Chapter XLV: Appendix (14)

Dudo, 126 C. See Appendix W.

Footnote 358:

Dudo, 128 D et seqq. See Appendix W.

Footnote 359:

Dudo, 138 A. “Burgundionibus imperat, Aquitanos arguit, et increpat
Britones, et Northmannos regnat et gubernat, Flandrenses minatur, et
devastat Dacos et Lotharienses, quinetiam Saxones sibi connectit et
conciliat. Angli quoque ei obedienter subduntur, Scoti et Hibernenses
ejus patrocinio reguntur.” Cf. p. 185.

Footnote 360:

See Appendix W.

Footnote 361:

Flod. 948. “Hugo, nullam moram faciens, collecta suorum multa
Nortmannorumque manu.” 949. “Hugo comes collecta suorum multa
Nortmannorumque manu.” “Hugo igitur non modico tam suorum quam
Nortmannorum collecto exercitu.”

Footnote 362:

Widukind (ii. 2) has a good deal to tell us about the threats
exchanged between Hugh and Otto, and about the straw hats worn by
Otto’s soldiers, but he cuts the details of the campaign very short.
See Palgrave, ii. 544.

Footnote 363:

Dudo, 129 D.

Footnote 364:

This Lotharingian dispute is not mentioned by Richer, but it appears
in Flodoard, A. 944. Lewis and Hugh both sent embassies to Otto, and
that of Hugh met with the more favourable reception. Things changed
greatly in the course of a year.

Footnote 365:

Dudo, 129 B, makes Henry still King, and presently—finding out his
mistake, but not correcting it—he goes on to talk of Otto. This year,
946, Otto lost his beloved English wife Eadgyth. Flod. A. 946;
Widukind, ii. 41, iii. 1.

Footnote 366:

See Appendix T.

Footnote 367:

Wid. iii. 3. “Lugdunum [Laudunum] adiit, eamque armis temptavit.”
Flodoard (946) says, “Considerata castri firmitate devertunt ab eo.”
So Richer, ii. 54.

Footnote 368:

Flod. A. 946; Wid. iii. 3; Richer, ii. 54–6. Widukind places the
taking of Rheims before the invasion of France.

Footnote 369:

The accounts here vary a good deal. Widukind says, “Inde Parisius
[this name is used, I know not why, by many mediæval writers as an
inclinable noun] perrexit, Hugonemque ibi obsedit, memoriam quoque
Dionysii martyris [Hugh was lay Abbot of his monastery] digne honorans
veneratus est.” Flodoard says, “Reges cum exercitibus suis terram
Hugonis aggrediuntur, et urbem Silvanectensem obsidentes, ut viderunt
munitissimam, nec eam valentes expugnare, cæsis quibusdam suorum,
dimiserunt. Sicque trans Sequanam contendentes, loca quæque præter
civitates gravibus atterunt deprædationibus, terramque Nortmannorum
peragrantes, loca plura devastant; indeque venientes regrediuntur in
sua.” Could Widukind have confounded Paris and Senlis? Richer, who has
some curious details (ii. 57), mentions the siege of Senlis (56) but
says nothing of Paris, and he quarters Hugh at Orleans (58). Dudo (130
B) makes the Kings meet at Paris, so far confirming Widukind. Dudo
doubtless did not care about the fate of Laon or Rheims.

Footnote 370:

Neither Flodoard nor Richer mentions Rouen. All that Richer (ii. 58)
has to say of the Norman campaign is, “Post hæc feruntur in terram
piratarum ac solo terras devastant. _Sicque regis injuriam atrociter
ulti_, iter ad sua retorquent.” But Widukind (iii. 4) has, “Exinde,
collecta ex omni exercitu electorum militum manu, Rothun Danorum urbem
adiit, sed difficultate locorum, asperiorique hieme ingruente, _plaga
eos quidem magna percussit_; incolumi exercitu, _infecto negotio_,
post tres menses Saxoniam regressus est, urbibus Remense atque Lugduno
[a clear error] cum cæteris armis captis Hluthowico regi concessis.”

Footnote 371:

Dudo, 131–5; Roman de Rou, 3914–4291; Palgrave, ii. 556–586. See also
Historical Essays, First Series, pp. 240–243.

Footnote 372:

Against Flanders (Flod. A. 947; Richer, ii. 60); against Rheims (Flod.
u. s.; Richer, ii. 62); against Soissons (Flod. 848; Richer, ii. 85).

Footnote 373:

Lewis in 947 (Flod. in anno; Richer, ii. 61); Gerberga in 949 (Flod.
in anno; Richer, ii. 86). This was a great meeting of German and
Lotharingian princes, and of ambassadors from Italy, England, and
Constantinople.

Footnote 374:

Flod. 947; Richer, ii. 63–5. It would seem that some bishops were
there in their _princely_ character, to whom Duke Hugh referred the
question about the archbishopric of Rheims, which the bishops referred
to a more regular synod to be held at Verdun. Widukind says (iii. 5),
“Huga autem expertus potentiam regis virtutemque Saxonum, non passus
est ultra terminos suos hostiliter intrare, sed _pergenti in eamdem
expeditionem anno sequenti_ [the French writers do not imply this]
occurrit juxta fluvium qui dicitur Char, manus dedit, juxtaque
imperium regis pactum iniit, utilisque proinde permansit.” This is
greatly exaggerated.

Footnote 375:

Flod. 947; Richer, ii. 66.

Footnote 376:

Flod. 948; Richer, ii. 67, 8.

Footnote 377:

Flod. 948; Richer, ii. 69–81.

Footnote 378:

I quote some passages from Flodoard illustrating the position of the
Kings. “Ingressis gloriosis regibus Othone et Ludowico et simul
residentibus ... exsurgens Ludowicus rex e latere et concessu domini
regis Othonis.” Lewis offers “inde se juxta synodale judicium _et
regis Othonis præceptionem_ purgaret, vel certamine singulari
defenderet.” “Interea rex Ludowicus deprecatur regem Othonem ut
subsidium sibi ferat contra Hugonem, et ceteros inimicos suos. Qui
petitioni concedens,” &c.

Footnote 379:

Flod. 948. The Synod adjourned from Engelheim to Laon and from Laon to
Trier, where the anathema against Hugh was pronounced. Flodoard was
himself present, being chaplain to Archbishop Artald. Richer, (ii. 82)
confounds the two adjournments, and makes the anathema be pronounced
at Laon.

Footnote 380:

See above, p. 222.

Footnote 381:

See above, p. 209.

Footnote 382:

Flod. A. 949; Richer, at great length, ii. 87–91.

Footnote 383:

Flod. A. 949; Richer, ii. 95.

Footnote 384:

Flod. A. 950. “Hugo ad regem venit et suus efficitur.” Richer, ii. 97.
“Dux ... regi humiliter reconciliari deposcit, eique satisfacturum
sese pollicetur.... Hugo itaque dux per manus et sacramentum regi
efficitur.”

Footnote 385:

Flod. A. 953.

Footnote 386:

Richer’s narrative (ii. 98) differs from that of Flodoard in
introducing Hugh as gathering the army for the Aquitanian expedition,
of which the King afterwards takes the command. But Richer’s French
translator seems to misconceive his meaning when he renders “_in
Aquitaniam_ exercitum regi parat” by “le duc leva une armée _en
Aquitaine_.”

Footnote 387:

Flod. A. 951; Richer, u. s., who says that Charles “ex regio quidem
genere natus erat, sed concubinali stemmate usque ad tritavum
sordebat.” Neither of them gives him the royal title which he
certainly bore. Is “Charles-Constantine” perhaps the earliest case of
a double Christian name, or is “Constantinus” a mere surname, derived
from one of the cities called Constantia?

Footnote 388:

Flod. A. 954; Richer, ii. 103.

Footnote 389:

Flod. A. 965; Richer, iii. 21.

Footnote 390:

Flod. A. 954. “Lotharius puer, filius Ludowici, apud Sanctum Remigium
rex consecratur ab Artoldo archiepiscopo, favente Hugone principe et
Brunone archiepiscopo, cæterisque præsulibus ac proceribus Franciæ,
Burgundiæ, atque Aquitaniæ.” Richer (iii. 1, 2) is fuller, but to the
same effect.

Footnote 391:

He married Gerloc or Adela, daughter of Rolf and Popo. Dudo (97 B, C)
has a curious story about his courtship.

Footnote 392:

See Flod. A. 942, 951; Richer, ii. 28, 98.

Footnote 393:

Flod. A. 954. “Burgundia quoque et Aquitania Hugoni dantur ab ipso
[Lothario].”

Footnote 394:

Flod. A. 955; Richer, iii. 3–5, who puts as good a face as he can on
Hugh’s discomfiture, and makes more of a subsequent victory over
William, and of a second more successful siege, of which Flodoard says
nothing.

Footnote 395:

Flod. A. 956. “Hugo princeps obiit.” Richer, iii. 5.

Footnote 396:

Dudo, 136 D.

Footnote 397:

Flod. A. 960. “Richardus, filius Willelmi Nortmannorum principis,
filiam Hugonis trans Sequanam [or ‘Transsequani’] quondam principis
duxit uxorem.” Dudo (136, 7) and Sir Francis Palgrave (ii. 690–4) have
much to say about this marriage.

Footnote 398:

See Appendix W.

Footnote 399:

Flod. A. 960. “Otto et Hugo filii Hugonis, mediante avunculo ipsorum
Brunone, ad regem veniunt ac sui efficiuntur. Quorum Hugonem rex ducem
constituit, addito illi pago Pictavensi ad terram quam pater ipsius
tenuerat; concessa Ottoni Burgundia.” So Richer, iii. 13.

Footnote 400:

Flod. A. 965. “Otto filius Hugonis, qui Burgundiæ præerat, obiit, et
rectores ejusdem terræ ad Hugonem et Oddonem clericum, fratres ipsius,
sese convertunt.” According to _L’Art de Vérifier les Dates_ (ii. 495,
ed. 1784), “Oddo clericus” is the same as Henry the Great, founder of
the first line of Capetian Dukes of Burgundy.

Footnote 401:

See Appendix W.

Footnote 402:

In 958 Arnulf either associated his son Baldwin with him in his
government, or else resigned in his favour. On his death in 962 he
again took possession. See _L’Art de Vérifier les Dates_, iii. 3.

Footnote 403:

See _L’Art de Vérifier les Dates_, ii. 611.

Footnote 404:

Flod. A. 962. “Seniorem suum [Tetbaldi] Hugonem.”

Footnote 405:

Ib. 945. “Committens [Hugo] eum [Ludowicum] Tetbaldo cuidam suorum.”
He had just before called him “Tetbaldus Turonensis.”

Footnote 406:

Dudo, 137 D et seqq.

Footnote 407:

Flod. A. 962. “Tetbaldus quidam.” 964. “Tetbaldum quemdam procerem.”

Footnote 408:

Dudo, 142 C.

Footnote 409:

Ib. 139 C et seqq.

Footnote 410:

Flod. A. 961. “Placitum regale diversorumque conventus principum
Suessionis habetur, ad quod impediendum, si fieri posset, Richardus
filius Willelmi Nortmanni accedens, a fidelibus regis quibusdam
pervasus, et, interemptis suorum nonnullis, in fugam versus est.”

Footnote 411:

Ib. 962. “Tetbaldus quidam cum Nortmannis confligens victus est ab
eis, et fuga dilapsus evasit. Qui seniorem suum Hugonem proinde
infensum habens ad regem venit, a quo, sed et a regina Gerberga
benigne susceptus, et miti consolatione refocillatus abscessit.”
Richer only mentions Theobald in connexion with his spoliation of the
Church of Rheims and his consequent excommunication, iii. 20. So Flod.
A. 964.

Footnote 412:

Dudo, 140 C et seqq.

Footnote 413:

The “Norman Kingdom” was, according to Dudo (147 C, D; 151 C),
confirmed by the King and his princes (“Optimates totius Franciæ”—a
new use of words seems creeping in) to Richard and his heirs for ever;
the question of homage is avoided.

Footnote 414:

Twenty-four years later, in 986, Dudo, then canon of Saint Quintin,
was of an age to take a prominent share in public business. Dudo, 155
D.

Footnote 415:

See the detailed narrative in Richer, iii. 67–81.

Footnote 416:

Did the very name of the country, “regnum Lotharii,” suggest to the
present Lothar the thought of recovering it? Such a motive would not
be out of character with a prince whose indignation was stirred up
simply because the Emperor was staying—with his pregnant wife—so near
the border as Aachen. So at least Richer tells us, iii. 68.

Footnote 417:

Richer, iii. 69. “Mox dux et aliis primates, sine deliberandi
consultatione sententiam regiam attollunt. Sese sponte ituros cum rege
et Ottonem aut comprehensuros aut interfecturos aut fugaturos
pollicentur.”

Footnote 418:

Ib. iii. 71. “Æream aquilam quæ in vertice palatii a Karolo magno acsi
volans fixa erat, in Vulturnum converterunt. Nam Germani eam in
Favonium converterant, subtiliter significantes Gallos suo equitatu
quandoque posse devinci.”

It is amusing to find the characteristic vanity of the great nation
showing itself thus early. Most likely neither Charles nor any later
German had ever thought of anything of the kind.

Footnote 419:

Richer, iii. 74–76. See Historical Essays, p. 243.

Footnote 420:

According to Thietmar of Merseburg (iii. 7) Lothar came in person,
accompanied by his son. Richer (iii. 79) makes him send ambassadors.
The speech put into their mouths seems quite to look on Otto and
Lothar as royal colleagues. Otto’s Imperial dignity is not hinted at;
I doubt whether Richer ever uses the word Emperor at all.

Footnote 421:

Richer, iii. 81. “Belgicæ pars quæ in lite fuerat in jus Ottonis
transiit.”

Footnote 422:

See the narrative, a most full, curious, and interesting one, of
Hugh’s journey to the Emperor at Rome, and the snares laid for him on
his return by Lothar. Richer, iii. 81–88.

Footnote 423:

Richer, iii. 89, 90.

Footnote 424:

Ib. iii. 91. “A duce reliquisque principibus Ludovicus rex
acclamatus.” Others place this event in 978 or 979.

Footnote 425:

Ib. iii. 92–95. Adelaide, widow of Raymond of Septimania or Gothia.
Lewis divorced her. Cf. Rud. Glaber, i. 3.

Footnote 426:

Richer, iii. 97–110.

Footnote 427:

Dudo, 155 C. Cf. Flod. A. 965.

Footnote 428:

Richer, iv. 1.

Footnote 429:

Richer, iv. 2, 3.

Footnote 430:

Ib. iv. 5.

Footnote 431:

This is alluded to in the words, “Qui tanta capitis imminutione hebuit
[any notion of the legal phrase of ‘_de_minutio capitis’?] ut externo
regi servire non horruerit.” Richer, iv. 11.

Footnote 432:

See Appendix S.

Footnote 433:

Richer, iv. 12, 13.

Footnote 434:

See the history of the war in Richer, iv. 14–49.

Footnote 435:

Ælius Spartianus, Pescennius, 1. “Quos tyrannos aliorum victoria
fecerit;” a good illustration of the use of the word. The same may be
said of Antipopes.

Footnote 436:

See pp. 206, 209, 223.

Footnote 437:

Neither Richer—he was not likely—nor Rudolf Glaber speaks of Richard
at all. Dudo, oddly enough, passes by the whole business very briefly;
“Nec illud prætereundum quod, Lothario rege defuncto [he forgets
Lewis], Hugo dux inthronizatus voluit super Albertum comitem
equitare.” (155 D.) William of Jumièges is fuller; “Mortuo Francorum
rege Lothario, in illius loco ab omnibus subrogatur Hugonis Magni
ducis filius Hugo Capeth, adminiculante ei duce Richardo.” (iv. 19.)
The Roman de Rou (5823) is fuller still;

“Par defaute de son lignage,
O le cunseil del grant barnage,
E por la force de Richart,
Par son conseil e par son art,
Fu Hugon Chapes recéu,
Et en France pour rei tenu ...
Par Richart è par sa valor,
Ki éu aveit sa seror,
Par sun cunseil è par s’amur
Fu de France Huon seignur.”

Footnote 438:

See above, p. 223.

Footnote 439:

See above, p. 154.

Footnote 440:

See Flodoard’s description of Lewis’s invasion of Normandy, A. 944;
“Ludowicus rex in terram Nortmannorum proficiscitur cum Arnulfo et
Herluino et quibusdam episcopis Franciæ ac Burgundiæ.”

Footnote 441:

The different circumstances which led to such different results in
France and in Germany I trust to point out in the second volume of my
History of Federal Government.

Footnote 442:

With the exception of the three portions of the kingdom which have
become wholly detached. See above, pp. 156, 187.

Footnote 443:

Dante, Purg. xx.

Footnote 444:

For this legend in full, see the early chapters of Oudegherst,
_Annales de Flandres_. Lyderic, the foundling, is of course of
princely birth. It is the same story as those of Cyrus and Romulus.

Footnote 445:

See _L’Art de Vérifier les Dates_, ii. 828.

Footnote 446:

Will. Gem. vii. 38. “Mater ejus Sprota, necessitate urgente,
contubernio [was there even a Danish marriage?] cujusdam prædivitis
nomine Asperlengi adhæsit. Hic, licet in rebus locuples, tamen
molendina vallis Ruelii ad firmam solitus erat tenere.” So M. Jourdain
measured cloth only for amusement; so, in some pious legends, Zebedee
was a mighty baron of Galilee, whose sons fished for pleasure and not
for profit.

Footnote 447:

There is something ludicrous in the way in which Dudo (137 B, C),
after spending all his powers of prose to set forth the marriage of
Emma, goes on to explain in verse that she was not fated to be the
mother of a Duke of the Normans.

Footnote 448:

Dudo, 152 C. “Subscalpenti voluptuosæ humanitatis fragilitati
subactus, genuit duos filios, totidem et filias, ex concubinis.”

Footnote 449:

Dudo (u. s.) makes her to be “ex famosissima nobilium Dacorum prosapia
exorta,” but he allows that the Duke “eam prohibitæ copulationis
fœdere sortitus est sibi amicabiliter.” He marries her (“inextricabili
maritalis fœderis privilegio sibi connectit”) at the advice of the
great men of the land. So William of Jumièges (iv. 18) vouches for the
nobility of her birth and for her marriage being celebrated
“Christiano more.” But his continuator (viii. 36) has a curious
legend—the same as one of the legends of our Eadgar—to tell about her
first introduction to Richard. See also Roman de Rou, 5390–5429, &c.,
5767–5812.

Footnote 450:

See Chron. S. Max. ap. Labbé, ii. 202. We there read, “Ricardus
Christianissimus factus,” probably not without an allusion to his
apostasy in his childhood.

Footnote 451:

So Wace, 5873;

“Clers establi ki servireient,
E provendes dunt il vivreient.”

Footnote 452:

See Neustria Pia, 210; Lincy, “Essai Historique et Littéraire sur
l’Abbayes de Fécamp” (Rouen, 1840), p. 6. The expressions of Dudo, 153
B et seqq., and of William of Malmesbury, ii. 178, might easily
mislead.

Footnote 453:

See p. 164.

Footnote 454:

See Hist. of Fed. Government, i. 574.

Footnote 455:

Roman de Rou, 5955–5974.

Footnote 456:

Will. Gem. v. 2; Roman de Rou, 5975–6118. See above, p. 172.

Footnote 457:

I do not mean merely because the word “parlement” occurs several times
in the Roman de Rou. It is there used in its primitive sense, as
translating “colloquium.” With this Norman revolt we may compare the
revolt in Britanny in 1675, described in the Count of Carné’s “Etats
de Bretagne.” See especially the “Code Paysan” at i. 377. The part of
Rudolf of Ivry is played by the Duke of Chaulnes.

Footnote 458:

Will. Gem. v. 2. “Nam rustici unanimes per diversos totius Normannicæ
patriæ comitatus plurima agentes conventicula, juxta suos libitus
vivere decernebant. Quatenus, tam in silvarum compendiis quam in
aquarum commerciis, nullo obsistente ante statuti juris obice, legibus
uterentur suis. Quæ ut rata manerent, ab unoquoque cœtu furentis vulgi
duo eliguntur legati, qui decreta ad mediterraneum roboranda ferrent
conventum.”

Footnote 459:

Roman de Rou, 6070;

“Asez tost oï Richard dire
Ke vilains _cumune faseient_.”

It does not necessarily follow that the word “commune” was used at the
time, though I know no reason why such may not have been the case. It
would be quite enough if Wace applied to the union of the peasants a
name which in his time had become perfectly familiar, in the
instinctive feeling that the earlier movement was essentially a
forerunner of the later. Compare the “conjurationes” so strictly
forbidden in the Carolingian Capitularies. See Brentano on Gilds, p.
lxxvi; and for a full account of these “conjurationes,” Waitz, iv.
362–364.

Footnote 460:

Roman de Rou, 6001–6015.

Footnote 461:

Mark the brutal levity with which Rudolf’s cruelties are dismissed by
William of Jumièges (v. 2); “Qui [Rodulphus] non morans jussa, cunctos
confestim legatos cum nonnullis aliis cepit, truncatisque manibus et
pedibus, inutiles suis remisit, qui eos talibus compescerent, et ne
deteriora paterentur suis eventibus cautos redderent. His rustici
expertis, festinato concionibus omissis, ad sua aratra sunt reversi.”
So Roman de Rou, where various other tortures are spoken of, vv.
6093–6118. The same sentiment comes out in the speech which Orderic
(713 A) puts into the mouth of the monks of Molesme; “Exinde principum
institutione, et diutina consuetudine usitatum est in Gallia, ut
rustici ruralia, sicut decet, peragant opera, et servi servilia passim
exerceant ministeria.... Absit ut rustici torpescant otio, saturique
lascivientes cachinnis et inani vacent ludicro, quorum genuina sors
labori dedita est assiduo.”

Footnote 462:

Albereda, the wife of Rudolf, built the famous tower of Ivry. See
Will. Gem. viii. 15.

Footnote 463:

See Palgrave, iii. 44.

Footnote 464:

Our main authorities for this period are essentially the same as those
to which we have to go for our knowledge of earlier times. The English
Chronicles are still our principal guide. For the present they may be
quoted as one work, as the differences between the different
manuscripts, pointed out by Mr. Earle in the Preface to his Parallel
Saxon Chronicles, are not as yet of much strictly historical
importance. Florence of Worcester gives what is essentially a Latin
version of the Chronicles, with frequent explanatory additions, which
his carefulness and sound sense render of great value. The Charters
and Laws of the reign of Æthelred are abundant, and, besides their
primary value as illustrating laws and customs, the signatures
constantly help us to the succession of offices and to a sort of
skeleton biographies of the leading men of the time. These, the
Chronicles, Laws, and Charters, form our primary authorities. The
later Latin Chroniclers, from William of Malmesbury and Henry of
Huntingdon onwards, supply many additional facts; but their accounts
are often mixed up with romantic details, and it is dangerous to trust
them, except when they show signs of following authorities which are
now lost. This is not uncommonly the case with both Henry of
Huntingdon and William of Malmesbury. Local histories, like those of
Ely, Ramsey, and Abingdon, supply occasional facts, but the same sort
of cautions which apply to the secondary writers of general history
apply to them in a still greater degree. We now also begin to draw
some little help from foreign sources. The Danish History of Saxo
Grammaticus, the Chronicles of Swegen Aggesson, the various Sagas,
especially the famous Saga of Olaf Tryggvesson, are very hard to
reconcile with the more authentic notices in our own Chronicles; but
among much that is doubtful and much that is clearly fabulous, they
often help us to facts, and to the causes and connexions of facts,
which our own writers leave obscure. The Norman writers also begin to
be of some importance for the events which connect England and
Normandy. For the early part of the reign of Æthelred we have no
contemporary Norman writer, but the accounts in the Roman de Rou and
in William of Jumièges at least show us what was the Norman tradition.
Later in the period, we have, in the Encomium Emmæ (reprinted in the
nineteenth volume of Pertz by the name of “Gesta Cnutonis”), the work
of a contemporary Norman or Flemish writer, which, though throughout
unfair and inaccurate, is worth comparing with our English writers.
Occasional notices of Danish and English affairs are sometimes to be
gleaned from the German writers, like Adam of Bremen and the
contemporary Thietmar of Merseberg.

On the whole the materials for this period are ample, and, as regards
England, they are fully trustworthy. The difficulty lies in
reconciling the English and continental narratives.

Footnote 465:

“Unready” must mean “lacking _rede_” or counsel. Walter Map (De Nugis,
199) calls him “Edelredus, quem Anglici _con_silium [_in_silium? see
below, p. 317] vocaverunt, quia nullius erat negotii.” “Magnificus,”
the epithet of Eadmund the First, means rather “worker of great
deeds”—the Greek μεγαλοπράγμων,—than “magnificent” in the vulgar
sense.

Footnote 466:

See Appendix AA.

Footnote 467:

Fl. Wig. A. 975. “Congregato exercitu, monasteria Orientalium Anglorum
maxima strenuitate defenderunt.”

Footnote 468:

“Amicus Dei.” Fl. Wig. 975, 991, 992, 1016. See Appendix AA.

Footnote 469:

See Appendix AA.

Footnote 470:

For a full examination of her story, I would refer to the first Essay
in my Historical Essays, first series.

Footnote 471:

“Fabius Quæstor Patricius Æthelwerdus,” as he thinks good to call
himself, the author of the earliest and most meagre of our Latin
Chronicles, was descended (see his own Prologue) from one of the sons
of Æthelred the First who were excluded to make way for Ælfred (see
above, p. 108).

Footnote 472:

Fl. Wig. 975. See Appendix BB.

Footnote 473:

The correct description is “the Old Lady.” See Chron. (Abingdon),
1051. Lady (_Hlæfdige_), it will be remembered, not _Queen_, is the
usual title of the wife of a West-Saxon King.

Footnote 474:

See Eadmer, Anglia Sacra, ii. 220, Osbern, 112, and Lingard’s note,
Hist. of England, i. 274.

Footnote 475:

Fl. Wig. A. 976. The poems in the Chronicles certainly seem to me to
connect the banishment of Oslac with the predominance of Ælfhere and
the anti-monastic party.

Footnote 476:

See Appendix KK.

Footnote 477:

The Chronicles bitterly lament the crime, without mentioning the
criminal. Florence distinctly charges Ælfthryth with it. In the hands
of William of Malmesbury (ii. 162) the story becomes a romance, which
gets fresh details in those of Bromton (X Scriptt. 873 et seqq.). The
_obiter dictum_ of William of Malmesbury (ii. 165), that Ælfhere had a
hand in Eadward’s death, is contrary to the whole tenor of the
history. See Chron. 980; Fl. Wig. 979.

Footnote 478:

I know not what to make of the incredible story in Goscelin’s Life of
Saint Eadgyth (Mabillon, Ann. Ord. Ben. vii. 622), that the Witan or
some of them (“regni proceres”) wished to choose his heroine, a
natural daughter of Eadgar and already a professed nun, as Lady in her
own right. A female reign had not been heard of since the days of
Sexburh.

Footnote 479:

Chron. and Fl. Wig. in anno. See also the charter of 998 in Cod. Dipl.
iii. 305, and Appendix AA. The beginnings of a legendary version may
be seen in William of Malmesbury (ii. 165) and Roger of Wendover (i.
423).

Footnote 480:

Fl. Wig. 987. The English and Welsh Chronicles both put the
cattle-plague a year earlier, and do not mention the disease among
men.

Footnote 481:

On the contradictory statements as to Æthelred’s first wife and her
children, see Appendix RR.

Footnote 482:

The full form of this name, _Swegen_, is always used by the English
Chroniclers; but in Danish pronunciation it seems to have been already
cut down into _Svein_ or _Sven_. The Latin forms are _Suanus_ and
_Sueno_.

Footnote 483:

This is in marked contrast to the affairs of the Empire, on which our
Chroniclers evidently kept a careful eye, and of which they contain
many notices.

Footnote 484:

See the Saga of Olaf Tryggvesson, c. 29; Laing, i. 395. Swegen is
called Suein Otto by Adam of Bremen, ii. 25.

Footnote 485:

Adam Brem. u. s.; Sax. Gram. lib. x. p. 185, ed. Hafn. 1644.

Footnote 486:

See the “Saga om Oloff Tryggwasson,” “Historia Olai Tryggwæ Filii,”
Upsala, 1691, or Laing’s Sea-Kings of Norway, i. 367.

Footnote 487:

Adam Brem. ii. 32; Saxo, lib. x. p. 188. Swegen, already King, is
driven out by Eric of Sweden. To reconcile the chronology is hopeless.
Saxo calls the English King _Eadward_.

Footnote 488:

Chron. A. 980. “And þý ilcan geare wæs Legeceasterscír gehergod fram
norð scipherige.” Florence has, more distinctly, “Civitatis Legionum
provincia a Norwegensibus piratis devastatur.” Northmen of all kinds
are often confounded under the name of Danes, but none but genuine
Norwegians are likely to be spoken of in this way. _Leicester_ here,
as often, is not the midland Leicester, but Chester.

Footnote 489:

Chron. and Fl. Wig. in anno. “Goda se Defenisca þegen” was killed,
according to the Chronicles. Florence calls him “satrapa Domnaniæ.”
Satrapa seems to be sometimes used as a formal title inferior to
Ealdorman. See Cod. Dipl. iii. 356, where Leofsige is raised from the
rank of _satrapa_ to that of _dux_.

Footnote 490:

The Chronicles give no names; Florence mentions Justin and Guthmund;
but the treaty presently to be mentioned, gives the name of Olaf as
well.

Footnote 491:

The original Old-English text is printed in Thorpe’s Analecta
Anglo-Saxonica, p. 131; there is a modern English translation in
Conybeare’s Illustrations of Anglo-Saxon poetry, xc. The poem, of
which unfortunately the beginning and ending are lost, is evidently
local and contemporary. I therefore do not hesitate to accept the main
facts of the battle and the names of the actors as trustworthy, much
more trustworthy than if they were found in a Latin prose chronicle a
century or two later. The speeches, no doubt, are, like most speeches
in history, the invention of the poet.

Footnote 492:

The church, a massive Romanesque building, may not unlikely have been
raised, like so many other churches on battle-fields, to commemorate
the event.

Footnote 493:

“Þa he hæfde þæt folc
fægre getrymmed,
he lihte þa mid leodon,
þær him leofost wæs,
þær he his heorð-werod
holdost wiste.” (Thorpe, p. 132.)

This “heorð-werod” or _hearth company_ are the personal following or
_comitatus_ (see above, p. 86) of the chief; to their exploits the
poem is chiefly devoted. This battle of Maldon, like all our battles,
will be found to contain many details leading to the illustration of
the last and greatest battle on Senlac.

Footnote 494:

William of Malmesbury says of Harold (iii. 241), “Rex ipse pedes juxta
vexillum stabat cum fratribus, ut, in commune periculo æquato, nemo de
fuga cogitaret.” So Brihtnoth bids his men form a firm rank with the
“board-wall” or line of shields;

“Hu hi sceoldon standan,
And þone stede healdan,
And bæd þæt hyra randan
Rihte heoldon
Fæste mid folmum,
And ne forhtedon na.” (p. 132.)

Mr. Conybeare mistook the meaning of the passage and the tactics of
the English army when he translated “and þone _stede_ healdan,” “how
to guide their _steeds_.” It means “how to hold their _stead_ or
place.”

The English habit of fighting on foot is noticed with some
exaggeration in the earliest description of our nation; ἄλκιμοι δέ
εἰσι πάντων μάλιστα βαρβάρων ὧν ἡμεῖς ἴσμεν οἱ νησιῶται οὗτοι, ἔς τε
τὰς ξυμβολὰς, πεζοὶ ἴασιν· οὐ γὰρ ὅσον εἰσὶ τοῦ ἱππεύειν ἀμελέτητοι,
ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ ἵππον ὅ τι ποτέ ἐστιν ἐπίστασθαι σφίσι ξυμβαίνει, κ.τ.λ.
Prokopios, Bell. Goth. iv. 20.

Footnote 495:

The only other Maccus whom I know anything of is the Under-king of
Man, who was one of the princes who rowed Eadgar on the Dee. But what
could he, or any one of his family or nation, be doing in the
_comitatus_ of an Ealdorman of the East-Saxons?

Footnote 496:

Compare however the discussion among the revolted Karians as to
crossing the Maiandros. Herod. v. 118. Compare on the other hand the
challenge to cross the Wear given by Edward the Third to the Scots in
1327. Froissart, i. c. xix. (vol. i. p. 20. ed. 1559); Longman, Edward
III. i. 14. So the Parthians and Antonius, Plut. Ant. 49.

Footnote 497:

The weapon of close fight at Maldon, as at Brunanburh, was on both
sides the sword. The Danish axe had not yet been introduced into
England, and as late as Stamfordbridge Harold Hardrada wielded the
sword. The _bill_ is twice mentioned, and it is put into the hand of
Brihtnoth himself; but it is plain that the bill here spoken of was a
sword and not an axe;

“Ða Byrhtnoð bræd
Bill of sceðe,
Brád and brún-ecg.” (p. 136.)

Earlier in the poem the defensive and offensive weapons of the English
appear distinctly as “Bord and brád swurd.” The early use of the
epithet “brown” applied to a sword, common in later ballads, should be
noticed.

Footnote 498:

The likeness struck Mr. Conybeare strongly, p. lxxxviii.

Footnote 499:

So I understand the lines,

“Wende þæs for-moni man
Þa he on meare rád,
On wlancan þam wicge,
Þæt wære hit ure hlaford.” (p. 138.)

Compare the flight of the French serving-boys on their masters’ horses
at the approach of Chandos in 1369. Froissart, c. cclxxvii. (i. 383,
384); Longman, Edward III. ii. 167.

Footnote 500:

“Forþan wearð her on felda
Folc totwæmed,
Scyld-burh tobrocen.” (p. 138.)

Footnote 501:

So says the Ely History (ii. 6), which, on such a point, may be
trusted. The Abbot supplied the loss with a mass of wax.

Footnote 502:

Is this Ælfwine a son of the banished Ealdorman Ælfric? “Ælfwine
minister,” occasionally, but not very commonly, signs charters about
this time.

Footnote 503:

So I understand the passage, as does Mr. Conybeare. But we have no
mention of any inroad of this army into Northumberland.

Footnote 504:

Ammianus, xvi. 12. “Comites ejus, ducenti numero, et tres amici
junctissimi, flagitium arbitrati post regem vivere vel pro rege non
mori, si ita tulerit casus.” In this case, the King having
surrendered, they “tradidere se vinciendos.”

Footnote 505:

Fl. Wig. A. 991. “Utrinque infinita multitudine cæsa, ipse dux
occubuit, Danica vero fortuna vicit.” The Ely historian tries hard to
turn the battle into a victory.

Footnote 506:

See her life in Bæda, iv. 19, 20.

Footnote 507:

The Ely History (ii. 3) gives the legend. With the slight improvement
of painting Ælfthryth as a witch, it is the story of Joseph and
Zuleikha, or of Bellerophontês and Anteia, over again, with such
changes as were needed when the tale was transferred from a married
woman to a widow. It should be remembered that Ælfthryth’s first
husband Æthelwold seems to have been a nephew of Brihtnoth.

Footnote 508:

Hist. El. ii. 7. “Torquem auream, et cortinam [curtain] gestis viri
sui intextam atque depositam, depictam in memoriam probitatis ejus,
huic ecclesiæ donavit.” See Palgrave, Eng. Com. ii. ccccvi; Lingard,
i. 278.

Footnote 509:

The Chronicles say expressly, “On þam geare man gerædde ƿæt man geald
_ærest_ gafol Deniscum mannum,” &c. But there is a curious piece of
evidence to show that the possibility of such a measure was thought of
long before. In the will of King Eadred in the Liber de Hyda, p. 153,
he leaves sixteen hundred pounds “to þan þæt hi mege magan hu[n]gor
_and hæþenne here him fram aceapian, gif hie beþurfen_.” The
manuscript seems to be very corrupt, but there can be no doubt as to
the meaning. The words are left out in the Latin and later English
versions which follow.

Footnote 510:

Fl. Wig. A. 990. “Clericis a Cantuaria proturbatis, monachos induxit.”

Footnote 511:

See the preamble to the Peace in Thorpe, i. 284. Cf. Chron. and Fl.
Wig. 991. The Chronicle mentions only the Archbishop, not the
Ealdormen.

Footnote 512:

See above, p. 264, and Appendix CC.

Footnote 513:

I do not know where Æthelweard’s ealdormanship lay. If this Ælfric was
Ealdorman of the Mercians, it is clear that his government would be
directly threatened by an enemy who had probably had possession of a
large part of East-Anglia and Essex.

Footnote 514:

See the Treaty in Thorpe, i. 284; Schmid, 204; and Appendix DD.

Footnote 515:

Chron. in anno. “Þa gerædde se cyning and ealle his witan.” So
Florence; “Consilio jussuque regis Anglorum Ægelredi procerumque
suorum.”

Footnote 516:

His name is Ælf_stan_ both in the Chronicles and in Florence, through
some confusion with a predecessor of that name, who died in 981.

Footnote 517:

See Appendix FF. Thored in the Chronicle is _Eorl_, Ælfric is
_Ealdorman_. This distinction clearly marks out Thored as of Danish
birth, or as holding a government within the Danish part of England.

Footnote 518:

Ammianus, xxvii. 8. “Lundinium vetus oppidum, quod Augustam posteritas
appellavit.” xxviii. 3. “Ab Augusta profectus, quam veteres
appellavere Lundinium.” He however himself elsewhere (xx. 1) speaks of
“Lundinium” without any addition. The popular name of London survived
the official name of Augusta, just as Sikyôn survived Dêmêtrias, as
Mantineia survived Antigoneia, as Jerusalem survived Ælia Capitolina.

Footnote 519:

Tac. Ann. xiv. 33. On the origin of London, see Guest, Archæological
Journal, 1866, No. xci. p. 159. Cf. Vita S. Bon., Pertz, ii. 338.
“Pervenit ad locum ubi erat forum rerum venalium, et usque hodie
antiquo Anglorum Saxonumque vocabulo appellatur Lundenwich.”

Footnote 520:

Bæda, Eccl. Hist. ii. 3.

Footnote 521:

Chron. 896. On the probability that the present Tower occupies the
site of a fortress of Ælfred, see Mr. Earle’s note, p. 310.

Footnote 522:

Thorpe, Laws and Inst. i. 228; Kemble, Saxons in England, ii. 521.

Footnote 523:

Instituta Lundoniæ, Thorpe, i. 300.

Footnote 524:

Thorpe, i. 300; Lappenberg, Gesch. des hansischen Stahlhofes, p. 5.
The great privilege of the “homines Imperatoris, qui veniebant in
navibus suis,” seems to have been that they were, with certain
exceptions, allowed to buy and sell on board their own ships, which
doubtless exempted them from certain tolls to which others were
liable.

Footnote 525:

See W. Malms. i. 93. Cf. above, p. 38.

Footnote 526:

Thorpe, i. 300. “Homines Imperatoris, qui veniebant in navibus suis,
bonarum legum digni tenebantur, sicut et nos.”

Footnote 527:

See Appendix AA.

Footnote 528:

So it stands in the English version of the Brut y Tywysogion, in anno;
“And Maredudd, son of Owain, paid to the Black Pagans a tribute of one
penny for each person.” But in the Annales Cambriæ the transaction
takes the milder form of a redemption of captives; “Maredut redemit
captivos a gentilibus nigris, nummo pro unoquoque dato.”

Footnote 529:

His own dominions are described (Brut, 991) as Dyfed, Ceredigion,
Gower, and Cydweli, answering to the modern counties of Pembroke,
Cardigan, Caermarthen, and part of Glamorgan. In 985 he conquered Mona
or Anglesey, Merioneth, and Gwynedd generally.

Footnote 530:

He is called Owen, Guyn, and Etwin. Was this last name borrowed from
the English Eadwine? His English ally appears in the Brut as “Eclis
the Great, a Saxon prince from the seas of the south.” The Annals call
him Edelisi, that is, doubtless Æthelsige. See Appendix AA.

Footnote 531:

Brut y Tywysogion, 991. “Maredudd hired the pagans willing to join
him.”

Footnote 532:

On Æthelred’s relations with Normandy see Appendix EE.

Footnote 533:

This is the conjecture of Lappenberg, ii. 153, Eng. Tr.

Footnote 534:

Will. Malms, ii. 166. “Et de hominibus regis vel inimicis suis nullum
Ricardus recipiat, neque rex de suis, sine sigillo eorum.” _Sigillum_
does not necessarily imply a seal in the later sense; a signature of
any kind is enough.

Footnote 535:

See above, p. 269.

Footnote 536:

Chron. in anno. “Ac seo halige Godes modor on þam dæge hire
mildheortnesse þære burhware gecydde, and hi ahredde wið heora
feondum.” A good deal of the simple earnestness of the English is lost
in Florence’s Latin, “Dei suæque genetricis Mariæ juvamine.”

Footnote 537:

Flor. Wig. “Furore simul et tristitia exasperati.”

Footnote 538:

It would, I imagine, be very hard to find out the exact point in Olaf
Tryggvesson’s life when, according to his Saga (c. xiii.), he made
expeditions in Britain, Ireland, and Scotland, attacking the heathen
and keeping peace with the Christians. It would be hardly more
difficult to identify the daughter of an Irish King and widow of an
English Ealdorman, whom Olaf marries in the next chapter. See above,
p. 269.

Footnote 539:

I conceive this to be the distinction intended by Florence, when he
says “de tota West-Saxonia _stippendium_ dabatur [“and hi mon þær
_fedde_ geond eall Westseaxena rice,” say the Chronicles]; de tota
vero Anglia _tributum_, quod erat xvi. millia librarum, dependebatur.”

Footnote 540:

The confirmation of Olaf implies his previous baptism, and thereby
remarkably confirms that part of the legend. But Adam of Bremen (ii.
34) has two quite different accounts, according to one of which Olaf
learned Christianity in England for the first time, while, according
to the other, he was converted in Norway by English missionaries. The
one point in which all versions agree is to connect his conversion
with England in some shape or other.

Footnote 541:

Ann. Camb.; Brut y Tywysogion, 994.

Footnote 542:

See Thietmar, iv. 16; Adam Brem. ii. 29.

Footnote 543:

The charters of this year in the Codex Diplomaticus (iii. 284, 286,
and 288), one of King Æthelred and two of Æscwig, Bishop of
Dorchester, belong to a meeting before the death of Sigeric, by whom
they were signed. Those of the same year at pp. 281 and 290, which
Ælfric signs as Archbishop-elect, must belong to a later meeting,
probably that at which he was elected. He was consecrated next year
(Chron. and Fl. Wig.). Had he held the bishopric of Ramsbury without
consecration?

Footnote 544:

So the Chronicles, but only in the late Canterbury manuscript (Cott.
Domit. A. viii.). This fact however is probably authentic; but what
can be made of the story of Ælfric driving out the seculars from
Christ Church, where Sigeric had already brought in monks? See above,
p. 278.

Footnote 545:

See Bæda, Eccl. Hist. iv. 27, and the prose and verse lives of Saint
Cuthberht in his Opera Historica Minora, pp. 3, 49. Also Sim. Dun.,
Eccl. Dun. lib. ii. c. 6, et seqq. (X Scriptt. 13).

Footnote 546:

Flor. Wig. 995.

Footnote 547:

Sim. Dun., Hist. Dun. iii. 2. “Comitans sanctissimi patris Cuthberti
corpus universus populus in Dunelmum, locum quidem natura munitum, sed
non facile habitabilem invenit, quoniam densissima undique silva totum
occupaverat.” Compare the description of Durham given by William of
Malmesbury, De Gest. Pont. p. 270, ed. Hamilton; “Dunelmum est collis,
ab una vallis planitie paullatim et molli clivo turgescens in tumulum;
et licet situ edito et prærupto rupium omnem aditum excludat hostium,
tamen ibi moderni collibus imposuerunt castellum.” He then goes on to
speak of the river and its fish. See also the Old-English poem on
Durham printed at p. 153 of the Surtees edition of Simeon, and which
is referred to by Simeon himself in his History of the Church of
Durham, iii. 7. William also might seem to have had the poem before
him.

Footnote 548:

A still closer parallel, though on a far smaller scale, may be found
in Ireland in the ruined cathedral and archiepiscopal fortress which
crown the famous rock of Cashel. Only at Sitten the church and the
castle are on two distinct heights, as if Cashel and Glastonbury were
set side by side.

Footnote 549:

Cod. Dipl. iii. 299.

Footnote 550:

Cod. Dipl. iii. 302. “Collecta haud minima sapientum multitudine in
aula villæ regiæ quæ nuncupative a populis et [æt?] Calnæ vocitatur.
Ac sic paucis interpositis ymeris [_himeris_, ἡμέραις] rursus advocata
_omnis exercitus_, caterva pontificum, abbatum, ducum, optimatum
nobiliumque quamplurimorum ad villam quæ ab indigenis Wanetincg
agnominatur,” &c. &c. The whole passage is remarkable and valuable.

Footnote 551:

Thorpe, i. 280; Schmid, 198. The Wantage laws are said specially to be
“æfter Engla lage.”

Footnote 552:

So Schmid, p. li. The use of the word _Wapentake_, a division confined
to the North, and the special mention of the Five Boroughs, seem quite
to bear out this conjecture.

Footnote 553:

“On _Norð_walum,” say the Chronicles; so in Florence
“_septemtrionalem_ Britanniam.” These phrases do not mean _North
Wales_ as opposed to South, still less _North Britain_, in the sense
of Scotland, but simply what we now call Wales as opposed to Cornwall.
The part ravaged was doubtless the northern coast of the Bristol
Channel.

Footnote 554:

Cod. Dipl. iii. 311.

Footnote 555:

That is, if we may trust the doubtful charters in Cod. Dipl. iii. 309,
311.

Footnote 556:

Cod. Dipl. iii. 306. See above, p. 267.

Footnote 557:

See the Chronicles (followed by Florence) for the years 998 and 999. I
have worked the two descriptions together.

Footnote 558:

For the suggestion of the general line of thought in this paragraph I
am indebted to Lappenberg, ii, 161.

Footnote 559:

See above, p. 104. Compare the practice of the Frankish Assemblies,
Waitz, iii. 508.

Footnote 560:

Compare on this head a remarkable passage of William of Malmesbury,
ii. 165. “Verumtamen multa mihi cogitanti mirum videtur cur homo, ut a
majoribus accepimus, neque multum fatuus, neque nimis ignavus, in tam
tristi pallore tot calamitatum vitam consumpserit. Cujus rei caussam
si quis me interroget, non facile respondeam; nisi ducum defectionem,
ex superbia regis prodeuntem.” This hardly goes to the root of the
matter; but William’s perplexity clearly shows that the traditional
character of Æthelred did not paint him as a mere idiot, but as a man
with the capacity, though only the bare capacity, for better things.
See also Palgrave’s Hist. of England and Normandy, iii. 103.

Footnote 561:

Such I understand to be the object of the departure of the Danish
fleet. The Chronicles and Florence are quite colourless. “Se unfrið
flota wæs ðæs sumeres gewend to Ricardes rice.” “Danorum classis
præfata hoc anno Nortmanniam petit.” But Roger of Wendover (i. 434)
inserts the qualification “hostiliter,” which is followed by
Lappenberg (429. Eng. Tr. ii. 161). On this whole matter see Appendix
EE.

Footnote 562:

On this Cumbrian expedition see Appendix FF.

Footnote 563:

See above, p. 291.

Footnote 564:

See above, p. 63.

Footnote 565:

See Appendix EE.

Footnote 566:

See Appendix SS.

Footnote 567:

See above, p. 253.

Footnote 568:

On this marriage and its results see the opening of the sixth book of
Henry of Huntingdon. He clearly sees the connexion of events, and he
as clearly believes that William’s kindred with Emma gave him some
right to the English crown. “Ex hac conjunctione regis Anglorum et
filiæ ducis Normannorum, Angliam juste, secundum jus gentium, Normanni
et calumniati sunt et adepti sunt.” This is perhaps the strangest
theory of international law on record.

Footnote 569:

Herod. v. 97. αὗται δὲ αἱ νέες ἀρχὴ κακῶν ἐγένοντο Ἕλλησί τε καὶ
βαρβάροισι.

Footnote 570:

No writer mentions this but Geoffrey Gaimar (4126. M. H. B. 814), who
is followed by Sir F. Palgrave (iii. 109). Henry of Huntingdon (M. H.
B. 751 E) and Æthelred of Rievaux (X Scriptt. 362) distinctly make him
send messengers. The statement of the Chronicles, which of course
would be decisive, is less distinct, but it looks the same way; “And
ða ón ðam ilcan lenctene com seo hlæfdige, Ricardes dohtor, hider to
lande.” “And on ðysan ylcan geare, on lencten, com Ricardes dohtor
Ymma hider to lande.”

Footnote 571:

I cannot answer positively for Harold the son of Cnut, but we shall
come across evidence which makes it probable that he visited Denmark.

Footnote 572:

Chron. 855, and Florence (after Asser) more at length.

Footnote 573:

Greg. Turon. iv. 26; Bæda, i. 25.

Footnote 574:

See the section on Nomenclature in vol. v. p. 556.

Footnote 575:

Flor. Wig. A. 1002. “Eodem anno Emmam, _Saxonice_ Ælfgivam vocatam,
ducis Nortmannorum primi Ricardi filiam, rex Ægelredus duxit uxorem.”
On the use of the word “Saxonice” see Appendix A. On the name Ælfgifu
see vol. ii. Appendix BB, and vol. iii. Appendix S.

The Lady signs a great number of charters during the reigns of her
husbands and sons by the name of Ælfgifu (in various spellings).
“Emma” is rare, but we find it in Cod. Dipl. iv. 1; iv. 64; vi. 172,
and once “Ælfgyfa Imma,” iv. 101. Of a charter of 997 (Cod. Dipl. iii.
299), where “Ælfgyua Ymma regina” makes a grant to Christ Church, I
can make nothing. Mr. Kemble does not mark it as spurious, but the
date shows that there is something wrong about it.

Footnote 576:

Geoffrey Gaimar (4138. M. H. B. 815), who is followed by Sir F.
Palgrave (iii. 110), gives her as “drurie” or “dowaire,” Rockingham,
Rutland, and the city of Winchester itself. In the course of our story
we shall find both Emma and her successor Eadgyth specially connected
with Winchester, and we shall also find that Emma unhappily possessed
the city of Exeter or some rights over it.

Footnote 577:

Eadgar the Ætheling was elected in 1066, but never crowned.

Footnote 578:

Will. Malms. ii. 165. “Etiam in uxorem adeo protervus erat ut vix eam
cubili dignaretur, sed cum pellicibus volutatus regiam majestatem
infamaret. Illa quoque conscientiam alti sanguinis spirans in maritum
tumebat.”

I cannot light on Sir Francis Palgrave’s authority for making Emma fly
back to Normandy within a year or two after her marriage (iii. III).

Footnote 579:

Will. Malms. ii. 177.

Footnote 580:

I have here tried to put together the account in the Winchester
Chronicle (C.C.C.C. clxxiii.), which alone mentions Pallig and the
Hampshire campaign, with the account of the operations in Devonshire
given in the other versions. Æthelingadene has been taken for Alton in
Hampshire, but the name Æthelingadene would hardly become Alton, and
the place is in Sussex. See Cod. Dipl. iii. 324.

Footnote 581:

The men of higher rank are commonly foremost. See above, p. 274.
Compare the battle of Strassburg in Ammianus (xvi. 12). “Exsiluit
subito ardens optimatium globus, inter quos decernebant et reges, et
sequente vulgo inter alios agmina nostrorum irrupit.”

Footnote 582:

Their descriptions, as given in the Winchester Chronicle, are worth
noticing. There is Wulfhere the Bishop’s Thegn, and two other thegns
who are called from their dwelling-places, Leofric æt Hwitciricean
(Whitchurch) and Godwine æt Worðige (Worthy Martyr), Bishop Ælfsige’s
son. This is Ælfsige, Bishop of Winchester, who was translated to
Canterbury in 950, but died of the cold on the Alps on his way to Rome
to get his pallium. (Flor. Wig. 959.)

Footnote 583:

See Mr. Earle’s note on the Chronicles, p. 334.

Footnote 584:

I get this from the words of the Winchester Chronicle, which mentions
one part of the story only, combined with those of Florence, who
mentions only the other part. The Winchester writer mentions the
campaign in Hampshire, the treason of Pallig, the burning of Teignton,
the peace, and adds, “and hy foran þa þanon tó Exanmuðan.” Florence
has, “Memoratus paganorum exercitus, de Normannia Angliam revectus,
ostium fluminis Eaxæ ingreditur.” This seems to be a satisfactory way
of explaining it. The other Chronicles have simply, “Her com _se here_
to Exanmuðan.”

Footnote 585:

The language of the Chronicles is remarkable. The fleet comes to
Exmouth, “and eodon þa up to þære byrig.” There was no need to mention
what borough. But Florence adds “urbem Exanceastram.”

Footnote 586:

See W. Malms. ii. 134; Palgrave, English Commonwealth, i. 463.

Footnote 587:

Mr. Kerslake very ingeniously traced out the boundary between the
English and Welsh parts of Exeter in a paper read at the Exeter
meeting of the Archæological Institute in 1873. The Welsh quarter,
which lies to the north, is marked by the dedication of the churches
within it to Welsh saints.

Footnote 588:

Thorpe, i. 220, 228; Schmid, 152, 156.

Footnote 589:

W. Malms. u. s. “Urbem igitur illam, quam contaminatæ gentis repurgio
defæcaverat, turribus munivit, muro ex quadratis lapidibus cinxit.”
Eadward the Elder had before fortified Towcester with a stone wall
(“lapideo muro,” Fl. Wig. 918), but the wall of Exeter is distinctly
said to have been of squared stone. The difference between a hedge and
a wall was known ages before, when Ida fortified Bamburgh. “Sy wæs
ærost mid hegge betined, and þær æfter mid wealle” (Chron. 547); but
this “wall” need not have been of stone.

In short our accounts help us to four stages in the history of
fortification. First, the hedge or palisade; secondly, the wall of
earth, or of earth and rough stones combined; thirdly, the wall of
masonry, as at Towcester; fourthly, the wall of squared stones, as at
Exeter. The fifth stage, the Norman Castle, does not appear till the
reign of Eadward the Confessor.

Footnote 590:

Chron. in anno. “Þær fæstlice feohtende wæron, ac him man swyðe
fæstlice wiðstod and heardlice.”

Footnote 591:

Fl. Wig. in anno. “Dum murum illius destruere moliretur, a civibus
urbem viriliter defendentibus repellitur [paganorum exercitus].”

Footnote 592:

Ib. “Unde nimis exasperatos more solito,” &c.

Footnote 593:

“Æt Peonnho” in the Chronicles; there seems no reason to doubt that
this is the place.

Footnote 594:

Fl. Wig. in anno. “Angli pro militum paucitate Danorum multitudinem
non ferentes.”

Footnote 595:

Cod. Dipl. iii. 318. “Talibus mandatorum Christi sententiis a meis
frequentius præmonitus consiliariis, et ab ipso summo omnium largitore
bonorum dirissimis hostium graviter nos depopulantium creberrime
angustiatus flagellis, ego Æðelredus rex Anglorum [an unusually lowly
style], ut supradictæ merear particeps fore promissionis, quoddam
Christo et sancto suo, germano scilicet meo, Eadwardo, quem proprio
cruore perfusum per multiplicia virtutum signa, ipse Dominus nostris
mirificare dignatus est temporibus,” &c. &c. So afterwards, “quatenus
adversus barbarorum insidias ipsa religiosa congregatio cum beati
martyris cæterorumque sanctorum reliquiis,” &c., and “adepto
postmodum, si Dei misericordia ita providerit, pacis tempore.” The
observance of Eadward’s mass-day was ordered in 1008.

Footnote 596:

Cod. Dipl. vi. 140.

Footnote 597:

Ib. iii. 322. Ælfthryth could not have been dead very long, as she
signs the charter of 999, in Cod. Dipl. iii. 312.

Footnote 598:

So William of Malmesbury, ii. 165; “Exagitabant illum umbræ fraternæ,
diras exigentes inferias.” Yet Æthelred had no share in the murder; he
only reaped, quite unconsciously, the advantage of his mother’s crime.

Footnote 599:

The joint action of the King and the Witan is well marked in the
Chronicles; “Þa sende se cyning to þam flotan Leofsige ealdorman; and
he þa, þæs cyninges worde and his witena, grið wið hi gesette.”
Leofsige signs a charter of 997 (Cod. Dipl. iii. 304) as “Orientalium
Saxonum dux.” He probably succeeded Brihtnoth. See above, p. 270. We
find another mention of him in Cod. Dipl. vi. 129.

Footnote 600:

Chron. and Fl. in anno. See also Cod. Dipl. iii. 356, where the story
is told. Æfic was “dish-thegn” to the young Æthelings. See Cod. Dipl.
iii. 293. He had a brother Eadwine or Eadwig, mentioned in the same
will, of whom we shall hear again. In Cod. Dipl. iii. 356 Æthelred
calls him “præfectus meus, quem primatem inter primates meos taxavi.”

Footnote 601:

Cod. Dipl. iii. 356. “Inii consilium cum sapientibus regni mei petens,
ut quid fieri placuisset de illo decernerent, placuitque in communes
nobis eum exsulare et extorrem a nobis fieri cum complicibus suis.”
Leofsige’s lands, after some difficulties on the part of his widowed
sister Æthelflæd, who was herself banished, were granted in 1012 to
Godwine, Bishop of Rochester, as personal property. There must be a
mistake when “Leofsige ealdorman” signs a doubtful charter as late as
1006. Cod. Dipl. iii. 351.

Footnote 602:

“On þam ilcan lenctene.” I do not know why Mr. Thorpe translates it
“autumn.”

Footnote 603:

To this meeting belongs the grant to the Thegn Godwine (Cod. Dipl. vi.
143), as it is signed by “Ælfgifu conlaterana regis.” But the
following document (No. 1297) belongs to an earlier meeting, I suspect
to an intermediate one. This year Eadwulf Archbishop of York died and
was succeeded by Wulfstan Bishop of London, not Abbot Wulfstan, as
Florence has it. Now the Charter quoted above (Cod. Dipl. iii. 322) is
signed by Eadwulf and by Wulfstan as Bishop. This of course belongs to
the first meeting. The Charter to Godwine, which the Lady signs, is
also signed by Wulfstan as Archbishop. But No. 1297 (Cod. Dipl. vi.
145) is signed by Wulfstan as Bishop, and not by Eadwulf. This seems
to point to an intermediate Gemót, held while the see of York was
vacant, and at which Wulfstan was probably nominated to it.

Footnote 604:

On the details of the massacre, see Appendix GG.

Footnote 605:

See Appendix GG.

Footnote 606:

See above, p. 280.

Footnote 607:

Florence mentions him at Exeter, the Chronicles not till later in the
year, but they seem to take him for granted.

Footnote 608: