They

utterly improbable. There is nothing to show that Macbeth had given any further offence by receiving the Norman exiles. had been allowed to go peaceably into Scotland (see above, p. 344), and some of them had actually been recalled to England. That, being in Scotland, they fought on the Scottish side, does not prove that the war was in any way waged against them. To fight on behalf of the side on which they found themselves for the moment was only the natural conduct of Normans anywhere. And besides all this, the whole story of these Norman exiles rests on the authority of Florence. It is from him alone that we learn that they took any part in the battle, or indeed that there were any Norman exiles in Scotland at all. If the authority of Florence is good to prove these points, it is surely equally good to prove the objects of the expedition. And it is not merely the authority of Florence; it is Florence confirmed by Simeon of Durham, our best authority for all Northern matters (see X Scriptt. 187). That the Chronicles are silent on some points, that the Peterborough Chronicle is silent altogether, will amaze no one who remembers how capriciously Scottish and Northumbrian affairs are entered or not entered in our national annals. The Abingdon and Worcester Chroniclers were struck with the general greatness of Siward's exploit, but the cause of Malcolm had no interest for them. The Peterborough Chronicler, the sworn partizan of the house of Godwine, did not trouble himself to take any notice of an event which neither enhanced the glory of Harold nor touched the interests of his own abbey. But the fact that Simeon held Florence's narrative to be worth copying without addition or alteration at once stamps its authenticity. Simeon's approval at once sets aside all negative arguments, all talk about the "misrepresentations of Anglo-Norman writers," whoever may be meant by that name.

Mr. Burton (i. 373) seems to have no doubt about the matter. 2. The nature of Siward's troops is well marked in the language of the different accounts. The here and the fyrd are clearly distinguished. The Worcester Chronicle (1054) says, "Her ferde Siward Eorl mid miclum here on Scotland, æger ge mid sciphere and mid landfyrde." This Florence translates, "Strenuus Dux Northhymbrorum Siwardus, jussu Regis, cum equestri exercitu et classe validâ Scottiam adiit." Then, in describing the slaughter of the English, Abingdon says, "Eac feol mycel on his [Siwardes] healfe

THE WAR WITH MACBETH.

643

ayder ge Densce ge Englisce." So Florence, "Multi Anglorum et Danorum ceciderunt." The Worcester Chronicle says, " And of his [Siwardes] huscarla and of pæs cynges wurdon þær ofslægene." I take the here, the housecarls, and the equestris exercitus, all to be the same thing, and I take the "Danish and English" of one account to answer to the "Housecarls of the Earl and of the King" in the other. The Housecarls were doubtless an "equestris exercitus" in the sense of which I spoke in vol. i. p. 502. They did not fight on horseback, but they, or many of them, rode to battle (see also vol. i. p. 269), while the levies of the shires, no doubt, for the most part walked. The King's Housecarls, we see, were wholly or mainly Englishmen, chiefly no doubt West-Saxons; those of the Earl would doubtless be Danes in the sense of being inhabitants of the Denalagu, some perhaps in the sense of being actually adventurers from Denmark. The Housecarls now clearly take the place of the old comitatus; the stress of the battle now falls mainly on them, just as of old it fell on the noble youths who fought around Brihtnoth (see vol. i. pp. 85, 269, 441). So, on the Scottish side, we read in the Worcester Chronicle that Siward "feaht wið Scottas . . . and ofsloh eall þæt þer betst was on pam lande." The special mention of the Normans comes from Florence; "Multis millibus Scottorum, et Nortmannis omnibus, quorum supra fecimus mentionem, occisis." The Ulster Annalist (Johnstone, 69; O'Conor, Rer. Hib. Scriptt. iv. 334) speaks of this battle as "prælium inter viros Albaniæ et Saxones." He even undertakes to give us the numbers of the slain, three thousand on the Scottish side, and fifteen hundred "Saxons."

...

3. That Siward lost a son in the battle is asserted by the Abingdon Chronicler and by Florence; but they do not give his name. The Worcester writer is more express. Among the slain were "his sunu Osbarn and his sweoster sunu Sihward." The story of Siward asking about his son's wounds is told, and well told, by Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 760 A) and Bromton (X Scriptt. 946). But Henry carries back the story to the year 1052, and both he and Bromton conceive Osbeorn Bulax, as Bromton calls him, to have died in an earlier expedition in which his father had no share. Siward, hearing a satisfactory report of the manner of his son's death, goes in person and avenges him ("Siwardus igitur in Scotiam proficiscens, Regem bello vicit, regnum totum destruxit, destructum sibi subjugavit "). If there is any meaning in this wild

exaggeration, the subjection of Scotland to Siward must mean the establishment of Siward's kinsman Malcolm as King. But it is hard to make the story of Osbeorn's death and Siward's inquiries fit in with the fact that Osbeorn died in a battle in which Siward himself was present. According to the analogies of Maldon and Senlac, the Earl, his son, and his nephew would stand near together in the fight, and there would be no need of messengers to announce the manner of Osbeorn's death.

Bromton has also preserved another tradition about the death of Osbeorn, which is palpably mythical as it stands, but which seems, in common with several other hints, to point to a strong feeling of disaffection towards Siward as rife in Northumberland. Siward goes into Scotland, leaving Osbeorn as his representative in his Earldom. After his victory he hears that the Northumbrians have revolted and killed his son. He then, in his wrath, performs an exploit like that of Roland in the Pyrenees ("Siwardus inde iratus in scopulo adhuc patente cum securi percussit"); he gives Scotland to Donald (inaccurately for Malcolm), and returns to Northumberland to take a stern vengeance on his enemies (“patriam rediit et inimicos suos in ore gladii percussit ").

son

Shakespere, it must not be forgotten, confounds Siward's so Osbeorn with his nephew the younger Siward, unless indeed he thought that Siward was a surname, and that "young Siward” was the proper description of the son of old Siward. The description of Macbeth's wife as "Lady Macbeth" looks like it.

4. As to the result of the battle, there can be no doubt. Macbeth was defeated, but not killed. But the false account followed by Shakespere is as old as William of Malmesbury. He speaks (ii. 196) of "Siwardus Northimbrensium [Comes], qui jussu ejus [Edwardi] cum Scotorum Rege Macbethâ congressus, vitâ regnoque spoliavit, ibidemque Malcolmum, filium Regis Cumbrorum, Regem instituit." It is singular that William should have fallen into an error which not only contradicts the earlier authorities, but which has been avoided by many writers much later and more careless than himself. The agreement on this head is complete. The escape of Macbeth is implied in the words of the Worcester Chronicle ("Siward . . . feaht wie Scottas and aflymde pone kyng Macbeoden") and of Florence ("illum fugavit"); and it is still plainer in the Abingdon version ("Siward mycel wel of

THE WAR WITH MACBETH.

645

Scottum gesloh, and hig aflymde, and se cing ætbærst") and in the Biographer ("Rex Scottorum nomine barbarus . . . a Siwardo Duce usque ad internecionem pene suorum devictus et in obscœnam fugam est versus." p. 416). The story in Henry of Huntingdon and Bromton, as we have seen, speaks only of a victory over Macbeth, not of his death. Fordun (v. 7) is equally clear. He quotes and rejects William of Malmesbury's account, and tells us that Macbeth "partibus subito relictis australibus boreales petiit, ubi terrarum angustis anfractibus et silvarum abditis tutius sperabat se tueri." He adds that the Scots, unwilling to fight against Malcolm, fled at the first sound of the trumpet, quite another picture from the hard fought fight spoken of by the English and Irish writers.

5. The distinct statement of Florence that Siward made Malcolm King ("Regem constituit") does not seem to me to be at all contradicted by the facts that the war lingered on several years, and that Malcolm was not solemnly crowned at Scone till after the death of the competitor who succeeded Macbeth. The result of the battle doubtless was that Malcolm was acknowledged King of Scots by the English King, by his own English subjects in Lothian, and probably by the southern parts of Scotland proper ("partes australes" in Fordun just above). But the war still went on in the North. It is worth notice that Florence is satisfied with the practical expression of Eadward's supremacy-"ut Rex jusserat, Regem constituit." But Roger of Wendover (i. 493), in whose time the homage of Scotland was becoming a matter of debate, is more special and more feudal in his language. He improves the statement of Florence into "Rex regnum Scotia dedit Malcolmo, Cumbrorum Regis filio, de se tenendum."

6. The remaining events of the war I have described in the text. Our accounts are very meagre, but there can be little doubt that Malcolm continued to be powerfully supported by English help under Tostig, the successor of Siward. That such was the case is distinctly affirmed by Eadward's Biographer (416), though, as usual, he wraps his story in such a cloud of words that we cannot make out much as to time, place, or circumstance. Macbeth, the King whose barbarous name he cannot write or remember, was first ("primum") defeated by Siward, then by Tostig. "Secundo, ducatum agente Duce Tostino, quum

eum Scotti intentatum haberent, et ob hoc in minori pretio habitum, latrocinio potius quam bello sæpius lacesserent; incertum genus hominum, silvisque potius quam campo, fugæ quoque magis fidens quam audaciæ virili in prælio, tam prudenti astutiâ quam virtute bellicâ et hostili expeditione, cum salute suorum prædictus Dux attrivit, ut cum Rege eorum delegerint ei Regique Edwardo magis servire quam rebellare, id quoque per datos obsides ratum facere." He then formally declines to go further into the matter. The meaning of the passage is by no means clear. Indeed I do not feel certain whether the Biographer has not confounded Macbeth and Malcolm. It is hard to conceive any time when Macbeth can have given hostages; Malcolm may have done so on his first appointment, or it is possible, though we have no other account of it, that Malcolm's raid in 1061 may have been avenged by a Scottish expedition on the part of Tostig (see p. 457). The Biographer's authority on these matters, which he seems purposely to slight, is far from being so great as it is when he is dealing with those affairs of the Court which went on under his own eye. Still his account shows that a Scottish war of some sort or other, whether against Macbeth or against Malcolm, went on under Tostig as well as under Siward.

The sworn brotherhood again between Tostig and Malcolm (see pp. 383, 457) can hardly have any other reference than to a joint war against Macbeth. There is also a statement in Fordun (v. 8), which, though utterly confused as it stands, may probably help us to an important fact. Fordun clearly conceived Siward as continuing to wage war in Scotland after the battle of 1054, for he describes him as being summoned back by Eadward to help in the war against Gruffydd, after the destruction of Hereford in 1055 ("Hoc statim Siwardus, postquam a suo Rege per certum audierat nuncium, confestim jussus domi rediit, nequaquam ulterius Malcolmo ferre præsidium rediturus"). Now Siward died in 1055, before the war in Herefordshire began; but, if we read Tostig instead of Siward, a summons to the Welsh war is in every way probable.

Fordun, though he preserves the fact of Macbeth's escape from the battle of 1054, confounds that battle with the battle of Lumfanan in 1058, and places them together in 1056, on December 5th (v. 7). Nevertheless he makes (v. 8) the battle to have happened at the same time as Gruffydd's destruction of Hereford in 1055.