Hình ảnh trang
PDF
ePub

NOTE C, p. 105.

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.

NOTE D, p. 127.

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 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.

true one.

NOTE E, p. 150.

The ingenious author of the article Godwin, in the Biographia Britannica, has endeavoured 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.

NOTE F, p. 160.

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 favour; 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 produced 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 favour, 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 farther account of this piece of tapestry, see Histoire de l'Académie de Littérature, tom. ix. page 535.

NOTE G, p. 179.

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 Athelstan'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 Honour, 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.

NOTE H, p. 224.

There is a paper or record of the family of Sharneborne, which pretends that that family, which was Saxon, was restored upon proving their innocence, as well as other Saxon families which were in the same situation. Though this paper was able to impose on such great antiquaries as Spelman (see Gloss. in verbo Drenges) and Dugdale, (see Baron. vol. i. p. 118,) it is proved by Dr. Brady (see Answer to Petyt, p. 11, 12,) to have been a forgery; and is allowed as such by Tyrrel, though a pertinacious defender of his party notions, (see his history, vol. ii. introd. p. 51. 73.) Ingulf, p. 70, tells us, that very early Hereward, though absent during the time of the conquest, was turned out of all his estate, and could not obtain redress. William even plundered the monasteries. Flor. Wigorn. p. 636. Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo, p. 48. M. Paris, p. 5. Sim. Dun. p. 200. Diceto, p. 482. Brompton, p. 967. Knyghton, p. 2344. Alured. Beverl. p. 130. We are told by Ingulf, that Ivo de Taillebois plundered the monastery of Croyland of a great part of its land; and no redress could be obtained.

NOTE I, p. 224.

The obliging of all the inhabitants to put out their fires and lights at certain hours, upon the sounding of a bell, called the Courfeu, is represented by Polydore Virgil, lib. ix. as a mark of the servitude of the English. But this was a law of police, which William had previously established in Normandy. See du Moulin, Hist. de Normandie, p. 160. The same law had place in Scotland. LL. Burgor. cap. 86.

NOTE K, p. 230.

What these laws were of Edward the confessor, which the English, every reign during a century and a half, desire so passionately to have restored, is much disputed by antiquaries, and our ignorance of them seems one of the greatest defects in thè ancient English history. The collection of laws in Wilkins, which pass under the name of Edward, are plainly a posterior and an ignorant compilation. Those to be found in Ingulf are genuine; but so imperfect, and contain so few clauses favourable to the subject, that we see no great reason for their contending for them so vehemently. It is probable that the English meant

the common law, as it prevailed during the reign of Edward; which we may conjecture to have been more indulgent to liberty than the Norman institutions. The most material articles of it were afterwards comprehended in Magna Charta.

NOTE L, p. 251.

p.

206.

Ingulf, p. 70. H. Hunt. p. 370. 372. M. West. p. 225. Gul. Neub. p. 357. Alured. Beverl. p. 124. De Gest. Angl. p. 333. M. Paris, p. 4. Sim. Dun. p. 206. Brompton, p. 962. 980. 1161. Gervase Tilb. lib. i. cap. 16. Textus Roffensis apud Seld. Spicileg. ad Eadm. p. 197. Gul. Pict. Ordericus Vitalis, P. 521. 666. 853. Epist. St. Thom. p. 801. Gul. Malms. p. 52. 57. Knyghton, p. 2354. Eadmer, p. 110. Thom. Rudborne in Ang. Sacra, vol. i. p. 248. Monach. Roff. in Ang. Sacra, vol. ii. p. 276. Girald. Camb. in eadem, vol. ii. p. 413. Hist. Elyensis, p. 516. The words of this last historian, who is very ancient, are remarkable, and worth transcribing. Rex itaque factus Willielmus, quid in principes Anglorum, qui tantæ cladi superesse poterant, fecerit, dicere, cum nihil prosit, omitto. Quid enim prodesset, si nec unum in toto regno de illis dicerem pristina potestate uti permissum, sed omnes aut in gravem paupertatis ærumnam detrusos, aut exhæredatos, patria pulsos, aut effossis oculis, vel cæteris amputatis membris, opprobrium hominum factos, aut certe miserrime afflictos, vita privatos. Simili modo utilitate carere existimo dicere quid in minorem populum, non solum ab eo sed a suis actum sit, cum id dictu sciamus difficile, et ob immanem crudelitatem fortassis incredibile.

NOTE M, p. 302.

Henry, by the feudal customs, was entitled to levy a tax for the marrying of his eldest daughter, and he exacted three shillings a hide on all England. H. Hunting. p. 379. Some historians (Brady, p. 270, and Tyrrel, vol. ii. p. 182,) heedlessly make this sum amount to above eight hundred thousand pounds of our present money but it could not exceed one hundred and thirty-five thousand. Five hides, sometimes less, made a knight's fee, of which there were about sixty thousand in England, consequently near three hundred thousand hides; and at the rate of three shillings a hide, the sum would amount to forty-five thousand pounds, or one hundred and thirty-five thousand of our present money. See Rudborne, p. 257. In the Saxon times there were only computed two hundred and forty-three thousand six hundred hides in England.

NOTE N, p. 306.

The legates a latere, as they were called, were a kind of delegates, who possessed the full power of the pope in all the pro

vinces committed to their charge, and were very busy in extending, as well as exercising it. They nominated to all vacant benefices, assembled synods, and were anxious to maintain ecclesiastical privileges, which never could be fully protected without encroachments on the civil power. If there were the least concurrence or opposition, it was always supposed that the civil power was to give way: every deed, which had the least pretence of holding of any thing spiritual, as marriages, testaments, promissory oaths, were brought into the spiritual court, and could not be canvassed before a civil magistrate. These were the established laws of the church; and where a legate was sent immediately from Rome, he was sure to maintain the papal claims with the utmost rigour: but it was an advantage to the king to have the archbishop of Canterbury appointed legate, because the connexions of that prelate with the kingdom tended to moderate his

measures.

NOTE O, p. 336.

William of Newbridge, p. 383, (who is copied by later historians) asserts that Geoffrey had some title to the counties of Maine and Anjou. He pretends that count Geoffrey, his father, had left him these dominions by a secret will, and had ordered that his body should not be buried till Henry should swear to the observance of it, which he, ignorant of the contents, was induced to do. But besides that this story is not very likely in itself, and savours of monkish fiction, it is found in no other ancient writer, and is contradicted by some of them, particularly the monk of Marmoutier, who had better opportunities than Newbridge of knowing the truth. See Vita Gauf. Duc. Norman. p. 103.

NOTE P, p. 339.

The sum scarcely appears credible; as it would amount to much above half the rent of the whole land. Gervase is indeed a contemporary author; but churchmen are often guilty of strange mistakes of that nature, and are commonly but little acquainted with the public revenues. This sum would make five hundred and forty thousand pounds of our present money. The Norman Chronicle, p. 995, says, that Henry raised only sixty Angevin shillings on each knight's fee in his foreign dominions: this is only a fourth of the sum which Gervase says he levied on England: an inequality nowise probable. A nation may by degrees be brought to bear a tax of fifteen shillings in the pound; but a sudden and precarious tax can never be imposed to that amount without a very visible necessity, especially in an age so little accustomed to taxes. In the succeeding reign the rent of a knight's fee was computed at four pounds a year. There were sixty thousand knights' fees in England.

« TrướcTiếp tục »