Chapter XIII: William the Lion--1165–1214 (4)

[153] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1068–9. _Hist. Dun._, l. 3, c. 15. _Chron. Sax._ 1067–68. The dates of the Chronicle are wrong, as Easter fell on the 23d of March in 1068, and the historian of Durham is consequently correct. Indeed he is the first authority for the affairs of the north at this period. William three times entered York as a conqueror. A passage in Ordericus Vitalis is sometimes brought forward as a proof that Malcolm sent his submission to William through Aylwin, bishop of Durham, after the failure of the attempt of Edwin and Morkar in 1068. I have given the reasons why I cannot concur in this opinion in _Appendix Q_.

[154] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1069. _Chron. Sax._ 1069.

[155] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1070.

[156] _Sim. Dun._, _as before_.

[157] Marianus alludes to this famine. Compare the account of Simeon with Domesday in Ellis’s Introduction. At the date of the Survey, Lincolnshire contained 11,504 Socmen and 11,747 Villani and Bordarii, whilst in Yorkshire only 447 Socmen are recorded, with 6914 of the other classes. Yorkshire was the head-quarters of the Anglo-Danes of Northumbria, and as the Socmen represented the old Danish _Odal-Bonders_, there is no difficulty in recognising the real class that bore the brunt of the northern wars, and contributed most largely to the _emigrants_ and _outlaws_.

[158] In the beginning of the century Uchtred, the son of Waltheof, seems to have married and put away his wives without the slightest scruple, nor could bishop Ealdun procure a permanent husband for his daughter Egfreda even by alienating the lands of his see in her favour. Twice was she divorced in spite of her dowry, and neither the bishop nor the chronicler who records these proceedings appear to have regarded them as extraordinary. _Sim. Dun. Twysden_, p. 79.

[159] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1070. _Vit. St. Marg._ Edgar and his family appear to have left Scotland in 1069, and to have returned thither in the following year.

[160] Such appears to be the meaning of the expression of the Chronicler, “he found nothing there for which he was the better,” _Chron. Sax._ 1072. Compare _Wendover ad. an._ 1072.

[161] Edgar, according to the Chron. Sax., returned to Scotland from Flanders in 1074, and he probably sought refuge in the latter country at the approach of William.

[162] Lord Hailes, vol. 1, p. 17, thinks it improbable that Abernethy on the Tay can be the place intended, from its lying out of William’s probable route. He appears, however, to have forgotten that all the early invaders of Scotland who combined a fleet with their land force--and none else were successful--must have held their course _along the coast_, or their fleet would have been useless. Abernethy, according to Ailred, was _in Scotia_ (_Twysden_, p. 340), or beyond the Forth, and it was exactly because William had succeeded in penetrating into the heart of the real kingdom of Scotland that Malcolm came to terms.

[163] _Chron. Sax._ 1072. _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1072–1087. _An. Ult._ 1072. It may be gathered from _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1091, that Malcolm held twelve manors of William and received a yearly payment of twelve marks of gold, and as the kings only met once, these grants must have been made on this occasion. The homage of Malcolm would appear to have been _simple_ not _liege_, for he never seems to have been called upon to perform any feudal service; whilst his subsequent repudiation of the demands of Rufus shows that the homage was not rendered for the kingdom of Scotland, but was simply the feudal recognition of his subsidy. In short, the meeting appears to have resulted in a compromise, William endeavouring to secure the peace of his northern borders by what in the present age would take the form of a pension or subsidy, then conferred as a feudal grant, for which Malcolm performed homage, giving up his son as a hostage for his faithful observance of the treaty. _Vide Appendix L_, part 2.

[164] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1072. _Malm. Gesta. Regum_, l. 3, sec. 253.

[165] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1073. _Chron. Sax._ 1074. _Malm. Gest. Reg._, l. 3, sec. 251.

[166] _Chron. Sax._ 1077. _An. Ult._ 1085. Mr. Skene (_Highlanders_, vol. i., p. 123) supposes, on the strength of a very ambiguous entry in the Ulster Annals, that a certain Donald MacMalcolm, a son or descendant of Malcolm MacMalbride, the Mormaor of Moray who died in 1029, reigned over the north of Scotland from the death of Thorfin in 1064 to his own death in 1085. It is impossible, however, that this Donald could have been the representative of Malcolm of Moray, or he must have been Mormaor of that province in place of Macbeth, Lulach, and Malsnechtan, of whom the latter died in the same year as Donald, in the peaceful possession of Moray. Neither would Donald have had any claim upon the crown, as he was not the heir of Gruoch, and it is impossible that he could have reigned over the north of Scotland for upwards of twenty years, whilst his kinsman Malsnechtan, _the real heir_, was content with the province of Moray. If the entry is correct it is just as possible that the words “Donald, son of Malcolm king of Scotland” may apply to a son of Malcolm the Third; but the word _Righ_ in the Irish Annals is very ambiguous, and ought to be translated _prince_ rather than _king_, a title which answers more to the _Ardrigh_.

[167] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1079–80. _Chron. Sax._ 1079. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 21. _Vide Appendix Q._

[168] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1087.

[169] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1091. _Chron. Sax._ 1091.

[170] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_, _Chron. Sax._, and _Flor. Wig., ad an._ 1091. Orderic also gives an account of this expedition--as usual a gossiping mixture of truth and absurdity. Malmsbury (l. 4, sec. 311) says that “William performed nothing worthy of his greatness, whilst he lost many of his men and baggage-horses.” Wendover, from his frequent literal transcriptions of Malmsbury, must have had this passage before him when he wrote “venientes igitur rex et frater ejus Robertus in Angliam, acies duxerunt in Scotiam, unde Malcolmus _nimio terrore percussus_ homagium regi fecit Anglorum, et fidelitatem juravit,” (vol. ii., p. 37). In a similar manner “that most authentic and valuable volume, the Book of Abingdon,” (?) expands the short sentence in which Simeon describes the abortive invasion of Scotland by Robert in 1080--“Cum pervenisset ad Egglesbreth nullo confecto negotio reversus, etc.”--into the following inflated narrative:--“Verum rex illi Lodoniis occurrens cum suis, pacisci potius quam præliari delegit. Perinde ut _regno Angliæ principatus Scotiæ_ subactus foret, obsides tribuit. Quo pacto inito Regis filius cum exercitu ad patrem hilaris repedavit” (_Vide_ _Appendix Q_). When the comparative failures of Robert and William in 1080 and 1091 are thus misrepresented--failures which were notorious, and admitted to be so by the contemporary English chroniclers--what degree of confidence can be attached to the inflated descriptions of the successes of the earlier English kings, which are to be found in the same authorities? We can only judge by _results_.

[171] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Chron. Sax._ 1092.

[172] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Chron. Sax. ad an._ 1093.

[173] Malcolm was evidently taken by surprise. “He sent and demanded the fulfilment of the treaty that was promised him. And the king, William, cited him to Gloucester, and sent him hostages to Scotland, and Edgar Atheling afterwards and the men returned that brought him with dignity to the king. But when he came to the king he could not be considered worthy either of our king’s speech or of the conditions that were formerly promised him.” Such are the words of the Saxon Chronicler, yet Malmesbury says (sec. 311), “Malcolm came of his own accord to Gloucester, an earnest suitor for peace on equitable conditions, but he obtained nothing, though he was permitted to return in safety, as the king disdained to capture by fraud one whom he had subdued by valour.” The safe conduct and the hostages detract something from this much vaunted magnanimity, but Malmesbury would sacrifice a good deal for the sake of a well turned period. The assertion which Simeon and Florence have placed in the mouth of Malcolm conveys a valuable piece of historical information, though it does not follow that the king spoke _feudal Latin_ because they have written it. The presence and intervention of the leading nobles of both kingdoms at meetings on the frontier implies the independence of both kings; for if the king of Scotland had been the vassal of England _for his kingdom_, he and _all his followers_ would have been liable to have been cited to the court of their suzerain at the will of the latter, as actually happened in the reign of William the Lion. In the convention between Rufus and Robert, twelve barons on each side confirmed the agreement in token of the independence of both parties (_Flor. Wig._ 1091). In the treaty between Richard and William the Lion four barons appear in the same way on either side (_Fœd._ vol. i., pt. 1, p. 50); and both Scottish and English nobles invariably affix their names to the conventions between their kings, recorded so often in the Fœdera. In attempting to force Malcolm to submit to the judgment of the English barons when he had come to Gloucester on an errand of a totally different description, William appears to have been actuated principally by overweening arrogance, though he may also have endeavoured to found a precedent injurious to Scotland; and it is singular to mark how nearly all the English authorities accuse Malcolm of “a breach of faith” because he resented the conduct of William, whilst they pass over without notice the glaring “breach of faith” on the part of their own king.

[174] Morel was king Malcolm’s “Godsib,” or, in other words, they had stood Godfathers together. This bond of spiritual relationship appears to have been thought a very sacred tie in those days, and to be unfaithful to the _Godsib_ was considered a heinous sin, at any rate amongst the Gael; for the four Masters describe the state of the country as peculiarly wretched when “there was no protection for Church or Fortress, _Gossipred_ or mutual oath.” _An. F. M._ 1050, _O’Donovan_.

[175] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Chron. Sax._ 1093. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 25. _Malm. Gesta Regum_, l. 4, sec. 311. Both Malmesbury and the Saxon Chronicler imply that Malcolm lost his life by treachery, and the account of Orderic, as usual a strange mixture of truth and error, goes far to prove the existence of a tradition to this effect. He is next said to have been slain at the siege of Alnwick Castle, though it is more than doubtful if a castle then existed on the banks of the Alne. From _Alnwick Castle_ the step was easy to the family so long connected with that border fortress, and the Scottish king was at length said to have been slain by a knight, who, issuing from the castle gate with the keys on the point of his lance in token of surrender, suddenly _pierced the eye_ of Malcolm, acquiring from this feat the name of _Pierce eye_ or Percy! About two centuries after the fall of Malcolm an improbable story was circulated at Tynemouth, that the body of a peasant had been palmed off upon Alexander for that of his father, _Mat. Paris Addit_, p. 129. The writer adds that Malcolm was conquered “by order of Henry the First,” and winds up his account of the deceit with these quaint words “ita delusa est _Scottorum improbitas_.” The keen relish with which he enjoys the idea of overreaching “_the Scotch rogues_” is amusing. Pleasures of rare occurrence are sometimes supposed to be the sweetest.

[176] Life of Margaret, ascribed to Turgot, and contained in the “_Acta Sanctorum_, June 10.” Malcolm was obliged to put up with his losses, but to every one else she restored twofold what she borrowed for charity.

[177] _Twysden_, p. 367. Ailred heard this anecdote from Malcolm’s son David. It has been transferred by some later writers to the Saxon Edgar, the Scottish Kenneth playing the part of the guilty nobleman. The hunt was conducted “secundum legem venandi quam vulgus _tristam_ vocat.” An open plain, encircled by a belt of wood, was the scene of the sport; a flowery hillock in the centre the place of rendezvous for the sportsmen; whom Malcolm placed in different commanding positions, ready to let slip their dogs upon the game as it was driven by the beaters from covert.

[178] The principal point which Margaret succeeded in carrying out was connected with Lent, which the Gaelic Church kept from Quadrigesima Sunday instead of from Ash Wednesday. The Gaelic practice was long the universal custom, and it is still doubtful who added the four days. Pope Gregory the Great speaks of _the thirty-six days_ of abstinence, though some maintain that he was the first to begin Lent from Ash Wednesday, whilst others refer the change to the time of Gregory the Second (_Bingham_, bk. 21, c. 1), in which they are probably correct, as the custom would otherwise have penetrated into the Gaelic Church when it conformed to the Roman practice in the days of Nectan and Ceolfrith. The other practices which Margaret endeavoured to reform were--1. A reluctance to communicate on Easter Sunday. 2. Labour on Sundays. 3. Marriage with the widow of a father or brother. 4. The celebration of the service with _barbarous rites_, or, in other words, in a manner to which she was unaccustomed. In the latter point she seems to have been unsuccessful, for the Culdees still continued to celebrate their office _more suo_ in the days of Alexander and David (_Vide_ Margaret’s Life by Turgot, c. 2). It is worthy of remark that Margaret seems to have made no attempt to separate the Culdees from their wives; and as numbers of the Anglo-Saxon clergy were married men at that time, particularly in the provinces beyond the Humber, where the customs of the Northmen were little interfered with, it is probable that she did not consider their manner of life contrary to ecclesiastical discipline. The system of Hildebrand did not penetrate into England until after the Norman Conquest. In one of his Charters (_Ancient Laws, etc., of England_, vol. i., p. 495) William says, “Sciatis ... quod episcopates leges, quæ non bene nec secundum sanctorum canonum precepta usque ad mea tempora in regno Anglorum fuerunt ... emendandas judicavi.”

[179] “At least,” says the honest historian, “the dishes and vessels were gilt or silvered over.”--_Hailes_, vol. 1, p. 44.

[180] The _diversis coloribus vestes_ are sometimes supposed to have been _tartan_. The earliest dresses of the Gael were stained of a saffron colour, which was also used at one period amongst the Rajpoots.

[181] This account of Margaret is entirely taken from her life, written by her confessor, generally ascribed to Turgot, and I think with reason. The writer was not her confessor latterly (c. 4), and as Turgot entered into orders in 1074 (not 1084 as Papenbroch says), and became Prior of Durham in 1087, six years before the death of Margaret, this would agree very well with the theory that ascribes the work to him. It must have been written in the reign of Edgar, as the messenger who brought the news of Malcolm’s death to Margaret was “the son who succeeded to the king”--not Duncan, who was neither present at the battle nor was he a son of Margaret--and as _three_ sons succeeded, though the writer only alludes to _the son_ who succeeded, he must have written before the second son came to the throne. _Vide_ also _Hailes’ Annals, in loc._

[182] Wherever the followers of Rufus were quartered, it was their custom to burn everything that they could neither eat, sell, nor carry off, whilst all that they could not drink in their orgies they either spilled or used to wash their horses feet. “Quæ vero in patresfamilias crudelia, quæ in uxores et filias indecentia fecerint, reminisci pudet.” Hence the approach of the court was the signal for the wretched inhabitants of the neighbourhood to fly to the woods, and leave their houses to the mercy of their oppressors. Henry endeavoured to repress the evil with the stern justice of his father, tearing out the eyes of the perpetrators of such enormities, or punishing them by amputation of the hands or feet. _Ead. Hist. Novell._, l. 4, p. 94.

[183] _Ead. Hist. Novell._, l. 3, p. 56. Malcolm seems to have been fortunate in his choice between the sisters. It may have been the influx of ladies like the Scottish princess amongst the nuns, that introduced the use of ornamented pins and gold rings amongst the sisterhood, with the wreathing and dressing the hair, forbidden in several subsequent councils. The words of Matilda convict Orderic of one of those blunders which render that chronicler such a broken reed to lean upon whenever historical accuracy is required. He says that Count Alan of Bretagne sought the hand of Matilda _from Rufus_, “sed morte præventus non obtinuit,” (l. 7, p. 702). As Alan died on the 19th October 1119 (_L’Art de verifier les Dates_, vol. ii., p. 897), it is difficult to conceive how his death could have prevented his marriage with Matilda, who had then been eighteen months in her grave (she died 1st January 1118), after having been the wife of Henry the First since November 1100! Alan’s first wife died in 1090, and he re-married in 1093, before Matilda could have sought refuge in England, for Malcolm was alive until the 13th November in that year. Alan, however, was once a suitor for the hand of Matilda, but to her father Malcolm (according to her own words) not to Rufus. This is the little grain of truth which, as usual, lurks in an infinity of error; for Orderic seems to have retailed all the gossip of the day, generally contriving to get hold of a wrong version of the story.

[184] Matilda appears to have been very amiable, very devout, very fond of music and poetry, very vain, and rather pretty; not a perfect, but a feminine and loveable character, which earned her the title of “Good Queen Maud.” The feeling which prompted her aversion to the unbecoming black hood is easily to be traced in the character which Malmesbury has left of her (_Gesta Regum_, l. 5, sec. 418), though the good Queen would have forgiven serious offences sooner than the lukewarm praise accorded by that writer to her personal charms, “haud usquequaque despicabilis formæ.” Like most of her family she died in the prime of life.

[185] _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 3, l. 96, who says that Ethelred took advantage of a mist to convey the body of his mother out of the west gate before her death was generally known. The good prior was as ignorant of any divine agency on this occasion as Turgot was unconscious of any pretentions on the part of his royal mistress to supernatural gifts; but in the account of Fordun, l. 5, c. 26, the body of Margaret is conveyed through the host of Donald Bane under cover of a miraculous mist “That a mist on the Firth of Forth should be held miraculous,” remarks Lord Hailes, “must appear to the inhabitants of the Lothians a strange example of prepossession and credulity.”

[186] Boece palliates the usurpation of Donald by attributing it to the detestation--to use the words of his translator Bellenden--“of the pepil at the riotus and intemperat manneris brocht amang thaim be Inglismen;” the same high authority enumerating amongst the virtues of David that “he ejeckit the vennomus custome of riotus cheir quhilk was inducit afore be Inglismen.” David probably introduced the Norman habits, for at this period the Anglo-Saxons and Anglo-Danes were renowned for their love of “riotus cheir,” though they were hardly the corrupters of the austere morals of the ancient Scots. Robert de Mellent is said to have introduced the custom of one meal a day from Constantinople, for his health as he affirmed--for his niggardliness, as was grumblingly insinuated by the hungry Saxons, who loved to recall the jovial days when Hardicanute set four meals a day before his overfed dependants, and rejoiced to see the dishes carried away full, because his followers could literally eat no more. There may have been some truth in the complaints of the Saxons, for the Normans, with many high qualities, were a hard and close race in all that concerned money. “The vennomus custome of riotus cheir” among _Inglismen_ is again attributed by Lambarde entirely to the corruptions of the Danes, probably with equal justice; and upon their shoulders must the blame rest, till some Yorkshireman, or other denizen of ancient _Danelage_, vindicates the character of his ancestry at the expense of some other scapegoat.

[187] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Ch. Sax., adan._ 1093. Donald reigned from Nov. 1093 till May 1094; Duncan from the latter date to the close of the same year, and Donald again from the close of 1094 till after Michaelmas in 1097.

[188] _Innes_, Ap. 5. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 3, l. 145. _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_, _Chron. Sax._, and _An. Ult. ad an._ 1094. _Malm. Gesta Regum_, l. 5, sec. 400.

[189] _Chron. Sax._ 1097.

[190] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ and _Chron. Sax. ad an._ 1097. According to Fordun, l. 5, c. 30, the Banner of St. Cuthbert won the day, three knights, through its aid, defeating the whole of Donald’s army!

[191] _Malm., as above._ _Innes_, Ap. 4. _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 3, l. 108, and c. 8, l. 49. The Prior of Lochleven tells a singular tale about Donald, how in his blindness he enticed into his power the eldest son of David “a gangand chyld ... and wyth tympanys sharpe set till hys naylis ... thrystyd and swa handlyd the chyld ... quhil he deyd at the last,” and how “the modyr than that herd the cry ... for sorow gave the gast rycht thare.” As the latter part of the story is unquestionably false, it may be hoped that the whole tale is a fabrication. In the version of the same tale recorded by Orderic, the supposed murderer is an outcast priest, a pensioner on David’s charity. _Vide Hailes’ Annals_, vol. i., p. 112, note.

[192] _Antiq. Celt.-Scand._, p. 108. _Tigh._ 1034. Gille, Jarl of the Sudreys, was either the nephew or the brother-in-law of Jarl Sigurd,--or both, as a marriage between an aunt and her nephew occasionally took place in the distant north.

[193] _Tigh._ 1052, 1061. _Col. de Reb. Alb._, p. 346. _Seventy_-five and _sixty_-five years have been given to Thorfin, but as he was five years of age when his father fell at Clontarf in 1014, and his own death occurred before the expedition of Harald Hardrade in 1066, he probably died at the age of _fifty_-five, in 1064.

[194] _Chron. Man._ 1047. The dates of this Chronicle are occasionally very inaccurate, but they are easily rectified. Godfrey Crovan conquered Man five years after the inroad of Malcolm the Third into Cleveland, _i.e._, in 1075.

[195] _Tigh._ 1072.

[196] _Tigh._ _An. Ult._ and _A. F. M. ad an._ 1075.

[197] _Chron. Man._ 1056. The abrogation of the Odallers’ rights appears to have been the first step invariably taken by Scandinavian conquerors. The result was taxation, the king or Jarl asserting his right to the land. This division of the island was probably the reason of the two _Deemsters_ or Judges of Man.

[198] _Chron. Man._ _An. Ult._ and _A. F. M._ 1094. Godfrey is generally known in the Irish Annals as _Meranach_, or the Bad.

[199] _An. Ult._ 1087.

[200] _An. Ult._ and _A. F. M._ 1095. _An. Inisf._ 1078. _Chron. Man._ “Nullus qui fabricant navem vel scapham ausus esset plus quam tres clavos insere.” Such are the words of the Chronicle; their exact meaning I do not pretend to understand.

[201] This account of the first expedition of Magnus is taken from the _Heimskringla, Saga_ 11, c. 9, 10, 11. _Chron. Man._ 1098. _Chron. Sax._ 1098. From his partiality to the costume of the Islesmen, he obtained the name of Magnus _Barefoot_. The later Scottish Chroniclers assert that the cession of the Isles was the price of the assistance of Magnus, which placed Donald Bane upon the throne. He must have been resuscitated from the grave.

[202] _Heimsk. Saga_ 11, c. 25. _An. Ult._ _A. F. M._ 1101, 1102. According to the Chronicle of Man, Magnus sent his shoes to Murketagh, ordering that king to carry them on Christmas day, in token of his inferiority. The Irish chieftains were naturally indignant, but their king replied that he was ready to eat the shoes rather than one province of Ireland should be wasted! This singular tale was unknown to the Norse and Irish Chroniclers; and indeed, if Magnus deserved the epithet appended to his name, it would have been difficult for him to send such articles of apparel to the Irish court.

[203] _Heimsk. Saga_ 11, c. 26–28. _An. Ult._ and _A. F. M._ 1103. _Vide_ also _Antiq._ _Celt.-Scand._, p. 231 to p. 244.

[204] _An. Inisf._ 1086. _Malm. Gesta Regum_, l. 5, sec. 409.

[205] _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 34.

[206] Sim. _Dun. de Gestis_ 1107. _Ailred de Bel. Stand_ (_Twysden_, p. 344). _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 55.

[207] Ailred, in his _Genealogia Regum_ (_Twysden_, p. 367, 368), describes the character of the three brothers, Edgar, Alexander, and David. He also relates an anecdote which he heard from David, that whilst that prince in his younger days was in attendance at the English court, he received a sudden summons, when amongst his companions, to repair to the presence of his royal sister. He found the Queen engaged in her evening occupation of washing the feet of a number of lepers, and pressing the feet of each leper to her lips as she completed the ceremony. Matilda invited her brother to follow her example, but he excused himself, not unnaturally expressing a doubt whether the royal Henry would approve of the manner in which his Queen bestowed her favours. Matilda did not press the subject, and David rejoined his companions. Wendover has copied this anecdote, dating it in 1105.

[208] _Wynton_, bk. 7, c. 5, l. 21 to 62. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 36. _Lib. de Scone_, ch. 1. I have principally followed the account of Wynton. It was evidently the object of Alexander to bring the men of Moray and Mærne to an engagement where his mounted followers could act with effect, whilst it was equally the aim of his enemies to attack the king at a disadvantage, which they calculated upon doing if he attempted to cross by the usual ford. It was from no mere reckless bravado that Alexander swam across, at an unguarded spot probably, and at full tide, when he was least expected, thus out-manœuvring the enemy and falling upon them in the open country. Swimming a river was no uncommon feat amongst the heavy-armed soldiery of those days. Robert of Gloucester swam the Trent before the battle of Lincoln, when the fords were impassable from floods. Fordun (or Bowyer), frightened perhaps at the idea of the king and his men-at-arms swimming the Moray Firth, places the battle at the Spey, and divides the honour of the feat with Sir Alexander Scrimgeour. He and Boece are eloquent about the escape of Alexander from the treachery of one of his chamberlains in league with the enemy; but Wynton knew nothing of the tale, which probably rests on a very doubtful foundation. Mr. Skene (_Highlanders_, vol. i., p. 129) has attributed the attack on Alexander to Ladman, a son of Donald Bane, on the strength of the following entry in the Ulster Annals under the year 1116. “Ladmunn M. Dom. h ... righ Alban killed by the men of Moray.” But Ladman son of Donald, _grandson_ of ... king of Alban, can scarcely be a description applicable to a son of Donald Bane; and the word now lost must have been the name of Ladman’s _great grandfather_, not the _designation of his father_. Donald Bane appears to have left no son, for both Wynton and the Comyn pedigree in the Fœdera, represent Bethoc as his heiress. Ladman also appears to have been at enmity with the Moraymen; but who or what he was must remain a matter of conjecture.

[209] _An. Ult._ 1093. Fordun supplies four bishops _elect_ between Fothadh and Turgot; but of “Gregory, Cathrey, Edmar, and Godric,” Wynton, a canon of St. Andrews, and well read in the archives of the see, was profoundly ignorant. The words of the old MS. quoted in Selden’s preface to Twysden p. 6, “Electus fuit Turgotus ... et stetit per annos septem. In diebus illis totum jus Keledeorum per totum regnum Scotiæ transivit in Episcopatum St. Andriæ,” imply that a great change was brought about at this time.

[210] The appointment of the Archbishop of Lyons to be Metropolitan over Tours, Rouen, and Sens, by Hildebrand, in spite of the opposition of the bishops of those Metropolitan sees; and the elevation of Toledo into the Metropolitan see of Spain, by Urban II., without in any way consulting the wishes of the Spanish clergy, may be quoted as instances. The state of the Papacy in the early part of the eleventh century had been scandalous. In 1012 Benedict VIII. obtained the see through the influence of his kinsman the Marquis of Toscanella, one of a family which had influenced the elections of the bishops of Rome for upwards of a century. His brother John XIX. fairly bought the Papacy, and was in the same day a layman and the head of the Roman Church. Similar means obtained the election of his nephew, Benedict IX., a mere child, who after scandalizing Rome with his excesses, retired in favour of Gregory VII., who was in turn deposed for simony on account of the bribe by which he procured the abdication of Benedict. The latter then again reappeared to contest the popedom with two German bishops, Clement II. and Damascus II.; and after their deaths the Romans appealed to the emperor against the threatened intrusion of Benedict for the third time, and the papacy was conferred upon Leo IX. In allusion to the influence of Hildebrand, his great friend the Bishop of Ostia wrote the following lines:--

Papam rite colo, sed te prostratus adoro; Tu facis hunc Dominum, te facit ille Deum.

[211] The reply of William was very characteristic of the great Norman: “Homage neither have I sworn, nor will I swear it, for I never promised it, nor can I find that my predecessors ever performed it to yours.” Though perfectly respectful to the Pope, he said, “If ever monk of my land carry plaint against his sovereign lord I’ll have him hanged on the tallest tree in the forest.”

[212] “Il n’y avoit pas de Royaume qu’il ne prétendit être tributaire du saint Siege, et pour le prouver, il ne craignoit point d’alléguer des titres qui se conservoient, disoit-il, dans les Archives de l’Eglise Romaine, mais qu’il n’osa jamais produire.” Such are the words of the Benedictine editor of “L’Art de verifier les Dates.” The Donation of Constantine was first openly brought forward in the letter of Leo IX. to Michael Patriarch of Constantinople, written in 1054, and it was one of the causes of the separation of the Greek Church. It is a fair specimen of the supposed contents of “the Archives of the Roman Church.”

[213] The manner of choosing a bishop, and the abuses which had sprung up in such elections, are nowhere better described than in a letter of Apollinaris Sidonius, written about 470. (_Epist._ l. 4. _Ep._ 25.)

[214] The “Pharoahs” of the age of Innocent were the temporal princes, whom the same Pope elsewhere describes as subordinate moons revolving round the papal sun, and deriving all their light from that luminary.

[215] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1074 (p. 207). Like Boece, Stubbs, a stout partizan of York, writing at the close of the fourteenth century, was far better informed than the contemporary chronicler of all the circumstances of this dispute. _Twysden_, p. 1712, _et seq._

[216] The deprecatory answer of Thomas to Anselm is very characteristic of the age, “The money which I had collected for coming to you--and it was a large sum for my means--was all spent at Winchester, where I stopped too long. I then hurried home to scrape together some more to send to Rome for my pallium,” adding, “and I am still seeking for money, but very little can I find, except _at a grievous rate of interest_,”--a complaint alas! common to those in the Archbishop’s circumstances in every age. _Ead. Hist. Nov._, p. 98.

[217] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1109.

[218] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1074 (p. 207), 1115.

[219] “Eligente eum clero et populo terræ, et concedente Rege,” are the words which seem to have rather puzzled Lord Hailes (_Annals_, vol. i. p. 63, _note_). But all bishops were originally supposed to have been chosen in this manner; though it is probable that the rights of the “clerus et populus” were at this time as exclusively possessed by the Culdees as they were subsequently vested in the Chapter.

[220] “Nolebat enim ecclesiam Cantuarensem anteferri ecclesiæ Sancti Andreæ de Scotia:”

[221] _Ead. Hist. Nov._, l. 5, p. 117, 130–135.

[222] _Ang. Sac._ ii. 234, quoted in Hailes’s _Annals_, vol. i., p. 66. “He said that nothing would be so conducive to soften the barbarity of the Scots, promote sound doctrine, and establish ecclesiastical discipline, as _a plentiful and hospitable board_.”

[223] _Ead. Hist. Nov._, l. 6.

[224] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1124. Four months before his own death, _i.e._, in December 1123.

[225] _Reg. Glasg. Inquisitio Davidis._

[226] _Ead. Hist. Nov._, l. 5, p. 124–126. “Romanos in causam suam, quo in quæque negotia pertrahi solent, largitatis officio transtulit,” are his words; and on another occasion he says, “literas ab ipso Calixto, more quo cuncta Romæ impetrantur, adeptus fuerat.” In short, Eadmer is continually insinuating the venality of the papal court, though of course the practice of corrupting the Roman clergy was strictly confined to the partizans of York, and never extended to the purer clergy of Canterbury. The latter, however, are represented in a very different light in the pages of the Yorkist Stubbs, who does not hesitate to charge them with forgery and the perpetration of every species of dishonesty against the immaculate clergy of York. Henry the First stands out in honourable relief, for when Pope Calixtus pressed him to break his promise to the Archbishop of Canterbury, assuring the king that he would grant him absolution, Henry replied with dignity “that it would be inconsistent with the honour of a king to agree to any such proceeding; for who would put any faith in a promise, if the royal example taught them how easily it could be set aside by absolution.”

[227] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1122, 1123. _Chron. Mel._ 1123. On the 25th of April 1174, Pope Alexander III. declared Glasgow to be “Specialem filiam nostram nullo mediante.” _Reg. Glasg._, No. 32. Hence in after times “the two great grievances of the bishops were being forced to admit to benefices or pensions upon the dictation of the pope, and the liability to be summoned on church cases out of the kingdom.” _Vide Preface to Reg. Glasg._, p. 28.

[228] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1122, 1124. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 40, 41. _Malm. Gesta Regum_, l. 5, sec. 400.

[229] _Lib. de Scone_, No. 1. Six earls attest the charter; Heth (written through a clerical error _Beth_) of Moray, Madach of Atholl, Malise of Strathearn, Dufagan of Fife, and Gartnach and Rory, who may be assigned to Angus, Mar, or Buchan. Heth appears to have married the sister of Malsnechtan (for his successor, Angus, is described as the son of Lulach’s daughter, _An. Ult._ 1130), and thus to have inherited and transmitted the claims of the line of Kenneth MacDuff. He must have been an inveterate opponent of the reigning family, as his son Malcolm is described by Ailred as “the inheritor of his father’s hatred.” The real descent of the Stewarts was well known as late as the fourteenth century, when Richard Fitz-Alan, Earl of Arundel in 1336, sold the Stewardship of Scotland to Edward III., a transaction which was confirmed by Edward Balliol (_Tiernay’s Hist. of Arundel_, vol. i., pp. 193, 299, _notes_). The sale was of course a political fiction, founded on the assumed forfeiture of the Scottish branch of the earl’s family, through which their hereditary office was supposed to have reverted to their English connections. The real king and the pseudo-king united in the joint exercise of an act of shadowy sovereignty--a joint protest of their claims as vassal king and overlord of Scotland--the sole substantial gain, the purchase-money, falling to the earl; though, had the Plantagenets succeeded in conquering Scotland, the transaction would have become a reality, and the ancestry of the hereditary Earls Marshal of the present day would have lost their claim to supplant the ancestry of the reigning sovereign. The father of _Alan_ was Flahald or _Fleald_, a name which reappears under the familiar form of “_Fleance_, son of Banquo, Thane of Lochaber.”

[230] The reign of Edgar has been occasionally regarded as the era of a thorough _Saxonizing_ of all Scotland, except the Highlands; but with respect to this opinion I can only use the words which Father Innes applies to the laws of Aodh Fin--“De hisce...... _altissimum apud scriptores nostros silentium_.” If _Thane_ and _Thanage_ are supposed to be, not Saxon _names_ applied to Scottish institutions, but actual Saxon institutions introduced beyond the Forth, it should be explained why the Saxon Thane was as totally different a character from the Scottish Thane as _Thane-land_ was from a Thanage. The Saxon held by military service--_cnicht_-service, an expression scarcely traceable to Normandy; the Scot by _Scottish_ service and rent--in _fee-farm_. Why also is only one Thane traceable in the Lothians, if all the Thanes came from the Saxons? Compare _Appendices N and R_.

[231] _Chron. Sax._ 1124, calls David Earl of Northamptonshire. If this authority is correct, he must have held that earldom as guardian of the younger St. Liz, who was Earl of Northampton at the date of his death in 1153.

[232] _Malm. Hist Nov._, l. 1, sec. 1–3. _Chron. Sax._ 1126–7. The chroniclers of that age call the empress Alicia, oftener than Matilda; perhaps to distinguish her from Stephen’s queen.

[233] _Vide_ preceding chapter, p.184, note.

[234] _Chron. Sax._, _Chron. St. Crucis_, _Chron. Mel._, and _An. Ult._ 1130. _Ord. Vit._, l. 8, p. 701–3. The Saxon Chronicler declares Angus to have been “all forsworn.” The account of Orderic is, as usual, a strange mixture of truth and error. As Heth witnessed the first Dunfermlyn charter in company with Constantine Earl of Fife, who died in 1128, he must have survived David’s accession; and it was possibly on the death of the Moray chieftain that his sons broke out into rebellion.

[235] _Ailred de Bel. Stand._ p. 344. _Chron. Mel._ 1134. “Deinde cum cohortibus suis jam triumpho elatis fugientes avidé insecutus est, et Morafiam defensore dominoque vacantem ingressus est, totumque regionis spaciosæ Ducatum, Deo auxiliante nactus est.” Such are the expressions of Orderic relating to the course pursued by David after Stickathrow. There is no allusion to Malcolm suffering the usual barbarities inflicted on state prisoners, so it is to be hoped, for David’s credit, that he escaped all such tortures.

[236] _John and Rich. Hexham_ 1136. _Hen. Hunt._, l. 8, p. 222. _Malm. Hist. Nov._, l. 1, sec. 12. Lingard has no authority for saying that “David claimed Cumberland as having formerly belonged to the heir-apparent of the Scottish kings,” c. 11, note 13. There is no allusion to any claim except upon Northumberland (in right of his wife), and this was waived at the time for the fiefs of Carlisle and Doncaster. Strictly speaking, the Scottish royal family never appear to have held the _Earldom_--or rather perhaps _Comitatus_--but the _Honour_ of Huntingdon. A grant of the “_tertius denarius de placitis_,” seems generally to have entitled its holder to the earldom at this period, whilst the holder of an honour was “overlord”--or constable--of a number of knights and barons; for all the tenants of an honour held by military service, and with manorial rights. It was in the power of the king, however, to grant the dignity of an earl, or attach the dignity to any fief, without reference to the “tertius denarius.” _Vide Appendix L_, pt. 2.

[237] _Malm. Hist. Nov._, l. 1, sec. 13. There is some uncertainty about David’s age, and Lord Hailes, a little rashly, finds fault with Malmesbury for writing about “the approach of age.” But as David _survived_ Malmesbury, the latter would hardly have written what was not true, in such a trifling point, about one who was then living. Neither Alexander nor David appear to have taken any prominent part in the events immediately occurring after the death of their father; but David was old enough to assist his brother Edgar in 1097 by his _astutia_ (_Gesta Regum_, sec 400). Forty years later he must have been nearer sixty than fifty.

[238] _John and Rich. Hexham_ 1136. Ranulph was the son and heir of Ranulph le Meschines, who obtained a grant of Cumberland, probably about the time when Rufus restored Carlisle. John of Hexham, under 1150, says, “Remisit indignationem quæ Karleol sub _patrimoniali_ jure reposcere consueverat.”

[239] _John and Rich. Hexham_ 1137. _Malm. Hist. Nov._, l. 1, sec. 17.

[240] The _Germans_ of Richard of Hexham were probably mercenaries from the Low Countries, whose services were then, and long afterwards, at the disposal of the highest bidder. They were generally known as _Reiters_; and these free companies probably supplied many of the _Flandrenses_ and _Flamingi_ of the Scottish charters.

[241] “In curiâ contra patrium morem captus,” are the words of _Ailred_, p. 343. Eustace appears to have been in the actual performance of the services by which he held the fief; and in strict feudal justice he ought not to have been deprived of the fief until he had failed to render such service.

[242] The speech which Ailred has attributed to Walter Espec is valuable on account of many historical allusions which it contains; but it is not to be supposed that on such an occasion the speaker would stop to weigh his words, especially as it was his object to raise the courage of his own men by depreciating the Scots. Strict historical accuracy is hardly to be expected at such a time, even if we are to regard such speeches as real, and not the composition of the chronicler himself.

[243] The continuator of Florence of Worcester relates this fact.

[244] _Lavernani._ The district known as the Lennox, or _Levenach_, was called so from the river Leven, and from the lake which was originally named _Loch Leven_, and afterwards (from its principal mountain) _Loch Lomond_. _Lavernani_ is evidently a clerical error for _Levenani_; as _Linenath_ in the Fœdera is a mistake for _Levenach_.

[245] The meeting between the king and the two barons took place immediately before the battle, according to Ailred. John of Hexham writes that they met on the Tees, which David crossed a few hours before the commencement of the engagement.

[246] Such appears to be the meaning of Ailred’s description of the English position. The monkish chroniclers are seldom very clear in their accounts of battles. The species of standard used in this battle was well known in the Italian wars.

[247] Compare _John and Rich. Hexham_ 1138. _Ail. de bel. Stand. Flor. Vigorn. Contin._ 1138. _Hen. Hunt._, l. 8, p. 222. In the description of the battle I have principally followed Ailred. A comparison between the Priors of Hexham and the Continuator of Florence, will show the difference between the chronicler who lived in the neighbourhood of the scenes he describes, and he who, a tenant of a distant monastery, probably relied upon hearsay evidence. The battle of Northallerton was naturally a disagreeable subject for the Scottish chroniclers. Wynton, with characteristic honesty, says “the Scottis ware discomfyt and mony ... in depe lowchys drownyd was.” Fordun, Major, and Buchanan, divide the battle into two, perhaps from some confusion with the fight at Clitheroe. At the battle of Northallerton the English are routed; but in the following year the Scots, through despising their enemy, who are in great numbers, receive a check at the Standard. Boece, with a soul above such half-measures, stoutly claims a victory, ransoming the English leader, _the Duke of Gloucester_, at an enormous sum! _Ford._, l. 5, c. 42. _Maj._, l. 3, c. 11. _Buch._ l. 7. _Boece_, bk. 12, c. 17.

[248] By old, and probably universal, custom, every freeman was bound to attend the “hosting across the frontier” once every year in arms. By Charlemagne’s law, all holders of benefices were bound by their tenure of military service to come, and all _Frank-allodial_ proprietors of three, four, or five _mansi_ (or _hydes_); every proprietor of an amount less than three _mansi_ combining with others, so that the lowest on the list, the proprietor of half a _mansus_, in conjunction with _five_ others (_i.e._, making up _three mansi_) equipped one of their number for the army. The equivalents of this latter class amongst the English seem to have formed the _gemeinred_ or yeomanry. A less numerous, but a better armed, and probably a more orderly body of men, would be furnished by the Imperial law than by the older custom, which was preserved in Scotland under the name of _Scotticanum servitium_, sometimes known as _forinsecum servitium_ (_Reg. Morav. Cart. Orig._ 13), the _Sluagh_ or “hosting beyond the frontier.” The muster of the Highland clan in later times, including “Native men” as well as “Duine Uasal,” answered to the old _Sluagh_. The expressions _Inware_, and _Utware_, are sometimes used, the former answering, apparently, to the Welsh “Llwyd yn Wlad,” or hosting _within_ the borders; the latter to the “Llwyd yn Orwlad,” or hosting _beyond_ the borders. It may be gathered from _Reg. Morav. Cart. Orig._ 17, that “Scottish service” was rendered on foot and without defensive armour. “Non habemus jus habendi aliquod servitium de domino Willelmo de Moravia nisi _forinsecum servitium Scotticanum_ domini regis ... et secursum ac auxilium quod nobis in defensione regni per potenciam suam _armigerorum et equorum et armorum_ fecit ex libera voluntate sua.” The Thane of Tullibardine had assisted his lord, the Earl of Strathearn, with men-at-arms, horses, and armour, which he was not bound to do in return for his Thanedom, held by Scottish service alone. The arms required for Scottish service were probably those with which the Clans Hay and Qwhele fought on the North Inch (_Reg. Morav._, p. 382), bows, axes, swords, and daggers, with the addition of the long Scottish spear. The arms of the native Irish in the days of Cambrensis appear to have been a spear, two javelins (resembling the old German _framea_), and a formidable battle-axe introduced by the Northmen. They gloried in fighting without defensive armour, like Earl Malise.

[249] _J. and R. Hexham._ _Ailred_, as above.

[250] The Bishop of Glasgow was not present at the dedication of his own Cathedral Church on 17th July 1136. _Vide Reg. Glasg._, ch. 3, in which his name does not occur.

[251] Edgar, a natural son of Earl Cospatric, and Robert and Uchtred, sons of Maldred, were the offenders on this occasion--all Saxon names, and from the Lothians apparently, so that for once at any rate those scapegoats, the Picts of Galloway, may be acquitted from blame.

[252] _J. and R. Hexham_ 1138. The 10th and 11th November, and 3d March, are all festivals of St. Martin. The truce probably extended to the latest date, for Alberic did not bring the subject before Stephen until Christmas, _after_ the other dates.

[253] _J. and R. Hexham_ 1138.

[254] _J. and R. Hexham_ 1138. “Fœminca calliditate atque protervitate instante,” are the words of Prior Richard.

[255] _J. and R. Hexham_ 1139. The hostages were the sons of Earls Cospatric and Fergus, of Hugh de Moreville and of _Mac._ and _Mel._ (supposed to mean Macduff of Fife and Malise of Strathearn), whom Prior Richard calls five earls of Scotland. Moreville was hardly an earl, though he was probably amongst those greater barons who had “the freedom and custom of an earl.” _Assize Dav._ 16.

[256] _Hen. Hunt._, l. 8, p. 223. _J. Hexham_ 1141. All the occurrences in John of Hexham after 1140 are misdated one year, owing to the insertion of the passage “Anno MCXLI. Calixtus Papa concilium Remis instituit xiii. Kal Nov.” This council was held in 1119. Thorstein, whose death is placed in 1141, died on Thursday 8th February 1140, and the battle of Lincoln was fought in the following year.

[257] _J. Hexham_ 1142. The name has been changed into _Oliphant_.

[258] _J. Hexham_ 1143–45. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 43, confounding William Comyn the Chancellor, with William the Treasurer, Archbishop of York, relates his supposed death by poison, with a rather ambiguous comment of his own, “Hic Willelmus Comyn Archiepiscopus Eboracensis, ad missam suam in ecclesiâ Sancti Petri a ministris altaris pecuniis corruptis, venenis potionatus est; qui licet venenum videret in calice nihilominus illud fide fervens sumpsit, _et non diu post supervixit, Deo Gratias!_”

[259] _J. Hexham_ 1150. _Hen. Hunt._, l. 8, p. 226. _R. Hoveden_ 1148, p. 280.

[260] It is singular how Wimund has been confounded, by nearly every historian down to the present day, with Malcolm MacHeth. Newbridge, who relates his adventures at length, l. 1, c. 23, 24, and who had often seen him in his blindness and captivity at Biland, merely says that he was born at some obscure spot in England, and pretended to be “a son of the Earl of Moray.” Ailred (quoted in _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 51) also alludes to him as an impostor, “Cum misisset ei Deus inimicum quemdam pseudo-episcopum qui se filium Comitis Moraviensis mentiebatur,” and again (Dominus regem) “monachi cujusdem mendaciis flagellavit.” But in l. 8, c. 2, Fordun treats MacHeth himself as an impostor, “erat enim iste Malcolmus filius MacHeth, sed mentiendo dicebat se filium Angusii Comitis Moraviæ.” Here begins the confusion; but it can be clearly shown that Wimund and MacHeth were totally different persons. Malcolm MacHeth, “the heir of his father’s hatred,” was captured in 1134 and confined in Roxburgh Castle until 1157, when he was liberated by Malcolm the Fourth and attested one of the Dunfermlyn Charters (_Ailred_, p. 344. _Chron. Mel._ 1134. _Chron. St. Crucis_ 1157. _Reg. Dunf._ No. 40). Wimund could not have gone to Rushen, at the very earliest, before the year of its foundation, 1134; he was a monk before that date, and could not have been made bishop until after the imprisonment of MacHeth. From an entry in Wendover under 1151, “Eodem anno Johannes ..... factus est secundus antistes Monæ insulæ ..... Primus autem ibi fuerat episcopus Wimundus ..... sed propter ejus importunitatem privatus fuit oculis et expulsus,” it may be gathered that the career of Wimund was brought to a close _at least six years_ before the liberation of MacHeth, and the Bishop of Man, who probably enacted his singular vagaries about 1150, may have personated the son, the brother, the nephew, of the _real claimant of the earldom_--or even that very claimant--but it is impossible to identify him with the solitary captive in Roxburgh Castle without attributing to one, or both, ubiquity.

[261] _J. Hexham_ 1152. In the words of Newbridge (l. 1, c. 22), “aquilonalis regio, quæ in potestatem Domini regis Scottorum _usque ad fluvium Tesam_ cesserat, per ejusdem Regis industriam in pace agebat.” Wynton, therefore, was justified in saying (bk. 7, c. 6, l. 241), “In swylk dissentyowne De kyng Dawy wan till his crown All fra the Wattyr of Tese of brede North on till the Wattyr of Twede, And fra the Wattyr of Esk the Est, Til of Stanemoor the Rere-Cors West.” The Esk was the river flowing into the sea at Whitby, and Stanemoor is on the borders of Yorkshire, Durham, and Westmoreland. As late as 1258 a bishop of Glasgow claimed jurisdiction as far as “the Rere-Cross,” and singularly enough he was an Englishman (_Chron. Lanerc._ 1258). Camden (_Brit._, p. 987) mentions the Brandreth Stone in Westmoreland as a meer-stone between Scots and English; but it probably was only a boundary of the lands held by the Scottish kings near Penrith. Alice de Rumeli was the daughter of William Meschines and Cecilia de Rumeli, who founded the Priory of Emmesey, which Alice removed to Bolton. _Vide_ Bolton Priory Charters, _Dugd Monas_, vol. 6, p. 203. William of Egremont lost his life through his greyhound pulling him over “the Strides.”

[262] _Chron. St. Crucis_ 1152. _J. Hex._ 1153. _Newbridge_, l. 1, c. 23. _Ailred (Twysden)_, p. 368. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 43. _St. Bernard Vit. Mal., quoted by Hailes_, vol. i. p. 103, _note_.