APPENDIX. (continued 2)

“After Saẏnt Edward, Harald Kẏng þei ches,

Þorgh conseile of þam alle, and he þe scheld les

Right and in lawe, þe barons held him trewe.

Neverles his falshed brought us sorowe alle newe.”

Of the two Scandinavian writers of whom I have here to speak, I have already quoted the passage from Snorro (see above, p. 595). He distinctly asserts an election, though he makes the election be obtained through an alleged will of Eadward, on which he seems inclined to throw some doubt. The other Northern writer is the Biographer of Olaf Tryggwesson, whom I have already quoted (vol. ii. p. 542) as the only writer who seems anxious to canonize Harold. He says distinctly (263) that “after Eadward, Harold 602the son of Godwine, whom some call a saint, took the Kingdom by the will of all the folk in the land” (“Eptir Jatvard Kong toc riki, af vild alz landfolksins, Haraldur Gudina son, er sumir kallan helgan vera”). I shall have to quote this writer again at another stage.

I now turn to the writers who are more or less decidedly hostile to Harold. These sometimes deny the fact of the election, sometimes they wrap up the fact, just as they do the fact of Eadward’s recommendation, in vague and declamatory phrases. I will quote first the purely Norman writers, and then those who represent a certain mixture of Norman and English traditions.

First comes William of Poitiers (Giles, p. 121), who denies that there was any election at all;

“Verus namque rumor insperatò venit, Anglicam terram Rege Edwardo orbatam esse, et ejus coronâ Heraldum ornatum. Nec sustinuit vesanus Anglus, quid electio publica statueret consulere; sed in die lugubri, quo optimus ille humatus est, quum gens universa plangeret, perjurus regium solium cum plausu occupavit, quibusdam iniquis faventibus. Ordinatus est non sanctâ consecratione Stigando, justo zelo Apostolici et anathemate ministerio sacerdotum privati.”

William of Jumièges (vii. 31) is shorter and still vaguer, but, by complaining that Harold beguiled away the whole English nation from their allegiance to Duke William, he admits that Harold had the hearts of the nation with him, and does in effect imply the election. His words are,

“Cujus [Edwardi] regnum Heraldus continuò invasit, ex fidelitate pejeratus, quam juraverat Duci. Ad quem 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.”

Orderic (492 C), who, higher up in the same page (see vol. ii. p. 541), showed some signs of generous feeling towards Harold, becomes at this point more savage against him than anybody else. He affirms, in apparent contradiction to William of Jumièges, that Harold’s accession was against the will of a large part of the English nation. This I believe to be a confused account of the 603temporary refusal of Northumberland to acknowledge Harold. Orderic mentions Eadward’s death and burial, and then goes on;

“Tunc Heraldus, ipso tumulationis die, dum plebs in exsequiis dilecti Regis adhuc maderet fletibus, à solo Stigando Archiepiscopo (quem Romanus Papa suspenderat a divinis officiis pro quibusdam criminibus) sine communi consensu aliorum Præsulum et Comitum procerumque consecratus, furtim præripuit diadematis et purpuræ decus. Audientes autem [Angli, I presume] temerariam invasionem quam Heraldus fecerat, irati sunt; et potentiorum nonnulli fortiter obsistere parati a subjectione ejus omnino abstinuerunt. Alii verò, nescientes qualiter tyrannidem ejus, quæ jam super eos nimis excreverat, evaderent, et è contra considerantes quòd nec illum dejicere, nec alium Regem, ipso regnante, ad utilitatem regni substituere valerent, colla ejus jugo submiserunt, viresque facinori quod inchoaverat auxerunt. Mox ipse regnum, quod nequiter invaserat, horrendis sceleribus maculavit.”

To these we may add, as speaking in the same spirit, the Verdun Chronicle of Abbot Hugh (Labbé, i. 194);

“Etuuardus Anglorum Rex obiit, qui, quia sine filiis fuit, consanguineum suum Wilelmum Normannorum Comitem post se regnare instituit. Sed Heroldus, contra sacramentum quod Willelmo fecerat, regnum invasit.”

Of the poetical writers, Wace (10977) speaks of a coronation and of homage received by Harold. He says nothing of election; but, as usual, there is nothing in him of the brutal violence so common in the other Norman writers.

“Dez ke li Reis Ewart fu morz,

Heraut ki ert manant è forz

Se fist énoindre è coroner;

Unkes al Duc n’en volt parler,

Homages prist è féeltez

Des plus riches è des ainz nez.”

Benoît (36656) is characteristically much fiercer; he distinctly denies both all election and all ecclesiastical consecration, and mixes up the supposed wrongs of Tostig with those of William.

“Heraut, de coveitise espris,

Senz autre conseil qui’n fust pris,

Saisi le reigne demaneis;

Parjurez e faus se fist reis

Eissi, senz icele unction

E senz cele sacration

Qu’en deit faire à rei saintement

Le jor de son coronement.

Eissi, senz nule autre devise,

Parjur, faus, pleins de coveitise,

Se fist coroner à grant tort:

Por c’en fu puis destruit e mort.

Ne tint envers le duc fiance

Ne ostage ne covenance,

De son frere ne li sovint;

Eissi out le reaume e tint.”

604We now come to the other class of writers, those who wrote in England under more or less of Norman influence, and who contrast remarkably with those who, like Simeon and Roger of Howden, are content to follow Florence. First comes William of Malmesbury, who gives two accounts in different parts of his work. The former passage (ii. 228) I have already quoted (see above, p. 588). At a later stage (iii. 238) he comes back to the subject again and gives quite a different account. The English were divided between Harold, William, and Eadgar; but it is now neither Harold nor William, but Eadgar, in whose favour Eadward had made his final bequest. Notwithstanding this bequest, notwithstanding a real diversity of sentiment among themselves, all give Harold an outward support, and he obtains the Crown. This is very vague and obscure. It may possibly mean that Harold was elected by a large majority, though some votes were given for other candidates. The words are,

“Rex Edwardus fato functus fuerat. Anglia dubio favore nutabat, cui se rectori committeret incerta, an Haroldo an Willelmo an Edgaro; nam et illum, pro genere proximum regno, proceribus Rex commendaverat, tacito scilicet mentis judicio, sed prono in clementiam animo. Quarè, ut prædixi, Angli diversis votis ferebantur, quamvis palàm cuncti bona Haroldo imprecarentur: et ille quidem, diademate fastigiatus, nihil de pactis inter se et Willelmum cogitabat.”

This passage of William of Malmesbury is our first distinct mention of the rights of Eadgar. It is the first hint of a doctrine whose partizans were, as time went on, largely to increase. According to this account, Eadward’s wishes are in favour of Eadgar, and his wishes are supported by a party among the Witan. This is the first setting forth of Eadgar as an actual candidate; but there is a passage of Orderic (598 A), in which he seems to think it necessary to explain why William came to the Crown rather than any one of the English royal family; “Guillelmus Dux Normannorum, deficiente stirpe Regis Edgari quæ idonea esset ad tenendum sceptrum regale, cum multis millibus armatorum ad Anglos transfretavit, et in campo Senlac invasorem regni Albionis Heraldum bello peremit.” Here we clearly see the first glimmering of the new view, which gets a little plainer in William of Malmesbury, and much plainer in those who came after 605him. William’s two accounts became stock passages, which were copied by the inferior writers who followed him, just as Florence’s description was copied by Simeon and other more judicious compilers. For instance, William’s description is taken as the groundwork of that given by Roger of Wendover (i. 513), which however is well worthy of notice. The hereditary right of Eadgar is now put much more prominently forward than it was a hundred years earlier.

“Defuncto, ut prædictum est, Eadwardo, Anglorum Rege sanctissimo, fluctuabant proceres regni, quem sibi Regem præficerent et rectorem. Quidam enim Willelmo Normannorum Duci, quidam Comiti Haroldo filio Godwini, alii autem favebant Eadgaro filio Eadwardi. Eadmundus verò Latus-Ferreum, Rex naturalis de stirpe Regum, genuit Eadwardum, Eadwardus Eadgarum, cui de jure regnum debebatur Anglorum. Sed Haroldus, vir callidus et astutus, intelligens quia ‘nocuit semper differre paratis,’ in die Epiphaniæ, quâ Rex Eadwardus sepultus est, extortâ fide a majoribus, capiti proprio imposuit diadema.”

This account of Roger of Wendover is followed in nearly the same words by Matthew Paris (2 ed. Wats), and in the Winchester History by Thomas Rudborne (Ang. Sacr. i. 241), who makes some most singular comments which I shall consider in another note. It implies more distinctly than William of Malmesbury does that the Duke was supported by a party—whether of native Englishmen or not—who had influence in England. But the rights of William are now much less dwelt on than the rights of Eadgar. Indeed there is another version, which leaves out William altogether, and dwells wholly on the rights of Eadgar. The nation, or a part of it, is in favour of the Ætheling, but Harold, by his wealth, his popularity, his vigour and energy, by some means of some sort, good or bad, contrives to supplant him. We first find this view where we should hardly have looked for it, namely in Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 761 D), whom we elsewhere see (vol. i. p. 332) firmly believing in the hereditary rights of William. His account is very short, but it has become, like those of Florence and William of Malmesbury, one of the stock passages for later writers to copy. The West Minster is hallowed, Eadward dies and is buried; then

“Quidam Anglorum Eadgar Atheling promovere volebant in 606Regem. Haraldus verò, viribus et genere fretus, regni diadema invasit.”

This is followed in one of the alternative accounts in Bromton and R. Higden (see above, p. 586), but they add a very sound reason why Eadgar was passed by, namely “quia puer erat, et tanto oneri minùs idoneus.” The means of Harold’s influence is described in different words by different copyists, but the fullest is that into which it swells in Knighton (2339). He had Higden before him, and Higden gave, as an alternative statement, Florence’s account of the recommendation of Eadward and the election of Harold. “Tradit tamen Marianus,” says Higden (284), after giving the other account, “quod Rex Edwardus ante obitum suum designaverit Haraldum Regem futurum, quem proceres mox in Regem erexerunt.” The unlucky use of the doubtful word “designaverit” instead of Florence’s “elegerat” led Knighton astray, and he turned the recommendation into a prophecy. He kept however the distinct statement of the election by the “proceres,” but mixed it up with the usual talk about “occupavit” and with the mention of Eadgar, out of Henry of Huntingdon. The result is worth giving in full;

“Tradunt quidam quod Rex Edwardus, ante obitum suum, Haroldum prædixit futurum Regem post se, quem proceres mox in Regem erexerunt. Mox Haroldus regnum occupavit, quod per novem menses circiter tenuit. Quidam enim Edgarum Adelyng, filium Edwardi filii Edmundi Ferrei Lateris, Regem constituere moliebantur, sed quia puer erat tanto regimini inidoneus et in bursâ minus refertus, Haraldus Comes, cui erat mens astutior, crumena fecundior, et miles copiosior et pompis gloriosior, sinistro omine regnum occupavit.”

This is a good specimen of the way in which later compilers put together those accounts which we often see quoted in modern books as if they were of equal authority with the Chronicles. It is amusing to see how Eadward’s recommendation of Harold, the best political act of his life, is changed, through the stages of “elegerat,” “designaverit,” “prædixit,” into an exercise of the prophetic powers of the saint. Still it is some comfort to see, standing forth in the midst of all this, the bit of true history which is set forth in the words, “quem proceres in Regem erexerunt.”

607I have gone on uninterruptedly through the Latin writers, but I must now go back some generations to quote the very curious account given by Robert of Gloucester (i. 354 Hearne). He is all loyalty towards the Ætheling, and admiration towards those who supported his cause.

“Harald þẏs false erl, þo Seynt Edwarde dede laẏ,

Hẏm sulue he let crounẏ kẏng þulke sulue daẏ,

Falslẏche; vor Seẏnt Edward so wel to hẏm truste,

þat he bẏtot hẏm Engelond, þat he ẏt well wuste

To Wyllammes byof þe bastard, duc of Normandẏe.

Ac hẏm sulf he made kẏng mẏd such trecherẏe.

Ac þe gode tryw men of þe lond wolde abbe ẏmade kẏng

þe kunde eẏr, þe ȝonge chẏld, Edgar Aþelyng.

Wo so were next kẏng bẏkunde, me clupeþ hẏm Aþelyng.

þervor me clupede hẏm so, vor bẏkunde he was next kyng.

Ac Harald made hẏs weẏ bẏvore, as mẏd suykedom,

Mẏd ȝẏftẏs and myd vayre byheste, and avong þe kẏnedom.

So þat somme hẏm chose alout, and somme hem hulde stẏlle,

And soffrede as hii noeȝt ne mẏȝte al oþeres wẏlle.

So þat Harald was kẏng, to wom þe hele þe kẏnedom.

And Seẏnt Edwardes sẏȝte bẏ hẏm to soþe come.

Vor þo bẏgan þe wow vorst, as me mẏȝte ẏse,

þat ssolde, as Seẏnt Edward seẏde, bẏ þre kẏnges day be.”

Loyalty to Eadgar and the orthodox interpretation of Eadward’s vision of course go together.

Lastly, one step only remains to be taken, namely to make the oath and perjury of Harold a sin, not against William but against Eadgar. We get the first glimmering of this in a Flemish writer of the thirteenth century, Hariulf, the author of the Chronicon Centulense or Chronicle of Saint Riquier in the second volume of D’Achery’s Spicilegium. He died in 1143. His account (p. 345) is as follows;

“Postquam autem mortuus est Rex Ethguardus, Herioldus quidam Comes regnum sibi accepit contra fas, et contra fidem sacramenti quod prædicto Regi juraverat, spondens quod pronepoti ipsius Regis, nomine Elfgaro, regnum cederet absque ullo impedimento. At quum regni potestate et fascibus injustè uteretur, expulso Ethguardi pronepote Elfgaro, summus et super omnia potens Deus, in cujus jussu constant regna terrarum, et qui donat ei cui 608vult, signo mirabili è cœlo ostenso, destinavit Guillelmum Ducem Normannorum Anglorum Regem fieri; et quia veraciter Dei nutu idipsum Guillelmus appetebat rei prosperitate probatum est.”

We may mark here, First, That Harold is supposed, as indeed he is in the story of his oath to William, to have some kind of power of disposing of the Crown or influencing its disposal. Secondly, That no earthly right is recognized in William; he is expressly called to the Kingdom by a sign from heaven in the shape of the comet.

But it was reserved for an English writer of the fifteenth century finally to put the notions of Hariulf—wherever Hariulf found them—into shape, and that into a shape exactly suiting the English politics of the fifteenth century. Famous John Hardyng, living so long after the time, naturally knew things which had not been revealed to those who lived earlier. He devotes two stanzas of his Chronicle to the matter (p. 232 ed. Ellis). Eadward’s miracles have just been spoken of; then

“Sone after that he dyed and went to blysse;

But fyrste he made Duke Herold protectoure

Of his cousyne, to governe and to wysse,

Edgar Athelyng, full yonge a governoure,

Whom he ordeyned to be his successoure,

As very heyre to Edmonde Ironesyde;

But this Herolde then set all that asyde.

...

Herolde by strength then crowned was for kynge,

Forsworne that was upon the euangelystes

For to crowne Edgar Athelynge,

And hym protecte and defende in all wyse

Unto his age, that none the realm suppryse.

This was his othe of whiche he was forswore,

All yf he made Edgar an earle therefore.”

Protectors were much more familiar in the days of John Hardyng than they were in the days of Florence and the Chroniclers. Here too is a special revelation, that the oath broken by Harold was an oath to Eadgar, and not an oath to William. We here get the history of the eleventh century as it was convenient to read it in the days of Richard of York and of Edward the Fourth. The “very heir” is wrongfully kept out by usurpers, the strictest doctrine of legitimacy only is to be acknowledged, and the rights of 609William, so sacred in the eyes of William of Poitiers and Henry of Huntingdon, are now (234) expressly denied. William came

“In trone royall to have the monarchye,

By his conquest and his victorye,

Withoute tytle of ryght to hym discente,

But onely of his tryumphall entente.”

Lastly, I suppose that I ought at least to mention the words in which Harold’s accession is recorded in the Brut y Tywysogion, 1066. In the English translation the entry stands thus; “That Harold who, at first earl, through cruelty after the death of King Edward unduly acquired the sovereignty of the kingdom of England, was despoiled of his kingdom and life by William the Bastard, duke of Normandy, though previously vauntingly victorious. And that William defended the kingdom of England in a great battle, with an invincible hand, and his most noble army.” I am sorry that my ignorance of Welsh hinders me from judging of the accuracy of the translation of the words in Italics, which certainly have a strange sound. The whole passage is an amplification of the corresponding passage in the Annales Cambriæ, in which there is nothing answering to them.

I have thus traced out the various statements with regard to the question of Harold’s election. That it was a perfectly regular act is asserted by two of our highest original authorities, and their narrative is in no way inconsistent with the narratives of those original authorities who do not directly mention the fact. The statement of the Peterborough Chronicler and of Florence was accepted, as preferable to the counter-statements, by some of the best and most careful compilers of the next age. Even the Scandinavian writers and Harold’s own local panegyrists at Waltham are at least witnesses to a tradition. Simeon, Roger of Howden, and Ralph of Diss are something more. They deliberately preferred Florence’s statement to any other, at a time when other statements were much more acceptable to the reigning powers. As the idea of elective kingship gradually died out, the tradition of Harold’s regular election would seem stranger and stranger, so that for a later writer to accept it really implied a certain amount of critical and independent judgement. On the other hand we have, first the fact that the highest Norman authority of all, the Tapestry, 610though it does not directly assert the election, is quite consistent with that version, while it is quite inconsistent with the legend of Harold seizing the Crown by force or fraud. Moreover the witnesses against Harold, from the very beginning, do not agree among themselves. Some say that there was no public election; Harold, they tell us, seized the Crown by a conspiracy with a few men, and reigned against the will of the nation. Others complain that Harold beguiled away the whole English people from their allegiance to the lawful heir. All wrap up their story in vague and declamatory phrases, which may mean anything or nothing, and which contrast forcibly with the distinct and clear statement of Florence. Then, as we get a little further away from the time, all kinds of new ideas come in. Each writer, from Henry of Huntingdon to John Hardyng, tells the story according to the political theories of his own age and his own party. When the notion of hereditary right was gaining strength, when a family sat on the throne who had other claims than those of the first Norman conquerors, the supposed rights of William began to drop out of sight. From the twelfth century onwards, we hear more and more of Eadgar, less and less of William, till at last, in the fifteenth century, we are pointedly told that it was not William but Eadgar to whom the false oath of Harold was taken. Thus the true tradition of Harold’s election had to struggle with greater difficulties in each generation, as to each generation the ancient notion of popular election of Kings became less and less familiar. The Peterborough Chronicler alone, in the joy of his heart, recorded the election of the hero whom he loved at the moment when it happened. Every other writer, from Florence onwards, who asserted Harold’s lawful election, asserted it in the teeth of prevalent prejudices and prevalent misstatements. From the contemporary entry in the Chronicle to the one true jewel half hidden in the dung-heap of Knighton, the evidence in favour of Harold’s election forms a chain of evidence of the very highest kind, all the higher because every statement after the first is made in the teeth of statements on the other side.

Is then the conventional talk about Harold’s accession, the talk about “occupavit,” “invasit,” “arripuit,” and the like, mere invention, mere wanton slander? Or is it founded, as both legend and calumny generally are founded, on some truth misrepresented or 611misconceived? I think that in this case also the legend has a certain groundwork of truth. The origin of this kind of talk is probably to be found in the extreme haste with which the burial of Eadward, the election and the coronation of Harold, were got through. There was indeed nothing illegal or unprecedented in the matter. The first election of Eadward himself had been made, just like the election of Harold, before the burial of the King whose death had caused the vacancy. And, had Eadward been on the spot, he might perhaps have been crowned, as well as elected, with as great haste as Harold was. And the hurried election of Harold was far more regular than the hurried election of Eadward. It does not appear that, when Harthacnut died, any regular Meeting of the Witan was actually in session. The first election of Eadward must have been made only by the citizens of London and such of the other Witan as could be got together at the moment. But the death of Eadward took place during the Christmas Feast, so that Harold’s election was made by the ordinary Midwinter Gemót. The thing then was done lawfully and regularly; still it was done with a haste which might well seem strange, and it is not wonderful that men in other lands, prejudiced against Harold, prejudiced against England, ignorant of the Laws of England, should look on the matter in the worst possible light. On William and his friends the news came like a thunder-clap. They heard in the same breath that Eadward was dead and that Harold was consecrated King. Eadward was King on the morning of Thursday; before the evening of Friday, Eadward was in his grave, and Harold was King, full King, King crowned and anointed. All William’s schemes were defeated, as far as it rested with the peaceful action of the people of England to defeat them. Not a moment had been allowed him to press his claims. The thing was done, and the sword only could undo it. It was no wonder then if, in Norman eyes, the haste of Harold’s accession seemed strange, indecent, altogether wicked. That it was thoroughly good according to English Law was a point about which William of Poitiers and his fellows neither knew nor cared anything. They naturally vented their wrath in talk about “invasit” and “arripuit.” As usual, declamatory expressions got substance. Harold was rhetorically said to have “seized” the Crown; thence came a story that he physically seized it with his own hands. The burial and the coronation were performed on the same day; thence came a 612story that Harold seized the time of Eadward’s burial for a sham election and coronation. Lastly, the temporary refusal of Northumberland to acknowledge Harold, of which I shall have to speak a few pages on, no doubt grew into the account in Orderic, copied by some later writers, about a large part of the nation standing aloof from Harold, or being actually hostile to him.

I have now dealt with two of the three points touching Harold’s accession, namely, the recommendation of Eadward in his favour, and his actual election by the Witan. The third point which remains is the coronation. It is impossible wholly to disentangle the evidence bearing on the coronation from the evidence bearing on the election, so that some of the references belonging to the subject of the coronation have been unavoidably forestalled. There remains however more than one point to be formally discussed in another note.

NOTE D. p. 42. The Coronation of Harold.

There are three points for discussion with regard to the Coronation of Harold;

First, Was Harold duly consecrated with the usual ecclesiastical rites?

Second, Who was the officiating Prelate at the ceremony?

Third, What was the place of the ceremony?

The evidence on the first point is as decisive as evidence can be. The ecclesiastical consecration of Harold is asserted by all the three Chroniclers. Abingdon and Worcester, with small verbal differences, both say, “Her wearð Harold Eorl eac to Cynge gehalgod.” Peterborough uses another word and gives us the date; “Harold Eorl ... wæs gebletsod to Cynge on Twelftan mæsse dæg.” Florence, in the passage which I have throughout taken as my text, states the same fact, and adds the name of the consecrator. Harold was “ab Aldredo Archiepiscopo Eboracensi honorificè consecratus.” I therefore have not hesitated to describe Harold in the text as consecrated by Ealdred, according to the form of consecration then in use in the English Church.

The writers whom I have already quoted as following the account of Florence with regard to the recommendation and the 613election, naturally follow him also with regard to the coronation. The coronation is also mentioned as an alternative statement by those writers who mention the recommendation and election as alternative statements. It is somewhat curious that Knighton, whose account is the most confused of all, seems (X Scriptt. 2339) to have no doubt about the coronation; “Nunc Haraldus ab Aldredo Eboracensi Archiepiscopo consecratus est.” This is the one position which he leaves without alternative or self-contradiction. The coronation is of course also asserted by the writer De Inventione (c. 20); “Rex igitur consecratus a Stigando Dorobernensi Archipræsule.” According to his Norwegian admirer (263), Harold was consecrated King and anointed (smeared) with holy chrism; “Hann var vigdr Kongr oc smurdr helgum chrisma.” Snorro also (Johnstone, 192; Laing, iii. 77) asserts that he was duly consecrated, and that on his consecration all the chiefs and people of the land submitted to him (“Haralldr var til konungs tekinn, oc vígdr konungs-vigslo inn xiii í Páls-kirkio. Gengo þá allir höfdingiar til handa hönom, oc allt fólk”).

The Norman writers nearest to the time do not deny an ecclesiastical consecration. Only they affirm that the officiating Prelate was Stigand. “Ordinatus est non sanctâ consecratione Stigandi,” says William of Poitiers (121 Giles); so Orderic in the passage already quoted (see above, p. 603), who even goes further, and says that the ceremony was performed by Stigand without the consent of the other prelates and nobles. William of Jumièges (see above, p. 602) slurs over the whole matter with the words “regnum invasit.” The Tapestry distinctly represents an ecclesiastical consecration, but the Prelate standing by the King on his throne is significantly marked “Stigant Archiep̄s.”

It is only when we get further from the time that we find any distinct denial of an ecclesiastical consecration of some sort. Wace, as we have seen (see above, p. 603), is colourless. Benoît, in the passage already quoted (ib.), distinctly denies any ecclesiastical consecration. So does the author of the French Life; he first asserts (4079–4081) that Harold caused himself to be elected and crowned, because no one dared oppose him;

“Il se fist de muz eslire

E curuner; kar cuntredire

Nel osa nuls.”

614He presently goes on to say, more at length, that the coronation was done hastily by laymen without any ecclesiastical rite;

“De la Tephanie fu la feste,

Curune mise sur sa teste;

E lendemein ke rois Aedward

Muruit, ke mut li fu vis tard,

De seculers e lai gent,

Par orgoil sudéement,

Sanz sacrement de seint iglise,

Fu curunez e sanz servise.”

(vv. 4095–4102.)

The story that Harold put the Crown on his own head probably comes from an expression of William of Malmesbury, in the former of his two accounts (ii. 228; see above, p. 604), “extortâ à principibus fide, diadema arripuit.” For this Roger of Wendover (see above, p. 605) substitutes the words “extortâ fide a majoribus, capiti proprio imposuit diadema.” In this he is followed, as we have seen, by Matthew Paris and Thomas Rudborne, but the latter adds an explanation which I must presently examine more at length. The Hyde writer too tells us (290), “regnum Anglorum ... usurpavit, regiumque diadema sibi imposuit.” So the author of the Annales Regum Angliæ (in the Rishanger volume, p. 427); “Haroldus filius Godwyni die sexto Januarii seipsum apud Westmonasterium coronavit.” The same words occur in Brompton (958) as an alternative. The Ramsey historian also (c. 120, p. 461) speaks to the same effect; “Haraldus ... diademate regni sese temerè insignivit.”

In all these writers the feeling against Harold is manifest, with the seeming exception of Thomas Rudborne. He first of all, as I have said, tells the story in words borrowed from Roger of Wendover, including the self-coronation of Harold, and his description as “vir callidus et astutus.” But, as he gets on, he gradually softens. He is sorry that Harold was guilty of perjury (Ang. Sac. i. 242), because, if he had not been so, he would most likely have defeated William (“utinam Haroldus non perjurus fuisset, et disciplinam Aristotelis quam dedit Alexandro Magno sequutus fuisset; fortè Dei auxilio et non dubium, ut aliquibus videtur, vicisset Willelmum”). He then goes on to explain how it came to pass that Harold was never anointed, and why he put the Crown on his own head (“Iste Haroldus, quamvis semetipsum propriis manibus coronâsset, numquam tamen Rex inunctus erat”). Harold had scruples about being crowned by Stigand, on account of his pluralities (“noluit enim inungi a 615Stigando Cantuariensi Archiepiscopo, quia injustè duos pontificatus, viz. Cantuariensem et Wyntoniensem, detinuit”). He wished to be anointed by Ealdred, but that Primate was very sick at the time. Harold therefore put off his unction till Ealdred’s recovery (“distulit enim recipere regiam inunctionem quousque Aldredus Eboracensis Archiepiscopus sanitati restitueretur, gravi enim infirmitate pro tunc detinebatur”). Unluckily Ealdred never recovered during Harold’s reign, and Harold therefore went without unction altogether (“Archipræsul verò Eboracensis Aldredus ab infirmitate minimè convaluit usque ad mortem seu occisionem Haroldi”). The statement of Florence and his followers or, as Rudborne says, of Ralph of Diss and some others (“quod autem Radulphus de Dyseto Londoniensis Decanus et quidam alii scribunt”), that Harold was consecrated by Ealdred, he explains as meaning that Ealdred simply consented to his consecration, not that he consecrated him in person (“hoc intelligendum est quia Aldredus Archiepiscopus sic consensit consecrationi, non quod egit seu dedit munus consecrationis in actu”). How Ealdred could be said to consent to a consecration which never took place is not very clear. For all this Rudborne refers to “Auctor de Concordantiis Historiarum Angliæ sub literâ H.” In this story I can see only an ingenious, but somewhat unlucky, attempt to reconcile contradictory statements. Still there is something remarkable in the canonical scrupulousness which it attributes to Harold, though the form which it takes is somewhat singular. If canonical disabilities affected one Primate and bodily ailments the other, one does not see why, as in some later cases, Saint Wulfstan or any other Bishop in the land might not have officiated by lawful commission.

Putting aside then the misstatements and misconceptions of other writers as well as the ingenious explanations of Thomas Rudborne, I do not hesitate to say that the ecclesiastical consecration, as asserted by the contemporary writers on both sides, must be admitted as an undoubted fact. The only question open to reasonable doubt is whether Ealdred or Stigand was the consecrator. The Chroniclers, writing at the time, before any controversy had arisen, did not mention the celebrant. Florence, after misstatements had arisen, thought it right to put on record that the celebrant was Ealdred. He is followed by the best later compilers, among whom 616Thomas Stubbs (X Scriptt. 1702) should specially be mentioned, for he writes as the historian of the Primates of York, and, though he adopts the words of Florence, he doubtless represents the independent tradition of the church of York. The only strictly English writer who represents Harold as crowned by Stigand is the Waltham writer De Inventione. The compilers, from Roger of Wendover onwards, seem to have been more taken with the notion of Harold’s putting the Crown on his own head. Perhaps they did not fully understand the point of the question between Ealdred and Stigand.

On the other hand, William of Poitiers and Orderic distinctly assert that Harold was crowned by Stigand (see above, pp. 602, 603); but they do it in rhetorical passages, in which they go on to enlarge on Stigand’s schismatical position. Their evident object is to represent Harold’s coronation as uncanonical and invalid. The representation in the Tapestry is singular. It does not show Stigand in the act of crowning or anointing Harold. Harold is already crowned and seated on his throne, and Stigand stands by, seemingly addressing the people. The Tapestry always seems to me the most honest and trustworthy of all Norman accounts; otherwise I could almost believe that there is here an attempt to insinuate that Stigand was the celebrant without directly asserting it.

The question is simply this, Is this Norman statement to be accepted in opposition to the statement of Florence, evidently meant in answer to it? The statement, very brief and casual, of the one Waltham writer, cannot be thought to add much to the strength of the case. His notions about Stigand are a little confused throughout his story, and he might easily take for granted that, if a King was crowned, he must have been crowned by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Leaving then the De Inventione, are we to believe William of Poitiers, supported to some extent by the Tapestry, or are we to believe Florence? I at least have no doubt as to preferring Florence to William. Each is undoubtedly the champion of one side; still the position of the two writers is widely different. The Archdeacon of Lisieux wrote as the laureate of a living sovereign, from whose favour he had everything to hope. The monk of Worcester wrote to clear the memory of a fallen hero from the calumnies which were already beginning to gather round it. William of Poitiers writes in a spirit of frantic reviling against Harold; Florence never displays any unbecoming bitterness against the Conqueror. Besides this, the 617assertion of William is simply an assertion; the assertion of Florence has the weight of a denial. Add to this that William writes of a transaction which happened in a foreign land of whose laws and internal affairs he clearly knew nothing. Florence, though hardly of an age at the time to say much from his own knowledge, was an Englishman and a Worcester monk, a member of a body which doubtless still watched the career of their former Bishop with interest. As far then as the comparative value of witnesses goes, it seems to me that Florence is a witness in every way more trustworthy than William of Poitiers.

The probability of the case lies the same way. We have seen that the episcopal ministrations of Stigand were at this time commonly avoided in England. Harold himself had (see vol. ii. p. 446) chosen Cynesige and not Stigand to hallow his minster at Waltham. It is therefore most unlikely that, on the occasion of this still greater ceremony, Harold should run the smallest risk of awakening scandal or objection. The custom of the time, and Harold’s own earlier conduct, show that Ealdred would be asked to perform the ceremony, almost as a matter of course.

Lastly, if the ceremony was really performed by Stigand, the assertion that it was performed by Ealdred must have been a deliberate falsehood on the part of Florence or his informants. Mere mistake or carelessness could never have led to it. But if the celebrant really was Ealdred, we can understand that the statement that it was Stigand might get abroad without any absolute lying on the part of any one. Let us suppose a rumour of Harold’s coronation reaching the Norman court. Such a rumour might well come without the name of the officiating Prelate. It would be taken for granted that the ceremony was performed by the Prelate whose proper function it was, the Metropolitan of Canterbury. The natural surmise that Harold must have been crowned by Stigand would soon grow into a rumour that he actually had been crowned by Stigand. The consecration of the perjured King by the schismatic Primate would lead to fresh invectives against both. Such a consecration would be declared to be no consecration; strict churchmen, in the vigour of their rhetoric, would say that Harold had never been consecrated at all. In the next stage those words would be taken literally, and we thus reach the point at which Benoît denies the performance of any religious ceremony. This 618process is exactly the same as that by which ecclesiastical writers so constantly apply the name of concubine, or sometimes harder names still, to the wives of priests or to other women to whose marriage there was any canonical objection. Lastly, the belief that Harold had no ecclesiastical consecration, mixed up with the talk about “arripuit” and “invasit,” led not unnaturally to the idea, which seems first to appear in Roger of Wendover, that Harold put the Crown on his own head.

There is then, I think, no doubt whatever that Harold was consecrated King with all the usual ecclesiastical rites. That the ceremony was performed by Ealdred may be thought one degree less certain, but that too seems to me to be a point on which scepticism is unreasonable. One point only remains, namely the place of the ceremony, whether Harold was crowned in the old minster of Saint Paul or in the new minster of Saint Peter.

Our direct evidence either way comes from quite inferior writers; those nearest the time, both Norman and English, do not mention the place. Some of the passages have been already quoted. We have seen that Snorro places the ceremony at Saint Paul’s. The list of coronations in what we may conveniently call Rishanger, followed by an alternative statement in Bromton, places it at Westminster. So does John of Peterborough, under 1066; “Successit in regnum Harold us Dux West-Saxonum, filius Godwini, in crastino obitûs Regis, id est in die Epiphaniæ, apud Westmonasterium coronatus.” On the other hand, in the Brevis Relatio (Giles 4) we read,

“Adhuc autem erat corpus ejus [Edwardi] super terram, sicut illi postea retulerunt qui hæc se videre dixerunt, quum Heraldus, quasi insanus atque postponens quidquid Willelmo Comiti de regno Angliæ juraverat, videlicet quod ei illud fideliter post mortem Regis Edwardi servaret, consentientibus sibi civibus Londoniæ, multisque aliis insaniæ ejus faventibus, apud sanctum Paulum in civitate Londoniæ, contra omnem rectitudinem, coronam regni Angliæ arripuit.”

Comparing this evidence, such as it is, the balance is distinctly in favour of Westminster. The witness of Snorro, apparently in favour of Saint Paul’s, really tells the other way. For he had just before said (Johnstone, 191; Laing, iii. 77) that Eadward was 619buried at Saint Paul’s, whereas there is no need at all to prove that he was buried at Westminster. Snorro most likely confounded the minsters of the brother Apostles. But his statement distinctly is that Harold was crowned in the same church in which Eadward was buried, that is, in Saint Peter’s.

The spirit of the Brevis Relatio, a bitter Norman pamphlet of the time of Henry the First, is abundantly shown in my extract. The writer professes to speak from what he has heard from those who were present. But does his statement really assert a coronation at Saint Paul’s? What he records is something which took place at Saint Paul’s before Eadward’s burial. This then could not be Harold’s coronation, for that took place after Eadward’s burial. Also he does not speak of a formal coronation; he uses one of the set phrases of Norman declamation, “coronam regni Angliæ arripuit.” Afterwards (p. 5) he makes William say how “Heraldus coronam regni Angliæ sibi imposuisset.” These are the rhetorical phrases which led to the later story of Harold crowning himself, but they do not in themselves imply any actual coronation at all. If the writer of the Brevis Relatio means an actual coronation, he is at once convicted of error by his placing the coronation before the burial. But it is just as likely that he is not talking of the coronation but of the election. Harold seizes the Crown with the consent of the citizens of London and many others. That is most likely the author’s way of putting the fact that he was elected by the citizens of London and the rest of the Witan, and it is highly probable that an Assembly in which the citizens of London were likely to take a prominent part might be held in Saint Paul’s.

It is therefore by no means clear that there is any evidence at all for Saint Paul’s. The direct evidence for Westminster, though not good, is a little better. The statement of John of Peterborough is very clear and straightforward, but the date of his Chronicle is uncertain, and it is in any case long after the time. His entry may be merely copied from Rishanger, whose statement, being found in a special list of coronations and royal burials, has a certain value, as not being a mere obiter dictum, but the assertion of a man who was specially enquiring into a certain subject.

But I rest the coronation of Harold at Westminster far less on 620these late statements than on the probability of the case and on what seems to me to be the implied evidence of earlier writers. Florence on the one hand, William of Poitiers and Orderic on the other, seem pointedly to connect the burial of Eadward and the coronation of Harold. In Florence’s narrative, Eadward dies and is buried; “Obiit Lundoniæ et in crastino sepultus regio more.... Quo tumulato,” he continues, in the passage which I have so often referred to, “Subregulus Haroldus ... die eodem ... in Regem est honorificè consecratus.” Two great ecclesiastical ceremonies, one immediately following the other, take place on the same day; in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the presumption surely is that they took place in the same church. William of Poitiers again (see above, p. 602) and, I may add, William of Malmesbury (see above, p. 588), seems to complain of the indecency of having the coronation on the same day as the burial, but they connect the two things, and they in no way imply any difference of place. It is only Orderic (see above, p. 603), who, by the use of the word “furtim,” might possibly suggest that Harold took advantage of the funeral in Saint Peter’s to be crowned elsewhere by Stigand. But he does not distinctly say so, nor do his words necessarily imply it. It strikes me then that Florence implies Harold’s coronation in Saint Peter’s and that nobody else denies it.

In fact, there was every motive for Harold to be crowned in Saint Peter’s, there was none for him to be crowned anywhere else. Eadmund and Cnut had been crowned at Saint Paul’s, but Saint Paul’s was no traditional crowning-place of West-Saxon royalty. Kingston had been forsaken, and no other one spot had definitively taken its place. No prescription was broken through by a Westminster coronation, and the circumstances of the recent consecration of the church, the death and burial of the Founder, would draw all men’s minds to the newly hallowed temple, and cause it to be chosen before all others for the greatest of national rites. To believe that the Prelates and the other Witan buried Eadward at Saint Peter’s, and then, without any conceivable motive, marched off to Saint Paul’s to crown Harold, seems utterly preposterous. There is good reason to believe that the West Minster was, from the very beginning, designed as a national crowning-place. The assertion of the doubtful charter to that effect (see vol. ii. p. 505) is confirmed 621by the practice of later ages. William was crowned at Saint Peter’s. The fact that he was crowned there is in truth no slight argument that Harold was crowned there before him. William had no motive to innovate on such a point. His only reason for being crowned at Saint Peter’s must have been because Saint Peter’s had been specially designed by Eadward for Kings to be crowned in. And that motive would tell just as strongly with Harold as with William. William had every motive to connect himself in every way with the memory of Eadward, and to put himself forward in every way as the true successor of Eadward and the faithful executor of his wishes. But Harold had exactly the same motives to do exactly the same. A passage of William of Malmesbury (quoted above, p. 555) which has been pressed into the service of the other side (Stanley, Memorials of Westminster, 48) has no reference to the matter at all. All that is there said is that William favoured the Abbey of Westminster because he was crowned there, and that William’s successors, out of reverence for Saint Eadward’s tomb, were crowned there also. There is not a word, expressed or implied, to show that William’s was the first coronation in the West Minster.

I have then, in these three notes, gone, to the best of my power, through the whole of the points suggested by my text from Florence. I trust that I have shown that we have the strongest ground that history can give us for believing that Harold the son of Godwine was in every way a lawful King of the English, a King chosen, crowned, and anointed, according to the ancient use of this Church and Realm. We may quote without hesitation the words even of his own romantic biographer, when he introduces his hero (ii. 151) as “Illustrissimus Rex legitimus Haroldus, jam ritè ac legitimè coronatus.” The evidence of true history, as distinguished from the voice of calumny and misconception, sets Harold before us as recommended by the dying will of his predecessor, as chosen to the Kingdom by the consent of a full and regular Assembly of the whole nation, as consecrated to his kingly office with all the rites of the Church, at the hands of a Primate whose canonical position no man ventured to gainsay. And we may add that there is no ground for depriving the royal Abbey of Saint Peter of the choicest flower in the rich garland of its historic memories. There 622is no ground for doubting that the spot which beheld the royal unction of Edward and Elizabeth had already received a higher honour still, in being the spot where, for the first and last time in English history, an English King received the English Crown purely because he was the worthiest of the English people.

NOTE E. p. 43. The Ancient Coronation Office.

For the details of the coronation-rite I have gone mainly to Selden’s Titles of Honour (p. 115), to Taylor’s Glory of Regality, a very careful and accurate work devoted wholly to the subject of coronations, and to the third volume of Maskell’s Monumenta Ritualia Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ. As we know that Harold was “honorificè consecratus,” the very words in which Florence presently describes the coronation of William, I have held myself fully justified in describing him as crowned according to the office then in use in the English Church, that commonly known as the Coronation Office of Æthelred. This office is printed in full by Mr. Taylor in an Appendix. It is also printed by Mr. Maskell, but piecemeal in the notes to a later office, which makes it exceedingly difficult to follow.

It would seem from the rubric of this office that the coronation of the King was intended to follow immediately upon his election by the Witan. He was to be led by two Bishops from the meeting of the Elders to the church (“consecrandum Regem de conventu Seniorum duo Episcopi per manus producant ad ecclesiam.” Taylor, 395; Maskell, 3). This office, as I have said in the text, has long been a privilege of the Bishops of the two sees of Durham and Bath and Wells. This custom, which has lasted down to our own day (see the Coronation Office of her present Majesty, Maskell, p. 88), dates from the time of Richard the First, who was led (see Roger of Howden, Scriptt. p. Bed. 374 b) by Hugh, Bishop of Durham, and Reginald, Bishop of Bath. But it appears from Guy of Amiens (see pp. 556, 558) that William was led by the two Archbishops. It is therefore probable that this privilege of the sees of Durham and Wells is not older than Richard’s time (Maskell, xxix.; 623Taylor, 321, 325, et seqq.), and that his choice of Bishops for the purpose was determined by the high descent of the Bishops of those sees at that particular time, and that from them the right passed on to their successors.

The election in the church by the clergy and people (“ab Episcopis et a plebe”) is something distinct from the earlier civil election. In my text I have simply transferred to the coronation of Harold the account which we find given of the coronation of William. The process is much the same in the later offices, down to the form for the coronation of Henry the Eighth, according to a device drawn up by that prince himself (see Maskell, 73). The hereditary doctrine is set forth in the strongest language, but the principle of election is put forth in language equally strong. Prince Henry is spoken of as “rightfull and undoubted enheritour by the lawes of God and man;” but he is also “electe, chosen, and required by all the three estates of this lande to take uppon hym the seid coronne and royall dignitie.” The assent of the people is asked in this form, “Woll ye serve at this tyme, and geve your wills and assents to the same consecration, enunction, and coronacion? Whereunto the people shall say with a grete voyce, Ye, ye, ye; So be it; Kyng Henry, King Henry.” This is perhaps the last very distinct case of election. Since that time the form has gradually shrunk up into the mere recognition which is now all that takes place. Indeed the election itself can never have been much more than a form. Such a form allows no room for the proposing and supporting of opposing candidates, such as we know to have sometimes taken place at royal elections (see vol. i. pp. 291, 534, ii. p. 9). It happens at a stage when the King is already fixed upon, and when all that is needed is his actual admission to the kingly office. The reason for going through such an empty form probably was that, as the coronation was an ecclesiastical rite, it was thought fit that there should be at least the shadow of an ecclesiastical election, an election by the clergy, and by the people in their character, not of English freemen but of baptized men. The King-elect had been already chosen to the civil office; it still needed the voice of the Church, the voice of the clergy and of all Christian people, to declare him worthy of the ecclesiastical sacrament. This ecclesiastical election outlived the civil one, and it is singular to trace the steps by which it dwindled down to the present unmeaning form.

624It is a most singular thing that a prayer in the office of Æthelred, or rather in an English office older than that of Æthelred, should have been copied for a King of the French in the fourteenth century, without changing those local expressions which were suited to England only. This curious fact was first mentioned by Selden (Titles of Honour, 177, 189; see also Maskell, 14). The form in Æthelred’s office prays that the King “totius Regni Anglo-Saxonum Ecclesiam deinceps cum plebibus sibi annexis ita enutriat et doceat, muniat et instruat, contraque omnes visibiles et invisibiles hostes idem potenter regaliterque tuæ virtutis regimen administret, ut regale solium videlicet Anglorum vel Saxonum sceptro [sceptrum] non deserat.” In the later English forms the old national names are left out. But in the order for the coronation of Charles the Fifth of France in 1375 (Selden, p. 189) the latter part runs thus, “ut regale solium videlicet Saxonum, Merciorum, Nordanchimbrorum sceptra non deserat.” Maskell also (14) quotes another French office, which instead of the words “totius Regni Anglo-Saxonum Ecclesiam” reads “totius Albionis Ecclesiam.” On this he quotes Ménard as arguing that the King of the French anciently had royal rights over the Kingdom of England, and that he was crowned King of the English. He suggests that these rights arose in the person of Lewis From-beyond-Sea, who might inherit a claim to the English Crown through his mother Ogiva (Eadgifu. See vol. i. p. 208). Nothing can be plainer than that the French scribes in both cases copied English offices, and seemingly two distinct English offices, of which that used for Charles the Fifth would seem to be older than the office of Æthelred. The formula “Saxonum, Merciorum, Nordanchimbrorum” must be older than the simple form “Anglorum vel Saxonum.” The passage also suggests another question. What are the “plebes annexæ,” annexed, as it would seem, to the Kingdom of the Angles and Saxons? Surely the reference is to the dependent members of the English Empire, a reference which had much less meaning in later English offices and which had no meaning at all in the French.

With regard to the unction, it strikes me that, according to the ancient English rite, the King was simply anointed on the head. The rubric in Æthelred’s office (Maskell, 19) copied in the French office (Selden, 116) is simply “hic unguatur oleo.” In the later offices the King is anointed on the hands, breast, shoulders, and 625elbows, and on the head last of all. In the very ancient office printed by Maskell (p. 76) from the Pontifical of Archbishop Ecgberht, the rubric is “hic verget oleum cum cornu super caput ipsius,” but another rubric follows, “unus ex pontificibus dicat orationem et alii unguant.” This may possibly mean such a manifold unction as we find in the later offices, but at any rate the order is different.

With regard to the regalia, the Tapestry represents Harold as holding the orb, which at a modern coronation is the subject of a special ceremony and is directly connected with the investiture with the “Imperial mantle” (Maskell, 114). But I do not find any form for the delivery of the orb in Æthelred’s office. The crown represented in the Tapestry seems to be a crown of fleurs-de-lys, which is the form of the crown worn by Eadward both on his deathbed and in the earlier scenes. It differs from that which has just before been represented as offered to Harold, it differs also from that which Harold bears on his coins, and none of them seems to have the cross on the top to which Godwine alludes in his speech in the great Gemót of 1052 (see vol. ii. p. 334).

NOTE F. p. 48. The Date of the Marriage of Harold and Ealdgyth.

It did not occur to me, when writing either the text or the Appendix of my second volume, that the marriage of Harold and Ealdgyth could be placed at any date except at some time between the death of her first husband Gruffydd and Harold’s election to the Crown. See vol. ii. p. 477. The different accounts which we have, not one of them of first rate authority, all connect the death of Gruffydd and the second marriage of his widow (see vol. ii. p. 630), as if no great time had elapsed between the two events. There is however no direct statement as to the date to be found anywhere, and one or two hints, none of them perhaps of any great strength singly, but having together a sort of cumulative force, have suggested to me that it is quite as likely that the marriage may have taken place after Harold’s coronation.

6261. One of the fullest of the Accounts of Ealdgyth, which I quoted in vol. ii. p. 630, is that of Benoît de Ste. More, no great authority certainly. He, it will be remembered, places the death of Gruffydd, and consequently the marriage of his widow, after Harold’s accession. As to the death of Gruffydd he is of course wrong, but it is quite possible that he may have given the right date to the marriage, and may have wrongly inferred that the death of Gruffydd must have happened a short time before it.

2. What more immediately concerns us at this point is that none of the accounts of Harold’s coronation contains any mention of Ealdgyth, unless the expression of Orderic (quoted in vol. ii. p. 630), which follows almost immediately after his account of the coronation, and which might be understood to imply that Harold was already married, be taken as an exception. The words of Orderic however do not seem decisive. Neither of course is the absence of any mention of Ealdgyth’s coronation decisive the other way, but it is worth mentioning among other hints.

3. In none of the accounts of the messages which passed between William and Harold after Harold’s coronation is there a single word implying that Harold was already married, though some mention of his marriage would have been much to the purpose. And several of the versions imply that Harold could have married William’s daughter even after his coronation. Wace (Roman de Rou, 11088) thus sums up Harold’s offences;

“Por li regne se perjura,

E li regne poi li dura.

A tut li regne fist damage,

E en tristor mist son lignage:

Ne volt mie fille el Duc prendre,

Ne cunvenant tenir ne rendre.”

So again in the Cartulary of Saint Bertin, p. 197 (a passage to which I shall have again to refer), the cause of William’s expedition is said to be “eo quod filiam ipsius Wilhelmi in uxorem accipere recusaverit [Haroldus].” This is hardly the language which would be used of a man who had already taken another wife. Perhaps too the words of William of Malmesbury (iii. 238) may look the same way. He tells us that Harold on his accession “nihil de pactis inter se et Willelmum cogitabat, liberatum se sacramento asserens quod filia ejus quam desponderat citra nubiles annos obierat.” This is in answer to a message of William, which must have included a summons to marry some one of his daughters. Harold answers 627that the particular daughter to whom he had engaged himself was dead. This is not at all like the language of a man who was already married.

In the account given by Eadmer (5), followed by Simeon of Durham (1066), it is still more distinctly implied that Harold could have married William’s daughter, even after his coronation. When Harold refuses to comply with William’s first demands, the Duke sends a second embassy, calling upon him at any rate to marry his daughter, which Harold refuses to do (“Iterùm ei amicâ familiaritate mandavit quatenùs, aliis omissis, servatâ fidei sponsione, saltem filiam suam uxorem duceret.... At ipse nec illud quidem se facere velle ... respondit”).

The statements quoted in the last two paragraphs are of course very confused and contradictory. Their evidence as bearing on the real nature of the engagements entered into between Harold and William I shall discuss elsewhere. But it is remarkable that, among several passages where we should have naturally looked for some mention of the marriage, if it had taken place, not one mentions it, while some distinctly imply that it had not taken place.

The political motive of the marriage would be much the same, whatever was its date. Whether it happened before or after Harold’s accession, it was most likely an attempt to secure the fidelity of Eadwine and Morkere. If it happened after the coronation, an obvious time for it would be the time of Harold’s recognition by the Northumbrians (see Note I).

I do not pretend positively to decide the question, as there is no direct testimony either way, but I think it right to mention that I have found what are at least hints favouring a view of the matter which had not occurred to me when I spoke of it in my former volume.

NOTE G. p. 51. The Character of Harold’s Government.

I mentioned in a former note (vol. ii. p. 538) that Florence of Worcester, while showing a deep admiration for Harold throughout his career, keeps back his formal panegyric till he records his election to the Crown. Immediately after the passage on which I have 628commented in three successive notes, he draws a picture describing Harold as in every respect the model of a just, pious, and patriotic King.

“Haroldus ... ut regni gubernacula susceperat, leges iniquas destruere, æquas cœpit condere, ecclesiarum et monasteriorum patronus fieri, episcopos, abbates, monachos, clericos colere simul ac venerari, pium, humilem, affabilemque se bonis omnibus exhibere, malefactore exosos habere, nam ducibus, satrapis, vicecomitibus et suis in commune præcepit ministris, fures, raptores, regni disturbatores comprehendere et pro patriæ defensione ipsemet terrâ marique desudare.”

This of course is in some sense an ideal picture. That is to say, it does not refer only to Harold’s short reign as King. What Florence really means is that the just and vigorous government of Harold’s earlier days was continued by him after his royal election. Florence’s panegyric of Harold the King is in short identical in all its main features with the Biographer’s earlier panegyric of Harold the Earl. The words of Florence are copied by most of the writers who copy his account of the election and coronation, such as Simeon of Durham (1066), Roger of Howden (256 B), Ralph Higden (284), and the Ely History (ii. 44). It seems in short to have become a sort of formula with all writers who took the national side. The strangest thing is when Knighton (2337) gives it in an abridged shape, as an alternative character of Harold, after some of the most savage abuse on record, which I shall presently have to quote.

On the other hand, the abuse which the Norman writers hurl at the newly chosen King is something perfectly frantic. William of Poitiers, more careful for England than England was for herself, tells us (146, Giles) how William delivered the Kingdom which he conquered from the proud and cruel yoke of Harold (“Profectò sustulit a cervice tuâ superbum crudelemque dominatum Heraldi; abominandum tyrannum, qui te servitute calamitosâ simul et ignominiosâ premeret, interemit. Quod meritum in omni gente gratum habetur atque præclarum”). So Orderic tells us (492 A, D) how the reign which had begun in perjury and usurpation was carried on in tyranny and wickedness; “Heraldus Goduini Comitis filius regnum Anglorum usurpaverat, jamque tribus mensibus ad multorum detrimentum perjurio et crudelitate, aliisque nequitiis pollutus 629tenuerat.” So, directly after; “Mox ipse regnum quod nequiter invaserat, horrendis sceleribus maculavit.” He goes on to add how the righteous soul of Tostig, whom he fancies to have been in England, was vexed by the unlawful deeds of his brother (“Tosticus, Goduini Comitis filius, advertens Heraldi fratris sui prævalere facinus, et regnum Angliæ variis gravari oppressionibus, ægrè tulit”).

In the French Life of Eadward (4445 et seqq.) we begin to get details. After a little moralizing, we get a long account of Harold’s enormities, charging him with pretty nearly every vice, and telling us how he went on sinning, and how Eadward often appeared and rebuked him in vain. Then follows a further list of crimes, some of which are very curious;

“Deners cum usurer amasse,

De gent reindre ne s’alasse,

Cum vescunte al eschecker

Set pur deners acunter;

Armes e chivalerie

Del tut despit e ublie;

Des hestoires n’enquert, n’en ot,

Ne d’anciene geste un mot.

Marchand meuz ke prince pert;

K’of ses fardeus feires quert.”

(vv. 4491–4500.)

The complaint against Harold for neglect of historical study might surely be retorted on Eadward’s panegyrists and his own calumniators. But there is something very odd, something doubtless characteristic of the Sheriffs of the thirteenth century, in the picture of the King sitting “like a Sheriff” at the exchequer, counting over his money. This charge of avarice we shall come across again, and it perhaps contains a certain ground-work of truth. That is to say, the threatening aspect of the times, especially after Eadward’s lavish expenditure on ecclesiastical objects, called for a prudent economy, which was sure to be misunderstood. I do not understand what is meant by Harold’s contempt for arms and chivalry, which is repeated in an earlier and shorter revilement of him (vv. 4283–4310). It cannot mean contempt of the specially Norman chivalry, as the word is in this very passage applied to Harold’s own prowess. For the poet goes on to set forth Harold’s strength and courage in strong terms, though he adds that his frightful wickedness made his “chivalry” of no use to him.

I have already alluded to Knighton’s portrait of Harold’s kingly government; here it is in full (2339). Harold has just been crowned by Ealdred;

630“Iste devenit nimis elatus et cupidus in collectione auri et argenti et thesaurorum, nec aliquam uxorem ducere voluit, sed vi oppressit filias baronum et procerum et militum de regno, quod ipsi ægrè ferebant. Et de forestis suis tantam ferocitatem et severitatem ergo adjacentes nobiliores exercuit, quod quamplures adnihilavit et multos depauperavit. Nec mirum, quamvis ex his et ex aliis nimis odiosus devenit populis suis.”

This charge of cruel enforcement of forest laws might almost seem to have been transferred from William to Harold. It reminds one of some of the doings of Charles the First in Essex. It is a charge which Sir Francis Palgrave (Hist. Ang. Sax. 346) has not scrupled to repeat, but, as Mr. C. H. Pearson (i. 362) truly says, there is not a shadow of evidence for it except the assertion of this writer of the fifteenth century. On the words in Italics I shall have to speak again. In those which follow Knighton might seem to have drawn his portrait from King John, and, to carry out the analogy, as Lewis was then, so William is now implored to come over to England as a deliverer.

“Et ideo pars Comitum et Baronum adinvicem conferebant, dicentes non ipsum esse fortunæ deditum, nec verum esse Regem sed per intrusionem erectum, et ideo infaustè regere populum suum. Et mandaverunt Willielmo Duci Normanniæ, qui Bastardus vocatus est, eo quod ante celebrationem matrimonii natus sit, ut in Angliam veniret eorum consilio et auxilio jus regni prosequuturus, feceruntque ei fidelem securitatem veniendi; et consensit.” Immediately after all this comes Florence’s panegyric, cut a little short, as an alternative picture.

After these general charges against Harold, it is only right to extract three entries from Domesday, all in the same shire and page (Hampshire, p. 38), in which Harold is described as seizing the lands of two persons after his accession to the Crown.

“Leman tenuit in paragio de Rege E. Heraldus abstulit ei quando regnum invasit, et misit in firmâ suâ, et adhuc ibi est.”

“Leman tenuit de Godwino Comite. Heraldus quando regnabat abstulit ei, et in suâ firmâ misit, et adhuc est ibi. Ipse Leman non potuit recedere quo voluit.”

“Godwin tenuit de Rege E. in paragio, nec alicubi poterat 631recedere. Heraldus abstulit ei et in firmâ suâ misit. Adhuc est ibi.”

I do not remember to have ever seen these passages quoted in illustration of the charge of private spoliation which is brought among other charges against Harold in the French Life. It is clear that they might be so used by any one who felt inclined. It is equally clear that we do not know enough about the matter to justify us in condemning Harold for dealings with his own tenants which may have been perfectly legal and honest. The entry does not even venture to call the occupation “unjust,” as it does with regard to Harold’s occupations in Herefordshire, and also with regard to many cases where Normans had taken lands from Englishmen and from one another. At any rate, if any wrong was done by Harold, it was not redressed by his successor. At the time of the Survey the lands were held, not by Leman and Godwine or by their descendants, but by King William.

I can hardly think that these entries are enough to make us set aside the portrait of Harold’s government given us by Florence in favour of that given by the French Biographer and by Knighton. And I believe it is the only corroborative evidence for that portrait that can be found. On the use of the word “regnabat” as applied to Harold, an use unique in Domesday, I shall have to speak in another volume.

NOTE H. p. 54. The Coinage of Harold.

Too much must not be made of the appearance of the word PAX on the coins of Harold. The word in various spellings, PAX, PACX, PAXS, appears on the coins of various Kings from Cnut to Henry the First. Still it is remarkable that the coins of Harold are singularly common, considering the shortness of his reign, and that, if I rightly understand my numismatic authorities, all his coins bear this legend, while with the other Kings it is only occasional, and with some of them, as with Cnut, very rare. I may add that Harold seems to have been the only King who 632could always spell the word right. Ingenious men have puzzled themselves to find out some special allusion in the word, as, in the case of the coins of Cnut, to the agreement between Cnut and Eadmund for the division of the Kingdom, and, in the case of the coins of Eadward and Harold, to the agreements made at the restoration of Godwine. I do not think that the word in any case implies anything more than the obvious religious or moral sentiment which it expresses. But it is certainly striking to find that sentiment so constantly expressed on the coins of the King who, above all others, needed peace, and who, through the aggressions of others, so utterly failed to find it.

On the whole matter see Ruding’s Annals of the Coinage, i. 137–166 (3rd ed.), and vol. iii. pl. 26. I have also to thank Mr. Leicester Warren for some private information contained in a letter to him from Mr. John Evans.

I am afraid of getting out of my depth when talking of either coins or crowns, but I cannot help noticing the marked difference between the arched crown set with pearls which appears on the coins of Harold and the singular kind of cap which is the commonest among the many head-pieces affected by Eadward. (See Ruding, iii. pl. 25, and Selden, Titles of Honour, 133, 134.) Is it possible that the monastic saint preferred the helm of the warrior, while the hero, in the same spirit which dictated the legend on the coin, chose to appear in the garb of a peaceful ruler?

NOTE I. p. 58. The Opposition of Northumberland to Harold’s Accession.

This story is one of the best illustrations of the way in which one authority fills up gaps in another, and also of the way in which important facts sometimes lurk in authorities which are not of the first rank. The Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles both begin their account of the year 1066 with Harold’s coming from York to Westminster for the Easter Festival (“On þissum geare com 633Harold cyng of Eoforwic to Westmynstre to þam Eastran”). There is not a word about his going to York or about the cause that took him there. This we learn only from the account in William of Malmesbury’s Life of Wulfstan (Angl. Sacr. ii. 253), which we thus see that we can fully trust for the main outline of the story. The jealousy of the North against the South is admirably described; only the narrative is confused by a notion that Tostig had something to do with the matter. William of Malmesbury seems never to have fully made up his mind where Tostig was at the time of Harold’s accession. His account of the whole business runs thus;

“Quinto anno collati Wlstano Episcopatûs Rex Edwardus fato functus ingens seminarium discordiæ reliquit Angliæ; hinc Haroldo, inde Willelmo Comite Normanniæ, legitimo eam jure clamantibus. Et tunc quidem Haraldus, vel favore impetratâ vel vi extortâ coronâ, regnum paullò minus totum obtinuit. Soli Northamhumbri magnum et gentile tumentes interim parere distulere, Aquilonalem cervicositatem Australi, ut dictitabant, mollitiei subjugare non dignati. Animabat eos ad tyrannidem, et insolentiâ suâ ingentes eorum alebat spiritus, Tostinus ejusdem Regis frater, nec fortitudine degener, si ardens ingenium tranquillis studiis applicare maluisset. Qui postmodum in eâdem provinciâ cum Haraldo Rege Noreganorum, quem in suffragium adsciverat, cæsus pœnas inconsultæ animositatis pependit. Sed hæc posteriùs. Tunc verò Haraldus eo profecturus, ut contumaciam eorum lenioribus curaret remediis, quandoquidem ferro frangere consilium non erat, sanctum virum secum adduxit. Sic enim fama sanctitatis ejus etiam ad abditissimas penetraverat gentes, ut nullam non arrogantiam molliturus crederetur. Nec verò citra opinionem rei fuit eventus. Namque illi populi ferro indomabiles, semper quiddam magnum a proavis spirantes, pro reverentiâ in jura Haraldi facile concesserunt. Et profectò perseverâssent, nisi eos Tostinus, ut dixi, averteret.”

This piece of history is not only valuable in itself, but it also helps us to the origin of a misrepresentation. We have seen Orderic (see above, p. 603) asserting that part of the English nation never submitted to Harold at all, while the rest submitted only unwillingly. This misstatement is clearly an exaggeration of the fact that Northumberland did for a short time refuse to 634acknowledge him. This same fact may quite possibly be at the bottom of those other stories about Harold’s oppression and tyranny of which we have heard so many. Orderic goes on to tell us (492 C) that, though some powerful men (“potentiorum nonnulli”) refused obedience, yet Eadwine and Morkere were zealous partizans of their brother-in-law (“Eduuinus verò et Morcarus Comites, filii Algari præcipui Consulis, Heraldo familiaritate adhæserunt, eumque juvare toto conamine nisi sunt, eò quod ipse Edgivam sororem eorum uxorem habebat”). There is no evidence that they were openly concerned in the resistance of Northumberland, though one certainly is inclined to put their names for the name of Tostig in William of Malmesbury’s account; but we know how they acted before the year was out.

It is doubtless on the strength of this passage of Orderic that Sir Francis Palgrave ventured to write (Hist. Ang. Sax. 362); “Some portions of the Anglo-Saxon dominions never seem to have submitted to Harold. In others a sullen obedience was extorted from the people, merely because they had not power enough to raise any other king to the throne.” In the page before he had said, “If our authorities are correct, Stigand, Archbishop of Canterbury, but who had been suspended by the Pope, was the only prelate who acknowledged his authority.” Now, unless Sir Francis merely meant that Harold never received the homage of Malcolm, the only ground for saying that any part of “the Anglo-Saxon dominions” refused to acknowledge Harold is the story of the resistance of Northumberland given by William of Malmesbury. But it is an essential part of that story that the resistance of Northumberland was peaceably overcome by Harold with the help of Saint Wulfstan. That is to say, instead of all the Prelates except Stigand refusing to acknowledge Harold’s authority, the holiest Prelate of the time appears as Harold’s most zealous partizan. The two parts of the story hang inseparably together. If we believe that part of England for a while refused allegiance to Harold, we must also believe that the sainted Bishop of Worcester was his most loyal subject.

I should not have enlarged on any faults in a work of Sir Francis Palgrave, written thirty years before his death, and which certainly does not represent the latest lights of that great scholar, 635if the worst portions of his early work had not been so injudiciously reprinted as stop-gaps between the fragments of that later work of his which every student of these times ought to have beside him.

NOTE K. pp. 67, 540. The Political Position of the Lady Eadgyth.

I am not aware of any mention of Eadgyth in any English writer between the death of Eadward and her own death (Chronn. Wig. Petrib. 1076; Fl. Wig. 1074). The accounts of the latter event however show that Winchester was her dwelling-place, and that she was in high honour with William.

I am now more inclined than I was in vol. i. p. 334 to look on Winchester as the actual morning-gift, first of Emma and then (by reversion or by the despoiling of Emma) of Eadgyth. It is plain that the city was the usual dwelling-place of each of the widowed Ladies in her widowhood. That Winchester was the morning-gift of Eadgyth is distinctly asserted by Guy of Amiens (see above, p. 541).

There are several indications that Eadgyth was not thoroughly loyal towards England. The only direct statements to that effect are certainly to be found only in very suspicious sources, but, weighing one thing with another, they seem not to be wholly without probability. William of Poitiers, in the midst of his savage abuse of Harold (126), adds, “Germana quoque, illi moribus absimillima, quum armis non valeret, votis inpugnabat et consilio.... Voluit autem virilis prudentiæ femina, intelligens honesta quælibet et vitâ colens, Willelmum Anglis dominari.” So the Hyde writer (290) says distinctly, “Haroldus, defuncto Edwardo, mox regnum Anglorum, contradicente Edithâ Reginâ sorore suâ, usurpavit.” I do not quite understand what the writer of the French Life means when he says (4075) that Harold

“Pur la reine Edith sa suer

Fu cremuz e amez de cuer.”

When we remember Eadgyth’s preference for Tostig and her alleged complicity in one of his worst crimes, we may perhaps 636think it quite possible that she was no loyal subject of Harold. We may even be led to see a special meaning in the earnest request made by Eadward on his death-bed, that she should lose nothing of her rights and honours (see above, p. 15). And, when Tostig had fallen, it is even possible that she may have looked to William as being in some sort his avenger. She may also, at an earlier time, have fallen under the baneful fascination of her husband’s foreign favourites. And the Norman account, strange as it sounds, derives a certain corroboration from its very strangeness. It is the sort of thing which no one would have been likely to think of, if there had not been some real ground-work for it. And the honour shown to her by William, and the respect with which she is always treated by Norman writers, are in themselves suspicious. It was of course the obvious policy of William, representing himself as he did as the lawful successor of Eadward, to show every respect to the widow of his predecessor. But when we remember that that widow was also the sister of Harold, it is hardly honourable to her that William was able to carry out a policy of this kind. The other female members of her family found that England under William was no place for them. But while her mother, her sister, her nieces, were all in banishment, Eadgyth sat quietly at Winchester in all the honours of the Old Lady. In fact her character is a riddle from beginning to end, and her relations to her brothers are almost as mysterious as her relations to her husband.

NOTE L. p. 68. The Affairs of the Abbey of Ely at the time of Harold’s Accession.

There are several points worth notice in the condition of the Abbey of Ely at the time of Harold’s election which it may be as well to speak of in the same place.

Abbot Wulfric, according to the Ely history (ii. 36), was appointed by Eadward in the year 1045, and he is described as being the King’s kinsman. “Rex Edwardus Wlfricum cognatum suum Abbatem ad jam dictum cœnobium apud Wintoniam assumpsit, 637ibique a Stigando Dorobernensi Archiepiscopo benedici fecit, tertio Regni sui anno, ab Incarnatione verò Domini millesimo quadragesimo quinto.” The writ then follows, which is also printed in Cod. Dipl. iv. 226, addressed, according to a common form, to the Bishops, Earls, Sheriffs, and Thegns generally of every shire where the Abbey had lands. The Abbotship is given by the King’s grant just like a Bishoprick (“Ic kýþe eów þæt ic habe geunnen Wlfríce þæt Abbotríce in Hely on eallen þingen” &c.).

This appointment made at Winchester would probably be made in the Easter Gemót of 1044, perhaps about the time when Abbot Siward was appointed Coadjutor-Archbishop to Eadsige (see vol. ii. p. 68). But there are one or two points of difficulty. That Stigand should be called Archbishop before his time by a writer living long after is not wonderful. But one does not see how he came to be performing an episcopal act over an Abbot whose church was not in either of his successive dioceses, and at a time (see vol. ii. p. 72) when it is not clear whether he was in possession of a diocese at all. There is also something puzzling in the description of Wulfric, as of several other persons, as King Eadward’s kinsman. We have seen Earl Odda so described (see vol. ii. p. 160), and Bishop Rudolf (see vol. ii. p. 120), and we also find the same name given to no less a person than Saint Eadmund of East Anglia himself. See Cod. Dipl. ii. 225, 226. Was Wulfric one of the house of Æthelwine, and was that house looked on as connected with Eadward through the first marriage of his grandmother Ælfthryth?

I infer that Wulfric died shortly before the death of Eadward from the words “mortuo nuper Wlfrico patre” in Hist. Elien. ii. 43. The historian gives two accounts of the appointment of Thurstan. In the second, in c. 43, he merely says that Harold “mox accepto regno Turstanum in Ely, mortuo nuper Wlfrico patre, ejusdem monasterii constituit Abbatem, virum probatæ virtutis et abstinentiæ, Anglicè et Latinè sufficienter a puero ipso in loco edoctum.” The earlier account in c. 41 runs thus; “Post decessum vero Abbatis Wlfrici, Stigandus Doroberniæ Archiepiscopus, Abbatiam de Ely, sed et episcopatus atque abbatias sibi assumpsit plurimas, et gratiâ utriusque Domini sui, Edwardi scilicet et Haroldi Regum, eas propriis pastoribus viduatas quamdiu voluit in suâ manu tenuit, et quibus voluit personis conferebat. Nam 638Wintoniensem, Glastoniensem, Sancti Albani, et Sancti Augustini, et Elyensem ante Turstanum Abbatem, abbatias in manu suâ receperat, et velut proprias possidebat. Ipso quoque suggerente, Haroldus, qui regni sceptra tenebat, ipsum Turstanum ab eodem Stigando benedici fecit.”

With this benediction of Thurstan by Stigand we may compare the benediction of Æthelsige by Stigand in 1061 (see vol. ii. p. 454). Compare also Æthelsige’s pluralities at Canterbury and Ramsey (see vol. ii. p. 455), and the strange story about Stigand himself holding the Abbey of Gloucester (see vol. ii. p. 638). Compare also the case of Ealdred at Winchcombe (see vol. ii. p. 362), and the vast pluralities of Abbot Leofric (see vol. ii. p. 349). Nevertheless I conceive that there is here a good deal of exaggeration as to Stigand’s pluralities. The Abbey of Winchester, meaning seemingly the New Minster, seems to be confounded with the bishoprick. We know the succession of Abbots of New Minster (see vol. ii. p. 644), among whom Stigand does not occur, and of Saint Swithun’s he was necessarily Abbot as Bishop of Winchester. And if Stigand ever held any of the other abbeys spoken of, it must have been for the shortest possible time. We have seen the regular succession of abbots at Glastonbury (see vol. ii. p. 361), and also at Saint Augustine’s in the person of Æthelsige, mentioned just above as blessed by Stigand himself. Neither do I find any mention of an incumbency of Stigand in the local history of Saint Alban’s.

The detention by Stigand of lands belonging to the Abbey is asserted in the local history, ii. 41; “Stigandus, quamvis substituto illic Abbate, caussas ecclesiæ agebat, sed quasdam illius optimas possessiones, sicut Liber Terrarum insinuat, ad maximum loci dispendium retinuit.” The reference to the “Liber Terrarum,” the local Domesday, should be noticed. I do not quite know what is meant by “caussas ecclesiæ agebat,” unless it be that Stigand, while robbing the house himself, defended it against other people.

The charge here brought against Stigand is the same as that which was also brought against Archbishop Ealdred and Bishop Ælfweard. See vol. ii. pp. 69, 467, 551. But there is an entry in Domesday which may perhaps suggest another view of his conduct. In fol. 40 b we read of certain lands in Hampshire 639which “Abbatia de Ely tenuit de Stigando Archiepiscopo T. R. E.,” but which, at the time of the Survey, belonged to the see of Winchester. Is it not possible that these were the lands in question, and that Stigand’s appropriation of them was simply the resumption of a lease?

The Abbey of Ely had at this time a somewhat remarkable inmate. This was one Osmund, who had been a Bishop in Sweden, reminding one of Eadward’s kinsman Rudolf, who had been a Bishop in Norway, and whom Eadward quartered on the monks of Abingdon (see vol. ii. p. 160). The Ely historian (ii. 42) speaks of Osmund with great reverence, but Adam of Bremen (iii. 14) calls him “acephalus” and “girovagus,” and charges him with teaching false doctrine. He seems to have tried to set himself up as an independent Metropolitan of Sweden in opposition to the see of Hamburg. Refused consecration at Rome, he obtained it “a quodam Polaniæ Archiepiscopo,” that is, it would seem, from Stephen, Archbishop of Gnesen from 1038 to 1059. He came back to Sweden, professing to have been consecrated by the Pope as Archbishop of Sweden. When Papal Legates, members of the church of Bremen, came to complain, he wrought so upon King Emund and the Swedish people, that the Legates were sent away as not having proper credentials (“Solitis populum Regemque impulit dolis, ut legati repellerentur, quasi non habentes sigillum Apostolici”). At last (Adam, iii. 70) the famous Adalbert, Archbishop of Hamburg (1043–1072), the early guardian of Henry the Fourth, held a visitation of Scandinavia by authority of Pope Alexander the Second, and quietly removed (“dimisit hilaris”) several irregularly ordained Bishops, including Osmund. This must have been between 1061 and 1065. Osmund came to England and won great favour with Eadward and with all the great men of the land, but, charmed with the piety of the monks of Ely and their Abbot, he retired to their house, joined their brotherhood, and discharged episcopal functions among them—an early case, like that of Rudolf, of a Bishop in partibus. He died in Thurstan’s time, and was buried at Ely and afterwards translated.

640

NOTE M. p. 72. The Comet of 1066.

This comet evidently made the deepest impression in every part of Europe. It is recorded in nearly every chronicle everywhere, and it is very generally, even by men who have no special connexion either with England or with Normandy, accepted as a presage of the Conquest of England. Our usual English and Norman authorities record it also; but I have preferred to collect a few of the more remarkable entries in the annals of more distant countries. I will give some specimens from the writers of Germany, of Southern Gaul, and of Italy.

The Chronicle of Saint Andrew at Cambray (Pertz, vii. 537) has a most remarkable entry;

“De bello in Angliâ facto. Anno autem Dei Christi 1066 ad occidentalem plagam unus ex cometis admodùm visu terribilis, crinitos radios velut flammigeras hastas emittens, vespere solem sequens per octodecim dies apparuit. Quod genus sideris quòd erunt bella aut famem aut pestilentiam portendere solet. Hoc regni etiam mutationem ipsâ suâ apparitione præsignavit. Nam Wilelmus Normannorum Comes, paratâ non parvâ classe, assumptâ magnâ militiâ, mare pertransiit.”

A short narrative of the Conquest of England follows. So the Chronicle of Ekkehard (vi. 199) also directly connects the comet with William’s expedition, of the results of which it gives a very exaggerated account;

“A.D. 1066. Cometes per totum orbem diu apparuit. Eodem anno Angliâ per Willihelmum Nortmannicum miserabiliter afflictâ tandemque subactâ, ipse Rex ejus effectus est. Qui mox omnes penè regni ejusdem præsules exsilio, nobiles verò morti, destinavit, mediocres autem suis militibus in servitutem, uxores indigenarum universorum advenis in matrimonium subjugavit.”

Abbot Hugh’s Chronicle of Verdun (Labbé, i. 194) says, “Millesimo quoque LXV. anno, Ind. iii. stella quæ cometes dicitur apparuit, et eodem anno Etuuardus Angi. Rex obiit.” (See the rest of the passage in p. 603.)

Still more distinct is the Chronicle of Saint James at Lüttich 641(Pertz, xvi. 639; Bouquet, xi. 294); “Cometes apparuit, quæ bellum Angliæ portendit, quam Guillelmus Normannorum Comes, ipsâ cum Rege suo Hero [sic] gravissimâ cæde mulctatâ, vi militari corripuit, regnumque victor obtinuit.”

Adam of Bremen we have almost learned to look on as a writer Scandinavian rather than German. He (iii. 50, 51) connects the comet with English affairs, but he does not give them the precedence. He first mentions the death of Godescalc (see vol. i. p. 650) and other events nearer home, and then adds,

“Et, nisi fallor, hæc mala nobis ventura significavit ille horribilis cometa qui isto apparuit anno circa dies paschæ. Eodem quoque tempore clades illa memorabilis in Angliâ facta est, cujus magnitudo, et quod Anglia Danis ex antiquo subjecta est, summam nos eventuum præterire non sinit.”

He then goes on with that short sketch of English affairs, from which I have several times had occasion to quote piecemeal.

Other German accounts which connect the comet with England will be found in the Annales Blandinienses (Pertz, v. 26), in the Annales Formoselenses (v. 36), in the Chronicle of Conrad of Ursperg (p. ccxxxiii.), and in Marianus (Pertz, v. 559), whose curious account of this year I have often had occasion to quote. See also Sigebert (vi. 361) and the Saxon Annalist (vi. 694), who oddly describes William as “filius illius Roberti quem Ricardus Comes Nortmannorum ex sorore Knut Regis Danorum genuerat.”

To these German writers I may add the Pole Dlugoss, the latest in time and also the most distant from England. He tells us (i. 260, ed. Leipzig, 1711); “Cometes stella in occidentem facem dirigens apparuit, plura mala quibus et Almaniæ et Britanniæ regiones afflictæ fuerunt designans. In Britanniâ, quæ nunc Anglia dicitur, Rex Eraldus occiditur, et in Almaniâ principes variis cædibus in se debacchantur.”

Of German writers who do not connect the comet with England I may mention Berthold (Pertz, v. 273) and Bernold (v. 428). But the most remarkable entry is that of Lambert (1066), who connects the comet with English affairs, but looks on it as presaging, not Senlac, but Stamfordbridge;

“In festis paschalibus per quatuordecim ferè noctes continuas cometa apparebat. Quo in tempore atrox et lacrimabile nimis prœlium factum est in partibus Aquilonis, in quo Rex Anglisaxonum 642tres Reges cum infinito eorum exercitu usque ad internecionem delevit.” (On these three Kings see Note CC.)

Turning to Southern Gaul, the Chronicle of Saint Maxentius (Labbé, ii. 211) not only connects the comet with England, but ventures to give a rash judgement in a matter of English constitutional Law. “1066. Stella cometes apparuit. Willermus Comes, filius Roberti supradicti Comitis Normanniæ, transiens mare conflixit cum Airaudo, pseudo-Rege Anglorum, quem devicit cum ipsâ gente, et terram eamdem in suam ditionem recepit.” Another Aquitanian Chronicler, William Godell, is less certain about the matter (Bouquet, xi. 284). “Hoc anno cometes apparuit in vigiliâ Sancti Marci, significans fortasse abundantiam effusi Christiani sanguinis quam terra in regno Anglorum absorbuit.” See also the Chronicle of Saint Benignus at Dijon (Pertz, v. 42), and that of the Campanian Chalons (Labbé, i. 296). The Rheims Chronicle (Labbé, i. 360) throws its notice of the year into two hexameters, which appear in a great number of forms;

“Sexagenus erat sextus millesimus annus,

Quum pereunt Angli stellâ monstrante cometâ.”

Abbot Baldric, in his verses on William (Duchèsne, Rer. Franc, iv. 257), has quite a different couplet. William is one

“Indice qui cœlo, qui præsagante cometâ

Anglos innumeris stragibus obtinuit.”

Getting nearer our usual beat, the Breton Chronicle of Quimperlé on the one hand (Bouquet, xi. 372), and the Chronicle of Lambert of Saint Omer (Pertz, v. 65) on the other, both bring in the mention of English affairs, though the Breton writer mixes them up with things which to him were nearer home. Lastly, one of the Angevin Chronicles (Labbé, i. 288) looks on the comet as the sign of many woes to many nations. The Conquest of England comes first, but events which more immediately touched Anjou had also something to do with it. “In hoc anno apparuit cometa terribilis, multarum calamitatum in sequentibus annis subsequutarum, ut post patuit, portentrix. Nam in ipso anno Comes Normannorum Guillelmus Anglorum regnum magno periculo aggressus impugnare, bello publico magnâ et miserabili cæde cruento expugnavit, atque in Regem levatus coronari se fecit.” 643He then goes on to speak of Conan’s invasion of Anjou and his death, and of the wars between the brother Counts Geoffrey and Fulk.

Of the Italian chronicles I have already quoted one, the Annals of Beneventum (see p. 71). The Annales Cavenses (Pertz, iii. 180) connect the comet only with local affairs. But at Bari the Norman name was more familiar, and Lupus Protospatarius (Pertz, v. 59) recorded William’s victory, though he did not know his name. “1067. Et hoc anno apparuit stella cometes, et Comes Normannus Robertus fecit bellum cum Araldo Rege Anglorum, et vicit Robertus, qui et factus est Rex super gentem Anglorum.”

All our usual authorities record the appearance, and all, I think, in its proper chronological order, except William of Poitiers, who brings it in afterwards (139) at the end of his apostrophe against Harold.

The different statements as to the number of days during which the comet was visible are remarkable, and I must leave it to astronomers to reconcile them. But I cannot help thinking that the time of thirty days, spoken of in two chronicles only, one of which seems evidently to copy from the other, must be an exaggeration. The fourteen days of Wace (11462) and the fifteen of William of Jumièges (vii. 31) and Benoît (36778) doubtless mean the same thing, according to the usual French idiom. And, as the seven days of the English Chronicles and Sigebert (vi. 301) would, according to the same idiom, be eight, I cannot but think that the eighteen days of the Cambray annalist are owing to a confusion between the two accounts. If so, we have only two statements, one of a week, the other of a fortnight. The latter rests on the authority of Lambert and of William of Jumièges; the French metrical writers simply follow William.