THE DEATH OF WILLIAM LONGSWORD.

631

or of the Duke of the French (promittens se ex parte Regis Francorum seu Hugonis Magni, qui fuerat filius Roberti Regis, quem Otto Dux Saxonum, postea verò Imperator Romanorum, Suessionis interfecit); that is to say, Rudolf already failed to realize that there had been a time when the King of the French was quite a different person from the Lord of Paris and the Seine. The story of the murder then follows much as before, with the Seine for the Somme and Theobald for Arnulf; only Theobald kills William with his own hand.

In the Tours Chronicle (Duchesne, Rer. Franc. iii. 36), we find another version. "Guillelmus filius Rollonis Ducis Normanniæ à Balzone Curto in medio Sequanæ occisus est, propter mortem Riulfi et filii sui Anchetilli." Now we had Balzo in Dudo's account as the name of one of William's murderers, but we had no account of the man or of his motives. He here appears as the avenger of Riulf, doubtless the Riulf who headed the revolt against William in 932 (see p. 214). We then however heard nothing of Riulf's death, the statement of Dudo (94) being that “Riulfus fugiendo evanuit." But who is Anchetillus, Anquetil, Anscytel, a palpable Dane like our own Thurcytels and Ulfcytels? And why should Balzo avenge either Ancytel or Riulf? Here comes in the story of William of Malmesbury, which he first tells (ii. 145) as if he fully believed it, and then adds, as more trustworthy (veraciores literæ dicunt), an abridgement of Dudo's story. Anscytel (Oscytel) is the son of Riulf, a Norman chief who had somehow incurred William Longsword's displeasure, and who greatly troubled him with his revolts. But Anscytel is the faithful soldier of Duke William, and he carries his loyalty so far as to take his father prisoner and to hand him over to the Duke. He does however exact a promise that Riulf shall suffer no punishment worse than bonds. But, not long after, Anscytel is sent by Duke William to Pavia with a letter for a potentate described as the Duke of Italy, asking that the bearer may be put to death (Comes Anschetillum in Papiam dirigit, epistolam de suâ ipsius nece ad Ducem Italiæ portantem). This, I need hardly say, is a story as old as Bellerophontês (Il. vi. 168) and as modern as Godwine (see p. 467). The Duke of Italy of course abhors the crime, and, equally of course, is in dread of the power of his brother of Normandy. A thousand horse

men are sent to attack Anscytel and his companions as soon as they are out of the city. Anscytel, like the Homeric Tydeus, was small in stature but valiant in war (vir exigui corporis sed immanis fortitudinis - μικρός την δέμας, ἀλλὰ μαχητής: Π. v. 8ο1), whence his surname Curtus. But, less successful than Tydeus (Il. iv. 387, v. 803 et seqq.) or Bellerophontês (II. vi. 188), Anscytel and his comrades indeed slay all their enemies, but they are also all slain themselves, except Balzo. This sole sur vivor, unlike Othryadês (Herod. i. 82), does not kill himself, but at once accuses his immediate Lord Duke William in the court of his over-lord the King of the French. Besides the treachery practised against Anscytel, Riulf too, contrary to Duke William's promise, had been blinded in prison. The Duke of the Normans is summoned by his suzerain to answer for the crime, and, somewhat strangely, the court of the Carolingian King of Laon is held at Paris. Thither Duke William humbly comes, and there he is, like Uhtred (see p. 416) and Eadwulf (see p. 588), killed by Balzo under the pretext of a conference.

I need hardly say that this tale, as it stands, is a thorough romance; but it is an instructive romance, because it is so easy to recognize its component mythical elements. Still, like most other such stories, it most likely contains its kernel of truth. Balzo was probably one of the Côtentin revolters under Riulf, who took an opportunity to revenge his chieftain's defeat. More than this it would be dangerous to infer. So the story in Rudolf Glaber may possibly justify us in adding Theobald of Chartres to the list of conspirators against William, and the same story falls in with the charge against Hugh brought by Richer. But there is no sort of need to breathe the least suspicion against King Lewis; William was just then his firm friend, and any mention of the King of the French as connected with the business seems to be owing only to the fact that the later writers had forgotten what were the true relations between Laôn and Paris in the days of William Longsword.

THE RELATIONS OF ETHELRED WITH NORMANDY. 633

NOTE E. pp. 313, 330.

THE RELATIONS OF THELRED WITH NORMANDY.

THE English Chronicles, and also Florence, are silent as to any intercourse, whether friendly or hostile, between England and Normandy, earlier than the marriage of Ethelred and Emma. The one passage which has been sometimes thought to refer to one of the events recorded in the text cannot possibly have that meaning. The entry in the Chronicles in the year 1000, " And se unfrið flota was das sumeres gewend to Ricardes rice," can refer only to the Danish fleet. "Unfrið flota" must be taken in the same sense as "unfrið here" in the year 1009. And so it is taken by Florence. "Danorum classis præfata hoc anno Nortmanniam petit." We are thus left wholly to the testimony of inferior authorities, and we must get such an amount of truth out of them as we can.

I have, in my text, after some hesitation, described two disputes between Ethelred and the Norman Dukes; the first with Richard the Fearless in 991, appeased by the intervention of Pope John the Fifteenth, the second with Richard the Good in 1000, which led to open hostilities described as an English invasion of the Côtentin. The stories rest respectively on the authority of William of Malmesbury (ii. 165, 6), and of William of Jumièges (v. 4). It is open to any one to reject both stories. It is still more open to any one to reject the second story, the exaggerated character of which is manifest, and the chronology of which must be a year or two wrong. But I do not think that it is safe to take them, with Sir Francis Palgrave (England and Normandy, iii. 103), and Dr. Lappenberg (p. 441 of the original, ii. 141 Thorpe), as different versions of one event, still less to fix, with Sir Francis, that event to the later date of the two.

William of Malmesbury tells us very little in his own name. He says only that Richard the Fearless had provoked Æthelred in various ways (vir eximius, qui etiam Edelredum sæpe injuriis pulsaverit), and that Pope John, wishing to hinder war among Christians (non passa sedes apostolica duos Christianos

digladiari), sent Leo Bishop of Trier into England to mas peace. A document then follows described as the "legati ti epistola" of this Prelate, containing an account of his missin and giving the terms of the peace between Ethelred and Richard and the names of the plenipotentiaries on both sides. The document is very strange in point of form, as it begins in the name of the Pope, while the latter part clearly gives the actu words of the treaty. Sir Francis Palgrave (iii. 106) objects to the genuineness of the letter that its style is unusual, if not unparalleled, which it certainly is. It runs thus; "Johannes quintus decimus, sanctæ Romanæ ecclesiæ Papa, omnibus fidelibus." Sir Francis does not mention another objection, namely that, neither in 991 nor in 1001 was the Archbishop of Trier named Leo. The reigning Archbishop in 991 was Eckebert; be fore 1000 he had been succeeded by Ludolf. (Gesta Treverorum. ap. Pertz, viii. 169-171.) But Sir Francis adds, “While we reject the convention in the shape now presented, we accept its import. the quarrel and the reconciliation are unquestionable verities.” But the quarrel and reconciliation recorded by William of Malmesbury are a quarrel and reconciliation between Æthelred and Richard the Fearless in a definite year 991. They cannot be turned into a quarrel and reconciliation between Æthelred and Richard the Good nine years later. The apparently wrong name of the Papal legate is a difficulty either way, but it is not a very formidable one. Dr. Lappenberg (p. 442 of the original German) calls Leo " Vice-bischof von Trier," which Mr. Thorpe (ii. 154) translates simply "Bishop." Dr. Lappenberg gives no reference for his description of Leo; but a fact in German history may be safely accepted on his authority, and the local history of Trier which I have just referred to contains a statement which curiously fits in with our story. Archbishop Eckebert (977993), son of Theodoric, Count of Holland, was the son of an English mother, and he kept up a close connexion with England. It is therefore quite natural that either he or an officer of his church should enter with zeal into a scheme for the advantage of a country which Eckebert seems almost to have looked on as his own. The other names are accurately given. John the Fifteenth was Pope, and Æthelsige was Bishop of Sherborne, in 991. Both were dead in 1000. I think it follows that the

THE RELATIONS OF ETHELRED WITH NORMANDY.

635

account in William of Malmesbury cannot possibly refer to a transaction with Richard the Good in 1000. The story is definitely fixed to the year 991.

Is then William of Malmesbury's account ground enough for accepting a quarrel between Ethelred and Richard the Fearless, and a reconciliation brought about by Pope John Fifteenth? On the whole, I think it is. The transaction would be a very strange one to invent, if nothing of the sort happened at all, and it is hard to see to what other transaction the account can refer. The story also, as it seems to me, fits in well with the circumstances of the times. The "legationis epistola" can hardly be genuine in its actual shape as a letter of the Pope's, but it seems to be made out of two genuine documents, a letter of Pope John and the text of the treaty. The unusual style might be simply the bungling attempt of a compiler to show which of all the Popes named John was meant. The treaty itself bears every sign of genuineness, and the names of the English plenipotentiaries-I cannot profess to verify those on the Norman sideare distinctly in its favour. A mere forger would not have inserted such names as those of Leofstan and Ethelnoth. would either have put in names quite at a venture, or else have picked out the names of some famous Ealdormen of the time. There could be no temptation for a forger to pitch on Leofstan and Æthelnoth, real contemporary men, but men of no special celebrity.

He

The reader has still to determine whether, accepting this account of Æthelred's quarrel with the elder Richard, he will go on to admit a second quarrel with the younger Richard. The only question is whether the story in William of Jumièges is pure invention, or whether its manifestly exaggerated details contain some such kernel of truth as I have supposed in the text. It certainly seems to me that to set the whole down as a mere lie is attributing too much even to the Norman power of lying, which I certainly have no wish to underrate. The story, in its general outline, seems to fit in well with the position of things at the time, and even with the character of Ethelred. But, if we accept it as thus far true, we must suppose that William of Jumièges transposed the invasion of the Côtentin and the marriage of Emma. He places the latter event first. Now the