Part 1 of 9
NOTE PP. p. 544. The Submission at Berkhampstead
For once I venture to set aside the authority of the Chronicles. I do not think that Eadwine and Morkere could have been at Berkhampstead. Their presence there is asserted by the Worcester Chronicle and also by Florence, but it is hard to see how it can be reconciled with Florence’s own account of their movements just before (see p. 531). They are not mentioned by William of Poitiers, who makes them submit to William at Barking after his coronation (147, 148). The Archdeacon is capable of any disregard of chronology, but he is not likely to have cut the Berkhampstead submission into two or to have imagined a submission at Barking which did not take place. A submission of Eadwine and Morkere after the coronation falls in much better with the rest of the story than a submission before. And it is less violent to suppose that their names have got into the Chronicle in a wrong place—a process which the likeness of the names Barking and Berkhampstead would make specially easy—than to suppose that the story in William of Poitiers is an invention without a motive.
Had Stigand a share in the submission of Berkhampstead? William of Poitiers specially introduces him; indeed he is the only person whom he mentions by name (141); but he brings him to Wallingford; “Adveniens eodem [Wallingford] Stigandus, Pontifex Metropolitanus, manibus ei sese dedit, fidem sacramento confirmavit, abrogans Athelinum, quem leviter elegerat.” But the whole story is a model of geographical confusion; Berkhampstead is not mentioned; the request of the English that William will accept the Crown, the debate on the question, and the speech of Hamon of Thouars, are all placed “statim ut Lundonia conspectui patebat.” I have ventured to transfer all these events to Berkhampstead, where it is plain from Florence and the Worcester Chronicle that the chief act of submission took place. But the presence or absence of Stigand is a knotty point. He is not mentioned in the Chronicle, nor in the fuller list in Florence, which seems to be specially meant as a complete list of the Bishops present. On the other hand, he is the only person named by William of Poitiers, and it is certain that he must have submitted before the coronation. Is it possible that, when submission was unavoidable, he was the first to submit, and that he met William at Wallingford before the others met him at Berkhampstead? The two English writers leave Wallingford out altogether, but William must have crossed the Thames somewhere, and there seems no reason to reject William of Poitiers’ statement that he crossed it at Wallingford.
Sir Henry Ellis (ii. 267) quotes a story which is said to be in William of Poitiers, but which I cannot find there, how one Wigod of Wallingford received and entertained William at Wallingford, till Stigand and others came there to make their submission. Of this I can say nothing, but Wigod of Wallingford is a real man, occurring in Domesday (62, 150) and elsewhere. “Wigod Minster” signs a doubtful charter in Cod. Dipl. iv. 189, and “Wigodus Regis pincerna” signs the Waltham charter (iv. 159). In the writ (Cod. Dipl. iv. 215) addressed to Bishop Wulfsige and Earl Gyrth and the Thegns of Oxfordshire, dating therefore between 1058 and 1066, the King also greets “mínne léfne may Mygod on Walingeforde,” and gives him instructions which show that he was high in the royal confidence. We should surely read “Wygod.” The kinsfolk of Eadward are endless. Do “mage” and “consanguineous” really mean no more than “well-beloved Cousin” when addressed by a modern Sovereign to a modern Earl?
END OF VOLUME THE THIRD.
1. The authorities for this Chapter and for the whole of this volume may be dealt with in a single summary. For the most part they are the same as those which we have been using all along; but they must now be looked at in a somewhat different way. Hitherto, except in the Chapters specially devoted to Norman affairs, our use of the Norman writers has been for the most part incidental. But, through the whole of the controversies of the year 1066, we must place English and Norman writers in a certain sense on a level. The writers of each nation—I speak of course mainly of contemporary writers—tell the tale from their own national points of view and in the way which is most favourable to their own national heroes. At no time must their statements be more carefully compared with one another, as no full or accurate narrative could be drawn from either side by itself. The English writers maintain a sort of sullen silence on those points on which the Normans are naturally the most full. The Normans, on the other hand, through ignorance, through prejudice, sometimes through direct disregard to truth, grossly misrepresent all English affairs.
At this stage we lose the Biographer of Eadward, who ends his story in a most significant way at Eadward’s death, and who has nothing beyond one or two dark allusions to anything later. On the Norman side we gain one most valuable source of help in the Tapestry of Bayeux, whose origin and importance I shall discuss in a separate note. (See Appendix A.) The Saga of Harold Hardrada in Snorro must also be carefully studied. Wild as it is in many parts, it is our most detailed account, and our only Scandinavian account, of the campaign of Stamfordbridge, and it also shows us the way in which English and Norman affairs were looked on in Northern Europe.
Later writers, down to as late a time as any one pleases, are, at this time, worthy of more than usual attention. Though for the most part of very little value in themselves, they tell us, what it is most important to learn, the way in which different ages looked at the greatest events in English history.
3. Æthel. Riev. X Scriptt. 399. “Peractis itaque omnibus pro tantâ sollennitate, quasi diceret Rex ‘Consummatum est,’ inclinat in lectulo caput, et exhinc cœpit gravi dolore fatigari.”
4. Ib. “Tunc mœror et luctus omnium, una vox plangentium.” This we can well believe; but the hagiographer is plainly writing with the help of his own fuller knowledge, when he goes on to say; “Præsentiebant plures ejus in morte desolationem patriæ, plebis exterminium, totius Anglicæ nobilitatis excidium, finem libertatis, honoris ruinam.” The moment was an anxious one, but no one who had not Eadward’s own gift of prophecy could foresee all this.
5. Vita Eadw. 430. “Biduo vel ampliùs adeò eum languor fatigaverat, ut vix quum loqueretur quid diceret intelligi posset.” These details should be compared throughout with the account in Æthelred, who developes and improves upon every touch.
6. The Biographer (p. 431) describes those present as “Regina terræ assidens ejusque pedes super gremium suum fovens, ejusque germanus Dux Haroldus, et Rodbertus regalis palatii stabilitor et ejusdem Regis propinquus (?), Stigandus quoque Archiepiscopus.” Æthelred (400) gives the same list, but stops to abuse Stigand. The four will be seen in the Tapestry (pl. vii. Bruce, p. 74) as I have described them.
7. In this account of Eadward’s death-bed I follow the contemporary Life, which is closely followed by William of Malmesbury, ii. 226. Æthelred, or Osbert whom he copied, evidently had the Life before him, but he thought it his duty to expand every speech and incident. The reader must form what judgement he pleases as to the prediction put into Eadward’s mouth. Perhaps most modern readers will be inclined to be of the same opinion as Stigand. But I did not think myself justified in wholly leaving out what I find in a contemporary writer, who affirms that he had his information from eye-witnesses (“sicut testantur hi qui aderant præsentes,” Vita Eadw. p. 430), that is, very probably from Eadgyth herself. In fact the contemptuous incredulity attributed to Stigand is of itself a strong argument that something professing to be a prophecy was actually uttered by Eadward on his death-bed. Of course I do not pledge myself to the historical accuracy of the exact words. Eadward would speak English, or more probably French, and his words would gain a good deal in the course of their translation into rhetorical Latin.
8. Vita Eadw. 431. “Cum paucis aliis quos idem beatus Rex a somno excitatus advocari jusserat.”
9. Ib. 430. “Tantâ usus est loquendi copiâ ut cuivis sanissimo nihil opus esset suprà.”
10. The Biographer records this last famous prediction or similitude without any attempt at an explanation. When he wrote, in the early years of William, a Prometheus after the fact might well put into Eadward’s mouth a prophecy of the Conquest of England and of the general misfortunes of the country. But he could not put into his mouth a prophecy in honour of Henry the Second. Either then the passage is a later interpolation, of which the Editor gives no hint, or else Eadward really uttered some allegory, quoted some proverb, or, as Stigand thought, simply talked nonsense, on which people began to put a meaning forty years later. The orthodox explanation is that the tree removed from the root for the space of three furlongs (the words are “trium jugerum spatio,” but one can hardly make acres a measure of length) means the Crown transferred to usurpers during three reigns, those of Harold and the two Williams (the descent of William Rufus from Ælfred is forgotten, see vol. ii. p. 304). The tree returns to the root when Henry the First marries Eadgyth or Matilda the daughter of Margaret; it bears leaves at the birth of her children. William of Malmesbury (v. 419) witnesses that the birth of the Ætheling William (c. 1101) was looked on as the fulfilment of the prophecy, which shows that it had already attracted attention, most likely at the marriage of William’s parents. The death of the Ætheling in 1119 cut off all such hopes, but at the same time it opened the way for a more elaborate fulfilment in the persons of his sister and her son. The tree now brings forth leaves at the birth of the Empress Matilda and fruit at the birth of Henry the Second. See Æthelred 401, and the French Life, 3805 et seqq. The writer seems in v. 3846 to confound Henry the Second and Henry the Third.
11. Vita Eadw. 431. “Cunctisque stupentibus et terrore agente tacentibus, ipse Archiepiscopus, qui debuerat vel primus pavere vel verbum consilii dare, infatuato corde submurmurat in aurem Ducis senio confectum et morbo quid diceret nescire.” He had just before said that Harold, Robert, and Eadgyth were all frightened—“terrentur nimium.” Æthelred (400) leaves out Harold’s fears, and also leaves out the characteristic and trustworthy little touch of the Archbishop whispering in the Earl’s ear, which, as they stood (see the Tapestry) on different sides of the bed, involved leaning over the dying man. In his account the details of the contemporary writer evaporate in this fashion; “Is [Stigandus] ad vocem narrantis obduruit, nec terretur oraculo, nec fidem habuit prophetanti, sed potius Regem confectum senio delirare submurmurans, ridere maluit quam lugere.”
12. The meaning of the Biographer (431–432) is perfectly plain; “Cognoscebant enim per sacri ordinis personas Christiani cultûs religionem maximè violatam, hocque frequentiùs declamâsse [declarâsse?] tum per legatos et epistolas suas Romanum Papam, tum in frequentibus monitis ipsum Regem et Reginam; sed divitiis et mundanâ gloriâ irrecuperabiliter quidam diabolo allecti, vitæ adeò neglexerant disciplinam ut non horrerent jam tunc imminentem incidere in Dei iram.” That is, the Pope, the King, and the Lady had before this time rebuked the English, but they were stiff-necked and would not hearken; hence the divine threatenings. Æthelred (400) clearly means the same; “Recordantur hæc ipsa summo sæpiùs narrata Pontifici, ipsumque persæpe, tum per legatos, tum per epistolas, eorum vesaniam increpâsse, Regemque ac Reginam his malis curandis diligentiam adhibuisse, sed profecisse nihil.” But his first clause was liable to be misunderstood, and the writer of the French Life did misunderstand it. He mistakes the letters written by the Pope for letters written to the Pope to announce Eadward’s vision;
13. Vita Eadw. 430. “Funeribus exsequiis attitulat se commendatione et precibus summorum Dei fidelium.” As might be expected, he recurs more than once to the subject. See pp. 433, 434.
15. I think, comparing the evidently cautious expression of the Biographer with the outspoken words of the Chronicles and Florence, that I am justified in putting this meaning on the words (433), “Porrectâ manu [the very gesture is shown in the Tapestry] ad prædictum nutricium suum fratrem Haroldum, ‘Hanc,’ inquit, ‘cum omni regno tutandam commendo.’” See Appendix B.
16. See Appendix I.
17. Vita Eadw. 433. “Hanc ... tutandam commendo, ut pro Dominâ et sorore, ut est, fideli serves et honores obsequio, ut, quo advixerit, a me adepto non privetur honore debito.” Fideli must agree with obsequio, not with sorore.
18. Ib. “Commendo pariter etiam eos qui nativam terram suam reliquerunt caussâ amoris mei, mihique hactenus fideliter sunt obsequuti.”
19. Ib. “Ut, susceptâ ab eis, si ita volunt, fidelitate, eos tuearis et retineas, aut tuâ defensione conductos, cum omnibus quæ sub me adquisierunt, cum salute ad propria transfretari facias.”
20. Vita Eadw. 434. “Fossa sepulcri mei in monasterio paretur, in eo loco quo vobis assignabitur.”
21. Ib. “Mortem meam quæso ne celetis [the plural is used in these general directions, while the political requests are addressed in the singular to Harold], sed celeriùs circumquaque annuncietis, ut quique fideles pro me peccatore deprecentur clementiam Dei Omnipotentis.” Compare the excitement caused by the suspicion that the death of Edward the Sixth was concealed. Froude, Hist. Eng. v. 514.
22. Ib. “Ne timeas; non moriar modo, sed bene convalescam propitiante Deo.”
23. Ib. “Sumpto a cœlesti mensâ vitæ viatico.” There is no mention whether the Communion was in one kind only. Communion in both kinds was certainly usual at this time (see Will. Pict. 113, 131), but it is not likely in the case of a dying man.
24. Vita Eadw. 434. “Erat tunc videre in defuncto corpore gloriam migrantis ad Deum animæ, quum scilicet caro faciei ut rosa ruberet, subjecta barba ut lilium canderet, manus suo ordine directæ albescerent, totumque corpus non morti sed fausto sopori traditum signarent.”
27. Chronn. Ab. Wig. 1065.
28. Ib.
29. Ib.
See vol. ii. p. 531.
30. Chronn. Ab. Wig. 1066.
The Welsh, who are thus coupled with Scots, and distinguished from the Britons, can mean only the Welsh of Strathclyde.
31. See Appendix B. and vol. ii. p. 537.
32. “Le Roi est mort; vive le Roi”—the exact opposite to old Teutonic feelings.
33. Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 761 D. “Quidam Anglorum Eadgar Atheling promovere volebant in Regem.” Will. Malms. iii. 238. “Anglia dubio favore nutabat, cui se rectori committeret incerta, an Haroldo an Willelmo an Edgaro ... Angli diversis votis ferebantur, quamvis palam cuncti bona Haroldo imprecarentur.” This is an important admission.
34. Would the course of the election have been in any way different, if the Gemót had been held in Oxford?
35. Fl. Wig. 1066. “A totius Angliæ primatibus ad regale culmen electus.” See Appendix C.
36. See the Waltham writer’s character of Harold, vol. ii. p. 540.
38. Tapestry, pl. 7. Bruce, p. 80. “Hic dederunt Haroldo Coronam Regis.” It is worth remark that the crown which is here represented as offered to Harold is of a different and simpler form from that with which Harold is represented as being crowned the next day. This last is the same as that which Eadward is always drawn as wearing, even when supported in the arms of Robert on his death-bed. This last representation is of course merely symbolical; it is simply as much as to say, “This is the King.” This latter crown is doubtless the crown used at the actual coronation, and also on the great days when the King “wore his Crown” publicly. On its form cf. vol. ii. p. 334. But this simpler crown, borne, it would seem, immediately from the chamber of the dead King, suggests that such a crown was commonly kept at hand near the King’s person. Compare the well-known story of Henry the Fifth trying on the crown which was kept by his father’s bed-side (Monstrelet, i. 163 b), a story which may pass as authority for the custom, whether true or not as to the fact. This crown, as easier of access, would be the one symbolically offered to the King-elect, while the crown of greater ceremony would of course be used in the great rite of the morrow.
39. The Danish Kings, though not of royal English blood, were of royal blood in their own land. With the exception of them, the Crown of Wessex, and of England as the developement and continuation of Wessex, had never gone out of the West-Saxon royal house. I cannot answer for all the momentary Kings in Northumberland or in the last days of Mercia.
40. See below, Chapter xii. § 4, and Appendix R.
42. “Die quâ Edwardus Rex vivus fuit et mortuus” is a common form in Domesday. So in Cod. Dipl. iv. 233; “To þám timan ðe Eádward cing was cucu and deád.”
43. This is well put by Dr. Bruce, p. 79.
44. The Tapestry (pl. 7) significantly puts together, in one compartment, one over the other, the nomination of Harold by Eadward (“Hic Eadwardus Rex in lecto alloquit fideles”) and the preparation of Eadward’s body for burial (“Hic defunctus est”). Now the churchman in attendance on the death-bed must surely be the same as the churchman who is helping at the preparation for burial. Now the former can only be Stigand, and the latter is still more distinctly marked with the archiepiscopal pallium, the unlucky gift of Benedict.
45. Bayeux Tapestry, pl. 7. Bruce, p. 74.
46. In the coronation-offices of different ages, mention is often made of the weariness of the sovereign, caused, according to Mr. Maskell, by his obligation to receive the Communion fasting. In this case therefore, when the burial had to take place before the coronation, it would be specially necessary to begin the ceremony early in the day.
47. Vita Eadw. 434. “Coram altare beati Petri Apostoli conditur corpus.” The Chronicles simply mention the burial in the minster; “He forðferde on Twelftan æfen, and hyne man bebyrigde on Twelftan dæig on þam ylcan mynstre” (Ab. Wig. 1065)—“innan þære niwa halgodre circean on Westmynstre” (Petrib. 1066).
48. The general sorrow has quite witness enough in the Life, 434, 435. Æthelred (402) uses stronger expressions, but which still perhaps do not go beyond the facts of the case; “Dici non potest quantus mox omnes timor invaserit, occupaverit mœror, quomodo totam quoque insulam tenebrosus quidam horror impleverit.”
49. See the Poem in the Chronicles, above, p. 18.
50. Vita Eadw. 434. “Totum quoque a primo die tricesimum celebratione missarum, decantatione prosequuntur psalmorum, expensis pro redemptione ipsius animæ multis auri libris in sublevatione diversi ordinis pauperum.”
51. Ib. 435. “Ibi illuminantur cæci, in gressum solidantur claudi, infirmi curantur, mœrentes consolatione Dei reparantur.”
52. At this point we lose the contemporary Life of Eadward. He speaks of no event later than the funeral, except in an allusion to the Battle of Stamfordbridge (426);
He declines entering on the subject for fear of wounding the feelings of Eadgyth. Except from this one place, and from the dying recommendation of Eadward, which last he makes as dark as possible (see Appendix B), we should never learn from him that Harold ever reigned at all. William is never mentioned or alluded to. It is clear that, writing as he did for Eadgyth, under William, he could not write as he would, and, courtier as he was, he was not willing to write in the way that might have been most acceptable.
53. “Gillebertus cognomento Crispyn,” says Æthelred (408), who calls this examination “prima translatio.” His appointment by Lanfranc is mentioned in the Tract on the Crispin Family, Lanfranc, ed. Giles, i. 343.
54. Æthel. u.s. “Non tamen conatum hunc meum præsumptioni deputes sed devotioni, quum relliquiarum ejus vel modicam portionem, si mihi copia præstaretur, Crœsi opibus prætulissem.”
55. See Hardy’s Catalogue of English History, vol. i. part 2. p. 642. Several letters on the subject will be found among the letters of Osbert published (along with those of Herbert Lozinga) by Colonel Anstruther (Brussels 1846), numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 in the series. Osbert writes on behalf of the canonization to the Pope’s Legate, Alberic Bishop of Ostia, and to Henry, Bishop of Winchester, whose somewhat remote kindred to the saint is enlarged on. Bishop Henry, the Chapter (Conventus) of Saint Paul’s, and lastly King Stephen, write letters which Osbert carries to the Pope. Lastly comes Innocent’s answer to the Convent of Westminster, asking for further proof of Eadward’s miracles, &c. There is nothing of special interest in the whole series.
56. See the opening of Æthelred’s Life of Eadward (370. Cf. Geneal. Regg. 350); he calls Henry “lapidem angularem Anglici generis et Normannici.”
57. See Dart, Westmonasterium, p. 53. He quotes from a seemingly unpublished manuscript.
58. Edward the First was baptized on the day of the Translation of his earlier namesake the “Martyr.” See Matt. Paris, 488. But it is distinctly said that his name was given him in honour of the Confessor. Flores Hist. 1239; “Est Eadwardus vocitatus. Qui denominationem accepit a glorioso Rege et Confessore Eadwardo, cujus corpus gloriosum in basilicâ S. Petri Westmonasterii requiescit.” So N. Trivet, in anno (p. 225 ed. Hog); “In honorem gloriosissimi Confessoris et Regis Edwardi Edwardum vocavit.” But Matthew Paris (u.s.) seems, oddly enough, to make him be called Edward after the contemporary Archbishop Saint Edmund; “Archiepiscopus Ædmundus Cantuariensis ipsum confirmavit, et, Rege sic volente, aptatum est ei nomen, scilicet Ædwardus.” The important point is the re-appearance, from any cause, of the royal English name.
59. Matt. Paris, 661. “Eodem anno [1245] Dominus Rex, devotione quam habuit adversus sanctum Ædwardum submonente, ecclesiam Sancti Petri Westmonasteriensem jussit ampliari. Et, dirutis antiquis cum turri muris partis orientalis, præcepit novos, videlicet decentiores ... construi.”
60. T. Wikes, 1269 (Gale, ii. 89). “Ecclesiam ... Rex opere sumptuosissimo fabricatam, amotâ prorsus veteri [this is not true, see M. Paris, u.s.] quæ nullius omnino valoris exstiterat, de propriis fisci regalis exitibus [Simon and the Parliament had something to say on that head], a fundamentis construxit, quæ quidem sumptibus pariter et decore sic cæteris per orbem ecclesiis præponi decernitur, ut videatur comparem non habere.”
61. Marmion, ii. 10.
62. Matt. Paris, 2. “Ecclesia, quam ... post multi ecclesias construentes, exemplum adepti, opus illud expensis æmulabantur sumptuosis.” See vol. ii. p. 508 for the passage of William of Malmesbury on which this is founded.
63. I know of no other English church of the thirteenth century which exhibits the French arrangement of the apse and surrounding chapels. It may be seen at an earlier date at Norwich and in the ground-plan of the destroyed monastic church at Leominster, and at a later date at Tewkesbury, the example most like Westminster, though on a much smaller scale.
64. John’s submission to Rome was more ignominious in point of form than anything done by Eadward or Henry, but it was not in the same way the act of his own free will.
65. T. Wikes, p. 88. Henry moved the body “non patiens ulteriùs venerabiles relliquias beatissimi Regis Edwardi Confessoris, quem præ cæteris sanctis speciali quâdam veneratione dilexit, locello quodam humili recubare.” The ceremony was done “convocatis universis Angliæ prælatis et magnatibus, necnon cunctarum regni sui civitatum pariter et burgorum potentioribus.” The Witan, in short, buried him and the Witan translated him. Then follows the list of the Kings, Princes, and nobles who bore the body.
66. T. Wikes, p. 89. “Quotquot manus apponere poterant ad onus tam nobile supportandum in adjutorium evocatis.”
70. Fl. Wig. 1074.
71. Ord. Vit. 843 B. “Mathildis Regina, quæ in baptismate Edit dicta fuit, Kal. Maii [1118] obiit, et in basilicâ sancti Petri Westmonasterio tumulata quiescit.”
72. Charter of Henry, printed in Stanley’s Memorials, p. 504. “Ob reverentiam gloriosissimi Regis Eadwardi, cujus corpus in monasterio Westmonasterii requiescit, nostri corporis sepulturam ... eligimus in eodem.”
73. One would have inferred from the account in Dart, Westmonasterium (i. 56), that the body of Eadward was never disturbed. But the testimony of Henry Machyn seems explicit; “The xx day of Marche [1556–7] was taken up at Westmynster agayn with a hondered lyghtes King Edward the confessor ... it was a godly shyte to have seen yt how reverently he was cared [carried] from the plasse that he was taken up wher he was led [laid] when that the abbay was spowlyd and robbed” (p. 130, Camd. Soc. ed.). The shrine was set up on the 5th of January 1555. Chronicle of Grey Friars, p. 94, Camd. Soc. ed., where the day is called Saint Edward’s day. Stanley, Memorials of Westminster, p. 412.
74. I discuss the circumstances of Harold’s coronation at length in Appendix D. But all that is needed is expressed in the decisive words of Florence, “Ab Aldredo Archiepiscopo Eboracensi honorificè consecratus,” and in the picture in the Tapestry, pl. 7, erring only in making Stigand the consecrator.
75. See Maskell, p. xv. Some canonists seem even to have held, with a special reference to the Emperor John Tzimiskês, that the unction, like baptism, washed out all earlier sin.
77. See Appendix E.
78. Maskell, 3, 5. “Chorus decantet antiphonam ‘Firmetur manus tua et exaltetur dextera tua; justitia et judicium præparatio sedis tuæ, misericordia et veritas præcedent faciem tuam.’”
79. Ib. 5. “Perveniens Rex ad ecclesiam, prosternat se coram altare, et hymnizetur, ‘Te Deum laudamus, Te Dominum confitemur.’ Quo fini tenùs hymnizato, Rex erigatur de solo.”
80. See Appendix E.
81. See the Prayer, Maskell, p. 6, note.
82. See Appendix E.
83. “Totius regni Anglo-Saxonum ecclesiam cum plebibus sibi annexis.” (Selden, 116.) This is one of the rare cases in which this word is used; but it will be easily seen how completely its use agrees with the rule given in vol. i. p. 608. “Anglo-Saxonum” is simply an abbreviation of the form “Anglorum vel [= et] Saxonum” used before and after.
84. Marmion, ii. 28.
85. On the unction, whether on the head only, see Appendix E.
86. Selden, 116. “Hic unguatur oleo, et hæc cantetur antiphona, ‘Unxerunt Salomonem Sadoch sacerdos et Nathan propheta Regem in Gion, et accedentes dixerunt, Vivat Rex in æternum.’”
87. Selden, 117. “Sacratissima unctio super caput ejus defluat, atque ad interiora descendat, et cordis illius intima penetret.”
88. On the royal vestments, see Taylor, 79 et seqq.
89. Maskell, p. 27. “In quo per virtutem Sancti Spiritûs resistere et ejicere omnes inimicos tuos valeas, et cunctos sanctæ Dei Ecclesiæ adversarios, regnumque tibi commissum tutari, atque protegere castra Dei.”
90. On the Crown and the other regalia used, including the orb, see Appendix E.
91. Maskell, pp. 33, 34.
92. Ib. 35. “Sanctæ Mariæ ac beati Petri Apostolorum Principis, Sanctique Gregorii Anglorum Apostoli atque omnium sanctorum intercedentibus meritis.”
93. See Taylor, p. 70, and Appendix E.
94. See the Tapestry, pl. 7.
95. Chronn. Ab. Wig. 1065. “And her wærð Harold eorl eac to cynge gehalgod, and he lytle stilnesse þæron gehad, þa hwile þe he rices weold.”
96. See the form, Selden, 117. Maskell, 51. Taylor, 307 et seqq. and 403.
97. See Appendix F.
98. Maskell, p. 39. Taylor, 404.
99. See vol. i. p. 470; ii. p. 355.
100. On these charges, see Appendix G.
101. Roman de Rou, 11076;
But he does not speak of their expulsion till after William had challenged the Crown and defied Harold.
102. See above, p. 15.
104. We shall find him in Sussex at the moment of the landing at Pevensey. See below, Chapter xv. Robert the son of Wymarc must be distinguished from another Robert who was also high in Eadward’s favour, namely Robert of Rhuddlan, sister’s son to Hugh of Grantmesnil (Ord. Vit. 669 C); “Hic Eduardi Regis armiger fuit [a sinecure office, one would think], et ab illo cingulum militiæ accepit.”
106. See vol. ii. p. 359. Reginbald signs many charters.
107. There were several Stallers at a time. Besides Robert and Ralph, we find under Eadward, Esegar (see vol. ii. p. 63, and Hist. Elien. ii. 39, where he seems to be confounded with Earl Ælfgar), Lyfing (Cod. Dipl. iv. 291; vi. 198), Eadgar (iv. 148), Ælfstan (Thorpe, Dipl. Ang. 356), Harold (Domesday, 337), and Bondig (Cod. Dipl. iv. 172, 281; Domesday, 148 b, 218 b). The deposition or banishment of Ralph is more likely than that of any other favourite of Eadward. On the other hand his foreign birth is less certain.
108. See below, Chapp. xiv. xv.
109. Fl. Wig. 1066. See Appendix G.
110. Florence mentions his orders as given “Ducibus, Satrapis, Vicecomitibus, et suis in commune Ministris.” What were the exact functions of the “Satraps,” put thus in a marked way between Earls and Sheriffs?
111. See vol. i. pp. 244, 463; vol. ii. pp. 336, 481, 499.
113. On the coinage of Harold, see Appendix H.
114. Plat. Phæd. c. xxxviii. ἀλλὰ πρὸς δύο λέγεται οὐδ’ ὁ Ἡρακλῆς οἷός τε εἶναι.
115. De Inv. c. 20. “Rex ... quod prius dilexerat non potuit odisse. Verumtamen ecclesiam Walthamensem, amplori quam priùs amplexatus dilectione, multâ donariorum venustate cœpit eam ampliare, ita ut postea nullatenus sine multorum munerum oblatione vellet etiam illam sedem visitare.”
116. Cod. Dipl. iv. 305, perhaps the only surviving writ of Harold’s reign. It is addressed to Æthelnoth, Abbot of Glastonbury (see vol. ii. p. 361) and the Sheriff Tovid or Tofig. See vol. i. p. 590.
121. See vol. ii. p. 438. Cf. p. 462.
122. Hist. Eves. 88. “Defuncto nempe Rege isto [Æduuardo] et Haraldo regnum accipiente, quidquid volebat ab eo impetravit [Ageluuius].”
123. Harold was “a totius Angliæ Primatibus ad regale culmen electus.” Fl. Wig. 166.
124. See Hist. Fed. Gov. pp. 211, 270.
125. I except of course the irregular Gemót of Northampton in 1065. See vol. ii. pp. 491, 492.
126. See Appendix H.
127. Will. Malms. Vit. S. Wlst., ap. Ang. Sacr. ii. 253.
129. Domesday, 321.
131. See vol. ii. p. 484. Eadward, born at Islip, is said (Hist. Eli. ii. 33) to have been presented by his parents on the altar at Ely; I know not whether he ever repeated the visit.
132. Vit. Wlst. 254. “Illi populi ferro indomabiles, semper quiddam magnum à proavis spirantes.”
133. The matter could only have been decided in a Gemót, and Harold’s presence at York is implied in the Chronicles.
135. On the possibility that Harold’s marriage with Ealdgyth took place at this point, see Appendix F.
136. Vit. Wlst. 254. “Multa et illo itinere et aliàs crebrò præscita et prænuntiata sunt. Denique Haraldo palàm testificatus est, quanto detrimento et sibi et Angliæ foret, nisi nequitias morum correctum ire cogitaret. Vivebatur enim tunc penè ubique in Angliâ perditis moribus, et pro pacis affluentiâ deliciarum fervebat luxus.”
137. Chronn. Ab. Wig. 1066. “On þisum geare com Harold kyng of Eoforwic to Westmynstre, to þam Eastran, þe wæron æfter þam middanwintran þe se kyng forðferde.”
139. See Appendix K.
141. Hist. Ab. i. 482. Cf. the writs in Cod. Dipl. iv. 200, 228. On the affairs of Ely, see Appendix L.
142. See Hist. Ab. 482 et seqq. There is something singular in the way in which the local writer couples the advancement of the new Abbot with that of Harold—his own local Earl. “Tunc duo subrogati sunt, Haroldus comes scilicet in Regem Anglorum; et Ealdredus, hactenus exteriorum præposituram Abbendoniæ agens, inibi in abbatem monachorum.” He had (p. 486) two names (binomius erat) Ealdred and “Brichwinus.”
144. Hist. Elien. ii. 41. See Appendix L.
145. Ib. 40. “Citiùs [before the death of Guthmund] Normannis regnum obtinentibus, miles illorum quidam Hugo de Mumford easdem terras invasit, et hactenus ecclesiæ detenuit.” I cannot however identify the lands in Domesday.
146. I know of no authority for the date of William’s first message, except the assertion in Bromton (958) that it was on the tenth day after the death of Eadward. I cannot look on this as enough. I shall therefore treat of the message in connexion with those events to which it belongs in order of subject, if not of time.
147. Annales Benevent. ap. Pertz, iii. 180. “Sexto decimo Kalendas Maii apparuit stella cometis [the Greek κομητής]. Tertio die stante mense Februarii factæ sunt tenebræ horâ nonâ et permanserunt horæ tres; postea subsequuta est pluvia rapida nimium.... Et Nortmanni bella crudelissima fecerunt cum Britannis in terrâ Anglorum et Saxonum.”
148. Chronn. Ab. Wig. 1066. “Þa wearð geond eall Englaland swylc tacen on heofenum gesewen swylce nan man ǽr ne geseh.”
149. Flor. Wig. “Stella cometes non solùm in Angliâ, sed etiam, ut fertur, per totum mundum visa, per vii. dies splendore nimio fulgebat.”
150. Chronn. u. s. “Sume menn cwædon þæt hyt cométa steorra wære, þone sume menn hatað þone fexedon steorran. And he æteowde ærest on þone æfen Letania Major, þæt ys viii. Kal. Mai.” [Monday, April 24.]
151. See Appendix M.
152. Ann. S. Germani, Pertz, iv. 4. “A vespere usque ad gallicinium.”
153. Tapestry, pl. 7. “Isti mirant stellam.” See Appendix M.
154. Will. Malms. ii. 225. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines, 1066. Æthelmær, it seems, was a man of mechanical skill, who in his youth had attempted to make himself wings like Daidalos, but who had been hardly more successful than Ikaros, though from another cause. “Ipse ferebat caussam ruinæ suæ quod caudam in posteriori parte oblitus fuerat adaptare.” He remained lame for life.
155. Will. Malms. ii. 225. “Venisti, inquit, venisti, multis matribus lugende; dudum est quod te vidi; sed nunc multò terribiliorem intueor patriæ hujus excidiùm minitantem.”
156. Chronn. Wig. Petrib. Cant. 975.
158. Alb. Trium Font. 51. “Anno 1017. Cometes solito mirabilior in modum trabis maximæ per quatuor menses apparuit.” He then goes on to speak of the reign of Cnut.
159. There is nothing special to remark on the authorities for this Chapter, which consist mainly of the Norman writers whose names and whose relative importance must be by this time familiar to the reader. I will only remark that it is somewhat vexatious that we have to trust almost wholly to authorities on one side. While we have full narratives from the Norman writers, we have only the most fragmentary statements from any French, Angevin, or Breton source to set against them. And, to an English writer, this is specially vexatious when we draw near to the end of the period, when we have to deal with those personal relations between William and Harold on which the Norman writers are so full, while the contemporary English writers are so completely, no doubt significantly, silent.
161. See St. John, ii. 225 et seqq. But I would not, as I shall presently show, be thought to share Mr. St. John’s extreme scepticism on the whole matter.
162. It is indeed quite possible that the mass of people in England knew nothing about the matter. The only statement implying that they did is that of Harold’s romantic biographer (Chron. Ang. Norm. ii. 187, 188) which I have quoted and discussed in Appendix C.
165. Will. Pict. 90. “Reges de longinquo suas unicè caras filias huic marito voluntariè locarent.”
166. Ib. 89. “Adeo ut et ejus sobolem, quam solâ tum spe fovebant, dominum sibi concordi votorum electione creare certarent.” He goes on to speak of the debates on the subject, “res ponderosa” as he calls it, and how it was discussed “in frequenti curiâ.” So Will. Gem. vii. 21 “Jam Duce juvenili robore vigente, transcensis annis adolescentiæ, cœperunt optimates ejus de successione prolis cum eo attentiùs tractare.”
167. Will. Malms. iii. 273. “Præter cæteras virtutes, præcipuè in primâ adolescentiâ castitatem suspexit, in tantum ut publicè sereretur nihil illum in feminâ posse. Verumtamen ex procerum sententiâ matrimonio addictus, ita se egit ut pluribus annis nullius probri suspicione notaretur.” He then goes on to mention, without believing, an absurd story which I shall have to speak of elsewhere. I do not know on what authority genealogists and antiquaries call the famous William Peverel of Domesday a natural son of William: I know of nothing to that effect in any ancient writer. See Appendix N.
168. Will. Pict. 90. “Consiliis itaque de matrimonio discrepatur ... ac affines habere quos confines potissimùm placuit.”
170. Among the many foreign brothers-in-law of Æthelstan, it is certain that the two most prominent, Otto the Great and Duke Hugh of Paris, left no posterity by their English wives. But a search among the princes of the time might have revealed some descendants of Eadgifu and the other sisters. The line of the Karlings of Laôn was not extinct.
171. Will. Pict. 90. “Uti à Satrapis Morinorum, quos moderni Flandros appellant,” &c. This is somewhat in the style of Richer, our classical companion in my first volume.
We’ll remember where you stopped. All chapters