This is a modern-English version of The History of England in Three Volumes, Vol. I., Part A.: From the Britons of Early Times to King John, originally written by Hume, David. It has been thoroughly updated, including changes to sentence structure, words, spelling, and grammar—to ensure clarity for contemporary readers, while preserving the original spirit and nuance. If you click on a paragraph, you will see the original text that we modified, and you can toggle between the two versions.

Scroll to the bottom of this page and you will find a free ePUB download link for this book.










spines (154K)









cover (124K)









cover_egraving_th (140K)





THE HISTORY OF ENGLAND

Volume One of Three

FROM THE INVASION OF JULIUS CÆSAR

TO THE END OF THE REIGN OF JAMES THE SECOND,

BY DAVID HUME, ESQ.

1688





London: James S. Virtue, City Road and Ivy Lane
New York: 26 John Street
1860

And

Philadelphia:
J. B. Lippincott & Co.
March 17, 1901





In Three Volumes:

VOLUME ONE: The History Of England From The Invasion Of Julius Cæsar To
The End Of The Reign Of James The Second............ By David Hume, Esq.

VOLUME TWO: Continued from the Reign of William and Mary to the Death of
George II........................................... by Tobias Smollett.

VOLUME THREE: From the Accession of George III. to the Twenty-Third Year
of the Reign of Queen Victoria............... by E. Farr and E.H. Nolan.

VOLUME ONE: The History of England From the Invasion of Julius Caesar to
The End of the Reign of James the Second............ By David Hume, Esq.

VOLUME TWO: Continued from the Reign of William and Mary to the Death of
George II........................................... by Tobias Smollett.

VOLUME THREE: From the Accession of George III. to the Twenty-Third Year
of the Reign of Queen Victoria............... by E. Farr and E.H. Nolan.

frontispiece_th (87K)





VOLUME ONE

Part A.





From Early Times to King John

TO WHICH IS PREFIXED A SHORT ACCOUNT OF HIS LIFE. WRITTEN BY HIMSELF.

TO WHICH IS PREFIXED A SHORT ACCOUNT OF HIS LIFE. WRITTEN BY HIMSELF.

Frontispiece.jpg  Portrait of Hume.
Titlepage.jpg Boadicea Haranguing the Britons
titlepage_v1 (125K)



[A click on any of the following images will enlarge them to full size.]



[Clicking on any of the following images will enlarge them to full size.]















THE LIFE OF DAVID HUME, ESQ.

WRITTEN BY HIMSELF.

MY OWN LIFE.

MY LIFE.

It is difficult for a man to speak long of himself without vanity; therefore I shall be short. It may be thought an instance of vanity that I pretend at all to write my life; but this narrative shall contain little more than the history of my writings; as, indeed, almost all my life has been spent in literary pursuits and occupations. The first success of most of my writings was not such as to be an object of vanity.

It’s hard for a person to talk about themselves for long without sounding vain; so I’ll keep it brief. Some might see it as a form of vanity that I even attempt to write about my life, but this account will mostly focus on my work; in fact, most of my life has been dedicated to literary activities. The early success of many of my writings wasn’t something to be proud of.

I was born the twenty-sixth of April, 1711, old style, at Edinburgh. I was of a good family, both by father and mother: my father’s family is a branch of the earl of Home’s, or Hume’s; and my ancestors had been proprietors of the estate which my brother possesses, for several generations. My mother was daughter of Sir David Falconer, president of the college of justice; the title of Lord Halkerton came by succession to her brother.

I was born on April 26, 1711, according to the old calendar, in Edinburgh. I came from a good family on both sides: my father's side is a branch of the Earl of Home’s or Hume’s family, and my ancestors had owned the estate that my brother now possesses for several generations. My mother was the daughter of Sir David Falconer, who was the president of the College of Justice; her brother inherited the title of Lord Halkerton.

My family, however, was not rich; and being myself a younger brother, my patrimony, according to the mode of my country, was of course very slender. My father, who passed for a man of parts, died when I was an infant, leaving me, with an elder brother and a sister, under the care of our mother, a woman of singular merit, who, though young and handsome, devoted herself entirely to the rearing and educating of her children. I passed through the ordinary course of education with success, and was seized very early with a passion for literature, which has been the ruling passion of my life, and the great source of my enjoyments. My studious disposition, my sobriety, and my industry, gave my family a notion that the law was a proper profession for me; but I found an insurmountable aversion to every thing but the pursuits of philosophy and general learning; and while they fancied I was poring upon Voet and Vinnius, Cicero and Virgil were the authors which I was secretly devouring.

My family, however, wasn’t wealthy; and as the youngest brother, my inheritance, according to the customs of my country, was quite limited. My father, who was thought to be a capable man, died when I was a baby, leaving me, along with an older brother and a sister, in the care of our mother, a remarkable woman who, despite being young and beautiful, dedicated herself completely to raising and educating her children. I went through the usual education system successfully and developed a strong passion for literature at a young age, which has been the driving passion of my life and the main source of my happiness. My dedication to studying, my seriousness, and my hard work led my family to think that pursuing a career in law would be suitable for me; however, I had a strong dislike for anything other than the study of philosophy and general knowledge. While they believed I was engrossed in Voet and Vinnius, it was Cicero and Virgil that I was secretly immersing myself in.

My very slender fortune, however, being unsuitable to this plan of life, and my health being a little broken by my ardent application, I was tempted, or rather forced, to make a very feeble trial for entering into a more active scene of life. In 1734, I went to Bristol, with some recommendations to several eminent merchants; but in a few months found that scene totally unsuitable to me. I went over to France, with a view of prosecuting my studies in a country retreat; and I there laid that plan of life which I have steadily and successfully pursued. I resolved to make a very rigid frugality supply my deficiency of fortune, to maintain unimpaired my independency, and to regard every object as contemptible, except the improvement of my talents in literature.

My rather limited finances, however, were not suited to this lifestyle, and my health was somewhat weakened by my intense effort, which led me, or rather forced me, to make a weak attempt at entering into a more active life. In 1734, I went to Bristol with some recommendations to several prominent merchants, but within a few months, I realized that environment was completely wrong for me. I then traveled to France, intending to continue my studies in a peaceful setting, where I developed the plan for my life that I have consistently and successfully followed. I decided that strict budgeting would compensate for my lack of funds, help me maintain my independence, and allow me to see everything else as unimportant except for improving my skills in literature.

During my retreat in France, first at Rheims, but chiefly at La Fleche, in Anjou, I composed my Treatise of Human Nature. After passing three years very agreeably in that country, I came over to London in 1737. In the end of 1738, I published my Treatise, and immediately went down to my mother and my brother, who lived at his country house, and was employing himself very judiciously and successfully in the improvement of his fortune.

During my time away in France, first in Rheims and mainly in La Fleche, Anjou, I wrote my Treatise on Human Nature. After spending three enjoyable years in that country, I returned to London in 1737. At the end of 1738, I published my Treatise and then went to visit my mother and my brother, who was at his country house and was wisely and successfully working on improving his financial situation.

Never literary attempt was more unfortunate than my Treatise of Human Nature. It fell dead-born from the press, without reaching such distinction as even to excite a murmur among the zealots. But being naturally of a cheerful and sanguine temper, I very soon recovered the blow, and prosecuted with great ardor my studies in the country. In 1742, I printed at Edinburgh the first part of my Essays. The work was favorably received, and soon made me entirely forget my former disappointment. I continued with my mother and brother in the country, and in that time recovered the knowledge of the Greek language, which I had too much neglected in my early youth.

No literary attempt was more unfortunate than my Treatise of Human Nature. It was a total flop right from the start, failing to make even a ripple among the enthusiasts. However, being naturally cheerful and optimistic, I quickly bounced back and immersed myself with great enthusiasm in my studies in the countryside. In 1742, I published the first part of my Essays in Edinburgh. The work received a positive response, and soon made me completely forget my earlier disappointment. I spent time in the country with my mother and brother, during which I regained my knowledge of the Greek language, which I had neglected too much in my early years.

In 1745, I received a letter from the marquis of Annandale, inviting me to come and live with him in England; I found also that the friends and family of that young nobleman were desirous of putting him under my care and direction, for the state of his mind and health required it. I lived with him a twelve-month. My appointments during that time made a considerable accession to my small fortune. I then received an invitation from General St. Clair to attend him as a secretary to his expedition, which was at first meant against Canada, but ended in an incursion on the coast of France. Next year, to wit, 1747, I received an invitation from the general to attend him in the same station in his military embassy to the courts of Vienna and Turin. I then wore the uniform of an officer, and was introduced at these courts as aid-de-camp to the general, along with Sir Harry Erskine and Captain Grant, now General Grant. These two years were almost the only interruptions which my studies have received during the course of my life: I passed them agreeably, and in good company; and my appointments, with my frugality, had made me reach a fortune which I called independent, though most of my friends were inclined to smile when I said so: in short, I was now master of near a thousand pounds.

In 1745, I got a letter from the Marquis of Annandale, inviting me to come live with him in England. I also found out that the friends and family of that young nobleman wanted to place him under my care and guidance since his mental and physical health needed it. I lived with him for a year. My earnings during that time significantly increased my small fortune. Afterward, I received an invitation from General St. Clair to be his secretary for an expedition that was initially planned for Canada but ended up as a raid on the coast of France. The following year, in 1747, the general invited me again to serve in the same role for his military mission to the courts of Vienna and Turin. At that time, I wore an officer's uniform and was introduced at these courts as an aide-de-camp to the general, alongside Sir Harry Erskine and Captain Grant, who is now General Grant. These two years were the only real breaks my studies had during my life: I enjoyed them pleasantly and in good company, and my earnings, along with my savings, allowed me to reach a fortune that I considered independent, even though most of my friends tended to chuckle when I said that. In short, I was now in possession of nearly a thousand pounds.

I had always entertained a notion, that my want of success in publishing the Treatise of Human Nature had proceeded more from the manner than the matter, and that I had been guilty of a very usual indiscretion, in going to the press too early. I, therefore, cast the first part of that work anew in the Inquiry concerning Human Understanding, which was published while I was at Turin. But this piece was at first little more successful than the Treatise on Human Nature. On my return from Italy, I had the mortification to find all England in a ferment, on account of Dr. Middleton’s Free Inquiry, while my performance was entirely overlooked and neglected, A new edition, which had been published at London, of my Essays, moral and political, met not with a much better reception.

I had always thought that my lack of success in publishing the Treatise of Human Nature was more about how I presented it than the content itself, and that I had made a common mistake by rushing to publish too soon. So, I rewrote the first part of that work in the Inquiry concerning Human Understanding, which came out while I was in Turin. However, this piece was initially only slightly more successful than the Treatise on Human Nature. When I got back from Italy, I was disappointed to find all of England buzzing about Dr. Middleton’s Free Inquiry, while my work was completely ignored. A new edition of my Essays, moral and political, which had been released in London, received a similarly poor reception.

Such is the force of natural temper, that these disappointments made little or no impression on me. I went down, in 1749, and lived two years with my brother at his country house, for my mother was now dead. I there composed the second part of my Essay, which I called Political Discourses, and also my Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals, which is another part of my Treatise that I cast anew. Meanwhile, my bookseller, A. Millar, informed me, that my former publications (all but the unfortunate Treatise) were beginning to be the subject of conversation; that the sale of them was gradually increasing, and that new editions were demanded. Answers by reverends and right reverends came out two or three in a year; and I found, by Dr. Warburton’s railing, that the books were beginning to be esteemed in good company. However, I had fixed a resolution, which I inflexibly maintained, never to reply to any body; and not being very irascible in my temper, I have easily kept myself clear of all literary squabbles. These symptoms of a rising reputation gave me encouragement, as I was ever more disposed to see the favorable than unfavorable side of things; a turn of mind which it is more happy to possess, than to be born to an estate of ten thousand a year.

The strength of my natural temperament was such that these disappointments had little to no impact on me. In 1749, I moved to the countryside to live with my brother for two years since my mother had passed away. There, I wrote the second part of my Essay, which I titled Political Discourses, and I also reworked another section of my Treatise called Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals. Meanwhile, my bookseller, A. Millar, told me that my earlier works (all except the unfortunate Treatise) were starting to gain attention; their sales were slowly increasing, and new editions were being requested. Responses from various clergymen were coming out two or three times a year, and I noticed through Dr. Warburton's criticisms that the books were beginning to be recognized by respectable people. Nevertheless, I had made a firm decision to never respond to anyone, and since I'm not very hot-tempered, I've easily stayed out of literary disputes. These signs of growing popularity encouraged me, as I was always more inclined to focus on the positive rather than the negative aspects of things—a mindset that is far more fortunate than simply inheriting an estate of ten thousand a year.

In 1751, I removed from the country to the town, the true scene for a man of letters. In 1752 were published at Edinburgh, where I then lived, my Political Discourses, the only work of mine that was successful on the first publication. It was well received at home and abroad. In the same year was published, at London, my Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals; which, in my own opinion, (who ought not to judge on that subject,) is, of all my writings, historical, philosophical, or literary, incomparably the best, It came unnoticed and unobserved into the world.

In 1751, I moved from the countryside to the city, the true environment for a writer. In 1752, my Political Discourses were published in Edinburgh, where I was living at the time. It was the only work of mine that was successful right from its first publication. It received a positive response both at home and abroad. The same year, my Inquiry concerning the Principles of Morals was published in London, which, in my opinion (though I shouldn’t be the one to judge that), is by far the best of all my writings—historical, philosophical, or literary. It came into the world without much notice or recognition.

In 1752, the Faculty of Advocates chose me their librarian, an office from which I received little or no emolument, but which gave me the command of a large library, I then formed the plan of writing the History of England; but being frightened with the notion of continuing a narrative through a period of seventeen hundred years, I commenced with the accession of the house of Stuart, an epoch when, I thought, the misrepresentations of faction began chiefly to take place. I was, I own, sanguine in my expectations of the success of this work. I thought that I was the only historian that had at once neglected present power, interest, and authority, and the cry of popular prejudices; and as the subject was suited to every capacity, I expected proportional applause. But miserable was my disappointment; I was assailed by one cry of reproach, disapprobation, and even detestation; English, Scotch, and Irish, whig and tory, churchman and sectary, freethinker and religionist, patriot and courtier, united in their rage against the man who had presumed to shed a generous tear for the fate of Charles I. and the earl of Stratford; and after the first ebullitions of their fury were over, what was still more mortifying, the book seemed to sink into oblivion. Mr. Millar told me that in a twelvemonth he sold only forty-five copies of it. I scarcely, indeed head of one man in the three kingdoms, considerable for rank or letters, that could endure the book. I must only except the primate of England, Dr. Herring, and the primate of Ireland, Dr. Stone, which seem two odd exceptions. These dignified prelates separately sent me messages not to be discouraged.

In 1752, the Faculty of Advocates appointed me as their librarian, a position from which I earned little to no payment, but it gave me access to a large library. I then decided to write the History of England; however, I was intimidated by the idea of covering a narrative spanning seventeen hundred years, so I started with the rise of the Stuart dynasty, a time when I believed the distortions of political factions began to emerge. I admit I was hopeful about the success of this work. I thought I was the only historian who had recognized the need to set aside current power, interests, and biases, as well as the noise of popular opinions; and since the topic was suitable for all readers, I expected to receive appropriate praise. But my disappointment was severe; I was met with a chorus of criticism, disapproval, and even hatred; English, Scottish, and Irish people, as well as Whigs and Tories, churchgoers and dissenters, free thinkers and devout believers, patriots and courtiers, all united in their anger against the person who dared to express sympathy for the fate of Charles I and the Earl of Strafford. After the initial outbursts of their fury subsided, what was even more humiliating was that the book seemed to fade into obscurity. Mr. Millar informed me that he sold only forty-five copies in a year. I barely heard of anyone in the three kingdoms, notable for their position or intellect, who could tolerate the book. The only exceptions were the primate of England, Dr. Herring, and the primate of Ireland, Dr. Stone, which seemed like strange exceptions. These respected church leaders separately sent me messages encouraging me not to be disheartened.

I was, however, I confess, discouraged; and had not the war been at that time breaking out between France and England, I had certainly retired to some provincial town of the former kingdom, have changed my name, and never more have returned to my native country. But as this scheme was not now practicable, and the subsequent volume was considerably advanced, I resolved to pick up courage and to persevere.

I was, honestly, feeling discouraged; and if the war between France and England hadn't been starting at that time, I would have definitely moved to a small town in France, changed my name, and never returned to my homeland. But since that plan wasn’t possible now, and I had already made significant progress on the next book, I decided to gather my courage and keep going.

In this interval, I published, at London, my Natural History of Religion, along with some other small pieces. Its public entry was rather obscure, except only that Dr. Hurd wrote a pamphlet against it, with all the illiberal petulance, arrogance, and scurrility, which distinguish the Warburtonian school. This pamphlet gave me some consolation for the otherwise indifferent reception of my performance.

In that time, I published my Natural History of Religion in London, along with a few other small works. Its initial release was quite low-key, except that Dr. Hurd wrote a pamphlet criticizing it, filled with the same narrow-mindedness, arrogance, and insults typical of the Warburtonian school. This pamphlet provided me some comfort for the otherwise lukewarm reception of my work.

In 1756, two years after the fall of the first volume, was published the second volume of my history, containing the period from the death of Charles I. till the revolution. This performance happened to give less displeasure to the whigs, and was better received. It not only rose itself, but helped to buoy up its unfortunate brother.

In 1756, two years after the release of the first volume, the second volume of my history was published, covering the time from the death of Charles I to the revolution. This work managed to annoy the Whigs less and received a better reception. It not only stood on its own but also helped support its unfortunate counterpart.

But though I had been taught by experience that the whig party were in possession of bestowing all places, both in the state and in Literature, I was so little inclined to yield to their senseless clamor, that in above a hundred alterations, which further study, reading, or reflection engaged me to make in the reigns of the two first Stuarts, I have made all of them invariably to the tory side. It is ridiculous to consider the English constitution before that period as a regular plan of liberty.

But even though experience had taught me that the Whig party had control over all positions, both in government and in literature, I was so unwilling to give in to their meaningless noise that in over a hundred changes, which further study, reading, or reflection prompted me to make regarding the reigns of the first two Stuarts, I consistently aligned with the Tory side. It's absurd to think of the English constitution before that time as a proper framework for liberty.

In 1759, I published my history of the house of Tudor. The clamor against this performance was almost equal to that against the history of the two first Stuarts. The reign of Elizabeth was particularly obnoxious. But I was now callous against the impressions of public folly, and continued very peaceably and contentedly, in my retreat at Edinburgh, to finish, in two volumes, the more early part of the English history, which I gave to the public in 1761, with tolerable, and but tolerable, success.

In 1759, I published my history of the Tudor family. The backlash against this work was almost as strong as that against the history of the first two Stuarts. The reign of Elizabeth was especially controversial. However, I was now indifferent to the opinions of the public and continued peacefully and happily, in my retreat in Edinburgh, to finish, in two volumes, the earlier part of English history, which I released to the public in 1761, with mediocre, and only mediocre, success.

But, notwithstanding this variety of winds and seasons, to which my writings had been exposed, they had still been making such advances, that the copy-money given me by the booksellers much exceeded any thing formerly known in England; I was become not only independent, but opulent. I retired to my native country of Scotland, determined never more to set my foot out of it; and retaining the satisfaction of never having preferred a request to one great man, or even making advances of friendship to any of them. As I was now turned of fifty, I thought of passing all the rest of my life in this philosophical manner: when I received, in 1763, an invitation from the earl of Hertford, with whom I was not in the least acquainted, to attend him on his embassy to Paris, with a near prospect of being appointed secretary to the embassy; and, in the mean while, of performing the functions of that office. This offer, however inviting, I at first declined; both because I was reluctant to begin connections with the great, and because I was afraid that the civilities and gay company of Paris would prove disagreeable to a person of my age and humor; but on his lordship’s repeating the invitation, I accepted of it. I have every reason, both of pleasure and interest; to think myself happy in my connections with that nobleman, as well as afterwards with his brother, General Conway.

But despite the different winds and seasons my writings faced, they had still made such progress that the money I received from the booksellers was far greater than anything seen in England before; I had become not only independent but wealthy. I returned to my home country of Scotland, determined never to leave again, and took satisfaction in the fact that I had never asked a powerful person for anything or tried to befriend any of them. Now that I was over fifty, I planned to spend the rest of my life in this thoughtful way. However, in 1763, I received an invitation from the Earl of Hertford, someone I didn't know at all, to join him on his embassy to Paris, with a good chance of being appointed secretary to the embassy; in the meantime, I would perform the duties of that role. Although this offer was tempting, I initially declined it because I was hesitant to start relationships with powerful people and worried that the social life and lively atmosphere of Paris would not suit someone of my age and disposition. But after the earl extended the invitation again, I accepted it. I have every reason, both in terms of enjoyment and benefit, to consider myself fortunate in my connections with that nobleman, as well as later with his brother, General Conway.

Those who have not seen the strange effects of modes, will never imagine the reception I met with at Paris, from men and women of all ranks and stations. The more I resiled from their excessive civilities, the more I was loaded with them. There is, however, a real satisfaction in living at Paris, from the great number of sensible, knowing, and polite company with which that city abounds above all places in the universe. I thought once of settling there for life.

Those who haven't experienced the odd effects of fashion won't be able to picture the welcome I received in Paris from people of all kinds. The more I tried to step back from their over-the-top politeness, the more they showered it on me. Still, there is a genuine pleasure in living in Paris because of the large number of intelligent, knowledgeable, and courteous people that city has more than anywhere else in the world. I once considered making it my permanent home.

I was appointed secretary to the embassy; and, in summer, 1765, Lord Hertford left me, being appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland. I was chargé d’affaires till the arrival of the duke of Richmond, towards the end of the year. In the beginning of 1766, I left Paris, and next summer went to Edinburgh, with the same view as formerly, of burying myself in a philosophical retreat. I returned to that place, not richer, but with much more money, and a much larger income, by means of Lord Hertford’s friendship, than I left it; and I was desirous of trying what superfluity could produce, as I had formerly made an experiment of a competency. But in 1767, I received from Mr. Conway an invitation to be under-secretary; and this invitation, both the character of the person, and my connections with Lord Hertford, prevented me from declining. I returned to Edinburgh in 1769, very opulent, (for I possessed a revenue of one thousand pounds a year,) healthy, and though somewhat stricken in years, with the prospect of enjoying long my ease, and of seeing the increase of my reputation.

I was appointed secretary to the embassy, and in the summer of 1765, Lord Hertford left me after being appointed lord lieutenant of Ireland. I served as chargé d’affaires until the duke of Richmond arrived toward the end of the year. At the beginning of 1766, I left Paris and went to Edinburgh the following summer, aiming once again to immerse myself in a philosophical retreat. I returned to that place not wealthier, but with significantly more money and a much larger income, thanks to Lord Hertford’s friendship, than when I left; and I was eager to see what excess could yield, having previously tested the waters of a comfortable living. However, in 1767, I received an invitation from Mr. Conway to be under-secretary; the reputation of the person and my ties with Lord Hertford made it impossible for me to refuse. I returned to Edinburgh in 1769, quite affluent (as I had an income of one thousand pounds a year), healthy, and though a bit older, with the prospect of enjoying a long period of ease and witnessing the growth of my reputation.

In spring, 1775, I was struck with a disorder in my bowels, which at first gave me no alarm, but has since, as I apprehend it, become mortal and incurable. I now reckon upon a speedy dissolution. I have suffered very little pain from my disorder; and what is more strange, have, notwithstanding the great decline of my person, never suffered a moment’s abatement of my spirits; insomuch, that were I to name a period of my life which I should most choose to pass over again, I might be tempted to point to this later period. I possess the same ardor as ever in study, and the same gayety in company. I consider, besides, that a man of sixty-five, by dying, cuts off only a few years of infirmities; and though I see many symptoms of my literary reputation’s breaking out at last with additional lustre, I know that I could have but few years to enjoy it. It is difficult to be more detached from life than I am at present.

In spring of 1775, I developed a problem with my bowels that initially didn't worry me, but I now believe has become fatal and untreatable. I expect to pass away soon. I've experienced very little pain from this issue; even more surprisingly, despite my significant decline in health, I've never lost my spirits for a moment. In fact, if I had to choose a time in my life to relive, I might lean toward this later stage. I still have the same passion for studying and the same joy in social situations. Additionally, I think that a 65-year-old, by dying, only avoids a few more years of decline; and while I’ve noticed signs of my literary reputation finally shining through with added brilliance, I realize there are only a few years left to enjoy it. It’s hard to be more detached from life than I am right now.

To conclude historically with my own character: I am, or rather was, (for that is the style I must now use in speaking of myself, which imboldens me the more to speak my sentiments;) I was, I say, a man of mild disposition, of command of temper, of an open, social, and cheerful humor, capable of attachment, but little susceptible of enmity, and of great moderation in all my passions. Even my love of literary fame, my ruling passion, never soured my temper, notwithstanding my frequent disappointments. My company was not unacceptable to the young and careless, as well as to the studious and literary; and as I took a particular pleasure in the company of modest women, I had no reason to be displeased with the reception I met with from them. In a word, though most men, anywise eminent, have found reason to complain of Calumny, I never was touched, or even attacked, by her baleful tooth; and though I wantonly exposed myself to the rage of both civil and religious factions, they seemed to be disarmed in my behalf of their wonted fury. My friends never had occasion to vindicate any one circumstance of my character and conduct; not but that the zealots, we may well suppose, would have been glad to invent and propagate any story to my disadvantage, but they could never find any which they thought would wear the face of probability. I cannot say there is no vanity in making this funeral oration of myself, but I hope it is not a misplaced one; and this is a matter of fact which is easily cleared and ascertained.

To wrap up historically about my own character: I am, or rather was, (since that's the way I need to talk about myself now, which gives me more confidence to express my thoughts;) I was, I say, a person with a gentle nature, good temper, and an open, friendly, and cheerful spirit, capable of forming attachments but not easily prone to hostility, with great moderation in all my passions. Even my desire for literary recognition, my main passion, never affected my mood, despite my frequent disappointments. Young and carefree people, as well as those serious and scholarly, didn't mind my company; and since I particularly enjoyed the company of modest women, I had no reason to be unhappy with the way they received me. In short, although most prominent men have had reason to complain about slander, I was never touched, nor even attacked, by its harmful influence; and even though I recklessly put myself in the line of fire from both civil and religious factions, they seemed to be disarmed of their usual fury in my case. My friends never had to defend any aspect of my character or actions; not that the zealots wouldn't have loved to create and spread any story to tarnish my reputation, but they could never find one that they thought would seem believable. I can't deny there's some vanity in giving this eulogy for myself, but I hope it's not misplaced; and this is a matter of fact that's easily clarified and confirmed.

April 18, 1776.

April 18, 1776.

LETTER FROM ADAM SMITH, LL. D. TO WILLLIAM STRAHAN, ESQ.

LETTER FROM ADAM SMITH, LL. D. TO WILLIAM STRAHAN, ESQ.

Kirkaldy, Fifeshire, Nov. 9, 1778.[**]

Kirkcaldy, Fife, Nov. 9, 1778.

DEAR SIR,

Dear Sir,

It is with a real, though a very melancholy pleasure, that I sit down to give you some account of the behavior of our late excellent friend, Mr. Hume, during his last illness.

It is with a genuine, though very sad, pleasure that I sit down to share some details about the behavior of our recently departed friend, Mr. Hume, during his final illness.

Though, in his own judgment, his disease was mortal and incurable, yet he allowed himself to be prevailed upon, by the entreaty of his friends, to try what might be the effects of a long journey. A few days before he set out, he wrote that account of his own life, which, together with his other papers, he has left to your care. My account, therefore, shall begin where his ends.

Though he believed his illness was deadly and untreatable, he still allowed his friends to convince him to see what the effects of a long journey might be. A few days before he left, he wrote down his life story, which, along with his other papers, he has entrusted to you. So, my account will start where his ends.

He set out for London towards the end of April, and at Morpeth met with Mr. John Home and myself, who had both come down from London on purpose to see him, expecting to have found him at Edinburgh. Mr. Home returned with him, and attended him during the whole of his stay in England, with that care and attention which might be expected from a temper so perfectly friendly and affectionate. As I had written to my mother that she might expect me in Scotland, I was under the necessity of continuing my journey. His disease seemed to yield to exercise and change of air; and when he arrived in London, he was apparently in much better health than when he left Edinburgh. He was advised to go to Bath to drink the waters, which appeared for some time to have so good an effect upon him, that even he himself began to entertain, what he was not apt to do, a better opinion of his own health. His symptoms, however, soon returned with their usual violence; and from that moment he gave up all thoughts of recovery, but submitted with the utmost cheerfulness, and the most perfect complacency and resignation. Upon his return to Edinburgh, though he found himself much weaker, yet his cheerfulness never abated, and he continued to divert himself, as usual, with correcting his own works for a new edition, with reading books of amusement, with the conversation of his friends; and, sometimes in the evening, with a party at his favorite game of whist. His cheerfulness was so great, and his conversation and amusements ran so much in their usual strain, that, notwithstanding all bad symptoms, many people could not believe he was dying. “I shall tell your friend, Colonel Edmonstone,” said Dr. Dundas, to him one day, “that I left you much better, and in a fair way of recovery.” “Doctor,” said he, “as I believe you would not choose to tell any thing but the truth, you had better tell him that I am dying as fast as my enemies, if I have any, could wish, and as easily and cheerfully as my best friends could desire.” Colonel Edmonstone soon afterwards came to see him, and take leave of him; and on his way home he could not forbear writing him a letter, bidding him once more an eternal adieu, and applying to him, as to a dying man, the beautiful French verses in which the abbé Chaulieu in expectation of his own death, laments his approaching separation from his friend the marquis de la Fare. Mr. Hume’s magnanimity and firmness were such, that his most affectionate friends knew that they hazarded nothing in talking or writing to him as to a dying man, and that so far from being hurt by this frankness, he was rather pleased and flattered by it. I happened to come into his room while he was reading this letter, which he had just received, and which he immediately showed me. I told him, that though I was sensible how very much he was weakened, and that appearances were in many respects very bad, yet his cheerfulness was still so great, the spirit of life seemed still to be so very strong in him, that I could not help entertaining some faint hopes. He answered, “Your hopes are groundless. An habitual diarrhoea of more than a year’s standing, would be a very bad disease at any age; at my age it is a mortal one. When I lie down in the evening, I feel myself weaker than when I rose in the morning; and when I rise in the morning, weaker than when I lay down in the evening. I am sensible besides, that some of my vital parts are affected, so that I must soon die.” “Well,” said I, “if it must be so, you have at least the satisfaction of leaving all your friends, your brother’s family in particular, in great prosperity.” He said that he felt that satisfaction so sensibly, that when he was reading, a few days before, Lucian’s Dialogues of the Dead, among all the excuses which are alleged to Charon for not entering readily into his boat, he could not find one that fitted him: he had no house to finish, he had no daughter to provide for he had no enemies upon whom he wished to revenge himself. “I could not well imagine,” said he, “what excuse I could make to Charon in order to obtain a little delay. I have done every thing of consequence which I ever meant to do; and I could at no time expect to leave my relations and friends in a better situation than that in which I am now likely to leave them: I, therefore, have all reason to die contented.” He then diverted himself with inventing several jocular excuses, which he supposed he might make to Charon, and with imagining the very surly answers which it might suit the character of Charon to return to them. “Upon further consideration,” said he, “I thought I might say to him, ‘Good Charon, I have been correcting my works for a new edition. Allow me a little time, that I may see how the public receives the alterations.’ But Charon would answer, ‘When you have seen the effect of these, you will be for making other alterations. There will be no end of such excuses; so, honest friend, please step into the boat.’ But I might still urge, ‘Have a little patience, good Charon: I have been endeavoring to open the eyes of the public. If I live a few years longer, I may have the satisfaction of seeing the downfall of some of the prevailing systems of superstition.’ But Charon would then lose all temper and decency. ‘You loitering rogue, that will not happen these many hundred years. Do you fancy I will grant you a lease for so long a term? Get into the boat this instant, you lazy, loitering rogue.’”

He headed to London towards the end of April and met Mr. John Home and me in Morpeth, both of us having come down from London specifically to see him, expecting to find him in Edinburgh. Mr. Home returned with him and took care of him throughout his entire stay in England, showing the kind of attention you would expect from someone so genuinely friendly and affectionate. Since I had told my mother to expect me in Scotland, I had to keep going on my journey. His illness seemed to improve with exercise and fresh air, and when he got to London, he looked much healthier than when he left Edinburgh. He was advised to go to Bath to drink the waters, which seemed to positively affect him for a while, to the point that he began to have a rare, more optimistic view about his health. However, his symptoms quickly returned with their usual severity; from that moment, he abandoned any thoughts of recovery but accepted his fate with great cheerfulness, complete composure, and resignation. When he returned to Edinburgh, he found himself much weaker, but his cheerfulness never diminished. He continued to keep himself entertained, as usual, by correcting his own works for a new edition, reading entertaining books, chatting with friends, and sometimes, in the evenings, playing his favorite game of whist. His cheerfulness was so pronounced, and his conversations and amusements so normal, that many people could not believe he was dying, despite the evident bad signs. One day, Dr. Dundas told him, “I’ll inform your friend, Colonel Edmonstone, that I found you much better and on the way to recovery.” He replied, “Doctor, I believe you wouldn’t want to say anything but the truth, so you should tell him that I’m dying as quickly as my enemies, if I have any, would wish, and as easily and cheerfully as my best friends could desire.” Colonel Edmonstone came to see him soon after to bid him farewell; on his way home, he felt compelled to write a letter saying goodbye forever, quoting beautiful French verses in which the abbé Chaulieu laments his imminent separation from his friend, the marquis de la Fare. Mr. Hume’s courage and steadiness were such that his most caring friends knew they risked nothing by speaking or writing to him as if he were a dying man and, far from being upset by this directness, he was rather pleased and flattered by it. I happened to walk into his room while he was reading this letter, which he had just received and immediately showed to me. I told him that even though I recognized how much he had weakened and that appearances were bad in many ways, his cheerfulness was still immense, and the spirit of life seemed very strong in him, so I couldn't help but hold onto some faint hopes. He replied, “Your hopes are unfounded. A persistent diarrhea lasting over a year would be a serious issue at any age; at my age, it’s fatal. When I lie down in the evening, I feel weaker than when I got up in the morning; and when I wake up in the morning, I feel weaker than when I went to sleep the night before. I’m also aware that some of my vital organs are failing, so I will die soon.” I said, “Well, if it’s meant to be, at least you have the comfort of leaving all your friends, your brother’s family in particular, in good shape.” He said he felt that comfort so profoundly that when he was reading Lucian’s Dialogues of the Dead a few days earlier, he couldn't find any excuse to offer Charon for not boarding his boat: he had no house left to finish, no daughter to care for, and no enemies he wanted to take revenge on. “I couldn’t quite imagine,” he said, “what excuse I could give Charon to ask for a little more time. I’ve completed everything significant I ever wanted to do; and I could never expect to leave my family and friends in a better situation than I'm about to leave them in. Therefore, I have every reason to die at peace.” He then amused himself by creating various humorous excuses he thought he might make to Charon and imagining the grumpy responses that would suit Charon’s character. “Upon further thought,” he said, “I thought I could tell him, ‘Good Charon, I’ve been correcting my works for a new edition. Please give me a little time to see how the public responds to the changes.’ But Charon would reply, ‘Once you see how those go, you’ll want to make more changes. There will be no end to these kinds of excuses, so please get in the boat, my honest friend.’ I might still insist, ‘Have a little patience, good Charon: I have been trying to open the public’s eyes. If I live a few more years, I might get to see some of the prevailing superstitions fall apart.’ But then Charon would lose all patience and decorum. ‘You lazy loiterer, that’s not going to happen for many hundreds of years. Do you think I’ll give you a lease for that long a time? Get into the boat this instant, you lazy, loitering rogue.’”

But, though Mr. Hume always talked of his approaching dissolution with great cheerfulness, he never affected to make any parade of his magnanimity. He never mentioned the subject but when the conversation naturally led to it, and never dwelt longer upon it than the course of the conversation happened to require; it was a subject indeed which occurred pretty frequently, in consequence of the inquiries which his friends, who came to see him, naturally made concerning the state of his health. The conversation which I mentioned above, and which passed on Thursday the eighth of August, was the last, except one, that I ever had with him. He had now become so very weak, that the company of his most intimate friends fatigued him; for his cheerfulness was still so great, his complaisance and social disposition were still so entire, that when any friend was with him, he could not help talking more, and with greater exertion, than suited the weakness of his body. At his own desire, therefore, I agreed to leave Edinburgh, where I was staying partly upon his account and returned to my mother’s house here at Kirkaldy, upon condition that he would send for me whenever he wished to see me; the physician who saw him most frequently, Dr. Black, undertaking, in the mean time, to write me occasionally an account of the state of his health.

But even though Mr. Hume always spoke about his impending death with great cheer, he never tried to show off his bravery. He only brought up the topic when the conversation naturally turned to it, and he never went on about it longer than necessary. It was a topic that came up fairly often because his friends, who visited him, naturally asked about his health. The conversation I mentioned earlier, which happened on Thursday, August eighth, was one of the last I ever had with him. He had become so weak that even the company of his closest friends exhausted him. However, his cheerfulness was still so strong, and his friendliness and sociability remained intact, that when a friend was with him, he couldn’t help but talk more and with greater effort than his frail body could handle. At his request, I agreed to leave Edinburgh, where I was staying partly for his sake, and returned to my mother’s house in Kirkaldy, on the condition that he would have someone call for me whenever he wanted to see me. In the meantime, the doctor who visited him most often, Dr. Black, promised to update me occasionally about his health.

On the twenty-second of August, the doctor wrote me the following letter;—

On August 22nd, the doctor wrote me this letter;—

“Since my last, Mr. Hume has passed his time pretty easily, but is much weaker. He sits up, goes down stairs once a day, and amuses himself with reading, but seldom sees any body. He finds that even the conversation of his most intimate friends fatigues and oppresses him; and it is happy that he does not need it, for he is quite free from anxiety, impatience, or low spirits, and passes his time very well with the assistance of amusing books.”

“Since my last update, Mr. Hume has been getting through his days fairly easily, but he is much weaker. He sits up, goes downstairs once a day, and keeps himself entertained with reading, but seldom sees anyone. He realizes that even chatting with his closest friends tires him out; it's a good thing he doesn’t rely on it because he feels completely free from anxiety, impatience, or sadness, and spends his time quite well with the help of entertaining books.”

I received, the day after, a letter from Mr. Hume himself, of which the following is an extract:—

I got a letter from Mr. Hume the next day, and here’s an excerpt from it:—

     “Edinburgh, 23d August, 1776.

     “MY DEAREST FRIEND,

     “I am obliged to make use of my nephew’s hand
     in writing to you, as I do not rise to-day.

     “I go very fast to decline, and last night had a
     small fever, which I hoped might put a quicker period
     to this tedious illness; but unluckily it has, in a
     great measure, gone off. I cannot submit to your
     coming over here on my account, as it is possible for
     me to see you so small a part of the day; but Dr.
     Black can better inform you concerning the degree of
     strength which may from time to time remain with
     me. Adieu, etc.”
 
     “Edinburgh, August 23, 1776.

     “MY DEAR FRIEND,

     “I have to use my nephew’s hand to write to you, as I’m not getting up today.

     “I’m declining very quickly, and last night I had a slight fever, which I hoped would speed up the end of this long illness; but unfortunately, it has mostly subsided. I can’t allow you to come over here for my sake, since I would only be able to see you for a short time each day; however, Dr. Black can give you a better idea of how much strength I might have from time to time. Goodbye, etc.”

Three days after, I received the following letter from Dr. Black:—

Three days later, I received this letter from Dr. Black:—

     “Edinburgh, Monday, 26th August, 1776.

     “DEAR SIR,

     “Yesterday, about four o’clock, afternoon, Mr. Hume expired.
     The near approach of his death became evident in the night
     between Thursday and Friday, when his disease became
     excessive, and soon weakened him so much, that he could no
     longer rise out of his bed He continued to the last
     perfectly sensible, and free from much pain or feelings of
     distress. He never dropped the smallest expression of
     impatience; but when he had occasion to speak to the people
     about him, always did it with affection and tenderness. I
     thought it improper to write to bring you over, especially
     as I heard that he had dictated a letter to you, desiring
     you not to come. When he became very weak, it cost him an
     effort to speak; and he died in such a happy composure of
     mind, that nothing could exceed it.”
 
     “Edinburgh, Monday, August 26, 1776.

     “DEAR SIR,

     “Yesterday, around four o’clock in the afternoon, Mr. Hume passed away. His imminent death became clear during the night between Thursday and Friday, when his illness worsened significantly, weakening him so much that he could no longer get out of bed. He remained fully aware until the end and experienced very little pain or distress. He never showed any sign of impatience; when he needed to speak to those around him, he always did so with kindness and warmth. I thought it inappropriate to write and ask you to come, especially since I heard he had dictated a letter to you, asking you not to. As he grew weaker, speaking became an effort for him, and he died with such a peaceful state of mind that it was beyond anything you could imagine.”

Thus died our most excellent and never to be forgotten friend; concerning whose philosophical opinions men will, no doubt, judge variously, every one approving or condemning them, according as they happen to coincide or disagree with his own; but concerning whose character and conduct there can scarce be a difference of opinion. His temper, indeed, seemed to be more happily balanced, if I may be allowed such an expression, than that perhaps of any other man I have ever known. Even in the lowest state of his fortune, his great and necessary frugality never hindered him from exercising, upon proper occasions, acts both of charity and generosity. It was a frugality founded not upon avarice, but upon the love of independency. The extreme gentleness of his nature never weakened either the firmness of his mind or the steadiness of his resolutions. His constant pleasantry was the genuine effusion of good nature and good humor, tempered with delicacy and modesty, and without even the slightest tincture of malignity, so frequently the disagreeable source of what is called wit in other men. It never was the meaning of his raillery to mortify; and therefore, far from offending, it seldom failed to please and delight, even those who were the objects of it. To his friends who were frequently the objects of it, there was not perhaps any one of all his great and amiable qualities which contributed more to endear his conversation. And that gayety of temper, so agreeable in society, but which is so often accompanied with frivolous and superficial qualities, was in him certainly attended with the most severe application, the most extensive learning, the greatest depth of thought, and a capacity in every respect the most comprehensive. Upon the whole, I have always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death, as approaching as nearly to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man as perhaps the nature of human frailty will permit.

Thus passed away our most excellent and unforgettable friend; about whom people's opinions on his philosophical views will likely vary, with each person either approving or disapproving based on how they align or conflict with their own beliefs; however, there’s hardly any disagreement regarding his character and actions. His temperament seemed to be more balanced, if I can put it that way, than that of perhaps any other person I have ever known. Even in the most difficult times of his life, his essential frugality never prevented him from showing acts of charity and generosity when the occasion called for it. This frugality was not driven by greed, but by a desire for independence. The extreme gentleness of his nature did not weaken either the strength of his mind or his resolute decisions. His constant humor was a true expression of good nature and good humor, balanced with sensitivity and humility, and without even a hint of malice, which is often the unpleasant source of what is called wit in others. His teasing was never meant to hurt; therefore, rather than offending, it often managed to please and delight even those who were the targets of it. For his friends, who were frequently the subjects of his banter, there was perhaps no quality of his that endeared him more in conversation. That cheerful disposition, so charming in social settings, but which is often paired with shallow and trivial traits, was in him certainly accompanied by intense focus, extensive knowledge, profound thought, and a capacity that was, in every way, remarkably comprehensive. Overall, I have always viewed him, both in life and after his death, as coming as close to the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous person as human frailty allows.

I ever am, dear sir,

I always am, dear sir,

Most affectionately yours,

Yours truly,

ADAM SMITH.

ADAM SMITH.









chap1 (371K)





HISTORY OF ENGLAND.





CHAPTER I.





THE BRITONS.

The curiosity entertained by all civilized nations, of inquiring into the exploits and adventures of their ancestors, commonly excites a regret that the history of remote ages should always be so much involved in obscurity, uncertainty, and contradiction. Ingenious men, possessed of leisure, are apt to push their researches beyond the period in which literary monuments are framed or preserved; without reflecting, that the history of past events is immediately lost or disfigured when intrusted to memory and oral tradition, and that the adventures of barbarous nations, even if they were recorded, could afford little or no entertainment to men born in a more cultivated age. The convulsions of a civilized state usually compose the most instructive and most interesting part of its history; but the sudden, violent, and unprepared revolutions incident to barbarians, are so much guided by caprice, and terminate so often in cruelty, that they disgust us by the uniformity of their appearance; and it is rather fortunate for letters that they are buried in silence and oblivion. The only certain means by which nations can indulge their curiosity in researches concerning their remote origin, is to consider the language, manners, and customs of their ancestors, and to compare them with those of the neighboring nations. The fables, which are commonly employed to supply the place of true history, ought entirely to be disregarded; or if any exception be admitted to this general rule, it can only be in favor of the ancient Grecian fictions, which are so celebrated and so agreeable, that they will ever be the objects of the attention of mankind. Neglecting, therefore, all traditions, or rather tales, concerning the more early history of Britain, we shall only consider the state of the inhabitants as it appeared to the Romans on their invasion of this country: we shall briefly run over the events which attended the conquest made by that empire, as belonging more to Roman than British story: we shall hasten through the obscure and uninteresting period of Saxon annals; and shall reserve a more full narration for those times, when the truth is both so well ascertained, and so complete, as to promise entertainment and instruction to the reader.

The curiosity shared by all civilized nations to learn about the exploits and adventures of their ancestors often leads to a sense of regret that the history of ancient times is always shrouded in obscurity, uncertainty, and contradiction. Creative individuals with free time tend to dig deeper into periods before written records were made or preserved; however, they overlook that the history of past events is easily lost or distorted when it relies on memory and oral tradition. Additionally, the adventures of primitive nations, even if documented, would provide little interest to people from more advanced eras. The upheavals in a civilized society usually make up the most instructive and engaging parts of its history. In contrast, the unpredictable and often brutal revolutions among barbaric tribes are driven by whims and commonly end in cruelty, which can be off-putting due to their repetitive nature; luckily for literature, such stories are mostly left in silence and forgetfulness. The only reliable way for nations to satisfy their curiosity about their distant origins is to examine the language, customs, and practices of their ancestors and compare them with those of neighboring nations. The myths often used to fill in the gaps of true history should generally be ignored; or if any exceptions are to be made, it can only be for the ancient Greek stories, which are so renowned and enjoyable that they will always capture the attention of people. Therefore, setting aside all traditions, or rather tales, about the earlier history of Britain, we will only consider the state of the inhabitants as observed by the Romans during their invasion of this land: we will briefly review the events surrounding that empire's conquest, as they pertain more to Roman rather than British history; we will quickly pass through the obscure and unremarkable period of Saxon records; and we will hold off on a more detailed account for those later times when the truth is both well-established and comprehensive enough to offer the reader both entertainment and insight.

All ancient writers agree in representing the first inhabitants of Britain as a tribe of the Gauls or Celtæ, who peopled that island from the neighboring continent. Their language was the same, their manners, their government, their superstition; varied only by those small differences which time or a communication with the bordering nations must necessarily introduce. The inhabitants of Gaul, especially in those parts which lie contiguous to Italy, had acquired, from a commerce with their southern neighbors, some refinement in the arts, which gradually diffused themselves northwards, and spread but a very faint light over this island. The Greek and Roman navigators or merchants (for there were scarcely any other travellers in those ages) brought back the most shocking accounts of the ferocity of the people, which they magnified, as usual, in order to excite the admiration of their countrymen. The south-east parts, however, of Britain had already, before the age of Cæsar, made the first and most requisite step towards a civil settlement; and the Britons, by tillage and agriculture, had there increased to a great multitude.[*]

All ancient writers agree that the first people of Britain were a tribe of Gauls or Celts, who populated the island from the nearby continent. They shared the same language, customs, government, and beliefs; differing only in minor ways due to time or contact with neighboring nations. The inhabitants of Gaul, especially in areas close to Italy, had gained some refinement in the arts through trade with their southern neighbors, which gradually spread northward and only lightly touched this island. Greek and Roman sailors or merchants (since there were almost no other travelers back then) returned with shocking stories of the people's brutality, which they exaggerated to impress their fellow countrymen. However, the southeastern parts of Britain had already taken the first essential steps toward civilization before Caesar's time, and through farming and agriculture, the Britons had grown into a large population.

     [* Cæsar, lib. iv.]
[* Caesar, book IV.]

The other inhabitants of the island still maintained themselves by pasture: they were clothed with skins of beasts: they dwelt in huts, which they reared in the forests and marshes, with which the country was covered: they shifted easily their habitation, when actuated either by the hopes of plunder or the fear of an enemy: the convenience of feeding their cattle was even a sufficient motive for removing their seats and as they were ignorant of all the refinements of life, their wants and their possessions were equally scanty and limited.

The other people on the island still lived off livestock: they wore animal skins and lived in huts they built in the forests and marshes that covered the land. They easily moved from place to place, driven by either the desire for loot or the fear of an enemy. The need to graze their animals was enough reason for them to change locations, and since they didn’t know about the luxuries of life, their needs and belongings were both minimal and limited.

The Britons were divided into many small nations or tribes and being a military people, whose sole property was then arms and their cattle, It was impossible, after they had acquired a relish of liberty for their princes or chieftains to establish any despotic authority over them. Their governments, though monarchical,[*] were free, as well as those of all the Celtic nations; and the common people seem even to have enjoyed more liberty among them,[**] than among the nations of Gaul,[***] from whom they were descended. Each state was divided into factions within itself:[****] it was agitated with jealousy or animosity against the neighboring states: and while the arts of peace were yet unknown, wars were the chief occupation, and formed the chief object of ambition, among the people.

The Britons were split into many small nations or tribes, and since they were a military people, whose only possessions were their weapons and cattle, it was impossible for their leaders or chiefs to establish any harsh authority over them once they experienced freedom. Their governments, although monarchical,[*] were free, just like those of all the Celtic nations; and the common people seemed to enjoy even more freedom among them[**] than among the nations of Gaul,[***] from which they were descended. Each state was divided into factions within itself:[****] it was filled with jealousy or hostility toward the neighboring states, and while the skills of peace were still unknown, warfare was the main focus and the primary goal of ambition among the people.

     [* Diod. Sic. lib. iv. Mela, lib. iii. cap. 6.
     Strabo, lib. iv.]

     [** Dion Cassius, lib. lxxv.]

     [*** Cæsar, lib. vi.]

     [**** Tacit. Agr.]
     [* Diodorus Siculus, Book IV. Mela, Book III, Chapter 6.
     Strabo, Book IV.]

     [** Dio Cassius, Book LXXV.]

     [*** Caesar, Book VI.]

     [**** Tacitus, Agricol.]

The religion of the Britons was one of the most considerable parts of their government; and the druids, who were their priests, possessed great authority among them. Besides ministering at the altar, and directing all religious duties, they presided over the education of youth; they enjoyed an immunity from wars and taxes; they possessed both the civil and criminal jurisdiction; they decided all controversies among states as well as among private persons, and whoever refused to submit to their decree was exposed to the most severe penalties. The sentence of excommunication was pronounced against him: he was forbidden access to the sacrifices or public worship: he was debarred all intercourse with his fellow-citizens, even in the common affairs of life: his company was universally shunned, as profane and dangerous: he was refused the protection of law:[*] and death itself became an acceptable relief from the misery and infamy to which he was exposed. Thus the bands of government, which were naturally loose among that rude and turbulent people, were happily corroborated by the terrors of their superstition.

The religion of the Britons played a significant role in their government, and the druids, who served as their priests, held substantial power. In addition to leading religious ceremonies and overseeing all spiritual matters, they were responsible for educating the youth. They enjoyed exemptions from warfare and taxes, held both civil and criminal authority, and resolved disputes between states as well as private individuals. Anyone who refused to comply with their ruling faced severe consequences. A sentence of excommunication was pronounced against them: they were barred from participating in sacrifices or public worship; they were cut off from social interactions with fellow citizens, even in everyday matters; their presence was generally avoided as it was deemed impure and dangerous; they were denied legal protection; and death itself was seen as a welcome escape from the suffering and disgrace they endured. Thus, the loose ties of government among that rough and unruly people were effectively strengthened by the fear instilled by their superstitions.

     [* Cæsar, lib. vi. Strabo, lib. iv.]
     [* Caesar, book vi. Strabo, book iv.]

No species of superstition was ever more terrible than that of the druids. Besides the severe penalties, which it was in the power of the ecclesiastics to inflict in this world, they inculcated the eternal transmigration of souls; and thereby extended their authority as far as the fears of their timorous votaries. They practised their rites in dark groves or other secret recesses;[*] and in order to throw a greater mystery over their religion, they communicated their doctrines only to the initiated, and strictly forbade the committing of them to writing, lest they should at any time be exposed to the examination of the profane vulgar.

No form of superstition was ever more frightening than that of the druids. Besides the harsh punishments they could impose in this life, they taught the idea of the eternal cycle of souls, which increased their power over the fears of their anxious followers. They performed their rituals in dark groves or other hidden places;[*] to add to the mystery of their religion, they shared their beliefs only with the initiated and strictly prohibited writing them down, fearing that they might someday be revealed to the uninitiated masses.

     [* Plin. lib. xii. cap. 1.]
[* Plin. lib. xii. cap. 1.]

Human sacrifices were practised among them: the spoils of war were often devoted to their divinities; and they punished with the severest tortures whoever dared to secrete any part of the consecrated offering: these treasures they kept in woods and forests, secured by no other guard than the terrors of their religion;[*] and this steady conquest over human avidity may be regarded as more signal than their prompting men to the most extraordinary and most violent efforts. No idolatrous worship ever attained such an ascendant over mankind as that of the ancient Gauls and Britons; and the Romans, after their conquest, finding it impossible to reconcile those nations to the laws and institutions of their masters, while it maintained its authority, were at last obliged to abolish it by penal statutes; a violence which had never, in any other instance, been practised by those tolerating conquerors.[**]

Human sacrifices were a part of their practices: the spoils of war were often dedicated to their gods; and they punished with the harshest torture anyone who dared to hide any part of the sacred offering. They kept these treasures hidden in woods and forests, protected only by the fears created by their religion; and this ongoing control over human greed can be seen as more significant than their ability to drive people to remarkable and violent actions. No form of idol worship ever had as much influence over people as that of the ancient Gauls and Britons. After conquering them, the Romans found it impossible to get these nations to accept their laws and institutions while this worship remained strong, so they ultimately had to eliminate it through harsh laws—a level of violence that had never been used by those conquerors who were otherwise tolerant.

     [* Cæsar, lib. vi.]

     [* Sueton. in vita Claudii.]
     [* Caesar, book 6.]

     [* Suetonius, in the life of Claudius.]




THE ROMANS.

The Britons had long remained in this rude but independent state, when Cæsar, having overrun all Gaul by his victories, first cast his eye on their island. He was not allured either by its riches or its renown; but being ambitious of carrying the Roman arms into a new world, then mostly unknown, he took advantage of a short interval in his Gaulic wars, and made an invasion on Britain. The natives, informed of his intention, were sensible of the unequal contest, and endeavored to appease him by submissions, which, however, retarded not the execution of his design. After some resistance, he landed, as is supposed, at Deal, [Anno ante, C. 55;] and having obtained several advantages over the Britons, and obliged them to promise hostages for their future obedience, he was constrained, by the necessity of his affairs, and the approach of winter, to withdraw his forces into Gaul. The Britons relieved, from the terror of his arms, neglected the performance of their stipulations; and that haughty conqueror resolved next summer to chastise them for this breach of treaty. He landed with a greater force; and though he found a more regular resistance from the Britons, who had united under Cassivelaunus, one of their petty princes, he discomfited them in every action. He advanced into the country; passed the Thames in the face of the enemy; took and burned the capital of Cassivelaunus; established his ally, Mandubratius, in the sovereignty of the Trinobantes; and having obliged the inhabitants to make him new submissions, he again returned with his army into Gaul, and left the authority of the Romans more nominal than real in this island.

The Britons had long lived in this rough but independent state when Caesar, having conquered all of Gaul, first looked towards their island. He wasn't tempted by its wealth or fame; instead, driven by ambition to extend the Roman Empire into a largely unknown territory, he seized a brief pause in his Gallic campaigns and invaded Britain. The locals, aware of his plans, understood the unequal struggle ahead and tried to appease him with submissions, but this didn't stop his mission. After some resistance, he landed, as is believed, at Deal, [Anno ante, C. 55;] and after gaining several victories over the Britons and forcing them to promise hostages for their future loyalty, he was compelled by his circumstances and the onset of winter to withdraw his forces back to Gaul. The Britons, relieved from the threat of his armaments, ignored their promises; and that prideful conqueror resolved to punish them the following summer for breaking their treaty. He returned with a larger force; and although he faced more organized resistance from the Britons, who had united under Cassivelaunus, one of their minor kings, he defeated them in every battle. He advanced into the territory; crossed the Thames in front of the enemy; captured and burned the capital of Cassivelaunus; placed his ally, Mandubratius, in power over the Trinobantes; and after forcing the inhabitants to submit again, he returned with his army to Gaul, leaving Roman authority in the island more symbolic than real.

The civil wars which ensued, and which prepared the way for the establishment of monarchy in Rome, saved the Britons from that yoke which was ready to be imposed upon them. Augustus, the successor of Cæsar, content with the victory obtained over the liberties of his own country, was little ambitious of acquiring fame by foreign wars; and being apprehensive lest the same unlimited extent of dominion, which had subverted the republic, might also overwhelm the empire, he recommended it to his successors never to enlarge the territories of the Romans. Tiberius, jealous of the fame which might be acquired by his generals, made this advice of Augustus a pretence for his inactivity.[*]

The civil wars that followed, which paved the way for monarchy in Rome, ended up sparing the Britons from that burden that was about to be placed on them. Augustus, Caesar’s successor, satisfied with the victory over the freedoms of his own country, wasn’t too interested in gaining fame through foreign conflicts. Worried that the same unchecked expansion that had toppled the republic could also overwhelm the empire, he advised his successors not to expand Roman territories. Tiberius, envious of the fame his generals could gain, used Augustus’s advice as an excuse for his inaction.[*]

     [* Tacit. Agr.]
[* Tacit. Agr.]

The mad sallies of Caligula, in which he menaced Britain with an invasion, served only to expose himself and the empire to ridicule; and the Britons had now, during almost a century, enjoyed their liberty unmolested, when the Romans, in the reign of Claudius, began to think seriously of reducing them under their dominion. Without seeking any more justifiable reasons of hostility than were employed by the late Europeans in subjecting the Africans and Americans, they sent over an army, [A. D. 43,] under the command of Plautius, an able general, who gained some victories, and made a considerable progress in subduing the inhabitants. Claudius himself, finding matters sufficiently prepared for his reception, made a journey into Britain, and received the submission of several British states, the Cantii, Atrebates, Regni, and Trinobantes, who inhabited the south-east parts of the island, and whom their possessions and more cultivated manner of life rendered willing to purchase peace at the expense of their liberty. The other Britons, under the command of Caractacus, still maintained an obstinate resistance, and the Romans made little progress against them; till Ostorius Scapula was sent over to command their armies. [A. D. 50.] This general advanced the Roman conquests over the Britons; pierced into the country of the Silures, a warlike nation, who inhabited the banks of the Severn; defeated Caractacus in a great battle; took him prisoner, and sent him to Rome, where his magnanimous behavior procured him better treatment than those conquerors usually bestowed on captive princes.[*]

The crazy outbursts of Caligula, where he threatened Britain with an invasion, only served to make him and the empire look foolish; and the Britons had now enjoyed nearly a century of peace when the Romans, during Claudius's reign, started seriously considering bringing them under their control. Without looking for any more legitimate reasons for hostility than those used by the recent Europeans in subjugating Africans and Americans, they sent an army in A.D. 43, led by Plautius, a skilled general, who won some battles and made significant progress in conquering the locals. Claudius himself, seeing things were ready for his arrival, traveled to Britain and accepted the surrender of several British tribes, including the Cantii, Atrebates, Regni, and Trinobantes, who lived in the southeast of the island and were willing to trade their freedom for peace due to their more settled lifestyle. The other Britons, led by Caractacus, continued to fight back fiercely, and the Romans made little headway against them until Ostorius Scapula was sent to lead their forces in A.D. 50. This general advanced the Roman conquests over the Britons; he pushed into the territory of the Silures, a warrior nation living along the Severn River; defeated Caractacus in a major battle; captured him, and sent him to Rome, where his noble behavior earned him better treatment than what conquerors typically give to captured kings.

     [* Tacit. Ann lib. xii.]
[* Tacit. Ann lib. 12.]

Notwithstanding these misfortunes, the Britons were not subdued; and this island was regarded by the ambitious Romans as a field in which military honor might still be acquired. [A. D. 59.] Under the reign of Nero, Suetonius Paulinus was invested with the command, and prepared to signalize his name by victories over those barbarians. Finding that the island of Mona, now Anglesey, was the chief seat of the druids, he resolved to attack it, and to subject a place which was the centre of their superstition, and which afforded protection to all their baffled forces. The Britons endeavored to obstruct his landing on this sacred island, both by the force of their arms and the terrors of their religion. The women and priests were intermingled with the soldiers upon the shore; and running about with flaming torches in their hands, and tossing their dishevelled hair, they struck greater terror into the astonished Romans by their bowlings, cries, and execrations, than the real danger from the armed forces was able to inspire. But Suetonius, exhorting his troops to despise the menaces of a superstition which they despised, impelled them to the attack, drove the Britons off the field, burned the druids in the same fires which those priests had prepared for their captive enemies, destroyed all the consecrated groves and altars; and having thus triumphed over the religion of the Britons, he thought his future progress would be easy in reducing the people to subjection. But he was disappointed in his expectations. The Britons, taking advantage of his absence, were all in arms; and headed by Boadicea, queen of the Iceni, who had been treated in the most ignominious manner by the Roman tribunes, had already attacked, with success, several settlements of their insulting conquerors. Suetonius hastened to the protection of London, which was already a flourishing Roman colony; but found, on his arrival, that it would be requisite for the general safety, to abandon that place to the merciless fury of the enemy. London was reduced to ashes; such of the inhabitants as remained in it were cruelly massacred; the Romans and all strangers, to the number of seventy thousand, were every where put to the sword without distinction; and the Britons, by rendering the war thus bloody, seemed determined to cut off all hopes of peace or composition with the enemy. But this cruelty was revenged by Suetonius in a great and decisive battle, where eighty thousand of the Britons are said to have perished, and Boadicea herself, rather than fall into the hands of the enraged victor, put an end to her own life by poison.[*] Nero soon after recalled Suetonius from a government, where, by suffering and inflicting so many severities, he was judged improper for composing the angry and alarmed minds of the inhabitants. After some interval, Cerealis received the command from Vespasian, and by his bravery propagated the terror of the Roman arms, Julius Frontinus succeeded Cerealis both in authority and in reputation: but the general who finally established the dominion of the Romans in this island, was Julius Agricola, who governed it in the reigns of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, and distinguished himself in that scene of action.

Despite these setbacks, the Britons were not defeated, and the ambitious Romans viewed this island as a place where they could still gain military glory. [A. D. 59.] During Nero's reign, Suetonius Paulinus was given command and aimed to make a name for himself through victories over the local tribes. Realizing that the island of Mona, now known as Anglesey, was the main stronghold of the druids, he decided to attack it to conquer a site central to their beliefs and which offered refuge to their defeated forces. The Britons tried to prevent his landing on this sacred island using both military force and the fear inspired by their religion. Women and priests mingled with soldiers on the shore, running around with flaming torches and their hair wild, instilling more fear in the astonished Romans with their wailing, cries, and curses than the actual threat from their armed forces. But Suetonius urged his troops to disregard the threats of a superstition they looked down upon, leading them into battle, forcing the Britons off the field, burning the druids in the same fires meant for their captured enemies, and destroying all their sacred groves and altars. Having thus triumphed over the Britons' religion, he believed that his future efforts to subdue the people would be easier. However, he was let down by his expectations. The Britons, seizing on his absence, were fully armed and, led by Boadicea, queen of the Iceni, who had suffered disgrace at the hands of Roman officials, had already successfully attacked several of their oppressive conquerors’ settlements. Suetonius rushed to protect London, which had become a thriving Roman colony, but upon arriving, he realized it was essential for everyone's safety to abandon the city to the merciless enemy. London was reduced to ashes; the few inhabitants who remained were brutally massacred; the Romans and all strangers, totaling about seventy thousand, were indiscriminately killed; and the Britons, through such gruesome violence, seemed determined to eliminate any hope of peace or negotiations with the enemy. However, Suetonius avenged this cruelty in a significant and decisive battle, where about eighty thousand Britons were said to have died, and Boadicea herself chose to end her life by poison rather than fall into the hands of the furious victor. Soon after, Nero recalled Suetonius from a position where, having inflicted and endured so many harsh realities, he was deemed unsuitable for pacifying the agitated minds of the locals. After a time, Cerealis took command from Vespasian and, through his bravery, spread fear of the Roman army. Julius Frontinus then succeeded Cerealis in both authority and reputation. Yet, the general who ultimately secured Roman control over this island was Julius Agricola, who governed during the reigns of Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, and made his mark in that theater of action.

This great commander formed a regular plan for subduing Britain, and rendering the acquisition useful to the conquerors. He carried his victorious arms northwards, defeated the Britons in every encounter, pierced into the inaccessible forests and mountains of Caledonia, reduced every state to subjection in the southern parts of the island, and chased before him all the men of fiercer and more intractable spirits, who deemed war and death itself less intolerable than servitude under the victors. He even defeated them in a decisive action, which they fought under Galgacus, their leader; and having fixed a chain of garrisons between the Friths of Clyde and Forth, he thereby cut off the ruder and more barren parts of the island, and secured the Roman province from the incursions of the barbarous inhabitants.[*]

This great commander developed a clear plan to conquer Britain and make the acquisition beneficial for the conquerors. He led his victorious forces north, defeated the Britons in every battle, pushed into the impenetrable forests and mountains of Caledonia, brought every southern state of the island under control, and drove out those fierce and stubborn individuals who found war and death more bearable than living in servitude to their conquerors. He even won a major battle against them under their leader, Galgacus, and established a chain of fortifications between the Friths of Clyde and Forth, which effectively isolated the harsher and more remote regions of the island and protected the Roman province from attacks by the barbaric inhabitants.[*]

     [* Tacit Ann. lib. xiv.]
[* Tacit Ann. lib. xiv.]

During these military enterprises, he neglected not the arts of peace. He introduced laws and civility among the Britons, taught them to desire and raise all the conveniences of life, reconciled them to the Roman language and manners, instructed them in letters and science, and employed every expedient to render those chains which he had forged both easy and agreeable to them.[*]

During these military campaigns, he didn't ignore the importance of peace. He established laws and etiquette among the Britons, encouraged them to seek and improve their quality of life, helped them embrace the Roman language and customs, taught them reading and science, and used every method to make the bonds he had created both easy and enjoyable for them.[*]

     [* Tacit. Agr.]
[* Tacit. Agr.]

The inhabitants, having experienced how unequal their own force was to resist that of the Romans, acquiesced in the dominion of their masters, and were gradually incorporated as a part of that mighty empire.

The inhabitants, realizing how outmatched they were against the Romans, accepted the rule of their masters and eventually became part of that powerful empire.

This was the last durable conquest made by the Romans, and Britain, once subdued, gave no further inquietude to the victor. Caledonia alone, defended by its barren mountains, and by the contempt which the Romans entertained for it, sometimes infested the more cultivated parts of the island by the incursions of its inhabitants. The better to secure the frontiers of the empire, Adrian, who visited this island, built a rampart between the River Tyne and the Frith of Solway; Lollius Urbicus, under Antoninus Pius, erected one in the place where Agricola had formerly established his garrisons, Severus, who made an expedition into Britain, and carried his arms to the most northern extremity of it, added new fortifications to the wall of Adrian; and during the reigns of all the Roman emperors, such a profound tranquillity prevailed in Britain, that little mention is made of the affairs of that island by any historian. The only incidents which occur, are some seditions or rebellions of the Roman legions quartered there, and some usurpations of the imperial dignity by the Roman governors. The natives, disarmed, dispirited, and submissive, had lost all desire and even idea of their former liberty and independence.

This was the last lasting conquest made by the Romans, and once Britain was subdued, it no longer troubled the victors. Caledonia, with its rugged mountains and the disdain the Romans had for it, occasionally raided the more developed regions of the island. To better secure the empire's borders, Hadrian, who visited the island, built a wall between the River Tyne and the Solway Firth; Lollius Urbicus, under Antoninus Pius, constructed another where Agricola had previously stationed his troops. Severus, who led an expedition into Britain and took his forces to its northernmost point, added new fortifications to Hadrian's wall; and throughout the reigns of all the Roman emperors, a deep peace reigned in Britain, so much so that historians hardly mentioned the island’s affairs. The only events noted were some rebellions or uprisings by the Roman legions stationed there, along with a few power grabs by Roman governors. The natives, disarmed, disheartened, and submissive, had lost all desire and even the concept of their former freedom and independence.

But the period was now come, when that enormous fabric of the Roman empire, which had diffused slavery and oppression, together with peace and civility, over so considerable a part of the globe, was approaching towards its final dissolution. Italy, and the centre of the empire, removed during so many ages from all concern in the wars, had entirely lost the military spirit, and were peopled by an enervated race, equally disposed to submit to a foreign yoke, or to the tyranny of their own rulers. The emperors found themselves obliged to recruit their legions from the frontier provinces, where the genius of war, though languishing, was not totally extinct; and these mercenary forces, careless of laws and civil institutions, established a military government no less dangerous to the sovereign than to the people. The further progress of the same disorders introduced the bordering barbarians into the service of the Romans; and those fierce nations, having now added discipline to their native bravery, could no longer be restrained by the impotent policy of the emperors, who were accustomed to employ one in the destruction of the others. Sensible of their own force, and allured by the prospect of so rich a prize, the northern barbarians, in the reign of Arcadius and Honorius, assailed at once all the frontiers of the Roman empire; and having first satiated their avidity by plunder, began to think of fixing a settlement in the wasted provinces. The more distant barbarians, who occupied the deserted habitations of the former, advanced in their acquisitions, and pressed with their incumbent weight the Roman state, already unequal to the load which it sustained. Instead of arming the people in their own defence, the emperors recalled all the distant legions, in whom alone they could repose confidence; and collected the whole military force for the defence of the capital and centre of the empire. The necessity of self-preservation had superseded the ambition of power; and the ancient point of honor, never to contract the limits of the empire, could no longer be attended to in this desperate extremity.

But the time had come when the vast structure of the Roman Empire, which had spread slavery and oppression along with peace and civilization over much of the world, was heading toward its ultimate collapse. Italy, and the heart of the empire, which had been disconnected from wars for so long, had completely lost its military spirit, and its people had become weak, ready to either accept foreign rule or suffer under their own leaders' tyranny. The emperors found themselves having to recruit their legions from the border provinces, where the spirit of war, although fading, had not completely vanished; and these mercenary troops, indifferent to laws and civil institutions, established a military government that posed a threat both to the rulers and the people. The worsening situation also brought the neighboring barbarians into Roman service; these fierce tribes, now combining their native bravery with discipline, could no longer be controlled by the ineffective strategies of the emperors, who were used to pitting one group against another. Aware of their own strength and attracted by the prospect of rich rewards, the northern barbarians, during the reign of Arcadius and Honorius, simultaneously attacked all the borders of the Roman Empire; after first satisfying their greed through plunder, they began to consider settling in the ravaged provinces. The more distant tribes, who had taken over the abandoned homes of earlier inhabitants, expanded their gains and added pressure to the already overstretched Roman state. Rather than arming their people for defense, the emperors recalled all the distant legions they could trust and gathered the entire military force to defend the capital and the heart of the empire. The need for self-preservation had replaced the ambition for power; the age-old principle of never reducing the empire's boundaries could no longer be prioritized in such a desperate situation.

Britain by its situation was removed from the fury of these barbarous incursions; and being also a remote province, not much valued by the Romans, the legions which defended it were carried over to the protection of Italy and Gaul. But that province, though secured by the sea against the inroads of the greater tribes of barbarians, found enemies on its frontiers, who took advantage of its present defenceless situation. The Picts and Scots, who dwelt in the northern parts, beyond the wall of Antoninus, made incursions upon their peaceable and effeminate neighbors; and besides the temporary depredations which they committed, these combined nations threatened the whole province with subjection, or, what the inhabitants more dreaded, with plunder and devastation, The Picts seem to have been a tribe of the native British race, who, having been chased into the northern parts by the conquests of Agricola, had there intermingled with the ancient inhabitants: the Scots were derived from the same Celtic origin, had first been established in Ireland, had migrated to the north-west coasts of this island, and had long been accustomed, as well from their old as their new seats, to infest the Roman province by piracy and rapine. 1

Britain, due to its location, was protected from the violent attacks of these barbaric invasions. Additionally, as a distant province not highly valued by the Romans, its legions were reassigned to defend Italy and Gaul. However, despite being shielded by the sea from the larger barbarian tribes, the province faced threats at its borders, where enemies took advantage of its vulnerable state. The Picts and Scots, who lived in the northern regions beyond the wall of Antoninus, launched raids against their peaceful and less aggressive neighbors. Along with the temporary raids they carried out, these united groups posed a threat of conquest or, even worse in the eyes of the inhabitants, plunder and destruction. The Picts seemed to be a tribe of the native British people who, after being driven into the north by Agricola's conquests, mingled with the local inhabitants. The Scots shared the same Celtic roots, having initially settled in Ireland before moving to the north-western coasts of this island, and they had long been known for raiding the Roman province through piracy and violence. 1

     [* See note A, at the end of the volume.]
     [* See note A, at the end of the volume.]

These tribes finding their more opulent neighbors exposed to invasion, soon broke over the Roman wall, no longer defended by the Roman arms; and, though a contemptible enemy in themselves, met with no resistance from the unwarlike inhabitants. The Britons, accustomed to have recourse to the emperors for defence as well as government, made supplications to Rome: and one legion was sent over for their protection. This force was an overmatch for the barbarians, repelled their invasion, touted them in every engagement, and having chased them into their ancient limits, returned in triumph to the defence of the southern provinces of the empire.[*]

These tribes, seeing their wealthier neighbors vulnerable to invasion, quickly crossed the Roman wall, which was no longer protected by Roman soldiers. Despite being relatively weak themselves, they faced no resistance from the unmilitary local population. The Britons, used to relying on the emperors for protection as well as governance, pleaded with Rome for help. In response, one legion was sent over for their defense. This force was too strong for the barbarians, drove them back, defeated them in every battle, and after pushing them into their old territories, returned triumphantly to defend the southern provinces of the empire.[*]

     [* Gildas, Bede, lib. i. cap. 12.]
[* Gildas, Bede, lib. i. cap. 12.]

Their retreat brought on a new invasion of the enemy. The Britons made again an application to Rome, and again obtained the assistance of a legion, which proved effectual for their relief: but the Romans, reduced to extremities at home, and fatigued with those distant expeditions, informed the Britons that they must no longer look to them for succor, exhorted them to arm in their own defence, and urged, that, as they were now their own masters, it became them to protect by their valor that independence which their ancient lords had conferred upon them.[*] That they might leave the island with the better grace, the Romans assisted them in erecting anew the wall of Severus, which was built entirely of stone, and which the Britons had not at that time artificers skilful enough to repair.[*]

Their retreat triggered a new invasion from the enemy. The Britons reached out to Rome once more and again received the help of a legion, which effectively aided them. However, the Romans, facing serious problems at home and weary from those distant campaigns, informed the Britons that they could no longer rely on them for support. They urged them to defend themselves and noted that, as they were now their own masters, it was their responsibility to safeguard the independence given to them by their ancient rulers. To leave the island on a better note, the Romans helped them rebuild the wall of Severus, which was made entirely of stone, and which the Britons did not have skilled craftsmen available at that time to repair.

     [* Paul. Diacon. p. 43.]
[* Paul. Diacon. p. 43.*]

And having done this last good office to the inhabitants, they bade a final adieu to Britain, about the year 448, after being masters of the more considerable part of it during the course of near four centuries.

And after doing this last good deed for the people, they said a final goodbye to Britain around the year 448, having been in control of most of it for nearly four centuries.





THE BRITONS.

The abject Britons regarded this present of liberty as fatal to them; and were in no condition to put in practice the prudent counsel given them by the Romans, to arm in their own defence. Unaccustomed both to the perils of war and to the cares of civil government, they found themselves incapable of forming or executing any measures for resisting the incursions of the barbarians. Gratian also and Constantine, two Romans who had a little before assumed the purple in Britain, had carried over to the continent the flower of the British youth; and having perished in their unsuccessful attempts on the imperial throne, had despoiled the island of those who, in this desperate extremity, were best able to defend it. The Picts and Scots, finding that the Romans had finally relinquished Britain, now regarded the whole as their prey, and attacked the northern wall with redoubled forces. The Britons, already subdued by their own fears, found the ramparts but a weak defence for them; and deserting their station, left the country entirely open to the inroads of the barbarous enemy. The invaders carried devastation and ruin along with them; and exerted to the utmost their native ferocity, which was not mitigated by the helpless condition and submissive behavior of the inhabitants.[*]

The defeated Britons saw this gift of freedom as a disaster for them; and they were not in a position to follow the wise advice given by the Romans to arm themselves for self-defense. Unfamiliar with the dangers of war and the responsibilities of governance, they found themselves unable to create or carry out any plans to resist the attacks from the barbarians. Gratian and Constantine, two Romans who had recently claimed the throne in Britain, had taken the best of British youth to the continent; and after failing in their attempts to seize the imperial throne, they had stripped the island of those who were most capable of defending it in this dire situation. The Picts and Scots, realizing that the Romans had finally left Britain, now saw the entire region as theirs to conquer and launched renewed assaults on the northern wall with increased forces. The Britons, already weakened by their own fears, found the defenses to be a poor protection; and abandoning their positions, they left the country completely vulnerable to the barbarian invasions. The invaders brought destruction and chaos with them, unleashing their natural brutality, which was only heightened by the helplessness and submissive attitude of the locals.[*]

     [* Gildas, Bede, lib. i. Allured. Beverl. p. 45.]
[* Gildas, Bede, book 1. Allured. Beverl. p. 45.]

The unhappy Britons had a third time recourse to Rome, which had declared its resolution forever to abandon them. Ætius, the patrician, sustained at that time, by his valor and magnanimity, the tottering ruins of the empire, and revived for a moment among the degenerate Romans the spirit, as well as discipline, of their ancestors. The British ambassadors carried to him the letter of their countrymen, which was inscribed, “The groans of the Britons.” The tenor of the epistle was suitable to its superscription. “The barbarians,” say they, “on the one hand, chase us into the sea; the sea, on the other, throws us back upon the barbarians; and we have only the hard choice left us of perishing by the sword or by the waves.”[*]

The unhappy Britons sought help from Rome for the third time, which had declared its decision to abandon them for good. At that time, Ætius, the patrician, was keeping the crumbling empire together with his bravery and generosity, briefly reviving the spirit and discipline of their ancestors among the declining Romans. The British ambassadors brought him a letter from their people that was titled, “The Groans of the Britons.” The content of the letter matched its title. “The barbarians,” they wrote, “are driving us into the sea; the sea, in turn, is pushing us back to the barbarians; and we are left with the difficult choice of dying by the sword or by the waves.”[*]

     [* Gildas, Bede, lib. i. cap. 13. William of
     Malmesbury, lib. i. cap. 1 Alured. Beverl. p. 45.]
     [* Gildas, Bede, book 1, chapter 13. William of Malmesbury, book 1, chapter 1 Alured. Beverl. p. 45.]

But Ætius, pressed by the arms of Attila, the most terrible enemy that ever assailed the empire, had no leisure to attend to the complaints of allies, whom generosity alone could induce him to assist.[*]

But Ætius, pressured by the forces of Attila, the most fearsome enemy that ever attacked the empire, had no time to deal with the complaints of allies, whom only his generosity could motivate him to help.[*]

     [* Saxon Chron. p. 11, edit. 1692.]
     [* Saxon Chron. p. 11, edit. 1692.]

The Britons, thus rejected, were reduced to despair, deserted their habitations, abandoned tillage, and flying for protection to the forests and mountains, suffered equally from hunger and from the enemy. The barbarians themselves began to feel the pressures of famine in a country which they had ravaged; and being harassed by the dispersed Britons, who had not dared to resist them in a body, they retreated with their spoils into their own country.[*]

The Britons, feeling completely rejected, fell into despair, left their homes, stopped farming, and sought refuge in the forests and mountains, suffering from both hunger and attacks from the enemy. The barbarians began to experience famine in the land they had destroyed; and being troubled by the scattered Britons, who didn’t dare to fight them all together, they withdrew with their loot back to their own land.[*]

     [* Alured. Beverl, p. 45.]
[* Alured. Beverl, p. 45.]

The Britons, taking advantage of this interval, returned to their usual occupations; and the favorable seasons which succeeded, seconding their industry, made them soon forget their past miseries, and restored to them great plenty of all the necessaries of life. No more can be imagined to have been possessed by a people so rude, who had not, without the assistance of the Romans, art of masonry sufficient to raise a stone rampart for their own defence; yet the monkish historians,[*] who treat of those events, complain of the luxury of the Britons during this period, and ascribe to that vice, not to their cowardice or improvident counsels, all their subsequent calamities.

The Britons, seizing this opportunity, went back to their regular activities; and the favorable seasons that followed, supporting their efforts, made them quickly forget their past hardships and provided them with an abundance of all the necessities of life. It’s hard to imagine that such a rudimentary people, who lacked the skills to build a stone wall for their own protection without Roman help, could possess so much. However, the monkish historians, who write about those events, complain about the Britons' indulgence during this time and attribute their later misfortunes to this weakness rather than their cowardice or poor decisions.

     [* Gildas, Bede, lib. i. cap. 14.]
     [* Gildas, Bede, lib. i. cap. 14.]

The Britons, entirely occupied in the enjoyment of the present interval of peace, made no provision for resisting the enemy, who, invited by their former timid behavior, soon threatened them with a new invasion. We are not exactly informed what species of civil government the Romans, on their departure, had left among the Britons, but it appears probable that the great men in the different districts assumed a kind of regal, though precarious authority, and lived in a great measure independent of each other.[*]

The Britons, fully caught up in enjoying their current peace, did nothing to prepare for the enemy, who, encouraged by their previous cowardice, soon posed a new threat of invasion. We don’t know exactly what type of civil government the Romans had left behind when they left, but it seems likely that the important figures in the various regions took on a sort of kingly, albeit unstable, power and largely operated independently from one another.[*]

     [* Gildas, Usher, Ant. Brit. p. 248, 347.]
     [* Gildas, Usher, Ant. Brit. p. 248, 347.]

To this disunion of counsels were also added the disputes of theology; and the disciples of Pelagius, who was himself a native of Britain, having increased to a great multitude, gave alarm to the clergy, who seem to have been more intent on suppressing them, than on opposing the public enemy.[*]

To this division of opinions were also added the theological disputes; and the followers of Pelagius, who was originally from Britain, grew into a massive group, alarming the clergy, who seemed more focused on shutting them down than on confronting the actual threat.[*]

     [* Gildas, Bede, lib. i. cap. 17. Constant, in Vita Germ.]
     [* Gildas, Bede, lib. i. cap. 17. Constant, in Vita Germ.]

Laboring under these domestic evils, and menaced with a foreign invasion, the Britons attended only to the suggestions of their present fears, and following the counsels of Vortigern, prince of Dumnonium, who, though stained with every vice, possessed the chief authority among them,[*] they sent into Germany a deputation to invite over the Saxons for their protection and assistance.

Laboring under these domestic troubles and threatened by a foreign invasion, the Britons focused solely on their immediate fears. Taking advice from Vortigern, the prince of Dumnonium, who, despite being corrupt, held significant power among them, they sent a delegation to Germany to invite the Saxons for their protection and help.

     [* Gildas, W. Malms. p. 8.]
[* Gildas, W. Malms. p. 8.]




THE SAXONS.

Of all the barbarous nations, known either in ancient or modern times, the Germans seem to have been the most distinguished both by their manners and political institutions, and to have carried to the highest pitch the virtues of valor and love of liberty; the only virtues which can have place among an uncivilized people, where justice and humanity are commonly neglected. Kingly government, even when established among the Germans, (for it was not universal,) possessed a very limited authority; and though the sovereign was usually chosen from among the royal family, he was directed in every measure by the common consent of the nation over whom he presided. When any important affairs were transacted, all the warriors met in arms; the men of greatest authority employed persuasion to engage their consent; the people expressed their approbation by rattling their armor, or their dissent by murmurs; there was no necessity for a nice scrutiny of votes among a multitude, who were usually carried with a strong current to one side or the other; and the measure, thus suddenly chosen by general agreement, was executed with alacrity, and prosecuted with vigor. Even in war, the princes governed more by example than by authority, but in peace, the civil union was in a great measure dissolved, and the inferior leaders administered justice, after an independent manner, each in his particular district. These were elected by the votes of the people in their great councils; and though regard was paid to nobility in the choice, their personal qualities, chiefly their valor, procured them, from the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, that honorable but dangerous distinction. The warriors of each tribe attached themselves to the[**possibly this word is their] leader, with the most devoted affection and most unshaken constancy. They attended him as his ornament in peace, as his defence in war, as his council in the administration of justice. Their constant emulation in military renown dissolved not that inviolable friendship which they professed to their chieftain and to each other. To die for the honor of their band was their chief ambition; to survive its disgrace, or the death of their leader, was infamous. They even carried into the field their women and children, who adopted all the martial sentiments of the men: and being thus impelled by every human motive, they were invincible; where they were no[**possibly the word is not] opposed, either by the similar manners and institutions of the neighboring Germans, or by the superior discipline, arms, and numbers of the Romans.[*]

Of all the savage nations, whether in ancient or modern times, the Germans seem to have stood out the most for their customs and political systems, showcasing the highest levels of bravery and love of freedom; these are the only virtues that can exist among an uncivilized people, where justice and kindness are often overlooked. Even when kingship existed among the Germans, it was not universal and had very limited power; although the ruler was usually chosen from the royal family, he was guided in all matters by the collective agreement of the nation he governed. When significant issues arose, all the warriors gathered armed; the most respected men used persuasion to gain their approval; the people showed their approval by clattering their armor or expressed their discontent through murmurs. There was no need to meticulously count votes among a crowd, who were often swayed strongly to one side or another; and the decision, quickly reached by consensus, was carried out eagerly and energetically. Even in war, the leaders influenced more by setting an example than by exerting authority, while in times of peace, the social order was largely unbound, and lower leaders administered justice independently within their own areas. These leaders were chosen by the votes of the people in their major councils; while nobility was considered in their selection, it was their personal traits, particularly their courage, that earned them the respect of their fellow citizens and that honorable but risky status. The warriors of each tribe were deeply loyal to their leader, showing devoted affection and unwavering support. They followed him as his pride in times of peace, his protection in battle, and his advisors in justice. Their shared drive for military glory did not undermine the strong bonds of friendship they held with their leader and with one another. Dying for the honor of their group was their greatest aspiration; surviving its disgrace or the death of their leader was shameful. They even brought their women and children to the battlefield, who embraced all the fighting spirit of the men: and driven by every human motivation, they were unstoppable; where they faced no opposition from the similar customs and systems of the neighboring Germans, or from the superior training, weaponry, and numbers of the Romans.

     [* Caesar, lib. vi.]
[* Caesar, book vi.]

The leaders and their military companions were maintained by the labor of their slaves, or by that of the weaker and less warlike part of the community whom they defended. The contributions which they levied went not beyond a bare subsistence; and the honors, acquired by a superior rank, were the only reward of their superior dangers and fatigues. All the refined arts of life were unknown among the Germans: tillage itself was almost wholly neglected; they even seem to have been anxious to prevent any improvements of that nature; and the leaders, by annually distributing anew all the land among the inhabitants of each village, kept them from attaching themselves to particular possessions, or making such progress in agriculture as might divert their attention from military expeditions, the chief occupation of the community.[*]

The leaders and their military allies were supported by the labor of their slaves or by the weaker, less battle-ready members of the community they protected. The resources they taxed barely covered basic needs; the only rewards for their greater risks and hardships were the honors that came with higher rank. The Germans were unfamiliar with the finer aspects of life: agriculture was largely ignored, and they seemed to want to avoid any advancements in that area. Their leaders ensured that land was redistributed each year among the villagers, preventing them from becoming attached to specific plots of land or making agricultural progress that might distract them from military campaigns, which were the community's main focus.[*]

     [* Tacit. de Mor. Germ]
[* Tacit. de Mor. Germ]

The Saxons had been for some time regarded as one of the most warlike tribes of this fierce people, and had become the terror of the neighboring nations.[*]

The Saxons had been seen for a while as one of the most aggressive tribes of this fierce group and had become a source of fear for the surrounding nations.[*]

     [* Amm. Marcell. lib. xxviii. Orosius.]
[* Amm. Marcell. lib. xxviii. Orosius.*]

They had diffused themselves from the northern parts of Germany and the Cimbrian Chersonesus, and had taken possession of all the sea-coast from the mouth of the Rhine to Jutland; whence they had long infested by their piracies all the eastern and southern parts of Britain, and the northern of Gaul.[*]

They spread out from the northern regions of Germany and the Cimbrian Peninsula, taking control of the entire coastline from the mouth of the Rhine to Jutland. From there, they had been raiding the eastern and southern parts of Britain and the northern areas of Gaul for a long time.[*]

     [* Amm. Marcell. lib. xxvii. cap. 7. lib. xxviii. cap. 7]
     [* Amm. Marcell. lib. xxvii. cap. 7. lib. xxviii. cap. 7]

In order to oppose their inroads, the Romans had established an officer, whom they called “Count of the Saxon shore;” and as the naval arts can flourish among a civilized people alone, they seem to have been more successful in repelling the Saxons than any of the other barbarians by whom they were invaded. The dissolution of the Roman power invited them to renew their inroads; and it was an acceptable circumstance that the deputies of the Britons appeared among them, and prompted them to undertake an enterprise to which they were of themselves sufficiently inclined.[*]

To counter their advances, the Romans appointed an officer known as the “Count of the Saxon Shore.” Since naval skills can only thrive in a civilized society, they seemed to succeed more in pushing back the Saxons than in dealing with any of the other invading barbarians. The weakening of Roman power encouraged the Saxons to launch new invasions, and it was helpful that representatives from Britain came to them, urging them to take on a mission they were already inclined to pursue.

     [* W. Malms, p. 8.]
[* W. Malms, p. 8.]

Hengist and Horsa, two brothers, possessed great credit among the Saxons, and were much celebrated both for their valor and nobility. They were reputed, as most of the Saxon princes, to be sprung from Woden, who was worshipped as a god among those nations, and they are said to be his great grandsons;[*] a circumstance which added much to their authority.

Hengist and Horsa, two brothers, were highly respected among the Saxons and were well-known for their bravery and nobility. Like many Saxon princes, they were believed to be descendants of Woden, who was worshipped as a god in those lands, and they were said to be his great-grandsons;[*] a fact that greatly enhanced their power.

     [* Bede, lib. i. cap. 15. Chron. Sax. p. 13. Nennius, cap.
     28.]
     [* Bede, lib. i. cap. 15. Chron. Sax. p. 13. Nennius, cap.
     28.]

We shall not attempt to trace any higher the origin of those princes and nations. It is evident what fruitless labor it must be to search, in those barbarous and illiterate ages, for the annals of a people, when their first leaders, known in any true history, were believed by them to be the fourth in descent from a fabulous deity, or from a man exalted by ignorance into that character. The dark industry of antiquaries, led by imaginary analogies of names, or by uncertain traditions, would in vain attempt to pierce into that deep obscurity which covers the remote history of those nations.

We won't try to trace the origins of those princes and nations any further. It's clear how pointless it is to search for the history of a people in those barbaric and uneducated times when their earliest leaders, known in any real history, were thought to be the fourth generation from a mythical god or from a person who was mistakenly elevated to that status. The painstaking efforts of historians, guided by imaginary connections of names or unreliable traditions, would futilely try to uncover the deep obscurity that shrouds the distant history of those nations.

These two brothers, observing the other provinces of Germany to be occupied by a warlike and necessitous people, and the rich provinces of Gaul already conquered or overrun by other German tribes, found it easy to persuade their countrymen to embrace the sole enterprise which promised a favorable opportunity of displaying their valor and gratifying their avidity. They embarked their troops in three vessels and about the year 449 or 450,[*] earned over one thousand six hundred men, who landed in the Isle of Thanet, and immediately marched to the defence of the Britons against the northern invaders. The Scots and Picts were unable to resist the valor of these auxiliaries; and the Britons, applauding their own wisdom in calling over the Saxons, hoped thenceforth to enjoy peace and security under the powerful protection of that warlike people.

These two brothers noticed that the other regions of Germany were occupied by a fierce and desperate people, while the wealthy areas of Gaul had already been conquered or invaded by other German tribes. They easily convinced their fellow countrymen to take on the one venture that offered a good chance to show their bravery and satisfy their desires. They loaded their troops onto three ships and around the year 449 or 450,[*] brought over more than one thousand six hundred men who landed on the Isle of Thanet and immediately went to help the Britons against the northern invaders. The Scots and Picts couldn't withstand the strength of these reinforcements; and the Britons, recognizing their own wisdom in inviting the Saxons, hoped to enjoy peace and safety from that point on under the strong protection of these fierce warriors.

But Hengist and Horsa, perceiving, from their easy victory over the Scots and Picts, with what facility they might subdue tae Britons themselves, who had not been able to resist those feeble invaders, were determined to conquer and fight for their own grandeur, not for the defence of their degenerate allies. They sent intelligence to Saxony of the fertility and riches of Britain, and represented as certain the subjection of a people so long disused to arms, who, being now cut off from the Roman empire, of which they had been a province during so many ages, had not yet acquired any union among themselves, and were destitute of all affection to their new liberties, and of all national attachments and regards.[**] The vices, and pusillanimity of Vortigern, the British leader, were a new ground of hope; and the Saxons in Germany, following such agreeable prospects, soon reënforced Hengist and Horsa with five thousand men, who came over in seventeen vessels. The Britons now began to entertain apprehensions of their allies, whose numbers they found continually augmenting; but thought of no remedy, except a passive submission and connivance. This weak expedient soon failed them. The Saxons sought a quarrel, by complaining that their subsidies were ill paid, and their provisions withdrawn;[***] and immediately taking off the mask, they formed an alliance with the Picts and Scots, and proceeded to open hostility against the Britons.

But Hengist and Horsa, noticing how easily they had defeated the Scots and Picts, realized how simple it would be to conquer the Britons themselves, who had not been able to fend off such weak invaders. They decided to fight for their own glory, not to protect their unreliable allies. They informed Saxony about the rich and fertile lands of Britain and assured them that a people so long unaccustomed to battle could easily be subdued. Now cut off from the Roman Empire, which they had been part of for ages, the Britons had not yet developed any unity among themselves, nor did they have any real attachment to their newfound freedoms. The weaknesses and cowardice of Vortigern, the British leader, provided further hope. Encouraged by these prospects, the Saxons in Germany quickly sent Hengist and Horsa reinforcements of five thousand men, who arrived in seventeen ships. The Britons started to worry about their allies, whose numbers were steadily growing, but they could think of no solution other than to passively accept the situation and turn a blind eye. This weak approach soon backfired. The Saxons found a reason to argue by claiming that their payments were late and their supplies cut off, and without hesitation, they dropped the facade, formed an alliance with the Picts and Scots, and went on the offensive against the Britons.

The Britons, impelled by these violent extremities, ana roused to indignation against their treacherous auxiliaries, were necessitated to take arms; and having deposed Vortigern, who had become odious from his vices, and from the bad event of his rash counsels, they put themselves under the Command of his son, Vortimer. They fought many battles with their enemies; and though the victories in these actions be disputed between the British and Saxon annalists, the progress still made by the Saxons proves that the advantage was commonly on their side.

The Britons, driven by these extreme hardships and fueled by anger towards their treacherous allies, were forced to take up arms. They removed Vortigern, who had become hated due to his vices and the negative outcomes of his reckless decisions, and put themselves under the leadership of his son, Vortimer. They fought many battles against their enemies, and although the victories in these conflicts are debated between British and Saxon historians, the ongoing advancements made by the Saxons indicate that they typically had the upper hand.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 12. W. Malms, p. 11. Hunting,
     lib. U. p. 309. Ethelwerd, Brompton, p. 728.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 12. Alured. Beverl. p. 49.]

     [*** Bede, lib. i cap. 15. Nennius, cap. 35. Gildas,
     sect 2d.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 12. W. Malms, p. 11. Hunting,
     lib. U. p. 309. Ethelwerd, Brompton, p. 728.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 12. Alured. Beverl. p. 49.]

     [*** Bede, lib. i cap. 15. Nennius, cap. 35. Gildas,
     sect 2d.]

In one battle, however, fought at Faglesford, now Ailsford, Horsa, the Saxon general, was slain and left the sole command over his countrymen in the hands of Hengist. This active general, continually reënforced oy fresh numbers from Germany, carried devastation into the most remote corners of Britain; and being chiefly anxious to spread the terror of his arms, he spared neither age, nor sex, nor condition, wherever he marched with his victorious forces. The private and public edifices of the Britons were reduced to ashes; the priests were slaughtered on the altars by those idolatrous ravagers; the bishops and nobility shared the fate of the vulgar; the people, flying to the mountains and deserts, were intercepted and butchered in heaps: some were glad to accept of life and servitude under their victors: others, deserting their native country, took shelter in the province of Armorica; where, being charitably received by a people of the same language and manners, they settled in great numbers, and gave the country the name of Brittany.[*]

In one battle, however, fought at Faglesford, now Ailsford, Horsa, the Saxon general, was killed, leaving Hengist in sole command over his countrymen. This active general, consistently reinforced by fresh troops from Germany, brought destruction to the most distant parts of Britain. Focused mainly on spreading fear through his military might, he showed no mercy to anyone, regardless of age, gender, or status, as he marched with his victorious forces. The private and public buildings of the Britons were burned to the ground; priests were slaughtered at the altars by these ruthless invaders; bishops and nobility met the same fate as the common people; those fleeing to the mountains and deserts were caught and killed in large numbers. Some were desperate enough to accept life and slavery under their conquerors; others abandoned their homeland and sought refuge in the province of Armorica, where they were warmly welcomed by a people with similar language and customs. They settled there in large numbers and named the region Brittany.[*]

The British writers assign one cause which facilitated the entrance of the Saxons into this island—the love with which Vortigern was at first seized for Rovena, the daughter of Hengist, and which that artful warrior made use of to blind the eyes of the imprudent monarch.[**] The same historians add, that Vortimer died; and that Vortigern, being restored to the throne, accepted of a banquet from Hengist, at Stonehenge, where three hundred of his nobility were treacherously slaughtered, and himself detained captive.[***] But these stories seem to have been invented by the Welsh authors, in order to palliate the weak resistance made at first by their countrymen, and to account for the rapid progress and licentious devastations of the Saxons.[****]

The British writers point to one reason that made it easier for the Saxons to settle in this land—Vortigern's infatuation with Rovena, the daughter of Hengist, which that cunning warrior exploited to deceive the foolish king. The same historians say that Vortimer died, and that Vortigern, regaining the throne, accepted a feast from Hengist at Stonehenge, where three hundred of his noblemen were deceitfully slaughtered, and he himself was taken captive. However, these stories seem to have been made up by Welsh authors to justify the initial weak resistance of their countrymen and to explain the swift advance and reckless destruction caused by the Saxons.

After the death of Vortimer, Ambrosius, a Briton, though of Roman descent, was invested with the command over his countrymen, and endeavored, not without success, to unite them in their resistance against the Saxons. Those contests increased the animosity between the two rations, and roused the military spirit of the ancient inhabitants, which had before been sunk into a fatal lethargy.

After Vortimer died, Ambrosius, a Briton of Roman heritage, was given command over his fellow countrymen and worked, not without success, to unite them in their fight against the Saxons. These battles heightened the hostility between the two nations and awakened the fighting spirit of the ancient inhabitants, which had previously fallen into a deadly slumber.

     [* Bede, lib. i. cap. 15. Usher, p. 226. Gildas,
     sect. 24.]
[* Bede, vol. 1, ch. 15. Usher, p. 226. Gildas, sect. 24.]
     [** Nennius, Galfr. lib. vi. cap. 12.]
     [** Nennius, Galfr. lib. vi. cap. 12.]
     [*** Nennius, cap. 47. Galfr.]
[*** Nennius, cap. 47. Galfr.]
     [**** Stillingfleet’s Orig. Britt. p. 324,325.]
[**** Stillingfleet’s Orig. Britt. p. 324,325.]

Hengist, however, notwithstanding their opposition, still maintained his ground in Britain and in order to divide the forces and attention of the natives he called over a new tribe of Saxons, under the command of his brother Octa, and of Ebissa, the son of Octa; and he settled them in Northumberland. He himself remained in the southern parts of the island, and laid the foundation of their kingdom of Kent, comprehending the county of that name Middlesex, Essex, and part of Surrey. He fixed his royal seat at Canterbury, where he governed about forty years, and he died in or near the year 488, leaving his new-acquired dominions to his posterity.

Hengist, despite their opposition, still held his ground in Britain. To distract the local tribes, he brought over a new group of Saxons led by his brother Octa and Ebissa, Octa's son, and settled them in Northumberland. Hengist stayed in the southern part of the island, establishing the kingdom of Kent, which included the county of Kent, Middlesex, Essex, and part of Surrey. He made Canterbury his royal seat, where he ruled for about forty years. He died around the year 488, leaving his newly acquired lands to his descendants.

The success of Hengist excited the avidity of the other northern Germans; and at different times, and under different leaders, they flocked over in multitudes to the invasion of mis island. These conquerors were chiefly composed of three tribes, the Saxons, Angles, and Jutes,[*] who all passed under the common appellation, sometimes, of Saxons, sometimes of Angles; and speaking the same language, and being governed by the same institutions, they were naturally led, from these causes, as well as from their common interest, to unite themselves against the ancient inhabitants. The resistance, however, though unequal, was still maintained by the Britons; but became every day more feeble; and their calamities admitted of few intervals, till they were driven into Cornwall and Wales, and received protection from the remote situation or inaccessible mountains of those countries.

The success of Hengist sparked the enthusiasm of the other northern Germans; and at various times, and under different leaders, they swarmed over in large numbers to invade this island. These conquerors mainly consisted of three tribes: the Saxons, Angles, and Jutes,[*] who were often referred to collectively as Saxons or Angles; speaking the same language and being governed by similar institutions, they were naturally inclined, due to these factors as well as their shared interests, to band together against the native inhabitants. The Britons, however, continued to resist despite the odds, but their efforts became increasingly weak; their hardships had few breaks until they were pushed into Cornwall and Wales, where they found refuge in the remote location and rugged mountains of those regions.

The first Saxon state, after that of Kent, which was established in Britain, was the kingdom of South Saxony. In the year 477,[**] Ælla, a Saxon chief, brought over an army from Germany; and, landing on the southern coast, proceeded to take possession of the neighboring territory. The Britons, now armed, did not tamely abandon their possessions; nor were they expelled till defeated in many battles by their war-like invaders. The most memorable action, mentioned by historians, is that of Mearcredes Burn;[***] where, though the Saxons seem to have obtained the victory, they suffered so considerable a loss, as somewhat retarded the progress of their conquests.

The first Saxon state established in Britain after Kent was the kingdom of South Saxony. In the year 477, Ælla, a Saxon leader, brought an army from Germany and landed on the southern coast, taking control of the surrounding land. The Britons, now armed, didn’t just give up their territory; they fought back and weren’t pushed out until they were defeated in many battles by the aggressive invaders. The most notable battle recorded by historians is at Mearcredes Burn, where, although the Saxons seemed to win, they suffered significant losses that slowed down their conquests.

     [* Bede, lib. i. cap. 15. Ethelwerd, p. 833, edit.
     Camdeni. Chron. Sax. p. 12. Alured. Beverl. p. 78. The
     inhabitants of Kent and the Isle of Wight were Jutes. Essex,
     Middlesex, Surrey, Sussex, and all the southern counties to
     Cornwall, were peopled by Saxons: Mercis mud other parts of
     the kingdom were inhabited by Angles.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p.14. Alured Beverl. p. 81.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. A. D. 485. Flor. Wigron]
     [* Bede, lib. i. cap. 15. Ethelwerd, p. 833, edit. Camdeni. Chron. Sax. p. 12. Alured. Beverl. p. 78. The inhabitants of Kent and the Isle of Wight were Jutes. Essex, Middlesex, Surrey, Sussex, and all the southern counties up to Cornwall were settled by Saxons: Mercia and other areas of the kingdom were inhabited by Angles.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p.14. Alured Beverl. p. 81.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. A. D. 485. Flor. Wigron]

But Ælla, reénforced by fresh numbers of his countrymen, again took the field against the Britons; and laid siege to Ancired Ceaster, which was defended by the garrison and inhabitants with desperate valor.[*] The Saxons, enraged by this resistance, and by the fatigues and dangers which they had sustained, redoubled their efforts against the place; and, when masters of it, put all their enemies to the sword without distinction. This decisive advantage secured the conquests of Ælla, who assumed the name of king, and extended his dominion over Sussex and a great part of Surrey He was stopped in his progress to the east by the kingdom of Kent; in that to the west by another tribe of Saxons, who had taken possession of that territory.

But Ælla, reinforced by more of his countrymen, once again took the field against the Britons and laid siege to Ancired Ceaster, which was defended by the garrison and local residents with fierce determination. The Saxons, angry about this resistance and the hardships and dangers they had faced, intensified their efforts against the fort. Once they took control, they slaughtered all their enemies without mercy. This crucial victory solidified Ælla's conquests, prompting him to call himself king and expand his territory over Sussex and much of Surrey. He was halted in his push east by the kingdom of Kent and to the west by another group of Saxons who had claimed that land.

These Saxons, from the situation of the country in which they settled, were called the West Saxons, and landed in the year 495, under the command of Cerdic, and of his son Kenric.[**] The Britons were, by past experience, so much on their guard, and so well prepared to receive the enemy, that they gave battle to Cerdic the very day of his landing; and, though vanquished, still defended, for some time, their liberties against the invaders. None of the other tribes of Saxons met with such vigorous resistance, or exerted such valor and perseverance in pushing their conquests. Cerdic was even obliged to call for the assistance of his countrymen from the kingdoms of Kent and Sussex, as well as from Germany, and he was thence joined by a fresh army under the command of Porte, and of his sons Bleda and Megla.[***] Strengthened by these succors, he fought, in the year 508, a desperate battle with the Britons, commanded by Nazan Leod, who was victorious in the beginning of the action, and routed the wing in which Cerdic himself commanded. But Kenric, who had prevailed in the other wing, brought timely assistance to his father, and restored the battle, which ended in a complete victory gained by the Saxons.[****] Nazan Leod perished, with five thousand of his army; but left the Britons more weakened than discouraged by his death. The war still continued, though the success was commonly on the side of the Saxons, whose short swords and manner of fighting gave them great advantage over the missile weapons of the Britons.

These Saxons, based on the area where they settled, were called the West Saxons, and arrived in the year 495, led by Cerdic and his son Kenric.[**] The Britons, having had prior experiences, were very alert and well-prepared to face the enemy, so they engaged Cerdic in battle on the very day he landed; and, although defeated, they fought for some time to defend their freedoms against the invaders. None of the other Saxon tribes faced such strong resistance or showed the same bravery and determination in expanding their territories. Cerdic even needed to call for help from his fellow countrymen in the kingdoms of Kent and Sussex, as well as from Germany, and was joined by a new army led by Porte and his sons Bleda and Megla.[***] Reinforced by these reinforcements, he fought a fierce battle against the Britons in 508, commanded by Nazan Leod, who initially had the upper hand and broke the wing that Cerdic was leading. However, Kenric, who had been successful on the other flank, provided timely support to his father, turning the tide of the battle, which ultimately resulted in a total victory for the Saxons.[****] Nazan Leod was killed, along with five thousand of his troops, but his death left the Britons more weakened than discouraged. The war continued, although the Saxons often enjoyed success, thanks to their short swords and fighting style, which gave them a significant advantage over the Britons' ranged weapons.

     [* H. Hunting, lib. ii.]

     [** W. Malms, lib. i. cap. I, p. 12. Chron. Sax. p.
     15.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 17.]

     [**** H. Hunting, lib ii. Ethelwerd, lib. i. Chron.
     Sax. p. 17.]
     [* H. Hunting, vol. 2]

     [** W. Malms, vol. 1, ch. 1, p. 12. Chron. Sax. p.
     15.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 17.]

     [**** H. Hunting, vol. 2. Ethelwerd, vol. 1. Chron.
     Sax. p. 17.]

Cerdic was not wanting to in good fortune; and in order to extend his conquests, he laid siege to Mount Badon or Banesdowne, near Bath, whither the most obstinate of the discomfited Britons had retired. The southern Britons, in this extremity, applied for assistance to Arthur, prince of the Silures, whose heroic valor now sustained the declining fate of his country.[*] This is that Arthur so much celebrated in the songs of Thaliessin, and the other British bards, and whose military achievements have been blended with so many fables, as even to give occasion for entertaining a doubt of his real existence. But poets, though they disfigure the most certain history by their fictions, ana use strange liberties with truth where they are the sole historians, as among the Britons, have commonly some foundation for their wildest exaggerations. Certain it is, that the siege of Badon was raised by the Britons in the year 520; and the Saxons were there discomfited in a great battle.[**] This misfortune stopped the progress of Cerdic; but was not sufficient to wrest from him the conquests which he had already made. He and his son Kenric, who succeeded him, established the kingdom of the West Saxons, or of Wessex, over the counties of Hants, Dorset, Wilts, Berks, and the Isle of Wight, and left their new-acquired dominions to their posterity. Cerdic died in 534, Kenric in 560.

Cerdic wasn't lacking in good fortune; to expand his conquests, he laid siege to Mount Badon (or Banesdowne), near Bath, where the most stubborn of the defeated Britons had retreated. In this dire situation, the southern Britons sought help from Arthur, the prince of the Silures, whose heroic bravery was now supporting the struggling fate of his country.[*] This is the same Arthur celebrated in the songs of Thaliessin and other British bards, whose military achievements have been mixed with so many legends that it even raises doubts about his actual existence. However, poets, even though they distort the most certain history with their stories and take unusual liberties with the truth when they are the only historians, as is the case among the Britons, usually have some basis for their wildest claims. It's certain that the siege of Badon was lifted by the Britons in the year 520, and the Saxons were defeated in a major battle there.[**] This setback halted Cerdic's progress but wasn't enough to take away the conquests he had already achieved. He and his son Kenric, who succeeded him, established the kingdom of the West Saxons, or Wessex, over the counties of Hampshire, Dorset, Wiltshire, Berkshire, and the Isle of Wight, leaving their newly acquired domains to their descendants. Cerdic died in 534, and Kenric in 560.

While the Saxons made this progress in the south, their countrymen were not less active in other quarters. In the year 527, a great tribe of adventurers, under several leaders, landed on the east coast of Britain; and after fighting many battles, of which history has preserved no particular account, they established three new kingdoms in this island. Uffa assumed the title of king of the East Angles in 575; Crida, that of Mercia in 585;[***] and Erkenwin, that of East Saxony, or Essex, nearly about the same time; but the year is uncertain. This latter kingdom was dismembered from that of Kent, and comprehended Essex, Middlesex, and part of Hertfordshire; that of the East Angles, the counties of Cambridge, Suffolk, and Norfolk: Mercia was extended over all the middle counties from the banks of the Severn to the frontiers of these two kingdoms.

While the Saxons were making progress in the south, their fellow countrymen were also active in other areas. In 527, a large group of adventurers, led by several leaders, landed on the east coast of Britain; and after fighting many battles, which history hasn't detailed, they established three new kingdoms on the island. Uffa took the title of king of the East Angles in 575; Crida became king of Mercia in 585; and Erkenwin was recognized as the king of East Saxony, or Essex, around the same time, though the exact year is uncertain. This latter kingdom was separated from Kent and included Essex, Middlesex, and part of Hertfordshire; the kingdom of East Angles covered the counties of Cambridge, Suffolk, and Norfolk, while Mercia stretched across all the middle counties from the banks of the Severn to the borders of these two kingdoms.

     [* H. Hunting, lib. ii.]

     [** Gildas, Chron. Sax. H. Hunting, lib. ii.]

     [*** M. West. H. Hunting, lib. ii.]
     [* H. Hunting, book 2]

     [** Gildas, Chron. Sax. H. Hunting, book 2]

     [*** M. West. H. Hunting, book 2]

The Saxons, soon after the landing of Hengist, had been planted in Northumberland; but as they met with an obstinate resistance, and made but small progress in subduing the inhabitants, their affairs were in so unsettled a condition, that none of their princes for a long time assumed the appellation of king. At last, in 547,[*] Ida, a Saxon prince of great valor,[**] who claimed a descent, as did all the other princes of that nation, from Woden, brought over a reénforcement from Germany, and enabled the Northumbrians to carry on their conquests over the Britons. He entirely subdued the county now called Northumberland, the bishopric of Durham, as well as some of the south-east counties of Scotland; and he assumed the crown under the title of king of Bernicia. Nearly about the same time, Ælla, another Saxon prince, having conquered Lancashire and the greater part of Yorkshire, received the appellation of king of Deïri.[***] These two kingdoms were united in the person of Ethelfrid, grandson of Ida, who married Acca, the daughter of Ælla; and expelling her brother Edwin, established one of the most powerful of the Saxon kingdoms, by the title of Northumberland. How far his dominions extended into the country now called Scotland is uncertain: but it cannot be doubted, that all the lowlands, especially the east coast of that country, were peopled in a great measure from Germany; though the expeditions, made by the several Saxon adventurers, have escaped the records of history. The language spoken in those countries, which is purely Saxon, is a stronger proof of this event than can be opposed by the imperfect, or rather fabulous annals, which are obtruded on us by the Scottish historians.

The Saxons, shortly after Hengist's arrival, settled in Northumberland. However, they faced stubborn resistance and made little headway in conquering the local people. Their situation was so unstable that none of their leaders took on the title of king for a long time. Finally, in 547,[*] Ida, a brave Saxon prince who, like all other princes of his nation, claimed descent from Woden, brought reinforcements from Germany. This support allowed the Northumbrians to continue their conquests against the Britons. He completely conquered the area now known as Northumberland, the bishopric of Durham, and parts of the southeastern counties of Scotland. He then took the crown, calling himself the king of Bernicia. Around the same time, Ælla, another Saxon prince, had conquered Lancashire and most of Yorkshire, earning the title of king of Deïri.[***] These two kingdoms were united under Ethelfrid, Ida’s grandson, who married Acca, Ælla’s daughter. By ousting her brother Edwin, he established one of the most powerful Saxon kingdoms, known as Northumberland. It's unclear how far his territory extended into what is now Scotland, but it's certain that much of the lowlands, especially the east coast, were largely settled by people from Germany. Many expeditions led by various Saxon adventurers have vanished from historical records. The language still spoken in those regions, which is purely Saxon, is stronger evidence of this than the incomplete or rather fictional accounts presented by Scottish historians.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 19.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 19.]

     [*** Alured, Beverl. p. 78].
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 19.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 19.]

     [*** Alured, Beverl. p. 78].




THE HEPTARCHY

Thus was established, after a violent contest of near a hundred and fifty years, the Heptarchy, or seven Saxon kingdoms, in Britain; and the whole southern part of the island, except Wales and Cornwall, had totally changed its inhabitants, language, customs, and political institutions. The Britons, under the Roman dominion, had made such advances towards arts and civil manners, that they had built twenty-eight considerable cities within their province, besides a great number of villages and country seats; [*] but the fierce conquerors, by whom they were now subdued, threw every thing back into ancient barbarity; and those few natives, who were not either massacred or expelled their habitations, were reduced to the most abject slavery.

Thus was established, after a violent struggle lasting nearly a hundred and fifty years, the Heptarchy, or seven Saxon kingdoms, in Britain; and the entire southern part of the island, except for Wales and Cornwall, had completely changed its inhabitants, language, customs, and political institutions. The Britons, under Roman rule, had made significant progress in arts and civilized behavior, having built twenty-eight substantial cities in their territory, along with many villages and country homes; [*] but the fierce conquerors, who now dominated them, reverted everything back to ancient barbarism; and those few natives who were not either killed or forced from their homes were reduced to the most miserable slavery.

     [* Gildas, Sede, lib, i.]
[* Gildas, Sede, book, i.]

None of the other northern conquerors, the Franks, Goths, Vandals, or Burgundians, though they overran the southern provinces of the empire like a mighty torrent, made such devastations in the conquered territories, or were inflamed into so violent an animosity against the ancient inhabitants. As the Saxons came over at intervals in separate bodies, the Britons, however at first unwarlike, were tempted to make resistance; and hostilities, being thereby prolonged, proved more destructive to both parties, especially to the vanquished. The first invaders from Germany, instead of excluding other adventurers, who must share with them the spoils of the ancient inhabitants, were obliged to solicit fresh supplies from their own country; and a total extermination of the Britons became the sole expedient for providing a settlement and subsistence to the new planters. Hence there have been found in history few conquests more ruinous than that of the Saxons, and few revolutions more violent than that which they introduced.

None of the other northern conquerors, like the Franks, Goths, Vandals, or Burgundians, despite overrunning the southern provinces of the empire like a powerful flood, caused as much destruction in the conquered areas or harbored such intense hostility toward the native inhabitants. As the Saxons arrived in separate groups over time, the Britons, who were initially not inclined to fight, felt compelled to resist. This led to prolonged hostilities, which ended up being more destructive for both sides, particularly for the defeated. The initial invaders from Germany, rather than keeping others out, had to ask for reinforcements from their homeland to share in the spoils of the ancient inhabitants. Ultimately, completely wiping out the Britons became the only way to create a settlement and livelihood for the new settlers. Therefore, history shows that few conquests were as devastating as that of the Saxons, and few revolutions were as violent as the one they sparked.

So long as the contest was maintained with the natives, the several Saxon princes preserved a union of counsels and interests; but after the Britons were shut up in the barren countries of Cornwall and Wales, and gave no further disturbance to the conquerors, the band of alliance was in a great measure dissolved among the princes of the Heptarchy. Though one prince seems still to have been allowed, or to have assumed, an ascendant over the whole, his authority, if it ought ever to be deemed regular or legal, was extremely limited; and each state acted as if it had been independent, and wholly separate from the rest Wars, therefore, and revolutions and dissensions, were unavoidable among a turbulent and military people; and these events, however intricate or confused, ought now to become the objects of our attention But, added to the difficulty of carrying on at once the history of seven independent kingdoms, there is great discouragement to a writer, arising from the uncertainty, at least barrenness, of the accounts transmitted to us. The monks, who were the only annalists during those ages, lived remote from public affairs, considered the civil transactions as entirely subordinate the ecclesiastical, and, besides partaking of the ignorance and barbarity which were then universal, were strongly infected with credulity, with the love of wonder, and with a propensity to imposture; vices almost inseparable from their profession and manner of life. The history of that period abounds in names, but is extremely barren of events; or the events are related so much without circumstances and causes, that the most profound or most eloquent writer must despair of rendering them either instructive or entertaining to the reader. Even the great learning and vigorous imagination of Milton sunk under the weight; and this author scruples not to declare, that the skirmishes of kites or crows as much merited a particular narrative, as the confused transactions and battles of the Saxon Heptarchy.[*] In order, however, to connect the events in some tolerable measure, we shall give a succinct account of the successions of kings, and of the more remarkable revolutions in each particular kingdom; beginning with that of Kent, which was the first established.

As long as the struggle with the natives continued, the various Saxon princes maintained a unity of purpose and interests. However, after the Britons were confined to the harsh regions of Cornwall and Wales, and no longer posed a threat to the conquerors, the alliance among the princes of the Heptarchy largely fell apart. Although one prince appeared to have been acknowledged, or took on, a dominant role over all, his authority, if it could be considered legitimate, was very limited. Each state acted as if it were independent and completely separate from the others. Consequently, wars, revolutions, and disputes became inevitable among these restless and militaristic people. These occurrences, no matter how complicated or chaotic, should now be the focus of our attention. Additionally, the challenge of telling the history of seven independent kingdoms is compounded by the discouragement writers face due to the uncertainty and lack of detail in the accounts we have. The monks, who were the only historians of that time, were detached from public life, viewed civil affairs as secondary to church matters, and were, like most people of their time, often ignorant and naive, enamored with the miraculous, and prone to deceit—traits that are nearly inseparable from their role and lifestyle. The historical narrative from that period is filled with names but is severely lacking in events; or the events that are documented often come without context or causes, making it nearly impossible for even the most skilled or eloquent writer to present them in a way that is informative or engaging for readers. Even Milton, with his vast knowledge and imaginative prowess, struggled under this burden; he did not hesitate to state that the squabbles of birds like kites or crows deserved as much attention as the chaotic actions and battles of the Saxon Heptarchy. To piece together the events in a reasonable manner, we will provide a brief overview of the sequential kings and notable changes in each kingdom, starting with Kent, which was the first one established.

     [* Milton in Kennet, p. 50]
[* Milton in Kennet, p. 50]




THE KINGDOM OF KENT

Escus succeeded his father, Hengist, in the kingdom of Kent; but seems not to have possessed the military genius of that conqueror, who first made way for the entrance of the Saxon arms into Britain. All the Saxons, who sought either the fame of valor, or new establishments by arms, flocked to the standard of Ælla, king of Sussex, who was carrying on successful war against the Britons, and laying the foundations of a new kingdom. Escus was content to possess in tranquillity the kingdom of Kent, which he left in 512 to his son Octet, in whose time the East Saxons established their monarchy, and dismembered the provinces of Essex and Middlesex from that of Kent. His death, after a reign of twenty two years, made room for his son Hermenric in 534, who performed nothing memorable during a reign of thirty-two years; excepting associating with him his son Ethelbert in the government, that he might secure the succession hi his family, and prevent such revolutions as are incident to a turbulent and barbarous monarchy.

Escus took over the kingdom of Kent from his father, Hengist, but didn’t seem to have the military talent of that conqueror, who first opened the way for the Saxon forces into Britain. All the Saxons, seeking either glory in battle or new territories through warfare, flocked to the banner of Ælla, king of Sussex, who was waging a successful war against the Britons and laying the groundwork for a new kingdom. Escus was satisfied to peacefully rule the kingdom of Kent, which he handed over to his son Octet in 512. During Octet's time, the East Saxons established their monarchy and separated the territories of Essex and Middlesex from Kent. Escus's death, after a twenty-two-year reign, made way for his son Hermenric in 534, who did nothing noteworthy during his thirty-two years on the throne, except for sharing power with his son Ethelbert to secure the succession in his family and prevent the upheavals that often occur in a chaotic and barbaric monarchy.

Ethelbert revived the reputation of his family, which had languished for some generations. The inactivity of his predecessors, and the situation of his country, secured from all hostility with the Britons, seem to have much enfeebled the warlike genius of the Kentish Saxons; and Ethelbert, in his first attempt to aggrandize his country, and distinguish his own name, was unsuccessful.[*] He was twice discomfited in battle by Ceaulin, king of Wessex, and obliged to yield the superiority in the Heptarchy to that ambitious monarch, who preserved no moderation in his victory, and by reducing the kingdom of Sussex to subjection, excited jealousy in all the other princes. An association was formed against him; and Ethelbeit, intrusted with the command of the allies, gave him battle, and obtained a decisive victory.[**] Ceaulin died soon after; and Ethelbert succeeded as well to his ascendant among the Saxon states, as to his other ambitious projects. He reduced all the princes, except the king of Northumberland, to a strict dependence upon him; and even established himself by force on the throne of Mercia, the most extensive of the Saxon kingdoms. Apprehensive, however, of a dangerous league against him, like that by which he himself had been enabled to overthrow Ceaulin, he had the prudence to resign the kingdom of Mercia to Webba, the rightful heir, the son of Crida, who had first founded that monarchy. But governed still by ambition more than by justice, he gave Webba possession of the crown on such conditions, as rendered him little better than a tributary prince under his artful benefactor.

Ethelbert restored his family's reputation, which had declined over several generations. The inactivity of his predecessors and the peaceful situation of his country, shielded from any conflict with the Britons, weakened the warrior spirit of the Kentish Saxons. In his first attempt to elevate his country and make a name for himself, Ethelbert was unsuccessful. He suffered two defeats in battle against Ceaulin, the king of Wessex, and had to relinquish supremacy in the Heptarchy to that ambitious king, who showed no restraint in his victory. By conquering the kingdom of Sussex, he stirred up jealousy among the other rulers. An alliance was formed against him, and Ethelbert, entrusted with leading the allied forces, engaged in battle and secured a decisive victory. Ceaulin died shortly thereafter, and Ethelbert gained influence over the Saxon states as well as the other ambitious plans he had. He brought all the princes, except for the king of Northumberland, under his strict control and even forcefully established himself on the throne of Mercia, the largest of the Saxon kingdoms. However, wary of a dangerous coalition against him similar to the one that had helped him defeat Ceaulin, he wisely chose to give the kingdom of Mercia back to Webba, the rightful heir and son of Crida, who originally founded that monarchy. Yet still driven by ambition rather than justice, he granted Webba the crown under terms that made him little more than a tributary ruler to his crafty benefactor.

But the most memorable event which distinguished the reign of this great prince, was the introduction of the Christian religion among the English Saxons. The superstition of the Germans, particularly that of the Saxons, was of the grossest and most barbarous kind; and being founded on traditional tales, received from their ancestors, not reduced to any system, not supported by political institutions, like that of the druids, it seems to have made little impression on its votaries, and to have easily resigned its place to the new doctrine promulgated to them. Woden, whom they deemed the ancestor of all their princes, was regarded as the god of war, and, by a natural consequence, became their supreme deity, and the chief object of their religious worship. They believed that, if they obtained the favor of this divinity by their valor, (for they made less account of the other virtues,) they should be admitted after their death into his hall; and reposing on couches, should satiate themselves with ale from the skulls of their enemies, whom they had slain in battle. Incited by this idea of paradise, which gratified at once the passion of revenge and that of intemperance, the ruling inclinations of barbarians, they despised the dangers of war, and increased their native ferocity against the vanquished by their religious prejudices.

But the most memorable event that marked the reign of this great prince was the introduction of Christianity among the English Saxons. The Germanic beliefs, particularly those of the Saxons, were primitive and brutal, based on traditional tales passed down from their ancestors. These beliefs lacked a structured system or political support, like the druids had, which meant they didn't deeply resonate with the people and easily made way for the new teachings they received. Woden, whom they saw as the ancestor of all their kings, was worshipped as the god of war and naturally became their top deity and main focus of worship. They believed that if they earned this god's favor through their bravery—since they valued courage over other virtues—they would gain entry into his hall after death, reclining on couches and drinking ale from the skulls of their enemies whom they had killed in battle. Driven by this vision of paradise that catered to their desire for revenge and excess, the dominant tendencies of barbaric cultures, they dismissed the dangers of war and intensified their natural fierceness against the defeated due to their religious beliefs.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 21.]

     [** H. Hunting, lib ii.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 21.]

     [** H. Hunting, lib ii.]

We know little of the other theological tenets of the Saxons; we only learn that they were polytheists; that they worshipped the sun and moon; that they adored the god of thunder, under the name of Thor; that they had images in their temples; that they practised sacrifices; believed firmly in spells and enchantments; and admitted in general a system of doctrines which they held as sacred, but which, like all other superstition must carry the air of the wildest extravagance, if propounded to those who are not familiarized to it from their earliest infancy.

We know very little about the other religious beliefs of the Saxons; all we really know is that they were polytheists, worshipping the sun and moon. They honored the god of thunder, whom they called Thor. They had idols in their temples, performed sacrifices, strongly believed in spells and enchantments, and generally accepted a set of doctrines they considered sacred. However, these beliefs, like all superstitions, can seem utterly bizarre to those who haven't been exposed to them since childhood.

The constant hostilities which the Saxons maintained against the Britons, would naturally indispose them for receiving the Christian faith, when preached to them by such inveterate enemies; and perhaps the Britons, as is objected to them by Gildas and Bede, were not over-fond of communicating to their cruel invaders the doctrine of eternal life and salvation. But as a civilized people, however subdued by arms, still maintain a sensible superiority over barbarous and ignorant nations, all the other northern conquerors of Europe had been already induced to embrace the Christian faith, which they found established in the empire; and it was impossible but the Saxons, informed of this event, must have regarded with some degree of veneration a doctrine which had acquired the ascendant over all their brethren. However limited in their news, they could not but have perceived a degree of cultivation in the southern countries beyond what they themselves possessed; and it was natural for them to yield to that superior knowledge, as well as zeal, by which the inhabitants of the Christian kingdoms were even at that time distinguished.

The ongoing conflicts that the Saxons had with the Britons understandably made them less open to accepting the Christian faith when it was preached by their longtime enemies. Additionally, as pointed out by Gildas and Bede, the Britons might not have been too eager to share the teachings of eternal life and salvation with their cruel invaders. However, as a more advanced society, even if they were subdued by force, they still held a certain superiority over the barbaric and ignorant nations. All the other northern conquerors of Europe had already been persuaded to adopt the Christian faith, which was already established in the empire. It’s likely that the Saxons, aware of this shift, held some level of respect for a belief system that had taken precedence among all their peers. Even with limited news, they must have noticed a degree of advancement in the southern territories that went beyond their own. It was natural for them to be drawn to that superior knowledge as well as the enthusiasm that the inhabitants of the Christian kingdoms displayed even at that time.

But these causes might long have failed of producing any considerable effect, had not a favorable incident prepared the means of introducing Christianity into Kent. Ethelbert, in his father’s lifetime, had married Bertha, the only daughter of Cariben, king of Paris,[*] one of the descendants of Clovis, the conqueror of Gaul.

But these reasons might have taken a long time to make any significant impact if it weren't for a fortunate event that set the stage for bringing Christianity to Kent. Ethelbert, during his father's reign, had married Bertha, the only daughter of Cariben, the king of Paris,[*] who was one of the descendants of Clovis, the conqueror of Gaul.

     [* Greg, of Tours, lib, ix. cap. 26. H. Hunting,
     lib. ii.]
     [* Greg, of Tours, book 9, chapter 26. H. Hunting,
     book 2.]

But before he was admitted to this alliance, he was obliged to stipulate, that the princess should enjoy the free exercise of her religion; a concession not difficult to be obtained from the idolatrous Saxons.[*] Bertha brought over a French bishop to the court of Canterbury; and being zealous for the propagation of her religion, she had been very assiduous in her devotional exercises, had supported the credit of her faith by an irreproachable conduct, and had employed every an of insinuation and address to reconcile her husband to her religious principles. Her popularity in the court, and her influence over Ethelbert, had so well paved the way for the reception of the Christian doctrine, that Gregory, surnamed the Great, then Roman pontiff, began to entertain hopes of effecting a project which lie himself, before he mounted the papal throne, had once embraced, of converting the British Saxons.

But before he joined this alliance, he insisted that the princess should have the freedom to practice her religion, a demand that was not hard to get from the idol-worshiping Saxons. Bertha brought a French bishop to the court of Canterbury, and passionate about spreading her faith, she was very committed to her devotional practices. She upheld her faith with impeccable conduct and used every means of persuasion to get her husband to accept her religious beliefs. Her popularity at court and her influence over Ethelbert had paved the way for the acceptance of Christian teachings so effectively that Gregory, known as the Great, who was then the Pope, began to hope that he could realize a plan he had once supported before he became pope: converting the British Saxons.

It happened that this prelate, at that time in a private station, had observed in the market place of Rome some Saxon youth exposed to sale, whom the Roman merchants, in their trading voyages to Britain, had bought of their mercenary parents. Struck with the beauty of their fair complexions and blooming countenances, Gregory asked to what country they belonged; and being told they were “Angles,” he replied that they ought more properly to be denominated “angels.” it were a pity that the prince of darkness should enjoy so fair a prey, and that so beautiful a frontispiece should cover a mind destitute of internal grace and righteousness. Inquiring further concerning the name of their province, he was Informed, that it was “Deïri,” a district of Northumberland. “Deïri!” replied he, “that is good! They are called to the mercy of God from his anger—de ira. But what is the name of the king of that province?” He was told it was “Ælla,” or “Alia.” “Alleluiah;” cried he, “we must endeavor that the praises of God be sung in their country.” Moved by these allusions, which appeared to him so happy, he deter mined to undertake himself a mission into Britain; and having obtained the pope’s approbation, he prepared for that perilous journey; but his popularity at home was so great, that the Romans, unwilling to expose him to such dangers, opposed his design, and he was obliged for the present to lay aside all further thoughts of executing that pious purpose.[**]

It happened that this bishop, at that time in a private position, saw some Saxon youths for sale in the marketplace of Rome. The Roman merchants had bought them from their mercenary parents during their trade trips to Britain. Struck by their fair complexions and youthful looks, Gregory asked where they were from, and when told they were “Angles,” he replied that they should more accurately be called “angels.” It would be a shame for the prince of darkness to have such beautiful prey, and that such a lovely exterior should cover a mind lacking true grace and righteousness. Inquiring further about the name of their province, he learned it was “Deïri,” a district in Northumberland. “Deïri!” he exclaimed, “that’s good! They are called to the mercy of God from his anger—de ira. But what is the name of the king of that province?” He was told it was “Ælla,” or “Alia.” “Alleluiah,” he cried, “we must strive to have the praises of God sung in their land.” Inspired by these connections, which seemed so fitting to him, he decided to embark on a mission to Britain. After getting the pope’s approval, he prepared for that dangerous journey; however, his popularity at home was so immense that the Romans, reluctant to put him in danger, opposed his plan, and he had to set aside any further thoughts of pursuing that noble goal.

     [* Bede, lib. i. cap. 25. Brompton, p. 729.]

     [** Bede, lib. ii. cap. 1. Spell. Concil. p. 91.]
     [* Bede, book 1, chapter 25. Brompton, page 729.]

     [** Bede, book 2, chapter 1. Spell. Concil. page 91.]

The controversy between the pagans and the Christians was not entirely cooled in that age; and no pontiff before Gregory had ever carried to greater excess an intemperate zeal against the former religion. He had waged war with all the precious monuments of the ancients, and even with their writings, which, as appears from the strain of his own wit, as well as from the style of his compositions, he had not taste or genius sufficient to comprehend. Ambitious to distinguish his pontificate by the conversion of the British Saxons, he pitched on Augustine, a Roman monk, and sent him with forty associates to preach the gospel in this island. These missionaries, terrified with the dangers which might attend their proposing a new doctrine to so fierce a people, of whose language they were ignorant, stopped some time in France, and sent back Augustine to lay the hazards and difficulties before the pope, and crave his permission to desist from the undertaking. But Gregory exorted them to persevere in their purpose, advised them to choose some interpreters from among the Franks, who still spoke the same language with the Saxons,[*] and recommended them to the good offices of Queen Brunehaut, who had at this time usurped the sovereign power in France. This princess, though stained with every vice of treachery and cruelty, either possessed or pretended great zeal for the cause; and Gregory acknowledged, that to her friendly assistance was, in a great measure, owing the success of that undertaking.[**]

The clash between pagans and Christians was still hot during that time, and no pope before Gregory had shown such extreme fervor against the former religion. He battled against all the valuable artifacts of the ancients and even their writings, which he clearly lacked the taste or intellect to appreciate, as shown by his own wit and the style of his works. Eager to make his mark by converting the British Saxons, he chose Augustine, a Roman monk, and sent him with forty companions to spread the gospel in this land. These missionaries, scared of the dangers that might arise from introducing a new belief to such a fierce people whose language they didn’t know, lingered in France for a while and sent Augustine back to inform the pope of the risks and ask for permission to abandon the mission. But Gregory encouraged them to stick with their goal, suggested they find some interpreters from the Franks, who still spoke the same language as the Saxons, and recommended they seek the support of Queen Brunehaut, who had taken control in France at that time. Although this queen was known for her treachery and cruelty, she either genuinely had or pretended to have strong passion for their cause, and Gregory acknowledged that a significant part of the venture's success was due to her assistance.

Augustine, on his arrival in Kent in the year 597,[***] found the danger much less than he had apprehended. Ethelbert, already well disposed towards the Christian faith, assigned him a habitation in the Isle of Thanet, and soon after admitted him to a conference. Apprehensive, however, lest spells or enchantments might be employed against him by priests, who brought an unknown worship from a distant country, he had the precaution to receive them in the open air, where, he believed, the force of their magic would be more easily dissipated,[****] Here Augustine, by means of his interpreters, delivered to him the tenets of the Christian faith, and promised him eternal joys above, and a kingdom in heaven without end, if he would be persuaded to receive that salutary doctrine.

Augustine arrived in Kent in 597 and found the situation much less threatening than he expected. Ethelbert, who was already favorably inclined towards Christianity, provided him with a place to stay on the Isle of Thanet and soon agreed to meet with him. However, concerned that the priests, who practiced an unfamiliar religion from a faraway land, might use spells or magic against him, Ethelbert took the precaution of holding their meeting outdoors, where he thought their magic wouldn't be as effective. During this meeting, Augustine used interpreters to share the principles of the Christian faith with Ethelbert, promising him eternal happiness and an everlasting kingdom in heaven if he chose to embrace this beneficial teaching.

     [* Bede, lib. i. cap. 23.]

     [** Greg. Epist. lib. ix. epist. 56. Spell. Concil.
     p. 82.]

     [*** Higden Polychron. lib. v. Chron. Sax. p. 23.]

     [**** Bede, lib. i. cap. 25. H. Hunting, lib. iii.
     Brompton, p. 729 Parker, Antiq. Brit. Eccel. p 61.]
     [* Bede, book 1, chapter 23.]

     [** Greg. Letters, book 9, letter 56. Spell. Council,
     page 82.]

     [*** Higden Polychronicon, book 5, Chronicle of the Saxons, page 23.]

     [**** Bede, book 1, chapter 25. H. Hunting, book 3.
     Brompton, page 729. Parker, Antiquities of British Ecclesiastical, page 61.]

“Our words and promises,”[*] replied Ethelbert, “are fair; but because they are new and uncertain, I cannot entirely yield to them, and relinquish the principles which I and my ancestors have so long maintained. You are welcome, however, to remain here in peace; and as you have undertaken so long a journey, solely, as it appears, for what you believe to be for our advantage, I will supply you with all necessaries, and permit you to deliver your doctrine to my subjects.”[**]

“Our words and promises,” replied Ethelbert, “sound good; but since they are new and uncertain, I can’t fully accept them and give up the principles that I and my ancestors have upheld for so long. You’re welcome to stay here in peace; and since you’ve undertaken such a long journey, apparently just for what you believe is our benefit, I will provide you with everything you need and allow you to share your teachings with my people.”

Augustine, encouraged by this favorable reception, and seeing now a prospect of success, proceeded with redoubled zeal to preach the gospel to the Kentish Saxons. He attracted their attention by the austerity of his manners, by the severe penances to which he subjected himself, by the abstinence find self-denial which he practised; and having excited then wonder by a course of life which appeared so contrary to nature, he procured more easily their belief of miracles, which, it was pretended, he wrought for their conversion. Influenced by these motives, and by the declared favor of the court, numbers of the Kentish men were baptized; and the king himself was persuaded to submit to that rite of Christianity. His example had great influence with his subjects; but he employed no force to bring them over to the new doctrine. Augustine thought proper, in the commencement of his mission, to assume the appearance of the greatest lenity; he told Ethelbert, that the service of Christ must be entirely voluntary, and that no violence ought ever to be used in propagating so salutary a doctrine.[****]

Augustine, encouraged by this positive reception and seeing a chance for success, eagerly continued to preach the gospel to the Kentish Saxons. He caught their attention with the strictness of his lifestyle, the severe penances he practiced, and his habits of abstinence and self-denial. By leading a life that seemed so contrary to normal behavior, he made it easier for them to believe in the miracles he was said to perform for their conversion. Motivated by these reasons and by the open support of the court, many Kentish people were baptized, and even the king agreed to undergo that Christian rite. His example had a strong impact on his subjects, but he used no force to draw them to the new faith. At the start of his mission, Augustine chose to appear very lenient; he told Ethelbert that serving Christ should be completely voluntary and that no violence should ever be used to spread such a beneficial doctrine.[****]

The intelligence received of these spiritual conquests afforded great joy to the Romans, who now exulted as much in those peaceful trophies as their ancestors had ever done in their most sanguinary triumphs and most splendid victories. Gregory wrote a letter to Ethelbert, in which, after informing him that the end of the world was approaching, he exhorted him to display his zeal in the conversion of his subjects, to exert rigor against the worship of idols, and to build up the good work of holiness by every expedient of exhortation, terror, blandishment, or correction;[*****] a doctrine more suitable to that age, and to the usual papal maxims, than the tolerating principles which Augustine had thought it prudent to inculcate.

The news of these spiritual victories brought great joy to the Romans, who felt just as proud of these peaceful accomplishments as their ancestors had been of their bloodiest triumphs and most glorious victories. Gregory wrote a letter to Ethelbert, informing him that the end of the world was near, and urged him to show his enthusiasm for converting his people, to take a strong stand against idol worship, and to promote holiness through every means of encouragement, fear, persuasion, or discipline; a doctrine that was more fitting for that time and aligned with the usual papal principles than the tolerant views that Augustine had deemed wise to promote.

     [* Bede, lib. i. cap. 25. Chron. W. Thorn, p.
     1759.]

     [** Bede, lib. i. cap. 25. H. Hunting, lib. iii.
     Brompton, p. 729]

     [*** Bede, lib. i. cap. 26.]

     [**** Bede, cap 26. H. Hunting, lib. iii.]
     Concil, 785]
     [* Bede, book i, chapter 25. Chron. W. Thorn, p. 1759.]

     [** Bede, book i, chapter 25. H. Hunting, book iii. Brompton, p. 729]

     [*** Bede, book i, chapter 26.]

     [**** Bede, chapter 26. H. Hunting, book iii. Concil, 785]

The pontiff also answered some questions, which the missionary had put concerning the government of the new church of Kent. Besides other queries, which it is not material here to relate, Augustine asked, “Whether cousins-german might be allowed to marry.” Gregory answered, that that liberty had indeed been formerly granted by the Roman law; but that experience had shown that no issue could ever come from such marriages; and he therefore prohibited them. Augustine asked, “Whether a woman pregnant might be baptized.” Gregory answered, that he saw no objection. “How soon after the birth the child might receive baptism.” It was answered, immediately, if necessary. “How soon a husband might have commerce with his wife after her delivery.” Not till she had given suck to her child; a practice to which Gregory exhorts all women. “How; soon a man might enter the church, or receive the sacrament, after having had commerce with his wife.” It was replied, that, unless he had approached her without desire, merely for the sake of propagating his species, he was not without sin; but in all cases it was requisite for him, before he entered the church, or communicated, to purge himself by prayer and ablution; and he ought not, even after using these precautions, to participate immediately of the sacred duties.[*] There are some other questions and replies still more indecent and more ridiculous.[**] And on the whole it appears that Gregory and his missionary, if sympathy of manners have any influence, were better calculated than men of more refined understandings, for making a progress with the ignorant and barbarous Saxons.

The pope also answered some questions that the missionary had asked about the management of the new church in Kent. Besides other questions that aren’t important to mention here, Augustine asked, “Can cousins marry each other?” Gregory replied that this permission had indeed been allowed under Roman law, but experience had shown that these marriages never produced children, so he prohibited them. Augustine then asked, “Can a pregnant woman be baptized?” Gregory said he saw no problem with that. “How soon after birth can the child be baptized?” The answer was immediately, if necessary. “How soon can a husband be intimate with his wife after she gives birth?” Not until she has nursed her child; Gregory encourages all women to follow this practice. “How soon can a man enter the church or receive communion after being intimate with his wife?” It was said that unless he approached her without desire, just for the sake of having children, he is not free from sin; but in all cases, it is essential for him to purify himself with prayer and washing before entering the church or taking communion. Furthermore, he should not participate in these sacred duties immediately, even after taking these precautions.[*] There are some other questions and answers that are even more inappropriate and ridiculous.[**] Overall, it seems that Gregory and his missionary, if shared customs have any impact, were better suited than more refined individuals to make progress with the uneducated and barbaric Saxons.

The more to facilitate the reception of Christianity, Gregory enjoined Augustine to remove the idols from the heathen altars, but not to destroy the altars themselves; because the people, he said, would be allured to frequent the Christian worship, when they found it celebrated in a place which they were accustomed to revere.

To help spread Christianity more effectively, Gregory instructed Augustine to take down the idols from the pagan altars but not to destroy the altars themselves. He believed that the people would be drawn to join Christian worship if it was held in a place they already respected.

     [* Bede, lib. i. cap. 27. Spell. Concil. p. 97,
     98, 99, &c.]

     [** Augustine asks, “Si mulier menstrua
     consuetudine tenetur, an ecclesiam intrare et licet, aut
     sacræ communionis sacramenta percipere?” Gregory answers,
     “Santæ communionis mysterium in eisdem diebus percipere non
     debet prohiberi. Si autem ex veneratione magna percipere non
     præsumitur, laudanda est.” Augustine asks, “Si post
     illusionem, quae par somnum solet accidere, vel corpus
     Domini quilibet accipere valeat; vel, si sacerdos sit, sacra
     mysteria celebrare?” Gregory answers this learned question
     by many learned distinctions.]
     [* Bede, lib. i. cap. 27. Spell. Concil. p. 97,
     98, 99, &c.]

     [** Augustine asks, “If a woman is regularly menstruating, is she allowed to enter the church and receive the sacrament of communion?” Gregory responds, “Receiving the mystery of holy communion on those days should not be prohibited. However, if it is considered with great reverence, it is commendable.” Augustine then asks, “After experiencing an illusion that usually resembles sleep, can anyone receive the Body of the Lord; or if they are a priest, can they celebrate the sacred mysteries?” Gregory addresses this learned question with many insightful distinctions.]

And as the pagans practised sacrifices, and feasted with the priests on their offerings, he also exhorted the missionary to persuade them, on Christian festivals, to kill their cattle in the neighborhood of the church, and to indulge themselves in those cheerful entertainments to which they had been habituated.[*] These political compliances show that, notwithstanding his ignorance and prejudices, he was not unacquainted with the arts of governing mankind. Augustine was consecrated archbishop of Canterbury, was endowed by Gregory with authority over all the British churches, and received the pall, a badge of ecclesiastical honor, from Rome.[**] Gregory also advised him not to be too much elated with his gift of working miracles;[***] and as Augustine, proud of the success of his mission, seemed to think himself entitled to extend his authority over the bishops of Gaul, the pope informed him that they lay entirely without the bounds of his jurisdiction.[****]

And as the pagans made sacrifices and celebrated with the priests on their offerings, he also encouraged the missionary to convince them, on Christian holidays, to slaughter their cattle near the church and to enjoy the cheerful festivities they were accustomed to.[*] These political gestures show that, despite his ignorance and biases, he understood the ways of governing people. Augustine was made archbishop of Canterbury, given authority over all the British churches by Gregory, and received the pall, a symbol of ecclesiastical honor, from Rome.[**] Gregory also advised him not to get too carried away with his ability to perform miracles;[***] and as Augustine, proud of the success of his mission, seemed to think he had the right to extend his authority over the bishops of Gaul, the pope informed him that they were completely outside his jurisdiction.[****]

The marriage of Ethelbert with Bertha, and, much more his embracing Christianity, begat a connection of his subjects with the French, Italians, and other nations on the continent, and tended to reclaim them from that gross ignorance and barbarity, in which all the Saxon tribes had been hitherto involved.[*****] Ethelbert also enacted,[******] with the consent of the states of his kingdom, a body of laws, the first written laws promulgated by any of the northern conquerors; and his reign was in every respect glorious to himself and beneficial to his people. He governed the kingdom of Kent fifty years; and dying in 616, left the succession to his son, Eadbald. This prince, seduced by a passion for his mother-in-law, deserted, for some time, the Christian faith, which permitted not these incestuous marriages: his whole people immediately returned with him to idolatry. Laurentius, the successor of Augustine found the Christian worship wholly abandoned, and was prepared to return to France, in order to escape the mortification of preaching the gospel without fruit to the infidels.

The marriage of Ethelbert and Bertha, along with his conversion to Christianity, created connections between his people and the French, Italians, and other nations on the continent, helping to pull them out of the ignorance and barbarism that all the Saxon tribes had been stuck in. Ethelbert also established, with the approval of the leaders of his kingdom, a set of laws, which were the first written laws made by any of the northern conquerors. His reign was remarkable for both him and his people. He ruled the kingdom of Kent for fifty years and, after his death in 616, passed the throne to his son, Eadbald. This prince, tempted by feelings for his mother-in-law, temporarily abandoned the Christian faith, which forbade such incestuous marriages, causing his entire population to revert to paganism along with him. Laurentius, Augustine's successor, found that Christian worship had been completely abandoned and was ready to go back to France to avoid the humiliation of preaching the gospel to those who wouldn't listen.

     [* Bede lib. i. cap. 30. Spell. Concil. p. 89.
     Greg. Epist. lib. ix. epist. 71.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 23,24.]

     [*** H. Hunting, lib. iii. Spell. Concil. p. 83.
     Bede, lib. i. Greg Epist. lib. ix. epist. 60.]

     [**** Bede, lib. i. cap. 27.]

     [****** Wilkins, Leges Sax. p. 13.]
     [* Bede, Book 1, Chapter 30. Spell. Council, page 89.
     Gregory, Letters, Book 9, Letter 71.]

     [** Chronicle of the Saxons, pages 23, 24.]

     [*** H. Hunting, Book 3. Spell. Council, page 83.
     Bede, Book 1. Gregory, Letters, Book 9, Letter 60.]

     [**** Bede, Book 1, Chapter 27.]

     [****** Wilkins, Laws of the Saxons, page 13.]

Mellitus and Justus, who had been consecrated bishops of London and Rochester, had already departed the kingdom,[*] when Laurentius, before he should entirely abandon his dignity, made one effort to reclaim the king. He appeared before that prince, and, throwing off his vestments, showed his body all torn with bruises and stripes which he had received. Eadbald, wondering that any man should have dared to treat in that manner a person of his rank, was told by Laurentius, that he had received this chastisement from St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, who had appeared to him in a vision, and severely reproving him for his intention to desert his charge, had inflicted on him these visible marks of his displeasure.[**] Whether Eadbald was struck with the miracle, or influenced by some other motive, he divorced himself from his mother-in-law, and returned to the profession of Christianity:[***] his whole people returned with him. Eadbald reached not the fame or authority of his father, and died in 640, after a reign of twenty-five years, leaving two sons, Erminfrid and Ercombert.

Mellitus and Justus, who had been consecrated as bishops of London and Rochester, had already left the kingdom when Laurentius, before completely giving up his position, made one last effort to win back the king. He stood before Eadbald, and, stripping off his clothes, revealed his body covered in bruises and scars. Eadbald, surprised that anyone would dare to treat someone of his rank in such a way, learned from Laurentius that these injuries were punishment from St. Peter, the leader of the apostles, who had appeared to him in a vision. St. Peter had scolded him for wanting to abandon his duty and had given him these visible signs of his disapproval. Whether Eadbald was moved by the miracle or had some other reason, he divorced his mother-in-law and returned to Christianity, bringing his entire people back with him. Eadbald did not achieve the same fame or authority as his father and died in 640 after a 25-year reign, leaving behind two sons, Erminfrid and Ercombert.

     [* Bede, lib. ii. cap 5.]

     [** Bede, lib. ii cap. 2. Chron. Sax. p. 26.
     Higden, lib. v]

     [*** Brompton, p 739.]
     [* Bede, book ii, chapter 5.]

     [** Bede, book ii, chapter 2. Chron. Sax. page 26.
     Higden, book v]

     [*** Brompton, page 739.]

Ercombert, though the younger son, by Emma, a French princess, found means to mount the throne. He is celebrated by Bede for two exploits—for establishing the fast of Lent in his kingdom, and for utterly extirpating idolatry, which, notwithstanding the prevalence of Christianity, had hitherto been tolerated by the two preceding monarchs. He reigned twenty-four years, and left the crown to Egbert, his son, who reigned nine years. This prince is renowned for his encouragement of learning; but infamous for putting to death his two cousins-german, sons of Erminfrid, his uncle. The ecclesiastical writers praise him for his bestowing on his sister, Domnona, some lands in the Isle of Thanet, where she founded a monastery.

Ercombert, the younger son of Emma, a French princess, managed to ascend to the throne. Bede celebrates him for two main achievements: establishing the fast of Lent in his kingdom and completely eradicating idolatry, which, despite the spread of Christianity, had been tolerated by the two previous kings. He reigned for twenty-four years and passed the crown to his son, Egbert, who ruled for nine years. Egbert is known for promoting learning but is also infamous for executing his two male cousins, the sons of his uncle Erminfrid. Church writers commend him for giving his sister, Domnona, some lands in the Isle of Thanet, where she established a monastery.

The bloody precaution of Egbert could not fix the crown on the head of his son Edric. Lothaire, brother of the deceased prince, took possession of the kingdom; and in order to secure the power in his family, he associated with him Richard, his son, in the administration of the government. Edric, the dispossessed prince, had recourse to Edilwach, king of Sussex, for assistance; and being supported by that prince, fought a battle with his uncle, who was defeated and slain. Richard fled into Germany, and afterwards died in Lucca, a city of Tuscany. William of Malmsbury ascribes Lothaire’s bad fortune to two crimes—his concurrence in the murder of his cousins, and his contempt for relics.[*]

The violent measure taken by Egbert couldn't secure the crown for his son Edric. Lothaire, the brother of the deceased prince, claimed the kingdom. To strengthen his family's hold on power, he brought in his son Richard to help govern. Edric, the ousted prince, sought help from Edilwach, the king of Sussex. With his support, Edric fought against his uncle, who was defeated and killed. Richard fled to Germany and later died in Lucca, a city in Tuscany. William of Malmsbury attributes Lothaire's downfall to two sins—his involvement in the murder of his cousins and his disregard for relics.[*]

Lothaire reigned eleven years; Edric, his successor, only two. Upon the death of the latter, which happened in 686 Widred, his brother, obtained possession of the crown. But as the succession had been of late so much disjointed by revolutions and usurpations, faction began to prevail among the nobility; which invited Cedwalla, king of Wessex, with his brother Mollo, to attack the kingdom. These invaders committed great devastations in Kent; but the death of Mollo, who was slain in a skirmish,[**] gave a short breathing time to that kingdom. Widred restored the affairs of Kent, and, after a reign of thirty-two years,[***] left the crown to his posterity. Eadbert, Ethelbert, and Alric, his descendants, successively mounted the throne. After the death of the last, which happened in 794, the royal family of Kent was extinguished; and every factious leader, who could entertain hopes of ascending the throne, threw the state into confusion.[****] Egbert, who first succeeded, reigned but two years; Cuthred, brother to the king of Mercia, six years; Baldred, an illegitimate branch of the royal family, eighteen; and after a troublesome and precarious reign, he was, in the year 823, expelled by Egbert, king of Wessex, who dissolved the Saxon Heptarchy, and united the several kingdoms under his dominion.

Lothaire ruled for eleven years; his successor, Edric, lasted only two. After Edric's death in 686, his brother Widred took the crown. However, the recent upheavals and power grabs had disrupted the succession, leading to factions among the nobility. This turmoil prompted Cedwalla, the king of Wessex, and his brother Mollo to invade the kingdom. The invaders caused significant destruction in Kent, but Mollo's death in a skirmish gave the kingdom a brief respite. Widred managed to restore Kent's stability and, after ruling for thirty-two years, passed the crown to his descendants. Eadbert, Ethelbert, and Alric, his heirs, successively took the throne. After Alric's death in 794, the royal line of Kent came to an end, and every ambitious leader who believed they could claim the throne plunged the state into chaos. Egbert was the first to succeed, reigning for just two years; Cuthred, the brother of the king of Mercia, ruled for six years; Baldred, an illegitimate member of the royal family, reigned for eighteen years before being ousted by Egbert, king of Wessex, in 823, who disbanded the Saxon Heptarchy and unified the various kingdoms under his rule.

     [* W. Malms, p. 11.]

     [** Higden, lib. v.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 52.]

     [**** W. Malms, lib. i. cap. 1, p.11.]
     [* W. Malms, p. 11.]

     [** Higden, lib. v.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 52.]

     [**** W. Malms, lib. i. cap. 1, p.11.]




THE KINGDOM OF NORTHUMBERLAND

Adelfrid, king of Bernicia, having married Acca, the daughter of Ælla, king of Deïri, and expelled her infant brother, Edwin, had united all the counties north of Humber into one monarchy, and acquired a great ascendant in the Heptarchy. He also spread the terror of the Saxon arms to the neighboring people; and by his victories over the Scots and Picts, as well as Welsh, extended on all sides the bounds of his dominions. Having laid siege to Chester, the Britons marched out with all their forces to engage him; and they were attended by a body of twelve hundred and fifty monks from the monastery of Bangor, who stood at a small distance from the field of battle, in order to encourage the combatants by their presence and exhortations. Adelfrid, inquiring into the purpose of this unusual appearance, was told that these priests had come to pray against him: “Then are they as much our enemies,” said he, “as those who intend to fight against us;”[*] and he immediately sent a detachment, who fell upon them, and did such execution, that only fifty escaped with their lives.[**] The Britons, astonished at this event, received a total defeat: Chester was obliged to surrender; and Adelfrid, pursuing his victory, made himself master of Bangor, and entirely demolished the monastery, a building so extensive, that there was a mile’s distance from one gate of it to another; and it contained two thousand one hundred monks, who are said to have been there maintained by their own labor.[***] Notwithstanding Adelfrid’s success in war, he lived in inquietude on account of young Edwin, whom he had unjustly dispossessed of the crown of Deïri. This prince, now grown to man’s estate, wandered from place to place, in continual danger from the attempts of Adelfrid; and received at last protection in the court of Redwald, king of the East Angles; where his engaging and gallant deportment procured him general esteem and affection. Redwald, however, was strongly solicited, by the king of Northumberland, to kill or deliver up his guest: rich presents were promised him if he would comply, and war denounced against him in case of his refusal. After rejecting several messages of this kind, his generosity began to yield to the motives of interest; and he retained the last ambassador, till he should come to a resolution in a case of such importance. Edwin, informed of his friend’s perplexity, was yet determined at all hazards to remain in East Anglia; and thought, that if the protection of that court failed him, it were better to die than prolong a life so much exposed to the persecutions of his powerful rival. This confidence in Redwald’s honor and friendship, with his other accomplishments, engaged the queen on his side; and she effectually represented to her husband the infamy of delivering up to certain destruction their royal guest, who had fled to them for protection against his cruel and jealous enemies.[****] Redwald, embracing more generous resolutions, thought it safest to prevent Adelfrid, before that prince was aware of his intention, and to attack him while he was yet unprepared for defence.

Adelfrid, the king of Bernicia, married Acca, the daughter of Ælla, the king of Deïri, and drove out her infant brother, Edwin. He united all the territories north of the Humber into one kingdom and gained significant influence in the Heptarchy. He also instilled fear of the Saxon army in neighboring regions, expanding his realm through victories over the Scots, Picts, and Welsh. When he laid siege to Chester, the Britons gathered all their forces to confront him, accompanied by twelve hundred and fifty monks from the monastery of Bangor who stood at a distance from the battlefield, hoping to encourage the fighters with their presence and prayers. When Adelfrid learned of this unusual gathering, he was told that the priests had come to pray against him. “Then they are just as much our enemies as those planning to fight us,” he remarked, and he quickly sent a group to attack them, resulting in only fifty escaping with their lives. The Britons were stunned by this incident and faced a complete defeat: Chester had to surrender; and Adelfrid, riding on his victory, took control of Bangor and destroyed the monastery, a massive structure that spanned a mile from one gate to the other, housing two thousand one hundred monks who reportedly sustained themselves through their own labor. Despite Adelfrid's military successes, he remained anxious about young Edwin, whom he had wrongfully dethroned from the crown of Deïri. Now a young man, Edwin moved from place to place, constantly at risk from Adelfrid's attempts on his life. Eventually, he found refuge in the court of Redwald, the king of the East Angles, where his captivating and noble demeanor earned him widespread respect and affection. However, Redwald faced intense pressure from the king of Northumberland to either kill or hand over his guest. He was promised rich rewards for compliance and threatened with war if he refused. After dismissing several messages like this, Redwald's sense of generosity began to waver under the weight of self-interest; he retained the last messenger while deciding on such a critical matter. Edwin, aware of his friend’s dilemma, chose to stay in East Anglia, believing that if Redwald's protection failed, it was better to die than live a life constantly targeted by his powerful rival. His faith in Redwald’s honor and friendship, along with his other qualities, won the queen over to his side; she effectively urged her husband to consider the disgrace of handing over their royal guest, who had sought their protection from his cruel and envious enemies. Choosing a more noble path, Redwald resolved it would be wiser to strike Adelfrid before he realized his plan, attacking him while he was still unprepared for defense.

     [* Brompton, p. 779.]

     [** Trivet, apud Spell. Concil. p. 111.]

     [*** Bede, lib. ii. cap. 2. W. Malms, lib. i. cap.
     3.]

     [**** W. Malms, lib. i. cap. 3. H. Hunting, lib.
     iii. Bede.]
     [* Brompton, p. 779.]

     [** Trivet, apud Spell. Concil. p. 111.]

     [*** Bede, book ii, chapter 2. W. Malms, book i, chapter 3.]

     [**** W. Malms, book i, chapter 3. H. Hunting, book iii. Bede.]

He marched suddenly with an army into the kingdom of Northumberland, and fought a battle with Adelfrid; in which that monarch was defeated and killed, after revenging himself by the death of Regner, son of Redwald.[*] His own sons, Eanfrid. Oswald, and Oswy, yet infants, were carried into Scotland; and Edwin obtained possession of the crown of Northumberland.

He suddenly led an army into the kingdom of Northumberland and fought a battle against Adelfrid, in which the king was defeated and killed, having taken his revenge by causing the death of Regner, son of Redwald.[*] His own sons, Eanfrid, Oswald, and Oswy, still infants, were taken to Scotland, and Edwin took the crown of Northumberland.

Edwin was the greatest prince of the Heptarchy in that age, and distinguished himself, both by his influence over the other kingdoms,[**] and by the strict execution of justice in his own dominions. He reclaimed his subjects from the licentious life to which they had been accustomed; and it was a common saying, that during his reign a woman or child might openly carry every where a purse of gold, without any danger of violence or robbery. There is a remarkable instance, transmitted to us, of the affection borne him by his servants. Cuichelme, king of Wessex, was his enemy; but finding himself unable to maintain open war against so gallant and powerful a prince, he determined to use treachery against him, and he employed one Eumer for that criminal purpose, The assassin, having obtained admittance, by pretending to deliver a message from Cuichelme, drew his dagger, and rushed upon the king. Lilla, an officer of his army, seeing his master’s danger, and having no other means of defence, interposed with his own body between the king and Burner’s dagger, which was pushed with such violence, that, after piercing Lilla, it even wounded Edwin; but before the assassin could renew his blow, he was despatched by the king’s attendants.

Edwin was the greatest prince of the Heptarchy in that era, and he stood out for his influence over the other kingdoms and for enforcing justice in his own lands. He steered his subjects away from the indulgent lifestyles they had adopted; it was commonly said that during his reign, a woman or child could carry a purse of gold anywhere without the fear of violence or theft. There is a notable story passed down to us about the loyalty of his servants. Cuichelme, the king of Wessex, was his enemy, but finding it impossible to wage a fair war against such a brave and strong prince, he decided to resort to treachery and hired a man named Eumer for that sinister task. The assassin, having gained entry by pretending to deliver a message from Cuichelme, drew his dagger and lunged at the king. Lilla, an officer in his army, noticing the danger to his master and having no other way to defend him, jumped in front of the king, taking the blow himself. The dagger pierced Lilla and even injured Edwin, but before the assassin could strike again, he was killed by the king’s attendants.

The East Angles conspired against Redwald, their king; and having put him to death, they offered their crown to Edwin, of whose valor and capacity they had had experience, while he resided among them. But Edwin, from a sense o£ gratitude towards his benefactor, obliged them to submit to Earpwold, the son of Redwald; and that prince preserved his authority, though on a precarious footing, under the protection of the Northumbrian monarch.[***]

The East Angles plotted against their king, Redwald, and after killing him, they offered the crown to Edwin, who they knew was brave and competent from his time living among them. However, out of gratitude to his benefactor, Edwin required them to accept Earpwold, Redwald's son, as their ruler. Earpwold managed to keep his power, albeit under uncertain circumstances, with the backing of the Northumbrian king.[***]

     [* Bede, lib. ii. cap. 12. Bromton, p. 781.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 27.]

     [*** W. Malms, lib. i. cap. 3]
     [* Bede, book ii, chapter 12. Bromton, p. 781.]

     [** Chron. Sax, p. 27.]

     [*** W. Malms, book i, chapter 3]

Edwin, after his accession to the crown, married Ethelburga, the daughter of Ethelbert, king of Kent. This princess, emulating the glory of her mother, Bertha, who had been the instrument for converting her husband and his people to Christianity, carried Paullinus, a learned bishop, along with her;[*] and besides stipulating a toleration for the exercise of her own religion, which was readily granted her, she used every reason to persuade the king to embrace it. Edwin, like a prudent prince, hesitated on the proposal, but promised to examine the foundations of that doctrine, and declared that, if he found them satisfactory, he was willing to be converted.[**] Accordingly he held several conferences with Paullinus; canvassed the arguments propounded with the wisest of his counsellors; retired frequently from company, in order to revolve alone that important question; and, after a serious and long inquiry, declared in favor of the Christian religion;[***] the people soon after imitated his example. Besides the authority and influence of the king, they were moved by another striking example. Coifi, the high priest, being converted after a public conference with Paullinus, led the way in destroying the images, which he had so long worshipped, and was forward in making this atonement for his past idolatry.[****]

Edwin, once he became king, married Ethelburga, the daughter of Ethelbert, the king of Kent. This princess, following in the footsteps of her mother, Bertha, who had played a key role in converting her husband and his people to Christianity, brought along Paullinus, a learned bishop. Along with securing the right to practice her own religion, which was readily allowed, she did everything she could to persuade the king to accept it. Edwin, being a wise ruler, was cautious about the proposal but promised to look into the basis of that belief, stating that if he found it convincing, he would be open to conversion. He held several discussions with Paullinus, examined the arguments presented with his wisest advisors, often withdrew from company to reflect on that significant issue alone, and after thorough and thoughtful investigation, he chose to accept Christianity; soon after, the people followed his lead. Besides the king's authority and influence, they were also inspired by another notable example. Coifi, the high priest, converted after a public discussion with Paullinus, took the lead in destroying the idols he had worshipped for so long, and was eager to atone for his past idolatry.

This able prince perished with his son Osfrid, in a great battle which he fought against Penda, king of Mercia, and Caedwalla, king of the Britons.[*****] That event, which happened in the forty-eighth year of Edwin’s age and seventeenth of his reign,[******] divided the monarchy of Northumberland, which that prince had united in his person. Eanfrid, the son of Adelfrid, returned with his brothers, Oswald and Oswy, from Scotland, and took possession of Bernicia, his paternal kingdom; Osric, Edwin’s cousin-german, established himself in Deïri, the inheritance of his family, but to which the sons of Edwin had a preferable title. Eanfrid, the elder surviving son, fled to Penda, by whom he was treacherously slain. The younger son, Vuscfraea, with Yffi, the grandson of Edwin, by Osfrid, sought protection in Kent, and not finding themselves in safety there, retired into France to King Dagobert, where they died.[*******]

This capable prince died along with his son Osfrid in a major battle against Penda, the king of Mercia, and Caedwalla, the king of the Britons. That event, which took place in the forty-eighth year of Edwin’s life and the seventeenth year of his reign, split the kingdom of Northumberland, which he had unified. Eanfrid, the son of Adelfrid, returned with his brothers, Oswald and Oswy, from Scotland and took control of Bernicia, his family’s kingdom. Osric, Edwin’s cousin, settled in Deïri, the inheritance of his family, but the sons of Edwin had a stronger claim to it. Eanfrid, the older surviving son, fled to Penda, who treacherously killed him. The younger son, Vuscfraea, and Yffi, Edwin's grandson through Osfrid, sought refuge in Kent, and when they didn’t feel safe there, they retreated to France to King Dagobert, where they both died.

     [* H. Hunting, lib. iii.]

     [** Bede, lib. ii. cap. 9.]

     [*** Bede, lib. ii. cap. 9. W. Malms, lib. i. cap.
     3.]

     [**** Bede, lib. ii. cap. 13. Brompton, Higden,
     lib. v.]

     [****** W. Malms, lib. i. cap. 3.]

     [******* Bede, lib. ii, cap. 29.]
     [* H. Hunting, book 3.]

     [** Bede, book 2, chapter 9.]

     [*** Bede, book 2, chapter 9. W. Malms, book 1, chapter
     3.]

     [**** Bede, book 2, chapter 13. Brompton, Higden,
     book 5.]

     [****** W. Malms, book 1, chapter 3.]

     [******* Bede, book 2, chapter 29.]

Osric, king of Deïri and Eanfrid of Bernicia, returned to paganism; and the whole people seem to have returned with them; since Paullinus, who was the first archbishop of York; and who had converted them, thought proper to retire with Ethelburga, the queen dowager, into Kent. Both these Northumbrian kings perished soon after, the first in battle against Caedwalla, the Briton; the second by the treachery of that prince. Oswald, the brother of Eanfrid, of the race of Bernicia, united again the kingdom of Northumberland in the year 634, and restored the Christian religion in his dominions. He gained a bloody and well-disputed battle against Caedwalla; the last vigorous effort which the Britons made against the Saxons. Oswald is much celebrated for his sanctity and charity by the monkish historians; and they pretend that his relics wrought miracles, particularly the curing of a sick horse, which had approached the place of his interment.[*]

Osric, the king of Deïri, and Eanfrid of Bernicia, reverted to paganism, and it seems the entire population followed suit. Paullinus, the first archbishop of York who had converted them, decided to leave with Ethelburga, the dowager queen, to Kent. Both of these Northumbrian kings met their end not long after; Osric died in battle against Caedwalla, the Briton, while Eanfrid fell victim to that prince’s treachery. Oswald, the brother of Eanfrid and from the Bernician line, reunited the kingdom of Northumberland in 634 and restored Christianity in his realm. He achieved a bloody and hard-fought victory over Caedwalla, marking the last strong resistance the Britons mounted against the Saxons. Oswald is highly praised for his holiness and generosity by monkish historians, who claim his relics performed miracles, particularly in the healing of a sick horse that came near his burial site.[*]

     [* Bede, lib. iii. cap. 9.]
     [* Bede, lib. iii. cap. 9.]

He died in battle against Penda, king of Mercia, and was succeeded by his brother Oswy, who established himself in the government of the whole Northumbrian kingdom, by putting to death Oswin, the son of Osric, the last king of the race of Deïri. His son Egfrid succeeded him; who perishing in battle against the Picts, without leaving any children, because Adelthrid, his wife, refused to violate her vow of chastity, Alfred, his natural brother, acquired possession of the kingdom, which he governed for nineteen years; and he left it to Osred, his son, a boy of eight years of age. This prince, after a reign of eleven years, was murdered by Kenred, his kinsman, who, after enjoying the crown only a year, perished by a like fate. Osric, and after him Celwulph, the son of Kenred, next mounted the throne, which the latter relinquished in the year 738, in favor of Eadbert, his cousin-german, who, imitating his predecessor, abdicated the crown, and retired into a monastery. Oswolf, son of Eadbert, was slain in a sedition, a year after his accession to the crown; and Mollo, who was not of the royal family, seized the crown. He perished by the treachery of Ailred, a prince of the blood; and Ailred, having succeeded in his design upon the throne, was soon after expelled by his subjects. Ethelred, his successor, the son of Mollo, underwent a like fate. Celwold, the next king, the brother of Ailred, was deposed and slain by the people; and his place was filled by Osred, his nephew, who, after a short reign of a year, made way for Ethelbert, another son of Mollo whose death was equally tragical with that of almost all his predecessors. After Ethelbert’s death, a universal anarchy prevailed in Northumberland; and the people having, by so many fatal revolutions, lost all attachment to their government and princes, were well prepared for subjection to a foreign yoke; which Egbert, king of Wessex, finally imposed upon them.

He died in battle against Penda, the king of Mercia, and was succeeded by his brother Oswy, who took control of the entire Northumbrian kingdom by killing Oswin, the son of Osric, the last king of the Deïri lineage. His son Egfrid took over next; he died in battle against the Picts, leaving no children since his wife, Adelthrid, refused to break her vow of chastity. Alfred, his illegitimate brother, then took the throne and ruled for nineteen years before passing it on to his eight-year-old son Osred. After an eleven-year reign, Osred was murdered by his cousin Kenred, who only enjoyed the crown for a year before meeting the same fate. Osric, followed by Celwulph, Kenred’s son, then became king, but Celwulph abdicated in 738 in favor of his cousin Eadbert, who, like his predecessor, gave up the throne and went to a monastery. Oswolf, Eadbert's son, was killed in a rebellion just a year after becoming king, and Mollo, who was not from the royal family, took the crown. He was betrayed and killed by Ailred, a prince of the blood; Ailred then took the throne but was quickly ousted by his subjects. Ethelred, Ailred's successor and the son of Mollo, faced a similar fate. Celwold, the next king and Ailred’s brother, was deposed and killed by the people, and his position was taken by Osred, his nephew, who ruled for only a year before being succeeded by Ethelbert, another son of Mollo, whose death was just as tragic as those of nearly all his predecessors. After Ethelbert’s death, chaos reigned in Northumberland; the people, having lost all loyalty to their governance due to so many fatal upheavals, were ready to accept a foreign ruler, which Egbert, king of Wessex, ultimately imposed upon them.





THE KINGDOM OF EAST ANGLIA

The history of this kingdom contains nothing memorable except the conversion of Earpwold, the fourth king, and great-grandson of Una, the founder of the monarchy. The authority of Edwin, king of Northumberland, on whom that prince entirety depended, engaged him to take this step; but soon after, his wife, who was an idolatress, brought him back to her religion; and he was found unable to resist those allurements which have seduced the wisest of mankind. After his death, which was violent, like that of most of the Saxon princes that did not early retire into monasteries, Sigebert, his successor and half-brother, who had been educated in France, restored Christianity, and introduced learning among the East Angles. Some pretend that he founded the university of Cambridge, or rather some schools in that place. It is almost impossible, and quite needless, to be more particular in relating the transactions of the East Angles. What instruction or entertainment can it give the reader, to hear a long bead-roll of barbarous names, Egric, Annas, Ethelbert, Ethelwald, Aldulf, Elfwald, Beorne, Ethelred, Ethelbert, who successively murdered, expelled, or inherited from each other, and obscurely filled the throne of that kingdom? Ethelbert, the last of these princes, was treacherously murdered by Offa, king of Mercia, in the year 792, and his state was thenceforth [*mited] with that of Offa, as we shall relate presently.

The history of this kingdom has little to note except for the conversion of Earpwold, the fourth king and great-grandson of Una, the founder of the monarchy. The influence of Edwin, king of Northumberland, who was the prince’s main support, led him to take this step; however, shortly afterward, his wife, who practiced idolatry, pulled him back to her faith. He found it difficult to resist the temptations that have misled even the wisest of people. After his violent death—common among Saxon princes who didn't retire to monasteries early—Sigebert, his successor and half-brother, who had been raised in France, restored Christianity and brought education to the East Angles. Some claim he founded the University of Cambridge or at least some schools there. It’s nearly impossible, and really unnecessary, to go into detail about the events concerning the East Angles. What could be informative or entertaining for the reader about a long list of obscure names—Egric, Annas, Ethelbert, Ethelwald, Aldulf, Elfwald, Beorne, Ethelred, Ethelbert—who successively killed, ousted, or inherited from one another to fill the throne of that kingdom? Ethelbert, the last of these princes, was treacherously murdered by Offa, king of Mercia, in the year 792, and from then on, his realm was combined with Offa's, as we will explain shortly.





THE KINGDOM OF MERCIA

Mercia, the largest, if not the most powerful, kingdom of the Heptarchy, comprehended all the middle counties of England; and as its frontiers extended to those of all the other kingdoms, as well as to Wales, it received its name from that circumstance. Wibba, the son of Crida, founder of the monarchy, being placed on the throne by Ethelbert, king of Kent, governed his paternal dominions by a precarious authority; and after his death, Ceorl, his kinsman, was, by the influence of the Kentish monarch, preferred to his son Penda, whose turbulent character appeared dangerous to that prince. Penda was thus fifty years of age before he mounted the throne; and his temerity and restless disposition were found nowise abated by time, experience, or reflection. He engaged in continual hostilities against all the neighboring states; and, by his injustice and violence, rendered himself equally odious to his own subjects and to strangers. Sigebert, Egric, and Annas, three kings of East Anglia, perished successively in battle against him; as did also Edwin and Oswald, the two greatest princes that had reigned over Northumberland. At last Oswy, brother to Oswald, having defeated and slain him in a decisive battle, freed the world from this sanguinary tyrant. Peada, his son, mounted the throne of Mercia in 655, and lived under the protection of Oswy, whose daughter he had espoused. This princess was educated in the Christian faith, and she employed her influence, with success, in converting her husband and his subjects to that religion. Thus the fair sex have had the merit of introducing the Christian doctrine into all the most considerable kingdoms of the Saxon Heptarchy. Peada died a violent death.[*] His son Wolfhere succeeded to the government; and, after having reduced to dependence the kingdoms of Essex and East Anglia, he left the crown to his brother Ethelred, who, though a lover of peace, showed himself not unfit for military enterprises. Besides making a successful expedition into Kent, he repulsed Egfrid, king of Northumberland, who had invaded his dominions; and he slew in battle Elswin, the brother of that prince. Desirous, however, of composing all animosities with Egfrid, he paid him a sum of money as a compensation for the loss of his brother. After a prosperous reign of thirty years, he resigned the crown to Kendred, son of Wolfhere, and retired into the monastery of Bardney.[**]

Mercia, the largest, if not the most powerful, kingdom of the Heptarchy, included all the central counties of England. Its borders reached those of all the other kingdoms, as well as Wales, which is how it got its name. Wibba, the son of Crida, the founder of the monarchy, was put on the throne by Ethelbert, king of Kent, and ruled his ancestral lands with uncertain authority. After Wibba's death, Ceorl, his relative, was chosen by the influence of the Kentish king over Wibba's son Penda, whose rebellious nature seemed risky to that king. Penda didn't take the throne until he was fifty years old, and he remained bold and restless, showing no signs of maturity or reflection. He engaged in constant wars against neighboring states and, through his unfairness and brutality, became equally hated by his own people and outsiders. Sigebert, Egric, and Annas, three kings of East Anglia, were killed in battles against him, as were Edwin and Oswald, the two most prominent rulers of Northumberland. Eventually, Oswy, Oswald's brother, defeated and killed Penda in a decisive battle, freeing the region from this bloody tyrant. Peada, Penda's son, took the throne of Mercia in 655, with the backing of Oswy, whose daughter he had married. This princess was raised in the Christian faith and successfully influenced her husband and his subjects to convert to that religion. Thus, women played a pivotal role in bringing Christianity to the major kingdoms of the Saxon Heptarchy. Peada met a violent end. His son Wolfhere succeeded him and, after subjugating the kingdoms of Essex and East Anglia, passed the crown to his brother Ethelred, who, while fond of peace, proved himself capable in military endeavors. Besides successfully campaigning in Kent, he repelled Egfrid, king of Northumberland, who had invaded his lands, and killed Elswin, that king's brother, in battle. However, wanting to settle all conflicts with Egfrid, he paid him money to compensate for the death of his brother. After a successful reign of thirty years, he handed the crown over to Kendred, son of Wolfhere, and retired to the monastery of Bardney.

     [* Hugo Candidas (p. 4) says, that he was
     treacherously murdered by his queen, by whose persuasion he
     had embraced Christianity; but this account of the matter is
     found in that historian alone.]

     [** Bede, lib. v.]
Kendred returned the present of the crown to Ceolred, the son of
Ethelred; and making a pilgrimage to Rome, passed his life there in
penance and devotion. The place of Ceolred was supplied by Ethelbald,
great-grand-nephew to Penda, by Alwy, his brother; and this prince,
being slain in a mutiny, was succeeded by Offa, who was a degree more
remote from Penda, by Eawa, another brother.
     [* Hugo Candidas (p. 4) claims that he was
     treacherously murdered by his queen, who persuaded him to
     adopt Christianity; however, this version of events is only found in that historian's account.]

     [** Bede, lib. v.]
Kendred returned the crown as a gift to Ceolred, the son of Ethelred, and then went on a pilgrimage to Rome, where he spent his life in penance and devotion. Ceolred was succeeded by Ethelbald, the great-grandnephew of Penda, through his brother Alwy; and this prince, after being killed in a mutiny, was succeeded by Offa, who was one degree further removed from Penda, being the brother of Eawa.

This prince, who mounted the throne in 755,[*] had some great qualities, and was successful in his warlike enterprises against Lothaire, king of Kent, and Kenwulph, king of Wessex, He defeated the former in a bloody battle, at Otford upon the Darent, and reduced his kingdom to a state of dependence; he gained a victory over the latter at Bensington, in Oxfordshire; and conquering that county, together with that of Glocester, annexed both to his dominions. But all these successes were stained by his treacherous murder of Ethelbert, king of the East Angles, and his violent seizing of that kingdom. This young prince, who is said to have possessed great merit, had paid his addresses to Elfrida, the daughter of Offa, and was invited with all his retinue to Hereford, in order to solemnize the nuptials: amidst the joy and festivity of these entertainments, he was seized by Offa, and secretly beheaded; and though Elfrida, who abhorred her father’s treachery, had time to give warning to the East Anglian nobility, who escaped into their own country, Offa, having extinguished the royal family, succeeded in his design of subduing that kingdom.[**] The perfidious prince, desirous of reestablishing his character in the world, and perhaps of appeasing the remorses of his own conscience, paid great court to the clergy, and practised all the monkish devotion so much esteemed in that ignorant and superstitious age. He gave the tenth of his goods to the church;[***] bestowed rich donations on the cathedral of Hereford, and even made a pilgrimage to Rome, where his great power and riches could not fail of procuring him the papal absolution. The better to ingratiate himself with the sovereign pontiff, he engaged to pay him a yearly donation for the support of an English college at Rome,[****] and in order to raise the sum, he imposed a tax of a penny on each house possessed of thirty pence a year. This imposition, being afterwards levied on all England, was commonly denominated Peter’s pence;[*****] and though conferred at first as a gift, was afterwards claimed as a tribute by the Roman pontiff.

This prince, who took the throne in 755,[*] had some great qualities and was successful in his military campaigns against Lothaire, king of Kent, and Kenwulph, king of Wessex. He defeated Lothaire in a bloody battle at Otford on the Darent, bringing his kingdom under control; he won a victory over Kenwulph at Bensington in Oxfordshire, and after conquering that county along with Glocester, he added both to his territories. However, all these successes were overshadowed by his treacherous murder of Ethelbert, king of the East Angles, and his violent takeover of that kingdom. This young prince, believed to have been quite noble, had proposed to Elfrida, the daughter of Offa, and was invited with his entire entourage to Hereford to celebrate their wedding. Amidst the joy and festivities, he was captured by Offa and secretly executed; even though Elfrida, who despised her father's betrayal, had time to warn the East Anglian nobility who escaped back to their homeland, Offa succeeded in his plan to conquer that kingdom by wiping out the royal family.[**] The deceitful prince, eager to restore his reputation and perhaps ease his guilty conscience, wooed the clergy and engaged in all the religious devotion that was highly valued in that ignorant and superstitious time. He gave a tenth of his goods to the church;[***] made generous donations to the cathedral of Hereford, and even undertook a pilgrimage to Rome, where his power and wealth certainly helped him obtain papal absolution. To better ingratiate himself with the pope, he promised to pay a yearly donation to support an English college in Rome,[****] and to raise the funds, he imposed a tax of a penny on every household earning thirty pence a year. This tax, later imposed on all of England, became known as Peter’s pence;[*****] and while it was initially given as a gift, it was later claimed as a tribute by the pope.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 59.]

     [** Brompton, p. 750, 751, 752.]

     [*** Spell. Concil. p 308. Brompton, p. 776.]

     [**** Spell. Concil. p. 230, 310, 312.]

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 59.]

     [** Brompton, p. 750, 751, 752.]

     [*** Spell. Concil. p 308. Brompton, p. 776.]

     [**** Spell. Concil. p. 230, 310, 312.]

Carrying his hypocrisy still further, Offa, feigning to be directed by a vision from heaven, discovered at Verulam the relics of St Alban, the martyr, and endowed a magnificent monastery in that place.[*] Moved by al these acts of piety, Malmsbury, one of the best of the old English historians, declares himself at a loss to determine[**] whether the merits or crimes of this prince preponderated. Offa died, after a reign of thirty-nine years, in 794.[***]

Carrying his hypocrisy even further, Offa, pretending to be guided by a vision from heaven, discovered the relics of St. Alban, the martyr, at Verulam and funded a magnificent monastery there.[*] Moved by all these acts of piety, Malmsbury, one of the best old English historians, says he is unsure whether the good or bad deeds of this prince outweighed each other.[**] Offa died, after a reign of thirty-nine years, in 794.[***]

This prince was become so considerable in the Heptarchy, that the emperor Charlemagne entered into an alliance and friendship with him; a circumstance which did honor to Offa; as distant princes at that time had usually little communication with each other. That emperor being a great lover of learning and learned men, in an age very barren of that ornament, Offa, at his desire, sent him over Alcuin, a clergyman much celebrated for his knowledge, who received great honors from Charlemagne, and even became his preceptor in the sciences. The chief reason why he had at first desired the company of Alcuin, was that he might oppose his learning to the heresy of Felix, bishop of Urgel, in Catalonia; who maintained that Jesus Christ, considered in his human nature, could more properly be denominated the adoptive than the natural son of God.[****] This heresy was condemned in the council of Francfort, held in 794, and consisting of three hundred bishops. Such were the questions which were agitated in that age, and which employed the attention not only of cloistered scholars, but of the wisest and greatest princes.[*****]

This prince became so significant in the Heptarchy that Emperor Charlemagne formed an alliance and friendship with him; this reflected well on Offa, as distant rulers at that time typically had little communication with one another. The emperor, being a great admirer of learning and educated people in an era that was quite lacking in that respect, requested that Offa send him Alcuin, a clergyman renowned for his knowledge. Alcuin received great honors from Charlemagne and even became his teacher in the sciences. The main reason he initially sought Alcuin’s company was to counter the teachings of Felix, the bishop of Urgel in Catalonia, who argued that Jesus Christ, in his humanity, should more accurately be called the adoptive rather than the natural son of God.[****] This heresy was condemned at the council of Frankfurt in 794, which included three hundred bishops. Such were the issues debated in that time, capturing the attention not only of cloistered scholars but also of the wisest and most powerful rulers.[*****]

Egfrith succeeded to his father Offa, but survived him only five months;[******] when he made way for Kenulph, a descendant of the royal family. This prince waged war against Kent, and taking Egbert, the king, prisoner, he cut off his hands, and put out his eyes; leaving Cuthred, his own brother, in possession of the crown of that kingdom. Kenulph was killed in an insurrection of the East Anglians, whose crown his predecessor, Offa, had usurped. He left his son Kenelm, a minor; who was murdered the same year by his sister Quendrade, who had entertained the ambitious views of assuming the government.[*******]

Egfrith took over from his father Offa but only lasted five months in power;[******] he was succeeded by Kenulph, a member of the royal family. This prince fought against Kent and captured King Egbert, cutting off his hands and blinding him, while leaving his own brother Cuthred to take the crown of that kingdom. Kenulph was killed during a revolt by the East Anglians, whose crown had been taken by his predecessor, Offa. He left behind his son Kenelm, who was still a child; he was murdered the same year by his sister Quendrade, who had ambitions of taking control of the government.[*******]

     [* Ingulph. p. 5. W. Malms, lib. i. cap. 4.]

     [** Lib. i. cap. 4.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 65.]

     [**** Dupin, cent. viii. chap. 4].
     Wales, drew a rampart or ditch of a hundred miles in length,
     from Basinwerke in Flintshire to the south sea near Bristol.
     See Speed’s Description of Wales.]

     [****** Ingulph. p. 6]

     [******* Ingulph, p. 7. Brompton, p. 776.]
     [* Ingulph. p. 5. W. Malms, book 1, chapter 4.]

     [** Book 1, chapter 4.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 65.]

     [**** Dupin, century viii, chapter 4].
     Wales built a wall or ditch that stretched a hundred miles,
     from Basinwerke in Flintshire to the southern sea near Bristol.
     See Speed’s Description of Wales.]

     [****** Ingulph. p. 6]

     [******* Ingulph, p. 7. Brompton, p. 776.]

But she was supplanted by her uncle Ceolulf; who, two years after, was dethroned by Beornulf The reign of this usurper, who was not of the royal family, was short and unfortunate; he was defeated by the West Saxons, and killed by his own subjects, the East Angles.[*] Ludican, his successor, underwent the same fate;[**] and Wiglaff, who mounted this unstable throne, and found everything in the utmost confusion, could not withstand the fortune of Egbert, who united all the Saxon kingdoms into one great monarchy.

But she was replaced by her uncle Ceolulf, who, two years later, was overthrown by Beornulf. The reign of this usurper, who wasn't from the royal family, was brief and troubled; he was defeated by the West Saxons and killed by his own people, the East Angles.[*] Ludican, his successor, faced the same fate;[**] and Wiglaff, who took on this unstable throne and found everything in complete chaos, could not stand up to the fortune of Egbert, who united all the Saxon kingdoms into one powerful monarchy.

     [* Ingulph. p. 7.]

     [** Alured. Beverl. p. 87.]
     [* Ingulph. p. 7.]

     [** Alured. Beverl. p. 87.]




THE KINGDOM OF ESSEX.

This kingdom made no great figure in the Heptarchy; and the history of it is very imperfect. Sleda succeeded to his father, Erkinwin, the founder of the monarchy; and made way for his son Sebert, who, being nephew to Ethelbert, king of Kent, was persuaded by that prince to embrace the Christian faith.[***] His sons and conjunct successors, Sexted and Seward, relapsed into idolatry, and were soon after slain in a battle against the West Saxons. To show the rude manner of living in that age, Bede tells us,[****] that these two kings expressed great desire to eat the white bread, distributed by Mellitus, the bishop, at the communion.[*****] But on his refusing them, unless they would submit to be baptized, they expelled him their dominions. The names of the other princes, who reigned successively in Essex, are Sigebert the little, Sigebert the good, who restored Christianity, Swithelm, Sigheri, Offa. This last prince, having made a vow of chastity, notwithstanding his marriage with Keneswitha, a Mercian princess, daughter to Penda, went in pilgrimage to Rome, and shut himself up during the rest of his life in a cloister. Selred, his successor, reigned thirty-eight years; and was the last of the royal line; the failure of which threw the kingdom into great confusion, and reduced it to dependence under Mercia.[******] Switherd first acquired the crown, by the concession of the Mercian princes; and his death made way for Sigeric, who ended his life in a pilgrimage to Rome. His successor. Sigered, unable to defend his kingdom, submitted to the victorious arms of Egbert.

This kingdom didn’t have a significant presence in the Heptarchy, and its history is quite incomplete. Sleda took over from his father, Erkinwin, the founder of the monarchy, and paved the way for his son Sebert, who, being the nephew of Ethelbert, king of Kent, was encouraged by him to adopt Christianity. His sons and co-rulers, Sexted and Seward, returned to idolatry and were soon killed in a battle against the West Saxons. To illustrate the crude lifestyle of that time, Bede tells us that these two kings really wanted to eat the white bread distributed by Mellitus, the bishop, during communion. But when he refused them unless they agreed to be baptized, they expelled him from their lands. The names of the other princes who ruled in Essex in succession are Sigebert the Little, Sigebert the Good, who restored Christianity, Swithelm, Sigheri, and Offa. This last prince, having vowed to remain chaste, despite being married to Keneswitha, a Mercian princess and daughter of Penda, went on a pilgrimage to Rome and spent the rest of his life in a monastery. Selred, his successor, ruled for thirty-eight years and was the last of the royal lineage; the end of this line led to great chaos in the kingdom and made it dependent on Mercia. Switherd first gained the crown with the support of the Mercian princes; after his death, Sigeric took over but ended his life on a pilgrimage to Rome. His successor, Sigered, unable to defend his kingdom, yielded to the victorious forces of Egbert.

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 24].

     [**** Lib. ii. cap. 5.]
     743. Bede.]

     [****** W Malms, lib. i. cap. 6.]
     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 24].

     [**** Lib. ii. cap. 5.]
     743. Bede.]

     [****** W Malms, lib. i. cap. 6.]




THE KINGDOM OF SUSSEX.

The history of this kingdom, the smallest in the Heptarchy, is still more imperfect than that of Essex. Ælla, the founder of the monarchy, left the crown to his son Cissa, who is chiefly remarkable for his long reign of seventy-six years. During his time, the South Saxons fell almost into a total dependence on the kingdom of Wessex; and we scarcely know the names of the princes who were possessed of this titular sovereignty. Adelwalch, the last of them, was subdued in battle by Ceadwalla, king of Wessex, and was slain in the action; leaving two infant sons, who, falling into the hand of the conqueror, were murdered by him. The abbot of Bedford opposed the order for this execution; but could only prevail on Ceadwalla to suspend it till they should be baptized. Bercthun and Audhum, two noblemen of character, resisted some time the violence of the West Saxons; but their opposition served only to prolong the miseries of their country; and the subduing of this kingdom was the first step which the West Saxons made towards acquiring the sole monarchy of England.[*]

The history of this kingdom, the smallest in the Heptarchy, is even less complete than that of Essex. Ælla, the founder of the monarchy, passed the crown to his son Cissa, who is mainly known for his long reign of seventy-six years. During his rule, the South Saxons became almost completely dependent on the kingdom of Wessex; we barely know the names of the princes who held this nominal authority. Adelwalch, the last of them, was defeated in battle by Ceadwalla, the king of Wessex, and was killed in the fight, leaving two young sons who were captured by the conqueror and murdered. The abbot of Bedford opposed the order for their execution but could only convince Ceadwalla to delay it until they were baptized. Bercthun and Audhum, two noblemen of integrity, resisted the West Saxons for some time; however, their resistance only prolonged the suffering of their country. The defeat of this kingdom was the first step the West Saxons took toward achieving the sole monarchy of England.[*]

     [* Brompton, p. 800.]
[* Brompton, p. 800.]




THE KINGDOM OF WESSEX.

The kingdom of Wessex, which finally swallowed up all the other Saxon states, met with great resistance on its first establishment; and the Britons, who were now inured to arms, yielded not tamely their possessions to those invaders. Cerdic, the founder of the monarchy, and his son Kenric, fought many successful, and some unsuccessful battles, against the natives; and the martial spirit, common to all the Saxons, was, by means of these hostilities, carried to the greatest height among this tribe. Ceaulin, who was the son and successor of Kenric, and who began his reign in 560, was still, more ambitious and enterprising than his predecessors; and by waging continual war against the Britons, he added a great part of the counties of Devon and Somerset to his other dominions. Carried along by the tide of success, he invaded the other Saxon states in his neighborhood, and becoming terrible to all, he provoked a general confederacy against him. This alliance proved successful under the conduct of Ethelbert, king of Kent; and Ceaulin, who had lost the affections of his own subjects by his violent disposition, and had now fallen into contempt from his misfortunes, was expelled the throne,[**]and died in exile and misery. Cuichelme, and Cuthwin, his sons, governed jointly the kingdom, till the expulsion of the latter in 591, and the death of the former in 593, made way for Cealric, to whom succeeded Ceobaîd in 593, by whose death, which happened in 611, Kynegils inherited the crown.

The kingdom of Wessex, which eventually absorbed all the other Saxon states, faced strong resistance when it was first established; the Britons, now battle-hardened, did not willingly give up their land to these invaders. Cerdic, the founder of the monarchy, and his son Kenric fought numerous successful and some unsuccessful battles against the locals. The martial spirit that all Saxons shared reached its peak among this group due to these conflicts. Ceaulin, the son and successor of Kenric who began his reign in 560, was even more ambitious and daring than his predecessors. By constantly waging war against the Britons, he expanded his territory to include a significant portion of Devon and Somerset. Riding a wave of success, he invaded neighboring Saxon states, becoming a fearsome presence that prompted a united opposition against him. This alliance was successful under the leadership of Ethelbert, the king of Kent. Ceaulin, having alienated his own subjects with his violent temperament and now facing scorn due to his misfortunes, was ousted from the throne and died in exile and despair. His sons Cuichelme and Cuthwin jointly ruled the kingdom until Cuthwin was expelled in 591, and Cuichelme died in 593, clearing the way for Cealric, who was succeeded by Ceobaîd in 593. After Ceobaîd's death in 611, Kynegils inherited the crown.

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 22.]
[** Chron. Sax. p. 22.]

This prince embraced Christianity,[*] through the persuasion of Oswald, king of Northumberland, who had married his daughter, and who had Attained a great ascendant in the Heptarchy. Kenwalch next succeeded to the monarchy, and dying in 672, left the succession so much disputed, that Sexburga, his widow, a woman of spirit,[**] kept possession of the government till her death, which happened two years after. Escwin then peaceably acquired the crown; and, after a short reign of two years, made way for Kentwin, who governed nine years. Ceodwalla, his successor, mounted not the throne without opposition; but proved a great prince, according to the ideas of those times; that is, he was enterprising, warlike, and successful. He entirely subdued the kingdom of Sussex, and annexed it to his own dominions He made inroads into Kent; but met with resistance from Widred, the king, who proved successful against Mollo, brother to Ceodwalla, and slew him in a skirmish. Ceodwalla at last, tired with wars and bloodshed, was seized with a fit of devotion; bestowed several endowments on the church; and made a pilgrimage to Rome, where he received baptism, and died in 689. Ina, his successor, inherited the military virtues of Ceodwalla, and added to them the more valuable ones of justice, policy, and prudence. He made war upon the Britons in Somerset; and, having finally subdued that province, he treated the vanquished with a humanity hitherto unknown to the Saxon conquerors. He allowed the proprietors to retain possession of their lands, encouraged marriages and alliances between them and his ancient subjects, and gave them the privilege of being governed by the same laws. These laws he augmented and ascertained; and though he was disturbed by some insurrections at home, his long reign of thirty-seven years may be regarded as one of the most glorious and most prosperous of the Heptarchy. In the decline of his age he made a pilgrimage to Rome; and after his return, shut himself up in a cloister, where he died.

This prince embraced Christianity, thanks to the influence of Oswald, king of Northumberland, who had married his daughter and had gained significant power in the Heptarchy. Kenwalch then succeeded to the throne, and after his death in 672, the succession became so contested that his widow, Sexburga, a strong woman, maintained control of the government until she died two years later. Escwin then peacefully took the crown, and after a brief reign of two years, made way for Kentwin, who ruled for nine years. Ceodwalla, his successor, faced opposition when he ascended the throne but proved to be a great king by the standards of the time, being ambitious, warlike, and successful. He completely subdued the kingdom of Sussex and added it to his own territories. He launched raids into Kent but encountered resistance from King Widred, who successfully defeated Mollo, Ceodwalla's brother, and killed him in a battle. Eventually, worn out by wars and bloodshed, Ceodwalla experienced a moment of devotion; he made several donations to the church and took a pilgrimage to Rome, where he was baptized, and he died in 689. Ina, his successor, inherited Ceodwalla's military skills and added the vital qualities of justice, strategy, and wisdom. He waged war against the Britons in Somerset, and after finally conquering that region, he treated the defeated with an unprecedented humanity for Saxon conquerors. He allowed the landowners to keep their lands, promoted marriages and alliances between them and his subjects, and granted them the right to be governed by the same laws. He expanded and clarified these laws, and although he faced some rebellions at home, his lengthy reign of thirty-seven years can be seen as one of the most glorious and prosperous in the Heptarchy. In his later years, he made a pilgrimage to Rome; upon his return, he withdrew to a cloister, where he died.

     [* Higden, lib. v. Chron. Sax. p. 15. Alured
     Beverl p. 94.]

     [** Bede, lib. iv. cap., 12. Chron. Sax. p. 41.]
     [* Higden, lib. v. Chron. Sax. p. 15. Alured
     Beverl p. 94.]

     [** Bede, lib. iv. cap., 12. Chron. Sax. p. 41.]

Though the kings of Wessex had always been princes of the blood, descended from Cerdic, the founder of the monarchy, the order of succession had been far from exact; and a more remote prince had often found means to mount the throne, in preference to one descended from a nearer branch of the royal family. Ina, therefore, having no children of his own and lying much under the influence of Ethelburga, his queen, left by will the succession to Adelard, her brother, who was his remote kinsman; but this destination did not take place without some difficulty. Oswald, a prince more nearly allied to the crown, took arms against Adelard; but he being suppressed, and dying soon after, the title of Adelard was not any further disputed; and in the year 741, he was succeeded by his cousin Cudred. The reign of this prince was distinguished by a great victory, which he obtained by means of Edelhun, his general, over Ethelbald, king of Mercia. His death made way for Sigebert, his kinsman, who governed so ill, that his people rose in an insurrection, and dethroned him, crowning Cenulph in his stead. The exiled prince found a refuge with Duke Cumbran, governor of Hampshire; who, that he might add new obligations to Sigebert, gave him many salutary counsels for his future conduct, accompanied with some reprehensions for the past. But these were so much resented by the ungrateful prince, that he conspired against the life of his protector, and treacherously murdered him. After this infamous action, he was forsaken by all the world; and skulking about in the wilds and forests, was at last discovered by a servant of Cumbran’s, who instantly took revenge upon him for the murder of his master.[*]

Though the kings of Wessex had always been part of the royal lineage, descended from Cerdic, the founder of the monarchy, the line of succession had never been straightforward; often, a more distant relative managed to take the throne instead of someone closer to the royal family. Therefore, Ina, having no children of his own and heavily influenced by Ethelburga, his queen, left in his will the throne to Adelard, her brother, who was a distant kinsman. However, this arrangement faced some challenges. Oswald, a prince more closely related to the crown, rose up against Adelard, but he was defeated and died shortly after, leaving Adelard's claim unquestioned. In 741, he was succeeded by his cousin Cudred. Cudred's reign was marked by a major victory, won with the help of his general Edelhun, against Ethelbald, the king of Mercia. His death led to Sigebert, his relative, taking over, but he ruled so poorly that his people revolted and overthrew him, crowning Cenulph in his place. The deposed prince found shelter with Duke Cumbran, the governor of Hampshire, who, aiming to provide Sigebert with guidance for the future while chastising him for his past mistakes, added new obligations to their relationship. However, these were resented by the ungrateful prince, who plotted against his protector and killed him in betrayal. After this disgraceful act, he was abandoned by everyone and, while hiding out in the woods and wilds, was eventually discovered by a servant of Cumbran's, who sought revenge for the murder of his master.[*]

Cenulph, who had obtained the crown on the expulsion of Sigebert, was fortunate in many expeditions against the Britons of Cornwall; but afterwards lost some reputation by his ill success against Offa, king of Mercia.[**] Kynehard also, brother to the deposed Sigebert, gave him disturbance; and though expelled the kingdom, he hovered on the frontiers, and watched an opportunity for attacking his rival. The king had an intrigue with a young woman, who lived at Merton, in Surrey, whither having secretly retired, he was on a sudden environed, in the night time, by Kynehard and his followers, and after making a vigorous resistance, was murdered, with all his attendants. The nobility and people of the neighborhood, rising next day in arms, took revenge on Kynehard for the slaughter of their king, and put every one to the sword who had been engaged in that criminal enterprise. This event happened in 784.

Cenulph, who had gained the crown after Sigebert was ousted, found success in many campaigns against the Britons of Cornwall; however, he later lost some reputation after failing against Offa, the king of Mercia.[**] Kynehard, Sigebert's brother, also troubled him; even after being exiled from the kingdom, he lingered on the borders, waiting for a chance to attack his rival. The king had an affair with a young woman living in Merton, Surrey, and while he was secretly staying there, he was suddenly surrounded at night by Kynehard and his men. After a fierce fight, he was killed along with all his attendants. The next day, the local nobility and people rose up in arms to avenge their king's murder, killing everyone involved in that treacherous act. This event took place in 784.

     [* Higden, lib. v. W. Malms, lib. i. cap. 2.]

     [** W. Malms, lib. i. cap. 2.]
     [* Higden, lib. v. W. Malms, lib. i. cap. 2.]

     [** W. Malms, lib. i. cap. 2.]

Brthric next obtained possession of the government, though remotely descended from the royal family; but he enjoyed not that dignity without inquietude. Eoppa, nephew to King Ina, by his brother Ingild, who died before that prince, had begot Eata, father to Alchmond, from whom sprung Egbert,[*] a young man of the most promising hopes, who gave great jealousy to Brithric, the reigning prince, both because he seemed by his birth better entitled to the crown, and because he had acquired, to an eminent degree, the affections of the people. Egbert, sensible of his danger from the suspicions of Brithric, secretly withdrew into France;[**] where he was well received by Charlemagne. By living in the court, and serving in the armies of that prince, the most able and most generous that had appeared in Europe during several ages, he acquired those accomplishments which afterwards enabled him to make such a shining figure on the throne. And familiarizing himself to the manners of the French, who, as Malmsbury observes,[***] were eminent both for valor and civility above all the western nations, he learned to polish the rudeness and barbarity of the Saxon character: his early misfortunes thus proved of singular advantage to him.

Brithric took control of the government, even though he was distantly related to the royal family; however, he didn’t enjoy that position without anxiety. Eoppa, the nephew of King Ina from his brother Ingild, who had died before him, fathered Eata, who was the father of Alchmond, from whom Egbert[*] was descended. Egbert was a young man with great potential, which made Brithric, the current prince, very jealous. This jealousy stemmed from Egbert's seemingly more legitimate claim to the crown and the strong support he had from the people. Aware of the danger posed by Brithric's suspicions, Egbert quietly fled to France;[**] there, he was warmly welcomed by Charlemagne. By living at the court and serving in the armies of Charlemagne, who was the most capable and generous ruler to emerge in Europe in many ages, he developed the skills that later helped him stand out as king. By adapting to the ways of the French, who, as Malmsbury notes,[***] were known for both bravery and civility more than any other western nations, he softened the roughness and barbarism of the Saxon character; thus, his early hardships turned out to be a significant advantage for him.

It was not long ere Egbert had opportunities of displaying his natural and acquired talents. Brithric, king of Wessex, had married Eadburga, natural daughter of Offa, king of Mercia, a profligate woman, equally infamous for cruelty and for incontinence. Having great influence over her husband, she often instigated him to destroy such of the nobility as were obnoxious to her; and where this expedient failed, she scrupled not being herself active in traitorous attempts against them. She had mixed a cup of poison for a young nobleman, who had acquired her husband’s friendship, and had on that account become the object of her jealousy; but unfortunately the king drank of the fatal cup along with his favorite, and soon after expired.[****] This tragical incident, joined to her other crimes, rendered Eadburga so odious, that she was obliged to fly into France; whence Egbert was at the same time recalled by the nobility, in order to ascend the throne of his ancestors.[*****] He attained that dignity in the last year of the eighth century.

It wasn't long before Egbert had chances to show off his natural and developed skills. Brithric, the king of Wessex, had married Eadburga, the illegitimate daughter of Offa, the king of Mercia, a disreputable woman infamous for her cruelty and promiscuity. Having significant influence over her husband, she often urged him to eliminate nobles who annoyed her; and when this tactic failed, she did not hesitate to engage in treacherous plots against them herself. She had prepared a poisoned drink for a young nobleman who had gained her husband's friendship, and because of that, he became the target of her jealousy. Unfortunately, the king drank from the deadly cup along with his favorite and soon after died. This tragic event, along with her other crimes, made Eadburga so hated that she had to flee to France. At the same time, the nobility invited Egbert back to reclaim the throne of his ancestors. He achieved that title in the last year of the eighth century.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 16.]

     [** H. Hunting. lib. iv.]

     [*** Lib. ii. cap. 11.]

     [**** Higden, lib. v. M West. p. 152. Asser. in
     vita Alfiredi, p, 3. ex edit, Camdeni.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 16.]

     [** H. Hunting. lib. iv.]

     [*** Lib. ii. cap. 11.]

     [**** Higden, lib. v. M West. p. 152. Asser. in
     vita Alfiredi, p, 3. ex edit. Camdeni.]

In the kingdoms of the Heptarchy, an exact rule of succession was either unknown or not strictly observed; and thence the reigning prince was continually agitated with jealousy against all the princes of the blood, whom he still considered as rivals, and whose death alone could give him entire security in his possession of the throne. From this fatal cause, together with the admiration of the monastic life, and the opinion of merit attending the preservation of chastity even in a married state, the royal families had been entirely extinguished in all the kingdoms except that of Wessex; and the emulations, suspicions, and conspiracies, which had formerly been confined to the princes of the blood alone, were now diffused among all the nobility in the several Saxon states. Egbert was the sole descendant of those first conquerors who subdued Britain, and who enhanced their authority by claiming a pedigree from Woden, the supreme divinity of their ancestors. But that prince, though invited by this favorable circumstance to make attempts on the neighboring Saxons, gave them for some time no disturbance, and rather chose to turn his arms against the Britons in Cornwall, whom he defeated in several battles.[*] He was recalled from the conquest of that country by an invasion made upon his dominions by Bernulf, king of Mercia.

In the kingdoms of the Heptarchy, a clear rule of succession was either unknown or not strictly followed; as a result, the ruling prince was constantly uneasy with jealousy towards all the royal family members, whom he viewed as rivals, and whose deaths he believed were necessary for his complete security on the throne. Because of this dangerous mindset, along with the admiration for monastic life and the belief that preserving chastity was a sign of merit even in marriage, royal families had been wiped out in all the kingdoms except Wessex; and the rivalries, suspicions, and plots that once only involved the royal family members now spread among all the nobility in the various Saxon states. Egbert was the only descendant of the first conquerors who defeated Britain, who bolstered their authority by claiming a lineage from Woden, the supreme god of their ancestors. However, even though this favorable circumstance encouraged him to challenge the neighboring Saxons, he initially chose not to disturb them and instead directed his military efforts against the Britons in Cornwall, defeating them in several battles. He was ultimately called back from conquering that region due to an invasion by Bernulf, the king of Mercia.

The Mercians, before the accession of Egbert, had very nearly attained the absolute sovereignty in the Heptarchy: they had reduced the East Angles under subjection, and established tributary princes in the kingdoms of Kent and Essex. Northumberland was involved in anarchy; and no state of any consequence remained but that of Wessex, which, much inferior in extent to Mercia, was supported solely by the great qualities of its sovereign. Egbert led his army against the invaders; and encountering them at Ellandun, in Wiltshire, obtained a complete victory, and by the great slaughter which he made of them in their flight, gave a mortal blow to the power of the Mercians. Whilst he himself, In prosecution of his victory, entered their country on the side of Oxfordshire, and threatened the heart of their dominions, he sent an army into Kent, commanded by Ethelwolph, his eldest son,[**] and, expelling Baldred. The tributary king, soon made himself master of that county.

The Mercians, before Egbert became king, were very close to achieving complete control in the Heptarchy: they had brought the East Angles under their rule and set up tributary leaders in the kingdoms of Kent and Essex. Northumberland was in chaos, and the only significant state left was Wessex, which was much smaller than Mercia and relied entirely on the strong leadership of its king. Egbert took his army against the invaders and, facing them at Ellandun in Wiltshire, won a decisive victory. Through the heavy losses they suffered during their retreat, he dealt a serious blow to Mercian power. Following his victory, he entered their territory near Oxfordshire, threatening the core of their domain, and he sent an army to Kent led by his oldest son, Ethelwolph, who expelled Baldred. The tributary king quickly took control of that county.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 69.]

     [** Ethelwerd, lib iii. cap. 2.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 69.]

     [** Ethelwerd, book iii. chap. 2.]

The kingdom of Essex was conquered with equal facility; and the East Angles, from their hatred to the Mercian gov ernment, which had been established over them by treachery and violence, and probably exercised with tyranny, immediately rose in arms, and craved the protection of Egbert.[*] Bernulf, the Mercian king, who marched against them, was feated and siain; and two years after, Ludican, his successor, met with the same fate. These insurrections and calamities facilitated the enterprises of Egbert, who advanced into the centre of the Mercian territories, and made easy conquests over a dispirited and divided people. In order to engage them more easily to submission, he allowed Wiglef, their countryman, to retain the title of king, whilst he himself exercised the real powers of sovereignty.[**] The anarchy which prevailed in Northumberland tempted him to carry still farther his victorious arms; and the inhabitants, unable to resist his power, and desirous of possessing some established form of government, were forward, on his first appearance, to send deputies, who submitted to his authority, and swore allegiance to him as their sovereign. Egbert, however, still allowed to Northumberland, as he had done to Mercia, and East Anglia, the power of electing a king, who paid him tribute, and was dependent on him.

The kingdom of Essex was conquered easily, and the East Angles, angry at the Mercian government that had been imposed on them through betrayal and violence, likely ruled with an iron fist, quickly took up arms and sought Egbert's protection.[*] Bernulf, the Mercian king, who marched against them, was defeated and killed; two years later, his successor Ludican met the same fate. These uprisings and disasters made it easier for Egbert, who advanced into the heart of Mercian territory and made swift conquests over a demoralized and divided people. To encourage their submission, he let Wiglef, one of their own, keep the title of king while he exercised the true powers of sovereignty.[**] The chaos in Northumberland motivated him to extend his victorious campaign; the locals, unable to defend against him and eager for a stable government, quickly sent representatives to submit to his rule and swear loyalty to him as their king. Egbert, however, still allowed Northumberland, just like he did with Mercia and East Anglia, the right to elect a king who paid him tribute and was dependent on him.

Thus were united all the kingdoms of the Heptarchy in one great state, near four hundred years after the first arrival of the Saxons in Britain; and the fortunate arms and prudent policy of Egbert at last effected what had been so often attempted in vain by so many princes.[***] Kent, Northumberland, and Mercia, which had successively aspired to general dominion, were now incorporated in his empire; and the other subordinate kingdoms seemed willingly to share the same fate. His territories were nearly of the same extent with what is now properly called England; and a favorable prospect was afforded to the Anglo-Saxons of establishing a civilized monarchy, possessed of tranquillity within itself, and secure against foreign invasion. This great event happened in the year 827.[****]

Thus, all the kingdoms of the Heptarchy were united into one great state, nearly four hundred years after the Saxons first arrived in Britain; and the successful military campaigns and smart strategies of Egbert finally achieved what many princes had tried and failed to do. Kent, Northumberland, and Mercia, which had each sought overall control, were now part of his empire; and the other smaller kingdoms seemed willing to accept the same fate. His territories were nearly the same as what we now call England; and a promising chance was presented to the Anglo-Saxons to establish a civilized monarchy, one that was peaceful internally and protected from outside invasion. This significant event took place in the year 827.

     [* Ethelwerd, lib. iii. cap. 2.]

     [** Ingulph. p. 7, 8, 19.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 71.]

     [**** Chron. Sax. p. 71.]
[* Ethelwerd, lib. iii. cap. 2.]

[** Ingulph. p. 7, 8, 19.]

[*** Chron. Sax. p. 71.]

[**** Chron. Sax. p. 71.]

The Saxons, though they had been so long settled in the island, seem not as yet to have been much improved beyond their German ancestors, either hi arts, civility, knowledge, humanity, justice, or obedience to the laws. Even Christianity, though it opened the way to connections between their and the more polished states of Europe, had not hitherto been very effectual in banishing their ignorance, or softening their barbarous manners. As they received that doctrine through the corrupted channels of Rome, it carried along with it a great mixture of credulity and superstition, equally destructive to the understanding and to morals. The reverence towards saints and relics seems to have almost supplanted the idoration of the Supreme Being; monastic observances were esteemed more meritorious than the active virtues; the knowledge of natural causes was neglected, from the universal belief of miraculous interpositions and judgments; bounty to the church atoned for every violence against society; and the remorses for cruelty, murder, treachery, assassination, and the more robust vices, were appeased, not by amendment of life, but by penances, servility to the monks, and an abject and illiberal devotion.[*] The reverence for the clergy had been carried to such a height, that, wherever a person appeared in a sacerdotal habit, though on the highway, the people flocked around him, and, showing him all marks of profound respect, received every word he uttered as the most sacred oracle.[**] Even the military virtues, so inherent in all the Saxon tribes, began to be neglected; and the nobility, preferring the security and sloth of the cloister to the tumults and glory of war, valued themselves chiefly on endowing monasteries, of which they assumed the government.[***] The several kings too, being extremely impoverished by continual benefactions to the church, to which the states of their kingdoms had weakly assented, could bestow no rewards on valor or military services, and retained not even sufficient influence to support their government.[****]

The Saxons, despite having settled in the island for so long, still didn’t seem much more advanced than their German ancestors in terms of arts, civility, knowledge, humanity, justice, or obedience to the law. Even Christianity, which opened up connections to the more cultured states of Europe, had not been very effective in eliminating their ignorance or softening their brutal ways. Since they received that faith through the corrupted channels of Rome, it brought with it a significant amount of gullibility and superstition, which were equally damaging to their understanding and morals. The respect for saints and relics seemed to have almost replaced the worship of the Supreme Being; monastic practices were seen as more virtuous than active good deeds; the understanding of natural causes was neglected due to the widespread belief in miraculous interventions and divine judgments; donations to the church offset any wrongdoing against society; and regrets over cruelty, murder, treachery, assassination, and other serious vices were eased, not by changing their behaviors, but by penances, servitude to monks, and a lowly and narrow-minded devotion. The respect for the clergy became so extreme that whenever someone appeared in priestly garments, even on the road, people would gather around them, showing deep respect and treating every word they spoke as the most sacred truth. Even the military virtues, which were inherent to all the Saxon tribes, started to be overlooked; the nobility preferred the safety and laziness of the monastery over the chaos and glory of battle, taking pride in funding monasteries, of which they took control. The various kings, burdened by constant donations to the church—something their kingdoms had weakly consented to—could offer no rewards for bravery or military achievements, and lacked enough influence to sustain their governance.

     [* These abuses were common to all the European
     churches; but the priests in Italy, Spain, and Gaul, made
     some atonement for them by other advantages which they
     rendered society. For several ages, they were almost all
     Romans, or, in other words, the ancient natives; and they
     preserved the Roman language and laws, with some remains of
     the former civility. But the priests in the Heptarchy, after
     the first missionaries, were wholly Saxons, and almost as
     ignorant and Barbarous as the laity. They contributed,
     therefore, little to no improvement of society in knowledge
     or the arts.]

     [** Bede, lib. iii. cap. 26.]

     [*** Bede, lib. v. cap. 23. Bedae Epist. ad
     Egbert.]

     [**** Bedse Epist. ad Egbert.]
     [* These abuses were common in all European churches; however, the priests in Italy, Spain, and Gaul made some amends through the benefits they provided to society. For many centuries, they were mostly Romans, or in other words, the original natives; and they maintained the Roman language and laws, along with some remnants of past civility. But the priests in the Heptarchy, after the initial missionaries, were entirely Saxons and were nearly as ignorant and uncivilized as the general population. Therefore, they contributed very little to the advancement of society in terms of knowledge or the arts.]

     [** Bede, lib. iii. cap. 26.]

     [*** Bede, lib. v. cap. 23. Bedae Epist. ad Egbert.]

     [**** Bedse Epist. ad Egbert.]

Another inconvenience which attended this corrupt species of Christianity, was the superstitious attachment to Rome, and the gradual subjection of the kingdom to a foreign jurisdiction. The Britons, having never acknowledged any subordination to the Roman pontiff, had conducted all ecclesiastical government by their domestic synods and councils;[*] but the Saxons, receiving their religion from Roman monks, were taught at the same time a profound reverence for that see, and were naturally led to regard it as the capital of their religion. Pilgrimages to Rome were represented as the most meritorious acts of devotion. Not only noblemen and ladies of rank undertook this tedious journey,[**] but kings themselves, abdicating their crowns, sought for a secure passport to heaven at the feet of the Roman pontiff. New relics, perpetually sent from that endless mint of superstition, and magnified by lying miracles, invented in convents, operated on the astonished minds of the multitude. And every prince has attained the eulogies of the monks, the only historians of those ages, not in proportion to his civil and military virtues, but to his devoted attachment towards their order, and his superstitious reverence for Rome.

Another issue that came with this corrupt version of Christianity was the superstitious loyalty to Rome and the gradual submission of the kingdom to foreign authority. The Britons, who had never accepted any subordination to the Roman pope, managed all church governance through their own synods and councils;[*] however, the Saxons, who received their faith from Roman monks, were simultaneously taught to have a deep respect for that see and naturally came to view it as the center of their faith. Pilgrimages to Rome were portrayed as the most commendable acts of devotion. Not only nobles and high-ranking women undertook this long journey,[**] but even kings, giving up their crowns, sought a guaranteed ticket to heaven at the feet of the Roman pope. New relics, constantly sent from that endless source of superstition and enhanced by fabricated miracles created in monasteries, captivated the amazed minds of the people. And each prince earned the praises of the monks, the only historians of that time, not based on his civil and military merits, but rather on his loyal devotion to their order and his superstitious reverence for Rome.

The sovereign pontiff, encouraged by this blindness and submissive disposition of the people, advanced every day in his encroachments on the independence of the English churches. Wilfrid, bishop of Lindisferne, the sole prelate of the Northumbrian kingdom, increased this subjection in the eighth century, by his making an appeal to Rome against the decisions of an English synod, which had abridged his diocese by the erection of some new bishoprics.[***] Agatho, the pope, readily embraced this precedent of an appeal to his court; and Wilfrid, though the haughtiest and most luxurious prelate of his age,[****] having obtained with the people the character of sanctity, was thus able to lay the foundation of this papal pretension.

The pope, encouraged by the people's ignorance and submissive attitude, made daily advances in undermining the independence of the English churches. In the eighth century, Wilfrid, the bishop of Lindisfarne and the only prelate in the Northumbrian kingdom, intensified this subjugation by appealing to Rome against the decisions of an English synod that had reduced his diocese by creating new bishoprics.[***] Pope Agatho eagerly accepted this precedent for an appeal to his court; and Wilfrid, despite being the most arrogant and lavish prelate of his time,[****] managed to gain a reputation for holiness among the people, thus establishing the basis for this papal claim.

     [* Append, to Bede, numb. 10, ex edit. 1722.
     Spehn. Concil p.108, 109.]

     [** Bede. lib. v. cap. 7.]

     [*** See Appendix to Bede, numb. 19. Higden, lib.
     v.]

     [**** Eddius, vita Vilfr. sect. 24, 60]
     [* Append, to Bede, numb. 10, ex edit. 1722.  
     Spehn. Concil p.108, 109.]

     [** Bede. lib. v. cap. 7.]

     [*** See Appendix to Bede, numb. 19. Higden, lib.  
     v.]

     [**** Eddius, vita Vilfr. sect. 24, 60]

The great topic by which Wilfrid confounded the imaginations of men, was, that St. Peter, to whos custody the keys of heaven were intrusted, would certainly refuse admittance to every one who should be wanting in respect to his successor, This conceit, well suited to vulgar conceptions, made great impression on the people during several ages, and has act even at present lost all influence in the Catholic countries. Had this abject superstition produced general peace and tranquillity, it had made some atonement for the ills attending it; but besides the usual avidity of men for power and riches, frivolous controversies in theology were engendered by it, which were so much the more fatal, as they admitted not, like the others, of any final determination from established possession. The disputes, excited in Britain, were of the most ridiculous kind, and entirely worthy of those ignorant and barbarous ages. There were some intricacies, observed by all the Christian churches, in adjusting the day of keeping Easter; which depended on a complicated consideration of the course of the sun and moon; and it happened that the missionaries, who had converted the Scots and Britons, had followed a different calendar from that which was observed at Rome, in the age when Augustine converted the Saxons. The priests also of all the Christian churches were accustomed to shave part of their head; but the form given to this tonsure was different in the former from what was practised in the latter. The Scots and Britons pleaded the antiquity of their usages; the Romans and their disciples, the Saxons, insisted on the universality of theirs. That Easter must necessarily be kept by a rule, which comprehended both the day of the year and age of the moon, was agreed by all; that the tonsure of a priest could not be omitted without the utmost impiety, was a point undisputed; but the Romans and Saxons called their antagonists schismatics, because they celebrated Easter on the very day of the full moon in March, if that day fell on a Sunday, instead of waiting till the Sunday following; and because they shaved the fore part of their head from ear to ear, instead of making that tonsure on the crown of the head, and in a circular form. In order to render their antagonists odious, they affirmed that, once in seven years, they concurred with the Jews in the time of celebrating that festival;[*] and that they might recommend their own form of tonsure, they maintained, that it imitated symbolically the crown of thorns worn by Christ in his passion; whereas the other form was invented by Simon Magus, without any regard to that representation.[**]

The main idea that Wilfrid used to confuse people's imaginations was that St. Peter, who held the keys to heaven, would definitely deny entry to anyone who showed disrespect to his successor. This idea, which fit well with common beliefs, made a significant impact on people for many generations and still holds some influence in Catholic countries today. If this misguided superstition had brought about general peace and calm, it might have made up for the negative effects it caused; however, in addition to the typical greed for power and wealth, it also sparked trivial theological debates that were even more destructive because they couldn't be resolved through established means. The disputes that arose in Britain were absurd and completely reflective of those ignorant and barbaric times. There were various complexities followed by all Christian churches regarding the date of Easter, which relied on a complicated understanding of the sun and moon's cycles. The missionaries who converted the Scots and Britons used a different calendar from the one that was used in Rome when Augustine converted the Saxons. Additionally, priests from all Christian churches would shave part of their heads, but the style of this tonsure varied between the two groups. The Scots and Britons argued for the age of their traditions, while the Romans and their followers, the Saxons, insisted on the universality of theirs. Everyone agreed that Easter had to be celebrated according to a rule that included both the day of the year and the moon's age, and there was no dispute that a priest's tonsure could not be omitted without great impropriety. However, the Romans and Saxons labeled their opponents as schismatics because they celebrated Easter on the day of the full moon in March if it fell on a Sunday, rather than waiting until the following Sunday. They also criticized how their opponents shaved the front part of their heads from ear to ear, instead of performing the tonsure on the crown of their heads in a circular shape. To make their rivals look bad, they claimed that every seven years, they celebrated that festival together with the Jews;[*] and to promote their own style of tonsure, they argued that it symbolically represented the crown of thorns worn by Christ during his suffering, while the other style was supposedly invented by Simon Magus, with no regard for that representation.[**]

     [* Bede, lib. ii. cap. 19.]

     [** Bede, lib. v. cap. 21. Eddius, sect. 24]
     [* Bede, book II, chapter 19.]

     [** Bede, book V, chapter 21. Eddius, section 24]

These controversies had, from the beginning, excited such animosity between the British and Romish priests that, instead of concurring in their endeavors to convert the idolatrous Saxons, they refused all communion together, and each regarded his opponent as no better than a pagan.[*] The dispute lasted more than a century; and was at last finished, not by men’s discovering the folly of it, which would have been too great an effort for human reason to accomplish, but by the entire prevalence of the Romish ritual over the Scotch and British.[**] Wilfrid, bishop of Lindisferne, acquired great merit, both with the court of Rome and with all the southern Saxons, by expelling the quartodeciman schism, as it was called, from the Northumbrian kingdom, into which the neighborhood of the Scots had formerly introduced it.[***]

These disputes had, from the very beginning, stirred up such hostility between the British and Roman priests that, instead of working together to convert the idolatrous Saxons, they completely cut off any communion and viewed each other as no better than pagans.[*] The argument lasted for more than a century and finally ended, not because people recognized the absurdity of it—an effort that would have been too much for human reason—but because the Roman ritual completely dominated the Scottish and British practices.[**] Wilfrid, bishop of Lindisfarne, gained significant favor, both with the court of Rome and among all the southern Saxons, by driving the quartodeciman schism out of the Northumbrian kingdom, which the Scots had previously introduced.[***]

Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, called, in the year 680, a synod at Hatfield, consisting of all the bishops in Britain,[****] where was accepted and ratified the decree of the Lateran council, summoned by Martin, against the heresy of the Monothelites. The council and synod maintained, in opposition to these heretics, that, though the divine and human nature in Christ made but one person, yet had they different inclinations, wills, acts, and sentiments, and that the unity of the person implied not any unity in the consciousness.[*****] This opinion it seems somewhat difficult to comprehend; and no one, unacquainted with the ecclesiastical history of those ages, could imagine the height of zeal and violence with which it was then inculcated. The decree of the Lateran council calls the Monothelites impious, execrable, wicked, abominable, and even diabolical; and curses and anathematizes them to all eternity.[******]

Theodore, the archbishop of Canterbury, called a synod at Hatfield in 680, bringing together all the bishops in Britain,[****] where they accepted and confirmed the decree from the Lateran council, which had been convened by Martin, against the heresy of the Monothelites. The council and synod argued that while the divine and human nature in Christ formed one person, they had different inclinations, wills, actions, and feelings, and that the unity of the person did not imply a unity in consciousness.[*****] This viewpoint is somewhat challenging to grasp; and anyone unfamiliar with the church history of that time could not fathom the intensity and fervor with which it was promoted. The decree from the Lateran council labels the Monothelites as impious, detestable, evil, abhorrent, and even devilish; and it condemns and curses them for all eternity.[******]

     [* Bede, lib. ii. cap. 2, 4, 20. Eddius, sect.
     12.]

     [** Bede, lib. v. cap. 16, 22.]

     [*** Bede, lib. iii. cap. 25. Eddius, sect. 12.]

     [**** Spell. Concil. vol. i. p. 168.]

     [****** Spell. Concil. vol. i. p. 172, 173, 174.]
     [* Bede, book ii, chapter 2, 4, 20. Eddius, section 12.]

     [** Bede, book v, chapter 16, 22.]

     [*** Bede, book iii, chapter 25. Eddius, section 12.]

     [**** Spell. Council, volume i, page 168.]

     [****** Spell. Council, volume i, pages 172, 173, 174.]




CHAPTER II.

The Saxons, from the first introduction of Christianity among them, had admitted the use of images; and perhaps that religion, without some of those exterior ornaments, had not made so quick a progress with these idolaters; but they had not paid any species of worship or address to images; and this abuse never prevailed among Christians, till it received the sanction of the second council of Nice.

The Saxons, from the time Christianity was first introduced to them, accepted the use of images; and maybe that religion, without some of those external decorations, wouldn't have spread so quickly among these idolaters. However, they didn't offer any form of worship or reverence to images; this misuse didn't become widespread among Christians until it was approved by the second council of Nicaea.





EGBERT.

827.

827.

The kingdoms of the Heptarchy, though united by a recent conquest, seemed to be firmly cemented into one state under Egbert; and the inhabitants of the several provinces had lost all desire of revolting from that monarch, or of restoring their former independent governments. Their language was every where nearly the same, their customs, laws, institutions, civil and religious; and as the race of the ancient kings was totally extinct in all the subjected states, the people readily transferred their allegiance to a prince who seemed to merit it by the splendor of his victories, the vigor of hia administration, and the superior nobility of his birth. A union also in government opened to them the agreeable prospect of future tranquillity; and it appeared more probable that they would thenceforth become formidable to their neighbors, than be exposed to their inroads and devastations. But these flattering views were soon overcast by the appearance of the Danes, who, during some centuries, kept the Anglo-Saxons in perpetual inquietude, committed the most barbarous ravages upon them, and at last reduced them to grievous servitude.

The kingdoms of the Heptarchy, although brought together by a recent conquest, seemed solidly unified into one state under Egbert. The people in the various provinces had completely lost any desire to rebel against that king or to restore their former independent governments. Their language was nearly the same everywhere, along with their customs, laws, and institutions, both civil and religious. Since the lineage of the ancient kings was completely extinct in all the controlled states, the people gladly pledged their loyalty to a ruler who seemed deserving of it because of his impressive victories, strong leadership, and noble heritage. A unified government also gave them the hopeful prospect of lasting peace, making it more likely that they would become a threat to their neighbors rather than be subjected to their raids and destruction. However, these optimistic views were soon overshadowed by the arrival of the Danes, who, for several centuries, kept the Anglo-Saxons in constant unrest, inflicted brutal devastation upon them, and ultimately brought them into severe subjugation.

The emperor Charlemagne, though naturally generous and humane, had been induced by bigotry to exercise great severities upon the pagan Saxons in Germany, whom he subdued; and besides often ravaging their country with fire and sword, he had, in cool blood, decimated all the inhabitants for their revolts, and had obliged them, by the most rigorous edicts, to make a seeming compliance with the Christian doctrine. That religion, which had easily made its way among the British Saxons by insinuation and address, appeared shocking to their German brethren, when imposed on them by the violence of Charlemagne; and the more generous and warlike of these pagans had fled northward into Jutland, in order to escape the fury of his persecutions. Meeting there with a people of similar manners, they were readily received among them; and they soon stimulated the natives to concur in enterprises which both promised revenge on the haughty conqueror, and afforded subsistence to those numerous inhabitants with which the northern countries were now overburdened.[*] They invaded the provinces of France, which were exposed by the degeneracy and dissensions of Charlemagne’s posterity; and being there known under the general name of Normans, which they received from their northern situation, they became the terror of all the maritime and even of the inland countries. They were also tempted to visit England in their frequent excursions; and being able, by sudden inroads, to make great progress over a people who were not defended by any naval force, who had relaxed their military institutions, and who were sunk into a superstition which had become odious to the Danes and ancient Saxons, they made no distinction in their hostilities between the French and English kingdoms. Their first appearance in this island was in the year 787,[**] when Brithric reigned in Wessex. A small body of them landed in that kingdom, with a view of learning the state of the country; and when the magistrate of the place questioned them concerning their enterprise, and summoned them to appear before the king, and account for their intentions, they killed him, and, flying to, their ships, escaped into their own country. The next alarm was given to Northumberland in the year 794,[***] when a body of these pirates pillaged a monastery; but their ships being much damaged by a storm, and their leader slain in a skirmish, they were at last defeated by the inhabitants, and the remainder of them put to the sword. [Sidenote: 832] Five years after Egbert had established his monarchy over England, the Danes landed in the Isle of Shepey, and having pillaged it, escaped with impunity.[****] They were not so fortunate in their next year’s enterprise, when they disembarked from thirty-five ships, and were encountered by Egbert, at Charmouth, in Dorsetshire. The battle was bloody; but though the Danes lost great numbers, they maintained the post which they had taken, and thence made good their retreat to their ships.[*****]

The emperor Charlemagne, despite being naturally generous and humane, had been driven by bigotry to impose severe actions on the pagan Saxons in Germany, whom he conquered. Besides frequently ravaging their land with fire and sword, he ruthlessly decimated the population for their revolts and forced them, through harsh laws, to feign compliance with Christian teachings. That religion, which had easily spread among the British Saxons through subtlety and charm, shocked their German counterparts when it was imposed on them through Charlemagne's violence. The more noble and fierce of these pagans fled north to Jutland to escape his harsh persecutions. There, they found a people with similar ways, who welcomed them. They soon encouraged the locals to join in efforts that promised revenge against the arrogant conqueror and provided sustenance for the many residents in the already strained northern territories. They invaded the provinces of France, which were weakened by the decline and infighting of Charlemagne’s successors, and they became known as Normans due to their northern origins, instilling fear across coastal and even inland regions. They were also drawn to England during their frequent raids; being able to make significant progress against a people without any naval defenses, who had relaxed their military practices, and who were mired in a superstition that had become repugnant to the Danes and ancient Saxons. They did not distinguish between their attacks on the French and English kingdoms. Their first appearance in this island was in the year 787, when Brithric reigned in Wessex. A small group landed in that kingdom, intending to assess the country; when the local magistrate questioned them about their plans and summoned them to appear before the king, they killed him and fled to their ships, escaping back to their homeland. The next alarm was raised in Northumberland in 794, when a group of these pirates plundered a monastery; however, their ships were heavily damaged by a storm, and their leader was killed in a skirmish, leading to their eventual defeat by the locals, with the remaining pirates put to death. Five years after Egbert established his monarchy over England, the Danes landed on the Isle of Shepey, pillaged it, and escaped without consequence. They weren't as lucky in their next venture when they disembarked from thirty-five ships and encountered Egbert at Charmouth in Dorsetshire. The battle was fierce; although the Danes suffered many losses, they held their ground and managed to retreat to their ships.

     [* Ypod. Neust. p. 414.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 64.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 66. Alured. Beveri. p. 108.]

     [**** Chron. Sax. p. 72]
     cap. 2.]
     [* Ypod. Neust. p. 414.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 64.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 66. Alured. Beveri. p. 108.]

     [**** Chron. Sax. p. 72]
     cap. 2.]

Having learned, by experience, that they must expect a vigorous resistance from this warlike prince, they entered into an alliance with the Britons of Cornwall; and, landing two years after in that country, made an inroad with their confederates into the county of Devon, but were met at Hengesdown by Egbert, and totally defeated.[*] While England remained in this state of anxiety, and defended itself more by temporary expedients than by any regular plan of administration, Egbert, who alone was able to provide effectually against this new evil, unfortunately died, and left the government to his son Ethelwolf.

Having learned from experience that they would face strong resistance from this warlike prince, they formed an alliance with the Britons of Cornwall. Two years later, they landed in that region and, along with their allies, invaded the county of Devon. However, they were met at Hengesdown by Egbert and were completely defeated.[*] While England was still in this state of anxiety, relying more on temporary fixes than on any solid plan of governance, Egbert, who was the only one capable of effectively dealing with this new threat, unfortunately died and left the leadership to his son Ethelwolf.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 72.]
[* Chron. Sax. p. 72.*]




ETHELWOLF.

This prince had neither the abilities nor the vigor of his father, and was better qualified for governing a convent than a kingdom.[*] He began his reign with making a partition of his dominions, and delivering over to his eldest son, Athelstan, the new-conquered provinces of Essex, Kent, and Sussex. But no inconveniences seem to have arisen from this partition as the continual terror of the Danish invasions prevented all domestic dissension. A fleet of these ravagers, consisting of thirty-three sail, appeared at Southampton, but were repulsed with loss by Wolfhere, governor of the neighboring country.[**] The same year, Æthelhelm, governor of Dorsetshire, routed another band, which had disembarked at Portsmouth; but he obtained the victory after a furious engagement, and he bought it with the loss of his life.[***]

This prince lacked the skills and energy of his father and was more suited to managing a convent than a kingdom.[*] He started his reign by dividing his lands and giving his eldest son, Athelstan, control over the newly conquered regions of Essex, Kent, and Sussex. However, this division didn't cause any problems since the constant threat of Danish invasions kept domestic conflicts at bay. A fleet of these raiders, made up of thirty-three ships, appeared at Southampton but was driven back with losses by Wolfhere, the governor of the nearby area.[**] That same year, Æthelhelm, the governor of Dorsetshire, defeated another group that had landed at Portsmouth; he won the battle after an intense fight, but he paid for it with his life.[***]

     [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap 2.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 73. Ethelwerd, lib. iii. cap.
     3.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 73. H. Hunting, lib. v.]
     [* W. Malms, book 2, chapter 2.]

     [** Chron. Sax. page 73. Ethelwerd, book 3, chapter 3.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. page 73. H. Hunting, book 5.]

Next year, the Danes made several inroads into England, and fought battles, or rather skirmishes, in East Anglia and Lindesey and Kent; where, though they were sometimes repulsed and defeated, they always obtained their end, of committing spoil upon the country, and carrying off their booty. They avoided coming to a general engagement, which was not suited to their plan of operations. Their vessels were small, and ran easily up the creeks and rivers, where they drew them ashore, and, having formed an intrenchment round them, which they guarded with part of their number, the remainder scattered themselves every where, and carrying off the inhabitants, and cattle, and goods, they hastened to their ships, and quickly disappeared. If the military force of the county were assembled, (for there was no time for troops to march from a distance,) the Danes either were able to repulse them, and to continue their ravages with impunity, or they betook themselves to their vessels, and, setting sail, suddenly invaded some distant quarter, which was not prepared for their reception.

Next year, the Danes launched several attacks in England, engaging in battles, or more accurately skirmishes, in East Anglia, Lindesey, and Kent. Although they were sometimes pushed back and defeated, they always achieved their goal of plundering the land and making off with their loot. They avoided full-scale battles, which didn’t fit their strategy. Their ships were small and could easily navigate up the creeks and rivers, where they would pull them ashore. After setting up a makeshift fort around the ships, which they guarded with part of their crew, the rest would scatter everywhere, rounding up locals, livestock, and goods, and hurry back to their ships, quickly vanishing. When the local military forces were gathered (since there wasn’t enough time for troops to arrive from far away), the Danes either managed to repel them and continued their rampage without consequence, or they would retreat to their ships and sail off to unexpectedly invade some other unprepared area.

Every part of England was held in continual alarm; and the inhabitants of one county durst not give assistance to those of another, lest their own families and property should in the mean time be exposed by their absence to the fury of these barbarous ravagers.[*]

Every part of England was on constant alert, and the people in one county were afraid to help those in another, for fear that their own families and belongings would be left vulnerable to the wrath of these brutal invaders.[*]

[* Alured. Beverl. p. 108.]

[* Alured. Beverl. p. 108.]

All orders of men were involved in this calamity; and the priests and monks, who had been commonly spared in the domestic quarrels of the Heptarchy, were the chief objects on which the Danish idolaters exercised their rage and animosity. Every season of the year was dangerous, and the absence of the enemy was no reason why any man could esteem himself a moment in safety.

All levels of society were caught up in this disaster; and the priests and monks, who had usually been safe during the internal conflicts of the Heptarchy, became the main targets for the Danish idol worshippers' anger and hostility. Every season of the year posed a threat, and just because the enemy wasn't around didn't mean anyone could consider themselves safe for even a moment.

These incursions had now become almost annual; when the Danes, encouraged by their successes against France as well as England, (for both kingdoms were alike exposed to this dreadful calamity,) invaded the last in so numerous a body as seemed to threaten it with universal subjection. But the English, more military than the Britons, whom a few centuries before they had treated with like violence, roused themselves with a vigor proportioned to the exigency. Ceorle, governor of Devonshire, fought a battle with one body of the Danes at Wiganburgh,[*] and put them to rout with great slaughter.

These invasions had now become almost a yearly event; when the Danes, boosted by their victories over France as well as England, (since both countries were equally vulnerable to this terrible disaster,) invaded the latter in such large numbers that it looked like they would completely take over. However, the English, being more militaristic than the Britons, whom they had treated with similar brutality a few centuries earlier, rallied with a strength that matched the situation. Ceorle, the governor of Devonshire, fought a battle against one group of Danes at Wiganburgh,[*] and defeated them with heavy losses.

     [* H. Hunting, lib. v. Ethelwerd, lib. iii. cap 3.
     Sim. Dunelm. p. 120.]
     [* H. Hunting, lib. v. Ethelwerd, lib. iii. cap 3.
     Sim. Dunelm. p. 120.]

King Athelstan attacked another at sea, near Sandwich, sunk nine of their ships, and put the rest to flight.[*]

King Athelstan launched an attack on another fleet at sea, near Sandwich, sank nine of their ships, and sent the rest running for safety.[*]

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 74. Asser. p. 2.]
[* Chron. Sax. p. 74. Asser. p. 2.]

A body of them, however, ventured, for the first time, to take up winter quarters in England; and receiving in the spring a strong reënforcement of their countrymen, in three hundred and fifty vessels, they advanced from the Isle of Thanet, where they had stationed themselves, burnt the cities of London and Canterbury, and having put to flight Brichtric, who now governed Mercia under the title of king, they marched into the heart of Surrey, and laid every place waste around them. Ethelwolf, impelled by the urgency of the danger, marched against them at the head of the West Saxons; and, carrying with him his second son, Ethelbald, gave them battle at Okely, and gained a bloody victory over them. This advantage procured but a short respite to the English. The Danes still maintained their settlement in the Isle of Thanet; and, being attacked by Ealher and Huda, governors of Kent and Surrey, though defeated in the beginning of the action, they finally repulsed the assailants, and killed both the governors, removed thence to the Isle of Shepey, where they took up their winter quarters, that they might farther extend their devastation and ravages.

A group of them, however, made the decision for the first time to spend the winter in England. In the spring, they received a significant reinforcement of their countrymen with three hundred and fifty ships. They moved from the Isle of Thanet, where they had been stationed, burned the cities of London and Canterbury, and drove away Brichtric, who was governing Mercia as king. They then marched into the heart of Surrey, destroying everything in their path. Ethelwolf, pushed by the urgency of the threat, led the West Saxons against them, bringing along his second son, Ethelbald. They fought at Okely and achieved a bloody victory over the Danes. However, this win only provided a temporary relief for the English. The Danes continued to hold their position in the Isle of Thanet. When attacked by Ealher and Huda, the governors of Kent and Surrey, they were initially defeated, but ultimately pushed back the attackers, killing both governors. They then moved to the Isle of Shepey, where they settled for the winter to continue their destruction and raids.

This unsettled state of England hindered not Ethelwolf from making a pilgrimage to Rome, whither he carried his fourth and favorite son, Alfred, then only six years of age.[*] He passed there a twelvemonth in exercises of devotion; and failed not in that most essential part of devotion, liberality to the church of Rome. Besides giving presents to the more distinguished ecclesiastics, he made a perpetual grant of three hundred mancuses[**] a year to that see; one third to support the lamps of St. Peter’s, another those of St. Paul’s, a third to the pope himself.[***] In his return home, he married Judith, daughter of the emperor Charles the Bald; but, on his landing in England, he met with an opposition which he little looked for.

This uncertain situation in England didn't stop Ethelwolf from making a pilgrimage to Rome, where he took his fourth and favorite son, Alfred, who was just six years old. He spent a year there devoted to religious activities and was generous to the church of Rome. In addition to giving gifts to prominent church leaders, he established a permanent annual donation of three hundred mancuses to that see: one third to support the lamps of St. Peter's, another for the lamps of St. Paul's, and the last third for the pope himself. On his way back home, he married Judith, the daughter of Emperor Charles the Bald; however, when he arrived in England, he faced unexpected opposition.

His eldest son, Athelstan, being dead, Ethelbald, his second, who had assumed the government, formed, in concert with many of the nobles, the project of excluding his father from a throne which his weakness and superstition seem to have rendered him so ill qualified to fill. The people were divided between the two princes, and a bloody civil war, joined to all the other calamities under which the English labored, appeared inevitable, when Ethelwolf had the facility to yield to the greater part of his son’s pretensions. He made with him a partition of the kingdom; and, taking to himself the eastern part, which was always, at that time, esteemed the least considerable, as well as the most exposed,[****] he delivered over to Ethelbald the sovereignty of the western. Immediately after, he summoned the states of the whole kingdom, and with the same facility conferred a perpetual and important donation on the church.

His oldest son, Athelstan, having passed away, Ethelbald, his second son, who had taken control, teamed up with many of the nobles to pursue a plan to push his father off the throne, which his weakness and superstition made him unfit to hold. The people were split between the two princes, and a bloody civil war, along with all the other disasters facing the English, seemed unavoidable when Ethelwolf found it easy to give in to many of his son’s demands. He agreed to divide the kingdom with him; taking the eastern part for himself, which at that time was considered the least important and most vulnerable, he handed over the western part to Ethelbald. Soon after, he called for the states of the entire kingdom and, with the same ease, granted a lasting and significant donation to the church.

     [* Asser. p. 2. Chron. Sax. 76. H. Hunting, lib.
     v.]

     [** A mancus was about the weight of our present
     half crown. See Spelman’s Glossary, in verbo Mancus.]

     [*** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 2.]

     [**** Asser. p. 3. W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 2. M.
     West. p. 7, 8.]
     [* Asser. p. 2. Chron. Sax. 76. H. Hunting, book
     v.]

     [** A mancus was roughly the weight of our current
     half crown. See Spelman’s Glossary, under Mancus.]

     [*** W. Malms, book ii, chapter 2.]

     [**** Asser. p. 3. W. Malms, book ii, chapter 2. M.
     West. p. 7, 8.]

The ecclesiastics, in those days of ignorance, made rapid advances in the acquisition of power and grandeur; and, inculcating the most absurd and most interested doctrines, though they sometimes met, from the contrary interests of the laity, with an opposition which it required time and address to overcome, they found no obstacle in their reason or understanding. Not content with the donations of land made them by the Saxon princes and nobles, and with temporary oblations from the devotion of the people, they had cast a wishful eye on a vast revenue, which they claimed as belonging to them by a sacred and indefeasible title. However little versed in the Scriptures, they had been able to discover that, under the Jewish law, a tenth of all the produce of land was conferred on the priesthood; and, forgetting what they themselves taught, that the moral part only of that law was obligatory on Christians, they insisted that this donation conveyed a perpetual property, inherent by divine right in those who officiated at the altar. During some centuries, the whole scope of sermons and homilies was directed to this purpose; and one would have imagined, from the general tenor of these discourses, that all the practical parts of Christianity were comprised in the exact and faithful payment of tithes to the clergy.[*] Encouraged by their success in inculcating these doctrines, they ventured farther than they were warranted even by the Levitical law, and pretended to draw the tenth of all industry, merchandise, wages of laborers, and pay of soldiers;[**] nay, some canonists went so far as to affirm that the clergy were entitled to the tithe of the profits made by courtesans in the exercise of their profession.[***] Though parishes had been instituted in England by Honorius, archbishop of Canterbury, near two centuries before,[****] the ecclesiastics had never yet been able to get possession of the tithes; they therefore seized the present favorable opportunity of making that acquisition; when a weak, superstitious prince filled the throne, and when the people, discouraged by their losses from the Danes, and terrified with the fear of future invasions, were susceptible of any impression which bore the appearance of religion.[*****] So meritorious was this concession deemed by the English, that, trusting entirely to supernatural assistance, they neglected the ordinary means of safety; and agreed, even in the present desperate extremity, that the revenues of the church should be exempted from all burdens, though imposed for national defence and security.[******]

The church leaders, in those days of ignorance, quickly gained power and prestige; promoting the most ridiculous and self-serving beliefs, even though they sometimes faced opposition from the common people due to conflicting interests, which took time and skill to overcome. They encountered no real challenge in their reasoning or understanding. Not satisfied with the land donations from Saxon princes and nobles, as well as temporary offerings from the faithful, they eagerly aimed for a huge income, which they claimed was rightfully theirs based on a sacred and unbreakable decree. Even with limited knowledge of the Scriptures, they figured out that, under Jewish law, a tenth of all agricultural produce was given to the priesthood; and ignoring their own teaching that only the moral aspects of that law applied to Christians, they argued that this donation granted eternal ownership, divinely ordained for those who served at the altar. For centuries, the focus of sermons and teachings was aimed at this goal; one might have thought, based on the overall message of these discourses, that the core of Christianity was accurately and faithfully paying tithes to the clergy.[*] Boosted by their success in promoting these ideas, they went further than the Levitical law permitted, claiming a tenth of all labor, trade, wages of workers, and salaries of soldiers;[**] indeed, some canon lawyers even argued that the clergy were entitled to a tithe of the earnings made by sex workers in their trade.[***] Although parishes had been established in England by Honorius, the archbishop of Canterbury, nearly two centuries earlier,[****] the church leaders had never managed to claim the tithes; they therefore took advantage of the current favorable situation to secure them when a weak, superstitious king was on the throne and when the people, disheartened by losses to the Danes and fearful of future invasions, were open to any notions that seemed religious.[*****] This concession was considered so virtuous by the English that, relying completely on supernatural help, they neglected ordinary safety measures; and agreed, even in this dire situation, that the church's revenues should be exempt from all obligations, even those imposed for national defense and security.[******]

     [* Padre Paolo, sopra beneficii ecclesiastici, p.
     51, 52, edit. Colon. 1675.]

     [** Spell. Concil. vol. i. p. 268.]

     [*** Padre Paolo, p. 132.]

     [**** Parker, p. 77.]
     c. 8.]

     [****** Asser. p. 2. Chron. Sax. p. 76. W. Malms,
     lib. ii. cap. 2. Ethelwerd, lib. iii. cap. 3. M. West. p.
     158. Ingulph. p. 17. Alured. Beverl. p. 95.]
     [* Padre Paolo, on ecclesiastical benefits, p.  
     51, 52, ed. Cologne, 1675.]

     [** Spell. Council. vol. i. p. 268.]

     [*** Padre Paolo, p. 132.]

     [**** Parker, p. 77.]  
     c. 8.]

     [****** Asser. p. 2. Chron. Sax. p. 76. W. Malms,  
     book ii. chapter 2. Ethelwerd, book iii. chapter 3. M. West. p.  
     158. Ingulph. p. 17. Alured. Beverl. p. 95.]




ETHELBALD AND ETHELBERT.

Ethelwolf lived only two years after making this grant; and by his will he shared England between his two eldest sons, Ethelbald and Ethelbert; the west being assigned to the former, the east to the latter. Ethelbald was a profligate prince; and marrying Judith, his mother-in-law, gave great offence to the people; but moved by the remonstrances of Swithun, bishop of Winchester, he was at last prevailed on to divorce her. His reign was short; and Ethelbert, his brother, succeeding to the government, behaved himself, during a reign of five years, in a manner more worthy of his birth and station. The kingdom, however, was still infested by the Danes, who made an inroad and sacked Winchester, but were there defeated. A body also of these pirates, who were quartered in the Isle of Thanet, having deceived the English by a treaty, unexpectedly broke into Kent, and committed great outrages.

Ethelwolf lived only two years after making this grant; and in his will, he divided England between his two oldest sons, Ethelbald and Ethelbert. The west went to Ethelbald, while the east went to Ethelbert. Ethelbald was a reckless prince and caused a scandal by marrying Judith, his mother-in-law, which upset the people. However, after being urged by Swithun, the bishop of Winchester, he eventually agreed to divorce her. His reign was brief, and Ethelbert, his brother, took over the rule, proving to be more honorable in his five-year reign. Nonetheless, the kingdom was still plagued by the Danes, who invaded and looted Winchester but were defeated there. Additionally, a group of these raiders, stationed in the Isle of Thanet, tricked the English with a false treaty and suddenly attacked Kent, causing significant chaos.





ETHERED

Ethelbert was succeeded by his brother Ethered, who, though he defended himself with bravery, enjoyed, during his whole reign, no tranquillity from those Danish irruptions. His younger brother, Alfred, seconded him in all his enterprises, and generously sacrificed to the public good all resentment, which he might entertain on account of his being excluded by Ethered from a large patrimony which had been left him by his father.

Ethelbert was succeeded by his brother Ethered, who, although he defended himself bravely, faced constant unrest from the Danish invasions throughout his entire reign. His younger brother, Alfred, supported him in all his efforts and selflessly set aside any resentment he felt about being left out by Ethered from a significant inheritance left to him by their father.

The first landing of the Danes, in the reign of Ethered, was among the East Angles, who, more anxious for their present safety than for the common interest, entered into a separate treaty with the enemy, and furnished them with horses, which enabled them to make an irruption by land into the kingdom of Northumberland. They there seized the city of York, and defended it against Osbricht and Ælia, two Northumbrian princes, who perished in the assault.[*] Encouraged by these successes, and by the superiority which they had acquired in arms, they now ventured, under the command of Hinguar and Hubba, to leave the sea-coast, and penetrating into Mercia, they took up their winter quarters at Nottingham, where they threatened the kingdom with a final subjection.

The first arrival of the Danes during Ethered's reign was among the East Angles, who, prioritizing their own safety over the common good, made a separate agreement with the enemy and provided them with horses. This allowed the Danes to launch an invasion by land into Northumberland. They captured the city of York and successfully defended it against Osbricht and Ælia, two Northumbrian princes, who were killed in the attack. Motivated by these victories and their military dominance, they decided, led by Hinguar and Hubba, to leave the coast and moved into Mercia, taking up their winter quarters in Nottingham, where they posed a threat of complete domination over the kingdom.

     [* Asser, p. 6. Chron. Sax. p. 79.]
     [* Asser, p. 6. Chron. Sax. p. 79.]

The Mercians, in this extremity, applied to Ethered for succor; and that prince, with his brother Alfred, conducting a great army to Nottingham, obliged the enemy to dislodge, and to retreat into Northumberland.

The Mercians, in this crisis, turned to Ethered for help; and that prince, along with his brother Alfred, led a large army to Nottingham, forcing the enemy to leave and retreat into Northumberland.

870.

870.

Their restless disposition, and their avidity for plunder, allowed them not to remain long in those quarters; they broke into East Anglia, defeated and took prisoner Edmund, the king of that country, whom they afterwards murdered in cool blood; and, committing the most barbarous ravages on the people, particularly on the monasteries, they gave the East Angles cause to regret the temporary relief which they had obtained, by assisting the common enemy.

Their restless nature and greed for loot didn’t let them stay in one place for long; they invaded East Anglia, defeated and captured Edmund, the king of that area, and later murdered him coldly. They inflicted horrific damage on the people, especially targeting the monasteries, making the East Angles regret the temporary relief they had found by helping their common enemy.

The next station of the Danes was at Reading; whence they infested the neighboring country by their incursions. The Mercians, desirous of shaking off their dependence on Ethered, refused to join him with their forces; and that prince, attended by Alfred, was obliged to march against the enemy with the West Saxons alone, his hereditary subjects. The Danes, being defeated in an action, shut themselves up in their garrison; but quickly making thence an irruption, they routed the West Saxons, and obliged them to raise the siege. An action soon after ensued at Aston, in Berkshire, where the English, in the beginning of the day, were in danger of a total defeat. Alfred, advancing with one division of the army, was surrounded by the enemy in disadvantageous ground; and Ethered, who was at that time hearing mass, refused to march to his assistance till prayers should be finished;[*] but, as he afterwards obtained the victory, this success, not the danger of Alfred, was ascribed by the monks to the piety of that monarch.

The Danes' next stop was Reading, from which they raided the surrounding area. The Mercians, wanting to break free from Ethered’s control, refused to lend him their forces. So, Ethered, along with Alfred, had to lead the West Saxons—his own people—against the enemy by themselves. After facing defeat, the Danes barricaded themselves in their stronghold but soon emerged and routed the West Saxons, forcing them to lift the siege. Shortly afterward, a battle took place at Aston in Berkshire, where the English initially faced the risk of complete defeat. Alfred, moving forward with one part of the army, found himself surrounded by the enemy in an unfavorable position. Ethered, meanwhile, was in the middle of a mass and wouldn’t go to help until the prayers were finished; however, since he eventually secured the victory, the monks credited this success—not Alfred's peril—to the king's piety.

     [* Asser. p. 7. W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 3 Sim.
     Dunelm. p. 125. Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p. 205.]
[* Asser. p. 7. W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 3 Sim. Dunelm. p. 125. Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p. 205.]




ALFRED.

This battle of Aston did not terminate the war; another battle was a little after fought at Basing, where the Danes were more successful; and being reënforced by a new army from their own country, they became every day more terrible to the English. Amidst these confusions, Ethered died of a wound which he had received in an action with the Danes; and left the inheritance of his cares and misfortunes, rather than of his grandeur, to his brother Alfred, who was now twenty-two years of age.

This battle at Aston didn't end the war; shortly after, another battle took place at Basing, where the Danes were more successful. With reinforcements from their homeland, they became increasingly threatening to the English. During this turmoil, Ethered died from a wound he sustained in a clash with the Danes, leaving his brother Alfred, who was now twenty-two years old, to inherit not his greatness, but his struggles and hardships.

This prince gave very early marks of those great virtues and shining talents, by which, during the most difficult times, he saved his country from utter ruin and subversion. Ethelwolf, his father, the year after his return with Alfred from Rome, had again sent the young prince thither with a numerous retinue; and a report being spread of the king’s death, the Pope, Leo III., gave Alfred the royal unction;[*] whether prognosticating his future greatness from the appearances of his pregnant genius, or willing to pretend, even in that age, to the right of conferring kingdoms. Alfred, on his return home, became every day more the object of his father’s affections; but being indulged in all youthful pleasures, he was much neglected in his education; and he had already reached his twelfth year, when he was yet totally ignorant of the lowest elements of literature. His genius was first roused by the recital of Saxon poems, in which the queen took delight; and this species of erudition, which is sometimes able to make a considerable progress even among barbarians, expanded those noble and elevated sentiments which he had received from nature.[**] Encouraged by the queen, and stimulated by his own ardent inclination, he soon learned to read those compositions; and proceeded thence to acquire the knowledge of the Latin tongue, in which he met with authors that better prompted his heroic spirit, and directed his generous views. Absorbed in these elegant pursuits, he regarded his accession to royalty rather as an object of regret than of triumph;[***] but being called to the throne, in preference to his brother’s children, as well by the will of his father,—a circumstance which had great authority with the Anglo-Saxons[****]—as by the vows of the whole nation, and the urgency of public affairs, he shook off his literary indolence, and exerted himself in the defence of his people. He had scarcely buried his brother, when he was obliged to take the field, in order to oppose the Danes, who had seized Wilton, and were exercising their usual ravages on the countries around.

This prince showed signs of his great virtues and talents early on, which helped save his country from total destruction during tough times. Ethelwolf, his father, sent the young prince back to Rome the year after Alfred returned with him, along with a large entourage. When rumors of the king’s death spread, Pope Leo III anointed Alfred as king; whether he was predicting Alfred’s future greatness based on his evident potential or wanting to maintain the tradition of conferring kingdoms even at that time. Upon returning home, Alfred became more cherished by his father every day; however, indulged in youthful pleasures, his education was largely neglected. By the time he was twelve, he was still completely unaware of even the basics of literature. His interest in learning was first sparked by the recitation of Saxon poems, which the queen enjoyed. This form of education, capable of making significant progress even among those less cultured, awakened the noble and elevated feelings he was born with. Encouraged by the queen and driven by his own strong desire, he quickly learned to read those poems and moved on to study Latin, where he found authors that further inspired his heroic spirit and broadened his ambitious views. Immersed in these refined pursuits, he viewed his rise to royalty more as a burden than a victory; but when called to the throne over his brother's children, due to his father's wishes—which held great weight among the Anglo-Saxons—and the promises of the entire nation along with pressing public matters, he shook off his academic laziness and worked hard to defend his people. He had barely buried his brother when he had to take to the battlefield against the Danes, who had taken Wilton and were wreaking havoc in the surrounding lands.

     [* Asser. p. 2. W. Malms, lib. ii. chap. 2.
     Ingulph. p. 869. Sim. Dunelm. p. 120, 139.]

     [** Asser. p. 5. M. West, p. 167.]

     [*** Asser. p. 7.]

     [**** Asser. p. 22. Sim. Dunelm. p. 121.]
     [* Asser. p. 2. W. Malms, lib. ii. chap. 2.
     Ingulph. p. 869. Sim. Dunelm. p. 120, 139.]

     [** Asser. p. 5. M. West, p. 167.]

     [*** Asser. p. 7.]

     [**** Asser. p. 22. Sim. Dunelm. p. 121.]

He marched against them with the few troops which he could assemble on a sudden, and, giving them battle, gained at first an advantage; but, by his pursuing the victory too far, the superiority of the enemy’s numbers prevailed, and recovered them the day. Their loss, however, in the action, was so considerable, that, fearing Alfred would receive daily reënforcements from his subjects, they were content to stipulate for a safe retreat, and promised to depart the kingdom. For that purpose, they were conducted to London, and allowed to take up winter quarters there; but, careless of their engagements, they immediately set themselves to the committing of spoil on the neighboring country. Burrhed, king of Mercia, in whose territories London was situated, made a new stipulation with them, and engaged them, by presents of money, to remove to Lindesey, in Lincolnshire, a country which they had already reduced to ruin and desolation. Finding, therefore, no object in that place, either for their rapine or violence, they suddenly turned back upon Mercia, in a quarter where they expected to find it without defence; and fixing their station at Repton, in Derbyshire, they laid the whole country desolate with fire and sword. Burrhed, despairing of success against an enemy whom no force could resist, and no treaties bind, abandoned his kingdom, and, flying to Rome, took shelter in a cloister.[*] He was brother-in-law to Alfred, and the last who bore the title of king in Mercia.

He marched against them with the few troops he could quickly gather and, initially gaining the upper hand in battle, pursued victory too aggressively. The enemy’s larger numbers ultimately turned the tide, allowing them to win the day. However, they suffered significant losses during the fight, and fearing that Alfred would receive daily reinforcements from his people, they agreed to a safe retreat and promised to leave the kingdom. To facilitate this, they were taken to London and allowed to spend the winter there; but disregarding their commitments, they immediately started plundering the surrounding areas. Burrhed, the king of Mercia, where London was located, made new terms with them and, by offering money, convinced them to move to Lindesey in Lincolnshire, a region they had already devastated. Finding no opportunity there for their looting or violence, they turned back towards Mercia, targeting an area they thought was undefended. Stationing themselves in Repton, Derbyshire, they ravaged the entire region with fire and sword. Burrhed, realizing he had no chance against an enemy that could not be resisted or bound by treaties, abandoned his kingdom and fled to Rome, seeking refuge in a monastery. He was Alfred's brother-in-law and the last person to hold the title of king in Mercia.

The West Saxons were now the only remaining power in England; and though supported by the vigor and abilities of Alfred, they were unable to sustain the efforts of those ravagers, who from all quarters invaded them. A new swarm of Danes came over this year under three princes, Guthrum, Oscitel, and Amund; and having first joined their countrymen at Repton, they soon found the necessity of separating, in order to provide for their subsistence. Part of them, under the command of Haldene, their chieftain,[**] marched into Northumberland, where they fixed their residence; part of them took quarters at Cambridge, whence they dislodged in the ensuing summer and seized Wereham, in the county of Dorset, the very centre of Alfred’s dominions. That prince so straitened them in these quarters, that they were content to come to a treaty with him, and stipulated to depart his country. Alfred, well acquainted with their usual perfidy, obliged them to swear upon the holy relics to the observance of the treaty;[***] not that he expected they would pay any veneration to the relics; but he hoped that, if they now violated this oath, their impiety would infallibly draw down upon them the vengeance of Heaven.

The West Saxons were now the only remaining power in England; and although they had the strength and skills of Alfred on their side, they struggled to fend off the invaders who came at them from all directions. A new group of Danes arrived this year led by three princes, Guthrum, Oscitel, and Amund. After joining their fellow countrymen at Repton, they quickly realized they needed to split up to provide for themselves. Some of them, led by their chief Haldene, marched into Northumberland, where they settled. Others took up quarters in Cambridge, but soon moved to seize Wereham in Dorset, right in the heart of Alfred’s territory. Alfred pressured them so much in these areas that they agreed to negotiate a treaty with him and promised to leave his country. Knowing their typical treachery, Alfred made them swear on holy relics to stick to the treaty; not that he thought they would actually respect the relics, but he hoped that if they broke this oath, their wrongdoing would surely bring down divine punishment on them.

     [* Asser. p. 8. Chron. Sax. p. 82. Ethelwerd, lib.
     iv. cap. 4.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 83.]

     [*** Asser. p 8.]
     [* Asser. p. 8. Chron. Sax. p. 82. Ethelwerd, lib.
     iv. cap. 4.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 83.]

     [*** Asser. p 8.]

But the Danes, little apprehensive of the danger suddenly, without seeking any pretence, fell upon Alfred’s army; and having put it to rout, marched westward, and took possession of Exeter. The prince collected new forces, and exerted such vigor, that he fought in one year eight battles with the enemy,[*] and reduced them to the utmost extremity. He hearkened, however, to new proposals of peace, and was satisfied to stipulate with them, that they would settle somewhere in England,[**] and would not permit the entrance of more ravagers into the kingdom. But while he was expecting the execution of this treaty, which it seemed the interest of the Danes themselves to fulfil, he heard that another body had landed, and, having collected all the scattered troops of their country men, had surprised Chippenham, then a considerable town, and were exercising their usual ravages all around them.

But the Danes, not really aware of the danger, suddenly attacked Alfred’s army without any pretense. After defeating them, they marched west and took control of Exeter. The prince gathered new forces and fought with such determination that he battled the enemy eight times in one year and pushed them to their limits. However, he listened to new peace proposals and agreed with them to settle somewhere in England and not to allow more invaders into the kingdom. But while he was waiting for this treaty to be carried out, which seemed beneficial for the Danes to honor, he heard that another group had landed, gathered all the scattered troops from their homeland, surprised Chippenham, which was then a significant town, and were causing their usual destruction all around.

This last incident quite broke the spirit of the Saxons, and reduced them to despair. Finding that, after all the miserable havoc which they had undergone in their persons and in their property, after all the vigorous actions which they had exerted in their own defence, a new band, equally greedy of spoil and slaughter, had disembarked among them, they believed themselves abandoned by Heaven to destruction, and delivered over to those swarms of robbers which the fertile north thus incessantly poured forth against them. Some left their country and retired into Wales, or fled beyond sea; others submitted to the conquerors, in hopes of appeasing their fury by a servile obedience.[***] And every man’s attention being now engrossed in concern for his own preservation, no one would hearken to the exhortations of the king, who summoned them to make, under his conduct, one effort more in defence of their prince, their country, and their liberties. Alfred himself was obliged to relinquish the ensigns of his dignity, to dismiss his servants, and to seek shelter in the meanest disguises from the pursuit and fury of his enemies. He concealed himself under a peasant’s habit, and lived some time in the house of a neat-herd, who had been intrusted with the care of some of his cows.[****]

This last incident completely broke the spirit of the Saxons and left them in despair. After all the terrible destruction they had suffered both personally and in their possessions, and after all the intense efforts they had made to defend themselves, they realized a new group, just as eager for plunder and violence, had arrived among them. They felt abandoned by Heaven to face destruction and handed over to the swarms of robbers that the fertile north continually sent against them. Some left their homeland and took refuge in Wales or fled overseas; others submitted to the conquerors, hoping to calm their rage through forced obedience. With everyone focused on their own survival, no one paid attention to the king’s calls for one last effort to defend their prince, their country, and their freedoms. Alfred himself had to give up his royal insignia, dismiss his servants, and hide in the simplest of disguises to escape the pursuit and wrath of his enemies. He disguised himself as a peasant and lived for a while in the home of a herdsman who had been tasked with looking after some of his cows.

     [* Asser. p. 8. The Saxon Chronicle, p. 82, says
     nine battles.]

     [** Asser. p. 9. Alured. Beverl. p. 104.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 84. Alured. Beverl. p. 105.]

     [**** Asser. p. 9.]
     [* Asser. p. 8. The Saxon Chronicle, p. 82, says
     nine battles.]

     [** Asser. p. 9. Alured. Beverl. p. 104.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 84. Alured. Beverl. p. 105.]

     [**** Asser. p. 9.]

There passed here an incident, which has been recorded by all the historians, and was long preserved by popular tradition, though it contains nothing memorable in itself, except so far as every circumstance is interesting which attends so much virtue and dignity reduced to such distress. The wife of the neat-herd was ignorant of the condition of her royal guest; and observing him one day busy, by the fireside, in trimming his bow and arrows, she desired him to take care of some cakes which were toasting, while she was employed elsewhere in other domestic affairs. But Alfred, whose thoughts were otherwise engaged, neglected this injunction; and the good woman, on her return, finding her cakes all burnt, rated the king very severely, and upbraided him, that he always seemed very well pleased to eat her warm cakes though he was thus negligent in toasting them.[*]

There was an incident here that all the historians have recorded, and it was long remembered by popular tradition, even though it isn't remarkable on its own, other than the fact that it highlights how much virtue and dignity can be brought low by hardship. The wife of the herdsman didn’t know about her royal guest's situation, and one day, seeing him by the fire, trimming his bow and arrows, she asked him to watch over some cakes that were toasting while she took care of other chores. But Alfred, lost in his thoughts, forgot her request; and when she returned to find her cakes burned, she scolded the king harshly, accusing him of being eager to eat her warm cakes while being careless about toasting them.

By degrees, Alfred, as he found the search of the enemy become more remiss, collected some of his retainers, and retired into the centre of a bog, formed by the stagnating waters of the Thone and Parret, in Somersetshire. He here found two acres of firm ground; and building a habitation on them, rendered himself secure by its fortifications, and still more by the unknown and inaccessible roads which led to it, and by the forests and morasses with which it was every way environed. This place he called Æthelingay, or the Isle of Nobles;[**] and it now bears the name of Athelney. He thence made frequent and unexpected sallies upon the Danes, who often felt the vigor of his arm, but knew not from what quarter the blow came. He subsisted himself and his followers by the plunder which he acquired; he procured them consolation by revenge; and from small successes, he opened their minds to hope that, notwithstanding his present low condition, more important victories might at length attend his valor.

Gradually, Alfred noticed that the enemy's search was becoming less rigorous, so he gathered some of his followers and retreated to the center of a bog formed by the still waters of the Thone and Parret in Somersetshire. There, he found two acres of solid ground, built a shelter on them, and secured himself with fortifications, even more so thanks to the unknown and hard-to-reach paths leading to it, along with the forests and marshes surrounding it. He named this place Æthelingay, or the Isle of Nobles; and it is known today as Athelney. From there, he frequently launched unexpected attacks on the Danes, who often felt the strength of his arm but didn’t know from where the strike came. He supported himself and his followers with the spoils he gathered; he provided them with solace through revenge; and from small victories, he inspired hope that, despite his current low status, greater triumphs might eventually follow his bravery.

    [* Asser. p. 9. M. West. p. 170.]

    [** Chron. Sax. p. 85. W Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4. Ethelwerd,
     lib iv. cap. 4. Ingulph. p. 26.]
    [* Asser. p. 9. M. West. p. 170.]

    [** Chron. Sax. p. 85. W Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4. Ethelwerd,
     lib iv. cap. 4. Ingulph. p. 26.]

Alfred lay here concealed, but not inactive, during a twelvemonth; when the news of a prosperous event reached his ears, and called him to the field. Hubba the Dane, having spread devastation, fire, and slaughter over Wales, had landed in Devonshire from twenty-three vessels, and laid siege to the castle of Kinwith, a place situated near the mouth of the small river Tau. Oddune, earl of Devonshire, with his followers, had taken shelter there; and being ill supplied with provisions, and even with water, he determined, by some vigorous blow, to prevent the necessity of submitting to the barbarous enemy. He made a sudden sally on the Danes before sun-rising; and taking them unprepared, he put them to rout, pursued them with great slaughter, killed Hubba himself, and got possession of the famous Reafen, or enchanted standard, in which the Danes put great confidence.[*] It contained the figure of a raven, which had been inwoven by the three sisters of Hinguar and Hubba, with many magical incantations, and which, by its different movements, prognosticated, as the Danes believed, the good or bad success of any enterprise.[**]

Alfred had been hiding here for a year, but he wasn’t idle, when news of a successful event reached him and summoned him to action. Hubba the Dane had spread destruction, fire, and death across Wales and had landed in Devonshire with twenty-three ships, laying siege to the castle of Kinwith, located near the mouth of the small river Tau. Oddune, the earl of Devonshire, along with his supporters, had taken refuge there. With supplies and even water running low, he decided to take decisive action to avoid surrendering to the brutal enemy. He launched a sudden attack on the Danes before sunrise, catching them off guard, and drove them into retreat, inflicting heavy casualties. He killed Hubba himself and captured the famous Reafen, or enchanted standard, in which the Danes placed great trust. It featured a raven, woven by the three sisters of Hinguar and Hubba, accompanied by many magical spells, and the Danes believed its various movements predicted the success or failure of their undertakings.

When Alfred observed this symptom of successful resistance in his subjects, he left his retreat; but before he would assemble them in arms, or urge them to any attempt, which, if unfortunate, might, in their present despondency, prove fatal, he resolved to inspect himself the situation of the enemy, and to judge of the probability of success. For this purpose he entered their camp under the disguise of a harper, and passed unsuspected through every quarter. He so entertained them with his music and facetious humors, that he met with a welcome reception, and was even introduced to the tent of Guthrum, their prince, where he remained some days.[***] He remarked the supine security of the Danes, their contempt of the English, their negligence in foraging and plundering, and their dissolute wasting of what they gained by rapine and violence. Encouraged by these favorable appearances, he secretly sent emissaries to the most considerable of his subjects, and summoned them to a rendezvous, attended by their warlike followers, at Brixton, on the borders of Selwood Forest.[****] The English, who had hoped to put an end to their calamities by servile submission, now found the insolence and rapine of the conqueror more intolerable than all past fatigues and dangers; and at the appointed day, they joyfully resorted to their prince. On his appearance, they received him with shouts of applause,[*****] and could not satiate their eyes with the sight of this beloved monarch, whom they had long regarded as dead, and who now, with voice and looks expressing his confidence of success, called them to liberty and to vengeance.

When Alfred noticed this sign of successful resistance in his people, he came out of hiding; but before he gathered them for battle or encouraged any action that, if it failed, could be disastrous given their current despair, he decided to check on the enemy's situation himself and assess the likelihood of success. To do this, he entered their camp disguised as a harper and moved through every section unnoticed. He entertained them with his music and humor so well that he was warmly welcomed and even taken to the tent of Guthrum, their prince, where he stayed for several days.[***] He observed the careless security of the Danes, their disdain for the English, their negligence in foraging and looting, and their reckless wasting of what they acquired through plunder and violence. Encouraged by these positive signs, he secretly sent messengers to the most important of his subjects, summoning them to meet with their warriors at Brixton, near the border of Selwood Forest.[****] The English, who had hoped to end their suffering through submission, now found the arrogance and pillaging of their conqueror even more unbearable than all their past hardships and dangers; and on the designated day, they eagerly gathered around their prince. When he appeared, they greeted him with loud cheers,[*****] unable to take their eyes off this beloved king, whom they had long thought was dead, and who now, with a confident voice and expression, called them to fight for their freedom and seek revenge.

    [* Asser. p. 10. Chron. Sax. p. 84. Abbas Rieval. p. 395.
     Alured. Beverl. p. 105.]

    [** Asser. p. 10.]

    [*** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4.]

    [**** Chron Sax. p. 85.]
     Alured. Beverl. p. 105. Abbas Rieval. p. 354.]
[* Asser. p. 10. Chron. Sax. p. 84. Abbas Rieval. p. 395.  
Alured. Beverl. p. 105.]

[** Asser. p. 10.]

[*** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4.]

[**** Chron Sax. p. 85.]  
Alured. Beverl. p. 105. Abbas Rieval. p. 354.]

He instantly conducted them to Eddington, where the Danes were encamped; and taking advantage of his previous knowledge of the place, he directed his attack against the most unguarded quarter of the enemy. The Danes, surprised to see an army of English, whom they considered as totally subdued, and still more astonished to hear that Alfred was at their head, made but a faint resistance, notwithstanding their superiority of number, and were soon put to flight with great slaughter. The remainder of the routed army, with their prince, was besieged by Alfred in a fortified camp to which they fled; but being reduced to extremity by want and hunger, they had recourse to the clemency of the victor, and offered to submit on any conditions. The king, no less generous than brave, gave them their lives, and even formed a scheme for converting them from mortal enemies into faithful subjects and confederates. He knew that the kingdoms of East Anglia and Northumberland were totally desolated by the frequent inroads of the Danes, and he now proposed to repeople them, by settling there Guthrum and his followers. He hoped that the new planters would at last betake themselves to industry, when, by reason of his resistance, and the exhausted condition of the country, they could no longer subsist by plunder; and that they might serve him as a rampart against any future incursions of their countrymen. But before he ratified these mild conditions with the Danes, he required that they should give him one pledge of their submission, and of their inclination to incorporate with the English, by declaring their conversion to Christianity.[*] Guthrum and his army had no aversion to the proposal; and, without much instruction, or argument, or conference, they were all admitted to baptism. The king answered for Guthrum at the font, gave him the name of Athelstan, and received him as his adopted son.[**]

He quickly took them to Eddington, where the Danes were camped; using his prior knowledge of the area, he launched his attack on the least protected part of the enemy. The Danes, shocked to see an English army that they thought was completely defeated, and even more surprised to learn that Alfred was leading them, offered only weak resistance despite their larger numbers, and were soon routed with heavy losses. The remaining fleeing army, along with their prince, was surrounded by Alfred in a fortified camp to which they had escaped; however, facing dire straits due to hunger and want, they turned to the mercy of the victor and offered to surrender on any terms. The king, as generous as he was brave, spared their lives and even devised a plan to transform them from fierce enemies into loyal subjects and allies. He knew that the kingdoms of East Anglia and Northumberland had been devastated by the frequent attacks of the Danes, and he now aimed to repopulate them by settling Guthrum and his followers there. He hoped that these new inhabitants would eventually take up farming, as they could no longer survive through plundering due to his resistance and the depleted state of the land, and that they could serve as a defense against future raids from their fellow countrymen. But before he confirmed these lenient terms with the Danes, he asked them to give him a sign of their submission and willingness to integrate with the English by declaring their conversion to Christianity.[*] Guthrum and his army had no objection to the proposal; and, without much teaching, debate, or discussion, they all were baptized. The king represented Guthrum at the baptismal font, named him Athelstan, and accepted him as his adopted son.[**]

    [* Chron. Sax. p. 85.]

    [** Asser. p. 10. Chron. Sax. p. 90.]
[* Chron. Sax. p. 85.]

[** Asser. p. 10. Chron. Sax. p. 90.]

The success of this expedient seemed to correspond to Alfred’s hopes: the greater part of the Danes settled peaceably in their new quarters: some smaller bodies of the same nation, which were dispersed in Mercia, were distributed into the five cities of Derby, Leicester, Stamford, Lincoln, and Nottingham, and were thence called the Fif or Five-burgers. The more turbulent and unquiet made an expedition into France, under the command of Hastings;[*] and except by a short incursion of Danes, who sailed up the Thames, and landed at Fulham, but suddenly retreated to their ships, on finding the country in a posture of defence, Alfred was not for some years infested by the inroads of those barbarians.[**]

The success of this plan seemed to align with Alfred’s hopes: most of the Danes settled peacefully in their new homes. Some smaller groups of the same people, which were scattered in Mercia, were placed in the five cities of Derby, Leicester, Stamford, Lincoln, and Nottingham, and were then called the Fif or Five-burgers. The more aggressive and restless ones launched an expedition into France, led by Hastings;[*] and except for a brief attack by Danes, who sailed up the Thames and landed at Fulham but quickly retreated to their ships upon seeing the area was prepared to defend itself, Alfred was not troubled by these invaders for several years.[**]

    [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4. Ingulph. p. 26.]

    [** Asser. p. 11.]
[* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4. Ingulph. p. 26.]

[** Asser. p. 11.]

The king employed this interval of tranquillity in restoring order to the state, which had been shaken by so many violent convulsions; in establishing civil and military institutions; in composing the minds of men to industry and justice; and in providing against the return of like calamities. He was, more properly than his grandfather Egbert, the sole monarch of the English, (for so the Saxons were now universally called,) because the kingdom of Mercia was at last incorporated in his state, and was governed by Ethelbert, his brother-in-law, who bore the title of earl; and though the Danes, who peopled East Anglia and Northumberland, were for some time ruled immediately by their own princes, they all acknowledged a subordination to Alfred, and submitted to his superior authority. As equality among subjects is the great source of concord, Alfred gave the same laws to the Danes and English, and put them entirely on a like footing in the administration both of civil and criminal justice. The fine for the murder of a Dane was the same with that for the murder of an Englishman; the great symbol of equality in those ages.

The king used this peaceful time to restore order to the state, which had been shaken by so many violent upheavals; to establish civil and military institutions; to encourage people to focus on work and fairness; and to prevent similar disasters from happening again. He was, more appropriately than his grandfather Egbert, the sole ruler of the English (as the Saxons were now known), because the kingdom of Mercia was finally integrated into his realm and was governed by Ethelbert, his brother-in-law, who held the title of earl. Although the Danes, who lived in East Anglia and Northumberland, were for a while ruled by their own leaders, they all recognized Alfred's authority and accepted his dominance. Since equality among subjects is a key source of harmony, Alfred gave the same laws to both the Danes and the English, treating them equally in the administration of both civil and criminal justice. The penalty for killing a Dane was the same as that for killing an Englishman; a significant symbol of equality in those times.

The king, after rebuilding the ruined cities, particularly London,[*] which had been destroyed by the Danes in the reign of Ethelwolf, established a regular militia for the defence of the kingdom. He ordained that all his people should be armed and registered; he assigned them a regular rotation of duty; he distributed part into the castles and fortresses, which he built at proper places;[**] he required another part to take the field on any alarm, and to assemble at stated places of rendezvous; and he left a sufficient number at home, who were employed in the cultivation of the land, and who afterwards took their turn in military service.[***]

The king, after rebuilding the destroyed cities, especially London,[*] which had been wrecked by the Danes during Ethelwolf's reign, set up a regular militia to protect the kingdom. He ordered that all his people be armed and registered; he organized a standard rotation of duty; he assigned some to the castles and fortresses that he built in strategic locations;[**] he required others to be ready to mobilize in case of an emergency and to meet at designated gathering spots; and he kept a sufficient number at home to work the land, who would later take their turn serving in the military.[***]

    [* Asser. p. 15. Chron. Sax. p. 88. M. West. p. 171. Sim.
     Dunelm. p. 131. Brompton, p. 812. Alured. Beverl. ex edit.
     Hearns, p. 106.]

    [** Asser. p 18. Ingulph. p. 27.]

    [*** Chron. Sax. p. 92, 93.]
[* Asser. p. 15. Chron. Sax. p. 88. M. West. p. 171. Sim. Dunelm. p. 131. Brompton, p. 812. Alured. Beverl. ex edit. Hearns, p. 106.]

[** Asser. p 18. Ingulph. p. 27.]

[*** Chron. Sax. p. 92, 93.]

The whole kingdom was like one great garrison; and the Danes could no sooner appear in one place, than a sufficient number was assembled to oppose them, without leaving the other quarters defenceless or disarmed.[*]

The entire kingdom felt like one huge military base; whenever the Danes showed up in one location, enough troops gathered to fight them off, without leaving any other areas unprotected or vulnerable.

    [* Spelman’s Life of Alfred, p. 147, edit. 1709.]
[* Spelman’s Life of Alfred, p. 147, edit. 1709.]

But Alfred, sensible that the proper method of opposing an enemy who made incursions by sea, was to meet them on their own element, took care to provide himself with a naval force,[*] which, though the most natural defence of an island, had hitherto been totally neglected by the English. He increased the shipping of his kingdom both in number and strength, and trained his subjects in the practice as well of sailing as of naval action. He distributed his armed vessels in proper stations around the island, and was sure to meet the Danish ships, either before or after they had landed their troops, and to pursue them in all their incursions. Though the Danes might suddenly, by surprise, disembark on the coast, which was generally become desolate by their frequent ravages, they were encountered by the English fleet in their retreat; and escaped not, as formerly, by abandoning their booty, but paid, by their total destruction, the penalty of the disorders which they had committed.

But Alfred, realizing that the best way to fight an enemy who attacked by sea was to confront them on their own turf, made sure to build up a naval force,[*] which, although the most logical defense for an island, had been completely ignored by the English up to that point. He enhanced the number and strength of his kingdom's ships and trained his people in both sailing and naval combat. He stationed his armed vessels strategically around the island to intercept the Danish ships, whether before or after they had landed their troops, and to chase them during their raids. Even though the Danes could suddenly land on the coast, which had become largely abandoned due to their repeated attacks, they were met by the English fleet during their retreat; they didn't escape like before by leaving their plunder behind but instead faced complete destruction as a consequence of the chaos they had created.

    [* Asser. p. 9. M. West. p. 179.]
[* Asser. p. 9. M. West. p. 179.]

In this manner Alfred repelled several inroads of these piratical Danes, and maintained his kingdom, during some years, in safety and tranquillity. A fleet of a hundred and twenty ships of war was stationed upon the coast; and being provided with warlike engines, as well as with expert seamen, both Frisians and English, (for Alfred supplied the defects of his own subjects by engaging able foreigners in his service,) maintained a superiority over those smaller bands, with which England had so often been infested.[*]

In this way, Alfred defended against several attacks from the pirate Danes and kept his kingdom safe and peaceful for several years. A fleet of one hundred and twenty warships was stationed along the coast, equipped with military engines and skilled sailors, both Frisians and English (since Alfred made up for the shortcomings of his own people by hiring capable foreigners), maintaining an advantage over the smaller groups that had frequently troubled England.[*]

    [* Asser. p. 11. Chiron Sax p. 86, 87. M. West. p. 176.]
[* Asser. p. 11. Chiron Sax p. 86, 87. M. West. p. 176.]

But at last Hastings, the famous Danish chief, having ravaged all the provinces of France, both along the sea-coast and the Loire and Seine, and being obliged to quit that country, more by the desolation which he himself had occasioned, than by the resistance of the inhabitants, appeared off the coast of Kent with a fleet of three hundred and thirty sail. The greater part of the enemy disembarked in the Rother and seized the fort of Apuldore. Hastings himself, commanding a fleet of eighty sail, entered the Thames, and fortifying Milton, in Kent, began to spread his forces over the country, and to commit the most destructive ravages. But Alfred, on the first alarm of this descent, flew to the defence of his people, at the head of a select band of soldiers, whom he always kept about his person,[*] and, gathering to him the armed militia from all quarters, appeared in the field with a force superior to the enemy. All straggling parties, whom necessity, or love of plunder, had drawn to a distance from their chief encampment, were cut off by the English;[**] and these pirates, instead of increasing their spoil, found themselves cooped up in their fortifications, and obliged to subsist by the plunder which they had brought from France. Tired of this situation, which must in the end prove ruinous to them, the Danes at Apuldore rose suddenly from their encampment, with an intention of marching towards the Thames, and passing over into Essex: but they escaped not the vigilance of Alfred, who encountered them at Farnham, put them to rout,[***] seized all their horses and baggage, and chased the runaways on board their ships, which carried them up the Colne to Mersey, in Essex, where they intrenched themselves. Hastings, at the same time, and probably by concert, made a like movement; and deserting Milton, took possession of Bamflete, near the Isle of Canvey, in the same county,[****] where he hastily threw up fortifications for his defence against the power of Alfred.

But finally, Hastings, the famous Danish leader, having devastated all the regions of France, both along the coast and the Loire and Seine rivers, and being forced to leave that country more due to the destruction he had caused than to the resistance of the locals, appeared off the coast of Kent with a fleet of three hundred and thirty ships. Most of the enemy landed at Rother and seized the fort of Apuldore. Hastings himself, commanding a fleet of eighty ships, entered the Thames, fortified Milton in Kent, and began to spread his forces across the land, causing significant destruction. But Alfred, upon hearing the first alarm of this invasion, rushed to defend his people, leading a select group of soldiers he always kept close to him, and gathering armed militia from all around, he appeared in the field with a force greater than the enemy’s. Any straggling parties, drawn away from their main encampment by necessity or greed, were cut off by the English. These pirates, instead of increasing their loot, found themselves trapped in their fortifications, relying on the plunder they had brought from France. Tired of this situation, which would eventually lead to their downfall, the Danes at Apuldore suddenly rose from their camp, intending to march towards the Thames and cross into Essex; but they were caught by Alfred’s vigilance, who confronted them at Farnham, put them to rout, seized all their horses and baggage, and chased the escapees back to their ships, which took them up the Colne to Mersey in Essex, where they entrenched themselves. At the same time, and likely by plan, Hastings made a similar move, abandoning Milton to take control of Bamflete, near the Isle of Canvey, in the same county, where he hurriedly constructed defenses against Alfred’s forces.

    [* Asser. p. 19.]

    [** Chron. Sax. p. 92.]

    [*** Chron. Sax. p. 93. Flor. Wigorn. p. 595.]

    [**** Chron. Sax. p. 93.]
    [* Asser. p. 19.]

    [** Chron. Sax. p. 92.]

    [*** Chron. Sax. p. 93. Flor. Wigorn. p. 595.]

    [**** Chron. Sax. p. 93.]

Unfortunately for the English, Guthrum, prince of the East Anglian Danes, was now dead; as was also Guthred, whom the king had appointed governor of the Northumbrians; and those restless tribes, being no longer restrained by the authority of their princes, and being encouraged by the appearance of so great a body of their countrymen, broke into rebellion, shook off the authority of Alfred, and yielding to their inveterate habits of war and depredation,[*] embarked on board two hundred and forty vessels, and appeared before Exeter, in the west of England. Alfred lost not a moment in opposing this new enemy. Having left some forces at London to make head against Hastings and the other Danes, he marched suddenly to the west,[**] and, falling on the rebels before they were aware, pursued them to their ships with great slaughter.

Unfortunately for the English, Guthrum, the prince of the East Anglian Danes, was now dead; as was also Guthred, whom the king had appointed governor of the Northumbrians. Those restless tribes, no longer held back by their princes' authority and encouraged by the sight of so many of their countrymen, rebelled, shook off Alfred's control, and, giving in to their deep-seated habits of war and looting, got on board two hundred and forty ships and showed up in front of Exeter, in the west of England. Alfred wasted no time in confronting this new enemy. After leaving some forces in London to deal with Hastings and the other Danes, he quickly marched west and attacked the rebels before they were ready, pursuing them to their ships with heavy casualties.

    [* Chron. Sax. p. 92.]

    [** Chron. Sax. p. 93.]
[* Chron. Sax. p. 92.]

[** Chron. Sax. p. 93.]

These ravagers, sailing next to Sussex, began to plunder the country near Chichester; but the order which Alfred had everywhere established, sufficed here, without his presence, for the defence of the place, and the rebels, meeting with a new repulse, in which many of them were killed, and some of their ships taken,[*] were obliged to put again to sea, and were discouraged from attempting any other enterprise.

These raiders, sailing near Sussex, started to loot the area around Chichester; however, the order that Alfred had established everywhere was enough to protect the place, even in his absence. The rebels faced another defeat, during which many were killed and some of their ships were captured,[*] forcing them to retreat to the sea and deterring them from trying any other attacks.

    [* Chron. Sax p. 96. Flor. Wigorn. p. 596.]
[* Chron. Sax p. 96. Flor. Wigorn. p. 596.]

Meanwhile the Danish invaders in Essex, having united their force under the command of Hastings, advanced into the inland country, and made spoil of all around them; but soon had reason to repent of their temerity. The English army left in London, assisted by a body of the citizens, attacked the enemy’s intrenchments at Bamflete, overpowered the garrison, and having done great execution upon them, carried off the wife and two sons of Hastings.[*] Alfred generously spared these captives, and even restored them to Hastings,[**] on condition that he should depart the kingdom.

Meanwhile, the Danish invaders in Essex, having combined their forces under Hastings, pushed into the countryside and plundered everything around them; but they soon had cause to regret their boldness. The English army left in London, supported by a group of citizens, launched an attack on the enemy’s fortifications at Bamflete, overwhelmed the garrison, and inflicted heavy casualties on them, capturing Hastings' wife and two sons.[*] Alfred generously released these captives and even returned them to Hastings,[**] on the condition that he would leave the kingdom.

    [* Chron. Sax. p. 94. M. West. w 178.]

    [** M. West, p. 179.]
    [* Chron. Sax. p. 94. M. West. w 178.]

    [** M. West, p. 179.]

But though the king had thus honorably rid himself of this dangerous enemy, he had not entirely subdued or expelled the invaders. The piratical Danes willingly followed in an excursion any prosperous leader who gave them hopes of booty, but were not so easily induced to relinquish their enterprise, or submit to return, baffled and without plunder, into their native country. Great numbers of them, after the departure of Hastings, seized and fortified Shobury, at the mouth of the Thames; and having left a garrison there, they marched along the river, till they came to Boddington, in the county of Glocester; where, being reënforced by some Welsh, they threw up intrenchments, and prepared for their defence. The king here surrounded them with the whole force of his dominions; [*] and as he had now a certain prospect of victory, he resolved to trust nothing to chance, but rather to master his enemies by famine than assault. They were reduced to such extremities, that having eaten their own horses, and having many of them perished with hunger,[**] they made a desperate sally upon the English; and though the greater number fell in the action, a considerable body made their escape.[***]

But even though the king had successfully dealt with this dangerous enemy, he hadn't completely defeated or expelled the invaders. The piratical Danes were quick to follow any successful leader who promised them loot, but they were not easily convinced to abandon their mission or return empty-handed to their homeland. After Hastings left, many of them took over and fortified Shobury, at the mouth of the Thames; they left a garrison there and marched along the river until they reached Boddington, in Gloucestershire. There, reinforced by some Welsh, they built fortifications and got ready to defend themselves. The king surrounded them with the full force of his kingdom; [*] and knowing he had a clear chance at victory, he decided to rely on starving his enemies out rather than attacking. They were pushed to such desperation that after eating their own horses, and many of them dying from hunger,[**] they made a desperate charge against the English; although many were killed in the fight, a significant number managed to escape.[***]

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 94.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 94. M. West. p. 179. Flor.
     Wigorn. p. 596.]

     [*** Chron. Sax p. 96.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 94.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 94. M. West. p. 179. Flor.
     Wigorn. p. 596.]

     [*** Chron. Sax p. 96.]

These roved about for some time in England, still pursued by the vigilance of Alfred; they attacked Leicester with success, defended themselves in Hartford, and then fled to Quatford, where they were finally broken and subdued. The small remains of them either dispersed themselves among their countrymen in Northumberland and East Anglia,[*] or had recourse again to the sea, where they exercised piracy, under the command of Sigefert, a Northumbrian.

These people wandered around England for a while, still being chased by Alfred’s watchfulness. They successfully attacked Leicester, defended themselves in Hartford, and then escaped to Quatford, where they were ultimately defeated and captured. The few who survived either mingled with their fellow countrymen in Northumberland and East Anglia, or turned back to the sea, where they engaged in piracy under the leadership of Sigefert, a Northumbrian.

    [* Chron. Sax. p. 97.]
[* Chron. Sax. p. 97.]

This freebooter, well acquainted with Alfred’s naval preparations, had framed vessels of a new construction, higher, and longer, and swifter than those of the English; but the king soon discovered his superior skill, by building vessels still higher, and longer, and swifter than those of the Northumbrians; and falling upon them, while they were exercising their ravages in the west, he took twenty of their ships; and having tried all the prisoners at Winchester, he hanged them as pirates, the common enemies of mankind.

This pirate, who was well aware of Alfred's naval plans, had designed ships that were taller, longer, and faster than the English ones. However, the king quickly realized his superior skill and constructed ships that were even taller, longer, and faster than those of the Northumbrians. Catching them while they were raiding in the west, he captured twenty of their ships. After putting all the prisoners on trial in Winchester, he hanged them as pirates, the common enemies of humanity.

The well-timed severity of this execution, together with the excellent posture of defence established every where, restored full tranquillity in England, and provided for the future security of the government. The East Anglian and Northumbrian Danes, on the first appearance of Alfred upon their frontiers, made anew the most humble submissions to him; and he thought it prudent to take them under his immediate government, without establishing over them a viceroy of their own nation.[*] The Welsh also acknowledged his authority; and this great prince had now, by prudence, and justice, and valor, established his sovereignty over all the southern parts of the island, from the English Channel to the frontiers of Scotland; when he died,

The well-timed severity of this execution, along with the strong defense established everywhere, brought full peace to England and ensured the government’s future security. The Danes from East Anglia and Northumbria, upon seeing Alfred on their borders, made very humble submissions to him once again; he decided it was wise to take them under his direct rule, rather than appointing a viceroy from their own nation. The Welsh also recognized his authority; this great leader had now secured his sovereignty over all the southern parts of the island, from the English Channel to the borders of Scotland, when he died.

901.

901.

in the vigor of his age and the full strength of his faculties, after a glorious reign of twenty-nine years and a half,[**] in which he deservedly attained the appellation of Alfred the Great, and the title of founder of the English monarchy.

in the prime of his life and at the peak of his abilities, after a remarkable reign of twenty-nine and a half years,[**] during which he rightfully earned the nickname Alfred the Great and the title of founder of the English monarchy.

    [* Flor. Wigorn. p. 598.]

    [** Asser. p. 21. Chron. Sax. p. 95.]
    [* Flor. Wigorn. p. 598.]

    [** Asser. p. 21. Chron. Sax. p. 95.]

The merit of this prince, both in private and public life, may with advantage be set in opposition to that of any monarch, or citizen, which the annals of any age, or any nation, can present to us. He seems, indeed, to be the model of that perfect character, which, under the denomination of a sage or wise man, philosophers have been fond of delineating, rather as a fiction of their imagination, than in hopes of ever seeing it really existing; so happily were all his virtues tempered together, so justly were they blended, and so powerfully did each prevent the other from exceeding its proper boundaries. He knew how to reconcile the most enterprising spirit with the coolest moderation; the most obstinate perseverance with the easiest flexibility: the most severe justice with the gentlest lenity; the greatest vigor in commanding with the most perfect affability of deportment;[*] the highest capacity and inclination for science with the most shining talents for action.

The value of this prince, in both his personal and public life, can definitely be compared to any monarch or citizen in the history of any era or country. He really seems to be the example of that ideal character that philosophers love to describe under the term sage or wise man, more as a fantasy than with the expectation of ever seeing it truly exist; his virtues were so perfectly balanced, so appropriately mixed, and so effectively controlled one another from going too far. He knew how to blend the most ambitious spirit with the calmest moderation; the most determined perseverance with the easiest adaptability; the strictest justice with the kindest mercy; the greatest strength in leadership with the most charming friendliness; and the highest ability and desire for knowledge with the most impressive skills for action.

    [* Asser. p. 13.]
[* Asser. p. 13.]

His civil and his military virtues are almost equally the objects of our admiration; excepting only that the former, being more rare among princes, as well as more useful, seem chiefly to challenge our applause. Nature, also, as if desirous that so bright a production of her skill should be set in the fairest light, had bestowed on him every bodily accomplishment—vigor of limbs, dignity of shape and air, with a pleasing, engaging, and open countenance. Fortune alone, by throwing him into that barbarous age, deprived him of historians worthy to transmit his fame to posterity; and we wish to see him delineated in more lively colors, and with more particular strokes, that we may at least perceive some of those small specks and blemishes, from which, as a man, it is impossible he could be entirely exempted.

His qualities as a leader and as a soldier are both equally admirable; however, the former, being rarer among rulers and also more beneficial, seem particularly deserving of our praise. It's as if nature intended for such a remarkable creation to be shown in the best possible light, as she gave him every physical advantage—strength, impressive stature and presence, along with a charming, approachable, and open face. Only fate, by placing him in such a brutal time, robbed him of historians deserving enough to carry his legacy to future generations; we wish we could see him portrayed in more vivid detail, with more specific characteristics, so we might at least recognize some of the small flaws and imperfections that no one, as a human, could entirely escape.

But we should give but an imperfect idea of Alfred’s merit, were we to confine our narration to his military exploits, and were not more particular in our account of his institutions for the execution of justice, and of his zeal for the encouragement of arts and sciences.

But we would only convey a partial understanding of Alfred’s worth if we limited our discussion to his military achievements and didn’t go into detail about his contributions to justice and his passion for promoting the arts and sciences.

After Alfred had subdued, and had settled or expelled the Danes, he found the kingdom in the most wretched condition; desolated by the ravages of those barbarians, and thrown into disorders which were calculated to perpetuate its misery. Though the great armies of the Danes were broken, the country was full of straggling troops of that nation, who, being accustomed to live by plunder, were become incapable of industry; and who, from the natural ferocity of their manners, indulged themselves in committing violence, even beyond what was requisite to supply their necessities. The English themselves, reduced to the most extreme indigence by those continued depredations, had shaken off all bands of government; and those who had been plundered to-day, betook themselves next day to a like disorderly life, and, from despair, joined the robbers in pillaging and ruining their fellow-citizens. These were the evils for which it was necessary that the vigilance and activity of Alfred should provide a remedy.

After Alfred had defeated and dealt with the Danes, he found the kingdom in a terrible state; devastated by the destruction caused by those barbarians and thrown into chaos that seemed to ensure ongoing suffering. Even though the large armies of the Danes were defeated, the countryside was still filled with wandering groups of that nation, who, having gotten used to living off of plunder, had become incapable of working. Their natural brutality led them to commit acts of violence that went beyond what was necessary for their survival. The English, pushed into extreme poverty by these endless attacks, had abandoned all forms of government. Those who were robbed one day would join in the chaos the next, in despair turning to pillage and destruction of their own fellow citizens. These were the issues that required the vigilance and action of Alfred to address.

That he might render the execution of justice strict and regular, he divided all England into counties: these counties he subdivided into hundreds, and the hundreds into tithings. Every householder was answerable for the behavior of his family and slaves, and even of his guests, if they lived above three days in his house. Ten neighboring householders were formed into one corporation, who, under the name of a tithing, decennary, or fribourg, were answerable for each other’s conduct, and over whom, one person, called a tithing-man, headbourg, or borsholder, was appointed to preside. Every man was punished as an outlaw who did not register himself in some tithing. And no man could change his habitation without a warrant or certificate from the borsholder of the tithing to which he formerly belonged.

To ensure that justice was enforced strictly and consistently, he divided all of England into counties. He then broke down these counties into hundreds and further into tithings. Every householder was responsible for the behavior of their family, slaves, and even guests who stayed for more than three days. Ten neighboring householders were grouped together into a corporation, which, known as a tithing, decennary, or fribourg, was responsible for each other’s actions. A person called a tithing-man, headbourg, or borsholder was appointed to oversee them. Anyone who did not register with a tithing was treated as an outlaw. Additionally, no one could change their residence without permission or a certificate from the borsholder of their previous tithing.

When any person, in any tithing or decennary, was guilty of a crime, the borsholder was summoned to answer for him; and if he were not willing to be surety for his appearance, and his clearing himself, the criminal was committed to prison, and there detained till his trial. If he fled, either before or after finding sureties, the borsholder and decennary became liable to inquiry, and were exposed to the penalties of law. Thirty-one days were allowed them for producing the criminal; and if that time elapsed without their being able to find him, the borsholder, with two other members of the decennary, was obliged to appear, and, together with three chief members of the three neighboring decennaries, (making twelve in all,) to swear that his decennary was free from all privity, both of the crime committed, and of the escape of the criminal. If the borsholder could not find such a number to answer for their innocence, the decennary was compelled by fine to make satisfaction to the king, according to the degree of the offence.[*]

When someone in any tithing or decennary committed a crime, the borsholder was called to answer for them. If he didn’t want to guarantee their appearance and clear their name, the criminal was taken to prison and held there until their trial. If they fled, whether before or after finding sureties, the borsholder and decennary had to face an investigation and could face legal penalties. They had thirty-one days to find the criminal, and if that time passed without their success, the borsholder, along with two other members of the decennary, had to appear before three leading members from three nearby decennaries (totaling twelve) and swear that their decennary had no involvement in either the crime or the criminal's escape. If the borsholder couldn’t find enough people to vouch for their innocence, the decennary would have to pay a fine to the king based on the severity of the offense.[*]

    [* Leges St. Edw. cap. 20, apud Wilkins, p. 202.]
[* Leges St. Edw. cap. 20, apud Wilkins, p. 202.]

By this institution, every man was obliged, from his own interest, to keep a watchful eye over the conduct of his neighbors; and was in a manner surety for the behavior of those who were placed under the division to which he belonged; whence these decennaries received the name of frank-pledges.

By this system, every man was required, for his own benefit, to keep a close eye on the behavior of his neighbors; and he was somewhat responsible for the actions of those in his group; from which these ten-year groups got the name of frank-pledges.

Such a regular distribution of the people, with such a strict confinement in their habitation, may not be necessary in times when men are more inured to obedience and justice; and it might, perhaps, be regarded as destructive of liberty and commerce in a polished state; but it was well calculated to reduce that fierce and licentious people under the salutary restraint of law and government. But Alfred took care to temper these rigors by other institutions favorable to the freedom of the citizens; and nothing could be more popular and liberal than his plan for the administration of justice. The borsholder summoned together his whole decennary to assist him in deciding any lesser differences which occurred among the members of this small community. In affairs of greater moment, in appeals from the decennary, or in controversies arising between members of different decennaries, the cause was brought before the hundred, which consisted of ten decennaries, or a hundred families of freemen, and which was regularly assembled once in four weeks, for the deciding of causes.[*] Their method of decision deserves to be noted, as being the origin of juries; an institution admirable in itself, and the best calculated for the preservation of liberty and the administration of justice that ever was devised by the wit of man. Twelve freeholders were chosen, who, having sworn, together with the hundreder, or presiding magistrate of that division, to administer impartial justice,[**] proceeded to the examination of that cause which was submitted to their jurisdiction. And beside these monthly meetings of the hundred, there was an annual meeting, appointed for a more general inspection of the police of the district; for the inquiry into crimes, the correction of abuses in magistrates, and the obliging of every person to show the decennary in which he was registered. The people, in imitation of their ancestors, the ancient Germans, assembled there in arms; whence a hundred was sometimes called a wapentake, and its courts served both for the support of military discipline and for the administration of civil justice.[***]

Such a regular distribution of people and strict limits on where they lived might not be necessary in times when people are more accustomed to obedience and justice. It could even be seen as harmful to freedom and trade in a refined society. However, it was effective at restraining that fierce and unruly population under the beneficial control of law and government. Alfred made sure to balance these strict measures with other systems that promoted the freedom of citizens, and nothing was more popular and progressive than his approach to administering justice. The borsholder called together his entire decennary to help resolve any minor disputes among the members of this small community. For more serious matters, appeals from the decennary, or conflicts between members of different decennaries, cases were brought before the hundred, which included ten decennaries or a hundred families of free citizens, and which met regularly every four weeks to resolve issues.[*] Their method of decision-making is worth noting as it is the origin of juries—an excellent institution in itself, and the best method ever devised by human intelligence for preserving freedom and administering justice. Twelve freeholders were selected, who, having taken an oath along with the hundreder, or presiding magistrate of that division, to administer fair justice,[**] proceeded to examine the case brought before them. In addition to these monthly meetings of the hundred, there was an annual gathering set for a broader review of the district's administration; to investigate crimes, address misconduct by magistrates, and require everyone to show the decennary where they were registered. Following the example of their ancestors, the ancient Germans, the people gathered there armed; hence, a hundred was sometimes called a wapentake, and its courts served both for maintaining military discipline and for administering civil justice.[***]

    [* Leges St. Edw. cap. 2.]

    [** Foedus Alfred. et Gothurn. apud Wilkins, cap. 3, p. 47.
     Leg. Ethelstani cap. 2, apud Wilkins, p. 58. LL. Ethelr.
     sect. 4. Wilkins, p. 117.]

    [*** Spelman, in voce Wapentake.]
[* Leges St. Edw. cap. 2.]

[** Foedus Alfred. et Gothurn. apud Wilkins, cap. 3, p. 47.
 Leg. Ethelstani cap. 2, apud Wilkins, p. 58. LL. Ethelr.
 sect. 4. Wilkins, p. 117.]

[*** Spelman, in voce Wapentake.]

The next superior court to that of the hundred was the county court, which met twice a year, after Michaelmas and Easter, and consisted of the freeholders of the county, who possessed an equal vote in the decision of causes. The bishop presided in this court, together with the alderman; and the proper object of the court was, the receiving of appeals from the hundreds and decennaries, and the deciding of such controversies as arose between men of different hundreds. Formerly, the alderman possessed both the civil and military authority; but Alfred, sensible that this conjunction of powers rendered the nobility dangerous and independent, appointed also a sheriff in each county, who enjoyed a coördinate authority with the former in the judicial function.[*] His office also impowered him to guard the rights of the crown in the county, and to levy the fines imposed, which in that age formed no contemptible part of the public revenue.

The next level above the hundred court was the county court, which met twice a year, after Michaelmas and Easter. It consisted of the county's freeholders, who all had an equal vote in deciding cases. The bishop presided over the court along with the alderman. The main purpose of the court was to handle appeals from the hundreds and decennaries and to settle disputes between people from different hundreds. In the past, the alderman held both civil and military authority, but Alfred recognized that combining these powers made the nobility too powerful and independent. So, he appointed a sheriff in each county, who had equal authority in judicial matters. This role also gave the sheriff the power to protect the crown's rights in the county and to collect fines, which at that time were a significant part of public revenue.

     [* Ingulph. p. 870.]
[* Ingulph. p. 870.]

There lay an appeal, in default of justice, from all these courts, to the king himself in council; and as the people, sensible of the equity and great talents of Alfred, placed their chief confidence in him, he was soon overwhelmed with appeals from all parts of England. He was indefatigable in the despatch of these causes;[*] but finding that his time must be entirely engrossed by this branch of duty, he resolved to obviate the inconvenience, by correcting the ignorance or corruption of the inferior magistrates, from which it arose.[**] He took care to have his nobility instructed in letters and the laws; [***] he chose the earls and sheriffs from among the men most celebrated for probity and knowledge; he punished severely all malversation in office;[****] and he removed all the earls whom he found unequal to the trust;[*****] allowing only some of the more elderly to serve by a deputy, till their death should make room for more worthy successors.

There was a way to appeal, in the absence of justice, from all these courts to the king himself in council; and since the people, aware of Alfred's fairness and great abilities, placed their main trust in him, he quickly became swamped with appeals from all over England. He worked tirelessly to address these cases; but realizing that this duty would take up all his time, he decided to solve the problem by fixing the ignorance or corruption of the lower magistrates that caused it. He made sure his nobility were educated in letters and the law; he selected earls and sheriffs from among the most respected individuals known for their integrity and knowledge; he severely punished any wrongdoing in office; and he removed all the earls who he found were unfit for the responsibility, allowing only a few of the older ones to serve through a deputy until their death cleared the way for more deserving successors.

     [* Asser. p. 20.]

     [** Asser. p. 18, 21. Flor. Wigorn. p. 594. Abbas
     Rieval. p. 355.]

     [*** Flor. Wigorn. p. 594. Brompton, p. 814.]

     [**** Le Miroir de Justice, chap. 2.]
     [* Asser. p. 20.]

     [** Asser. p. 18, 21. Flor. Wigorn. p. 594. Abbas
     Rieval. p. 355.]

     [*** Flor. Wigorn. p. 594. Brompton, p. 814.]

     [**** Le Miroir de Justice, chap. 2.]

The better to guide the magistrates in the administration of justice, Alfred framed a body of laws, which, though now lost, served long as the basis of English jurisprudence, and is generally deemed the origin of what is denominated the COMMON LAW. He appointed regular meetings of the states of England twice a year, in London,[*] a city which he himself had repaired and beautified, and which he thus rendered the capital of the kingdom.

To help magistrates manage justice more effectively, Alfred created a set of laws, which, although now lost, were long considered the foundation of English legal principles and are widely viewed as the start of what we call COMMON LAW. He scheduled regular meetings of the states of England twice a year in London,[*] a city he personally restored and improved, making it the capital of the kingdom.

     [* Le Miroir de Justice.]
[* The Mirror of Justice.]

The similarity of these institutions to the customs of the ancient Germans, to the practice of the other northern conquerors, and to the Saxon laws during the Heptarchy, prevents us from regarding Alfred as the sole author of this plan of government, and leads us rather to think, that, like a wise-man, he contented himself with reforming, extending, and executing the institutions which he found previously established. But, on the whole, such success attended his legislation, that everything bore suddenly a new face in England. Robberies and iniquities of all kinds were repressed by the punishment or reformation of the criminals;[*] and so exact was the general police, that Alfred, it is said, hung up, by way of bravado, golden bracelets near the highways, and no man dared to touch them.[**] Yet, amidst these rigors of justice, this great prince preserved the most sacred regard to the liberty of his people; and it is a memorable sentiment preserved in his will, that it was just the English should forever remain as free as their own thoughts.[***]

The similarities between these institutions and the customs of the ancient Germans, the practices of other northern conquerors, and the Saxon laws during the Heptarchy mean that we can't see Alfred as the sole creator of this government plan. Instead, it's more accurate to believe that he, being wise, focused on reforming, expanding, and implementing the systems he found already in place. Overall, his legislation was so successful that everything in England took on a fresh appearance. Crimes and wrongdoings of all kinds were kept in check through the punishment or reform of offenders; and the policing was so precise that, as the story goes, Alfred hung golden bracelets along the highways just to show off, and no one dared to take them. Yet, despite these harsh measures of justice, this great ruler showed deep respect for his people's freedom. A notable sentiment from his will states that it was right for the English to always remain as free as their own thoughts.

    [* Ingulph. p. 27.]

    [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4.]

    [* Asset, p. 24.]
[* Ingulph. p. 27.]

[* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4.]

[* Asset, p. 24.]

As good morals and knowledge are almost inseparable, in every age, though not in every individual, the care of Alfred for the encouragement of learning among his subjects was another useful branch of his legislation, and tended to reclaim the English from their former dissolute and ferocious manners; but the king was guided, in this pursuit, less by political views than by his natural bent and propensity towards letters. When he came to the throne, he found the nation sunk into the grossest ignorance and barbarism, proceeding from the continued disorders in the government, and from the ravages of the Danes. The monasteries were destroyed, the monks butchered or dispersed, their libraries burnt; and thus the only seats of erudition in those ages were totally subverted. Alfred himself complains, that on his accession he knew not one person, south of the Thames, who could so much as interpret the Latin service, and very few in the northern parts who had reached even that pitch of erudition. But this prince invited over the most celebrated scholars from all parts of Europe; he established schools every where for the instruction of his people; he founded, at least repaired, the University of Oxford, and endowed it with many privileges revenues, and immunities; he enjoined by law all freeholders possessed of two hides[*] of land, or more, to send their children to school, for their instruction; he gave preferment both in church and state to such only as had made some proficiency in knowledge; and by all these expedients he had the satisfaction, before his death, to see a great change in the face of affairs; and in a work of his, which is still extant, he congratulates himself on the progress which learning, under his patronage, had already made in England.

As good morals and knowledge are nearly inseparable, in every era, though not for every individual, Alfred's commitment to promoting learning among his people was another significant aspect of his leadership. It aimed to bring the English back from their earlier reckless and violent ways; however, the king was driven in this effort more by his natural inclination and love for education than by political motives. When he took the throne, he discovered the nation deeply mired in ignorance and barbarism due to ongoing governmental chaos and the devastation caused by the Danes. The monasteries were destroyed, the monks slaughtered or scattered, and their libraries burned; as a result, the only centers of learning during that time were completely ruined. Alfred himself noted that upon his accession, he didn’t know a single person south of the Thames who could even interpret the Latin service, and very few in the north had even achieved that level of knowledge. But this king brought over the most renowned scholars from across Europe; he established schools everywhere to educate his people; he founded or at least restored the University of Oxford, endowing it with numerous privileges, revenues, and immunities; he mandated by law that all freeholders with two hides of land or more must send their children to school for their education; and he granted positions in both the church and state only to those who had made some academic progress. Through all these efforts, he was gratified, before his death, to witness a significant transformation in the state of affairs; and in a work of his, which still exists, he praised the advancements learning had already made in England under his patronage.

    [* A hide contained land sufficient to employ one plough. See
     H. Hunting, lib. vi. in A. D. 1008. Annal. Waverl. in A. D.
     1083. Gervase of Tilbury says, it commonly contained about
     one hundred acres.]
    [* A hide was enough land to use one plough. See H. Hunting, lib. vi. in A. D. 1008. Annal. Waverl. in A. D. 1083. Gervase of Tilbury says it usually covered around one hundred acres.]

But the most effectual expedient, employed by Alfred for the encouragement of learning, was his own example, and the constant assiduity with which, notwithstanding the multiplicity and urgency of his affairs, he employed himself in the pursuits of knowledge. He usually divided his time into three equal portions: one was employed in sleep, and the refection of his body by diet and exercise; another, in the despatch of business; a third, in study and devotion; and that he might more exactly measure the hours, he made use of burning tapers of equal length, which he fixed in lanterns,[*] an expedient suited to that rude age, when the geometry of dialling, and the mechanism of clocks and watches, were totally unknown. And by such a regular distribution of his time though he often labored under great bodily infirmities,[**] this martial hero, who fought in person fifty-six battles by sea and land,[***] was able, during a life of no extraordinary length, to acquire more knowledge, and even to compose more books, than most studious men, though blessed with the greatest leisure and application, have, in more fortunate ages, made the object of their uninterrupted industry.

But the most effective way Alfred encouraged learning was by setting a personal example and constantly dedicating himself to gaining knowledge, despite his many responsibilities. He usually divided his time into three equal parts: one was for sleep and taking care of his body through food and exercise; another was for handling his business; and the third was for study and devotion. To keep track of the hours more accurately, he used burning candles of equal length, which he placed in lanterns, a method suited to that rough era when the principles of sundials and the mechanics of clocks and watches were completely unknown. With such a structured approach to his time, even though he often dealt with significant physical ailments, this warrior king, who personally fought in fifty-six battles by sea and land, managed, in a life that wasn't exceptionally long, to gain more knowledge and even write more books than most dedicated scholars, even those with the greatest amount of free time and focus, have achieved in more favorable times through their continuous efforts.

    [* Asser. p. 20. W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4. Ingulph. p. 870.]

    [** Asser. p.4, 12, 13, 17, J W. Malms, lib. iv. cap. 4.]

    [*** Asser. p. 13.]
[* Asser. p. 20. W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4. Ingulph. p. 870.]

[** Asser. p.4, 12, 13, 17, J W. Malms, lib. iv. cap. 4.]

[*** Asser. p. 13.]

Sensible that the people, at all times, especially when their understandings are obstructed by ignorance and bad education, are not much susceptible of speculative instruction, Alfred endeavored to convey his morality by apologues, parables, stories, apothegms, couched in poetry; and besides propagating among his subjects former compositions of that kind, which he found in the Saxon tongue,[*] he exercised his genius in inventing works of a like nature,[**] as well as in translating from the Greek the elegant Fables of Æsop. He also gave Saxon translations of Orosius’s and Bede’s histories; and of Boethius concerning the consolation of philosophy.[***] And he deemed it nowise derogatory from his other great characters of sovereign, legislator, warrior, and politician, thus to lead the way to his people in the pursuits of literature.

Realizing that people, especially when their understanding is hindered by ignorance and poor education, are not very open to abstract teaching, Alfred tried to share his moral lessons through fables, parables, stories, and poetic sayings. In addition to promoting earlier works of this kind that he found in the Saxon language,[*] he used his creativity to create similar works,[**] and also translated the elegant Fables of Aesop from Greek. He provided Saxon translations of the histories of Orosius and Bede, as well as Boethius's work on the consolation of philosophy.[***] He believed it was not at all beneath him, in his roles as a ruler, lawmaker, warrior, and statesman, to guide his people toward the pursuit of literature.

    [* Spelruan, p. 124.]

    [** Abbas Rieval. p. 355.]

    [*** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4, Brompton, p. 814.]
    [* Spelruan, p. 124.]

    [** Abbas Rieval. p. 355.]

    [*** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4, Brompton, p. 814.]

Meanwhile, this prince was not negligent in encouraging the vulgar and mechanical arts, which have a more sensible, though not a closer connection with the interests of society. He invited, from all quarters, industrious foreigners to re-people his country, which had been desolated by the ravages of the Danes.[*] He introduced and encouraged manufactures of all kinds, and no inventor or improver of any ingenious art did he suffer to go unrewarded.[**] He prompted men of activity to betake themselves to navigation, to push commerce into the most remote countries, and to acquire riches by propagating industry among their fellow-citizens. He set apart a seventh portion of his own revenue for maintaining a number of workmen, whom he constantly employed in rebuilding the ruined cities, castles, palaces, and monasteries.[***] Even the elegances of life were brought to him from the Mediterranean and the Indies;[****] and his subjects, by seeing those productions of the peaceful arts, were taught to respect the virtues of justice and industry, from which alone they could arise. Both living and dead, Alfred was regarded by foreigners, no less than by his own subjects, as the greatest prince, after Charlemagne, that had appeared in Europe during several ages, and as one of the wisest and best that had ever adorned the annals of any nation.

Meanwhile, this prince actively supported the practical and mechanical arts, which have a more significant, though not a direct, connection to society's interests. He invited hardworking foreigners from all over to help repopulate his country, which had been devastated by the Danes.[*] He introduced and promoted various manufacturing industries, ensuring that no inventor or innovator of any clever art went unrewarded.[**] He encouraged enterprising individuals to take up navigation, expand trade to the most distant lands, and gain wealth by fostering industry among their fellow citizens. He allocated a seventh of his own revenue to hire a number of workers, whom he continually employed to rebuild the ruined cities, castles, palaces, and monasteries.[***] Even the finer things in life were brought to him from the Mediterranean and the Indies;[****] and his subjects, by witnessing these products of peaceful arts, learned to value the virtues of justice and hard work, from which they could thrive. Both in life and death, Alfred was seen by foreigners, as well as by his own people, as the greatest prince, after Charlemagne, to have emerged in Europe over several centuries, and as one of the wisest and best leaders to have ever graced the history of any nation.

     [* Asser. p. 13. Flor. Wigorn. p. 588.]

     [** Asser. p. 20.]

     [*** Asser. p. 20. W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4.]

     [**** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4.]
     [* Asser. p. 13. Flor. Wigorn. p. 588.]

     [** Asser. p. 20.]

     [*** Asser. p. 20. W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4.]

     [**** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 4.]

Alfred had, by his wife Ethelswitha, daughter of a Mercian earl, three sons and three daughters. The eldest son, Edmund, died without issue, in his father’s lifetime. The third, Ethelward, inherited his father’s passion for letters, and lived a private life. The second, Edward, succeeded to his power, and passes by the appellation of Edward the Elder, being the first of that name who sat on the English throne.

Alfred had three sons and three daughters with his wife Ethelswitha, who was the daughter of a Mercian earl. His oldest son, Edmund, died without children during Alfred's lifetime. The third son, Ethelward, shared his father's love for learning and lived a quiet life. The second son, Edward, took over his father's position and is known as Edward the Elder, being the first of his name to sit on the English throne.





EDWARD THE ELDER.

This prince, who equalled his father in military talents, though inferior to him in knowledge and erudition,[*] found immediately on his accession, a specimen of that turbulent life to which all princes, and even all individuals, were exposed, in an age when men, less restrained by law or justice, and less occupied by industry, had no aliment for their inquietude out wars, insurrections, convulsions, rapine, and depredation.

This prince, who matched his father in military skills but was less knowledgeable and educated, quickly encountered a glimpse of the chaotic life that all princes, and even everyone else, faced during a time when people, not as bound by laws or justice and less focused on work, found their worries fueled by wars, uprisings, turmoil, theft, and plundering.

     [* W. Malms, lib. ii cap. 4, Hoveden, p. 421.]
     [* W. Malms, lib. ii cap. 4, Hoveden, p. 421.]

Ethelwald, his cousin-german, son of King Ethelbert, the elder brother of Alfred, insisted on his preferable title;[*] and arming his partisans, took possession of Winburne, where he seemed determined to defend himself to the last extremity, and to await the issue of his pretensions.[**] But when the king approached the town with a great army, Ethelwald, having the prospect of certain destruction, made his escape, and fled first into Normandy, thence into Northumberland, where he hoped that the people, who had been recently subdued by Alfred, and who were impatient of peace, would, on the intelligence of that great prince’s death, seize the first pretence or opportunity of rebellion. The event did not disappoint his expectations: the Northumbrians declared for him,[***] and Ethelwald, having thus connected his interests with the Danish tribes, went beyond sea, and collecting a body of these freebooters, he excited the hopes of all those who had been accustomed to subsist by rapine and violence.[****]

Ethelwald, his first cousin and son of King Ethelbert, Alfred’s older brother, insisted on his preferred title;[*] and after rallying his supporters, he took control of Winburne, where he seemed set on defending himself to the very end and waiting to see how his claims would play out.[**] However, when the king approached the town with a large army, Ethelwald, facing certain defeat, escaped and fled first to Normandy, then to Northumberland, where he hoped that the people, who had recently been conquered by Alfred and were eager for unrest, would, upon hearing of that great prince’s death, grab any chance for rebellion. The outcome met his expectations: the Northumbrians rallied to him,[***] and Ethelwald, having linked his interests with the Danish tribes, went overseas, gathering a band of these raiders to stir hope among those used to living by plunder and violence.[****]

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 99, 100.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 100. H. Hunting, lib. v. p.
     352.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 100. H. Hunting, lib. v. p.
     352.]

     [**** Chron. Sax. p. 100. Chron. Abb. St. Petri de
     Burgo, p. 24.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 99, 100.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 100. H. Hunting, lib. v. p.
     352.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 100. H. Hunting, lib. v. p.
     352.]

     [**** Chron. Sax. p. 100. Chron. Abb. St. Petri de
     Burgo, p. 24.]

The East Anglian Danes joined his party; the Five-burgers, who were seated in the heart of Mercia, began to put themselves in motion; and the English found that they were again menaced with those convulsions from which the valor and policy of Alfred had so lately rescued them. The rebels, headed by Ethelwald, made an incursion into the counties of Glocester, Oxford, and Wilts; and having exercised their ravages in these places, they retired with their booty, before the king, who had assembled an army, was able to approach them. Edward, however, who was determined that his preparations should not be fruitless, conducted his forces into East Anglia, and retaliated the injuries which the inhabitants had committed, by spreading the like devastation among them. Satiated with revenge, and loaded with booty, he gave orders to retire; but the authority of those ancient kings, which was feeble in peace, was not much better established in the field; and the Kentish men, greedy of more spoil, ventured, contrary to repeated orders, to stay behind him, and to take up their quarters in Bury. This disobedience proved, in the issue, fortunate to Edward. The Danes assaulted the Kentish men, but met with so vigorous a resistance, that, though they gained the field of battle, they bought that advantage by the loss of their bravest leaders, and, among the rest, by that of Ethelwald, who perished in the action.[*] The king, freed from the fear of so dangerous a competitor, made peace on advantageous terms with the East Angles.[**]

The East Anglian Danes joined his group; the Five-burgers, located in the heart of Mercia, began to mobilize; and the English realized they were once again facing the upheaval that Alfred's bravery and strategy had recently saved them from. The rebels, led by Ethelwald, raided the counties of Gloucester, Oxford, and Wilts; after causing destruction in these areas, they retreated with their loot before the king, who had gathered an army, could catch up to them. However, Edward, determined that his efforts would not go to waste, took his forces into East Anglia and retaliated against the harm the locals had inflicted by bringing similar devastation upon them. Satisfied with revenge and carrying away plunder, he ordered a retreat; but the influence of those ancient kings, weak in peacetime, was not much stronger in battle. The men from Kent, eager for more loot, disobeyed repeated orders and chose to stay behind him, setting up camp in Bury. This act of defiance turned out to be fortunate for Edward. The Danes attacked the Kentish men but faced such strong resistance that, although they won the battle, they lost many of their best leaders, including Ethelwald, who was killed in the fight. Freed from the threat of such a dangerous rival, the king made peace on favorable terms with the East Angles.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 101. Brompton, p. 832.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 102. Brompton, p. 832. M West.
     p. 181.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 101. Brompton, p. 832.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 102. Brompton, p. 832. M West.
     p. 181.]

In order to restore England to such a state of tranquillity as it was then capable of attaining, nought was wanting but the subjection of the Northumbrians, who, assisted by the scattered Danes in Mercia, continually infested the bowels of the kingdom. Edward, in order to divert the force of these enemies, prepared a fleet to attack them by sea, hoping that when his ships appeared on their coast, they must at least remain at home, and provide for their defence. But the Northumbrians were less anxious to secure their own property, than greedy to commit spoil on their enemy; and, concluding that the chief strength of the English was embarked on board the fleet, they thought the opportunity favorable, and entered Edward’s territories with all their forces. The king, who was prepared against this event, attacked them, on their return, at Tetenhall in the county of Stafford, put them to rout, recovered all the booty, and pursued them with great slaughter into their own country.

To restore England to a calm state it was capable of achieving, all that was needed was to subdue the Northumbrians, who, aided by the scattered Danes in Mercia, continually troubled the heart of the kingdom. Edward, wanting to shift the focus of these enemies, prepared a fleet to attack them by sea, hoping that when his ships showed up on their coast, they would have to stay home and defend themselves. However, the Northumbrians were less concerned about protecting their land and more eager to raid their enemies; thinking the main strength of the English was on the ships, they decided the moment was right and invaded Edward’s territories with all their forces. The king, who had anticipated this move, confronted them upon their return at Tetenhall in Staffordshire, defeated them, recovered all the plunder, and relentlessly pursued them back to their own land, inflicting heavy casualties.

All the rest of Edward’s reign was a scene of continued and successful action against the Northumbrians, the East Angles, the Five-burgers, and the foreign Danes, who invaded him from Normandy and Brittany. Nor was he less provident in putting his kingdom in a posture of defence, than vigorous in assaulting the enemy. He fortified the towns of Chester, Eddesbury, Warwick, Cherbury, Buckingham, Towcester, Maldon, Huntingdon, and Colchester. He fought two signal battles at Temsford and Maldon.[*]

All throughout Edward’s reign, there was ongoing and successful action against the Northumbrians, the East Angles, the Five-burgers, and the foreign Danes who invaded from Normandy and Brittany. He was just as careful in preparing his kingdom for defense as he was aggressive in attacking the enemy. He strengthened the towns of Chester, Eddesbury, Warwick, Cherbury, Buckingham, Towcester, Maldon, Huntingdon, and Colchester. He fought two notable battles at Temsford and Maldon.[*]

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 10, Flor. Wigorn. p. 6.]
[* Chron. Sax. p. 10, Flor. Wigorn. p. 6.]

He vanquished Thurketill, a great Danish chief, and obliged him to retire with his followers into France, in quest of spoil and adventures. He subdued the East Angles, and forced them to swear allegiance to him: he expelled the two rival princes of Northumberland, Reginald and Sidroc, and acquired, for the present, the dominion of that province: several tribes of the Britons were subjected by him; and even the Scots, who, during the reign of Egbert, had, under the conduct of Kenneth, their king, increased their power by the final subjection of the Picts, were nevertheless obliged to give him marks of submission.[*] In all these fortunate achievements, he was assisted by the activity and prudence of his sister Ethelfleda, who was widow of Ethelbert, earl of Mercia, and who after her husband’s death, retained the government of that province. This princess, who had been reduced to extremity in childbed, refused afterwards all commerce with her husband; not from any weak superstition, as was common in that age, but because she deemed all domestic occupations unworthy of her masculine and ambitious spirit.[**] She died before her brother; and Edward, during the remainder of his reign, took upon himself the immediate government of Mercia, which before had been intrusted to the authority of a governor.[***] The Saxon Chronicle fixes the death of this prince in 925 his kingdom devolved to Athelstan, his natural son.

He defeated Thurketill, a powerful Danish leader, and forced him to retreat with his followers to France in search of loot and adventures. He conquered the East Angles, making them swear loyalty to him. He drove out the rival princes of Northumberland, Reginald and Sidroc, and took control of that region for the time being. Several tribes of Britons were brought under his control, and even the Scots, who during Egbert’s reign had strengthened their power by completely subjugating the Picts under their king Kenneth, had to show him signs of submission. In all these successful endeavors, he was supported by the energy and wisdom of his sister Ethelfleda, who was the widow of Ethelbert, the earl of Mercia, and continued to govern that province after her husband’s death. This princess, who had suffered greatly during childbirth, later avoided any interactions with her husband—not due to any weak superstition, which was common at that time, but because she considered all domestic duties beneath her strong and ambitious nature. She passed away before her brother, and Edward, for the rest of his reign, took over the direct governance of Mercia, which had previously been managed by a governor. The Saxon Chronicle records the death of this prince in 925, and his kingdom passed to Athelstan, his legitimate son.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 110. Hoveden, p. 421.]

     [** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 5. M. West. p. 182.
     Ingulph. p. 28. Higgen p. 261.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 110. Brompton, p. 831.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 110. Hoveden, p. 421.]

     [** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 5. M. West. p. 182.
     Ingulph. p. 28. Higgen p. 261.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 110. Brompton, p. 831.]




ATHELSTAN.

925.

925.

The stain in this prince’s birth was not, in those times, deemed so considerable as to exclude him from the throne; and Athelstan, being of an age, as well as of a capacity, fitted for government, obtained the preference to Edward’s younger children, who, though legitimate, were of too tender years to rule a nation so much exposed both to foreign invasion and to domestic convulsions. Some discontents, however, prevailed on his accession; and Alfred, a nobleman of considerable power, was thence encouraged to enter into a conspiracy against him. This incident is related by historians, with circumstances which the reader, according to the degree of credit he is disposed to give them, may impute either to the invention of monks, who forged them, or to their artifice, who found means of making them real. Alfred, it is said, being seized upon strong suspicions, but without any certain proof, firmly denied the conspiracy imputed to him; and, in order to justify himself, he offered to swear to his innocence before the pope, whose person, it was supposed, contained such superior sanctity, that no one could presume to give a false oath in his presence, and yet hope to escape the immediate vengeance of Heaven. The king accepted of the condition, and Alfred was conducted to Rome, where, either conscious of his innocence, or neglecting the superstition to which he appealed, he ventured to make the oath required of him, before John, who then filled the papal chair; but no sooner had he pronounced the fatal words, than he fell into convulsions, of which, three days after, he expired. The king, as if the guilt, of the conspirator were now fully ascertained, confiscated his estate, and made a present of it to the monastery of Malmesbury,[*] secure that no doubts would ever thenceforth be entertained concerning the justice of his proceedings.

The stain on this prince’s birth was not, at that time, considered serious enough to disqualify him from the throne. Athelstan, being old enough and capable of ruling, was chosen over Edward’s younger children, who, despite being legitimate, were too young to lead a nation that faced both foreign threats and domestic turmoil. However, his rise to power was met with some opposition, and Alfred, a powerful nobleman, was encouraged to conspire against him. Historians recount this incident, and readers may either see it as a fabrication by monks or as a clever ruse that turned real. It’s said that Alfred, though strongly suspected, denied any involvement in the conspiracy. To prove his innocence, he offered to take an oath before the pope, whose presence was believed to hold such immense sanctity that no one would dare lie in front of him without facing divine retribution. The king accepted this offer, and Alfred was taken to Rome, where, whether out of true belief in his innocence or dismissing the superstition he invoked, he took the required oath before Pope John. Immediately after declaring those fateful words, he fell into convulsions and died three days later. The king, convinced of Alfred's guilt, confiscated his estate and gifted it to the monastery of Malmesbury,[*] ensuring that no doubts would linger about the righteousness of his actions.

     [* W. Malms. lib. ii. cap. 6. Spel. Concil. p. 407.]
[* W. Malms. lib. ii. cap. 6. Spel. Concil. p. 407.]

The dominion of Athelstan was no sooner established over his English subjects, than he endeavored to give security to the government, by providing against the insurrections of the Danes, which had created so much disturbance to his predecessors. He marched into Northumberland; and, finding that the inhabitants bore with impatience the English yoke, he thought it prudent to confer on Sithric, a Danish nobleman, the title of king, and to attach him to his interests by giving him his sister Editha in marriage. But this policy proved by accident the source of dangerous consequences. Sithric died in a twelvemonth after; and his two sons by a former marriage, Anlaf and Godfrid, founding pretensions on their father’s elevation, assumed the sovereignty, without waiting for Athelstan’s consent. They were soon expelled by the power of that monarch; and the former took shelter in Ireland, as the latter did in Scotland, where he received, during some time, protection from Constantine, who then enjoyed the crown of that kingdom. The Scottish prince, however, continually solicited, and even menaced by Athelstan, at last promised to deliver up his guest; but secretly detesting this treachery, he gave Godfrid warning to make his escape;[*] and that fugitive, after subsisting by piracy for some years, freed the king, by his death, from any further anxiety. Athelstan, resenting Constantine’s behavior, entered Scotland with an army, and ravaging the country with impunity,[**] he reduced the Scots to such distress, that their king was content to preserve his crown by making submissions to the enemy. The English historians assert,[***] that Constantine did homage to Athelstan for his kingdom; and they add, that the latter prince, being urged by his courtiers to push the present favorable opportunity, and entirely subdue Scotland, replied, that it was more glorious to confer than conquer kingdoms.[****]

As soon as Athelstan established his rule over his English subjects, he worked to secure the government by preventing uprisings from the Danes, which had troubled his predecessors. He marched into Northumberland and, noticing that the locals were restlessly enduring English control, decided it would be wise to grant the title of king to Sithric, a Danish nobleman, and align him with his interests by giving him his sister Editha in marriage. However, this decision accidentally led to serious consequences. Sithric died within a year, and his two sons from a previous marriage, Anlaf and Godfrid, claiming rights based on their father's status, began to rule without waiting for Athelstan's approval. They were quickly overthrown by Athelstan's forces; Anlaf fled to Ireland, while Godfrid sought refuge in Scotland, where he received protection for a time from Constantine, the reigning king. Nevertheless, Constantine was pressured and even threatened by Athelstan, eventually agreeing to hand over Godfrid, but secretly hating the betrayal, he warned Godfrid to escape. That fugitive lived by piracy for several years, and ultimately, his death relieved the king from further worry. Angered by Constantine’s actions, Athelstan invaded Scotland with an army, pillaging the land without consequence, and he brought the Scots to such desperation that their king agreed to submit to the enemy to keep his crown. English historians claim that Constantine pledged loyalty to Athelstan for his kingdom, and they add that when Athelstan's advisors pushed him to take advantage of the situation and completely conquer Scotland, he replied that it was more honorable to bestow kingdoms than to take them.

     [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 6.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 111. Hoveden, p. 422. H. Hunting, lib. v.
     p. 354.]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 422.]

     [**** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 6. Anglia Sacra,
     vol. i. p. 212.]
     [* W. Malms, book 2, chapter 6.]

     [** Chron. Sax. page 111. Hoveden, page 422. H. Hunting, book 5.
     page 354.]

     [*** Hoveden, page 422.]

     [**** W. Malms, book 2, chapter 6. Anglia Sacra,
     volume 1, page 212.]

But those annals, so uncertain and imperfect in themselves, lose all credit when national prepossessions and animosities have place; and, on that account, the Scotch historians, who, without having any more knowledge of the matter, strenuously deny the fact, seem more worthy of belief.

But those records, so uncertain and flawed in themselves, lose all credibility when national biases and hostilities come into play; and for that reason, the Scottish historians, who, without knowing any more about the situation, strongly deny the fact, appear more trustworthy.

Constantine, whether he owed the retaining of his crown to the moderation of Athelstan, who was unwilling to employ all his advantages against him, or to the policy of that prince who esteemed the humiliation of an enemy a greater acquisition than the subjection of a discontented and mutinous people thought the behavior of the English monarch more an object of resentment than of gratitude. He entered into a confederacy with Anlaf, who had collected a great body of Danish pirates, whom he found hovering in the Irish seas, and with some Welsh princes, who were terrified at the growing power of Athelstan; and all these allies made by concert an irruption with a great army into England. Athelstan, collecting his forces, met the enemy hear Brunsbury, in Northumberland, and defeated them in a general engagement. This victory was chiefly ascribed to the valor of Turketul, the English chancellor; for, in those turbulent ages, no one was so much occupied in civil employments as wholly to lay aside the military character.[*]

Constantine, whether he kept his crown thanks to Athelstan's moderation, who was reluctant to fully use his advantages against him, or due to the strategy of that prince who believed that humiliating an enemy was better than ruling over a dissatisfied and rebellious people, saw the actions of the English king more as something to be angry about than grateful for. He formed an alliance with Anlaf, who had gathered a large group of Danish pirates lurking in the Irish seas, as well as some Welsh princes who feared Athelstan’s rising power; together, they launched a significant invasion into England. Athelstan gathered his forces and confronted the enemy near Brunsbury, in Northumberland, where he defeated them in a major battle. This victory was mainly credited to the bravery of Turketul, the English chancellor; in those chaotic times, no one was so tied up in civil duties that they completely abandoned their military role.[*]

     [* The office of chancellor, among the Anglo-
     Saxons, resembled more that of a secretary of state than
     that of our present chancellor See Spelman in voce
     Cancellarius.]
     [* The chancellor's office, during the Anglo-Saxon period, was more like that of a secretary of state than our current chancellor. See Spelman in voce Cancellarius.]

There is a circumstance, not unworthy of notice, which historians relate, with regard to the transactions of this war. Anlaf, on the approach of the English army, thought that he could not venture too much to insure a fortunate event, and employing the artifice formerly practised by Alfred against the Danes, he entered the enemy’s camp, in the habit of a minstrel. The stratagem was, for the present, attended with like success. He gave such satisfaction to the soldiers, who flocked about him, that they introduced him to the king’s tent; and Anlaf, having played before that prince and his nobles during their repast, was dismissed with a handsome reward. His prudence kept him from refusing the present; Dut his pride determined him, on his departure, to bury it while he fancied that he was unespied by all the world. But a soldier in Athelstan’s camp, who had formerly served under Anlaf, had been struck with some suspicion on the first appearance of the minstrel, and was engaged by curiosity to observe all his motions. He regarded this last action as a full proof of Anlaf’s disguise; and he immediately carried the intelligence to Athelstan, who blamed him for not sooner giving him information, that he might have seized his enemy. But the soldier told him, that, as he had formerly sworn fealty to Anlaf, he could never have pardoned himself the treachery of betraying and ruining his ancient master; and that Athelstan himself, after such an instance of his criminal conduct, would have had equal reason to distrust his allegiance. Athelstan, having praised the generosity of the soldier’s principles, reflected on the incident, which he foresaw might be attended with important consequences. He removed his station in the camp; and as a bishop arrived that evening with a reënforcement of troops, (for the ecclesiastics were then no less warlike than the civil magistrates,) he occupied with his train that very place which had been left vacant by the king’s removal. The precaution of Athelstan was found prudent; for no sooner had darkness fallen, than Anlaf broke into the camp, and hastening directly to the place where he had left the king’s tent, put the bishop to death, before he had time to prepare for his defence.[*]

There’s an interesting event that historians mention regarding the events of this war. When the English army approached, Anlaf believed he needed to take significant risks to ensure a positive outcome. He cleverly disguised himself as a minstrel, similar to what Alfred had done against the Danes, and entered the enemy's camp. This trick worked for the moment. He entertained the soldiers who gathered around him so well that they brought him into the king’s tent. Anlaf played for the king and his nobles while they ate and was sent away with a generous reward. Though he prudently accepted the gift, his pride made him decide to hide it, believing no one was watching. However, a soldier in Athelstan’s camp, who had once served under Anlaf, became suspicious at the sight of the minstrel and was curious enough to watch him closely. This last act confirmed Anlaf’s disguise to him, and he quickly informed Athelstan, who criticized him for not reporting sooner so that he could have captured his enemy. The soldier explained that since he had once pledged loyalty to Anlaf, betraying and ruining his former master would have been unforgivable, and Athelstan would have had strong reasons to doubt his loyalty after such a betrayal. Athelstan praised the soldier for his honorable principles and considered the incident, which he realized could have serious consequences. He decided to change his position in the camp. That evening, when a bishop arrived with reinforcements (since clergy were just as martial as civil authorities at the time), he and his entourage took up the spot that had been vacated by the king's move. Athelstan's caution proved wise, for as soon as night fell, Anlaf attacked the camp and rushed to the location where he had left the king’s tent, killing the bishop before he could defend himself.[*]

There fell several Danish and Welsh princes in the action of Brunsbury;[**] and Constantine and Anlaf made their escape with difficulty, leaving the greater part of their army on the field of battle. After this success, Athelstan enjoyed his crown in tranquillity; and he is regarded as one of the ablest and most active of those ancient princes. He passed a remarkable law, which was calculated for the encouragement of commerce, and which it required some liberality of mind in that age to have devised—that a merchant, who had made three long sea voyages on his own account, should be admitted to the rank of a thane or gentleman. This prince died at Glocester, in the year 94l,[***] after a reign of sixteen years, and was succeeded by Edmund, his legitimate brother.

Several Danish and Welsh princes were killed at the battle of Brunsbury;[**] and Constantine and Anlaf barely escaped, leaving most of their army behind on the battlefield. After this victory, Athelstan ruled in peace and is considered one of the most capable and proactive of those ancient rulers. He enacted a significant law aimed at promoting trade, which required a degree of open-mindedness for that time—that a merchant who had completed three long sea voyages for his own benefit would be granted the status of a thane or gentleman. This king died in Gloucester in the year 941,[***] after a reign of sixteen years, and was succeeded by his legitimate brother, Edmund.

     [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 6. Higden, p. 263.]

     [** Brompton, p. 839 Ingulph. p. 29.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 114]
     [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 6. Higden, p. 263.]

     [** Brompton, p. 839 Ingulph. p. 29.]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 114]




EDMUND.

941.

941.

Edmund, on his accession, met with disturbance from the restless Northumbrians, who lay in wait for every opportunity of breaking into rebellion. But marching suddenly with his forces into their country, he so overawed the rebels that they endeavored to appease him by the most humble submissions.[*]

Edmund, upon taking the throne, faced unrest from the restless Northumbrians, who were always looking for a chance to rebel. However, he quickly marched into their territory with his army, so intimidating the rebels that they tried to calm him with the most submissive gestures.[*]

     [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 7. Brompton, p 857.]
     [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 7. Brompton, p 857.]

In order to give him the surer pledge of their obedience, they offered to embrace Christianity; a religion which the English Danes had frequently professed, when reduced to difficulties, but which, for that very reason, they regarded as a badge of servitude, and shook off as soon as a favorable opportunity offered. Edmund, trusting little to their sincerity in this forced submission, used the precaution of removing the Five-burgers from the towns of Mercia, in which they had been allowed to settle; because it was always found that they took advantage of every commotion, and introduced the rebellious or foreign Danes into the heart of the kingdom. He also conquered Cumberland from the Britons; and conferred that territory on Malcolm, king of Scotland, on condition that he should do him homage for it, and protect the north from all future incursions of the Danes.

To show a more certain pledge of their obedience, they agreed to adopt Christianity; a faith that the English Danes often claimed when facing trouble, but which, for that very reason, they saw as a mark of slavery and rejected as soon as they had a chance. Edmund, having little faith in their honesty in this forced submission, took the precaution of relocating the Five-burgers from the towns of Mercia where they had been allowed to settle; because it was always seen that they exploited every disturbance and brought in rebellious or foreign Danes into the heart of the kingdom. He also took Cumberland from the Britons and gave that land to Malcolm, king of Scotland, on the condition that he would pay him homage for it and protect the north from any future invasions by the Danes.

Edmund was young when he came to the crown; yet was his reign short, as his death was violent. One day, as he was solemnizing a festival in the county of Glocester, he remarked that Leolf, a notorious robber, whom he had sentenced to banishment, had yet the boldness to enter the hall where he himself dined, and to sit at table with his attendants. Enraged at this insolence, he ordered him to leave the room; but on his refusing to obey, the king, whose temper, naturally choleric, was inflamed by this additional insult, leaped on him himself, and seized him by the hair; but the ruffian, pushed to extremity, drew his dagger, and gave Edmund a wound of which he immediately expired. This event happened in the year 946, and in the sixth year of the king’s reign. Edmund left male issue, but so young, that they were incapable of governing the kingdom; and his brother, Edred, was promoted to the throne.

Edmund was young when he ascended to the throne, but his reign was brief, as his death was violent. One day, while he was celebrating a festival in Gloucestershire, he noticed that Leolf, a notorious thief whom he had banished, had the audacity to enter the hall where he was dining and sit at the table with his attendants. Furious at this disrespect, he ordered Leolf to leave the room; but when Leolf refused to comply, the king, whose temperament was naturally fiery, was further provoked by this insult. He jumped on Leolf and grabbed him by the hair; however, the thug, desperate, pulled out a dagger and fatally wounded Edmund. This incident took place in 946, during the sixth year of the king's reign. Edmund had sons, but they were too young to govern the kingdom, so his brother, Edred, was made king.





EDRED

946.

946.

The reign of this prince, as those of his predecessors, was disturbed by the rebellions and incursions of the Northumbrian Danes, who, though frequently quelled, were never entirely subdued, nor had ever paid a sincere allegiance to the crown of England. The accession of a new king seemed to them a favorable opportunity for shaking off the yoke; but on Edred’s appearance with an army, they made him their wonted submissions; and the king, having wasted the country with fire and sword, as a punishment of their rebellion, obliged them to renew their oaths of allegiance; and he straight retired with his forces. The obedience of the Danes lasted no longer than the present terror. Provoked at the devastations of Edred, and even reduced by necessity to subsist on plunder, they broke into a new rebellion, and were again subdued; but the king, now instructed by experience, took greater precautions against their future revolt. He fixed English garrisons in their most considerable towns, and placed over them an English governor, who might watch all their motions, and suppress any insurrection on its first appearance. He obliged also Malcolm, king of Scotland, to renew his homage for the lands which he held in England.

The reign of this prince, like those of his predecessors, was troubled by the rebellions and invasions of the Northumbrian Danes. Even though they were often defeated, they were never completely conquered and had never truly pledged loyalty to the crown of England. When a new king came to power, they saw it as a good chance to break free from control. However, when Edred showed up with an army, they submitted to him as usual. The king, after laying waste to their land with fire and sword as punishment for their rebellion, forced them to renew their oaths of allegiance before he left with his troops. The Danes' obedience lasted only as long as the fear of his actions. Angered by Edred's devastation and desperate for survival, they rebelled again and were subdued once more. But this time, the king, having learned from his experiences, took greater precautions against future uprisings. He stationed English garrisons in their major towns and appointed an English governor to keep an eye on them and quash any signs of rebellion early on. He also made Malcolm, king of Scotland, renew his allegiance for the lands he held in England.

Edred, though not unwarlike, nor unfit for active life, lay under the influence of the lowest superstition, and had blindly delivered over his conscience to the guidance of Dunstan commonly called St. Dunstan, abbot of Glastonbury, whom he advanced to the highest offices, and who covered, under the appearance of sanctity, the most violent and most insolent ambition. Taking advantage of the implicit confidence reposed in him by the king, this churchman imported into England a new order of monks, who much changed the state of ecclesiastical affairs, and excited, on their first establishment, the most violent commotions.

Edred, while not lacking in courage or unfit for an active life, was under the influence of the most extreme superstitions and had blindly handed over his conscience to Dunstan, commonly known as St. Dunstan, the abbot of Glastonbury. He promoted him to the highest positions, while Dunstan masked his aggressive and ambitious nature with a facade of holiness. Taking advantage of the king's complete trust in him, this churchman brought a new order of monks to England, which significantly changed ecclesiastical affairs and stirred up intense turmoil when they were first established.

From the introduction of Christianity among the Saxons, there had been monasteries in England; and these establishments had extremely multiplied by the donations of the princes and nobles, whose superstition, derived from their ignorance and precarious life, and increased by remorses for the crimes into which they were so frequently betrayed, knew no other expedient for appeasing the Deity, than a profuse liberality towards the ecclesiastics. But the monks had hitherto been a species of secular priests, who lived after the manner of the present canons or prebendaries, and were both intermingled, in some degree, with the world, and endeavored to render themselves useful to it. They were employed in the education of youth;[*] they had the disposal of their own time and industry; they were not subjected to the rigid rules of an order; they had made no vows of implicit to their superiors;[*] and they still retained the choice, without quitting the convent, either of a married or a single life.[**]

Since the introduction of Christianity among the Saxons, there have been monasteries in England; and these institutions had grown significantly due to donations from the princes and nobles, whose superstitions—stemming from their ignorance and unstable lives, and fueled by guilt over the wrongdoings they often committed—saw no other way to appease God but through generous gifts to the clergy. However, the monks had, until then, been a sort of secular priests who lived like modern canons or prebendaries, somewhat mingled with the world and trying to be useful to it. They were involved in educating young people;[*] they had control over their own time and work; they weren't bound by the strict rules of an order; they hadn’t made vows of complete obedience to their superiors;[*] and they still had the option, without leaving the convent, to choose between a married or single life.[**]

     [* Osberne in Anglia Sacra, tom. ii. p. 91.]

     [** See Wharton’s notes to Anglia Sacra, tom. ii.
     p. 91. Gervase, p 1645. Chron. Wint. MS. apud Spel. Concil.
     p. 434.] The Pope, having cast his eye on the monks as the
     basis of his authority, was determined to reduce them under
     strict rules of obedience, to procure them the credit of
     sanctity by an appearance of the most rigid mortification,
     and to break off all their other ties which might interfere
     with his spiritual policy. Under pretence, therefore, of
     reforming abuses which were in some degree unavoidable in
     the ancient establishments, he had already spread over the
     southern countries of Europe the severe laws of the monastic
     life, and began to form attempts towards a like innovation
     in England. The favorable opportunity offered itself, (and
     it was greedily seized,) arising from the weak superstition
     of Edred, and the violent, impetuous character of Dunstan.
     As the bishops and parochial clergy lived apart with their
     families, and were more connected with the world, the hopes
     of success with them were fainter, and the pretence for
     making them renounce marriage was much less plausible.
     [* Osberne in Anglia Sacra, vol. ii. p. 91.]

     [** See Wharton’s notes to Anglia Sacra, vol. ii. p. 91. Gervase, p. 1645. Chron. Wint. MS. apud Spel. Concil. p. 434.] The Pope, recognizing the monks as the foundation of his authority, was committed to enforcing strict rules of obedience, creating an image of sanctity through extreme self-denial, and severing any other ties that might conflict with his spiritual agenda. Therefore, under the guise of reforming issues that were somewhat inevitable in the older institutions, he had already imposed harsh laws of monastic life across southern Europe and began to push for similar changes in England. A perfect opportunity arose, and it was eagerly taken, due to the weak superstition of Edred and the aggressive, passionate nature of Dunstan. Since the bishops and local clergy lived separately with their families and had more connections to the outside world, the chances of success with them were slimmer, and the rationale for forcing them to abandon marriage was far less convincing.

But a mistaken piety had produced in Italy a new species of monks, called Benedictines; who, carrying farther the plan sible principles of mortification, secluded themselves entirely from the world, renounced all claim to liberty, and made a merit of the most inviolable chastity. These practices and principles, which superstition at first engendered, were greedily embraced and promoted by the policy of the court of Rome. The Roman pontiff, who was making every day great advances towards an absolute sovereignty over the ecclesiastics, perceived that the celibacy of the clergy alone could break off entirely their connection with the civil power, and, depriving them of every other object of ambition, engage them to promote, with unceasing industry, the grandeur of their own order. He was sensible that so long as the monks were indulged in marriage, and were permitted to rear families, they never could be subjected to strict discipline, or reduced to that slavery, under their superiors, which was requisite to procure to the mandates, issued from Rome, a ready and zealous obedience. Celibacy, therefore, began to be extolled as the indispensable duty of priests; and the pope undertook to make all the clergy, throughout the western world, renounce at once the privilege of marriage; a fortunate policy, but at the same time an undertaking the most difficult of any, since he had the strongest propensities of human nature to encounter, and found that the same connections with the female sex, which generally encourage devotion, were here unfavorable to the success of his project. It is no wonder, therefore, that this master-stroke of art should have met with violent contradiction, and that the interests of the hierarchy, and the inclinations of the priests, being now placed in this singular opposition, should, notwithstanding the continued efforts of Rome have retarded the execution of that bold scheme during the course of near three centuries.

But a misguided sense of piety had led to the emergence of a new type of monk in Italy, known as Benedictines. They took the principles of self-denial even further, completely isolating themselves from the world, giving up all claims to freedom, and priding themselves on their strict chastity. These practices, initially born out of superstition, were eagerly adopted and promoted by the policies of the Roman court. The pope, who was steadily advancing towards complete control over the clergy, recognized that enforcing celibacy among clergymen could entirely sever their ties to civil authority and, by eliminating other ambitions, encourage them to work diligently for the growth of their own order. He understood that as long as monks were allowed to marry and raise families, they could never be subjected to the discipline or subservience necessary to ensure prompt and faithful obedience to Rome’s directives. Thus, celibacy began to be praised as an essential duty for priests, and the pope took it upon himself to make clergy across the Western world renounce the right to marry—a bold policy, but also a very challenging task, as he had to confront deeply ingrained human desires. The same relationships with women that usually foster devotion were, in this case, obstacles to his plan's success. It’s no surprise, then, that this ambitious strategy faced intense opposition and that the conflicting interests of the hierarchy and the desires of the priests led to delays in implementing this daring scheme for nearly three centuries despite Rome's ongoing efforts.

Dunstan was born of noble parents in the west of England; and being educated under his uncle Aldhelm, then archbishop of Canterbury, had betaken himself to the ecclesiastical life, and had acquired some character in the court of Edmund. He was, however, represented to that prince as a man of licentious manners;[*] and finding his fortune blasted by these suspicions, his ardent ambition prompted him to repair his indiscretions, by running into an opposite extreme. He secluded himself entirely from the world; he framed a cell so small, that he could neither stand erect in it, nor stretch out his limbs during his repose; and he here employed himself perpetually either in devotion or in manual labor.[**] It is probable that his brain became gradually crazed by these solitary occupations, and that his head was filled with chimeras, which, being believed by himself and his stupid votaries, procured him the general character of sanctity among the people. He fancied that the devil, among the frequent visits which he paid him, was one day more earnest than usual in his temptations, till Dunstan, provoked at his importunity, seized him by the nose with a pair of red-hot pincers, as he put his head into the cell; and he held him there till that malignant spirit made the whole neighborhood resound with his bellowings. This notable exploit was seriously credited and extolled by the public; it is transmitted to posterity by one, who, considering the age in which he lived, may pass for a writer of some elegance;[***] and it insured to Dunstan a reputation which no real piety, much less virtue, could, even in the most enlightened period, have ever procured him with the people.

Dunstan was born to noble parents in the west of England. Educated by his uncle Aldhelm, the archbishop of Canterbury, he dedicated himself to the church and earned some respect in the court of Edmund. However, he was portrayed to that king as a man of irresponsible behavior;[*] and with his reputation tarnished by these allegations, his strong ambition drove him to correct his mistakes by going to the opposite extreme. He completely isolated himself from society; he fashioned a cell so tiny that he couldn't stand up in it or stretch out his limbs when resting; and there he immersed himself constantly in prayer or manual work.[**] It's likely that his mind gradually became unhinged from these solitary tasks, filling with illusions that, believed by him and his dim-witted followers, established his reputation for holiness among the people. He thought that the devil, during his frequent visits, was more persistent than ever in tempting him, until Dunstan, irritated by the devil's insistence, grabbed him by the nose with a pair of red-hot pincers as he stuck his head into the cell; and he held him there until that evil spirit filled the whole area with his screams. This remarkable deed was widely believed and praised by the public; it has been passed down through history by someone who, given the era he lived in, can be considered a somewhat elegant writer;[***] and it earned Dunstan a reputation that no genuine piety, let alone virtue, could have secured for him with the people, even in the most enlightened times.

     [* Osberne, p. 95. M. West, p. 187.]

     [** Osberne, p. 96.]

     [*** Osberne, p. 97.]
     [* Osberne, p. 95. M. West, p. 187.]

     [** Osberne, p. 96.]

     [*** Osberne, p. 97.]

Supported by the character obtained in his retreat, Dunstan appeared again in the world; and gained such an ascendent over Edred who had succeeded to the crown, as made him not only the director of that prince’s conscience, but his counsellor in the most momentous affairs of government. He was placed at the head of the treasury,[*] and being thus possessed both of power at court, and of credit with the populace, he was enabled to attempt with success the most arduous enterprises. Finding that his advancement had been owing to the opinion of his austerity, he professed himself a partisan of the rigid monastic rules; and after introducing that reformation into the convents of Glastonbury and Abingdon, he endeavored to render it universal in the kingdom.

Supported by the character he developed during his retreat, Dunstan re-entered society and gained significant influence over Edred, who had taken the throne. This made him not only the guide of the prince’s conscience but also his adviser on the most critical government matters. He was appointed the head of the treasury,[*] and with both power at court and support from the people, he was able to successfully tackle the most challenging projects. Realizing that his rise was due to the perception of his strictness, he declared himself an advocate of rigorous monastic rules. After implementing this reform in the monasteries of Glastonbury and Abingdon, he sought to make it universal throughout the kingdom.

The minds of men were already well prepared for this innovation. The praises of an inviolable chastity had been carried to the highest extravagance by some of the first preachers of Christianity among the Saxons: the pleasures of love had been represented as incompatible with Christian perfection; and a total abstinence from all commerce with the sex was deemed such a meritorious penance, as was sufficient to atone for the greatest enormities. The consequence seemed natural, that those, at least, who officiated at the altar, should be clear of this pollution; and when the doctrine of transubstantiation, which was now creeping in,[**] was once fully established, the reverence to the real body of Christ in the eucharist bestowed on this argument an additional force and influence.

The minds of men were already well prepared for this change. The praises of strict chastity had been taken to extremes by some of the earliest Christian preachers among the Saxons: the joys of love were portrayed as incompatible with Christian perfection; and complete abstinence from any interaction with women was seen as such a virtuous penance that it could atone for the worst sins. It seemed only natural that those who served at the altar should be free from this impurity; and once the doctrine of transubstantiation, which was gradually gaining acceptance, became fully established, the respect for the real body of Christ in the Eucharist added even more weight to this argument.

     [* Osberne, p. 102. “Wallingford,” p. 541,]

     [** Spel. Concil. vol. i. p. 452.]
     [* Osberne, p. 102. “Wallingford,” p. 541,]

     [** Spel. Concil. vol. i. p. 452.]

The monks knew how to avail themselves of all these popular topics, and to set off their own character to the best advantage. They affected the greatest austerity of life and manners; they indulged themselves in the highest strains of devotion; they inveighed bitterly against the vices and pretended luxury of the age; they were particularly vehement against the dissolute lives of the secular clergy, their rivals; every instance of libertinism in any individual of that order was represented as a general corruption; and where other topics of defamation were wanting, their marriage became a sure subject of invective, and their wives received the name of concubine, or other more opprobrious appellation. The secular clergy, on the other hand, who were numerous and rich, and possessed of the ecclesiastical dignities, defended themselves with vigor and endeavored to retaliate upon their adversaries. The people were thrown into agitation; and few instances occur of more violent dissensions, excited by the most material differences in religion; or rather by the most frivolous; since it is a just remark, that the more affinity there is between theological parties, the greater commonly is their animosity.

The monks knew how to take advantage of all these popular topics and showcase their own character in the best light. They pretended to lead a life of strict austerity and engaged in the highest forms of devotion; they harshly criticized the vices and perceived luxury of the time; they were especially vocal against the immoral lifestyles of the secular clergy, their rivals. Any instance of indulgence by a member of that order was seen as a sign of widespread corruption; and when other slanderous topics were lacking, their marriages became an easy target for ridicule, with their wives being labeled as concubines or worse. On the other hand, the secular clergy, who were numerous and wealthy and held ecclesiastical positions, defended themselves vigorously and sought to strike back at their opponents. The people were stirred up; and there are few examples of more intense conflicts caused by significant religious differences—or perhaps more trivial ones; since it is a fair observation that the closer two theological groups are, the stronger their hostility often becomes.

The progress of the monks, which was become considerable, was somewhat retarded by the death of Edred, their partisan, who expired after a reign of nine years. He left children; but as they were infants, his nephew Edwy, son of Edmund, was placed on the throne.

The progress of the monks, which had become significant, was somewhat slowed down by the death of Edred, their supporter, who passed away after a nine-year reign. He had children, but since they were still infants, his nephew Edwy, son of Edmund, was put on the throne.





EDWY

955.

955.

Edwy, at the time of his accession, was not above sixteen or seventeen years of age, was possessed of the most amiable figure, and was even endowed, according to authentic accounts, with the most promising virtues.[*] He would have been the favorite of his people, had he not unhappily, at the commencement of his reign, been engaged in a controversy with the monks, whose rage neither the graces of the body nor virtues of the mind could mitigate, and who have pursued his memory with the same unrelenting vengeance, which they exercised against his person and dignity during his short and unfortunate reign. There was a beautiful princess of the royal blood, called Elgiva, who had made impression on the tender heart of Edwy; and as he was of an age when the force of the passions first begins to be felt, he had ventured, contrary to the advice of his gravest counsellors, and the remonstrances of the more dignified ecclesiastics,[**] to espouse her; though she was within the degrees of affinity prohibited by the canon law.[***]

Edwy, when he took the throne, was only about sixteen or seventeen years old. He had a really charming appearance and, according to reliable sources, possessed a lot of promising qualities.[*] He could have been loved by his people if, unfortunately, at the start of his reign, he hadn't gotten into a conflict with the monks. Their anger couldn’t be softened by his handsome looks or good character, and they continued to attack his legacy with the same relentless fury they showed towards him during his short and troubled time as king. There was a beautiful princess of royal lineage named Elgiva, who had captured Edwy's heart. At an age when strong emotions are first experienced, he boldly chose to marry her, despite the advice of his most serious advisors and the protests of the high-ranking clergy,[**] although she was related to him in a way that was forbidden by canon law.[***]

     [* Chron. Sax. p, 115.]

     [** H. Hunting, lib. v. p. 356.]

     [*** W. Malms. lib. ii. cap. 7.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p, 115.]

     [** H. Hunting, lib. v. p. 356.]

     [*** W. Malms. lib. ii. cap. 7.]

As the austerity affected by the monks made them particularly violent on this occasion, Edwy entertained a strong prepossession against them; and seemed, on that account, determined not to second their project of expelling the seculars from all the convents, and of possessing themselves of those rich establishments. War was therefore declared between the king and the monks; and the former soon found reason to repent his provoking such dangerous enemies. On the day of his coronation, his nobility were assembled in a great hall, and were indulging themselves in that riot and disorder, which, from the example of their German ancestors, had become habitual to the English;[*] when Edwy, attracted by softer pleasures, retired into the queen’s apartment, and in that privacy gave reins to his fondness towards his wife, which was only moderately checked by the presence of her mother. Dunstan conjectured the reason of the king’s retreat; and, carrying along with him Odo, archbishop of Canterbury, over whom he had gained an absolute ascendant, he burst into the apartment, upbraided Edwy with his lasciviousness, probably bestowed on the queen the most opprobrious epithet that can be applied to her sex, and tearing him from her arms, pushed him back, in a disgraceful manner, into the banquet of the nobles.[**] Edwy, though young, and opposed by the prejudices of the people, found an opportunity of taking revenge for this public insult. He questioned Dunstan concerning the administration of the treasury during the reign of his predecessor;[***] and when that minister refused to give any account of money expended, as he affirmed, by orders of the late king, he accused him of malversation in his office, and banished him the kingdom. But Dunstan’s cabal was not inactive during his absence: they filled the public with high panegyrics on his sanctity: they exclaimed against the impiety of the king and queen; and having poisoned the minds of the people by these declamations, they proceeded to still more outrageous acts of violence against the royal authority. Archbishop Odo sent into the palace a party of soldiers, who seized the queen; and having burned her face with a rod-hot iron, in order to destroy that fatal beauty which had seduced Edwy, they carried her by force into Ireland, there to remain in perpetual exile.[****] Edwy, finding it in vain to resist, was obliged to consent to his divorce, which was pronounced by Odo;[*****] and a catastrophe still more dismal awaited the unhappy Elgiva. That amiable princess being cured of her wounds, and having even obliterated the scars with which Odo had hoped to deface her beauty, returned into England, and was flying to the embraces of the king, whom she still regarded as her husband; when she fell into the hands of a party whom the primate had sent to intercept her. Nothing but her death could now give security to Odo and the monks, and the most cruel death was requisite to satiate their vengeance. She was hamstringed; and expired a few days after at Glocester in the most acute torments.[******]

As the harshness shown by the monks made them particularly aggressive this time, Edwy had a strong bias against them. Because of this, he seemed determined not to support their plan to kick the seculars out of all the convents and take over those wealthy institutions. A war was declared between the king and the monks, and Edwy soon regretted provoking such dangerous enemies. On the day of his coronation, his nobles gathered in a large hall, indulging in the chaos and disorder that, inspired by their German ancestors, had become typical for the English;[*] when Edwy, drawn by more pleasant pursuits, retreated to the queen’s room, where he freely expressed his affection for her, only somewhat interrupted by her mother’s presence. Dunstan figured out why the king had gone away, and taking Archbishop Odo, who he had complete control over, he burst into the room, criticized Edwy for his lewdness, probably called the queen a deeply offensive term for women, and forcefully dragged Edwy back, shaming him in front of the nobles.[**] Although Edwy was young and faced prejudice from the people, he found a way to take revenge for this public humiliation. He questioned Dunstan about how the treasury was managed during his predecessor's reign;[***] and when Dunstan refused to explain the money spent, which he claimed was done at the late king's orders, Edwy accused him of misconduct and exiled him from the kingdom. But Dunstan’s supporters were not idle while he was gone; they filled the public with praises of his holiness, condemned the king and queen for their impiety, and after poisoning the people’s minds with their rhetoric, they took even more violent actions against royal authority. Archbishop Odo sent a group of soldiers to the palace, who captured the queen, burned her face with a heated iron to ruin the beauty that had captivated Edwy, and forced her into exile in Ireland.[****] Edwy, finding it useless to resist, was forced to agree to his divorce, which Odo declared;[*****] and an even darker fate awaited the unfortunate Elgiva. After recovering from her wounds and even managing to hide the scars Odo had hoped would mar her beauty, she returned to England, eager to rush into the arms of the king, whom she still saw as her husband. However, she was captured by a group that the archbishop had sent to intercept her. Only her death could secure Odo and the monks, and they required a particularly cruel execution to satisfy their vengeance. She was hamstrung and died a few days later in Gloucester in excruciating pain.[******]

     [* Wallingford, p. 542.]

     [** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 7. Osberne, p. 83, 105. M. West.
     p. 195, 196.]

     [*** Wallingford, p. 542. Alured. Beverl. p. 112.]

     [**** Osberne, p. 84. Gervase, p. 1644.]

     [****** Osberne, p. 84. Gervase, p. 1645, 1646]
     [* Wallingford, p. 542.]

     [** W. Malms, book ii, chapter 7. Osberne, p. 83, 105. M. West. p. 195, 196.]

     [*** Wallingford, p. 542. Alured. Beverl. p. 112.]

     [**** Osberne, p. 84. Gervase, p. 1644.]

     [****** Osberne, p. 84. Gervase, p. 1645, 1646]

The English, blinded with superstition, instead of being shocked with this inhumanity, exclaimed that the misfortunes of Edwy and his consort were a just judgment for their dissolute contempt of the ecclesiastical statutes. They even proceeded to rebellion against their sovereign; and having placed Edgar at their head, the younger brother of Edwy, a boy of thirteen years of age, they soon put him in possession of Mercia, Northumberland, East Anglia, and chased Edwy into the southern counties. That it might not be doubtful at whose instigation this revolt was undertaken, Dunstan returned into England, and took upon him the government of Edgar and his party. He was first installed in the see of Worcester, then in that of London,[**] and, on Odo’s death, and the violent expulsion of Brithelm, his successor, in that of Canterbury;[***] of all which he long kept possession. Odo is transmitted to us by the monks under the character of a man of piety: Dunstan was even canonized; and is one of those numerous saints of the same stamp, who disgrace the Romish calendar. Meanwhile the unhappy Edwy was excommunicated,[****] and pursued with unrelenting vengeance; but his death, which happened soon after, freed his enemies from all further inquietude, and gave Edgar peaceable possession of the government.[*****] 2

The English, clouded by superstition, instead of being horrified by this cruelty, claimed that the misfortunes of Edwy and his wife were a rightful punishment for their reckless disregard of church laws. They even rebelled against their king, and after placing Edgar, Edwy’s younger brother, a thirteen-year-old boy, in charge, they quickly captured Mercia, Northumberland, and East Anglia, forcing Edwy to retreat to the southern counties. To make it clear who was behind this uprising, Dunstan returned to England and took control of Edgar and his supporters. He was first appointed as bishop of Worcester, then of London,[**] and after Odo’s death and the forceful removal of Brithelm, he became the bishop of Canterbury;[***] he held all these positions for a long time. Odo is remembered by the monks as a man of faith: Dunstan was even canonized; he’s one of many saints of that kind who tarnish the Catholic calendar. Meanwhile, the unfortunate Edwy was excommunicated,[****] and relentlessly hunted down; but his death, which occurred soon after, relieved his enemies of any further unrest and allowed Edgar to take control of the government peacefully.[*****] 2

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 117. Flor. Wigorn. p. 605.
     Wallingford, p. 544]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 425. Osberne, p. 109.]

     [**** Brompton, p. 863.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 117. Flor. Wigorn. p. 605.
     Wallingford, p. 544]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 425. Osberne, p. 109.]

     [**** Brompton, p. 863.]




EDGAR

959.

959.

This prince, who mounted the throne in such early youth, soon discovered an excellent capacity in the administration of affairs, and his reign is one of the most fortunate that we meet with in the ancient English history. He showed no aversion to war; he made the wisest preparations against invaders; and, by this vigor and foresight, he was enabled without any danger of suffering insults, to indulge his inclination towards peace, and to employ himself in supporting and improving the internal government of his kingdom. He maintained a body of disciplined troops; which he quartered in the north, in order to keep the mutinous Northumbrians in subjection, and to repel the inroads of the Scots. He built an supported a powerful navy;[*] and that he might retain the seamen in the practice of their duty, and always present a formidable armament to his enemies, he stationed three squadrons off the coast, and ordered them to make, from time to time, the circuit of his dominions.[**] 3 The foreign Danes dared not to approach a country which appeared in such a posture of defence: the domestic Danes saw inevitable destruction to be the consequence of their tumults and insurrections: the neighboring sovereigns, the king of Scotland, the princes of Wales, of the Isle of Man, of the Orkneys, and even of Ireland,[***] were reduced to pay submission to so formidable a monarch. He carried his superiority to a great height, and might have excited a universal combination against him, had not his power been so well established, as to deprive his enemies of hopes of shaking it It is said, that residing once at Chester, and having purposed to go by water to the abbey of St. John the Baptist, he obliged eight of his tributary princes to row him in a barge upon the Dee.[****] The English historians are fond of mentioning the name of Kenneth III., king of Scots, among the number: the Scottish historians either deny the fact, or assert that their king, if ever he acknowledged himself a vassal to Edgar, did him homage, not for his crown, but for the dominions which he held in England.

This prince, who took the throne at such a young age, quickly revealed a great talent for managing affairs, and his reign is one of the most successful in ancient English history. He had no aversion to war; he made thorough preparations against invaders, and because of his energy and foresight, he was able to indulge his desire for peace without the risk of facing insults while working on strengthening and improving his kingdom’s internal governance. He maintained a disciplined army, stationed in the north to keep the rebellious Northumbrians in check and fend off Scottish attacks. He built and supported a strong navy; to keep the sailors skilled in their duties and to always present a formidable force to his enemies, he positioned three squadrons along the coast, ordering them to patrol his territories periodically. The foreign Danes were too intimidated to approach a country that seemed so well defended: the domestic Danes saw that their unrest and revolts would lead to certain doom; neighboring rulers, including the king of Scotland, the princes of Wales, the Isle of Man, Orkneys, and even Ireland, were forced to submit to such a powerful monarch. He elevated his supremacy to great heights and could have sparked a widespread alliance against him, had his power not been so firmly established that it left his enemies without hope of overcoming it. It is said that while staying in Chester, he planned to travel by water to the abbey of St. John the Baptist and made eight of his tributary princes row him in a small boat on the Dee. English historians often mention the name of Kenneth III, king of Scots, among those princes; however, Scottish historians either deny the event or claim that their king, if he ever acknowledged Edgar as his overlord, did so not for his crown but for the lands he held in England.

But the chief means by which Edgar maintained his authority, and preserved public peace, was the paying of court to Dunstan and the monks, who had at first placed him on the throne, and who, by their pretensions to superior sanctity and purity of manners, had acquired an ascendant over the people. He favored their scheme for dispossessing the secular canons of all the monasteries;[*****] he bestowed preferment on none but their partisans; he allowed Dunstan to resign the see of Worcester into the hands of Oswald, one of his creatures; [******] and to place Ethelwold, another of them, in that of Winchester;[*******] he consulted these prelates in the administration of all ecclesiastical and even in that of many civil affairs; and though the vigor of his own genius prevented him from being implicitly guided by them, the king and the bishops found such advantages in their mutual agreement, that they always acted in concert, and united their influence in preserving the peace and tranquillity of the kingdom.

But the main way Edgar kept his authority and maintained public peace was by currying favor with Dunstan and the monks, who had initially put him on the throne. They had gained power over the people through their claims of greater holiness and moral conduct. He supported their plan to remove the secular canons from all the monasteries; he promoted only their supporters; he let Dunstan hand over the see of Worcester to Oswald, one of his allies; and appointed Ethelwold, another ally, to the see of Winchester. He consulted these bishops on all church matters and even on many civil issues; and though Edgar's own strong intellect kept him from being completely controlled by them, the king and the bishops found such benefits in their collaboration that they always worked together, combining their influence to keep the peace and stability of the kingdom.

     [* Higden, p. 265.]

     [** See note C, at the end of the volume]

     [*** Spel. Concil. p. 432.]

     [**** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 8. Hoveden, p. 406.
     H. Hunting, lib. v.p. 356].
     cap. 8. Hoveden, p. 425, 426. Osberne, p. 112.]

     [****** W. Malms. lib. ii. cap. 8. Hoveden, p.
     425.]

     [******* Gervase, p. 1646. Brompton, p. 864, Flor.
     Wigorn. p. 606. Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo, p. 27, 28.]
     [* Higden, p. 265.]

     [** See note C, at the end of the volume]

     [*** Spel. Concil. p. 432.]

     [**** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 8. Hoveden, p. 406.
     H. Hunting, lib. v.p. 356].
     cap. 8. Hoveden, p. 425, 426. Osberne, p. 112.]

     [****** W. Malms. lib. ii. cap. 8. Hoveden, p.
     425.]

     [******* Gervase, p. 1646. Brompton, p. 864, Flor.
     Wigorn. p. 606. Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo, p. 27, 28.]

In order to complete the great work of placing the new order of monks in all the convents, Edgar summoned a general council of the prelates, and the heads of the religious orders. He here inveighed against the dissolute lives of the secular clergy; the smallness of their tonsure, which, it is probable, maintained no longer any resemblance to the crown of thorns; their negligence in attending the exercise of their function; their mixing with the laity in the pleasures of gaming, hunting, dancing, and singing; and their openly living with concubines, by which it is commonly supposed he meant their wives. He then turned himself to Dunstan, the primate; and in the name of King Edred, whom he supposed to look down from heaven with indignation against all those enormities, he thus addressed him: “It is you, Dunstan, by whose advice I founded monasteries, built churches, and expended my treasure in the support of religion and religious houses. You were my counsellor and assistant in all my schemes: you were the director of my conscience: to you I was obedient in all things. When did you call for supplies, which I refused you? Was my assistance ever wanting to the poor? Did I deny support and establishments to the clergy and the convents? Did I not hearken to your instructions, who told me that these charities were, of all others, the most grateful to my Maker, and fixed a perpetual fund for the support of religion? And are all our pious endeavors now frustrated by the dissolute lives of the priests? Not that I throw any blame on you: you have reasoned, besought, inculcated, inveighed; but it now behoves you to use sharper and more vigorous remedies; and conjoining your spiritual authority with the civil power, to purge effectually the temple of God from thieves and intruders.”[*]

To establish the new order of monks in all the convents, Edgar called a general council of the prelates and heads of religious orders. He criticized the immoral lifestyles of the secular clergy, the smallness of their tonsure, which probably no longer resembled the crown of thorns, their negligence in performing their duties, their mixing with laypeople in activities like gaming, hunting, dancing, and singing, and their open relationships with concubines, which was generally understood to mean their wives. He then turned to Dunstan, the primate, and in the name of King Edred, whom he believed would look down from heaven in anger at these wrongdoings, said to him: “It is you, Dunstan, who advised me to found monasteries, build churches, and spend my wealth on supporting religion and religious houses. You were my advisor and helper in all my plans: you guided my conscience: I obeyed you in everything. When did you ask for support that I refused? Have I ever failed to help the poor? Did I deny assistance and resources to the clergy and the convents? Did I not follow your guidance, knowing that these charitable acts were the most pleasing to my Maker, and set up a permanent fund for supporting religion? And are all our good efforts now ruined by the immoral lives of the priests? Not that I blame you: you have reasoned, pleaded, instructed, and criticized; but now it’s time for you to take stronger and more effective actions; and by combining your spiritual authority with civil power, you should effectively cleanse the temple of God from thieves and intruders.”[*]

     [* Abbas Rieval. p. 360, 361. Spel. Concil. p.
     476, 477, 478.]
     [* Abbas Rieval. p. 360, 361. Spel. Concil. p.
     476, 477, 478.]

It is easy to imagine that this harangue had the desired effect; and that, when the king and prelates thus concurred with popular prejudices, it was not long before the monks prevailed, and established their new discipline in almost all the convents.

It’s easy to think that this speech had the intended impact; and that, when the king and church leaders agreed with public opinions, it didn’t take long for the monks to succeed and implement their new rules in nearly all the monasteries.

We may remark, that the declamations against the secular clergy are, both here and in all the historians, conveyed in general terms; and as that order of men are commonly restrained by the decency of their character, it is difficult to believe that the complaints against their dissolute manners could be so universally just as is pretended. It is more probable that the monks paid court to the populace by an affected austerity of life; and representing the most innocent liberties taken by the other clergy as great and unpardonable enormities, thereby prepared the way for the increase of their own power and influence. Edgar, however, like a true politician, concurred with the prevailing party; and he even indulged them in pretensions, which, though they might, when complied with, engage the monks to support royal authority during his own reign, proved afterwards dangerous to his successors, and gave disturbance to the whole civil power. He seconded the policy of the court of Rome, in granting to some monasteries an exemption from episcopal jurisdiction; he allowed the convents, even those of royal foundation, to usurp the election of their own abbot; and he admitted their forgeries of ancient charters, by which, from the pretended grant of former kings, they assumed many privileges and immunities.[*]

We can observe that the criticisms against the secular clergy, both here and in all the historians, are expressed in general terms. Because this group is usually held to a certain standard, it's hard to believe that complaints about their immoral behavior are as universally true as claimed. It's more likely that the monks sought favor with the public by pretending to live austere lives and portrayed the innocent actions of the other clergy as serious and unforgivable wrongs, thereby paving the way for their own power and influence to grow. However, Edgar, like a savvy politician, aligned himself with the dominant faction; he even indulged them in claims that, while they might secure monk support for royal authority during his reign, later posed risks to his successors and disrupted the entire civil order. He supported the Roman court's policy of granting some monasteries an exemption from episcopal oversight; he allowed convents, even those established by royalty, to take control of electing their own abbot; and he accepted their fabrications of ancient charters through which, based on supposed grants from past kings, they claimed numerous privileges and protections.[*]

These merits of Edgar have procured him the highest panegyrics from the monks; and he is transmitted to us, not only under the character of a consummate statesman and an active prince,—praises to which beseems to have been justly entitled,—but under that of a great saint and a man of virtue. But nothing could more betray both his hypocrisy in inveighing against the licentiousness of the secular clergy, and the interested spirit of his partisans in bestowing such eulogies on his piety, than the usual tenor of his conduct, which was licentious to the highest degree, and violated every law, human and divine. Yet those very monks, who, as we are told by Ingulf, a very ancient historian, had no idea of any moral or religious merit, except chastity and obedience, not only connived at his enormities, but loaded him with the greatest praises. History, however, has preserved some instances of his amours, from which, as from a specimen, we may form a conjecture of the rest.

These qualities of Edgar have earned him high praise from the monks; he is remembered not only as a skilled politician and an active ruler—titles he does seem to have deserved—but also as a great saint and a man of virtue. However, nothing reveals his hypocrisy in criticizing the immoral behavior of the secular clergy and the self-serving motives of his supporters who lavish these praises on his piety more than his overall conduct, which was extremely immoral and broke every human and divine law. Yet those very monks, who, according to Ingulf, a very old historian, believed that moral or religious worth came from chastity and obedience, not only ignored his wrongdoings but also showered him with the highest accolades. Nevertheless, history has recorded some examples of his romantic escapades, from which we can get a glimpse of the rest.

Edgar broke into a convent, carried off Editha, a nun, by force, and even committed violence on her person.[**]

Edgar broke into a convent, forcibly took Editha, a nun, and even assaulted her.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 118. W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 8.
     Seldom Spicileg, ad Eadm. p. 149, 157.]

     [** W. Malms, lib. ii cap. 8. Osberne, p. 3.
     Diceto, p. 457. Higden, p. 265, 267, 268. Spel. Concil. p.
     481.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 118. W. Malms, book II, chapter 8.
     Seldom Spicileg, to Eadm. p. 149, 157.]

     [** W. Malms, book II, chapter 8. Osberne, p. 3.
     Diceto, p. 457. Higden, p. 265, 267, 268. Spel. Concil. p.
     481.]

For this act of sacrilege he was reprimanded by Dunstan; and that he might reconcile himself to the church, he was obliged, not to separate from his mistress, but to abstain from wearing his crown during seven years, and to deprive himself so long of that vain ornament;[*] a punishment very unequal to that which had been inflicted on the unfortunate Edwy, who, for a marriage, which in the strictest sense could only deserve the name of irregular, was expelled his kingdom, saw his queen treated with singular barbarity, was loaded with calumnies, and has been represented to us under the most odious colors. Such is the ascendant which may be attained, by hypocrisy and cabal, over mankind.

For this act of sacrilege, Dunstan reprimanded him; and to make amends with the church, he had to abstain from wearing his crown for seven years, without actually separating from his mistress, which meant he had to go without that vain ornament for a long time. This punishment was very different from what the unfortunate Edwy faced, who, for a marriage that could only be called irregular, was expelled from his kingdom, saw his queen treated with extreme cruelty, faced slander, and was portrayed to us in the most unflattering light. This shows the power that hypocrisy and manipulation can have over people.

     [* Osberne, p. 111.]
[* Osberne, p. 111.]

There was another mistress of Edgar’s, with whom he first formed a connection by a kind of accident. Passing one day by Andover, he lodged in the house of a nobleman, whose daughter, being endowed with all the graces of person and behavior, inflamed him at first sight with the highest desire; and he resolved by any expedient to gratify it. As he had not leisure to employ courtship or address for attaining his purpose, he went directly to her mother, declared the violence of his passion, and desired that the young lady might be allowed to pass that very night with him. The mother was a woman of virtue, and determined not to dishonor her daughter and her family by compliance; but being well acquainted with the impetuosity of the king’s temper, she thought it would be easier, as well as safer, to deceive than refuse him. She feigned therefore a submission to his will; but secretly ordered a waiting maid, of no disagreeable figure, to steal into the king’s bed, after all the company should be retired to rest. In the morning, before daybreak, the damsel, agreeably to the injunctions of her mistress, offered to retire; but Edgar, who had no reserve in his pleasures, and whose love to his bed-fallow was rather inflamed by enjoyment, refused his consent, and employed force and entreaties to detain her. Elfleda (for that was the name of the maid) trusting to her own charms, and to the love with which, she hoped, she had now inspired the king, made probably but a faint resistance; and the return of light discovered the deceit to Edgar. He had passed a night so much to his satisfaction, that he expressed no displeasure with the old lady on account of her fraud; his love was transferred to Elfleda; she became his favorite mistress, and maintained her ascendant over him, till his marriage with Elfrida.[*]

There was another woman in Edgar's life, with whom he initially connected by chance. One day, while passing through Andover, he stayed at a nobleman’s house, where the nobleman’s daughter caught his eye immediately with her beauty and grace, igniting a strong desire in him. He decided he would do whatever it took to satisfy that desire. Since he didn't have time for courtship or subtlety, he approached her mother directly, confessing his intense feelings and asking to spend the night with her daughter. The mother was virtuous and refused to dishonor her daughter or their family, but knowing the king’s impulsive nature, she thought it would be easier and safer to deceive him than to say no outright. So, she pretended to agree to his wishes but secretly instructed a maid, who was not unattractive, to sneak into the king’s bed after everyone else had gone to sleep. In the morning, before dawn, following her mistress's orders, the maid offered to leave; however, Edgar, who held nothing back in his pleasures and whose attraction to her had only grown with intimacy, insisted she stay, using both force and persuasion to keep her. Elfleda (that was the maid's name), confident in her own allure and the affection she believed she had sparked in the king, probably resisted only lightly; when daylight came, Edgar discovered the ruse. He had enjoyed the night so much that he felt no anger toward the old lady for her trickery; instead, his affections shifted to Elfleda, who became his favorite mistress and kept his attention until his marriage to Elfrida.[*]

     [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 8. Higden, p. 268.]
     [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 8. Higden, p. 268.]

The circumstances of his marriage with this lady were more singular and more criminal. Elfrida was daughter and heir of Olgar, earl of Devonshire; and though she had been educated in the country, and had never appeared at court, she had filled all England with the reputation of her beauty. Edgar himself, who was indifferent to no accounts of this nature, found his curiosity excited by the frequent panegyrics which he heard of Elfrida; and reflecting on her noble birth, he resolved, if he found her charms answerable to their fame, to obtain possession of her on honorable terms. He communicated his intention to Earl Athelwold, his favorite, but used the precaution, before he made any advances to her parents, to order that nobleman, on some pretence, to pay them a visit, and to bring him a certain account of the beauty of their daughter. Athelwold, when introduced to the young lady, found general report to have fallen short of the truth; and being actuated by the most vehement love, he determined to sacrifice to this new passion his fidelity to his master, and to the trust reposed in him. He returned to Edgar, and told him, that the riches alone, and high quality of Elfrida, had been the ground of the admiration paid her, and that her charms, far from being any wise extraordinary would have been overlooked in a woman of inferior station. When he had, by this deceit, diverted the king from his purpose he took an opportunity, after some interval, of turning again the conversation on Elfrida; he remarked, that though the parentage and fortune of the lady had not produced on him, as on others, any illusion with regard to her beauty, he could not forbear reflecting, that she would, on the whole, be an advantageous match for him, and might, by her birth and riches, make him sufficient compensation for the homeliness of her person. If the king, therefore, gave his approbation he was determined to make proposals in his own behalf to the earl of Devonshire, and doubted not to obtain his, as well as the young lady’s, consent to the marriage. Edgar, pleased with an expedient for establishing his favorite’s fortune, not only exhorted him to execute his purpose but forwarded his success by his recommendations to the parents of Elfrida; and Athelwold was soon made happy in the possession of his mistress. Dreading, however, the detection of the artifice, he employed every pretence for detaining Elfrida in the country, and for keeping her at a distance from Edgar.

The circumstances surrounding his marriage to this woman were quite unusual and more than a little scandalous. Elfrida was the daughter and heir of Olgar, the earl of Devonshire; despite being raised in the countryside and never having been presented at court, her beauty had become legendary throughout England. Edgar, who took a keen interest in such matters, found his curiosity piqued by the constant praise he heard about Elfrida. Considering her noble lineage, he decided that if her looks matched the reputation, he would pursue her honorably. He shared his plan with his favorite, Earl Athelwold, but wisely instructed him to visit her parents first, under some pretext, to gather more information about their daughter’s beauty. When Athelwold met her, he found the rumors had greatly undersold her appeal; driven by intense desire, he resolved to betray his loyalty to Edgar. Upon returning to the king, he claimed that Elfrida's wealth and status were the only reasons for her admiration and that her looks were nothing exceptional, easily overlooked in a woman of lower rank. After diverting the king from his intentions with this deception, he later brought up Elfrida again, suggesting that, although he saw through the facade of her beauty that impressed others, she would still be a smart match because of her wealth and noble birth, providing a good offset to her lack of looks. He proposed that if the king approved, he would seek the earl of Devonshire's permission to marry Elfrida, confident he could win agreement from both her and her family. Edgar, pleased to see a path to secure his favorite's future, encouraged the plan and even helped by recommending Athelwold to Elfrida’s parents. Soon after, Athelwold found himself happily engaged to her. However, fearing the exposure of his trickery, he made every effort to keep Elfrida in the country and away from Edgar.

The violent passion of Athelwold had rendered him blind to the necessary consequences which must attend his conduct, and the advantages which the numerous enemies, that always pursue a royal favorite, would, by its means, be able to make against him. Edgar was soon informed of the truth; but before he would execute vengeance on Athelwold’s treachery, he resolved to satisfy himself, with his own eyes, of the certainty and full extent of his guilt. He told him that he intended to pay him a visit in his castle, and be introduced to the acquaintance of his new-married wife; and Athelwold, as he could not refuse the honor, only craved leave to go before him a few hours, that he might the better prepare every thing for his reception. He then discovered the whole matter to Elfrida; and begged her, if she had any regard either to her own honor or his life, to conceal from Edgar, by every circumstance of dress and behavior, that fatal beauty which had seduced him from fidelity to his friend, and had betrayed him into so many falsehoods. Elfrida promised compliance, though nothing was farther from her intentions. She deemed herself little beholden to Athelwold for a passion which had deprived her of a crown; and knowing the force of her own charms, she did not despair, even yet, of reaching that dignity, of which her husband’s artifice had bereaved her. She appeared before the king with all the advantages which the richest attire, and the most engaging airs, could bestow upon her, and she excited at once in his bosom the highest love towards herself, and the most furious desire of revenge against her husband. He knew, however, how to dissemble these passions; and seducing Athelwold into a wood, on pretence of hunting, he stabbed him with his own hand, and soon after publicly espoused Elfrida.[*]

The intense passion of Athelwold had blinded him to the inevitable consequences of his actions, as well as the leverage his many enemies—who constantly seek to undermine a royal favorite—would gain from it. Edgar soon learned the truth; however, before he sought revenge for Athelwold's betrayal, he decided that he needed to confirm the extent of his guilt with his own eyes. He informed Athelwold that he intended to visit his castle and meet his newly married wife. Athelwold, unable to refuse such an honor, only asked to go ahead of him for a few hours to prepare everything for his arrival. He then revealed the entire situation to Elfrida and urged her, if she valued either her own honor or his life, to hide from Edgar the deadly beauty that had lured him away from loyalty to his friend, leading him into so many lies. Elfrida promised to comply, though she had no intention of doing so. She felt no gratitude towards Athelwold for a passion that had cost her a crown, and knowing the power of her own beauty, she still held hope of achieving that status, from which her husband's deceit had stripped her. She presented herself to the king, adorned in the finest clothes and exuding charm, sparking in him both overwhelming love for her and intense desire for revenge against her husband. However, he skillfully concealed these feelings, and while luring Athelwold into the woods under the pretense of hunting, he stabbed him with his own hand, shortly after publicly marrying Elfrida.[*]

     [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 8. Hoveden, p. 426. Brompton, p.
     865, 866. Flor. Wigorn. p. 606. Higden, p. 268.]
     [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 8. Hoveden, p. 426. Brompton, p.
     865, 866. Flor. Wigorn. p. 606. Higden, p. 268.]

Before we conclude our account of this reign, we must mention two circumstances, which are remarked by historians. The reputation of Edgar allured a great number of foreigners to visit his court; and he gave them encouragement to settle in England.[*]

Before we wrap up our account of this reign, we need to mention two things that historians have noted. Edgar's reputation attracted many foreigners to visit his court, and he encouraged them to settle in England.[*]

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 116. H. Hunting, lib. v. p. 356. Brompton,
     p. 865.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 116. H. Hunting, lib. v. p. 356. Brompton,
     p. 865.]

We are told that they imported all the vices of their respective countries, and contributed to corrupt the simple manners of the natives;[*] but as this simplicity of manners so highly and often so injudiciously extolled, did not preserve them from barbarity and treachery, the greatest of all vices, and the most incident to a rude, uncultivated people, we ought perhaps to deem their acquaintance with foreigners rather an advantage; as it tended to enlarge their views, and to cure them of those illiberal prejudices and rustic manners to which islanders are often subject.

We’re told that they brought in all the vices from their home countries and helped corrupt the straightforward ways of the locals;[*] but since this simplicity, which is often praised too highly and without much thought, didn’t protect them from brutality and betrayal— the worst vices, especially common among rough, uncivilized people— we might consider their interaction with outsiders more of a benefit. It helped broaden their perspectives and get rid of the narrow-minded ideas and rough ways that islanders often have.

Another remarkable incident of this reign was the extirpation of wolves from England. This advantage was attained by the industrious policy of Edgar. He took great pains in hunting and pursuing those ravenous animals; and when he found that all that escaped him had taken shelter in the mountains and forests of Wales, he changed the tribute of money imposed on the Welsh princes of Athelstan, his predecessor,[**] into an annual tribute of three hundred heads of wolves; which produced such diligence in hunting them, that the animal has been no more seen in this island.

Another notable event during this reign was the removal of wolves from England. This achievement was accomplished through the diligent efforts of Edgar. He worked hard to hunt and track these savage animals; and when he discovered that those who had escaped him had taken refuge in the mountains and forests of Wales, he converted the monetary tribute required from the Welsh princes of Athelstan, his predecessor,[**] into an annual tribute of three hundred wolf heads. This change led to such intense hunting that wolves have not been seen on this island since.

     [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 8.]

     [** W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 6. Brompton, p. 838,]
     [* W. Malms, book 2, chapter 8.]

     [** W. Malms, book 2, chapter 6. Brompton, p. 838,]

Edgar died after a reign of sixteen years, and in the thirty-third of his age. He was succeeded by Edward, whom he had by his first marriage with the daughter of Earl Ordmer.

Edgar died after a sixteen-year reign, at the age of thirty-three. He was succeeded by Edward, whom he had with his first wife, the daughter of Earl Ordmer.





EDWARD THE MARTYR

957.

957.

The succession of this prince, who was only fifteen years of age at his father’s death, did not take place without much difficulty and opposition. Elfrida, his step-mother, had a son, Ethelred, seven years old, whom she attempted to raise to the throne: she affirmed that Edgar’s marriage with the mother of Edward was exposed to insuperable objections; and as she had possessed great credit with her husband, she had found means to acquire partisans, who seconded all her pretensions. But the title of Edward was supported by many advantages. He was appointed successor by the will of his father;[*] he was approaching to man’s estate, and might soon be able to take into his own hands the reins of government; the principal nobility, dreading the imperious temper of Clirida, were averse to her son’s government, which must enlarge her authority, and probably put her in possession of the regency; above all, Dunstan, whose character of sanctity had given him the highest credit with the people, hud espoused the cause of Edward, over whom he had already acquired a great ascendant;[**] and he was determined to execute the will of Edgar in his favor. To cut off all opposite pretensions, Dunstan resolutely anointed and crowned the young prince at Kingston; and the whole kingdom, without further dispute, submitted to him.[***]

The succession of this prince, who was only fifteen years old when his father died, faced a lot of difficulties and opposition. Elfrida, his stepmother, had a seven-year-old son named Ethelred, whom she tried to push for the throne. She claimed that Edgar’s marriage to Edward’s mother had serious problems, and since she had significant influence with her husband, she managed to gather supporters who backed her claims. However, Edward’s claim had many strong points. He was named successor in his father's will;[*] he was nearing adulthood and would soon be ready to take control of the government; the main nobility, fearing Elfrida’s strong personality, opposed her son’s rule, which would increase her power and likely grant her the regency; above all, Dunstan, whose reputation for holiness made him very popular among the people, had championed Edward's cause, having already gained considerable influence over him;[**] and he was committed to fulfilling Edgar’s wishes in favor of Edward. To eliminate any rival claims, Dunstan firmly anointed and crowned the young prince at Kingston, and the entire kingdom, without any further disagreement, accepted him as king.[***]

     [* Hoveden, p. 427. Eadmer p. 3.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 3.]

     [*** W. Malms, lib. ii cap. 9. Hoveden, p. 427.
     Osberne, p. 113.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 427. Eadmer p. 3.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 3.]

     [*** W. Malms, lib. ii cap. 9. Hoveden, p. 427.
     Osberne, p. 113.]

It was of great importance to Dunstan and the monks to place on the throne a king favorable to their cause; the secular clergy had still partisans in England, who wished to support them in the possession of the convents, and of the ecclesiastical authority. On the first intelligence of Edgar’s death, Alfere, duke of Mercia, expelled the new orders of monks from all the monasteries which lay within his jurisdiction;[***] but Elfwin, duke of East Anglia, and Brithnot, duke of the East Saxons, protected them within their territories, and insisted upon the execution of the late laws enacted in their favor. In order to settle this controversy, there were summoned several synods, which, according to the practice of those times, consisted partly of ecclesiastical members, partly of the lay nobility. The monks were able to prevail in these assemblies; though, as it appears, contrary to the secret wishes, if not the declared inclination, of the leading men in he nation.[****] They had more invention in forging miracles to support their cause; or having been so fortunate as to obtain, by their pretended austerities, the character of piety, their miracles were more credited by the populace.

It was really important for Dunstan and the monks to get a king on the throne who would support their cause. The secular clergy still had supporters in England who wanted to help them keep the monasteries and their church authority. As soon as news broke of Edgar’s death, Alfere, the Duke of Mercia, kicked the new orders of monks out of all the monasteries in his territory; but Elfwin, the Duke of East Anglia, and Brithnot, the Duke of the East Saxons, protected them in their regions and insisted that the recent laws passed in their favor be enforced. To resolve this conflict, several synods were called, which, as was common back then, included both church members and lay nobility. The monks managed to win these gatherings; however, it seems this was against the secret wishes, if not the open preferences, of the prominent figures in the nation. They were better at inventing miracles to back their cause, or having gained a reputation for piety through their supposed austerities, their miracles were more believed by the general public.

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 123. W. Malms, lib. ii. cap.
     9. Hoveden, p. 427 Brompton, p. 870. Flor. Wigorn. p, 307.]

     [**** W. Malms. lib. ii. cap. 9.]
     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 123. W. Malms, book ii, chapter 9. Hoveden, p. 427 Brompton, p. 870. Flor. Wigorn. p, 307.]

     [**** W. Malms, book ii, chapter 9.]

In one synod, Dunstan, finding the majority of votes against him, rose up, and informed the audience, that he had that instant received an immediate revelation in behalf of the monks: the assembly was so astonished at this intelligence, or probably so overawed by the populace, that they proceeded no farther in their deliberations. In another synod, a voice issued from the crucifix, and informed the members that the establishment of the monks was founded on the will of Heaven and could not be opposed without impiety.[*] But the miracle performed in the third synod was still more alarming: the floor of the hall in which the assembly met, sunk of a sudden, and a great number of the members were either bruised or killed by the fall. It was remarked, that Dunstan had that day prevented the king from attending the synod, and that the beam on which his own chair stood was the only one that did not sink under the weight of the assembly;[**] but these circumstances, instead of begetting any suspicion of contrivance, were regarded as the surest proof of the immediate interposition of Providence in behalf of those favorites of Heaven.

In one meeting, Dunstan, realizing he was outvoted, stood up and told everyone that he had just received a direct revelation in support of the monks. The crowd was so shocked by this news, or maybe even intimidated by the people present, that they decided not to continue their discussions. In another meeting, a voice came from the crucifix, telling the members that the monks' establishment was based on God's will and couldn’t be challenged without being disrespectful. But the miracle in the third meeting was even more shocking: the floor of the hall where they were gathered suddenly collapsed, injuring or killing many of the members. It was noted that Dunstan had prevented the king from attending that day, and that the beam supporting his own chair was the only one that didn’t give way under the group’s weight; however, instead of raising any suspicion of a trick, these events were seen as the strongest evidence of God’s direct intervention for those favored by Heaven.

     [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 9. Osberne, p. 112.
     Gervase, p. 1647, Brompton, p. 870. Higden, p. 269.]
     [* W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 9. Osberne, p. 112.
     Gervase, p. 1647, Brompton, p. 870. Higden, p. 269.]
     [** Chron. Sax. p. 124. W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 9.
     Hoveden, p. 427. H. Hunting, lib. v. p. 357. Gervase, p.
     1647. Brompton, p. 870. Flor. Wigorn. p. 607 Higden, p 269.
     Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo, p. 29]
     [** Chron. Sax. p. 124. W. Malms, lib. ii. cap. 9.
     Hoveden, p. 427. H. Hunting, lib. v. p. 357. Gervase, p.
     1647. Brompton, p. 870. Flor. Wigorn. p. 607 Higden, p 269.
     Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo, p. 29]

Edward lived four years after his accession, and there passed nothing memorable during his reign. His death alone was memorable and tragical.[*]

Edward lived four years after he became king, and nothing significant happened during his reign. His death was the only notable and tragic event.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 124.]
[* Chron. Sax. p. 124.]

This young prince was endowed with the most amiable innocence of manners; and as his own intentions were always pure, he was incapable of entertaining any suspicion against others. Though his step-mother had opposed his succession, and had raised a party in favor of her own son, he always showed her marks of regard, and even expressed, on all occasions, the most tender affection towards his brother. He was hunting one day in Dorsetshire, and being led by the chase near Corfe Castle, where Elfrida resided, he took the opportunity of paying her visit, unattended by any of his retinue, and he thereby presented her with the opportunity which she had long wished for. After he had mounted his horse, he desired some liquor to be brought him: while he was holding the cup to his head, a servant of Elfrida approached him, and gave him a stab behind. The prince, finding himself wounded, put spurs to his horse; but becoming faint by loss of blood, he fell from the saddle, his foot stuck in the stirrup, and he was dragged along by his unruly horse till he expired. Being tracked by the blood, his body was found, and was privately interred at Wereham by his servants.

This young prince was blessed with the sweetest innocence; and since his own intentions were always good, he couldn't suspect anyone else. Even though his stepmother opposed his claim to the throne and rallied support for her son, he always treated her with respect and showed his brother nothing but love. One day, while hunting in Dorsetshire and drawn towards Corfe Castle, where Elfrida lived, he took the chance to visit her without any of his entourage, giving her the opportunity she'd long been waiting for. After getting on his horse, he asked for a drink. While he was lifting the cup to his lips, a servant of Elfrida approached and stabbed him from behind. Realizing he was wounded, the prince urged his horse to go faster; but losing blood made him faint, and he fell from the saddle, his foot caught in the stirrup. He was dragged along by his wild horse until he died. Following the trail of blood, his body was discovered and was secretly buried at Wereham by his servants.

The youth and innocence of this prince, with his tragical death, begat such compassion among the people, that they believed miracles to be wrought at his tomb; and they gave him the appellation of martyr, though his murder had no connection with any religious principle or opinion. Elfrida built monasteries, and performed many penances, in order to atone for her guilt; but could never, by all her hypocrisy or remorses, recover the good opinion of the public, though so easily deluded in those ignorant ages.

The youth and innocence of this prince, along with his tragic death, created such compassion among the people that they believed miracles were happening at his tomb; they called him a martyr, even though his murder had nothing to do with any religious beliefs or opinions. Elfrida built monasteries and did many penances to atone for her guilt, but no amount of hypocrisy or remorse could restore her good reputation in the eyes of the public, who were easily deceived in those ignorant times.





CHAPTER III.





ETHELRED

978

978

THE freedom which England had so long enjoyed from the depredations of the Danes, seems to have proceeded, partly from the establishments which that piratical nation had obtained in the north of France, and which employed all then superfluous hands to people and maintain them; partly from the vigor and warlike spirit of a long race of English princes, who preserved the kingdom in a posture of defence, by sea and land, and either prevented or repelled every attempt of the invaders. But a new generation of men being now sprung up in the northern regions, who could no longer disburden themselves on Normandy, the English had reason to dread that the Danes would again visit an island to which they were invited, both by the memory of their past successes, and by the expectation of assistance from their countrymen, who, though long established in the kingdom, were not yet thoroughly incorporated with the natives, nor had entirely forgotten their inveterate habits of war and depredation. And as the reigning prince was a minor, and even when he attained to man’s estate, never discovered either courage or capacity sufficient to govern his own subjects, much less to repel a formidable enemy, the people might justly apprehend the worst calamities from so dangerous a crisis.

THE freedom that England had enjoyed for so long from the attacks of the Danes seems to have come, in part, from the settlements that this pirate nation had established in northern France, which utilized all their surplus manpower to populate and support them; and in part from the strength and military spirit of a long line of English kings, who kept the kingdom prepared for defense, both at sea and on land, preventing or pushing back every attempt by the invaders. However, a new generation of people in the northern regions had emerged, who could no longer rely on Normandy, leading the English to fear that the Danes would once again target an island that they were drawn to, both by the memory of their past victories and the expectation of support from their countrymen, who, although well-established in the kingdom, had not fully integrated with the native population, nor had they entirely forgotten their long-standing habits of warfare and looting. With the reigning prince being a minor and, even when he reached adulthood, never showing the courage or ability needed to govern his own people, much less fend off a formidable enemy, the people could justifiably fear the worst consequences from such a perilous situation.

981.

981.

The Danes, before they durst attempt any important enterprise against England, made an inconsiderable descent by way of trial; and having landed from seven vessels near Southamptom, they ravaged the country, enriched themselves by spoil, and departed with impunity. Six years after, they made a like attempt in the west, and met with like success. The invaders, having now found affairs in a very different situation from that in which they formerly appeared, encouraged their countrymen to assemble a greater force, and to hope for more considerable advantages.

The Danes, before they dared to launch any major campaign against England, made a small-scale attempt as a test; they landed from seven ships near Southampton, plundered the area, gathered wealth from their spoils, and left without punishment. Six years later, they made a similar move in the west and achieved similar success. The invaders, now seeing that the situation was much more favorable than before, encouraged their fellow countrymen to gather a larger army and to expect greater rewards.

991

991

They landed in Essex, under the command of two leaders; and having defeated and slain, at Maldon, Brithnot, duke of that county, who ventured with a small body to attack them, they spread their devastations over all the neighboring provinces. In this extremity, Ethelred, to whom historians give the epithet of the Unready, instead of rousing his people to defend with courage their honor and their property, hearkened to the advice of Siricius, archbishop of Canterbury, which was seconded by many of the degenerate nobility; and paying the enemy the sum of ten thousand pounds, he bribed them to depart the kingdom. This shameful expedient was attended with the success which might be expected. The Danes next year appeared off the eastern coast, in hopes of subduing a people who defended themselves by their money, which invited assailants, instead of their arms, which repelled them. But the English, sensible of their folly, had in the interval assembled in a great council, and had determined to collect at London a fleet able to give battle to the enemy;[*] though that judicious measure failed of success, from the treachery of Alfric, duke of Mercia, whose name is infamous in the annals of that age, by the calamities which his repeated perfidy brought upon his country. This nobleman had, in 983, succeeded to his father, Alfere, in that extensive command; but, being deprived of it two years after, and banished the kingdom, he was obliged to employ all his intrigue, and all his power, which was too great for a subject, to be restored to his country, and reinstated in his authority. Having had experience of the credit and malevolence of his enemies, he thenceforth trusted for security, not to his services, or to the affections of his fellow-citizens, but to the influence which he had obtained over his vassals, and to the public calamities, which he thought must, in every revolution, render his assistance necessary. Having fixed this resolution, he determined to prevent all such successes as might establish the royal authority, or render his own situation dependent or precarious. As the English had formed the plan of surrounding and destroying the Danish fleet in harbor, he privately informed the enemy of their danger; and when they put to sea, in consequence of this intelligence, he deserted to them, with the squadron under his command, the night before the engagement, and thereby disappointed all the efforts of his countrymen.[**] Ethelred, enraged at his perfidy, seized his son Alfgar, and ordered his eyes to be put out.[***]

They landed in Essex, led by two commanders. After defeating and killing Brithnot, the duke of that county, who tried to attack them with a small group at Maldon, they devastated the neighboring areas. In this crisis, Ethelred, known as the Unready by historians, did not inspire his people to bravely defend their honor and property. Instead, he followed the advice of Siricius, the archbishop of Canterbury, which was supported by many of the weakened nobility. He paid the enemy ten thousand pounds to leave the kingdom. This shameful tactic had the expected outcome. The Danes returned the following year, trying to conquer a people who relied on money to defend themselves instead of arms. However, realizing their mistake, the English gathered in a major council and decided to assemble a fleet in London to confront the enemy;[*] unfortunately, this wise plan failed due to the betrayal of Alfric, duke of Mercia, whose name is notorious in the history of that time because of the disasters his repeated treachery brought upon his country. Alfric took over his father's extensive command in 983, but was stripped of it two years later and banished from the kingdom. He had to use all his cunning and excessive power, which was too significant for a subject, to regain his position and authority. After experiencing the influence and malevolence of his enemies, he decided to rely not on his loyalty or the goodwill of his fellow citizens for his security, but on the control he had over his vassals and the public crises, which he believed would make his help essential during any upheaval. With this resolution, he set out to thwart any successes that might strengthen royal authority or make his own position insecure. As the English planned to surround and destroy the Danish fleet in harbor, he secretly warned the enemy about their danger. When the Danes set sail due to this information, he defected to them with the squadron he commanded the night before the battle, sabotaging his countrymen's efforts.[**] Enraged by his treachery, Ethelred captured his son Alfgar and ordered his eyes to be put out.[***]

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 126.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 127. W. Malms, p. 62. Higden,
     p. 270.]

     [*** Chror. Sax. p. 128. W. Malms, p. 62.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 126.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 127. W. Malms, p. 62. Higden,
     p. 270.]

     [*** Chror. Sax. p. 128. W. Malms, p. 62.]

But such was the power of Alfric, that he again forced himself into authority; and though he had given this specimen of his character, and received this grievous provocation, it was found necessary to intrust him anew with the government of Mercia. This conduct of the court, which, in all its circumstances, is so barbarous, weak, and imprudent both merited and prognosticated the most grievous calamities.

But Alfric was so powerful that he managed to take control again; even after showing his true nature and receiving such a serious provocation, it was deemed necessary to put him back in charge of Mercia. This decision by the court, which was utterly barbaric, weak, and foolish in every way, both deserved and foretold the worst disasters.

993.

993.

The northern invaders, now well acquainted with the defenceless condition of England, made a powerful descent under the command of Sweyn, king of Denmark, and Olave king of Norway; and sailing up the Humber, spread on all sides their destructive ravages. Lindesey was laid waste; Banbury was destroyed; and all the Northumbrians, though mostly of Danish descent, were constrained either to join the invaders, or to suffer under their depredations. A powerful army was assembled to oppose the Danes, and a general action ensued; but the English were deserted in the battle, from the cowardice or treachery of their three leaders, all of them men of Danish race, Frena, Frithegist, and Godwin, who gave the example of a shameful flight to the troops under their command.

The northern invaders, now familiar with England's vulnerable state, launched a strong attack led by Sweyn, the king of Denmark, and Olave, the king of Norway. They sailed up the Humber and spread destruction everywhere. Lindesey was devastated, Banbury was ruined, and all the Northumbrians, mostly of Danish ancestry, had no choice but to either join the invaders or endure their pillaging. A large army was gathered to confront the Danes, leading to a major battle, but the English were abandoned during the fight due to the cowardice or betrayal of their three leaders, all of whom were of Danish descent: Frena, Frithegist, and Godwin, who set a disgraceful example by fleeing, causing their troops to follow suit.

Encouraged by this success, and still more by the contempt which it inspired for their enemy, the pirates ventured to attack the centre of the kingdom; and entering the Thames in ninety-four vessels, laid siege to London, and threatened it with total destruction. But the citizens, alarmed at the danger, and firmly united among themselves, made a bolder defence than the cowardice of the nobility and gentry gave the invaders reason to apprehend; and the besiegers, after suffering the greatest hardships, were finally frustrated in their attempt. In order to revenge themselves, they laid waste Essex, Sussex, and Hampshire; and having there procured horses, they were thereby enabled to spread through the more inland counties the fury of their depredations. In this extremity, Ethelred and his nobles had recourse to the former expedient; and sending ambassadors to the two northern kings, they promised them subsistence and tribute, on condition they would, for the present, put an end to their ravages, and soon after depart the kingdom. Sweyn and Olave agreed to the terms, and peaceably took up their quarters at Southampton, where the sum of sixteen thousand pounds was paid to them. Olave even made a journey to Andover, where Ethelred resided; and he received the rite of confirmation from the English bishops, as well as many rich presents from the king. He here promised that he would never more infest the English territories; and he faithfully fulfilled the engagement. This prince receives the appellation of St. Olave from the church of Rome; and, notwithstanding the general presumption, which lies either against the understanding or morals of every one who in those ignorant ages was dignified with that title, he seems to have been a man of merit and of virtue, Sweyn, though less scrupulous than Olave, was constrained, upon the departure of the Norwegian prince, to evacuate also the kingdom, with all his followers.

Encouraged by their success and even more by the disdain it stirred for their enemy, the pirates decided to attack the heart of the kingdom. Entering the Thames with ninety-four ships, they besieged London, threatening it with complete destruction. However, the citizens, aware of the danger and tightly united, put up a stronger defense than the fearfulness of the nobility and gentry led the invaders to expect. After facing severe hardships, the besiegers ultimately failed in their attempt. In retaliation, they ravaged Essex, Sussex, and Hampshire, and securing horses there allowed them to spread their violence into the more inland counties. In this crisis, Ethelred and his nobles resorted to their previous strategy; they sent ambassadors to the two northern kings, promising them support and tribute in exchange for stopping their raids temporarily and leaving the kingdom soon after. Sweyn and Olave accepted the terms and peacefully settled in Southampton, where they were paid sixteen thousand pounds. Olave even traveled to Andover, where Ethelred lived, and received confirmation from the English bishops along with many valuable gifts from the king. He promised that he would no longer invade English lands, and he kept his word. This prince is honored as St. Olave by the Church of Rome, and despite the common belief that anyone given that title in those ignorant times lacked true understanding or morals, he appears to have been a man of worth and virtue. Sweyn, although less principled than Olave, was also compelled to leave the kingdom along with all his followers when the Norwegian prince departed.

997.

997.

This composition brought only a short interval to the miseries of the English. The Danish pirates appeared soon after in the Severn; and having committed spoil in Wales, as well as in Cornwall and Devonshire, they sailed round to the south coast, and entering the Tamar, completed the devastation of these two counties. They then returned to the Bristol Channel; and penetrating into the country by the Avon, spread themselves over all that neighborhood, and carried fire and sword even into Dorsetshire. They next changed the seat of war; and after ravaging the Isle of Wight, they entered the Thames and Medway, and laid siege to Rochester, where they defeated the Kentish men in a pitched battle. After this victory, the whole province of Kent was made a scene of slaughter, fire, and devastation. The extremity of these miseries forced the English into counsels for common defence, both by sea and land; but the weakness of the king, the divisions among the nobility, the treachery of some, the cowardice of others, the want of concert in all, frustrated every endeavor; their fleets and armies either came too late to attack the enemy, or were repulsed with dishonor; and the people were thus equally ruined by resistance or by submission. The English, therefore, destitute both of prudence and unanimity in council, of courage and conduct in the field, had recourse to the same weak expedient which, by experience, they had already found so ineffectual: they offered the Danes to buy peace, by paying them a large sum of money, These ravagers rose continually in their demands; and now required the payment of twenty-four thousand pounds, to which the English were so mean and imprudent as to submit.[*]

This situation only provided a brief break from the struggles of the English. The Danish pirates soon appeared in the Severn, and after causing damage in Wales, Cornwall, and Devonshire, they sailed to the south coast and entered the Tamar, finishing the destruction of these two counties. They then returned to the Bristol Channel, moving inland via the Avon, spreading throughout the area, and bringing destruction even to Dorsetshire. They switched their focus next, plundering the Isle of Wight before entering the Thames and Medway, laying siege to Rochester where they defeated the Kentish forces in a major battle. Following this win, Kent became a hotspot of slaughter, fire, and destruction. The severity of these troubles pushed the English to seek ways to defend themselves, both by sea and land; however, the king’s weakness, noble disputes, some being traitorous, others cowardly, and a lack of unity all undermined every effort. Their fleets and armies either arrived too late to confront the enemy or were pushed back in disgrace, leaving the people equally devastated by resistance or surrender. The English, therefore, lacking wisdom and unity in planning, as well as bravery and leadership in battle, resorted to the same ineffective strategy they had previously experienced: they offered to pay the Danes a large sum to secure peace. These raiders continuously raised their demands, now asking for twenty-four thousand pounds, a sum the English foolishly agreed to pay.[*]

     [* Hoveden, p. 429. Chron. Malm. p. 153.]
[* Hoveden, p. 429. Chron. Malm. p. 153.]

The departure of the Danes procured them another short interval of repose, which they enjoyed as if it were to be perpetual without making any effectual preparations for a more vigorous resistance upon the next return of the enemy.

The Danes' departure gave them another brief moment of rest, which they savored as if it would last forever, without making any meaningful plans for a stronger defense when the enemy returned.

Besides receiving this sum, the Danes were engaged by another motive to depart a kingdom which appeared so little in a situation to resist their efforts. They were invited over by their countrymen in Normandy, who at this time were hard pressed by the arms of Robert, king of France, and who found it difficult to defend the settlement, which, with so much advantage to themselves, and glory to their nation, they had made in that country. It is probable, also, that Ethelred, observing the close connections thus maintained among all the Danes, however divided in government or situation, was desirous of forming an alliance with that formidable people. For this purpose, being now a widower, he made his addresses to Emma, sister to Richard II., duke of Normandy, and he soon succeeded in his negotiation. The princess came over this year

Besides receiving this amount, the Danes had another reason to leave a kingdom that seemed weak and unable to resist their efforts. They were encouraged to come by their fellow countrymen in Normandy, who at that time were struggling against Robert, king of France, and were having a hard time defending the settlement they had established there, which had brought them a lot of benefits and pride for their nation. It’s also likely that Ethelred, noticing the strong ties among all the Danes, despite their different governments or situations, wanted to form an alliance with this powerful group. To achieve this, since he was now a widower, he pursued Emma, the sister of Richard II, duke of Normandy, and he quickly succeeded in his efforts. The princess came over this year.

1001.

1001.

to England, and was married to Ethelred.[*]

to England, and was married to Ethelred.[*]

     [* H, Hunting, p. 359. Higden, p. 271.]
     [* H, Hunting, p. 359. Higden, p. 271.]

In the end of the ninth and beginning of the tenth century—when the north, not yet exhausted by that multitude of people, or rather nations, which she had successively emitted, sent forth a new race, not of conquerors, as before, but of pirates and ravagers, who infested the countries possessed by her once warlike sons—lived Rollo, a petty prince or chieftain in Denmark, whose valor and abilities soon en gaged, the attention of his countrymen. He was exposed in his youth to the jealousy of the king of Denmark, who attacked his small but independent principality, and who, being foiled in every assault, had recourse at last to perfidy for effecting his purpose, which he had often attempted in vain by force of arms.[**]

At the end of the ninth century and the start of the tenth century—when the north, not yet drained by the many people, or rather nations, it had previously unleashed, gave rise to a new group, not of conquerors as before, but of pirates and marauders who plagued the lands once held by its fierce sons—there lived Rollo, a minor prince or chieftain in Denmark, whose bravery and skills quickly caught the attention of his fellow countrymen. In his youth, he faced the jealousy of the king of Denmark, who attacked his small but independent principality. After failing in every assault, the king ultimately resorted to treachery to achieve his goals, which he had often tried to achieve in vain through military force.

     [** Dudo, ex edit. Duchesne, p. 70, 71. Gul.
     Gemeticenia, lib. ii, cap. 2, 3.]
     [** Dudo, from the edition by Duchesne, pp. 70, 71. Gul.
     Gemeticenia, book ii, chapters 2, 3.]

He lulled Rollo into security by an insidious peace and falling suddenly upon him, murdered his brother and his bravest officers, and forced him to fly for safety into Scandinavia. Here many of his ancient subjects, induced partly by affection to their prince, partly by the oppressions of the Danish monarch, ranged themselves under his standard, and offered to follow him in every enterprise. Rollo, instead of attempting to recover his paternal dominions, where he must expect a vigorous resistance from the Danes, determined to pursue an easier but more important undertaking, and to make rus fortune, in imitation of his countrymen, by pillaging the richer and more southern coasts of Europe. He collected a body of troops, which, like that of all those ravagers, was composed of Norwegians, Swedes, Frisians, Danes, and adventurers of all nations, who being accustomed to a roving, unsettled life, took delight in nothing but war and plunder. His reputation brought him associates from all quarters; and a vision, which he pretended to have appeared to him in his sleep, and which, according to his interpretation of it, prognosticated the greatest successes, proved also a powerful incentive with those ignorant and superstitious people.[*]

He tricked Rollo into feeling safe with a deceptive peace, then suddenly attacked him, killing his brother and his bravest officers, forcing him to flee for safety to Scandinavia. There, many of his former subjects, motivated partly by loyalty to their prince and partly by the oppression from the Danish king, rallied around him and promised to support him in every endeavor. Instead of trying to reclaim his ancestral lands, where he would face strong resistance from the Danes, Rollo decided to pursue an easier yet more significant goal and make his fortune like his fellow countrymen by raiding the richer and more southern coasts of Europe. He gathered a group of soldiers, made up of Norwegians, Swedes, Frisians, Danes, and adventurers from all over, who were used to a life of roaming and found joy only in warfare and plunder. His reputation attracted allies from all directions, and a vision that he claimed to have seen in a dream, which he interpreted as a sign of great success, also served as a strong motivator for those superstitious and naive people.[*]

     [* Dudo, p. 71. Gul. Gemet. in epist. ad Gul.
     Conq.]
[* Dudo, p. 71. Gul. Gemet. in epist. ad Gul. Conq.]

The first attempt made by Rollo was on England, near the end of Alfred’s reign, when that great monarch, having settled Guthrum and his followers in East Anglia, and others of those freebooters in Northumberland, and having restored peace to his harassed country, had established the most excellent military, as well as civil, institutions among the English. The prudent Dane, finding that no advantages could be gained over such a people, governed by such a prince, soon turned his enterprises against France, which he found more exposed to his inroads;[**] and during the reigns of Eudes, a usurper, and of Charles the Simple, a weak prince, he committed the most destructive ravages, both on the inland and maritime provinces of that kingdom. The French, having no means of defence against a leader who united all the valor of his countrymen with the policy of more civilized nations, were obliged to submit to the expedient practised by Alfred, and to offer the invaders a settlement in some of those provinces which they had depopulated by their arms.[***]

Rollo's first attempt was on England, near the end of Alfred’s reign. That great king had settled Guthrum and his followers in East Anglia, as well as others of those raiders in Northumberland. Having restored peace to his troubled country, he established excellent military and civil institutions among the English. The wise Dane realized that he couldn't gain any advantages over such a people, governed by such a king, and quickly redirected his efforts towards France, which was more vulnerable to his attacks. During the reigns of Eudes, a usurper, and Charles the Simple, a weak king, he wreaked havoc across both the inland and coastal regions of that kingdom. The French, unable to defend themselves against a leader who combined the bravery of his fellow countrymen with the strategies of more advanced nations, had to resort to the same strategy employed by Alfred, offering the invaders a settlement in some of the provinces they had ravaged with their campaigns.

     [** Gul Gemet lib. ii. cap 6.]

     [*** Dudo, p. 82.]
     [** Gul Gemet lib. ii. cap 6.]

     [*** Dudo, p. 82.]

The reason why the Danes, for many years, pursued measures so different from those which had been embraced by the Goths, Vandals, Franks, Burgundians, Lombards, and other northern conquerors, was the great difference in the method of attack which was practised by these several nations, and to which the nature of their respective situations necessarily confined them. The latter tribes, living in an inland country, made incursions by land upon the Roman empire; and when they entered far into the frontiers, they were obliged to carry along with them their wives and families, whom they had no hopes of soon revisiting, and who could not otherwise participate of their plunder. This circumstance quickly made them think of forcing a settlement in the provinces which they had overrun: and these barbarians, spreading themselves over the country, found an interest in protecting the property and industry of the people whom they had subdued. But the Danes and Norwegians, invited by their maritime situation, and obliged to maintain themselves in their uncultivated country by fishing, had acquired some experience of navigation; and, in their military excursions, pursued the method practised against the Roman empire by the more early Saxons. They made descents in small bodies from their ships, or rather boats, and ravaging the coasts, returned with the booty to their families, whom they could not conveniently carry along with them in those hazardous enterprises. But when they increased their armaments, made incursions into the inland countries, and found it safe to remain longer in the midst of the enfeebled enemy, they had been accustomed to crowd their vessels with their wives and children, and having no longer any temptation to return to their own country, they willingly embraced an opportunity of settling in the warm climates and cultivated fields of the south.

The reason the Danes, for many years, followed such different strategies from those adopted by the Goths, Vandals, Franks, Burgundians, Lombards, and other northern conquerors was primarily due to the significant differences in how these groups attacked, which was shaped by their respective situations. The latter tribes, living inland, conducted land raids into the Roman Empire; and when they moved far into enemy territory, they had to bring their wives and families along, knowing they wouldn't be able to return soon, and those family members couldn't share in the spoils. This situation quickly made them consider establishing settlements in the provinces they had invaded. These barbarians, spreading out across the land, developed an interest in protecting the property and livelihoods of the people they had conquered. However, the Danes and Norwegians, inspired by their coastal geography and reliant on fishing to survive in their rugged homeland, gained some sailing experience. In their military raids, they emulated the strategy used by the earlier Saxons against the Roman Empire. They would land in small groups from their ships, or rather boats, raid the coasts, and return with the loot to their families, whom they couldn't easily take along on these risky ventures. But as they increased their forces, invaded inland, and found it safe to stay longer among the weakened enemy, they became accustomed to cramming their vessels with their wives and children. With no strong reason to return to their own land, they eagerly took the chance to settle in the warmer climates and fertile lands of the south.

Affairs were in this situation with Rollo and his followers, when Charles proposed to relinquish to them part of the province formerly called Neustria, and to purchase peace on these hard conditions. After all the terms were fully settled, there appeared only one circumstance shocking to the haughty Dane: he was required to do homage to Charles for this province, and to put himself in that humiliating posture imposed on vassals by the rites of the feudal law. He long refused to submit to this indignity; but, being unwilling to lose such important advantages for a mere ceremony, he made a sacrifice of his pride to his interest, and acknowledged himself, in form, the vassal of the French monarch.[*] Charles gave him his daughter Gisla in marriage; and, that he might bind him faster to his interests, made him a donation of a considerable territory, besides that which he was obliged to surrender to him by his stipulation.

Things were at this point with Rollo and his followers when Charles suggested giving them part of the province that used to be called Neustria in exchange for peace under these tough terms. Once all the details were settled, there was only one thing that shocked the proud Dane: he was required to swear loyalty to Charles for this province and to take on the humiliating position that vassals were made to assume by feudal law. He initially refused to accept this humiliation; however, not wanting to give up such significant benefits for a mere formality, he sacrificed his pride for his interests and officially acknowledged himself as a vassal of the French king. Charles then gave him his daughter Gisla in marriage, and to ensure Rollo was more closely tied to his interests, he granted him a sizable territory in addition to what he had to surrender as part of their agreement.

     [* Ypod. Neust. p. 417.]
[* Ypod. Neust. p. 417.]

When some of the French nobles informed him that, in return for so generous a present, it was expected that he should throw himself at the king’s feet, and make suitable acknowledgments for his bounty, Rollo replied, that he would rather decline the present; and it was with some difficulty they could persuade him to make that compliment by one of his captains. The Dane, commissioned for this purpose, full of indignation at the order, and despising so unwarlike a prince, caught Charles by the foot, and pretending to carry it to his mouth, that he might kiss it, overthrew him before all his courtiers. The French, sensible of their present weakness, found it prudent to overlook this insult.[*]

When some of the French nobles told him that, in exchange for such a generous gift, he was expected to throw himself at the king’s feet and properly acknowledge his generosity, Rollo replied that he would rather turn down the gift. It took some convincing for them to get him to make that gesture through one of his captains. The Dane chosen for this task, filled with anger at the command and looking down on such a unmilitary king, grabbed Charles by the foot and, pretending to bring it to his mouth to kiss it, knocked him down in front of all his courtiers. Aware of their current weakness, the French wisely chose to ignore this insult.[*]

     [* Gul. Gemet. lib. ii. cap. 17.]
     [* Gul. Gemet. lib. ii. cap. 17.]

Rollo, who was now in the decline of life, and was tired of wars and depredations, applied himself, with mature counsels to the settlement of his new-acquired territory, which was thenceforth called Normandy; and he parcelled it out among his captains and followers. He followed, in this partition, the customs of the feudal law, which was then universally established in the southern countries of Europe, and which suited the peculiar circumstances of that age. He treated the French subjects, who submitted to him, with mildness and justice; he reclaimed his ancient followers from their ferocious violence; he established law and order throughout his state; and after a life spent in tumults and ravages, he died peaceably in a good old age, and left his dominions to his posterity.[**]

Rollo, now in the later years of his life and weary of wars and destruction, focused on settling his newly acquired territory, which was henceforth known as Normandy. He divided it among his captains and supporters. In this distribution, he adhered to the customs of feudal law, which was widely practiced in southern Europe at the time and suited the unique conditions of that era. He treated the French subjects who submitted to him with kindness and fairness; he restrained his former followers from their brutal ways; he established law and order throughout his region; and after a life filled with turmoil and destruction, he died peacefully at an old age, leaving his lands to his descendants.[**]

     [** Gul. Gemet. lib. ii. cap. 19, 20, 21.]
[** Gul. Gemet. lib. ii. cap. 19, 20, 21.]

William I., who succeeded him, governed the duchy twenty-five years; and, during that time, the Normans, who were thoroughly intermingled with the French, had acquired their language, had imitated their manners, and had made such progress towards cultivation, that, on the death of William, his son Richard, though a minor,[***] inherited his dominions; a sure proof that the Normans were already somewhat advanced in civility, and that their government could now rest secure on its laws and civil institutions, and was not wholly sustained by the abilities of the sovereign. Richard, after a long reign of fifty-four years, was succeeded by his son, of the same name, in the year 996,[****] which was eighty-five years after the first establishment of the Normans in France. This was the duke who gave his sister Emma in marriage to Ethelred, king of England, and who thereby formed connections with a country which his posterity was so soon after destined to subdue.

William I, who took over after him, ruled the duchy for twenty-five years. During that time, the Normans, who had blended with the French, adopted their language, copied their customs, and progressed towards refinement. By the time William passed away, his son Richard, though still a minor,[***] inherited his territories, which clearly showed that the Normans had made significant strides in civility and that their government could stand firm on its laws and civil institutions, rather than relying solely on the capabilities of the ruler. After a long reign of fifty-four years, Richard was succeeded by his son, also named Richard, in the year 996,[****] which was eighty-five years after the Normans first settled in France. This duke arranged for his sister Emma to marry Ethelred, the king of England, thus establishing ties with a country that his descendants would soon conquer.

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 459. Grl. Geinet, lib. iv.
     cup. 1.]

     [**** Order. Vitalis, p. 459.]
     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 459. Grl. Geinet, lib. iv.
     cup. 1.]

     [**** Order. Vitalis, p. 459.]

The Danes had been established during a longer period in England than in France; and though the similarity of their original language to that of the Saxons invited them to a more early coalition with the natives, they had hitherto found so little example of civilized manners among the English, that they retained all their ancient ferocity, and valued themselves only on their national character of military bravery. The recent, as well as more ancient achievements of their countrymen tended to support this idea; and the English princes particularly Athelstan and Edgar, sensible of that superiority had been accustomed to keep in pay bodies of Danish troops, who were quartered about the country, and committed many violences upon the inhabitants. These mercenaries had attained to such a height of luxury, according to the old English writers,[*] that they combed their hair once a day, bathed themselves once a week, changed their clothes frequently; and by all these arts of effeminacy, as well as by their military character, had rendered themselves so agreeable to the fair sex, that they debauched the wives and daughters of the English, and dishonored many families. But what most provoked the inhabitants was, that instead of defending them against invaders, they were ever ready to betray them to the foreign Danes, and to associate themselves with all straggling parties of that nation.

The Danes had been settled in England for a longer time than in France; and even though their original language was quite similar to that of the Saxons, which might have led to an earlier alliance with the locals, they had found so little evidence of civilized behavior among the English that they held on to all their ancient brutality and prided themselves solely on their reputation for military courage. The recent and past achievements of their fellow countrymen reinforced this belief; the English kings, particularly Athelstan and Edgar, aware of this superiority, had often hired Danish troops, who were stationed throughout the country and committed various abuses against the locals. These mercenaries had reached such a level of luxury, according to old English writers,[*] that they combed their hair daily, bathed once a week, and frequently changed their clothes; through these acts of softness, along with their military reputation, they became so appealing to women that they seduced the wives and daughters of the English, bringing shame to many families. However, what infuriated the locals the most was that instead of defending them against invaders, they were always ready to betray them to the foreign Danes and to team up with any wandering groups of that nation.

The animosity between the inhabitants of English and Danish race, had, from these repeated injuries, risen to a great height, when Ethelred, from a policy incident to weak princes embraced the cruel resolution of massacring the latter throughout all his dominions.[**] 4

The hostility between the English and Danish people had escalated significantly due to these ongoing offenses when Ethelred, influenced by the typical strategy of weak rulers, decided to carry out a brutal plan to slaughter the Danes across all his territories.[**] 4

     [* Wallingford, p. 547.]

     [** See note D, at the end of the volume.]
     [* Wallingford, p. 547.]

     [** See note D, at the end of the volume.]

1002.

1002.

Secret orders were despatched to commence the execution every where on the same day, and the festival of St. Brice, which fell on a Sunday, [November 13,] the day on which the Danes usually bathed themselves, was chosen for that purpose. It is needless to repeat the accounts transmitted concerning the barbarity of this massacre: the rage of the populace, excited by so many injuries, sanctioned by authority, and stimulated by example, distinguished not between innocence and guilt, spared neither sex nor age, and was not satiated without the tortures as well as death of the unhappy victims. Even Gunilda, sister to the king of Denmark, who had married Earl Paling, and had embraced Christianity, was, by the advice of Edric, earl of Wilts, seized and condemned to death by Ethelred, after seeing her husband and children butchered before her face. This unhappy princess foretold, in the agonies of despair, that her murder would soon be avenged by the total ruin of the English nation.

Secret orders were sent out to carry out executions everywhere on the same day, and the festival of St. Brice, which fell on a Sunday, [November 13], the day when the Danes typically bathed, was selected for this purpose. There's no need to repeat the accounts of the brutality of this massacre: the anger of the people, fueled by so many grievances, backed by authority, and encouraged by example, did not differentiate between the innocent and the guilty, showed no mercy to any sex or age, and was not satisfied without inflicting torture as well as death on the unfortunate victims. Even Gunilda, sister of the king of Denmark, who had married Earl Paling and accepted Christianity, was captured and condemned to death by Ethelred, on the advice of Edric, earl of Wilts, after witnessing her husband and children slaughtered before her eyes. This tragic princess predicted, in her despair, that her death would soon be avenged by the complete destruction of the English nation.

1003.

1003.

Never was prophecy better fulfilled; and never did barbarous policy prove more fatal to the authors. Sweyn and his Danes, who wanted but a pretence for invading the English, appeared off the western coast, and threatened to take full revenge for the slaughter of their countrymen. Exeter fell first into their hands, from the negligence or treachery of Earl Hugh, a Norman, who had been made governor by the interest of Queen Emma. They began to spread their devastations over the country, when the English, sensible what outrages they must now expect from their barbarous and offended enemy, assembled more early, and in greater numbers than usual, and made an appearance of vigorous resistance. But all these preparations were frustrated by the treachery of Duke Alfric, who was intrusted with the command, and who, feigning sickness, refused to lead the army against the Danes, till it was dispirited, and at last dissipated, by his fatal misconduct. Alfric soon after died, and Edric, a greater traitor than he, who had married the king’s daughter, and had acquired a total ascendant over him, succeeded Alfric in the government of Mercia, and in the command of the English armies. A great famine, proceeding partly from the bad seasons, partly from the decay of agriculture, added to all the other miseries of the inhabitants.

Never was a prophecy more perfectly fulfilled, and never did a brutal policy turn out to be more disastrous for its creators. Sweyn and his Danes, looking for any excuse to invade England, showed up off the western coast and threatened to take revenge for the deaths of their fellow countrymen. Exeter fell first due to the negligence or betrayal of Earl Hugh, a Norman who had been appointed governor through Queen Emma's influence. As they started spreading destruction across the land, the English, aware of the horrors they were about to face from their fierce and angered enemy, gathered earlier and in greater numbers than usual, putting up a show of strong resistance. But all these efforts were undermined by the betrayal of Duke Alfric, who was put in charge and pretended to be ill, refusing to lead the army against the Danes until the troops became disheartened and eventually fell apart due to his disastrous leadership. Alfric soon died, and Edric, an even greater traitor who had married the king’s daughter and gained total control over him, took over Alfric's role in governing Mercia and commanding the English armies. A severe famine, caused partly by bad weather and partly by declining agriculture, compounded the suffering of the people.

1007

1007

The country, wasted by the Danes, harassed by the fruitless expeditions of its own forces, was reduced to the utmost desolation, and at last submitted to the infamy of purchasing a precarious peace from the enemy, by the payment of thirty thousand pounds.

The country, ravaged by the Danes and troubled by the ineffective attempts of its own army, was brought to complete ruin, and eventually agreed to the disgrace of buying a fragile peace from the enemy by paying thirty thousand pounds.

The English endeavored to employ this interval in making preparations against the return of the Danes, which they had reason soon to expect. A law was made, ordering the proprietors of eight hides of land to provide each a horseman and a complete suit of armor, and those of three hundred and ten hides to equip a ship for the defence of the coast. When this navy was assembled, which must have consisted of near eight hundred vessels,[*] all hopes of its success were disappointed by the factions, animosities, and dissensions of the nobility. Edric had impelled his brother Brightric to prefer an accusation of treason against Wolfnoth, governor of Sussex, the father of the famous Earl Godwin; and that nobleman, well acquainted with the malevolence as well as power of his enemy, found no means of safety Dut in deserting with twenty ships to the Danes.

The English tried to use this time to prepare for the return of the Danes, which they had reason to expect soon. A law was created requiring landowners of eight hides to provide a horseman and a full set of armor, while those with three hundred and ten hides had to equip a ship for coastal defense. When this navy was gathered, which must have included nearly eight hundred vessels,[*] all hopes for its success were dashed by the rivalries, conflicts, and disagreements among the nobility. Edric had pushed his brother Brightric to accuse Wolfnoth, the governor of Sussex and father of the famous Earl Godwin, of treason; and that nobleman, well aware of his enemy's hostility and power, saw no way to stay safe except by fleeing with twenty ships to the Danes.

     [* There were two hundred and forty-three thousand
     six hundred hides in England. Consequently, the ships
     equipped must be seven hundred and eighty-five. The cavalry
     was thirty thousand four hundred and fifty men.]
     [* There were two hundred and forty-three thousand six hundred hides in England. Consequently, the ships equipped must be seven hundred and eighty-five. The cavalry was thirty thousand four hundred and fifty men.]

Brightric pursued him with a fleet of eighty sail; but his ships being shattered in a tempest, and stranded on the coast, he was suddenly attacked by Wolfnoth, and all his vessels burnt and destroyed. The imbecility of the king was little capable of repairing this misfortune. The treachery of Edric frustrated every plan for future defence; and the English navy, disconcerted, discouraged, and divided, was at last scattered into its several harbors.

Brightric chased him with a fleet of eighty ships; however, his vessels were wrecked in a storm and stranded on the shore. He was then suddenly attacked by Wolfnoth, resulting in the burning and destruction of all his ships. The king's incompetence made it difficult to recover from this disaster. Edric's betrayal undermined every plan for future defense, and the English navy, confused, demoralized, and split up, was ultimately scattered back to its various ports.

It is almost impossible, or would be tedious, to relate particularly all the miseries to which the English were henceforth exposed. We hear of nothing but the sacking and burning of towns; the devastation of the open country; the appearance of the enemy in every quarter of the kingdom; their cruel diligence in discovering any corner which had not been ransacked by their former violence. The broken and disjointed narration of the ancient historians is here well adapted to the nature of the war, which was conducted by such sudden inroads, as would have been dangerous even to a united and well-governed kingdom, but proved fatal where nothing but a general consternation and mutual diffidence and dissension prevailed. The governors of one province refused to march to the assistance of another, and were at last terrified from assembling their forces for the defence of their own province. General councils were summoned; but either no resolution was taken, or none was carried into execution. And the only expedient in which the English agreed, was the base and imprudent one of buying a new peace from the Danes, by the payment of forty-eight thousand pounds.

It’s nearly impossible, or at least really tedious, to specifically list all the miseries the English faced from now on. All we hear about is the looting and burning of towns, the devastation of rural areas, the enemy showing up everywhere in the kingdom, and their relentless efforts to find any place that hadn’t already been destroyed by their previous violence. The fragmented and disjointed accounts of ancient historians fit well with the nature of this war, which was marked by sudden raids that would have been dangerous even for a united and well-governed kingdom, but proved disastrous where only general panic, distrust, and conflict existed. Leaders of one region refused to help another and eventually became too frightened to gather their forces to protect their own region. General meetings were called, but either no decisions were made or none were put into action. The only agreement among the English was the cowardly and reckless decision to buy a new peace from the Danes by paying forty-eight thousand pounds.

1011.

1011.

This measure did not bring them even that short interval of repose which they had expected from it. The Danes, disregarding all engagements, continued their devastations and hostilities; levied a new contribution of eight thousand pounds upon the county of Kent alone; murdered the archbishop of Canterbury, who had refused to countenance this exaction; and the English nobility found no other resource than that of submitting everywhere to the Danish monarch, swearing allegiance to him, and delivering him hostages for their fidelity. Ethelred equally afraid of the violence of the enemy, and the treachery of his own subjects, fled into Normandy,

This measure didn't even give them that brief moment of rest they had hoped for. The Danes ignored all agreements and continued their destruction and attacks; they imposed a new tax of eight thousand pounds on the county of Kent alone; they killed the archbishop of Canterbury, who had refused to support this demand; and the English nobility found no other option but to submit completely to the Danish king, pledging loyalty to him and giving him hostages to prove their loyalty. Ethelred, equally scared of the enemy's violence and the betrayal of his own people, fled to Normandy,

1013

1013

whither he had sent before him Queen Emma, and her two sons, Alfred and Edward. Richard received his unhappy guests with a generosity that does honor to his memory.

whither he had sent ahead Queen Emma and her two sons, Alfred and Edward. Richard welcomed his unfortunate guests with a generosity that does honor to his memory.

1014

1014

The king had not been above six weeks in Normandy, when he heard of the death of Sweyn, who expired at Gainsborough, before he had time to establish himself in his new-acquired dominions. The English prelates and nobility, taking advantage of this event, sent over a deputation to Normandy, inviting Ethelred to return to them, expressing a desire of being again governed by their native prince, and intimating their hopes that, being now tutored by experience, he would avoid all those errors which had been attended with such misfortunes to himself and to his people. But the misconduct of Ethelred was incurable; and on his resuming the government, he discovered the same incapacity, indolence, cowardice, and credulity, which had so often exposed him to the insults of his enemies. His son-in-law Edric, notwithstanding his repeated treasons, retained such influence at court, as to instil into the king jealousies of Sigefert and Morcar, two of the chief nobles of Mercia. Edric allured them into his house, where he murdered them; while Ethelred participated in the infamy of the action, by confiscating their estates, and thrusting into a convent the widow of Sigefert. She was a woman of singular beauty and merit; and in a visit which was paid her, during her confinement, by Prince Edmond, the king’s eldest son, she inspired him with so violent an affection, that he released her from the convent, and soon after married her, without the consent of his father.

The king had been in Normandy for less than six weeks when he heard about Sweyn's death, which occurred at Gainsborough before he could settle into his newly acquired lands. The English bishops and nobles took advantage of this situation and sent a delegation to Normandy, inviting Ethelred to return, expressing their wish to be governed by their native prince again, and hinting that, now having learned from experience, he would avoid the mistakes that had led to so much misfortune for himself and his people. However, Ethelred's poor leadership was unchangeable; upon resuming control, he showed the same inability, laziness, cowardice, and gullibility that had often left him vulnerable to his enemies. His son-in-law Edric, despite his repeated betrayals, maintained enough influence at court to instill suspicion in the king towards Sigefert and Morcar, two prominent nobles of Mercia. Edric lured them to his home, where he killed them; Ethelred shared in the scandal by seizing their properties and sending Sigefert's widow to a convent. She was a woman of remarkable beauty and worth; during a visit from Prince Edmond, the king's eldest son, while she was imprisoned, he became so infatuated with her that he freed her from the convent and soon married her, without his father's approval.

Meanwhile the English found in Canute, the son and successor of Sweyn, an enemy no less terrible than the prince from whom death had so lately delivered them. He ravaged the eastern coast with merciless fury, and put ashore all the English hostages at Sandwich, after having cut off their hands and noses. He was obliged, by the necessity of his affairs, to make a voyage to Denmark; but, returning soon after, he continued his depredations along the southern coast He even broke into the counties of Dorset, Wilts, and Somerset where an army was assembled against him, under the command of Prince Edmond and Duke Edric. The latter still continued his perfidious machinations, and after endeavoring in vain to got the prince into his power, he found means to disperse the army, and he then openly deserted to Canute with forty vessels.

Meanwhile, the English found that Canute, the son and successor of Sweyn, was just as terrifying an enemy as the prince from whom they had only recently escaped. He ravaged the eastern coast with relentless fury and brought all the English hostages to Sandwich, after having cut off their hands and noses. He had to go to Denmark for a while to deal with urgent matters, but upon his return, he continued his attacks along the southern coast. He even invaded the counties of Dorset, Wilts, and Somerset, where an army was gathered against him, led by Prince Edmond and Duke Edric. The latter still persisted with his treacherous schemes, and after unsuccessfully trying to capture the prince, he managed to scatter the army and then openly defected to Canute with forty ships.

1015.

1015.

Notwithstanding this misfortune, Edmond was not disconcerted; but assembling all the force of England, was in a condition to give battle to the enemy. The king had had such frequent experience of perfidy among his subjects, that he had lost all confidence in them: he remained at London, pretending sickness, but really from apprehensions that they intended to buy their peace, by delivering him into the hands of his enemies. The army called aloud for their sovereign to march at their head against the Danes; and, on his refusal to take the field, they were so discouraged, that those vast preparations became ineffectual for the defence of the kingdom. Edmond, deprived of all regular supplies to maintain his soldiers, was obliged to commit equal ravages with those which were practised by the Danes; and, after making some fruitless expeditions into the north, which had submitted entirely to Canute’s power, he retired to London, determined there to maintain to the last extremity the small remains of English liberty. He here found every thing in confusion by the death of the king, who expired after an unhappy and inglorious reign of thirty-five years.

Despite this misfortune, Edmond was not discouraged; instead, he gathered all the strength of England and prepared to fight the enemy. The king had experienced so much treachery among his subjects that he no longer trusted them: he stayed in London, pretending to be ill, but truly fearing that they meant to betray him to his enemies. The army loudly called for their king to lead them against the Danes; when he refused to go into battle, they became so disheartened that their massive preparations failed to protect the kingdom. Edmond, lacking proper supplies to support his soldiers, was forced to inflict similar devastation as the Danes. After making some unsuccessful campaigns in the north, where the region had completely submitted to Canute’s rule, he returned to London, resolved to defend the remnants of English freedom until the very end. There, he found everything in chaos due to the death of the king, who had passed away after a troubled and unremarkable reign of thirty-five years.

1016.

1016.

He left two sons by his first marriage, Edmond, who succeeded him, and Edwy, whom Canute afterwards murdered. His two sons by the second marriage, Anred and Edward, were, immediately upon Ethelred’s death, conveyed into Normandy by Queen Emma.

He had two sons from his first marriage, Edmond, who took over after him, and Edwy, who was later killed by Canute. His two sons from his second marriage, Anred and Edward, were taken to Normandy by Queen Emma right after Ethelred died.





EDMOND IRONSIDE

This prince, who received the name of Ironside from his hardy valor, possessed courage and abilities sufficient to have prevented his country from sinking into those calamities, but not to raise it from that abyss of misery into which it had already fallen. Among the other misfortunes of the English, treachery and disaffection had crept in among the nobility and prelates; and Edmond found no better expedient for stopping the further progress of these fatal evils, than to lead his army instantly into the field, and to employ them against the common enemy. After meeting with some success at Gillingnam, he prepared himself to decide, in one general engagement, the fate of his crown: and at Scoerston, in the county of Glocester, he offered battle to the enemy, who were commanded by Canute and Edric. Fortune, in the beginning of the day, declared for him; but Edric, having cut off the head of one Osmer, whose countenance resembled that of Edmond fixed it on a spear, carried it through the ranks in triumph, and called aloud to the English, that it was time to fly; for, behold! the head of their sovereign. And though Edmond, observing the consternation of the troops, took off his helmet, and showed himself to them, the utmost he could gain by his activity and valor was to leave the victory undecided. Edric now took a surer method to ruin him, by pretending to desert to him; and as Edmond was well acquainted with his power, and probably knew no other of the chief nobility in whom he could repose more confidence, he was obliged, notwithstanding the repeated perfidy of the man, to give him a considerable command in the army. A battle soon after ensued at Assington, in Essex; where Edric, flying in the beginning of the day, occasioned the total defeat of the English, followed by a great slaughter of the nobility. The indefatigable Edmond, however, had still resources. Assembling a new army at Glocester, he was again in condition to dispute the field; when the Danish and English nobility, equally harassed with those convulsions obliged their kings to come to a compromise, and to divide the kingdom between them by treaty. Canute reserved to himself the northern division, consisting of Mercia, East Anglia, and Northumberland, which he had entirely subdued. The southern parts were left to Edmond. The prince survived the treaty about a month. He was murdered at Oxford by two of his chamberlains, accomplices of Edric, who thereby made way for the succession of Canute the Dane to the crown of England.

This prince, who earned the name Ironside for his brave valor, had the courage and skills to prevent his country from falling into disaster, but not enough to lift it out of the misery it had already sunk into. Among the other misfortunes faced by the English, betrayal and disloyalty had spread among the nobility and church leaders. Edmond found no better way to stop the further spread of these devastating issues than to immediately lead his army into battle against the common enemy. After achieving some success at Gillingnam, he prepared to determine the fate of his crown in one major battle. At Scoerston, in Gloucestershire, he challenged the enemy, commanded by Canute and Edric. Fortune initially favored him, but Edric, after killing a man named Osmer, whose appearance was similar to Edmond's, mounted his head on a spear and paraded it through the ranks, shouting to the English that it was time to flee since they were looking at their king's head. Even though Edmond took off his helmet to show himself to the troops and attempted to reassure them, his efforts only resulted in an undecided battle. Edric then devised a more reliable way to betray him by pretending to switch sides. Despite knowing Edric's treachery and realizing he couldn't trust anyone else among the nobility, Edmond was forced to give him a significant command in the army. A battle soon followed at Assington, in Essex, where Edric fled at the start of the fight, leading to a complete defeat of the English and a heavy loss of nobility. However, the tireless Edmond still had resources available. Gathering a new army in Gloucestershire, he was again ready to fight when both the Danish and English nobles, equally worn out by the turmoil, pressured their kings to reach a compromise and divide the kingdom through a treaty. Canute claimed the northern part, which included Mercia, East Anglia, and Northumberland, all of which he had conquered. The southern regions were left to Edmond. The prince lived for about a month after the treaty. He was murdered in Oxford by two of his chamberlains, who were accomplices of Edric, thus paving the way for Canute the Dane to succeed to the crown of England.





CANUTE

1017.

1017.

The English, who had been unable to defend their country, and maintain their independency, under so active and brave a prince as Edmond, could after his death expect nothing but total subjection from Canute, who, active and brave himself, and at the head of a great force, was ready to take advantage of the minority of Edwin and Edward, the two sons of Edmond. Yet this conqueror, who was commonly so little scrupulous, showed himself anxious to cover his injustice under plausible pretences. Before he seized the dominions of the English princes, he summoned a general assembly of the states, in order to fix the succession of the kingdom. He here suborned some nobles to depose that, in the treaty of Glocester it had been verbally agreed, either to name Canute, in case of Edmond’s death, successor to his dominions, or tutor to hit children, (for historians vary in this particular;) and that evidence, supported by the great power of Canute, determined the states immediately to put the Danish monarch in possession of the government. Canute, jealous of the two princes, but sensible that he should render himself extremely odious if he ordered them to be despatched in England, sent them abroad to his ally, the king of Sweden, whom he desired, as soon as they arrived at his court, to free him, by their death, from a& farther anxiety. The Swedish monarch was too generous to comply with the request; but being afraid of drawing on himself a quarrel with Canute, by protecting the young princes, he sent them to Solomon, king of Hungary, to be educated in his court. The elder, Edwin, was afterwards married to the sister of the king of Hungary; but the English prince dying without issue, Solomon gave his sister-in-law, Agatha, daughter of the emperor Henry the Second, in marriage to Edward, the younger brother; and she bore him Edgar, Atheling, Margaret, afterwards queen of Scotland, and Christina, who retired into a convent.

The English, who had failed to defend their country and maintain their independence under such an active and courageous leader as Edmund, could only expect total subjugation from Canute after his death. Canute, also active and brave, was ready to seize the opportunity presented by the minority of Edmund's two sons, Edwin and Edward, with his substantial forces. Yet, this conqueror, typically seen as not very scrupulous, appeared eager to justify his actions with convincing excuses. Before taking control of the English princes' lands, he called a general assembly of the states to establish the kingdom's succession. There, he bribed some nobles to claim that during the treaty of Gloucester, it had been verbally agreed to either name Canute as Edmund's successor in the event of his death or as guardian to his children (historical accounts differ on this). This claim, backed by Canute's significant power, led the states to quickly install the Danish monarch in control of the government. Canute, wary of the two princes yet aware that ordering them killed in England would make him very unpopular, sent them abroad to his ally, the King of Sweden, with the desire that, upon their arrival, he would eliminate them from any further concern. The Swedish king was too honorable to fulfill this request, but fearing conflict with Canute for protecting the young princes, he sent them to Solomon, the King of Hungary, to be raised in his court. The elder, Edwin, later married the sister of the King of Hungary, but since he died without children, Solomon arranged for his sister-in-law, Agatha, the daughter of Emperor Henry II, to marry Edward, the younger brother. She bore him Edgar, Atheling, Margaret, who eventually became queen of Scotland, and Christina, who entered a convent.

Canute, though he had reached the great point of his ambition in obtaining possession of the English crown, was obliged at first to make great sacrifices to it; and to gratify the chief of the nobility, by bestowing on them the most extensive governments and jurisdictions. He created Thurkill earl or duke of East Anglia, (for these titles were then nearly of the same import,) Yric of Northumberland, and Edric of Mercia; reserving only to himself the administration of Wessex. But seizing afterwards a favorable opportunity, he expelled Thurkill and Yric from their governments, and banished them the kingdom; he put to death many of the English nobility, on whose fidelity he could not rely, and whom he hated on account of their disloyalty to their native prince. And even the traitor Edric, having had the assurance to reproach him with his services, was condemned to be executed, and his body to be thrown into the Thames; a suitable reward for his multiplied acts of perfidy and rebellion.

Canute, even after achieving his goal of becoming King of England, had to make significant sacrifices at first. To keep the main nobles satisfied, he granted them extensive powers and territories. He made Thurkill the earl or duke of East Anglia (since those titles were nearly the same at the time), Yric of Northumberland, and Edric of Mercia, only keeping the administration of Wessex for himself. But later, taking advantage of a suitable moment, he removed Thurkill and Yric from their positions and exiled them from the kingdom. He executed many of the English nobles whom he couldn't trust and detested for their disloyalty to their rightful king. Even the traitor Edric, who had the nerve to criticize him for his services, was sentenced to death, with his body thrown into the Thames; a fitting punishment for his numerous acts of betrayal and rebellion.

Canute also found himself obliged, in the beginning of his reign, to load the people with heavy taxes, in order to reward his Danish followers: he exacted from them at one time the sum of seventy-two thousand pounds; besides eleven thousand pounds which he levied on London alone. He was probably willing, from political motives, to mulct severely that city, on account of the affection which it had borne to Edmond, and the resistance which it had made to the Danish power in two obstinate sieges.[*] But these rigors were imputed to necessity, and Canute, like a wise prince, was determined that the English, now deprived of all their dangerous leaders, should be reconciled to the Danish yoke, by the justice and impartiality of his administration. He sent back to Denmark as many of his followers as he could safely spare; he restored the Saxon customs in a general assembly of the states; he made no distinction between Danes and English in the distribution of justice; and he took care, by a strict execution of law, to protect the lives and properties of all his people. The Danes were gradually incorporated with his new objects; and both were glad to obtain a little respite from those multiplied calamities, from which the one, no less than the other, had, in their fierce contest for power, experienced such fatal consequences.

Canute also found himself needing to impose heavy taxes on the people at the start of his reign to reward his Danish supporters: he demanded a total of seventy-two thousand pounds from them at one point, along with eleven thousand pounds that he collected from London alone. He likely targeted that city harshly for political reasons, given its loyalty to Edmond and its resistance against the Danish rule during two stubborn sieges.[*] However, these harsh measures were seen as necessary, and Canute, being a wise ruler, wanted the English—now stripped of any threatening leaders—to accept the Danish control through the fairness and equity of his rule. He sent back as many of his followers to Denmark as he could afford to lose; he reinstated Saxon customs during a general assembly of the states; he treated Danes and English equally in his judicial decisions; and he ensured, through strict law enforcement, that the lives and properties of all his subjects were protected. The Danes were gradually integrated with his new domains, and both sides were relieved to get a break from the many disasters they had both faced during their fierce struggle for power.

The removal of Edmond’s children into so distant a country as Hungary, was, next to their death, regarded by Canute as the greatest security to his government: he had no further anxiety, except with regard to Alfred and Edward, who were protected and supported by their uncle Richard, duke of Normandy. Richard even fitted out a great armament, in order to restore the English princes to the throne of their ancestors; and though the navy was dispersed by a storm, Canute saw the danger to which he was exposed, from the enmity of so warlike a people as the Normans. In order to acquire the friendship of the duke, he paid his addresses to Queen Emma, sister of that prince; and promised that he would leave the children, whom he should have by that marriage, in possession of the crown of England. Richard complied with his demand, and sent over Emma to England, where she was soon after married to Canute.[**] The English, though they disapproved of her espousing the mortal enemy of her former husband and his family, were pleased to find at court a sovereign to whom they were accustomed, and who had already formed connections with them; and thus Canute besides securing, by this marriage, the alliance of Normandy gradually acquired, by the same means, the confidence of his own subjects.[***] The Norman prince did not long survive the marriage of Emma; and he left the inheritance of the duchy to his eldest son of the same name; who, dying a year after him without children, was succeeded by his brother Robert, a man of valor and abilities.

The removal of Edmond’s children to such a distant country as Hungary was, after their death, seen by Canute as the biggest safeguard for his rule. He had no more worries, except for Alfred and Edward, who were being protected and backed by their uncle Richard, the duke of Normandy. Richard even organized a large fleet to restore the English princes to their ancestral throne; although the navy was scattered by a storm, Canute recognized the threat he faced from a fierce people like the Normans. To win the duke's favor, he pursued Queen Emma, Richard's sister, and promised that the children they would have together would inherit the crown of England. Richard agreed and sent Emma to England, where she soon married Canute. Although the English disapproved of her marrying the sworn enemy of her late husband and his family, they were glad to see a ruler they were familiar with at court, someone who had already established ties with them. Thus, by marrying Emma, Canute not only secured an alliance with Normandy but also gradually earned the trust of his own people. Richard did not live long after Emma’s marriage, leaving the duchy to his eldest son, who shared his name. This son died a year later without children and was succeeded by his brother Robert, a man of courage and capability.

     [* W. Malms, p. 72. In one of these sieges, Canute
     diverted the coarse of the Thames, and by that means brought
     his ships above London bridge.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 151. W. Malms, p. 73.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 73. Higden, p 275.]
     [* W. Malms, p. 72. In one of these sieges, Canute changed the course of the Thames, which allowed him to move his ships above London Bridge.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 151. W. Malms, p. 73.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 73. Higden, p 275.]

Canute, having settled his power in England beyond all danger of a revolution, made a voyage to Denmark, in order to resist the attacks of the king of Sweden; and he carried along with him a great body of the English, under the command of Earl Godwin. This nobleman had here an opportunity of performing a service, by which he both reconciled the king’s mind to the English nation, and gaining to himself the friendship of his sovereign, laid the foundation of that immense fortune which he acquired to his family. He was stationed next the Swedish camp, and observing a favorable opportunity, which he was obliged suddenly to seize, he Attacked the enemy in the night, drove them from their trenches, threw them into disorder, pursued his advantage, and obtained a decisive victory over them. Next morning, Canute, seeing the English camp entirely abandoned, imagined that those disaffected troops had deserted to the enemy: he was agreeably surprised to find that they were at that time engaged in pursuit of the discomfited Swedes. He was so pleased with this success, and with the manner of obtaining it that he bestowed his daughter in marriage upon Godwin, and treated him ever after with entire confidence and regard.

Canute, having established his rule in England without any threat of rebellion, traveled to Denmark to fend off attacks from the king of Sweden. He brought along a large group of Englishmen, led by Earl Godwin. This nobleman found the chance to do a great service, which both won the king’s favor for the English people and helped him earn the friendship of his monarch, laying the groundwork for the enormous fortune his family would later enjoy. He was positioned close to the Swedish camp and, seizing a favorable opportunity, he launched a surprise attack on the enemy at night. He drove them from their trenches, threw them into chaos, pursued his advantage, and achieved a decisive victory. The next morning, Canute saw that the English camp was completely deserted and thought that those troops had joined the enemy. He was pleasantly surprised to discover they were actually chasing the defeated Swedes. He was so pleased with this success and the way it was accomplished that he gave his daughter in marriage to Godwin and treated him with complete trust and affection afterward.

1028.

1028.

In another voyage, which he made afterwards to Denmark, Canute attacked Norway, and expelling the just but unwarlike Olaus, kept possession of his kingdom till the death of that prince. He had now by his conquests and valor attained the utmost height of grandeur: having leisure from wars and intrigues, he felt the unsatisfactory nature of all human enjoyments; and equally weary of the glories and turmoils of this life, he began to cast his view towards that future existence, which it is so natural for the human mind, whether satiated by prosperity or disgusted with adversity, to make the object of its attention. Unfortunately, the spirit which prevailed in that age gave a wrong direction to his devotion: instead of making compensation to those whom he had injured by his former acts of violence, he employed himself entirely in those exercises of piety which the monks represented as the most meritorious. He built churches, he endowed monasteries, he enriched the ecclesiastics, and he bestowed revenues for the support of chantries at Assington and other places; where he appointed prayers to be said for the souls of those who had there fallen in battle against him. He even undertook a pilgrimage to Rome, where he resided a considerable time: besides obtaining from the pope some privileges for the English school erected there, he engaged all the princes, through whose dominions he was obliged to pass, to desist from those heavy impositions and tolls which they were accustomed to exact from the English pilgrims. By this spirit of devotion no less than by his equitable and politic administration, he gained, in a good measure, the affections of his subjects.

On another journey he took to Denmark, Canute invaded Norway, ousting the rightful but peaceful Olaus, and held onto the throne until that prince's death. Through his victories and courage, he reached the peak of power. With wars and schemes behind him, he recognized the emptiness of all worldly pleasures. Tired of both the honors and chaos of life, he began to think about the afterlife, which is something the human mind naturally turns to, whether it’s satisfied with success or frustrated by failure. Sadly, the mindset of the time misdirected his spirituality: instead of making amends to those he had wronged through his past violence, he focused solely on religious acts that the monks claimed were most virtuous. He built churches, funded monasteries, supported the clergy, and provided income for prayers at Assington and elsewhere for the souls of those who had died battling against him. He even took a pilgrimage to Rome, where he stayed for a significant time; in addition to gaining some privileges for the English school there from the pope, he convinced all the rulers of the lands he traveled through to stop the heavy taxes and tolls they usually imposed on English pilgrims. Through this devotion, as well as his fair and wise governance, he largely won the loyalty of his subjects.

Canute, the greatest and most powerful monarch of his time, sovereign of Denmark and Norway, as well as of England, could not fail of meeting with adulation from his courtiers; a tribute which is liberally paid even to the meanest and weakest princes. Some of his flatterers breaking out one day in admiration of his grandeur, exclaimed that every thing was possible for him; upon which the monarch, it is said, ordered his chair to be set on the sea-shore, while the tide was rising; and as the waters approached, he commanded them to retire, and to obey the voice of him who was lord of the ocean. He feigned to sit some time in expectation of their submission; but when the sea still advanced towards him, and began to wash him with its billows, he turned to his courtiers, and remarked to them, that every creature in the universe was feeble and impotent, and that power resided with one being alone, in whose hands were all the elements of nature; who could say to the ocean, “Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther;” and who could level with his nod the most towering piles of human pride and ambition.

Canute, the greatest and most powerful ruler of his time, king of Denmark and Norway, as well as England, couldn’t help but receive praise from his courtiers, a common tribute even given to the least significant and weakest princes. One day, some of his flatterers erupted in admiration for his greatness, claiming that everything was possible for him. In response, the king is said to have had his throne placed on the shore as the tide was rising. As the water got closer, he commanded it to retreat and obey the voice of its lord. He pretended to sit there for a while, waiting for the sea to submit, but when the waves continued to approach and began to wash over him, he turned to his courtiers and remarked that every creature in the universe was weak and powerless, and that true power belonged to one being alone, who held all the forces of nature; who could tell the ocean, “You may come this far and no further;” and who could bring down the tallest structures of human pride and ambition with just a nod.

1031.

1031.

The only memorable action which Canute performed after his return from Rome, was an expedition against Malcolm, king of Scotland. During the reign of Ethelred, a tax of a shilling a hide had been imposed on all the lands of England. It was commonly called ‘danegelt;’ because the revenue bar been employed either in buying peace with the Danes, or in making preparations against the inroads of that hostile nation. That monarch had required that the same tax should be paid by Cumberland, which was held by the Scots; but Malcolm a warlike prince, told him, that as he was always able to repulse the Danes by his own power, he would neither submit to buy peace of his enemies, nor pay others for resisting them. Ethelred, offended at this reply, which contained a secret reproach on his own conduct, undertook an expedition against Cumberland; but though he committed ravages upon the country, he could never bring Malcolm to a temper more humble or submissive. Canute, after his accession, summoned the Scottish king to acknowledge himself a vassal for Cumberland to the crown of England; but Malcolm refused compliance, on pretence that he owed homage to those princes only who inherited that kingdom by right of blood. Canute was not of a temper to bear this insult; and the king of Scotland soon found, that the sceptre was in very different hands from those of the feeble and irresolute Ethelred. Upon Canute’s appearing on the frontiers with a formidable army Malcolm agreed that his grandson and heir, Duncan, whom he put in possession of Cumberland, should make the submissions required, and that the heirs of Scotland should always acknowledge themselves vassals to England for that province.[*] Canute passed four years in peace after this enterprise, and he died at Shaftesbury;[**] leaving three sons, Sweyn, Harold, and Hardicanute. Sweyn, whom he had by his first marriage with Alfwen, daughter of the earl of Hampshire, was crowned in Norway: Hardicanute, whom Emma had borne him, was in possession of Denmark: Harold, who was of the same marriage with Sweyn, was at that time in England.

The only noteworthy action that Canute took after returning from Rome was an expedition against Malcolm, the king of Scotland. During Ethelred's reign, a tax of a shilling per hide was imposed on all the lands of England, commonly referred to as ‘danegelt’; this tax was used either to buy peace with the Danes or to prepare for their attacks. Ethelred demanded that Cumberland, which was controlled by the Scots, pay the same tax. Malcolm, a fierce warrior, told him that he was capable of defending against the Danes on his own and wouldn’t spend money to buy peace from his enemies or pay others to fight them off. Offended by this response, which indirectly criticized his own actions, Ethelred led an expedition against Cumberland. Although he caused destruction in the area, he could never get Malcolm to back down or show humility. After becoming king, Canute summoned the Scottish king to recognize himself as a vassal of the English crown for Cumberland, but Malcolm refused, claiming he would only show allegiance to those who inherited the throne by blood. Canute was not someone to tolerate this insult, and the Scottish king soon realized that the power dynamic had shifted significantly from the weak and indecisive Ethelred. When Canute appeared at the borders with a strong army, Malcolm agreed that his grandson and heir, Duncan, whom he put in charge of Cumberland, would make the required submissions, and that future heirs of Scotland would always recognize themselves as vassals to England for that region. Canute spent four years in peace after this campaign and died in Shaftesbury, leaving three sons: Sweyn, Harold, and Hardicanute. Sweyn, whom he had with his first wife Alfwen, the daughter of the Earl of Hampshire, was crowned in Norway. Hardicanute, born of Emma, was in control of Denmark, while Harold, from the same marriage as Sweyn, was in England at that time.

     [* W. Malms, p. 74.]

     [** Chron Sax p. 154. W. Malms, p. 76]
     [* W. Malms, p. 74.]

     [** Chron Sax p. 154. W. Malms, p. 76]




HAROLD HAREFOOT

1035.

1035.

Though Canute, in his treaty with Richard, duke of Normandy, had stipulated that his children by Emma should succeed to the crown of England, he had either considered himself as released from that engagement by the death of Richard, or esteemed it dangerous to leave an unsettled and newly-conquered kingdom in the hands of so young a prince as Hardicanute: he therefore appointed, by his will, Harold successor to the crown. This prince was besides present, to maintain his claim; he was favored by all the Danes; and he got immediately possession of his father’s treasures, which might be equally useful, whether he found it necessary to proceed by force or intrigue, in insuring his succession. On the other hand, Hardicanute had the suffrages of the English, who, on account of his being from among them of Queen Emma, regarded him as their countryman; he was favored by the articles of treaty with the duke of Normandy; and above all, his party was espoused by Earl Godwin, the most powerful nobleman in the kingdom, especially in the province of Wessex, the chief seat of the ancient English. Affairs were likely to terminate in a civil war; when, by the interposition of the nobility of both parties, a compromise was made; and it was agreed that Harold should enjoy, together with London, all the provinces north of the Thames, while the possession of the south should remain to Hardicanute: and till that prince should appear and take possession of his dominions, Emma fixed her residence at Winchester, and established her authority over her son’s share of the partition.

Though Canute, in his agreement with Richard, Duke of Normandy, had stated that his children with Emma would inherit the crown of England, he either thought he was free from that promise after Richard's death or believed it was risky to leave a newly-conquered kingdom in the hands of such a young prince as Hardicanute. So, he named Harold as his successor in his will. Harold was present to support his claim, had the backing of all the Danes, and quickly seized his father's treasures, which could prove useful whether he needed to use force or cunning to secure his succession. On the other hand, Hardicanute had the support of the English, who viewed him as one of their own, thanks to his mother, Queen Emma; he benefited from the terms of the treaty with the Duke of Normandy; and, most importantly, he had the backing of Earl Godwin, the strongest noble in the kingdom, particularly in Wessex, the heartland of the English. It looked like things were heading towards a civil war until the nobility from both sides stepped in to mediate, and they agreed that Harold would control London and all the regions north of the Thames, while Hardicanute would keep the south. Until Hardicanute showed up and took control of his lands, Emma moved to Winchester and exercised authority over her son's portion of the division.

Meanwhile Robert, duke of Normandy, died in a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and being succeeded by a son, yet a minor, the two English princes, Alfred and Edward, who found no longer any countenance or protection in that country, gladly embraced the opportunity of paying a visit, with a numerous retinue, to their mother, Emma, who seemed to be placed in a state of so much power and splendor at Winchester. But the face of affairs soon wore a melancholy aspect. Earl Godwin had been gained by the arts of Harold, who promised to espouse the daughter of that nobleman; and while the treaty was yet a secret, these two tyrants laid a plan for the destruction of the English princes. Alfred was invited to London by Harold with many professions of friendship; but when he had reached Guilford, he was set upon by Godwin’s vassals, about six hundred of his train were murdered in the most cruel manner, he himself was taken prisoner, his eyes were put out, and he was conducted to the monastery of Ely, where he died soon after.[*] Edward and Emma, apprised of the fate which was awaiting them, fled beyond sea, the former into Normandy, the latter into Flanders; while Harold, triumphing in his bloody policy, took possession, without resistance, of all the dominions assigned to his brother.

Meanwhile, Robert, Duke of Normandy, died on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, and since he was succeeded by a minor son, the two English princes, Alfred and Edward, who found little support or protection in the country, eagerly took the opportunity to visit their mother, Emma, who seemed to be in a position of great power and prestige in Winchester. However, the situation quickly turned grim. Earl Godwin had been won over by Harold, who promised to marry Godwin's daughter; and while this treaty was still a secret, these two tyrants devised a plan to eliminate the English princes. Harold invited Alfred to London with many expressions of friendship, but when Alfred reached Guildford, he was ambushed by Godwin’s men. About six hundred of his group were brutally murdered, he was captured, blinded, and taken to the monastery of Ely, where he died soon after. Edward and Emma, realizing the danger they faced, fled overseas—the former to Normandy, the latter to Flanders—while Harold, boasting of his bloody tactics, took control of all the lands assigned to his brother without any resistance.

     [* H. Hunting, p. 365. Ypod. Neust. p. 434.
     Hoveden, p. 438. Chron. Mailr. p. 156. Higden, p. 277.
     Chron. St. Petri de Burgo, p. 39. Sim. Dunelm. p. 179. Abbas
     Rieval. p. 366, 374. Brompton, p. 935. Gul. Gemet. lib. vii.
     cap. 11. M. West. p. 209 Flor. Wigorn, p. 622. Alured.
     Beverl. p. 118.]
[* H. Hunting, p. 365. Ypod. Neust. p. 434. Hoveden, p. 438. Chron. Mailr. p. 156. Higden, p. 277. Chron. St. Petri de Burgo, p. 39. Sim. Dunelm. p. 179. Abbas Rieval. p. 366, 374. Brompton, p. 935. Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 11. M. West. p. 209 Flor. Wigorn, p. 622. Alured. Beverl. p. 118.]

This is the only memorable action performed, during a reign of four years, by this prince, who gave so bad a specimen of his character, and whose bodily accomplishments alone are known to us by his appellation of Harefoot, which he acquired from his agility in running and walking. He died on the 14th of April, 1039, little regretted or esteemed by his subjects, and left the succession open to his brother Hardicanute.

This is the only notable action taken during a four-year reign by this prince, who gave a poor example of his character, and whose physical abilities are only known to us by his nickname Harefoot, which he got because of his speed in running and walking. He died on April 14, 1039, and was not much missed or respected by his people, leaving the throne open for his brother Hardicanute.





HARDICANUTE

1039.

1039.

Hardicanute, or Canute the hardy, that is, the robust, (for he top is chiefly known by his bodily accomplishments,) though, by remaining so long in Denmark, he had been deprived of his share in the partition of the kingdom, had not abandoned his pretensions; and he had determined, before Harold’s death, to recover by arms what he had lost, either by his own negligence or by the necessity of his affairs. On pretence of paying a visit to the queen dowager in Flanders, ne had assembled a fleet of sixty sail, and was preparing to make a descent on England, when intelligence of his brother’s death induced him to sail immediately to London, where he was received in triumph, and acknowledged king without opposition.

Hardicanute, or Canute the Hardy, known for his physical strength, had been missing out on his share of the kingdom because he spent so much time in Denmark, but he hadn't given up on his claims. He had planned, before Harold’s death, to use military force to reclaim what he had lost, whether due to his own carelessness or his circumstances. Under the guise of visiting the queen dowager in Flanders, he gathered a fleet of sixty ships and was getting ready to invade England when he learned of his brother’s death. He sailed straight to London, where he was welcomed with triumph and recognized as king without any opposition.

The first act of Hardicanute’s government afforded his subjects a bad prognostic of his future conduct. He was so enraged at Harold for depriving him of his share of the kingdom, and for the cruel treatment of his brother Alfred, that in an impotent desire of revenge against the dead, he ordered his body to be dug up, and to be thrown into the Thames; and when it was found by some fishermen, and buried in London, he ordered it again to be dug up, and to be thrown again into the river; but it was fished up a second time, and then interred with great secrecy. Godwin, equally servile and insolent, submitted to be his instrument in this unnatural and brutal action.

The first act of Hardicanute's rule gave his subjects a bad sign of how he would govern in the future. He was so furious at Harold for taking his part of the kingdom and for the cruel treatment of his brother Alfred that, in a pointless desire for revenge against the dead, he ordered Alfred's body to be dug up and thrown into the Thames. When some fishermen found it and buried it in London, he had it dug up again and thrown back into the river. But it was pulled out a second time and buried in secret. Godwin, equally submissive and arrogant, allowed himself to be used as a tool in this unnatural and brutal act.

That nobleman knew that he was universally believed to have been an accomplice in the barbarity exercised on Alfred, and that he was on that account obnoxious to Hardicanute; and perhaps he hoped, by displaying this rage against Harold’s memory, to justify himself from having had any participation in his counsels. But Prince Edward, being invited over by the king, immediately on his appearance preferred an accusation against Godwin for the murder of Alfred, and demanded justice for that crime. Godwin, in order to appease the king; made him a magnificent present of a galley with a gilt stern, rowed by fourscore men, who wore each of them a gold bracelet on his arm, weighing sixteen ounces, and were armed and clothed in the most sumptuous manner. Hardicanute, pleased with the splendor of this spectacle, quickly forgot his brother’s murder; and on Godwin’s swearing that he was innocent of the crime, he allowed him to be acquitted.

That nobleman knew that everyone believed he was involved in the cruelty inflicted on Alfred, and because of that, he was in trouble with Hardicanute. Perhaps he thought that by showing his anger toward Harold’s memory, he could prove he had no part in Harold’s plans. But when Prince Edward was invited by the king, he immediately accused Godwin of murdering Alfred and demanded justice for that crime. To calm the king down, Godwin presented him with a stunning gift: a grand ship with a gilded stern, rowed by eighty men, each wearing a gold bracelet weighing sixteen ounces, dressed and armed in the most lavish way. Hardicanute, pleased by the sight of such luxury, quickly forgot about his brother’s murder, and when Godwin swore that he was innocent of the crime, he allowed him to go free.

Though Hardicanute before his accession had been called over by the vows of the English, he soon lost the affections of the nation by his misconduct; but nothing appeared more grievous to them than his renewing the imposition of danegelt, and obliging the nation to pay a great sum of money to the fleet which brought him from Denmark. The discontents ran high in many places: in Worcester the populace rose, and put to death two of the collectors. The king, enraged at this opposition, swore vengeance against the city, and ordered three noblemen, Godwin, duke of Wessex, Siward, duke of Northumberland, and Leofric, duke of Mercia, to execute his menaces with the utmost rigor. They were obliged to set fire to the city, and deliver it up to be plundered by their soldiers; but they saved the lives of the inhabitants, whom they confined in a small island of the Severn, called Beverey, till, by their intercession, they were able to appease the king, and obtain the pardon of the supplicants.

Though Hardicanute had been summoned by the English to become king, he quickly lost the people's support due to his bad behavior. However, nothing upset them more than when he reinstated the danegelt tax and forced the nation to pay a large sum to the fleet that brought him over from Denmark. Discontent was widespread: in Worcester, the people rebelled and killed two of the tax collectors. The king, furious at this defiance, vowed to take revenge on the city and ordered three noblemen—Godwin, duke of Wessex, Siward, duke of Northumberland, and Leofric, duke of Mercia—to carry out his threats with full force. They had to set the city on fire and allow their soldiers to loot it. However, they spared the lives of the residents, confining them on a small island in the Severn called Beverey until, through their intervention, they could persuade the king to forgive the people who had prayed for mercy.

This violent government was of short duration. Hardicanute died in two years after his accession, at the nuptials of a Danish lord, which he had honored with his presence. His usual habits of intemperance were so well known, that, notwithstanding his robust constitution, his sudden death gave as little surprise as it did sorrow to his subjects.

This brutal government didn't last long. Hardicanute died two years after he took power, at the wedding of a Danish lord he attended. His regular drinking habits were so well-known that, despite his strong health, his sudden death shocked his subjects just as little as it saddened them.





EDWARD THE CONFESSOR

1041.

1041.

The English, on the death of Hardicanute, saw a favorable opportunity for recovering their liberty, and for shaking off the Danish yoke, under which they had so long labored. Sweyn, king of Norway, the eldest son of Canute, was absent; and as the two last kings had died without issue, none of that race presented himself, nor any whom the Danes could support as successor to the throne. Prince Edward was fortunately at court on his brother’s demise; and though the descendants of Edmond Ironside were the true heirs of the Saxon family, yet their absence in so remote a country as Hungary, appeared a sufficient reason for their exclusion to a people, like the English, so little accustomed to observe a regular order in the succession of their monarchs. All delays might be dangerous, and the present occasion must hastily be embraced, while the Danes, without concert, without a leader, astonished at the present incident, and anxious only for their personal safety, durst not oppose the united voice of the nation.

The English, upon Hardicanute's death, recognized a great chance to regain their freedom and shake off the Danish rule they had endured for so long. Sweyn, king of Norway and the eldest son of Canute, was away; and since the last two kings had died without heirs, there was no one from that lineage to step forward, nor anyone the Danes could support as a successor. Luckily, Prince Edward was at court when his brother died; and even though the descendants of Edmond Ironside were the rightful heirs of the Saxon line, their absence in far-off Hungary seemed like enough reason to exclude them, especially for a people like the English who were not used to strict rules about royal succession. Any delays could be risky, so they had to seize the moment quickly, while the Danes were disorganized, without a leader, shocked by the situation, and only concerned for their own safety, and therefore wouldn’t dare oppose the united voice of the nation.

But this concurrence of circumstances in favor of Edward might have failed of its effect, had his succession been opposed by Godwin, whose power, alliances, and abilities gave him a great influence at all times, especially amidst those sudden opportunities which always attend a revolution of government, and which, either seized or neglected, commonly prove decisive. There were opposite reasons, which divided men’s hopes and fears with regard to Godwin’s conduct. On the one hand, the credit of that nobleman lay chiefly in Wessex, which was almost entirely inhabited by English; it was therefore presumed that he would second the wishes of that people in restoring the Saxon line, and in humbling the Danes, from whom he, as well as they, had reason to dread, as they had already felt, the most grievous oppressions. On the other hand, there subsisted a declared animosity between Edward and Godwin, on account of Alfred’s murder; of which the latter had publicly been accused by the prince, and which he might believe so deep an offence, as could never, on account of any subsequent merits, be sincerely pardoned. But their common friends here interposed; and representing the necessity of their good correspondence, obliged them to lay aside all jealousy and rancor, and concur in restoring liberty to their native country. Godwin only stipulated that Edward, as a pledge of his sincere reconciliation, should promise to marry his daughter Editha; and having fortified himself by this alliance, he summoned a general council at Gillingham, and prepared every measure for securing the succession to Edward. The English were unanimous and zealous in their resolutions; the Danes were divided and dispirited: any small opposition, which appeared in this assembly, was browbeaten and suppressed; and Edward was crowned king, with every Demonstration of duty and affection.

But this set of circumstances in favor of Edward could have fallen through if Godwin had opposed his succession. Godwin’s power, connections, and skills made him a significant force, especially during the sudden opportunities that come with government changes, which can be decisive whether taken or ignored. There were mixed views about Godwin’s intentions. On one side, his reputation was primarily in Wessex, which was mostly settled by the English. It was assumed he would support the desires of the people to restore the Saxon line and keep the Danes in check, as both he and they had suffered greatly under their oppression. On the other side, there was a clear hostility between Edward and Godwin due to Alfred’s murder; Edward had publicly accused Godwin, who might see this offense as too severe to be genuinely forgiven, despite any later good actions. However, their mutual friends stepped in and emphasized the importance of their cooperation, forcing them to set aside any jealousy or bitterness and work together to restore freedom to their homeland. Godwin only asked that Edward promise to marry his daughter Editha as a sign of true reconciliation. Having secured this alliance, he called a general council at Gillingham and made all necessary preparations to ensure Edward's succession. The English were united and enthusiastic in their decisions, while the Danes were fragmented and demoralized. Any slight opposition in the assembly was quickly silenced, and Edward was crowned king with all expressions of loyalty and affection.

The triumph of the English upon this signal and decisive advantage, was at first attended with some insult and violence against the Danes, but the king, by the mildness of his character, soon reconciled the latter to his administration, and the distinction between the two nations gradually disappeared. The Danes were interspersed with the English in most of the provinces; they spoke nearly the same language; they differed little in their manners and laws; domestic dissensions in Denmark prevented, for some years, any powerful invasion from thence which might awaken past animosities; and as the Norman conquest, which ensued soon after, reduced both nations to equal subjection, there is no further mention in history of any difference between them. The joy, however, of their present deliverance made such impression on the minds of the English, that they instituted an annual festival for celebrating that great event; and it was observed in some counties, even to the time of Spelman.[*]

The victory of the English during this significant and decisive moment initially resulted in some insults and violence against the Danes. However, the king, due to his gentle nature, quickly managed to win the Danes over to his administration, and the divide between the two nations gradually faded. Danes were mixed in with the English in most regions; they spoke almost the same language and had similar customs and laws. Internal conflicts in Denmark prevented any strong invasions for several years, which could have rekindled old resentments. When the Norman conquest followed soon after, it put both nations under equal control, and there are no further historical records of any differences between them. Nevertheless, the joy from their newfound freedom left a lasting impression on the English, leading them to establish an annual festival to commemorate that significant event, which continued to be celebrated in some areas even during Spelman's time.[*]

    [* Spelm. Glossary in verbo Hocday.]
[* Spelm. Glossary in verbo Hocday.]

The popularity which Edward enjoyed on his accession was not destroyed by the first act of his administration, his resuming all the grants of his immediate predecessors; an attempt which is commonly attended with the most dangerous consequences. The poverty of the crown convinced the nation that this act of violence was become absolutely necessary; and as the loss fell chiefly on the Danes, who had obtained large grants from the late kings, their countrymen, on account of their services in subduing the kingdom, the English were rather pleased to see them reduced to their primitive poverty. The king’s severity also towards his mother, the queen dowager, though exposed to some more censure, met not with very, general disapprobation. He had hitherto lived on indifferent terms with that princess; he accused her of neglecting him and his brother during their adverse fortune;[**] he remarked that, as the superior qualities of Canute, and his better treatment of her, had made her entirely indifferent to the memory of Etheldred, she also gave the preference to her children of the second bed, and always regarded Hardicanute as her favorite.

The popularity that Edward had when he came to power wasn’t destroyed by his first act as king, which was to take back all the grants given by the kings before him; this move usually leads to serious backlash. The crown's financial struggles made the people understand that this act was absolutely necessary. Since the loss primarily affected the Danes, who had received substantial grants from the previous kings for helping conquer the kingdom, the English were somewhat pleased to see them return to their original state of poverty. The king's harshness toward his mother, the dowager queen, drew some criticism but wasn’t widely disapproved. He had always had a strained relationship with her; he accused her of ignoring him and his brother during their tough times. He pointed out that the impressive qualities of Canute and her better treatment by him had made her indifferent to the memory of Etheldred, while she favored her children from her second marriage, especially Hardicanute.

     [** Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p.237]
     [** Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p.237]

The same reasons had probably made her unpopular in England; and though her benefactions to the monks obtained her the favor of that order, the nation was not, in general, displeased to see her stripped by Edward of immense treasures which she had amassed. He confined her, during the remainder of her life, in a monastery at Winchester; but carried his rigor against her no farther. The stories of his accusing her of a participation in her son Alfred’s murder, and of a criminal correspondence with the bishop of Winchester, and also of her justifying herself by treading barefoot, without receiving any hurt, over nine burning ploughshares, were the inventions of the monkish historians, and were propagated and believed from the silly wonder of posterity.[*]

The same reasons probably made her unpopular in England; and although her donations to the monks won her their favor, the general public wasn't unhappy to see her stripped of the vast wealth she had accumulated by Edward. He kept her confined for the rest of her life in a monastery in Winchester, but he didn’t go any further with his harsh treatment. The stories about him accusing her of being involved in her son Alfred's murder, having an inappropriate relationship with the bishop of Winchester, and her proving her innocence by walking barefoot over nine hot ploughshares without getting hurt were fabrications by monkish historians, and they spread and were believed because of the foolishness of later generations.[*]

     [* Higden, p. 277.]
[* Higden, p. 277.]

The English flattered themselves that, by the accession of Edward, they were delivered forever from the dominion of foreigners; but they soon found that this evil was not yet entirely removed. The king had been educated in Normandy, and had contracted many intimacies with the natives of that country, as well as an affection for their manners.[**] The court of England was soon filled with Normans, who, being distinguished both by the favor of Edward, and by a degree of cultivation superior to that which was attained by the English in those ages, soon rendered their language, customs, and laws fashionable in the kingdom. The study of the French tongue became general among the people. The courtiers affected to imitate that nation in their dress, equipage, and entertainments; even the lawyers employed a foreign language in their deeds and papers;[***] but above all, the church felt the influence and dominion of those strangers: Ulf and William, two Normans, who had formerly been the king’s chaplains, were created bishops of Dorchester and London. Robert, a Norman also, was promoted to the see of Canterbury,[****] and always enjoyed the highest favor of his master, of which his abilities rendered him not unworthy. And though the king’s prudence, or his want of authority, made him confer almost all the civil and military employments on the natives, the ecclesiastical preferments fell often to the share of the Normans; and as the latter possessed Edward’s confidence, they had secretly a great influence on public affairs, and excited the jealousy of the English, particularly of Earl Godwin.[*****]

The English believed that with Edward's accession, they were permanently free from foreign rule; however, they soon realized that this issue was not completely resolved. The king was educated in Normandy and formed many close relationships with the locals, as well as a fondness for their customs. The English court quickly became populated with Normans, who, thanks to Edward’s favor and their more advanced culture compared to the English at that time, made their language, traditions, and laws popular in the kingdom. Studying French became widespread among the people. The courtiers tried to mimic that nation in their clothing, lifestyle, and parties; even lawyers used a foreign language in their documents. Moreover, the church was notably influenced and dominated by these outsiders: Ulf and William, two Normans who had previously served as the king’s chaplains, were made bishops of Dorchester and London. Robert, another Norman, was appointed to the archbishopric of Canterbury, always enjoying the highest regard from his king, which his skills justified. Although the king's wisdom, or perhaps his lack of power, led him to assign nearly all civil and military roles to locals, ecclesiastical positions often went to Normans. Since these Normans held Edward's trust, they secretly wielded significant influence over public matters, stirring the jealousy of the English, especially Earl Godwin.

     [** Ingulph. p. 62.]

     [*** Ingulph. p. 62.]

     [**** Chron. Sax. p. 161.]

     [** Ingulph. p. 62.]

     [*** Ingulph. p. 62.]

     [**** Chron. Sax. p. 161.]

This powerful nobleman, besides being duke or earl of Wessex, had the counties of Kent and Sussex annexed to his government. His eldest son, Sweyn, possessed the same authority in the counties of Oxford, Berks, Glocester, and Hereford; and Harold, his second son, was duke of East Anglia, and at the same time governor of Essex. The great authority of this family was supported by immense possessions and powerful alliances; and the abilities, as well as ambition of Godwin himself, contributed to render it still more dangerous. A prince of greater capacity and vigor than Edward would have found it difficult to support the dignity of the crown under such circumstances; and as the haughty temper of Godwin made him often forget the respect due to his prince Edward’s animosity against him was grounded on personal as well as political considerations, on recent as well as more ancient injuries. The king, in pursuance of his engagements, had indeed married Editha, the daughter of Godwin;[*] but this alliance became a fresh source of enmity between them. Edward’s hatred of the father was transferred to that princess-; and Editha, though possessed of many amiable accomplishments, could never acquire the confidence and affection of her husband. It is even pretended, that, during the whole course of her life, he abstained from all commerce of love with her; and such was the absurd admiration paid to an inviolable chastity during those ages, that his conduct in this particular is highly celebrated by the monkish historians, and greatly contributed to his acquiring the title of saint and confessor[**]

This powerful nobleman, besides being the duke or earl of Wessex, also governed the counties of Kent and Sussex. His eldest son, Sweyn, had similar authority in the counties of Oxford, Berks, Glocester, and Hereford; and Harold, his second son, was the duke of East Anglia and the governor of Essex at the same time. The significant power of this family was backed by vast landholdings and strong alliances; and Godwin's own abilities and ambition made it even more threatening. A prince with more skill and energy than Edward would have struggled to maintain the dignity of the crown in such a situation; and Godwin’s arrogant nature often led him to forget the respect owed to his prince. Edward's resentment towards him was rooted in both personal and political issues, stemming from recent grievances as well as older ones. The king had, in line with his commitments, married Editha, Godwin's daughter; but this union only fueled more hostility between them. Edward's animosity towards her father extended to her, and despite Editha having many charming traits, she could never earn her husband's trust and affection. It’s even claimed that throughout her life, he refrained from any romantic relations with her; and the extreme reverence for unbroken chastity during those times led monkish historians to celebrate his behavior in this regard, which greatly contributed to him being acclaimed as a saint and confessor.

1048.

1048.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 157.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 80, Higden, p. 277. Abbae Rieval.
     p. 366, 377 M. West. p. 221. Chron. Thorn. Wykes, p. 21,
     Anglia Sacra, vol i. p, 241.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 157.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 80, Higden, p. 277. Abbae Rieval.
     p. 366, 377 M. West. p. 221. Chron. Thorn. Wykes, p. 21,
     Anglia Sacra, vol i. p, 241.]

The most popular pretence on which Godwin could ground his disaffection to the king and his administration, was to complain of the influence of the Normans in the government; and a declared opposition had thence arisen between him and these favorites. It was not long before this animosity broke out into action. Eustace, count of Boulogne, having paid a visit to the king, passed by Dover in his return: one of his train, being refused entrance to a lodging, which had been assigned him, attempted to make his way by force, and in the contest he wounded the master of the house. The inhabitants revenged this insult by the death of the stranger; the count and his train took arms, and murdered the wounded townsman; a tumult ensued; near twenty persons were killed on each side; and Eustace, being overpowered by numbers, was obliged to save his life by flight from the fury of the populace.

The most common excuse that Godwin could use to express his dislike for the king and his government was to complain about the Normans' influence in politics; this led to an open conflict between him and the king's favorites. It didn’t take long for this hostility to escalate into violence. Eustace, the Count of Boulogne, had visited the king and was on his way back when he passed through Dover. One of his attendants was denied access to the lodging assigned to him and attempted to force his way in, injuring the homeowner in the process. The locals retaliated against this insult by killing the outsider; Eustace and his group armed themselves and killed the injured townsman. A riot broke out, resulting in nearly twenty deaths on both sides, and Eustace, overwhelmed by the crowd, had to flee to save his life from the enraged townspeople.

He hurried immediately to court, and complained of tne usage he had met with: the king entered zealously into the quarrel, and was highly displeased that a stranger of such distinction, whom he had invited over to his court, should, without any just cause, as he believed, have felt so sensibly the insolence and animosity of his people. He gave orders to Godwin, in whose government Dover lay, to repair immediately to the place, and to punish the inhabitants for tne crime; but Godwin, who desired rather to encourage than express the popular discontents against foreigners, refused obedience, and endeavored to throw the whole blame of the riot on the count of Boulogne and his retinue.[*] Edward, touched in so sensible a point, saw the necessity of exerting the royal authority; and he threatened Godwin, if he persisted in his disobedience, to make him feel the utmost effects of his resentment.

He rushed straight to court and complained about how he had been treated. The king passionately engaged in the dispute, feeling very upset that a distinguished stranger, whom he had invited to his court, had been subjected to what he believed was unjust hostility from his people. He ordered Godwin, who was in charge of Dover, to go to the location immediately and punish the locals for their actions; however, Godwin, who preferred to encourage rather than show public discontent towards foreigners, refused to comply and tried to blame the whole incident on the Count of Boulogne and his entourage.[*] Edward, deeply affected by this issue, recognized the need to assert his royal authority; he warned Godwin that if he continued to disobey, he would feel the full force of his anger.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 163. W. Malms, p. 81. Higden, p.
     279]
[* Chron. Sax. p. 163. W. Malms, p. 81. Higden, p. 279]

The earl, perceiving a rupture to be unavoidable, and pleased to embark in a cause where it was likely he should be supported by his countrymen, made preparations for his own defence, or rather for an attack on Edward. Under pretence of repressing some disorders on the Welsh frontier, he secretly assembled a great army, and was approaching the king, who resided, without any military force, and without suspicion, at Glocester.[**]

The earl, realizing that a conflict was inevitable and eager to join a cause where he might have the backing of his fellow countrymen, started making plans for his own defense, or rather for an offensive against Edward. Under the guise of quelling some issues on the Welsh border, he secretly gathered a large army and was moving toward the king, who was staying in Glocester without any military presence and without suspicion.

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 163. W. Mabus. p. 81.]
[** Chron. Sax. p. 163. W. Mabus. p. 81.]

Edward applied for protection to Siward, duke of Northumberland, and Leofric, duke of Mercia, two powerful noblemen, whose jealousy of Godwin’s greatness, as well as their duty to the crown, engaged them to defend the king in this extremity. They hastened to him with such of their followers as they could assemble on a sudden; and finding the danger much greater than they had at first apprehended, they issued orders for mustering all the forces within their respective governments, and for marching them without delay to the defence of the king’s person and authority. Edward, meanwhile, endeavored to gain time by negotiation; while Godwin, who thought the king entirely in his power, and who was willing to save appearances, fell into the snare; and not sensible that he ought to have no further reserve after he had proceeded so far, he lost the favorable opportunity of rendering himself master of the government.

Edward asked for help from Siward, the duke of Northumberland, and Leofric, the duke of Mercia, two influential nobles. Their envy of Godwin's power, along with their loyalty to the crown, motivated them to support the king in this crisis. They quickly gathered as many followers as they could and rushed to him. Realizing the danger was much worse than they first thought, they ordered the mobilization of all available forces in their regions and instructed them to march immediately to protect the king's safety and authority. Meanwhile, Edward tried to buy time through negotiation, while Godwin, believing he had the king completely under control and wanting to maintain his image, fell into the trap. Unaware that he should have acted without hesitation at this point, he missed the chance to take charge of the government.

The English, though they had no high idea of Edward’s vigor and capacity, bore him great affection on account of his humanity, justice, and piety, as well as the long race of their native kings, from whom he was descended; and they hastened from all quarters to defend him from the present danger. Hia army was now so considerable, that he ventured to take the field; and marching to London, he summoned a great council to judge of the rebellion of Godwin and his sons. These noblemen pretended at first that they were willing to stand their trial; but having in vain endeavored to make their adherents persist in rebellion, they offered to come to London, provided they might receive hostages for their safety: this proposal being rejected, they were obliged to disband the remains of their forces, and have recourse to flight. Baldwin, earl of Flanders, gave protection to Godwin and his three sons, Gurth, Sweyn, and Tosti, the latter of whom had married the daughter of that prince; Harold and Leofwin, two others of his sons, took shelter in Ireland. The estates of the father and sons were confiscated; their governments were given to others; Queen Editha was confined in a monastery at Warewel; and the greatness of this family, once so formidable, seemed now to be totally supplanted and overthrown But Godwin had fixed his authority on too firm a basis, and he was too strongly supported by alliances both foreign and domestic, not to occasion further disturbances, and make new efforts for his reëstablishment.

The English, while they didn’t have a high opinion of Edward’s strength and abilities, had a deep affection for him because of his kindness, fairness, and devotion, as well as his lineage from their long line of native kings. They quickly gathered from all over to protect him from the current threat. His army had grown so large that he felt confident to take the field; and as he marched to London, he called a major council to address the rebellion led by Godwin and his sons. Initially, these nobles pretended they were ready to face trial, but after failing to get their supporters to continue rebelling, they proposed coming to London if they could be guaranteed safe passage. This offer was turned down, forcing them to disband what was left of their forces and flee. Baldwin, the earl of Flanders, offered refuge to Godwin and his three sons, Gurth, Sweyn, and Tosti, the latter of whom had married the daughter of that prince. Harold and Leofwin, two other sons, sought refuge in Ireland. The lands of the father and sons were seized; their positions were handed over to others; Queen Editha was confined in a monastery at Warewel; and the once-powerful family now seemed completely destroyed and gone. However, Godwin had built his authority on a solid foundation, and with strong support from both foreign and local alliances, he was bound to cause more unrest and make new attempts to regain his power.

1052.

1052.

The earl of Flanders permitted him to purchase and hire ships within his harbors; and Godwin, having manned them with his followers, and with freebooters of all nations, put to sea, and attempted to make a descent at Sandwich. The king, informed of his preparations, had equipped a considerable fleet, much superior to that of the enemy; and the earl hastily, before their appearance, made his retreat into the Flemish harbors.[*] The English court, allured by the present security, and destitute of all vigorous counsels, allowed the seamen to disband, and the fleet to go to decay;[**] while Godwin, expecting this event, kept his men in readiness for action. He put to sea immediately, and sailed to the Isle of Wight, where he was joined by Harold with a squadron, which that nobleman had collected in Ireland. He was now master of the sea; and entering every harbor in the southern coast, he seized all the ships,[***] and summoned his followers in those counties, which had so long been subject to his government, to assist him in procuring justice to himself his family, and his country, against the tyranny of foreigners.

The Earl of Flanders allowed him to buy and rent ships in his ports; so, Godwin, manning them with his followers and pirates from all over, set sail and tried to make a landing at Sandwich. The king, aware of his plans, had prepared a large fleet, much stronger than the enemy's; and the Earl quickly retreated to the Flemish ports before they showed up. The English court, tempted by the current safety and lacking any strong advice, let the sailors go home and the fleet fall into disrepair; while Godwin, anticipating this outcome, kept his men ready for action. He set sail immediately and headed to the Isle of Wight, where he met up with Harold and a squadron that he had gathered in Ireland. At this point, he controlled the seas, entering every harbor along the southern coast, seizing all the ships, and calling on his followers in the counties that had long been under his rule to help him seek justice for himself, his family, and his country against the oppression of foreigners.

     [* Sim. Dunelm. p. 186.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 166]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 166.]
     [* Sim. Dunelm. p. 186.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 166]

     [*** Chron. Sax. p. 166.]

Reënforced by great numbers from all quarters, he entered the Thames; and appearing before London, threw every thing into confusion. The king alone seemed resolute to defend himself to the last extremity; but the interposition of the English nobility, many of whom favored Godwin’s pretensions, made Edward hearken to terms of accommodation; and the feigned humility of the earl, who disclaimed all intentions of offering violence to his sovereign, and desired only to justify himself by a fair and open trial, paved the way for his more easy admission. It was stipulated that he should give hostages for his good behavior, and that the primate and all the foreigners should be banished: by this treaty the present danger of a civil war was obviated, but the authority of the crown was considerably impaired, or rather entirely annihilated. Edward, sensible that he had not power sufficient to secure Godwin’s hostages in England, sent them over to his kinsman, the young duke of Normandy.

Reinforced by large numbers from all sides, he entered the Thames; and when he appeared before London, he threw everything into chaos. The king seemed determined to defend himself to the very end; but the intervention of the English nobility, many of whom supported Godwin's claims, led Edward to consider terms of compromise. The feigned humility of the earl, who denied any intention of harming his sovereign and only wanted to clear his name through a fair trial, made it easier for him to be accepted. It was agreed that he would provide hostages for his good behavior and that the primate and all foreigners should be exiled. This treaty averted the immediate threat of a civil war, but it significantly weakened the authority of the crown, or rather completely destroyed it. Edward, aware that he did not have enough power to keep Godwin's hostages safe in England, sent them to his relative, the young duke of Normandy.

Godwin’s death, which happened soon after, while he was sitting at table with the king, prevented him from further establishing the authority which he had acquired, and from reducing Edward to still greater subjection.[*] 5 He was succeeded in the government of Wessex, Sussex, Kent, and Essex, and in the office of steward of the household, a place of great power, by his son Harold, who was actuated by an ambition equal to that of his father, and was superior to him in address, in insinuation, and in virtue. By a modest and gentle demeanor, he acquired the good will of Edward; at least, softened that hatred which the prince had so long borne his family;[**] and gaining every day new partisans by his bounty and affability, he proceeded, in a more silent, and therefore a more dangerous manner, to the increase of his authority. The king, who had not sufficient vigor directly to oppose his progress, knew of no other expedient than that hazardous one of raising him a rival in the family of Leofric, duke of Mercia, whose son Algar was invested with the government of East Anglia, which, before the banishment of Harold, had belonged to the latter nobleman. But this policy, of balancing opposite parties, required a more steady hand to manage it than that of Edward, and naturally produced faction and even civil broils, among nobles of such mighty and independent authority.

Godwin’s death, which occurred soon after he was having dinner with the king, stopped him from solidifying the power he had gained and from making Edward even more subordinate. He was succeeded in governing Wessex, Sussex, Kent, and Essex, as well as in the role of steward of the household, a powerful position, by his son Harold, who shared his father’s ambition and was more skilled in charm, manipulation, and integrity. With a humble and gentle attitude, he won Edward’s favor; at least, he eased the resentment the prince had harbored towards his family. By consistently gaining new supporters through his generosity and friendliness, he quietly but effectively increased his power. The king, lacking the strength to openly counter his rise, resorted to the risky strategy of creating a rival within Leofric’s family, the duke of Mercia, whose son Algar was given control of East Anglia, which had previously belonged to Harold before his exile. However, this tactic of balancing competing factions needed a steadier hand to execute than Edward possessed, and it inevitably led to conflict and even civil strife among nobles with such significant and independent power.

     [* See note E, at the end of the volume.]

     [** Brompton, p. 918]
     [* See note E, at the end of the volume.]

     [** Brompton, p. 918]

Algar was soon after expelled his government by the intrigues and power of Harold; but being protected by Griffith, prince of Wales, who had married his daughter, as well as by the power of his father Leofric, he obliged Harold to submit to an accommodation, and was reinstated in the government of East Anglia. This peace was not of long duration: Harold, taking advantage of Leofric’s death, which happened soon after, expelled Algar anew, and banished him the kingdom: and though that nobleman made a fresh irruption into East Anglia with an army of Norwegians, and overran the country, his death soon freed Harold from the pretensions of so dangerous a rival. Edward, the eldest son of Algar, was indeed advanced to the government of Mercia; but the balance which the king desired to establish between those potent families, was wholly lost, and the influence of Harold greatly preponderated.

Algar was soon expelled from his government by the scheming and power of Harold. However, with the support of Griffith, the prince of Wales, who had married his daughter, and the backing of his father Leofric, he forced Harold to agree to a settlement and was restored to power in East Anglia. This peace didn’t last long: Harold took advantage of Leofric’s death, which happened soon after, and expelled Algar again, banishing him from the kingdom. Although Algar made another attempt to invade East Anglia with an army of Norwegians and took control of the region, his death quickly removed a dangerous rival from Harold’s path. Edward, Algar's eldest son, was appointed to govern Mercia, but the balance the king wanted between the powerful families was completely lost, and Harold's influence was significantly stronger.

1055.

1055.

The death of Siward, duke of Northumberland, made the way still more open to the ambition of that nobleman. Siward, besides his other merits, had acquired honor to England by his successful conduct in the only foreign enterprise undertaken during the reign of Edward. Duncan, king of Scotland, was a prince of a gentle disposition, but possessed not the genius requisite for governing a country so turbulent, and so much infested by the intrigues and animosities of the great. Macbeth, a powerful nobleman, and nearly allied to the crown, not content with curbing the king’s authority, carried still farther his pestilent ambition: he put his sovereign to death; chased Malcolm Kenmore, his son and heir, into England, and usurped the crown. Siward, whose daughter was married to Duncan, embraced, by Edward’s orders, the protection of this distressed family: he marched an army into Scotland; and having defeated and killed Macbeth in battle, he restored Malcolm to the throne of his ancestors.[*]

The death of Siward, Duke of Northumberland, made it even easier for that nobleman to pursue his ambitions. Siward, aside from his other accomplishments, brought honor to England through his successful management of the only foreign campaign during Edward's reign. Duncan, King of Scotland, was a kind-hearted ruler but lacked the skills needed to govern a country so chaotic and rife with the intrigues and rivalries of the powerful. Macbeth, a strong nobleman and closely related to the crown, was not satisfied with just limiting the king's power; he took his ambition further by murdering his sovereign, forcing Duncan's son Malcolm Kenmore to flee to England, and seizing the throne for himself. Siward, whose daughter was married to Duncan, accepted Edward’s orders to protect this vulnerable family: he marched an army into Scotland and, after defeating and killing Macbeth in battle, restored Malcolm to his ancestors' throne.

     [* W. Malms, p. 79. Hoveden, p. 443. Chron. Mailr.
     p. 158 Buchanan, p, 115, edit. 1715].
     [* W. Malms, p. 79. Hoveden, p. 443. Chron. Mailr. p. 158 Buchanan, p. 115, edit. 1715].

This service, added to his former connections with the royal family of Scotland, brought a great accession to the authority of Siward in the north; but as he had lost his eldest son, Osberne, in the action with Macbeth, it proved in the issue fatal to his family. His second son, Walthoef, appeared, on his father’s death, too young to be intrusted with the government of Northumberland; and Harold’s influence obtained that dukedom for his own brother Tosti.

This service, along with his previous ties to the Scottish royal family, greatly increased Siward's power in the north. However, since he had lost his eldest son, Osberne, in the fight against Macbeth, it ultimately proved disastrous for his family. His second son, Walthoef, seemed too young to take on the leadership of Northumberland after his father's death, and Harold’s influence secured that dukedom for his own brother Tosti.

There are two circumstances related of Siward, which discover his high sense of honor, and his martial disposition. When intelligence was brought him of his son Osberne’s death, he was inconsolable; till he heard that the wound was received in the breast, and that he had behaved with great gallantry in the action. When he found his own death approaching, he ordered his servants to clothe him in a complete suit of armor; and sitting erect on the couch, with a spear in his hand, declared, that in that posture, the only one worthy of a warrior, he would patiently await the fatal moment.

There are two situations involving Siward that reveal his strong sense of honor and his warrior spirit. When he learned about his son Osberne's death, he was heartbroken; until he found out that Osberne had received his wound to the chest and had acted with great bravery in battle. When he realized his own death was near, he ordered his servants to dress him in full armor; and sitting upright on the couch, with a spear in his hand, he declared that in this position, the only one fitting for a warrior, he would calmly wait for the end.

The king, now worn out with cares and infirmities, felt himself far advanced in the decline of life; and having no issue himself, began to think of appointing a successor to the kingdom. He sent a deputation to Hungary, to invite over his nephew Edward, son of his elder brother, and the only remaining heir of the Saxon line. That prince, whose succession to the crown would have been easy and undisputed, came to England with his children, Edgar, surnamed Atheling, Margaret, and Christina; but his death, which happened a few days after his arrival, threw the king into new difficulties. He saw that the great power and ambition of Harold had tempted him to think of obtaining possession of the throne on the first vacancy, and that Edgar, on account of his youth and inexperience, was very unfit to oppose the pretensions of so popular and enterprising a rival. The animosity which he had long borne to Earl Godwin, made him averse to the succession of his son; and he could not, without extreme reluctance, think of an increase of grandeur to a family which had risen on the ruins of royal authority, and which, by the murder of Alfred, his brother, had contributed so much to the weakening of the Saxon line. In this uncertainty, he secretly cast his eye towards his kinsman, William duke of Normandy, as the only person whose power, and reputation, and capacity, could support any destination which he might make in his favor, to the exclusion of Harold and his family.[*]

The king, now worn down by worries and health issues, realized he was well into the later stages of life. Without any children of his own, he started considering appointing a successor for the kingdom. He sent a delegation to Hungary to invite his nephew Edward, the son of his older brother and the last remaining heir of the Saxon line. That prince, whose claim to the crown would have been straightforward and accepted, arrived in England with his children: Edgar, known as Atheling, Margaret, and Christina. However, his death just a few days after his arrival plunged the king into new troubles. He recognized that the great power and ambition of Harold had led him to think about seizing the throne at the first opportunity, and that Edgar, due to his youth and inexperience, was not at all suited to stand up against such a popular and ambitious rival. The long-standing resentment he had towards Earl Godwin made him against the idea of Godwin's son succeeding, and he struggled to accept the thought of increasing the power of a family that had risen on the ruins of royal authority and had significantly weakened the Saxon line through the murder of his brother Alfred. In this state of uncertainty, he quietly considered his cousin, William, duke of Normandy, as the only one whose power, reputation, and ability could support any plan he might make in his favor, excluding Harold and his family.

     [* Irgulph. p. 68]
[* Irgulph. p. 68]

This famous prince was natural son of Robert, duke of Normandy, by Harlotta, daughter of a tanner in Falaise,[**] and was very early established in that grandeur, from which his birth seemed to have set him at so great a distance.

This famous prince was the illegitimate son of Robert, Duke of Normandy, by Harlotta, the daughter of a tanner in Falaise,[**] and was quickly placed in a position of greatness, even though his birth seemed to put him far from it.

     [** Brompton, p. 910.]
[** Brompton, p. 910.]

While he was but nine years of age, his father had resolved to undertake a pilgrimage to Jerusalem; a fashionable act of devotion, which had taken place of the pilgrimages to Rome, and which, as it was attended with more difficulty and danger, and carried those religious adventurers to the first sources of Christianity, appeared to them more meritorious. Before his departure, he assembled the states of the duchy; and in forming them of his design, he engaged them to swear allegiance to his natural son, William, whom, as he had no legitimate issue, he intended, in case he should die in the pilgrimage, to leave successor to his dominions.[*] As he was a prudent prince, he could not but foresee the great inconveniencies which must attend this journey, and this settlement of his succession; arising from the perpetual turbulency of the great, the claims of other branches of the ducal family and the power of the French monarch; but all these considerations were surmounted by the prevailing zeal for pilgrimages;[**] and probably the more important they were, the more would Robert exult in sacrificing them to what he imagined to be his religious duty.

When he was just nine years old, his father decided to go on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem; a popular act of devotion that had replaced pilgrimages to Rome. This journey, which involved more difficulty and danger, took those religious adventurers to the very roots of Christianity, making it seem more commendable to them. Before he left, he gathered the leaders of the duchy. While informing them of his plan, he got them to pledge allegiance to his illegitimate son, William, whom he intended to name his successor in case he died during the pilgrimage, since he had no legitimate heirs. Being a wise ruler, he couldn’t ignore the significant issues that this journey and the settlement of his succession could cause, stemming from the ongoing instability among the nobility, the claims of other branches of the ducal family, and the power of the French king. However, all these concerns were overshadowed by the strong enthusiasm for pilgrimages; and likely, the more important they seemed, the more Robert would take pride in sacrificing them for what he believed was his religious duty.

     [* W. Malms, p. 95.]

     [** Ypod. Neust. p. 452.]
     [* W. Malms, p. 95.]

     [** Ypod. Neust. p. 452.]

This prince, as he had apprehended, died in his pilgrimage; and the minority of his son was attended with all those disorders which were almost unavoidable in that situation. The licentious nobles, freed from the awe of sovereign authority, broke out into personal animosities against each other, and made the whole country a scene of war and devastation.[***] Roger, count of Toni, and Alain, count of Brittany, advanced claims to the dominion of the state; and Henry the First king of France, thought the opportunity favorable for reducing the power of a vassal, who had originally acquired his settlement in so violent and invidious a manner, and who had long appeared formidable to his sovereign.[****] The regency established by Robert encountered great difficulties in supporting the government under his complication of dangers; and the young prince, when he came to maturity, found himself reduced to a very low condition. But the great qualities which he soon displayed in the field and in the cabinet, gave encouragement to his friends, and struck a terror into his enemies. He opposed himself on all sides against his rebellious subjects, and against foreign invaders; and by his valor and conduct prevailed in every action.

This prince, as he expected, died on his journey; and his son’s minority was marked by all the chaos that was nearly unavoidable in that situation. The unruly nobles, liberated from the fear of royal authority, began to feud with each other, turning the entire country into a battleground. Roger, the count of Toni, and Alain, the count of Brittany, laid claim to the rule of the state; and Henry the First, king of France, saw this as a good chance to weaken a vassal who had originally gained his land in such a violent and controversial way, and who had long been a threat to his sovereign. The regency set up by Robert faced significant challenges in maintaining the government amid this mix of dangers; and when the young prince came of age, he found himself in a very dire situation. However, the impressive qualities he soon showed in battle and politics encouraged his allies and instilled fear in his opponents. He stood firm against his rebellious subjects and foreign invaders, and through his bravery and leadership, he succeeded in every encounter.

     [*** Malms, p. 95. Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 1]

     [**** W. Malms, p. 97.]
     [*** Malms, p. 95. Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 1]

     [**** W. Malms, p. 97.]

He obliged the French king to grant him peace on reasonable terms; he expelled all pretenders to the sovereignty; and he reduced his turbulent barons to pay submission to his authority, and to suspend their mutual animosities. The natural severity of his temper appeared in a rigorous administration of justice; and having found the happy effects of this plan of government, without which the laws in those ages became totally impotent, he regarded it as a fixed maxim, that an inflexible conduct was the first duty of a sovereign.

He forced the French king to agree to peace on fair terms; he got rid of all claimants to the throne; and he made his rebellious nobles submit to his authority and put their conflicts on hold. His naturally strict demeanor showed through in a strict administration of justice; and after seeing the positive results of this approach to governance, which was necessary in times when the laws were completely ineffective, he believed it was a set principle that being unwavering was the primary responsibility of a ruler.

The tranquillity which he had established in his dominions, had given William leisure to pay a visit to the king of England, during the time of Godwin’s banishment; and he was received in a manner suitable to the great reputation which he had acquired, to the relation by which he was connected with Edward, and to the obligations which that prince owed to his family.[*] On the return of Godwin, and the expulsion of the Norman favorites, Robert, archbishop of Canterbury, had, before his departure, persuaded Edward to think of adopting William as his successor; a counsel which was favored by the king’s aversion to Godwin, his prepossessions for the Normans, and his esteem of the duke. That prelate, therefore, received a commission to inform William of the king’s intentions in his favor; and he was the first person that opened the mind of the prince to entertain those ambitious hopes.[**] But Edward, irresolute and feeble in his purpose, finding that the English would more easily acquiesce in the restoration of the Saxon line, and in the mean time invited his brother’s descendants from Hungary, with a view of having them recognized heirs to the crown.

The peace that he had established in his territories allowed William the time to visit the king of England while Godwin was banished. He was welcomed in a way that matched his great reputation, his connection to Edward, and the obligations that the king owed to his family. When Godwin returned and the Norman favorites were expelled, Robert, the archbishop of Canterbury, had convinced Edward before he left to consider adopting William as his successor. This advice was supported by the king’s dislike for Godwin, his preference for the Normans, and his respect for the duke. Therefore, the archbishop was given a commission to inform William of the king’s intentions toward him, and he was the first to bring the prince’s ambitious hopes to life. However, Edward, who was indecisive and weak in his resolve, realized that the English would more readily accept the restoration of the Saxon line instead. In the meantime, he invited his brother’s descendants from Hungary, hoping to have them recognized as heirs to the crown.

     [* Hoveden, p. 442. Ingulph. p, 65. Chron. Mailr.
     p. 157 Higden, p. 279.]

     [** Ingulph. p. 68. Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 31
     Order Vitalis. p. 492.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 442. Ingulph. p, 65. Chron. Mailr.
     p. 157 Higden, p. 279.]

     [** Ingulph. p. 68. Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 31
     Order Vitalis. p. 492.]

The death of his nephew, and the inexperience and unpromising qualities of young Edgar, made him resume his former intentions in favor of the duke of Normandy; though his aversion to hazardous enterprises engaged him to postpone the execution, and even to keep his purpose secret from all his ministers.

The death of his nephew and the lack of experience and potential in young Edgar led him to go back to his previous plans to support the duke of Normandy; however, his dislike for risky ventures made him delay the execution and even keep his intentions hidden from all his advisors.

Harold, meanwhile, proceeded after a more open manner, in increasing his popularity, in establishing his power, and in preparing the way for his advancement on the first vacancy; an event which, from the age and infirmities of the king, appeared not very distant. But there was still an obstacle, which it was requisite for him previously to overcome. Earl Godwin, when restored to his power and fortune, had given hostages for his good behavior; and among the rest one son and one grandson, whom Edward, for greater security, as has been related, had consigned to the custody of the duke of Normandy. Harold, though not aware of the duke’s being his competitor, was uneasy that such near relations should be detained prisoners in a foreign country; and he was afraid lest William should, in favor of Edgar, retain these pledges as a check on the ambition of any other pretender. He represented, therefore, to the king his unfeigned submission to royal authority, his steady duty to his prince, and the little necessity there was, after such a uniform trial of his obedience, to detain any longer those hostages, who had been required on the first composing of civil discords. By these topics, enforced by his great power, he extorted the king’s consent to release them; and in order to effect his purpose, he immediately proceeded, with a numerous retinue, on his journey to Normandy. A tempest drove him on the territory of Guy, count of Ponthieu, who, being informed of his quality, immediately detained him prisoner, and demanded an exorbitant sum for his ransom. Harold found means to convey intelligence of his situation to the duke of Normandy; and represented that, while he was proceeding to his court, in execution of a commission from the king of England, he had met with this harsh treatment from the mercenary disposition of the count of Ponthieu.

Harold, on the other hand, acted more openly to boost his popularity, establish his power, and prepare for his advancement when the first opportunity arose; an event that seemed likely to happen soon due to the king's age and health issues. However, there was still a hurdle he needed to overcome first. Earl Godwin, after regaining his power and wealth, had provided hostages for his good behavior, including one son and one grandson, whom Edward, for added security, had entrusted to the duke of Normandy. Harold, although unaware that the duke was his rival, felt uneasy about his close relatives being held captive in a foreign land; he worried that William might keep these hostages as leverage against any other claimants in favor of Edgar. Therefore, he expressed to the king his genuine submission to royal authority, his unwavering duty to his prince, and argued that there was little need to continue holding these hostages, especially after a consistent record of his obedience. Using these points, along with his significant influence, he secured the king’s agreement to release them; and to achieve his goal, he promptly set out on his journey to Normandy with a large entourage. A storm forced him onto the territory of Guy, the Count of Ponthieu, who, upon learning of his status, captured him immediately and demanded an outrageous sum for his release. Harold managed to inform the duke of Normandy about his predicament, explaining that while he was on his way to meet with him on a mission from the king of England, he had encountered this hostile treatment from the greedy count of Ponthieu.

William was immediately sensible of the importance of the incident. He foresaw that, if he could once gain Harold, either by favors or menaces, his way to the throne of England would be open, and Edward would meet with no further obstacle in executing the favorable intentions which he had entertained in his behalf. He sent, therefore, a messenger to Guy, in order to demand the liberty of his prisoner; and that nobleman, not daring to refuse so great a prince, put Harold into the hands of the Norman, who conducted him to Rouen. William received him with every demonstration of respect and friendship; and after showing himself disposed to comply with his desire in delivering up the hostages, he look an opportunity of disclosing to him the great secret of his pretensions to the crown of England, and of the will which Edward intended to make in his favor. He desired the assistance of Harold in perfecting that design; he made professions of the utmost gratitude in return for so great an obligation; he promised that the present grandeur of Harold’s family, which supported itself with difficulty under the jealousy and hatred of Edward, should receive new increase from a successor, who would be so greatly beholden to him for his advancement Harold was surprised at this declaration of the duke; but being sensible that he should never recover his own liberty, much less that of his brother and nephew, if he refused the demand, he feigned a compliance with William, renounced all hopes of the crown for himself, and professed his sincere intention of supporting the will of Edward, and seconding the ptetensions of the duke of Normandy. William, to bind him faster to his interests, besides offering him one of his daughters in marriage, required him to take an oath that, he would fulfil his promises; and in order to render the oath more obligatory, he employed an artifice well suited to the ignorance and superstition of the age. He secretly conveyed under the altar, on which Harold agreed to swear, the relics of some of the most revered martyrs; and when Harold had taken the oath, he showed him the relics, and admonished him to observe religiously an engagement which had been ratified by so tremendous a sanction.[*] The English nobleman was astonished; but dissembling his concern, he renewed the same professions, and was dismissed with all the marks of mutual confidence by the duke of Normandy.

William quickly recognized how important the situation was. He realized that if he could win over Harold, whether through favors or threats, his path to the English throne would be clear, and Edward would face no further obstacles in carrying out his favorable intentions towards him. He sent a messenger to Guy, requesting the release of his prisoner; not daring to refuse such a powerful prince, Guy handed Harold over to the Norman, who took him to Rouen. William greeted him with every sign of respect and friendship. After appearing willing to fulfill his request to release the hostages, he took the opportunity to reveal to Harold his serious claim to the English crown and the will that Edward intended to make in his favor. He sought Harold's help in carrying out this plan; he expressed deep gratitude for such a significant service and promised that Harold’s current noble status, which struggled under Edward’s jealousy and resentment, would grow even more under a successor who owed him so much for his rise. Harold was surprised by the duke's declaration, but knowing that he would never regain his freedom, or that of his brother and nephew, if he refused, he pretended to agree with William, gave up his own hopes of the crown, and claimed he sincerely intended to support Edward’s wishes and back the duke of Normandy's claims. To further secure Harold’s loyalty, William not only offered him one of his daughters in marriage but also demanded he swear an oath to uphold his promises. To make the oath even more binding, he used a scheme suited to the beliefs and superstitions of the time. He secretly placed the relics of revered martyrs under the altar where Harold had agreed to swear, and once Harold took the oath, he showed him the relics, urging him to honor a commitment sealed by such a grave sanction. The English nobleman was astonished, but hiding his unease, he renewed his vows and was sent off with all signs of mutual trust from the duke of Normandy.

     [* Wace, p. 459, 460. MS. penes Carte, p. 354. W.
     Malms, p. 93 H Hunting, p 366. Hoveden, p. 449. Brompton, p.
     947.]
     [* Wace, p. 459, 460. MS. penes Carte, p. 354. W. Malms, p. 93 H Hunting, p 366. Hoveden, p. 449. Brompton, p. 947.]

When Harold found himself at liberty, his ambition suggested casuistry sufficient to justify to him the violation of an oath, which had been extorted from him by fear, and which, if fulfilled, might be attended with the subjection of his native country to a foreign power. He continued still to practise every art of popularity; to increase the number of his partisans; to reconcile the minds of the English to the idea of his succession; to revive their hatred of the Normans; and, by an ostentation of his power and influence, to deter the timorous Edward from executing his intended destination in favor of William. Fortune, about this time, threw two incidents in his way, by which he was enabled to acquire general favor, and to increase the character, which he had already attained, of virtue and abilities.

When Harold found himself free, his ambition concocted a reasoning strong enough to justify breaking an oath that had been forced from him out of fear, an oath that, if kept, could result in his homeland being subjected to a foreign power. He continued to use every tactic to gain popularity, to grow his support base, to get the English to accept the idea of his taking over, to stir up their resentment against the Normans, and to showcase his power and influence to intimidate the cautious Edward from following through on his plan to support William. Around this time, fate offered him two opportunities that allowed him to gain widespread favor and enhance his reputation for virtue and competence.

The Welsh, though a less formidable enemy than the Danes, had long been accustomed to infest the western borders; and after committing spoil on the low countries, they usually made a hasty retreat into their mountains, where they were sheltered from the pursuit of their enemies, and were ready to seize the first favorable opportunity of renewing their depredations. Griffith, the reigning prince, had greatly distinguished himself in those incursions; and his name had become so terrible to the English, that Harold found he could do nothing more acceptable to the public, and more honorable for himself, than the suppressing of so dangerous an enemy. He formed the plan of an expedition against Wales; and having prepared some light-armed foot to pursue the natives in their fastnesses, some cavalry to scour the open country, and a squadron of ships to attack the sea-coast, he employed at once all these forces against the Welsh, prosecuted his advantages with vigor, made no intermission in his assaults, and at last reduced the enemy to such distress, that, in order to prevent their total destruction, they made a sacrifice of their prince, whose head they cut off, and sent to Harold; and they were content to receive as their sovereigns two Welsh noblemen appointed by Edward to rule over them. The other incident was no less honorable to Harold.

The Welsh, while not as formidable a foe as the Danes, had long been a nuisance on the western borders. After raiding the lowlands, they would typically make a quick escape back into their mountains, where they were safe from pursuit and ready to take advantage of any opportunity to raid again. Griffith, the reigning prince, had made a name for himself during these incursions, and his reputation had become so frightening to the English that Harold realized he could do nothing more satisfying for the public and more honorable for himself than to eliminate such a dangerous enemy. He planned an expedition against Wales and, having gathered some light infantry to chase the natives in their strongholds, a cavalry to patrol the open areas, and a fleet of ships to strike along the coast, he unleashed all these forces on the Welsh. He pressed his advantage relentlessly, continued his attacks without pause, and eventually pushed the enemy into such desperation that they sacrificed their prince, beheading him and sending his head to Harold; they were willing to accept two Welsh noblemen, appointed by Edward, as their rulers. The other incident was equally honorable for Harold.

Tosti, brother of this nobleman, who had been created duke of Northumberland, being of a violent, tyrannical temper, had acted with such cruelty and injustice, that the inhabitants rose in rebellion, and chased him from his government. Morcar and Edwin, two brothers, who possessed great power in those parts, and who were grandsons of the great duke, Leofric, concurred in the insurrection; and the former, being elected duke, advanced with an army to oppose Harold, who was commissioned by the king to reduce and chastise the Northumbrians. Before the armies came to action, Morcar, well acquainted with the generous disposition of the English commander, endeavored to justify his own conduct. He represented to Harold, that Tosti had behaved in a manner unworthy of the station to which he was advanced, and no one, not even a brother, could support such tyranny, without participating, in some degree, of the infamy attending it; that the Northumbrians, accustomed to a legal administration, and regarding it as their birthright, were willing to submit to the king, but required a governor who would pay regard to their rights and privileges; that they had been taught by their ancestors, that death was preferable to servitude, and had taken the field determined to perish, rather than suffer a renewal of those indignities to which they had so long been exposed; and they trusted that Harold, on reflection, would not defend in another that violent conduct, from which he himself in his own government, had always kept at so great a distance. Thus vigorous remonstrance was accompanied with such a detail of facts, so well supported, that Harold found it prudent to abandon his brother’s cause; and returning to Edward, he persuaded him to pardon the Northumbrians, and to confirm Morcar in the government. He even married the sister of that nobleman;[*] and by his interest procured Edwin, the younger brother, to be elected into the government of Mercia. Tosti in a rage departed the kingdom, and took shelter in Flanders with Earl Baldwin, his father-in-law.

Tosti, the brother of this nobleman who had been made duke of Northumberland, was known for his violent and tyrannical temper. His cruelty and injustice led the locals to rebel and force him out of his role. Morcar and Edwin, two powerful brothers and grandsons of the great duke Leofric, joined the uprising. Morcar was elected duke and marched an army to confront Harold, who had been sent by the king to subdue the Northumbrians. Before the armies clashed, Morcar, knowing the honorable nature of the English commander, sought to explain his actions. He told Harold that Tosti had acted unworthy of his position, and no one, not even a brother, could support such tyranny without being partly blamed for it. The Northumbrians, who valued lawful governance as their right, were willing to submit to the king but wanted a leader who respected their rights and privileges. They had learned from their ancestors that death was better than servitude, and had taken up arms, ready to die rather than endure the mistreatment they had suffered for so long. Morcar hoped that Harold would realize he wouldn’t support the abusive behavior that he himself had always distanced himself from in his own rule. This strong argument, backed by strong facts, made Harold decide it was wiser to abandon his brother’s cause. He returned to Edward and convinced him to forgive the Northumbrians and to confirm Morcar as governor. He even married Morcar’s sister and helped Edwin, the younger brother, get elected to govern Mercia. In anger, Tosti left the kingdom and sought refuge in Flanders with his father-in-law, Earl Baldwin.

By this marriage, Harold broke all measures with the duke of Normandy, and William clearly perceived that he could no longer rely on the oaths and promises which he had extorted from him. But the English nobleman was now in such a situation, that he deemed it no longer necessary to dissemble. He had, in his conduct towards the Northumbrians, given such a specimen of his moderation as had gained him the affections of his countrymen. He saw that almost all England was engaged in his interests; while he himself possessed the government of Wessex, Morcar that of Northumberland, and Edwin that of Mercia. He now openly aspired to the succession; and insisted, that since it was necessary, by the confession of all, to set aside the royal family, on account of the imbecility of Edgar, the sole surviving heir, there was no one so capable of filling the throne, as a nobleman of great power of mature age, of long experience, of approved courage and abilities, who, being a native of the kingdom, would effectually secure it against the dominion and tyranny of foreigners. Edward, broken with age and infirmities, saw the difficulties too great for him to encounter; and though his inveterate prepossessions kept him from seconding the pretensions of Harold, he took but feeble and irresolute steps for securing the succession to the duke of Normandy.[**] 6 While he continued in this uncertainty, he was surprised by sickness, which brought him to his grave on the fifth of January, 1066, in the sixty-fifth year of his age, and twenty-fifth of his reign.

By marrying, Harold severed all ties with the duke of Normandy, and William realized he could no longer trust the oaths and promises he had forced from him. However, the English nobleman was now in a position where he felt it unnecessary to hide his true intentions. His treatment of the Northumbrians had shown a level of moderation that had won him the support of his fellow countrymen. He recognized that almost all of England was backing him; he governed Wessex, Morcar ruled Northumberland, and Edwin managed Mercia. He now openly aimed for the throne, insisting that since it was commonly accepted that the royal family needed to be set aside due to the ineptitude of Edgar, the last heir, there was no one better suited to take the throne than a powerful nobleman of mature age, extensive experience, proven courage and skills, who was a native of the kingdom and would effectively protect it from foreign domination and tyranny. Edward, worn down by age and illness, found the challenges too overwhelming to face; and although his deep-seated biases kept him from supporting Harold's claims, he took weak and indecisive actions to secure the succession for the duke of Normandy.[**] 6 While he remained in this state of uncertainty, he was struck by illness, which led to his death on January 5, 1066, in his sixty-fifth year and the twenty-fifth year of his reign.

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 492.]

     [** See note F, at the end of the volume.]
     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 492.]

     [** See note F, at the end of the book.]

This prince, to whom the monks gave the title of Saint and Confessor, was the last of the Saxon line that ruled in England. Though his reign was peaceable and fortunate, he owed his prosperity less to his own abilities than to the conjunctures of the times. The Danes, employed in other enterprises, at tempted not those incursions which had been so troublesome to all his predecessors, and fatal to some of them. The facility of his disposition made him acquiesce under the government of Godwin and his son Harold; and the abilities, as well as the power of these noblemen, enabled them, while they were intrusted with authority, to preserve domestic peace and tranquillity. The most commendable circumstance of Edward’s government was his attention to the administration of justice, and his compiling, for that purpose, a body of laws which he collected from the laws of Ethelbert, Ina, and Alfred. This compilation, though now lost, (for the laws that pass under Edward’s name were composed afterwards,[*]) was long the object of affection to the English nation.

This prince, whom the monks called Saint and Confessor, was the last of the Saxon line to rule in England. Even though his reign was peaceful and successful, he owed his good fortune more to the circumstances of the time than to his own skills. The Danes, busy with other ventures, did not carry out the raids that had troubled all his predecessors and caused some of them disaster. His easygoing nature allowed him to accept the leadership of Godwin and his son Harold. The talents and power of these noblemen enabled them, while in charge, to maintain domestic peace and stability. The most commendable aspect of Edward’s rule was his focus on administering justice and his effort to compile a set of laws based on those of Ethelbert, Ina, and Alfred. This compilation, although now lost (the laws attributed to Edward were created later), was highly valued by the English people for a long time.

     [* Spelm. in verbo Belliva.]
[* Spelm. in word Belliva.]

Edward the Confessor was the first that touched for the king’s evil: the opinion of his sanctity procured belief to this cure among the people: his successors regarded it as a part of their state and grandeur to uphold the same opinion. It has been continued down to our time; and the practice was first dropped by the present royal family, who observed that it could no longer give amazement even to the populace, and was attended with ridicule in the eyes of all men of understanding.

Edward the Confessor was the first to heal the king’s evil: the belief in his holiness led people to trust this cure. His successors saw it as part of their status and importance to maintain that belief. This practice continued until now, and the current royal family was the first to abandon it, realizing that it no longer amazed even the common people and was met with mockery by all those who were knowledgeable.





HAROLD

1066.

1066.

Harold had so well prepared matters before the death of Edward, that he immediately stepped into the vacant throne; and his accession was attended with as little opposition and disturbance, as if he had succeeded by the most undoubted hereditary title. The citizens of London were his zealous partisans; the bishops and clergy had adopted his cause; and all the powerful nobility, connected with him by alliance or friendship, willingly seconded his pretensions. The title of Edgar Atheling was scarcely mentioned, much less the claim of the duke of Normandy; and Harold, assembling his partisans, received the crown from their hands, without waiting for the free deliberation of the states, or regularly submitting the question to their determination.[*] If any were averse to this measure, they were obliged to conceal their sentiments; and the new prince, taking a general silence for consent, and founding his title on the supposed suffrages of the people, which appeared unanimous, was, on the day immediately succeeding Edward’s death, crowned and anointed king, by Aldred, archbishop of York. The whole nation seemed joyfully to acquiesce in his elevation.

Harold had prepared things so well before Edward's death that he immediately took the empty throne. His rise to power faced as little opposition and disturbance as if he had succeeded by a clear hereditary title. The people of London were his enthusiastic supporters; the bishops and clergy backed him; and all the influential nobles, connected to him by marriage or friendship, eagerly supported his claims. The title of Edgar Atheling was barely mentioned, let alone the claim of the duke of Normandy. Harold gathered his supporters and received the crown from them, without waiting for the states to deliberate or properly submit the question for their decision. If anyone opposed this move, they had to hide their feelings; and the new king, interpreting the general silence as agreement and basing his claim on the presumed support of the people, which seemed unanimous, was crowned and anointed king the day after Edward’s death by Aldred, archbishop of York. The entire nation appeared to happily accept his rise to power.

The first symptoms of danger which the king discovered, came from abroad, and from his own brother, Tosti, who had submitted to a voluntary banishment in Flanders. Enraged at the successful ambition of Harold, to which he himself had fallen a victim, he filled the court of Baldwin with complaints of the injustice which he had suffered; he engaged the interest of that family against his brother; he endeavored to form intrigues with some of the discontented nobles in England he sent his emissaries to Norway, in order to rouse to arms the freebooters of that kingdom, and to excite their hopes of reaping advantage from the unsettled state of affairs on the usurpation of the new king; and, that he might render the combination more formidable, he made a journey to Normandy, in expectation that the duke, who had married Matilda, another daughter of Baldwin, would, in revenge of his own wrongs, as well as those of Tosti, second, by his counsels and forces, the projected invasion of England.[**]

The first signs of danger that the king noticed came from abroad and from his own brother, Tosti, who had chosen to go into voluntary exile in Flanders. Furious about Harold's successful ambition, which he himself had fallen prey to, he filled Baldwin’s court with complaints about the injustice he suffered. He got Baldwin's family interested against his brother, tried to form alliances with some of the discontented nobles in England, and sent his agents to Norway to stir up the freebooters there, hoping to motivate them to act on the chaos caused by the new king's usurpation. To strengthen this alliance, he traveled to Normandy, expecting that the duke, who had married Matilda, another daughter of Baldwin, would, in retaliation for his own grievances and Tosti’s, support the planned invasion of England with his advice and military power.

     [* Gul. Pictavensis, p. 196. Ypod. Neust. p. 486.
     Order. Vitalis, p. 492. M. West. p. 221. W. Malms, p. 93.
     Ingulph. p. 68. Brompton, p. 957. Knyghton, p. 2339. H.
     Hunting, p. 210. Many of the historians say, that Harold was
     regularly elected by the states; some that Edward left him
     his successor by will]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 492.]
     [* Gul. Pictavensis, p. 196. Ypod. Neust. p. 486.  
     Order. Vitalis, p. 492. M. West. p. 221. W. Malms, p. 93.  
     Ingulph. p. 68. Brompton, p. 957. Knyghton, p. 2339. H.  
     Hunting, p. 210. Many historians say that Harold was  
     officially elected by the states; some say Edward named him  
     as his successor in his will.]  

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 492.]

The duke of Normandy, when he first received intelligence of Harold’s intrigues and accessions, had been moved to the highest pitch of indignation; but that he might give the better color to his pretensions, he sent an embassy to England, upbraiding that prince with his breach of faith, and summoning him to resign, immediately, possession of the kingdom. Harold replied to the Norman ambassadors, that the oath, with which he was reproached, had been extorted by the well-grounded fear of violence, and could never, for that reason, be regarded as obligatory; that he had had no commission, either from the late king or the states of England, who alone could dispose of the crown, to make any tender of the succession to the duke of Normandy; and if he, a private person, had assumed so much authority, and had even voluntarily sworn to support the duke’s pretensions, the oath was unlawful, and It was his duty to seize the first opportunity of breaking it: that he had obtained the crown by the unanimous suffrages of the people, and should prove himself totally unworthy of their favor, did he not strenuously maintain those national liberties, with whose protection they had intrusted him; and that the duke, if he made any attempt by force of arms, should experience the power of a united nation, conducted by a prince who, sensible of the obligations imposed on him by his royal dignity, was determined that the same moment should put a period to his life and to his government.[*]

The Duke of Normandy, upon first hearing about Harold’s schemes and gains, was filled with intense anger. To strengthen his claims, he sent a delegation to England, accusing Harold of breaking his promises and demanding that he immediately give up the kingdom. Harold responded to the Norman ambassadors, stating that the oath they referenced had been forced upon him due to a legitimate fear of violence and couldn’t be seen as binding for that reason. He argued that he had no authority from the late king or the English states, who alone could decide the crown’s fate, to offer the succession to the Duke of Normandy. If he, as a private individual, had taken on such authority and even sworn to support the Duke’s claims, then that oath was invalid, and he had a duty to break it at the first chance. He declared that he had earned the crown through the unanimous support of the people and would be wholly unworthy of their favor if he didn’t vigorously defend the liberties they had entrusted to him. He warned the Duke that if he attempted any forceful actions, he would face the strength of a united nation led by a prince who understood the responsibilities of his royal role and was prepared to end either his life or his reign at that very moment.

     [* W. Malms, p. 99. Higden, p. 28,5. M. West. p.
     222. De Gest Angl., incerto auctore, p. 331.]
     [* W. Malms, p. 99. Higden, p. 28,5. M. West. p.
     222. De Gest Angl., incerto auctore, p. 331.]

This answer was no other than William expected; and he had previously fixed his resolution of making an attempt upon England. Consulting only his courage, his resentment, and his ambition, he overlooked all the difficulties inseparable from an attack on a great kingdom by such inferior force, and he saw only the circumstances which would facilitate his enterprise. He considered that England, ever since the accession of Canute, had enjoyed profound tranquillity, during a period of near fifty years; and it would require time for its soldiers, enervated by long peace, to learn discipline, and its generals experience. He knew that it was entirely unprovided with fortified towns, by which it could prolong the war; but must venture its whole fortune in one decisive action, against a veteran enemy, who, being once master of the field, would be in a condition to overrun the kingdom. He saw that Harold, though he had given proofs of vigor and bravery, had newly mounted a throne which he had acquired by faction, from which he had excluded a very ancient royal family, and which was likely to totter under him by its own instability, much more if shaken by any violent external impulse. And he hoped that the very circumstance of his crossing the sea, quitting his own country, and leaving himself no hopes of retreat, as it would astonish the enemy by the boldness of the enterprise, would inspirit his soldiers by despair, and rouse them to sustain the reputation of the Norman arms.

This answer was exactly what William expected, and he had already made up his mind to try his luck in England. Relying solely on his courage, anger, and ambition, he ignored all the challenges that came with attacking a large kingdom with such a small force, focusing only on the factors that would make his mission easier. He noted that England had enjoyed almost fifty years of peace since Canute took the throne, which meant it would take time for its soldiers, weakened by long tranquility, to learn discipline and for its generals to gain experience. He was aware that England had no fortified towns that could prolong the war and would have to risk everything in one decisive battle against a seasoned enemy who, once in control of the battlefield, could easily conquer the whole kingdom. He recognized that Harold, despite showing strength and bravery, had recently taken the throne through factional strife, displacing a very old royal family, and that his rule was likely unstable, especially if faced with a strong external force. He believed that the very act of crossing the sea, leaving his country behind without any hope of retreat, would not only shock the enemy with its boldness but would also inspire his soldiers out of desperation, pushing them to uphold the reputation of Norman forces.

The Normans, as they had long been distinguished by valor among all the European nations, had, at this time, attained to the highest pitch of military glory. Besides acquiring by arms such a noble territory in France, besides defending it against continual attempts of the French monarch and all its neighbors, besides exerting many acts of vigor under their present sovereign, they had, about this very time, revived their ancient fame, by the most hazardous exploits, and the moat wonderful successes, in the other extremity of Europe. A few Norman adventurers in Italy had acquired such an ascendant, not only over the Italians and Greeks, but the Germans and Saracens, that they expelled those foreigners, procured to themselves ample establishments, and laid the foundation of the opulent kingdom of Naples and Sicily.[*] These enterprises of men, who were all of them vassals in Normandy many of them banished for faction and rebellion, excited the ambition of the haughty William, who disdained, after such examples of fortune and valor, to be deterred from making an Attack on a neighboring country, where he could be supported by the whole force of his principality.

The Normans, known for their bravery among all European nations, had reached the peak of military achievement at this time. They not only seized a significant territory in France and defended it against constant attempts by the French king and neighboring powers, but also showcased their strength under their current ruler. Around this same period, they revived their legendary status through daring feats and remarkable successes at the other end of Europe. A few Norman adventurers in Italy gained such power over the Italians, Greeks, Germans, and Saracens that they expelled these foreign groups, secured substantial holdings, and laid the groundwork for the wealthy kingdom of Naples and Sicily.[*] The actions of these men, all vassals from Normandy, many of whom had been exiled due to factional disputes and rebellion, stirred the ambition of the proud William, who, inspired by these examples of fortune and bravery, refused to be deterred from launching an attack on a neighboring country where he could draw on the full strength of his principality.

     [* Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 30.]
[* Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 30.]

The situation also of Europe inspired William with hopes that, besides his brave Normans, he might employ against England the flower of the military force which was dispersed in all the neighboring states. France, Germany, and the Low Countries, by the progress of the feudal institutions, were divided and subdivided into many principalities and baronies; and the possessors, enjoying the civil jurisdiction within them selves, as well as the right of arms, acted, in many respects, as independent sovereigns, and maintained their propertied and privileges, less by the authority of laws, than by their own force and valor. A military spirit had universally diffused itself throughout Europe; and the several leaders, whose minds were elevated by their princely situation, greedily embraced the most hazardous enterprises; and being accustomed to nothing, from their infancy, but recitals of the success attending wars and battles, they were prompted by a natural ambition to imitate those adventures which they heard so much celebrated, and which were so much exaggerated by the credulity of the age. United, however loosely, by their duty to one superior lord, and by their connections with the great body of the community to which they belonged, they desired to spread their fame each beyond his own district and in all assemblies, whether instituted for civil deliberations for military expeditions, or merely for show and entertainment, to outshine each other by the reputation of strength and prowess. Hence their genius for chivalry; hence their impatience of peace and tranquillity; and hence their readiness to embark in any dangerous enterprise, how little soever interested in its failure or success.

The situation in Europe also inspired William with hopes that, in addition to his brave Normans, he could enlist the best military forces scattered across neighboring states for his campaign against England. France, Germany, and the Low Countries, due to the rise of feudalism, were divided into numerous principalities and baronies. The landowners, who exercised civil authority and the right to bear arms within their territories, often acted as independent rulers, upholding their property and privileges more through their own strength and courage than through legal authority. A military spirit had spread across Europe; the leaders, elevated by their noble status, eagerly took on the most dangerous challenges. Having grown up hearing tales of military successes, they were driven by a natural ambition to replicate the celebrated exploits that were exaggerated by the gullibility of the times. Although loosely united under one overlord and connected to the larger community they belonged to, they sought to extend their fame beyond their own regions. In any gatherings—whether for civil discussions, military planning, or mere entertainment—they aimed to outshine each other in reputation for strength and bravery. This fostered their passion for chivalry, their impatience with peace and calm, and their willingness to engage in any perilous venture, regardless of their personal stake in its outcome.

William, by his power, his courage, and his abilities, had long maintained a preeminence among those haughty chieftains; and every one who desired to signalize himself by his address in military exercises, or his valor in action, had been ambitious of acquiring a reputation in the court and in the armies of Normandy. Entertained with that hospitality and courtesy which distinguished the age, they had formed attachments with the prince, and greedily attended to the prospects of the signal glory and elevation which he promised them in return for their concurrence in an expedition against England. The more grandeur there appeared in the attempt, the more it suited their romantic spirit; the fame of the intended invasion was already diffused everywhere; multitudes crowded to tender to the duke their service, with that of their vassals and retainers;[*] and William found less difficulty in completing his levies, than in choosing the most veteran forces, and in rejecting the offers of those who were impatient to acquire fame under so renowned a leader.

William, through his power, bravery, and skills, had long held a top position among those proud chieftains; anyone looking to prove themselves in military exercises or bravery in battle was eager to earn a reputation at the court and in the armies of Normandy. Welcomed with the hospitality and politeness typical of the time, they formed strong bonds with the prince and eagerly listened to the promises of glory and advancement he offered in exchange for their support in an expedition against England. The more grand the endeavor seemed, the more it appealed to their adventurous spirits; news of the planned invasion was already spreading everywhere; crowds gathered to offer the duke their service, along with that of their vassals and retainers; and William faced less trouble in gathering his forces than in selecting the most experienced troops and turning down the offers of those eager to gain fame under such a renowned leader.

Besides these advantages, which William owed to his personal valor and good conduct, he was indebted to fortune for procuring him some assistance, and also for removing many obstacles which it was natural for him to expect, in an undertaking in which all his neighbors were so deeply interested. Conan, count of Brittany, was his mortal enemy: in order to throw a damp upon the duke’s enterprise, he chose this conjuncture for reviving his claim to Normandy itself; and he required that, in case of William’s success against England, the possession of that duchy should devolve to him.[**] But Conan died suddenly after making this demand; and Hoel, his successor, instead of adopting the malignity, or, more properly speaking, the prudence of his predecessor, zealously seconded the duke’s views, and sent his eldest son, Alain Fergant, to serve under him with a body of five thousand Bretons. The counts of Anjou and of Flanders encouraged their subjects to engage in the expedition; and even the court of France, though it might justly fear the aggrandizement of so dangerous a vassal, pursued not its interests on this occasion with sufficient vigor and resolution.

Besides these advantages, which William gained from his bravery and good behavior, he was also lucky to get some help and for many obstacles to be taken out of his way, which he could naturally expect in an undertaking where all his neighbors had a strong interest. Conan, the count of Brittany, was his deadly rival: to undermine the duke’s plans, he chose this moment to revive his claim to Normandy itself. He demanded that if William succeeded in conquering England, the duchy should go to him. But Conan died suddenly after making this demand; and Hoel, his successor, instead of following his predecessor's hostility—or rather, his caution—enthusiastically supported the duke’s ambitions and sent his eldest son, Alain Fergant, to fight with a team of five thousand Bretons. The counts of Anjou and Flanders encouraged their people to join the expedition; and even the French court, despite its valid concerns about the rise of such a dangerous vassal, did not pursue its own interests with enough energy and determination this time.

     [* Gul Pict. p. 198.]

     [** Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 33]
     [* Gul Pict. p. 198.]

     [** Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 33]

Philip I., the reign ing monarch, was a minor; and William, having communicated his project to the council, having desired assistance, and offered to do homage, in case of his success, for the crown of England, was indeed openly ordered to lay aside all thoughts of the enterprise; but the earl of Flanders, his father-in-law, being at the head of the regency, favored underhand his levies, and secretly encouraged the adventurous nobility to enlist under the standard of the duke of Normandy.

Philip I, the ruling king, was a minor; and William, after sharing his plan with the council and asking for help, offered to pay homage for the English crown if he succeeded. He was openly told to abandon the idea, but the Earl of Flanders, his father-in-law and head of the regency, secretly supported his efforts and encouraged the bold nobles to join the Duke of Normandy's cause.

The emperor, Henry IV., besides openly giving all his vassals permission to embark in this expedition, which so much engaged the attention of Europe, promised his protection to the duchy of Normandy during the absence of the prince, and thereby enabled him to employ his whole force in the invasion of England.[*]

The emperor, Henry IV, not only openly allowed all his vassals to join in on this expedition, which captured Europe's attention, but also promised to protect the duchy of Normandy while the prince was away, allowing him to fully focus his forces on invading England.[*]

     [* Gul. Pict. p, 198.]
[* Gul. Pict. p, 198.]

But the most important ally that William gained by his negotiations, was the pope, who had a mighty influence over the ancient barons, no less devout in their religious principles than valorous in their military enterprises. The Roman pontiff, after an insensible progress during several ages of darkness and ignorance, began now to lift his head openly above all the princes of Europe; to assume the office of a mediator, or even an arbiter, in the quarrels of the greatest monarchs; to interpose in all secular affairs; and lo obtrude his dictates as sovereign laws on his obsequious disciples, It was a sufficient motive to Alexander II., the reigning pope, for embracing William’s quarrel, that he alone had made an appeal to his tribunal, and rendered him umpire of the dispute between him and Harold; but there were other advantages which that pontiff foresaw must result from the conquest of England by the Norman arms. That kingdom, though at first converted by Romish missionaries, though it had afterwards advanced some farther steps towards subjection to Rome, maintained still a considerable independence in its ecclesiastical administration; and forming a world within itself, entirely separated from the rest of Europe, it had hitherto proved inaccessible to those exorbitant claims which supported the grandeur of the papacy. Alexander therefore hoped, that the French and Norman barons, if successful in their enterprise, might import into that country a more devoted reverence to the holy see, and bring the English churches to a nearer conformity with those of the continent. He declared immediately in favor of William’s claim; pronounced Harold a perjured usurper; denounced excommunication against him and his adherents; and the more to encourage the duke of Normandy in his enterprise, he sent him a consecrated banner, and a ring with one of St. Peter’s hairs in it.[*] Thus were all the ambition and violence of that invasion covered over safely with the broad mantle of religion.

But the most important ally that William gained through his negotiations was the pope, who had significant influence over the ancient barons, who were just as devout in their religious beliefs as they were brave in battle. The Roman pontiff, after a gradual rise during several ages of darkness and ignorance, started to assert himself openly above all the princes of Europe; he took on the role of mediator or even arbiter in the disputes of the greatest monarchs; he intervened in all secular matters; and imposed his demands as sovereign laws on his obedient followers. It was a strong incentive for Alexander II, the reigning pope, to support William’s cause that he alone had appealed to his tribunal, making him the judge of the conflict between William and Harold. However, there were other benefits that the pope anticipated would come from the Norman conquest of England. That kingdom, although initially converted by Roman missionaries and having made some progress towards submission to Rome, still maintained a considerable independence in its church administration. Essentially forming a world unto itself, completely separated from the rest of Europe, it had thus far resisted the excessive claims that bolstered the power of the papacy. Alexander therefore hoped that the French and Norman barons, if successful in their campaign, might bring a greater devotion to the holy see in that country and lead the English churches to align more closely with those on the continent. He immediately declared his support for William’s claim; labeled Harold a perjured usurper; announced excommunication against him and his followers; and to encourage the Duke of Normandy in his venture, he sent him a consecrated banner and a ring containing a hair of St. Peter. Thus, all the ambition and force of that invasion were safely cloaked in the broad mantle of religion.

The greatest difficulty which William had to encounter in his preparations, arose from his own subjects in Normandy. The states of the duchy were assembled at Lislebonne; and supplies being demanded for the intended enterprise, which promised so much glory and advantage to their country, there appeared a reluctance in many members both to grant sums so much beyond the common measure of taxes in that age, and to set a precedent of performing their military service at a distance from their own country. The duke, finding it dangerous to solicit them in a body, conferred separately with the richest individuals in the province; and beginning with those on whose affections he most relied, he gradually engaged all of them to advance the sums demanded. The count of Longueville seconded him in this negotiation; as did the count of Mortaigne, Odo, bishop of Baieux, and especially William Fitz-Osborne, count of Breteuil, and constable of the duchy. Every person, when he himself was once engaged, endeavored to bring over others; and at last the states themselves, after stipulating that this concession should be no precedent, voted that they would assist their prince to the utmost in his intended enterprise.[**]

The biggest challenge William faced in his preparations came from his own subjects in Normandy. The duchy’s assembly was gathered at Lislebonne, and when supplies were requested for the upcoming campaign, which promised significant glory and benefits for their country, many members showed hesitation. They were reluctant to agree to contribute amounts that far exceeded the usual taxes of that time and to set a precedent for serving militarily away from their homeland. The duke, recognizing the risk of addressing them all at once, spoke individually to the wealthiest people in the province. Starting with those he trusted most, he gradually convinced all of them to contribute the requested funds. The count of Longueville supported him in these discussions, as did the count of Mortaigne, Odo, bishop of Baieux, and especially William Fitz-Osborne, count of Breteuil, and constable of the duchy. Once each individual was on board, they all tried to persuade others; eventually, the assembly itself agreed, after ensuring that this commitment wouldn’t set a precedent, to support their prince to the fullest in his intended campaign.[**]

William had now assembled a fleet of three thousand vessels, great and small,[***] and had selected an army of sixty thousand men from among those numerous supplies, which from every quarter solicited to be received into his service.

William had now gathered a fleet of three thousand ships, big and small,[***] and had chosen an army of sixty thousand men from the many who were eager to join his service.

     [* Baker, p. 22, edit. 1634.]

     [** Camden. Introd. ad Britann. p. 212, 2d edit.
     Gibs. Verstegan. p. 173]

     [*** Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 34.]
     [* Baker, p. 22, edit. 1634.]

     [** Camden. Introd. ad Britann. p. 212, 2d edit.
     Gibs. Verstegan. p. 173]

     [*** Gul. Gemet. lib. vii. cap. 34.]

The camp bore a splendid, yet a martial appearance, from the discipline of the men, the beauty and vigor of the horses, the lustre of the arms, and the accoutrements of both; but above all, from the high names of nobility who engaged under the banners of the duke of Normandy. The most celebrated were Eustace, count of Boulogne, Aimeri de Thouars, Hugh d’Estaples, William d’Evreux, Geoffrey de Rotrou, Roger de Beaumont, William de Warenne, Roger de Montgomery, Hugh de Grantmesnil, Charles Martel, and Geoffrey Giffard.[*] To these bold chieftains William held up the spoils of England as the prize of their valor; and pointing to the opposite shore, called to them that there was the field, on which they must erect trophies to their name, and fix their establishments.

The camp had a striking but military vibe, thanks to the men's discipline, the beauty and strength of the horses, the shine of their weapons, and the gear of both; but most importantly, it was enhanced by the esteemed nobility who rallied under the duke of Normandy's banners. The most notable among them were Eustace, count of Boulogne, Aimeri de Thouars, Hugh d’Estaples, William d’Evreux, Geoffrey de Rotrou, Roger de Beaumont, William de Warenne, Roger de Montgomery, Hugh de Grantmesnil, Charles Martel, and Geoffrey Giffard.[*] To these brave leaders, William held out the spoils of England as the reward for their bravery; and pointing to the distant shore, he told them that there was the battlefield where they needed to set up their trophies and establish their legacies.

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 501.]
[* Order. Vitalis, p. 501.]

While he was making these mighty preparations, the duke, that he might increase the number of Harold’s enemies, excited the inveterate rancor of Tosti, and encouraged him, in concert with Harold Halfager, king of Norway, to infest the coasts of England. Tosti, having collected about sixty vessels in the ports of Flanders, put to sea; and after committing some depredations on the south and east coasts, he sailed to Northumberland, and was there joined by Halfager, who came over with a great armament of three hundred sail. The combined fleets entered the Humber, and disembarked the troops, who began to extend their depredations on all sides; when Morcar, earl of Northumberland, and Edwin, earl of Mercia, the king’s brother-in-law, having hastily collected some forces, ventured to give them battle. The action ended in the defeat and flight of these two noblemen.

While he was making these powerful preparations, the duke, wanting to grow Harold’s list of enemies, stirred up the deep resentment of Tosti and boosted him, along with Harold Halfager, king of Norway, to raid the coasts of England. Tosti gathered about sixty ships in the ports of Flanders and set out to sea. After causing some damage along the southern and eastern coasts, he sailed to Northumberland, where he joined forces with Halfager, who arrived with a large fleet of three hundred ships. The united fleets entered the Humber and unloaded their troops, who started raiding the area in all directions. Morcar, the earl of Northumberland, and Edwin, the earl of Mercia and the king’s brother-in-law, quickly assembled some forces to confront them. The battle ended with the defeat and retreat of these two noblemen.

Harold, informed of this defeat, hastened with an army to the protection of his people; and expressed the utmost ardor to show himself worthy of the crown, which had been conferred upon him. This prince, though he was not sensible of the full extent of his danger, from the great combination against him, had employed every art of popularity to acquire the affections of the public; and he gave so many proofs of an equitable and prudent administration, that the English found no reason to repent the choice which they had made of a sovereign. They flocked from all quarters to join his standard; and as soon as he reached the enemy at Standford, he found himself in condition to give them battle. The action was bloody; but the victory was decisive on the side of Harold, and ended in the total rout of the Norwegians, together with the death of Tosti and Halfager. Even the Norwegian fleet fell into the hands of Harold, who had the generosity to give prince Olave, the son of Halfager, his liberty, and allow him to depart with twenty vessels. But he had scarcely time to rejoice for this victory, when he received itelligence that the duke of Normandy was landed with a great army in the south of England.

Harold, learning of this defeat, rushed with an army to protect his people and showed great enthusiasm to prove he was worthy of the crown that had been given to him. This prince, although not fully aware of the extent of his danger from the large alliance against him, used every tactic to gain the public's support. He provided so many examples of fair and wise leadership that the English had no reason to regret their choice of sovereign. They came from all directions to rally around his banner, and as soon as he confronted the enemy at Standford, he was ready to engage them in battle. The fight was brutal, but Harold won a decisive victory, resulting in the complete defeat of the Norwegians, along with the deaths of Tosti and Halfager. Even the Norwegian fleet was captured by Harold, who generously granted prince Olave, the son of Halfager, his freedom and allowed him to leave with twenty ships. However, he hardly had time to celebrate this victory when he received word that the Duke of Normandy had landed with a large army in the south of England.

The Norman fleet and army had been assembled, early in the summer, at the mouth of the small river Dive, and all the troops had been instantly embarked; but the winds proved long contrary, and detained them in that harbor. The authority, however, of the duke, the good discipline maintained among the seamen and soldiers, and the great care in supplying them with provisions, had prevented any disorder, when at last the wind became favorable, and enabled them to sail along the coast, till they reached St. Valori. There were, however, several vessels lost in this short passage; and as the wind again proved contrary, the army began to imagine that Heaven had declared against them, and that, notwithstanding the pope’s benediction, they were destined to certain destruction. These bold warriors, who despised real dangers, were very subject to the dread of imaginary ones; and many of them began to mutiny, some of them even to desert their colors, when the duke, in order to support their drooping hopes, ordered a procession to be made with the relics of St. Valori,[*] and prayers to be said for more favorable weather.

The Norman fleet and army gathered early in the summer at the entrance of the small river Dive, and all the troops were quickly boarded onto the ships. However, the winds remained unfavorable for a long time, keeping them stuck in the harbor. Thankfully, the duke's authority, the good discipline among the sailors and soldiers, and the careful provision of supplies kept any disorder at bay. Finally, when the wind turned favorable, they set sail along the coast until they reached St. Valori. Unfortunately, several ships were lost during this short journey, and when the wind turned against them again, the army started to feel that Heaven was against them, and despite the pope’s blessing, they were doomed to fail. These fearless warriors, who faced real dangers without fear, were easily gripped by the fear of imagined threats; many began to mutiny, and some even deserted their colors. To lift their spirits, the duke ordered a procession with the relics of St. Valori and prayers for better weather.

     [* Higden, p. 285. Order Vitalis, p. 500. M.
     Paris, edit. Pai anno 1644, p. 2.]
     [* Higden, p. 285. Order Vitalis, p. 500. M. Paris, edit. Pai anno 1644, p. 2.]

The wind instantly changed; and as this incident happened on the eve of the feast of St. Michael, the tutelar saint of Normandy, the soldiers, fancying they saw the hand of Heaven in all these concurring circumstances, set out with the greatest alacrity: they met with no opposition on their passage. A great fleet which Harold had assembled, and which had cruised all summer off the Isle of Wight, had been dismissed on his receiving false intelligence that William, discouraged by contrary winds and other accidents, had laid aside his preparations. The Norman armament, proceeding in great order, arrived, without any material loss, at Pevensey, in Sussex; and the army quietly disembarked. The duke himself, as he leaped on shore, happened to stumble and fall; but had the presence of mind, it is said, to turn the omen to his advantage, by calling aloud that he had taken possession of the country. And a soldier, running to a neighboring cottage, plucked some thatch, which, as if giving him seizin of the kingdom, he presented to his general. The joy and alacrity of William and his whole army was so great, that they were nowise discouraged, evan when they heard of Harold’s great victory over the Norwegians. They seemed rather to wait with impatience the arrival of the enemy.

The wind suddenly shifted; and since this event took place on the eve of St. Michael's feast, the guardian saint of Normandy, the soldiers, believing they saw divine intervention in all these events, set out with great enthusiasm: they faced no opposition on their way. A large fleet that Harold had gathered, which had been cruising all summer off the Isle of Wight, had been dismissed when he received false news that William, discouraged by unfavorable winds and other issues, had abandoned his plans. The Norman forces, moving in an orderly fashion, arrived without any significant losses at Pevensey in Sussex; and the army disembarked calmly. The duke himself, as he jumped ashore, happened to trip and fall; but reportedly, he had the quick thinking to turn the omen to his advantage by loudly declaring that he had claimed the land. A soldier, running to a nearby cottage, snatched some thatch, which he presented to his general as if giving him ownership of the kingdom. The joy and eagerness of William and his entire army were so immense that they were not at all discouraged, even when they heard about Harold’s significant victory over the Norwegians. They seemed rather to be impatiently awaiting the arrival of the enemy.

The victory of Harold, though great and honorable, had proved in the main prejudicial to his interests, and may be regarded as the immediate cause of his ruin. He lost many of his bravest officers and soldiers in the action, and he disgusted the rest by refusing to distribute the Norwegian spoils among them; a conduct which was little agreeable to his usual generosity of temper, but which his desire of sparing the people, in the war that impended over him from the duke of Normandy, had probably occasioned. He hastened by quick marches to reach this new invader; but though he was reènforced at London and other places with fresh troops, he found himself also weakened by the desertion of his old soldiers, who from fatigue and discontent secretly withdrew from their colors. His brother Gurth, a man of bravery and conduct, began to entertain apprehensions of the event; and remonstrated with the king, that it would be better policy to prolong the war; at least, to spare his own person in the action. He urged to him that the desperate situation of the duke of Normandy made it requisite for that prince to bring matters to a speedy decision, and put his whole fortune on the issue of a battle; but that the king of England, in his own country, beloved by his subjects, provided with every supply, had more certain and less dangerous means of insuring to himself the victory; that the Norman troops, elated on the one hand with the highest hopes, and seeing on the other no resource in case of a discomfiture, would fight to the last extremity; and being the flower of all the warriors of the continent, must be regarded as formidable to the English; that if their first fire, which is always the most dangerous, were allowed to languish for want of action, if they were harassed with small skirmishes, straitened in provisions, and fatigued with the bad weather and deep roads during the winter season which was approaching, they must fall an easy and a bloodless prey to their enemy; that if a general action were delayed, the English, sensible of the imminent danger to which their properties, as well as liberties, were exposed from those rapacious invaders, would hasten from all quarters to his assistance, and would render his army invincible; that, at least, if he thought it necessary to hazard a battle, he ought not to expose his own person out reserve, in case of disastrous accidents, some resource to the liberty and independence of the kingdom; and that having once been so unfortunate as to be constrained to swear, and that upon the holy relics, to support the pretensions of the duke of Normandy, it were better that the command of the army should be intrusted to another, who, not being bound by those sacred ties, might give the soldiers more assured hopes of a prosperous issue to the combat.

The victory of Harold, while impressive and honorable, ended up being mostly harmful to his interests and can be seen as the direct cause of his downfall. He lost many of his bravest officers and soldiers in the battle and upset the rest by not sharing the spoils from the Norwegians with them; this behavior, which was out of character for his usual generosity, was likely driven by his desire to protect the people in the war looming from the Duke of Normandy. He hurriedly marched to confront this new invader, but even though he was reinforced in London and other places with fresh troops, he also faced a decline in numbers due to the desertion of his old soldiers, who quietly left their posts out of fatigue and discontent. His brother Gurth, a brave and capable man, started to worry about the outcome and advised the king that it would be smarter to prolong the conflict; at the very least, he should keep himself safe in the battle. He pointed out that the Duke of Normandy’s desperate situation required him to bring things to a quick conclusion and stake everything on a battle's result; however, the King of England, loved by his people and backed by ample resources in his own country, had more reliable and less risky ways to secure victory. The Norman troops, riding high on hope but having no fallback if they were defeated, would fight fiercely. Since they were the elite fighters from across the continent, they posed a serious threat to the English. If their initial momentum, which is always the most dangerous, was allowed to fizzle out due to inactivity, and if they were worn down by skirmishes, strained by a lack of supplies, and tired from the harsh winter weather and muddy roads, they would become easy and bloodless targets for their enemy. If a major battle were postponed, the English, aware of the looming threat to their homes and freedoms posed by these greedy invaders, would rush from all directions to come to his aid, making his army invincible. At the very least, if he felt compelled to risk a battle, he shouldn't put himself in the line of fire, keeping some backup for the kingdom’s freedom and independence in case things went badly. Furthermore, having unfortunately been forced to swear on holy relics to support the Duke of Normandy's claims, it might be wiser to delegate command of the army to someone else who, being free from those sacred obligations, could give the soldiers more confidence in a successful outcome.

Harold was deaf to all these remonstrances. Elated with his past prosperity, as well as stimulated by his native courage, he resolved to give battle in person; and for that purpose he drew near to the Normans, who had removed their camp and fleet to Hastings, where they fixed their quarters. He was so confident of success, that he sent a message to the duke, promising him a sum of money if he would depart the kingdom without effusion of blood; but his offer was rejected with disdain; and William, not to be behind with his enemy in vaunting, sent him a message by some monks, requiring him either to resign the kingdom, or to hold it of him in fealty, or to submit their cause to the arbitration of the pope, or to fight him in single combat. Harold replied, that the God of battles would soon be the arbiter of all their differences.[*]

Harold ignored all these warnings. Thrilled by his previous success and fueled by his natural bravery, he decided to face the Normans himself. He moved closer to their camp and fleet in Hastings, where they had set up their base. Confident of victory, he sent a message to the duke, offering him a sum of money to leave the kingdom peacefully. However, his offer was turned down with contempt. Not wanting to be outdone, William sent Harold a message through some monks, demanding that he either surrender the kingdom, hold it as a vassal, let the pope decide their dispute, or fight him in single combat. Harold responded that the God of battles would soon settle all their issues.[*]

The English and Normans now prepared themselves for this important decision; but the aspect of things, on the night before the battle, was very different in the two camps. The English spent the time in riot, and jollity, and disorder; the Normans, in silence, and in prayer, and in the other functions of their religion.[**]

The English and Normans were getting ready for this important decision, but the mood the night before the battle was very different in the two camps. The English were busy with chaos, fun, and disorder; the Normans focused on silence, prayer, and other religious activities.

     [* Higden, p. 286]

     [** W. Malms, p. 101. De Gest Angl. p. 332]
     [* Higden, p. 286]

     [** W. Malms, p. 101. De Gest Angl. p. 332]

On the morning, the duke called together the most considerable of his commanders, and made them a speech suitable to the occasion. He represented to them, that the event which they and he had long wished for, was approaching; the whole fortune of the war now depended on their swords, and would be decided in a single action; that never army had greater motives for exerting a vigorous courage, whether they considered the prize which would attend their victory, or the inevitable destruction which must ensue upon their discomfiture; that if their martial and veteran bands could once break those raw soldiers, who had rashly dared to approach them, they conquered a kingdom at one blow, and were justly entitled to all its possessions as the reward of their prosperous valor; that, on the contrary, if they remitted in the least their wonted prowess, an enraged enemy hung upon their rear, the sea met them in their retreat, and an ignominious death was the certain punishment of their imprudent cowardice; that by collecting so numerous and brave a host, he had insured every human means of conquest; and the commander of the enemy, by his criminal conduct, had given him just cause to hope for the favor of the Almighty, in whose hands alone lay the event of wars and battles; and that a perjured usurper, anathematized by the sovereign pontiff, and conscious of his own breach of faith would be struck with terror on their appearance, and would prognosticate to himself that fate which—his multiplied crimes had so justly merited.[*] The duke next divided his army into three lines: the first, led by Montgomery, consisted of archers and light-armed infantry; the second, commanded by Martel, was composed of his bravest battalions, heavy-armed, and ranged in close order; his cavalry, at whose head he placed himself, formed the third line, and were so disposed, that they stretched beyond the infantry, and flanked each wing of the army.[**] He ordered the signal of battle to be given; and the whole army, moving at once, and singing the hymn or song of Roland, the famous peer of Charlemagne,[***] advanced, in order and with alacrity, towards the enemy.

On the morning, the duke gathered his top commanders and gave them a speech suited for the occasion. He told them that the moment they had all been waiting for was approaching; the entire fate of the war now rested on their swords and would be decided in a single battle. He emphasized that no army had greater reasons to show fierce courage, whether they thought about the rewards that victory would bring or the certain destruction that would follow if they were defeated. He reminded them that if their seasoned troops could beat those inexperienced soldiers who had dared to come near, they would win a kingdom in one strike and rightfully earn all its riches as a reward for their bravery. On the other hand, if they showed the slightest decline in their usual strength, an angry enemy was behind them, the sea blocked their escape, and a shameful death awaited them due to their reckless cowardice. By assembling such a large and brave group, he had secured every possible means of victory; and the enemy commander, with his wrongdoings, had given him good reason to hope for divine support, as the outcome of wars and battles rests solely in the hands of God. A perjured usurper, cursed by the pope and aware of his betrayal, would be filled with fear at their approach and would foresee the fate his numerous crimes so rightly deserved. The duke then divided his army into three lines: the first, led by Montgomery, was made up of archers and light infantry; the second, commanded by Martel, consisted of his bravest troops, heavily armed and organized closely; he placed himself at the head of the cavalry, forming the third line, which extended beyond the infantry and flanked both sides of the army. He ordered the battle signal to be given, and the entire army, moving as one and singing the hymn or song of Roland, the famous peer of Charlemagne, advanced orderly and eagerly toward the enemy.

     [* H. Hunting, p. 368. Brompton, p. 959. Gul.
     Pict. p. 201.]

     [** Gul. Pict. p. 201. Order. Vitalis, p. 501.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 101. Higden, p. 286. M. West. p.
     223. Dr Cange’s Glossary, in verbo Cantilena Rolandi.]
     [* H. Hunting, p. 368. Brompton, p. 959. Gul. Pict. p. 201.]

     [** Gul. Pict. p. 201. Order. Vitalis, p. 501.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 101. Higden, p. 286. M. West. p. 223. Dr Cange’s Glossary, in verbo Cantilena Rolandi.]

Harold had seized the advantage of a rising ground, and having likewise drawn some trenches to secure his flanks, he resolved to stand upon the defensive, and to avoid all action with the cavalry, in which he was inferior. The Kentish men were placed in the van; a post which they had always claimed as their due: the Londoners guarded the standard; and the king himself, accompanied by his two valiant brothers, Gurth and Leofwin, dismounting, placed himself at the head of his infantry, and expressed his resolution to conquer or to perish in the action. The first attack of the Normans was desperate, but was received with equal valor by the English; and after a furious combat, which remained long undecided, the former, overcome by the difficulty of the ground, and hard pressed by the enemy, began first to relax their vigor, then to retreat; and confusion was spreading among the ranks; when William, who found himself on the brink of destruction, hastened, with a select band, to the relief of his dismayed forces. His presence restored the action; the English were obliged to retire with loss; and the duke, ordering his second line to advance, renewed the attack with fresh forces and with redoubled courage. Finding that the enemy aided by the advantage of ground, and animated by the example of their prince, still made a vigorous resistance, he tried a stratagem which was very delicate in its management, but which seemed advisable in his desperate situation, where, if he gained not a decisive victory, he was totally undone: he commanded his troops to make a hasty retreat, and to allure the enemy from their ground by the appearance of flight. The artifice succeeded against those unexperienced soldiers, who, heated by the action, and sanguine in their hopes, precipitately followed the Normans into the plain. William gave orders, that at once the infantry should face about upon their pursuers, and the cavalry make an assault upon their wings, and both of them pursue the advantage, which the surprise and terror of the enemy must give them in that critical and decisive moment. The English were repulsed with great slaughter, and driven back to the hill; where, being rallied by the bravery of Harold, they were able, notwithstanding their loss, to maintain the post and continue the combat. The duke tried the same stratagem a second time with the same success; but even after this double advantage, he still found a great body of the English, who, maintaining themselves in firm array, seemed determined to dispute the victory to the last extremity. He ordered his heavy-armed infantry to make an assault upon them; while his archers, placed behind, should gall the enemy, who were exposed by the situation of the ground, and who were intent in defending themselves against the swords and spears of the assailants. By this disposition he at last prevailed: Harold was slain by an arrow, while he was combating with great bravery at the head of his men; his two brothers shared the same fate; and the English, discouraged by the fall of those princes, gave ground on all sides, and were pursued with great slaughter by the victorious Normans. A few troops, however, of the vanquished had still the courage to turn upon their pursuers; and attacking them in deep and miry ground, obtained some revenge for the slaughter and dishonor of the day. But the appearance of the duke obliged them to seek their safety by flight; and darkness saved them from any further pursuit by the enemy.

Harold had taken advantage of higher ground and set up some trenches to protect his flanks. He decided to stay on the defensive and avoid any engagement with the cavalry, where he was at a disadvantage. The men from Kent were placed in the front, a position they had always claimed as their right; the Londoners guarded the standard; and the king himself, along with his two brave brothers, Gurth and Leofwin, dismounted to lead his infantry, declaring his resolve to either conquer or die in battle. The Normans launched a fierce initial attack, which the English met with equal bravery. After a brutal fight that remained unresolved for a long time, the Normans, overwhelmed by the tough terrain and pressured by the enemy, began to lose their strength and started to retreat. As confusion spread among their ranks, William, finding himself on the edge of defeat, rushed forward with a select group to support his shaken forces. His presence revived the battle; the English were forced to withdraw with losses, and the duke, instructing his second line to advance, renewed the assault with fresh troops and renewed courage. Noticing that the enemy, benefiting from the terrain and inspired by their prince’s example, was still fiercely resisting, he attempted a cunning tactic that was risky but felt necessary in his desperate state. He ordered his troops to make a quick retreat to lure the enemy off their ground by pretending to flee. The tactic worked against those inexperienced soldiers, who, caught up in the fight and overly hopeful, hastily followed the Normans into the open plain. William commanded the infantry to turn on their pursuers while the cavalry launched an attack on their flanks, capitalizing on the surprise and fear of the enemy in that crucial moment. The English were pushed back with heavy casualties and forced to retreat to the hill; however, rallied by Harold's bravery, they were able to hold their position and continue fighting despite their losses. The duke used the same tactic a second time with the same success; yet even after this second advantage, he still faced a large group of English soldiers who maintained their formation and seemed determined to fight for victory to the very end. He ordered his heavily armed infantry to attack them while his archers, positioned behind, rained arrows on the enemy, who were vulnerable due to their position and focused on defending against the oncoming swords and spears. Ultimately, this strategy worked: Harold was struck down by an arrow while bravely fighting at the front with his men, and both of his brothers met the same fate. Discouraged by the death of their leaders, the English began to falter and were heavily pursued by the victorious Normans. A few of the defeated, however, still found the courage to turn and confront their pursuers, managing to take some revenge in the muddy terrain for the slaughter and dishonor of the day. But the sight of the duke forced them to flee for safety, and darkness ultimately saved them from further pursuit by the enemy.

Thus was gained by William, duke of Normandy, the great and decisive victory of Hastings, after a battle which was fought from morning till sunset, and which seemed worthy, by the heroic valor displayed by both armies and by both commanders, to decide the fate of a mighty kingdom. William had three horses killed under him; and there fell near fifteen thousand men on the side of the Normans: the loss was still more considerable on that of the vanquished, besides the death of the king and his two brothers. The dead body of Harold was brought to William, and was generously restored without ransom to his mother. The Norman army left not the field of battle without giving thanks to Heaven, in the most solemn manner, for their victory: and the prince, having refreshed his troops, prepared to push to the utmost his advantage against the divided, dismayed, and discomfited English.

Thus William, the Duke of Normandy, achieved the great and decisive victory at Hastings, after a battle that lasted from morning until sunset, which seemed fitting, given the heroic bravery shown by both armies and their commanders, to determine the fate of a powerful kingdom. William had three horses killed under him; around fifteen thousand men fell on the Norman side, and the losses were even greater for the defeated, including the deaths of the king and his two brothers. Harold's dead body was brought to William and was generously returned to his mother without ransom. The Norman army didn't leave the battlefield without solemnly giving thanks to Heaven for their victory; and after refreshing his troops, the prince prepared to fully exploit his advantage against the divided, demoralized, and defeated English.





APPENDIX I.

THE ANGLO-SAXON GOVERNMENT AND MANNERS.

The Anglo-Saxon Government and Customs.

The government of the Germans, and that of all the northern nations who established themselves on the ruins of Rome, was always extremely free; and those fierce people, accustomed to independence and inured to arms, were more guided by persuasion than authority in the submission which they paid to their princes. The military despotism which had taken place in the Roman empire, and which, previously to the irruption of those conquerors, had sunk the genius of men, and destroyed every noble principle of science and virtue, was unable to resist the vigorous efforts of a free people; and Europe, as from a new epoch, rekindled her ancient spirit, and shook off the base servitude to arbitrary will and authority under which she had so long labored. The free constitutions then established, however impaired by the encroachments of succeeding princes, still preserve an air of independence and legal administration, which distinguished the European nations; and if that part of the globe maintain sentiments of liberty, honor, equity, and valor superior to the rest of mankind, it owes these advantages chiefly to the seeds implanted by those generous barbarians.

The government of the Germans and all the northern nations that settled on the ruins of Rome was always very free. These fierce people, used to independence and hardened by battle, were more influenced by persuasion than by authority when it came to following their rulers. The military tyranny that had prevailed in the Roman Empire, which had stifled human creativity and crushed noble principles of knowledge and virtue before the arrival of those conquerors, couldn't withstand the strong efforts of a free people. Europe, entering a new era, reignited its ancient spirit and broke free from the oppressive rule of arbitrary will and authority that it had endured for so long. The free constitutions established during that time, though weakened by the overreach of later rulers, still maintain a sense of independence and legal governance that sets European nations apart. If that part of the world holds values of liberty, honor, fairness, and courage that surpass those of the rest of humanity, it largely owes these benefits to the foundations laid by those noble invaders.

The Saxons who subdued Britain, as they enjoyed great liberty in their own country, obstinately retained that invaluable possession in their new settlement; and they imported into this island the same principles of independence which they had inherited from their ancestors. The chieftains, (for such they were, more properly than kings or princes,) who commanded them in those military expeditions, still possessed a very limited authority; and as the Saxons exterminated, rather than subdued, the ancient inhabitants, they were indeed transplanted into a new territory, but preserved unaltered all their civil and military institutions. The language was pure Saxon; even the names of places, which often remain while the tongue entirely changes, were almost all affixed by the conquerors; the manners and customs were wholly German; and the same picture of a fierce and bold liberty, which is drawn by the masterly pencil of Tacitus, will suit those founders of the English government. The king, so far from being invested with arbitrary power, was only considered as the first among the citizens; his authority depended more on his personal qualities than on his station; he was even so far on a level with the people, that a stated price was fixed for his head, and a legal fine was levied upon his murderer, which, though proportionate to his station, and superior to that paid for the life of a subject, was a sensible mark of his subordination to the community.

The Saxons who took over Britain, as they enjoyed great freedom in their own country, stubbornly held on to that priceless possession in their new land; and they brought to this island the same principles of independence they had inherited from their ancestors. The leaders, (because that's what they were, more accurately than kings or princes,) who led them in those military campaigns, still had very limited power; and as the Saxons exterminated, instead of just subduing, the original inhabitants, they were indeed settled into a new territory but kept all their civil and military institutions intact. The language was pure Saxon; even the names of places, which often remain even as the language completely changes, were mostly given by the conquerors; the manners and customs were wholly German; and the same image of fierce and bold liberty, portrayed by the skilled hand of Tacitus, fits those founders of the English government. The king, far from having absolute power, was merely seen as the first among the citizens; his authority relied more on his personal qualities than his position; he was even so much on par with the people that a set price was determined for his life, and a legal fine was imposed on his killer, which, although proportionate to his status and higher than what a subject's life would command, was a clear sign of his subordination to the community.

It is easy to imagine that an independent people, so little restrained by law and cultivated by science, would not be very strict in maintaining a regular succession of their princes. Though they paid great regard to the royal family, and ascribed to it an undisputed superiority, they either had no rule, or none that was steadily observed, in filling the vacant throne; and present convenience, in that emergency, was more attended to than general principles. We are not, however, to suppose that the crown was considered as altogether elective; and that a regular plan was traced by the constitution for supplying, by the suffrages of the people, every vacancy made by the demise of the first magistrate. If any king left a son of an age and capacity fit for government, the young prince naturally stepped into the throne: if he was a minor, his uncle, or the next prince of the blood, was promoted to the government, and left the sceptre to his posterity: any sovereign, by taking previous measures with the leading men, had it greatly in his power to appoint his successor: all these changes, and indeed the ordinary administration of government, required the express concurrence, or at least the tacit acquiescence of the people; but possession, however obtained, was extremely apt to secure their obedience, and the idea of any right, which was once excluded was but feeble and imperfect. This is so much the case in all barbarous monarchies, and occurs so often in the history of the Anglo-Saxons, that we cannot consistently entertain any other notion of their government. The idea of an hereditary succession in authority is so natural to men, and is so much fortified by the usual rule in transmitting private possessions, that it must retain a great influence on every society, which does not exclude it by the refinements of a republican constitution. But as there is a material difference between gov-* *ernment and private possessions, and every man is not as much qualified for exercising the one as for enjoying the other, a people who are not sensible of the general advantages attending a fixed rule are apt to make great leaps in the succession, and frequently to pass over the person, who, had he possessed the requisite years and abilities, would have been thought entitled to the sovereignty. Thus these monarchies are not, strictly speaking, either elective or hereditary; and though the destination of a prince may often be followed in appointing his successor, they can as little be regarded as wholly testamentary. The states by their suffrage may sometimes establish a sovereign; but they more frequently recognize the person whom they find established: a few great men take the lead; the people, overawed and influenced, acquiesce in the government; and the reigning prince, provided he be of the royal family, passes undisputedly for the legal sovereign.

It’s easy to picture that an independent people, not heavily bound by law and shaped by science, wouldn’t be very strict about maintaining a regular line of succession for their leaders. While they held the royal family in high regard and recognized its clear superiority, there were either no established rules or none that were consistently followed for filling the vacant throne. In those situations, immediate convenience was prioritized over general principles. However, we shouldn’t assume that the crown was viewed as entirely elective, nor was there a clear constitutional plan for the people to select a new leader whenever the current one passed away. If a king left behind a son old enough and capable enough to rule, the young prince would naturally take the throne. If he was still a minor, his uncle or the next eligible royal would take over the government and pass the scepter down to his descendants. Any king could greatly influence his own succession by making arrangements with the key figures. All these transitions, as well as the regular functioning of government, required the explicit support or at least the silent agreement of the people; however, ownership, no matter how it was acquired, tended to ensure their obedience, and any notion of a right that was once dismissed became weak and incomplete. This is very much the case in all primitive monarchies and appears frequently in the history of the Anglo-Saxons, so we can’t consistently think of their government any other way. The idea of hereditary succession in authority is so natural to people, and it’s strengthened by the common practice of passing down private property, that it maintains significant influence in any society that doesn’t eliminate it through the complexities of a republican system. But given that there’s a crucial difference between governance and private property, and not everyone is equally suited to one as they are to the other, a people unaware of the general benefits of having a fixed rule tend to make significant jumps in succession and frequently overlook the person who, had he had the right age and skills, would have been considered entitled to the throne. Thus, these monarchies aren't strictly either elective or hereditary; and although the choice of a prince may often guide the appointment of his successor, it can’t be viewed as entirely testamentary. The states might sometimes establish a leader through their votes, but more often, they simply recognize the person who is already in power. A few powerful individuals take the lead; the people, feeling intimidated or swayed, accept the government; and the reigning prince, as long as he is from the royal family, is recognized without dispute as the legal sovereign.

It is confessed that our knowledge of the Anglo-Saxon history and antiquities is too imperfect to afford us means of determining with certainty all the prerogatives of the crown and privileges of the people, or of giving an exact delineation of that government. It is probable, also, that the constitution might be somewhat different hi the different kingdoms of the Heptarchy, and that it changed considerably during the course of six centuries, which elapsed from the first invasion of the Saxons till the Norman conquest.[*] But most of these differences and changes, with their causes and effects, are unknown to us; it only appears that, at all times and in all the kingdoms, there was a national council, called a wittenagemot, or assembly of the wise men, (for that is the import of the term,) whose consent was requisite for enacting laws, and for ratifying the chief acts of public administration.

It's acknowledged that our understanding of Anglo-Saxon history and artifacts is too incomplete to allow us to definitively identify all the powers of the crown and rights of the people, or to provide a precise description of that government. It's also likely that the constitution varied somewhat across the different kingdoms of the Heptarchy and changed significantly over the six centuries that passed from the first Saxon invasion to the Norman conquest.[*] However, most of these differences and changes, along with their causes and effects, remain unknown to us; it does seem that, at all times and in all the kingdoms, there was a national council known as a wittenagemot, or assembly of wise men (which is what the term means), whose approval was necessary for passing laws and for validating key actions of public administration.

     [* We know of one change, not inconsiderable, in
     the Saxon constitution. The Saxon Annals (p. 49) inform us,
     that it was, in early times, the prerogative of the king to
     name the dukes, earls, aldermen, and sheriffs of the
     counties. Asser, a contemporary writer, informs us that
     Alfred deposed all the ignorant aldermen, and appointed men
     of more capacity in their place: yet the laws of Edward the
     Confessor (sect. 35) say expressly that the heretoghs, or
     dukes, and the sheriffs were chosen by the freeholders in
     the folk-mote, a county court, which was assembled once a
     year, and where all the freeholders swore allegiance to the
     king.]
     [* We know of one significant change in the Saxon constitution. The Saxon Annals (p. 49) tell us that, in early times, it was the king's right to appoint the dukes, earls, aldermen, and sheriffs of the counties. Asser, a contemporary writer, reports that Alfred removed all the unqualified aldermen and replaced them with more capable individuals. However, the laws of Edward the Confessor (sect. 35) clearly state that the heretoghs, or dukes, and the sheriffs were selected by the freeholders in the folk-mote, a county court that met once a year, where all the freeholders swore allegiance to the king.]

The preambles to all the laws of Ethelbert, Ina, Alfred, Edward the Elder, Athelstan, Edmond, Edgar, Ethelred, and Edward the Confessor; even those to the laws of Canute though a kind of conqueror, put this matter beyond controversy, and carry proofs every where of a limited and legal government. But who were the constituent members of this wittenagemot has not been determined with certainty by antiquaries. It is agreed that the bishops and abbots[*] were an essential part; and it is also evident, from the tenor of those ancient laws, that the wittenagemot enacted statutes which regulated the ecclesiastical as well as civil government, and that those dangerous principles, by which the church is totally severed from the state, were hitherto unknown to the Anglo-Saxons.[**] It also appears that the aldermen or governors of counties, who, after the Danish times, were often called earls,[***] 7 were admitted into this council, and gave their consent to the public statutes. But besides the prelates and aldermen, there is also mention of the wites, or wisemen, as a component part of the wittenagemot; but who these were is not so clearly ascertained by the laws or the history of that period. The matter would probably be of difficult discussion, even were it examined impartially; but as our modern parties have chosen to divide on this point, the question has been disputed with the greater obstinacy, and the arguments on both sides have become, on that account, the more captious and deceitful. Our monarchical faction maintain that these “wites,” or “sapientes,” were the judges, or men learned in the law: the popular faction assert them to be representatives of the boroughs, or what we now call the commons.

The introductions to all the laws of Ethelbert, Ina, Alfred, Edward the Elder, Athelstan, Edmond, Edgar, Ethelred, and Edward the Confessor; even those for Canute, despite being a conqueror, make this issue clear and provide evidence of a limited and lawful government. However, historians haven't definitively identified the members of this wittenagemot. It's agreed that the bishops and abbots[*] were a crucial part; it's also clear from the tone of these ancient laws that the wittenagemot created regulations that governed both religious and civil matters, and that the dangerous concept of completely separating the church from the state was unknown to the Anglo-Saxons.[**] It seems that the aldermen or county leaders, who were often called earls[***] 7, were included in this council and approved the public laws. In addition to the prelates and aldermen, the “wites” or wise men are also mentioned as part of the wittenagemot, but who they exactly were is not clearly defined in the laws or history of that time. This topic would likely be difficult to discuss even if examined fairly; however, since our modern parties have chosen to split on this issue, the debate has become more contentious, and the arguments from both sides have resulted in more tricky and misleading points. Our monarchist faction claims that these “wites” or “sapientes” were judges or legal scholars, while the populist faction contends they represented the boroughs, or what we now refer to as the commons.

The expressions employed by all ancient historians in mentioning the wittenagemot, seem to contradict the latter supposition. The members are almost always called the “principes, satrapæ, optimates, magnates, proceres;” terms which seem to suppose an aristocracy, and to exclude the commons. The boroughs also, from the low state of commerce, were so small and so poor, and the inhabitants lived in such dependence on the great men,[****] that it seems nowise probable they would be admitted as a part of the national councils. The commons are well known to have had no share in the governments established by the Franks, Burgundians, and other northern nations; and we may conclude that the Saxons, who remained longer barbarous and uncivilized than those tribes, would never think of conferring such an extraordinary privilege on trade and industry.

The terms used by all ancient historians when discussing the wittenagemot seem to contradict this idea. The members are nearly always referred to as “principes, satrapæ, optimates, magnates, proceres;” terms that suggest an aristocracy and exclude the common people. The boroughs, due to the low level of commerce, were so small and poor that the inhabitants were highly dependent on the elite, making it unlikely they would be included in the national councils. It is well known that the common people had no role in the governments formed by the Franks, Burgundians, and other northern nations; thus, we can conclude that the Saxons, who remained more barbaric and uncivilized than those tribes, would never consider granting such an exceptional privilege to trade and industry.

     [* Sometimes abbesses were admitted; at least they
     often sign the king’s charters or grants. Spelm. Gloss. in
     verbo Parliamentum.]

     [** Wilkins, passim.]

     [*** See note G, at the end of the volume.]

     [**** Brady’s Treatise of English Boroughs, p. 3,
     4, 5, etc.]
     [* Sometimes abbesses were allowed; at least they often sign the king’s charters or grants. Spelm. Gloss. in verbo Parliamentum.]

     [** Wilkins, everywhere.]

     [*** See note G, at the end of the volume.]

     [**** Brady’s Treatise of English Boroughs, p. 3, 4, 5, etc.]

The military profession alone was honorable among all those conquerors: the warriors subsisted by their possessions in land: they became considerable by their influence over their vassals, retainers, tenants, and slaves: and it requires strong proof to convince us that they would admit any of a rank so much inferior as the burgesses, to share with them in the legislative authority. Tacitus indeed affirms that, among the ancient Germans, the consent of all the members of the community was required in every important deliberation; but he speaks not of representatives; and this ancient practice, mentioned by the Roman historian, could only have place in small tribes, where every citizen might without inconvenience be assembled upon any extraordinary emergency. After principalities became extensive, after the difference of property had formed distinctions more important than those which arose from personal strength and valor, we may conclude that the national assemblies must have been more limited in their number, and composed only of the more considerable citizens.

The military profession was the only one seen as honorable among all those conquerors. The warriors lived off their land and gained respect through their influence over their vassals, retainers, tenants, and slaves. It would take strong evidence to convince us that they would allow anyone of such a lower rank, like the burgesses, to share in legislative power. Tacitus states that among the ancient Germans, the agreement of all community members was needed for any important decisions, but he doesn't mention representatives. This ancient practice, noted by the Roman historian, could only happen in small tribes where all citizens could gather without hassle for any urgent matters. Once principalities grew larger and differences in property created more significant distinctions than those based on personal strength and bravery, we can assume that national assemblies became smaller, consisting only of the more prominent citizens.

But, though we must exclude the burgesses or commons from the Saxon wittenagemot, there is some necessity for supposing that this assembly consisted of other members than the prelates, abbots, alderman, and the judges or privy council. For as all these, excepting some of the ecclesiastics,[*] were anciently appointed by the king, had there been no other legislative authority, the royal power had been, in a great measure, absolute, contrary to the tenor of all the historians, and to the practice of all the northern nations.

But, even though we have to leave out the common people from the Saxon wittenagemot, we need to assume that this assembly included other members besides the bishops, abbots, aldermen, and the judges or privy council. Since all of these, except for some of the clergy,[*] were traditionally appointed by the king, if there was no other legislative authority, the royal power would have been largely absolute, which goes against what all the historians say and the practices of all the northern nations.

     [* There is some reason to think that the bishops
     were sometimes chosen by the wittenagemot, and confirmed by
     the king. Eddius, cap. 2. The abbots in the monasteries of
     royal foundation were anciently named by the king; though
     Edgar gave the monks the election, and only reserved to
     himself the ratification. This destination was afterwards
     frequently violated, and the abbots as well as bishops were
     afterwards all appointed by the king, as we learn from
     Ingulf, a writer contemporary to the conquest.]
     [* There’s some reason to believe that the bishops were sometimes chosen by the wittenagemot and confirmed by the king. Eddius, cap. 2. The abbots in the royal monasteries were originally appointed by the king; although Edgar allowed the monks to make the selection, he reserved the right to confirm it himself. This arrangement was often ignored later on, and both abbots and bishops were appointed by the king, as noted by Ingulf, a writer who lived at the time of the conquest.]

We may, therefore, conclude that the more considerable proprietors of land were, without any election, constituent members of the national assembly: there is reason to think that forty hides, or between four and five thousand acres, was the estate requisite for entitling the possessors to this honorable privilege. We find a passage in an ancient author,[*] by which it appears that a person of very noble birth, even one allied to the crown, was not esteemed a “princeps” (the term usually employed by ancient historians, when the wittenagemot is mentioned) till he had acquired a fortune of that amount. Nor need we imagine that the public council would become disorderly or confused by admitting so great a multitude. The landed property of England was probably in few hands during the Saxon times, at least, during the latter part of that period; and, as men had hardly any ambition to attend those public councils, there was no danger of the assembly’s becoming too numerous for the despatch of the little business which was brought before them.

We can conclude that the larger landowners were automatically members of the national assembly without any election. It seems that an estate of forty hides, or between four and five thousand acres, was necessary for owners to gain this honorable privilege. An ancient author mentions that a person of very noble birth, even someone related to the crown, wasn't considered a "princeps" (the term often used by ancient historians when referring to the wittenagemot) until they had amassed a fortune of that size. We shouldn't think that the public council would be chaotic or disorganized by including so many people. The land in England was likely concentrated in the hands of a few during the Saxon era, especially towards the end of that time; and since people had little desire to participate in these public councils, there was no risk of the assembly becoming too large for the few matters that needed to be addressed.

It is certain that, whatever we may determine concerning the constituent members of the wittenagemot, in whom, with the king, the legislature resided, the Anglo-Saxon government, in the period preceding the Norman conquest, was becoming extremely aristocratical: the royal authority was very limited; the people, even if admitted to that assembly, were of little or no weight and consideration. We have hints given us in historians of the great power and riches of particular noblemen; and it could not but happen, after the abolition of the Heptarchy, when the king lived at a distance from the provinces, that those great proprietors, who resided on their estates, would much augment their authority over their vassals and retainers, and over all the inhabitants of the neighborhood. Hence the immeasurable power assumed by Harold, Godwin, Leofric, Siward, Morcar, Edwin, Edric, and Alfric who controlled the authority of the kings, and rendered themselves quite necessary in the government. The two latter, though detested by the people on account of their joining a foreign enemy, still preserved their power and influence; and we may therefore conclude that their authority was founded, not on popularity, but on family rights and possessions. There is one Athelstan, mentioned in the reign of the king of that name, who is called alderman of all England, and is said to be half king; though the monarch himself was a prince of valor and abilities.[**] And we find that in the later Saxon times, and in these alone, the great offices went from father to sun, and became in a manner hereditary in the families.[A]

It’s clear that, regardless of what we might decide about the members of the wittenagemot, the group that, along with the king, formed the legislature, the Anglo-Saxon government before the Norman conquest was becoming very aristocratic. The king's power was quite limited; even if the common people were allowed into that assembly, they had little influence or importance. Historians have noted the significant power and wealth of certain noblemen. After the Heptarchy ended and the king was often away from the provinces, it’s inevitable that these powerful landowners, living on their estates, would greatly increase their control over their vassals and all the local inhabitants. This led to the immense power held by Harold, Godwin, Leofric, Siward, Morcar, Edwin, Edric, and Alfric, who managed to dominate the kings' authority and became essential to governance. The latter two, although disliked by people for aligning with a foreign enemy, still maintained their strength and influence; we can thus conclude that their power was based not on popularity but on familial rights and holdings. There is mention of an Athelstan in the reign of that king, who was referred to as the alderman of all England and was said to be half king, even though the king himself was a man of valor and skill. We also see that in the later Saxon period, these high offices passed from father to son and became somewhat hereditary within families.

     [* Hist. Eliensis, lib. ii. cap 40]
     [** Hist. Rames. Beet. iii. p. 387]
[* Hist. Eliensis, lib. ii. cap 40]  
[** Hist. Rames. Beet. iii. p. 387]

The circumstances attending the invasions of the Danes would also serve much to increase the power of the principal nobility. Those freebooters made unexpected inroads on all quarters, and there was a necessity that each county should resist them by its own force, and under the conduct of its own nobility and its own magistrates. For the same reason that a general war, managed by the united efforts of the whole state commonly augments the power of the crown, those private wars and inroads turned to the advantage of the aldermen and nobles.

The situation surrounding the Danish invasions also greatly boosted the power of the main nobles. Those raiders made surprise attacks from all sides, and each county had to defend itself with its own forces, led by its own nobility and magistrates. Just as a large war, fought with the collective effort of the entire state usually strengthens the crown's power, these personal wars and raids benefited the aldermen and nobles.

Among that military and turbulent people, so averse to commerce and the arts, and so little inured to industry, justice was commonly very ill administered, and great oppression and violence seem to have prevailed. These disorders would be increased by the exorbitant power of the aristocracy; and would, in their turn, contribute to increase it. Men, not daring to rely on the guardianship of the laws, were obliged to devote themselves to the service of some chieftain, whose orders they followed even to the disturbance of the government, or the injury of their fellow-citizens, and who afforded them, in return, protection from any insult or injustice by strangers. Hence we find, by the extracts which Dr. Brady has given us from Domesday, that almost all the inhabitants, even of towns, had placed themselves under the clientship of some particular nobleman, whose patronage they purchased by annual payments, and whom they were obliged to consider as their sovereign, more than the king himself, or even the legislature.[B]

Among that military and turbulent group, strongly opposed to trade and the arts, and not very accustomed to hard work, justice was usually poorly executed, and there was widespread oppression and violence. These issues were worsened by the excessive power of the aristocracy, which in turn helped to reinforce that power. People, not feeling secure with the legal system, had to submit themselves to the service of a chieftain, following his orders even when it disrupted the government or harmed their fellow citizens, receiving in return protection from any insult or wrongdoing by outsiders. Thus, as shown by the extracts Dr. Brady has provided from Domesday, practically all the residents, even in towns, had aligned themselves under the patronage of a specific nobleman, whose support they secured through annual payments and whom they were obligated to regard as their ruler, even more so than the king or the legislative body.

     [A] Roger Hoveden, giving the reason why William the Conqueror
     made Cospatric earl of Northumberland, says, “Nam ex materno
     sanguine attinebat ad eum honor illius comitatus. Erat enim
     ex matre Algitha, filia Uthredi comitis.” See also Sim.
     Dunelm. p. 205. We see in those instances the same tendency
     towards rendering offices hereditary which took place,
     during a more early period, on the continent; and which had
     already produced there its full effect.

     [B] Brady’s Treatise of Boroughs, p. 3, 4, 5, etc. The case
     was the same with the freemen in the country. See Pref. to
     his Hist. p. 8, 9, 10, etc.
     [A] Roger Hoveden explains why William the Conqueror made Cospatric the earl of Northumberland, saying, “Because he was related to that honor through his maternal blood. He was indeed the son of Algitha, the daughter of Earl Uthred.” See also Sim. Dunelm. p. 205. In these examples, we see the same trend toward making positions hereditary that occurred earlier on the continent, which had already reached its full impact there.

     [B] Brady’s Treatise of Boroughs, p. 3, 4, 5, etc. The situation was the same with the freemen in the country. See Pref. to his Hist. p. 8, 9, 10, etc.

A client, though a freeman, was supposed so much to belong to his patron, that his murderer was obliged by law to pay a fine to the latter, as a compensation for his loss; in like manner as he paid a fine to the master for the murder of his slave.[A] Men who were of a more considerable rank, but not powerful enough each to support himself by his own independent authority, entered into formal confederacies with each other, and composed a kind of separate community, which rendered itself formidable to all aggressors. Dr. Hickes has preserved a curious Saxon bond of this kind, which he calls a “sodalitium,” and which contains many particulars characteristical of the manners and customs of the times.[B] All the associates are there said to be gentlemen of Cambridgeshire; and they swear before the holy relics to observe their confederacy, and to be faithful to each other: they promise to bury any of the associates who dies, in whatever place he had appointed; to contribute to his funeral charges, and to attend to his interment; and whoever is wanting in this last duty, binds himself to pay a measure of honey. When any of the associates is in danger, and calls for the assistance of his fellows, they promise, besides flying to his succor, to give information to the sheriff; and if he be negligent in protecting the person exposed to danger, they engage to levy a fine of one pound upon him; if the president of the society himself be wanting in this particular, he binds himself to pay one pound; unless he has the reasonable excuse of sickness, or of duty to his superior. When any of the associates is murdered, they are to exact eight pounds from the murderer; and if he refuse to pay it, they are to prosecute him for the sum at their joint expense. If any of the associates, who happens to be poor, kill a man, the society are to contribute, by a certain proportion, to pay his fine,—a mark apiece, if the fine be seven hundred shillings; less if the person killed be a clown or ceorle; the half of that sum, again, if he be a Welshman But where any of the associates kill a man wilfully and without provocation, he must himself pay the fine. If any of the associates kill any of his fellows in a like criminal manner, besides paying the usual fine to the relations of the deceased, he must pay eight pounds to the society, or renounce the benefit of it; in which case they bind themselves, under the penalty of one pound, never to eat or drink with him, except in the presence of the king, bishop, or alderman. There are other regulations to protect themselves and their servants from all injuries, to revenge such as are committed, and to prevent their giving abusive language to each other; and the fine which they engage to pay for this last offence is a measure of honey.

A client, even though a free man, was considered to belong so much to his patron that if he was murdered, the killer had to pay a fine to the patron as compensation for his loss, just like he would for killing a slave. Men of higher status, who couldn’t fully support themselves independently, formed formal alliances with each other, creating a separate community that became a force to be reckoned with against any aggressors. Dr. Hickes documented an interesting Saxon bond of this nature, which he refers to as a “sodalitium,” filled with details that reflect the customs and manners of that time. All the members mentioned are gentlemen from Cambridgeshire; they swear on holy relics to uphold their alliance and be loyal to each other. They agree to bury any member who dies according to his wishes, cover his funeral expenses, and attend his burial; anyone who fails in this final duty has to pay a measure of honey. If any member is in danger and calls for help, they promise to rush to his aid and inform the sheriff; if the sheriff neglects to protect the endangered person, they agree to impose a fine of one pound on him. If the president of the society also fails in this duty, he has to pay one pound unless he has a valid excuse, like illness or obligation to a superior. If any member is murdered, they will demand eight pounds from the murderer; if he refuses, they will pursue him jointly for the amount. If a poor associate kills someone, the society will help pay his fine by contributing a certain amount, with each member paying a mark if the fine is seven hundred shillings, less if the victim is a peasant; and half that if the victim is Welsh. However, if any associate intentionally kills someone without provocation, he has to pay the fine himself. If an associate kills another member in a similar criminal way, besides paying the customary fine to the deceased’s family, he has to pay eight pounds to the society or forfeit his membership benefits; in that case, they agree, under a penalty of one pound, never to eat or drink with him unless in the presence of the king, bishop, or alderman. There are additional rules to protect themselves and their servants from harm, to seek revenge for wrongs done, and to avoid insulting each other; the fine for the last offense is a measure of honey.

     [A] LL. Edw. Conf. Sect. viii. apad Ingulph.

     [B] Dissert. Epist. p. 21.
     [A] LL. Edw. Conf. Sect. viii. apad Ingulph.

     [B] Dissert. Epist. p. 21.

It is not to be doubted but a confederacy of this kind must have been a great source of friendship and attachment, when men lived in perpetual danger from enemies, robbers, and oppressors, and received protection chiefly from their personal valor, and from the assistance of their friends and patrons. As animosities were then more violent, connections were also more intimate, whether voluntary or derived from blood: the most remote degree of propinquity was regarded; an indelible memory of benefits was preserved; severe vengeance was taken for injuries, both from a point of honor and as the best means of future security; and the civil union being weak, many private engagements were contracted, in order to supply its place, and to procure men that safety, which the laws and their own innocence were not alone able to insure to them.

It’s undeniable that a confederacy like this must have been a major source of friendship and loyalty when people lived in constant danger from enemies, thieves, and oppressors, relying mainly on their own bravery and the help of friends and supporters for protection. Since conflicts were more intense back then, relationships were also closer, whether they were chosen or based on family ties. Even the most distant relatives were considered important; people held on to memories of favors done for them; harsh revenge was taken for wrongs, driven by honor and the need for future safety; and since civil unity was weak, many private commitments were made to fill that gap and provide men with the safety that laws and their own innocence couldn’t guarantee on their own.

On the whole, notwithstanding the seeming liberty, or rather licentiousness, of the Anglo-Saxons, the great body, even of the free citizens, in those ages, really enjoyed much less true liberty than where the execution of the laws is the most severe, and where subjects are reduced to the strictest subordination and dependence on the civil magistrate. The reason is derived from the excess itself of that liberty. Men must guard themselves at any price against insults and injuries; and where they receive not protection from the laws and magistrates, they will seek it by submission to superiors, and by herding in some private confederacy, which acts under the direction of a powerful leader. And thus all anarchy is the immediate cause of tyranny, if not over the state, at least over many of the individuals.

Overall, despite the appearance of freedom, or even recklessness, among the Anglo-Saxons, the majority of free citizens in those times had much less real liberty than in places where law enforcement is the strictest, and where people are kept in close subordination and dependence on the civil authorities. This is due to the very excess of that freedom. People must protect themselves at all costs from insults and injuries; and when they don’t receive support from the laws and authorities, they will seek it through submitting to those in power, or by banding together in private groups led by a strong leader. In this way, all chaos often leads directly to tyranny, if not over the state, then certainly over many individuals.

Security was provided by the Saxon laws to all members of the wittenagemot, both in going and returning, “except they were notorious thieves and robbers.”

Security was guaranteed by the Saxon laws to all members of the wittenagemot, both when going and coming back, “unless they were known thieves and robbers.”

The German Saxons, as the other nations of that continent, were divided into three ranks of men—the noble, the free, and the slaves.[A] This distinction they brought over with them into Britain.

The German Saxons, like other nations on the continent, were divided into three classes of people—the noble, the free, and the slaves.[A] This distinction was carried over with them to Britain.

     [A] Nithard. Hist. lib. iv.
[A] Nithard. History, book iv.

The nobles were called thanes; and were of two kinds, the king’s thanes and lesser thanes. The latter seem to have been dependent on the former, and to have received lands, for which they paid rent, services, or attendance in peace and war.[*] We know of no title which raised any one to the rank of thane, except noble birth and the possession of land. The former was always much regarded by all the German nations, even in their most barbarous state; and as the Saxon nobility, having little credit, could scarcely burden their estates with much debt, and as the commons had little trade or industry by which they could accumulate riches’ these two ranks of men, even though they were not separated by positive laws, might remain long distinct, and the noble families continue many ages in opulence and splendor. There were no middle ranks of men, that could gradually mix with their superiors, and insensibly procure to themselves honor and distinction. If, by any extraordinary accident, a mean person acquired riches, a circumstance so singular made him be known and remarked; he became the object of envy, as well as of indignation, to all the nobles; he would have great difficulty to defend what he had acquired; and he would find it impossible to protect himself from oppression, except by courting the patronage of some great chieftain, and paying a large price for his safety.

The nobles were called thanes, and there were two types: the king’s thanes and lesser thanes. The lesser thanes seemed to depend on the former and received land for which they paid rent, provided services, or showed up in peace and war. We know of no title that could elevate someone to the rank of thane, except noble birth and land ownership. The former was always highly valued by all Germanic nations, even in their most primitive state. The Saxon nobility, having little influence, could hardly burden their estates with much debt, and since the common people had little trade or industry to accumulate wealth, these two classes of people, despite not being distinctly separated by clear laws, could remain long distinct, with noble families enduring for many ages in wealth and splendor. There were no middle classes that could gradually blend in with their superiors and subtly gain honor and distinction. If, by some extraordinary chance, a common person gained wealth, it was such a rare event that it caught everyone’s attention. He became the target of envy and resentment from all the nobles; he would struggle to defend what he had gained, and he would find it nearly impossible to protect himself from oppression unless he sought the support of a powerful leader and paid a hefty price for his security.

There are two statutes among the Saxon laws, which seem calculated to confound those different ranks of men; that of Athelstan, by which a merchant, who had made three long sea voyages on his own account, was entitled to the quality of thane;[**] and that of the same prince, by which a ceorle, or husbandman, who had been able to purchase five hides of land, and had a chapel, a kitchen, a hall, and a bell, was raised to the same distinction.[***] But the opportunities were so few, by which a merchant or ceorle could thus exalt himself above his rank, that the law could never overcome the reigning prejudices; the distinction between noble and base blood would still be indelible; and the well-born thanes would entertain the highest contempt for those legal and factitious ones. Though we are not informed of any of these circumstances by ancient historians, they are so much founded on the nature of things, that we may admit them as a necessary and infallible consequence of the situation of the kingdom during those ages.

There are two laws in the Saxon code that seem designed to blur the lines between different classes of people. One is from Athelstan, which states that a merchant who has completed three long sea voyages on his own gets to be recognized as a thane; and another from the same king, which allows a ceorle, or farmer, who has purchased five hides of land and has a chapel, a kitchen, a hall, and a bell, to gain the same status. However, the chances for a merchant or ceorle to elevate themselves above their class were so limited that the law could never change the entrenched biases; the difference between noble and common blood remained firmly in place, and the well-born thanes would still look down on those who achieved status by law or circumstance. While ancient historians don't provide details on these aspects, they are so inherently linked to the reality of the times that we can accept them as a necessary and undeniable outcome of the kingdom's situation during those ages.

     [* Spel. Feus and Tenures, p. 40.]

     [** Wilkins, p. 71.]

     [*** Selden, Titles of Honor, p, 515. Wilkins, p.
     7.]
     [* Spel. Feuds and Tenures, p. 40.]

     [** Wilkins, p. 71.]

     [*** Selden, Titles of Honor, p. 515. Wilkins, p. 7.]

The cities appear by domesday-book to have been, at the conquest little better than villages.[*] York itself, though it was always the second, at least the third[**] city in England, and was the capital of a great province, which never was thoroughly united with the rest, contained then but one thousand four hundred and eighteen families.[***] Malmsbury tells us,[****] that the great distinction between the Anglo-Saxon nobility and the French and Norman, was, that the latter built magnificent and stately castles; whereas the former consumed their immense fortunes in riot and hospitality, and in mean houses. We may thence infer, that the arts in general were much less advanced in England than in France: a greater number of idle servants and retainers lived about the great families; and as these, even in France, were powerful enough to disturb the execution of the laws, we may judge of the authority acquired by the aristocracy in England. When Earl Godwin besieged the Confessor in London, he summoned from all parts his huscarles, or houseceorles and retainers, and thereby constrained his sovereign to accept of the conditions which he was pleased to impose upon him.

The cities, according to the Domesday Book, were, at the time of the conquest, little better than villages.[*] York itself, although it was always at least the second, if not the third[**] city in England, and the capital of a large province that was never fully integrated with the rest, had only one thousand four hundred and eighteen families living there.[***] Malmsbury tells us,[****] that the main difference between the Anglo-Saxon nobility and the French and Norman nobility was that the latter built impressive and grand castles, while the former spent their vast fortunes on parties and hospitality, often in modest homes. We can therefore infer that the arts, in general, were much less developed in England than in France: a larger number of idle servants and retainers lived around the noble families; and since these groups, even in France, were influential enough to disrupt the enforcement of laws, it indicates the power held by the aristocracy in England. When Earl Godwin besieged the Confessor in London, he called upon his huscarles, or housecarl and retainers from all over, which forced his king to accept the terms he wanted to impose on him.

The lower rank of freemen were denominated ceorles among the Anglo-Saxons; and where they were industrious they were chiefly employed in husbandry; whence a ceorle and a husbandman became in a manner synonymous terms. They cultivated the farms of the nobility, or thanes, for which they paid rent; and they seem to have been removable at pleasure; for there is little mention of leases among the Anglo-Saxons: the pride of the nobility, together with the general ignorance of writing, must have rendered those contracts very rare, and must have kept the husbandmen in a dependent condition. The rents of farms were then chiefly paid in kind.[*****]

The lower-class freemen were called ceorles among the Anglo-Saxons; where they worked hard, they were mainly involved in farming, making ceorle and husbandman almost interchangeable terms. They farmed the land owned by the nobility, or thanes, paying rent in return; however, they could be easily removed, as there’s little mention of leases among the Anglo-Saxons. The nobility's pride, combined with the general lack of writing skills, likely made those contracts extremely rare, keeping the farmers in a dependent position. Rent for farms was mostly paid in goods. [*****]

     [* Winchester, being the capital of the West Saxon
     monarchy, was anciently a considerable city. Gul. Pict. p.
     210.]

     [** Norwich contained 738 houses; Exeter, 315;
     Ipswich, 538; Northampton, 60; Hertford, 146; Canterbury,
     262; Bath, 61; Southampton 84; Warwick, 225. See Brady, of
     Boroughs, p. 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. These are the most
     considerable he mentions. The account of these is extracted
     from domesday-book.]

     [*** Brady’s Treatise of Boroughs, p. 10. There
     were six wards, besides the archbishop’s palace; and five of
     these wards contained the number of families here mentioned,
     which at the rate of five persons to a family, makes about
     seven thousand souls. The sixth ward was laid waste.]

     [**** Page 102. See also de Gest. Angl. p. 333.]
     rents for a hide; but it is difficult to convert it into
     modern measures.]
     [* Winchester, as the capital of the West Saxon monarchy, was once a significant city. Gul. Pict. p. 210.]

     [** Norwich had 738 houses; Exeter, 315; Ipswich, 538; Northampton, 60; Hertford, 146; Canterbury, 262; Bath, 61; Southampton 84; Warwick, 225. See Brady, of Boroughs, p. 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. These are the most significant ones he mentions. This information is taken from the Domesday Book.]

     [*** Brady’s Treatise of Boroughs, p. 10. There were six wards, in addition to the archbishop’s palace; and five of these wards had the number of families mentioned here, which, at an average of five people per family, amounts to around seven thousand individuals. The sixth ward was devastated.]

     [**** Page 102. See also de Gest. Angl. p. 333.] rents for a hide; but it is tricky to translate it into modern measurements.]

But the most numerous rank by far in the community to have been the slaves or villains, who were the property of their lords, and were consequently incapable themselves of possessing any property. Dr. Brady assures us, from a survey of domesday-book,[*] that, in all the counties of England, the far greater part of the land was occupied by them, and that the husbandmen, and still more the socmen, who were tenants that, could not be removed at pleasure, were very few in comparison. This was not the case with the German nations, as far as we can collect from the account given us by Tacitus. The perpetual wars in the Heptarchy, and the depredations of the Danes, seem to have been the cause of this great alteration with the Anglo-Saxons. Prisoners taken in battle, or carried off in the frequent inroads, were then reduced to slavery, and became, by right of war,[**] entirely at the disposal of their lords. Great property in the nobles, especially if joined to an irregular administration of justice, naturally favors the power of the aristocracy; but still more so, if the practice of slavery be admitted, and has become very common. The nobility not only possess the influence which always attends riches, but also the power which the laws give them over their slaves and villains. It then becomes difficult, and almost impossible, for a private man to remain altogether free and independent.

But by far the largest group in the community was the slaves, or serfs, who belonged to their lords and were therefore unable to own any property themselves. Dr. Brady tells us, from a survey of the Domesday Book,[*] that in all the counties of England, the majority of the land was occupied by them, and that the husbandmen, and especially the socmen—tenants who couldn't be removed at will—were very few in comparison. This wasn't the case with the Germanic tribes, based on what we gather from Tacitus's account. The constant wars during the Heptarchy and the raids by the Danes seem to have caused this significant change among the Anglo-Saxons. Prisoners taken in battle, or captured during frequent invasions, were reduced to slavery, and by the law of war,[**] completely at the mercy of their lords. Wealth concentrated among the nobles, particularly with a flawed justice system, naturally boosts aristocratic power; this is even more true if the practice of slavery is accepted and has become widespread. The nobility not only holds the influence that comes with wealth but also the power granted by laws over their slaves and serfs. As a result, it becomes challenging, if not impossible, for an ordinary person to stay completely free and independent.

There were two kinds of slaves among the Anglo-Saxons; household slaves, after the manner of the ancients, and praedial, or rustic, after the manner of the Germans.[***] These latter resembled the serfs, which are at present to be met with in Poland, Denmark, and some parts of Germany. The power of a master over his slaves was not unlimited among the Anglo-Saxons, as it was among their ancestors. If a man beat out his slave’s eye or teeth, the slave recovered his liberty:[****] if he killed him, he paid a fine to the king, provided the slave died within a day after the wound or blow; otherwise it passed unpunished.[*****] The selling of themselves or children to slavery, was always the practice among the German nations,[******] and was continued by the Anglo-Saxons.[*******]

There were two types of slaves among the Anglo-Saxons: household slaves, similar to those of ancient times, and praedial, or rural slaves, reflecting the German model. The latter were similar to the serfs found today in Poland, Denmark, and parts of Germany. The master's control over his slaves was not absolute among the Anglo-Saxons, unlike among their ancestors. If a man knocked out his slave's eye or teeth, the slave was granted his freedom. If he killed his slave, he had to pay a fine to the king, as long as the slave died within a day after the injury; otherwise, there was no punishment. The practice of selling oneself or one's children into slavery was common among the Germanic people and continued with the Anglo-Saxons.

     [* General Preface to his Hist. p. 7, 8, 9, etc.]

     [** LL. Edg. sect. 14, apud Spel. Concil. vol. i.
     p. 471.]

     [*** Spel. Gloss, in verbo Servus.]

     [**** LL. Ælf. sect. 20]

     [****** Tacit, de Mor. Germ]

     [******* LL. Inse, sect. 11. LL. Ælf. sect. 12.]
     [* General Preface to his Hist. p. 7, 8, 9, etc.]

     [** LL. Edg. sect. 14, apud Spel. Concil. vol. i.
     p. 471.]

     [*** Spel. Gloss, in verbo Servus.]

     [**** LL. Ælf. sect. 20]

     [****** Tacit, de Mor. Germ]

     [******* LL. Inse, sect. 11. LL. Ælf. sect. 12.]

The great lords and abbots among the Anglo-Saxons possessed a criminal jurisdiction within their territories, and could punish without appeal any thieves or robbers whom they caught there.[*] This institution must have had a very contrary effect to that which was intended, and must have procured robbers a sure protection on the lands of such noblemen as did not sincerely mean to discourage crimes and violence.

The powerful lords and abbots in Anglo-Saxon times had the authority to enforce criminal laws within their regions and could punish any thieves or robbers they caught without any appeals.[*] This system likely had the opposite effect of what was intended and probably provided thieves with a guaranteed safe haven on the lands of noblemen who weren't genuinely committed to preventing crime and violence.

But though the general strain of the Anglo-Saxon government seems to have become aristocratical, there were still considerable remains of the ancient democracy, which were not indeed sufficient to protect the lowest of the people, without the patronage of some great lord, but might give security, and even some degree of dignity, to the gentry or inferior nobility. The administration of justice, in particular, by the courts of the decennary, the hundred, and the county, was well calculated to defend general liberty, and to restrain the power of the nobles. In the county courts, or shiremotes, all the freeholders were assembled twice a year, and received appeals from the inferior courts. They there decided all causes, ecclesiastical as well as civil; and the bishop, together with the alderman or earl, presided over them.[**] The affair was determined in a summary manner, without much pleading formality, or delay, by a majority of voices; and the bishop and alderman had no further authority than to keep order among the freeholders, and interpose with their opinion.[***] Where justice was denied during three sessions by the hundred, and then by the county court, there lay an appeal to the king’s court;[****] but this was not practised on slight occasions. The aldermen received a third of the fines levied in those courts;[*****] and as most of the punishments were then pecuniary, this perquisite formed a considerable part of the profits belonging to his office. The two thirds also, which went to the king, made no contemptible part of the public revenue. Any free-holder was fined who absented himself thrice from these courts.[******]

But even though the overall structure of the Anglo-Saxon government seems to have become more aristocratic, there were still significant remnants of the old democracy. These remnants were not enough to protect the lowest members of society without the support of a powerful lord, but they could provide security and even some level of dignity to the gentry or lesser nobility. The administration of justice, especially through the decennary, hundred, and county courts, was designed to protect general liberty and limit the power of the nobles. In the county courts, or shiremotes, all freeholders gathered twice a year to hear appeals from lower courts. They resolved all types of cases, both ecclesiastical and civil; the bishop, along with the alderman or earl, presided over these proceedings. The cases were settled quickly, without much legal formality or delay, by a majority vote. The bishop and alderman had no greater power than to maintain order among the freeholders and offer their opinions. If justice was denied for three sessions by the hundred, and then again by the county court, an appeal could be made to the king’s court, although this was not done for minor issues. Aldermen received a third of the fines collected in those courts, and since most punishments were monetary at that time, this portion constituted a significant part of their income. The two-thirds that went to the king also represented a notable aspect of the public revenue. Any freeholder who missed these courts three times would be fined.

     [* Higden, lib, i. cap. 50. LL. Edw. Conf. sect.
     26. Spel. Concil vol. i. p. 415. Gloss, in verbo. Haligemot
     ot Infangenthefe.]

     [** LL. Edg. sect. 5. Wilkins, p. 78. LL. Cantit.
     sect. 17. Wilkins. p. 136.]

     [*** Hickes, Dissert, epist. p. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
     8.]

     [**** LL. Edg. sect. 2. Wilkins, p. 77. LL. Canut.
     sect. 18, apud Wilkins, p. 136.]

     [****** LL. Ethelst. sect, 20.]
     [* Higden, lib, i. cap. 50. LL. Edw. Conf. sect. 26. Spel. Concil vol. i. p. 415. Gloss, in verbo. Haligemot ot Infangenthefe.]

     [** LL. Edg. sect. 5. Wilkins, p. 78. LL. Cantit. sect. 17. Wilkins. p. 136.]

     [*** Hickes, Dissert, epist. p. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.]

     [**** LL. Edg. sect. 2. Wilkins, p. 77. LL. Canut. sect. 18, apud Wilkins, p. 136.]

     [****** LL. Ethelst. sect, 20.]

As the extreme ignorance of the age made deeds and writings very rare, the county or hundred court was the place where the most remarkable civil transactions were finished, in order to preserve the memory of them, and prevent all future disputes. Here testaments were promulgated, slaves manumitted, bargains of sale concluded, and sometimes, for greater security, the most considerable of these deeds were inserted in the blank leaves of the parish Bible, which thus became a kind of register, too sacred to be falsified. It was not unusual to add to the deed an imprecation on all such as should be guilty of that crime.[*]

As the widespread ignorance of the time made documents and writings quite rare, the county or hundred court became the place where the most significant civil matters were settled, intended to keep a record of them and avoid future disputes. Here, wills were announced, slaves were freed, sales were finalized, and sometimes, for added security, the most important of these documents were written in the blank pages of the parish Bible, which then served as a sort of register, too sacred to be tampered with. It wasn't uncommon to include a curse in the deed against anyone who committed that crime.[*]

     [* Hickes, Dissert, epist.]
[* Hickes, Dissert, epist.]

Among a people who lived in so simple a manner as the Anglo-Saxons, the judicial power is always of greater importance than the legislative. There were few or no taxes imposed by the states; there were few statutes enacted; and the nation was less governed by laws, than by customs, which admitted a great latitude of interpretation. Though it should, therefore, be allowed, that the wittenagemot was altogether composed of the principal nobility, the county courts, where all the freeholders were admitted, and which regulated all the daily occurrences of life, formed a wide basis for the government, and were no contemptible checks on the aristocracy. But there is another power still more important than either the judicial or legislative; to wit, the power of injuring or serving by immediate force and violence, for which it is difficult to obtain redress in courts of justice. In all extensive governments, where the execution of the laws is feeble, this power naturally falls into the hands of the principal nobility; and the degree of it which prevails, cannot be determined so much by the public statutes, as by small incidents in history, by particular customs, and sometimes by the reason and nature of things. The highlands of Scotland have long been entitled by law to every privilege of British subjects; but it was not till very lately that the common people could in fact enjoy these privileges.

Among people who lived as simply as the Anglo-Saxons, the judicial power was always more important than the legislative. There were few or no taxes imposed by the states; there were few laws enacted; and the nation was governed more by customs than by laws, which allowed for a lot of interpretation. It should be noted that the wittenagemot consisted entirely of the main nobility, but the county courts, where all the freeholders could participate and which managed all the daily affairs of life, provided a broad foundation for governance and served as a significant check on the aristocracy. However, there is another power even more crucial than either judicial or legislative: the ability to harm or help through immediate force and violence, for which it’s hard to get justice in courts. In large governments, where law enforcement is weak, this power typically falls into the hands of the leading nobility, and how much of it actually exists can often be determined not just by public laws, but also by small historical events, specific customs, and sometimes by the reasoning and nature of things. The highlands of Scotland have long been legally entitled to every privilege of British citizens, but it wasn’t until very recently that ordinary people could truly enjoy these privileges.

The powers of all the members of the Anglo-Saxon government are disputed among historians and antiquaries: the extreme obscurity of the subject, even though faction had never entered into the question, would naturally have begotten those controversies. But the great influence of the lords over their slaves and tenants, the clientship of the burghers, the total want of a middling rank of men, the extent of the mon archy, the loose execution of the laws, the continued disorders and convulsions of the state,—all these circumstances evince that the Anglo-Saxon government became at last extremely aristocratical; and the events, during the period immediately preceding the conquest, confirm this inference or conjecture.

The powers of all the members of the Anglo-Saxon government are debated among historians and experts: the extreme uncertainty of the topic, even without any factional disputes, would naturally lead to these controversies. However, the significant influence of the lords over their serfs and tenants, the loyalty of the townspeople, the complete lack of a middle class, the vastness of the monarchy, the loose enforcement of the laws, and the ongoing disorder and turmoil in the state—all these factors show that the Anglo-Saxon government eventually became very aristocratic; and the events leading up to the conquest support this conclusion or assumption.

Both the punishments inflicted by the Anglo-Saxon courts of judicature, and the methods of proof employed in all causes, appear somewhat singular, and are very different from those which prevail at present among all civilized nations.

Both the punishments given by the Anglo-Saxon courts and the ways of proving claims in all cases seem pretty unusual and are very different from what is used today by all civilized nations.

We must conceive that the ancient Germans were little removed from the original state of nature: the social confederacy among them was more martial than civil: they had chiefly in view the means of attack or defence against public enemies, not those of protection against their fellow-citizens: their possessions were so slender and so equal, that they were not exposed to great danger; and the natural bravery of the people made every man trust to himself and to his particular friends for his defence or vengeance. This defect in the political union drew much closer the knot of particular confederacies: an insult upon any man was regarded by all his relations and associates as a common injury: they were bound by honor, as well as by a sense of common interest, to revenge his death, or any violence which he had suffered: they retaliated on the aggressor by like acts of violence; and if he were protected, as was natural and usual, by his own clan, the quarrel was spread still wider, and bred endless disorders in the nation.

We must understand that the ancient Germans were not far removed from a natural state: their social structure was more focused on military matters than civil ones. Their main concern was how to attack or defend against enemies, rather than protecting themselves from each other. Their resources were so limited and equally shared that they didn't face significant risks. The natural bravery of the people meant that each individual relied on themselves and their close friends for protection or revenge. This weakness in political unity tightened the bonds of personal alliances; an insult to one person was seen by all their relatives and friends as a shared offense. They felt compelled by honor, as well as shared interests, to avenge any harm done to them. They responded to the aggressor with similar acts of violence, and if he was defended, as was common and expected, the conflict expanded even further, leading to ongoing chaos within the nation.

The Frisians, a tribe of the Germans, had never advanced beyond this wild and imperfect state of society; and the right of private revenge still remained among them unlimited and uncontrolled.[*] But the other German nations, in the age of Tacitus, had made one step farther towards completing the political or civil union. Though it still continued to be an indispensable point of honor for every clan to revenge the death or injury of a member, the magistrate had acquired a right of interposing in the quarrel, and of accommodating the difference. He obliged the person maimed or injured, and the relations of one killed, to accept of a present from the aggressor and his relations,[**] as a compensation for the injury.[***] and to drop all farther prosecution of revenge. That the accommodation of one quarrel might not be the source of more, this present was fixed and certain according to the rank of the person killed or injured, and was commonly paid in cattle, the chief property of those rude and uncultivated nations.

The Frisians, a German tribe, never progressed beyond this wild and basic state of society; the right to seek personal revenge was still completely unrestricted among them. However, other German nations, during Tacitus's time, had taken a step further towards establishing political or civil unity. While it remained crucial for every clan to avenge the death or injury of one of their own, magistrates had gained the authority to intervene in disputes and help resolve them. They required the victim of the injury and the relatives of the deceased to accept a compensation gift from the offender and their family, in exchange for dropping any further pursuit of revenge. To prevent resolving one conflict from leading to others, the amount of compensation was predetermined based on the status of the person killed or injured, and was typically paid in cattle, which was the primary form of wealth for those rough and unrefined societies.

     [* LL. Fris. tit. 2, apud Lindenbrog. p. 491.]

     [** LL. Æthelb, sect. 23. LL. Ælf. sect. 27]

     [*** Called by the Saxons “maegbota.”]
     [* LL. Fris. tit. 2, apud Lindenbrog. p. 491.]

     [** LL. Æthelb, sect. 23. LL. Ælf. sect. 27]

     [*** Called by the Saxons "maegbota."]

A present of this kind gratified the revenge of the injured family by the loss which the aggressor suffered: it satisfied then pride by the submission which it expressed: it diminished their regret for the loss or injury of a kinsman by their acquisition of new property; and thus general peace was for a moment restored to the society.[*]

A gift like this satisfied the injured family's desire for revenge by making the aggressor suffer a loss: it fed their pride by demonstrating their authority: it eased their sorrow over the loss or harm of a family member by adding to their possessions; and in this way, a temporary peace was restored to the community.[*]

But when the German nations had been settled some time in the provinces of the Roman empire, they made still another step towards a more cultivated life, and their criminal justice gradually improved and refined itself. The magistrate, whose office it was to guard public peace, and to suppress private animosities, conceived himself to be injured by every injury done to any of his people; and besides the compensation to the person who suffered, or to his family, he thought himself entitled to exact a fine, called the “fridwit,” as an atonement for the breach of peace, and as a reward for the pains which he had taken in accommodating the quarrel. When this idea, which is so natural, was once suggested, it was willingly received both by sovereign and people. The numerous fines which were levied, augmented the revenue of the king; and the people were sensible that he would be more vigilant in interposing with his good offices, when he reaped such immediate advantage from them; and that injuries would be less frequent, when, besides compensation to the person injured, that they were exposed to this additional penalty.[**]

But when the Germanic tribes settled in the provinces of the Roman Empire for a while, they made another move towards a more refined way of life, and their criminal justice slowly improved and evolved. The magistrate, responsible for maintaining public order and resolving private disputes, felt personally affected by any harm done to his people; in addition to compensating the victim or their family, he believed he had the right to impose a fine called the “fridwit” as a way to make amends for the disruption of peace and as a reward for his efforts in mediating the conflict. Once this idea, which is quite natural, was introduced, it was readily accepted by both the rulers and the citizens. The many fines that were collected increased the king's revenue; and the people understood that he would be more proactive in offering his assistance when he gained immediate benefits from it, and that offenses would be less frequent since, apart from compensating the injured parties, they would also face this additional penalty.

     [* Tacit, de Mor. Germ. The author says, that the
     price of the composition was fixed; which must have been by
     the laws, and the interposition of the magistrates.]

     [** Besides paying money to the relations of the
     deceased, and to the king, the murderer was also obliged to
     pay the master of a slave of vassal a sum, as a compensation
     for his loss. This was called the “manbote” See Spel. Gloss,
     in verb. Fredum, Manbot.]
     [* Tacit, de Mor. Germ. The author states that the amount for the settlement was set, which must have been determined by law and the involvement of the authorities.]

     [** In addition to compensating the family of the deceased and the king, the murderer was also required to pay the owner of a slave or vassal a sum as compensation for their loss. This payment was known as the “manbote.” See Spel. Gloss, in verb. Fredum, Manbot.]

This short abstract contains the history of the criminal jurisprudence of the northern nations for several centuries. The state of England in this particular, during the period of the Anglo-Saxons, may be judged of by the collection of ancient laws, published by Lambard and Wilkins. The chief purport of these laws is not to prevent or entirely suppress private quarrels, which the legislators knew to be impossible, but only to regulate and moderate them. The laws of Alfred enjoin, that if any one know that his enemy or aggressor, after doing him an injury, resolves to keep within his own house and his own lands[*] he shall not fight him, till he require compensation for the injury. If he be strong enough to besiege him in his house, he may do it for seven days without attacking him; and if the aggressor be a willing, during that time, to surrender himself and his arms, his, adversary may detain him thirty days, but is afterwards obliged to restore him safe to his kindred, “and be content with the compensation.” If the criminal fly to the temple, that sanctuary must not be violated. Where the assailant has not force sufficient to besiege the criminal in his house, he must apply to the alderman for assistance; and if the alderman refuse aid the assailant must have recourse to the king; and he is not allowed to assault the house till after this supreme magistrate has refused assistance. If any one meet with his enemy, and be ignorant that he was resolved to keep within his own lands he must, before he attack him, require him to surrender him self prisoner, and deliver up his arms; in which case he may detain him thirty days; but if he refuse to deliver up his arms it is then lawful to fight him. A slave may fight in his master’s quarrel: a father may fight in his son’s with any one except with his master.[**]

This brief summary covers the history of criminal law in northern nations over several centuries. The situation in England during the Anglo-Saxon period can be understood through the collection of ancient laws published by Lambard and Wilkins. The main goal of these laws wasn’t to prevent or eliminate private disputes—something the lawmakers knew was impossible—but rather to manage and moderate them. The laws of Alfred state that if someone knows their enemy or aggressor plans to stay in their own home and land after causing harm, they shouldn’t fight until they seek compensation for the injury. If they are strong enough to besiege the aggressor in their home, they can do so for seven days without attacking. If the aggressor is willing to surrender during that time, their opponent may hold them for thirty days but must then return them safely to their family and be satisfied with the compensation. If the criminal flees to a temple, that sanctuary cannot be violated. If the attacker lacks the strength to besiege the criminal, they must ask the alderman for help. If the alderman refuses, the attacker can turn to the king for assistance but cannot assault the home until the king has denied help. If someone encounters their enemy without knowing they intended to stay on their own land, they must demand that the enemy surrender and hand over their weapons before attacking. In that case, they can detain them for thirty days; however, if the enemy refuses to hand over their weapons, it’s then acceptable to fight. A slave can fight on behalf of their master, and a father may fight on behalf of his son against anyone except for his master.

It was enacted by King Ina, that no man should take revenge for an injury till he had first demanded compensation, and had been refused it.[***]

It was established by King Ina that no one should seek revenge for an injury until they had first asked for compensation and had been denied it.[***]

     [* The addition of these last words is Italics
     appears necessary from what follows in the same law.]

     [** IL. Ælf. sect. 28. Wilkins, p. 43.]

     [*** LL. Inae sect. 9]
     [* The addition of these last words is Italics
     seems necessary based on what follows in the same law.]

     [** IL. Ælf. sect. 28. Wilkins, p. 43.]

     [*** LL. Inae sect. 9]

King Edmond, in the preamble to his laws, mentions the general misery occasioned by the multiplicity of private feuds and battles; and he establishes several expedients for remedying this grievance. He ordains that if any one commit murder, he may, with the assistance of his kindred, pay within a twelvemonth the fine of his crime; and if they abandon him, he shall alone sustain the deadly feud or quarrel with the kindred of the murdered person: his own kindred are free from the feud, but on condition that they neither converse with the criminal, nor supply him with meat or other necessaries: if any of them, after renouncing him, receive him into their house, or give him assistance, they are finable to the king, and are involved in the feud. If the kindred of the murdered person take revenge on any but the criminal himself, after he is abandoned by his kindred, all their property is forfeited, and they are declared to be enemies to the king and all his friends.[*] It is also ordained that the fine for murder shall never be remitted by the king,[**] and that no criminal shall be killed who flies to the church, or any of the king’s towns;[***] and the king himself declares, that his house shall give no protection to murderers, till they have satisfied the church by their penance, and the kindred of the deceased by making compensation.[****] The method appointed for transacting this composition is found in the same law.[*****]

King Edmond, in the introduction to his laws, talks about the widespread suffering caused by the numerous private feuds and battles, and he sets up several ways to address this issue. He states that if someone commits murder, they can, with help from their family, pay the fine for their crime within a year. If their family abandons them, they will have to face the deadly feud or conflict alone with the family of the murdered person: their own family is free from the feud, as long as they don’t talk to the criminal or provide him with food or other essentials. If any of them, after cutting ties with him, take him into their home or help him out, they will be fined by the king and be drawn into the feud. If the family of the murdered person seeks revenge on anyone other than the criminal himself after he has been abandoned by his relatives, they will lose all their property and be declared enemies of the king and his allies. It is also stated that the king will never waive the fine for murder, and no criminal who flees to a church or any of the king’s towns will be killed. The king himself declares that his household will not protect murderers until they have made amends to the church through penance and compensated the family of the deceased. The process for making this compensation is outlined in the same law.

These attempts of Edmond, to contract and diminish the feuds, were contrary to the ancient spirit of the northern barbarians, and were a step towards a more regular administration of justice. By the salic law, any man-night, by a public declaration, exempt himself from his family quarrels: but then he was considered by the law as no longer belonging to the family; and he was deprived of all right of succession, as the punishment of his cowardice.[******]

These efforts by Edmond to reduce and limit feuds went against the traditional mindset of the northern barbarians and were a move toward a more organized system of justice. According to the Salic law, any man could publicly declare himself free from family disputes, but in doing so, he was regarded by the law as no longer part of the family and lost all rights to inheritance as a consequence of his cowardice. [******]

The price of the king’s head, or his weregild, as it was then called, was by law thirty thousand thrimsas, near thirteen hundred pounds of present money. The price of the prince’s head was fifteen thousand thrimsas; that of a bishop’s or alderman’s, eight thousand; a sheriff’s, four thousand; a thane’s or clergyman’s, two thousand; a ceorle’s, two hundred and sixty-six. These prices were fixed by the laws of the Angles. By the Mercian law, the price of a ceorle’s head was two hundred shillings; that of a thane’s, six times as much; that of a king’s, six times more.[*******] By the laws of Kent, the price of the archbishop’s head was higher than that of the king’s.[********] Such respect was then paid to the ecclesiastics! It must be understood, that where a person was unable or unwilling to pay the fine, he was put out of the protection of law, and the kindred of the deceased had liberty to punish him as they thought proper.

The price for the king’s life, known as his weregild, was set by law at thirty thousand thrimsas, which is about thirteen hundred pounds today. The price for the prince’s life was fifteen thousand thrimsas; for a bishop or alderman, it was eight thousand; for a sheriff, four thousand; for a thane or clergyman, two thousand; and for a ceorle, two hundred sixty-six. These amounts were determined by the laws of the Angles. According to Mercian law, the price for a ceorle's life was two hundred shillings; for a thane, it was six times that amount; and for a king, it was six times more. By the laws of Kent, the price for the archbishop's life was actually higher than that of the king. Such reverence was shown to church leaders back then! It’s important to note that if someone couldn’t or wouldn’t pay the fine, they would lose legal protection, and the relatives of the deceased could take whatever action they deemed necessary.

Some antiquaries [*********] have thought that these compensations were only given for manslaughter, not for wilful murder.

Some historians [*********] have believed that these compensations were only provided for manslaughter, not for intentional murder.

     [* LL. Edm. sect,. 1. Wilkins, p. 73.]

     [** LL. Edm. sect. 3.]

     [*** LL. Edm. sect. 2.]

     [**** LL. Edm. sect. 4.]

     [****** Tit. 63.]

     [******* Wilkins, p. 71, 72]

     [******** LL. Elthredi, apud Wilkins, p. 110.]

     [********* Tyrrel, Introduct. vol. i. p. 120. Carte vol i.
     p. 366.]
     [* LL. Edm. sect,. 1. Wilkins, p. 73.]

     [** LL. Edm. sect. 3.]

     [*** LL. Edm. sect. 2.]

     [**** LL. Edm. sect. 4.]

     [****** Tit. 63.]

     [******* Wilkins, p. 71, 72]

     [******** LL. Elthredi, apud Wilkins, p. 110.]

     [********* Tyrrel, Introduct. vol. i. p. 120. Carte vol i.
     p. 366.]

But no such distinction appears in the laws; and it is contradicted by the practice of all the other barbarous nations,[*] by that of the ancient Germans,[**] and by that curious monument above mentioned of Saxon antiquity, preserved by Hickes. There is indeed a law of Alfred’s which makes wilful murder capital;[***] but this seems only to have been an attempt of that great legislator towards establishing a better police in the kingdom, and it probably remained without execution. By the laws of the same prince, a conspiracy against the life of the king might be redeemed by a fine.[****]

But no such distinction appears in the laws; and it's contradicted by the practices of all the other barbarous nations,[*] by those of the ancient Germans,[**] and by that interesting artifact mentioned earlier of Saxon antiquity, preserved by Hickes. There is indeed a law from Alfred’s time that makes intentional murder a capital offense;[***] but this seems only to have been an attempt by that great legislator to establish better order in the kingdom, and it probably went unenforced. According to the laws of the same prince, a conspiracy against the king’s life could be paid off with a fine.[****]

The price of all kinds of wounds was likewise fixed by the Saxon laws: a wound of an inch long under the hair was paid with one shilling: one of a like size in the face, two shillings; thirty shillings for the loss of an ear; and so forth.[*****] There seems not to have been any difference made, according to the dignity of the person. By the laws of Ethelbert, any one who committed adultery with his neighbor’s wife was obliged to pay him a fine, and buy him another wife.[******]

The Saxon laws also set fixed prices for different types of wounds: a wound an inch long under the hair cost one shilling; a similar size wound on the face cost two shillings; losing an ear was valued at thirty shillings; and so on. There didn’t seem to be any distinction made based on the person’s social status. According to Ethelbert's laws, anyone who cheated with their neighbor’s wife had to pay a fine and get him another wife.

These institutions are not peculiar to the ancient Germans. They seem to be the necessary progress of criminal jurisprudence among every free people, where the will of the sovereign is not implicitly obeyed. We find them among the ancient Greeks during the time of the Trojan war. Compositions for murder are mentioned in Nestor’s speech to Achilles, in the ninth Iliad, and are called [Greek: apoinai]. The Irish, who never had any connections with the German nations, adopted the same practice till very lately; and the price of a man’s head was called among them his “eric;” as we learn from Sir John Davis. The same custom seems also to have prevailed among the Jews.[*******]

These institutions aren’t unique to the ancient Germans. They appear to be a normal evolution of criminal law among any free people, where the authority of the ruler isn’t simply accepted. We see examples of them among the ancient Greeks during the Trojan War. Compensation for murder is mentioned in Nestor’s speech to Achilles in the ninth Iliad, and it’s referred to as [Greek: apoinai]. The Irish, who had no connections with the Germanic tribes, practiced the same system until very recently; the price of a man's life was referred to as his “eric,” as noted by Sir John Davis. This custom also seems to have existed among the Jews.[*******]

Theft and robbery were frequent among the Anglo-Saxons In order to impose some check upon these crimes, it was ordained, that no man should sell or buy any thing above twenty pence value, except in open market;[********] and every bargain of sale must be executed before witnesses.[*********]

Theft and robbery were common among the Anglo-Saxons. To help control these crimes, it was established that no one could buy or sell anything worth more than twenty pence except in an open market;[********] and every sale had to be carried out in front of witnesses.[*********]

     [1: Lindenbrogius, passim.]

     [2: Tacit, de Mor. Germ.]

     [3: LL. Ælf. sect. 12. Wilkins, p. 29. It is
     probable that by wilful murder Alfred means a treacherous
     murder, committed by one who has no declared feud with
     another.]

     [4: LL. Ælf. sect. 4. Wilkins, p. 35.]

     [5: LL. Ælf. sect. 40. See also LL. Ethelb. sect.
     34, etc.]

     [6: LL Ethelb. sect. 32.]

     [7: Exod. cap. xxi. 29, 30.]

     [8: LL. Æthelst. sect. 12.]

     [9: LL. Æthelst. sect. 10, 12. LL.Edg. apud
     Wilkins, p. 80. LL Ethelredi, sect 4, apud Wilkins, p. 103.
     Hloth. et Eadm. sect 16. LL. Canute. sect. 22.]
     [1: Lindenbrogius, passim.]

     [2: Tacit, de Mor. Germ.]

     [3: LL. Ælf. sect. 12. Wilkins, p. 29. It’s likely that by willful murder, Alfred refers to a treacherous killing done by someone who has no declared feud with another.]

     [4: LL. Ælf. sect. 4. Wilkins, p. 35.]

     [5: LL. Ælf. sect. 40. See also LL. Ethelb. sect. 34, etc.]

     [6: LL Ethelb. sect. 32.]

     [7: Exod. cap. xxi. 29, 30.]

     [8: LL. Æthelst. sect. 12.]

     [9: LL. Æthelst. sect. 10, 12. LL. Edg. apud Wilkins, p. 80. LL. Ethelredi, sect 4, apud Wilkins, p. 103. Hloth. et Eadm. sect 16. LL. Canute. sect. 22.]

Gangs of robbers much disturbed the peace of the country, and the law determined that a tribe of banditti, consisting of between seven and thirty-five persons, was to be called a “turma,” or troop; any greater company was denominated an army.[*] The punishments for this crime were various, but none of them capital.[**] If any man could track his stolen cattle into another’s ground, the latter was obliged to show the tracks out of it, or pay their value.[***]

Gangs of robbers greatly upset the peace of the country, and the law declared that a group of bandits, made up of between seven and thirty-five people, would be called a “turma,” or troop; any larger group would be considered an army.[*] The punishments for this crime varied, but none were death sentences.[**] If someone could trace their stolen cattle into another person's land, the latter had to either show the tracks leading out or pay their value.[***]

Rebellion, to whatever excess it was carried, was not capital but might be redeemed by a sum of money.[****] The legislators, knowing it impossible to prevent all disorders, only imposed a higher fine on breaches of the peace committed in the king’s court, or before an alderman or bishop. An ale-house, too, seems to have been considered as a privileged place; and any quarrels that arose there were more severely punished than else where.[*****]

Rebellion, no matter how extreme, wasn't punishable by death but could be settled with a fine. The lawmakers, aware that they couldn't stop all disturbances, set a higher penalty for offenses that happened in the king's court or in front of an alderman or bishop. An alehouse also appeared to be seen as a special location; any fights that broke out there were dealt with more harshly than elsewhere.

    [* LL. Inæ, sect. 12.]

    [* LL. Inæ, sect. 37.]

    [* LL. Æthelst. sect. 2. Wilkins, p. 63.]

    [* LL. Ethelredi, apud Wilkins, p. 110. LL. Ælf. sect. 4.
     Wilkins, p35.]

    [* LL. Hloth. et Eadm. sect. 12, 13. LL. Ethelr. apud
     Wilkins, P 117.]
[* LL. Inæa, sect. 12.]

[* LL. Inæa, sect. 37.]

[* LL. Æthelst. sect. 2. Wilkins, p. 63.]

[* LL. Ethelredi, apud Wilkins, p. 110. LL. Ælf. sect. 4. Wilkins, p35.]

[* LL. Hloth. et Eadm. sect. 12, 13. LL. Ethelr. apud Wilkins, P 117.]

If the manner of punishing crimes among the Anglo-Saxons appear singular, the proofs were not less so; and were also the natural result of the situation of those people. Whatever we may imagine concerning the usual truth and sincerity of men who live in a rude and barbarous state, there is much more falsehood, and even perjury, among them, than among civilized nations: virtue, which is nothing but a more enlarged and more cultivated reason, never flourishes to any degree, nor is founded on steady principles of honor, except where a good education becomes general; and where men are taught the pernicious consequences of vice, treachery, and immorality. Even superstition, though more prevalent among ignorant nations, is but a poor supply for the defects in knowledge and education; our European ancestors, who employed every moment the expedient of swearing on extraordinary crosses and relics, were less honorable in all engagements than their posterity, who from experience have omitted those ineffectual securities. This general proneness to assumed perjury was much increased by the usual want of discernment in judges, who could not discuss an intricate evidence, and were obliged to number, not weigh, the testimony of the witnesses,[*] Hence the ridiculous practice of obliging men to bring compurgators, who, as they did not pretend to know any thing of the fact, expressed upon oath, that they believed the person spoke true; and these compurgators were in some cases multiplied to the number of three hundred.[**] The practice also of single combat was employed by most nations on the continent as a remedy against false evidence;[***] and though it was frequently dropped, from the opposition of the clergy, it was continually revived, from experience of the falsehood attending the testimony of witnesses.[****] It became at last a species of jurisprudence: the cases were determined by law, in which the party might challenge his adversary or the witnesses, or the judge himself;[*****] and though these customs were absurd, they were rather an improvement on the methods of trial which had formerly been practised among those barbarous nations, and which still prevailed among the Anglo-Saxons.

If the way of punishing crimes among the Anglo-Saxons seems unique, the evidence was equally striking and was a natural outcome of their situation. Regardless of our assumptions about the honesty and integrity of people living in a rough and uncivilized state, there is actually much more deception, and even perjury, among them than in civilized societies: virtue, which is simply a more developed and refined sense of reason, doesn’t thrive at all, nor does it rest on solid principles of honor, unless a solid education is widespread; where people learn about the harmful effects of vice, betrayal, and immorality. Even superstition, though more common in ignorant societies, poorly compensates for gaps in knowledge and education; our European ancestors, who constantly resorted to swearing on various crosses and relics, were less honorable in their commitments than their descendants, who have learned from experience to discard these ineffective guarantees. This general tendency towards assumed perjury was heightened by judges' usual inability to discern complex evidence and their need to count, rather than evaluate, witness testimonies. Hence the absurd practice of requiring individuals to bring compurgators, who, having no knowledge of the actual events, swore that they believed the person was telling the truth; in some cases, these compurgators numbered as many as three hundred. The practice of single combat was used by most nations on the continent as a solution to false testimony; and although it was often abandoned due to opposition from the clergy, it was repeatedly revived due to the dishonesty associated with witness testimonies. Ultimately, it evolved into a form of jurisprudence: legal cases were established in which a party could challenge their opponent, the witnesses, or even the judge; and although these customs were ridiculous, they were at least an improvement over the trial methods previously practiced by those barbaric nations and which still persisted among the Anglo-Saxons.

     [* Præf. Nicol. ad Wilkins, p. 11.]

     [** LL. Burgund. cap. 45. LL. Lomb. lib. ii. tit.
     55, cap. 34.]

     [*** LL. Longob. lib. ii. tit. 55, cap. 23, apud
     Lindenbrog. p. 661]

     [**** See Desfontaines and Beaumanoir.]
     for weighing the credibility of witnesses. A man whose life
     was estimated at a hundred and twenty shillings,
     counterbalanced six ceorles, each of whose lives was only
     valued at twenty shillings, and his oath was esteemed
     equivalent to that of all the six. See Wilkins, p. 72.]
     [* Præf. Nicol. ad Wilkins, p. 11.]

     [** LL. Burgund. cap. 45. LL. Lomb. lib. ii. tit.
     55, cap. 34.]

     [*** LL. Longob. lib. ii. tit. 55, cap. 23, apud
     Lindenbrog. p. 661]

     [**** See Desfontaines and Beaumanoir.] 
     for assessing the credibility of witnesses. A man whose life was valued at a hundred and twenty shillings outweighed six ceorles, each valued at only twenty shillings, and his oath was considered equal to that of all six. See Wilkins, p. 72.]

When any controversy about a fact became too intricate for those ignorant judges to unravel, they had recourse to what they called the judgment of God, that is, to fortune. Their methods of consulting this oracle were various. One of them was the decision by the cross: it was practised in this manner: When a person was accused of any crime, he first cleared himself by oath, and he was attended by eleven compurgators. He next took two pieces of wood, one of which was marked with the sign of the cross, and wrapping both up in wool, he placed them on the altar, or on some celebrated relic. After solemn prayers for the success of the experiment, a priest, or in his stead some unexperienced youth, took up one of the pieces of wood, and if he happened upon that which was marked with the figure of the cross, the person was pronounced innocent; if otherwise, guilty. [*] This practice, as it arose from superstition, was abolished by it in France.

When any dispute about a fact became too complicated for those uninformed judges to sort out, they turned to what they called the judgment of God, which meant leaving it up to chance. Their ways of consulting this oracle varied. One method was the decision by the cross: it worked like this: When someone was accused of a crime, they first cleared themselves with an oath and were supported by eleven character witnesses. Then, they took two pieces of wood, one marked with a cross, wrapped both in wool, and placed them on the altar or on some well-known relic. After saying solemn prayers for the success of the test, a priest, or in his absence, some inexperienced youth, would pick up one of the pieces of wood. If they chose the one marked with the cross, the person was declared innocent; if not, guilty. This practice, which stemmed from superstition, was eventually abolished in France.

     [* LL. Prison, tit. 14, apud Lindenbrog. p. 496.
     trial, not because it was uncertain, but lest that sacred
     figure says he, of the cross should be prostituted in common
     disputes and controversies.]
     [* LL. Prison, tit. 14, apud Lindenbrog. p. 496.
     trial, not because it was unclear, but to prevent that sacred
     symbol of the cross from being degraded in common
     arguments and disputes.]

The ordeal was another established method of trial among Saxons. It was practised either by boiling water or red-hot iron. The former was appropriated to the common people; the latter to the nobility. The water or iron was consecrated by many prayers, masses, fastings, and exorcisms,[*] after which, the person accused either took up a stone sunk in the water[**] to a certain depth, or carried the iron to a certain distance; and his hand being wrapped up, and the covering sealed for three days, if there appeared, on examining it, no marks of burning, he was pronounced innocent; if otherwise, guilty.[***] The trial by cold water was different: the person was thrown into consecrated water; if he swam, he was guilty, if he sunk, innocent.[****] It is difficult for us to conceive how any innocent person could ever escape by the one trial, or any criminal be convicted by the other. But there was another usage admirably calculated for allowing every criminal to escape, who had confidence enough to try it. A consecrated cake, called a corsned, was produced, which if the person could swallow and digest, he was pronounced innocent.[******]

The ordeal was another traditional method of trial among the Saxons. It was carried out either by boiling water or red-hot iron. The boiling water was meant for common people, while the red-hot iron was reserved for nobility. The water or iron was blessed through many prayers, masses, fasts, and exorcisms,[*] after which the accused either had to pick up a stone submerged in the water[**] to a certain depth or carry the iron a specific distance; if their hand was wrapped up and sealed for three days, and upon examination, showed no signs of burning, they were declared innocent; if there were any burns, they were found guilty.[***] The trial by cold water was different: the person was thrown into blessed water; if they swam, they were guilty, if they sank, they were innocent.[****] It’s hard for us to imagine how any innocent person could escape in the first trial, or how any criminal could be convicted by the second. However, there was another method that cleverly allowed any criminal with enough confidence to avoid conviction. A blessed cake, known as a corsned, was presented; if the person was able to swallow and digest it, they were declared innocent.[******]

The feudal law, if it had place at all among the Anglo-Saxons, which is doubtful, was not certainly extended over all the landed property, and was not attended with those consequences of homage, reliefs,[*******] wardship, marriage, and other burdens, which were inseparable from it in the kingdoms of the continent. As the Saxons expelled, or almost entirely destroyed, the ancient Britons, they planted themselves in this island on the same footing with their ancestors in Germany, and found no occasion for the feudal institutions,[********] which were calculated to maintain a kind of standing army, always in readiness to suppress any insurrection among the conquered people.

The feudal law, if it existed at all among the Anglo-Saxons, which is uncertain, definitely didn’t cover all the land ownership and wasn’t accompanied by the same obligations of loyalty, financial duties, guardianship, marriage arrangements, and other burdens that were typical in the kingdoms on the continent. As the Saxons drove out or nearly wiped out the ancient Britons, they established themselves in this island on similar terms as their ancestors in Germany and saw no need for the feudal systems, which were designed to maintain a kind of standing army ready to quash any uprisings among the conquered people.

     [* Du Cange, in verbo Crux.]

     [** Spel in verbo Ordealium. Parker, p. 155.
     Lindenbrog. p, 1299]

     [*** LL. Inæ, sect. 77.]

     [**** Sometimes the person accused walked barefoot
     over a red hot iron]

     [****** Spel in verbo Corsned. Parker, p. 156.
     Text. Roffens. p. 33.]

     [******* On the death of an alderman, a greater or
     lesser thane, there was a payment made to the king of his
     best arms; and this was called his heriot; but this was not
     of the nature of a relief. See Spel. of Tenures, p. 2. The
     value of this heriot was fixed by Canute’s laws, sect. 69.]

     [******** Bracton de Acqu. Rer. Domin. ii. cap.
     16. See more fully Spel of Feus and Tenures, and Q aigius de
     Jure Feud, lib. i. dieg.]
     [* Du Cange, in the entry for Cross.]

     [** Entry in the context of Ordeals. Parker, p. 155.
     Lindenbrog, p. 1299]

     [*** Laws of Angles, sect. 77.]

     [**** Sometimes, the accused would walk barefoot over red-hot iron.]

     [****** Entry in the context of Corsned. Parker, p. 156.
     Text. Roffens, p. 33.]

     [******* When an alderman or a higher or lower thane died, a payment was made to the king of his best weapons; this was known as his heriot, but it was not considered a type of relief. See Spel. of Tenures, p. 2. The value of this heriot was established by Canute’s laws, sect. 69.]

     [******** Bracton on the Acquisition of Rights, ii. chapter 16. For more details, see Spel on Feu and Tenures, and Q aigius on Feudal Law, book i, section.]

The trouble and expense of defending the state in England lay equally upon all the land; and it was usual for every five hides to equip a man for the service. The “trinoda necessitas,” as it was called, or the burden of military expeditions, of repairing highways, and of building and supporting bridges, was inseparable from landed property, even though it belonged to the church or monasteries, unless exempted by a particular charter.[*] The ceorles, or husbandmen, were provided with arms, and were obliged to take their turn in military duty.[**] There were computed to be two hundred and forty-three thousand six hundred hides in England;[***] consequently the ordinary military force of the kingdom consisted of forty-eight thousand seven hundred and twenty men; though, no doubt, on extraordinary occasions, a greater number might be assembled. The king and nobility had some military tenants, who were called “sithcun-men.”[****] And there were some lands annexed to the office of aldermen, and to other offices; but these probably were not of great extent, and were possessed only during pleasure, as in the commencement of the feudal law in other countries of Europe.

The trouble and cost of defending the state in England fell equally on all landowners; it was common for every five hides to have to equip a man for military service. The "trinoda necessitas," which referred to the obligations of military expeditions, repairing roads, and building and maintaining bridges, was tied to land ownership, even if that land belonged to the church or monasteries, unless exempted by a specific charter.[*] The ceorles, or farmers, were given weapons and were required to serve in the military as needed.[**] It was estimated that there were two hundred and forty-three thousand six hundred hides in England;[***] therefore, the regular military force of the kingdom comprised forty-eight thousand seven hundred and twenty men, although in special circumstances, more could be gathered. The king and nobility had some military tenants known as “sithcun-men.”[****] There were also some lands associated with the roles of aldermen and other positions; however, these were likely not substantial and were held only at pleasure, similar to the early feudal law in other European countries.

The revenue of the king seems to have consisted chiefly in his demesnes, which were large; and in the tolls and imposts which he probably levied at discretion on the boroughs and seaports that lay within his demesnes. He could not alienate any part of the crown lands, even to religious uses, without the consent of the states.[*****] Danegelt was a land-tax of a shilling a hide, imposed by the states,[******] either for payment of the sums exacted by the Danes, or for putting the kingdom in a posture of defence against those invaders.[*******]

The king's income mostly came from his large estates and from the fees and taxes he likely charged at will on the towns and ports within his territories. He couldn't sell or give away any part of the crown lands, even for religious purposes, without the approval of the states.[*****] Danegelt was a land tax of one shilling per hide, imposed by the states,[******] either to pay off the amounts demanded by the Danes or to prepare the kingdom for defense against those invaders.[*******]

The Saxon pound, as likewise that which was coined for some centuries after the conquest, was near three times the weight of our present money. There were forty-eight shillings in the pound, and five pence in a shilling;[********] consequently a Saxon shilling was near a fifth heavier than ours, and a Saxon penny near three times as heavy.[*********]

The Saxon pound, as well as the currency that was minted for several centuries after the conquest, weighed almost three times as much as our current money. There were forty-eight shillings in a pound and five pence in a shilling; consequently, a Saxon shilling was about a fifth heavier than ours, and a Saxon penny was nearly three times as heavy.

    [* Spel. Concil. vol. i. p. 256.]

    [** Inæ, sect. 51.]

    [*** Spel. of Feus and Tenures, p. 17.]

    [**** Spel. Concil. vol. i. p. 195.]

    [****** Chron. Sax. p. 128.]

    [******* LL. Edw. Conf. sect. 12.]

    [******** LL. Ælf. sect. 40.]

    [********* Fleetwood’s Chron. Pretiosum, p. 27 28, etc.]
    [* Spel. Concil. vol. i. p. 256.]

    [** Inæ, sect. 51.]

    [*** Spel. of Feus and Tenures, p. 17.]

    [**** Spel. Concil. vol. i. p. 195.]

    [****** Chron. Sax. p. 128.]

    [******* LL. Edw. Conf. sect. 12.]

    [******** LL. Ælf. sect. 40.]

    [********* Fleetwood’s Chron. Pretiosum, p. 27 28, etc.]

As to the value of money in those times, compared to commodities, there are some though not very certain, means of computation. A sheep, of the laws of Athelstan, was estimated at a shilling; that is, fifteen pence of our money. The fleece was two fifths of the value of the whole sheep,[*] much above its present estimation; and the reason probably was, that the Saxons, like the ancients, were little acquainted with any clothing but what was made of wool. Silk and cotton were quite unknown: linen was not much used. An ox was computed at six times the value of a sheep; a cow at four.[**] If we suppose that the cattle in that age, from the defects in husbandry, were not so large as they are at present in England, we may compute that money was then near ten times of greater value. A horse was valued at about thirty-six shillings of our money, or thirty Saxon shillings;[***] a mare a third less. A man at three pounds.[****] The board-wages of a child the first year was eight shillings, together with a cow’s pasture in summer, and an ox’s in winter.[*****] William of Malmsbury mentions it as a remarkably high price that William Rufus gave fifteen marks for a horse, or about thirty pounds of our present money.[******] Between the years 900 and 1000, Ednoth bought a hide of land for about one hundred and eighteen shillings of present money.[*******] This was little more than a shilling an acre, which indeed appears to have been the usual price, as we may learn from other accounts.[********] A palfrey was sold for twelve shillings about the year 966.[*********] The value of an ox in King Ethel ed’s[** word?] time was between seven and eight shillings; a cow about six shillings.[*********] Gervas of Tilbury says, that in Henry I’s time, bread which would suffice a hundred men for a day was rated at three shillings, or a shilling of that age: for it is thought that soon after the conquest a pound sterling was divided into twenty shillings. A sheep was rated at a shilling, and so of other things in proportion. In Athelstan’s time, a ram was valued at a shilling, or fourpence Saxon.[**********] The tenants of Shireburn were obliged, at their choice, to pay either sixpence or four hens.[***********]

As for the value of money back then compared to goods, there are some, though not very reliable, ways to calculate it. A sheep, according to Athelstan's laws, was valued at a shilling; that is, fifteen pence in today's money. The fleece was worth two-fifths of the whole sheep, which is much more than its current value; likely because the Saxons, like the ancient people, knew little about clothing other than what was made of wool. Silk and cotton were completely unknown: linen wasn’t used much. An ox was worth six times as much as a sheep; a cow, four times. If we consider that livestock at that time, due to poor farming practices, were not as large as they are today in England, we might estimate that money was about ten times more valuable back then. A horse was valued at around thirty-six shillings in today’s money, or thirty Saxon shillings; a mare was a third less. A man was valued at three pounds. The cost of raising a child for the first year was eight shillings, plus summer pasture for a cow and winter pasture for an ox. William of Malmsbury points out it was a notably high price when William Rufus paid fifteen marks for a horse, which is around thirty pounds in today's money. Between the years 900 and 1000, Ednoth bought a hide of land for about one hundred and eighteen shillings in modern currency. This was just over a shilling per acre, which appears to have been the standard price based on other records. A palfrey was sold for twelve shillings around the year 966. The value of an ox during King Ethelred’s time was between seven and eight shillings; a cow was about six shillings. Gervas of Tilbury notes that in King Henry I’s time, bread that was enough to feed a hundred men for a day was priced at three shillings, or a shilling for that time: it’s believed that shortly after the conquest, a pound sterling was divided into twenty shillings. A sheep was valued at a shilling, and other goods were in proportion. During Athelstan’s time, a ram was worth a shilling, or four pence Saxon. The tenants of Shireburn had to choose between paying six pence or four hens.

     [* LL. Inse, sect. 69.]

     [** Wilkins, p. 126.

     [*** LL. Inse, sect. 38.]

     [**** Hist. Eliens. p. 471]

     [****** Wilkins, p. 66.]

     [******* Wilkins, p. 126.]

     [******** Page 121.]

     [********* Hist. Eliens. p. 473.]

     [********** Wilkins, p. 126.]

     [*********** Monast. Anglie. vol. ii. p. 528.]
     [* LL. Inse, sect. 69.]

     [** Wilkins, p. 126.]

     [*** LL. Inse, sect. 38.]

     [**** Hist. Eliens. p. 471]

     [****** Wilkins, p. 66.]

     [******* Wilkins, p. 126.]

     [******** Page 121.]

     [********* Hist. Eliens. p. 473.]

     [********** Wilkins, p. 126.]

     [*********** Monast. Anglie. vol. ii. p. 528.]

About 1232, the abbot of St. Alban’s, going on a journey, hired seven handsome, stout horses; and agreed, if any of them died on the road, to pay the owner thirty shillings apiece of our present money.[*] It is to be remarked, that in all ancient times the raising of corn, especially wheat, being a species of manufactory, that commodity always bore a higher price, compared to cattle, than it does in our times.[**] The Saxon Chronicle tells us,[***] that in the reign of Edward the Confessor there was the most terrible famine ever known; insomuch that a quarter of wheat rose to sixty pennies, or fifteen shillings of our present money. Consequently, it was as dear as if it now cost seven pounds ten shillings. This much exceeds the great famine in the end of Queen Elizabeth, when a quarter of wheat was sold for four pounds. Money in this last period was nearly of the same value as in our time. These severe famines are a certain proof of bad husbandry.

Around 1232, the abbot of St. Alban’s, while on a journey, hired seven strong, good-looking horses; and agreed to pay the owner thirty shillings each if any of them died along the way. It’s worth noting that in ancient times, growing crops, especially wheat, was seen as a kind of manufacturing, so that commodity always had a higher price compared to cattle than it does today. The Saxon Chronicle tells us that during the reign of Edward the Confessor, there was a terrible famine, so severe that a quarter of wheat cost sixty pennies, or fifteen shillings in today’s money. This made it as expensive as if it now cost seven pounds ten shillings. This greatly surpasses the famine at the end of Queen Elizabeth's reign, when a quarter of wheat was sold for four pounds. Money during that time was almost worth the same as it is now. These harsh famines are clear evidence of poor farming practices.

     [* M. Paris].

     [** Fleetwood. p. 83, 94, 96. 98]

     [*** Page 157.]
     [* M. Paris].

     [** Fleetwood. p. 83, 94, 96. 98]

     [*** Page 157.]

On the whole, there are three things to be considered, wherever a sum of money is mentioned in ancient times. First, the change of denomination, by which a pound has been reduced to the third part of its ancient weight in silver. Secondly, the change in value by the greater plenty of money, which has reduced the same weight of silver to ten times less value, compared to commodities; and consequently a pound sterling to the thirtieth part of the ancient value. Thirdly, the fewer people and less industry which were then to be found in every European kingdom. This circumstance made even the thirtieth part of the sum more difficult to levy, and caused any sum to have more than thirty times greater weight and influence, both abroad and at home, than in our times; in the same manner that a sum, a hundred thousand pounds, for instance, is at present more difficult to levy in a small state, such as Bavaria, and can produce greater effects on such a small community than on England. This last difference is not easy to be calculated; but, allowing that England has now six times more industry, and three times more people than it had at the conquest, and for some reigns after that period, we are upon that supposition to conceive, taking all circumstances together, every sum of money mentioned by historians, as if it were multiplied more than a hundred fold above a sum of the same denomination at present.

Overall, there are three things to consider whenever a sum of money is mentioned from ancient times. First, the change in denomination, where a pound has been reduced to a third of its original weight in silver. Second, the change in value due to the increased amount of money, which has decreased the value of the same weight of silver to one-tenth compared to goods; as a result, a pound sterling is now worth only a thirtieth of its original value. Third, there were fewer people and less industry in each European kingdom back then. This made even a thirtieth of the amount more challenging to collect, and meant that any sum had more than thirty times the impact and significance, both internationally and domestically, than it does today. Similarly, a sum like a hundred thousand pounds is currently harder to raise in a small state like Bavaria and can have a larger effect on that smaller community than it would in England. This last difference is tricky to quantify; however, if we assume that England now has six times more industry and three times more people than it did at the time of the conquest and for some reigns afterwards, we should consider every sum of money mentioned by historians as if it were multiplied by more than a hundred times compared to a sum of the same denomination today.

In the Saxon times, land was divided equally among all the male children of the deceased, according to the custom of gavelkind. The practice of entails is to be found in those times.[*] Land was chiefly of two kinds, bockland, or land held by book or charter, which was regarded as full property, and descended to the heirs of the possessor; and folkland, or the land held by the ceorles and common people, who were removable at pleasure, and were, indeed, only tenants during the will of their lords.

In Saxon times, land was evenly divided among all the male children of the deceased, following the custom of gavelkind. The practice of entails was also present during that period.[*] There were mainly two types of land: bockland, which was land held by a document or charter considered full property that passed down to the heirs of the owner, and folkland, which was held by the ceorles (free peasants) and common people. They could be removed at any time and were essentially just tenants at the discretion of their lords.

The first attempt which we find in England to separate the ecclesiastical from the civil jurisdiction, was that law of Edgar by which all disputes among the clergy were ordered to be carried before the bishop.[**] The penances were then very severe; but as a man could buy them off with money, or might substitute others to perform them, they lay easy upon the rich.[***]

The first effort we see in England to separate religious authority from civil authority was the law of Edgar, which required all disputes among clergy to be taken to the bishop. The penalties at the time were quite harsh; however, since a person could pay to avoid them or have someone else take their place, they were manageable for the wealthy.

With regard to the manners of the Anglo-Saxons, we can say little, but that they were in general a rude, uncultivated people, ignorant of letters, unskilled in the mechanical arts, untamed to submission under law and government, addicted to intemperance, riot, and disorder. Their best quality was their military courage, which yet was not supported by discipline or conduct. Their want of fidelity to the prince, or to any trust reposed in them, appears strongly in the history of their later period; and their want of humanity in all their history. Even the Norman historians, notwithstanding the low state of the arts in their own country, speak of them as barbarians, when they mention the invasion made upon them by the duke of Normandy.[****] The conquest put the people in a situation of receiving slowly, from abroad, the rudiments of science and cultivation, and of correcting their rough and licentious manners.

When it comes to the behavior of the Anglo-Saxons, we can say little except that they were generally a rude, unrefined group of people, unfamiliar with writing, lacking skills in crafts, resistant to submission under law and governance, and prone to excess, chaos, and disorder. Their best trait was their military bravery, which, however, was not backed by discipline or strategy. Their lack of loyalty to their leader or to any trust placed in them is evident in the history of their later years; and their lack of compassion can be seen throughout their history. Even the Norman historians, despite the primitive state of the arts in their own country, referred to them as barbarians when discussing the invasion led by the duke of Normandy.[****] The conquest placed the people in a position to gradually receive knowledge and cultural practices from abroad, allowing them to refine their rough and unruly behaviors.

     [* LL. Ælf. sect. 37, apud Wilkins, p. 43.]

     [** Wilkins, p. 83.]

     [*** Wilkins, p. 96, 97. Spel. Concil. p. 473.]

     [**** Gul, Pict. p. 202.]
     [* LL. Ælf. sect. 37, apud Wilkins, p. 43.]

     [** Wilkins, p. 83.]

     [*** Wilkins, p. 96, 97. Spel. Concil. p. 473.]

     [**** Gul, Pict. p. 202.]




CHAPTER IV.





WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR.

Contemporary Monarchs:

     EMP. OF GERM.  K. OF SCOTLAND      K. OF FRANCE.   Ks. OF SPAIN.
     Henry IV.      Malcolm III. 1093    Philip I.      Sancho II. 1072
     Alphonso VI.

     POPES.
     Alexander II.1073
     Gregory VII. 1085
     Victor III.  1087
     EMP. OF GERM.  K. OF SCOTLAND      K. OF FRANCE.   Ks. OF SPAIN.
     Henry IV.      Malcolm III. 1093    Philip I.      Sancho II. 1072
     Alphonso VI.

     POPES.
     Alexander II.1073
     Gregory VII. 1085
     Victor III.  1087

1066.

1066.

Nothing could exceed the consternation which seized the English when they received intelligence of the unfortunate battle of Hastings, the death of their king, the slaughter of their principal nobility and of their bravest warriors, and the rout and dispersion of the remainder. But though the loss which they had sustained in that fatal action was considerable, it might have been repaired by a great nation; where the people were generally armed, and where there resided so many powerful noblemen in every province, who could have assembled their retainers, and have obliged the duke of Normandy to divide his army, and probably to waste it in a variety of actions and rencounters. It was thus that the kingdom had formerly resisted for many years its invaders, and had been gradually subdued by the continued efforts of the Romans, Saxons, and Danes; and equal difficulties might have been apprehended by William in this bold and hazardous enterprise. But there were several vices in the Anglo-Saxon constitution, which rendered it difficult for the English to defend their liberties in so critical an emergency. The people had in a great measure lost all national pride and spirit by their recent and long subjection to the Danes; and as Canute had, in the course of his administration, much abated the rigors of conquest, and had governed them equitably by their own laws, they regarded with the less terror the ignominy of a foreign yoke, and deemed the inconveniences of submission less formidable than those of bloodshed, war, and resistance. Their attachment also to the ancient royal family had been much weakened by their habits of submission to the Danish princes, and by their late election of Harold or their acquiescence in his usurpation. And as they had long been accustomed to regard Edgar Atheling, the only heir of the Saxon line, as unfit to govern them even in times of order and tranquillity, they could entertain small hopes of his being able to repair such great losses as they had sustained, or to withstand the victorious arms of the duke of Normandy.

Nothing could match the shock that hit the English when they learned about the disastrous Battle of Hastings, the death of their king, the slaughter of their key nobles and bravest warriors, and the rout and scattering of the rest. Although the loss they suffered in that deadly battle was significant, it could have been recovered by a great nation. The people were mostly armed, and there were many powerful noblemen in every region who could have gathered their followers, forcing the Duke of Normandy to split his army and likely exhaust it through various battles and skirmishes. That's how the kingdom had previously resisted invaders for many years, gradually being subdued by the constant efforts of the Romans, Saxons, and Danes; William could have faced similar challenges in this bold and risky venture. However, several flaws in the Anglo-Saxon system made it hard for the English to defend their freedoms at such a crucial time. The people had largely lost their national pride and spirit due to their recent and lengthy subjugation by the Danes; since Canute had eased the harshness of conquest during his rule and governed fairly according to their own laws, they viewed the shame of foreign rule with less dread. They considered the discomforts of submission to be less daunting than those of violence, war, and resistance. Their loyalty to the old royal family had also weakened considerably from their submission to the Danish princes and their recent choice of Harold or acceptance of his takeover. Having long seen Edgar Atheling, the only heir to the Saxon line, as unfit to rule even in peaceful times, they had little hope that he could recover from the significant losses they had suffered or stand against the victorious forces of the Duke of Normandy.

That they might not, however, be altogether wanting to themselves in this extreme necessity, the English took some steps towards adjusting their disjointed government, and uniting themselves against the common enemy. The two potent earls, Edwin and Morcar, who had fled to London with the remains of the broken army, took the lead on this occasion: in concert with Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, a man possessed of great authority and of ample revenues, they proclaimed Edgar, and endeavored to put the people in a posture of defence, and encourage them to resist the Normans.[*] But the terror of the late defeat, and the near neighborhood of the invaders, increased the confusion inseparable from great revolutions; and every resolution proposed was hasty, fluctuating, tumultuary; disconcerted by fear or faction; ill planned, and worse executed.

To avoid completely neglecting their own situation in this dire time, the English took some steps to fix their fragmented government and unite against their common enemy. The two powerful earls, Edwin and Morcar, who had escaped to London with the remains of the defeated army, took the lead in this effort. Together with Stigand, the archbishop of Canterbury, a figure of significant authority and wealth, they proclaimed Edgar as their leader and tried to prepare the people for defense, urging them to resist the Normans. However, the fear from the recent defeat and the close presence of the invaders only added to the chaos that comes with major upheavals. Every proposed plan was rushed, inconsistent, chaotic; disrupted by fear or faction; poorly thought out and even worse in execution.

William, that his enemies might have no leisure to recover from their consternation or unite their counsels, immediately put himself in motion after his victory, and resolved to prosecute an enterprise which nothing but celerity and vigor could render finally successful. His first attempt was against Rornney, whose inhabitants he severely punished, on account of their cruel treatment of some Norman seamen and soldiers, who had been carried thither by stress of weather, or by a mistake in their course;[**] and foreseeing that his conquest of England might still be attended with many difficulties and with much opposition, he deemed it necessary, before he should advance farther into the country, to make himself master of Dover, which would both secure him a retreat in cast of adverse fortune, and afford him a safe landing-place for such supplies as might be requisite for pushing his advantages.

William, to prevent his enemies from recovering from their shock or coordinating their strategies, quickly took action after his victory and decided to pursue a mission that could only succeed through speed and determination. His first target was Romney, where he harshly punished the locals for their brutal treatment of some Norman sailors and soldiers who had been stranded there due to bad weather or navigational errors; and anticipating that conquering England might still involve numerous challenges and strong resistance, he believed it was essential, before moving further into the country, to take control of Dover, which would secure him a retreat in case of setbacks and provide a safe landing spot for any supplies needed to continue his campaign.

     [* Gill. Pict. p. 205. Order. Vitaas, p. 502.
     Hoveden, p. 449 Knygnton, p. 2343.]

     [** Gul. Pict. p. 204]
     [* Gill. Pict. p. 205. Order. Vitaas, p. 502. Hoveden, p. 449 Knygnton, p. 2343.]

     [** Gul. Pict. p. 204]

The terror diffused by his victory at Hastings was so great that the garrison of Dover, though numerous and well provided, immediately capitulated; and as the Normans, rushing in to take possession of the town, hastily set fire to some of the houses, William, desirous to conciliate the minds of the English by an appearance of lenity and justice, made compensation to the inhabitants for their losses.[*]

The fear spread by his victory at Hastings was so intense that the garrison of Dover, despite being large and well-equipped, quickly surrendered. As the Normans rushed in to take control of the town, they immediately set some of the houses on fire. William, wanting to win over the English by showing leniency and fairness, compensated the residents for their losses.[*]

The Norman army, being much distressed with a dysentery, was obliged to remain here eight days; but the duke, on their recovery, advanced with quick marches towards London, and by his approach increased the confusions which were already so prevalent in the English counsels. The ecclesiastics in particular, whose influence was great over the people began to declare in his favor; and as most of the bishops and dignified clergymen were even then Frenchmen or Normans, the pope’s bull, by which his enterprise was avowed and hallowed, was now openly insisted on as a reason for general submission. The superior learning of those prelates, which, during the Confessor’s reign, had raised them above the ignorant Saxons, made their opinions be received with implicit faith; and a young prince; like Edgar, whose capacity was deemed so mean, was but ill qualified to resist the impression which they made on the minds of the people. A repulse which a body of Londoners received from five hundred Norman horse, renewed in the city the terror of the great defeat at Hastings; the easy submission of all the inhabitants of Kent was an additional discouragement to them; the burning of Southwark before their eyes made them dread a like fate to their own city; and no man any longer entertained thoughts but of immediate safety ana of self-preservation. Even the Earls Edwin and Morcar, in despair of making effectual resistance, retired with their troops to their own provinces; and the people thenceforth disposed themselves unanimously to yield to the victor. As soon as he passed the Thames at Wallingford, and reached Berkhamstead, Stigand, the primate, made submissions to him: before he came within sight of the city, all the chief nobility, and Edgar Atheling himself, the new elected king, came into his camp, and declared their intention of yielding to his authority.[**] They requested him to mount their throne, which they now considered as vacant; and declare to him, that as they had always been ruled by regal power, they desired to follow, in this particular, the example of their ancestors, and knew of no one more worthy than himself to hold the reins of government.[***]

The Norman army, suffering greatly from dysentery, had to stay here for eight days; but once they recovered, the duke quickly moved towards London, increasing the chaos that was already widespread in the English leadership. The clergy in particular, who had considerable influence over the people, began to support him; and since most of the bishops and high-ranking clergymen were still French or Normans, the pope's bull—which legitimized his campaign—was now openly used as a reason for everyone to submit. The greater knowledge of these church leaders, which had set them above the uninformed Saxons during the Confessor’s reign, led to their opinions being accepted without question; and a young prince like Edgar, whose abilities were considered limited, was poorly equipped to resist their influence over the population. A setback experienced by a group of Londoners against five hundred Norman cavalry reignited fears of the significant defeat at Hastings; the easy capitulation of all the residents of Kent further discouraged them; the burning of Southwark right before their eyes made them fear a similar fate for their own city; and no one thought of anything but immediate safety and self-preservation. Even Earls Edwin and Morcar, in hopelessness of mounting a meaningful defense, retreated with their troops to their own territories; from then on, the people were united in their decision to surrender to the victor. As soon as he crossed the Thames at Wallingford and reached Berkhamstead, Stigand, the archbishop, submitted to him: before he even saw the city, all the leading nobles and Edgar Atheling himself, the newly elected king, came into his camp and announced their intention to submit to his rule. They asked him to take the throne, which they now saw as vacant, and expressed that because they had always been governed by royal authority, they wanted to follow the example of their ancestors in this respect and recognized no one more deserving than him to lead the government.

     [* Gul. Pict. p. 204.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 450. Flor. Wigorn. p, 634]

     [*** Gul. Pict. p. 205. Order. Vitalis, p. 503.]
     [* Gul. Pict. p. 204.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 450. Flor. Wigorn. p, 634]

     [*** Gul. Pict. p. 205. Order. Vitalis, p. 503.]

Though this was the great object to which the duke’s enterprise tended, he feigned to deliberate on the offer; and being desirous, at first, of preserving the appearance of a legal administration, he wished to obtain a more explicit and formal consent of the English nation;[*] but Aimar of Aquitain, a man equally respected for valor in the field and for prudence in council, remonstrating with him on the danger of delay in so critical a conjuncture, he laid aside all further scruples, and accepted of the crown which was tendered him. Orders were immediately issued to prepare every thing for the ceremony of his coronation; but as he was yet afraid to place entire confidence in the Londoners, who were numerous and warlike, he meanwhile commanded fortresses to be erected, in order to curb the inhabitants, and to secure his person and government.[**]

Although this was the main goal of the duke’s plan, he pretended to think over the offer. Initially, he wanted to maintain the appearance of a lawful administration and sought a clearer and more formal agreement from the English people;[*] however, Aimar of Aquitaine, a man respected for both his bravery in battle and his wisdom in counsel, advised him about the risks of delaying in such a crucial moment. This prompted him to put aside any further hesitations and accept the crown that was offered to him. Orders were quickly given to prepare everything for his coronation ceremony, but since he was still hesitant to fully trust the Londoners, who were numerous and fierce, he ordered the construction of fortresses to keep the citizens in check and to ensure his safety and control over the government.[**]

Stigand was not much in the duke’s favor, both because he had intruded into the see on the expulsion of Robert the Norman, and because he possessed such influence and authority over the English[***] as might be dangerous to a new-established monarch. William, therefore, pretending that the primate had obtained his pall in an irregular manner from Pope Benedict IX., who was himself a usurper, refused to be consecrated by him, and conferred this honor on Aldred, arch bishop of York. Westminster Abbey was the place appointed for that magnificent ceremony; the most considerable of the nobility, both English and Norman, attended the duke on this occasion; Aldred, in a short speech, asked the former whether they agreed to accept of William as their king; the bishop of Coutance put the same question to the latter; and both being answered with acclamations,[****] Aldred administered to the duke the usual coronation oath, by which he bound himself to protect the church, to administer justice, and to repress violence; he then anointed him, and put the crown upon his head.[*****] There appeared nothing but joy in the countenance of the spectators; but in that very moment there burst forth the strongest symptoms of the jealousy and animosity which prevailed between the nations, and which continually increased during the reign of this prince.

Stigand wasn’t favored by the duke, mainly because he had taken over the see after Robert the Norman was expelled, and also because he had significant influence and power over the English, which could pose a threat to a newly established monarch. William, therefore, claimed that the primate had gotten his pall in an irregular way from Pope Benedict IX., who himself was a usurper, so he refused to be consecrated by him and instead bestowed this honor on Aldred, archbishop of York. Westminster Abbey was designated as the venue for the grand ceremony; many prominent nobles, both English and Norman, attended the duke for this occasion. Aldred, in a brief speech, asked the former whether they accepted William as their king; the Bishop of Coutance posed the same question to the latter; with both groups responding with cheers, Aldred administered the traditional coronation oath to the duke, committing himself to protect the church, to deliver justice, and to curb violence; he then anointed him and placed the crown on his head. The spectators only showed joy on their faces; however, in that very moment, the strongest signs of the jealousy and hostility that existed between the nations erupted, and this tension only grew during this prince’s reign.

     [* Gul. Pict. p. 205].

     [** Gul. Pict. p. 205.]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 6.]

     [**** Order. Vitalis, p. 503.]
     promised to govern the Normans and English by equal laws;
     and this addition to the usual oath seems not improbable,
     considering the circumstances of the time!]
     [* Gul. Pict. p. 205].

     [** Gul. Pict. p. 205.]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 6.]

     [**** Order. Vitalis, p. 503.]
     promised to rule the Normans and English with the same laws; 
     and this extra part of the usual oath doesn’t seem unlikely, 
     given the situation at the time!]

The Norman soldiers, who were placed without in order to guard the church, hearing the shouts within, fancied that the English were offering violence to their duke; and they immediately assaulted the populace, and set fire to the neighboring houses. The alarm was conveyed to the nobility who surrounded the prince; both English and Normans, full of apprehensions, rushed out to secure themselves from the present danger; and it was with difficulty that William himself was able to appease the tumult.[*]

The Norman soldiers, stationed outside to guard the church, heard the shouts coming from inside and thought that the English were attacking their duke. They quickly charged at the crowd and set fire to the nearby houses. The alarm reached the nobles surrounding the prince; both the English and Normans, filled with fear, rushed out to protect themselves from the immediate threat. It was a struggle for William himself to calm the chaos.

The king, thus possessed of the throne by a pretended descination of King Edward, and by an irregular election of the people, but still more by force of arms, retired from London to Berking, in Essex,

The king, having taken the throne through a fake connection to King Edward and an unconventional election by the people, but even more through military power, moved from London to Berking in Essex,

1067.

1067.

and there received the submissions of all the nobility who had not attended his coronation. Edric, surnamed the Forester, grand-nephew to that Edric so noted for his repeated acts of perfidy during the reigns of Ethelred and Edmond; Earl Coxo, a man famous for bravery; even Edwin and Morcar, earls of Mercia and Northumberland; with the other principal noblemen of England, came and swore fealty to him; were received into favor; and were confirmed in the possession of their estates and dignities.[**] Every thing bore the appearance of peace and tranquillity; and William had no other occupation than to give contentment to the foreigners who had assisted him to mount the throne, and to his new subjects, who had so readily submitted to him.

and there received the submissions of all the nobility who hadn’t attended his coronation. Edric, known as the Forester, grand-nephew of that Edric famous for his repeated treachery during the reigns of Ethelred and Edmond; Earl Coxo, a man celebrated for his bravery; even Edwin and Morcar, earls of Mercia and Northumberland; along with the other leading noblemen of England, came and swore loyalty to him; were welcomed into his favor; and were confirmed in their ownership of their lands and titles. Everything seemed peaceful and calm; William had no other focus than to please the foreigners who helped him ascend the throne and to his new subjects, who had so willingly submitted to him.

He had got possession of the treasure of Harold, which was considerable; and being also supplied with rich presents from the opulent men in all parts of England, who were solicitous to gain the favor of their new sovereign, he distributed great sums among his troops, and by this liberality gave them hopes of obtaining at length those more durable establishments which they had expected from his enterprise.[***] The ecclesiastics, both at home and abroad, had much forwarded his success; and he failed not, in return, to express his gratitude and devotion in the manner which was most acceptable to them; he sent Harold’s standard to the pope, accompanied with many valuable presents; all the considerable monasteries and churches in France, where prayers had been put up for his success, now tasted of his bounty;[****] the English monks found him well disposed to favor their order; and he built a new convent near Hastings, which he called Battle Abbey, and which on pretence of supporting monks to pray lor his own soul, and for that of Harold, served as a lasting memorial of his victory.[*****]

He had taken control of Harold's treasure, which was substantial; and with generous gifts from wealthy men across England eager to win the favor of their new king, he handed out large amounts of money to his troops. This generosity gave them hopes of finally receiving the lasting rewards they had anticipated from his efforts.[***] The clergy, both at home and abroad, had greatly contributed to his success; in return, he made sure to show his gratitude and devotion in ways that they would appreciate. He sent Harold’s standard to the pope, along with many valuable gifts; all the major monasteries and churches in France that had prayed for his success benefited from his generosity;[****] the English monks found him inclined to support their order; he built a new convent near Hastings, which he named Battle Abbey, and under the guise of supporting monks to pray for his soul and Harold’s, it served as a lasting reminder of his victory.[*****]

     [* Gul Pict. p. 206. Order. Vitalis, p. 503.]

     [** Gul. Pict. p. 208. Order. Vitalis, p. 506.]

     [*** Gul. Pict. p. 206.]

     [**** Gul. Pict. p. 205.]
     West. p. 226. M. Paris, p. 9. Diceto, p. 482. This convent
     was freed by him from all episcopal jurisdiction. Monast.
     Anglic, tom. i. p. 311, 312.]
     [* Gul Pict. p. 206. Order. Vitalis, p. 503.]

     [** Gul. Pict. p. 208. Order. Vitalis, p. 506.]

     [*** Gul. Pict. p. 206.]

     [**** Gul. Pict. p. 205.]
     West. p. 226. M. Paris, p. 9. Diceto, p. 482. This convent
     was released from all oversight by bishops. Monast.
     Anglic, tom. i. p. 311, 312.]

He introduced into England that strict execution of justice, for which his administration had been much celebrated in Normandy; and even during this violent revolution, every disorder or oppression met with rigorous punishment.[*]

He brought to England the strict enforcement of justice for which his leadership had been widely praised in Normandy; and even during this tumultuous period, every act of disorder or oppression faced severe consequences.[*]

     [* Gul. Pict. p. 208. Order, Vitalis, p. 506.]
[* Gul. Pict. p. 208. Order, Vitalis, p. 506.]

His army in particular was governed with severe discipline; and notwithstanding the insolence of victory, care was taken to give as little offence as possible to the jealousy of the vanquished. The king appeared solicitous to unite in an amicable manner the Normans and the English, by intermarriages and alliances; and all his new subjects who approached his person were received with affability and regard. No signs of suspicion appeared, not even towards Edgar Atheling, the heir of the ancient royal family, whom William confirmed in the honors of earl of Oxford, conferred on him by Harold, and whom he affected to treat with the highest kindness, as nephew to the Confessor, his great friend and benefactor. Though he confiscated the estates of Harold, and of those who had fought in the battle of Hastings on the side of that prince, whom he represented as a usurper, he seemed willing to admit of every plausible excuse for past opposition to his pretensions, and he received many into favor who had carried arms against him, He confirmed the liberties and immunities of London and the other cities of England; and appeared desirous of replacing every thing on ancient establishments. In his whole administration, he bore the semblance of the lawful prince, not of the conqueror; and the English began to flatter themselves, that they had changed, not the form of their government, but the succession only of their sovereigns; a matter which gave them small concern. The better to reconcile his new subjects to his authority, William made a progress through some parts of England; and besides a splendid court and majestic presence, which overawed the people, already struck with his military fame, the appearance of his clemency and justice gained the approbation of the wise, attentive to the first steps of their new sovereign.

His army was managed with strict discipline; and despite the arrogance that comes with victory, efforts were made to avoid provoking the jealousy of the defeated. The king seemed eager to peacefully unite the Normans and the English through intermarriages and alliances. All his new subjects who came to him were welcomed with friendliness and respect. There were no signs of distrust, even towards Edgar Atheling, the heir of the old royal family, whom William affirmed in the honors of earl of Oxford, granted by Harold, and whom he pretended to treat with the utmost kindness, as the nephew of the Confessor, his close friend and benefactor. Although he confiscated the estates of Harold and those who had fought at the Battle of Hastings on Harold's side, whom he portrayed as usurpers, he seemed willing to accept various justifications for their past opposition to him and welcomed many who had once fought against him. He upheld the rights and privileges of London and other cities in England and appeared keen to restore everything to its traditional order. Throughout his administration, he presented himself as the legitimate king, not as a conqueror; and the English began to convince themselves that they had not changed the structure of their government, just the line of their rulers—a change that bothered them little. To further win over his new subjects, William traveled through parts of England; and besides displaying a lavish court and impressive presence that impressed the people who were already in awe of his military reputation, his apparent mercy and fairness won the approval of those wise enough to pay attention to the first actions of their new ruler.

But amidst this confidence and friendship which he expressed for the English, the king took care to place all real power in the hands of his Normans, and still to keep possession of the sword, to which, he was sensible, he had owed his advancement to sovereign authority. He disarmed the city of London and other places, which appeared most warlike and populous; and building citadels in that capital, as well as in Winchester, Hereford, and the cities best situated for commanding the kingdom, he quartered Norman soldiers in all of them, and left nowhere any power able to resist or oppose him. He bestowed the forfeited estates on the most eminent of hia captains, and established funds for the payment of his soldiers. And thus, while his civil administration carried the face of a legal magistrate, his military institutions were those of a master and tyrant; at least of one who reserved to himself, whenever he pleased, the power of assuming that character.

But amidst the confidence and friendship he showed toward the English, the king ensured that real power remained firmly in the hands of his Normans, knowing well that it was the sword that had secured his rise to authority. He disarmed London and other major cities that seemed most militaristic and populous. He built fortresses in the capital and in Winchester, Hereford, and other strategically important cities, garrisoning them with Norman soldiers and leaving no one in a position to resist or challenge him. He granted the seized lands to his top captains and set up funds to pay his soldiers. Thus, while his civil governance appeared to be that of a legitimate authority, his military organization resembled that of a master and tyrant—at least one who retained the option to act as such whenever he chose.

By this mixture, however, of vigor and lenity, he had so soothed the minds of the English, that he thought he might safely revisit his native country, and enjoy the triumph and congratulation of his ancient subjects. He left the administration in the hands of his uterine brother, Odo, bishop of Baieux, and of William Fitz-Osberne. That their authority might be exposed to less danger, he carried over with him all the most considerable nobility of England, who, while they served to grace his court by their presence and magnificent retinues, were in reality hostages for the fidelity of the nation. Among these were Edgar Atheling, Stigand the primate, the earls Edwin and Morcar, Waltheof, the son of the brave Earl Siward, with others, eminent for the greatness of their fortunes and families, or for their ecclesiastical and civil dignities. He was visited at the abbey of Fescamp, where he resided during some time, by Rodulph, uncle to the king of France, and by many powerful princes and nobles, who, having contributed to his enterprise, were desirous of participating in the joy and advantages of its success. His English courtiers, willing to ingratiate themselves with their new sovereign, outvied each other in equipages and entertainments; and made a display of riches which struck the foreigners with astonishment. William of Poictiers, a Norman historian,[*] who was present, speaks with admiration of the beauty of their persons, the size and workmanship of their silver plate, the costliness of their embroideries, an art in which the English then excelled; and he expresses himself in such terms, as tend much to exalt our idea of the opulence and cultivation of the people.[**]

By this blend of strength and kindness, he had calmed the minds of the English so much that he felt he could safely return to his home country and enjoy the celebration and praise of his former subjects. He left the management to his half-brother, Odo, the Bishop of Bayeux, and William Fitz-Osbern. To reduce the risk to their authority, he took with him many of the most important nobles of England, who, while they added prestige to his court with their presence and lavish entourages, were actually hostages for the loyalty of the nation. Among them were Edgar Atheling, Stigand the primate, Earls Edwin and Morcar, Waltheof, the son of the brave Earl Siward, and others, known for their wealth, noble families, or for their ecclesiastical and civil positions. He was visited at the Abbey of Fécamp, where he stayed for a while, by Rodulf, the uncle of the King of France, and by many powerful princes and nobles who had helped with his campaign and wanted to share in the joy and benefits of its success. His English courtiers, eager to win favor with their new ruler, competed with each other in displays of luxury and entertainment, showcasing riches that amazed the foreigners. William of Poitiers, a Norman historian, who was there, spoke with admiration about the beauty of their looks, the size and craftsmanship of their silverware, the extravagance of their embroidered fabrics, an art in which the English excelled at that time; and he expressed himself in such a way that greatly enhances our perception of the wealth and sophistication of the people.

     [* Page 211, 212.]

     [** As the historian chiefly insists on the siver
     plate, his panegyric on the English magnificence shows only
     how incompetent a judge he was of the matter. Silver was
     then of ten times the value, and was more than twenty times
     more rare than at present; and consequently of all species
     of luxury, plate must have been the rarest.]
     [* Page 211, 212.]

     [** Since the historian focuses mainly on silver plate, his praise of English luxury reveals just how poor his judgment was on the topic. Silver was worth ten times more at that time and was over twenty times rarer than it is today; therefore, among all types of luxury, silver plate must have been the rarest.]

But though every thing bure the face of joy and festivity, and William himself treated nia new courtiers with great appearance of kindness, it was impossible altogether to prevent the insolence of the Normans; and the English nobles derived little satisfaction from those entertainments, where they considered themselves as led in triumph by their ostentatious conqueror.

But even though everything showed signs of joy and celebration, and William himself treated his new courtiers with great kindness, it was impossible to fully prevent the arrogance of the Normans; and the English nobles got little enjoyment from those festivities, feeling like they were being paraded around by their flashy conqueror.

In England affairs took still a worse turn during the absence of the sovereign. Discontents and complaints multiplied every where; secret conspiracies were entered into against the government; hostilities were already begun in many places; and every thing seemed to menace a revolution as rapid as that which had placed William on the throne. The historian above mentioned, who is a panegyrist of his master, throws the blame entirely on the fickle and mutinous disposition of the English, and highly celebrates the justice and lenity of Odo’s and Fitz-Osborne’s administration.[**] But other historians, with more probability, impute the cause chiefly to the Normans; who, despising a people that had so easily submitted to the yoke, envying their riches, and grudging the restraints imposed upon their own rapine, were desirous of provoking them to a rebellion, by which they expected to acquire new confiscations and forfeitures, and to gratify those unbounded hopes which they had formed in entering on this enterprise.[***]

In England, things took a turn for the worse during the sovereign's absence. Discontent and complaints grew everywhere; secret conspiracies formed against the government; hostilities had already begun in many places; and everything seemed to point towards a revolution as swift as the one that put William on the throne. The aforementioned historian, who praises his master, places all the blame on the unpredictable and rebellious nature of the English, while extolling the fairness and leniency of Odo’s and Fitz-Osborne’s administration.[**] However, other historians, with more credibility, attribute the main cause to the Normans, who, looking down on a people that submitted so easily to control, envied their wealth and resented the limits placed on their own greed. They sought to provoke a rebellion, hoping to gain new confiscations and forfeitures, and to satisfy the limitless ambitions they held when embarking on this endeavor.[***]

     [** Page 212.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 507]
     [** Page 212.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 507]

It is evident that the chief reason of this alteration in the sentiments of the English must be ascribed to the departure of William, who was alone able to curb the violence of his captains, and to overawe the mutinies of the people. Nothing indeed appears more strange than that this prince, in less than three months after the conquest of a great, warlike, and turbulent nation, should absent himself in order to revisit his own country, which remained in profound tranquillity, and was not menaced by any of its neighbors; and should so long leave his jealous subjects at the mercy of an insolent and licentious army. Were we not assured of the solidity of his genius, and the good sense displayed in all other circumstances of his conduct, we might ascribe this measure to a vain ostentation, which rendered him impatient to display his pomp and magnificence among his ancient subjects. It is therefore more natural to believe that, in so extraordinary a step, he was guided by a concealed policy; and that though he had thought proper at first to allure the people to submission by the semblance of a legal administration, he found that he could neither satisfy his rapacious captains, nor secure his unstable government, without farther exerting the rights of conquest, and seizing the possessions of the English. In order to have a pretext for this violence, he endeavored without discovering his intentions, to provoke and allure them into insurrections, which he thought could never prove dangerous, while he detained all the principal nobility in Normandy, while a great and victorious army was quartered in England, and while he himself was so near to suppress any tumult or rebellion. But as no ancient writer has ascribed this tyrannical purpose to William, it scarcely seems allowable, from conjecture alone, to throw such an imputation upon him.

It’s clear that the main reason for this change in the feelings of the English must be attributed to the absence of William, who was the only one capable of controlling his aggressive leaders and calming the unrest of the people. It certainly seems strange that this prince, less than three months after conquering a powerful, warlike, and tumultuous nation, would leave to return to his own country, which was in complete peace and not threatened by any neighbors; and that he would leave his suspicious subjects vulnerable to an arrogant and unruly army for so long. If we weren’t assured of the strength of his intellect and the good judgment he showed in all other aspects of his leadership, we might think this decision was made out of a vain desire to show off his wealth and grandeur to his old subjects. It’s more reasonable to believe that, in taking such an extraordinary action, he was guided by hidden motives; and that although he initially intended to win the people over to his side by pretending to administer the law, he realized he couldn’t satisfy his greedy captains or stabilize his shaky rule without further exploiting his rights as a conqueror and seizing the lands of the English. To justify this aggression, he tried, without revealing his true intentions, to provoke and entice them into revolts, which he thought would not be dangerous as long as he held the most important nobles in Normandy, a large and victorious army was stationed in England, and he himself was close enough to quash any uprising. However, since no ancient writer has attributed this tyrannical intention to William, it hardly seems fair to make such an accusation based purely on speculation.

But whether we are to account for that measure from the king’s vanity or from his policy, it was the immediate cause of all the calamities which the English endured during this and the subsequent reigns, and gave rise to those mutual jealousies and animosities between them and the Normans, which were never appeased till a long tract of time had gradually united the two nations, and made them one people. The inhabitants of Kent, who had first submitted to the conqueror, were the first that attempted to throw off the yoke; and in confederacy with Eustace, count of Boulogne, who had also been disgusted by the Normans, they made an attempt, though without success, on the garrison of Dover.[*] Edric the Forester, whose possessions lay on the banks of the Severn, being provoked at the depredations of some Norman captains in his neighborhood, formed an alliance with Blethyn and Rowallan, two Welsh princes; and endeavored, with their assistance, to repel force by force.[**]

But whether we should attribute that action to the king’s vanity or his strategy, it was the immediate cause of all the suffering the English faced during this reign and the next, and it led to the ongoing jealousy and hostility between them and the Normans. This conflict only lessened over time as the two nations gradually came together as one people. The people of Kent, who had been the first to submit to the conqueror, were also the first to try to shake off the oppression. They teamed up with Eustace, the Count of Boulogne, who was also frustrated with the Normans, and made an unsuccessful attempt on the garrison at Dover.[*] Edric the Forester, whose lands were by the Severn River, was angered by the raiding of some Norman captains nearby. He formed an alliance with Blethyn and Rowallan, two Welsh princes, and tried to push back against the invaders with their help.[**]

     [* Gul. Gemet. p. 239. Order. Vitalis, p. 508.
     Anglia Sacra, vol i. p, 245.]

     [** Hoveden, p 450. M. West, p 226. Sim. Dunelm.
     p. 197.]
     [* Gul. Gemet. p. 239. Order. Vitalis, p. 508.
     Anglia Sacra, vol i. p, 245.]

     [** Hoveden, p 450. M. West, p 226. Sim. Dunelm.
     p. 197.]

But though these open hostilities were not very considerable, the disaffection was general among the English, who had become sensible, though too late, of their defenceless condition, and began already to experience those insults and injuries, which a nation must always expect that allows itself to be reduced to that abject situation. A secret conspiracy was entered into, to perpetrate in one day, a general massacre of the Normans, like that which had formerly been executed upon the Danes; and the quarrel was become so general and national, that the vassals of Earl Coxo, having desired him to head them in an insurrection, and finding him resolute in maintaining his fidelity to William, put him to death as a traitor to his country.

But even though these open conflicts weren't very significant, there was widespread discontent among the English, who, though too late, had realized their vulnerable state and were starting to face the insults and injuries that any nation can expect when it allows itself to be brought into such a low position. A secret conspiracy was formed to carry out a mass killing of the Normans in one day, similar to what had previously been done to the Danes; the conflict had escalated to the point of being both general and national. The vassals of Earl Coxo, after asking him to lead them in a rebellion, and seeing him determined to stay loyal to William, killed him as a traitor to his country.

The king, informed of these dangerous discontents, hastened over to England; and by his presence, and the vigorous measures which he pursued, disconcerted all the schemes of the conspirators. Such of them as had been more violent in their mutiny, betrayed their guilt by flying or concealing themselves; and the confiscation of their estates, while it increased the number of malecontents, both enabled William to gratify farther the rapacity of his Norman captains, and gave them the prospect of new forfeitures and attainders. The king began to regard all his English subjects as inveterate and irreclaimable enemies; and thenceforth either embraced, or was more fully confirmed in the resolution of seizing their possessions, and of reducing them to the most abject slavery. Though the natural violence and severity of his temper made him incapable of feeling any remorse in the execution of this tyrannical purpose, he had art enough to conceal his intention, and to preserve still some appearance of justice in his oppressions. He ordered all the English who had been arbitrarily expelled by the Normans during his absence, to be restored to their estates;[*] but at the same time he imposed a general tax on the people, that of danegelt, which had been abolished by the Confessor, and which had always been extremely odious to the nation.[**]

The king, aware of these serious discontent issues, hurried back to England. His presence and the decisive actions he took disrupted all the plans of the conspirators. Those who had been more aggressive in their rebellion revealed their guilt by either fleeing or hiding. The confiscation of their estates not only increased the number of dissatisfied individuals but also allowed William to further satisfy the greed of his Norman captains, giving them the chance for new seizures and losses. The king started to see all his English subjects as entrenched and hopeless enemies. From that point on, he either embraced or became more determined to take their possessions and reduce them to a state of extreme subjugation. Although his natural harshness and severity made him incapable of feeling any guilt about this cruel plan, he was clever enough to hide his true intentions and maintain some semblance of justice in his oppression. He ordered that all the English who had been wrongfully expelled by the Normans during his absence be returned to their lands;[*] but at the same time, he imposed a general tax on the people, known as danegelt, which had been eliminated by the Confessor and was always greatly hated by the nation.[**]

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 173. This fact is a full proof
     that the Normans had committed great injustice, and were the
     real cause of the insurrections of the English.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 450. Sim. Dunelm. p. 197. Alured.
     Beverl. p. 127]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 173. This fact clearly shows that the Normans committed significant injustices and were the real cause of the English uprisings.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 450. Sim. Dunelm. p. 197. Alured. Beverl. p. 127]

1068.

1068.

As the vigilance of William overawed the malecontents, their insurrections were more the result of an impatient humor in the people, than of any regular conspiracy which could give them a rational hope of success against the established power of the Normans. The inhabitants of Exeter, instigated by Githa, mother to King Harold, refused to admit a Norman garrison, and, betaking themselves to arms, were strengthened by the accession of the neighboring inhabitants of Devonshire and Cornwall.[*] The king hastened with his forces to chastise the revolt; and on his approach, the wiser and more considerable citizens, sensible of the unequal contest, persuaded the people to submit, and to deliver hostages for their obedience. A sudden mutiny of the populace broke this agreement; and William, appearing before the walls, ordered the eyes of one of the hostages to be put out, as an earnest of that severity which the rebels must expect, if they persevered in their revolt.[**] The inhabitants were anew seized with terror, and surrendering at discretion, threw themselves at the king’s feet, and supplicated his clemency and forgiveness. William was not destitute of generosity, when his temper was not hardened either by policy or passion: he was prevailed on to pardon the rebels, and he set guards on all the gates, in order to prevent the rapacity and insolence of his soldiery.[***]

As William’s vigilance intimidated the dissenters, their uprisings were more due to the people’s impatience than any organized conspiracy that could realistically hope to succeed against the established Norman power. The people of Exeter, influenced by Githa, the mother of King Harold, refused to let a Norman garrison in, and, taking up arms, were reinforced by neighboring residents from Devonshire and Cornwall.[*] The king quickly gathered his forces to deal with the rebellion; and as he approached, the more sensible and prominent citizens, aware of the unfair fight, convinced the people to surrender and provide hostages to ensure their obedience. A sudden riot from the crowd disrupted this agreement; and when William arrived at the city walls, he ordered one of the hostages’ eyes to be gouged out, as a warning of the harsh treatment the rebels could expect if they continued their uprising.[**] The residents were once again filled with terror, and surrendering unconditionally, they fell at the king’s feet, pleading for his mercy and forgiveness. William was capable of generosity when his mood wasn’t hardened by strategy or passion: he agreed to pardon the rebels and stationed guards at all the gates to prevent his soldiers from being greedy and abusive.[***]

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 510.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 510]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 510.]
     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 510.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 510]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 510.]

Githa escaped with her treasures to Flanders. The malecontents of Cornwall imitated the example of Exeter, and met with like treatment; and the king having built a citadel in that city, which he put under the command of Baldwin, son of Earl Gilbert, returned to Winchester, and dispersed his army into their quarters. He was here joined by his wife, Matilda, who had not before visited England, and whom he now ordered to be crowned by Archbishop Aldred. Soon after she brought him an accession to his family, by the birth of a fourth son, whom he named Henry. His three elder sons, Robert, Richard, and William, still resided in Normandy.

Githa fled to Flanders with her treasures. The discontented people of Cornwall followed Exeter's example and faced similar treatment. The king built a fortress in that city, putting it under the command of Baldwin, son of Earl Gilbert. He then returned to Winchester and sent his army back to their quarters. While there, he was joined by his wife, Matilda, who had not visited England before. He ordered her to be crowned by Archbishop Aldred. Shortly after, she gave birth to their fourth son, whom he named Henry. His three older sons, Robert, Richard, and William, were still living in Normandy.

But though the king appeared thus fortunate both in public and domestic life, the discontents of his English subjects augmented daily; and the injuries committed and suffered on both sides rendered the quarrel between them and the Normans absolutely incurable. The insolence of victorious masters, dispersed throughout the kingdom, seemed intolerable to the natives; and wherever they found the Normans separate or assembled in small bodies, they secretly set upon them, and gratified their vengeance by the slaughter of their enemies. But an insurrection in the north drew thither the general attention, and seemed to threaten more important consequences. Edwin and Morcar appeared at the head of this rebellion; and these potent noblemen, before they took arms, stipulated for foreign succors from their nephew Blethyn, prince of North Wales, from Malcolm, king of Scotland and from Sweyn, king of Denmark. Besides the general discontent which had seized the English, the two earls were incited to this revolt by private injuries. William, in order to insure them to his interests, had on his accession promised his daughter in marriage to Edwin; but either he had never seriously intended to perform this engagement, or, having changed his plan of administration in England from clemency to rigor, he thought it was to little purpose if he gained one family, while he enraged the whole nation. When Edwin, therefore, renewed his applications, he gave him an absolute denial;[*] and this disappointment, added to so many other reasons of disgust, induced that nobleman and his brother to concur with their incensed countrymen, and to make one general effort for the recovery of their ancient liberties. William knew the importance of celerity in quelling an insurrection supported by such powerful leaders, and so agreeable to the wishes of the people; and having his troops always in readiness, he advanced by great journeys to the north. On his march he gave orders to fortify the castle of Warwick, of which he left Henry de Beaumont governor, and that of Nottingham, which he committed to the custody of William Peverell, another Norman captain.[**] He reached York before the rebels were in any condition for resistance, or were joined by any of the foreign succors which they expected, except a small reënforcement from Wales;[***] and the two earls found no means of safety but having recourse to the clemency of the victor. Archil, a potent nobleman in those parts, imitated their example, and delivered his son as a hostage for his fidelity;[****] nor were the people, thus deserted by their leaders, able to make any farther resistance. But the treatment which William gave the chiefs was very different from that which fell to the share of their followers. He observed religiously the terms which he had granted to the former, and allowed them for the present to keep possession of their estates; but he extended the rigors of his confiscations over the latter, and gave away their lands to his foreign adventurers.

But even though the king seemed to be doing well both publicly and privately, the discontent among his English subjects grew daily. The injuries inflicted and endured by both sides made the conflict between them and the Normans completely unresolvable. The arrogance of the victorious masters, spread throughout the kingdom, was unbearable for the locals; whenever they found the Normans isolated or gathered in small groups, they secretly attacked them and satisfied their vengeance by killing their enemies. However, a rebellion in the north caught everyone's attention and seemed to threaten more serious consequences. Edwin and Morcar led this uprising; these powerful nobles, before taking up arms, arranged for foreign support from their nephew Blethyn, prince of North Wales, from Malcolm, king of Scotland, and from Sweyn, king of Denmark. In addition to the widespread discontent that had taken hold of the English, the two earls were driven to revolt by personal grievances. William, to secure their loyalty, had promised his daughter in marriage to Edwin upon his rise to power; but whether he never intended to keep this promise or changed his approach in England from kindness to harshness, he believed it was pointless to win over one family while angering the entire nation. So when Edwin renewed his request, he received a flat refusal; and this disappointment, added to so many other grievances, led that nobleman and his brother to join their angry fellow countrymen and make a united effort to reclaim their ancient liberties. William understood how crucial it was to act quickly to suppress an uprising led by such powerful leaders and favored by the people's wishes, so he kept his troops ready and advanced rapidly to the north. During his march, he ordered the fortification of the castle of Warwick, leaving Henry de Beaumont as governor, and the castle of Nottingham was placed under the charge of William Peverell, another Norman captain. He reached York before the rebels were prepared for resistance or had received any of the foreign support they expected, except for a small reinforcements from Wales; and the two earls found no way to ensure their safety other than to appeal to the mercy of the victor. Archil, a powerful nobleman in that area, followed their lead and offered his son as a hostage for his loyalty; nor were the people, abandoned by their leaders, able to resist any longer. However, William treated the chiefs very differently from how he treated their followers. He faithfully honored the terms he had granted to the former and allowed them to keep their estates for the time being; but he enforced harsh confiscations on the latter and gave their lands to his foreign adventurers.

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 511.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 511.]

     [*** Order. Vitalia, p. 511.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 511.]
     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 511.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 511.]

     [*** Order. Vitalia, p. 511.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 511.]

These, planted throughout the whole country, and in possession of the military power, left Edwin and Morcar, whom he pretended to spare, destitute of all support, and ready to fall whenever he should think proper to command their ruin. A peace which he made with Malcolm, who did him homage for Cumberland, seemed at the same time to deprive them of all prospect of foreign assistance.[*]

These, scattered across the entire country and backed by military strength, left Edwin and Morcar, whom he claimed to spare, completely unsupported and vulnerable to falling whenever he decided to orchestrate their downfall. A peace deal he struck with Malcolm, who showed loyalty to him for Cumberland, simultaneously stripped them of any chance of foreign aid.[*]

The English were now sensible that their final destruction was intended; and that instead of a sovereign, whom they had hoped to gain by their submission, they had tamely surrendered themselves, without resistance, to a tyrant and a conqueror. Though the early confiscation of Harold’s followers might seem iniquitous, being inflicted on men who had never sworn fealty to the duke of Normandy, who were ignorant of his pretensions, and who only fought in defence of the government which they themselves had established in their own country, yet were these rigors, however contrary to the ancient Saxon laws, excused on account of the urgent necessities of the prince; and those who were not involved in the present ruin, hoped that they should thenceforth enjoy, without molestation, their possessions and their dignities. But the successive destruction of so many other families convinced them that the king intended to rely entirely on the support and affections of foreigners; and they foresaw new forfeitures, attainders, and acts of violence, as the necessary result of this destructive plan of administration. They observed that no Englishman possessed his confidence, or was intrusted with any command or authority; and that the strangers, whom a rigorous discipline could have but ill restrained, were encouraged in their insolence and tyranny against them. The easy submission of the kingdom on its first invasion had exposed the natives to contempt; the subsequent proofs of their animosity and resentment had made them the object of hatred; and they were now deprived of every expedient by which they could hope to make themselves either regarded or beloved by their sovereign. Impressed with the sense of this dismal situation, many Englishmen fled into foreign countries, with an intention of passing their lives abroad free from oppression, or of returning, on a favorable opportunity, to assist their friends in the recovery of their native liberties.[**] Edgar

The English now realized that their complete destruction was planned. Instead of gaining a ruler by their submission, they had surrendered themselves without a fight to a tyrant and conqueror. Although the early confiscation of Harold’s supporters seemed unjust, as it was imposed on men who had never pledged loyalty to the Duke of Normandy, who were unaware of his claims, and who had only fought to defend the government they had established in their own land, these harsh measures were justified by the prince’s urgent needs. Those who were not affected by the current downfall hoped they could continue to enjoy their property and status without interference. However, seeing the continuous destruction of so many other families convinced them that the king intended to rely solely on the support and loyalty of foreigners. They anticipated new confiscations, legal penalties, and violence as the inevitable outcome of this destructive governing strategy. They noted that no Englishman had the king’s trust or was given any command or authority, while the foreign soldiers, whom strict discipline could barely control, were emboldened in their arrogance and cruelty towards them. The kingdom’s easy submission during the initial invasion had led to the locals being looked down upon; the following acts of defiance and resentment made them objects of hatred, leaving them without any means to gain respect or affection from their ruler. Faced with this bleak situation, many Englishmen fled to foreign lands, intending to live abroad free from oppression or to return, when the chance arose, to help their friends reclaim their freedom.

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 511.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 508. M. West. p. 225. M.
     Paris, p. 4. Sim Dunehn. p. 197.]
     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 511.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 508. M. West. p. 225. M. Paris, p. 4. Sim Dunehn. p. 197.]

Atheling himself, dreading the insidious caresses of William, was, persuaded by Cospatric, a powerful Northumbrian, to escape with him into Scotland; and he carried thither his two sisters, Margaret and Christina. They were well received by Malcolm, who soon after espoused Margaret, the elder sister; and partly with a view of strengthening his kingdom by the accession of so many strangers, partly in hopes of employing them against the growing power of William, he gave great countenance to all the English exiles. Many of them settled there, and laid the foundation of families which afterwards made a figure in that country.

Atheling, fearing William's deceitful advances, was convinced by Cospatric, a powerful Northumbrian, to flee with him to Scotland. He took his two sisters, Margaret and Christina, with him. They were warmly welcomed by Malcolm, who soon married Margaret, the older sister. To strengthen his kingdom with new allies and to potentially use them against William's rising influence, he supported all the English exiles. Many settled in Scotland and established families that would later become notable in the region.

While the English suffered under these oppressions, even the foreigners were not much at their ease; but finding themselves surrounded on all hands by engaged enemies, who took every advantage against them, and menaced them with still more bloody effects of the public resentment, they began to wish again for the tranquillity and security of their native country. Hugh de Grentmesnil and Humphry de Teliol, though intrusted with great commands, desired to be dismissed the service; and some others imitated their example; a desertion which was highly resented by the king, and which he punished by the confiscation of all their possessions ii England.[*] But William’s bounty to his followers could not fail of alluring many new adventurers into his service; and the rage of the vanquished English served only to excite the attention of the king and those warlike chiefs, and keep them in readiness to suppress every commencement of domestic rebellion or foreign invasion.

While the English were struggling under these oppressions, even the foreigners weren't very comfortable either; surrounded by hostile enemies who exploited every opportunity against them and threatened them with even more violent responses from the public, they started to long for the peace and safety of their home country. Hugh de Grentmesnil and Humphry de Teliol, despite being given significant commands, wanted to be released from service; others followed their lead. This desertion was greatly resented by the king, who punished them by confiscating all their possessions in England.[*] However, William's generosity towards his followers attracted many new adventurers to his side, and the anger of the defeated English only drew the king and his military leaders' attention, keeping them prepared to squash any signs of rebellion or foreign invasion.

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 512]
[* Order. Vitalis, p. 512]

It was not long before they found occupation for their prowess and military conduct. Godwin, Edmond, and Magnus, three sons of Harold, had, immediately after the defeat at Hastings, sought a retreat in Ireland, where, having met with a kind reception from Dermot and other princes of that country, they projected an invasion on England, and they hoped that all the exiles from Denmark, Scotland, and Wales, assisted by forces from these several countries, would at once commence hostilities, and rouse the indignation of the English against their haughty conquerors. They landed in Devonshire; but found Brian, son of the count of Brittany, at the head of some foreign troops, ready to oppose them; and being defeated in several actions, they were obliged to retreat to their ships, and to return with great loss to Ireland.[*] The efforts of the Normans were now directed to the north, where affairs had fallen into the utmost confusion. The more impatient of the Northumbrians had attacked Robert de Comyn, who was appointed governor of Durham; and gaining the advantage over him from his negligence, they put him to death in that city, with seven hundred of his followers.[**] This success animated the inhabitants of York, who, rising in arms, slew Robert Fitz-Richard, their governor,[***] and besieged in the castle William Mallet, on whom the command now devolved. A little after, the Danish troops landed from three hundred vessels: Osberne, brother to King Sweyn, was intrusted with the command of these forces, and he was accompanied by Harold and Canute, two sons of that monarch. Edgar Atheling appeared from Scotland, and brought along with him Cospatric, Waltheof, Siward, Bearne, Merleswain, Adelin, and other leaders, who, partly from the hopes which they gave of Scottish succors, partly from their authority in those parts, easily persuaded the warlike and discontented Northumbrians to join the insurrection. Mallet, that he might better provide for the defence of the citadel of York, set fire to some houses which lay contiguous; but this expedient proved the immediate cause of his destruction. The flames, spreading into the neighboring streets, reduced the whole city to ashes. The enraged inhabitants, aided by the Danes, took advantage of the confusion to attack the castle, which they carried by assault; and the garrison, to the number of three thousand men, was put to the sword without mercy.[****]

It wasn't long before they found a way to use their skills and military experience. Godwin, Edmond, and Magnus, three sons of Harold, had sought refuge in Ireland right after their defeat at Hastings. There, they received a warm welcome from Dermot and other local leaders, and they planned an invasion of England. They hoped that all the exiles from Denmark, Scotland, and Wales, along with forces from these regions, would join them in immediately starting hostilities and stirring up the anger of the English against their proud conquerors. They landed in Devonshire but soon encountered Brian, the son of the count of Brittany, who was leading some foreign troops ready to oppose them. After being defeated in several battles, they had to retreat to their ships and return to Ireland with significant losses. The Normans then shifted their focus north, where things were in complete disarray. The more restless Northumbrians attacked Robert de Comyn, the governor of Durham, and took advantage of his negligence, killing him in the city along with seven hundred of his men. This victory inspired the people of York, who took up arms, killed their governor Robert Fitz-Richard, and besieged William Mallet, who had assumed command of the castle. Shortly after, Danish troops landed from three hundred ships. Osberne, the brother of King Sweyn, was in charge of these forces, accompanied by Harold and Canute, two of the king’s sons. Edgar Atheling arrived from Scotland, bringing with him Cospatric, Waltheof, Siward, Bearne, Merleswain, Adelin, and other leaders. With their promises of Scottish support and their influence in the region, they easily convinced the restless Northumbrians to join the uprising. To better defend York's citadel, Mallet set fire to some nearby houses, but this decision led to his downfall. The flames quickly spread into adjacent streets, reducing the entire city to ashes. Furious, the locals, helped by the Danes, seized the opportunity to attack the castle, which they captured in an assault; the garrison of three thousand men was mercilessly slaughtered.

This success proved a signal to many other parts of England, and gave the people an opportunity of showing their malevolence to the Normans. Hereward, a nobleman in East Anglia, celebrated for valor, assembled his followers, and taking shelter in the Isle of Ely, made inroads on all the neighboring country.[*****] The English in the counties of Somerset and Dorset rose in arms, and assaulted Montacute, the Norman governor; while the inhabitants of Cornwall and Devon invested Exeter, which from the memory of William’s clemency still remained faithful to him.

This success was a signal to many other parts of England and gave the people a chance to show their hostility toward the Normans. Hereward, a nobleman from East Anglia known for his bravery, gathered his followers and took refuge in the Isle of Ely, launching attacks on the surrounding areas. The English in Somerset and Dorset took up arms and attacked Montacute, the Norman governor, while the people of Cornwall and Devon surrounded Exeter, which had remained loyal to William due to his past kindness.

     [* Gul. Gemet. p. 290. Order. Vitalis, p. 513.
     Anglia Sacra, TO! I. p. 216.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 512. Chron. de Mailr. p.
     116. Hoveden, p. 450. M. Paris, p. 5. Sim. Dunelm. p. 198.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 512.]

     [**** Order. Vitalis, p. 513. Hoveden, p. 451.]
     Burgo, p. 47.]
     [* Gul. Gemet. p. 290. Order. Vitalis, p. 513.
     Anglia Sacra, TO! I. p. 216.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 512. Chron. de Mailr. p.
     116. Hoveden, p. 450. M. Paris, p. 5. Sim. Dunelm. p. 198.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 512.]

     [**** Order. Vitalis, p. 513. Hoveden, p. 451.]
     Burgo, p. 47.]

Edric the Forester, calling in the assistance of the Welsh, laid siege to Shrewsbury, and made head against Earl Brient and Fitz-Osberne, who commanded in those quarters.[*] The English, everywhere repenting their former easy submission, seemed determined to make by concert one great effort for the recovery of their liberties, and for the expulsion of their oppressors.

Edric the Forester, with help from the Welsh, laid siege to Shrewsbury and confronted Earl Brient and Fitz-Osberne, who were in charge there.[*] The English, regretting their earlier easy submission, appeared determined to unite and make a strong effort to regain their freedom and drive out their oppressors.

William, undismayed amidst this scene of confusion, assembled. his forces, and animating them with the prospect of new confiscations and forfeitures, he marched against the rebels in the north, whom he regarded as the most formidable, and whose defeat, he knew, would strike a terror into all the other malecontents. Joining policy to force, he tried, before his approach, to weaken the enemy, by detaching the Danes from them; and he engaged Osberne, by large presents, and by offering him the liberty of plundering the sea-coast, to retire without committing farther hostilities into Denmark.[**] Cospatric also, in despair of success, made his peace with the king, and paying a sum of money as an atonement for his insurrection, was received into favor, and even invested with the earldom of Northumberland. Waltheof, who long defended York with great courage, was allured with this appearance of clemency; and as William knew how to esteem valor, even in an enemy, that nobleman had no reason to repent of this confidence.[***] Even Edric, compelled by necessity, submitted to the conqueror, and received forgiveness, which was soon after followed by some degree of trust and favor. Malcolm, coming too late to support his confederates, was constrained to retire; and all the English rebels in other parts, except Hereward, who still kept in his fastnesses, dispersed themselves, and left the Normans undisputed masters of the kingdom. Edgar Atheling, with his followers, sought again a retreat in Scotland from the pursuit of his enemies.

William, undeterred by the chaos around him, gathered his forces and inspired them with the promise of new confiscations and rewards. He marched against the northern rebels, whom he viewed as the greatest threat, knowing that defeating them would instill fear in all other dissenters. Combining strategy with strength, he tried to weaken the enemy before his arrival by persuading the Danes to abandon their alliance. He offered Osberne generous gifts and the opportunity to loot the coast if he withdrew to Denmark without further hostilities. Cospatric, seeing no chance of victory, made peace with the king, paying a sum as compensation for his rebellion, and was welcomed back into favor, even receiving the earldom of Northumberland. Waltheof, who had valiantly defended York, was tempted by this show of mercy, and since William respected bravery even in his foes, Waltheof had no reason to regret his decision. Even Edric, forced by circumstances, submitted to the conqueror and was granted forgiveness, which soon led to some level of trust and favor. Malcolm, arriving too late to help his allies, was forced to retreat, and all the English rebels in other areas, except Hereward, who still hid in his strongholds, scattered, leaving the Normans as the uncontested rulers of the kingdom. Edgar Atheling and his followers sought refuge in Scotland from their enemies.

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 514.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 451. Chron. Abb. St. Petri de
     Burgo, p. 47. Sim Dunelm. p. 199.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 104. H. Hunting, p. 369.]
     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 514.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 451. Chron. Abb. St. Petri de
     Burgo, p. 47. Sim Dunelm. p. 199.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 104. H. Hunting, p. 369.]

1070.

1070.

But the seeming clemency of William toward the English leaders, proceeded only from artifice, or from his esteem of individuals: his heart, was hardened against all compassion towards the people, and he scrupled no measure, however violent or severe, which seemed requisite to support his plan of tyrannical administration. Sensible of the restless disposition of the Northumbrians, he determined to incapacitate them even after from giving him disturbance; and he issued orders for laying entirely waste that fertile country, which, for the extent of sixty miles, lies between the Humber and the Tees.[*] The houses were reduced to ashes by the merciless Normans; the cattle seized and driven away; the instruments of husbandry destroyed; and the inhabitants compelled either to seek for a subsistence in the southern parts of Scotland, or if they lingered in England, from a reluctance to abandon their ancient habitations, they perished miserably in the woods from cold and hunger. The lives of a hundred thousand persons are computed to have been sacrificed to this stroke of barbarous policy,[**] which, by seeking a remedy for a temporary evil, thus inflicted a lasting wound on the power and populousness of the nation.

But William's apparent kindness towards the English leaders came only from strategy or his respect for certain individuals; his heart was hardened against any compassion for the people, and he didn’t hesitate to use any method, no matter how violent or harsh, that seemed necessary to maintain his tyrannical rule. Aware of the restless nature of the Northumbrians, he decided to make sure they couldn’t disturb him again and ordered the complete devastation of that fertile region, which stretches for sixty miles between the Humber and the Tees.[*] The merciless Normans burned the houses to the ground; they seized and drove away the cattle; they destroyed farming tools; and the remaining inhabitants were forced to either seek a livelihood in southern Scotland or, if they remained in England due to a reluctance to leave their ancestral homes, they suffered miserably in the woods from cold and hunger. It’s estimated that the lives of a hundred thousand people were lost due to this brutal policy,[**] which, in trying to address a temporary problem, inflicted a lasting wound on the strength and population of the nation.

But William, finding himself entirely master of a people who had given him such sensible proofs of their impotent rage and animosity, now resolved to proceed to extremities against all the natives of England; and to reduce them to a condition in which they should no longer be formidable to his government. The insurrections and conspiracies in so many parts of the kingdom had involved the bulk of the landed proprietors, more or less, in the guilt of treason; and the king took advantage of executing against them, with the utmost rigor, the laws of forfeiture and attainder. Their lives were, indeed, commonly spared; but their estates were confiscated, and either annexed to the royal demesnes, or conferred with the most profuse bounty, on the Normans and other foreigners.[***] While the king’s declared intention was to depress, or rather entirely extirpate, the English gentry,[****] 8 it is easy to believe that scarcely the form of justice would be observed in those violent proceedings;[*****] and that any suspicions served as the most undoubted proofs of guilt against a people thus devoted to destruction.

But William, realizing he was in complete control of a people who had shown him their helpless anger and hostility, now decided to take severe measures against all the natives of England and to weaken them to the point where they would no longer pose a threat to his rule. The uprisings and plots across many parts of the kingdom had implicated most of the landowners in some degree of treason; the king took the opportunity to enforce the laws of confiscation and attainder against them with the utmost severity. While their lives were generally spared, their estates were taken away, either added to the royal lands or generously granted to the Normans and other foreigners.[***] Although the king openly aimed to suppress, or even completely eliminate, the English gentry,[****] 8 it’s easy to believe that barely any semblance of justice would be upheld in those brutal actions;[*****] and that any suspicions acted as undeniable evidence of guilt against a people thus condemned to destruction.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 174. Ingulph. p. 79. W. Malms,
     p. 103. Hoveden, p. 451. Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo, p.
     47. M. Paris, p. 5. Sim. Dunelm. p. 199. Brompton, p. 966.
     Knyghton, p. 2344. Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p, 702.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 515.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 104.]

     [**** H. Hunting, p. 370.]

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 174. Ingulph. p. 79. W. Malms, 
     p. 103. Hoveden, p. 451. Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo, p. 
     47. M. Paris, p. 5. Sim. Dunelm. p. 199. Brompton, p. 966. 
     Knyghton, p. 2344. Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p, 702.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 515.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 104.]

     [**** H. Hunting, p. 370.]

It was crime sufficient in an Englishman to be opulent, or noble, or powerful; and the policy of the king, concurring with the rapacity of foreign adventurers, produced almost a total revolution in the landed property of the kingdom. Ancient and honorable families were reduced to beggary; the nobles themselves were every where treated with ignominy and contempt; they had the mortification of seeing their castles and manors possessed by Normans of the meanest birth and lowest stations;[*] and they found themselves carefully excluded from every road which led either to riches or preferment.[**] 9

It was considered a crime for an Englishman to be wealthy, noble, or powerful; and the king's policies, combined with the greed of foreign opportunists, led to a near-total upheaval in the landownership of the kingdom. Long-standing, respected families were left in poverty; the nobles faced humiliation and disdain everywhere; they watched their castles and estates taken over by Normans of the lowest birth and status; and they found themselves deliberately shut out from any paths to wealth or advancement. [*] and [**] 9

As power naturally follows property, this revolution alone gave great security to the foreigners; but William, by the new institutions which he established, took also care to retain forever the military authority in those hands which had enabled him to subdue the kingdom. He introduced into England the feudal law, which he found established in France and Normandy, and which, during that age, was the foundation both of the stability and of the disorders in most of the monarchical governments of Europe. He divided all the lands of England, with very few exceptions, beside the royal demesnes, into baronies; and he conferred these, with the reservation of stated services and payments, on the most considerable of his adventurers. These great barons, who held immediately of the crown, shared out a great part of their lands to other foreigners, who were denominated knights or vassals, and who paid their lord the same duty and submission, in peace and war, which he himself owed, to his sovereign. The whole kingdom contained about seven hundred chief tenants, and sixty thousand two hundred and fifteen knights’ fees;[***] and as none of the native English were admitted into the first rank, the few who retained their landed property were glad to be received into the second, and, under the protection of some powerful Norman, to load themselves and their posterity with this grievous burden, for estates which they had received free from their ancestors.[****] The small mixture of English which entered into this civil or military fabric, (for it partook of both species,) was so restrained by subordination under the foreigners, that the Norman dominion seemed now to be fixed on the most durable basis, and to defy all the efforts of its enemies.

As power naturally follows property, this revolution alone provided significant security to foreigners. However, William, through the new institutions he established, ensured that military authority remained with those who helped him conquer the kingdom. He introduced the feudal law in England, which was already in place in France and Normandy, and which, during that time, was the foundation of both stability and chaos in many European monarchies. He divided nearly all the lands of England, except for the royal demesnes, into baronies and granted these to his most notable supporters, with specified services and payments. These major barons, who held directly from the crown, distributed a large portion of their lands to other foreigners, known as knights or vassals, who owed their lord the same duties and loyalty in peace and war that he owed to the king. The entire kingdom had about seven hundred main tenants and sixty thousand two hundred and fifteen knights' fees; and since none of the native English were included in the top ranks, the few who kept their lands were happy to be accepted into the second tier. Under the protection of a powerful Norman, they willingly burdened themselves and their descendants with a heavy load for estates that had been free from their ancestors. The small number of English that entered into this civil or military structure (which included both aspects) was so limited by their subordination to the foreigners that the Norman rule appeared to be firmly established and able to withstand any opposition.

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 521. M. West, p. 229.]

     [** See note I, at the end of the volume.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 523. Secretum Abbatis,
     apud Selden. Title of Honor, p. 573. Spel. Gloss, in verbo
     Feodum. Sir Robert Cotton.]

     [**** M. West. p. 225. M. Paris, p. 4. Bracton,
     lib. i. cap. 11, num. I, Flets, lib, cap. 8, n. 2]
     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 521. M. West, p. 229.]

     [** See note I, at the end of the volume.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 523. Secretum Abbatis,
     apud Selden. Title of Honor, p. 573. Spel. Gloss, in verbo
     Feodum. Sir Robert Cotton.]

     [**** M. West. p. 225. M. Paris, p. 4. Bracton,
     lib. i. cap. 11, num. I, Flets, lib, cap. 8, n. 2]

The better to unite the parts of the government, and to bind them into one system, which might serve both for defence against foreigners and for the support of domestic tranquillity, William reduced the ecclesiastical revenues under the same feudal law; and though he had courted the church on his invasion and accession, he now subjected it to services which the clergy regarded as a grievous slavery, and as totally unbefitting their profession. The bishops and abbots were obliged, when required, to furnish to the king, during war, a number of knights or military tenants, proportioned to the extent of property possessed by each see or abbey; and they were liable, in case of failure, to the same penalties which were exacted from the laity.[*] The pope and the ecclesiastics exclaimed against this tyranny, as they called it; but the king’s authority was so well established over the army, who held every thing from his bounty, that superstition itself, even in that age, when it was most prevalent, was constrained to bend under his superior influence.

To better unify the government and integrate its parts into a single system that could provide defense against foreign threats and support domestic peace, William placed ecclesiastical revenues under the same feudal law. Although he had sought the church's favor during his invasion and rise to power, he now imposed duties on it that the clergy felt were a heavy burden and completely unfit for their role. The bishops and abbots were required, when called upon, to provide the king with a number of knights or military tenants during wartime, based on the property each see or abbey owned; failure to comply would result in penalties similar to those faced by the laity. The pope and church leaders protested against what they termed tyranny, but the king's authority was so firmly established over the army, which depended on his generosity, that even superstition, prevalent in that era, had to yield to his greater power.

But as the great body of the clergy were still natives, the king had much reason to dread the effects of their resentment; he therefore used the precaution of expelling the English from all the considerable dignities, and of advancing foreigners in their place. The partiality of the Confessor towards the Normans had been so great, that, aided by their superior learning, it had promoted them to many of the sees in England; and even before the period of the conquest, scarcely more than six or seven of the prelates were natives of the country. But among these was Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, a man who, by his address and vigor, by the greatness of his family and alliances, by the extent of his possessions, as well as by the dignity of his office, and his authority among the English, gave jealousy to the king.[**] Though William had, on his accession, affronted this prelate by employing the archbishop of York to officiate at his consecration, he was careful, on other occasions, to load him with honors and caresses, and to avoid giving him farther offence till the opportunity should offer of effecting his final destruction.[***]

But since most of the clergy were still locals, the king had plenty of reasons to fear their anger; so he took the precaution of removing the English from all the important positions and replacing them with foreigners. The Confessor had favored the Normans so much, supported by their greater education, that he had appointed many of them to important positions in England; even before the conquest, there were barely six or seven local bishops. Among them was Stigand, the archbishop of Canterbury, a man who, due to his sharpness and energy, his powerful family and connections, his vast possessions, as well as his high position and influence among the English, made the king uneasy. Although William had insulted this bishop upon his accession by having the archbishop of York perform the ceremony at his coronation, he was careful on other occasions to shower Stigand with honors and affection and to avoid further offending him until he had the chance to eliminate him for good.

     [* M. Paris, p. 5. Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p. 248.]

     [** Parker, p. 161.]

     [*** Parker, p. 164.]
     [* M. Paris, p. 5. Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p. 248.]

     [** Parker, p. 161.]

     [*** Parker, p. 164.]

The suppression of the late rebellions, and the total subjection of the English, made him hope that an attempt against Stigand, however violent, would be covered by his great successes and be overlooked amidst the other important revolutions, which affected so deeply the property and liberty of the kingdom. Yet, notwithstanding these great advantages, he did not think it safe to violate the reverence usually paid to the primate, but under cover of a new superstition, which he was the great instrument of introducing into England.

The crushing of the recent uprisings and the complete domination of the English led him to believe that an attack on Stigand, no matter how severe, would be justified by his significant achievements and would go unnoticed among the other major changes that greatly impacted the property and freedom of the kingdom. However, despite these considerable advantages, he didn’t feel it was wise to disrespect the respect typically shown to the archbishop, except under the guise of a new superstition that he played a crucial role in bringing to England.

The doctrine which exalted the papacy above all human power, had gradually diffused itself from the city and court of Rome; and was, during that age, much more prevalent in the southern than in the northern kingdoms of Europe. Pope Alexander, who had assisted William in his conquests, naturally expected, that the French and Normans would import into England the same reverence for his sacred character with which they were impressed in their own country; and would break the spiritual as well as civil independency of the Saxons who had hitherto conducted their ecclesiastical government, with an acknowledgment indeed of primacy in the see of Rome, but without much idea of its title to dominion or authority. As soon, therefore, as the Norman prince seemed fully established on the throne, the pope despatched Ermenfloy, bishop of Sion, as his legate into England; and this prelate was the first that had ever appeared with that character in any part of the British islands. The king, though he was probably led by principle to pay this submission to Rome, determined, as is usual, to employ the incident as a means of serving his political purposes, and of degrading those English prelates, who were become obnoxious to him. The legate submitted to become the instrument of his tyranny; and thought, that the more violent the exertion of power, the more certainly did it confirm the authority of that court from which he derived his commission. He summoned, therefore, a council of the prelates and abbots at Winchester; and being assisted by two cardinals, Peter and John, he cited before him Stigand, archbishop of Canterbury, to answer for his conduct. The primate was accused of three crimes; the holding of the see of Winchester together with that of Canterbury; the officiating in the pall of Robert, his predecessor; and the having received his own pall from Benedict IX., who was afterwards deposed for simony, and for intrusion into the papacy.[*]

The idea that elevated the papacy above all human authority gradually spread from Rome's city and court and was much more common in the southern kingdoms of Europe than in the northern ones during that time. Pope Alexander, who had supported William in his conquests, naturally expected that the French and Normans would bring the same respect for his sacred role to England that they had in their own country. He anticipated they would undermine both the spiritual and civil independence of the Saxons, who had traditionally governed their church with a recognition of Rome's primacy but without much belief in its right to rule or authority. Therefore, as soon as the Norman prince seemed firmly established on the throne, the pope sent Ermenfloy, bishop of Sion, as his representative to England, and this bishop was the first to hold that position in any part of the British Isles. The king, likely motivated by principle to show this submission to Rome, decided, as is often the case, to use the situation to his political advantage and to undermine those English bishops who had become a problem for him. The legate agreed to become a tool of his oppression, believing that the more aggressively he exercised power, the more it would reinforce the authority of the court from which he received his mandate. He called together a council of bishops and abbots at Winchester, and with the help of two cardinals, Peter and John, he summoned Stigand, the archbishop of Canterbury, to answer for his actions. The primate was accused of three offenses: holding both the see of Winchester and Canterbury, performing duties in the pall of Robert, his predecessor, and having received his own pall from Benedict IX, who was later deposed for simony and for usurping the papacy.[*]

     [* Hoveden, p. 453. Diceto, p. 482. Knyghton, p.
     2345. Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p. 5, 6. Ypod. Neust. p. 438.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 453. Diceto, p. 482. Knyghton, p.
     2345. Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p. 5, 6. Ypod. Neust. p. 438.]

These crimes of Stigand were mere pretences; since the first had been a practice not unusual in England, and was never any where subjected to a higher penalty than a resignation of one of the sees; the second was a pure ceremonial; and as Benedict was the only pope who then officiated, and his acts were never repealed, all the prelates of the church, especially thope who lay at a distance, were excusable for making their applications to him. Stigand’s ruin, however, was resolved on, and was prosecuted with great severity. The legate degraded him from his dignity; the king confiscated his estate, and cast him into prison, where he continued in poverty and want during the remainder of his life. Like rigor was exercised against the other English prelates: Agelric, bishop of Selesey, and Agelmare, of Elmham, were deposed by the legate, and imprisoned by the king. Many considerable abbots shared the same fate: Egelwin, bishop of Durham, fled the kingdom Wulstan, of Worcester, a man of an inoffensive character was the only English prelate that escaped this general proscription,[*] and remained in possession of his dignity. Aldred, archbishop of York, who had set the crown on William’s head, had died a little before of grief and vexation, and had left his malediction to that prince, on account of the breach of his coronation oath, and of the extreme tyranny with which he saw he was determined to treat his English subjects.[**]

These crimes of Stigand were just excuses; the first had been a common practice in England and was never punished more harshly than having to resign from one of the sees. The second was purely ceremonial, and since Benedict was the only pope officiating at the time and his actions were never overturned, all the church leaders, especially those from afar, were justified in turning to him for help. However, Stigand's downfall was planned, and it was pursued with great harshness. The legate stripped him of his position; the king seized his property and imprisoned him, where he lived in poverty and need for the rest of his life. The same harsh treatment was meted out to the other English bishops: Agelric, the bishop of Selesey, and Agelmare of Elmham were deposed by the legate and imprisoned by the king. Many significant abbots faced the same fate: Egelwin, the bishop of Durham, fled the country. Wulstan of Worcester, a man of gentle nature, was the only English bishop to avoid this widespread persecution and kept his position. Aldred, the archbishop of York, who had crowned William, had died just before from sorrow and frustration, leaving a curse on that prince for breaking his coronation oath and the extreme tyranny he was determined to impose on his English subjects.

It was a fixed maxim in this reign, as well as in some of the subsequent, that no native of the island should ever be advanced to any dignity, ecclesiastical, civil, or military[***]

It was a set rule during this reign, as well as in some of the ones that followed, that no native of the island would ever be promoted to any position of honor, whether religious, governmental, or military.

     [* Brompton relates, that Wulstan was also
     deprived by the synod; out refusing to deliver his pastoral
     staff and ring to any but the person from whom he first
     received it, he went immediately to King Edward’s tomb, and
     struck the staff so deeply into the stone, that none but
     himself was able to pull it out; upon which he was allowed
     to keep his bishopric. This instance may serve, instead of
     many, as a specimen of the monkish miracles. See also the
     Annals of Burton, p. 284.]

     [** W. Malmes de Gest. Pont. p. 154.]

     [*** Ingulph. p. 70, 71.]
     [* Brompton mentions that Wulstan was also removed by the synod; refusing to hand over his pastoral staff and ring to anyone except the person he originally received them from, he went straight to King Edward’s tomb and drove the staff so deeply into the stone that no one but him could pull it out; as a result, he was allowed to keep his bishopric. This example serves as one of many instances of monastic miracles. See also the Annals of Burton, p. 284.]

     [** W. Malmes de Gest. Pont. p. 154.]

     [*** Ingulph. p. 70, 71.]

The king, therefore, upon Stigand’s deposition, promoted Lanfranc, a Milanese monk, celebrated for his learning and piety, to the vacant see. This prelate was rigid in defending the prerogatives of his station; and after a long process before the pope, he obliged Thomas, a Norman monk, who had been appointed to the see of York, to acknowledge the primacy of the archbishop of Canterbury. Where ambition can be so happy as to cover its enterprises, even to the person himself, under the appearance of principle, it is the most incurable and inflexible of all human passions. Hence Lanfranc’s zeal in promoting the interests of the papacy, by which he himself augmented his own authority, was indefatigable, and met with proportionable success. The devoted attachment to Rome continually increased in England and being favored by the sentiments of the conquerors, as well as by the monastic establishments formerly introduced by Edred and by Edgar, it soon reached the same height at which it had, during some time, stood in France and Italy.[*] It afterwards went much farther; being favored by that very remote situation which had at first obstructed its progress; and being less checked by knowledge and a liberal education, which were still somewhat more common in the southern countries.

The king, therefore, after Stigand was removed, appointed Lanfranc, a monk from Milan known for his knowledge and devotion, to the open bishopric. This bishop was strict in upholding the rights of his position; after a lengthy process with the pope, he forced Thomas, a Norman monk who had been chosen for the bishopric of York, to accept the authority of the archbishop of Canterbury. When ambition is able to disguise its motives, even from the ambitious individual, it becomes one of the most stubborn and unyielding human desires. Thus, Lanfranc’s commitment to advancing the interests of the papacy, which in turn increased his own power, was tireless and yielded significant results. Devotion to Rome steadily grew in England, supported by the beliefs of the conquerors and by the monastic foundations established previously by Edred and Edgar, reaching the same level as it had for a time in France and Italy. It later went much further, aided by the very isolation that had originally hindered its advancement, and faced fewer obstacles from knowledge and education, which were still relatively more widespread in southern countries.

The prevalence of this superstitious spirit became dangerous to some of William’s successors, and incommodious to most of them; but the arbitrary sway of this king over the English, and his extensive authority over the foreigners, kept him from feeling any immediate inconveniences from it. He retained the church in great subjection, as well as his lay subjects; and would allow none, of whatever character, to dispute his sovereign will and pleasure. He prohibited his subjects from acknowledging any one for pope whom he himself had not previously received; he required that all the ecclesiastical canons, voted in any synod, should first be laid before him, and be ratified by his authority; even bulls or letters from Rome could not legally be produced, till they received the same sanction; and none of his ministers or barons, whatever offences they were guilty of, could be subjected to spiritual censures, till he himself had given his consent to their excommunication.[**] These regulations were worthy of a sovereign, and kept united the civil and ecclesiastical powers, which the principles, introduced by this prince himself, had an immediate tendency to separate.

The widespread belief in superstition became a threat to some of William’s successors and troublesome for most of them; however, this king's absolute power over the English and his considerable authority over foreigners shielded him from experiencing any immediate issues because of it. He kept the church firmly under control, just like his lay subjects, and he wouldn’t allow anyone, regardless of their status, to challenge his sovereign will. He forbade his subjects from recognizing anyone as pope unless he had first accepted them himself; he demanded that all church laws passed in any assembly be presented to him first for approval; even papal bulls or letters from Rome couldn’t be legally recognized until they had his endorsement. Additionally, none of his ministers or barons, no matter what offenses they committed, could face spiritual punishment until he had given his consent for their excommunication. These measures were the mark of a true sovereign and maintained a bond between civil and ecclesiastical powers, which the principles introduced by this prince aimed to separate.

But the English had the cruel mortification to find that their king’s authority, however acquired or however extended, was all employed in their oppression; and that the scheme of their subjection, attended with every circumstance of insult and indignity,[***] was deliberately formed by the prince, and wantonly prosecuted by his followers.[****]

But the English were painfully frustrated to discover that their king’s power, no matter how he gained it or how far it spread, was used entirely for their oppression; and that the plan for their subjugation, filled with every kind of insult and affront,[***] was intentionally created by the prince and recklessly carried out by his followers.[****]

     [* M. West, p. 228. Lanfranc wrote in defence of
     the real presence against Berengarius; and in those ages of
     stupidity and ignorance, he was greatly applauded for that
     performance.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 6]

     [*** Order Vitalis, p. 523. H. Hunting, p. 370.]

     [**** Ingulph. p. 71]
     [* M. West, p. 228. Lanfranc wrote in defense of the real presence against Berengarius; and in those times of foolishness and ignorance, he received a lot of praise for that effort.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 6]

     [*** Order Vitalis, p. 523. H. Hunting, p. 370.]

     [**** Ingulph. p. 71]

William had even entertained the difficult project of totally abolishing the English language; and for that purpose he ordered, that in all schools throughout the kingdom, the youth should be instructed in the French tongue; a practice which was continued from custom till after the reign of Edward III., and was never indeed totally discontinued in England. The pleadings in the supreme courts of judicature were in French:[*] the deeds were often drawn in the same language: the laws were composed in that idiom:[**] no other tongue was used at court: it became the language of all fashionable company; and the English themselves, ashamed of their own country, affected to excel in that foreign dialect. From this attention of William, and from the extensive foreign dominions, long annexed to the crown of England, proceeded that mixture of French which is at present to be found in the English tongue, and which composes the greatest and best part of our language. But amidst those endeavors to depress the English nation, the king, moved by the remonstrances of some of his prelates, and by the earnest desires of the people, restored a few of the laws of King Edward;[***] 11 which, though seemingly of no great importance towards the protection of general liberty, gave them extreme satisfaction, as a memorial of their ancient government, and an unusual mark of complaisance in their imperious conquerors.[****]

William had even considered the challenging idea of completely getting rid of the English language; to that end, he ordered that all schools across the kingdom teach the French language. This practice continued out of custom until after the reign of Edward III and was never entirely abandoned in England. Legal proceedings in the highest courts were conducted in French:[*] documents were often written in that language: laws were composed in that idiom:[**] no other language was used at court: it became the language of all fashionable gatherings; and the English themselves, embarrassed by their own country, tried to excel in that foreign dialect. Due to William's efforts and the vast foreign territories long attached to the English crown, a mix of French emerged in the English language, which now makes up a significant and refined part of our vocabulary. However, amid these efforts to diminish the English nation, the king, prompted by the appeals of some of his bishops and the strong wishes of the people, restored a few of King Edward's laws;[***] 11 which, although seemingly unimportant for the protection of general liberty, brought them great satisfaction as a reminder of their ancient governance and an unusual sign of kindness from their powerful conquerors.[****]

     [* 36 Ed. III. cap. 15. Selden. Spicileg. ad Eadm.
     p. 189. Fortesque de Laud. Leg. Angl. cap. 48.]

     [** Chron. Rothom. A.D. 1066.]

     [*** Ingulph. p. 88. Brompton, p. 982. Knyghton,
     p. 2355 Hoveden, p. 600.]

     [**** See note K, at the end of the volume.]
     [* 36 Ed. III. cap. 15. Selden. Spicileg. ad Eadm.
     p. 189. Fortesque de Laud. Leg. Angl. cap. 48.]

     [** Chron. Rothom. A.D. 1066.]

     [*** Ingulph. p. 88. Brompton, p. 982. Knyghton,
     p. 2355 Hoveden, p. 600.]

     [**** See note K, at the end of the volume.]

1071.

1071.

The situation of the two great earls, Morcar and Edwin, became now very disagreeable. Though they had retained their allegiance during this general insurrection of their countrymen, they had not gained the king’s confidence, and they found themselves exposed to the malignity of the courtiers, who envied them on account of their opulence and greatness, and at the same time involved them in that general contempt which they entertained for the English. Sensible that they had entirely lost their dignity, and could not even hope to remain long in safety, they determined, though too kite, to share the same fate with their countrymen. While Edwin retired to his estate in the north, with a view of commencing an insurrection, Morcar took shelter in the Isle of Ely, with the brave Hereward, who, secured by the inaccessible situation of the place, still defended himself against the Normans. But this attempt served only to accelerate the ruin of the few English who had hitherto been able to preserve their rank or fortune during the past convulsions. William employed all his endeavors to subdue the Isle of Ely; and having surrounded it with flat-bottomed boats, and made a causeway through the morasses to the extent of two miles, he obliged the rebels to surrender at discretion. Hereward alone forced his way, sword in hand, through the enemy; and still continued his hostilities by sea against the Normans, till at last William, charmed with his bravery, received him into favor, and restored him to his estate. Earl Morcar, and Egelwin, bishop of Durham, who had joined the malecontents, were thrown into prison, and the latter soon after died in confinement. Edwin, attempting to make his escape into Scotland, was betrayed by some of his followers, and was killed by a party of Normans, to the great affliction of the English, and even to that of William, who paid a tribute of generous tears to the memory of this gallant and beautiful youth. The king of Scotland, in hopes of profiting by these convulsions, had fallen upon the northern counties; but on the approach of William, he retired; and when the king entered his country, he was glad to make peace, and to pay the usual homage to the English crown. To complete the king’s prosperity, Edgar Atheling himself, despairing of success, and weary of a fugitive life, submitted to his enemy; and receiving a decent pension for his subsistence, was permitted to live in England unmolested. But these acts of generosity towards the leaders were disgraced, as usual, by William’s rigor against the inferior malecontents. He ordered ihe hands to be lopped off, and the eyes to be put out, of many of the prisoners whom he had taken in the Isle of Ely; and he dispersed them in that miserable condition throughout the country, as monuments of his severity.

The situation for the two powerful earls, Morcar and Edwin, had become very uncomfortable. Even though they had kept their loyalty during the widespread uprising of their fellow countrymen, they had not earned the king’s trust. Instead, they found themselves targeted by the hostility of the courtiers, who envied their wealth and status, and they were also caught up in the general disdain the courtiers held for the English. Realizing they had completely lost their dignity and could not expect to stay safe for long, they decided, albeit too late, to share the same fate as their fellow countrymen. While Edwin retreated to his northern estate to begin an uprising, Morcar sought refuge in the Isle of Ely with the brave Hereward, who managed to defend himself against the Normans due to the island's hard-to-reach location. However, this effort only sped up the downfall of the few English who had managed to maintain their rank or wealth during the recent upheavals. William used all his resources to conquer the Isle of Ely; surrounding it with flat-bottomed boats and building a causeway through the marshes stretching two miles, he forced the rebels to surrender unconditionally. Hereward alone broke through the enemy lines, fighting with a sword, and continued to resist the Normans by sea until finally, impressed by his courage, William welcomed him back into favor and restored his estate. Earl Morcar and Egelwin, the bishop of Durham, who had allied with the rebels, were imprisoned, and Egelwin soon died in captivity. Edwin, trying to escape to Scotland, was betrayed by some of his men and was killed by a group of Normans, which deeply saddened the English and even William, who shed generous tears for the memory of this brave and handsome youth. The King of Scotland, hoping to take advantage of the chaos, invaded the northern counties but retreated when William approached. When the king entered his territory, the Scottish king quickly made peace and pledged the usual loyalty to the English crown. To further the king's success, Edgar Atheling, feeling hopeless and tired of being a fugitive, surrendered to his enemy and was given a respectable pension to live on, allowing him to stay in England without harassment. However, these acts of kindness towards the leaders were overshadowed by William’s harshness towards the lower-level rebels. He ordered that many of the prisoners taken at the Isle of Ely have their hands cut off and their eyes put out, spreading them in that miserable state throughout the country as a grim reminder of his cruelty.

1073.

1073.

The province of Maine, in France, had, by the will of Herbert, the last count, fallen under the dominion of William some years before his conquest of England; but the inhabitants, dissatisfied with the Norman government, and instigated by Fulk, count of Anjou, who had some pretensions to the succession, now rose in rebellion, and expelled the magistrates whom the king had placed over them. The full settlement of England afforded him leisure to punish this insult on his authority; but being unwilling to remove his Norman forces from this island, he carried over a considerable army, composed almost entirely of English, and joining them to some troops levied in Normandy, he entered the revolted province. The English appeared ambitious of distinguishing themselves on this occasion, and of retrieving that character of valor which had long been national among them, but which their late easy subjection under the Normans had some what degraded and obscured. Perhaps, too, they hoped that, by their zeal and activity, they might recover the confidence of their sovereign, as their ancestors had formerly, by like means, gained the affections of Canute; and might conquer his inveterate prejudices in favor of his own countrymen. The king’s military conduct, seconded by these brave troops, soon overcame all opposition in Maine: the inhabitants were obliged to submit, and the count of Anjou relinquished his pretensions.

The province of Maine in France had, by the will of Herbert, the last count, come under the control of William a few years before his conquest of England. However, the locals, unhappy with Norman rule and encouraged by Fulk, the count of Anjou, who had claims to the succession, rose up in rebellion and kicked out the officials that the king had appointed. With the situation in England stabilized, he had the chance to address this challenge to his authority; but rather than pulling his Norman forces from the island, he sent over a large army mostly made up of English troops. He combined them with some soldiers raised in Normandy and entered the rebellious province. The English were eager to prove themselves this time and to restore the reputation for bravery that had been a part of their identity but was somewhat tarnished by their recent easy submission to the Normans. They might have also hoped that their enthusiasm and hard work would win back the trust of their king, just like their ancestors had previously won the favor of Canute; perhaps they believed they could overcome his longstanding preferences for his own countrymen. The king’s military strategy, supported by these courageous soldiers, quickly crushed all resistance in Maine: the locals had no choice but to surrender, and the count of Anjou abandoned his claims.

1074.

1074.

But during these transactions, the government of England was greatly disturbed; and that, too, by those very foreigners who owed every thing to the king’s bounty, and who were the sole object of his friendship and regard. The Norman barons, who had engaged with their duke in the conquest of England, were men of the most independent spirit; and though they obeyed their leader in the field, they would have regarded with disdain the richest acquisitions, had they been required, in return, to submit, in their civil government, to the arbitrary will of one man. But the imperious character of William, encouraged by his absolute dominion over the English, and often impelled by the necessity of his affairs, had prompted him to stretch his authority over the Normans themselves beyond what the free genius of that victorious people could easily bear. The discontents were become general among those haughty nobles; and even Roger, earl of Hereford, son and heir of Fitz-Osberne, the king’s chief favorite, was strongly infected with them. This nobleman, intending to marry his sister to Ralph de Guader, earl of Norfolk, had thought, it his duty to inform the king of his purpose, and to desire the royal consent; but meeting with a refusal, he proceeded nevertheless to complete the nuptials, and assembled all his friends, and those of Guader, to attend the solemnity. The two earls, disgusted by the denial of their request, and dreading William’s resentment for their disobedience, here prepared measures for a revolt; and during the gayety of the festival, while the company was heated with wine, they opened the design to their guests. They inveighed against the arbitrary conduct of the king; his tyranny over the English, whom they affected on this occasion to commiserate; his imperious behavior to his barons of the noblest birth; and his apparent intention of reducing the victors and the vanquished to a like ignominious servitude. Amidst their complaints, the indignity of submitting to a bastard[*] was not forgotten; the certain prospect of success in a revolt, by the assistance of the Danes and the discontented English, was insisted on; and the whole company, inflamed with the same sentiments, and warmed by the jollity of the entertainment, entered, by a solemn engagement, into the design of shaking off the royal authority. Even Earl Waltheof, who was present, inconsiderately expressed his approbation of the conspiracy, and promised his concurrence towards its success.

But during these dealings, the government of England was deeply troubled; and that was due to those very foreigners who owed everything to the king’s generosity and who were the main focus of his friendship and concern. The Norman barons, who had joined their duke in the conquest of England, were fiercely independent; and even though they followed their leader in battle, they would have scorned the richest rewards if it meant having to submit to the arbitrary will of one man in their civil governance. However, the commanding nature of William, bolstered by his absolute power over the English, and often driven by the demands of his situation, had pushed him to exert his authority over the Normans themselves beyond what the independent spirit of that victorious people could easily tolerate. Discontent among those proud nobles was widespread; even Roger, Earl of Hereford, son and heir of Fitz-Osberne, the king’s favorite, was strongly disturbed by it. This nobleman, planning to marry his sister to Ralph de Guader, Earl of Norfolk, felt it his duty to inform the king of his plans and seek royal approval; but after being refused, he went ahead with the wedding anyway and gathered all his friends and Guader’s to attend the celebration. The two earls, annoyed by the denial of their request and fearing William’s anger for their defiance, began to make plans for a revolt; and during the festive occasion, while the guests were relaxed and drinking, they revealed their intentions. They criticized the king's arbitrary actions; his tyranny over the English, whom they pretended to pity on this occasion; his domineering attitude toward his barons of noble birth; and his clear aim to reduce both victors and the vanquished to the same shameful servitude. Among their grievances, the indignity of submitting to a bastard wasn’t ignored; they emphasized the promising chance of success in a revolt, with the help of the Danes and disgruntled English. As everyone in the gathering shared the same feelings and were fueled by the merriment of the party, they entered into a solemn agreement to shake off royal authority. Even Earl Waltheof, present at the time, thoughtlessly expressed his support for the conspiracy and promised to help ensure its success.

This nobleman, the last of the English who for some generations possessed any power or authority, had, after his capitulation at York, been received into favor by the conqueror; had even married Judith, niece to that prince; and had been promoted to the earldoms of Huntingdon and Northampton.[**] Cospatric, earl of Northumberland, having, on some new disgust from William, retired into Scotland, where he received the earldom of Dunbar from the bounty of Malcolm, Waltheof was appointed his successor in that important command, and seemed still to possess the confidence and friendship of his sovereign.[***]

This nobleman, the last Englishman to hold any significant power or authority for generations, after surrendering at York, was welcomed back by the conqueror. He even married Judith, the niece of that prince, and was elevated to the earldoms of Huntingdon and Northampton.[**] Cospatric, the earl of Northumberland, having withdrawn to Scotland due to some new grievance with William, received the earldom of Dunbar from Malcolm's generosity. Waltheof was then appointed his successor in that key position and still seemed to have the trust and friendship of his king.[***]

     [* William was so little ashamed of his birth,
     that he assumed the appellation of Bastard in some of his
     letters and charters. Spel Gloss. in verbo Bastardus. Camden
     in Richmondshire.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 522 Hoveden, p. 454.]

     [*** Sim, Dunelm. p. 205.]
     [* William was so unashamed of his birth that he referred to himself as a Bastard in some of his letters and documents. Spel Gloss. in verbo Bastardus. Camden in Richmondshire.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 522 Hoveden, p. 454.]

     [*** Sim, Dunelm. p. 205.]

But as he was a man of generous principles, and loved his country, it is probable that the tyranny exercised over the English lay heavy upon his mind, and destroyed all the satisfaction which he could reap from his own grandeur and advancement. When a prospect, therefore, was opened of retrieving their liberty, he hastily embraced it; while the fumes of the liquor and the ardor of the company prevented him from reflecting on the consequences of that rash attempt. But after his cool judgment returned, he foresaw that the conspiracy of those discontented barons was not likely to prove successful against the established power of William; or, if it did, that the slavery of the English, instead of being alleviated by that event, would become more grievous under a multitude of foreign leaders, factious and ambitious, whose union and whose discord would be equally oppressive to the people. Tormented with these reflections, he opened his mind to his wife Judith, of whose fidelity he entertained no suspicion, but who, having secretly fixed her affections on another, took this opportunity of ruining her easy and credulous husband. She conveyed intelligence of the conspiracy to the king, and aggravated every circumstance which she believed would tend to incense him against Waltheof, and render him absolutely implacable.[*] Meanwhile the earl, still dubious with regard to the part which he should act, discovered the secret in confession to Lanfranc, on whose probity and judgment he had a great reliance: he was persuaded by the prelate, that he owed no fidelity to those rebellious barons, who had by surprise gained his consent to a crime; that his first duty was to his sovereign and benefactor, his next to himself and his family; and that if he seized not the opportunity of making atonement for his guilt by revealing it, the temerity of the conspirators was so great, that they would give some other person the means of acquiring the merit of the discovery. Waltheof, convinced by these arguments, went over to Normandy; but though he was well received by the king, and thanked for his fidelity, the account previously transmitted by Judith had sunk deep into William’s mind, and had destroyed all the merit of her husband’s repentance.

But since he was a man of generous principles and loved his country, it’s likely that the oppression faced by the English weighed heavily on his mind, ruining any satisfaction he could get from his own success and advancement. So, when a chance appeared to help regain their freedom, he jumped at it. The effects of the alcohol and the excitement of those around him kept him from thinking about the consequences of that reckless decision. Once he calmed down and thought things through, he realized that the rebellion by those discontented barons probably wouldn’t succeed against William’s established power; and even if it did, the situation for the English would likely worsen under a bunch of foreign leaders, who were just as ambitious and troublesome—creating oppression whether they united or clashed. Disturbed by these thoughts, he confided in his wife Judith, who he trusted completely, but who had secretly fallen in love with someone else and used this chance to betray her gullible husband. She tipped off the king about the conspiracy, exaggerating every detail she thought would anger him towards Waltheof and make him completely unforgiving. Meanwhile, the earl, still unsure about what to do, revealed the secret in confession to Lanfranc, whom he greatly trusted for his integrity and judgment. He was convinced by the bishop that he didn’t owe any loyalty to those rebellious barons who had manipulated him into agreeing to a crime. His primary duty was to his king and benefactor, and next to himself and his family. If he didn’t take the chance to atone for his wrongdoing by coming clean, the rashness of the conspirators was such that they would find someone else to take credit for the revelation. Persuaded by these arguments, Waltheof went to Normandy; but even though the king welcomed him and thanked him for his loyalty, the information previously sent by Judith had stuck in William’s mind and negated any merit from her husband’s repentance.

      [* Order. Vitalis, p. 536.]
Order. Vitalis, p. 536.

The conspirators, hearing of Waltheof’s departure, immediately concluded their design to be betrayed; and they flew to arms before their schemes were ripe for execution, and before the arrival of the Danes, in whose aid they placed their chief confidence. The Earl of Hereford was checked by Walter de Lacy, a great baron in those parts, who, supported by the bishop of Worcester and the abbot of Evesham, raised some forces, and prevented the earl from passing the Severn, or advancing into the heart of the kingdom. The earl of Norfolk was defeated at Fagadun, near Cambridge, by Odo the regent, assisted by Richard de Bienfaite and William de Warrenne, the two justiciaries. The prisoners taken in this action had their right foot cut off, as a punishment of their treason the earl himself escaped to Norwich, thence to Denmark where the Danish fleet, which had made an unsuccessful attempt upon the coast of England,[*] soon after arrived, and brought him intelligence, that all his confederates were suppressed, and were either killed, banished, or taken prisoners.[**] Ralph retired in despair to Brittany, where he possessed a large estate and extensive jurisdictions.

The conspirators, upon hearing about Waltheof's departure, quickly assumed their plans had been discovered; they took up arms before their strategy was fully developed and before the Danes, whom they relied on most, had arrived. The Earl of Hereford was stopped by Walter de Lacy, a powerful baron in the area, who, with the backing of the Bishop of Worcester and the Abbot of Evesham, gathered some troops to prevent the earl from crossing the Severn or moving deeper into the kingdom. The Earl of Norfolk was defeated at Fagadun, near Cambridge, by Odo the regent, with help from Richard de Bienfaite and William de Warrenne, the two justiciaries. The prisoners taken in this battle had their right foot cut off as punishment for their treason; the earl himself escaped to Norwich and then to Denmark, where the Danish fleet, which had recently failed to invade the English coast,[*] soon arrived and informed him that all his allies had been defeated and were either killed, exiled, or captured.[**] Ralph, in despair, fled to Brittany, where he owned a large estate and held significant authority.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 183. M. Paris, p. 7.]

     [** Many of the fugitive Normans are supposed to
     have fled into Scotland, where they were protected, as well
     as the fugitive English, by Malcolm; whence come the many
     French and Norman families which are found at present in
     that country.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 183. M. Paris, p. 7.]

     [** Many of the fleeing Normans are believed to have escaped to Scotland, where they, along with the fleeing English, were sheltered by Malcolm; this is how many French and Norman families ended up in that country today.]

The king, who hastened over to England in order to suppress the insurrection, found that nothing remained but the punishment of the criminals, which he executed with great severity. Many of the rebels were hanged; some had their eyes put out; others their hands cut off. But William, agreeably to his usual maxims, showed more lenity to their leader, the earl of Hereford, who was only condemned to a forfeiture of his estate, and to imprisonment during pleasure. The king seemed even disposed to remit this last part of the punishment; had not Roger, by a fresh insolence, provoked him to render his confinement perpetual.

The king rushed to England to put down the uprising and found that all that was left to do was punish the criminals, which he carried out with extreme harshness. Many of the rebels were hanged; some had their eyes gouged out; others had their hands chopped off. However, William, following his usual principles, showed more mercy to their leader, the Earl of Hereford, who was only stripped of his estate and sentenced to imprisonment for an undetermined time. The king even seemed willing to lessen this last part of the punishment; that was until Roger, through a new act of defiance, pushed him to make his imprisonment permanent.

1075.

1075.

But Waltheof, being an Englishman, was not treated with so much humanity; though his guilt, always much inferior to that of the other conspirators, was atoned for by an early repentance and return to his duty. William, instigated by his niece, as well as by his rapacious courtiers, who longed for so rich a forfeiture, ordered him to be tried, condemned, and executed. The English, who considered this nobleman as the last resource of their nation, grievously lamented his fate, and fancied that miracles were wrought by his relics, as a testimony of his innocence and sanctity. The infamous Judith, falling soon after under the king’s displeasure, was abandoned by all the world, and passed the rest of her life in contempt, remorse, and misery.

But Waltheof, being English, wasn’t treated with as much mercy; even though his guilt was always much less than that of the other conspirators, he atoned for it with an early repentance and a return to his duty. William, urged on by his niece and his greedy courtiers, who were eager for such a rich forfeiture, ordered him to be tried, condemned, and executed. The English, who viewed this nobleman as the last hope of their nation, deeply mourned his fate, believing that miracles were performed by his relics as proof of his innocence and holiness. The infamous Judith, soon after falling out of favor with the king, was shunned by everyone and spent the rest of her life in contempt, regret, and misery.

Nothing remained to complete William’s satisfaction but the punishment of Ralph de Guader; and he hastened over to Normandy, in order to gratify his vengeance on that criminal. But though the contest seemed very unequal between a private nobleman and the king of England, Ralph was so well supported both by the earl of Brittany and the king of France that William, after besieging him for some time in Dol, was obliged to abandon the enterprise, and make with those powerful princes a peace, in which Ralph himself was included England, during his absence, remained in tranquillity; and nothing remarkable occurred, except two ecclesiastical synods, which were summoned, one at London, another at Winchester. In the former, the precedency among the episcopasees was settled, and the seat of some of them was removed from small villages to the most considerable town within the diocese. In the second was transacted a business of more importance.

Nothing remained to satisfy William but the punishment of Ralph de Guader; so he rushed over to Normandy to get his vengeance on that criminal. However, even though it seemed like an uneven fight between a private nobleman and the king of England, Ralph had strong support from the Earl of Brittany and the King of France. After a while besieging him in Dol, William had to give up the campaign and make peace with those powerful princes, which included Ralph himself. During his absence, England remained peaceful, and nothing notable happened except for two church synods, one in London and another in Winchester. In the first, they settled the precedence among the bishops, moving some of their seats from small villages to the most important town in the diocese. The second dealt with a more significant matter.

1076.

1076.

The industry and perseverance are surprising, with which the popes had been treasuring up powers and pretensions during so many ages of ignorance; while each pontiff employed every fraud for advancing purposes of imaginary piety, and cherished all claims which might turn to the advantage of his successors, though he himself could not expect ever to reap any benefit from them. All this immense storm of spiritual and civil authority was now devolved on Gregory VII., of the name of Hildebrand, the most enterprising pontiff that had ever filled that chair, and the least restrained by fear, decency, or moderation. Not content with shaking off the yoke of the emperors, who had hitherto exercised the power of appointing the pope on every vacancy, at least of ratifying his election, he undertook the arduous task of entirely disjoining the ecclesiastical from the civil power, and of excluding profane laymen from the right which they had assumed, of filling the vacancies of bishoprics, abbeys, and other spiritual dignities.[*] The sovereigns, who had long exercised this power, and who had acquired it, not by encroachments on the church, but on the people, to whom it originally belonged,[**] made great opposition to this claim of the court of Rome; and Henry IV., the reigning emperor, defended this prerogative of his crown with a vigor and resolution suitable to its importance.

The relentless effort and determination of the popes in accumulating power and claims over so many ages of ignorance is astonishing. Each pope used every trick possible to promote their goals of fake piety and held onto all claims that could benefit their successors, even if they would never see any reward themselves. All this massive wave of spiritual and civil authority was now in the hands of Gregory VII, known as Hildebrand, the most ambitious pope to ever occupy that position, and the least held back by fear, propriety, or moderation. Not satisfied with breaking free from the control of the emperors, who had always had the power to appoint the pope whenever there was a vacancy, or at least to approve his election, he took on the challenging task of completely separating the church's authority from the state's and of removing the rights that laypeople had claimed to fill church offices, bishoprics, abbeys, and other spiritual roles.[*] The kings, who had long held this power—not through encroachments on the church but on the people, to whom it originally belonged[**]—strongly opposed this claim from the Roman court, and Henry IV, the current emperor, defended this royal prerogative with the strength and determination it deserved.

     [* L’Abbé Conc. tom. x. p. 371, 372, com, 2.]

     [** Padre Paolo sopra Benef. Eccles. p. 30]
     [* L'Abbé Conc. vol. x, pp. 371, 372, comment. 2.]

     [** Father Paolo on Ecclesiastical Benefits p. 30]

The few offices, either civil or military, which the feudal institutions left the sovereign the power of bestowing, made the prerogative of conferring the pastoral ring and staff the most valuable jewel of the royal diadem: especially as the general ignorance of the age bestowed a consequence on the ecclesiastical offices, even beyond the great extent of power and property which belonged to them. Superstition, the child of ignorance, invested the clergy with an authority almost sacred; and as they engrossed the little learning of the age, their interposition became requisite in all civil business, and a real usefulness in common life was thus superadded to the spiritual sanctity of their character.

The few positions, whether civil or military, that the feudal system allowed the monarch to assign made the right to give the pastoral ring and staff the most treasured aspect of the royal crown. This was particularly true since the widespread ignorance of the time gave greater importance to religious roles, surpassing even the significant power and wealth that came with them. Superstition, born from ignorance, endowed the clergy with an almost sacred authority. Since they held most of the limited knowledge available, their involvement became necessary in all civil matters, adding a practical value to the spiritual respect they commanded.

When the usurpations, therefore, of the church had come to such maturity as to embolden her to attempt extorting the right of investitures from the temporal power, Europe, especially Italy and Germany, was thrown into the most violent convulsions, and the pope and the emperor waged implacable war on each other. Gregory dared to fulminate the sentence of excommunication against Henry and his adherents, to pronounce him rightfully deposed, to free his subjects from their oath of allegiance; and, instead of shocking mankind by this gross encroachment on the civil authority, he found the stupid people ready to second his most exorbitant pretensions. Every minister, servant, or vassal of the emperor, who received any disgust, covered his rebellion under the pretence of principle; and even the mother of this monarch, forgetting all the ties of nature, was seduced to countenance the insolence of his enemies. Princes themselves, not attentive to the pernicious consequences of those papal claims, employed them for their present purposes; and the controversy, spreading into every city of Italy, engendered the parties of Guelf and Ghibbelin; the most durable and most inveterate factions that ever arose from the mixture of ambition and religious zeal. Besides numberless assassinations, tumults, and convulsions, to which they gave rise, it is computed that the quarrel occasioned no less then sixty battles in the reign of Henry IV., and eighteen in that of his successor, Henry V., when the claims of the sovereign pontiff finally prevailed.[*]

When the church's power had grown to the point where it felt bold enough to try to take the right of investitures from the secular authority, Europe—especially Italy and Germany—was plunged into chaos, with the pope and the emperor engaged in relentless conflict. Gregory was bold enough to declare excommunication against Henry and his supporters, to say he was rightfully deposed, and to release his subjects from their loyalty oaths. Instead of shocking people with this blatant overreach of civil authority, he found that the gullible masses were eager to support his outrageous claims. Any minister, servant, or vassal of the emperor who felt wronged concealed their rebellion behind a facade of principle; even the emperor's mother, disregarding all maternal bonds, was swayed to support his enemies' insolence. Princes, oblivious to the harmful effects of the pope's claims, used them for their own benefits. The controversy spread to every city in Italy, giving rise to the Guelf and Ghibelline factions—among the most enduring and deeply rooted groups born from a blend of ambition and religious fervor. In addition to countless assassinations, riots, and upheavals they sparked, it's estimated that this conflict led to no fewer than sixty battles during Henry IV's reign and eighteen during his successor Henry V's, when the pope's claims ultimately triumphed.[*]

     [* Padre Paolo sopra Eccles. Benef. p. 113.]
[* Padre Paolo sopra Eccles. Benef. p. 113.]

But the bold spirit of Gregory, not dismayed with the vigorous opposition which he met with from the emperor, extended his usurpations all over Europe; and well knowing the nature of mankind, whose blind astonishment ever inclines them to yield to the most impudent pretensions, he seemed determined to set no bounds to the spiritual, or rather temporal monarchy which he had undertaken to erect. He pronounced the sentence of excommunication against Nicephorus, emperor of the east; Robert Guiscard, the adventurous Norman who had acquired the dominion of Naples, was attacked by the same dangerous weapon: he degraded Boleslas, king of Poland from the rank of king; and even deprived Poland of the title of a kingdom: he attempted to treat Philip, king of France, with the same rigor which he had employed against the emperor;[*] he pretended to the entire property and dominion of Spain; and he parcelled it out amongst adventurers, who undertook to conquer it from the Saracens, and to hold it in vassalage under the see of Rome:[**] even the Christian bishops, on whose aid he relied for subduing the temporal princes, saw that he was determined to reduce them to servitude, and, by assuming the whole legislative and judicial power of the church to centre all authority in the sovereign pontiff.[***]

But Gregory’s bold spirit, undeterred by the strong opposition from the emperor, pushed his influence across Europe. Understanding human nature, which often leads people to submit to the most brazen claims, he seemed intent on establishing a limitless spiritual, or rather, temporal monarchy. He issued a decree of excommunication against Nicephorus, the eastern emperor; he used the same dangerous weapon against Robert Guiscard, the daring Norman who had taken control of Naples. He stripped Boleslas, the king of Poland, of his title and even removed Poland's status as a kingdom. He tried to treat Philip, the king of France, with the same severity he used against the emperor; he claimed full ownership and control over Spain and divided it among adventurers who pledged to conquer it from the Saracens and hold it as vassals under the papacy. Even the Christian bishops, whom he relied on to subdue the temporal princes, realized that he aimed to reduce them to servitude by centralizing all legislative and judicial power of the church in the hands of the pope.

William the Conqueror, the most potent, the most haughty, and the most vigorous prince in Europe, was not, amidst all his splendid successes, secure from the attacks of this enterprising pontiff. Gregory wrote him a letter, requiring him to fulfil his promise in doing homage for the kingdom of England to the see of Rome, and to sent him over that tribute which all his predecessors had been accustomed to pay to the vicar of Christ. By the tribute, he meant Peter’s pence; which, though at first a charitable donation of the Saxon princes, was interpreted, according to the usual practice of the Romish court, to be a badge of subjection acknowledged by the kingdom. William replied, that the money should be remitted as usual; but that neither had he promised to do homage to Rome, nor was it in the least his purpose to impose that servitude on his state.[****] And the better to show Gregory his independence, he ventured, notwithstanding the frequent complaints of the pope, to refuse to the English bishops the liberty of attending a general council, which that pontiff had summoned against his enemies.

William the Conqueror, the most powerful, the most arrogant, and the most energetic ruler in Europe, was not, despite all his impressive victories, immune to the challenges posed by this ambitious pope. Gregory sent him a letter demanding that he fulfill his promise to pay homage for the kingdom of England to the Roman see and to send the tribute that all his predecessors had traditionally given to the vicar of Christ. This tribute referred to Peter’s pence, which, although initially a charitable gift from the Saxon princes, was interpreted, following the usual practices of the Roman court, as a sign of submission recognized by the kingdom. William responded that the money would be sent as usual; however, he insisted that he had not promised to pay homage to Rome, nor did he intend to impose such servitude on his kingdom. To further demonstrate his independence to Gregory, he boldly refused the English bishops the right to attend a general council that the pope had called against his adversaries, despite the pope's repeated complaints.

     [* Epist. Greg. VII. epist. 32, 35; lib. ii.
     epist. 5]

     [** Epist. Greg. VII. lib. i. epist. 7.]

     [*** Epist. Greg. VII. lib. ii. epist. 55.]

     [**** Seldini Spicileg. ad Eadm. p. 4.]
     [* Epist. Greg. VII. epist. 32, 35; lib. ii. 
     epist. 5] 

     [** Epist. Greg. VII. lib. i. epist. 7.] 

     [*** Epist. Greg. VII. lib. ii. epist. 55.] 

     [**** Seldini Spicileg. ad Eadm. p. 4.]

But though the king displayed this vigor in supporting the royal dignity, he was infected with the general superstition of the age; and he did not perceive the ambitious scope of those institutions, which under color of strictness in religion, were introduced or promoted by the court of Rome. Gregory, while he was throwing all Europe into combustion by his violence and impostures, affected an anxious care for the purity of manners; and even the chaste pleasures of the marriage bed were inconsistent, in his opinion, with the sanctity of the sacerdotal character. He had issued a decree prohibiting the marriage of priests, excommunicating all clergymen who retained their wives, declaring such unlawful commerce to be fornication, and rendering it criminal in the laity to attend divine worship, when such profane priests officiated at the altar.[*]

But even though the king showed determination in upholding royal authority, he was caught up in the widespread superstition of the time; he failed to see the ambitious goals of those institutions that, under the guise of strict religious observance, were introduced or supported by the court of Rome. Gregory, while stirring up chaos across Europe with his aggression and deceit, pretended to be deeply concerned about moral purity; in his view, even the lawful pleasures of marriage were at odds with the sanctity of the priesthood. He had issued a decree banning priests from marrying, excommunicating any clergy who kept their wives, labeling such relationships as fornication, and making it wrong for laypeople to participate in worship when such unholy priests served at the altar.[*]

     [* Hoveden, p. 455, 457. Flor. Wigorn. p. 638
     Spel. Concil fol, 13, A. D. 1078.]
[* Hoveden, p. 455, 457. Flor. Wigorn. p. 638 Spel. Concil fol, 13, A. D. 1078.]

This point was a great object in the politics of the Roman pontiffs; and it cost them infinitely more pains to establish it than the propagation of any speculative absurdity which they had ever attempted to introduce. Many synods were summoned in different parts of Europe before it was finally settled; and it was there constantly remarked, that the younger clergymen complied cheerfully with the pope’s decrees in this particular, and that the chief reluctance appeared in those who were more advanced in years; an event so little consonant to men’s natural expectations, that it could not fail to be glossed on even in that blind and superstitious age. William allowed the pope’s legate to assemble, in his absence a synod at Winchester, in order to establish the celibacy of the clergy; but the church of England could not yet be carried the whole length expected. The synod was content with decreeing, that the bishops should not thenceforth ordain any priests or deacons without exacting from them a promise of celibacy; but they enacted that none, except those who belonged to collegiate or cathedral churches, should be obliged to separate from their wives.

This issue was a major focus for the politics of the Roman popes, and it took them a lot more effort to establish it than to promote any of the bizarre ideas they had ever tried to introduce. Many church councils were called in various parts of Europe before it was finally resolved; it was consistently noted that younger clergy members complied willingly with the pope's orders regarding this matter, while the main reluctance came from those who were older. This was so unexpected that it had to be commented on, even in that blind and superstitious time. William allowed the pope's representative to call a synod at Winchester in his absence, aiming to enforce clerical celibacy; however, the Church of England could not yet be fully aligned with the desired expectations. The synod agreed that bishops should no longer ordain any priests or deacons without requiring a promise of celibacy from them, but they decided that only those who were part of collegiate or cathedral churches would need to separate from their wives.

The king passed some years in Normandy; but his long residence there was not entirely owing to his declared preference of that duchy: his presence was also necessary for composing those disturbances which had arisen in that favorite territory, and which had even originally proceeded from his own family. Robert, his eldest son, surnamed Gambaron or Courthose, from his short legs, was a prince who inherited all the bravery of his family and nation; but without that policy and dissimulation by which his father was so much distinguished, and which, no less than his military valor, had contributed to his great successes. Greedy of fame, impatient of contradiction, without reserve in his friendships, declared in his enmities, this prince could endure no control even from his imperious father, and openly aspired to that independence, to which his temper, as well as some circumstances in his situation, strongly invited him.[*] When William first received the submissions of the province of Maine, he had promised the inhabitants that Robert should be their prince; and before he undertook the expedition against England, he had, on the application of the French court, declared him his successor in Normandy, and had obliged the barons of that duchy to do him homage as their future sovereign. By this artifice, he had endeavored to appease the jealousy of his neighbors, as affording them a prospect of separating England from his dominions on the continent; but when Robert demanded of him the execution of those engagements, he gave him an absolute refusal, and told him, according to the homely saying, that he never intended to throw off his clothes till he went to bed.[**] Robert openly declared his discontent, and was suspected of secretly instigating the king of France and the earl of Brittany to the opposition which they made to William, and which had formerly frustrated his attempts upon the town of Dol. And as the quarrel still augmented, Robert proceeded to entertain a strong jealousy of his two surviving brothers, William and Henry, (for Richard was killed, in hunting, by a stag,) who, by greater submission and complaisance, had acquired the affections of their father. In this disposition, on both sides, the greatest trifle sufficed to produce a rupture between them.

The king spent several years in Normandy, but his extended stay wasn't just because he preferred that duchy. He was also needed to resolve the issues that had come up in that favored region, which actually started with his own family. His eldest son, Robert, nicknamed Gambaron or Courthose because of his short legs, was a prince who inherited the bravery typical of his family and nation. However, he lacked the cunning and strategizing that distinguished his father, which, along with his military courage, had contributed to his father's great successes. Eager for fame, intolerant of disagreement, open in his friendships and public about his enmities, this prince couldn't stand any control, even from his demanding father, and openly sought the independence that his personality and certain circumstances in his situation encouraged. When William first accepted the submissions from the province of Maine, he promised the locals that Robert would be their prince. Before launching his expedition against England, he declared Robert his successor in Normandy at the request of the French court and made the barons of that duchy pledge their loyalty to him as their future ruler. Through this tactic, he tried to soothe the jealousy of his neighbors by giving them a chance to see England separated from his lands on the continent. However, when Robert asked him to fulfill those promises, William outright refused and told him, in plain words, that he had no intention of shedding his clothes until bedtime. Robert openly expressed his dissatisfaction and was suspected of secretly encouraging the king of France and the earl of Brittany to oppose William, which had previously thwarted his attempts on the town of Dol. As the conflict intensified, Robert began to develop a strong jealousy of his two surviving brothers, William and Henry (since Richard was killed by a stag during a hunt), who had won their father's affection through greater submission and flattery. In this charged atmosphere, even the smallest incident could spark a serious rift between them.

The three princes, residing with their father in the castle of L’Aigle, in Normandy, were one day engaged in sport together, and after some mirth and jollity, the two younger took a fancy of throwing over some water on Robert as he passed through the court on leaving their apartment;[***] a frolic which he would naturally have regarded as innocent, had it not been for the suggestions of Alberic de Grentmesnil, son of that Hugh de Grentmesnil whom William had formerly deprived of his fortunes, when that baron deserted him during his greatest difficulties in England. The young man, mindful of the injury, persuaded the prince that this action was meant as a public affront, which it behoved him in honor to resent; and the choleric Robert, drawing his sword, ran up stairs, with an intention of taking revenge on his brothers.[****]

The three princes, living with their father in the castle of L’Aigle in Normandy, were having a fun day together. After some laughs and good times, the two younger ones decided to throw some water on Robert as he walked through the courtyard after leaving their room; a prank he would normally have seen as harmless, if not for the instigation of Alberic de Grentmesnil, the son of Hugh de Grentmesnil, who William had previously stripped of his wealth when that baron abandoned him during his toughest times in England. The young man, remembering the past wrong, convinced the prince that this act was intended as a public insult that he needed to retaliate against for his honor; and the hot-tempered Robert, grabbing his sword, raced upstairs, planning to get back at his brothers.

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 545. Hoveden, p. 457. Flor.
     Wigorn. p. 639.]

     [** Chron. de Mailr. p. 160.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p 545]

     [**** Order. Vitalis, p 545]
     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 545. Hoveden, p. 457. Flor. 
     Wigorn. p. 639.]

     [** Chron. de Mailr. p. 160.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p 545]

     [**** Order. Vitalis, p 545]

The whole castle was filled with tumult, which the king himself, who hastened from his apartment, found some difficulty to appease. But he could by no means appease the resentment of his eldest son who, complaining of his partiality, and fancying that no proper atonement had been made him for the insult, left the court that very evening, and hastened to Rouen, with an intention of seizing the citadel of that place.[*] But being disappointed in this view by the precaution and vigilance of Roger de Ivery, the governor, he fled to Hugh de Neufchatel, a powerful Norman baron, who gave him protection in his castles; and he openly levied war against his father.[**] The popular character of the prince, and a similarity of manners, engaged all the young nobility of Normandy and Maine, as well as of Anjou and Brittany, to take part with him: and it was suspected that Matilda, his mother, whose favorite he was, supported him in his rebellion by secret remittances of money; and by the encouragement which she gave his partisans.

The whole castle was in chaos, which the king himself found hard to calm as he rushed from his chamber. However, he couldn't soothe the anger of his eldest son, who, feeling slighted and believing he hadn't received a proper apology for the insult, left the court that very evening and quickly headed to Rouen with plans to seize the citadel there.[*] But when he found himself thwarted in this goal by the precautions and watchfulness of Roger de Ivery, the governor, he fled to Hugh de Neufchatel, a powerful Norman baron, who offered him refuge in his castles; and he openly declared war against his father.[**] The prince's popularity and shared traits drew in all the young nobility of Normandy and Maine, as well as Anjou and Brittany, to support him: and it was rumored that Matilda, his mother and his favorite, backed him in his rebellion with secret money transfers and by encouraging his supporters.

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 545.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 545. Hoveden, 457, Sim.
     Dunelm. p. 210. Diceto, p. 487]
     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 545.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 545. Hoveden, 457, Sim.
     Dunelm. p. 210. Diceto, p. 487]

All the hereditary provinces of William, as well as his family, were during several years thrown into convulsions by this war; and he was at last obliged to have recourse to England, where that species of military government, which he had established, gave him greater authority than the ancient feudal institutions permitted him to exercise in Normandy. He called over an army of English under his ancient captains, who soon expelled Robert and his adherents from their retreats, and restored the authority of the sovereign in all his dominions. The young prince was obliged to take shelter in the castle of Gerberoy, in the Beauvoisis, which the king of France, who secretly fermented all these dissensions, had provided for him. In this fortress he was closely besieged by his father, against whom having a strong garrison, he made an obstinate defence. There passed under the walls of this place many rencounters which resembled more the single combats of chivalry than the military actions of armies; but one of them was remarkable for its circumstances and its event. Robert happened to engage the king, who was concealed by his helmet, and, both of them being valiant, a fierce combat ensued, till at last the young prince wounded his father in the arm and unhorsed him. On his calling out for assistance, his voice discovered him to his son, who, struck with remorse for his past guilt, and astonished with the apprehensions of one much greater, which he had so nearly incurred, instantly threw himself at his father’s feet, craved pardon for his offences, and offered to purchase forgiveness by any atonement.[*] The resentment harbored by William was so implacable, that he did not immediately correspond to this dutiful submission of his son with like tenderness; but, giving him his malediction, departed for his own camp, on Robert’s horse, which that prince had assisted him to mount, He soon after raised the siege, and marched with his army to Normandy; where the interposition of the queen and other common friends brought about a reconcilement, which was probably not a little forwarded by the generosity of the son’s behavior in this action, and by the returning sense of his past misconduct. The king seemed so fully appeased that he even took Robert with him into England, where he intrusted him with the command of an army, in order to repel an inroad of Malcolm, king of Scotland, and to retaliate by a like inroad into that country. The Welsh, unable to resist William’s power, were, about the same time, necessitated to pay a compensation for their incursions; and every thing was reduced to full tranquillity in this island.

All of William's hereditary provinces and his family were thrown into chaos for several years because of this war. Eventually, he had to turn to England, where the type of military government he had set up gave him more power than the old feudal systems allowed him to have in Normandy. He called over an army of English soldiers under his former commanders, who quickly drove Robert and his supporters out of hiding and restored the king’s authority across all his lands. The young prince had to seek refuge in the castle of Gerberoy in Beauvoisis, which the king of France, who was secretly stirring up these conflicts, had arranged for him. In this fortress, he was closely besieged by his father. With a strong garrison, he put up a stubborn defense. Many fierce encounters took place under the walls of this place, resembling more the duels of chivalry than the military actions of armies, but one encounter stood out due to its events and outcomes. Robert ended up engaging the king, who was hidden by his helmet, and since both were brave, a fierce battle broke out until finally, the young prince wounded his father in the arm and unhorsed him. When his father called for help, his voice revealed his identity to Robert, who, overwhelmed with guilt for his past actions and terrified of the greater danger he had almost caused, immediately fell at his father’s feet, asking for forgiveness and offering to make amends in any way he could. The resentment that William harbored was so deep that he didn’t immediately respond to his son's respectful submission with the same kindness, but instead cursed him and left for his own camp, riding on Robert’s horse, which the prince had helped him mount. Soon after, he lifted the siege and marched his army back to Normandy, where the queen and other mutual friends helped to negotiate a reconciliation, likely aided by the son's generous behavior during this event and his returning awareness of his past mistakes. The king seemed so completely appeased that he even took Robert with him to England, where he entrusted him with leading an army to push back an invasion by Malcolm, the king of Scotland, and to retaliate with a similar raid into that territory. The Welsh, unable to withstand William’s strength, were also forced at that time to pay compensation for their incursions, bringing full peace to the island.

     [* W. Malms, p. 106. H. Hunting, p. 369. Hoveden,
     p. 457. Flor Wigorn. p. 639. Sim. Dunelm. p. 210. Diceto, p.
     287. Knyghton, p. 2351. Alured. Beverl. p. 135.]
     [* W. Malms, p. 106. H. Hunting, p. 369. Hoveden,
     p. 457. Flor Wigorn. p. 639. Sim. Dunelm. p. 210. Diceto, p.
     287. Knyghton, p. 2351. Alured. Beverl. p. 135.]

1081.

1081.

This state of affairs gave William leisure to begin and finish an undertaking, which proves his extensive genius and does honor to his memory; it was a general survey of all the lands in the kingdom, their extent in each district, their proprietors, tenures, value; the quantity of meadow, pasture, wood, and arable land, which they contained; and in some counties, the number of tenants, cottagers, and slaves of all denominations, who lived upon them. He appointed commissioners for this purpose, who entered every particular in their register by the verdict of juries; and after a labor of six years, (for the work was so long in finishing,) brought him an exact account of all the landed property of his kingdom.[*]

This situation allowed William the time to start and complete a project that showcases his immense talent and honors his legacy. He conducted a comprehensive survey of all the lands in the kingdom, detailing their size in each region, their owners, types of land ownership, value, and the amount of meadows, pastures, woods, and arable land. In some counties, he even recorded the number of tenants, cottagers, and all types of laborers living on those lands. He assigned commissioners for this task, who documented every detail in their records based on jury findings. After six years of hard work, which took a significant amount of time to finish, they provided him with an accurate account of all the landholdings in his kingdom.[*]

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 190. Ingulph. p. 79. Chron. T.
     Wykes, p. 23. H. Hunting, p. 370. Hoveden, p. 460. M. West.
     p. 229. Flor Wigorn. p. 641. Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo,
     p. 51. M. Paris p. 8. The more northern counties were not
     comprehended in this survey; I suppose because of their
     wild, uncultivated state.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 190. Ingulph. p. 79. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 23. H. Hunting, p. 370. Hoveden, p. 460. M. West. p. 229. Flor Wigorn. p. 641. Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo, p. 51. M. Paris p. 8. The northern counties were not included in this survey; I guess because of their wild, untamed nature.]

This monument, called domesday-book, the most valuable piece of antiquity possessed by any nation, is still preserved in the exchequer; and though only some extracts of it have hitherto been published, it serves to illustrate to us, in many particulars, the ancient state of England. The great Alfred had finished a like survey of the kingdom in his time, which was long kept at Winchester, and which probably served as a model to William in this undertaking.[*]

This monument, known as the Domesday Book, is the most valuable piece of history owned by any nation and is still kept in the treasury. While only a few extracts have been published so far, it helps us understand many aspects of England’s ancient state. The great Alfred completed a similar survey of the kingdom during his time, which was kept at Winchester for a long time and likely served as a model for William in this effort.[*]

The king was naturally a great economist; and though no prince had ever been more bountiful to his officers and servants, it was merely because he had rendered himself universal proprietor of England, and had a whole kingdom to bestow. He reserved an ample revenue for the crown; and in the general distribution of land among his followers, he kept possession of no less than one thousand four hundred and twenty—two manors in different parts of England,[**] which paid him rent either in money, or in corn, cattle, and the usual produce of the soil. An ancient historian computes that his annual fixed income, besides escheats, fines, reliefs, and other casual profits to a great value, amounted to near four hundred thousand pounds a year;[***] a sum which, if all circumstances be attended to, will appear wholly incredible. A pound in that age, as we have already observed, contained three times the weight of silver that it does at present; and the same weight of silver, by the most probable computation, would purchase near ten times more of the necessaries of life, though not in the same proportion of the finer manufactures. This revenue, therefore, of William, would be equal to at least nine or ten millions at present; and as that prince had neither fleet nor army to support, the former being only an occasional expense, and the latter being maintained, without any charge to him, by his military vassals, we must thence conclude that no emperor or prince, in any age or nation, can be compared to the Conqueror for opulence and riches. This leads us to suspect a great mistake in the computation of the historian; though, if we consider that avarice is always imputed to William as one of his vices, and that, having by the sword rendered himself master of all the lands in the kingdom, he would certainly, in the partition, retain a great proportion for his own share, we can scarcely be guilty of any error in asserting, that perhaps no king of England was ever more opulent, was more able to support by his revenue the splendor and magnificence of a court, or could bestow more on his pleasures, or in liberalities to his servants and favorites.[****]

The king was naturally a great economist; and even though no prince had ever been more generous to his officers and servants, it was simply because he had made himself the universal owner of England and had an entire kingdom to give away. He kept a substantial income for the crown; and in the general sharing of land among his followers, he retained no less than one thousand four hundred and twenty-two manors in various parts of England,[**] which paid him rent either in money, or in grain, livestock, and the usual products of the land. An ancient historian estimates that his annual fixed income, besides profits from escheats, fines, reliefs, and other random profits of significant value, amounted to nearly four hundred thousand pounds a year;[***] an amount which, when all factors are considered, seems almost unbelievable. A pound in that time, as we have already noted, contained three times the weight of silver that it does today; and the same weight of silver, according to the best estimates, would buy nearly ten times more of life's necessities, though not in the same ratio for finer goods. Therefore, this revenue of William would be equal to at least nine or ten million today; and since that prince had neither a navy nor an army to fund, the former being a rare expense, and the latter being maintained without cost to him by his military vassals, we must conclude that no emperor or prince, in any age or nation, can compare to the Conqueror in wealth and riches. This makes us question a significant error in the historian's calculations; though, if we consider that greed is often attributed to William as one of his flaws, and that, having taken control of all the land in the kingdom by force, he would certainly retain a large share for himself in the distribution, we can hardly be wrong in saying that perhaps no king of England was ever wealthier, better able to sustain the grandeur and magnificence of a court, or able to spend more on his pleasures or in generosity towards his servants and favorites.[****]

     [* Ingulph. p. 8.]

     [** West’s Inquiry into the Manner of creating
     Peers, p. 24.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 523. He says, one thousand
     and sixty pounds and some odd shillings and pence a day.]

     [**** Fortescue, de Dom. Reg. el Politic, cap.
     111.]
     [* Ingulph. p. 8.]

     [** West’s Inquiry into the Manner of Creating
     Peers, p. 24.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 523. He says, one thousand
     sixty pounds and some extra shillings and pence a day.]

     [**** Fortescue, de Dom. Reg. et Politic, cap.
     111.]

There was one pleasure to which William, as well as all the Normans and ancient Saxons, was extremely addicted, and that was hunting; but this pleasure he indulged more at the expense of his unhappy subjects, whose interests he always disregarded, than to the loss or diminution of his own revenue. Not content with those large forests which former kings possessed in all parts of England, he resolved to make a new forest near Winchester, the usual place of his residence; and for that purpose, he laid waste the country in Hampshire for an extent of thirty miles, expelled the inhabitants from their houses, seized their property, even demolished churches and convents, and made the sufferers no compensation for the injury.[*] At the same time, he enacted new laws, by which he prohibited all his subjects from hunting in any of his forests, and rendered the penalties more severe than ever had been inflicted for such offences. The killing of a deer or boar, or even a hare, was punished with the loss of the delinquent’s eyes; and that at a time when the killing of a man could be atoned for by paying a moderate fine or composition.

There was one pleasure that William, along with all the Normans and ancient Saxons, was really hooked on, and that was hunting. But he enjoyed this pastime at the expense of his unhappy subjects, whose needs he always ignored, rather than to the detriment of his own income. Not satisfied with the large forests that previous kings owned throughout England, he decided to create a new forest near Winchester, his usual residence. To do this, he devastated the land in Hampshire over an area of thirty miles, drove people out of their homes, seized their property, even destroyed churches and convents, and offered no compensation for the damage.[*] At the same time, he implemented new laws that banned all his subjects from hunting in any of his forests, and made the penalties harsher than ever before for such offenses. Killing a deer or boar, or even a hare, was punished by having the offender lose their eyes; and this was during a time when killing a man could be resolved by paying a reasonable fine or compensation.

     [* W. Malms, p. 3. H. Hunting, p. 731. Anglia
     Sacra, vol. i. p. 258]
     [* W. Malms, p. 3. H. Hunting, p. 731. Anglia
     Sacra, vol. i. p. 258]

The transactions recorded during the remainder of this reign may be considered more as domestic occurrences, which concern the prince, than as national events, which regard England. Odo, bishop of Baieux, the king’s uterine brother, whom he had created earl of Kent, and intrusted with a great share of power during his whole reign, had amassed immense riches; and agreeably to the usual progress of human wishes, he began to regard his present acquisitions but as a step to further grandeur. He had formed the chimerical project of buying the papacy; and though Gregory, the reigning pope, was not of advanced years, the prelate had confided so much in the predictions of an astrologer, that he reckoned upon the pontiff’s death, and upon attaining, by his own intrigues and money, that envied state of greatness. Resolving, therefore, to remit all his riches to Italy, he had persuaded many considerable barons, and among the rest Hugh, earl of Chester, to take the same course; in hopes that, when he should mount the papal throne, he would bestow on them more considerable establishments in that country. The king, from whom all these projects had been carefully concealed, at last got intelligence of the design, and ordered Odo to be arrested. His officers, from respect to the immunities which the ecclesiastics now assumed, scrupled to execute the command, till the king himself was obliged in person to seize him; and when Odo insisted that he was a prelate, and exempt from all temporal jurisdiction, William replied, that he arrested him, not as bishop of Baieux, but as earl of Kent. He was sent prisoner to Normandy; and notwithstanding the remonstrances and menaces of Gregory, was detained in custody during the remainder of this reign.

The events recorded during the rest of this reign can be seen more as personal matters involving the prince rather than national events concerning England. Odo, Bishop of Bayeux, the king’s half-brother, whom he had made Earl of Kent and trusted with significant power throughout his reign, had accumulated vast wealth. Following the usual human tendency, he began to view his current gains as just a stepping stone to greater ambitions. He had come up with the fanciful idea of purchasing the papacy; although Gregory, the reigning pope, was not old, the bishop was so convinced by an astrologer's predictions that he expected the pope to die soon and believed he could achieve that coveted position through his own schemes and wealth. Therefore, he decided to send all his riches to Italy and had encouraged many prominent lords, including Hugh, Earl of Chester, to follow his lead, hoping that once he was pope, he would grant them more significant positions in Italy. The king, who had been kept in the dark about all these plans, eventually learned of the scheme and ordered Odo's arrest. His officers hesitated to carry out the order due to the privileges that ecclesiastics had started to claim, forcing the king to personally apprehend him. When Odo insisted that he was a bishop and exempt from any secular authority, William responded that he was arresting him not as the Bishop of Bayeux but as the Earl of Kent. He was imprisoned in Normandy, and despite Gregory's protests and threats, he remained in custody for the rest of the reign.

1083.

1083.

Another domestic event gave the king much more concern: it was the death of Matilda, his consort, whom he tenderly loved, and for whom he had ever preserved the most sincere friendship. Three years afterwards he passed into Normandy, and carried with him Edgar Atheling, to whom he willingly granted permission to make a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. He was detained on the continent by a misunderstanding which broke out between him and the king of France, and which was occasioned by inroads made into Normandy by some French barons on the frontiers.

Another domestic event caused the king a lot of worry: it was the death of Matilda, his wife, whom he loved deeply and had always treated with sincere friendship. Three years later, he went to Normandy and brought Edgar Atheling with him, allowing him to go on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land. He was held up on the continent due to a misunderstanding that arose between him and the king of France, caused by some French barons invading Normandy on the borders.

1087.

1087.

It was little in the power of princes at that time to restrain their licentious nobility; but William suspected, that these barons durst not have provoked his indignation, had they not been assured of the countenance and protection of Philip. His displeasure was increased by the account he received of some railleries which that monarch had thrown out against him. William, who was become corpulent, had been detained in bed some time by sickness; upon which Philip expressed his surprise that his brother of England should be so long in being delivered of his big belly. The king sent him word, that, as soon as he was up, he would present so many lights at Notre-dame, as would perhaps give little pleasure to the king of France; alluding to the usual practice at that time of women after childbirth. Immediately on his recovery, he led an army into L’Isle de France, and laid every thing waste with fire and sword. He took the town of Mante, which he reduced to ashes. But the progress of these hostilities was stopped by an accident which soon after put an end to William’s life. His horse starting aside of a sudden, he bruised his belly on the pommel of the saddle; and being in a bad habit of body, as well as somewhat advanced in years, he began to apprehend the consequences, and ordered himself to be carried in a litter to the monastery of St Gervas. Finding his illness increase, and being sensible of the approach of death, he discovered at last the vanity of all human grandeur, and was struck with remorse for those horrible cruelties and acts of violence, which, in the attainment and defence of it, he had committed during the course of his reign over England. He endeavored to make atonement by presents to churches and monasteries; and he issued orders that Earl Morcar, Siward, Bearne, and other English prisoners, should be set at liberty. He was even prevailed on, though not without reluctance, to consent, with his dying breath, to release his brother Odo, against whom he was extremely incensed. He left Normandy and Maine to his eldest son, Robert: he wrote to Lanfranc, desiring him to crown William king of England; he bequeathed to Henry nothing but the possessions of his mother, Matilda; but foretold that he would one day surpass both his brothers in power and opulence. He expired in the sixty-third year of his age, in the twenty-first year of his reign over England, and in the fifty-fourth of that over Normandy.

It was hard for princes at that time to control their unruly nobility, but William suspected that these barons wouldn’t have dared to provoke his anger if they weren’t sure of Philip’s support. His displeasure grew when he heard about some taunts that Philip had thrown his way. William, who had become quite overweight, had been stuck in bed for some time due to illness; during this, Philip expressed surprise that his brother in England was taking so long to get rid of his big belly. The king sent word that as soon as he was up, he would light so many candles at Notre-Dame that they might not please the king of France, referencing the common practice of women lighting candles after giving birth. As soon as he recovered, he led an army into L’Isle de France and laid waste to everything with fire and sword. He took the town of Mante and reduced it to ashes. However, these hostilities were halted by an accident that soon ended William’s life. His horse suddenly reared, and he bruised his belly on the pommel of the saddle; since he was not in good health and was somewhat advanced in age, he began to worry about the consequences and had himself carried in a litter to the monastery of St. Gervas. As his illness worsened and he realized death was near, he finally understood the futility of all human grandeur and felt remorse for the terrible cruelties and acts of violence he had committed during his reign in England. He tried to atone by giving gifts to churches and monasteries and ordered that Earl Morcar, Siward, Bearne, and other English prisoners be freed. He was even persuaded, though reluctantly, to agree, with his last breath, to release his brother Odo, whom he was extremely angry with. He left Normandy and Maine to his eldest son, Robert; he wrote to Lanfranc, asking him to crown William king of England; he left Henry only their mother Matilda’s possessions but predicted that Henry would one day surpass both his brothers in power and wealth. He died in his sixty-third year, in the twenty-first year of his reign over England, and in the fifty-fourth year of his reign over Normandy.

Few princes have been more fortunate than this great monarch, or were better entitled to grandeur and prosperity, from the abilities and the vigor of mind which he displayed in all his conduct. His spirit was bold and enterprising, yet guided by prudence; his ambition, which was exorbitant, and lay little under the restraints of justice, still less under those of humanity, ever submitted to the dictates of sound policy. Born in an age when the minds of men were intractable, and unacquainted with submission, he was yet able to direct them to his purposes, and, partly from the ascendant of his vehement character, partly from art and dissimulation, to establish an unlimited authority. Though not insensible to generosity, he was hardened against compassion; and he seemed equally ostentatious and equally ambitious of show and parade in his clemency and in his severity. The maxims of his administration were austere, but might have been useful, had they been solely employed to preserve order in an established government:[*] they were ill calculated for softening the rigors which, under the most gentle management, are inseparable from conquest.

Few princes have been as fortunate as this great monarch, or more deserving of greatness and success, thanks to the skills and mental sharpness he showed in all his actions. His spirit was bold and adventurous, yet guided by careful judgment; his ambition, which was excessive and often disregarded justice and humanity, still adhered to the principles of sound policy. Born in a time when people's minds were difficult and unwilling to submit, he managed to steer them toward his goals, partly due to the strength of his passionate character and partly through manipulation and deceit, establishing an absolute authority. While he wasn't oblivious to generosity, he was tough against compassion; he appeared both flashy and ambitious for display and ceremony in his kindness and his harshness. The principles of his administration were strict but could have been effective if used solely to maintain order in an established government: they were poorly suited for alleviating the harshness that, even under the gentlest management, comes with conquest.

     [* M. West. p. 230. Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p. 258.]
     [* M. West. p. 230. Anglia Sacra, vol. i. p. 258.]

His attempt against England was the last great enterprise of the kind, which, during the course of seven hundred years, has fully succeeded in Europe, and the force of his genius broke through those limits which first the feudal institutions, chen the refined policy of princes, have fixed to the several states of Christendom. Though he rendered himself infinitely odious to his English subjects, he transmitted his power to his posterity, and the throne is still filled by his descendants; a proof that the foundations which he laid were firm and solid, and that, amidst all his violence, while he seemed only to gratify the present passion, he had still an eye towards futurity.

His attempt against England was the last major undertaking of its kind, which, over seven hundred years, had achieved success in Europe. The power of his genius broke through the boundaries that the feudal system and then the sophisticated strategies of rulers had established for the various states of Christendom. Even though he made himself extremely unpopular with his English subjects, he secured his power for his descendants, and the throne is still held by his family; this demonstrates that the foundations he laid were strong and solid. Despite all his brutality, while he seemed only to satisfy his immediate impulses, he still had an eye on the future.

Some writers have been desirous of refusing to this prince the title of conqueror, in the sense which that term commonly bears; and on pretence that the word is sometimes in old books applied to such as make an acquisition of territory by any means, they are willing to reject William’s title, by right of war, to the crown of England. It is needless to enter, into a controversy, which, by the terms of it, must necessarily degenerate into a dispute of words. It suffices to say, that the duke of Normandy’s first invasion of the island was hostile; that his subsequent administration was entirely supported by arms; that in the very frame of his laws he made a distinction between the Normans and English, to the advantage of the former;[*] that he acted in every thing as absolute master over the natives, whose interests and affections he totally disregarded; and that if there was an interval when he assumed the appearance of a legal sovereign, the period was very short, and was nothing but a temporary Sacrifice, which he, as has been the case with most conquerors, was obliged to make, of his inclination to his present policy.

Some writers have wanted to deny this prince the title of conqueror in its usual sense. They argue that the term is sometimes used in old books to refer to anyone who takes territory by any means, so they are willing to dismiss William’s claim to the crown of England by right of war. There's no need to engage in a debate that will just become a matter of semantics. It's enough to say that the Duke of Normandy’s first invasion of the island was aggressive; his following rule was completely enforced by military power. He even created laws that favored the Normans over the English; he acted with total authority over the locals, ignoring their interests and feelings. Any time he appeared as a legal sovereign was very brief and just a temporary compromise he had to make, as most conquerors do, between his desires and his current strategy.

     [* Hoveden, p. 600.]
[* Hoveden, p. 600.]

Scarce any of those revolutions, which, both in history and in common language, have always been denominated conquests, appear equally violent, or were attended with so sudden an alteration both of power and property. The Roman state, which spread its dominion over Europe, left the rights of individuals in a great measure untouched; and those civilized conquerors, while they made their own country the seat of empire, found that they could draw most advantage from the subjected provinces, by securing to the natives the free enjoyment cf their own laws and of their private possessions. The barbarians who subdued the Roman empire, though they settled in the conquered countries, yet being accustomed to a rude, uncultivated life, found a part only of the land sufficient to supply all their wants; and they were not tempted to seize extensive possessions, which they knew neither how to cultivate nor enjoy. But the Normans and other foreigners who followed the standard of William while they made the vanquished kingdom the seat of government, were yet so far advanced in arts as to be acquainted with the advantages of a large property; and having totally subdued the natives, they pushed the rights of conquest (very extensive in the eyes of avarice and ambition, however narrow in those of reason) to the utmost extremity against them. Except the former conquest of England by the Saxons themselves, who were induced, by peculiar circumstances, to proceed even to the extermination of the natives, it would be difficult to find in all history a revolution more destructive, or attended with a more complete subjection of the ancient inhabitants. Contumely seems even co have been wantonly added to oppression;[*] and the natives were universally reduced to such a state of meanness and poverty, that the English, name became a term of reproach; and several generations elapsed before one family of Saxon pedigree was raised to any considerable honors, or could so much as attain the rank of baron of the realm.[**] These facts are so apparent from the whole tenor of the English history, that none would have been tempted to deny or elude them, were they no heated by the controversies of faction; while one party was absurdly afraid of those absurd consequences which they saw the other party inclined to draw from this event. But it is evident that the present rights and privileges of the people, who are a mixture of English and Normans, can never be affected by a transaction which passed seven hundred years ago; and as all ancient authors,[***] 12 who lived nearest the time, and best knew the state of the country, unanimously speak of the Norman dominion as a conquest by war and arms, no reasonable man, from the fear of imaginary consequences, will ever be tempted to reject their concurring and undoubted testimony.

Few of those revolutions, which have always been called conquests in both history and common language, seem as violent or brought about such a sudden change in both power and property. The Roman state, which extended its control over Europe, largely left individual rights untouched. Those civilized conquerors, while making their country the center of their empire, realized that they could gain the most from the conquered provinces by allowing the locals to freely enjoy their own laws and property. The barbarians who conquered the Roman Empire, although they settled in the lands they took, were used to a rough, uncultivated lifestyle and found that just a part of the land was enough to meet their needs; they weren't inclined to take large tracts of land that they didn't know how to farm or enjoy. But the Normans and other foreigners who followed William's banner, while turning the defeated kingdom into their government seat, were advanced enough in culture to recognize the benefits of owning large properties; and after fully conquering the locals, they stretched the rights of conquest—widespread in the eyes of greed and ambition, though narrow in reason—to their absolute limits against them. Aside from the earlier conquest of England by the Saxons, who, due to specific circumstances, even pursued the elimination of the native population, it’s hard to find in all history a revolution more devastating or leading to such complete dominance over the former inhabitants. Humiliation seemed to be deliberately added to oppression; and the locals were universally brought to such a state of degradation and poverty that the term "English" became a label of shame; and it took several generations before any Saxon family rose to significant honors or even achieved the status of a baron in the realm. These facts are so clear from the entire history of England that no one would have dared to deny or avoid them if not for the heated factions; one side absurdly fearing the ridiculous consequences they perceived the other side drawing from this event. But it's clear that the current rights and privileges of the people, who are a mix of English and Normans, can never be impacted by a transaction that occurred seven hundred years ago; and since all ancient authors, who lived closest to the time and understood the state of the country, unanimously describe the Norman rule as a conquest by war and arms, no reasonable person, out of fear of imagined consequences, would ever dismiss their consistent and undeniable testimony.

     [* H. Hunting, p. 370. Brompton, p. 980.]

     [** So late as the reign of King Stephen, the earl
     of Albemarle, before the battle of the Standard, addressed
     the officers of his army in these terms: “Proceres Angliae
     clarissimi, et genere Normanni, etc.” Brompton, p. 1026. See,
     further, Abbas Rieval, p. 339, etc All the barons and
     military men of England still called themselves Normans.]

     [*** See note L. at the end of the volume.]
     [* H. Hunting, p. 370. Brompton, p. 980.]

     [** As recently as the reign of King Stephen, the earl of Albemarle, before the battle of the Standard, spoke to his army's officers in these words: “The most distinguished nobles of England, of Norman descent, etc.” Brompton, p. 1026. For more information, see Abbas Rieval, p. 339, etc. All the barons and military leaders of England still referred to themselves as Normans.]

     [*** See note L. at the end of the volume.]

King William had issue, besides his three sons who survived him, five daughters, to wit, first, Cicily, a nun in the monastery of Feschamp, afterwards abbess in the Holy Trinity at Caen, where she died in 1127. Second, Constantia, married to Alan Fergant, earl of Brittany: she died without issue. Third Alice, contracted to Harold. Fourth, Adela, married to Stephen, earl of Blois, by whom she had four sons, William, Theobold, Henry, and Stephen; of whom the elder was neglected, on account of the imbecility of his understanding. Fifth, Agatha, who died a virgin; but was betrothed to the king of Gallicia. She died on her journey thither before she joined her bridegroom.

King William had, in addition to his three surviving sons, five daughters. First, Cicily, a nun at the monastery of Feschamp, later became abbess at the Holy Trinity in Caen, where she died in 1127. Second, Constantia was married to Alan Fergant, the earl of Brittany; she died without children. Third, Alice was engaged to Harold. Fourth, Adela was married to Stephen, the earl of Blois, and they had four sons: William, Theobold, Henry, and Stephen; the eldest was overlooked due to his limited abilities. Fifth, Agatha died a virgin; she was promised to the king of Galicia but passed away on her way there before she could meet her fiancé.





CHAPTER V.

081.jpg William II.




WILLIAM RUFUS.

Contemporary Monarchs

     EMP. OF GERM.   KINGS OF SCOTLAND.       K. OF FRANCE.  K. OF SPAIN.
     Henry IV.       Malcolm III       1093     Philip I.    Alphonso VI.
                     Donald Bane, dep  1091
                     Duncan            1094
                     Donald Bane       1097
                     Edgar.

     POPES.
     Urban II.    1099
     Paschal II.
     EMP. OF GERM.   KINGS OF SCOTLAND.       K. OF FRANCE.  K. OF SPAIN.
     Henry IV.       Malcolm III       1093     Philip I.    Alphonso VI.
                     Donald Bane, dep  1091
                     Duncan            1094
                     Donald Bane       1097
                     Edgar.

     POPES.
     Urban II.    1099
     Paschal II.

1087.

1087.

WILLIAM, surnamed Rufus, or the Red, from the color of his hair, had no sooner procured his father’s recommendatory letter to Lanfranc, the primate, than he hastened to take measures for securing to himself the government of England. Sensible that a deed so unformal, and so little prepared, which violated Robert’s right of promigeniture, might meet with great opposition, he trusted entirely for success to his own celerity; and having left St. Gervas while William was breathing his last, he arrived in England before intelligence of his father’s death had reached that kingdom.[*] Pretending orders from the king, he secured the fortresses of Dover, Pevensey, and Hastings, whose situation rendered them of the greatest importance; and he got possession of the royal treasure at Winchester, amounting to the sum of sixty thousand pounds, by which he hoped to encourage and increase his partisans,[**] The primate, whose rank and reputation in the kingdom gave him great authority, had been intrusted with the care of his education, and had conferred on him the honor of knighthood;[***] and being connected with him by these ties, and probably deeming his pretensions just, declared that he would pay a willing obedience to the last will of the Conqueror, his friend and benefactor. Having assembled some bishops and some of the principal nobility, he instantly proceeded to the ceremony of crowning the new king;[****] and by this despatch endeavored to prevent all faction and resistance. At the same time, Robert, who had been already acknowledged successor to Normandy, took peaceable possession of that duchy.

WILLIAM, nicknamed Rufus or the Red because of his hair color, quickly got his father’s letter of recommendation to Lanfranc, the archbishop, and rushed to secure control of England for himself. Knowing that such an informal act, which disregarded Robert’s right of primogeniture, could face significant opposition, he relied solely on his speed for success. After leaving St. Gervas while William was dying, he reached England before news of his father’s death arrived there.[*] Claiming to have orders from the king, he took control of the fortresses in Dover, Pevensey, and Hastings, which were crucially positioned. He also seized the royal treasury in Winchester, amounting to sixty thousand pounds, hoping to attract and strengthen his supporters.[**] The archbishop, whose status and reputation gave him considerable influence, had been responsible for William's education and had knighted him;[***] feeling connected to him and likely considering his claims valid, he stated that he would willingly obey the last wishes of the Conqueror, his friend and benefactor. He gathered some bishops and key nobles and promptly proceeded with the crowning ceremony for the new king;[****] this swift action aimed to thwart any opposition or resistance. Meanwhile, Robert, who had already been recognized as the heir to Normandy, quietly took possession of that duchy.

     [* W. Malms, p. 120. M. Paris, p. 10.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 192. Brompton, p. 983.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 120. M. Paris, p. 10. Thorn.
     Rudborne, p. 263]

     [**** Hoveden, p. 461.]
     [* W. Malms, p. 120. M. Paris, p. 10.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 192. Brompton, p. 983.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 120. M. Paris, p. 10. Thorn.
     Rudborne, p. 263]

     [**** Hoveden, p. 461.]

But though this partition appeared to have been made without any violence or opposition, there remained in England many causes of discontent, which seemed to menace that kingdom with a sudden revolution. The barons, who generally possessed large estates both in England and in Normandy, were uneasy at the separation of those territories; and foresaw that, as it would be impossible for them to preserve long their allegiance to two masters, they must necessarily resign either their ancient patrimony or their new acquisitions.[*]

But even though this division seemed to happen without any violence or resistance, there were many reasons for discontent in England that threatened to lead to a sudden revolution. The barons, who usually owned large estates in both England and Normandy, were worried about the separation of those lands; they realized that, since it would be impossible for them to remain loyal to two rulers for long, they would eventually have to give up either their old inheritance or their new holdings.[*]

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 666.]
[* Order. Vitalis, p. 666.]

Robert’s title to the duchy they esteemed incontestable; his claim to the kingdom plausible; and they all desired that this prince, who alone had any pretensions to unite these states, should be put in possession of both. A comparison also of the personal qualities of the two brothers led them to give the preference to the elder. The duke was brave, open, sincere, generous: even his predominant faults, his extreme indolence and facility, were not disagreeable to those haughty barons, who affected independence, and submitted with reluctance to a vigorous administration in their sovereign. The king, though equally brave, was violent, haughty, tyrannical; and seemed disposed to govern more by the fear than by the love of his subjects. Odo, bishop of Baieux, and Robert, earl of Mortaigne, maternal brothers of the Conqueror, envying the great credit of Lanfranc, which was increased by his late services enforced all these motives with their partisans, and engaged them in a formal conspiracy to dethrone the king. They communicated their design to Eustace, count of Boulogne Roger, earl of Shrewsbury and Arundel, Robert de Belesme, his eldest son, William, bishop of Durham, Robert de Moubray, Roger Bigod, Hugh de Grentmesnil; and they easily procured the assent of these potent noblemen. The conspirators, retiring to their castles, hastened to put themselves in a military posture; and expecting to be soon supported by a powerful army from Normandy, they had already begun hostilities in many places.

Robert’s claim to the duchy was seen as undeniable; his claim to the kingdom was believable; and everyone wanted this prince, who was the only one with a right to unite these states, to have both. They also favored the elder brother based on their personal qualities. The duke was brave, straightforward, honest, and generous: even his major flaws, his extreme laziness and willingness to go along with others, were not off-putting to those proud barons, who valued their independence but reluctantly accepted a strong leadership from their ruler. The king, while equally brave, was hot-headed, arrogant, and tyrannical; he seemed to prefer ruling through fear rather than earning the love of his subjects. Odo, the bishop of Bayeux, and Robert, the earl of Mortaigne, who were the maternal brothers of the Conqueror, envied the considerable influence of Lanfranc, which had grown due to his recent services, and pushed all these reasons with their supporters, drawing them into a formal plot to depose the king. They shared their plan with Eustace, the count of Boulogne, Roger, the earl of Shrewsbury and Arundel, Robert de Belesme, his eldest son, William, bishop of Durham, Robert de Moubray, Roger Bigod, and Hugh de Grentmesnil; and they quickly secured the agreement of these powerful nobles. The conspirators, retreating to their castles, rushed to organize themselves for battle; and anticipating support from a strong army in Normandy, they had already started military actions in various locations.

The king, sensible of his perilous situation, endeavored to engage the affections of the native English, As that people were now so thoroughly subdued that they no longer aspired to the recovery of their ancient liberties, and were content with the prospect of some mitigation in ihe tyranny of the Norman princes, they zealously embraced William’s cause, upon receiving general promises of good treatment, and of enjoying the license of hunting in the royal forests. The king was soon in a situation to take the field; and as he knew the danger of delay, he suddenly marched into Kent, where his uncles had already seized the fortresses of Pevensey and Rochester. These places he successively reduced by famine; and though he was prevailed on by the earl of Chester, William de Warrenne, and Robert Fitz-Hammon, who had embraced his cause, to spare the lives of the rebels, he confiscated all their estates, and banished them the kingdom.[*] This success gave authority to his negotiations with Roger, earl of Shewsbury, whom he detached from the confederates; and as his powerful fleet, joined to the indolent conduct of Robert, prevented the arrival of the Norman succors, all the other rebels found no resource but in flight or submission. Some of them received a pardon; but the greater part were attainted; and the king bestowed their estates on the Norman barons who had remained faithful to him.

The king, aware of his dangerous situation, tried to win over the loyalty of the native English. Since that people had been so completely subdued that they no longer aimed to regain their ancient freedoms, and were content with the hope of some relief from the tyranny of the Norman princes, they eagerly supported William's cause after receiving general promises of fair treatment and the right to hunt in the royal forests. The king quickly prepared to take action, knowing that delaying would be risky. He suddenly marched into Kent, where his uncles had already seized the fortresses of Pevensey and Rochester. He gradually captured these places by starving them out; although he was persuaded by the Earl of Chester, William de Warrenne, and Robert Fitz-Hammon, who had joined his side, to spare the lives of the rebels, he confiscated all their lands and banished them from the kingdom. This success bolstered his negotiations with Roger, Earl of Shrewsbury, whom he managed to separate from the confederates. Meanwhile, his strong fleet, combined with Robert's inactive actions, prevented any Norman reinforcements from arriving, leaving the other rebels with no choice but to flee or surrender. Some received pardons, but most were declared traitors, and the king granted their estates to the Norman barons who had remained loyal to him.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 195. Order. Vitalis, p. 668.]
[* Chron. Sax. p. 195. Order. Vitalis, p. 668.]

1089.

1089.

William, freed from the danger of these insurrections, took little care of fulfilling his promises to the English, who still found themselves exposed to the same oppressions which they had undergone during the reign of the Conqueror, and which were rather augmented by the violent, impetuous temper of the present monarch. The death of Lanfranc, who retained great influence over him, gave soon after a full career to his tyranny; and all orders of men found reason to complain of an arbitrary and illegal administration. Even the privileges of the church, held sacred in those days, were a feeble rampart against his usurpations. He seized the temporalities of all the vacant bishoprics and abbeys; he delayed the appointing of successors to those dignities, that he might the longer enjoy the profits of their revenue; he bestowed some of the church lands in property on his captains and favorites; and he openly set to sale such sees and abbeys as he thought proper to dispose of. Though the murmurs of the ecclesiastics, which were quickly propagated to the nation, rose high against this grievance, the terror of William’s authority, confirmed by the suppression of the late insurrections, retained everyone in subjection, and preserved general tranquillity in England.

William, relieved from the threat of these uprisings, paid little attention to keeping his promises to the English, who still faced the same oppressions they had suffered during the Conqueror's reign, and these were worsened by the violent, impulsive nature of the current king. The death of Lanfranc, who had significant influence over him, soon allowed his tyranny to flourish; every social class had reasons to complain about an arbitrary and unlawful government. Even the church's privileges, which were considered sacred at that time, offered little protection against his takeovers. He took the properties of all the vacant bishoprics and abbeys; he delayed appointing successors to those positions so he could enjoy their revenues longer; he granted some church lands as property to his captains and favorites; and he openly sold off sees and abbeys that he decided to dispose of. Although the complaints from the clergy, which quickly spread to the general public, grew loud against this injustice, the fear of William’s power, bolstered by the quelling of the recent uprisings, kept everyone in line and maintained overall peace in England.

1090.

1090.

The king, even thought himself enabled to disturb his brother in the possession of Normandy. The loose and negligent administration of that prince had imboldened the Norman barons to affect a great independency; and their mutual quarrels and devastations had rendered that whole territory a scene of violence and outrage. Two of them, Walter and Odo, were bribed by William to deliver the fortresses of St. Valori and Albemarle into his hands: others soon after imitated the example of revolt, while Philip, king of France, who ought to have protected his vassal in the possession of his fief, was, after making some efforts in his favor, engaged by large presents to remain neuter. The duke had also reason to apprehend danger from the intrigues of his brother Henry.

The king believed he could disturb his brother's control over Normandy. The careless and lax administration of that prince had encouraged the Norman barons to seek greater independence, and their ongoing conflicts and destruction had turned the entire region into a scene of violence and chaos. Two of them, Walter and Odo, were bribed by William to hand over the fortresses of St. Valori and Albemarle to him. Others quickly followed their example of rebellion, while Philip, king of France, who should have protected his vassal's possession of his fief, was eventually persuaded by large gifts to stay neutral after making some attempts to help. The duke was also concerned about potential threats from his brother Henry's schemes.

This young prince, who had inherited nothing of his father’s great possessions but some of his money, has furnished Robert, while he was making his preparations against England, with ihe sum of three thousand marks; and in return for so slender a supply, had been put in possession of the Cotentin, which comprehended near a third of the duchy of Normandy. Robert afterwards, upon some suspicion, threw him into prison; but finding himself exposed to invasion from the king of England, ind dreading the conjunction of the two brothers against him, he now gave Henry his liberty, and even made use of his assistance in suppressing the insurrections of his rebellious subjects. Conan, a rich burgess of Rouen, had entered into a conspiracy to deliver that city to William; but Henry, on the detection of his guilt, carried the traitor up to a high tower and with his own hands flung him from the battlements.

This young prince, who inherited little of his father's vast wealth except for some money, provided Robert with three thousand marks while he was preparing to fight against England. In exchange for this small amount, he was given control of the Cotentin, which was about a third of the duchy of Normandy. Later, Robert, suspecting something, imprisoned him; but feeling threatened by an invasion from the King of England and fearing that the two brothers would join forces against him, he eventually freed Henry and even relied on his help to quash the uprisings of his rebellious subjects. Conan, a wealthy merchant from Rouen, had plotted to hand over the city to William; but when Henry uncovered his treachery, he took the traitor to a high tower and personally threw him off the battlements.

The king appeared in Normandy at the head of an army and affairs seemed to have come to extremity between the brothers, when the nobility on both sides, strongly connected by interest and alliances, interposed, and meditated an accommodation. The chief advantage of this treaty accrued to William, who obtained possession of the territory of Eu, the towns of Aumule, Fescamp, and other places; but in return he promised, that he would assist his brother in subduing Maine, which had rebelled; and that the Norman barons, attainted in Robert’s cause, should be restored to their estates in England. The two brothers also stipulated, that, on the demise of either without issue, the survivor should inherit all his dominions; and twelve of the most powerful barons on each side swore that they would employ their power to insure the effectual execution of the whole treaty,[*] a strong proof of the great independence and authority of the nobles in those ages.

The king showed up in Normandy leading an army, and it seemed like things were reaching a breaking point between the brothers, when the nobility from both sides, who were tightly linked by interests and alliances, stepped in and considered a compromise. The main benefit of this treaty went to William, who gained control of the territory of Eu, the towns of Aumule, Fescamp, and several other areas; in return, he promised to help his brother take over Maine, which had rebelled, and that the Norman barons who had been stripped of their titles for supporting Robert would get their lands back in England. The two brothers also agreed that if either of them died without heirs, the survivor would inherit all of his lands; and twelve of the most powerful barons from each side swore to use their power to ensure the full execution of the entire treaty,[*] which strongly demonstrates the significant independence and authority of the nobles during those times.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 197. W. Malms, p. 121. Hoveden,
     p. 462. M Paris, p. 11. Annul. Waverl. p. 137. W. Heming. p.
     463. Sum Dunelm. p. 216. Brompton, p. 986.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 197. W. Malms, p. 121. Hoveden,
     p. 462. M Paris, p. 11. Annul. Waverl. p. 137. W. Heming. p.
     463. Sum Dunelm. p. 216. Brompton, p. 986.]

Prince Henry, disgusted that so little care had been taken of his interests in this accommodation, retired to St. Michael’s Mount, a strong fortress on the coast of Normandy, and infested the neighborhood with his incursions. Robert and William, with their joint forces, besieged him in this place, and had nearly reduced him by the scarcity of water, when the elder, hearing of his distress, granted him permission to supply himself, and also sent him some pipes of wine for his own table. Being reproved by William for this ill-timed generosity, he replied, “What, shall I suffer my brother to die of thirst? Where shall we find another when he is gone?” The king also, during this siege, performed an act of generosity which was less suitable to his character. Riding out one day alone, to take a survey of the fortress, he was attacked by two soldiers, and dismounted. One of them drew his sword in order to despatch him, when the king exclaimed, “Hold, knave! I am the king of England.” The soldier suspended his blow and, raising the king from the ground with expressions of respect, received a handsome reward, and was taken into his service. Prince Henry was soon after obliged to capitulate; and being despoiled of all his patrimony, wandered about for some time with very few attendants, and often in great poverty.

Prince Henry, frustrated by the lack of attention to his needs in this arrangement, withdrew to St. Michael’s Mount, a stronghold on the coast of Normandy, and troubled the surrounding area with his attacks. Robert and William, with their combined forces, laid siege to him there and nearly forced him into submission due to a lack of water. When the elder brother learned of his plight, he granted Henry permission to fetch water and also sent him some barrels of wine for his table. When William criticized him for this poorly timed kindness, he replied, “What, should I let my brother die of thirst? Where will we find another when he's gone?” The king also showed unexpected generosity during this siege, which was uncharacteristic for him. One day, he rode out alone to inspect the fortress when he was ambushed by two soldiers and thrown off his horse. One soldier drew his sword to finish him off, but the king shouted, “Wait, fool! I’m the king of England.” The soldier stopped his attack, helped the king up with respect, received a generous reward, and was recruited into his service. Shortly after, Prince Henry had to surrender; stripped of all his inheritance, he wandered around for a while with very few followers and often in dire poverty.

1091.

1091.

The continued intestine discord among the barons was alone in that age destructive; the public wars were commonly short and feeble, produced little bloodshed, and were attended with no memorable event. To this Norman war, which was so soon concluded, there succeeded hostilities with Scotland, which were not of longer duration. Robert here Commanded his brother’s army, and obliged Malcolm to accept of peace, and do homage to the crown of England. This peace was not more durable.

The ongoing conflict among the barons during that time was particularly damaging; the public wars were generally brief and weak, causing minimal bloodshed and lacking any significant events. After this Norman war, which ended quickly, hostilities with Scotland followed, but they didn't last long either. Robert commanded his brother’s army and forced Malcolm to agree to peace and pledge loyalty to the crown of England. This peace didn’t last long either.

1093.

1093.

Malcolm, two years after, levying an army, invaded England; and after ravaging, Northumberland, he laid siege to Alnwick, where, a party of Earl Moubray’s troops falling upon him by surprise, a sharp action ensued in which Malcolm was slain. This incident interrupted for some years the regular succession to the Scottish crown, Though Malcolm left legitimate sons, his brother Donald, on account of the youth of these princes, was advanced to the throne; but kept not long possession of it. Duncan, natural son of Malcolm, formed a conspiracy against him; and being assisted by William with a small force, made himself master of the kingdom. New broils ensued with Normandy. The frank, open, remiss temper of Robert was ill fitted to withstand the interested, rapacious character of William, who, supported by greater power, was still encroaching on his brother’s possessions, and instigating his turbulent barons to rebellion against him. The king, having gone over to Normandy to support his partisans, ordered an army of twenty thousand men to be levied in England, and to be conducted to the sea-coast, as if they were instantly to be embarked.

Malcolm, two years later, raised an army and invaded England. After devastating Northumberland, he laid siege to Alnwick, where a group of Earl Moubray's soldiers attacked him unexpectedly, leading to a fierce battle in which Malcolm was killed. This event disrupted the regular succession to the Scottish crown for several years. Although Malcolm left behind legitimate sons, his brother Donald was placed on the throne due to the young age of these princes, but he didn't hold it for long. Duncan, the illegitimate son of Malcolm, plotted against him and, with the help of William and a small force, took control of the kingdom. New conflicts arose with Normandy. The straightforward and easygoing nature of Robert was poorly suited to counter the self-serving and greedy nature of William, who, backed by greater strength, continued to encroach on his brother's lands and incited his rebellious barons against him. The king, having traveled to Normandy to support his allies, ordered the raising of an army of twenty thousand men in England to be taken to the coast, as if they were about to be shipped out immediately.

1094.

1094.

Here Ralph Flambard, the king’s minister, and the chief instrument of his extortions, exacted ten shillings apiece from them, in lieu of their service, and then dismissed them into their several counties. This money was so skilfully employed by William that it rendered him better service than he could have expected from the army. He engaged the French king by new presents to depart from the protection of Robert; and he daily bribed the Norman barons to desert his service; but was prevented from pushing his advantages by an incursion of the Welsh, which obliged him to return to England, tie found no difficulty in repelling the enemy; but was not able to make any considerable impression on a country guarded by its mountainous situation. A conspiracy of his own barons which was detected at this time, appeared a more serious concern, and engrossed all his attention.

Here, Ralph Flambard, the king’s minister and the main executor of his extortions, charged them ten shillings each instead of their service, then sent them back to their respective counties. William used this money so cleverly that it served him better than he could have expected from an army. He persuaded the French king with new gifts to stop protecting Robert, and he continuously bribed the Norman barons to abandon his service; however, an invasion by the Welsh forced him to return to England. He had no trouble driving off the enemy, but he couldn’t make a significant impact on a land protected by its mountains. A conspiracy among his own barons that was uncovered at this time became a more serious concern and took up all his attention.

1095.

1095.

Robert Moubray, earl of Northumberland, was at the head of this combination; and he engaged in it the count d’Eu, Richard de Tunbridge, Roger de Lacy, and many others. The purpose of the conspirators was to dethrone the king, and to advance in his stead Stephen, count of Aumale, nephew to the Conqueror. William’s despatch prevented the design from taking effect, and disconcerted the conspirators. Moubray made some resistance; but being taken prisoner, was attainted and thrown into confinement, where he died about thirty years after.

Robert Moubray, the earl of Northumberland, led this group, which included Count d’Eu, Richard de Tunbridge, Roger de Lacy, and many others. The conspirators aimed to overthrow the king and replace him with Stephen, Count of Aumale, who was the nephew of the Conqueror. William's quick actions thwarted their plan and unsettled the plotters. Moubray put up some fight, but after being captured, he was declared a traitor and imprisoned, where he died about thirty years later.

1096.

1096.

The count d’Eu denied his concurrence in the plot, and to justify himself, fought, in the presence of the court at Windsor, a duel with Geoffrey Bainard, who accused him. But being worsted in the combat, he was condemned to be castrated, and to have his eyes put out. William de Alderi, another conspirator, was supposed to be treated with more rigor when he was sentenced to be hanged.

The Count d'Eu denied his involvement in the plot, and to prove his innocence, he fought a duel in front of the court at Windsor against Geoffrey Bainard, who had accused him. However, since he lost the fight, he was sentenced to be castrated and to have his eyes removed. William de Alderi, another conspirator, was expected to face even harsher punishment when he was sentenced to hang.

But the noise of these petty wars and commotions was quite sunk in the tumult of the crusades, which now engrossed the attention of Europe, and have ever since engaged the curiosity of mankind, as the most signal and most durable monument of human folly that has yet appeared in any age or nation. After Mahomet had, by means of his pretended revelations, united the dispersed Arabians under one head, they issued forth from their deserts in great multitudes; and being animated with zeal for their new religion, and supported by the vigor of their new government, they made deep impression on the eastern empire, which was far in the decline with regard both to military discipline and to civil policy. Jerusalem, by its situation, became one of their most early conquests; and the Christians had the mortification to see the holy sepulchre, and the other places consecrated by the presence of their religious founder, fallen into the possession of infidels. But the Arabians or Saracens were so employed in military enterprises, by which they spread their empire, in a few years, from the banks of the Ganges to the Straits of Gibraltar, that they had no leisure for theological controversy; and though the Alcoran, the original monument of their faith, seems to contain some violent precepts, they were much less infected with the spirit of bigotry and persecution than the indolent and speculative Greeks, who were continually refining on the several articles of their religious system. They gave little disturbance to those zealous pilgrims who daily flocked to Jerusalem; and they allowed every man, after paying a moderate tribute, to visit the holy sepulchre, to perform his religious duties, and so return in peace. But the Turcomans or Turks, a tribe of Tartars, who had embraced Mahometanism, having wrested Syria from the Saracens, and having in the year 1065 made themselves masters of Jerusalem, rendered the pilgrimage much more difficult and dangerous to the Christians. The barbarity of their manners, and the confusions attending their unsettled government, exposed the pilgrims to many insults, robberies, and extortions; and these zealots, returning from their meritorious fatigues and sufferings, filled all Christendom with indignation against the infidels, who profaned the holy city by their presence, and derided the sacred mysteries in the very place of their completion. Gregory VII., among the other vast ideas which he entertained, had formed the design of uniting all the western Christians against the Mahometans; but the egregious and violent invasions of that pontiff on the civil power of princes had created him so many enemies, and had rendered his schemes so suspicious, that he was not able to make great progress in this undertaking. The work was reserved for a meaner instrument, whose low condition ir life exposed aim to no jealousy, and whose folly was well calculated to coincide with the prevailing principles of the times.

But the noise from these small wars and disturbances was completely drowned out by the chaos of the crusades, which had captured Europe's attention and have since intrigued people as one of the most notable and enduring examples of human foolishness in any era or nation. After Muhammad, through his claimed revelations, united the scattered Arabs under one leadership, they emerged from their deserts in large numbers. Driven by enthusiasm for their new faith and supported by their strengthened government, they significantly impacted the eastern empire, which was already declining in both military discipline and civil governance. Jerusalem, due to its location, became one of their earliest conquests, and Christians were disheartened to see the sacred site of the holy sepulchre, along with other places blessed by their religious founder, fall into the hands of non-believers. However, the Arabs or Saracens were so engaged in military campaigns that expanded their empire from the banks of the Ganges to the Straits of Gibraltar in just a few years, that they had little time for theological debates. Although the Quran, the foundational text of their faith, contains some harsh directives, they were less inclined towards bigotry and persecution than the lazy and contemplative Greeks, who kept refining their religious beliefs. They caused little trouble for the devout pilgrims who regularly traveled to Jerusalem; and after paying a reasonable tribute, allowed anyone to visit the holy sepulchre, fulfill their religious duties, and return home peacefully. But the Turcomans or Turks, a group of Tartars who had adopted Islam, took Syria from the Saracens and, in 1065, captured Jerusalem, making the pilgrimage much more difficult and perilous for Christians. Their barbaric behavior and the chaos of their unstable government made pilgrims vulnerable to many abuses, thefts, and extortions. Those zealots, returning from their honorable struggles and hardships, filled all of Christendom with outrage against the non-believers, who desecrated the sacred city with their presence and mocked the holy mysteries at the very site of their fulfillment. Pope Gregory VII, with many grand ideas, sought to unite all Western Christians against the Muslims, but his outrageous and forceful attacks on the authority of rulers had earned him many enemies and made his plans seem suspect, preventing him from making significant progress in this mission. The task was left to a lesser figure, whose lowly status spared him from envy, and whose foolishness was well-suited to align with the dominant ideas of the time.

Peter, commonly called the Hermit, a native of Amiens, in Picardy, had made the pilgrimage to Jerusalem. Being deeply affected with the dangers to which that act of piety now exposed the pilgrims, as well as with the instances of oppression under which the eastern Christians labored, he entertained the bold, and, in all appearance, impracticable project of leading into Asia, from the farthest extremities of the west, armies sufficient to subdue those potent and warlike nations which now held the holy city in subjection.[*] He proposed his views to Martin II., who filled the papal chair, and who, though sensible of the advantages which the head of the Christian religion must reap from a religious war, and though he esteemed the blind zeal of Peter a proper means for effecting the purpose,[**] resolved not to interpose his authority till he saw a greater probability of success. He summoned a council at Placentia, which consisted of four thousand ecclesiastics and thirty thousand seculars; and which was so numerous that no hall could contain the multitude, and it was necessary to hold the assembly in a plain.

Peter, often known as the Hermit, from Amiens in Picardy, had made a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. He was deeply moved by the dangers that this act of devotion now posed to the pilgrims, as well as by the oppression that eastern Christians suffered. He took on the bold, seemingly impossible idea of leading armies from the far reaches of the west into Asia to conquer the powerful, warlike nations that held the holy city captive. He presented his plans to Martin II., the pope at the time, who, while aware of the benefits that a religious war could bring to the head of the Christian faith, and seeing Peter's blind zeal as a useful means to achieve this goal, decided not to use his authority until he saw a better chance of success. He called a council in Placentia, which included four thousand clergy and thirty thousand laypeople, so large that no hall could contain the crowd, necessitating the assembly to be held in an open field.

     [* Gul. Tyrius, lib. i. cap. 11 M. Paria, p, 17.]

     [** Gul. Trrius, lib. i. cap. 13.]
     [* Gul. Tyrius, lib. i. cap. 11 M. Paria, p, 17.]

     [** Gul. Trrius, lib. i. cap. 13.]

The harangues of the pope, and of Peter himself, representing the dismal situation of their brethren in the East, and the indignity suffered by the Christian name, in allowing the holy city to remain in the hands of infidels, here found the minds of men so well prepared, that the whole multitude suddenly and violently declared for the war, and solemnly devoted themselves to perform this service, so meritorious, as they believed it, to God and religion.

The speeches from the pope and Peter himself, highlighting the bleak situation of their fellow Christians in the East and the shame of allowing the holy city to stay under the control of non-believers, resonated deeply with the people. As a result, the entire crowd rapidly and passionately rallied for war, pledging to dedicate themselves to this cause, which they viewed as a noble service to God and their faith.

But though Italy seemed thus to have zealously embraced the enterprise, Martin knew that, in order to insure success, it was necessary to enlist the greater and more warlike nations in the same engagement; and having previously exhorted Peter to visit the chief cities and sovereigns of Christendom, he summoned another council at Clermont, in Auvergne.[*] The fame of this great and pious design being now universally diffused, procured the attendance of the greatest prelates, nobles, and princes; and when the pope and the hermit renewed their pathetic exhortations, the whole assembly, as if impelled by an immediate inspiration, not moved by their preceeding impressions, exclaimed with one voice, “It is the will of God, It is the will of God”—words deemed so memorable and so much the result of a divine influence, that they were employed as the signal of rendezvous and battle in all the future exploits of those adventurers.[**] Men of all ranks flew to arms with the utmost ardor; and an exterior symbol too—a circumstance of chief moment,—was here chosen by the devoted combatants. The sign of the cross, which had been hitherto so much revered among Christians, and which, the more it was an object of reproach among the pagan world, was the more passionately cherished by them, became the badge of union, and was affixed to their right shoulder by all who enlisted themselves in this sacred warfare.[***]

But even though Italy seemed to have eagerly taken on the mission, Martin knew that to ensure success, it was essential to get the larger and more battle-ready nations involved too. After encouraging Peter to visit the main cities and rulers of Christendom, he called for another council at Clermont in Auvergne.[*] The news of this grand and pious plan spread widely, attracting the attendance of the most prominent prelates, nobles, and princes. When the pope and the hermit renewed their heartfelt pleas, the entire assembly, as if inspired by a higher force and not swayed by their previous feelings, shouted in unison, “It is the will of God, It is the will of God”—words considered so significant and believed to be driven by divine influence that they became the rallying cry for all future endeavors of those adventurers.[**] People from all walks of life rushed to arms with great enthusiasm; and an important external symbol was chosen by the dedicated fighters. The sign of the cross, which had long been revered among Christians and was even more passionately held onto as it faced scorn from the pagan world, became the emblem of unity and was worn on the right shoulder by all who joined this holy war.[***]

Europe was at this time sunk into profound ignorance and superstition. The ecclesiastics had acquired the greatest ascendant over the human mind; the people, who, being little restrained by honor, and less by law, abandoned themselves to the worst crimes and disorders, knew of no other expiation than the observances imposed on them by their spiritual pastors; and it was easy to represent the holy war as an equivalent for all penances,[****] and an atonement for every violation of justice and humanity.

Europe was deeply mired in ignorance and superstition during this time. The clergy held significant power over people's minds; the populace, being minimally held back by honor and even less by law, indulged in terrible crimes and chaos. They believed that the only way to absolve themselves was through the rituals enforced by their spiritual leaders. It was simple to portray the holy war as a substitute for all penances and a way to atone for any wrongdoing against justice and humanity.

     [* Concil. torn. x. Concil. Clarom. M. Paris, p.
     16. M. West, p. 233.]

     [** Historia Bell. Sacri, torn. i. Musaei Ital.]

     [*** Hist. Bell Sacri, tom. i. Mua. Ital. Order.
     Vitalis, p. 721.]

     [**** Order. Vitalis, p. 720.]
     [* Concil. torn. x. Concil. Clarom. M. Paris, p.
     16. M. West, p. 233.]

     [** Historia Bell. Sacri, torn. i. Musaei Ital.]

     [*** Hist. Bell Sacri, tom. i. Mua. Ital. Order.
     Vitalis, p. 721.]

     [**** Order. Vitalis, p. 720.]

But amidst the abject superstition which now prevailed, the military spirit also had universally diffused itself; and though not supported by art or discipline, was become the general passion of the nations governed by the feudal law. All the great lords possessed the right of peace and war: they were engaged in perpetual hostilities with each other: the open country was become a scene of outrage and disorder: the cities, still mean and poor, were neither guarded by walls nor protected by privileges, and were exposed to every insult: individuals were obliged to depend for safety on their own force, or their private alliances; and valor was the only excellence which was held in esteem, or gave one man the preeminence above another. When all the particular superstitions, therefore, were here united in one great object, the ardor for military enterprises took the same direction; and Europe, impelled by its two ruling passions, was loosened, as it were, from its foundations, and seemed to precipitate itself in one united body upon the East.

But amidst the widespread superstition that now existed, a military spirit had also become widely established; and although it wasn't backed by skill or training, it had become the general passion of the nations ruled by feudal law. All the powerful lords had the right to declare peace or war: they were constantly fighting with one another; the countryside had turned into a scene of chaos and violence: the cities, still small and impoverished, lacked protective walls and privileges, leaving them vulnerable to any insult: individuals had to rely on their own strength or personal alliances for safety; and bravery was the only quality that was valued or allowed one person to stand out from another. When all these individual superstitions were combined into one overarching belief, the desire for military campaigns took the same direction; and Europe, driven by its two main passions, seemed to break away from its foundations and rush as a united force toward the East.

All orders of men, deeming the crusades the only road to heaven, enlisted themselves under these sacred banners, and were impatient to open the way with their sword to the holy city. Nobles, artisans, peasants, even priests,[*] enrolled their names; and to decline this meritorious service was branded with the reproach of impiety, or, what perhaps was esteemed still more disgraceful, of cowardice and pusillanimity.[**] The infirm and aged contributed to the expedition by presents and money; and many of them, not satisfied with the merit of this atonement, attended it in person, and were determined, if possible, to breathe their last in sight of that city where their Savior had died for them. Women themselves, concealing their sex under the disguise of armor, attended the camp; and commonly forgot still more the duty of their sex, by prostituting themselves without reserve to the army.[***] The greatest criminals were forward in a service which they regarded as a propitiation for all crimes; and the most enormous disorders were, during the course of those expeditions, committed by men inured to wickedness, encouraged by example, and impelled by necessity. The multitude of the adventurers soon became so great, that their more sagacious leaders, Hugh, count of Vermandois, brother to the French king, Raymond, count of Toulouse, Godfrey of Bouillon, prince of Brabant, and Stephen, count of Blois,[****] became apprehensive lest the greatness itself of the armament should disappoint its purpose; and they permitted an undisciplined multitude, computed at three hundred thousand men, to go before them, under the command of Peter the Hermit, and Walter the Moneyless.[*****]

All kinds of people believed that the crusades were the only way to get to heaven, so they took up arms under these sacred banners and couldn’t wait to clear the path to the holy city with their swords. Nobles, craftsmen, peasants, and even priests signed up; refusing to join this noble cause was seen as unholy, or, even worse, as a sign of cowardice and weakness. The sick and elderly contributed to the campaign with gifts and money, and many of them, not content with just this, chose to join in person, hoping to die in sight of the city where their Savior had died for them. Women, disguising themselves in armor, also followed the army; they often abandoned their roles and shamelessly offered themselves to the soldiers. Even the worst offenders eagerly participated, thinking it would atone for all their sins; during these expeditions, many heinous acts were committed by men who were used to wrongdoing, encouraged by each other, and driven by necessity. The number of adventurers quickly grew so large that their more cunning leaders—Hugh, Count of Vermandois, brother of the French king, Raymond, Count of Toulouse, Godfrey of Bouillon, Prince of Brabant, and Stephen, Count of Blois—grew worried that the sheer size of the force might thwart their goals. They allowed a disorganized crowd, estimated at three hundred thousand men, to precede them, led by Peter the Hermit and Walter the Moneyless.

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 720.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 133,]

     [*** Vertot, Hist. de Chev. de Malte, vol. i. p.
     46.]

     [**** Sim. Dunelm. p. 222]

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 720.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 133,]

     [*** Vertot, Hist. de Chev. de Malte, vol. i. p.
     46.]

     [**** Sim. Dunelm. p. 222]

These men took the road towards Constantinople, through Hungary and Bulgaria; and trusting that Heaven, by supernatural assistance, would supply all their necessities, they made no provision for subsistence on their march. They soon found themselves obliged to obtain by plunder what they had vainly expected from miracles; and the enraged inhabitants of the countries through which they passed, gathering together in arms, attacked the disorderly multitude, and put them to slaughter without resistance. The more disciplined armies followed after; and passing the straits at Constantinople, they were mustered in the plains of Asia, and amounted in the whole to the number of seven hundred thousand combatants.[*]

These men traveled toward Constantinople, through Hungary and Bulgaria; believing that God would provide everything they needed through divine help, they made no plans for food during their journey. They quickly realized they had to resort to stealing what they had foolishly expected to receive through miracles; and the furious locals in the areas they passed through gathered their forces, attacked the disorganized group, and slaughtered them without any fight. The more organized armies followed behind; after crossing the straits at Constantinople, they assembled in the plains of Asia, totaling seven hundred thousand fighters. [*]

Amidst this universal frenzy, which spread itself by contagion throughout Europe, especially in France and Germany, men were not entirely forgetful of their present interests; and both those who went on this expedition, and those who stain behind, entertained schemes of gratifying by its means their avarice or their ambition. The nobles who enlisted themselves were moved, from the romantic spirit of the age, to hope for opulent establishments in the East, the chief seat of arts and commerce during those ages; and in pursuit of these chimerical projects, they sold at the lowest price their ancient castles and inheritances, which had now lost all value in their eyes. The greater princes, who remained at home, besides establishing peace in their dominions by giving occupation abroad to the inquietude and martial disposition of their subjects, took the opportunity of annexing to their crown many considerable fiefs, either by purchase or by the extinction of heirs. The pope frequently turned the zeal of the crusaders from the infidels against his own enemies, whom he represented as equally criminal with the enemies of Christ. The convents and other religious societies bought the possessions of the adventurers; and as the contributions of the faithful were commonly intrusted to their management, they often diverted to this purpose what was intended to be employed against the infidels.[**] But no one was a more immediate gainer by this epidemic fury than the king of England, who kept aloof from all connections with those fanatical and romantic warriors.

Amidst this widespread frenzy that swept across Europe, especially in France and Germany, people weren't completely oblivious to their current interests. Both those who set off on this expedition and those who stayed behind had plans to fulfill their greed or ambition through it. The nobles who joined were inspired by the romantic spirit of the time, hoping to secure wealthy positions in the East, which was considered the center of arts and commerce during those times. Chasing these unrealistic dreams, they sold their ancient castles and inherited lands for a pittance, as these things had lost all value to them. The larger princes who remained at home not only established peace in their realms by sending their restless and martial subjects abroad but also took the chance to add significant territories to their crowns, either through purchase or due to heirs dying out. The pope often redirected the zeal of the crusaders away from the infidels to his own enemies, whom he painted as just as guilty as the enemies of Christ. Monasteries and other religious groups bought the possessions of those who ventured, and since the donations from the faithful were usually handled by them, they frequently redirected funds intended for fighting infidels to this purpose. But no one profited more directly from this epidemic frenzy than the king of England, who distanced himself from any ties to those fanatical and romantic warriors.

     [* M. Paris, p. 20, 21.]

     [** Padre Paolo, Hist. delle Benef. Eccles. p.
     128]
     [* M. Paris, p. 20, 21.]

     [** Padre Paolo, Hist. delle Benef. Eccles. p.
     128]

Robert, duke of Normandy, impelled by the bravery and mistaken generosity of his spirit, had early enlisted himself in the crusade; but being always unprovided with money, he found that it would be impracticable for him to appear in a manner suitable to his rank and station, at the head of his numerous vassals and subjects, who, transported with the general rage, were determined to follow him into Asia. He resolved, therefore, to mortgage, or rather to sell, his dominions, which he had not talents to govern; and he offered them to his brother William for the very unequal sum of ten thousand marks.[*] The bargain was soon concluded: the king raised the money by violent extortions on his subjects of all ranks, even on the convents, who were obliged to melt their plate in order to furnish the quota demanded of them[**] he was put in possession of Normandy and Maine; and Robert, providing himself with a magnificent train, set out for the Holy Land, in pursuit of glory, and in full confidence of securing his eternal salvation.

Robert, Duke of Normandy, driven by his courage and misguided generosity, had signed up for the crusade early on. However, he was constantly short on funds, making it impossible for him to present himself in a way that matched his rank and status at the head of his many vassals and subjects, who were eager to follow him to Asia. Therefore, he decided to mortgage, or rather sell, his lands, which he didn’t have the skills to manage. He offered them to his brother William for the unequal sum of ten thousand marks.[*] The deal was quickly made: the king collected the money through aggressive extortion from his subjects of all ranks, even from convents, which had to melt down their silver to meet the demands placed on them.[**] He gained control of Normandy and Maine, and Robert, equipped with a lavish entourage, set off for the Holy Land, seeking glory and confident in securing his eternal salvation.

The smallness of this sum, with the difficulties which William found in raising it, suffices alone to refute the account which is heedlessly adopted by historians, of the enormous revenue of the Conqueror. Is it credible that Robert would consign to the rapacious hands of his brother such considerable dominions, for a sum which, according to that account, made not a week’s income of his father’s English revenue alone? or that the king of England could not on demand, without oppressing his subjects, have been able to pay him the money? The Conqueror, it is agreed, was frugal as well as rapacious, yet his treasure at his death exceeded not sixty thousand pounds, which hardly amounted to his income for two months; another certain refutation of that exaggerated account.

The small size of this amount, along with the difficulties William faced in raising it, is enough to contradict the claims that historians mindlessly accept about the enormous wealth of the Conqueror. Is it believable that Robert would hand over such substantial territories to his greedy brother for an amount that, according to those claims, wouldn’t even cover a week’s income from his father’s English revenue? Or that the king of England couldn’t, without burdening his subjects, have paid him that sum if needed? It's commonly agreed that the Conqueror was both frugal and greedy, yet his treasure at the time of his death was no more than sixty thousand pounds, which was hardly equivalent to two months’ income; this further disproves that exaggerated account.

The fury of the crusades during this age less infected England than the neighboring kingdoms; probably because the Norman conquerors, finding their settlement in that kingdom still somewhat precarious, durst not abandon their homes in quest of distant adventures. The selfish, interested spirit also of the king, which kept him from kindling in the general flame, checked its progress among his subjects; and as he is accused of open profaneness,[***] and was endued with a sharp wit,[****] it is likely that he made the romantic chivalry of the crusaders the object of his perpetual raillery.

The intensity of the crusades during this time affected England less than the neighboring kingdoms; likely because the Norman conquerors, aware that their hold on the kingdom was still somewhat shaky, didn’t dare leave their homes in search of distant adventures. The king’s selfish, self-serving nature, which prevented him from igniting a shared enthusiasm, also slowed its spread among his subjects; and since he is criticized for being openly irreverent and was known for his sharp wit, it’s likely that he mocked the romantic ideals of the crusaders constantly.

     [* W. Malms, p. 123. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 24.
     Annal. Waverl p. 139. W. Heming. p. 467. Flor. Wigorn. p.
     648. Sim. Dunelm, p. 222. Knyghton, p. 2364.]

     [** Eadmer,p. 35. W. Malms, p. 123. W. Heming. p.
     467.]

     [*** Gul. Newbr. p. 358. Gul. Gemet. p. 292.]

     [**** W. Malms, p. 122].
     [* W. Malms, p. 123. Chron. T. Wykes, p. 24. Annal. Waverl p. 139. W. Heming. p. 467. Flor. Wigorn. p. 648. Sim. Dunelm, p. 222. Knyghton, p. 2364.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 35. W. Malms, p. 123. W. Heming. p. 467.]

     [*** Gul. Newbr. p. 358. Gul. Gemet. p. 292.]

     [**** W. Malms, p. 122].

As an instance of his religion, we are told that he once accepted of sixty marks from a Jew, whose son had been converted to Christianity, and who engaged him by that present to assist him in bringing back the youth to Judaism. William employed both menaces and persuasion for that purpose; but finding the convert obstinate in his new faith, he sent for the father, and told him that as he had not succeeded, it was not just that he should keep the present; but as he had done his utmost, it was but equitable that he should be paid for his pains; and he would therefore retain only thirty marks of the money.[*] At another time, it is said, he sent for some learned Christian theologians and some rabbies, and bade them fairly dispute the question of their religion in his presence. He was perfectly indifferent between them; had his ears open to reason and conviction; and would embrace that doctrine which, upon comparison, should be found supported by the most solid arguments.[**] If this story be true, it is probable that he meant only to amuse himself by turning both into ridicule; but we must be cautious of admitting every thing related by the monkish historians to the disadvantage of this prince. He had the misfortune to be engaged in quarrels with the ecclesiastics, particularly with Anselm, commonly called St. Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury; and it is no wonder his memory should be blackened by the historians of that order.

As an example of his faith, it’s said that he once accepted sixty marks from a Jewish man, whose son had converted to Christianity. The father asked him to help bring the youth back to Judaism. William used both threats and persuasion to achieve this; however, when he found the convert stubborn in his new beliefs, he called for the father and explained that since he hadn’t succeeded, it wouldn’t be fair for him to keep the gift. But since he had tried his best, it made sense that he should be compensated for his efforts, so he decided to keep only thirty marks of the money.[*] On another occasion, it’s reported that he gathered some learned Christian theologians and rabbis, asking them to openly debate their beliefs in front of him. He was completely indifferent to both sides, open to reason and persuasion, and willing to embrace whichever doctrine was supported by the strongest arguments upon comparison.[**] If this story is true, it’s likely he intended merely to entertain himself by ridiculing both sides; however, we should be careful not to accept everything the monkish historians say that paints this prince in a negative light. He unfortunately found himself in conflicts with church leaders, especially with Anselm, known as St. Anselm, the archbishop of Canterbury; and it’s no surprise that his reputation might be tarnished by the accounts from that perspective.

After the death of Lanfranc, the king for several years retained in his own hands the revenues of Canterbury, as he did those of many other vacant bishoprics: but falling into a dangerous sickness, he was seized with remorse; and the clergy represented to him, that he was in danger of eternal perdition, if before his death he did not make atonement for those multiplied impieties and sacrileges of which he had been guilty.[***] He resolved, therefore, to supply instantly the vacancy of Canterbury; and for that purpose he sent for Anselm, a Piedmontese by birth, abbot of Bee, in Normandy, who was much celebrated for his learning and piety. The abbot earnestly refused the dignity, fell on his knees, wept, and entreated the king to change his purpose,[****] and when he found the prince obstinate in forcing the pastoral staff upon him, he kept his fist so fast clinched, that it required the utmost violence of the bystanders to open it, and force him to receive that ensign of spiritual dignity.[*****]

After Lanfranc's death, the king held onto the revenues of Canterbury for several years, just like he did with many other vacant bishoprics. But when he got seriously ill, he felt remorse; the clergy told him he was at risk of eternal damnation if he didn't make amends for the many sins and sacrileges he had committed before he died. So, he decided to fill the vacancy at Canterbury right away. He called for Anselm, a Piedmontese by birth and the abbot of Bee in Normandy, who was well-known for his knowledge and piety. The abbot strongly refused the honor, dropped to his knees, cried, and begged the king to reconsider. When he realized the king was determined to force the pastoral staff on him, he clenched his fist so tightly that it took a lot of effort from those around him to open it and compel him to take that symbol of spiritual authority.

     [* Eadmer, p. 47.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 123.]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 16. Chron. Sax. p. 198,]

     [**** Eadmer, p. 17. Diceto, p. 494.]

     [* Eadmer, p. 47.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 123.]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 16. Chron. Sax. p. 198,]

     [**** Eadmer, p. 17. Diceto, p. 494.]

William soon after recovered; and his passions regaining their wonted vigor, he returned to his former violence and rapine. He detained in prison several persons whom he had ordered to be freed during the time of his penitence; he still preyed upon the ecclesiastical benefices; the sale of spiritual dignities continued as open as ever; and he kept possession of a considerable part of the revenues belonging to the see of Canterbury.[**] But he found in Anselm that persevering opposition which he had reason to expect from the ostentatious humility which that prelate had displayed in refusing his promotion.

William soon recovered, and with his passions back to their usual intensity, he returned to his former violent ways and looting. He imprisoned several people he had previously ordered to be released during his time of repentance; he continued to exploit church funds; the sale of religious positions was as open as ever; and he maintained control over a significant portion of the revenues belonging to the see of Canterbury. But he encountered in Anselm the stubborn resistance he had anticipated, given the showy humility that the archbishop had exhibited by declining his promotion.

The opposition made by Anselm was the more dangerous on account of the character of piety which he soon acquired in England by his great zeal against all abuses, particularly those in dress and ornament. There was a mode which, in that age, prevailed throughout Europe, both among men and women, to give an enormous length to their shoes, to draw the toe to a sharp point, and to affix to it the figure of a bird’s bill, or some such ornament, which was turned upwards, and which was often sustained by gold or silver chains tied to the knee.[***] The ecclesiastics took exception at this ornament, which, they said, was an attempt to bely the Scripture, where it is affirmed, that no man can add a cubit to his stature; and they declaimed against it with great vehemence, nay, assembled some synods, who absolutely condemned it. But—such are the strange contradictions in human nature—though the clergy, at that time, could overturn thrones, and had authority sufficient to send above a million of men on their errand to the deserts of Asia, they could never prevail against these long-pointed shoes: on the contrary, that caprice, contrary to all other modes, maintained its ground during several centuries; and if the clergy had not at last desisted from their persecution of it, it might still have been the prevailing fashion in Europe.

The opposition from Anselm was particularly dangerous because of the sense of piety he soon developed in England through his strong passion against all forms of abuse, especially those related to clothing and adornment. During that time, there was a trend across Europe among both men and women to wear excessively long shoes, pointed sharply at the toe, often decorated with a bird-like ornament that curved upwards, which was supported by gold or silver chains tied around the knee. The clergy criticized this fashion, claiming it distorted Scripture, which states that no man can add a cubit to his height. They spoke out against it with considerable intensity and even held synods that completely condemned it. However, in a bizarre twist of human nature, although the clergy at that time could topple thrones and had the power to send over a million people on missions to the deserts of Asia, they could never succeed in banning these long-pointed shoes. In fact, this absurd fashion persisted for several centuries, and if the clergy hadn't eventually stopped their campaign against it, it might still be the dominant style in Europe today.

     [** Eadmer, p. 19, 43. Chron. Sax. p. 199.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 082. W. Malms, p. 123.
     Knyghton, p. 2369]
     [** Eadmer, p. 19, 43. Chron. Sax. p. 199.]

     [*** Order. Vitalis, p. 082. W. Malms, p. 123.
     Knyghton, p. 2369]

But Anselm was more fortunate in decrying the particular mode which was the object of his aversion, and which probably had not taken such fast hold of the affections of the people. He preached zealously against the long hair and curled locks which were then fashionable among the courtiers; he refused the ashes on Ash-Wednesday to those who were so accoutred; and his authority and eloquence had such influence, that the young men universally abandoned that ornament, and appeared in the cropped hair which was recommended to them by the sermons of the primate. The noted historian of Anselm, who was also his companion and secretary, celebrates highly this effort of his zeal and piety.[*]

But Anselm was luckier in opposing the specific trend he disliked, which likely hadn’t captured the people’s affections as strongly. He passionately preached against the long hair and styled locks that were fashionable among the courtiers at the time; he denied ashes on Ash Wednesday to those who wore such hairstyles; and his authority and eloquence were so impactful that young men widely abandoned that style, opting for the short hair he advocated in his sermons. Anselm's well-known historian, who was also his companion and secretary, greatly praises this demonstration of his zeal and piety.[*]

When William’s profaneness therefore returned to him with his health, he was soon engaged in controversies with this austere prelate. There was at that time a schism in the church between Urban and Clement, who both pretended to the papacy;[**] and Anselm, who, as abbot of Bee, had already acknowledged the former, was determined, without the king’s consent, to introduce his authority into England.[***] William, who, imitating his father’s example, had prohibited his subjects from recognizing any pope whom he had not previously received, was enraged at this attempt, and summoned a synod at Buckingham, with an intention of deposing Anselm; but the prelate’s suffragans declared, that, without the papal authority, they knew of no expedient for inflicting that punishment on their primate.[****] The king was at last engaged by other motives to give the preference to Urban’s title; Anselm received the pall from that pontiff; and matters seemed to be accommodated between the king and the primate,[*****] when the quarrel broke out afresh from a new cause. William had undertaken an expedition against Wales, and required the archbishop to furnish his quota of soldiers for that service, but Anselm, who regarded the demand as an oppression on the church, and yet durst not refuse compliance, sent them so miserably accoutred, that the king was extremely displeased, and threatened him with a prosecution.[******] Anselm, on the other hand, demanded positively that all the revenues of his see should be restored to him; appealed to Borne against the king’s injustice;[*******] and affairs came to such extremities, that the primate, finding it dangerous to remain in the kingdom, desired and obtained the king’s permission to retire beyond sea. All his temporalities were seized;[********] but he was received with great respect by Urban, who considered him as a martyr in the cause of religion, and even menaced the king, on account of his proceedings against the primate and the church with the sentence of excommunication.

When William's disregard for the church returned along with his health, he quickly got into conflicts with this stern bishop. At that time, there was a split in the church between Urban and Clement, both claiming the papacy; Anselm, the abbot of Bee, had already recognized Urban and was determined to bring his authority into England without the king's approval. Following his father's example, William had forbidden his subjects from acknowledging any pope he hadn't vetted first, and he was furious about this move. He called a synod at Buckingham with the intention of removing Anselm, but the bishop's supporters said they couldn’t impose any punishment on their leader without papal authority. Eventually, William had other reasons to support Urban's claim; Anselm received the pallium from Urban, and it seemed like there was a resolution between the king and the bishop, until a new conflict arose. William launched a campaign against Wales and asked the archbishop to provide his share of soldiers, but Anselm, viewing the demand as an overreach by the king, and not wanting to outright refuse, sent poorly equipped soldiers, which upset the king, leading him to threaten legal action. On the other hand, Anselm insisted that all the revenue from his position be returned to him, appealed to Rome against the king's unfairness, and tensions escalated to the point where Anselm, feeling it was unsafe to stay in the kingdom, asked for and received the king's permission to leave for the continent. All his property was taken, but Urban welcomed him with great respect, seeing him as a martyr for the faith, and even warned the king about excommunicating him for his actions against Anselm and the church.

     [* Eadmer, p. 23.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 463]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 25. M. Paris, p. 13. Diceto, p.
     494. Spei Concil vol. ii. p. 16.]

     [**** Eadmer, p. 30]

     [****** Eadmer, p. 37, 43.]

     [******* Eadmer, p. 40.]

     [******** M. Paris, p. 13. Parker, p. 178.]
     [* Eadmer, p. 23.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 463]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 25. M. Paris, p. 13. Diceto, p.
     494. Spei Concil vol. ii. p. 16.]

     [**** Eadmer, p. 30]

     [****** Eadmer, p. 37, 43.]

     [******* Eadmer, p. 40.]

     [******** M. Paris, p. 13. Parker, p. 178.]

Anselm assisted at the council of Bari, where, besides fixing the controversy between the Greek and Latin churches concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost,[*] the right of election to church preferments was declared to belong to the clergy alone, and spiritual censures were denounced against all ecclesiastics who did homage to laymen for their sees or benefices, and against all laymen who exacted it.[**] The rite of homage, by the feudal customs, was, that the vassal should throw himself on his knees, should put his joined hands between those of his superior, and should in that posture swear fealty to him.[***] But the council declared & execrable that pure hands, which could create God, and could offer him up as a sacrifice for the salvation of mankind, should be put, after this humiliating manner, between profane hands, which, besides being inured to rapine and bloodshed, were employed day and night in impure purposes and obscene contacts.[****] Such were the reasonings prevalent in that age; reasonings which, though they cannot be passed over in silence, without omitting the most curious and perhaps not the least instructive part of history, can scarcely be delivered with the requisite decency and gravity.

Anselm participated in the council of Bari, where, in addition to addressing the disagreement between the Greek and Latin churches over the procession of the Holy Spirit,[*] it was established that the right to elect church leaders belonged solely to the clergy. Spiritual penalties were declared against all church officials who swore loyalty to laypeople for their positions or benefits, and against any laypeople who demanded it.[**] According to feudal customs, the rite of homage required the vassal to kneel, place their joined hands between those of their superior, and in that position swear loyalty.[***] However, the council condemned the idea that pure hands, which could create God and offer Him as a sacrifice for humanity's salvation, should be placed in such a humiliating manner between profane hands that were accustomed to violence and were engaged day and night in immoral actions and obscene contacts.[****] These were the prevailing arguments of that time; arguments that, while they cannot be ignored without losing a fascinating and possibly valuable part of history, are difficult to present with the necessary decorum and seriousness.

     [* Eadmer, p. 49. M. Paris, p. 13. Sim. Dunelm,p.
     224.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 14.]

     [*** Spelman. Du Cange, in verbo Hominium.]

     [**** W. Hemmg. p. 467. Flor. Wigorn. p. 649. Sim.
     Dunelm p. 524. Brompton, p. 994.]
     [* Eadmer, p. 49. M. Paris, p. 13. Sim. Dunelm,p. 
     224.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 14.]

     [*** Spelman. Du Cange, in verbo Hominium.]

     [**** W. Hemmg. p. 467. Flor. Wigorn. p. 649. Sim. 
     Dunelm p. 524. Brompton, p. 994.]

1097.

1097.

The cession of Normandy and Maine by Duke Robert increased the king’s territories; but brought him no great increase of power, because of the unsettled state of those countries the mutinous disposition of the barons, and the vicinity of the French king, who supported them in all their insurrections. Even Helie, lord of La Fleche, a small town in Anjou, was able to give him inquietude; and this great monarch was obliged to make several expeditions abroad, without being able to prevail over so petty a baron, who had acquired the confidence and affections of the inhabitants of Maine. He was, however, so fortunate as at last to take him prisoner in a rencounter, but having released him, at the intercession of the French king and the count of Anjou, he found the province of Maine still exposed to his intrigues and incursions. Helie, being introduced by the citizens into the town of Mans, besieged the garrison in the citadel,

The cession of Normandy and Maine by Duke Robert expanded the king’s territories, but it didn’t significantly increase his power due to the unstable situation in those regions, the rebellious nature of the barons, and the proximity of the French king, who backed them in their uprisings. Even Helie, the lord of La Fleche, a small town in Anjou, managed to trouble him; this great monarch was forced to carry out several campaigns outside his territory, unable to defeat such a minor baron who had earned the trust and support of the people in Maine. However, he was eventually lucky enough to capture Helie in an encounter, but after releasing him at the request of the French king and the count of Anjou, he discovered that the province of Maine remained vulnerable to Helie's plots and attacks. Helie, having been welcomed by the citizens into the town of Mans, laid siege to the garrison in the citadel.

1099.

1099 form.

William, who was hunting in the new forest when he received intelligence of this hostile attempt, was so provoked, that he immediately turned his horse, and galloped to the sea-shore at Dartmouth, declaring that he would not stop a moment till he had taken, vengeance for the offence. He found the weather so cloudy and tempestuous, that the mariners thought it dangerous to put to sea: but the king hurried on board, and ordered them to set sail instantly; telling them that they never yet heard of a king that was drowned.[*] By this vigor and celerity he delivered the citadel of Mans from its present danger, and pursuing Helie into his own territories, he laid siege to Majol, a small castle in those parts:

William, who was hunting in the new forest when he got word of this hostile attack, was so outraged that he immediately turned his horse and raced to the seaside at Dartmouth, stating he wouldn’t stop for a moment until he had taken revenge for the offense. He found the weather so cloudy and stormy that the sailors thought it was unsafe to go out to sea. But the king rushed on board and ordered them to set sail right away, telling them they had never heard of a king who drowned. With this determination and speed, he saved the citadel of Mans from immediate danger and chased Helie into his own territory, laying siege to Majol, a small castle in those parts.

1100.

1100.

but a wound which he received before this place, obliged him to raise the siege; and he returned to England.

but a wound he received before this place forced him to lift the siege, and he went back to England.

The weakness of the greatest monarchs during this age, in their military expeditions against their nearest neighbors, appears the more surprising, when we consider the prodigious numbers, which even petty princes, seconding the enthusiastic rage of the people, were able to assemble, and to conduct in dangerous enterprises to the remote provinces of Asia. William earl of Poitiers and duke of Guienne, inflamed with the glory and not discouraged by the misfortunes, which had attended the former adventurers in the crusades, had put himself at the head of an immense multitude, computed by some historians to amount to sixty thousand horse, and a much greater number of foot,[**] and he purposed to lead them into the Holy Land against the infidels. He wanted money to forward the preparations requisite for this expedition, and he offered to mortgage all his dominions to William, without entertaining any scruple on account of that rapacious and iniquitous hand to which he resolved to consign them.[***]

The weakness of the greatest monarchs during this time, in their military campaigns against nearby neighbors, is even more shocking when we think about the massive numbers that even minor princes, fueled by the passionate energy of the people, could gather and lead on risky missions to distant regions of Asia. William, Earl of Poitiers and Duke of Guienne, driven by the desire for glory and undeterred by the setbacks faced by earlier crusaders, took charge of a huge crowd, estimated by some historians to be around sixty thousand cavalry and an even larger number of foot soldiers, and he planned to march them into the Holy Land against the infidels. He needed money to support the preparations for this campaign and offered to mortgage all his lands to William, showing no hesitation about putting them into the hands of such a greedy and wicked force.

     [* W. Malms, p. 124. H. Hunting, p. 378. M. Paris,
     p. 33. Ypod. Neust. p. 442.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 149. The whole is said, by Order.
     Vitalie (p. 789) to amount to three hundred thousand men.]

     [*** W. Maims, p. 127.]
     [* W. Malms, p. 124. H. Hunting, p. 378. M. Paris,
     p. 33. Ypod. Neust. p. 442.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 149. The entire count is said, by Order.
     Vitalie (p. 789) to total three hundred thousand men.]

     [*** W. Maims, p. 127.]

The king accepted the offer; and had prepared a fleet and an army, in order to escort the money and take possession of the rich provinces of Guienne and Poictou; when an accident put an end to his life, and to all his ambitious projects. He was engaged in hunting, the sole amusement, and indeed the chief occupation of princes in those rude times, when society was little cultivated and the arts afforded few objects worthy of attention. Walter Tyrrel, a French gentleman, remarkable for his address in archery, attended him in this recreation, of which the new forest was the scene: and as William had dismounted after a chase, Tyrrel, impatient to show his dexterity, let fly an arrow at a stag which suddenly started before him. The arrow, glancing from a tree, struck the king in the breast, and instantly slew him;[*] while Tyrrel, without informing any one of the accident, put spurs to his horse, hastened to the sea-shore, embarked for France, and joined the crusade in an expedition to Jerusalem; a penance which he imposed on himself for this involuntary crime. The body of William was found in the forest by the country people, and was buried without any pomp or ceremony at Winchester. His courtiers were negligent in performing the last duties to a master who was so little beloved; and every one was too much occupied in the interesting object of fixing his successor, to attend the funeral of a dead sovereign.

The king accepted the offer and prepared a fleet and an army to escort the money and take control of the wealthy provinces of Guienne and Poictou; however, an accident ended his life and all his ambitious plans. He was out hunting, the main pastime and indeed the primary activity for princes during those rough times when society was not very advanced and the arts offered few significant interests. Walter Tyrrel, a French noble known for his skill in archery, was with him during this activity in the new forest. As William dismounted after a chase, Tyrrel, eager to demonstrate his skill, shot an arrow at a stag that suddenly appeared in front of him. The arrow deflected off a tree, hit the king in the chest, and killed him instantly;[*] meanwhile, Tyrrel, without telling anyone about the accident, spurred his horse, rushed to the seaside, boarded a ship to France, and joined the crusade to Jerusalem as a penance for this unintentional crime. William's body was discovered in the forest by local villagers and buried without any ceremony at Winchester. His courtiers were neglectful in performing the last rites for a ruler who was so little loved, and everyone was too busy dealing with the pressing matter of choosing his successor to attend the funeral of their deceased king.

     [* W. Malms, p. 126. H. Hunting, p. 378. M. Paris,
     p. 87. Petr. Bles. p. 110]
     [* W. Malms, p. 126. H. Hunting, p. 378. M. Paris,
     p. 87. Petr. Bles. p. 110]

The memory of this monarch is transmitted to us with little advantage by the churchmen, whom he had offended; and though we may suspect in general that their account of his vices is somewhat exaggerated, his conduct affords little reason for contradicting the character which they have assigned him, or for attributing to him any very estimable qualities. He seems to have been a violent and tyrannical prince; a perfidious, encroaching, and dangerous neighbor; an unkind and ungenerous relation. He was equally prodigal and rapacious in the management of his treasury; and if he possessed abilities, he lay so much under the government of impetuous passions, that he made little use of them in his administration; and he indulged without reserve that domineering policy which suited his temper, and which, if supported, as it was it him, with courage and vigor, proves often more successful in disorderly times, than the deepest foresight and most refined artifice.

The memory of this monarch comes to us with little favor from the churchmen he offended; and while we might generally suspect that their portrayal of his vices is somewhat exaggerated, his actions offer little reason to dispute the character they’ve given him or to attribute any truly admirable qualities to him. He seems to have been a violent and tyrannical leader; a deceitful, overreaching, and dangerous neighbor; an unkind and stingy relative. He was both reckless and greedy in managing his finances; and even if he had some abilities, he was so driven by impulsive emotions that he hardly made any use of them in his rule. He indulged without restraint in a domineering approach that suited his temperament, which, if combined with the courage and energy he had, often proved more effective in chaotic times than the deepest foresight or the most sophisticated schemes.

The monuments which remain of this prince in England are the Tower, Westminster Hall, and London Bridge, which he built. The most laudable foreign enterprise which he undertook was the sending of Edgar Atheling, three years before his death, into Scotland, with a small army, to restore Prince Edgar, the true heir of that kingdom, son of Malcolm, and of Margaret, sister of Edgar Atheling; and the enterprise proved successful. It was remarked in that age, that Richard, an elder brother of William’s, perished by an accident in the new forest; Richard, his nephew, natural son of Duke Robert, lost his life in the same place after the same manner; and all men, upon the king’s fate, exclaimed that, as the Conqueror had been guilty of extreme violence in expelling all the inhabitants of that large district to make room for his game, the just vengeance of Heaven was signalized in the same place by the slaughter of his posterity. William was killed in the thirteenth year of his reign, and about the fortieth of his age. As he was never married, he left no legitimate issue.

The monuments left by this prince in England are the Tower, Westminster Hall, and London Bridge, which he built. The most commendable foreign action he took was sending Edgar Atheling, three years before his death, into Scotland with a small army to restore Prince Edgar, the rightful heir of that kingdom, son of Malcolm and Margaret, sister of Edgar Atheling; and this mission was successful. During that time, it was noted that Richard, an older brother of William’s, died in an accident in the New Forest; Richard, his nephew, the illegitimate son of Duke Robert, met the same fate in the same place; and everyone remarked that, since the Conqueror had been guilty of extreme violence in driving out all the inhabitants of that vast region to make space for his game, the rightful vengeance of Heaven was demonstrated in the same location by the death of his descendants. William was killed in the thirteenth year of his reign and around the fortieth year of his life. Since he was never married, he left no legitimate heirs.

In the eleventh year of this reign, Magnus, king of Norway, made a descent on the Isle of Anglesea; but was repulsed by Hugh, earl of Shrewsbury. This is the last attempt made by the northern nations upon England. That restless people seem about this time to have learned the practice of tillage, which thenceforth kept them at home, and freed the other nations of Europe from the devastations spread over them by those piratical invaders. This proved one great cause of the subsequent settlement and improvement of the southern nations.

In the eleventh year of this reign, Magnus, king of Norway, launched an attack on the Isle of Anglesea but was pushed back by Hugh, earl of Shrewsbury. This was the last attempt made by the northern nations on England. Around this time, those restless people seem to have picked up farming, which kept them occupied at home and spared the other nations of Europe from the destruction caused by those raiding invaders. This was a significant factor in the later settlement and development of the southern nations.





CHAPTER VI.

86.jpg Henry I.




HENRY I.

1100.

1100.

After the adventurers in the holy war were assembled on the banks of the Bosphorus, opposite to Constantinople, they proceeded on their enterprise; but immediately experienced those difficulties which their zeal had hitherto concealed from them, and for which, even if they had foreseen them, it would have been almost impossible to provide a remedy. The Greek emperor, Alexis Comnenus, who had applied to the western Christians for succor against the Turks, entertained hopes, and those but feeble ones, of obtaining such a moderate supply as, acting under his command, might enable him to repulse the enemy; but he was extremely astonished to see his dominions overwhelmed on a sudden by such an inundation of licentious barbarians, who, though they pretended friendship, despised his subjects as unwarlike, and detested them as heretical. By all the arts of policy, in which he excelled, he endeavored to divert the torrent; but while he employed professions, caresses, civilities, and seeming services towards the leaders of the crusade, he secretly regarded those imperious allies as more dangerous than the open enemies by whom his empire had been formerly invaded. Having effected that difficult point of disembarking them safely in Asia, he entered into a private correspondence with Soliman, emperor of the Turks; and practised every insidious art which his genius, his power, or his situation enabled him to employ, for disappointing the enterprise, and, discouraging the Latins from making thenceforward any such prodigious migrations. His dangerous policy was seconded by the disorders inseparable from so vast a multitude, who were not united under one head, and were conducted by leaders of the most independent, intractable spirit, unacquainted with military discipline, and determined enemies to civil authority and submission. The scarcity of provisions, the excess of fatigue, the influence of unknown climates, joined to the want of concert in their operations, and to the sword of a warlike enemy, destroyed the adventurers by thousands, and would have abated the ardor of men impelled to war by less powerful motives. Their zeal, however, their bravery, and their irresistible force still carried them forward, and continually advanced them to the great end of their enterprise. After an obstinate siege, they took Nice, the seat of the Turkish empire; they defeated Soliman in two great battles; they made themselves masters of Antioch; and entirely broke the force of the Turks, who had so long retained those countries in subjection. The soldan of Egypt, whose alliance they had hitherto courted, recovered, on the fall of the Turkish power, his former authority in Jerusalem; and he informed them by his ambassadors, that if they came disarmed to that city, they might now perform their religious vows, and that all Christian pilgrims, who should thenceforth visit the holy sepulchre, might expect the same good treatment which they had ever received from his predecessors. The offer was rejected; the soldan was required to yield up the city to the Christians; and on his refusal, the champions of the cross advanced to the siege of Jerusalem, which they regarded as the consummation of their labors. By the detachments which they had made, and the disasters which they had undergone, they were diminished to the number of twenty thousand foot and fifteen hundred horse; but these were still formidable from their valor, their experience, and the obedience which, from past calamities, they had learned to pay to their leaders. After a siege of five weeks, they took Jerusalem by assault; and, impelled by a mixture of military and religious rage, they put the numerous garrison and inhabitants to the sword, without distinction. Neither arms defended the valiant, nor submission the timorous; no age or sex was spared; infants on the breast were pierced by the same blow with their mothers, who implored for mercy; even a multitude, to the number of ten thousand persons, who had surrendered themselves prisoners and were promised quarter, were butchered in cold blood by those ferocious conquerors.[*] The streets of Jerusalem were covered with dead bodies;[**] and the triumphant warriors, after every enemy was subdued and slaughtered, immediately turned themselves, with the sentiments of humiliation and contrition, towards the holy sepulchre.

After the adventurers in the holy war gathered on the banks of the Bosphorus, across from Constantinople, they set out on their mission; however, they quickly faced challenges that their enthusiasm had previously hidden from them, and it would have been nearly impossible to find solutions, even if they had anticipated these issues. The Greek emperor, Alexis Comnenus, who had reached out to the Western Christians for help against the Turks, had some, albeit weak, hopes of getting a manageable force under his command that could help him fend off the enemy. But he was extremely shocked to see his lands suddenly overwhelmed by a flood of unruly barbarians who, although they pretended to be friendly, looked down on his subjects as lacking in martial skills and held them in contempt for their beliefs. Using all his political skills, in which he excelled, he tried to redirect the hostile tide; while he presented himself with flattery, kindness, and apparent favors to the leaders of the crusade, he secretly viewed these demanding allies as even more dangerous than the open enemies who had previously invaded his empire. After successfully getting them to disembark safely in Asia, he engaged in secret negotiations with Soliman, the Turkish emperor, and employed all the cunning tactics available to him to sabotage their efforts and discourage the Latins from making such massive migrations in the future. His jeopardizing strategy was compounded by the chaos naturally arising from such a large group that was not unified under a single leader, and was led by individuals who were independent, uncontrollable, unfamiliar with military discipline, and openly hostile to any civil authority or submission. The shortage of supplies, extreme fatigue, the effects of unfamiliar climates, the lack of coordination in their actions, and the threat of a belligerent enemy led to the deaths of thousands of the adventurers, which would have weakened the resolve of those driven to war by less intense motivations. Nonetheless, their passion, bravery, and overwhelming might propelled them onward, continually pushing them toward the ultimate goal of their endeavor. After a fierce siege, they captured Nice, the stronghold of the Turkish empire; they defeated Soliman in two major battles; they took control of Antioch; and they completely dismantled the Turkish forces that had long held those lands under their control. The soldan of Egypt, whose alliance they had been seeking, regained his former authority in Jerusalem following the fall of the Turkish power and informed them through his ambassadors that if they came unarmed to that city, they could fulfill their religious vows, and all Christian pilgrims visiting the holy sepulchre would receive the same good treatment that they had always been granted by his predecessors. This offer was turned down; the soldan was demanded to surrender the city to the Christians; and when he refused, the champions of the cross prepared to besiege Jerusalem, which they viewed as the culmination of their efforts. Due to their detachments and the hardships they faced, they were down to twenty thousand infantry and fifteen hundred cavalry; but these forces remained formidable due to their courage, experience, and the discipline they had learned to respect from their leaders after enduring so many calamities. After a five-week siege, they stormed Jerusalem, and driven by a mix of military rage and religious fervor, they slaughtered the numerous garrison and inhabitants without distinction. Neither weapons protected the brave, nor surrender saved the fearful; no age or gender was spared; infants still at their mothers' breasts were struck down by the same blow as their pleading mothers; even a group of ten thousand individuals who had surrendered and been promised mercy were brutally executed by these ruthless conquerors. The streets of Jerusalem were filled with corpses; and once all enemies had been defeated and killed, the victorious warriors immediately turned towards the holy sepulchre with feelings of shame and remorse.

     [* Vertot, vol. i. p. 57.]
     [* Vertot, vol. i. p. 57.]
     [** M. Paris, p. 34. Order.]
     [** M. Paris, p. 34. Order.]

They threw aside their arms, still streaming with blood; they advanced with reclined bodies, and naked feet and heads, to that sacred monument; they sung anthems to their Savior, who had there purchased their salvation by his death and agony; and their devotion enlivened by the presence of the place where he had suffered, so overcame their fury, that they dissolved in tears, and bore the appearance of every soft and tender sentiment. So inconsistent is human nature with itself! and so easily does the most effeminate superstition ally, both with the most heroic courage and with the fiercest barbarity!

They dropped their weapons, still covered in blood; they moved forward with their bodies bent and their feet and heads bare, towards that sacred monument; they sang hymns to their Savior, who had bought their salvation through his death and suffering; and their devotion, energized by the presence of the place where he had endured pain, overwhelmed their anger, causing them to break down in tears, showing every gentle and tender emotion. How contradictory human nature is! And how easily the most delicate superstitions can join forces with both the greatest courage and the most brutal savagery!

This great event happened on the fifth of July in the last year of the eleventh century. The Christian princes and nobles, after choosing Godfrey of Bouillon king of Jerusalem, began to settle themselves in their new conquests; while some of them returned to Europe, in order to enjoy at home that glory which their valor had acquired them in this popular and meritorious enterprise. Among these was Robert, duke of Normandy, who, as he had relinquished the greatest dominions of any prince that attended the crusade, had all along distinguished himself by the most intrepid courage, as well as by that affable disposition and unbounded generosity which gain the hearts of soldiers, and qualify a prince to shine in a military life. In passing through Italy, he became acquainted with Sibylla, daughter of the count of Conversana, a young lady of great beauty and merit, whom he espoused: indulging himself in this new passion, as well as fond of enjoying ease and pleasure after the fatigues of so many rough campaigns, he lingered a twelvemonth in that delicious climate; and though his friends in the north looked every moment for his arrival, none of them knew when they could with certainty expect it. By this delay he lost the kingdom of England, which the great fame he had acquired during the crusades, as well as his undoubted title, both by birth and by the preceding agreement with his deceased brother, would, had he been present, have infallibly secured to him.

This significant event took place on July 5th in the last year of the 11th century. The Christian princes and nobles, after naming Godfrey of Bouillon as king of Jerusalem, began to settle into their new territories. Some returned to Europe to enjoy the glory their bravery had earned them in this popular and noble endeavor. Among them was Robert, Duke of Normandy, who, having given up the largest lands of any prince at the crusade, had consistently shown remarkable courage as well as a friendly nature and immense generosity, which endear him to soldiers and prepare a prince for a successful military life. While traveling through Italy, he met Sibylla, the daughter of the Count of Conversana, a young woman of great beauty and talent, whom he married. Indulging in this new love and seeking relaxation and enjoyment after the hardships of many tough campaigns, he stayed for a year in that beautiful climate; even though his friends back in the north were eagerly awaiting his return, none knew when to expect him for sure. Because of this delay, he lost the kingdom of England, which his great reputation from the crusades, along with his undeniable claim by birth and the prior agreement with his deceased brother, would have surely secured for him had he been there.

Prince Henry was hunting with Rufus in the new forest, when intelligence of that monarch’s death was brought him, and being sensible of the advantage attending the conjuncture he hurried to Winchester, in order to secure the royal treasure, which he knew to be a necessary implement for facilitating his designs on the crown. He had scarcely reached the place when William de Breteuil, keeper of the treasure, arrived, and opposed himself to Henry’s pretensions. This nobleman, who had been engaged in the same party of hunting, had no sooner heard of his master’s death, than he hastened to take care of his charge; and he told the prince, that this treasure, as well as the crown, belonged to his elder brother, who was now his sovereign; and that he himself, for his part, was determined, in spite of all other pretensions, to maintain his allegiance to him. But Henry, drawing his sword, threatened him with instant death if he dared to disobey him; and as others of the late king’s retinue, who came every moment to Winchester, joined the prince’s party, Breteuil was obliged to withdraw his opposition, and to acquiesce in this violence.[*]

Prince Henry was out hunting with Rufus in the New Forest when he got the news of the king's death. Realizing how advantageous this situation could be, he rushed to Winchester to secure the royal treasure, knowing it was essential for his plans to claim the crown. He had barely arrived when William de Breteuil, the treasure's keeper, showed up and opposed Henry's claims. This nobleman had been hunting as well and, upon hearing about the king's death, quickly went to safeguard his responsibility. He told the prince that this treasure, along with the crown, belonged to his older brother, who was now the king, and that he was determined to remain loyal to him, regardless of Henry's claims. But Henry, drawing his sword, threatened Breteuil with death if he dared to disobey him. As more of the late king's followers arrived in Winchester and joined Henry's side, Breteuil had no choice but to back down and accept this aggression.

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 782.]
[* Order. Vitalis, p. 782.]

Henry, without losing a moment, hastened with the money to London; and having assembled some noblemen and prelates, whom his address, or abilities, or presents, gained to his side, he was suddenly elected, or rather saluted king; and immediately proceeded to the exercise of royal authority. In less than three days after his brother’s death, the ceremony of his coronation was performed by Maurice, bishop of London, who was persuaded to officiate on that occasion;[**] and thus, by his courage and celerity, he intruded himself into the vacant throne.

Henry, without wasting a moment, rushed to London with the money; and after gathering some noblemen and church leaders, who were won over by his charm, skills, or gifts, he was quickly proclaimed king. He immediately started exercising royal power. Less than three days after his brother’s death, the coronation ceremony was held by Maurice, the bishop of London, who was convinced to perform the service; and thus, through his bravery and speed, he seized the empty throne.

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 208. Order.]
[** Chron. Sax. p. 208. Order.]

No one had sufficient spirit or sense of duty to appear in defence of the absent prince; all men were seduced or intimidated; present possession supplied the apparent defects in Henry’s title, which was indeed founded on plain usurpation; and the barons, as well as the people, acquiesced in a claim, which, though it could neither be justified nor comprehended, could now, they found, be opposed through the perils alone of civil war and rebellion.

No one had enough courage or sense of responsibility to come forward in defense of the absent prince; everyone was either persuaded or scared. The current hold on power masked the obvious flaws in Henry’s claim, which was really based on simple usurpation; and both the barons and the people accepted a claim that, although it couldn't be justified or understood, they now realized could only be challenged through the dangers of civil war and rebellion.

But as Henry foresaw that a crown usurped against all rules of justice would sit unsteady on his head, he resolved, by fair professions at least, to gain the affections of all his subjects. Besides taking the usual coronation oath to maintain the laws and execute justice, he passed a charter, which was calculated to remedy many of the grievous oppressions which had been complained of during the reigns of his father and brother.[*] He there promised, that, at the death of any bishop or abbot, he never would seize the revenues of the see or abbey during the vacancy, but would leave the whole to be reaped by the successor; and that he would never let to farm any ecclesiastical benefice, nor dispose of it for money. After this concession to the church, whose favor was of so great importance, he proceeded to enumerate the civil grievances which he purposed to redress. He promised that, upon the death of any earl, baron, or military tenant, his heir should be admitted to the possession of his estate, on paying a just and lawful relief, without being exposed to such violent exactions as had been usual during the late reigns: he remitted the wardship of minors, and allowed guardians to be appointed, who should be answerable for the trust: he promised not to dispose of any heiress in marriage but by the advice of all the barons; and if any baron intended to give his daughter sister, niece, or kinswoman in marriage, it should only be necessary for him to consult the king, who promised to take no money for his consent, nor ever to refuse permission, unless the person to whom it was purposed to marry her should happen to be his enemy: he granted his barons and military tenants the power of bequeathing by will their money or personal estates; and if they neglected to make a will, he promised that their heirs should succeed to them: he renounced the right of imposing moneyage, and of levying taxes at pleasure on the farms which the barons retained in their own hands:[**] he made some general professions of moderating fines: he offered a pardon for all offences; and he remitted all debts due to the crown: he required that the vassals of the barons should enjoy the same privileges which he granted to his own barons; and he promised a general confirmation and observance of the laws of King Edward. This is the substance of the chief articles contained in that famous charter.[***]

But as Henry realized that a crown taken by force would feel unstable on his head, he decided to try to win the loyalty of all his subjects, at least through fair promises. Besides taking the usual coronation oath to uphold the laws and deliver justice, he issued a charter aimed at addressing many of the serious abuses that had been reported during the reigns of his father and brother.[*] He promised that when any bishop or abbot died, he would not seize the income from the see or abbey during the vacancy, but would allow the successor to receive it entirely; and he would never farm out any church position or sell it for money. After this concession to the church, which was crucial for his favor, he went on to list the civil grievances he intended to fix. He promised that upon the death of any earl, baron, or military tenant, their heir would be allowed to take possession of their estate by paying a fair and legal relief, without facing the harsh demands that had become common in recent reigns: he waived the wardship of minors, allowing guardians to be appointed who would be accountable for their trust; he promised not to arrange any heiress's marriage without the advice of all the barons; and if any baron wanted to marry off his daughter, sister, niece, or relative, he would only need to consult the king, who promised not to take any money for his approval, nor would he ever refuse permission, unless the potential spouse happened to be his enemy: he granted his barons and military tenants the ability to bequeath their money or personal property by will; and if they failed to create a will, he promised their heirs would inherit them: he renounced the right to impose taxes and to collect random fees on the lands that the barons kept under their control:[**] he made some general promises to reduce fines: he offered forgiveness for all offenses and canceled all debts owed to the crown: he required that the vassals of the barons enjoy the same privileges he granted to his own barons; and he promised a complete confirmation and adherence to the laws of King Edward. This summarizes the main points outlined in that famous charter.[***]

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 208. Sim. Dunelm. p. 225.]

     [** See Appendix II.]

     [*** Mr Paris, p. 38. Hoveden, p. 468. Brompton, p. 1021.
     Haguistadt, p. 310.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 208. Sim. Dunelm. p. 225.]

     [** See Appendix II.]

     [*** Mr Paris, p. 38. Hoveden, p. 468. Brompton, p. 1021.
     Haguistadt, p. 310.]

To give greater authenticity to these concessions, Henry lodged a copy of his charter in some abbey of each county, as if desirous that it should be exposed to the view of all his subjects, and remain a perpetual rule for the limitation and direction of his government: yet it is certain that, after the present purpose was served, he never once thought, during his reign, of observing one single article of it; and the whole fell so much into neglect and oblivion, that, in the following century, when the barons, who had heard an obscure tradition of it, desired to make it the model of the Great Charter which they exacted from King John, they could with difficulty find a copy of it in the kingdom. But as to the grievances here meant to be redressed, they were still continued in their full extent; and the royal authority, in all those particulars, lay under no manner of restriction. Reliefs of heirs, so capital an article, were never effectually fixed till the time of Magna Charta;[*] and it is evident that the general promise here given, of accepting a just and lawful relief, ought to have been reduced to more precision, in order to give security to the subject. The oppression of wardship and marriage was perpetuated even till the reign of Charles II.; and it appears from Glanville,[**] the famous justiciary of Henry II., that in his time, where any man died intestate—an accident which must have been very frequent when the art of writing was so little known—the king, or the lord of the fief, pretended to seize all the movables, and to exclude every heir, even the children of the deceased; a sure mark of a tyrannical and arbitrary government.

To make these concessions seem more legitimate, Henry had a copy of his charter placed in an abbey in each county, as if he wanted it to be visible to all his subjects and to serve as a lasting guideline for his rule. However, it's clear that after his initial goal was achieved, he never bothered to follow any part of it during his reign; it eventually fell into neglect and obscurity. In the following century, when the barons, who had heard vague references to it, wanted to use it as a model for the Great Charter they demanded from King John, they struggled to find a single copy of it in the kingdom. The issues it was supposed to address continued unchanged, and the royal authority remained unrestricted in those areas. Key points like the reliefs of heirs were only effectively established with the Magna Carta; and it's obvious that the general promise of accepting a fair and lawful relief should have been specified more clearly to protect the subjects. The abuses of wardship and marriage persisted all the way until the reign of Charles II. Furthermore, Glanville, the renowned justiciar of Henry II, noted that during his time, when someone died without a will—something that must have happened often when literacy was rare—the king or the lord of the fief would try to take all the belongings and exclude every heir, even the deceased's children; a clear sign of a tyrannical and arbitrary government.

     [* Glanv. lib. ii. cap. 36.]

     [** Lib. vii. cap. 15.]
     [* Glanv. lib. ii. cap. 36.]

     [** Lib. vii. cap. 15.]

The Normans, indeed, who domineered in England, were, during this age, so licentious a people, that they may be pronounced incapable of any true or regular liberty; which requires such improvement in knowledge and morals, as can only be the result of reflection and experience, and must grow to perfection during several ages of settled and established government. A people so insensible to the rights of their sovereign, as to disjoint, without necessity, the hereditary succession, and permit a younger brother to intrude himself into the place of the elder, whom they esteemed, and who was guilty of no crime but being absent, could not expect that. What is called a relief in the Conqueror’s laws, preserved by Ingulf, seems to have been the heriot; since reliefs, as well as the other burdens of the feudal law, were unknown in the age of the Confessor, whose laws these originally were. This practice was contrary to the laws of King Edward, ratified by the Conqueror, as we learn from Ingulf, p. 91. But laws had at that time very little influence: power and violence governed every thing. Prince would pay any greater regard to their privileges, or allow his engagements to fetter his power, and debar him from any considerable interest or convenience. They had indeed arms in their hands, which prevented the establishment of a total despotism, and left their posterity sufficient power, whenever they should attain a sufficient degree of reason, to assume true liberty; but their turbulent disposition frequently prompted them to make such use of their arms, that they were more fitted to obstruct the execution of justice, than to stop the career of violence and oppression. The prince, finding that greater opposition was often made to him when he enforced the laws than when he violated them, was apt to render his own will and pleasure the sole rule of government; and on every emergency to consider more the power of the persons whom he might offend, than the rights of those whom he might injure. The very form of this charter of Henry proves, that the Norman barons (for they, rather than the people of England, are chiefly concerned in it,) were totally ignorant of the nature of limited monarchy, and were ill qualified to conduct, in conjunction with their sovereign, the machine of government. It is an act of his sole power, is the result of his free grace, contains some articles which bind others as well as himself, and is therefore unfit to be the deed of any one who possesses not the whole legislative power, and who may not at pleasure revoke all his concessions.

The Normans, who ruled England, were such a reckless people during this time that they couldn't truly understand or practice real liberty. True liberty requires significant growth in knowledge and morals, which can only develop through reflection and experience over many generations of stable government. A people so indifferent to their king’s rights that they would disrupt the hereditary succession without cause and allow a younger brother to take the place of the elder—whom they respected and who had done no wrong except for being away—shouldn't have expected otherwise. What was referred to as a relief in the Conqueror’s laws, as recorded by Ingulf, seems to have been the heriot; since both reliefs and other feudal obligations were unknown in the era of the Confessor, whose laws these originally were. This practice contradicted King Edward’s laws, which were confirmed by the Conqueror, as we learn from Ingulf, p. 91. However, at that time, laws had little effect: power and violence dictated everything. A prince would pay little attention to their privileges and wouldn’t let his commitments restrict his authority or prevent him from pursuing significant interests or advantages. They were armed, which prevented total tyranny and left their descendants enough power to claim true liberty when they reached a sufficient level of reason. However, their restless nature often led them to use their weapons in ways that obstructed justice more than curbed violence and oppression. The prince noticed that he faced more resistance when enforcing the laws than when he broke them, which led him to make his own wishes the guiding principle of governance. In every situation, he considered more the power of those he might upset than the rights of those he might harm. The very structure of this charter from Henry demonstrates that the Norman barons (who were more involved than the English people) were completely unaware of the concept of a limited monarchy and were poorly equipped to jointly manage the machinery of government with their king. It is an act of his sole authority, stemming from his goodwill, contains some provisions that bind others as well as himself, and is therefore unsuitable to be the action of anyone who does not hold the entire legislative power and who cannot revoke all his concessions at will.

Henry, further to increase his popularity, degraded and committed to prison Ralph Flambard, bishop of Durham, who had been the chief instrument of oppression under his brother.[*] But this act was followed by another, which was a direct violation of his own charter, and was a bad prognostic of his sincere intentions to observe it: he kept the see of Durham vacant for five years, and during that time retained possession of all its revenues. Sensible of the great authority which Anselm had acquired by his character of piety, and by the persecutions which he had undergone from William, he sent repeated messages to him at Lyons, where he resided, and invited him to return and take possession of his dignities.[**] On the arrival of the prelate, he proposed to him the renewal of that homage which he had done his brother, and which had never been refused by any English bishop; but Anslem had acquired other sentiments by his journey to Rome, and gave the king an absolute refusal.

Henry, in an effort to boost his popularity, imprisoned Ralph Flambard, the bishop of Durham, who had been a key figure in the oppression under his brother. But this move was soon followed by another that directly violated his own charter, casting doubt on his genuine intentions to uphold it: he left the see of Durham vacant for five years, all the while keeping all its revenue for himself. Aware of the significant authority that Anselm had gained through his piety and the hardships he had faced under William, Henry sent several messages to him in Lyons, where he was living, inviting him to come back and reclaim his position. When the bishop arrived, Henry proposed that Anselm renew the homage he had offered to his brother, which had never been denied by any English bishop. However, Anselm had developed different views during his trip to Rome and outright refused the king.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 208. W. Malms, p. 156. M. Paris, p. 39.
     Alured. Beverl. p. 144.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 208. Order. Vitalis, p. 783. M. Paris, p.
     39 C. Judon, p 273.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 208. W. Malms, p. 156. M. Paris, p. 39.
     Alured. Beverl. p. 144.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 208. Order. Vitalis, p. 783. M. Paris, p.
     39 C. Judon, p 273.]

He objected the decrees of the council of Bari, at which he himself had assisted; and he declared, that, so far from doing homage for his spiritual dignity, he would not so much as communicate with any ecclesiastic who paid that submission, or who accepted of investitures from laymen. Henry, who expected, in his present delicate situation, to reap great advantages from the authority and popularity of Anselm, durst not insist on his demand;[*] he only desired that the controversy might be suspended, and that messengers might be sent to Rome, in order to accommodate matters with the pope, and obtain his confirmation of the laws and customs of England.

He opposed the decisions made by the council of Bari, which he had attended himself; and he stated that, instead of showing respect for his spiritual position, he wouldn't even associate with any church member who acknowledged that submission or who accepted appointments from laypeople. Henry, who anticipated gaining significant benefits from Anselm's influence and popularity in his current sensitive situation, did not dare to press his demand; he simply wanted the issue to be put on hold and for messengers to be sent to Rome to settle matters with the pope and get his approval of the laws and customs of England.

There immediately occurred an important affair, in which the king was obliged to have recourse to the authority of Anselm. Matilda, daughter of Malcolm III., king of Scotland, and niece to Edgar Atheling, had, on her father’s death, and the subsequent revolutions in the Scottish government, been brought to England, and educated under her aunt Christina, in the nunnery of Rumsey. This princess Henry purposed to marry; but as she had worn the veil, though never taken the vows, doubts might arise concerning the lawfulness of the act; and it behoved him to be very careful not to shock, in any particular, the religious prejudges of his subjects. The affair was examined by Anselm, in a council of the prelates and nobles, which was summoned at Lambeth; Matilda there proved, that she had put on the veil, not with a view of entering into a religious life, but merely in consequence of a custom familiar to the English ladies who protected their chastity from the brutal violence of the Normans by taking shelter under that habit,[**] which, amidst the horrible licentiousness of the times, was yet generally revered. The council, sensible that even a princess had otherwise no security for her honor, admitted this reason as valid: they pronounced that Matilda was still free to marry;[***] and her espousals with Henry were celebrated by Anselm with great pomp and solemnity.[****] No act of the king’s reign rendered him equally popular with his English subjects, and tended more to establish him on the throne. Though Matilda, during the life of her uncle and brothers, was not heir of the Saxon line, she was become very dear to the English on account of her connections with it; and that people, who, before the conquest, had fallen into a kind of indifference towards their ancient royal family, had felt so severely the tyranny of the Normans, that they reflected with extreme regret on their former liberty, and hoped for a more equal and mild administration, when the blood of their native princes should be mingled with that of their new sovereigns.[*****]

There quickly came up an important issue, which forced the king to seek the authority of Anselm. Matilda, the daughter of Malcolm III, king of Scotland, and niece of Edgar Atheling, had been brought to England after her father's death and the subsequent changes in the Scottish government. She was raised by her aunt Christina in the nunnery of Rumsey. Henry intended to marry this princess; however, since she had worn the veil, though she never took formal vows, questions could arise about the legality of the marriage. He needed to be very careful not to offend the religious beliefs of his subjects. Anselm reviewed the matter in a council of bishops and nobles that was convened at Lambeth; Matilda showed that she had worn the veil not to enter a religious life, but simply because it was a common practice among English women to protect their chastity from the brutal violence of the Normans by taking refuge in that attire, which, despite the rampant immorality of the times, was generally respected. The council, recognizing that even a princess had no real guarantee for her honor, accepted this explanation as valid: they declared that Matilda was still free to marry; and her marriage to Henry was officiated by Anselm with great splendor and formality. No action during the king's reign made him as popular with his English subjects, or helped to secure his position on the throne, as this. Although Matilda was not the heir to the Saxon line while her uncle and brothers were alive, she had become very beloved by the English due to her connections to it; and the people, who had grown indifferent toward their ancient royal family before the conquest, were so deeply affected by the tyranny of the Normans that they looked back on their former freedom with great sorrow and hoped for a more just and gentle rule when the blood of their native princes mixed with that of their new rulers.

     [* W. Malms, p. 225.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 57.]

     [*** Eadmer p. 57.]

     [**** Hoveden, p. 468.]

     [* W. Malms, p. 225.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 57.]

     [*** Eadmer p. 57.]

     [**** Hoveden, p. 468.]

But the policy and prudence of Henry, which, if time had been allowed for these virtues to produce their full effect, would have secured him possession of the crown, ran great hazard of being frustrated by the sudden appearance of Robert, who returned to Normandy about a month after the death of his brother William.

But Henry's careful planning and wisdom, which would have ensured his hold on the crown if given enough time to take effect, were at serious risk of being undermined by the unexpected return of Robert, who came back to Normandy about a month after his brother William's death.

1101.

1101.

He took possession, without opposition, of that duchy; and immediately made preparations for recovering England, of which, during his absence, he had, by Henry’s intrigues, been so unjustly defrauded. The great fame which he had acquired in the East forwarded his pretensions, and the Norman barons, sensible of the consequences, expressed the same discontent at the separation of the duchy and kingdom, which had appeared on the accession of William. Robert de Belesme, earl of Shrewsbury and Arundel, William de Warrenne, earl of Surrey, Arnulf de Montgomery, Walter Giffard, Robert de Pontefract, Robert de Mallet, Yvo de Grentmesnil, and many others of the principal nobility,[*] invited Robert to make an attempt upon England, and promised on his landing to join him with all their forces.

He took control of that duchy without any resistance and quickly started planning to reclaim England, which he had been unfairly deprived of due to Henry’s scheming during his absence. His fame from the East boosted his claims, and the Norman barons, aware of the implications, showed the same dissatisfaction with the separation of the duchy and the kingdom that had emerged when William took the throne. Robert de Belesme, Earl of Shrewsbury and Arundel, William de Warrenne, Earl of Surrey, Arnulf de Montgomery, Walter Giffard, Robert de Pontefract, Robert de Mallet, Yvo de Grentmesnil, and many other key nobles invited Robert to attempt a takeover of England and promised to join him with all their resources as soon as he landed.

     [* Order. Vitalis, p. 785]
[* Order. Vitalis, p. 785]

Even the seamen were affected with the general popularity of his name, and they carried over to him the greater part of a fleet which had been equipped to oppose his passage. Henry, in this extremity, began to be apprehensive for his life, as well as for his crown and had recourse to the superstition of the people, in order to oppose their sentiment of justice. He paid diligent court to Anselm, whose sanctity and wisdom he pretended to revere. He consulted him in all difficult emergencies; seemed to be governed by him in every measure; promised a strict regard to ecclesiastical privileges; professed a great attachment to Rome, and a resolution of persevering in an implicit obedience to the decrees of councils, and to the will of the sovereign pontiff. By these caresses and declarations he entirely gained the confidence of the primate, whose influence over the people, and authority with the barons, were of the utmost service to him in his present situation. Anselm scrupled not to assure the nobles of the king’s sincerity in those professions which he made, of avoiding the tyrannical and oppressive government of his father and brother: he even rode through the ranks of the army, recommended to the soldiers the defence of their prince, represented the duty of keeping their oaths of allegiance, and prognosticated to them the greatest happiness from the government of so wise and just a sovereign. By this expedient, joined to the influence of the earls of Warwick and Mellent, of Roger Bigod, Richard de Redvers, and Robert Fitz-Hamon, powerful barons, who still adhered to the present government, the army was retained in the king’s interests, and marched, with seeming union and firmness, to oppose Robert, who had landed with his forces at Portsmouth.

Even the sailors were caught up in the general popularity of his name, and they transferred most of a fleet that had been readied to block his passage to him. In this dire situation, Henry started to worry for his life as well as his crown and turned to the people's superstitions to counter their sense of justice. He flattered Anselm, pretending to deeply respect his holiness and wisdom. He consulted him during tough times, appeared to rely on him for every decision, promised to uphold church privileges, expressed strong loyalty to Rome, and vowed to follow the decrees of church councils and the wishes of the pope without question. Through these efforts and declarations, he fully earned the primate’s trust, whose influence over the people and authority with the barons were crucial for him now. Anselm didn't hesitate to assure the nobles of the king’s honesty in his promises to avoid the tyrannical and oppressive rule of his father and brother: he even rode among the troops, urged the soldiers to defend their prince, highlighted their duty to keep their oaths of loyalty, and predicted great happiness from being ruled by such a wise and just sovereign. With this tactic, along with the backing of the earls of Warwick and Mellent, Roger Bigod, Richard de Redvers, and Robert Fitz-Hamon—powerful barons still loyal to the current government—the army stayed aligned with the king's interests and moved, appearing united and resolute, to confront Robert, who had landed his forces at Portsmouth.

The two armies lay in sight of each other for some days without coming to action; and both princes, being apprehensive of the event, which would probably be decisive, hearkened the more willingly to the counsels of Anselm and the other great men, who mediated an accommodation between them. After employing some negotiation, it was agreed, that Robert should resign his pretensions to England, and receive, in lieu of them, an annual pension of three thousand marks; that, if either of the princes died without issue, the other should succeed to his dominions; that the adherents of each should be pardoned, and restored to all their possessions either in Normandy or England; and that neither Robert nor Henry should thenceforth encourage, receive, or protect the enemies of the other.[*]

The two armies faced each other for several days without engaging in battle, and both princes, worried about the outcome, which could be decisive, were more willing to listen to the advice of Anselm and the other important figures who facilitated a settlement between them. After some negotiations, they agreed that Robert would give up his claims to England and, in exchange, receive an annual pension of three thousand marks; that if either prince died without heirs, the other would inherit his lands; that supporters from both sides would be pardoned and returned their properties in either Normandy or England; and that neither Robert nor Henry would from then on support, shelter, or protect the enemies of the other.[*]

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 209. W. Malms, p. 156.]
[* Chron. Sax. p. 209. W. Malms, p. 156.]

1102.

1102.

This treaty, though calculated so much for Henry’s advantage, he was the first to violate. He restored indeed the estates of all Robert’s adherents; but was secretly determined, that noblemen so powerful and so ill affected, who had both inclination and ability to disturb his government, should not long remain unmolested in their present opulence and grandeur. He began with the earl of Shrewsbury, why was watched for some time by spies, and then indicted on a charge, consisting of forty-five articles. This turbulent nobleman, knowing his own guilt, as well as the prejudices of his judges and the power of his prosecutor, had recourse to aims for defence; but being soon suppressed by the activity and address of Henry, he was banished the kingdom, and his great estate was confiscated. His ruin involved that of his two brothers, Arnulf de Montgomery, and Roger, earl of Lancaster. Soon after followed the prosecution and condemnation of Robert de Pontefract and Robert de Mallet, who had distinguished themselves among Robert’s adherents. William de Warrenne was the next victim;

This treaty, despite being designed for Henry’s benefit, was the first he broke. He did return the lands of all of Robert’s supporters; however, he was secretly determined that such powerful and disloyal noblemen, who had both the desire and ability to disrupt his rule, wouldn’t remain undisturbed in their current wealth and status for long. He started with the Earl of Shrewsbury, who was monitored by spies for some time and then charged with forty-five counts. This troubled nobleman, aware of his own guilt as well as the biases of his judges and the strength of his accuser, tried to defend himself with strategies; but he was quickly overpowered by Henry's action and skill, and he was exiled from the kingdom, with his extensive estate seized. His downfall also affected his two brothers, Arnulf de Montgomery and Roger, Earl of Lancaster. Soon after, Robert de Pontefract and Robert de Mallet, who had stood out among Robert’s followers, were prosecuted and condemned. William de Warrenne became the next target;

1103.

1103.

even William, earl of Cornwall, son of the earl of Mortaigne, the king’s uncle, having given matter of suspicion against him, lost all the vast acquisitions of his family in England. Though the usual violence and tyranny of the Norman barons afforded a plausible pretence for those prosecutions, and it is probable that none of the sentences pronounced against these noblemen was wholly iniquitous, men easily saw, or conjectured, that the chief part of their guilt was not the injustice or illegality of their conduct Robert, enraged at the fate of his friends, imprudently ventured to come into England; and he remonstrated with his brother, in severe terms, against this breach of treaty; but met with so bad a reception, thai he began to apprehend danger to his own liberty, and was glad to purchase an escape by resigning his pension.

Even William, the Earl of Cornwall, son of the Earl of Mortaigne and the king’s uncle, raised suspicions against himself and lost all the vast lands and holdings of his family in England. Although the typical violence and tyranny of the Norman barons provided a believable reason for those prosecutions, it’s likely that none of the punishments given to these noblemen were entirely unjust. People easily saw, or guessed, that the main issue wasn’t the unfairness or illegality of their actions. Robert, furious about what happened to his friends, foolishly decided to come to England. He confronted his brother harshly about this breach of the agreement but received such a negative response that he started to fear for his own freedom and gladly agreed to give up his pension to escape.

The indiscretion of Robert soon exposed him to more fatal injuries. This prince, whose bravery and candor procured him respect while at a distance, had no sooner attained the possession of power and enjoyment of peace, than all the vigor of his mind relaxed; and he fell into contempt among those who approached his person, or were subjected to his authority. Alternately abandoned to dissolute pleasures and to womanish superstition, he was so remiss, both in the care of his treasure and the exercise of his government, that his servants pillaged his money with impunity, stole from him his very clothes, and proceeded thence to practise every species of extortion on his defenceless subjects. The barons, whom a severe administration alone could have restrained, gave way to their unbounded rapine upon their vassals, and inveterate animosities against each other; and all Normandy, during the reign of this benign prince, was become a scene of violence and depredation. The Normans at last, observing the regular government which Henry, notwithstanding his usurped title, had been able to establish in England, applied to him, that he might use his authority for the suppression of these disorders and they thereby afforded him a pretence for interposing in the affairs of Normandy. Instead of employing his mediation to render his brother’s government respectable, or to redress the grievances of the Normans, he was only attentive to support his own partisans, and to increase their number by every art of bribery, intrigue, and insinuation. Having found, in a visit which he made to that duchy, that the nobility were more disposed to pay submission to him than to their legal sovereign, he collected, by arbitrary extortions on England a great army and treasure, and returned next year to Normandy, in a situation to obtain, either by violence or corruption, the dominion of that province.

The rashness of Robert soon led him to even worse outcomes. This prince, whose courage and straightforwardness earned him respect from afar, as soon as he gained power and experienced peace, let all his mental strength slip away; he became looked down upon by those who were close to him or under his rule. Caught up in reckless pleasures and foolish superstitions, he was so careless, both in managing his wealth and governing, that his servants looted his money without fear, even took his clothes, and then went on to extort his defenseless subjects in every way possible. The barons, who could have been kept in check only by strict leadership, unleashed their unchecked greed on their vassals and indulged in bitter rivalries with each other; all of Normandy, during the reign of this well-meaning prince, turned into a scene of chaos and destruction. Eventually, the Normans noticed the effective governance that Henry, despite his claimed title, managed to establish in England, and they reached out to him, hoping he would use his authority to put an end to these troubles, thus giving him a reason to meddle in Normandy's affairs. Instead of using his influence to make his brother's rule respectable or to address the Normans' complaints, he focused solely on supporting his own allies and increasing their ranks through bribery, scheming, and manipulation. During a visit to that duchy, he discovered that the nobility were more willing to submit to him than to their rightful ruler, so he raised a large army and amassed wealth through arbitrary extortion in England, returning the next year to Normandy ready to claim control of that region, whether through force or corruption.

1105.

1105.

He took Baieux by storm, after an obstinate siege; he made himself master of Caen, by the voluntary submission of the inhabitants; but being repulsed at Falaise, and obliged, by the winter season, to raise the siege, he returned into England; after giving assurances to his adherents, that he would persevere in supporting and protecting them.

He took Baieux by surprise after a stubborn siege; he gained control of Caen when the locals chose to submit to him. However, after being pushed back at Falaise and needing to lift the siege due to the winter weather, he returned to England, assuring his supporters that he would continue to back and defend them.

1106.

1106.

Next year he opened the campaign with the siege of Tenchebray; and it became evident, from his preparations and progress, that he intended to usurp the entire possession of Normandy. Robert was at last roused from his lethargy; and being supported by the earl of Mortaigne and Robert de Belesme, the king’s inveterate enemies, he raised a considerable army, and approached his brother’s camp, with a view of finishing, in one decisive battle, the quarrel between them. He was now entered on that scene of action in which alone he was qualified to excel; and he so animated his troops by his example, that they threw the English into disorder, and had nearly obtained the victory,[*] when the flight of Belesme spread a panic among the Normans, and occasioned their total defeat. Henry, besides doing great execution on the enemy, made near ten thousand prisoners; among whom was Duke Robert himself, and all the most considerable barons, who adhered to his interests.[**]

Next year, he kicked off the campaign with the siege of Tenchebray, and it became clear, from his preparations and progress, that he planned to take full control of Normandy. Robert was finally shaken from his inaction, and with the support of the Earl of Mortaigne and Robert de Belesme, the king's bitter enemies, he gathered a significant army and marched toward his brother's camp, aiming to resolve their conflict in one decisive battle. He had now entered the battleground where he was truly skilled, and he inspired his troops so effectively that they threw the English into chaos and almost secured the victory, when Belesme's retreat caused panic among the Normans, leading to their complete defeat. Henry, in addition to inflicting heavy losses on the enemy, captured nearly ten thousand prisoners, including Duke Robert himself and all the most important barons who supported his cause.

     [* H. Hunting, p. 379. M. Paris, p. 48. Brompton,
     p. 1002.]

     [** Eadmer, p, 90. Chron. Sax. p. 214. Order.
     Vitalis p. 821.]
     [* H. Hunting, p. 379. M. Paris, p. 48. Brompton,
     p. 1002.]

     [** Eadmer, p, 90. Chron. Sax. p. 214. Order.
     Vitalis p. 821.]

This victory was followed by the final reduction of Normandy: Rouen immediately submitted to the conqueror: Falaise, after some negotiation, opened its gates; and by this acquisition, besides rendering himself master of an important fortress, he got into his hands Prince William, the only son of Robert: he assembled the states of Normandy; and having received the homage of all the vassals of the duchy, having settled the government, revoked his brother’s donations, and dismantled the castles lately built, he returned into England and carried along with him the duke as prisoner. That unfortunate prince was detained in custody during the remainder of his life, which was no less than twenty-eight years, and he died in the castle of Cardiff in Glamorganshire; happy, if, without losing his liberty, he could have relinquished that power which he was not qualified either to hold or exercise. Prince William was committed to the care of Helie de St. Saen, who had married Robert’s natural daughter, and who, being a man of probity and honor, beyond what was usual in those ages, executed the trust with great affection and fidelity, Edgar Atheling, who had followed Robert in the expedition to Jerusalem, and who had lived with him ever since in Normandy, was another illustrious prisoner taken in the battle of Tenchebray.[*] Henry gave him his liberty, and settled a small pension on him, with which he retired; and he lived to a good old age in England, totally neglected and forgotten. This prince was distinguished by personal bravery; but nothing can be a stronger proof of his mean talents in every other respect, than that, notwithstanding he possessed the affections of the English, and enjoyed the only legal title to the throne, he was allowed, during the reigns of so many violent and jealous usurpers, to live unmolested, and go to his grave in peace.

This victory was followed by the complete takeover of Normandy: Rouen quickly surrendered to the conqueror; Falaise, after some negotiation, opened its gates. With this acquisition, besides gaining control of an important fortress, he captured Prince William, the only son of Robert. He gathered the leaders of Normandy, received the allegiance of all the vassals of the duchy, organized the government, revoked his brother’s donations, and took down the newly built castles. He then returned to England, taking the duke as his prisoner. That unfortunate prince was held in custody for the rest of his life, which lasted another twenty-eight years, and he died in Cardiff Castle in Glamorganshire; he would have been better off if he could have given up the power he was not suited to hold without losing his freedom. Prince William was entrusted to Helie de St. Saen, who had married Robert’s illegitimate daughter. Helie, a man of integrity and honor uncommon for the time, fulfilled this duty with great care and loyalty. Edgar Atheling, who had accompanied Robert on the expedition to Jerusalem and had lived with him in Normandy ever since, was another notable prisoner taken in the Battle of Tenchebray.[*] Henry granted him his freedom and provided him with a small pension, allowing him to retire. He lived to a ripe old age in England, completely overlooked and forgotten. This prince was known for his bravery, but the fact that he was allowed to live in peace and die quietly, despite possessing the English people's affection and the only legitimate claim to the throne, proves he lacked skill in other areas—especially during the reigns of so many aggressive and jealous usurpers.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 214. Annal. Waverl. p. 144]
[* Chron. Sax. p. 214. Annal. Waverl. p. 144]

1107.

1107.

A little after Henry had completed the conquest of Normandy, and settled the government of that province, he finished a controversy which had been long depending between him and the pope, with regard to the investitures in ecclesiastical benefices; and though he was here obliged to relinquish some of the ancient rights of the crown, he extricated himself from the difficulty on easier terms than most princes, who in that age were so unhappy as to be engaged in disputes with the apostolic see. The king’s situation in the beginning of his reign, obliged him to pay great court to Anselm: the advantages which he had reaped from the zealous friendship of that prelate, had made him sensible how prone the minds of his people were to superstition, and what an ascendant the ecclesiastics had been able to assume over them. He had seen, on the accession of his brother Rufus, that though the rights of primogeniture were then violated, and the inclinations of almost all the barons thwarted, yet the authority of Lanfranc, the primate, had prevailed over all other considerations: his own case, which was still more unfavorable, afforded an instance in which the clergy had more evidently shown their influence and authority. These recent examples, while they made him cautious not to offend that powerful body, convinced him, at the same time, that it was extremely his interest to retain the former prerogative of the crown in filling offices of such vast importance, and to check the ecclesiastics in that independence to which they visibly aspired. The choice which his brother, in a fit of penitence, had made of Anselm, was so far unfortunate to the king’s pretensions, that this prelate was celebrated for his piety and zeal, and austerity of manners; and though his monkish devotion and narrow principles prognosticated no great knowledge of the world or depth of policy, he was, on that very account, a more dangerous instrument in the hands of politicians, and retained a greater ascendant over the bigoted populace. The prudence and temper of the king appear in nothing more conspicuous than in the management of this delicate affair; where he was always sensible that it had become necessary for him to risk his whole crown, in order to preserve the most invaluable jewel of it.[*]

A little after Henry conquered Normandy and established its government, he resolved a longstanding dispute with the pope regarding the appointment of church officials. Although he had to give up some ancient royal rights, he navigated this situation more easily than many other rulers of his time who were caught up in conflicts with the papacy. At the start of his reign, the king had to flatter Anselm significantly; the benefits he gained from the prelate's devoted friendship made him aware of how superstitious his people were and how much influence the clergy had over them. He had observed that when his brother Rufus came to power, even though primogeniture was violated and almost all the barons were unhappy, the authority of Lanfranc, the archbishop, had overshadowed all other concerns. His own situation, which was even more challenging, highlighted how the clergy had clearly demonstrated their influence and power. These recent examples made him cautious not to offend such a powerful group, while also convincing him that it was crucial to maintain his royal prerogative in appointing individuals to these vital positions and to curb the clergy's aspirations for independence. The choice his brother made, in a moment of regret, to appoint Anselm was unfortunate for the king's ambitions, as this prelate was well-known for his piety, zeal, and strict lifestyle. Although Anselm's devotion and narrow views suggested a lack of worldly knowledge and political savvy, they actually made him a more dangerous tool in the hands of politicians and gave him greater influence over the superstitious populace. The king’s wisdom and restraint are most evident in how he handled this delicate situation, always recognizing that he had to risk his entire crown to protect its most precious asset.[*]

Anselm had no sooner returned from banishment, than his refusal to do homage to the king raised a dispute, which Henry evaded at that critical juncture, by promising to send a messenger, in order to compound the matter with Pascal II, who then filled the papal throne. The messenger, as was probably foreseen, returned with an absolute refusal of the king’s demands;[**] and that fortified by many reasons which were well qualified to operate on the understandings of men in those ages. Pascal quoted the Scriptures to prove that Christ was the door; and he thence inferred that all ecclesiastics must enter into the church through Christ alone, not through the civil magistrate, or any profane laymen.[***]

Anselm had barely returned from exile when his refusal to pledge loyalty to the king sparked a conflict. Henry tried to dodge the issue at that crucial moment by promising to send a messenger to resolve the matter with Pascal II, who was then the pope. As was likely expected, the messenger came back with a complete denial of the king’s requests; and that was backed by various reasons that were well-suited to influence people's thinking in those times. Pascal referenced the Scriptures to demonstrate that Christ was the way in; from this, he concluded that all church officials must enter the church through Christ alone, not through government officials or any secular laypeople.

     [* Eadmer, p. 56.]

     [** W Malms, p. 225]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 60. This topic is further enforced
     in p. 73, 74. See also W. Malms, p. 163.]
     [* Eadmer, p. 56.]

     [** W Malms, p. 225]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 60. This topic is further discussed
     in p. 73, 74. See also W. Malms, p. 163.]

“It is monstrous,” added the pontiff, “that a son should pretend to beget his father, or a man to create his God: priests are called gods in Scripture, as being the vicars of God; and will you, by your abominable pretensions to grant them their investiture, assume the right of creating them?”[*]

“It’s outrageous,” the pope added, “that a son would claim to have created his father, or that a man would claim to create his God: priests are referred to as gods in Scripture, as they act as representatives of God; and will you, through your disgusting claims to grant them their authority, take on the right to create them?”[*]

But how convincing soever these arguments, they could not persuade Henry to resign so important a prerogative; and perhaps, as he was possessed of great reflection and learning, he thought that the absurdity of a man’s creating his God, even allowing priests to be gods, was not urged with the best grace by the Roman pontiff. But as he desired still to avoid, at least to delay, the coming to any dangerous extremity with the church, he persuaded Anselm that he should be able, by further negotiation, to attain some composition with Pascal; and for that purpose he despatched three bishops to Rome, while Anselm sent two messengers of his own, to be more fully assured of the pope’s intentions.[**] Pascal wrote back letters equally positive and arrogant, both to the king and primate, urging to the former that, by assuming the right of investitures, he committed a kind of spiritual adultery with the church, who was the spouse of Christ, and who must not admit of such a commerce with any other person;[***] and insisting with the latter, that the pretension of kings to confer benefices was the source of all simony; a topic which had but too much foundation in those ages.[****]

But no matter how convincing these arguments were, they couldn’t get Henry to give up such an important power. Maybe because he was deeply reflective and knowledgeable, he thought that the absurdity of a man creating his own God—allowing priests to act as gods—was not the best point made by the Roman pope. Still, he wanted to avoid or at least delay any serious conflict with the church, so he convinced Anselm that he could negotiate a settlement with Pascal. To that end, he sent three bishops to Rome, while Anselm dispatched two messengers of his own to get clearer information on the pope’s intentions. Pascal responded with letters that were both assertive and arrogant, urging the king that by claiming the right to investitures, he was engaging in spiritual infidelity with the church, which was the bride of Christ and shouldn’t engage in such dealings with anyone else; and pressing Anselm that kings’ claims to grant benefices were the root of all simony, a point that was unfortunately very relevant in those times.

Henry had now no other expedient than to suppress the letter addressed to himself, and to persuade the three bishops to prevaricate, and assert, upon their episcopal faith, that Pascal had assured them in private of his good intentions towards Henry, and of his resolution not to resent any future exertion of his prerogative in granting investitures, though he himself scrupled to give this assurance under his hand, lest other princes should copy the example and assume a like privilege.[*****]

Henry had no choice but to hide the letter meant for him and to convince the three bishops to dodge the truth. He asked them to declare, based on their episcopal integrity, that Pascal had privately assured them of his good intentions toward Henry and his decision not to retaliate against any future use of his power to grant investitures, even though Pascal couldn't bring himself to put this assurance in writing for fear that other princes might follow suit and claim the same privilege.

     [* Eadmer, p. 61. I much suspect that this text of
     Scripture is a forgery of his holiness; for I have not been
     able to find it. Yet it passed current in those ages, and
     was often quoted by the clergy as the foundation of their
     power. See Epist. St. Thorn, p. 169.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 62. W. Malms, p. 225.]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 63]

     [**** Eadmer, p. 64, 66.]

     [* Eadmer, p. 61. I strongly suspect that this scripture is a forgery from his holiness; I haven't been able to locate it. Still, it was widely accepted in those times and was frequently referenced by the clergy as the basis of their authority. See Epist. St. Thorn, p. 169.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 62. W. Malms, p. 225.]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 63]

     [**** Eadmer, p. 64, 66.]

Anselm’s two messengers, who were monks, affirmed to him that it was impossible this story could have any foundation; but their word was not deemed equal to that of three bishops; and the king, as if he had finally gained his cause, proceeded to fill the sees of Hereford and Salisbury, and to invest the new bishops in the usual manner.[*] But Anselm, who, as he had good reason, gave no credit to the asseveration of the king’s messengers, refused not only to consecrate them, but even to communicate with them; and the bishops’ themselves, finding how odious they were become, returned to Henry the ensigns of their dignity. The quarrel every day increased between the king and the primate. The former, notwithstanding the prudence and moderation of his temper, threw out menaces against such as should pretend to oppose him in exerting the ancient prerogatives of his crown; and Anselm, sensible of his own dangerous situation, desired leave to make a journey to Rome, in order to lay the case before the sovereign pontiff. Henry, well pleased to rid himself without violence of so inflexible an antagonist, readily granted him permission. The prelate was attended to the shore by infinite multitudes, not only of monks and clergymen, but people of all ranks, who scrupled not in this manner to declare for their primate against their sovereign, and who regarded his departure as the final abolition of religion and true piety in the kingdom.[**] The king, however, seized all the revenues of his see; and sent William de Warelwast to negotiate with Pascal, and to find some means of accommodation in this delicate affair.

Anselm’s two messengers, who were monks, told him that it was impossible for this story to have any basis; however, their word wasn't considered as valuable as that of three bishops. The king, as if he had finally won, went ahead and filled the positions of Hereford and Salisbury, and installed the new bishops in the usual way.[*] But Anselm, who had good reason not to trust the claims of the king’s messengers, not only refused to consecrate them but also wouldn’t even communicate with them. The bishops themselves, realizing how hated they had become, returned their symbols of authority to Henry. The conflict between the king and the primate intensified every day. The king, despite his generally prudent and moderate nature, issued threats against anyone who dared to oppose him while he exercised the ancient rights of his crown. Anselm, aware of his precarious situation, requested permission to travel to Rome to present the matter to the pope. Henry, pleased to be rid of such a stubborn opponent without resorting to violence, quickly granted him permission. The prelate was escorted to the shore by huge crowds, not just of monks and clergy, but people from all walks of life, who openly supported their primate against their king and saw his departure as the end of true religion and piety in the kingdom.[**] The king, however, seized all the income from Anselm's see and sent William de Warelwast to negotiate with Pascal and find a way to resolve this delicate situation.

The English minister told Pascal, that his master would rather lose his crown than part with the right of granting investitures. “And I,” replied Pascal, “would rather lose my head than allow him to retain it.”[***] Henry secretly prohibited Anselm from returning, unless he resolved to conform himself to the laws and usages of the kingdom; and the primate took up his residence at Lyons, in expectation that the king would at last be obliged to yield the point which was the present object of controversy between them. Soon after, he was permitted to return to his monastery at Bec, in Normandy; and Henry, besides restoring to him the revenues of his see, treated him with the greatest respect, and held several conferences with him, in order to soften his opposition, and bend him to submission.[****]

The English minister told Pascal that his master would rather lose his crown than give up the right to grant investitures. “And I,” replied Pascal, “would rather lose my head than let him keep it.”[***] Henry secretly forbade Anselm from returning unless he agreed to follow the laws and customs of the kingdom; so the primate settled in Lyons, expecting that the king would eventually have to give in on the issue they were currently debating. Soon after, he was allowed to go back to his monastery at Bec in Normandy; and Henry, in addition to restoring the revenues of his see, treated him with great respect and held several meetings with him to try to ease his opposition and convince him to submit.[****]

     [* Eadmer, p. 66. W. Malms, p. 225. Hoveden, p.
     469. Sim. Dunelm. p. 228.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 71.]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 73 W. Malms, p. 226. M. Paris, p.
     40]

     [**** Hoveden, p. 471]
     [* Eadmer, p. 66. W. Malms, p. 225. Hoveden, p.
     469. Sim. Dunelm. p. 228.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 71.]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 73 W. Malms, p. 226. M. Paris, p.
     40]

     [**** Hoveden, p. 471]

The people of England, who thought all differences now accommodated, were inclined to blame their primate for absenting, himself so long from his charge; and he daily received letters from his partisans representing the necessity of his speedy return. The total extinction, they told him, of religion and Christianity was likely to ensue from the want of his fatherly care: the most shocking customs prevail in England; and the dread of his severity being now removed, sodomy and the practice of wearing long hair gain ground among all ranks of men, and these enormities openly appear every where, without sense of shame or fear of punishment.[*]

The people of England, who believed all their differences were settled, were starting to blame their leader for being away from his responsibilities for so long; he received letters daily from his supporters urging him to come back quickly. They told him that the complete decline of religion and Christianity was likely to happen without his guidance: terrible behaviors were becoming common in England; and with the fear of his strictness now gone, practices like sodomy and men wearing long hair were gaining popularity among all classes, openly displaying these actions everywhere without any sense of shame or fear of consequences.[*]

     [* Eadmer, p. 81.]
[* Eadmer, p. 81.]

The policy of the court of Rome has commonly been much admired; and men, judging by success, have bestowed the highest eulogies on that prudence by which a power, from such slender beginnings, could advance, without force of arms, to establish a universal and almost absolute monarchy in Europe. But the wisdom of so long a succession of men who filled the papal throne, and who were of such different ages, tempers, and interests, is not intelligible, and could never have place in nature. The instrument, indeed, with which they wrought, the ignorance and superstition of the people, is so gross an engine, of such universal prevalence, and so little liable to accident or disorder, that it may be successful even in the most unskilful hands; and scarce any indiscretion can frustrate its operations. While the court of Rome was openly abandoned to the most flagrant disorders, even while it was torn with schisms and factions, the power of the church daily made a sensible progress in Europe; and the temerity of Gregory and caution of Pascal were equally fortunate in promoting it. The clergy, feeling the necessity which they lay under of being protected against the violence of princes, or rigor of the laws, were well pleased to adhere to a foreign head, who, being removed from the fear of the civil authority, could freely employ the power of the whole church in defending her ancient or usurped properties and privileges, when invaded in any particular country. The monks, desirous of an independence on their diocesans, professed a still more devoted attachment to the triple crown; and the stupid people possessed no science or reason which they could oppose to the most exorbitant pretensions. Nonsense passed for demonstration: the most criminal means were sanctified by the piety of the end: treaties were not supposed to be binding, where the interests of God were concerned: the ancient laws and customs of states had no authority against a divine right: impudent forgeries were received as authentic monuments of antiquity: and the champions of holy church, if successful, were celebrated as heroes; if unfortunate, were worshipped as martyrs; and all events thus turned out equally to the advantage of clerical usurpations. Pascal himself, the reigning pope, was, in the course of this very controversy concerning investitures, involved in circumstances, and necessitated to follow a conduct which would have drawn disgrace and ruin on any temporal prince that had been so unfortunate as to fail into a like situation. His person was seized by the emperor Henry V., and he was obliged, by a formal treaty, to resign to that monarch the right of granting investitures, for which they had so long contended.[*] In order to add greater solemnity to this agreement, the emperor and pope communicated together on the same host; one half of which was given to the prince, the other taken by the pontiff. The most tremendous imprecations were publicly denounced on either of them who should violate the treaty; yet no sooner did Pascal recover his liberty, than he revoked all his concessions, and pronounced the sentence of excommunication against the emperor, who, in the end, was obliged to submit to the terms required of him, and to yield up all his pretensions, which he never could resume.[**]

The policies of the Roman court have often been admired; and people, judging by success, have praised the prudence that allowed a power to grow from such modest beginnings without using military force to establish a near-absolute monarchy across Europe. However, the wisdom of the long line of men who occupied the papal throne, coming from such diverse backgrounds, ages, and interests, is puzzling and unlikely to make sense in nature. The tool they used, the ignorance and superstition of the masses, is a crude yet widely accepted method that is resilient to accidents or disorder, making it effective even in the hands of the most unskillful. Hardly any mistake can undermine its effects. While the Roman court openly displayed flagrant issues, even amid schisms and factions, the church's power steadily grew in Europe; the boldness of Gregory and the caution of Pascal both proved successful in this expansion. The clergy felt a pressing need for protection against royal violence or harsh laws, so they were glad to align with a foreign leader who, free from the fear of civil authority, could utilize the entire church's power to defend its ancient or claimed rights and privileges when threatened in any country. The monks, seeking independence from their bishops, showed an even deeper loyalty to the papacy; and the uneducated masses had no knowledge or rationale to oppose the most outrageous claims. Absurdities were accepted as truth: the most immoral actions were justified by the noble intent behind them: treaties were considered non-binding when it came to God's interests: the longstanding laws and customs of states held no weight against divine rights: brazen forgeries were treated as authentic historical documents: and the defenders of the church were hailed as heroes if victorious; if they failed, they were venerated as martyrs; and all these outcomes ultimately benefited the church's claims to power. Pascal himself, the reigning pope, found himself caught up in this very conflict about investitures; he had to act in ways that would have brought disgrace and ruin to any earthly prince in a similar position. The emperor Henry V. captured him, and under a formal agreement, he had to concede to the emperor the right to grant investitures, a point over which they had long battled.[*] To give more weight to this agreement, the emperor and the pope shared the same host, half of which was given to the prince and the other half taken by the pope. They publicly issued dire curses on anyone who would break the treaty; yet no sooner did Pascal regain his freedom than he revoked all his concessions and excommunicated the emperor, who ultimately had to capitulate to the demands placed upon him and relinquish all his claims, which he could never reclaim.[**]

The king of England had very nearly fallen into the same dangerous situation: Pascal had already excommunicated the earl of Mallent, and the other ministers of Henry who were instrumental in supporting his pretensions:[***] he daily menaced the king himself with a like sentence, and he suspended the blow only to give him leisure to prevent it by a timely submission. The malecontents waited impatiently for the opportunity of disturbing his government by conspiracies and insurrections:[****] the king’s best friends were anxious at the prospect of an incident which would set their religious and civil duties at variance; and the countess of Blois, his sister, a princess of piety, who had great influence over him, was affrightened with the danger of her brother’s eternal damnation.[*****]

The king of England was very close to getting into the same risky situation: Pascal had already excommunicated the earl of Mallent and other ministers of Henry who were key to supporting his claims. He was constantly threatening the king with a similar sentence, only holding off to give him time to avoid it by submitting in a timely manner. The discontented nobles were eagerly waiting for the chance to disrupt his rule through plots and uprisings. The king’s closest allies were worried about the possibility of a situation that would conflict with their religious and civic duties; and the countess of Blois, his sister, a devout princess who had significant influence over him, was terrified of the risk of her brother’s eternal damnation.

     [* W. Malms, p. 167.]

     [** Padre Paolo, sopra Benef. Eccles. p. 112. W.
     Malms, p. 179 Chron. Abb St. Petri de Burgo, p. 63. Sim.
     Dunelm. p. 233.]

     [*** Eadmer p. 79.]

     [**** Eadmer, p. 80.]

     [* W. Malms, p. 167.]

     [** Padre Paolo, on Church Benefits, p. 112. W. Malms, p. 179 Chron. Abb St. Petri de Burgo, p. 63. Sim. Dunelm. p. 233.]

     [*** Eadmer p. 79.]

     [**** Eadmer, p. 80.]

Henry, on the other hand, seemed determined to run all hazards, rather than resign a prerogative of such importance, which had been enjoyed by all his predecessors; and it seemed probable from his great prudence and abilities, that he might be able co sustain his rights, and finally prevail in the contest. While Pascal and Henry thus stood mutually in awe; of each other, it was the more easy to bring about an accommodation between them, and to find a medium in which they might agree.

Henry, on the other hand, seemed set on facing any risks rather than giving up a right so important that all his predecessors had enjoyed it. Given his great caution and skill, it seemed likely that he could defend his rights and ultimately win the struggle. While Pascal and Henry were both cautious of each other, it became easier to negotiate a compromise between them and find a middle ground where they could agree.

Before bishops took possession of their dignities, they had formerly been accustomed to pass through two ceremonies: they received from the hands of the sovereign a ring and crosier, as symbols of their office; and this was called their investiture: they also made those submissions to the prince which were required of vassals by the rites of the feudal law, and which received the name of homage. And as the king might refuse both to grant the investiture and to receive the homage, though the chapter had, by some canons of the middle age, been endowed with the right of election, the sovereign had in reality the sole power of appointing prelates. Urban II. had equally deprived laymen of the rights of granting investiture and of receiving homage:[*] the emperors never were able, by all their wars and negotiations, to make any distinction be admitted between them: the interposition of profane laymen, in any particular, was still represented as impious and abominable; and the church openly aspired to a total independence on the state. But Henry had put England, as well as Normandy, in such a situation as gave greater weight to his negotiations, and Pascal was for the present satisfied with his resigning the right of granting investitures, by which the spiritual dignity was supposed to be conferred; and he allowed the bishops to do homage for their temporal properties and privileges.[**] The pontiff was well pleased to have made this acquisition, which, he hoped, would in time involve the whole; and the king, anxious to procure an escape from a very dangerous situation, was content to retain some, though a more precarious authority, in the election of prelates.

Before bishops took on their roles, they used to go through two ceremonies: they received a ring and crosier from the sovereign as symbols of their position, which was called their investiture. They also performed the necessary submissions to the prince required by feudal law, known as homage. Although the chapter had certain rights to elect bishops according to some medieval canons, the king actually held the sole power to appoint prelates, since he could refuse to grant the investiture or accept the homage. Urban II. had also stripped laypeople of their rights to grant investiture and receive homage; the emperors could never establish any distinction between them despite their wars and negotiations. The involvement of secular laypeople in any aspect was still seen as wrong and unacceptable, and the church openly aimed for complete independence from the state. However, Henry had positioned England and Normandy in such a way that gave more weight to his negotiations, and Pascal was satisfied for the moment with Henry renouncing the right to grant investitures, which was seen as the confirmation of spiritual authority. He allowed the bishops to do homage for their temporal lands and privileges. The pope was pleased to have gained this foothold, hoping it would eventually lead to more, while the king, eager to escape a very risky situation, was willing to maintain some, albeit more tenuous, authority in the election of bishops.

     [* Eadmer, p. 91. W. Malms, p. 163. Sim. Dunelm.
     p. 230.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 91. W Malms, p. 164. 227. Hoveden,
     p. 471, M. Paris, p. 43. T. Rudborne, p. 274. Brompton. p.
     1000. Wilkins, p. 303, Chron. Dunst. p. 21.]
     [* Eadmer, p. 91. W. Malms, p. 163. Sim. Dunelm.
     p. 230.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 91. W Malms, p. 164. 227. Hoveden,
     p. 471, M. Paris, p. 43. T. Rudborne, p. 274. Brompton. p.
     1000. Wilkins, p. 303, Chron. Dunst. p. 21.]

After the principal controversy was accommodated, it was not difficult to adjust the other differences. If the pope allowed Anselm to communicate with the prelates who had already received investitures from the crown; and he only required of them some submissions for their past misconduct.[*] He also granted Anselm a plenary power of remedying every other disorder, which, he said, might arise from the barbarousness of he country.[**] Such was the idea which the popes then entertained of the English; and nothing can be a stronger proof of the miserable ignorance in which that people were then plunged, than that, a man who sat on the papal throne, and who subsisted by absurdities and nonsense, should think himself entitled to treat them as barbarians.

After the main controversy was resolved, it wasn’t hard to sort out the other issues. If the pope let Anselm talk to the bishops who had already received their positions from the crown; and he only asked them for some apologies for their past wrongs.[*] He also gave Anselm full authority to fix any other problems that might come up because of the uncivilized state of the country.[**] This was the opinion that the popes had of the English at that time; and nothing shows more clearly the terrible ignorance that people were in than the fact that a man on the papal throne, who thrived on absurdities and nonsense, believed he had the right to consider them as barbarians.

During the course of these controversies, a synod was held at Westminster, where the king, intent only on the mam dispute, allowed some canons of less importance to be enacted, which tended to promote the usurpations of the clergy. The celibacy of priests was enjoined; a point which it was still found very difficult to carry into execution; and even laymen were not allowed to marry within the seventh degree of affinity.[***] By this contrivance, the pope augmented the profits which he reaped from granting dispensations, and likewise those from divorces. For as the art of writing was then rare, and parish registers were not regularly kept, it was not easy to ascertain the degrees of affinity even among people of rank; and any man, who had money sufficient to pay for it, might obtain a divorce, on pretence that his wife was more nearly related to him than was permitted by the canons. The synod also passed a vote, prohibiting the laity from wearing long hair.[****] The aversion of the clergy to this mode was not confined to England. When the king went to Normandy, before he had conquered that province, the bishop of Seeze, in a formal harangue, earnestly exhorted him to redress the manifold disorders under which the government labored, and to oblige the people to poll their hair in a decent form. Henry, though he would not resign his prerogatives to the church willingly parted with his hair: he cut it in the form which they required of him, and obliged all the courtiers to imitate his example.[*****]

During these controversies, a synod was held at Westminster, where the king, focused only on the main dispute, allowed some less significant canons to be enacted that promoted the clergy's usurpations. The celibacy of priests was mandated, although enforcing it proved to be very challenging, and even laypeople weren't allowed to marry within the seventh degree of affinity. By this strategy, the pope increased the profits he gained from granting dispensations and divorces. Since writing was rare and parish registers weren't consistently maintained, it was difficult to determine degrees of affinity even among the nobility. Any man who had enough money could obtain a divorce by claiming that his wife was too closely related to him according to the canons. The synod also passed a rule banning laity from wearing long hair. The clergy's dislike for this style wasn't limited to England. When the king went to Normandy, before he conquered that region, the bishop of Seeze formally urged him to address the many issues plaguing the government and to require the people to cut their hair decently. Henry, although unwilling to relinquish his privileges to the church, willingly cut his hair in the required style and forced all the courtiers to do the same.

     [* Eadmer, p. 87.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 91.]

     [*** Eadmer, p 67, 68. Spel. Concil. vol. ii. p.
     22.]

     [**** Eadmer, p 68. ]

[* Eadmer, p. 87.]

[** Eadmer, p. 91.]

[*** Eadmer, p 67, 68. Spel. Concil. vol. ii. p. 22.]

[**** Eadmer, p 68.]

The acquisition of Normandy was a great point of Henry’s ambition; being the ancient patrimony of his family, and the only territory winch, while in his possession, gave him any weight or consideration on the continent: but the injustice of his usurpation was the source of great inquietude, involved him in frequent wars, and obliged him to impose on his English subjects those many heavy and arbitrary taxes, of which all the historians of that age unanimously complain.[*] His nephew William was but six years of age when he committed him to the care of Helie de St. Saen; and it is probable that his reason for intrusting that important charge to a man of so unblemished a character, was to prevent all malignant suspicions, in case any accident should befall the life of the young prince,

The takeover of Normandy was a key part of Henry's ambitions; it was his family's historic land and the only territory that gave him any real influence or recognition on the continent while he owned it. However, the unfairness of his seizure of land caused him a lot of unrest, led to constant wars, and forced him to impose heavy and arbitrary taxes on his English subjects, which all the historians of that time complained about. His nephew William was just six years old when he entrusted him to the care of Helie de St. Saen. It's likely that he chose such a reputable person for this important role to avoid any negative rumors in case anything happened to the young prince's life.

1110.

1110.

He soon repented of his choice; but when he desired to recover possession of William’s person, Helie withdrew his pupil, and carried him to the court of Fulk, count of Anjou, who gave him protection.[**]

He quickly regretted his decision; but when he wanted to get William back, Helie took his student and brought him to the court of Fulk, the count of Anjou, who offered him protection.[**]

     [* Eadmer, p. 83. Chron. Sax. p. 211, 212, 213,
     219, 220, 228. H Hunting. p. 380. Hoveden, p. 470. Aimal.
     Waverl. p. 143.]

     [** Ordei Vitalis, p 837.]
     [* Eadmer, p. 83. Chron. Sax. p. 211, 212, 213,
     219, 220, 228. H Hunting. p. 380. Hoveden, p. 470. Aimal.
     Waverl. p. 143.]

     [** Ordei Vitalis, p 837.]

In proportion as the prince grew up to man’s estate, he discovered virtues becoming his birth; and wandering through different courts of Europe, he excited the friendly compassion of many princes, and raised a general indignation against his uncle, who had so unjustly bereaved him of his inheritance. Lewis the Gross son of Philip, was at this time king of France, a brave and generous prince, who, having been obliged, during the lifetime of his father, to fly into England, in order to escape the persecutions of his step-mother Gertrude, had been protected by Henry, and had thence conceived a personal friendship for him. But these ties were soon dissolved after the accession of Lewis, who found his interests to be, in so many particulars opposite to those of the English monarch, and who became sensible of the danger attending the annexation of Normandy to England. He joined, therefore, the counts of Anjou and Flanders in giving disquiet to Henry’s government; and this monarch, in order to defend his foreign dominions, found himself obliged to go over to Normandy, where he resided two years. The war which ensued among those princes was attended with no memorable event, and produced only slight skirmishes on the frontiers, agreeably to the weak condition of the sovereigns in that age, whenever their subjects were not roused by some great and urgent occasion. Henry, by contracting his eldest son, William, to the daughter of Fulk, detached that prince from the alliance, and obliged the others to come to an accommodation with him. This peace was not of long duration. His nephew William retired to the court of Baldwin, earl of Flanders, who espoused his cause; and the king of France, having soon after, for other reasons, joined the party, a new war was kindled in Normandy, which produced no event more memorable than had attended the former.

As the prince grew into adulthood, he began to show the qualities expected of his status. While traveling through various courts in Europe, he garnered sympathy from many princes and stirred widespread anger against his uncle, who had wrongly stripped him of his inheritance. At this time, Louis the Fat, son of Philip, was king of France. He was a brave and generous ruler who, during his father's reign, had to escape to England to avoid the harassment of his stepmother Gertrude, and he was sheltered by Henry, which led to a personal bond with him. However, these connections quickly faded after Louis became king, as he found his interests increasingly at odds with those of the English king. He also recognized the risks of Normandy being attached to England. Therefore, he allied with the counts of Anjou and Flanders to challenge Henry’s rule, prompting Henry to spend two years in Normandy to protect his foreign territories. The ensuing conflict among those princes was marked by minimal action, primarily minor skirmishes along the borders, reflecting the weak position of rulers at that time when their subjects were not provoked by significant events. Henry managed to weaken the alliance by marrying off his eldest son, William, to Fulke's daughter, which drew that prince away from the coalition and forced the others to negotiate peace with him. This peace, however, was short-lived. His nephew William went to Baldwin’s court, the earl of Flanders, who supported his cause, and shortly after, the king of France, for other reasons, joined in, reigniting the war in Normandy, which resulted in no more significant events than those seen previously.

1118.

1118.

At last the death of Baldwin, who was slain in an action near Eu, gave some respite to Henry, and enabled him to carry on war with more advantage against his enemies.

At last, the death of Baldwin, who was killed in a battle near Eu, gave Henry some relief and allowed him to wage war more effectively against his enemies.

Lewis, finding himself unable to wrest Normandy from the king by force of arms, had recourse to the dangerous expedient of applying to the spiritual power, and of affording the ecclesiastics a pretence to interpose in the temporal concerns of princes.

Lewis, unable to take Normandy from the king by military force, turned to the risky strategy of appealing to the Church, giving the clergy a reason to involve themselves in the political matters of rulers.

1019.

1019.

He carried young William to a general council, which was assembled at Rheims, by Pope Calixtus II., presented the Norman prince to them, complained of the manifest usurpation and injustice of Henry, craved the assistance of the church for reinstating the true heir in his dominions, and represented the enormity of detaining in captivity so brave a prince as Robert, one of the most eminent champions of the cross, and who, by that very quality, was placed under the immediate protection of the holy see. Henry knew how to defend the rights of his crown with vigor, and yet with dexterity. He had sent over the English bishops to this synod; but at the same time had warned them, that, if any further claims were started by the pope or the ecclesiastics, he was determined to adhere to the laws and customs of England and maintain the prerogatives transmitted to him by his predecessors. “Go,” said he to them, “salute the pope in my name; hear his apostolical precepts; but take care to bring none of his new inventions into my kingdom.” Finding, however, that it would be easier for him to elude than oppose the efforts of Calixtus, he gave his ambassadors orders to gain the pope and his favorites by liberal presents and promises. The complaints of the Norman prince were thenceforth heard with great coldness by the council; and Calixtus confessed, after a conference which he had the same sunaaier with Henry, and when that prince probably renewed his presents, that, of all men whom he had ever yet been acquainted with, he was, beyond comparison, the most eloquent and persuasive.

He took young William to a general council that was held in Rheims by Pope Calixtus II. He introduced the Norman prince to them, expressed his concerns about Henry's blatant usurpation and injustice, requested the church's support to restore the rightful heir to his lands, and highlighted the seriousness of keeping such a brave prince like Robert, one of the top defenders of the cross, in captivity, especially since he was under the direct protection of the Holy See. Henry knew how to robustly defend his crown's rights while also being clever about it. He had sent the English bishops to this synod, but he had also warned them that if the pope or church leaders raised any more claims, he would stick to the laws and customs of England and uphold the privileges passed down to him from his predecessors. "Go," he told them, "greet the pope for me; listen to his apostolic instructions; but make sure to bring none of his new ideas back to my kingdom." Realizing it would be easier to sidestep than confront Calixtus's efforts, he instructed his ambassadors to win over the pope and his allies with generous gifts and promises. From then on, the council listened to the complaints of the Norman prince with indifference; and Calixtus admitted, after a meeting with Henry that same summer, during which that prince likely renewed his gifts, that of all the people he had ever met, Henry was by far the most eloquent and persuasive.

The warlike measures of Lewis proved as ineffectual as his intrigues. He had laid a scheme for surprising Noyon; but Henry, having received intelligence of the design, marched to the relief of the place, and suddenly attacked the French at Brenneville, as they were advancing towards it. A sharp conflict ensued, where Prince William behaved with great bravery, and the king himself was in the most imminent danger. He was wounded in the head by Crispin, a gallant Norman officer, who had followed the fortunes of William;[*] but being rather animated than terrified by the blow, he immediately beat his antagonist to the ground, and so encouraged his troops by the example, that they put the French to total rout, and had very nearly taken their king prisoner. The dignity of the persons engaged in this skirmish rendered it the most memorable action of the war; for in other respects it was not of great importance. There were nine hundred horsemen who fought on both sides, yet were there only two persons slain. The rest were defended by that heavy armor worn by the cavalry in those times.[**] An accommodation soon after ensued between the kings of France and England, and the interests of young William were entirely neglected in it.

The military actions of Lewis turned out to be as ineffective as his schemes. He had planned a surprise attack on Noyon; however, Henry, having learned of the plan, rushed to defend the city and launched a surprise attack on the French at Brenneville as they were approaching. A fierce battle broke out, during which Prince William showed remarkable courage, and the king found himself in serious danger. He was wounded in the head by Crispin, a brave Norman officer who had aligned himself with William; but instead of being intimidated by the hit, he quickly knocked his opponent to the ground, inspiring his troops to do the same. As a result, they routed the French completely and nearly captured their king. The high status of those involved in this skirmish made it the most notable event of the war, even though it wasn’t particularly significant otherwise. There were nine hundred cavalry on both sides, but only two people were killed. The others were protected by the heavy armor used by cavalry of that time. Soon after, a settlement was reached between the kings of France and England, and the interests of young William were completely overlooked in the process.

     [* H. Hunting, p. 381. M. Paris, p 47. Diceto, p.
     503.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 854.]
     [* H. Hunting, p. 381. M. Paris, p 47. Diceto, p.
     503.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 854.]

1120.

1120.

But this public prosperity of Henry was much overbalanced by a domestic calamity, which befell him. His only son, William, had now reached his eighteenth year; and the king, from the facility with which he himself had usurped the crown, dreading that a like revolution might subvert his family, had taken care to have him recognized successor by the states of the kingdom, and had carried him over to Normandy, that he might receive the homage of the barons of that duchy. The king, on his return, set sail from Barfleur, and was soon carried by a fair wind out of sight of land. The prince was detained by some accident; and his sailors, as well as their captain, Thomas Fitz-Stephens, having spent me interval in drinking, were so flustered, that, being in a hurry to follow the king, they heedlessly carried the ship on a rock, where she immediately foundered. William was put into the long boat, and had got clear of the ship, when, hearing the cries of his natural sister, the countess of Perche, he ordered the seamen to row back, in hopes of saving her: but the numbers who then crowded in, soon sunk the boat; and the prince with all his retinue perished. Above a hundred and forty young noblemen, of the principal families of England and Normandy, were lost on this occasion. A butcher of Rouen was the only person on board who escaped:[*] he clung to the mast, and was taken up next morning by fishermen. Fitz-Stephens also took hold of the mast; but being informed by the butcher that Prince William had perished, he said that he would not survive the disaster; and he threw himself headlong into the sea.[**] Henry entertained hopes for three days that his son had put into some distant port of England; but when certain intelligence of the calamity was brought him, he fainted away; and it was remarked, that he never after was seen to smile, nor ever recovered his wonted cheerfulness.[***]

But Henry's public prosperity was heavily overshadowed by a personal tragedy. His only son, William, had just turned eighteen, and since Henry himself had easily taken the crown, he feared a similar uprising could threaten his family. To prevent this, he ensured that William was recognized as his successor by the kingdom's leaders and took him to Normandy to receive the loyalty of the barons there. When Henry set sail back from Barfleur, a strong wind quickly took him out of sight of land. Unfortunately, William was delayed by some incident, and his crew, along with their captain, Thomas Fitz-Stephens, had spent the time drinking. They were so intoxicated that in their rush to catch up with Henry, they ran the ship aground on a rock, and it quickly sank. William managed to get into the lifeboat and was clear of the sinking ship when he heard his half-sister, the Countess of Perche, calling for help. He ordered the sailors to row back to rescue her, but too many people rushed into the lifeboat, causing it to capsize, and William and everyone with him drowned. Over one hundred and forty young noblemen from the leading families of England and Normandy perished in the disaster. The only survivor was a butcher from Rouen, who clung to the mast and was rescued the next morning by fishermen. Fitz-Stephens also grabbed hold of the mast, but after the butcher told him William had died, he declared he wouldn't outlive this tragedy and jumped into the sea. Henry held onto hope for three days, thinking his son had landed safely somewhere in England, but when he finally received confirmation of the disaster, he fainted. It was noted that he never smiled again and lost his usual cheerfulness.

The death of William may be regarded, in one respect, as a misfortune to the English; because it was the immediate source of those civil wars which, after the demise of the king, caused such confusion in the kingdom; but it is remarkable, that the young prince had entertained a violent aversion to the natives; and had been heard to threaten, that when he should be king he would make them draw the plough, and would turn them into beasts of burden. These prepossessions he inherited from his father; who, though he was wont, when it might serve his purpose, to value himself on his birth, as a native of England,[****] showed, in the course of his government, an extreme prejudice against that people. All hopes of preferment to ecclesiastical as well as civil dignities were denied them during this whole reign; and any foreigner, however ignorant or worthless, was sure to have the preference in every competition.[*****] As the English had given no disturbance to the government during the course of fifty years, this inveterate antipathy in a prince of so much temper as well as penetration, forms a presumption that the English of that age were still a rude and barbarous people even compared to the Normans, and impresses us with no very favorable idea of the Anglo-Saxon manners.

The death of William can be seen, in one way, as a setback for the English; it was the direct cause of the civil wars that, after the king's passing, created chaos in the kingdom. However, it's interesting to note that the young prince harbored a deep hatred for the natives and had been heard threatening that when he became king, he would make them plow fields and turn them into beasts of burden. He inherited this bias from his father, who, although he often took pride in his English heritage when it suited him, displayed significant prejudice toward the English throughout his rule. During this entire reign, the English were denied any opportunities for advancement in both church and government positions, while any foreigner, no matter how unqualified, was guaranteed preference in every competition. Since the English had posed no threat to the government for fifty years, this deep-seated animosity in a prince with both temperament and insight suggests that the English of that era were still considered a rough and uncivilized people, even compared to the Normans, and gives us an unflattering view of Anglo-Saxon culture.

Prince William left no children; and the king had not now any legitimate issue, except one daughter, Matilda, whom, in 1110, he had betrothed, though only eight years of age,[******] to the emperor Henry V., and whom he had then sent over to be educated in Germany.[*******] 13

Prince William had no children, and the king now had no legitimate heirs, except for one daughter, Matilda, whom he had betrothed in 1110 to Emperor Henry V when she was only eight years old. He then sent her to Germany for her education. 13

     [* Sim. Dunelm. p. 242. Alured. Beverl. p. 148.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 868.]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 476. Order. Vitalis, p. 869.]

     [**** Gul. Neubr. lib. i. cap, 3.]

     [****** Chron, Sax. p. 215. W. Malms, p. 166.
     Order. Vitalis, p 83]

     [******* See note M, at the end of the volume.]
     [* Sim. Dunelm. p. 242. Alured. Beverl. p. 148.]

     [** Order. Vitalis, p. 868.]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 476. Order. Vitalis, p. 869.]

     [**** Gul. Neubr. lib. i. cap, 3.]

     [****** Chron, Sax. p. 215. W. Malms, p. 166.
     Order. Vitalis, p 83]

     [******* See note M, at the end of the volume.]

But as her absence from the kingdom, and her marriage into a foreign family, might endanger the succession, Henry, who was now a widower, was induced to marry, in hopes of having male heirs; and he made his addresses to Adelais, daughter of Godfrey, duke of Lovainc, and niece of Pope Calixtus, a young princess of an amiable person.[*]

But since her absence from the kingdom and her marriage into a foreign family could threaten the succession, Henry, now a widower, was encouraged to remarry in hopes of having male heirs. He sought the hand of Adelais, the daughter of Godfrey, duke of Louvain, and niece of Pope Calixtus, a young princess with a pleasant demeanor.[*]

1121.

1121.

But Adelais brought him no children; and the prince who was most likely to dispute the succession, and even the immediate possession of the crown, recovered hopes of subverting his rival, who had successively seized all his patrimonial dominions. William, the son of Duke Robert, was still protected in the French court; and as Henry’s connections with the count of Anjou were broken off by the death of his son, Fulk joined the party of the unfortunate prince, gave him his daughter in marriage, and aided him in raising disturbances in Normandy. But Henry found the means of drawing off the count of Anjou, by forming anew with him a nearer connection than the former, and one more material to the interests of that count’s family.

But Adelais didn’t give him any children; and the prince who was most likely to challenge the succession and even the immediate claim to the crown started to hope again that he could undermine his rival, who had taken control of all his inherited lands. William, Duke Robert’s son, was still being protected at the French court; and since Henry’s ties with the Count of Anjou were severed by the death of his son, Fulk allied with the unfortunate prince, marrying off his daughter to him and helping stir up trouble in Normandy. However, Henry managed to draw the Count of Anjou away by forming a closer bond with him than before, one that was more beneficial to the interests of the count’s family.

1127.

1127.

The emperor, his son-in-law, dying without issue, he bestowed his daughter on Geoffrey, the eldest son of Fulk, and endeavored to insure her succession, by having her recognized heir to all his dominions, and obliging the barons both of Normandy and England to swear fealty to her. He hoped that the choice of this husband would be more agreeable to all his subjects than that of the emperor; as securing them from the danger of falling under the dominion of a great and distant potentate,

The emperor, his son-in-law, died without children, so he gave his daughter to Geoffrey, the eldest son of Fulk, and worked to ensure her succession by having her recognized as the heir to all his lands, requiring the barons of both Normandy and England to swear loyalty to her. He hoped that this choice of husband would be more acceptable to all his subjects than that of the emperor, protecting them from the threat of being ruled by a powerful and distant leader.

1128.

1128.

who might bring them into subjection, and reduce their country to the rank of a province; but the barons were displeased that a step so material to national interests had been taken without consulting them;[**] and Henry had too sensibly experienced the turbulence of their disposition not to dread the effects of their resentment.

who might bring them under control and turn their country into a mere province; but the barons were unhappy that such an important decision for national interests had been made without asking for their input;[**] and Henry had felt the impact of their volatility enough to fear the consequences of their anger.

     [* Chron. Sax. p. 223. W. Malms, p. 165.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 175. The Annals of (Waverly p.
     150) say that the king asked and obtained the consent of all
     the barons.]
     [* Chron. Sax. p. 223. W. Malms, p. 165.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 175. The Annals of (Waverly p.
     150) state that the king requested and received the agreement of all
     the barons.]

It seemed probable that his nephew’s party might gain force from the increase of the malecontents; an accession of power, which that prince acquired a little after, tended to render his pretensions still more dangerous. Charles, earl of Flanders, being assassinated during the celebration of divine service, King Lewis immediately put the young prince in possession of that county, to which he had pretensions in the right of his grandmother Matilda, wife to the Conqueror. But William survived a very little time this piece of good fortune, which seemed to open the way to still further prosperity. He was killed in a skirmish with the landgrave of Alsace, his competitor for Flanders; and his death put an end, for the present, to the jealousy and inquietude of Henry.

It seemed likely that his nephew’s party could gain strength from the growing dissatisfaction among the people; a boost of power that the prince acquired shortly afterward made his claims even more threatening. When Charles, the Earl of Flanders, was assassinated during a religious service, King Lewis quickly gave the young prince control of that county, which he claimed through his grandmother Matilda, who was married to the Conqueror. However, William didn't enjoy this stroke of good luck for long, as he was killed in a skirmish with the landgrave of Alsace, who was vying for control of Flanders; his death temporarily put an end to Henry's jealousy and unrest.

The chief merit of this monarch’s government consists in the profound tranquillity which he established and maintained throughout all his dominions during the greater part of his reign. The mutinous barons were retained in subjection; and his neighbors, in every attempt which they made upon him, found him so well prepared that they were discouraged from continuing or renewing their enterprises. In order to repress the incursions of the Welsh, he brought over some Flemings in the year 1111, and settled them in Pembrokeshire, where they long maintained a different language, and customs, and manners, from their neighbors. Though his government seems to have been arbitrary in England, it was judicious and prudent; and was as little oppressive as the necessity of his affairs would permit. He wanted not attention to the redress of grievances; and historians mention in particular the levying of purveyance, which he endeavored to moderate and restrain. The tenants in the king’s demesne lands were at that time obliged to supply, gratis, the court with provisions, and to furnish carriages on the same hard terms, when the king made a progress, as he did frequently, into any of the counties. These exactions were so grievous, and levied in so licentious a manner, that the farmers, when they heard of the approach of the court, often deserted their houses, as if an enemy had invaded the country;[*] and sheltered their persons and families in the woods, from the insults of the king’s retinue. Henry prohibited those enormities, and punished the persons guilty of them by cutting off their hands, legs, or other members.[**] But the prerogative was perpetual; the remedy applied by Henry was temporary; and the violence itself of this remedy, so far from giving security to the people, was only a proof of the ferocity of the government, and threatened a quick return of like abuses.

The main strength of this king's rule was the deep peace he created and maintained across all his territories for most of his reign. The rebellious barons were kept in check, and his neighbors, in every attack they made, found him so well prepared that they were discouraged from continuing or trying again. To stop the Welsh raids, he brought over some Flemings in 1111 and settled them in Pembrokeshire, where they preserved a different language, customs, and way of life from their neighbors. While his rule in England seemed strict, it was wise and careful, and was as less oppressive as his situation allowed. He paid attention to addressing grievances, especially concerning the levying of purveyance, which he tried to lessen and control. At that time, tenants on the king's demesne lands had to provide the court with supplies for free and also furnish carriages under the same harsh conditions whenever the king traveled, which he often did, to various counties. These demands were so burdensome and imposed in such an abusive way that farmers, hearing the court was coming, would often flee their homes as if an enemy had invaded the land, hiding in the woods to escape the king's entourage. Henry put a stop to these abuses and punished those responsible by cutting off their hands, legs, or other limbs. But the privilege to impose such demands was permanent; Henry's remedy was temporary, and the harshness of this remedy, far from securing safety for the people, only highlighted the brutality of the government and threatened a quick return of similar abuses.

     [* Eadmer, p. 94. Chron. Sax., p. 212.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 94.]
     [* Eadmer, p. 94. Chron. Sax., p. 212.]

     [** Eadmer, p. 94.]

One great and difficult object of the king’s prudence was the guarding against the encroachments of the court of Rome, and protecting the liberties of the church of England. The pope, in the year 1101, had sent Guy, archbishop of Vienne, as legate into Britain; and though he was the first that for many years had appeared there in that character, and his commission gave general surprise,[*] the king, who was then in the commencement of his reign, and was involved in many difficulties, was obliged to submit to this encroachment on his authority. But in the year 1116, Anselm, abbot of St. Sabas, who was coming over with a like legantine commission, was prohibited from entering the kingdom;[**] and Pope Calixtus, who in his turn was then laboring under many difficulties, by reason of the pretensions of Gregory, an antipope, was obliged to promise that he never would for the future, except when solicited by the king himself, send any legate into England.[***] Notwithstanding this engagement, the pope, as soon as he had suppressed his antagonist, granted the cardinal De Crema a legantine commission over that kingdom; and the king, who, by reason of his nephew’s intrigues and invasions, found himself at that time in a dangerous situation, was obliged to submit to the exercise of this commission.[****] A synod was called by the legate at London; where, among other canons, a vote passed enacting severe penalties on the marriages of the clergy.[*****] The cardinal, in a public harangue, declared it to be an unpardonable enormity, that a priest should dare to consecrate and touch the body of Christ immediately after he had risen from the side of a strumpet; for that was the decent appellation which he gave to the wives of the clergy. But it happened, that the very next night the officers of justice, breaking into a disorderly house, found the cardinal in bed with a courtesan;[******] an incident which threw such ridicule upon him, that he immediately stole out of the kingdom; the synod broke up; and the canons against the marriage of clergymen were worse executed than ever.[*******]

One major and challenging goal of the king's wisdom was to protect against the encroachments of the Roman court and to safeguard the freedoms of the Church of England. In 1101, the pope sent Guy, the archbishop of Vienne, as legate to Britain; even though he was the first person to hold that position there in many years and his appointment was quite surprising,[*] the king, who was just starting his reign and facing numerous challenges, had to accept this intrusion on his authority. However, in 1116, Anselm, the abbot of St. Sabas, who was arriving with a similar legantine appointment, was forbidden from entering the kingdom;[**] Pope Calixtus, who was also dealing with significant issues due to the claims of Gregory, an antipope, had to agree that he would not send any legate to England in the future unless the king himself requested it.[***] Despite this agreement, once he had dealt with his rival, the pope granted a legantine commission to Cardinal De Crema for that kingdom; and the king, finding himself in a precarious position due to his nephew’s plots and invasions, had to accept the authority of this commission.[****] A synod was called by the legate in London, where, among other regulations, a law was passed imposing strict penalties on the marriages of clergy.[*****] The cardinal publicly declared that it was an unforgivable sin for a priest to consecrate and touch the body of Christ right after leaving the bed of a whore; that was the term he used for the wives of clergy. However, the very next night, law enforcement burst into a brothel and found the cardinal in bed with an escort;[******] this incident brought such ridicule upon him that he quickly fled the kingdom, the synod was disbanded, and the rules against clerical marriage were enforced more strictly than ever.[*******]

     [* Eadmer, p. 58.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 474.]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 125, 137, 138.]

     [**** Chron. Sax. p. 229.]

     [****** Hoveden, p. 478. M. Paris. p. 48.]

     [******* M. West. ad ann 1125. H. Hunting. p. 382.]
     [* Eadmer, p. 58.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 474.]

     [*** Eadmer, p. 125, 137, 138.]

     [**** Chron. Sax. p. 229.]

     [****** Hoveden, p. 478. M. Paris. p. 48.]

     [******* M. West. ad ann 1125. H. Hunting. p. 382.]

It is remarkable that this last writer, who was a clergyman as well as the others, makes an apology for using such freedom with the fathers of the church; but says, that the fact was notorious, and ought not to be concealed.

It’s interesting that this last writer, who was a clergyman just like the others, apologizes for being so straightforward about the church fathers; but he insists that the truth is well-known and shouldn’t be hidden.

Henry, in order to prevent this alternate revolution of concessions and encroachments, sent William, then archbishop of Canterbury, to remonstrate with the court of Rome against those abuses, and to assert the liberties of the English church. It was a usual maxim with every pope, when he found that he could not prevail in any pretension, to grant princes or states a power which they had always exercised, to resume at a proper juncture the claim which seemed to be resigned, and to pretend that the civil magistrate had possessed the authority only from a special indulgence of the Roman pontiff. After this manner, the pope, finding that the French nation would not admit his claim of granting investitures, had passed a bull, giving the king that authority; and he now practised a like invention to elude the complaints of the king of England. He made the archbishop of Canterbury his legate, renewed his commission from time to time, and still pretended that the rights which that prelate had ever exercised as metropolitan, were entirely derived from the indulgence of the apostolic see. The English princes, and Henry in particular, who were glad to avoid any immediate contest of so dangerous a nature, commonly acquiesced by their silence in these pretensions of the court of Rome.[*] 14

Henry, to stop this back-and-forth of concessions and takeovers, sent William, the archbishop of Canterbury, to protest to the court of Rome against these abuses and to defend the rights of the English church. It was a common practice for every pope, when he found he couldn't get his way on any demand, to give princes or states a power they had always held, so that he could later reclaim the authority he seemed to have given up, while claiming the civil officials only held their power by special permission from the Roman pontiff. In this way, when the pope saw that the French wouldn’t accept his claim to grant investitures, he issued a bull giving the king that power; now he used a similar tactic to sidestep the king of England's complaints. He made the archbishop of Canterbury his representative, renewed his commission regularly, and still maintained that the rights this archbishop held as metropolitan were entirely given by the blessing of the apostolic see. The English princes, especially Henry, who were eager to avoid an immediate and risky confrontation, generally went along with these claims from the court of Rome by staying silent. [*] 14

     [* See note N, at the end of the volume.]
     [* See note N, at the end of the volume.]

1131.

1131.

As every thing in England remained in tranquillity, Henry took the opportunity of paying a visit to Normandy, to which he was invited, as well by his affection for that country as by his tenderness for his daughter the empress Matilda, who was always his favorite. Some time after, that princess was delivered of a son,

As everything in England stayed calm, Henry took the chance to visit Normandy, driven both by his love for the region and his affection for his daughter, the empress Matilda, who had always been his favorite. Later on, that princess gave birth to a son,

1132.

1132.

who received the name of Henry; and the king, further to insure her succession, made all the nobility of England and Normandy renew the oath of fealty,

who was given the name Henry; and the king, to guarantee her succession, had all the nobility of England and Normandy take the oath of loyalty again,

1135.

1135.

which they had already sworn to her.[*] The joy of this event, and the satisfaction which he reaped from his daughter’s company, who bore successively two other sons, made his residence in Normandy very agreeable to him;[**] and he seemed determined to pass the remainder of his days in that country, when an incursion of the Welsh obliged him to think of returning into England. He was preparing for the journey, but was seized with a sudden illness at St. Dennis le Forment, from eating too plentifully of lampreys, a food which always agreed better with his palate than his constitution.[***]

which they had already sworn to her.[*] The joy of this event and the satisfaction he got from spending time with his daughter, who gave him two more sons, made his life in Normandy very pleasant;[**] and he seemed set on spending the rest of his days in that country, when a raid by the Welsh forced him to consider returning to England. He was getting ready for the trip but suddenly fell ill at St. Dennis le Forment after eating too many lampreys, a dish that always tasted better to him than it was for his health.[***]

     [* W. Malms, p. 177.]

     [** H. Hunting, p. 315.]

     [*** H. Hunting, p. 385. M. Paris p. 50.]
     [* W. Malms, p. 177.]

     [** H. Hunting, p. 315.]

     [*** H. Hunting, p. 385. M. Paris p. 50.]

He died in the sixty-seventh year of his age and the thirty-fifth year of his reign, leaving by will his daughter Matilda heir of all his dominions, without making any mention of her husband, Geoffrey, who had given him several causes of displeasure.[*]

He died at the age of sixty-seven and in the thirty-fifth year of his reign, leaving his daughter Matilda as the heir to all his lands, without mentioning her husband, Geoffrey, who had given him several reasons to be unhappy.[*]

     [* W. Malms, p. 178.]
[* W. Malms, p. 178.]

This prince was one of the most accomplished that has filled the English throne, and possessed all the great qualities both of body and mind, natural and acquired, which could fit him for the high station to which he attained. His person was manly, his countenance engaging, his eyes clear serene, and penetrating. The affability of his address encouraged those who might be overawed by the sense of his dignity or of his wisdom; and though he often indulged his facetious humor, he knew how to temper it with discretion, and ever kept at a distance from all indecent familiarities with his courtiers. His superior eloquence and judgment would have given him an ascendant, even had he been born in a private station; and his personal bravery would have procured him respect, though it had been less supported by art and policy. By his great progress in literature, he acquired the name of ‘Beauclerk,’ or the scholar; but his application to those sedentary pursuits abated nothing of the activity and vigilance of his government; and though the learning of that age was better fitted to corrupt than improve the understanding, his natural good sense preserved itself untainted both from the pedantry and superstition which were then so prevalent among men of letters. His temper was susceptible of the sentiments as well of friendship as of resentment; and his ambition, though high, might be deemed moderate and reasonable, had not his conduct towards his brother and nephew showed that he was too much disposed to sacrifice to it all the maxims of justice and equity. But the total incapacity of Robert for government afforded his younger brother a reason or pretence for seizing the sceptre both of England and Normandy; and when violence and usurpation are once begun, necessity obliges a prince to continue in the same criminal course, and engages him in measures which his better judgment and sounder principles would otherwise have induced him to reject with warmth and indignation.

This prince was one of the most accomplished to sit on the English throne and had all the great qualities, both physical and mental, natural and learned, that suited him for the high position he reached. He had a strong build, an attractive face, and clear, calm, penetrating eyes. His friendly demeanor put at ease those who might feel intimidated by his dignity or wisdom; while he often embraced his playful humor, he knew how to temper it with discretion and always maintained a respectful distance from any inappropriate familiarity with his courtiers. His exceptional eloquence and judgment would have given him an advantage even if he had been born into a private life, and his bravery would have earned him respect, even if it had not been bolstered by skill and strategy. His significant achievements in literature earned him the name ‘Beauclerk,’ meaning the scholar; however, his dedication to intellectual pursuits did not diminish the energy and attentiveness he applied to his rule. Even though the learning of that time was more likely to corrupt than to enhance understanding, his natural good sense remained clear of the pedantry and superstition that were widespread among intellectuals. He had a temperament capable of deep feelings of both friendship and resentment; and while his ambition was high, it might have seemed reasonable and moderate if his treatment of his brother and nephew hadn’t indicated a willingness to sacrifice all principles of justice and fairness for it. However, Robert's complete ineptitude for governance gave his younger brother an excuse to seize the crowns of England and Normandy; and once violence and usurpation begin, a prince is compelled to continue down that path, leading him to decisions he would have otherwise rejected with strong disapproval.

King Henry was much addicted to women; and historians mention no less than seven illegitimate sons and six daughters born to him.[*] Hunting was also one of his favorite amusements; and he exercised great rigor against those who encroached on the royal forests, which were augmented during his reign,[**] though their number and extent were already too great. To kill a stag was as criminal as to murder a man: he made all the dogs be mutilated which were kept on the borders of his forests; and he sometimes deprived his subjects of the liberty of hunting on their own lands, or even cutting their own woods. In other respects he executed justice, and that with rigor; the best maxim which a prince in that age could follow. Stealing was first made capital in this reign;[***] false coining, which was then a very common crime, and by which the money had been extremely debased, was severely punished by Henry.* Near fifty criminals of this kind were at one time hanged or mutilated; and though these punishments seem to have been exercised in a manner somewhat arbitrary, they were grateful to the people, more attentive to present advantages than jealous of general laws. There is a code which passes under the name of Henry I.; but the best antiquaries have agreed to think it spurious. It is, however, a very ancient compilation, and may be useful to instruct us in the manners and customs of the times. We learn from it, that a great distinction was then made between the English and Normans, much to the advantage of the latter.* The deadly feuds and the liberty of private revenge, which had been avowed by the Saxon laws, were still continued, and were not yet wholly illegal.[****]

King Henry was very fond of women, and historians note that he had at least seven illegitimate sons and six daughters. Hunting was also one of his favorite pastimes; he was very strict about those who trespassed on the royal forests, which expanded during his reign, even though they were already too large. To kill a stag was considered as serious a crime as murder: he made sure that all the dogs kept along the edges of his forests were mutilated; sometimes, he even took away his subjects' rights to hunt on their own land or to cut down their own trees. In other ways, he enforced justice, and he did so harshly, which was the best approach for a ruler in that time. Stealing was first made a capital offense during his reign; fake coinage, which was a widespread crime that severely devalued money, was harshly punished by Henry. Nearly fifty criminals of this sort were hanged or mutilated at one time, and although these punishments seemed somewhat arbitrary, the people appreciated them, being more focused on immediate benefits than concerned about general laws. There is a code that goes by the name of Henry I.; however, most scholars consider it to be fake. Still, it is an ancient compilation and can help us understand the customs and manners of the time. From it, we learn that a significant distinction was made between the English and Normans, greatly benefiting the latter. The deadly feuds and the right to private revenge, which had been allowed by Saxon laws, continued and were not yet entirely illegal.

Among the laws granted on the king’s accession, it is remarkable that the reunion of the civil and ecclesiastical courts, as in the Saxon times, was enacted.[*****] But this law, like the articles of his charter, remained without effect, probably from the opposition of Archbishop Anselm.

Among the laws established when the king came to power, it’s notable that the merging of the civil and church courts, similar to the Saxon era, was put into law.[*****] However, this law, like the terms of his charter, ended up being ineffective, likely due to the resistance of Archbishop Anselm.

     [Footnonte * Sim. Dunelm. p. 231. Brompton, p. 1000. Flor. Wigorn. p.
     653 Hoveden, p. 471.]

     [Footnonte ** Sim. Dunelm. p. 231. Brompton, p. 1000. Hoveden, p. 471
     Annal. Waverl. p. 149.]

     [Footnonte *** LL. Hen. I. sect. 18, 75.]

     [Footnonte **** LL. Hen. I. sect. 82.]
     Inst. 70.]
     [Footnote * Sim. Dunelm. p. 231. Brompton, p. 1000. Flor. Wigorn. p. 653 Hoveden, p. 471.]

     [Footnote ** Sim. Dunelm. p. 231. Brompton, p. 1000. Hoveden, p. 471 Annal. Waverl. p. 149.]

     [Footnote *** LL. Hen. I. sect. 18, 75.]

     [Footnote **** LL. Hen. I. sect. 82. Inst. 70.]

Henry, on his accession, granted a charter to London, which seems to have been the first step towards rendering that city a corporation. By this charter, the city was empowered to keep the farm of Middlesex at three hundred pounds a year, to elect its own sheriff and justiciary, and to bold pleas of the crown; and it was exempted from scot, danegelt, trials by combat, and lodging the king’s retinue These, with a confirmation of the privileges of their court of hustings, wardmotes, and common halls, and their liberty of hunting in Middlesex and Surrey, are the chief articles of this charter.[*]

Henry, upon becoming king, granted a charter to London, which appears to have been the first step in turning that city into a corporation. This charter allowed the city to manage the farm of Middlesex for three hundred pounds a year, to elect its own sheriff and justiciar, and to handle cases involving the crown. It also provided exemptions from taxes, danegelt, trials by combat, and accommodating the king’s retinue. Additionally, it confirmed the privileges of their court of hustings, wardmotes, and common halls, along with their right to hunt in Middlesex and Surrey. These are the main points of this charter.[*]

It is said [**] that this prince, from indulgence to his tenants, changed the rents of his demesnes, which were formerly paid in kind, into money, which was more easily remitted to the exchequer. But the great scarcity of coin would render that commutation difficult to be executed, while at the same time provisions could not be sent to a distant quarter of the kingdom. This affords a probable reason why the ancient kings of England so frequently changed their place of abode: they carried their court from one place to another, that they might consume upon the spot the revenue of their several demesnes.

It is said [**] that this prince, due to his generosity towards his tenants, changed the rents of his estates, which were previously paid in goods, into cash, which was easier to send to the treasury. However, the great shortage of coin made this change hard to manage, while at the same time, food could not be transported to a distant part of the kingdom. This likely explains why the ancient kings of England often moved their residences: they relocated their court to spend the revenue from their various estates on-site.

     [Footnonte * Lambardi Archaionomia, ex edit. Twisden.
     Wilkins, p. 385.]

     [Footnonte ** Dail. de Scaocario, lib. i. cap. 7.]
     [Footnote * Lambardi Archaionomia, from ed. Twisden.  
     Wilkins, p. 385.]

     [Footnote ** Dail. de Scaocario, book i, chapter 7.]




CHAPTER VII.

095.jpg Stephen




STEPHEN.

Contemporary Monarchs.

     EMP. OF GERM      K. OF SCOTLAND.   K. OF FRANCE    K. OF SPAIN.

     Lothaire II. 1138  David I. 1143   Louis VI. 1137  Alphonse VIII.
     Conrad III.  1152  Malcolm IV.     Louis VII.
     Frederic I.        Lucius II.1145

     POPES
     Innocent II. 1142
     Celestin II. 1144
     Eugenius III. 1153
     Anastasius IV.
     EMP. OF GERM      K. OF SCOTLAND.   K. OF FRANCE    K. OF SPAIN.

     Lothaire II. 1138  David I. 1143   Louis VI. 1137  Alphonse VIII.
     Conrad III.  1152  Malcolm IV.     Louis VII.
     Frederic I.        Lucius II.1145

     POPES
     Innocent II. 1142
     Celestin II. 1144
     Eugenius III. 1153
     Anastasius IV.

1135.

1135.

IN the progress and settlement of the feudal law, the male succession to fiefs had taken place some time before the female was admitted; and estates, being considered as military benefices, not as property, were transmitted to such only as could serve in the armies, and perform in person the conditions upon which they were originally granted. But when the continuance of rights, during some generations, in the same family, had, in a great measure, obliterated the primitive idea, the females were gradually admitted to the possession of feudal property; and the same revolution of principles which procured them the inheritance of private estates, naturally introduced their succession to government and authority. The failure, therefore, of male heirs to the kingdom of England and duchy of Normandy, seemed to leave the succession open, without a rival, to the empress Matilda; and as Henry had made all his vassals in both states swear fealty to her, he presumed that they would not easily be induced to depart at once from her hereditary right, and from their own reiterated oaths and engagements. But the irregular manner in which he himself had acquired the crown might have instructed him, that neither his Norman nor English subjects were as yet capable of adhering to a strict rule of government; and as every precedent of this kind seems to give authority to new usurpations, he had reason to dread, even from his own family, some invasion of his daughter’s title, which he had taken such pains to establish.

IN the development and establishment of feudal law, male succession to fiefs occurred long before females were allowed to inherit. Since estates were seen as military benefits rather than property, they were given only to those who could serve in the armies and fulfill the conditions for which they were initially granted. However, as the rights of families continued for several generations, the original concept faded, and women were gradually allowed to inherit feudal property. This shift in principles that allowed them to inherit private estates naturally led to their involvement in government and authority roles. Therefore, the lack of male heirs to the kingdom of England and the duchy of Normandy seemed to make the succession open, without contest, to Empress Matilda. Henry had made all his vassals in both regions swear loyalty to her, thinking they would not easily break away from her hereditary right and their own repeated oaths and commitments. However, the unconventional way he had gained the crown should have taught him that neither his Norman nor English subjects were yet ready to follow a strict rule of governance. Since any such precedent seems to empower new usurpations, he had good reason to worry, even from his own family, about challenges to his daughter’s claim that he had worked so hard to secure.

Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror, had been married to Stephen, count of Blois, and had brought him several sons; among whom Stephen and Henry, the two youngest, had been invited over to England by the late king and had received great honors, riches, and preferment, from the zealous friendship which that prince bore to every one that had been so fortunate as to acquire his favor and good opinion. Henry, who had betaken himself to the ecclesiastical profession, was created abbot of Glastonbury and bishop of Winchester; and though these dignities were considerable, Stephen had, from his uncle’s liberality, attained establishments still more solid and durable.[*] The king had married him to Matilda, who was daughter and heir of Eustace, count of Boulogne, and who brought him, besides that feudal sovereignty in France, an immense property in England, which, in the distribution of lands, had been conferred by the Conqueror on the family of Boulogne. Stephen also by this marriage acquired a new connection with the royal family of England, as Mary, his wife’s mother, was sister to David, the reigning king of Scotland, and to Matilda, the first wife of Henry, and mother of the empress. The king, still imagining that he strengthened the interests of his family by the aggrandizement of Stephen, took pleasure in enriching him by the grant of new possessions; and he conferred on him the great estate forfeited by Robert Mallet in England, and that forfeited by the earl of Mortaigne in Normandy. Stephen, in return, professed great attachment to his uncle, and appeared so zealous for the succession of Matilda, that, when the barons swore fealty to that princess, he contended with Robert, earl of Glocester, the king’s natural son, who should first be admitted to give her this testimony of devoted zeal and fidelity.[**] Meanwhile he continued to cultivate, by every art of popularity, the friendship of the English nation; and many virtues with which he seemed to be endowed, favored the success of his intentions. By his bravery, activity, and vigor, he acquired the esteem of the barons; by his generosity, and by an affable and familiar address, unusual in that age among men of his high quality, he obtained the affections of the people, particularly of the Londoners.[***] And though he dared not to take any steps towards his further grandeur, lest he should expose himself to the jealousy of so penetrating a prince as Henry, he still hoped that, by accumulating riches and power, and by acquiring popularity, he might in time be able to open his way to the throne.

Adela, daughter of William the Conqueror, had married Stephen, the count of Blois, and had given him several sons. Among them, Stephen and Henry, the two youngest, were invited to England by the late king and received great honors, wealth, and positions because of the king's strong friendship with anyone who earned his favor and good opinion. Henry, who had joined the church, became the abbot of Glastonbury and the bishop of Winchester. Although these titles were significant, Stephen, thanks to his uncle's generosity, secured positions that were even more stable and lasting. The king had married him to Matilda, the daughter and heiress of Eustace, the count of Boulogne, who brought him not only feudal power in France but also a vast estate in England, which the Conqueror had granted to the Boulogne family. Through this marriage, Stephen also formed a new link to the royal family of England, as his wife’s mother, Mary, was the sister of David, the reigning king of Scotland, and Matilda, the first wife of Henry and mother of the empress. The king, believing he was strengthening his family’s interests by elevating Stephen, enjoyed enriching him with new lands and granted him the vast estate lost by Robert Mallet in England and the one forfeited by the earl of Mortaigne in Normandy. In return, Stephen expressed great loyalty to his uncle and seemed so passionate about Matilda’s claim to the throne that when the barons pledged their loyalty to her, he competed with Robert, the earl of Gloucester, the king’s illegitimate son, for the honor of being the first to acknowledge her with this vow of loyalty and commitment. Meanwhile, he worked hard to gain the favor of the English people through various means of popularity, and many qualities that he seemed to possess aided his efforts. His bravery, energy, and enthusiasm earned him the admiration of the barons; while his generosity and friendly, approachable manner—uncommon for someone of his high status in that era—won the hearts of the people, especially the Londoners. Even though he was careful not to take any steps toward greater ambition, fearing the jealousy of a ruler as shrewd as Henry, he still hoped that by amassing wealth and power, along with gaining popularity, he could eventually find a way to the throne.

     [* Gul. Neubr. p. 360. Brompton, p. 1023.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 192.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 179. Gest. Steph. p. 925.]
     [* Gul. Neubr. p. 360. Brompton, p. 1023.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 192.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 179. Gest. Steph. p. 925.]

No sooner had Henry breathed his last, than Stephen, insensible to all the ties of gratitude and fidelity, and blind to danger, gave full reins to his criminal ambition; and trusted that, even without any previous intrigue, the celerity of his enterprise, and the boldness of his attempt, might overcome the weak attachment which the English and Normans in that age bore to the laws and to the rights of their sovereign. He hastened over to England, and though the citizens of Dover and those of Canterbury, apprised of his purpose, shut their gates against him, he stopped not till he arrived at London, where some of the lower rank, instigated by his emissaries, as well as moved by his general popularity, immediately saluted him king. His next point was to acquire the good will of the clergy; and by performing the ceremony of his coronation, to put himself in possession of the throne, from which he was confident it would not be easy afterwards to expel him. His brother, the bishop of Winchester, was useful to him in these capital articles; having gained Roger, bishop of Salisbury, who, though he owed a great fortune and advancement to the favor of the late king, preserved no sense of gratitude to that prince’s family, he applied, in conjunction with that prelate, to William, archbishop of Canterbury, and required him, in virtue of his office, to give the royal unction to Stephen. The primate, who, as all the others, had sworn fealty to Matilda, refused to perform this ceremony; but his opposition was overcome by an expedient equally dishonorable with the other steps by which this revolution was effected. Hugh Bigod, steward of the household, made oath before the primate, that the late king, on his death-bed, had shown a dissatisfaction with his daughter Matilda, and had expressed his intention of leaving the count of Boulogne heir to all his dominions.[*] William, either believing or feigning to believe Bigod’s testimony, anointed Stephen, and put the crown upon his head; and from this religious ceremony, that prince, without any shadow, either of hereditary title or consent of the nobility or people, was allowed to proceed to the exercise of sovereign authority. Very few barons attended his coronation;[**] but none opposed his usurpation, however unjust or flagrant.

No sooner had Henry taken his last breath than Stephen, ignoring all ties of gratitude and loyalty and blinded by ambition, fully unleashed his criminal desires. He believed that, even without any prior schemes, the speed of his actions and the boldness of his attempt could override the weak attachment that the English and Normans had to their laws and the rights of their king at that time. He hurried to England, and although the people of Dover and Canterbury, aware of his intentions, locked their gates against him, he didn’t stop until he reached London. There, some of the common people, encouraged by his agents and swayed by his general popularity, immediately hailed him as king. His next goal was to win over the support of the clergy; by undergoing the ceremony of his coronation, he aimed to secure his position on the throne, from which he believed it would be difficult to dislodge him later. His brother, the bishop of Winchester, was instrumental in these crucial matters; he won over Roger, the bishop of Salisbury, who, despite having gained great wealth and status from the late king’s favor, felt no sense of loyalty to the king’s family. Together with that bishop, he approached William, the archbishop of Canterbury, and insisted that, in his official capacity, he should anoint Stephen as king. The archbishop, who like all others had sworn loyalty to Matilda, refused to conduct the ceremony. However, his objection was overcome by a scheme equally dishonorable as the other actions taken to achieve this revolution. Hugh Bigod, the king’s steward, swore before the archbishop that the late king, on his deathbed, had expressed dissatisfaction with his daughter Matilda and intended to leave the Count of Boulogne as the heir to all his lands. William, either believing or pretending to believe Bigod’s claim, anointed Stephen and placed the crown on his head. From that religious ceremony, this prince, without any claim to hereditary right or consent from the nobility or the people, was allowed to assume sovereign power. Very few barons attended his coronation; however, none opposed his unjust and blatant usurpation.

     [* M. Paris, p. 51. Diccto, p. 505 Chron. Durst.
     p. 23.]

     [* Brompton, p. 1023.]
     [* M. Paris, p. 51. Diccto, p. 505 Chron. Durst.
     p. 23.]

     [* Brompton, p. 1023.]

The sentiment of religion which, if corrupted into superstition, has often little efficacy in fortifying the duties of civil society, was not affected by the multiplied oaths taken in favor of Matilda, and only rendered the people obedient to a prince who was countenanced by the clergy, and who had received from the primate the rite of royal unction and consecration.[*]

The feeling of religion, which when twisted into superstition often fails to strengthen the duties of society, was not influenced by the many oaths sworn in support of Matilda. It merely made the people loyal to a ruler who was backed by the clergy and who had received the blessing of royal anointment and consecration from the archbishop.[*]

Stephen, that he might further secure his tottering throne passed a charter, in which he made liberal promises to all orders of men; to the clergy, that he would speedily fill all vacant benefices, and would never levy the rents of any of them during the vacancy; to the nobility, that he would reduce the royal forests to their ancient boundaries, and correct all encroachments; and to the people, that he would remit the tax of danegelt, and restore the laws of King Edward.[**] The late king had a great treasure at Winchester, amounting to a hundred thousand pounds; and Stephen, by seizing this money, immediately turned against Henry’s family the precaution which that prince had employed for their grandeur and security; an event which naturally attends the policy of amassing treasures. By means of this money, the usurper insured the compliance, though not the attachment, of the principal clergy and nobility; but not trusting to this frail security, he invited over from the continent, particularly from Brittany and Flanders, great numbers of those bravoes, or disorderly soldiers, with whom every country in Europe, by reason of the general ill police and turbulent government, extremely abounded.[***] These mercenary troops guarded his throne by the terrors of the sword; and Stephen, that he might also overawe all malecontents by new and additional terrors of religion, procured a bull from Rome, which ratified his title, and which the pope, seeing this prince in possession of the throne, and pleased with an appeal to his authority in secular controversies, very readily granted him.[****]

Stephen, wanting to further secure his shaky throne, issued a charter in which he made generous promises to everyone; to the clergy, that he would quickly fill all vacant positions and would not collect rents during the vacancies; to the nobility, that he would restore the royal forests to their original boundaries and fix all encroachments; and to the people, that he would eliminate the tax of danegelt and restore the laws of King Edward.[**] The late king had a significant treasure in Winchester, totaling a hundred thousand pounds; by seizing this money, Stephen directly undermined the measures that Henry had put in place for their power and safety, which is a typical outcome of hoarding wealth. With this money, the usurper secured the compliance, though not the loyalty, of the main clergy and nobility; however, not fully trusting this unstable support, he brought in large numbers of mercenaries from the continent, especially from Brittany and Flanders, where countries were filled with disorderly soldiers due to widespread lawlessness and unstable governments.[***] These hired troops protected his throne through the threat of violence; and to further intimidate dissenters with additional religious fears, Stephen obtained a bull from Rome that confirmed his claim to the throne. The pope, pleased to see this prince in power and happy to be consulted in secular matters, granted this request without hesitation.[****]

     [* Such stress was formerly laid on the right of
     coronation, that the monkish, writers never give any prince
     the title of king till he is crowned, though he had for some
     time been in possession of the crown, and exercised all the
     powers of sovereignty.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 179. Hoveden, p. 482.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 179.]

     [**** Hagulstadt, p. 259, 313.]
     [* Back in the day, a lot of importance was placed on the right to be crowned, so the monkish writers didn’t refer to any prince as a king until he was actually crowned, even if he had already been wearing the crown for a while and was using all the powers of sovereignty.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 179. Hoveden, p. 482.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 179.]

     [**** Hagulstadt, p. 259, 313.]

1136.

1136.

Matilda and her husband Geoffrey were as unfortunate in Normandy as they had been in England. The Norman nobility, moved by an hereditary animosity against the Angevins, first applied to Theobold, count of Blois, Stephen’s elder brother for protection and assistance; but hearing afterwards that Stephen had got possession of the English crown, and having, many of them, the same reasons as formerly for desiring a continuance of their union with that kingdom, they transferred their allegiance to Stephen, and put him in possession of their government. Lewis the younger, the reigning king of France, accepted the homage of Eustace, Stephen’s eldest son, for the duchy; and the more to corroborate his connections with that family, he betrothed his sister Constantia to the young prince. The count of Blois assigned all his pretensions, and received in lieu of them an annual pension of two thousand marks; and Geoffrey himself was obliged to conclude a truce for two years with Stephen, on condition of the king’s paying him, during that time, a pension of five thousand.[*] Stephen, who had taken a journey to Normandy, finished all these transactions in person, and soon after returned to England.

Matilda and her husband Geoffrey were just as unfortunate in Normandy as they had been in England. The Norman nobility, driven by a long-standing hostility toward the Angevins, initially sought protection and help from Theobald, the Count of Blois, who was Stephen’s older brother. However, upon learning that Stephen had taken the English crown, many of them, wanting to maintain their ties with England, switched their loyalty to Stephen and handed over their governance to him. Louis the Younger, the current king of France, acknowledged Eustace, Stephen’s eldest son, as the duke and further solidified his connection to that family by marrying his sister Constantia to the young prince. The Count of Blois renounced all his claims and, in exchange, received an annual pension of two thousand marks. Geoffrey was also forced to agree to a two-year truce with Stephen, with the condition that the king would pay him a pension of five thousand during that period. Stephen, who had made a trip to Normandy, handled all these matters personally before returning to England shortly after.

Robert, earl of Glocester, natural son of the late king, was a man of honor and abilities; and as he was much attached to the interests of his sister Matilda, and zealous for the lineal succession, it was chiefly from his intrigues and resistance that the king had reason to dread a new revolution of government. This nobleman, who was in Normandy when he received intelligence of Stephen’s accession, found himself much embarrassed concerning the measures which he should pursue in that difficult emergency. To swear allegiance to the usurper appeared to him dishonorable, and a breach of his oath to Matilda: to refuse giving this pledge of his fidelity was to banish himself from England, and be totally incapacitated from serving the royal family, or contributing to their restoration.[**] He offered Stephen to do him homage, and to take the oath of fealty; but with an express condition, that the king should maintain all his stipulations, and should never invade any of Robert’s rights or dignities; and Stephen, though sensible that this reserve, so unusual in itself, and so unbefitting the duty of a subject, was meant only to afford Robert a pretence for a revolt on the first favorable opportunity, was obliged by the numerous friends and retainers of that nobleman, to receive him on those terms.[***]

Robert, the Earl of Gloucester and the illegitimate son of the late king, was a man of honor and skill. He was very loyal to his sister Matilda and committed to ensuring the rightful succession. It was mainly due to his scheming and resistance that the king had good reason to fear a new shift in power. This nobleman, who was in Normandy when he heard about Stephen’s rise to power, found himself in a tough spot about what to do in such a challenging situation. Pledging loyalty to the usurper felt dishonorable to him and would break his promise to Matilda. On the other hand, refusing to give this pledge would mean exiling himself from England and making it impossible for him to support the royal family or help restore them. He proposed to Stephen that he would pay him homage and take an oath of loyalty, but only under the condition that the king would honor all his agreements and never infringe on Robert’s rights or statuses. Stephen, aware that this condition was quite unusual and not fitting for a subject's duty, realized it was merely a way for Robert to justify a rebellion at the first suitable moment. However, Stephen had to accept those terms due to Robert’s many friends and followers.

     [* M. Paris, p. 52.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 170.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 179. M Paris, p. 51.]
     [* M. Paris, p. 52.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 170.]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 179. M. Paris, p. 51.]

The clergy, who could scarcely at this time be deemed subjects to the crown, imitated that dangerous example: they annexed to their oaths of allegiance this condition, that they were only bound so long as the king defended the ecclesiastical liberties, and supported the discipline of the church.[*] The barons, in return for their submission, exacted terms still more destructive of public peace, as well as of royal authority. Many of them required the right of fortifying their castles, and of putting themselves in a posture of defence; and the king found himself totally unable to refuse his consent to this exorbitant demand.[**] All England was immediately filled with those fortresses, which the noblemen garrisoned either with their vassals, or with licentious soldiers, who flocked to them from all quarters. Unbounded rapine was exercised upon the people for the maintenance of these troops; and private animosities, which had with difficulty been restrained by law, now breaking out without control, rendered England a scene of uninterrupted violence and devastation. Wars between the nobles were carried on with the utmost fury in every quarter; the barons even assumed the right of coining money, and of exercising, without appeal, every act of jurisdiction; [***] and the inferior gentry, as well as the people, finding no defence from the laws during this total dissolution of sovereign authority, were obliged, for their immediate safety, to pay court to some neighboring chieftain, and to purchase his protection, both by submitting to his exactions, and by assisting him in his rapine upon others. The erection of one castle proved the immediate cause of building many others; and even those who obtained not the king’s permission, thought that they were entitled, by the great principle of self-preservation, to put themselves on an equal footing with their neighbors, who commonly were also their enemies and rivals. The aristocratical power, which is usually so oppressive in the Feudal governments, had now risen to its utmost height, during the reign of a prince who, though endowed with vigor and abilities, had usurped the throne without the pretence of a title, and who was necessitated to tolerate in others the same violence to which he himself had been holden for his sovereignty.

The clergy, who at this time could hardly be seen as subjects to the crown, followed that risky example: they added a condition to their oaths of allegiance that they were only bound as long as the king protected the church's rights and upheld its discipline. The barons, in exchange for their loyalty, demanded even harsher terms that threatened public peace and royal authority. Many of them insisted on the right to fortify their castles and prepare for defense, and the king found himself completely unable to refuse this outrageous demand. All of England quickly filled with these fortresses, which the nobles staffed either with their own followers or with unruly soldiers who flocked to them from everywhere. Unchecked looting was inflicted on the people to support these troops, and private grudges, which had once been kept in check by law, exploded uncontrollably, turning England into a landscape of constant violence and destruction. Noble wars were fought with fierce intensity in every region; the barons even claimed the right to mint money and to exercise all forms of jurisdiction without appeal; and both the lower gentry and the common people, finding no protection from the laws during this complete breakdown of royal authority, had to seek safety by pledging allegiance to some local lord and buying his protection, both by agreeing to his demands and by helping him in his plundering of others. The creation of one castle quickly led to the building of many more; even those who didn't get the king’s permission believed they had the right, based on the principle of self-preservation, to compete on equal terms with their neighbors, who were often also their enemies and rivals. The aristocratic power, which is typically so oppressive in feudal governments, had now reached its peak during the reign of a prince who, though strong and capable, had taken the throne without any claim to it and who was forced to allow others to commit the same violence that he himself had relied on for his kingship.

     [* W. Malms, p. 179.]

     [** W. Malms, p, 180]

     [*** Trivet, p, 19 Gul Neub. p. 372. W. Heming. p.
     487. Brompton, p. 1035.]
     [* W. Malms, p. 179.]

     [** W. Malms, p. 180]

     [*** Trivet, p. 19 Gul Neub. p. 372. W. Heming. p.
     487. Brompton, p. 1035.]

But Stephen was not of a disposition to submit long to these usurpations, without making some effort for the recovery of royal authority. Finding that the legal prerogatives of the crown were resisted and abridged, he was also tempted to make his power the sole measure of his conduct, and to violate all those concessions which he himself had made on his accession,[*] as well as the ancient privileges of his subjects. The mercenary soldiers, who chiefly supported his authority, having exhausted the royal treasure, subsisted by depredations; and every place was filled with the best grounded complaints against the government. The earl of Glocester, having now settled with his friends the plan of an insurrection, retired beyond sea, sent the king a defiance, solemnly renounced his allegiance, and upbraided him with the breach of those conditions which had been annexed to the oath of fealty sworn by that nobleman.[**]

But Stephen wasn't the type to put up with these takeovers for long without trying to regain royal authority. When he realized that the legal powers of the crown were being challenged and restricted, he was also tempted to let his own power dictate his actions, ignoring the agreements he had made when he took the throne, as well as the historic rights of his subjects. The mercenary soldiers, who mainly upheld his rule, drained the royal treasury and survived by looting, leading to widespread complaints against the government. The Earl of Glocester, having arranged a plan for rebellion with his allies, went abroad, sent the king a challenge, officially renounced his loyalty, and accused him of breaking the terms that had been attached to the oath of loyalty sworn by that nobleman.

     [* W. Malms, p. 180. M. Paris, p. 5 ]

     [** W. Malms, p. 180.]
     [* W. Malms, p. 180. M. Paris, p. 5 ]

     [** W. Malms, p. 180.]

1137.

1137.

David, king of Scotland, appeared at the head of an army in defence of his niece’s title, and penetrating into Yorkshire, committed the most barbarous devastations on that country.

David, king of Scotland, led an army to defend his niece's claim and, invading Yorkshire, caused severe destruction in that region.

1138.

1138.

The fury of his massacres and ravages enraged the northern nobility, who might otherwise have been inclined to join him; and William, earl of Albemarle, Robert de Ferrers, William Piercy, Robert de Brus, Roger Moubray, Ilbert Lacy, Walter l’Espee, powerful barons in those parts, assembled an army, with which they encamped at North Allerton, and awaited the arrival of the enemy. A great battle was here fought, called the battle of the Standard, from a high crucifix, erected by the English on a wagon, and carried along with the army as a military ensign. The king of Scots was defeated; and he himself, as well as his son Henry, narrowly escaped falling into the hands of the English. This success overawed the malecontents in England, and might have given some stability to Stephen’s throne, had he not been so elated with prosperity as to engage in a controversy with the clergy, who were at that time an overmatch for any monarch.

The fury of his massacres and destruction angered the northern nobility, who might have otherwise been inclined to join him. William, Earl of Albemarle, Robert de Ferrers, William Piercy, Robert de Brus, Roger Moubray, Ilbert Lacy, and Walter l’Espee, powerful barons in the area, gathered an army and camped at North Allerton, waiting for the enemy to arrive. A major battle took place here, known as the Battle of the Standard, named after a high crucifix set up by the English on a wagon that was carried with the army as their military banner. The King of Scots was defeated, and both he and his son Henry narrowly escaped capture by the English. This victory intimidated the dissenters in England and could have provided some stability to Stephen’s throne, if he hadn't been so caught up in his success that he provoked a conflict with the clergy, who were at that time more powerful than any monarch.

Though the great power of the church, in ancient times, weakened the authority of the crown, and interrupted the course of the laws, it may be doubted whether, in ages of such violence and outrage, it was not rather advantageous that some limits were set to the power of the sword, both in the hands of the prince and nobles, and that men were taught to pay regard to some principles and privileges.

Though the significant power of the church in ancient times diminished the authority of the crown and disrupted the legal system, it might be questioned whether, in times filled with violence and chaos, it wasn't actually beneficial that some limits were placed on the power of the sword, both in the hands of the prince and the nobles, and that people were encouraged to respect certain principles and rights.

1139.

1139.

The chief misfortune was, that the prelates, on some occasions, acted entirely as barons, employed military power against their sovereign or their neighbors, and thereby often increased those disorders which it was their duty to repress. The bishop of Salisbury, in imitation of the nobility, had built two strong castles, one at Sherborne, another at the Devizes, and had laid the foundations of a third at Malmsbury: his nephew; Alexander, bishop of Lincoln, had erected a fortress at Newark; and Stephen, who was now sensible from experience of the mischiefs attending these multiplied; citadels, resolved to begin with destroying those of the clergy, who by their function seemed less entitled than the barons to such military securities.[*] Making pretence of a fray, which had arisen in court between the retinue of the bishop of Salisbury and that of the earl of Brittany, he seized both that prelate and the bishop of Lincoln, threw them into prison, and obliged them by menaces to deliver up those places of strength which they had lately erected.[**]

The main issue was that the church leaders sometimes acted just like barons, using military power against their king or their neighbors, which often made the problems they were supposed to solve even worse. The bishop of Salisbury, following the example of the nobility, built two strong castles, one in Sherborne and another in Devizes, and started building a third in Malmsbury. His nephew, Alexander, the bishop of Lincoln, built a fortress at Newark; and Stephen, realizing from experience the trouble these numerous fortresses caused, decided to start by destroying those belonging to the clergy, who seemed less justified in having such military defenses than the barons. Pretending there was a conflict that had erupted at court between the bishop of Salisbury's entourage and that of the earl of Brittany, he captured both the bishop and the bishop of Lincoln, imprisoned them, and forced them under threat to give up the strongholds they had recently built.

Henry, bishop of Winchester, the king’s brother, being armed with a legantine commission, now conceived himself to be an ecclesiastical sovereign no less powerful than the civil; and forgetting the ties of blood which connected him with the king, he resolved to vindicate the clerical privileges which, he pretended, were here openly violated. He assembled a synod at Westminster, and there complained of the impiety of Stephen’s measures, who had employed violence against the dignitaries of the church, and had not awaited the sentence of a spiritual court, by which alone, he affirmed, they could lawfully be tried and condemned, if their conduct had anywise merited censure or punishment.[***] The synod, ventured to send a summons to the king, charging him to appear before them, and to justify his measures;[****] and Stephen, instead of resenting this indignity, sent Aubrey de Vere to plead his cause before that assembly. De Vere accused; the two prelates of treason and sedition; but the synod refused, to try the cause, or examine their conduct, till those castles of which they had been dispossessed, were previously restored to them.[*****] The bishop of Salisbury declared, that he would appeal to the pope; and had not Stephen and his partisans employed menaces, and even shown a disposition of executing violence by the hands of the soldiery, affairs had instantly come to extremity between the crown and the mitre.[******]

Henry, the bishop of Winchester and the king’s brother, armed with a legantine commission, began to see himself as an ecclesiastical ruler just as powerful as the civil one. Forgetting the family ties that connected him to the king, he decided to defend the clerical privileges that he claimed were being openly violated. He gathered a synod at Westminster, where he complained about Stephen’s unholy actions, accusing him of using violence against church leaders and not waiting for the verdict of a spiritual court, which he insisted was the only proper way for them to be tried and condemned if their actions deserved criticism or punishment. The synod boldly sent a summons to the king, demanding that he appear before them and explain his actions; instead of taking offense at this insult, Stephen sent Aubrey de Vere to defend him before the assembly. De Vere accused the two bishops of treason and sedition, but the synod refused to address the case or investigate their conduct until the castles they had been stripped of were restored to them. The bishop of Salisbury proclaimed that he would appeal to the pope; had Stephen and his supporters not resorted to threats and even shown a willingness to resort to violence with the soldiers, tensions between the crown and the church would have escalated immediately.

     [* Gul. Neub. p. 362.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p. 238. W. Malms, p. 181]

     [*** W. Malms p. 182.]

     [**** W. Malms, p. 182. M. Paris, p. 53,]

     [****** W. Malms p 183.]
[* Gul. Neub. p. 362.]

[** Chron. Sax. p. 238. W. Malms, p. 181]

[*** W. Malms p. 182.]

[**** W. Malms, p. 182. M. Paris, p. 53,]

[****** W. Malms p 183.]

While this quarrel, joined to so many other grievances, increased the discontents among the people, the empress, invited by the opportunity, and secretly encouraged by the legate himself, landed in England, with Robert, earl of Glocester, and a retinue of a hundred and forty knights. She fixed her residence at Arundel Castle, whose gates were opened to her by Adelais, the queen dowager, now married to William de Albini, earl of Sussex; and she excited, by messengers, her partisans to take arms in every county of England. Adelais, who had expected that her daughter-in-law would have invaded the kingdom with a much greater force, became apprehensive of danger; and Matilda, to ease her of her fears, removed first to Bristol, which belonged to her brother Robert, thence to Glocester, where she remained under the protection of Milo, a gallant nobleman in those parts, who had embraced her cause. Soon after, Geoffrey Talbot, William Mohun, Ralph Lovell, William Fitz-John, William Fitz-Alan, Paganell, and many other barons, declared for her; and her party, which was generally favored in the kingdom, seemed every day to gain ground upon that of her antagonist.

While this conflict, along with many other grievances, increased the people's discontent, the empress, taking advantage of the situation and secretly encouraged by the legate himself, landed in England with Robert, Earl of Gloucester, and a group of 140 knights. She settled at Arundel Castle, where Adelais, the queen dowager now married to William de Albini, Earl of Sussex, welcomed her. She sent messengers to rally her supporters to take up arms in every county in England. Adelais, who had expected her daughter-in-law to invade the kingdom with a much larger force, became worried for her safety. To ease her fears, Matilda first moved to Bristol, which belonged to her brother Robert, and then to Gloucester, where she found protection from Milo, a brave nobleman in the area who supported her cause. Soon after, Geoffrey Talbot, William Mohun, Ralph Lovell, William Fitz-John, William Fitz-Alan, Paganell, and many other barons declared their support for her; her party, which enjoyed general favor throughout the kingdom, seemed to gain ground against her rival every day.

Were we to relate all the military events transmitted to us by contemporary and authentic historians, it would be easy to swell our accounts of this reign into a large volume; but those incidents, so little memorable in themselves, and so confused both in time and place, could afford neither instruction nor entertainment to the reader. It suffices to say, that the war was spread into every quarter; and that those turbulent barons, who had already shaken off, in a great measure, the restraint of government, having now obtained the pretence of a public cause, carried on their devastations with redoubled fury, exercised implacable vengeance on each other, and set no bounds to their oppressions over the people. The castles of the nobility were become receptacles of licensed robbers, who, sallying forth day and night, committed spoil on the open country, on the villages, and even on the cities; put the captives to torture, in order to make them reveal their treasures; sold their persons to slavery; and set fire to their houses, after they had pillaged them of every thing valuable. The fierceness of their disposition, leading them to commit wanton destruction, frustrated their rapacity of its purpose; and the property and persons even of the ecclesiastics, generally so much revered, were at last, from necessity, exposed to the same outrage which had laid waste the rest of the kingdom. The land was left untilled; the instruments of husbandry were destroyed or abandoned; and a grievous famine, the natural result of those disorders, affected equally both parties, and reduced the spoilers, as well as the defenceless people, to the most extreme want and indigence.[*]

If we were to recount all the military events recorded by contemporary and reliable historians, it would be easy to expand our accounts of this reign into a sizable book. However, those incidents, which are not particularly memorable and quite confusing in terms of time and place, wouldn’t provide any real insight or entertainment for the reader. It’s enough to say that the war spread everywhere, and those rebellious barons, who had mostly freed themselves from government control, now used the pretense of a public cause to carry out their destruction with even more intensity. They took out their unyielding vengeance on each other and showed no limits to their oppression of the people. The castles of the nobility became hideouts for licensed thieves who would raid the countryside, villages, and even cities day and night, torturing captives to force them to reveal their hidden riches, selling them into slavery, and setting fire to their homes after robbing them of everything valuable. Their fierce nature led them to cause senseless destruction, which ultimately frustrated their greed. The property and lives of even the highly respected clergy were inevitably subjected to the same violence that devastated the rest of the kingdom. The land lay uncultivated, farming tools were destroyed or left behind, and a terrible famine—an unavoidable consequence of the chaos—hit both sides, leaving the robbers and the defenseless people in extreme need and poverty.[*]

     [* Chron. Sax, p. 238. W. Malms, p. 185. Gest.
     Steph. p. 961.]
     [* Chron. Sax, p. 238. W. Malms, p. 185. Gest.
     Steph. p. 961.]

1140.

1140.

After several fruitless negotiations and treaties of peace, which never interrupted these destructive hostilities, there happened at last an event which seemed to promise some end of the public calamities. Ralph, earl of Chester, and his half-brother, William de Roumara, partisans of Matilda, had surprised the Castle of Lincoln; but the citizens, who were better affected to Stephen, having invited him to their aid, that prince laid close siege to the castle, in hopes of soon rendering himself master of the place, either by assault or by famine. The earl of Glocester hastened with an army to the relief of his friends; and Stephen, informed of his approach, took the field with a resolution of giving him battle.

After several unsuccessful negotiations and peace treaties, which never really stopped the ongoing violence, an event finally occurred that seemed to offer a chance to end the public suffering. Ralph, the Earl of Chester, and his half-brother, William de Roumara, supporters of Matilda, had taken control of the Castle of Lincoln. However, the citizens, who were more loyal to Stephen, called for his help. Prince Stephen laid siege to the castle, hoping to take it by force or starvation. The Earl of Gloucester rushed in with an army to support his allies, and when Stephen learned of his approach, he prepared for battle.

1141.

1141.

After a violent shock, the two wings of the royalists were put to flight; and Stephen himself, surrounded by the enemy, was at last, after exerting great efforts of valor, borne down by numbers and taken prisoner. He was conducted to Glocester; and though at first treated with humanity, was soon after, on some suspicion, thrown into prison, and loaded with irons.

After a violent shock, the two wings of the royalists were routed; and Stephen himself, surrounded by the enemy, was finally overwhelmed by sheer numbers and taken prisoner after demonstrating great courage. He was taken to Gloucester, and although he was initially treated humanely, he was soon suspected of something and thrown into prison, where he was shackled.

Stephen’s party was entirely broken by the captivity of their leader, and the barons came in daily from all quarters, and did homage to Matilda. The princess, however, amidst all her prosperity, knew that she was not secure of success, unless she could gain the confidence of the clergy; and as the conduct of the legate had been of late very ambiguous, and showed his intentions to have rather aimed at humbling his brother, than totally ruining him, she employed every endeavor to fix him in her interests. She held a conference with him in an open plain near Winchester; where she promised upon oath, that if he would acknowledge her for sovereign, would recognize her title as the sole descendant of the late king, and would again submit to the allegiance which he, as well as the rest of the kingdom, had sworn to her, he should in return be entire master of the administration, and in particular should, at his pleasure, dispose of all vacant bishoprics and abbeys. Earl Robert, her brother, Brian Fitz-Count, Milo of Glocester, and other great men, became guaranties for her observing these engagements;[*] and the prelate was at last induced to promise her allegiance, but that still burdened with the express condition, that she should on her part fulfil her promises. He then conducted her to Winchester, led her in procession to the cathedral, and with great solemnity, in the presence of many bishops and abbots, denounced curses against all those who cursed her, poured out blessings on those who blessed her granted absolution to such as were obedient to her, and excommunicated such as were rebellious.[**] Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, soon after came also to court, and swore allegiance to the empress.[***]

Stephen’s party was completely disrupted by their leader's capture, and the barons arrived daily from all over to pledge their loyalty to Matilda. However, despite her success, the princess understood that her victory wasn’t guaranteed unless she earned the trust of the clergy. The legate’s recent actions had been unclear and seemed to suggest he aimed more at undermining his brother than completely destroying him, so she made every effort to align him with her interests. She met with him in an open field near Winchester, where she swore that if he acknowledged her as sovereign, recognized her as the rightful heir of the late king, and reaffirmed the loyalty he, along with the rest of the kingdom, had pledged to her, he would have full control over the administration, especially the authority to appoint bishops and abbots as he saw fit. Earl Robert, her brother, Brian Fitz-Count, Milo of Glocester, and other prominent figures guaranteed her commitments; and eventually, the legate agreed to support her, though with the explicit condition that she uphold her promises. He then took her to Winchester, led her in a procession to the cathedral, and with great formality, in front of numerous bishops and abbots, pronounced curses on those who opposed her, blessings on her supporters, granted forgiveness to those who followed her, and excommunicated the dissenters. Shortly after, Theobald, the archbishop of Canterbury, also came to court and swore loyalty to the empress.

     [* W. Malms, p. 187.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p 242. Contin. Flor. Wigorn. p.
     676]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 187.]
     [* W. Malms, p. 187.]

     [** Chron. Sax. p 242. Contin. Flor. Wigorn. p.
     676]

     [*** W. Malms, p. 187.]

Matilda, that she might further insure the attachment of the clergy, was willing to receive the crown from their hands; and instead of assembling the states of the kingdom, the measure which the constitution, had it been either fixed or regarded, seemed necessarily to require, she was content that the legate should summon an ecclesiastical synod, and that her title to the throne should there be acknowledged. The legate, addressing himself to the assembly, told them, that in the absence of the empress, Stephen, his brother, had been permitted to reign, and, previously to his ascending the throne, had seduced them by many fair promises, of honoring and exalting the church, of maintaining the laws, and of reforming all abuses; that it grieved him to observe how much that prince had in every particular been wanting to his engagements; public peace was interrupted, crimes were daily committed with impunity, bishops were thrown into prison and forced to surrender their possessions, abbeys were put to sale, churches were pillaged and the most enormous disorders prevailed in the administration; that he himself, in order to procure a redress of these grievances, had formerly summoned the king before a council of bishops; but instead of inducing him to amend his conduct, had rather offended him by that expedient; that, how much soever misguided, that prince was still his brother, and the object of his affections; but his interests, however, must be regarded as subordinate to those of their heavenly Father, who had now rejected him, and thrown him into the hands of his enemies; that it principally belonged to the clergy to elect and ordain kings; he had summoned them together for that purpose; and having invoked the divine assistance, he now pronounced Matilda, the only descendant of Henry, their late sovereign, queen of England. The whole assembly, by their acclamations or silence, gave or seemed to give, their assent to this declaration.[*]

Matilda, wanting to secure the support of the clergy, was willing to accept the crown from them. Instead of gathering the kingdom's states, which the constitution would usually require if it were fixed or respected, she agreed that the legate should call an ecclesiastical synod to acknowledge her claim to the throne. The legate addressed the assembly, informing them that in the empress's absence, Stephen, his brother, had been allowed to rule. Before taking the throne, he had lured them with many promises to honor and elevate the church, uphold the laws, and reform all abuses. The legate expressed his regret over how Stephen had failed in every area of his commitments: public peace was disrupted, crimes were committed daily without consequences, bishops were imprisoned and forced to give up their property, abbeys were sold off, churches were looted, and serious disorder prevailed in the administration. He had previously summoned the king before a council of bishops to address these grievances, but rather than encouraging him to change, that move had offended him. No matter how misguided Stephen was, he was still his brother and someone he cared for; however, he had to put their heavenly Father's interests above his brother's, since God had now rejected Stephen and turned him over to his enemies. It was primarily the clergy's responsibility to elect and ordain kings, and he had gathered them for that purpose. After calling for divine assistance, he declared Matilda, the only descendant of Henry, their late sovereign, as queen of England. The entire assembly, through their cheers or silence, either gave or appeared to give their agreement to this declaration.[*]

The only laymen summoned to this council, which decided the fate of the crown, were the Londoners; and even these were required not to give their opinion, but to submit to the decrees of the synod. The deputies of London, however, were not so passive; they insisted that their king should be delivered from prison; but were told by the legate, that it became not the Londoners, who were regarded as noblemen in England, to take part with those barons who had basely forsaken their lord in battle, and who had treated holy church with contumely. It is with reason that the citizens of London assumed so much authority, if it be true, what is related by Fitz-Stephen, a contemporary author, that that city should at this time bring into the field no less than eighty thousand combatants.[**]

The only regular citizens called to this council, which determined the crown's future, were from London; and even they were only expected to accept the decisions of the assembly without giving their opinions. However, the London representatives were not so passive; they demanded that their king be freed from prison, but the legate told them that it was not fitting for the Londoners, who were considered nobles in England, to side with those barons who had shamefully abandoned their lord in battle and disrespected the church. It's understandable that the citizens of London held such power, especially if what Fitz-Stephen, a contemporary writer, says is true, that at this time the city could field as many as eighty thousand fighters.[**]

     [* W. Malms, p. 188. This author, a judicious man,
     was present, and says that he was very attentive to what
     passed. This speech therefore, may be regarded as entirely
     genuine.]

     [** Were this account to be depended on, London
     must at that time have contained near four hundred thousand
     inhabitants, which is above double the number it contained
     at the death of Queen Elizabeth. But these loose
     calculations, or rather guesses, deserve very little
     credit. Peter of Blois, a contemporary writer, and a man of
     sense, says there were then only forty thousand inhabitants
     in London, which is much more likely. See epist. 151. What
     Fitz-Stephen says of the prodigious riches, splendor, and
     commerce of London, proves only the great poverty of the
     other towns of the kingdoms and indeed of all the northern
     parts of Europe.]
     [* W. Malms, p. 188. This author, a sensible man,
     was present and noted that he paid close attention to what 
     happened. This speech can therefore be considered completely 
     authentic.]

     [** If this account is to be believed, London 
     must have had around four hundred thousand 
     residents at that time, which is more than double the number it had 
     at Queen Elizabeth's death. However, these rough 
     estimates, or rather guesses, should be taken with a grain of 
     salt. Peter of Blois, a contemporary writer and a sensible man, 
     claims there were only forty thousand residents in London, which 
     seems much more likely. See epist. 151. What Fitz-Stephen says 
     about the immense wealth, splendor, and trade of London only highlights 
     the significant poverty of other towns in the kingdom and indeed all 
     the northern regions of Europe.]

London, notwithstanding its great power, and its attachment to Stephen, was at length obliged to submit to Matilda; and her authority, by the prudent conduct of Earl Robert, seemed to be established over the whole kingdom; but affairs remained not long in this situation. That princess, besides the disadvantages of her sex, which weakened her influence over a turbulent and martial people, was of a passionate, imperious spirit, and knew not how to temper with affability the harshness of a refusal. Stephen’s queen, seconded by many of the nobility, petitioned for the liberty of her husband; and offered, that, on this condition, he should renounce the crown, and retire into a convent. The legate desired that Prince Eustace, his nephew, might inherit Boulogne and the other patrimonial estates of his father.[*] The Londoners applied for the establishment of King Edward’s laws, instead of those of King Henry, which, they said, were grievous and oppressive.[**] All these petitions were rejected in the most haughty and peremptory manner.

London, despite its significant power and loyalty to Stephen, had to eventually submit to Matilda; her authority, supported by Earl Robert's wise leadership, seemed to be established over the entire kingdom. However, this situation did not last long. That princess, aside from the disadvantages of being a woman, which diminished her influence over a restless and warlike people, had a passionate and demanding nature and didn't know how to soften the harshness of a refusal with kindness. Stephen’s queen, backed by many nobles, requested her husband's release and proposed that, in exchange, he would give up the crown and enter a convent. The legate requested that Prince Eustace, his nephew, inherit Boulogne and the other inherited lands of his father.[*] The people of London sought to have King Edward’s laws reinstated instead of King Henry’s, which they claimed were burdensome and oppressive.[**] All these requests were dismissed in a very arrogant and decisive manner.

     [* Brompton, p. 1031.]

     [** Contin. Flor. Wigorn. p. 677. Gervase, p.1855]
     [* Brompton, p. 1031.]

     [** Contin. Flor. Wigorn. p. 677. Gervase, p.1855]

The legate, who had probably never been sincere in his compliance with Matilda’s government, availed himself of the ill humor excited by this imperious conduct, and secretly instigated the Londoners to a revolt. A conspiracy was entered into to seize the person of the empress, and she saved herself from the danger by a precipitate retreat. She fled to Oxford: soon after she went to Winchester, whither the legate, desirous to save appearances, and watching the opportunity to ruin her cause, had retired. But having assembled all his retainers, he openly joined his force to that of the Londoners, and to Stephen’s mercenary troops, who had not yet evacuated the kingdom; and he besieged Matilda in Winchester. The princess, being hard pressed by famine, made her escape; but in the flight, Earl Robert, her brother, fell into the hands of the enemy. This nobleman, though a subject, was as much the life and soul of his own party, as Stephen was of the other: and the empress, sensible of his merit and importance, consented to exchange the prisoners on equal terms. The civil war was again kindled with greater fury than ever.

The legate, who probably never truly supported Matilda’s government, took advantage of the bad mood created by her bossy actions and secretly encouraged the people of London to revolt. A plot was formed to capture the empress, and she narrowly escaped the threat by quickly retreating. She fled to Oxford and soon after made her way to Winchester, where the legate had gone, wanting to maintain appearances while looking for a chance to undermine her cause. However, after gathering all his supporters, he openly allied his forces with the Londoners and Stephen’s mercenary troops, who had not yet left the kingdom, and laid siege to Matilda in Winchester. The princess, pressed hard by starvation, managed to escape; but during her flight, her brother Earl Robert was captured by the enemy. This nobleman, although a subject, was the heart and soul of his faction, just as Stephen was for his. The empress, recognizing his value and significance, agreed to exchange prisoners on equal terms. The civil war reignited with even more intensity than before.

1142.

1142.

Earl Robert, finding the successes on both sides nearly balanced, went over to Normandy, which, during Stephen’s captivity, had submitted to the earl of Anjou; and he persuaded Geoffrey to allow his eldest son, Henry, a young prince of great hopes, to take a journey into England, and appear at the head of his partisans.

Earl Robert, seeing that the successes on both sides were nearly equal, went to Normandy, which, during Stephen’s captivity, had surrendered to the earl of Anjou. He convinced Geoffrey to let his oldest son, Henry, a young prince with great potential, travel to England and lead his supporters.

1143.

1143.

This expedient, however, produced nothing decisive. Stephen took Oxford after a long siege: he was defeated by Earl Robert at Wilton; and the empress, though of a masculine spirit, yet being harassed with a variety of good and bad fortune, and alarmed with continual dangers to her person and family, at last retired into Normandy,

This strategy, however, didn’t yield anything conclusive. Stephen captured Oxford after a lengthy siege; he was defeated by Earl Robert at Wilton; and the empress, despite her strong character, was troubled by a mix of good and bad luck and constantly faced threats to her safety and family. Eventually, she withdrew to Normandy,

1146.

1146.

whither she had sent her son some time before. The death of her brother, which happened nearly about the same time, would have proved fatal to her interests, hail not some incidents occurred which checked the course of Stephen’s prosperity. This prince, finding that the castles built by the noblemen of his own party encouraged the spirit of independence, and were little less dangerous than those which remained in the hands of the enemy, endeavored to extort from them a surrender of those fortresses and he alienated the affections of many of them by this equitable demand. The artillery, also, of the church, which his brother had brought over to his side, had, after some interval, joined the other party. Eugenius III. had mounted the papal throne; the bishop of Winchester was deprived of the legantine commission, which was conferred on Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, the enemy and rival of the former legate. That pontiff, also, having summoned a general council at Rheims, in Champagne, instead of allowing the church of England, as had been usual, to elect its own deputies, nominated five English bishops to represent that church, and required their attendance in the council. Stephen, who, notwithstanding his present difficulties, was jealous of the rights of his crown, refused them permission to attend;[*] and the pope, sensible of his advantage in contending with a prince who reigned by a disputed title, took revenge by laying all Stephen’s party under an interdict.[**]

whither she had sent her son some time before. The death of her brother, which happened around the same time, could have been disastrous for her interests if not for some incidents that interrupted Stephen’s success. This king, realizing that the castles built by the noblemen on his side were fostering independence and were nearly as dangerous as those controlled by the enemy, tried to pressure them into surrendering those fortresses, which alienated many of them with this fair demand. Additionally, the church's support, previously gained by his brother, had, after a while, defected to the other side. Eugenius III had taken the papal throne; the bishop of Winchester lost the legantine authority, which was granted to Theobald, the archbishop of Canterbury, the rival of the former legate. This pope, having called a general council at Rheims in Champagne, instead of allowing the church of England to elect its own representatives, appointed five English bishops to represent that church and required their presence at the council. Stephen, despite his current challenges, was protective of his royal rights and denied them permission to go; and the pope, aware of his advantage in dealing with a king who ruled under a disputed claim, retaliated by placing all of Stephen’s supporters under an interdict.

1147.

1147.

The discontents of the royalists at being thrown into this situation, were augmented by a comparison with Matilda’s party, who enjoyed all the benefits of the sacred ordinances; and Stephen was at last obliged, by making proper submissions to the see of Rome, to remove the reproach from his party.[***]

The frustration of the royalists at being put in this situation was increased when they compared themselves to Matilda’s party, who benefited from the sacred ordinances; and Stephen ultimately had to make proper submissions to the see of Rome to clear the shame from his group.

1148.

1148.

The weakness of both sides, rather than any decrease of mutual animosity, having produced a tacit cessation of arms in England, many of the nobility, Roger de Moubray, William de Warrenne, and others, finding no opportunity to exert their military ardor at home, enlisted themselves in a new crusade, which, with surprising success after former disappointments and misfortunes, was now preached by St. Barnard.[****] But an event soon after happened which threatened a revival of hostilities in England. Prince Henry, who had reached his sixteenth year, was desirous of receiving the honor of knighthood; a ceremony which every gentleman in that age passed through before he was admitted to the use of arms, and which was even deemed requisite for the greatest princes.

The weakness of both sides, instead of reducing their mutual hostility, led to an unspoken pause in the fighting in England. Many nobles, including Roger de Moubray and William de Warrenne, finding no chance to show their military zeal at home, joined a new crusade that St. Bernard was promoting, which surprisingly succeeded after earlier disappointments and setbacks. However, an event soon occurred that threatened to reignite hostilities in England. Prince Henry, now sixteen, wanted to be knighted—a ceremony that every gentleman in that era underwent before being allowed to bear arms, and it was even considered necessary for the highest princes.

     [* Epist. St. Thom, p. 225.]

     [** Chron. W. Thom, p. 1807.]

     [*** Epist. St. Thom, p. 226.]

     [**** Hagulstadt, p. 275, 276.]
[* Epist. St. Thom, p. 225.]

[** Chron. W. Thom, p. 1807.]

[*** Epist. St. Thom, p. 226.]

[**** Hagulstadt, p. 275, 276.]

He intended to receive his admission from his great-uncle, David, king of Scotland; and for that purpose he passed through England with a great retinue, and was attended by the most considerable of his partisans. He remained some time with the king of Scotland, made incursions into England, and by his dexterity and vigor in all manly exercises, by his valor in war, and his prudent conduct in every occurrence, he roused the hopes of his party, and gave symptoms of those great qualities which he afterwards displayed when he mounted the throne of England.

He planned to get his acceptance from his great-uncle, David, the king of Scotland; to do this, he traveled through England with a large group and was accompanied by prominent supporters. He stayed with the king of Scotland for a while, launched raids into England, and with his skill and energy in all physical activities, his bravery in battle, and his wise management of every situation, he lifted the hopes of his followers and showed signs of the outstanding qualities he later demonstrated when he became king of England.

1150.

1150.

Soon after his return to Normandy, he was, by Matilda’s consent, invested in that duchy, and upon the death of his father Geoffrey, which happened in the subsequent year, he took possession both of Anjou and Maine, and concluded a marriage which brought him a great accession of power, and rendered him extremely formidable to his rival. Eleanor, the daughter and heir of William, duke of Guienne, and earl of Poictou, had been married sixteen years to Lewis VII., king of France, and had attended him in a crusade which that monarch conducted against the infidels; but having there lost the affections of her husband, and even fallen under some suspicion of gallantry with a handsome Saracen, Lewis, more delicate than politic, procured a divorce from her, and restored her those rich provinces, which, by her marriage, she had annexed to the crown of France. Young Henry, neither discouraged by the inequality of years, nor by the reports of Eleanor’s gallantries, made successful courtship to that princess, and espousing her six weeks after her divorce, got possession of all her dominions as her dowry.

Soon after returning to Normandy, he was, with Matilda’s approval, invested in that duchy. Following the death of his father Geoffrey the next year, he took control of Anjou and Maine, and arranged a marriage that greatly increased his power and made him a serious threat to his rival. Eleanor, the daughter and heir of William, duke of Guienne, and earl of Poictou, had been married for sixteen years to Lewis VII., king of France, and had accompanied him on a crusade against the infidels. However, after losing her husband’s affections during that time and becoming the subject of rumors regarding an affair with a handsome Saracen, Lewis, more sensitive than shrewd, sought a divorce from her and returned her to her the rich provinces she had brought to the French crown through her marriage. Young Henry, undeterred by their age difference or the rumors about Eleanor, successfully courted the princess and married her six weeks after her divorce, gaining all her territories as her dowry.

1152.

1152.

The lustre which he received from this acquisition, and the prospect of his rising fortune, had such an elect in England, that when Stephen, desirous to insure the crown to his son Eustace, required the archbishop of Canterbury to anoint that prince as his successor, the primate refused compliance, and made his escape beyond sea, to avoid the violence and resentment of Stephen.

The shine he got from this achievement and the hope of his increasing wealth had such an effect in England that when Stephen, wanting to secure the crown for his son Eustace, asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to anoint that prince as his successor, the archbishop refused to comply and fled overseas to escape Stephen's anger and violence.

1153.

1153.

Henry, informed of these dispositions in the people, made an invasion on England: having gained some advantage over Stephen at Malmsbury, and having taken that place, he proceeded thence to throw succors into Wallingford, which the king had advanced with a superior army to besiege. A decisive action was every day expected, when the great men of both sides, terrified at the prospect of further bloodshed and confusion, interposed with their good offices, and set on foot a negotiation between the rival princes, The death of Eustace, during the course of the treaty, facilitated its conclusion: an accommodation was settled, by which it was agreed that Stephen should possess the crown during his lifetime, that justice should be administered in his name, even in the provinces which had submitted to Henry, and that this latter prince should, on Stephen’s demise, succeed to the kingdom, and William, Stephen’s son, to Boulogne and his patrimonial estate. After all the barons had sworn to the observance of this treaty, and done homage to Henry, as to the heir of the crown, that prince evacuated the kingdom; and the death of Stephen which happened next year, [October 25, 1154,] after a short illness, prevented all those quarrels and jealousies which were likely to have ensued in so delicate a situation.

Henry, aware of the people's situation, launched an invasion into England. After gaining some ground against Stephen at Malmsbury and capturing the place, he moved on to deliver support to Wallingford, which the king had brought a larger army to besiege. A decisive battle was expected every day when the key figures from both sides, afraid of more bloodshed and chaos, stepped in to mediate and started negotiations between the rival princes. The death of Eustace during the negotiations helped finalize the agreement: it was decided that Stephen would keep the crown for the rest of his life, that justice would be administered in his name even in the areas that had come under Henry's control, and that Henry would inherit the kingdom upon Stephen's death, while William, Stephen's son, would inherit Boulogne and his family estate. After all the barons had sworn to uphold this agreement and pledged loyalty to Henry as the crown's heir, Henry left the kingdom. Stephen's death the following year, on October 25, 1154, after a brief illness, avoided any disputes and tensions that could have arisen from such a sensitive situation.

England suffered great miseries during the reign of this prince: but his personal character, allowing for the temerity and injustice of his usurpation, appears not liable to any great exception; and he seems to have been well qualified, had he succeeded by a just title, to have promoted the happiness and prosperity of his subjects.[*] He was possessed of industry, activity, and courage, to a great degree; though not endowed with a sound judgment, he was not deficient in abilities; he had the talent of gaining men’s affections, and notwithstanding his precarious situation, he never indulged himself in the exercise of any cruelty or revenge. His advancement to the throne procured him neither tranquillity nor happiness; and though the situation of England prevented the neighboring states from taking any durable advantage of her confusions, her intestine disorders were to the last degree ruinous and destructive. The court of Rome was also permitted, during those civil wars, to make further advances in her usurpations; and appeals to the pope, which had always been strictly prohibited by the English laws, became now common in every ecclesiastical controversy.

England faced significant hardships during this king's rule. However, despite the rashness and unfairness of his takeover, his personal character doesn't seem to have major flaws. He appeared to have been well-suited, had he come to power through legitimate means, to enhance the happiness and prosperity of his people. He possessed a considerable amount of hard work, energy, and bravery; although he lacked sound judgment, he was not lacking in skills. He had a knack for winning people's affection, and despite his insecure position, he never resorted to cruelty or revenge. His rise to the throne brought him neither peace nor happiness. Although England's situation prevented nearby nations from taking lasting advantage of its turmoil, its internal conflicts were extremely damaging and destructive. The papal court was also allowed, during these civil wars, to extend its reach; appeals to the pope, which had always been strictly forbidden by English law, became common in every church dispute.

     [* W. Malms, p. 180., M. Paris, p. 51 Hagul, p. 312.,  H.
     Hunting. p. 395.]
     [* W. Malms, p. 180., M. Paris, p. 51 Hagul, p. 312.,  H.
     Hunting. p. 395.]




CHAPTER VIII.

100.jpg Henry Ii.




HENRY II.

1154.

1154.

The extensive confederacies, by which the European potentates are now at once united and set in opposition to each other, and which, though they are apt to diffuse the least spark of dissension throughout the whole, are at least attended with this advantage, that they prevent any violent revolutions or conquests in particular states, were totally unknown in ancient ages; and the theory of foreign politics in each kingdom formed a speculation much less complicated and involved than at present. Commerce had not yet bound together the most distant nations in so close a chain: wars, finished in one campaign, and often in one battle, were little affected by the movements of remote states: the imperfect communication among the kingdoms, and their ignorance of each other’s situation, made it impracticable for a great number of them to combine in one object or effort: and above all, the turbulent spirit and independent situation of the barons or great vassals in each state, gave so much occupation to the sovereign, that he was obliged to confine his attention chiefly to his own state and his own system of government, and was more indifferent about what passed among his neighbors. Religion alone, not politics, carried abroad the views of princes, while it either fixed their thoughts on the Holy Land, whose conquest and defence was deemed a point of common honor and interest, or engaged them in intrigues with the Roman pontiff, to whom they had yielded the direction of ecclesiastical affairs, and who was every day assuming more authority than they were willing to allow him.

The large alliances that unite European powers while also putting them against each other may spread even the smallest spark of conflict everywhere, but at least they have the benefit of preventing major revolutions or conquests in individual states. These alliances were completely unknown in ancient times; the study of foreign politics in each kingdom was much simpler and less complicated than it is now. Trade hadn’t yet connected distant nations so tightly: wars often ended in a single campaign or even one battle and were little influenced by events in far-off places. The limited communication among kingdoms and their lack of knowledge about one another made it impossible for many of them to work together on a single goal or effort. Most importantly, the rebellious spirit and independence of the barons or powerful vassals in each state kept the sovereign busy, forcing him to focus mainly on his own realm and governance, leaving him less concerned about what happened with his neighbors. Only religion, not politics, carried princes' ambitions abroad, as it either directed their attention to the Holy Land, whose conquest and defense were seen as matters of shared honor and interest, or involved them in schemes with the pope, to whom they had given control over church matters, and who was steadily claiming more authority than they were willing to accept.

Before the conquest of England by the duke of Normandy, this island was as much separated from the rest of the world in politics as in situation; and except from the inroads of the Danish pirates, the English, happily confined at home, had neither enemies nor allies on the continent. The foreign dominions of William connected them with the king and great vassals of France; and while the opposite pretensions of the pope and emperor in Italy produced a continual intercourse between Germany and that country, the two great monarchs of France and England formed, in another part of Europe, a separate system, and carried on their wars and negotiations, without meeting either with opposition or support from the others.

Before the Duke of Normandy conquered England, this island was politically as isolated from the rest of the world as it was geographically. Aside from the invasions by Danish pirates, the English, content to stay at home, had no enemies or allies on the continent. The foreign domains of William connected England with the king and powerful lords of France; and while the conflicting claims of the pope and the emperor in Italy led to ongoing interactions between Germany and that region, the two major monarchs of France and England created, in another part of Europe, a separate system and conducted their wars and negotiations without facing either opposition or support from others.

On the decline of the Carlovingian race, the nobles in every province of France, taking advantage of the weakness of the sovereign, and obliged to provide each for his own defence against the ravages of the Norman freebooters, had assumed, both in civil and military affairs, an authority almost independent, and had reduced within very narrow limits the prerogative of their princes. The accession of Hugh Capet, by annexing a great fief to the crown, had brought some addition to the royal dignity; but this fief, though considerable for a subject, appeared a narrow basis of power for a prince who was placed at the head of so great a community. The royal demesnes consisted only of Paris, Orleans, Estampes, Compiegne, and a few places scattered over the northern provinces: in the rest of the kingdom, the prince’s authority was rather nominal than real: the vassals were accustomed, nay, entitled, to make war, without his permission, on each other: they were even entitled, if they conceived themselves injured, to turn their arms against their sovereign: they exercised all civil jurisdiction, without appeal, over their tenants and inferior vassals: their common jealousy of the crown easily united them against any attempt on their exorbitant privileges; and as some of them had attained the power and authority of great princes, even the smallest baron was sure of immediate and effectual protection. Besides six ecclesiastical peerages, which, with the other immunities of the church, cramped extremely the general execution of justice, there were six lay peerages, Burgundy, Normandy Guienne, Flanders, Toulouse, and Champagne, which formed very extensive and puissant sovereignties. And though the combination of all those princes and barons could on urgent occasions, muster a mighty power, yet was it very difficult to set that great machine in movement; it was almost impossible to preserve harmony in its parts; a sense of common interest alone could, for a time, unite them under their sovereign against a common enemy; but if the king attempted to turn the force of the community against any mutinous vassal, the same sense of common interest made the others oppose themselves to the success of his pretensions. Lewis the Gross, the last sovereign, marched, at one time, to his frontiers against the Germans at the head of an army of two hundred thousand men; but a petty lord of Corbeil, of Puiset, of Couci, was able, at another period, to set that prince at defiance, and to maintain open war against him.

As the Carolingian dynasty was declining, the nobles in every province of France took advantage of the king's weakness. They were required to defend themselves against the raids of the Norman pirates and had assumed almost independent power in both civil and military matters, significantly limiting the authority of their kings. When Hugh Capet came to power, he added a large fief to the crown, which gave a boost to the royal status; however, this fief, though large for a subject, seemed like a weak foundation for a ruler leading such a vast community. The royal lands only included Paris, Orleans, Estampes, Compiegne, and a few scattered areas in the north. In the rest of the kingdom, the king’s power was mostly just a title; vassals were used to, and even allowed to, wage war against each other without his approval. If they felt wronged, they could even turn their weapons on him. They exercised complete civil authority over their own tenants and lower vassals without appeal. Their shared distrust of the crown easily brought them together against any attempts to infringe on their excessive privileges; even the smallest baron enjoyed immediate and effective protection. Besides six ecclesiastical peerages, which, along with other church privileges, severely limited the execution of justice, there were six lay peerages: Burgundy, Normandy, Guienne, Flanders, Toulouse, and Champagne, which held extensive and powerful sovereignties. Although all these princes and barons could, in urgent situations, gather a formidable force, it was quite challenging to mobilize that massive power. Maintaining harmony among them was nearly impossible; only a shared interest could bring them together under their king against a common enemy. However, if the king tried to use that community’s strength against a rebellious vassal, that same shared interest would cause the others to oppose his claims. Louis the Fat, the last sovereign, once marched to his borders against the Germans at the head of an army of two hundred thousand men. Yet, a minor lord from Corbeil, Puiset, or Couci was able at another time to defy that king and openly wage war against him.

The authority of the English monarch was much more extensive within his kingdom, and the disproportion much greater between him and the most powerful of his vassals. His demesnes and revenue were large, compared to the greatness of his state: he was accustomed to levy arbitrary exactions on his subjects: his courts of judicature extended their jurisdiction into every part of the kingdom: he could crush by his power, or by a judicial sentence, well or ill founded, any obnoxious baron: and though the feudal institutions, which prevailed in his kingdom, had the same tendency, as in other states, to exalt the aristocracy and depress the monarchy, it required in England, according to its present constitution, a great combination of the vassals to oppose their sovereign lord, and there had not hitherto arisen any baron so powerful, as of himself to levy war against the prince, and to afford protection to the inferior barons.

The authority of the English monarch was much broader within his kingdom, and the gap was much larger between him and the most powerful of his vassals. His lands and income were significant compared to the overall size of his state: he was used to imposing unfair demands on his subjects, and his courts had the power to rule over every part of the kingdom. He could defeat any troublesome baron by his power or through a legal ruling, whether it was fair or not. Although the feudal systems that existed in his kingdom, like in other states, tended to elevate the aristocracy and lower the monarchy, it took a strong alliance of vassals to stand against their lord. Until now, no baron had been powerful enough to wage war against the prince or provide protection to the lesser barons.

While such were the different situations of France and England, and the latter enjoyed so many advantages above the former, the accession of Henry II., a prince of great abilities, possessed of so many rich provinces on the continent, might appear an event dangerous, if not fatal to the French monarchy, and sufficient to break entirely the balance between the states. He was master, in the right of his father, of Anjou and Touraine; in that of his mother, of Normandy and Maine; in that of his wife, of Guienne, Poictou, Xaintonge, Auvergne, Perigord, Angoumois, the Limousin. He soon after annexed Brittany to his other states, and was already possessed of the superiority over that province, which, on the first cession of Normandy to Rollo the Dane, had been granted by Charles the Simple in vassalage to that formidable ravager. These provinces composed above a third of the whole French monarchy, and were much superior, in extent and opulence, to those territories which were subjected to the immediate jurisdiction and government of the king. The vassal was here more powerful than his liege lord: the situation which had enabled Hugh Capet to depose the Carlovingian princes, seemed to be renewed, and that with much greater advantages on the side of the vassal: and when England was added to so many provinces, the French king had reason to apprehend, from this conjuncture, some great disaster to himself and to his family. But, in reality, it was this circumstance, which appeared so formidable, that saved the Capetian race, and, by its consequences, exalted them to that pitch of grandeur which they at present enjoy.

While France and England were in such different situations, with England having many advantages over France, the rise of Henry II, a highly capable prince who controlled many rich provinces on the continent, seemed like a potentially dangerous or even fatal event for the French monarchy, threatening to completely disrupt the balance between the two states. He inherited Anjou and Touraine from his father, Normandy and Maine from his mother, and Guienne, Poictou, Xaintonge, Auvergne, Perigord, Angoumois, and Limousin through his wife. He soon added Brittany to his territories and held a position of power over that province, which had been granted in vassalage by Charles the Simple to Rollo the Dane when Normandy was first ceded. These provinces made up over a third of the entire French monarchy and were far more extensive and wealthy than the territories directly under the king’s control. In this case, the vassal was more powerful than his liege lord; the circumstances that allowed Hugh Capet to remove the Carlovingian princes seemed to be repeating, and this time with even greater advantages for the vassal. With England included among so many provinces, the French king had justifiable concerns about a major disaster for himself and his family due to this situation. However, paradoxically, it was this very circumstance that seemed so threatening that ultimately saved the Capetian dynasty, and as a result, elevated them to the level of greatness they enjoy today.

The limited authority of the prince in the feudal constitutions, prevented the king of England from employing with advantage the force of so many states which were subjected to his government; and these different members, disjoined in situation, and disagreeing in laws, language, and manners, were never thoroughly cemented into one monarchy. He soon became, both from his distant place of residence and from the incompatibility of interests, a kind of foreigner to his French dominions; and his subjects on the continent considered their allegiance as more naturally due to their superior lord, who lived in their neighborhood, and who was acknowledged to be the supreme head of their nation. He was always at hand to invade them; their immediate lord was often at too great a distance to protect them; and any disorder in any part of his dispersed dominions gave advantages against him The other powerful vassals of the French crown were rather pleased to see the expulsion of the English, and were not affected with that jealousy which would have arisen from the oppression of a co-vassal who was of the same rank with themselves. By this means, the king of France found it more easy to conquer those numerous provinces from England than to subdue a duke of Normandy or Guienne, a count of Anjou, Maine, or Poietou. And after reducing such extensive territories, which immediately incorporated with the body of the monarchy, he found greater facility in uniting to the crown the other great fiefs which still remained separate and independent.

The limited power of the prince in the feudal system prevented the king of England from efficiently using the strength of the many states under his rule. These various regions, separated in location and differing in laws, language, and customs, were never fully united into a single monarchy. The king soon became, due to his distant residence and conflicting interests, somewhat of a stranger to his French lands; his subjects on the continent felt their loyalty was more naturally owed to their local lord, who lived nearby and was recognized as the ultimate head of their nation. This local lord was always nearby to defend them; however, the king was often too far away to protect them. Any disorder in any part of his scattered lands gave his enemies an advantage. The other powerful vassals of the French crown were actually pleased to see the English expelled and didn't experience the jealousy that would have arisen from the dominance of a fellow vassal of the same rank. Because of this, the king of France found it easier to conquer the many provinces from England than to subdue a duke of Normandy or Guienne, or a count of Anjou, Maine, or Poitou. After reducing such vast territories, which immediately became part of the monarchy, he found it much easier to unite the other major fiefs that remained separate and independent.

But as these important consequences could not be foreseen by human wisdom, the king of France remarked with terror the rising grandeur of the house of Anjou or Plantagenet; and in order to retard its progress, he had ever maintained a strict union with Stephen, and had endeavored to support the tottering fortunes of that bold usurper. But after this prince’s death, it was too late to think of opposing the succession of Henry, or preventing the performance of those stipulations which, with the unanimous consent of the nation, he had made with his predecessor. The English, harassed with civil wars, and disgusted with the bloodshed and depredations which, during the course of so many years, had attended them were little disposed to violate their oaths, by excluding the lawful heir from the succession of their monarchy.* Many of the most considerable fortresses were in the hands of his partisans; the whole nation had had occasion to see the noble qualities with which he was endowed, and to compare them with the mean talents of William, the son of Stephen; and as they were acquainted with his great power, and were rather pleased to see the accession of so many foreign dominions to the crown of England, they never entertained the least thoughts of resisting him. Henry himself, sensible of the advantages attending his present situation, was in no hurry to arrive in England; and being engaged in the siege of a castle on the frontiers of Normandy, when he received intelligence of Stephen’s death, he made it a point of honor not to depart from his enterprise till he had brought it to an issue. He then set out on his journey, and was received in England with the acclamations of all orders of men, who swore with pleasure the oath of fealty and allegiance to him.

But since these significant consequences couldn't be predicted by human judgment, the king of France watched in fear as the power of the house of Anjou or Plantagenet grew. To slow its rise, he had always maintained a close alliance with Stephen and tried to bolster the waning fortunes of that daring usurper. However, after this prince's death, it was too late to oppose Henry's succession or to stop the agreements he had made with his predecessor, with the full support of the nation. The English, worn out by civil wars and disgusted by the bloodshed and destruction that had plagued them for so many years, were not inclined to break their oaths by excluding the rightful heir from the throne. Many of the key fortresses were held by his supporters; the entire nation had seen the noble qualities he possessed, especially when compared to the lowly talents of William, the son of Stephen. Knowing his considerable power and pleased to see so many foreign territories join under the English crown, they never even considered resisting him. Henry himself, aware of the advantages of his current situation, was not in a rush to get to England. While he was involved in the siege of a castle on the Normandy border, he learned of Stephen's death and made it a point of honor to finish what he started before leaving. He then began his journey and was welcomed in England with cheers from all classes of people, who happily swore their fealty and allegiance to him.

1155.

1155.

The first act of Henry’s government corresponded to the high idea entertained of his abilities, and prognosticated the reestablishment of justice and tranquillity, of which the kingdom had so long been bereaved. He immediately dismissed all those mercenary soldiers who had committed great disorders in the nation; and he sent them abroad, together with William of Ypres, their leader, the friend and confidant of Stephen. He revoked all the grants made by his predecessor, even those which necessity had extorted from the empress Matilda; and that princess, who had resigned her rights in favor of Henry, made no opposition to a measure so necessary for supporting the dignity of the crown. He repaired the coin, which had been extremely debased during the reign of his predecessor; and he took proper measures against the return of a like abuse. He was rigorous in the execution of justice, and in the suppression of robbery and violence; and that he might restore authority to the laws, he caused all the new erected castles to be demolished, which had proved so many sanctuaries to freebooters and rebels. The earl of Albemarle, Hugh Mortimer, and Roger the son of Milo of Glocester, were inclined to make some resistance to this salutary measure; but the approach of the king with his forces soon obliged them to submit.

The first actions of Henry’s government matched the high expectations for his abilities and signaled the return of justice and peace that the kingdom had long been missing. He quickly dismissed all the mercenary soldiers who had caused major disturbances in the nation and sent them away, along with their leader, William of Ypres, who was a friend and confidant of Stephen. He revoked all the grants made by his predecessor, including those that had been forced from the empress Matilda, who had given up her rights in favor of Henry and did not oppose such a necessary step to uphold the dignity of the crown. He fixed the currency, which had significantly lost value during his predecessor's reign, and took appropriate measures to prevent a similar issue from happening again. He was strict in enforcing justice and in stopping robbery and violence; to restore authority to the laws, he ordered the demolition of all the newly built castles that had become havens for bandits and rebels. The earl of Albemarle, Hugh Mortimer, and Roger, the son of Milo of Gloucester, were resistant to this beneficial action, but the king's arrival with his forces quickly forced them to comply.

1156.

1156.

Everything being restored to full tranquillity in England, Henry went abroad in order to oppose the attempts of his brother Geoffrey, who, during his absence, had made an incursion into Anjou and Maine,

Everything returning to complete peace in England, Henry went abroad to counter the efforts of his brother Geoffrey, who, during his absence, had invaded Anjou and Maine,

1157.

1157.

had advanced some pretensions to those provinces, and had got possession of a considerable part of them. On the king’s appearance, the people returned to their allegiance; and Geoffrey, resigning his claim for an annual pension of a thousand pounds, departed and took possession of the county of Nantz, which the inhabitants, who had expelled Count Iloel, their prince, had put into his hands. Henry returned to England the following year: the incursions of the Welsh then provoked him to make an invasion upon them; where the natural fastnesses of the country occasioned him great difficulties, and even brought him into danger. His vanguard, being engaged in a narrow pass, was put to rout: Henry de Essex, the hereditary standard-bearer, seized with a panic, threw down the standard, took to flight, and exclaimed that the king was slain; and had not the prince immediately appeared in person, and led on his troops with great gallantry, the consequences might have proved fatal to the whole army. For this misbehavior, Essex was afterwards accused of felony by Robert de Montfort; was vanquished in single combat; his estate was confiscated; and he himself was thrust into a convent. The submissions of the Welsh procured them an accommodation with England.

had made some claims to those provinces and had taken control of a significant part of them. When the king showed up, the people pledged their loyalty again; and Geoffrey, giving up his claim for a yearly pension of a thousand pounds, left and took control of the county of Nantz, which the citizens, having expelled Count Iloel, their ruler, had handed over to him. Henry returned to England the next year: the attacks from the Welsh spurred him to invade them; where the natural defenses of the land caused him great challenges and even put him in danger. His advance guard, engaged in a tight pass, was routed: Henry de Essex, the hereditary standard-bearer, panicked, dropped the standard, fled, and shouted that the king was dead; and had the prince not appeared immediately in person, leading his troops with great bravery, the outcome could have been disastrous for the entire army. For this misconduct, Essex was later accused of felony by Robert de Montfort, was defeated in single combat, had his estate confiscated, and was sent to a convent. The Welsh's submissions led to a settlement with England.

1158.

1158.

The martial disposition of the princes in that age engaged them to head their own armies in every enterprise, even the most frivolous; and their feeble authority made it commonly impracticable for them to delegate, on occasion, the command to their generals. Geoffrey, the king’s brother, died soon after he had acquired possession of Nantz; though he had no other title to that county than the voluntary submission or election of the inhabitants two years before, Henry laid claim to the territory as devolved to him by hereditary right, and he went over to support his pretensions by force of arms. Conan, duke or earl of Brittany (for these titles are given indifferently by historians to those princes) pretended that Nantz had been lately separated by rebellion from his principality, to which of right it belonged; and immediately on Geoffrey’s death, he took possession of the disputed territory. Lest Lewis, the French king, should interpose in the controversy, Henry paid him a visit; and so allured him by caresses and civilities, that an alliance was contracted between them; and they agreed that young Henry, heir to the English monarchy, should be affianced to Margaret of France, though the former was only five years of age; the latter was still in her cradle. Henry, now secure of meeting with no interruption on this side, advanced with his army into Brittany; and Conan, in despair of being able to make resistance, delivered up the county of Nantz to him. The able conduct of the king procured him further and more important advantages from this incident. Conan, harassed with the turbulent disposition of his subjects, was desirous of procuring to himself the support of so great a monarch; and he betrothed his daughter and only child, yet an infant, to Geoffrey, the king’s third son, who was of the same tender years. The duke of Brittany died about seven years after; and Henry, being mesne lord and also natural guardian to his son and daughter-in-law, put himself in possession of that principality, and annexed it for the present to his other great dominions.

The military mindset of the princes at that time led them to lead their own armies in every venture, even the most trivial ones; and their weak authority often made it impractical for them to delegate command to their generals. Geoffrey, the king’s brother, died shortly after taking control of Nantz; even though his only claim to that county was the voluntary submission or election of the inhabitants two years earlier, Henry asserted his right to the territory as an inherited possession and went to enforce his claims by military means. Conan, the duke or earl of Brittany (as historians interchangeably refer to these leaders), argued that Nantz had recently been separated by rebellion from his principality, to which it rightfully belonged; immediately after Geoffrey’s death, he seized the disputed land. To prevent Lewis, the French king, from intervening in the dispute, Henry paid him a visit and flattered him with friendly gestures and pleasantries, leading to a partnership between them. They agreed that young Henry, the heir to the English throne, would be betrothed to Margaret of France, even though the former was only five years old and the latter was still in her crib. With no fear of interruptions on this front, Henry moved his army into Brittany, and Conan, realizing he couldn't resist, handed over the county of Nantz. The king’s skillful leadership gained him even more significant advantages from this situation. Conan, troubled by the rebellious nature of his subjects, sought the support of such a powerful monarch; he arranged for his daughter and only child, who was still an infant, to be engaged to Geoffrey, the king’s third son, who was of similar age. The duke of Brittany died about seven years later, and Henry, as the lord and natural guardian of his son and daughter-in-law, took control of that principality, temporarily adding it to his other vast territories.

1159.

1159.

The king had a prospect of making still further acquisitions; and the activity of his temper suffered no opportunity of that kind to escape him. Philippa, duchess of Guienne, mother of Queen Eleanor, was the only issue of William IV., count of Toulouse; and would have inherited his dominions, had not that prince, desirous of preserving the succession in the male line, conveyed the principality to his brother Raymond de St. Gilles, by a contract of sale which was in that age regarded as fictitious and illusory. By this means the title to the county of Toulouse came to be disputed between the male and female heirs; and the one or the other, as opportunities favored them, had obtained possession. Raymond, grandson of Raymond de St. Gilles was the reigning sovereign; and on Henry’s reviving his wife’s claim, this prince had recourse for protection to the king of France, who was so much concerned in policy to prevent the further aggrandizement of the English monarch. Lewis himself, when married to Eleanor, had asserted the justice of her claim, and had demanded possession of Toulouse; but his sentiments changing with his interest, he now determined to defend, by his power and authority, the title of Raymond. Henry found that it would be requisite to support his pretensions against potent antagonists; and that nothing but a formidable army could maintain a claim which he had in vain asserted by arguments and manifestoes.

The king saw the chance to make even more gains, and his proactive nature made sure he didn’t let any opportunity slip by. Philippa, the Duchess of Guienne and mother of Queen Eleanor, was the only child of William IV, Count of Toulouse. She would have inherited his lands if that prince, wanting to keep the succession in the male line, hadn’t transferred the principality to his brother Raymond de St. Gilles through a sale contract that was viewed as fake and misleading at that time. This led to a dispute over the title to the County of Toulouse between male and female heirs, with each side seizing control as situations allowed. Raymond, the grandson of Raymond de St. Gilles, was the reigning ruler, and when Henry renewed his wife’s claim, this prince sought protection from the King of France, who was highly motivated to stop the English king from expanding his power. Lewis, when married to Eleanor, had supported her claim and demanded control of Toulouse, but as his interests shifted, he decided to use his power and authority to uphold Raymond’s title. Henry realized he needed to back up his claims against strong opponents, and nothing short of a powerful army could support a claim he had unsuccessfully defended with arguments and manifestos.

An army composed of feudal vassals was commonly very intractable and undisciplined, both because of the independent spirit of the persons who served in it, and because the commands were not given either by the choice of the sovereign or from the military capacity and experience of the officers. Each baron conducted his own vassals: his rank was greater or less, proportioned to the extent of his property: even the supreme command under the prince was often attached to birth; and as the military vassals were obliged to serve only forty days at their own charge, though, if the expedition were distant, they were put to great expense, the prince reaped little benefit from their attendance. Henry, sensible of these inconveniences, levied upon his vassals in Normandy and other provinces, which were remote from Toulouse, a sum of money in lieu of their service; and this commutation, by reason of the great distance, was still more advantageous to his English vassals. He imposed, therefore, a scutage of one hundred and eighty thousand pounds on the knights’ fees, a commutation to which, though it was unusual, and the first perhaps to be met with in history,[*] 16 the military tenants willingly submitted; and with this money he levied an army which was more under his command, and whose service was more durable and constant.

An army made up of feudal vassals was often very difficult to manage and lacked discipline, mainly due to the independent nature of the people serving in it and because the orders weren’t given based on the sovereign's choice or the military skills and experience of the officers. Each baron led his own vassals, and his rank was determined by the size of his property. Even the top command under the prince was often tied to birthright; and since the military vassals were required to serve only for forty days at their own expense, although long campaigns could be very costly for them, the prince gained little from their presence. Henry, aware of these issues, decided to collect money from his vassals in Normandy and other provinces distant from Toulouse instead of having them serve. This arrangement was even more beneficial for his English vassals because of the significant distance involved. He thus imposed a scutage of one hundred and eighty thousand pounds on the knights’ fees, an unusual change, and perhaps the first of its kind in history,[*] 16 that the military tenants accepted willingly. With this money, he recruited an army that was more under his control and whose service was more reliable and consistent.

     [* See note P, at the end of the volume.]
     [* See note P, at the end of the volume.]

Assisted by Berenger, count of Barcelona, and Trincaval, count of Nismes, whom he had gained to his party, he invaded the county of Toulouse; and after taking Verdun, Castlenau, and other places, he besieged the capital of the province, and was likely to prevail in the enterprise; when Lewis, advancing before the arrival of his main body, threw himself into the place with a small reenforcement. Henry was urged by some of his ministers to prosecute the siege, to take Lewis prisoner, and to impose his own terms in the pacification; but he either thought it so much his interest to maintain the feudal principles, by which his foreign dominions were secured, or bore so much respect to his superior lord, that he declared he would not attack a place defended by him in person; and he immediately raised the siege. He marched into Normandy to protect that province against an incursion which the count of Dreux, instigated by King Lewis, his brother, had made upon it. War was now openly carried on between the two monarchs, but produced no memorable event: it soon ended in a cessation of arms, and that followed by a peace, which was not, however, attended with any confidence or good correspondence between those rival princes.

With the help of Berenger, the Count of Barcelona, and Trincaval, the Count of Nismes, who had joined his side, he invaded the county of Toulouse. After capturing Verdun, Castlenau, and several other locations, he besieged the capital of the province and seemed likely to succeed in his venture. However, Lewis, trying to get ahead of his main forces, entered the city with a small reinforcement. Some of Henry's advisors urged him to continue the siege, capture Lewis, and impose his own peace terms. But he either believed it was in his best interest to uphold the feudal principles that protected his foreign territories, or he held too much respect for his superior lord, stating he would not attack a place defended by Lewis himself. He promptly lifted the siege. He then marched into Normandy to defend that region against an invasion led by the Count of Dreux, who was encouraged by King Lewis, Henry's brother. War was now openly waged between the two kings, but it resulted in no significant developments. It quickly concluded in a truce, followed by a peace that, however, was not marked by any trust or good relations between the two rival kings.

1160.

1160.

The fortress of Gisors, being part of the dowry stipulated to Margaret of France, had been consigned by agreement to the knights templars, on condition that it should be delivered into Henry’s hands after the celebration of the nuptials. The king, that he might have a pretence for immediately demanding the place, ordered the marriage to be solemnized between the prince and princess, though both infants; and he engaged the grand master of the templars, by large presents, as was generally suspected, to put him in possession of Gisors.[*]

The fortress of Gisors, which was part of the dowry promised to Margaret of France, had been entrusted to the Knights Templar with the agreement that it would be handed over to Henry after the wedding. The king, wanting a reason to demand the fortress right away, arranged for the marriage between the prince and princess, even though they were both still children. He also convinced the grand master of the Templars with generous gifts, as many suspected, to give him control of Gisors.[*]

1161.

1161.

Lewis, resenting this fraudulent conduct, banished the templars, and would have made war upon the king of England, had it not been for the mediation and authority of Pope Alexander III., who had been chased from Rome by the antipope, Victor IV., and resided at that time in France.

Lewis, angry about this deceitful behavior, expelled the templars and would have gone to war against the king of England if it hadn't been for the intervention and influence of Pope Alexander III, who had been forced out of Rome by the antipope, Victor IV, and was living in France at that time.

     [* Since the first publication of this History,
     Lord Lyttleton has published a copy of the treaty between
     Henry and Lewis, by which it appears, if there was no secret
     article, that Henry was not guilty of any fraud in this
     transaction, observe, that the two kings had the year
     before, met the pope at the castle of Torci on the Loir; and
     they gave him such marks of respect, that both dismounted to
     receive him, and holding each of them one of the reins of
     his bridle, walked on foot by his side, and conducted him in
     that submissive manner into the castle: “a spectacle,”
      cries Baronius in an ecstasy, “to God, angels, and men; and
     such as had never before been exhibited to the world!”]
     [* Since the first release of this History, 
     Lord Lyttleton has published a copy of the treaty between 
     Henry and Lewis, which shows that if there wasn't a secret 
     clause, then Henry didn't commit any fraud in this 
     transaction. Note that the two kings had met the pope the year 
     before at the castle of Torci on the Loir; they showed him such 
     respect that both dismounted to greet him, each holding one of 
     his bridle reins, walking alongside him on foot, and led him 
     into the castle in a humble manner: “a sight,” 
     exclaims Baronius in excitement, “for God, angels, and men; 
     and one that had never been seen in the world before!”]

1162.

1162.

Henry, soon after he had accommodated his differences with Lewis by the pope’s mediation, returned to England; where he commenced an enterprise, which, though required by sound policy, and even conducted in the main with prudence, bred him great disquietude, involved him in danger, and was not concluded without some loss and dishonor.

Henry, shortly after resolving his issues with Lewis through the pope’s mediation, returned to England. There, he started an initiative that, while necessary for smart political strategy and mostly handled with care, caused him significant anxiety, put him in danger, and ended up bringing him some loss and embarrassment.

The usurpations of the clergy, which had at first been gradual, were now become so rapid, and had mounted to such a height, that the contest between the regale and pontificale was really arrived at a crisis in England; and it became necessary to determine whether the king or the priests, particularly the archbishop of Canterbury, should be sovereign of the kingdom. The aspiring spirit of Henry, which gave inquietude to all his neighbors, was not likely long to pay a tame submission to the encroachments of subjects; and as nothing opens the eyes of men so readily as their interest, he was in no danger of falling, in this respect, into that abject superstition which retained his people in subjection. From the commencement of his reign, in the government of his foreign dominions, as well as of England, he had shown a fixed purpose to repress clerical usurpations, and to maintain those prerogatives which had been transmitted to him by his predecessors. During the schism of the papacy between Alexander and Victor, he had determined, for some time, to remain neuter; and when informed that the archbishop of Rouen and the bishop of Mans had, from their own authority, acknowledged Alexander as legitimate pope, he was so enraged, that, though he spared the archbishop on account of his great age, he immediately issued orders for overthrowing the houses of the bishop of Mans and archdeacon of Rouen;[*] 17 and it was not till he had deliberately examined the matter, by those views which usually enter into the councils of princes, that he allowed that pontiff to exercise authority over any of his dominions.

The clergy's power grabs, which had started off slowly, were now happening so quickly and had escalated to such an extent that the struggle between the royal authority and the church had reached a breaking point in England. It became essential to decide whether the king or the priests, especially the archbishop of Canterbury, would be in charge of the kingdom. Henry's ambitious nature, which unsettled all his neighbors, was not likely to tolerate the overreach of his subjects for long. People tend to wake up to their interests, so he wasn't at risk of falling into the kind of blind superstition that kept his people oppressed. From the beginning of his reign, both in his foreign territories and in England, he demonstrated a strong intention to curb clerical power and to uphold the rights passed down to him by his forebears. During the schism in the papacy between Alexander and Victor, he had decided to stay neutral for a while. However, when he learned that the archbishop of Rouen and the bishop of Mans had claimed Alexander as the legitimate pope on their own authority, he was furious. While he spared the archbishop because of his old age, he quickly ordered the destruction of the houses of the bishop of Mans and the archdeacon of Rouen;[*] 17 and it wasn’t until he had carefully considered the matter, with the usual strategic insights of a ruler, that he allowed that pope to have any authority over his lands.

     [* See note Q, at the end of the volume.]
     [* See note Q, at the end of the volume.]

In England, the mild character and advanced years of Theobald, archbishop of Canterbury, together with his merits in refusing to put the crown on the head of Eustace, son of Stephen, prevented Henry, during the lifetime of that primate, from taking any measures against the multiplied encroachments of the clergy; but after his death, the king resolved to exert himself with more activity; and that he might be secure against any opposition, he advanced to that dignity Becket, his chancellor, on whose compliance he thought he could entirely depend.

In England, the gentle nature and older age of Theobald, the archbishop of Canterbury, along with his achievements in refusing to crown Eustace, the son of Stephen, kept Henry from taking any action against the growing influence of the clergy while Theobald was still alive. However, after his death, the king decided to take more decisive action; to ensure he wouldn’t face any resistance, he promoted Becket, his chancellor, to that position, believing he could fully rely on his cooperation.

Thomas à Becket, the first man of English descent who, since the Norman conquest, had, during the course of a whole century, risen to any considerable station, was born of reputable parents in the city of London; and being endowed both with industry and capacity, he early insinuated himself into the favor of Archbishop Theobald, and obtained from that prelate some preferments and offices. By their means he was enabled to travel for improvement to Italy, where he studied the civil and canon law at Bologna; and on his return he appeared to have made such proficiency in knowledge, that he was promoted by his patron to the archdeaconry of Canterbury, an office of considerable trust and profit. He was afterwards employed with success by Theobald in transacting business at Rome; and on Henry’s accession, he was recommended to that monarch as worthy of further preferment Henry, who knew that Becket had been instrumental in supporting that resolution of the archbishop, which had tended so much to facilitate his own advancement to the throne, was already prepossessed in his favor; and finding on further acquaintance, that his spirit and abilities entitled him to any trust he soon promoted him to the dignity of chancellor, one of the first civil offices in the kingdom. The chancellor, in that age, besides the custody of the great seal, had possession of all vacant prelacies and abbeys; he was the guardian of all such minors and pupils as were the king’s tenants; all baronies which escheated to the crown were under his administration; he was entitled to a place in council, even though he were not particularly summoned; and as he exercised also the office of secretary of state, and it belonged to him to countersign all commissions, writs, and letters patent, he was a kind of prime minister and was concerned in the despatch of every business of importance. Besides exercising this high office, Becket by the favor of the king or archbishop, was made provost of Beverley, dean of Hastings, and constable of the Tower: he was put in possession of the honors of Eye and Berkham large baronies that had escheated to the crown; and to complete his grandeur, he was intrusted with the education of Prince Henry, the king’s eldest son, and heir of the monarchy. The pomp of his retinue, the sumptuousness of his furniture, the luxury of his table, the munificence of his presents, corresponded to these great preferments; or rather exceeded any thing that England had ever before seen in any subject. His historian and secretary, Fitz-Stephens, mentions, among other particulars, that his apartments were every day in winter covered with clean straw or hay, and in summer with green rushes or boughs, lest the gentlemen who paid court to him and who could not, by reason of their great number, find a place at table, should soil their fine clothes by sitting on a dirty floor.[*] A great number of knights were retained in his service; the greatest barons were proud of being received at his table; his house was a place of education for the sons of the chief nobility; and the king himself frequently vouchsafed to partake of his entertainments. As his way of life was splendid and opulent, his amusements and occupations were gay, and partook of the cavalier spirit, which, as he had only taken deacon’s orders, he did not think unbefitting his character. He employed himself at leisure hours in hunting, hawking, gaming, and horsemanship; he exposed his person in several military actions; he carried over, at his own charge, seven hundred knights to attend the king in his wars at Toulouse; in the subsequent wars on the frontiers of Normandy, he maintained, during forty days, twelve hundred knights, and four thousand of their train; and in an embassy to France, with which he was intrusted, he astonished that court by the number and magnificence of his retinue.

Thomas à Becket, the first man of English descent to rise to a significant position since the Norman conquest a century earlier, was born to respectable parents in London. With hard work and talent, he quickly gained the favor of Archbishop Theobald, who granted him several promotions and positions. This allowed him to travel to Italy for further education, where he studied civil and canon law in Bologna. Upon returning, he demonstrated such knowledge that his patron appointed him as the archdeacon of Canterbury, a position of great trust and benefit. He later worked successfully for Theobald in dealings at Rome, and when Henry ascended the throne, he was recommended to the king for further advancement. Henry, aware of Becket's role in supporting the archbishop's decision that helped him become king, was already inclined to favor him. As he got to know Becket better and saw his spirit and skills, he appointed him as chancellor, one of the highest civil offices in the kingdom. At that time, the chancellor held custody of the great seal, managed all vacant church offices and abbeys, acted as guardian for minors who were royal tenants, oversaw baronies that reverted to the crown, had a position in council without needing a special summons, and served as secretary of state, which involved countersigning all official documents. Thus, he effectively acted as a prime minister and handled every important matter. In addition to this high office, Becket was made provost of Beverley, dean of Hastings, and constable of the Tower by the king or archbishop's favor. He acquired the honors of Eye and Berkham, large estates that reverted to the crown, and he was tasked with educating Prince Henry, the king's eldest son and heir. The grandeur of his entourage, the opulence of his furnishings, the lavishness of his meals, and the generosity of his gifts matched, or even surpassed, anything England had seen from any noble before. His historian and secretary, Fitz-Stephens, notes that in winter, his rooms were covered daily with clean straw or hay, and in summer with green rushes or branches, so that the many gentlemen who paid him court could avoid soiling their fine clothes by sitting on a dirty floor. A large number of knights were in his service, and the most significant barons were proud to be welcomed at his table. His home served as a place of education for the sons of the leading nobility, and the king himself often honored him by attending his banquets. With a life so lavish, his pastimes were lively and reflected a cavalier spirit, which he didn’t find incompatible with his status as a deacon. In his free time, he engaged in hunting, hawking, gaming, and riding. He took part in various military campaigns and personally funded the journey of seven hundred knights to support the king's battles in Toulouse. In subsequent conflicts on the Normandy front, he sustained twelve hundred knights and four thousand attendants for forty days. During a diplomatic mission to France, he impressed that court with the size and splendor of his entourage.

     [* John Baldwin held the manor of Oterarsfee in
     Aylesbury of the king in soccage, by the service of finding
     litter for the king’s bed, viz., in summer, grass or herbs,
     and two gray geese, and in winter, straw, and three eels,
     thrice in the year, if the king should come thrice in the
     year to Aylesbury. Madox, Bar. Anglica, p. 247.]
     [* John Baldwin held the manor of Oterarsfee in Aylesbury from the king, with the obligation of providing bedding for the king’s bed. In the summer, he was to supply grass or herbs and two gray geese, and in the winter, he was to provide straw and three eels, three times a year, if the king came to Aylesbury three times a year. Madox, Bar. Anglica, p. 247.]

Henry, besides committing all his more important business to Becket’s management, honored him with his friendship and intimacy; and whenever he was disposed to relax himself by sports of any kind, he admitted his chancellor to the party. An instance of their familiarity is mentioned by Fitz-Stephens which, as it shows the manners of the age, it may not be improper to relate. One day, as the king and the chancellor were riding together in the streets of London, they observed a beggar, who was shivering with cold. “Would it not be very praiseworthy,” said the king, “to give that poor man a warm coat in this severe season?” “It would, surely,” replied the chancellor; “and you do well, sir, in thinking of such good actions.” “Then he shall have one presently,” cried the king; and seizing the skirt of the chancellor’s coat, which was scarlet, and lined with ermine, began to pull it violently. The chancellor defended himself for some time; and they had both of them like to have tumbled off their horses in the street, when Becket, after a vehement struggle, let go his coat; which the king bestowed on the beggar, who, being ignorant of the quality of the persons, was not a little surprised at the present.

Henry, besides leaving most of his important business to Becket, valued him as a friend and confidant. Whenever he wanted to relax with some sports, he included his chancellor. An example of their close relationship is shared by Fitz-Stephens, which reflects the customs of the time and is worth mentioning. One day, while the king and chancellor were riding together in the streets of London, they saw a beggar shivering from the cold. “Wouldn't it be great,” said the king, “to give that poor man a warm coat in this harsh weather?” “Absolutely,” replied the chancellor; “you’re right to think about such good deeds.” “Then let’s get him one right away,” exclaimed the king, and grabbing the edge of the chancellor’s scarlet coat lined with ermine, he began to tug at it. The chancellor tried to resist for a while, and they nearly fell off their horses in the street. After a fierce struggle, Becket finally gave up his coat, which the king then gave to the beggar, who, not knowing who they were, was quite surprised by the gift.

Becket, who, by his complaisance and good humor, had rendered himself agreeable, and by his industry and abilities useful, to his master, appeared to him the fittest person for supplying the vacancy made by the death of Theobold. As he was well acquainted with the king’s intentions of retrenching, or rather confining within the ancient bounds, all ecclesiastical privileges, and always showed a ready disposition to comply with them, Henry, who never expected any resistance from that quarter, immediately issued orders for electing him archbishop of Canterbury. But this resolution, which was taken contrary to the opinion of Matilda, and many of the ministers, drew after it very unhappy consequences; and never prince of so great penetration appeared, in the issue, to have so little understood the genius and character of his minister.

Becket, who, with his pleasant demeanor and good nature, had made himself likable, and through his hard work and skills useful to his master, seemed to him the best choice to fill the position left vacant by Theobold's death. As he was well aware of the king’s plans to cut back, or rather limit to traditional limits, all religious privileges, and always showed a willingness to go along with them, Henry, who never anticipated any pushback from that side, quickly ordered his election as archbishop of Canterbury. However, this decision, made against Matilda's advice and that of several other advisors, led to very unfortunate results; and no prince known for his insight appeared, in the end, to have understood his minister's character and nature so poorly.

No sooner was Becket installed in this high dignity, which rendered him for life the second person in the kingdom, with some pretensions of aspiring to be the first, than he totally altered his demeanor and conduct, and endeavored to acquire the character of sanctity, of which his former busy and ostentatious course of life might, in the eyes of the people, have naturally bereaved him. Without consulting the king, he immediately returned into his hands the commission of chancellor; pretending that he must thenceforth detach himself from secular affairs, and be solely employed in the exercise of his spiritual function; but in reality, that he might break off all connections with Henry, and apprise him that Becket, as primate of England, was now become entirely a new personage. He maintained, in his retinue and attendants alone, his ancient pomp and lustre, which was useful to strike the vulgar; in his own person he affected the greatest austerity and most rigid mortification, which he was sensible would have an equal or a greater tendency to the same end. He wore sackcloth next his skin, which, by his affected care to conceal it, was necessarily the more remarked by all the world: he changed it so seldom, that it was filled with dirt and vermin: his usual diet was bread; his drink water, which he even rendered further unpalatable by the mixture of unsavory herbs: he tore his back with the frequent discipline which he inflicted on it: he daily on his knees washed, in imitation of Christ, the feet of thirteen beggars, whom he afterwards dismissed with presents: he gained the affections of the monks by his frequent charities to the convents and hospitals: every one who made profession of sanctity, was admitted to his conversation, and returned full of panegyrics on the humility, as well as on the piety and mortification, of the holy primate: he seemed to be perpetually employed in reciting prayers and pious lectures, or in perusing religious discourses: his aspect wore the appearance of seriousness, and mental recollection, and secret devotion; and all men of penetration plainly saw that he was meditating some great design, and that the ambition and ostentation of his character had turned itself towards a new and a more dangerous object.

No sooner had Becket taken on this high position, making him the second most important person in the kingdom for life, and with some aspirations to become the first, than he completely changed his behavior and actions. He tried to cultivate a reputation for holiness, which his previous busy and showy lifestyle might have stripped away in the eyes of the public. Without consulting the king, he immediately returned the chancellor's authority to him, claiming that he needed to separate himself from secular matters and focus solely on his spiritual duties. In reality, he wanted to cut all ties with Henry and let him know that Becket, now the primate of England, was a completely changed individual. He maintained his former grandeur and elegance solely through his entourage, which was effective in impressing the common people. In his personal life, he displayed extreme austerity and strict self-discipline, aware that this would serve a similar or greater purpose. He wore sackcloth next to his skin, which, due to his exaggerated efforts to hide it, was only more noticeable to everyone. He changed it so infrequently that it became filthy and infested with pests. His usual meals consisted of bread, and his drink was water, which he made even less appealing by mixing in unpleasant herbs. He frequently beat his back as a form of self-discipline. Every day, he knelt to wash the feet of thirteen beggars, imitating Christ, and then sent them away with gifts. He won the monks' affection through his generous donations to monasteries and hospitals. Anyone who claimed to be holy was welcomed in his company and left full of praise for the humility, piety, and self-denial of the holy primate. He appeared to be constantly engaged in prayer, spiritual readings, or reflecting on religious texts. His demeanor exuded seriousness, contemplation, and quiet devotion; and those who were perceptive could clearly see that he was planning something significant, with the ambition and showiness of his character now directed toward a new and more perilous goal.

1163.

1163.

Becket waited not till Henry should commence those projects against the ecclesiastical power, which he knew had been formed by that prince: he was himself the aggressor, and endeavored to overawe the king by the intrepidity and boldness of his enterprises. He summoned the earl of Clare to surrender the barony of Tunbridge, which, ever since the conquest, had remained in the family of that nobleman, but which, as it had formerly belonged to the see of Canterbury, Becket pretended his predecessors were prohibited by the canons to alienate. The earl of Clare, besides the lustre which he derived from the greatness of his own birth and the extent of his possessions, was allied to all the principal families in the kingdom; his sister, who was a celebrated beauty, had further extended his credit among the nobility and was even supposed to have gained the king’s affections; and Becket could not better discover, than by attacking so powerful an interest, his resolution of maintaining with vigor the rights, real or pretended, of his see.

Becket didn't wait for Henry to start his plans against the church's power, which he knew the king had been plotting. Instead, he took the initiative and tried to intimidate the king with his bold actions. He called on the Earl of Clare to give up the barony of Tunbridge, which had been in the Earl's family since the conquest. However, since it used to belong to the archbishopric of Canterbury, Becket claimed that his predecessors were not allowed by church laws to sell it. The Earl of Clare, distinguished by his noble birth and vast lands, was connected to all the major families in the kingdom. His sister, known for her beauty, had further raised his status with the nobility and was even thought to have won the king's affection. By challenging such a powerful figure, Becket could show his determination to vigorously defend the rights, whether real or imagined, of his position.

William de Eynsford, a military tenant of the crown, was patron of a living which belonged to a manor that held of the archbishop of Canterbury; but Becket, without regard to William’s right, presented, on a new and illegal pretext, one Laurence to that living, who was violently expelled by Eynsford. The primate, making himself, as was usual in spiritual courts, both judge and party, issued in a summary manner the sentence of excommunication against Eynsford, who complained to the king, that he, who held “in capite” of the crown, should, contrary to the practice established by the Conqueror, and maintained ever since by his successors, be subjected to that terrible sentence without the previous consent of the sovereign. Henry, who had now broken off all personal intercourse with Becket, sent him, by a messenger, his orders to absolve Eynsford; but received for answer, that it belonged not for the king to inform him whom he should absolve and whom excommunicate; and it was not till after many remonstrances and menaces that Becket, though with the worst grace imaginable, was induced to comply with the royal mandate.

William de Eynsford, a military tenant of the crown, was the patron of a parish connected to a manor that was under the archbishop of Canterbury. However, Becket disregarded William’s rights and appointed a man named Laurence to that living under a new and unlawful excuse, leading to Laurence being forcefully removed by Eynsford. The archbishop, acting as both judge and party as was common in spiritual courts, quickly issued a sentence of excommunication against Eynsford. Eynsford appealed to the king, arguing that, as a tenant of the crown, it was unfair for him to be subjected to such a severe sentence without the prior approval of the sovereign, which had been standard practice since the time of the Conqueror and upheld by his successors. Henry, who had ceased all personal relations with Becket, sent a message instructing him to lift the excommunication on Eynsford. Becket responded that it was not the king’s place to dictate whom he should absolve or excommunicate. After many protests and threats, Becket, albeit reluctantly, finally agreed to follow the king's orders.

Henry, though he found himself thus grievously mistaken in the character of the person whom he had promoted to the primacy, determined not to desist from his former intention of retrenching clerical usurpations. He was entirely master of his extensive dominions: the prudence and vigor of his administration, attended with perpetual success, had raised his character above that of any of his predecessors: the papacy seemed to be weakened by a schism which divided all Europe; and he rightly judged that, if the present favorable opportunity were neglected, the crown must, from the prevalent superstition of the people, be in danger of falling into entire subordination under the mitre.

Henry, although he realized he had made a serious mistake in promoting the wrong person to the top position, decided not to give up on his original plan to reduce the power of the clergy. He had total control over his vast lands: the careful and effective way he governed, which was consistently successful, had elevated his reputation above that of any of his predecessors. The papacy seemed to be weakened by a division that split all of Europe; and he correctly understood that if he didn’t seize this favorable opportunity, the crown could, due to the widespread superstition among the people, become completely subordinate to the clergy.

The union of the civil and ecclesiastical power serves extremely, in every civilized government, to the maintenance of peace and order; and prevents those mutual encroachments which, as there can be no ultimate judge between them, are often attended with the most dangerous consequences Whether the supreme magistrate who unites these powers receives the appellation of prince or prelate, is not material. The superior weight which temporal interests commonly bear in the apprehensions of men above spiritual, renders the civil part of his character most prevalent; and in time prevents those gross impostures and bigoted persecutions which, in all false religions, are the chief foundation of clerical authority. But during the progress of ecclesiastical usurpations, the state, by the resistance of the civil magistrate, is naturally thrown into convulsions; and it behoves the prince, both for his own interest and for that of the public, to provide in time sufficient barriers against so dangerous and insidious a rival. This precaution had hitherto been much neglected in England, as well as in other Catholic countries; and affairs at last seemed to have come to a dangerous crisis: a sovereign of the greatest abilities was now on the throne: a prelate of the most inflexible and intrepid character was possessed of the primacy: the contending powers appeared to be armed with their full force and it was natural to expect some extraordinary event to result from their conflict.

The combination of civil and church power is crucial in every civilized government for maintaining peace and order. It prevents conflicts between the two authorities, which can lead to serious consequences since there’s no ultimate judge to resolve their disputes. Whether the leader who holds these powers is called a prince or a bishop doesn’t really matter. The civil side of his role usually carries more weight in people's minds than the spiritual side, which helps to mitigate extreme frauds and harsh persecutions that are often seen in false religions, forming the main support for clerical power. However, when the church starts to overstep its bounds, the state can become unsettled due to pushback from civil leaders. It’s essential for the ruler, for both his own sake and the public’s, to establish strong defenses against such a dangerous and sneaky rival. Until now, this precaution had been largely ignored in England and other Catholic countries, and the situation seemed to be reaching a critical point: a highly capable monarch was on the throne, a bishop with an unyielding and fearless personality held the primacy, and both powers were clearly ready for a clash, leading to expectations of an extraordinary outcome from their struggle.

Among their other inventions to obtain money, the clergy had inculcated the necessity of penance as an atonement for sin; and having again introduced the practice of paying them large sums as a commutation, or species of atonement for the remission of those penances, the sins of the people, by these means, had become a revenue to the priests; and the king computed, that by this invention alone they levied more money upon his subjects than flowed, by all the funds and taxes, into the royal exchequer. That he might ease the people of so heavy and arbitrary an imposition, Henry required that a civil officer of his appointment should be present in all ecclesiastical courts, and should, for the future, give his consent to every composition which was made with sinners for their spiritual offences.

Among their other ways to make money, the clergy emphasized the need for penance as a way to make up for sin. They also revived the practice of allowing people to pay them large amounts of money as a substitute, or form of compensation, for the forgiveness of those penances. This turned the sins of the people into a source of income for the priests. The king estimated that through this method alone, they raised more money from his subjects than all the taxes and funds combined that went into the royal treasury. To relieve the people from such a heavy and unfair burden, Henry mandated that a civil officer he appointed should be present in all church courts and should approve every arrangement made with sinners regarding their spiritual offenses in the future.

The ecclesiastics in that age had renounced all immediate subordination to the magistrate: they openly pretended to an exemptior, in criminal accusations, from a trial before courts of justice; and were gradually introducing a like exemption in civil causes: spiritual penalties alone could be inflicted on their offences; and as the clergy had extremely multiplied in England, and many of them were consequently of very low characters, crimes of the deepest dye—murders, robberies, adulteries, rapes—were daily committed with impunity by the ecclesiastics. It had been found, for instance, on inquiry, that no less than a hundred murders had, since the king’s accession, been perpetrated by men of that profession, who had never been called to account for these offences; and holy orders were become a full protection for all enormities. A clerk in Worcestershire, having debauched a gentleman’s daughter, had, at this time, proceeded to murder the father; and the general indignation against this crime moved the king to attempt the remedy of an abuse which was become so palpable, and to require that the clerk should be delivered up, and receive condign punishment from the magistrate. Becket insisted on the privileges of the church; confined the criminal in the bishop’s prison, lest he should be seized by the king’s officers; maintained that no greater punishment could be inflicted on him than degradation; and when the king demanded that, immediately after he was degraded, he should be tried by the civil power, the primate asserted that it was iniquitous to try a man twice upon the same accusation, and for the same offence.

The church leaders of that time had rejected all direct authority from the government: they openly claimed exemption from criminal trials in courts; and they were slowly introducing a similar exemption for civil cases. Only spiritual penalties could be imposed for their wrongdoings; and as the clergy had significantly increased in England, many of them were of very low character, allowing serious crimes—murders, robberies, adulteries, rapes—to be committed daily by ecclesiastical members without consequence. For example, it was discovered that at least a hundred murders had been carried out by members of the clergy since the king took the throne, and they had never been held accountable for these crimes; holy orders had become a complete shield for all kinds of wrongdoing. A clerk in Worcestershire, after seducing a gentleman’s daughter, had gone on to murder the father. The widespread outrage over this crime prompted the king to address this blatant abuse and demand that the clerk be handed over for proper punishment from the authorities. Becket defended the church's privileges, placed the criminal in the bishop’s prison to prevent him from being captured by the king’s officers, argued that the most severe punishment he could face was degradation, and when the king insisted that after his degradation he should be tried by civil authorities, the primate claimed it was unjust to put someone on trial twice for the same accusation and offense.

Henry, laying hold of so plausible a pretence, resolved to push the clergy with regard to all their privileges, which they had raised to an enormous height, and to determine at once those controversies which daily multiplied between the civil and the ecclesiastical jurisdictions. He summoned an assembly of all the prelates in England; and he put to them this concise and decisive question, whether or not they were willing to submit to the ancient laws and customs of the kingdom? The bishops unanimously replied, that they were willing, “saving their own order;” a device by which they thought to elude the present urgency of the king’s demand, yet reserve to themselves, on a favorable opportunity, the power of resuming all their pretensions. The king was sensible of the artifice, and was provoked to the highest indignation. He left the assembly with visible marks of his displeasure: he required the primate instantly to surrender the honors and castles of Eye and Berkham: the bishops were terrified, and expected still further effects of his resentment. Becket alone was inflexible; and nothing but the interposition of the pope’s legate and almoner, Philip, who dreaded a breach with so powerful a prince at so unseasonable a juncture, could have prevailed on him to retract the saving clause, and give a general and absolute promise of observing the ancient customs.

Henry, using such a convincing excuse, decided to challenge the clergy regarding all their privileges, which they had inflated to significant levels, and to resolve the growing conflicts between civil and church authorities. He called a meeting of all the bishops in England and posed a clear and straightforward question: were they willing to abide by the ancient laws and customs of the kingdom? The bishops all replied unanimously that they were willing, “saving their own order,” a tactic they thought would allow them to dodge the king’s immediate demand while still keeping the option open to reclaim their privileges later. The king recognized their trick and became extremely angry. He left the meeting clearly showing his discontent and demanded that the primate immediately hand over the honors and castles of Eye and Berkham. The bishops were shaken and anticipated more consequences of his fury. Becket, however, stood firm; only the intervention of the pope’s legate and almoner, Philip, who feared a conflict with such a powerful king at an inconvenient time, managed to convince him to retract the saving clause and to provide a general, unconditional promise to follow the ancient customs.

But Henry was not content with a declaration in these general terms; he resolved, ere it was too late, to define expressly those customs with which he required compliance, and to put a stop to clerical usurpations, before they were fully consolidated, and could plead antiquity, as they already did a sacred authority, in their favor. The claims of the church were open and visible. After a gradual and insensible progress during many centuries, the mask had at last been taken off, and several ecclesiastical councils, by their canons, which were pretended to be irrevocable and infallible, had positively defined those privileges and immunities which gave such general offence, and appeared so dangerous to the civil magistrate. Henry, therefore, deemed it necessary to define with the same precision the limits of the civil power; to oppose his legal customs to their divine ordinances; to determine the exact boundaries of the rival jurisdictions; and for this purpose he summoned a general council of the nobility and prelates at Clarendon, to whom he submitted this great and important question. [15th Jan. 1164.]

But Henry wasn't satisfied with a broad statement; he decided, before it was too late, to clearly outline the customs he needed followed and to put an end to clerical takeovers before they became fully established and could argue their case based on tradition, which they were already doing by citing sacred authority. The church's claims were clear and evident. After a slow and unnoticed rise over many centuries, the mask had finally been removed, and several church councils, through their canons that were claimed to be unchangeable and infallible, had explicitly defined the privileges and rights that caused widespread offense and seemed to threaten civil authority. Therefore, Henry felt it was essential to clearly define the limits of civil power; to counter their divine mandates with his legal customs; to set the precise boundaries of the competing jurisdictions; and for this purpose, he called a general council of nobles and church leaders at Clarendon to discuss this significant issue. [15th Jan. 1164.]

The barons were all gained to the king’s party, either by the reasons which he urged, or by his superior authority. The bishops were overawed by the general combination against them; and the following laws, commonly called the “Constitutions of Clarendon,” were voted without opposition by this assembly. It was enacted, that all suits concerning the advowson and presentation of churches should be determined in the civil courts: that the churches, belonging to the king’s fee, should not be granted in perpetuity without his consent; that clerks, accused of any crime, should be tried in the civil courts: that no person, particularly no clergyman of any rank, should depart the kingdom without the king’s license: that excommunicated persons should not be bound to give security for continuing in their present place of abode: that laics should not be accused in spiritual courts, except by legal and reputable promoters and witnesses: that no chief tenant of the crown should be excommunicated, nor his lands be put under an interdict, except with the king’s consent: that all appeals in spiritual causes should be carried from the archdeacon to the bishop, from the bishop to the primate, from him to the king; and should be carried no farther without the king’s consent: that if any lawsuit arose between a layman and a clergyman concerning a tenant, and it be disputed whether the land be a lay or an ecclesiastical fee, it should first be determined by the verdict of twelve lawful men to what class it belonged; and if it be found to be a lay fee, the cause should finally be determined in the civil courts: that no inhabitant in demesne should be excommunicated for non-appearance in a spiritual court, till the chief officer of the place where he resides be consulted, that he may compel him by the civil authority to give satisfaction to the church: that the archbishops, bishops, and other spiritual dignitaries, should be regarded as barons of the realm; should possess the privileges and be subjected to the burdens belonging to that rank; and should be bound to attend the king in his great councils, and assist at all trials, till the sentence, either of death or loss of members, be given against the criminal: that the revenue of vacant sees should belong to the king; the chapter, or such of them as he pleases to summon, should sit in the king’s chapel till they made the new election with his consent, and that the bishop elect should do homage to the crown: that if any baron or tenant “in capite” should refuse to submit to the spiritual courts, the king should employ his authority in obliging him to make such submissions; if any of them throw off his allegiance to the king, the prelates should assist the king with their censures in reducing him: that goods forfeited to the king should not be protected in churches or churchyards: that the clergy should no longer pretend to the right of enforcing payment of debts contracted by oath or promise; but should leave these lawsuits, equally with others, to the determination of the civil courts; and that the sons of villains should not be ordained clerks, without the consent of their lord.

The barons were all on the king’s side, either due to the reasons he provided or his greater authority. The bishops felt intimidated by the widespread opposition against them, and the following laws, known as the “Constitutions of Clarendon,” were passed without any dissent by this assembly. It was established that all cases regarding the right to present churches should be handled in the civil courts; that churches belonging to the king’s land could not be granted permanently without his approval; that clerks accused of any crime should be tried in civil courts; that no one, especially no clergyman of any rank, could leave the kingdom without the king’s permission; that excommunicated individuals would not have to give security for staying in their current place of residence; that laypeople could not be accused in spiritual courts unless done so by legitimate and trustworthy promoters and witnesses; that no chief tenant of the crown could be excommunicated or have his lands placed under interdict without the king’s approval; that all appeals in spiritual matters should go from the archdeacon to the bishop, from the bishop to the primate, and then to the king; and should not go beyond that without the king’s permission; that if any legal dispute arose between a layman and a clergyman over a tenant, and there was a question about whether the land was a lay or a church fee, it should first be decided by the verdict of twelve lawful men determining which category it belonged to; and if it was determined to be a lay fee, the case should ultimately be resolved in civil courts; that no resident in demesne could be excommunicated for not appearing in a spiritual court until the chief officer of the place where he lived was consulted, so they could compel him through civil authority to comply with the church; that archbishops, bishops, and other spiritual leaders should be treated as barons of the realm, should have the privileges and responsibilities of that status, and should be obligated to attend the king in his great councils and assist at all trials until a sentence, either of death or loss of limbs, was delivered against the offender; that the revenue from vacant bishoprics should belong to the king; that the chapter, or any members he chooses to summon, should meet in the king’s chapel until they made a new election with his consent, and that the bishop-elect should pledge loyalty to the crown; that if any baron or tenant “in capite” refused to comply with the spiritual courts, the king should use his authority to compel them to do so; if any of them renounced their loyalty to the king, the prelates should support the king with their censures to bring him back; that goods forfeited to the king should not be sheltered in churches or churchyards; that the clergy should no longer claim the right to enforce payment of debts incurred by oath or promise, but should hand these cases, like others, over to civil courts; and that the sons of serfs should not be ordained as clerks without their lord’s consent.

These articles, to the number of sixteen, were calculated to prevent the chief abuses which had prevailed in ecclesiastical affairs, and to put an effectual stop to the usurpations of the church, which, gradually stealing on, had threatened the total destruction of the civil power. Henry, therefore, by reducing those ancient customs of the realm to writing, and by collecting them in a body, endeavored to prevent all future dispute with regard to them; and by passing so many ecclesiastical ordinances in a national and civil assembly, he fully established the superiority of the legislature above all papal decrees or spiritual canons, and gained a signal victory over the ecclesiastics. But as he knew that the bishops, though overawed by the present combination of the crown and the barons, would take the first favorable opportunity of denying the authority which had enacted these constitutions, he resolved that they should all set their seal to them, and give a promise to observe them. None of the prelates dared to oppose his will, except Becket, who, though urged by the earls of Cornwall and Leicester, the barons of principal authority in the kingdom, obstinately withheld his assent. At last, Richard de Hastings, grand prior of the templars in England, threw himself on his knees before him, and with many tears entreated him, if he paid any regard either to his own safety or that of the church, not to provoke, by a fruitless opposition, the indignation of a great monarch, who was resolutely bent on his purpose, and who was determined to take full revenge on every one that should dare to oppose him. Becket, finding himself deserted by all the world, even by his own brethren, was at last obliged to comply; and he promised, “legally, with good faith, and without fraud or reserve,” to observe the constitutions; and he took an oath to that purpose. The king, thinking that he had now finally prevailed in this great enterprise, sent the constitutions to Pope Alexander, who then resided in France; and he required that pontiff’s ratification of them; but Alexander, who, though he had owed the most important obligations to the king, plainly saw that these laws were calculated to establish the independency of England on the papacy, and of the royal power on the clergy, condemned them in the strongest terms; abrogated, annulled, and rejected them. There were only six articles, the least important, which, for the sake of peace, he was willing to ratify.

These sixteen articles were designed to prevent the major abuses that had occurred in church matters and to effectively stop the church's overreach, which had slowly been threatening the complete destruction of civil authority. Henry, therefore, documented those ancient customs of the realm in writing and compiled them into a single collection to prevent any future disputes regarding them. By passing numerous church regulations in a national and civil assembly, he established the legislature's authority over all papal decrees and spiritual canons, achieving a significant victory over the church officials. However, he was aware that the bishops, even though intimidated by the current alliance between the crown and the barons, would seize the first chance to challenge the authority that had enacted these rules. He decided that they should all sign them and promise to uphold them. None of the bishops dared to go against his wishes except Becket, who, despite pressure from the earls of Cornwall and Leicester, the leading barons in the kingdom, stubbornly refused to agree. Eventually, Richard de Hastings, the grand prior of the templars in England, knelt before him and tearfully pleaded with him, if he valued either his own safety or that of the church, not to provoke the wrath of a powerful king who was determined to see his plans through and take full revenge on anyone who dared oppose him. Becket, feeling abandoned by everyone, even his own allies, ultimately had to yield; he promised "legally, in good faith, and without deception or reservation" to adhere to the articles and took an oath to that effect. The king, believing he had triumphed in this significant endeavor, sent the articles to Pope Alexander, who was then in France, seeking his approval. However, Alexander, who, despite his substantial obligations to the king, clearly recognized that these laws aimed to establish England's independence from the papacy and to assert royal power over the clergy, condemned them in the strongest possible terms; he annulled, rejected, and abolished them. He was only willing to ratify six of the less significant articles for the sake of peace.

Becket, when he observed that he might hope for support in an opposition, expressed the deepest sorrow for his compliance; and endeavored to engage all the other bishops in a confederacy to adhere to their common rights, and to the ecclesiastical privileges, in which he represented the interest and honor of God to be so deeply concerned. He redoubled his austerities in order to punish himself for his criminal assent to the constitutions of Clarendon: he proportioned his discipline to the enormity of his supposed offence: and he refused to exercise any part of his archiepiscopal function, till he should receive absolution from the pope, which was readily granted him. Henry, informed of his present dispositions, resolved to take vengeance for this refractory behavior; and he attempted to crush him by means of that very power which Becket made such merit in supporting. He applied to the pope that he should grant the commission of legate in his dominions to the archbishop of York; but Alexander, as politic as he, though he granted the commission, annexed a clause, that it should not empower the legate to execute any act in prejudice of the archbishop of Canterbury: and the king, finding how fruitless such an authority would prove, sent back the commission by the same messenger that brought it.

Becket, realizing he could expect support in opposition, expressed deep regret for his compliance and tried to rally other bishops to join in defending their shared rights and ecclesiastical privileges, which he believed were crucial to God's honor. He intensified his penances to atone for what he saw as his wrongdoing in accepting the Constitutions of Clarendon; he tailored his discipline to match the seriousness of his perceived offense and refused to carry out any part of his archbishop duties until he received absolution from the pope, which was quickly granted. Henry, aware of Becket’s current stance, decided to retaliate for this defiant behavior. He sought to undermine him using the very power Becket had earned respect for supporting. He requested the pope grant the archbishop of York a legate's authority in his realms; however, Alexander, as shrewd as Henry, granted the commission but added a clause stating it wouldn’t allow the legate to take any action against the archbishop of Canterbury. Realizing how ineffective such authority would be, the king sent the commission back with the same messenger who delivered it.

The primate, however, who found himself still exposed to the king’s indignation, endeavored twice to escape secretly from the kingdom; but was as often detained by contrary winds: and Henry hastened to make him feel the effects of an obstinacy which he deemed so criminal. He instigated John, mareschal of the exchequer, to sue Becket in the archiepiscopal court for some lands, part of the manor of Pageham; and to appeal thence to the king’s court for justice. On the day appointed for trying the cause, the primate sent four knights to represent certain irregularities in John’s appeal; and at the same time to excuse himself, on account of sickness, for not appearing personally that day in the court. This slight offence (if it even deserve the name) was represented as a grievous contempt; the four knights were menaced, and with difficulty escaped being sent to prison, as offering falsehoods to the court;[*] 18 and Henry, being determined to prosecute Becket to the utmost, summoned at Northampton a great council, which he purposed to make the instrument of his vengeance against the inflexible prelate.

The archbishop, however, who still faced the king’s anger, tried twice to slip away from the kingdom secretly, but was thwarted each time by unfavorable winds. Henry rushed to ensure he felt the consequences of what he saw as stubbornness. He encouraged John, the lord chancellor, to take Becket to the archbishop's court over some land, part of the Pageham estate, and to appeal to the king’s court for justice. On the day set for the trial, the archbishop sent four knights to highlight certain irregularities in John’s appeal, while also excusing himself due to illness for not appearing in court that day. This minor offense (if it can even be called that) was framed as a serious contempt; the four knights were threatened and narrowly avoided being sent to prison for allegedly lying to the court;[*] 18 and Henry, resolved to pursue Becket to the fullest extent, called a large council at Northampton, intending to use it as a tool for his revenge against the unyielding archbishop.

[* See note R, at the end of the volume.]

[* See note R, at the end of the volume.]

The king had raised Becket from a low station to the highest offices, had honored him with his countenance and friendship, had trusted to his assistance in forwarding his favorite project against the clergy; and when he found him become of a sudden his most rigid opponent, while every one beside complied with his will, rage at the disappointment, and indignation against such signal ingratitude, transported him beyond all bounds of moderation; and there seems to have entered more of passion than of justice, or even of policy, in this violent prosecution. The barons, notwithstanding, in the great council voted whatever sentence he was pleased to dictate to them; and the bishops themselves, who undoubtedly bore a secret favor to Becket, and regarded him as the champion of their privileges, concurred with the rest in the design of oppressing their primate. In vain did Becket urge that his court was proceeding with the utmost regularity and justice in trying the mareschal’s cause; which, however, he said, would appear, from the sheriff’s testimony, to be entirely unjust and iniquitous: that he himself had discovered no contempt of the king’s court; but, on the contrary, by sending four knights to excuse his absence, had virtually acknowledged its authority: that he also, in consequence of the king’s summons, personally appeared at present in the great council, ready to justify his cause against the mareschal, and to submit his conduct to their inquiry and jurisdiction: that even should it be found that he had been guilty of non-appearance, the laws had affixed a very slight penalty to that offence; and that as he was an inhabitant of Kent, where his archiepiscopal palace was seated, he was by law entitled to some greater indulgence than usual in the rate of his fine. Notwithstanding these pleas, he was condemned as guilty of a contempt of the king’s court, and as wanting in the fealty which he had sworn to his sovereign; all his goods and chattels were confiscated; and that this triumph over the church might be carried to the utmost, Henry, bishop of Winchester, the prelate who had been so powerful in the former reign, was in spite of his remonstrances, obliged, by order of the court, to pronounce the sentence against him. The primate submitted to the decree; and all the prelates, except Folliot, bishop of London, who paid court to the king by this singularity, became sureties for him. It is remarkable, that several Norman barons voted in this council; and we may conclude, with some probability, that a like practice had prevailed in many of the great councils summoned since the conquest. For the contemporary historian, who has given us a full account of these transactions, does not mention this circumstance as anywise singular; and Becket, in all his subsequent remonstrances with regard to the severe treatment which he had met with, never founds any objection on an irregularity, which to us appears very palpable and flagrant. So little precision was there at that time in the government and constitution!

The king had elevated Becket from a low rank to the highest positions, had honored him with his favor and friendship, and had relied on his support to advance his favorite plan against the clergy. When he suddenly found Becket to be his staunchest opponent, while everyone else complied with his wishes, he was overtaken by anger at the betrayal and outrage at such blatant ingratitude, pushing him beyond all bounds of moderation. It seems there was more passion than justice, or even strategy, in this harsh pursuit. Nevertheless, the barons in the great council voted whatever sentence he dictated to them; and the bishops, who secretly favored Becket and saw him as the defender of their rights, joined the rest in the effort to oppress their archbishop. Becket argued in vain that his court was operating with the utmost fairness and justice in handling the mareschal’s case, which, he claimed, would show from the sheriff’s testimony to be completely unfair and wrong: that he had shown no contempt for the king’s court; in fact, by sending four knights to excuse his absence, he had effectively acknowledged its authority. He also stated that due to the king’s summons, he was currently present at the great council, ready to justify his position against the mareschal and to submit his actions to their inquiry and jurisdiction. Even if it was found that he had missed a court appearance, the laws imposed a very minor penalty for that offense; and since he was a resident of Kent, where his archiepiscopal palace was located, he was legally entitled to more leniency than usual regarding his fine. Despite these arguments, he was judged guilty of contempt towards the king’s court and of failing the loyalty he had sworn to his sovereign; all his property was confiscated, and to take this triumph over the church to the extreme, Henry, the bishop of Winchester, a prelate who had been very influential in the previous reign, was forced by court order to pronounce the sentence against him, despite his protests. The archbishop accepted the decree, and all the bishops, except Folliot, the bishop of London, who sought the king's favor through this oddity, became guarantors for him. It is noteworthy that several Norman barons participated in this council, and we can reasonably conclude that a similar practice had occurred in many of the great councils convened since the conquest. The contemporary historian, who provided a detailed account of these events, did not mention this aspect as anything unusual, and Becket, in all his later protests regarding the harsh treatment he received, never claimed that there was any irregularity, which seems very clear and blatant to us. Such a lack of precision existed in the government and constitution at that time!

The king was not content with this sentence, however violent and oppressive. Next day he demanded of Becket the sum of three hundred pounds, which the primate had levied upon the honors of Eye and Berkham, while in his possession. Becket, after premising that he was not obliged to answer to this suit, because it was not contained in his summons; after remarking that he had expended more than that sum in the repairs of those castles, and of the royal palace at London, expressed, however, his resolution, that money should not be any ground of quarrel between him and his sovereign; he agreed to pay the sum, and immediately gave sureties for it. In the subsequent meeting, the king demanded five hundred marks, which, he affirmed, he had lent Becket during the war at Toulouse; and another sum to the same amount, for which that prince had been surety for him to a Jew. Immediately after these two claims, he preferred a third, of still greater importance; he required him to give in the accounts of his administration while chancellor, and to pay the balance due from the revenues of all the prelacies, abbeys, and baronies, which had, during that time, been subjected to his management.[*] Becket observed that, as this demand was totally unexpected, he had not come prepared to answer it; but he required a delay, and promised in that case to give satisfaction. The king insisted upon sureties; and Becket desired leave to consult his suffragans in a case of such importance.[**]

The king wasn't happy with this ruling, no matter how harsh and unfair it was. The next day, he demanded that Becket pay three hundred pounds, which the archbishop had collected from the honors of Eye and Berkham while he had them. Becket pointed out that he wasn't required to respond to this claim since it wasn't mentioned in his summons; he noted that he had actually spent more than that amount on repairs for those castles and the royal palace in London. Still, he made it clear that money shouldn't be a reason for conflict between him and his king; he agreed to pay the sum and immediately secured guarantees for it. At the next meeting, the king asked for five hundred marks, claiming that he had lent it to Becket during the war at Toulouse, along with another sum of the same amount for which he had acted as surety for a Jew. Right after these two demands, he added a third, which was even more significant; he required Becket to submit accounts of his time as chancellor and to pay the balance owed from the revenues of all the bishoprics, abbeys, and baronies that had been under his management at that time.[*] Becket noted that, since this demand was completely unexpected, he hadn't come prepared to address it; however, he requested a delay and promised to provide answers in that case. The king insisted on guarantees, and Becket asked for permission to consult his advisers on such an important matter.[**]

It is apparent, from the known character of Henry, and from the usual vigilance of his government, that, when he promoted Becket to the see of Canterbury, he was, on good grounds, well pleased with his administration in the former high office with which he had intrusted him; and that, even if that prelate had dissipated money beyond the income of his place, the king was satisfied that his expenses were not blamable, and had in the main been calculated for his service.[***] Two years had since elapsed; no demand had during that time been made upon him; it was not till the quarrel arose concerning ecclesiastical privileges, that the claim was started, and the primate was, of a sudden, required to produce accounts of such intricacy and extent before a tribunal which had shown a determined resolution to ruin and oppress him. To find sureties that he should answer so boundless and uncertain a claim, which in the king’s estimation amounted to forty-four thousand marks,[****] was impracticable; and Becket’s suffragans were extremely at a loss what counsel to give him in such a critical emergency. By the advice of the bishop of Winchester he offered two thousand marks as a general satisfaction for all demands; but this offer was rejected by the king,[*****] Some prelates exhorted him to resign his see, on condition of receiving an acquittal; others were of opinion that he ought to submit himself entirely to the king’s mercy;[******] but the primate, thus pushed to the utmost, had too much courage to sink under oppression; he determined to brave all his enemies, to trust to the sacredness of his character for protection, to involve his cause with that of God and religion, and to stand the utmost efforts of royal indignation.

It's clear, given Henry's known character and the usual attentiveness of his government, that when he appointed Becket to the position of Archbishop of Canterbury, he was genuinely satisfied with his performance in the previous high office he had entrusted him with. Even if Becket had spent more than the income of his position, the king believed those expenses were not blameworthy and were mostly for his service.[***] Two years had passed since then; there had been no demands made on him during that period. It wasn’t until the conflict over church privileges arose that the claim was brought up, and suddenly the archbishop was required to provide detailed accounts before a tribunal that seemed intent on ruining him. Finding someone to guarantee he could answer such an immense and unclear claim, which the king estimated at forty-four thousand marks,[****] was impossible. Becket's support bishops were completely unsure about what advice to give him in this critical situation. Acting on the advice of the bishop of Winchester, he offered two thousand marks as a general settlement for all demands, but the king rejected this offer,[*****] Some bishops suggested he resign from his position in exchange for a clear release; others believed he should completely submit to the king's mercy;[******] but the archbishop, pushed to his limits, had too much courage to give in to oppression. He decided to confront all his enemies, rely on the sacredness of his role for protection, connect his cause to that of God and religion, and withstand the king's full wrath.

     [* Hoveden, p. 494. Diceto, p. 537.]

     [** Fitz-Steph. p. 38]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 495.]

     [**** Epist. St. Thorn, p. 315]

     [****** Fitz-Steph. p. 39. Gervase, p. 1390.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 494. Diceto, p. 537.]

     [** Fitz-Steph. p. 38]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 495.]

     [**** Epist. St. Thorn, p. 315]

     [****** Fitz-Steph. p. 39. Gervase, p. 1390.]

After a few days spent in deliberation Becket went to church, and said mass, where he had previously ordered that the entroit to the communion service should begin with these words, “Princes sat and spake against me;” the passage appointed for the martyrdom of St. Stephen, whom the primate thereby tacitly pretended to resemble in his sufferings for the sake of righteousness. He went thence to court arrayed in his sacred vestments: as soon as he arrived within the palace gate, he took the cross into his own hands, bore it aloft as his protection, and marched in that posture into the royal apartments.[*] The king, who was in an inner room, was astonished at this parade, by which the primate seemed to menace him and his court with the sentence of excommunication; and he sent some of the prelates to remonstrate with him on account of such audacious behavior. These prelates complained to Becket, that, by subscribing himself to the constitutions of Clarendon, he had seduced them to imitate his example; and that now, when it was too late, he pretended to shake off all subordination to the civil power, and appeared desirous of involving them in the guilt which must attend any violation of those laws, established by their consent and ratified by their subscriptions.[**]

After a few days of deliberation, Becket went to church and said mass, where he had previously ordered that the entrance to the communion service should begin with the words, “Princes sat and spoke against me;” the passage designated for the martyrdom of St. Stephen, whom the primate subtly compared himself to in his suffering for the sake of righteousness. He then went to court dressed in his sacred vestments: as soon as he arrived at the palace gate, he took the cross into his own hands, held it high as his protection, and walked into the royal apartments in that posture.[*] The king, who was in an inner room, was stunned by this display, which made it seem like the primate was threatening him and his court with excommunication; he sent some of the prelates to talk to him about such bold behavior. These prelates complained to Becket that, by agreeing to the constitutions of Clarendon, he had led them to follow his example; and now, when it was too late, he pretended to reject all subordination to civil authority and seemed eager to involve them in the guilt that would come from violating those laws, established by their consent and confirmed by their subscriptions.[**]

     [* Fitz-Steph. p. 40. Hist. Quad. p. 53 Hoveden,
     p. 404. Gul Neubr. p. 394. Epist. St. Thom. p. 43.]

     [** Fitz-Steph p. 35]
     [* Fitz-Steph. p. 40. Hist. Quad. p. 53 Hoveden,
     p. 404. Gul Neubr. p. 394. Epist. St. Thom. p. 43.]

     [** Fitz-Steph p. 35]

Becket replied, that he had indeed subscribed the constitutions of Clarendon, “legally, with good faith, and without fraud or reserve;” but in these words was virtually implied a salvo for the rights of their order, which, being connected with the cause of God and his church, could never be relinquished by their oaths and engagements: that if he and they had erred in resigning the ecclesiastical privileges, the best atonement they could now make was to retract their consent, which in such a case could never Be obligatory, and to follow the pope’s authority, who had solemnly annulled the constitutions of Clarendon, and had absolved them from all oaths which they had taken to observe them: that a determined resolution was evidently embraced to oppress the church; the storm had first broken upon him; for a slight offence, and which too was falsely imputed to him, he had been tyrannically condemned to a grievous penalty; a new and unheard-of claim was since started, in which he could expect no justice; and he plainly saw that he was the destined victim, who, by his ruin, must prepare the way for the abrogation of all spiritual immunities: that he strictly prohibited them who were his suffragans from assisting at any such trial, or giving their sanction to any sentence against him; he put himself and his see under the protection of the supreme pontiff; and appealed to him against any penalty which his iniquitous judges might think proper to inflict upon him; and that, however terrible the indignation of so great a monarch as Henry, his sword could only kill the body; while that of the church, intrusted into the hands of the primate, could kill the soul, and throw the disobedient into infinite and eternal perdition.[*]

Becket replied that he had indeed signed the constitutions of Clarendon, “legally, in good faith, and without fraud or reservation,” but his statement also implied a safeguard for the rights of their order, which, being tied to the cause of God and his church, could never be given up due to their oaths and commitments. He stated that if he and others had made a mistake in giving up ecclesiastical privileges, the best way to atone for it now was to withdraw their consent, which in that case could never be binding, and to follow the pope’s authority, who had formally annulled the constitutions of Clarendon and absolved them from all oaths they had taken to uphold them. He pointed out that there was a clear intent to oppress the church; the storm had already hit him first; for a minor offense, which was falsely attributed to him, he had been harshly sentenced to a severe penalty. A new and unprecedented demand had emerged, and he could expect no justice in it; he clearly saw that he was the intended victim whose destruction would clear the way for the elimination of all spiritual privileges. He strictly prohibited his suffragans from participating in any such trial or approving any verdict against him; he placed himself and his diocese under the protection of the supreme pontiff and appealed to him against any penalties that his unjust judges might impose. He acknowledged that, no matter how fierce the wrath of such a powerful monarch as Henry was, his sword could only kill the body, while the church’s sword, entrusted to the hands of the primate, could kill the soul and condemn the disobedient to endless and eternal ruin.

Appeals to the pope, even in ecclesiastical causes, had been abolished by the constitutions of Clarendon, and were become criminal by law but an appeal in a civil cause, such as the king’s demand upon Becket, was a practice altogether new and unprecedented; it tended directly to the subversion of the government, and could receive no color of excuse, except from the determined resolution, which was but too apparent to Henry and the great council, to effectuate, without justice, but under color of law, the total ruin of the inflexible primate. The king, having now obtained a pretext so much more plausible for his violence, would probably have pushed the affair to the utmost extremity against him; but Becket gave him no leisure to conduct the prosecution. He refused so much as to hear the sentence which the barons, sitting apart from the bishops, and joined to some sheriffs and barons of the second rank,[**] had given upon the king’s claim; he departed from the palace; asked Henry’s immediate permission to leave Northampton; and upon meeting with a refusal, he withdrew secretly, wandered about in disguise for some time, and at last took shipping and arrived safely at Gravelines.

Appeals to the pope, even for church matters, were abolished by the Constitutions of Clarendon and had become illegal, but an appeal in a civil matter, like the king’s demand against Becket, was a completely new and unprecedented practice; it directly threatened the government and could only be justified by the clear intention, evident to Henry and the great council, to achieve, without justice but under the guise of law, the complete destruction of the unyielding primate. Now that the king had a much more plausible excuse for his actions, he probably would have pushed the matter to the limit against Becket; however, Becket didn’t give him the chance to carry on with the prosecution. He refused to even listen to the verdict that the barons, separated from the bishops and joined by some sheriffs and lesser-ranking barons, had given regarding the king's claim; he left the palace, requested Henry's immediate permission to leave Northampton, and when that was denied, he secretly slipped away, disguised himself for a while, and eventually found a ship, arriving safely at Gravelines.

     [* Fitz-Steph. p. 42,44,45,46. Hist. Quad. p. 57.
     Hoveden, p. 495, M. Paris, p. 72. Epist. St. Thorn, p. 45,
     195.]

     [** Fitz-Steph. p. 46. This historian is supposed
     to mean the more considerable vassals of the chief barons:
     these had no title to sit in the great council, and the
     giving them a place there was a palpable irregularity;
     which, however, is not insisted on in any of Becket’s
     remonstrances: a further proof how little fixed the
     constitution was at that time.]
     [* Fitz-Steph. p. 42,44,45,46. Hist. Quad. p. 57.  
     Hoveden, p. 495, M. Paris, p. 72. Epist. St. Thorn, p. 45,  
     195.]

     [** Fitz-Steph. p. 46. This historian is thought to refer  
     to the more significant vassals of the main barons: these had no  
     right to sit in the great council, and giving them a spot there was a  
     clear irregularity; however, this isn’t emphasized in any of  
     Becket’s complaints: further evidence of how unsettled  
     the constitution was at that time.]

The violent and unjust prosecution of Becket had a natural tendency to turn the public favor on his side, and to make men overlook his former ingratitude towards the king and his departure from all oaths and engagements, as well as the enormity of those ecclesiastical privileges, of which he affected to be the champion. There were many other reasons which procured him countenance and protection in foreign countries. Philip, earl of Flanders,[*] and Lewis, king of France,[**] jealous of the rising greatness of Henry, were well pleased to give him disturbance in his government; and forgetting that this was the common cause of princes, they affected to pity extremely the condition of the exiled primate; and the latter even honored him with a visit at Soissons, in which city he had invited him to fix his residence.[***]

The brutal and unfair prosecution of Becket naturally shifted public support in his favor, causing people to overlook his past disloyalty to the king and his abandonment of all promises and commitments, as well as the extent of the ecclesiastical privileges he claimed to defend. There were several other reasons that earned him support and protection in foreign nations. Philip, the earl of Flanders, and Lewis, the king of France, who were jealous of Henry's growing power, were eager to disrupt his rule; and despite this being a shared issue among princes, they pretended to feel great sympathy for the exiled archbishop. Lewis even paid him a visit in Soissons, where he invited Becket to make his home.

     [* Epist. St Thom. p. 35.]

     [** Epist. St. Thom. p. 36, 37.]

     [*** Hist. Quad. p. 76.]
     [* Epist. St Thom. p. 35.]

     [** Epist. St. Thom. p. 36, 37.]

     [*** Hist. Quad. p. 76.]

The pope, whose interests were more immediately concerned in supporting him, gave a cold reception to a magnificent embassy which Henry sent to accuse him; while Becket himself, who had come to Sens in order to justify his cause before the sovereign pontiff was received with the greatest marks of distinction. The king in revenge, sequestered the revenues of Canterbury; and by conduct which might be esteemed arbitrary, had there been at that time any regular check on royal authority, he banished all the primate’s relations and domestics, to the number of four hundred, whom he obliged to swear, before their departure, that they would instantly join their patron. But this policy, by which Henry endeavored to reduce Becket sooner to necessity, lost its effect; the pope, when they arrived beyond sea, absolved them from their oath, and distributed them among the convents in Franc? and Flanders; a residence was assigned to Becket himself, in the convent of Pontigny, where he lived for some years in great magnificence, partly from a pension granted him on the revenues of that abbey, partly from remittances made him by the French monarch.

The pope, whose interests were more directly connected to supporting him, greeted a lavish embassy that Henry sent to accuse him with indifference. Meanwhile, Becket, who had traveled to Sens to defend his case before the pope, was received with the highest honors. In retaliation, the king seized the revenues of Canterbury and, in actions that could be seen as arbitrary had there been any regular checks on royal power at that time, expelled all of Becket's relatives and staff, around four hundred people, and forced them to swear that they would immediately rejoin him. However, this strategy, which Henry used to try to pressure Becket, backfired; when they arrived abroad, the pope freed them from their oath and spread them across monasteries in France and Flanders. Becket was assigned a residence in the convent of Pontigny, where he lived for several years in considerable luxury, supported partly by a pension from the abbey's revenues and partly by funds sent to him by the French king.

1165.

1165.

The more to ingratiate himself with the pope, Becket resigned into his hands the see of Canterbury, to which, he affirmed, he had been uncanonically elected, by the authority of the royal mandate; and Alexander, in his turn, besides investing him anew with that dignity, pretended to abrogate by a bull, the sentence which the great council of England had passed against him. Henry, after attempting in vain to procure a conference with the pope, who departed soon after for Rome, whither the prosperous state of his affairs now invited him, made provisions against the consequences of that breach which impended between his kingdom and the apostolic see. He issued orders to his justiciaries, inhibiting, under severe penalties, all appeals to the pope or archbishop, forbidding any one to receive any mandates from them, or apply in any case to their authority; declaring it treasonable to bring from either of them an interdict upon the kingdom, and punishable in secular clergymen, by the loss of their eyes and by castration, in regulars by amputation of their feet, and in laies with death; and menacing with sequestration and banishment the persons themselves, as well as their kindred, who should pay obedience to any such interdict; and he further obliged all his subjects to swear to the observance of those orders.[*] These were edicts of the utmost importance, affected the lives and properties of all the subjects, and even changed, for the time, the national religion, by breaking off all communication with Rome; yet were they enacted by the sole authority of the king, and were derived entirely from his will and pleasure.

To win the pope's favor, Becket handed over the see of Canterbury, claiming he had been improperly elected by royal decree. Alexander, in turn, not only reappointed him to that position but also issued a bull that effectively canceled the decision made by the great council of England against him. Henry, after unsuccessfully trying to meet with the pope—who soon left for Rome, where his successful affairs were calling—took precautions against the looming conflict between his kingdom and the papacy. He instructed his justiciaries to impose strict penalties on anyone who made appeals to the pope or archbishop, forbidding anyone from following their orders or seeking their authority. He declared it treasonous to bring any interdict from them upon the kingdom, punishable by severe consequences: secular clergymen faced losing their eyes and castration, regulars faced having their feet amputated, and laypeople faced death. He threatened those who complied with such interdicts, as well as their relatives, with confiscation and exile, and he required all his subjects to swear to follow these orders.[*] These were significant decrees that impacted the lives and property of all subjects and even temporarily altered the national religion by severing ties with Rome; yet they were established solely by the king's authority and stemmed entirely from his will.

The spiritual powers, which, in the primitive church, were, in a great measure, dependent on the civil, had, by a gradual progress, reached an equality and independence; and though the limits of the two jurisdictions were difficult to ascertain or define, it was not impossible but, by moderation on both sides, government might still have been conducted in that imperfect and irregular manner which attends all human institutions But as the ignorance of the age encouraged the ecclesiastics daily to extend their privileges, and even to advance maxims totally incompatible with civil government,[**] Henry had thought it high time to put an end to their pretensions, and formally, in a public council, to fix those powers which belonged to the magistrate, and which he was for the future determined to maintain. In this attempt he was led to reestablish customs which, though ancient, were beginning to be abolished by a contrary practice, and which were still more strongly opposed by the prevailing opinions and sentiments of the age.

The spiritual powers, which in the early church were largely dependent on civil authority, had gradually achieved equality and independence. Although it was hard to clearly define the boundaries of both jurisdictions, it wasn't impossible to conduct government in that imperfect and irregular way typical of all human institutions if both sides showed some restraint. However, the ignorance of the time encouraged the clergy to continually expand their privileges and even promote ideas that were completely at odds with civil government. Henry believed it was time to put a stop to their claims and to formally establish, in a public council, the powers that belonged to the magistrate, which he was determined to uphold in the future. In this effort, he sought to reestablish customs that, although ancient, were starting to be eliminated by opposing practices and were even more strongly contested by the prevailing beliefs and attitudes of the time.

     [* Hist. Quad. p. 88,167. Hoveden, p. 496. M.
     Paris, p. 73,]

     [** “Quis dubitet,” says Becket to the king,
     “sacerdotes Christi legum et principum omniumque fidelium
     patres et magistros censeri,” Epist. St. Thom. 97, 148.]
     [* Hist. Quad. p. 88,167. Hoveden, p. 496. M.
     Paris, p. 73,]

     [** “Who can doubt,” says Becket to the king, “that the priests of Christ should be considered the fathers and teachers of all laws and princes and all faithful people,” Epist. St. Thom. 97, 148.]

Principle, therefore, stood on the one side, power on the other; and if the English had been actuated by conscience more than by present interest, the controversy must soon, by the general defection of Henry’s subjects, have been decided against him, Becket, in order to forward this event, filled all places with exclamations against the violence which he had suffered. He compared himself to Christ, who had been condemned by a lay tribunal,[*] and who was crucified anew in the present oppressions under which his church labored: he took it for granted, as a point incontestable, that his cause was the cause of God:[**] he assumed the character of champion for the patrimony of the divinity: he pretended to be the spiritual father of the king and all the people of England:[***] he even told Henry that kings reign solely by the authority of the church,[****] and though he had thus torn off the veil more openly on the one side than that prince had on the other, he seemed still, from the general favor borne him by the ecclesiastics, to have all the advantage in the argument. The king, that he might employ the weapons of temporal power remaining in his hands, suspended the payment of Peter’s pence; he made advances towards an alliance with the emperor Frederic Barbarossa, who was at that time engaged in violent wars with Pope Alexander; he discovered some intentions of acknowledging Pascal III., the present antipope, who was protected by that emperor; and by these expedients he endeavored to terrify the enterprising though prudent pontiff from proceeding to extremities against him.

Principle was on one side, and power was on the other; if the English had been driven more by conscience than by immediate self-interest, the controversy would have quickly been decided against Henry due to the general defection of his subjects. To promote this outcome, Becket filled every space with cries against the violence he had faced. He likened himself to Christ, who had faced judgment from a secular court and was being crucified again by the current oppressions affecting his church. He took it as an undeniable fact that his cause was the cause of God; he adopted the role of champion for God's interests. He claimed to be the spiritual father of the king and all the people of England; he even told Henry that kings reign solely through the authority of the church. Although Becket was more transparent in his arguments than the king was, he still seemed to have the upper hand in the debate thanks to the support he received from the clergy. To wield the remaining tools of temporal power he had, the king suspended the payment of Peter’s pence. He sought an alliance with Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, who was at that time engaged in fierce conflicts with Pope Alexander. He also hinted at recognizing Pascal III, the current antipope, who was under the protection of that emperor, and through these actions, he tried to intimidate the ambitious yet cautious pope from taking extreme measures against him.

1166.

1166.

But the violence of Becket, still more than the nature of the controversy, kept affairs from remaining long in suspense between the parties. That prelate, instigated by revenge, and animated by the present glory attending his situation, pushed matters to a decision, and issued a censure excommunicating the king’s chief ministers by name, and comprehending in general all those who favored or obeyed the constitutions of Clarendon: these constitutions he abrogated and annulled; he absolved all men from the oaths which they had taken to observe them; and he suspended the spiritual thunder over Henry himself only that the prince might avoid the blow by a timely repentance.[*****]

But Becket's violent actions, more than the nature of the dispute, prevented things from staying unresolved between the parties for long. Driven by revenge and motivated by the current glory of his position, he pushed for a quick resolution. He issued a censure that excommunicated the king’s top ministers by name and included anyone who supported or followed the laws of Clarendon in general: he revoked and canceled these laws, freed everyone from the oaths they had taken to uphold them, and held back spiritual punishment over Henry himself, only so the prince could dodge the consequences with a timely act of repentance.

     [* Epist. St. Thom. p. 63, 105, 194.]

     [** Epist St. Thom. p. 29, 30, 31, 226.]

     [*** Fitz-Steph. p. 46. Epist. St. Thom. p.
     52,148.]

     [**** Brady’s Append. No. 56. Epist. St. Thom. p.
     94,95, 97, 99,197. Roveden, p, 497.]
     Paris, p. 74. Beaulieu. Vie de St. Thom. p. 213. Erzst. St.
     Thom. p. 149, 229. Hoveden p. 499.]
     [* Epist. St. Thom. p. 63, 105, 194.]

     [** Epist St. Thom. p. 29, 30, 31, 226.]

     [*** Fitz-Steph. p. 46. Epist. St. Thom. p.
     52,148.]

     [**** Brady’s Append. No. 56. Epist. St. Thom. p.
     94,95, 97, 99,197. Roveden, p, 497.]
     Paris, p. 74. Beaulieu. Vie de St. Thom. p. 213. Erzst. St.
     Thom. p. 149, 229. Hoveden p. 499.]

The situation of Henry was so unhappy, that he could employ no expedient for saving his ministers from this terrible censure, but by appealing to the pope himself, and having recourse to a tribunal whose authority he had himself attempted to abridge in this very article of appeals, and which he knew was so deeply engaged on the side of his adversary. But even this expedient was not likely to be long effectual. Becket had obtained from the pope a legantine commission over England; and in virtue of that authority, which admitted of no appeal, he summoned the bishops of London, Salisbury, and others to attend him, and ordered, under pain of excommunication, the ecclesiastics, sequestered on his account, to be restored in two months to all their benefices. But John of Oxford, the king’s agent with the pope, had the address to procure orders for suspending this sentence; and he gave the pontiff such hopes of a speedy reconcilement between the king and Becket, that two legates, William of Pavia and Otho, were sent to Normandy, where the king then resided, and they endeavored to find expedients for that purpose. But the pretensions of the parties were as yet too opposite to admit of an accommodation: the king required that all the constitutions of Clarendon should be ratified; Becket, that previously to any agreement, he and his adherents should be restored to their possessions; and as the legates had no power to pronounce a definite sentence on either side, the negotiation soon after came to nothing. The cardinal of Pavia also, being much attached to Henry, took care to protract the negotiation; to mitigate the pope by the accounts which he sent of that prince’s conduct, and to procure him every possible indulgence from the see of Rome. About this time, the king had also the address to obtain a dispensation for the marriage of his third son, Geoffrey, with the heiress of Brittany; a concession which, considering Henry’s demerits towards the church, gave great scandal both to Becket, and to his zealous patron, the king of France.

Henry's situation was so dire that he could think of no way to save his ministers from this harsh criticism except by appealing to the pope himself. He turned to a court whose authority he had previously tried to limit in this very matter of appeals, and which he knew supported his opponent. But even this solution was unlikely to work for long. Becket had received a papal commission for England, and using that authority, which allowed for no appeals, he summoned the bishops of London, Salisbury, and others to meet with him. He also commanded, under threat of excommunication, that the clergy who had been sidelined because of him be reinstated within two months. However, John of Oxford, the king’s representative with the pope, managed to secure orders to suspend this ruling. He gave the pope such optimism about a quick reconciliation between the king and Becket that two legates, William of Pavia and Otho, were sent to Normandy, where the king was staying, to look for ways to settle the issue. But the positions of both sides were still too opposed to reach an agreement: the king wanted all the constitutions of Clarendon ratified, while Becket insisted that he and his supporters be restored to their properties before any settlement. Since the legates didn’t have the authority to issue a final decision for either party, the negotiations quickly fell apart. The cardinal of Pavia, who was very loyal to Henry, took care to prolong the discussions, trying to soften the pope by sending updates about the king’s behavior, and to obtain as much leniency as possible from Rome. Around this time, the king also managed to get a dispensation for his third son, Geoffrey, to marry the heiress of Brittany; a concession that, given Henry’s shortcomings towards the church, shocked both Becket and his fervent supporter, the king of France.

1167.

1167.

The intricacies of the feudal law had, in that age, rendered the boundaries of power between the prince and his vassals, and between one prince and another, as uncertain as those between the crown and the mitre; and all wars took their origin from disputes, which, had there been any tribunal possessed of power to enforce their decrees, ought to have been decided only before a court of judicature. Henry, in prosecution of some controversies in which he was involved with the count of Auvergne, a vassal of the duchy of Guienne, bad invaded the territories of that nobleman; who had recourse to the king of France, his superior lord, for protection, and thereby kindled a war between the two monarchs. Bur the war was, as usual, no less feeble in its operations than it wail frivolous in its cause and object; and after occasioning some mutual depredations,[*] and some insurrections among the barons of Poictou and Guienne, was terminated by a peace. The terms of this peace were rather disadvantageous to Henry, and prove that that prince had, by reason of his contest with the church, lost the superiority which he had hitherto maintained over the crown of France; an additional motive to him for accommodating those differences.

The complexities of feudal law during that time made the divisions of power between the prince and his vassals, as well as between one prince and another, as unclear as those between the crown and the church; all conflicts arose from disputes that, if there had been a court with the authority to enforce its decisions, should have been settled only by a judicial body. Henry, while dealing with some issues with the count of Auvergne, a vassal of the duchy of Guienne, invaded that nobleman's lands; the count turned to the king of France, his superior lord, for protection, which sparked a war between the two kings. But the war was, as usual, as ineffective in its actions as it was trivial in its cause and purpose; after causing some mutual damage and some uprisings among the barons of Poictou and Guienne, it ended in a peace agreement. The terms of this peace were rather unfavorable to Henry, revealing that he had lost the upper hand he once held over the crown of France due to his disputes with the church, which further motivated him to resolve those differences.

The pope and the king began at last to perceive that, in the present situation of affairs, neither of them could expect a final and decisive victory over the other, and that they had more to fear than to hope from the duration of the controversy. Though the vigor of Henry’s government had confirmed his authority in all his dominions, his throne might be shaken by a sentence of excommunication; and if England itself could, by its situation, be more easily guarded against the contagion of superstitious prejudices, his French provinces at least, whose communication was open with the neighboring states, would be much exposed, on that account, to some great revolution or convulsion, He could not, therefore, reasonably imagine that the pope, while he retained such a check upon him, would formally recognize the constitutions of Clarendon, which both put an end to papal pretensions in England,[**] and would give an example to other states of asserting a like independency.[***]

The pope and the king finally began to realize that, in the current situation, neither could expect a clear and decisive victory over the other, and that they had more to fear than to hope from the ongoing conflict. Although Henry's strong government had solidified his authority across his territories, his throne could still be threatened by an excommunication. While England could, due to its location, more easily protect itself from the spread of superstitious beliefs, his French provinces, with their connections to neighboring states, would be much more vulnerable to significant upheaval. He could not reasonably think that the pope, while maintaining such control over him, would officially recognize the constitutions of Clarendon, which not only ended papal claims in England but would also set an example for other states to assert similar independence.

     [* Hoveden, p. 517. M. Paris, p. 75. Diecto, p.
     547 p. 1402, 1403. Robert de Monte.]

     [** Epist. St. Thom, p. 230.]

     [*** Epist. St. Thom, p. 276.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 517. M. Paris, p. 75. Diecto, p.
     547 p. 1402, 1403. Robert de Monte.]

     [** Epist. St. Thom, p. 230.]

     [*** Epist. St. Thom, p. 276.]

Pope Alexander, on the other hand, being still engaged in dangerous wars with the emperor Frederic, might justly apprehend that Henry, rather than relinquish claims of such importance, would join the party of his enemy; and as the trials hitherto made of the spiritual weapons by Becket had not succeeded to his expectation, and every thing had remained quiet in all the king’s dominions, nothing seemed impossible to the capacity and vigilance of so great a monarch. The disposition of minds on both sides, resulting from these circumstances, produced frequent attempts towards an accommodation; but as both parties knew that the essential articles of the dispute could not then be terminated, they entertained a perpetual jealousy of each other, and were anxious not to lose the least advantage in the negotiation. The nuncios, Gratian and Vivian, having received a commission to endeavor a reconciliation, met with the king in Normandy; and after all differences seemed to be adjusted, Henry offered to sign the treaty, with a salvo to his royal dignity; which gave such umbrage to Becket, that the negotiation in the end became fruitless, and the excommunications were renewed against the king’s ministers. Another negotiation was conducted at Montmirail, in presence of the king of France and the French prelates where Becket also offered to make his submissions, with a salvo to the honor of God and the liberties of the church; which, for a like reason, was extremely offensive to the king, and rendered the treaty abortive,

Pope Alexander, meanwhile, was still caught up in dangerous conflicts with Emperor Frederic and had good reason to worry that Henry, rather than give up such significant claims, would ally with his enemy. Since Becket's previous attempts to use spiritual authority had not gone as expected and everything had remained calm across the king’s lands, it seemed nothing was beyond the capabilities and awareness of such a powerful monarch. The feelings of both sides, shaped by these situations, led to frequent attempts at reaching an agreement; however, both parties understood that they couldn’t resolve the core issues of the dispute at that time, leading to ongoing mistrust and a desire not to lose any edge in the negotiations. The envoys, Gratian and Vivian, who had been tasked with trying to achieve a reconciliation, met with the king in Normandy. After it seemed all differences had been resolved, Henry was ready to sign the treaty while still protecting his royal status. This upset Becket so much that the negotiation ultimately proved fruitless, and the excommunications against the king’s ministers were reinstated. Another negotiation took place at Montmirail in the presence of the king of France and French bishops, where Becket also expressed his willingness to submit, while still honoring God and the church's rights. However, this, for similar reasons, greatly offended the king and caused the treaty to fail.

1169.

1169.

A third conference, under the same mediation, was broken off, by Becket’s insisting on a like reserve in his submissions; and even in a fourth treaty, when all the terms were adjusted, and when the primate expected to be introduced to the king, and to receive the kiss of peace, which it was usual for princes to grant in those times, and which was regarded as a sure pledge of forgiveness, Henry refused him that honor, under pretence that, during his anger, he had made a rash vow to that purpose. This formality served, among such jealous spirits, to prevent the conclusion of the treaty; and though the difficulty was attempted to be overcome by a dispensation which the pope granted to Henry from his vow, that prince could not be pre vailed on to depart from the resolution which he had taken.

A third conference, facilitated by the same mediator, fell apart when Becket insisted on similar conditions in his submissions. Even in a fourth negotiation, when all the terms were settled and the primate expected to meet the king and receive the kiss of peace—something that was customary among princes at that time and seen as a sure sign of forgiveness—Henry denied him that honor, claiming that he had made a hasty vow during his anger. This formality, amidst such jealous individuals, hindered the completion of the treaty. Although they tried to resolve the issue with a dispensation that the pope granted to Henry from his vow, the prince remained firm in his decision.

In one of these conferences, at which the French king was present, Henry said to that monarch, “There have been many kings of England, some of greater, some of less authority than myself: there have also been many archbishops of Canterbury, holy and good men, and entitled to every kind of respect: let Becket but act towards me with the same submission which the greatest of his predecessors have paid to the least of mine, and there shall be no controversy between us.” Lewis was so struck with this state of the case, and with an offer which Henry made to submit his cause to the French clergy, that he could not forbear condemning the primate, and withdrawing his friendship from him during some time; but the bigotry of that prince, and their common animosity against Henry, soon produced a renewal of their former good correspondence.

In one of these meetings, where the French king was present, Henry said to him, “There have been many kings of England, some with more power and some with less than me: there have also been many archbishops of Canterbury, who were holy and good men deserving of every kind of respect. If Becket would just show me the same respect that even the smallest of my predecessors received from the greatest of his, we wouldn’t have any disagreement.” Lewis was so taken aback by this situation and by an offer from Henry to let the French clergy decide his cause, that he couldn’t help but condemn the archbishop and cut off his friendship for a while. However, the king’s prejudice and their shared dislike of Henry soon brought back their previous good relationship.

1170.

1170.

All difficulties were at last adjusted between the parties; and the king allowed Becket to return, on conditions which may be esteemed both honorable and advantageous to that prelate. He was not required to give up any rights of the church, or resign any of those pretensions which had been the original ground of the controversy. It was agreed that all these questions should be buried in oblivion; but that Becket and his adherents should, without making further submission, be restored to all their livings, and that even the possessors of such benefices as depended on the see of Canterbury and had been filled during the primate’s absence, should be expelled, and Becket have liberty to supply the vacancies.[*] In return for concessions which intrenched so deeply on the honor and dignity of the crown, Henry reaped only the advantage of seeing his ministers absolved from the sentence of excommunication pronounced against them, and of preventing the interdict, which, if these hard conditions had not been complied with, was ready to be laid on all his dominions.[**] It was easy to see how much he dreaded that event, when a prince of so high a spirit could submit to terms so dishonorable, in order to prevent it. So anxious was Henry to accommodate all differences, and to reconcile himself fully with Becket, that he took the most extraordinary steps to flatter his vanity, and even on one occasion humiliated himself so far as to hold the stirrup of that haughty prelate while he mounted.[***]

All the issues were finally resolved between the parties, and the king allowed Becket to return under conditions that could be seen as both honorable and beneficial for him. He wasn't required to give up any church rights or any of the claims that had sparked the initial conflict. It was agreed that all these matters would be forgotten; however, Becket and his supporters would be reinstated in all their positions without needing to bow down further, and even those who had taken over such roles that were tied to the see of Canterbury during Becket's absence would have to step down, allowing Becket the freedom to fill those vacancies.[*] In exchange for concessions that significantly affected the honor and dignity of the crown, Henry only gained the benefit of seeing his ministers cleared from the excommunication that had been placed on them, and of averting the interdict that was about to be imposed on all his lands if he had not complied with these tough conditions.[**] It was clear how much he feared that situation when a man of such high status could agree to such dishonorable terms to avoid it. Henry was so eager to settle all disputes and fully reconcile with Becket that he went to great lengths to stroke Becket's ego, even at one point humiliating himself by holding the stirrup for that proud prelate as he got on horseback.[***]

     [* Fitz-Steph. p. 68, 69. Hoveden, p. 520.]

     [** Hist Quad. p. 104. Brompton, p, 1062. Gervase,
     p. 1408, Epist. St. Thom. 704, 705, 706, 707, 792, 793, 794.
     Benedict. Abbas p. 70.]

     [*** Epist. 45, lib. r]
     [* Fitz-Steph. p. 68, 69. Hoveden, p. 520.]

     [** Hist Quad. p. 104. Brompton, p, 1062. Gervase,
     p. 1408, Epist. St. Thom. 704, 705, 706, 707, 792, 793, 794.
     Benedict. Abbas p. 70.]

     [*** Epist. 45, lib. r]

But the king attained not even that temporary tranquillity which he had hoped to reap from these expedients. During the heat of his quarrel with Becket, while he was every day expecting an interdict to be laid on his kingdom, and a sentence of excommunication to be fulminated against his person, he had thought it prudent to have his son. Prince Henry, associated with him in the royalty, and to make him be crowned king, by the hands of Roger, archbishop of York. By this precaution, he both insured the succession of that prince, which, considering the many past irregularities in that point, could not but be esteemed somewhat precarious; and he preserved at least his family on the throne, if the sentence of excommunication should have the effect which he dreaded, and should make his subjects renounce their allegiance to him. Though his design was conducted with expedition and secrecy, Becket, before it was carried into execution, had got intelligence of it, and being desirous of obstructing all Henry’s measures, as well as anxious to prevent this affront to himself, who pretended to the sole right, as archbishop of Canterbury, to officiate in the coronation, he had inhibited all the prelates of England from assisting at this ceremony, had procured from the pope a mandate to the same purpose, and had incited the king of France to protest against the coronation of young Henry, unless the princess, daughter of that monarch, should at the same time receive the royal unction. There prevailed in that age an opinion which was akin to its other superstitions, that the royal unction was essential to the exercise of royal power: it was therefore natural, both for the king of France, careful of his daughter’s establishment and for Becket, jealous of his own dignity, to demand, in the treaty with Henry, some satisfaction in this essential point. Henry, after apologizing to Lewis for the omission with regard to Margaret, and excusing it on account of the secrecy and despatch requisite for conducting that measure, promised that the ceremony should be renewed in the persons both of the prince and princess; and he assured Becket, that besides receiving the acknowledgments of Roger and the other bishops for the seeming affront put on the see of Canterbury, the primate should, as a further satisfaction, recover his rights by officiating in this coronation. But the violent spirit of Becket, elated by the power of the church, and by the victory which he had already obtained over his sovereign, was not content with this voluntary compensation, but resolved to make the injury, which he pretended to have suffered, a handle for taking revenge on all his enemies. On his arrival in England, he met the archbishop of York and the bishops of London and Salisbury, who were on their journey to the king in Normandy. He notified to the archbishop the sentence of suspension, and to the two bishops that of excommunication, which, at his solicitation, the pope had pronounced against them. Reginald de Warrenne and Gervase de Cornhill, two of the king’s ministers, who were employed on their duty in Kent, asked him, on hearing of this bold attempt whether he meant to bring fire and sword into the kingdom. But the primate, heedless of the reproof, proceeded in the most ostentatious manner to take possession of his diocese in Rochester and all the towns through which he passed, he was received with the shouts and acclamations of the populace. As he approached Southwark, the clergy, the laity, men of all ranks and ages, came forth to meet him, and celebrated with hymns of joy his triumphant entrance. And though he was obliged, by order of the young prince, who resided at Woodstock, to return to his diocese, he found that he was not mistaken, when he reckoned upon the highest veneration of the public towards his person and his dignity. He proceeded, therefore, with the more courage to dart his spiritual thunders. He issued the sentence of excommunication against Robert de Broc and Nigel de Sackville, with many others, who either had assisted at the coronation of the prince, or been active in the late persecution of the exiled clergy. This violent measure, by which he, in effect, denounced war against the king himself, is commonly ascribed to the vindictive disposition and imperious character of Becket; but as this prelate was also a man of acknowledged abilities, we are not in his passions alone to look for the cause of his conduct, when he proceeded to these extremities against his enemies. His sagacity had led him to discover all Henry’s intentions; and he proposed, by this bold and unexpected assault, to prevent the execution of them.

But the king didn't even achieve the temporary peace he had hoped to gain from these strategies. During the heat of his conflict with Becket, while he was constantly expecting an interdict on his kingdom and a sentence of excommunication against himself, he thought it wise to have his son, Prince Henry, associated with him in the royalty and crowned king by Roger, the archbishop of York. With this move, he ensured the succession of that prince, which, given the many past irregularities in that area, could be seen as somewhat uncertain; and he at least maintained his family's position on the throne in case the dreaded excommunication made his subjects rebel against him. Although his plan was carried out quickly and secretly, Becket learned of it before it could be executed and, eager to block all of Henry's plans and to prevent this slight against himself—since he claimed the sole right as archbishop of Canterbury to officiate at the coronation—had prohibited all the bishops of England from participating in the ceremony, secured a mandate from the pope to that effect, and urged the king of France to protest against the coronation of young Henry unless the princess, daughter of that monarch, was also anointed at the same time. At that time, there was a belief, similar to many other superstitions of the age, that royal anointing was essential for exercising royal power; thus, it was only natural for both the king of France, concerned for his daughter's future, and for Becket, protective of his own dignity, to seek some acknowledgment from Henry regarding this crucial issue. After apologizing to Louis for the oversight about Margaret, citing the need for secrecy and speed in carrying out the measure, Henry promised that the ceremony would be performed for both the prince and princess; he assured Becket that in addition to receiving the acknowledgment of Roger and the other bishops for the perceived slight against the Canterbury see, the primate would regain his rights by officiating at this coronation. However, Becket's aggressive spirit, boosted by the power of the church and his previous victory over his sovereign, wasn't satisfied with this voluntary compensation; he resolved to use the alleged wrong he suffered as an excuse to take revenge on all his enemies. When he arrived in England, he encountered the archbishop of York and the bishops of London and Salisbury, who were on their way to the king in Normandy. He informed the archbishop of the suspension and the bishops of their excommunication, which, at his request, the pope had announced against them. Reginald de Warrenne and Gervase de Cornhill, two of the king's ministers working in Kent, asked him, upon witnessing this bold move, whether he intended to bring chaos to the kingdom. But disregarding their warnings, the primate flamboyantly took possession of his diocese in Rochester and all the towns along his route, where he was welcomed with cheers from the public. As he neared Southwark, clergy, laypeople, and individuals of all ranks and ages came out to greet him, celebrating his triumphant entry with joyful hymns. Even though the young prince, who was staying at Woodstock, ordered him to return to his diocese, he realized he was right to count on the public's deep respect for him and his position. Therefore, he felt emboldened to unleash his spiritual wrath. He announced the excommunication of Robert de Broc and Nigel de Sackville, along with many others who either participated in the prince's coronation or were involved in the recent persecution of the exiled clergy. This aggressive action, in effect, declared war against the king himself and is often attributed to Becket's vengeful nature and commanding personality; however, since he was also a man of recognized skill, we shouldn't attribute his actions solely to his emotions when he escalated matters against his enemies. His insight had allowed him to uncover all of Henry's plans, and he intended to thwart their execution with this bold and unexpected strike.

The king, from his experience of the dispositions of his people, was become sensible that his enterprise had been too bold, in establishing the constitutions of Clarendon, in defining all the branches of royal power, and in endeavoring to extort from the church of England, as well as from the pope, an express avowal of these disputed prerogatives. Conscious also of his own violence in attempting to break or subdue the inflexible primate, he was not displeased to undo that measure which had given his enemies such advantage against him, and he was contented that the controversy should terminate in that ambiguous manner, which was the utmost that princes, in those ages, could hope to attain in their disputes with the see of Rome. Though he dropped for the present the prosecution of Becket, he still reserved to himself the right of maintaining, that the constitutions of Clarendon, the original ground of the quarrel, were both the ancient customs and the present law of the realm; and though he knew that the papal clergy asserted them to be impious in themselves, as well as abrogated by the sentence of the sovereign pontiff, he intended, in spite of their clamors, steadily to put those laws in execution, and to trust to his own abilities, and to the course of events, for success in that perilous enterprise. He hoped that Becket’s experience of a six years’ exile would, after his pride was fully gratified by his restoration, be sufficient tc teach him more reserve in his opposition; or if any controversy arose, he expected thenceforth to engage in a more favorable cause, and to maintain with advantage, while the primate was now in his power, the ancient and undoubted customs of the kingdom against the usurpations of the clergy. But Becket, determined not to betray the ecclesiastical privileges by his connivance, and apprehensive lest a prince of such profound policy, if allowed to proceed in his own way, might probably in the end prevail, resolved to take all the advantage which his present victory gave him, and to disconcert the cautious measures of the king, by the vehemence and rigor of his own conduct. Assured of support from Rome, he was little intimidated by dangers which his courage taught him to despise, and which, even if attended with the most fatal consequences, would serve only to gratify his ambition and thirst of glory.

The king, based on his understanding of his people's attitudes, realized that his actions had been too bold in implementing the Constitutions of Clarendon, which outlined all aspects of royal power, and in trying to force both the Church of England and the pope to explicitly acknowledge these disputed rights. Aware of his own aggression in trying to defeat the steadfast primate, he was not unhappy to reverse the decision that had given his opponents such an upper hand against him, and he accepted that the conflict should end in a vague manner, which was the best that rulers of that time could hope for in their disagreements with the papacy. Although he paused the pursuit of Becket for the moment, he still claimed that the Constitutions of Clarendon, the original source of the conflict, represented both the historical customs and the current law of the land; and even though he knew that the papal clergy deemed them both immoral and nullified by the pope’s decree, he planned, despite their outcry, to enforce those laws and relied on his skills and the unfolding situation for success in that risky endeavor. He hoped that Becket’s experience of six years in exile would teach him to be more restrained in opposition after his pride was fully satisfied by his return; or if any disputes arose, he expected to fight for a more favorable cause and to defend, while the primate was now at his mercy, the ancient and clear customs of the kingdom against the overreach of the clergy. However, Becket, determined not to compromise the church's privileges through his indifference, and fearing that a prince with such deep strategy, if given free rein, might ultimately succeed, resolved to take full advantage of his current victory and disrupt the king's careful plans with his own fierce actions. Confident in support from Rome, he was not easily intimidated by dangers that his courage allowed him to dismiss, which, even if they led to dire consequences, would only serve to fulfill his ambition and desire for glory.

When the suspended and excommunicated prelates arrived at Baieux, where the king then resided, and complained to him of the violent proceedings of Becket, he instantly perceived the consequences; was sensible that his whole plan of operations was overthrown; foresaw that the dangerous contest between the civil and spiritual powers, a contest which he himself had first roused, but which he had endeavored, by all his late negotiations and concessions, to appease, must come to an immediate and decisive issue; and he was thence thrown into the most violent commotion. The archbishop of York remarked to him, that so long as Becket lived, he could never expect to enjoy peace or tranquillity. The king himself, being vehemently agitated, burst forth into an exclamation against his servants, whose want of zeal, he said, had so long left him exposed to the enterprises of that ungrateful and imperious prelate. Four gentlemen of his household, Reginald Fitz-Urse, William de Traci, Hugh de Moreville, and Richard Brito, taking these passionate expressions to be a hint for Becket’s death, immediately communicated their thoughts to each other; and swearing to avenge their prince’s quarrel secretly withdrew from court. Some menacing expressions which they had dropped, gave a suspicion of their design; and the king despatched a messenger after them, charging them to attempt nothing against the person of the primate; but these orders arrived too late to prevent their fatal purpose. The four assassins, though they took different roads to England, arrived nearly about the same time at Saltwoode, near Canterbury; and being there joined by some assistants, they proceeded in a great haste to the archiepiscopal palace. They found the primate, who trusted entirely to the sacredness of his character, very slenderly attended; and though they threw out many menaces and reproaches against him, he was so incapable of fear, that, without using any precautions against their violence, he immediately went to St. Benedict’s church, to hear vespers. They followed him thither, attacked him before the altar, and having cloven his head with many blows, retired without meeting any opposition. This was the tragical end of Thomas à Becket, a prelate of the most lofty, intrepid, and inflexible spirit, who was able to cover to the world, and probably to himself, the enterprises of pride and ambition, under the disguise of sanctity, and of zeal for the interests of religion; an extraordinary personage, surely, had he been allowed to remain in his first station, and had directed the vehemence of his character to the support of law and justice; instead of being engaged, by the prejudices of the times, to sacrifice all private duties and public connections to ties which he imagined, or represented, as superior to every civil and political consideration. But no man, who enters into the genius of that age, can reasonably doubt of this prelate’s sincerity. The spirit of superstition was so prevalent, that it infallibly caught every careless reasoner, much more every one whose interest, and honor, and ambition were engaged to support it. All the wretched literature of the times was enlisted on that side. Some faint glimmerings of common sense might sometimes pierce through the thick cloud of ignorance, or, what was worse, the illusions of perverted science, which had blotted out the sun, and enveloped the face of nature; but those who preserved themselves untainted by the general contagion, proceeded on no principles which they could pretend to justify; they were more indebted to their total want of instruction than to their knowledge, if they still retained some share of understanding; folly was possessed of all the schools as well as all the churches; and her votaries assumed the garb of philosophers, together with the ensigns of spiritual dignities. Throughout that large collection of letters which bears the name of St. Thomas, we find, in all the retainers of that aspiring prelate, no less than in himself, a most entire and absolute conviction of the reason and piety of their own party, and a disdain of their antagonists; nor is there less cant and grimace in their style, when they address each other, than when they compose manifestoes for the perusal of the public. The spirit of revenge, violence, and ambition which accompanied their conduct, instead of forming a presumption of hypocrisy, are the surest pledges of their sincere attachment to a cause which so much flattered these domineering passions.

When the suspended and excommunicated bishops arrived at Bayeux, where the king was staying, and complained to him about Becket's aggressive actions, he quickly realized the consequences. He understood that his entire plan was falling apart and predicted that the dangerous conflict between civil and spiritual authority, a conflict he had initially sparked, but had tried to resolve through negotiation and concessions, would soon reach an urgent and decisive climax. This caused him great distress. The Archbishop of York told him that as long as Becket was alive, he could never expect peace or calm. The king, deeply agitated, erupted in anger towards his servants, accusing them of lacking zeal and leaving him vulnerable to the schemes of that ungrateful and domineering bishop. Four of his household knights—Reginald Fitz-Urse, William de Traci, Hugh de Moreville, and Richard Brito—interpreting his outburst as a signal to assassinate Becket, quickly shared their thoughts and secretly left the court, vowing to avenge their king. Some threatening comments they made raised suspicions about their intentions, prompting the king to send a messenger to prevent them from harming the archbishop, but it was too late to stop their deadly plan. The four assassins, although they took different routes to England, arrived almost simultaneously at Saltwood, near Canterbury, where they were joined by some accomplices and hurried to the archbishop’s palace. They found Becket, who felt completely safe due to his esteemed position, with only a small group of attendants. Even when they threatened and insulted him, he was so fearless that he made no preparations against their aggression and went directly to St. Benedict’s church to attend vespers. They followed him there, ambushed him in front of the altar, and after striking him multiple times, fled without facing any resistance. This was the tragic end of Thomas à Becket, a bishop of remarkable resolve and unwavering spirit, who managed to mask his pride and ambition with the pretense of holiness and zeal for religious matters; truly an extraordinary man had he remained in his original position and channeled his fervor to uphold law and justice, instead of allowing the prejudices of his time to lead him to sacrifice personal duties and public duties for what he believed were higher loyalties. However, no one who understands the mindset of that era can reasonably doubt this bishop's sincerity. The pervasive spirit of superstition easily ensnared every careless thinker, even more so those whose interests, honor, and ambition were tied to it. All the miserable literature of the time supported this viewpoint. Occasionally, faint sparks of common sense shone through the dense fog of ignorance and the deceptions of distorted science that obscured reality; but those who managed to remain untainted by the widespread contagion could rely on no justifiable principles; their relative ignorance often safeguarded their understanding. Foolishness held sway over both schools and churches, with its followers donning the garb of philosophers alongside the symbols of spiritual authority. Throughout the extensive collection of letters attributed to St. Thomas, we observe that both he and his supporters possessed a thorough and unwavering belief in their own party's reason and piety, while looking down on their opponents; their rhetoric was just as pretentious and insincere when speaking to each other as it was when writing manifestos for the public. The elements of revenge, violence, and ambition evident in their actions serve not as evidence of hypocrisy, but rather as strong indicators of their genuine commitment to a cause that flattered these dominating emotions.

Henry, on the first report of Becket’s violent measures, had purposed to have him arrested, and had already taken some steps towards the execution of that design; but the intelligence of his murder threw the prince into great consternation; and he was immediately sensible of the dangerous consequences which he had reason to apprehend from so unexpected an event. An archbishop of reputed sanctity assassinated before the altar, in the exercise of his functions, and on account of his zeal in maintaining ecclesiastical privileges, must attain the highest honors of martyrdom; while his murderer would be ranked among the most bloody tyrants that ever were exposed to the hatred and detestation of mankind. Interdicts and excommunications, weapons in themselves so terrible, would, he foresaw, be armed with double force, when employed in a cause so much calculated to work on the human passions, and so peculiarly adapted to the eloquence of popular preachers and declaimers. In vain would he plead his own innocence, and even his total ignorance of the fact; he was sufficiently guilty, if the church thought proper to esteem him such; and his concurrence in Becket’s martyrdom, becoming a religious opinion, would be received with all the implicit credit which belonged to the most established articles of faith. These considerations gave the king the most unaffected concern; and as it was extremely his interest to clear himself from all suspicion, he took no care to conceal the depth of his affliction. He shut himself up from the light of day, and from all commerce with his servants; he even refused, during three days, all food and sustenance; the courtiers, apprehending dangerous effects from his despair were at last obliged to break in upon his solitude; and they employed every topic of consolation, induced him to accept of nourishment, and occupied his leisure in taking precautions against the consequences which he so justly apprehended from the murder of the primate.

Henry, upon hearing the first report of Becket's violent actions, had planned to have him arrested and had already taken some steps toward that goal. However, the news of Becket's murder left the prince in great shock, and he quickly realized the dangerous consequences he had to fear from such an unexpected event. An archbishop known for his holiness, killed before the altar while performing his duties, and because of his dedication to preserving church privileges, would surely achieve the highest status of martyrdom; while his killer would be viewed as one of the most brutal tyrants ever hated and despised by people. He understood that interdicts and excommunications, already powerful weapons, would have even greater impact when used in such a cause that stirred deep human emotions and was particularly suited for the persuasive speech of popular preachers. It would be pointless for him to argue his innocence, or even his complete ignorance of the situation; he would be deemed guilty if the church decided to consider him so. His involvement in Becket's martyrdom, becoming a matter of belief, would be accepted with the same unwavering faith as the most established doctrines. These thoughts caused the king genuine distress; and since it was crucial for him to clear himself of any suspicion, he showed no effort to hide the depth of his grief. He isolated himself from the outside world and avoided all contact with his servants; he even refused food and water for three days. Concerned about the potentially dangerous effects of his despair, the courtiers eventually had to break into his solitude, urging him to eat and keeping him occupied with plans to address the consequences he rightly feared from the murder of the archbishop.

1171.

1171.

The point of chief importance to Henry was to convince the pope of his innocence; or rather, to persuade him that he would reap greater advantages from the submissions of England than from proceeding to extremities against that kingdom. The archbishop of Rouen, the bishops of Worcester and Evreux, with five persons of inferior quality, were immediately despatched to Rome, and orders were given them to perform their journey with the utmost expedition. Though the name and authority of the court of Rome were so terrible in the remote countries of Europe, which were sunk in profound ignorance, and were entirely unacquainted with its character and conduct, the pope was so little revered at home, that his inveterate enemies surrounded the gates of Rome itself, and even controlled his government in that city; and the ambassadors, who, from a distant extremity of Europe, carried to him the humble, or rather abject submissions of the greatest potentate of the age, found the utmost difficulty to make their way to him and to throw themselves at his feet. It was at length agreed that Richard Barre, one of their number, should leave the rest behind, and run all the hazards of the passage, in order to prevent the fatal consequences which might ensue from any delay in giving satisfaction to his holiness. He found, on his arrival, that Alexander was already wrought up to the greatest rage against the king, that Becket’s partisans were daily stimulating him to revenge, that the king of France had exhorted him to fulminate the most dreadful sentence against England, and that the very mention of Henry’s name before the sacred college, was received with every expression of horror and execration.

The main thing Henry needed was to convince the pope of his innocence; or rather, to persuade him that he would gain more from England's submission than from taking drastic action against the kingdom. The archbishop of Rouen, the bishops of Worcester and Evreux, along with five lesser officials, were quickly sent to Rome, and they were instructed to make their journey as fast as possible. Although the name and authority of the Roman court were intimidating in the far reaches of Europe, which were deeply ignorant and unfamiliar with its nature and actions, the pope was not very respected at home. His long-time enemies were right outside the gates of Rome, controlling the government in the city, and the ambassadors, who came from a distant corner of Europe carrying the humble, or rather subservient, submissions of the greatest ruler of the time, had a hard time reaching him and presenting themselves before him. Eventually, it was decided that Richard Barre, one of the group, would leave the others behind and take the risk of the journey to prevent any disastrous consequences that might arise from delays in satisfying his holiness. When he arrived, he found that Alexander was already in a furious rage against the king, Becket’s supporters were constantly urging him to seek revenge, the king of France had pushed him to issue the harshest sentence against England, and even mentioning Henry’s name in the sacred college prompted reactions of horror and condemnation.

The Thursday before Easter was now approaching, when it is customary for the pope to denounce annual curses against all his enemies; and it was expected that Henry should, with all the preparations peculiar to the discharge of that sacred artillery, be solemnly comprehended in the number. But Barre found means to appease the pontiff, and to deter him from a measure which, if it failed of success, could not afterwards be easily recalled: the anathemas were only levelled in general against all the actors, accomplices and abettors of Becket’s murder. The abbot of Valasse, and the archdeacons of Salisbury and Lisieux, with others of Henry’s ministers, who soon after arrived, besides asserting their prince’s innocence, made oath before the whole consistory, that he would stand to the pope’s judgment in the affair, and make every submission that should be required of him. The terrible blow was thus artfully eluded; the cardinals Albert and Theodin were appointed legates to examine the cause, and were ordered to proceed to Normandy for that purpose; and though Henry’s foreign dominions were already laid under an interdict by the archbishop of Sens, Becket’s great partisan, and the pope’s legate in France, the general expectation that the monarch would easily exculpate himself from any concurrence in the guilt, kept every one in suspense, and prevented all the bad consequences which might be dreaded from that sentence.

The Thursday before Easter was approaching, a time when it’s traditional for the pope to announce annual curses against his enemies; it was anticipated that Henry would be included in this solemn ritual. However, Barre found a way to appease the pope and steer him away from a decision that, if unsuccessful, would be hard to retract. The curses were directed generally at all involved in Becket’s murder instead. The abbot of Valasse, along with the archdeacons of Salisbury and Lisieux and other ministers of Henry, soon arrived to assert the king’s innocence. They swore before the entire assembly that he would accept the pope's judgment on the matter and comply with any demands. With this, the dangerous situation was cleverly sidestepped. Cardinals Albert and Theodin were appointed as legates to investigate the case and were sent to Normandy for that purpose. Even though Henry's foreign territories were already under interdict from the archbishop of Sens, a major supporter of Becket and the pope's legate in France, there was a widespread belief that the king would easily clear himself of any involvement in the crime, keeping everyone anxious and warding off any severe repercussions from that sentence.

The clergy, meanwhile, though their rage was happily diverted from falling on the king, were not idle in magnifying the sanctity of Becket, in extolling the merits of his martyrdom, and in exalting him above all that devoted tribe who, in several ages, had, by their blood, cemented the fabric of the temple. Other saints had only borne testimony by their sufferings to the general doctrines of Christianity; but Becket had sacrificed his life to the power and privileges of the clergy; and this peculiar merit challenged, and not in vain, a suitable acknowledgment to his memory. Endless were the panegyrics on his virtues; and the miracles wrought by his relics were more numerous, more nonsensical, and more impudently attested than those which ever filled the legend of any confessor or martyr. Two years after his death, he was canonized by Pope Alexander; a solemn jubilee was established for celebrating his merits; his body was removed to a magnificent shrine, enriched with presents from all parts of Christendom; pilgrimages were performed to obtain his intercession with Heaven, and it was computed, that in one year above a hundred thousand pilgrims arrived in Canterbury, and paid their devotions at his tomb. It is indeed a mortifying reflection to those who are actuated by the love of fame, so justly denominated the last infirmity of noble minds, that the wisest legislator and most exalted genius that ever reformed or enlightened the world, can never expect such tributes of praise an are lavished on the memory of pretended saints, whose whole conduct was probably to the last degree odious or contemptible, and whose industry was entirely directed to the pursuit of objects pernicious to mankind. It is only a conqueror, a personage no less entitled to our hatred, who can pretend to the attainment of equal renown and glory.

The clergy, while their anger was thankfully redirected away from the king, were busy promoting the sanctity of Becket, praising the significance of his martyrdom, and elevating him above all the devoted individuals who, throughout different ages, had solidified the structure of the church with their blood. Other saints primarily provided testimony through their suffering to the core teachings of Christianity; however, Becket sacrificed his life for the power and rights of the clergy, and this unique contribution rightfully demanded suitable recognition of his legacy. The praises of his virtues were endless, and the miracles attributed to his relics were more numerous, more absurd, and more shamelessly claimed than those recorded for any other confessor or martyr. Two years after his death, he was canonized by Pope Alexander; a solemn jubilee was established to honor his contributions; his body was relocated to a grand shrine, adorned with gifts from all corners of Christendom; pilgrims traveled to seek his intercession with Heaven, and it was estimated that over a hundred thousand pilgrims visited Canterbury in a single year to pay their respects at his tomb. It’s truly a disappointing thought for those driven by the pursuit of fame—often referred to as the last weakness of noble minds—that the most brilliant legislator and greatest genius who ever reformed or enlightened the world can never expect the same praise that is heaped upon the memory of supposed saints, whose behavior was likely despicable or contemptible, and whose efforts were solely focused on objectives harmful to humanity. It is only a conqueror, a figure equally deserving of our disdain, who can aim for such levels of fame and glory.

It may not be amiss to remark, before we conclude this subject of Thomas à Becket, that the king, during his controversy with that prelate, was on every occasion more anxious than usual to express his zeal for religion, and to avoid all appearance of a profane negligence on that head. He gave his consent to the imposing of a tax on all his dominions, for the delivery of the Holy Land, now threatened by the famous Salad me: this tax amounted to twopence a pound for one year, and a penny a pound for the four subsequent.[*] Almost all the princes of Europe laid a like imposition on their subjects, which received the name of Saladine’s tax. During this period there came over from Germany about thirty heretics of both sexes, under the direction of one Gerard, simple, ignorant people, who could give no account of their faith, but declared themselves ready to suffer for the tenets of their master. They made only one convert in England, a woman as ignorant as themselves; yet they gave such umbrage to the clergy, that they were delivered over to the secular arm, and were punished by being burned on the forehead, and then whipped through the streets. They seemed to exult in their sufferings, and as they went along sung the beatitude, “Blessed are ye, when men hate you and persecute you.”[**]

It’s worth mentioning, before we finish discussing Thomas à Becket, that the king, during his conflict with that archbishop, was especially keen to show his commitment to religion and to avoid any sign of careless neglect regarding it. He agreed to impose a tax on all his lands for the rescue of the Holy Land, which was then threatened by the famous Saladin. This tax was set at two pence per pound for one year and one penny per pound for the next four years.[*] Almost all the princes in Europe imposed a similar tax on their subjects, which became known as Saladin’s tax. During this time, around thirty heretics, both men and women, came over from Germany, led by a man named Gerard. They were simple, uneducated people who couldn’t explain their beliefs but were willing to suffer for the teachings of their leader. They only managed to convert one person in England, a woman as uninformed as they were; however, they caused such outrage among the clergy that they were handed over to the authorities and punished by having their foreheads branded, followed by being whipped through the streets. They appeared to take pride in their suffering, and as they walked along, they sang the beatitude, “Blessed are you when people hate you and persecute you.”[**]

     [* Gervase, p. 1399. M. Paris, p. 74.]

     [** Neubr. p. 391. M. Pang, p. 74. Heining. p.
     494.]
     [* Gervase, p. 1399. M. Paris, p. 74.]

     [** Neubr. p. 391. M. Pang, p. 74. Heining. p.
     494.]

After they were whipped, they were thrust out almost naked in the midst of winter, and perished through cold and hunger; no one daring, or being willing, to give them the least relief. We are ignorant of the particular tenets of these people; for it would be imprudent to rely on the representations left of them by the clergy, who affirm, that they denied the efficacy of the sacraments and the unity of the church. It is probable that their departure from the standard of orthodoxy was still more subtile and minute. They seem to have been the first that ever suffered for heresy in England.

After they were whipped, they were thrown out almost naked in the middle of winter, and died from the cold and hunger; no one dared or was willing to provide them the slightest help. We don’t know the specific beliefs of these people; it would be unwise to depend on the accounts left by the clergy, who claim that they rejected the importance of the sacraments and the unity of the church. It's likely that their deviation from orthodox beliefs was even more subtle and detailed. They appear to be the first ever to suffer for heresy in England.

As soon as Henry found that he was in no immediate danger from the thunders of the Vatican, he undertook an expedition against Ireland; a design which he had long projected, and by which he hoped to recover his credit, somewhat impaired by his late transactions with the hierarchy.

As soon as Henry realized he was not in immediate danger from the Vatican's threats, he set out on an expedition to Ireland; a plan he had been considering for a while, hoping to restore his reputation, which had been somewhat damaged by his recent dealings with the church.





CHAPTER IX.





HENRY II.

1172.

1172.

As Britain was first peopled from Gaul, so was Ireland probably from Britain; and the inhabitants of all these countries seem to have been so many tribes of the Celtae, who derive their origin from an antiquity that lies far beyond the records of any history or tradition. The Irish, from the beginning of time, had been buried in the most profound barbarism and ignorance; and as they were never conquered or even invaded by the Romans, from whom all the western world derived its civility, they continued still in the most rude state of society, and were distinguished by those vices alone, to which human nature, not tamed by education or restrained by laws, is forever subject. The small principalities into which they were divided, exercised perpetual rapine and violence against each other: the uncertain succession of their princes was a continual source of domestic convulsions; the usual title of each petty sovereign was the murder of his predecessor; courage and force, though exercised in the commission of crimes, were more honored than any pacific virtues; and the most simple arts of life, even tillage and agriculture, were almost wholly unknown among them. They had felt the invasions of the Danes and the other northern tribes; but these inroads, which had spread barbarism in other parts of Europe, tended rather to improve the Irish; and the only towns which were to be found in the island, had been planted along the coast by the freebooters of Norway and Denmark. The other inhabitants exercised pasturage in the open country, sought protection from any danger in their forests and morasses, and being divided by the fiercest animosities against each other, were still more intent on the means of mutual injury than on the expedients for common or even for private interest.

As Britain was originally populated by people from Gaul, Ireland was likely settled from Britain. The inhabitants of all these areas appear to have been various tribes of the Celts, who trace their origins back to a time long before any known history or tradition. The Irish had been trapped in deep barbarism and ignorance since the dawn of time; and since they were never conquered or even invaded by the Romans, from whom much of the western world gained its civilization, they remained in a primitive state of society, marked solely by those vices that human nature, not refined by education or constrained by laws, is always susceptible to. The small kingdoms they formed were in a constant state of plunder and violence against one another; the unpredictable succession of their leaders was a continual source of internal turmoil; the typical way each minor ruler gained power was by killing his predecessor; bravery and strength, even if used in committing crimes, were valued more than any peaceful virtues; and even the most basic aspects of life, such as farming and agriculture, were largely unknown to them. They had experienced invasions by the Danes and other northern tribes; however, these attacks, which had spread barbarism elsewhere in Europe, actually helped to improve the Irish people. The only towns on the island were established along the coast by the raiders from Norway and Denmark. The other inhabitants engaged in pastoral life in the countryside, sought refuge in their forests and marshes from any threats, and, divided by intense rivalries, were more focused on harming each other than on pursuing common or even personal interests.

Besides many small tribes, there were in the age of Henry II. five principal sovereignties in the island, Minister, Leinster Meath, Ulster, and Connaught; and as it had been usual for the one or the other of these to take the lead in their wars, there was commonly some prince, who seemed, for the time, to act as monarch of Ireland. Roderic O’Connor, king of Connaught, was then advanced to this dignity;[*] but his government, ill obeyed even within his own territory, could not unite the people in any measures, either for the establishment of order, or for defence against foreigners.

Besides many small tribes, during the time of Henry II, there were five main kingdoms on the island: Munster, Leinster, Meath, Ulster, and Connacht. As it was common for one of these to take the lead in warfare, there was usually a prince acting as the temporary monarch of Ireland. Roderic O’Connor, the king of Connacht, held this position at the time; however, his rule, poorly respected even in his own lands, was unable to bring the people together for any efforts towards establishing order or defending against outsiders.

     [* Hoveden, p. 527]
[* Hoveden, p. 527]

The ambition of Henry had, very early in his reign, been moved, by the prospect of these advantages, to attempt the subjecting of Ireland; and a pretence was only wanting to invade a people who, being always confined to their own island, had never given any reason of complaint to any of their neighbors. For this purpose he had recourse to Rome, which assumed a right to dispose of kingdoms and empires; and not foreseeing the dangerous disputes which he was one day to maintain with that see, he helped, for present, or rather for an imaginary convenience, to give sanction to claims which were now become dangerous to all sovereigns. Adrian III., who then filled the papal chair, was by birth an Englishman; and being on that account the more disposed to oblige Henry, he was easily persuaded to act as master of the world, and to make, without any hazard or expense, the acquisition of a great island to his spiritual jurisdiction. The Irish had, by precedent missions from the Britons, been imperfectly converted to Christianity; and, what the pope regarded as the surest mark of their imperfect conversion, they followed the doctrines of their first teachers, and had never acknowledged any subjection to the see of Rome. Adrian, therefore, in the year 1156 issued a bull in favor of Henry; in which, after premising that this prince had ever shown an anxious care to enlarge the church of God on earth, and to increase the number of his saints and elect in heaven, he represents his design of subduing Ireland as derived from the same pious motives: he considers his care of previously applying for the apostolic sanction as a sure earnest of success and victory; and having established it as a point incontestable, that all Christian kingdoms belong to the patrimony of St. Peter, he acknowledges it to be his own duty to sow among them the seeds of the gospel, which might in the last day fructify to their eternal salvation: he exhorts the king to invade Ireland, in order to extirpate the vice and wickedness of the natives, and oblige them to pay yearly, from every house a penny to the see of Rome: he gives him entire right and authority over the island, commands all the inhabitants to obey him as their sovereign, and invests with full power all such godly instruments as he should think proper to employ in an enterprise thus calculated for the glory of God and the salvation of the souls of men.[*] Henry, though armed with this authority, did not immediately put his design in execution; but being detained by more interesting business on the continent, waited for a favorable opportunity of invading Ireland. Dermot Macmorrogh, king of Leinster, had, by his licentious tyranny, rendered himself odious to his subjects, who seized with alacrity the first occasion that offered of throwing off the yoke, which was become grievous and oppressive to them. This prince had formed a design on Dovergilda, wife of Ororic, prince of Breffny; and taking advantage of her husband’s absence, who, being obliged to visit a distant part of his territory, had left his wife secure, as he thought, in an island surrounded by a bog, he suddenly invaded the place, and carried off the princess.[**] This exploit, though usual among the Irish, and rather deemed a proof of gallantry and spirit,[***] provoked the resentment of the husband; who, having collected forces, and being strengthened by the alliance of Roderic, king of Connaught, invaded the dominions of Dermot, and expelled him his kingdom. The exiled prince had recourse to Henry, who was at this time in Guienne, craved his assistance in restoring him to his sovereignty, and offered, on that event, to hold his kingdom in vassalage under the crown of England. Henry, whose views were already turned towards making acquisitions in Ireland, readily accepted the offer; but being at that time embarrassed by the rebellions of his French subjects, as well as by his disputes with the see of Rome, he declined, for the present, embarking in the enterprise, and gave Dermot no further assistance than letters patent, by which he empowered all his subjects to aid the Irish prince in the recovery of his dominions.[****]

The ambition of Henry had, very early in his reign, been sparked by the potential advantages of attempting to take control of Ireland; he just needed a reason to invade a people who, having always been limited to their own island, had never given any cause for complaint to their neighbors. To achieve this, he turned to Rome, which claimed the authority to govern kingdoms and empires; and not foreseeing the contentious disputes that would arise with that authority, he helped, for the time being, or rather for a fictional convenience, to support claims that would later become a risk to all rulers. Adrian III, who was the pope at the time, was born in England; and because of this, he was more inclined to assist Henry and was easily persuaded to act as though he ruled the world, making the acquisition of a large island part of his spiritual authority without any risk or cost. The Irish had been imperfectly converted to Christianity through prior missions from the British, and what the pope saw as the clearest sign of their incomplete conversion was their continued adherence to the teachings of their original instructors, having never acknowledged any submission to the pope. Therefore, in 1156, Adrian issued a papal bull in favor of Henry, stating that this king had always shown a deep concern for expanding God's church on earth and increasing the number of saints and elect in heaven. He painted his plan to conquer Ireland as stemming from these same pious motivations: he regarded Henry’s effort to seek the papal approval as a sure sign of future success and victory. Establishing as undeniable that all Christian kingdoms are part of St. Peter's legacy, he felt it was his duty to sow the seeds of the gospel among them, which would ultimately lead to their eternal salvation. He urged the king to invade Ireland to eradicate the vice and wickedness of the locals and to require them to pay a penny annually from each house to the pope. He granted Henry full rights and authority over the island, commanded all its inhabitants to obey him as their sovereign, and empowered any righteous individuals he deemed fit to participate in this venture, which was meant for the glory of God and the salvation of souls. Henry, though backed by this authority, did not immediately follow through on his plans, as he was preoccupied with more pressing matters on the continent and waited for an opportune moment to invade Ireland. Dermot Macmorrogh, king of Leinster, had made himself hated by his subjects through his tyrannical behavior, who eagerly seized the first chance to throw off the oppressive yoke. This prince had set his sights on Dovergilda, the wife of Ororic, the prince of Breffny; taking advantage of her husband's absence, who thought she was safe on an island surrounded by a bog while he visited a distant part of his lands, he suddenly attacked and abducted the princess. This act, though common among the Irish and considered a display of bravery, angered the husband, who gathered forces and, with the support of Roderic, king of Connaught, invaded Dermot's lands and drove him from his kingdom. The exiled prince turned to Henry, who was in Guienne at the time, sought his help to reclaim his throne, and offered to hold his kingdom as a vassal under the English crown in that event. Henry, whose ambitions were already focused on acquiring territory in Ireland, gladly accepted the offer; however, being distracted by rebellions among his French subjects and disputes with the pope, he chose not to engage in the venture at that time, providing Dermot with little more than letters patent that authorized all his subjects to assist the Irish prince in regaining his dominions.

     [* M. Paris, p. 67. Girali. Camltr. Spel. Concil.
     vol. ii. p. 51. Rymer, vol. i. p. 15.]

     [** Girald. Cambr. p. 760]

     [*** Spencer, vol. vi.]

     [**** Girald. Cambr. p. 760]
     [* M. Paris, p. 67. Girali. Camltr. Spel. Concil.
     vol. ii. p. 51. Rymer, vol. i. p. 15.]

     [** Girald. Cambr. p. 760]

     [*** Spencer, vol. vi.]

     [**** Girald. Cambr. p. 760]

Dermot, supported by this authority, came to Bristol; and after endeavoring, though for some time in vain, to engage adventurers in the enterprise, he at last formed a treaty with Richard, surnamed Strongbow, earl of Strigul. This nobleman, who was of the illustrious house of Clare, had impaired his fortune by expensive pleasures; and being ready for any desperate undertaking, he promised assistance to Dermot, on condition that he should espouse Eva, daughter of that prince, and be declared heir to all his dominions. While Richard was assembling his succors, Dermot went into Wales; and meeting with Robert Fitz-Stephens, constable of Abertivi, and Maurice Fitz-Gerald he also engaged them in his service, and obtained their promise of invading Ireland. Being now assured of succor, he returned privately to his own state; and lurking in the monastery of Fernes, which he had founded, (for this ruffian was also a founder of monasteries,) he prepared every thing for the reception of his English allies.

Dermot, backed by this support, arrived in Bristol. After trying for a while, though unsuccessfully, to recruit adventurers for his project, he finally struck a deal with Richard, known as Strongbow, the earl of Strigul. This nobleman, from the famous house of Clare, had wasted his fortune on costly pleasures and was ready for any risky venture. He promised to help Dermot, as long as Dermot married Eva, the daughter of that prince, and was declared the heir to all his lands. While Richard gathered his forces, Dermot traveled to Wales. There, he met Robert Fitz-Stephens, the constable of Abertivi, and Maurice Fitz-Gerald, and convinced them to join his cause, securing their commitment to invade Ireland. Feeling confident about the support, he quietly returned to his own territory and, hiding out in the monastery of Fernes that he had founded (since this rogue was also a monastery founder), he got everything ready to welcome his English allies.

The troops of Fitz-Stephens were first ready. That gentleman landed in Ireland with thirty knights, sixty esquires, and three hundred archers; but this small body, being brave men, not unacquainted with discipline, and completely armed,—a thing almost unknown in Ireland,—struck a great terror into the barbarous inhabitants, and seemed to menace them with some signal revolution. The conjunction of Maurice de Prendergast, who, about the same time, brought over ten knights and sixty archers, enabled Fitz-Stephens to attempt the siege of Wexford, a town inhabited by the Danes; and after gaining an advantage, he made himself master of the place. Soon after, Fitz-Gerald arrived with ten knights, thirty esquires, and a hundred archers; and being joined by the former adventurers, composed a force which nothing in Ireland was able to withstand. Roderic, the chief monarch of the island, was foiled in different actions: the prince of Ossory was obliged to submit, and give hostages for his peaceable behavior; and Dermot, not content with being restored to his kingdom of Leinster, projected the dethroning of Roderic, and aspired to the sole dominion over the Irish.

The troops of Fitz-Stephens were the first to be prepared. That gentleman landed in Ireland with thirty knights, sixty squires, and three hundred archers; but this small group, made up of brave men who were disciplined and well-equipped — something almost unheard of in Ireland — instilled great fear in the barbaric locals and seemed to threaten them with major upheaval. The arrival of Maurice de Prendergast, who at the same time brought over ten knights and sixty archers, allowed Fitz-Stephens to attempt the siege of Wexford, a town populated by the Danes; after gaining an advantage, he took control of the town. Soon after, Fitz-Gerald arrived with ten knights, thirty squires, and a hundred archers; when joined by the earlier adventurers, they formed a force that nothing in Ireland could resist. Roderic, the main monarch of the island, experienced setbacks in various encounters: the prince of Ossory was forced to submit and provide hostages for his peaceful conduct; and Dermot, not satisfied with being restored to his kingdom of Leinster, aimed to dethrone Roderic and sought sole control over the Irish.

In prosecution of these views, he sent over a messenger to the earl of Strigul, challenging the performance of his promise, and displaying the mighty advantages which might now be reaped by a reënforcement of warlike troops from England. Richard, not satisfied with the general allowance given by Henry to all his subjects, went to that prince, then in Normandy, and having obtained a cold or ambiguous permission, prepared himself for the execution of his designs. He first sent over Raymond, one of his retinue, with ten knights and seventy archers, who, landing near Waterford, defeated a body of three thousand Irish that had ventured to attack him, and as Richard himself, who brought over two hundred horse and a body of archers, joined, a few days after, the victorious English, they made themselves masters of Waterford, and proceeded to Dublin, which was taken by assault. Roderic, in revenge, cut off the head of Dermot’s natural son, who had been left as a hostage in his hands; and Richard, marrying Eva, became soon after, by the death of Dermot, master of the kingdom of Leinster, and prepared to extend his authority over all Ireland. Roderic, and the other Irish princes, were alarmed at the danger; and combining together, besieged Dublin with an army of thirty thousand men; but Earl Richard, making a sudden sally at the head of ninety knights with their followers, put this numerous army to rout, chased them off the field, and pursued them with great slaughter. None in Ireland now dared to oppose themselves to the English.

In pursuit of this goal, he sent a messenger to the Earl of Strigul, reminding him of his promise and highlighting the significant advantages that could come from reinforcing the war troops from England. Richard, dissatisfied with the general support given by Henry to all his subjects, went to that prince, who was then in Normandy, and after receiving a lukewarm or unclear permission, began preparations to carry out his plans. He first sent Raymond, one of his followers, along with ten knights and seventy archers, who landed near Waterford and defeated a group of three thousand Irish who had dared to attack them. A few days later, Richard himself, who brought over two hundred mounted soldiers and more archers, joined the victorious English, and they took control of Waterford before moving on to Dublin, which they captured by force. In retaliation, Roderic executed Dermot’s natural son, who had been left with him as a hostage. Richard married Eva and soon after, following Dermot's death, became the lord of the Kingdom of Leinster, preparing to expand his rule over all of Ireland. Roderic and the other Irish princes were alarmed by the threat; joining forces, they besieged Dublin with an army of thirty thousand men. However, Earl Richard unexpectedly charged out with ninety knights and their followers, scattering the large army, driving them off the battlefield, and pursuing them with great violence. No one in Ireland dared to oppose the English anymore.

Henry, jealous of the progress made by his own subjects, sent orders to recall all the English, and he made preparations to attack Ireland in person; but Richard and the other adventurers found means to appease him, by making him the most humble submissions, and offering to hold all their acquisitions in vassalage to his crown. That monarch landed in Ireland at the head of five hundred knights, besides other soldiers; he found the Irish so dispirited by their late misfortunes, that, in a progress which he made through the island, he had no other occupation than to receive the homage of his new subjects. He left most of the Irish chieftains or princes in possession of their ancient territories; bestowed some lands on the English adventurers; gave Earl Richard the commission of seneschal of Ireland; and after a stay of a few months, returned in triumph to England. By these trivial exploits, scarcely worth relating, except for the importance of the consequences, was Ireland subdued, and annexed to the English crown.

Henry, feeling jealous of the progress his own subjects had made, ordered all the English to return and prepared to attack Ireland himself. However, Richard and the other adventurers managed to calm him down by making the most humble submissions and offering to hold all their acquisitions as vassals to his crown. That king landed in Ireland with five hundred knights, along with other soldiers. He found the Irish so disheartened by their recent misfortunes that during his travels across the island, his only task was to receive the loyalty of his new subjects. He left most of the Irish chieftains and princes with their ancient lands, granted some land to the English adventurers, appointed Earl Richard as the seneschal of Ireland, and after a few months, returned triumphantly to England. Through these minor exploits, hardly worth mentioning except for their significant consequences, Ireland was conquered and added to the English crown.

The low state of commerce and industry during those ages made it impracticable for princes to support regular armies, which might retain a conquered country in subjection; and the extreme barbarism and poverty of Ireland could still less afford means of bearing the expense. The only expedient by which a durable conquest could then be made or maintained, was by pouring in a multitude of new inhabitants, dividing among them the lands of the vanquished, establishing them in all offices of trust and authority, and thereby transforming the ancient inhabitants into a new people. By this policy the northern invaders of old, and of late the duke of Normandy, had been able to fix their dominions, and to erect kingdoms which remained stable on their foundations, and were transmitted to the posterity of the first conquerors. But the state of Ireland rendered that island so little inviting to the English, that only a few of desperate fortunes could be persuaded, from time to time, to transport themselves thither; and instead of reclaiming the natives from their uncultivated manners, they were gradually assimilated to the ancient inhabitants, and degenerated from the customs of their own nation. It was also found requisite to bestow great military and arbitrary powers on the leaders, who commanded a handful of men amidst such hostile multitudes; and law and equity, in a little time, became as much unknown in the English settlements, as they had ever been among the Irish tribes. Palatinates were erected in favor of the new adventurers; independent authority conferred; the natives, never fully subdued, still retained their animosity against the conquerors; their hatred was retaliated by like injuries; and from these causes the Irish, during the course of four centuries, remained still savage and untractable: it was not till the latter end of Elizabeth’s reign, that the island was fully subdued; nor till that of her successor, that it gave hopes of becoming a useful conquest to the English nation.

The poor state of trade and industry during those times made it impossible for rulers to maintain regular armies that could keep a conquered land under control. The extreme barbarism and poverty of Ireland provided even less ability to cover such expenses. The only way to achieve a lasting conquest was to bring in a large number of new settlers, divide the lands of the defeated among them, place them in positions of trust and authority, and thus turn the original inhabitants into a new population. This strategy allowed the northern invaders of the past, and more recently the Duke of Normandy, to solidify their territories and establish kingdoms that remained stable and were passed down to the descendants of the original conquerors. However, the state of Ireland made it so unattractive to the English that only a few desperate individuals were convinced to move there from time to time. Instead of civilizing the natives, these newcomers gradually adapted to the old ways of the Irish, losing the customs of their own country. It also became necessary to grant significant military and arbitrary powers to the leaders commanding a small group among such hostile populations, and soon law and fairness became just as unknown in the English territories as they had been among the Irish tribes. New palatinates were created for the new settlers; independent authority was granted; the natives, who were never fully defeated, still held onto their resentment against the conquerors; their hostility was met with similar actions. Because of this, the Irish remained savage and unmanageable for four centuries. It wasn’t until the end of Elizabeth’s reign that the island was completely conquered; nor was it until her successor's time that it showed any potential to become a valuable conquest for the English nation.

Besides that the easy and peaceable submission of the Irish left Henry no further occupation in that island, he was recalled from it by another incident, which was of the last importance to his interest and safety. The two legates, Albert and Theodin, to whom was committed the trial of his conduct in the murder of Archbishop Becket, were arrived in Normandy; and being impatient of delay, sent him frequent letters, full of menaces, if he protracted any longer making his appearance before them. He hastened therefore to Normandy, and had a conference with them at Savigny, where their demands were so exorbitant, that he broke off the negotiation, threatened to return to Ireland, and bade them do their worst against him. They perceived that the season was now past for taking advantage of that tragical incident; which, had it been hotly pursued by interdicts and excommunications, was capable of throwing the whole kingdom into combustion. But the time which Henry had happily gained, had contributed to appease the minds of men; the event could not now have the same influence as when it was recent; and as the clergy every day looked for an accommodation with the king, they had not opposed the pretensions of his partisans, who had been very industrious in representing to the people his entire innocence in the murder of the primate, and his ignorance of the designs formed by the assassins. The legates, therefore, found themselves obliged to lower their terms; and Henry was so fortunate as to conclude an accommodation with them. He declared upon oath, before the relics of the saints, that so far from commanding or desiring the death of the arch bishop, he was extremely grieved when he received intelligence of it; but as the passion which he had expressed on account of that prelate’s conduct, had probably been the occasion of his murder, he stipulated the following conditions as an atonement for the offence. He promised, that he should pardon all such as had been banished for adhering to Becket, and should restore them to their livings; that the see of Canterbury should be reinstated in all its ancient possessions; that he should pay the templars a sum of money sufficient for the subsistence of two hundred knights during a year in the Holy Land; that he should himself take the cross at the Christmas following, and, if the pope required it, serve three years against the infidels, either in Spain or Palestine; that he should not insist on the observance of such customs derogatory to ecclesiastical privileges, as had been introduced in his own time; and that he should not obstruct appeals to the pope in ecclesiastical causes, but should content himself with exacting sufficient security from such clergymen as left his dominions to prosecute an appeal, that they should attempt nothing against the rights of his crown. Upon signing these concessions, Henry received absolution from the legates, and was confirmed in the grant of Ireland made by Pope Adrian; and nothing proves more strongly the great abilities of this monarch than his extricating himself on such easy terms from so difficult a situation. He had always insisted, that the laws established at Clarendon contained not any new claims, but the ancient customs of the kingdom; and he was still at liberty, notwithstanding the articles of this agreement, to maintain his pretensions. Appeals to the pope were indeed permitted by that treaty; but as the king was also permitted to exact reasonable securities from the parties, and might stretch his demands on this head as far as he pleased, he had it virtually in his power to prevent the pope from reaping any advantage by this seeming concession. And on the whole, the constitutions of Clarendon remained still the law of the realm; though the pope and his legates seem so little to have conceived the king’s power to lie under any legal limitations, that they were satisfied with his departing, by treaty, from one of the most momentous articles of these constitutions, without requiring any repeal by the states of the kingdom.

Besides the fact that the easy and peaceful surrender of the Irish left Henry with no further tasks in that island, he was recalled due to another incident that was critical to his interests and safety. The two legates, Albert and Theodin, who were responsible for judging his actions in the murder of Archbishop Becket, had arrived in Normandy. Impatient for him to appear, they sent him frequent letters filled with threats if he delayed any longer. Therefore, he rushed to Normandy and met with them at Savigny, where their demands were so unreasonable that he ended the negotiations, threatened to return to Ireland, and told them to do their worst against him. They realized that the moment to exploit that tragic incident had passed; if it had been aggressively pursued with interdicts and excommunications, it could have thrown the entire kingdom into chaos. However, the time Henry had successfully gained helped calm public opinion; the event no longer had the same impact as when it was fresh, and as the clergy increasingly anticipated a resolution with the king, they did not oppose the claims of his supporters, who were very active in portraying his complete innocence in the archbishop's murder and his ignorance of the assassins' plans. Consequently, the legates were obligated to soften their terms, and Henry was fortunate enough to reach an agreement with them. He declared under oath, before the relics of the saints, that not only did he not command or wish for the archbishop's death, but he was deeply saddened when he learned of it; however, since his passionate reactions to the prelate's actions likely contributed to the murder, he agreed to the following terms as a form of atonement for the offense. He promised to pardon everyone who had been exiled for supporting Becket and restore them to their positions; that the see of Canterbury would be reinstated in all its ancient possessions; that he would pay the templars enough money to support two hundred knights for a year in the Holy Land; that he would take the cross at the following Christmas and, if the pope required it, serve three years against the infidels, either in Spain or Palestine; that he would not insist on the enforcement of customs undermining ecclesiastical privileges that had been established during his reign; and that he would not block appeals to the pope in ecclesiastical matters, but would only require sufficient guarantees from any clergymen leaving his territories to pursue an appeal that they would not act against the rights of his crown. After signing these conditions, Henry received absolution from the legates and was confirmed in the grant of Ireland made by Pope Adrian; nothing demonstrates the great skills of this monarch more than his ability to extricate himself from such a challenging situation on such favorable terms. He always maintained that the laws enacted at Clarendon did not contain any new claims, but rather the traditional customs of the kingdom; and despite the articles of this agreement, he remained free to uphold his claims. Appeals to the pope were indeed allowed by that treaty; however, since the king was also allowed to demand reasonable guarantees from the parties and could stretch his demands as far as he wanted, he effectively had the power to prevent the pope from benefiting from this apparent concession. Overall, the constitutions of Clarendon continued to be the law of the realm, even though the pope and his legates seemed completely unaware of any legal limitations on the king's power, as they were content with his treaty departure from one of the most significant articles of these constitutions without demanding any repeal from the states of the kingdom.

Henry, freed from this dangerous controversy with the ecclesiastics and with the see of Rome, seemed now to have reached the pinnacle of human grandeur and felicity, and to be equally happy in his domestic situation and in his political government. A numerous progeny of sons and daughters gave both lustre and authority to his crown, prevented the danger of a disputed succession, and repressed all pretensions of the ambitious barons. The king’s precaution also, in establishing the several branches of his family, seemed well calculated to prevent all jealousy among the brothers, and to perpetuate the greatness of his family. He had appointed Henry, his eldest son, to be his successor in the kingdom of England, the duchy of Normandy, and the counties of Anjou, Maine, and Touraine; territories which lay contiguous, and which, by that means, might easily lend to each other mutual assistance both against intestine commotions and foreign invasions. Richard, his second son, was invested in the duchy of Guienne and county of Poictou; Geoffrey, his third son, inherited, in right of his wife, the duchy of Brittany, and the new conquest of Ireland was destined for the appanage of John, his fourth son. He had also negotiated, in favor of this last prince, a marriage with Adelais, the only daughter of Humbert, count of Savoy and Maurienne; and was to receive as her dowry considerable demesnes in Piedmont, Savoy, Bresse, and Dauphiny. But this exaltation of his family excited the jealousy of all his neighbors, who made those very sons, whose fortunes he had so anxiously established, the means of imbittering his future life, and disturbing his government.

Henry, now free from the dangerous conflict with the church and the papacy, seemed to have reached the height of human achievement and happiness, enjoying both his family life and political rule. A large number of sons and daughters added prestige and authority to his crown, preventing any risk of a disputed succession and keeping ambitious barons in check. The king's careful planning in establishing his family's various branches appeared to effectively reduce jealousy among his sons and ensure the family's continued greatness. He had designated his eldest son, Henry, as his successor in the kingdom of England, the duchy of Normandy, and the counties of Anjou, Maine, and Touraine; these territories were adjacent and could easily support each other against internal strife and foreign threats. Richard, his second son, was given control of the duchy of Guienne and the county of Poictou; Geoffrey, his third son, inherited the duchy of Brittany through his wife, while the newly conquered territory of Ireland was set aside for John, his fourth son. He also arranged a marriage for John with Adelais, the only daughter of Humbert, count of Savoy and Maurienne, and was to receive as her dowry significant lands in Piedmont, Savoy, Bresse, and Dauphiny. However, this rise of his family stirred jealousy among his neighbors, who used the very sons he had carefully positioned to create difficulties in his future and disrupt his governance.

Young Henry, who was rising to man’s estate, began to display his character, and aspire to independence: brave, ambitious, liberal, munificent, affable: he discovered qualities which give great lustre to youth; prognosticate a shining fortune; but, unless tempered in mature age with discretion, are the forerunners of the greatest calamities. It is said that at the time when this prince received the holy unction, his father, in order to give greater dignity to the ceremony, officiated at table as one of the retinue; and observed to his son that never king was more royally served. “It is nothing extraordinary,” said young Henry to one of his courtiers, “if the son of a count should serve the son of a king.” This saying, which might pass only for an innocent pleasantry, or even for an oblique compliment to his father, was, however, regarded as a symptom of his aspiring temper; and his conduct soon after justified the conjecture.

Young Henry, who was coming of age, started to show his true character and wanted independence: brave, ambitious, generous, kind. He revealed traits that shine brightly in youth and hinted at a promising future, but if not balanced with wisdom in adulthood, they could lead to significant trouble. It is said that when this prince received the holy anointing, his father, to make the ceremony feel more dignified, served at the table as part of the entourage and remarked to his son that no king had ever been served more royally. “It’s nothing special,” young Henry said to one of his courtiers, “if the son of a count serves the son of a king.” This comment, which might have seemed like a light-hearted joke or even a subtle compliment to his father, was seen as a sign of his ambitious nature; and shortly thereafter, his actions confirmed this impression.

1173.

1173.

Henry, agreeable to the promise which he had given both to the pope and French king, permitted his son to be crowned anew by the hands of the archbishop of Rouen, and associated the Princess Margaret, spouse to young Henry, in the ceremony.[*] He afterwards allowed him to pay a visit to his father-in-law at Paris, who took the opportunity of instilling into the young prince those ambitious sentiments to which he was naturally but too much inclined.

Henry, keeping the promise he made to both the pope and the French king, allowed his son to be crowned again by the archbishop of Rouen and included Princess Margaret, the wife of young Henry, in the ceremony.[*] He then permitted him to visit his father-in-law in Paris, who seized the chance to instill in the young prince those ambitious feelings that he was naturally very inclined towards.

     [* Hoveden, p. 529. Diceto, p. 560. Brompton, p.
     1080. Gervase, p. 1421. Trivet, p. 58. It appears from
     Madox’s History of the Exchequer, that silk garments were
     then known in England, and that the coronation robes of the
     young king and queen cost eighty-seven pounds ten shillings
     and fourpence, money of that age.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 529. Diceto, p. 560. Brompton, p.
     1080. Gervase, p. 1421. Trivet, p. 58. It appears from
     Madox’s History of the Exchequer that silk garments were
     known in England at that time, and that the coronation robes of the
     young king and queen cost eighty-seven pounds ten shillings
     and fourpence, the currency of that era.]

Though it had been the constant practice of France, ever since the accession of the Capetian line, to crown the son during the lifetime of the father without conferring on him any present participation of royalty; Lewis persuaded his son-in-law, that, by this ceremony, which in those ages was deemed so important, he had acquired a title to sovereignty, and that the king could not, without injustice, exclude him from immediate possession of the whole, or at least a part of his dominions. In consequence of these extravagant ideas, young Henry, on his return, desired the king to resign to him either the crown of England or the duchy of Normandy; discovered great discontent on the refusal; spake in the most undutiful terms of his father; and soon after, in concert with Lewis, made his escape to Paris, where he was protected and supported by that monarch.

Though it had been the common practice in France, since the Capetian dynasty began, to crown the son while the father was still alive without giving him any real power; Lewis convinced his son-in-law that, through this ceremony, which was considered extremely significant at the time, he had gained a claim to the throne, and that the king could not justly deny him immediate access to all or at least part of his territories. As a result of these unreasonable beliefs, young Henry, upon his return, asked the king to either give him the crown of England or the duchy of Normandy; he showed great displeasure at the refusal, spoke very disrespectfully of his father, and soon after, in agreement with Lewis, fled to Paris, where that king protected and supported him.

While Henry was alarmed at this incident, and had the prospect of dangerous intrigues, or even of a war, which, whether successful or not, must be extremely calamitous and disagreeable to him, he received intelligence of new misfortunes, which must have affected him in the most sensible manner. Queen Eleanor, who had disgusted her first husband by her gallantries, was no less offensive to her second by her jealousy; and after this manner carried to extremity, in the different periods of her life, every circumstance of female weakness. She communicated her discontents against Henry to her two younger sons, Geoffrey and Richard; persuaded them that they were also entitled to present possession of the territories assigned to them; engaged them to fly secretly to the court of France; and was meditating herself an escape to the same court, and had even put on man’s apparel for that purpose, when she was seized by orders from her husband, and thrown into confinement. Thus Europe saw with astonishment the best and most indulgent of parents at war with his whole family; three boys, scarcely arrived at the age of puberty, require a great monarch, in the full vigor of his age and height of his reputation, to dethrone himself in their favor; and several princes not ashamed to support them in these unnatural and absurd pretensions.

While Henry was shocked by this incident and faced the possibility of dangerous schemes or even war, which would be extremely distressing for him, he received news of further misfortunes that must have affected him deeply. Queen Eleanor, who had frustrated her first husband with her affairs, was no less irritating to her second husband with her jealousy; and throughout her life, she amplified every aspect of feminine weakness to an extreme. She shared her grievances about Henry with her two younger sons, Geoffrey and Richard; convinced them that they also had a right to the territories assigned to them; encouraged them to secretly flee to the court of France; and was even planning her own escape to that court, having dressed in men’s clothing for the occasion, when she was ordered by her husband to be confined. Thus, Europe watched in disbelief as the kindest and most understanding of parents found himself at war with his entire family; three boys, barely reaching adolescence, demanded that a great king, at the peak of his power and reputation, step down for their sake, with several princes unashamedly backing them in these unreasonable and absurd claims.

Henry, reduced to this perilous and disagreeable situation, had recourse to the court of Rome. Though sensible of the danger attending the interposition of ecclesiastical authority in temporal disputes, he applied to the pope, as his superior lord, to excommunicate his enemies, and by these censures to reduce to obedience his undutiful children, whom he found such reluctance to punish by the sword of the magistrate.[*] Alexander, well pleased to exert his power in so justifiable a cause, issued the bulls required of him; but it was soon found, that these spiritual weapons had not the same force as when employed in a spiritual controversy; and that the clergy were very negligent in supporting a sentence which was nowise calculated to promote the immediate interests of their order. The king, after taking in vain this humiliating step, was obliged to have recourse to arms, and to enlist such auxiliaries as are the usual resource of tyrants, and have seldom been employed by so wise and just a monarch.

Henry, reduced to this dangerous and unpleasant situation, turned to the court of Rome for help. Even though he understood the risks of getting ecclesiastical authority involved in political disputes, he asked the pope, as his superior lord, to excommunicate his enemies and use these penalties to bring his unruly children into line, as he found it hard to punish them with the sword of the law. Alexander, happy to use his power for a just cause, issued the necessary bulls. However, it quickly became clear that these spiritual weapons weren’t as effective as when used in a spiritual dispute, and the clergy were very neglectful in supporting a ruling that didn’t benefit their interests. After taking this humiliating step in vain, the king had no choice but to resort to arms and enlist the usual allies of tyrants, something that had rarely been done by such a wise and just ruler.

The loose government which prevailed in all the states of Europe, the many private wars carried on among the neighboring nobles, and the impossibility of enforcing any general execution of the laws, had encouraged a tribe of banditti to disturb every where the public peace, to infest the highways, to pillage the open country, and to brave all the efforts of the civil magistrate, and even the excommunications of the church, which were fulminated against them. Troops of them were sometimes enlisted in the service of one prince or baron, sometimes in that of another: they often acted in an independent manner, under leaders of their own; the peaceable and industrious inhabitants, reduced to poverty by their ravages, were frequently obliged for subsistence to betake themselves to a like disorderly course of life; and a continual intestine war, pernicious to industry, as well as to the execution of justice, was thus carried on in the bowels of every kingdom. Those desperate ruffians received the name sometimes of Brabançons, sometimes of Routiers or Cottereaux; but for what reason is not agreed by historians; and they formed a kind of society or government among themselves, which set at defiance the rest of mankind. The greatest monarchs were not ashamed, on occasion, to have recourse to their assistance; and as their habits of war and depredation had given them experience, hardiness, and courage, they generally composed the most formidable part of those armies which decided the political quarrels of princes. Several of them were enlisted among the forces levied by Henry’s enemies; but the great treasures amassed by that prince enabled him to engage more numerous troops of them in his service; and the situation of his affairs rendered even such banditti the only forces on whose fidelity he could repose any confidence.

The weak government that existed across Europe, the countless private wars fought among neighboring nobles, and the inability to enforce laws effectively led to a rise of bandits who disrupted public peace, plagued the roads, looted the countryside, and defied all efforts by civil authorities, including church excommunications issued against them. Sometimes, groups of these bandits were hired by one prince or baron and sometimes by another; they often operated independently under their own leaders. The peaceful and hardworking locals, pushed into poverty by their destruction, were frequently forced to adopt a similarly chaotic lifestyle for survival. This constant internal conflict harmed both industry and the administration of justice within every kingdom. These desperate thugs were sometimes referred to as Brabançons, sometimes as Routiers or Cottereaux, though historians disagree on the reasons for these names. They formed their own kind of society or governance that openly challenged the rest of humanity. Even the most powerful monarchs were not above seeking their help, as their experience in warfare and looting provided them with resilience and bravery, making them a significant part of the armies that settled the political disputes of princes. Many of them were recruited by Henry’s enemies, but the vast wealth he accumulated allowed him to hire even larger numbers of them for his own cause, and the state of his affairs made these bandits the only troops he could trust.

     [* Epist. Petri Bles. epist. 136, in Biblioth.
     Patr. tom. xxiv. p. 1048. His words are, “Vestrae
     jurisdictionis est regnum Angliæ, et quantum ad feudatorii
     juris obligationem, vobis duntaxat obnoxius teneor.” The
     same strange paper is in Rymer, vol. i. p. 35, and Trivet,
     vol. i. p. 62.]
     [* Epist. Petri Bles. epist. 136, in Biblioth.
     Patr. tom. xxiv. p. 1048. His words are, “It is within your authority that the kingdom of England lies, and regarding the obligation of feudal law, I am only bound to you.” The same unusual document appears in Rymer, vol. i. p. 35, and Trivet, vol. i. p. 62.]

His licentious barons, disgusted with a vigilant government, were more desirous of being ruled by young princes, ignorant of public affairs, remiss in their conduct, and profuse in their grants; and as the king had insured to his sons the succession to every particular province of his dominions, the nobles dreaded no danger in adhering to those who, they knew, must some time become their sovereigns. Prompted by these motives, many of the Norman nobility had deserted to his son Henry; the Breton and Gascon barons seemed equally disposed to embrace the quarrel of Geoffrey and Richard. Disaffection had crept in among the English; and the earls of Leicester and Chester in particular had openly declared against the king. Twenty thousand Brabançons, therefore, joined to some troops which he brought over from Ireland, and a few barons of approved fidelity, formed the sole force with which he intended to resist his enemies.

His unruly barons, tired of a watchful government, preferred to be led by young princes who were clueless about public matters, careless in their actions, and generous with their resources. Since the king had guaranteed his sons the right to rule specific regions of his territories, the nobles felt no threat in siding with those who were destined to be their future rulers. Driven by these reasons, many of the Norman nobles had shifted their loyalty to his son Henry; the Breton and Gascon barons appeared equally willing to back Geoffrey and Richard's cause. Discontent had spread among the English, and the earls of Leicester and Chester had openly opposed the king. Therefore, twenty thousand Brabançons, along with some troops he had brought from Ireland and a few loyal barons, made up the only forces he planned to use against his enemies.

Lewis, in order to bind the confederates in a closer union, summoned at Paris an assembly of the chief vassals of the crown, received their approbation of his measures, and engaged them by oath to adhere to the cause of young Henry. This prince, in return, bound himself by a like tie never to desert his French allies; and having made a new great seal, he lavishly distributed among them many considerable parts of those territories which he purposed to conquer from his father. The counts of Flanders, Boulogne, Blois, and Eu, partly moved by the general jealousy arising from Henry’s power and ambition, partly allured by the prospect of reaping advantage from the inconsiderate temper and the necessities of the young prince, declared openly in favor of the latter. William, king of Scotland, had also entered into this great confederacy; and a plan was concerted for a general invasion on different parts of the king’s extensive and factious dominions.

Lewis, to unite the confederates more closely, called together the main vassals of the crown in Paris, gained their approval for his plans, and made them swear to support young Henry’s cause. In return, this prince vowed not to abandon his French allies and created a new great seal, generously distributing significant portions of the territories he aimed to take from his father. The counts of Flanders, Boulogne, Blois, and Eu, partly driven by the widespread concern about Henry’s growing power and ambition, and partly tempted by the chance to benefit from the impulsive nature and needs of the young prince, openly sided with him. William, the king of Scotland, also joined this major alliance, and they devised a plan for a coordinated attack on various parts of the king’s vast and turbulent realm.

Hostilities were first commenced by the counts of Flanders and Boulogne on the frontiers of Normandy. Those princes laid siege to Aumale, which was delivered into their hands by the treachery of the count of that name: this nobleman surrendered himself prisoner; and on pretence of thereby paying his ransom, opened the gates of all his other fortresses. The two counts next besieged and made themselves masters of Drincourt; but the count of Boulogne was here mortally wounded in the assault; and this incident put some stop to the progress of the Flemish arms.

Hostilities first began when the counts of Flanders and Boulogne attacked the borders of Normandy. These princes laid siege to Aumale, which was handed over to them through the betrayal of the count of that name: this nobleman gave himself up as a prisoner; and with the excuse of trying to pay his ransom, he opened the gates to all his other fortresses. The two counts then besieged and captured Drincourt; however, the count of Boulogne was mortally wounded during the assault, and this event slowed down the advance of the Flemish forces.

In another quarter, the king of France, being strongly assisted by his vassals, assembled a great army of seven thousand knights and their followers on horseback, and a proportionable number of infantry; carrying young Henry along with him he laid siege to Verneuil, which was vigorously defended by Hugh de Lacy and Hugh de Beauchamp, the governors. After he had lain a month before the place, the garrison, being straitened for provisions, were obliged to capitulate; and they engaged, if not relieved within three days, to surrender the town, and to retire into the citadel. On the last of these days, Henry appeared with his army upon the heights above Verneuil. Lewis, dreading an attack, sent the archbishop of Sens and the count of Blois to the English camp, and desired that next day should be appointed for a conference, in order to establish a general peace, and terminate the difference between Henry and his sons. The king, who passionately desired this accommodation, and suspected no fraud, gave his consent; but Lewis, that morning, obliging the garrison to surrender, according to the capitulation, set fire to the place, and began to retire with his army. Henry, provoked at this artifice, attacked the rear with vigor, put them to rout, did some execution, and took several prisoners. The French army, as their time of service was now expired, immediately dispersed themselves into their several provinces, and left Henry free to prosecute his advantages against his other enemies.

In another period, the king of France, supported by his vassals, gathered a massive army of seven thousand knights and their mounted followers, along with a similar number of infantry. Bringing young Henry with him, he laid siege to Verneuil, which was strongly defended by Hugh de Lacy and Hugh de Beauchamp, the governors. After a month of besieging the town, the garrison, short on supplies, had to surrender; they agreed that if they weren’t relieved within three days, they would give up the town and retreat to the citadel. On the final day, Henry showed up with his army on the heights above Verneuil. To avoid an attack, Lewis sent the archbishop of Sens and the count of Blois to the English camp, requesting that the next day be set for a meeting to establish a general peace and resolve the conflict between Henry and his sons. The king, eager for this resolution and trusting there was no trickery, agreed to it; however, that morning, Lewis forced the garrison to surrender as per the agreement, set fire to the town, and began withdrawing with his army. Angered by this deceit, Henry fiercely attacked their rear, routing them, causing significant damage, and capturing several prisoners. The French army, as their service time had now ended, quickly dispersed to their respective provinces, leaving Henry free to pursue his other enemies.

The nobles of Brittany, instigated by the earl of Chester and Ralph de Fougeres, were all in arms; but their progress was checked by a body of Brabançons, which the king, after Lewis’s retreat, had sent against them. The two armies came to an action near Dol, where the rebels were defeated, fifteen hundred killed on the spot, and the leaders, the earls of Chester and Fougeres, obliged to take shelter in the town of Dol. Henry hastened to form the siege of that place, and carried on the attack with such ardor, that he obliged the governor and garrison to surrender themselves prisoners. By these rigorous measures and happy successes, the insurrections were entirely quelled in Brittany; and the king, thus fortunate in all quarters, willingly agreed to a conference with Lewis, in hopes that his enemies, finding all their mighty efforts entirely frustrated, would terminate hostilities on some moderate and reasonable conditions.

The nobles of Brittany, encouraged by the earl of Chester and Ralph de Fougeres, were all armed and ready; however, their advances were halted by a group of Brabançons that the king had sent against them after Lewis’s retreat. The two armies clashed near Dol, where the rebels were defeated, with fifteen hundred killed on the spot, and their leaders, the earls of Chester and Fougeres, forced to seek refuge in the town of Dol. Henry quickly moved to lay siege to that place and attacked with such intensity that he compelled the governor and his troops to surrender as prisoners. Through these strict measures and successful outcomes, the uprisings in Brittany were completely suppressed; and the king, enjoying triumph on all fronts, eagerly agreed to meet with Lewis, hoping that his enemies, seeing their grand efforts completely thwarted, would end hostilities on some fair and reasonable terms.

The two monarchs met between Trie and Gisofs; and Henry had here the mortification to see his three sons in the retinue of his mortal enemy. As Lewis had no other pretence for war than supporting the claims of the young princes, the king made them such offers as children might be ashamed to insist on, and could be extorted from him by nothing but his parental affection, or by the present necessity of his affairs.[*] He insisted only on retaining the sovereign authority in all his dominions; but offered young Henry half the revenues of England, with some places of surety in that kingdom; or, if he rather chose to reside in Normandy, half the revenues of that duchy, with all those of Anjou. He made a like offer to Richard in Guienne; he promised to resign Brittany to Geoffrey; and if these concessions were not deemed sufficient, he agreed to add to them whatever the pope’s legates, who were present, should require of him.[**] The earl of Leicester was also present at the negotiation; and either from the impetuosity of his temper, or from a view of abruptly breaking off a conference which must cover the allies with confusion, he gave vent to the most violent reproaches against Henry, and he even put his hand to his sword, as if he meant to attempt some violence against him. This furious action threw the whole company into confusion, and put an end to the treaty.[***]

The two kings met between Trie and Gisofs, and Henry was embarrassed to see his three sons with his enemy. Since Lewis had no real reason for war other than supporting the claims of the young princes, the king offered them things that even children might be ashamed to ask for, which he only gave in response to his parental love or the urgent situation he was in. He insisted only on keeping the sovereign authority over all his lands but offered young Henry half the revenues of England, along with some secure places in that kingdom; or, if he preferred to stay in Normandy, half the revenues of that duchy along with all those of Anjou. He made a similar offer to Richard in Guienne; he promised to give up Brittany to Geoffrey; and if those concessions weren’t seen as enough, he agreed to add whatever the pope’s legates, who were present, required from him. The earl of Leicester was also there during the negotiation, and either out of eagerness or to abruptly end a conversation that would embarrass the allies, he shouted intense accusations at Henry and even reached for his sword as if he intended to attack him. This furious act threw everyone into chaos and ended the treaty.

The chief hopes of Henry’s enemies seemed now to depend oft the state of affairs in England, where his authority was exposed to the most imminent danger. One article of Prince Henry’s agreement with his foreign confederates was, that he should resign Kent, with Dover, and all its other fortresses, into the hands of ihe earl of Flanders:[****] yet so little national or public spirit prevailed among the independent English nobility, so wholly bent were they on the aggrandizement each of himself and his own family, that, notwithstanding this pernicious concession, which must have produced the ruin of the kingdom, the greater part of them had conspired to make an insurrection, and to support the prince’s pretensions.

The main hopes of Henry’s enemies now seemed to rely on the situation in England, where his authority was in serious jeopardy. One of the terms of Prince Henry’s agreement with his foreign allies required him to hand over Kent, along with Dover and all its other forts, to the Earl of Flanders. However, there was so little national or public spirit among the independent English nobility, and they were so focused on their own power and families, that, despite this damaging concession which could have led to the kingdom's downfall, most of them conspired to start a rebellion and support the prince’s claims.

     [* Hoveden, p. 539.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 536. Brompton, p. 1085.]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 536.]

     [**** Hoveden, p. 533. Brompton, p. 1084. Gal.
     Neubr. p. 508.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 539.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 536. Brompton, p. 1085.]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 536.]

     [**** Hoveden, p. 533. Brompton, p. 1084. Gal.
     Neubr. p. 508.]

The king’s principal resource lay in the church and the bishops with whom he was now in perfect agreement; whether that the decency of their character made them ashamed of supporting so unnatural a rebellion, or that they were entirely satisfied with Henry’s atonement for the murder of Becket and for his former invasion of ecclesiastical immunities. That prince, however, had resigned none of the essential rights of his crown in the accommodation: he maintained still the same prudent jealousy of the court of Rome; admitted no legate into England, without his swearing to attempt nothing against the royal prerogatives; and he had even obliged the monks of Canterbury, who pretended to a free election on the vacancy made by the death of Becket, to choose Roger, prior of Dover, in the place of that turbulent prelate.[*]

The king's main support came from the church and the bishops, with whom he was now completely aligned. Whether it was because their sense of decency made them reluctant to back such an unnatural rebellion, or because they were fully satisfied with Henry's apology for the murder of Becket and his previous encroachments on church privileges. However, that prince had not given up any of the essential rights of his crown in this agreement. He still maintained a careful watch over the court of Rome, allowed no legate into England without requiring them to swear not to challenge the royal powers, and even forced the monks of Canterbury, who claimed they had the right to elect freely following Becket's death, to select Roger, prior of Dover, in place of that contentious prelate.[*]

     [* Hoveden, p. 537.]
[* Hoveden, p. 537.]

The king of Scotland made an irruption into Northumberland, and committed great devastations; but being opposed by Richard de Lucy, whom Henry had left guardian of the realm, he retreated into his own country, and agreed to a cessation of arms. This truce enabled the guardian to march southwards with his army, in order to oppose an invasion which the earl of Leicester, at the head of a great body of Flemings, had made upon Suffolk. The Flemings had been joined by Hugh Bigod, who made them masters of his castle of Framlingham; and marching into the heart of the kingdom, where they hoped to be supported by Leicester’s vassals, they were met by Lucy, who, assisted by Humphry Bohun, the constable, and the earls of Arundel, Glocester, and Cornwall, had advanced to Farnham with a less numerous, but braver army to oppose them. The Flemings, who were mostly weavers and artificers, (for manufactures were now beginning to be established in Flanders,) were broken in an instant, ten thousand of them were put to the sword, the earl of Leicester was taken prisoner, and the remains of the invaders were glad to compound for a safe retreat into their own country.

The king of Scotland invaded Northumberland and caused a lot of damage; but when Richard de Lucy, who Henry had left in charge of the kingdom, confronted him, the king retreated back home and agreed to stop fighting. This truce allowed the guardian to move his army south to face an invasion led by the earl of Leicester, who commanded a large force of Flemings that had attacked Suffolk. The Flemings were joined by Hugh Bigod, who had taken control of his castle in Framlingham, and they marched into the heart of the kingdom, expecting support from Leicester’s followers. However, they were met by Lucy, who, with the help of Humphry Bohun, the constable, and the earls of Arundel, Gloucester, and Cornwall, advanced to Farnham with a smaller but more courageous army. The Flemings, who were mostly weavers and craftsmen (as manufacturing was starting to take off in Flanders), were quickly defeated; ten thousand of them were killed, the earl of Leicester was captured, and the remaining invaders were left to negotiate a safe retreat back to their homeland.

1174.

1174.

This great defeat did not dishearten the malecontents; who, being supported by the alliance of so many foreign princes, and encouraged by the king’s own sons, determined to persevere in their enterprise. The earl of Ferrars, Roger de Moubray, Archetil de Mallory, Richard de Moreville, Hamo de Mascie, together with many friends of the earls of Leicester and Chester, rose in arms: the fidelity of the earls of Clare and Glocester was suspected; and the guardian, though vigorously supported by Geoffrey, bishop of Lincoln, the king’s natural son by the fair Rosamond, found it difficult to defend himself, on all quarters, from so many open and concealed enemies. The more to augment the confusion, the king of Scotland, on the expiration of the truce, broke into the northern provinces with a great army[*] of eighty thousand men; which, though undisciplined and disorderly, and better fitted for committing devastation, than for executing any military enterprise, was become dangerous from the present factious and turbulent spirit of the kingdom.

This major defeat didn’t discourage the discontented; they were backed by the alliance of numerous foreign princes and motivated by the king's own sons, so they decided to continue their efforts. The Earl of Ferrars, Roger de Moubray, Archetil de Mallory, Richard de Moreville, Hamo de Mascie, along with many supporters of the earls of Leicester and Chester, took up arms: the loyalty of the earls of Clare and Gloucester was in doubt; and the guardian, despite being strongly backed by Geoffrey, the Bishop of Lincoln, the king’s illegitimate son with the beautiful Rosamond, found it tough to defend himself on all sides from so many open and hidden enemies. To add to the chaos, the king of Scotland, after the truce ended, invaded the northern provinces with a huge army of eighty thousand men; although they were undisciplined and chaotic, better suited for destruction than for any military campaign, they became a threat due to the current rebellious and turbulent spirit of the kingdom.

     [* W. Heming. p. 501.]
[* W. Heming. p. 501.]

Henry, who had baffled all his enemies in France, and had put his frontiers in a posture of defence, now found England the seat of danger; and he determined by his presence to overawe the malecontents, or by his conduct and courage to subdue them. He lauded at Southampton; and knowing the influence of superstition over the minds of the people, he hastened to Canterbury, in order to make atonement to the ashes of Thomas à Becket, and tender his submissions to a dead enemy. As soon as he came within sight of the church of Canterbury, he dismounted walked barefoot towards it, prostrated himself before the shrine of the saint, remained in fasting and prayer during a whole day, and watched all night the holy relics. Not content with this hypocritical devotion towards a man whose violence and ingratitude had so long disquieted his government, and had been the object of his most inveterate animosity, he submitted to a penance still more singular and humiliating. He assembled a chapter of the monks, disrobed himself before them, put a scourge of discipline into the hands of each, and presented his bare shoulders to the lashes which these ecclesiastics successively inflicted upon him. Next day he received absolution; and, departing for London, got soon after the agreeable intelligence of a great victory which his generals had obtained over the Scots, and which, being gained, as was reported, on the very day of his absolution, was regarded as the earnest of his final reconciliation with Heaven and with Thomas a Becket William, king of Scots, though repulsed before the castle of Prudhow, and other fortified places, had committed the most horrible depredations upon the northern provinces; but on the approach of Ralph de Glanville, the famous justiciary, seconded by Bernard de Baliol, Robert de Stuteville, Odonel de Umfreville, William de Vesci, and other northern barons together with the gallant bishop of Lincoln, he thought proper to retreat nearer his own country, and he fixed his camp at Alnwick. He had here weakened his army extremely, by sending out numerous detachments in order to extend his ravages; and he lay absolutely safe, as he imagined, from any attack of the enemy. But Glanville, informed of his situation, made a hasty and fatiguing march to Newcastle; and allowing his soldiers only a small interval for refreshment, he immediately set out towards evening for Alnwick. He marched that night above thirty miles; arrived in the morning, under cover of a mist, near the Scottish camp; and regardless of the great numbers of the enemy, he began the attack with his small but determined body of cavalry. William was living in such supine security that he took the English at first for a body of his own ravagers who were returning to the camp; but the sight of their banners convincing him of his mistake, he entered on the action with no greater body than a hundred horse, in confidence that the numerous army which surrounded him would soon hasten to his relief. He was dismounted on the first shock, and taken prisoner; while his troops, hearing of this disaster, fled on all sides with the utmost precipitation. The dispersed ravagers made the best of their way to their own country; and discord arising among them, they proceeded even to mutual hostilities, and suffered more from each other’s sword than from that of the enemy.

Henry, who had outsmarted all his enemies in France and secured his borders, now saw England as the real threat. He decided to either intimidate the dissenters with his presence or defeat them with his actions and bravery. He landed at Southampton and, understanding the power of superstition over people's minds, hurried to Canterbury to seek forgiveness from the ashes of Thomas à Becket and to submit to a long-standing adversary. As soon as he saw the church of Canterbury, he got off his horse and walked barefoot towards it, threw himself at the saint's shrine, fasted and prayed all day, and kept vigil over the holy relics all night. Not satisfied with this show of devotion to someone whose violence and betrayal had troubled his reign and who had been the target of his fiercest hatred, he underwent an even more unusual and humiliating penance. He gathered a group of monks, stripped off his clothes in front of them, gave each one a whip, and bared his shoulders for the lashes they inflicted on him one after another. The next day, he received absolution and, on his way to London, soon learned the good news of a significant victory that his generals had won against the Scots. This victory, reportedly achieved on the same day as his absolution, was seen as a sign of his ultimate reconciliation with God and with Thomas à Becket. William, the king of Scots, despite being turned back before the castle of Prudhow and other strongholds, had carried out atrocious raids in the northern territories. However, when Ralph de Glanville, the renowned justiciar, supported by Bernard de Baliol, Robert de Stuteville, Odonel de Umfreville, William de Vesci, and other northern barons, along with the brave bishop of Lincoln, approached, he decided to retreat closer to his own lands and set up camp at Alnwick. Here, he had significantly weakened his army by sending out numerous detachments to extend his plundering and believed he was completely safe from any enemy attacks. But Glanville, aware of his situation, made a rapid and exhausting march to Newcastle; allowing his soldiers only a brief moment to rest, he immediately left for Alnwick that evening. He marched over thirty miles that night and arrived the next morning, concealed by the mist, near the Scottish camp. Pay no mind to the enemy's great numbers; he launched an attack with his small but determined cavalry. William was in such a state of complacency that he initially mistook the English for his own raiders returning to camp. But when he noticed their banners, realizing his mistake, he entered the battle with only a hundred horsemen, confidently believing that his large army would soon come to his aid. He was unhorsed during the first attack and captured, while his troops, hearing about this disaster, fled in all directions in utter panic. The scattered raiders made their way back to their own country, and as conflicts broke out among them, they ended up fighting each other, suffering more from one another’s swords than from the enemy’s.

This great and important victory proved at last decisive in favor of Henry, and entirely broke the spirit of the English rebels. The bishop of Durham, who was preparing to revolt, made his submissions; Hugh Bigod, though he had received a strong reénforcement of Flemings, was obliged to surrender all his castles, and throw himself on the king’s mercy; no better resource was left to the earl of Ferrars and Roger de Moubray; the inferior rebels imitating the example, all England was restored to tranquillity in a few weeks; and as the king appeared to be under the immediate protection of Heaven, it was deemed impious any longer to resist him. The clergy exalted anew the merits and powerful intercession of Becket; and Henry, instead of opposing this superstition, plumed himself on the new friendship of the-saint, and propagated an opinion which was so favorable to his interests.[*]

This major and important victory ultimately proved decisive for Henry and completely shattered the resistance of the English rebels. The bishop of Durham, who was getting ready to rebel, submitted to him; Hugh Bigod, despite having received a strong reinforcements of Flemings, had to surrender all his castles and rely on the king’s mercy; the earl of Ferrars and Roger de Moubray found themselves with no better options; the lesser rebels followed suit, and before long, all of England was peaceful again; since the king seemed to be under the direct protection of Heaven, it was considered wrong to resist him any longer. The clergy once again praised the merits and powerful intercession of Becket; Henry, instead of opposing this belief, took pride in the renewed friendship with the saint and spread an opinion that was very advantageous to his interests.[*]

     [* Hoveden, p. 539.]
[* Hoveden, p. 539.]

Prince Henry, who was ready to embark at Gravelines with the earl of Flanders and a great army, hearing that his partisans in England were suppressed, abandoned all thoughts of the enterprise, and joined the camp of Lewis, who, during the absence of the king, had made an irruption into Normandy and had laid siege to Rouen.[*] The place was defended with great vigor by the inhabitants;[**] and Lewis, despairing of success by open force, tried to gain the town by a stratagem, which, in that superstitious age, was deemed not very honor able. He proclaimed in his own camp a cessation of arms on pretence of celebrating the festival of St. Laurence; and when the citizens, supposing themselves in safety, were so imprudent as to remit their guard, he purposed to take advantage of their security. Happily, some priests had, from mere curiosity, mounted a steeple, where the alarm bell hung; and observing the French camp in motion, they immediately rang the bell, and gave warning to the inhabitants, who ran to their several stations. The French, who, on hearing the alarm hurried to the assault, had already mounted the walls in several places; but being repulsed by the enraged citizens were obliged to retreat with considerable loss.[***] Next day, Henry, who had hastened to the defence of his Norman dominions, passed over the bridge in triumph; and entered Rouen in sight of the French army. The city was now in absolute safety; and the king, in order to brave the French, monarch, commanded the gates, which had been walled up, to be opened; and he prepared to push his advantages against the enemy. Lewis saved himself from this perilous situation by a new piece of deceit, not so justifiable. He proposed a conference for adjusting the terms of a general peace, which he knew would be greedily embraced by Henry; and while the king of England trusted to the execution of his promise, he made a retreat with his army into France.

Prince Henry, who was about to set off from Gravelines with the Earl of Flanders and a large army, learned that his supporters in England had been defeated. He abandoned his plans and joined Lewis's camp, who, during the king's absence, had invaded Normandy and laid siege to Rouen.[*] The locals defended the city fiercely;[**] and Lewis, desperate for success through direct conflict, decided to try a trick that was seen as dishonorable in that superstitious time. He announced a ceasefire in his camp under the pretense of celebrating St. Laurence’s feast; when the citizens, thinking they were safe, foolishly let down their guard, he planned to take advantage of their complacency. Fortunately, some priests had climbed a steeple out of curiosity, where the alarm bell was located; upon seeing the French camp moving, they quickly rang the bell to warn the people, who rushed to their posts. The French, who had charged at the sound of the alarm and had managed to scale the walls in several spots, were driven back by the furious citizens and had to retreat with heavy losses.[***] The next day, Henry, who had quickly come to defend his territories in Normandy, crossed the bridge triumphantly and entered Rouen in view of the French army. The city was now completely secure, and the king, to challenge the French monarch, ordered the blocked gates to be opened and prepared to take advantage against the enemy. Lewis extricated himself from this dangerous situation with another deceitful tactic that was less defensible. He suggested a conference to negotiate a general peace, which he knew Henry would eagerly accept; meanwhile, while the King of England trusted in the fulfillment of this promise, he retreated with his army back to France.

     [* Brompton, p. 1096.]

     [** Diceto, p. 578.]

     [*** Brompton, p. 1096 Gul. Neubr. p. 411. W.
     Heming. p, 503]
     [* Brompton, p. 1096.]

     [** Diceto, p. 578.]

     [*** Brompton, p. 1096 Gul. Neubr. p. 411. W. Heming. p. 503]

There was, however, a necessity on both sides for an accommodation. Henry could no longer bear to see his three sons in the hands of his enemy; and Lewis dreaded lest this great monarch, victorious in all quarters, crowned with glory, and absolute master of his dominions, might take revenge for the many dangers and disquietudes which the arms, and still more the intrigues, of France had, in his disputes both with Becket and his sons, found means to raise him. After making a cessation of arms, a conference was agreed on near Tours; where Henry granted his sons much less advantageous terms than he had formerly offered; and he received their submissions. The most material of his concessions were some pensions which he stipulated to pay them, and some castles which he granted them for the place of their residence; together with an indemnity for all their adherents, who were restored to their estates and honors.[*]

There was, however, a need for both sides to come to an agreement. Henry could no longer stand to see his three sons in the hands of his enemy; and Lewis was worried that this great king, successful everywhere, celebrated, and fully in control of his lands, might seek revenge for the many troubles and threats that the forces, and even more the schemes, of France had caused him in his conflicts with Becket and his sons. After agreeing to a ceasefire, a meeting was set up near Tours, where Henry offered his sons much less favorable terms than he had before; and he accepted their submissions. The most significant of his concessions were some pensions he promised to pay them, along with some castles he granted them for their residence; in addition to compensation for all their supporters, who were restored to their estates and honors.[*]

Of all those who had embraced the cause of the young princes, William, king of Scotland, was the only considerable loser by that invidious and unjust enterprise. Henry delivered from confinement, without exacting any ransom, about nine hundred knights, whom he had taken prisoners; but it cost William the ancient independency of his crown as the price of his liberty. He stipulated to do homage to Henry for Scotland and all his other possessions; he engaged that all the barons and nobility of his kingdom should also do homage; that the bishops should take an oath of fealty; that both should swear to adhere to the king of England against their native prince, if the latter should break his engagements; and that the fortresses of Edinburgh, Stirling, Berwick, Roxborough, and Jedborough should be delivered into Henry’s hands, till the performance of articles.[**]

Of all those who supported the young princes, William, king of Scotland, was the only significant loser in that unfair and unjust venture. Henry freed around nine hundred knights from captivity without demanding any ransom; however, it cost William the traditional independence of his crown in exchange for his freedom. He agreed to pledge loyalty to Henry for Scotland and all his other lands; he committed that all the barons and nobility of his kingdom would also pledge loyalty; that the bishops would take an oath of loyalty; that both groups would swear to support the king of England against their own prince if the latter broke his promises; and that the fortresses of Edinburgh, Stirling, Berwick, Roxborough, and Jedborough would be handed over to Henry until the agreements were fulfilled.[**]

1175.

1175.

This severe and humiliating treaty was executed in its full rigor. William, being released, brought up all his barons, prelates, and abbots; and they did homage to Henry in the cathedral of York, and acknowledged him and his successors for their superior lord.[***]

This harsh and humiliating treaty was fully enforced. William, once freed, gathered all his barons, church leaders, and abbots; they pledged their loyalty to Henry in the York cathedral and recognized him and his future successors as their superior lord.[***]

     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 35. Benedict. Abbas, p. 88.
     Hoveden, p. 540 Diceto, p. 583. Brompton, p. 1098. W.
     Heming. p. 505. Chron. Dunst. p. 36.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 91. Chron. Dunst. p. 36. Hoveden,
     p. 545. M West. p. 251. Diceto, p. 584. Brompton, p. 1103.
     Rymer, vol i, p. 39. Liber Nig. Scac. p. 36.]

     [*** Benedict Abbas, p. 113.]
     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 35. Benedict. Abbas, p. 88.
     Hoveden, p. 540 Diceto, p. 583. Brompton, p. 1098. W.
     Heming. p. 505. Chron. Dunst. p. 36.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 91. Chron. Dunst. p. 36. Hoveden,
     p. 545. M West. p. 251. Diceto, p. 584. Brompton, p. 1103.
     Rymer, vol i, p. 39. Liber Nig. Scac. p. 36.]

     [*** Benedict Abbas, p. 113.]

The English monarch stretched still further the rigor of the conditions which he exacted. He engaged the king and states of Scotland to make a perpetual cession of the fortresses of Berwick and Roxborough, and to allow the castle of Edinburgh to remain in his hands for a limited time This was the first great ascendant which England obtained over Scotland; and indeed the first important transaction which had passed between the kingdoms. Few princes have been so fortunate as to gain considerable advantages over their weaker neighbors with less violence and injustice than was practised by Henry against the king of Scots, whom he had taken prisoner in battle, and who had wantonly engaged in a war, in which all the neighbors of that prince, and even his own family, were, without provocation, combined against him.[*]

The English king further tightened the terms he imposed. He got the king and leaders of Scotland to permanently give up the fortresses of Berwick and Roxburgh and to permit the castle of Edinburgh to stay under his control for a limited time. This marked the first major advantage that England gained over Scotland, and it was also the first significant interaction between the two kingdoms. Few rulers have been as fortunate as to achieve substantial gains over their weaker neighbors with such little violence and injustice as Henry did against the king of Scots, who he had captured in battle, and who had foolishly engaged in a war where all his neighbors, including his own family, had come together against him without any provocation.[*]

Henry having thus, contrary to expectation, extricated himself with honor from a situation in which his throne was exposed to great danger, was employed for several years in the administration of justice, in the execution of the laws, and in guarding against those inconveniencies, which either the past convulsions of his state, or the political institutions of that age, unavoidably occasioned. The provisions which he made, show such largeness of thought as qualified him for being a legislator; and they were commonly calculated as well for the future as the present happiness of his kingdom.

Henry, having unexpectedly and honorably freed himself from a situation where his throne was in great danger, spent several years managing justice, enforcing the laws, and preventing the issues that arose from the recent upheavals in his state or the political systems of that time. The measures he implemented demonstrated a broad vision that suited him for the role of a legislator, and they were typically aimed at ensuring both the current and future well-being of his kingdom.

1176.

1176.

He enacted severe penalties against robbery, murder, false coining, arson; and ordained that these crimes should be punished by the amputation of the right hand and right foot.[**] The pecuniary commutation for crimes, which has a false appearance of lenity, had been gradually disused; and seems to have been entirely abolished by the rigor of these statutes. The superstitious trial by water ordeal, though condemned by the church,[***] still subsisted; but Henry ordained, that any man accused of murder, or any heinous felony, by the oath of the legal knights of the county, should, even though acquitted by the ordeal, be obliged to abjure the realm.[****]

He imposed harsh penalties for robbery, murder, counterfeiting, and arson; and required that these crimes be punished by amputating the right hand and right foot. The option to pay fines for crimes, which seemed like a softer approach, had been gradually phased out and appeared to have been completely eliminated by the strictness of these laws. The superstitious trial by water ordeal, although rejected by the church, still existed; however, Henry mandated that any person accused of murder or another serious crime, based on the oath of the lawful knights of the county, should, even if cleared by the ordeal, be forced to leave the kingdom.

All advances towards reason and good sense are slow and gradual. Henry, though sensible of the great absurdity attending the trial by duel or battle, did not venture to abolish it: he only admitted either of the parties to challenge a trial by an assize or jury of twelve freeholders.[*****]

All progress towards reason and common sense is slow and steady. Henry, while aware of the absurdity of trials by duel or battle, didn't take the step to eliminate it; he only allowed either party to request a trial by a court or a jury of twelve freeholders.[*****]

     [* Some Scotch historians pretend, that William
     paid, besides, one hundred thousand pounds of ransom, which
     is quite incredible. The ransom of Richard I., who, besides
     England, possessed so many rich territories in France, was
     only one hundred and fifty thousand marks, and yet was
     levied with great difficulty. Indeed, two thirds of it only
     could be paid before his deliverance.]

     [** Benedict. Abbas, p. 132. Hoveden, p. 549.]

     [*** Seldeni Spicileg. ad Eadm. p. 204,]

     [**** Benedict. Abbas, p. 132.]

     [* Some Scottish historians claim that William also paid a ransom of one hundred thousand pounds, which is hard to believe. The ransom for Richard I, who owned many wealthy territories in France in addition to England, was only one hundred and fifty thousand marks, and even that was raised with great difficulty. In fact, only two-thirds of it could be paid before he was freed.]

     [** Benedict. Abbas, p. 132. Hoveden, p. 549.]

     [*** Seldeni Spicileg. ad Eadm. p. 204,]

     [**** Benedict. Abbas, p. 132.]

This latter method of trial seems to have been very ancient in England, and was fixed by the laws of King Alfred: but the barbarous and violent genius of the age had of late given more credit to the trial by battle, which had become the general method of deciding all important controversies. It was never abolished by law in England; and there is an instance of it so late as the reign of Elizabeth: but the institution revived by this king, being found more reasonable and more suitable to a civilized people, gradually prevailed over it.

This latter method of trial seems to have been very old in England and was established by the laws of King Alfred. However, the brutal and violent nature of the time had recently given more weight to trial by battle, which had become the common way of resolving major disputes. It was never officially abolished in England, and there’s a case as late as the reign of Elizabeth. However, the system revived by this king was seen as more rational and better suited for a civilized society, eventually becoming the preferred option.

The partition of England into four divisions, and the appointment of itinerant justices to go the circuit in each division, and to decide the causes in the counties, was another important ordinance of this prince, which had a direct tendency to curb the oppressive barons, and to protect the inferior gentry and common people in their property.[*] Those justices were either prelates or considerable noblemen; who, besides carrying the authority of the king’s commission, were able, by the dignity of their own character, to give weight and credit to the laws.

The division of England into four regions, along with the appointment of traveling judges to tour each region and settle disputes in the counties, was another key measure of this king. It aimed to rein in the oppressive barons and safeguard the rights of the lower gentry and common people regarding their property.[*] These judges were either bishops or prominent nobles who, in addition to having the authority of the king’s commission, lent their own esteemed character to give the laws greater weight and credibility.

That there might be fewer obstacles to the execution of justice, the king was vigilant in demolishing all the new erected castles of the nobility, in England as well as in his foreign dominions; and he permitted no fortress to remain in the custody of those whom he found reason to suspect.[**]

That there might be fewer obstacles to carrying out justice, the king was attentive to tearing down all the newly built castles of the nobility, both in England and in his foreign lands; and he allowed no fortress to stay in the hands of those he had reason to distrust.[**]

But lest the kingdom should be weakened by this demolition of the fortresses, the king fixed an assize of arms, by which all his subjects were obliged to put themselves in a situation for defending themselves and the realm. Every man possessed of a knight’s fee was ordained to have for each fee, a coat of mail, a helmet, a shield, and a lance; every free layman, possessed of goods to the value of sixteen marks, was to be armed in like manner; every one that possessed ten marks was obliged to have an iron gorget, a cap of iron, and a lance; all burgesses were to have a cap of iron, a lance, and a wambais; that is, a coat quilted with wool, tow, or such like materials.[***] It appears that archery, for which the English were afterwards so renowned, had not at this time become very common among them. The spear was the chief weapon employed in battle.

But to ensure the kingdom wasn't weakened by the destruction of the fortresses, the king established a law regarding arms, requiring all his subjects to be prepared to defend themselves and the realm. Every man who owned a knight's fee was required to have, for each fee, a coat of mail, a helmet, a shield, and a lance; every free man with goods valued at sixteen marks was to be armed similarly; anyone owning ten marks was obligated to have an iron gorget, an iron cap, and a lance; all townspeople were required to have an iron cap, a lance, and a wambais, which is a coat quilted with wool, tow, or similar materials. It seems that archery, for which the English would later become famous, wasn't very common at this time. The spear was the primary weapon used in battle.

     [* Hoveden, p. 590].

     [** Benedict. Abbas, p. 202. Diceto p. 585.]

     [*** Benedict, Abbas, p. 305. Annal. Waverl. p.
     181.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 590].

     [** Benedict. Abbas, p. 202. Diceto p. 585.]

     [*** Benedict, Abbas, p. 305. Annal. Waverl. p.
     181.]

The clergy and the laity were, during that age, in a strange situation with regard to each other, and such as may seem totally incompatible with a civilized, and indeed with any species of government. If a clergyman were guilty of murder, he could be punished by degradation only: if he were murdered, the murderer was exposed to nothing but excommunication and ecclesiastical censures; and the crime was atoned for by penances and submission.[*] Hence the assassins of Thomas à Becket himself, though guilty of the most atrocious wickedness, and the most repugnant to the sentiments of that age, lived securely in their own houses, without being called to account by Henry himself, who was so much concerned, both in honor and interest, to punish that crime, and who professed or affected, on all occasions, the most extreme abhorrence of it. It was not till they found their presence shunned by every one as excommunicated persons, that they were induced to take a journey to Rome, to throw themselves at the feet of the pontiff, and to submit to the penances imposed upon them; after which, they continued to possess without molestation their honors and fortunes, and seem even to have recovered the countenance and good opinion of the public. But as the king, by the constitutions of Clarendon, which he endeavored still to maintain,[**] had subjected the clergy to a trial by the civil magistrate, it seemed but just to give them the protection of that power, to which they owed obedience: it was enacted, that the murderers of clergymen should be tried before the justiciary, in the presence of the bishop or his official; and besides the usual punishment for murder, should be subjected to a forfeiture of their estates, and a confiscation of their goods and chattels.[***]

The clergy and the laity were, during that time, in a strange situation with each other that might seem completely incompatible with a civilized society and any form of government. If a clergyman committed murder, he could only be punished by degradation; if he was murdered, the killer faced nothing more than excommunication and church penalties, and the crime was atoned for through penances and submission. Hence, the assassins of Thomas à Becket himself, despite committing the most atrocious act that was widely condemned in that era, lived at ease in their own homes without being held accountable by Henry, who had a significant interest, both honorably and politically, in punishing that crime, and who claimed or pretended to express the utmost disgust for it. It wasn't until they found themselves avoided by everyone as excommunicated individuals that they decided to journey to Rome to plead at the feet of the pope and accept the penances imposed on them; after that, they were able to enjoy their titles and wealth without disturbance and even seemed to regain the favor and respect of the public. However, since the king, through the Constitutions of Clarendon, which he still sought to uphold, had subjected the clergy to trials by civil authority, it seemed only fair to extend them the protection of that power, to which they owed allegiance: it was established that the murderers of clergymen should be tried before the magistrate, in the presence of the bishop or his representative; in addition to the standard punishment for murder, they would also lose their estates and have their goods confiscated.

     [* Petri Bles. epist. 73, apud Bibl. Patr. torn.
     xxiv. p. 992.]

     [** Gervase, p. 1433. ]

     [*** Diceto, p. 592. Gervase, p. 1433]
     [* Petri Bles. epist. 73, apud Bibl. Patr. torn.
     xxiv. p. 992.]

     [** Gervase, p. 1433. ]

     [*** Diceto, p. 592. Gervase, p. 1433]

The king passed an equitable law, that the goods of a vassal should not be seized for the debt of his lord, unless the vassal be surety for the debt; and that the rents of vassals should be paid to the creditors of the lord, not to the lord himself. It is remarkable, that this law was enacted by the king in a council which he held at Verneuil, and which consisted of some prelates and barons of England, as well as some of Normandy, Poictou, Anjou, Maine, Touraine, and Brittany and the statute took place in all these last-mentioned territories,[*] though totally unconnected with each other;[**] a certain proof how irregular the ancient feudal government was, and how near the sovereigns, in some instances, approached to despotism, though in others they seemed scarcely to possess any authority. If a prince, much dreaded and revered like Henry, obtained but the appearance of general consent to an ordinance which was equitable and just, it became immediately an established law, and all his subjects acquiesced in it, If the prince was hated or despised; if the nobles, who supported him, had small influence; if the humors of the times disposed the people to question the justice of his ordinance; the fullest and most authentic assembly had no authority. Thus all was confusion and disorder; no regular idea of a constitution; force and violence decided every thing.

The king established a fair law stating that a vassal's property couldn’t be taken to pay off their lord's debts unless the vassal guaranteed the debt. Additionally, the rents from vassals were to be paid to the lord’s creditors, not to the lord himself. It’s noteworthy that this law was created by the king during a council he held in Verneuil, which included some bishops and barons from England, as well as others from Normandy, Poitou, Anjou, Maine, Touraine, and Brittany. The statute applied in all these territories, even though they were completely unrelated; this clearly demonstrates how irregular the ancient feudal system was and how, in some cases, the sovereigns came close to despotism, while in others they seemed to have very little authority. If a prince, feared and respected like Henry, achieved what appeared to be general agreement on a fair and just ordinance, it quickly became an established law, and all his subjects accepted it. However, if the prince was hated or looked down upon, if the nobles supporting him had little power, or if the public mood made people question the fairness of his ordinance, even the largest and most legitimate assembly had no authority. Thus, everything was chaotic and disordered; there was no clear idea of a constitution; force and violence dictated everything.

The success which had attended Henry in his wars, did not much encourage his neighbors to form any attempt against him; and his transactions with them, during several years, contain little memorable. Scotland remained in that state of feudal subjection to which he had reduced it, and gave him no further inquietude. He sent over his fourth son, John, into Ireland, with a view of making a more complete conquest of the island; but the petulance and incapacity of this prince, by which he enraged the Irish chieftains, obliged the king soon after to recall him.[***]

The success Henry had in his wars didn't really motivate his neighbors to take any action against him, and his dealings with them over several years are mostly uneventful. Scotland stayed in the feudal subjugation he had imposed, causing him no additional concern. He sent his fourth son, John, to Ireland to achieve a more thorough conquest of the island, but John's arrogance and ineptitude angered the Irish chieftains, forcing the king to recall him shortly after.

     [* Benedict. Abbas, p. 248. It was usual for the
     kings of England, after the conquest of Ireland, to summon
     barons and members of thai country to the English
     parliament. Molineux’s case of Ireland, p. 64, 65, 66.]

     [** Spelman even doubts whether the law were not
     also extended to England. If it were not, it could only be
     because Henry did not choose it; for his authority was
     greater in that kingdom than in his transmarine dominions.]

     [*** Benedict. Abbas, p. 437, etc.]
     [* Benedict. Abbas, p. 248. After the conquest of Ireland, it was common for the kings of England to call barons and representatives from that country to the English parliament. Molineux’s case of Ireland, p. 64, 65, 66.]

     [** Spelman even questions whether the law was not also applied to England. If it wasn't, it must have been because Henry chose not to; his authority in that kingdom was greater than in his overseas territories.]

     [*** Benedict. Abbas, p. 437, etc.]

The king of France had fallen into an abject superstition; and was induced, by a devotion more sincere than that of Henry, to make a pilgrimage to the tomb of Becket, in order to obtain his intercession for the cure of Philip, his eldest son. He probably thought himself well entitled to the favor of that saint, on account of their ancient intimacy; and hoped that Becket, whom he had protected while on earth, would not now, when he was so highly exalted in heaven, forget his old friend and benefactor. The monks, sensible that their saint’s honor was concerned in the case, failed not to publish that Lewis’s prayers were answered, and that the young prince was restored to health by Becket’s intercession. That king himself was soon after struck with an apoplexy, which deprived him of his understanding: Philip though a youth of fifteen, took on him the administration, till his father’s death, which happened soon after,

The king of France had become deeply superstitious; driven by a devotion more genuine than Henry's, he decided to make a pilgrimage to Becket's tomb to seek his intercession for the healing of his eldest son, Philip. He likely believed he deserved the saint's favor due to their longstanding relationship and hoped that Becket, whom he had supported during his life, would not forget his old friend and benefactor now that he was so highly regarded in heaven. The monks, aware that their saint's reputation was at stake, quickly announced that Louis’s prayers had been answered, and that the young prince had regained his health through Becket’s intercession. Soon after, the king suffered a stroke that left him incapacitated. Although only fifteen, Philip assumed control until his father's death, which occurred shortly after.

1180.

1180.

opened his way to the throne; and he proved the ablest and greatest monarch that had governed that kingdom since the age of Charlemagne. The superior years, however, and experience of Henry, while they moderated his ambition, gave him such an ascendant over this prince, that no dangerous rivalship for a long time arose between them. The English monarch, instead of taking advantage of his own situation, rather employed his good offices in composing the quarrels which arose in the royal family of France; and he was successful in mediating a reconciliation between Philip and his mother and uncles. These services were but ill requited by Philip, who, when he came to man’s estate, fomented all the domestic discords in the royal family of England, and encouraged Henry’s sons in their ungrateful and undutiful behavior towards him. Prince Henry, equally impatient of obtaining power, and incapable of using it, renewed to the king the demand of his resigning Normandy; and on meeting with a refusal, he fled with his consort to the court of France: but not finding Philip at that time disposed to enter into war for his sake, he accepted of his father’s offers of reconciliation, and made him submissions. It was a cruel circumstance in the king’s fortune, that he could hope for no tranquillity from the criminal enterprises of his sons but by their mutual discord and animosities, which disturbed his family and threw his state into convulsions. Richard, whom he had made master of Guienne, and who had displayed his valor and military genius by suppressing the revolts of his mutinous barons refused to obey Henry’s orders, in doing homage to his elder brother for that duchy; and he defended himself against young Henry and Geoffrey, who, uniting their arms, carried war into his territories.[**]

opened his way to the throne; and he proved to be the most capable and greatest monarch that had ruled that kingdom since the time of Charlemagne. However, Henry's superior age and experience, while tempering his ambition, gave him such an advantage over this prince that no serious rivalry arose between them for a long time. Instead of taking advantage of his position, the English king used his influence to settle the disputes that arose within the French royal family; he successfully mediated a reconciliation between Philip, his mother, and his uncles. These efforts were poorly rewarded by Philip, who, when he reached adulthood, stirred up all the internal conflicts within the English royal family and encouraged Henry’s sons in their ungrateful and disrespectful behavior towards him. Prince Henry, equally eager for power but unprepared to wield it, demanded that the king give up Normandy; and when he was refused, he fled with his wife to the French court. However, not finding Philip willing to go to war on his behalf at the time, he accepted his father’s offers of reconciliation and submitted to him. It was a cruel twist of fate for the king that he could only hope for peace from the wrongful actions of his sons through their mutual discord and animosities, which disrupted his family and threw his kingdom into chaos. Richard, whom he had made the lord of Guienne, and who had shown his bravery and military talent by putting down the revolts of his rebellious barons, refused to obey Henry’s orders to pay homage to his older brother for that duchy; he defended himself against young Henry and Geoffrey, who united their forces to wage war in his lands.[**]

     [* Ypod. Neust. p. 451.]

     [** Benedict. Abbas, p 383. Diceto, p.617.]
     [* Ypod. Neust. p. 451.]

     [** Benedict. Abbas, p 383. Diceto, p.617.]

The king with some difficulty composed this difference; but immediately found his eldest son engaged in conspiracies, and ready to take arms against himself. While the young prince was conducting these criminal intrigues, he was seized with a fever at Martel,

The king managed to settle this dispute with some difficulty; however, he quickly discovered that his eldest son was involved in conspiracies and was preparing to take up arms against him. While the young prince was involved in these unlawful plots, he was struck by a fever at Martel,

1183.

1183.

a castle near Turenne to which he had retired in discontent; and seeing the approaches of death, he was at last struck with remorse for his undutiful behavior towards his father. He sent a message to the king, who was not far distant; expressed his contrition for his faults; and entreated the favor of a visit, that he might at least die with the satisfaction of having obtained his forgiveness. Henry, who had so often experienced the prince’s ingratitude and violence, apprehended that his sickness was entirely feigned, and he durst not intrust himself into his son’s hands: but when he soon after received intelligence of young Henry’s death, and the proofs, of his sincere repentance, this good prince was affected with the deepest sorrow; he thrice fainted away; he accused his own hard hearted ness in refusing the dying request of his son; and he lamented that he had deprived that prince of the last opportunity of making atonement for his offences, and of pouring out his soul in the bosom of his reconciled father.[*] This prince died in the twenty-eighth year of his age.

a castle near Turenne where he had retreated in discontent; and seeing the end of his life approaching, he was finally filled with remorse for his disrespectful behavior towards his father. He sent a message to the king, who was not far away; expressed his regret for his mistakes; and requested a visit, hoping to at least die knowing he had received his father’s forgiveness. Henry, who had often faced his son’s ingratitude and anger, feared that his illness was completely fabricated, and he dared not put himself in his son’s hands: but when he soon afterward received news of young Henry’s death and the evidence of his genuine repentance, this good king was overwhelmed with deep sorrow; he fainted three times; he blamed his own harshness for denying his son’s dying wish; and he mourned that he had taken away that prince’s last chance to make amends for his wrongs and to share his heart with his reconciled father.[*] This prince died in his twenty-eighth year.

The behavior of his surviving children did not tend to give the king any consolation for the loss. As Prince Henry had left no posterity, Richard was become heir to all his dominions; and the king intended that John, his third surviving son and favorite, should inherit Guienne as his appanage; but Richard refused his consent, fled into that duchy, and even made preparations for carrying on war, as well against his father as against his brother Geoffrey, who was now put in possession of Brittany. Henry sent for Eleanor, his queen, the heiress of Guienne, and required Richard to deliver up to her the dominion of these territories; which that prince, either dreading an insurrection of the Gascons in her favor, or retaining some sense of duty towards her, readily performed; and he peaceably returned to his father’s court. No sooner was this quarrel accommodated, than Geoffrey, the most vicious perhaps of all Henry’s unhappy family, broke out into violence; demanded Anjou to be annexed to his dominions of Brittany; and on meeting with a refusal, fled to the court of France, and levied forces against his father.[**]

The behavior of his surviving children didn’t offer the king any comfort for his loss. Since Prince Henry had left no descendants, Richard became the heir to all his lands; the king planned for his third surviving son and favorite, John, to inherit Guienne as his portion. However, Richard refused to agree and fled to that duchy, even preparing for war against both his father and his brother Geoffrey, who was now in control of Brittany. Henry called for Eleanor, his queen and the heiress of Guienne, and demanded that Richard hand over these territories to her. Richard, either fearing an uprising from the Gascons in her favor or feeling some obligation to her, complied and returned peacefully to his father’s court. As soon as this dispute was settled, Geoffrey, the most wicked of all Henry’s troubled family, erupted in violence; he demanded that Anjou be added to his Brittany lands, and when he was denied, he fled to the court of France and raised an army against his father.[**]

1185.

1185.

Henry was freed from this danger by his son’s death who was killed in a tournament at Paris.[***]

Henry was saved from this danger by his son's death, who was killed in a tournament in Paris.[***]

     [* Benedict. Abbas, p. 393. Hoveden, p. 621.
     Trivet, vol. i. p. 84,]

     [** Gul. Neubr. p. 422.]

     [*** Benedict. Abbas, p. 451. Gervase, p. 1480.]
     [* Benedict. Abbas, p. 393. Hoveden, p. 621.  
     Trivet, vol. i. p. 84,]

     [** Gul. Neubr. p. 422.]

     [*** Benedict. Abbas, p. 451. Gervase, p. 1480.]

The widow of Geoffrey, soon after his decease, was delivered of a son who received the name of Arthur, and was invested in the duchy of Brittany, under the guardianship of his grandfather, who, is duke of Normandy, was also superior lord of that territory. Philip, as lord paramount, disputed some time his title to this wardship; but was obliged to yield to the inclinations of the Bretons, who preferred the government of Henry.

The widow of Geoffrey, shortly after his death, gave birth to a son named Arthur, who was granted the duchy of Brittany. He came under the guardianship of his grandfather, the Duke of Normandy, who was also the lord of that area. Philip, as the chief lord, contested his claim to this guardianship for a while, but had to give in to the wishes of the Bretons, who preferred Henry's rule.

But the rivalship between these potent princes, and all their inferior interests, seemed now to have given place to the general passion for the relief of the Holy Land and the expulsion of the Saracens. Those infidels, though obliged to yield to the immense inundation of Christians in the first crusade, had recovered courage after the torrent was past; and attacking on all quarters the settlements of the Europeans, had Deduced these adventurers to great difficulties, and obliged them to apply again for succors from the west. A second crusade, under the emperor Conrade, and Lewis VII., king of France, in which there perished above two hundred thousand men, brought them but a temporary relief; and those princes, after losing such immense armies, and seeing the flower of their nobility fall by their side, returned with little honor into Europe. But these repeated misfortunes, which drained the western world of its people and treasure, were not yet sufficient to cure men of their passion for those spiritual adventures; and a new incident rekindled with fresh fury the zeal of the ecclesiastics and military adventurers among the Latin Christians. Saladin, a prince of great generosity, bravery, and conduct, having fixed himself on the throne of Egypt, began to extend his conquests over the East; and finding the settlement of the Christians in Palestine an invincible obstacle to the progress of his arms, he bent the whole force of his policy and valor to subdue that small and barren, but important territory. Taking advantage of dissensions which prevailed among the champions of the cross, and having secretly gained the count of Tripoli, who commanded their armies, he invaded the frontiers with a mighty power and, aided by the treachery of that count, gained over them at Tiberiade a complete victory, which utterly annihilated the force of the already languishing kingdom of Jerusalem

But the rivalry between these powerful princes, along with all their lesser interests, seemed to have been replaced by a common passion for helping the Holy Land and driving out the Saracens. Those non-believers, although forced to surrender to the overwhelming tide of Christians during the first crusade, had regained their strength after the storm had passed; and by attacking the European settlements from all sides, they put these adventurers into serious difficulties, compelling them to seek help from the west again. A second crusade, led by Emperor Conrad and Louis VII, king of France, which resulted in the deaths of over two hundred thousand men, only provided temporary relief; and after losing such vast armies and witnessing the fall of their nobility, those princes returned to Europe with little honor. However, these ongoing misfortunes that drained the western world of its people and wealth were not enough to rid people of their zeal for such spiritual endeavors; a new event sparked fresh fervor among the clergy and military adventurers among the Latin Christians. Saladin, a prince known for his generosity, bravery, and leadership, established himself on the throne of Egypt and began expanding his conquests throughout the East; recognizing the Christian presence in Palestine as an unstoppable barrier to his military progress, he focused all his strategy and strength on conquering that small, barren yet significant territory. Taking advantage of the discord among the defenders of the cross and secretly gaining the support of the Count of Tripoli, who led their armies, he invaded the borders with a massive force, and, with the betrayal of that count, achieved a complete victory over them at Tiberias, which completely destroyed the already weakened kingdom of Jerusalem.

1187.

1187.

The holy city itself fell into his hands after a feeble resistance; the kingdom of Antioch was almost entirely subdued and except some maritime towns, nothing considerable remained of thope boasted conquests, which, near a century before, it had cost the efforts of all Europe to acquire.

The holy city itself fell into his hands after a weak resistance; the kingdom of Antioch was almost completely conquered, and aside from a few coastal towns, nothing significant remained of the supposed conquests that had taken the efforts of all of Europe nearly a century before to achieve.

The western Christians were astonished on receiving this dismal intelligence. Pope Urban III., it is pretended, died of grief; and his successor, Gregory VIII., employed the whole time of his short pontificate in rousing to arms all the Christians who acknowledged his authority. The general cry was, that they were unworthy of enjoying any inheritance in heaven, who did not vindicate from the dominion of the infidels the inheritance of God on earth, and deliver from slavery that country which had been consecrated by the foot-steps of their Redeemer.

The Western Christians were shocked to receive this terrible news. Pope Urban III., it is said, died of grief; and his successor, Gregory VIII., spent his entire short time as pope rallying all the Christians who recognized his authority to take up arms. The widespread sentiment was that those who did not fight to reclaim God’s land on Earth from the control of non-believers were unworthy of any inheritance in heaven and should liberate that country which had been sanctified by the footsteps of their Savior.

1188.

1188.

William, archbishop of Tyre, having procured a conference between Henry and Philip near Gisors, enforced all these topics; gave a pathetic description of the miserable state of the eastern Christians; and employed every argument to excite the ruling passions of the age, superstition, and jealousy of military honor. The two monarchs immediately took the cross; many of their most considerable vassals imitated the example; and as the emperor Frederic I. entered into the same confederacy, some well-grounded hopes of success were entertained; and men flattered themselves that an enterprise, which had failed under the conduct of many independent leaders, or of imprudent princes, might at last, by the efforts of such potent and able monarchs, be brought to a happy issue.

William, the archbishop of Tyre, arranged a meeting between Henry and Philip near Gisors, where he addressed all these issues. He gave a moving account of the terrible conditions facing Eastern Christians and used every argument to stir up the dominant emotions of the time, like superstition and the desire for military glory. The two kings instantly took the cross; many of their notable vassals followed their lead. When Emperor Frederick I also joined the alliance, there were some genuine hopes for success, and people believed that an endeavor that had failed under the leadership of various independent leaders or reckless kings could finally have a positive outcome with the combined efforts of such powerful and capable rulers.

The kings of France and England imposed a tax, amounting to the tenth of all movable goods, on such as remained at home; but as they exempted from this burden most of the regular clergy, the secular aspired to the same immunity; pretended that their duty obliged them to assist the crusade with their prayers alone; and it was with some difficulty they were constrained to desist from an opposition, which in them who had been the chief promoters of those pious enterprises, appeared with the worst grace imaginable. This backwardness of the clergy is perhaps a symptom that the enthusiastic ardor which had at first seized the people for crusades, was now by time and ill success considerably abated; and that the frenzy was chiefly supported by the military genius and love of glory in the monarchs.

The kings of France and England imposed a tax, which was a tenth of all movable goods, on those who stayed at home; however, since they exempted most of the regular clergy from this burden, the secular clergy wanted the same exemption. They claimed that their duty required them to support the crusade only with their prayers, and it took some effort for them to be convinced to stop opposing what seemed particularly inappropriate from those who had been the main supporters of those charitable endeavors. This reluctance of the clergy might be a sign that the initial enthusiasm the public had for crusades had significantly faded over time and due to failed attempts, and that the excitement was mainly fueled by the military skills and desire for glory of the monarchs.

But before this great machine could be put in motion, there were still many obstacles to surmount. Philip, jealous of Henry’s power, entered into a private confederacy with young Richard; and working on his ambitious and impatient temper, persuaded him, instead of supporting and aggrandizing that monarchy which he was one day to inherit, to seek present power and independence by disturbing and dismembering it.

But before this huge machine could be set in motion, there were still many obstacles to overcome. Philip, envious of Henry’s power, formed a secret alliance with young Richard; and by appealing to his ambitious and restless nature, convinced him, rather than supporting and strengthening the monarchy he would one day inherit, to pursue immediate power and independence by disrupting and breaking it apart.

1189.

1189.

In order to give a pretence for hostilities between the two kings, Richard broke into the territories of Raymond, count of Toulouse, who immediately carried complaints of this violence before the king of France, as his superior lord. Philip remonstrated with Henry; but received for answer, that Richard had confessed to the archbishop of Dublin, that his enterprise against Raymond had been undertaken by the approbation of Philip himself, and was conducted by his authority. The king of France, who might have been covered with shame and confusion by this detection, still prosecuted his design, and invaded the provinces of Berri and Auvergne, under color of revenging the quarrel of the count of Toulouse. Henry retaliated by making inroads upon the frontiers of France and burning Dreux. As this war, which destroyed all hopes of success in the projected crusade, gave great scandal, the two kings held a conference at the accustomed place between Gisors and Trie, in order to find means of accommodating their differences; they separated on worse terms than before; and Philip, to show his disgust, ordered a great elm, under which the conferences had been usually held, to be cut down; as if he had renounced all desire of accommodation, and was determined to carry the war to extremities against the king of England. But his own vassals refused to serve under him in so invidious a cause; and he was obliged to come anew to a conference with Henry, and to offer terms of peace. These terms were such as entirely opened the eyes of the king of England, and fully convinced him of the perfidy of his son, and his secret alliance with Philip, of which he had before only entertained some suspicion. The king of France required that Richard should be crowned king of England in the lifetime of his father, should be invested in all his transmarine dominions, and should immediately espouse Alice, Philip’s sister, to whom he had been formerly affianced, and who had already been conducted into England. Henry had experienced such fatal effects, both from the crowning of his eldest son, and from that prince’s alliance with the royal family of France, that he rejected these terms; and Richard, in con sequence of his secret agreement with Philip, immediately revolted from him, did homage to the king of France for all the dominions which Henry held of that crown, and received the investitures, as if he had already been the lawful possessor. Several historians assert, that Henry himself had become enamored of young Alice, and mention this as an additional reason for his refusing these conditions; but he had so many other just and equitable motives for his conduct, that it is superfluous to assign a cause, which the great prudence and advanced age of that monarch render somewhat improbable.

To create a reason for conflict between the two kings, Richard invaded the lands of Raymond, the count of Toulouse, who quickly brought his complaints about this aggression to the king of France, as his feudal lord. Philip confronted Henry about it, but Henry replied that Richard had admitted to the archbishop of Dublin that his attack on Raymond was done with Philip’s approval and was carried out under his authority. The king of France, who might have felt deeply ashamed and humiliated by this revelation, continued with his plans and invaded the provinces of Berri and Auvergne, claiming it was in retaliation for the count of Toulouse’s grievances. Henry responded by raiding the French borders and burning Dreux. This war, which dashed all hopes for a successful crusade and caused considerable scandal, prompted the two kings to meet at their usual spot between Gisors and Trie to discuss resolving their differences; however, they parted on even worse terms than before. To show his displeasure, Philip ordered the large elm tree where they usually met to be cut down, signaling that he had lost all desire for peace and was intent on escalating the conflict with the king of England. Yet, his own vassals refused to support him in such an unpopular cause, forcing him to come back to the negotiating table with Henry and propose peace terms. These terms opened Henry’s eyes to the betrayal of his son and confirmed his suspicions about Richard's secret alliance with Philip. The king of France demanded that Richard be crowned king of England while Henry was still alive, be granted all his overseas territories, and marry Alice, Philip’s sister, to whom he had previously been engaged, and who was already in England. Given the disastrous consequences he had faced from crowning his eldest son and that prince’s alliance with the French royal family, Henry rejected these terms. Consequently, Richard, due to his secret agreement with Philip, revolted against his father, pledged allegiance to the king of France for all the territories Henry held from that crown, and received the titles as if he were already their rightful owner. Some historians claim that Henry himself had become infatuated with young Alice, suggesting it as another reason for his refusal, but he had so many other justifiable motives for his actions that it seems unnecessary to consider a reason that is somewhat unlikely given his wisdom and advanced age.

Cardinal Albano, the pope’s legate, displeased with these increasing obstacles to the crusade, excommunicated Richard, as the chief spring of discord; but the sentence of excommunication, which, when it was properly prepared and was zealously supported by the clergy, had often great influence in that age, proved entirely ineffectual in the present case. The chief barons of Poictou, Guienne, Normandy, and Anjou, being attached to the young prince, and finding that he had now received the investiture from their superior lord, declared for him, and made inroads into the territories of such as still adhered to the king. Henry, disquieted by the daily revolts of his mutinous subjects, and dreading still worse effects from their turbulent disposition, had again recourse to papal authority; and engaged the cardinal Anagni, who had succeeded Albano in the legateship, to threaten Philip with laying an interdict on all his dominions. But Philip, who was a prince of great vigor and capacity, despised the menace, and told Anagni, that it belonged not to the pope to interpose in the temporal disputes of princes, much less in those between him and his rebellious vassal. He even proceeded so far as to reproach him with partiality, and with receiving bribes from the king of England; while Richard, still more outrageous, offered to draw his sword against the legate, and was hindered by the interposition alone of the company, from committing violence upon him.

Cardinal Albano, the pope’s envoy, was frustrated by the growing obstacles to the crusade and excommunicated Richard, whom he saw as the main source of conflict. However, the excommunication, which was usually very influential when properly prepared and backed by the clergy, had no effect in this case. The key barons of Poictou, Guienne, Normandy, and Anjou, loyal to the young prince, declared their support for him after he received the investiture from their overlord, and they began raiding the lands of those still loyal to the king. Henry, anxious about the frequent uprisings of his rebellious subjects and fearing worse consequences from their unrest, appealed once again to papal authority. He enlisted Cardinal Anagni, who had taken over from Albano, to threaten Philip with an interdict on all of his territories. But Philip, who was a strong and capable leader, dismissed the threat and told Anagni that it wasn’t the pope's role to get involved in the political disputes between princes, especially not between him and his rebellious vassal. He even went as far as to accuse Anagni of bias and accepting bribes from the king of England, while Richard, outraged, threatened to draw his sword against the legate, being only stopped from doing so by the intervention of those around him.

The king of England was now obliged to defend his dominions by arms, and to engage in a war with France and with his eldest son, a prince of great valor, on such disadvantageous terms. Ferte-Bernard fell first into the hands of the enemy; Mans was next taken by assault; and Henry, who had thrown himself into that place, escaped with some difficulty; Amboise, Chaumont, and Château de Loire, opened their gates on the appearance of Philip and Richard: Tours was menaced; and the king, who had retired to Saumur, and had daily instances of the cowardice or infidelity of his governors, expected the most dismal issue to all his enterprises. While he was in this state of despondency, the duke of Burgundy, the earl of Flanders, and the archbishop of Rheims interposed with their good offices; and the intelligence which he received of the taking of Tours, and which made him fully sensible of the desperate situation of his affairs, so subdued his spirit, that he submitted to all the rigorous terms which, were imposed upon him. He agreed that Richard should marry the princess Alice; that that prince should receive the homage and oath of fealty of all his subjects both in England and his transmarine dominions; that he himself should pay twenty thousand marks to the king of France, as a compensation for the charges of the war; that his own barons should engage to make him observe this treaty by force, and in case of his violating it should promise to join Philip and Richard against him; and that all his vassals, who had entered into confederacy with Richard, should receive an indemnity for the offence.

The king of England now had to defend his territories by force and engage in a war with France and his eldest son, a very brave prince, under extremely unfavorable conditions. Ferte-Bernard was the first to fall to the enemy, followed by Mans, which was captured next. Henry, who had taken refuge there, barely managed to escape. Amboise, Chaumont, and Château de Loire opened their gates when Philip and Richard appeared. Tours was threatened, and the king, who had retreated to Saumur and was witnessing constant acts of cowardice or betrayal from his governors, anticipated the most tragic outcomes for all his efforts. While he was feeling hopeless, the duke of Burgundy, the earl of Flanders, and the archbishop of Rheims stepped in to help. The news he received about the capture of Tours, which highlighted just how dire his situation had become, drained his spirit to the point where he accepted all the harsh terms laid out for him. He agreed that Richard would marry Princess Alice; that Richard would receive the loyalty pledge and oaths of fealty from all his subjects in England and his overseas territories; that he himself would pay twenty thousand marks to the king of France to cover the war expenses; that his own barons would commit to ensuring he upheld this treaty through force, and should he break it, they would promise to side with Philip and Richard against him; and that all his vassals who had allied with Richard would be granted immunity for their actions.

But the mortification which Henry, who had been accustomed to give the law in most treaties, received from these disadvantageous terms, was the least that he met with on this occasion. When he demanded a list of those barons to whom he was bound to grant a pardon for their connections with Richard, he was astonished to find, at the head of them, the name of his second son, John; who had always been his favorite, whose interests he had ever anxiously at heart, and who had even, on account of his ascendant over him, often excited the jealousy of Richard. The unhappy father, already overloaded with cares and sorrows, finding this last disappointment in his domestic tenderness, broke out into expressions of the utmost despair, cursed the day in which he received his miserable being, and bestowed on his ungrateful and undutiful children a malediction which he never could be prevailed on to retract. The more his heart was disposed to friendship and affection, the more he resented the barbarous return which his four sons had successively made to his parental care; and this finishing blow, by depriving him of every comfort in life, quite broke his spirit, and threw him into a lingering fever, of which he expired, at the castle of Chinon, near Saumur. His natural son, Geoffrey, who alone had behaved dutifully towards him, attended his corpse to the nunnery of Fontervrault; where it lay in state in the abbey church. Next day, Richard, who came to visit the dead body of his father, and who, notwithstanding his criminal conduct, was not wholly destitute of generosity, was struck with horror and remorse at the sight; and as the attendants observed that, at that very instant, blood gushed from the mouth and nostrils of the corpse, he exclaimed, agreeably to a vulgar superstition, that he was his father’s murderer; and he expressed a deep sense, though too late, of that undutiful behavior which had brought his parent to an untimely grave.

But the humiliation that Henry, who was used to calling the shots in most treaties, experienced from these unfavorable terms was the least of his troubles this time. When he asked for a list of the barons he had to pardon for their ties to Richard, he was shocked to see, at the top of the list, the name of his second son, John; who had always been his favorite, whose interests he had always cared about deeply, and who had even caused Richard jealousy due to his influence over Henry. The distraught father, already burdened with worries and pain, finding this latest betrayal from his own family, erupted with utter despair, cursed the day he was born, and laid a curse on his ungrateful and disloyal children that he would never take back. The more he felt inclined to love and support, the more he resented the cruel responses his four sons had given to his parental care; and this final blow, stripping him of all comfort in life, completely crushed his spirit and left him with a lingering fever, from which he died at the castle of Chinon, near Saumur. His natural son, Geoffrey, who alone had acted dutifully toward him, accompanied his body to the nunnery of Fontervrault, where it lay in state in the abbey church. The next day, Richard came to see his father's dead body, and despite his wrongdoings, he was not entirely devoid of generosity; he was struck with horror and remorse at the sight. When the attendants noticed that, at that very moment, blood flowed from the mouth and nostrils of the corpse, he exclaimed, following a popular superstition, that he was his father’s murderer; and he expressed a profound sense, though too late, of the disrespectful behavior that had led his parent to an early grave.

Thus died, in the fifty-eighth year of his age, and thirty-fifth of his reign, the greatest prince of his time for wisdom, virtue, and abilities, and the most powerful in the extent of dominion of all those that had ever filled the throne of England. His character in private, as well as in public life, is almost without a blemish; and he seems to have possessed every accomplishment, both of body and mind, which makes a man either estimable or amiable. He was of a middle stature, strong and well proportioned; his countenance was lively and engaging; his conversation affable and entertaining; his elocution easy, persuasive, and ever at command. He loved peace, but possessed both bravery and conduct in war; was provident without timidity; severe in the execution of justice without rigor; and temperate without austerity. He preserved health, and kept himself from corpulency, to which he was somewhat inclined, by an abstemious diet, and by frequent exercise, particularly hunting. When he could enjoy leisure, he recreated himself either in learned conversation or in reading; and he cultivated his natural talents by study above any prince of his time. His affections, as well as his enmities, were warm and durable; and his long experience of the ingratitude and infidelity of men never destroyed the natural sensibility of his temper, which disposed him to friendship and society. His character has been transmitted to us by several writers, who were his contemporaries; and it extremely resembles, in its most remarkable features, that of his maternal grandfather, Henry I.; excepting only, that ambition, which was a ruling passion in both, found not in the first Henry such unexceptionable means of exerting itself, and pushed that prince into measures which were both criminal in themselves, and were the cause of further crimes, from which his grandson’s conduct was happily exempted.

Thus died, at the age of fifty-eight and after thirty-five years of reign, the greatest prince of his time in wisdom, virtue, and abilities, and the most powerful in the extent of his dominion of all who ever occupied the throne of England. His character, both in private and public life, is nearly flawless; he seemed to possess every quality, both physical and mental, that makes a person admirable or likable. He was of average height, strong and well-proportioned; his face was lively and inviting; his conversation was friendly and engaging; his speaking style was easy, persuasive, and always under control. He loved peace but had both courage and skill in war; he was prudent without being fearful; strict in enforcing justice without being harsh; and moderate without being severe. He maintained his health and avoided becoming overweight, to which he was somewhat prone, through a simple diet and regular exercise, especially hunting. When he had spare time, he enjoyed engaging in learned discussions or reading; he developed his natural talents through study more than any prince of his time. His affections, as well as his grudges, were intense and lasting; and his long experience with the ingratitude and treachery of people never corrupted his innate sensitivity, which made him inclined to friendship and community. His character has been recorded by several writers who lived during his time, and it closely resembles, in its most notable aspects, that of his maternal grandfather, Henry I.; except that the ambition, which was a driving force for both, did not lead the first Henry to such commendable ways of expressing it, and drove that prince into actions that were both wrong in themselves and caused further wrongdoings, from which his grandson’s actions were thankfully free.

This prince, like most of his predecessors of the Norman line, except Stephen, passed more of his time on the continent than in this island: he was surrounded with the English gentry and nobility when abroad: the French gentry and nobility attended him when he resided in England: both nations acted in the government as if they were the same people; and, on many occasions, the legislatures seem not to have been distinguished. As the king and all the English barons were of French extraction, the manners of that people acquired the ascendant, and were regarded as the models of imitation. All foreign improvements, therefore, such as they were, in literature and politeness, in laws and arts, seem now to have been, in a good measure, transplanted into England and that kingdom was become little inferior, in all the fashionable accomplishments, to any of its neighbors on the continent. The more homely but more sensible manners and principles of the Saxons, were exchanged for the affectations of chivalry, and the subtilties of school philosophy: the feudal ideas of civil government, the Romish sentiments in religion, had taken entire possession of the people: by the former, the sense of submission towards princes was somewhat diminished in the barons; by the latter, the devoted attachment to papal authority was much augmented among the clergy. The Norman and other foreign families established in England, had now struck deep root; and being entirely incorporated with the people, whom at first they oppressed and despised, they no longer thought that they needed the protection of the crown for the enjoyment of their possessions, or considered their tenure as precarious. They aspired to the same liberty and independence which they saw enjoyed by their brethren on the continent, and desired to restrain those exorbitant prerogatives and arbitrary practices, which the necessities of war and the violence of conquest had at first obliged them to indulge in their monarch. That memory also of a more equal government under the Saxon princes, which remained with the English, diffused still further the spirit of liberty, and made the barons both desirous of more independence to themselves and willing to indulge it to the people. And it was not long ere this secret revolution in the sentiments of men produced, first violent convulsions in the state, then an evident alteration in the maxims of government.

This prince, like most of his Norman ancestors, except Stephen, spent more time on the continent than in this island. He was surrounded by English gentry and nobles while abroad, and the French gentry and nobility accompanied him when he was in England. Both nations acted in governance as if they were one people, and, on many occasions, the legislatures seemed indistinguishable. Since the king and all the English barons were of French descent, the customs of that people took precedence and were viewed as the standards to follow. As a result, any foreign advancements, whether in literature, manners, laws, or arts, were largely adopted into England, making that kingdom not far behind its neighbors on the continent in fashionable accomplishments. The more straightforward yet sensible customs and principles of the Saxons were replaced by the pretensions of chivalry and the complexities of school philosophy. The feudal concepts of civil government and Roman Catholic beliefs dominated the people: the former somewhat reduced the sense of submission among the barons towards princes, while the latter significantly increased the clergy's loyalty to papal authority. The Norman and other foreign families settled in England had firmly established themselves; being fully integrated with the people they initially oppressed and scorned, they no longer felt they needed the crown's protection for their possessions or regarded their holdings as insecure. They sought the same freedom and independence enjoyed by their counterparts on the continent and aimed to limit the excessive privileges and arbitrary actions that the demands of war and the violence of conquest had initially compelled them to allow their monarch. The memory of a more equal government under the Saxon princes, still present among the English, further spread the spirit of liberty and made the barons both desire more independence for themselves and willing to grant it to the people. It wasn't long before this subtle shift in people's attitudes led to violent upheavals in the state, followed by a noticeable change in governance principles.

The history of all the preceding kings of England since the conquest, gives evident proofs of the disorders attending the feudal institutions; the licentiousness of the barons, their spirit of rebellion against the prince and laws, and of animosity against each other: the conduct of the barons in the transmarine dominions of those monarchs, afforded perhaps still more flagrant instances of these convulsions; and the history of France, during several ages, consists almost entirely of narrations of this nature. The cities, during the continuance of this violent government, could neither be very numerous nor populous; and there occur instances which seem to evince that, though these are always the first seat of law and liberty, their police was in general loose and irregular, and exposed to the same disorders with those by which the country was generally infested. It was a custom in London for great numbers, to the amount of a hundred or more, the sons and relations of considerable citizens, to form themselves into a licentious confederacy, to break into rich houses and plunder them, to rob and murder the passengers, and to commit with impunity all sorts of disorder. By these crimes it had become so dangerous to walk the streets by night, that the citizens durst no more venture abroad after sunset, than if they had been exposed to the incursions of a public enemy. The brother of the earl of Ferrars had been murdered by some of those nocturnal rioters; and the death of so eminent a person, which was much more regarded than that of many thousands of an inferior station, so provoked the king, that he swore vengeance against the criminals, and became thenceforth more rigorous in the execution of the laws.

The history of all the previous kings of England since the conquest clearly shows the issues that came with feudal systems; the recklessness of the barons, their rebelliousness against the king and the laws, and their hostility towards each other. The actions of the barons in the overseas territories of those monarchs likely provided even more glaring examples of these tensions; the history of France over several centuries is almost entirely made up of similar stories. During this chaotic governance, cities couldn't be very numerous or populous; there are examples suggesting that, although cities are usually the first places to establish law and liberty, their systems were generally loose and chaotic, suffering from the same issues that plagued the countryside. In London, it was common for groups of a hundred or more, consisting of the sons and relatives of wealthy citizens, to band together in a reckless alliance to break into rich homes and rob them, attack and kill travelers, and engage in various disorders with no fear of punishment. Because of these crimes, it became so dangerous to walk the streets at night that citizens were too afraid to go out after sunset, as if they were facing an invasion by a public enemy. The brother of the Earl of Ferrars was murdered by some of these nighttime thugs; this high-profile death, which was taken more seriously than the deaths of many commoners, so angered the king that he vowed to punish the offenders and became stricter in enforcing the laws.

There is another instance given by historians, which proves to what a height such riots had proceeded, and how open these criminals were in committing their robberies. A band of them had attacked the house of a rich citizen, with an intention of plundering it; had broken through a stone wall with hammers and wedges; and had already entered the house sword in hand, when the citizen, armed cap-á-pie, and supported by his faithful servants, appeared in the passage to oppose them: he cut off the right hand of the first robber that entered, and made such stout resistance that his neighbors had leisure to assemble and come to his relief. The man who lost his hand was taken; and was tempted by the promise of pardon to reveal his confederates; among whom was one John Senex, esteemed among the richest and best-born citizens in London. He was convicted by the ordeal; and though he offered five hundred marks for his life, the king refused the money, and ordered him to be hanged. It appears, from a statute of Edward I., that these disorders were not remedied even in that reign. It was then made penal to go out at night after the hour of the curfew, to carry a weapon, or to walk without a light or lantern. It is said in the preamble to this law, that both by night and by day there were continual frays in the streets of London.

Historians provide another example that shows just how serious the riots had become and how brazen the criminals were while committing their robberies. A group of them attacked the house of a wealthy citizen with the intent to loot it; they broke through a stone wall using hammers and wedges and had already entered the house with swords drawn when the citizen, fully armed and backed by his loyal servants, appeared in the hallway to confront them. He severed the right hand of the first robber to enter and put up such a strong fight that it gave his neighbors enough time to gather and come to his aid. The man who lost his hand was captured and tempted by the promise of forgiveness to name his accomplices, one of whom was John Senex, regarded as one of the richest and most respected citizens in London. He was found guilty through an ordeal, and although he offered five hundred marks for his life, the king denied the money and ordered him to be hanged. A statute from Edward I shows that these issues were still not resolved during his reign. It became illegal to go out after curfew, to carry a weapon, or to walk without a light or lantern at night. The introduction to this law states that there were constant street fights in London both day and night.

Henry’s care in administering justice had gained him so great a reputation, that even foreign and distant princes made him arbiter, and submitted their differences to his judgment. Sanchez, king of Navarre, having some controversies with Alphonso, king of Castile, was contented, though Alphonso had married the daughter of Henry, to choose this prince for a referee; and they agreed each of them to consign three castles into neutral hands, as a pledge of their not departing from his award. Henry made the cause be examined before his great council, and gave a sentence, which was submitted to by both parties. These two Spanish kings sent each a stout champion to the court of England, in order to defend his cause by arms, in case the way of duel had been chosen by Henry.

Henry's careful approach to justice earned him such a strong reputation that even foreign and distant rulers sought his judgment and settled their disputes through him. Sanchez, the king of Navarre, had some disagreements with Alphonso, the king of Castile, and despite Alphonso being married to Henry's daughter, he chose Henry as the referee. They both agreed to hand over three castles to neutral parties as a guarantee that they wouldn't stray from Henry's decision. Henry had the case reviewed by his great council and issued a ruling that both parties accepted. These two Spanish kings each sent a brave champion to the English court to defend their case with combat, should Henry choose the duel as the method for resolution.

Henry so far abolished the barbarous and absurd practice of confiscating ships which had been wrecked on the coast, that he ordained if one man or animal were alive in the ship that the vessel and goods should be restored to the owners.

Henry has completely eliminated the cruel and ridiculous practice of seizing ships that had wrecked along the coast. He declared that if even one person or animal was alive on the ship, then the vessel and its goods should be returned to the owners.

The reign of Henry was remarkable also for an innovation which was afterwards carried further by his successors, and was attended with the most important consequences. This prince was disgusted with the species of military force which was established by the feudal institutions, and which, though it was extremely burdensome to the subject, yet rendered very little service to the sovereign. The barons, or military tenants, came late into the field; they were obliged to serve only forty days; they were unskilful and disorderly in all their operations; and they were apt to carry into the camp the same refractory and independent spirit to which they were accustomed in their civil government. Henry, therefore, introduced the practice of making a commutation of their military service for money; and he levied scutages from his baronies and knights’ fees, instead of requiring the personal attendance of his vassals. There is mention made, in the history of the exchequer, of these scutages in his second, fifth, and eighteenth year; and other writers give us an account of three more of them.[*] When the prince had thus obtained money, he made a contract with some of those adventurers in which Europe at that time abounded; they found him soldiers of the same character with themselves, who were bound to serve for a stipulated time: the armies were less numerous, but more useful, than when composed of all the military vassals of the crown: the feudal institutions began to relax: the kings became rapacious for money, on which all their power depended: the barons, seeing no end of exactions, sought to defend their property, and as the same causes had nearly the same effects in the different countries of Europe, the several crowns either lost or acquired authority, according to their different success in the contest.

The reign of Henry was notable for an innovation that his successors would later expand upon, leading to significant consequences. This king was frustrated with the type of military force created by the feudal system, which, while burdensome to the subjects, provided very little benefit to the ruler. The barons, or military tenants, were slow to respond in battles; they were only required to serve for forty days; they were inexperienced and disorganized in their tactics; and they often brought a rebellious and independent attitude to the battlefield, which mirrored their behavior in civil governance. As a result, Henry introduced the practice of exchanging military service for a financial payment. He collected scutages from his baronies and knights' fees instead of demanding the physical attendance of his vassals. The history of the exchequer notes these scutages in his second, fifth, and eighteenth years, with additional accounts from other writers on three more instances.[*] Once he had raised funds, he made contracts with various mercenaries who were plentiful in Europe at the time; they provided him with soldiers similar to themselves, who were committed to serve for a specified period. The armies were smaller but more effective than those formed entirely of the crown's military vassals. The feudal system began to weaken as kings grew increasingly greedy for money, which became essential to their power. The barons, faced with relentless demands, tried to protect their property; and as the same issues produced similar results across different European countries, the various crowns either lost or gained authority depending on their success in this struggle.

This prince was also the first that levied a tax on the movables or personal estates of his subjects, nobles as well as commons. Their zeal for the holy wars made them submit to this innovation; and a precedent being once obtained, this taxation became, in following reigns, the usual method of supplying the necessities of the crown. The tax of danegelt, so generally odious to the nation, was remitted in this reign.

This prince was also the first to impose a tax on the personal belongings or estates of his subjects, both nobles and commoners. Their enthusiasm for the holy wars led them to accept this change; and once this precedent was set, this taxation became the standard way of meeting the crown's needs in later reigns. The highly despised danegelt tax was lifted during this reign.

     [* Tyrrel, vol. ii. p. 466, from the records. It
     was a usual practice of the kings of England to repeat the
     ceremony of their coronation thrice every year, on
     assembling the states at the three great festivals. Henry,
     after the first years of his reign, never renewed this
     ceremony, which was found to be very expensive and very
     useless. None of his successors revived it. It is considered
     as a great act of grace in this prince, that he mitigated
     the rigor of the forest laws, and punished any
     transgressions of them, not capitally, but by fines,
     imprisonments, and other moderate penalties.]
     [* Tyrrel, vol. ii. p. 466, from the records. It was a common practice for the kings of England to repeat their coronation ceremony three times a year during the major festivals. After the early years of his reign, Henry never held this ceremony again, as it was deemed very costly and pointless. None of his successors brought it back. It is seen as a significant act of kindness by this king that he eased the harshness of the forest laws and punished violations not with death, but with fines, imprisonments, and other reasonable penalties.]

Since we are here collecting some detached incidents, which show the genius of the age, and which could not so well enter into the body of our history, it may not be improper to mention the quarrel between Roger, archbishop of York, and Richard, archbishop of Canterbury. We may judge of the violence of military men and laymen, when ecclesiastics could proceed to such extremities. Cardinal Haguezun, being sent, in 1176, as legate into Britain, summoned an assembly of the clergy at London; and, as both the archbishops pretended to sit on his right hand, this question of precedency begat a controversy between them. The monks and retainers of Archbishop Richard fell upon Roger, in the presence of the cardinal and of the synod, threw him to the ground, trampled him under foot, and so bruised him with blows, that he was taken up half dead, and his life was with difficulty saved from their violence. The archbishop of Canterbury was obliged to pay a large sum of money to the legate, in order to suppress all complaints with regard to this enormity.

Since we are here gathering some separate incidents that highlight the brilliance of the time and wouldn't fit well into the main story of our history, it might be worth mentioning the conflict between Roger, the archbishop of York, and Richard, the archbishop of Canterbury. We can see how fierce military and laypeople could be when even church leaders resorted to such extremes. In 1176, Cardinal Haguezun was sent to Britain as a legate and called a gathering of clergy in London. Both archbishops claimed the right to sit at his right hand, which sparked a dispute over precedence. The monks and followers of Archbishop Richard attacked Roger in front of the cardinal and the assembly, knocked him to the ground, trampled him, and beat him so badly that he was left half dead, barely surviving their aggression. The archbishop of Canterbury had to pay a large sum of money to the legate to silence all complaints regarding this outrageous incident.

We are told by Giraldus Cambrensis, that the monks and prior of St. Swithun threw themselves one day prostrate on the ground and in the mire before Henry, complaining, with many tears and much doleful lamentation, that the bishop of Winchester, who was also their abbot, had cut off three dishes from their table. “How many has he left you?” said the king. “Ten only,” replied the disconsolate monks. “I myself,” exclaimed the king, “never have more than three; and I enjoin your bishop to reduce you to the same number.”

We are told by Giraldus Cambrensis that the monks and the prior of St. Swithun threw themselves on the ground in the mud one day before Henry, crying and lamenting that the bishop of Winchester, who was also their abbot, had taken away three dishes from their table. “How many do you have left?” the king asked. “Only ten,” the sorrowful monks replied. “I myself,” the king exclaimed, “never have more than three, and I order your bishop to limit you to the same number.”

This king left only two legitimate sons, Richard, who succeeded him, and John, who inherited no territory, though his father had often intended to leave him a part of his extensive dominions. He was thence commonly denominated Lackland. Henry left three legitimate daughters; Maud, born in 1156, and married to Henry, duke of Saxony; Eleanor, born in 1162, and married to Alphonso, king of Castile: Joan, born in 1165, and married to William, king of Sicily.

This king had only two legitimate sons, Richard, who became king after him, and John, who didn’t inherit any land, even though his father had often planned to give him a portion of his vast territories. Because of this, he was commonly called Lackland. Henry had three legitimate daughters: Maud, born in 1156, who married Henry, duke of Saxony; Eleanor, born in 1162, who married Alphonso, king of Castile; and Joan, born in 1165, who married William, king of Sicily.

Henry is said by ancient historians to have been of a very amorous disposition; they mention two of his natural sons by Rosamond, daughter of Lord Clifford; namely, Richard Longespée, or Longsword, (so called from the sword he usually wore,) who was afterwards married to Ela, the daughter and heir of the earl of Salisbury; and Geoffrey, first bishop of Lincoln, then archbishop of York. All the other circumstances of the story commonly told of that lady seem to be fabulous.

Henry is said by ancient historians to have been very romantic; they mention two of his natural sons by Rosamond, daughter of Lord Clifford: Richard Longespée, or Longsword (named for the sword he usually wore), who later married Ela, the daughter and heir of the earl of Salisbury, and Geoffrey, who was the first bishop of Lincoln and then became the archbishop of York. All the other details of the story usually told about that lady seem to be fictional.





CHAPTER X.

123.jpg Richard I.




RICHARD I.

1189.

1189.

The compunction of Richard, for his undutiful behavior towards his father, was durable, and influenced him in the choice of his ministers and servants after his accession. Those who had seconded and favored his rebellion, instead of meeting with that trust and honor which they expected, were surprised to find that they lay under disgrace with the new king, and were on all occasions hated and despised by him. The faithful ministers of Henry, who had vigorously opposed all the enterprises of his sons, were received with open arms, and were continued in those offices which they had honorably discharged to their former master. This prudent conduct might be the result of reflection; but in a prince like Richard, so much guided by passion, and so little by policy, it was commonly ascribed to a principle still more virtuous and more honorable.

The guilt Richard felt for his disrespectful behavior towards his father was lasting and influenced his choice of advisors and staff after he became king. Those who had supported and encouraged his rebellion, instead of receiving the trust and respect they expected, were shocked to find themselves in disgrace with the new king, and were consistently hated and looked down upon by him. The loyal advisors of Henry, who had firmly opposed all of his sons' schemes, were welcomed with open arms and retained in the positions they had honorably held under their previous master. This careful approach could have been a result of thoughtful consideration; however, in a prince like Richard, who was driven more by emotion than strategy, it was often thought to stem from an even more virtuous and honorable principle.

Richard, that he might make atonement to one parent for his breach of duty to the other, immediately sent orders for releasing the queen dowager from the confinement in which she had long been detained; and he intrusted her with the government of England, till his arrival in that kingdom. His bounty to his brother John was rather profuse and imprudent. Besides bestowing on him the county of Mortaigne, in Normandy, granting him a pension of four thousand marks a year, and marrying him to Avisa, the daughter of the earl of Glocester, by whom he inherited all the possessions of that opulent family, he increased this appanage, which the late king had destined him, by other extensive grants and concessions. He conferred on him the whole estate of William Peverell, which had escheated to the crown: he put him in possession of eight castles, with all the forests and honors annexed to them: he delivered over to him no less than six earldoms, Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Nottingham, Dorset, Lancaster and Derby. And endeavoring, by favors, to fix that vicious prince in his duty, he put it too much in his power, whenever he pleased, to depart from it.

Richard, trying to make amends to one parent for his failure to the other, quickly ordered the release of the queen dowager from her long confinement and put her in charge of England until he arrived in the kingdom. His generosity towards his brother John was excessive and unwise. In addition to giving him the county of Mortaigne in Normandy, granting him a pension of four thousand marks a year, and marrying him to Avisa, the daughter of the Earl of Gloucester, through whom he inherited the wealth of that family, he expanded the territories that the late king had intended for him with further extensive grants. He gave him the entire estate of William Peverell, which had reverted to the crown, along with eight castles and all the forests and honors associated with them. He also transferred to him six earldoms: Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Nottingham, Dorset, Lancaster, and Derby. In trying to secure that reckless prince in his responsibilities through favors, he made it too easy for him to neglect them whenever he wanted.

The king, impelled more by the love of military glory than by superstition, acted, from the beginning of his reign, as if the sole purpose of his government had been the relief of the Holy Land, and the recovery of Jerusalem from the Saracens. This zeal against infidels, being communicated to his subjects, broke out in London on the day of his coronation, and made them find a crusade less dangerous and attended with more immediate profit. The prejudices of the age had made the lending of money on interest pass by the invidious name of usury: yet the necessity of the practice had still continued it, and the greater part of that kind of dealing fell every where into the hands of the Jews, who, being already infamous on account of their religion, had no honor to lose, and were apt to exercise a profession, odious in itself, by every kind of rigor, and even sometimes by rapine and extortion. The industry and frugality of this people had put them in possession of all the ready money which the idleness and profusion common to the English with other European nations, enabled them to lend at exorbitant and unequal interest. The monkish writers represent it as a great stain on the wise and equitable government of Henry, that he had carefully protected this infidel race from all injuries and insults; but the zeal of Richard afforded the populace a pretence for venting their animosity against them. The king had issued an edict, prohibiting their appearance at his coronation; but some of them, bringing him large presents from their nation, presumed, in confidence of that merit, to approach the hall in which he dined: being discovered, they were exposed to the insults of the bystanders; they took to flight; the people pursued them; the rumor was spread that the king had issued orders to massacre all the Jews; a command so agreeable was executed in an instant on such as fell into the hands of the populace; those who had kept at home were exposed to equal danger; the people, moved by rapacity and zeal, broke into their houses which they plundered, after having murdered the owners; where the Jews barricadoed their doors, and defended themselves with vigor, the rabble set fire to their houses and made way through the flames to exercise the pillage and violence; the usual licentiousness of London, which the sovereign power with difficulty restrained, broke out with fury, and continued these outrages; the houses of the richest citizens, though Christians, were next attacked and plundered; and weariness and satiety at last put an end to the disorder: yet when the king empowered Glanville, the justiciary, to inquire into the authors of these crimes, the guilt was found to involve so many of the most considerable citizens, that it was deemed more prudent to drop the prosecution; and very few suffered the punishment due to this enormity. But the disorder stopped not at London. The inhabitants of the other cities of England, hearing of this slaughter of the Jews, imitated the example: in York five hundred of that nation, who had retired into the castle for safety, and found themselves unable to defend the place, murdered their own wives and children, threw the dead bodies over the walls upon the populace, and then setting fire to the houses, perished in the flames. The gentry of the neighborhood, who were all indebted to the Jews, ran to the cathedral, where their bonds were kept, and made a solemn bonfire of the papers before the altar. The compiler of the Annals of Waverley, in relating these events, blesses the Almighty for thus delivering over this impious race to destruction.

The king, driven more by a desire for military glory than by superstition, acted from the start of his reign as if the main goal of his government was to help the Holy Land and reclaim Jerusalem from the Saracens. This fervor against non-believers spread to his subjects, sparking a movement in London on his coronation day that made them view a crusade as less risky and more immediately beneficial. The biases of the time labeled the act of lending money for interest as usury; however, the need for this practice persisted, and most transactions like this fell into the hands of the Jews, who were already infamous due to their religion and had nothing to lose. They often engaged in this disliked profession with harshness and sometimes even through robbery and extortion. The skill and thrift of this community had given them most of the cash that the laziness and wastefulness common among the English, as well as other Europeans, allowed them to lend at unfair and steep interest rates. Monastic writers criticized Henry’s just and fair governance for protecting this non-believer community from harm and insults, but Richard’s zeal gave the public an excuse to show their hostility towards them. The king had issued a decree banning their presence at his coronation; however, some Jews, bringing him significant gifts from their community, mistakenly thought their contributions allowed them to approach the hall where he dined. When they were discovered, they faced insults from onlookers; they fled, but the crowd chased them, and rumors spread that the king had ordered the massacre of all Jews. This enticing command was quickly acted upon by those who caught any Jews, while those who stayed home faced the same threat. Driven by greed and zeal, the crowd broke into their homes, robbing and murdering the owners. In places where Jews barricaded their doors and fought back fiercely, the mob set their houses on fire, forcing their way through the flames to continue their violence and looting. The typical lawlessness of London, which the ruling powers struggled to control, erupted with rage and continued these assaults. The homes of the wealthiest citizens, even those who were Christians, were then attacked and pillaged as well; eventually, fatigue and overindulgence put an end to the chaos. Yet when the king authorized Glanville, the justiciar, to investigate those responsible for these crimes, the evidence implicated so many prominent citizens that it seemed wiser to halt the prosecution, and very few faced any punishment for this atrocity. But the chaos didn’t stop at London. People in other cities across England, hearing about the massacre of Jews, followed suit: in York, five hundred Jews who had retreated into the castle for safety, realizing they couldn't defend it, killed their own wives and children, threw the bodies over the walls to the crowd below, and then set their homes on fire, perishing in the flames. The local gentry, all in debt to the Jews, rushed to the cathedral where their bonds were stored and made a grand bonfire of the documents before the altar. The writer of the Annals of Waverley, recounting these events, thanks the Almighty for delivering this ungodly race to ruin.

The ancient situation of England, when the people possessed little riches and the public no credit, made it impossible for sovereigns to bear the expense of a steady or durable war, even on their frontiers; much less could they find regular means for the support of distant expeditions like those into Palestine, which were more the result of popular frenzy than of sober reason or deliberate policy. Richard therefore knew that he must carry with him all the treasure necessary for his enterprise, and that both the remoteness of his own country and its poverty, made it unable to furnish him with those continued supplies, which the exigencies of so perilous a war must necessarily require. His father had left him a treasure of above a hundred thousand marks; and the king, negligent of every consideration but his present object, endeavored to augment his sum by all expedients, how pernicious soever ta the public, or dangerous to royal authority. He put to sale the revenues and manors of the crown; the offices of greatest trust and power, even those of forester and sheriff, which anciently were so important,[*] became venal; the dignity of chief justiciary, in whose hands was lodged the whole execution of the laws, was sold to Hugh de Puzas, bishop of Durham, for a thousand marks; the same prelate bought the earldom of Northumberland for life;[**] many of the champions of the cross, who had repented of their vow, purchased the liberty of violating it; and Richard, who stood less in need of men than of money, dispensed, on these conditions, with their attendance. Elated with the hopes of fame, which in that age attended no wars but those against the infidels, he was blind to every other consideration; and when some of his wiser ministers objected to this dissipation of the revenue and power of the crown, he replied, that he would sell London itself could he find a purchaser.[***] Nothing indeed could be a stronger proof how negligent he was of all future interests in comparison of the crusade, than his selling, for so small a sum as ten thousand marks, the vassalage of Scotland, together with the fortresses of Roxborough and Berwick, the greatest acquisition that had been made by his father during the course of his victorious reign; and his accepting the homage of William in the usual terms, merely for the territories which that prince held in England.[****] The English of all ranks and stations were oppressed by numerous exactions: menaces were employed both against the innocent and the guilty, in order to extort money from them; and where a pretence was wanting against the rich, the king obliged them, by the fear of his displeasure, to lend him sums which he knew it would never be in his power to repay.

The situation in England back then, when the people had little wealth and the government had no credit, made it impossible for kings to fund a long-lasting or steady war, even on their borders. Even less could they manage consistent resources for distant campaigns like those in Palestine, which were driven more by public excitement than careful planning or strategy. Richard understood that he needed to bring all the money he would need for his mission, and that both the distance from his country and its poverty meant he couldn't rely on ongoing support for such a risky war. His father had left him over a hundred thousand marks; and the king, ignoring everything except his immediate goal, tried to increase his funds by any means, no matter how harmful it was to the public or risky to royal authority. He sold off the revenues and lands of the crown; even the most important offices, such as forester and sheriff, which used to be highly regarded, became available for sale. The role of chief justiciary, responsible for enforcing the laws, was sold to Hugh de Puzas, the bishop of Durham, for a thousand marks; this bishop also bought the earldom of Northumberland for life. Many of the crusaders who had second thoughts about their vows bought their way out; and Richard, who needed money more than soldiers, accepted these terms and let them go. Driven by dreams of glory, which at that time were tied to wars against non-believers, he ignored all other concerns; and when some of his more prudent advisors warned him against squandering the royal income and power, he declared he would sell London itself if he could find a buyer. His willingness to sell the vassalage of Scotland, along with the fortresses of Roxborough and Berwick for just ten thousand marks— the biggest gain his father had achieved during his victorious reign—was a clear sign of how little he cared about the future in comparison to the crusade. He accepted the homage of William on the usual terms, only for the territories that prince controlled in England. The people of England, from all walks of life, were burdened by excessive demands: threats were used against both the innocent and the guilty to extract money from them; and where a valid reason was lacking to target the wealthy, the king compelled them, under the threat of his disapproval, to lend him amounts he knew he could never repay.

     [* The sheriff had anciently both the
     administration of justice and the management of the king’s
     revenue committed to him in the county. See Hale, of
     Sheriffs’ Accounts.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 109.]

     [*** W. Hemming, p. 519. Knyghton, p. 2402.]

     [**** Hoveden, p. 562. Rymer, vol. i. p. 64. M.
     West. p. 257.]
     [* The sheriff used to be responsible for both overseeing justice and managing the king’s revenue in the county. See Hale, of Sheriffs’ Accounts.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 109.]

     [*** W. Hemming, p. 519. Knyghton, p. 2402.]

     [**** Hoveden, p. 562. Rymer, vol. i. p. 64. M. West. p. 257.]

But Richard, though he sacrificed every interest and consideration to the success of this pious enterprise, carried so little the appearance of sanctity in his conduct, that Fulk curate of Neuilly, a zealous preacher of the crusade, who from that merit had acquired the privilege of speaking the boldest truths, advised him to rid himself of his notorious vices, particularly his pride, avarice, and voluptuousness, which he called the king’s three favorite daughters. “You counsel well,” replied Richard; “and I hereby dispose of the first to the Templars, of the second to the Benedictines, and of the third to my prelates.”

But Richard, even though he gave up everything for the success of this noble cause, didn't seem very holy in his actions. Fulk, the curate of Neuilly and a passionate preacher for the crusade, who had earned the right to speak the boldest truths because of his dedication, advised him to get rid of his well-known vices, especially his pride, greed, and indulgence, which he referred to as the king's three favorite daughters. “You're giving good advice,” Richard replied; “so, I'll hand over the first to the Templars, the second to the Benedictines, and the third to my bishops.”

Richard, jealous of attempts which might be made on England during his absence, laid Prince John, as well as his natural brother Geoffrey, archbishop of York, under engagements, confirmed by their oaths, that neither of them should enter the kingdom till his return; though he thought proper, before his departure, to withdraw this prohibition. The administration was left in the hands of Hugh, bishop of Durham, and of Longchamp, bishop of Ely, whom he appointed justiciaries and guardians of the realm. The latter was a Frenchman of mean birth, and of a violent character; who by art and address had insinuated himself into favor, whom Richard had created chancellor, and whom he had engaged the pope also to invest with the legantine authority, that, by centring every kind of power in his person, he might the better insure the public tranquillity. All the military and turbulent spirits flocked about the person of the king, and were impatient to distinguish themselves against the infidels in Asia; whither his inclinations, his engagements, led him, and whither he was impelled by messages from the king of France, ready to embark in this enterprise.

Richard, worried about potential threats to England while he was away, made Prince John and his brother Geoffrey, the Archbishop of York, promise with their oaths that they wouldn't enter the kingdom until he returned; however, he later decided to lift this restriction before he left. He entrusted the administration to Hugh, the Bishop of Durham, and Longchamp, the Bishop of Ely, whom he appointed as justiciaries and guardians of the realm. Longchamp was a Frenchman of humble origin with a volatile personality, who had cleverly gained favor and whom Richard made chancellor, getting the pope to also grant him legantine authority, in order to concentrate all power in his hands for better public stability. A lot of military and ambitious individuals gathered around the king and were eager to prove themselves against the infidels in Asia, which was where his desires and obligations were taking him, spurred on by messages from the king of France, who was ready to join this campaign.

The emperor Frederic, a prince of great spirit and conduct, had already taken the road to Palestine, at the head of one hundred and fifty thousand men, collected from Germany and all the northern states. Having surmounted every obstacle thrown in his way by the artifices of the Greeks and the power of the infidels, he had penetrated to the borders of Syria; when, bathing in the cold river Cydnus, during the greatest heat of the summer season, he was seized with a mortal distemper, which put an end to his life and his rash enterprise.[*]

The emperor Frederic, a prince of great spirit and character, had already started his journey to Palestine, leading one hundred and fifty thousand men gathered from Germany and the northern states. After overcoming every obstacle placed in his path by the Greeks' tricks and the power of the infidels, he had reached the borders of Syria. However, while bathing in the cold river Cydnus during the peak of summer's heat, he was struck by a fatal illness that ended both his life and his reckless mission.[*]

     [* Benedict. Abbas, p. 556.]
[* Benedict. Abbas, p. 556.]

His army, under the command of his son Conrade, reached Palestine; but was so diminished by fatigue famine, maladies, and the sword, that it scarcely amounted to eight thousand men, and was unable to make any progress against the great power, valor, and conduct of Saladin. These reiterated calamities attending the crusades, had taught the kings of France and England the necessity of trying another road to the Holy Land and they determined to conduct their armies thither by sea, to carry provisions along with them, and by means of their naval power to maintain an open communication with then own states, and with the western parts of Europe. The place of rendezvous was appointed in the plains of Vezelay, on the borders of Burgundy.[*]

His army, led by his son Conrade, arrived in Palestine; but it had been so weakened by exhaustion, starvation, illness, and combat that it hardly numbered eight thousand men, making it unable to advance against the strength, courage, and strategy of Saladin. These repeated disasters during the crusades had taught the kings of France and England the importance of finding a different way to reach the Holy Land. They decided to move their armies by sea, bringing supplies with them and using their naval power to maintain open communication with their own territories and with the western parts of Europe. The meeting point was set in the plains of Vezelay, on the borders of Burgundy.[*]

1190.

1190.

Philip and Richard, on their arrival there, found their combined army amount to one hundred thousand men;[**] a mighty force, animated with glory and religion, conducted by two warlike monarchs, provided with every thing which their several dominions couid supply, and not to be overcome but by their own misconduct, or by the unsurmountable obstacles of nature.

Philip and Richard, upon arriving, discovered that their combined army consisted of one hundred thousand men; a powerful force, driven by glory and faith, led by two fierce kings, equipped with everything their respective kingdoms could provide, and only able to be defeated by their own mistakes or by insurmountable natural obstacles.

     [* Hoveden, p. 660.]

     [** Vinisnuf, p. 305]
     [* Hoveden, p. 660.]

     [** Vinisnuf, p. 305]

The French prince and the English here reiterated their promises of cordial friendship, pledged their faith not to invade each other’s dominions during the crusade, mutually exchanged the oaths of all their barons and prelates to the same effect, and subjected themselves to the penalty of interdicts and excommunications, if they should ever violate this public and solemn engagement. They then separated; Philip took the road to Genoa, Richard that to Marseilles, with a view of meeting their fleets, which were severally appointed to rendezvous in these harbors. They put to sea; and nearly about the same time were obliged, by stress of weather, to take shelter in Messina, where they were detained during the whole winter. This incident laid the foundation of animosities which proved fatal to their enterprise.

The French prince and the English once again reaffirmed their commitment to friendly relations, promising not to invade each other’s territories during the crusade. They exchanged vows among all their barons and church leaders to uphold this commitment and agreed to face consequences like interdicts and excommunications if they ever broke this public and serious promise. They then parted ways; Philip headed to Genoa, while Richard made his way to Marseilles, aiming to meet their fleets that were set to gather in these ports. They set sail, but around the same time, bad weather forced them to seek refuge in Messina, where they stayed throughout the winter. This incident set the stage for hostilities that ultimately jeopardized their mission.

Richard and Philip were, by the situation and extent of their dominions, rivals in power; by their age and inclinations, competitors for glory; and these causes of emulation, which, had the princes been employed in the field against the common enemy, might have stimulated them to martial enterprises, soon excited, during the present leisure and repose, quarrels between monarchs of such a fiery character. Equally haughty, ambitious, intrepid, and inflexible, they were irritated with the least appearance of injury, and were incapable, by mutual condescensions, to efface those causes of complaint which unavoidably rose between them. Richard, candid, sincere, undesigning, impolitic, violent, laid himself open on every occasion to the designs of his antagonist; who, provident, interested, intriguing, failed not to take all advantages against him: and thus, both the circumstances of their disposition in which they were similar, and those in which they differed, rendered it impossible for them to persevere in that harmony which was so necessary to the success of their undertaking.

Richard and Philip were rivals in power due to the nature and extent of their territories; they were also competitors for glory because of their age and ambitions. These reasons for rivalry, which could have motivated them to work together against a common enemy in battle, instead led to fierce conflicts between two kings during their time of peace and rest. Both were equally proud, ambitious, fearless, and stubborn. They became angry at the slightest hint of offense and were unable to resolve their disagreements through compromise. Richard was straightforward, sincere, well-meaning, and impulsive, which made him vulnerable to the schemes of his opponent. Meanwhile, Philip, who was shrewd, self-interested, and crafty, didn’t miss any chance to take advantage of Richard. As a result, their similar traits and their differences made it impossible for them to maintain the harmony that was essential for their success.

The last king of Sicily and Naples was William II., who had married Joan, sister to Richard, and who, dying without issue, had bequeathed his dominions to his paternal aunt Constantia, the only legitimate descendant surviving of Roger the first sovereign of those states who had been honored with the royal title. This princess had, in expectation of that rich inheritance, been married to Henry VI., the reigning emperor;[*] but Tancred, her natural brother, had fixed such an interest among the barons, that, taking advantage of Henry’s absence, he had acquired possession of the throne, and maintained his claim, by force of arms, against all the efforts of the Germans.[**] The approach of the crusaders naturally gave him apprehensions for his unstable government; and he was uncertain whether he had most reason to dread the presence of the French or of the English monarch. Philip was engaged in a strict alliance with the emperor, his competitor: Richard was disgusted by his rigors towards the queen dowager, whom the Sicilian prince had confined in Palermo because she had opposed with all her interest his succession to the crown. Tancred, therefore, sensible of the present necessity, resolved to pay court to both these formidable princes; and he was not unsuccessful in his endeavors. He persuaded Philip that it was highly improper for him to interrupt his enterprise against the infidels by any attempt against a Christian state: he restored Queen Joan to her liberty; and even found means to make an alliance with Richard, who stipulated by treaty to marry his nephew Arthur; the young duke of Brittany, to one of the daughters of Tancred.[***]

The last king of Sicily and Naples was William II, who married Joan, sister of Richard. When he died without any children, he left his territories to his paternal aunt Constantia, the only legitimate descendant still alive of Roger, the first ruler of those states who held the royal title. This princess had, anticipating that wealthy inheritance, married Henry VI, the reigning emperor;[*] but Tancred, her natural brother, gained such support among the barons that, taking advantage of Henry’s absence, he seized the throne and defended his claim by force against all German attempts.[**] The arrival of the crusaders naturally worried him about the stability of his rule; he was uncertain whether he should fear more the French or the English king. Philip was in a strong alliance with the emperor, his rival; Richard was upset with Philip for his harsh treatment of the dowager queen, whom the Sicilian prince had imprisoned in Palermo because she opposed his claim to the crown. Thus, Tancred, aware of the need for immediate action, decided to seek the favor of both powerful monarchs; and he succeeded in his efforts. He convinced Philip that it was inappropriate to disrupt his campaign against the infidels with any attack on a Christian state: he released Queen Joan from captivity; and he even managed to arrange an alliance with Richard, who agreed by treaty to marry his nephew Arthur, the young duke of Brittany, to one of Tancred's daughters.[***]

     [* Benedict. Abbas, p. 580.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 663]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 676, 677. Benedict. Abbas, p.
     615.]
     [* Benedict. Abbas, p. 580.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 663]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 676, 677. Benedict. Abbas, p.
     615.]

But before these terms of friendship were settled. Richard, jealous both of Tancred and of the inhabitants of Messina, had taken up his quarters in the suburbs, and had possessed himself of a small fort, which commanded the harbor; and he kept himself extremely on his guard against their enterprises. The citizens took umbrage. Mutual insults and attacks passed between them and the English: Philip, who had quartered his troops in the town, endeavored to accommodate the quarrel, and held a conference with Richard for that purpose. While the two kings, meeting in the open fields, were engaged in discourse on this subject, a body of those Sicilians seemed to be drawing towards them; and Richard pushed forwards in order to inquire into the reason of this extraordinary movement.[*] The English, indolent from their power, and inflamed with former animosities, wanted but a pretence for attacking the Messinese: they soon chased them off the field, drove them into the town, and entered with them at the gates. The king employed his authority to restrain them from pillaging and massacring the defenceless inhabitants; but he gave orders, in token of his victory, that the standard of England should be erected on the walls. Philip, who considered that place as his quarters, exclaimed against the insult, and ordered some of his troops to pull down the standard: but Richard informed him by a messenger, that though he himself would willingly remove that ground of offence, he would not permit it to be done by others; and if the French king attempted such an insult upon him, he should not succeed but by the utmost effusion of blood. Philip, content with this species of haughty submission, recalled his orders:[**] the difference was seemingly accommodated, but still left the remains of rancor and jealousy in the breasts of the two monarchs.

But before these terms of friendship were settled, Richard, jealous of both Tancred and the people of Messina, had set up camp in the suburbs and taken control of a small fort that overlooked the harbor. He stayed highly alert against their actions. The citizens were offended, and mutual insults and attacks flew between them and the English. Philip, who had stationed his troops in the town, tried to mediate the conflict and held a meeting with Richard for that purpose. While the two kings were discussing this in the open fields, a group of Sicilians seemed to be approaching them, and Richard stepped forward to find out what was going on. The English, complacent from their power and fueled by past grievances, needed only an excuse to attack the Messinese. They quickly chased them off the field, drove them into the town, and followed them through the gates. The king used his authority to prevent them from looting and massacring the defenseless inhabitants, but he ordered that the English standard be raised on the walls as a sign of victory. Philip, who viewed that place as his own territory, protested the insult and ordered some of his troops to take down the standard. However, Richard sent a messenger to inform him that while he would willingly remove that cause for offense himself, he would not allow anyone else to do so. He warned that if the French king attempted such an insult, it would only be resolved through significant bloodshed. Philip, satisfied with this display of haughty submission, called off his orders. The disagreement seemed resolved, but it still left lingering resentment and jealousy between the two kings.

Tancred, who for his own security desired to inflame their mutual hatred, employed an artifice which might have been attended with consequences still more fatal.

Tancred, who wanted to ensure his own safety by stirring up their shared hatred, used a trick that could have led to even more disastrous outcomes.

1191.

1191.

He showed Richard a letter, signed by the French king, and delivered to him, as he pretended, by the duke of Burgundy; in which that monarch desired Tancred to fall upon the quarters of the English, and promised to assist him in putting them to the sword as common enemies. The unwary Richard gave credit to the information; but was too candid not to betray his discontent to Philip, who absolutely denied the letter, and charged the Sicilian prince with forgery and falsehood. Richard either was, or pretended to be, entirely satisfied.[***]

He showed Richard a letter, signed by the French king, and claimed it was delivered to him by the Duke of Burgundy. In the letter, the king asked Tancred to attack the English and promised to help him defeat them as common enemies. The unsuspecting Richard believed the information; however, he was too honest not to show his frustration to Philip, who completely denied the letter and accused the Sicilian prince of forgery and lying. Richard either was, or acted like he was, completely satisfied.

     [* Benedict. Abbas, p. 608.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 674.]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 688. Benedict. Abbas, p. 642,
     643. Brompton, p. 1125]
     [* Benedict. Abbas, p. 608.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 674.]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 688. Benedict. Abbas, p. 642,
     643. Brompton, p. 1125]

Last these jealousies and complaints should multiply between them, it was proposed that they should, by a solemn treaty, obviate all future differences, and adjust every point that couid possibly hereafter become a controversy between them. But this expedient started a new dispute, which might have proved more dangerous than any of the foregoing, and which deeply concerned the honor of Philip’s family. When Richard, in every treaty with the late king, insisted so strenuously on being allowed to marry Alice of France, he had only sought a pretence for quarrelling, and never meant to take to his bed a princess suspected of a criminal amour with his own father. After he became master, he no longer spake of that alliance: he even took measures for espousing Berengaria, daughter of Sanchez, king of Navarre, with whom he had become enamored during his abode in Guienne.[*] Queen Eleanor was daily expected with that princess at Messina;[**] and when Philip renewed to him his applications for espousing his sister Alice, Richard was obliged to give him an absolute refusal. It is pretended by Hoveden and other historians,[***] that he was able to produce such convincing proofs of Alice’s infidelity, and even of her having borne a child to Henry, that her brother desisted from his applications, and chose to wrap up the dishonor of his family in silence and oblivion. It is certain, from the treaty itself which remains,[****] that, whatever were his motives, he permitted Richard to give his hand to Berengaria; and having settled all other controversies with that prince, he immediately set sail for the Holy Land. Richard awaited some time the arrival of his mother and bride, and when they joined him, he separated his fleet into two squadrons, and set forward on his enterprise. Queen Eleanor returned to England; but Berengaria, and the queen dowager of Sicily, his sister, attended him on the expedition.[*****]

To prevent further jealousies and complaints between them, it was proposed that they create a formal treaty to resolve any future differences and settle every potential point of contention. However, this plan sparked a new dispute that could have been more dangerous than any previous ones and profoundly affected the honor of Philip’s family. When Richard, in all his agreements with the late king, passionately insisted on marrying Alice of France, he was actually looking for an excuse to start a conflict and never intended to marry a princess who might have been involved in a scandal with his own father. Once he gained control, he stopped mentioning that alliance; instead, he took steps to marry Berengaria, the daughter of Sanchez, the king of Navarre, whom he had fallen in love with during his time in Guienne.[*] Queen Eleanor was expected daily with that princess in Messina;[**] and when Philip pressed him again about marrying his sister Alice, Richard had to give him a firm refusal. Some historians, including Hoveden,[***] claim that Richard had compelling evidence of Alice’s infidelity and even of her having a child with Henry, which made her brother stop his requests and choose to bury the dishonor of his family in silence. It is clear from the existing treaty,[****] that whatever his reasons, Philip allowed Richard to marry Berengaria; and having resolved all other disputes with Richard, he set sail for the Holy Land. Richard waited for some time for the arrival of his mother and bride, and when they joined him, he split his fleet into two groups and set off on his mission. Queen Eleanor returned to England, but Berengaria and the dowager queen of Sicily, his sister, accompanied him on the expedition.[*****]

     [* Vinisauf, p. 316.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 112. Trivet, p. 102. W. Heming.
     p. 519.]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 688.]

     [**** Bymer, vol. i. p. 69. Chron. Dunst. p. 44.]

     [* Vinisauf, p. 316.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 112. Trivet, p. 102. W. Heming.
     p. 519.]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 688.]

     [**** Bymer, vol. i. p. 69. Chron. Dunst. p. 44.]

The English fleet, on leaving the port of Messina, met with a furious tempest; and the squadron on which the two princesses were embarked was driven on the coast of Cyprus, and some of the vessels were wrecked near Limisso, in that island. Isaac, prince of Cyprus, who assumed the magnificent title of emperor, pillaged the ships that were stranded, brew the seamen and passengers into prison, and even refused to the princesses liberty, in their dangerous situation, of entering the harbor of Limisso. But Richard, who arrived soon after, took ample vengeance on him for the injury. He disembarked his troops; defeated the tyrant, who opposed his landing; entered Limisso by storm; gained next day a second victory; obliged Isaac to surrender at discretion; and established governors over the island. The Greek prince, being thrown into prison and loaded with irons, complained of the little regard with which he was treated; upon which Richard ordered silver fetters to be made for him; and this emperor, pleased with the distinction, expressed a sense of the generosity of his conqueror.[*] The king here espoused Berengaria, who, immediately embarking, carried along with her to Palestine the daughter of the Cypriot prince; a dangerous rival, who was believed to have seduced the affections of her husband. Such were the libertine character and conduct of the heroes engaged in this pious enterprise!

The English fleet, upon leaving the port of Messina, encountered a fierce storm; and the squadron carrying the two princesses was forced onto the coast of Cyprus, where some of the ships were wrecked near Limisso on the island. Isaac, the prince of Cyprus, who took on the grand title of emperor, looted the stranded vessels, imprisoned the sailors and passengers, and even refused the princesses entry to the harbor of Limisso during their perilous situation. However, Richard arrived shortly after and took full revenge on him for the wrongs done. He disembarked his troops; defeated the tyrant who opposed his landing; stormed Limisso; achieved a second victory the next day; forced Isaac to surrender unconditionally; and installed governors to rule the island. The Greek prince, thrown into prison and shackled, complained about the poor treatment he received; in response, Richard ordered silver chains to be made for him, and this emperor, pleased by the distinction, acknowledged the generosity of his conqueror. The king then married Berengaria, who immediately set sail, bringing along the daughter of the Cypriot prince to Palestine; a serious rival, believed to have won the affection of her husband. Such were the libertine character and behavior of the heroes involved in this pious mission!

The English army arrived in time to partake in the glory of the siege of Acre or Ptolemais, which had been attacked for above two years by the united force of all the Christians in Palestine, and had been defended by the utmost efforts of Saladin and the Saracens. The remains of the German army, conducted by the emperor Frederic, and the separate bodies of adventurers who continually poured in from the west, had enabled the king of Jerusalem to form this important enterprise;[**] but Saladin having thrown a strong garrison into the place under the command of Caracos, his own master in the art of war, and molesting the besiegers with continual attacks and sallies, had protracted the success of the enterprise, and wasted the force of his enemies.

The English army arrived just in time to share in the glory of the siege of Acre, also known as Ptolemais, which had been under attack for over two years by the combined forces of all the Christians in Palestine. They were being defended with all their might by Saladin and the Saracens. The remnants of the German army, led by Emperor Frederick, along with various groups of adventurers who kept arriving from the west, had allowed the king of Jerusalem to launch this significant effort; however, Saladin had stationed a strong garrison in the city under the command of Caracos, a master strategist. Additionally, he harassed the besiegers with constant attacks and sorties, which prolonged the siege and drained the strength of his enemies.

     [* Benedict. Abbas, p. 650 Ann. Waverl. p. 164.
     Vinisauf, p 328 W. Heming. p. 523.]

     [** Vinisauf. p 269, 271, 279]
     [* Benedict. Abbas, p. 650 Ann. Waverl. p. 164.
     Vinisauf, p 328 W. Heming. p. 523.]

     [** Vinisauf. p 269, 271, 279]

The arrival of Philip and Richard inspired new life into the Christians; and these princes acting by concert, and sharing the honor and danger of every action, gave hopes of a final victory over the infidels. They agreed on this plan of operations: when the French monarch attacked the town, the English guarded the trenches: next day, when the English prince conducted the assault, the French succeeded him in providing for the safety of the assailants. The emulation between those rival kings and rival nations produced extraordinary acts of valor: Richard, in particular animated with a more precipitate courage than Philip, and more agreeable to the romantic spirit of that age, drew to himself the general attention, and acquired a great and splendid reputation. But this harmony was of short duration, and occasions of discord soon arose between these jealous and haughty princes.

The arrival of Philip and Richard brought new energy to the Christians; and these princes worked together, sharing both the glory and risks of every action, fueling hopes for a final victory over the infidels. They agreed on this plan: when the French king attacked the town, the English secured the trenches; the next day, when the English prince led the assault, the French took over to ensure the safety of the attackers. The rivalry between these kings and their nations led to incredible acts of bravery: Richard, particularly driven by a reckless courage that appealed to the romantic spirit of the time, drew everyone's attention and gained a strong and impressive reputation. However, this unity was short-lived, and soon conflicts arose between these proud and jealous princes.

The family of Bouillon, which had first been placed on the throne of Jerusalem, ending in a female, Fulk, count of Anjou, grandfather to Henry II. of England, married the heiress of that kingdom, and transmitted his title to the younger branches of his family. The Anjevan race ending also in a female, Guy de Lusignan, by espousing Sibylla, the heiress, had succeeded to the title; and though he lost his kingdom by the invasion of Saladin, he was still acknowledged by all the Christians for king of Jerusalem.[*] But as Sibylla died without issue during the siege of Acre, Isabella, her younger sister, put in her claim to that titular kingdom, and required Lusignan to resign his pretensions to her husband, Conrade, marquis of Montferrat. Lusignan, maintaining that the royal title was unalienable and indefeasible, had recourse to the protection of Richard, attended on him before he left Cyprus, and engaged him to embrace his cause.[**] There needed no other reason for throwing Philip into the party of Conrade; and the opposite views of these great monarchs brought faction and dissension into the Christian army, and retarded all its operations. The templars, the Genoese, and the Germans, declared for Philip and Conrade; the Flemings, the Pisans, the knights of the hospital of St. John, adhered to Richard and Lusignan, But notwithstanding these disputes, as the length of the siege had reduced the Saracen garrison to the last extremity, they surrendered themselves prisoners; stipulated, in return for their lives, other advantages to the Christians, such as restoring of the Christian prisoners, and the delivery of the wood of the true cross;[***] and this great enterprise, which had long engaged the attention of all Europe and Asia, was at last, after the loss of three hundred thousand men, brought to a happy period.

The Bouillon family, who were the first to take the throne of Jerusalem, ended with a female heir. Fulk, the Count of Anjou and grandfather of Henry II of England, married the kingdom's heiress and passed his title down to the younger branches of his family. The Angevins also ended with a female heir, and Guy de Lusignan, by marrying Sibylla, the heiress, took over the title. Even though he lost his kingdom to Saladin's invasion, the Christians still recognized him as the king of Jerusalem.[*] When Sibylla died without children during the siege of Acre, her younger sister Isabella claimed that titular kingdom and demanded that Lusignan give up his claims for her husband, Conrade, the Marquis of Montferrat. Lusignan argued that the royal title could not be taken away and sought protection from Richard, who was with him before leaving Cyprus, promising to support his cause.[**] This conflict prompted Philip to align himself with Conrade, leading to divisions between these two powerful monarchs that caused discord and slowed down the Christian army's efforts. The Templars, the Genoese, and the Germans backed Philip and Conrade, while the Flemish, Pisans, and the Knights of St. John sided with Richard and Lusignan. However, despite these disputes, the prolonged siege had weakened the Saracen garrison to the brink of collapse, and they surrendered as prisoners. In exchange for their lives, they negotiated terms for other benefits to the Christians, such as the release of Christian prisoners and the return of the wood of the true cross;[***] and this significant endeavor, which had captured the focus of all Europe and Asia, finally concluded successfully after the loss of three hundred thousand men.

     [* Vinisauf, p. 281.]

     [** Trivet, p. 104. Vinisauf, p. 342. W. Heming.
     p. 524.]

     [*** This true cross was lost in the battle of
     Tiberiade, to which it had been carried by the crusaders for
     their protection. Rigord, an author of that age, says, that
     after this dismal event, all the children who were born
     throughout all Christendom, had only twenty or twenty-two
     teeth, instead of thirty or thirty-two, which was their
     former complement (p. 14.)]
     [* Vinisauf, p. 281.]

     [** Trivet, p. 104. Vinisauf, p. 342. W. Heming.
     p. 524.]

     [*** This true cross was lost in the battle of
     Tiberiade, where it had been taken by the crusaders for
     their protection. Rigord, a writer from that time, states that
     after this tragic event, all the children born across
     Christendom had only twenty or twenty-two teeth, instead of the
     usual thirty or thirty-two (p. 14.)]

But Philip, instead of pursuing the hopes of further conquest, and of redeeming the holy city from slavery, being disgusted with the ascendant assumed and acquired by Richard, and having views of many advantages which he might reap by his presence in Europe, declared his resolution of returning to France; and he pleaded his bad state of health as an excuse for his desertion of the common cause. He left however, to Richard ten thousand of his troops, under the command of the duke of Burgundy; and he renewed his oath never to commence hostilities against that prince’s dominions during his absence. But he had no sooner reached Italy than he applied, it is pretended, to Pope Celestine III. for a dispensation from this vow; and when denied that request, he still proceeded, though after a covert manner, in a project which the present situation of England rendered inviting, and which gratified, in an eminent degree, both his resentment and his ambition.

But Philip, instead of chasing further victories and freeing the holy city from captivity, feeling frustrated by Richard's rising power, and seeing numerous opportunities he could benefit from in Europe, decided to return to France. He used his poor health as an excuse for abandoning the common cause. Nonetheless, he left Richard with ten thousand of his troops, commanded by the Duke of Burgundy; and he renewed his vow never to attack that prince’s lands during his absence. However, as soon as he reached Italy, he allegedly asked Pope Celestine III for a waiver of this vow; and when that request was denied, he still moved forward, albeit covertly, with a plan that the current situation in England made tempting and that significantly satisfied both his anger and ambition.

Immediately after Richard had left England, and begun his march to the Holy Land, the two prelates whom he had appointed guardians of the realm, broke out into animosities against each other, and threw the kingdom into combustion. Longchamp, presumptuous in his nature, elated by the favor which he enjoyed with his master, and armed with the legantine commission, could not submit to an equality with the bishop of Durham: he even went so far as to arrest his colleague, and to extort from him a resignation of the earldom of Northumberland, and of his other dignities, as the price of his liberty.[*] The king, informed of these dissensions, ordered, by letters from Marseilles, that the bishop should be reinstated in his offices; but Longchamp had still the boldness to refuse compliance, on pretence that he himself was better acquainted with the king’s secret intentions.[**] He proceeded to govern the kingdom by his sole authority; to treat all the nobility with arrogance; and to display his power and riches with an invidious ostentation. He never travelled without a strong guard of fifteen hundred foreign soldiers, collected from that licentious tribe, with which the age was generally infested: nobles and knights were proud of being admitted into his train his retinue wore the aspect of royal magnificence; and when in his progress through the kingdom, he lodged in any monastery, his attendants, it is said, were sufficient to devour in one night the revenue of several years.[***]

Immediately after Richard left England and began his march to the Holy Land, the two leaders he had appointed to oversee the kingdom started to clash with each other, throwing the realm into chaos. Longchamp, who was arrogant by nature and buoyed by his master's favor, along with his legantine authority, couldn't accept being seen as equal to the bishop of Durham. He even went so far as to arrest his colleague and forced him to resign the earldom of Northumberland and his other titles as the price for his freedom. The king, hearing about these conflicts, sent letters from Marseilles ordering that the bishop be restored to his positions; however, Longchamp had the audacity to refuse, claiming he understood the king's true intentions better. He continued to rule the kingdom on his own authority, treating the nobility with arrogance and showcasing his wealth with an annoying display. He never traveled without a strong guard of fifteen hundred foreign soldiers from that unruly group which was common in those times. Nobles and knights were proud to be part of his entourage, which had the appearance of royal grandeur; and when he stayed in any monastery during his travels, it is said that his followers could consume the revenue of several years in just one night.

     [* Hoveden, p. 665. Knyghton, p. 2403.]

     [** W. Heming. p 528,]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 680. Benedict. Abbas, p. 626,
     700. Brompton, p. 1193.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 665. Knyghton, p. 2403.]

     [** W. Heming. p 528,]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 680. Benedict. Abbas, p. 626,
     700. Brompton, p. 1193.]

The king, who was detained in Europe longer than the haughty prelate expected, hearing of this ostentation, which exceeded even what the habits of that age indulged in ecclesiastics; being also informed of the insolent, tyrannical conduct of his minister, thought proper to restrain his power: he sent new orders, appointing Walter, archbishop of Rouen, William Mareshal, earl of Strigul, Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, William Brie were, and Hugh Bardolf, counsellors to Longchamp, and commanding him to take no measure of importance without their concurrence and approbation. But such general terror had this man impressed by his violent conduct, that even the archbishop of Rouen and the earl of Strigul durst not produce this mandate of the king’s: and Longchamp still maintained an uncontrolled authority over the nation. But when he proceeded so far as to throw into prison Geoffrey, archbishop of York, who had opposed his measures, this breach of ecclesiastical privileges excited such a universal ferment, that Prince John, disgusted with the small share he possessed in the government, and personally disobliged by Longchamp, ventured to summon at Reading a general council of the nobility and prelates, and cite him to appear before them. Longchamp thought it dangerous to intrust his person in their hands, and he shut himself, up in the tower of London; but being soon obliged to surrender that fortress, he fled beyond sea, concealed under a female habit, and was deprived of his offices of chancellor and chief justiciary, the last of which was conferred on the archbishop of Rouen, a prelate of prudence and moderation. The commission of legate, however, which had been renewed to Longchamp by Pope Celestine, still gave him, notwithstanding his absence, great authority in the kingdom, enabled him to disturb the government, and forwarded the views of Philip, who watched every opportunity of annoying Richard’s dominions.

The king, who was held up in Europe longer than the arrogant bishop expected, heard about this showiness that went beyond what was typical for church officials at the time. He was also informed about the rude and tyrannical behavior of his minister, so he decided to limit his power. He sent new orders appointing Walter, the archbishop of Rouen, William Mareshal, the earl of Strigul, Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, William Brie, and Hugh Bardolf as advisors to Longchamp, directing him to take no significant actions without their agreement and approval. However, Longchamp had instilled such general fear through his forceful actions that even the archbishop of Rouen and the earl of Strigul were too scared to present the king’s mandate, allowing Longchamp to maintain unchecked authority over the country. But when he went so far as to imprison Geoffrey, the archbishop of York, who had opposed him, this violation of church privileges caused such widespread outrage that Prince John, frustrated with his limited role in the government and personally offended by Longchamp, dared to summon a general council of nobles and bishops at Reading and called for him to appear. Longchamp found it too risky to put himself in their hands and locked himself away in the Tower of London; however, when he was soon forced to surrender the fortress, he escaped overseas disguised in women's clothing, and was stripped of his positions as chancellor and chief justiciar, the latter of which was given to the archbishop of Rouen, a prudent and moderate leader. Nevertheless, the legate commission that had been renewed for Longchamp by Pope Celestine still granted him significant authority in the kingdom despite his absence, allowing him to disrupt the government and support Philip, who was looking for every chance to trouble Richard’s territories.

1192.

1192.

That monarch first attempted to carry open war into Normandy: but as the French nobility refused to follow him in an invasion of a state which they had sworn to protect, and as the pope, who was the general guardian of all princes that had taken the cross, threatened him with ecclesiastical censures, he desisted from his enterprise, and employed against England the expedient of secret policy and intrigue. He debauched Prince John from his allegiance; promised him his sister Alice in marriage; offered to give him possession of all Richard’s transmarine dominions; and had not the authority of Queen Eleanor, and the menaces of the English council, prevailed over the inclinations of that turbulent prince, he was ready to have crossed the seas, and to have put in execution his criminal enterprises.

That king first tried to launch a full-scale war in Normandy, but the French nobles wouldn’t support invading a territory they had sworn to protect. The pope, who was responsible for safeguarding all princes who had taken the cross, warned him of church penalties. So, he backed off from that plan and turned to secret policies and schemes against England. He corrupted Prince John’s loyalty, promised him his sister Alice in marriage, and offered him control of all of Richard's overseas lands. If it weren't for Queen Eleanor’s authority and the threats from the English council that swayed that rebellious prince, he would have been ready to cross the seas and carry out his nefarious plans.

The jealousy of Philip was every moment excited by the glory which the great actions of Richard were gaining him in the east, and which, being compared to his own desertion of that popular cause, threw a double lustre on his rival. His envy, therefore, prompted him to obscure that fame which he had not equalled; and he embraced every pretence of throwing the most violent and most improbable calumnies on the king of England. There was a petty prince in Asia, commonly called the Old Man of the Mountain, who had acquired such an ascendant over his fanatical subjects, that they paid the most implicit deference to his commands; esteemed assassination meritorious when sanctified by his mandate; courted danger, and even certain death, in the execution of his orders; and fancied, that when they sacrificed their lives for his sake, the highest joys of paradise were the infallible reward of their devoted obedience.[*] It was the custom of this prince, when he imagined himself injured, to despatch secretly some of his subjects against the aggressor, to charge them with the execution of his revenge, to instruct them in every art of disguising their purpose; and no precaution was sufficient to guard any man, however powerful, against the attempts of these subtle and determined ruffians. The greatest monarchs stood in awe of this prince of the assassins, (for that was the name of his people. whence the word has passed into most European languages,) and it was the highest indiscretion in Conrade, marquis of Montferrat, to offend and affront him. The inhabitants of Tyre, who were governed by that nobleman, had put to death some of this dangerous people: the prince demanded satisfaction; for as he piqued himself on never beginning any offence,[**] he had his regular and established formalities in requiring atonement: Conrade treated his messengers with disdain: the prince issued the fatal orders: two of his subjects, who had insinuated themselves in disguise among Conrade’s guards, openly, in the streets of Sidon, wounded him mortally; and when they were seized and put to the most cruel tortures, they triumphed amidst their agonies, and rejoiced that they had been destined by Heaven to suffer in so just and meritorious a cause.

Philip's jealousy was constantly fueled by the fame Richard was gaining for his great deeds in the east, which, when compared to his own abandonment of that popular cause, only highlighted Richard's superiority. Consequently, his envy drove him to undermine that fame which he could not match, leading him to seize every opportunity to throw the most violent and absurd accusations at the king of England. There was a minor ruler in Asia, known as the Old Man of the Mountain, who had gained such control over his fanatical followers that they showed absolute obedience to his commands; they saw assassination as honorable when endorsed by him, willingly confronted danger and even certain death to carry out his orders, believing that sacrificing their lives for him would lead to the greatest joys of paradise as a guaranteed reward for their loyalty.[*] This prince had a custom that, whenever he felt wronged, he would secretly send some of his subjects to confront the aggressor, tasking them with carrying out his revenge while training them in every tactic to disguise their intentions; no precaution could adequately protect any man, no matter how powerful, from the attempts of these clever and determined killers. The mightiest monarchs feared this prince of assassins (a name that has since influenced several European languages), and it was a major mistake for Conrade, the marquis of Montferrat, to offend and insult him. The people of Tyre, under Conrade's rule, had executed some of these dangerous individuals: the prince demanded reparation; he prided himself on never being the one to initiate any offense,[**] and he had his established procedures for demanding atonement. Conrade treated his messengers with contempt: the prince issued fatal orders; two of his agents, who had disguised themselves among Conrade’s guards, openly mortally wounded him in the streets of Sidon; and when they were captured and subjected to brutal torture, they reveled in their pain, celebrating that they had been chosen by Heaven to suffer for such a just and honorable cause.

     [* W. Heming. p. 532. Brompton, p. 1243.]

     [** Rymer vol. i. p. 71.]
     [* W. Heming. p. 532. Brompton, p. 1243.]

     [** Rymer vol. i. p. 71.]

Every one in Palestine knew from what hand the blow came. Richard was entirely free from suspicion. Though that monarch had formerly maintained the cause of Lusignan against Conrade, he had become sensible of the bad effects attending those dissensions, and had voluntarily conferred on the former the kingdom of Cyprus, on condition that he should resign to his rival all pretensions on the crown of Jerusalem,[*] Conrade himself, with his dying breath, had recommended his widow to the protection of Richard;[**] the prince of the assassins avowed the action in a formal narrative which he sent to Europe; yet, on this foundation, the king of France thought fit to build the most egregious calumnies, and to impute to Richard the murder of the marquis of Montferrat, whose elevation he had once openly opposed. He filled all Europe with exclamations against the crime; appointed a guard for his own person, in order to defend himself against a like attempt; and endeavored, by these shallow artifices, to cover the infamy of attacking the dominions of a prince whom he himself had deserted, and who was engaged with so much glory in a war universally acknowledged to be the common cause of Christendom.

Everyone in Palestine knew who was responsible for the attack. Richard was completely cleared of suspicion. Even though that king had once supported Lusignan against Conrade, he realized the negative consequences of their conflicts and willingly granted Lusignan the kingdom of Cyprus, on the condition that he give up any claims to the crown of Jerusalem. Conrade, with his last breath, had asked Richard to protect his widow; the leader of the assassins openly admitted to the act in a formal letter sent to Europe. Yet, based on this, the king of France decided to spread the most outrageous lies and blame Richard for the murder of the marquis of Montferrat, whose rise to power he had previously opposed. He filled Europe with cries against this crime, arranged for personal guards to protect himself from a similar fate, and tried, through these superficial tactics, to hide the shame of attacking the lands of a ruler he had betrayed, who was involved in a war that was widely recognized as the collective cause of Christendom.

     [* Vinisauf, p. 391.]

     [** Brompton, p. 1248.]
     [* Vinisauf, p. 391.]

     [** Brompton, p. 1248.]

But Richard’s heroic actions in Palestine were the best apology for his conduct. The Christian adventurers under his command determined, on opening the campaign, to attempt the siege of Ascalon, in order to prepare the way for that of Jerusalem; and they marched along the sea-coast with that intention. Saladin purposed to intercept their passage: and he placed himself on the road with an army, amounting to three hundred thousand combatants. On this occasion was fought one of the greatest battles of that age; and the most celebrated, for the military genius of the commanders, for the number and valor of the troops, and for the great variety of events which attended it. Both the right wing of the Christians, commanded by D’Avesnes, and the left conducted by the duke of Burgundy, were, in the beginning of the day, broken and defeated; when Richard, who led on the main body, restored the battle; attacked the enemy with intrepidity and presence of mind; performed the part both of a consummate general and gallant soldier; and not only gave his two wings leisure to recover from their confusion, but obtained a complete victory over the Saracens, of whom forty thousand are said to have perished in the field.[*] Ascalon soon after fell into the hands of the Christians: other sieges were carried on with equal success; Richard was even able to advance within sight of Jerusalem, the object of his enterprise; when he had the mortification to find that he must abandon all hopes of immediate success, and must put a stop to his career of victory. The crusaders, animated with an enthusiastic ardor for the holy wars, broke at first through all regards to safety or interest in the prosecution of their purpose; and trusting to the immediate assistance of Heaven, set nothing before their eyes but fame and victory in this world, and a crown of glory in the next. But long absence from home, fatigue, disease, want, and the variety of incidents which naturally attend war, had gradually abated that fury, which nothing was able directly to withstand; and every one except the king of England, expressed a desire of speedily returning into Europe. The Germans and the Italians declared their resolution of desisting from the enterprise: the French were still more obstinate in this purpose: the duke of Burgundy, in order to pay court to Philip, took all opportunities of mortifying and opposing Richard:[**] and there appeared an absolute necessity of abandoning for the present all hopes of further conquest, and of securing the acquisitions of the Christians by an accommodation with Saladin, Richard, therefore concluded a truce with that monarch; and stipulated that Acre, Joppa, and other seaport towns of Palestine, should remain in the hands of the Christians, and that every one of that religion should have liberty to perform his pilgrimage to Jerusalem unmolested. This truce was concluded for three years, three months, three weeks, three days, and three hours; a magical number, which had probably been devised by the Europeans, and which was suggested by a superstition well suited to the object of the war.

But Richard’s heroic actions in Palestine were the best way to make up for his behavior. The Christian adventurers under his command decided, at the start of their campaign, to try to besiege Ascalon to pave the way for taking Jerusalem. They marched along the coast with that goal in mind. Saladin intended to block their path and positioned himself on the road with an army of three hundred thousand soldiers. This led to one of the largest battles of that time, notable for the military skill of the commanders, the number and bravery of the troops, and the many events that unfolded. Both the right wing of the Christians, led by D’Avesnes, and the left, headed by the Duke of Burgundy, were initially broken and defeated. However, Richard, who commanded the main body, turned the tide of the battle. He attacked the enemy with bravery and clear-headedness, acting as both an expert general and a courageous soldier. Not only did he give his two wings time to regroup, but he also achieved a decisive victory over the Saracens, with around forty thousand said to have fallen on the battlefield.[*] Ascalon soon fell to the Christians, and other sieges were carried out successfully. Richard even managed to advance within sight of Jerusalem, the target of his campaign, only to be disappointed to discover he had to give up on immediate success and halt his streak of victories. The crusaders, driven by a passionate desire for the holy wars, initially ignored all concerns for safety or personal interest in pursuit of their goal; trusting in divine assistance, they focused solely on fame and victory in this life, and a crown of glory in the next. But after a long absence from home, dealing with exhaustion, illness, scarcity, and the unpredictable nature of war, that fervor which had been unstoppable began to wane; and everyone except the King of England expressed a wish to return to Europe soon. The Germans and Italians announced their decision to stop the campaign; the French were even more resolved in this intent. The Duke of Burgundy, to curry favor with Philip, seized every opportunity to insult and oppose Richard:[**] thus, it became clear that there was an urgent need to give up all hopes of further conquest for the time being and to secure the Christians' gains through a peace agreement with Saladin. Richard, therefore, established a truce with that ruler, agreeing that Acre, Joppa, and other coastal towns of Palestine would remain in Christian hands, and that all Christians would have the freedom to make their pilgrimage to Jerusalem without harassment. This truce was set for three years, three months, three weeks, three days, and three hours; a magical number likely crafted by the Europeans, inspired by a superstition that fit well with the purpose of the war.

     [* Hovelen, p. 698. Benedict. Abbas, p. 677.
     Diceto, p. 662 Brompton, p. 1214.]

     [** Vinisauf, p. 380.]
     [* Hovelen, p. 698. Benedict. Abbas, p. 677.  
     Diceto, p. 662 Brompton, p. 1214.]

     [** Vinisauf, p. 380.]

The liberty in which Saladin indulged the Christians, to perform their pilgrimages to Jerusalem, was an easy sacrifice on his part; and the furious wars which he waged in defence of the barren territory of Judea, were not with him, as with the European adventurers, the result of superstition, but of policy, The advantage indeed of science, moderation, humanity, was at that time entirely on the side of the Saracens; and this gallant emperor, in particular, displayed, during the course of the war, a spirit and generosity, which even his bigoted enemies were obliged to acknowledge and admire. Richard, equally martial and brave, carried with him more of the barbarian character, and was guilty of acts of ferocity which threw a stain on his celebrated victories. When Saladin refused to ratify the capitulation of Acre, the king of England ordered all his prisoners, to the number of five thousand, to be butchered; and the Saracens found themselves obliged to retaliate upon the Christians by a like cruelty.[*]

The freedom Saladin granted to Christians to make their pilgrimages to Jerusalem was an easy concession for him; and the fierce wars he fought to defend the desolate land of Judea were driven, unlike the European invaders, by strategy rather than superstition. At that time, the benefits of knowledge, restraint, and compassion were clearly on the side of the Saracens. This brave leader, in particular, displayed during the conflict a spirit and generosity that even his intolerant enemies had to recognize and respect. Richard, equally militaristic and courageous, carried more of a savage nature and committed brutal acts that tarnished his famous victories. When Saladin declined to agree to the surrender terms of Acre, the king of England ordered the execution of all his prisoners, totaling five thousand; and the Saracens felt compelled to respond with similar cruelty against the Christians.[*]

     [* Hoveden, p. 697. Benedict Abbas, p. 673. M.
     Paris, p. 115. Vinisauf, p. 846. W. Heming. p. 531.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 697. Benedict Abbas, p. 673. M. Paris, p. 115. Vinisauf, p. 846. W. Heming, p. 531.]

Saladin died at Damascus soon after concluding this truce with the princes of the crusade; it is memorable that, before he expired, he ordered his winding-sheet to be carried as a standard through every street of the city; while a crier went before, and proclaimed with a loud voice, “This is all that remains to the mighty Saladin, the conqueror of the East.” By his last will, he ordered charities to be distributed to the poor, without distinction of Jew, Christian, or Mahometan.

Saladin passed away in Damascus shortly after finalizing the truce with the crusader princes. Notably, before he died, he had his burial shroud carried as a banner through every street of the city, with a herald going ahead and declaring loudly, “This is all that’s left of the great Saladin, the conqueror of the East.” In his final wishes, he instructed that donations be given to the poor, regardless of whether they were Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.

There remained, after the truce, no business of importance to detain Richard in Palestine; and the intelligence which he received, concerning the intrigues of his brother John, and those of the king of France, made him sensible that his presence was necessary in Europe. As he dared not to pass through France, he sailed to the Adriatic; and being ship-wrecked near Aquileia, he put on the disguise of a pilgrim, with a purpose of taking his journey secretly through Germany. Pursued by the governor of Istria, he was forced out of the direct road to England, and was obliged to pass by Vienna, where his expenses and liberalities betrayed the monarch in the habit of the pilgrim; and he was arrested by orders of Leopold, duke of Austria. This prince had served under Richard at the siege of Acre; but being disgusted by some insult of that haughty monarch, he was so ungenerous as to seize the present opportunity of gratifying at once his avarice and revenge; and he threw the king into prison.

After the truce, there was no important business keeping Richard in Palestine, and the news he received about his brother John’s schemes and the king of France’s intrigues made him realize he needed to be in Europe. Since he couldn't risk passing through France, he sailed to the Adriatic. Unfortunately, he was shipwrecked near Aquileia and disguised himself as a pilgrim to travel secretly through Germany. However, the governor of Istria chased him off the direct route to England, forcing him to pass through Vienna, where his spending and generosity exposed him as someone other than a typical pilgrim. As a result, he was arrested by orders from Leopold, the duke of Austria. This duke had served under Richard during the siege of Acre, but after being insulted by the proud king, he took the chance to fulfill both his greed and desire for revenge by imprisoning Richard.

1193.

1193.

The emperor, Henry VI., who also considered Richard as an enemy, on account of the alliance contracted by him with Tancred, king of Sicily, despatched messengers to the duke of Austria, required the royal captive to be delivered to him, and stipulated a large sum of money as a reward for this service. Thus the king of England, who had filled the whole world with his renown, found himself, during the most critical state of his affairs, confined in a dungeon, and loaded with irons, in the heart of Germany,[*] and entirely at the mercy of his enemies, the basest and most sordid of mankind.

The emperor, Henry VI, who saw Richard as a rival because of the alliance he made with Tancred, the king of Sicily, sent messengers to the duke of Austria. He demanded that the royal captive be handed over to him and even offered a large sum of money as a reward for this task. So, the king of England, who had made a name for himself all over the world, found himself, at the most critical point of his affairs, trapped in a dungeon and shackled in the heart of Germany, completely at the mercy of his enemies, the most despicable and disgraceful people.

The English council was astonished on receiving this fatal intelligence, and foresaw all the dangerous consequences which might naturally arise from that event. The queen dowager wrote reiterated letters to Pope Celestine; exclaiming against the injury which her son had sustained, representing the impiety of detaining in prison the most illustrious prince that had yet carried the banners of Christ into the Holy Land; claiming the protection of the apostolic see, which was due even to the meanest of those adventurers; and upbraiding the pope, that, in a cause where justice, religion, and the dignity of the church, were so much concerned, a cause which it might well befit his holiness himself to support by taking in person a journey to Germany, the spiritual thunders should so long be suspended over those sacrilegious offenders.[**] The zeal of Celestine corresponded not to the impatience of the queen mother; and the regency of England were, for a long time, left to struggle alone with all their domestic and foreign enemies.

The English council was shocked to receive this devastating news and saw all the dangerous consequences that could naturally follow from it. The queen dowager sent repeated letters to Pope Celestine, complaining about the wrong done to her son and highlighting the injustice of keeping the most prominent prince who had ever carried the banners of Christ into the Holy Land in prison. She demanded the protection of the papacy, which was due even to the least of those adventurers, and criticized the pope for not acting in a situation where justice, religion, and the church's dignity were so important. She said it would be fitting for his holiness to support the cause in person by traveling to Germany, yet the spiritual condemnation had been held back for so long over those sacrilegious offenders. Celestine's zeal did not match the urgency of the queen mother, leaving the regency of England to struggle alone for a long time against all their domestic and foreign adversaries.

The king of France, quickly informed of Richard’s confinement by a message from the emperor,[***] prepared himself to take advantage of the incident; and he employed every means of force and intrigue, of war and negotiation, against the dominions and the person of his unfortunate rival. He revived the calumny of Richard’s assassinating the marquis of Montferrat; and by that absurd pretence he induced his barons to violate their oaths, by which they had engaged that, during the crusade, they never would, on any account, attack the dominions of the king of England. He made the emperor the largest offers, if he would deliver into his hands the royal prisoner, or at least detain him in perpetual captivity he even formed an alliance by marriage with the king of Denmark, desired that the ancient Danish claim to the crown of England should be transferred to him, and solicited a supply of shipping to maintain it.

The king of France, quickly informed of Richard’s imprisonment by a message from the emperor, got ready to take advantage of the situation. He used every tactic of force and deception, war and negotiation, against the lands and the person of his unfortunate rival. He revived the false claim that Richard had assassinated the marquis of Montferrat; and by that ridiculous reasoning, he convinced his barons to break their oaths, which stated that during the crusade, they would never, under any circumstances, attack the territories of the king of England. He made the emperor generous offers if he would hand over the royal prisoner to him, or at least keep him in captivity forever. He even arranged a marriage alliance with the king of Denmark, requested that the ancient Danish claim to the English crown be transferred to him, and sought additional ships to support it.

     [* Chron. T. Wykes, p. 35.]

     [** Rymer, vol. i. p. 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, etc]

     [*** Rymer, vol. i. p. 70.]
     [* Chron. T. Wykes, p. 35.]

     [** Rymer, vol. i. p. 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, etc]

     [*** Rymer, vol. i. p. 70.]

But the most successful of Philip’s negotiations was with Prince John, who, forgetting every tie to his brother, his sovereign, and his benefactor, thought of nothing but how to make his own advantage of the public calamities. That traitor, on the first invitation from the court of France, suddenly went abroad, had a conference with Philip, and made a treaty, of which the object was the perpetual ruin of his unhappy brother. He stipulated to deliver into Philip’s hands a great part of Normandy:[*] he received, in return, the investiture of all Richard’s transmarine dominions; and it is reported by several historians, that he even did homage to the French king for the crown of England.

But the most successful of Philip’s negotiations was with Prince John, who, forgetting all loyalty to his brother, his ruler, and his benefactor, thought only of how to take advantage of the public disasters. That traitor, at the first invitation from the French court, suddenly went abroad, had a meeting with Philip, and made a treaty aimed at the complete ruin of his unfortunate brother. He agreed to hand over a large part of Normandy to Philip; in return, he received the rights to all of Richard’s overseas lands; and several historians report that he even pledged allegiance to the French king for the crown of England.

In consequence of this treaty, Philip invaded Normandy; and by the treachery of John’s emissaries, made himself master, without opposition, of many fortresses—Neufchatel, Neaufle, Gisors, Pacey, Ivrée: he subdued the counties of Eu and Aumale; and advancing to form the siege of Rouen, he threatened to put all the inhabitants to the sword if they dared to make resistance. Happily, Robert, earl of Leicester appeared in that critical moment, a gallant nobleman, who had acquired great honor during the crusade, and who, being more fortunate than his master in finding his passage homewards, took on him the command in Rouen, and exerted himself, by his exhortations and example, to infuse courage into the dismayed Normans. Philip was repulsed in every attack; the time of service from his vassals expired; and he consented to a truce with the English regency, received in return the promise of twenty thousand marks, and had four castles put into his hands as security for the payment.[**]

Because of this treaty, Philip invaded Normandy; and with the betrayal of John's messengers, he took control of many fortresses—Neufchatel, Neaufle, Gisors, Pacey, Ivrée—without facing any resistance. He conquered the counties of Eu and Aumale; and as he was about to lay siege to Rouen, he threatened to kill all the inhabitants if they dared to fight back. Fortunately, Robert, the Earl of Leicester, showed up at that critical moment. He was a brave nobleman who had gained great honor during the crusade, and since he was luckier than his master in finding his way home, he took command in Rouen. He worked hard to encourage the frightened Normans through his words and actions. Philip was pushed back in every attack; the time of service for his vassals ran out; and he agreed to a truce with the English regency, receiving a promise of twenty thousand marks in return and having four castles handed over to him as security for the payment.[**]

     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 85.]

     [** Hoveden, p, 730, 731. Rymer, vol. i. p. 81]
     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 85.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 730, 731. Rymer, vol. i. p. 81]

Prince John, who, with a view of increasing the general confusion, went over to England, was still less successful in his enterprises. He was only able to make himself master of the castles of Windsor and Wallingford; but when he arrived in London, and claimed the kingdom as heir to his brother, of whose death he pretended to have received certain intelligence he was rejected by all the barons, and measures were taken to oppose and subdue him.[*] The justiciaries, supported by the general affection of the people, provided so well for the defence of the kingdom, that John was obliged, after some fruitless efforts, to conclude a truce with them; and before its expiration, he thought it prudent to return into France, where he openly avowed his alliance with Philip.[**]

Prince John, who aimed to stir up more chaos, went over to England but was even less successful in his plans. He only managed to take control of the castles of Windsor and Wallingford. When he got to London and claimed the kingdom as his brother's heir, pretending he had reliable news of his brother's death, the barons rejected him, and they took steps to fight against him. The justiciaries, backed by the people's support, organized the defense of the kingdom so well that John had to give up after some useless attempts and agree to a truce with them. Before that truce was up, he decided it was wise to return to France, where he openly stated his alliance with Philip.

Meanwhile the high spirit of Richard suffered in Germany every kind of insult and indignity. The French ambassadors, in their master’s name, renounced him as a vassal to the crown of France, and declared all his fiefs to be forfeited to his liege lord. The emperor, that he might render him more impatient for the recovery of his liberty, and make him submit to the payment of a larger ransom, treated him with the greatest severity, and reduced him to a condition worse than that of the meanest malefactor. He was even produced before the diet of the empire at Worms, and accused by Henry of many crimes and misdemeanors; of making an alliance with Tancred, the usurper of Sicily; of turning the arms of the crusade against a Christian prince, and subduing Cyprus; of affronting the duke of Austria before Acre; of obstructing the progress of the Christian arms by his quarrels with the king of France; of assassinating Conrade, marquis of Montferrat; and of concluding a truce with Saladin, and leaving Jerusalem in the hands of the Saracen emperor.[***]

Meanwhile, Richard endured all sorts of insults and indignities in Germany. The French ambassadors, on behalf of their king, dismissed him as a vassal to the crown of France and claimed all his lands were forfeited to his liege lord. The emperor, aiming to provoke him into demanding his freedom sooner and agreeing to a higher ransom, treated him very harshly, putting him in a situation worse than that of the lowest criminal. He was even brought before the imperial diet at Worms and accused by Henry of numerous crimes and wrongdoings; of forming an alliance with Tancred, the usurper of Sicily; of redirecting the crusaders’ efforts against a Christian prince and conquering Cyprus; of insulting the duke of Austria before Acre; of hindering the Christian forces with disputes against the king of France; of assassinating Conrade, marquis of Montferrat; and of negotiating a truce with Saladin, leaving Jerusalem under the control of the Saracen emperor.[***]

     [* Hoveden, p. 724.]

     [** W Heming. p. 556.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 121. W. Heming. p. 536.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 724.]

     [** W Heming. p. 556.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 121. W. Heming. p. 536.]

Richard, whose spirit was not broken by his misfortunes, and whose genius was rather roused by these frivolous or scandalous imputations, after premising that his dignity exempted him from answering before any jurisdiction, except that of Heaven, yet condescended, for the sake of his reputation, to justify his conduct before that great assembly. He observed, that he had no hand in Tancred’s elevation, and only concluded a treaty with a prince whom he found in possession of the throne: that the king, or rather tyrant, of Cyprus had provoked his indignation by the most ungenerous and unjust proceedings; and though he chastised this aggressor, he had not retarded a moment the progress of his chief enterprise: that if he had at any time been wanting in civility to the duke of Austria, he had already been sufficiently punished for that sally of passion; and it better became men, embarked together in so holy a cause, to forgive each other’s infirmities, than to pursue a slight offence with such unrelenting vengeance: that it had sufficiently appeared by the event, whether the king of France or he were most zealous for the conquest of the Holy Land, and were most likely to sacrifice private passions and animosities to that great object: that if the whole tenor of his life had not shown him incapable of a base assassination, and justified him from that imputation in the eyes of his very enemies, it was in vain for him, at present, to make his apology, or plead the many irrefragable arguments which he could produce in his own favor: and that, however he might regret the necessity, he was so far from being ashamed of his truce with Saladin, that he rather gloried in that event; and thought it extremely honorable that, though abandoned by all the world, supported only by his own courage, and by the small remains of his national troops, he could yet obtain such conditions from the most powerful and most warlike emperor that the East had ever yet produced. Richard, after thus deigning to apologize for his conduct, burst out into indignation at the cruel treatment which he had met with; that he, the champion of the cross, still wearing that honorable badge, should, after expending the blood and treasure of his subjects in the common cause of Christendom, be intercepted by Christian princes in his return to his own country, be thrown into a dungeon, be loaded with irons, be obliged to plead his cause as if he were a subject and a malefactor, and, what he still more regretted, be thereby prevented from making preparations for a new crusade, which he had projected, after the expiration of the truce, and from redeeming the sepulchre of Christ, which had so long been profaned by the dominion of infidels. The spirit and eloquence of Richard made such impression on the German princes, that they exclaimed loudly against the conduct of the emperor; the pope threatened him with excommunication; and Henry, who had hearkened to the proposals of the king of France and Prince John, found that it would be impracticable for him to execute his and their base purposes, or to detain the king of England any longer in captivity. He therefore concluded with him a treaty for his ransom, and agreed to restore him to his freedom for the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand marks about three hundred thousand pounds of our present money of which one hundred thousand marks were to be paid before he received his liberty, and sixty-seven hostages delivered for the remainder.[*] The emperor, as if to gloss over the infamy of this transaction, made at the same time a present to Richard of the kingdom of Arles, comprehending Provence, Dauphiny, Narbonne, and other states, over which the empire had some antiquated claims; a present which the king very wisely neglected.

Richard, whose spirit wasn’t crushed by his setbacks and whose brilliance was actually sparked by these silly or scandalous accusations, stated that his dignity kept him from answering to anyone except Heaven. However, for the sake of his reputation, he chose to explain himself to that large assembly. He noted that he had no role in Tancred’s rise to power and only made a deal with a prince already sitting on the throne; that the king, or rather tyrant, of Cyprus had angered him with the most unfair and unjust actions; and that although he retaliated against this attacker, he didn’t delay the main objective of his campaign. He mentioned that if he had ever been disrespectful to the duke of Austria, he had already been punished enough for that outburst; and it was far more fitting for men, united in such a noble cause, to forgive each other’s flaws than to pursue a minor offense with relentless vengeance. He argued that it had been clearly shown by the outcome whether the king of France or he was more dedicated to the conquest of the Holy Land and more likely to set aside personal grudges for that significant goal. He added that if the entirety of his life hadn’t proven him incapable of a cowardly assassination and cleared him of that accusation in the eyes of his enemies, it would be pointless for him to offer an apology now or to present the many undeniable arguments he had on his side. He expressed that, although he regretted the need for it, he wasn’t ashamed of his truce with Saladin; in fact, he took pride in it and considered it extremely honorable that, even when abandoned by everyone else and supported solely by his own courage and a small remnant of his national troops, he could still negotiate such terms with the most powerful and warlike emperor the East had ever produced. After humbly apologizing for his actions, Richard expressed his anger at the cruel treatment he had received; that he, the champion of the cross, still wearing that honorable badge, should, after spending the blood and treasure of his subjects on the shared cause of Christendom, be intercepted by fellow Christian rulers on his way home, thrown into a dungeon, shackled, and forced to defend himself as if he were a subject and a criminal. What he regretted even more was that this also prevented him from preparing for a new crusade he had planned after the truce and from reclaiming the tomb of Christ, which had long been profaned by the rule of infidels. The spirit and eloquence of Richard made such an impression on the German princes that they loudly condemned the emperor’s actions; the pope threatened him with excommunication; and Henry, who had listened to the schemes of the king of France and Prince John, realized it would be impossible for him to carry out their underhanded plans or keep the king of England imprisoned any longer. He therefore negotiated a ransom treaty with Richard and agreed to set him free for one hundred and fifty thousand marks—about three hundred thousand pounds in today’s money—of which one hundred thousand marks had to be paid before he was granted his liberty, along with delivering sixty-seven hostages for the balance.[*] To mask the disgrace of this situation, the emperor simultaneously gave Richard the kingdom of Arles, including Provence, Dauphiny, Narbonne, and other territories over which the empire had some outdated claims; a gift that the king wisely ignored.

     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 84.]
     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 84.]

The captivity of the superior lord was one of the cases provided for by the feudal tenures; and all the vassals were in that event obliged to give an aid for his ransom. Twenty shillings were therefore levied on each knight’s fee in England; but as this money came in slowly, and was not sufficient for the intended purpose, the voluntary zeal of the people readily supplied the deficiency. The churches and monasteries melted down their plate, to the amount of thirty thousand marks; the bishop, abbots, and nobles, paid a fourth of their yearly rent; the parochial clergy contributed a tenth of their tithes; and the requisite sura being thus collected queen Eleanor, and Walter, archbishop of Rouen, set out with it for Germany;

The capture of the high lord was one of the situations outlined by the feudal system, and all the vassals had to contribute towards his ransom in that case. Twenty shillings were charged on each knight’s fee in England; however, since this money came in slowly and wasn’t enough for what was needed, the community's willingness to help easily filled the gap. Churches and monasteries melted down their silverware, totaling thirty thousand marks; bishops, abbots, and nobles paid a quarter of their annual rent; local clergy contributed a tenth of their tithes; and once the required amount was gathered, Queen Eleanor and Walter, the Archbishop of Rouen, set off to Germany with it;

1194.

1194.

paid the money to the emperor and the duke of Austria at Mentz; delivered them hostages for the remainder, and freed. Richard from captivity. His escape was very critical. Henry had been detected in the assassination of the bishop of Liege, and in an attempt of a like nature on the duke of Louvaine; and finding himself extremely obnoxious to the German princes on account of these odious practices, he had determined to seek support from an alliance with the king of France; to detain Richard, the enemy of that prince, in perpetual captivity; to keep in his hands the money which he had already received for his ransom; and to extort fresh sums from Philip and prince John, who were very liberal in their offers to him. He therefore gave orders that Richard should be pursued and arrested; but the king, making all imaginable haste, had already embarked at the mouth of the Schelde, and was out of sight of land when the messengers of the emperor reached Antwerp.

paid the money to the emperor and the duke of Austria at Mentz; delivered them hostages for the remainder, and freed Richard from captivity. His escape was very narrow. Henry had been caught in the assassination of the bishop of Liege and in a similar attempt on the duke of Louvaine; and realizing he was very disliked by the German princes because of these horrible actions, he decided to seek support from an alliance with the king of France; to keep Richard, the enemy of that prince, in permanent captivity; to hold on to the money he had already received for his ransom; and to squeeze more funds from Philip and Prince John, who were quite generous in their offers to him. He therefore ordered that Richard should be pursued and arrested; but the king, making all possible haste, had already set out at the mouth of the Schelde and was out of sight of land when the emperor's messengers reached Antwerp.

The joy of the English was extreme on the appearance of their monarch, who had suffered so many calamities, who had acquired so much glory, and who had spread the reputation of their name into the farthest east, whither their fame had never before been able to extend. He gave them, soon after his arrival, an opportunity of publicly displaying their exultation, by ordering himself to be crowned anew at Winchester; as if he intended, by that ceremony, to reinstate himself in his throne, and to wipe off he ignominity of his captivity. Their satisfaction was not damped, even when he declared his purpose of resuming all those exorbitant grants which he had been necessitated to make before his departure for the Holy Land. The barons also, in a great council, confiscated, on account of his treason, all Prince John’s possessions in England and they assisted the king in reducing the fortresses which still remained in the hands of his brother’s adherents.[*] Richard, having settled every thing in England, passed over with an army into Normandy; being impatient to make war on Philip, and to revenge himself for the many injuries which he had received from that monarch.[**] As soon as Philip heard of the king’s deliverance from captivity, he wrote to his confederate John in these terms: “Take care of yourself: the devil is broken loose.”[***]

The joy of the English was immense at the return of their king, who had endured many hardships, achieved great glory, and spread the reputation of their name to the farthest east, an area their fame had never reached before. Shortly after his arrival, he gave them a chance to publicly celebrate by ordering a new coronation for himself in Winchester; it seemed like he wanted this ceremony to restore his place on the throne and erase the shame of his captivity. Their happiness wasn’t diminished, even when he announced his intention to reclaim all the large grants he had been forced to make before leaving for the Holy Land. The barons also, in a major council, took away all of Prince John’s possessions in England due to his treason, and they supported the king in capturing the fortresses still controlled by his brother's supporters. Richard, having sorted everything out in England, crossed over with an army to Normandy, eager to go to war with Philip and to take revenge for the numerous wrongs committed against him by that king. As soon as Philip heard about the king's release from captivity, he wrote to his ally John saying, “Take care of yourself: the devil is on the loose.”

     [* Hoveden, p, 737. Ann. Waverl. p. 165. W.
     Heming. p. 540.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 740.]

     [*** Hoveden p. 739]
     [* Hoveden, p, 737. Ann. Waverl. p. 165. W. Heming. p. 540.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 740.]

     [*** Hoveden p. 739]

When we consider such powerful and martial monarchs, inflamed with personal animosity against each other, enraged by mutual injuries, excited by rivalship, impelled by opposite interests, and instigated by the pride and violence of their own temper, our curiosity is naturally raised, and we expect an obstinate and furious war, distinguished by the greatest events, and concluded by some remarkable catastrophe. Yet are the incidents which attended those hostilities so frivolous, that scarce any historian can entertain such a passion for military descriptions as to venture on a detail of them; a certain proof of the extreme weakness of princes in those ages, and of the little authority they possessed over their refractory vassals The whole amount of the exploits on both sides, is the taking of a castle, the surprise of a straggling party, a rencounter of horse, which resembles more a rout than a battle. Richard obliged Philip to raise the siege of Verneuil; he took Loches, a small town in Anjou; he made himself master of Beaumont, and some other places of little consequence; and after these trivial exploits, the two kings began already to hold conferences for an accommodation. Philip insisted that, if a general peace were concluded, the barons on each side should for the future be prohibited from carrying on private wars against each other; but Richard replied, that this was a right claimed by his vassals, and he could not debar them from it After this fruitless negotiation, there ensued an action between the French and English cavalry at Fretteval, in which the former were routed, and the king of France’s cartulary and records, which commonly at that time attended his person, were taken. But this victory leading to no important advantages, a truce for a year was at last, from mutual weakness, concluded between the two monarchs.

When we think about such powerful and warlike kings, filled with personal hatred for one another, angered by mutual injuries, driven by rivalry, motivated by opposing interests, and fueled by their own pride and aggression, our curiosity spikes, and we expect a stubborn and fierce war, marked by significant events and ending in some notable disaster. Yet, the events that accompanied those conflicts are so trivial that hardly any historian can muster enough passion for military accounts to even attempt to detail them; this clearly shows the extreme weakness of rulers in those times and the little control they had over their rebellious vassals. The total of the actions on both sides includes capturing a castle, ambushing a stray group, and a skirmish that looks more like a rout than a battle. Richard forced Philip to lift the siege of Verneuil; he took Loches, a small town in Anjou; he gained control of Beaumont and a few other insignificant places; and after these minor achievements, the two kings already started having talks for a settlement. Philip argued that if a general peace was reached, the barons on both sides should be barred from waging private wars against each other in the future; but Richard replied that this was a right claimed by his vassals, and he couldn’t deny them that right. Following this fruitless negotiation, there was a clash between the French and English cavalry at Fretteval, where the French were defeated, and the king of France's records, which usually accompanied him, were captured. However, this victory didn't lead to any significant benefits, so after some mutual weakness, a truce for a year was eventually agreed upon by the two kings.

During this war, Prince John deserted from Philip, threw himself at his brother’s feet, craved pardon for his offences, and by the intercession of Queen Eleanor was received into favor. “I forgive him,” said the king, “and hope I shall as easily forget his injuries as he will my pardon.” John was incapable even of returning to his duty without committing a baseness. Before he left Philip’s party, he invited to dinner all the officers of the garrison which that prince had placed in the citadel of Evreux; he massacred them during the entertainment; fell, with the assistance of the townsmen, on the garrison, whom he put to the sword; and then delivered up the place to his brother.

During this war, Prince John abandoned Philip, threw himself at his brother’s feet, asked for forgiveness for his wrongs, and was welcomed back into favor through Queen Eleanor's help. “I forgive him,” said the king, “and I hope I can forget his offenses as easily as he will forget my forgiveness.” John couldn't even return to his duties without committing a treachery. Before he left Philip’s side, he invited all the officers of the garrison that Philip had stationed in the citadel of Evreux to dinner; he slaughtered them during the meal; then, with the help of the townspeople, he attacked the rest of the garrison, killing them all, and handed the place over to his brother.

The king of France was the great object of Richard’s resentment and animosity. The conduct of John, as well as that of the emperor and duke of Austria, had been so base, and was exposed to such general odium and reproach, that the king deemed himself sufficiently revenged for their injuries; and he seems never to have entertained any project of vengeance against any of them. The duke of Austria, about this time, having crushed his leg by the fall of his horse at a tournament, was thrown into a fever; and being struck, on the approaches of death, with remorse for his injustice to Richard, he ordered by will all the English hostages in his hands to be set at liberty and the remainder of the debt due to him to be remitted: his son, who seemed inclined to disobey these orders, was constrained by his ecclesiastics to execute them.[*]

The king of France was the main target of Richard’s anger and hatred. John’s actions, along with those of the emperor and the duke of Austria, had been so despicable and drew such widespread contempt that the king felt he had taken enough revenge for their wrongs; it seems he never considered any further plans for revenge against them. Around this time, the duke of Austria, after crushing his leg when his horse fell during a tournament, fell into a fever. As he approached death, he was struck by remorse for the injustice he had done to Richard, so he instructed in his will that all the English hostages in his possession be released and that the remaining debt owed to him be canceled. His son, who seemed inclined to ignore these orders, was forced by his church officials to carry them out.

1195.

1195.

The emperor also made advances for Richard’s friendship, and offered to give him a discharge of all the debt not yet paid to him, provided he would enter into an offensive alliance against the king of France; a proposal which was very acceptable to Richard, and was greedily embraced by him. The treaty with the emperor took no effect; but it served to rekindle the war between France and England before the expiration of the truce.

The emperor also sought Richard’s friendship and offered to forgive all the outstanding debt owed to him, as long as Richard agreed to join him in an offensive alliance against the king of France. Richard found this proposal very appealing and eagerly accepted it. The treaty with the emperor ultimately did not take effect, but it reignited the war between France and England before the truce had officially ended.

     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 88, 102.]
[* Rymer, vol. i. p. 88, 102.]

This war was not distinguished by any more remarkable incidents than the foregoing. After mutually ravaging the open country, and taking a few insignificant castles, the two kings concluded a peace at Louviers, and made an exchange of some territories with each other.[*]

This war didn't have any more notable events than the ones mentioned before. After both sides devastated the countryside and captured a few minor castles, the two kings signed a peace agreement at Louviers and exchanged some territories. [*]

1196.

1196.

Their inability to wage war occasioned the peace; their mutual antipathy engaged them again in war before two months expired. Richard imagined that he had now found an opportunity of gaining great advantages over his rival, by forming an alliance with the counts of Flanders, Toulouse, Boulogne, Champagne, and other considerable vassals of the crown of France.[**] But he soon experienced the insincerity of those princes; and; was not able to make any impression on that kingdom, while governed by a monarch of so much vigor and activity as Philip. The most remarkable incident of this war was the taking prisoner, in battle, the bishop of Beauvais, a martial prelate who was of the family of Dreux, and a near relation of the French king. Richard, who hated that bishop, threw him into prison, and loaded him with irons; and when the pope demanded his liberty, and claimed him as his son, the king sent to his holiness the coat of mail which the prelate had worn in battle, and which was all besmeared with blood; and he replied to him in the terms employed by Jacob’s sons to that patriarch: “This have we found: know now whether it be thy son’s coat or no.”[***] This new war between England and France, though carried on with such animosity that both kings frequently put out the eyes of their prisoners, was soon finished by a truce of five years; and immediately after signing this treaty, the kings were ready, on some new offence, to break out again into hostilities, when the mediation of the cardinal of St. Mary, the pope’s legate, accommodated the difference.[****] This prelate even engaged the princes to commence a treaty for a more durable peace; but the death of Richard put an end to the negotiation.

Their inability to go to war led to peace; their mutual hatred drew them back into conflict again within two months. Richard thought he had a chance to gain a significant advantage over his rival by forming an alliance with the counts of Flanders, Toulouse, Boulogne, Champagne, and other important vassals of the French crown. But he soon realized the dishonesty of those princes and was unable to make any impact on that kingdom while Philip was in power, a king with such energy and determination. The most notable event of this war was the capture of the bishop of Beauvais in battle, a combative clergyman from the Dreux family and a close relative of the French king. Richard, who despised the bishop, imprisoned him and shackled him. When the pope sought his release and claimed him as his son, the king sent the pope the blood-stained coat of mail the prelate had worn in battle, and replied using the words Jacob’s sons used with their father: “This we have found: now know if it is your son’s coat or not.” This new war between England and France, fought with such bitterness that both kings often blinded their prisoners, was quickly concluded with a five-year truce. Immediately after signing this agreement, the kings were ready to resume hostilities over some new offense, but the intervention of the cardinal of St. Mary, the pope’s legate, resolved the conflict. This prelate even encouraged the princes to start negotiations for a more lasting peace; however, Richard’s death ended the discussions.

     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 91]

     [** W. Heming, p. 549. Brompton, p. 1273. Rymer,
     vol i. p. 94.]

     [*** Genesis, chap, xxxvii. ver. 32. M. Paris, p;
     128. Brompton, p. 1273]

     [**** Rymer, vol. i. p. 109, 110.]
     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 91]

     [** W. Heming, p. 549. Brompton, p. 1273. Rymer,
     vol i. p. 94.]

     [*** Genesis, chapter 37, verse 32. M. Paris, p;
     128. Brompton, p. 1273]

     [**** Rymer, vol. i. p. 109, 110.]

1199.

1199.

Vidomar, viscount of Limoges, a vassal of the king, had found a treasure, of which he sent part to that prince as a present. Richard, as superior lord, claimed the whole; and, at the head of some Brabançons, besieged the viscount in the castle of Chalus, near Limoges, in order to make him comply with his demand.[*] The garrison offered to surrender; but the king replied, that since he had taken the pains to come thither and besiege the place in person, he would take it by force, and would hang every one of them. The same day Richard, accompanied by Marcadée, leader of his Brabançons, approached the castle in order to survey it, when one Bertrand de Gourdon, an archer, took aim at him, and pierced his shoulder with an arrow. The king, however, gave orders for the assault, took the place, and hanged all the garrison, except Gourdon, who had wounded him, and whom he reserved for a more deliberate and more cruel execution.[**]

Vidomar, the viscount of Limoges and a vassal of the king, had discovered a treasure and sent a portion of it as a gift to the king. Richard, as the overlord, claimed the entire treasure and, leading some Brabançons, besieged the viscount in the castle of Chalus, near Limoges, to force him to comply with his demand.[*] The garrison offered to surrender, but the king responded that since he had taken the effort to come and besiege the place himself, he would take it by force and hang everyone. That same day, Richard, alongside Marcadée, the leader of his Brabançons, approached the castle to survey it when an archer named Bertrand de Gourdon aimed at him and shot him in the shoulder with an arrow. Nevertheless, the king ordered the assault, captured the castle, and hanged all the garrison except for Gourdon, whom he kept for a more calculated and brutal execution.[**]

The wound was not in itself dangerous; but the unskilfulness of the surgeon made it mortal; he so rankled Richard’s shoulder in pulling out the arrow, that a gangrene ensued; and that prince was now sensible that his life was drawing towards a period. He sent for Gourdon, and asked him, “Wretch, what have I ever done to you, to oblige you to seek my life?” “What have you done to me?” replied coolly the prisoner: “you killed with your own hands my father, and my two brothers; and you intended to have hanged myself: I am now in your power, and you may take revenge by inflicting on me the most severe torments; but I shall endure them all with pleasure, provided I can think that I have been so happy as to rid the world of such a nuisance,”[***] Richard, struck with the reasonableness of this reply, and humbled by the near approach of death, ordered Gourdon to be set at liberty, and a sum of money to be given him; but Marcadée, unknown to him, seized the unhappy man, flayed him alive, and then hanged him. Richard died in the tenth year of his reign, and the forty-second of his age; and he left no issue behind him.

The wound itself wasn’t life-threatening, but the surgeon’s incompetence made it fatal. He injured Richard’s shoulder while trying to remove the arrow, causing gangrene, and Richard realized his life was coming to an end. He called for Gourdon and asked him, “What have I ever done to you that made you want me dead?” “What have you done to me?” replied the prisoner calmly. “You killed my father and my two brothers with your own hands, and you meant to have me hanged. Now I'm at your mercy, and you can take your revenge by torturing me as much as you want; but I will endure it happily, knowing that I’ve managed to rid the world of such a nuisance.” Richard, struck by the logic of this response and humbled by the impending death, ordered Gourdon to be released and that he be given some money. But Marcadée, unbeknownst to him, captured the unfortunate man, flayed him alive, and then hanged him. Richard died in the tenth year of his reign, at the age of forty-two, and he left no heirs behind.

     [* Hoveden, p. 791. Knyghton, p. 2413.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 791. Knyghton, p. 2413.]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 791. Brompton, p. 1277 Knyghton,
     p. 2413.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 791. Knyghton, p. 2413.]

     [** Hoveden, p. 791. Knyghton, p. 2413.]

     [*** Hoveden, p. 791. Brompton, p. 1277 Knyghton,
     p. 2413.]

The most shining part of this prince’s character are his military talents. No man, even in that romantic age, carried personal courage and intrepidity to a greater height, and this quality gained him the appellation of the Lion-hearted, “Coeur de Lion.” He passionately loved glory, chiefly military glory; and as his conduct in the field was not inferior to his valor, he seems to have possessed every talent necessary for acquiring it. His resentments also were high; his pride unconquerable; and his subjects, as well as his neighbors, had therefore reason to apprehend, from the continuance of his reign, a perpetual scene of blood and violence. Of an impetuous and vehement spirit, he was distinguished by all the good, as well as the bad, qualities incident to that character; he was open, frank, generous, sincere, and brave; he was revengeful, domineering, ambitious, haughty, and cruel; and was thus better calculated to dazzle men by the splendor of his enterprises, than either to promote their happiness, or his own grandeur, by a sound and well-regulated policy. As military talents make great impression on the people, he seems to have been much beloved by his English subjects; and he is remarked to have been the first prince of the Norman line that bore any sincere regard to them. He passed, however, only four months of his reign in that kingdom; the crusade employed him near three years; he was detained about fourteen months in captivity; the rest of his reign was spent either in war or preparations for war against France; and he was so pleased with the fame which he had acquired in the East, that he determined, notwithstanding his past misfortunes, to have further exhausted his kingdom, and to have exposed himself to new hazards, by conducting another expedition against the infidels.

The standout part of this prince’s character is his military skills. No one, even in that romantic era, showed personal courage and bravery to a greater degree, earning him the nickname the Lion-hearted, “Coeur de Lion.” He passionately loved glory, especially military glory; and since his performance on the battlefield matched his bravery, he seemed to possess every skill needed to achieve it. His anger was intense; his pride unyielding; and both his subjects and neighbors had good reason to fear that his reign would bring a constant cycle of bloodshed and violence. With a fiery and passionate spirit, he displayed both the good and bad traits that come with such a character; he was open, honest, generous, sincere, and brave; yet he was also vengeful, domineering, ambitious, proud, and cruel. This mix made him more likely to impress people with the brilliance of his exploits rather than to advance their well-being or his own greatness through sound and steady leadership. As military prowess resonates deeply with the populace, he appeared to be well-loved by his English subjects, and it’s noted that he was the first prince of the Norman line to genuinely care for them. However, he spent only four months of his reign in that kingdom; the crusade took nearly three years of his time; he was held captive for about fourteen months; the remainder of his reign was spent either at war or preparing for war against France; and he was so pleased with the reputation he built in the East that he decided, despite his previous misfortunes, to further drain his kingdom and expose himself to new dangers by leading another campaign against the infidels.

Though the English pleased themselves with the glory which the king’s martial genius procured them, his reign was very oppressive, and somewhat arbitrary, by the high taxes which he levied on them, and often without consent of the states or great council. In the ninth year of his reign, he levied five shillings on each hide of land; and because the clergy refused to contribute their share, he put them out of the protection of law, and ordered the civil courts to give them no sentence for any debts which they might claim.[*] Twice in his reign he ordered all his charters to be sealed anew, and the parties to pay fees for the renewal.[**]

Although the English took pride in the glory that the king's military skill brought them, his reign was quite oppressive and somewhat arbitrary due to the high taxes he imposed, often without the consent of the states or the great council. In the ninth year of his reign, he taxed five shillings on each hide of land; and because the clergy refused to pay their share, he stripped them of legal protection and instructed the civil courts not to enforce any debts they might claim.[*] Twice during his reign, he ordered all his charters to be resealed, requiring the parties to pay fees for the renewal.[**]

     [* Hoveden, p. 743. Tyrrel, vol. ii. p, 563.]

     [** Pryrnne’s Chronol. Vindic. tom. i. p. 1133.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 743. Tyrrel, vol. ii. p, 563.]

     [** Pryrnne’s Chronol. Vindic. tom. i. p. 1133.]

1133.

1133.

It is said that Hubert, his justiciary, sent him over to France, in the space of two years, no less a sum than one million one hundred thousand marks, besides bearing all the charges of the government in England. But this account is quite incredible, unless we suppose that Richard made a thorough dilapidation of the demesnes of the crown, which it is not likely he could do with any advantage after his former resumption of all grants. A king who possessed such a revenue, could never have endured fourteen months’ captivity for not paying one hundred and fifty thousand marks to the emperor, and be obliged at last to leave hostages for a third of the sum. The prices of commodities in this reign are also a certain proof that no such enormous sum could be levied on the people. A hide of land, or about a hundred and twenty acres, was commonly let at twenty shillings a year, money of that time. As there were two hundred and forty-three thousand six hundred hides in England, it is easy to compute the amount of all the landed rents of the kingdom. The general and stated price of an ox was four shillings; of a laboring horse, the same; of a sow, one shilling; of a sheep with fine wool, tenpence with coarse wool, sixpence.[*] These commodities seem not to have advanced in their prices since the conquest,[**] 19 and to have still been ten times cheaper than at present.

It is said that Hubert, his justiciary, sent him over to France, within two years, no less than one million one hundred thousand marks, in addition to covering all the expenses of the government in England. But this account seems quite unbelievable, unless we assume that Richard completely drained the crown's resources, which it's unlikely he could have done advantageously after previously reclaiming all grants. A king with such revenue would never have tolerated fourteen months of captivity for failing to pay one hundred and fifty thousand marks to the emperor, and ultimately had to leave hostages for a third of that amount. The prices of goods during this reign also clearly indicate that such a massive sum couldn't be extracted from the people. A hide of land, or about one hundred and twenty acres, was typically rented for twenty shillings a year, in the money of that time. With two hundred and forty-three thousand six hundred hides in England, it's easy to calculate the total amount of all the landed rents in the kingdom. The general price of an ox was four shillings; a working horse, the same; a sow, one shilling; and a sheep with fine wool, ten pence, while one with coarse wool was six pence.[*] These prices seem not to have risen since the conquest,[**] 19 and were still ten times cheaper than they are today.

Richard renewed the severe laws against transgressors in his forests, whom he punished by castration and putting out their eyes, as in the reign of his great-grandfather. He established by law one weight and measure throughout his kingdom;[***] a useful institution, which the mercenary disposition and necessities of his successor engaged him to dispense with for money.

Richard reinforced strict laws against anyone who violated the rules in his forests, punishing them with castration and blinding, just like his great-grandfather did. He legislated a standard weight and measure across his kingdom; a practical measure that his successor, with their greedy nature and demands, later chose to ignore for profit.

     [* Hoveden, p. 745.]

     [** See note S, at the end of the volume.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 109, 134. Trivet, p. 127. Ann.
     Waverl. p. 165. Hoveden, p. 7.]
     [* Hoveden, p. 745.]

     [** See note S, at the end of the volume.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 109, 134. Trivet, p. 127. Ann.
     Waverl. p. 165. Hoveden, p. 7.]

The disorders in London, derived from its bad police, had risen to a great height during this reign; and in the year 1196, there seemed to be formed so regular a conspiracy among the numerous malefactors, as threatened the city with destruction. There was one William Fitz-Osbert, commonly called Longbeard, a lawyer, who had rendered himself extremely popular among the lower rank of citizens; and by defend ing-them on all occasions, had acquired the appellation of the advocate or savior of the poor. He exerted his authority by injuring and insulting the more substantial citizens, with whom he lived in a state of hostility, and who were every moment exposed to the most outrageous violences from him and his licentious emissaries. Murders were daily committed in the streets; houses were broken open and pillaged in daylight; and it is pretended, that no less than fifty-two thousand persons had entered into an association, by which they bound themselves to obey all the orders of this dangerous ruffian. Archbishop Hubert, who was then chief justiciary, summoned him before the council to answer for his conduct; but he came so well attended, that no one durst accuse him, or give evidence against him; and the primate, finding the impotence of law, contented himself with exacting from the citizens hostages for their good behavior. He kept, however, a watchful eye on Fitz-Osbert, and seizing a favorable opportunity, attempted to commit him to custody; but the criminal, murdering one of the public officers, escaped with his concubine to the church of St. Mary le Bow, where he defended himself by force of arms. He was at last forced from his retreat, condemned, and executed, amidst the regrets of the populace, who were so devoted to his memory, that they stole his gibbet, paid the same veneration to it as to the cross, and were equally zealous in propagating and attesting reports of the miracles wrought by it.[*] But though the sectaries of this superstition were punished by the justiciary,[**] it received so little encouragement from the established clergy whose property was endangered by such seditious practices, that it suddenly sunk and vanished.

The chaos in London, caused by its poor policing, had reached a peak during this time; and in 1196, it appeared that a well-organized conspiracy among many criminals threatened the city's safety. There was a man named William Fitz-Osbert, known as Longbeard, a lawyer who became extremely popular among the lower classes of citizens; by defending them whenever possible, he earned the title of the advocate or savior of the poor. He used his influence to harm and insult the wealthier citizens, with whom he had a hostile relationship, and they faced constant violent attacks from him and his unruly followers. Murders were happening daily in the streets; houses were broken into and looted in broad daylight; and it was claimed that as many as fifty-two thousand people had joined an association pledging to follow all the orders of this dangerous thug. Archbishop Hubert, who was the chief justiciary at the time, summoned him to appear before the council to explain his behavior; however, he arrived with such a large following that no one dared to accuse him or give testimony against him. The archbishop, realizing the powerlessness of the law, settled for requiring hostages from the citizens for their good behavior. Nevertheless, he kept a close watch on Fitz-Osbert and, when an opportunity arose, tried to have him arrested; but the criminal killed one of the public officers and fled with his mistress to the church of St. Mary le Bow, where he fought back with weapons. Eventually, he was forced out of his hideout, convicted, and executed, much to the sorrow of the people, who were so devoted to his memory that they stole his gallows, revered it like a cross, and fervently spread and confirmed stories of miracles associated with it.[*] However, even though the followers of this superstition were punished by the justiciary,[**] it received so little support from the established clergy, whose property was threatened by such rebellious activities, that it quickly disappeared.

     [* Hoveden, p 765. Diceto, p. 691. Neub. p 192,
     498]

     [** Gervase, p. 1551.]
     [* Hoveden, p 765. Diceto, p. 691. Neub. p 192,
     498]

     [** Gervase, p. 1551.]

It was during the crusades that the custom of using coats of arms was first introduced into Europe. The knights, cased up in armor, had no way to make themselves be known and distinguished in battle, but by the devices on their shields; and these were gradually adopted by their posterity and families, who were proud of the pious and military enterprises of their ancestors.

It was during the Crusades that the practice of using coats of arms was first introduced in Europe. The knights, covered in armor, had no way to identify themselves in battle except by the designs on their shields; these designs were gradually adopted by their descendants and families, who took pride in the religious and military achievements of their ancestors.

King Richard was a passionate lover of poetry: there even remain some poetical works of his composition: and he bears a rank among the Provençal poets or Trobadores, who were the first of the modern Europeans that distinguished themselves by attempts of that nature.

King Richard was a passionate lover of poetry; some of his own poems still exist. He is considered one of the Provençal poets or Trobadores, who were the first modern Europeans to make a name for themselves in that way.





CHAPTER XI.

132.jpg John




JOHN.

1199.

1199.

THE noble and free genius of the ancients, which made the government of a single person be always regarded as a species of tyranny and usurpation, and kept them from forming any conception of a legal and regular monarchy, had rendered them entirely ignorant both of the rights of primogeniture and a representation in succession; inventions so necessary for preserving order in the lines of princes, for obviating the evils of civil discord and of usurpation, and for begetting moderation in that species of government, by giving security to the ruling sovereign. These innovations arose from the feudal law; which, first introducing the right of primogeniture, made such a distinction between the families of he elder and younger brothers, that the son of the former was thought entitled to succeed to his grandfather, preferably to his uncles, though nearer allied to the deceased monarch. But though this progress of ideas was natural, it was gradual. In the age of which we treat, the practice of representation was indeed introduced, but not thoroughly established; and the minds of men fluctuated between opposite principles. Richard, when he entered on the holy war, declared his nephew Arthur, duke of Brittany, his successor; and by a formal deed he set aside, in his favor, the title of his brother John, who was younger than Godfrey, the father of that prince.[*]

THE noble and free spirit of the ancients, which always viewed a single-person government as a form of tyranny and usurpation, prevented them from imagining a legal and orderly monarchy. This left them completely unaware of the rights of primogeniture and representation in succession—concepts that are essential for maintaining order among princes, avoiding the problems of civil strife and usurpation, and fostering moderation in such governance by ensuring security for the ruling monarch. These changes came from the feudal law, which first introduced the right of primogeniture, creating a distinction between the families of older and younger brothers. Thus, the son of the elder brother was considered entitled to inherit from his grandfather before his uncles, despite being more closely related to the deceased king. However, while this evolution of ideas was natural, it was gradual. During the time we are discussing, the practice of representation was indeed introduced but not fully established; people’s thoughts wavered between conflicting principles. When Richard set out for the holy war, he named his nephew Arthur, duke of Brittany, as his successor, and through a formal document, he dismissed his brother John's claim, who was younger than Godfrey, the father of that prince.[*]

     [* Hoveden, p. 677.]
[* Hoveden, p. 677.]

But John so little acquiesced in that destination that when he gained the ascendant in the English ministry by expelling Longchamp, the chancellor and great justiciary, he engaged all the English barons to swear that they would maintain his right of succession; and Richard, on his return, took no steps towards restoring or securing the order which he had at first established. He was even careful, by his last will, to declare his brother John heir to all his dominions; whether, that he now thought Arthur, who was only twelve years of age, incapable of asserting his claim against John’s faction, or was influenced by Eleanor, the queen mother, who hated Constantia, mother of the young duke, and who dreaded the credit which that princess would naturally acquire if her son should mount the throne. The authority of a testament was great in that age, even where the succession of a kingdom was concerned; and John had reason to hope, that this title, joined to his plausible right in other respects, would insure him the succession. But the idea of representation seems to have made, at this time, greater progress in France than in England; the barons of the transmarine provinces Anjou, Maine, and Touraine, immediately declared in favor of Arthur’s title, and applied for assistance to the French monarch as their superior lord. Philip, who desired only an occasion to embarrass John, and dismember his dominions, embraced the cause of the young duke of Brittany, took him under his protection, and sent him to Paris to be educated along with his own son Lewis. In this emergency, John hastened to establish his authority in the chief members of the monarchy; and after sending Eleanor into Poictou and Guienne, where her right was incontestable, and was readily acknowledged, he hurried to Rouen, and having secured the duchy of Normandy, he passed over, without loss of time, to England. Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury, William Mareschal, earl of Strigul, who also passes by the name of earl of Pembroke, and Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, the justiciary, the three most favored ministers of the late king, were already engaged on his side; and the submission or acquiescence of all the other barons put him, without opposition, in possession of the throne.

But John was so unwilling to accept that fate that when he took control of the English government by getting rid of Longchamp, the chancellor and chief justiciary, he got all the English barons to swear they would support his claim to the throne. Upon Richard's return, he didn’t make any efforts to restore or secure the order he had initially established. He even took care, in his final will, to declare his brother John the heir to all his lands; whether this was because he thought Arthur, who was only twelve, couldn't defend his claim against John's supporters, or because of Eleanor, the queen mother, who despised Constantia, the mother of the young duke, and feared the influence that princess would have if her son became king. The authority of a will was significant in that time, even with royal succession; and John had reason to believe that this title, along with his seemingly legitimate claims in other respects, would guarantee him the throne. However, the concept of representation seemed to have advanced more in France than in England at this time; the barons of the overseas provinces Anjou, Maine, and Touraine quickly declared their support for Arthur’s claim and sought help from the French king as their superior lord. Philip, who was looking for any opportunity to trouble John and break up his lands, backed the young duke of Brittany, put him under his protection, and sent him to Paris to be educated with his own son, Lewis. In this situation, John rushed to consolidate his authority among the key figures of the monarchy; after sending Eleanor to Poictou and Guienne, where her claim was undeniable and quickly accepted, he hurried to Rouen, and having secured the duchy of Normandy, he swiftly moved to England. Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury, William Mareschal, earl of Strigul (also known as earl of Pembroke), and Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, the justiciary, who were the three most favored ministers of the late king, were already on his side; and the compliance or acceptance of all the other barons allowed him to ascend the throne without opposition.

The king soon returned to France, in order to conduct the war against Philip, and to recover the revolted provinces from his nephew Arthur. The alliances which Richard had formed with the earl of Flanders, and other potent French princes, though they had not been very effectual, still subsisted, and enabled John to defend himself against all the efforts of his enemy. In an action between the French and Flemings, the elect bishop of Cambray was taken prisoner by the former; and when the cardinal of Capua claimed his liberty, Philip, instead of complying, reproached him with the weak efforts which he had employed in favor of the bishop of Beauvais, who was in a like condition. The legate, to show his impartiality, laid at the same time the kingdom of France and the duchy of Normandy under an interdict; and the two kings found themselves obliged to make an exchange of these military prelates.

The king soon returned to France to lead the war against Philip and reclaim the rebel provinces from his nephew Arthur. The alliances Richard had made with the Earl of Flanders and other powerful French princes, while not very effective, still existed and allowed John to defend himself against all of his enemy's attempts. In a battle between the French and the Flemings, the elect bishop of Cambray was captured by the French. When the Cardinal of Capua requested his release, Philip, instead of agreeing, scolded him for the weak support he had given to the Bishop of Beauvais, who was in a similar situation. To demonstrate his impartiality, the legate simultaneously placed the kingdom of France and the duchy of Normandy under interdict; as a result, the two kings were forced to exchange these military bishops.

1200.

1200.

Nothing enabled the king to bring this war to a happy issue so much as the selfish, intriguing character of Philip, who acted, in the provinces that had declared for Arthur, without any regard to the interests of that prince. Constantia, seized with a violent jealousy that he intended to usurp the entire dominion of them, found means to carry off her son secretly from Paris: she put him into the hands of his uncle; restored the provinces which had adhered to the young prince; and made him do homage for the duchy of Brittany, which was regarded as a rere-fief of Normandy. From this incident, Philip saw that he could not hope to make any progress against John; and being threatened with an interdict on account of his irregular divorce from Ingelburga, the Danish princess whom he had espoused, he became desirous of concluding a peace with England. After some fruitless conferences, the terms were at last adjusted; and the two monarchy seemed in this treaty to have an intention, besides ending the present quarrel, of preventing all future causes of discord, and of obviating every controversy which could hereafter arise between them. They adjusted the limits of all their territories; mutually secured the interests of their vassals, and, to render the union more durable, John gave his niece, Blanche of Castile, in marriage to Prince Lewis, Philip’s eldest son, and with her the baronies of Issoudun and Graçai, and other fiefs in Berri. Nine barons of the king of England, and as many of the king of France, were guaranties of this treaty; and all of them swore, that, if their sovereign violated any article of it, they would declare themselves against him, and embrace the cause of the injured monarch. John, now secure, as he imagined, on the side of France indulged his passion for Isabella, the daughter and heir of Aymar Tailleffer, count of Angouleme, a lady with whom he had become much enamored. His queen, the heiress of the family of Glocester, was still alive: Isabella was married to the count de la Marche, and was already consigned to the care of that nobleman; though, by reason of her tender years, the marriage had not been consummated. The passion of John made him overlook all these obstacles: he persuaded the count of Angouleme to carry off his daughter from her husband; and having, on some pretence or other, procured a divorce from his own wife, he espoused Isabella; regardless both of the menaces of the pope, who exclaimed against these irregular proceedings, and of the resentment of the injured count, who soon found means of punishing his powerful and insolent rival.

Nothing helped the king bring this war to a successful end as much as the self-serving and scheming nature of Philip, who acted in the provinces that had supported Arthur with no regard for that prince's interests. Constantia, filled with intense jealousy that he intended to take over completely, managed to secretly take her son away from Paris: she placed him in the care of his uncle, returned the provinces that had supported the young prince, and made him pledge allegiance for the duchy of Brittany, which was seen as a direct fief of Normandy. From this situation, Philip realized he had no hope of making any gains against John; and facing a potential interdict due to his irregular divorce from Ingelburga, the Danish princess he had married, he wanted to negotiate peace with England. After some unsuccessful talks, the terms were finally agreed upon; and the two monarchies seemed, in this treaty, to intend not only to resolve the current dispute but also to prevent any future conflicts and avoid any controversies that could arise between them. They defined the boundaries of their territories, mutually protected the interests of their vassals, and to make the alliance stronger, John married his niece, Blanche of Castile, to Prince Lewis, Philip’s oldest son, along with her the baronies of Issoudun and Graçai, and other fiefs in Berri. Nine barons from the king of England and an equal number from the king of France guaranteed this treaty; they all swore that if their sovereign violated any part of it, they would turn against him and support the wronged monarch. Feeling secure, as he thought, on the French front, John indulged his passion for Isabella, the daughter and heir of Aymar Tailleffer, count of Angouleme, a woman he had become quite infatuated with. His queen, the heiress of the Gloucester family, was still alive: Isabella was married to the count de la Marche and was already entrusted to that nobleman’s care; however, due to her young age, the marriage had not yet been consummated. John's passion caused him to overlook all these barriers: he convinced the count of Angouleme to abduct his daughter from her husband; and having, under some pretext, secured a divorce from his own wife, he married Isabella, disregarding both the threats from the pope, who condemned these irregular actions, and the anger of the wronged count, who soon found a way to punish his powerful and arrogant rival.

1201.

1201.

John had not the art of attaching his barons either by affection or by fear. The count de la Marche, and his brother, the count d’Eu, taking advantage of the general discontent against him, excited commotions in Poictou and Normandy, and obliged the king to have recourse to arms, in order to suppress the insurrection of his vassals. He summoned together the barons of England, and required them to pass the sea under his standard, and to quell the rebels: he found that he possessed as little authority in that kingdom as in his transmarine provinces. The English barons unanimously replied, that they would not attend him on this expedition, unless he would promise to restore and preserve their privileges; the first symptom of a regular association and plan of liberty among those noblemen. But affairs were not yet fully ripe for the revolution projected. John, by menacing the barons, broke the concert; and both engaged many of them to follow him into Normandy, and obliged the rest, who staid behind, to pay him a scutage of two marks on each knight’s fee, as the price of their exemption from the service.

John didn't know how to win over his barons through love or fear. The Count de la Marche and his brother, the Count d’Eu, took advantage of the widespread discontent against him and stirred up trouble in Poitou and Normandy, forcing the king to resort to arms to put down the rebellion from his vassals. He called together the barons of England and asked them to cross the sea under his banner to subdue the rebels. However, he found that he had as little authority in that kingdom as he did in his overseas territories. The English barons all replied that they would not join him on this mission unless he promised to restore and uphold their privileges; this was the first sign of a coordinated effort for liberty among those nobles. But the situation was not yet ready for the planned revolution. John, by threatening the barons, broke the agreement; he managed to persuade many of them to follow him into Normandy and forced those who remained behind to pay him a scutage of two marks on each knight’s fee in exchange for their exemption from service.

The force which John carried abroad with him, and that which joined him in Normandy, rendered him much superior to his malecontent barons; and so much the more, as Philip did not publicly give them any countenance, and seemed as yet determined to persevere steadily in the alliance which he had contracted with England. But the king, elated with his superiority, advanced claims which gave a universal alarm to his vassals, and diffused still wider the general discontent. As the jurisprudence of those times required that the causes in the lord’s court should chiefly be decided by duel, he carried along with him certain bravos, whom he retained as champions, and whom he destined to fight with his barons, in order to determine any controversy which he might raise against them. The count de la Marche and other noblemen regarded this proceeding as an affront, as well as an injury; and declared, that they would never draw their swords against men of such inferior quality. The king menaced them with vengeance; but he had not vigor to employ against them the force in his hands, or to prosecute the injustice, by crushing entirely the nobles who opposed it.

The force that John took with him abroad and that which joined him in Normandy made him much stronger than his rebellious barons; even more so since Philip didn’t publicly support them and seemed set on continuing the alliance he had formed with England. However, the king, feeling confident in his power, put forward demands that alarmed his vassals and spread discontent even further. Since the law of the time required that cases in the lord’s court be mainly settled by duel, he brought along some tough fighters whom he hired as champions to battle his barons in any disputes he raised against them. The Count de la Marche and other nobles saw this as an insult and an injury, stating they would never fight against men of such lower status. The king threatened them with retribution, but he didn’t have the strength to use the force he had or to fully crush the nobles who opposed him.

This government, equally feeble and violent, gave the injured barons courage, as well as inclination, to carry further their opposition: they appealed to the king of France; complained of the denial of justice in John’s court; demanded redress from him as their superior lord; and entreated him to employ his authority, and prevent their final ruin and oppression. Philip perceived his advantage, opened his mind to great projects, interposed in behalf of the French barons, and began to talk in a high and menacing style to the king of England.

This government, both weak and aggressive, encouraged the injured barons to continue their resistance. They reached out to the king of France, complained about the lack of justice in John’s court, demanded action from him as their superior lord, and pleaded with him to use his power to stop their total destruction and oppression. Philip recognized his opportunity, shared his ambitious plans, intervened on behalf of the French barons, and started speaking in a bold and threatening manner to the king of England.

1202.

1202.

John, who could not disavow Philip’s authority, replied, that it belonged to himself first to grant them a trial by their peers in his own court; it was not till he failed in this duty, that he was answerable to his peers in the supreme court of the French king; and he promised, by a fair and equitable judicature, to give satisfaction to his barons. When the nobles, in consequence of this engagement, demanded a safe conduct, that they might attend his court, he at first refused it: upon the renewal of Philip’s menaces, he promised to grant their demand; he violated this promise: fresh menaces extorted from him a promise to surrender to Philip the fortresses of Tillíeres and Boutavant, as a security for performance; he again violated this engagement: his enemies, sensible both of his weakness and want of faith combined still closer in the resolution of pushing him to extremities; and a new and powerful ally soon appeared to encourage them in their invasion of this odious and despicable government.

John, who couldn't reject Philip’s authority, replied that it was primarily his responsibility to provide them a trial by their peers in his own court. It was only when he failed in this duty that he would be accountable to his peers in the supreme court of the French king. He promised to offer a fair and just system to satisfy his barons. When the nobles, in light of this promise, requested safe passage to attend his court, he initially refused. After Philip's threats were renewed, he promised to comply; however, he broke that promise. Fresh threats forced him to agree to hand over the fortresses of Tillíeres and Boutavant as a guarantee for his commitment; he again broke this agreement. His enemies, aware of both his weakness and lack of trustworthiness, united even more closely with the intent to push him to his limits, and soon a new and powerful ally emerged to support their invasion of this hated and contemptible regime.

1203.

1203.

The young duke of Brittany, who was now rising to man’s estate, sensible of the dangerous character of his uncle, determined to seek both his security and elevation by a union with Philip and the malecontent barons. He joined the French army which had begun hostilities against the king of England: he was received with great marks of distinction by Philip; was knighted by him; espoused his daughter Mary; and was invested not only in the duchy of Brittany, but in the counties of Anjou and Maine, which he had formerly resigned to his uncle. Every attempt succeeded with the allies. Tillieres and Boutavant were taken by Philip, after making a feeble defence: Mortimar and Lyons fell into his hands almost without resistance. That prince next invested Gournai; and opening the sluices of a lake which lay in the neighborhood, poured such a torrent of water into the place, that the garrison deserted it, and the French monarch, without striking a blow, made himself master of that important fortress. The progress of the French arms was rapid, and promised more considerable success than usually in that age attended military enterprises. In answer to every advance which the king made towards peace, Philip still insisted that he should resign all his transmarine dominions to his nephew and rest contented with the kingdom of England; when an event happened, which seemed to turn the scales in favor of John, and to give him a decisive superiority over his enemies.

The young Duke of Brittany, who was now coming of age, aware of how dangerous his uncle was, decided to secure his safety and rise in status by allying with Philip and the discontented barons. He joined the French army, which had started fighting against the King of England; he was welcomed with great honor by Philip, was knighted by him, married his daughter Mary, and was granted not only the Duchy of Brittany but also the counties of Anjou and Maine, which he had previously given up to his uncle. Every effort was successful with the allies. Tillieres and Boutavant were captured by Philip after a weak defense; Mortimar and Lyons surrendered almost without a fight. The prince then laid siege to Gournai; and by opening the sluices of a nearby lake, unleashed a torrent of water into the place, causing the garrison to abandon it, allowing the French monarch to take control of that crucial fortress without a battle. The French military's advances were swift and promised greater success than was typical for military campaigns in that era. In response to each move the king made toward peace, Philip continued to demand that he give up all his overseas territories to his nephew and be content with just the Kingdom of England; then an event occurred that seemed to tip the balance in favor of John, giving him a clear advantage over his enemies.

Young Arthur, fond of military renown, had broken into Poictou at the head of a small army; and passing near Mirebeau, he heard that his grandmother, Queen Eleanor, who had always opposed his interests, was lodged in that place and was protected by a weak garrison and ruinous fortifications. He immediately determined to lay siege to the fortress, and make himself master of her person; but John, roused from his indolence by so pressing an occasion, collected an army of English and Brabançons, and advanced from Normandy with hasty marches to the relief of the queen mother. He fell on Arthur’s camp, before that prince was aware of the danger; dispersed his army; took him prisoner together with the count de la Marche, Geoffrey de Lusignan, and the most considerable of the revolted barons, and returned in triumph to Normandy. Philip, who was lying before Arques, in that duchy, raised the siege and retired upon his approach. The greater part of the prisoners were sent over to England, but Arthur was shut up in the castle of Falaise.

Young Arthur, eager for military glory, had invaded Poictou leading a small army; while passing near Mirebeau, he learned that his grandmother, Queen Eleanor, who had always opposed him, was staying there and was defended by a weak garrison and crumbling fortifications. He quickly decided to besiege the fortress and capture her. However, John, shaken from his laziness by this urgent situation, gathered an army of English and Brabançons and quickly marched from Normandy to rescue the queen mother. He attacked Arthur's camp before the prince realized the threat; he scattered Arthur's troops, captured him along with Count de la Marche, Geoffrey de Lusignan, and several key rebellious barons, and triumphantly returned to Normandy. Philip, who was laying siege to Arques in that duchy, lifted the siege and retreated upon John's arrival. Most of the prisoners were sent to England, but Arthur was confined in the castle of Falaise.

The king had here a conference with his nephew; represented to him the folly of his pretensions; and required him to renounce the French alliance, which had encouraged him to live in a state of enmity with all his family; but the brave, though imprudent youth, rendered more haughty from misfortunes, maintained the justice of his cause; asserted his claim, not only to the French provinces, but to the crown of England; and, in his turn, required the king to restore the son of his elder brother to the possession of his inheritance; John, sensible, from these symptoms of spirit, that the young prince, though now a prisoner, might hereafter prove a dangerous enemy, determined to prevent all future peril by despatching his nephew; and Arthur was never more heard of. The circumstances which attended this deed of darkness were, no doubt, carefully concealed by the actors, and are variously related by historians; but the most probable account is as follows: The king, it is said, first proposed to William de la Braye, one of his servants, to despatch Arthur; but William replied that he was a gentleman, not a hangman; and he positively refused compliance. Another instrument of murder was found, and was despatched with proper orders to Falaise; but Huber de Bourg, chamberlain to the king, and constable of the castle, feigning that he himself would execute the king’s mandate, sent back the assassin, spread the report that the young prince was dead, and publicly performed all the ceremonies of his interment; but finding that the Bretons vowed revenge for the murder, and that all the revolted barons persevered more obstinately in their rebellion, he thought it prudent to reveal the secret, and to inform the world that the duke of Brittany was still alive, and in his custody. This discovery proved fatal to the young prince: John first removed him to the castle of Rouen; and coming in a boat, during the night time, to that place, commanded Arthur to be brought forth to him. The young prince, aware of his danger, and now more subdued by the continuance of his misfortunes, and by the approach of death, threw himself on his knees before hia uncle, and begged for mercy: but the barbarous tyrant, making no reply, stabbed him with his own hands; and fastening a stone to the dead body, threw it into the Seine.

The king had a meeting with his nephew, pointing out the foolishness of his ambitions, and demanded that he give up the French alliance that had encouraged him to remain hostile toward his family. However, the courageous yet reckless young man, emboldened by his misfortunes, defended his cause. He claimed not only the French territories but also the English crown, and in turn, insisted that the king restore his late brother's son to his rightful inheritance. John realized that this spirited young prince, although imprisoned, could become a serious threat in the future, so he decided to eliminate the danger by getting rid of his nephew. After that, Arthur was never seen again. The details surrounding this dark deed were undoubtedly kept secret by those involved and are told in various ways by historians; however, the most likely version is this: it’s said that the king first asked William de la Braye, one of his servants, to carry out Arthur's execution. William, however, refused, saying he was a gentleman, not a killer. Another assassin was found and sent with orders to Falaise, but Huber de Bourg, the king's chamberlain and constable of the castle, pretended he would carry out the king’s orders. Instead, he sent the assassin back, spread the rumor that the young prince was dead, and publicly held a funeral for him. But when the Bretons vowed revenge for the murder and the rebellious barons continued their insurrection more stubbornly, he thought it wise to reveal the truth, letting it be known that the duke of Brittany was still alive and in his custody. This revelation proved disastrous for the young prince: John first moved him to the castle of Rouen, and that night, he arrived by boat and ordered Arthur to be brought to him. Aware of his precarious situation and now more defeated by his continuous misfortunes and the imminent threat of death, Arthur knelt before his uncle and pleaded for mercy. But the cruel tyrant, offering no response, stabbed him with his own hands and, after attaching a stone to his lifeless body, dumped it into the Seine.

All men were struck with horror at this inhuman deed; and from that moment the king, detested by his subjects, retained a very precarious authority over both the people and the barons in his dominions. The Bretons, enraged at this disappointment in their fond hopes, waged implacable war against him; and fixing the succession of their government, put themselves in a posture to revenge the murder of their sovereign. John had got into his power his niece, Eleanor, sister to Arthur, commonly called ‘the damsel of Brittany,’ and carrying her over to England, detained her ever after in captivity:[*] but the Bretons, in despair of recovering this princess, chose Alice for their sovereign; a younger daughter of Constantia, by her second marriage with Gui de Thouars; and they intrusted the government of the duchy to that nobleman. The states of Brittany meanwhile carried their complaints before Philip as their liege lord, and demanded justice for the violence committed by John on the person of Arthur, so near a relation, who, notwithstanding the homage which he did to Normandy, was always regarded as one of the chief vassals of the crown. Philip received their application with pleasure; summoned John to stand a trial before him; and on his non-appearance, passed sentence, with the concurrence of the peers, upon that prince; declared him guilty of felony and parricide; and adjudged him to forfeit to his superior lord all his seigniories and fiefs in France.[**]

All the men were horrified by this inhumane act; from that moment on, the king, hated by his people, held onto a very shaky authority over both the citizens and the barons in his realm. The Bretons, furious about this betrayal of their hopes, waged relentless war against him; and while establishing the succession of their governance, they prepared to avenge the murder of their ruler. John had captured his niece, Eleanor, sister of Arthur, commonly known as ‘the damsel of Brittany,’ and took her to England, where he kept her imprisoned forever:[*] but the Bretons, in despair of rescuing this princess, chose Alice as their queen; she was the younger daughter of Constantia, from her second marriage to Gui de Thouars; and they entrusted the governance of the duchy to that nobleman. Meanwhile, the states of Brittany brought their grievances before Philip as their lord and demanded justice for the violence John committed against Arthur, who was a close relative, and although he acknowledged Normandy, he was always considered one of the main vassals of the crown. Philip welcomed their request; summoned John to stand trial before him; and in his absence, he ruled, with the agreement of the peers, on that prince; declared him guilty of felony and parricide; and ordered him to forfeit all his lordships and fiefs in France to his superior lord.[**]

     [* Trivet, p. 143. T. Wykes, p. 36. Ypod. Neust.
     p. 469.]

     [** W. Heming. p. 455. M. West. p. 264. Knyghton,
     p. 2420]
     [* Trivet, p. 143. T. Wykes, p. 36. Ypod. Neust. p. 469.]

     [** W. Heming. p. 455. M. West. p. 264. Knyghton, p. 2420]

The king of France, whose ambitious and active spirit had been hitherto confined, either by the sound policy of Henry, or the martial genius of Richard, seeing now the opportunity favorable against this base and odious prince, embraced the project of expelling the English, or rather the English king, from France, and of annexing to the crown so many considerable fiefs, which, during several ages, had been dismembered from it. Many of the other great vassals, whose jealousy might have interposed, and have obstructed the execution of this project, were not at present in a situation to oppose it; and the rest either looked on with indifference or gave their assistance to this dangerous aggrandizement of their superior lord. The earls of Flanders and Blois were engaged in the holy war: the count of Champagne was an infant, and under the guardianship of Philip: the duchy of Brittany, enraged at the murder of their prince, vigorously promoted all his measures: and the general defection of John’s vassals made every enterprise easy and successful against him. Philip, after taking several castles and fortresses beyond the Loire, which he either garrisoned or dismantled, received the submissions of the count of Alençon, who deserted John, and delivered up all the places under his command to the French; upon which Philip broke up his camp, in order to give the troops some repose after the fatigues of the campaign. John, suddenly collecting some forces, laid siege to Alençon; and Philip, whose dispersed army could not be brought together in time to succor it, saw himself exposed to the disgrace of suffering the oppression of his friend and confederate. But his active and fertile genius found an expedient against this evil. There was held at that very time a tournament at Moret, in the Gatinois; whither all the chief nobility of France and the neighboring countries had resorted, in order to signalize their prowess and address. Philip presented himself before them; craved their assistance in his distress; and pointed out the plains of Alençon, as the most honorable field in which they could display their generosity and martial spirit. Those valorous knights vowed that they would take vengeance on the base parricide, the stain of arms and of chivalry; and putting themselves, with all their retinue, under the command of Philip, instantly marched to raise the siege of Alençon. John, hearing of their approach, fled from before the place; and in the hurry, abandoned all his tents, machines, and baggage to the enemy.

The king of France, whose ambitious and active spirit had been held back until now, either by Henry's wise policies or Richard's military brilliance, saw a favorable opportunity to take action against this despised and contemptible king. He decided to expel the English king from France and reclaim many significant territories that had been lost over the centuries. Many other powerful vassals who might have opposed him due to jealousy were not in a position to do so now; the rest either watched indifferently or supported this risky expansion of their sovereign's power. The earls of Flanders and Blois were occupied with the holy war; the count of Champagne was a minor under Philip's guardianship; the duchy of Brittany, outraged by their prince's murder, strongly backed all his plans; and the general rebellion of John’s vassals made every venture against him easy and successful. After taking several castles and fortresses beyond the Loire—either garrisoning or demolishing them—Philip received the submission of the count of Alençon, who defected from John and surrendered all his holdings to the French. Philip then disbanded his army to give his troops a break after the exhausting campaign. However, John quickly gathered forces and laid siege to Alençon, while Philip, unable to assemble his scattered army in time to help, faced the humiliation of allowing his ally to be oppressed. But his resourceful and inventive mind devised a solution. At that very moment, a tournament was being held in Moret, in the Gatinais, where all the leading nobility from France and nearby regions had gathered to showcase their skills and valor. Philip presented himself to them, asking for their support in his time of need, and highlighted the plains of Alençon as the most honorable place for them to demonstrate their courage and chivalry. Those brave knights vowed to take revenge on the treacherous parricide, the disgrace of arms and knighthood, and immediately placed themselves, along with their retinues, under Philip's command to lift the siege of Alençon. Upon hearing of their approach, John fled from the area, abandoning all his tents, equipment, and baggage to the enemy in his haste.

This feeble effort was the last exploit of that slothful and cowardly prince for the defence of his dominions. He thenceforth remained in total inactivity at Rouen; passing ill his time with his young wife in pastimes and amusements, as if his state had been in the most profound tranquillity, or his affairs in the most prosperous condition. If he ever mentioned war, it was only to give himself vaunting airs, which, in the eyes of all men, rendered him still more despicable and ridiculous. “Let the French go on,” said he; “I will retake in a day what it has cost them years to acquire.”[*] His stupidity and indolence appeared so extraordinary that the people endeavored to account for the infatuation by sorcery, and believed that he was thrown into this lethargy by some magic or witchcraft. The English barons, finding that their time was wasted to no purpose, and that they must suffer the disgrace of seeing, without resistance, the progress of the French arms, withdrew from their colors, and secretly returned to their own country,[**] No one thought of defending a man who seemed to have deserted himself; and his subjects regarded his fate with the same indifference, to which in this pressing exigency, they saw him totally abandoned.

This weak attempt was the last action of that lazy and cowardly prince to defend his lands. From then on, he stayed completely inactive in Rouen, wasting his time with his young wife on leisure and entertainment, as if everything were perfectly calm or his affairs were thriving. If he ever talked about war, it was just to brag, which only made him seem even more pathetic and ridiculous to everyone. "Let the French keep going," he said; "I’ll take back in a day what took them years to get." His stupidity and laziness were so remarkable that people tried to explain his foolishness with magic, believing he was thrown into this stupor by some sorcery or witchcraft. The English barons, realizing their time was being wasted and that they had to endure the shame of watching the French advance without putting up a fight, abandoned their colors and secretly returned to their own country. No one thought about defending a man who seemed to have given up on himself, and his subjects viewed his fate with the same indifference that left him completely alone in this critical situation.

     [* M. Paris, p. 146. M. West. p. 266.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 146. M. West. p. 264,]
     [* M. Paris, p. 146. M. West. p. 266.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 146. M. West. p. 264,]

John, while he neglected all domestic resources, had the meanness to betake himself to a foreign power, whose protection he claimed: he applied to the pope, Innocent III., and entreated him to interpose his authority between him and the French monarch. Innocent, pleased with any occasion of exerting his superiority, sent Philip orders to stop the progress of his arms, and to make peace with the king of England. But the French barons received the message with indignation; disclaimed the temporal authority assumed by the pontiff; and vowed that they would, to the uttermost, assist their prince against all his enemies; Philip, seconding their ardor, proceeded, instead of obeying the pope’s envoys, to lay siege to Chateau Gaillard, the most considerable fortress which remained to guard the frontiers of Normandy.

John, while ignoring all domestic support, had the audacity to turn to a foreign power for help, claiming their protection: he reached out to Pope Innocent III and begged him to use his authority to intervene between him and the French king. Innocent, eager for any chance to assert his dominance, ordered Philip to halt his military actions and make peace with the King of England. However, the French barons reacted with outrage; they rejected the temporal authority claimed by the pope and swore to do everything in their power to support their king against all his foes. Philip, encouraging their enthusiasm, chose not to follow the pope's envoys but instead laid siege to Chateau Gaillard, the most significant fortress still defending the borders of Normandy.

1204.

1204.

Chateau Gaillard was situated partly on an island in the River Seine, partly on a rock opposite to it; and was secured by every advantage which either art or nature could bestow upon it. The late king, having cast his eye on this favorable situation, had spared no labor or expense in fortifying it; and it was defended by Roger de Laci, constable of Chester, a determined officer, at the head of a numerous garrison. Philip, who despaired of taking the place by force proposed to reduce it by famine; and that he might cut off its communication with the neighboring country, he threw a bridge across the Seine, while he himself, with his army blockaded it by land. The earl of Pembroke, the man of greatest vigor and capacity in the English court, formed a plan for breaking through the French intrenchments, and throwing relief into the place. He carried with him an army of four thousand infantry and three thousand cavalry, and suddenly attacked, with great success, Philip’s camp in the night time; having left orders that a fleet of seventy flat-bottomed vessels should sail up the Seine, and fall at the same instant on the bridge. But the wind and the current of the river, by retarding the vessels, disconcerted this plan of operations; and it was morning before the fleet appeared; when Pembroke, though successful in the beginning of the action, was already repulsed with considerable loss, and the king of France had leisure to defend himself against these new assailants, who also met with a repulse. After this misfortune, John made no further efforts for the relief of Château Gaillard: and Philip had all the leisure requisite for conducting and finishing the siege. Roger de Laci defended himself for a twelvemonth with great obstinacy; and having bravely repelled every attack, and patiently borne all the hardships of famine, he was at last overpowered by a sudden assault in the night time, and made prisoner of war, with his garrison.[*] Philip, who knew how to respect valor, even in an enemy, treated him with civility, and gave him the whole city of Paris for the place of his confinement.

Chateau Gaillard was partly on an island in the River Seine and partly on a rock across from it, secured by every advantage nature and engineering could provide. The late king had recognized this strategic location and spared no effort or expense in fortifying it. It was defended by Roger de Laci, the constable of Chester, a determined officer, leading a large garrison. Philip, seeing that he couldn't take the fortress by force, decided to starve it out. To cut off its supplies from the nearby land, he built a bridge over the Seine while he and his army blockaded it from the land side. The Earl of Pembroke, the most capable and energetic man at the English court, devised a plan to break through the French defenses and deliver supplies to the besieged fortress. He brought an army of four thousand infantry and three thousand cavalry and unexpectedly attacked Philip’s camp at night, achieving great success. He also ordered a fleet of seventy flat-bottomed boats to sail up the Seine and attack the bridge at the same moment. However, the wind and river current delayed the boats, disrupting the operation, and by morning, when the fleet finally appeared, Pembroke, despite starting strong, was pushed back with significant losses. The king of France then had time to defend against the new attackers, who were also driven back. After this setback, John made no further attempts to relieve Château Gaillard, leaving Philip ample time to carry out and complete the siege. Roger de Laci defended himself for a whole year with great determination, bravely repelling every assault and enduring the hardships of famine. Finally, he was overwhelmed by a sudden nighttime attack and taken prisoner along with his garrison. Philip, who respected bravery even in his enemies, treated him with kindness and made the city of Paris his place of confinement.

     [* Trivet p. 144. Gul. Britto, lib. vii. Ann.
     Waverl, p. 168.]
     [* Trivet p. 144. Gul. Britto, lib. vii. Ann. Waverl, p. 168.]

When this bulwark of Normandy was once subdued, all the province lay open to the inroads of Philip; and the king of England despaired of being any longer able to defend it. He secretly prepared vessels for a scandalous flight; and, that the Normans might no longer doubt of his resolution to abandon them, he ordered the fortifications of Pont de l’Arche, Moulineux, and Monfort l’Amauri to be demolished. Not daring to repose confidence in any of his barons whom he believed to be universally engaged in a conspiracy against him, he intrusted the government of the province to Arenas Martin and Lupicaire, two mercenary Brabançons, whom he had retained in his service. Philip, now secure of his prey, pushed his conquests with vigor and success against the dismayed Normans. Falaise was first besieged; and Lupicare, who commanded in this impregnable fortress, after surrendering the place, enlisted himself with his troops in the service of Philip, and carried on hostilities against his ancient master. Caen, Coutance, Seez, Evreux, Baieux, soon fell into the hands of the French monarch, and all the lower Normandy was reduced under his dominion! To forward his enterprises on the other division of the province, Gui de Thouars, at the head of the Bretons, broke into the territory, and took Mount St. Michael, Avranches, and all the other fortresses in that neighborhood. The Normans, who abhorred the French yoke and who would have defended themselves to the last extremity, if their prince had appeared to conduct them, found no resource but in submission; and every city opened its gates as soon as Philip appeared before it. Rouen alone, Arques, and Verneuil determined to maintain their liberties; and formed a confederacy for mutual defence.

Once this stronghold of Normandy was taken, the entire province was left vulnerable to Philip's attacks, and the king of England lost hope of defending it any longer. He secretly prepared ships for a shameful escape; and to make it clear to the Normans that he was abandoning them, he ordered the destruction of the fortifications at Pont de l’Arche, Moulineux, and Monfort l’Amauri. Not trusting any of his barons, whom he believed were all part of a conspiracy against him, he put the province in the hands of Arenas Martin and Lupicaire, two mercenary Brabançons he had hired. With Philip now confident of his victory, he aggressively expanded his conquests against the frightened Normans. Falaise was the first to be besieged; and Lupicare, who was in charge of this strong fortress, surrendered the place and joined Philip’s service, turning against his former master. Caen, Coutance, Seez, Evreux, and Bayeux soon fell into the hands of the French king, bringing all of lower Normandy under his control! To advance his campaigns in the other part of the province, Gui de Thouars led the Bretons into the area and captured Mont Saint-Michel, Avranches, and all the other nearby fortresses. The Normans, who despised French rule and would have fought to the bitter end if their prince had shown up to lead them, found no option but to surrender; every city opened its gates as soon as Philip approached. Only Rouen, Arques, and Verneuil chose to defend their freedoms and formed an alliance for mutual protection.

1205.

1205.

Philip began with the siege of Rouen: the inhabitants were so inflamed with hatred to France, that on the appearance of his army, they fell on all the natives of that country whom they found within their walls, and put tham to death. But after the French king had begun his operations with success, and had taken some of their outworks, the citizens, seeing no resource, offered to capitulate; and demanded only thirty days to advertise their prince of their danger, and to require succors against the enemy. Upon the expiration of the term, as no supply had arrived, they opened their gates to Philip;[*] and the whole province soon after imitated the example, and submitted to the victor. Thus was this important territory reunited to the crown of France, about three centuries after the cession of it by Charles the Simple to Rollo, the first duke; and the Normans, sensible that this conquest was probably final, demanded the privilege of being governed by French laws; which Philip, making a few alterations on the ancient Norman customs, readily granted them. But the French monarch had too much ambition and genius to stop in his present career of success. He carried his victorious army into the western provinces; soon reduced Anjou, Maine, Touraine, and part of Poictou;[**] and in this manner the French crown, during the reign of one able and active prince, received such an accession of power and grandeur, as, in the ordinary course of things, it would have required several ages to attain.

Philip started with the siege of Rouen: the locals were so filled with anger towards France that when they saw his army, they attacked all the French citizens they found within their walls and killed them. But after the French king began his campaign successfully and took some of their outer defenses, the citizens, seeing no other option, offered to surrender; they only asked for thirty days to inform their prince of their danger and request help against the enemy. When the deadline passed with no assistance arriving, they opened their gates to Philip; and soon after, the entire region followed suit and submitted to the victor. This marked the reunification of this important territory with the crown of France, about three centuries after Charles the Simple ceded it to Rollo, the first duke; and the Normans, recognizing that this conquest was likely permanent, requested the right to be governed by French laws, which Philip granted them with a few modifications to the ancient Norman customs. However, the French monarch had too much ambition and skill to slow down in his successful campaign. He led his victorious army into the western provinces; quickly took Anjou, Maine, Touraine, and part of Poictou; and in this way, the French crown, under the reign of one capable and active king, gained a level of power and prestige that would have typically taken several centuries to achieve.

John, on his arrival in England, that he might cover the disgrace of his own conduct, exclaimed loudly against his barons, who, he pretended, had deserted his standard in Normandy; and he arbitrarily extorted from them a seventh of all their movables, as a punishment for the offence.[***]

John, when he arrived in England, trying to cover up the shame of his own actions, loudly criticized his barons, claiming they had abandoned him in Normandy; he then forcefully took a seventh of all their possessions as a punishment for what he said they did.

     [* Trivet, p. 147. Ypod. Neust. p. 469.]

     [** Trivet, p 149]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 146. M. West. p. 265.]
     [* Trivet, p. 147. Ypod. Neust. p. 469.]

     [** Trivet, p 149]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 146. M. West. p. 265.]

Soon after he forced them to grant him a scutage of two marks and a half on each knights’ fee for an expedition into Normandy; but he did not attempt to execute the service for which he pretended to exact it. Next year, he summoned all the barons of his realm to attend him on this foreign expedition, and collected ships from all the seaports; but meeting with opposition from some of his ministers, and abandoning his design, he dismissed both fleet and army, and then renewed his exclamations against the barons for deserting him. He next put to sea with a small army, and his subjects believed that he was resolved to expose himself to the utmost hazard for the defence and recovery of his dominions; but they were surprised, after a few days, to see him return again into harbor, without attempting anything.

Soon after, he forced them to pay him a scutage of two and a half marks for each knight's fee for an expedition to Normandy; however, he didn’t even try to carry out the service he claimed this fee was for. The next year, he called all the barons of his realm to join him on this foreign expedition and gathered ships from all the seaports; but after facing opposition from some of his ministers and abandoning his plan, he dismissed both the fleet and the army, then launched complaints against the barons for abandoning him. He then set sail with a small army, and his subjects believed he was ready to risk everything to defend and recover his lands; but they were shocked to see him return to port just a few days later without attempting anything.

1206.

1206.

In the subsequent season, he had the courage to carry his hostile measures a step farther. Gui de Thouars, who governed Brittany, jealous of the rapid progress made by his ally, the French king, promised to join the king of England with all his forces; and John ventured abroad with a considerable army, and landed at Rochelle. He marched to Angers, which he took and reduced to ashes. But the approach of Philip with an army threw him into a panic; and he immediately made proposals for peace, and fixed a place of interview with his enemy; but instead of keeping this engagement, he stole off with his army, embarked at Rochelle, and returned, loaded with new shame and disgrace, into England. The mediation of the pope procured him at last a truce for two years with the French monarch;[*] almost all the transmarine provinces were ravished from him; and his English barons, though harassed with arbitrary taxes and fruitless expeditions, saw themselves and their country baffled and affronted in every enterprise.

In the following season, he had the guts to escalate his aggressive actions. Gui de Thouars, who was in charge of Brittany, was envious of the fast progress made by his ally, the French king, and promised to join forces with the king of England. John headed out with a significant army and landed at Rochelle. He marched to Angers, which he captured and burned to the ground. However, when Philip approached with his army, it sent him into a panic. He quickly proposed peace talks and set a meeting with his enemy, but instead of sticking to this plan, he slipped away with his army, boarded a ship at Rochelle, and returned to England, weighed down with new shame and disgrace. The pope's intervention eventually secured him a two-year truce with the French king;[*] almost all his overseas territories were taken from him, and his English barons, though burdened with heavy taxes and pointless military campaigns, found themselves and their country defeated and insulted in every effort.

     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 141.]
[* Rymer, vol. i. p. 141.]

In an age when personal valor was regarded as the chief accomplishment, such conduct as that of John, always disgraceful, must be exposed to peculiar contempt; and he must thenceforth have expected to rule his turbulent vassals with a very doubtful authority. But the government exercised by the Norman princes had wound up the royal power to so high a pitch, and so much beyond the usual tenor of the feudal constitutions, that it still behoved him to be debased by new affronts and disgraces, ere his barons could entertain the view of conspiring against him in order to retrench his prerogatives.

In a time when personal bravery was seen as the greatest achievement, John’s actions, always shameful, must have drawn special disdain; he could have only expected to lead his unruly vassals with uncertain authority. However, the way the Norman princes had strengthened royal power to such an extent, far beyond the typical feudal norms, meant that he still had to endure fresh humiliations and scandals before his barons would even consider plotting against him to reduce his powers.

The church, which at that time declined not a contest with the most powerful and most vigorous monarchs, took first advantage of John’s imbecility; and, with the most aggravating circumstances of insolence and scorn, fixed her yoke upon him.

The church, which at that time wasn’t afraid to challenge the strongest and most energetic kings, quickly took advantage of John’s weakness; and, with a lot of arrogance and disdain, imposed its authority over him.

1207.

1207.

The papal chair was then filled by Innocent III., who, having attained that dignity at the age of thirty-seven years, and being endowed with a lofty and enterprising genius gave full scope to his ambition, and attempted, perhaps more openly than any of his predecessors, to convert that superiority which was yielded him by all the European princes, into a real dominion over them. The hierarchy, protected by the Roman pontiff, had already carried to an enormous height its usurpations upon the civil power; but in order to extend them farther, and render them useful to the court of Rome, it was necessary to reduce the ecclesiastics themselves under an absolute monarchy, and to make them entirely dependent on their spiritual leader. For this purpose, Innocent first attempted to impose taxes at pleasure upon the clergy; and in the first year of this century, taking advantage of the popular frenzy for crusades, he sent collectors over all Europe, who levied by his authority the fortieth of all ecclesiastical revenues for the relief of the Holy Land, and received the voluntary contributions of the laity to a like amount.[*] The same year, Hubert, archbishop of Canterbury, attempted another innovation, favorable to ecclesiastical and papal power: in the king’s absence, he summoned, by his legantine authority, a synod of all the English clergy, contrary to the inhibition of Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, the chief justiciary; and no proper censure was ever passed on this encroachment, the first of the kind, upon the royal power. But a favorable incident soon after happened, which enabled so aspiring a pontiff as Innocent to extend still farther his usurpations on so contemptible a prince as John.

The papal chair was then held by Innocent III, who became pope at the age of thirty-seven. He was ambitious and full of energy, using his position to try to convert the respect given to him by European princes into real power over them. The church, already protected by the pope, had significantly increased its control over civil authority, but to expand this control and make it beneficial for Rome, he needed to consolidate the power of the clergy under a centralized leadership, making them totally reliant on him. To accomplish this, Innocent first tried to impose taxes on the clergy as he wished. In the first year of this century, seizing the moment when people were excited about crusades, he sent collectors across Europe to gather a tax of one-fortieth of all church revenues for the aid of the Holy Land, also receiving voluntary donations from the laity of a similar amount. That same year, Hubert, the archbishop of Canterbury, made another move to strengthen ecclesiastical and papal power. In the absence of the king, he called a synod of all English clergy using his legatine authority, defying a ban from Geoffrey Fitz-Peter, the chief justiciar. No significant punishment was ever given for this first-time encroachment on royal authority. Soon after, a favorable event occurred that allowed the ambitious Innocent to further extend his power over the seemingly weak King John.

     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 119.]
[* Rymer, vol. i. p. 119.]

Hubert, the primate, died in 1205; and as the monks or canons of Christ-church, Canterbury, possessed a right of voting in the election of their archbishop, some of the juniors of the order, who lay in wait for that event, met clandestinely the very night of Hubert’s death; and without any congé d‘élire from the king, chose Reginald, their sub-prior, for the successor; installed him in the archiepiscopal throne before midnight; and having enjoined him the strictest secrecy, sent him immediately to Rome, in order to solicit the confirmation of his election.[*] The vanity of Reginald prevailed over his prudence; and he no sooner arrived in Flanders than he revealed to every one the purpose of his journey, which was immediately known in England.[**] The king was enraged at the novelty and temerity of the attempt, in filling so important an office without his knowledge or consent: the suffragan bishops of Canterbury, who were accustomed to concur in the choice of their primate, were no less displeased at the exclusion given them in this election: the senior monks of Christ-church were injured by the irregular proceedings of their juniors: the juniors themselves, ashamed of their conduct, and disgusted with the levity of Reginald, who had broken his engagements with them, were willing to set aside his election:[***] and all men concurred in the design of remedying the false measures which had been taken. But as John knew that this affair would be canvassed before a superior tribunal, where the interposition of royal authority in bestowing ecclesiastical benefices was very invidious; where even the cause of suffragan bishops was not so favorable as that of monks; he determined to make the new election entirely unexceptionable, he submitted the affair wholly to the canons of Christ-church; and departing from the right claimed by his predecessors, ventured no farther than to inform them, privately, that they would do him an acceptable service if they chose John de Gray, bishop of Norwich, for their primate.[****]

Hubert, the archbishop, passed away in 1205, and since the monks of Christ Church, Canterbury, had the right to vote in the election of their archbishop, some of the younger members of the order, who were waiting for this to happen, secretly gathered the very night Hubert died. Without getting the king’s approval, they chose Reginald, their sub-prior, as the successor; they installed him on the archbishop’s throne before midnight and, after insisting on his secrecy, immediately sent him to Rome to seek confirmation of his election. Reginald's vanity overcame his caution, and as soon as he reached Flanders, he told everyone about his mission, which quickly became known back in England. The king was furious about this bold and reckless attempt to fill such an important position without his knowledge or consent. The auxiliary bishops of Canterbury, who were used to being involved in the selection of their archbishop, were equally upset about being left out of this election. The senior monks of Christ Church were aggrieved by the irregular actions of their junior members. The younger monks themselves, embarrassed by their actions and frustrated with Reginald's lightheartedness for breaking their agreements, wanted to annul his election. Everyone agreed on the need to correct the wrong decisions that had been made. However, knowing that this issue would be reviewed by a higher authority, where the involvement of royal power in granting church positions was quite sensitive, and where the case of the auxiliary bishops was not as favorable as that of the monks, John decided to make the new election beyond reproach. He handed the matter entirely over to the canons of Christ Church and, stepping away from the rights claimed by his predecessors, simply informed them privately that they would do him a favor if they chose John de Gray, bishop of Norwich, as their archbishop.

     [* M. Paris, p 148. M. West. p. 266.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 148. M. West. p. 266.]

     [*** M. West. p. 266.]

     [**** M. Paris, p. 149. M. West. p. 266.]
     [* M. Paris, p 148. M. West. p. 266.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 148. M. West. p. 266.]

     [*** M. West. p. 266.]

     [**** M. Paris, p. 149. M. West. p. 266.]

The election of that prelate was accordingly made without a contradictory vote; and the king, to obviate all contests, endeavored to persuade the suffragan bishops not to insist on their claim of concurring in the election; but those prelates, persevering in their pretensions, sent an agent to maintain their cause before Innocent; while the king, and the convent of Christ-church, despatched twelve monks of that order to support, before the same tribunal, the election of the bishop of Norwich.

The election of that bishop was held without any opposing votes, and the king, to avoid any disputes, tried to convince the suffragan bishops not to insist on their right to participate in the election. However, those bishops, sticking to their claims, sent an agent to argue their case before Innocent. Meanwhile, the king and the Christ-church convent sent twelve monks from that order to support the election of the bishop of Norwich in front of the same authority.

Thus there lay three different claims before the pope, whom all parties allowed to be the supreme arbiter in the contest The claim of the suffragans, being so opposite to the usual maxims of the papal court, was soon set aside: the election of Reginald was so obviously fraudulent and irregular, that there was no possibility of defending it: but Innocent maintained, that though this election was null and invalid, it ought previously to have been declared such by the sovereign pontiff, before the monks could proceed to a new election; and that the choice of the bishop of Norwich was of course as uncanonical as that of his competitor.[*] Advantage was, therefore taken of this subtlety for introducing a precedent, by which the see of Canterbury, the most important dignity, in the church after the papal throne, should ever after be at the disposal of the court of Rome.

So, there were three different claims presented to the pope, who everyone recognized as the final authority in this dispute. The claim from the suffragans was quickly dismissed since it went against the usual principles of the papal court. The election of Reginald was clearly fraudulent and irregular, making it impossible to support. However, Innocent argued that even though this election was invalid, the pope needed to declare it null before the monks could go ahead with a new election; therefore, the selection of the bishop of Norwich was just as uncanonical as that of his rival.[*] This reasoning was used to create a precedent that allowed the court of Rome to have control over the see of Canterbury, the second most important position in the church after the pope.

While the pope maintained so many fierce contests, in order to wrest from princes the right of granting investitures, and to exclude laymen from all authority in conferring ecclesiastical benefices, he was supported by the united influence of the clergy; who, aspiring to independence, fought, with all the ardor of ambition, and all the zeal of superstition, under his sacred banners. But no sooner was this point, after a great effusion of blood, and the convulsions of many states, established in some tolerable degree, than the victorious leader as is usual, turned his arms against his own community, and aspired to centre all power in his person. By the invention of reserves, provisions, commendams, and other devices, the pope gradually assumed the right of filling vacant benefices; and the plenitude of his apostolic power, which was not subject to any limitations, supplied all defects of title in the person on whom he bestowed preferment. The canons which regulated elections were purposely rendered intricate and involved: frequent disputes arose among candidates: appeals were every day carried to Rome: the apostolic see, besides reaping pecuniary advantages from these contests, often exercised the power of setting aside both the litigants, and, on pretence of appeasing faction, nominated a third person, who might be more acceptable to the contending parties.

While the pope engaged in intense struggles to take the right to grant investitures away from princes and to keep laypeople from having any say in appointing church positions, he had the strong backing of the clergy. They, eager for independence, fought with the passion of ambition and the intensity of faith under his sacred leadership. But as soon as this issue was resolved, after significant bloodshed and chaos across many regions, the victorious leader, as often happens, turned his focus against his own community and aimed to concentrate all power in himself. Through strategies like reserves, provisions, commendams, and other maneuvers, the pope gradually claimed the authority to fill vacant positions in the church. His total apostolic power, which had no limitations, covered any gaps in the claims of those he appointed. The rules governing elections were intentionally made complicated and convoluted; frequent disputes arose among candidates; appeals were constantly sent to Rome. The apostolic see not only gained financial benefits from these conflicts but also frequently exercised the power to dismiss both parties involved and, under the guise of soothing tensions, appointed a third person who would be more acceptable to those in dispute.

The present controversy about the election to the see of Canterbury afforded Innocent an opportunity of claiming this right; and he failed not to perceive and avail himself of the advantage. He sent for the twelve monks deputed by the convent to maintain the cause of the bishop of Norwich; and commanded them, under the penalty of excommunication, to choose for their primate, Cardinal Langton, an Englishman by birth, but educated in France, and connected, by his interests and attachments, with the see of Rome.[**]

The current dispute over the election to the Canterbury seat gave Innocent a chance to assert this right, and he quickly recognized and took advantage of it. He summoned the twelve monks sent by the convent to support the bishop of Norwich and ordered them, under the threat of excommunication, to select Cardinal Langton as their primate. Langton was an Englishman by birth but educated in France, and his interests and connections were tied to the see of Rome.

     [* M. Paris, p. 155. Chron. de Mailr.p. 182.]

     [** M. Paris, p 155. Ann. Waverl. p. 169. W.
     Heming. p. 553 Knyghton, p. 2415.]
     [* M. Paris, p. 155. Chron. de Mailr.p. 182.]

     [** M. Paris, p 155. Ann. Waverl. p. 169. W.
     Heming. p. 553 Knyghton, p. 2415.]

In vain did the monks represent, that they had received from their convent no authority for this purpose; that an election without a previous writ from the king, would be deemed highly irregular and that they were merely agents for another person, whose right they had no power or pretence to abandon. None of them had the courage to persevere in this opposition, except one, Elias de Brantefield: all the rest, overcome by the menaces and authority of the pope, complied with his orders, and made the election required of them.

In vain did the monks argue that they had received no authority from their convent for this purpose, that an election without prior permission from the king would be considered highly irregular, and that they were simply acting on behalf of someone else, whose rights they had no ability or justification to abandon. None of them had the courage to continue opposing this decision except for one, Elias de Brantefield; the rest, intimidated by the threats and power of the pope, complied with his orders and conducted the election as he required.

Innocent, sensible that this flagrant usurpation would be highly resented by the court of England, wrote John a mollifying letter; sent him four golden rings set with precious stones; and endeavored to enhance the value of the present, by informing him of the many mysteries implied in it. He begged him to consider seriously the form of the rings, their number, their matter, and their color. Their form, he said, being round, shadowed out eternity, which had neither beginning nor end; and he ought thence to learn his duty of aspiring from earthly objects to heavenly, from things temporal to tilings eternal. The number four, being a square, denoted steadiness of mind, not to be subverted either by adversity or prosperity, fixed forever on the firm basis of the four cardinal virtues. Gold, which is the matter, being the most precious of metals, signified wisdom, which is the most valuable of all accomplishments, and justly preferred by Solomon to riches, power, and all exterior attainments. The blue color of the sapphire represented faith; the verdure of the emerald, hope; the redness of the ruby, charity; and the splendor of the topaz, good works.[*] By these conceits, Innocent endeavored to repay John for one of the most important prerogatives of his crown, which he had ravished from him; conceits probably admired by Innocent himself. For it is easily possible for a man, especially in a barbarous age, to unite strong talents for business with an absurd taste for literature and the arts.

Innocent, aware that this blatant takeover would be strongly disliked by the court of England, wrote John a conciliatory letter; sent him four gold rings set with precious stones; and tried to make the gift seem more valuable by explaining the many meanings behind it. He urged him to think seriously about the shape of the rings, their number, their material, and their color. He said their round shape symbolized eternity, which has no beginning or end; and from that, he should learn his duty to aspire from earthly things to heavenly ones, from temporary things to eternal ones. The number four, being a square, represented steadfastness of mind, unshaken by good or bad times, firmly grounded in the four cardinal virtues. Gold, being the most precious of metals, symbolized wisdom, the most valuable of all qualities, which Solomon rightly valued more than wealth, power, and all superficial achievements. The blue of the sapphire stood for faith; the green of the emerald represented hope; the red of the ruby symbolized charity; and the brightness of the topaz stood for good deeds. Through these ideas, Innocent tried to compensate John for one of the most significant rights of his crown, which he had taken from him; concepts likely admired by Innocent himself. It's quite possible for someone, especially in a rough time, to possess strong abilities in business while also having a strange appreciation for literature and the arts.

John was inflamed with the utmost rage when he heard of this attempt of the court of Rome;[**] and he immediately vented his passion on the monks of Christ-church, whom he found inclined to support the election made by their fellows at Rome.

John was filled with intense anger when he heard about this move from the court of Rome; and he quickly unleashed his fury on the monks of Christ Church, who he found were likely to back the election made by their peers in Rome.

     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 139. M. Paris, p. 155]

     [** Rymer, vol. i. p. 143.]
     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 139. M. Paris, p. 155]

     [** Rymer, vol. i. p. 143.]

He sent Fulk de Cantelupe, and Henry de Cornhulle, two knights of his retinue, men of violent tempers and rude manners, to expel them the convent, and take possession of their revenues. These knights entered the monastery with drawn swords, commanded the prior and the monks to depart the kingdom, and menaced them, that in case of disobedience they would instantly burn them with the convent.[*] Innocent, prognosticating, from the violence and imprudence of these measures, that John would finally sink in the contest, persevered the more vigorously in his pretensions, and exhorted the king not to oppose God and the church any longer, nor to persecute that cause for which the holy martyr St. Thomas had sacrificed his life, and which had exalted him equal to the highest saints in heaven;[**] a clear hint to John to profit by the example of his father, and to remember the prejudices and established principles of his subjects, who bore a profound veneration to that martyr, and regarded his merits as the subject of their chief glory and exultation.

He sent Fulk de Cantelupe and Henry de Cornhulle, two knights from his group, known for their violent tempers and rude behavior, to kick them out of the convent and take control of their income. These knights entered the monastery with their swords drawn, ordered the prior and the monks to leave the kingdom, and threatened them that if they didn't obey, they would immediately burn them along with the convent.[*] Innocent, foreseeing that these violent and reckless actions would lead to John's downfall in the conflict, became even more determined in his claims and urged the king not to continue opposing God and the church, nor to persecute the cause for which the holy martyr St. Thomas had given his life, which had elevated him to the status of the highest saints in heaven;[**] a clear suggestion to John to learn from his father's mistakes and to keep in mind the beliefs and traditions of his subjects, who held a deep respect for that martyr and viewed his contributions as their greatest source of pride and honor.

Innocent, finding that John was not sufficiently tamed to submission, sent three prelates, the bishops of London, Ely, and Worcester, to intimate, that, if he persevered in his disobedience, the sovereign pontiff would be obliged to lay the kingdom under an interdict.[***] All the other prelates threw themselves on their knees before him, and entreated him, with tears in their eyes, to prevent the scandal of this sentence, by making a speedy submission to his spiritual father, by receiving from his hands the new elected primate, and by restoring the monks of Christ-church to all their rights and possessions. He burst out into the most indecent invectives against the prelates; swore by God’s teeth, his usual oath, that, if the pope presumed to lay his kingdom under an interdict, he would send to him all the bishops and clergy of England, and would confiscate all their estates; and threatened that, if thenceforth he caught any Romans in his dominions, he would put out their eyes, and cut off their noses, in order to set a mark upon them, which might distinguish them from all other nations.[****]

Innocent, realizing that John wasn’t willing to be submissive, sent three bishops—those of London, Ely, and Worcester—to inform him that if he continued to disobey, the pope would have to put the kingdom under an interdict.[***] All the other bishops knelt before him, pleading with tears in their eyes to avoid the scandal of this decree by quickly submitting to their spiritual leader, accepting the newly elected primate from his hands, and restoring the monks of Christ Church to their rights and possessions. He erupted with the most inappropriate insults towards the bishops; swore by God’s teeth, his usual oath, that if the pope dared to impose an interdict on his kingdom, he would send all the bishops and clergy of England to him and confiscate all their properties; and threatened that if he ever caught any Romans in his lands, he would gouge out their eyes and cut off their noses to mark them as different from all other nations.[****]

     [* M. Paris, p. 156. Trivet, p. 151. Ann. Waverl.
     p. 169.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 157.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 157.]

     [**** M. Paris, p. 157.]
     [* M. Paris, p. 156. Trivet, p. 151. Ann. Waverl.  
     p. 169.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 157.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 157.]

     [**** M. Paris, p. 157.]

Amidst all this idle violence, John stood on such bad terms with his nobility, that he never dared to assemble the states of the kingdom, who, in so, just a cause, would probably have adhered to any other monarch, and have defended with vigor the liberties of the nation against these palpable usurpations of the court of Rome. Innocent, therefore, perceiving the king’s weakness, fulminated at last the sentence of interdict which he had for some time held suspended over him.[*]

Amid all this pointless violence, John was on such bad terms with the nobility that he never dared to call together the states of the kingdom, who, in such a just cause, would likely have supported any other monarch and strongly defended the nation's freedoms against the obvious usurpations of the court of Rome. Innocent, therefore, realizing the king’s weakness, finally issued the interdict that he had been holding over him for some time.[*]

The sentence of interdict was at that time the great instrument of vengeance and policy employed by the court of Rome; was denounced against sovereigns for the lightest offences; and made the guilt of one person involve the ruin of millions, even in their spiritual and eternal welfare. The execution of it was calculated to strike the senses in the highest degree, and to operate with irresistible force on the superstitious minds of the people. The nation was of a sudden deprived of all exterior exercise of its religion: the altars were despoiled of their ornaments: the crosses, the relics, the images, the statues of the saints were laid on the ground; and as if the air itself were profaned, and might pollute them by its contact, the priests carefully covered them up, even from their own approach and veneration. The use of bells entirely ceased in all the churches: the bells themselves were removed from the steeples, and laid on the ground with the other sacred utensils. Mass was celebrated with shut doors; and none but the priests were admitted to that holy institution. The laity partook of no religious rite, except baptism to new-born infants, and the communion to the dying: the dead were not interred in consecrated ground: they were thrown into ditches, or buried in common fields; and their obsequies were not attended with prayers or any hallowed ceremony Marriage was celebrated in the churchyards;[**] and that every action in life might bear the marks of this dreadful situation, the people were prohibited the use of meat, as in Lent, or times of the highest penance; were debarred from all pleasures and entertainments; and were forbidden even to salute each other, or so much as to shave their beards, and give any decent attention to their person and apparel. Every circumstance carried symptoms of the deepest distress, and of the most immediate apprehension of divine vengeance and indignation.

The interdict was at that time a powerful tool of revenge and policy used by the court of Rome; it was declared against rulers for the smallest offenses and made one person's guilt lead to the downfall of millions, even impacting their spiritual and eternal well-being. Its execution was designed to deeply affect the senses and operate with unstoppable force on the superstitious minds of the people. Suddenly, the nation was stripped of all outward expressions of its religion: altars were stripped of their decorations; crosses, relics, images, and statues of saints were laid on the ground; and as if the air itself were tainted and could defile them, priests carefully covered them up, even keeping them away from their own reverence. The ringing of bells completely stopped in all churches; the bells were taken down from the steeples and placed on the ground with other sacred items. Mass was held behind closed doors, with only priests allowed to participate in that holy ritual. The laypeople could only partake in religious rites for baptizing newborns and offering communion to the dying: the dead were not buried in consecrated ground but were thrown into ditches or buried in common fields, with no prayers or sacred ceremonies for their funerals. Marriages took place in churchyards;[**] and to make every action in life reflect this terrible situation, the people were banned from eating meat as they would during Lent or other times of penance; they were denied all pleasures and entertainment and were even prohibited from greeting each other or taking care of their appearance, like shaving their beards. Every aspect of life showed signs of deep distress and an immediate fear of divine punishment and anger.

The king, that he might oppose the temporal to their spiritual terrors, immediately, from his own authority, confiscated the estates of all the clergy who obeyed the interdict;[***] banished the prelates, confined the monks in their convents, and gave them only such a small allowance from their own estates, as would suffice to provide them with food and raiment.

The king, to counter their spiritual threats with secular ones, promptly used his own power to seize the properties of all the clergy who followed the interdict;[***] he exiled the bishops, restricted the monks to their monasteries, and provided them with only a minimal allowance from their own holdings, just enough to cover their food and clothing.

     [* M. Paris, p. 157. Trivet, p. 152. Ann. Waverl.
     p. 170. M. West. p. 268.]

     [** Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 51.]

     [*** Ann. Waverl. p. 170]
     [* M. Paris, p. 157. Trivet, p. 152. Ann. Waverl.
     p. 170. M. West. p. 268.]

     [** Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 51.]

     [*** Ann. Waverl. p. 170]

He treated with the utmost rigor all Langton’s adherents, and every one that showed any disposition to obey the commands of Rome: and in order to distress the clergy in the tenderest point, and at the same time expose them to reproach and ridicule, he threw into prison all their concubines, and required high fines as the price of their liberty.[*]

He dealt harshly with all of Langton's supporters and anyone who seemed willing to follow the orders from Rome. To hurt the clergy where it mattered most and also to embarrass them, he imprisoned all their mistresses and demanded high fines for their release.[*]

After the canons which established the celibacy of the clergy were, by the zealous endeavors of Archbishop Anselrn, more rigorously executed in England, the ecclesiastics gave, almost universally and avowedly, into the use of concubinage and the court of Rome, which had no interest in prohibiting this practice, made very slight opposition to it. The custom was become so prevalent, that, in some cantons of Switzerland, before the reformation, the laws not only permitted, but, to avoid scandal, enjoined the use of concubines to the younger clergy;[**] and it was usual every where for priests to apply to the ordinary, and obtain from him a formal liberty for this indulgence. The bishop commonly took care to prevent the practice from degenerating into licentiousness: he confined the priest to the use of one woman, required him to be constant to her bed, obliged him to provide for her subsistence and that of her children; and, though the offspring was, in the eye of the law, deemed illegitimate, this commerce was really a kind of inferior marriage, such as is still practised in Germany among the nobles; and may be regarded by the candid, as an appeal from the tyranny of civil and ecclesiastical institutions, to the more virtuous and more unerring laws of nature.

After the rules that enforced clerical celibacy were, through the dedicated efforts of Archbishop Anselm, more strictly applied in England, church officials almost universally and openly turned to concubinage. The court of Rome, which had no interest in stopping this practice, barely opposed it. The custom became so widespread that, in some regions of Switzerland before the Reformation, the laws not only allowed but also mandated, to avoid scandal, that younger clergy maintain concubines; and it was common for priests to seek permission from the bishop to formally engage in this practice. Bishops typically ensured that this did not turn into outright debauchery: they limited priests to one woman, required them to remain faithful to her, and obligated them to support her and her children. Although the offspring were considered illegitimate by law, this arrangement was essentially a form of lesser marriage, similar to what is still seen among the nobility in Germany; and it can be viewed, by those with an open mind, as a response to the oppression of civil and religious institutions, appealing to the more moral and reliable laws of nature.

     [* M. Paris, p. 158. Ann. Waverl. p. 170.]

     [** Padre Paolo, Hist. Cone. Prid. lib. i.]
     [* M. Paris, p. 158. Ann. Waverl. p. 170.]

     [** Padre Paolo, Hist. Cone. Prid. lib. i.]

The quarrel between the king and the see of Rome continued for some years; and though many of the clergy, from the fear of punishment, obeyed the orders of John, and celebrated divine service, they complied with the utmost reluctance, and were regarded, both by themselves and the people, as men who betrayed their principles, and sacrificed their conscience to temporal regards and interests. During this violent situation, the king, in order to give a lustre to his government, attempted military expeditions against Scotland, against Ireland, against the Welsh:[*] and he commonly prevailed, more from the weakness of his enemies than from his own vigor or abilities. Meanwhile, the danger to which hia government stood continually exposed from the discontents of the ecclesiastics, increased his natural propension to tyranny; and he seems to have even wantonly disgusted all orders of men, especially his nobles, from whom alone he could reasonably expect support and assistance. He dishonored their families by his licentious amours; he published edicts, prohibiting them from hunting feathered game, and thereby restrained them from their favorite occupation and amusement;[**] he ordered all the hedges and fences near his forests to be levelled, that his deer might have more ready access into the fields for pasture; and he continually loaded the nation with arbitrary impositions.

The conflict between the king and the Roman Church went on for several years; and while many clergymen, fearing punishment, followed John’s orders and held religious services, they did so with great reluctance, seeing themselves and being seen by the public as people who betrayed their beliefs and compromised their conscience for worldly concerns and interests. During this tumultuous period, the king, in an attempt to shine a positive light on his rule, launched military campaigns against Scotland, Ireland, and the Welsh:[*] and he usually succeeded, not because of his own strength or skills, but mostly due to the weaknesses of his enemies. Meanwhile, the ongoing unrest among the clergy posed a constant threat to his government, which intensified his natural inclination toward tyranny; he even seemed to deliberately alienate all social classes, particularly his nobles, from whom he could have reasonably expected support and help. He shamed their families with his scandalous affairs; he issued laws preventing them from hunting game birds, robbing them of their favorite pastime;[**] he ordered the destruction of hedges and fences near his forests to allow his deer easier access to fields for grazing; and he continually burdened the nation with arbitrary taxes.

     [* W. Heming. p. 556. Ypod. Neust p. 450.
     Knyghton, p. 2420 M. West p. 268.]
     [* W. Heming. p. 556. Ypod. Neust p. 450.
     Knyghton, p. 2420 M. West p. 268.]

1208.

1208.

Conscious of the general hatred which he had incurred, he required his nobility to give him hostages for security of their allegiance; and they were obliged to put in his hands their sons, nephews, or near relations. When his messengers came with like orders to the castle of William de Braouse, a baron of great note, the lady of that nobleman replied, that she would never intrust her son into the hands of one who had murdered his own nephew, while in his custody. Her husband reproved her for the severity of this speech; but, sensible of his danger, he immediately fled with his wife and son into Ireland, where he endeavored to conceal himself. Tha king discovered the unhappy family in their retreat; seized the wife and son, whom he starved to death in prison; and the baron himself narrowly escaped, by flying into France.

Aware of the widespread hatred he had attracted, he demanded that his nobles provide hostages to ensure their loyalty; they were forced to hand over their sons, nephews, or close relatives to him. When his messengers delivered similar orders to the castle of William de Braose, a prominent baron, the nobleman’s wife responded that she would never entrust her son to someone who had killed his own nephew while in his care. Her husband scolded her for being so harsh, but understanding the danger they faced, he quickly fled to Ireland with his wife and son, hoping to hide there. The king discovered the unfortunate family in hiding; he captured the wife and son, whom he allowed to starve to death in prison, while the baron narrowly escaped by fleeing to France.

1209.

1209.

The court of Rome had artfully contrived a gradation of sentences; by which it kept offenders in awe; still afforded them an opportunity of preventing the next anathema by submission; and, in case of their obstinacy, was able to refresh the horror of the people against them, by new denunciations of the wrath and vengeance of Heaven. As the sentence of interdict had not produced the desired effect on John, and as his people, though extremely discontented had hitherto been restrained from rising in open rebellion against him, he was soon to look for the sentence of excommunication; and he had reason to apprehend, that, notwithstanding all his precautions, the most dangerous consequences might ensue from it. He was witness of the other scenes which at that very time were acting in Europe, and which displayed the unbounded and uncontrolled power of the papacy. Innocent, far from being dismayed at his contests with the king of England, had excommunicated the emperor Otho, John’s nephew;[*] and soon brought that powerful and haughty prince to submit to his authority. He published a crusade against the Albigenses, a species of enthusiasts in the south of France, whom he denominated heretics; because, like other enthusiasts, they neglected the rites of the church, and opposed the power and influence of the clergy: the people from all parts of Europe, moved by their superstition and their passion for wars and adventures, flocked to his standard: Simon de Montfort, the general of the crusade, acquired to himself a sovereignty in these provinces: the count of Toulouse, who protected, or perhaps only tolerated, the Albigenses, was stripped of his dominions: and these sectaries themselves, though the most innocent and inoffensive of mankind, were exterminated with all the circumstances of extreme violence and barbarity. Here were therefore both an army and a general, dangerous from their zeal and valor, who might be directed to act against John; and Innocent, after keeping the thunder long suspended, gave at last authority to the bishops of London, Ely, and Worcester, to fulminate the sentence of excommunication against him.[**] These prelates obeyed; though their brethren were deterred from publishing, as the pope required of them, the sentence in the several churches of their dioceses.

The court of Rome had cleverly created a range of sentences that kept offenders fearful while still giving them a chance to avoid the next curse by being compliant. If they remained stubborn, the court could reignite public outrage against them with new threats of divine punishment. Since the earlier interdict hadn't worked on John, and despite his people being very unhappy, they had not openly rebelled against him yet, he was soon to face the sentence of excommunication. He had reason to worry that, despite all his precautions, serious consequences might follow. He was aware of the other events happening in Europe at that time, which showed the unrestrained power of the papacy. Innocent, instead of being intimidated by his struggles with the King of England, had excommunicated Emperor Otho, John's nephew, and quickly forced that powerful and proud prince to submit to his authority. He declared a crusade against the Albigenses, a group of enthusiasts in southern France whom he labeled heretics because, like other enthusiasts, they ignored church rituals and challenged the clergy's power. People from all over Europe, driven by superstition and a thirst for war and adventure, flocked to his cause. Simon de Montfort, the crusade's leader, established his own authority in these regions; the Count of Toulouse, who either protected or simply tolerated the Albigenses, lost his lands; and these followers, though among the most innocent and peaceful, were brutally exterminated with extreme violence. Therefore, there stood both an army and a general, dangerous due to their zeal and courage, who could be directed against John. After holding the threat over him for a long time, Innocent finally gave the bishops of London, Ely, and Worcester the authority to issue the excommunication against him. These bishops complied, even though their fellow bishops were hesitant to publicly declare the sentence in their churches as the pope had commanded.

No sooner was the excommunication known, than the effects of it appeared. Geoffrey, archdeacon of Norwich, who was intrusted with a considerable office in the court of exchequer, being informed of it while sitting on the bench observed to his colleagues the danger of serving under an excommunicated king; and he immediately left his chair, and departed the court. John gave orders to seize him, to throw him into prison, to cover his head with a great leaden cope, and by this and other severe usage, he soon put an end to his life:[***] nor was there any thing wanting to Geoffrey, except the dignity and rank of Becket, to exalt him to an equal station in heaven with that great and celebrated martyr.

As soon as the excommunication was made public, its effects quickly became apparent. Geoffrey, the archdeacon of Norwich, who held a significant position in the court of exchequer, learned about it while seated on the bench. He told his colleagues about the risks of working for an excommunicated king and promptly left his seat to exit the court. John ordered his capture, imprisoning him, covering his head with a heavy leaden cloak, and subjecting him to harsh treatment, which ultimately led to his death. The only thing missing for Geoffrey, compared to Becket, was the honor and status that would have placed him alongside that revered martyr in heaven.

     [* M. Paris, p. 160. Trivet, p. 154. M, West. p.
     269.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 159. M. West. p. 270.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 159.]
     [* M. Paris, p. 160. Trivet, p. 154. M, West. p. 269.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 159. M. West. p. 270.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 159.]

Hugh de Wells, the chancellor, being elected by the king’s appointment bishop of Lincoln, upon a vacancy in that see, desired leave to go abroad, in order to receive consecration from the archbishop of Rouen; but he no sooner reached France, than he hastened to Pontigny, where Langton then resided, and paid submissions to him as his primate. The bishops, finding themselves exposed either to the jealousy of the king or hatred of the people, gradually stole out of the kingdom; and at last there remained only three prelates to perform the functions of the episcopal office.[*] Many of the nobility, terrified by John’s tyranny, and obnoxious to him on different accounts, imitated the example of the bishops; and most of the others, who remained, were with reason suspected of having secretly entered into a confederacy against him.[**] John was alarmed at his dangerous situation; a situation which prudence, vigor, and popularity might formerly have prevented, but which no virtues or abilities were now sufficient to retrieve. He desired a conference with Langton at Dover; offered to acknowledge him as primate, to submit to the pope, to restore the exiled clergy, even to pay them a limited sum as a compensation for the rents of their confiscated estates. But Langton, perceiving his advantage, was not satisfied with these concessions: he demanded that full restitution and reparation should be made to all the clergy; a condition so exorbitant, that the king, who probably had not the power of fulfilling it, and who foresaw that this estimation of damages might amount to an immense sum, finally broke off the conference.[***]

Hugh de Wells, the chancellor, was appointed bishop of Lincoln by the king when a vacancy occurred. He asked for permission to travel abroad to receive his consecration from the archbishop of Rouen; however, once he arrived in France, he quickly went to Pontigny, where Langton was living, and submitted to him as his primate. The bishops, feeling threatened by the king's jealousy and the people's anger, gradually left the kingdom, until only three bishops were left to perform the duties of the office.[*] Many nobles, frightened by John's tyranny and vulnerable to him for various reasons, followed the bishops' example. Most of the others who stayed were reasonably suspected of secretly conspiring against him.[**] John was anxious about his precarious situation—a situation that could have been avoided with wisdom, strength, and popularity, but now nothing could change it. He sought to meet with Langton in Dover, offered to recognize him as primate, to submit to the pope, to bring back the exiled clergy, and even to provide them with a limited sum as compensation for the rents of their confiscated estates. However, Langton, seeing his opportunity, wasn’t satisfied with these concessions: he insisted on full restitution and compensation for all the clergy, a condition so unreasonable that the king, who likely didn’t have the power to fulfill it and foresaw that the damages might total an enormous amount, ultimately ended the meeting.[***]

1212.

1212.

The next gradation of papal sentences was to absolve John’s subjects from their oaths of fidelity and allegiance, and to declare every one excommunicated who had any commerce with him, in public or in private; at his table, in his council, or even in private conversation:[****] and this sentence was accordingly, with all imaginable solemnity, pronounced against him. But as John still persevered in his contumacy, there remained nothing but the sentence of deposition; which, though intimately connected with the former had been distinguished from it by the artifice of the court of Rome; and Innocent determined to dart this last thunderbolt against the refractory monarch.

The next level of papal sentences was to free John's subjects from their oaths of loyalty and allegiance, and to declare that anyone who interacted with him, whether in public or private—at his table, in his council, or even in private conversations—would be excommunicated. This sentence was, in fact, pronounced against him with all possible solemnity. However, since John continued to be defiant, the only option left was the sentence of deposition. Although this was closely related to the previous sentence, it had been differentiated from it by the tactics of the Roman court, and Innocent decided to unleash this final blow against the stubborn monarch.

     [* Ann. Waverl. p. 170. Ann. Marg. p. 14.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 162. M. West p. 270, 271.]

     [*** Ann. Waverl. p. 171.]

     [**** M. Paris, p. 161. M. West. p. 270.]
[* Ann. Waverl. p. 170. Ann. Marg. p. 14.]

[** M. Paris, p. 162. M. West p. 270, 271.]

[*** Ann. Waverl. p. 171.]

[**** M. Paris, p. 161. M. West. p. 270.]

But as a sentence of this kind required an armed force to execute it, the pontiff, casting his eyes around, fixed at last on Philip, king of France, as the person into whose powerful hand he could most properly intrust that weapon, the ultimate resource of his ghostly authority. And he offered the monarch, besides the remission of all his sins, and endless spiritual benefits, the property and possession of the kingdom of England, as the reward of his labor.[*]

But since a sentence like this needed military force to carry it out, the pope looked around and finally settled on Philip, king of France, as the person best suited to wield that power, the last resort of his spiritual authority. He offered the king, in addition to forgiveness for all his sins and countless spiritual benefits, the land and ownership of the kingdom of England as the reward for his efforts.[*]

1213.

1213.

It was the common concern of all princes to oppose these exorbitant pretensions of the Roman pontiff, by which they themselves were rendered vassals, and vassals totally dependent, of the papal crown: yet even Philip, the most able monarch of the age, was seduced by present interest, and by the prospect of so tempting a prize, to accept this liberal offer of the pontiff, and thereby to ratify that authority which, if he ever opposed its boundless usurpations, might next day tumble him from the throne. He levied a great army; summoned all the vassals of the crown to attend him at Rouen; collected a fleet of one thousand seven hundred vessels, great and small, in the seaports of Normandy and Picardy; and partly from the zealous spirit of the age, partly from the personal regard universally paid him, prepared a force which seemed equal to the greatness of his enterprise. The king, on the other hand, issued out writs, requiring the attendance of all his military tenants at Dover, and even of all able-bodied men, to defend the kingdom in this dangerous extremity. A great number appeared; and he selected an army of sixty thousand men; a power invincible, had they been united in affection to their prince, and animated with a becoming zeal for the defence of their native country.[**]

It was a shared concern among all princes to challenge the outrageous claims of the Roman pope, which made them vassals completely dependent on the papal authority. Yet even Philip, the most capable monarch of the time, was lured by immediate gains and the allure of such an enticing offer to accept the pope's generous terms, thus legitimizing an authority that could easily topple him from the throne if he ever resisted its limitless overreach. He raised a large army, called all his vassals to meet him at Rouen, and gathered a fleet of one thousand seven hundred ships, large and small, in the ports of Normandy and Picardy. Fueled by the enthusiastic spirit of the time and the widespread respect he received, he prepared a force that seemed suited to the magnitude of his undertaking. On the other hand, the king issued orders for all his military tenants to gather at Dover, even calling on all able-bodied men to defend the kingdom in this dire situation. A significant number responded, and he chose an army of sixty thousand men—an unstoppable force if they had united loyalty to their king and a strong motivation to defend their homeland.

     [* M. Paris, p. 162. M. West, p. 271.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 162. M. West, p. 271.]
     [* M. Paris, p. 162. M. West, p. 271.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 162. M. West, p. 271.]

But the people were swayed by superstition, and regarded their king with horror, as anathematized by papal censures: the barons, besides lying under the same prejudices, were all disgusted by his tyranny, and were, many of them, suspected of holding a secret correspondence with the enemy: and the incapacity and cowardice of the king himself, ill fitted to contend with those mighty difficulties, made men prognosticate the most fatal effects from the French invasion.

But the people were influenced by superstition and viewed their king with fear, like someone cursed by the Pope: the barons, who shared the same biases, were all repulsed by his tyranny and many of them were suspected of secretly communicating with the enemy. The king's own incompetence and cowardice, which made him ill-equipped to deal with these major challenges, led people to predict disastrous consequences from the French invasion.

Pandolf, whom the pope had chosen for his legate, and appointed to head this important expedition, had, before he left Rome, applied for a secret conference with his master, and had asked him, whether, if the king of England, in this desperate situation, were willing to submit to the apostolic see, the church should, without the consent of Philip, grant him any terms of accommodation.[*] Innocent, expecting from his agreement with a prince so abject both in character and fortune, more advantages than from his alliance with a great and victorious monarch, who, after such mighty acquisitions, might become too haughty to be bound by spiritual chains, explained to Pandolf the conditions on which he was willing to be reconciled to the king of England. The legate, therefore, as soon as he arrived in the north of France, sent over two knights templars to desire an interview with John at Dover, which was readily granted: he there represented to him in such strong, and probably in such true colors, his lost condition, the disaffection of his subjects, the secret combination of his vassals against him, the mighty armament of France, that John yielded at discretion,[**] and subscribed to all the conditions which Pandolf was pleased to impose upon him. He promised, among other articles, that he would submit himself entirely to the judgment of the pope; that he would acknowledge Langton for primate; that he would restore all the exiled clergy and laity who had been banished on account of the contest; that he would make them full restitution of their goods, and compensation for all damages, and instantly consign eight thousand pounds, in part of payment; and that every one outlawed or imprisoned for his adherence to the pope, should immediately be received into grace and favor.[***] Four barons swore, along with the king, to the observance of this ignominious treaty.[****]

Pandolf, whom the pope had chosen as his representative and assigned to lead this important mission, had requested a private meeting with his superior before leaving Rome. He asked whether, if the king of England, in this dire situation, was willing to submit to the papacy, the church could grant him any terms of reconciliation without Philip's consent. Innocent believed that he could gain more by aligning with such a lowly prince than by partnering with a powerful and victorious monarch, who, after his major victories, might become too proud to follow spiritual authority. He explained to Pandolf the terms on which he was willing to make peace with the king of England. Therefore, as soon as he arrived in northern France, the legate sent two knights templar to request a meeting with John at Dover, which was quickly approved. At the meeting, he vividly and probably accurately depicted John’s desperate condition, the discontent of his subjects, the secret plotting of his vassals against him, and the massive military threat from France, leading John to surrender completely and agree to all the terms Pandolf set. He committed, among other things, to accept the pope's judgment; to recognize Langton as primate; to restore all clergy and laypeople who had been exiled due to the conflict; to fully compensate them for their property and all damages; to immediately pay eight thousand pounds as part of that compensation; and to grant amnesty to anyone outlawed or imprisoned for supporting the pope. Four barons swore, alongside the king, to uphold this dishonorable agreement.

     [* M. Paris, p. 162.]

     [** M. West. p. 271.]

     [*** Rymer, vol. i. p. 166. M. Paris, p. 163.
     Annal Burt. p. 288.]

     [**** Rymer, vol. i p. 170. M. Paris, p. 163.]
     [* M. Paris, p. 162.]

     [** M. West. p. 271.]

     [*** Rymer, vol. i. p. 166. M. Paris, p. 163.
     Annal Burt. p. 288.]

     [**** Rymer, vol. i p. 170. M. Paris, p. 163.]

But the ignominy of the king was not yet carried to its full height. Pandolf required him, as the first trial of obedience, to resign his kingdom to the church; and he persuaded him, that he could nowise so effectually disappoint the French invasion, as by thus putting himself under the immediate protection of the apostolic see. John, lying under the agonies of present terror, made no scruple of submitting to this condition He passed a charter, in which he said, that, not constrained by fear, but of his own free will, and by the common advice and consent of his barons, he had, for remission of hia own sins and those of his family, resigned England and Ireland to God, to St. Peter and St. Paul, and to Pope Innocent and his successors in the apostolic chair: he agreed to hold these dominions as feudatory of the church of Rome, by the annual payment of a thousand marks; seven hundred for England, three hundred for Ireland: and he stipulated, that, if he or his successors should ever presume to revoke or infringe this charter, they should instantly, except upon admonition they repented of their offence, forfeit all right to their dominions.[*]

But the king's disgrace hadn’t reached its peak yet. Pandolf demanded that, as the first test of obedience, he give his kingdom to the church; and he convinced him that there was no better way to thwart the French invasion than to place himself under the immediate protection of the apostolic see. John, overwhelmed by fear, had no hesitation in agreeing to this condition. He issued a charter in which he stated that, not under duress but of his own free will, and with the advice and consent of his barons, he had, for the forgiveness of his own sins and those of his family, surrendered England and Ireland to God, to St. Peter and St. Paul, and to Pope Innocent and his successors in the apostolic office: he agreed to hold these lands as a vassal of the church of Rome, with an annual payment of a thousand marks; seven hundred for England, three hundred for Ireland: and he specified that if he or his successors ever dared to overturn or violate this charter, they would immediately, unless they showed repentance after a warning, lose all rights to their territories.[*]

     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 176. M. Paris, p. 165.]
     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 176. M. Paris, p. 165.]

In consequence of this agreement, John did homage to Pandolf as the pope’s legate, with all the submissive rites which the feudal law required of vassals before their liege lord and superior. He came disarmed into the legate’s presence, who was seated on a throne; he flung himself on his knees before him; he lifted up his joined hands, and put them within those of Pandolf; he swore fealty to the pope; and he paid part of the tribute which he owed for his kingdom as the patrimony of St. Peter. The legate, elated by this supreme triumph of sacerdotal power, could not forbear discovering extravagant symptoms of joy and exultation: he trampled on the money, which was laid at his feet as an earnest of the subjection of the kingdom; an insolence of which, however offensive to all the English, no one present, except the archbishop of Dublin, dared to take any notice. But though Pandolf had brought the king to submit to these base conditions, he still refused to free him from the excommunication and interdict, till an estimation should be taken of the losses of the ecclesiastics, and full compensation and restitution should be made them.

As a result of this agreement, John paid homage to Pandolf as the pope’s legate, performing all the submissive rituals that feudal law required from vassals before their lord and superior. He entered the legate’s presence unarmed, knelt before him, raised his joined hands, and placed them in Pandolf's hands. He swore loyalty to the pope and paid part of the tribute he owed for his kingdom as the inheritance of St. Peter. The legate, thrilled by this major victory of church power, couldn't help but show his excessive joy and excitement: he stepped on the money laid at his feet as a sign of the kingdom's submission; an act of arrogance that, despite being offensive to all the English, no one present, except the archbishop of Dublin, dared to acknowledge. However, even though Pandolf had pushed the king to accept these humiliating terms, he still refused to lift the excommunication and interdict until an assessment was made of the losses suffered by the clergy, and full compensation and restitution were provided.

John, reduced to this abject situation under a foreign power, still showed the same disposition to tyrannize over his subjects, which had been the chief cause of all his misfortunes. One Peter of Pomfret, a hermit, had foretold that the king, this very year, should lose his crown; and for that rash prophecy, he had been thrown into prison in Corfe castle. Johfi now determined to bring him to punishment as an impostor; and though the man pleaded that his prophecy was fulfilled, and that the king had lost the royal and independent crown which he formerly wore, the defence was supposed to aggravate his guilt: he was dragged at horses’ tails to the town of Warham, and there hanged on a gibbet with his son.[*]

John, now in this miserable situation under a foreign power, still acted like a tyrant towards his subjects, which had caused all his troubles. A hermit named Peter of Pomfret had predicted that the king would lose his crown this very year; for that bold prophecy, he was imprisoned in Corfe Castle. John decided to punish him as a fraud, and even though the hermit argued that his prediction had come true and that the king had lost the royal and independent crown he once wore, this only seemed to increase his guilt. He was dragged by horses to the town of Warham, where he was hanged on a gibbet along with his son.[*]

When Pandolf, after receiving the homage of John, returned to France, he congratulated Philip on the success of his pious enterprise; and informed him that John, moved by the terror of the French arms, had now come to a just sense of his guilt; had returned to obedience under the apostolic see; had even consented to do homage to the pope for his dominions; and having thus made his kingdom a part of St. Peter’s patrimony, had rendered it impossible for any Christian prince, without the most manifest and most flagrant impiety, to attack him.[**] Philip was enraged on receiving this intelligence: he exclaimed, that having, at the pope’s instigation, undertaken an expedition which had cost him above sixty thousand pounds sterling, he was frustrated of his purpose, at the time when its success was become infallible: he complained that all the expense had fallen upon him; all the advantages had accrued to Innocent: he threatened to be no longer the dupe of these hypocritical pretences: and assembling his vassals, he laid before them the ill treatment which he had received, exposed the interested and fraudulent conduct of the pope, and required their assistance to execute his enterprise against England, in which he told them, that notwithstanding the inhibitions and menaces of the legate, he was determined to persevere. The French barons were in that age little less ignorant and superstitious than the English: yet, so much does the influence of those religious principles depend on the present dispositions of men! they all vowed to follow their prince on his intended expedition, and were resolute not to be disappointed of that glory and those riches which they had long expected from this enterprise. The earl of Flanders alone, who had previously formed a secret treaty with John, declaring against the injustice and impiety of the undertaking, retired with his forces;[***] and Philip, that he might not leave so dangerous an enemy behind him, first turned his arms against the dominions of that prince.

When Pandolf returned to France after getting John's allegiance, he congratulated Philip on the success of his religious mission. He informed Philip that John, fearing the might of the French army, had finally acknowledged his guilt; he had submitted to the authority of the pope and even agreed to pay homage to him for his lands. By making his kingdom part of St. Peter’s estate, John had ensured that no Christian prince could attack him without committing a serious act of injustice. Philip was furious upon hearing this news; he shouted that after being urged by the pope to take on a campaign that cost him over sixty thousand pounds, he was thwarted just when victory seemed certain. He complained that all the expenses fell on him while Innocent reaped all the benefits. He vowed not to be deceived by these false pretenses any longer, and gathered his vassals to discuss the mistreatment he had endured, laid bare the self-serving actions of the pope, and asked for their support to launch an assault on England, insisting that, despite the legate's threats and prohibitions, he was determined to continue. The French barons at that time were almost as uninformed and superstitious as the English, yet the influence of those religious beliefs is heavily reliant on people's current mindsets. They all pledged to follow their king on his planned campaign, resolute not to miss out on the glory and wealth they had long anticipated from this venture. Only the Earl of Flanders, who had secretly allied with John and denounced the unfairness and immorality of the operation, withdrew with his forces; and to avoid leaving such a perilous enemy behind, Philip first turned his military efforts against that prince's territories.

     [* M. Paris, p. 165. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 56.]

     [** Trivet, p. 160.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 166.]
     [* M. Paris, p. 165. Chron. Dunst. vol. i. p. 56.]

     [** Trivet, p. 160.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 166.]

Meanwhile the English fleet was assembled under the earl of Saltsbury, the king’s natural brother; and, though inferior in number, received orders to attack the French in their harbors. Salisbury performed this service with so much success that he took three hundred ships; destroyed a hundred more;[*] and Philip, finding it impossible to prevent the rest from falling into the hands of the enemy, set fire to them himself, and thereby rendered it impossible for him to proceed any farther in his enterprise.

Meanwhile, the English fleet gathered under the Earl of Salisbury, the king’s half-brother. Even though they were outnumbered, they were ordered to attack the French in their ports. Salisbury carried out this mission with such success that he captured three hundred ships and destroyed another hundred. Philip, realizing he couldn't stop the remaining ships from falling into enemy hands, set them on fire himself, making it impossible for him to continue with his plans.

John, exulting in his present security, insensible to his past disgrace, was so elated with this success, that he thought of no less than invading France in his turn, and recovering all those provinces which the prosperous arms of Philip had formerly ravished from him. He proposed this expedition to the barons, who were already assembled for the defence of the kingdom. But the English nobles both hated and despised their prince: they prognosticated no success to any enterprise conducted by a such a leader: and, pretending that their time of service was elapsed, and all their previsions exhausted, they refused to second his undertaking.[**] The king, however, resolute in his purpose, embarked with a few followers, and sailed to Jersey, in the foolish expectation that the barons would at last be ashamed to stay behind.[***] But finding himself disappointed, he returned to England; and raising some troops, threatened to take vengeance on all his nobles for their desertion and disobedience. The archbishop of Canterbury, who was in a confederacy with the barons here interposed; strictly inhibited the king from thinking of such an attempt; and threatened him with a renewal of the sentence of excommunication if he pretended to levy war upon any of his subjects before the kingdom were freed from the sentence of interdict.[****]

John, thrilled with his current safety and oblivious to his past shame, was so overjoyed by this success that he considered invading France to reclaim all the territories that Philip's victorious forces had taken from him. He suggested this campaign to the barons, who were already gathered to defend the kingdom. However, the English nobles both hated and looked down on their king: they predicted failure for any venture led by someone like him. Claiming that their service time was up and their resources spent, they refused to support his plan. The king, determined to follow through, set out with a few loyal followers and sailed to Jersey, foolishly hoping that the barons would finally feel ashamed to sit out. But when he found himself let down, he returned to England and gathered some troops, threatening to take revenge on all his nobles for their abandonment and disobedience. The archbishop of Canterbury, who was allied with the barons, intervened; he firmly warned the king against considering such an idea and threatened to reissue the excommunication if he attempted to wage war on any of his subjects before the kingdom was freed from the interdict.

     [* M. Paris, p. 166. Chron. Dunst. vci i. p. 59.
     Trivet, p. 157]

     [** M. Paris, p. 166.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 166.]

     [**** M. Paris, p. 167.]
     [* M. Paris, p. 166. Chron. Dunst. vci i. p. 59.
     Trivet, p. 157]

     [** M. Paris, p. 166.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 166.]

     [**** M. Paris, p. 167.]

The church had recalled the several anathemas pronounced against John, by the same gradual progress with which she had at first issued them. By receiving his homage, and admitting him to the rank of a vassal, his deposition had been virtually annulled, and his subjects were again bound by their oaths of allegiance. The exiled prelates had then returned in great triumph, with Langton at their head; and the king, hearing of their approach, went forth to meet them, and throwing himself on the ground before them, he entreated them with tears to have compassion on him and the kingdom of England.[*] The primate, seeing these marks of sincere penitence, led him to the chapter-house of Winchester, and there administered an oath to him, by which he again swore fealty and obedience to Pope Innocent and his successors; promised to love, maintain, and defend holy church and the clergy; engaged that he would reestablish the good laws of his predecessors, particularly those of St. Edward, and would abolish the wicked ones; and expressed his resolution of maintaining justice and right in all his dominions.[**] The primate next gave him absolution in the requisite forms, and admitted him to dine with him, to the great joy of all the people. The sentence of interdict, however, was still upheld against the kingdom. A new legate, Nicholas, bishop of Frescati, came into England in the room of Pandolf; and he declared it to be the pope’s intentions never to loosen that sentence till full restitution were made to the clergy of every thing taken from them, and ample reparation for all damages which they had Sustained. He only permitted mass to be said with a low voice in the churches, till those losses and damages could be estimated to the satisfaction of the parties. Certain barons were appointed to take an account of the claims; and John was astonished at the greatness of the sums to which the clergy made their losses to amount. No less than twenty thousand marks were demanded by the monks of Canterbury alone; twenty-three thousand for the see of Lincoln; and the king, finding these pretensions to be exorbitant and endless, offered the clergy the sum of a hundred thousand marks for a final acquittal, The clergy rejected the offer with disdain; but the pope, willing to favor his new vassal, whom he found zealous in his declarations of fealty, and regular in paying the stipulated tribute to Rome, directed his legate to accept of forty thousand. The issue of the whole was, that the bishops and considerable abbots got reparation beyond what they had any title to demand; the inferior clergy were obliged to sit down contented with their losses: and the king, after the interdict was taken off, renewed, in the most solemn manner, and by a new charter sealed with gold, his professions of homage and obedience to the see of Rome.

The church had lifted the various excommunications against John, just as they had been gradually imposed in the first place. By accepting his allegiance and recognizing him as a vassal, his removal from power had effectively been revoked, and his subjects were once again bound by their oaths of loyalty. The exiled bishops then returned in great celebration, with Langton leading the way; and when the king heard they were coming, he went out to meet them, throwing himself on the ground before them, begging with tears for their mercy on him and the kingdom of England.[*] The primate, seeing these signs of genuine remorse, took him to the chapter house of Winchester and administered an oath, where he swore loyalty and obedience to Pope Innocent and his successors; promised to love, support, and defend the Church and its clergy; committed to restoring the good laws of his predecessors, especially those of St. Edward, and to abolish the unjust ones; and expressed his determination to uphold justice and rights throughout his realm.[**] The primate then granted him absolution in the necessary form, and they dined together, which delighted the people. However, the interdict against the kingdom remained in place. A new legate, Nicholas, Bishop of Frescati, came to England to replace Pandolf; he announced that the pope would not lift the interdict until full restitution was made to the clergy for everything taken from them, along with adequate compensation for all the harm they had suffered. He allowed masses to be said quietly in churches until the losses and damages could be assessed to everyone's satisfaction. Certain barons were appointed to review the claims, and John was stunned by the enormous sums the clergy claimed as their losses. The monks of Canterbury alone demanded twenty thousand marks; twenty-three thousand for the Diocese of Lincoln; and the king, finding these demands excessive and endless, offered the clergy one hundred thousand marks for a final settlement. The clergy rejected this offer with scorn; but the pope, eager to support his new vassal, who seemed earnest in his loyalty declarations and consistent in paying the required tribute to Rome, instructed his legate to accept forty thousand. In the end, the bishops and significant abbots received reparations beyond what they were entitled to demand, while the lower clergy were left to accept their losses. After the interdict was removed, the king once again solemnly renewed, through a new charter sealed with gold, his pledges of homage and obedience to the see of Rome.

     [* M. Paris, p. 166. Ann. Waverl. p. 178.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 166.]
     [* M. Paris, p. 166. Ann. Waverl. p. 178.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 166.]

1214.

1214.

When this vexatious affair was at last brought to a conclusion, the king, as if he had nothing further to attend but triumphs and victories, went over to Poictou, which still acknowledged his authority;[*] and he carried war into Philip’s dominions.

When this annoying situation was finally resolved, the king, as if he had nothing left to focus on but wins and achievements, went over to Poictou, which still recognized his power;[*] and he took the fight into Philip’s territories.

     [* Queen Eleanor died in 1203 or 1204.]
     [* Queen Eleanor died in 1203 or 1204.]

He besieged a castle near Angiers; but the approach of Prince Lewis, Philip’s son, obliged him to raise the siege with such precipitation, that he left his tents, machines, and baggage behind him; and he returned to England with disgrace. About the same time, he heard of the great and decisive victory gained by the king of France at Bovines over the emperor Otho, who had entered France at the head of one hundred and fifty thousand Germans; a victory which established forever the glory of Philip, and gave full security to all his dominions. John could, therefore, think henceforth of nothing further than of ruling peaceably his own kingdom; and his close connections with the pope, which he was determined at any price to maintain, insured him, as he imagined the certain attainment of that object. But the last and most grievous scene of this prince’s misfortunes still awaited him; and he was destined to pass through a series of more humiliating circumstances than had ever yet fallen to the lot of any other monarch.

He laid siege to a castle near Angiers, but when Prince Lewis, Philip's son, approached, he had to abandon the siege so quickly that he left his tents, equipment, and supplies behind. He returned to England in disgrace. Around the same time, he learned about the significant and decisive victory that the king of France won at Bovines over Emperor Otho, who had invaded France with one hundred and fifty thousand Germans. This victory secured Philip's glory forever and ensured the safety of all his lands. Thus, John could only think about ruling his kingdom peacefully. His close ties with the pope, which he was determined to maintain at any cost, led him to believe he would surely achieve that goal. However, the worst and most painful part of his misfortunes still awaited him, and he was destined to face a series of humiliating events like no other monarch had experienced before.

The introduction of the feudal law into England by William the Conqueror had much infringed the liberties, however imperfect, enjoyed by the Anglo-Saxons in their ancient government, and had reduced the whole people to a state of vassalage under the king or barons, and even the greater part of them to a state of real slavery, the necessity, also, of intrusting great power in the hands of a prince, who was to maintain military dominion over a vanquished nation, had engaged the Norman barons to submit to a more severe and absolute prerogative than that to which men of their rank, in other feudal governments, were commonly subjected. The power of the crown, once raised to a high pitch, was not easily reduced; and the nation, during the course of a hundred and fifty years, was governed by an authority unknown, in the same degree, to all the kingdoms founded by the northern conquerors. Henry I., that he might allure the people to give an exclusion to his elder brother Robert, had granted them a charter, favorable in many particulars to their liberties; Stephen had renewed the grant; Henry II. had confirmed it: but the concessions of all these princes had still remained without effect; and the same unlimited, at least in regular authority, continued to be exercised both by them and their successors. The only happiness was, that arms were never yet ravished from the hands of the barons and people: the nation, by a great confederacy, might still vindicate its liberties: and nothing was more likely than the character, conduct, and fortunes of the reigning prince, to produce such a general combination against him. Equally odious and contemptible, both in public and private life, he affronted the barons by his insolence, dishonored their families by his gallantries, enraged them by his tyranny, and gave discontent to all ranks of men by his endless exactions and impositions.[*] The effect of these lawless practices had already appeared in the general demand made by the barons of a restoration of their privileges; and after he had reconciled himself to the pope, by abandoning the independence of the kingdom, he appeared to all his subjects in so mean a light, that they universally thought they might with safety and honor insist upon their pretensions.

The introduction of feudal law in England by William the Conqueror greatly violated the liberties, however flawed, that the Anglo-Saxons had under their old government, reducing the entire population to a condition of servitude under the king or barons, and many of them to actual slavery. The need to entrust significant power to a prince, who was supposed to maintain military control over a defeated nation, led the Norman barons to accept a harsher and more absolute authority than what was common for people of their rank in other feudal systems. Once the power of the crown had been elevated to a high level, it was hard to take it back; and for the next hundred and fifty years, the nation was ruled by an authority unlike any seen in other kingdoms established by northern conquerors. To win the support of the people against his older brother Robert, Henry I granted them a charter that was favorable to their liberties; Stephen renewed this grant; Henry II confirmed it. However, the concessions made by these kings still had no real impact, and the same unchecked authority continued to be exercised by them and their successors. The one positive aspect was that the barons and the people had not yet been disarmed: the nation, through a significant alliance, could still assert its liberties. Nothing was more likely than the character, actions, and fortunes of the ruling prince to provoke a widespread revolt against him. Equally detestable and contemptible in both public and private life, he insulted the barons with his arrogance, brought shame to their families with his affairs, angered them with his tyranny, and caused discontent among all social classes with his endless demands and taxes. The consequences of these unlawful actions were evident in the barons’ growing demand to restore their rights; and after he reconciled with the pope by giving up the kingdom's independence, he appeared to his subjects in such a lowly manner that they universally felt safe and justified in pushing their claims.

But nothing forwarded this confederacy so much as the concurrence of Langton, archbishop of Canterbury; a man whose memory, though he was obtruded on the nation by a palpable encroachment of the see of Rome, ought always to be respected by the English. This prelate, whether he was moved by the generosity of his nature and his affection to public good; or had entertained an animosity against John, on account of the long opposition made by that prince to his election; or thought that an acquisition of liberty to the people would serve to increase and secure the privileges of the church; had formed the plan of reforming the government, and had prepared the way for that great innovation, by inserting those singular clauses above mentioned, in the oath which he administered to the king, before he would absolve him from the sentence of excommunication. Soon after, in a private meeting of some principal barons at London, he showed them a copy of Henry I.‘s charter, which, he said, he had happily found in a monastery; and he exhorted them to insist on the renewal and observance of it: the barons swore that they would sooner lose their lives than depart from so reasonable a demand.[**]

But nothing advanced this alliance as much as the support from Langton, the Archbishop of Canterbury; a man whose legacy, even though he was forced upon the nation through the blatant encroachment of the Roman see, should always be respected by the English. This church leader, whether motivated by his generous nature and concern for the common good, harbored resentment against John due to the long-standing opposition to his election, or believed that granting freedom to the people would enhance and protect the church's privileges, had devised a plan to reform the government. He set the stage for this significant change by including those unique clauses mentioned earlier in the oath he administered to the king before granting him absolution from excommunication. Shortly after, in a private meeting with some key barons in London, he presented them with a copy of Henry I's charter, which he claimed to have found in a monastery, and urged them to demand its renewal and enforcement. The barons swore they would rather lose their lives than abandon such a reasonable request.[**]

     [* Chron. Mailr. p. 188. T. Wykes, p. 36. Ann.
     Waverl. p. 181 W. Heming. p. 657.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 167.]
     [* Chron. Mailr. p. 188. T. Wykes, p. 36. Ann. Waverl. p. 181 W. Heming. p. 657.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 167.]

The confederacy began now to spread wider, and to comprehend almost all the barons in England; and a new and more numerous meeting was summoned by Langton at St. Edmondsbury, under color of devotion. He again produced to the assembly the old charter of Henry; renewed his exhortations of unanimity and vigor in the prosecution of their purpose; and represented in the strongest colors the tyranny to which they had so long been subjected, and from which it now behoved them to free themselves and their posterity.[*] The barons, inflamed by his eloquence, incited by the sense of their own wrongs, and encouraged by the appearance of their power and numbers, solemnly took an oath, before the high altar, to adhere to each other, to insist on their demands, and to make endless war on the king till he should submit to grant them.[**] They agreed that, after the festival of Christmas, they would prefer in a body their common petition; and in the mean time they separated, after mutually engaging that they would put themselves in a posture of defence, would enlist men and purchase arms, and would supply their castles with the necessary provisions.

The confederacy started to grow larger, including almost all the barons in England; a new and larger meeting was called by Langton at St. Edmundsbury, disguised as a religious gathering. He once again presented the old charter of Henry to the assembly, urged them to stay united and committed to their cause, and vividly illustrated the tyranny they had endured for so long, which they now had to escape for themselves and their future generations. The barons, inspired by his speech, motivated by their own grievances, and bolstered by their strength in numbers, took a solemn oath before the high altar to support one another, to insist on their demands, and to wage relentless war against the king until he agreed to their terms. They decided that, after Christmas, they would present their joint petition as a group; in the meantime, they parted ways, pledging to prepare for defense, recruit soldiers, buy weapons, and stock their castles with essential supplies.

1215.

1215.

The barons appeared in London on the day appointed, and demanded of the king, that, in consequence of his own oath before the primate, as well as in deference to their just rights, he should grant them a renewal of Henry’s charter, and a confirmation of the laws of St. Edward. The king, alarmed with their zeal and unanimity, as well as with their power, required a delay; promised that, at the festival of Easter, he would give them a positive answer to their petition; and offered them the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of Ely, and the earl of Pembroke, the mareschal, as sureties for his fulfilling this engagement.[***] The barons accepted of the terms, and peaceably returned to their castles.

The barons showed up in London on the designated day and asked the king to renew Henry’s charter and confirm the laws of St. Edward, citing his own oath before the primate and their rightful demands. The king, intimidated by their determination, unity, and strength, asked for a delay. He promised that by Easter, he would give them a definite answer to their request and offered the archbishop of Canterbury, the bishop of Ely, and the earl of Pembroke, the marshal, as guarantors for his commitment. The barons agreed to the terms and returned to their castles peacefully.

     [* M. Paris, p. 175.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 176,]

     [*** M Paris, p 176. M. West. p. 273]
     [* M. Paris, p. 175.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 176,]

     [*** M Paris, p 176. M. West. p. 273]

During this interval, John, in order to break or subdue the league of his barons, endeavored to avail himself of the ecclesiastical power, of whose influence he had, from his own recent misfortunes, had such fatal experience. He granted to the clergy a charter, relinquishing forever that important prerogative for which his father and all his ancestors had zealously contended; yielding to them the free election on all vacancies; reserving only the power to issue a conge d’élire and to subjoin a confirmation of the election; and declaring that, if either of these were withheld, the choice should nevertheless be deemed just and valid.[*] He made a vow to lead an army into Palestine against the infidels, and he took on him the cross, in hopes that he should receive from the church that protection which she tendered to every one that had entered into this sacred and meritorious engagement.[**] And he sent to Rome his agent, William de Mauclere, in order to appeal to the pope against the violence of his barons, and procure him a favorable sentence from that powerful tribunal.[***] The barons, also, were not negligent on their part in endeavoring to engage the pope in their interests: they despatched Eustace de Vescie to Rome; laid their case before Innocent as their feudal lord; and petitioned him to interpose his authority with the king, and oblige him to restore and confirm all their just and undoubted privileges.[****]

During this time, John, in an effort to break or control the alliance of his barons, tried to leverage the power of the church, from which he had learned a painful lesson due to his recent troubles. He granted the clergy a charter, giving up forever an important privilege that his father and all his ancestors had fought hard for; he allowed them to directly elect successors for any vacancies while only keeping the ability to issue a conge d’élire and confirm the election. He stated that if he withheld either of these, the choice would still be considered fair and valid.[*] He vowed to lead an army to Palestine against the infidels and took on the cross, hoping to gain the protection that the church offered to anyone undertaking this sacred and noble mission.[**] He sent his agent, William de Mauclere, to Rome to appeal to the pope against the actions of his barons and to secure a favorable decision from that powerful authority.[***] The barons, too, were active in trying to sway the pope to their side: they sent Eustace de Vescie to Rome, presented their case to Innocent as their feudal lord, and asked him to intervene with the king to ensure he would restore and confirm all their rightful and unquestionable privileges.[****]

Innocent beheld with regret the disturbances which had arisen in England, and was much inclined to favor John in his pretensions. He had no hopes of retaining and extending his newly-acquired superiority over that kingdom, but by supporting so base and degenerate a prince, who was willing to sacrifice every consideration to his present safety: and he foresaw, that if the administration should fall into the hands of those gallant and high-spirited barons, they would vindicate the honor, liberty, and independence of the nation, with the same ardor which they now exerted in defence of their own. He wrote letters, therefore, to the prelates, to the nobility, and to the king himself. He exhorted the first to employ their good offices in conciliating peace between the contending parties, and putting an end to civil discord: to the second he expressed his disapprobation of their conduct in employing force to extort concessions from their reluctant sovereign: the last lie advised to treat his nobles with grace and indulgence, and to grant them such of their demands as should appear just and reasonable.

Innocent looked on with regret at the turmoil that had erupted in England and was inclined to support John in his claims. He had no hopes of maintaining and expanding his newly-acquired power over the kingdom without backing such a contemptible and fallen prince, who was ready to sacrifice everything for his immediate safety. He foresaw that if the leadership fell into the hands of those brave and spirited barons, they would fight for the honor, freedom, and independence of the nation with the same passion they currently showed in defending their own rights. Therefore, he wrote letters to the bishops, the nobility, and the king himself. He urged the bishops to use their influence to mediate peace between the conflicting sides and to end the civil strife; he expressed his disapproval to the nobility for using force to extract concessions from their unwilling king; and he advised the king to treat his nobles with kindness and leniency, granting them those demands that seemed fair and reasonable.

     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 197.]

     [** Rymer, vol. i. p. 200. Trivet, p. 162. T.
     Wykes, p. 37. M West. p. 273.]

     [*** Rymer, vol i. p. 184]

     [**** Rymer, vol i. p. 184]
     [* Rymer, vol. i. p. 197.]

     [** Rymer, vol. i. p. 200. Trivet, p. 162. T.
     Wykes, p. 37. M West. p. 273.]

     [*** Rymer, vol i. p. 184]

     [**** Rymer, vol i. p. 184]

The barons easily saw, from the tenor of these letters, that they must reckon on having the pope, as well as the king, for their adversary; but they had already advanced too far to recede from their pretensions, and their passions were so deeply engaged, that it exceeded even the power of superstition itself any longer to control them. They also foresaw, that the thunders of Rome, when not seconded by the efforts of the English ecclesiastics, would be of small avail against them and they perceived that the most considerable of the prelates, as well as all the inferior clergy, professed the highest approbation of their cause. Besides that these men were seized with the national passion for laws and liberty, blessings of which they themselves expected to partake, there concurred very powerful causes to loosen their devoted attachment to the apostolic see. It appeared, from the late usurpations of the Roman pontiff, that he pretended to reap alone all the advantages accruing from that victory, which under his banners, though at their own peril, they had every where obtained over the civil magistrate. The pope assumed a despotic power over all the churches; their particular customs, privileges, and immunities were treated with disdain; even the canons of general councils were set aside by his dispensing power; the whole administration of the church was centred in the court of Rome; all preferments ran, of course, in the same channel; and the provincial clergy saw, at least felt, that there was a necessity for limiting these pretensions. The legate, Nicholas, in filling those numerous vacancies which had fallen in England during an interdict of six years, had proceeded in the most arbitrary manner; and had paid no regard, in conferring dignities, to personal merit, to rank, to the inclination of the electors, or to the customs of the country. The English church was universally disgusted; and Langton himself, though he owed his elevation to an encroachment of the Romish see, was no sooner established in his high office, than he became jealous of the privileges annexed to it, and formed attachments with the country subjected to his jurisdiction. These causes, though they opened slowly the eyes of men, failed not to produce their effect: they set bounds to the usurpations of the papacy; the tide first stopped, and then turned against the sovereign pontiff; and it is otherwise inconceivable, how that age, so prone to superstition, and so sunk in ignorance, or rather so devoted to a spurious erudition, could have escaped falling into an absolute and total slavery under the court of Rome.

The barons quickly realized from the tone of these letters that they had to expect the pope, along with the king, as their enemy; but they had already gone too far to back down from their claims, and their emotions were so deeply involved that even superstition could no longer control them. They also anticipated that the threats from Rome, unless supported by the efforts of the English clergy, would have little effect against them and noticed that the most influential bishops, along with all the lower clergy, strongly supported their cause. Besides being caught up in the national desire for laws and liberty—blessings they hoped to enjoy themselves—there were also very powerful reasons that weakened their loyalty to the papacy. Recent overreach by the Roman pope showed that he wanted to claim all the benefits from victories that they had achieved at their own risk under his banner against the civil authorities. The pope exercised despotic control over all the churches; their specific customs, privileges, and rights were ignored; even the decisions from general councils were dismissed by his authority; the entire administration of the church was centralized in the court of Rome; all appointments followed that same path; and the local clergy sensed the need to limit these claims. The legate, Nicholas, in filling the many vacancies that had emerged in England during a six-year interdict, acted in the most arbitrary way, disregarding personal merit, rank, the preferences of the voters, or the local customs when assigning positions. The English church was fed up; and Langton himself, despite rising to power because of an encroachment from the Roman see, became protective of the privileges that came with his high position and built connections with the territory under his authority as soon as he took office. These factors, though they gradually opened people's eyes, did have an effect: they put limits on the pope's overreach; the tide first stopped and then turned against the papacy; and it is otherwise unimaginable how that era, so susceptible to superstition and so entrenched in ignorance—or rather so devoted to false learning—could have avoided complete and utter subjugation to the court of Rome.

About the time that the pope’s letters arrived in England, The malevolent barons, on the approach of the festival of Easter, when they were to expect the king’s answer to their petition, met by agreement at Stamford; and they assembled a force, consisting of above two thousand knights, besides then retainers and inferior persons without number. Elated with their power, they advanced in a body to Brackley, within fifteen miles of Oxford, the place where the court then resided; and they there received a message from the king, by the archbishop of Canterbury and the earl of Pembroke, desiring to know what those liberties were which they so zealously challenged from their sovereign. They delivered to these messengers a schedule, containing the chief articles of their demands; which was no sooner shown to the king, than he burst into a furious passion, and asked why the barons did not also demand of him his kingdom; swearing that he would never grant them such liberties as must reduce himself to slavery.[*]

About the time the pope’s letters arrived in England, the malicious barons, as Easter approached and they awaited the king’s response to their petition, gathered at Stamford. They assembled a force of over two thousand knights, along with countless retainers and lesser members. Confident in their strength, they marched together to Brackley, just fifteen miles from Oxford, where the court was located at the time. There, they received a message from the king, delivered by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Earl of Pembroke, asking what specific liberties they were so eagerly demanding from their sovereign. They handed the messengers a list detailing their main demands. As soon as the king saw it, he flew into a rage, questioning why the barons didn’t also ask him for his kingdom, swearing that he would never grant them liberties that would enslave him.

No sooner were the confederated nobles informed of John’s reply, than they chose Robert Fitz-Walter their general, whom they called “the mareschal of the army of God and of holy church;” and they proceeded without further ceremony to levy war upon the king. They besieged the castle of Northampton during fifteen days, though without success:[**] the gates of Bedford castle were willingly opened to them by William Beauchamp, its owner: they advanced to Ware in their way to London, where they held a correspondence with the principal citizens: they were received without opposition into that capital: and finding now the great superiority of their force, they issued proclamations, requiring the other barons to join them, and menacing them, in case of refusal or delay, with committing devastation on their houses and estates.[***] In order to show what might be expected from their prosperous arms, they made incursions from London, and laid waste the king’s parks and palaces; and all the barons, who had hitherto carried the semblance of supporting the royal party, were glad of this pretence for openly joining a cause which they always had secretly favored. The king was left at Odiham, in Hampshire, with a poor retinue of only seven knights; and after trying several expedients to elude the blow, after offering to refer all differences to the pope alone, or to eight barons, four to be chosen by himself, and four by the confederates,[****] he found himself at last obliged to submit at discretion.

As soon as the united nobles heard about John’s response, they chose Robert Fitz-Walter as their leader, calling him “the marshal of the army of God and the holy church.” They quickly began waging war against the king. They besieged Northampton Castle for fifteen days but failed to capture it. However, the gates of Bedford Castle were willingly opened to them by its owner, William Beauchamp. They moved towards Ware on their way to London, where they communicated with the city's key citizens. They entered the capital without any resistance and, seeing their overwhelming strength, issued proclamations urging other barons to join them and threatening to destroy their homes and estates if they refused or delayed. To demonstrate what could result from their successful campaign, they launched raids from London, destroying the king’s parks and palaces. All the barons who had pretended to support the royal side were eager to use this as an excuse to openly back a cause they had secretly supported. The king was left at Odiham in Hampshire with only seven knights. After trying various ways to avoid defeat, including proposing to settle all disputes with the pope or through eight barons—four chosen by him and four by the confederates—he ultimately had no choice but to surrender completely.

     [* M. Paris, p. 176.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 177.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 177. ]

     [**** Rymer, vol. i. p. 200.]
     [* M. Paris, p. 176.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 177.]

     [*** M. Paris, p. 177. ]

     [**** Rymer, vol. i. p. 200.]

A conference between the king and the barons was appointed at Runnemede, between Windsor and Staines; a place which has ever since been extremely celebrated on account of this great event. The two parties encamped apart, like open enemies; and after a debate of a few days, the king, with a facility somewhat suspicious, signed and sealed the charter which was required of him. This famous deed, commonly called the Great Charter, either granted or secured very important liberties and privileges to every order of men in the kingdom; to the clergy, to the barons, and to the people.

A meeting between the king and the barons was scheduled at Runnemede, located between Windsor and Staines; a place that has been well-known ever since because of this major event. The two sides camped separately, like open enemies; and after a few days of debate, the king, with a somewhat suspicious ease, signed and sealed the charter that was demanded of him. This famous document, commonly known as the Great Charter, granted or secured very important rights and privileges to every group in the kingdom: the clergy, the barons, and the people.

The freedom of elections was secured to the clergy: the former charter of the king was confirmed, by which the necessity of a royal conge d’élire and confirmation was superseded: all check upon appeals to Rome was removed, by the allowance granted every man to depart the kingdom at pleasure: and the fines to be imposed on the clergy, for any offence, were ordained to be proportional to their lay estates, not to their ecclesiastical benefices.

The freedom of elections was guaranteed to the clergy: the previous charter of the king was reaffirmed, which eliminated the need for a royal conge d’élire and confirmation: all restrictions on appeals to Rome were lifted, by the allowance granted to everyone to leave the kingdom whenever they wanted: and the fines imposed on the clergy for any offense were set to be proportional to their lay properties, not their church benefits.

The privileges granted to the barons were either abatements in the rigor of the feudal law, or determinations in points which had been left by that law, or had become, by practice, arbitrary and ambiguous. The reliefs of heirs succeeding to a military fee were ascertained; an earl’s and baron’s at a hundred marks, a knight’s at a hundred shillings. It was ordained by the charter that, if the heir be a minor, he shall, immediately upon his majority, enter upon his estate, without paying any relief: the king shall not sell his wardship; he shall levy only reasonable profits upon the estate, without committing waste, or hurting the property: he shall uphold the castles, houses, mills, parks, and ponds, and if he commit the guardianship of the estate to the sheriff or any other, he shall previously oblige them to find surety to the same purpose. During the minority of a baron, while his lands are in wardship, and are not in his own possession, no debt which he owes to the Jews shall bear any interest. Heirs shall be married without disparagement; and before the marriage be contracted, the nearest relations of the person shall be informed of it. A widow, without paying any relief, shall enter upon her dower, the third part of her husband’s rents: she shall not be compelled to marry, so long as she chooses to continue single; she shall only give security never to marry without her lord’s consent. The king shall not claim the wardship of any minor who holds lands by military tenure, of a baron, on pretence that he also holds lands of the crown, by soccage or any other tenure. Scutages shall be estimated at the same rate as in the time of Henry I.; and no scutage or aid, except in the three general feudal cases, the king’s captivity, the knighting of his eldest son, and the marrying of his eldest daughter, shall be imposed but by the great council of the kingdom; the prelates, earls, and great barons, shall be called to this great council, each by a particular writ; the lesser barons by a general summons of the sheriff. The king shall not seize any baron’s land for a debt to the crown if the baron possesses as many goods and chattels as are sufficient to discharge the debt. No man shall be obliged to perform more service for his fee than he is bound to by his tenure. No governor or constable of a castle shall oblige any knight to give money for castle guard, if the knight be willing to perform the service in person, or by another able-bodied man; and if the knight be in the field himself, by the king’s command, he shall be exempted from all other service of this nature. No vassal shall be allowed to sell so much of his land as to incapacitate himself from performing his service to his lord.

The privileges given to the barons were either relaxations of the strict feudal law or clarifications on points that had been left unclear or had become arbitrary and ambiguous through practice. The responsibilities of heirs who inherit a military fee were defined; an earl’s and baron’s was set at a hundred marks, while a knight’s was at a hundred shillings. The charter stipulated that if the heir is a minor, they will take possession of their estate as soon as they reach adulthood, without having to pay any relief; the king cannot sell their guardianship; he can only collect reasonable profits from the estate, without causing damage or neglecting the property. He must maintain the castles, houses, mills, parks, and ponds, and if he delegates guardianship to the sheriff or anyone else, he must ensure they provide a guarantee for the same purpose. During a baron’s minority, while their lands are in guardianship and not in their possession, no debt owed to the Jews will accrue interest. Heirs can be married without any status issues; and before the marriage is arranged, the closest relatives of the person must be notified. A widow can take her dower, which is a third of her husband’s rents, without paying any relief; she cannot be forced to remarry as long as she chooses to remain single; she only needs to provide security that she will not marry without her lord’s consent. The king cannot claim the guardianship of any minor who holds lands by military tenure from a baron, just because they also hold lands from the crown, whether by soccage or any other tenure. Scutages will be estimated at the same rate as they were during Henry I's time, and no scutage or aid, except in the three standard feudal cases— the king’s capture, the knighthood of his eldest son, and the marriage of his eldest daughter—can be imposed without the great council of the kingdom; the bishops, earls, and major barons will be summoned to this great council by individual writs; the lesser barons will be called by a general notice from the sheriff. The king cannot seize a baron’s land for a debt owed to the crown if the baron has enough goods and chattels to cover the debt. No one will be required to perform more service for their fee than what they are obligated to by their tenure. No governor or constable of a castle can force any knight to pay for castle guard if the knight is willing to fulfill the service in person or by another capable person; and if the knight is away in the field under the king’s command, they will be exempt from all other such duties. No vassal will be permitted to sell off enough of their land to prevent them from being able to fulfill their service to their lord.

These were the principal articles, calculated for the interest of the barons; and had the charter contained nothing further, national happiness and liberty had been very little promoted by it, as it would only have tended to increase the power and independence of an order of men who were already too powerful, and whose yoke might have become more heavy on the people than even that of an absolute monarch. But the barons, who alone drew and imposed on the prince this memorable charter, were necessitated to insert in it other claused of a more extensive and more beneficent nature: they could not expect the concurrence of the people without comprehending, together with their own, the interest of inferior ranks of men; and all provisions, which the barons, for their own sake, were obliged to make, in order to insure the free and equitable administration of justice, tended directly to the benefit of the whole community. The following were the principal clauses of this nature.

These were the main points aimed at benefiting the barons; if the charter had included nothing more, national happiness and freedom would have seen very little improvement from it, as it would mainly have served to increase the power and independence of a group of people who were already too strong, and their control might have become even more oppressive than that of an absolute monarch. However, the barons, who alone drafted and imposed this significant charter on the prince, had to include other clauses that were broader and more beneficial: they couldn’t expect the support of the people without addressing, alongside their own interests, the needs of lower-ranking individuals. All the provisions that the barons were compelled to make for their own sake to ensure fair and just administration of law directly benefited the entire community. The following were the key clauses of this nature.

It was ordained that all the privileges and immunities above mentioned, granted to the barons against the king, should be extended by the barons to their inferior vassals. The king bound himself not to grant any writ, empowering a baron to levy aids from his vassals, except in the three feudal cases. One weight and one measure shall be established throughout the kingdom. Merchants shall be allowed to transact all business without being exposed to any arbitrary tolls and impositions; they and all free men shall be allowed to go out of the kingdom and return to it at pleasure: London, and all cities and burghs, shall preserve their ancient liberties, immunities, and free customs: aids shall not be required of them but by the consent of the great council: no towns or individuals shall be obliged to make or support bridges but by ancient custom: the goods of every freeman shall he disposed of according to his will: if he die intestate, his heirs shall succeed to them. No officer of the crown shall take any horses, carts, or wood, without the consent of the owner. The king’s courts of justice shall be stationary, and shall no longer follow his person: they shall be open to every one; and justice shall no longer be sold, refused, or delayed by them. Circuits shall be regularly held every year: the inferior tribunals of justice, the county court, sheriff’s turn, and court-leet shall meet at their appointed time and place: the sheriffs shall be incapacitated to hold pleas of the crown; and shall not put any person upon his trial, from rumor or suspicion alone, but upon the evidence of lawful witnesses. No freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or dispossessed of his free tenement and liberties, or outlawed, or banished, or anywise hurt or injured, unless by the legal judgment of his peers, or by the law of the land; and all who suffered otherwise in this or the two former reigns, shall be restored to their rights and possessions. Every freeman shall be fined in proportion to his fault; and no fine shall be levied on him to his utter ruin; even a villain or rustic shall not by any fine be bereaved of his carts, ploughs, and implements of husbandry. This was the only article calculated for the interests of this body of men, probably at that time the most numerous in the kingdom.

It was decided that all the privileges and rights mentioned earlier, given to the barons against the king, should be passed on by the barons to their lower-ranking vassals. The king promised not to issue any orders allowing a baron to collect contributions from his vassals, except in three specific feudal cases. A single standard weight and measure will be established across the kingdom. Merchants will be allowed to conduct all business without facing arbitrary tolls and taxes; they and all free individuals will be allowed to leave the kingdom and return whenever they wish: London and all cities and towns will maintain their ancient rights, privileges, and customs: no contributions will be required from them without the agreement of the great council: no towns or individuals will be forced to build or support bridges except as per ancient tradition: the possessions of every freeman will be managed according to his wishes: if he dies without a will, his heirs will inherit them. No royal official will take any horses, carts, or wood without the owner's consent. The king’s courts of justice will be fixed in place and will no longer move with him: they will be open to everyone; and justice will not be sold, denied, or delayed by them. Courts will be held regularly every year: the lower courts, county court, sheriff’s turn, and court-leet will meet at their designated times and locations: sheriffs will not be allowed to hold crown cases; and they will not put anyone on trial based solely on rumor or suspicion, but based on evidence from legal witnesses. No freeman will be taken, imprisoned, deprived of his property and rights, outlawed, banished, or harmed in any way, except through the legal judgment of his peers or by the law of the land; and everyone who suffered otherwise during this reign or the two previous ones will have their rights and property restored. Every freeman will be fined according to his offense; and no fine will be imposed on him to the point of total ruin; even a laborer or commoner will not be stripped of his carts, plows, and farming tools due to any fines. This was the only provision made for the benefit of this group, likely the largest at that time in the kingdom.

It must be confessed that the former articles of the Great Charter contain such mitigations and explanations of the feudal law as are reasonable and equitable; and that the latter involve all the chief outlines of a legal government, and provide for the equal distribution of justice, and free enjoyment of property; the great objects for which political society was at first founded by men, which the people have a perpetual and unalienable right to recall, and which no time, nor precedent, nor statute, nor positive institution, ought to deter them from keeping ever uppermost in their thoughts and attention. Though the provisions made by this charter might, conformably to the genius of the age, be esteemed too concise, and too bare of circumstances to maintain the execution of its articles, in opposition to the chicanery of lawyers, supported by the violence of power, time gradually ascertained the sense of all the ambiguous expressions; and those generous barons, who first extorted this concession, still held their swords in their hands, and could turn them against those who dared, on any pretence, to depart from the original spirit and meaning of the grant. We may now, from the tenor of this charter, conjecture what those laws were of King Edward which the English nation, during so many generations, still desired, with such an obstinate perseverance, to have recalled and established. They were chiefly these latter articles of Magna Charta; and the barons who, at the beginning of these commotions, demanded the revival of the Saxon laws, undoubtedly thought that they had sufficiently satisfied the people by procuring them this concession, which comprehended the principal objects to which they had so long aspired. But what we are most to admire is, the prudence and moderation of those haughty nobles themselves, who were enraged by injuries, inflamed by opposition, and elated by a total victory over their sovereign. They were content, even in this plenitude of power, to depart from some articles of Henry I.‘s charter, which they made the foundation of their demands, particularly from the abolition of wardships, a matter of the greatest importance; and they seem to have been sufficiently careful not to diminish too far the power and revenue of the crown. If they appear, therefore, to have carried other demands to too great a height, it can be ascribed only to the faithless and tyrannical character of the king himself, of which they had long had experience, and which they foresaw would, if they provided no further security, lead him soon to infringe their new liberties, and revoke his own concessions. This alone gave birth to those other articles, seemingly exorbitant, which were added as a rampart for the safeguard of the Great Charter.

It must be acknowledged that the earlier articles of the Great Charter contain reasonable and fair adjustments and explanations of feudal law; and that the later articles outline the main principles of a legal government, ensuring equal justice and the free enjoyment of property—the fundamental goals for which political society was originally established by people. The public has a permanent and inalienable right to demand these principles, and no amount of time, precedent, statute, or established institution should dissuade them from keeping these issues at the forefront of their minds. Although the provisions of this charter may, according to the spirit of the times, seem too brief and lacking in details to enforce its articles against the legal manipulations backed by the force of power, over time the meanings of all the ambiguous terms were clarified. Those brave barons who initially extracted this concession still held their swords and were ready to use them against anyone who dared to stray from the original intent and spirit of the grant. From the context of this charter, we can now speculate about the laws of King Edward that the English people, for many generations, stubbornly wanted reinstated and established. These chiefly consisted of the latter articles of Magna Carta, and the barons who called for the revival of the Saxon laws at the beginning of these troubles likely believed they had sufficiently satisfied the people by obtaining this concession, which included the key issues they had long desired. However, what is most impressive is the wisdom and restraint of those proud nobles, who were fueled by grievances, driven by conflict, and buoyed by a complete victory over their king. Even in this position of great power, they chose to forgo some provisions of Henry I's charter, which they based their demands on, especially the elimination of wardships, a crucial point, and they seemed to be careful not to excessively diminish the power and revenue of the crown. Therefore, if their other demands seemed overly ambitious, it can only be attributed to the untrustworthy and tyrannical nature of the king himself, of which they had long experience and foresaw would soon lead him to violate their new liberties and revoke his own promises if they didn’t secure further guarantees. This alone led to the addition of those other articles, seemingly excessive, which were intended as a safeguard for the Great Charter.

The barons obliged the king to agree that London should remain in their hands, and the Tower be consigned to the custody of the primate, till the 15th of August ensuing, or till the execution of the several articles of the Great Charter. The better to insure the same end, he allowed them to choose five-and-twenty members from their own body, as conservators of the public liberties; and no bounds were set to the authority of these men either in extent or duration. If any complaint were made of a violation of the charter, whether attempted by the king, justiciaries, sheriffs, or foresters, any four of these barons might admonish the king to redress the grievance: if satisfaction were not obtained, they could assemble the whole council of twenty-five; who, in conjunction with the great council, were empowered to compel him to observe the charter, and, in case of resistance, might levy war against him, attack his castles, and employ every kind of violence, except against his royal person, and that of his queen and children. All men throughout the kingdom were bound, under the penalty of confiscation, to swear obedience to the twenty-five barons; and the freeholders of each county were to choose twelve knights, who were to make report of such evil customs as required redress, conformably to the tenor of the Great Charter.[*] The names of those conservators were, the earls of Clare, Albemarle, Glocesteer, Winchester, Hereford, Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford, William Mareschal the younger, Robert Fitz-Walter, Gilbert de Clare, Eustace de Vescey, Gilbert Delaval, William de Moubray, Geoffrey de Say, Roger de Mombezon, William de Huntingfield, Robert de Ros, the constable of Chester, William de Aubenie, Richard de Perci, William Malet, John Fitz-Robert, William de Lanvalay, Hugh de Bigod, and Roger de Montfichet. These men were, by this convention, really invested with the sovereignty of the kingdom: they were rendered coordinate with the king, or rather superior to him, in the exercise of the executive power; and as there was no circumstance of government which, either directly or indirectly, might not bear a relation to the security or observance of the Great Charter, there could scarcely occur any incident in which they might not lawfully interpose their authority.

The barons forced the king to agree that London should stay under their control, and the Tower would be placed in the care of the primate until August 15 or until the various articles of the Great Charter were fulfilled. To ensure this outcome, he allowed them to select twenty-five members from their group as guardians of public liberties; no limits were set on the power of these individuals in terms of scope or duration. If any complaints were made regarding breaches of the charter, whether by the king, justices, sheriffs, or foresters, any four of these barons could warn the king to correct the issue: if they didn’t get satisfaction, they could assemble the entire council of twenty-five, who, along with the great council, had the authority to force him to comply with the charter. In case of resistance, they could wage war against him, attack his castles, and use all forms of force, except against his royal self, or that of his queen and children. Everyone in the kingdom was required, under penalty of confiscation, to swear loyalty to the twenty-five barons; and the freeholders of each county were to choose twelve knights to report on any unjust customs that needed correction, in accordance with the Great Charter.[*] The names of these guardians included the earls of Clare, Albemarle, Gloucester, Winchester, Hereford, Roger Bigod, earl of Norfolk, Robert de Vere, earl of Oxford, William Marshal the younger, Robert Fitz-Walter, Gilbert de Clare, Eustace de Vescey, Gilbert Delaval, William de Moubray, Geoffrey de Say, Roger de Mombezon, William de Huntingfield, Robert de Ros, the constable of Chester, William de Aubenie, Richard de Percy, William Malet, John Fitz-Robert, William de Lanvalay, Hugh de Bigod, and Roger de Montfichet. Through this agreement, these men were effectively granted sovereignty over the kingdom: they were placed on equal footing with the king, or even superior to him, in executing power; and since nearly every facet of government could relate to the security or enforcement of the Great Charter, there were very few instances in which they couldn’t lawfully assert their authority.

     [* This seems a very strong proof that the house
     of commons was not then in being; otherwise the knights and
     burgesses from the several counties could have given in to
     the lords a list of grievances, without so unusual an
     election.]
     [* This seems to be a very strong indication that the House of Commons didn’t exist at that time; otherwise, the knights and representatives from the various counties could have presented a list of grievances to the lords without such an unusual election.]

John seemed to submit passively to all these regulations, however injurious to majesty: he sent writs to all the sheriffs, ordering them to constrain every one to swear obedience to the twenty-five barons: he dismissed all his foreign force; he pretended, that his government was thenceforth to run in a new tenor, and be more indulgent to the liberty and independence of his people. But he only dissembled till he should find a favorable opportunity for annulling all his concessions. The injuries and indignities which he had formerly suffered from the pope and the king of France, as they came from equals or superiors, seemed to make but small impression on him; but the sense of this perpetual and total subjection under his own rebellious vassals, sunk deep in his mind; and he was determined, at all hazards, to throw off so ignominious a slavery. He grew sullen, silent, and reserved: he shunned the society of his courtiers and nobles: he retired into the Isle of Wight, as if desirous of hiding his shame and confusion; but in this retreat he meditated the most fatal vengeance against all his enemies. He secretly sent abroad his emissaries to enlist foreign soldiers, and to invite the rapacious Brabançons into his service, by the prospect of sharing the spoils of England, and reaping the forfeitures of so many opulent barons, who had incurred the guilt of rebellion, by rising in arms against him. And he despatched a messenger to Rome, in order to lay before the pope the Great Charter, which he had been compelled to sign, and to complain, before that tribunal, of the violence which had been imposed upon him.

John appeared to passively accept all these rules, no matter how damaging to his authority: he sent orders to all the sheriffs, instructing them to force everyone to pledge allegiance to the twenty-five barons. He dismissed all his foreign troops; he claimed that his rule would now take a different approach and be more lenient towards the freedom and independence of his people. But he was just pretending until he could find a good opportunity to undo all his promises. The hurts and insults he had previously endured from the pope and the king of France, coming from equals or superiors, seemed to affect him little; however, the feeling of constant and complete subjugation under his own rebellious vassals weighed heavily on him. He was determined, at any cost, to shake off such disgraceful servitude. He became gloomy, quiet, and distant: he avoided the company of his courtiers and nobles: he withdrew to the Isle of Wight, seemingly wanting to hide his shame and embarrassment; but during this retreat, he plotted the most devastating revenge against his enemies. He secretly dispatched his agents to recruit foreign soldiers and to entice the greedy Brabançons into his service with the promise of sharing the plunder of England and benefiting from the confiscations of many wealthy barons who had rebelled against him. He also sent a messenger to Rome to present the Great Charter he had been forced to sign, and to complain to the pope about the violence he had suffered.

Innocent, considering himself as feudal lord of the kingdom, was incensed at the temerity of the barons, who, though they pretended to appeal to his authority, had dared, without waiting for his consent, to impose such terms on a prince, who, by resigning to the Roman pontiff his crown and independence, had placed himself immediately under the papal protection. He issued, therefore, a bull, in which, from the plenitude of his apostolic power, and from the authority which God had committed to him, to build and destroy kingdoms, to plant and overthrow, he annulled and abrogated the whole charter, as unjust in itself, as obtained by compulsion, and as derogatory to the dignity of the apostolic see. He prohibited the barons from exacting the observance of it: he even prohibited the king himself from paying any regard to it: he absolved him and his subjects from all oaths which they had been constrained to take to that purpose; and he pronounced a general sentence of excommunication against every one who should persevere in maintaining such treasonable and iniquitous pretensions.

Innocent, seeing himself as the feudal lord of the kingdom, was furious with the barons, who, while pretending to appeal to his authority, had dared to impose terms on a prince without waiting for his approval. This prince, by giving up his crown and independence to the Roman pontiff, had put himself directly under papal protection. Therefore, he issued a bull in which, using the fullness of his apostolic power and the authority granted to him by God to build and destroy kingdoms, he annulled and canceled the entire charter, deeming it unjust, obtained under duress, and disrespectful to the dignity of the apostolic see. He forbade the barons from enforcing it and even stopped the king from paying any attention to it. He absolved the king and his subjects from all oaths they were forced to take regarding the matter and issued a general excommunication against anyone who continued to uphold such treasonous and immoral claims.

The king, as his foreign forces arrived along with this bull now ventured to take off the mask; and, under sanction of the pope’s decree, recalled all the liberties which he had granted to his subjects, and which he had solemnly sworn to observe. But the spiritual weapon was found upon trial to carry less force with it than he had reason from his own experience to apprehend. The primate refused to obey the pope in publishing the sentence of excommunication against the barons; and though he was cited to Rome, that he might attend a general council there assembled, and was suspended, on account of his disobedience to the pope, and his secret correspondence with the king’s enemies; though a new and particular sentence of excommunication was pronounced by name against the principal barons; John still found that his nobility and people, and even his clergy, adhered to the defence of their liberties, and to their combination against him: the sword of his foreign mercenaries was all he had to trust to for restoring his authority.

The king, with his foreign forces arriving alongside this bull, now decided to remove his mask; and, backed by the pope’s decree, he took back all the liberties he had granted to his subjects, which he had solemnly promised to uphold. However, the spiritual weapon turned out to be less effective than he had expected based on his own experiences. The primate refused to follow the pope’s order to announce the excommunication of the barons; even though he was summoned to Rome to attend a general council and was suspended for disobeying the pope and secretly communicating with the king’s enemies; and despite a new and specific excommunication being pronounced against the main barons, John still discovered that his nobles, people, and even clergy were committed to defending their liberties and opposing him: the only thing he could rely on to restore his authority was the sword of his foreign mercenaries.

The barons, after obtaining the Great Charter, seem to have been lulled into a fatal security, and to have taken no rational measures, in case of the introduction of a foreign force, for reassembling their armies. The king was, from the first, master of the field; and immediately laid siege to the castle of Rochester, which was obstinately defended by William de Albiney, at the head of a hundred and forty knights with their retainers, but was at last, reduced by famine. John, irritated with the resistance, intended to have hanged the governor and all the garrison; but on the representation of William de Mauleon, who suggested to him the danger of reprisals, he was content to sacrifice, in this barbarous manner, the inferior prisoners only. The captivity of William de Albiney, the best officer among the confederated barons, was an irreparable loss to their cause; and no regular opposition was thenceforth made to the progress of the royal arms. The ravenous and barbarous mercenaries, incited by a cruel and enraged prince were let loose against the estates, tenants, manors, houses, parks of the barons, and spread devastation over the face of the kingdom. Nothing was to be seen but the flames of villages, and castles reduced to ashes, the consternation and misery of the inhabitants, tortures exercised by the soldiery to make them reveal their concealed treasures, and reprisals no less barbarous, committed by the barons and their partisans on the royal demesnes, and on the estates of such as still adhered to the crown. The king, marching through the whole extent of England, from Dover to Berwick, laid the provinces waste on each side of him; and considered every estate, which was not his immediate property, as entirely hostile, and the object of military execution. The nobility of the north in particular, who had shown greatest violence in the recovery of their liberties, and who, acting in a separate body, had expressed their discontent even at the concessions made by the Great Charter, as they could expect no mercy, fled before him with their wives and families, and purchased the friendship of Alexander, the young king of Scots, by doing homage to him.

The barons, after securing the Great Charter, seem to have fallen into a false sense of security and failed to take sensible precautions in case a foreign force was introduced to reassemble their armies. The king was, from the start, in control of the situation and quickly laid siege to Rochester Castle, which was stubbornly defended by William de Albiney, leading a hundred and forty knights and their men. Eventually, the castle was overcome by starvation. John, frustrated by the resistance, planned to hang the governor and the entire garrison, but after William de Mauleon warned him about the risk of backlash, he settled for executing only the lower-ranking prisoners in a cruel manner. The capture of William de Albiney, the best officer among the allied barons, was a significant blow to their cause, and from that point on, there was no organized resistance to the king's advancement. The merciless and savage mercenaries, incited by a vengeful king, were unleashed upon the barons' lands, estates, homes, and parks, bringing destruction across the kingdom. All that could be seen were the flames of burning villages and castles reduced to rubble, the panic and suffering of the residents, and the tortures inflicted by soldiers to reveal hidden treasures, along with equally brutal retaliatory acts committed by the barons and their supporters against royal lands and the estates of those who still remained loyal to the crown. The king, marching the length of England from Dover to Berwick, devastated the provinces on either side of him and treated any estate that wasn’t his own as completely hostile, subject to military action. The northern nobility, who had been the most aggressive in reclaiming their liberties and had even shown dissatisfaction with the concessions made by the Great Charter, fled before him with their wives and families, seeking refuge by swearing loyalty to Alexander, the young king of Scots.

The barons, reduced to this desperate extremity, and menaced with the total loss of their liberties, their properties, and their lives, employed a remedy no less desperate; and making applications to the court of France, they offered to acknowledge Lewis, the eldest son of Philip, for their sovereign, on condition that he would afford them protection from the violence of their enraged prince. Though the sense of the common rights of mankind, the only rights that are entirely indefeasible, might have justified them in the deposition of their king, they declined insisting before Philip on a pretension which is commonly so disagreeable to sovereigns, and which sounds harshly in their royal ears. They affirmed that John was incapable of succeeding to the crown, by reason of the attainder passed upon him during his brother’s reign; though that attainder had been reversed, and Richard had even, by his last will, declared him his successor. They pretended, that he was already legally deposed by sentence of the peers of France, on account of the murder of his nephew; though that sentence could not possibly regard any thing but his transmarine dominions, which alone he held in vassalage to that crown. On more plausible grounds, they affirmed, that he had already deposed himself by doing homage to the pope, changing the nature of his sovereignty, and resigning an independent crown for a fee under a foreign power. And as Blanche of Castile, the wife of Lewis, was descended by her mother from Henry II., they maintained, though many other princes stood before her in the order of succession, that they had not shaken off the royal family, in choosing her husband for their sovereign.

The barons, pushed to this desperate point and threatened with losing their freedoms, property, and lives, resorted to an equally desperate solution. They reached out to the court of France, offering to recognize Lewis, the eldest son of Philip, as their ruler, provided he would protect them from the wrath of their furious prince. Although they had justification for ousting their king based on the universal rights of humanity—rights that can't be taken away—they chose not to push this claim in front of Philip, knowing it would be unpleasant for any monarch to hear. They argued that John was unfit to inherit the throne due to an attainder enacted during his brother’s rule, even though that attainder had been lifted and Richard had declared him his successor in his final will. They also claimed he was already legally deposed by the French peers for the murder of his nephew, despite that ruling only affecting his territories abroad that were held under vassalage to the crown. More convincingly, they argued that he had effectively deposed himself by pledging loyalty to the pope, altering the nature of his kingship, and giving up an independent crown for a feudal title under a foreign authority. Furthermore, since Blanche of Castile, Lewis's wife, was descended from Henry II. through her mother, they insisted that by choosing her husband as their ruler, they had not abandoned the royal lineage, despite many other princes being ahead of her in the line of succession.

Philip was strongly tempted to lay hold on the rich prize which was offered to him. The legate menaced him with interdicts and excommunications, if he invaded the patrimony of St. Peter, or attacked a prince who was under the immediate protection of the holy see; but as Philip was assured of the obedience of his own vassals, his principles were changed with the times, and he now undervalued as much all papal censures, as he formerly pretended to pay respect to them. His chief scruple was with regard to the fidelity which he might expect from the English barons in their new engagements, and the danger of intrusting his son and heir into the hands of men who might, on any caprice or necessity, make peace with their native sovereign, by sacrificing a pledge of so much value. He therefore exacted from the barons twenty-five hostages of the most noble birth in the kingdom; and having obtained this security, he sent over first a small army to the relief of the confederates; then more numerous forces, which arrived with Lewis himself at their head.

Philip was really tempted to grab the rich prize that was being offered to him. The legate threatened him with bans and excommunications if he invaded St. Peter’s property or attacked a prince who was under the direct protection of the Holy See. However, since Philip was confident in the loyalty of his own vassals, he changed his principles with the times and now disregarded all papal censure just as much as he previously claimed to respect it. His main concern was about the loyalty he could expect from the English barons in their new commitments and the risk of putting his son and heir in the hands of men who might, on a whim or necessity, make peace with their local ruler by sacrificing such a valuable pledge. Therefore, he demanded from the barons twenty-five hostages of the highest nobility in the kingdom. After securing this, he first sent a small army to support the confederates, then sent larger forces, which arrived with Lewis himself leading them.

The first effect of the young prince’s appearance in England was the desertion of John’s foreign troops, who, being mostly levied in Flanders, and other provinces of France, refused to serve against the heir of their monarchy. The Gascons and Poictevins alone, who were still John’s subjects, adhered to his cause; but they were too weak to maintain that superiority in the field which they had hitherto supported against the confederated barons. Many considerable noblemen deserted John’s party, the earls of Salisbury, Arundel, Warrenne, Oxford, Albemarle, and William Mareschal the younger: his castles fell daily into the hands of the enemy; Dover was the only place which, from the valor and fidelity of Hubert de Burgh, the governor, made resistance to the progress of Lewis; and the barons had the melancholy prospect of finally succeeding in their purpose, and of escaping the tyranny of their own king, by imposing on themselves and the nation a foreign yoke. But this union was of short duration between the French and English nobles; and the imprudence of Lewis, who on every occasion showed too visible a preference to the former, increased that jealousy which it was so natural for the latter to entertain in their present situation. The viscount of Melun, too, it is said, one of his courtiers, fell sick at London; and finding the approaches of death, he sent for some of his friends among the English barons, and warning them of their danger, revealed Lewis’s secret intentions of exterminating them and their families as traitors to their prince, and of bestowing their estates and dignities on his native subjects, in whose fidelity he could more reasonably place confidence. This story, whether true or false, was universally reported and believed; and, concurring with other circumstances, which rendered it credible, did great prejudice to the cause of Lewis. The earl of Salisbury and other noblemen deserted again to John’s party; and as men easily change sides in a civil war, especially where their power is founded on an hereditary and independent authority, and is not derived from the opinion and favor of the people, the French prince had reason to dread a sudden reverse of fortune. The king was assembling a considerable army, with a view of fighting one great battle for his crown; but passing from Lynne to Lincolnshire, his road lay along the sea-shore, which was overflowed at high water; and not choosing the proper time for his journey, he lost in the inundation all his carriages, treasure, baggage, and regalia. The affliction for this disaster, and vexation from the distracted state of his affairs, increased the sickness under which he then labored; and though he reached the castle of Newark, he was obliged to halt there, and his distemper soon after put an end to his life, in the forty-ninth year of his age, and eighteenth of his reign; and freed the nation from the dangers to which it was equally exposed by his success or by his misfortunes.

The first impact of the young prince’s arrival in England was that John’s foreign troops deserted him. Most of these troops were recruited from Flanders and other provinces in France, and they refused to fight against the heir to their monarchy. Only the Gascons and Poictevins, who were still John's subjects, stuck with him, but they were too weak to maintain the strength they had previously shown against the united barons. Many important nobles abandoned John's side, including the earls of Salisbury, Arundel, Warrenne, Oxford, Albemarle, and William Mareschal the younger. His castles were falling into enemy hands every day; Dover was the only place that resisted Lewis, thanks to the bravery and loyalty of its governor, Hubert de Burgh. The barons faced the grim reality of potentially achieving their goal and escaping the tyranny of their king, only to replace it with a foreign rule. However, the alliance between the French and English nobles was short-lived, and Lewis’s rashness in consistently favoring the French caused growing resentment among the English nobles, given their situation. It is said that the viscount of Melun, one of Lewis's courtiers, fell ill in London. As he approached death, he called some of his English baron friends and warned them of their danger, revealing Lewis's hidden plans to eliminate them and their families as traitors and give their lands and titles to his own subjects, whom he could trust more. Whether true or false, this story spread widely and gained credibility through other circumstances, seriously damaging Lewis’s cause. The earl of Salisbury and other nobles switched back to John's side. In a civil war, people often change their loyalties quickly, especially when their power comes from hereditary and independent authority rather than the support of the populace, so the French prince had every reason to fear an unexpected turn of events. The king was gathering a significant army to fight one decisive battle for his crown, but as he traveled from Lynne to Lincolnshire along the sea shore, he miscalculated the timing of his journey and lost all his carriages, treasure, baggage, and regalia in a flood. The grief from this disaster and the frustration from his chaotic situation worsened the illness he was already suffering from; although he reached the castle of Newark, he was forced to stop there, and his condition quickly led to his death at the age of forty-nine, in the eighteenth year of his reign. This freed the nation from the dangers it faced, whether from his triumphs or his failures.

The character of this prince is nothing but a complication of vices, equally mean and odious; ruinous to himself and destructive to his people. Cowardice, inactivity, folly, levity licentiousness, ingratitude, treachery, tyranny, and cruelty all these qualities appear too evidently in the several incidents of his life, to give us room to suspect that the disagreeable picture has been anywise overcharged by the prejudices of the ancient historians. It is hard to say whether his conduct to his father, his brother, his nephew, or his subjects, was most culpable; or whether his crimes, in these respects, were not even exceeded by the baseness which appeared in his transactions with the king of France, the pope, and the barons. His European dominions, when they devolved to him by the death of his brother, were more extensive than have ever, since his time, been ruled by any English monarch: but he first lost by his misconduct the flourishing provinces in France, the ancient patrimony of his family: he subjected his kingdom to a shameful vassalage under the see of Rome: he saw the prerogatives of his crown diminished by law, and still more reduced by faction; and he died at last, when in danger of being totally expelled by a foreign power, and of either ending his life miserably in prison, or seeking shelter as a fugitive from the pursuit of his enemies.

The character of this prince is nothing but a mix of vices, both small and repulsive; detrimental to himself and harmful to his people. Cowardice, laziness, foolishness, frivolity, moral corruption, ingratitude, betrayal, tyranny, and cruelty all show clearly in various events of his life, leaving no doubt that the negative portrayal has not been exaggerated by the biases of ancient historians. It's hard to determine whether his treatment of his father, brother, nephew, or subjects was the most blameworthy; or if his wrongdoings in these areas were even surpassed by the dishonor he displayed in his dealings with the king of France, the pope, and the barons. When he inherited his European territories after his brother's death, they were larger than any English king has ruled since; however, he first lost the rich provinces in France, the historic lands of his family, through his poor leadership: he subjected his kingdom to a disgraceful subjugation under the authority of Rome; he witnessed the powers of his crown wane through law and further diminish due to factional conflict; and he ultimately died facing the threat of being completely driven out by a foreign power, facing the prospect of either a miserable end in prison or fleeing from the pursuit of his enemies.

The prejudices against this prince were so violent, that he was believed to have sent an embassy to the Miramoulin, or emperor of Morocco, and to have offered to change his religion and become Mahometan, in order to purchase the protection of that monarch. But though this story is told us, on plausible authority, by Matthew Paris,* it is in itself utterly improbable; except that there is nothing so incredible but may be believed to proceed from the folly and wickedness of John.

The biases against this prince were so intense that it was believed he had sent a delegation to the Miramoulin, or emperor of Morocco, offering to convert to Islam to gain the protection of that ruler. Although this tale is presented to us, on seemingly credible authority, by Matthew Paris,* it is highly unlikely; however, there’s nothing too unbelievable that couldn’t be attributed to the foolishness and wickedness of John.

The monks throw great reproaches on this prince for his impiety, and even infidelity; and as an instance of it, they tell us that, having one day caught a very fat stag, he exclaimed, “How plump and well fed is this animal! and yet I dare swear he never heard mass.” This sally of wit upon the usual corpulency of the priests, more than all his enormous crimes and iniquities, made him pass with them for an atheist.

The monks criticize this prince harshly for his lack of religious belief and even for being unfaithful. They mention a specific incident when he caught a very fat stag and exclaimed, “Look how plump and well-fed this creature is! And I bet he’s never even been to mass.” This clever remark about the usual weight of the priests, more than all his other serious wrongdoings, made them see him as an atheist.

John left two legitimate sons behind him, Henry, born on the first of October, 1207, and now nine years of age; and Richard, born on the sixth of January, 1209; and three daughters, Jane, afterwards married to Alexander, king of Scots; Eleanor, married first to William Mareschal the younger, earl of Pembroke, and then to Simon Mountfort earl of Leicester; and Isabella, married to the emperor Frederic II. All these children were born to him by Isabella of Angouleme, his second wife. His illegitimate children were numerous; but none of them were anywise distinguished.

John left behind two legitimate sons: Henry, born on October 1, 1207, and now nine years old; and Richard, born on January 6, 1209. He also had three daughters: Jane, who later married Alexander, king of Scots; Eleanor, who was first married to William Mareschal the younger, earl of Pembroke, and then to Simon Mountfort, earl of Leicester; and Isabella, who married Emperor Frederic II. All these children were born to him by Isabella of Angouleme, his second wife. He had many illegitimate children, but none of them stood out in any way.

It was this king who, in the ninth year of his reign, first gave by charter to the city of London, the right of electing annually a mayor out of its own body, an office which was till now held for life. He gave the city also power to elect and remove its sheriffs at pleasure, and its common-council men annually. London bridge was finished in this reign: the former bridge was of wood. Maud, the empress, was the first that built a stone bridge in England.

It was this king who, in the ninth year of his reign, first granted the city of London the right to elect a mayor from its own citizens each year, a position that had previously been held for life. He also gave the city the authority to elect and remove its sheriffs at will, as well as choose its common council members annually. London Bridge was completed during this reign; the previous bridge was made of wood. Maud, the empress, was the first to build a stone bridge in England.





APPENDIX II.





THE FEUDAL AND ANGLO-NORMAN GOVERNMENT AND MANNERS.

The feudal law is the chief foundation both of the political government and of the jurisprudence established by the Normans in England. Our subject therefore requires that we should form a just idea of this law, in order to explain the state, as well of that kingdom, as of all other kingdoms of Europe, which during those ages were governed by similar institutions. And though I am sensible that I must here repeat many observations and reflections which have been communicated by others, yet as every book, agreeably to the observation of a great historian, should be as complete as possible within itself, and should never refer for any thing material to other books, it will be necessary in this place to deliver a short plan of that prodigious fabric, which for several centuries preserved such a mixture of liberty and oppression, order and anarchy, stability and revolution, as was never experienced in any other age or any other part of the world.

The feudal law is the main foundation of both the political government and the legal system established by the Normans in England. Therefore, our topic requires us to form a clear understanding of this law in order to explain the state, both of that kingdom and of all other kingdoms in Europe, which during those times were governed by similar systems. And while I know I will have to repeat many observations and insights shared by others, it is important, as a great historian noted, for every book to be as complete as possible on its own and not rely on other books for essential information. So, in this context, I will provide a brief overview of that vast structure, which for many centuries maintained such a mix of freedom and oppression, order and chaos, stability and change that was unlike anything experienced in any other era or part of the world.

After the northern nations had subdued the provinces of the Roman empire, they were obliged to establish a system of government which might secure their conquests, as well against the revolt of their numerous subjects who remained in the provinces, as from the inroads of other tribes, who might be tempted to ravish from them their new acquisitions. The great change of circumstances made them here depart from those institutions which prevailed among them while they remained in the forests of Germany; yet was it still natural for them to retain, in their present settlement, as much of their ancient customs as was compatible with their new situation.

After the northern nations conquered the provinces of the Roman Empire, they needed to set up a government system that would protect their new territories from rebellions by the many subjects who still lived there, as well as from attacks by other tribes that might want to take their new gains. The significant change in circumstances led them to move away from the institutions they had while living in the forests of Germany; however, it was still natural for them to keep as many of their old customs as possible in their new environment.

The German governments, being more a confederacy of independent warriors than a civil subjection, derived their principal force from many inferior and voluntary associations which individuals formed under a particular head or chieftain, and which it became the highest point of honor to maintain with inviolable fidelity. The glory of the chief consisted in the number, the bravery, and the zealous attachment of his retainers; the duty of the retainers required that they should accompany their chief in all wars and dangers, that they should fight and perish by his side, and that they should esteem his renown or his favor a sufficient recompense for all their services.[*] The prince himself was nothing but a great chieftain, who was chosen from among the rest on account of his superior valor or nobility; and who derived his power from the voluntary association or attachment of the other chieftains.

The German governments were more like a confederation of independent warriors than a civil authority, drawing their main strength from many smaller, voluntary groups that individuals formed under a specific leader or chief. It was considered the highest honor to remain loyal to these groups without fail. The chief's glory came from the number, bravery, and devoted loyalty of his followers; their duty was to stand by their chief in all battles and dangers, to fight and possibly die alongside him, and to view his fame or favor as enough reward for all their service. The prince was essentially just a prominent chief, selected from among the others due to his superior bravery or nobility, and he gained his power from the voluntary bonds or loyalty of the other chiefs.

     [* Tacit. de Mor. Germ.]
[* Tacit. de Mor. Germ.]

When a tribe, governed by these ideas, and actuated by these principles, subdued a large territory, they found that, though it was necessary to keep themselves in a military posture, they could neither remain united in a body, nor take up their quarters in several garrisons, and that their manners and institutions debarred them from using these expedients the obvious ones, which, in a like situation, would have been employed by a more civilized nation. Their ignorance in the art of finances, and perhaps the devastations inseparable from such violent conquests, rendered it impracticable for them to levy taxes sufficient for the pay of numerous armies; and their repugnance to subordination, with their attachment to rural pleasures, made the life of the camp or garrison, if perpetuated during peaceful times, extremely odious and disgustful to them. They seized, therefore, such a portion of the conquered lands as appeared necessary; they assigned a share for supporting the dignity of their prince and government; they distributed other parts, under the title of fiefs, to the chiefs; these made a new partition among their retainers; the express condition of all these grants was, that they might be resumed at pleasure, and that the possessor, so long as he enjoyed them, should still remain in readiness to take the field for the defence of the nation. And though the conquerors immediately separated, in order to enjoy their new acquisitions, their martial disposition made them readily fulfil the terms of their engagement: they assembled on the first alarm; their habitual attachment to the chieftain made them willingly submit to his command; and thus a regular military force though concealed was always ready to defend, on any emergency, the interest and honor of the community.

When a tribe, led by these ideas and driven by these principles, took control of a large area, they discovered that while it was necessary to maintain a military stance, they couldn't stay united as one group or set up multiple garrisons. Their customs and institutions prevented them from using the straightforward strategies that a more advanced society would have employed in a similar situation. Their lack of knowledge about finances, and possibly the destruction that often comes with such violent conquests, made it impossible to collect enough taxes to pay for large armies. Their aversion to hierarchy and love for rural life made the idea of living in a camp or garrison during peaceful times extremely unpleasant and off-putting for them. Therefore, they took a portion of the conquered lands that seemed necessary; they set aside a share to support the dignity of their king and government; they distributed other parts, labeled as fiefs, to the leaders, who then divided them among their followers. The conditions of all these grants were that they could be revoked at any time, and the holder, as long as he benefited from them, had to be ready to take up arms to defend the nation. Although the conquerors quickly dispersed to enjoy their new holdings, their martial nature meant they were quick to fulfill their commitments: they came together at the first sign of danger; their longstanding loyalty to the chief made them willingly follow his orders; and so, a regular military force, though unseen, was always prepared to protect the interests and honor of the community in any emergency.

We are not to imagine, that all the conquered lands were seized by the northern conquerors, or that the whole of the land thus seized was subjected to those military services. This supposition is confuted by the history of all the nations on the continent. Even the idea given us of the German manners by the Roman historian, may convince us, that that bold people would never have been content with so precarious a subsistence, or have fought to procure establishments which were only to continue during the good pleasure of their sovereign. Though the northern chieftains accepted of lands which, being considered as a kind of military pay, might be resumed at the will of the king or general, they also took possession of estates which, being hereditary and independent, enabled them to maintain their native liberty, and support, without court favor, the honor of their rank and family.

We're not supposed to think that all the conquered territories were taken by the northern invaders, or that all the land taken was subject to military services. This idea is proven wrong by the history of all the nations on the continent. Even the view of German customs from the Roman historian shows us that those daring people would never have settled for such an unstable way of living, nor would they have fought to secure lands that would only last as long as their ruler allowed. While the northern leaders accepted lands that were seen as a form of military pay and could be taken back at the king's or general's will, they also acquired estates that were hereditary and independent, allowing them to maintain their freedom and uphold, without needing favor from the court, the honor of their rank and family.

But there is a great difference, in the consequences, between the distribution of a pecuniary subsistence, and the assignment of lands burdened with the condition of military service. The delivery of the former, at the weekly, monthly, or annual terms of payment, still recalls the idea of a voluntary gratuity from the prince, and reminds the soldier of the precarious tenure by which he holds his commission. But the attachment, naturally formed with a fixed portion of land, gradually begets the idea of something like property, and makes the possessor forget his dependent situation, and the condition which was at first annexed to the grant. It seemed equitable, that one who had cultivated and sowed a field, should reap the harvest: hence fiefs, which were at first entirely precarious were soon made annual. A man who had employed his money in building, planting, or other improvements, expected to reap the fruits of his labor or expense: hence they were next granted during a term of years. It would be thought hard to expel a man from his possessions who had always done his duty, and performed the conditions on which he originally received them: hence the chieftains, in a subsequent period, thought themselves entitled to demand the enjoyment of their feudal lands during life. It was found, that a man would more willingly expose himself in battle, if assured that his family should inherit his possessions, and should not be left by his death in want and poverty; hence fiefs were made hereditary in families, and descended, during one age to the son, then to the grandson, next to the brothers, and afterwards to more distant relations.[*] The idea of property stole in gradually upon that of military pay; and each century made some sensible addition to the stability of fiefs and tenures.

But there is a significant difference in the consequences between receiving a cash income and being assigned land tied to military service. Getting paid weekly, monthly, or annually still feels like a gift from the ruler, reminding the soldier of the unstable nature of his position. However, the bond created by having a specific piece of land eventually leads to a sense of ownership, causing the holder to forget their dependent status and the original conditions tied to the land. It seemed fair that someone who worked a field should be able to harvest it: this is why fiefs, which were initially unstable, soon became annual. A person who invested money in building, planting, or other improvements expected to enjoy the benefits of their effort: therefore, they were then granted for a certain number of years. It would be considered unfair to remove someone from their land if they had always fulfilled their duties and the terms under which they received it: as a result, chieftains later believed they had the right to keep their feudal lands for life. It was found that a person would be more willing to fight if they knew their family would inherit their land and not be left in poverty after their death; thus, fiefs became hereditary, passing from fathers to sons, then to grandsons, and later to brothers and more distant relatives. The notion of ownership gradually replaced military pay, and every century added to the stability of fiefs and holdings.

     [* Lib. Feud. lib. i. tit. i.]
     [* Lib. Feud. lib. i. tit. i.]

In all these successive acquisitions, the chief was supported by his vassals; who, having originally a strong connection with him, augmented by the constant intercourse of good offices, and by the friendship arising from vicinity and dependence, were inclined to follow their leader against all his enemies, and voluntarily, in his private quarrels, paid him the same obedience to which, by their tenure, they were bound in foreign wars. While he daily advanced new pretensions to secure the possession of his superior fief, they expected to find the same advantage in acquiring stability to their subordinate ones; and they zealously opposed the intrusion of a new lord, who would be inclined, as he was fully entitled, to bestow the possession of their lands on his own favorites and retainers. Thus the authority of the sovereign gradually decayed; and each noble, fortified in his own territory by the attachment of his vassals, became too powerful to be expelled by an order from the throne; and he secured by law what he had at first acquired by usurpation.

In all these successive acquisitions, the chief was backed by his vassals, who had a strong bond with him and grew closer through constant good deeds and friendship from living nearby and being dependent on him. They were willing to stand by their leader against all his enemies and, in his personal disputes, showed him the same loyalty they were obligated to in foreign wars. As he continuously made new claims to hold onto his primary fief, they hoped to find the same benefit in stabilizing their own lower-level ones. They passionately opposed the rise of a new lord who could, as he rightfully could, give their lands to his favorites and supporters. Thus, the power of the sovereign slowly weakened; each noble, strengthened in his own territory by the loyalty of his vassals, became too strong to be removed by a command from the throne, and he legally secured what he had initially gained through usurpation.

During this precarious state of the supreme power, a difference would immediately be experienced between those portions of territory which were subjected to the feudal tenures, and those which were possessed by an allodial or free title. Though the latter possessions had at first been esteemed much preferable, they were soon found, by the progressive changes introduced into public and private law, to be of an inferior condition to the former. The possessors of a feudal territory, united by a regular subordination under one chief, and by the mutual attachments of the vassals, had the same advantages over the proprietors of the other, that a disciplined army enjoys over a dispersed multitude; and were enabled to commit with impunity all injuries on their defenceless neighbors Every one, therefore, hastened to seek that protection which he found so necessary; and each allodial proprietor, resigning his possessions into the hands of the king, or of some nobleman respected for power or valor, received them back with the condition of feudal services,[*] which, though a burden somewhat grievous, brought, him ample compensation, by connecting him with the neighboring proprietors, and placing him under the guardianship of a potent chieftain. The decay of the political government thus necessarily occasioned the extension of the feudal: the kingdoms of Europe were universally divided into baronies, and these into inferior fiefs; and the attachment of vassals to their chief, which was at first an essential part of the German manners, was still supported by the same causes from which it at first arose; the necessity of mutual protection, and the continued intercourse, between the head and the members, of benefits and services.

During this unstable period of ultimate power, a clear difference became apparent between regions under feudal tenure and those owned outright. Although the latter-type ownership was initially viewed as much better, it soon became clear, due to gradual changes in public and private law, that it was actually inferior to the former. Those who held feudal lands, bonded by a structured hierarchy under a single leader and the shared loyalty of their vassals, had advantages over their counterparts that resembled the benefits a disciplined army has over an unorganized crowd. This allowed them to inflict harm on their defenseless neighbors without fear of consequences. Consequently, everyone rushed to find the necessary protection, leading each allodial owner to give up their land to the king or a respected noble known for their power or bravery. They received their land back with the obligation of feudal service, which, while burdensome, provided significant benefits by connecting them with nearby landowners and placing them under the authority of a strong leader. The decline of political governance thus led to the rise of feudalism: the kingdoms of Europe became divided into baronies, which were further divided into smaller fiefs. The bond between vassals and their leader, initially a fundamental aspect of German customs, continued to thrive due to the same factors that originally drove it: the need for mutual protection and the ongoing exchange of benefits and services between the leader and the members.

     [* Marculf. Form. 47, apud lindenbr. p. 1238,]
     [* Marculf. Form. 47, apud lindenbr. p. 1238,]

But there was another circumstance, which corroborated these feudal dependencies, and tended to connect the vassals with their superior lord by an indissoluble bond of union. The northern conquerors, as well as the more early Greeks and Romans, embraced a policy, which is unavoidable to all nations that have made slender advances in refinement: they every where united the civil jurisdiction with the military power. Law, in its commencement, was not an intricate science, and was more governed by maxims of equity, which seem obvious to common sense, than by numerous and subtile principles, applied to a variety of cases by profound reasonings from analogy. An officer, though he had passed his life in the field, was able to determine all legal controversies which could occur within the district committed to his charge; and his decisions were the most likely to meet with a prompt and ready obedience, from men who respected his person, and were accustomed to act under his command. The profit arising from punishments, Which were then chiefly pecuniary, was another reason for his desiring to retain the judicial power; and when his fief became hereditary, this authority, which was essential to it, was also transmitted to his posterity. The counts and other magistrates, whose power was merely official, were tempted, in imitation of the feudal lords, whom they resembled in so many particulars, to render their dignity perpetual and hereditary; and in the decline of the regal power, they found no difficulty in making good their pretentions. After this manner the vast fabric of feudal subordination became quite solid and comprehensive; it formed every where an essential part of the political constitution; and the Norman and other barons, who followed the fortunes of William, were so accustomed to it, that they could scarcely form an idea of any other species of civil government.[*]

But there was another factor that reinforced these feudal ties and connected the vassals to their lord in an unbreakable bond. The northern conquerors, like the earlier Greeks and Romans, followed a policy common to nations that had made little progress in sophistication: they combined civil authority with military power. At its beginning, law wasn't a complex system; it was guided more by clear principles of fairness that seemed obvious to common sense than by numerous subtle theories applied to various cases through detailed reasoning. An officer, even if he had spent his life in the military, could resolve all legal disputes that arose within his area of responsibility; and his decisions were likely to be quickly obeyed by people who respected him and were used to following his orders. The financial gain from punishments, which were mostly monetary at that time, was another reason he wanted to keep judicial authority; and once his fief became hereditary, this power passed down to his descendants. Counts and other officials, whose power was just formal, were tempted, like feudal lords whom they resembled in many ways, to make their positions permanent and hereditary; and as the royal power weakened, they found it easy to assert their claims. In this way, the large structure of feudal hierarchy became solid and comprehensive; it became an essential part of the political system everywhere, and the Norman and other barons who followed William were so accustomed to it that they could hardly imagine any other form of civil government.[*]

The Saxons who conquered England, as they exterminated the ancient inhabitants, and thought themselves secured by the sea against new invaders, found it less requisite to maintain themselves in a military posture: the quantity of land which they annexed to offices seems to have been of small value; and for that reason continued the longer in its original situation, and was always possessed during pleasure by those who were intrusted with the command. These conditions were too precarious to satisfy the Norman barons, who enjoyed more independent possessions and jurisdictions in their own country; and William was obliged, in the new distribution of land, to copy the tenures which were now become universal on the continent. England of a sudden became a feudal kingdom,[**] and received all the advantages, and was exposed to all the inconveniences, incident to that species of civil polity.

The Saxons who took over England, after eliminating the original inhabitants and believing they were safe from new invaders thanks to the sea, found it less necessary to keep a military presence. The amount of land they added to their offices didn’t seem very valuable, which is why it remained in its original state for a longer time and was always held by those in command for as long as they pleased. These conditions were too unstable to satisfy the Norman barons, who had more independent lands and rights in their own country. As a result, William had to model the new land distribution after the tenures that had become common on the continent. England suddenly became a feudal kingdom,[**] gaining all the benefits while also facing all the drawbacks that came with that type of civil governance.

According to the principles of the feudal law, the king wa the supreme lord of the landed property: all possessors, who enjoyed the fruits or revenue of any part of it, held those privileges, either mediately or immediately, of him; and their property was conceived to be, in some degree, conditional.[***] The land was still apprehended to be a species of benefice, which was the original conception of a feudal property; and the vassal owed, in return for it, stated services to his baron, as the baron himself did for his land to the crown. The vassal was obliged to defend his baron in war; and the baron, at the head of his vassal, was bound to fight in defence of the king and kingdom. But besides these military services, which were casual, there were others imposed of a civil nature, which were more constant and durable.

According to feudal law, the king was the ultimate owner of all land. Everyone who benefited from the land's produce or income held their rights, directly or indirectly, from him; and their ownership was considered somewhat conditional. The land was still viewed as a type of benefit, which was the original idea behind feudal property. The vassal owed specific services to his lord in exchange for the land, just as the lord owed services to the king for the land he held. The vassal had to defend his lord in battle, and the lord, leading his vassals, was obligated to fight for the king and the kingdom. In addition to these occasional military duties, there were also civil responsibilities that were more consistent and long-lasting.

     [* The ideas of the feudal government were so
     rooted, that even lawyers in those ages could not form a
     notion of any either constitution. Regnum (says Braeton,
     lib. ii. cap. 34) quod ex comitatibus et baronibus dicitur
     esse constitutum.]

     [** Coke, Comm. on Lit. p. 1, 2, ad sect. 1.]

     [*** Somner of Gavelk. p. 109, Smith de Rep. lib.
     iii. cap. 10.]
     [* The concepts of feudal government were so ingrained that even lawyers of that time couldn't imagine any other form of constitution. Regnum (says Braeton, lib. ii. cap. 34) which is said to be established from counties and barons.]

     [** Coke, Comm. on Lit. p. 1, 2, ad sect. 1.]

     [*** Somner of Gavelk. p. 109, Smith de Rep. lib. iii. cap. 10.]

The northern nations had no idea that any man trained up to honor and inured to arms, was ever to be governed, without his own consent, by the absolute will of another; or that the administration of justice was ever to be exercised by the private opinion of any one magistrate, without the concurrence of some other persons, whose interest might induce them to check his arbitrary and iniquitous decisions. The king, therefore, when he found it necessary to demand any service of his barons or chief tenants, beyond what was due by their tenures, was obliged to assemble them, in order to obtain their consent; and when it was necessary to determine any controversy which might arise among the barons themselves, the question must be discussed in their presence, and be decided according to their opinion or advice. In these two circumstances of consent and advice, consisted chiefly the civil services of the ancient barons; and these implied all the considerable incidents of government. In one view, the barons regarded this attendance as their principal privilege; in another, as a grievous burden. That no momentous affairs could be transacted without their consent and advice, was in general esteemed the great security of their possessions and dignities; but as they reaped no immediate profit from their attendance at court, and were exposed to great inconvenience and charge by an absence from their own estates, every one was glad to exempt himself liom each particular exertion of this power; and was pleased both that the call for that duty should seldom return upon him, and that others should undergo the burden in his stead. The king, on the other hand, was usually anxious, for several reasons, that the assembly of the barons should be full at every stated or casual meeting: this attendance was the chief badge of their subordination to his crown, and drew them from that independence which they were apt to affect in their own castles and manors; and where the meeting was thin or ill attended, its determinations had less authority, and commanded not so ready an obedience from the whole community.

The northern nations had no idea that any man trained for honor and used to combat would ever be ruled, without his own consent, by the absolute will of another; or that justice would ever be administered based on the personal opinion of a single magistrate, without the input of others who might have a vested interest to prevent his arbitrary and unfair decisions. Therefore, when the king found it necessary to request any service from his barons or chief tenants beyond what was required by their agreements, he had to gather them together to get their approval; and when a dispute arose among the barons themselves, the issue had to be discussed in their presence and decided based on their opinions or advice. These two aspects of consent and advice were the main responsibilities of the ancient barons, encompassing all significant aspects of governance. From one perspective, the barons viewed this attendance as their main privilege; from another, as a considerable burden. The fact that no important matters could be handled without their consent and advice was generally seen as a strong protection for their possessions and status; however, since they gained no immediate benefits from attending court and faced significant inconvenience and costs when away from their own lands, everyone was eager to excuse himself from each specific instance of this duty; they preferred that the call for such duties come to them rarely and that others would take on the burden instead. On the other hand, the king was typically concerned, for various reasons, that the barons' assembly would be well-attended at every scheduled or impromptu meeting: this presence was the primary symbol of their subordination to his crown and pulled them away from the independence they tended to have in their own castles and estates; when attendance was sparse or poorly supported, the decisions made held less authority and did not command as much immediate obedience from the entire community.

The case was the same with the barons in their courts, as with the king in the supreme council of the nation. It was requisite to assemble the vassals, in order to determine by their vote any question which regarded the barony; and they sat along with the chief in all trials, whether civil or criminal, which occurred within the limits of their jurisdiction. They were; bound to pay suit and service at the court of their baron; and as their tenure was military, and consequently honorable, they were admitted into his society, and partook of his friendship. Thus, a kingdom was considered only as a great barony, and a barony as a small kingdom. The barons were peers to each other in the national council, and in some degree companions to the king; the vassals were peers to each other in the court of barony, and companions to their baron.[*]

The situation was similar for the barons in their courts as it was for the king in the highest council of the nation. It was necessary to gather the vassals to decide by their vote on any matters concerning the barony; they participated alongside the chief in all trials, whether civil or criminal, that took place within their jurisdiction. They were required to attend and serve at their baron's court, and since their tenure was military, and thus honorable, they were welcomed into his company and shared in his friendships. Therefore, a kingdom was seen as a large barony, and a barony as a small kingdom. The barons were equals to each other in the national council and were, to some extent, companions of the king; the vassals were equals to each other in the baronial court and companions to their baron.[*]

     [* Du Cange, Gloss, in verb. Par. Cujac. Commun.
     in Lib, Feud lib. I, tit i. p. 18, Spelm. Gloss, in verb.]
     [* Du Cange, Gloss, in verb. Par. Cujac. Commun. in Lib, Feud lib. I, tit i. p. 18, Spelm. Gloss, in verb.]

But though this resemblance so far took place, the vassals by the natural course of things, universally, in the feudal constitutions, fell into a greater subordination under the baron, than the baron himself under his sovereign; and these governments had a necessary and infallible tendency to augment the power of the nobles. The great chief, residing in his country seat, which he was commonly allowed to fortify, lost, in a great measure, his connection or acquaintance with the prince, and added every day new force to his authority over the vassals of the barony. They received from him education in all military exercises; his hospitality invited them to live and enjoy society in his hall; their leisure, which was great, made them perpetual retainers on his person, and partakers of his country sports and amusements; they had no means of gratifying their ambition but by making a figure in his train; his favor and countenance was their greatest honor; his displeasure exposed them to contempt and ignominy; and they felt every moment the necessity of his protection, both in the controversies which occurred with other vassals, and, what was more material, in the daily inroads and injuries which were committed by the neighboring barons. During the time of general war, the sovereign, who marched at the head of his armies, and was the great protector of the state, always acquired some accession to his authority, which he lost during the intervals of peace and tranquillity; but the loose police incident to the feudal constitutions, maintained a perpetual, though secret hostility, between the several members of the state; and the vassals found no means of securing themselves against the injuries to which they were continually exposed, but by closely adhering to their chief, and falling into a submissive dependence upon him.

But even though this similarity existed, the vassals, due to the natural flow of things in feudal systems, ended up being more subordinate to the baron than the baron was to his sovereign. These governments naturally and inevitably increased the power of the nobles. The great chief, living in his estate, which he was usually allowed to fortify, lost much of his connection with the prince and gradually strengthened his authority over the barons' vassals. They received military training from him; his hospitality encouraged them to live and socialize in his hall. With plenty of free time, they became constant companions, enjoying his countryside sports and activities. Their only way of achieving ambition was by making an impression in his court; his approval was their highest honor, while his disapproval exposed them to ridicule and disgrace. They were acutely aware of their need for his protection, both in disputes with other vassals and, more importantly, against the daily attacks and injuries inflicted by neighboring barons. During times of widespread war, the sovereign, leading his armies and acting as the primary protector of the state, always gained a bit more authority, which he would lose during periods of peace. However, the loose law enforcement typical of feudal systems maintained ongoing, though often hidden, conflicts among various members of the state. The vassals had no way to protect themselves from the constant threats they faced except by closely aligning with their chief and becoming dependent on him.

If the feudal government was so little favorable to the true liberty even of the military vassal, it was still more destructive of the independence and security of the other members of the state, or what in a proper sense we call the people. A great part of them were serfs, and lived in a state of absolute slavery or villainage; the other inhabitants of the country paid then rent in services, which were in a great measure arbitrary; and they could expect no redress of injuries in a court of barony from men who thought they had a right to oppress and tyrannize over them: the towns were situated either within the demesnes of the king, or the lands of the great barons, and were almost entirely subjected to the absolute will of their master. The languishing state of commerce kept the inhabitants poor and contemptible; and the political institutions were calculated to render that poverty perpetual. The barons and gentry, living in rustic plenty and hospitality, gave no encouragement to the arts, and had no demand for any of the more elaborate manufactures: every profession was held in contempt but that of arms; and if any merchant or manufacturer rose by industry and frugality to a degree of opulence, he found himself but the more exposed to injuries, from the envy and avidity of the military nobles.

If the feudal government was so unfriendly to the true freedom of the military vassal, it was even more harmful to the independence and safety of the other members of society, or what we would properly refer to as the people. A large part of them were serfs, living in a state of complete slavery or servitude; the other residents of the land paid rent through services that were largely arbitrary, and they could expect no justice for wrongs in a court of barony from people who believed they had the right to oppress and dominate them. The towns were either located within the king's lands or the territories of the powerful barons, and were mostly subjected to the absolute control of their master. The declining state of commerce kept the inhabitants poor and looked down upon, and the political systems were designed to make that poverty last forever. The barons and gentry, living in rural comfort and generosity, offered no support to the arts and had no need for any of the more complex products; every profession was disdained except for that of arms; and if any merchant or manufacturer managed to elevate themselves through hard work and frugality to a level of wealth, they found themselves even more vulnerable to harm from the jealousy and greed of the military nobles.

These concurring causes gave the feudal governments so strong a bias towards aristocracy, that the royal authority was extremely eclipsed in all the European states; and, instead of dreading the growth of monarchical power, we might rather expect, that the community would every where crumble into so many independent baronies, and lose the political union by which they were cemented. In elective monarchies, the event was commonly answerable to this expectation; and the barons, gaining ground on every vacancy of the throne, raised themselves almost to a state of sovereignty, and sacrificed to their power both the rights of the crown and the liberties of the people. But hereditary monarchies had a principle of authority which was not so easily subverted; and there were several causes which still maintained a degree of influence in the hands of the sovereign.

These combined factors pushed feudal governments strongly towards aristocracy, resulting in the royal authority becoming significantly diminished across all European states. Instead of fearing the rise of monarchical power, we might expect that communities would break apart into many independent baronies and lose the political unity that held them together. In elective monarchies, the outcome usually aligned with this expectation; the barons gained power with each throne vacancy, elevating themselves almost to a position of sovereignty and compromising both the rights of the crown and the freedoms of the people. However, hereditary monarchies had a form of authority that was harder to undermine, and several factors continued to ensure that the sovereign retained a level of influence.

The greatest baron could never lose view entirely of those principles of the feudal constitution which bound him, as, a vassal, to submission and fealty towards his prince; because he was every moment obliged to have recourse to those principles, in exacting fealty and submission from his own vassals The lesser barons, finding that the annihilation of royal authority left them exposed without protection to the insults and injuries of more potent neighbors, naturally adhered to the crown, and promoted the execution of general and equal laws. The people had still a stronger interest to desire the grandeur of the sovereign; and the king, being the legal magistrate, who suffered by every internal convulsion or oppression, and who regarded the great nobles as his immediate rivals, assumed the salutary office of general guardian or protector of the commons. Besides the prerogatives with which the law invested him, his large demesnes and numerous retainers rendered him, in one sense, the greatest baron in his kingdom; and where he was possessed of personal vigor and abilities, (for his situation required these advantages,) he was commonly able to preserve his authority, and maintain his station as head of the community, and the chief fountain of law and justice.

The greatest baron could never completely forget the principles of the feudal system that bound him as a vassal to loyalty and submission to his prince; he had to rely on these principles at every moment to demand fealty and submission from his own vassals. The lesser barons, realizing that the end of royal authority left them vulnerable to the insults and injuries of more powerful neighbors, naturally aligned themselves with the crown and supported the implementation of fair and equal laws. The people had an even stronger reason to want a strong sovereign; the king, as the legal authority who suffered from any internal chaos or oppression, viewed the great nobles as his direct rivals and took on the essential role of protector of the commons. In addition to the rights granted to him by law, his vast lands and many followers made him, in a way, the most powerful baron in the kingdom. When he possessed personal strength and ability, which his position required, he was usually able to maintain his authority and uphold his role as the leader of the community and the main source of law and justice.

The first kings of the Norman race were favored by another circumstance, which preserved them from the encroachments of their barons. They were generals of a conquering army, which was obliged to continue in a military posture, and to maintain great subordination under their leader, in order to secure themselves from the revolt of the numerous natives, whom they had bereaved of all their properties and privileges. But though this circumstance supported the authority of William and his immediate successors, and rendered them extremely absolute, it was lost as soon as the Norman barons began to incorporate with the nation, to acquire a security in their possessions, and to fix their influence over their vassals, tenants, and slaves. And the immense fortunes which the Conqueror had bestowed on his chief captains, served to support their independence, and make them formidable to the sovereign.

The first kings of the Norman lineage benefited from another factor that protected them from their barons’ ambitions. They were leaders of a victorious army that had to stay in a military state and maintain strict discipline under their command to prevent revolts from the many locals they had stripped of their lands and rights. However, although this situation bolstered the authority of William and his immediate successors, making them quite powerful, it diminished as the Norman barons began to merge with the local population, secure their holdings, and establish control over their vassals, tenants, and servants. The vast wealth that the Conqueror had granted to his top commanders helped them maintain their independence and made them a threat to the king.

He gave, for instance, to Hugh de Abrincis, his sister’s son, the whole county of Chester, which he erected into a palatinate, and rendered by his grant almost independent of the crown.[*] Robert, earl of Mortaigne, had nine hundred and seventy-three manors and lordships: Allan, earl of Brittany and Richmond, four hundred and forty-two: Odo, bishop of Baieux, four hundred and thirty-nine:[**] Geoffrey, bishop of Coutance, two hundred and eighty:[***] Walter Giffard, earl of Buckingham, one hundred and seven.

He gave, for example, to Hugh de Abrincis, his sister’s son, the entire county of Chester, which he made into a palatinate, making it almost independent of the crown.[*] Robert, earl of Mortaigne, had nine hundred and seventy-three manors and lordships; Allan, earl of Brittany and Richmond, had four hundred and forty-two; Odo, bishop of Baieux, had four hundred and thirty-nine;[**] Geoffrey, bishop of Coutance, had two hundred and eighty;[***] Walter Giffard, earl of Buckingham, had one hundred and seven.

     [* Camd. in Chesh. Spel. Gloss, in verb. Comes
     Palatinus.]

     [** Brady’s Hist. p. 198, 200.]

     [*** Order Vitalia.]
     [* Camd. in Chesh. Spel. Gloss, in verb. Comes
     Palatinus.]

     [** Brady’s Hist. p. 198, 200.]

     [*** Order Vitalia.]

William, earl Warrenne, two hundred and ninety-eight, besides twenty-eight towns or hamlets in Yorkshire: Todenei, eighty-one: Roger Bigod, one hundred and twenty-three: Robert, earl of Eu, one hundred and nineteen: Roger Mortimer, one hundred and thirty-two, besides several hamlets: Robert de Stafford, one hundred and thirty: Walter de Eurus, earl of Salisbury, forty-six Geoffrey de Mandeville, one hundred and eighteen Richard de Clare, one hundred and seventy-one: Hugh de Beauchamp, forty-seven: Baldwin de Rivers, one hundred and sixty-four: Henry de Ferrers, two hundred and twenty? two: William de Percy, one hundred and nineteen:[*] Norman d’Arcy, thirty-three.[**] Sir Henry Spelman computea that, in the large county of Norfolk, there were not, in the Conqueror’s time, above sixty-six proprietors of land.[***] Men possessed of such princely revenues and jurisdictions could not long be retained in the rank of subjects. The great Earl Warrenne, in a subsequent reign, when he was questioned concerning his right to the lands which he possessed, drew his sword, which he produced as his title; adding, that William the bastard did not conquer the kingdom himself; but that the barons, and his ancestor among me rest, were joint adventurers in the enterprise.[****]

William, Earl Warrenne, 298, plus twenty-eight towns or hamlets in Yorkshire: Todenei, 81: Roger Bigod, 123: Robert, Earl of Eu, 119: Roger Mortimer, 132, along with several hamlets: Robert de Stafford, 130: Walter de Eurus, Earl of Salisbury, 46: Geoffrey de Mandeville, 118: Richard de Clare, 171: Hugh de Beauchamp, 47: Baldwin de Rivers, 164: Henry de Ferrers, 222: William de Percy, 119: Norman d’Arcy, 33. Sir Henry Spelman estimates that in the large county of Norfolk, during the Conqueror’s time, there were not more than sixty-six landowners. Men with such significant wealth and power couldn’t remain subjects for long. The great Earl Warrenne, in a later reign, when asked about his claim to the lands he held, drew his sword as his proof, saying that William the Conqueror didn’t take the kingdom by himself; the barons, including his ancestor, were in it together.

     [* Dugdale’s Baronage, from Domesday-book, vol. i.
     p. 60, 74; iii. 112, 132, 136, 138, 156, 174, 200, 207, 223,
     254, 257, 269.]

     [** Ibid. p. 319. It is remarkable that this
     family of D’Arcy seema to be the only male descendants of
     any of the Conqueror’s barons now remaining among the peers.
     Lord Holdernesse is the heir of that family.]

     [*** Spel. Gloss, hi verb. Domesday.]

     [**** Dug. Bar. vol. i. p. 79. Ibid. Origines
     Juridicales p. 13,]
     before the king had made him restitution of his
     temporalities; and during the vacancy of a see, the guardian
     of the spiritualities was summoned to attend along with the
     bishops.
     [* Dugdale’s Baronage, from Domesday-book, vol. i. p. 60, 74; iii. 112, 132, 136, 138, 156, 174, 200, 207, 223, 254, 257, 269.]

     [** Ibid. p. 319. It’s notable that this D'Arcy family seems to be the only male descendants of any of the Conqueror’s barons still among the peers. Lord Holdernesse is the heir of that family.]

     [*** Spel. Gloss, hi verb. Domesday.]

     [**** Dug. Bar. vol. i. p. 79. Ibid. Origines Juridicales p. 13,] before the king had restored his lands; and during the vacancy of a see, the guardian of the spiritualities was summoned to attend along with the bishops.

The supreme legislative power of England was lodged in the king and great council, or what was afterwards called the parliament. It is not doubted but the archbishops, bishops, and most considerable abbots were constituent members of this council. They sat by a double title: by prescription, as having always possessed that privilege, through the whole Saxon period, from the first establishment of Christianity; and by their right of baronage, as holding of the king in capite by military service. These two titles of the prelates were never accurately distinguished. When the usurpations of the church had risen to such a height, as to make the bishops affect a separate dominion, and regard their seat in parliament as a degradation of their episcopal dignity, the king insisted that they were barons, and, on that account, obliged, by the general principles of the feudal law, to attend on him in his great councils. Yet there still remained some practices, which supposed their title to be derived merely from ancient possession.

The highest legislative authority in England was held by the king and his great council, which later became known as Parliament. It was widely accepted that the archbishops, bishops, and most prominent abbots were key members of this council. They had a dual claim to this position: historically, they had always had that privilege since the earliest days of Christianity during the Saxon period; and by their noble rights, as they held their lands directly from the king in exchange for military service. These two bases for the prelates' positions were never clearly defined. When the church's influence grew so much that bishops began to seek their own authority and saw their role in Parliament as a threat to their episcopal status, the king insisted that they were barons and, as such, required by feudal law to attend his councils. Nonetheless, some practices continued to suggest that their title was rooted solely in historical ownership.

The barons were another constituent part of the great council of the nation These held immediately of the crown by a military tenure: they were the most honorable members of the state, and had a right to be consulted in all public deliberations: they were the immediate vassals of the crown, and owed as a service their attendance in the court of their supreme lord. A resolution taken without their consent was likely to be but ill executed: and no determination of any cause or controversy among them had any validity, where the vote and advice of the body did not concur. The dignity of earl or count was official and territorial, as well as hereditary; and as ali the earls were also barons, they were considered as military vassals of the crown, were admitted in that capacity into the general council, and formed the most honorable and powerful branch of it.

The barons were another key part of the nation's great council. They held land directly from the crown through military service, making them some of the most respected members of the state. They had the right to participate in all public discussions. As the direct vassals of the crown, they were required to attend the court of their supreme lord as part of their duty. Any decision made without their agreement was likely to be poorly executed, and no decision regarding any conflict or issue among them was valid unless the council's vote and advice aligned. The title of earl or count was both an official and territorial designation, as well as hereditary; since all earls were also barons, they were seen as military vassals of the crown. They were included in the general council in that role and constituted its most distinguished and influential branch.

But there was another class of the immediate military tenants of the crown, no less, or probably more numerous than the barons, the tenants in capite by knights’ service and these, however inferior in power or property, held by a tenure which was equally honorable with that of the others. A barony was commonly composed of several knightsr fees: and though the number seems not to have been exactly defined, seldom consisted of less than fifty hides of land:[*] but where a man held of the king only one or two knight’s fees, he was still an immediate vassal of the crown, and as such had a title to have a seat in the general councils. But as this attendance was usually esteemed a burden, and one too great for a man of slender fortune to bear constantly, it is probable that, though he had a title, if he pleased, to be admitted, he was not obliged by any penalty, like the barons, to pay a regular attendance.

But there was another group of immediate military tenants of the crown, which was probably as numerous, if not more so, than the barons. These were the tenants in capite by knights’ service, who, although they had less power or wealth, held their land under a tenure that was just as honorable as that of the barons. A barony was typically made up of several knight's fees, and while the exact number wasn't strictly defined, it usually consisted of no less than fifty hides of land. However, if a man held only one or two knight’s fees from the king, he was still an immediate vassal of the crown and had the right to a seat in the general councils. But since attending these councils was often seen as a burden, and one that was too much for someone with limited means to manage regularly, it’s likely that, although he had the right to attend if he wished, he wasn't obligated to do so or face any penalty, unlike the barons who had to attend regularly.

     [* Four hides made one knight’s fee: the relief of
     a barony was twelve times greater than that of a knight’s
     fee; whence we may conjecture its usual value. Spel. Gloss,
     in verb. Feodum. There were two hundred and forty-three
     thousand six hundred hides in England, and sixty thousand
     two hundred and fifteen knights’ fees; whence it is evident
     that there were a little more than four hides in each
     knight’s fee.]
     [* Four hides made one knight's fee: the tax for a barony was twelve times higher than that for a knight's fee, which gives us an idea of its typical value. Spel. Gloss, in verb. Feodum. There were 243,600 hides in England, and 60,215 knights' fees; so it's clear that there were just over four hides per knight's fee.]

All the immediate military tenants of the crown amounted not fully to seven hundred, when Domesday-book was framed; and as the membeirs were well pleased, on any pretext, to excuse themselves from attendance, the assembly was never likely to become too numerous for the despatch of public business.

All the immediate military tenants of the crown totaled just under seven hundred when the Domesday Book was created. Since the members were always eager to find excuses to avoid attending, the assembly was unlikely to get too large for handling public business.

So far the nature of a general council or ancient parliament is determined without any doubt or controversy, The only question seems to be with regard to the commons, or the representatives of counties and boroughs; whether they were also, in more early times, constituent parts of parliament. This question was once disputed in England with great acrimony; but such is the force of time and evidence, that they can sometimes prevail even over faction; and the question seems, by general consent, and even by their own, to be at last determined against the ruling party. It is agreed, that the commons were no part of the great council till some ages after the conquest; and that the military tenants alone of the crown composed that supreme and legislative assembly.

So far, the nature of a general council or ancient parliament is clearly defined without any doubt or controversy. The only question appears to be about the commons, or the representatives of counties and boroughs; whether they were also, in earlier times, essential parts of parliament. This question was once debated in England with much intensity, but the power of time and evidence can sometimes overcome even strong party divisions; and it seems that, by general agreement, and even by their own acknowledgment, this question has finally been resolved against the ruling party. It is agreed that the commons were not part of the great council until several centuries after the conquest, and that only the military tenants of the crown made up that supreme legislative assembly.

The vassals of a baron were by their tenure immediately dependent on him, owed attendance at his court, and paid all their duty to the king, through that dependence which their lord was obliged by his tenure to acknowledge to his sovereign and superior. Their land, comprehended in the barony, was represented in parliament by the baron himself, who was supposed, according to the fictions of the feudal law, to possess the direct property of it; and it would have been deemed incongruous to give it any other representation. They stood m the same capacity to him, that he and the other barons did to the king: the former were peers of the barony; the latter were peers of the realm: the vassals possessed a subordinate rank within their district: the baron enjoyed a superior dignity in the great assembly: they were in some degree his companions at home; he the king’s companion at court: and nothing can be more evidently repugnant to all feudal ideas, and to that gradual subordination which was essential to those ancient institutions, than to imagine that the king would apply either for the advice or consent of men who were of a rank so much inferior, and whose duty was immediately paid to the mesne lord that was interposed between them and the throne.[*]

The vassals of a baron were directly dependent on him due to their tenure, were required to attend his court, and fulfilled their obligations to the king through this relationship, which their lord was bound to acknowledge as part of his tenure. The land included in the barony was represented in parliament by the baron himself, who was considered, according to the principles of feudal law, to own it directly; it would have been inappropriate to have any other form of representation. They held the same position to him as he and the other barons did to the king: the former were peers of the barony, while the latter were peers of the realm. The vassals had a lower rank within their region, whereas the baron held a higher status in the larger assembly. They were somewhat his equals at home, while he was the king's equal at court. It would contradict all feudal concepts and the gradual hierarchy essential to those ancient systems to think that the king would seek the advice or consent of individuals who were of such a lower rank and whose duty was directly owed to the intermediary lord between them and the throne.[*]

     [* Spel. Gloss, in verb. Baro.]
     [* Spel. Gloss, in verb. Baro.]

If it be unreasonable to think that the vassals of a barony, though their tenure was military, and noble, and honorable, were ever summoned to give their opinion in national councils, much less can it be supposed that the tradesmen or inhabitants of boroughs, whose condition was so much inferior, would be admitted to that privilege. It appears from Domesday, that the greatest boroughs were, at the time of the conquest, scarcely more than country villages; and that the inhabitants lived in entire dependence on the king or great lords, and were of a station little better than servile.[*] They were not then so much as incorporated; they formed no community; were not regarded as a body politic; and being really nothing but a number of low, dependent tradesmen, living, without any particular civil tie, in neighborhood together, they were incapable of being represented in the states of the kingdom. Even in France, a country which made more early advances in arts and civility than England, the first corporation is sixty years posterior to the conquest under the duke of Normandy; and the erecting of these communities was an invention of Lewis the Gross, in order to free the people from slavery under the lords, and to give them protection by means of certain privileges and a separate jurisdiction.[**] An ancient French writer calls them a new and wicked device, to procure liberty to slaves, and encourage them in shaking off the dominion of their masters.[***] The famous charter, as it is called, of the Conqueror to the city of London, though granted at a time when he assumed the appearance of gentleness and lenity, is nothing but a letter of protection, and a declaration that the citizens should not be treated as slaves.[****] By the English feudal law, the superior lord was prohibited from marrying his female ward to a burgess or a villain;[*****] so near were these two ranks esteemed to each other, and so much inferior to the nobility and gentry. Besides possessing the advantages of birth, riches, civil powers and privileges, the nobles and gentlemen alone were armed a circumstance which gave them a mighty superiority, in an age when nothing but the military profession was honorable, and when the loose execution of laws gave so much encouragement to open violence, and rendered it so decisive in all disputes and controversies.[*****]

If it's unreasonable to believe that barony vassals, despite their military and noble status, were ever called to share their views in national councils, then it's even less likely that tradesmen or borough residents, whose status was much lower, would have that privilege. Domesday shows that the largest boroughs were hardly more than rural villages at the time of the conquest, with residents fully dependent on the king or powerful lords, barely above servitude. They weren't recognized as incorporated entities; they had no community standing nor were they considered a political body. Essentially, they were just a collection of lowly, dependent tradesmen living close together without any specific civil connection, making them incapable of representation in the kingdom's legislative bodies. Even in France, which advanced more quickly in culture and civil matters than England, the first corporation appeared sixty years after the Norman conquest; these communities were established by Louis the Gross to free people from servitude under their lords and provide them protection through specific privileges and a distinct jurisdiction. An early French writer called it a new and corrupt idea meant to grant freedom to slaves and encourage them to throw off their masters' control. The well-known charter granted by the Conqueror to the city of London, although issued when he was pretending to be gentle and merciful, was merely a protection letter stating that citizens should not be treated like slaves. According to English feudal law, a superior lord could not marry his female ward to a burgess or a villain; such was the close estimation of these two ranks and their inferiority to the nobility and gentry. Besides their birthright, wealth, civil authority, and privileges, only nobles and gentlemen were armed—a significant advantage in a time when military service was the only honorable profession and the lax enforcement of laws encouraged open violence, making it a decisive factor in disputes and controversies.

     [* “Liber homo” anciently signified a gentleman:
     for scarce any one beside was entirely free. Spel. Gloss, in
     verbo.]

     [** Du Gauge’s Gloss, in verb. Commune,
     Communitas.]

     [*** Guibertus, de vita sua, lib. iii. cap. 7.]

     [**** Stat. of Merton, 1235, esp. 6.]

     [****** Madox, Baron. Angl. p. 19.]
     [* “Liber homo” originally meant a gentleman: for hardly anyone else was fully free. Spel. Gloss, in verbo.]

     [** Du Gauge’s Gloss, in verb. Commune, Communitas.]

     [*** Guibertus, de vita sua, lib. iii. cap. 7.]

     [**** Stat. of Merton, 1235, esp. 6.]

     [****** Madox, Baron. Angl. p. 19.]

The great similarity among the feudal governments of Europe is well known to every man that has any acquaintance with ancient history: and the antiquaries of all foreign countries, where the question was never embarrassed by party disputes, have allowed that the commons came very late to be admitted to a share in the legislative power. In Normandy particularly, whose constitution was most likely to be William’s model in raising his new fabric of English government, the states were entirely composed of the clergy and nobility; and the first incorporated boroughs or communities of that duchy were Rouen and Falaise, which enjoyed their privileges by a grant of Philip Augustus in the year 1207.[**] All the ancient English historians, when they mention the great council of the nation, call it an assembly of the baronage, nobility, or great men; and none of their expressions, though several hundred passages might be produced, can, without the utmost violence, be tortured to a meaning which will admit the commons to be constituent members of that body.[***]

The significant similarity among the feudal governments in Europe is well-known to anyone familiar with ancient history. Historians from various countries, where the issue was never complicated by political disputes, have recognized that common people were only allowed to participate in legislative power much later. In Normandy, which likely served as William's model for establishing his new English government, the governing body was entirely made up of clergy and nobility. The first boroughs or communities of that duchy were Rouen and Falaise, which received their privileges through a grant from Philip Augustus in 1207.[**] All the ancient English historians, when referring to the great council of the nation, describe it as an assembly of barons, nobility, or influential men. None of their descriptions, even though there are several hundred examples, can be reasonably interpreted to suggest that common people were actual members of that assembly.[***]

     [** Norman, du Chesnil, p. 1066. Du Cange, Gloss,
     in verb. Commune.]

     [*** Sometimes the historians mention the people,
     “populus,” as a part of the parliament; but they always mean
     the laity, in opposition to the clergy. Sometimes the word
     “communitas” is found; but it always means “communitas
     baronagii.” These points are clearly proved by Dr. Brady.
     There is also mention sometimes made of a crowd or multitude
     that thronged into the great council on particular
     interesting occasions; but as deputies from boroughs are
     never once spoken of, the proof that they had not then any
     existence becomes the more certain and undeniable. These
     never could make a crowd, as they must have had a regular
     place assigned them if they had made a regular part of the
     legislative body. There were only one hundred and thirty
     boroughs who received writs of summons from Edward I. It is
     expressly said in Gesta Reg. Steph. p. 932, that it was
     usual for the populace, “vulgus,” to crowd into the great
     councils; where they were plainly mere spectators, and could
     only gratify their curiosity.]
     [** Norman, du Chesnil, p. 1066. Du Cange, Gloss,
     in verb. Commune.]

     [*** Sometimes historians refer to the people, “populus,” as part of the parliament, but they always mean the common people, in contrast to the clergy. Occasionally, the term “communitas” is used; however, it always refers to “communitas baronagii.” Dr. Brady clearly proves these points. There are also references to a crowd or multitude that gathered in the great council for particularly notable events; however, since there is never any mention of deputies from boroughs, it becomes more certain and undeniable that they did not exist at that time. They could never form a crowd, as they would have needed a designated spot if they had been a formal part of the legislative body. Only one hundred and thirty boroughs received writs of summons from Edward I. It is explicitly stated in Gesta Reg. Steph. p. 932 that it was common for the populace, “vulgus,” to flock to the great councils; where they were clearly just spectators, only able to satisfy their curiosity.]

If in the long period of two hundred years, which elapsed between the conquest and the latter end of Henry III., and which abounded in factions, revolutions, and convulsions of all kinds, the house of commons never performed one single legislative act so considerable as to be once mentioned by any of the numerous historians of that age, they must have been totally insignificant: and in that case, what reason can be assigned for their ever being assembled? Can it be supposed that men of so little weight or importance possessed a negative voice against the king and the barons? Every page of the subsequent histories discovers their existence; though these histories are not written with greater accuracy than the preceding ones, and indeed scarcely equal them in that particular. The Magna Charta of King John provides that no scutage or aid should be imposed, either on the land or towns, but by consent of the great council; and for more security it enumerates the persons entitled to a seat in that assembly, the prelates and immediate tenants of the crown, without any mention of the commons; an authority so full, certain, and explicit, that nothing but the zeal of party could ever have procured credit to any contrary hypothesis.

If we look at the long stretch of two hundred years between the conquest and the end of Henry III’s reign, which was filled with factions, revolutions, and all sorts of upheavals, the House of Commons never made a single legislative act significant enough to be mentioned by any of the many historians of that time. They must have been completely inconsequential. So, what reason could there be for their meetings? Could we really think that people of such little importance had any power to oppose the king and the barons? Every subsequent history shows their presence, even though these histories are not any more accurate than those before them, and they might even be less so. The Magna Carta of King John states that no scutage or aid should be imposed on the land or towns without the consent of the great council. To ensure this, it lists the people entitled to join that assembly - the prelates and immediate tenants of the crown - without mentioning the commons. This authority is so clear and explicit that only party zeal could have given any credibility to the opposite idea.

It was probably the example of the French barons, which first imboldened the English to require greater independence from their sovereign: it is also probable that the boroughs and corporations of England were established in imitation of those of France. It may, therefore, be proposed as no unlikely conjecture, that both the chief privileges of the peers in England and the liberty of the commons were originally the growth of that foreign country.

It was likely the example of the French barons that first encouraged the English to seek more independence from their ruler. It’s also likely that the boroughs and corporations in England were created in response to those in France. Therefore, it can be reasonably suggested that both the main privileges of the peers in England and the freedom of the common people originally came from that foreign country.

In ancient times, men were little solicitous to obtain a place in the legislative assemblies; and rather regarded their attendance as a burden, which was not compensated by any return of profit or honor, proportionate to the trouble and expense. The only reason for instituting those public councils was, on the part of the subject, that they desired some security from the attempts of arbitrary power; and on the part of the sovereign, that he despaired of governing men of such independent spirits without their own consent and concurrence. But the commons, or the inhabitants of boroughs, had not as yet reached such a degree of consideration, as to desire security against their prince, or to imagine that, even if they were assembled in a representative body, they had power or rank sufficient to enforce it. The only protection which they aspired to, was against the immediate violence and injustice of their fellow-citizens; and this advantage each of them looked for from the courts of justice, or from the authority of some great lord, to whom, by law or his own choice, he was attached. On the other hand, the sovereign was sufficiently assured of obedience in the whole community if he procured the concurrence of the nobles; nor had he reason to apprehend that any order of the state could resist his and their united authority. The military sub-vassals could entertain no idea of opposing both their prince and their superiors: the burgesses and tradesmen could much legs aspire to such a thought: and thus, even if history were silent on the head, we have reason to conclude, from the known situation of society during those ages, that the commons were never admitted as members of the legislative body.

In ancient times, people were not very eager to secure a spot in legislative assemblies; they mostly viewed their participation as a burden that didn’t come with enough benefits or recognition to justify the trouble and cost. The main motive for creating these public councils was, on the part of the subjects, a desire for protection against arbitrary power; and on the side of the sovereign, a realization that he could not control such independent-minded people without their consent and cooperation. However, the common people, or the residents of boroughs, had not yet gained enough standing to seek protection against their ruler or to believe that even if they formed a representative group, they had the authority to enforce it. Their only hope for protection was against the immediate violence and unfairness of their fellow citizens, which they looked for from the courts of law or from a powerful lord to whom they were bound by law or choice. Meanwhile, the sovereign could be quite sure of obedience from the entire community if he secured the support of the nobles; he had no reason to fear that any part of the state could oppose his combined power with theirs. The military vassals would never think of opposing both their prince and their superiors, and the merchants and tradespeople were even less likely to entertain such an idea. Thus, even without historical records on the matter, we can reasonably conclude, based on the known social conditions of those times, that the common people were never included as members of the legislative body.

The executive power of the Anglo-Norman government was lodged in the king. Besides the stated meetings of the national council at the three great festivals of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide,[*] he was accustomed, on any sudden exigence to summon them together. He could at his pleasure command the attendance of his barons and their vassals, in which consisted the military force of the kingdom; and could employ titem, during forty days, either in resisting a foreign enemy, or reducing his rebellious subjects. And what was of great importance, the whole judicial power was ultimately in his bands, and was exercised by officers and ministers of his appointment.

The executive power of the Anglo-Norman government was held by the king. Besides the regular meetings of the national council during the major festivals of Christmas, Easter, and Whitsun,[*] he would call them together whenever an urgent situation arose. He had the authority to summon his barons and their vassals at will, who made up the kingdom's military force, and could use them for up to forty days, either to defend against a foreign enemy or to suppress his rebellious subjects. Importantly, all judicial power ultimately rested in his hands and was carried out by officials and ministers that he appointed.

The general plan of the Anglo-Norman government was, that the court of barony was appointed to decide such controversies as arose between the several vassals or subjects of the same barony: the hundred court and county court, which were still continued as during the Saxon times,[**] to judge between the subjects of different baronies;[***] and the curia regis, or king’s court, to give sentence among the barons themselves.[****]

The overall structure of the Anglo-Norman government was that the baronial court was set up to resolve disputes between vassals or subjects within the same barony; the hundred court and county court, which remained in place from Saxon times, were used to adjudicate conflicts among subjects from different baronies; and the curia regis, or king’s court, was responsible for making decisions among the barons themselves.

     [* Dugd. Orig. Jurid, p. 1.5 Spel. Gloss, in verbo
     Parliamentum.]

     [** Ang. Sacra, vol. i., p. 334, etc. Dugd. Orig.
     Jurid., p. 27, 29. Madox, Hist, of the Exch., p. 75, 76.
     Spel. Gloss, in verbo Hundred:]

     [*** None of the feudal governments in Europe had
     such institutions as the county courts, which the great
     authority of the Conqueror still retained from the Saxon
     customs. All the freeholders of the county, even the
     greatest barons, were obliged to attend the sheriff in these
     courts, and to assist them in the administration of justice.
     By this means they received frequent and sensible
     admonitions of their dependence on the king or supreme
     magistrate: they formed a kind of community with their
     fellow-barons and freeholders; they were often drawn from
     their individual and independent state, peculiar to the
     feudal system, and were made members of a political body:
     and perhaps this institution of county courts in England has
     had greater effects on the government than has yet been
     distinctly pointed out by historians, or traced by
     antiquaries. The barons were never able to free themselves
     from this attendance on the sheriffs and itinerant justices
     till the reign of Henry III.]

     [**** Brady, Tref. p. 143.]
     [* Dugd. Orig. Jurid, p. 1.5 Spel. Gloss, in verbo
     Parliamentum.]

     [** Ang. Sacra, vol. i., p. 334, etc. Dugd. Orig.
     Jurid., p. 27, 29. Madox, Hist, of the Exch., p. 75, 76.
     Spel. Gloss, in verbo Hundred:]

     [*** None of the feudal governments in Europe had institutions like the county courts, which the powerful authority of the Conqueror still upheld from Saxon traditions. All the freeholders of the county, including the highest barons, were required to join the sheriff in these courts and help them administer justice. This way, they frequently and clearly recognized their dependence on the king or supreme leader: they formed a kind of community with their fellow barons and freeholders; they were often pulled away from their individual and independent status, unique to the feudal system, and became part of a political body. This establishment of county courts in England may have had more significant impacts on governance than historians or antiquarians have clearly acknowledged or tracked. The barons could not escape this obligation to attend the sheriffs and traveling justices until the reign of Henry III.]

     [**** Brady, Tref. p. 143.]

Circumstances which, being derived from a very extensive authority assumed by the conqueror, contributed to increase the royal prerogative; and, as long as the state was not disturbed by arms, reduced every order of the community to some degree of dependence and subordination.

Circumstances that arose from the conqueror's broad authority increased the king's powers, and as long as the state wasn’t disrupted by violence, they placed every part of the community in some level of dependency and submission.

The king himself often sat in his court, which always attended his person:[**] he there heard causes and pronounced judgment;[***] and though he was assisted by the advice of the other members, it is not to be imagined that a decision could easily be obtained, contrary to his inclination or opinion. In his absence the chief justiciary presided, who was the first magistrate in the state, and a kind of viceroy, on whom depended all the civil affairs of the kingdom.[****] The other chief officers of the crown, the constable, mareschal, seneschal chamberlain, treasurer, and chancellor,[*****] were members, together with such feudal barons as thought proper to attend, and the barons of the exchequer, who at first were also feudal barons appointed by the king.[******] This court, which was sometimes called the king’s court, sometimes the court of exchequer, judged in all causes, civil and criminal, and comprehended the whole business which is now shared out among four courts the chancery, the king’s bench, the common pleas, and the exchequer.[*******]

The king often sat in his court, which was always by his side: he heard cases and made judgments there; and although he received advice from other members, it’s hard to imagine that a decision could easily be reached against his wishes or opinion. When he wasn’t present, the chief justiciary presided; he was the highest magistrate in the state and acted like a viceroy, overseeing all civil matters of the kingdom. The other top officials of the crown—such as the constable, marshal, seneschal, chamberlain, treasurer, and chancellor—were members, along with any feudal barons who chose to attend, and the barons of the exchequer, who were initially also feudal barons appointed by the king. This court, sometimes called the king’s court and sometimes the court of exchequer, settled all civil and criminal cases and handled all business that is now divided among four courts: chancery, king’s bench, common pleas, and the exchequer.

Such an accumulation of powers was itself a great source of authority, and rendered the jurisdiction of the court formidable to all the subjects; but the turn which judicial trials took soon after the conquest, served still more to increase its authority, and to augment the royal prerogatives. William, among the other violent changes which he attempted and effected, had introduced the Norman law into England,[********] had ordered all the pleadings to be in that tongue, and had interwoven with the English jurisprudence all the maxims and principles which the Normans, more advanced in cultivation and naturally litigious, were accustomed to observe in the distribution of justice.

Such a buildup of powers was itself a significant source of authority and made the court's control intimidating to all the subjects. However, the way judicial trials evolved shortly after the conquest further boosted its authority and expanded the royal powers. William, among the other drastic changes he attempted and implemented, had brought the Norman law to England,[********] mandated that all pleadings be in that language, and blended into English law all the maxims and principles that the Normans, who were more developed and naturally prone to litigation, were used to following in the administration of justice.

     [** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 103.]

     [*** Bracton, lib. iii. cap. 9, sect. 1; cap. 10,
     sect. 1.]

     [**** Spel. Gloss, in verbo Justiciarii.]
     54. The Normans introduced the practice of sealing charters;
     and the chancellor’s office was to keep the great seal.
     Ingulph. Dugd. p. 33, 34.]

     [****** Madox, Hist, of the Exch. p. 134, 135.
     Gerv. Dorob. p, 1387,]

     [******* Madox. Hist. of the Exch. p. 56, 70.]

     [******** Dial, de Scac. p. 30, apud Madox, Hist,
     of the Exch.]
     [** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 103.]

     [*** Bracton, lib. iii. cap. 9, sect. 1; cap. 10,
     sect. 1.]

     [**** Spel. Gloss, in verbo Justiciarii.]
     54. The Normans introduced the practice of sealing charters;
     and the chancellor’s role was to keep the great seal.
     Ingulph. Dugd. p. 33, 34.]

     [****** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 134, 135.
     Gerv. Dorob. p. 1387,]

     [******* Madox. Hist. of the Exch. p. 56, 70.]

     [******** Dial, de Scac. p. 30, apud Madox, Hist,
     of the Exch.]

Law now became a science, which at first fell entirely into the hands of the Normans; and which, even after it was communicated to the English, required so much study and application, that the laity in those ignorant ages were incapable of attaining it, and it was a mystery almost solely confined to the clergy, and chiefly to the monks[*] The great officers of the crown, and the feudal barons, who were military men, found themselves unfit to penetrate into those obscurities; and though they were entitled to a seat in the supreme judicature, the business of the court was wholly managed by the chief justiciary and the law barons, who were men appointed by the king, and entirely at his disposal.[**] This natural course of things was forwarded by the multiplicity of business which flowed into that court, and which daily augmented by the appeals from all the subordinate judicatures of the kingdom.

Law became a science that initially fell completely under the control of the Normans. Even after it was shared with the English, it required so much study and dedication that the uneducated public of those days couldn't grasp it, and it remained a mystery mainly for the clergy, especially the monks. The high-ranking officials of the crown and the feudal barons, who were primarily military leaders, found themselves unable to understand these complexities. Although they held the right to sit in the highest court, the court's operations were entirely managed by the chief justiciary and the law barons, who were appointed by the king and were fully under his authority. This natural progression was accelerated by the overwhelming number of cases that poured into that court, which grew daily due to appeals from all the lower courts in the kingdom.

In the Saxon times, no appeal was received in the king’s court, except upon the denial or delay of justice by the inferior courts; and the same practice was still observed in most of the feudal kingdoms of Europe. But the great power of the Conqueror established at first in England an authority which the monarchs in France were not able to attain till the reign of St. Lewis, who lived near two centuries after: he empowered his court to receive appeals both from the courts of barony and the county courts, and by that means brought the administration of justice ultimately into the hands of the sovereign.[***] And, lest the expense or trouble of a journey to court should discourage suitors, and make them acquiesce in the decision of the inferior judicatures, itinerant judges were afterwards established, who made their circuits throughout the kingdom, and tried all causes that were brought before them.[****]

In Saxon times, no appeals were accepted in the king’s court unless there was a denial or delay of justice by the lower courts; this practice continued in most of the feudal kingdoms of Europe. However, the great power of the Conqueror established an authority in England that monarchs in France couldn't achieve until the reign of St. Louis, who lived nearly two centuries later. He gave his court the power to accept appeals from both barony courts and county courts, which ultimately placed the administration of justice in the hands of the sovereign.[***] To prevent the cost or hassle of traveling to court from discouraging litigants and making them accept the decisions of lower courts, itinerant judges were later created. They traveled throughout the kingdom and handled all cases brought before them.[****]

     [* Malms, lib. iv. p. 123.]

     [** Dugd. Orig. Jurid. p. 25.]

     [*** Madox, Hist. of the Exch, p.65. Glanv. lib.
     xii. cap. 1, 7. LL. Hen. I. sect. 31, apud Wilkins, p. 248.
     Fitz-Stephens, p. 36. Coke’s Comment, on the Statute of
     Mulbridge, cap. 20.]

     [**** Madox, Hist, of the Exch. p. 83, 84, 100.
     Gerv. Dorob. p. 1410 What made the Anglo-Norman barons more
     readily submit to appeals from their court to the king’s
     court of exchequer, was their being accustomed to like
     appeals in Normandy to the ducal court of exchequer. See
     Gilbert’s History of the Exchequer, p. 1, 2; though the
     author thinks it doubtful whether the Norman court was not
     rather copied from English. (p. 6.)]
     [* Malms, book iv, page 123.]

     [** Dugd. Original Juridical, page 25.]

     [*** Madox, History of the Exchequer, page 65. Glanv. book
     xii, chapter 1, 7. Laws of Henry I, section 31, as noted in Wilkins, page 248.
     Fitz-Stephens, page 36. Coke’s Commentary on the Statute of
     Mulbridge, chapter 20.]

     [**** Madox, History of the Exchequer, pages 83, 84, 100.
     Gerv. Dorob., page 1410. What made the Anglo-Norman barons more
     willing to submit to appeals from their court to the king’s
     court of exchequer was their familiarity with similar
     appeals in Normandy to the ducal court of exchequer. See
     Gilbert’s History of the Exchequer, pages 1, 2; although the
     author believes it’s uncertain whether the Norman court was actually modeled after the English one. (page 6.)]

By this expedient the courts of barony were kept in awe: and if they still preserved some influence, it was only from the apprehensions which the vassals might entertain of disobliging their superior, by appealing from his jurisdiction. But tha county courts were much discredited; and as the freeholders were found ignorant of the intricate principles and forms of the new law, the lawyers gradually brought all business before the king’s judges, and abandoned the ancient simple and popular judicature. After this manner the formalities of justice, which, though they appear tedious and cumbersome, are found requisite to the support of liberty in all monarchical governments, proved at first, by a combination of causes, very advantageous to royal authority in England.

By this method, the barony courts were kept in check. If they still had some influence, it was mainly due to the fears that the vassals had about upsetting their superior by appealing from his authority. However, the county courts lost a lot of respect, and since the freeholders were found to be unaware of the complicated rules and procedures of the new law, lawyers eventually shifted all matters to the king’s judges, abandoning the old, straightforward, and popular courts. In this way, the formalities of justice, which may seem tedious and complicated but are essential for protecting freedom in all monarchical governments, ended up, due to a mix of factors, being quite beneficial to royal power in England.

The power of the Norman kings was also much supported by a great revenue; and by a revenue that was fixed, perpetual, and independent of the subject. The people, without betaking themselves to arms, had no check upon the king, and no regular security for the due administration of justice. In those days of violence, many instances of oppression passed unheeded; and soon after were openly pleaded as precedents, which it was unlawful to dispute or control. Princes and ministers were too ignorant to be themselves sensible of the advantages attending an equitable administration; and there was no established council or assembly which could protect the people, and, by withdrawing supplies, regularly and peaceably admonish the king of his duty, and insure the execution of the laws.

The power of the Norman kings was heavily backed by a significant income; an income that was consistent, ongoing, and not dependent on the people. The citizens, without taking up arms, had no way to hold the king accountable and had no reliable guarantee of fair justice. During those violent times, many acts of oppression went unnoticed and were quickly cited as examples that it was wrong to challenge or question. Rulers and their advisors were often too unaware to recognize the benefits of fair governance; there was no formal council or assembly that could protect the people and peacefully remind the king of his responsibilities by withholding resources to ensure the laws were enforced.

The first branch of the king’s stated revenue was the royal demesnes, or crown lands, which were very extensive, and comprehended, beside a great number of manors, most of the chief cities of the kingdom. It was established by law, that the king could alienate no part of his demesne, and that he himself, or his successor, could at any time resume such donations:[*] but this law was never regularly observed; which happily rendered, in time, the crown somewhat more dependent.

The first source of the king’s declared income was the royal lands, or crown lands, which were quite large and included many manors as well as most of the major cities in the kingdom. It was mandated by law that the king couldn’t sell off any part of his lands, and that he or his successor could reclaim any donations at any time: [*] however, this law was never consistently followed, which eventually made the crown a bit more dependent over time.

     [* [*Feta], lib. i. cap. 8, sect. 17; lib. iii.
     cap. 6, sect. 3. Bracton, lib ii. cap. 5.]
     [* [*Feta], book 1, chapter 8, section 17; book 3, chapter 6, section 3. Bracton, book 2, chapter 5.]

The rent of the crown-lands, considered merely as so much riches, was a source of power: the influence of the king over his tenants and the inhabitants of his towns increased this power: but the other numerous branches of his revenue, besides supplying his treasury, gave, by their very nature, a great latitude to arbitrary authority, and were a support of the prerogative; as will appear from an enumeration of them.

The rent from the crown lands, viewed simply as wealth, was a source of power: the king's influence over his tenants and the residents of his towns amplified this power. Additionally, the various other sources of his income, apart from filling his treasury, inherently provided significant freedom to arbitrary rule and upheld his authority, as will be shown in a list of them.

The king was never content with the stated rents, but levied heavy talliages at pleasure on the inhabitants both of town and, country who lived within his demesne. All bargains of sale, in order to prevent theft, being prohibited, except in boroughs and public markets,[*] he pretended to exact tolls on all goods whist were there sold.[**] He seized two hogsheads, one before and one behind the mast, from every vessel that imported wine. All goods paid to his customs a proportional part of their value:[***] passage over bridges and on rivers was loaded with tolls at pleasure:[****] and though the boroughs by degrees bought the liberty of farming these impositions, yet the revenue profited by these bargains, new sums were often exacted for the renewal and confirmation of their Charters,[*****] and the people were thus held in perpetual dependence.

The king was never satisfied with the set rents, so he imposed heavy taxes whenever he wanted on the people living in both the town and the countryside within his lands. All sales were banned, to prevent theft, except in towns and public markets,[*] where he claimed to collect fees on all goods that were sold there.[**] He took two barrels, one in front and one behind the mast, from every ship that brought in wine. All goods had to pay a percentage of their value as customs fees:[***] crossing bridges and rivers was burdened with tolls at will:[****] and although the towns gradually bought the right to collect these taxes, the profits from these deals often came with new demands for the renewal and confirmation of their Charters,[*****] keeping the people in a constant state of dependence.

Such was the situation of the inhabitants within the royal demesnes. But the possessors of land, or the military tenants, though they were better protected, both by law and by the great privilege of carrying arms, were, from the nature of their tenures, much exposed to the inroads of power, and possessed not what we should esteem in our age a very durable security. The Conqueror ordained that the barons should be obliged to pay nothing beyond their stated services,[******] except a reasonable aid to ransom his person if he were taken in war, to make his eldest son a knight, and to marry his eldest daughter. What should on these occasions be deemed a reasonable aid, was not determined; and the demands of the crown were so far discretionary.

This was the situation for the people living in the royal lands. However, the landowners or military tenants, although better protected by law and the significant privilege of bearing arms, were still quite vulnerable to the encroachments of power due to the nature of their tenures. They didn’t have what we would consider a very lasting security today. The Conqueror required that the barons only pay their set services,[******] along with a reasonable aid to secure his release if he was captured in battle, to knight his eldest son, and to marry off his eldest daughter. What should be considered a reasonable aid in these instances was not clearly defined, leaving the crown’s demands somewhat discretionary.

The king could require in war the personal attendance of his vassals, that is, of almost all the landed proprietors; and if they declined the service, they were obliged to pay him a composition in money, which was called a scutage. The sum was, during some reigns, precarious and uncertain; it was sometimes levied without allowing the vassal the liberty of personal service;[*******] and it was a usual artifice of the king’s to pretend an expedition, that he might be entitled to levy the scutage from his military tenants.

The king could demand the personal attendance of his vassals during war, which included almost all the landowners. If they refused to serve, they had to pay him a fee in money known as a scutage. The amount was sometimes unstable and uncertain during different reigns; it was occasionally imposed without giving the vassals the option for personal service; and it was a common trick of the king's to fake an expedition so he could charge scutage from his military tenants.

     [* LL. Will. i. cap. 61.]

     [** Madox, p. 530.]

     [*** Madox, p. 529. This author says a fifteenth.
     But it is not easy to reconcile this account to other
     authorities.]

     [**** Madox, p. 529.]
     etc.]

     [****** LL. Will. Conq. sect. 55.]

     [******* Gervase de Tilbury, p. 25.]
[* LL. Will. i. cap. 61.]

[** Madox, p. 530.]

[*** Madox, p. 529. This author mentions fifteen. But it’s not easy to match this information with other sources.]

[**** Madox, p. 529.]
etc.]

[****** LL. Will. Conq. sect. 55.]

[******* Gervase de Tilbury, p. 25.]

Danegelt was another species of land-tax levied by the early Norman kings, arbitrarily, and contrary to the laws of the Conqueror.[*] Moneyage was also a general land-tax of the same nature, levied by the two first Norman kings, and abolished by the charter of Henry I.[**] It was a shilling paid every three years by each hearth, to induce the king not to use his prerogative in debasing the coin. Indeed, it appears from that charter, that though the Conqueror had granted his military tenants an immunity from all taxes and talliages, he and his son William had never thought themselves bound to observe that rule, but had levied impositions at pleasure on all the landed estates of the kingdom. The utmost that Henry grants is, that the land cultivated by the military tenant himself shall not be so burdened; but he reserves the power of taxing the farmers: and as it is known that Henry’s charter was never observed in any one article, we may be assured that this prince and his successors retracted even this small indulgence, and levied arbitrary impositions on all the lands of all their subjects. These taxes were sometimes very heavy; since Malmsbury tells us that, in the reign of William Rufus, the farmers, on account of them, abandoned tillage, and a famine ensued.[***]

Danegelt was another type of land tax imposed by the early Norman kings, done at their discretion and against the laws set by the Conqueror.[*] Moneyage was also a general land tax of the same kind, imposed by the first two Norman kings and abolished by Henry I's charter.[**] It was a shilling paid every three years by each household to persuade the king not to misuse his authority to devalue the currency. Indeed, the charter indicates that even though the Conqueror had granted his military tenants an exemption from all taxes and levies, he and his son William never felt bound to follow that rule and imposed taxes at will on all the landed properties in the kingdom. The most Henry allowed was that the land farmed by the military tenant himself wouldn’t be taxed; however, he kept the power to tax the farmers. Since it's known that Henry’s charter was never fully honored, we can be certain that he and his successors withdrew even this minor concession and imposed arbitrary taxes on all their subjects' lands. These taxes could be quite burdensome, as Malmsbury recounts that during William Rufus's reign, farmers abandoned their fields because of them, leading to a famine.[***]

     [* Madox, Hist, of the Exch. p. 475.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 38.]

     [*** So also Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo, p.
     55. Knyghton, p. 2366.]
     [* Madox, Hist, of the Exch. p. 475.]

     [** M. Paris, p. 38.]

     [*** So also Chron. Abb. St. Petri de Burgo, p.
     55. Knyghton, p. 2366.]

The escheats were a great branch both of power and of revenue, especially during the first reigns after the conquest. In default of posterity from the first baron, his land reverted to the crown, and continually augmented the king’s possessions. The prince had indeed by law a power of alienating these escheats; but by this means he had an opportunity of establishing the fortunes of his friends and servants, and thereby enlarging his authority. Sometimes he retained them in his own hands; and they were gradually confounded with the royal demesnes, and became difficult to be distinguished from them. This confusion is probably the reason why the king acquired the right of alienating his demesnes.

The escheats were a major source of power and income, especially during the early reigns after the conquest. If the first baron had no heirs, his land went back to the crown, continually increasing the king’s holdings. The prince did have the legal right to sell these escheats, but this also allowed him to help out his friends and servants, which in turn expanded his influence. Sometimes he kept them for himself, and they gradually blended with the royal lands, making it hard to tell them apart. This mix-up is likely why the king gained the right to sell off his lands.

But besides escheats from default of heirs, those which ensued from crimes or breach of duty towards the superior lord were frequent in ancient times. If the vassal, being thrice summoned to attend his superior’s court, and do fealty, neglected or refused obedience, he forfeited all title to his land.[*] If he denied his tenure, or refused his service, he was exposed to the same penalty.[**] If he sold his estate without license from his lord,[***] or if he sold it upon any other tenure or title than that by which he himself held it,[****] he lost all right to it. The adhering to his lord’s enemies,[*****] deserting him in war,[******] betraying his secrets,[*******] debauching his wife or his near relations,[********] or even using indecent freedoms with them,[*********] might be punished by forfeiture. The higher crimes, rapes, robbery, murder, arson, etc., were called felony; and being interpreted want of fidelity to his lord, made him lose his fief.[**********] Even where the felon was vassal to a baron, though his immediate lord enjoyed the forfeiture, the king might retain possession of his estate during a twelvemonth, and had the right of spoiling and destroying it, unless the baron paid him a reasonable composition.[***********] We have not here enumerated all the species of felonies, or of crimes by which forfeiture was incurred: we have said enough to prove that the possession of feudal property was anciently somewhat precarious, and that the primary idea was never lost, of its being a kind of fee or benefice.

But aside from escheats due to a lack of heirs, there were often forfeitures resulting from crimes or breaches of duty to the superior lord in ancient times. If a vassal failed to appear in court after being summoned three times to do his fealty, he would lose all rights to his land.[*] If he denied his tenure or refused to provide his service, he faced the same penalty.[**] If he sold his estate without permission from his lord,[***] or sold it under any other terms or titles than those by which he held it,[****] he would lose all rights to it. Aligning with his lord’s enemies,[*****] abandoning him in battle,[******] betraying his secrets,[*******] seducing his wife or close relatives,[********] or even making inappropriate advances towards them,[*********] could all lead to forfeiture. More serious crimes, such as rape, robbery, murder, and arson, were classified as felonies; and because they indicated a lack of loyalty to his lord, they would result in the loss of his fief.[**********] Even if the felon was a vassal of a baron, while the immediate lord would benefit from the forfeiture, the king could take possession of the estate for up to a year and had the right to seize and destroy it unless the baron paid a reasonable fee.[***********] We haven't listed all the types of felonies or crimes that could lead to forfeiture here: we have said enough to show that owning feudal property was quite precarious in ancient times, and the fundamental idea of it being a form of fee or benefice was never lost.

     [* Hottom. de Feud. Disp. cap. 38, col. 886.]

     [** Lib. Feud. lib. iii. tit. 1; lib. iv. tit. 21,
     39.]

     [*** Lib. Feud. lib. i. tit. 21.]

     [**** Lib. Feud. lib. iv. tit. 44.]

     [****** Lib. Feud. lib. iv. tit. 14, 21]

     [******* Lib. Feud. lib. iv. tit. 14.]

     [******** Lib. Feud. lib. i. tit. 14, 21.]

     [********* Lib. Feud. lib. i. tit. 1.]

     [********** Spel. Gloss, in verbo Felonia]

     [*********** Spel. Glos. Glanville, lib. vii. cap.
     17.]
     [* Hottom. de Feud. Disp. cap. 38, col. 886.]

     [** Lib. Feud. lib. iii. tit. 1; lib. iv. tit. 21,
     39.]

     [*** Lib. Feud. lib. i. tit. 21.]

     [**** Lib. Feud. lib. iv. tit. 44.]

     [****** Lib. Feud. lib. iv. tit. 14, 21]

     [******* Lib. Feud. lib. iv. tit. 14.]

     [******** Lib. Feud. lib. i. tit. 14, 21.]

     [********* Lib. Feud. lib. i. tit. 1.]

     [********** Spel. Gloss, in verbo Felonia]

     [*********** Spel. Glos. Glanville, lib. vii. cap.
     17.]

When a baron died, the king immediately took possession of the estate; and the heir, before he recovered his right, was obliged to make application to the crown, and desire that he might be admitted to do homage for his land, and pay a composition to the king. This composition was not at first fixed by law, at least by practice: the king was often exorbitant in his demands, and kept possession of the land till they were complied with.

When a baron died, the king immediately seized the estate; the heir, before reclaiming their rights, had to apply to the crown, requesting permission to pay homage for their land and to make a payment to the king. This payment wasn’t initially set by law, at least in practice: the king often charged unreasonable amounts and held onto the land until he was paid.

If the heir were a minor, the king retained the whole profit of the estate till his majority; and might grant what sum he thought proper for the education and maintenance of the young baron. This practice was also founded on the notion that a fief was a benefice, and that, while the heir could not perform his military services, the revenue devolved to the superior, who employed another in his stead. It is obvious that a great proportion of the landed property must, by means of this device, be continually in the hands of the prince, and that all the noble familius were thereby held in perpetual dependence. When the king granted the wardship of a rich heir to any one, he had the opportunity of enriching a favorite or minister: if he sold it, he thereby levied a considerable sum of money. Simon de Mountfort paid Henry III. ten thousand marks, an immense sum in those days, for the wardship of Gilbert de Umfreville.[*] Geoffrey de Mandeville paid to the same prince the sum of twenty thousand marks, that he might marry Isabel, countess of Glocester, and possess all her lands and knights’ fees. This sum would be equivalent to three hundred thousand, perhaps four hundred thousand pounds in our time.[**]

If the heir was a minor, the king received all the profits from the estate until the heir reached adulthood and could give a reasonable amount for the young baron's education and upkeep. This system was based on the idea that a fief was a benefit, and since the heir couldn't fulfill his military duties, the income went to the superior, who hired someone else to take his place. It's clear that a large portion of the land remained under the king's control through this method, keeping all the noble families in a state of dependency. When the king granted custody of a wealthy heir to someone, it allowed him to enrich a favored person or minister; if he sold the custody, he would collect a significant amount of money. Simon de Montfort paid Henry III ten thousand marks, a huge amount at that time, for the custody of Gilbert de Umfreville.[*] Geoffrey de Mandeville paid the same king twenty thousand marks so he could marry Isabel, Countess of Gloucester, and acquire all her lands and knights’ fees. This amount would be equivalent to three hundred thousand, or perhaps four hundred thousand pounds today.[**]

If the heir were a female, the king was entitled to offer her any husband of her rank he thought proper; and if she refused him, she forfeited her land. Even a male heir could not marry without the royal consent; and it was usual for men to pay large sums for the liberty of making their own choice in marriage.[**] No man could dispose of his land, either by sale or will, without the consent of his superior. The possessor was never considered as full proprietor; he was still a kind of beneficiary; and could not oblige his superior to accept of any vassal that was not agreeable to him.

If the heir was a woman, the king had the right to propose any suitable husband for her, and if she rejected him, she would lose her land. Even a male heir couldn’t marry without royal approval, and it was common for men to pay significant amounts to have the freedom to choose their own spouse. No man could sell his land or bequeath it in a will without his superior's permission. The holder of the land was never regarded as the full owner; he was more like a beneficiary and couldn’t force his superior to accept any vassal who wasn't agreeable to him.

Fines, amerciaments, and oblatas, as they were called, were another considerable branch of the royal power and revenue. The ancient records of the exchequer, which are still preserved, give surprising accounts of the numerous fines anc amerciaments levied in those days,[****] and of the strange inventions fallen upon to exact money from the subject.

Fines, amerciaments, and oblatas, as they were called, were another significant part of royal power and income. The old records of the exchequer, which are still kept, provide shocking details about the many fines and amerciaments imposed back then,[****] and the bizarre methods used to collect money from the people.

     [* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 223.]

     [** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 322.]

     [*** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 320.]

     [**** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 272.]
     [* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 223.]

     [** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 322.]

     [*** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 320.]

     [**** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 272.]

It appears that the ancient kings of England put themselves entirely on the footing of the barbarous Eastern princes, whom no man must approach without a present, who sell all their good offices, and who intrude themselves into every business, that they may have a pretence for extorting money. Even justice was avowedly bought and sold; the king’s court itself, though the supreme judicature of the kingdom, was open to none that brought not presents to the king; the bribes given for the expedition, delay,[*] suspension, and, doubtless, for the perversion of justice, were entered in the public registers of the royal revenue, and remain as monuments of the perpetual iniquity and tyranny of the times. The barons of the exchequer, for instance, the first nobility of the kingdom, were not ashamed to insert, as an article in their records, that the county of Norfolk paid a sum that they might be fairly dealt with;[**] the borough of Yarmouth, that the king’s charters, which they have for their liberties, might not be violated;[***] Richard, son of Gilbert, for the king’s helping him to recover his debt from the Jews;[****] Serlo, son of Terlavaston, that he might be permitted to make his defence, in case he were accused of a certain homicide;[*****] Waiter de Burton, for free law, if accused of wounding another;[******] Robert de Essart, for having an Liquest to find whether Roger the butcher, and Wace and Humphrey, accused him of robbery and theft out of envy and ill will, or not;[*******] William Buhurst, for having an inquest to find whether he were accused of the death of one Goodwin out of ill will, or for just cause.[********] I have selected these few instances from a great number of a like kind, which Madox had selected from a still greater number, preserved in the ancient rolls of the exchequer.[*********]

It looks like the ancient kings of England set themselves up just like the barbaric Eastern princes, who couldn’t be approached without a gift, who sold their assistance, and who inserted themselves into every situation just to have an excuse to demand money. Even justice was openly bought and sold; the king’s court, the highest court in the kingdom, was only accessible to those who brought gifts to the king. The bribes paid for quick decisions, delays, suspensions, and likely for twisting justice, were recorded in the public accounts of the royal treasury and stand as reminders of the constant corruption and oppression of the times. The barons of the exchequer, for example, the top nobility of the kingdom, shamelessly recorded that the county of Norfolk paid a sum to be treated fairly; the borough of Yarmouth paid to ensure that the king’s charters for their freedoms were not violated; Richard, son of Gilbert, paid for the king’s help in recovering his debt from the Jews; Serlo, son of Terlavaston, paid to be allowed to defend himself if he faced accusations of a certain homicide; Walter de Burton paid for the right to a fair trial if accused of wounding someone; Robert de Essart, for permission to have an investigation into whether Roger the butcher, Wace, and Humphrey accused him of robbery and theft out of spite; William Buhurst, to have an inquest to determine if he was accused of the death of Goodwin out of spite or for good reason. I’ve picked these few examples from a much larger set similar in nature, which Madox had taken from an even larger collection preserved in the old rolls of the exchequer.

Sometimes the party litigant offered the king a certain portion, a half, a third, a fourth, payable out of the debts which he, as the executor of justice, should assist him in recovering.[**********] Theophania de Westland agreed to pay the half of two hundred and twelve marks, that she might recover that sum against James de Fughleston;[*] Solomon the Jew engaged to pay one mark out of every seven that he should recover against Hugh dè la Hose;[************] Nicholas Morrel promised to pay sixty pounds, that the earl of Flanders might be distrained to pay him three hundred and forty-three pounds, which the earl had taken from him; and these sixty pounds were to be paid out of the first money that Nicholas should recover from the earl.[*************]

Sometimes, the party involved offered the king a certain portion—half, a third, a fourth—payable from the debts he, as the executor of justice, would help recover. Theophania de Westland agreed to pay half of two hundred and twelve marks to recover that amount from James de Fughleston; Solomon the Jew committed to pay one mark for every seven he recovered from Hugh de la Hose; Nicholas Morrel promised to pay sixty pounds so that the Earl of Flanders could be forced to pay him three hundred and forty-three pounds, which the Earl had taken from him; and this sixty pounds was to be paid from the first money Nicholas recovered from the Earl.

     [* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 274, 309.]

     [** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 295]

     [*** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 295.]

     [**** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 296. He paid
     two hundred marks, a great sum in those days.]

     [****** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 296.]

     [******* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p 298.]

     [******** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 302.]

     [********* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. chap. xii.]

     [********** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 311.]

     [*********** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 311.]

     [************ Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 79,
     312.]

     [************* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 312.]
     [* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 274, 309.]

     [** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 295]

     [*** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 295.]

     [**** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 296. He paid
     two hundred marks, a considerable amount back then.]

     [****** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 296.]

     [******* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p 298.]

     [******** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 302.]

     [********* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. chap. xii.]

     [********** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 311.]

     [*********** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 311.]

     [************ Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 79,
     312.]

     [************* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 312.]

As the king assumed the entire power over trade, he was to be paid for a permission to exercise commerce or industry of any kind.[**] Hugh Oisel paid four hundred marks for liberty to trade in England:[***] Nigel de Havene gave fifty marks for the partnership in merchandise which he had with Gervase de Hanton:[****] the men of Worcester paid one hundred shillings, that they might have the liberty of selling and buying dyed cloth, as formerly;[*****] several other towns paid for a like liberty.[******] The commerce indeed of the kingdom was so much under the control of the king, that he erected guilds, corporations, and monopolies wherever he pleased; and levied sums for these exclusive privileges.[*******]

As the king took full control over trade, he required payment for the right to engage in any kind of business or industry.[**] Hugh Oisel paid four hundred marks for the freedom to trade in England:[***] Nigel de Havene paid fifty marks for the partnership in goods he had with Gervase de Hanton:[****] the people of Worcester paid one hundred shillings to maintain their right to buy and sell dyed cloth, as they had before;[*****] several other towns paid for similar rights.[******] The kingdom's trade was so tightly managed by the king that he established guilds, corporations, and monopolies wherever he wanted, and charged fees for these exclusive privileges.[*******]

There were no profits so small as to be below the king’s attention. Henry, son of Arthur, gave ten dogs, to have a recognition against the countess of Copland for one knight’s fee.[********] Roger, son of Nicholas, gave twenty lampreys and twenty shads for an inquest to find whether Gilbert, son of Alured, gave to Roger two hundred muttons to obtain his confirmation for certain lands, or whether Roger took them from him by violence;[*********] Geoffrey Fitz-Pierre, the chief justiciary, gave two good Norway hawks, that Walter le Madine might have leave to export a hundred weight of cheese out ot the king’s dominions.[**********]

There were no profits too small to escape the king’s notice. Henry, son of Arthur, offered ten dogs to get a recognition against the Countess of Copland for one knight's fee.[********] Roger, son of Nicholas, provided twenty lampreys and twenty shads for an inquiry to determine whether Gilbert, son of Alured, gave Roger two hundred sheep to secure his confirmation for certain lands, or if Roger took them by force.[*********] Geoffrey Fitz-Pierre, the chief justiciary, presented two fine Norway hawks so that Walter le Madine could have permission to export a hundred weight of cheese out of the king's territories.[**********]

It is really amusing to remark the strange business in which the king sometimes interfered, and never without a present; the wife of Hugh de Nevile gave the king two hundred hens, that she might lie with her husband one night;[***********] and she brought with her two sureties, who answered each for a hundred hens.

It’s quite funny to note the odd situations where the king would get involved, and never without a gift; Hugh de Nevile's wife gave the king two hundred hens so she could spend one night with her husband;[***********] and she brought along two guarantees, each responsible for a hundred hens.

     [** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 323.]

     [*** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 323.]

     [**** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 323.]

     [****** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 324.]

     [******* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 232, 233,
     etc.]

     [******** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 298.]

     [********* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 305.]

     [*0: Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 325.]

     [*1: Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 326 ]

     [*2: Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p 326]
     [** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 323.]

     [*** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 323.]

     [**** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 323.]

     [****** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 324.]

     [******* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 232, 233,
     etc.]

     [******** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 298.]

     [********* Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 305.]

     [*0: Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 325.]

     [*1: Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 326 ]

     [*2: Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p 326]

It is probable that her husband was a prisoner, which debarred her from having access to him. The abbot of Rucford paid ten marks for leave to erect houses and place men upon his land near Welhang, in order to secure his wood there from being stolen; Hugh, archdeacon of Wells, gave one tun of wine for leave to carry six hundred summs of corn whither he would; Peter de Perariis gave twenty marks for leave to salt fishes as Peter Chevalier used to do.

It’s likely that her husband was a prisoner, which kept her from seeing him. The abbot of Rucford paid ten marks for permission to build houses and place men on his land near Welhang to protect his wood from being stolen; Hugh, archdeacon of Wells, donated one tun of wine to be able to transport six hundred summs of corn wherever he wanted; Peter de Perariis contributed twenty marks for the right to salt fish as Peter Chevalier used to do.

It was usual to pay high fines, in order to gain the king’s good will or mitigate his anger. In the reign of Henry II., Gilbert, the son of Fergus, fines in nine hundred and nineteen pounds nine shillings, to obtain that prince’s favor; William de Chataignes, a thousand marks, that he would remit his displeasure. In the reign of Henry III., the city of London fines in no less a sum than twenty thousand pounds on the same account.

It was common to pay hefty fines to win the king’s favor or ease his anger. During Henry II's reign, Gilbert, the son of Fergus, paid fines totaling nine hundred nineteen pounds and nine shillings to gain the prince’s favor; William de Chataignes paid a thousand marks to have his displeasure waived. Under Henry III, the city of London paid no less than twenty thousand pounds for the same reason.

The king’s protection and good offices of every kind were bought and sold. Robert Grislet paid twenty marks of silver, that the king would help him against the earl of Mortaigne in a certain plea: Robert de Cundet gave thirty marks of silver, that the king would bring him to an accord with the bishop of Lincoln; Ralph de Bréckham gave a hawk, that the king would protect him; and this is a very frequent reason for payments; John, son of Ordgar, gave a Norway hawk, to have the king’s request to the king of Norway to let him have his brother Godard’s chattels; Richard de Neville gave twenty palfreys to obtain the king’s request to Isolda Bisset, that she should take him for a husband; Roger Fitz-Walter gave three good palfreys to have the king’s letter to Roger Bertram’s mother, that she should marry him; Eling the dean paid one hundred marks, that his whore and his children might be let out upon bail; the bishop of Winchester gave one tun of good wine for his not putting the king in mind to give a girdle to the countess of Albemarle; Robert de Veaux gave five of the best palfreys, that the king would hold his tongue about Henry Pinel’s wife. There are in the records of exchequer many other singular instances of a like nature.[*] It will, however, be just to remark, that the same ridiculous practices and dangerous abuses prevailed in Normandy, and probably in all the other states of Europe.[**] England was not in this respect more barbarous than its neighbors.

The king's protection and services of every kind were traded like commodities. Robert Grislet paid twenty marks of silver for the king's help against the Earl of Mortaigne in a legal matter; Robert de Cundet offered thirty marks of silver for the king to mediate with the Bishop of Lincoln; Ralph de Bréckham gave a hawk in exchange for the king's protection; and this was a common reason for payments. John, son of Ordgar, donated a Norway hawk to request the king’s intervention with the king of Norway to retrieve his brother Godard’s belongings; Richard de Neville gave twenty palfreys to secure the king's request to Isolda Bisset to marry him; Roger Fitz-Walter provided three good palfreys for the king's letter to Roger Bertram’s mother, asking her to marry him; Eling the dean paid one hundred marks so that his mistress and children could be released on bail; the Bishop of Winchester gave one tun of good wine to avoid reminding the king to give a girdle to the Countess of Albemarle; Robert de Veaux presented five of the best palfreys for the king to stay silent about Henry Pinel’s wife. There are many other unique examples of similar instances recorded in the exchequer records. However, it's important to note that the same ridiculous practices and dangerous abuses were also common in Normandy, and likely in other states across Europe. England was not, in this respect, more barbaric than its neighbors.

These iniquitous practices of the Norman kings were so well known, that, on the death of Hugh Bigod, in the reign of Henry II., the best and most just of these princes, the eldest son and the widow of this nobleman came to court, and strove, by offering large presents to the king, each of them to acquire possession of that rich inheritance. The king was so equitable as to order the cause to be tried by the great council! But, in the mean time, he seized all the money and treasure of the deceased,[***] Peter, of Blois, a judicious, and even an elegant writer, for that age, gives a pathetic description of the reign of Henry; and he scruples not to complain to the king himself of these abuses.[****]

These unfair practices of the Norman kings were so well known that, after Hugh Bigod died during Henry II's reign, the best and most just of these kings, the eldest son and the widow of this nobleman came to court and tried to win the king over by offering him large gifts, each hoping to take possession of that wealthy inheritance. The king was fair enough to order the case to be tried by the great council! But in the meantime, he took all the deceased's money and treasure. Peter of Blois, a wise and even eloquent writer for that time, gives an emotional account of Henry's reign and doesn’t hesitate to complain directly to the king about these abuses.

     [* We shall gratify the reader’s curiosity by
     subjoining a few more instances from Madox, p. 332. Hugh
     Oisel was to give the king two robes of a good green color,
     to have the king’s letters patent to the merchants of
     Flanders with a request to render him one thousand marks,
     which he lost in Flanders. The abbot of Hyde paid thirty
     marks, to have the king’s letters of request to the
     archbishop of Canterbury, to remove certain monks that were
     against the abbot. Roger de Trihanton paid twenty marks and
     a palfrey, to have the king’s request to Richard de
     Umfreville to give him his sister to wife, and to the sister
     that she would accept of him for a husband; William de
     Cheveringworth paid five marks, to have the king’s letter to
     the abbot of Perfore, to let him enjoy peaceably his tithes
     as formerly; Matthew de Hereford, clerk, paid ten marks for
     a letter of request to the bishop of Llandaff, to let him
     enjoy peaceably his church of Schenfrith; Andrew Neuhm gave
     three Flemish caps, for the king’s request to the prior of
     Chikesand, for performance of an agreement made between
     them; Henry de Fontibus gave a Lombardy horse of value, to
     have the king’s request to Henry Fitz-Hervey, that he would
     give him his daughter to wife; Roger, son of Nicholas,
     promised all the lampreys he could get, to have the king’s
     request to Earl William Mareschal, that he would grant him
     the manor of Langeford at Ferm. The burgesses of Glocester
     promised three hundred lampreys, that they might not be
     distrained to find the prisoners of Poictou with
     necessaries, unless they pleased. Madox, p. 352. Jordan, sen
     of Reginald, paid twenty marks, to have the king’s request
     to William Panier, that he would grant him the land of Mill
     Nierenuit, and the custody of his heirs; and if Jordan
     obtained the same, he was to pay the twenty marks, otherwise
     not. Madox, p. 333,]

     [** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p, 359.]

     [*** Benedict. Abbas, p. 180, 181.]

     [**** Petri Bless. Epist. 95, apud Bibl. Patrum,
     tom. 24, p. 2014.]
     [* We will satisfy the reader’s curiosity by
     adding a few more examples from Madox, p. 332. Hugh
     Oisel was to give the king two nice green robes,
     to request the king’s letters patent to the merchants of
     Flanders for the recovery of one thousand marks,
     which he lost in Flanders. The abbot of Hyde paid thirty
     marks to get the king’s letters of request to the
     archbishop of Canterbury, to remove certain monks who were
     against the abbot. Roger de Trihanton paid twenty marks and
     a horse, to get the king’s request to Richard de
     Umfreville to arrange his marriage to his sister, and to the sister
     who would accept him as a husband; William de
     Cheveringworth paid five marks, to get the king’s letter to
     the abbot of Perfore, to allow him to enjoy his tithes
     peacefully as before; Matthew de Hereford, clerk, paid ten marks for
     a letter of request to the bishop of Llandaff, to let him
     enjoy his church of Schenfrith in peace; Andrew Neuhm gave
     three Flemish hats, for the king’s request to the prior of
     Chikesand, for the fulfillment of an agreement made
     between them; Henry de Fontibus gave a valuable Lombardy horse,
     to have the king’s request to Henry Fitz-Hervey, asking
     for his daughter’s hand in marriage; Roger, son of Nicholas,
     promised all the lampreys he could gather, to get the king’s
     request to Earl William Mareschal, asking for the
     manor of Langeford at Ferm. The town leaders of Glocester
     promised three hundred lampreys, so they wouldn’t be
     forced to provide supplies for the prisoners of Poictou,
     unless they agreed to it. Madox, p. 352. Jordan, son
     of Reginald, paid twenty marks, to have the king’s request
     to William Panier, asking for the land of Mill
     Nierenuit, and the custody of his heirs; and if Jordan
     obtained the land, he was to pay the twenty marks; otherwise,
     he wouldn’t. Madox, p. 333,]

     [** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p, 359.]

     [*** Benedict. Abbas, p. 180, 181.]

     [**** Petri Bless. Epist. 95, apud Bibl. Patrum,
     tom. 24, p. 2014.]

We may judge what the case would be under the government of worse princes. The articles of inquiry concerning the conduct of sheriffs, which Henry promulgated in 1170, show the great power as well as the licentiousness of these officers.[**]

We can assess what things would be like under the rule of worse leaders. The questions about the behavior of sheriffs, introduced by Henry in 1170, reveal both the significant power and the misconduct of these officials.[**]

Amerciaments or fines for crimes and trespasses were an ether considerable branch of the royal revenue.[***] Most crimes were atoned for by money; the fines imposed were not limited by any rule or statute; and frequently occasioned the total ruin of the person, even for the slightest trespasses. The forest laws, particularly, were a great source of oppression The king possessed sixty-eight forests, thirteen chases, and seven hundred and eighty-one parks, in different parts of England;[****] and, considering the extreme passion of the English and Normans for hunting, these were so many snares laid for the people, by which they were allured into trespasses and brought within the reach of arbitrary and rigorous laws, which the king had thought proper to enact by his own authority.

Fines for crimes and offenses were a significant source of royal income.[***] Most crimes were punished with financial penalties; there were no fixed rules or statutes limiting the fines imposed, and often, even minor offenses could lead to the complete ruin of an individual. The forest laws, in particular, were a major source of oppression. The king owned sixty-eight forests, thirteen chases, and seven hundred eighty-one parks across various parts of England;[****] and given the strong love of the English and Normans for hunting, these created traps for the people, luring them into offenses and subjecting them to arbitrary and harsh laws that the king had decided to impose by his own authority.

But the most barefaced acts of tyranny and oppression were practised against the Jews, who were entirely out of the protection of law, were extremely odious from the bigotry of the people, and were abandoned to the immeasurable rapacity of the king and his ministers. Besides many other indignities to which they were continually exposed, it appears that they were once all thrown into prison, and the sum of sixty-six thousand marks exacted for their liberty:[*****] at another time, Isaac the Jew paid, alone, five thousand one hundred marks[******] Brim, three thousand marks;[*******] Jurnet, two thousand; Bennet, five hundred: at another, Licorica, widow of David the Jew, of Oxford, was required to pay six thousand marks; and she was delivered over to six of the richest and discreetest Jews in England, who were to answer for the sum.[********]

But the most blatant acts of tyranny and oppression were committed against the Jews, who had no legal protections, faced extreme prejudice from the people, and were left at the mercy of the king and his ministers' insatiable greed. In addition to many other humiliations they continuously endured, it seems they were once all imprisoned, and a ransom of sixty-six thousand marks was demanded for their freedom:[*****] at another time, Isaac the Jew paid, by himself, five thousand one hundred marks[******] Brim, three thousand marks;[*******] Jurnet, two thousand; Bennet, five hundred: at another instance, Licorica, the widow of David the Jew from Oxford, was asked to pay six thousand marks; and she was handed over to six of the wealthiest and wisest Jews in England, who were to be responsible for the amount.[********]

     [** Hoveden, Chron. Gerv. p. 1410.]

     [*** Madox, chap. xiv.]

     [**** Spel. Gloss, in verbo Forests.]
     happened in the reign of King John.]

     [****** Madox, Hist. of the Exch, p. 151]

     [******* Madox, Hist. of the Exch, p. 153.]

     [******** Madox, Hist. of the Exch, p, 168.]
     [** Hoveden, Chron. Gerv. p. 1410.]

     [*** Madox, chap. xiv.]

     [**** Spel. Gloss, in verbo Forests.]
     took place during the reign of King John.]

     [****** Madox, Hist. of the Exch, p. 151]

     [******* Madox, Hist. of the Exch, p. 153.]

     [******** Madox, Hist. of the Exch, p. 168.]

Henry III borrowed five thousand marks from the earl of Cornwall; and for his repayment consigned over to him all the Jews in England. The revenue arising from exactions upon this nation was so considerable, that there was a particular court of exchequer set apart for managing it.

Henry III borrowed five thousand marks from the Earl of Cornwall, and to repay him, handed over all the Jews in England. The income generated from taxing this community was so substantial that a specific court of exchequer was established to handle it.

We may judge concerning the low state of commerce among the English, when the Jews, notwithstanding these oppressions, could still find their account in trading among them, and lending them money. And as the improvements of agriculture were also much checked by the immense possessions of the nobility, by the disorders of the times, and by the precarious state of feudal property, it appears that industry of no kind could then have place in the kingdom.

We can evaluate the poor state of commerce among the English when the Jews, despite facing oppression, were still able to benefit from trading with them and lending them money. Additionally, the advancements in agriculture were greatly hindered by the vast lands owned by the nobility, the chaos of the times, and the unstable nature of feudal property. It seems that no form of industry could thrive in the kingdom at that time.

It is asserted by Sir Harry Spelman,[*] as an undoubted truth, that, during the reigns of the first Norman princes, every edict of the king, issued with the consent of his privy council, had the full force of law. But the barons surely were not so passive as to intrust a power, entirely arbitrary and despotic, into the hands of the sovereign. It only appears, that the constitution had not fixed any precise boundaries to the royal power; that the right of issuing proclamations on any emergence, and of exacting obedience to them,—a right which was always supposed inherent in the crown,—is very difficult to be distinguished from a legislative authority; that the extreme imperfection of the ancient laws, and the sudden exigencies which often occurred in such turbulent governments, obliged the prince to exert frequently the latent powers of his prerogative; that he naturally proceeded, from the acquiescence of the people, to assume, in many particulars of moment, an authority from which he had excluded himself by express statutes, charters, or concessions, and which was, in the main, repugnant to the general genius of the constitution; and that the lives; the personal liberty, and the properties of all his subjects were less secured by law against the exertion of his arbitrary authority than by the independent power and private connections of each individual.

It is claimed by Sir Harry Spelman,[*] as a clear truth, that during the reigns of the first Norman kings, every order from the king, approved by his privy council, had the full power of law. However, the barons were certainly not so passive as to hand over absolute and arbitrary power to the sovereign. It seems that the constitution had not clearly defined the limits of royal power; the authority to issue proclamations in emergencies and demand compliance—an authority always thought to be inherent in the crown—is hard to distinguish from legislative power. The significant flaws in the ancient laws and the sudden crises that often arose in such chaotic governments forced the prince to frequently use the hidden powers of his prerogative. He naturally took, from the acceptance of the people, an authority in many important areas that he had formally excluded himself from through laws, charters, or agreements, which was fundamentally opposed to the general spirit of the constitution. Additionally, the lives, personal freedom, and property of all his subjects were less protected by law against the exercise of his arbitrary power than by the independent authority and personal relationships of each individual.

     [* We learn from the extracts given us of Domesday
     by Brady in his Treatise of Boroughs, that almost all the
     boroughs of England had suffered in the shock of the
     conquest, and had extremely decayed between the death of the
     Confessor and the time when Domesday was framed. * Gross. in
     verb. Justicium Dei. The author of the Miroir des Justices
     complains that ordinances are only made by the king and his
     clerks, and by aliens and others, who dare not contradict
     the king, but study to please him. Whence, he concludes,
     laws are oftener dictated by will than founded on right.]
     [* We find in the excerpts provided by Brady in his Treatise of Boroughs that nearly all the boroughs in England were impacted by the shock of the conquest and had significantly declined between the death of the Confessor and the time Domesday was created. * Gross. in verb. Justicium Dei. The author of the Miroir des Justices notes that laws are primarily made by the king and his officials, along with outsiders and others who are too afraid to disagree with the king and focus on pleasing him. Therefore, he concludes that laws are more often based on the king's desires than on actual rights.]

It appears from the Great Charter itself, that not only John, a tyrannical prince, and Richard, a violent one, but their father, Henry, under whose reign the prevalence of gross abuses is the least to be suspected, were accustomed, from their sole authority, without process of law, to imprison, banish, and attaint the freemen of their kingdom.

It seems from the Great Charter itself that not only John, a tyrannical ruler, and Richard, a violent one, but also their father, Henry, under whose reign the prevalence of serious abuses is the least suspected, often used their own authority, without legal process, to imprison, banish, and punish the free men of their kingdom.

A great baron, in ancient times, considered himself as a kind of sovereign within his territory; and was attended by courtiers and dependants more zealously attached to him than the ministers of state and the great officers were commonly o their sovereign. He often maintained in his court the parade of royalty, by establishing a justiciary, constable, mareschal, chamberlain, seneschal, and chancellor, and assigning to each of these officers a separate province and command He was usually very assiduous in exercising his jurisdiction, and took such delight in that image of sovereignty, that it was found necessary to restrain his activity, and prohibit him by law from holding courts too frequently.[*] It is not to be doubted but the example set him by the prince, of a mercenary and sordid extortion, would be faithfully copied; and that all his good and bad offices, his justice and injustice, were equally put to sale. He had the power, with the king’s consent, to exact talliages even from the free citizens who lived within his barony; and as his necessities made him rapacious, his authority was usually found to be more oppressive and tyrannical than that of the sovereign.[**] He was ever engaged in hereditary or personal animosities or confederacies with his neighbors, and often gave protection to all desperate adventurers and criminals, who could be useful in serving his violent purposes. He was able alone, in times of tranquillity, to obstruct the execution of justice within his territories; and by combining with a few malecontent barons of high rank and power, he could throw the state into convulsions. And, on the whole, though the royal authority was confined within bounds, and often within very narrow ones, yet the check was Irregular, and frequently the source of great disorders; nor was it derived from the liberty of the people, but from the military power of many petty tyrants, who were equally dangerous to the prince and oppressive to the subject.

A powerful baron in ancient times saw himself as a sort of ruler in his own territory and was surrounded by courtiers and followers who were more loyal to him than the state ministers and high-ranking officials were to their king. He often maintained a royal court by establishing officials like a judge, constable, marshal, chamberlain, seneschal, and chancellor, assigning each of them a specific role and responsibilities. He was usually very diligent in exercising his authority and took such pleasure in his position of power that it became necessary to limit his activities and legally restrict him from holding courts too often.[*] It's clear that he would imitate the prince’s example of greedy and corrupt extortion, and that all his actions—both just and unjust—were available for a price. With the king’s approval, he could even collect taxes from the free citizens living in his domain; and since his needs drove him to be greedy, his authority was often more oppressive and tyrannical than that of the king.[**] He was always involved in family feuds or alliances with his neighbors and frequently gave refuge to desperate adventurers and criminals who could serve his violent agendas. Alone, in peaceful times, he could hinder justice within his territories; and by teaming up with a few dissatisfied noble barons of influence, he could throw the state into turmoil. Overall, while royal authority was limited—often very narrowly—this limitation was irregular and often the cause of significant disorder; it didn’t come from the people’s freedom, but from the military power of many small tyrants who posed a threat to both the king and the subjects.

     [* Dugd. Jurid. Orig. p. 26.]

     [** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 520.]
     [* Dugd. Jurid. Orig. p. 26.]

     [** Madox, Hist. of the Exch. p. 520.]

The power of the church was another rampart against royal authority; but this defence was also the cause of many mischiefs and inconveniencies. The dignified clergy, perhaps, were not so prone to immediate violence as the barons; but as they pretended to a total independence on the state, and could always cover themselves with the appearances of religion, they proved, in one respect, an obstruction to the settlement of the kingdom, and to the regular execution of the laws. The policy of the Conqueror was in this particular liable to some exception. He augmented the superstitious veneration for Rome, to which that age was so much inclined, and he broke those bands of connection which, in the Saxon times, had preserved a union between the lay and the clerical orders. He prohibited the bishops from sitting in the county courts; he allowed ecclesiastical causes to be tried in spiritual courts only;[**] and he so much exalted the power of the clergy, that of sixty thousand two hundred and fifteen knights’ fees, into which he divided England, he placed no less than twenty-eight thousand and fifteen under the church.[**]

The power of the church was another barrier against royal authority; however, this defense also led to many problems and inconveniences. The important clergy were perhaps less likely to use immediate violence compared to the barons; but since they claimed total independence from the state and could always hide behind the facade of religion, they became, in some ways, an obstacle to the stability of the kingdom and the proper enforcement of the laws. The Conqueror's policy had some shortcomings in this regard. He increased the superstitious respect for Rome, which was prevalent at the time, and he dismantled the connections that had kept the lay and clerical orders united during Saxon times. He prohibited bishops from participating in county courts; he allowed ecclesiastical cases to be tried only in spiritual courts;[**] and he so elevated the power of the clergy that out of sixty thousand two hundred and fifteen knights’ fees, into which he divided England, he allotted no less than twenty-eight thousand and fifteen to the church.[**]

The right of primogeniture was introduced with the feudal law; an institution which is hurtful by producing and maintaining an unequal division of private propeny; but is advantageous in another respect, by accustoming the people to a preference in favor of the eldest son, and thereby preventing a partition or disputed succession in the monarchy. The Normans introduced the use of surnames, which tend to preserve the knowledge of families and pedigrees. They abolished none of the old, absurd methods of trial by the cross or ordeal; and they added a new absurdity—the trial by single combat—[***] which became a regular part of jurisprudence, and was conducted with all the order, method, devotion, and solemnity imaginable.[****] The ideas of chivalry also seem to have been imported by the Normans: no traces of those fantastic notions are to be found among the plain and rustic Saxons.

The right of primogeniture was introduced with feudal law, an institution that is damaging because it creates and maintains an unequal division of private property; however, it has the benefit of getting people used to a preference for the eldest son, which helps avoid partition or disputed succession in the monarchy. The Normans also brought in the use of surnames, which help keep track of families and lineages. They didn't get rid of the old, ridiculous methods of trial by cross or ordeal; instead, they added a new absurdity—the trial by single combat—which became a standard part of the legal system and was carried out with all the order, method, dedication, and seriousness one could imagine. The ideas of chivalry also seem to have been brought over by the Normans; there are no signs of those fanciful notions among the straightforward and rural Saxons.

     [* Char. Will, apud Wilkms, p. 230. Spel. Concil.
     vol. ii p. 14.]

     [** Spel. Gloss, in verb. Manus mortua. We are not
     to imagine, as some have done, that the church possessed
     lands in this proportion, but only that they and their
     vassals enjoyed such a proportionable part of the landed
     property.]

     [*** LL. Will. cap. 68.]

     [**** Spel. Gloss, in verbo Campus. The last
     instance of these duels was in the 16th of Eliz. So long did
     that absurdity remain.]
     [* Char. Will, apud Wilkms, p. 230. Spel. Concil.
     vol. ii p. 14.]

     [** Spel. Gloss, in verb. Manus mortua. We shouldn’t assume, as some have, that the church owned land in this proportion, but rather that they and their vassals enjoyed a comparable share of the land.]

     [*** LL. Will. cap. 68.]

     [**** Spel. Gloss, in verbo Campus. The last instance of these duels was in the 16th of Elizabeth. This absurdity persisted for so long.]

The feudal institutions, by raising the military tenants to a kind of sovereign dignity, by rendering personal strength and valor requisite, and by making every knight and baron his own protector and avenger, begat that martial pride and sense of honor which, being cultivated and embellished by the poets and romance writers of the age, ended in chivalry. The virtuous knight fought not only in his own quarrel, but in that of the innocent, of the helpless, and, above all, of the fair, whom he supposed to be forever under the guardianship of his valiant arm. The uncourteous knight who, from his castle, exercised robbery on travellers, and committed violence on virgins, was the object of his perpetual indignation; and he put him to death, without scruple, or trial, or appeal, wherever he met with him. The great independence of men made personal honor and fidelity the chief tie among them, and rendered it the capital virtue of every true knight, or genuine professor of chivalry. The solemnities of single combat, as established by law, banished the notion of every thing unfair or unequal in rencounters, and maintained an appearance of courtesy between the combatants till the moment of their engagement. The credulity of the age grafted on this stock the notion of giants, enchanters, dragons, spells,[*] and a thousand wonders, which still multiplied during the times of the crusades; when men, returning from so great a distance, used the liberty of imposing every fiction on their believing audience. These ideas of chivalry infected the writings, conversation, and behavior of men, during some ages; and even after they were, in a great measure, banished by the revival of learning, they left modern gallantry and the point of honor, which still maintain their influence, and are the genuine off-spring of those ancient affectations.

The feudal system elevated military tenants to a status of near sovereignty, requiring personal strength and bravery, and making every knight and baron their own protector and avenger. This fostered a sense of martial pride and honor, which was enriched by the poets and writers of the time, ultimately leading to the concept of chivalry. The noble knight fought not only for himself but also for the innocent, the defenseless, and especially for women, whom he believed were always under his brave protection. The rude knight who robbed travelers from his castle and assaulted women was the subject of his constant anger; he killed such men without hesitation, trial, or appeal whenever he encountered them. The great independence of people turned personal honor and loyalty into the main bond between them, making it the essential virtue of every true knight or genuine practitioner of chivalry. The formalities of duels, as prescribed by law, eliminated any notions of unfairness or inequality in combat and maintained a sense of courtesy between fighters until the moment they engaged. The gullibility of the time added ideas of giants, sorcerers, dragons, spells, and countless wonders, which continued to grow during the Crusades, as men returning from faraway lands felt free to weave every kind of fiction for their eager audiences. These ideas of chivalry influenced the writings, conversations, and behaviors of people for many years; even after they were largely pushed aside by the revival of learning, they left an imprint on modern gallantry and notions of honor, which still carry weight today and are the true descendants of those ancient ideals.

     [* In all legal single combats, it was part of the
     champion’s oath, that he carried not about him any herb,
     spell, or enchantment, by which he might procure victory.
     Dugd. Orig. Jurid. p. 82.]
     [* In all legal single combats, it was part of the
     champion’s oath that he didn't carry any herbs, spells, or enchantments that could help him win.
     Dugd. Orig. Jurid. p. 82.]

The concession of the Great Charter, or rather its full establishment, (for there was a considerable interval of time between the one and the other,) gave rise, by degrees, to a new species of government, and introduced some order and justice into the administration. The ensuing scenes of our history are therefore somewhat different from the preceding. Yet the Great Charter contained no establishment of new courts magistrates, or senates, nor abolition of the old. It introduced no new distribution of the powers of the common-wealth, and no innovation in the political or public law of the kingdom. It only guarded, and that merely by verbal clauses, against such tyrannical practices as are incompatible with civilized government, and, if they become very frequent, are incompatible with all government. The barbarous license of the kings, and perhaps of the nobles, was thenceforth somewhat more restrained: men acquired some more security for their properties and their liberties; and government approached a little nearer to that end for which it was originally instituted—the distribution of justice, and the equal protection of the citizens. Acts of violence and iniquity in the crown, which before were only deemed injurious to individuals, and were hazardous chiefly in proportion to the number, power, and dignity of the persons affected by them, were now regarded, in some degree, as public injuries, and as infringements of a charter calculated for general security. And thus the establishment of the Great Charter, without seeming anywise to innovate in the distribution of political power, became a kind of epoch in the constitution.

The granting of the Great Charter, or more accurately its complete implementation, (since there was a significant gap between the two,) gradually led to a new type of government and brought some order and justice to how things were run. The events in our history that followed are therefore somewhat different from those that came before. However, the Great Charter did not create any new courts, officials, or legislative bodies, nor did it get rid of the old ones. It didn’t change the distribution of power in the state or introduce any new laws regarding politics or public policy in the kingdom. It simply provided, through verbal clauses, protection against tyrannical practices that are inconsistent with civilized governance, and, if they become too frequent, undermine all forms of government. The brutal authority of the kings, and maybe the nobles, was somewhat limited from that point onward: people gained more security for their property and freedoms; and the government moved a bit closer to its original purpose—ensuring justice and equal protection for all citizens. Acts of violence and wrongdoing by the crown, which were previously seen as harmful only to individuals and risky mainly based on the number, power, and status of those affected, were now viewed to some extent as public wrongs and violations of a charter intended for general safety. Thus, the establishment of the Great Charter, without directly altering the distribution of political power, marked a significant turning point in the constitution.





NOTES.

1 (return)
[ NOTE A, p. 9. This question has been disputed With as great zeal, and even acrimony, between the Scotch and Irish antiquaries, as if the honor of their respective countries were the most deeply concerned in the decision. We shall not enter into any detail on so uninteresting a subject, but shall propose our opinion in a few words. It appears more than probable, from the similitude of language and manners, that Britain either was originally peopled, or was subdued, by the migration of inhabitants from Gaul, and Ireland from Britain: the position of the several countries is an additional reason that favors this conclusion. It appears also probable, that the migrations of that colony of Gauls or Celts, who peopled or subdued Ireland, was originally made from the north-west parts of Britain; and this conjecture (if it do not merit a higher name) is founded both on the Irish language which is a very different dialect from the Welsh, and from the language anciently spoken in South Britain, and on the vicinity of Lancashire, Cumberland, Galloway, and Argyleshire, to that island. These events, as they passed along before the age of history and records, must be known by reasoning alone, which, in this case, seems to be pretty satisfactory. Caesar and Tacitus, not to mention a multitude of other Greek and Roman authors, were guided by like inferences. But, besides these primitive facts, which lie in a very remote antiquity, it is a matter of positive and undoubted testimony, that the Roman province of Britain, during the time of the lower empire, was much infested by bands of robbers or pirates, whom the provincial Britons called Scots or Scuits; a name which was probably used as a term of reproach, and which these bandits themselves did not acknowledge or assume. We may infer, from two passages in Claudian, and from one in Orosius, and another in Isidore, that the chief seat of these Scots was in Ireland. That some part ot the Irish freebooters migrated back to the north-west parts of Britain, whence their ancestors had probably been derived in a more remote age, is positively asserted by Bede, and implied in Gildas. I grant, that neither Bede nor Gildas are Caesars or Tacituses; but such as they are, they remain the sole testimony on the subject, and therefore must be relied on for want of better: happily, the frivolousness of the question corresponds to the weakness of the authorities. Not to mention, that, if any part of the traditional history of a barbarous people can be relied on, it is the genealogy of nations, and even sometimes that of families. It is in vain to argue against these facts, from the supposed warlike disposition of the Highlanders, and unwarlike of the ancient Irish. Those arguments are still much weaker than the authorities. Nations change very quickly in these particulars. The Britons were unable to resist the Picts and Scots, and invited over the Saxons for their defence, who repelled those invaders; yet the same Britons valiantly resisted, for one hundred and fifty years, not only this victorious band of Saxons, but infinite numbers more, who poured in upon them from all quarters. Robert Bruce, in 1322, made a peace, in which England, after many defeats, was constrained to acknowledge the independence of his country; yet in no more distant period than ten years after, Scotland was totally subdued by a small handful of English, led by a few private noblemen. All history is full of such events. The Irish Scots, in the course of two or three centuries, might find time and opportunities sufficient to settle in North Britain, though we can neither assign the period nor causes of that revolution. Their barbarous manner of life rendered them much fitter than the Romans for subduing these mountaineers. And, in a word, it is clear, from the language of the two countries, that the Highlanders and the Irish are the same people, and that the one are a colony from the other. We have positive evidence, which, though from neutral persons, is not perhaps the best that may be wished for, that the former, in the third or fourth century, sprang from the latter; we have no evidence at all that the latter sprang from the former. I shall add, that the name of Erse, or Irish, given by the low country Scots to the language of the Scotch Highlanders, is a certain proof of the traditional opinion delivered from father to son, that the latter people came originally from Ireland.]

1 (return)
[ NOTE A, p. 9. This question has been debated with as much passion, and even hostility, between Scottish and Irish scholars, as if the pride of their countries depended on the outcome. We won’t go into detail on such a dull topic, but will share our view in a few words. It seems quite likely, given the similarities in language and culture, that Britain was either originally settled or conquered by people migrating from Gaul, and Ireland from Britain. The geographic positions of these countries further support this idea. It also seems probable that the migration of the Gauls or Celts who settled or conquered Ireland initially came from the north-west regions of Britain; this guess (if it doesn’t deserve a more significant label) is based on both the Irish language, which is notably different from Welsh and from the language formerly spoken in Southern Britain, and on the closeness of Lancashire, Cumberland, Galloway, and Argyll to the island. These events, occurring before the age of recorded history, can only be understood through reasoning, which, in this case, appears to be fairly convincing. Caesar and Tacitus, alongside many other Greek and Roman writers, were guided by similar deductions. But aside from these early facts, which are from a very distant past, there's clear and undeniable evidence that the Roman province of Britain, during the later empire, was frequently troubled by gangs of robbers or pirates, whom the local Britons called Scots or Scuits—a name likely used as an insult, which these bandits themselves did not claim. From two references in Claudian, one in Orosius, and another in Isidore, we can infer that the main base of these Scots was in Ireland. Bede clearly states, and Gildas implies, that some of the Irish freebooters returned to the north-west parts of Britain, where their ancestors had likely come from ages before. I acknowledge that neither Bede nor Gildas are on par with Caesar or Tacitus; however, they remain the only evidence on this topic, so we must rely on them for lack of better sources: fortunately, the trivial nature of the question lines up with the lack of strong evidence. Moreover, if any part of the historical records of a primitive society can be trusted, it’s the lineage of nations and sometimes even families. It’s pointless to contest these facts based on the supposed warrior nature of the Highlanders versus the peaceful character of ancient Irish. Those arguments are still much weaker than the accounts we have. Nations can change their characteristics very quickly. The Britons couldn't fend off the Picts and Scots, so they invited the Saxons for help, who then drove away those invaders; yet those same Britons fiercely resisted, for one hundred and fifty years, not only this successful band of Saxons but countless others who came against them from all directions. Robert Bruce, in 1322, secured a peace agreement whereby England, after numerous defeats, was forced to recognize his country’s independence; yet within just ten years, Scotland was completely conquered by a small group of English, led by some private nobles. History is full of such instances. The Irish Scots could have had ample time and chances over two or three centuries to settle in northern Britain, although we cannot pinpoint the period or reasons for that change. Their rough way of life made them much more suited than the Romans for conquering these mountain dwellers. In short, it is evident, from the languages of the two lands, that the Highlanders and the Irish are the same people and that the former are a colony of the latter. We have definite proof, which, while from impartial sources, might not be the most reliable, suggesting that the former originated from the latter in the third or fourth century; we have no evidence whatsoever that the latter derived from the former. I would also point out that the term Erse, or Irish, used by the Lowland Scots for the language of the Highland Scots is strong evidence of the traditional belief passed down through generations that the Highlanders originally came from Ireland.]

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.]

2 (return)
[ NOTE B, p. 90. There seems to be a contradiction in ancient historians regarding some details in the story of Edwy and Elgiva. It's agreed that this prince had a strong passion for his second or third cousin, Elgiva, whom he married, even though it was against the church's rules. It's also agreed that he was pulled from her on the day he was crowned, and that she was later treated with extreme cruelty, as mentioned earlier. The main difference is that Osborne and some others refer to her as his mistress, while Malmsbury calls her his wife. But this difference can be easily understood; if Edwy married her against the church's rules, the monks would certainly deny her status as his wife and insist she could only be seen as his mistress. Therefore, we can consider this portrayal of the situation as accurate, or at least the most likely explanation. If Edwy had just had a mistress, it's well-known that there were ways to make amends with the church that would have stopped the clergy from taking such severe actions against him. But his marriage, which went against the church's rules, was an affront to their authority and warranted their strongest anger.]

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.]

3 (return)
[ NOTE C, p. 91. Many English historians claim that Edgar had an astonishing number of ships, totaling either three thousand or three thousand six hundred. See Hoveden, p. 426. Flor. Wigorn, p. 607. Abbas Rieval, p. 360. Brompton (p. 869) states that Edgar had four thousand vessels. How can we make sense of these accounts in relation to what was realistic and the state of the navy during Alfred's time? W. Thorne estimates the total number to be only three hundred, which seems more plausible. Ethelred, Edgar’s son, likely had fewer than a thousand ships in his fleet; however, the Saxon Chronicle (p. 137) claims it was the largest navy ever 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.]

4 (return)
[ NOTE D, p. 109. Almost all the ancient historians describe this massacre of the Danes as if it was widespread, claiming that every single person from that nation across England was killed. However, the Danes were mostly the only residents in the kingdoms of Northumberland and East Anglia, and they were very numerous in Mercia. Therefore, this portrayal of events is completely impossible. There must have been significant resistance, and there were violent wars that followed; however, that wasn't the case. The account provided by Wallingford, despite being unique, should be regarded as the only accurate one. We are told that the term Lurdane, or Lord Dane, which refers to an idle, lazy person who lives off others, originated from the behavior of the Danes who were killed. Yet, the English princes had been completely in control for several generations and only maintained a military unit of that nation. It seems likely, then, that it was only these Danes who were killed.]

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.]

5 (return)
[ NOTE E, p. 129. The clever author of the article on Godwin in the Biographia Britannica has tried to restore the reputation of that nobleman, assuming that all English history was distorted by Norman historians after the conquest. However, this assumption lacks solid evidence, as nearly all these historians portrayed his son Harold in a very positive light, which was contrary to the interests of the Norman cause to tarnish.]

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’Académie de Littérature, tom. ix. p. 535.]

6 (return)
[ Note F, p. 137. The entire story of the dealings between Edward, Harold, and the Duke of Normandy is told so differently by ancient writers that there are very few significant moments in English history that are as uncertain. I have followed the version that seemed the most consistent and believable to me. It seems unlikely that Edward ever made a will in the duke’s favor; even less likely that it was ratified by the representatives of the kingdom, as some claim. The will would have been known by everyone and would have been presented by the Conqueror, who had a compelling and quite reasonable claim to it; but the vague and uncertain way that he always referred to it shows that he could only argue the known intentions of that monarch in his favor, which he wanted to label as a will. There is indeed a charter from the Conqueror kept by Dr. Hickes, (vol. i.) where he calls himself “rex hereditarius,” meaning heir by will; but a prince with so much power and success can use whatever justification he likes; it’s enough to disprove his claims to note that there’s a significant difference and variation among historians regarding a point that, if it were real, would have been agreed upon by all of them.

Additionally, some historians, particularly Malmsbury and Matthew of Westminster, claim that Harold had no intention of going to Normandy, but that while he was out for a pleasant boat ride along the coast, he was swept away by bad weather to the territories of Guy, Count of Ponthieu. However, aside from the fact that this story is itself improbable and contradicts most of the ancient historians, it is also contradicted by a very interesting and authentic artifact recently discovered. It is a tapestry, preserved in the ducal palace of Rouen, and is believed to have been created on the orders of Matilda, the emperor's wife; at least it is very old. Harold is shown there as departing from King Edward, on a mission, and boarding his ship with a large entourage. The most likely reason is the intent to rescue his brother and nephew, who were hostages, which is also mentioned by Eadmer, Hoveden, Brompton, and Simeon of Durham. For more information about this tapestry, see Histoire de l’Académie de Littérature, 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.]

7 (return)
[ NOTE G, p. 155. It seems that from the old translations of the Saxon records and laws, as well as from King Alfred’s translation of Bede and all the ancient historians, the terms in Latin, alderman in Saxon, and earl in Dano-Saxon were pretty much the same. There is only one clause in a law of King Athelstan’s, (see Spel. Concil. p. 406,) that has puzzled some historians and led them to believe that an earl held a higher status than an alderman. The weregild, or compensation for an earl’s blood, is set at fifteen thousand thrimsas, equivalent to that of an archbishop; whereas, that of a bishop and alderman is only eight thousand thrimsas. To resolve this issue, we can refer to Selden’s theory, (see his Titles of Honor, chap. v. p. 603, 604,) that the title of earl was just starting to be used in England during Athelstan’s time and referred to the atheling or royal blood, heir to the throne. He supports this with a law from Canute, sect. 55, where an atheling and an archbishop are treated the same. In another law from Athelstan, the weregild for the prince or atheling is also set at fifteen thousand thrimsas. See Wilkins, p. 71. Therefore, he is the same person referred to as earl in the earlier law.]

8 (return)
[ NOTE H, p. 194. There is a paper or record of the family of Slarneborne, 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 Croylaud of a great part of its land, and no redress could be obtained.]

8 (return)
[ NOTE H, p. 194. There is a document or record about the Slarneborne family, claiming that this Saxon family was restored after proving their innocence, along with other Saxon families in similar situations. Although this document managed to deceive prominent antiquarians like Spelman (see Gloss, in verbo Drenges) and Dugdale (see Baron, vol. i. p. 118), Dr. Brady proves in his work (see Answer to Petyt, p. 11, 12) that it was a forgery; Tyrrel agrees with this assessment despite being a staunch defender of his own beliefs (see his history, vol. ii. introd. p. 51, 73). Ingulf (p. 70) notes that early on, Hereward, although absent during the conquest, was stripped of all his estate and received no compensation, as William even looted 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. Ingulf tells us that Ivo de Taillebois looted a significant portion of land from the monastery of Croylaud, and no compensation could be secured.]

9 (return)
[ NOTE I, p. 195. The obliging of all the inhabitants to put out their fires and lights it 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.]

9 (return)
[ NOTE I, p. 195. Forcing all the residents to extinguish their fires and lights at certain times, signaled by the ringing of a bell known as the Courfeu, is described by Polydore Virgil in book ix as a sign of the English's subjugation. However, this was a municipal regulation that William had introduced earlier in Normandy. Refer to Du Moulin, Hist de Normandie, p. 160. This same law was also in effect in Scotland. LL. Burgor. cap. 86.]

11 (return)
[ NOTE K, p. 200. 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 the 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 favorable 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.]

11 (return)
[ NOTE K, p. 200. The specific laws of Edward the Confessor that the English have passionately wanted restored for a century and a half are widely debated among historians, and our lack of knowledge about them is one of the biggest shortcomings in ancient English history. The collection of laws in Wilkins, associated with Edward, is clearly a later and poorly informed compilation. The versions found in Ingulf are authentic; however, they are so incomplete and contain so few clauses that support the citizens that it’s hard to understand why they demand them so fervently. It's likely that the English were referring to the common law as it existed during Edward's reign, which we can guess was more lenient towards freedom than the Norman laws. The most important elements of it were later included in Magna Charta.]

12 (return)
[ NOTE L, p. 218. 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. lib. i. cap. 16. Textus Roffensis apud Seld. Spieileg. ad Eadm. p. 197. Gul. Pict. p. 206. Ordericus Vitalis, p. 521, 666, 853., Epist. St. Thom, p. 801. Gul. Malms, p. 52, 57. Knyghton, p. 2354. Eadmer, p. 110. Thorn. 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 effossia, 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 esed[**] a suis actum sit, cum id dictu sciamus difficile et ob immanem crudelitatem fortassis incredibile.]

12 (return)
[ NOTE L, p. 218. 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. lib. i. cap. 16. Textus Roffensis apud Seld. Spieileg. ad Eadm. p. 197. Gul. Pict. p. 206. Ordericus Vitalis, p. 521, 666, 853., Epist. St. Thom, p. 801. Gul. Malms, p. 52, 57. Knyghton, p. 2354. Eadmer, p. 110. Thorn. 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 old, are notable and worth quoting. So, when William became king, I won’t mention what he did to the noblemen of England who could have survived such a disaster, since it would be of no benefit. What good would it do if I didn’t mention that not a single one of them retained their former power in the whole kingdom, but that all were either reduced to severe poverty, disinherited, exiled from their homeland, or mutilated by losing their eyes or other body parts, becoming a disgrace to humanity, or at the very least, utterly miserable and deprived of life. Similarly, I think there’s no point in discussing what happened to the smaller population, not only because it’s hard to talk about, but also due to the extreme cruelty, which might make it unbelievable. ]

13 (return)
[ NOTE M, p. 263 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.]

13 (return)
[ NOTE M, p. 263 Henry, according to feudal customs, was allowed to charge a tax for marrying off his eldest daughter, and he collected three shillings for every hide across all of England. H. Hunting, p. 379. Some historians (Brady, p. 270, and Tyrrel, vol. ii. p. 182) mistakenly calculate this total to be more than eight hundred thousand pounds in today's money; however, it couldn’t exceed one hundred and thirty-five thousand. A knight's fee typically comprised five hides, or sometimes fewer, and there were about sixty thousand knight's fees in England, leading to nearly three hundred thousand hides total. So, at the rate of three shillings per hide, the total would come to forty-five thousand pounds, or one hundred and thirty-five thousand in today's currency. See Rudborne, p. 257. In Saxon times, only two hundred and forty-three thousand six hundred hides were counted in England.]

14 (return)
[ NOTE N, p. 266. The legates a latere, as they were called, were a kind of delegates, who possessed the full power of the pope in all the provinces 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 civi[**] 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 rigor; but it was an advantage to the king to have the archbishop of Canterbury appointed legate, because the connections of that prelate with the kingdom tended to moderate his measures. 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 his 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 savers 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.]

14 (return)
[ NOTE N, p. 266. The legates a latere, as they were known, were a type of delegate who had the full authority of the pope in all the provinces they oversaw and were very active in both extending and exercising that authority. They appointed people to all vacant benefices, called synods, and worked hard to uphold ecclesiastical privileges, which could never be fully protected without infringing on civil power. Whenever there was even the slightest overlap or conflict, it was always assumed that the civil power should yield; any matter that had even a hint of being spiritual, like marriages, wills, or oaths, was taken to the spiritual court and couldn't be addressed by a civil magistrate. These were the established church laws; and when a legate was sent directly from Rome, he was guaranteed to uphold papal claims with the greatest strictness; however, it benefited the king to have the archbishop of Canterbury appointed as legate, as that prelate’s ties to the kingdom helped to balance his actions. William of Newbridge, p. 383, (who is referenced by later historians), claims that Geoffrey had some claim to the counties of Maine and Anjou. He alleges that Count Geoffrey, his father, left these lands in a secret will and instructed that his body should not be buried until Henry swore to uphold it, which he did, unaware of its contents. However, aside from the fact that this story seems quite unlikely and has the feel of monkish fiction, it is not found in any other ancient texts and is contradicted by some, particularly the monk of Marmoutier, who had better means than Newbridge to know the truth. See Vita Gauf Duc. Norman, p. 103.]

16 (return)
[ NOTE P, p. 293. 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) lays, 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.]

16 (return)
[NOTE P, p. 293. The total seems unbelievable; it would be more than half the rent of all the land. Gervase is indeed a contemporary writer, but church officials often make strange errors like this and usually have very little knowledge about public finances. This amount would translate to five hundred and forty thousand pounds in today’s money. The Norman Chronicle (p. 995) states that Henry only collected sixty Angevin shillings from each knight’s fee in his foreign territories: this is just a quarter of what Gervase claims he took from England, which seems highly unlikely. A country might gradually adjust to a tax of fifteen shillings per pound; however, a sudden and heavy tax can never be imposed without a clear necessity, especially during a time when people were not used to taxes. In the next reign, the rent of a knight’s fee was estimated at four pounds a year. There were sixty thousand knights’ fees in England.]

17 (return)
[ NOTE Q, p. 295. Fitz-Stephen, p. 18. This conduct appears violent and arbitrary; but was suitable to the strain of administration in those days. His father Geoffrey, though represented as a mild prince, set him an example of much greater violence. When Geoffrey was master of Normandy, the chapter of Sens presumed, without his consent, to proceed to the election of a bishop; upon which he ordered all of them with the bishop elect, to be castrated, and made all their testicles be brought him in a platter. Fitz-Steph. p. 44. In the war of Toulouse, Henry laid a heavy and an arbitrary tax on all the churches within his dominions. See Epist. St. Thom. p. 232.]

17 (return)
[ NOTE Q, p. 295. Fitz-Stephen, p. 18. This behavior seems harsh and random, but it fit the style of leadership at that time. His father Geoffrey, though seen as a gentle ruler, set a much more violent example. When Geoffrey was in charge of Normandy, the chapter of Sens dared to hold a bishop election without his approval, so he ordered all of them, along with the elected bishop, to be castrated and had their testicles brought to him on a platter. Fitz-Steph. p. 44. During the war in Toulouse, Henry imposed a heavy and arbitrary tax on all the churches in his territories. See Epist. St. Thom. p. 232.]

18 (return)
[ NOTE R, p. 307. I follow here the narrative of Fitz-Stephens, who was secretary to Becket; though, no doubt, he may be suspected of partiality towards his patron. Lord Lyttleton chooses to follow the authority of a manuscript letter, or rather manifesto of Folliot, bishop of London, which is addressed to Becket himself; at the time when the bishop appealed to the pope from the excommunication pronounced against him by his primate. My reasons why I give the preference to Fitz-Stephens are, 1. If the friendship of Fitz-Stephens might render him partial to Becket even after the death of that prelate, the declared enmity of the bishop must, during his lifetime, have rendered him more partial on the other side. 2. The bishop was moved by interest, as well as enmity, to calumniate Becket. He had himself to defend against the sentence of excommunication, dreadful to all, especially to a prelate; and no more effectual means than to throw all the blame on his adversary. 3. He has actually been guilty of palpable calumnies in that letter. Among these, I reckon the following. He affirms that when Becket subscribed the Constitutions of Clarendon, he said plainly to all the bishops of England, “It is my master’s pleasure, that I should forswear myself, and at present I submit to it, and do resolve to incur a perjury, and repent afterwards as I may.” However barbarous the times, and however negligent zealous churchmen were then of morality, these are not words which a primate of great sense and of much seeming sanctity would employ in an assembly of his suffragans: he might act upon these principles, but never surely would publicly avow them. Folliot also says, that all the bishops were resolved obstinately to oppose the Constitutions of Clarendon, but the primate himself betrayed them from timidity, and led the way to their subscribing. This is contrary to the testimony of all the historians, and directly contrary to Beeket’s character, who surely was not destitute either of courage or of zeal for ecclesiastical immunities. 4. The violence and injustice of Henry, ascribed to him by Fitz-Stephens, is of a piece with the rest of the prosecution. Nothing could be more iniquitous than, after two years’ silence, to make a sudden and unprepared demand upon Becket to the amount of forty-four thousand marks, (equal to a sum of near a million in our time,) and not allow him the least interval to bring in his accounts. If the king was so palpably oppressive in one article, he may be presumed to be equally so in the rest. 5. Though Folliot’s letter, or rather manifesto, be addressed to Becket himself, it does not acquire more authority on that account. We know not what answer was made by Becket; the collection of letters cannot be supposed quite complete. But that the collection was not made by one (whoever he were) very partial to that primate, appears from the tenor of them, where there are many passages very little favorable to him, insomuch that the editor of them at Brussels, a Jesuit, thought proper to publish them with great omissions, particularly of this letter of Folliot’s. Perhaps Becket made no answer at all, as not deigning to write to ah excommunicated person, whose very commerce would contaminate him; and the bishop, trusting to this arrogance of his primate, might calumniate him the more freely. 6. Though the sentence pronounced on Becket by the great council, implies that he had refused to make any answer to the king’s court, this does not fortify the narrative of Folliot. For if his excuse was rejected as false and frivolous, it would be treated as no answer. Becket submitted so far to the sentence of confiscation of goods and chattels, that he gave surety, which is a proof that he meant not at that time to question the authority of the king’s courts. 7. It may be worth observing, that both the author of Historia Quadrapartita, Gervase, contemporary writers, agree with Fitz-Stephens; and the latter is not usually very partial to Becket. All the ancient historians give the same account.]

18 (return)
[ NOTE R, p. 307. I’m following the narrative of Fitz-Stephens, who was Becket’s secretary; although, it's possible he may be seen as biased in favor of his patron. Lord Lyttleton prefers to rely on a written letter, or rather a manifesto, from Folliot, the bishop of London, addressed to Becket himself at the time the bishop appealed to the pope regarding the excommunication declared against him by his primate. My reasons for favoring Fitz-Stephens are: 1. While Fitz-Stephens' friendship may have biased him toward Becket after the latter's death, the bishop's clear hostility would have made him even more biased against Becket during his lifetime. 2. The bishop was motivated by both personal interest and animosity to slander Becket. He had to defend himself against the excommunication sentence, which was terrifying for anyone, especially a prelate, and a good strategy for him would have been to shift all blame onto his opponent. 3. He engages in blatant slander in that letter. For instance, he claims that when Becket signed the Constitutions of Clarendon, he openly told all the bishops of England, “It’s my master’s command that I should commit perjury, and for now, I’m agreeing to it, planning to sin and only repent later.” Regardless of how brutal the times were, or how indifferent zealous churchmen were to morality back then, those are not words a respected primate would use in front of his fellow bishops; he might act accordingly, but surely he wouldn’t admit it publicly. Folliot also states that all the bishops were determined to stubbornly resist the Constitutions of Clarendon, but that the primate himself betrayed them out of fear and led them to sign it. This contradicts all historians' accounts and goes against Becket’s character, as he was clearly neither lacking in courage nor in commitment to ecclesiastical rights. 4. The violence and injustice attributed to Henry by Fitz-Stephens align with the rest of the prosecution’s narrative. Nothing could be more unjust than, after two years of silence, suddenly demanding forty-four thousand marks from Becket (a sum nearly equal to a million today) without giving him any time to present his accounts. If the king was so blatantly oppressive in one matter, he can be assumed to be equally oppressive in others. 5. Although Folliot's letter or manifesto is directed to Becket, it doesn’t gain more credibility because of that. We don’t know how Becket responded; we can’t assume the collection of letters is complete. However, it’s evident that this collection wasn't made by someone (whoever it was) overly partial to that primate, as the contents include many passages that are not very favorable to him, to the extent that the editor in Brussels, a Jesuit, felt it necessary to publish them with significant omissions, particularly this letter from Folliot. Becket may not have replied at all, as he might not have wanted to engage with an excommunicated individual whose very association could taint him; and the bishop, banking on this arrogance from his primate, could slander him more freely. 6. Though the ruling against Becket by the council suggests he refused to respond to the king’s court, this doesn’t support Folliot's account. If Becket's excuse was dismissed as false and frivolous, it would be considered no response. Becket did comply to some extent with the order to confiscate his goods by providing surety, which shows he was not intending to contest the king’s court’s authority at that moment. 7. It’s worth noting that both the author of the Historia Quadrapartita, Gervase, and other contemporary writers agree with Fitz-Stephens; and the latter is typically not very favorable to Becket. All the ancient historians provide the same account.]

19 (return)
[ NOTE S, p. 392. Madox, in his Baronia Anglica, (cap. 14,) tells us, that in the thirtieth year of Henry II., thirty-three cows and two bulls cost but eight pounds seven shillings, money of that age; five hundred sheep, twenty-two pounds ten shillings, or about tenpence three farthings per sheep; sixty-six oxen, eighteen pounds three shillings; fifteen breeding mares, two pounds twelve shillings and sixpence; and twenty-two hogs, one pound two shillings. Commodities seem then to have been about ten times cheaper than at present; all except the sheep, probably on account of the value of the fleece. The same author, in his Formulare Anglicanum, (p. 17,) says, that in the tenth year of Richard I., mention is made of ten per cent, paid for money; but the Jews frequently exacted much higher interest.]

19 (return)
[ NOTE S, p. 392. Madox, in his Baronia Anglica, (cap. 14,) tells us that in the thirtieth year of Henry II., thirty-three cows and two bulls cost only eight pounds seven shillings; five hundred sheep were twenty-two pounds ten shillings, which is about ten pence three farthings per sheep; sixty-six oxen cost eighteen pounds three shillings; fifteen breeding mares were two pounds twelve shillings and six pence; and twenty-two hogs were one pound two shillings. It seems that goods were roughly ten times cheaper back then than they are now, except for the sheep, likely due to the value of their fleece. The same author, in his Formulare Anglicanum, (p. 17,) notes that in the tenth year of Richard I., there was mention of a ten percent charge on loans; however, the Jews often demanded much higher interest.]

END OF VOL. Ia.

END OF VOL. 1a.






Download ePUB

If you like this ebook, consider a donation!