The history of the Norman conquest of England, its causes and its results, Volume 1 (of 6) (part 7 of 7)

The history of the Norman conquest of England, its causes and its results, Volume 1 (of 6) (part 7 of 7)

These are the earliest accounts of the business, all of them written by men who were alive at the time, and of whom the Encomiast of Emma personally knew Cnut, while the Biographer of Eadward personally knew Godwine. Their differences and contradictions are therefore the more amazing; and their one point of agreement is more amazing still, namely, that they all forget, as I said in the text, that Emma and Godwine were ruling in Wessex in the name, not of Harold, but of Harthacnut. The division of the kingdom, the regency of Emma and Godwine, are facts which cannot be doubted; they are affirmed by two of the Chronicles and they are implied by the other two (see above, p. 776). But in telling the tale of Ælfred all this is forgotten. Even the Biographer of Eadward, the formal apologist of Godwine, seems, in the very act of defending him, to forget his real position. The Encomiast, whose version is the most favourable to Godwine’s innocence, seems to know nothing of any King but Harold; Godwine, if not Harold’s minister, is at least Harold’s subject. On comparing all these writers, the question at once arises, How far, when their main story involves so great a misconception, can we trust any of their details? The inconsistency is manifest; it seems to have been felt at the time. The ballad which laments the fate of the Ætheling is found only in those Chronicles which do not directly mention the division of the kingdom. And, even of these, one inserts the ballad in a form which does not accuse Godwine. The Peterborough Chronicler, who is so clear as to the division of the kingdom, says nothing about the fate of the Ætheling. The Norman writers, so eloquent about the fate of the Ætheling, know nothing of the kingship of Harthacnut. Florence, who attempts to combine the two stories, falls into all kinds of confusions and inconsistencies. It was no doubt the feeling of this inconsistency, the feeling that the story, as told, could not have happened at the time to which it is fixed, which made later writers, from William of Malmesbury onwards, move it to various other dates. William’s own account (ii. 188) is very remarkable. He hardly believes the story, because it is not in the Chronicles, but he tells it, because it was a common report; “Quia fama serit, non omisi; sed quia chronica tacet, pro solido non asserui.” He therefore had the Peterborough Chronicle before him. So just before; “Sane ne silentio premam quod de primogenito [Ælfred was certainly the younger] Ethelredi Elfredo rumigeruli spargunt.” The tale is placed by him in 1040, after the death of Harold and before the arrival of Harthacnut. Sir Thomas Hardy, in his note, proposes to read “mortem Cnutonis” for “mortem Haroldi,” but this is rather destroying evidence than explaining it. Ælfred enters the kingdom; by the treachery of his countrymen, chiefly of Godwine (“compatriotarum perfidia et maxime Godwini”), he is blinded at Gillingham (probably a mistake for Guildford); thence he is taken to Ely, where he soon dies. His companions are beheaded, save one out of each ten, who are allowed to escape.

This date, if it rested on any authority, would be far more probable than the other. Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 758 D) pushes on the story yet a reign further. It is now placed after the death of Harthacnut in 1042. On that King’s death the English send for Ælfred, the elder of the Æthelings, to succeed to the Crown. He comes, and brings with him a great number of his mother’s kinsfolk and of other Normans. Now Godwine (“quum esset consul fortissimus et proditor sævissimus”) has determined that the new King shall marry his daughter. But he sees that Ælfred’s high spirit (“quia primogenitus erat et magnæ probitatis”) will not consent to this scheme, while he thinks that the milder spirit of Eadward (“frater minor et simplicior”) will submit to the yoke. Godwine then harangues the Witan (“intimavit igitur proceribus Angliæ”); Ælfred has brought with him too many Normans; he has promised them lands in England; it will not be safe to allow so valiant and so crafty a people to take root in the land; the strangers must be punished lest other strangers should venture to presume on their kindred with Kings to meddle with Englishmen and English affairs (“ne alii post hæc audeant pro regis cognatione se Anglis ingerere”). Ælfred’s Norman companions are then decimated at Guildford, in the fashion above mentioned; but even the tenth part seem to the English too many to be allowed to live (“nimium visum est Anglis tot superesse”); so they are decimated again; the Ætheling is blinded and sent to Ely, as before. Ralph the Black (157) brings in his version incidentally. Under the reign of Harthacnut, he says, “Edwardum fratrem suum a Normannis revocans, secum pacifice aliquamdiu habuit. Nam alter frater, Alureclus scilicet, ad stipitem ligatus a Godwino in Hely peremptus est, ter decimatis commilitonibus apud Guldedune, port mortem Haroldi, antequam regnaret Hardecnutus, consilio Stigandi archiepiscopi.” This last strange statement may be taken in connexion with a scandal which charged Emma herself with a partnership in the deed. (See p. 498 and Note SSS.) There is no need to point out that Stigand was not Archbishop until long afterwards.

Bromton (X Scriptt. 934 et seqq.) gives several versions, but decides in favour of one grounded on that of Henry of Huntingdon. He adds several particulars, especially that the English nobles were so enraged against Godwine that they vowed that he should die a worse death than Eadric the betrayer of his cyne-hlaford (“dominum suum naturalem regem”) Eadmund. (It is a little remarkable that these words are used without any hint as to the supposed kindred between Godwine and Eadric.) On this Godwine flees to Denmark and remains there four years, his lands and goods being meanwhile confiscated. But Bromton’s most remarkable version is one in which the death of Ælfred, combined with an attempt to poison Eadward, is attributed to the joint action of Godwine, Harthacnut, and Emma herself. The same scandal turns up again in the Winchester Annals (Luard, Ann. Mon. ii. 22) as part of the legend of Emma and the ploughshares. So also in Bromton himself, X Scriptt. 942. But the Winchester Annalist had just before (Ann. Mon. ii. 17) given his own version. The tale is placed in the reign of Harthacnut. Godwine wishes to open the succession to his own son Harold. He entices Ælfred over—Duke Robert, notwithstanding his death and burial in the East, keeps Eadward back in Normandy—and causes one tenth of his companions to be beheaded, the rest to be tortured and crucified, and the Ætheling himself to be embowelled. Godwine’s instructions to his agents are given in two very graphic speeches. I trust that so pleasant a writer as Richard of the Devizes is not answerable for this stuff. See Mr. Luard’s Preface, p. xi.

Lastly, two charters ascribed to Eadward the Confessor, but of very doubtful genuineness, speak of the murder of Ælfred in a way which ought to be noticed. In the first (Cod. Dipl. iv. 173) Eadward is made to attribute the death of his brother to Harold and Harthacnut conjointly, and to speak of himself as being with difficulty rescued from them; “Invadentibus regnum Swegeno et Cnuto filio regis [ejus?], regibus Danorum, ac filiis ipsius Chnuti Haroldo et Hardechnuto, a quibus etiam alter meus frater Ælfredus crudeliter occisus est, solusque, sicut Joas occisionem Oðoliæ, sic ego illorum crudelitatem evasi.” In the other (Cod. Dipl. iv. 181) the crime is attributed to the Danes generally; “Dani qui ... fratrem meum alium Ælfredum miserabiliter interemptum enecaverant.” Now, even if these charters be spurious, they still have a certain value as witnessing to popular belief on the subject. Neither of them mentions Godwine; had they done so, Godwine’s sons could hardly have been represented as signing them. But the mention of the fact in charters signed by them might imply that the subject was not one which they at all sought to avoid. The second charter is perfectly vague; but the language of the former, attributing the deed to Harold and Harthacnut, is remarkable. That Harthacnut personally had no hand in it needs no proof; neither was Eadward at any time in the least danger at the hands of Harthacnut, who always acted towards him as an attached brother. Is the charge against Harthacnut meant to convey an indirect charge against the representative of Harthacnut, that is, against Emma herself?

I have thus fairly put together, as far as I can, the evidence on this most perplexing question. That Ælfred landed and was put to death by order of Harold there can be no reasonable doubt. But one can hardly say more, except that, of all the accounts of his coming, the least likely is that which connects it with a Norman invasion under the command of Eadward. The charge against Godwine implies a state of things which we know not to have existed; on the other hand it is strange that his one direct apologist should not have used so obvious an argument on his behalf. In my whole history I know no more remarkable instance of mistakes and contradictions on the part of writers who had every means of being well informed.

NOTE TTT. p. 512. THE BURIAL OF HAROLD THE FIRST.

The Peterborough Chronicle (1040) distinctly says that Harold died at Oxford; “Her forðferde Harold cyng on Oxnaforda on XI. Kal. Apr. and he wæs bebyrged æt Westmynstre.” Worcester and Abingdon say merely “Her swealt Harold cyng,” without any mention of the place either of death or of burial. Canterbury has, “Her forðferde Harold cing, and he wearð bebyrged at Westmynstre.” Florence however says “obiit Lundoniæ.” That the place of his death was Oxford can hardly be doubted, when we remember the charter which I have quoted at pp. 505, 509. And the point is of some importance in relation to the burial of Westminster, which becomes still more remarkable in the case of a King who died so far off as Oxford.

As for the disinterment of Harold’s body by order of Harthacnut, two stories seem to have been afloat which Florence tried to put into one. His words are;

“Mox ut regnare cœpit injuriarum, quas vel sibi vel suæ genitrici suus antecessor fecerat rex Haroldus, qui frater suus putabatur, non immemor, Ælfricum Eboracensem archiepiscopum, Godwinum comitem, Stir majorem domus, Edricum dispensatorem, Thrond suum carnificem, et alios magnæ dignitatis viros, Lundoniam misit, et ipsius Haroldi corpus effodere, et in gronnam projicere jussit: quod quum projectum fuisset, id extrahere, et in flumen Thamense mandavit projicere. Brevi autem post tempore a quodam piscatore captum est, et ad Danos allatum sub festinatione, in cœmeterio quod habuerunt Lundoniæ sepultum est ab ipsis cum honore.”

Here we find a mention both of a fen and of the river Thames as places into which the body was successively thrown. If we look into other accounts, we shall find one story speaking of the fen, and another of the river. The Peterborough Chronicle is silent; the Abingdon and Worcester speak of the fen; “He let dragan up þone deadan Harold; and hine on fenn onsceotan.” William of Malmesbury (ii. 188) tells the story like the second part of the story in Florence, except that he adds that the body was beheaded, which Florence does not mention; also he does not choose to mention any of the performers in the disinterment except Ælfric. His account runs thus;

“Per Alfricum Eboracensem episcopum, et alios quos nominare piget, Haroldi cadavere defosso, caput truncari, et miserando mortalibus exemplo, in Tamesim projici jussit. Id a quodam piscatore exceptum sagena, in cœmeterio Danorum Londoniæ tumulatur.”

The special mention of Ælfric is remarkable. It may be that the presence of a prelate was needed to sanctify the insult to consecrated ground; still Ælfweard would have been the more natural performer in his own diocese. And William of Malmesbury elsewhere (De Gest. Pont. 250) distinctly asserts that the deed was done by the special advice of Ælfric; “Habetur [Ælfricus] in hoc detestabilis, quod Hardacnutus ejus consilio fratris sui Haroldi cadavere defosso caput truncari, et infami mortalibus exemplo in Tamensem projici jussit.”

The burying-place of the Danes seems to be first mentioned by William of Malmesbury. Ralph de Diceto (i. 186 ed. Stubbs) marks it as the same as the church of Saint Clement Danes; “Brevi autem post a quodam piscatore ad Danos allatum est, et in cœmeterio quod habuerunt Lundoniæ sepultum est apud sanctum Clementem.” He is followed by Bromton (933), who however only speaks of the church of Saint Clement without any special mention of Danes.

Florence’s list of the dignitaries employed in this matter is followed by most of the later writers. Roger of Wendover calls them “milites et carnifices.” On the relation of the great Earls to the officers of the King’s household, see above, p. 89. The mention of the “major domus” and the seemingly dignified position of “Thrond carnifex” (cf. Jeremiah lii. 12) should be specially noticed.

It is really worth while to transcribe the narrative of M. de Bonnechose (ii. 61); it is so amusingly coloured; “Le corps d’Harold, son frère, fut déterré par ses ordres, décapité, jeté dans un marais, puis dans la Tamise, et il exigea que le comte Godwin, principal ministre des volontés d’Harold, fût un des instruments de la vengeance exercée sur son cadavre et sur une population rebelle, Godwin cependant ne trouva pas, dans son empressement à obéir, une sûreté suffisante; la clameur publique s’élevait contre lui, et le désignait comme l’assassin d’Alfred, frère utérin du nouveau roi; l’archevêque d’Yorck se porta son accusateur devant Hardi-Canut.”

NOTE VVV. p. 516. THE TRIAL AND ACQUITTAL OF GODWINE.

A point to be specially noticed in this trial is the form of words which Florence, the only primary authority who records any form, puts into the mouth of Godwine and his compurgators. They swear that it was not by Godwine’s will or counsel that the Ætheling Ælfred was blinded, and that, whatever Godwine did in the matter, he did at the bidding of his lord King Harold (“Non sui consilii nec suæ voluntatis fuisse quod frater ejus cæcatus fuisset, sed dominum suum regem Haroldum illum facere quod fecit jussisse”). This is clearly an abridged, and it is most likely an inaccurate, report of the oath really taken. It is clearly abridged, because, when Godwine by implication confessed to have done something, he could not fail to explain more at large what it was that he confessed himself to have done. But such a form of words is consistent with the view that Godwine met Ælfred, or even that he arrested Ælfred, within his own earldom, but that he had no hand in the barbarous cruelties which followed in a place out of his jurisdiction. But the mention of Harold as Godwine’s lord again steps in to throw doubt on the whole formula. The only character in which Harold could be called Godwine’s lord was that of superior lord of all Britain, in which character he was the lord rather of Harthacnut than of Godwine. Still, whatever doubts the formula may be open to, it has its worth. It points to the general likelihood that Godwine may have had a share in the events which led to the death of Ælfred, and yet not a guilty share.

William of Malmesbury (ii. 188), though he mentions the oath, does not give any form of words. Roger of Wendover (i. 478), seemingly following Florence, leaves out the clause in which Godwine says that he had acted by order of Harold; “Juravit quod neque ingenio suo nec voluntate frater ejus fuerat interemptus et oculis privatus.” This is remarkable, as Roger (i. 474) asserts the complicity of Godwine with Harold’s doings perhaps more strongly than any other writer. The clause appears again in the writer called Matthew of Westminster, p. 400.

I cannot resist giving some account of the grotesque legend into which the compurgation of Godwine has grown under the hands of the so-called Bromton (X Script. 937, 8). It is transferred to the reign of Eadward. Godwine, it will be remembered (see above, p. 786), is, at his accession, in Denmark. Meanwhile Eadward comes over to England, he is crowned, and reigns justly and mercifully. Godwine, hearing of his justice and mercy, ventures to hope that the latter princely virtue may be extended to himself, and supplicates that he may be allowed to come over and plead his cause. This he does in a “Parliament,” where the King with his Earls and Barons talk a large amount of Norman law. Earl Leofric at last cuts the knot; It is clear that Godwine is guilty; but then he is the best born man in the land after the King himself—therefore it may be presumed, neither the son of Wulfnoth the herdsman nor yet the kinsman of the upstart Ealdorman Eadric—so he and his sons, and I and eleven other nobles his kinsmen, will bring the King as much gold and silver as we each can carry, and the King shall forgive Earl Godwine and give him his lands back again. To this singular way of observing his coronation oath to do justice the saintly monarch makes no objection; Earl Godwine takes his lands, and King Eadward takes the broad pieces. Perhaps they were the very pieces over which he afterwards saw the devil dancing.

NOTE WWW. p. 520. THE ORIGIN OF EARL SIWARD.

All that I can say of Siward (Sigeweard) is that he was most likely a Danish follower of Cnut. A Siward, seemingly the same, signs as “minister” in 1019 (Cod. Dipl. iv. 9) and 1032 (iv. 39). His name is also attached to a doubtful charter of Archbishop Æthelnoth (iv. 53) as “miles.”

The mythical history of Siward will be found in Langebek, iii. 288, also in the Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, ii. 104. The pedigree there given runs thus; “Tradunt relationes antiquorum quod vir quidam nobilis, quem Dominus permisit, contra solitum ordinem humanæ propaginis, ex quodam albo urso patre, muliere generosa matre, procreari, Ursus genuit Spratlingum, Spratlingus Ulsium, Ulsius Beorn, cognomento Beresune, hoc est filius ursi.” Beorn is Siward’s father. Ulsius should of course be Ulfius, and the pedigree of course comes from Florence (see p. 423) or from the source from which Florence drew his pedigree of Ulf. But there is something especially grotesque in making Siward a son of Biorn Ulfsson, who was killed by Swegen the son of Godwine in 1049. The bear who was the ancestor of Siward and Ulf had also, it would seem, known ursine descendants; at least so I understand the legend of Hereward, Chroniques Angl.-Norm. ii. 7. Hereward there kills a bear, “quem incliti ursi Norweye fuisse filium ... affirmabant ... cujus igitur pater in silvis fertur puellam rapuisse, et ex ea Biernum regem Norweye genuisse.” Siward, in the story, after slaying dragons and other such exploits in Orkney and Northumberland, comes to London in the reign of Eadward; he then, under very odd circumstances, kills one Tostig, Earl of Huntingdon, and gets his earldom. The church of Saint Clement Danes (see above, p. 789) was built, we are told, to commemorate the slain followers of Tostig. This Tostig, it seems, was a Dane, who was in disfavour with King Eadward for a curious reason; “Rex eumdem habuit odio, quia duxerat in uxorem filiam comitis Godwini, sororem reginæ.” Afterwards, when an invasion from Norway was threatening (1045?), Siward was made Earl over Northumberland, Cumberland, and Westmoreland. The same story is found in Bromton, 945, only there “Bernus,” father of Siward, is himself son of the bear. Such stuff would be hardly worth mentioning, had not Sir Francis Palgrave (Engl. Comm. ii. ccxcvii.) inferred from it the existence of an historical Tostig, Earl of Huntingdon. See above, p. 667. It is, I think, plain that the Tostig of this story (who is, not indeed brother, but brother-in-law of Eadward’s wife Eadgyth) is meant for the son of Godwine, and that the slaying of Eadwulf by Siward has got confounded with the career of Tostig in Northumberland and his expulsion from the earldom. The one bit of history which lurks in all this seems to be the fact of the union of the earldoms of Northumberland and Huntingdon in the person of Siward. See vol. ii. Note G.

NOTE XXX. p. 528. TOFIG THE PROUD.

A certain amount of interest cannot fail to attach to Tofig as Harold’s forerunner in the foundation of Waltham. Of the Waltham history, “De Inventione Sanctæ Crucis,” I shall speak more at large when I come to Harold’s time (see vol. ii. Appendix RR). All that is known of Tofig is collected by Professor Stubbs in his edition of that tract. Nothing but local partiality could describe him as “Tovi le Prude, qui totius Angliæ post regem primus, stallere, vexillifer regis, monarchiam gubernabat.” (c. 7; cf. c. 14.) Professor Stubbs does not seem quite clear as to his being Staller, but he certainly was an important person. He appears in Florence as “Danicus et præpotens vir Tovius, Pruda cognomento.” He signs many charters of Cnut, one of them in 1033 (Cod. Dipl. iv. 44) distinctly as “Tovi Pruda.” He appears also with the same surname in Cod. Dipl. iv. 54, where he is sent by Cnut on a special mission into Herefordshire to attend a Scirgemót held by Bishop Æthelstan and Earl Ranig (see p. 520), the account of which, though not illustrating the life or character of Tofig, gives us one of the most living pictures of Old-English jurisprudence. Tofig’s surname was needed to distinguish him from two namesakes, “Tovi hwita” and “Tovi reada,” who sign in 1024. Cod. Dipl. iv. 31. “Tofig minister,” who signs under Eadward in 1054 (Cod. Dipl. iv. 135), and who was Sheriff of Somerset between 1061 and 1066 (see Cod. Dipl. iv. 171, 197, 199), must, if the Waltham narrative be at all accurate, be a different man.

In the name of Tofig’s son Æthelstan, as in that of Ranig’s son Eadwine (see p. 520), we see an instance of the tendency among the Danish settlers under Cnut to identify themselves with England and to give their children English names.

Tofig must have died soon after his marriage with Gytha (see De Inv. 14; “Tandem consummatus in brevi expleverat tempora multa, cui successit filius ejus Adelstanus”). There is, as Professor Stubbs (pp. 1, 13) remarks, some difficulty in reconciling the chronology of the Waltham writer with regard to the Invention of the Cross with the undoubted date of Tofig’s marriage. The Waltham writer places the Invention in the time of Cnut (“regnante Cnuto et Anglis imperante”), that is to say seven years at the least before the time of the marriage, whereas Gytha is represented in c. 13 as already Tofig’s wife and as a benefactress to the church. As Harthacnut died at the wedding, we cannot even suppose, what would otherwise be just possible, that by “Cnutus” we are to understand Harthacnut. The easiest explanation seems to be that gifts made by Gytha in her widowhood have been wrongly transferred to an earlier date. I have elsewhere (see vol. ii. Appendix MM) thrown out a hint that this Gytha may possibly be the same as Gytha the wife of Earl Ralph of Hereford.

NOTE YYY. p. 530. EVENTS AFTER THE DEATH OF HARTHACNUT.

The legend to which I have referred in the text has found a place in the text of Thierry (i. 179) and also in that of Mr. St. John (Four Conquests, ii. 127). According to Bromton (934) and Knighton (2326), the English, wearied with the oppressions of the Danes under Harthacnut (see above, p. 758), rose against them after his death, and drove them out by force. Knighton calls the leader of the revolt Howne, and his forces Howneher [Hunanhere]. Thierry makes Godwine the leader instead of Howne. M. de Bonnechose (Quatre Conquêtes, ii. 70–2), though seeing the general absurdity of the story, admits it so far as to accept an expulsion of the housecarls. Saxo (202, 203) has a more wonderful tale than all. He has nothing to say about Howne or about Godwine. Harold, the son of Godwine, is the deliverer (“Danicæ oppressionis simulque domesticæ libertatis auctor”). He causes the Danish forces throughout England to be invited to banquets in different places, so that they are all slain in one night. Of all this there is not a word in any trustworthy writer; the only passage which looks at all like it is a rhetorical expression in the Life of Eadward (“reducto diu afflictis Anglis barbarica servitute redemptionis suæ jubilæo”, p. 394), which however most likely refers only to the extinction of the foreign dynasty and the accession of a native King. Any one who has had any experience of the growth of mythical and romantic tales will soon see what is the origin of this legend. It is plainly nothing in the world but the massacre of Saint Brice moved still further out of its place than it had already been moved by Roger of Wendover (see above, p. 652), and further mixed up with the legend of the death of Ælfred, with which it is connected by both Bromton and Knighton. Knighton’s “Howne” is clearly Roger’s “Huna” over again. Everything in our authentic narrative makes us believe that the election of Eadward was perfectly peaceful. A general driving out or massacre of Danes is simply ridiculous; even an expulsion of the housecarls is supported by no kind of evidence. The housecarls of Harthacnut no doubt became the housecarls of Eadward, and the saintly King, if Godwine had not been at hand to restrain him, was as ready to send them against Dover as his half-brother had been to send them against Worcester.

A more marvellous version than all is to be found in the French Life of Eadward, 532–581 (Luard, pp. 40, 41). Here the Danes, after committing the usual atrocities, rebel against Harthacnut, who raises an English army against them, and, after much fighting, overcomes them. Such wild shapes did our history take when it fell into the hands of strangers.

END OF VOLUME THE FIRST.

-----

Footnote 1:

On this subject I must refer, once for all, to the papers of Dr. Guest in the Archæological Journal and in the volumes of Transactions of the Archæological Institute, especially to the paper on the Early English Settlements in South Britain in the Salisbury Volume. On these questions I have little to do except to profess myself, in all essential points, an unreserved follower of that illustrious scholar. On the difference between historical, traditional, mythical, and romantic narratives see Historical Essays, 1st Series, p. 3.

Footnote 2:

It is really hardly worth while to dispute about the names of Hengest and Horsa. The evidence for their historical character seems to me at least as strong as the suspicion of their mythical character. But whether the chiefs who led the first Jutish settlers in Kent bore these names or any others does not affect the reality of the Jutish settlement. I must confess however that there are names in the Chronicles which strike me as far more suspicious than those of Hengest and Horsa. I mean names like Port and Wihtgar, who figure in the entries for 501 and 544. See Earle’s Parallel Chronicles, p. ix.

Footnote 3:

For all that is to be said on this side of the question, see the eleventh Chapter of Palgrave’s English Commonwealth and the first chapter of Kemble’s Saxons in England. On the other side see Dr. Guest’s paper in the Salisbury Volume.

Footnote 4:

See Guest, Salisbury Volume, p. 35.

Footnote 5:

The account in Ammianus (xxxvii. 8) of the exploits of the elder Theodosius does not speak of the Saxons or of any other Teutons as invaders of Britain, but only as invaders of Gaul. But there seems quite evidence enough to show that, at the end of the fourth and beginning of the fifth centuries, Britain was constantly ravaged by Saxon pirates. This is shown by the well-known phrases of Limes Saxonicus and Littus Saxonicum, for the true explanation of which I must again refer to Dr. Guest. The Saxon shore or march, like the Welsh march in England, like the Spanish, Slavonic, and other marches of the later Empire, was, not a district occupied by Saxons, but the march—in this case a shore—lying near to the Saxons and exposed to their ravages. Ammianus himself, in the passage just referred to, speaks of “Nectaridus comes maritimi tractus” as killed by the Picts at this time. The phrase is analogous to that of “Scythici limitis dux,” etc. in Vopiscus, Aurelian, 13. Claudian also constantly couples the Saxons with the Picts and Scots as among the invaders of Roman Britain who were repulsed by Theodosius and Stilicho;

... “Maduerunt Saxone fuso Orcades: incaluit Pictorum sanguine Thule: Scotorum cumulos flevit glacialis Ierne.” Carm. viii. 31. Cf. xviii. 392; xxii. 255.

So Sidonius Apollinaris, Carm. vii. 370 (cf. Epp. viii. 6);

“Quin et Aremoricus piratam Saxona tractus Sperabat, cui pelle salum sulcare Britannum Ludus, et asserto glaucum mare findere lembo.”

Were our keels coracles, or was the British fashion transferred to the Saxon?

Footnote 6:

Yet even this view seems to be pretty well disposed of by Dr. Guest in his Salisbury paper.

Footnote 7:

I use the word “Saxon” throughout only in its correct sense, to express one only among several Teutonic tribes which settled in Britain. The name “Saxon” was never used by the people themselves to express the whole nation, which was called, sometimes “Anglo-Saxon,” but, far more commonly, simply “Angle” or “English.” I shall discuss this point more at length in the Appendix, Note A.

Footnote 8:

I use, as a technical term, this correct and old-fashioned description of the class of languages to which our own belongs. The English language is simply Low-Dutch, with a very small Welsh, and a very large Romance, infusion into its vocabulary. The Low-Dutch of the continent, so closely cognate with our own tongue, is the natural speech of the whole region from Flanders to Holstein, and it has been carried by conquest over a large region, originally Slavonic, to the further east. But, hemmed in by Romance, High-Dutch, and Danish, it is giving way at all points, and it is only in Holland that it survives as a literary language. It should always be borne in mind that our affinity in blood and language is in the first degree with the Low-Dutch, in the second degree with the Danish. With the High-Dutch, the German of modern literature, we have no direct connexion at all.

Footnote 9:

The proper Scots, as no one denies, were a Gaelic colony from Ireland, the original Scotia. The only question is as to the Picts or Caledonians. Were they another Gaelic tribe, the vestige of a Gaelic occupation of the island earlier than the British occupation, or were they simply Britons who had never been brought under the Roman dominion? The geographical aspect of the case favours the former belief, but the weight of philological evidence seems to be on the side of the latter. But the question is one which, as far as purely English history is concerned, may safely be left undetermined.

Footnote 10:

It seems certain that the English seldom occupied a Roman or British town at once. The towns were commonly forsaken for a while, though they were in many cases resettled by an English population. The only question is whether any of the towns preserved a sort of half independence after the conquest of the surrounding country. See Comparative Politics, 130, 422.

Footnote 11:

In Northern Gaul the name of the tribe is commonly preserved in the modern name of its chief town, the original name of the town itself being dropped. Thus Lutetia Parisiorum has become Paris. But in Aquitaine and Provence the cities commonly retain their original names, as Burdigala and Tolosa, now Bourdeaux and Toulouse.

Footnote 12:

Words like street and chester; this class is excessively small. See Max Müller, Science of Language, Second Series, p. 269.

Footnote 13:

Words like Mass, Priest, Bishop, Angel, Candle.

Footnote 14:

See Comparative Politics, 420.

Footnote 15:

I mean the extirpation of anything worthy to be called a nation, of any people who had reached the position which all the inhabitants of the Roman Empire had reached. The dying out of savage tribes before the arts and arms of highly civilized Europeans is another matter.

Footnote 16:

Yet the legend of Hengest’s daughter, as told by Nennius—her name Rowena is a later absurdity—absolutely worthless as a piece of personal history, seems to point to the fact that the invaders not uncommonly brought their women with them.

Footnote 17:

Prokopios, Bell. Goth. iv. 20. Βριττίαν δὲ τὴν νῆσον ἔθνη τρία πολυανθρωπότατα ἔχουσι, βασιλεύς τε εἷς αὐτῶν ἑκάστῳ ἐφέστηκεν· ὀνόματα δὲ κεῖται τοῖς ἔθνεσι τούτοις Ἄγγιλοί τε καὶ Φρίσσονες καὶ τῇ νήσῳ ὁμώνυμοι Βρίττωνες. Prokopios’ account of Britain is mixed up with a great deal of fable, but here at least is something clear and explicit.

Footnote 18:

See the Chronicles under the years 443 and 449, and compare 473, where Hengest and his Jutes are again called “Engle.”

Footnote 19:

It is necessary to make this limitation, because the Danish Kings, as well as Harold the son of Godwine and William the Conqueror, were none of them of the West-Saxon house. But all our earlier Kings were descended from Cerdic in the male line and all our later Kings in the female line.

Footnote 20:

I have given the boundaries somewhat roughly, as they do not always exactly answer to those of the present counties. For details I must refer to Dr. Guest’s paper already quoted, and to his two later papers in the Archæological Journal, vol. xvi. p. 105, and vol. xix. p. 193.

Footnote 21:

Yet some of the passages collected by Sir Francis Palgrave (English Commonwealth, i. 462) would seem to show that parties of independent Welshmen held out in the fen country till a very late date.

Footnote 22:

On the quasi-insular character of East-Anglia, see Dr. Stanley’s paper in the Norwich volume of the Proceedings of the Archæological Institute, p. 58.

Footnote 23:

The Chronicles, under the year 547, record the accession of Ida, and speak of him as the ancestor of the following line of Northumbrian Kings. But we are not told, as in the cases of Hengest, Ælle, and Cerdic, anything about his landing, and the phrase “Ida feng to rice” (cf. 519) implies that this was not the beginning of the settlement. I therefore cannot help suspecting that there is some truth in the legend preserved by Nennius (38), according to which settlers of the kindred of Hengest occupied Northumberland in the preceding century. William of Malmesbury (i. 7) follows the same account, with additional details, but he distinctly adds that no English chief in those parts took the title of King before Ida. See Comparative Politics, 419.

Footnote 24:

The date of Offa is given by Henry of Huntingdon (Mon. Hist. Brit. 714 A). But he had before (M. H. B. 712 A) said, speaking of the days of Cerdic, “Eâ tempestate venerunt multi et sæpe de Germaniâ, et occupaverunt East-Angle et Merce: sed necdum sub uno rege redacta erant. Plures autem proceres certatim regiones occupabant.” This marks the transition from Ealdormanship to Kingship, of which I shall speak in my next Chapter.

Footnote 25:

Crida or Creoda is mentioned in the Chronicles (593), but he is not said to have been the first King of the Mercians. That he was so is a conjecture of Henry of Huntingdon, M. H. B. 714 C.

Footnote 26:

Chronicles, 626. Cf. 654.

Footnote 27:

On the list of Bretwaldas and its historic value, see Appendix B.

Footnote 28:

Bæda, Hist. Eccl. i. 25, 26.

Footnote 29:

See Appendix C.

Footnote 30:

Prokop. Bell. Goth. iv. 20. οὐ πολλῷ πρότερον ὁ Φράγγων βασιλεὺς ἐπὶ πρεσβείᾳ τῶν οἱ ἐπιτηδείων τινὰς παρὰ βασιλέα Ἰουστινιανὸν ἐς Βυζάντιον στείλας ἄνδρας αὐτοῖς ἐκ τῶν Ἀγγίλων ξυνέπεμψε, φιλοτιμούμενος ὡς καὶ ἡ νῆσος ἥδε πρὸς αὐτοῦ ἄρχεται.

Footnote 31:

The Goths in the fourth century were the first Teutonic nation to embrace Christianity, but they were still a wandering tribe, while the conversion of England was a distinct territorial conquest. Armenia again, at the other end of the Roman world, was a territorial conquest more ancient than that of England; but Armenia lay far more open to Imperial influences than England did.

Footnote 32:

See above, p. 25.

Footnote 33:

See the Laws of Ine, 23, 24, 32, 33, 46, 54, 74. (Thorpe, Laws and Institutes, i. 119–149; Schmid, pp. 30–55.) In the time of Ælfred the distinction, at least within the strictly English territory, seems to have died out.

Footnote 34:

Bæda, i. 34; Chron. 603, 605. The latter year is the date of his victory over the Welsh near Chester and the famous massacre of the monks of Bangor.

Footnote 35:

Bæda, ii. 5. See Appendix B.

Footnote 36:

See above, p. 27.

Footnote 37:

Chron. 628. “Her Cynegils and Cwichelm gefuhtan wið Pendan æt Cirenceastre and geþingodon þa.” This I take to mean a cession of territory, most probably of the north-western conquests of Ceawlin. Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire must have been kept longer, as appears from the position of Dorchester as originally a West-Saxon bishopric.

Footnote 38:

See Appendix B.

Footnote 39:

See Appendix D.

Footnote 40:

See Appendix D.

Footnote 41:

For the chronology between the years 752–849 I follow the Northumbrian reckoning preserved by Simon of Durham. See Stubbs, Roger of Hoveden, i. pp. xci, et seqq.

Footnote 42:

Ecgberht’s titles commonly run, “Rex,” “Regali fretus dignitate,” “Occidentalium Saxonum rex,” once, in 820, “Rex Occidentalium Saxonum necnon et Cantuariorum” (Kemble, Cod. Dipl. i. 289), but in one charter of 828 (Cod. Dipl. i. 287) he appears as “Ecgberhtus gratiâ Dei REX ANGLORUM.” In that year he had granted out Mercia to an Under-king and had reduced all the Welsh to submission.

Footnote 43:

One can hardly describe these relations between the different states without using such words as “homage,” “apanage,” and the like, though of course the words were unknown in England at the time.

Footnote 44:

A local invasion of the Hwiccas was repelled at Kempsford by the Wilsætas. The Hwiccas are the people of the old diocese of Worcester. They were therefore doubtless mainly of Saxon blood, yet they now act as Mercian subjects. The war however seems to have been quite local, carried on by the Ealdormen of the two shires.

Footnote 45:

I infer this from the description of the battle of Gafulford in 825, which is said to have been fought between the Welsh and the men of Devonshire, who must therefore have been English, or at least acting in the English interest. Yet Devonshire, and even the city of Exeter, remained partly Welsh as late as the time of Æthelstan.

Footnote 46:

Norð-Wealas in the Chronicles means the inhabitants of Wales in the modern sense, both North and South; they are opposed to the West-Wealas, the Welsh of Cornwall.

Footnote 47:

See above, p. 12.

Footnote 48:

On the conquest of Northumberland, see Appendix KK.

Footnote 49:

It is hardly worth while to reckon the puppet Ceolwulf, not of the royal house, set up for a moment by the Danes after the expulsion of Burhred.

Footnote 50:

The exact boundary started from the Thames, along the Lea to its source, then right to Bedford and along the Ouse till it meets Watling-Street, then along Watling-Street to the Welsh border. See Ælfred and Guthrum’s Peace, Thorpe’s Laws and Institutes, i. 152. This frontier gives London to the English; but it seems that Ælfred did not obtain full possession of London till 886. See Earle’s Parallel Chronicles, p. 310.

Footnote 51:

See Appendix E.

Footnote 52:

The story which represents Ælfred as forsaken by his subjects on account of cruelties in the early part of his reign, and as being thus led to reformation, is part of the legend of Saint Neot, not of the history of Ælfred.

Footnote 53:

No one can blame Ælfred for hanging (see Chron. 897) the crews of some piratical Danish ships, who had broken their oaths to him over and over again. His general conduct towards his enemies displays a singular mildness.

Footnote 54:

“I then, Ælfred King, these [laws] together gathered, and had many of them written which our foregangers held, those that me-liked. And many of them that me not liked I threw aside, with my Wise Men’s thought, and on otherwise bade to hold them. Forwhy I durst not risk of my own much in writ to set, forwhy it to me unknown was what of them would like those that after us were. But that which I met, either in Ine’s days my kinsman, or in Offa’s the King of the Mercians, or in Æthelberht’s that erst of English kin baptism underwent, those that to me rightest seemed, those have I herein gathered and the others passed by. I then Ælfred, King of the West-Saxons, to all my Wise Men these showed, and they then quoth that to them it seemed good all to hold.” Ælfred’s Dooms, Thorpe’s Laws and Institutes, i. 58–59; Schmid, p. 69

Footnote 55:

Guthrum of East-Anglia was a nominal vassal all along. But the Northumbrians, whether Danes or English, seem not to have made submission till 893, in the prospect of the last Danish invasion of this reign. Their King Guthred had just died. See the two statements in Simeon of Durham, X Scriptt. pp. 133 (M. H. B. 685), 151, and Palgrave, ii. cccxv. Cf. Chron. and Fl. Wig. 894.

Footnote 56:

Ælfred was thus King of nearly all the Saxon part of England, of very little of the Anglian part. Hence doubtless the title of “Rex Saxonum” which he often uses. He was more than King of the West-Saxons; he was less than King of the English.

Footnote 57:

See Appendix F.

Footnote 58:

Between Eadwig and Eadgar in 957, between Eadmund and Cnut in 1016, between Harold and Harthacnut in 1035. All these arrangements were short-lived, and they were probably not meant to be more than temporary compromises.

Footnote 59:

Florence of Worcester (901) after a splendid panegyric on Ælfred, continues, “Huic filius successit Eadwardus, cognomento Senior, litterarum cultu patre inferior, sed dignitate, potentia, pariter et gloria superior; nam, ut in sequentibus clarebit, multo latius quam pater fines regni sui dilatavit,” &c. &c.

Footnote 60:

Ælfred was, according to custom, chosen in preference to the sons of his elder brother Æthelred, who were minors at the time of their father’s death. On Ælfred’s death one of these sons, Æthelwald, tried to obtain the crown, but the Witenagemót elected Eadward the son of Ælfred.

Footnote 61:

See Chron. 924, and Appendix G.

Footnote 62:

Ealdred the son of Ealdwulf, Lord of Bamburgh. His father had been among the chiefs who did homage to Eadward in 924. On this family, see Appendix KK.

Footnote 63:

See Earle, p. xix. It is much to be lamented that the prose entries in the Chronicles for this important reign are so meagre. On the other hand, William of Malmesbury evidently worked out the life of Æthelstan with unusual care, seemingly from lost sources, and, amidst a great deal of fable, we recover some truth.

Footnote 64:

I shall have to speak again of the foreign policy of Æthelstan in my Chapter on the Early History of Normandy.

Footnote 65:

Florence has some special epithet for each of the conquering Kings of this period—Eadward is “invictissimus,” Æthelstan “strenuus et gloriosus,” Eadmund “magnificus,” Eadred “egregius,” Eadgar “pacificus.”

Footnote 66:

The Imperial character of the English royalty at this time will be spoken of more largely in the next Chapter. See also Appendix B.

Footnote 67:

Leicester (Chron. 918), Stamford (922), and Nottingham (924) were all in possession of Eadward, who built fortresses at the latter two. Perhaps they had joined in the revolt of the Northumbrians in 941; but the words of the Chronicles may lead us to think that Eadward accepted the submission of the Confederation and built forts to keep the towns from rebellion, without interfering with their internal administration. A Danish civic aristocracy may therefore have gone on down to the deliverance by Eadmund, holding the former English inhabitants in more or less of subjection.

Footnote 68:

See Appendix H.

Footnote 69:

On the whole reign of Eadwig, see Mr. Allen’s Essay attached to his work on the Royal Prerogative.

Footnote 70:

The entries in the Chronicles just at this time are singularly meagre.

Footnote 71:

See Brut y Tywysogion, a. 965. With this seems to be connected the famous story of the tribute of wolves in William of Malmesbury, ii. 155.

An Irish campaign and victory of Eadgar (see the spurious charter of 964, Cod. Dipl. ii. 404) seem very doubtful.

Footnote 72:

Chron. 966.

Footnote 73:

With regard to Thanet, the Chronicles witness to the fact; Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 748 A) guarantees its justice; it was done “quia jura regalia spreverant.” Roger of Wendover (i. 414) knows all about it, and says it was because the men of Thanet plundered certain merchants of York.

Footnote 74:

See the Pictish Chronicle, ap. Johnstone, Ant. Celt. Norm. 143.

Footnote 75:

The alleged cession of Lothian is surrounded with so many difficulties that I reserve the question for fuller discussion. See Appendix I.

Footnote 76:

This is Dr. Lingard’s probable conjecture. Hist. of England, i. 262.

Footnote 77:

Laws of Eadgar, in Thorpe’s Laws and Institutes, i. 272, Schmid, p. 195.

Footnote 78:

The best of all authorities, the Chronicles (973), bear witness to the meeting of Eadgar with six kings at Chester, where they renewed their homage to him. Florence, the authority next in value, raises the number to eight; he also gives their names (Kenneth of Scotland, Malcolm of Cumberland, Maccus of the Isles, and five Welsh princes) and describes the ceremony on the Dee.

Footnote 79:

In the ballad in the Chronicles (958) the only fault found with Eadgar is his fondness for foreigners, who are said to have corrupted the morals of the English in divers ways.

Footnote 80:

The scandalous stories told of Eadgar’s private life are, with one exception, that of the abduction of the nun Wulfthryth, mere romances, without a shadow of authority.

Footnote 81:

As long as Man retained its separate Kings or even its separate Lords, it was strictly in the same position in which it was in the days of Eadgar. Even now, as retaining its own Legislature and not being represented in the Imperial Parliament, it is a dependency of the British Crown, like the Channel Islands, not an integral part of the United Kingdom, like England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland.

Footnote 82:

I cannot, in this Chapter, lay claim to the same originality which I hope I may fairly claim in the narrative parts of this history. The early political and legal antiquities of England have been treated of by so many eminent writers that there is really little more to be done than to test their different views by the standards of inherent probability and of documentary evidence, and to decide which has the best claim to adoption. Among many other works two stand out conspicuously, Sir Francis Palgrave’s History of the English Commonwealth and Mr. Kemble’s Saxons in England. My readers will easily see that I have learned much from both, but that I cannot call myself an unreserved follower of either. Another most important work is Dr. Reinhold Schmid’s Die Gesetze der Angelsachsen (2nd ed. Leipzig, 1858). The most valuable part is the Antiquarian Glossary, the principal articles of which swell into essays on the most important subjects suggested by the Old-English Laws, supported by the most lavish array of references for every detail. On the whole I think I shall be commonly found maintaining the same constitutional views as Mr. Kemble, except on the point of the Imperial character of the Old-English monarchy, an aspect of it which Mr. Kemble has rather unaccountably slurred over. This point, one which closely connects itself with other studies of mine, is perhaps the one which I have thought out more thoroughly for myself than any other. Sir Francis Palgrave, with his characteristic union of research, daring, and ingenuity, was the first to call attention to the subject; but I must confess that many of his views on the matter seem to me not a little exaggerated.

[I let this note stand as it was first written about eleven years ago; since then the great Constitutional History of Professor Stubbs has gathered together all knowledge on these subjects in a wonderfully short compass. My special obligations to him are recorded in my Fifth Volume. I have also, since this Chapter was written, studied the great work of Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungs Geschichte, and other German constitutional writers, some for the first time, others more carefully than I had read them before. I am glad that I do not find more to change than I do. I have not thought it needful to recast the Chapter; but I have changed whatever seemed either inaccurate or misleading, and I have added some fresh illustrations and references, chiefly to Waitz and Sir Henry Maine.]

Footnote 83:

[This was first written in the year 1866.]

Footnote 84:

On the change from Ealdormen or Heretogan to Kings, see Appendix K.

Footnote 85:

See above, p. 54.

Footnote 86:

On all these points see Appendix K.

Footnote 87:

See above, p. 26.

Footnote 88:

See above, p. 54, and Appendix F. Gneist, Englische Verwaltungsrecht, i. 47; “Nach dem Aussterben oder der Verdrängung der mediatisirten Häuptlinge aber treten nahe Verwandte des regierenden Hauses (Athelingi) oder verschwägerte oder sonst nahestehende Grossthane in die Stelling solcher Unterkönige ein, bis die fortschreitende Reichseinheit diese Statthalter allmälig auf dem Fuss blosser Reichsbeamten bringt.” Cf. K. von Maurer, Kritische Überschau, i. 86.

Footnote 89:

See above, p. 62.

Footnote 90:

The modern German princes represent nothing but modern dynastic and diplomatic arrangements; otherwise one might compare this process with the return to ealdormanship in Wessex and Lombardy. [This was written early in 1866, before the reverse process had begun.]

Footnote 91:

On the word “King” see Appendix L.

Footnote 92:

See Appendix M.

Footnote 93:

Englaland, in its different forms, does not appear in the Chronicles till the year 1014. Angel-cyn, which in 597 clearly means the people, must, in 975 and 986, be taken for the country. So still more plainly in 1002. In many places it may be taken either way. Cf. Appendix A, T.

Footnote 94:

Il. ix. 160. καὶ μοὶ ὑποστήτω ὅσσον =βασιλεύτερός= εἰμι.

Footnote 95:

In tracing the origin and progress of the Comitatus or Thegnhood I find no essential difference between the views of Sir Francis Palgrave and Mr. Kemble. It is only when we draw near to more purely political questions that their theories diverge in any marked way.

Footnote 96:

Tac. Germ. 11. “De minoribus rebus principes consultant; de majoribus omnes; ita tamen ut ea quoque, quorum penes plebem arbitrium est, apud principes pertractentur.” This is exactly the Greek βουλή and δῆμος.

Footnote 97:

For the Assembly of the Achaians, see Il. ii. 51; for that of the Gods, see Il. xx. 4. Compare on the Homeric Assemblies, Grote, Hist. of Greece, ii. 91, and Gladstone, Homer and the Homeric Age, iii. 114. It certainly strikes me that Mr. Gladstone has understood far more thoroughly than Mr. Grote the position of the simple freeman of the Homeric age, which Mr. Grote is inclined to undervalue. So most people are inclined to undervalue the position of our Ceorlas. See Hallam, Supplementary Notes, p. 206 et seqq.

Footnote 98:

On the amount of freedom among the Macedonians, see Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 188, and the passages there quoted.

Footnote 99:

See History of Federal Government, i. 37–38.

Footnote 100:

The story is in the Rig’s-mal, and will be found in the English translation of Mallet’s Northern Antiquities, p. 365. Jarl, Karl, and Thræll, all born on one day through the power of the God Helmdall, are the respective ancestors of the three classes of men, eorls, ceorls, and thralls or slaves. Karl, among other sons, has Husbandman, Holder, and Smith.

Footnote 101:

Of the history and constitution of these commonwealths I trust to treat more at large in the second volume of my History of Federal Government. I will now only say that, though the amount of independence enjoyed by the ancient Cantons has often been greatly exaggerated, there is evidence enough to show that, in some districts at least, the old Teutonic system can be traced back uninterruptedly as far as we have any records at all, so that we may fairly presume an unbroken succession from the Germans of Tacitus. [See Growth of the English Constitution, p. 161, ed. 3.]

Footnote 102:

This comparison may surprise some who have been accustomed to look on the ceorlas as a very degraded class. There can be no doubt that among the ceorlas there were men of very different positions, that the general tendency of their position was to sink, and that, by the time of the Norman Conquest, some classes of them had advanced a good way on the road to serfdom. But this was not the condition of the whole order even then; still less was it the original conception of ceorldom. The original ceorl is a citizen and a soldier; he is, or may be, a landowner; on the one hand he is free, on the other he is not noble. See the remarks in Hallam’s Supplementary Notes already referred to.

Footnote 103:

See Mr. Kemble’s Chapter on “The Mark” in the first volume of The Saxons in England.

Footnote 104:

To Mr. Allen (Royal Prerogative, p. 129) belongs the honour of having first explained what folkland and bookland really were.

Footnote 105:

In Latin possessores, the word so fertile in confusions as to the Agrarian Laws. So Aristotle (Pol. vii. 10) lays down the rule, ἀναγκαῖον εἰς δύο μέρη διῃρῆσθαι τὴν χώραν, καὶ τὴν μὲν εἶναι κοινὴν, τὴν δὲ τῶν ἰδιωτῶν. [On this whole subject of communities and common lands much has been said since this Chapter was written. The English reader will find the cream in Sir Henry Maine’s Village Communities.]

Footnote 106:

Cæsar, Bell. Gall. vi. 22. Cf. Tac. Germ. 26; but from c. 16 it would seem that in his time the institution of the eðel had already begun.

Footnote 107:

In Glarus and Appenzell altogether so, and even in Uri to some extent.

Footnote 108:

On the Comitatus see the classical passage of Tacitus, Germ. 13, 14 (cf. 25), and for the working out of the whole in detail, see Mr. Kemble’s two Chapters, “The Noble by Service” in the first volume, and “The King’s Court and Household” in the second.

Footnote 109:

Looked at philologically, this word Hlaford is most puzzling, and the feminine Hlæfdige (Lady) is more puzzling still. But it is enough for my purpose, if a connexion with Hláf in any shape be admitted, whatever may be thought of the last syllable.

Footnote 110:

Maine, Ancient Law, 303. “The person who ministered to the sovereign in his court had given up something of that absolute personal freedom which was the proudest privilege of the allodial proprietor.”

Footnote 111:

Hom. Od. iv. 22;

ὁ δὲ προμολὼν ἴδετο =κρείων= Ἐτεωνεὺς, ὀτρηρὸς =θεράπων= Μενελάου κυδαλίμοιο, βῆ δ’ ἴμεν ἀγγελέων διὰ δώματα ποιμένι λαῶν.

So Il. xxiv. 473;

=ἕταροι= δ’ ἀπάνευθε καθείατο· τῷ δὲ δύ’ οἴω =ἥρως= Αὐτομέδων τε, καὶ Ἄλκιμος ὄζος Ἄρηος, =ποίπνυον= παρέοντε.

Eteôneus is κρείων, Automedôn is ἥρως, yet they are the Þegnas of Menelaos and Achilleus respectively.

Footnote 112:

Bæda, ii. 9. “Lilla minister (þegn) Regis amicissimus.” He saves his hlaford’s life at the cost of his own.

Footnote 113:

See this most remarkable story in the Chronicles, 755; Florence, 784.

Footnote 114:

Herod. vii. 104. ἔπεστι γάρ σφι δεσπότης νόμος, τὸν ὑποδειμαίνουσι πολλῷ ἔτι μᾶλλον ἢ οἱ σοὶ σε.

Footnote 115:

Of this feeling, and the gradual change as the Empire advanced, I have spoken in Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 317. See the passages quoted in the note, Tac. Hist. i. 58, and Spartianus (in Hist. Aug. Scriptt.) Hadrian, 22.

Footnote 116:

Mr. Kemble however (ii. 112) remarks that the greatest men of the kingdom, men like Godwine, Leofric, and Siward, seem never to have held such offices. So in our own day a man who had any chance of becoming First Lord of the Treasury would not stoop to become Lord Chamberlain or Master of the Horse.

Footnote 117:

See Appendix O.

Footnote 118:

On the promotion of Ceorls to higher rank, the following passages are explicit. “We witan þæt þurh Godes gyfe þrǽl wærð tô þegene and ceorl wearð tô eorle, sangere tô sacerde and bôcere tô biscope,” (Be griðe and be munde. Wilkins, 112; Thorpe, i. 334; Schmid, 386). “And gif ceorl geþeàh þæt he hæfðe fullice fîf hîda agenes landes, cirican and kycenan, bell-hûs and burh-geat-setl and sunder-note on cynges healle, þonne wæs he þononforð þegen rihtes weorðe.” (Thorpe, i. 190; Schmid, 388. “Be leôd-geþincð and lage.”) The whole of this last document bears on the subject. Compare also the table of Wergilds (Schmid, 396), ii. § 9. On the first extract I may remark that the jingle of beginnings and endings has carried the lawgiver a little too far. In strictness the Ceorl could not become an Eorl (in the older sense of the word); but a Ceorl, or even a Thrall when once manumitted, might become a Thegn, and, once a Thegn, he might conceivably become an Eorl in the later sense.

Footnote 119:

On Commendation, see Appendix N.

Footnote 120:

See Appendix O.

Footnote 121:

“Homo”—whence “homagium,” “hommage”—is the constant technical name for the vassal. See Domesday in almost every page.

Footnote 122:

Palgrave, English Commonwealth, i. 354. Maine, Ancient Law, 302, who however seems to forget the Comitatus, and brings in the relation of patron and client, which however is itself a form of the Comitatus.

Footnote 123:

This was found in a somewhat different form on the continent. See the documents in Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, iv. 266, one of Charles the Great, which speaks “de tribus causis, de hoste publico, hoc est de banno nostro, quando publicitus promovetur, et wacta, vel pontes componendum.” Waitz remarks, “Statt der Wachtdienste wird bei den Angelsachsen und später auch auf deutschem Boden das sogenannte Burgwerk, die Hülfe beim Burgenbau, genannt.” And to the repair of bridges, some of his documents add that of churches and roads.

Footnote 124:

For continental exemptions under the Karlings, see Waitz, iv. 268.

Footnote 125:

See Appendix P.

Footnote 126:

See Allen, pp. 143, 153, et seqq.; also on the whole subject of the change of Folkland into Terra Regis.

Footnote 127:

I have said more on this subject in Growth of the English Constitution, pp. 139, 140.

Footnote 128:

See Eichhorn, Deutsche Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte, iii. 158.

Footnote 129:

This was written before the wonderful changes in Germany (August, 1866), which will supply me with abundant matter for another work.

Footnote 130:

On this whole subject I must again refer to Mr. Kemble, especially to his chapters on the Mark and the Shire.

Footnote 131:

Many of our present shires are historically divisions of kingdoms (see above, p. 48), and the word Scír, connected with scérn or shear, of course actually means division. But the word is most likely a comparatively modern one; the Shire or Pagus answers to the German Gau, on which see Kemble’s chapter on the Gá, and the chapter in the first volume of Waitz, Deutsche Verfassungsgeschichte, “Das Dorf, die Gemeinde, der Gau.”

Footnote 132:

See above, pp. 25, 26. Comparative Politics, 408, 412, 417.

Footnote 133:

See again Mr. Kemble’s chapter on the Gerefa. The Gerefa or Reeve is an officer, especially a fiscal officer, of any kind, from a Shirereeve down to a Dykereeve—Mr. Kemble adds, to a Hogreeve. In Northern English the word, under the form of Grieve, has changed from a public to a private exactor. The word is the same as the High-Dutch Graf; only the one title has risen and the other has fallen. A Burggraf is a greater man than a Boroughreeve.

Footnote 134:

See above, p. 48.

Footnote 135:

Tac. Germ. 11. “Si displicuit sententia, fremitu adspernantur; sin placuit, frameas concutiunt. Honoratissimum adsensus genus est, armis laudare.” Comparative Politics, 466.

Footnote 136:

I must again refer to Mr. Gladstone’s remarks on this subject. Cf. Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 84.

Footnote 137:

[Changes made since this was written have pretty well got rid of the ancient scirgemót. See vol. v. p. 465.]

Footnote 138:

See Appendix Q.

Footnote 139:

Hist. of Federal Government, i. 266. We may be sure however, both from the smaller extent of the country and from the political instincts of the Greek mind, that popular attendance never died out so completely in Achaia as it did in England. And in both cases those who lived in the neighbourhood of the place of meeting would doubtless often attend when people from a distance did not. The frequent attendance of the citizens of London in the Witenagemót may be compared with the appearance of a vast crowd of Corinthian citizens of inferior rank in an assembly held at Corinth, which is spoken of as unusual. Polybios, xxxviii. 4. Hist. Fed. Gov. i. 263.

Footnote 140:

Cf. Arist. Pol. iv. 5. 3. οὐ δεῖ δὲ λανθάνειν ὅτι πολλαχοῦ συμβέβηκεν ὥστε τὴν μὲν πολιτείαν τὴν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους μὴ δημοτικὴν εἶναι, διὰ δὲ τὸ ἦθος καὶ τὴν ἀγωγὴν πολιτεύεσθαι δημοτικῶς, ὁμοίως δὲ πάλιν παρ’ ἄλλοις τὴν μὲν κατὰ τοὺς νόμους εἶναι πολιτείαν δημοτικωτέραν, τῇ δ’ ἀγωγῇ καὶ τοῖς ἔθεσιν ὀλιγαρχεῖσθαι μᾶλλον. I suspect that both these descriptions are in a manner applicable to the Old-English constitution. The latter is true on the face of it; the democratic theory veiled an oligarchic reality. But it seems not unlikely that the former may be true also, and that the narrow body into which the ancient free assembly had shrunk up still in practice fairly expressed the sense of the nation.

Footnote 141:

Witena-Gemót = Sapientum concilium. Sir Francis Palgrave suggests (i. 143) that Witan is used in the sense of witnesses; but sapientes is the common Latin translation. The Senate of Bremen used to be called “Die Wittheit,” and the Senators of all the three Hanseatic Towns were till lately called “hoch- und wohl-Weisheit.”

Footnote 142:

One might say, in all seriousness, ψυχῶν σόφων τοῦτ’ ἐστὶ φροντιστήριον.

Footnote 143:

In 1004 Ulfkytel, acting as Ealdorman of the East-Angles (see Appendix HH), assembles the local Gemót; “Þa gerædde Ulfkytel wið þa witan on East-Englum.” The letter from the Kentish men to Æthelstan, quoted in a former note, reads like an act of acceptance, on the part of a local Gemót, of resolutions passed by the general body.

Footnote 144:

See Appendix Q.

Footnote 145:

See above, p. 102.

Footnote 146:

[On the seeming difference on this point between myself and Professor Stubbs, see vol. v. p. 406.]

Footnote 147:

The powers of the Witan are drawn out in form by Kemble, ii. 204.

Footnote 148:

See Appendix R.

Footnote 149:

See Appendix S.

Footnote 150:

I shall speak of this point when I come to the disputed election after the death of Eadgar.

Footnote 151:

See Ælfred’s will in Cod. Dipl. ii. 112, v. 127; and the account of Æthelwulf’s will in Florence, 855. See Pauli’s Life of Ælfred, pp. 103, 104 (Eng. Trans.).

Footnote 152:

Taxation, in our modern sense, is seldom a matter of great importance in an early state of society. Public or demesne lands, various imposts on lands, feudal dues and compositions of various kinds, largely supply its place. Taxation in the modern sense is scarcely heard of in our earliest history, except for one shameful and unhappy purpose, that of buying off the Danish invaders. For this purpose a real tax, the famous Danegeld, was levied, and levied, as appears by several passages of the Chronicles, by the joint authority of the King and his Witan. So, during the same unhappy reign of Æthelred, we shall find the King and his Witan laying on an impost, of which I shall speak more when I come to it in the course of my narrative, one of a kind intermediate between ship-money and an Athenian λειτουργία.

Footnote 153:

There was a direct collision in the case of that “Good Parliament” of the eleventh century, the famous Mycel Gemót which restored Godwine and his family and drove out the foreign favourites of Eadward. But whether anybody voted against the enactment of the Laws of Æthelstan or Eadgar we have no means of knowing. We have several clear cases of parties among the Witan during a vacancy of the crown, and of differences on questions of foreign policy; but these cases do not touch the present question.

Footnote 154:

Laws of Æthelberht, Thorpe, i. 2. “Gif cyning his leode to him gehated, and heom mon þær yfel gedo, II bote and cyninge L scillinga.”

Footnote 155:

See Historical Essays, Second Series, p. 32.

Footnote 156:

On Ælfred’s deference to the authority of his Witan, see the quotation from his Laws, above, p. 52.

Footnote 157:

The reign of Æthelred in England reminds one of the generalship of Epêratos in Achaia (Polyb. v. 30; Hist. of Fed. Gov. i. 550), but happily for Achaia her General could not remain in office for thirty-eight years.

Footnote 158:

See Appendix D.

Footnote 159:

See Appendix G.

Footnote 160:

A ceorl might have his own loaf-eaters (Hláf-ætas. Laws of Æthelberht, 25), and this looks very like a form of the Comitatus.

Footnote 161:

Waitz (iii. 87), recording the homage done by Tassilo to Pippin, “ut vasses,” says, “So viel wir wissen ist es das erste Mal, dass Gebräuche und Grundsätze, welche ursprünglich offenbar auf ganz andere Verhältnisse berechnet waren, für die politisch so bedeutenden Beziehungen eines Herzogs zu dem Oberhaupt des Staates zur Anwendung kamen.”

Footnote 162:

Among a crowd of smaller princes the Kings of Denmark, Poland, Hungary, and Bohemia stand out conspicuous. All these were at one time or another vassals of the Empire, though all except Bohemia recovered their independence. The Kings of Poland and Bohemia received the royal title from an Imperial grant.

Footnote 163:

Widukind, i. 29, who however calls him Imperator prospectively. The date is fixed by the Annales Vedastini (Pertz, i. 525, ii. 205), though they give a different colouring to the transaction.

Footnote 164:

See Edward’s own statement, tracing his right up to the Commendation, in Trivet (p. 382, Hog) and Hemingford (ii. 196). It is a pity that any nonsense about Brutus has found its way into some copies of these documents.

Footnote 165:

A Highlander, with his notions (though grounded on a different principle) of personal fidelity to a chief, might perhaps have understood it; but the true Scots had very little to do with the affairs of the kingdom of Scotland.

Footnote 166:

See Robertson, Scotland under her Early Kings, i. 55.

Footnote 167:

See Appendix H.

Footnote 168:

Ibid.

Footnote 169:

See Appendix I.

Footnote 170:

See History of Federal Government, i. 120.

Footnote 171:

Again I keep clear of all mazes about Picts and Scots. My division is true upon any theory, except the wild one of Pinkerton. The Picts were either Irish or Welsh—in the wide sense of those two words.

Footnote 172:

See Appendix G.

Footnote 173:

I refer to the transactions between Æthelred and Malcolm of Cumberland, which I shall speak of in my fifth Chapter.

Footnote 174:

See Appendix Q.

Footnote 175:

See Appendix B.

Footnote 176:

That is of course not Constantine the Great, but Constantine the “Tyrant” of the fifth century.

Footnote 177:

See Appendix B.

Footnote 178:

For a specimen of this style see Macaulay, Hist. of Eng. i. 358.

Footnote 179:

See Appendix B.

Footnote 180:

See Appendix B.

Footnote 181:

The word Tyrant in those times bore a sense which may be called a monarchical antitype of its old Greek sense. The Greek tyrant was a man who obtained kingly power in a commonwealth; the tyrants of the third and fourth centuries were men who revolted against a lawful Emperor. “Licet apud nos incubator imperii tyrannus dicatur,” says Servius (ad Virg. Æn. vii. 266). In both cases, the word in strictness expresses only the origin of power, and not the mode of its exercise. Many of the so-called tyrants were excellent rulers. But the Imperial tyrant had this great advantage over the Greek tyrant, that success might turn him into a lawful Emperor, while the Greek tyrant remained a tyrant always. In mediæval writers the word is constantly used in this later Imperial sense, as equivalent to “usurper” or “pretender.”

Footnote 182:

After all the case of an Emperor or tyrant reigning in Britain and Britain only was excessively rare. It could have happened only in the case of those fleeting tyrants of whom the land was said to be fertile, and who rose and fell without being recorded. All the more famous men of the class, Carausius, Maximus, Constantine, possessed some part of the continental dominions of the Empire, and sought to possess the whole.

Footnote 183:

See above, pp. 38, 39.

Footnote 184:

See p. 39.

Footnote 185:

Grimm’s Gedichte auf König Friedrich (Berlin 1844), p. 65.

Footnote 186:

See Appendix B.

Footnote 187:

I would not be understood as asserting the justice or honesty of any such claim. The Commendation of 924 was wiped out by the renunciation of 1328. From that time Scotland must be looked on as an independent kingdom, and, as such, she rightly entered into the Union with England on equal terms.

Footnote 188:

For the Norman and French history of the tenth century there are three principal authorities. The only writer on the Norman side is Dudo, Dean of Saint Quintin, whose work will be found in Duchesne’s Rerum Normannicarum Scriptores. His history is nearly coincident with the century, going down to the death of Richard the Fearless. He is a most turgid and wearisome writer, without chronology or arrangement of any kind. He is in fact one of the earliest of a very bad class of writers, those who were employed, on account of their supposed eloquence, to write histories which were intended only as panegyrics of their patrons. It is only just before the end of his narrative that Dudo begins to be a contemporary witness; up to that time he simply repeats such traditions as were acceptable at the Norman court. Of the two French writers, Flodoard or Frodoard, Canon of Rheims (whose Annals will be found in the third volume of Pertz), is a far more valuable writer in himself, but his notices of Norman affairs are few and meagre. He perhaps avoids speaking of the terrible strangers any more than he can help. Flodoard is a mere annalist, and aspires to no higher rank, but in his own class he ranks very high. He is somewhat dull and dry, as becomes an annalist, but he is thoroughly honest, sensible, and straightforward. His Annals reach from 919 to 966, the year of his death, so that he is strictly contemporary throughout. The other French writer is Richer, a monk of Rheims, whose work was discovered by Pertz, and is printed in his third volume (also separately in his smaller collection, and in a French edition by M. Gaudet, with a French translation, 2 vols. Paris, 1845). He was the son of Rudolf, a knight and counsellor of King Lewis the Fourth, and derived much of his information from his father. He also makes use of the work of Flodoard. He goes down to 998, which was seemingly the year of his death. Richer is not content with being an annalist; he aspires to be an historian. He is much fuller and more vivid than Flodoard, but I cannot look on him as equally trustworthy. On this writer see Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, i. 748. The second volume of Sir Francis’ own work contains a most vivid, though very discursive and garrulous, history of the time before us, full of all the merits and defects of its author. I would refer to an article of mine on it in the Edinburgh Review for April 1859; also to another, “The Franks and Gauls,” in the National Review for October 1860, since reprinted in my first series of Historical Essays.

Footnote 189:

See Appendix A.

Footnote 190:

See Appendix T.

Footnote 191:

Will. Pict. 145. “Hujus milites Normanni possident Apuliam, devicere Siciliam, propugnant Constantinopolim, ingerunt metum Babyloni.”

Footnote 192:

Guil. App. apud Murat, vol. v. p. 274;

... “Sic uno tempore victi Sunt terræ domini duo; rex Alemannicus iste, Imperii rector Romani maximus ille: Alter ad arma ruens armis superatur, et alter Nominis auditi sola formidine cessit.”

Cf. Roger of Howden (404) with his wild account of Robert Wiscard, copied from Benedict, ii. 200.

Footnote 193:

Matt. Paris, p. 804, Wats. “Principum mundi maximus Fredericus, stupor quoque mundi et immutator mirabilis.” P. 806. “Stupor mundi Fredericus.”

Footnote 194:

This time of struggle is the subject of the second volume of Sir Francis Palgrave’s History of Normandy and England. The character of the period cannot be better summed up than it is by Widukind, lib. i. c. 29; “Unde usque hodie certamen est de regno Karolorum stirpi et posteris Odonis, concertatio quoque regibus Karolorum et orientalium Francorum super regno Lotharii.” On the force of these names see Appendix T.

Footnote 195:

I understand by “modern France” the extent of territory which, before the annexations at the expense of the Empire began, was held either by the King of the French in domain or by princes who held of him in fief. From the France of 1870 we must take away the French part of Hennegau, Lothringen and the three Bishopricks, Elsass, the county of Burgundy, Savoy, Lyons, Bresse, the Dauphiny, Provence, Nizza, and Corsica. We must add the still independent part of Flanders, the county of Barcelona, and the Channel Islands.

Footnote 196:

That is, Aquitaine was, up to the Peace of Bretigny, always held in nominal vassalage to France, but, except during the momentary occupation when Philip the Fair had outwitted Edmund of Lancaster, no Parisian King was immediate sovereign of Bourdeaux till Aquitaine finally lost its independence in the fifteenth century.

Footnote 197:

Charles the Third is commonly said to have reunited the whole Empire of Charles the Great, and he certainly reigned over Germany, Italy, Lotharingia, and the Western Kingdom; but he never obtained the immediate sovereignty of the Kingdom of Burgundy, founded by Boso in 879. Boso was succeeded by Rudolf.

Footnote 198:

“The City of Revolutions begins her real history by the first French Revolution.” Palgrave, i. 282. (References to “Palgrave” will, for the future, mean the “History of Normandy and England,” not the “English Commonwealth.”)

Footnote 199:

On the sieges of Paris and the origin of the Parisian dynasty, see more in Historical Essays, first series, “The Early Sieges of Paris.”

Footnote 200:

Richer, i. 5. “Hic [Odo] patrem habuit ex equestri ordine Rotbertum; avum vero paternum, Witichinum advenam Germanum.”

Footnote 201:

See Appendix V.

Footnote 202:

I use this familiar name prospectively, as I know not what other to put in its place. I may add that Capet was at no time really a family name, as people fancied during the French Revolution, and ludicrously described Lewis the Sixteenth as “Louis Capet.”

Footnote 203:

Sir Francis Palgrave has altogether upset the vulgar error which looks on the later Karlings as a line of utterly incapable Kings, like the later Merwings. No two sets of men could be more completely different both in position and in character.

Footnote 204:

See the story of the taking of Luna by mistake for Rome, Dudo, 65.

Footnote 205:

Regino in Anno (Pertz, i. 602), and our own Chronicles.

Footnote 206:

On the battle of Saulcourt, see the Chronicle in Duchesne, p. 4.

Footnote 207:

The Ludwigslied will be found in Max Müller’s German Classics, p. 37.

Footnote 208:

See Benoît de Ste. More, p. 76, and M. Michel’s note. Cf. Dudo, p. 66.

Footnote 209:

See Flod. A. 923, 930 (Pertz, iii. 379), et pass. On the Loire, as at Bayeux, the Normans had Saxon forerunners. Greg. Tur. ii. 18, 19; Zeuss, 386.

Footnote 210:

“Richardus pyratarum dux apoplexia minore periit” is one of the last entries in the history of Richer (t. ii. p. 308, Guadet).

Footnote 211:

The genuine name is Hrolfr, Rolf, in various spellings. The true French form is Rou. The love of the Old-French tongue for making all nouns end in s, that is, for making them all of the second declension, made this into Rous, and hence came a strange Latin form Rosus. The true Latin form is Rollo, like Cnuto, Sveno, &c. From this Latin form modern French writers have, oddly enough, made a form Rollon. The strangest form is Rodla, which occurs in a late manuscript of the English Chronicles (A. 876. Thorpe’s ed.). This was clearly meant to be an English form of Rollo. The English masculine ending a was substituted for the Latin o, just as Giso and Odo are in English Gisa and Oda. The writer also clearly thought that Rollo was a name of the same type as Robert and others, and he fancied that by putting in a d he was restoring it to its genuine Teutonic shape.

Footnote 212:

Flodoard was perhaps contemporary with the settlement, but we have no narrative of those years from his hand. Richer, if he was very old when he died, may have been an infant at the time of the settlement, but that is all.

Footnote 213:

Dudo, 75 C.

Footnote 214:

Lappenberg (Thorpe), ii. 60.

Footnote 215:

In some accounts he seems to appear even earlier than 876. Duchesne, 25 D.

Footnote 216:

Dudo, 75 D.

Footnote 217:

Ib. 77 C.

Footnote 218:

Ib. C, D.

Footnote 219:

Dudo, 80 B. Cf. Duchesne, 25 A, 34 B.

Footnote 220:

See above, p. 53.

Footnote 221:

Dudo, 84 A.

Footnote 222:

See Appendix W.

Footnote 223:

See Appendix W.

Footnote 224:

See Appendix T.

Footnote 225:

I cannot but think that Sir Francis Palgrave has made too much of this last title, which is surely only a piece of Dudonian rhetoric, like the “satrapæ” and “archontes” of our own charters.

Footnote 226:

See above, p. 164.

Footnote 227:

See the stories in Dudo, p. 85; Benoît de Ste. More, 7146 et seqq.

Footnote 228:

On the division of the land, just like the division of Northumberland and Danish Mercia, see Depping, i. 125.

Footnote 229:

See further on in this Chapter.

Footnote 230:

See Palgrave, i. 700; Lappenberg’s Anglo-Norman Kings, 97; and, more at large, Depping, ii. 339. Such names as Dieppedal (Deep dale) and Caudebec (Cold beck) are good examples. In forming local names from the proper names of men, the familiar Danish by often appears under the form of bœuf; but it is more usual to couple the Danish name with a French ending. Haqueville, for instance, answers to the English Haconby.

Footnote 231:

Palgrave, ii. 68, 259.

Footnote 232:

Dudo, 76 D. “Quo nomine vester senior fungitur? Responderunt, Nullo, quia æqualis potestatis sumus.”

Footnote 233:

Several examples are collected by Lappenberg, p. 19. The dealings of the Assembly touching the abdication of Rolf are given at large by Dudo, 90 D, et seqq. So in 85 B we read, “Jura et leges sempiternas voluntate principum sancitas et decretas plebi indixit.”

Footnote 234:

See Depping, ii. 128, 129.

Footnote 235:

Flod. A. 923. “Ragenoldus princeps Nortmannorum qui in fluvio Ligeri versabantur, Karoli frequentibus missis jampridem excitus, Franciam trans Isaram conjunctis sibi plurimis ex Rodomo prædatur.”

Footnote 236:

The well-known duchy of after times, with Dijon for its capital. This part of the earliest Burgundy always retained its connexion with the kingdom of the West-Franks, while the rest formed the Burgundian kingdom of Boso.

Footnote 237:

Here Lewis the Eleventh was kept in durance by Charles the Bold, on which Philip of Comines remarks (ii. 7), “Le roy qui se vid enfermé en ce chasteau (qui est petit) et force archers à la porte, n’estoit point sans doute: et se voyoit logé rasibus d’une grosse tour, où un comte de Vermandois fit mourir un sien predecesseur roy de France.” There is a curious notice of Charles’s imprisonment in Thietmar of Merseburg (i. 13. Pertz, iii. 741); “Fuit in occiduis partibus quidam rex, ab incolis Karl Sot, id est stolidus, ironice dictus, qui ab uno suimet ducum captus, tenebris includitur carceralibus.” Both Thietmar and Widukind (i. 33) attribute to the Eastern King a powerful intervention in favour of Charles, which is perfectly possible, but which it is hard to find in the French writers.

Footnote 238:

On the siege of Eu (Auga), see Flodoard, A. 925; Richer, i. 49. On Eu, see vol. iii. ch. xii. § 2. The way in which Flodoard (A. 923) mentions the first invasion of Normandy is remarkable; “Itta fluvio transito ingressus est [Rodulfus] terram, quæ dudum Nortmannis ad fidem Christi venientibus, ut hanc fidem colerent, et pacem haberent, fuerat data.”

Footnote 239:

See Appendix T.

Footnote 240:

Flod. A. 924. On Maine, see vol. iii. ch. xii. § 3.

Footnote 241:

Dudo gives the account in full, p. 90 et seqq. He makes Rolf survive his abdication five years. Florence of Worcester makes him die in 917, probably by omission or misreading of a letter. Richer seems (but compare his two versions) to kill him at Eu in 925. The one certain thing is that William did homage to Charles in 927. “Karolus igitur cum Heriberto colloquium petit Nortmannorum ad castellum quod Auga vocatur, ibique se filius Rollonis Karolo committit, et amicitiam firmat cum Heriberto.” Flod. in anno. So Richer, i. 53.

Footnote 242:

On the history of the Saxons of Bayeux, see Lappenberg, Anglo-Norman Kings, p. 2. There were also Saxon settlements in Anjou and at Sens.

Footnote 243:

In the Capitulary of Charles the Bald in 843 (Pertz, Legg. i. 426), which Lappenberg refers to, the “Ot lingua Saxonia” is distinguished from the “Bagisinum.” It might seem that the Saxon speech survived in some parts of the country, but not in the city. The document is a list of royal missi and of the districts to which they were sent.

Footnote 244:

There would be whatever difference there may have been—one probably not very perceptible—between the Saxons of Bayeux and the Angles of Eastern and Northern England; there also is greater chance of a certain Celtic intermixture at Bayeux than there is at Derby or Stamford.

Footnote 245:

No country is historically more interesting to Englishmen than Aquitaine, on account of its long political connexion with England; but the connexion was purely political; there are no such abiding traces of real kindred as we see in Normandy, and especially in the Bessin.

Footnote 246:

Benoît, v. 8342;

“Ici trespasse Rous li proz et li vaillanz Od fin duce e saintisme, e pleins de jorz e d’anz.”

Footnote 247:

The tale is told by the Aquitanian chronicler Ademar (iii, 20, Pertz, iv. 123), and M. Francisque Michel (note on Benoît, v. 8349) is inclined to believe it. It runs thus; “Postea vero [Rosus, see above, p. 165] factus Christianus a sacerdotibus Francorum, imminente obitu, in amentiam versus, Christianos captivos centum ante se decollari fecit in honore, quæ coluerat, idolorum, et demum centum auri libras per ecclesias distribuit Christianorum in honore veri Dei in cujus nomine baptismum susceperat.” But the manuscript which Pertz follows in his text does not make the sacrifice take place immediately before his death, and it is as well to see how Ademar’s whole story hangs together. He makes his “Rosus” be defeated by King Rudolf in the battle of Limoges in 930; he then retreats, and finding Rouen unoccupied, takes possession.

Footnote 248:

Dudo, 77 D; Benoît, v. 4122.

Footnote 249:

Will. Gem. iii. 2. See Appendix X.

Footnote 250:

Will. Gem. ii. 22. “Repudiatam Popam ... iterum repetens sibi copulavit.” See more in detail, Benoît, v. 7954. So Roman de Rou, 2037.

Footnote 251:

Dudo, 97 C; Will. Gem. iii. 3.

Footnote 252:

Ademar, iii. 27. “Roso defuncto, filius ejus Willelmus loco ejus præfuit, a pueritia baptizatus, omnisque eorum Normannorum, qui juxta Frantiam inhabitaverant, multitudo fidem Christi suscepit, et gentilem linguam obmittens, Latino sermone assuefacta est.” So, in the same words, in the Chronicle of Saint Maxentius, Labbé, iii. 202. On the use of Latinus for French, instead of Romanus, see Appendix V.

Footnote 253:

Flodoard, A. 928.

Footnote 254:

Ib. A. 929; Richer, i. 56.

Footnote 255:

Ib. A. 930. “Aquitanos sibi subditos fecit.” Of course this implies nothing more than homage. Cf. above, p. 156.

Footnote 256:

Flodoard, A. 931. “Brittones qui remanserant Nortmannis in Cornu Galliæ subditi consurgentes adversus eos qui se obtinuerant, in ipsis solemniis sancti Michaelis omnes interemisse dicuntur qui inter eos morabantur Nortmannos.”

Footnote 257:

Dudo, 93 B.

Footnote 258:

The Chronicle of Saint Maxentius, under 937 (Labbé, iii. 202), speaks of Saint Michael’s Mount as founded “in ea Normannia quæ antea vocabatur marchia Franciæ et Britanniæ.”

Footnote 259:

On these marriages see William of Malmesbury, ii. 126, 135. He describes at length the splendid embassy sent by Hugh (see Flod. A. 926) to demand Eadhild. Oddly enough, in c. 135 he calls Hugh “Rex Francorum,” while in c. 128 he utterly confounds the whole genealogy and history of the Parisian Dukes.

Footnote 260:

Her name is by French writers tortured into Ethgiva, Ogive, and what not. She is “Headtgiva” in Aimon of Fleury, Pertz, ix. 375. He says that Lewis [see Appendix A.], “calamitatis paternæ procella semet involvi metuens, ad Anglos-Saxones, maternæ affinitatis invitatus gratia, se contulit, in transmarinis arbitratus se tutiorem manere regionibus, quam inter suos dominus si foret in cubiculo, rex in convivio.”

Footnote 261:

Richer, ii. 1, 73. He was carried out in a bundle of hay or some such stuff (“in fasciculo farraginis”); but whither was he carried? “In partes transmarinas et prope in Rifeos.” As Lewis certainly went as far north as York, does this flourish mean the Cheviots, the Grampians, or what?

Footnote 262:

Dudo, 93 C. “Ipse vero in Britannia, nec in tota Francia usquam morari ob metum Willelmi ducis nequivit, sed profugus expetivit auxilium Alstemi Anglorum regis.” Benoît, 8834;

“En Engleterre au rei engleis Alestan, au proz, au corteis, Là se remist, là s’en foï Deserité e mauballi.”

Footnote 263:

Dudo, 97 B. “Franciscæ gentis principes Burgundionumque comites famulabantur ei; Dacigenæ et Flandrenses, Anglique et Hibernenses parebant ei.” Ib. D. “Non solum monarchiam, quam tenebat, regebat; verum etiam affinia regna strenuo consilio moderabat. Angli parebant ejus mandatis, Franci et Burgundiones ejus dictis.”

Footnote 264:

It is curious to compare the different ways in which the return of the Bretons is told by Flodoard and by Dudo. Flodoard (A. 936) is willing to magnify even an Englishman in comparison with a Norman. William is not named. “Brittones a transmarinis regionibus Alstani Regis præsidio revertentes terram suam repetunt.” Dudo mixes up their return with the return of King Lewis, which in Flodoard follows it, and he makes Æthelstan something like a suppliant to William (95 D.) He calls Æthelstan “Anglorum Rex pacificus.” Was he thinking of Eadgar, who may have come within his own memory?

Footnote 265:

Dudo, 98 A. “Ipseque Alanus postea Willelmi mandatis indesinenter inhæsit.” Cf. 102 B, C; 113 D; 117 D.

Footnote 266:

Flodoard seems to imply that some of these independent Normans entered Britanny, about the same time as this suppression of the Breton revolt, perhaps even in concert with Duke William (A. 931); “Incon Nortmannus, qui morabatur in Ligeri, cum suis Britanniam pervadit victisque et cæsis vel ejectis Brittonibus regione potitur.” Of the return of the Bretons he has two notices. The first is under the year 937; “Brittones ad sua loca post diutinam regressi peregrinationem, cum Nortmannis, qui terram ipsorum contiguam sibi pervaserant, frequentibus dimicant prœliis, superiores pluribus existentes et loca pervasa recipientes.” The second is in the next year, 939; “Brittones cum Nortmannis confligentes victoria potiuntur, et quoddam Nortmannorum castellum cepisse feruntur.” See Palgrave, ii. 178–182.

Footnote 267:

The general line of thought in this paragraph is suggested by Palgrave, i. 106.

Footnote 268:

See above, p. 155.

Footnote 269:

Dudo, 94 et seqq.

Footnote 270:

From this scheme he was dissuaded by the good sense of the Abbot Martin. Those who care to read the Abbot’s sermon on the practical and the contemplative life will find it in Latin (diversified with a little Greek) in Dudo, p. 101 et seqq., and in Old-French in Benoît, v. 11057 et seqq.

Footnote 271:

William of Jumièges (iii. 9) makes Harold Blue-tooth, driven from his kingdom by his son Swegen, take refuge with William Longsword, who allows him to settle in the Côtentin till he can recover his kingdom. Now Harold’s expulsion by Swegen did not happen till long afterwards, and Swegen could hardly have been born when William died. The story no doubt arises from some confusion with Harold’s dealings with Normandy in the next reign, but it may very well preserve a memory of some real Danish colonization of the peninsula with or without William’s permission.

Footnote 272:

Dudo, ii. 112 D. See Appendix V.

Footnote 273:

Richer (i. 47) distinctly calls the immediate subjects of Charles the Simple “Germani.”

Footnote 274:

I of course assume that Hugh had no share in the murder of William, a point which I shall discuss elsewhere.

Footnote 275:

Flod. A. 933. “Willelmus, princeps Nortmannorum eidem regi [Rodulfo] se committit; cui etiam rex dat terram Brittonum in ora maritima sitam.”

Footnote 276:

Flod in A. “Heribertus comes ad Heinricum proficiscitur, eique sese committit.” The matter was serious enough for Rudolf and Hugh to make special peace with Henry, and to give hostages.

Footnote 277:

Richer, ii. 1–4. See Appendix Y.

Footnote 278:

Richer, ii. 2. “Adelstanus rex in urbem quæ dicitur Eurvich, regnorum negotia cum nepote Ludovico apud suos disponebat.” Mark the accuracy of the plural form regnorum (we shall come to it again), as applied to the dominions of the Emperor of Britain.

Footnote 279:

Ib. 3. “Acsi barbaris non satis credens.” The Persians in Æschylus call themselves βάρβαροι, and Plautus says, “Menander scripsit, Marcus vortit barbarè;” but why should Richer call his own people barbari as contrasted with the English? Is the word put dramatically into the mouth of Æthelstan, and does barbari literally translate Wealas?

Footnote 280:

Richer, ii. 3. “Secus ipsas litoreas arenas collecti, tuguriorum incendio præsentiam suam iis qui in altero litore erant ostendebant.... Cujus [Adelstani] jussu domus aliquot succensæ, sese advenisse trans positis demonstrabat.” The passion for setting fire to everything sometimes seems to be specially Norman; here it is also English and French.

Footnote 281:

Richer mentions Oda only, Flodoard mentions several Bishops and Thegns (fideles).

Footnote 282:

Richer, ii. 4. “Quod si nolint, sese ei daturum suorum aliquod regnorum, quo contentus et suis gaudeat et alienis non sollicitetur.”

Footnote 283:

Ib. “Dux cum reliquis Galliarum magnatibus id sese facturum asserit, si rex creatus a suis consiliis non absistat.” The relation thus mildly described is in cap. 6 called “procuratio.” So Flodoard, A. 937.

Footnote 284:

Richer is an excellent authority for all matters personally concerning Lewis. He got his information from his father Rudolf, a brave and trusty servant of the King. The description here (ii. 4) is highly graphic.

Footnote 285:

Richer, ii. 5; Flod. in anno.

Footnote 286:

Flod. A. 937. “Ludowicus rex ab Hugonis principis se procuratione separans, matrem suam Lauduni recipit.” Richer, ii. 6. “Rex felicium rerum successu elatus, præter ducis procurationem absque eo jam disponebat. Laudunum itaque tendit, ibique matrem suam Ethgivam reginam ad urbis custodiam deputat. Ac exinde quæcumque præter ducem adoriebatur.”

Footnote 287:

See above, p. 161.

Footnote 288:

On this siege, which is of some interest in a military point of view, see Flodoard, A. 938; Richer, ii. 9, 10.

Footnote 289:

Flod. A. 939.

Footnote 290:

Dudo, 103 A.

Footnote 291:

Flod. A. 939; Richer, ii. 11–15. These writers know something of William’s personal share in the campaign, which is asserted by Dudo, 103 B; Will. Gem. iii, 10. According to Benoît (11873 et seqq.), the men of the Côtentin specially distinguished themselves.

Footnote 292:

Flod. A. 939. “Uxorem ipsius Herluini trans mare cum filiis ad Alstanum regem mittit.” Richer, ii. 12. “Erluini uxorem cum natis Ædelstano regi Anglorum servandos trans mare deportat.”

Footnote 293:

Flod. A. 939. William is excommunicated “ab episcopis qui erant cum rege.”

Footnote 294:

Richer, ii. 18. “Cum ejus [Ottonis] pater Saxoniæ solum propter Sclavorum improbitatem rex creatus sit, eo quod Karolus, cui rerum summa debebatur, adhuc in cunis vagiebat.” But Henry was elected in 918, just before Charles’s troubles began, but when he had been a good many years out of his cradle.

Footnote 295:

Flod. A. 959.

Footnote 296:

Ib. “Anglorum classis ab Alstano, rege suo, in auxilium Ludowici regis transmissa mari transito loca quæquæ Morinorum mari deprædatur contigua; nulloque negotio propter quod venerant peracto, remenso mari, propria repetunt loca.” Richer, ii. 16. “Nec multo post et ab Ædelstano Anglorum rege classis regi cum copiis missa est. Audierat enim illum ab iis qui maritima incolebant loca exagitari, contra quos classis dimicaret regique nepoti auxilium ferret. Comperto vero contra regem illorum neminem stare, ipsumque regem in partes Germaniæ prosperum secessisse, mari remenso ad propria remeat.”

There is a marked difference of tone in these two accounts. Flodoard clearly wishes to make as little as he can of the English intervention, while Richer is anxious to make the most. Nor are their statements easy to reconcile. If Æthelstan’s fleet ravaged the Flemish coast, while Arnulf was still not an avowed enemy, that would at once explain Arnulf’s sudden defection. But, according to Richer, it would seem that Æthelstan heard some rumour of Arnulf’s intended treachery, but that, as it was not yet carried out, he had no excuse for action. That we do not hear of English interference during the next stage of the history is probably accounted for by Æthelstan’s death in 940.

Footnote 297:

Flod. A. 939. “Otho rex colloquium habuit cum Hugone et Heriberto, Arnulfo et Willelmo Nortmannorum principe; et acceptis ab eis pacti sacramentis, trans Rhenum regreditur.”

Footnote 298:

Ib. “Proficiscitur Elisatium, locutusque cum Hugone Cisalpino.” Richer, ii. 17. “Rex in pago Elisatio eum Hugone Cisalpino principe locutus.” On this use of the word “Cisalpinus,” see Appendix T.

Footnote 299:

Flod. A. 939.

Footnote 300:

Ib. A. 940. “Rex Ludowicus abiit obviam Willelmo principi Nortmannorum, qui venit ad eum in pago Ambianensi et se illi commisit. At ille dedit ei terram quam pater ejus Karolus Nortmannis concesserat.”

Footnote 301:

Richer, ii. 20. “Wilelmus piratarum dux ... regis factus, tanto ei consensu alligatus est ut jam jamque aut sese moriturum, aut regi imperii summam restituturum proponeret.”

Footnote 302:

Flod. A. 940. Richer (ii. 22) does not mention the presence of William at the siege.

Footnote 303:

Flod. A. 940. “Dedit autem rex Artoldo archiepiscopo, ac per eum ecclesiæ Remensi, per præceptionis regiæ paginam Remensis urbis monetam jure perpetuo possidendam; sed et omnem comitatum Remensem eidem contulit ecclesiæ.”

Footnote 304:

Flod. A. 940; Palgrave, ii. 244.

Footnote 305:

Flod. A. 942. More fully, Richer, ii. 28.

Footnote 306:

See Appendix Z.

Footnote 307:

See above, p. 180, and Appendix X.

Footnote 308:

See above, p. 192.

Footnote 309:

Dudo, 112 D.

Footnote 310:

Flod. A. 943. “Rex Ludowicus filio ipsius Willelmi, nato de concubina Brittanna, terram Nortmannorum dedit.” So more fully in Richer, ii. 34.

Footnote 311:

The original authority, such as it is, for these stories is of course Dudo, with the metrical chroniclers, who mainly follow him, Benoît sometimes adding details of his own. The English reader will find all he can want in Sir Francis Palgrave. I cannot help also mentioning Miss Yonge’s tale of the “Little Duke,” where the whole legend is very pleasantly told, though with too great a leaning to the Norman side.

Footnote 312:

Richer, ii. 37; R. Glaber, i. 3.

Footnote 313:

See above, p. 206.

Footnote 314:

On the influence of Conrad, see Flodoard, A. 948, 949, 952; Richer, ii, 82, 97. Conrad afterwards lost his duchy. Bruno, Archbishop and Duke, brother of Otto, brother-in-law of Lewis and Hugh the Great, uncle of Lothar and Hugh Capet, plays a most important part somewhat later.

Footnote 315:

See above, p. 186.

Footnote 316:

Flod. A. 943; Richer, ii. 35. The Norman writers pass over their Duke’s apostasy, which of course proves very little as to the personal disposition of a mere child, though it proves a great deal as to the general state of things in the country. But Flodoard and Richer are both explicit. “Turmodum Nortmannum, qui ad idolatriam gentilemque ritum reversus, ad hæc etiam filium Willelmi aliosque cogebat.” (Flod.) “Ut ... defuncti ducis filium ad idolatriam suadeant, ritumque gentilem inducant.” (Richer.)

Footnote 317:

Flod. A. 943. “Quidam principes ipsius se regi committunt, quidam vero Hugoni duci.” Richer, ii. 34. “Potiores quoque qui cum adolescentulo accesserant, per manus et sacramentum regis fiunt.... Alii vero Nortmannorum, Richardum ad regem transisse indignantes, ad Hugonem ducem concedunt.”

Footnote 318:

Flod. A. 943. “Rex ei ducatum Franciæ delegavit, omnemque Burgundiam ipsius ditioni subjecit.” Richer (ii. 39) says, “Eum rex omnium Galliarum ducem constituit.” This last cannot have been a formal title; it is merely Richer’s characteristic way of affecting classical language in his geography.

Footnote 319:

Flod. A. 943. “Hugo dux Francorum crebras agit cum Nortmannis, qui pagani advenerant, vel ad paganismum revertebantur, congressiones; a quibus peditum ipsius Christianorum multitudo interimitur at ipse nonnullis quoque Nortmannorum interfectis ceterisque actis in fugam, castrum Ebroas faventibus sibi qui tenebant illud Nortmannorum Christianis, obtinet.” Richer does not mention this.

Footnote 320:

Flod. A. 943; Richer, ii. 35. The account of the battle is much fuller in Richer.

Footnote 321:

Flod. A. 943.

Footnote 322:

Richer, ii. 38.

Footnote 323:

Flod. A. 943. “Hugo Arnulfum cum rege pacificavit, cui rex infensus erat ob necem Willelmi.” Richer, ii. 40.

Footnote 324:

Dudo, 114 et seqq.; Benoît, 12809 et seqq.; Roman de Rou, 2799 et seqq.

Footnote 325:

Dudo, 114 C. “Rotomagum properavit cum suis comitibus super his quæ nefario Arnulfi comitis astu acciderant consulturus. Rotomagenses vero adventu regis Ludovici hilares susceperunt eum volenter, putantes ut equitaret super Flandrenses,” &c.

Footnote 326:

Ib. 115 C. “Richardo prædignæ innocentiæ puero largitus est terram hæreditario avi patrisque jure possidendam.” Is not this a repetition of the real grant and homage mentioned above, which did not take place at Rouen?

Footnote 327:

“Poplites coquere.” Dudo, 117 B. “Poplites adurere.” Will. Gem. iv. 3. See M. Francisque Michel’s note on Benoît, 13706.

Footnote 328:

That is, he was carried out in a truss of hay. One can hardly avoid the suspicion that this is the story of Lewis’s own deliverance (see above, p. 184), perhaps itself legendary, turning up in another shape.

Footnote 329:

Flod. A. 944. He seems to distinguish “Nortmanni cum quibus pactum inierant” from “Nortmanni qui nuper a transmarinis venerant regionibus.” Cf. Richer, ii. 41.

Footnote 330:

Flod. A. 944. “Hugo dux Francorum pactum firmat cum Nortmannis, datis utrimque et acceptis obsidibus.”

Footnote 331:

Dudo, 120 B, D.

Footnote 332:

Flod. A. 944. “Baiocas ... civitatem ... quam rex ei dederat, si eum ad subjiciendam sibi hanc Nortmannorum gentem adjuvaret.”

Footnote 333:

Ib. A. 944. “Rex Rodomum perveniens a Nortmannis in urbe suscipitur, quibusdam mare petentibus qui eum nolebant recipere, cæteris omnibus sibi subjugatis.” Richer, ii. 42. “Rex Rhodomum veniens, ab iis qui fidei servatores fuere exceptus est. Desertores vero mare petentes, amoliti sunt, municipia vero copiis munita reliquere.”

Footnote 334:

Flod. A. 944. “Unde et discordiæ fomes inter regem concitatur et ducem.” From Flodoard it would seem that Hugh had fought with some Normans, and from Richer that he received the homage of others, earlier in the year. Hugh’s policy was always double, and Normandy was now very much divided against itself.

Footnote 335:

Flod. A. 945. “Rex Ludowicus collecto secum Nortmannorum exercitu, Veromandensen pagum depredatus.” So Richer, ii. 44.

Footnote 336:

Richer, ii. 47. “Rhodomum rediit, nil veritus cum paucis illic immorari, cum idem consueverit.”

Footnote 337:

Dudo, 122 C.

Footnote 338:

The chronology of Gorm’s reign is of course mythical; some give him quite a short reign; others make two or three Gorms. In short, we have hardly any standing-ground in Danish history before the time of Swegen.

Footnote 339:

See above, p. 191, for the rebellion of his son Swegen, which the later Norman writers misplace. Of Swegen I shall have much to say in my next Chapter.

Footnote 340:

I may for once quote an “Apostropha” of Dudo, 125 D;

“O pius, prudens, bonus, et modestus; Fortis et constans, sapiensque, justus, Dives, insignis, locuplesque, sollers Rex Haygrolde. Quamvis haut sis chrismate delibutus, Et sacro baptismate non renatus: En vale, salveque, et aucto semper In deitate.”

Footnote 341:

See above, p. 210.

Footnote 342:

“Cæsaris burgus” is the approved etymology of our author’s, but I suspect that the place is akin to our Scarborough in name as well as in natural position.

Footnote 343:

Flod. A. 945. “Haigroldus Nortmannus qui Baiocis præerat.” So Richer, ii. 47.

Footnote 344:

Flod. u. s.; Richer, u. s. This last writer brings in Hugh the Great as an accomplice; “Dolus apud ducem a transfugis paratus, qui ante latuerat, orta opportunitate ex raritate militum, in apertum erupit. Nam dum tempestivus adveniret, ab Hagroldo qui Baiocensibus præerat, per legationem suasoriam accersitus, Bajocas cum paucis ad accersientem, utpote ad fidelem quem in nullo suspectum habuerat, securis accessit. Barbarus vero militum inopiam intuitus cum multitudine armatorum Regi incautus aggreditur.”

Footnote 345:

Dudo, 123 C, D.

Footnote 346:

See vol. iii. ch. xii. § 2.

Footnote 347:

Flod. A. 945. “Rex solus fugam iniit, prosequente se Nortmanno quodam sibi fideli. Cum quo Rodomum veniens, comprehensus est ab aliis Nortmannis quos sibi fideles esse putabat, et sub custodia detentus.”

Footnote 348:

Dudo, 125 D. “Jura legesque et statuta Rollonis ducis tenere per omnia cogebat.”

Footnote 349:

In Cnut’s time (Chron. A. 1018) the Witan at Oxford renewed “Eadgar’s law;” so Harold, in answer to the demands of the Northumbrians in revolt against Tostig (Chron. A. 1065), “renewed Cnut’s law.” So on the conquest of Cyprus by Richard the First in 1191 the laws of the Emperor Manuel were restored—on the payment by the islanders of half their possessions. Ben. Petrib. ii. 168.

Footnote 350:

I confess that, once or twice, in writing this paragraph, a doubt has crossed my mind whether “Haigrold who commanded at Bayeux” (see p. 217) was not, after all, some much smaller person than Harold King of the Danes. The Northern writers, as far as I know, do not mention the expedition, the motive of which is not very obvious. But very little can be made out of the Northern stories in any case; the French writers always slur over everything Norman; and the fiction would seem almost too bold even for Norman invention. The details of course cannot be accepted in any case.

Footnote 351:

Flod. A. 945; Richer, ii. 48; Widukind, ii. 39. “Hluthowicus rex a ducibus suis [Hugh?] circumventus, et a Northmannis captus, consilio Hugonis Lugdunum [confusedly for Laudunum, which is itself an error] missus custodiæ publicæ traditur. Filium autem ejus natu majorem Karlomannum Northmanni secum duxerunt Rothun; ibi et mortuus est.” On the hostages, see Flodoard and Richer.]

Footnote 352:

Richer, ii. 49, 50. “Ob minas Anglorum nil se facturum; ipsos, si veniant, quid in armis Galli valeant promptissime experturos; quod si formidine tacti non veniant, pro arrogantiæ tamen illatione, Gallorum vires quandoque cognituros et insuper pœnam luituros. Iratus itaque legatos expulit.” Flodoard, contrary to the remark made in p. 203, is less excited against insular intervention.

Footnote 353:

Widukind, ii. 39. “Audiens autem rex super fortuna amici satis doluit, imperavitque expeditionem in Gallia contra Hugonem in annum secundum.”

Footnote 354:

Flod. A. 945. “Qui rex nolens loqui cum eo mittit ad eum Conradum ducem Lothariensium. Cum quo locutus Hugo, infensus Othoni regi revertitur.”

Footnote 355:

Flod. A. 946; Richer, ii. 51. Richer clearly connects the liberation of Lewis with the negotiations with Otto. Widukind (iii. 2) is still more explicit; “Certus autem factus de adventu regis Huga, timore quoque perterritus, dimisit Hluthowicum.”

Footnote 356:

Flod. A. 946. “Qui dux Hugo renovans regi Ludowico regium honorem vel nomen, ei sese cum cæteris regni committit primoribus.” Richer cuts the matter shorter (ii. 51); “Unde et dimissus, data Lauduno, Compendii sese recepit.”

Footnote 357:

Dudo, 126 C. See Appendix W.

Footnote 358:

Dudo, 128 D et seqq. See Appendix W.

Footnote 359:

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

Footnote 360:

See Appendix W.

Footnote 361:

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

Footnote 362:

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

Footnote 363:

Dudo, 129 D.

Footnote 364:

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

Footnote 365:

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

Footnote 366:

See Appendix T.

Footnote 367:

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

Footnote 368:

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

Footnote 369:

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

Footnote 370:

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

Footnote 371:

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

Footnote 372:

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

Footnote 373:

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

Footnote 374:

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

Footnote 375:

Flod. 947; Richer, ii. 66.

Footnote 376:

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

Footnote 377:

Flod. 948; Richer, ii. 69–81.

Footnote 378:

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

Footnote 379:

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

Footnote 380:

See above, p. 222.

Footnote 381:

See above, p. 209.

Footnote 382:

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

Footnote 383:

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

Footnote 384:

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

Footnote 385:

Flod. A. 953.

Footnote 386:

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

Footnote 387:

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

Footnote 388:

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

Footnote 389:

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

Footnote 390:

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

Footnote 391:

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

Footnote 392:

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

Footnote 393:

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

Footnote 394:

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

Footnote 395:

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

Footnote 396:

Dudo, 136 D.

Footnote 397:

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

Footnote 398:

See Appendix W.

Footnote 399:

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

Footnote 400:

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

Footnote 401:

See Appendix W.

Footnote 402:

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

Footnote 403:

See L’Art de Vérifier les Dates, ii. 611.

Footnote 404:

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

Footnote 405:

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

Footnote 406:

Dudo, 137 D et seqq.

Footnote 407:

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

Footnote 408:

Dudo, 142 C.

Footnote 409:

Ib. 139 C et seqq.

Footnote 410:

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

Footnote 411:

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

Footnote 412:

Dudo, 140 C et seqq.

Footnote 413:

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

Footnote 414:

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

Footnote 415:

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

Footnote 416:

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

Footnote 417:

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

Footnote 418:

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

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

Footnote 419:

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

Footnote 420:

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

Footnote 421:

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

Footnote 422:

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

Footnote 423:

Richer, iii. 89, 90.

Footnote 424:

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

Footnote 425:

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

Footnote 426:

Richer, iii. 97–110.

Footnote 427:

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

Footnote 428:

Richer, iv. 1.

Footnote 429:

Richer, iv. 2, 3.

Footnote 430:

Ib. iv. 5.

Footnote 431:

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

Footnote 432:

See Appendix S.

Footnote 433:

Richer, iv. 12, 13.

Footnote 434:

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

Footnote 435:

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

Footnote 436:

See pp. 206, 209, 223.

Footnote 437:

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

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

Footnote 438:

See above, p. 223.

Footnote 439:

See above, p. 154.

Footnote 440:

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

Footnote 441:

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

Footnote 442:

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

Footnote 443:

Dante, Purg. xx.

Footnote 444:

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

Footnote 445:

See L’Art de Vérifier les Dates, ii. 828.

Footnote 446:

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

Footnote 447:

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

Footnote 448:

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

Footnote 449:

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

Footnote 450:

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

Footnote 451:

So Wace, 5873;

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

Footnote 452:

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

Footnote 453:

See p. 164.

Footnote 454:

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

Footnote 455:

Roman de Rou, 5955–5974.

Footnote 456:

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

Footnote 457:

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

Footnote 458:

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

Footnote 459:

Roman de Rou, 6070;

“Asez tost oï Richard dire Ke vilains cumune faseient.”

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

Footnote 460:

Roman de Rou, 6001–6015.

Footnote 461:

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

Footnote 462:

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

Footnote 463:

See Palgrave, iii. 44.

Footnote 464:

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

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

Footnote 465:

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

Footnote 466:

See Appendix AA.

Footnote 467:

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

Footnote 468:

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

Footnote 469:

See Appendix AA.

Footnote 470:

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

Footnote 471:

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

Footnote 472:

Fl. Wig. 975. See Appendix BB.

Footnote 473:

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

Footnote 474:

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

Footnote 475:

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

Footnote 476:

See Appendix KK.

Footnote 477:

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

Footnote 478:

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

Footnote 479:

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

Footnote 480:

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

Footnote 481:

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

Footnote 482:

The full form of this name, Swegen, is always used by the English Chroniclers; but in Danish pronunciation it seems to have been already cut down into Svein or Sven. The Latin forms are Suanus and Sueno.

Footnote 483:

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

Footnote 484:

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

Footnote 485:

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

Footnote 486:

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

Footnote 487:

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

Footnote 488:

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

Footnote 489:

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

Footnote 490:

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

Footnote 491:

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

Footnote 492:

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

Footnote 493:

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

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

Footnote 494:

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

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

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

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

Footnote 495:

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

Footnote 496:

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

Footnote 497:

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

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

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

Footnote 498:

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

Footnote 499:

So I understand the lines,

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

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

Footnote 500:

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

Footnote 501:

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

Footnote 502:

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

Footnote 503:

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

Footnote 504:

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

Footnote 505:

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

Footnote 506:

See her life in Bæda, iv. 19, 20.

Footnote 507:

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

Footnote 508:

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

Footnote 509:

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

Footnote 510:

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

Footnote 511:

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

Footnote 512:

See above, p. 264, and Appendix CC.

Footnote 513:

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

Footnote 514:

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

Footnote 515:

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

Footnote 516:

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

Footnote 517:

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

Footnote 518:

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

Footnote 519:

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

Footnote 520:

Bæda, Eccl. Hist. ii. 3.

Footnote 521:

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

Footnote 522:

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

Footnote 523:

Instituta Lundoniæ, Thorpe, i. 300.

Footnote 524:

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

Footnote 525:

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

Footnote 526:

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

Footnote 527:

See Appendix AA.

Footnote 528:

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

Footnote 529:

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

Footnote 530:

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

Footnote 531:

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

Footnote 532:

On Æthelred’s relations with Normandy see Appendix EE.

Footnote 533:

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

Footnote 534:

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

Footnote 535:

See above, p. 269.

Footnote 536:

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

Footnote 537:

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

Footnote 538:

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

Footnote 539:

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

Footnote 540:

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

Footnote 541:

Ann. Camb.; Brut y Tywysogion, 994.

Footnote 542:

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

Footnote 543:

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

Footnote 544:

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

Footnote 545:

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

Footnote 546:

Flor. Wig. 995.

Footnote 547:

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

Footnote 548:

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

Footnote 549:

Cod. Dipl. iii. 299.

Footnote 550:

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

Footnote 551:

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

Footnote 552:

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

Footnote 553:

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

Footnote 554:

Cod. Dipl. iii. 311.

Footnote 555:

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

Footnote 556:

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

Footnote 557:

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

Footnote 558:

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

Footnote 559:

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

Footnote 560:

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

Footnote 561:

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

Footnote 562:

On this Cumbrian expedition see Appendix FF.

Footnote 563:

See above, p. 291.

Footnote 564:

See above, p. 63.

Footnote 565:

See Appendix EE.

Footnote 566:

See Appendix SS.

Footnote 567:

See above, p. 253.

Footnote 568:

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

Footnote 569:

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

Footnote 570:

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

Footnote 571:

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

Footnote 572:

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

Footnote 573:

Greg. Turon. iv. 26; Bæda, i. 25.

Footnote 574:

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

Footnote 575:

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

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

Footnote 576:

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

Footnote 577:

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

Footnote 578:

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

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

Footnote 579:

Will. Malms. ii. 177.

Footnote 580:

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

Footnote 581:

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

Footnote 582:

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

Footnote 583:

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

Footnote 584:

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

Footnote 585:

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

Footnote 586:

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

Footnote 587:

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

Footnote 588:

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

Footnote 589:

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

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

Footnote 590:

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

Footnote 591:

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

Footnote 592:

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

Footnote 593:

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

Footnote 594:

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

Footnote 595:

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

Footnote 596:

Cod. Dipl. vi. 140.

Footnote 597:

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

Footnote 598:

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

Footnote 599:

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

Footnote 600:

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

Footnote 601:

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

Footnote 602:

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

Footnote 603:

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

Footnote 604:

On the details of the massacre, see Appendix GG.

Footnote 605:

See Appendix GG.

Footnote 606:

See above, p. 280.

Footnote 607:

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

Footnote 608:

The Chronicles have, “her was Exanceaster abrocen þunruh þone Franciscan ceorl Hugan, ðe seo hlæfdige hire hæfde geset to gerefan.” But Florence has, “per insilium, incuriam, et traditionem Nortmannici comitis Hugonis, quem regina Emma Domnaniæ præfecit.” Henry of Huntingdon (752 B) says, “Hugonem Normannum, quem ibi regina Emma vicecomitem [gerefan?] statuerat, in perniciem compegerunt.” Florence seems to have read eorl where our copies of the Chronicles have ceorl; also he seems to make Hugh Ealdorman of Devonshire, while in the Chronicles he is only reeve of Exeter. The “Frenchmen” of the Chronicles may always be Normans or not; most likely Hugh was a Norman.

The “_in_silium” of Florence is an attempt to express in Latin the negative form “unræd.” See above, p. 261.

Footnote 609:

Flor. Wig. “Civitatem Exanceastram infregit, spoliavit, murum ab orientali usque ad occidentalem portam destruxit.” This does not imply the complete destruction of the city. But Henry of Huntingdon says, “urbem totam funditus destruxerunt,” which is doubtless an exaggeration.

Footnote 610:

“Alfricus dux supra memoratus” says Florence; it is clear that this is Ælfric, the traitor of 992.

Footnote 611:

See above, p. 280.

Footnote 612:

Chron. 1003. “Þa gebræd he hine seocne, and ongan he hine brecan to spiwenne, and cwæð þæt he gesicled wære.”

Footnote 613:

Like Lydiadas at Ladokeia and Philopoimên at Sellasia. See Hist. Fed. Gov. i. 450, 497.

Footnote 614:

Flor. Wig. “A suis inimicis sine pugna divertit mœstissimus.” The Chronicles, and after them Florence and Henry, quote a proverb, “Þonne se heretoga wacað, þonne bið eall se here swiðe gehindred.”

Footnote 615:

See many passages in Grote’s History of Greece, especially the remarks on the death of Epameinôndas; x. 477.

Footnote 616:

Il. xx. 216;

κτίσσε δὲ Δαρδανίην, ἐπεὶ οὔπω Ἴλιος ἱρὴ ἐν πεδίῳ πεπόλιστο, πόλις μερόπων ἀνθρώπων, ἀλλ’ ἔθ’ ὑπωρείας ᾤκεον πολυπιδάκου Ἴδης.

Πολυπίδακος however would be the most inappropriate of epithets for Old Sarum, which, in the days of its greatness, was “well provided otherwise of all commodities, but wanted water so unreasonably as (a strange kind of merchandise) it was there to be sold.” (Godwin, translating William of Malmesbury, Gest. Pont. p. 183.)

Footnote 617:

The Chronicler here, though writing in prose, gets poetical, and calls the ships “horses of the wave”—“þær he wiste his yð hengestas.”

Footnote 618:

On Ulfcytel, see Appendix HH.

Footnote 619:

Chron. in anno. “Þa gerædde Ulfcytel wið þa witan on East-Englum.” Flor. Wig. “Cum majoribus East-Angliæ habito concilio.” See Kemble, ii. 257.

Footnote 620:

So I understand the narrative in the Chronicles, which seems to imply that the measures of Ulfcytel were taken as soon as the Danes began their march, but before they reached Thetford, while Florence does not mention Ulfcytel as doing anything till after he hears of the burning of the town.

Footnote 621:

I modernize the words of the Chronicles. “Swa hi sylfe sædon, þæt hi næfre wyrsan handplegan on Angelcynne ne gemetton, þonne Ulfcytel him to brohte.” So Florence, “ut enim ipsi testati sunt, durius et asperius bellum in Anglia numquam experti sunt quam illis dux Ulfketel intulerat.” Cf. Will. Malms. ii. 165.

Footnote 622:

Chron. in anno. “Þær wearð East-Engla folces seo yld [yldesta] ofslægan.” See on the sense of this word and its cognates, p. 75.]

Footnote 623:

Cod. Dipl. iii. 339; vi. 152.

Footnote 624:

On the rise of Eadric, see Appendix II.

Footnote 625:

On Wulfgeat, see Appendix II.

Footnote 626:

See Appendix KK.

Footnote 627:

“Id est Oppidi Canis,” says Florence. Perhaps Godwine was only a butcher, as Lappenberg makes him. This is the more usual mediæval sense of Carnifex, but the surname sounds as if he were an official person.

Footnote 628:

I give this story a place in the text with fear and trembling. Did it not rest on the authority of Florence, I should at once cast it aside as legendary. The hunting-party has a very mythical sound, being in fact part of the legend of Eadgar and Ælfthryth. (Cf. Dio, lxix. 2; ὡς ἐν θήρᾳ δῆθεν ἐπιβεβουλευκότες αὐτῷ.) And one might be a little suspicious as to Eadric’s position at Shrewsbury. Why should Eadric be more at home there than Ælfhelm? The teller of the tale might almost seem to have looked on Eadric as already Ealdorman of the Mercians, and as therefore naturally called on to receive his Northumbrian brother in one of the chief towns of his government. But for Florence to insert, like William of Malmesbury, a mere piece of a ballad without even the attraction of a miracle, is most unlikely. Florence, as I shall presently show, is not infallible, but few writers are less given to romance. I therefore accept the story, though I do not feel perfect confidence in it.

Footnote 629:

This story comes from a separate tract by Simeon of Durham on the Earls of the Northumbrians (X Scriptt. 79). By some strange confusion, it is there put under the year 979, the first year of Æthelred. If it happened at all, it must have happened in this year, the only one which suits the position of the King, Bishop, and Earl spoken of. Ealdhun became Bishop in 990, and removed the see to Durham in 995. Malcolm began to reign in 1004; a Northumbrian earldom became vacant in 1006. This fixes the date. The authority of Simeon is, I think, guaranty enough for the general truth of the story, and the silence of the Chronicles and Florence is not conclusive as to a Northumbrian matter. The story also derives some sort of confirmation from a passage of Fordun (Scot. Hist. iv. 39, p. 683, Gale), which is very vague and confused, but which at least implies warfare of some kind between Malcolm and Uhtred. “Othredum itaque comitem Anglicum, sed Danis subditum, cujus inter eos simultatis exortæ caussam nescio, Cumbriam prædari conantem, receptis prædis, juxta Burgum bello difficili superavit.”

Footnote 630:

See p. 292.

Footnote 631:

See Appendix KK.

Footnote 632:

The heads of the handsomest of the slain Scots, with their long twisted hair, were exposed on the walls of Durham. They were previously washed by four women, each of whom received a cow for her pains. So at least says Simeon, p. 80.

Footnote 633:

See Appendix II.

Footnote 634:

Sim. Dun. p. 80. So J. Wallingford, 546.

Footnote 635:

Florence says, “Cum iis fortiter dimicare statuit;” but there are no words exactly answering to them in the Chronicles.

Footnote 636:

So Florence, again without direct support from the Chronicles; “illi cum eo palam confligere nullatenus voluerunt.”

Footnote 637:

See Mr. Earle’s note, p. 335.

Footnote 638:

Chron. “And se here com þa ofer þa Martines mæssan to his fryðstole Wihtlande, ... and þa to þam middan wintran eodon him to heora gearwan feorme, út þurh Hamtunscire into Bearrucscire to Readingon.” So H. Hunt. M. H. B. 752 D. “Quæ parata erant hilariter comedentes.”

Footnote 639:

Chronn. “And wendon him ða andlang Æscesdune to Cwichelmes hlæwe.” It has been distinctly shown by Mr. James Parker that Æscesdún means the whole ridge which the Danes marched along from the east to the barrow at Cwichelmes hlæw. On the Scirgemót—was it not something more than a mere Scirgemót?—at Cwichelmeshlæw, see Cod. Dipl. iii. 292. The prophecy comes from the Chronicles; it is left out by Florence.

Footnote 640:

The Chronicler here becomes very emphatic and eloquent, setting down no doubt what he had seen with his own eyes. Florence, harmonizing eighty or ninety years after, is much briefer.

Footnote 641:

See Appendix II.

Footnote 642:

Thorpe, i. 304; Schmid, 220.

Footnote 643:

Cap. 2. “And úres hláfordes gerǽdnes and his witena is, þæt man cristene menn and unforworhte of earde ne sylle, ne huru on hǽðene leóde, ac beorge man geórne, þæt man þá sáwla ne forfare, þa Crist mid his ágenum lífe gebohte.” The same practice is forbidden in the Capitularies of Charles the Bald. See Waitz, iv. 288. So Smaragdus de Via Regia, c. 30 (D’Achery, i. 253); “Prohibe ergo, clementissime rex, ne in regno tuo captivitas fiat.”

Footnote 644:

The witeðeow seems to be forbidden by a capitulary of Charles the Great. Aquis, 813 (Pertz, iii. 189); “Ut vicarii eos qui pro furto se in servitio tradere cupiunt non consentiant.”

Footnote 645:

This seems to be implied in the word unforworhte—in the Latin text (Schmid, 237) insontem.

Footnote 646:

It occurs in nearly the same words in the Statute of Enham, c. 9, and in the Laws of Cnut, Thorpe, i. 376.

Footnote 647:

Cap. 16 (Thorpe, i. 308). “And Sce Eâdwardes mæsse-dæg witan habbað gecoren, þæt man freólsian sceal ofer eal Engla-land on xv. Kal. Aprilis.” Mark the way in which the Witan, as a matter of course, pass an ordinance on this matter, which a century or two later would have been held to be a matter of purely ecclesiastical concern.

Footnote 648:

Cap. 34, 35. “Ealle we scylan ǽnne God lúfian and weorðian, and ǽnne cristendóm georne healdan, and ælcne hǽðendóm mid ealle áweorpan.”

“And utan ǽnne cyne-hláford holdlíce healdan; and líf and land samod ealle werian, swá wel swá we betst magan, and God ealmihtigne inwerdre heortan fultumes biddan.”

Footnote 649:

Will. Malms. ii. 156.

Footnote 650:

See p. 280.

Footnote 651:

Cap. 27.

Footnote 652:

Cap. 28.

Footnote 653:

Cap. 26.

Footnote 654:

Thorpe, i. 314; Schmid, 226.

Footnote 655:

It is headed, “Be Witena gerǽdnessan.” The statute begins, “Ðis sindon þá gerǽdnessa, þe Engla rǽd-gifan gecuran and gecwǽdan, and geornlice lǽrdan, þæt man scolde healdan.” And many clauses begin, “And witena gerǽdnes is.” Mr. Kemble (ii. 212) remarks, “If it were not for one or two enactments referring to the safety of the royal person and the dignity of the crown, we might be almost tempted to imagine that the great councillors of state had met, during Æðelred’s flight from England, and passed these laws upon their own authority, without the King.”

This is possible, and even tempting, but on the whole I think they must belong to the years 1007–9. The great importance given to naval preparations seems distinctly to refer them to this time. After the return of Æthelred from Normandy in 1014 we read of no attempt at naval warfare.

Footnote 656:

See above, p. 52.

Footnote 657:

See Appendix LL.

Footnote 658:

Cod. Dipl. iii. 352.

Footnote 659:

On the ship-money see Mr. Bruce’s Prefaces to the Calendars of State Papers for 1634–5, pp. xxv. et seqq., and for 1635, pp. x. et seqq.

Footnote 660:

Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 753 A.

Footnote 661:

Will. Gem. v. 7. But this writer makes Swegen sail to Northumberland immediately after the massacre in 1002, whereas he did not go thither till 1013. So it is impossible to fix the time to which the treaty should be referred. William may have confounded York and Exeter, or the treaty may belong to a time later than Swegen’s invasion of Northumberland.

Footnote 662:

Will. Gem. v. 8; Roman de Rou, 6868.

Footnote 663:

I here follow the words of the Chronicles almost literally.

Footnote 664:

See Appendix HH.

Footnote 665:

See Appendix MM.

Footnote 666:

Chron. “And þohte þæt he him micles wordes wyrcan sæolde.”

Footnote 667:

“Þa ðis þus cuð wǽs tó þam oðerum scipum þær se cyng wǽs, hu ða oþre geferdon, hit wæs þa swilc hit eall rædleas wǽre; and ferde sé cyning him hám, and þá ealdormen and ða heahwitan, and forleton þa scipu ðús leohtlice; and þæt folc þa þæt on ðam scipon wæron fercodon [þa scypo] eft to Lundene, and leton ealles þeodscypes geswinc ðus leohtlice fórwurðan, and næs sé sige na betere þe eall Angelcyn tó hopode.”

Footnote 668:

On the career and character of Thurkill, see Appendix NN.

Footnote 669:

See Chron. and Florence in anno, and cf. Appendix NN.

Footnote 670:

See above, p. 323.

Footnote 671:

“East-Centingas.” Chron.

Footnote 672:

That is, if Rochester, with the strange diocese which modern arrangements have attached to it, can any longer be looked upon as a Kentish bishopric.

Footnote 673:

Flor. 1009. “Rex ... multis millibus armatorum instructus, et, ut totus erat exercitus, mori vel vincere paratus.” But the Chronicles guarantee only the devotion of the army, not that of its leader.

Footnote 674:

The Chronicles say only “Ac hit wæs þa þuruh Eadric ealdorman gelet, swa hit gyt æfre wæs.” Florence describes the meaning of this “letting;” “Insidiis et perplexis orationibus ne prœlium inirent, sed ea vice suos hostes abire permitterent, modis omnibus allaboravit.”

Footnote 675:

One can hardly conceive that the movements of the Danes were at all regulated by Lent and Easter; yet the language of our authority seems to imply it.

Footnote 676:

Chronn. in anno. The Danes are met by “Ulfcytel mid his fyrde.” We then read, “sona flugon East-Engle. Þa stod Grantabricscir fæstlice ongean.” The treason of Thurcytel and the names of the slain also come from the Chronicles. Florence adds the name of the place, Ringmere, which occurs also in the confused accounts in the Sagas. See Appendix HH and TT.

Footnote 677:

See Appendix SS.

Footnote 678:

See above, p. 314.

Footnote 679:

See Appendix OO.

Footnote 680:

“Man,” according to the familiar German idiom; it is impossible to modernize the English without it, unless the whole force were to be lost.

Footnote 681:

Heafodman = Captain, like the German Hauptmann.

Footnote 682:

“And þonne hi tó scipon ferdon, þonne sceolde fyrd ut éft ongean þæt hi up woldan; þonne ferde seo fyrd ham, and þonne bí wæron be easton þonne heold man fyrde be westan, and þonne hí wæron be suðan, þonne wæs ure fyrd be norðan. Þonne bead man eallan witan to cynge, and man sceolde þonne rædan hu man þisne eard werian sceolde. Ac þeah mon þonne hwæt rædde, þæt ne stód furðon ænne monað. Æt nextan næs nan heafodman þet fyrde gaderian wolde, ac ælc fleah swa hí mæst mihte, ne furðon nan scír nolde oþre gelæstan æt nextan.”

Footnote 683:

The Chronicles and Florence give the names. William of Malmesbury, though professing to be at least half an Englishman, is too dainty to copy the uncouth names of English shires. “Cum numerentur in Anglia triginta duo pagi, illi jam sedecim invaserant, quorum nomina propter barbariem linguæ scribere refugio.” (ii. 165.)

Footnote 684:

The Chronicles reckon Hastings, “Hæstingas,” as distinct from Sussex.

Footnote 685:

Chron. and Flor. Wig. in anno. Thietmar, who, for a time, becomes an authority of some value, is amusing in the way in which he brings in English affairs (vii. 26, ap. Pertz, iii. 847). “Audivi sæpius numero, Anglos, ab angelica facie, id est pulcra, sive quod in angulo istius terræ siti sunt, dictos, ineffabilem miseriam a Sueino, Haraldi filio, immiti Danorum rege, perpessos esse, et ad id coactos, ut qui prius tributarii erant principis apostolorum Petri ac sancti patris eorum Gregorii spirituales filii, immundis canibus impositum sibi censum quotannis solverent, et maximam regni suimet partem, capto ac interemto habitatore, tunc hosti fiducialiter in habitandam inviti relinquerent.” This last clause reads more like a description of the settlement of Guthrum than of anything that happened in Swegen’s time.

Footnote 686:

“Ealle þas ungesealða us gelumpon þurh unrædes.” Is there an allusion to the name of Æthel_red_, and is this the origin of his nickname of Unready? See above, p. 261.

Footnote 687:

It is suggested by Lappenberg, ii. 175.

Footnote 688:

The last entry is in 991 (see above, p. 284). The next is in 1033. Yet these Chronicles are rather lavish than otherwise of notices of English affairs.

Footnote 689:

Brut y Tywysogion, 1011. “One year and one thousand and ten was the year of Christ, when Menevia was devastated by the Saxons, to wit, by Entris and Ubis.” Annales Camb. 1012. “Menevia a Saxonibus vastata est, scilicet Edris et Ubis.” Ann. Menevenses, 1011 (Angl. Sacr. ii. 648). “Menevia vastatur a Saxonibus, scilicet Edrich et Umbrich.” Here at last we get Eadric’s right name; who Ubis or Umbrich may have been it is vain to guess.

Footnote 690:

On the siege of Canterbury and martyrdom of Ælfheah, see Appendix PP.

Footnote 691:

The signatures of Godwine of Rochester seem to extend from 995 to 1046. Professor Stubbs (Reg. Sac. Angl. 17, 18) seems uncertain whether they belong to one man or two. The famous Odo held the see of Bayeux for as long a time.

Footnote 692:

Will. Malms, ii. 184. But see Wharton’s note to Osbern, Anglia Sacra, ii. 124. Ælfheah’s sojourn at Glastonbury seems doubtful. He was a monk at Bath, and he probably was Abbot there. (Flor. Wig. 984.) It should be remembered that Bath was then an independent abbey. See vol. iv. p. 421.

Footnote 693:

See Appendix PP.

Footnote 694:

Pelting people with bones at dinner seems to have been an established Danish custom. It is allowed as the punishment of certain lesser offences by Cnut’s “Witherlags Ret.” Swegen Aggesson, ap. Langebek, iii. 148. See also a mythical story in Saxo, 115.

Footnote 695:

See vol. iv. p. 442.

Footnote 696:

On Thurkill’s conduct, see Appendix NN.

Footnote 697:

See above, pp. 308–309.

Footnote 698:

See Encomium Emmæ, i. 2, and Appendix NN.

Footnote 699:

Encomium Emmæ, i. 4.

Footnote 700:

Compare the saying of Thurkill just before; he will give any quantity of gold and silver, anything except his ship, to redeem the life of Ælfheah.

Footnote 701:

Compare the description of the splendid ship given by Godwine to Harthacnut, Flor. Wig. 1040. Archbishop Ælfric also leaves King Æthelred his best ship with its accoutrements. Cod. Dipl. iii. 351.

Footnote 702:

See above, p. 329.

Footnote 703:

He “soon” (sona) submitted, say the Chronicles; “sine cunctatione” says Florence. William of Malmesbury (ii. 176) makes the most of it; “Non quod in illorum mentibus genuinus ille calor, et dominorum impatiens, refriguerit, sed quod princeps eorum Uhtredus primus exemplum dederit.”

Footnote 704:

See above, p. 62.

Footnote 705:

“Sibi lectos auxiliarios de deditis sumens,” says Florence. This seems also implied in the words of the Chronicles; “And hé þá wende syððan suðweard mid fulre fyrde.” Fyrd means the legal military array of an English district; the Danish army is always here.

Footnote 706:

The Chronicles distinctly mark the geographical limit of his ravages; “And syððan hé com ofer Wætlinga stræte, hi wrohton þæt mæste yfel þe ænig here don mihte.”

Footnote 707:

Flor. Wig. “Suis edictum posuit, videlicet, ut agros vastarent,” &c.

Footnote 708:

William of Malmesbury (ii. 177), in the middle of his confused narrative of this reign, lavishes a vast amount of fine writing on this siege of London. The drowning of the Danes in the Thames is attributed to the valour of the citizens, with which it clearly had nothing to do. His character of the Londoners does not badly describe that of the English generally; “Laudandi prorsus viri, et quos Mars ipse collata non sperneret hasta, si ducem habuissent.” But the Londoners had a leader, only William throughout refuses to name any honourable act of Thurkill.

Footnote 709:

Florence ventures to say, “Æthelredus ... muros viriliter defendit.”

Footnote 710:

See Appendix QQ.

Footnote 711:

Compare Thucydides’ comment (iv. 12) on the battle at Pylos, where the natural parts of the Lacedæmonians and the Athenians were reversed in the like way; ἐς τοῦτό τε περιέστη ἡ τύχη ὥστε Ἀθηναίους μὲν ἐκ γῆς τε καὶ ταύτης Λακωνικῆς ἀμύνεσθαι ἐκείνους ἐπιπλέοντας, Λακεδαιμονίους δὲ ἐκ νεῶν τε καὶ ἐς τὴν ἑαυτῶν πολεμίαν οὖσαν ἐπ’ Ἀθηναίους ἀποβαίνειν.

Footnote 712:

The Chronicles distinctly make Emma and her sons go at two different times, and they rather imply that Emma went of her own accord. “Seo hlæfdige wende þa ofer sǽ to hire broðor Ricarde and Ælfsige abbod of Burh mid hire; and se cyning sende Ælfun bisceop mid þam æðelingum Eadwearde and Ælfrede ofer sǽ.” Florence and William mix up the two things together, but this trait in Emma’s character should not be forgotten.

Footnote 713:

William of Malmesbury (ii. 177), seemingly to avoid naming Thurkill, confuses everything. He makes Æthelred fly secretly from London to Southampton, and thence to the Isle of Wight. He there holds a synod of Bishops and Abbots (see Appendix OO), makes a long speech to them, and sends Emma and the children across. Roger of Wendover tells the same story, only without mentioning the Bishops. William of Jumièges (v. 7) has a romance about Æthelred bringing over some hidden treasures which he kept concealed at Winchester. He fancies that Æthelred was living there, whereas the city was in the power of Swegen. William, by this secret flight of Æthelred, at least avoids this absurdity.

Footnote 714:

Roger of Wendover sends him across with a hundred and forty “milites.” For a minute and highly-coloured version of the whole story, see Mr. St. John, ii. 34.

Footnote 715:

Chron. 1013. “Þa bead Swegen ful gyld and metsunge to hís here ðóne winter, and Þurkyl bead þæt ylce to ðam here þé læg æt Grenawíc, and for eallon þam hí heregodon swa oft swa hí woldon.”

Footnote 716:

See above, pp. 44, 162, 268.

Footnote 717:

The epithet of Great however, in Danish annals, belongs not to him but to his grandson Swegen Estrithson. Chron. Roskild. ap. Langebek, i. 378.

Footnote 718:

See Appendix QQ.

Footnote 719:

“Clericos,” says Florence; for Saint Eadmund’s was then held by secular priests. It was Cnut who first placed monks there.

Footnote 720:

Florence calls it “generale placitum,” the same name which he applies to the “mycel gemót,” the “magnum placitum,” of the next year.

Footnote 721:

“Magno cruciatus tormento, tertio nonas Februarii miserabili morte vitam finivit.”

Footnote 722:

“Swegen geendode his dagas,” says the Chronicle, not a very usual expression. It is applied two years afterwards to Æthelred, and, long before, under 946, to the first Eadmund.

Footnote 723:

“Animam remittendo cœlestibus,” says the Encomiast (i. 5); “diro corporis cruciatu ad tartara transmissus,” says Roger of Wendover (i. 449).

Footnote 724:

The Encomiast (i. 3 et al.) has more to tell of Harold than other writers. He makes Harold the younger brother, which seems odd. Harold is not mentioned by Saxo, but his name is found in the Danish chronicles. According to the Chronicle of Eric (Lang. i. 159), the Danes deposed Harold and elected Cnut, then deposed Cnut, on account of his frequent absences from Denmark, and restored Harold, on whose death Cnut finally succeeded. In the Knytlinga Saga, c. 8, Harold dies before Swegen.

Footnote 725:

The Knytlinga Saga seems (Johnstone, 101) to make him only ten years old in 1008; but nothing can be made of its chronology.

Footnote 726:

Chron. “And cwædon þat him nan hlaford leofra nære þonne heora gecynda hlaford [in the Canterbury Chronicle cyne-hlaford], gif he hi rihtlicor healdan wolde þonne he ær dyde.”

Footnote 727:

Flor. Wig. 1014. “Promittens se ... in omnibus eorum voluntati consensurum consiliis acquieturum.”

Footnote 728:

Florence says only, “Principes se non amplius Danicum regem admissuros in Angliam unanimiter spoponderunt.” But the Chronicles say expressly, “æfre ælcne Deniscne cyning utlah of Englalande gecwædon.”

Footnote 729:

Thorpe, i. 340; Schmid, p. 242.

Footnote 730:

§§ 36, 37, 38. “And wíse wǽran worold-witan þe tó god-cundan rihtlagan worold-laga settan, folce tó steóre, and Crist and cyninge gerihtan þá bóte, þár man swá scolde manega for neóde gewildan tó rihte.”

“Ac on þám gemótan, þeáh rǽdlice wurðan on namcúðan stowan, æfter Eádgares líf-dagum, Cristes lage wanodan, and cyninges lage lytledon.”

“And þa man getwǽmde, þæt ǽr wǽs gemǽne Criste and cyninge on woroldlícre steóre, and á hit weorð þé wyrse for Gode and for worlde; cume nú to bóte, gif hit God wille.” Cf. § 43, where the three Kings are named.

Footnote 731:

Printed in Hickes’ Thesaurus, vol. i. pt. iii. p. 99. See Appendix RR.

Footnote 732:

Northern tradition assigns to Olaf Haraldsson, afterwards Saint Olaf, a share in this campaign on the English side. But the account, like most of the accounts in the sagas, is utterly unintelligible. See Appendix VV.

Footnote 733:

The comment of the Chronicler is remarkable; “And wearð þæt earme folc þus beswicen þurh hine.” Cnut betrayed them to Æthelred!

Footnote 734:

The Chronicles say twenty-one, Florence, thirty thousand. Henry of Huntingdon follows the Chronicles.

Footnote 735:

See Appendix NN.

Footnote 736:

Chron. and Flor. in anno. Henry of Huntingdon introduces the fact with the words, “Addidit autem Dominus malis solitis malum insolitum.”

Footnote 737:

On the children of Æthelred see Appendix SS.

Footnote 738:

See the story in Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. p. 315, ed. Hamilton.

Footnote 739:

See the Chronicles in the years 571 and 777.

Footnote 740:

See above, p. 316, and Appendix GG, and the curious story recorded in the charter of Æthelred, 995, in Cod. Dipl. vi. 128. We there hear of the church of Saint Helen, which has vanished in later times, and we get the name of “Winsige, præpositus on Oxonaforda.”

Footnote 741:

Chron. in anno. “þæt mycel Gemót.” Flor. Wig. “Magnum placitum.” W. Malms. “Magnum concilium.” The one Charter (Cod. Dipl. vi. 167) of this year, and therefore probably of this Gemót, is a grant to Bishop Beorhtwold (Brihtwold) of Sherborne of lands at Chilton in Berkshire, formerly held by Wulfgeat, who was disgraced and his property confiscated in 1006.

Footnote 742:

The Five Boroughs with the addition of York and Chester. Such at least is the probable conjecture of Lingard, i. 296.

Footnote 743:

If Eadric was now restored to his old office of Ealdorman of the Mercians, Oxford would be a town in his government, and the duty of hospitality towards the Witan from other districts would naturally fall upon him. See above, p. 327.

Footnote 744:

The marriage of Eadmund and his establishment in the North are recorded by the Chronicles and by Florence, but more fully by William of Malmesbury. As his details in no way contradict, but in some degree explain, the account in the Chronicles, I do not scruple to follow him.

Footnote 745:

“Visam concupivit, concupitæ communionem habuit,” says William. That the “communio” was a lawful marriage is clear from the distinct words of the Chronicles and from William’s own words afterwards. The presence of Ealdgyth at Oxford suggests a question whether the Witan usually brought their wives with them to these assemblies. The question is not a frivolous one, as it bears on another, namely the time which meetings of this sort usually lasted.

All the Chronicles speak of Eadmund’s wife as Sigeferth’s widow, and Florence gives her the name of Ealdgyth. But in the will of Wulfric (Cod. Dipl. vi. 149) we find an Ealdgyth wife of Morkere. Is there a mistake of any kind, or did the brothers marry wives bearing the same name?

Footnote 746:

I speak vaguely, because William of Malmesbury surely goes too far when he speaks of “comitatus Sigeferdi, qui apud Northanhimbros amplissimus erat.”

Footnote 747:

Was this submission willing or unwilling? The Chronicles are neutral. “Gerad sona ealle Sigeferðes áre and Morcores; and þæt folc eal to him beah.” Florence says, “Terram Sigeferthi et Morkeri invasit, ac populum illarum sibi subjugavit.” But William has, “Comitatum ... suapte industria vendicavit, hominibus ejusdem provinciæ in obsequium ejus facile cedentibus.”

Footnote 748:

The Roskild Annals (Langebek, i. 376) make Eadmund imprison Cnut and Olaf of Norway (who is here said to have accompanied Swegen); but who, in other accounts (see Appendix VV), was vigorously fighting on the English side. They escape from prison and fly to Bremen, where Archbishop Unwan baptizes them. For this writer’s wonderful succession of the English Kings, see also Appendix VV.

Footnote 749:

Encomium Emmæ, ii. 2.

Footnote 750:

The presence of Harold is asserted by Thietmar, vii. 28.

Footnote 751:

This is the version of the Encomiast, ii. 3. See Appendix NN.

Footnote 752:

Enc. Emmæ, ii. 4.

Footnote 753:

Chron. Rosk. ap. Lang. i. 376.

Footnote 754:

Enc. Emmæ, ii. 4. “In tanta expeditione nullus inveniebatur servus, nullus ex servo libertus, nullus ignobilis, nullus senili ætate debilis. Omnes enim erant nobiles, omnes plenæ ætatis robore valentes.” When nobles were so plentiful, one is tempted to ask in what nobility consisted?

Footnote 755:

“Be norðan,” say the Chronicles.

Footnote 756:

See Appendix NN.

Footnote 757:

They crossed “cum multo equitatu,” says Florence; “mid his here” say the Chronicles, only the Peterborough and Canterbury manuscripts (one of which, Canterbury, omits the words “mid his here”) add “clx. scipa.” Do they mean that Cnut sailed up the Thames? The other reading is distinctly preferable.

Footnote 758:

Here is a distinct allusion to the various passages in the laws of this reign, denouncing penalties on those who fail to attend the royal muster. See above, p. 337.

Footnote 759:

The Chronicles mention the ravaging without assigning any cause; Florence adds, “quia adversus Danorum exercitum ad pugnam exire noluerunt.” William of Malmesbury sets forth the policy of this severe course at some length.

Footnote 760:

“Bea þa for nede,” say the Chronicles; William of Malmesbury again expands at some length. Simeon (X Scriptt. p. 80) makes Cnut summon Uhtred to submit, to which summons the Earl returns a spirited reply. But after Æthelred’s death he yielded. The chronology is wrong, as Uhtred certainly submitted before Æthelred’s death, but the facts are likely enough.

Footnote 761:

His extent of territory is well marked by William of Malmesbury; “Commendatis West-Saxonibus, et Merciorum parte quam subjecerat, ducibus suis, ipse in Northanhimbros profectus.” London probably protected Essex. We hear nothing of East-Anglia, but see Appendix NN.

Footnote 762:

The murders of Uhtred and Thurcytel are mentioned in the Chronicles; Florence adds the name of Thurbrand. The other details come from the tract of Simeon before quoted. The share of Eadric in the business comes from one version of the Chronicles.

Footnote 763:

The Earl thus appointed appears as Yric, Egricus, Iricius, Hyrc. Yet Mr. Thorpe not only, in his edition of Florence, invests Eadric himself with the earldom, but thrusts—without any sign of interpolation—this erroneous statement into the text of his translation of Lappenberg (ii. 186), whereas, in the original (452), Lappenberg is silent about the fate of Uhtred altogether. On the past history of Eric, see the Saga of Olaf Haraldsson, c. 13; Laing’s Heimskringla, ii. 192.

Footnote 764:

The Chronicles seem to place Eadmund’s departure for London after the submission of Uhtred, Florence places it before. William says, “Ita subjectis omnibus, Edmundum, per semetra fugitantem, non prius persequi destitit [Cnuto] quam Londoniam ad patrem pervenisse cognosceret.”

Footnote 765:

William adds, “usque post pascha quievit, ut cum omnibus copiis urbem adoriretur.”

Footnote 766:

On all the points of the Double Election, see Appendix TT.

Footnote 767:

“Unanimi consensu,” says Florence.

Footnote 768:

See Appendix SS.

Footnote 769:

This surname is not only found in the Latin writers, but also in the poem in the Chronicles on the return of Eadmund’s son Eadward in 1057;

“Eadmund cing Irensíd was geclypod For his snellscipe.”

Footnote 770:

On the order of events in the war of Cnut and Eadmund, see Appendix VV.

Footnote 771:

The date is fixed in the Chronicles, “to þam gangdagum;” so in Florence, “circa rogationes.”

Footnote 772:

The first ditch is recorded in the Chronicles, which say expressly, “Hi ða dulfon áne mycle díc on suð healfe.” William of Malmesbury (ii. 18o), though he places the work later, after the battle of Sherstone, speaks of the other ditch which surrounded the city, reaching no doubt from the river to the river again; “fossa etiam urbem, qua fluvio Tamensi non alluitur, foris totam cinxerat.” That these are not two descriptions of the same ditch appears from the account in Florence, which takes in both; “in australi parte Tamensis magnam scrobem foderunt, et naves suas in occidentalem plagam pontis traxerunt; dein urbem alta lataque fossa et obsidione cingentes,” &c. &c. I therefore, with Lappenberg (ii. 188), understand the story as I have told it in the text; the phrase “traxerunt” (so in the Chronicles “drogon”) seems to mean that the ships were towed along the new-made canal.

Footnote 773:

Flor. Wig. “In West-Saxoniam abierunt propere, et regi Eadmundo Ferreo-Lateri spatium congregandi exercitum non dedere, quibus tamen ille cum exercitu quem in tantillo spatio congregaret, Dei fretus auxilio, audacter in Dorsetania occurrit.” On “Dorsetania” see Appendix VV.

Footnote 774:

The scene of Eadmund’s battle “æt Peonnan wið Gillingahám” (Chron.), “in loco qui Peonnum vocatur, juxta Gillingaham” (Flor.), is undoubtedly Pen Selwood. I am far from being so certain whether the spot “æt Peonnum” (Chron. 658), where Cenwealh defeated the Welsh, is the same, or another of the Pens in the same county. The word Pen (head) is a specimen of the Celtic names which still survive in the local nomenclature of this Teutonized, but not purely Teutonic, district. Close to Pen Selwood, “Pen Pits” and a neighbouring encampment called Orchard Castle supply good primæval studies. The latter is not unlike a miniature model of the more renowned hill of Senlac.

Footnote 775:

“Æfter middansumere,” say the Chronicles; Florence adds that the first day of the battle was “Lunæ dies.”

Footnote 776:

“Ælmær Dyrling,” “Ælmarus Dilectus.” Florence alone adds, “Algarus filius Meawes,” and implies, still more distinctly than the Chronicles, that Ælfmær and Ælfgar, as well as Eadric, were bound to Eadmund by some special tie—“qui ei auxilio esse debuerunt.”

Footnote 777:

Flor. Wig. “Optimum quemque in primam aciem subducit, cæterum exercitum in subsidiis locat.” We must remember these tactics when we come to the great fight of Senlac.

Footnote 778:

“Lanceis et gladiis pugna geritur.” See above, p. 273.

Footnote 779:

“Strenui militis et boni imperatoris officia simul exsequebatur” (so Il. iii. 179, ἀμφότερον βασιλεύς τ’ ἀγαθὸς κρατερός τ’ αἰχμητής), says Florence, who grows eloquent on Eadmund’s exploits. This praise must have been common to every general of those days who deserved to be called a general at all; yet it is often recorded to the special honour of particular commanders, as we shall find it in a very marked way of both Harold and William. William of Malmesbury (Hist. Nov. ii. 34) speaks in the same way of Earl Robert of Gloucester; “Ubicumque commode fieri posse videbat, et militis et ducis probe officium exequebatur.” Yet Abbot Suger, in his life of Lewis the Fat (c. 20; Duchesne, Scriptt. Franc. iv. 304), blames his own hero because “ultra quam deceret majestatem, miles emeritus militis officio, non regis, singulariter decertabat.” So Orderic (885 D) says of William of Flanders, “ipse ducis et militis officio plerumque fungebatur unde a caris tutoribus pro illo formidantibus crebro redarguebatur.”

Footnote 780:

On this incident, see Appendix VV.

Footnote 781:

Fl. Wig. “Ut naturalem dominum [no doubt cyne-hláford] requisivit illum.”

Footnote 782:

Ib. “Exercitu vice tertia congregato.” The armies seem always to disperse after an action, whether a victory or a defeat. I conceive that the local levies, like the Highlanders ages afterwards, returned home after each battle, while the immediate following of the King or Ealdorman largely remained with him. An invader had the advantage that all his troops were comitatus; the Danes had no means of going back to their houses and families.

Footnote 783:

Flor. Wig. “Rex Eadmundus Ferreum Latus exercitum fortem de tota Anglia quarto congregavit.”

Footnote 784:

I adopt the description of William of Malmesbury, evidently a fragment of a ballad; “Fluvius ille Rofensem urbem præterfluens, violentus et rapaci gurgite minax, mœnia pulcra lavat.”

Footnote 785:

See above, p. 45. Was it any confused remembrance of this fact which led the Encomiast (see Appendix VV) to make Cnut’s army winter in Sheppey now?

Footnote 786:

On the site of Assandun see Appendix VV.

Footnote 787:

The battle of Assandun in several points suggests that of Senlac, and the details given of Assandun help to explain several questions connected with the later fight. Henry of Huntingdon preserves some very valuable hints on this head.

Footnote 788:

Hen. Hunt. “Loco regio relicto, quod erat ex more inter draconem et insigne quod vocatur Standard.” The full importance of this passage will be seen at a later stage of my history. The West-Saxon Dragon figures prominently in Henry’s narrative of the battle of Burford in 752 (see above, p. 38). In Saxo (p. 192) the dragons become eagles, but this is clearly only by way of being classical, as one Tymmo, a valiant Dane from Zealand, figures as aquilifer on the other side, when he surely ought to have been corvifer.

Footnote 789:

The Danish Raven, according to the story, opened its mouth and fluttered its wings before a victory, but held its wings down before a defeat. The legend is well known; I get it on this occasion from the Encomiast, whose tale is chiefly valuable as witnessing to the presence of Thurkill. See Appendix VV.

Footnote 790:

Flor. Wig. “Interea Canutus paullatim in æquum locum suos deducit.”

Footnote 791:

Ibid. “Rex Eadmundus aciem, sicuti instruxerat, velociter movet, et repente signo dato Danos invadit.” This seems to imply the charge down hill. In the rhetoric of Henry of Huntingdon we may spy out fragments of a ballad which may have rivalled those of Brunanburh and Maldon; “Loco regio relicto ... cucurrit terribilis in aciem primam. Vibrans igitur gladium electum et brachio juvenis Edmundi dignum, modo fulminis fidit aciem,” &c. So Hist. Ram. lxxii. (Gale, i. 433); “Ædricus ... videns Ædmundum furore fulmineo hostium aciem penetrantem.” Cf. Draco Normannicus, i. 318;

“Fulguris instar habens hostibus ense fremit.”

As the Danes no doubt keep their shield-wall, we may compare the charge of the Alemanni in the battle of Strassburg, Ammianus, xvi. 12; “Barbari in modum exarsere flammarum, nexamque scutorum compagem, quæ nostros in modum testudinis tuebatur, scindebant ictibus gladiorum adsiduis.”

Mark that the sword is still the English weapon.

Footnote 792:

Chron. “Eadric ... aswác swa his cynehlaforde and ealre Angelcynnes þeode.”

Footnote 793:

Chron. “Þær ahte Cnut sige, and gefeht him alle Engla þeode.” See Mr. Earle’s note, p. 340.

Footnote 794:

Chron. “And eall Angelcynnes duguð þar wearð fordon.”

Footnote 795:

See above, p. 283.

Footnote 796:

Will. Malms. ii. 180. “Ulfkillus Est-Anglorum comes, perpetuam jam famam meritus tempore Swani, quando, primus omnium piratas adorsus, spem dedit posse illos superari.”

Footnote 797:

See above, p. 264.

Footnote 798:

See the story in Appendix AA.

Footnote 799:

Florence, by an odd forestalling, calls him “Lindicolinensis.”

Footnote 800:

“Qui ad exorandum Deum pro milite bellum agente convenerant,” says Florence. So the Ramsey historian (lxxii.); “Qui, cum multis aliis religiosis personis, juxta morem Anglorum veterem, ibidem convenerant, non armis, sed orationum suppetiis, pugnantem exercitum juvaturi.” Yet I confess that the calm way in which the Chronicles reckon the prelates among the slain alongside of the ealdormen looks to me the other way.

Footnote 801:

See above, pp. 279, 340.

Footnote 802:

Ealhstan, Bishop of Sherborne, fills a prominent place in the wars of the ninth century. See the Chronicles in the years 823, 845. (Cf. 871 and Will. Malms. ii. 131, for other fighting prelates of that age.) Of Ealdred’s exploits, mostly unlucky, we shall hear much in the course of the next fifty years. Another warrior Bishop will be found in the Chronicles under the year 1056.

Footnote 803:

Enc. Emm. ii. 11.

Footnote 804:

Enc. Emm. ii. 11. “Londoniam repetentes, saniora sibi quærunt consilia.” I do not fully understand these words.

Footnote 805:

Hist. Ram. lxxiii.; Hist. Elien. ii. 21 (Gale, 502; Stewart, 196). The Ramsey historian grudges the possession of Eadnoth’s body to the rival house, and will hardly believe the miracles which were said to vindicate the claim of Ely. It is rather odd that the Ely historian mentions neither the miracles nor the burial of Eadnoth, but he goes on to say that the Ely monks went to the field with certain of the relics of their church, which were lost. Some, he says, said that Cnut carried them away and placed them at Canterbury. Such a pious robbery would be quite in harmony with Cnut’s later character.

Footnote 806:

Fl. Wig. 1016. “Occisus est in ea pugna ... totus fere globus nobilitatis Anglorum, qui nullo in bello majus umquam vulnus quam ibi acceperunt.” W. Malms. ii. 180. “Ibi Cnuto regnum expugnavit, ibi omne decus Angliæ occubuit, ibi flos patriæ totus emarcuit.” H. Hunt. M. H. B. 756 B. “Illic igitur miranda strages Anglorum facta est; illic occisus est ... omnis flos nobilitatis Brittanniæ.” For the entry in the Chronicles, see p. 393, note 3.

Footnote 807:

See Appendix WW.

Footnote 808:

Flor. Wig. “Licet invitus, ad ultimum quum consentiret.”

Footnote 809:

On this conference between Eadmund and Cnut, and the process by which in most later accounts it has grown into a single combat between the rival Kings, see Appendix WW.

Footnote 810:

So I infer from the proceedings of Cnut after the death of Eadmund.

Footnote 811:

As Glaukos and Diomêdês, Il. vi. 230 et seqq.; Hektôr and Aias, vii. 303. Compare the brotherhood among the early Moslems; Muir’s Life of Mahomet, iii. 17. The same institution is found among the Dalmatian Morlacchi, where the sworn brothers or sisters (Pobratimi and Posestrime) were united by a special religious ceremony. See Fortis, Viaggio in Dalmazia, i. 58 (cf. Grote’s Greece, ii. 117); Petter, Dalmazien, i. 226. It seems to exist among other Slaves as well, and we shall come across other cases in our own story.

Footnote 812:

“Armis et vestibus mutatis,” says Florence, but, if the tradition as to the personal stature of the two kings be correct, a judgement of Cyrus would have been presently needed to restore the clothes to their former owners.

Footnote 813:

See the extract from the Encomium in Appendix WW.

Footnote 814:

See Appendix XX.

Footnote 815:

Chronn. “His lic lið on Glæstingabyrig mid his ealdan fæder Eadgare.”

Footnote 816:

On the Glastonbury tombs, see Willis, Architectural History of Glastonbury, p. 33. The first burying-place of Eadmund was before the high altar (Will. Malms. de Ant. Glast. Eccl. ap. Gale, p. 306). His tomb must have been removed on the Invention of Arthur in the time of Henry the Second.

Footnote 817:

“De bellis vero regis Edmundi, et de fortitudine ejus, nonne hæc scripta sunt in historiis veterum cum laude summa?” H. Hunt. M. H. B. 755 D.

In a Melrose manuscript, lately printed at Göttingen (for which I have to thank Dr. Pauli), there are verses in honour of Eadmund’s later Scottish descendant William the Lion and of Eadmund himself. His panegyric runs;

“Firma basis fidei, plebis protectio, regni Tutor solque suo tempore solus erat. In cives clemens, in principe civis, in hostes Atrox, multiplici dote beatus homo.”

His battles and victories are reckoned at twelve;

“Mirum! bis seno conflixit Marte, thriumfus, Tot totiens victis intitulavit eum.”

A West-Saxon poet might perhaps not have added;

“A! nullum ejus post ortum breviter fero talem, Anglia se doleat non genuisse virum.”

Such a reign as Eadmund’s was not likely to be rich in documents. There is one charter (Cod. Dipl. iii. 369) of “Eadmundus æðeling rex,” granting lands “æt Pegecyrcan” (Peakirk in Northamptonshire) to the New Minster at Winchester. Its style, less turgid than that of most Latin documents of the kind, may be characteristic either of the man or of the circumstances of the time. The time when Eadmund was most likely to exercise acts of sovereignty in Northamptonshire would be in the autumn of 1016, between the battles of Otford and Assandun, when he was drawing troops from Lindesey and other distant parts of the kingdom.

Footnote 818:

Our authorities for this period are nearly the same as those for the reign of Æthelred. The Chronicles and Florence are still our main guides, and, as Florence draws nearer to his own time, he more commonly inserts independent matter which is not to be found in the Chronicles. We get the same kind of supplementary help as before from the secondary English authorities, the later and the local writers. We have the same hard task as before in trying to reconcile the English accounts with the various Scandinavian sagas and chronicles. The Encomium Emmæ becomes of greater importance, but it must still be used with caution, as it is clear that the writer, though contemporary, was deeply prejudiced and often very ill informed. We now also begin to draw our first help from one most valuable document, the contemporary Life of Eadward the Confessor, published by Mr. Luard. This was written, between the years 1066 and 1074, by one who was intimately acquainted with Godwine and his family, and it helps us to many facts and aspects of facts which are not to be found elsewhere. But the most important point with regard to our authorities for this time is that we must now cease to quote the English Chronicles as one work. The differences between the various copies now begin to assume a real historical importance. The narratives often differ widely from each other, and often show widely different ways of looking at men and things. They show that something very like the distinction of Whig and Tory can be traced as far back as the eleventh century. I first pointed out the difference of feeling which the different Chronicles display with regard to Godwine in a paper on the Earl’s Life and Death, in the Archæological Journal for 1854–1855. Since that time Mr. Earle, in the Introduction to his “Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel,” has gone fully and exhaustively into the matter from his point of view, and has given what may be called biographies of the various records which are commonly confounded under the name of “the Saxon Chronicle.” I shall hereafter follow Mr. Earle’s nomenclature (grounded on that of Jocelin, Secretary to Archbishop Parker), and shall quote them as follows. The manuscript commonly quoted as “C. C. C. C. clxxiv.” I quote as the Winchester Chronicle. For our period this Chronicle contains only a few entries added at Canterbury. “Cott. Tib. B. i.” is the Abingdon Chronicle, the only one hostile to Godwine. “Cod. Tib. B. iv.” is the Worcester Chronicle. “Bodl. Laud. 636” is the Peterborough Chronicle, strongly Godwinist. (This part however was composed at Worcester, the Chronicle being transcribed and continued at Peterborough.) “Cott. Domit. A. viii.” is Canterbury, the least valuable of all, but of more importance now than in earlier times.

Footnote 819:

Cnut or Knud, in one syllable, is this King’s true name, and the best Latin form is Cnuto, according to the usual way of Latinizing Scandinavian names. See above, p. 165. The form Canutus seems to have arisen from Pope Paschal the Second’s inability to say Cnut. The later King Cnut, the supposed martyr, was therefore canonized by him as “Sanctus Canutus.” See Æthelnoth’s Life of Saint Cnut, capp. iv. vi. xxxiii. (Langebek, iii. 340, 382). The writer, an English monk settled in Denmark, thinks the lengthening of the name a great honour, and compares it with the change from Abram to Abraham; but he somewhat inconsistently cuts down his own name to Ailnothus.

Footnote 820:

Nothing can be made of the unintelligible story in Snorro (c. 25; Laing, ii. 21, and see Appendix VV), according to which the sons of Æthelred and Emma, assisted by Olaf of Norway and his foster-father Rane, made an unsuccessful attempt upon England after Eadmund’s death. The tale may have arisen from some confusion with the later attempt on behalf of the Æthelings made by Duke Robert of Normandy. Snorro is throughout, as we shall often have occasion to see, most ill informed on English affairs. Can this Rane be the same as Ranig, whom we find Earl of the Magesætas twenty years later?

Footnote 821:

See above, p. 367.

Footnote 822:

See above, p. 381.

Footnote 823:

On Cnut’s apparently territorial title, see Appendix M.

Footnote 824:

On the accession of Cnut to the whole kingdom, see Appendix TT.

Footnote 825:

I borrow the title from Florence’s description of Cnut’s son Harold, “Rex Merciorum et Northhymbrorum,” in recording the analogous event of 1037.

Footnote 826:

On the brothers of Eadmund who were living, see Appendix SS.

Footnote 827:

See above, p. 397, and Appendix WW.

Footnote 828:

Fl. 1016. “Fratres et filios Eadmundi omnino despexerunt, eosque reges esse negaverunt.” Compare the former exclusion of the whole house of Æthelred. See above, p. 381.

Footnote 829:

Fl. 1017. “Fœdus etiam cum principibus et omni populo (see Appendix Q) ipse, et illi cum ipso percusserunt.”

Footnote 830:

See Appendix TT.

Footnote 831:

On the two Eadwigs, see Appendix YY.

Footnote 832:

The fourfold division is well marked in a Charter of Æthelred (Cod. Dipl. iii. 314), which is said to be witnessed by thegns “ǽgðer ge of West-Sexan, ge of Myrcean, ge of Denon, ge of Englon.” The “Danes” here must mean the Northumbrians, and the “English,” distinctively so called, the East-Angles.

Footnote 833:

Florence calls Thurkill and Eric comites, Eadric alone dux. I conceive that comes is meant to translate eorl, and dux to translate ealdorman. Probably Eadric kept the English title; if so, it was its last use in the old half-kingly sense, and in a year or two the title dies out altogether from the Chronicles, though its use still goes on in private documents, and even in Cnut’s own Laws.

Footnote 834:

See above, p. 379.

Footnote 835:

So we now apply the title of Lord Lieutenant—the nearest modern approach to the ancient Ealdorman—both to the Viceroy of the ancient kingdom of Ireland and to the military chief of a single county.

Footnote 836:

On the origin of Godwine, see Appendix ZZ.

Footnote 837:

Vita Eadw. ap. Luard, p. 392. “Quum consilio cautissimus, tum bellicis rebus ab ipso rege probatus est strenuissimus. Erat quoque morum æqualitate tam cunctis quam ipsi regi gratissimus, assiduo laboris accinctu incomparabilis, jocunda et prompta affabilitate omnibus affabilis.” Presently he is “profundus eloquio.” William of Malmesbury also (ii. 197) speaks of Godwine’s eloquence; “Homo affectati leporis, et ingenue gentilitia lingua eloquens, mirus dicere, mirus populo persuadere quæ placerent.”

Footnote 838:

See Appendix ZZ.

Footnote 839:

See Appendix AAA.

Footnote 840:

On the marriage of Cnut and Emma, see Appendix BBB.

Footnote 841:

Will. Malms, ii. 181. “Ut, dum consuetæ dominæ deferrent obsequium, minus Danorum suspirarent imperium.”

Footnote 842:

See Appendix VV.

Footnote 843:

Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 752 A. “Emma, Normannorum gemma.” So Godfrey, Prior of Winchester, in the Epigrammata Historica printed in Wright’s Satirical Poets, ii. 148;

“Splendidior gemma meriti splendoribus Emma.”

Footnote 844:

Flod. A. 951; Richer, ii. 101; Palgrave, ii. 619. Lewis himself was much younger than his wife Gerberga, daughter of Henry the Fowler and widow of Gilbert of Lotharingia.

Footnote 845:

See Appendix BBB.

Footnote 846:

See above, p. 315.

Footnote 847:

See above, p. 406.

Footnote 848:

See above, p. 374. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines (51) makes them children of Eadwig.

Footnote 849:

Flor. Wig. 1017.

Footnote 850:

This rumour is preserved by the so-called Bromton, 907. Though the authority of this writer is as low as anything can be, the trait is characteristic, and savours of a contemporary scandal-monger.

Footnote 851:

Sigrid, widow of Eric the Victorious, and mother of Olaf of Sweden, was mother of Cnut by her second marriage with Swegen. J. Magni Hist. Goth. xvii, 17, 18 (Rome, 1554) Olaf died in 1018. Swedish tradition says much of his friendship and hereditary alliance with England, especially with King “Mildredus” or “Eldredus,” of all which I find no trace in English history.

Footnote 852:

Adam Brem. ii. 50, 56.

Footnote 853:

Florence, followed by Roger of Wendover, calls the Hungarian King Solomon. But Solomon did not begin to reign till 1063. Stephen died in 1038. Thwrocz, Chron. Hung. c. xxxiv.; Scriptt. Rev. Hung. (Wien 1746), p. 98. The Chronicles at this stage are silent on the matter, but the poem in the Worcester Chronicle under 1057 says that Cnut sent Eadward “on Ungerland to beswicane”—Sweden is not mentioned. Adam of Bremen (ii. 51) gives them another refuge; “in Ruzziam exsilio damnati.” So Karamsin, Hist. de Russie, ii. 48.

Footnote 854:

So Florence; “in nativitate Domini, cum esset Lundoniæ.” A different order of events might perhaps be inferred from the Chronicles; but Florence is clearly more careful in his arrangement in this place.

Footnote 855:

“Æðelmæres þæs greatan,” say the Abingdon, Worcester, and Peterborough annalists. What kind of greatness is implied? This may be the Æthelweard who is said to have failed to slay Eadwig; but this Æthelweard and this Æthelmær must be distinguished from the real or supposed brothers of Eadric. So Brihtric must be distinguished from the Brihtric of the year 1009.

Footnote 856:

See Appendix CCC.

Footnote 857:

Hist. Eves. 84. “Cnuto ... fecit occidi Edricum ... cum quo etiam et aliis pluribus suis militibus, quidam potens homo, Normannus vocabulo, frater scilicet hujus Leofrici comitis, perimitur ejus jussione.”

Footnote 858:

See below, p. 418.

Footnote 859:

Florence (1017) asserts their injustice; the victims died “sine culpa.”

Footnote 860:

As Lappenberg (ii. 200) seems to think, on the strength of a passage in the Ramsey History, c. 84. If this be the necessary meaning of the Ramsey writer, his authority is very small on such a point, and the general course of Cnut’s conduct looks quite the other way.

Footnote 861:

See Appendix SS.

Footnote 862:

See above, p. 379.

Footnote 863:

On the different versions of the tale, see Appendix DDD.

Footnote 864:

So Florence; “Quia timebat insidiis ab eo aliquando circumveniri, sicut domini sui priores Ægelredus et Eadmundus frequenter sunt circumventi.”

Footnote 865:

See above, pp. 278, 326.

Footnote 866:

See above, p. 205, 233.

Footnote 867:

See Appendix CCC.

Footnote 868:

Thietmar, viii. 5. “In Anglis triginta navium habitatores piratæ a rege eorum, Suenni regis filio, Deo gratias, occisi sunt; et qui prius cum patre hujus erat invasor et assiduus destructor provinciæ, nunc solus sedit defensor, ut in Libycis basiliscus arenis cultore vacuis.”

Footnote 869:

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

Footnote 870:

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

Footnote 871:

See above, p. 373.

Footnote 872:

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

Footnote 873:

See above, p. 218.

Footnote 874:

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

Footnote 875:

See above, p. 65.

Footnote 876:

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

Footnote 877:

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

Footnote 878:

See above, pp. 370–375.

Footnote 879:

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

Footnote 880:

See above, p. 366.

Footnote 881:

Chronn. in anno; Fl. Wig.

Footnote 882:

On the exploits and marriage of Godwine see Appendix EEE.

Footnote 883:

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

Footnote 884:

See Appendix ZZ.

Footnote 885:

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

Footnote 886:

Saxo, 195–7. See Appendix GGG.

Footnote 887:

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

Footnote 888:

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

Footnote 889:

Chron. and Flor. Wig. in anno.

Footnote 890:

See Appendix II.

Footnote 891:

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

Footnote 892:

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

Footnote 893:

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

Footnote 894:

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

Footnote 895:

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

Footnote 896:

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

Footnote 897:

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

Footnote 898:

See Appendix NN and SS.

Footnote 899:

See Appendix QQQ.

Footnote 900:

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

Footnote 901:

See Appendix FFF.

Footnote 902:

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

Footnote 903:

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

Footnote 904:

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

Footnote 905:

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

Footnote 906:

Fl. Wig. 1046.

Footnote 907:

See Appendix GGG.

Footnote 908:

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

Footnote 909:

On the Northumbrian Earls, see Appendix KK.

Footnote 910:

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

Footnote 911:

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

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

Footnote 912:

Eurip. Phœn. 534;

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

Footnote 913:

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

Footnote 914:

See Appendix III.

Footnote 915:

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

Footnote 916:

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

Footnote 917:

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

Footnote 918:

ii. 5.

Footnote 919:

ii. 3.

Footnote 920:

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

Footnote 921:

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

Footnote 922:

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

Footnote 923:

i. 20.

Footnote 924:

ii. 12, 14, 15.

Footnote 925:

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

Footnote 926:

See above, p. 66.

Footnote 927:

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

Footnote 928:

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

Footnote 929:

See Appendix III.

Footnote 930:

See Appendix GGG.

Footnote 931:

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

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

Footnote 932:

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

Footnote 933:

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

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

Footnote 934:

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

Footnote 935:

Bromton, X Scriptt. 909.

Footnote 936:

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

Footnote 937:

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

Footnote 938:

See above, p. 366.

Footnote 939:

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

Footnote 940:

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

Footnote 941:

John of Oxenedes, pp. 19, 291.

Footnote 942:

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

Footnote 943:

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

Footnote 944:

See above, p. 399.

Footnote 945:

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

Footnote 946:

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

Footnote 947:

Will. Malms, ii. 181.

Footnote 948:

See above, pp. 275, 394.

Footnote 949:

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

Footnote 950:

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

Footnote 951:

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

Footnote 952:

Will. Malms. ii. 186.

Footnote 953:

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

Footnote 954:

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

Footnote 955:

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

Footnote 956:

On the Housecarls, see Appendix KKK.

Footnote 957:

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

Footnote 958:

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

Footnote 959:

See vol. iii. ch. xiv., end of § 2.

Footnote 960:

See above, p. 351.

Footnote 961:

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

Footnote 962:

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

Footnote 963:

Ann. Camb. 1035; Brut. 1033.

Footnote 964:

See above, p. 379.

Footnote 965:

See above, p. 429.

Footnote 966:

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

Footnote 967:

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

Footnote 968:

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

Footnote 969:

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

Footnote 970:

See Appendix I.

Footnote 971:

See Appendix LLL.

Footnote 972:

See Appendix LLL.

Footnote 973:

See above, p. 131, and Appendix G.

Footnote 974:

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

Footnote 975:

Fordun, iv. 44; Chron. 1034.

Footnote 976:

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

Footnote 977:

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

Footnote 978:

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

On the name Nortmanni, see Appendix T.

Footnote 979:

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

Footnote 980:

See above, p. 379.

Footnote 981:

See above, p. 370, and Appendix VV.

Footnote 982:

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

Footnote 983:

Adam, u. s.

Footnote 984:

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

Footnote 985:

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

Footnote 986:

On this battle see Appendix MMM.

Footnote 987:

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

Footnote 988:

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

Footnote 989:

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

Footnote 990:

See Appendix NNN.

Footnote 991:

See Appendix NNN.

Footnote 992:

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

Footnote 993:

See above, p. 221.

Footnote 994:

See above, pp. 164, 254.

Footnote 995:

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

Footnote 996:

See above, p. 185.

Footnote 997:

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

Footnote 998:

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

Footnote 999:

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

Footnote 1000:

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

Footnote 1001:

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

Footnote 1002:

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

Footnote 1003:

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

Footnote 1004:

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

Footnote 1005:

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

Footnote 1006:

See above, p. 255.

Footnote 1007:

See above, pp. 285, 302.

Footnote 1008:

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

Footnote 1009:

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

Footnote 1010:

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

Footnote 1011:

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

Footnote 1012:

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

Footnote 1013:

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

Footnote 1014:

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

Footnote 1015:

See above, pp. 287–291.

Footnote 1016:

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

Footnote 1017:

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

Footnote 1018:

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

Footnote 1019:

See above, p. 234.

Footnote 1020:

Will. Gem. vii. 3.

Footnote 1021:

See above, pp. 252, 253.

Footnote 1022:

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

Footnote 1023:

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

Footnote 1024:

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

Footnote 1025:

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

Footnote 1026:

See p. 301.

Footnote 1027:

See p. 342.

Footnote 1028:

See p. 361.

Footnote 1029:

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

Footnote 1030:

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

Footnote 1031:

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

Footnote 1032:

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

Footnote 1033:

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

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

Footnote 1034:

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

Footnote 1035:

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

Footnote 1036:

See Appendix OOO.

Footnote 1037:

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

Footnote 1038:

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

Footnote 1039:

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

Footnote 1040:

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

Footnote 1041:

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

Footnote 1042:

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

Footnote 1043:

See Appendix NNN.

Footnote 1044:

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

Footnote 1045:

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

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

Footnote 1046:

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

Footnote 1047:

Ib. vi. 11.

Footnote 1048:

Ib.

Footnote 1049:

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

Footnote 1050:

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

Footnote 1051:

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

Footnote 1052:

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

Footnote 1053:

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

Footnote 1054:

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

Footnote 1055:

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

Footnote 1056:

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

Footnote 1057:

Roman de Rou, 8391.

Footnote 1058:

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

Footnote 1059:

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

Footnote 1060:

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

Footnote 1061:

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

Footnote 1062:

See above, p. 109.

Footnote 1063:

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

Footnote 1064:

See above, p. 477, and Appendix RRR.

Footnote 1065:

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

Footnote 1066:

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

Footnote 1067:

See Appendix RRR.

Footnote 1068:

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

Footnote 1069:

Grote’s Hist. of Greece, iv. 205.

Footnote 1070:

See p. 265.

Footnote 1071:

See p. 418 and Appendix CCC.

Footnote 1072:

See Appendix RRR.

Footnote 1073:

See p. 396 and Appendix WW.

Footnote 1074:

See Appendix RRR.

Footnote 1075:

Ib.

Footnote 1076:

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

Footnote 1077:

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

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

Footnote 1078:

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

Footnote 1079:

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

Footnote 1080:

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

Footnote 1081:

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

Footnote 1082:

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

Footnote 1083:

See Appendix SSS.

Footnote 1084:

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

Footnote 1085:

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

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

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

Footnote 1086:

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

Footnote 1087:

See Appendix BBB.

Footnote 1088:

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

Footnote 1089:

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

Footnote 1090:

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

Footnote 1091:

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

Footnote 1092:

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

Footnote 1093:

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

Footnote 1094:

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

Footnote 1095:

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

Footnote 1096:

See Appendix SSS.

Footnote 1097:

Vita Eadw. 401. See Appendix SSS.

Footnote 1098:

See below, p. 514.

Footnote 1099:

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

Footnote 1100:

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

Footnote 1101:

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

Footnote 1102:

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

Footnote 1103:

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

Footnote 1104:

See above, p. 106, and Appendix R.

Footnote 1105:

See above, p. 405.

Footnote 1106:

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

Footnote 1107:

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

Footnote 1108:

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

Footnote 1109:

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

Footnote 1110:

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

Footnote 1111:

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

Footnote 1112:

See Florence, 1038, compared with 1046.

Footnote 1113:

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

Footnote 1114:

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

Footnote 1115:

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

Footnote 1116:

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

Footnote 1117:

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

Footnote 1118:

See above, p. 328.

Footnote 1119:

See above, p. 448.

Footnote 1120:

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

Footnote 1121:

Sim. Hist. Dun. iii. 5.

Footnote 1122:

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

Footnote 1123:

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

Footnote 1124:

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

Footnote 1125:

Enc. Emm. iii. 8.

Footnote 1126:

Ib.

Footnote 1127:

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

Footnote 1128:

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

Footnote 1129:

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

Footnote 1130:

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

Footnote 1131:

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

Footnote 1132:

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

Footnote 1133:

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

Footnote 1134:

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

Footnote 1135:

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

Footnote 1136:

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

Footnote 1137:

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

Footnote 1138:

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

Footnote 1139:

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

Footnote 1140:

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

Footnote 1141:

See Appendix TTT.

Footnote 1142:

“Stir majorem domus,” says Florence.

Footnote 1143:

Florence seems to put the two Danegelds together, but the Peterborough Chronicle (1039, 1040) clearly distinguishes them. There is a reference to this Danegeld in Heming’s Worcester Cartulary, 348 (Mon. Angl. i. 593), in which it is compared with the earlier Danegelds of Æthelred and Cnut, see above, pp. 371, 418, and declared to have been heavier than any of them; “Sicuti factum est temporibus Athelredi, regis Anglorum, vastante et depopulante hanc patriam pagano rege Danorum Swein nomine, quum maximum et prope importabile tributum tota Anglia reddere cogeretur. Ob hujus itaque tam gravis tributi exactionem omnia fere ornamenta hujus ecclesiæ distracta sunt, tabulæ altaris, argento et auro paratæ, spoliatæ sunt, textus exornati, calices confracti, cruces conflatæ, ad ultimum etiam terræ et villulæ pecuniis distractæ sunt. Simili modo etiam actum est regnante Cnut filio suo, et adhuc graviora vectigalia superaddita sunt temporibus regni filii Cnut, cujus nomen erat Hardecnut.”

Footnote 1144:

Florence here inserts the remark, from the Worcester and Abingdon Chronicles, “Quapropter omnibus qui prius adventum ejus desiderabant magnopere factus est exosus summopere.”

Footnote 1145:

Flor. Wig. in anno. “Accusantibus illos Ælfrico Eboracensi archiepiscopo et quibusdam aliis.”

Footnote 1146:

Ib. “Episcopatum Wigornensem Livingo abstulit et Ælfrico dedit, sed sequenti anno ablatum Ælfrico, Livingo secum pacificato benigne reddidit.”

Footnote 1147:

Will. Malms. ii. 188. “Illum episcopatu expulit, sed post annum pecunia serenatus restituit.”

Footnote 1148:

Ib. “Godwinum quoque obliquis oculis intuitus, ad sacramentum purgationis compulit.”

Footnote 1149:

Flor. Wig. in anno. “Cum totius fere Angliæ principibus et ministris dignioribus regi juravit.”

Footnote 1150:

See Appendix VVV.

Footnote 1151:

See above, pp. 354, 357.

Footnote 1152:

See above, p. 340.

Footnote 1153:

See above, p. 357.

Footnote 1154:

Except in one Danish Chronicle (Chron. Erici, ap. Lang. i. 159), who ludicrously attributes to Harthacnut, not only his father’s military legislation, but his mythical exploits in various parts of the world. “Unde tempore suo super omnes reges mundi terribilis et laudabilis exstitit. Transivit etiam cum Imperatore in Italiam ad domandum nationes exteras. Obiit autem in Anglia.”

Footnote 1155:

The ship and its crew are described by Florence, 1040; William of Malmesbury, ii. 188.

Footnote 1156:

Will. Malms. “Ne singula enumerem armis omnibus instructos in quibus fulgor cum terrore certans sub auro ferrum occuleret.”

Footnote 1157:

“Securis Danica” in both accounts.

Footnote 1158:

Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 728 E) arms both West-Saxons and Mercians at Burford “gladiis et securibus Amazonicis.” The Amazons are of course a flourish of Henry’s own out of Horace; but the axes may very likely come from a ballad. The axe, as antiquarian researches show, was in use almost everywhere from the earliest times, but the earlier axes are something quite different from the vast two-handed weapons wielded at Stamfordbridge and Senlac. This last clearly supplanted the sword as the characteristic English weapon from about this time. See above, pp. 273, 391.

Footnote 1159:

Villehardouin, c. 95. “Et li Griffon orent mis d’Englois et de Danois à totes les haches.” Nikêtas, Alex. iii. (351 B. ed. Paris, 1647). εἰ καὶ πρὸς τῶν ἐπικούρων Ῥωμαίοις Πισσαίων καὶ τῶν πελεκυφόρων βαρβάρων γενναιότερον ἀπεκρούσθησαν, καὶ τραυματίαι οἱ πλείους ἀνέζευξαν.

Footnote 1160:

Bromton (so to call him) must have had some authority before him when he made the significant remark (X Scriptt. 934), “Iste rex Hardeknoutus per totum tempus quo regnavit regnum Scotiæ subjectum pacifice habebat.”

Footnote 1161:

See above, pp. 350, 353.

Footnote 1162:

Flor. Wig. 1041. “Rex Anglorum Heardecanutus suos huscarlas misit per omnes regni sui provincias ad exigendum quod indixerat tributum.”

Footnote 1163:

See Appendix KKK.

Footnote 1164:

“Ut piratis suis necessaria ministrarent,” says Roger of Wendover, i. 479.

Footnote 1165:

See above, p. 316.

Footnote 1166:

Flor. Wig. in anno. “In cujusdam turris Wigornensis monasterii solario.” This can hardly mean the principal tower of the church.

Footnote 1167:

Besides the ravaging of districts as chastisement for treason or defection in war (see above, pp. 371, 378), we find a similar case even in the peaceful reign of Eadgar. See above, p. 65.

Footnote 1168:

See above, p. 514.

Footnote 1169:

So I understand William of Malmesbury, De Gest. Pont. iii. p. 154 “Quin et Wigorniensibus pro repulsa episcopatus infensus auctor Hardecnuto fuit ut, quod illi pertinacius exactoribus regiorum vectigalium obstiterant, urbem incenderet, fortunas civium abraderet.” If the “repulsa episcopatus” meant the restoration of the see to Lyfing by the King’s act, this could be no offence on the part of the citizens of Worcester.

Footnote 1170:

On the dates of Siward’s promotions, see Appendix WWW.

Footnote 1171:

Florence calls him “Comes Mediterraneorum.” His earldom included Huntingdonshire. See a charter of Harthacnut and Emma addressed “Turri comiti” (Cod. Dipl. vi. 192). I do not find any of his signatures as Earl, but he is doubtless the same as Ðord, Ðored, &c., in various spellings, who signs several charters of Cnut as “minister” and “miles.”

Footnote 1172:

See above, p. 404. “Hrani dux” signs as early as 1023. Cod. Dipl. iv. 27. We find him holding a Scirgemót with Bishop Æthelstan and others in Cod. Dipl. iv. 54. He there bears the title of Ealdorman, and we find that his son, like some other English-born sons of Danish settlers, bore the English name of Eadwine.

Footnote 1173:

Fl. Wig. “Paucos vel e civibus vel provincialibus ceperunt aut occiderunt, quia præcognito adventu eorum, provinciales quoque locorum fugerant.”

Footnote 1174:

Ib. “Munitione facta, tamdiu se viriliter adversus suos inimicos defenderant.”

Footnote 1175:

The existence of the beaver in Britain within historical memory seems proved by such names as Beverege, Beverley, perhaps, but less likely, Beverstone (Byferesstan, Chron. Petrib. 1048) in Gloucestershire. Giraldus Cambrensis (Topog. Hibern. i. 21. p. 709 Camden) speaks of beavers in his time in the Teifi, but in the Teifi only.

Footnote 1176:

The Worcester writer Heming seems inclined to make the most of the mischief. To his description of the Danegeld, quoted already (see above, p. 513), he adds that Harthacnut “etiam totam istam provinciam hostili exercitu ferro et igne depopulavit.”

Footnote 1177:

“Ælfrico adhuc Wigornensem pontificatum tenente,” says Florence, a significant expression, which seems silently to confirm the charge brought against Ælfric of being the author of the whole business.

Footnote 1178:

Robert of Gloucester, p. 558;

“þe bissop Walter of Wurcetre asoiled hom alle þere, and prechede hom, þat hii adde of deþ þe lasse fere.”

Footnote 1179:

Will. Malms. ii. 188. “Contumeliam famæ, et amori suo detrimentum ingessit.”

Footnote 1180:

The coming of Eadward and his friendly reception by Harthacnut is asserted by all the Chronicles and by Florence; they do not distinctly affirm that Harthacnut sent for him, but it is surely a natural inference. The invitation is distinctly asserted by the Encomiast, p. 39. William of Malmesbury however (ii. 188) seems to imply that Eadward came uninvited; “Germanum Edwardum, annosæ peregrinationis tædio, et spe fraternæ necessitudinis, natale solum revisentem, obviis, ut aiunt, manibus excipiens indulgentissime retinuit.”

Footnote 1181:

Cnut married Emma in 1017. Harthacnut was therefore born between 1018 and 1023, when he visited Canterbury as a child. Chron. Wig. 1023.

Footnote 1182:

See the extract from William of Poitiers in p. 511.

Footnote 1183:

Enc. Emm. 39. “Fraterno correptus amore, nuncios mittit ad Edvardum, rogans ut veniens secum obtineret regnum.” Saxo (202) assigns quite another motive; “Edvardum fratrem, quem ejusdem nominis[!] pater ex Immæ matrimonio sustulit, in regni societatem adsciscit; non quod fraterno illum adfectu coleret, sed ut ejus ambitionem munificentia ac liberalitate præcurreret, regnique parte potitum totum cupere prohiberet.”]

Footnote 1184:

Chronn. Abb. et Wig. “He wunode þa swa on his broðor hirede, þa hwile þe he leofode.” Fl. Wig. “A fratre suo Heardecanuto rege susceptus honorifice in curia sua mansit.”

Footnote 1185:

See above, p. 317.

Footnote 1186:

Ord. Vit. 655 C; Hist. Rams. c. 116.

Footnote 1187:

“Timidus dux Radulfus,” says Florence, 1055.

Footnote 1188:

See above, pp. 330, 379.

Footnote 1189:

See Appendix KK.

Footnote 1190:

See above, p. 379.

Footnote 1191:

See Appendix KK.

Footnote 1192:

A Carl, apparently the same, signs several charters of Cnut.

Footnote 1193:

Sim. Dun. X Scriptt. 81; De Gestis, 204.

Footnote 1194:

Sim. Dun. 81. “Diutina maris tempestate impediti, cœptum iter relinquentes, domum sunt reversi.”

Footnote 1195:

See above, p. 327. This story has a mythical sound; still a hunting-party would give unusual opportunities both to commit such a murder and afterwards to represent it as an accident. The fate of William Rufus is a familiar example. Simeon (p. 81) says that, in his time, the place of the murder was marked by a small stone cross.

Footnote 1196:

See above, p. 520.

Footnote 1197:

Will. Malms. iii. 253. On the origin of Siward, see Appendix WWW.

Footnote 1198:

Ealdred (Sim. Dun. 82) had five daughters, three of whom were named “Elfleda,” that is, I suppose, Æthelflæd. Of these Siward married one, who was the mother of the famous Waltheof. Did the two other Æthelflæds die in infancy?

Footnote 1199:

Sim. Dun. De Gestis, 204. “Qui, quum superbia extolleretur, Brittones satis atrociter devastavit.”

Footnote 1200:

Ib. “Sed tertio post anno, quum ad Hardecanutum reconciliandus in pace venisset, interfectus est a Siwardo.” So the Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles, 1041; “And on þison geare eac swác Harðacnut Eadulfe under gryðe, and he was þa wedloga.” This independent statement gives the strongest possible confirmation to Simeon’s whole story. Florence does not mention the murder of Eadwulf.

Footnote 1201:

Sim. Dun. u. s. “Siwardus, qui post illum totius provinciæ Northanhymbrorum, id est ab Humbra usque Twedam, comitatum habuit.” Ann. Dun. 1043. “Comes Siward vastavit Northanhymbrorum provinciam.” This seems to be put during the ten months of the imperfect episcopate of Eadred.

Footnote 1202:

Sim. Hist. Dun. iii. 9. p. 33. “Defunctus est in Glocestre, quum apud regem ibidem moraretur.” Gloucester was, at least under Eadward and William, the usual place for the Midwinter festival. Chron. Petrib. 1087. Eadward also is found at Gloucester somewhat earlier in the year. Flor. Wig. 1043.

Footnote 1203:

Simeon (Hist. Dun. iii. 9) says, “Præsulatum illius ecclesiæ primus ex ordine clericali festinavit obtinere.” See above, p. 507.

Footnote 1204:

So I understand the words (Sim. Dun. u. s.), “Intraturus quippe ecclesiam, subita infirmitate corripitur, decidensque in lectum, decimo mense moritur.”

Footnote 1205:

So at least it would appear from Adam of Bremen, ii. 74. “Magnus statim invadens Daniam, possedit duo regna, Hardechnut rege Danorum cum exercitu morante in Anglia.” But it is hard to make this agree with the Saga of Magnus, which speaks of no occupation of Denmark by Magnus till after Harthacnut’s death.

Footnote 1206:

Adam, ii. 73.

Footnote 1207:

Ib. 74.

Footnote 1208:

Chronn. Ab. et Wig. “Her forðferde Harðacnut swa þæt he æt his drince stod.”

Footnote 1209:

See Appendix XXX.

Footnote 1210:

“Osgodus Clapa, magnæ vir potentiæ,” says Florence. The Waltham writer De Inventione (c. 13) corrupts Clapa into Scalp, and his daughter’s name into Glitha.

Footnote 1211:

De Inv. 1–10. The first inhabitants were sixty-six persons who were cured by the relic, and who devoted themselves to its honour. “De quibus ... in primis instituta est villa Walthamensis, nam antea nihil erat in loco nisi vile domicilium ad succurrendum quum caussa venandi accederet illuc heros ille.” This happened “regnante Cnuto et Anglis imperante.”

Footnote 1212:

Ib. 7. “Ei præ gaudio a senectute et senio [a subtle distinction], sicut aquilæ, juventus renovatur.”

Footnote 1213:

Fl. Wig. “Dum ... lætus, sospes, et hilaris, cum sponsa prædicta et quibusdam viris bibens staret.” Cf. Chron. Petrib.

Footnote 1214:

Chronn. Ab. et Wig. “Mid egeslicum anginne.”

Footnote 1215:

Chronn. Petr. et Cant. The latter adds, “His moder for his sawle gief into niwan mynstre S. Valentines heafod ðas martires.”

Footnote 1216:

See the next Chapter and Appendix YYY.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained. ● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last chapter. ● Enclosed italics font in underscores. ● Enclosed bold or blackletter font in =equals=.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us