THE QUARRel betweEN HAROLD AND GISA.

457 Gisa against Ælfsige or any other possible enemies. But I think it is more likely that Harold, at a time when it was his interest to conciliate everybody, tried to conciliate Gisa by a grant of the disputed lands, that his intention was hindered by his death, and that it was afterwards partially carried out by William. Harold's intentions on behalf of Gisa might well have been designed to be carried out in the Christmas Gemót of 1066 if he had lived to hold it. We may compare the way (see p. 369) in which Eadward's purpose of restitution to Saint Mary's at Shrewsbury was hindered by his death. But anyhow Gisa's own story does not imply any fraud or violence on the part of Harold. It is simply a story of a disputed claim to certain lands and goods. The tale takes a very different shape in later writers.

Thus, in the story given by the Canon of Wells (Ang. Sacr. i. 559) we find quite another state of things. First of all, the poor estate of the Church of Wells, and the small number of its Canons, are attributed to the spoliations of Harold, an idea which Gisa's story does not even suggest; "Hic [Giso] invenit tantum decem canonicos in Ecclesiâ Wellensi, tam bonis mobilibus et ornamentis ecclesiasticis quam possessionibus ad ecclesiam suam spectantibus per Haroldum Comitem Cantiæ et Westsexiæ spoliatos et publicæ mendicitati subjectos." For "decem canonicos" later writers seem to have read "quinque," as in Gisa's own account, but either of the numbers complained of as small might startle modern legislators and modern residentiaries. The writer then records the gifts of Eadward and Eadgyth, as also Harold's accession to the Crown, which is told in true Norman fashion. The first act of the new King is to confiscate all the possessions of Gisa and the Church of Wells; "Is statim omnes possessiones dicti Gisonis et Canonicorum Wellensis Ecclesiæ perpetim confiscavit." His death and the Conquest of England are of course the punishment. William then restores all that Harold took, "exceptis Congresburye, Banewell et Kilmington et plurimis aliis."

Even in this account we have wandered a good way from Gisa's own tale. There is something amusing in the exceptions to William's restoration-Congresbury and Banwell, the only places in dispute, and Kilmington, about which Gisa tells us a story with, which Harold has nothing to do. William is made to restore precisely those lands of which the See had always kept undisputed possession. But there are greater things in store. In the sixteenth century it was found out that Gisa's autobiography and Harold's writ were both of them mistaken, and that Harold not only robbed the Church of Wells, but drove its Bishop into banishment. Here is the story as told by Bishop Godwin, Catalogue of Bishops, p. 291. Gisa is consecrated at Rome-then

"At his returne, he found the estate of his Church very miserable; Harald the Queene's brother that afterwards became for a while king of England, being yet a private man,

(Quid Domini facient, audent qui talia servi?)

upon what occasion I know not, had spoyled the Church of all ornaments, chased away the Canons, and invading all the possessions of the same, had converted them to his owne use: so that the Canons remaining which fled not for feare of this tyrant (they were onely five) they (I say) were faine to beg their bread. The Bishop complaining unto the King of this outragious havocke, found cold comfort at his hands: For, whether it were for feare of Harald's power or his wives displeasure, he caused no restitu

tion at all to be made. Onely the Queene was content to give of her owne, Mark and Modesly unto the Church. After the death of King Edward, Gisa was faine to fly the land, till such time as Harald the sacrilegious usurper being vanquished and slaine, William the Conqueror was a meane to restore, not only him to his place and countrey, but his Church also to all that the other had violently taken from it, except some small parcels that (I know not by what meanes) had been conveighed unto the Monastery of Glocester."

Here we have simple romance; a later writer has attempted something like philosophy. The local historian of Somersetshire, Collinson (iii. 378), boldly connects the story of Gisa with the banishment of Godwine and the descent of Harold at Porlock. At the same time, though Harold's conduct is pronounced to be "outrageous," it is made out to be simply taking possession of his own goods. But the worthy antiquary shall set forth his special revelation in his own words;

"On his entry into his diocese, he found the estates of the church in a sad condition; for Harold earl of Wessex, having with his father, Godwine earl of Kent, been banished the kingdom, and deprived of all his estates in this county by King Edward, who bestowed them on the church of Wells, had in a piratical manner made a descent in these parts, raised contributions among his former tenants, spoiled the church of all its ornaments, driven away the canons, invaded their possessions, and converted them to his own use. Bishop Giso in vain expostulated with the King on this outrageous usage; but received from the Queen, who was Harold's sister, the manors of Mark and Mudgley, as a trifling compensation for the injuries which his bishoprick had sustained. Shortly after [after 1060] Harold was restored to King Edward's favour, and made his captain-General; upon which he in his turn procured the banishment of Giso, and when he came to the crown, resumed most of those estates of which he had been deprived. Bishop Giso continued in banishment till the death of Harold, and the advancement of the Conqueror to the throne, who in the second year of his reign restored all Harold's estates to the church of Wells, except some small parcels which had been conveyed to the monastery of Gloucester; in lieu of which he gave the manor and advowson of Yatton, and the manor of Winsham."

One is inclined to ask with Henry the Second (Gir. Camb. Exp. Hib. i. 40. p. 290 ed. Dimock), "Quære a rustico illo utrum hoc somniaverit?" But these things have their use. Every instance of the growth of a legend affords practice in the art of distinguishing legend from history. And, in this special case, the difference between the popular version and the real contemporary statement may lead us to weigh somewhat carefully all charges of outrageous sacrilege, whether it is Harold, William, or any one else against whom they are brought. The lay lion constantly needs a painter, and I know not that he ever finds one, save when we have the quarrel between Godwine and Robert (see above, p. 366) described by the friendly Biographer.

On this story of Gisa's I may make two further incidental remarks. Combe, one of the lordships added by Gisa to his see, was bought by him of Azor-" a quodam meo parochiano Arsere"-which no doubt should be Atsere-"dicto." Its former possession by Azor is witnessed also by Domesday 89. The name is a singular one, almost singular whether its owner were an Englishman or a foreigner. It was in use in Normandy, as

ELFWIG ABBOT OF NEW MINSTER.

459

we find in the Cartulary of the Holy Trinity at Rouen an "Azor de Rolvillâ." But we also find it in the genealogy in Saint Matthew's Gospel, which might possibly bring it into the same class as the names Isaac and Joseph which we find in Domesday. We have already (see p. 339) come across at least two bearers of it. Others, or the same, occur in Lincolnshire (337), distinguished as "Azer f. Sualevæ," and "Azer f. Burg.," and in Buckinghamshire (147 b) as “Azor filius Toti." One among these Azors certainly left three sons, who bore the foreign names of Goscelin, William, and Henry (Domesday 53 and 216 b). The last of these names, unknown in England, was equally so in Normandy, till William bestowed it on his youngest son. The name is common among the signatures to charters, and “Adzurus" signs the Waltham Charter (Cod. Dipl. iv. 159) with the title of "Regis dapifer." This must be the same man who appears in Domesday (Berkshire, 62) as “Azor dispensator R. E." He seems to have kept part of his lands as an under-tenant at the time of the Survey, and I shall have to speak of him in that character in my fourth volume. But the curious thing is the number of times in which we find the name of Azor connected with the buying and selling of land, both under Eadward and under William. Here Gisa buys Combe of Azor; we have already (see above, p. 365) seen Godwine buy Woodchester of Azor. On the other hand we read in Domesday (35 b) of Azor buying lands in Surrey, "quam unus liber homo tenuit sub Rege E., sed pro quâdam necessitate suâ vendidit Azori T. R. Willelmi." We have already seen two Azors benefactors to Westminster, and in Domesday (34) we find one of them a benefactor to the Abbey of Chertsey; "Ipsa Abbatia tenet Henlei. Azor tenuit donec obiit, et dedit Ecclesiæ pro animâ suâ, tempore Regis W., ut dicunt monachi et inde habent brevem Regis." In the words in Italics we see the germs of a possible controversy.

This Azor, or these Azors, though of no direct importance in history, awaken a certain interest through their incidental connexion with greater men, and it would be quite worth the while of local inquirers in the counties where their lands lay to search out any further details about them.

Since this Note was revised, the question of Harold and Gisa has been again started, as it were unwittingly, by Mr. C. H. Pearson (Historical Maps, p. 60 note), who suggests, as if the idea were something new, that Congresbury was taken from the Church by Harold. But he seems to have read nothing on the subject from Gisa himself downwards. His only references are to Domesday and to the notoriously spurious charter in Cod. Dipl. iv. 163.

NOTE RR. p. 311.

ELFWIG ABBOT OF NEW MINSTER.

THERE is certainly something startling in the notion of a brother of Godwine and uncle of Harold, if he wished for ecclesiastical preferment at all, having to wait for it till the year 1063. But the evidence, though piecemeal, looks, at first sight, like it. That an Abbot of New Minster died at Senlac, and that his house therefore lay for a while under William's heavy displeasure, are facts which have long been known, and which I shall

have to speak of in their proper places. But one of the authorities for the statement, the Manuscript called “Destructio Monasterii de Hidâ,” printed in the Monasticon of 1682, i. 210, and in the New Monasticon, ii. 437, makes this Abbot an uncle of Harold; "Rex Haroldus habuit avunculum nomine Godwynum, Abbatem de Hydâ.” The writer then goes on to speak of the Abbot joining his nephew's muster at the battle. It would not do to press the word "avunculus" in its classical sense, so as to make the Abbot a brother of Gytha. The purely English name Godwine is one most unlikely to have been borne by a son of Thorgils Sprakaleg. "Avunculus" must be taken in the sense of "patruus," and the difficulty of Godwine having a brother bearing his own name is taken away when, from another local manuscript, referred to, though not fully printed in the Monasticon, ii. 428, we find that the Abbot's real name was not Godwine, but Elfwig. I have to thank Mr. Edwards, the Editor of the Liber de Hydâ, for the following extract from the manuscript Annales de Hydâ. The list of Abbots of New Minster, during the time with which I am concerned, stands thus;

66 1021. Alnothus.

1035. Alwyus.

1057. Alfnotus.

1063. Alwyus, frater Godwyni Comitis.

1066. Alwyus occiditur, et vacavit hæc ecclesia ii. annis." Cf. Edwards, Liber de Hydâ, p. xxxvii.

Here we plainly have Ælfwig, brother of Earl Godwine, appointed Abbot in 1063. The writer of the "Destructio” probably meant to write something like "avunculum, nomine Alwynum, fratrem Comitis Godwyni," and the two similar endings got jumbled together. There is another case in which the name Godwine has been written instead of another name in Domesday (146), where a Thegn is described as "homo Goduini cilt Abbatis Westmonasteriensis," meaning of course Abbot Eadwine (see p. 338). But here another question arises. The alternation of the names Elfnoth and Elfwig in the list of Abbots suggests the conjecture that we have here a case of a man-or rather two men-resigning his office and taking it again. We have seen other examples in the case of Archbishop Eadsige (pp. 44, 77) and of Bishop Hermann (p. 271). If so, Elfwig was first appointed in 1035, a much more likely time for the first promotion of a brother of Godwine than 1063. But, on the other hand, the fact that it is only the second entry of the name "Alwyus" which has the addition "frater Godwyni Comitis," may be taken as distinguishing the Elfwig of 1063 from the Elfwig of 1035. Taken alone it certainly looks that way, but it is hardly conclusive. This point I do not undertake to decide; but I think we have quite evidence enough for the existence of an Elfwig, Abbot of New Minster, uncle of King Harold and dying by his side.

If the "Annales" did not distinctly call him "frater Godwyni Comitis," I should have been tempted to identify this Abbot Ælfwig, uncle of Harold, with the Elfric, kinsman of Godwine, who was elected to the see of Canterbury in 1050 (see p. 77). The word "avunculus" is sometimes used rather laxly, and it might perhaps mean what is sometimes called a "Welsh uncle," that is, the first cousin of a parent. We shall find "neptis" used in the corresponding sense; see vol. iii. Appendix N. But the description of Elfwig as Godwine's brother seems to exclude this. And if the two

HAROLD'S DISMEMBERMENTS FROM WALES.

461

Elfwigs are the same, it is impossible, as, in 1050, Elfwig would be Abbot of New Minster, when Elfric was a monk of Christ Church. Still one would like, if one could, to find a career for a man of whom all that we know is that he once came so near to eminence as the Elfric of 1050.

NOTE SS. pp. 317.

THE DISMEMBERMENTS FROM WALES AFTER THE DEATH OF

GRUFFYDD.

I HAD not noticed when the first edition was published that there is distinct evidence that, besides the homage done by Bleddyn and Rhiwallon to the English King and Earl, a part of the former Welsh territory was directly incorporated with the Kingdom of England. This seems to have been the case with three distinct districts.

1. A large district of North Wales was ceded and became part of the shire of Chester, and therefore of the Earldom of Eadwine. This appears from Domesday 269, where we find Rhuddlan (Roelent) and a surrounding district held partly by Hugh Earl of Chester and partly under him by Robert of Rhuddlan, the former esquire of King Eadward (see Ord. Vit. 669 C). The only former proprietors spoken of are "Eduinus Comes" and "Rex Griffin." A large part of the land is, as might be expected, spoken of as wasta" both T. R. E. and at the time of the Survey. In fact the same remark is attached to most of the lands spoken of in this Note, a speaking witness to the effects of the various Welsh wars, and especially of Harold's last campaign.

66

Besides the places mentioned by name, we read that "Robertus de Roelent tenet de Rege Nortwales ad firmam pro XL libris, præter illam terram quam Rex ei dederat in feudo, et præter terras episcopatus." He also held "Ros et Reweniou," of a large part of which district we read that "omnis alia terra est in silvis et moris, nec potest arari."

I do not profess to fix the exact boundary of the district ceded, especially when we get an entry so wide as "Nortwales." But it is plain that it took in all Flintshire, the Vale of Clwyd ("aqua de Cloith"), and seemingly the coast stretching into the modern Caernarvonshire.

This cession must be distinguished from the cession of the lands beyond the Dee by Gruffydd in 1056; see p. 266. I do not profess to distinguish the exact limits of the two, and the former may perhaps have taken in most part of Flintshire. But it could not have taken in the Vale of Clwyd, as Rhuddlan was in Gruffydd's possession in 1062; see p. 312.

2. Radnor (Raddrenove) appears as part of Herefordshire (Domesday, 181), as held by Earl Harold and as being waste. This points to another dismemberment in central Wales, of which again I do not profess to fix the exact bounds; but it should not be forgotten that nearly all Radnorshire has long spoken English. The other entry about Radnor under Cheshire (Domesday 268) I must confess that I do not understand. What could Gresford in Denbighshire have to do with Radnor?

3. In Herefordshire also (180 b) we read that the King held the castle of Monmouth. Part of the district of Caerleon (castellaria de Carlion) is also placed in Herefordshire (185 b), another curious piece of geography. No earlier English or Welsh lord is mentioned. Here is probably another cession.