsis, impugnant, expugnant, et diruunt, aut sibi retinent, munitiones.” After some rhetorical complaints of the luxury of his own age, he goes on, “Depopulantur illi fines nostros; dum juventus nostra instruitur, et dum nobis miles armatur, hostis evadit.” Presently comes the account of Harold.

Footnote 1390:

De Illaud. Walliæ, ii. 7, ap. Ang. Sacr. ii. 451. He describes Harold’s campaign, and adds, “Ob has igitur tam cruentas tamque recentes Anglorum de hâc gente victorias primi tres Normannorum Reges in tantâ subjectione tamque pacificam suis diebus Walliam tenuere.”

Footnote 1391:

Fl. Wig. 1063. “Frater suus Comes Tostinus, ut Rex mandârat, cum equestri occurrit exercitu.” The Worcester Chronicle says, “Tostig fór mid landferde ongean.” “Landferd” is here opposed to Harold’s fleet. Tostig had probably troops of both kinds in his army, but the “equestris exercitus” implies that some were Housecarls.

Footnote 1392:

See above, p. 389.

Footnote 1393:

Giraldus (Angl. Sacr. ii. 452), in his very curious remarks on the right way to carry on a Welsh war, enlarges on the necessity of being prepared for poor fare. The Marchers are “Gens ... cibo potuque non delicata, tam Cerere quam Baccho caussis urgentibus abstinere parata.” It was now no doubt that Harold showed that power of enduring “infinitos labores, vigilias, et inediam,” of which the Biographer had spoken, p. 409. See above, p. 38.

Footnote 1394:

The Biographer makes a distinct allusion to the change of tactics, p. 425;

“Quum volucres Angli sub Haroldo præside juncti Tostini cuneis agminibusque citis.”

Were this writer less rhetorical, one might think that _cunei_ meant specially the Housecarls, as distinguished from the “agmina cita” of the light-armed. Cf. Giraldus (ii. 451); “Haroldus ultimus, qui pedes ipse, cumque pedestri turmâ et levibus armis victuque patriæ conformi [see on the Welsh fare just above], tam validè totam Kambriam et circuivit et transpenetravit.” But the fullest account is given by John of Salisbury (iv. 18); “Quum ergo gentis cognosceret levitatem, quasi pari certamine militiam eligens expeditam, cum eis censuit congrediendum, levem exercens armaturam, perornatus incedens fasciis pectus et præduro tectus corio, missilibus eorum levia objectans ancilia, et in eos contorquens nunc spicula, nunc mucronem exercens, sic fugientium vestigiis inhærebat, ut premeretur ‘pede pes et cuspide cuspis,’ et umbo umbone repelleretur.”

Footnote 1395:

Vita Eadw. 426;

“Gnarus inaccessis scrobibus se credere miles, Tutius hostiles involet unde acies, Saltibus et scopulis fretus regione malignâ, Sic vexat longâ lite Duces geminos.”

So John of Salisbury (iv. 18); “Nivium itaque collem ingressus, vastavit omnia.”

Footnote 1396:

Giraldus (ii. 451). “In cujus victoriæ signum perpetuamque memoriam lapides in Walliâ more antiquo in titulum erectos locis, in quibus victor exstiterat, literas hujuscemodi insculptas habentes plurimos invenies; Hic fuit victor Haroldus.” I am not aware that any of these monuments now remain. The stones at Trelech in Monmouthshire, sometimes thought to be a memorial of one of Harold’s victories, must be far older, and Monmouthshire is not likely to have been the scene of war.

Footnote 1397:

Ib. (ii. 453). “Ibi capiuntur milites, hic decapitantur; ibi redimuntur, hic perimuntur.”

Footnote 1398:

Joan. Sarisb. iv. 18. “Usque ad miserationem parvulorum omnem masculum qui inveniri potuit interficiens, in ore gladii pacavit provinciam.” So Harold’s biographer, though confounding the chronology (see above, p. 442), says (Vita Haroldi, 155) truly enough, “Viribus autem corporis quantum præstiterit, quam acer et strenuus [mark the standing epithet] animis armisque innotuerit, subacta, immo ad internecionem per Haroldum penè deleta, Wallia est experta.”

Footnote 1399:

Giraldus (ii. 451). “Ut in eâdem fere mingentem ad parietem non reliquerit.”

Footnote 1400:

John of Salisbury extends the campaign over two years, and Florence places the death of Gruffydd in 1064. But both the Worcester and the Peterborough Chronicles distinctly place the whole story between May and August 1063.

Footnote 1401:

Fl. Wig. 1063. “Regem suum Griffinum exlegantes abjecerunt.”

Footnote 1402:

Chron. Wig. 1063. “Se wæs kyning ofer eall Wealcyn.”

Footnote 1403:

I quote literally the Brut y Tywysogion. Its wrong date, 1061, is corrected in the Annales Cambriæ into 1063. “Griffinus filius Lewelini Rex Britonum nobilissimus dolo suorum occisus est.”

Footnote 1404:

Chron. Wig. He is slain “fram his agenum mannum, þurh þæt gewin þe he won wiþ Harold Eorl.”

Footnote 1405:

The Peterborough Chronicler is almost startling in his terse brevity; “And þæt folc heom gislodon and to bugon, and foron syððan to, and ofslogon heora cyng Griffin and brohton Harolde his heafod.” By John of Salisbury’s time it was forgotten that Gruffydd was killed by his own people; with him Harold “Reges cepit et capita eorum Regi qui eum miserat præsentavit” (iv. 18). The death of Gruffydd had however been decreed in the Christmas Gemót. See above, p. 468.

Footnote 1406:

Chron. Wig. “And Harold hit [Gruffydd’s head] þam kynge brohte, and his scipes heafod and þa bone þermid.” I do not know what the “bone” means. The Biographer (426) says nothing about the death of Gruffydd, but is eloquent about the spoil, especially the

“Proram cum puppi, pondus grave scilicet auri, Artificum studio fusile multiplici.”

Footnote 1407:

The Worcester Chronicle (1063) says expressly that the two princes were Gruffydd’s brothers; “And se kyng Eadward betæhte þæt land his twam gebroþran Bleþgente and Rigwatlan.” In the two Welsh Chronicles no notice is taken of this investiture of Gruffydd’s successors, but in 1068 we find Bleddyn and Rhiwallon reigning; they are however called sons of Cynfyn, and are described as waging war with the sons of Gruffydd. Of Bleddyn we have heard before in the invasion of Herefordshire. See above, p. 388.

Footnote 1408:

See Appendix DD. The Peterborough Chronicle leaves out all mention of Eadward; “And he [Harold] sette oþerne cyng þærto.”

Footnote 1409:

Chron. Wig. “And hig [Bleddyn and Rhiwallon] aþas sworon and gislas saldan þæm Cynge _and þæm Eorle_, þæt heo him on allum þingum unswicende beon woldon, and eighwar him gearwe, on wætere and on lande, and swylc of þam lande gelæstan swylc man dyde toforan ær oþrum kynge.”

Footnote 1410:

Joan. Sarisb. iv. 18. “Legem statuit ut quicumque Britonum exinde citra terminum, quem eis præscripsit, fossam scilicet Offæ, cum telo inveniretur, ei ab officialibus regni manus dextra præcideretur.”

Footnote 1411:

Ib. “Adeoque virtute Ducis tunc Britones confecti sunt ut fere gens tota deficere videretur, et ex indulgentiâ jam dicti Regis mulieres eorum nupserunt Anglis.”

Footnote 1412:

I shall speak more largely of her in my third volume.

Footnote 1413:

Brut y Tywysogion, 1039. “Gruffydd overcame Howel and captured his wife, and took her to be his own wife.”

Footnote 1414:

It is certainly hard measure when Sir Francis Palgrave (Hist. Ang. Sax. p. 372) speaks of Harold’s wife as “her whose husband he had murdered.” Did Alexander murder Darius?

Footnote 1415:

See vol. i. p. 411.

Footnote 1416:

Excepting Dr. R. Vaughan (Revolutions in English History, i. 300), who, from some undescribed sources not open to other writers, has found out that “the marriage could hardly have been a happy one. Ea[l]dgyth was a woman of great ambition, and unscrupulous in her use of means to gratify her passions.”

Footnote 1417:

Chron. Ab. 1065. “Harold Eorl ... þone Kingc Eadward þar to habbene for huntnoþes þingon.” So Flor. Wig. “Ut Dominus suus Rex Eadwardus illic aliquamdiu venationis caussâ degere possit.”

Footnote 1418:

See above, p. 387. Florence expressly distinguishes him as “filius Regis Suth-Walanorum Griffini, quem ante paucos annos Griffinus Rex North-Walanorum occiderat, ejusque regnum invaserat.”

Footnote 1419:

R. Wend. i. 507. “Craddoc, Griffini filius, quem anno præterito exsulaverat Haroldus.” This may however be some confusion with the outlawry of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn.

Footnote 1420:

Chronn. Ab. and Wig. 1065. “Þa for Cradoc Griffines sunu to, mid eallum þam þe he begytan mihte, and þæt folc mæst eall ofsloh þe þar timbrode, and þæt gód genam þe þar gegaderod wæs.”

Footnote 1421:

Chron. Wig. “Ne wiston we hwa þone unræd ærest gerædde.”

Footnote 1422:

Vita Eadw. 421. “Interea quorumdam nobilium factione quos ob nequitias suas gravi presserat dominatûs sui jugo, conjurant in invicem in ejus præjudicio.”

Footnote 1423:

Chron. Ab. 1065. “Forþam þa he rypte God ærost.”

Footnote 1424:

Ib. “And ealle þa bestrypte þe he ofer mihte, æt life and æt lande.”

Footnote 1425:

Ib. “Ealle þa mid hym þe unlage rærdon.” On the untranslatable phrase of _unlaw_, see above, p. 336.

Footnote 1426:

Fl. Wig. 1065. “Pro immensitate tributi quod de totâ Northhymbriâ injustè acceperat.”

Footnote 1427:

Flor. Wig. 1065. “Pro exsecrandâ nece ... Gamelis filii Orm ac Ulfi filii Dolfini quos anno præcedenti Eboraci in camerâ suâ, sub pacis fœdere, per insidias, Comes Tostius occidere præcepit.” Dolfin and Orm both appear in Domesday, seemingly as holders under William of small parts of great estates held under Eadward. See 278 _b_, 330 _b_, 331 _b_. Orm married Æthelthryth, a daughter of Earl Ealdred (Sim. Dun. X Scriptt. 82) and sister-in-law of Earl Siward (see vol. i. p. 587), but Gamel was not her son.

Footnote 1428:

See vol. i. p. 588.

Footnote 1429:

See vol. i. p. 416.

Footnote 1430:

Fl. Wig. “Pro exsecrandâ nece ... Gospatrici, quem Regina Edgitha, germani sui Tostii caussâ, in curiâ Regis, quartâ nocte Dominicæ nativitatis, per insidias occidi jussit.” The deed here attributed to Eadgyth reminds one of the old crimes of Eadric at Oxford and Shrewsbury. See vol. i. pp. 356, 411.

Footnote 1431:

See above, p. 457.

Footnote 1432:

Chron. Wig. 1065. “And sona æfter þisan gegaderedon þa þegenas hi ealle on Eoforwicscire and on Norðhymbralande togædere.” Here we have perhaps the earliest use of the name Yorkshire, and of the name Northumberland in its modern sense. See vol. i. p. 585. The Abingdon Chronicle has only “on Eoforwicscire,” and Peterborough says “foron Norðhymbra togædere.”

Footnote 1433:

I have, as usual, made a comparison of the narratives in an Appendix (Note HH), referring here only to details.

Footnote 1434:

Flor. Wig. 1065. “Cum cc. militibus.”

Footnote 1435:

The names come from Florence. All three appear in Domesday as great landowners, Gamel especially, in King Eadward’s time. In 1086 Gamel still holds _in capite_ a small part of his vast estates in Yorkshire (331), while his small Staffordshire holding seems to be increased (250 _b_). Dunstan has sunk to be a tenant of Ilbert of Lacy (317 _b_), while Glonieorn, called in Domesday Glunier (298 et al.), has, either by death or by confiscation, vanished altogether.

Footnote 1436:

See Appendix HH.

Footnote 1437:

The regulations made for the King’s reception at Shrewsbury (Domesday, 252) show that his presence there was not unlikely, and there was at least one Gemót held there in the time of Æthelred. See vol. i. p. 356. One of the legends of Harold and Tostig (see Appendix Z) implies the King’s probable presence at Hereford; but we do not distinctly hear of him further north than Gloucester.

Footnote 1438:

See above, p. 377.

Footnote 1439:

Sim. Dun. Hist. Eccl. Dun. iii. 14 (X Scriptt. 37). “Quidam vocabulo Copsi, qui sub Tosti totius comitatûs curam gerebat.” Gest. Regg. Angl. a. 1072 (X Scriptt. 204). “Rex Willelmus comitatum Osulfi commisit Copsio, qui erat partis Tostii Comitis viro consiliario et prudenti.” In Domesday also (298 _b_ et al.) he figures as Copsi, but his estates do not seem to have been very large. His gifts to the Church of Durham are mentioned by Simeon (X Scriptt. 37). The Norman writers, as William of Poitiers (148 ed. Giles), turn his name into Coxo, out of which Thierry, by way of being specially Teutonic, has made _Kox_. (Cf. “Alwinus _Coc_ Bedellus” in Domesday 190, a prudent man who held at the Survey what he had held T. R. E.) They also call him “Comes,” though Simeon (X Scriptt. 37) seems, even under William, to give him no higher title than “Procurator” = Gerefa?

Footnote 1440:

Chronn. Wig. Petrib. 1065. The Abingdon Chronicler omits this decree, which marks the gathering as intended to assume the character of a lawful Gemót.

Footnote 1441:

Chronn. Wig. Petrib. “And sendon æfter Morkere Ælfgares sunu Eorles, and gecuron hine heom to Eorle.” To the same effect afterwards Chron. Ab. “Hig namon heom þa Morkere to Eorle.” Vita Eadw. 421. “Utque efferæ temeritatis haberent auctoritatem, caput sibi et dominum faciunt Ducis Alfgari filium juniorem, ejusque fratrem natu majorem, ad hanc societatem dementiæ suæ invitant.”

Footnote 1442:

See above, p. 378.

Footnote 1443:

See above, p. 434.

Footnote 1444:

See above, p. 482.

Footnote 1445:

Sim. Dun. Gest. Regg. 1072 (X Scriptt. 204). “Morkarus vero, quoniam aliàs gravibus negotiis impeditus fuerat, comitatum ultra Tynam tradidit Osulfo adolescenti, filio præfati Comitis Eadulfi.” We shall hear of him again.

Footnote 1446:

The names come from Florence, who (see Appendix HH) describes them as “illius [Tostii] Danicos huscarlas, Amundum et Reavensvartum.” “Danicus” is an ambiguous word, and does not show whether they were simply adventurers from Denmark or sons of followers of Cnut. The name would hardly be applied to descendants of the elder Danish settlers. At any rate, one of these men was a considerable landowner, and both, from their special mention, must have been men of some importance, probably officers in command of the force. Reavenswart is doubtless the man who, under several spellings, occurs as a landowner T. R. E. in Yorkshire, Shropshire, and Cheshire (Domesday, 257, 266, 268 _b_, 301 _b_). The Amund of Suffolk, 433, 433 _b_, and 441 _b_, is a different person, but may not “Anand huscarl R. E.” in Hertfordshire, 140 _b_, be a corrupt form of our Amund?

Footnote 1447:

See Appendix HH.

Footnote 1448:

Chronn. Wig. Petrib. 1065. “And naman ealle his wæpna on Eoforwic and gold and seolfer and ealle his sceattas, þe hig mihton ahwær þær geacsian.” Fl. Wig. “Ærarium quoque ipsius fregerunt, et omnibus quæ illius fuerant ablatis, recesserunt.” Will. Malms. (ii. 200). “Homines ejus, et Anglos et Danos, obtruncârunt, equos et arma, et supellectilem omnem corradentes.”

Footnote 1449:

See Appendix HH.

Footnote 1450:

See vol. i. pp. 51, 64, 411.

Footnote 1451:

Chronn. Wig. Petrib. “And eac fela Bryttas comon mid him.”

Footnote 1452:

See above, p. 479.

Footnote 1453:

Chron. Wig. “And þa Ryðrenan dydan mycelne hearm abutan Hamtune, ... ægþær þæt hi ofslogon menn, and bærndon hús and corn, and namon eall þæt orf þe hig mihton to cuman, þæt wæs feola þusend, and fela hund manna hi naman, and læddan norð mid heom.” I do not know that the word “Ryðrenan” occurs elsewhere; but the hope that it might mean Welshmen is dispelled by the word “norð,” and still more clearly by the words of the Peterborough Chronicler, who, for “þa Ryðrenan” reads “þa norðerne menn.” The evil doers were clearly the original Northumbrian revolters.

Footnote 1454:

Chronn. Wig. Petrib. 1065. “Swa þæt seo scir and þa oðra scira þæ ðær neah sindon wurdan fela wintra ðe wyrsan.”

Footnote 1455:

On the negotiations, see Appendix HH.

Footnote 1456:

See above, p. 136.

Footnote 1457:

Will. Malms. ii. 200. “Se nullius Ducis ferociam pati posse.” See Appendix HH.

Footnote 1458:

Ib. “Proinde, si subditos velit, Markerium filium Elgari eis præficiat, re experturum quam dulciter sciant obedire, si dulciter tractati fuerint.”

Footnote 1459:

Chronn. Wig. Petrib. “And eac ærendracan mid him sendon.”

Footnote 1460:

Vita Eadw. 422. “Accitis undique regni primatibus, habebat ibi consilium quid super tali negotio esset opus.”

Footnote 1461:

Vita Eadw. 422. “Culpabant nonnulli eumdem gloriosum Ducem nimiæ feritatis, et magis amore justitiæ inquietos punisse arguebatur cupiditati invadendæ eorum facultatis.” I suppose I have caught the meaning of this stiff bit of Latin.

Footnote 1462:

Ib. “Dicebatur quoque [mark the difference of the formula], si dignum esset credere, fratris sui Haroldi invidioso, quod absit, suasu, hanc dementiam contra Ducem suum aggressos esse.” The Biographer expresses his own disbelief; “Sed ego huic detestabili nequitiæ a tanto principe in fratrem suum non audeo nec vellem fidem adhibere.” The Biographer, the special apologist of Tostig, is here driven to his last shift.

Footnote 1463:

Chron. Ab. and Florence. See Appendix HH.

Footnote 1464:

See Appendix Z.

Footnote 1465:

Vita Eadw. 422. “Ipse tamen Dux Tostinus, coram Rege ejusque frequentibus palatinis publicè testatus, hoc illi imposuit, sed ille citiùs ad sacramenta nimis (proh dolor) prodigus [on this most remarkable allusion, see above, p. 43], hoc objectum sacramentis purgavit.”

Footnote 1466:

Ib. 423. “Multotiens ergo à Rege per legatos consulti quum non adquiescerent sed potiùs inceptâ dementiâ ampliùs furerent, ferro disponit eorum contumacem proterviam compescere, commotis regali edicto universis totius reliquiis Angliæ.”

Footnote 1467:

Ib. “Sed quia ex asperiori hieme jam tunc aëris incumbebat inæqualitas, tum non facile erat ad contrariam expeditionem sufficientes educere exercituum copias, et quia in eâdem gente horrebat quasi bellum civile, instabant quidam ferventem Regis animum sedare, et ne expeditio procederet, suadere.”

Footnote 1468:

See vol. i. pp. 578, 579.

Footnote 1469:

This seems implied in the words of the Biographer (423); “Obluctatique diutiùs Regem proficisci volentem non tam avertunt, quam eo invito perperàm deficiunt.”

Footnote 1470:

Vita Eadw. 423. “Contestatusque Deum cum gravi mœrore ipsi conquestus est quod suorum debito destitueretur obauditu ad comprimendam iniquorum superbiam. Denique super eos imprecatus est vindictam.”

Footnote 1471:

See above, pp. 23, 137.

Footnote 1472:

Chronn. Wig. and Petrib. “And se cyng þæs geuðe, and sende eft Harold heom to Hamtune” [it should be Oxford, see Appendix HH]. William of Malmesbury (iii. 252) does not ill describe the state of things; “Fiebant ista, ut a consciis accepimus, infenso Rege, quia Tostinum diligeret; sed morbo invalidus, senio gravis, penè jam despectui omnibus habere cœperat ut dilecto auxiliari non posset.” When William wrote, Eadward, however much reverenced, was not yet formally canonized.

Footnote 1473:

Will. Malms. ii. 200. “Haroldus ... qui magis quietem patriæ quam fratris commodum attenderet.”

Footnote 1474:

That the ravages took place during this interval, appears from the words of the Peterborough and Worcester Chronicles, that it was “þa hwile þe he [Harold] for heora ærende.”

Footnote 1475:

Both this and the Northampton Assembly are called “Mycel Gemót.” See Appendix HH.

Footnote 1476:

This is, I think, implied in the words of the Abingdon writer and of Florence (see Appendix HH). Harold tries to reconcile them “ibi”—at Northampton—“et post apud Oxnefordam.”

Footnote 1477:

See above, p. 375, and Appendix G.

Footnote 1478:

See vol. i. p. 462.

Footnote 1479:

Chron. Wig. and Petrib. “And he [Harold] niwade þær Cnutes lage.”

Footnote 1480:

Fl. Wig. “Cum adjutorio Comitis Eadwini de Angliâ Tostium expulerunt.”

Footnote 1481:

Vita Eadw. 423. “At Deo dilectus Rex, quum Ducem suum tutare non posset, gratiâ suâ multipliciter donatum, mœrens nimium quod in hanc impotentiam deciderit, à se dimisit.” The Chronicles, by simply saying “fór ofer sæ,” or something to that effect, distinctly favour the Biographer’s account.

Footnote 1482:

The Chronicles mention the departure of Tostig and his wife; the Biographer says, “cum conjuge et lactentibus liberis.” Yet they had been married fourteen years.

Footnote 1483:

With him went, say the Worcester and Peterborough Chronicles, “ealle þa þe woldon þæt he wolde.” So the Biographer (u. s.), “plurimâque nobilium suorum manu.”

Footnote 1484:

Fl. Wig.

Footnote 1485:

See above, pp. 404, 465.

Footnote 1486:

Chronn. Ab. Wig. Petrib. and Flor. Wig. The Abingdon Chronicle and Florence alone mention Saint Omer.

Footnote 1487:

Since this section was written, Dean Stanley has published his Memorials of Westminster Abbey, in the early part of which he goes over nearly the same ground. But I find a good deal of difference between my ideas of historical evidence and those of the Dean.

Footnote 1488:

Flor. Wig. “Post hæc Rex Eadwardus paullatim ægrotare cœpit.” Vita Eadw. 423. “Quo dolore decidens in morbum, ab eâ die usque in diem mortis suæ ægrum trahebat animum.” Will. Malms. iii. 252. “Quare ex animi ægritudine majorem valetudinem corporis contrahens, non multo post decessit.” The hagiographers do not feel called on to enlarge on the real cause of the death of their hero—baffled wrath against his own people.

Footnote 1489:

Vita Eadw. 417. “Ob amorem principalis Apostoli, quem affectu colebat unico et speciali.”

Footnote 1490:

The Biographer assigns no motive for the foundation of Westminster beyond this special reverence for Saint Peter, and the other usual motives for the foundation of monasteries. But his statement does not exclude the account given by the legendary writers about the vow, the dispensation, and the embassies to Rome. This I accept in the main, of course without binding myself to any legendary details, because it fits in so exactly with the statements of the Chroniclers and other authentic writers, who mention the two embassies without describing their object.

Footnote 1491:

See above, p. 115.

Footnote 1492:

See above, p. 442.

Footnote 1493:

See above, pp 447, 467.

Footnote 1494:

It is somewhat dangerous to use the two doubtful charters which will be found in Cod. Dipl. iv. 173, 181. If I could fully trust them, I should find it easy to add many details. But I venture to refer to them only when their statements seem either to have great probability in themselves or to be confirmed by some other evidence. The two embassies to Rome seem to imply that, in 1050, nothing had been begun, but that in 1061 the foundation was complete. The words of the second charter (p. 181) imply this. Eadward says “Quum ergo renovâssem eam,” &c. of the time when he sent the second embassy, four years before the completion and dedication of the church.

Footnote 1495:

Cod. Dipl. iv. 175. “Revelavit beatus Petrus cuidam probabilis vitæ monacho incluso nomine Wlfsino voluntatem suam esse ut restruerem locum, qui dicitur Westmonasterium.” On Wulfsige, see above, p. 466.

Footnote 1496:

Wace (10653) enlarges on the name, and his phonetic spelling illustrates his natural difficulty in pronouncing the letter þ.

“En un islet esteit assise, _Zonée_ out nom, joste Tamise; _Zonée_ por ço l’apelon, Ke d’espine i out foison, E ke l’ewe en alout environ. _Ee_ en engleiz isle apelon, _Ee_ est isle, _zon_ est espine, Seit rainz, seit arbre, seit racine; _Zonée_ ço est en engleiz Isle d’espine en françeiz.”

Prevost’s note is worth reading.

Footnote 1497:

So says Æthelred, X Scriptt. 385.

Footnote 1498:

Æthelred, 385, and more briefly in the charter, iv. 181.

Footnote 1499:

Vita Eadw. 417. “Parvo quidem opere et numero, paucioribus ibi congregatis monachis sub Abbate in servitio Christi.”

Footnote 1500:

See vol. i. p. 567.

Footnote 1501:

See above, p. 113.

Footnote 1502:

Vita Eadw. u. s. “Eligit ibi habere sibi locum sepulcri.”

Footnote 1503:

So at least says Pope Nicolas’ letter in Æthelred, 389. Cod. Dipl. iv. 184. “Ut ampliùs imperpetuum regiæ constitutionis et consecrationis locus sit, atque repositorium regalium insignium.” Here, whether the text be genuine or not, the immediate application of the church to the use spoken of proves the truth of the statement.

Footnote 1504:

Vita Eadw. 417. “Intendit Deo devotus Rex locum illum, tam vicinum famosæ et opulentæ urbi, tum satis apricum ex circumjacentibus fecundis terris et viridantibus prædiis.” He goes on to speak of the commerce of London.

Footnote 1505:

See vol. i. p. 280. Eadward was a benefactor to Fécamp (ðán hálgan mynstre æt Feskamp), giving it land at Steyning in Sussex (Cod. Dipl. iv. 229), where there grew up an alien Priory. A magnificent fragment of the church remains, of late twelfth century work.

Footnote 1506:

On the remains of Eadward’s work in Westminster Abbey, see the work by Mr. G. G. Scott and others, Gleanings from Westminster Abbey.

Footnote 1507:

This is asserted in the famous passage of William of Malmesbury (ii. 228), “Ecclesia ... quam ipse illo compositionis genere primus in Angliâ ædificaverat quod nunc penè cuncti sumptuosis æmulantur expensis.” On the architectural question I trust to say something in the last volume of this work.

Footnote 1508:

See the description in the Biographer, and representation in the Bayeux Tapestry, which shows beyond doubt that the building consecrated in 1065 was a perfect church, and not a mere fragment.

Footnote 1509:

So says the French Life (2295), which, on such a subject, may be trusted;

“En miliu dresce une tur, E deus en frunt del Occident E bons seinz e granz i pent.”

But, as the Tapestry does not show these towers, they were probably carried up at a later time, as often happened.

Footnote 1510:

Vita Eadw. 417. “Præcepit deinde ex decimis omnium redituum suorum initiari opus nobilis ædificii.” So Cod. Dipl. iv. 176. “Decimari præcepi omnem substantiam meam, tam in auro et argento, quàm in pecudibus et omni genere possessionum.”

Footnote 1511:

Cod. Dipl. iv. 179. So the writs in iv. 190, 228. I presume that he succeeded Wulfnoth in 1049.

Footnote 1512:

The Charter in Cod. Dipl. 176 says, “Destruens veterem, novam à fundamentis basilicam construxi.” The Biographer explains the gradual process (418); “Hæc autem multiplicitas tam vasti operis tanto spatio ab oriente ordita est veteris templi, ne scilicet interim inibi commorantes fratres vacarent a servitio Christi, ut etiam aliqua pars spatiosè subiret interjaciendi vestibuli.” The Biographer, always hard to understand, is specially so in his architectural description.

Footnote 1513:

The charter in Cod. Dipl. iv. 177 mentions Leofcild, Æthelric, Wulfwig, Guthmund, Ælfric, Atsere (or Azor) the Black (Swerte), Ingulf, Atsere, Tostig, Ælfwine, Wulfstan, Siward, and Leofsige of London. The gifts of several of them are mentioned in various writs: Leofcild in iv. 214; Ælfwine, iv. 217; Atsere Swerte, iv. 220; the other Atsere, iv. 191 (which of these was the Azor of Gloucestershire and Somersetshire?); and Leofsige, “Dudde sunu,” iv. 218. There is also Ulf the Portreeve in iv. 221. The writs about the King’s own gifts are very numerous.

Footnote 1514:

See the Life, pp. 428 et seqq., and Appendix B.

Footnote 1515:

Æthelred, 389. Was this holy man the _inclusus_ Wulfsige?

Footnote 1516:

Æthelred, 396. “Ipso ad regnum cœleste translato, cuncta terrarum regna commota sunt. Syria paganis subjecta, destructa monasteria, dirutæ à fundamentis ecclesiæ, plena funeribus omnia, morte principum Græcorum, Romanorum, Francorum, Anglorum, et regna cætera perturbata.” As regards the “Princeps Romanorum,” the hagiographer is wide of his mark, for Henry the Fourth survived the Confessor forty years.

Footnote 1517:

See the story in the De Inventione, p. 22. Æthelred, 397. The Waltham writer lets us incidentally into the fact that London, York, Winchester, and Lincoln were then counted the four chief cities of England. In the great dispute over the quarters of Dafydd in 1283 (Ann. Waverley, 400 ed. Luard), the order was ruled to be London, Winchester, York, Bristol (others say Chester), with Northampton as the fifth.

Footnote 1518:

Æthelred, writing in Yorkshire, mentions vaguely a church of Saint John; the East-Saxon writer fixes it at Clavering. See Professor Stubbs’ note, p. 24.

Footnote 1519:

“Postea” says Æthelred, but “eodem die,” according to Roger of Howden, Scriptt. p. Bed. 256.

Footnote 1520:

Vita Eadw. 418. “Ejus æquivoca sancta Ædgith, de cujus progenie idem Rex Ædwardus descenderat.” The Biographer could hardly have thought that Eadward was a lineal descendant of this virgin saint, his own aunt. But in his rhetoric “progenies,” or any other word, may mean anything.

On the power of Saint Eadgyth to rebuke blasphemers, see vol. i. p. 484.

Footnote 1521:

Vita Eadw. u. s. “Lignea tamen adhuc illic ecclesia stabat.”

Footnote 1522:

Ib. “Regio opere lapideum monasterium inchoat, ferventiùsque instans operarios maturat. Contendunt hinc Rex, illinc Reginâ, contentione Deo gratâ, in invicem quoque non injocundâ.”

Footnote 1523:

Ib. 421. “Actâ ergo hujus ecclesiæ consecratione ... anno Domini millesimo sexagesimo quinto ad justitium totius patriæ, hæc regni subsequuta est perturbatio.”

Footnote 1524:

Fl. Wig. 1065. “In nativitate Domini curiam suam, ut potuit, Lundoniæ tenuit.” Æthel. 398. “Appropinquabat dies ... in quo Anglorum tota nobilitas ad Regis curiam debuit convenire, et Regi more suo sceptris simul et coronâ decorando adsistere.” So directly after (399), “Convenientibus in unum episcopis cunctisque regni proceribus, sacra dedicationis sollennitas inchoatur.”

Footnote 1525:

Æthel. 398, 399. Will. Malms. ii. 228. “In Natale Domini apud Lundoniam coronatus est.”

Footnote 1526:

The consecration “on Cyldamæsse dæg” is asserted by all three Chronicles, by Florence, and by William of Malmesbury. “Lét halgian” is the phrase of Abingdon and Worcester; so Florence, “cum magnâ gloriâ dedicari fecit,” and William of Malmesbury, “dedicari præcepit.” The action of Eadgyth comes from Æthelred, 399; “Rex, quantùm valetudo permittebat, favebat officio, sed Regina, omnia disponens, omnia procurans, sollicita de omnibus, intenta omnibus, utriusque vicem implevit.”

Footnote 1527:

I reserve the details of Eadward’s death for my next Chapter. It is so essentially connected with the accession of Harold that the two events can hardly be separated in narration, and the different accounts of the death-bed scene at once lead us to the discussion of the question as to Eadward’s dying recommendation with regard to his successor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained. ● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last chapter. ● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_. ● Enclosed blackletter font in =equals=. ● The caret (^) serves as a superscript indicator, applicable to individual characters (like 2^d) and even entire phrases (like 1^{st}).