Page images
PDF
EPUB

ALLEGED SACRILEGe of Godwine and HÅROLD. 369

Harold; "postpositâ Sanctæ Ecclesiæ reverentiâ, eamdem terram invadentes sibi vindicârunt." Soon after (c. 8) we come to a story of the same kind about Ethelwine's son Elfwold. So Godwine of Lindesey, one of the heroes of Assandun, is spoken of as a pertinacious enemy of the Church of Evesham (see vol. i. p. 341). The story about Harold Harefoot I have mentioned more than once. The passage which I quoted from William of Malmesbury at the beginning of this Note also shows that Saint Eadward himself was by some people personally blamed for the destruction of monasteries in his reign. And it is, at any rate, clear that the estates of the dissolved houses of Leominster and Berkeley had become royal property-more legally folkland-just as they would have done in the time of Henry the Eighth. Eadgyth, the rose sprung from the thorn, enjoyed the revenues of Leominster, seemingly without any of the scruples which her mother felt in the case of Berkeley. We find her also (see above, p. 29) engaged in some other transactions about ecclesiastical property, which look at least as doubtful as anything attributed to her father and brother. Nay, one writer goes so far as to charge her sainted husband himself with complicity in her doings of this kind. Twice does the Peterborough historian (Hugo Candidus, Sparke, p. 42) say of possessions held or claimed by that monastery, "Rex et Regina Edgita illam villam vi auferre conati sunt." A most singular story is also told in the Shropshire Domesday (252 b), which seems at least to charge the sainted King with carelessness about these matters. A Canon of Saint Mary's at Shrewsbury had, for what cause is not explained, been outlawed. Ón this, as I understand the story, Eadward granted his prebend, just as Henry the Eighth or Edward the Sixth might have done, to his favourite Robert the son of Wymarc, who presently made it over to his son-inlaw; In hoc manerio T. R. E. erant xx hidæ, et totum habebant xii canonici ipsius ecclesiæ. Unus eorum, Spirtes nomine, tenebat solus x hidas, sed quum fuisset exsulatus ab Angliâ, dedit Rex E. has x hidas Roberto filio Wimarch, sicut canonico. Robertus vero dedit eamdem terram cuidam suo genero." On this the Canons complained to the King in the last year of his reign. Eadward ordered that the land should be restored to the Church, but he required them to wait for the final settlement till the Christmas Gemót, when he would find some other equivalent for Robert's son-in-law; Quod quum canonici indicâssent Regi, confestim præcepit ad ecclesiam terram reverti, tantummodo induciavit donec ad curiam instantis Natalis Domini Roberto juberet ut genero suo terram aliam provideret." The King's death hindered the carrying out of this design, and at the time of the Survey the land belonged to Roger of Montgomery; "Ipse autem Rex in ipsis festis diebus obiit, et ex eo usque nunc ecclesia terram perdidit." This story, whatever we make of it, is most remarkable. It is possible that by the banishment of the Canon, whatever might be his offence, his life-interest in his prebend was forfeited to the Crown and might be lawfully granted by the King to his favourite, and that the wrong lay only in the permanent alienation to Robert's son-in-law. Still there seems to be a recklessness of dealing with things of this kind which we may fancy that, in the case of Godwine or Harold, the Survey would have described in shorter terms.

66

[ocr errors]

66

To go on with our series, one of the charges brought against Tostig, the benefactor of the Church of Durham (see p. 255), was that he had "robbed God" (see p. 320). Siward also, the founder of Galmanho, and his son B b

VOL. II.

Waltheof, who, as a monastic hero, ranks by the side of Æthelwine, both stand charged with detaining lands belonging to the Abbey of Peterborough (see above, p. 249). Eadwine, the brother of Leofric, possessed lands claimed by the Church of Worcester, and the local writer Heming (p. 278) evidently looked on his death at Rhyd-y-Groes as the punishment; Sed ipse diu hâc rapinâ gavisus non est. Nam ipse non multo post a Grifino Rege Brittonum ignominiosâ morte peremptus est.” Nay, Leofric and Godgifu themselves, the models of all perfection, do not seem to have been quite clear on this score. Godgifu's reverence for Saint Wulfstan led her to suggest to her husband the restoration of certain lordships in his possession which had belonged to the Church of Worcester; "Terras quas antea Dani cæterique Dei adversarii vi abstulerant, et ab ipsâ Wigornensi ecclesiâ penitus alienaverant." (Heming in Ang. Sacr. i. 541.) Her son Ælfgar followed her example. There is also in Domesday (283 b) a most curious entry about certain lands at Alveston in Warwickshire. They are inserted among the estates of the Church of Worcester; but it is said of the sons of the former tenant Bricstuinus (Brihtstán?), "Hoc testantur filii ejus Lewinus [Leofwine], Edmar [Eadmer] et alii quatuor, sed nesciunt de quo, an de Ecclesiâ an de Comite Leuric [Leofric], cui serviebat, hanc terram tenuit. Dicunt tamen quod ipsi tenuerunt eam de L. Comite, et quo volebant cum terrâ poterant se vertere." Here we may discern a case of free commendation, whether to the Church or to the Earl, but we may also discern ample materials for a charge against Leofric of detaining the lands of the Church of Worcester. The Worcester Cartulary contains other cases of Church lands held by Leofric or seized by his connivance. There is a curious story in p. 261 (Monasticon, i. 595), in which Eadwine and Morkere appear as defrauding both the Church and their grandmother;

"Nonnullarum vero terrarum possessiones Comes Leofricus, defuncto patre suo Leofwino, ex hoc possidebat monasterio. Ex quibus duas, Wulfardilea et Blakewelle nominatas, quas diu injuste tenuerat, nobis reddidit, cæteras vero, Cedeslaeh videlicet, Beolne, Broctun, et Forfeld, in fine vitæ suæ se redditurum nobis spopondit. Cujus sponsionis uxor illius, Godgiva nomine, non immemor post mortem domini sui, præfati scilicet Ducis, ad nos venit, et pro remedio animæ ipsius et suæ, tria pallia, cortinas duas, bancalia duo, candelabra duo, bene et honorifice parata, et bibliothecam in duabus partibus divisam, nobis obtulit; testemque se esse dicens promissionis, quam vir suus dum adhuc viveret, nobis promisit, pro eisdem terris pretium unoquoque anno dare, ut sibi licentiam concederemus, petivit : idque etiam, quoad viveret, ut licenter faceret, postulavit eâ ratione, ut post mortem ejus, terras, cum omnibus, quæ in illis inveniremus, sub nostrâ ditione haberemus. Cui, quod devotis quæsivit petitionibus, mente promptissimâ annuimus. Verum non elapso longi temporis spatio, Eduuinus et Morkere Duces, instinctu diabolico, easdem terras, omnemque substantiam illius abstulerunt, ad sui (ut postmodum patuit) non solum confusionem, verum etiam ad honoris, in quo diu fuerant, celerem amissionem. Nam alter eorum, Edwinus videlicet, a suis peremptus, alter vero in captivitate mortuus est."

In other cases Leofric, just like Harold, is charged with abetting or allowing the aggression of his followers. We read in p. 267 (Monasticon, i. 526); "Simund quidam genere Danus, miles Leofrici Comitis Merciorum, possessor exisstens alterius Črohlea predictæ jam vicinæ, ut illius generis homines erant soliti, nostræ tunc propriæ villæ dominatum avare cupiebat." He then

THE CHILDREN OF GODWINE.

371 ("vi et potentiâ suâ et domini sui") does such damage to the lands of the monastery that, at Leofric's request ("precibus domini sui prædicti Comitis"), Prior Ethelwine grants him the land for life, "possidendam vitæ suæ spatio, eâ tamen conventione, ut pro eâ ipse ad expeditionem terrâ marique (quæ tunc crebro agebatur) monasterio serviret, pecuniâque placabili sive caballo ipsum Priorem unoquoque anno recognosceret." And again in p. 260 (Monasticon, i. 595); "Terra, quæ dicitur Heamtun, monasterio juste subdi debere nullus ambigere debet. Nam Wulstanus Episcopus eam ab Erngeato, filio Grim, juste per placita requisivit et proclamavit, sed eam minime adquirere potuit, eo quod ipse Earngeatus adjutorio Comitis Leofrici fulciretur, suâque vi eam retinuit."

Lastly, I may mention cases in which Prelates like Bishop Elfweard (p. 45) and Archbishop Ealdred (see Note NN) stand charged with wrongfully transferring property from one church to another. These last cases, if they can be made out, seem to an impartial eye just as bad as the occupation of Church lands by laymen. The breach of law was equal, and when a Prelate, as Ealdred is said to have done, robbed the church which he was leaving in favour of the church of which he was taking possession, the personal greediness was equal. In fact, in all these cases the real crime lies in the breach of law which is implied in the violent or fraudulent occupation of anything, whether the party wronged be clerk or layman, individual or corporation. We must be on our guard alike against the exaggerated notions about the crime of sacrilege put forth by ecclesiastical writers, and also against the opposite prejudices of some moderns, who sometimes talk as if the robbing of a monastery were actually a praiseworthy deed.

On the whole, considering all the instances, we shall perhaps see reason to think that all charges of this kind, charges in which we can very seldom hear both sides, must be taken with great doubt and qualification. On the other hand it is plain that the tenure of Church property, perhaps of all property, was in those rough days very uncertain. Men, we may well believe, often gave with one hand and took with the other. No one did this more systematically than the Great William himself. I will end this long note with the comments of his namesake of Malmesbury on William's doings in this respect, comments which seem to have been equally applicable to many others among the great men of his age;

"Ita ejus tempore ultro citroque cœnobialis grex excrevit, monasteria surgebant, religione vetera, ædificiis recentia. Sed hic animadverto mussitationem dicentium, melius fuisse ut antiqua in suo statu conservarentur, quam, illis semimutilatis, de rapinâ nova construerentur” (iii. 278).

NOTE F. p. 22.

THE CHILDren of Godwine.

THE question of Godwine's marriage or marriages I examined in my first volume (p. 489), and I there came to the conclusion that there is no ground for attributing to him more than one wife, namely Gytha, the daughter of Thorgils Sprakaleg and sister of Ulf. There is no doubt that Gytha was the mother of all those sons and daughters of Godwine who play such a memorable part in our history.

The fullest lists of Godwine's sons are those given by William of

Malmesbury (ii. 200) and Orderic (502 B). William's list runs thus, Harold, Swegen, Tostig, Wulfnoth, Gyrth, Leofwine. That of Orderic is, Swegen, Tostig, Harold, Gyrth, Ælfgar, Leofwine, Wulfnoth. Saxo (196) speaks of Harold, Beorn, and Tostig as sons of Godwine; that is, he mistook Beorn the nephew of Gytha for her son. Snorro (Laing, iii. 75; Ant. Celt. Scand. 189) has a far more amazing genealogy. He seems to assume that Godwine must have been the father of every famous Englishman of his time, and he reckons up his sons thus-Tostig the eldest, Maurokari (Morkere), Waltheof, Swegen, and Harold. He pointedly adds that Harold was the youngest. And the list in the Knytlinga Saga, c. 11, is no less strange-Harold, Tostig, "Maurakaare," Waltheof, and Swegen. It must be on the same principle that Bromton (943) seems to make Godwine the father of Gruffydd of Wales. At least his list runs thus, Swegen, Wulfnoth, Leofwine, Harold, Tostig, and Griffin. So Walter of Hemingburgh (i. 4) gives Godwine a son Griffus, which may be a confusion between Gruffydd and Gyrth. Knighton (2334) gives the sons as Swegen, Harold, Tostig, Wulfnoth, Gyrth, and Leofric. But elsewhere, as Bromton had given Godwine a Gruffydd, Knighton in the same spirit helps him to a Llywelyn. At least he talks (2238) of the "malitia et superbia Haraldi et Lewlini filiorum Godwini."

The Biographer gives no list, but he mentions four sons, Harold, Tostig, Gyrth, and Leofwine, whose name is inaccurately given as Leofric in the printed text.

Of these sons, there is no doubt about six, namely Swegen, Harold, Tostig, Gyrth, Leofwine, Wulfnoth, who all figure in the history at different points. The only question is whether we ought, on the sole authority of Orderic, to add a seventh son named Ælfgar. According to him, Ælfgar lived and died a monk at Rheims, and Wulfnoth did the like at Salisbury. This is undoubtedly false as regards Wulfnoth; and the tale of a son of Godwine, otherwise unknown, spending his whole life in a French monastery has a somewhat apocryphal sound. Can it be that the tale has sprung out of some confusion with the benefactions of Earl Ælfgar to the Abbey of Rheims? (see p. 305). At any rate we may dismiss Ælfgar, as a person of whose actions, if he ever existed, we have no knowledge, while of the other six brethren we know a good deal.

Among the daughters of Godwine, there is no need to prove the existence of Eadgyth the Lady. Another daughter, Gunhild, rests on the sure evidence of the Exon Domesday (pp. 96, 99, "Gunnilla filia Comitis Godwini"). She also has a history, which will come in my fourth volume, The third daughter, Ælfgifu, also appears in Domesday (144 b), where land is held in Buckinghamshire by a "man" of hers, "homo Alvevæ soror Heraldi comitis." See Kelham, 153, and Ellis, i. 309, who both speak of her without any reference, and I have to thank Sir T. D. Hardy for pointing out the passage to me. This sister, though she is nowhere else directly spoken of, is of some historical importance. It is part of the story of Harold's oath (Sim. Dun. 1066 and elsewhere) that he promised to marry his sister to one of William's nobles. Obviously this cannot apply to Eadgyth, nor yet to Gunhild, who was devoted to a religious life. The sister intended must therefore have been Ælfgifu, and I shall, in my next volume, discuss the question whether she may not be the puzzling Ælfgyva of the Tapestry. See vol. iii. Appendix S.

As to the order of the sons there is no doubt. Swegen ("filius primo

THE CHILDREN OF GODWINE.

373 genitus Swanus," Fl. Wig. 1051) was the eldest. Harold came next. That Harold was older than Tostig is plain from the Biographer (" major natu Haroldus,” 409), and indeed from the whole history. So even Saxo (207) speaks of "minores Godovini filii [which at least includes Tostig] majorem perosi." Orderic's notion (492 D) that Harold was younger than Tostig is simply a bit of the Norman legend, devised in order to represent Harold as depriving his elder brother, sometimes of the Earldom, sometimes of the Kingdom. Snorro's idea that Harold was the youngest of all is wilder still. The order of the several brothers is very plainly marked in the dates of their promotion to Earldoms; their order is Swegen, Harold, Tostig, Gyrth, Leofwine. Wulfnoth, who never held an Earldom, was doubtless the youngest.

The order in which the brothers sign charters is worth notice. Setting aside one impossible charter (Cod. Dipl. iv. 80-84), Swegen always signs before Harold, Harold always before Tostig, Tostig always before Gyrth and Leofwine. But Harold, Gyrth, and Leofwine do not observe so strict an order among themselves. May we not infer from the recorded disposition and actions of Swegen and Tostig that a certain attention to ceremony was needed in their cases, while the other three brothers, who lived and died firm friends, could afford to dispense with it?

The order of the daughters among themselves must have been Eadgyth, Gunhild, Ælfgifu. A daughter of Godwine and Gytha who was talked of as an intended wife for any one in 1066, must have been the very youngest of the family.

The order of the sisters with regard to their brothers is more difficult to fix. It is hopeless to try to fix the place of Gunhild. But, as Ælfgifu must have been the youngest, there is some reason to believe that Eadgyth was the eldest of the family. The Biographer (p. 397).compares four children of Godwine, seemingly Eadgyth, Harold, Tostig, and Gyrth-he never mentions Swegen-to the four rivers of Paradise;

"Felix prole piâ Dux, stirpe beatus avitâ,

His quatuor natis dans Anglia pignora pacis.
Prodit gemma prior, variæ probitatis amatrix,
In medio Regni, tanto Duce filia patre
Edgit digna suo, Regi condigna marito."

This looks as if Eadgyth was the eldest of all. Godwine and Gytha were married in 1019 (see vol. i. pp. 283, 489). Harold therefore, the second son, could not, even if Eadgyth was younger than himself, have been born before 1021, perhaps not till 1022 or later. He therefore could not have been above twenty-four when he became Earl, nor above forty-five at his death-he may of course have been younger. But none of Godwine's sons who held Earldoms could have been so young as William of Malmesbury fancied Gyrth to be in 1066, when he calls him (iii. 239) " plus puero adultus et magnæ ultra ætatem virtutis et scientiæ." He had then been Earl of the East-Angles for nine years.

« PreviousContinue »