Page images
PDF
EPUB

ESTIMATES OF GODWINE AND HAROLD.

359 trios auctores et tutores regni Edwardi; non mirum si succensuerint quod novos homines et advenas sibi præferri viderent; numquam tamen contra Regem, quem semel fastigaverint, asperum etiam verbum loquutos. Contra, Normanni sic se defensitant, ut dicant et eum et filios magnâ arrogantiâ et infidelitate in Regem et in familiares ejus egisse, æquas sibi partes in imperio vindicantes; sæpe de ejus simplicitate solitos nugari, sæpe insignes facetias in illum jaculari: id Normannos perpeti nequivisse, quin illorum potentiam quantum possent enervarent."

In this passage William very fairly carries out his promise of letting each side tell its own story. Which of the two pictures is borne out by particular facts the history shows for itself; here it may not be amiss to bring together a few of the more general pictures of Godwine and Harold drawn according to the two models. In the case of Harold, I confine myself to those passages, whether panegyrics or invectives, which concern his general character and his administration as Earl. Those which concern either his relations to William or his character as King are noticed in the third volume.

Of Godwine personally none of the Chronicles give any formal character, but the Worcester Chronicler (1052) gives a picture of the power of himself and house, setting forth their influence as strongly as any of the Norman writers, but with an exactly opposite colouring. "Forcam þe he [Godwine] was ar to pam swyde up ahafen, swyce he weolde pæs Cynges and ealles Englalandes, and his sunan wæron Eorlas and pæs Cynges dyrlingas, and his dohtor pæm Cynge bewedden and beæwnod." Of Harold both the Abingdon and the Worcester Chroniclers give a panegyric in the poem on Eadward which they insert in the year 1065. He is there, as if in direct answer to the Norman account, warmly praised for his strict loyalty to the King;

"And se froda swa peah
Befæste þæt rice
Heahþungenum

Harolde sylfum

Æbelum Eorle;

Se in ealle tid

menn

Hyrde holdlice

Hærran sinum,
Wordum and dædum,
Wihte ne agælde
pæs pe pearf was
pæs peodkyninges."

Florence gives no character of Godwine; of Harold-" strenuus Dux Haroldus "-he always speaks with evident affection, but his formal panegyric, and a magnificent one it is, he keeps back till Harold's election to the Crown.

The Biographer's description of Godwine I have had occasion to refer to at vol. i. p. 274. Of Harold he gives a most elaborate portrait, of which I have made great use in the text. I spare the reader this writer's poetical panegyrics, except when they illustrate some special point; but I will quote one or two passages which compare the father and the son in a general sort of way. Godwine, he tells us, on his appointment as Earl of the WestSaxons (see vol. i. p. 285),

[ocr errors]

Adeptus tanti honoris primatum non se extulit, sed omnibus bonis se pro posse patrem præbuit: quia quam a puero addidicerat mentis mansuetudinem non exuit; verum hanc, ut naturaliter sibi indita, erga subditos et inter pares æternâ assiduitate excoluit. Undecumque emergerent injuriæ, in hoc jus et lex imprompta recuperabatur. Unde non pro domino habebatur, sed a cunctis patriæ filiis pro patre colebatur. Nati sunt ergo filii et filiæ tanto patri non degeneres, sed paternâ et maternâ probitate insignes,

in quibus nutriendis studiosius his artibus agitur, quibus futuro regno munimen pariter et juvamen in his paratur." (392, 393.)

So in p. 408, on describing the death of Godwine and the accession of Harold to his Earldom, he says;

"Haroldus . . . amicus gentis suæ et patriæ vices celebrat patris intentius, et ejusdem gressibus incedit, patientiâ scilicet et misericordiâ, et affabilitate cum bene volentibus. Porro inquietatis, furibus, sive prædonibus, leonino terrore et vultu minabatur gladiator justus.”

The Waltham writers are of course Harold's sworn panegyrists; their testimony must therefore be taken with caution, though certainly not with more caution than the testimony of Harold's calumniators, the sworn panegyrists of William. I forbear to enlarge on the "Vita Haroldi," where the hero of the piece figures as “vir 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. 490, 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. 327);

"Cuntre li vint Quens Gwine,
Ki mult esteit de pute orine;
Feme out de Danemarche née,
De Daneiz bien emparentée,
Filz out Heraut, Guert, è Tosti.
Pur li enfez ke jo vus di,
Ki de Daneiz esteient né,

E de Daneiz erent amé,

Ama Gwine li Daneiz
Mult mielx k'il ne fist li Engleiz.
Oez cum fu fete déablie,
Grant traïsun, grant félunie:
Traistre fu, traïsun fist,
Ki en la lei Judas se mist.”

ESTIMATES OF GODWINE AND HAROLD.

361

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 Alfred and the oath to William. Elsewhere (126) the Lexovian Archdeacon gives his general character of Harold, describing him as "luxuriâ fœdum, truculentum homicidam, divite rapinâ superbum, adversarium æqui et boni." "Truculentus homicida," as appears from the context, means 66 victor at Stamfordbridge;" "luxuriâ fœdus" may possibly mean "lover of Eadgyth Swanneshals."

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 et 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 Englishmen 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 Benoît de Sainte-More (36665), though denouncing Harold as "Parjur, faus, pleins de coveitise," yet elsewhere (3712037125) gives him this generous tribute;

"Proz ert Heraut e vertuos,
E empernanz e corajos.
N'estoveit pas en nule terre

Sos ciel meillor chevaler querre.
Beaus estait trop e bons parlers,
Donierre e larges viandiers."

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. 517) 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, Æthelred 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 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 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

ALLEGED SACRILEGE OF GODWINE AND HAROLD. 363

"vir maleficus." Saxo, of whose ideas I have already given some specimens (see vol. i. p. 522), 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, Danicæ oppressionis simulque domestica 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. 276), 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 í 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 each are such as would naturally be levelled at a crafty statesman and a hero respectively.

NOTE E. p. 20.

THE ALLEGED SPOLIATIONS OF THE CHURCH BY GODWINE AND

HAROLD.

THE charge of sacrilege, of spoliation of churches and monasteries, is one which Godwine and Harold share with almost every powerful man of those times. William of Malmesbury speaks of it as a characteristic of the reign of Eadward; only he adds that the King's panegyrists attributed this, along with the other evils of the time, to Godwine and his sons. According to them, it was for these crimes of one sort or another that Eadward banished the whole family. The whole passage (ii. 196) is curious;

....

"Fuerunt tamen nonnulla quæ gloriam temporum deturpârunt; monasteria tunc monachis viduata; prava judicia a perversis hominibus commissa. Sed harum rerum invidiam amatores ipsius ita extenuare conantur; monasteriorum destructio, perversitas judiciorum, non ejus scientiâ, sed per Godwini filiorumque ejus sunt commissa violentiam, qui Regis ridebant indulgentiam; postea tamen ad eum delata, acriter illorum exsilio vindicata."

This is of course Norman talk, and we know very well what to think

« PreviousContinue »