Chapter XXXV: Appendix: NOTE A. p. 3 (7)

There is no representation in the whole of the Tapestry which is more thoroughly puzzling than the one referred to in the text (pl. 4), with its legend “Ubi unus clericus et Ælfgyva.” Who is the lady, bearing a purely English name, who is thus suddenly introduced, seemingly at the gate of William’s palace, with no apparent reference to anything before or after? One would naturally look for the figure of William’s wife or daughter in such a position, rather than for that of any other woman. Harold’s promise to marry William’s daughter, which is so prominently dwelt upon in every other version of the story, is not once alluded to in the Tapestry, unless this place has reference to it. But how could William’s wife or William’s daughter be described by the familiar English proper name Ælfgifu? On the other hand, what chance is there that any Englishwoman, really bearing the name of Ælfgifu, could be present in Duke William’s palace at such a moment? And if any such Ælfgifu really was there, what bearing had her presence on the general course of the story, so as to account for the prominent position thus given to her?

Some of these difficulties naturally struck the very earliest commentators on the Tapestry, and from their days to ours a series of the wildest conjectures have been poured forth with regard to the “Ælfgyva” in question. The matter is treated of by Lancelot (Mémoires de l’Académie, viii. 612), by De la Rue and his translator Mr. Douce (Archæologia, xvii. 100), by Mr. Amyot (Archæologia, xix. 199), by De la Rue again in his Appendix of 1824 (Recherches sur la Tapisserie, p. 53), by Mr. Bolton Corney (p. 19), by Dr. Bruce (p. 53), and lastly by Mr. Planché (Journal of Archæological Association, 1867, p. 142). The strange thing is that several of these writers seem not to have understood that Ælfgifu is simply a very common English name, but to have fancied that it was a sort of title, meaning Queen or Princess. Their stumbling-block was the double name of Eadward’s mother, “Ælfgifu-Emma,” in which formula Lancelot argued that _Ælfgifu_ was equivalent to _Hlæfdige_. Any one who turns to the passages which I have referred to will find a great number of guesses, some of which refute themselves, while others are refuted by other writers in the dispute. “Ælfgyva” has been identified with the Duchess Matilda, with her daughter Adeliza, with Harold’s sister Eadgyth and his wife Ealdgyth, while some have taken the trouble to show that she cannot be either Ælfgifu-Emma or “the other Ælfgifu” (see vol. i. p. 453). What it is that Ælfgyva and the clerk are doing no one seems to know for certain, neither can I throw any light on the matter. Out of all this mass I will only, by way of relaxation, quote Mr. Bolton Corney’s remarks, as at once the most curious and the least generally accessible.

“William promised to bestow one of his daughters on Harold. She is represented beneath the inscription ÆLFGYVA—but Elfgiva was not her name. Emma, daughter of Richard I. of Normandy, and mother of Edward the Confessor, is sometimes called by the Saxon annalists _Elfgiva_ Emma. _Elfgiva therefore, whatever we read in Florence of Worcester, seems to have been an appellation of honour_, and may have been understood as such by the _Saxons Bayeusains_. If so, why was the name of the betrothed omitted? Could it not be ascertained, or was it deemed superfluous? I apprehend the latter to have been the case; she was the DAME _par excellence_—she was _buried_ and was _annually commemorated_ at Bayeux.”

We may infer then, First, that the Saxon language was spoken at Bayeux in the thirteenth century, the date to which Mr. Corney assigns the Tapestry; Secondly, that in the Saxon language of Bayeux _Ælfgyva_ meant “Lady;” Thirdly, that one particular daughter of William was known, distinctively and familiarly, as “_the_ Ælfgyva;” Fourthly, that Mr. Bolton Corney understood Old-English better than Florence of Worcester.

Now leaving all wild conjectures, let us try and see what really suggests itself about this obscure matter. The Tapestry represents a woman named Ælfgifu as being in Duke William’s palace at the moment of Harold’s coming thither. Who was she? We may put aside Matilda and all other women who never were, or could have been, called Ælfgifu. We may put aside all those women who were named Ælfgifu but who were dead and buried at the time. But of all the women named Ælfgifu who were living at the time, which could have been in William’s palace at that particular moment? Several guesses have occurred to me at different times. They are mere guesses, of no more value than the guesses of other writers. They are all, I allow, improbable guesses, but I think that they have the advantage over some other guesses of not being absolutely impossible.

1. In my second volume (p. 629) I threw out, half in jest, the suggestion that Ælfgifu, the name assumed by Emma on her marriage with Æthelred, was the name usually assumed by foreign women who married English husbands. Is it possible that there is really something in this? Is it possible that William’s daughter, if she had married Harold, would have had to change her name to Ælfgifu? Is it possible that she is here called Ælfgifu proleptically, perhaps sarcastically? This is, I grant, very far-fetched and unlikely, but it is perhaps not absolutely impossible. We should certainly expect the Tapestry to contain some reference to the intended marriage between Harold and William’s daughter. We should certainly expect to find William’s daughter, rather than any other girl or woman, represented where we find Ælfgifu represented. And here is a way, however far-fetched, in which it is just possible she might be called Ælfgifu.

2. Ælfgifu was (see vol. ii. p. 629) the name of the widow of Ælfgar, the mother of Harold’s wife Ealdgyth. According to some accounts, she was of Norman birth. Could she have been living or visiting in Normandy at this time? And can her introduction have any reference to Harold’s marriage with her daughter?

3. I have mentioned in my second volume (p. 554) the probability that Harold had a sister of the name of Ælfgifu, and that she must have been the sister whom Harold (Eadmer, p. 5; Sim. Dun. 1066) promised, as part of his oath, to give in marriage to one of William’s nobles. Is it possible that she was in Normandy at this time? If Harold’s voyage really was, as I believe it to have been, a mere yachting expedition, he may very well have been accompanied by his sister, as well as by his brother and his nephew. If it should be asked how Ælfgifu came to be in William’s palace while her brother was still a captive at Beaurain, it may be answered that even Guy may not have pressed his right of wreck so far as to imprison a woman, and that it is certain that one or more of Harold’s party escaped Guy’s clutches, if only to carry the news of his imprisonment to William (see above, p. 224). If therefore Harold was accompanied by his sister, it is quite possible she might find her way to Rouen before he did. I throw this out as a mere conjecture, and it certainly has its difficulties about it, but every explanation of this puzzling group must be mere conjecture, and it certainly strikes me that this conjecture has less of difficulty about it than some of the others.

Whomever we fix upon as the Ælfgifu of the Tapestry, it is still by no means clear what is happening between her and the clerk, or why the incident should receive so prominent a place in the pictured story. Like the introduction of Turold, Vital, and Wadard, there is evidently an allusion to some fact which was perfectly well known at the time, but of which no other record has been preserved. As such, it is another witness to the contemporary date, and thereby to the authority, of the Tapestry.

NOTE T. p. 229.

THE BRETON CAMPAIGN OF WILLIAM AND HAROLD.

Our only detailed accounts of this campaign come from William of Poitiers and the Tapestry. Between these two both Lord Lyttelton (i. 354) and Mr. Planché (145) see a distinct contradiction; only Lord Lyttelton assumes that the Tapestry must be wrong because it contradicts William of Poitiers, while Mr. Planché assumes that William of Poitiers must be wrong because he contradicts the Tapestry. But there is really no distinct contradiction between the two authorities; their accounts may easily be reconciled, if we only suppose a somewhat remarkable omission on the part of William of Poitiers.

William tells us that the object of the expedition was to deliver Dol, which was held on Duke William’s behalf by Rhiwallon, and that Conan fled on the approach of the Norman army. He gives no details of any further progress of William and Harold in Britanny, though he has a good deal to tell us as to what passed between William and Rhiwallon. He makes no mention of Rennes or of Dinan, the two other places represented in the Tapestry.

There is nothing in the Tapestry (pl. 5) which at all contradicts this account of what happened at Dol. William’s approach to the city is clearly not a hostile approach. The Duke himself and those immediately about him are not even in armour. There are no defenders on the walls, such as we presently see at Dinan. The legend is simply “Venerunt ad Dol,” while in the other case it is “Pugnant contra Dinantes.” But on the other side Conan and his host are running away—“Conan fugâ vertit.” I do not profess to explain the intentions of the man who is letting himself down by a rope from the wall.

Thus far the Tapestry and the Archdeacon exactly agree. The Tapestry also does not, as Mr. Planché understands it, make William pursue Conan to Rennes. Rennes—“Rednes”—is indeed introduced in the Tapestry, but it forms no part of the story; the city is represented on a smaller scale than the other subjects, and certainly no one is made to pursue the flying Bretons. Rennes is simply brought in as a kind of indication of the point to which Conan fled.

The story of the siege of Dinan belongs wholly to the Tapestry. It is certainly strange that William of Poitiers should leave out all mention of so considerable an exploit, but the difficulty is a good deal lessened if we accept Wace’s statement (see p. 230) that Harold accompanied William on more than one raid into Britanny. That a siege of Dinan really is intended, and not a siege of Rennes, I have no doubt at all.

NOTE U. p. 259.

THE EMBASSIES EXCHANGED BETWEEN WILLIAM AND HAROLD.

The different statements as to Harold’s oath naturally lead to statements equally different as to the messages which, after Harold’s election, were exchanged between him and William. Whatever Harold had promised, that William demanded, and whatever William demanded, that Harold refused. We thus get a set of statements differing exactly as the other set of statements differ. I have already had occasion to refer incidentally to several of them. I will now try to put them together in order.

Of the purely Norman authorities, the Tapestry is silent. William of Poitiers does not directly speak of any messages between the rivals till after William’s landing in England (128–131; see above, p. 430). But there is a passage further on which seems to imply an earlier message. This is when the Archdeacon breaks forth into that wonderful panegyric on his master (145) which follows his account of William’s coronation;

“Hic [Willelmus] ne Heraldum vellet occubuisse. Immò voluit patris Godwini potentiam illi ampliare, et natam suam, Imperatoris thalamo dignissimam, in matrimonium, _ut fuerat pollicitus_, tradere.”

This clearly implies that an offer of the Earldom of the West-Saxons, perhaps of something greater, together with the hand of William’s daughter, had been twice made by William to Harold. The first time is of course at the taking of the oath; the second time must be in some message sent before the expedition. For the messages exchanged after William’s landing are given at length, and they contain no such terms. And an offer of William’s daughter could then at least have been nothing but sheer mockery. By that time, at all events, Harold was married to Ealdgyth.

William of Jumièges (vii. 31) has an account which exactly agrees with the implied narrative of William of Poitiers. The Duke, as soon as he hears the news of Harold’s election, sends messengers to remind him to keep his oath. The terms of the oath, according to him, were that William should be King, Harold having half the Kingdom and William’s daughter. His words are,

“Ad quem [Heraldum] Dux protinùs legatos direxit, hortans ut ab hâc insaniâ resipisceret, et fidem quam juramento spoponderat condignâ subjectione servaret. At ille non solùm hoc audire contempsit, verùm omnem Anglorum gentem ab illo infideliter avertit.”

He then goes on with the account of Gruffydd and Ealdgyth which I quoted in vol. ii. p. 630.

Orderic does not mention the message. The Roman de Rou (vv. 11066–11075) speaks of several messages;

“Willame li manda sovent,
K’il li tenist sun serement,
E Heraut li manda vilment,
K’il ne fereit por li néient,
Ne il sa fille ne prendreit,
Ne il terre ne li rendreit,
Et Willéalme le desfia,
E desfiance li manda;
E Heraut toz tems reponeit
Ke nule rien mez ne creimeit.”

Here the terms of William’s messages are not given, but they may be inferred from the terms of Harold’s answer. These terms, and also the mention of more messages than one, seem on the whole to fall in with the account given by Eadmer and Simeon, which I have already mentioned (see above, p. 671). Harold there makes this answer, of which I do not fully understand the clause about the castle and well of Dover;

“Soror mea, quam juxta condictum expetis, mortua est. Quod si corpus ejus, quale nunc est, vult Comes habere, mittam, ne judicer sacramentum violâsse quod feci. Castellum Dofris et in eo puteum aquæ, licet nesciam cui, ut vobis convenit, explevi.”

He then goes on with the passages which I have already quoted (pp. 262, 264), in which Harold declares his inability either to decline the Kingdom which was offered to him or to marry a foreign woman without the consent of the Witan. William then sends a second message (see above, p. 260), of which the tone is greatly lowered. He now only asks that, if Harold will do nothing else that he has promised to do, he will at least marry his daughter. “Alioquin,” he continues, “se promissam regni successionem armis sibi vindicaturum proculdubiò sciret. At ipse [Haroldus] nec illud quidem se facere velle, nec hoc formidare respondit.”

It will be easily seen how completely this agrees with the account in the Roman de Rou, except in the prominence given to the engagement about Harold’s sister, which Wace does not mention at all. The statement about her death seems to me to bear the stamp of genuineness, as it is not a thing which anybody would take the trouble to invent. And it has sometimes struck me that this explains the statement of William of Malmesbury, where he makes Harold say that the daughter of William whom he had promised to marry was dead (see above, p. 660). In this statement he stands quite alone, and it seems not unlikely that he confounded the two marriage engagements, and that the death of William’s daughter is really a reproduction of the death of Harold’s sister. The rest of William of Malmesbury’s story, and the constitutional doctrine put into the mouth of Harold, I have mentioned already in the text and notes. See above, pp. 262–265.

The version of the Hyde writer I have already given at p. 692.

In Benoît’s account (36732–36757) the Kingdom alone is dwelt upon. He had mentioned the marriage (36622 et seqq.), but he seems to look on the marriage of Adeliza as something volunteered by William after the oath, not as part of the oath itself.

I do not know that there is any need to quote the accounts of any later writer.

NOTE W. p. 286.

WILLIAM’S COUNCILS AND NEGOTIATIONS.

Two points of some difficulty meet us here. We have no trustworthy guide to the chronology of the different embassies and assemblies which William used to put forward his claim; doubts may also be raised as to the nature of the Norman Assemblies which he consulted. To fix the exact chronology seems hopeless; as I said in the text, several negotiations were most likely going on at the same time. And the writer who ought to be our best authority, William of Poitiers, is now, as usual, very careless about the order of events, arranging them not so much according to the almanac as according to any arrangement which may best suit his rhetoric. Two distinct questions however arise. First, Did the Assembly which William of Malmesbury places at Lillebonne meet before or after the gift of the consecrated banner by the Pope? Secondly, Was the English expedition discussed in one or in two Norman Assemblies?

On the first point, William of Malmesbury (iii. 238) distinctly puts the Lillebonne Assembly after the receipt of the banner; “Perpensis apud se utrimque partibus, Papa vexillum in omen regni Willelmo contradidit; quo ille accepto, conventum magnatum apud Lillebona fecit, super negotio singulorum sententias sciscitatus.” Wace, on the other hand (11436), places the embassy to the Pope last of all, after all the other negotiations.

On the second point, Wace (11120 et seqq.) is the only writer who distinctly marks the two assemblies, first, a small body of select counsellors who recommend the gathering of a larger assembly, and secondly, the larger assembly of the whole baronage of Normandy which is gathered according to their recommendation. The words of William of Malmesbury would seem to imply one assembly only.

Let us see whether anything can be got out of William of Poitiers to strengthen either view. Having recorded (p. 121) Harold’s accession after his own fashion, he tells us of a council held by William, in which many of his chief men dissuaded him from the undertaking as being one too great for the power of Normandy (“Dux Willelmus, habitâ cum suis consultatione, armis injuriam ulcisci, armis hæreditatem reposcere decrevit; tametsi complures majorum id ingeniosè dissuaderent, ut rem nimis arduam, Normanniæ viribus longè majorem”). He then enlarges on the number of wise and illustrious men whom Normandy then contained, and gives a list of them, which differs in one or two names only from the list which Wace gives of the former and smaller council. Then comes an account of the preparation of the ships, the pouring in of foreign soldiers, the delay at the mouth of the Dive. Then, and not before, we read of the embassies to the German King, the Pope, and the King of the Danes. Then comes the tale about Harold’s spies, which is followed by a great number of arguments against the expedition, which read very much like Wace’s account of the assembly of Lillebonne, and which I have not scrupled (see p. 294) to transfer to that gathering. One of them is that the ships, though seemingly already collected at the mouth of the Dive, could not be got together or supplied with crews within the appointed space of a year. The Duke then makes a speech in answer, and the fleet, which had been waiting in vain for the south wind at the Dive, sails for Saint Valery.

In a tale told in this way there is clearly no regard paid to chronology. The facts are much the same as the facts in Wace, but as to their order nothing can be made out. It will be remembered that several other incidents in the history, as the comet and some points in the engagements between William and Harold, are (see pp. 643, 687, 701) recorded or alluded to by William of Poitiers in places still more distant from their chronological order. The short account in William of Jumièges (vii. 31–34) proves hardly anything. The events which he records come in this order; the message to Harold; the coming of Tostig; the death of Conan; the preparation and voyage of William. Orderic (492–494) is fuller. He begins with the coming of Tostig, to whose suggestion he seems to attribute the gathering of the Assembly (see p. 303). His list of persons consulted is the list in William of Poitiers, with a few names added. Then comes the embassy to Rome and the gift of the banner. Then comes the unsuccessful enterprise of Tostig against England, followed by William’s own preparations. Orderic then, after his custom, leaves the subject to talk about quite other matters. He comes back to it after some while (499, 500), to tell of the Norwegian invasion of England, of the delay of the Norman ships at the Dive, of William’s final voyage and all that followed it.

The short and inadequate account in Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 761, 762) is of some importance, because part of it is clearly drawn from the same sources as the account in Wace. He tells us that William held an Assembly, and that his fleet afterwards met at Saint Valery. He says nothing about any embassies at all. But he is the only writer besides Wace who makes any special mention of William Fitz-Osbern, though the way in which he tells the story is not exactly the same as that in which it is told in the Roman de Rou. See p. 297.

The evidence being in this state, I thought that I might safely follow Wace. His account of the two assemblies is full and clear, and it derives a sort of incidental support from William of Poitiers and Henry of Huntingdon. The former seems in a manner to imply that there were two assemblies, though he puts the second out of its place. Following Wace thus far, I have also followed him in placing the Assembly at Lillebonne before the receipt of the banner from Rome, though William of Malmesbury asserts the exact contrary. The reader must judge for himself which order he thinks the more probable. The approval of the Pope would of course be likely to tell with great effect on the mind of the Assembly. On the other hand, it would be a great point for William to be sure of the support of his own Duchy before he applied to the Pope. It would be hardly like the wisdom of William to ask, or like the wisdom of Hildebrand to grant, a blessing on an undertaking which might easily fall through altogether. And the religious excitement would probably tell less on William’s own subjects than on the mixed multitude of Crusaders who flocked to him from all parts. But the question—not one of any great importance—must be left an open one.

As to the embassies to foreign powers, the application to the Pope is mentioned in every account which tells the story in any detail. It is in fact the centre and soul of the whole business. All accounts again agree as to the influx of foreign soldiers of all kinds. But as to the particular potentates applied to, our two fullest accounts differ. William of Poitiers speaks of the applications to Germany and Denmark, Wace of those to France and Flanders. There is here no contradiction. The object of William of Poitiers was to exalt his hero, and his own mind was deeply impressed with Imperial ideas. The distant embassies, above all the embassy to the future Emperor, were those which tended most to set forth the greatness of the Norman Duke; they were those therefore on which the loyal Archdeacon was most inclined to dwell. It was equally natural that Wace, writing at a later time, should think most of those nearer embassies which ordinary Norman tradition would be most likely to understand and to remember. His account of the dealings of William with the King of the French is straightforward and probable enough, except in the omission of all mention of Baldwin of Flanders in his character of Regent. I have therefore followed it in the text. But of the intercourse between William and Baldwin in his character of sovereign of Flanders, Wace has (11390–11432) a tale which strikes me as so purely legendary that I did not venture to introduce it into the text. The Duke sends to Baldwin, who is spoken of as his brother-in-law, not as his father-in-law (“cum od serorge”—_sororius_—“et od ami” in v. 11392; and again, “vostre seror et vos nevoz” in vv. 11424, 11425), and asks his help. Baldwin answers that he must first know what share of England he is to have for his pains. William, who seems to be conceived as talking with Baldwin face to face, says that he must go home and consult his Barons, and that he will then send word by letter what the result is.

“E li Dus dist k’il s’en ireit,
A sez Barunz en parlereit,
Et a els s’en cunseillereit,
E ço ke l’en li loerreit
Par son bref li remandereit.”

(vv. 11399–11403.)

No consultation with the Barons seems to follow, but the Duke does a thing which nobody had ever done before (“poiz fist ço, ke ainz ne fist nus”). He takes a small piece of parchment on which nothing is written, then seals it up with wax, and causes to be written on the outside that the Count shall have such part of England as is stated in the inside of the letter.

“De parchemin prist un petit
K’il ni out leitre ne escrit,
Tot voi le séela en cire,
Et en la coe fist escrire,
Ke d’Engleterre tant areit
Comme li brief dedenz diseit.”

(vv. 11406–11411.)

The packet is sent to Baldwin by a cunning varlet (“vaslet enloçonez”); the Count breaks the seal, looks inside—seemingly he could read—finds nothing, and shows it to the varlet. The varlet then says that there is nothing there and that Baldwin shall have nothing. The honours which the Duke was seeking would belong to Baldwin’s sister and nephews. If Baldwin had joined in the enterprise no one would have gained more by it than himself. As it was, William would with God’s help conquer England for himself without help from Baldwin. Wace adds, as he so often does, that he does not know what answer the Count made.

The sort of practical joke described in this story would be quite in keeping with one side of William’s character (see p. 162) if one could only see the point of the joke. But that point is, to say the least, not very obvious, and the whole story seems quite inconsistent with the real relations between William and Baldwin. See the note of Prevost, ii. 137, and Taylor, 110.

NOTE X. p. 300.

THE MOVEMENTS OF TOSTIG AFTER HIS BANISHMENT.

The presence of Tostig in Normandy is asserted by Orderic in the passages which I have quoted in the text, and it is implied in the short narrative of William of Jumièges (vii. 32), who simply says, after describing Harold’s accession, “Porro Dux Tosticum Comitem in Angliam misit, sed militia Heraldi mare servans eum armis abegit” (see p. 304). William of Poitiers and Wace make no mention of any visit of Tostig to Normandy; they do not speak of him at all till they come to their almost incidental mention of Harold Hardrada’s invasion of England. The English writers also make no mention of any visit to Normandy on Tostig’s part. He goes to Flanders and comes on his vain expedition to England in May “from beyond sea” (see p. 324), which of course leaves the matter open between Normandy and Flanders. Snorro again knows nothing of a visit to Normandy, but takes Tostig (see p. 329) from Flanders to Denmark by way of Friesland. I do not however wholly reject the account of Orderic. The omission of Tostig’s visit both by William of Poitiers and the English writers is not at all hard to understand, while it is not easy to see why William of Jumièges or Orderic should have invented it. Its omission by Snorro is still less surprising; it is hard indeed to reconcile his version with that in the English Chronicles even on those points which are the very life of his story.

Orderic’s story however cannot be accepted in its details. First of all, it involves (see vol. ii. p. 626) the central mistake of making Tostig’s banishment follow the accession of Harold. Secondly, as a necessary consequence of this mistake, it greatly hurries Tostig’s movements, making him go to Flanders, leave his wife there, and hasten to Normandy, whereas we know that he left England on November 1st, 1065, and stayed with Baldwin the whole winter (see vol. ii. p. 501). Thirdly, it represents Tostig’s first expedition as not reaching England at all, whereas we know that he landed and harried the coast at several places (see p. 326). But, except the first mistake, which we know how to account for and to correct, these are not very fatal difficulties. Tostig did reach England, but he did nothing there of any moment, and a foreign writer might easily speak of an expedition which so utterly missed its mark, as if it had never touched English ground at all. And, small as the point is, it is worth noticing as an undesigned coincidence that Orderic makes Tostig set sail from the Côtentin, while the English Chronicler makes him land in the Isle of Wight. I have therefore not hesitated to accept the main outline of Orderic’s story, and to represent Tostig’s first expedition, in May, 1066, as undertaken with at least the connivance of William. Tostig must have had some force, Norman or Flemish, adhering to him during the whole time. The presence of Flemings at Stamfordbridge is beyond doubt. See p. 371.

What follows next in Orderic and William of Jumièges is far harder to reconcile with our own Chronicles. They both make Tostig, after struggling in vain against many winds (“Zephyro Notoque aliisque ventis alternatim impellentibus angores multos pertulit,” Orel. Vit. 593 C), make his way at last to Harold Hardrada in Norway. “Post plurimos labores ad Heraldum Regem Nortwigenarum, qui Harafagh cognominabatur, accessit,” says Orderic. So William of Jumièges (vii. 32); “At ille non valens salubriter Angliam introïre, neque Normanniam, quia ventus obstabat, redire, Heraldum Herfagam, Northwegæ Regem, adiit.” There is nothing about his going to Scotland or to Denmark. Wace indeed takes him to Denmark, but seemingly only through confounding Denmark and Norway.

“Tosti, ki mult s’en coroça,
En Danemarche trespassa,
Daneiz è Norreiz amena,
Deverz Euroïc ariva.”

(vv. 11803.)

So Benoît, who carries Tostig to Norway in v. 36842 (“vers Northwege l’estut sigler Par merveilles orrible mer”), calls the force which he brought into England “ceus de Norwege” in v. 37065, and “Daneis” in 37103. None of these writers know anything of the double negotiation, first with Swend, then with Harold, which is so prominent in Snorro. Again, the Norman accounts take Tostig and Harold Hardrada straight from Norway to Yorkshire. The “erroneus exsul” pleads his cause before the tyrant, as Orderic (493 D) himself calls Harold, though Tostig is made to address him by many respectful titles (“Sublimitatem vestram, magnifice Rex”—see vol. i. pp. 63, 286—“supplex adeo, et me servitiumque meum Majestati vestræ fideliter offero”). He tells how his younger brother has risen against him and deprived him of the honours—whether the Earldom of the West-Saxons or the Empire of Britain—which were due to him by hereditary right (“ut possim restitui per vestrum suffragium honori ex paternâ successione debito. Nam Heraldus frater meus, qui jure mihi, utpote primogenito, debuisset parere, fraudulenter insurrexit contra me”). He goes on to enlarge on his brother’s perjury (“regnum Angliæ perjuriis præsumpsit usurpare”), an argument which, however telling with William, sounds strangely out of place when addressed to Harold Hardrada. He proposes to Harold of Norway to overthrow Harold of England, and to occupy his Kingdom, granting half of it to Tostig in fief (“proterviam perfidi fratris bello proterite, medietatem Angliæ vobis retinete, aliamque mihi, qui vobis inde fideliter serviam dum advixero, retinete”). Harold consents, he occupies six months in preparations, and sets sail in August. Orderic therefore conceived that Tostig’s banishment, his journeys to Flanders and Normandy, his attempt on England, and his escape to Norway, all took place in the course of January and February. In August then Harold and Tostig set sail together and sail straight for Yorkshire (“mense Augusto Heraldus Noricorum Rex cum Tostico et ingenti classe immensum pelagus intravit, et, Aparciate seu Boreâ flante, ad Angliam applicuit et Eboracensem provinciam primitùs invasit,” 499 D, 500 A).

It is clear that this account differs in some respects from that of Snorro, which I have given in the text. Snorro makes Tostig leave Harold in the spring (see p. 333) and go and collect English and Flemish troops in Flanders, with whom he meets Harold at some point of his voyage. The stoppage in Orkney again (see p. 344) is left out by Orderic, which is not very wonderful.

When we turn to our own Chronicles, we see that whatever amount of truth the stories of Orderic and Snorro may contain, their chronology at least is wholly wrong. Tostig’s first expedition to England, which Snorro leaves out, and which Orderic places at some time in January or February, did not happen till May (see above, p. 708). After its failure, Tostig went, not to Denmark or Norway, but to Scotland, and stayed there all the summer (see p. 327). The question now comes, which I left doubtful in the text, whether he ever went to Norway at all. Let us look at the different accounts.

The Abingdon Chronicle, which is followed by Florence, having mentioned the summer sojourn of Tostig in Scotland, the preparations of Harold of England in the south, and the return of his fleet to London (see p. 338), goes on; “þa ða scipu ham coman, þa com Harold cyning of Norwegan norð into Tínan on unwaran ... and Tostig eorl him com to mid eallum þam þe he begiten hæfde, _eallswa hy ær gesprecen hæfdon_” (“ut priùs condixerant,” Fl. Wig.).

The Worcester and Peterborough Chronicles record the flight of Tostig to Scotland, and at once connect it with the Norwegian invasion. “And he [Tostig] for to Scotlande mid xii. snaccum, and hine gemette [hine gemette þær. Wig.] Harold se Norrena cyng [cyng of Norwegon. Wig.] mid ccc. scipum; and Tostig him to beah [him to beah and his man wearð. Wig.], and hi bægen foran into Humbran oð þæt hi coman to Eoferwíc.”

This version is followed by William of Malmesbury (ii. 228); “Tostinus ... versus Scotiam vela convertit: ibi Regi Noricorum, Haroldo Harvagre, obvio manus dedit, qui cum ccc. navibus Angliam _aggredi meditabatur_. Ambo ergo consertis umbonibus terram Transhumbranam populabantur.”

These two accounts are clearly independent. Abingdon puts the meeting of Harold and Tostig in the Tyne. Worcester and Peterborough seem to put it in Scotland. But their words might be taken as leaving the place uncertain. Nor is there any contradiction in the more important question whether the expedition had been already planned between Harold and Tostig. This is directly asserted by the Abingdon Chronicle. The two others would certainly, taken by themselves, be understood to imply that Harold Hardrada had already set out on his own account, and that his meeting with Tostig was not the result of any agreement. This appearance becomes still stronger in William of Malmesbury, from his use of the verb “meditabatur.” But there is no word exactly answering to this in the Chronicles, and the difference in the two accounts may be simply one of omission. The words “eallswa hy ær gesprecen hæfdon” may in themselves mean anything, from a mere agreement to join forces in the Tyne made after an unexpected meeting in Scotland up to the voyage to Norway spoken of by Snorro and Orderic. The question is whether the chronology will admit of that voyage. Snorro and Orderic, as we have seen, place it early in the year. If we give up the story of Tostig’s journey to Normandy and his concert with William, it would be easy to take Tostig into Norway before his first attack on England, at any time between January and May. But it is plain that he did not go to Norway immediately on the failure of that expedition, for he went to Scotland and stayed there all the summer. And it is hard to find room between the end of summer and September 25th for a voyage of Tostig to Norway, for the preparations of Harold Hardrada, and for his voyage. A communication by messengers is more possible, as that may be spread over all the time from May to September. But, if we make Tostig visit Norway so late in the year, it could not have been his visit which first suggested to Harold to invade England. Indeed the invasion could hardly have been first suggested by letters or messages sent so late as May.

We must then either reject the partnership between William and Tostig in the May expedition and carry Tostig into Norway early in the year, or else we must suppose that Harold Hardrada was already planning an attack on England, and that all that any visit or message of Tostig did was to strengthen and hasten a purpose already formed. On the whole I incline to this last view, because I cannot see why any Norman writer should have invented a connexion between Tostig and William, if it never happened. But if we reject the Norman story, we can accept nearly the whole tale in Snorro. Tostig goes to Denmark and Norway early in the year; he then returns to Flanders and collects a force. Snorro does not say what he did with it till he met Harold in the autumn. The gap will thus be filled by the May voyage to England and the summer in Scotland. I am quite content to leave the point open, but I would remark that it is at least as hard to reconcile the Norman and Norwegian accounts with one another as to reconcile either with the English account.

The Hyde writer, as usual, gives (292) an independent account which is worth a passing notice.

“Frater ejus [Haroldi], nomine Tostius, genere et animo temerarius, mox ut fratrem regium honorem usurpâsse vidit, nutu Domini, qui perjurium undique persequebatur, quâdam simultate inter eos ortâ, Angliâ discessit, atque cum multâ manu et thesaurorum suorum copiâ multitudinem Flandriam ad Sanctum Odmarum, ut aiunt, devenit, ubi commendatâ thesaurorum suorum copiâ navem ascendens insulam Norweiam, quondam Scanciam dictam, et ut Gothorum historia testatur, multarum gentium officinam, petivit; quam ingressus, Regem ejus Haroldum, cognomento Hervard [Harfragi], id est, crine formosum, erat enim et staturâ corporis et formâ decorus, tum precibus tum promissionibus ita illexit, ut congregato exercitu et classe paratâ, cum eodem Angliam ad debellandum Regem Haroldum festinus adveniret. Denique Angliam ingressi, Eboracam opulentissimam civitatem et archiepiscopatûs sedem obsidione cingunt.”

We have already (see vol. ii. p. 231) seen this writer talking about the “Isle of Norway,” when, by the way, he really meant Denmark. We here see where he found it, namely in the opening chapters of Jornandes, especially the well-known passage in c. iv. (Muratori, i. 193); “Ex hâc igitur Scanziâ insulâ, quasi _officinâ gentium_, aut certè velut vaginâ nationum, cum Rege suo nomine Berig, Gothi quondam memorantur egressi.”

NOTE Y. p. 313.

ARNOLD OF ARDRES.

I get the account of these adventurers from the “Historia Comitum Ardensium” in Bouquet, xi. 305. The office held is described as the “villicatura sive præpositura Sancti Bertini in terrâ Ghisnensi,” which had been held “hæreditario jure” for some generations. Arnold came “opitulante Boloniensi Comite Eustachio,” and Geoffrey seems to follow him at William’s own summons—“vocatus ab eodem Rege Willelmo.” Their rewards are thus described; “Servientes igitur ambo fratres, Arnoldus videlicet et Gaufridus, jam dicto Regi, tantam ejus adepti sunt gratiam quod, præter quotidiana stippendia et munuscula, quæ ipsis contulit innumerabilia, contulit etiam eis et in perpetuitatis concessit feodum, Stebintoniam et pertinentias ejus, Dokeswordiam, Tropintoniam, Ledefordiam, Toleshondiam, et Hoilandiam.” All these, as far as I can identify them in Domesday, are possessions of Eustace, but in two cases only do I find Arnold as under tenant. These are at “Dokeswordia,” in Domesday “Dochesuuorde” (196), and Trumpington (ib.), both in Cambridgeshire. In the former we read, “hanc terram tenet Hernulfus de comite Eustachio,” and under Trumpington we have still more distinctly, “tenet Ernulfus de Ardâ sub Comite.” Stebingtonia, in Domesday (205) Stebintune, is held of Count Eustace by Lunen, and the lands in Essex, Selefordia, Hoilandia, and Toleshondia, in Domesday Toleshunta, now Tolleshunt, are held of Eustace (Domesday, ii. 32, 33) by Adelolfus. This may be an English Æthelwulf; but, as the name also occurs in Flanders (see Cart. S. Bertin, 142, 153 et al.), he may equally well be a foreign follower of Eustace. Arnold however appears again as Ernulfus de Arde, as a tenant under Count Eustace of various places in Bedfordshire (211), and one might almost guess that he is the same as Arnulfus de Hesding (no doubt Hesdin in Ponthieu) who holds (205 _b_) Upford in Huntingdonshire of the King. Arnold and Arnulf are, I need not say, names whose various forms are often and easily confounded. This is a fair specimen of the way in which men came to William from all parts of the world for whatever they could get.

NOTE Z. p. 315.

THE DEATH OF CONAN.

The only place that I know of where William is directly charged with poisoning Conan is in the speech (Ord. Vit. 534 B) at the bride-ale of 1076, where the charge is coupled with the kindred charge of poisoning Walter and Biota (see p. 207). The revellers are made to say, “Conanum quoque, strenuissimum Consulem, veneno infecit, quem mortuum Britannia tota pro ingenti probitate ineffabili luctu deflevit.”

The text of William of Jumièges (vii. 33) is as follows;

“Tempore quo Willelmus Dux disponebat Angliam adire, et armis eam sibi vendicare, audax Chunanus Comes Britanniæ nisus est eum, missâ legatione hujusmodi, terrere: Audio te, inquit, nunc velle trans mare proficisci, et Angliæ tibi regnum nancisci. Inde multum gaudeo, sed ut mihi Normanniam reddas obsecro. Robertas autem Dux Normannorum, quem tu fingis esse patrem tuum, iturus in Hierusalem, Alanno patri meo, consobrino scilicet suo, commendavit omnem suam hæreditatem. Tu autem cum complicibus tuis Alannum patrem meum apud Winmusterium in Normanniâ veneno peremisti, et terram ejus, quam ego quia puer eram possidere nequibam, invasisti; et contra fas, cum sis nothus, hucusque tenuisti. Nunc igitur aut mihi debitam redde Normanniam, aut ego tibi totis viribus bellum inferam. His auditis, Willelmus Dux aliquantulum territus est. Sed mox eum Deus, frustratis inimici minis, eripere dignatus est. Unus enim ex proceribus Britonum, qui utrique Comiti juraverat fidelitatem, et hujusmodi legationem inter eos ferebat, lituum Chuningi, et habenas, atque chirothecas intrinsecus livit veneno. Erat quippe cubicularius Chuningi. Tunc idem Comes Britonum in Andegavensi Comitatu Castellum-Guntherii obsederat, et oppidanis militibus sese illi dedentibus suos intromittebat. Interea Chuningus chirothecas suas incautè induit, tactisque habenis, manum ad os levavit. Cujus tactu veneno infectus est, et paullò post omnibus suis lugentibus defunctus est. Hic multum sagax fuit et probus, ac amator justitiæ. Qui si diu vixisset, multa bona ut fertur fecisset, ac ad regendum honorem utilis fuisset. Proditor autem conscius sui reatûs, mox de expeditione aufugit, et mortem Chuningi Willelmo Duci mandavit.”

This story, in the way in which it is brought in, looks very like an interpolation, and the message of Conan sounds very like a romance. And it is certainly most remarkable that it seems to be a purely Norman story. At least I have not been able to find it in such Breton and Angevin chronicles as I know anything of. The Breton and Angevin writers record Conan’s war with Anjou and also his death, and they place both in 1066. But they say nothing which at all lays his death to the charge of William. Of three Breton chronicles in the collection of Morice (Mémoires pour servir de Preuves à l’Histoire de Bretagne), the first in the collection says merely, “1066. Cometa apparuit. Obiit Conanus Dux Britanniæ filius Alani. Normanni Angliam ceperunt.” Another, the Chronicle of Saint Brieuc (p. 36), mentions the war with Anjou. Conan “quum territorium Andegavense devastâsset, in eodem territorio, paullò ante destructionem Heraldi Anglorum Regis, sine liberis morte præventus est anno Domini 1066.” A third Chronicle (p. 102) tells us how, in “1066, Comes Britannorum Conanus juvenis et malitiosus, Andegavorum terram adorsus, superbæ pervasioni suæ in ipsâ Andegavorum terrâ _morte subitâ_ præreptus est.” The Angevin Chronicle which I have quoted at p. 642, after its account of the Comet and of the invasion of England, mentions the death of Conan in nearly the same words as the third Breton Chronicle just quoted. These accounts connect the death of Conan in some way, if only by way of coincidence, with the Conquest of England, yet not one of them breathes the least suspicion against William. Conan’s death was sudden; but a sudden death need not be a death by poison, and a death by poison need not have been brought about by the devices of William. I cannot think that we have evidence enough to charge the great Duke with so infamous a crime.

NOTE AA. p. 338.

THE OPERATIONS OF THE ENGLISH FLEET IN 1066.

Did the English fleet, or any part of it, ever encounter the Norman fleet or any part of it? The general run of our narrative would lead us to say, No; but there are some passages which look the other way. Thus the Peterborough Chronicler, immediately after describing Harold’s election, says, “And þy ylcan geare þe he cyng wæs, he for út mid sciphere togeanes Willelme, and þá hwile com Tostig eorl into Humbran míd lx. scipum.” And this seems to be followed by Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 762 A); “Quod audiens Rex Haraldus, vir bellis acerrimus, cum navali exercitu contra Willielmum Ducem in mare profectus est.” These expressions do not necessarily imply a battle, but they seem to point to some operations beyond merely watching the coast.

Of the entries in Domesday referred to in the text, one, that about Æthelric of Kelvedon, distinctly asserts a battle, but without mentioning its date. It occurs under Essex, ii. 14 _b_. Æthelric held Kelvedon T. R. E. The Survey adds, “Hic supradictus Ailricus abiit in navale prœlium contra Willelmum Regem.” This seems to imply an actual engagement, though of course it need not have been a general engagement between the whole of the two fleets, which seems quite impossible. The entry goes on to say that Æthelric on his return—when the fleet returned to London in September?—fell sick, perhaps from a wound, and left his lands at Kelvedon to Saint Peter at Westminster. “Quum rediit, cecidit in infirmitate, tunc dedit Sancto Petro istud manerium.” The words which follow in Domesday have an importance of another kind, which I shall discuss in a future volume.

The other Domesday entry referred to is less distinct than that of Æthelric, but it looks the same way. In Norfolk, ii. 200, we find mention of one Eadric, described as “Rector navis Regis Edwardi.” On William’s accession he was outlawed and fled to Denmark (“postquam Rex W. venit in Angliam fuit iste Edricus exlex in Daciam”). One may guess that Eadric commanded in the engagement or skirmish in which Æthelric was concerned. And in connexion with this East-Anglian entry, we may take the statement of John of Oxenedes (293), about Ælfwold, Abbot of Saint Benet’s; “Huic a Rege Haraldo marina committebatur custodia.”

There are some other passages which might seem to imply naval operations at a later time. Of the losses of William’s fleet during the voyage, and of the affair of Romney, whenever it happened, I have spoken in the text, pp. 410, 534. A deed in the Cartulary of the Holy Trinity at Rouen (pp. 453, 454) looks the same way. One Roger, the son of Turold, who was going to join William’s expedition (“ultra mare cum Willelmo Comite navigaturus”), gave lands to the monastery, but died on the voyage before the gift was complete (“in eâdem navigatione morte præventus, hoc confirmare non valuit”). We must also remember the account given by William of Poitiers (131), where he describes Harold’s march into Sussex, and says that an English fleet of seven hundred ships was sent somewhere or other to cut off the Norman retreat (“ne perfugio abirent, classe armatâ ad septingentas naves in mari opposuerat insidias”). Guy of Amiens (319) puts nearly the same statement into the mouth of one of the messengers between William and Harold;

“Per mare, per terram, prœlia magna parat.
In mare quingentas fertur misisse carinas,
Ut nostri reditûs præpediatur iter.”

But there is no sign of this great fleet doing anything, and William and Guy are so careless of chronology that they are quite capable of meaning the fleet which went back to London in September. As for the affair of Romney, it is not likely that Thegns from Norfolk and Essex would be concerned in an action so purely local. And the story of Æthelric would seem to imply that he died before the end of Harold’s reign.

NOTE BB. p. 357.

THE MARCH OF HAROLD TO YORK.

The words of some of the Chroniclers, taken literally, might imply that the first news of the landing of the Northmen was brought to Harold of England after the Battle of Fulford. The Peterborough Chronicle describes that battle, and adds “and se Norrena cyng ahte siges geweald.” It then goes on, “And man cydde Harolde cyng hu hit wæs þær gedón and geworden, and he com mid mycclum here Engliscra manna, and gemette hine æt Stængfordes brycge.” So too the Worcester Chronicle describes the battle, and adds “ac þa Normen ahte sige.” It then goes on in the same way; “Man cyðde þa Harolde Engla cynge þæt þis wæs þus gefaren; and þis gefeoht wæs on Vigilia Sc̃i. Mathei. Ða com Harold ure cyng on unwær on þa Normenn, and hytte hi begeondan Eoforwic æt Steinford brygge, mid micclan here Englisces folces.”

The literal meaning of these accounts would certainly be that the news of the defeat of Fulford was the first news of the Norwegian invasion which reached Harold, and that he started for his Northern march on hearing it. But this is simply impossible. The Battle of Fulford was fought on Wednesday, and the Battle of Stamfordbridge was fought on the Monday following. As the Worcester Chronicler emphatically says, “þas twa folcgefeoht wæron gefremmede binnan fif nihtan.” Now for news of a battle fought close to York to reach London, for an army, including men from distant shires, to be collected and to march to Stamfordbridge, and all in the space of five days, would need an age of railways and telegraphs. The news must have been brought, and the march must have begun, before the Battle of Fulford was fought. In fact our remaining Chronicle gives us a hint that that battle was fought while Harold was already on his march. The Abingdon narrative runs thus;

“And foran þa begen [Tostig and Harold Hardrada] mid eallum þam liðe andlang Use up to Eoferwic ward. Ða cydde man Harolde cynge be suðan, þa he of scipe cumen wæs, þæt Harold cyng on Norwegan and Tostig eorl wæron up cumene neh Eoferwic, þa for he norðweard dæges and nilites, swa hraðe swa he his fyrde gegaderian mihte. Þa ær þam þe se cyning Harold þyder cuman mihte, þa gegaderode Eadwine eorl and Morkere eorl of heora eorldome swa mycel werod swa hi begitan mihton.”

Then follows the Battle of Fulford. The same account is followed by Florence;

“In loco qui Richale dicitur applicuerunt. Quod ubi Regi Haroldo innotuit, versus Northhymbriam expeditionem properè movit. Sed priusquam Rex illuc veniret, duo germani Comites,” &c.