day (April 23rd, 1059). Mannig, we are told, died on the same day as King Eadward, that is, January 5th, 1066. The Evesham writer (p. 88) wrongly makes it the day of the Epiphany itself; "Transiit quoque vir ille Mannius eâdem nocte et horâ quâ Rex gloriosus Æduuardus, festivitate videlicet sanctæ Epiphaniæ Domini.” His death, so the historian says, happened seven years after his resignation. This makes the year of Æthelwig's appointment 1059. For the day and place we are told (88), “Rex fecit eum apud Glocestre, ubi tunc curiam suam tenebat, coram multis principibus hujus patriæ ab Aldredo Archiepiscopo honorabiliter in paschali sollemnitate, die festivitatis Sancti Georgii martyris, consecrari.” Now it is hardly likely that Ealdred, who had left for Jerusalem seemingly not very early in the year before, could have been again in England so soon as Saint George's day, 1059. Also it was not the Easter but the Christmas festival which was commonly held at Gloucester. That Ealdred is called Archbishop before his time is a common slip. Perhaps (see Mr. Macray's note on p. 87) the reckoning of seven years is wrong, and the date was really 1058, before Ealdred left England; or the wrong season may be given (though this seems hardly likely, and the usual places of the Gemóts were sometimes departed from); or the ceremony may have been really performed by some other Bishop, and Ealdred's name may have been carelessly inserted because he was known to be Bishop of the diocese at the time.

NOTE PP. p. 294.

HAROLD'S FOUNDATION AT WALTHAM.

OUR knowledge about Waltham and Harold's foundation there comes mainly from the two local books of which I have already spoken (see p. 286), from the charter of Eadward (Cod. Dipl. iv. 154) confirming the foundation, and from various incidental notices, especially in the writers who record the establishment of the monastery by Henry the Second. There is no plainer piece of history in the world than that Harold founded a body of secular Canons, and that Henry displaced them to make room for regular Canons. Without turning either to the local writers or to the historians of Henry's day, it is enough to turn to William of Malmesbury, iii. 247; "Ecclesiam .. canonicis impleverat." Yet a whole string of modern writers, one after another, talk of Waltham, as founded by Harold, as an abbey or monastery. When I say that the mistake is found in Sharon Turner (Hist. Eng. i. 79, 81), in Sir Francis Palgrave (Hist. Ang. Sax. 378, 388), and in Lappenberg (p. 556 of the original, ii. 302 of Mr. Thorpe's translation), it is not wonderful that it is found also in Thierry (i. 254), as well as in Dr. Vaughan (Revolutions of English History, i. 298), in M. de Bonnechose (ii. 283), and in Mr. St. John (ii. 275). But they are all outdone by Mr. C. H. Pearson (Early and Middle Ages, i. 345), who talks of "the monks of Waltham Abbey" in a note in which he refers to Professor Stubbs' edition of the De Inventione.

The grant of the former estate of Tofig to Harold is recorded in the De Inventione, c. 14. So in the Charter, Eadward says, "Cuidam meorum Comitum, onomate Haroldo, quamdam terram quæ antiquitus ab incolis illius loci nuncupatur Waltham hæreditario jure concessi." "Hæreditario

HAROLD'S FOUNDATION AT WALTHAM.

453

jure" here, as often (see vol. iii. Appendix R), means not a right handed down from a man's fathers, but a right to be handed on to his children.

The order followed by Harold in his work at Waltham is well marked in the Charter and in the other accounts. The general objects of the foundation cannot be better set forth than they are by Harold's romantic biographer (pp. 160-161), this being the sort of subject on which local romance is as trustworthy as history: "At vir magnificus," he says, "locum et loci cultum omnimodis cupiens cum suis cultoribus sublimare, novam ibi basilicam fabricare, ministrorum augere numerum, redditusque eorum proponit ampliare, utque celebriorem famâ, illustriorem clericorum frequentiâ, cœlestibus nobilitatum muneribus, locum terrigenis exhiberet, scholas ibidem institui . . . . dispositione satagebat prudenti." How any one could have mistaken this for the foundation of a monastery is truly wonderful. The Charter follows the same order; first comes the building of the church; "In præscripto loco monasterium ad laudem Domini nostri Jesu Christi et sanctæ Crucis construxit." The use of "monasterium as applied to the fabric of the church, even in a secular foundation (see vol. i. p. 286), hardly needs illustration. The highest authority for its use is the Emperor Frederick, who in his letter to Otto of Freisingen, prefixed to that Prelate's history of him, calls Saint Peter's at Rome indifferently "basilica" and "monasterium Sancti Petri." In the De Inventione also (c. 16) we read of "venusto admodum opere a fundamentis constructam [ecclesiam]," and the romantic biographer (p. 161) gives a much fuller description of the building, of which I shall have something to say in another volume. Next in the Charter after the building of the church comes the confirmation of the original grant of Tofig; "Primum concedens ei terram quæ vocatur Norðlande, unde ecclesiam villæ antiquitus dotatam invenit." Then comes the consecration; "Post fundatum dehinc sacræ fidei monasterium ad normam sanctæ Dei ecclesiæ dedicari fecit honorifice ob memoriam mei et conjugis meæ nomine Eadiðæ, patris ac matris, pro se suisque omnibus vivis et defunctis sibi consanguinitate conjunctis." Then the Charter speaks of the relics, books, vestments and ornaments, of which the local writers have of course more to tell us. Last of all comes the enlargement of the foundation; "Quid plura? Suæ denique conditionis non immemor ibidem quorumdam catervulam fratrum secundum auctoritatem sanctorum patrum canonicæ regulæ subjectam constituit, quæ Deo et sanctis ejus die noctuque laudes hymnizando decantet." Here we have the canonical rule expressly spoken of, and an earlier part of the Charter distinctly marks Harold's preference for that rule; he is "non solum Dei cultor, verum etiam canonicæ regulæ strenuus institutor."

The consecration is described at length in the De Inventione, c. 16. In 1857 (see p. 286) I showed that the year must have been either 1059 or 1060, and Professor Stubbs has since fixed it beyond doubt to 1060. He also shows that the list of persons given by the local writer as present at the consecration is taken from the list of signatures to the Charter. He evidently thought that it was drawn up and signed at Waltham at the time, whereas the fact that it was not granted till two years later is an important part of the story. He has thus been led into some mistakes, as for instance in making Walter and Gisa present at the consecration as Bishops. They were Bishops when the Charter was granted in 1062, and they sign the Charter as such; but in 1060 they were not Bishops, though they would doubtless be present at Waltham as royal chaplains. The writer also

calls Gisa Bishop of Chichester, instead of Wells or Somersetshire. Ethelric, Bishop of the South-Saxons, appears under the corrupted form of "Efricus;" so perhaps the writer did not recognize him.

As to the relics and other gifts, the most interesting thing is the statement that some of them were brought home by Harold on his Roman pilgrimage. See above, p. 295.

66

The next point is the enlargement of the foundation, the increase of Tofig's two priests into a Dean, Canons, and other officers. This naturally comes last in all the accounts. The nature of the foundation, the offices of its several members, and the discipline to be observed, are set forth at large in the 15th chapter of the De Inventione, and are fully commented on by Professor Stubbs in his Preface, pp. xiii. xiv. The arrangement of all these points seemingly took two years from the consecration in 1060 to the grant of the confirmation Charter in 1062. The Charter has a large number of signatures, and it is remarkable to how many of the names we can attach a personal idea. It is signed by thirteen Bishops, all that were in England at the time; and the only difficulty about any of their signatures is that we miss that of Siward of Rochester, while there is a signature of "Elfwoldus Episcopus," whom it is hard to identify, as Elfwold of Sherborne died (see p. 271) in 1058. Then follow eleven Abbots, among whom we recognize Ethelnoth of Glastonbury, Leofric of Peterborough, Orderic of Abingdon, and Æthelsige of Ramsey. We have also "Elfwinus Abbas” and “ Ælwig Abbas,” about whom there may be a little difficulty. Harold's uncle Elfwig was not appointed to the New Minster till the next year (see Note RR). But there was an Elfwig Abbot of Bath (see Cod. Dipl. iv. 171), and we have already heard of Æthelwig of Evesham (see above, p. 451). The signature of "Elfwinus" probably belongs to Elfwig, and that of "Elwig" to Ethelwig. Then come the five Earls, Harold himself (whose signature takes the very practical form "Ego Haroldus Comes operando consolido"), Elfgar, Tostig, Leofwine, and Gyrth. Then follow twenty-six signatures of Court officers and other Thegns, none however signing with any lowlier title than Princeps." Of these "Esgarus regiæ procurator aula" (see p. 41), "Rodbertus Regis consanguineus,' Radulphus Regis aulicus," ""Bundinus Regis palatinus," "Regenbaldus Regis Cancellarius," "Baldewinus Regis capellanus" (see above, p. 394), "Brihtricus princeps" (probably the Gloucestershire Thegn round whose name a legend has grown in connexion with Matilda of Flanders), "Wigodus Regis pincerna," "Herdingus Reginæ pincerna,” "Adzurus Regis dapifer" (see below, p. 458), "Doddo princeps," and "Eadricus princeps" (probably Eadric the Wild), are all men of whom we have already heard or shall hear before the end of our history. There are others also of whom we have no recorded actions, but whose personality can be identified in Domesday. The Norman signatures should be noticed, and to them may be added "Hesbernus Regis consanguineus" (probably Osbern of Herefordshire, see above, p. 230) and "Petrus Regis capellanus." We see throughout how thoroughly we are dealing with real men of flesh and blood.

39 66

On the change of foundation under Henry II. see Ben. Petr. i. 134, 174, 316; R. Howden, ii. 118 (where see Professor Stubbs' note); Rad. Dic. X Scriptt. 598; Gervase, X Scriptt. 1434; Vita Haroldi, 164; R. Wendover, ii. 387. At the first change in 1177, the house became only a Priory; the first Abbot was appointed in 1184 (see Ben. Petrib. i. 316, and Professor

THE QUARRel betweEN HAROLD AND GISA.

455 Stubbs' note). It is comforting to read (Ben. Petr. i. 174) that all the expelled canons got "excambium de præbendis suis ad valentiam earumdem præbendarum," or, as Roger of Howden puts it, "plenariam recompensationem, ad domini Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis æstimationem." The Dean, by a still more comfortable arrangement, received “quoddam manerium de dominio suo cum pertinentiis suis in vitâ suâ tenendum."

NOTE QQ p. 299.

THE QUARREL BETWEEN EARL HAROLD AND BISHOP GISA. THE original account of the matters in dispute between Harold and Gisa will be found, in Gisa's own words, in the Historiola de Primordiis Episcopatûs Somersetensis, printed in Hunter's Ecclesiastical Documents, p. 15. Gisa's narrative grows into a far more violent account in the local history of Wells, by a Canon of that church in the fifteenth century, printed in Anglia Sacra, i. 559. Lastly, we get the story with further improvements in Godwin's Lives of the Bishops and other later works. The whole matter is well discussed and gone into most thoroughly by Mr. J. R. Green in the Transactions of the Somersetshire Archæological and Natural History Society, 1863–4, p. 148, a paper which has suggested several points in the present Note.

That the King who made the original grant to Duduc was Cnut is plain from the words of Gisa, who speaks of the lands as Duduc's private property obtained before he became Bishop (“possessiones quas hæreditario jure a rege ante episcopatum promeruerat"). Duduc became Bishop in 1033. It is difficult to understand how the Abbey of Gloucester could have formed part of the grant, or how this statement is to be reconciled with the local history of Gloucester referred to in p. 291. Gisa goes on to say that, when Harold took the other property, Gloucester was granted to Stigand ("præfatum monasterium injustâ ambitione a Rege sibi dari petiit [Stigandus] et impetratum ad horam obtinuit." On Abbeys held by Stigand see Hist. Eliens. ii. 41, Gale 514, and see vol. iii. Appendix L). Gloucester therefore has no further connexion with the story, which turns wholly on the possessions in Somersetshire. These were the two lordships of Banwell and Congresbury. There were also relics, church-plate, and books. We may perhaps guess that these moveable goods found their way to Waltham.

The grant of Duduc to the Church of Wells is described in these words; “[possessiones] roboratas cyrographis Regiæ auctoritatis ac donationis Deo Sanctoque Andreæ tempore Edwardi piissimi Regi obtulit.” Gisa then records what seems to be an oral bequest of the moveable property made by Duduc on his death-bed (“jam imminente die vocationis suæ adhibuit”). Duduc dies and is buried, and the story goes on; "Haroldus vero, tunc temporis Dux Occidentalium Saxonum, non solum terras invadere, verum etiam episcopalem sedem omnibus his spoliare non timuit." There is nothing in Gisa's narrative to imply that Harold seized any part of the ancient possessions of the see, but only the new gifts of Duduc. Gisa then goes on to mention the poor estate in which he found his church, the small number of the Canons, and their wide departure from the strictness of Lotharingian discipline. To help him in his schemes of reform, he begged certain lands of the King and the Lady, namely Wedmore, the scene of the famous peace between Ælfred and Guthrum (see vol. i. p. 32),

and the lordships of Mark and Mudgeley in the same neighbourhood. Much about these gifts, and about other possessions and acquisitions of Gisa, will be found in the writs in Cod. Dipl. iv. 163, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 257, writs addressed to Harold, and in which the restoration of anything taken from the see is commanded. (See Mr. Green, p. 154.) But there is no mention of either Banwell or Congresbury, except in the manifestly spurious document in iv. 163, on which see especially Mr. Green's note, p. 153. Gisa then goes on to say that he excommunicated one Alsie (probably Ælfsige, who appears as a large landowner in Somerset and Devonshire) who detained from the see the lordship of Winesham (see Domesday, 89 b), even after it was adjudged to the see by the Scirgemót ("judicium provincialium "). He then mentions his intention, never carried into effect, of excommunicating Harold himself (“ Haroldum etiam Ducem, qui ecclesiam mihi commissam spoliaverat, nunc secreto nunc palam correctum, pari sententiâ cogitabam ferire"). Then Harold, after his election to the Crown, promises to restore the disputed lordships and to grant others as well ("non solum ea quæ tulerat se redditurum verum etiam ampliora spopondit daturum"). With this statement must be compared Harold's writ in favour of Gisa in Cod. Dipl. iv. 305, where all the Bishop's rights and possessions are confirmed to him in the strongest language, but without the mention of any particular places. Gisa then tells us how, after William's accession, he made his complaint to the new King and obtained the restoration of Winesham (compare William's charter in the Monasticon, ii. 288). He goes on to mention his acquisition of Combe (p. 18) and other places, but he says nothing about Congresbury and Banwell, the lordships originally in dispute. But we learn their disposal from Domesday. Both are entered there as being held by Harold T. R. E. At the time of the Survey, Congresbury (Domesday, 87) was held by the King, except some portions which had been alienated to different persons, Gisa himself, possibly in his personal character, being among them. Banwell (89 b) was held by the Bishop. It is plain that the whole controversy with Harold, as far as real property was concerned, related to these two lordships. There is nothing about any other property of the See, nothing to imply that the poverty of the Canons of which Gisa so feelingly complains was in any way caused by the Earl's occupation of Banwell and Congresbury. The story is plainly one of disputed right to those two lordships and to the moveable goods of Duduc.

Gisa of course tells his own story in his own way. But he tells it without any special reviling of Harold. Mr. Green goes very minutely into the credibility of his story, but I do not think that he convicts the Bishop of any gross misrepresentation. We must take Gisa's statement as we find it; we must judge as we can of his honesty and of his means of information. There is no direct confirmation and no direct contradiction of his tale. Duduc's deed of gift does not exist; in none of the many charters of Eadward relating to Gisa's affairs is there any mention of any quarrel between him and Harold; in fact there is no mention of the disputed lordships at all. There is no record of any appeal made by Gisa to the King or to the Scirgemôt, nor does he himself distinctly state that he made any. On the other hand, Gisa's story draws some confirmation from the fact that Banwell seems to have been granted to the see by William. Harold's own charter in Cod. Dipl. iv. 305 may be taken in two ways. Its tone, as Mr. Green says, is quite friendly. It may be a mere guaranty of