RELATIONS BETWEEN ROBERT AND CNUT.

521

sort of confusion and contradiction. The English writers CHAP. VI. are silent; from the German writers we learn next to nothing; the Scandinavian history of this age is still at least half mythical; the Norman writers never held truth to be any consequence whenever the relations of Normandy and England were concerned. That Robert provoked Cnut by threats or attempts to restore the Æthelings, and also by ill-treating and repudiating Cnut's sister, seem to be facts which we may accept in the bare outline, whatever we say as to their minuter circumstances. That Cnut retaliated by an invasion of Normandy, or that the threat of such an invasion had an effect on the conduct of the sovereigns of Normandy, are positions which are strongly asserted by various authorities. But their stories are accompanied by circumstances which directly contradict the witness of authorities which are far more trustworthy. In fact, the moment we get beyond the range of the sober contemporary Chronicles of our own land, we find ourselves in a region in which the mythical and romantic elements outweigh the historical, and moreover, in whatever comes from Norman sources, we have to be on our guard against interested invention as well as against honest error.

of Estrith

We have seen that Estrith, a sister of Cnut, was married Marriages to the Danish Earl Ulf, the brother-in-law of Godwine, to with Ulf whom she bore the famous Swend Estrithson, afterwards and Robert. King of the Danes, one of the most renowned princes in Danish history. We are told by a variety of authorities that, besides her marriage with Ulf, Estrith was married to the Duke of the Normans,1 that she was ill-treated by him in

1 The Norman and English writers do not mention the marriage of Robert and Estrith. It is asserted by Saxo, Adam of Bremen, and Rudolf Glaber. But the two former tell the story with much confusion, making Estrith marry, not Robert, but Richard. They both connect this marriage with Cnut's own marriage with Emma. Saxo's words (p. 193) "Quum Anglorum rebus obtentis nectendam cum finitimis amicitiam decrevisset, Normanniæ Præfecti [an odd title] Roberti filiam Immam

are;

CHAP. VI. various ways, and was finally sent back with ignominy her brother. The majority of writers who tell this str; place this marriage before her marriage with Ulf, a make the Danish Earl take the divorced wife of the Supposed Norman Duke. With this story several writers connec tween Cnut another, of an invasion, or threatened invasion, of Nr. mandy by Cnut in order to redress his sister's wrong The most popular Danish writer even makes Cnut die, à contradiction to all authentic history, while besieging Rouen. We read also how the Norman Duke fled t

wars be

and Robert.

matrimonio duxit, ejusque fratri Rikardo sororem Estritham conjugio pati endam permisit." The utter confusion of Saxo's ideas about the Norma Dukes is manifest. Adam (ii. 52) says; "Chnud regnum Adalradi accep uxoremque ejus Iminam nomine, quæ fuit soror Comitis Nortmanner. Rikardi. Cui Rex Danorum suam dedit germanam Margaretam pr fædere. Quam deinde Chnut, repudiatam à Comite, Wolf Duci Anghe dedit. . . . Et Rikardus quidem Comes, declinans iram Chnut, Jheros limam profectus, ibidem obiit, relinquens filium in Nortmanniâ nomine Rodbertum, cujus filius est iste Willelmus, quem Franci Bastardum vocant." Here we get a little light. The marriages of Richard the Good with Judith and Papia are well ascertained, and there is no room left for a marriage with Estrith. But, as Dr. Lappenberg remarks (479 Erg Tr. ii. 217), Adam's mention of the pilgrimage to Jerusalem shows that Robert is the person really meant among all this confusion. Lastly, Rudef Glaber, a better authority than either Saxo or Adam, steps in to settle the matter. He describes (iv. 6. p. 47) Robert's pilgrimage to Jerusalem and his death without lawful issue, "quamlibet sororem Anglorum Regis Canuc manifestum est duxisse uxorem, quam odiendo divortium fecerat." This seems to put the fact of a marriage between Robert and Estrith on firm ground. Among the Danish annalists, the Esrom Annals (Lang. i. 236) simply copy Adam of Bremen; those of Roskild (Lang. i. 377) tell the same tale in different words; "Kanutus victor exsistens, ipsam Ymmam duxit uxorem, genuitque ex eâ filium Hartheknud. Kanutus Ricardo suam dedit sororem nomine Estrid. Quæ ab illo repudiata Duci Ulf sine fratris consensu est conjuncta." The name Margaret given by Adam to this princess is remarkable. Estrith, like Emma and Eadgyth (see above, p. 334), might have been required to take a Norman name at the Norman court. But why Margaret? We have as yet no Norman Margarets, nor perhaps any Western Margarets at all, till the return of Eadward the son of Eadmund from Hungary.

1 Saxo seems to make two Norman expeditions on the part of Cnut. First (p. 194), early in his reign, so far as anything can be made out of Saxo's chronology; "Rikardum acerrimum uxoris csorem effectum, patriâ

ROBERT'S MARRIAGE WITH ESTRITH.

523

rusalem or elsewhere for fear of the anger of the Lord CHAP. VI. six Northern Kingdoms. Details of this sort are plainly ythical; but they point to some real quarrel, to some ar, threatened if not actually waged, between Cnut and obert. And chronology, as well as the tone of the legends, hows that the whole of these events must be placed quite te in Cnut's reign. The natural inference is that the Robert probably arriage between Robert and Estrith took place, efore her marriage with Ulf, but after Ulf's death.' vidow was richly endowed; her brother had atoned for the death. laughter of her husband by territorial grants which might vell have moved the cupidity of the Norman. A superior attraction nearer his own castle may easily account for Robert's neglect of his Scandinavian bride. Three years

not married The after Ulf's

exegit." Afterwards (pp. 200, 201) we have the story of his great expedition and death before Rouen. Richard is still Duke, but, for fear of Cnut, he flees to Sicily; "Cujus [Canuti] impetum Richardus Siciliam petens, fugâ præcurrere maturavit." The mention of Sicily is of course suggested by the exploits of the Normans in those regions. Adam, as we have seen, makes Richard flee to Jerusalem. His Scholiast adds that the conquest of Apulia was begun by forty of his comrades on their return. The source of confusion is obvious.

We have seen a French campaign and a visit to Rouen attributed to Cnut by Swend Aggesson (see above, p. 504), but the circumstances are quite different.

1 So Lappenberg (ii. 217), and Pertz in his note to Adam, ii. 52. A dispute between Robert and Cnut which could be connected, even mythically, with Cnut's death and Robert's pilgrimage must be placed quite late in their reigns. And as the offender is always looked on as the reigning Duke, 1028, or (if we take the reckoning of Florence under 1026 and the Peterborough Chronicle under 1024) 1026, is the earliest year to which the transaction can be referred. Ulf was killed in 1025. William the Bastard was born in 1028.

2 Saxo at least tells us that Cnut, before her marriage with Ulf, "sororem Sialandiæ redditam regiarum partium functione donavit" (p.194). After Ulf's death, execution, or murder, "Canutus violatæ necessitudinis injuriam, ac sororis viduitatem, duarum provinciarum attributione pensavit" (p. 197). He adds that she gave them to the Church of Roskild. The Roskild Annals (Lang. i. 377) make her rebuild the church of stone, it having been before of wood; Honorificè sepelivit, ecclesiamque lapideam in loco ligneæ construxit, quam multis modis ditavit."

Estrith

c. 1026.

CHAP. VI. after Estrith's widowhood, Robert became the father. him who was preeminently the Bastard.

Robert's interven

It seems impossible to doubt that Robert's intervect tion on be. on behalf of his English cousins was connected with the half of the events. The reign of Robert coincides with the last se Æthelings. 1028-1035. years of the reign of Cnut, so that any intervention Robert in English affairs must have been in Cnut's days. Each prince would doubtless seize every opp tunity of annoying the other; the tale clearly sets Rober before us as the aggressor; but, as to the order of event we are left to guess. It would be perfectly natural, it violent and impulsive character such as Robert seems t have been, if the repudiation of Estrith was accompanied or presently followed, by the assertion of the claims of the Æthelings to her brother's crown. The date then of the first contemplated Norman invasion of England can be fixed only within a few years; but the story, as we real it in the Norman accounts, seems credible enough in its general outline. The Duke sends an embassy to Cnut, demanding, it would seem, the cession of the whole Kingdom of England to the rightful heir. That Cnut refused

1 Two English writers only speak of Robert's designs on England, namely William of Malmesbury and John of Wallingford. John (ap. Gale, 549-50) tells the story much as William of Jumièges does, only, with the usual confusion, he substitutes Richard the Good for Robert. But it is clear from the two Williams that Robert was the Duke concerned, so that John of Wallingford is clearly wrong when he places the story in the first years of Cnut" in primordiis regni sui."

2 The character of Robert, as I hinted before, is a problem. Setting aside the charge of fratricide, his actions give one the impression of his being much such a character as his ancestor William Longsword (see above, p. 215). His conduct in the external relations of his Duchy was far more honourable than that of William; but then he had no Hugh of Paris or Herbert of Vermandois to lead him astray.

Will Gem. vi. 10, 11. Roman de Rou, 7897 et seqq. Joh. Wallingford, u. s. Will. Malms. ii. 180. The last writer however mentions only the attempted invasion, and says nothing of the embassies before and after. Will. Gem. vi. 10. 66 Mandavit Chunuto Regi, ut jamjamque satiatus eorum exterminio illis parceret, et sua eis vel serò pro sui amoris obtentu

ROBERT'S ATTEMPTED INVASION OF ENGLAND.

525

surrender his crown is nothing wonderful, though the CHAP. VI. orman writer seems shocked that the exhortation of the orman ambassadors did not at once bring conviction to

unsuccess

e mind of the usurper.1 The Duke then, in great wrath, Robert's etermines to assert the claims of his kinsmen by force of ful attempt rms. An Assembly of the Normans is held, a forerunner to invade England. f the more famous Assembly at Lillebonne, in which the nvasion of England is determined on. A fleet is prepared with all haste, and Duke Robert and the Etheling Eadvard2 embark at Fécamp. But the wind was contrary; nstead of being carried safely to Pevensey, the fleet was carried round the Côtentin peninsula and found itself on the coast of Jersey. All attempts were vain; the historian piously adds that they were frustrated by a special Providence, because God had determined that his servant Eadward should make his way to the English Crown without the shedding of blood. The Duke accordingly gave up his enterprise on behalf of his cousin of England, and

redderet." So John of Wallingford; "Venerunt legati à Normanniâ . . . . qui cum Cnutone de regni jure disceptantes juvenibus prædictis regnum postulabant."

1 Will. Gem. vi. 10. Ille salubribus monitis ejus non adquievit, sed legatos infectis rebus nihil lætum portantes remisit."

2 William of Jumièges implies the personal presence of the Duke on board the fleet, but says nothing of that of the Ætheling. Wace mentions both "Robert et Edward" (7941).

3 "Nimiâ tempestate acti ad insulam quæ Gersus vocatur," says William of Jumièges. "Gersus" is a singular form for an island which is also called Cæsarea. Sir F. Palgrave (iii. 176) remarks that this is the first time that Jersey is spoken of in mediæval history. Wace (7937) seems to have thought that a special description of the geography of the island was needed. "Gersui est prez de Costentin,

Là ù Normendie prent fin;

En mer est devers occident,

Al fiè de Normendie appent."

4 Will. Gem. vi. 10. "Quod puto ita factum esse, Deo auctore, pro Edwardo Rege, quem disponebat in futuro regnare sine sanguinis effusione." William of Malmesbury is vaguer and more discreet; "per occultum scilicet Dei judicium, in cujus voluntate sunt potestates regnorum omnium."