THE COUNTS OF ANJOU AND OF CHARTRES.

417 invasion of France in 978 (see vol. i. p. 159). And in the inscription from Loches printed in Pertz, iii. 623, we find what is evidently meant to be an account of the same war, and that in the words of Fulk Nerra himself, only it is somewhat strangely transferred to the reign of Robert. The story ends, “Rex Rotbertus, congregato generali concilio, consilio patris sui et episcoporum, comitum, baronum, dedit Gaufrido Comiti quidquid Rex Lotharius in episcopatibus suis, Andegavensi scilicet et Cenomannensi, habuerat." We learn from a distinct and contemporary authority that Geoffrey had before that taken a part in that wild raid against Aachen (see vol. i. p. 159) by which Lothar had provoked the German inroad. "Lotarius ... Lotharingiam calumniatus est. Cujus expeditionibus Gosfridus Comes Andegavorum, pater Fulconis ultimi, interfuit, nostræque ætatis multi viri." (Chron. S. Maxentii, Labbé, ii. 203.) The words "Fulconis ultimi" could hardly have been used during the life of Fulk Nerra; it looks therefore as if the Chronicler wrote, in extreme old age, after Fulk's death in 1040. These entries about Geoffrey's attendance on Lothar fit in curiously with a Breton account (Chron. Brioc. Morice, p. 32), how Geoffrey seized on Guerech, the Breton Bishop and Count, on his return from the King's Court, and forced him--setting a precedent for two more famous acts of his grandson-to surrender Nantes.

Rudolf Glaber is very full on the war between Geoffrey and Conan, and the battle of Conquereux ("Concretus" in Rudolf, “Conquerentium" in the Angevin, "Concruz" in the Breton, Chronicles) in the County of Nantes. The Bretons mention two battles on the same spot, one in 982, the other in 992 (v. Kal. Julii), when Conan was killed (Chron. Bret. ap. Morice, i. et seqq.); the Angevin writer (Labbé, i. 275) speaks of the latter only. In the battle recorded by Rudolf, Conan seems not to be killed, but to be only "truncatus dexterâ” (ii. 3). Conan, according to Rudolf, had taken the title of King, like several of his predecessors. This assumption may not have been unconnected with the great revolution of 987. Rudolf's account of the Bretons (ii. 3) is amusing. Their land, “finitimum ac perinde vilissimum, Cornu Galliæ nuncupatur." This vile country "habitatur diutius a gente Brittonum, quorum solæ divitiæ primitus fuere libertas fisci publici et lactis copia, qui omni prorsus urbanitate vacui, suntque illis mores inculti ac levis ira et stulta garrulitas." Rudolf indeed is just now so full on Angevin matters that the local panegyrist is often content to copy him.

The Count of Chartres who married the sister of Richard the Good (see William of Jumièges, v. 10) was not the first but the second Odo. Odo the First died in 995, and was succeeded by his son Theobald. who was followed in 1004 by his brother Odo the Second. It was this second Odo who waged the war about Tillières. In D'Achery, iii. 386, there is a charter of Richard the Good, restoring to the Church of Chartres lands which had been alienated from it, doubtless in the war of Tillières.

Rudolf Glaber (iii. 2) calls the younger Odo, "secundus Odo, filius scilicet prioris Odonis, qui quanto potentior, tanto fraudulentior ceteris." He goes on to say, "Fuit etiam juge litigium et bella frequentia inter ipsum Odonem et Fulconem Andegavorum Comitem, quoniam uterque tumidus superbiâ, idcirco et pacis refuga." The Angevin Chronicles, on the other hand, charge King Robert with leaving Fulk to fight their common battles all by

himself. This first war, especially the battle of Pontlevois, will be found narrated in most of the Chronicles of the time. See Gest. Cons. 253; Chronn. Andeg. (Labbé, i. 275, 286, 287) 1016, 1025, 1026, 1027; Chron. S. Maxent. (Labbé, ii. 206) 1016, 1026; Chron. S. Florentii, ap. Morice, I22. The most striking piece of detail, the intervention of Aldebert of Perigeux in 990, comes from Ademar (iii. 34, ap. Pertz, iv. 131); "Urbem quoque Turonis obsidione affectam in deditionem accepit et Fulchoni Comiti Andegavensi donavit. Sed ille ingenio doloso civium amisit post paullulum, et iterum Odo Campanensis eam recuperavit." Odo is prematurely called "Campanensis,” as he did not become Count of Champagne till 1019.

Odo's last war (see p. 182) is described, among French writers, by Rudolf Glaber, iii. 9; in the Gesta Consulum, 254; in the Fragment in Duchesne, iv. 97; and in the Chronicle of Saint Peter at Sens (D'Achery, ii. 475), where the date is given as 1046. It is described also by all the German writers, whom the matter more immediately concerned. See the authorities collected by Struvius, Hist. Germ. i. 342, to which may be added the very brief notices of Lambert under the years 1033 and 1037. The Kingdom of Burgundy, which came to an end in 1032 by the death of King Rudolf (see vol. i. p. 495), was claimed by Odo as well as by the Emperor Conrad, both being sisters' sons to Rudolf. Odo obtained some advantages in Burgundy, and he is said to have received an offer of the Crown of Italy. He then contemplated a restoration of the Lotharingian Kingdom and a coronation at Aachen. In Germany he was clearly looked upon as the representative of French aggression. While one manuscript of Hermann calls him "Princeps Gallica Campaniæ," another calls him "Princeps Carlingorum" (see Pertz, v. 121, and the old edition of Pistorius, p. 137). On this very remarkable expression, see vol. i. p. 406.

But still more remarkable is the sort of echo of these distant events which reached Ireland. In the Annals of Ulster, 1038 (O'Conor, Rer. Hib. Scriptt. iv. 324), we read of "prælium inter Cuana Regem ferorum Saxonum et Othonem Regem Francorum, in quo cæsi sunt millia plurima.” So in Tigernach, under the same year (O’Conor, i. 287), “Prœlium inter Cuanum Regem Saxonum et Otam Regem Francorum, in quo occisi sunt mille cum Otâ." Here Conrad the Frank is called King of the Saxons. Not only is the Imperial dignity forgotten, but the memory of the great Saxon dynasty seems to extend itself over all succeeding Kings and Emperors. Then Ödo, a French Count, striving after the Kingdom of Burgundy, or in truth after any Kingdom that he could get, is magnified into a King of the French. Lastly, "feri" seems to be a standing epithet for all Saxons, whether continental or insular. The Ulster Annals (O’Conor, iv. 326) in the very next year record the death of "Haraldus Rex Saxonum ferorum," that is, Harold the son of Cnut.

NOTE Y.
P. 182.

THE IMPRISONMENT OF WILLIAM OF AQUITAINE.

THIS imprisonment of William of Aquitaine is described at greater or less length by a whole crowd of writers. See the Gesta Consulum (257, 258), where the war is very fully narrated; the Angevin Chronicles under 1033; Chron. S. Mich. ap. Labbé, i. 350; Will. Pict. 86; Will. Malms.

THE IMPRISONMENT OF WILLIAM OF AQUITAINE. 419

iii. 231; Chron. S. Maxent. 1032, 1035. According to the Gesta the war began out of the quarrel about Saintonge, and it is probably with reference to that county that both William of Poitiers and William of Malmesbury speak of the Duke of Aquitaine as the "lord" (dominus) of Geoffrey. Fulk Nerra himself also in a letter to King Robert, preserved among the letters of Bishop Fulbert of Chartres (Duchesne, iv. 192), speaks of "Guillemus Pictavorum Comes herus meus.' "The Chronicle of Saint Maxentius also speaks of the battle "juxta monasterium Sancti Jovini ad Montem Carium" (Labbé, ii, 207). It is of course dwelt on at much greater length in the Gesta.

The cession of Bourdeaux, asserted by William of Malmesbury, seems hardly credible. The author of the Gesta, generally not disposed to underrate the successes of the Angevin house, speaks only of the cession of the disputed territory of Saintonge. William of Poitiers (86) says only that "argenti et auri pondus gravissimum, atque prædia ditissima extorsit." And the Chronicle of Saint Maxentius (a. 1036) speaks of no territorial cession at all, but only of a ransom; "Isembertus Episcopus Pictavis fecit synodum, ubi magnam pacem [doubtless the Truce of God] firmavit. Qui, cum Eustachiâ uxore Guillelmi Comitis, aliquantulum exspoliavit monasteria auro et argento, unde redimerent eum." He then mentions the deaths of William and Eustachia. It was perhaps the flourish of William of Poitiers (86) about Poitiers, Bourdeaux, and other cities obeying Geoffrey ("Andegavi, Turoni, Pictones, Burdegala, multæ regiones, civitates plurimæ ") which suggested a formal cession of Bourdeaux to the mind of William of Malmesbury.

There can be doubt that Eustachia was the real wife of William the Fat, the prisoner of Geoffrey, and that Agnes, whom Geoffrey married, was only his father's widow. William of Poitiers says distinctly that, after the death of William, Geoffrey "novercam præcipue nobilitatis [she was daughter of Otto-William, Count of Burgundy] toro suo sociavit" (p. 86). He is followed by William of Malmesbury (iii. 231), who says, "Martellus, ne quid deesset impudentiæ, novercam defuncti matrimonio sibi copulavit.' So the Chronicle of Saint Maxentius, which places the death of William in 1036, places the marriage in 1037. This last Chronicle is the only one which gives us any intelligible reason for Geoffrey's conduct in contracting this marriage. Agnes could not have been very young, fifteen or sixteen years after her first marriage in 1018 (Art de Vérifier les Dates, ii. 354. The date, according to the Chronicle of Saint Maxentius, is 1023, but then the second marriage is put later also); but Geoffrey had a political motive. "Willermo Comite mortuo, Pictavenses in magno angore et anxietate positi de morte principis sui, sicut oves sine pastore relicti, Odonem Comitem, germanum ejus ex patre supradicto, ex Gasconiâ convocaverunt. Per hæc tempora Gaufredus Martellus duxerat uxorem supradictam Agnetem, caussa Pictavensium, ut haberet sibi subditos adhuc duobus filiis suis, scilicet Petro et Gaufredo parvulis" (Labbé, ii. 207). The two boys were in the end (1044) established by Geoffrey as Counts of Poitiers and Gascony respectively.

Some of the Angevin and Norman Chroniclers seem to have confounded the two Williams, William the Great, the husband of Agnes, and William the Fat, her stepson, who was imprisoned by Geoffrey. They therefore made a strange hash of the story, making Geoffrey marry the wife of the prince whom he imprisoned, and that even during her husband's lifetime.

66

The Angevin Chronicler in Labbé, i. 276, puts the marriage of Agnes a year before the imprisonment of William (1032 and 1033). "Gaufridus Martellus," he says, Agnetem duxit incesto conjugio." It is not clear whether there was any kindred between Geoffrey and Agnes, or whether the Chronicler called the marriage "incestum " because he fancied that Agnes had a husband alive. The Chronicle of Saint Michael's Mount (Labbé, i. 350) is still more express. The marriage is recorded under 1032, and under 1033 we read that Geoffrey took prisoner William "cujus uxorem Agnetem ante duxerat." There can be no doubt that both the chronology and the facts are altogether confused, and we are thus led to look with some little suspicion on the other events which the Angevin Chronicler connects both with the imprisonment and with the marriage. Under 1032, after recording the marriage, he adds, "Inde bellum illud exsecrabile quod contra patrem suum per annos fere septem subsequentes impie gessit." On the imprisonment in 1033 he adds, "Quare orta est discordia inter patrem et matrem." What could these things have to do with one another?

NOTE Z. p. 220.

THE RAVAGES ATTRIBUTED TO HAROLD AND GODWINE.

THE only writer who puts on anything like a tone of censure with regard either to Harold's conduct at Porlock or to Godwine's plundering along the south coast, is William of Malmesbury, and he does not draw the proper distinction between the doings of father and son. His words (ii. 199) are, "Exsulum quisque, de loco suo egressi, Britanicum mare circumvagari, littora piraticis latrociniis infestare, de cognati populi opibus prædas eximias conjectare."

There is however a marked difference of tone in the way in which the story of Harold's landing at Porlock is told by the different Chroniclers. The Abingdon writer, as I have often noticed, may be looked on as to some extent hostile to Godwine, and the Worcester writer, though on the whole favourable to the Earl, yet constantly follows the Abingdon narrative. The Peterborough version, I need hardly say, is quite independent, and is always strong for Godwine. According to Abingdon and Worcester (1052) Harold landed and plundered, and then the people of the country came together to withstand him. He landed, they say, and "þær mycel gehergode, and þæt landfolc him ongean gaderodan." But the Peterborough writer makes the local force to have been already brought together, and speaks of no ravaging till after Harold had found the country hostile. Harold came to Porlock-" and wes þær mycel folc gegaderod ongean. Ac he ne wandode na him metes to tylienne; eode úp, and ofsloh þær mycelne ende þes folces." That is to say, the partizan of Godwine tells the tale in the way least unfavourable to Harold, while the hostile or indifferent writer tells it in the way most unfavourable. But the pains taken in both directions show that both writers agreed in thinking that the harrying and slaying, unless done in strict self-defence, was discreditable.

The Biographer of Eadward seems to have thought differently. He greatly exaggerates the ravaging, and tells the tale (405) in a tone of distinct triumph; "Ab ipsis Occidentalium Britonum sive Anglorum

THE NARRATIVES OF THE RETURN OF GODWINE. 421 finibus usque quo Dux consederat, ferro, igne, et abductâ prædâ omne regnum sunt devastati." It has been ingeniously suggested to me from this passage that the Biographer was a foreigner. His way of looking at this particular matter certainly stands out in distinct contrast to that of all the native writers. The supposition that he was a foreigner would account for many of the characteristics of his work. It would fully explain his minute personal knowledge of many things, combined with his frequent inaccuracy about others. It would account for his invariable tendency to dwell on all personal details about the King, the Lady, and the Earls, and rather to slur over the political affairs of the Kingdom. But, if he was a foreigner, the spirit in which he writes forbids the notion that he was a Frenchman. Probably he was a member of the other importation from Lotharingia.

But it is very singular that, in the account of the plundering of Godwine in Wight and Portland, it is the Peterborough writer who puts matters in the strongest light; "And eodon þær upp, an hergodon swa lange þær þæt þæt folc geald heom swa mycel swa hi heom on legden; and gewendon heom pa westweard, of pet hi comon to Portlande, and eodon þær úp, and dydon to bearme swa bwet swa hi dón mihton." Abingdon, on the other hand, mentions the plundering only incidentally, when saying that it ceased after the meeting of Godwine and Harold; "And hi na mycelne hearm ne dydon syan hig togædere comon, buton pæt heo metsunge namon." And the juxtaposition of the words which follow is remarkable; Ac speonnon heom eall þæt landfolc to be am sæ riman, and eac up on lande." The people joined Godwine, notwithstanding his plunderings.

The mention of the plundering in Sheppey (see p. 213) comes also from the Peterborough Chronicle only. These differences show that the several writers, though one often wrote in a different spirit from another, all wrote honestly, and that they did not either wilfully invent or wilfully conceal things for party purposes.

In the name of common fairness, as wishing to give to our common hero his due praise and no more, I must protest against the way in which the Porlock story is slurred over by Thierry and Mr. St. John. This part of Harold's conduct cannot be defended, and it ought not to be concealed. It is enough that he wiped out the stain by his refusal on a later day to ravage one inch of the Kingdom which had been given him to guard.

NOTE AA. p. 213.

THE NARRATIVES OF THE RETURN OF GODWINE.

Of the return of Godwine, as of his banishment, we have three original narratives, those of the Abingdon and Worcester Chroniclers, which may be reckoned as one, that of the Peterborough Chronicler, and that of Eadward's Biographer. Each once more shows its respective character; each has its characteristic tone; each brings some particular facts into greater notice than the others; but there are no really important contradictions among them. The Peterborough writer retains his old character as the stoutest of all adherents of Godwine. The Abingdon Chronicler may be looked on as in some sort an enemy; it is at the end of this year that he breaks out into that complaint about Godwine's appropriation of ecclesiastical property of which I have spoken elsewhere (see