DIVISION OF THE KINGDOM.

541

refusal of

Ethelnoth

Harold.

Gold of any stipulations as to the succession. It would CHAP. VI. follow, almost as a matter of course, that, if either of the brothers died childless, the survivor would be elected to this portion of the Kingdom. According to one account, Rumoured Archbishop Æthelnoth, the friend of Cnut, still refused Archto consecrate Harold as King. He placed the crown and bishop sceptre on the altar; Harold might seize them, if he to crown dared, but while a son of Emma survived, he, Æthelnoth, would crown no King but a son of Emma, and every Bishop of his province was equally forbidden to perform the rite.1 If this tale be true, it was an assertion of independence on the part of the ecclesiastical power for which we might in vain seek a parallel in the English history of those times. The Archbishop, as a member of the Gemót, might give his vote for whichever candidate he pleased; but when the election was made, he had clearly no right to refuse to consecrate the King elected by the majority. We may also remark that the story, if it belongs to this time,2 implies the Imperial supremacy of Harold. With a mere King of the Mercians and Northumbrians, whether an under-King or an altogether independent sovereign, the Archbishop of Canterbury, a West-Saxon subject, could have nothing to do.

The Kingdom was thus divided. The King-elect of

þæh full cyng ofer eall Englaland." This however, as I remarked in P. 534, may perhaps refer to Harold's second election in 1037. But an Imperial supremacy on the part of Harold seems quite consistent with the general tenor of events, and such a supposition may perhaps render the account of the fate of the Ætheling Ælfred one degree less obscure.

1 Encom. Emmæ, pp. 27, 28.

2 It is possible that the tale, if true, may belong to the second election of Harold in 1037, and may have been thrust back in the confused chronology of the Encomiast. Roger of Wendover (i. 473) asserts a coronation; "Prævaluit pars Haroldi et regni Angliæ illum diademate insignivit." So Bromton (X Scriptt. 932); Harold was "ab Ethelnodo Dorobernensi Archiepiscopo apud Lundonias consecratus." The believers in the false Ingulf may also entertain themselves with a story about Harold's coronation robe, and a great deal more about which authentic history is silent. See St. John, ii. 107–10.

Hartha

cnut re

mains in Denmark.

of Emma

and God

wine in Wessex.

CHAP. VI. the West-Saxons was in no hurry-the affairs of L Northern Kingdom did not allow him to be in a hurryto take personal possession of the fragment of a real which was all that Godwine had been able to secure fr Regency him. Emma appears to have been invested with a kin of regency in her son's name, while Godwine retained b post as Earl, and with it the administration of the Wes1035-1037. Saxon Kingdom. It is specially mentioned that Harthacnut's housecarls remained with Emma. The housecark of Harthacnut had doubtless been the housecarls of Cnut; their loyalty was personal to their master, and woul naturally pass to his widow and her son. But that their presence was allowed in the West-Saxon Kingdom and capital under the administration of Godwine clearly shows that they had not been employed during the late reign as instruments of oppression, and that they were not looked on with any general hatred by the people at large.

It was in the course of the next year that an event happened of which advantage has ever since been taken by hostile tongues and pens to stain the character of the great Earl of the West-Saxons with a charge of the deepest treachery. But even in the period on which we are now entering, a period in which we have at every step to weigh the conflicting statements of national and political partizanship, there is no event about which the various versions of the tale are more utterly at variance with each other. The story is told with every conceivable variety of time, place, and person, and even our earliest and best authorities contain statements which it is imposAttempt sible to reconcile with one another. Thus much seems eertain; first, that, about this time, one or both of the sons Ethelings. of Ethelred and Emma made an attempt to recover their 1036. father's Kingdom; secondly, that Elfred, the younger of the two Æthelings, fell into the power of Harold,

in favour

of the

1 See the extract from the Peterborough Chronicle, above, p. 540.

LANDING AND FATE OF ELFRED.

543

versions of

nd was cruelly put to death; thirdly, that Godwine CHAP. VI. curred suspicion of being an accomplice. But, beyond Conflicting his, there is hardly a circumstance of the story which the story. an be asserted with any confidence. The first point, hat the attempt, whatever its nature, took place soon ifter the death of Cnut and the first election of Harold, s placed beyond all doubt by the complete agreement of the best authorities.1 But very respectable secondary authorities have completely misplaced the date, and have

1 Chronn. and Flor. Wig. in anno. Vita Ead. 401. So Encom. Emmæ, p. 28 et seqq. Will. Pict. (ed. Maseres), 37 et seqq. Roman de Rou, 9761 et seqq. 2 The account given by William of Malmesbury is very remarkable. He hardly believes the story, because it is not in the Chronicles, but he tells it, because it was a common report; "Quia fama serit, non omisi ; sed quia chronica tacet, pro solido non asserui." He therefore had the Peterborough Chronicle before him. So just before; "Sanè ne silentio premam quod de primogenito [Ælfred was certainly the younger] Ethelredi ·Elfredo rumigeruli spargunt." The tale is placed by him in 1040, after the death of Harold and before the arrival of Harthacnut. Mr. Hardy, in his note, proposes to read "mortem Cnutonis" for "mortem Haroldi," but this is destroying evidence, not explaining it. Elfred enters the Kingdom; by the treachery of his countrymen, chiefly of Godwine ("compatriotarum perfidiâ et maximè Godwini), he is blinded at Gillingham (probably a mistake for Guildford); thence he is taken to Ely, where he soon dies. His companions are beheaded, save one in ten, who are allowed to escape. Cf. above, p. 386. Henry of Huntingdon (M. H. B. 758 D) pushes on the story yet a reign further. It is now placed after the death of Harthacnut in 1042. On that King's death the English send for Alfred, the elder of the Æthelings, to succeed to the Crown. He comes, and brings with him a great number of his mother's kinsfolk and of other Normans. Now Godwine (quum esset Consul fortissimus et proditor sævissimus) has determined that the new King shall marry his daughter. But he sees that Ælfred's high spirit (quia primogenitus erat et magnæ probitatis) will not consent to this scheme, while he thinks that the milder spirit of Eadward (frater minor et simplicior) will submit to the yoke. Godwine then harangues the Witan (intimavit igitur proceribus Angliæ); Ælfred has brought with him too many Normans; he has promised them lands in England; it will not be safe to allow so valiant and so crafty a people to take root in the land; the strangers must be punished lest other strangers should venture to presume on their kindred to royalty to meddle with Englishmen and English affairs (ne alii post hæc audeant pro Regis cognatione se Anglis ingerere). Elfred's Norman companions are then decimated at Guildford, in the fashion abovementioned; but even the tenth part seem to the English too many to be

Norman

CHAP. VI. thus given occasion for a lower class of compilers to ke the story with an infinity of mythical and calumnis details. According to the Norman account, both th version. Æthelings had a share in the attempt.2 As soon as the Invasion of death of Cnut was known in Normandy, Eadward saile! England by Eadward. across to Southampton with forty ships and landed. B the English, whether for love or for fear3 of their Danish

allowed to live (nimium visum est Anglis tot superesse); so they art decimated again; the Ætheling is blinded and sent to Ely, as before.

1 Bromton (X Scriptt. 934 et seqq.) gives a variety of versions, but decides in favour of one grounded on that of Henry of Huntingdon. He adds several particulars, especially that the English nobles were so enrage. against Godwine that they vowed that he should die a worse death that Eadric the betrayer of his cyne-hlaford (dominum suum naturalem Regem Eadmund. (It is a little remarkable that this expression is used with t any hint as to the supposed kindred between Godwine and Eadric.) 0: this Godwine flees to Denmark and remains there four years, his lands and goods being meanwhile confiscated. But Bromton's most remarkable version is one in which the death of Elfred, combined with a attempt to poison Eadward, is attributed to the joint action of Godwine, Harthacnut, and Emma herself. The same scandal turns up again in the Winchester Annals (Angl. Sacr. i. 292. Luard, Ann. Mon. ii. 22), as part of the legend of Emma and the ploughshares. So also in Bromton himself, X Scriptt. 942. But the Winchester Annalist had just before (Luard, ii. 17) given his own version. The tale is placed in the reign of Harthacnut. Godwine wishes to open the succession to his own son Harold. He entices Ælfred over-Duke Robert, notwithstanding his death and burial in the East, keeps Eadward back in Normandy-and causes one tenth of his companions to be beheaded, the rest to be tortured and crucified, and the Ætheling himself to be embowelled. Godwine's instructions to his agents are given in two very graphic speeches. I trust that so pleasant a writer as Richard of Devizes is not answerable for this stuff. See Luard, p. xi.

2 We find this version in William of Poitiers, the Conqueror's chaplain, the extant portion of whose narrative begins at this point. Duchesne, 178. Maseres, 37. He is followed by William of Jumièges, vii. 8, 9, and the Roman de Rou, 9761 et seqq.

3 Will. Pict. 37. "Heraldum Angli deserere nolebant, vel (quod est credibilius) non audebant, metuentes affore Danos ad protectionem sive citatam ultionem ejus." So Roman de Rou, 9783;

"Mais li Engleiz, ki bien saveient

Ke li frere venir debveient,

Nes' voudrent mie recoillir

Ne en la terre retenir.

Herout li fils Kenut dotoent,

U poet cel estre k'il l' amoent."

VERSION OF THE CHRONICLES.

545

King Harold—Harthacnut is not mentioned-met them CHAP. VI. s enemies. Eadward fought a battle and defeated the English with great slaughter. But, reflecting how great vas the strength of England and how small was the force which he had brought with him, he presently sailed away, taking with him great plunder. Nothing of all this is known either to the English Chroniclers or to the panegyrist of Queen Emma. Those versions of the Chronicles1 which Version in two of the tell the story at all speak of Ælfred only. It must not Chronicles. be forgotten that the entry in these Chronicles takes the form of a ballad. According to this account, Elfred came Ælfred's - to England, whence or under what circumstances we are ions slain not told, and wished to go to his mother at Winchester. [by Godwine]. In this purpose he was hindered by men who were powerful at the time, and who unjustly favoured Harold. In one version these men are nameless; in another Godwine is mentioned as their chief.3 Then the Etheling and his companions are seized; some are killed outright, some put in bonds, some sold as slaves, others blinded or put to various tortures and horrible deaths. No worse deed had

compan

1 The Peterborough Chronicle, that which William of Malmesbury had before him, is silent. The Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles insert the ballad.

2 Florence seems to follow the Chronicles, with touches from other sources. But he makes both brothers come, turning "Alfred se unsceððiga abeling" into "innocentes clitones Ælfredus et Eadwardus." They reach their mother at Winchester, whence Ælfred goes to a conference with Harold in London; Godwine stops him at Guildford, and the details follow as usual. As soon as Emma hears of the fate of Ælfred's comrades, she sends Eadward back to Normandy.

3 Chron. Wig. in anno. "Ac þæt ne gaþafodon þa þe micel weoldon on bisan lande; forban hit hleoprade þa swide to Harolde, peah hit unriht wære." Chron. Ab. "Ac hit him ne geþafode Godwine Eorl ne éc opre men be mycel mihton wealdan: forban hit hleo rode pa swide toward Haraldes, beh hit unriht wære." So Florence; "Quod indignè graviterque ferebant potentes nonnulli, quia, licet injustum esset, Haroldo multo devotiores exstitere quam illis, maximè, ut fertur, Comes Godwinus."

1 Some were scalped: "nonnullos cute capitis abstractâ cruciavit."

Nn