Page 153 of 155

2 (return)
[ NOTE B, p. 90. There is a seeming contradiction in ancient historians with regard to some circumstances in the story of Edwy and Elgiva. It is agreed, that this prince had a violent passion for his second or third cousin, Elgiva, whom he married, though within the degrees prohibited by the canons. It is also agreed, that he was dragged from a lady on the day of his coronation, and that the lady was afterwards treated with the singular barbarity above mentioned. The only difference is, that Osborne and some others call her his strumpet, not his wife, as she is said to be by Malmsbury. But this difference is easily reconciled for if Edwy married her contrary to the canons, the monks would be sure to deny her to be his wife, and would insist that she could be nothing but his strumpet: so that, on the whole, we may esteem this representation of the matter as certain; at least, as by far the most probable. If Edwy had only kept a mistress, it is well known, that there are methods of accommodation with the church, which would have prevented the clergy from proceeding to such extremities against him: but his marriage, contrary to the canons, was an insult on their authority, and called for their highest resentment.]

3 (return)
[ NOTE C, p. 91. Many of the English historians make Edgar’s ships amount to an extravagant number, to three thousand or three thousand six hundred. See Hoveden, p. 426. Flor. Wigorn, p. 607. Abbas Rieval, p. 360. Brompton (p. 869) says that Edgar had four thousand vessels. How can these accounts be reconciled to probability, and to the state of the navy in the time of Alfred? W. Thorne makes the whole number amount only to three hundred, which is more probable. The fleet of Ethelred, Edgar’s son, must have been short of a thousand ships; yet the Saxon Chronicle (p. 137) says it was the greatest navy that ever had been seen in England.]

4 (return)
[ NOTE D, p. 109. Almost all the ancient historians speak of this massacre of the Danes as if it had been universal, and as if every individual of that nation throughout England had been put to death. But the Danes were almost the sole inhabitants in the kingdoms of Northumberland and East Anglia, and were very numerous in Mercia. This representation, therefore, of the matter is absolutely impossible. Great resistance must have been made, and violent wars ensued; which was not the case. This account given by Wallingford, though he stands single, must be admitted as the only true one. We are told that the name Lurdane, Lord Dane, for an idle, lazy fellow, who lives at other people’s expense, came from the conduct of the Danes who were put to death. But the English princes had been entirely masters for several generations, and only supported a military corps of that nation. It seems probable, therefore, that it was these Danes only that were put to death.]

5 (return)
[ NOTE E, p. 129. The ingenious author of the article Godwin, in the Biographia Britannica, has endeavored to clear the memory of that nobleman, upon the supposition that all the English annals had been falsified by the Norman historians after the conquest. But that this supposition has not much foundation appears hence, that almost all these historians have given a very good character of his son Harold, whom it was much more the interest of the Norman cause to blacken.]

6 (return)
[ Note F, p. 137. The whole story of the transactions between Edward, Harold, and the duke of Normandy, is told so differently by the ancient writers, that there are few important passages of the English history liable to so great uncertainty. I have followed the account which appeared to me the most consistent and probable. It does not seem likely that Edward ever executed a will in the duke’s favor; much less that he got it ratified by the states of the kingdom, as is affirmed by some. The will would have been known to all, and would have been pro-* *duced by the Conqueror, to whom it gave so plausible, and really so just, a title; but the doubtful and ambiguous manner in which he seems always to have mentioned it, proves that he could only plead the known intentions of that monarch in his favor, which he was desirous to call a will. There is indeed a charter of the Conqueror preserved by Dr. Hickes, (vol. i.) where he calls himself “rex hereditarius,” meaning heir by will; but a prince possessed of so much power, and attended with so much success, may employ what pretence he pleases; it is sufficient to refute his pretences to observe, that there is a great difference and variation among historians with regard to a point which, had it been real, must have been agreed upon by all of them.

Again, some historians, particularly Malmsbury and Matthew of Westminster, affirm that Harold had no intention of going over to Normandy, but that taking the air in a pleasure boat on the coast, he was driven over by stress of weather to the territories of Guy, count of Ponthieu: but besides that this story is not probable in itself, and is contradicted by most of the ancient historians, it is contradicted by a very curious and authentic monument lately discovered. It is a tapestry, preserved in the ducal palace of Rouen, and supposed to have been wrought by orders of Matilda, wife to the emperor; at least it is of very great antiquity. Harold is there represented as taking his departure from King Edward, in execution of some commission, and mounting his vessel with a great train. The design of redeeming his brother and nephew, who were hostages, is the most likely cause that can be assigned; and is accordingly mentioned by Eadmer, Hoveden, Brompton, and Simeon of Durham. For a further account of this piece of tapestry, see Histoire de l’Acadmie de Littrature, tom. ix. p. 535.]

7 (return)
[ NOTE G, p. 155. It appears from the ancient translations of the Saxon annals and laws, and from King Alfred’s translation of Bede, as well as from all the ancient historians, that comes in Latin, alderman in Saxon, and earl in Dano-Saxon, were quite synonymous. There is only a clause in a law of King Athetetan’s, (see Spel. Concil. p. 406,) which has stumbled some antiquaries, and has made them imagine that an earl was superior to an alderman. The weregild, or the price of an earl’s blood, is there fixed at fifteen thousand thrimsas, equal to that of an archbishop; whereas that of a bishop and alderman is only eight thousand thrimsas. To solve this difficulty, we must have recourse to Selden’s conjecture, (see his Titles of Honor, chap. v. p. 603, 604,) that the term of earl was in the age of Athelstan just beginning to be in use in England, and stood at that time for the atheling or prince of the blood, heir to the crown. This he confirms by a law of Canute, sect. 55, where an atheling and an archbishop are put upon the same footing. In another law of the same Athelstan, the weregild of the prince or atheling, is said to be fifteen thousand thrimsas. See Wilkins, p. 71 He is therefore the same who is called earl in the former law.]