Chapter XXXVIII: Appendix: NOTE A. p. 3 (10)

There are one or two other passages which look as if Harold’s relations with women were known to be a weak point in his character, in opposition to the good example set in this respect by both William and Tostig. Thus William of Poitiers (see vol. ii. p. 540) calls him “luxuriâ fœdus;” Guy (261) calls him “perjurus Rex et adulter,” where however the union of the two charges makes it possible that “adulter” is meant to stigmatize the marriage contracted with Ealdgyth by one who was betrothed to the daughter of William. The French Biographer of Eadward, in one of his great revilings of Harold (4460), says that he

“Gentilz femmes enbastardist;
Pur aver veut mariage.”

The former line may refer to Eadgyth, as the latter clearly implies a political marriage with Ealdgyth; but the passage seems to have been oddly misunderstood by Knighton (2339); “Nec aliquam uxorem ducere voluit, sed vi oppressit filias baronum et procerum et militum de regno, quod ipsi ægrè ferebant.” All this has most likely arisen out of our one Eadgyth, but it seems to point to her as a woman of position, possibly as “Eddeva pulcra et dives.”

NOTE OO. p. 531.

THE ÆTHELING EADGAR.

I do not know that there is any distinct evidence to fix the age of Eadgar. I have not come across any distinct statement either as to the date of his birth or as to the date of his parents’ marriage. His father died in 1057; so he must have been nine years old at least in 1066, and of course he may have been much older. We have seen several passages (see pp. 526, 527) where he is spoken of as a boy (“puer”) and as being too young to reign. On the other hand he was able (see Chron. Wig. in anno) to exercise a certain will of his own with regard to the marriage of his sister Margaret in 1067. He was alive, but old, at some time between 1106 and 1125, when William of Malmesbury wrote his third book. See Mr. Hardy’s note, iii. 251, and Ellis, i. 409. The former date is forty-nine, the latter sixty-eight, years after Eadgar’s coming to England. We have therefore no certain data at all; but, on the whole, it seems most likely that, though young, he was not a mere child, at the time of his election in October. It was probably not so much mere lack of years, as his incapacity, his foreign birth, his lack of the technical position of a King’s son, which shut him out in January, especially when put into competition with the overwhelming merits of Harold. In October he had no competitor better than Eadwine. Perhaps those who spoke of him as a mere child were deceived by the ambiguous description, “Eadgar _cild_,” which is given to him in the Chronicles, and by which he was probably known.

Hardyng (see above, p. 608) makes Harold invest Eadgar with an Earldom. Lappenberg (532; Thorpe, ii. 274) gives him the Earldom of Oxford. No authority is quoted, and the statement can hardly be reconciled with the known position of Gyrth (see vol. ii. p. 561). Indeed the evidence is against Eadgar’s holding any Earldom. All the undoubted Earls are scrupulously called Earls in the Chronicles; Eadgar is always either “cild” or “Æðeling.”

Our reckoning as to Eadgar’s age is further perplexed by the appearance of a person described as “Edgar Adeling” so late as 1158 and 1167. See Mag. Rot. Pip. Northumberland, in Hodgson’s History of Northumberland, part iii. vol. iii. pp. 3, 11. This entry gives us a choice of three difficulties, any one of which is somewhat alarming. Either the person so called is Eadgar himself, in which case, like Harold and Gyrth in the legend, he must have lived to the age of 110 at the very least. Or it is a son of Eadgar; but we hear nothing of any wife, mistress, or children of his; and a lawful son of Eadgar would, like Eadgar himself, have stood awkwardly in the way of Henry the Second’s claim to represent the Old-English royal house. Failing these two unlikely alternatives, we have one equally unlikely, that some person not of royal descent was spoken of as “Adeling.”

NOTE PP. p. 544.

THE SUBMISSION AT BERKHAMPSTEAD.

For once I venture to set aside the authority of the Chronicles. I do not think that Eadwine and Morkere could have been at Berkhampstead. Their presence there is asserted by the Worcester Chronicle and also by Florence, but it is hard to see how it can be reconciled with Florence’s own account of their movements just before (see p. 531). They are not mentioned by William of Poitiers, who makes them submit to William at Barking after his coronation (147, 148). The Archdeacon is capable of any disregard of chronology, but he is not likely to have cut the Berkhampstead submission into two or to have imagined a submission at Barking which did not take place. A submission of Eadwine and Morkere after the coronation falls in much better with the rest of the story than a submission before. And it is less violent to suppose that their names have got into the Chronicle in a wrong place—a process which the likeness of the names Barking and Berkhampstead would make specially easy—than to suppose that the story in William of Poitiers is an invention without a motive.

Had Stigand a share in the submission of Berkhampstead? William of Poitiers specially introduces him; indeed he is the only person whom he mentions by name (141); but he brings him to Wallingford; “Adveniens eodem [Wallingford] Stigandus, Pontifex Metropolitanus, manibus ei sese dedit, fidem sacramento confirmavit, abrogans Athelinum, quem leviter elegerat.” But the whole story is a model of geographical confusion; Berkhampstead is not mentioned; the request of the English that William will accept the Crown, the debate on the question, and the speech of Hamon of Thouars, are all placed “statim ut Lundonia conspectui patebat.” I have ventured to transfer all these events to Berkhampstead, where it is plain from Florence and the Worcester Chronicle that the chief act of submission took place. But the presence or absence of Stigand is a knotty point. He is not mentioned in the Chronicle, nor in the fuller list in Florence, which seems to be specially meant as a complete list of the Bishops present. On the other hand, he is the only person named by William of Poitiers, and it is certain that he must have submitted before the coronation. Is it possible that, when submission was unavoidable, he was the first to submit, and that he met William at Wallingford before the others met him at Berkhampstead? The two English writers leave Wallingford out altogether, but William must have crossed the Thames somewhere, and there seems no reason to reject William of Poitiers’ statement that he crossed it at Wallingford.

Sir Henry Ellis (ii. 267) quotes a story which is said to be in William of Poitiers, but which I cannot find there, how one Wigod of Wallingford received and entertained William at Wallingford, till Stigand and others came there to make their submission. Of this I can say nothing, but Wigod of Wallingford is a real man, occurring in Domesday (62, 150) and elsewhere. “Wigod Minster” signs a doubtful charter in Cod. Dipl. iv. 189, and “Wigodus Regis pincerna” signs the Waltham charter (iv. 159). In the writ (Cod. Dipl. iv. 215) addressed to Bishop Wulfsige and Earl Gyrth and the Thegns of Oxfordshire, dating therefore between 1058 and 1066, the King also greets “mínne léfne may _Mygod_ on Walingeforde,” and gives him instructions which show that he was high in the royal confidence. We should surely read “Wygod.” The kinsfolk of Eadward are endless. Do “mage” and “consanguineous” really mean no more than “well-beloved Cousin” when addressed by a modern Sovereign to a modern Earl?

END OF VOLUME THE THIRD.

-----

Footnote 1

The authorities for this Chapter and for the whole of this volume may
be dealt with in a single summary. For the most part they are the
same as those which we have been using all along; but they must now
be looked at in a somewhat different way. Hitherto, except in the
Chapters specially devoted to Norman affairs, our use of the Norman
writers has been for the most part incidental. But, through the whole
of the controversies of the year 1066, we must place English and
Norman writers in a certain sense on a level. The writers of each
nation—I speak of course mainly of contemporary writers—tell the
tale from their own national points of view and in the way which is
most favourable to their own national heroes. At no time must their
statements be more carefully compared with one another, as no full
or accurate narrative could be drawn from either side by itself. The
English writers maintain a sort of sullen silence on those points on
which the Normans are naturally the most full. The Normans, on the
other hand, through ignorance, through prejudice, sometimes through
direct disregard to truth, grossly misrepresent all English affairs.

At this stage we lose the Biographer of Eadward, who ends his story
in a most significant way at Eadward’s death, and who has nothing
beyond one or two dark allusions to anything later. On the Norman
side we gain one most valuable source of help in the Tapestry of
Bayeux, whose origin and importance I shall discuss in a separate
note. (See Appendix A.) The Saga of Harold Hardrada in Snorro must
also be carefully studied. Wild as it is in many parts, it is our
most detailed account, and our only Scandinavian account, of the
campaign of Stamfordbridge, and it also shows us the way in which
English and Norman affairs were looked on in Northern Europe.

Later writers, down to as late a time as any one pleases, are, at
this time, worthy of more than usual attention. Though for the most
part of very little value in themselves, they tell us, what it is
most important to learn, the way in which different ages looked at
the greatest events in English history.

Footnote 2

See vol. ii. pp. 424, 634.

Footnote 3

Æthel. Riev. X Scriptt. 399. “Peractis itaque omnibus pro tantâ
sollennitate, quasi diceret Rex ‘Consummatum est,’ inclinat in
lectulo caput, et exhinc cœpit gravi dolore fatigari.”

Footnote 4

Ib. “Tunc mœror et luctus omnium, una vox plangentium.” This we can
well believe; but the hagiographer is plainly writing with the help
of his own fuller knowledge, when he goes on to say; “Præsentiebant
plures ejus in morte desolationem patriæ, plebis exterminium, totius
Anglicæ nobilitatis excidium, finem libertatis, honoris ruinam.” The
moment was an anxious one, but no one who had not Eadward’s own gift
of prophecy could foresee all this.

Footnote 5

Vita Eadw. 430. “Biduo vel ampliùs adeò eum languor fatigaverat, ut
vix quum loqueretur quid diceret intelligi posset.” These details
should be compared throughout with the account in Æthelred, who
developes and improves upon every touch.

Footnote 6

The Biographer (p. 431) describes those present as “Regina terræ
assidens ejusque pedes super gremium suum fovens, ejusque germanus
Dux Haroldus, et Rodbertus regalis palatii stabilitor et ejusdem
Regis propinquus (?), Stigandus quoque Archiepiscopus.” Æthelred
(400) gives the same list, but stops to abuse Stigand. The four will
be seen in the Tapestry (pl. vii. Bruce, p. 74) as I have described
them.

Footnote 7

In this account of Eadward’s death-bed I follow the contemporary
Life, which is closely followed by William of Malmesbury, ii. 226.
Æthelred, or Osbert whom he copied, evidently had the Life before
him, but he thought it his duty to expand every speech and incident.
The reader must form what judgement he pleases as to the prediction
put into Eadward’s mouth. Perhaps most modern readers will be
inclined to be of the same opinion as Stigand. But I did not think
myself justified in wholly leaving out what I find in a contemporary
writer, who affirms that he had his information from eye-witnesses
(“sicut testantur hi qui aderant præsentes,” Vita Eadw. p. 430), that
is, very probably from Eadgyth herself. In fact the contemptuous
incredulity attributed to Stigand is of itself a strong argument that
something professing to be a prophecy was actually uttered by Eadward
on his death-bed. Of course I do not pledge myself to the historical
accuracy of the exact words. Eadward would speak English, or more
probably French, and his words would gain a good deal in the course
of their translation into rhetorical Latin.

Footnote 8

Vita Eadw. 431. “Cum paucis aliis quos idem beatus Rex a somno
excitatus advocari jusserat.”

Footnote 9

Ib. 430. “Tantâ usus est loquendi copiâ ut cuivis sanissimo nihil
opus esset suprà.”

Footnote 10

The Biographer records this last famous prediction or similitude
without any attempt at an explanation. When he wrote, in the early
years of William, a Prometheus after the fact might well put into
Eadward’s mouth a prophecy of the Conquest of England and of the
general misfortunes of the country. But he could not put into his
mouth a prophecy in honour of Henry the Second. Either then the
passage is a later interpolation, of which the Editor gives no hint,
or else Eadward really uttered some allegory, quoted some proverb,
or, as Stigand thought, simply talked nonsense, on which people began
to put a meaning forty years later. The orthodox explanation is that
the tree removed from the root for the space of three furlongs (the
words are “trium _jugerum_ spatio,” but one can hardly make _acres_
a measure of length) means the Crown transferred to usurpers during
three reigns, those of Harold and the two Williams (the descent of
William Rufus from Ælfred is forgotten, see vol. ii. p. 304). The
tree returns to the root when Henry the First marries Eadgyth or
Matilda the daughter of Margaret; it bears leaves at the birth of her
children. William of Malmesbury (v. 419) witnesses that the birth of
the Ætheling William (c. 1101) was looked on as the fulfilment of
the prophecy, which shows that it had already attracted attention,
most likely at the marriage of William’s parents. The death of the
Ætheling in 1119 cut off all such hopes, but at the same time it
opened the way for a more elaborate fulfilment in the persons of his
sister and her son. The tree now brings forth leaves at the birth of
the Empress Matilda and fruit at the birth of Henry the Second. See
Æthelred 401, and the French Life, 3805 et seqq. The writer seems in
v. 3846 to confound Henry the Second and Henry the Third.

Footnote 11

Vita Eadw. 431. “Cunctisque stupentibus et terrore agente tacentibus,
ipse Archiepiscopus, qui debuerat vel primus pavere vel verbum
consilii dare, infatuato corde _submurmurat in aurem Ducis_ senio
confectum et morbo quid diceret nescire.” He had just before said
that Harold, Robert, and Eadgyth were all frightened—“terrentur
nimium.” Æthelred (400) leaves out Harold’s fears, and also leaves
out the characteristic and trustworthy little touch of the Archbishop
whispering in the Earl’s ear, which, as they stood (see the Tapestry)
on different sides of the bed, involved leaning over the dying man.
In his account the details of the contemporary writer evaporate
in this fashion; “Is [Stigandus] ad vocem narrantis obduruit, nec
terretur oraculo, nec fidem habuit prophetanti, sed potius Regem
confectum senio delirare submurmurans, ridere maluit quam lugere.”

Footnote 12

The meaning of the Biographer (431–432) is perfectly plain;
“Cognoscebant enim per sacri ordinis personas Christiani cultûs
religionem maximè violatam, hocque frequentiùs declamâsse
[declarâsse?] tum per legatos et epistolas suas Romanum Papam, tum
in frequentibus monitis ipsum Regem et Reginam; sed divitiis et
mundanâ gloriâ irrecuperabiliter quidam diabolo allecti, vitæ adeò
neglexerant disciplinam ut non horrerent jam tunc imminentem incidere
in Dei iram.” That is, the Pope, the King, and the Lady had before
this time rebuked the English, but they were stiff-necked and would
not hearken; hence the divine threatenings. Æthelred (400) clearly
means the same; “Recordantur hæc ipsa summo sæpiùs narrata Pontifici,
ipsumque persæpe, tum per legatos, tum per epistolas, eorum vesaniam
increpâsse, Regemque ac Reginam his malis curandis diligentiam
adhibuisse, sed profecisse nihil.” But his first clause was liable to
be misunderstood, and the writer of the French Life did misunderstand
it. He mistakes the letters written by the Pope for letters written
to the Pope to announce Eadward’s vision;

“Mais li prudem li plus sené
Unt ses dits mut meuz noté;
E curaument unt entendu
L’ordres des motz, e retenu;
En escrit unt tuz les motz mis,
E a l’Apostoille tramis,
Par epistre, e par legat.”

Vv. 3787 et seqq.

Footnote 13

Vita Eadw. 430. “Funeribus exsequiis attitulat se commendatione et
precibus summorum Dei fidelium.” As might be expected, he recurs more
than once to the subject. See pp. 433, 434.

Footnote 14

See vol. ii. p. 531.

Footnote 15

I think, comparing the evidently cautious expression of the
Biographer with the outspoken words of the Chronicles and Florence,
that I am justified in putting this meaning on the words (433),
“Porrectâ manu [the very gesture is shown in the Tapestry] ad
prædictum nutricium suum fratrem Haroldum, ‘Hanc,’ inquit, ‘_cum omni
regno_ tutandam commendo.’” See Appendix B.

Footnote 16

See Appendix I.

Footnote 17

Vita Eadw. 433. “Hanc ... tutandam commendo, ut pro Dominâ et sorore,
ut est, fideli serves et honores obsequio, ut, quo advixerit, a
me adepto non privetur honore debito.” _Fideli_ must agree with
_obsequio_, not with _sorore_.

Footnote 18

Ib. “Commendo pariter etiam eos qui nativam terram suam reliquerunt
caussâ amoris mei, mihique hactenus fideliter sunt obsequuti.”

Footnote 19

Ib. “Ut, susceptâ ab eis, si ita volunt, fidelitate, eos tuearis
et retineas, aut tuâ defensione conductos, cum omnibus quæ sub me
adquisierunt, cum salute ad propria transfretari facias.”

Footnote 20

Vita Eadw. 434. “Fossa sepulcri mei in monasterio paretur, in eo loco
quo vobis assignabitur.”

Footnote 21

Ib. “Mortem meam quæso ne celetis [the plural is used in these
general directions, while the political requests are addressed in the
singular to Harold], sed celeriùs circumquaque annuncietis, ut quique
fideles pro me peccatore deprecentur clementiam Dei Omnipotentis.”
Compare the excitement caused by the suspicion that the death of
Edward the Sixth was concealed. Froude, Hist. Eng. v. 514.

Footnote 22

Ib. “Ne timeas; non moriar modo, sed bene convalescam propitiante
Deo.”

Footnote 23

Ib. “Sumpto a cœlesti mensâ vitæ viatico.” There is no mention
whether the Communion was in one kind only. Communion in both kinds
was certainly usual at this time (see Will. Pict. 113, 131), but it
is not likely in the case of a dying man.

Footnote 24

Vita Eadw. 434. “Erat tunc videre in defuncto corpore gloriam
migrantis ad Deum animæ, quum scilicet caro faciei ut rosa ruberet,
subjecta barba ut lilium canderet, manus suo ordine directæ
albescerent, totumque corpus non morti sed fausto sopori traditum
signarent.”

Footnote 25

See vol. ii. p. 70.

Footnote 26

See vol. ii. p. 382.

Footnote 27

Chronn. Ab. Wig. 1065.

Footnote 28

Ib.

“Þah he langa ǽr,
Landes bereafod,
Wunoda wreclastum
Wide geond eorðan,
Seoðþan Knut ofercom
Cynn Æðelredes,
And Deona weoldon
Deore rice
Englalandes
xxviii.
Wintra gerimes
Weolan brytnodon.”

Footnote 29

Ib.

“Wæs á bliðe mod,
Bealeleas King.”

See vol. ii. p. 531.

Footnote 30

Chronn. Ab. Wig. 1066.

“Weold wel geðungæn
Walum and Scottum,
And Bryttum eac,
Byre Æðelredes.
Englum and Sæxum
Oret mægcum.
Swa ymbclyppaþ
Cealda brymmas,
Þæt eall Eadwardæ
Æþelum Kinge
Hyrdan holdelice
Hagestalde menn.”

The Welsh, who are thus coupled with Scots, and distinguished from
the Britons, can mean only the Welsh of Strathclyde.

Footnote 31

See Appendix B. and vol. ii. p. 537.

Footnote 32

“Le Roi est mort; vive le Roi”—the exact opposite to old Teutonic
feelings.

Footnote 33

Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 761 D. “Quidam Anglorum Eadgar Atheling promovere
volebant in Regem.” Will. Malms. iii. 238. “Anglia dubio favore
nutabat, cui se rectori committeret incerta, an Haroldo an Willelmo
an Edgaro ... Angli diversis votis ferebantur, _quamvis palam cuncti
bona Haroldo imprecarentur_.” This is an important admission.

Footnote 34

Would the course of the election have been in any way different, if
the Gemót had been held in Oxford?

Footnote 35

Fl. Wig. 1066. “A totius Angliæ primatibus ad regale culmen electus.”
See Appendix C.

Footnote 36

See the Waltham writer’s character of Harold, vol. ii. p. 540.

Footnote 37

See vol. ii. p. 334.

Footnote 38

Tapestry, pl. 7. Bruce, p. 80. “Hic dederunt Haroldo Coronam Regis.”
It is worth remark that the crown which is here represented as
offered to Harold is of a different and simpler form from that with
which Harold is represented as being crowned the next day. This
last is the same as that which Eadward is always drawn as wearing,
even when supported in the arms of Robert on his death-bed. This
last representation is of course merely symbolical; it is simply as
much as to say, “This is the King.” This latter crown is doubtless
the crown used at the actual coronation, and also on the great days
when the King “wore his Crown” publicly. On its form cf. vol. ii.
p. 334. But this simpler crown, borne, it would seem, immediately
from the chamber of the dead King, suggests that such a crown was
commonly kept at hand near the King’s person. Compare the well-known
story of Henry the Fifth trying on the crown which was kept by his
father’s bed-side (Monstrelet, i. 163 _b_), a story which may pass as
authority for the custom, whether true or not as to the fact. This
crown, as easier of access, would be the one symbolically offered to
the King-elect, while the crown of greater ceremony would of course
be used in the great rite of the morrow.

Footnote 39

The Danish Kings, though not of royal English blood, were of royal
blood in their own land. With the exception of them, the Crown of
Wessex, and of England as the developement and continuation of
Wessex, had never gone out of the West-Saxon royal house. I cannot
answer for all the momentary Kings in Northumberland or in the last
days of Mercia.

Footnote 40

See below, Chapter xii. § 4, and Appendix R.

Footnote 41

See vol. ii. p. 190.

Footnote 42

“Die quâ Edwardus Rex vivus fuit et mortuus” is a common form in
Domesday. So in Cod. Dipl. iv. 233; “To þám timan ðe Eádward cing was
cucu and deád.”

Footnote 43

This is well put by Dr. Bruce, p. 79.

Footnote 44

The Tapestry (pl. 7) significantly puts together, in one compartment,
one over the other, the nomination of Harold by Eadward (“Hic
Eadwardus Rex in lecto alloquit fideles”) and the preparation of
Eadward’s body for burial (“Hic defunctus est”). Now the churchman in
attendance on the death-bed must surely be the same as the churchman
who is helping at the preparation for burial. Now the former can only
be Stigand, and the latter is still more distinctly marked with the
archiepiscopal pallium, the unlucky gift of Benedict.

Footnote 45

Bayeux Tapestry, pl. 7. Bruce, p. 74.

Footnote 46

In the coronation-offices of different ages, mention is often made
of the weariness of the sovereign, caused, according to Mr. Maskell,
by his obligation to receive the Communion fasting. In this case
therefore, when the burial had to take place before the coronation,
it would be specially necessary to begin the ceremony early in the
day.

Footnote 47

Vita Eadw. 434. “Coram altare beati Petri Apostoli conditur corpus.”
The Chronicles simply mention the burial in the minster; “He
forðferde on Twelftan æfen, and hyne man bebyrigde on Twelftan dæig
on þam ylcan mynstre” (Ab. Wig. 1065)—“innan þære niwa halgodre
circean on Westmynstre” (Petrib. 1066).

Footnote 48

The general sorrow has quite witness enough in the Life, 434, 435.
Æthelred (402) uses stronger expressions, but which still perhaps
do not go beyond the facts of the case; “Dici non potest quantus
mox omnes timor invaserit, occupaverit mœror, quomodo totam quoque
insulam tenebrosus quidam horror impleverit.”

Footnote 49

See the Poem in the Chronicles, above, p. 18.

Footnote 50

Vita Eadw. 434. “Totum quoque a primo die tricesimum celebratione
missarum, decantatione prosequuntur psalmorum, expensis pro
redemptione ipsius animæ multis auri libris in sublevatione diversi
ordinis pauperum.”

Footnote 51

Ib. 435. “Ibi illuminantur cæci, in gressum solidantur claudi,
infirmi curantur, mœrentes consolatione Dei reparantur.”

Footnote 52

At this point we lose the contemporary Life of Eadward. He speaks of
no event later than the funeral, except in an allusion to the Battle
of Stamfordbridge (426);

“Quis canet æquoreo vastum fervore tumentem
Humbram congressum _Regibus æquivocis_?”

He declines entering on the subject for fear of wounding the
feelings of Eadgyth. Except from this one place, and from the dying
recommendation of Eadward, which last he makes as dark as possible
(see Appendix B), we should never learn from him that Harold ever
reigned at all. William is never mentioned or alluded to. It is clear
that, writing as he did for Eadgyth, under William, he could not
write as he would, and, courtier as he was, he was not willing to
write in the way that might have been most acceptable.

Footnote 53

“Gillebertus cognomento Crispyn,” says Æthelred (408), who calls
this examination “prima translatio.” His appointment by Lanfranc is
mentioned in the Tract on the Crispin Family, Lanfranc, ed. Giles, i.
343.

Footnote 54

Æthel. u.s. “Non tamen conatum hunc meum præsumptioni deputes sed
devotioni, quum relliquiarum ejus vel modicam portionem, si mihi
copia præstaretur, Crœsi opibus prætulissem.”

Footnote 55

See Hardy’s Catalogue of English History, vol. i. part 2. p. 642.
Several letters on the subject will be found among the letters of
Osbert published (along with those of Herbert Lozinga) by Colonel
Anstruther (Brussels 1846), numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 in the series.
Osbert writes on behalf of the canonization to the Pope’s Legate,
Alberic Bishop of Ostia, and to Henry, Bishop of Winchester, whose
somewhat remote kindred to the saint is enlarged on. Bishop Henry,
the Chapter (Conventus) of Saint Paul’s, and lastly King Stephen,
write letters which Osbert carries to the Pope. Lastly comes
Innocent’s answer to the Convent of Westminster, asking for further
proof of Eadward’s miracles, &c. There is nothing of special interest
in the whole series.

Footnote 56

See the opening of Æthelred’s Life of Eadward (370. Cf. Geneal.
Regg. 350); he calls Henry “lapidem angularem Anglici generis et
Normannici.”

Footnote 57

See Dart, Westmonasterium, p. 53. He quotes from a seemingly
unpublished manuscript.

Footnote 58

Edward the First was baptized on the day of the Translation of
his earlier namesake the “Martyr.” See Matt. Paris, 488. But
it is distinctly said that his name was given him in honour of
the Confessor. Flores Hist. 1239; “Est Eadwardus vocitatus. Qui
denominationem accepit a glorioso Rege et Confessore Eadwardo, cujus
corpus gloriosum in basilicâ S. Petri Westmonasterii requiescit.”
So N. Trivet, in anno (p. 225 ed. Hog); “In honorem gloriosissimi
Confessoris et Regis Edwardi Edwardum vocavit.” But Matthew Paris
(u.s.) seems, oddly enough, to make him be called Ed_ward_ after the
contemporary Archbishop Saint Ed_mund_; “Archiepiscopus Ædmundus
Cantuariensis ipsum confirmavit, et, Rege sic volente, aptatum est ei
nomen, scilicet Ædwardus.” The important point is the re-appearance,
from any cause, of the royal English name.

Footnote 59

Matt. Paris, 661. “Eodem anno [1245] Dominus Rex, devotione quam
habuit adversus sanctum Ædwardum submonente, ecclesiam Sancti Petri
Westmonasteriensem jussit ampliari. Et, dirutis antiquis cum turri
muris partis orientalis, præcepit novos, videlicet decentiores ...
construi.”

Footnote 60

T. Wikes, 1269 (Gale, ii. 89). “Ecclesiam ... Rex opere
sumptuosissimo fabricatam, _amotâ prorsus veteri_ [this is not
true, see M. Paris, u.s.] _quæ nullius omnino valoris exstiterat_,
de propriis fisci regalis exitibus [Simon and the Parliament had
something to say on that head], a fundamentis construxit, quæ quidem
sumptibus pariter et decore sic cæteris per orbem ecclesiis præponi
decernitur, ut videatur comparem non habere.”

Footnote 61

Marmion, ii. 10.

Footnote 62

Matt. Paris, 2. “Ecclesia, quam ... post multi ecclesias
construentes, exemplum adepti, opus illud expensis æmulabantur
sumptuosis.” See vol. ii. p. 508 for the passage of William of
Malmesbury on which this is founded.

Footnote 63

I know of no other English church of the thirteenth century which
exhibits the French arrangement of the apse and surrounding chapels.
It may be seen at an earlier date at Norwich and in the ground-plan
of the destroyed monastic church at Leominster, and at a later date
at Tewkesbury, the example most like Westminster, though on a much
smaller scale.

Footnote 64

John’s submission to Rome was more ignominious in point of form than
anything done by Eadward or Henry, but it was not in the same way the
act of his own free will.

Footnote 65

T. Wikes, p. 88. Henry moved the body “non patiens ulteriùs
venerabiles relliquias beatissimi Regis Edwardi Confessoris, quem præ
cæteris sanctis speciali quâdam veneratione dilexit, locello quodam
humili recubare.” The ceremony was done “convocatis universis Angliæ
prælatis et magnatibus, necnon cunctarum regni sui civitatum pariter
et burgorum potentioribus.” The Witan, in short, buried him and the
Witan translated him. Then follows the list of the Kings, Princes,
and nobles who bore the body.

Footnote 66

T. Wikes, p. 89. “Quotquot manus apponere poterant ad onus tam nobile
supportandum in adjutorium evocatis.”

Footnote 67

See vol. i. pp. 58, 63.

Footnote 68

See vol. i. pp. 60, 611.

Footnote 69

See vol. i. p. 440.

Footnote 70

Fl. Wig. 1074.

Footnote 71

Ord. Vit. 843 B. “Mathildis Regina, quæ in baptismate Edit
dicta fuit, Kal. Maii [1118] obiit, et in basilicâ sancti Petri
Westmonasterio tumulata quiescit.”

Footnote 72

Charter of Henry, printed in Stanley’s Memorials, p. 504. “Ob
reverentiam gloriosissimi Regis Eadwardi, cujus corpus in monasterio
Westmonasterii requiescit, nostri corporis sepulturam ... eligimus in
eodem.”

Footnote 73

One would have inferred from the account in Dart, Westmonasterium (i.
56), that the body of Eadward was never disturbed. But the testimony
of Henry Machyn seems explicit; “The xx day of Marche [1556–7] was
taken up at Westmynster agayn with a hondered lyghtes King Edward the
confessor ... it was a godly shyte to have seen yt how reverently
he was cared [carried] from the plasse that he was taken up wher he
was led [laid] when that the abbay was spowlyd and robbed” (p. 130,
Camd. Soc. ed.). The shrine was set up on the 5th of January 1555.
Chronicle of Grey Friars, p. 94, Camd. Soc. ed., where the day is
called Saint Edward’s day. Stanley, Memorials of Westminster, p. 412.

Footnote 74

I discuss the circumstances of Harold’s coronation at length in
Appendix D. But all that is needed is expressed in the decisive
words of Florence, “Ab Aldredo Archiepiscopo Eboracensi honorificè
consecratus,” and in the picture in the Tapestry, pl. 7, erring only
in making Stigand the consecrator.

Footnote 75

See Maskell, p. xv. Some canonists seem even to have held, with a
special reference to the Emperor John Tzimiskês, that the unction,
like baptism, washed out all earlier sin.

Footnote 76

See vol. ii. p. 437.

Footnote 77

See Appendix E.

Footnote 78

Maskell, 3, 5. “Chorus decantet antiphonam ‘Firmetur manus tua et
exaltetur dextera tua; justitia et judicium præparatio sedis tuæ,
misericordia et veritas præcedent faciem tuam.’”

Footnote 79

Ib. 5. “Perveniens Rex ad ecclesiam, prosternat se coram altare, et
hymnizetur, ‘Te Deum laudamus, Te Dominum confitemur.’ Quo fini tenùs
hymnizato, Rex erigatur de solo.”

Footnote 80

See Appendix E.

Footnote 81

See the Prayer, Maskell, p. 6, note.

Footnote 82

See Appendix E.

Footnote 83

“Totius regni _Anglo-Saxonum_ ecclesiam cum plebibus sibi annexis.”
(Selden, 116.) This is one of the rare cases in which this word
is used; but it will be easily seen how completely its use agrees
with the rule given in vol. i. p. 608. “Anglo-Saxonum” is simply an
abbreviation of the form “Anglorum vel [= et] Saxonum” used before
and after.

Footnote 84

Marmion, ii. 28.

Footnote 85

On the unction, whether on the head only, see Appendix E.

Footnote 86

Selden, 116. “Hic unguatur oleo, et hæc cantetur antiphona, ‘Unxerunt
Salomonem Sadoch sacerdos et Nathan propheta Regem in Gion, et
accedentes dixerunt, Vivat Rex in æternum.’”

Footnote 87

Selden, 117. “Sacratissima unctio super caput ejus defluat, atque ad
interiora descendat, et cordis illius intima penetret.”

Footnote 88

On the royal vestments, see Taylor, 79 et seqq.

Footnote 89

Maskell, p. 27. “In quo per virtutem Sancti Spiritûs resistere et
ejicere omnes inimicos tuos valeas, et cunctos sanctæ Dei Ecclesiæ
adversarios, regnumque tibi commissum tutari, atque protegere castra
Dei.”

Footnote 90

On the Crown and the other regalia used, including the orb, see
Appendix E.

Footnote 91

Maskell, pp. 33, 34.

Footnote 92

Ib. 35. “Sanctæ Mariæ ac beati Petri Apostolorum Principis, Sanctique
Gregorii Anglorum Apostoli atque omnium sanctorum intercedentibus
meritis.”

Footnote 93

See Taylor, p. 70, and Appendix E.

Footnote 94

See the Tapestry, pl. 7.

Footnote 95

Chronn. Ab. Wig. 1065. “And her wærð Harold eorl eac to cynge
gehalgod, and he lytle stilnesse þæron gehad, þa hwile þe he rices
weold.”

Footnote 96

See the form, Selden, 117. Maskell, 51. Taylor, 307 et seqq. and 403.

Footnote 97

See Appendix F.

Footnote 98

Maskell, p. 39. Taylor, 404.

Footnote 99

See vol. i. p. 470; ii. p. 355.

Footnote 100

On these charges, see Appendix G.

Footnote 101

Roman de Rou, 11076;

“Normanz ki el païz maneient
Ki fames et enfanz aveient,
Ke Ewart i aveit menéz,
Et granz chastels è fieux dunez,
Fist Heraut del païz chacier,
N’en i volt un soul lessier.”

But he does not speak of their expulsion till after William had
challenged the Crown and defied Harold.

Footnote 102

See above, p. 15.

Footnote 103

See vol. ii. p. 358.

Footnote 104

We shall find him in Sussex at the moment of the landing at Pevensey.
See below, Chapter xv. Robert the son of Wymarc must be distinguished
from another Robert who was also high in Eadward’s favour, namely
Robert of Rhuddlan, sister’s son to Hugh of Grantmesnil (Ord. Vit.
669 C); “Hic Eduardi Regis armiger fuit [a sinecure office, one would
think], et ab illo cingulum militiæ accepit.”

Footnote 105

See vol. ii. p. 347.

Footnote 106

See vol. ii. p. 359. Reginbald signs many charters.

Footnote 107

There were several Stallers at a time. Besides Robert and Ralph, we
find under Eadward, Esegar (see vol. ii. p. 63, and Hist. Elien. ii.
39, where he seems to be confounded with Earl Ælfgar), Lyfing (Cod.
Dipl. iv. 291; vi. 198), Eadgar (iv. 148), Ælfstan (Thorpe, Dipl.
Ang. 356), Harold (Domesday, 337), and Bondig (Cod. Dipl. iv. 172,
281; Domesday, 148 _b_, 218 _b_). The deposition or banishment of
Ralph is more likely than that of any other favourite of Eadward. On
the other hand his foreign birth is less certain.

Footnote 108

See below, Chapp. xiv. xv.

Footnote 109

Fl. Wig. 1066. See Appendix G.

Footnote 110

Florence mentions his orders as given “Ducibus, Satrapis,
Vicecomitibus, et suis in commune Ministris.” What were the exact
functions of the “Satraps,” put thus in a marked way between Earls
and Sheriffs?

Footnote 111

See vol. i. pp. 244, 463; vol. ii. pp. 336, 481, 499.

Footnote 112

See vol. ii. pp. 34, 40.

Footnote 113

On the coinage of Harold, see Appendix H.

Footnote 114

Plat. Phæd. c. xxxviii. ἀλλὰ πρὸς δύο λέγεται οὐδ’ ὁ Ἡρακλῆς οἷός τε
εἶναι.

Footnote 115

De Inv. c. 20. “Rex ... quod prius dilexerat non potuit odisse.
Verumtamen ecclesiam Walthamensem, amplori quam priùs amplexatus
dilectione, multâ donariorum venustate cœpit eam ampliare, ita ut
postea nullatenus sine multorum munerum oblatione vellet etiam illam
sedem visitare.”

Footnote 116

Cod. Dipl. iv. 305, perhaps the only surviving writ of Harold’s
reign. It is addressed to Æthelnoth, Abbot of Glastonbury (see vol.
ii. p. 361) and the Sheriff Tovid or Tofig. See vol. i. p. 590.

Footnote 117

See vol. ii. p. 639.

Footnote 118

See vol. ii. p. 467.

Footnote 119

See vol. ii. p. 350.

Footnote 120

See vol. ii. p. 42.

Footnote 121

See vol. ii. p. 438. Cf. p. 462.

Footnote 122

Hist. Eves. 88. “Defuncto nempe Rege isto [Æduuardo] et Haraldo
regnum accipiente, quidquid volebat ab eo impetravit [Ageluuius].”

Footnote 123

Harold was “a _totius Angliæ_ Primatibus ad regale culmen electus.”
Fl. Wig. 166.

Footnote 124

See Hist. Fed. Gov. pp. 211, 270.

Footnote 125

I except of course the irregular Gemót of Northampton in 1065. See
vol. ii. pp. 491, 492.

Footnote 126

See Appendix H.

Footnote 127

Will. Malms. Vit. S. Wlst., ap. Ang. Sacr. ii. 253.

Footnote 128

See vol. ii. p. 495.

Footnote 129

Domesday, 321.

Footnote 130

See vol. i. p. 499.

Footnote 131

See vol. ii. p. 484. Eadward, born at Islip, is said (Hist. Eli. ii.
33) to have been presented by his parents on the altar at Ely; I know
not whether he ever repeated the visit.

Footnote 132

Vit. Wlst. 254. “Illi populi ferro indomabiles, semper quiddam magnum
à proavis spirantes.”

Footnote 133

The matter could only have been decided in a Gemót, and Harold’s
presence at York is implied in the Chronicles.

Footnote 134

See vol. i. p. 67.

Footnote 135

On the possibility that Harold’s marriage with Ealdgyth took place at
this point, see Appendix F.

Footnote 136

Vit. Wlst. 254. “Multa et illo itinere et aliàs crebrò præscita et
prænuntiata sunt. Denique Haraldo palàm testificatus est, quanto
detrimento et sibi et Angliæ foret, nisi nequitias morum correctum
ire cogitaret. Vivebatur enim tunc penè ubique in Angliâ perditis
moribus, et pro pacis affluentiâ deliciarum fervebat luxus.”

Footnote 137

Chronn. Ab. Wig. 1066. “On þisum geare com Harold kyng of Eoforwic to
Westmynstre, to þam Eastran, þe wæron æfter þam middanwintran þe se
kyng forðferde.”

Footnote 138

See vol. ii. p. 62.

Footnote 139

See Appendix K.

Footnote 140

See vol. ii. p. 42.

Footnote 141

Hist. Ab. i. 482. Cf. the writs in Cod. Dipl. iv. 200, 228. On the
affairs of Ely, see Appendix L.

Footnote 142

See Hist. Ab. 482 et seqq. There is something singular in the way in
which the local writer couples the advancement of the new Abbot with
that of Harold—his own local Earl. “Tunc duo subrogati sunt, Haroldus
comes scilicet in Regem Anglorum; et Ealdredus, hactenus exteriorum
præposituram Abbendoniæ agens, inibi in abbatem monachorum.” He had
(p. 486) two names (binomius erat) Ealdred and “Brichwinus.”

Footnote 143

See vol. ii. p. 454.

Footnote 144

Hist. Elien. ii. 41. See Appendix L.

Footnote 145

Ib. 40. “Citiùs [before the death of Guthmund] Normannis regnum
obtinentibus, miles illorum quidam Hugo de Mumford easdem terras
invasit, et hactenus ecclesiæ detenuit.” I cannot however identify
the lands in Domesday.

Footnote 146

I know of no authority for the date of William’s first message,
except the assertion in Bromton (958) that it was on the tenth day
after the death of Eadward. I cannot look on this as enough. I shall
therefore treat of the message in connexion with those events to
which it belongs in order of subject, if not of time.

Footnote 147

Annales Benevent. ap. Pertz, iii. 180. “Sexto decimo Kalendas Maii
apparuit stella comet_i_s [the Greek κομητής]. Tertio die stante
mense Februarii factæ sunt tenebræ horâ nonâ et permanserunt horæ
tres; postea subsequuta est pluvia rapida nimium.... Et Nortmanni
bella crudelissima fecerunt cum Britannis in terrâ Anglorum et
Saxonum.”

Footnote 148

Chronn. Ab. Wig. 1066. “Þa wearð geond eall Englaland swylc tacen on
heofenum gesewen swylce nan man ǽr ne geseh.”

Footnote 149

Flor. Wig. “Stella cometes non solùm in Angliâ, sed etiam, ut fertur,
per totum mundum visa, per vii. dies splendore nimio fulgebat.”

Footnote 150

Chronn. u. s. “Sume menn cwædon þæt hyt cométa steorra wære, þone
sume menn hatað þone fexedon steorran. And he æteowde ærest on þone
æfen Letania Major, þæt ys viii. Kal. Mai.” [Monday, April 24.]

Footnote 151

See Appendix M.

Footnote 152

Ann. S. Germani, Pertz, iv. 4. “A vespere usque ad gallicinium.”

Footnote 153

Tapestry, pl. 7. “Isti mirant stellam.” See Appendix M.

Footnote 154

Will. Malms. ii. 225. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, 1066. Æthelmær, it
seems, was a man of mechanical skill, who in his youth had attempted
to make himself wings like Daidalos, but who had been hardly more
successful than Ikaros, though from another cause. “Ipse ferebat
caussam ruinæ suæ quod caudam in posteriori parte oblitus fuerat
adaptare.” He remained lame for life.

Footnote 155

Will. Malms. ii. 225. “Venisti, inquit, venisti, multis matribus
lugende; dudum est quod te vidi; sed nunc multò terribiliorem intueor
patriæ hujus excidiùm minitantem.”

Footnote 156

Chronn. Wig. Petrib. Cant. 975.

Footnote 157

See vol. i. pp. 296–319.

Footnote 158

Alb. Trium Font. 51. “Anno 1017. Cometes solito mirabilior in modum
trabis maximæ per quatuor menses apparuit.” He then goes on to speak
of the reign of Cnut.

Footnote 159

There is nothing special to remark on the authorities for this
Chapter, which consist mainly of the Norman writers whose names
and whose relative importance must be by this time familiar to the
reader. I will only remark that it is somewhat vexatious that we have
to trust almost wholly to authorities on one side. While we have full
narratives from the Norman writers, we have only the most fragmentary
statements from any French, Angevin, or Breton source to set against
them. And, to an English writer, this is specially vexatious when we
draw near to the end of the period, when we have to deal with those
personal relations between William and Harold on which the Norman
writers are so full, while the contemporary English writers are so
completely, no doubt significantly, silent.

Footnote 160

See vol. ii. p. 293.

Footnote 161

See St. John, ii. 225 et seqq. But I would not, as I shall presently
show, be thought to share Mr. St. John’s extreme scepticism on the
whole matter.

Footnote 162

It is indeed quite possible that the mass of people in England knew
nothing about the matter. The only statement implying that they did
is that of Harold’s romantic biographer (Chron. Ang. Norm. ii. 187,
188) which I have quoted and discussed in Appendix C.

Footnote 163

See vol. ii. p. 293.

Footnote 164

Ib. p. 289.

Footnote 165

Will. Pict. 90. “Reges de longinquo suas unicè caras filias huic
marito voluntariè locarent.”

Footnote 166

Ib. 89. “Adeo ut et ejus sobolem, quam solâ tum spe fovebant, dominum
sibi concordi votorum electione creare certarent.” He goes on to
speak of the debates on the subject, “res ponderosa” as he calls it,
and how it was discussed “in frequenti curiâ.” So Will. Gem. vii. 21
“Jam Duce juvenili robore vigente, transcensis annis adolescentiæ,
cœperunt optimates ejus de successione prolis cum eo attentiùs
tractare.”

Footnote 167

Will. Malms. iii. 273. “Præter cæteras virtutes, præcipuè in primâ
adolescentiâ castitatem suspexit, in tantum ut publicè sereretur
nihil illum in feminâ posse. Verumtamen ex procerum sententiâ
matrimonio addictus, ita se egit ut pluribus annis nullius probri
suspicione notaretur.” He then goes on to mention, without believing,
an absurd story which I shall have to speak of elsewhere. I do not
know on what authority genealogists and antiquaries call the famous
William Peverel of Domesday a natural son of William: I know of
nothing to that effect in any ancient writer. See Appendix N.

Footnote 168

Will. Pict. 90. “Consiliis itaque de matrimonio discrepatur ... ac
affines habere quos confines potissimùm placuit.”

Footnote 169

See vol. ii. p. 304.

Footnote 170

Among the many foreign brothers-in-law of Æthelstan, it is certain
that the two most prominent, Otto the Great and Duke Hugh of Paris,
left no posterity by their English wives. But a search among the
princes of the time might have revealed some descendants of Eadgifu
and the other sisters. The line of the Karlings of Laôn was not
extinct.

Footnote 171

Will. Pict. 90. “Uti à Satrapis Morinorum, quos moderni Flandros
appellant,” &c. This is somewhat in the style of Richer, our
classical companion in my first volume.

Footnote 172

See vol. i. 278. Cf. ii. 272, 273.

Footnote 173

The first Count Baldwin married Judith, daughter of Charles the
Bald, widow of our Æthelwulf; Baldwin the Second married Ælfthryth,
daughter of Ælfred; Arnulf the Old married Adela of the Carolingian
house of Vermandois; his son Baldwin married Matilda, daughter of
King Conrad of Burgundy; Arnulf the Young married Susanna, daughter
of King Berengar of Italy; but the mother of the reigning Count,
though of princely, was not of royal birth. William of Poitiers (90)
is therefore justified when he says that Baldwin “à Regibus Galliæ
atque Germaniæ natales deducebat;” but I cannot follow him when
he goes on to add, “nobilitatis etiam Constantinopolitanæ lineam
attingentes.”

Footnote 174

Will. Pict. 90. “Stupuerunt mirantes eum Comites, Marchiones, Duces,
tum Archipræsulum alta dignitas, si quando præsentiam ejus, rari
hospitis, Imperatoria cura promeruit ... nomine siquidem Romani
Imperii miles fuit, re decus et gloria summa consiliorum in summâ
necessitudine. Reges quoque magnitudinem ejus et venerati sunt et
veriti.”

Footnote 175

In the Annales Blandinienses and Formoselenses (Pertz, v. 26,
36), the Count of Flanders appears as “Balduinus potentissimus,”
“potentissimus Marchisus.”

Footnote 176

Will. Pict. 90. “Vigebat eo tempore Teutonibus collimitans ac
Francis, eminensque potentiâ, præcipuus eorum, Flandrensis Marchio
Baldwinus.”

Footnote 177

The Free Cities of Germany obtained a higher degree of independence
than those of Flanders, and those of them which became members of the
Swiss League of course became more independent still. Yet, except
the Hanseatic towns, none of them rested their greatness so purely
on commerce as the Flemish cities, and the Flemish cities were
distinctly more democratic in their spirit than any others. Ghent is
something quite different either from the Teutonic Rome at Bern or
from the Teutonic Carthage at Lübeck.

Footnote 178

See vol. i. p. 227. Cf. 548.

Footnote 179

In the Chronicle of Lambert of Saint Omer, 1067 (Pertz, v. 66) he is
distinguished as “Baldwinus Comes Insulanus” from his son “Baldwinus
Montensis.” So in the Continuation of Sigebert, vi. 433.

Footnote 180

See vol. i. p. 519.

Footnote 181

See vol. ii. p. 97 et seqq.

Footnote 182

See the passage quoted in vol. ii. p. 99.

Footnote 183

He rebelled again in 1054 (Herm. Cont. in anno, Pertz, v. 133.
Bernold, ib. 427). On the War, see Annales Elnonenses Majores (Pertz,
v. 13). The reconciliation by the agency of Pope Victor is asserted
in the Chronicles of Sigebert (Pertz, vi. 360) and Ekkehard (vi.
198); on the terms see Art de Vérifier les Dates, iii. 4.

Footnote 184

See vol. i. pp. 519, 562. I shall have to speak of this marriage
again.

Footnote 185

See Will. Pict. 90, and below, § 3.

Footnote 186

On their history see Lambert, 1071 (Pertz, v. 181). Will. Malms. iii.
256; iv. 373.

Footnote 187

See vol. ii. p. 134, and Appendix N.

Footnote 188

“Corpore valdè elegantem animoque liberalem,” says William of
Jumièges (vii. 21). So Wace, who wrongly calls her mother Constance
(9640–9642); “Mahelt out non, mult bele è gente.” William of Poitiers
attributes her excellences to the good training which she had
received from her mother Adela; “Enutrierat autem prudens et sancta
mater in filiâ quod muneribus paternis multuplo præponderaret.” He
then goes on to extol the royal family of France, to which he is not
always so loyal, and he commits the blunder of calling Robert “filius
et _nepos_ Regum.”

Footnote 189

See vol. i. p. 454.

Footnote 190

On this discovery of Mr. Stapleton and on other points connected with
the marriage, see Appendix N.

Footnote 191

William of Poitiers indeed would almost make one think that Baldwin
set off with his daughter to meet William as soon as he heard that
William wanted a wife, and that they were married without more
ado. William of Jumièges (vii. 21) seems to make the marriage
follow immediately on the embassy, though he afterwards mentions
the objections made on the ground of kindred, on which William of
Poitiers holds his peace.

Footnote 192

See the tale in the Continuator of Wace, ap. Ellis, ii. 55. The only
groundwork for the story seems to be the fact that Matilda held
certain lands which had belonged to a Brihtric—there were several of
the name.

Footnote 193

Ord. Vit. 522 A, 598 A. His description is “Gherbodus Flandrensis.”

Footnote 194

See Ellis, i. 507. The inscription beginning “Stirps Gundrada Ducum,”
has often been copied, and has no doubt misled many. The “Duces” are
of course the Counts of Flanders, not those of Normandy.

Footnote 195

She is assumed to be such even by Sir Francis Palgrave (iii. 254),
after the appearance of Mr. Stapleton’s paper.

Footnote 196

See Appendix N.

Footnote 197

Her parents, Baldwin and Adela, were married about 1027. See Appendix
N.

Footnote 198

See vol. ii. p. 112.

Footnote 199

Ib. p. 113.

Footnote 200

Ib. p. 184.

Footnote 201

Ann. Divionenses, ap. Pertz, v. 41. Labbé, Concilia, xi. 1407 et
seqq. Chron. of Auxerre, ap. Labbé, Biblioth. i. 293.

Footnote 202

Labbé, Concilia, xi. 1412. The two canons run; “xi. Ne quis
incestuosæ conjunctioni se copularet. xii. Ne quis, legitimâ uxore
derelictâ, aliam duceret.” Presently comes the passage quoted by Mr.
Stapleton; “Excommunicavit etiam Comites Engelrannum et Eustachium
propter incestum, et Hugonem de Brainâ, qui legitimam uxorem
dimiserat et aliam sibi in matrimonio sociaverat. _Interdixit et
Balduino Comiti Flandrensi ne filiam suam Willelmo Nortmanno nuptui
daret, et illi ne eam acciperet._ Vocavit etiam Comitem Tetbaldum,
quoniam suam dimiserat uxorem.” I do not know what were the offences
of Ingelram (who was not yet Count) or of Eustace. Theobald had put
away Gersendis, daughter of Herbert Wake-the-Dog of Maine, of whom
we shall hear more anon. In the Art de Vérifier les Dates, ii. 615,
Theobald’s wife Gersendis seems to be confounded with his sister the
wife of Hugh son of Herbert.

Footnote 203

See Appendix N.

Footnote 204

The whole story is given in the hexameters of William of Apulia,
Muratori, v. 259 et seqq. Cf. Milman, iii. 35 et seqq.

Footnote 205

William’s lines on the stature of the Germans are well known as being
quoted by Gibbon (x. 257 ed. Milman). His description of their swords
and manner of fighting is less familiar, and is worth quoting, as
showing how much the Teutonic warfare was the same everywhere (p.
260, C, D);

“Nam nec equus doctè manibus giratur eorum,
Nec validos ictus dat lancea, præminet ensis,
Sunt etenim longi specialiter et peracuti
Illorum gladii, percussum à vertice corpus
Scindere sæpe solent, et firmo stant pede postquam
Deponuntur equis, potiùs certando perire
Quam dare terga volunt, magis hoc sunt Marte timendi.
Quam dum sunt equites; tanta est audacia gentis.”

This exactly describes an English army before Cnut introduced the axe
instead of the sword (see vol. i. pp. 300, 430, 577), and the implied
panegyric of William is the parallel of the implied panegyric of Guy
of Amiens. See vol. ii. p. 128.

Footnote 206

See vol. i. p. 171. So Will. App. 261 D;

“Robertus et ingeniosus
Semper celsa petens, et laudis amans et honoris.
Si contingebat sibi palma vel arte vel armis,
Æquè ducebat, quia quod violentia sæpe
Non explere potest, explet versutia mentis.”

Compare the wild account of Robert Wiscard in Benedict of
Peterborough (ii. 200 Stubbs), where he is transferred to the reign
of Henry the First.

Footnote 207

See vol. i. p. 171.

Footnote 208

On the Counts of Eu, see below, p. 117.

Footnote 209

Thirty-six years if we count from the death of William’s grandmother
Judith in 1017; twenty-seven if we count from the death of Richard
the Good in 1026. The question turns on the position of Richard’s
second wife Papia. See vol. ii. p. 181.

Footnote 210

See vol. ii. p. 210.

Footnote 211

Will. Malms. iii. 267. “Ferunt quidam esse arcanam depositionis
caussam; Matildem, quam Willelmus acceperat, proximam sibi
sanguine fuisse. Id, Christianæ fidei zelo, Malgerium non tulisse,
ut consanguineo cubili fruerentur, sed in nepotem et comparem
excommunicationis jaculum intentâsse.”

Footnote 212

William, or Orderic, in the death-bed narrative (657 B), puts the
two together; “Non multò post alia mihi gravissima adversitas oborta
est. Patrui namque mei, Malgerius Rothomagensis Archiepiscopus et
Guillelmus frater ejus ... me velut nothum contempserunt,” etc.

Footnote 213

See the passage of William of Malmesbury just cited.

Footnote 214

Will. Malms. iii. 267. “Is erat litteris quidem non mediocriter
cultus.” This is admitted even by William of Poitiers, 116;
“Scripturarum arcana intelligentiæ literalis oculo colligere non
indoctus fuit.”

Footnote 215

Ib. “Pro natalium conscientiâ professionis oblitus, venationibus et
avium certaminibus sæpiùs justo intendebat.”

Footnote 216

Ib. “Gazas ecclesiasticas conviviis profusioribus insumebat.” So
Will. Pict. 116; “Mensas equidem nimiùm sufficientes, nimiùm nitidas,
præbere.”

Footnote 217

Will. Pict. 116. “Quam pietas plurimorum ornando ditavit, ille
spoliando attenuavit ecclesiam; non sponsus ejus vel pater dicendus,
sed gravissimus dominus vel rapacissimus prædo.... Largiendo laudem
emere amabat, specie liberalitatis prodigus.... Nec enim modum posuit
largitioni donec sedes metropolitana omni fere ornamento caruit et
thesauro.”

Footnote 218

Ord. Vit. 566 D. Michael was, when Orderic wrote, an old man in great
honour with Henry the First. He was “probus miles et legitimus.” Wace
(9707) gives him several children, and seems to make them born after
his deposition. Michael is “hom mult énorez, Michiel de Baines [al.
Bayeux] apelez.”

Footnote 219

Will. Pict. 116. “Sæpenumero monitus atque castigatus privatim atque
publicè domini sui, juvenis et laici, sapiente diligentia.” So Will.
Malms. iii. 267; “Crebrò conventus, expostulante nepote patruelis
[patrui?] offensas.”

Footnote 220

Ib. “Sequuntur multoties largitionem rapinæ. Præterea molestus
infamiæ ejus odor diffundebatur ob alia crimina. Sed a ratione
alienum ducimus in vitiis publicandis immorari,” etc.