Chapter XLIII: Appendix (12)

The Encomiast seems to have had no notion that Emma was at Winchester, but rather to have fancied that she was in London. Ælfred, before he has landed, is recognized by his enemies, who wish to seize him (“volebant eum adgredi,” iii. 4), but he escapes, lands elsewhere, and sets out to go to his mother (“matrem parabat adire”). When he has got near to her (“ubi jam erat proximus”), he is met by Godwine, who persuades him not to go to London, and takes him to Guildford (“devians eum a Londonia, induxit eum in villa Gildefordia nuncupata”). The mistake is remarkable, for to quarter Emma in London instead of at Winchester implies utter ignorance as to her real position. But it seems quite plain that the Encomiast did not mean to identify Godwine either with the “adversarii” of Ælfred whom he had mentioned just before, nor yet with the “complices Haroldi infandissimi tyranni” (iii. 5), who are spoken of afterwards. And he expressly shuts out the story of invasion and battle which appears in William of Poitiers. The companions of Ælfred are indeed called “commilitones” (iii. 4), but, when Baldwin offers him the help of an armed force, he declines it (“cum marchione Balduino moratus, et ab eo rogatus ut aliquam partem suæ militiæ secum duceret propter insidias hostium”). This seems to forbid the notion of a force such as the Norman writers speak of, a force which could dream of the conquest of England or even of Wessex.

The only other independent witness is the strong partizan of Godwine, the Biographer of Eadward (Vita Eadw. 401). He perhaps shows some wish to slur the story over; but his account of the time between the death of Cnut and the election of Eadward is throughout confused and meagre. He brings in the story of Ælfred only incidentally, not in its chronological place, but much later, when describing the attempts of the Norman Archbishop Robert to sow dissensions between King Eadward and the Earl. He merely says that Ælfred, incautiously entering the country with some French companions, was seized and put to death by torture by order of Harold, his comrades being killed, sold, and so forth. As Godwine was still, under Harold as under Cnut, the chief counsellor of the King (“eo quoque tempore, ut superius, regalium consiliorum erat bajalus.” See above, p. 733), the slanderer Robert took occasion to affirm that the deed was done by Godwine’s advice; but the Biographer strongly asserts the Earl’s innocence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTE XXX. p. 528.
TOFIG THE PROUD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

END OF VOLUME THE FIRST.

-----

Footnote 1:

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

Footnote 2:

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

Footnote 3:

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

Footnote 4:

See Guest, Salisbury Volume, p. 35.

Footnote 5:

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

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

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

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

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

Footnote 6:

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

Footnote 7:

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

Footnote 8:

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

Footnote 9:

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

Footnote 10:

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

Footnote 11:

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

Footnote 12:

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

Footnote 13:

Words like _Mass_, _Priest_, _Bishop_, _Angel_, _Candle_.

Footnote 14:

See Comparative Politics, 420.

Footnote 15:

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

Footnote 16:

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

Footnote 17:

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

Footnote 18:

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

Footnote 19:

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

Footnote 20:

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

Footnote 21:

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

Footnote 22:

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

Footnote 23:

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

Footnote 24:

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

Footnote 25:

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

Footnote 26:

Chronicles, 626. Cf. 654.

Footnote 27:

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

Footnote 28:

Bæda, Hist. Eccl. i. 25, 26.

Footnote 29:

See Appendix C.

Footnote 30:

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

Footnote 31:

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

Footnote 32:

See above, p. 25.

Footnote 33:

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

Footnote 34:

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

Footnote 35:

Bæda, ii. 5. See Appendix B.

Footnote 36:

See above, p. 27.

Footnote 37:

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

Footnote 38:

See Appendix B.

Footnote 39:

See Appendix D.

Footnote 40:

See Appendix D.

Footnote 41:

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

Footnote 42:

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

Footnote 43:

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

Footnote 44:

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

Footnote 45:

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

Footnote 46:

_Norð-Wealas_ in the Chronicles means the inhabitants of Wales in the
modern sense, both North and South; they are opposed to the
_West-Wealas_, the Welsh of Cornwall.

Footnote 47:

See above, p. 12.

Footnote 48:

On the conquest of Northumberland, see Appendix KK.

Footnote 49:

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

Footnote 50:

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

Footnote 51:

See Appendix E.

Footnote 52:

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

Footnote 53:

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

Footnote 54:

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

Footnote 55:

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

Footnote 56:

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

Footnote 57:

See Appendix F.

Footnote 58:

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

Footnote 59:

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

Footnote 60:

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

Footnote 61:

See Chron. 924, and Appendix G.

Footnote 62:

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

Footnote 63:

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

Footnote 64:

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

Footnote 65:

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

Footnote 66:

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

Footnote 67:

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

Footnote 68:

See Appendix H.

Footnote 69:

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

Footnote 70:

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

Footnote 71:

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

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

Footnote 72:

Chron. 966.

Footnote 73:

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

Footnote 74:

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

Footnote 75:

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

Footnote 76:

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

Footnote 77:

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

Footnote 78:

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

Footnote 79:

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

Footnote 80:

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

Footnote 81:

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

Footnote 82:

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

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

Footnote 83:

[This was first written in the year 1866.]

Footnote 84:

On the change from _Ealdormen_ or _Heretogan_ to Kings, see Appendix
K.

Footnote 85:

See above, p. 54.

Footnote 86:

On all these points see Appendix K.

Footnote 87:

See above, p. 26.

Footnote 88:

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

Footnote 89:

See above, p. 62.

Footnote 90:

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

Footnote 91:

On the word “King” see Appendix L.

Footnote 92:

See Appendix M.

Footnote 93:

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

Footnote 94:

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

Footnote 95:

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

Footnote 96: