Page images
PDF
EPUB

THE BANISHMENT OF GODWINE.

407

[ocr errors]

folce pider ut ofer ealne pisne nor ende, on Siwardes eorldome and on Leofrices and eac elles gehwar." Here is the fyrd of the Northern Earldoms and something else. The last words, not being very clear, are slurred over in the version of Florence; "Rex vero de totâ Merciâ et Northhymbriâ copiosiorem exercitum congregavit et secum Lundoniam duxit." But Peterborough tells us more; "And het se cyning bannan út here, agter ge be sučan Temese ge be nordan call pa afre betst was.' The fyrd of the North came, and the King's comitatus, the "best men," were also summoned, in virtue of their personal obligations, even within Godwine's Earldom. But the fyrd of Wessex was, at first at least, on the side of its own Earl; for the Worcester writer says that Godwine came to Southwark "and micel mænegeo mid heom of Westsæxum." He also directly after calls the King's force here; Godwine and his force come to meet the King" and pone here pe him mid was.'

[ocr errors]

The main difficulty in this part of the story arises from an expression of each Chronicler about the surrender to the King of certain Thegns who were in the hands of Godwine or Harold. The first stage of the discussion in the Worcester Chronicle stands thus, " And man borh fæste pam kyninge ealle þa þegnas þe wæron Haroldes Eorles his [Godwine's] suna.' In the Peterborough account, Godwine first demands hostages and a safe-conduct; then follows, "Da gyrnde se cyng ealra þæra þegna þe þa eorlas ær hæfdon, and hi letan hi ealle him to hande." Then the King again summons Godwine to come with twelve companions only, and Godwine again demands hostages and a safe-conduct. One would think that the transactions spoken of in two Chronicles must be the same; but, if so, the Worcester writer must have placed the demand for these Thegns out of its proper order, as he makes it come before the renewed outlawry of Swegen, which it clearly followed. And who were these Thegns? I once thought, with Mr. Kemble (Saxons in England, ii. 231), that they were the hostages who had been given to Godwine at the Gloucester Gemót. This would give an excellent meaning. Godwine has already received hostages, as leader of one of the two great parties who are recognized as being equally in the King's favour. He now demands further hostages for his own personal safety. The King, instead of granting them, demands the restoration of the former hostages. But, had this been the meaning, they could hardly fail to have been spoken of by the regular name gislas. Who then were the Thegns spoken of? I can hardly fancy that Godwine and Harold surrendered all their own personal Thegns, the members of their own comitatus. This seems to have been the notion of William of Malmesbury, though his account is very confused. The Earls are bidden "ut duodecim solum homines adducerent; servitium militum, quos per Angliam habebant, Regi contraderent." (So Lappenberg, p. 509 of the German original, Thorpe, ii. 249.) But surely such a surrender is improbable in itself, and it is hardly consistent with the licence to bring twelve companions, which implies that, after the surrender, they had still some comitatus left. I am therefore driven to suppose that some of the King's Thegns within the Earldoms of Godwine and Harold had, notwithstanding the King's summons, followed the Earls, that these Thegns were now called on to join the King, and that the Earls put no hindrance in their way.

It is curious, after reading William of Malmesbury's account of all these matters, grounded on the patriotic Peterborough Chronicle, to turn to the

passage quoted in a former Note (p. 363) where he speaks of Godwine and his sons as banished on account of their sacrilege and other wickedness.

[ocr errors]

NOTE S. p. 90.

CASTLE-BUILDING IN ENGLAND.

I HAVE elsewhere spoken of the growth of the art of fortification in England, and of the four stages which our authorities enable us to establish up to the tenth century. See vol. i. pp. 42, 209. In the eleventh century the word "castel" was introduced into our language to mark a fifth stage, something which was evidently quite distinct from the familiar "burh of earlier times. The lack of castles in England before the Norman Conquest is noticed by Orderic (511 C) and by Wace (6454) as one of the causes which made the occupation of the country more easy. Orderic also speaks of the thing and its name as something distinctively French; "Munitiones (quas castella Galli nuncupant) Anglicis provinciis paucissimæ fuerant." He adds, "ob hoc Angli, licet bellicosi fuerint et audaces, ad resistendum tamen inimicis exstiterant debiliores." To build castles was the surest means of keeping down the people. So we find it in Ireland also. Giraldus (Exp. Hib. ii. 34; vol. v. p. 385 Dimock), after the invasions in the reign of Henry the Second, speaks of "Insula Hibernica de mari usque ad mare ex toto subacta et incastellata." Cf. ii. 38, 39.

66

[ocr errors]

The castles which were now introduced into England seem to have been new inventions in Normandy itself. William of Jumièges (vii. 1) distinctly makes the building of castles to be one of the main signs and causes of the general disorder of the days of William's minority (see p. 125). And he seems to speak of the practice as something new; "Sub ejus ineunte ætate, Normannorum plurimi aberrantes ab ejus fidelitate, plura per loca aggeres erexerunt et tutissimas sibi munitiones construxerunt. Quarum dum auderent fisi munimine, protinus inter eos diversi motus exoriuntur, seditiones concitantur, ac sæva patriæ incendia ubique perpetrantur," &c. So William of Malmesbury (iii. 230); "Mox quisque sua munire oppida, turres agere, frumenta comportare, caussas aucupari quibus quamprimum a puero dissidia meditarentur.' The 66 'agger" is the "mote" or mound' on which the Norman castles were so often built. Thus we find (see p. 163) Hubert of Rye standing at his gate entre li mostier et sa mote," that is between the church and his own castle. So we find in the Gesta Consulum (D'Achery, iii. 257), "domum munitissimam quæ usque hodie 'Mota Fulcoii' a vulgo vocatur." According to Mr. G. T. Clark (Old London, p. 16) the "agger" or "mote" was commonly an earlier earthwork made use of by the builders of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Yet the rebellious nobles are clearly described by William of Jumièges as throwing up "aggeres" for the express purpose of building their castles. Neither can I believe that the "tutissimæ munitiones" of the eleventh century, either in England or in Normandy, were commonly of wood. The use of wood for domestic architecture long after this time need not be dwelt upon, and there is abundant evidence of the use of wood in fortification at this time and later. Thus, so late as the wars of Charles the Bold, we find in Diebold Schilling of Bern (p. 5) the description of the wooden town of Hab

66

THE SURNAMES OF WILLIAM.

409 kessen; "Das jewelten ein Dorff gewesen was, mit einer starcken höltzinen Mure, und vil Bollwercken umgaben, und das darnach die höltzin Statt nannten." So in Herodotus (iv. 108, 123) we have the description of the wooden town of Gelônos, the rólus guλívn, where the wall was ὑψηλὸν καὶ πᾶν ξύλινον· καὶ οἰκίαι αὐτῶν ξύλιναι, καὶ τὰ ἱρά. There is no doubt too that the temporary towers which were often used in the military art of the time and which are sometimes called castles, William's own forts for instance at Brionne and Hastings, were often of wood; but then they are sometimes pointedly distinguished from the stone fortresses. Thus in the Angevin Chronicle in Labbé, i. 286, 287, we read how in 1025 Count Odo of Chartres (see vol. i. p. 307) besieged the castle which Fulk of Anjou had built as an emireixioμós against Tours ("contra civitatem Turonicam firmaverat ") and "turrem ligneam miræ altitudinis super domgionem ipsius castri erexit." The donjon itself was surely of stone. Stone was also at this time fast coming into use for domestic as well as for military and ecclesiastical buildings. Avesgaud, Bishop of Le Mans (994-1036), rebuilt in stone both the episcopal palace and also an hospital; before him they had been of wood; "quæ antea ligneæ fuerant petrinas constituit" (Gest. Ep. Cenom. ap. Mabillon, Vetera Analecta, iii. 300*). We have also the remarkable description in William of Poitiers (81) of the fortified house at Brionne; "aulam lapideam arcis usum pugnantibus præbentem" (see p. 261). This was plainly something different from the ordinary donjon, though it was capable of being put to purposes of defence. It was probably what would in later days have been called a crenellated house, and it is doubtless distinguished as "lapidea" because an "aula" would often be of wood while "arces were of stone. So we twice read in Domesday (184 b, 187) of "domus una defensabilis" in Herefordshire, which was seemingly something different from a castle.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

The building of castles seems to be always mentioned in our Chronicles with some expression of horror. Thus we read in Chron. Wig. 1066; "And Oda biscop and Wyllelm eorl belifen her æfter, and worhton castelas wide geond pas peode, and earm folc swencte and á syððan hit yflade swixe.” So in Chron. Petrib. 1087; "Castelas he let wyrcean, and earme men swixe swencean." The famous description of the castle-building in the year 1137 is familiar to readers even of the commonest English histories. A speaking witness to the impression which had been made on men's minds by the building of this particular Richard's Castle, probably the first of its class is England, is given by its being spoken of distinctively as "the Castle," even by the Worcester Chronicler (1052; see p. 206), who had not spoken of its building in his earlier narrative.

NOTE T. p. 113.

THE SURNAMES OF WILLIAM.

IT has been pointed out by more writers than one that a certain amount of confusion is involved in the familiar description of the great King-Duke as William the Conqueror. He is not often called "Conquæstor" by writers of or near his own time. Moreover, "Conquæstor" hardly means Conqueror" in the common use of that word, but rather "Acquirer," or "Purchaser," in the wider legal sense of the word "purchase." A former

[ocr errors]

colleague of mine in the Oxford Schools always made a point of describing him as 66 William the Purchaser." But the title of William the Conqueror, even as commonly understood, is so familiar, so true, and so convenient, that I have not the least wish to interfere with its use.

[ocr errors]

As far as I can see, he was known to his contemporaries as William the Bastard, and was, after his death, most commonly distinguished from his successor by the name of William the Great. The title of Bastard indeed stuck so close to him that some writers, who could hardly have known what it meant, seem almost to have taken it for his real name. Even Adam of Bremen, who certainly knew its meaning, uses it almost as a proper name. He introduces William (iii. 51) as "Willehelmus, cui pro obliquo sanguine cognomen est Bastardus," and goes on to speak of "Bastardus victor," and (c. 53) to say how "inter Suein et Bastardum perpetua contentio de Angliâ fuit.' So Marianus Scotus, a. 1089 (Pertz, v. 559), talks of "Willihelmus, qui et Bastart;" Lambert of Saint Omer (Pertz, v. 65) says, "Terra Anglorum expugnata est a Willelmo Notho Bastart;" and most curiously of all, Lambert of Herzfeld, a. 1074 (Pertz, v. 216), calls him "Willhelmus, cognomento Bostar, Rex Anglorum." In our own Worcester Chronicle, a. 1066, he appears as "Wyllelm Bastard," and in Olaf Tryggvesson's Saga (p. 263), as "Vilialmur Bastardur Rudu Jarl." So in Orderic (663 C), "Guillelmus Nothus." So in the Annales Formoselenses (Pertz, v. 36), "Willelmus Bastardus invasit regnum Anglorum." One writer (Chron. Gaufredi Vosiensis, Labbé, iii. 284) for "Bastard" uses the equivalent word "Mamzer ”—“ Normannorum Ducis filius Mamzer Guillelmus."

66

It has been often said that William himself used the description in formal documents. This assertion rests on very slight authority. There is a charter in Gale's Registrum Honoris de Richmond, p. 225, beginning "Ego Willielmus, cognomine Bastardus, Rex Angliæ." It is given also in Selden's Titles of Honour, 535, with the corrupt modern spelling Gulielmus. It seems to me to be palpably spurious, and those who accept it allow it to be unique.

The other title may be seen growing from the vaguer form of "the great William" to the more distinct "William the Great." We read in a charter of William Rufus (Rymer, i. 5), "Ego Willelmus, Dei gratiâ, Rex Anglorum, filius magni Regis Willelmi." So Eadmer (lib. iii. 57, Selden), "quando ille magnus Willielmus hanc terram primo devicit;" so William of Jumièges (vii. 16; cf. his description of Robert, vii. 1; see vol. i. p. 474), " Willelmus Dux magnus;" so the Ely History (ii. 41), "deditio Wilhelmi Regis magni." But we find more distinctly in Orderic (706 C), "Henricus Guillelmi Magni Regis Anglorum filius," and still more distinctly in William of Malmesbury (Prol. in lib. iv.), "Willelmus filius Willelmi Magni," and in Æthelred of Rievaux (X Scriptt. 393), “Vixit autem ad Willielmi Magni tempora."

[ocr errors]

The earliest instance, as far as I know, of "Conquæstor" is in Orderic (603 A), who joins it with "Magnus "Guillelmus Magnus, id est Conquæstor, Rex Anglorum." In some manuscripts of Adam of Murimuth (56 ed. Hog) the propriety of the title is formally disputed; "Willelmus Rex improprie potest dici Conquestor, quia ipse fuit nepos et verus hæres beati Edwardi, quia non per judicium sed per potentiam devicit Haraldum, et jus suum virtute propriâ adquisivit." He is also called Triumphator,' which comes still nearer to the modern idea. This name is found twice

THE BIRTH OF WILLIAM.

411

in one of the foreign writers quoted above (Chron. Gaufredi Vosiensis, Labbé, iii. 293). William Rufus is "Guillelmus filius magni Triumphatoris Guillelmi ;" and elsewhere (284) he speaks of "Triumphator ille Guillelmus Mamzer." We find also the same title in English writers. Osbert of Saint Clare (Ep. iii. p. 116), writing to William's grandson Henry of Blois, speaks of " avus Rex vester Willelmus, Angliæ Triumphator egregius," and at p. 121 King Stephen is again made to call him "Triumphator Angliæ." So in the Vita Haroldi (Chron. Ang. Norm. ii. 208) he is called " Triumphator Willelmus," as if it was a familiar title.

NOTE U. p. 117.

THE BIRTH OF WILLIAM.

SEVERAL questions arise out of the narratives, historical and legendary, of the birth of the great William. No one doubts that he was the natural son of Duke Robert, or that he was born at Falaise; but there are several points open to doubt,—

Ist, As to the origin of his mother;

2nd, At to the exact date of his birth; 3rd, As to the exact place of his birth;

4th, As to the number of his mother's other children.

I will discuss these questions in order.

I. I have mentioned in the text, as a remarkable illustration of English feeling, the story which made William's mother a descendant of the royal house of England. It will be found at length, with some curious details, in the Winchester Annals of Thomas Rudborne, Anglia Sacra, i. 247. Rudborne professes to get the story from a book called "Chronica Danorum in Angliâ regnantium." As a piece of chronology and genealogy, the tale is strange enough. The tanner is called Richard, which looks rather as if he were a Norman, and he bears the surname of "Saburpyr," the meaning of which is far from clear. His wife is distinctly said to be a daughter of Eadmund and Ealdgyth. Now Eadmund married Ealdgyth in 1015 (see vol. i. p. 251) and he died before the end of 1016. There is therefore hardly room for the birth of a daughter besides the apparently twin (see vol. i. p. 277) Æthelings, Eadmund and Eadward. Such a daughter must have eloped with the tanner at about the same time of life as Hermês when he stole the cows, and, as the mother of the mother of William, who was born at the latest in 1028, she must have been a grandmother at the age of twelve. William must also, besides being a distant cousin of Eadward, have been also a distant nephew, a fact nowhere else alluded to, unless in the extract from Adam of Murimuth quoted in the last Note. In this tale William's mother is called Helen, perhaps through some similarity of letters with Herleva.

The trade of Herleva's father seems to be agreed on at all hands. He was a burgess of Falaise and a tanner. So the Chronicle of Saint Maxentius (Labbé, ii. 202); "Robertus Willelmum genuit ex eâ quæ fuit filia pelletarii burgensis." In the narrative of William of Jumièges, the bastardy of the Conqueror and the calling of his maternal grandfather dawn upon the reader by degrees. He first, when describing Robert's nomination of William as his successor, simply calls him "Willelmum filium suum, quem unicum apud Falesiam genuerat" (vi. 12). When he speaks of the indig

« PreviousContinue »