NOTE G. p. 51. The Character of Harold’s Government

I mentioned in a former note (vol. ii. p. 538) that Florence of Worcester, while showing a deep admiration for Harold throughout his career, keeps back his formal panegyric till he records his election to the Crown. Immediately after the passage on which I have commented in three successive notes, he draws a picture describing Harold as in every respect the model of a just, pious, and patriotic King.

“Haroldus ... ut regni gubernacula susceperat, leges iniquas destruere, æquas cœpit condere, ecclesiarum et monasteriorum patronus fieri, episcopos, abbates, monachos, clericos colere simul ac venerari, pium, humilem, affabilemque se bonis omnibus exhibere, malefactore exosos habere, nam ducibus, satrapis, vicecomitibus et suis in commune præcepit ministris, fures, raptores, regni disturbatores comprehendere et pro patriæ defensione ipsemet terrâ marique desudare.”

This of course is in some sense an ideal picture. That is to say, it does not refer only to Harold’s short reign as King. What Florence really means is that the just and vigorous government of Harold’s earlier days was continued by him after his royal election. Florence’s panegyric of Harold the King is in short identical in all its main features with the Biographer’s earlier panegyric of Harold the Earl. The words of Florence are copied by most of the writers who copy his account of the election and coronation, such as Simeon of Durham (1066), Roger of Howden (256 B), Ralph Higden (284), and the Ely History (ii. 44). It seems in short to have become a sort of formula with all writers who took the national side. The strangest thing is when Knighton (2337) gives it in an abridged shape, as an alternative character of Harold, after some of the most savage abuse on record, which I shall presently have to quote.

On the other hand, the abuse which the Norman writers hurl at the newly chosen King is something perfectly frantic. William of Poitiers, more careful for England than England was for herself, tells us (146, Giles) how William delivered the Kingdom which he conquered from the proud and cruel yoke of Harold (“Profectò sustulit a cervice tuâ superbum crudelemque dominatum Heraldi; abominandum tyrannum, qui te servitute calamitosâ simul et ignominiosâ premeret, interemit. Quod meritum in omni gente gratum habetur atque præclarum”). So Orderic tells us (492 A, D) how the reign which had begun in perjury and usurpation was carried on in tyranny and wickedness; “Heraldus Goduini Comitis filius regnum Anglorum usurpaverat, jamque tribus mensibus ad multorum detrimentum perjurio et crudelitate, aliisque nequitiis pollutus tenuerat.” So, directly after; “Mox ipse regnum quod nequiter invaserat, horrendis sceleribus maculavit.” He goes on to add how the righteous soul of Tostig, whom he fancies to have been in England, was vexed by the unlawful deeds of his brother (“Tosticus, Goduini Comitis filius, advertens Heraldi fratris sui prævalere facinus, et regnum Angliæ variis gravari oppressionibus, ægrè tulit”).

In the French Life of Eadward (4445 et seqq.) we begin to get details. After a little moralizing, we get a long account of Harold’s enormities, charging him with pretty nearly every vice, and telling us how he went on sinning, and how Eadward often appeared and rebuked him in vain. Then follows a further list of crimes, some of which are very curious;

The complaint against Harold for neglect of historical study might surely be retorted on Eadward’s panegyrists and his own calumniators. But there is something very odd, something doubtless characteristic of the Sheriffs of the thirteenth century, in the picture of the King sitting “like a Sheriff” at the exchequer, counting over his money. This charge of avarice we shall come across again, and it perhaps contains a certain ground-work of truth. That is to say, the threatening aspect of the times, especially after Eadward’s lavish expenditure on ecclesiastical objects, called for a prudent economy, which was sure to be misunderstood. I do not understand what is meant by Harold’s contempt for arms and chivalry, which is repeated in an earlier and shorter revilement of him (vv. 4283–4310). It cannot mean contempt of the specially Norman chivalry, as the word is in this very passage applied to Harold’s own prowess. For the poet goes on to set forth Harold’s strength and courage in strong terms, though he adds that his frightful wickedness made his “chivalry” of no use to him.

I have already alluded to Knighton’s portrait of Harold’s kingly government; here it is in full (2339). Harold has just been crowned by Ealdred;

“Iste devenit nimis elatus et cupidus in collectione auri et argenti et thesaurorum, nec aliquam uxorem ducere voluit, sed vi oppressit filias baronum et procerum et militum de regno, quod ipsi ægrè ferebant. Et de forestis suis tantam ferocitatem et severitatem ergo adjacentes nobiliores exercuit, quod quamplures adnihilavit et multos depauperavit. Nec mirum, quamvis ex his et ex aliis nimis odiosus devenit populis suis.”

This charge of cruel enforcement of forest laws might almost seem to have been transferred from William to Harold. It reminds one of some of the doings of Charles the First in Essex. It is a charge which Sir Francis Palgrave (Hist. Ang. Sax. 346) has not scrupled to repeat, but, as Mr. C. H. Pearson (i. 362) truly says, there is not a shadow of evidence for it except the assertion of this writer of the fifteenth century. On the words in Italics I shall have to speak again. In those which follow Knighton might seem to have drawn his portrait from King John, and, to carry out the analogy, as Lewis was then, so William is now implored to come over to England as a deliverer.

“Et ideo pars Comitum et Baronum adinvicem conferebant, dicentes non ipsum esse fortunæ deditum, nec verum esse Regem sed per intrusionem erectum, et ideo infaustè regere populum suum. Et mandaverunt Willielmo Duci Normanniæ, qui Bastardus vocatus est, eo quod ante celebrationem matrimonii natus sit, ut in Angliam veniret eorum consilio et auxilio jus regni prosequuturus, feceruntque ei fidelem securitatem veniendi; et consensit.” Immediately after all this comes Florence’s panegyric, cut a little short, as an alternative picture.

After these general charges against Harold, it is only right to extract three entries from Domesday, all in the same shire and page (Hampshire, p. 38), in which Harold is described as seizing the lands of two persons after his accession to the Crown.

“Leman tenuit in paragio de Rege E. Heraldus abstulit ei quando regnum invasit, et misit in firmâ suâ, et adhuc ibi est.”

“Leman tenuit de Godwino Comite. Heraldus quando regnabat abstulit ei, et in suâ firmâ misit, et adhuc est ibi. Ipse Leman non potuit recedere quo voluit.”

“Godwin tenuit de Rege E. in paragio, nec alicubi poterat recedere. Heraldus abstulit ei et in firmâ suâ misit. Adhuc est ibi.”

I do not remember to have ever seen these passages quoted in illustration of the charge of private spoliation which is brought among other charges against Harold in the French Life. It is clear that they might be so used by any one who felt inclined. It is equally clear that we do not know enough about the matter to justify us in condemning Harold for dealings with his own tenants which may have been perfectly legal and honest. The entry does not even venture to call the occupation “unjust,” as it does with regard to Harold’s occupations in Herefordshire, and also with regard to many cases where Normans had taken lands from Englishmen and from one another. At any rate, if any wrong was done by Harold, it was not redressed by his successor. At the time of the Survey the lands were held, not by Leman and Godwine or by their descendants, but by King William.

I can hardly think that these entries are enough to make us set aside the portrait of Harold’s government given us by Florence in favour of that given by the French Biographer and by Knighton. And I believe it is the only corroborative evidence for that portrait that can be found. On the use of the word “regnabat” as applied to Harold, an use unique in Domesday, I shall have to speak in another volume.