THE RETURN OF THE ÆTHELING EADWARD.

437

attention is the "mickle worship" with which Ealdred was received by the Emperor, the long time that he was away, and the arrangements which he made for the discharge of his duties during his absence (see p. 248). He does indeed tell us that Ealdred went on the King's errand; but he does not tell us what the King's errand was, any more than he did in recording Ealdred's earlier mission to Rome in 1049. His words are; "Das ilcan geres for Aldred biscop to Colne ofer sæ, þæs kynges ærende, and wearð þær underfangen mid mycclan we or scipe fram þam Casere, and þær he wunode wel neh an gér; and him geaf æg er þeneste, ge se Biscop on Colone and se Casere." So William of Malmesbury (Vit. S. Wlst. Ang. Sacr. ii. 249) looks on the objects of the embassy as best summed up in the Herodotean formula eidos où λéyw. Ealdred goes to the Emperor, "quædam negotia, quorum cognitionem caussa non flagitat, compositurus." But he has much to tell us about Ealdred's reception by the Emperor ("quum in Imperatoriæ Augustæ dignationis oculis invenisset gratiam, aliquot ibi dierum continuatione laborum suorum accepit pausam"), and still more about the presents which he received. As the biographer of Wulfstan, he could not fail to tell us about two service-books in which Wulfstan was deeply interested (see p. 308) and which Ealdred now received as a present from the Emperor. In his history he does speak of an embassy to bring about the return of the Ætheling, but he altogether misconceives the circumstances (see p. 247); he makes no mention of Ealdred, and he fancies that the embassy went direct to Hungary ("Rex Edwardus. . . misit ad Regem Hunorum." ii. 228). It is from Florence, and from Florence only, that we get a complete and accurate filling up of all our gaps. He tells us, under 1054, "Aldredus Wigorniensis Episcopus.. magnis cum xeniis Regis fungitur legatione ad Imperatorem, a quo simul et ab Herimanno Coloniensi archipræsule magno susceptus honore, ibidem per integrum annum mansit, et Regis ex parte Imperatori suggessit ut, legatis Ungariam missis, inde fratruelem suum Eadwardum, Regis videlicet Eadmundi Ferrei Lateris filium, reduceret, Angliamque venire faceret." We now know what the King's errand was on which Ealdred was sent, and, knowing that it was to bring back the Ætheling, we might guess for ourselves why the Ætheling was to be brought back. But Florence afterwards expressly tells us this also, under the year 1057; "Decreverat enim Rex illum post se regni hæredem constituere."

The reforms which Ealdred's study of the ecclesiastical foundations in Germany enabled him to make in England come from the local historian of York; “Multa quæ ad honestatem ecclesiasticæ observantiæ, multa quæ ad rigorem ecclesiasticæ disciplinæ pertinent, audivit, vidit, et memoriæ commendavit, quæ postea in ecclesiis Anglorum observari fecit." (T. Stubbs, X Scriptt. 1701.) Compare the remarks on the good discipline of the German Churches made by the Waltham writer (see p. 296 and below, Note PP).

That Ealdred had Abbot Elfwine for his companion in this embassy (see p. 248), I infer from a remarkable entry in Domesday (208) which can have no other meaning. Land in Huntingdonshire is said to have been granted by Eadward "Sancto Benedicto de Ramesy, propter unum servitium quod Abbas Alwinus fecit ei in Saxoniâ." I can conceive no other service in Saxony which Elfwine could have rendered to the King, save this share in Ealdred's mission to "Sexland." Elfwine's former mission to Rheims is not to the purpose, as no geography can put Rheims

in Saxony. Nor do I understand the remark of Sir Henry Ellis (i. 306), that we have here "an allusion to the Confessor's residence abroad before he came to the throne." What dealings had Eadward with Saxony in those days? The only difficulty is that the local historian of Ramsey, who is very full on the doings of Elfwine, and who speaks of his going to Rheims, says nothing of his embassy to Köln. But the silence of this writer has equally to be explained on any other view of the "servitium in Saxoniâ."

One would like to know a little more than we do about the sojourn of the Æthelings in Hungary, the course by which they came thither, and the position which they held there. I mentioned in vol. i. p. 277 that Adam of Bremen takes them to Russia. There is also a most singular passage in what Professor Stubbs calls the "Legal Appendix" of Roger of Howden (ii. 236 of his edition); “Iste præfatus Eadmundus [Ferreumlatus sc.] habuit quemdam filium Eadwardum nomine, qui mox, patre mortuo, timore Regis Cnuti aufugit ad regnum Dogorum, quod nos melius vocamus Russiam. Quem Rex terræ Malescoldus nomine, ut cognovit quis esset, honeste retinuit." Professor Stubbs says (lxxxvi.), "Other copies have Rugorum, others Hunnorum, from which perhaps our author freely translated Dogorum quasi Hundorum. [Was the word dog in use so early?]. . . . The passage is generally explained of Stephen King of Hungary, but it is surely very obscure. Is there confusion with Godescalc prince of the Wends?" It is plain that to get from Sweden into Hungary they must have gone through some of the Slavonic parts of Europe, either Russian or Wendish. Roger, it will be seen, leaves out Eadmund, and makes Eadward able to act for himself. So William of Malmesbury (ii. 180) says of the two children," Hunorum Regem petierunt." That they reached Hungary safely is plain, but we do not hear what became of their mother Ealdgyth, or whether they were accompanied by any English attendants, or whether they kept up any kind of intercourse with England. Eadmund must have died young; at least this seems to be implied by William of Malmesbury (ii. 180), who says that the children reached Hungary "ubi, dum benigne aliquo tempore habiti sunt, maior diem obiit.” ("Processu temporis ibidem vitam finivit," says Florence, 1017).

William of Malmesbury also makes Eadward marry a sister of the Queen of the Hungarians. That is, I suppose, the meaning of his words, "minor Agatham Reginæ sororem in matrimonium accepit." I have not found, in such German and Hungarian writers as I have been able to refer to, any mention of Eadward's marriage, or indeed of his sojourn in Hungary at all. But there is no doubt that the wife of Saint Stephen, who was reigning in Hungary when the Æthelings came there, and who died in 1038, was Gisla, called by the Hungarians Keisla, a sister of the Emperor Henry the Second. See Ekkehard, ap. Pertz, vi. 192; Sigebert, Chron. 1010 (ap. Pertz, vi. 354); Annalista Saxo, 1002, 1038 (Pertz, vi. 650, 682); Thwrocz, Chron. Hung. ii. 30 (Scriptt. Rer. Hung. 96). Her sister would therefore be a sister of the sainted Emperor himself, whose Imperial reign lasted from 1014 to 1024. A sister of Henry and Gisla could hardly fail to be many years older than Eadward, and we might have expected to find some record of the marriage, whereas we do not even find any sister of the Emperor Henry available for the purpose. There can be no doubt that Agatha was not a sister, but a more distant kinswoman of the Emperor, most probably a niece. The poem in the

SUPPOSED ENMITY BETWEEN HAROLD AND TOSTIG. 439

Worcester Chronicle (1067) says more vaguely, " He begeat þæs Caseres mága to wife seo was Agathes gehaten;" and so again in the later entry in 1067, "Hire [Margaret's] modor cynn gæx to Heinrice Casere, pe hæfde anwald ofer Rome." Florence (1017) says more distinctly, "Eadwardus Agatham, filiam germani Imperatoris Heinrici in matrimonium accepit." Mr. Thorpe, in his note on the passage in Florence, following Suhm, makes her the daughter of the Emperor's brother Bruno, who was Bishop of Augsburg from 1007 to 1029 (Ann. Aug. ap. Pertz, iii. 124, 125). The local Annals speak of him as "beatæ memoriæ;” but he seems to have been a turbulent Prelate, and a great thorn in the side of his Imperial brother. See Ekkehard, u. s.; Arnold de Sancto Emmerammo, ii. 57 (ap. Pertz, iv. 571); Adalbold, Vit. Henr. II. c. 24 (ap. Pertz, iv. 689); Adalbert, Vit. Henr. II. 20 (ap. Pertz, iv. 805, 811). If this genealogy be correct, later English royalty is connected with the Old-Saxon stock in an unlookedfor way.

Orderic has a more amazing version than all. He makes (701 D) the Etheling marry the daughter of Solomon, and receive the Kingdom of Hungary as her dower. He distinctly calls Eadward King of the Huns; "Hæc [Margarita] nimirum filia fuit Eduardi Regis Hunorum, qui fuit filius Edmundi cognomento Irnesidæ, fratris Eduardi Regis Anglorum, et exsul conjugem accepit cum regno filiam Salomonis Regis Hunorum."

The delay in the arrival of the Ætheling (see pp. 249, 273) was most probably caused by the wars between the Empire and the Hungarian Kings who succeeded Stephen. Besides the war with Andrew mentioned in the text, Henry the Third had an earlier Hungarian war, which was waged against the usurper Ouban on behalf of Peter the predecessor of Andrew, by whom Peter was blinded. See Lambert, 1041–1046. On the relations between Henry, Andrew, and Conrad of Bavaria, see Hermann Contr. 1053 (ap. Pertz, v. 133), whose account, as usual, it is not easy to reconcile with the Hungarian traditions preserved by Thwrocz. But there must be something wrong when Lappenberg (517) says, "Wahrscheinlich verzögerte die zwischen dem Kaiser und dem König_ Andreas von Ungarn damals ausgebrochene Fehde, sowie der Tod des Letztern, und bald darauf der des Kaisers, die Ausführung dieses Planes." The Emperor died in 1056; but Andrew, who began to reign in 1047, did not die till 1060 or 1061, when he fell in battle against his brother Bela, three or four years after the return and death of Eadward in 1057. See Thwrocz, Rer. Hung. Scriptt. 108-112; Lambert, 1061.

NOTE GG. p. 253.

THE SUPPOSED ENMITY BETWEEN HAROLD AND TOSTIG.

THERE is absolutely nothing in any trustworthy writer to lead us to believe that there was any sort of quarrel between Harold and his brother Tostig before the Northumbrian revolt in 1065. We have seen (p. 251) that Tostig's appointment to his Earldom had, to say the least, Harold's active concurrence, and we shall see the two brothers acting as zealous fellow-workers in the great Welsh war. Even at the time of the revolt, we shall find Harold doing all that he could to reconcile Tostig with his enemies. But the fact that the result of that revolt made Tostig an enemy of his brother seems to have taken possession of the minds of legendary

writers, and a myth has grown up on this subject akin to the other myths which have attached themselves to so many parts of the history of Godwine and his house.

The earliest form of the legend seems to be that which it takes in Ethelred (X Scriptt. 394). The King and Godwine are sitting at dinner -everything seems to happen when the King and Godwine are sitting at dinner-the two boys ("pueri adhuc") Harold and Tostig are playing before them, when suddenly the game becomes rather too rough ("amarius quam expetebat ludi suavitas"), and the play is changed into a fight. Harold then, the stronger of the two, seizes his brother by the hair, throws him on the ground, and is well-nigh throttling him, when Tostig is luckily carried off. The King turns to his father-in-law, and asks him whether he sees nothing more in all this than the sports or quarrels of two naughty boys. The unenlightened mind of the Earl can see nothing more. But the Saint takes the occasion to prophesy, and he foretells the war which would happen between the two brothers, and how the death of the one would be avenged by the death of the other.

This story is at all events well put together, and it makes a very fair piece of hagiology. It is however some objection to it that neither Harold nor Tostig could have been a mere boy at any time after Eadward's accession. It might be too much to think that the author of the French Life saw this difficulty, but at any rate he changes the "pueri adhuc" of Ethelred into "juvenceus pruz e hardiz" (3140). Otherwise he tells the story in exactly the same way, only enlarging with a little more of Homeric precision on the details of the violence done by Harold to his brother. But the story, like other stories, soon grew, and there is another version of it, much fuller and much more impossible, which first appears in Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 761 A), and afterwards in Roger of Wendover (i. 507) and Bromton (948). The tale is now transferred to the year 1064, when Harold and Tostig were the two first men in the Kingdom, when Harold was probably the understood successor to the Crown, when he was at any rate in all the glory of his victories over Gruffydd. The two brothers are described as being at enmity, because, though Tostig was the elder brother, Harold was the greater personal favourite of the King ("invidiæ namque et odii fomitem ministraverat, quod, quum Tosti ipse primogenitus esset, arctius a Rege frater suus diligeretur"). I need hardly say how utterly the real position of the two brothers is here reversed. The King is dining at Windsor, where Harold acts as cup-bearer. Tostig, seeing the favour enjoyed by his brother, cannot keep himself back from pulling his hair ("non potuit cohibere manus a cæsarie fratris "). In Henry's account Harold seems to bear the insult quite patiently, but in the version of Roger of Wendover he not unnaturally lifts Tostig up in his arms and throws him violently on the floor ("in pavimentum truculenter projecit "). On this the King's Thegns ("milites") rush together from all quarters, and put an end to the strife between the renowned warriors ("bellatores inclitos ab invicem diviserunt"). The King now foretells the destruction of the two brothers, but in this version he of course foretells it as something which is to happen speedily; "Rex perniciem eorum jam appropinquare prædixit, et iram Dei jam non differendam." It is here that both Henry and Roger, and Bromton also, bring in that general complaint of the wickedness of the sons of Godwine which I have quoted elsewhere (see

SUPPOSED ENMITY BETWEEN HAROLD AND TOSTIG. 441

above, p. 362). Tostig now hastens to Hereford, where Harold was preparing a great feast for the King; he there kills all his brother's servants, cuts them in pieces, mixes their blood and flesh with the wine, ale, and mead which was made ready for the feast, and sends a message to the King that he need not bring any salted meat with him, as he will find plenty of flesh ready at Hereford. On this Eadward sends Tostig into banishment.

The one faint glimmering of truth in all this seems to be that the authors of the legend were clearly aware that in 1064 the Earldom of Herefordshire was in the hands of Harold. R. Higden (Polychronicon, lib. vi. Gale, ii. 281) tells the story in nearly the same words as the earlier form, but he places it in 1056. Knighton (2333) seemingly does the same, though he copies the words of his story from the version which makes the disputants only naughty boys. M. de Bonnechose (ii. 116, 118) seems to believe the whole story, and he makes it a subject of grave political reflexions. Mr. Woodward (History of Wales, p. 214) thinks that the cannibal doings of Tostig arise from some confusion with the doings of Caradoc at Portskewet (see p. 319). This is possible, but the details of the story belong to the province of Comparative Mythology. They appear again in the well-known Scottish legend of the Douglas Larder.

It has sometimes struck me that a good deal of this talk is due to an exaggerated misunderstanding of one or two passages in the Biographer, where his classical vein has led him into rather wild flights. The war between brother and brother-the war, of course, of Stamfordbridge— reminds him of all the ancient tales of wars and quarrels between brothers. He twice (pp. 414, 424) breaks out into verse upon the subject, and in both cases the Theban legend, the war of Eteoklês and Polyneikês, not unnaturally presents itself. But he also (v. 834) talks about Cain and Abel, and, by a still more unlucky allusion, about Atreus and Thyestês. Having once got hold of these names, he goes on to tell their whole story. He personifies discord between brothers, and thus apostrophizes the evil genius;

"Priscis nota satis tua sic contagia ludis.
Invidus hic prolis fraternæ fœda Thyestes
Prandia dat fratri depasto corpore nati."

Here, it strikes me, is quite raw material enough for a legend-maker. The word "ludis" may have suggested the "pueri ludentes" in Æthelred, and I have very little doubt that the mention of Thyestês (who, by the by, is made to change parts with Atreus) suggested the cannibal preparations of Tostig at Hereford.

In several of these stories we see the pervading mistake of thinking that Tostig was the elder brother. In some of them we also see the notion, which turns up in several other quarters, that Harold was the King's personal favourite and attendant, his "dapifer,' ,"" pincerna," "major domûs," or something of the kind. It is possible that Harold in his youth, during the first year or two of Eadward's reign, may have held some function of the kind, which may account for the tradition, a tradition which is preserved in an independent shape by the Hyde writer (see p. 51, note 4). But the notion that Tostig was the elder brother (see above, p. 373) has led to far graver misrepresentations. The enmity of Tostig towards Harold, which really arose out of the revolt of Northumberland, gets