vestments and ornaments, of which the local writers have of course more to tell us. Last of all comes the enlargement of the foundation; "Quid plura? Suæ denique conditionis non immemor ibidem quorumdam catervulam fratrum secundum auctoritatem sanctorum patrum canonica regulæ subjectam constituit, quæ Deo et sanctis ejus die noctuque laudes hymnizando decantet." Here we have the canonical rule expressly spoken of, and an earlier part of the Charter distinctly marks Harold's preference for that rule; he is "non solum Dei cultor, verum etiam canonicæ regulæ strenuus institutor."

The consecration is described at length in the De Inventione, c. 16. In 1857 (see p. 428) I showed that the year must have been either 1059 or 1060, and Professor Stubbs has since fixed it beyond doubt to 1060. He also shows that the list of persons given by the local writer as present at the consecration is taken from the list of signatures to the Charter. He evidently thought that it was drawn up and signed at Waltham at the time, whereas the fact that it was not granted till two years later is an important part of the story. He has thus been led into some mistakes, as for instance in making Walter and Gisa present at the consecration as Bishops. They were Bishops when the Charter was granted in 1062, and they sign the Charter as such; but in 1060 they were not Bishops, though they would doubtless be present at Waltham as royal chaplains. The writer also calls Gisa Bishop of Chichester, instead of Wells or Somersetshire. Ethelric, Bishop of the SouthSaxons, appears under the corrupted form of "Æfricus;" so perhaps the writer did not recognize him.

As to the relics and other gifts, the most interesting thing is the statement that some of them were brought home by Harold on his Roman pilgrimage. See above, p. 440.

The next point is the enlargement of the foundation, the increase of Tofig's two priests into a Dean, Canons, and other officers. This naturally comes last in all the accounts. The nature of the foundation, the offices of its several members, and the discipline to be observed, are set forth at large in the 15th chapter of the De Inventione, and are fully commented on by Professor Stubbs in his Preface, pp. xiii. xiv. The arrangement of all these points seemingly took two years from the consecration in 1060 to the grant of the confirmation Charter in 1062. The Charter has a large number

HAROLD'S FOUNDATION AT WALTHAM.

673

of signatures, and it is remarkable to how many of the names we can attach a personal idea. It is signed by thirteen Bishops, all that were in England at the time; and the only difficulty about any of their signatures is that we miss that of Siward of Rochester, while there is a signature of "Elfwoldus Episcopus," whom it is hard to identify, as Elfwold of Sherborne died (see p. 406) in 1058. Then follow eleven Abbots, among whom we recognize Æthelnoth of Glastonbury, Leofric of Peterborough, Orderic of Abingdon, and Ethelsige of Ramsey. We have also "Elfwinus Abbas" and "Elwig Abbas," about whom there may be a little difficulty. Harold's uncle Elfwig was not appointed to the New Minster till the next year (see Note RR). But there was an Elfwig Abbot of Bath (see Cod. Dipl. iv. 171), and we have already heard of Ethelwig of Evesham (see above, p. 666). The signature of "Elfwinus" probably belongs to Elfwig, and that of Elwig" to Ethelwig. Then come the five Earls, Harold himself (whose signature takes the very practical form "Ego Haroldus Comes operando consolido"), Ælfgar, Tostig, Leofwine, and Gyrth. Then follow twenty-six signatures of Court officers and other Thegns, none however signing with any lowlier title than "Princeps." Of these "Esgarus regiæ procurator aulæ" (see p. 63), "Rodbertus Regis consanguineus," "Radulphus Regis aulicus," "Bundinus Regis palatinus," "Regenbaldus Regis Cancellarius," "Baldewinus Regis capellanus" (see above, p. 585), " Brihtricus princeps" (probably the Gloucestershire Thegn round whose name a legend has grown in connexion with Matilda of Flanders), " Wigodus Regis pincerna," "Herdingus Reginæ pincerna," "Adzurus Regis dapifer" (see below, p. 680), "Doddo princeps," and "Eadricus princeps" (probably Eadric the Wild), are all men of whom we have already heard or shall hear before the end of our history. There

66

are others also of whom we have no recorded actions, but whose personality can be identified in Domesday. The Norman signatures should be noticed, and to them may be added "Hesbernus Regis consanguineus" (probably Osbern of Herefordshire, see above, p. 585) and "Petrus Regis capellanus." We see throughout how thoroughly we are dealing with real men of flesh and blood.

On the change of foundation under Henry II. see Ben. Petr. i. 134, 174, 316; R. Howden, ii. 118 (where see Professor Stubbs' note); Rad. Dic. X Scriptt. 598; Gervase, X Scriptt. 1434; Vita

Haroldi, 164; R. Wendover, ii. 387. At the first change in 1177, the house became only a Priory; the first Abbot was appointed in 1184 (see Ben. Petrib. i. 316, and Professor Stubbs' note). It is comforting to read (Ben. Petr. i. 174) that all the expelled canons got "excambium de præbendis suis ad valentiam earumdem præbendarum," or, as Roger of Howden puts it, "plenariam recompensationem, ad domini Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis æstimationem." The Dean, by a still more comfortable arrangement, received “ quoddam manerium de dominio suo cum pertinentiis suis . . . in vitâ suâ tenendum."

66

NOTE QQ. p. 449.

THE QUARREL BETWEEN EARL HAROLD AND BISHOP GISA.

THE original account of the matters in dispute between Harold and Gisa will be found, in Gisa's own words, in the Historiola de Primordiis Episcopatûs Somersetensis, printed in Hunter's Ecclesiastical Documents, p. 15. Gisa's narrative grows into a far more violent account in the local history of Wells, by a Canon of that church in the fifteenth century, printed in Anglia Sacra, i. 559. Lastly, we get the story with further improvements in Godwin's Lives of the Bishops and other later works. The whole matter is well discussed and gone into most thoroughly by Mr. J. R. Green in the Transactions of the Somersetshire Archæological and Natural History Society, 1863-4, p. 148, a paper which has suggested several points in the present note.

That the King who made the original grant to Duduc was Cnut is plain from the words of Gisa, who speaks of the lands as Duduc's private property obtained before he became Bishop ("possessiones quas hæreditario jure a rege ante episcopatum promeruerat "). Duduc became Bishop in 1033. It is difficult to understand how the Abbey of Gloucester could have formed part of the grant, or how this statement is to be reconciled with the local history of Gloucester referred to in p. 435. Gisa goes on to say that, when Harold took the other property, Gloucester was granted to Stigand ("præfatum monasterium injustâ ambitione a Rege sibi dari petiit [Stigandus] et impetratum ad horam obtinuit." On Abbeys held by Stigand see Hist. Eliens. ii. 41, Gale 514, and see vol. iii. p. 638).

THE QUARREL BETWEEN HAROLD AND GISA. 675

Gloucester therefore has no further connexion with the story, which turns wholly on the possessions in Somersetshire. These were the two lordships of Banwell and Congresbury. There were also relics, church - plate, and books. We may perhaps guess that these moveable goods found their way to Waltham.

The grant of Dudoc to the Church of Wells is described in these words; "[possessiones] roboratas cyrographis Regiæ auctoritatis ac donationis Deo Sanctoque Andreæ tempore Edwardi piissimi Regi obtulit." Gisa then records what seems to be an oral bequest of the moveable property made by Duduc on his death-bed (“jam imminente die vocationis suæ adhibuit "). Duduc dies and is buried, and the story goes on; "Haroldus vero, tunc temporis Dux Occidentalium Saxonum, non solum terras invadere, verum etiam episcopalem sedem omnibus his spoliare non timuit." There is nothing in Gisa's narrative to imply that Harold seized any part of the ancient possessions of the see, but only the new gifts of Duduc. Gisa then goes on to mention the poor estate in which he found his church, the small number of the Canons, and their wide departure from the strictness of Lotharingian discipline. To help him in his schemes of reform, he begged certain lands of the King and the Lady, namely Wedmore, the scene of the famous peace between Ælfred and Guthrum (see vol. i. p. 46), and the lordships of Mark and Mudgeley in the same neighbourhood. Much about these gifts, and about other possessions and acquisitions of Gisa, will be found in the writs in Cod. Dipl. iv. 163, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 257, writs addressed to Harold, and in which the restoration of anything taken from the see is commanded. (See Mr. Green, p. 154.) But there is no mention of either Banwell or Congresbury, except in the manifestly spurious document in iv. 163, on which see especially Mr. Green's note, p. 153. Gisa then goes on to say that he excommunicated one Alsie (Ælfsige?) who detained from the see the lordship of Winesham (see Domesday, 89 b), even after it was adjudged to the see by the Scirgemót ("judicium provincialium"). He then mentions his intention, never carried into effect, of excommunicating Harold himself ("Haroldum etiam Ducem, qui ecclesiam mihi commissam spoliaverat, nunc secreto nunc palam correctum, pari sententiâ cogitabam ferire"). Then Harold, after his election to the Crown, promises to restore the disputed lordships and to grant others as well ("non solum ea quæ tulerat se

redditurum verum etiam ampliora spopondit daturum"). With this statement must be compared Harold's writ in favour of Gisa in Cod. Dipl. iv. 305, where all the Bishop's rights and possessions are confirmed to him in the strongest language, but without the mention of any particular places. Gisa then tells us how, after William's accession, he made his complaint to the new King and obtained the restoration of Winesham (compare William's charter in the Monasticon, ii. 288). He goes on to mention his acquisition of Combe (p. 18) and other places, but he says nothing about Congresbury and Banwell, the lordships originally in dispute. But we learn their disposal from Domesday. Both are entered there as being held by Harold T. R. E. At the time of the Survey, Congresbury (Domesday, 87) was held by the King, except some portions which had been alienated to different persons, Gisa himself, possibly in his personal character, being among them. Banwell (89 b) was held by the Bishop. It is plain then that the whole controversy with Harold, as far as real property was concerned, related to these two lordships. There is nothing about any other property of the See, nothing to imply that the poverty of the Canons of which Gisa so feelingly complains was in any way caused by the Earl's occupation of Banwell and Congresbury. The story is plainly one of disputed right to those two lordships and to the moveable goods of Duduc.

Gisa of course tells his own story in his own way. But he tells it without any special reviling of Harold. Mr. Green goes very minutely into the credibility of his story, but I do not think that he convicts the Bishop of any gross misrepresentation. We must take Gisa's statement as we find it; we must judge as we can of his honesty and of his means of information. There is no direct confirmation and no direct contradiction of his tale. Duduc's deed of gift does not exist; in none of the many charters of Eadward relating to Gisa's affairs is there any mention of any quarrel between him and Harold; in fact there is no mention of the disputed lordships at all. There is no record of any appeal made by Gisa to the King or to the Scirgemót, nor does he himself distinctly state that he made any. On the other hand, Gisa's story draws some confirmation from the fact that Banwell seems to have been granted to the see by William. Harold's own charter in Cod. Dipl. iv. 305 may be taken in two ways. Its tone, as Mr. Green says, is quite