446. Vita Eadw. 402. “Elaborante Stigando ... qui etiam tunc medius ibat, procrastinata est judicii dies, dum Rex suorum uteretur consiliou.”
447. Vita Eadw. 402.
448. Such on the whole I take to be the meaning of the very difficult expressions of the two Chroniclers, which I have discussed at length in Appendix L.
449. Chron. Wig. 1052. “And his wered wanode æfre þe leng þe swiðor.”
450. Vita Eadw. 402. “Eo [Rodberto] agente tandem a Rege prolata est in Ducem hæc indissolubilis caussæ quæ agebatur diffinitio; Illum scilicet à Rege tunc primùm posse sperare pacem, ubi ei reddidit vivum suum fratrem cum suis omnibus et quæ eis viventibus vel interfectis ablata sunt cum integritate eorum.”
451. Chron. Petrib. “Ða geornde se eorl eft griðes and gisla, þæt he moste hine betellan æt ælc þæra þinga þe him man onlede.”
452. William of Malmesbury (ii. 199), from whom I get the materials of Godwine’s answer, makes them call the Assembly “conventiculum factiosorum.”
453. Will. Malms. u. s. “Si veniant inermes, vitæ timeri dispendium; si paucos stipatores habeant, gloriæ fore opprobrium.”
454. Kemble, ii. 231. “They very properly declined, under such circumstances, to appear.”
455. Vita Eadw. p. 402. “Flente nimium episcopo Stigando, qui hujus legationis mœrens bajulus erat, reppulit à se mensam quæ adstabat, equis ascensis, viam ad Bosanham maritimam celeriùs tetendit.” This little touch, coming from a contemporary and friendly writer, increases our confidence in the story of the Biographer, difficult, as it is, at first sight to reconcile with the Chronicles.
456. Chron. Wig. 1052. “For ða on niht awæg; and se cyng hæfde þæs on morgen witenagemot.”
458. Chron. Petrib. 1048. “And sceawede him mann v. nihta grið út of lande to farenne.” See vol. i. p. 561.
459. To “Bosenham,” according to the Peterborough Chronicler and the Biographer; to “Thornege,” according to the Worcester Chronicler and Florence. As it is of course the South-Saxon Thorney near Chichester (see Lappenberg, 509) which is meant, the two accounts no doubt merely refer to different stages of the same journey.
460. Vita Eadw. 404. “Tum pro antiquæ fœderationis jure, tum pro multorum ipsius Ducis beneficiorum vicissitudine.” One would like to know more of this connexion between Godwine and Baldwin. It is odd, when we think of the war of 1049, that the Biographer (p. 403) calls Baldwin “antiquum Anglicæ gentis amicum.”
462. Chron. Wig. “Mid swa miclum gærsuman swa hi mihton þær on mæst gelogian to ælcum mannum.” Cf. Florence and the Biographer, 402. “Cum conjuge et liberis et omnibus quæ illius erant ad manum.”
463. “Cum magno honore.” Vita Eadw. 404.
464. Chron. Petrib. “And gesohton Baldewines grið, and wunodon þær ealne þone winter.” Vita Eadw. 404. “Hiemati sunt à Comite Baldwino in Flandriam.”
465. The younger members of the family, Wulfnoth, Ælfgifu, Gunhild, and Hakon the son of Swegen, are not mentioned. They doubtless accompanied Godwine and are included among the “liberi” of the Biographer.
467. “Harold eorl and Leofwine,” says the Worcester Chronicle; the Biographer has “Haroldus et Leofricus.” See Appendix F. The Peterborough Chronicle mentions Harold only.
468. Vita Eadw. 404. “Transfretaverant in Hiberniam, ut, inde adductâ militari copiâ, patris ulciscerentur injuriam.”
469. See vol. i. p. 365. Compare also the passage about Bristol with which William of Malmesbury winds up his panegyric on Gloucestershire (Gest. Pont, in Scriptt. p. Bed. 161). “In eâdem valle est vicus celeberrimus Bristow nomine, in quo est navium portus ab Hiberniâ et Noregiâ et cæteris transmarinis terris venientium receptaculum, ne scilicet genitalibus divitiis tam fortunata regio peregrinarum opum fraudaretur commercio.”
470. Chron. Wig. 1052. “Harold eorl and Leofwine foran to Brycgstowe, on þæt scip þe Swegen eorl hæfde him silfum ær gegearcod and gemetsod.”
471. Chron. Wig. 1052. “And se cining sende Ealdred biscop of Lundene mid genge, and sceoldon hine ofridan ær he to scipe come. Ac hi ne mihton oððe hi noldon.” Compare the unwillingness of the Earls under Harthacnut to act against Worcester, vol. i. p. 581. According to the Biographer (403), Godwine was also pursued, through the devices of Archbishop Robert.
472. Chron. Wig. u. s.
473. Vita Eadw. 404. “Hiemati sunt à Rege Dermodo in Hiberniam.” These words at once explain the whole matter, and give us the true explanation of the otherwise difficult expression in the Peterborough Chronicle, “Harold eorl gewende west to Yrlande, and wæs þær ealne þone winter, on þes cynges griðe.” Sir Francis Palgrave (Hist. Ang. Sax. 342) takes this King to be Eadward, and says, “Harold crossed to Ireland, and he was so far favoured as to be allowed to remain in that country under the king’s protection. This fact should be noticed, because it seems to show that he was not considered as being out of the king’s dominions; or, in other words, that the opposité coast of Ireland was part of Eadward’s realm.” This is rather slight evidence, even with the further support of a spurious charter (see vol. i. p. 66), to prove that Ireland, or its eastern coast, was part of the English Empire. Lappenberg (510; Mr. Thorpe’s version, ii. 250, again does not represent the original) saw that, odd as the expression is, an Irish King must be meant, and now the Life of Eadward puts the matter beyond doubt. The “grið” of Diarmid answers to the “grið” of Baldwin.
474. Diarmid conquered the Fine-gall or Danish district in 1052, according to the Four Masters (ii. 860) and Dr. Todd (Wars of Gaedhil and Gaill, 291); in 1050, according to the Chronica Scotorum, 280. The incidental evidence of the Biographer shows the earlier date to be the right one.
475. Will. Malms. ii. 199. “Ne scilicet omnibus suis parentibus patriam suspirantibus sola sterteret in plumâ.” This odd phrase sounds like a real sneer of some contemporary Frenchman.
477. The Worcester Chronicle, Florence, and the Biographer do not mention the seizure of the Lady’s property. The Peterborough Chronicle says, “þa forlet se cyng þa hlæfdian, seo wæs gehalgod him to cwene, and let niman of hire eall þæt heo ahte on lande and on golde and on seolfre.” So William of Malmesbury; “Omnis reginæ substantia ad unum nummum emuncta.”
478. Both the Chronicles are quite colourless on this head; it is simply “man gebrohte,” “betæhte.” So William of Malmesbury. But Florence says “cum unâ pedissequâ ad Hwereweallam eam sine honore misit.” In the Life of Eadward (403), on the other hand, we read, “Cum regio honore et imperiali comitatu, mœrens tamen perducitur.” The narrative, addressed to Eadgyth herself, is here the better authority.
479. Wherwell, according to all our authorities, except the Biographer. He says Wilton. As he could hardly be mistaken on such a point, and as the evidence for Wherwell seems conclusive, we must set down Wilton as a clerical error.
480. The Worcester Chronicle, Florence, and the Biographer do not mention the kindred of the Abbess with the King; it is assumed by the Peterborough Chronicle and by William of Malmesbury.
483. Vita Eadw. 397. See Appendix F.
484. Vita Eadw. 403. Twenty hexameters are devoted to the comparison.
485. Chron. Wig. 1052. “Þæt wolde ðyncan wundorlic ælcum men þe on Englalande wæs, gif ænig man ær þam sæde þæt hit swa gewurþan sceolde. Forðam þe he wæs ær to þam swyce up ahafen, swyðe he weolde þæs cynges and ealles Englalandes, and his sunan wæron eorlas and þæs cynges dyrlingas, and his dohtor þæm cynge bewedded and beawnod.”
487. See Appendix G.
488. See Appendix G.
490. Chron. Wig. 1056. “Se wæs to munece gehadod ær his ende. god man and clæne and swiðe æðele.” Cf. Chron. Ab. and Fl. Wig. in anno. Florence seems to translate “clæne” by “virginitatis custos.” He built the present church of Deerhurst (see vol. i. p. 387), as an offering for the soul of his brother Ælfric. See Earle, p. 345.
491. Chron. Petrib. 1048. Will. Malms. ii. 199. “Comitatus ejus [Haroldi] attributus Elgaro, Leofrici filio, viro industrio; quem ille suscipiens tunc rexit nobiliter, reverso restituit libenter.”
492. The Biographer (401, 2) mentions his coming to Gloucester along with his father and Siward.
494. Chron. Wig. 1052. Petrib. 1048. Flor. Wig. 1051.
495. Flor. Wig. 1052.
496. Chron. Wig. 1052. Flor. Wig. 1051.
497. In this Chapter I have had of course mainly to depend on the Norman writers as my authorities. The Latin writers are to be found in the great collection of Duchèsne. The first place is of course due to William of Poitiers. His Gesta Guillelmi has every advantage which can belong to the writings of a well-informed contemporary. But the work is disfigured by his constant spirit of violent partizanship (see above, p. 4). He must therefore be always followed with great caution, and in all purely English matters he is utterly untrustworthy. The beginning of his work is lost, so that we have no account from him of his hero’s birth and childhood. William Calculus, a monk of Jumièges, according to Orderic (Prol. ad Lib. iii. p. 458), abridged Dudo, and continued the History of Normandy, through the reigns of Richard the Good, Richard the Third, Robert, and of William himself down to the Battle of Senlac (Ord. Vit. 618 D), presenting his work to William himself. This portion of the existing work ends at lib. vii. c. 42. He seems afterwards to have added the account of William’s death (vii. 44), in which William of Poitiers and Guy of Amiens are spoken of. An eighth book, together with many interpolations in the earlier books, were added by a later hand, apparently by Robert of Torigny, Abbot of Saint Michael’s Mount, commonly called Robert de Monte (see Pertz, vi. 475). William of Jumièges begins to be a contemporary writer in William’s reign; with perhaps smaller opportunities of information than William of Poitiers, he is less violently prejudiced, and his work is of great value. His narrative forms the groundwork of the poetical history in the Roman de Rou. Its author, Robert Wace, Canon of Bayeux in the time of Henry the Second, seems to have been a really honest and painstaking inquirer, and I do not look on his work as being any the less trustworthy on account of its poetical shape. But of course, whenever he departs from contemporary authority, and merely sets down floating traditions nearly a hundred years after the latest events which he records, his statements need to be very carefully weighed. I have used M. Pluquet’s edition (Rouen, 1827) and the English Translation of part of the work by Mr. Edgar Taylor, whose genealogical and topographical notes are of great value. The other rhyming chronicler, Benoît de Sainte-More, is of a far more romantic turn than Robert Wace, and is therefore of much smaller historical authority. Still he also preserves many curious traditions. Orderic Vital, whose work becomes afterwards of such preeminent importance, is just now beginning to be of use, but as yet his main value is for information about Norman families and Norman monasteries. But his constant repetitions and utter lack of arrangement make him still more difficult to read or consult than William of Malmesbury himself.
498. Chron. Petrib. 1087. “Gif hwa gewilnigeð to gewitane hu gedon mann he wæs, oððe hwilcne wurðscipe he hæfde, oððe hu fela lande he wære hlaford, þonne wille we be him awritan swa swa we hine ageaton, þe him on locodan and oðre hwile on his hirede wunedon.”
499. See the article “Lucius Cornelius Sulla” in the National Review, January, 1862.
500. Chron. Petrib. 1087. “He wæs milde þam godum mannum þe God lufedon, and ofer eall gemett stearc þam mannum þe wiðcwædon his willan.” The former clause is rather oddly altered in the version of Robert of Gloucester (p. 374);
501. Chron. Petrib. 1087. “Betwyx oðrum þingum nis na to forgytane þæt gode frið þe he macode on þisan lande, swa þæt án man þe himsylf aht wære mihte faran ofer his rice mid his bosum full goldes ungederad.” This last is of course the same traditional formula which is used to set forth the good government of Eadwine, Ælfred, and others. The writer carries out the panegyric on William’s strict police at some length. All this is of course praise of exactly the same kind as that bestowed on Godwine and Harold. See above, pp. 34, 40, and the passages there referred to.
502. I conceive that this idea owes its prevalence mainly to the false Ingulf; still we have to account for the notion presenting itself to the mind of the forger.
503. See Palgrave, iii. 522.
504. On the surnames of William, see Appendix M.
505. Rod. Glab. iv. 6. “Fuit enim usui a primo adventu ipsius gentis in Gallias, ut superiùs pernotavimus, ex hujusmodi concubinarum commixtione illorum Principes exstitisse.” He goes on, if not to justify, at least to palliate, the practice, by the examples of the patriarch Jacob and the Emperor Constantius. British patriotism would perhaps not have endured that the mother of Constantine should be dragged down to the level of the mother of William.
508. For the sieges of Falaise in 1417 and 1450, see Monstrelet, i. 263 and iii. 30 b (ed. Paris 1595). Talbot was not actually present during the defence against the French King.
509. More probably, I think, of the twelfth than of the eleventh. Not that I at all think the building of such a castle to have been impossible in the eleventh century, but because it seems likely that Falaise was one of the castles which were destroyed and rebuilt in the wars of William and his successors. This point is well put by M. Ruprich-Robert, the architect employed by the powers which at present bear rule over Falaise and all Normandy in the “restoration”—that is, of course, the destruction—of this venerable keep. See his “Rapport,” 1864, p. 27.
510. Will. Brit. Philipp. lib. viii. Duchèsne, Hist. Franc. Scriptt. v. 183;
511. Stapleton, Roll of the Norman Exchequer, i. xcvi.; ii. cix.
512. See Appendix N. On the Birth of William.
513. Herod. iii. 2.
514. Malcolm’s History of Persia, i. 70.
515. Will. Malms. iii. 229. R. Wend. i. 469. Cf. Chron. Alberici, 1035 (ap. Leibnitz, Accessiones, ii. 66), and Appendix N.
516. Benoît de Ste. More, 31216 et seqq. (vol. ii. p. 555), who becomes rapturous in his description of her beauty. He makes Robert see her on his return from hunting. Local tradition, endowing Robert with a singular power of discerning beauty at a distance, makes him see her from a window of the castle.
517. Benoît, 31276.
518. Roman de Rou, 7998. Bromton, 910. Benoît, 31441 et seqq.
519. See Appendix N.
520. Will. Gem. vii. 3. “Willelmus ex concubinâ Roberti Ducis, nomine Herlevâ, Fulberti cubicularii Ducis filiâ, natus.”
521. Ord. Vit. 656 D.
522. Will. Gem. vii. 3. See Appendix N.
523. See Appendix N.
524. Roman de Rou, 8021. Will. Malms. iii. 229.
525. Ib. 8037. Will. Malms. iii. 229.
526. See Appendix N.
528. Will. Gem. viii. 36.
529. Ord. Vit. 566 B. “Conjugem nomine Herlevam ut Comes habuit, ex quâ tres filios Ricardum, Radulfum, et Guillelmum genuit, quibus Ebroicensem comitatum et alios honores amplissimos secundum jus sæculi distribuit.”
530. Ord. Vit. 566 C. This church was finished by Maurilius in 1063. Ib. 568 B. See Pommeraye, Concilia Ecclesiæ Rotomagensis, p. 73. Bessin, Concilia, p. 49. No part of the building remains. The account of the Archbishops of Rouen in Mabillon (Vet. Anal. ii. 438), written while Robert’s church was standing (“Ecclesiam præsentem miro opere et magnitudine ædificare cœpit”), gives him much the same character. “Ante obitum suum, gratiâ Dei præveniente, vitam suam correxit. Feminam enim reliquit, et de hoc ceterisque pravis actibus suis pœnitentiam egit, et sic bono fine, in quantum humana fragilitas capere potest, quievit.”
533. Will. Gem. vii. 7.
534. Will. Gem. u. s. Will. Malms. iii. 232. William of Malmesbury says “patruus ejus, sed nothus,” but William of Jumièges distinctly calls Papia the wife of Richard; “aliam uxorem nomine Papiam duxit.” So Chron. Fontanellense, ap. D’Achery, iii. 289; “Papia matrimonio Richardi potita.”
537. See Palgrave, ii. 536.
538. “Willame Talevaz,” according to the Roman de Rou, 8061. “Willelmus Talvacius,” Will. Gem. vi. 7.
539. Roman de Rou, 8062. “Ki tint Sez, Belesme, è Vinaz.”
540. Ivo, son of the elder William, a Prelate of whom Orderic draws a very favourable picture (469 D), did not scruple to attack and burn his own church, when it had been turned into a fortress by certain turbulent nobles. He tried to repair it, and reconsecrated it; but the walls, being damaged by the fire, fell down. He was then charged with sacrilege at the Council of Rheims, and defended himself by the necessity of the case. He was bidden by Pope Leo, as a penance, to rebuild the church. He went as far as Apulia, and even as Constantinople, collecting contributions and relics, and he began the work on such a scale that, forty years later, the efforts of his three successors had not enabled them to finish it. Will. Gem. vii. 13–15. No part of his building now remains.
541. Will. Gem. viii. 35. See Palgrave, ii. 313, 536.
543. Will. Gem. vi. 7. “Ipse cunctis fratribus suis in omnibus flagitiis deterior fuit, et in ejus seminis hæredibus immoderata nequitia usque hodie viguit.” So vii. 10. “Hic à parentum suorum perfidiâ nequaquam sua retorsit vestigia.”
544. Ib. vii. 10.
545. Ib. Orderic (460 D) adds, “amputatis genitalibus.” These stories of the extreme wickedness of the house of Belesme are doubtless not without foundation, but one cannot help suspecting exaggeration, especially when we remember that Orderic writes in the interest of the hostile house of Geroy. This particular outrage of William Talvas can hardly be an invention; but it must surely have had some motive which does not appear in our authorities.
546. Ib. 12. The tale is that he one day went out with his followers (clientes) to rob, and seized on the pig of a certain nun (“inter reliqua porcum cujusdam sanctimonialis rapuit”). The holy woman pleaded earnestly for the restoration of her favourite (“gemens eum insecuta est, ac, ut porcellus quem nutrierat, sibi pro Deo redderetur, obnixè deprecata est”), but all was in vain; the oppressor killed the pig and ate him for supper. The same night he was strangled in his bed. In those times no alternative was thought of except a supernatural intervention, and an assassination by Arnulf’s brother Oliver. But our historian altogether rejects this last view, as inconsistent with the high character of Oliver, who passed many years as a brave and honourable knight, and at last died in the odour of sanctity as a monk of Bec.
This story contains nothing absolutely incredible; yet one is tempted to see in it a slightly ludicrous version of Nathan’s parable, assuming a form impossible under the elder dispensation. Arnulf too does not seem to have had even the poor excuse of the presence of a wayfaring man.
547. Roman de Rou, 8059 et seqq. Palgrave, iii. 149.
548. Will. Gem. vi. 12. “Robertum ergo archiepiscopum cum optimatibus sui Ducatûs accersivit.” This looks as if Robert were the only churchman present. See vol. i. p. 197. Wace (8081) gathers together Bishops, Abbots, and Barons, but perhaps only in conformity with the custom of his own time.
549. Roman de Rou. 8091 et seqq.
550. Roman de Rou, 8107 et seqq.
551. Ib. 8105.
552. Will. Gem. vi. 12. “Exponens autem eis Willelmum filium suum, quem unicum apud Falesiam genuerat, ab eis attentissime exigebat, ut hunc sibi loco sui dominum eligerent, et militiæ suæ principem præficerent.” A good precedent for the congé d’élire and letter missive.
553. Will. Gem. u. s. “Juxta decretum Ducis protinùs eum promptâ vivacitate suum collaudavere principem ac dominum, pangentes illi fidelitatem non violandis sacramentis.” Cf. Roman de Rou, 8117 et seqq. The events which followed make one doubt as to the genuineness of the “prompta vivacitas.”
554. Roman de Rou, 8125.
There is nothing however to imply that William stayed longer at Paris than was needed for the ceremony. It is an exaggeration when we read in the Winchester Annals (p. 19 Luard), “Willelmo filio Roberti Ducis juvenculo morante cum Rege Francorum in Galliis.” Rudolf Glaber (iv. 6) describes the accession of William in much the same way as the national writers; “Cui [Willelmo] antequam proficisceretur, universos sui ducaminis principes militaribus adstrinxit sacramentis, qualiter illum in Principem pro se, si non rediret, eligerent. Quod etiam statim ex consensu Regis Francorum Henrici unanimiter postmodùm firmaverunt.” Does the phrase “militaribus sacramentis” mean “on their knightly honour,” or is it merely a pedantic reference to the Roman military oath?
556. Will. Malms. iii. 230. “Clarissima olim patria, intestinis dissensionibus exulcerata, pro latronum libito dividebatur, ut merito posset querimoniam facere, ‘Væ terræ cujus Rex puer est.’” See Ecclesiastes x. 16. The same text is used by R. Glaber, iv. 5, with a more general application.