NOTE PP. p. 544. The Submission at Berkhampstead

993. See Snorro, ap. Johnstone, 202; Laing, iii. 84.

994. Ib. “Þat var fen diúpt oc breitt oc fultt af vatni.”

995. Snorro, ap. Johnstone, 202; Laing, iii. 84. “For þar fram merki Mauro-kara Jarls.” Snorro does not speak of any exploits of Eadwine, nor indeed does he mention his name. I am not sure that he does not confound him with Waltheof, whom he describes as present in the battle, calling him, as elsewhere, a brother of Morkere. (See vol. ii. p. 553.) He gives him however his proper title as Earl of Huntingdon. (See vol. ii. p. 560.) The presence of Waltheof is not mentioned by any other writer. It was perhaps suggested by his later exploits at York.

996. Ib. 203; Laing, iii. 84. “Lá þar sva þyckt valrinn, at Nordmenn mátto gánga þurfaetis yfir fenit.” He goes on to kill Morkere both in prose and verse, but he lived at least till 1087. Cf. Chron. Ab. “And þær wæs þæs Engliscan folces mycel ofslagen and adrenct and on fleam bedrifen.” So Florence; “Multo plures ex illis in fluvio demersi fuere quam in acie cecidere.”

997. Snorro, Johnstone, 203; Laing, iii. 85. “Valþiófr Jarl [meaning most likely Eadwine] oc þat lid er undan komz, flýdi upp til borgarinnar í Jorvik, vard þar it mesta mannfall.”

998. The details come from Snorro (Johnstone, 205; Laing, iii. 85), but the capitulation is clear from the English writers. Chron. Ab. “And þa æfter þam gefeohte, for Harold cyningc of Norwegan and Tostig eorl into Eoferwic.” So Simeon, who, after the landing at Riccall, inserts the words “et Eboracum gravi pugnâ obtinuerunt.” Snorro, who understood the geography of the coast, gets all wrong in the interior. He fancies that both Riccall and Stamfordbridge were close to York.

999. Chron. Ab. “And to fullan friðe gespræcon, þæt hig ealle mid him suð faran woldon and þis land gegan.” Cf. vol. i. p. 394.

1000. Chron. Ab. and Florence. Snorro does not mention the hostages given by Harold.

1001. Chron. Ab. “And Harold cyningc of Norwegan and Tostig eorl and heora gefylce wæron afaren of scipe begeondan Eoferwic to Stanfordbrycge; forþam þe him wæron behaten to gewissan þæt him man þær of ealre þære scire ongean by gislas bringan wolde.”

1002. Bæda, ii. 9.

1003. The confusion made by Snorro must be constantly borne in mind. The army was at Stamfordbridge; the ships were left at Riccall; these points are several miles distant from York and from one another. Snorro fancies that they were all three close together; he makes Harold Hardrada go to Stamfordbridge as a convenient post for attacking the city, and he makes him also go back to his ships on the Sunday evening. He no doubt thought that Stamfordbridge was on the Ouse. So the Hyde writer (292) turns the fight of Stamfordbridge into a siege of York; “Haroldus .... eis occurrit apud Eboracum et totis viribus civitatem oppugnat.” Cf. the passage from Domesday, below, p. 361. Stamfordbridge was the Battle of York, as Senlac was the Battle of Hastings.

1004. Æthelred (405) says, “In loco qui tunc Steinfordebrigge, nunc autem ex rei eventu etiam Pons Belli dicitur.” So the De Inventione, cap. 20; “Rediens a Ponte Belli, quod a bello cognomen.” The older name is now the only one known, but the battle is by no means forgotten on the spot.

1005. On the details, see Appendix CC.

1006. See Appendix BB.

1007. The story is told in the Ramsey History, c. 120, by Æthelred of Rievaux, 404, in the Vita Haroldi, p. 188. The Ramsey writer does not mention Harold’s sickness; the vision comes “quum Haraldus, propter imparitatem forsitan copiæ militaris, obviare [Tostino] dissimularet.” The vision itself too is cut much shorter. Æthelred tells us of Harold’s sickness, but does not describe its nature. From his own biographer’s account it would seem to have been gout; “Tybies ubito unius [“tibia subitò cruris” or “tibia cruris unius”?] vehementissimo cœpit dolore constringi.”

1008. Æthelred, u. s. “Nocte quidem præteritâ, quum dolore torqueretur, licet eum non parùm urgeret molestia imminens, siluit tamen, reputans apud se, si publicaret languorem, quod et suis futurus esset contemptui et hostibus irrisioni.”

1009. Vita Haroldi, u. s. “Qui ex suo tali compede plus subditorum discrimini quam suo congemiscens dolori, noctem penè totam suspiriis et precibus agentes [agens?] insomnem, familiarem Sanctæ Crucis expetierat subventionem.” The scene can hardly be meant to be laid at Waltham. The Holy Cross, it will be remembered, had wrought one cure on Harold already. See vol. ii. p. 443.

1010. “Ailsius,” “Elsinus,” “Alxi,” the pluralist Abbot of Ramsey and Saint Augustine’s, who had not refused the ministrations of Stigand. See vol. ii. p. 454. We shall hear of him yet again.

1011. Vita Haroldi, p. 188. “Rex itaque ... divinis curatur beneficiis, exhilaratur oraculis.”

1012. The presence of Gyrth and Leofwine might be taken for granted. That of Bondig appears from a very confused, and probably corrupt, passage of the De Inventione, c. 20. The army disperses after the victory at Stamfordbridge, and “Tostinus, Gerth, et Bundinus” are mentioned among those who had been there. For “Tostinum” we should doubtless read “Leofwinum,” and the whole history is greatly misconceived, but the passage seems evidence enough to prove the presence of Bondig, to whom I owe some amends for my note at vol. ii. p. 359. See above, p. 53.

1013. Chron. Ab. “Þa for he norðweard dæges and nihtes, swa hraðe swa he his fyrde gegaderian mihte.”

1014. Domesday, ii. 15. Pachesham was a possession of the church of Westminster. The Survey adds, “hanc terram dedit unus teignus ecclesiæ quum ivit ad bellum in Eurewic cum Haroldo.”

1015. In Domesday (177 b) we read of certain lands which one Wulfgeat had given to the church of Evesham in the fifth year of King Eadward, on the occasion of his son Ælfgeat becoming a monk of the house. The account then goes on; “Postea præstitit abbas Æluuinus hanc terram suo avunculo quamdiu ipse homo viveret. Qui postea mortuus fuit in bello Heraldi contra Norrenses.” It is worth notice that the Church of Evesham found means to take possession of the land in the short space of time between the two great battles; for the Survey continues, “ecclesia recepit terram suam antequam Rex W. in Anglia venisset.”

1016. Marianus Scotus, ap. Pertz, v. 559. “Araldus vero Rex Anglorum cum septem aciebus belli statim pervenit.”

1017. See vol. ii. p. 500.

1018. See the Abingdon Chronicle quoted in the last page.

1019. See above, p. 61.

1020. I need hardly quote the well-known passage of Gildas (§ 23) telling how our forefathers, “grex catulorum de cubili leænæ barbariæ” as he calls us, came “tribus, ut lingua ejus exprimitur, cyulis, nostrâ linguâ longis navibus.” Cf. Bæda, i. 15. The Englishman however does not use the English word preserved to us by the Briton.

1021. Chron. Ab. 1066. “Þa ámang þissan com Harald Engla cyninge mid ealre his fyrde on ðone Sunnandæg to Táða and þær his lið fylcade.” See above, p. 347.

1022. Snorro, ap. Johnstone, 205; Laing, iii. 86. “Þat sama kvelld, éptir sólarfall kom sunnan at borginni Haralldr konungr Gudenason med óvigan her reid hann í borgina at villd oe þocka allra borgar-manna.” He is wrong however in making Harold reach York on the Sunday evening and pass the night in the city.

1023. Chron. Ab. 1066. “Harold Engla Cyningc ... for þa on Monandæg þurh ut Eoferwic.”

1024. See Appendix CC.

1025. Snorro, Johnstone, 206; Laing, iii. 87. “Þeir gördo sva, oc var lidit því meira, er náligarr fór, oc allt at siá, sem á eina ís-möl sæi, er vapnin glóado.”

1026. This famous saying is proverbial. We find it applied to William in the Peterborough Chronicle, 1087; “Se þe wæs ærur rice cyng and maniges landes hlaford, he næfde þa ealles landes buton seofon fot mæl.” It was also long after applied to Charles the Bold by the Bernese historian Valerius Anshelm (i. 143); “Der Herzog ... ward von verachter Macht mit sieben Schuh Erdrychs zu Ruw gesetzt und vernügt.” It is the same general idea as the Æschylean lines,

1027. The moment of Tostig’s death is, oddly enough, not mentioned in the Saga. But the construction of the story clearly requires it to be placed here. Tostig takes Harold’s place by the standard. Afterwards Eystein takes it. Tostig is clearly killed between these two points.

1028. Chron. Ab. “Ða com Harold Engla cyning heom ongean on unwaran begeondan þære brycge.” Chron. Wig. “Ða com Harold ure cyng on unwær on þa Normenn.”

1029. Chron. Ab. “Swyðe heardlice lange on dæg feohtende wæron.” Chron. Wig. “And þær wærð on dæg swiðe stranglic gefeoht on bá halfe.” Flor. Wig. “Rex Anglorum Haroldus ... plenam victoriam, licet acerrimè pugnatum fuisset, habuit.”

1030. This appears not only in the Saga, but also in Marianus (Pertz, v. 559); “Araldus Rex Anglorum, ... quum Araldum imparatum absque loricis et ceteris ejusdem rei invenisset, bello occidit.” So Saxo (207), where however there is a good deal of exaggeration; “[Haraldi] cunctationem Norwagienses timori consentaneam rati, neglectis corporum munimentis, perinde ac securi periculum validiùs prædæ incubuerunt. Sed dum incautiùs ruunt sparsi palantesque ab Anglis nullo negotio (!) trucidati sunt.”

1031. Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 762 B. “Maximus numerus Anglorum Norwagenses cedere sed non fugere compulit.”

1032. Ib. “Ultra flumen igitur repulsi, vivis super mortuos transeuntibus, magnanimiter restiterunt.” See the use of the same proverbial expression above, p. 351.

1033. See vol. i. p. 299. This story is found in the Abingdon Chronicle, being the last entry, added in another hand, and, according to Mr. Earle, in the Northumbrian dialect. Mr. Earle (Parallel Chronicles, p. xxxviii.) ingeniously conceives that the account of the battle in this Chronicle, so much fuller than in any of the others, is due to some Northumbrian visitor, who at last took up the pen and wrote a little himself. The story is not told by Florence, but it is found in William of Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon, with some variations.

1034. Will. Malms, ii. 228. “Uno et altero et pluribus nostræ partis [William for once writes as an Englishman] interemtis.” Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 762 B) is more precise or more romantic; “Plus xl. viris Anglorum securi cædens electâ.”

1035. Chron. Ab. “þa seite an Englisce mid anre flan, ac hít nactes ne widstod.” The shooting of one arrow seems looked on as an exploit on the English side. William of Malmesbury has confounded this shot with the death-blow; “Unus ex collateralibus Regis jaculum ferreum in eum eminùs vibrat, quo ille, dum gloriabundus proludit ipsâ securitate incautior, terebratus, victoriam Anglis concessit.”

1036. Chron. Ab. “And þa com an oþer under þere brigge, and hine þurðstang en únder þere brunie.” Hen. Hunt. u. s. “Quidam navim ingressus per foramina pontis in celandis eum percussit jaculo.” Compare the death of Eadmund Ironside, vol. i. p. 438. On the “foramina pontis” compare a bridge described by Richer (iv. 50) which “tantis enim et tot hiatibus patebat,” &c. At Boroughbridge in 1321 Humfrey Earl of Hereford was pierced in exactly the same way. See Chron. Galfredi le Baker, p. 65. The memory of the English exploit is kept up on the spot by a yearly baking of pies of pears, made in the shape of a boat—“pear-boat pies”—at the feast held on (I think) the Monday after the day of the battle.

1037. The presence of Flemings, followers no doubt of Tostig, is attested in the addition to the Abingdon Chronicle; “And þere michel wel geslogon, ge Norweis ge Flæming.”

1038. Chron. Wig. “And Engle ahton wælstowe geweald;” the old formula.

1039. Chron. Wig. “Oðþ hig sume to scype coman.”

1040. See above, p. 346.

1041. The Worcester Chronicle says emphatically, “þaer waes lyt to lafe.” So the Abingdon writer; “þaer waes Harold cyning of Norwegan and Tostig eorl ofslagen and ungerim folces mid heom, ægðer ge Normana ge Englisca.” Cf. Orderic (500 A); “Nimius sanguis ex utrâque parte effusus est et innumerabilis [ungerím] hominum bestiali rabie furentium multitudo trucidata est.”

1042. Chron. Wig. “Sume adruncen and sume eae forbærnde, and swa mislice fórfarene.” So Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 762 B); “Angli ... totam Norwagensium aciem vel armis straverunt vel igne deprehensos combusserunt.” Compare the story in the Saga (Laing, iii. 95) of Waltheof burning the Normans after Senlac.

1043. Liber de Hydâ, p. 292. “Haroldus ... et Tostius ... victi occubuerunt, sectaque eorum capita Regi Haroldo sunt deportata.” So Guy of Amiens, 37;

1044. Will. Malms. iii. 252. “Cadaver ejus, indicio verrucæ inter duas scapulas agnitum.” Can this account be reconciled with the other?

1045. The Hyde writer (u. s.) sends him to be buried in Norway; “Corpus defuncti Regis his qui remanserant deportandum in proprium regnum Rex Haroldus concessit.”

1046. Will. Malms. u. s. “Cadaver ... sepulturam Eboraci meruit.”

1047. Ord. Vit. 500 A. “Locus etiam belli pertranseuntibus evidenter patet, ubi magna congeries ossium mortuorum usque hodie jacet, et indicium ruinæ multiplicis utriusque gentis exhibet.”

1048. Flor. Wig. “Licet de totâ Angliâ fortiores quosque in prœliis duobus benè sciret jam cecidisse.”

1049. The death of Harold Hardrada was followed by a time of unusual quiet in the North. He was succeeded by his sons Olaf and Magnus, of whom Magnus died in 1069, after which Olaf reigned alone till 1093. He was succeeded by his son Magnus Barefoot, who figures in English history as the invader of Anglesey in 1098 (see above, p. 342). Snorro (Johnstone, 221; Laing, iii. 98) says that Harold Hardrada’s daughter Mary (see above, pp. 340, 344, 367) died suddenly in Orkney on the same day that her father and her lover Eystein died at Stamfordbridge.

Tostig left two sons by Judith, Skule and Ketil. They returned to Norway with Olaf (Snorro, ap. Johnstone, 222; Laing, iii. 97–99), from whom they both received grants of land in Norway, where they became founders of families—representatives of the male line of Earl Godwine. Skule especially was in high honour with Olaf. Their mother Judith remarried with Welf, Duke of Bavaria, son of the Marquess Azo (see above, p. 197), and was thus an ancestress of the House of Brunswick. Some of the German historians mistake her for the widow of Harold instead of the widow of Tostig. See Appendix N, where I have also spoken of her degree of kindred to Baldwin the Fifth (see vol. ii. p. 134). She was undoubtedly his sister, and not his daughter, and she might be called, in a wide sense, the niece of Eadward.

1050. Chron. Wig. “Se kyng þa geaf gryð Olafe þæs Norna cynges suna, and heora Biscope and þan eorle of Orcanége, and eallon þan þe on þam scypum to lafe wæron.” Florence gives the Orkney Earl his name Paul, and the addition to the Abingdon Chronicle strangely calls Olaf “Hetmundus.”

1051. Chron. Wig. “Hi foron þa upp to uran kyninge.”

1052. Compare the auxiliaries sent by Swend, of whom more in the next volume, and the Danes and Swedes who came with William the Third. Macaulay, ii. 489; iii. 625.

1053. I accept this incident, as one likely to be remembered, from Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 762 C) and the Ramsey History (cap. cxx.), though they absurdly represent the feast as held, and the message as brought, on the day of the battle, when William had not yet landed. So Wace says of his Thegn who brought the news from Sussex;

The writer of the De Inventione (c. xx.) most strangely makes Harold go, after the battle, to Waltham, and hear the news there; “Waltham rediit, ubi de applicatione Normannorum nimis veridicâ narration e nuntium suscepit.”

1054. See the next Chapter, § 2.

1055. Throughout this Chapter, the Norman and English accounts have carefully to be compared, but it is from the Norman authorities that we have to draw most of our details. The English writers seem to have shrunk from dwelling at length on the great “memory of sorrow,” so that all their accounts are comparatively meagre. At this point also we lose the Abingdon Chronicle altogether, which ends with the Battle of Stamfordbridge. Among the Norman accounts, the first places belong to the Tapestry and to William of Poitiers. The Tapestry, which gave us no help during the period of negotiation, begins to be most minute as soon as we get to the beginning of actual military preparations, and it continues to be of primary importance down to the end of the Battle of Senlac. The high authority of William of Poitiers, as a contemporary and seemingly an eyewitness, is somewhat balanced by his constant strain of panegyric on William and by his no less constant sacrifice of chronological order to the demands of his rhetoric. Wace, the honest and painstaking inquirer of the next century, has been valuable before, and he becomes still more valuable now. We are now also reinforced by another important narrative on the Norman side, the “Carmen de Bello Hastingensi” by Guy, Bishop of Amiens (see above, p. 136), printed in Giles’ Scriptores Rerum Gestarum Willelmi Conquestoris, in the Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, and in the Monumenta Historica Britannica. This poem is referred to, and coupled with William of Poitiers, by William of Jumièges, or rather by his continuator (vii. 44); “Si quis verò pleniùs illa nôsse desiderat, librum Willelmi Pictavensis, Luxoviorum Archidiaconi, eadem gesta, sicut copiosè, ita eloquenti sermone affatim continentem, legat. Edidit præterea de eâdem materiâ opus non contemnendum Guido Episcopus Ambianensis, heroico metro exaratum.” Guy’s work is useful for the details of the voyage and the battle, and for some of the events after the battle. With these Norman accounts we have of course to compare the short narratives in our own Chronicles and in Florence; some particular facts of importance may also be gleaned from William of Malmesbury, from the Waltham writer De Inventione, and from others of the subsidiary authors.

1056. See above, p. 325.

1057. The cutting down of the trees is graphically shown in the Tapestry, pl. 8. This beginning at the beginning reminds one of Odysseus when about to leave Kalypsô’s island; αὐτὰρ ὁ τάμνετο δοῦρα κ.τ.λ. (Od. v. 243), and seemingly we may add, θοῶς δέ οἱ ἤνυτο ἔργον.

1058. They may be seen at work in the Tapestry. Wace too (11473) gives a vivid account;

Cf. the great speech of Dikaiopolis in the Acharnians, 471 et seqq., especially 526 et seqq.; τὸ νεώριον δ’ αὖ κωπέωυ πλατουμέυωυ, κ.τ.λ.

1059. Ord. Vit. 494 A. “In Neustriâ multæ naves cum utensilibus diligenter paratæ sunt, quibus fabricandis clerici et laici studiis et sumptibus adhibitis pariter intenderunt.” Wace (11304) names some of the contributors, and a fuller list is printed in Lord Lyttelton’s Appendix, i. 463, and in Giles, Scriptt. Will. Conq. 21.

1060. I cannot identify Fulk the Lame, who seems not to occur in Domesday. A Fulk of Parmes signs a charter in the Cartulary of the Holy Trinity at Rouen (p. 465), and a Fulk of Caldri was a benefactor of the same house in 1084 (p. 466). As his charter is confirmed by King Philip and not by William, he was doubtless a Frenchman. Gerald the Seneschal (“Dapifer,” “Senescallus”) signs a charter of Robert of Montgomery (p. 442) in this very year (“anno dominicæ incarnationis MLXV, tunc scilicet quando Normannorum Dux Guillelmus cum classico apparatu ultra mare erat profecturus”). He is perhaps the same as Gerald the Marshal (Marescalcus) who appears in the Suffolk Domesday (438 b) as holding a former possession of Earl Ælfgar.

1061. Roman de Rou, 11309. “Mult voleit li Dus avancier.”

1062. So the list in Lyttelton; Wace (11305) cuts down Odo’s gift to forty.

1063. “Extra has naves ... habuit Dux a quibusdam suis hominibus, secundùm possibilitatem unius navis cujusque, multas alias naves.”

1064. “A Romo vel Rumi eleemosynario Fescanni, postea Episcopo Lincolniensi, unam navem cum xx. militibus.”

1065. Plut. Cæs. 38. Ἴθι, ἔφη, γενναῖε, τόλμα καὶ δέδιθι μηδέν· Καίσαρα φέρεις καὶ τὴν Καίσαρος τύχην συμπλέουσαν.

1066. Lyttelton, i. 464. “Matildis, postea Regina, ejusdem Ducis uxor, ad honorem Ducis fecit effici navem quæ vocabatur Mora, in quâ ipse Dux vectus est. In prorâ ejusdem navis fecit fieri eadem Matildis infantulum de auro, dextro indice monstrantem Angliam, et sinistrâ manu imprimentem cornu eburneum ori.” Wace’s account (11594) is somewhat different;

In the Tapestry, pl. 9, the child with his horn is plain enough, and he looks towards England; but he is at the stern of the ship, and not at the prow, and in his left hand he bears a pennon.

1067. The most exact account is that of Wace (11564), who heard the number from his father;

This exactness reminds one of Æschylus’ reckoning in the Persians, 333–335. William of Poitiers (125) naturally has his head full of Agamemnon; “Memorat antiqua Græcia Atridem Agamemnona fraternos thalamos ultum ivisse mille navibus: protestamur nos Willelmum diadema regium requisisse pluribus.” William of Jumièges (vii. 34) makes the number “ad tria millia.” Benoit (37004) slightly improves on this;

“Si out treis mile nefs au meins; De ce nos fait l’autor certains.” Gaimar (5248) goes beyond all of them. The French, as he calls them, have “bien unze mil nefs.” Another reading makes it only nine thousand.

1068. See vol. i. p. 349 for the “yð-hengestas.” Cf. the Chronicles, 1003.

1069. Ord. Vit. 494 B. “Denique hortatu Hugonis Episcopi aliorumque sapientum Mainerium Priorem elegit, eique per pastoralem baculum exteriorem curam tradidit, et prædicto antistiti ut ea quæ sibi de spirituali curâ competebant suppleret præcepit.” Here again we get a good illustration of the relations between Church and State in Normandy, and no bad comment on our own thirty-seventh Article.

1070. Ib. “Eodem die Dux Domnum Lanfrancum Beccensium Priorem coram se adesse imperavit, eique Abbatiam quam ipse Dux in honore Sancti Stephani protomartyris apud Cadomum honorabiliter fundaverat commendavit.”

1071. See the charter of Roger of Montgomery quoted above, p. 379.

1072. See above, p. 108.

1073. The charter in Gallia Christiana, xi. 61, gives the account of her dedication; “Præfatus comes gloriossissimus et uxor ejus cum filiis suis Domino eodem die [14 Kal. Jul. 1066] obtulerunt filiam suam Cæciliam nomine, favente Archiepiscopo Rothomagensi cum cæteris præsulibus, quatenus in eodem loco, Deificæ videlicet Trinitatis, Ipsi in habitu religionis perenniter serviret.” See Mrs. Green’s Princesses, i. 5.

1074. Ord. Vit. 548 B.

1075. See above, p. 69.

1076. As they were delayed a month at the Dive, and a further time at Saint Valery, the time of the first assembling of the fleet is carried back to the month of August, and not to the last days of the month. See p. 394.

1077. Will. Pict. 155. “Illius [Matildis] prudentiam viri adjuvere consilio utilissimi; in quibus locum dignitatis primum tenebat Rogerus de Bellomonte ... ob maturitatem ævi liberior ad negotia quæ domi geruntur; filio adolescente ... officio militari tradito.” On Roger, see above, p. 287, and vol. ii. p. 199.

1078. See above, pp. 174, 176.

1079. Judges v. 21.

1080. See vol. ii. p. 263.

1081. See Macaulay, ii. 465.

1082. Will. Pict. 122. “Ventorum incommoditas ad Portum Divæ detinebat morâ menstruâ.” Ord. Vit. 500 A. “Classis Normannorum spatio ... unius mensis in ostio Divæ vicinisque portubus Nothum [Notum, sc.] præstolata est.”

1083. Will. Pict. u. s. “Rapinâ omni interdictâ, stippendio ipsius millia militum quinquaginta alebantur ... ea illius temperantia fuit ac prudentia.”

1084. Ib. “Homo imbecillis aut inermis equo cantans quà libuit vectabatur, turmas militum cernens, non exhorrescens.”

1085. Will. Pict. 122. “Militibus et hospitibus abunde sumptus ministrabatur, nemini rapere quippiam concedebatur. Provincialium tutò armenta vel greges pascebantur seu per campestria, seu per tesqua. Segetes falcem cultoris intactæ expectabant, quas nec attrivit superba equitum effusio, nec demessuit pabulator.”

1086. The Chronicle of Saint Maxentius (Labbé, ii. 211) says, “Fertur habuisse in exercitu suo quatuordecim millia hominum.” But William of Poitiers, in the passage just quoted, speaks of “millia militum quinquaginta;” and afterwards he makes William (128) say that he will fight Harold, “tametsi decem sola millia virorum haberem, quales ad sexaginta millia adduxi.” Lastly, Orderic (500 B) gives him “quinquaginta millia militum cum copiâ peditum.” A good deal turns on the ambiguous word “miles.”

1087. See above, p. 325.

1088. It is now that William of Poitiers (123) gives that notice of Harold’s preparations which I referred to above, p. 337; “Heraldus ... callidè subornatos transmisit exploratores.” This sort of expression, and some of the words presently put into William’s mouth (“Non indiget Heraldus auri sui vel argenti jacturâ tuam aliorumque fidem atque sollertiam emere”), might lead one to fancy that these spies were Norman subjects won over by English gold. But the word “transmisit” seems to forbid this notion. The truth is that William’s panegyrist cannot understand the position of an Englishman faithfully serving the English King.

1089. Herod. vii. 146.

1090. Will. Pict. u. s. “Quorum deprehenso uni, caussamque sui adventûs quâ præceptum est specie obtegere conato, Dux animi sui magnitudinem prodidit.”

1091. Will. Pict. 123. “Quid consulatur, quid apparetur apud nos, certior eum quam velit, et opinione ejus citior, index, quippe mea præsentia, docebit.” This “index” is exactly the αὐτὸς ἄγγελος of Herodotus.

It is here that William of Poitiers brings in those fears and hesitations among the Normans, which, as I have said elsewhere (see above, pp. 293, 294, and Appendix W), clearly belong to another part of the story. William is made to tell the spy that he will be in England within a year, and the Normans say that it is impossible that a fleet should be got ready within the year. This language could not have been used at a moment when the fleet was ready to sail, and was simply waiting for a fair wind.

1092. See above, p. 282.

1093. Will. Pict. 124. “Præterea, ne rapinam amittat ille pugnabit; nos quæ dono accepimus, beneficiis comparavimus, requirimus.”

1094. Ib. “Virtute meliùs quam numero militum bella geruntur.”

1095. Ord. Vit. 500. “Spatio unius mensis.”

1096. See above, p. 338.

1097. Will. Pict. 124. “Jam tota classis providentissimè exornata ab ostio Divæ vicinisque portubus, ubi Notum quo transmitterent diutiùs exspectavere, Zephyri flatu in stationem Sancti Walerici delata est.” So Ord. Vit. 500 A.

1098. On the homage of Guy to William for Ponthieu see above, p. 157. He now also held lands in Normandy itself. See p. 226.

1099. The position is well marked by Guy of Amiens, 52;

1100. Something about the early history of Saint Valery may be gleaned from the work of M. Lefils, Histoire Civile, Politique et Religieuse de Saint-Valery et du Comté du Vimeu (Abbeville, 1858), but the book is vastly inferior to the excellent local works which have helped me so much in Norman matters. On Saint Walaric or Valery himself, see p. 21.

1101. As the story appears in the Life of Burchard of Vendôme (Duchèsne, Rer. Franc. iv. 121), the Count of Flanders concerned is the younger Arnulf, and the restoration is brought about by the influence of King Robert and the personal agency of Count Burchard. But this account is very confused. The body was really carried off by the elder Arnulf, and the restoration was effected in 981 by Hugh Capet, who also changed the secular canons of Saint Valery into monks. See the Relatio in Mabillon, Act. Ord. Ben. vii. 546.

1102. See above, p. 131.

1103. See Lefils, p. 64. I will not enter into any controversy as to the date of the so-called Tower of Harold, or as to the origin of its name. It may be called after some other Harold, or the name may be, as M. Lefils suggests, a corruption of something quite different. But in any case it was not, what the legend makes it, the place of the imprisonment of Harold the son of Godwine, which was undoubtedly at Beaurain. See above, p. 223.

1104. Will. Pict. 125. “Princeps, quem neque mora sive contrarietas venti, neque terribilia naufragia, neque pavida fuga multorum qui fidem spoponderant, frangere prævalent.”

1105. See above, p. 338. I am by no means clear that some trace of these engagements, probably of no great importance, may not lurk in the “pavida fuga” of William of Poitiers. See Appendix AA.

1106. Herod. viii. 24.

1107. Will. Pict. 125. “Quin et consilio adversitatibus obvius, submersorum interitus quantùm poterat occultavit, latentiùs tumulando.”

1108. Ib. “Commeatum indies augendo inopiam lenivit.”

1109. Ib. “Ad hoc hortamine diverso retraxit exterritos, animavit paventes.”

1110. Guid. Amb. 54;

The edition in the Monumenta Historica Britannica has “ter quinque dies,” while those of Giles and Michel have “tum quinque.” The former reading is obviously right, as explaining the expression in v. 53 of “longa difficilisque mora.” With William’s looking at the weathercock, compare the passage of Macaulay referred to in p. 386.

1111. These last details come from Wace, 11579;

The bringing out of the body of the saint, which evidently made a deep impression, is also recorded by William of Poitiers (125), Orderic (500 B), and William of Malmesbury (iii. 238). Guy of Amiens, whom we should have expected to be eloquent on the subject, holds his peace.

1112. William of Poitiers has his head full of Agamemnôn and of Xerxês, but this obvious analogy does not seem to have occurred to him. Yet who can help thinking of the northern blasts, the πνοαὶ ἀπὸ Στρύμονος μολοῦσαι (Æsch. Ag. 185 et seqq.), which delayed the fleet of the Achaians, and of the sacrifice by which alone help could be gained?

1113. All our accounts directly connect the favourable wind with the religious ceremony which had just been performed. William of Poitiers (125) describes the rite, and immediately adds, “Spirante dein aurâ exspectatâ.” So Orderic (500 B); “Denique dum prosper ventus multorum votis optatus, Deo volente, subitò spiravit.” William of Malmesbury (iii. 238) is, if possible, still more emphatic; “Nec mora intercessit, quin prosper flatus carbasa impleret.” Guy of Amiens (70), not mentioning the special ceremony, attributes the change of weather to William’s prayers generally;

1114. Will. Pict. 125. “Voces cum manibus in cœlum gratificantes, ac simul tumultus invicem incitans tollitur.” Both this writer and Guy of Amiens give very full and vivid accounts of the voyage.

1115. Ib. “Increpat atque urget in puppes ardens vehementia Ducis, si quos ullatenus moram nectere notat.”

1116. See above, p. 294.

1117. Will. Pict. u. s. “Terra quam properantissimè deseritur, dubium iter quam cupientissimè initur.” So Guy of Amiens, 78;

1118. Will. Pict. 125. “Eo celeritatis motu impelluntur, ut quum armigerum hic, socium inclamet ille, plerique immemores clientum, aut sociorum, aut rerum necessariarum, id solum, ne relinquantur, cogitant et festinant.”

1119. Tapestry, pl. 9. “Isti portant armas ad naves, et hic trahunt carrum cum vino et armis.” We shall hear presently of the nature of the drink, at least on board the ducal ship. William either despised or knew not of the wine of Gloucestershire. See vol. ii. p. 145.

1120. Wid. Amb. 82;

1121. Ib. 84; “Plurima cogit equos equitum pars scandere naves.”

1122. Ib. 90;

1123. Ib. 98;

1124. Wid. Amb. 106;

1125. Will. Pict. 125. “Dat præconis voce edictum, ut, quum in altum sint deductæ, paullulum noctis conquiescant non longè à suâ rates cunctæ in ancoris fluitantes, donec, in ejus mali summo lampade conspectâ, extemplò buccinæ clangorem cursûs accipiant signum.” So Roman de Rou, 11588;

The lantern on the Duke’s mast is shown plainly enough in the Tapestry, pl. 9; but there is no mention of it in Guy, unless it lurks in the more general words (111),

He then goes on to mention the order for the mid-sea halt, much as in William of Poitiers.

Compare the description of the voyage of Scipio in Livy, xxix. 25; “Lumina in navibus singula rostratæ, bina onerariæ haberent; in prætoriâ nave insigne nocturnum trium luminum fore.” See also the description of the voyage of the other William, Macaulay, ii. 477.

1126. Will. Pict. 126. “Solutis noctu post quietem navibus, vehens Ducem retrò ceteras agillimè reliquit.”

1127. Od. viii. 557;

1128. Will. Pict. 126. “[Navis] ardentiùs ad victoriam properantis imperio suæ velocitatis parilitate quasi obtemperans.”

1129. In the Tapestry, pll. 9, 10, horses are seen in all the ships except in the Duke’s own and in one other near to it.

1130. Will. Pict. u. s. “Jussus manè remex mali ab alto num quæ veniant consequæ speculari, præter pelagus et aëra prospectui suo aliud nihil comparere indicat.”

1131. Ib. “Confestim ancorâ jacta, ne metus atque mœror comitem turbam confunderet, abundans prandium, nec Baccho pigmentato carens, animosissimus Dux, acsi in cœnaculo domestico, memorabili cum hilaritate accepit, cunctos actutum affore promittens, Deo cujus eos tutelæ credidit adducente.”

1132. Ib. “Inquisitus denuò speculator, naves quattuor advenire, tertiò tantas exclamat ut arborum veliferarum uberrima densitas nemoris præstet similitudinem.”

1133. Will. Pict. 126. “Quam ex intimo corde divinam glorificaverit pietatem conjiciendum cuivis relinquimus.” The beholders of William’s devotions were admitted into the Palace of Truth.

1134. Will. Malms. iii. 238. “Omnibus itaque ad prætoriæ puppis vermiculatum velum convolantibus.” The epithet would apply to the sails of all the ships as shown in the Tapestry; but the sails of the Duke’s ship, and of those of two others near him—perhaps those of his two brothers—have the colours arranged in a different way from any of the others.

1135. Wid. Amb. 123;

On the date, see Appendix FF.

1136. “Venit ad Pevenesæ,” says the Tapestry, pl. 9. So William of Poitiers (126) and William of Jumièges (vii. 34). William of Malmesbury (iii. 238) says carelessly, “Placido cursu Hastingas appulerunt.” So Wace (11618), who altogether reverses the geography, making the army land at Hastings and go to Pevensey afterwards.

1137. On the true meaning of this formula see vol. i. p. 11.

1138. The question as to the site of Anderida may be looked on as decided by a paper by Mr. Arthur Hussey in the Sussex Archæological Collections, vi. 90. See also Mr. T. Wright, Wanderings of an Antiquary, p. 137. Their views are confirmed by Dr. Guest, Salisbury Proceedings, p. 55.

1139. Domesday, 20 b, where the usual account of the town dues is given.

1140. Cissanceaster or Chichester, the English name of the Roman Regnum. On the whole settlement, see Guest, Salisbury Proceedings, p. 54. I must beg pardon for having in the map in my first volume followed Dr. Spruner in giving a wrong position to the site of Cymenes-óra.

1141. Chronn. 491. “Her Ælle and Cissa ymbsæton Andredes ceaster, and ofslogon ealle þa þær inne eardedon; ne wearð þær forþon an Bret to lafe.” This is the passage which Gibbon (cap. xxxviii. note 142, vol. vi. p. 372 Milman), quoting it in the Latin version, calls “an expression more dreadful in its simplicity, than all the vague and tedious lamentations of the British Jeremiah [Gildas].”

1142. See vol. i. pp. 23, 151.

1143. Henry of Huntingdon, who gives (M. H. B. 710 C, D) a fuller account of the siege, evidently taken from ballads, winds up his account thus; “Quia tot ibi damna toleraverant extranei, ita urbem destruxerunt quod numquam postea reædificata est; locus tantum, quasi nobilissimæ urbis, transeuntibus ostenditur desolatus.”

1144. Ord. Vit. 500 A. “Heraldus ... Hastingas et Penevesellum, aliosque portus maris Neustriæ oppositos, ... toto anno illo cum multis navibus et militibus callidè servaverat.”

1145. See above, p. 338.

1146. I look with great suspicion on the statement of William of Poitiers and Guy of Amiens about Harold sending a vast naval force to hinder William’s landing. See Appendix AA. At all events no English ships were near at the time.

1147. Will. Pict. 126. “Liberè naves egreditur, pugnâ nullâ obstante.” Ord. Vit. 500 B. “Nemine resistente littus maris gaudens arripuit.” So Guy of Amiens, 127;

1148. It is plain that the ships were brought to shore as near together as might be. Wace (11619) distinctly asserts this; “L’une nef à l’altre acosterent.” There is no ground for the notion of Mr. Hayley, quoted by Sir Henry Ellis (i. 316), “That William did not land his army at any one particular spot, at Bulverhithe or Hastings, as is supposed; but at all the several proper places for landing along the coast from Bexelei to Winchelsea.”