de me tenuit sancto Edmundo Et filia Guernonis in vita sua de Abbate B. tenuit. 17

The last clause is clearly an addition by the cartulary scribe. Now this charter being addressed, like the other, to Æthelmær ("Ethelmerus "), Bishop of the East Angles, is, of course, previous to April, 1070. I should, therefore, also place it previous to the capture of William Malet at York in September, 1069. But this, unlike the other date, is matter of probability rather than of proof. Mr. Freeman believed that William returned, and died "in the marshes of Ely" (1071), but this is only a guess in which I cannot concur. In any case, we have evidence here of this wellknown man having held a position in Suffolk (where he owned the great Honour of Eye) analogous to that of sheriff. He may have succeeded Northman in that office.

18

The relevant Domesday entry is as follows:

Hujus terram rex accepit de abbate et dedit Guernoni depeiz [de Peiz]. Postea licencia regis deveniens monachus reddidit terram." (363 b.)

The charter records, I take it, the "licencia regis" of Domesday, 19

117 Add. MS., 14, 314, fo. 326 (pencil).

18 See

26, 1884.

my letter on the death of William Malet" in Academy of Aug.

19 Since this paper was written, there has appeared the valuable Bath Cartulary (Somerset Record Society) containing a most remarkable charter (p. 36), which should be closely compared with those to Regenbald. It is issued by William the King and William the Earl, and must undoubtedly be assigned to the former's absence from England, MarchDecember, 1067. It shows us therefore William fitz Osbern acting as Regent and anticipating the office of the later Great Justiciar by inserting in the document his own name. This charter, like that to Regenbald, is addressed to the still English authorities of an unconquered district.

A Notable Episode

431

THE CONQUEROR AT EXETER.

FOR

"And y seide nay, and proved hit by Domesday.""

OR a companion study to the Battle of Hastings, one could not select a better subject than the Siege of Exeter by William in 1068. It is so, because, in the tale of the Conquest, "No city of England," in Mr. Freeman's words, "comes so distinctly to the front as Exeter";" and because, as editor of "Historic Towns," he chose Exeter, out of all others, as the town to be reserved for himself.3 "Its siege by William," we are told, "is one of the most important events of his reign"; but it was doubtless the alleged "federal" character of Exeter's attitude at this crisis that gave its story for him an interest so unique. This episode, moreover, has many advantages: it is complete in itself; it is rich in suggestion; it is taken from the period in which the Professor described himself as "most at home"; and its scene is laid within his own borders, his own West Saxon land. It presents an admirable test of Mr. Freeman's work at the point where he was admittedly strongest, and his thoroughly typical treatment of it affords a perfect illustration of the method he employed.

1 Letter from John Shillingford, Mayor of Exeter, 1447.

Exeter (1887), p. 34.

"It was also the subject of a special paper in his "Historic Towns and Districts" (1883) reprinted from Arch. Journ., xxx. 297, pp. 49 et sq., and Sat. Rev., xxix. 764-5.

Sat. Rev., xxix. 765.

The year 1067 was drawing to its close when the Conqueror, summoned back from Normandy by the tidings of pressing danger, returned to spend his Christmas at Westminster amidst "the sea of troubles which still awaited him in his half-conquered island-kingdom."5 Threatened at once by foes within and without the realm, he perceived the vital necessity of severing their forces by instant suppression of the "rebellions" at home, swift suppression before the invaders were upon him, stern suppression before the movement spread. Let us bear in mind these twin motives, by which his policy must at this juncture have been shaped, the need for swiftness, with invasion in prospect, and the need for sternness as a warning to "rebels."

Of all the "rebellious" movements on foot, that at Exeter, as Mr. Freeman admits, was "specially hateful in William's eyes.' It was against Exeter, therefore, that the Conqueror directed his first blow. In the depths of winter, in the early days of the new year, "he fared to Devonshire." Such is the brief statement of the English Chronicle. We hear of William at Westminster; we next hear of him before the walls of Exeter: all that intervenes is a sheer blank. Of what happened on this long westward march not a single detail is preserved to us in the Chronicle, in Orderic or in Florence. Now it is precisely such a blank as this that, to Mr. Freeman, was irresistible. We shall see below how, a few months later, we have, in William's march from Warwick to Nottingham, a blank exactly parallel.' There also Mr. Freeman succumbed to the temptation. He seized, in each case, on the empty canvas, and, by a few rapid and suggestive touches, he has boldly filled it in with the outlines of historical events, not merely events for which there is no sufficient evidence, Norman Conquest, iv. 123. The metaphor of a "sea" waiting in an "island" is sufficiently original to be deserving of notice.

6 Ibid., iv. 140.

"See "The alleged destruction of Leicester," infra, p. 456.

An Alleged Civic League

433

but events which can be proved, by demonstration, to have had no foundation in fact.

The scene elaborated by Mr. Freeman to enliven the void between the departure from London and the entrance into Devonshire is THE RESISTANCE AND THE DOWNFALL OF "THE CIVIC LEAGUE." This striking incident in the Exeter campaign I propose to analyse without further delay.

8

It must, in the first place, be pointed out that we have no proof whatever of this "Civic League" having even existed. To apply Mr. Freeman's words to his Own narrative,

The story is perfectly possible. We only ask for the proof. Show us the proof; then we will believe. Without such

a proof we will not believe."

For proof of its existence Mr. Freeman relies on a solitary passage in Orderic.1 But Orderic, it will at once be seen, does not say that any such league was effected; he does not even say that the league which was contemplated was intended to be an exclusively Civic League. What he does say is that the men of Exeter sought for allies in the neighbouring coasts (plaga)" and in other cities. The Dorset townlets, such as Bridport, with its 120 houses, would scarcely represent these "cities." Mr. Freeman assumed, however, that "the Civic League" was formed, assumed that the Dorset towns had "doubtless" joined it, and finally assumed that they were "no doubt"

iv. 151. "It is certain," Mr. Freeman had written, "that what William had to strive against in the West was a league of towns" (Sat. Rev., xxix. 765).

9 Cont. Rev., June, 1877, p. 22. See also Preface.

10"Hi nimirum socios e plagis finitimis inquiete arcessebant alias quoque civitates ad conspirandum in eadem legationibus instigabant."-Ord. Vit., 510 A (quoted in Norman Conquest, iv. 140).

11 Mr. Freeman rendered it "neighbouring shires," but I am not at all sure that, taken in conjunction with the words just before about the accessibility of Exeter from Ireland and Brittany, and those just after, about "mercatores advenas," plage does not refer to the shores from which these merchants came.

B. H.

F F

besieged by William in consequence." These assumptions he boldly connected with the entries on the towns in Domesday, entries which we shall analyse below, and which are not only incorrectly rendered, but are directly opposed to the above assumptions.

What, then, is the inference to be drawn? Simply this. The "Civic League" must share the fate of the "palisade on Senlac." The sieges which took place "probably" never took place at all; the League never resisted; the League never fell; in short, there is not a scrap of evidence that there was ever such a League at all. The existence of such a League would be, unquestionably, a fact of great importance. But its very importance imperatively requires that its existence should be estabished by indisputable proof. Of such proof there is none. One can imagine how severely Mr. Freeman would have handled such guesses from others. For he wrote of a deceased Somersetshire historian who boldly connects the story of Gisa with the banishment of Godwine":

One is inclined to ask with Henry II., "Quære a rustico illo utrum hoc somniaverit?" But these things have their use. Every instance in the growth of a legend affords practice in the art of distinguishing legend from history.

It should, however, in justice be at once added that this story did not originate wholly with Mr. Freeman himself. He refers us on the subject of the League to his predecessor, Sir Francis Palgrave. The brilliant imagination of that graceful writer was indeed led captive by the fascinating vision of "the first Federal Commonwealth," yet he did not allow himself, when dealing with the facts, to deviate from the exact truth. His statement that Exeter 'attempted to form a defensive confederation" reproduces with scrupulous accuracy Orderic's words. And even when he

12 The boroughs of Dorset were doubtless among the towns which had joined in the civic league. Probably they stood seiges and were taken by storm" (N. C., iv. 151).