Chapter XLVI: Appendix (15)

The Chronicles have, “her was Exanceaster abrocen þunruh þone
Franciscan _ceorl_ Hugan, ðe seo hlæfdige hire hæfde geset to
gerefan.” But Florence has, “per _insilium_, incuriam, et traditionem
Nortmannici _comitis_ Hugonis, quem regina Emma Domnaniæ præfecit.”
Henry of Huntingdon (752 B) says, “Hugonem Normannum, quem ibi regina
Emma vicecomitem [gerefan?] statuerat, in perniciem compegerunt.”
Florence seems to have read _eorl_ where our copies of the Chronicles
have _ceorl_; also he seems to make Hugh Ealdorman of Devonshire,
while in the Chronicles he is only reeve of Exeter. The “Frenchmen” of
the Chronicles may always be Normans or not; most likely Hugh was a
Norman.

The “_in_silium” of Florence is an attempt to express in Latin the
negative form “unræd.” See above, p. 261.

Footnote 609:

Flor. Wig. “Civitatem Exanceastram infregit, spoliavit, murum ab
orientali usque ad occidentalem portam destruxit.” This does not imply
the complete destruction of the city. But Henry of Huntingdon says,
“urbem totam funditus destruxerunt,” which is doubtless an
exaggeration.

Footnote 610:

“Alfricus dux supra memoratus” says Florence; it is clear that this is
Ælfric, the traitor of 992.

Footnote 611:

See above, p. 280.

Footnote 612:

Chron. 1003. “Þa gebræd he hine seocne, and ongan he hine brecan to
spiwenne, and cwæð þæt he gesicled wære.”

Footnote 613:

Like Lydiadas at Ladokeia and Philopoimên at Sellasia. See Hist. Fed.
Gov. i. 450, 497.

Footnote 614:

Flor. Wig. “A suis inimicis sine pugna divertit mœstissimus.” The
Chronicles, and after them Florence and Henry, quote a proverb, “Þonne
se heretoga wacað, þonne bið eall se here swiðe gehindred.”

Footnote 615:

See many passages in Grote’s History of Greece, especially the remarks
on the death of Epameinôndas; x. 477.

Footnote 616:

Il. xx. 216;

κτίσσε δὲ Δαρδανίην, ἐπεὶ οὔπω Ἴλιος ἱρὴ
ἐν πεδίῳ πεπόλιστο, πόλις μερόπων ἀνθρώπων,
ἀλλ’ ἔθ’ ὑπωρείας ᾤκεον πολυπιδάκου Ἴδης.

Πολυπίδακος however would be the most inappropriate of epithets for
Old Sarum, which, in the days of its greatness, was “well provided
otherwise of all commodities, but wanted water so unreasonably as (a
strange kind of merchandise) it was there to be sold.” (Godwin,
translating William of Malmesbury, Gest. Pont. p. 183.)

Footnote 617:

The Chronicler here, though writing in prose, gets poetical, and calls
the ships “horses of the wave”—“þær he wiste his yð hengestas.”

Footnote 618:

On Ulfcytel, see Appendix HH.

Footnote 619:

Chron. in anno. “Þa gerædde Ulfcytel wið þa witan on East-Englum.”
Flor. Wig. “Cum majoribus East-Angliæ habito concilio.” See Kemble,
ii. 257.

Footnote 620:

So I understand the narrative in the Chronicles, which seems to imply
that the measures of Ulfcytel were taken as soon as the Danes began
their march, but before they reached Thetford, while Florence does not
mention Ulfcytel as doing anything till after he hears of the burning
of the town.

Footnote 621:

I modernize the words of the Chronicles. “Swa hi sylfe sædon, þæt hi
næfre wyrsan handplegan on Angelcynne ne gemetton, þonne Ulfcytel him
to brohte.” So Florence, “ut enim ipsi testati sunt, durius et
asperius bellum in Anglia numquam experti sunt quam illis dux Ulfketel
intulerat.” Cf. Will. Malms. ii. 165.

Footnote 622:

Chron. in anno. “Þær wearð East-Engla folces seo _yld_ [_yldesta_]
ofslægan.” See on the sense of this word and its cognates, p. 75.]

Footnote 623:

Cod. Dipl. iii. 339; vi. 152.

Footnote 624:

On the rise of Eadric, see Appendix II.

Footnote 625:

On Wulfgeat, see Appendix II.

Footnote 626:

See Appendix KK.

Footnote 627:

“Id est Oppidi Canis,” says Florence. Perhaps Godwine was only a
_butcher_, as Lappenberg makes him. This is the more usual mediæval
sense of _Carnifex_, but the surname sounds as if he were an official
person.

Footnote 628:

I give this story a place in the text with fear and trembling. Did it
not rest on the authority of Florence, I should at once cast it aside
as legendary. The hunting-party has a very mythical sound, being in
fact part of the legend of Eadgar and Ælfthryth. (Cf. Dio, lxix. 2; ὡς
ἐν θήρᾳ δῆθεν ἐπιβεβουλευκότες αὐτῷ.) And one might be a little
suspicious as to Eadric’s position at Shrewsbury. Why should Eadric be
more at home there than Ælfhelm? The teller of the tale might almost
seem to have looked on Eadric as already Ealdorman of the Mercians,
and as therefore naturally called on to receive his Northumbrian
brother in one of the chief towns of his government. But for Florence
to insert, like William of Malmesbury, a mere piece of a ballad
without even the attraction of a miracle, is most unlikely. Florence,
as I shall presently show, is not infallible, but few writers are less
given to romance. I therefore accept the story, though I do not feel
perfect confidence in it.

Footnote 629:

This story comes from a separate tract by Simeon of Durham on the
Earls of the Northumbrians (X Scriptt. 79). By some strange confusion,
it is there put under the year 979, the first year of Æthelred. If it
happened at all, it must have happened in this year, the only one
which suits the position of the King, Bishop, and Earl spoken of.
Ealdhun became Bishop in 990, and removed the see to Durham in 995.
Malcolm began to reign in 1004; a Northumbrian earldom became vacant
in 1006. This fixes the date. The authority of Simeon is, I think,
guaranty enough for the general truth of the story, and the silence of
the Chronicles and Florence is not conclusive as to a Northumbrian
matter. The story also derives some sort of confirmation from a
passage of Fordun (Scot. Hist. iv. 39, p. 683, Gale), which is very
vague and confused, but which at least implies warfare of some kind
between Malcolm and Uhtred. “Othredum itaque comitem Anglicum, sed
Danis subditum, cujus inter eos simultatis exortæ caussam nescio,
Cumbriam prædari conantem, receptis prædis, juxta Burgum bello
difficili superavit.”

Footnote 630:

See p. 292.

Footnote 631:

See Appendix KK.

Footnote 632:

The heads of the handsomest of the slain Scots, with their long
twisted hair, were exposed on the walls of Durham. They were
previously washed by four women, each of whom received a cow for her
pains. So at least says Simeon, p. 80.

Footnote 633:

See Appendix II.

Footnote 634:

Sim. Dun. p. 80. So J. Wallingford, 546.

Footnote 635:

Florence says, “Cum iis fortiter dimicare statuit;” but there are no
words exactly answering to them in the Chronicles.

Footnote 636:

So Florence, again without direct support from the Chronicles; “illi
cum eo palam confligere nullatenus voluerunt.”

Footnote 637:

See Mr. Earle’s note, p. 335.

Footnote 638:

Chron. “And se here com þa ofer þa Martines mæssan _to his fryðstole
Wihtlande_, ... and þa to þam middan wintran eodon him to _heora
gearwan feorme_, út þurh Hamtunscire into Bearrucscire to Readingon.”
So H. Hunt. M. H. B. 752 D. “Quæ parata erant hilariter comedentes.”

Footnote 639:

Chronn. “And wendon him ða _andlang_ Æscesdune to Cwichelmes hlæwe.”
It has been distinctly shown by Mr. James Parker that Æscesdún means
the whole ridge which the Danes marched along from the east to the
barrow at Cwichelmes hlæw. On the Scirgemót—was it not something more
than a mere Scirgemót?—at Cwichelmeshlæw, see Cod. Dipl. iii. 292. The
prophecy comes from the Chronicles; it is left out by Florence.

Footnote 640:

The Chronicler here becomes very emphatic and eloquent, setting down
no doubt what he had seen with his own eyes. Florence, harmonizing
eighty or ninety years after, is much briefer.

Footnote 641:

See Appendix II.

Footnote 642:

Thorpe, i. 304; Schmid, 220.

Footnote 643:

Cap. 2. “And úres hláfordes gerǽdnes and his witena is, þæt man
cristene menn and unforworhte of earde ne sylle, ne huru on hǽðene
leóde, ac beorge man geórne, þæt man þá sáwla ne forfare, þa Crist mid
his ágenum lífe gebohte.” The same practice is forbidden in the
Capitularies of Charles the Bald. See Waitz, iv. 288. So Smaragdus de
Via Regia, c. 30 (D’Achery, i. 253); “Prohibe ergo, clementissime rex,
ne in regno tuo captivitas fiat.”

Footnote 644:

The _witeðeow_ seems to be forbidden by a capitulary of Charles the
Great. Aquis, 813 (Pertz, iii. 189); “Ut vicarii eos qui pro furto se
in servitio tradere cupiunt non consentiant.”

Footnote 645:

This seems to be implied in the word _unforworhte_—in the Latin text
(Schmid, 237) _insontem_.

Footnote 646:

It occurs in nearly the same words in the Statute of Enham, c. 9, and
in the Laws of Cnut, Thorpe, i. 376.

Footnote 647:

Cap. 16 (Thorpe, i. 308). “And Sce Eâdwardes mæsse-dæg witan habbað
gecoren, þæt man freólsian sceal ofer eal Engla-land on xv. Kal.
Aprilis.” Mark the way in which the Witan, as a matter of course, pass
an ordinance on this matter, which a century or two later would have
been held to be a matter of purely ecclesiastical concern.

Footnote 648:

Cap. 34, 35. “Ealle we scylan ǽnne God lúfian and weorðian, and ǽnne
cristendóm georne healdan, and ælcne hǽðendóm mid ealle áweorpan.”

“And utan ǽnne cyne-hláford holdlíce healdan; and líf and land samod
ealle werian, swá wel swá we betst magan, and God ealmihtigne inwerdre
heortan fultumes biddan.”

Footnote 649:

Will. Malms. ii. 156.

Footnote 650:

See p. 280.

Footnote 651:

Cap. 27.

Footnote 652:

Cap. 28.

Footnote 653:

Cap. 26.

Footnote 654:

Thorpe, i. 314; Schmid, 226.

Footnote 655:

It is headed, “Be Witena gerǽdnessan.” The statute begins, “Ðis sindon
þá gerǽdnessa, þe Engla rǽd-gifan gecuran and gecwǽdan, and geornlice
lǽrdan, þæt man scolde healdan.” And many clauses begin, “And witena
gerǽdnes is.” Mr. Kemble (ii. 212) remarks, “If it were not for one or
two enactments referring to the safety of the royal person and the
dignity of the crown, we might be almost tempted to imagine that the
great councillors of state had met, during Æðelred’s flight from
England, and passed these laws upon their own authority, without the
King.”

This is possible, and even tempting, but on the whole I think they
must belong to the years 1007–9. The great importance given to naval
preparations seems distinctly to refer them to this time. After the
return of Æthelred from Normandy in 1014 we read of no attempt at
naval warfare.

Footnote 656:

See above, p. 52.

Footnote 657:

See Appendix LL.

Footnote 658:

Cod. Dipl. iii. 352.

Footnote 659:

On the ship-money see Mr. Bruce’s Prefaces to the Calendars of State
Papers for 1634–5, pp. xxv. et seqq., and for 1635, pp. x. et seqq.

Footnote 660:

Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 753 A.

Footnote 661:

Will. Gem. v. 7. But this writer makes Swegen sail to Northumberland
immediately after the massacre in 1002, whereas he did not go thither
till 1013. So it is impossible to fix the time to which the treaty
should be referred. William may have confounded York and Exeter, or
the treaty may belong to a time later than Swegen’s invasion of
Northumberland.

Footnote 662:

Will. Gem. v. 8; Roman de Rou, 6868.

Footnote 663:

I here follow the words of the Chronicles almost literally.

Footnote 664:

See Appendix HH.

Footnote 665:

See Appendix MM.

Footnote 666:

Chron. “And þohte þæt he him micles wordes wyrcan sæolde.”

Footnote 667:

“Þa ðis þus cuð wǽs tó þam oðerum scipum þær se cyng wǽs, hu ða oþre
geferdon, hit wæs þa swilc hit eall rædleas wǽre; and ferde sé cyning
him hám, and þá ealdormen and ða heahwitan, and forleton þa scipu ðús
leohtlice; and þæt folc þa þæt on ðam scipon wæron fercodon [þa scypo]
eft to Lundene, and leton ealles þeodscypes geswinc ðus leohtlice
fórwurðan, and næs sé sige na betere þe eall Angelcyn tó hopode.”

Footnote 668:

On the career and character of Thurkill, see Appendix NN.

Footnote 669:

See Chron. and Florence in anno, and cf. Appendix NN.

Footnote 670:

See above, p. 323.

Footnote 671:

“East-Centingas.” Chron.

Footnote 672:

That is, if Rochester, with the strange diocese which modern
arrangements have attached to it, can any longer be looked upon as a
Kentish bishopric.

Footnote 673:

Flor. 1009. “Rex ... multis millibus armatorum instructus, et, ut
totus erat exercitus, mori vel vincere paratus.” But the Chronicles
guarantee only the devotion of the army, not that of its leader.

Footnote 674:

The Chronicles say only “Ac hit wæs þa þuruh Eadric ealdorman gelet,
swa hit gyt æfre wæs.” Florence describes the meaning of this
“letting;” “Insidiis et perplexis orationibus ne prœlium inirent, sed
ea vice suos hostes abire permitterent, modis omnibus allaboravit.”

Footnote 675:

One can hardly conceive that the movements of the Danes were at all
regulated by Lent and Easter; yet the language of our authority seems
to imply it.

Footnote 676:

Chronn. in anno. The Danes are met by “Ulfcytel mid his fyrde.” We
then read, “sona flugon East-Engle. Þa stod Grantabricscir fæstlice
ongean.” The treason of Thurcytel and the names of the slain also come
from the Chronicles. Florence adds the name of the place, Ringmere,
which occurs also in the confused accounts in the Sagas. See Appendix
HH and TT.

Footnote 677:

See Appendix SS.

Footnote 678:

See above, p. 314.

Footnote 679:

See Appendix OO.

Footnote 680:

“Man,” according to the familiar German idiom; it is impossible to
modernize the English without it, unless the whole force were to be
lost.

Footnote 681:

_Heafodman_ = _Captain_, like the German _Hauptmann_.

Footnote 682:

“And þonne hi tó scipon ferdon, þonne sceolde fyrd ut éft ongean þæt
hi up woldan; þonne ferde seo fyrd ham, and þonne bí wæron be easton
þonne heold man fyrde be westan, and þonne hí wæron be suðan, þonne
wæs ure fyrd be norðan. Þonne bead man eallan witan to cynge, and man
sceolde þonne rædan hu man þisne eard werian sceolde. Ac þeah mon
þonne hwæt rædde, þæt ne stód furðon ænne monað. Æt nextan næs nan
heafodman þet fyrde gaderian wolde, ac ælc fleah swa hí mæst mihte, ne
furðon nan scír nolde oþre gelæstan æt nextan.”

Footnote 683:

The Chronicles and Florence give the names. William of Malmesbury,
though professing to be at least half an Englishman, is too dainty to
copy the uncouth names of English shires. “Cum numerentur in Anglia
triginta duo pagi, illi jam sedecim invaserant, _quorum nomina propter
barbariem linguæ scribere refugio_.” (ii. 165.)

Footnote 684:

The Chronicles reckon Hastings, “Hæstingas,” as distinct from Sussex.

Footnote 685:

Chron. and Flor. Wig. in anno. Thietmar, who, for a time, becomes an
authority of some value, is amusing in the way in which he brings in
English affairs (vii. 26, ap. Pertz, iii. 847). “Audivi sæpius numero,
Anglos, ab angelica facie, id est pulcra, sive quod in angulo istius
terræ siti sunt, dictos, ineffabilem miseriam a Sueino, Haraldi filio,
immiti Danorum rege, perpessos esse, et ad id coactos, ut qui prius
tributarii erant principis apostolorum Petri ac sancti patris eorum
Gregorii spirituales filii, immundis canibus impositum sibi censum
quotannis solverent, et maximam regni suimet partem, capto ac
interemto habitatore, tunc hosti _fiducialiter_ in habitandam inviti
relinquerent.” This last clause reads more like a description of the
settlement of Guthrum than of anything that happened in Swegen’s time.

Footnote 686:

“Ealle þas ungesealða us gelumpon þurh _unrædes_.” Is there an
allusion to the name of Æthel_red_, and is this the origin of his
nickname of _Unready_? See above, p. 261.

Footnote 687:

It is suggested by Lappenberg, ii. 175.

Footnote 688:

The last entry is in 991 (see above, p. 284). The next is in 1033. Yet
these Chronicles are rather lavish than otherwise of notices of
English affairs.

Footnote 689:

Brut y Tywysogion, 1011. “One year and one thousand and ten was the
year of Christ, when Menevia was devastated by the Saxons, to wit, by
Entris and Ubis.” Annales Camb. 1012. “Menevia a Saxonibus vastata
est, scilicet Edris et Ubis.” Ann. Menevenses, 1011 (Angl. Sacr. ii.
648). “Menevia vastatur a Saxonibus, scilicet Edrich et Umbrich.” Here
at last we get Eadric’s right name; who Ubis or Umbrich may have been
it is vain to guess.

Footnote 690:

On the siege of Canterbury and martyrdom of Ælfheah, see Appendix PP.

Footnote 691:

The signatures of Godwine of Rochester seem to extend from 995 to
1046. Professor Stubbs (Reg. Sac. Angl. 17, 18) seems uncertain
whether they belong to one man or two. The famous Odo held the see of
Bayeux for as long a time.

Footnote 692:

Will. Malms, ii. 184. But see Wharton’s note to Osbern, Anglia Sacra,
ii. 124. Ælfheah’s sojourn at Glastonbury seems doubtful. He was a
monk at Bath, and he probably was Abbot there. (Flor. Wig. 984.) It
should be remembered that Bath was then an independent abbey. See vol.
iv. p. 421.

Footnote 693:

See Appendix PP.

Footnote 694:

Pelting people with bones at dinner seems to have been an established
Danish custom. It is allowed as the punishment of certain lesser
offences by Cnut’s “Witherlags Ret.” Swegen Aggesson, ap. Langebek,
iii. 148. See also a mythical story in Saxo, 115.

Footnote 695:

See vol. iv. p. 442.

Footnote 696:

On Thurkill’s conduct, see Appendix NN.

Footnote 697:

See above, pp. 308–309.

Footnote 698:

See Encomium Emmæ, i. 2, and Appendix NN.

Footnote 699:

Encomium Emmæ, i. 4.

Footnote 700:

Compare the saying of Thurkill just before; he will give any quantity
of gold and silver, anything _except his ship_, to redeem the life of
Ælfheah.

Footnote 701:

Compare the description of the splendid ship given by Godwine to
Harthacnut, Flor. Wig. 1040. Archbishop Ælfric also leaves King
Æthelred his best ship with its accoutrements. Cod. Dipl. iii. 351.

Footnote 702:

See above, p. 329.

Footnote 703:

He “soon” (sona) submitted, say the Chronicles; “sine cunctatione”
says Florence. William of Malmesbury (ii. 176) makes the most of it;
“Non quod in illorum mentibus genuinus ille calor, et dominorum
impatiens, refriguerit, sed quod princeps eorum Uhtredus primus
exemplum dederit.”

Footnote 704:

See above, p. 62.

Footnote 705:

“Sibi lectos auxiliarios de deditis sumens,” says Florence. This seems
also implied in the words of the Chronicles; “And hé þá wende syððan
suðweard mid _fulre fyrde_.” _Fyrd_ means the legal military array of
an English district; the Danish army is always _here_.

Footnote 706:

The Chronicles distinctly mark the geographical limit of his ravages;
“And syððan hé com ofer Wætlinga stræte, hi wrohton þæt mæste yfel þe
ænig here don mihte.”

Footnote 707:

Flor. Wig. “Suis edictum posuit, videlicet, ut agros vastarent,” &c.

Footnote 708:

William of Malmesbury (ii. 177), in the middle of his confused
narrative of this reign, lavishes a vast amount of fine writing on
this siege of London. The drowning of the Danes in the Thames is
attributed to the valour of the citizens, with which it clearly had
nothing to do. His character of the Londoners does not badly describe
that of the English generally; “Laudandi prorsus viri, et quos Mars
ipse collata non sperneret hasta, si ducem habuissent.” But the
Londoners had a leader, only William throughout refuses to name any
honourable act of Thurkill.

Footnote 709:

Florence ventures to say, “Æthelredus ... muros viriliter defendit.”

Footnote 710:

See Appendix QQ.

Footnote 711:

Compare Thucydides’ comment (iv. 12) on the battle at Pylos, where the
natural parts of the Lacedæmonians and the Athenians were reversed in
the like way; ἐς τοῦτό τε περιέστη ἡ τύχη ὥστε Ἀθηναίους μὲν ἐκ γῆς τε
καὶ ταύτης Λακωνικῆς ἀμύνεσθαι ἐκείνους ἐπιπλέοντας, Λακεδαιμονίους δὲ
ἐκ νεῶν τε καὶ ἐς τὴν ἑαυτῶν πολεμίαν οὖσαν ἐπ’ Ἀθηναίους ἀποβαίνειν.

Footnote 712:

The Chronicles distinctly make Emma and her sons go at two different
times, and they rather imply that Emma went of her own accord. “_Seo
hlæfdige wende_ þa ofer sǽ to hire broðor Ricarde and Ælfsige abbod of
Burh mid hire; and se cyning sende Ælfun bisceop mid þam æðelingum
Eadwearde and Ælfrede ofer sǽ.” Florence and William mix up the two
things together, but this trait in Emma’s character should not be
forgotten.

Footnote 713:

William of Malmesbury (ii. 177), seemingly to avoid naming Thurkill,
confuses everything. He makes Æthelred fly secretly from London to
Southampton, and thence to the Isle of Wight. He there holds a synod
of Bishops and Abbots (see Appendix OO), makes a long speech to them,
and sends Emma and the children across. Roger of Wendover tells the
same story, only without mentioning the Bishops. William of Jumièges
(v. 7) has a romance about Æthelred bringing over some hidden
treasures which he kept concealed at Winchester. He fancies that
Æthelred was living there, whereas the city was in the power of
Swegen. William, by this secret flight of Æthelred, at least avoids
this absurdity.

Footnote 714:

Roger of Wendover sends him across with a hundred and forty “milites.”
For a minute and highly-coloured version of the whole story, see Mr.
St. John, ii. 34.

Footnote 715:

Chron. 1013. “Þa bead Swegen ful gyld and metsunge to hís here ðóne
winter, and Þurkyl bead þæt ylce to ðam here þé læg æt Grenawíc, and
for eallon þam hí heregodon swa oft swa hí woldon.”

Footnote 716:

See above, pp. 44, 162, 268.

Footnote 717:

The epithet of Great however, in Danish annals, belongs not to him but
to his grandson Swegen Estrithson. Chron. Roskild. ap. Langebek, i.
378.

Footnote 718:

See Appendix QQ.

Footnote 719:

“Clericos,” says Florence; for Saint Eadmund’s was then held by
secular priests. It was Cnut who first placed monks there.

Footnote 720:

Florence calls it “generale placitum,” the same name which he applies
to the “mycel gemót,” the “magnum placitum,” of the next year.

Footnote 721:

“Magno cruciatus tormento, tertio nonas Februarii miserabili morte
vitam finivit.”

Footnote 722:

“Swegen geendode his dagas,” says the Chronicle, not a very usual
expression. It is applied two years afterwards to Æthelred, and, long
before, under 946, to the first Eadmund.

Footnote 723:

“Animam remittendo cœlestibus,” says the Encomiast (i. 5); “diro
corporis cruciatu ad tartara transmissus,” says Roger of Wendover (i.
449).

Footnote 724:

The Encomiast (i. 3 et al.) has more to tell of Harold than other
writers. He makes Harold the younger brother, which seems odd. Harold
is not mentioned by Saxo, but his name is found in the Danish
chronicles. According to the Chronicle of Eric (Lang. i. 159), the
Danes deposed Harold and elected Cnut, then deposed Cnut, on account
of his frequent absences from Denmark, and restored Harold, on whose
death Cnut finally succeeded. In the Knytlinga Saga, c. 8, Harold dies
before Swegen.

Footnote 725:

The Knytlinga Saga seems (Johnstone, 101) to make him only ten years
old in 1008; but nothing can be made of its chronology.

Footnote 726:

Chron. “And cwædon þat him nan hlaford leofra nære þonne heora gecynda
hlaford [in the Canterbury Chronicle _cyne-hlaford_], gif he hi
rihtlicor healdan wolde þonne he ær dyde.”

Footnote 727:

Flor. Wig. 1014. “Promittens se ... in omnibus eorum voluntati
consensurum consiliis acquieturum.”

Footnote 728:

Florence says only, “Principes se non amplius Danicum regem admissuros
in Angliam unanimiter spoponderunt.” But the Chronicles say expressly,
“æfre ælcne Deniscne cyning utlah of Englalande gecwædon.”

Footnote 729:

Thorpe, i. 340; Schmid, p. 242.

Footnote 730:

§§ 36, 37, 38. “And wíse wǽran worold-witan þe tó god-cundan rihtlagan
worold-laga settan, folce tó steóre, and Crist and cyninge gerihtan þá
bóte, þár man swá scolde manega for neóde gewildan tó rihte.”

“Ac on þám gemótan, þeáh rǽdlice wurðan on namcúðan stowan, æfter
Eádgares líf-dagum, Cristes lage wanodan, and cyninges lage lytledon.”

“And þa man getwǽmde, þæt ǽr wǽs gemǽne Criste and cyninge on
woroldlícre steóre, and á hit weorð þé wyrse for Gode and for worlde;
cume nú to bóte, gif hit God wille.” Cf. § 43, where the three Kings
are named.

Footnote 731:

Printed in Hickes’ Thesaurus, vol. i. pt. iii. p. 99. See Appendix RR.

Footnote 732:

Northern tradition assigns to Olaf Haraldsson, afterwards Saint Olaf,
a share in this campaign on the English side. But the account, like
most of the accounts in the sagas, is utterly unintelligible. See
Appendix VV.

Footnote 733:

The comment of the Chronicler is remarkable; “And wearð þæt earme folc
þus beswicen þurh hine.” Cnut betrayed them to Æthelred!

Footnote 734:

The Chronicles say twenty-one, Florence, thirty thousand. Henry of
Huntingdon follows the Chronicles.

Footnote 735:

See Appendix NN.

Footnote 736:

Chron. and Flor. in anno. Henry of Huntingdon introduces the fact with
the words, “Addidit autem Dominus malis solitis malum insolitum.”

Footnote 737:

On the children of Æthelred see Appendix SS.

Footnote 738:

See the story in Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. p. 315, ed. Hamilton.

Footnote 739:

See the Chronicles in the years 571 and 777.

Footnote 740:

See above, p. 316, and Appendix GG, and the curious story recorded in
the charter of Æthelred, 995, in Cod. Dipl. vi. 128. We there hear of
the church of Saint Helen, which has vanished in later times, and we
get the name of “Winsige, præpositus on Oxonaforda.”

Footnote 741:

Chron. in anno. “þæt mycel Gemót.” Flor. Wig. “Magnum placitum.” W.
Malms. “Magnum concilium.” The one Charter (Cod. Dipl. vi. 167) of
this year, and therefore probably of this Gemót, is a grant to Bishop
Beorhtwold (Brihtwold) of Sherborne of lands at Chilton in Berkshire,
formerly held by Wulfgeat, who was disgraced and his property
confiscated in 1006.

Footnote 742:

The Five Boroughs with the addition of York and Chester. Such at least
is the probable conjecture of Lingard, i. 296.

Footnote 743:

If Eadric was now restored to his old office of Ealdorman of the
Mercians, Oxford would be a town in his government, and the duty of
hospitality towards the Witan from other districts would naturally
fall upon him. See above, p. 327.

Footnote 744:

The marriage of Eadmund and his establishment in the North are
recorded by the Chronicles and by Florence, but more fully by William
of Malmesbury. As his details in no way contradict, but in some degree
explain, the account in the Chronicles, I do not scruple to follow
him.

Footnote 745:

“Visam concupivit, concupitæ communionem habuit,” says William. That
the “communio” was a lawful marriage is clear from the distinct words
of the Chronicles and from William’s own words afterwards. The
presence of Ealdgyth at Oxford suggests a question whether the Witan
usually brought their wives with them to these assemblies. The
question is not a frivolous one, as it bears on another, namely the
time which meetings of this sort usually lasted.

All the Chronicles speak of Eadmund’s wife as Sigeferth’s widow, and
Florence gives her the name of Ealdgyth. But in the will of Wulfric
(Cod. Dipl. vi. 149) we find an Ealdgyth wife of Morkere. Is there a
mistake of any kind, or did the brothers marry wives bearing the same
name?

Footnote 746:

I speak vaguely, because William of Malmesbury surely goes too far
when he speaks of “comitatus Sigeferdi, qui apud Northanhimbros
amplissimus erat.”

Footnote 747:

Was this submission willing or unwilling? The Chronicles are neutral.
“Gerad sona ealle Sigeferðes áre and Morcores; and þæt folc eal to him
beah.” Florence says, “Terram Sigeferthi et Morkeri invasit, ac
populum illarum sibi subjugavit.” But William has, “Comitatum ...
suapte industria vendicavit, hominibus ejusdem provinciæ in obsequium
ejus facile cedentibus.”

Footnote 748:

The Roskild Annals (Langebek, i. 376) make Eadmund imprison Cnut and
Olaf of Norway (who is here said to have accompanied Swegen); but who,
in other accounts (see Appendix VV), was vigorously fighting on the
English side. They escape from prison and fly to Bremen, where
Archbishop Unwan baptizes them. For this writer’s wonderful succession
of the English Kings, see also Appendix VV.

Footnote 749:

Encomium Emmæ, ii. 2.

Footnote 750:

The presence of Harold is asserted by Thietmar, vii. 28.

Footnote 751:

This is the version of the Encomiast, ii. 3. See Appendix NN.

Footnote 752:

Enc. Emmæ, ii. 4.

Footnote 753:

Chron. Rosk. ap. Lang. i. 376.

Footnote 754:

Enc. Emmæ, ii. 4. “In tanta expeditione nullus inveniebatur servus,
nullus ex servo libertus, nullus ignobilis, nullus senili ætate
debilis. Omnes enim erant nobiles, omnes plenæ ætatis robore
valentes.” When nobles were so plentiful, one is tempted to ask in
what nobility consisted?

Footnote 755:

“Be norðan,” say the Chronicles.

Footnote 756:

See Appendix NN.

Footnote 757:

They crossed “cum multo equitatu,” says Florence; “mid his here” say
the Chronicles, only the Peterborough and Canterbury manuscripts (one
of which, Canterbury, omits the words “mid his here”) add “clx.
scipa.” Do they mean that Cnut sailed up the Thames? The other reading
is distinctly preferable.

Footnote 758:

Here is a distinct allusion to the various passages in the laws of
this reign, denouncing penalties on those who fail to attend the royal
muster. See above, p. 337.

Footnote 759:

The Chronicles mention the ravaging without assigning any cause;
Florence adds, “quia adversus Danorum exercitum ad pugnam exire
noluerunt.” William of Malmesbury sets forth the policy of this severe
course at some length.

Footnote 760:

“Bea þa for nede,” say the Chronicles; William of Malmesbury again
expands at some length. Simeon (X Scriptt. p. 80) makes Cnut summon
Uhtred to submit, to which summons the Earl returns a spirited reply.
But after Æthelred’s death he yielded. The chronology is wrong, as
Uhtred certainly submitted before Æthelred’s death, but the facts are
likely enough.

Footnote 761:

His extent of territory is well marked by William of Malmesbury;
“Commendatis West-Saxonibus, et Merciorum parte quam subjecerat,
ducibus suis, ipse in Northanhimbros profectus.” London probably
protected Essex. We hear nothing of East-Anglia, but see Appendix NN.

Footnote 762:

The murders of Uhtred and Thurcytel are mentioned in the Chronicles;
Florence adds the name of Thurbrand. The other details come from the
tract of Simeon before quoted. The share of Eadric in the business
comes from one version of the Chronicles.

Footnote 763:

The Earl thus appointed appears as Yric, Egricus, Iricius, Hyrc. Yet
Mr. Thorpe not only, in his edition of Florence, invests Eadric
himself with the earldom, but thrusts—without any sign of
interpolation—this erroneous statement into the text of his
translation of Lappenberg (ii. 186), whereas, in the original (452),
Lappenberg is silent about the fate of Uhtred altogether. On the past
history of Eric, see the Saga of Olaf Haraldsson, c. 13; Laing’s
Heimskringla, ii. 192.

Footnote 764:

The Chronicles seem to place Eadmund’s departure for London after the
submission of Uhtred, Florence places it before. William says, “Ita
subjectis omnibus, Edmundum, per semetra fugitantem, non prius
persequi destitit [Cnuto] quam Londoniam ad patrem pervenisse
cognosceret.”

Footnote 765:

William adds, “usque post pascha quievit, ut cum omnibus copiis urbem
adoriretur.”

Footnote 766:

On all the points of the Double Election, see Appendix TT.

Footnote 767:

“Unanimi consensu,” says Florence.

Footnote 768:

See Appendix SS.

Footnote 769:

This surname is not only found in the Latin writers, but also in the
poem in the Chronicles on the return of Eadmund’s son Eadward in 1057;

“Eadmund cing
Irensíd was geclypod
For his snellscipe.”

Footnote 770:

On the order of events in the war of Cnut and Eadmund, see Appendix
VV.

Footnote 771:

The date is fixed in the Chronicles, “to þam gangdagum;” so in
Florence, “circa rogationes.”

Footnote 772:

The first ditch is recorded in the Chronicles, which say expressly,
“Hi ða dulfon áne mycle díc on suð healfe.” William of Malmesbury (ii.
18o), though he places the work later, after the battle of Sherstone,
speaks of the other ditch which surrounded the city, reaching no doubt
from the river to the river again; “fossa etiam urbem, qua fluvio
Tamensi non alluitur, foris totam cinxerat.” That these are not two
descriptions of the same ditch appears from the account in Florence,
which takes in both; “in australi parte Tamensis magnam scrobem
foderunt, et naves suas in occidentalem plagam pontis traxerunt; dein
urbem alta lataque fossa et obsidione cingentes,” &c. &c. I therefore,
with Lappenberg (ii. 188), understand the story as I have told it in
the text; the phrase “traxerunt” (so in the Chronicles “drogon”) seems
to mean that the ships were towed along the new-made canal.

Footnote 773:

Flor. Wig. “In West-Saxoniam abierunt propere, et regi Eadmundo
Ferreo-Lateri spatium congregandi exercitum non dedere, quibus tamen
ille cum exercitu quem in tantillo spatio congregaret, Dei fretus
auxilio, audacter in Dorsetania occurrit.” On “Dorsetania” see
Appendix VV.

Footnote 774:

The scene of Eadmund’s battle “æt Peonnan wið Gillingahám” (Chron.),
“in loco qui Peonnum vocatur, juxta Gillingaham” (Flor.), is
undoubtedly Pen Selwood. I am far from being so certain whether the
spot “æt Peonnum” (Chron. 658), where Cenwealh defeated the Welsh, is
the same, or another of the Pens in the same county. The word _Pen_
(head) is a specimen of the Celtic names which still survive in the
local nomenclature of this Teutonized, but not purely Teutonic,
district. Close to Pen Selwood, “Pen Pits” and a neighbouring
encampment called Orchard Castle supply good primæval studies. The
latter is not unlike a miniature model of the more renowned hill of
Senlac.

Footnote 775:

“Æfter middansumere,” say the Chronicles; Florence adds that the first
day of the battle was “Lunæ dies.”

Footnote 776:

“Ælmær Dyrling,” “Ælmarus Dilectus.” Florence alone adds, “Algarus
filius Meawes,” and implies, still more distinctly than the
Chronicles, that Ælfmær and Ælfgar, as well as Eadric, were bound to
Eadmund by some special tie—“qui ei auxilio esse debuerunt.”

Footnote 777:

Flor. Wig. “Optimum quemque in primam aciem subducit, cæterum
exercitum in subsidiis locat.” We must remember these tactics when we
come to the great fight of Senlac.

Footnote 778:

“Lanceis et gladiis pugna geritur.” See above, p. 273.

Footnote 779:

“Strenui militis et boni imperatoris officia simul exsequebatur” (so
Il. iii. 179, ἀμφότερον βασιλεύς τ’ ἀγαθὸς κρατερός τ’ αἰχμητής), says
Florence, who grows eloquent on Eadmund’s exploits. This praise must
have been common to every general of those days who deserved to be
called a general at all; yet it is often recorded to the special
honour of particular commanders, as we shall find it in a very marked
way of both Harold and William. William of Malmesbury (Hist. Nov. ii.
34) speaks in the same way of Earl Robert of Gloucester; “Ubicumque
commode fieri posse videbat, et militis et ducis probe officium
exequebatur.” Yet Abbot Suger, in his life of Lewis the Fat (c. 20;
Duchesne, Scriptt. Franc. iv. 304), blames his own hero because “ultra
quam deceret majestatem, miles emeritus militis officio, non regis,
singulariter decertabat.” So Orderic (885 D) says of William of
Flanders, “ipse ducis et militis officio plerumque fungebatur unde a
caris tutoribus pro illo formidantibus crebro redarguebatur.”

Footnote 780:

On this incident, see Appendix VV.

Footnote 781:

Fl. Wig. “Ut naturalem dominum [no doubt _cyne-hláford_] requisivit
illum.”

Footnote 782:

Ib. “Exercitu vice tertia congregato.” The armies seem always to
disperse after an action, whether a victory or a defeat. I conceive
that the local levies, like the Highlanders ages afterwards, returned
home after each battle, while the immediate following of the King or
Ealdorman largely remained with him. An invader had the advantage that
all his troops were _comitatus_; the Danes had no means of going back
to their houses and families.

Footnote 783:

Flor. Wig. “Rex Eadmundus Ferreum Latus exercitum fortem de tota
Anglia quarto congregavit.”

Footnote 784:

I adopt the description of William of Malmesbury, evidently a fragment
of a ballad; “Fluvius ille Rofensem urbem præterfluens, violentus et
rapaci gurgite minax, mœnia pulcra lavat.”

Footnote 785:

See above, p. 45. Was it any confused remembrance of this fact which
led the Encomiast (see Appendix VV) to make Cnut’s army winter in
Sheppey now?

Footnote 786:

On the site of Assandun see Appendix VV.

Footnote 787:

The battle of Assandun in several points suggests that of Senlac, and
the details given of Assandun help to explain several questions
connected with the later fight. Henry of Huntingdon preserves some
very valuable hints on this head.

Footnote 788:

Hen. Hunt. “Loco regio relicto, quod erat ex more inter draconem et
insigne quod vocatur Standard.” The full importance of this passage
will be seen at a later stage of my history. The West-Saxon Dragon
figures prominently in Henry’s narrative of the battle of Burford in
752 (see above, p. 38). In Saxo (p. 192) the dragons become eagles,
but this is clearly only by way of being classical, as one Tymmo, a
valiant Dane from Zealand, figures as _aquilifer_ on the other side,
when he surely ought to have been _corvifer_.

Footnote 789:

The Danish Raven, according to the story, opened its mouth and
fluttered its wings before a victory, but held its wings down before a
defeat. The legend is well known; I get it on this occasion from the
Encomiast, whose tale is chiefly valuable as witnessing to the
presence of Thurkill. See Appendix VV.

Footnote 790:

Flor. Wig. “Interea Canutus paullatim in æquum locum suos deducit.”

Footnote 791:

Ibid. “Rex Eadmundus aciem, sicuti instruxerat, velociter movet, et
repente signo dato Danos invadit.” This seems to imply the charge down
hill. In the rhetoric of Henry of Huntingdon we may spy out fragments
of a ballad which may have rivalled those of Brunanburh and Maldon;
“Loco regio relicto ... cucurrit terribilis in aciem primam. Vibrans
igitur gladium electum et brachio juvenis Edmundi dignum, _modo
fulminis_ fidit aciem,” &c. So Hist. Ram. lxxii. (Gale, i. 433);
“Ædricus ... videns Ædmundum _furore fulmineo_ hostium aciem
penetrantem.” Cf. Draco Normannicus, i. 318;

“Fulguris instar habens hostibus ense fremit.”

As the Danes no doubt keep their shield-wall, we may compare the
charge of the Alemanni in the battle of Strassburg, Ammianus, xvi. 12;
“Barbari in modum exarsere flammarum, nexamque scutorum compagem, quæ
nostros in modum testudinis tuebatur, scindebant ictibus gladiorum
adsiduis.”

Mark that the sword is still the English weapon.

Footnote 792:

Chron. “Eadric ... aswác swa his cynehlaforde and ealre Angelcynnes
þeode.”

Footnote 793:

Chron. “Þær ahte Cnut sige, and gefeht him alle Engla þeode.” See Mr.
Earle’s note, p. 340.

Footnote 794:

Chron. “And eall Angelcynnes duguð þar wearð fordon.”

Footnote 795:

See above, p. 283.

Footnote 796:

Will. Malms. ii. 180. “Ulfkillus Est-Anglorum comes, perpetuam jam
famam meritus tempore Swani, quando, primus omnium piratas adorsus,
spem dedit posse illos superari.”

Footnote 797:

See above, p. 264.

Footnote 798:

See the story in Appendix AA.

Footnote 799:

Florence, by an odd forestalling, calls him “Lindicolinensis.”

Footnote 800:

“Qui ad exorandum Deum pro milite bellum agente convenerant,” says
Florence. So the Ramsey historian (lxxii.); “Qui, cum multis aliis
religiosis personis, juxta morem Anglorum veterem, ibidem convenerant,
non armis, sed orationum suppetiis, pugnantem exercitum juvaturi.” Yet
I confess that the calm way in which the Chronicles reckon the
prelates among the slain alongside of the ealdormen looks to me the
other way.

Footnote 801:

See above, pp. 279, 340.

Footnote 802:

Ealhstan, Bishop of Sherborne, fills a prominent place in the wars of
the ninth century. See the Chronicles in the years 823, 845. (Cf. 871
and Will. Malms. ii. 131, for other fighting prelates of that age.) Of
Ealdred’s exploits, mostly unlucky, we shall hear much in the course
of the next fifty years. Another warrior Bishop will be found in the
Chronicles under the year 1056.

Footnote 803:

Enc. Emm. ii. 11.

Footnote 804:

Enc. Emm. ii. 11. “Londoniam repetentes, saniora sibi quærunt
consilia.” I do not fully understand these words.

Footnote 805:

Hist. Ram. lxxiii.; Hist. Elien. ii. 21 (Gale, 502; Stewart, 196). The
Ramsey historian grudges the possession of Eadnoth’s body to the rival
house, and will hardly believe the miracles which were said to
vindicate the claim of Ely. It is rather odd that the Ely historian
mentions neither the miracles nor the burial of Eadnoth, but he goes
on to say that the Ely monks went to the field with certain of the
relics of their church, which were lost. Some, he says, said that Cnut
carried them away and placed them at Canterbury. Such a pious robbery
would be quite in harmony with Cnut’s later character.

Footnote 806:

Fl. Wig. 1016. “Occisus est in ea pugna ... totus fere globus
nobilitatis Anglorum, qui nullo in bello majus umquam vulnus quam ibi
acceperunt.” W. Malms. ii. 180. “Ibi Cnuto regnum expugnavit, ibi omne
decus Angliæ occubuit, ibi flos patriæ totus emarcuit.” H. Hunt. M. H.
B. 756 B. “Illic igitur miranda strages Anglorum facta est; illic
occisus est ... omnis flos nobilitatis Brittanniæ.” For the entry in
the Chronicles, see p. 393, note 3.

Footnote 807:

See Appendix WW.

Footnote 808:

Flor. Wig. “Licet invitus, ad ultimum quum consentiret.”

Footnote 809:

On this conference between Eadmund and Cnut, and the process by which
in most later accounts it has grown into a single combat between the
rival Kings, see Appendix WW.

Footnote 810:

So I infer from the proceedings of Cnut after the death of Eadmund.

Footnote 811:

As Glaukos and Diomêdês, Il. vi. 230 et seqq.; Hektôr and Aias, vii.
303. Compare the brotherhood among the early Moslems; Muir’s Life of
Mahomet, iii. 17. The same institution is found among the Dalmatian
Morlacchi, where the sworn brothers or sisters (_Pobratimi_ and
_Posestrime_) were united by a special religious ceremony. See Fortis,
Viaggio in Dalmazia, i. 58 (cf. Grote’s Greece, ii. 117); Petter,
Dalmazien, i. 226. It seems to exist among other Slaves as well, and
we shall come across other cases in our own story.

Footnote 812:

“Armis et _vestibus_ mutatis,” says Florence, but, if the tradition as
to the personal stature of the two kings be correct, a judgement of
Cyrus would have been presently needed to restore the clothes to their
former owners.

Footnote 813:

See the extract from the Encomium in Appendix WW.

Footnote 814:

See Appendix XX.

Footnote 815:

Chronn. “His lic lið on Glæstingabyrig mid his ealdan fæder Eadgare.”

Footnote 816:

On the Glastonbury tombs, see Willis, Architectural History of
Glastonbury, p. 33. The first burying-place of Eadmund was before the
high altar (Will. Malms. de Ant. Glast. Eccl. ap. Gale, p. 306). His
tomb must have been removed on the Invention of Arthur in the time of
Henry the Second.

Footnote 817:

“De bellis vero regis Edmundi, et de fortitudine ejus, nonne hæc
scripta sunt in historiis veterum cum laude summa?” H. Hunt. M. H. B.
755 D.

In a Melrose manuscript, lately printed at Göttingen (for which I have
to thank Dr. Pauli), there are verses in honour of Eadmund’s later
Scottish descendant William the Lion and of Eadmund himself. His
panegyric runs;

“Firma basis fidei, plebis protectio, regni
Tutor solque suo tempore solus erat.
In cives clemens, in principe civis, in hostes
Atrox, multiplici dote beatus homo.”

His battles and victories are reckoned at twelve;

“Mirum! bis seno conflixit Marte, thriumfus,
Tot totiens victis intitulavit eum.”

A West-Saxon poet might perhaps not have added;

“A! nullum ejus post ortum breviter fero talem,
Anglia se doleat non genuisse virum.”

Such a reign as Eadmund’s was not likely to be rich in documents.
There is one charter (Cod. Dipl. iii. 369) of “Eadmundus æðeling rex,”
granting lands “æt Pegecyrcan” (Peakirk in Northamptonshire) to the
New Minster at Winchester. Its style, less turgid than that of most
Latin documents of the kind, may be characteristic either of the man
or of the circumstances of the time. The time when Eadmund was most
likely to exercise acts of sovereignty in Northamptonshire would be in
the autumn of 1016, between the battles of Otford and Assandun, when
he was drawing troops from Lindesey and other distant parts of the
kingdom.

Footnote 818:

Our authorities for this period are nearly the same as those for the
reign of Æthelred. The Chronicles and Florence are still our main
guides, and, as Florence draws nearer to his own time, he more
commonly inserts independent matter which is not to be found in the
Chronicles. We get the same kind of supplementary help as before from
the secondary English authorities, the later and the local writers. We
have the same hard task as before in trying to reconcile the English
accounts with the various Scandinavian sagas and chronicles. The
Encomium Emmæ becomes of greater importance, but it must still be used
with caution, as it is clear that the writer, though contemporary, was
deeply prejudiced and often very ill informed. We now also begin to
draw our first help from one most valuable document, the contemporary
Life of Eadward the Confessor, published by Mr. Luard. This was
written, between the years 1066 and 1074, by one who was intimately
acquainted with Godwine and his family, and it helps us to many facts
and aspects of facts which are not to be found elsewhere. But the most
important point with regard to our authorities for this time is that
we must now cease to quote the English Chronicles as one work. The
differences between the various copies now begin to assume a real
historical importance. The narratives often differ widely from each
other, and often show widely different ways of looking at men and
things. They show that something very like the distinction of Whig and
Tory can be traced as far back as the eleventh century. I first
pointed out the difference of feeling which the different Chronicles
display with regard to Godwine in a paper on the Earl’s Life and
Death, in the Archæological Journal for 1854–1855. Since that time Mr.
Earle, in the Introduction to his “Two of the Saxon Chronicles
Parallel,” has gone fully and exhaustively into the matter from his
point of view, and has given what may be called biographies of the
various records which are commonly confounded under the name of “the
Saxon Chronicle.” I shall hereafter follow Mr. Earle’s nomenclature
(grounded on that of Jocelin, Secretary to Archbishop Parker), and
shall quote them as follows. The manuscript commonly quoted as “C. C.
C. C. clxxiv.” I quote as the _Winchester_ Chronicle. For our period
this Chronicle contains only a few entries added at Canterbury. “Cott.
Tib. B. i.” is the _Abingdon_ Chronicle, the only one hostile to
Godwine. “Cod. Tib. B. iv.” is the _Worcester_ Chronicle. “Bodl. Laud.
636” is the _Peterborough_ Chronicle, strongly Godwinist. (This part
however was composed at Worcester, the Chronicle being transcribed and
continued at Peterborough.) “Cott. Domit. A. viii.” is _Canterbury_,
the least valuable of all, but of more importance now than in earlier
times.

Footnote 819:

_Cnut_ or _Knud_, in one syllable, is this King’s true name, and the
best Latin form is _Cnuto_, according to the usual way of Latinizing
Scandinavian names. See above, p. 165. The form _Canutus_ seems to
have arisen from Pope Paschal the Second’s inability to say _Cnut_.
The later King Cnut, the supposed martyr, was therefore canonized by
him as “Sanctus Canutus.” See Æthelnoth’s Life of Saint Cnut, capp.
iv. vi. xxxiii. (Langebek, iii. 340, 382). The writer, an English monk
settled in Denmark, thinks the lengthening of the name a great honour,
and compares it with the change from Abram to Abraham; but he somewhat
inconsistently cuts down his own name to _Ailnothus_.

Footnote 820:

Nothing can be made of the unintelligible story in Snorro (c. 25;
Laing, ii. 21, and see Appendix VV), according to which the sons of
Æthelred and Emma, assisted by Olaf of Norway and his foster-father
Rane, made an unsuccessful attempt upon England after Eadmund’s death.
The tale may have arisen from some confusion with the later attempt on
behalf of the Æthelings made by Duke Robert of Normandy. Snorro is
throughout, as we shall often have occasion to see, most ill informed
on English affairs. Can this Rane be the same as Ranig, whom we find
Earl of the Magesætas twenty years later?

Footnote 821:

See above, p. 367.

Footnote 822:

See above, p. 381.

Footnote 823:

On Cnut’s apparently territorial title, see Appendix M.

Footnote 824:

On the accession of Cnut to the whole kingdom, see Appendix TT.

Footnote 825:

I borrow the title from Florence’s description of Cnut’s son Harold,
“Rex Merciorum et Northhymbrorum,” in recording the analogous event of
1037.

Footnote 826:

On the brothers of Eadmund who were living, see Appendix SS.

Footnote 827:

See above, p. 397, and Appendix WW.

Footnote 828:

Fl. 1016. “Fratres et filios Eadmundi omnino despexerunt, eosque reges
esse negaverunt.” Compare the former exclusion of the whole house of
Æthelred. See above, p. 381.

Footnote 829:

Fl. 1017. “_Fœdus_ etiam cum principibus et _omni populo_ (see
Appendix Q) ipse, et illi cum ipso percusserunt.”

Footnote 830:

See Appendix TT.

Footnote 831:

On the two Eadwigs, see Appendix YY.

Footnote 832:

The fourfold division is well marked in a Charter of Æthelred (Cod.
Dipl. iii. 314), which is said to be witnessed by thegns “ǽgðer ge of
West-Sexan, ge of Myrcean, ge of Denon, ge of Englon.” The “Danes”
here must mean the Northumbrians, and the “English,” distinctively so
called, the East-Angles.

Footnote 833:

Florence calls Thurkill and Eric _comites_, Eadric alone _dux_. I
conceive that _comes_ is meant to translate _eorl_, and _dux_ to
translate _ealdorman_. Probably Eadric kept the English title; if so,
it was its last use in the old half-kingly sense, and in a year or two
the title dies out altogether from the Chronicles, though its use
still goes on in private documents, and even in Cnut’s own Laws.

Footnote 834:

See above, p. 379.

Footnote 835:

So we now apply the title of Lord Lieutenant—the nearest modern
approach to the ancient Ealdorman—both to the Viceroy of the ancient
kingdom of Ireland and to the military chief of a single county.

Footnote 836:

On the origin of Godwine, see Appendix ZZ.

Footnote 837:

Vita Eadw. ap. Luard, p. 392. “Quum consilio cautissimus, tum bellicis
rebus ab ipso rege probatus est strenuissimus. Erat quoque morum
æqualitate tam cunctis quam ipsi regi gratissimus, assiduo laboris
accinctu incomparabilis, jocunda et prompta affabilitate omnibus
affabilis.” Presently he is “profundus eloquio.” William of Malmesbury
also (ii. 197) speaks of Godwine’s eloquence; “Homo affectati leporis,
et ingenue gentilitia lingua eloquens, mirus dicere, mirus populo
persuadere quæ placerent.”

Footnote 838:

See Appendix ZZ.

Footnote 839:

See Appendix AAA.

Footnote 840:

On the marriage of Cnut and Emma, see Appendix BBB.

Footnote 841:

Will. Malms, ii. 181. “Ut, dum consuetæ dominæ deferrent obsequium,
minus Danorum suspirarent imperium.”

Footnote 842:

See Appendix VV.

Footnote 843:

Hen. Hunt. M. H. B. 752 A. “Emma, Normannorum gemma.” So Godfrey,
Prior of Winchester, in the Epigrammata Historica printed in Wright’s
Satirical Poets, ii. 148;

“Splendidior gemma meriti splendoribus Emma.”

Footnote 844:

Flod. A. 951; Richer, ii. 101; Palgrave, ii. 619. Lewis himself was
much younger than his wife Gerberga, daughter of Henry the Fowler and
widow of Gilbert of Lotharingia.

Footnote 845:

See Appendix BBB.

Footnote 846:

See above, p. 315.

Footnote 847:

See above, p. 406.

Footnote 848:

See above, p. 374. Alberic of Trois-Fontaines (51) makes them children
of Eadwig.

Footnote 849:

Flor. Wig. 1017.

Footnote 850:

This rumour is preserved by the so-called Bromton, 907. Though the
authority of this writer is as low as anything can be, the trait is
characteristic, and savours of a contemporary scandal-monger.

Footnote 851:

Sigrid, widow of Eric the Victorious, and mother of Olaf of Sweden,
was mother of Cnut by her second marriage with Swegen. J. Magni Hist.
Goth. xvii, 17, 18 (Rome, 1554) Olaf died in 1018. Swedish tradition
says much of his friendship and hereditary alliance with England,
especially with King “Mildredus” or “Eldredus,” of all which I find no
trace in English history.

Footnote 852:

Adam Brem. ii. 50, 56.

Footnote 853:

Florence, followed by Roger of Wendover, calls the Hungarian King
Solomon. But Solomon did not begin to reign till 1063. Stephen died in
1038. Thwrocz, Chron. Hung. c. xxxiv.; Scriptt. Rev. Hung. (Wien
1746), p. 98. The Chronicles at this stage are silent on the matter,
but the poem in the Worcester Chronicle under 1057 says that Cnut sent
Eadward “on Ungerland to beswicane”—Sweden is not mentioned. Adam of
Bremen (ii. 51) gives them another refuge; “in Ruzziam exsilio
damnati.” So Karamsin, Hist. de Russie, ii. 48.

Footnote 854:

So Florence; “in nativitate Domini, cum esset Lundoniæ.” A different
order of events might perhaps be inferred from the Chronicles; but
Florence is clearly more careful in his arrangement in this place.

Footnote 855:

“Æðelmæres þæs greatan,” say the Abingdon, Worcester, and Peterborough
annalists. What kind of greatness is implied? This may be the
Æthelweard who is said to have failed to slay Eadwig; but this
Æthelweard and this Æthelmær must be distinguished from the real or
supposed brothers of Eadric. So Brihtric must be distinguished from
the Brihtric of the year 1009.

Footnote 856:

See Appendix CCC.

Footnote 857:

Hist. Eves. 84. “Cnuto ... fecit occidi Edricum ... cum quo etiam et
aliis pluribus suis militibus, quidam potens homo, Normannus vocabulo,
frater scilicet hujus Leofrici comitis, perimitur ejus jussione.”

Footnote 858:

See below, p. 418.

Footnote 859:

Florence (1017) asserts their injustice; the victims died “sine
culpa.”

Footnote 860:

As Lappenberg (ii. 200) seems to think, on the strength of a passage
in the Ramsey History, c. 84. If this be the necessary meaning of the
Ramsey writer, his authority is very small on such a point, and the
general course of Cnut’s conduct looks quite the other way.

Footnote 861:

See Appendix SS.

Footnote 862:

See above, p. 379.

Footnote 863:

On the different versions of the tale, see Appendix DDD.

Footnote 864:

So Florence; “Quia timebat insidiis ab eo aliquando circumveniri,
sicut domini sui priores Ægelredus et Eadmundus frequenter sunt
circumventi.”

Footnote 865:

See above, pp. 278, 326.

Footnote 866:

See above, p. 205, 233.

Footnote 867:

See Appendix CCC.

Footnote 868:

Thietmar, viii. 5. “In Anglis triginta navium habitatores piratæ a
rege eorum, Suenni regis filio, Deo gratias, occisi sunt; et qui prius
cum patre hujus erat invasor et assiduus destructor provinciæ, nunc
solus sedit defensor, ut in Libycis basiliscus arenis cultore vacuis.”

Footnote 869: