Chapter XLVII: Appendix (16)

It took some time to collect these large sums. Thus the Danegeld voted
in 1011 was paid in 1012. See above, pp. 350–355. This Danegeld is
referred to in Heming’s Worcester Cartulary, 248 (Mon. Angl. i. 595),
a passage to which I shall have to refer again.

Footnote 870:

£10500, according to the Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles and
Florence. £11000, according to the Peterborough and Canterbury
Chronicles.

Footnote 871:

See above, p. 373.

Footnote 872:

The Abingdon Chronicle has only, “And Dene and Engle wurdon sæmmæle æt
Oxnaforda.” The Worcester annalist makes the important addition, “to
Eadgares lage.” So Florence; “Angli et Dani apud Oxenafordam de lege
regis Eadgari tenenda concordes sunt effecti.”

Footnote 873:

See above, p. 218.

Footnote 874:

William of Malmesbury has a remarkable passage to this effect; “Omnes
enim leges ab antiquis regibus, et maxime ab antecessore suo Ethelredo
latas, sub interminatione regiæ mulctæ perpetuis temporibus observari
præcepit [Cnuto]; in quarum custodiam etiam nunc tempore bonorum sub
nomine regis Edwardi juratur, non quod ille statuerit, sed quod
observarit.” (ii. § 183.)

Footnote 875:

See above, p. 65.

Footnote 876:

“Incomparabilis Eadgarus,” says Cnut in his Glastonbury Charter,
which, if spurious, as marked by Mr. Kemble (Cod. Dipl. iv. 40), is at
least older than William of Malmesbury (ii. § 185).

Footnote 877:

“Nec dicto deterius fuit factum,” says William of Malmesbury, ii. 183.
So in ii. 181; “Ita quum omnis Anglia pareret uni, ille ingenti studio
Anglos sibi conciliare, æquum illis jus cum Danis suis in consessu, in
concilio, in prœlio, concedere.”

Footnote 878:

See above, pp. 370–375.

Footnote 879:

Adam Brem. ii. 63. “Aliquando visitans Danos, aliquando Nortmannos
[Norwegians], sæpissime autem sedit in Anglia.”

Footnote 880:

See above, p. 366.

Footnote 881:

Chronn. in anno; Fl. Wig.

Footnote 882:

On the exploits and marriage of Godwine see Appendix EEE.

Footnote 883:

Saxo (193) tells the tale at length. Florence also (1049) admits the
pedigree; “Ulfus, filius Spraclingi, filius Ursi.” “Ursus” is
seemingly the half-human Biorn, not the bear himself. Cf. Appendix
WWW.

Footnote 884:

See Appendix ZZ.

Footnote 885:

He signs, as far as I know, only two Charters; one (Cod. Dipl. iv. 15)
in company with Leofwine, the other (Cod. Dipl. vi. 190) in company
with Leofric. This last, which is very unusual, is not signed by
Godwine, and the “Harold eorl” who signs it must, as I shall presently
show, be distinguished from his son.

Footnote 886:

Saxo, 195–7. See Appendix GGG.

Footnote 887:

All the Chronicles, and also Florence, mention this banishment of
Æthelweard.

Footnote 888:

On Godwine’s West-Saxon earldom, see Appendix AAA.

Footnote 889:

Chron. and Flor. Wig. in anno.

Footnote 890:

See Appendix II.

Footnote 891:

The Canterbury Chronicle is fuller than the others on this head,
calling the building “an mynster of stane and lime.” This is one of
the passages which have been strangely applied to prove that stone
architecture was hardly known in England before the Norman Conquest.
Any one who knows the buildings of Essex, as compared with those of
Somerset or Northamptonshire, will at once see that the notice of a
stone building as something singular must be purely local. The present
church of Ashington contains no detail earlier than the last years of
the twelfth century; but I suspect that the walls are mainly those of
Cnut’s minster.

Footnote 892:

Will. Malms. ii. 185, and see below.

Footnote 893:

Chron. Cant. “And gief hit [the minster] his anum preoste þas nama was
Stigand.” William of Malmesbury (ii. 181) calls it “basilica,” but
goes on to say, “Nunc, ut fertur, modica est ecclesia presbytero
parochiano delegata.” The words “minster,” “monasterium” (as applied
to the church as distinguished from the conventual buildings),
“moutier,” are used very vaguely, and often mean merely a church of
any kind.

Footnote 894:

Perhaps the little collegiate church of Battlefield, founded to
commemorate Henry the Fourth’s victory, called the Battle of
Shrewsbury, is a nearer parallel to Assandun than Battle Abbey or
Batalha.

Footnote 895:

The monks of Battle came from Marmoutier. Chron. de Bello, p. 7.

Footnote 896:

I assume, with Mr. St. John (Four Conquests, ii. 69), that this
Stigand is no other than the future Archbishop. Stigand the priest
signs charters of Cnut in 1033 (Cod. Dipl. iv. 46) and 1035 (vi. 185),
and one without date (vi. 187), and one of Harthacnut in 1042 (iv.
65). He seems to be the only person of the name who signs. He was
chaplain to Harold Harefoot (Fl. Wig. 1038), as well as to Cnut and
Eadward.

Footnote 897:

Chron. and Fl. Wig. in anno. See Appendix NN.

Footnote 898:

See Appendix NN and SS.

Footnote 899:

See Appendix QQQ.

Footnote 900:

Eric’s last signature is in 1023. Cod. Dipl. iv. 26.

Footnote 901:

See Appendix FFF.

Footnote 902:

Fl. Wig. 1029. “Timebat enim ab illo vel vita privari vel regno
expelli.” Hakon’s connexion by marriage with Cnut rests on the
authority of Florence, in anno. His blood-kindred as his sister’s son
comes from Snorro, c. 19 (Laing, ii. 15).

Footnote 903:

Snorro, c. 139 (Laing, ii. 192). This is what Florence (1029) must
mean, when he says, “Quasi legationis causa, in exsilium misit.”

Footnote 904:

The Chronicles contain no mention of Hakon’s banishment, but the
Abingdon Chronicle mentions his death at sea in 1030; “And þæs geres
ǽr ðám fórferde Hacun se _dohtiga eorl_ on sǽ.” Florence (1030)
records his death at sea, but also mentions the other account. In the
wild invective of Osbern (Trans. S. Elf. ap. Ang. Sac. ii. 144) we
have an Earl Hakon, perhaps the same, who stabs himself; “propono
ducem Haconem proprio se mucrone transverberantem.” A charter of 1031
(Cod. Dipl. iv. 35), with a signature of Hakon, must be spurious or
inaccurate in its date.

Footnote 905:

Florence (1044) mentions the second marriage of Gunhild. This Harold
signs a charter of 1033 (Cod. Dipl. iv. 43), and another (vi. 190)
along with the Earls Ulf, Eglaf, Leofric, and Eric. These signatures
must be carefully distinguished from the early signatures of Harold
the son of Godwine.

Footnote 906:

Fl. Wig. 1046.

Footnote 907:

See Appendix GGG.

Footnote 908:

Fl. Wig. 1041, and vol. ii. Appendix G. Thored was perhaps Thurkill’s
nephew. At least a “Ðorð Ðurcylles nefa” signs a charter of Cnut in
1023 (Cod. Dipl. iv. 38), but of course it may be another Thored and
another Thurkill. There are many signatures which may belong to this
Thored, as iv. 23, vi. 187, and vi. 191, where he appears as “Ðored
steallere.”

Footnote 909:

On the Northumbrian Earls, see Appendix KK.

Footnote 910:

There is one charter of Cnut (Cod. Dipl. iv. 43) signed by a crowd of
Danish names otherwise unknown. But this is a charter relating wholly
to Northumbrian affairs, and the signatures are no doubt those of
local thegns, many of whom were most likely not followers of Cnut, but
descendants of the Danish settlers in Ælfred’s time.

Footnote 911:

Something of this sort, which is quite likely in itself, is implied in
some stories told by the Ramsey historian, who enters into much detail
about various Danish thegns at this time. For instance, in cap.
lxxxiv. (p. 440) we read about the Dane Thurkill when summoned before
the Bishop’s court; “Quo citato apparere contemnente, a severitate
tamen meritæ ultionis censuit episcopus ad tempus temperandum, _ne
Anglus Dacum ad regis injuriam injuste vexare diceretur_.” Cnut
however steps in to support the law against his grantee.

In cap. lxxxvi. again is a story about a Danish thegn, who greatly
oppressed the neighbouring “rustici,” who conspired his death. He is
“vir factiosus et dives, qui Anglorum animos ex suo ponderans, illis
Dacos fore semper exosos, quod patriam suam invasissent, et sibi
insidias, occulte tamen propter metum regis, ab eis parari
arbitratus.” He escapes by selling his estate to the Bishop, who was
always on the look-out for such chances, and who gave it to Ramsey
abbey. The really important point in the story is an allusion to Welsh
robbers (“Britones latrones”) as still possible in Huntingdonshire in
the time of Cnut.

Footnote 912:

Eurip. Phœn. 534;

εἴπερ γὰρ ἀδικεῖν χρὴ, τυραννίδος πέρι
κάλλιστον ἀδικεῖν τἄλλα δ’ εὐσεβεῖν χρεών.

Footnote 913:

On the disputed date of Cnut’s journey to Rome, see Appendix HHH.

Footnote 914:

See Appendix III.

Footnote 915:

i. I. “Þæt is þonne ǽrest, þæt hió ofer ealle óðre þingc ǽnne God
æfre, woldan lúfian and wurðian, and ǽnne cristendóm ánrǽdlice
healdan, and Cnut cingc lúfian mid rihtan getrywðan.” Cnut’s Laws form
two divisions, ecclesiastical and secular (woruldcunde), but both
alike are enacted by the King and his Witan. I quote the
Ecclesiastical as i., the Secular as ii.

Footnote 916:

i. 17. The words of Æthelred’s statute (see above, p. 337) are
repeated.

Footnote 917:

i. 15. Cf. the Capitularies, Waitz, iv. 311, 315.

Footnote 918:

ii. 5.

Footnote 919:

ii. 3.

Footnote 920:

“Mid mínan witenan rǽde” is the form in the preamble of the Secular
Laws.

Footnote 921:

ii. 18. Here the English title Ealdorman is used, but in a later
clause (ii. 72) we find the highest rank described as Earls, clearly
in the later and not in the earlier sense of the word, as the Earl is
distinctly marked as superior to the King’s Thegn.

Footnote 922:

ii. 18. “And þǽr beo on þǽre scire bisceop and se ealdorman, and þǽr
ægðer tǽcan ge Godes riht ge woruld-riht.” See Appendix K.

Footnote 923:

i. 20.

Footnote 924:

ii. 12, 14, 15.

Footnote 925:

ii. 15, 45, 49, 63, 66, 72, 84.

Footnote 926:

See above, p. 66.

Footnote 927:

ii. 81. On the severe hunting code which bears the name of Cnut see
Appendix III.

Footnote 928:

Hist. Rams. c. 85. p. 441. “Quum quadem vice rex Cnuto more assueto
regni fines peragraret.” Cf. below, p. 441.

Footnote 929:

See Appendix III.

Footnote 930:

See Appendix GGG.

Footnote 931:

Prior Godfrey (Satirical Poets, ii. 148) thus sums up his character;

“Quique cruentus erat et in hostes prædo superbus,
In sibi subjectos regis habebat opus.
Mensæ sæpe suæ convivia festa relinquens,
Pauperibus monachis intererat socius.
Post posita pompa turbæ mediator agentis,
Conservus servis serviit ille Dei.”

Footnote 932:

Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 757 E. Cnut, as a constitutional King, had less
power over the elements than the despotic Lewis the Eleventh. See the
story in Kirk, Charles the Bold, ii. 10.

Footnote 933:

Hist. El. ii. 27 (p. 505). Every one knows the lines, somewhat
modernized as they must have been by the transcriber;

“Merie sungen ðe muneches binnen Ely,
Ða Cnut ching reu ðer by;
Roweð, cnihtes, noer ðe land,
And here we þes muneches sæng.”

Footnote 934:

Hist. El. ii. 27 (p. 505).

Footnote 935:

Bromton, X Scriptt. 909.

Footnote 936:

Fl. Wig. 1020. “Æthelnothus, qui bonus appellabatur, nobilis viri
Ægelmari filius.” Æthelnoth was not improbably brother of Æthelweard,
one of the victims of 1017. If so, his promotion was of a piece with
the favour shown by Cnut to the father and son of Northman, a
fellow-sufferer with Æthelweard. See above, p. 414. William of
Malmesbury (ii. 184) tells us of the influence for good which
Æthelnoth exercised over Cnut; “Regem ipsum auctoritate sanctitudinis
in bonis actibus mulcens, in excessibus terrens.” See also the extract
from Osbern (Trans. S. Elph. Ang. Sacr. ii. 144) in Appendix TT.

Footnote 937:

Will. Malms. ii. 181. “Loca omnia in quibus pugnaverat, et præcipue
Assandunam, ecclesiis insignivit.”

Footnote 938:

See above, p. 366.

Footnote 939:

Will. Malms. ii. 181. “Monasteria per Angliam suis et patris
excursionibus partim fœdata, partim eruta, reparavit.”

Footnote 940:

Will. Malms, u. s.; Rog. Wend. i. 464; Tho. Eli. ap. Ang. Sacr. i.
608; John of Oxenedes, p. 19. Earl Thurkill, the Lady Emma, and
Ælfwine, Bishop of the East-Angles, aided in the foundation. The monks
came partly from Holm, partly from Ely; the Abbot “Uvius” or
Wido—either of them very strange names—was from Holm. Of the canons,
some took the vows, others were provided for elsewhere. The change of
foundation took place in 1020, but the new church was not consecrated
till 1032. Flor. Wig. in anno.

Footnote 941:

John of Oxenedes, pp. 19, 291.

Footnote 942:

Cnut’s visit to Glastonbury is described, and the charter given at
length, by William of Malmesbury, ii. 184, 5. See Cod. Dipl. iv. 40.

Footnote 943:

On the “lignea basilica,” represented by the Lady chapel, commonly
called that of Saint Joseph, see above, p. 427. On its history, see
Professor Willis’s Architectural History of Glastonbury, pp. 3, 47,
where the tract of William of Malmesbury De Antiquitate Glastoniensis
Ecclesiæ is made use of with the author’s accustomed skill.

Footnote 944:

See above, p. 399.

Footnote 945:

Will. Malms. Gest. Reg. ii. 184. “Super sepulcrum pallium misit
versicoloribus figuris pavonum, ut videtur, intextum.”

Footnote 946:

The translation is recorded by Florence and all the Chronicles, under
the year 1023, but the Worcester Chronicle alone enters into any
details. Osbern, the biographer of Ælfheah, describes his translation
at great length in a special tract; Anglia Sacra, ii. 143.

Footnote 947:

Will. Malms, ii. 181.

Footnote 948:

See above, pp. 275, 394.

Footnote 949:

Hist. Rams. lxxxi. p. 437. The description of the second church, built
near the first, reminds one of Glastonbury, and is worthy the
attention of the architectural antiquary.

Footnote 950:

Ib. lxxx. “Interea Cnuto rex Christianissimus nulli prædecessorum
suorum regum comparatione virtutum vel bellica exercitatione inferior,
cœpit sanctam ecclesiam enixissime venerari, et religiosorum caussis
virorum patrocinari, eleemosynis profluere, justas leges, vel novas
condere, vel antiquitus conditas observare. Quumque non solum Angliæ,
sed et Daciæ simul et Norguegiæ principaretur, erat tamen humilitate
cernuus, usus venerei parcus, alloquio dulcis, ad bona suadibilis, ad
misericordiam proclivis, amatorum pacis amator fidissimus, in eos
autem, qui vel latrocinio vel deprædatione jura regni violassent,
ultor severissimus.”

Footnote 951:

Adam of Bremen (ii. 53) mentions several of them, as Bernhard in
Scania, Gerbrand in Zealand, Reginberht in Funen. These hardly sound
like the names of Englishmen. Gerbrand signs an English charter as
Bishop of Roskild in 1022. Cod. Dipl. iv. 13.

Footnote 952:

Will. Malms. ii. 186.

Footnote 953:

This very curious story is told at length by Eadmer (Hist. Nov. ii.
416). The Archbishop comes “audita divitis fama regni Anglorum.”
Eadmer contrasts the days of Cnut with his own; “Illis quippe diebus
hic mos Anglis erat patrocinia sanctorum omnibus sæculi rebus
anteferre.” Æthelnoth gave the Archbishop a splendidly embroidered
cope, a specimen of English workmanship (“cappam illi valde pretiosam
aurifrigio ex omni parte ornatam dedit”).

Footnote 954:

Chron. S. Max., Labbé, ii. 209. “Anno MXLIX. Kalendis Novembris
dedicatum est monasterium S. Hilarii Pictavensis.... Istud monasterium
magna ex parte construxerat regina Anglorum per manus Gauterii
Coorlandi.” This must mean Emma and not Eadgyth.

Footnote 955:

Compare Snorro’s description of the reign of Cnut (c. 139; Laing, ii.
194); “In his whole kingdom [seemingly both England and Denmark] peace
was so well established that no man dared break it. The people of the
country kept their peace towards each other, and had their old country
law: and for this he was greatly celebrated in all countries.”]

Footnote 956:

On the Housecarls, see Appendix KKK.

Footnote 957:

See, above all, the account of the “heorð-werod” of Brihtnoth at
Maldon. See above, p. 271.

Footnote 958:

On the “Witherlags Ret” or “Leges Castrenses” of Cnut, see Appendix
KKK.

Footnote 959:

See vol. iii. ch. xiv., end of § 2.

Footnote 960:

See above, p. 351.

Footnote 961:

See above, p. 344, and Lappenberg’s note at p. 475 in the original.
Mr. Thorpe (ii. 210) has turned Eilaf or Eglaf into Ulf, to the utter
perversion of Lappenberg’s meaning. Eglaf’s name is attached to
several charters of Cnut. See Cod. Dipl. iv. 2, 28, 29. On the death
of Cnut he is said (Brut y Tywysogion, 1036), for what cause we are
not told, to have left England and to have sought a refuge in Germany.
One can hardly doubt as to the identity of these two Eglafs; yet the
words of the Brut (1020) might almost make us think that Eglaf was
some wandering wiking; “After that Eilad (al. Eilaf) came to the isle
of Britain, and Dyved was devastated and Menevia was demolished.”

Footnote 962:

Ann. Camb. 1022. “Eilaf vastavit Demetiam. Menevia fracta est.”

Footnote 963:

Ann. Camb. 1035; Brut. 1033.

Footnote 964:

See above, p. 379.

Footnote 965:

See above, p. 429.

Footnote 966:

On the Northumbrian Earls see Appendix KK, and on the cession of
Lothian see Appendix I.

Footnote 967:

On Cnut’s relations with Scotland, see Appendix LL.

Footnote 968:

Simeon (Hist. Eccl. Dun. iii. 5); “De ecclesia quam inceperat solam
turrim occidentalem imperfectam reliquit.”

Footnote 969:

Simeon, Hist. Dun. iii. 6; Flor. Wig. 1020.

Footnote 970:

See Appendix I.

Footnote 971:

See Appendix LLL.

Footnote 972:

See Appendix LLL.

Footnote 973:

See above, p. 131, and Appendix G.

Footnote 974:

Fordun, iv. 43 (Gale, p. 686). But see Robertson, i. 100 et seqq.

Footnote 975:

Fordun, iv. 44; Chron. 1034.

Footnote 976:

Fordun, iv. 44. “Malcolmo Cumbriæ regionem pater statim ut coronatus
est donavit.”

Footnote 977:

The Saga of Olaf Haraldsson or Saint Olaf forms the greater part of
the second volume of Mr. Laing’s translation of Snorro’s Heimskringla.
I use it freely, though with caution, for Northern affairs. It is at
all events more trustworthy than Saxo and Swegen Aggesson.

Footnote 978:

See Adam of Bremen, ii. 55 (cf. 59). His words are remarkable; “Inter
Chnut et Olaph, regem Nortmannorum, continuum fuit bellum, nec
cessavit omnibus diebus vitæ eorum; Danis pro imperio certantibus,
Nortmannis vero pugnantibus pro libertate. In qua re justior mihi visa
est caussa Olaph, cui bellum necessarium magis fuit quam voluntarium.”
He goes on with an elaborate panegyric on Olaf. Adam’s judgement is
clearly right on the whole, though Cnut had perhaps as much to say for
himself as warlike kings commonly have.

On the name _Nortmanni_, see Appendix T.

Footnote 979:

Snorro’s account (c. 139; Laing, ii. 192) is here very distinct.

Footnote 980:

See above, p. 379.

Footnote 981:

See above, p. 370, and Appendix VV.

Footnote 982:

See Adam of Bremen, ii. 55, and cf. Florence, 1027.

Footnote 983:

Adam, u. s.

Footnote 984:

Snorro, c. 74 (Laing, ii. 84).

Footnote 985:

Snorro, c. 140 (Laing, ii. 194).

Footnote 986:

On this battle see Appendix MMM.

Footnote 987:

Flor. Wig. 1027; Saxo, 196. “Olavum vero per Norvagiensium quosdam
pecunia a se corruptos domestico bello opprimendum curavit.” Snorro,
capp. 165, 171, 175. In an earlier part of his story (c. 34) Snorro
remarks that the Norwegians preferred a foreign and absentee King, who
simply took tribute, and let the ancient laws and usages alone, while
a native and resident King commonly interfered with them.

Footnote 988:

Snorro, c. 180. The entry in the Durham Annals is “Cnut Rex Anglorum
fit et rex Danorum.” Here is one of the common confusions between
Danes and Norwegians; but it shows a remembrance of the fact (see
above, p. 422) that Cnut had not become King of England and Denmark at
the same time.

Footnote 989:

See Snorro, c. 235 et seqq.; Flor. Wig. 1030; Adam, ii. 55, 59. The
battle is a well attested fact, yet Adam says; “Alii dicunt eum in
bello peremptum, quidam vero in medio populi circo ad ludibrium magis
expositum.” [The title of “martyr” seemingly suggested the
amphitheatre.] “Sunt alii qui asserunt illum in gratia regis Chnut
latenter occisum, quod et magis verum esse non diffidimus, eo quod
regnum ejus invasit.”]

Footnote 990:

See Appendix NNN.

Footnote 991:

See Appendix NNN.

Footnote 992:

William the Third of Poitiers and Fifth of Aquitaine reigned from 990
to 1029. His connexion with Cnut is described by Ademar (iii. 41; ap.
Pertz, iv. 134); “Necnon et regem Danamarcorum et Anglorum, nomine
Canotum, ita sibi summo favore devinxerat, ut singulis annis
legationes eorum exciperet pretiosis cum muneribus, ipseque
pretiosiora eis remitteret munera.” The book is described as “Codex
literis aureis scriptus, in quo nomina sanctorum distincta cum
imaginibus continebatur.” Conc. Lemov. 1031; ap. Labbé, Conc. ix. 882,
quoted by Pertz. Cnut and Emma, as we shall see again, had rather a
fancy for making presents of books.

Footnote 993:

See above, p. 221.

Footnote 994:

See above, pp. 164, 254.

Footnote 995:

In Rudolf Glaber (ii. 2) Richard appears as “Rotomagorum dux.” Duke or
Earl of Rouen (Rudu Jarl) is also the title which the Norman princes
bear in the Northern Sagas. See Vita Olai Trygg. p. 263, and Laing,
ii. 16. Richard is “dux” here; he is “Rotomagorum comes” in cap. 8,
and “Princeps” in iii. 1. In Ademar (iii. 55) he is “Comes Rotomensis”
and “Rotomagi.” Richard calls himself (D’Achery, iii. 386) “Marchio
Nortmanniæ.” See Appendix T.

Footnote 996:

See above, p. 185.

Footnote 997:

King Robert in 1006 confirmed the foundation of Fécamp, “pia petitione
dilectissimi fidelis nostri Ricardi comitis.” Gallia Christiana, xi.
Inst. 8. One can hardly fancy this formula being used fifty years
earlier or fifty years later.

Footnote 998:

This is a very common act of formal submission, even when submission
was merely formal; but, after being very common under Richard, it dies
out under William.

Footnote 999:

King Robert’s domestic troubles, his uncanonical marriage with his
first wife, and the bondage in which he lived to his second, are well
known. Constance, according to Rudolf Glaber (iii. 9), was
“avarissima, maritique magistra.” The flocking of her southern
countrymen to the court of Paris is described by Rudolf in language
which reminds one of England under Henry the Third.

Footnote 1000:

This Burgundian war is described by R. Glaber, ii. 8; Will. Gem. v.
15. The Norman contingent is said to have amounted to 30,000 men.

Footnote 1001:

See Sigebert’s Chron. 1006 (Pertz, vi. 354), and the Gesta Episc.
Cameracensium, i. 33 (Pertz, vii. 414, 435). Both writers allow Robert
the title of “Francorum rex;” Richard is in Sigebert “Comes
Nortmannorum,” in the Gesta “Rotomagensium dux.” (In the Chronicon
Scotorum, p. 266, he is “Ricard rí Frainge.”) I need hardly say that
the Emperor Henry the Second was a canonized saint, and King Robert
certainly deserved that honour as much as many who received it.

Footnote 1002:

The marriage contract of Judith is given in Martène and Durand’s
Thesaurus Novus, i. 123. She founded the abbey of Bernay in 1013. W.
Gem. vii. 22. See Neustria Pia, 398. Her church is standing, though
desecrated, a noble example of early Norman Romanesque.

Footnote 1003:

W. Gem. v. 13. Count Geoffrey going on a pilgrimage to Rome, left his
dominions and his sons “sub ducis advocatu.” He died on his way home.

Footnote 1004:

On the war with Odo, see W. Gem. v. 10–12; Roman de Rou, 6588–6974.
Cf. R. Glaber, iii. 2, 9.

Footnote 1005:

“Castrum Tegulense,” W. Gem. v. 10. “Tuillieres,” Roman de Rou, 6627.

Footnote 1006:

See above, p. 255.

Footnote 1007:

See above, pp. 285, 302.

Footnote 1008:

See above, pp. 216, et seqq., 234.

Footnote 1009:

“Adscitis Britonibus cum Normannorum legionibus,” says William of
Jumièges, v. 10.

Footnote 1010:

W. Gem. v. 11; Roman de Rou, 6885–6928. On Dol, see vol. iii. ch. xii.
§ 4.

Footnote 1011:

The names in William of Jumièges are Olavus and Lacman. The printed
text of the Roman de Rou has Golan and Coman, but the manuscripts seem
to have various forms, Solan, Laman, and Olef. Mr. Thorpe (Lappenberg,
Norman Kings, p. 35) points out the error of Depping (ii. 177) and
Prevost (Roman de Rou, i. 346), who suppose this Olaf to be Olaf
Tryggvesson. Nothing can be plainer than that both William and Wace
meant their Olaf for Olaf Haraldsson, as they speak of his subsequent
martyrdom. Mr. Thorpe adds, “Lagman is the name of an office. Angl.
_lawman_.” So it is, and names of offices, from Pharaoh onwards, have
often been mistaken for proper names; but would a King, specially a
King of the sea, be called a Lawman? Lagman too is a real Scandinavian
name. Lagman, Harold, and Olaf appear as brothers in the history of
Man (Chron. Man. 4. ed. Munch, A. 1075.) Mr. Thorpe also supposes that
the two Kings were “two petty Scandinavian potentates from Ireland.”
Depping (ii. 175) identifies this expedition with one in which certain
Northmen from Denmark and Ireland invaded Aquitaine (Ademar, iii. 53,
ap. Pertz, iv. 139); but this is placed by Pertz in 1020, and the
whole story is quite different. Wherever a wiking shows himself, he
brings a mythical atmosphere with him.

Footnote 1012:

Will. Gem. v. 12. “Robertus ... verens ne ab eis Francia demoliretur.”

Footnote 1013:

Ib. “Satrapas regiminis sui convocavit, ambosque discordes ad se apud
Coldras convenire mandavit.” This is a somewhat lordly style for a
French King to use towards a Norman Duke, but it is a Norman writer
who records it. On the rarity of such assemblies in France, see above,
p. 248.

Footnote 1014:

Will. Gem. v. 12; Roman de Rou, 6975. This of course proves that Olaf
Haraldsson is meant, but it proves nothing as to the historic value of
the story.

Footnote 1015:

See above, pp. 287–291.

Footnote 1016:

The Norman Conquest of Sicily was actually later than that of England;
but then the conquest of Apulia and the conquest of Sicily were merely
two acts of the same drama.

Footnote 1017:

Challon, or Cabillo, in ducal Burgundy, which must be distinguished
from Châlons, or Catalauni, in Champagne.

Footnote 1018:

Will. Gem. v. 16; Roman de Rou, 7292–7370.

Footnote 1019:

See above, p. 234.

Footnote 1020:

Will. Gem. vii. 3.

Footnote 1021:

See above, pp. 252, 253.

Footnote 1022:

According to Ademar, who records several of his exploits, he daily
slew and boiled a Saracen prisoner, and compelled the comrades of the
slain man to eat of his flesh. He himself only pretended to partake.
Ademar, iii. 55 (Pertz, iv. 140). Some of the first crusaders (Ord.
Vit. 749 A) were driven by hunger to eat the flesh of Turks, but their
superiors were grieved and ashamed. Richard Cœur de Lion, according to
some legends, went a step further; he ate freely, and pronounced that
no other meat was so strengthening for an Englishman.

Footnote 1023:

R. Glaber, iii. 1. “Normannorum audacissimus, nomine Rodulphus, qui
etiam comiti Richardo displicuerat, cujus iram metuem,” &c. Cf.
Ademar, iii. 55.

Footnote 1024:

The respectful way in which Rudolf (u. s.) speaks of the Eastern
Empire is worth notice. We read of “Imperator Basilius sancti Imperii
Constantinopolitani,” “tributa, quæ Romano debentur Imperio,” namely
by the Italian cities, &c.

Footnote 1025:

I speak of course only of such civilization as is implied in progress
in science, art, and learning. Political civilization came neither
from the East nor from the West nor yet from the South.

Footnote 1026:

See p. 301.

Footnote 1027:

See p. 342.

Footnote 1028:

See p. 361.

Footnote 1029:

W. Gem. v. 17. “Cunctos Normannorum principes apud Fiscannum
convocat.” “Richardum filium suum _consultu sapientum_ [mid his Witena
geþeaht] præfecit suo ducatui, et Robertum fratrem ejus comitatui
Oximensi, ut inde illi persolveret debitum obsequii.” See above, p.
173. Was Richard associated with his father in the duchy before his
father’s death? The idea is suggested by a signature of “Richardus
Tertius” in De Lisle, Saint Sauveur le Vicomte, Preuves, pp. 7, 9. The
former charter is given in full in Neustria Pia, 215–218, The latter
seems very distinct. It has the signatures, “Signum Richardi secundi
ducis. Signum Richardi tertii ducis.” So the son of Henry the Second
was known after his coronation as Henry the Third.

Footnote 1030:

Will. Gem. vi. 2. “Cum suorum nonnullis, ut plurimi rettulerunt,
veneno mortem obiit.” So Roman de Rou, 7434 et seqq. William of
Malmesbury (ii. 178) more distinctly mentions the suspicion against
Robert; “Opinio certe incerta vagatur, quod conniventia fratris
Roberti ... vim juveni venefica consciverit.” So Chron. Turon.
(Duchesne, iii. 360); “Hic dicitur veneno necasse Richardum fratrem
suum.”

Footnote 1031:

Richard left a young son, Nicolas, seemingly illegitimate (see
Palgrave, iii. 137–142), who became a monk, and died Abbot of Saint
Ouen’s in 1092. Will. Gem. vi. 2; Ord. Vit. 710 A, who records how he
began, but did not finish, the abbey church. Of his work only a small
part at the east end remains.

Footnote 1032:

There is no authority whatever for his common name of Robert the Devil
which seems to have arisen from confounding him with the hero of some
popular romance. The Norman historians give him a singularly good
character, and certainly, unless he had a hand in his brother’s death,
no great crime is recorded of him. We hear absolutely nothing of any
such cruelties on his part as are recorded of many princes of that
age. (See Will. Gem. vi. 3; Roman de Rou, 7453.) Altogether his
actions might make us think that he was of the same generous and
impulsive disposition as his forefather William Longsword (see above,
p. 193). His conduct in the external relations of his duchy was far
more honourable than that of William; but then he had no Hugh of Paris
or Herbert of Vermandois to lead him astray. For another character of
Robert, see below, p. 478.

Footnote 1033:

Bishop Guy of Amiens goes a step further, and makes Robert actually
conquer England; Carmen de Bello, 331;

“Normannos proavus [Willelmi sc.] superavit, avusque Britannos;
Anglorum genitor sub juga colla dedit.”

Footnote 1034:

Archbishop Robert his uncle, William of Belesme (of whose family more
anon), and Hugh Bishop of Bayeux, who was son of Rudolf of Ivry (see
above, p. 258), and therefore first cousin to Robert’s father. See
Will. Gem. vi. 3–5; Roman de Rou, 7591 et seqq.

Footnote 1035:

Will. Gem. vi. 8; Roman de Rou, 7755–7896.

Footnote 1036:

See Appendix OOO.

Footnote 1037:

Will. Gem. vi. 6. The younger Baldwin had married Adela, daughter of
King Robert and the nominal widow of Duke Richard the Third.

Footnote 1038:

Rud. Glaber, iii. 9 (Duchesne, iv. 36). Cf. above, p. 241.

Footnote 1039:

Ib. “Hujusmodi enim fama ubique provinciarum percitus peroptabatur a
multis, præcipue ab Italicis, ut sibi imperaret, in Imperium
sublimari.” If there is any truth in this rumour, the date maybe fixed
to the year 1022, when the Empire was vacant by the death of Henry the
First or Second.

Footnote 1040:

R. Glaber, iii. 9 (Duchesne, iv. p. 37).

Footnote 1041:

Rudolf (iii. 9) seems to know nothing of the Norman intervention, but
attributes the reconciliation to the mediation of Fulk of Anjou. The
Norman story is given in Will. Gem. vi. 7; Roman de Rou, 7685–7752.
See also the Tours Chronicle, ap. Duchesne, iii. 361, and Will. Malms.
ii. 187. But both these writers confound Henry’s brothers in a strange
way. They say that the eldest brother Odo did not succeed because of
his incapacity; “quia stultus erat;” “Odo major natu hebes.” Now
Robert had a son Odo, but he was the fourth in order of birth (“Odo
vero frater eorum privatus permansit.” Chron. ap. Duchesne, iii. 86),
and he was able (see vol. iii. p. 145) to be put in at least nominal
command of an army. The Tours writer also makes Constance favour
Henry, but both distinctly recognize the action of Duke Robert;
“Henricus regnavit auxilio matris et Roberti ducis Normanniæ.” So
William of Malmesbury; “Henricus, maxime annitente Roberto Normanno,
coronatus est priusquam plane pater exspirasset.” Even here there is a
confusion between Henry’s coronation and his restoration by Robert.

Footnote 1042:

On these events and on those which follow, see Appendix PPP.

Footnote 1043:

See Appendix NNN.

Footnote 1044:

Will. Gem. vi. 10. “Ille salubribus monitis ejus non adquievit, sed
legatos infectis rebus nihil lætum portantes remisit.”

Footnote 1045:

“Nimia tempestate acti ad insulam quæ _Gersus_ vocatur,” says William
of Jumièges. “Gersus” is a singular form for an island which is also
called Cæsarea, but whose last syllable, like that of its neighbours,
has a very Teutonic sound. Sir F. Palgrave (iii. 176) remarks that
this is the first time that Jersey is spoken of in mediæval history.
Wace (7937) seems to have thought that a special description of the
position of his native island was needed;

“Gersui est prez de Costentin,
Là ù Normendie prent fin;
En mer est devers occident,
Al fiè de Normendie appent.”

Footnote 1046:

Will. Gem. vi. 10. “Quod puto ita factura esse, Deo auctore, pro
Edwardo rege, quem disponebat in futuro regnare sine sanguinis
effusione.” William of Malmesbury is vaguer and more discreet; “per
occultum scilicet Dei judicium, in cujus voluntate sunt potestates
regnorum omnium.”

Footnote 1047:

Ib. vi. 11.

Footnote 1048:

Ib.

Footnote 1049:

William of Malmesbury winds up his story with the singular statement;
“Relliquiæ ratium, multo tempore dissolutarum, Rotomagi adhuc nostra
ætate visebantur.”

Footnote 1050:

Will. Gem. vi. 12. “Quibus ad liquidum sopitis, en, adsunt legati
Roberto duci a Chunuto rege directi.”

Footnote 1051:

Will. Gem. vi. 12. “Pace rata in diebus suis eo quod valida gravaretur
incommoditate corporali.” So John of Wallingford (550); “Quadam
molestia tactus Cnuto, et sibi et caussæ suæ timuit, et sub quotidiana
formidine discidium et periculum, quod ex parte illa imminere sensit,
studuit terminare.” No doubt these writers fancied Cnut, who died at
the age of forty, to have been quite an old man. Cf. above, p. 254.

Footnote 1052:

It will be seen that I do not look on a single expression of William
of Malmesbury (ii. 188) as evidence enough to prove the existence of a
party in England in favour of the Æthelings.

Footnote 1053:

Robert died in 1035. Will. Gem. vi. 13. So Florence in anno. The
Peterborough and Canterbury Chronicles place his death in 1031.

Footnote 1054:

See William of Jumièges, vi. 12, who however does not distinctly
connect the pilgrimage with the death of his brother. But William of
Malmesbury says distinctly, “cujus rei gemens conscientiam.” So the
Tours Chronicle quoted above (p. 468); “Quare ... nudipes Hierusalem
abiit.”

Footnote 1055:

Will. Malms. ii. 178. “Apud Nicæam urbem Bithyniæ dies implevit,
veneno, ut fertur, interceptus; auctore ministro Radulfo, cognomento
Mowino, qui scelus illud spe ducatus animo suo extorserit; sed
Normanniam regressus, re cognita, ab omnibus quasi monstrum
exsufflatus, in exsilium perpetuum discessit.” So Roman de Rou, 8372.

Footnote 1056:

Will. Gem. vii. 22. “At Robertus ... antequam Hierusalem pergeret,
monasterium Sancti Vigoris Ceratii ædificare cœpit.” So Roman de Rou,
7465 et seqq., 8390. On Cerisy, see Neustria Pia, 429.

Footnote 1057:

Roman de Rou, 8391.

Footnote 1058:

Will. Gem. vii. 1. “Roberti magni ducis.”

Footnote 1059:

Ib. vi. 13. “Sepultus est etiam in basilica sanctæ Mariæ a suis, intra
mœnia Nicenæ civitatis.” According to the Chronicle of Saint Wandrille
(D’Achery, ii. 288) Robert’s burial in this church was a favour the
like of which had never before been granted to any man. This writer
altogether casts aside the tale of Robert being poisoned. “Divino, ut
credi fas est, judicio decessit, qui jam unus eorum effectus erat,
quibus, ut apostolus conqueritur, dignus non erat mundus.” Evil
counsellors had led him astray in youth; but he repented of his
misdeeds—why did he neither marry Herleva nor take back Estrith?—and
gradually reached this high degree of perfection.

Footnote 1060:

The death of Cnut at Shaftesbury is asserted by all the Chronicles and
Florence in anno, and by William of Malmesbury, ii. 187. On Saxo’s
wild fable about his death, see Appendix PPP.

Footnote 1061:

On the division of Cnut’s dominions at his death, see Appendix QQQ.

Footnote 1062:

See above, p. 109.

Footnote 1063:

On the disputed election between Harold and Harthacnut, see Appendix
RRR.

Footnote 1064:

See above, p. 477, and Appendix RRR.

Footnote 1065:

The accounts in the Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles, the only copies
which mention the seizure, would seem to imply that it took place
while Harold was still only a candidate for the Crown. Florence (in
anno) indeed says, “Is tamen, _adepta regia dignitate_, misit
Wintoniam suos constipatores celerrime, et gazarum opumque quas rex
Canutus Algivæ reliquerat reginæ majorem melioremque partem ademit
illi tyrannice.” So Roger of Wendover, i. 473. But Harold could hardly
have ventured on this after the peaceful division of the kingdom, and
this business is quite different from Harold’s expulsion of Emma in
1037, though it is confounded with it by Roger.

Footnote 1066:

I believe there were people who, on the accession of the present
Queen, regretted the separation between England and Hannover.

Footnote 1067:

See Appendix RRR.

Footnote 1068:

Will. Malms, ii. 188. “Elegerunt eum [Haroldum] Dani et Londoniæ
cives, qui jam pene in barbarorum mores propter frequentem convictum
transierant.”

Footnote 1069:

Grote’s Hist. of Greece, iv. 205.

Footnote 1070:

See p. 265.

Footnote 1071:

See p. 418 and Appendix CCC.

Footnote 1072:

See Appendix RRR.

Footnote 1073:

See p. 396 and Appendix WW.

Footnote 1074:

See Appendix RRR.

Footnote 1075:

Ib.

Footnote 1076:

On the whole story and the various shapes which it takes, see Appendix
SSS.

Footnote 1077:

Will. Pict. 37. “Heraldum Angli deserere nolebant, vel (quod est
credibilius) non audebant, metuentes affore Danos ad protectionem sive
citatam ultionem ejus.” So Roman de Rou, 9783;

“Mais li Engleiz, ki bien saveient
Ke li frere venir debveient,
Nes’ voudrent mie recoillir
Ne en la terre retenir.
Herout li fils Kenut dotoent,
U poet cel estre k’il l’amoent.”

Footnote 1078:

“Portus Icius,” Will. Pict. “Wincant,” Wace. “Portus Wissanti,” Will.
Gem. Since Dr. Guest’s exposition of the matter, it is hardly
necessary to say that “Portius Itius” or “Icius” is not Boulogne,
still less Walcheren.

Footnote 1079:

Will. Pict. 38. “Officium suum benigne promisit, oscula dans ad fidem
ac dextram.”

Footnote 1080:

“Evisceratos.” Bromton (X Scriptt. 935) describes the process; “Quidam
namque dicunt quod, primordiis viscerum ejus umbilico aperto extractis
et ad stipitem ligatis, ipsum tantis vicibus stimulis ferreis
circumduxerunt, donec novissima viscerum extrahebantur; et sic
proditione Godwini apud Ely mortuus est Alfredus.”

Footnote 1081:

“Cui dum oculi effoderentur, cultro cerebrum violavit mucro.” Will.
Pict. So the Ely History, edited by Stewart, p. 209, where the
narrative is made up from Florence and William of Poitiers. The Ely
History in Gale (ii. 32. p. 508) follows Florence only.

Footnote 1082:

Eadward, as we have seen, had forty ships; Ælfred came “accuratius
quam frater antea adversus vim præparatus.” So the Roman de Rou (9806)
speaks of his “grant navie.”

Footnote 1083:

See Appendix SSS.

Footnote 1084:

Some were _scalped_; “nonnullos cute capitis abstracta cruciavit.”

Footnote 1085:

“Ne wearð dreorlicre dǽd
Gedon on þison earde;
Syþþan Dene comon,
And her frið namon.”

The Chronicler’s way of reckoning is changed since the days of
Brunanburh, when the fight was the greatest ever fought

“Siþþan eastan hider
Engle and Seaxe
Up becoman
Ofer bradbrimu,” &c.

Footnote 1086:

“At the west end, near the steeple, in the south _portice_.” This
makes one think that the present arrangements of the west front of Ely
reproduce something far earlier.

Footnote 1087:

See Appendix BBB.

Footnote 1088:

The letter is given at length in the Encomium Emmæ, iii. 3. The letter
is confessedly a forgery of Harold; it may very likely be a pure
invention of the Encomiast; still anything professing to be a private
letter, as distinguished from a legal document, is a curiosity at this
stage of English history.

Footnote 1089:

“Bononiensium paucos.” I need hardly say that Wissant is in the county
of Boulogne, and that the county of Boulogne comes within the limits
of Flanders in the wider sense of the word.

Footnote 1090:

Enc. Emm. iii. 4. “Illi comes Godwinus est obvius factus, et eum in
sua suscepit fide, ejusque fit mox miles cum sacramenti affirmatione.”

Footnote 1091:

“Devians eum a Londonia.” This writer seems not to know that Emma was
at Winchester.

Footnote 1092:

“Mane rediturus,” says the Encomiast, “ut domino suo serviret cum
debita honorificentia.”

Footnote 1093:

Enc. Emm. iii. 6. “A milite primum irrisus est iniquissimo; deinde
contemptibiliores eliguntur, ut horum ab insania flendus juvenis
dijudicetur. Qui, judices constituti, decreverunt,” &c. We are here on
the dangerous ground of martyrology, and we must be on our guard
against the evident wish, shown in all such cases, to make the
sufferings of Ælfred follow the pattern of the sufferings of Christ.
Possibly too, in the language about these judges, whoever they were,
we may discern an allusion to Saint Paul’s precept, 1 Cor. vi. 4.

Footnote 1094:

Our history gives us several examples of murders, and of murders left
unpunished. But of legal executions for political offences we never
hear, except during the proscription in the early days of Cnut.

Footnote 1095:

Cf. Baron Maseres’ note on the Encomium, p. 31.

Footnote 1096:

See Appendix SSS.

Footnote 1097:

Vita Eadw. 401. See Appendix SSS.

Footnote 1098:

See below, p. 514.

Footnote 1099:

Chronn. “Forðan hit hleoðrode þa swiðe toward Haraldes, þeh hit unriht
wære.”

Footnote 1100:

It will be seen that my view is built mainly on the account in the
Encomium Emmæ.

Footnote 1101:

The year of Ælfred’s death was the year of the marriage of his
half-sister Gunhild. See above, p. 455, and Appendix NNN.

Footnote 1102:

See Snorro, Saga viii. capp. 6, 7 (Laing, ii. 364); Adam Brem. ii. 74.

Footnote 1103:

So the Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles, those which do not
distinctly mention the division; “Her man geceas Harold ofer eall to
kyninge; and forsoc Harðacnut, forþam he wæs to lange on Denmarcon.”
So Florence; “Haroldus Rex Merciorum et Northhymbrorum, ut per totam
regnaret Angliam, a principibus _et omni populo_ rex eligitur.
Heardecanutus vero, quia in Denemarcia moras innexuit, et ad Angliam,
_ut rogabatur_, venire distulit, penitus abjicitur.”

Footnote 1104:

See above, p. 106, and Appendix R.

Footnote 1105:

See above, p. 405.

Footnote 1106:

All the Chronicles mention the banishment or “driving out” of
Ælfgifu-Emma. The expression is the same as that which is used in the
years 963 and 964 for the expulsion of secular priests from several
churches, and in 1045 for the banishment of Gunhild. One would like to
know in what this driving out differed from regular outlawry. Possibly
the driving out involved an actual personal removal, while the
banishment involved in a sentence of outlawry was only constructive,
like the Roman _aquæ et ignis interdictio_. Godwine, on his outlawry,
was allowed five days to leave the country (Peterborough Chronicle,
1051). The tone of the Worcester and Abingdon Chronicles certainly
seems to imply that the measure was a harsher one than that of
ordinary outlawry; “And man draf ut his [Harðacnutes] modor Ælfgyfe þa
_cwene_ [a rare use of that word instead of _hlæfdige_], butan ælcere
mildheortnesse, ongean þone wallendan winter.” Florence translates,
describing her as “Alfgiva, _quondam_ Anglorum regina.” Does this
imply any formal deposition from royal rank?

Footnote 1107:

Enc. Emm. iii. 7; Will. Malms. ii. 188. On Adela, see above, p. 469.

Footnote 1108:

The Encomiast (iii. 1), after mentioning Æthelnoth’s refusal to crown
Harold, continues; “Tandem desperatus abscessit, et episcopalem
benedictionem adeo sprevit, ut non solum ipsam odiret benedictionem,
verum etiam universam fugeret Christianitatis religionem. Namque, dum
alii ecclesiam Christiano more missam audire subintrarent, ipse aut
saltus canibus ad venandum cinxit, aut quibuslibet aliis vilissimis
rebus occupavit, ut tantum declinare posset quod odivit.” There is
also what seems to be an allusion to the alleged irreligion of Harold
in a foreign Chronicle, the Annals of Hildesheim, Pertz, iii. 100;
“Hiemali tempore Chnuht, rex Danorum et Anglorum, immatura morte
præventus obivit, et Christiana religio ab ipso fideliter exculta
periclitari cœpit.” Yet Harold is not mentioned, and the entry goes on
with only partial accuracy; “Filius ejus junior, Haerdechunt nomine,
regnum ipsius post eum consensu provincialium obtinuit.”

Footnote 1109:

There is a very remarkable document of this reign, in which Harold
appears, if not as a benefactor, at least not as an enemy, of
churchmen. See Ellis, Introduction to Domesday, ii. 142; Cod. Dipl.
iv. 56; Thorpe, Dipl. 338. Certain revenues at Sandwich belonging to
Christ Church at Canterbury had been seized by the King’s officers,
and partly alienated to the rival monastery of Saint Augustine’s. It
appears however that this was done without the order or knowledge of
Harold, who was then sick at Oxford, and who, on learning the fact,
expressed great indignation and ordered restitution. Mr. Kemble dates
the document in 1038, but it is clear that it must, as Sir Henry Ellis
says, belong to 1039, or perhaps to the beginning of 1040.

Footnote 1110:

See Hook, Archbishops, i. 487; Stubbs, Reg. Sacr. Angl. p. 19. He
appears as at once royal chaplain and monk in a charter of Cnut in
Cod. Dipl. vi. 190, and he is addressed as Bishop in two charters of
the same King addressed to the thegns of Kent. Cod. Dipl. vi. 187,
189. Dean Hook and Professor Stubbs place his suffragan see at the
ancient church of Saint Martin near Canterbury.

Footnote 1111:

See Florence, 1038; Hook, i. 505 (where the appointment is attributed
to Harthacnut). But none of the Chronicles mention the story.

Footnote 1112:

See Florence, 1038, compared with 1046.

Footnote 1113:

“Forðam he wæs nehst his [Eadwardes] modor rǽde,” says the Abingdon
Chronicle of Stigand under the year 1043.

Footnote 1114:

He was in attendance on Harold in his last sickness, whether as a
political or as a spiritual adviser. Cod. Dipl. iv. 56.

Footnote 1115:

The Chroniclers, even while condemning the driving out of Emma, speak
of it in the same breath with the election of Harold, as if they were
both alike popular acts; “Man geceas Harold ... and forsoc
Harðacnut ... and man draf út his modor.”

Footnote 1116:

Chron. Ab. and Fl. Wig. in anno. Thurkill—there were many of the
name—Ælfgeat, and “many other good men” were also killed. See also
Annales Cambriæ and Brut y Tywysogion in anno.

Footnote 1117:

Sim. Dun. Hist. Dun. iii. 9 (X Scriptt. 33). “Defuncto Cnut, quum
filius ejus Haroldus jam quintum annum in regno ... gereret.”

Footnote 1118:

See above, p. 328.

Footnote 1119:

See above, p. 448.

Footnote 1120:

The story is told by Simeon of Durham, Hist. Dun. iii. 6, and more
briefly by Florence, 1020. The canons of Durham are met to choose a
Bishop after the three years’ widowhood of the see which followed the
death of Ealdhun (see above, p. 448); Eadmund asks in joke why they do
not choose him; they forthwith choose him in earnest, but agree to
consult Saint Cuthberht; a voice issuing from his tomb thrice names
Eadmund as Bishop. Eadmund now objects, on the ground of his not being
a monk like his predecessors—an odd reason to give to a chapter of
seculars—but the election is approved by King Cnut, Eadmund makes his
profession as a monk, and he is consecrated by Archbishop Wulfstan.
This story seems to imply a degree of freedom of election in capitular
bodies of which we find a few, but only a few traces at this time.
Bishoprics are in most cases filled directly by the King, with the
assent of his Witan, without any mention of the monks or canons. But
see the history of Saint Wulfstan, vol. ii. chap. ix.

Footnote 1121:

Sim. Hist. Dun. iii. 5.

Footnote 1122:

So I understand the words of Simeon, Hist. Dun. iii. 9; “Magna parte
equitum suorum _ab his qui obsidebantur_ interfecta, confusus aufugit,
fugiens pedites interfectos amisit.” The mention of “equites” need not
imply that the Scottish army contained cavalry strictly so called,
that is, men who used their horses in actual battle. It is enough to
justify the expression if, among the Scots, as among the English, the
chief men rode to the field (see above, p. 271); the chief men, as
usual, would suffer most severely in the actual combat, while those
among them who survived would have the advantage in flight. There is
another entry in the Durham Annals which places both this siege and
the death of Harold in 1039. “Hoc anno Dunechanus rex Scotorum cum
exercitu magno Dunelmum obsidens, fugatus ab obsessis, magnam suorum
multitudinem amisit.”

Footnote 1123:

Sim. Hist. Dun. iii. 9. “Quorum capita in forum collata in stipitibus
sunt suspensa.” See above, p. 329.

Footnote 1124:

Snorro, Saga viii. 7 (Laing, ii. 364); Chron. Rosk. ap. Lang. i. 377.
Cf. above, p. 397.

Footnote 1125:

Enc. Emm. iii. 8.

Footnote 1126:

Ib.

Footnote 1127:

Chron. Ab. 1039. “And her com éc Hardacnut to Bricge, þar his modor
wæs.” Enc. Emm. u. s., where we have a story about a tempest and a
vision.

Footnote 1128:

Adam Brem. ii. 72. “Contra quem frater a Dania veniens in Flandria
classem adunavit. Sed rex Anglorum, morte præventus, bellum diremit.”

Footnote 1129:

In the charter mentioned above (p. 504) we find some details of
Harold’s sickness; “And wæs se king þa binnan Oxnaforde swyðe
geseocled, swa þæt he læg orwene his lífes.” When he hears of the
wrong done to Christ Church, “Ða læg se king and sweartode eall mid
þare sage.”

Footnote 1130:

That Harold died at Oxford is plain from the above passage, and from
the Peterborough Chronicle. Florence says “obiit Lundoniæ.” He
probably had the Worcester Chronicle before him, and inferred the
place of his death from the place of his burial. William of Malmesbury
agrees with the Chronicler.

Footnote 1131:

Chronn. Petrib. and Cant.; Fl. Wig. in anno; Will. Malms. ii. 188.

Footnote 1132:

Will. Malms, ii. 188. “Anglis et Danis in unam sententiam
convenientibus.” So Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 758 C, speaking of his landing
at Sandwich; “Hardecnut ... susceptus est [underfangen] et electus in
regem simul ab Anglis et Dacis.” This comes, with improvements, from
the Peterborough Chronicle; “On þis ilcan geare com Hardacnut cyng to
Sandwic ... and he was sona underfangen ge fram Anglum ge fram Denum.”
Taken alone this might imply that Harthacnut came over, like Ælfred,
to seek his fortune, only with a luckier result; but the other
Chronicles distinctly assert the previous embassy and therefore imply
the previous election.

Footnote 1133:

Chronn. Ab. and Wig. “And man sende æfter Harðacnute to Brygce; wende
þæt man wel dyde.” So Florence, “bene se facere putantes.”

Footnote 1134:

See Hist. Rams. c. 94, 95, for the embassy and for an accompanying
miracle. Ælfweard was a somewhat remarkable person. He was first a
monk of Ramsey and then Abbot of Evesham, which office he held in
plurality with his bishopric. The church of Evesham had fluctuated
more than once between monks and secular canons, the canons being last
introduced by Ælfhere of Mercia in the disputes which followed the
death of Eadgar. See above, p. 263. Many of the estates fell into the
hands of laymen, especially into those of Godwine of Lindesey, who
died at Assandun. They were recovered from Godwine by a legal process,
seemingly before the Witan of Mercia (“coram multis principibus hujus
patriæ”), by the Abbot Brihtmær. But Godwine seized them again during
the absence of Æthelred in Normandy in 1013. One almost fancies that
this must have been by a grant from Swegen, to whom Lindesey was one
of the first parts of England to submit. See above, p. 358. Æthelred
on his return in 1014 appointed Ælfweard Abbot, who again expelled
Godwine, seemingly by force (“fretus auxilio Dei atque regis ... cum
magna fortitudine hinc expulit”). The local chronicler looks on
Godwine’s death at Assandun as the punishment of this sacrilege;
“Godwinus vero qui eas injuste habuit eodem anno(?) Dei nutu in bello
contra regem Danorum, Cnutonem Sweinonis filium, facto occisus est.”
These stories of occupations of monastic lands by powerful men, or in
their names, meet us at every turn. See above, p. 505. Ælfweard
received the bishopric of London from Cnut, who is called his kinsman,
about 1035. We shall hear of him again. See Chron. Abb. Evesham, pp.
78–83.

Footnote 1135:

Rog. Wend. i. 477. So Fl. Wig. “Regnique solio mox sublimatur.” The
place comes from Rishanger, 427.

Footnote 1136:

Will. Pict. ap. Maseres, 39. “Hardechunutus ... generi materno
similior, non qua _pater_ aut frater crudelitate regnabat neque
interitum Edwardi sed provectum volebat. Ob morbos etiam quos
frequenter patiebatur, plus Deum in oculis habebat, et vitæ humanæ
brevitatem.”

Footnote 1137:

See his charters for a grant to Saint Eadmund’s (Cod. Dipl. iv. 60),
to Abingdon (iv. 65), to Ramsey (vi. 192. Hist. Rams. c. 97 et seqq.),
to Bishop Ælfwine of Winchester and his successors (iv. 68). The
Ramsey charter runs in the joint names of Harthacnut and his mother.

Footnote 1138:

Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 758 D. “Claræ indolis et benignæ juventutis fuerat
suis. Tantæ namque largitatis fertur fuisse ut prandia regalia
quattuor in die vicibus omni curiæ suæ faceret apponi, malens a
vocatis posita fercula dimitti quam a non vocatis apponenda fercula
reposci.” Henry then goes on to lament the niggardly practice of the
Kings of his own time who provided only one meal daily. The Ramsey
historian (c. 102) calls him “vir prædicandæ indolis et eximiæ in
miseros pietatis.” King John also was a great almsman.

Footnote 1139:

Chron. Petrib. 1040. “On his [Haroldes] dagum man geald xvi scipan æt
ælcere hamulan [hamelan in Chron. Ab.] viii marcan.” On the word
_hamulan_ Mr. Earle (p. 343) remarks, “This being a dative feminine,
the nom. must be _hamule_, _hamele_; at first perhaps signifying a
_rowlock-strap_, and so symbolizing some subdivision of the crew.
There is not money enough to give eight marcs to every rower.” The
“hamule” then would be analogous to the “lance” in mediæval armies.
But Florence clearly took it to mean a single rower; “Octo marcas
unicuique suæ classis remigi.”

Footnote 1140:

Chronn. Ab. Wig. “And him wæs þa unhold eall þæt his ær gyrnde; and he
ne gefræmde eac naht cynelices þa hwile þe he rixode.” Florence
divides this description, putting the latter clause now, and the
former after what I take to be the _second_ Danegeld.

Footnote 1141:

See Appendix TTT.

Footnote 1142:

“Stir majorem domus,” says Florence.

Footnote 1143: