Chapter XXXIII: Appendix (10)

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

Footnote 759:

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

Footnote 760:

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

Footnote 761:

See Appendix O.

Footnote 762:

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

Footnote 763:

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

Footnote 764:

Roman de Rou, 8986;

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

Footnote 765:

Ib. 8982;

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

Footnote 766:

Ib. 8988:

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

Footnote 767:

Roman de Rou, 8990;

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

Footnote 768:

Ib. 9001.

Footnote 769:

Ib. 9004;

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

Footnote 770:

Benoît, 33490;

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

Footnote 771:

Roman de Rou, 9020;

“En sa main chescun un baston.”

Footnote 772:

Roman de Rou, 9012;

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

Footnote 773:

Ib. 9042;

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

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

Footnote 774:

Ib. 9050;

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

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

Footnote 775:

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

Footnote 776:

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

Footnote 777:

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

Footnote 778:

Roman de Rou, 9074;

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

Footnote 779:

Ib. 9094;

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

Footnote 780:

See Taylor, 22.

Footnote 781:

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

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

So 9128;

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

Footnote 782:

Roman de Rou, 9144;

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

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

Footnote 783:

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

Footnote 784:

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

Footnote 785:

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

Footnote 786:

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

Footnote 787:

Roman de Rou, 9258;

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

So again, 9280;

“Mais ço sai ke li Reis veinki.”

Footnote 788:

Ib. 9173;

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

So 9266;

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

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

Footnote 789:

Benoît, 33, 660;

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

Footnote 790:

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

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

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

Footnote 791:

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

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

Footnote 792:

Roman de Rou, 9254;

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

Footnote 793:

Ib. 9288. “En Béessin volent torner.”

Footnote 794:

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

Footnote 795:

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

Footnote 796:

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

Footnote 797:

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

Footnote 798:

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

Footnote 799:

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

Footnote 800:

See above, p. 206.

Footnote 801:

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

Footnote 802:

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

Footnote 803:

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

Footnote 804:

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

Footnote 805:

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

Footnote 806:

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

Footnote 807:

Compare the remarks of Palgrave, iii. 78.

Footnote 808:

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

Footnote 809:

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

Footnote 810:

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

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

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

Footnote 811:

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

Footnote 812:

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

Footnote 813:

Roman de Rou, 9346;

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

Footnote 814:

Ib. 9362;

“A Baieues fu lors otréiée,
Quant l’iglise fu dediée,
De la terre Grimout partie
A Madame Sainte Marie,
Partie fu ki ke l’en die
Mise à chescun en l’abéie.”

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

Footnote 815:

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

Footnote 816:

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

Footnote 817:

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

Footnote 818:

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

Footnote 819:

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

Footnote 820:

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

Footnote 821:

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

Footnote 822:

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

Footnote 823:

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

Footnote 824:

Gest. Cons. ib.

Footnote 825:

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

Footnote 826:

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

Footnote 827:

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

Footnote 828:

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

Footnote 829:

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

Footnote 830:

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

Footnote 831:

See Appendix P.

Footnote 832:

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

Footnote 833:

See Appendix P.

Footnote 834:

See vol. i. p. 520.

Footnote 835:

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

Footnote 836:

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

Footnote 837:

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

Footnote 838:

See at length Will. Malms. u. s.

Footnote 839:

See Art de Verifier les Dates, ii. 838.

Footnote 840:

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

Footnote 841:

On the whole story, see Appendix Q.

Footnote 842:

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

Footnote 843:

See above, p. 97.

Footnote 844:

See Appendix P.

Footnote 845:

See Appendix N.

Footnote 846:

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

Footnote 847:

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

Footnote 848:

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

Footnote 849:

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

Footnote 850:

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

Footnote 851:

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

Footnote 852:

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

Footnote 853:

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

Footnote 854:

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

Footnote 855:

See vol. i. p. 200.

Footnote 856:

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

Footnote 857:

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

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

Footnote 858:

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

Footnote 859:

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

Footnote 860:

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

Footnote 861:

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

Footnote 862:

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

Footnote 863:

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

Footnote 864:

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

Footnote 865:

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

Footnote 866:

Ib. “Castella circumponit quatuor.”

Footnote 867:

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

Footnote 868:

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

Footnote 869:

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

Footnote 870:

See above, pp, 185, 196.

Footnote 871:

See above, p. 198.

Footnote 872:

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

Footnote 873:

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

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

Footnote 874:

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

Footnote 875:

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

Footnote 876:

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

Footnote 877:

Roman de Rou, 9436 et seqq.

Footnote 878:

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

Footnote 879:

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

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

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

Footnote 880:

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

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

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

Footnote 881:

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

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

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

Footnote 882:

Roman de Rou, 9466;

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

Footnote 883:

This very expressive formula comes from Wace, 9468;

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

Footnote 884:

Roman de Rou, 9477.

Footnote 885:

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

Footnote 886:

Roman de Rou, 9493;

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

Footnote 887:

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

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

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

Footnote 888:

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

Footnote 889:

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

Footnote 890:

Roman de Rou, 9624.

Footnote 891:

Ib. 9625;

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

Footnote 892:

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

Footnote 893:

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

Footnote 894:

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

Footnote 895:

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

Footnote 896:

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

Footnote 897:

See above, p. 205.

Footnote 898:

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

Footnote 899:

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

Footnote 900:

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

Footnote 901:

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

Footnote 902:

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

Footnote 903:

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

Footnote 904:

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

Footnote 905:

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

Footnote 906:

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

Footnote 907:

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

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

Footnote 908:

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

Footnote 909:

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

Footnote 910:

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

Footnote 911:

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

Footnote 912:

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

Footnote 913:

I shall deal with these stories in my third volume.

Footnote 914:

See Appendix A.

Footnote 915:

See vol. i. pp. 209, 249.

Footnote 916:

See vol. i. p. 518.

Footnote 917:

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

Footnote 918:

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

Footnote 919:

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

Footnote 920:

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

Footnote 921:

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

Footnote 922:

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

Footnote 923:

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

Footnote 924:

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

Footnote 925:

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

Footnote 926:

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

Footnote 927:

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

Footnote 928:

See above, p. 99.

Footnote 929:

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

Footnote 930:

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

Footnote 931:

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

Footnote 932:

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

Footnote 933:

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

Footnote 934:

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

Footnote 935:

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

Footnote 936:

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

Footnote 937:

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

Footnote 938:

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

Footnote 939:

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

Footnote 940:

Ib. “Mediante proximâ æstate.”

Footnote 941:

See above, p. 100.

Footnote 942:

See above, p. 152.

Footnote 943:

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

Footnote 944:

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

Footnote 945:

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

Footnote 946:

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

Footnote 947:

See Appendix R.

Footnote 948:

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

Footnote 949:

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

Footnote 950:

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

Footnote 951:

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

Footnote 952:

Vita Eadw. 405. See Appendix R.

Footnote 953:

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

Footnote 954:

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

Footnote 955:

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

Footnote 956:

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

Footnote 957:

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

Footnote 958:

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

Footnote 959:

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

Footnote 960:

See vol. i. p. 426 note.

Footnote 961:

See Appendix R.

Footnote 962:

Vita Eadw. 405.

Footnote 963:

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

Footnote 964:

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

Footnote 965:

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

Footnote 966:

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

Footnote 967:

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

Footnote 968:

See vol. i. pp. 46, 427.

Footnote 969:

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

Footnote 970:

See above, p. 150.

Footnote 971:

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

Footnote 972:

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

Footnote 973:

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

Footnote 974:

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

Footnote 975:

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

Footnote 976:

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

Footnote 977:

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

Footnote 978:

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

Footnote 979: