СНАР. Х. Godwine. 10351053. Notes. have been wholly broken up. Duduc had even in Cnut's time The House of been rewarded by the see of Wells; Hermann was in 1045 appointed by Eadward to the bishopric of the Wilsætas; and in the same year Leofric was made bishop of Devonshire and Cornwall. It is possible that the promotion of Hermann and Leofric was designed to clear the way for the French chancery that now took the place of the Lotharingian, the members of which must have been so closely connected with Godwine's policy since the days of Cnut; and that this new organization of the royal chapel, following so soon on the appointment of Robert of Jumièges to the see of London (in 1044), marks an important step in Eadward's opening struggle with the earl. The earliest signatures given by Kemble ("Sax. in Eng." ii. 115) date from 1045, i.e. from the opening of the strife between the king and Godwine-a significant date. They are those of Hermann capellanus (Flor. Worc. a. 1045); Wulfwig cancellarius (Cod. Dip. 779); Reginboldus sigillarius (Cod. Dip. 810); Reginboldus cancellarius (Cod. Dip. 813, 824, 825, 891); with a staff of the same date, Ælfgeat notarius (Cod. Dip. 825), Petrus capellanus (ib. 813, 825), Baldwinus capellanus (ib. 813), Osbernus capellanus (ib. 825), Robertus capellanus (ib. 825). Then, in 1047, Florence gives Heca as chaplain, afterwards bishop of Selsey; and, in 1049, Florence also notes Ulf as chaplain, who became bishop of Dorchester in 1051; Cynesige as chaplain, afterwards archbishop of York; and William, 1051, bishop of London (for these Kemble gives no signatures). Two other names are from Florence: Godmann, chaplain in 1053, and Gisa in 1060. It may be that this organization of the chancery or chapel marks Eadward's first period; his struggle with Godwine, and the foreign names of the staff, would suggest this idea. Godwine's triumph may have given a temporary blow to this new administrative scheme, for Kemble notes two chaplains, Cynesige and William, as signing in 1051, but none after, save Gisa in 1060 (Kemble, "Sax. in Eng." ii. 116). The charter in which Wulfwig figures as "regiæ dignitatis cancellarius" (Cod. Dip. 779) is noted by Mr. Freeman as " doubtful." He afterwards succeeded Ulf as bishop of Dorchester. The group therefore really begins with the Norman Reginbold. Reginbold "appears, in Domesday (1806) by the description of 66 'Reinbaldus Canceler' as holding lands in Herefordshire T.R.E." After the Conquest "he still held lands in Berkshire (566, 60, 63), Gloucestershire (1666), and Wiltshire (686), if he is, as he doubtless is, the same as 'Reinbaldus de Cirencestre' and Renbaldus presbyter.' He was dean of Cirencester (Ellis, i. 398), and besides his lay fees he held several churches in Wiltshire (Dom. 65b)." (Freeman, "Norm. Conq." ii. 357, 358). The permanence of the new organization is shown by his remaining with his fellows after the restoration of 1052. Thus he signs the Waltham charter as larius," with Peter and Baldwin as king's chaplains (Cod. regis CancelDip. 813). Of the notary Elfgeat I find no other notice. Peter and Baldwin, as we see, remained in the chancery with Reginbold to the end of the reign, when Baldwin became abbot of S. Edmundsbury (Freeman, "Norm. Conq." ii. 586. "He had been a monk of S. Denis, a certain presumption, though not amounting to proof, of his French origin"). Before his abbacy of S. Eadmund's he had been prior of Earl Odda's church at Deerhurst. (See charter in Monast. iv. 665. On Abbot Leofstan's illness, King Eadward "Baldwinum, S. Dionysii monachum, ejus artis peritum, dirigendum curavit."-Will. Malm. "Gest. Pontif.” (Hamilton), p. 156.) Osbern's name indicates his Norman blood, but I know no more of him. Robert is of course the abbot of Jumièges, and probably the real mover in the whole matter. Promotion, indeed, to sees did not necessarily vacate the ministerial post, for Robert begins to sign as bishop of London in 1046 (Cod. Dip. 784), but this see would leave him free to assist in the chancery. Ulf too must have been added to it soon after 1045, for in 1049, when named to Dorchester, he is described as the king's "preoste" (Eng. Chron. (Ab.), 1049), and "regis capellanus" (Flor. Worc. (Thorpe), i. 203). William, too, who is named "chaplain of the king" (Flor. Worc. (Thorpe), i. 207), on his promotion to London in 1051, must have been introduced into the chancery after 1045, perhaps taking Robert's place on his rise to the primacy. Gisa alone among these later chaplains was a Lotharingian ; he was appointed bishop of Wells in 1060. His solitary figure cannot have materially changed the French aspect of the chancery throughout Eadward's reign. The fact that Walter, the Lotharingian who at the same time became bishop of Hereford, 547 СНАР. Х. The House of 1035 1053. Notes. CHAP. X. was Eadgyth's chaplain, may show that clerks were again being The House of brought from this quarter, or simply be a part of the Lotharingian traditions of Godwine's house as shown by Adelhard and Harold. Godwine. 10351053. Notes. [Dr. Stubbs has pointed out to me another foreign chaplain of Eadward's of whom we find mention elsewhere. “Helinandus, vir admodum pauperis domus et obscure progenitus, literaturâ pertenuis et persona satis exilis, cum per notitiam Gualteri comitis Pontisarensis, de cujus comitatu gerebat originem, ad gratiam Eadvardi Anglorum Regis pertigisset (uxor enim sua cum prædicto comite sibi necessitudinem nescio quam creârat), capellanus ejus fuit, et quia Francicam elegantiam nôrat, Anglicus ille ad Francorum Regem Henricum eum sæpius destinabat." (Guibertus de Novigento "De Vitâ suâ," lib. iii. c. 2, Opera, ed. D'Achery, p. 496). King Henry made him bishop, of Laon (Ibid.) in 1052; he died in 1098 (Gallia Christiana, vol. ix. col. 524, 525). The second bishop of Laon after Helinandus had also been in the service of a king of England, but this must have been Henry I. (Guibertus "De Vitâ suâ," lib. iii. c. 4, ed. D'Achery, p. 299).-A. S. G.] CHAPTER XI. THE NORMAN CONQUEST. 1053-1071. William. In the revolution which restored Godwine to power Difficulties of nothing is more remarkable than the inaction of William the Norman. To the duke, we can hardly doubt, the sudden success of Godwine was a bitter disappointment. The overthrow of his hopes was complete. Whatever promises Eadward may have made to him, he could hardly look for their fulfilment save with the aid of the Normans at Eadward's court, and the Norman court-party had been broken up. The Norman archbishop was driven over sea, and the duke was not less likely than his people to resent the wrong done to the primate. The Norman knights who found a refuge with the Scot king soon fell beneath the axes of Siward's hus-carls. How bitter a sense of disappointment lingered in Norman hearts we know from the fire which the memory of these events kindled when, a few years later, William called Normandy to avenge them. Nor was the temper of the duke such as to brook easily disappointment. But wroth CHAP. XI. 10531071. as he might be, it was impossible to attack EngThe Norman land with Flanders at her back. The overthrow Conquest. of William's schemes for a Flemish marriage by Godwine's dexterous negotiations with Pope and Emperor still tied the duke's hands. From the moment of the council, whether Baldwin called on William to fulfil his pledge in vain or no, the courts of Bruges and of Rouen steered apart again. Baldwin fell back on his old alliance with the house of Godwine. The marriage of Judith with Tostig announced his change of policy, and promised to bind the earl and the count inseparably together. The fall of Godwine only brought out into clearer light the friendship of Flanders. It was in Flanders that the earl found refuge in his exile. It was from Bruges that his intrigues with his English supporters were carried on. His fleet was gathered in the Scheldt, and Flemish seamen were mingled with his own. William, with his own duchy still ill in hand and France watching jealously across his southern border, knew well that the estrangement of Baldwin barred any hope of attack over sea. Nor was this estrangement the least weighty of the dangers which threatened William at home, for the hostility of such a neighbour was sure to stir into life the smouldering discontent of the Norman baronage. His marriage. We see the duke's consciousness of this danger from the step on which he ventured with a view of dispelling it. While Robert of Jumièges was still pleading at the papal court, William, by an act as daring as Godwine's, placed himself in opposition to the Papacy and the moral sense of Christendom. If he now |