PROBABLE CONDUCT OF GODWINE.

state of

557

met Elf

stances. It appears that the feeling which broke out CHAP. VI. openly in the next year was already beginning to show Probable itself; men, even in Wessex, were beginning to be weary the case. of the absent Harthacnut. Well they might; to wait so long for an absent King, who, still uncrowned, unsworn, unanointed, could not be looked on as fully King, was something altogether unparalleled. It was not wonderful if popular feeling was, as the Chronicles which notice the story tell us, veering round, however wrongfully, in favour of Harold. At such a moment, a son of Ethelred, either knowing the state of the Kingdom, or eager to try his chance in any case, lands in England. We of course dismiss the story which speaks of actual invasion. and warfare; that is probably a mere repetition of the attempted invasion by Duke Robert. But the Ætheling was Godwine probably in England; if Godwine was really anxious to preserve the settlement which gave Wessex to a son of Emma, it red. might well occur to him to inquire whether the game could not be better played with the present son of Ethelred than with the absent son of Cnut. He may have sought an interview with the Etheling; he may possibly even have pledged himself to his cause. But if a son of Æthelred was at large in England, the throne of Harold would be endangered as well as the throne of Harthacnut. Harold and his emissaries would be on the alert. The prince who had, perhaps before his election, seized on Emma's treasures at Winchester, would not, in such a case, be very scrupulous about respecting the frontiers of his brother's Kingdom. Perhaps, if he were superior Lord, he might have a real right to interfere in a matter which clearly touched the interests of the whole Empire. At any rate, if the Ætheling and his companions were known to be lodged in a West-Saxon town not very

"Forðan hit hleo rode þa swide toward Haraldes, þeh hit unriht

wære."

probably

seized by

Harold without Godwine's conniv

ance.

CHAP. VI. far from the borders of the Northern Kingdom, it is pe Ælfred fectly conceivable that they might be seized by the agents of Harold, against the will or without the knowledge of Godwine. Such a supposition seems to be quite o sistent with the details of the actual seizure given by the Encomiast, details about which he was more likely to be well informed than about the secret machinations of Harold. When the Ætheling was once seized and carried off, Godwine might well think that the game was up, that the star of Harold was fairly in the ascendant, and that neither interest nor duty called on him to plunge Wessex into a war with Northumberland and Mercia either to deliver Ælfred or to revenge his wrongs. Such conduct would not be that of a sentimental and impulsive hero; it would be that of a wary and hard-headed statesman. Such conduct would involve no real treachery, but it might easily give occasion to the suspicion of treachery. If Godwine received the Ætheling, and Harold's agents afterwards seized him, it would be an easy inference that Godwine betrayed him to Harold. As soon as the tale had once got afloat, mythical details would, as ever, gather round it. When Godwine was once believed to have betrayed Ælfred, it would be an obvious improvement on the story to make him a personal agent in the barbarities to which his supposed treason had given occasion. On the whole, while it is clear that the ordinary narrative, as it stands, cannot be received, the language of the Encomiast seems to point out to us the probable kernel of truth on which the fabulous details gradually fastened themselves.

Probable innocence of Godwine.

On the whole then I incline to the belief that the great Earl, every other recorded action of whose life is that of an English patriot, who on every other occasion appears as conciliatory and law-abiding, who is always as hostile to everything like wrong or violence as the rude age in which he lived would let him be, did not, on this one

PROBABILITY OF GODWINE'S INNOCENCE.

559

ccasion, act in a manner so contrary to his whole cha- CHAP. VI. acter as to resort to fraud or needless violence to compass he destruction of a man of English birth and royal descent. The innocence of Godwine seems to me to be most probable in itself, most consistent with the circumstances of the time, and not inconsistent with such parts of our evidence as seem most trustworthy. But in any case, even if, while rejecting palpable fables and contradictions, we take the evidence, so far as it is credible, at the worst, even then it seems to me that the great Earl is at least entitled to a verdict of Not Proven, if not of Not Guilty.1

The next year after the unfortunate attempt of Ælfred Disappointment was marked by the termination of the short-lived arrange- ofthe hopes ment which had been made between the two sons of Cnut. of the WestThe West-Saxons had apparently supported Harthacnut

1 Two charters ascribed to Eadward the Confessor, but of very doubtful genuineness, speak of the murder of Ælfred in a way which ought to be noticed. In the first (Cod. Dipl. iv. 173), Eadward is made to attribute the death of his brother to Harold and Harthacnut conjointly, and to speak of himself as being with difficulty rescued from them; "Invadentibus regnum Swegeno et Cnuto filio Regis, Regibus Danorum, ac filiis ipsius Chnuti Haroldo et Hardechnuto, à quibus etiam alter meus frater Ælfredus crudeliter occisus est, solusque, sicut Joas occisionem Odoliæ, sic ego illorum crudelitatem evasi." In the other (Cod. Dipl. iv. 181) the crime is attributed to the Danes generally; "Dani qui . . . fratrem meum alium Ælfredum miserabiliter interemptum enecaverunt." Now, even if these charters be spurious, they still have a certain value as witnessing to popular belief on the subject. Neither of them mentions Godwine-had they done so, Godwine's sons could hardly have been represented as signing them. But the mention of the fact in charters signed by them might imply that the subject was not one which they at all sought to avoid. The second charter is perfectly vague; but the language of the former, attributing the deed to Harold and Harthacnut, is remarkable. That Harthacnut personally had no hand in it needs no proof; neither was Eadward ever in the least danger at the hands of Harthacnut, who acted towards him as an attached brother. Is the charge against Harthacnut meant to convey an indirect charge against the representative of Harthacnut, that is, against Emma herself?

2 The year of Ælfred's death was the year of the marriage of his halfsister Gunhild. See above, p. 505.

Saxons.

CHAP. VI. as the representative of that policy of his father whe had raised Wessex, not only to the headship of England and of all Britain, but to the practical headship of Northern Europe. No hope on the part of any nation was ever more grievously disappointed. No contrast col be greater than the contrast between Wessex in the day of Cnut and Wessex in these two years of Harthaenut Degrading Wessex was no longer the chosen dominion, Winchester position of Wessex. was no longer the chosen capital, of an Emperor of the North, whose name was dreaded on the Baltic and rever enced on the Tiber. The old Imperial Kingdom had sunk to be, what she had never been before, a dependent province ruled by representatives of an absent sovereign. A King of the Danes, who did not think England worthy of his presence, held the West-Saxon Kingdom, seemingly as a vassal of the King of the Mercians and Northum brians, and entrusted it to the government of his Normar mother. It would doubtless be no excuse in English eyes that Denmark was now threatened by Magnus of Norway, and that Harthacnut's first duty was to provide for its defence. To the West-Saxon people it would simply seem that they had chosen a King whom no entreaties on the part of his English subjects could persuade to come and take personal possession of his English Kingdom. Being absent, he must have remained uncrowned, and his lack of the consecrating rite would alone, in the ideas of those times, be enough to make his government altogether uncertain and provisional. Even the influence of Godwine could not prolong-most likely it was not exerted to prolong a state of things so essentially offensive to all patriotic feeling. It was felt that to accept the rule of Harold would be a far less evil than to retain a nominal independence which was practically a degrading bondage. Popular feeling therefore set strongly in favour of union

1 See Snorre, Saga viii. c. 6, 7 (Laing, ii. 364). Adam Brem. ii. 74.

HAROLD KING OVER ALL ENGLAND.

561

cnut de

posed in Wessex,

and Harold

King over

land.

1037.

ith Mercia and Northumberland, even under the CHAP. VI. oubtful son of Elfgifu of Northampton. "Man chose HarthaHarold over all to King, and forsook Harthacnut, because e was too long in Denmark." That is, I conceive, the Witan of Wessex, in discharge of their undoubted con- chosen titutional right,' deposed their King Harthacnut, and all Englected the King of the Mercians and Northumbrians as heir immediate sovereign, the election being apparently confirmed by a vote of the Witan of all England. Harold was thus called by the universal voice of the nation to be King over the whole realm. The southern Kingdom, just as at the final election of his father,3 was reunited to the northern. England again became one Kingdom under one King, an union which since that day has never been broken.1

ment of

The reign of the new King of the English was short and troubled. His first act was the banishment of Queen BanishEmma, who was sent out of the land at the beginning of Emma. winter. She did not return to Normandy, as that country 1937.

1 So the Abingdon and Worcester Chronicles, those which do not distinctly mention the division; " Her man geceas Harold ofer eall to kyninge; and forsoc Hardacnut, forbam he was to lange on Denmarcon." So Florence; "Haroldus Rex Merciorum et Northhymbrorum, ut per totam reg naret Angliam, a principibus et omni populo, Rex eligitur. Heardecanutus vero, quia in Denemarciâ moras innexuit, et ad Angliam, ut rogabatur, venire distulit, penitus abjicitur."

2 See above, p. 113.

3 See above, p. 445.

The momentary reign of the younger Eadgar at York in 1068 can hardly be called a real exception.

5 All the Chronicles mention the banishment or Cl driving out" of Ælfgifu-Emma. The expression is the same as that which is used in the years 963 and 964 for the expulsion of secular priests from several churches, and in 1045 for the banishment of Gunhild. One would like to know in what this driving out differed from regular outlawry. Possibly the driving out involved an actual personal removal, while the banishment involved in a sentence of outlawry was only constructive, like the Roman aquæ et ignis interdictio. Godwine, on his outlawry, was allowed five days to leave the country (Peterborough Chronicle, 1051). The tone of the Worcester