Chapter XXXI: Appendix (8)

The application of Swend and the refusal by the Witan come from the
Worcester Chronicle, 1048. “And Swegen eac sende hider, bead him
fylstes ongeon Magnus Norwega cyng; þæt man sceolde sendan L. scypa
him to fultume; ac hit þuhte unræd _eallum folce_; and hit wearð þa
gelet, þurh þæt þe Magnus hæfde mycel scypecræft.” The personal share
of Godwine and Leofric in the debate comes from Florence, 1047. “Tunc
comes Godwinus consilium Regi dedit ut saltem L. naves militibus
instructas ei mitteret; sed quia Leofrico comiti _et omni populo_ id
non videbatur consilium, nullam ei mittere voluit.”

Footnote 271:

Flor. Wig. 1047.

Footnote 272:

Snorro, Harold, 30 (Laing, iii. 29).

Footnote 273:

Saxo, 204. Cf. vol. i. p. 257.

Footnote 274:

For a mythical version of the death of Magnus, mixed up with a story
of a vision of Eadward’s, see Æthel. Riev. X Scriptt. 378.

Footnote 275:

See above, p. 73.

Footnote 276:

Flor. Wig. 1048. I insert this story with a certain amount of fear and
trembling, as it reads so like a mere repetition of what happened the
year before. Still the authority of Florence is high, and it is not
unlikely that Swend, in his new circumstances, might make a second
application.

Footnote 277:

Fl. Wig. 1048. “Haroldus ... nuntios ad Regem Eadwardum misit et pacem
amicitiamque illi obtulit, et recepit.”

Footnote 278:

See below, p. 98.

Footnote 279:

Chron. Ab. 1046. Fl. Wig. 1047. Chron. Wig. 1048. It was after
Candlemas, i. e. of 1047.

Footnote 280:

Chronn. Ab. 1048. Wig. 1049. Fl. Wig. 1048.

Footnote 281:

Chron. Wig. 1049. “Þæt wilde fyr on Deorbyscire micel yfel dide.”
Florence (1048) calls it “ignis aërius, vulgo dictus silvaticus.”

Footnote 282:

Chronn. Ab. 1047. Wig. 1048. Petrib. 1045. Cant. 1046. Fl. Wig. 1047.
By some extraordinary confusion Florence places here the death of
Eadmund, Bishop of Durham, and the succession of Eadred, which
happened in 1041. See vol. i. pp. 588–9.

Footnote 283:

Chron. Ab. 1048. Chron. Petrib. 1046. These clearly refer to the same
event. I hardly understand Mr. Thorpe’s note to his Translation of the
Chronicles, p. 137. “This predatory expedition, assigned here to the
year 1046, is of a much earlier date”—one seemingly before the year
1000. This is because a Lothen and an Yrling occur in the story of
Olaf Tryggwesson. But the Chronicler could hardly be mistaken on such
a point. Lappenberg (499. Thorpe, ii. 239) seems to have no doubt on
the matter.

Footnote 284:

“Godwines Rath wurde bald als der richtige erkannt.” Lappenberg, 499.

Footnote 285:

I make up the details by joining the narratives of the two Chronicles.
Both mention Sandwich; but the Peterborough Chronicle alone speaks of
the vast booty.

Footnote 286:

Chron. Ab. 1048. “Man gehergode Sandwic and Wiht, and ofslohan þa
betsta men þe þa wæron.”

Footnote 287:

Chron. Petrib. 1046. “And wendon þa onbuton Tenet, and woldon þær þet
ilce don; ac þet landfolc hardlice wiðstodon, and forwerndon heom
ægðer ge upganges ge wæteres, and aflymdon hi þanon mid ealle.” The
refusal of water is remarkable. Probably in other cases the landfolk
had to provide provisions out of sheer fear.

Footnote 288:

Chron. Petrib. u. s.

Footnote 289:

Chron. Ab. 1048. “And Eadward cining and þa eorlas foran æfter þam út
mid heore scypun.” Eadward had been on board the fleet once before
(see p. 74), but that time he saw no service.

Footnote 290:

Chron. Petrib. 1046.

Footnote 291:

See vol. i. pp. 313, 330, 633.

Footnote 292:

Lamb. Herz. 1047.

Footnote 293:

See above, p. 17.

Footnote 294:

See the Life of Leo by the contemporary Archdeacon Wibert, in
Muratori, iii. 282.

Footnote 295:

The intervention of Hildebrand, as told by Otto of Freisingen in his
Annals, lib. vi. c. 33, seems apocryphal, as Muratori remarks in his
note, iii. 292. But the germ of the story is to be found in Wibert;
Leo entered Rome barefoot, and though he announced his appointment by
the Emperor, he demanded the assent of the clergy and people before he
entered on his office.

Footnote 296:

On this war see Hermannus Contractus, 1044–1050. Lambert, 1044–1050.
Sigebert, 1044–1049 (ap. Pertz, vi. 358–9). Ann. Leodienses (ap.
Pertz, iv. 19, 20). Otto Fris. Chron. vi. 33. Conrad Ursp. 1045–9 (p.
229, ed. 1537). Annalista Saxo (ap. Pertz, vol. vi. p. 689). Struvius,
i. 352. The destruction of the palace is mentioned in our own Abingdon
and Worcester Chronicles, 1049, 1050; “Se casere gaderode unarimedlice
fyrde ongean Baldewine of Brycge þurh þæt þæt he bræc þæne pallant æt
Neomagan, and eac fela oðra unþanca þe he him dyde.” So Florence,
1049; “Quod apud Neomagum suum palatium combussisset atque fregisset
pulcherrimum.” The year of its destruction was 1046, according to
Lambert (“Inter alias quas rei publicæ intulit clades, Neumago domum
regiam miri et incomparabilis operis incendit”), 1047 according to
Sigebert, (“Godefridus palatium Neomagi incendit et irreparabiliter
destruit”). Both writers speak of the destruction of the church of
Verdun; Lambert adds the singular penance of Godfrey, which must have
followed his submission in 1049. “Post modicum facti in tantum
pœnituit, ut publicè se verberari faceret, et capillos suos ne
tonderentur [one is reminded of the Merwings] multâ pecuniâ redimeret,
sumptus ad reædificandam ecclesiam daret, et in opere cæmentario per
seipsum plerumque vilis mancipii ministerio functus deserviret.” Abbot
Hugh in the Verdun Chronicle (Labbe, i. 190) makes the destruction at
Verdun still more extensive; “Templum Sanctæ Mariæ à Duce Godefrido et
Balduino succensum est, vasa sacra ablata, civitasque destructa, viii.
Kal. Nov.” So in another Verdun Chronicle (ib. 401); “1048 Civitas
Virdunensis a Duce Godefrido et Balduino Comite deprædatur et unà cum
Monasterio Sanctæ Mariæ incenditur.”

Footnote 297:

Florence (1049) seems pointedly to distinguish the relations in which
Swend and Eadward stood to the Emperor. “Suanus ... ut Imperator illi
_mandârat_, cum suâ classe ibi affuit, et eâ vice fidelitatem
Imperatori juravit. Misit quoque ad Regem Anglorum Eadwardum et
_rogavit_ illum ne Baldwinum permitteret effugere, si vellet ad mare
fugere.”

Footnote 298:

Flor. Wig. 1049. Chronn. Ab. and Wig. ib. “þæt he ne geþafode þæt he
him on wætere ne ætburste.”

Footnote 299:

See vol. i. pp. 229, 245.

Footnote 300:

Chronn. Ab. and Wig. “þæt se casere hæfde of Baldwine eall þæt he
wolde.” The reconciliation was at Aachen. Sigebert, 1049. Hermann,
1050. Lambert seems to confound this reconciliation with the later
synod at Mainz. William of Poitiers boldly turns the tables; the
father-in-law of Duke William could not have made submission even to
an Emperor; “Nomine siquidem Romani Imperii miles fuit, re decus et
gloria summa consiliorum in summâ necessitudine ... Est enim et
nationibus procul remotis notissimum quam frequentibus, quamque
gravibus bellis Imperatorum immanitatem fatigaverit, pace demum ad
conditiones ipsius arbitratu dictatas compositâ, quum Regum dominos
terræ ipsorum nonnullâ parte mulctaverit violenter extortâ, sua quæque
vel inexpugnatâ vel indefessâ potiùs manu tutam.” Giles, 90. Duchesne,
183 D.

Footnote 301:

See pp. 88, 90.

Footnote 302:

Chron. Ab. 1049. “He com hider mid hiwunge, cwæð þæt he wolde his man
beon.”

Footnote 303:

Chron. Petrib. 1046. “And com Swegn eorl in mid vii. scypum to
Bosenham, et griðode wið þone cyng, and behet man him þæt he moste
wurðe [beon] ælc þæra þinga þe he ǽr ahte.

Footnote 304:

Chron. Petrib. 1046. “Da wiðlæg Harold eorl his broðor and Beorn eorl
þæt he ne moste beon nan þære þinga wurðe þe se cyng him geunnen
hæfde.” So Chron. Ab. 1049. The Worcester Chronicle and Florence do
not mention this opposition of Harold and Beorn.

Footnote 305:

See vol. i. p. 370.

Footnote 306:

“Fóron fela scypa hám,” says the Worcester Chronicle; but Abingdon
puts it more distinctly; “And þa se cing lyfde eallon Myrceon ham; and
hig swa dydon.”

Footnote 307:

Abingdon and Worcester mention Godwine’s going with forty-two ships,
but Peterborough has more distinctly, “Ða ge[wende] Godwine eorl west
onbuton mid þæs cynges ii. scipum þan anan steorde Harold eorl and þan
oðran Tostig his broðor, and landesmanna sciþa xlii.”

Footnote 308:

The first certainly authentic signature of Tostig seems to be in this
year. Cod. Dipl. iv. 115. The charter, after the signatures of
Godwine, Leofric and Siward, has those of “Harold Dux,” “Beorn Dux,”
“Tosti nobilis,” “Leowine nobilis.” Leofwine must have been very
young.

Footnote 309:

Chron. Petrib. “Ða scyfte man _Harold_ eorl úp þæs cynges scipe þe
Harold eorl ǽr steorde.” Mr. Earle’s conjecture that for “Harold eorl”
we should read “Beorn eorl” is absolutely necessary to make sense of
the passage. Parallel Chronicles, 343.

Footnote 310:

Was it some feeling that a brother’s life had been at least in
jeopardy that led William of Malmesbury, or those whom he followed,
into the strange statement (ii. 200), “Pro conscientiâ Brunonis
cognati interempti, _et, ut quidam dicunt, fratris_”?

Footnote 311:

Chron. Ab. “Þa wende Beorn for þære sibbe þæt he him swican nolde.” So
Wig.

Footnote 312:

“To Dertamuðan,” Chronn. Ab. and Wig. “to Axamuðan,” Chron. Petrib.

Footnote 313:

The personal share of Harold in the burial comes from the Abingdon
Chronicle, the one least favourable to Godwine. Peterborough, so
strongly Godwinist, is silent.

Footnote 314:

Chron. Ab. “And se cing þa and eall here cwæðon Swegen for niðing.”
Cf. Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Ða se cyng ... sende ofer eall Englalande,
and bead þæt ælc man þe wære unniðing sceolde cúman to hé.” Will.
Malms. iv. 306. “Jubet ut compatriotas advocent ad obsidionem venire,
nisi si qui velint sub nomine Niðing, quod _nequam_ sonat, remanere.”
Matt. Paris. p. 15 (Wats); “Absque morâ ut ad obsidionem veniant
jubet; nisi velint sub nomine _Nithing_, quod Latinè _nequam_ sonat,
recenseri. Angli, qui nihil contumeliosius et vilius æstimant quam
hujusmodi ignominioso vocabulo notari, catervatim ad Regem
confluentes,” &c.

Footnote 315:

On military Assemblies, Macedonian, Ætolian, and even Achaian, see
Hist. Fed. Gov. i. pp. 413, 511, 549.

Footnote 316:

See vol. i. p. 404.

Footnote 317:

See vol. i. p. 86.

Footnote 318:

_Here_, which implies a standing force, very often a paid force, not
_fyrd_, the general levy of the country.

Footnote 319:

See vol. i. p. 109.

Footnote 320:

On the Housecarls, as a later and inferior form of the _Comitatus_,
see vol. i. p. 490.

Footnote 321:

“Lytel ær þan” (namely the second burial of Beorn), the men of
Hastings set forth, according to the Worcester Chronicle, the only one
which mentions their exploit.

Footnote 322:

So I understand the words of the Worcester Chronicle. The men of
Hastings go after Swegen and take “his twa scypa”—the only ships he
then had. To explain his having only two ships the writer adds, “ehta
scypa he hæfde ær he Beorn beswice; syððan hine forleton ealle buton
twam.” The only meaning of these words seems to be that which I have
given, though it involves the difficulty as to the personal escape of
Swegen. But it is clear that Florence took them differently;
“Dimiserunt illum sex naves, quarum duas paullò post cœperunt
Hastingenses ... Swanus verò ad Flandriam duabus fugiens navibus ibi
mansit.” This accounts for his escape, but I cannot see how “his twa
scypa” can mean two of the ships which had left him. The Abingdon
Chronicle also mentions the desertion of the six ships, but not the
exploit of the Hastings men.

For other examples of the vigorous action of the men of the “Cinque
Ports” in 1293 and 1297, see Walter of Hemingburgh, vol. ii. pp. 41,
158 (Hist. Soc. Ed.).

Footnote 323:

Chron. Ab. “And þar wunode mid Baldwine.” Chron. Petrib. “And Swegen
gewende þa east to Baldewines lande, and sæt þær ealne winter on
Brycge mid his fullan griðe.”

Footnote 324:

Chron. Wig. 1050. “Swein eorl bæd Beorn eorl mid facne,” “ær he Beorn
beswice.” Chron. Ab. 1049. “ær he Beorn amyrðrode.”

Footnote 325:

See vol. i. p. 588.

Footnote 326:

I think that by comparing the Abingdon Chronicle under 1050 with the
Peterborough Chronicle under 1047, it will appear that Swegen was
reinstated in this Gemót of Midlent 1050, one which I shall have to
mention again.

Footnote 327:

Flor. Wig. “Swanus ... ibi mansit, quoad Wigornensis episcopus
Aldredus illum reduceret, et cum Rege pacificaret.” This seems to
imply that Ealdred brought him over in person.

Footnote 328:

The old diocese of Worcester took in the shires of Worcester and
Gloucester and part of Warwick. Of these Gloucestershire was in
Swegen’s Earldom, the rest in Leofric’s.

Footnote 329:

The reconciliation of Swegen with Eadward is mentioned by Thomas
Stubbs (see above, p. 87) as an instance of the peacemaking powers of
Ealdred, along with that of Gruffydd.

Footnote 330:

It is clear that the details of the murder could come only from Swegen
himself, as his accomplices were killed by the Hastings men. Ealdred
would be the obvious person for Swegen to confess them to. I do not
suspect the Bishop of betraying the secrets of the confessional. A
public crime like that of Swegen was doubtless followed by a public
confession.

Footnote 331:

See above, pp. 90, 100.

Footnote 332:

Four, according to the Worcester Chronicle, two, according to
Florence. The Abingdon Chronicle does not mention this last incident,
and that of Peterborough passes by the whole story of Osgod.

Footnote 333:

Chron. Wig. “þa man ofsloh begeondan sæ.” Flor. Wig. “Quæ in
transmarinis partibus captæ sunt, occisis omnibus qui in illis erant.”

Footnote 334:

Chron. Wig. “On Wylisce Axa.” Flor. Wig. “Ostium intrantes Sabrinæ, in
loco qui dicitur _Wylesc Eaxan_ appulerunt.” The “Welsh Axe” is of
course the Usk. The rivers of the same name in Somersetshire and
Devonshire had ceased to be looked on as Welsh.

Footnote 335:

On the details of this perplexing campaign, see Appendix I.

Footnote 336:

Ralph’s signatures seem to begin in 1050. See Cod. Dipl. iv. 123, 125.
That in 121 is more doubtful. That in 113 Mr. Kemble marks as
doubtful, but refers it to 1044–1047. But it must be spurious. It
makes Eadsige Archbishop and Ælfgar Earl at the same time, as also
Tostig, who was not an Earl till long after. See Appendix G.

Footnote 337:

Chron. Wig. 1050. “And hi comon unwær on heom, on ealne ærne morgen,
and fela godra manna þær ofslagon; and þa oþre ætburston forð mid þam
biscope.”

Footnote 338:

“Þæt micele mynster æt Rémys,” says the Worcester Chronicle, which
might seem to mean the Metropolitan church; but Florence makes it
plain that the Abbey is meant; “Rogatu eximiæ religionis Abbatis
Herimari.... sancti Remigii Francorum apostoli monasterium, Remis
constitutum, maximo cum honore dedicavit.” Cf. Will. Gem. vii. 15.

Footnote 339:

Ord. Vit. 575 A.

Footnote 340:

The presence of the Emperor is asserted by the Worcester Chronicle;
“Þær wæs se Papa Leo and se Casere.” Florence does not speak of the
Emperor, but says that Leo took with him “præfectum et digniores
quosdam Romuleæ urbis.”

Footnote 341:

Chron. Petrib. 1046. “Þær wæs on Leo se Papa and se arcebiscop of
Burgundia and se arcebiscop of Bysincun and se arcebiscop of Treviris,
and se arcebiscop of Remis, and manig mann þærto ge hadode ge læwede.”

Footnote 342:

Chron. Petrib. 1046. “Eadward cyng sende þider Dudoce [the Abbots only
and not Dudoc are mentioned by the Worcester Chronicle, 1050] ... þæt
hi sceolden þam cynge cyðan hwæt þær to Christendome gecoren wære.”

Footnote 343:

Lambert, 1050 (see above, p. 99). Herm. Contr. 1050.

Footnote 344:

See above, p. 68.

Footnote 345:

Chron. Ab. 1049. “Forðferde Eadnoð se goda biscop on Oxnafordscire.”
The same words seem to have dropped out of the Worcester Chronicle.

Footnote 346:

Chron. Ab. 1049. “Eadwerd cing geaf Ulfe his preoste þæt biscoprice,
and hit yfele beteah.” Chron. Wig. 1050. “Ac he wæs syððan of adryfon,
forþan þe he ne gefremede naht biscoplices þæron, swa þæt us sceamað
hit nu mare to tellanne.” Flor. Wig. “Regis capellanus Ulfus genere
Nortmannus.”

Footnote 347:

See vol. i. p. 368.

Footnote 348:

See vol. i. p. 570.

Footnote 349:

Chron. Petrib. 1047. “Her on þisum geare wæs mycel gemót on Lundene to
midfestene, and man sette ut ix. litsmanna scipa, and fif belifan wið
æftan.” The Abingdon Chronicle, 1049, to much the same account as that
just quoted, adds the words, “and se cyng heom behet xii. monað gyld.”

Footnote 350:

Chron. Ab. 1050 (the chronology of this Chronicle is utterly
confused); “and man _geinlagode_ Swegen Eorl.”

Footnote 351:

See above, p. 108.

Footnote 352:

Chron. Ab. 1049. “On þæs cinges ærende.”

Footnote 353:

See the charter in Cod. Dipl. iv. 173, and the accounts in Æthelred of
Rievaux, 379. Estorie de S. Ædward, 65 et seqq.

Footnote 354:

Besides the many exalted persons who followed the example of Cnut,
some of whose pilgrimages are of historical importance, the prevalence
of the fashion is shown by its incidental mention in more than one
charter. Thus in Cod. Dipl. iv. 140 we find the mention of the Roman
pilgrimage of a Lincolnshire Thegn whose name of Anskill or Anscytel
witnesses to his Danish origin. (The charter may be quoted for such a
point as this, though there is clearly something wrong in the
signature of “Wulfwinus _Lincolniensis_ episcopus.”) And at p. 141 we
find “Leofgyva femina Lundonica” (a holder of property in
Lincolnshire) dying on her way to Jerusalem.

Footnote 355:

Chron. Petrib. 1047. “On þysum ilcan geare wæs se myccla sinoð on
Rome”—like our own “mycel gemót” just before.

Footnote 356:

Ib. “Hi comon þyder on Easter æfen.”

Footnote 357:

Vita Lanfr. c. 10. ap. Giles, i. 288. Will. Malms. iii. 284. Sig.
Gemb. 1051. See Milman, Latin Christianity, iii. 24.

Footnote 358:

Æthel. Riev. ap. X Scriptt. 381. If the letter there given be genuine,
the dispensation was granted by the authority of the synod as well as
of the Pope. Eadward was either to build a new or restore an old
monastery of Saint Peter; “aut novum construas aut vetustum augeas et
emendes.” Cf. the French Life, 1601 et seqq., where the Bishops are
both quartered on wrong sees, Ealdred prematurely at York, Hermann at
Winchester. The story does not occur in the contemporary Life, p. 417.

Footnote 359:

See the first letter in Dr. Giles’ collection, p. 17.

Footnote 360:

Our ancient tongue appears to advantage in the pithy narrative of this
affair given in the Peterborough Chronicle (1047); “And eft se Papa
hæfde sinoð on Uercel, and Ulf biscop com þærto; and forneah man
sceolde tobrecan his stef, gif he ne sealde þe mare gersuman; forðan
he ne cuðe don his gerihte swa wel swa he sceolde.” Florence passes by
the story; his Latin would be feeble after such vigorous English.

Footnote 361:

See above, p. 54.

Footnote 362:

Chron. Petrib. 1047. Flor. Wig. 1050.

Footnote 363:

Vita Eadw. 400. Ælfric was “secundum canonica instituta electus,” by a
“petitio et electio ecclesiastici conventûs.”

Footnote 364:

Ibid. 399. “Ex supradicti ducis Godwini stirpe.”

Footnote 365:

Ib. 399–400. “Quem tam totius ecclesiæ universales filii quam ipsius
monasterii monachi in archipræsulem sibi exposcunt dari, huncque et
affectu communi et petitione eligunt præesse regulari. Mittunt etiam
ad supradictum Godwinum, qui regio favore in eâ dominabatur parte
regni, commonent eum generis sui, precantur ut ex affectu
propinquitatis Regem adeat, et hunc, utpote in eâdem ecclesiâ nutritum
et secundum canonica instituta electum, sibi pontificem annuat.
Promittit fideliter pro viribus suis Dux inclitus, Regemque adiens
innotescit petitionem et electionem ecclesiastici conventûs.”

Footnote 366:

Chron. Ab. 1050. “þa hæfde Eadward cing witenagemot on Lunden to
Midlencten, and sette Hrodberd to arcebiscop to Cantwarebyrig, and
Sperhafoc abbud to Lunden, and geaf Roðulfe biscop his mæge þæt
abbudrice on Abbandune.”

Footnote 367:

See the Abingdon History, i. 463. He was a monk of Saint Eadmund’s,
and was charged with alienating some of the lordships of the house to
Stigand. The account of his promotion to London I do not fully
understand; “Spearhavoc autem a Rege civitati Lundonensi [civitatis
Lundonensis?] eodem prædictæ pactionis anno, in episcopatum promotus,
dum auri gemmarumque electarum pro coronâ _imperiali_ cudendâ, Regis
ejusdem assignatione receptam haberet copiam.” Was Saint Eadward’s
favour purchased by the materials of an earthly crown?

Footnote 368:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “Mid þæs cinges gewrite and insegle.” See above,
p. 67.

Footnote 369:

Rudolf’s kindred to the King is asserted more positively in the local
Chronicle just quoted than in the local History (463); “Inde Rodulfum
quemdam longævum abbatis loco ponendum Rex transmisit, qui episcopatum
apud Norweiam gentem diu moderans, et tandem ab hujusmodi fasce
privatum se agere malens, ad Regem ipsum suum, ut ferebatur, cognatum
venit; a quo et susceptus est.”

Footnote 370:

Rudolf, in any of its forms, is not an usual English name, but it
might occur, like the rare names of Carl and Lothar (Hloðhære). See
vol. i. p. 334.

Footnote 371:

Adam Brem. iii. 16. “Rex Haraldus crudelitate suâ omnes tyrannorum
excessit furores. Multæ ecclesiæ per illum virum dirutæ, multi
Christiani ab illo per supplicia sunt necati.... Itaque multis
imperans nationibus, propter avaritiam et crudelitatem suam omnibus
erat invisus.” He goes on to give a full account of Harold’s dealings
with the Archbishop of Trondhjem.

Footnote 372:

Hist. Mon. Ab. 463. “Ut vero tam Dei quam sui respectu eum monachi
reciperent honorificèque tractarent, utpote summâ canitie jam maturum,
eo discedente, licere eis dedit quem de suis vellent, potiùs
successorem eligere. Paretur Regi. Reverentiæ subjectio debitæ a
fratribus viro competenter impenditur. At ipsos regia nequaquam
fefellit in posterum promissio.” Rudolf survived only two years.

Footnote 373:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “Þæs sylfan Lentenes he for to Rome æfter his
pallium.... Ða com se arcebiscop fram Rome ane dæge ǽr Sc̃s Petrus
mæsse æfene, and gesæt his arcebiscopstol at Xp̃es cyrcean on Sc̃s
Petrus mæssedæg, _and sona þæs to þam cyng gewænde_.”

Footnote 374:

The Peterborough Chronicle (1048) is here again very graphic; “Ða com
Sparhafoc abbod to him mid þæs cynges gewrite and insegle (see above,
p. 120); to þan þet he hine hadian sceolde to biscop into Lundene. Þa
wiðcweð se arcebiscop, and cwæð þet se papa hit him forboden hæfde.”

Footnote 375:

Chron. Petrib. The pithy narrative of this writer is cut much shorter
in the Worcester Chronicler (1051), followed by Florence;
“Spearhafoc ... feng to þan biscoprice on Lundene, and hit wæs eft of
him genumen ær he gehadod wære.” Florence turns this into, “Antequam
esset consecratus, a Rege Eadwardo est ejectus.” Now the Chronicles do
not at all imply that the refusal of Robert was at all the King’s
personal act. Florence is perhaps confounding this business with the
final expulsion of Spearhafoc later in the year, which he however
places under another year.

Footnote 376:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “Ða gewende se abbod to Lundene, and sæt on þam
biscoprice, þe _se cyng him ær geunnan hæfde be his fulre leafe_.”
This is one of those little touches which show the sympathies of the
writer.

Footnote 377:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “Ealne þone sumor and þone hærfest.”

Footnote 378:

Chron. Ab. 1050. “And þæs ylcan geare he settle ealle þa litsmen of
male.”

Footnote 379:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “On þan ylcan geare aléde Eadward cyng þæt heregyld
þæt Æþelred cyng ær astealde; þæt was on þam nigon and þrittigoðan
geare þæs þe he hit ongunnon hæfde.” Flor. Wig. 1051. “Rex Eadwardus
absolvit Anglos a gravi vectigali tricesimo octavo anno ex quo pater
suus Rex Ægelredus primitus id Danicis solidariis solvi mandârat.” See
vol. i. p. 391. The _Heregyld_ is a tax for the maintenance of the
_here_ or standing army as distinguished from the _fyrd_ or militia.

Footnote 380:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “Þæt gyld gedrehte ealle Engla þeode on swa langum
fyrste swa hit bufan her awriten is; ðæt was æfre ætforan oðrum gyldum
þe man myslice geald, and men mid menigfealdlice drehte.”

Footnote 381:

See Bromton, 942. Estoire de S. Ædward, 919 et seqq. Leofric is also
Eadward’s partner in another vision. Æthel. Riev. X Scriptt. 389.
Bromton, 949.

Footnote 382:

See Appendix K.

Footnote 383:

See vol. i. p. 366.

Footnote 384:

There is a grant of lands to Godwine (uni meo fideli Duci nuncupato
nomine Godwino) as late as 1050. Cod. Dipl. iv. 123. The description
of the grantee as “Dux” of course identifies him with the Earl.

Footnote 385:

The only absolutely certain instances that I can find at this time are
the signatures of Earl Ralph in 1050. See above, p. 111. His name is
added to doubtful charters at pp. 113, 121, and another doubtful one
is signed by Robert the son of Wimarc, of whom more anon. The
signatures of ecclesiastics, Rægnbold the Chancellor and others, are
more common.

Footnote 386:

Ralph’s wife bore the name of Gytha, and their son was named Harold.
Robert the son of Wimarc had also a son named Swegen, afterwards
famous in Domesday. See Ellis, i. 433, 489. ii. 117. These names
certainly point to a certain identification with England, and suggest
the idea that the sons of Ralph and Robert were godsons of the two
sons of Godwine.

Footnote 387:

See vol. i. p. 570.

Footnote 388:

See vol. i. p. 281.

Footnote 389:

“Nescia gens belli solamina spernit equorum,” says Guy of Amiens of
the English (Giles, p. 38), but his following lines are, however
unwittingly, a noble panegyric.

Footnote 390:

Thuc. iv. 40. ἀπεκρίνατο αὐτῷ πολλοῦ ἂν ἄξιον εἶναι τὸν ἄτρακτον
(λέγων τὸν ὀϊστὸν), εἰ τοὺς ἀγαθοὺς διεγίγνωσκε.

Footnote 391:

Vita Eadw. 400. “Totius ecclesiæ filiis hanc injuriam pro nisu suo
reclamantibus.”

Footnote 392:

Vita Eadw. 401. See vol. i. pp. 543, 573.

Footnote 393:

Vita Eadw. 400. See Appendix E.

Footnote 394:

See vol. i. p. 584.

Footnote 395:

Ord. Vit. 487 D, 655 C.

Footnote 396:

A daughter of Æthelred and Emma must have been thirty-five years old
at this time, and she may have been forty-seven. Considering the
position held by her son, Godgifu is likely to have been approaching
the more advanced age of the two.

Footnote 397:

Will. Malms. ii. 199. “Collocutus cum eo, et re impetratâ quam
petierat.” This perhaps comes from Chron. Petrib. 1048; “And spæc wið
hine þæt þæt he þa wolde.”

Footnote 398:

Chronn. Wig. 1052, Petrib. 1048. See vol. i. p. 588.

Footnote 399:

I reserve an examination of the authorities for this narrative for the
Appendix. See Note L. I here refer to the Chronicles only for details.

Footnote 400:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “Ða he wæs sume mila oððe mare beheonan Dofran,
þa dyde he on his byrnan, and his geferan ealle, and foran to Dofran.”

Footnote 401:

Thirty-one, reckoning from Godwine’s appointment as Earl of the
West-Saxons in 1020. See vol. i. p. 469. If Godwine really became Earl
of Kent in 1017 or 1018 (see vol. i. p. 451) two or three years more
must be added.

Footnote 402:

Chron. Petrib. “Þa com an his manna, and wolde wician æt anes bundan
huse, his unðances, and gewundode þone husbundon, and se husbunda
ofsloh þone oðerne.” So Will. Malms. ii. 199; “Unus antecursorum ejus
ferociùs cum cive agens, et vulnere magis quam prece hospitium
exigens, illum in sui excidium invitavit.” I do not know why Mr. Hardy
says that William implies that all this happened at Canterbury. Surely
“per Doroberniam” means Dover.

Footnote 403:

Chron. Petrib. “Ða wearð Eustatius uppon his horse, and his gefeoran
uppon heora, and ferdon to þam husbundon, and ofslogon hine binnan his
agenan heorðæ.” It shows how impossible it seemed to a French noble of
that age to strike a blow except on horseback, that Eustace and his
companions mounted their horses at such a moment as this, when one
would have thought that horses were distinctly in the way.

Footnote 404:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “Forþan Eustatius hæfde gecydd þam cynge þet hit
sceolde beon mare gylt þære burhwaru þonne his. Ac hit næs na swa.” So
Will. Malms. “Inde ad curiam pedem referens, nactusque secretum, suæ
partis patronus assistens, iram Regis in Anglos exacuit.”

Footnote 405:

Herod, vii. 104. ἔπεστι γάρ σφι δεσπότης νόμος, τὸν ὑποδειμαίνουσι
πολλῷ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ οἱ σοὶ σέ· ποιεῦσι γῶν τὰ ἂν ἐκεῖνος ἀνώγῃ.

Footnote 406:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “And wearð se cyng swyþe gram wið þa burhware.”

Footnote 407:

See above, p. 26.

Footnote 408:

“Baldwines mage” says the Worcester Chronicler; Florence (1051) alters
this into “filia.” The Biographer of Eadward, p. 404, says “soror,”
making her Eadward’s niece, which is hard to understand. It is from
this passage that we learn that all this happened just at the very
time of Tostig’s marriage; “Acciderant hæc in ipsis nuptiis filii sui
ducis Tostini.” The title of “Dux” is premature.

Footnote 409:

Chron. Petrib. “And ofsænde se cyng Godwine eorl, and bæd hine faran
into Cent mid unfriða to Dofran.” The full force of the word “unfriða”
may be understood by its being so constantly applied to the Danish
armies and fleets. See vol. i. p. 327. So William of Malmesbury (ii.
199); “Quamvis Rex jussisset illum continuò cum exercitu in Cantiam
proficisci, in Dorobernenses graviter ulturum.”

Footnote 410:

See vol. i. p. 580.

Footnote 411:

Chron. Petrib. “And se eorl nolde na geðwærian þære infare; forþan him
wæs lað to amyrrene his agene folgað.” One might be tempted to believe
that this last word implied some special connexion between Godwine and
Dover, were it not that we directly after read, “on Swegenes eorles
folgoðe,” where it can hardly mean more than that the place was within
his jurisdiction as Earl. The very first entry in Domesday represents
Godwine as receiving a third of the royal revenues in Dover, but this
was of course simply his regular revenue as Earl. The relations of the
townsmen to the Crown are rather minutely described. They held their
privileges by providing twenty ships yearly for fifteen days; each had
a crew of twenty-one men. There is not a word to show that the demands
of Eustace and his followers were other than utterly illegal.

Footnote 412:

I get my speech from William of Malmesbury (ii. 119), whose account is
very clear and full, and thoroughly favourable to Godwine. “Intellexit
vir acrioris ingenii, unius tantùm partis auditis allegationibus, non
debere proferri sententiam. Itaque ... restitit, et quòd omnes
alienigenas apud Regis gratiam invalescere invideret, et quòd
compatriotis amicitiam præstare vellet. Præterea videbatur ejus
responsio in rectitudinem propensior, ut magnates illius castelli
blandè in curiâ Regis de seditione convenirentur; si se possent
explacitare, illæsi abirent; si nequirent, pecuniâ vel corporum suorum
dispendio, Regi cujus pacem infregerant, et Comiti quem læserant,
satisfacerent: iniquum videri ut quos tutari debeas, eos ipse
potissimum inauditos adjudices.” Here are the words which either
tradition put into the mouth of Godwine, or else which a hostile
historian deliberately conceived as most in keeping with his
character. Who would recognize in this assertor of the purest
principles of right the object of the savage invectives of William of
Poitiers?

Footnote 413:

Will. Malms. ii. 199. “Ita tunc discessum, Godwino parvi pendente
Regis furorem quasi momentaneum.” On these occasional fits of wrath on
the part of Eadward, see above, p. 23.

Footnote 414:

The revival of the story about Ælfred and the special part played by
Archbishop Robert comes from the Biographer of Eadward. I shall
discuss this point in Appendix L.

Footnote 415:

The summoning of the Witan is distinctly set forth in the Peterborough
Chronicle; “Ða sende se cyng æftre eallon his witan, and bead heom
cuman to Gleaweceastre neh þære æfter Sc̃a Maria mæssan.” The charge
against Godwine comes from the Life of Eadward, p. 401; “Ergò
perturbato Rege de talibus plus justo, convenerunt de totâ Britanniâ
[did any Scottish or Welsh princes appear?] quique potentes et duces
Glaucestræ regio palatio, ubique in eo querimoniam talium habente,
perlata est in insontem Ducem tanti criminis accusatio.”

Footnote 416:

Richard, the son of Scrob or Scrupe, and son-in-law of Robert the
Deacon (Flor. Wig. 1052), appears in Domesday, 186 _b_. His son
Osbern, of whom we shall hear again, appears repeatedly in Domesday as
a great landowner in Herefordshire and elsewhere. See 176 _b_, 180,
186 _b_, 260.

Footnote 417:

See the entries in the Chronicles, Wig. 1066, Petrib. 1087, 1137. In
all these passages the building of castles is reckoned among the chief
grievances of the reign of the Conqueror and of the anarchy of the
time of Stephen. Compare Giraldus’ description of Ireland, after the
invasions in the time of Henry the Second. (Exp. Hib. ii. 34. vol. v.
p. 865 Dimock); “Insula Hibernica, de mari usque ad mare, ex toto
subacta et _incastellata_.” Cf. ii. 38, 39.

Footnote 418:

On the different developements of fortification in England, see vol.
i. pp. 64, 338. The Norman castle makes the _fifth_ stage.

Footnote 419:

See vol. i. pp. 99–101.

Footnote 420:

I shall have to speak of this destruction of castles in Normandy when
I come to deal with the reign of William in that country. This is the
real cause why Normandy contains so few castles earlier than the
twelfth century. I can see no reason whatever to believe that the
castles of the eleventh century, either in Normandy or in England,
were commonly of wood. The temporary wooden towers which were often
used in the military art of the time, and which sometimes are called
castles, are also sometimes pointedly distinguished from the permanent
stone fortresses. Thus in the Angevin Chronicle in Labbé, i. 286, 287,
we read how in 1025 Count Odo of Chartres (see vol. i. p. 509, and in
the next chapter) besieged the castle which Fulk of Anjou had built as
an ἐπιτειχισμός against Tours (contra civitatem Turonicam firmaverat),
and “turrem _ligneam_ miræ altitudinis super domgionem ipsius castri
erexit.” The donjon itself was surely of stone. We shall find other
evidence of the same kind in the next Chapter. Stone was also fast
coming into use for domestic as well as for military and
ecclesiastical buildings. Avesgaud, Bishop of Le Mans, rebuilt in
stone both the episcopal palace and also a hospital; before him they
had been of wood—“quæ antea ligneæ fuerat, petrinas ... constituit.”
Gest. Ep. Cenom. ap. Mabillon, Vetera Analecta, iii. 300*.

Footnote 421:

The word “castel” evidently appears at this stage to denote some new
thing, quite distinct from the familiar “burh” of earlier times. So
Orderic (511 C), in speaking of the rarity of castles in England
before the Norman Conquest, speaks of the name as something specially
French; “Munitiones (_quas castella Galli nuncupant_) Anglicis
provinciis paucissimæ fuerant.” He adds, “ob hoc Angli, licet
bellicosi fuerint et audaces, ad resistendum tamen inimicis
exstiterant debiliores.”

Footnote 422:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “þa hæfdon þa _Welisce menn_ gewroht ænne castel
on Herefordscire on Swegenes eorles folgoðe, and wrohton ælc þæra
harme and bismere þæs cynges mannan þær abutan þe hi mihton.” These
Welshmen are undoubtedly Frenchmen (see Earle, p. 345. Lingard, i.
337. Lappenberg, 508); Britons did not build castles, nor were they on
such terms of friendly intercourse with King Eadward. William of
Malmesbury’s misconception of the whole passage (ii. 199) is amusing;
“ut Walenses compescerent qui, tyrannidem in Regem meditantes, oppidum
in pago Herefordensi obfirmaverant, ubi tunc Swanus, unus ex filiis
Godwini, militiæ prætendebat excubias.” This last is simply a
misunderstanding of the words “on Swegenes eorles folgoðe,” which
seems merely to mean “within Swegen’s government.”

Footnote 423:

Beverstone appears in Domesday (163) only as an appendage to the royal
lordship of Berkeley, and is not mentioned as a possession of Godwine.
Otherwise one would have expected to find one of the Earl’s many
houses chosen as the place of meeting. But perhaps the suggestion in
the text may explain matters.

On the other hand the mysterious connexion between Godwine and
Berkeley (see Appendix E) must not be forgotten.

Footnote 424:

See above, p. 104.

Footnote 425:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “Ða com Godwine eorl and Swegen eorl and Harold
eorl togædere æt Byferesstane and manig mann mid heom, to ðon þæt hi
woldon faran to heora cyne-hlaforde, and to þam witan eallon þe mid
him gegaderode wæron, þæt hi þæs cynges ræd hæfdon, and his fultum,
and ealra witena, hu hi mihton þæs cynges bismer awrecan and ealles
þeodscipes.”

Footnote 426:

Vita Eadw. 401. “Quod ubi per quosdam fideles comperit [Godwinus],
missis legatis, pacem Regis petivit, legem purgandi se de objecto
crimine frustrà prætulit.”

Footnote 427:

Chron. Petrib. “Ða wæron þa Wælisce menn ætforan mid þam cynge, and
forwregdon þa eorlas þæt hi ne moston cuman on his eagon gesihðe,
forðan hi sædon þæt hi woldon cuman þider for þes cynges swicdome.”

Footnote 428:

Vita Eadw. p. 401. “Nam adeo super hujus sceleris fide animum Rex
induxerat ut nec verbum aliquod oblatæ purgationis audire posset.”

Footnote 429:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “Ealle gearwe to wige ongean þone cyng, buton man
ageafe Eustatsius and his men heom to handsceofe, and eac þa
Frencyscan þe _on þan castelle_ wæron.” “The castle” undoubtedly means
Richard’s Castle, as it must mean in the entry of the next year in the
same Chronicle. The Frenchmen in the castle are distinguished from
Eustace and his men. So Lappenberg, 508. Florence (1051) clearly
misunderstood the passage when he translated it “insuper et Nortmannos
et Bononienses qui castellum in Doruverniæ clivo tenuerant.” It shows
the impression which Richard’s Castle had made on men’s mind that it
was known generally as “the castle,” and this reference by the
Worcester Chronicler to a part of the story which he has not himself
given at length is a strong confirmation of the truth of the
Peterborough narrative.

Footnote 430:

Rog. Wend. iii. 294. “Juraverunt super majus altare, quod, si Rex
leges et libertates jam dictas concedere diffugeret, ipsi ei guerram
tamdiu moverent et ab ejus fidelitate se subtraherent.”

Footnote 431:

Flor. Wig. 1051. “Ob id autem ad tempus Rex perterritus, et in angore
magno constitutus, quid ageret ignorabat penitus. Sed ubi exercitum
Comitum Leofrici, Siwardi, et Radulfi adventare comperit, se
nullatenus Eustatium aliosque requisitos traditurum constanter
respondit.”

Footnote 432:

See vol. i. p. 534 et seqq.

Footnote 433:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “Wurdan þa ealle swa anræde mid þam cynge, þæt hy
woldon Godwines fyrde gesecan, gif se cyng þæt wolde.”

Footnote 434:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “And wæs þam eorle Godwine and his sunan gecydd,
þæt se cyng and þa menn þe mid him wæron woldon rædon on hi. And hi
trymedon gefæstlice ongean, þæh him lað wære þæt hi ongean heora
_cyne-hlaford_ standan sceoldon.”

Footnote 435:

See the splendid panegyric of William of Malmesbury on this region in
the Gesta Pontificum (Scriptt. p. Bedam, 161). He especially speaks of
the abundance of the vineyards and the excellence of the wine, which
was not sour, as seemingly other English wine was, but as good as that
of France. No wine is now grown in the vale of Severn, but there is
excellent cider and perry.

On the prospect here spoken of see Sydney Smith’s Sketches of Moral
Philosophy, p. 218.

Footnote 436:

See above, p. 110.

Footnote 437:

For descriptions of these two remarkable monuments of primæval times,
by Dr. Thurnam and Professor C. C. Babington, see the Archæological
Journal, vol. xi. (1854), pp. 315, 328.

Footnote 438:

Childe Harold, ii. 84;

“Spirit of Freedom, when on Phyle’s brow
Thou sat’st with Thrasybulus and his train,” &c.

Footnote 439:

See vol. i. p. 539.

Footnote 440:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “Þæt mycel unræd wære þæt hy togedere comon [see
vol. i. p. 435], forþam þær wæs mæst þæt rotoste þæt was on Ænglalande
on þam twam gefylcum; and leton þæt hi urum feondum rymdon to lande,
and betwyx us sylfum to mycclum forwyrde.”

Footnote 441:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “Ða gerædden þa witan on ægðer halfe, þæt man ða
ælces yfeles geswác, and geaf se cyng godes grið and his fulne
freondscipe on ægðre healfe.”

Footnote 442:

See Appendix L.

Footnote 443:

Ib.

Footnote 444:

So I infer from the Peterborough Chronicle, 1048; “Ða cwæð man Swegen
eorl útlah, and stefnode man Godwine eorle and Harolde eorle to þon
gemote.” The Worcester Chronicle puts it a little later, along with
the demand for the hostages.

Footnote 445:

See above, p. 108.

Footnote 446:

Vita Eadw. 402. “Elaborante Stigando ... qui etiam tunc medius ibat,
procrastinata est judicii dies, dum Rex suorum uteretur consiliou.”

Footnote 447:

Vita Eadw. 402.

Footnote 448:

Such on the whole I take to be the meaning of the very difficult
expressions of the two Chroniclers, which I have discussed at length
in Appendix L.

Footnote 449:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “And his wered wanode æfre þe leng þe swiðor.”

Footnote 450:

Vita Eadw. 402. “Eo [Rodberto] agente tandem a Rege prolata est in
Ducem hæc indissolubilis caussæ quæ agebatur diffinitio; Illum
scilicet à Rege tunc primùm posse sperare pacem, ubi ei reddidit vivum
suum fratrem cum suis omnibus et quæ eis viventibus vel interfectis
ablata sunt cum integritate eorum.”

Footnote 451:

Chron. Petrib. “Ða geornde se eorl eft griðes and gisla, þæt he moste
hine betellan æt ælc þæra þinga þe him man onlede.”

Footnote 452:

William of Malmesbury (ii. 199), from whom I get the materials of
Godwine’s answer, makes them call the Assembly “conventiculum
factiosorum.”

Footnote 453:

Will. Malms. u. s. “Si veniant inermes, vitæ timeri dispendium; si
paucos stipatores habeant, gloriæ fore opprobrium.”

Footnote 454:

Kemble, ii. 231. “They very properly declined, under such
circumstances, to appear.”

Footnote 455:

Vita Eadw. p. 402. “Flente nimium episcopo Stigando, qui hujus
legationis mœrens bajulus erat, _reppulit à se mensam quæ adstabat_,
equis ascensis, viam ad Bosanham maritimam celeriùs tetendit.” This
little touch, coming from a contemporary and friendly writer,
increases our confidence in the story of the Biographer, difficult, as
it is, at first sight to reconcile with the Chronicles.

Footnote 456:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “For ða on niht awæg; and se cyng hæfde þæs on
morgen witenagemot.”

Footnote 457:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “Se cyng ... cwæd hine utlage, and _eall here_.” See
above, p. 104.

Footnote 458:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “And sceawede him mann v. nihta grið út of lande
to farenne.” See vol. i. p. 561.

Footnote 459:

To “Bosenham,” according to the Peterborough Chronicler and the
Biographer; to “Thornege,” according to the Worcester Chronicler and
Florence. As it is of course the South-Saxon Thorney near Chichester
(see Lappenberg, 509) which is meant, the two accounts no doubt merely
refer to different stages of the same journey.

Footnote 460:

Vita Eadw. 404. “Tum pro antiquæ fœderationis jure, tum pro multorum
ipsius Ducis beneficiorum vicissitudine.” One would like to know more
of this connexion between Godwine and Baldwin. It is odd, when we
think of the war of 1049, that the Biographer (p. 403) calls Baldwin
“antiquum Anglicæ gentis amicum.”

Footnote 461:

See above, p. 134.

Footnote 462:

Chron. Wig. “Mid swa miclum gærsuman swa hi mihton þær on mæst
gelogian to ælcum mannum.” Cf. Florence and the Biographer, 402. “Cum
conjuge et liberis et omnibus quæ illius erant ad manum.”

Footnote 463:

“Cum magno honore.” Vita Eadw. 404.

Footnote 464:

Chron. Petrib. “And gesohton Baldewines grið, and wunodon þær ealne
þone winter.” Vita Eadw. 404. “Hiemati sunt à Comite Baldwino in
Flandriam.”

Footnote 465:

The younger members of the family, Wulfnoth, Ælfgifu, Gunhild, and
Hakon the son of Swegen, are not mentioned. They doubtless accompanied
Godwine and are included among the “liberi” of the Biographer.

Footnote 466:

See above, p. 100.

Footnote 467:

“Harold eorl and Leofwine,” says the Worcester Chronicle; the
Biographer has “Haroldus et Leof_ricus_.” See Appendix F. The
Peterborough Chronicle mentions Harold only.

Footnote 468:

Vita Eadw. 404. “Transfretaverant in Hiberniam, ut, inde adductâ
militari copiâ, patris ulciscerentur injuriam.”

Footnote 469:

See vol. i. p. 365. Compare also the passage about Bristol with which
William of Malmesbury winds up his panegyric on Gloucestershire (Gest.
Pont, in Scriptt. p. Bed. 161). “In eâdem valle est vicus celeberrimus
Bristow nomine, in quo est navium portus ab Hiberniâ et Noregiâ et
cæteris transmarinis terris venientium receptaculum, ne scilicet
genitalibus divitiis tam fortunata regio peregrinarum opum fraudaretur
commercio.”

Footnote 470:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “Harold eorl and Leofwine foran to Brycgstowe, on
þæt scip þe Swegen eorl hæfde him silfum ær gegearcod and gemetsod.”

Footnote 471:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “And se cining sende Ealdred biscop of Lundene mid
genge, and sceoldon hine ofridan ær he to scipe come. Ac hi ne mihton
oððe hi noldon.” Compare the unwillingness of the Earls under
Harthacnut to act against Worcester, vol. i. p. 581. According to the
Biographer (403), Godwine was also pursued, through the devices of
Archbishop Robert.

Footnote 472:

Chron. Wig. u. s.

Footnote 473:

Vita Eadw. 404. “Hiemati sunt à Rege Dermodo in Hiberniam.” These
words at once explain the whole matter, and give us the true
explanation of the otherwise difficult expression in the Peterborough
Chronicle, “Harold eorl gewende west to Yrlande, and wæs þær ealne
þone winter, _on þes cynges griðe_.” Sir Francis Palgrave (Hist. Ang.
Sax. 342) takes this King to be Eadward, and says, “Harold crossed to
Ireland, and he was so far favoured as to be allowed to remain in that
country under the king’s protection. This fact should be noticed,
because it seems to show that he was not considered as being out of
the king’s dominions; or, in other words, that the opposité coast of
Ireland was part of Eadward’s realm.” This is rather slight evidence,
even with the further support of a spurious charter (see vol. i. p.
66), to prove that Ireland, or its eastern coast, was part of the
English Empire. Lappenberg (510; Mr. Thorpe’s version, ii. 250, again
does not represent the original) saw that, odd as the expression is,
an Irish King must be meant, and now the Life of Eadward puts the
matter beyond doubt. The “grið” of Diarmid answers to the “grið” of
Baldwin.

Footnote 474:

Diarmid conquered the Fine-gall or Danish district in 1052, according
to the Four Masters (ii. 860) and Dr. Todd (Wars of Gaedhil and Gaill,
291); in 1050, according to the Chronica Scotorum, 280. The incidental
evidence of the Biographer shows the earlier date to be the right one.

Footnote 475:

Will. Malms. ii. 199. “Ne scilicet omnibus suis parentibus patriam
suspirantibus sola _sterteret_ in plumâ.” This odd phrase sounds like
a real sneer of some contemporary Frenchman.

Footnote 476:

Vita Eadw. 403. See above, p. 47. Florence says “repudiavit.”

Footnote 477:

The Worcester Chronicle, Florence, and the Biographer do not mention
the seizure of the Lady’s property. The Peterborough Chronicle says,
“þa forlet se cyng þa hlæfdian, seo wæs gehalgod him to cwene, and let
niman of hire eall þæt heo ahte on lande and on golde and on seolfre.”
So William of Malmesbury; “Omnis reginæ substantia ad unum nummum
emuncta.”

Footnote 478:

Both the Chronicles are quite colourless on this head; it is simply
“man gebrohte,” “betæhte.” So William of Malmesbury. But Florence says
“cum unâ pedissequâ ad Hwereweallam eam sine honore misit.” In the
Life of Eadward (403), on the other hand, we read, “Cum regio honore
et imperiali comitatu, mœrens tamen perducitur.” The narrative,
addressed to Eadgyth herself, is here the better authority.

Footnote 479:

Wherwell, according to all our authorities, except the Biographer. He
says Wilton. As he could hardly be mistaken on such a point, and as
the evidence for Wherwell seems conclusive, we must set down Wilton as
a clerical error.

Footnote 480:

The Worcester Chronicle, Florence, and the Biographer do not mention
the kindred of the Abbess with the King; it is assumed by the
Peterborough Chronicle and by William of Malmesbury.

Footnote 481:

On the daughters of Æthelred see vol. i. pp. 358, 363, 378, 458.

Footnote 482:

See vol. i. p. 341.

Footnote 483:

Vita Eadw. 397. See Appendix F.

Footnote 484:

Vita Eadw. 403. Twenty hexameters are devoted to the comparison.

Footnote 485:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “Þæt wolde ðyncan wundorlic ælcum men þe on
Englalande wæs, gif ænig man ær þam sæde þæt hit swa gewurþan sceolde.
Forðam þe he wæs ær to þam swyce up ahafen, swyðe he weolde þæs cynges
and ealles Englalandes, and his sunan wæron eorlas and þæs cynges
dyrlingas, and his dohtor þæm cynge bewedded and beawnod.”

Footnote 486:

See vol. i. pp. 448.

Footnote 487:

See Appendix G.

Footnote 488:

See Appendix G.

Footnote 489:

See vol. i. p. 338.

Footnote 490:

Chron. Wig. 1056. “Se wæs to munece gehadod ær his ende. god man and
clæne and swiðe æðele.” Cf. Chron. Ab. and Fl. Wig. in anno. Florence
seems to translate “clæne” by “virginitatis custos.” He built the
present church of Deerhurst (see vol. i. p. 387), as an offering for
the soul of his brother Ælfric. See Earle, p. 345.

Footnote 491:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. Will. Malms. ii. 199. “Comitatus ejus [Haroldi]
attributus Elgaro, Leofrici filio, viro industrio; quem ille
suscipiens tunc rexit nobiliter, reverso restituit libenter.”

Footnote 492:

The Biographer (401, 2) mentions his coming to Gloucester along with
his father and Siward.

Footnote 493:

See above, p. 122.

Footnote 494:

Chron. Wig. 1052. Petrib. 1048. Flor. Wig. 1051.

Footnote 495:

Flor. Wig. 1052.

Footnote 496:

Chron. Wig. 1052. Flor. Wig. 1051.

Footnote 497:

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

Footnote 498:

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

Footnote 499:

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

Footnote 500:

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

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

Footnote 501:

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

Footnote 502:

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

Footnote 503:

See Palgrave, iii. 522.

Footnote 504:

On the surnames of William, see Appendix M.

Footnote 505:

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

Footnote 506: