Dymedham incenderunt, et omnes quos ibi reperiebant peremerunt." But what is Dymedham? One would expect it to be the name of a town in Gloucestershire, but I know of no such place. It almost looks as if Florence had got hold of some Welsh account, and had been led astray by some such word as Dyfed or Deheubarth. Anyhow we may accept the fact that they crossed the Wye, and so entered the Hwiccian diocese. It is then that Ealdred brings his force against them. In the Chronicle that force is simply called "folc," without further description; it is Florence who tells us that it consisted of small bodies from Gloucestershire and Herefordsnire (" pauci de provincialibus Glawornensibus et Herefordensibus "), together with that body of Welshmen to whose treachery he attributes the defeat of the English. The mention of these Welshmen in the English army raises some further questions. Were they mere mercenaries hired for the occasion, subjects possibly of the Northern Gruffydd, or were they men of Welsh blood and speech living under the immediate sovereignty of the King of the English ? It can hardly be doubted that much Welsh blood must have still lingered among the inhabitants of Herefordshire and Western Gloucestershire, just as it lingered among the inhabitants of Somersetshire and Devonshire. A small part of modern Gloucestershire, and a larger part of modern Herefordshire, consists of the districts added to those shires at the dissolution of the Welsh Marches. This part of Herefordshire was, till quite recent ecclesiastical changes, included in the Diocese of Saint David's. But it would seem that, as late as the seventeenth century, Welsh must have been spoken in Herefordshire beyond these limits, as the Act of Uniformity joins the Bishop of Hereford with the Welsh Bishops in the duty of providing a Welsh translation of the Prayer-Book. We can therefore well believe that, in the days of Eadward, considerable remains both of Welsh blood and of the Welsh language must have remained in large districts of the Magesætas and even of the Hwiccas. Still the picture given us in Domesday of the Herefordshire borderers (see p. 258), though in no way decisive of their ethnology, sets them before us as a race eminently loyal to the English Crown. It is therefore more likely that these traitorous Welshmen were mere hirelings, and an expression of Florence seems to look the same way. He calls them "Walenses quos secum habuerant [provinciales Glawornenses et Herefordenses], eisque fidelitatem promiserant." This certainly looks as if they were not immediate English subjects, but strangers who would serve only on receiving some sort of pledge of good faith from their English comrades. Such at least is the only meaning which I can get out of the text, and there seems to be no question as to the reading. Otherwise I should be strongly tempted to read, "quique eis fidelitatem promiserant," so as to make the “fidelitas” a pledge given by the Welshmen. In any case the “fidelitas” seems to be given or received by the army as a body, not by the Bishop or any other commander. We seem here to have a military Scirgemôt, just as we elsewhere have military Gemóts of the whole Kingdom. One can hardly doubt that this fleet from Ireland is the same as that of which the Welsh Chroniclers speak under the year 1050. But they say nothing of the alliance between Gruffydd and the pirates, and they seem rather to speak of the fleet as one which came to attack Wales. The variations in the manuscripts are remarkable. The text of the Brut y Tywysogion calls it a fleet which "failed coming from Ireland to South DANEGELD AND HEREGELD. 403 Wales" ("balla6d llyges o Iwerdon yn dyfot y Deheubarth." I quote the original, though I do not understand the Welsh language, as Weish scholars may be able to judge of the translation). But another reading is "a fleet from Ireland endangered South Wales" (" y periglawd llynghes o I werdon Dehavbarth"). The text of the Annales Cambriæ has "Classis Hiberniæ in dextrali parte periit," but another manuscript reads "Classis Hiberniæ in dextrali parte Cambriæ prædavit." It is quite possible that the Danes may have begun with plundering, and may have afterwards been won over by Gruffydd to join him against the English. The most perplexing thing, after all, about this campaign is its ending, or rather its lack of an ending. What happened after the escape of Ealdred? NOTE Q. p. 80. DANEGELD AND HEREGELD. IT can hardly be doubted that the original meaning of the word Denagyld must have been money paid to the Danes to buy them off, a practice of which I need not multiply instances during the reign of Ethelred, and which was at least looked on as possible as early as the days of Eadred (see vol. i. p. 187). But it so happens that the word itself does not occur till much later times. As far as I know, the single appearance of the word in Domesday (336 b) is the earliest instance. It occurs also in the so-called Laws of Eadward, c. 11 (Schmid, 496; see also R. Howden, ii. 223), in the Laws of Henry the First, first in the Charter of London (Schmid, 434) and afterwards in c. 15 (Schmid, 446). There are also well-known passages in Bromton (942, 957) and the Dialogus de Scaccario (ap. Madox, Exchequer, p. 27). In all these passages (except perhaps in that of Bromton, who calls it "tallagium datum Danis") the Danegeld is described as a tax levied, not to buy off Danes, but to hire mercenaries, whether Danes or others, to resist them. Thus in the "Laws of Eadward" the description given is as follows; "Denegeldi redditio propter piratas primitus statuta est. Patriam enim infestantes, vastationi ejus pro posse suo insistebant; sed ad eorum insolentiam reprimendam statutum est Denegeldum annuatim reddendum ; i. e. duodecim denarios de unâque hidâ totius patriæ, ad conducendos eos, qui piratarum irruptioni resistendo obviarent." The description in the Laws of Henry (Schmid, 446) is more remarkable, as it distinctly connects the Danegeld with the famous force established by Cnut; "Denagildum, quod aliquando pingemannis dabatur." But it is plain, from the passage with which we are concerned in the text, and from the other passage in the Peterborough Chronicle (1040) which describes the payment to Harthacnut's fleet in 1041, that the formal name for a tax levied for the payment of soldiers or sailors was Heregyld, Heregeald, Heregeld. I conceive that Denagyld was a popular name of dislike, which was originally applied to the payments made to buy off the Danes, and which was thence transferred to these other payments made to Danish and other mercenary troops, from the time of Thurkill onwards. This would account for the name not occurring in any early Chronicle or document. It is commonly assumed, with great probability but without direct proof, that the Danegeld of Domesday is the same as the "mycel gyld" recorded in the Peterborough Chronicle to have been laid on by William in the winter Gemót of 1083-1084. This is looked on as the revival of the tax now taken off by Eadward. Yet it would be strange if no taxes at all for the support of warlike forces of any kind were levied between 1051 and 1083. The Housecarls certainly continued; we constantly hear of them by name, besides Florence's mention of "stipendiarii et mercenarii" in 1066. Are we to infer that the Housecarls were henceforth maintained out of the ordinary royal revenues, or, what seems more likely, that the tax now remitted related wholly to the fleet? See on Danegeld, Pegge's Short Account of Danegeld (London 1756) and Ellis, i. 350, 351. NOTE R. p. 83. THE BANISHMENT OF Godwine. Of the events which led to the banishment of Godwine and his sons we have three original narratives. The Worcester and Peterborough Chronicles give accounts which at first sight seem to be widely different, and the Life of Eadward contains another account which seems to be still more widely different from either of the others. The narrative in Florence is mainly founded on that in the Worcester Chronicle, while William of Malmesbury, as in many other cases, plainly had the Peterborough Chronicle before him. These Latin writers serve in some cases to explain and illustrate their English originals, while in other places they have curiously mistaken their meaning. When, fifteen years back (1853), I wrote my papers on the Life and Death of Godwine in the Archæological Journal (vol. xii. p. 48), I thought that there was a wide difference between the accounts of the two Chroniclers, and that a choice had to be made between them. I now think that there is little or no discrepancy as to the facts. The main difference is that in the Worcester narrative there are many omissions, which are supplied by the Peterborough writer. There is also, as usual, a marked difference in tone. The Peterborough writer is here, as ever, a devoted partizan of Godwine, and he carefully brings into prominence every circumstance which can tell in his favour. The Worcester writer, without showing the least feeling against the Earl, is not so strongly committed to his side. The curious result is that the Normannizing William of Malmesbury, following the Peterborough version, gives a more strongly Godwinist account than our English Florence. Also, since my former papers were written, the contemporary Life of Eadward has come to light. The Biographer's account is very singular. As usual, his rhetorical way of dealing with everything, and the necessity under which he felt himself of justifying both Eadward and Godwine, hamper him a good deal in his story. He also gives an account of the origin of the dispute, which is quite different from that mentioned in the Chronicles, and which yet is in no way inconsistent with it. He agrees with the Chroniclers in the main facts as to places and persons, and he adds, especially towards the end, some of those minute touches which increase our confidence in the writer, as they seem to come from personal knowledge. The chief difference between him and the Chroniclers is the difference inevitably involved in their several positions. The Chroniclers were monks, writing in their monasteries for the instruction of their THE BANISHMENT OF GODWINE. 405 brethren. They might err through ignorance, they might exaggerate through party spirit; but they had no temptation to win anybody's favour by wilful omissions or perversions. The Biographer, with far better means of knowing the exact truth, laboured under all the difficulties of a courtier. He had to please one who was at once the daughter of Godwine, the widow of Eadward, the sister of Harold, and the favoured subject of William. The two Chroniclers agree in making the outrages of Eustace at Dover the main cause of the dispute. The Peterborough writer adds, as a collateral cause, the misconduct of the Frenchmen in Herefordshire. There is here no inconsistency, but simply an omission on the part of the Worcester writer. And, after all, the Worcester writer, though he does not directly tell the Herefordshire story, yet incidentally shows his knowledge of it, both in his present narrative (see p. 92, note 4, where I have mentioned the singular mistake of Florence) and in his entry of the next year (see p. 206). The Biographer says nothing about either Eustace or Herefordshire; he speaks only of a revival of the old calumnies by Archbishop Robert. Of this last cause the Chroniclers say nothing. But there is no real inconsistency between these accounts. Nothing is more likely than that Robert would seize such an opportunity again to poison the King's mind against Godwine. But these private dealings in the royal closet would be much more likely to be known, and to seem of great importance, to a courtier and royal chaplain than to men who were watching the course of public affairs from a distance. And we must not forget that, when the Biographer wrote, Robert was dead and had no one to speak for him, while Eustace and Osbern of Herefordshire were high in William's, therefore probably in Eadgyth's, favour. It might therefore be inconvenient to enlarge too fully on their misdeeds. The Biographer in short reports the intrigues of the court, while the Chroniclers record the history of the nation. I accept his account, not as an alternative, but as a supplement, to the account in the Chronicles, and I have accordingly worked his details into my own narrative. As to the broad facts of the story, the meeting at Gloucester, the presence of the great Earls, and the adjournment to London, all our witnesses agree. One great apparent discrepancy between the two Chroniclers at the very outset of the story, is, I am now convinced, merely apparent. As we read the tale in Florence (1051), the violent conduct of Eustace took place immediately upon his landing at Dover ("Eustatius paucis Doruverniam applicuit navibus; in quâ milites ejus. . . unum e civibus peremerunt," &c.). Now it is impossible to reject the clear and detailed story of the Peterborough writer, according to which the affair took place, not on Eustace's landing, but on his return from the court at Gloucester. It now seems to me that there is here simply an omission on the part of the Worcester writer, and that Florence was misled by his expression, on þam ylcan geare com Eustatius up æt Doferan," &c. Taken alone, this would certainly give one the idea which it seems to have given Florence, but, with the fuller light of the Peterborough narrative, we may fairly take it the other way. If this explanation be not accepted, there can be no doubt that the Peterborough story is the one to be followed. But it must be remembered that, if any one chooses to accept Florence's story, the case of Godwine and his clients is thereby made still stronger. As Florence tells the tale, the men of Dover were not simply resisting an 66 act of violence done within the Kingdom; they were resisting what would seem to them to be an actual foreign invasion. In the narrative of the events in Gloucestershire each of the Chronicles fill up gaps in the other. The Worcester writer leaves out Eadward's command, and Godwine's refusal, to subject Dover to military chastisement. On this point the Peterborough writer is naturally emphatic, and this part of the story seems to have awakened a deep sympathy in his copyist William of Malmesbury. Worcester also leaves out the King's summons to the Witan, so that Godwine seems to levy his forces at once, as soon as he hears of the behaviour of Eustace. A quite different colour is thus given to the story, but it is merely by omission, not by contradiction. On the other hand Peterborough leaves out, what we cannot doubt to be authentic, Godwine's demand for the surrender of Eustace and the other Frenchmen, and his threat of war in case of refusal. In fact the Worcester writer seems to dwell as much as he can on the warlike, and the Peterborough writer on the peaceful, side of the story. But the particular facts on which each insists are in no way contradictory, and I accept both. The Biographer confirms the Peterborough statement of a summons to the Witan, only he leaves out all the warlike part, and tells us of Godwine's offer to renew his compurgation. This last fact is not mentioned by either Chronicler, but it does not contradict either of them. The mediation on both sides is mentioned in both Chronicles; the personal intervention of Leofric comes from Florence, but it is eminently in character. I was puzzled fifteen years back at finding what appeared in one account as an Assembly of the Witan, described in the other as a gathering of armies. I did not then so well understand as I do now that in those days an army and a Witenagemót were very nearly the same thing. In the account of the adjourned Gemót in London, or perhaps rather under its walls, there are a good many difficulties, but no distinct contradictions. The Peterborough narrative is still the fuller of the two, and that which seemingly pays more regard to the strict order of events. The Biographer tells the story from his own special point of view, and helps us to several valuable personal notices of Stigand, Robert, and Godwine himself. His great object is to represent Godwine, no doubt with a good deal of exaggeration, as a model of submissive loyalty towards Eadward. It is too much when he tells us (p. 402), how the Earl "legationes mittens petiit ne præjudicium innocentiæ suæ inferretur a Rege, agebatque se in omnibus modis paratum ad satisfaciendum Regi, et cum jure et ultra jus, ad nutum voluntatis suæ." On one small point we find a good instance of the way in which one authority fills up gaps in another. The Worcester Chronicle tells us that, when the Gemót was summoned to London, Godwine went to Southwark. Why to Southwark? It is easy to answer that it was a convenient spot, as being at once in his own Earldom and yet close to the place appointed for holding the Gemót (on Southwark and its relation to Godwine as Earl, see Domesday, 32). But the Biographer helps us to a still closer connexion between Godwine and Southwark (p. 402); “Dux quoque insons et fidens de propriâ conscientiâ semper immuni a tanto scelere, e diverso adveniens cum suis, assederat extra civitatis ejusdem flumen Temesin, loco mansionis propriæ." So it is from the Peterborough and Worcester Chronicles put together that we see that Eadward summoned forces of two kind, fyrd and here (see p. 95), to his help at the London Gemót. The Worcester Chronicler says, "And man bead þa |