THE QUASI-ROYAL POSITION OF EARL HAROLD.

447

I assume that Harold the son of Ralph must have been a different person from Harold the Staller, who is mentioned in Domesday under Lincolnshire (337; cf. 340 b and 350 b). Ralph had possessions in that part of England (337), but, if Harold had been Ralph's son, the connexion could hardly fail to have been mentioned there, as it is elsewhere. A mere lad also would hardly have been invested with a Stallership. There are several other Harolds distinct alike from Harold the King, Harold the Staller, and Harold the son of Ralph. Such is "Harold homo Eluui hiles, qui poterat ire quo volebat," in the Domesday for Gloucestershire (170). Such is Harold the Thegn of Buckinghamshire (Domesday, 149), who appears with his wife Ælfgifu (see above, p. 444) and his man Godric. So in Domesday, 288, we find a Harold at Warwick who kept his property under William. There are other small entries in the same

name.

66

99

That Harold must have been very young when his father died is shown by the entry attached to his Middlesex property (129 b), which shows that, in 1066, he was under the wardship of the Lady Eadgyth; “Hoc manerium tenuit Heraldus filius Radulfi Comitis, quem custodiebat Regina Eddid cum manerio eâ die quâ Rex Edwardus fuit vivus et mortuus." What follows might seem to imply that the Lady did not prove a very faithful guardian; at any rate young Harold lost the lordship; "Postea Willelmus camerarius tenuit de Reginâ in feudo pro tribus libris per annum de firmâ, et post mortem Reginæ [1074] eodem modo tenuit de Rege."

We may perhaps infer that Harold's mother Gytha was dead. She appears ("Gethe uxor Radulfi Comitis," "Gueth Comitissa," 148) as a landowner in Buckinghamshire in Eadward's time, but she had nothing at the time of the Survey. The names Gytha and Harold probably point to a connexion by affinity, spiritual or otherwise, with the House of Godwine. Or it is conceivable that this Gytha is the same as Gytha, daughter of Osgod Clapa, and, no doubt long before this time, widow of Tofig the Proud (see vol. i. p. 353). In any case, the names show that Ralph, with all his contempt for English tactics, had so far identified himself with England as to take a wife of English or Danish birth.

NOTE LL. p. 283.

THE QUASI-ROYAL POSITION OF EARL HAROLD.

THE indications referred to in the text are all slight when taken separately; still I cannot help thinking that their cumulative force is considerable.

1. There is a charter of Ealdred in Cod. Dipl. iv. 172, in which, after the signatures, among which are those of the King and Earl Harold, we find the formula, “Cum licentiâ Eadwardi Regis et Haroldi Ducis." In earlier charters, as those of Bishop Oswald, it is common to find the consent of the King and of the Ealdorman expressed in the body of the deed; but this is a different case, as the charter relates to matters in Worcestershire, which was not in Harold's Earldom. I ought to mention that this charter, though not marked as doubtful by Mr. Kemble, has something about it which needs explanation. It is signed by Ealdred as Archbishop, which he became in 1060, and by Walter as Bishop, which

he became in 1061: but it is also signed by Earl Leofric, who died in 1057. There is however no need to believe that the charter is spurious. Transcribers often added a description to a simple signature, so that a charter, as we have it, often has its witnesses described, not by the titles which they bore at the time, but by higher titles which they bore afterwards. Another charter of 1065 (Cod. Dipl. iv. 162), which Mr. Kemble marks as doubtful, gives Harold the title of "Dei gratiâ Dux." The King is also "Dei gratiâ," and the Lady is "Dei pietate;" but no such titles are given to any one else.

Even if these documents are spurious, I still think that they prove something. A forger, unless he lived very near the time, would have no temptation to invent anything in favour of Harold. He must have imitated some genuine formula.

2. Nothing can be stronger than the way in which Florence couples together the King and the Earl in describing the homage of the Welsh Princes in 1064 or 1065; "Rex . . . cui et Haroldo Comiti fidelitatem illi juraverunt, et ad imperium illorum mari terrâque se fore paratos." This reminds one of Hugh Capet and his son Robert (see vol. i. p. 162), or of any other case of joint sovereignty. This language of so discreet a writer as Florence is different from the Biographer's rhetorical coupling of Eadward and Tostig quoted in p. 435.

3. The description of Harold as "Dux Anglorum" in the Bayeux Tapestry is well known. See vol. i. p. 421. He is also called "Dux Anglorum" by the Saxon Annalist, Pertz, vi. 764. We have indeed already come across Algarus quidam, Comes Anglorum” (see p. 444), but the "quidam" makes a great difference.

4. Far stronger however than all other instances is the title given to Harold by Florence when describing his election to the Crown. He is then "Subregulus Haroldus, Godwini Ducis filius." The "Subregulus" is surely meant to be something more than the "Dux." "Subregulus,” "Undercyning,” is a title which is most familiarly given to vassal Princes, as to those who attended Eadgar at Chester (Flor. Wig. 973), and to Gruffydd himself (Chron. Ab. 1056). It is also given by Florence to Æthelred of Mercia (see vol. i. p. 381), plainly with the object of pointing him out as something more than an ordinary Ealdorman. But I know of no other instance of such a title being ever given to a subject, unless a parallel is sought in the strange East-Anglian titles quoted in vol. i. p. 421. But I cannot think that the description of "Half-King" was meant as a serious title. The position of Harold under Eadward reminds one of Asser's description (M. H. B. 475 A, 477 C) of Ælfred as "secundarius" under his brother Æthelred.

NOTE MM. p. 287.

HAROLD'S FOREIGN TRAVELS AND PILGRIMAGE.

THE pilgrimage of Harold to Rome, and, still more, his investigations into the political state of Gaul, are among the additions to our knowledge which we owe to the Biographer of Eadward. The latter most remarkable piece of information is wholly new; with regard to the pilgrimage, the Biographer only confirms a statement which we might otherwise have set down as doubtful.

HAROLD'S FOREIGN TRAVELS AND PILGRIMAGE.

449

The words of the writer De Inventione may be taken as implying, though not directly asserting, extensive foreign travels on the part of Harold. When speaking of the relics given by the Earl to his church at Waltham, he call him (c. 14), "In diversis terrarum partibus non segnis conquisitor"—namely of relics and such like treasures. The romantic biographer of Harold, speaking of the same relics, distinctly asserts (p. 182) that some of them were obtained by the Earl on a pilgrimage to Rome; "Adierat quidem antea, nondum videlicet Anglorum consequutus regnum, limina Christi Apostolorum," &c. This is the sort of point on which even so romantic a writer as Harold's biographer was likely to preserve a bit of trustworthy tradition; still one would hardly have ventured to assert the fact on his sole authority. The Life of Eadward has now put the fact of the pilgrimage beyond doubt, and it has also shown that Harold's journeys in other parts of the world were not wholly owing to a desire of collecting relics. This is a good illustration of the way in which truth sometimes lurks in very suspicious quarters.

The fact of the pilgrimage then is certain; at its date we can only guess. All the Chronicles, oddly enough, are silent about the pilgrimage of Harold, though that of Tostig is carefully recorded. But there are several indications which may lead us to a probable conjecture. If the Biographer of Eadward pays the least regard to chronology, Harold's journey took place after Gyrth's appointment to his Earldom, which we have seen reason to fix in 1057, and before's Tostig's pilgrimage, which the Worcester Chronicle fixes to 1061. If we may at all trust Harold's biographer, which, for the nonce, it seems that we may, the journey took place before the consecration at Waltham in 1060. We have thus two years to choose from, 1058 and 1059, and two considerations will, I think, lead us to fix on the former of the two. That was the year in which Ælfgar (see p. 290) was outlawed for the second time, and almost immediately returned to his Earldom by force. Such violent doings seem to point to a time when the powers of government were relaxed, as they doubtless would be by the absence of Harold. Again, the grant of the pallium to Stigand, who, it should be remembered, did not go for it in person, seems to point to a time when some unusually strong influence, such as the personal presence of the great Earl, could be brought to bear on the Papal mind. There is then no direct proof, but there is, I think, a strong probability, that this remarkable journey on the part of Harold took place in the year 1058.

The question of the oath I shall examine in the next volume. I will here only quote in full, without professing to understand every word of it, the passage from Eadward's Biographer (p. 410) which describes Harold's political studies in Gaul; "At ille superior [Haroldus] mores, consilia, et vires Gallicorum principum, non tam per suos quam per se, scrutatus, astutiâ et callido animi ingenio et diuturniori cum procrastinatione intentissime notaverat quidem, ut in eis habitaturus esset, si eis opus haberet in alicujus negotii administratione. Adeo quoque consilio suo exhaustos pernoverat, ut nullâ ab eis relatione falli posset. Attentius ergo consideratâ Francorum consuetudine, quum ipse quoque apud eos non obscuri esset nominis et famæ, Romam ad confessionem Apostolorum processit." I conceive that the general sense is what I said in the text, but the passage is most obscure, no doubt purposely obscure. To have set forth Harold's negotiations in France in a clear light would not have suited either the

position or the plan of the Biographer. Writing under William, to Eadgyth, he never mentions William's name, or even alludes to him in any intelligible way. The words which I have put in Italics are the hardest of all to understand. Do they imply that Harold formed, or contemplated, alliances with any French Princes, say with the Count of Anjou or with the King himself, in case mutual support against William should ever be needed? See vol. iii. c. xii. § 2.

NOTE NN. p. 291.

THE ABBEY OF GLOUCESTER AND ITS CONNEXION WITH
ARCHBISHOP EALDRED.

THE early history of Gloucester and of the changes in the foundation of its great ecclesiastical establishment is given at length in the local history, "Historia Monasterii S. Petri Gloucestria" edited by Mr. Hart. The change from nuns to secular canons is thus described (i. 7); "Speciositas relligionis in monasterio Gloucestriæ per translationem sororum ibidem exsistentium, huc atque illuc bellum et peccatum fugiendum, sub potestate sæculari, usque ad tempus Wolstani Episcopi Wygorniensis, qui fuit anno ab Incarnatione Domini millesimo secundo, mirifice tradebatur.” One might have thought that this meant an utter suppresion of the monastery and its transfer to lay hands, but the real meaning appears from what follows (i. 8); “Anno Domini millesimo vicesimo secundo Wolstanus, episcopus Wygorniensis, qui postea factus est archiepiscopus Eboracensis, concedente Rege Cnuto, duce Danorum, qui Ecclesiam sanctam exaltavit, et libertates suas antiquas renovavit ac promovit, ut dicit Petrus Pictavensis; hic Wolstanus clericos qui ecclesiam Sancti Petri antea rexerant [et] custodierant, sub protectione Dei et Apostolorum Petri et Pauli et regulâ beati Benedicti, in eâdem ecclesiâ regulariter collocavit." In this case the Canons seem not to have been driven out, but to have taken the monastic vows on themselves. This was partly the case at Bury (see vol. i. p. 294), where, according to Roger of Wendover, (i. 464), “Rex .. Cnuto .. presbyteros qui ibidem ordinate vixerant [" clericis qui ibidem inordinate vivebant, inde ejectis" says John of Oxenedes, p. 19] aut in eodem loco ad culmen relligionis provexit, aut rebus illis aliis collatis, unde solito abundantius viverent, ad alia loca migrare fecit." The mismanagement of Abbot Eadric went so far that two lordships had to be sold to make good the losses caused by him (Hist. Glouc. i. 8); "Multa bona dissipavit, quoniam tempore suo, in perpetuam exhæredationem, vendita fuerunt maneria de Beggeworth, de Hatherleye." The immediate cause of their sale was to enable the Abbey to pay a heregild levied throughout England. Quibus," says Eadric himself in a deed printed in the local History (i. 8; so Cod. Dipl. 680), "redemi omnia alia prædia monasterii ab illâ magnâ heregeldi exactione, quæ per totam Angliam fuit." (On Heregild see above, p. 403.) This is probably the Danegeld of 1018 (see vol. i. p. 280), still spread over several years.

66

One might be inclined to think that Archbishop Wulfstan retained for himself and his successors some special rights of patronage over the Abbey, as in the account of the appointment of Abbot Wulfstan, the Bishop of the Diocese figures in a way which certainly is not usual. Ealdred first rebuilt the church, as we read in the Worcester Chronicle (1058); “On þam

ABBOTS MANNIG AND ÆTHELWIG.

451

ilcan gere Ealdred bisceop halgode pæt mynster on Gleawcestre pe he sylf geforðode, Gode to lofe and Sĉe Petre.” To this Florence adds the appointment of the Abbot; "Aldredus Wigorniensis episcopus ecclesiam, quam in civitate Glawornâ a fundamentis construxerat, in honorem principis Apostolorum Petri honorifice dedicavit; et postea, Regis licentiâ, Wlstanum Wigornensem monachum a se ordinatum abbatem constituit ibidem." There is no mention here of any election by the monks; we hear only of an Abbot chosen by the Bishop under a licence from the King.

The charge of defrauding the Church of Gloucester of its lands is brought against Ealdred by the local historian (i. 9); "Caussâ magis hospitii quam operis sui abstulit a communi Leche, Odynton, Standische, cum Bertonâ, retinens in manu suâ." He is also charged in William of Malmesbury's Life of Saint Wulfstan (Ang. Sac. ii. 251) with dealing in the same way with the Church of Worcester on his consecration of Wulfstan; "Illum Aldredus potentiâ qua vigebat multis et pene omnibus, ut post clarebit, prædiis vellicaverit" (see p. 464). Wulfstan however (Áng. Sac. ii. 252) recovered most of the lost property. Gloucester seems to have been less lucky. The charge against Ealdred is confirmed by several entries in Domesday, 164 b; "Eldred archiepiscopus tenuit Stanedis. De dominio Sancti Petri de Glouuecestre fuit." "Sanctus Petrus de Glouuecestre tenuit Lecce, et Eldred archiepiscopus tenuit cum abbatiâ." Both these are lordships in Gloucestershire, which were still held by the see of York at the time of the Survey. Of a third lordship in the same list we read, "Eldredus archiepiscopus tenuit Otintune .. Thomas archiepiscopus tenet. Sanctus Petrus de Glouuecestre habuit in dominio donec Rex Willelmus in Angliam venit." This would almost seem to mean that Ealdred, who was, for some time at least, in William's favour, went on with his spoliations of the monks of Gloucester after William's accession. Thomas Stubbs has nothing to tell us about the Gloucester matter, but he alleges (1702) that Ealdred kept twelve of the Worcester lordships with the consent and approval of King Eadward, because of the poverty into which the Church of York had been brought by the barbarians in the days of Archbishop Wulfhere, that is to say in the days of Elfred. There are also some entries in the Exon Domesday, 166, 167, which seem to show that Ealdred detained some of the lands of his former Abbey at Tavistock, just as he detained those at Gloucester and Worcester.

I may mention that there are three Wulfstans who must be carefully distinguished. First, Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester, Archbishop of York, and founder of Gloucester Abbey. Secondly, the one mentioned in the text, Wulfstan or, as the local historian calls him, Wistan, monk of Worcester, and Abbot of Gloucester. Lastly, Saint Wulfstan, monk, Prior, and Bishop of Worcester. All three were alive at once, and the last two were strictly contemporary, and all had more or less to do with Worcester and Gloucester.

NOTE OO. p. 292.

ABBOTS MANNIG AND ETHELWIG.

THERE is a chronological difficulty as to the accession of Æthelwig. The Evesham Chronicle fixes the date of his benediction to Saint George's