ALLEGED SACRILEGE OF GODWINE AND HAROLD. 549

The reader must judge how far any of the qualifications with which I set out can be made to bear on any of these cases. What if the land at Topsham, afterwards the port of Exeter, was needed for the defence of the coast? The Bishop would very likely look on its appropriation for such a purpose, even if it were paid for, as a thing done "mid unlage."

There remains the great story of the alleged quarrel between Harold and Gisa Bishop of Wells. Of this we know the details, we can trace the growth of misrepresentation, and it may perhaps serve as a key to some of the other stories. Even here we have no statement on Harold's side, but the original charge against him, as contrasted with its later shapes, pretty well explains itself. The story however is a somewhat long one, and it may moreover fairly count as a part of the general history. I shall therefore make it the subject of a distinct note (see Note QQ). I will now add a few instances which illustrate the general subject by showing that Godwine and Harold by no means stand alone in bearing accusations of this sort. In the case of nearly every powerful man, including the most munificent benefactors to ecclesiastical bodies, we find the same story of the detention of Church property in some shape or other, or of transactions in which it is easy to see the possible groundwork of such a charge.

First, I have mentioned elsewhere (see vol. i. p. 622) that the very model of monastic benefactors, Ethelwine the Friend of God, laid claim to, and made good his claim to, certain lands possessed by the Abbey of Ely. As the Ely historian (Hist. El. i. 5) himself tells the story, the claim made by the Ealdorman seems to have been certainly legal and probably just. Yet the monastic writer clearly thinks that Ethelwine ought to have given way even to an unjust claim on the part of the Church, and he uses just the same language which Domesday applies to Harold; "postpositâ Sanctæ Ecclesiæ reverentiâ, eamdem terram invadentes sibi vindicârunt." Soon after (c. 8) we come to a story of the same kind about Ethelwine's son Ælfwold. So Godwine of Lindesey, one of the heroes of Assandun, is spoken of as a pertinacious enemy of the Church of Evesham (see vol. i. p. 506). The story about Harold Harefoot I have mentioned more than once. The passage which I quoted from William of Malmesbury at the beginning of this note also shows

that Saint Eadward himself was by some people personally blamed for the destruction of monasteries in his reign. And it is, at any rate, clear that the estates of the dissolved houses of Leominster and Berkeley had become royal property-more legally folklandjust as they would have done in the time of Henry the Eighth. Eadgyth, the rose sprung from the thorn, enjoyed the revenues of Leominster, seemingly without any of the scruples which her mother felt in the case of Berkeley. We find her also (see above, p. 46) engaged in some other transactions about ecclesiastical property, which look at least as doubtful as anything attributed to her father and brother. Nay, one writer goes so far as to charge her sainted husband himself with complicity in her doings of this kind. Twice does the Peterborough historian (Hugo Candidus, Sparke, p. 42) say of possessions held or claimed by that monastery, "Rex et Regina Edgita illam villam vi auferre conati sunt." A most singular story is also told in the Shropshire Domesday (252 b), which seems at least to charge the sainted King with carelessness about these matters. A Canon of Saint Mary's at Shrewsbury had, for what cause is not explained, been outlawed. On this, as I understand the story, Eadward granted his prebend, just as Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth might have done, to his favourite Robert the son of Wymarc, who presently made it over to his son-in-law; "In hoc manerio T. R. E. erant xx hidæ, et totum habebant xii canonici ipsius ecclesiæ. Unus eorum, Spirtes nomine, tenebat solus x hidas, sed quum fuisset exsulatus ab Angliâ, dedit Rex E. has x hidas Roberto filio Wimarch, sicut canonico. Robertus vero dedit eamdem terram cuidam suo genero." On this the Canons complained to the King in the last year of his reign. Eadward ordered that the land should be restored to the Church, but he required them to wait for the final settlement till the Christmas Gemót, when he would find some other equivalent for Robert's son-in-law; "Quod quum canonici indicâssent Regi, confestim præcepit ad ecclesiam terram reverti, tantummodo induciavit donec ad curiam instantis Natalis Domini Roberto juberet ut genero suo terram aliam provideret." The King's death hindered the carrying out of this design, and at the time of the Survey the land belonged to Roger of Montgomery; "Ipse autem Rex in ipsis festis diebus obiit, et ex eo usque nunc ecclesia terram perdidit." This story, whatever we make of it,

ALLEGED SACRILEGE OF GODWINE AND HAROLD. 551

is most remarkable. It is possible that by the banishment of the Canon, whatever might be his offence, his life-interest in his prebend was forfeited to the Crown and might be lawfully granted by the King to his favourite, and that the wrong lay only in the permanent alienation to Robert's son-in-law. Still there seems to be a recklessness of dealing with things of this kind which we may fancy that, in the case of Godwine or Harold, the Survey would have described in shorter terms.

To go on with our series, one of the charges brought against Tostig, the benefactor of the Church of Durham (see p. 382), was that he had "robbed God" (see p. 477). Siward also, the founder of Galmanho, and his son Waltheof, who, as a monastic hero, ranks by the side of Æthelwine, both stand charged with detaining lands belonging to the Abbey of Peterborough (see above, p. 374). Eadwine, the brother of Leofric, possessed lands claimed by the Church of Worcester, and the local writer Heming (p. 278) evidently looked on his death at Rhyd-y-Groes as the punishment; "Sed ipse diu hâc rapinâ gavisus non est. Nam ipse non multo post a Grifino Rege Brittonum ignominiosâ morte peremptus est." Nay, Leofric and Godgifu themselves, the models of all perfection, do not seem to have been quite clear on this score. Godgifu's reverence for Saint Wulfstan led her to suggest to her husband the restoration of certain lordships in his possession which had belonged to the Church of Worcester; "Terras quas antea Dani cæterique Dei adversarii vi abstulerant, et ab ipsâ Wigornensi ecclesiâ penitus alienaverant." (Heming in Ang. Sacr. i. 541.) Her son Ælfgar followed her example. There is also in Domesday (283 b) a most curious entry about certain lands at Alveston in Warwickshire. They are inserted among the estates of the Church of Worcester; but it is said of the sons of the former tenant Bricstuinus (Brihtstán?), "Hoc testantur filii ejus Lewinus [Leofwine], Edmar [Eadmer] et alii quatuor, sed nesciunt de quo, an de Ecclesiâ an de Comite Leuric [Leofric], cui serviebat, hanc terram tenuit. Dicunt tamen quod ipsi tenuerunt eam de L. Comite, et quo volebant cum terrâ poterant se vertere." Here we may discern a case of free commendation, whether to the Church or to the Earl, but we may also discern ample materials for a charge against Leofric of detaining the lands of the Church of Worcester. Lastly, I may mention cases in which Prelates like Bishop Ælfweard (p. 69) and Archbishop Ealdred

(see Note NN) stand charged with wrongfully transferring property from one church to another. These last cases, if they can be made out, seem to an impartial eye just as bad as the occupation of Church lands by laymen. The breach of law was equal, and when a Prelate, as Ealdred is said to have done, robbed the church which he was leaving in favour of the church of which he was taking possession, the personal greediness was equal. In fact, in all these cases the real crime lies in the breach of law which is implied in the violent or fraudulent occupation of anything, whether the party wronged be clerk or layman, individual or corporation. We must be on our guard alike against the exaggerated notions about the crime of sacrilege put forth by ecclesiastical writers, and also against the opposite prejudices of some moderns, who sometimes talk as if the robbing of a monastery were actually a praiseworthy deed.

On the whole, considering all the instances, we shall perhaps see reason to think that all charges of this kind, charges in which we can very seldom hear both sides, must be taken with great doubt and qualification. On the other hand it is plain that the tenure of Church property, perhaps of all property, was in those rough days very uncertain. Men, we may well believe, often gave with one hand and took with the other. No one did this more systematically than the Great William himself. I will end this long note with the comments of his namesake of Malmesbury on William's doings in this respect, comments which seem to have been equally applicable to many others among the great men of his age;

"Ita ejus tempore ultro citroque cœnobialis grex excrevit, monasteria surgebant, religione vetera, ædificiis recentia. Sed hic animadverto mussitationem dicentium, melius fuisse ut antiqua in suo statu conservarentur, quam, illis semimutilatis, de rapinâ nova construerentur " (iii. 278).

NOTE F. p. 36.

THE CHILDREN OF GODWINE.

THE question of Godwine's marriage or marriages I examined in my first volume (p. 722), and I there came to the conclusion that there is no ground for attributing to him more than one wife, namely Gytha, the daughter of Thorgils Sprakaleg and sister of Ulf.

THE CHILDREN OF GODWINE.

553

There is no doubt that Gytha was the mother of all those sons and daughters of Godwine who play such a memorable part in our history.

The fullest lists of Godwine's sons are those given by William of Malmesbury (ii. 200) and Orderic (502 B). William's list runs thus, Harold, Swegen, Tostig, Wulfnoth, Gyrth, Leofwine. That of Orderic is, Swegen, Tostig, Harold, Gyrth, Elfgar, Leofwine, Wulfnoth. Saxo (196) speaks of Harold, Beorn, and Tostig as sons of Godwine; that is, he mistook Beorn the nephew of Gytha for her son. Snorro (Laing, iii. 75; Ant. Celt. Scand. 189) has a far more amazing genealogy. He seems to assume that Godwine must have been the father of every famous Englishman of his time, and he reckons up his sons thus-Tostig the eldest, Maurokari (Morkere), Waltheof, Swegen, and Harold. He pointedly adds that Harold was the youngest. And the list in the Knytlinga Saga, c. II, is no less strange-Harold, Tostig, "Maurakaare," Waltheof, and Swegen. It must be on the same principle that Bromton (943) seems to make Godwine the father of Gruffydd of Wales. At least his list runs thus, Swegen, Wulfnoth, Leofwine, Harold, Tostig, and Griffin. So Walter of Hemingburgh (i. 4) gives Godwine a son Griffus, which may be a confusion between Gruffydd and Gyrth. Knighton (2334) gives the sons as Swegen, Harold, Tostig, Wulfnoth, Gyrth, and Leofric. But elsewhere, as Bromton had given Godwine a Gruffydd, Knighton in the same spirit helps him to a Llywelyn. At least he talks (2238) of the "malitia et superbia Haraldi et Lewlini filiorum Godwini."

The Biographer gives no list, but he mentions four sons, Harold, Tostig, Gyrth, and Leofwine, whose name is inaccurately given as Leofric in the printed text.

Of these sons, there is no doubt about six, namely Swegen, Harold, Tostig, Gyrth, Leofwine, Wulfnoth, who all figure in the history at different points. The only question is whether we ought, on the sole authority of Orderic, to add a seventh son named Elfgar. According to him, Elfgar lived and died a monk at Rheims, and Wulfnoth did the like at Salisbury. This is undoubtedly false as regards Wulfnoth; and the tale of a son of Godwine, otherwise unknown, spending his whole life in a French monastery has a somewhat apocryphal sound. Can it be that the tale has sprung out of some confusion with the benefactions of Earl Ælfgar to the Abbey of Rheims? (see p. 456). At any rate we may dismiss