ESTIMATES OF GODWINE AND HAROLD. 537 "vir the "Vita Haroldi," where the hero of the piece figures as venerabilis," "vir Dei," and so forth. These epithets of course refer far more to Harold's imaginary penance and seclusion as a hermit than they do to his real merits as Earl and as King. I will quote this romantic writer only for one passage, in which he is plunged into difficulties by the calumnious accounts of Godwine and his family, which in his time were generally received. Godwine, according to him, began to practise deceit only as far as was needful for his own safety in troublous times; corrupted by this dangerous familiarity with crime, he gradually grew into actual treason. But admiration of Harold, combined with at least partial censure of Godwine, is not peculiar to this romancer. It is the position of the Abingdon Chronicler. The account of Godwine given by Harold's biographer runs thus; "Constat ipsius [Haroldi] genitorem vel cæterorum quosdam de illius genere, tantum proditionis, tantum et aliorum notâ facinorum infamatos graviter fuisse. His vero malis, necessitate cavendi imminentis exitii, Godwinus se primo immiscuit, deinde ulterius evagatur. Tuendæ siquidem salutis obtentu dolum tentare compulsus, dum semel cedit ad votum, fraudibus in posterum minuendæ felicitatis intuitu licentius nitebatur." (Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, ii. 152.) He then tells the story, which I have mentioned in vol. i. p. 724, about the way in which Godwine obtained Gytha in marriage. He then goes on; "Quo tamen eventu Godwinus in Dacorum plusquam satis favorem effusus, gentis suæ quampluribus fiebat infestus; nonnullos quoque de semine regio, quorum unus frater sancti Edwardi fuit, dolo perdidit; sicque non modo in concives, immo et in dominos naturales [cyne-hlafordas] non pauca deliquit" (154). He then winds up by rebuking those who turned the crimes of Godwine to the discredit of Harold. Harold here, not Eadgyth, is the rose sprung from the thorn; "Sic rutilos producit, sic niveos quasi nutrit rosarum liliorumque spina flores" (155). This writer's notion of Godwine favouring the Danes against the English is found also in the Roman de Rou (9809). He is telling the story of Ælfred (see vol. i. p. 485); "Cuntre li vint Quens Gwine, Ki de Daneiz esteient né, E de Daneiz erent amé, Ki en la lei Judas se mist." To return to the Waltham writers, the witness of the writer "De Inventione" is worth infinitely more than that of Harold's biographer. The affectionate tribute which he pays to Harold is clearly something more than mere conventional panegyric on a founder. Harold was chosen King, "quia non erat eo prudentior in terrâ, armis strenuus magis, legum terræ sagacior, in omni genere probitatis cultior" (p. 25 Stubbs). At his death (27) the lament is; "Cadit Rex ab hoste fero, gloria regni, decus cleri, fortitudo militiæ, inermium clipeus, certantium firmitas, tutamen debilium, consolatio desolatorum, indigentium reparator, procerum gemma." Such were the great father and son as they seemed in the eyes of Englishmen of their own times and in the eyes of those who in after times cherished purely English traditions. Let us see how they appeared to the Norman writers of their own day, and to those who follow that Norman tradition which permanently triumphed. It would be easy to prolong the list indefinitely, but I think it needless to refer to any but writers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. On the whole, they are more fierce against Godwine than against Harold. They allow Godwine hardly any excellence beyond mere power of speech, while several of them are quite ready to do justice to Harold's great qualities in other respects, even while they condemn his supposed perjury and usurpation. The first however, and, in some respects the most important, William of Poitiers, the immediate follower and laureate of the Conqueror, has not the slightest mercy for either father or son. He stops twice in the course of his history to apostrophize, first Godwine (p. 79 Giles) and then Harold (p. 111), in terms of virulent abuse, the declamation in the latter case being brought in with the formula, "Paucis igitur te affabimur, Heralde." But these addresses contain nothing but the old stories about the death of Elfred and the oath to William. Elsewhere (126) the Lexovian Archdeacon gives his general character of Harold, describing him ESTIMATES OF GODWINE AND HAROLD. 539 as "luxuriâ fœdum, truculentum homicidam, divite rapinâ superbum, adversarium æqui et boni." "Truculentus homicida," as appears from the context, means "victor at Stamfordbridge;" "luxuriâ fœdus" may possibly mean "lover of Eadgyth Swannes hals." William of Jumièges writes of Godwine in the same strain as William of Poitiers. Harold is of course usurper, perjurer, and so forth, but there is no such set abuse of him as we find in the Gesta Guillelmi. Of Godwine he writes (vii. 9); "Ferox dolique commentor Godvinus eo tempore Comes in Angliâ potentissimus erat, et magnam regni Anglorum partem fortiter tenebat, quam ex parentum nobilitate [a contrast to the description in Wace] seu vi vel fraudulentiâ vendicaverat. Edwardus itaque metuens tanti viri potentiâ lædi dolove solito, Normannorum consultu, quorum fido vigebat solatio, indignam Aluredi fratris sui perniciem ei benigniter indulsit." Other writers on the same side are more generous, at any rate towards Harold. Orderic, as usual, fluctuates between his two characters of born Englishman and Norman monk. In his Norman monastery he had been taught that Harold was a wicked usurper, and he speaks of him accordingly. But natural admiration for an illustrious countryman makes him, once at least, burst his trammels, and he ventures to say (492 B); "Erat idem Anglus magnitudine et elegantiâ, viribusque corporis animique audaciâ, et linguæ facundiâ, multisque facetiisque et probitatibus admirabilis." One can almost forgive him when he adds, "Sed quid ei tanta dona sine fide, quæ bonorum fundamentum est, contulerunt?" In the like spirit Benoit de Sainte-More (36665), though denouncing Harold as "Parjur, faus, pleins de coveitise," yet elsewhere (37120-37125) gives him this generous tribute; "Proz ert Heraut e vertuos, Sos ciel meillor chevaler querre. The series of English writers under Norman influence may be said to begin with Henry of Huntingdon. It is strange that one who has preserved so much of Old-English tradition should be so absolutely without English feeling in the great controversy of all. We have already (vol. i. p. 762) seen some specimens of his way of dealing with Godwine. As for Harold, he tells the legend of his quarrel with Tostig, of which I shall speak in Note GG, and goes on (M. H. B. 761 B); "Tantæ namque sævitiæ fratres illi erant, quod quum alicujus nitidam villam conspicerent, dominatorem de nocte interfici juberent totamque progeniem illius, possessionemque defuncti obtinerent; et isti quidem justitiarii erant regni." This is somewhat expanded by Roger of Wendover-to quote an author rather later than the limit which I had laid down. All the sons of Godwine, young Wulfnoth perhaps included, were partakers in these evil deeds ("Tantæ namque iniquitatis omnes filii Godwini proditoris erant." i. 508), and Henry's last clause is expanded into, "qui tamen, super tot flagitia, Regis simplicitatem ita circumvenerunt, quod ipsos regni justitiarios constituerit et rectores." What was the exact notion of "justitiarii" in the minds of Henry and Roger? Eadward's own special panegyrist, Ethelred of Rievaux, is hardly so bitter against Harold as might have been looked for. Of course he speaks of his accession in the usual fashion, and he tells the legend of his enmity with Tostig. Of Godwine he gives (X Scriptt. 377) the following picture, which is at least valuable as witnessing to the still abiding memory of Godwine's power of speech; "Erat inter potentes Angliæ omnium potentissimus Comes Godwinus, vir magnarum opum sed astutiæ singularis, Regum regnique proditor, qui, doctus fallere et quælibet dissimulare consuetus, facile populum ad cujuslibet factionis inclinabat assensum.” Of the charges of sacrilege brought against Godwine and Harold I shall speak in the next Note; but this may be the best place to quote an entry in Domesday, which seems to charge Harold with defrauding the King. At p. 32 we read of lands in Surrey, "Heraldus tenuit de Rege E. Antequam Heraldus habuisset, defendebat se pro xxvii hidis; postquam habuit pro xvi hidis ad libitum Heraldi. Homines de hundredâ numquam audierunt nec viderunt brevem ex parte Regis qui ad tantum posuisset." I will now turn to two or three writers who are neither English nor Norman. The biographer of Olaf Tryggvesson (see vol. iii. p. 601) seems to stand alone in wishing to make a saint of Harold ("Haraldur Gudina son, er sumir kalla helgan vera." p. 263). But other Scandinavian and German writers seem quite to take the ESTIMATES OF GODWINE AND HAROLD. 541 Norman view of things. Thus Adam of Bremen (iii. 13) says of the sons of Godwine, "Tenuerunt Angliam in ditione suâ, Eduardo tantum vitâ et inani Regis nomine contento." So also his Scholiast, “Harold . . . . ipsum cognatum et dominum suum, Regem Eduardum pro nihilo habuit." Elsewhere (iii. 51) he calls Harold "vir maleficus." Saxo, of whose ideas I have already given some specimens (see vol. i. p. 771), is more violent against Harold than any one else. Having told his wonderful tale about the slaughter of the Danes after the death of Harthacnut, he goes on (p. 203); "Igitur Haraldus, Danica oppressionis simulque domesticæ libertatis auctor, Edvardo summam, factâ non animi ejus sed sanguinis æstimatione, permittit, quatenus ille nominis, ipse rerum usurpatione regnaret, et quo nobilitate pervenire non posset, potentiâ vallatus assurgeret. Edvardus vero, solâ generis auctoritate non prudentiæ ratione munitus, vano majestatis obtentu pravorum ingenia majorumque petulantiam nutriebat, titulo Rex patriæ, conditione miserabilis procerum verna, contentus quod alii fructum, ipse umbram tantum ac speciem occupâsset. Ita Anglorum inter se summam nomen atque potentiam diviserunt, titulique jus ac rerum dominium veluti diversis ab invicem gradibus differebant." He then goes on with his wild tale, which I have had occasion to mention already (see p. 413), about Harold killing Eadward. Elsewhere (p. 207) he uses the words "Haraldus, cui scelera Mali cognomen adjecerant," in which it is not very clear whether he means our Harold or Harold Hardrada. Snorro gives no portrait of Harold, and his genealogy, as we shall see, is utterly confused. But he gives a picture of Harold's relations to Eadward which is at least widely different from that of Saxo. He makes him the King's favourite and foster son ("Hann fæddiz upp i hird, Játvardar Konungs, oc var hans fóstr son, oc unni Konungr honöm geysi mikit, oc hafdi hann fyrir son ser; þvíat Konúngrinn átti eigi barn." Johnstone, 189; Laing, iii. 75). I leave it to the reader to judge which description, either of father or son, is better borne out by the facts of the history. I will only add that, in this case also, calumny, as usual, preserves a certain propriety. Godwine was a crafty, and not always scrupulous, statesman; Harold was a hero. The calumnies levelled at |
