Encomium Emmae Reginae

Table of contents :
Preface v
Abbreviations and Methods of Reference ix
Introduction
A. Manuscripts and Editions xi
B. The Encomiast xix
C. The Learning and Latinity of the Encomiast xxiii
D. Queen Emma xl
E. The Historical Content of the 'Encomium' 1
Text, Textual and Linguistic Notes, and Translation 4
Appendices:
I. Queen Emma’s Name, Title, and Forms of Assent 55
II. The Status of Queen Emma and Her Predecessors 62
III. The Scandinavian Supporters of Knútr 66
IV. Text of the Supplement to Jómsvíkinga Saga 92
V. Additional Notes 99
General Index 100
Index to the Text of the 'Encomium' 104
Glossary 106

Citation preview

ENCOMIUM EMMAE

REGINAE

E D IT E D FO B T H E B O Y A L H ISTO RICAL SO CIETY BY

ALISTAIR CAMPBELL

OAMDEN THIRD SERIES V olem e L X X 1I

LONDOH

O FFIC E S O F T H E R O Y A L H IST O R IC A L S O C IE T Y

9Ô

CH EYN E W ALK, S.W.IO

1949

Printed m Great Britain by Butler Sc Tanner Ltd , Frome and London

PREFACE A new edition of the Encomium Emmae Reginae calls for no excuse, for it has not been separately edited before, its language has not been previously studied, and the only earlier historical commentary upon it is that contained m the obsolete annota­ tions of Langebek (1773) This is a remarkable state of affairs, for the importance of the text is shown by the number of allusions to it which occur in the pages of all writers on the English and Scandinavian history of the eleventh century. The Text and Textual Notes of the present edition have been prepared from the manuscripts and from photostatic reproductions of them. They will be found more accurate even than those m the edition of Gertz, which suffer slightly because the editor had not MS. L or a reproduction of it before him but worked from a collation previously made in London. A t the request of the Royal Histoncal Society I have added a translation * this should be used only in conjunction with the Linguistic Notes, where alternative renderings of many passages will be found. In the historical sections of the Introduction and m the Appendices, I have attempted to give an orderly presentment of everything that can be learned from the sources, English, Welsh, Scandinavian and continental, concerning Queen Emma and her Encomiast, and about the Scandinavian supporters of Knútr, whose deeds bulk so large m the Encomium , The historical content of the Encomium is carefully considered, every statement being severely tested, and a general estimate of its historical value, based upon this detailed examination, is offered. The place of the work in eleventh-century historiography is also indicated. In § C of the Introduction, and m the Linguistic Notes and Glossary, I have attempted to make an adequate study of the Encomiast's language, to show its relationship to the Latm m general use m its period, and to estimate the degree to which it is ornamented with elements from classical writers. The Encomiast's spell­ ing of proper names is discussed in the light of Old English and Old Norse phonology, and 01 what little is known of the ancient language of Flanders. I have not considered an edition of a single text a suitable place for a detailed bibliography concerning either the history of the Danish conquest of England or the latim ty of the Encomiast's period. I wish, however, to direct the attention of those who use Scandinavian sources for the history of the eleventh century to Bjam i ASalbjamarson's excellent work Om de norske kongers sagaer (Oslo, 1937) and to the enduring value of SigurSur Nordal's Om Olaf den helliges saga (Copenhagen, 1914). Place-names are used in current modem forms. Old English personal names are spelt as in contemporary documents, while for Scandinavian ones normalised Old Norse spelling is used, but in both cases th is substituted for p and d. No attempt is made to give the names of persons, who happen to be mentioned in Latin documents only, in vernacular form. I am particularly grateful to Mr. G. Turville-Petre for much advice on Scandi­ navian matters, and for the valuable Additional Notes m Appendix V, which are due entirely to him. Mr. Francis Wormald has been kind enough to examine a reproducV

VI

PREFACE

tion of th e illumination on fo. i v of L , and informs me th at he does not consider that it is possible to decide whether the artist intended to depict the Encom iast as a m onk or as a secular cleric, though the former appears the more lik ely (cf. p. x ix , n. 3). I wish also to express m y thanks to th e R oyal H istorical Society for accepting for publication an edition with considerably more com m entary than th ey norm ally allow.

CONTENTS PAGE

P r e f a c e ................................................................................................... ......... A bbreviations and Methods of R eference .

.

v

.

ix

I ntroduction . A. Manuscripts and E dition s .......................................................................xi B. T he E n c o m ia s t ...................................................................................... xix C. T he L earning and L atinity of the E ncomiast . . . xxiu D. Q ueen E m m a ......................................................................................................x l E. T he H istorical Content of the E n c o m i u m . . . . 1 T ext , T extual and L inguistic N otes, and T ranslation

.

.

A ppendices : I. Q ueen E mma’s Name, T itle , and F orms of A ssent .

II. III.

.

.

T he Status of Q ueen E mma and H er P redecessors '

V.

55

.

.

.6 2

T he Scandinavian S upporters of K nútr : a. Eiríkr Hákonarson jarl. b. þorkell Strút-Haraldsson inn hávi. c. Úlfr Porgilsson jarl ; Eilífr porgilsson. d. The Account of the

Conquest of England in the Supplement to Jómsvíkinga Saga

IV.

4

T ex t of the Supplement to J ómsvíkinga Saga

.

.

.

.

66 92

A dditional N otes : a. The Encomiast’s Descriptions of Norse Ships and his Remarks on

the Composition of the Norse Army. 5. The Encomiast’s Descrip­ tion of the Magic Banner of the Danes, c. The Encomiast’ s E ty ­ mology of the name H ó r ö a k n ú t r ........................................................... 94 P o s t s c r i p t .........................................................................................................................99 G eneral I n d e x ..............................................................................................100 I ndex to the T ext of the E

n c o m iu m

.......................................................... 104

G l o s s a r y .......................................................................................................106 vii

ABBREVIATIONS AND METHODS OF REFERENCE Names oi classical and early medieval writers and works and of books of the V u lga te are generally given m the abbreviated forms used m the Latin Dictionary of Lew is and Short, though slightly fuller forms are occasionally employed. If no edition is specified, m edieval historians and biographers are quoted b y the divisions of the te x t m the Monumenta Germaniae Historica The O ld Norse Sagas are quoted b y the chapter divisions of the standard editions, except Fagrskmna, which is quoted b y the pages of Finnur Jónsson's edition (Copenhagen, 1902-3). The following abbreviations are freely used B . . Birch, W de G , Cartulanum Saxomcum B axter . , . B axter, J H , and Johnson, C , Medieval Latin Word-list (Oxford, Earle

.

.

.

.

Gertz

.

.

.

.

1934)Earle, J ,

A Hand-Book to the Land-Charters, and other Saxonic Documents. Gertz, M. CL, Scriptores minores histonæ Danicse medn sevi (Copen­ hagen, 1917-20) Gertz, M. C l , Kong

Knuts liv og gerninger eller aeresknft for dronning Emma oversat a f (Copenhagen, 1896) K ............................Kemble, J M., Codex diplomaticus aevi Saxonici. M G.H.S. . . . Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores. N .C........................ Freeman, E A ., The History of the Norman Conquest of England Gertz, T ran s..

.

(Vols. I and I I are quoted b y the pagination of the third edition)

N.E.D. . . Patrologia .

. New English Dictionary. . Migne, J. P., Patrologia Latina. R ............................Robertson, A J., Anglo-Saxon Charters. Skjaldedigtning . Jónsson, Finnur, Den Norsk-Islandske Skjaldedigtning. Stenton . . . Stenton, F M., Anglo-Saxon England Stolz-Schm alz . Leumann, M , and Hofmann, J B , Lateimsche Grammatik 1928 ; Storm, G ,

= Stolz-Schmalz, fifth edition).

Monumenta Historica Norvegíæ. Thés......................Thesaurus Linguae Latinae. Thorpe . . . Thorpe, B., Diplomatarium Anghcum ævi Saxonici W ........................... W hitelock, D ., Anglo-Saxon Wills. Storm 4

IX

(Munich,

INTRODUCTION A

Manuscripts and Editions

The following are the existing manuscripts of the Encomium Emmae Reginae 1 , the prefixed capitals are the sigla b y which reference is made to them m the present w o r k , L. British Museum, Additional 33241 V National Library of Wales, Hengwrt 158 ( = Peniarfh 281). B British Museum, Additional 6920. P Bibliothèque Nationale, Fonds Lat. 6235. L is a manuscript of the mid-eleventh century, consisting of 67 vellum leaves (17 5 X i i cm ) On fo' ir a late medieval hand has written Gesta Cnutoms Rt, and, on the same line, a press-mark of the library of St Augustine's, Canterbury 2 Below this, the same hand has written ‘ Lib sci. aug. Cant \ On fo i v there is an illumination, tinted m blue, green and red. I t depicts a queen, crowned and enthroned, receiving a book from a kneeling ecclesiastic , two men are standing beside her These figures undoubtedly represent Queen Emma, her two sons, Hörthaknútr and Eadweard, and the author of the Encomium The text of the Encomium occupies fos 2r-67r I t will appear below that a leaf has been lost in modern times between fos. 47 and 48.* T he initial 5 at the begin­ ning of the tex t is elaborately ornamented . it extends down before the first six lines, which are written in large letters, and contain only the opening fourteen words, * Salus . . sexu \ Ornamented initials are used to begin all three books, and occasionally to begin paragraphs. Although the writing is similar throughout the manuscript, a slight change m its character occurs on fo. 4ir, with the words Qui licet deuictus (II, io, 23), and, from this point onwards, ~q instead of -7 is the prevailing contraction for final -que. A change of hand must therefore be presumed at this point. From fo 48r onward the average number of lines on a page is 18 ; since it is only 15 in the preceding part of the manuscript, the British Museum Catalogue of Additions 4 assumes that the hand changes on fo 48r (while not recognising the change on fo. 4ir). In this, however, it is probably mis­ taken. The lower half of fo 5r containing the beginning of the Argument (‘ Fortasse , . . facturum. Quod ') is probably m the hand of the scribe of fos 41-67. The rest of the Argument (fos 5V-7V) is either m the hand of the scribe of fos. 4 1-67 or m that of a third scribe * it is not m the prevailing hand of fos 2-41. In the text only familiar contractions are used. The names of Knútr and Em m a are nearly always, and those of other royal persons are frequently, written m uncial letters. In spelling, punctuation, and word-division the manuscript follows the usual practices of its period Both scribes frequently correct slight errors made b y themselves or inadvertently copied from their exemplar. The word Geldefordia, III, 4, 18, seems to be due to a corrector practically contemporary with the original scribes. Two annotators have been active on L * one is of the late medieval period, the other*4

1 On this title, see below, p xvui. 8 See below, p xiv. 4 Vol for 1882-7, p. 281

xi

2 X. Gra. I l l Cn. A.

xii

,

INTRODUCTION

clearly of the sixteenth century 1 T h e y m ake corrections and worthless comments,® alter the punctuation and word-division to conform w ith the habits of their own period, and draw hands m the margins to indicate points of m te ic s t T h e y aie also responsible for a m arginal drawing of K n ú tr against the opening w oids of II, 15, and another of tw o eyes against the episode of the blinding of TElfred m II I, 6 O ne of them proposes various emendations, to three of which it will be necessary to m ake frequent reference below. T h e y are muebat for muniebat, I, 1, 18 ; remtth for remissi, I, 1, 19 ; insertion of affectus after precovdns, I, 1, 22, I refer to the w ork of these tw o annotators as I / . I t is occasionally not possible to decide if a slight correction is due to I / or to th e original scribe. L is clearly not the author's autograph, b u t a co p y m ade b y tw o sciibes, cithci fiom th a t autograph or a very e a ily co p y of i t 12 34 5 In view of its careful execution and the illus­ tration, it is probable th a t it is either the co p y sent to Queen E m m a 01 a close 1 coproduction of th a t co p y T he illumination of the m anuscript appears to belong to a continental centre subject to English influence ; since St. O m cr w as ju st such a centre, it is extiem ely lik ely th a t L was w ritten there for presentation to th e Queen. T h e inscription on fo ir mentioned above shows th a t L w as a t S t. Augustine's, C an terbu ry, m the latei Middle Ages, and it is entered m th e fiftcen th -cen tu iy catalogue of th e library of th at foundation.4 In 1566 it w as copied b y Thom as T a lb o t under circum stances now unknow n.6 In 1819 it w as m th e h b ra iy of th e te n th D u ke of H am ilton, and was described as follows m th e Repertorium Bibliographicum published a t London m th a t year b y W illiam Clarke (pp 259-60) . Cnutioms Magni Gesta — A MS of great antiquity . it is dedicated to Queen Emma, the widow of Canute, and is supposed to have been written about the year 1030 • prefixed is a diawmg of the author presenting his book to the Queen. T h is notice attracted th e attention of P ertz to th e m anuscript and led to M s visit to Sco tlan d to stu d y it m 1862.® H ard y's attention w as first draw n to the m anuscript b y th e publication of Pertz's edition. Its existence had escaped him when fu s t dealing w ith th e Encom ium in his Descriptive Catalogue (1. 627 ft.), so he devoted a supplem en tary entry to it, g iv in g a translation of the L a tin preface to P ertz's edition an d opposing Pertz's opinion th a t the editio pnneeps w as derived from it (op a t., ni. 1 ft ). L w as also noticed briefly m the First Report o f the Royal Commission on Historical M anuscripts (p, 114) T h e m anuscript was acquired a t the sale of the H am iltonian library m 1882 b y the R o ya l Library, Berlin.7 I t was b o u g h t b y the B ritish M useum m 1887, togeth ei w ith other

1 Gertz states that the hand of one of these annotators belongs to the seventeenth or eighteenth century, but this is not possible, as the annotator in question is responsible for the three emendations to be mentioned below, and hence his activity antedates the making of Talbot’s copy m 1566 (see below, p xm). 2 Generally these are merely indications of the content of the adjacent part of the text, 3 It will appear below (p xvi) that there was probably a copy intermediate between the author’s autograph and L, from which L and P are independently derived, and which introduced some errors common to L and P. 4 See M. Œt James, The Ancient Libraries of Canterbury anå Dover, p. 294 The medieval catalogue gives the title and press-mark in agreement with L, fo. ir (see above, p. xi, n. 2), and quotes the first word of fo, 2, so it is certam that the book referred to is L. 5 See below, p, xin. , • See below, p. xvii. 7 M Mamtius, Geschichte der lat. Lit. des Mittelalters, ii. 331, fails to realise the identity of the Berlin and London manuscripts, and also alleges incorrectly that MSS, Cott. Claud, D 11 and Harley 746 contain the Encomium. (These two manuscripts do actually contain brief texts about Knútr ; see Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue, i. 626,)

INTRODUCTION

xiii

The manuscript was briefly described m the Catalogue o f Additions to tile Manuscripts m the British Museum m the Years 18 8 2-j (p 281), V is a paper manuscript containing copies of texts, m ostly of an historical nature, made b y Robert Vaughan (1592-1667), the collector of the Hengwrt MSS The first item m it (pp 1 - 2 1) is the Encomium This begins without title, and the last words are followed b y the note * Transcnptü et excerptü a vetustissi (sic) exemplari manuscripto per Thom Talbot, an0 D m 1566 1 This note is followed b y four trifling verses about Queen Emma said to be * E x Chronicis T h Rudburm ' Vaughan's te x t of the Encomium agrees closely with that of L and even reproduces the three emendations of I / mentioned above,12 giving the first two m the margin marked al, but accepting the third into the text without comment This use of the late notes written on L would be alone practically sufficient proof that the ultimate source of V is L, and the matter is placed beyond doubt by the fact that, wheie L has an erasure, V usually leaves a gap 3 Now, since the note at the end of the Encomium m V states th at the text was copied b y Thomas T a lb o t4*from an ancient manuscript, and since we have seen that V is derived from L ,6 it follows that the ancient manuscript copied b y Talbot was L, and that V is derived from Talbot's copy, w ith or without intervening links V generally follows the piactices of its own period m spelling, punctuation and word-division. V has always been among the Hengwrt M S S , which Vaughan himself collected. The compiler of the Hengwrt catalogue of 1658 6 dealt with V m some detail, and described the first item as * the History of Cnute and Swayne, by the Archbishop of Canterbury I can offer no explanation for this assumption of archiépiscopal authorship for the Encomium : it is repeated m the catalogues of both W . W . E W ynne 7 and Aneurm Owen,8 but Gwenogvryn Evans 0 modifies it to the equally absurd ' History of Cnute and Swayne b y Thom, Talbot 1556 H ardy drew attention to the V te x t of the Encomium m his Descriptive Catalogue (1 627) but, nevertheless, Pertz and Gertz do not refer to it m their editions, and seem not to have been aware of its existence. Before considering MSS B and P it will be convenient to discuss the editio princeps, which appeared m 1619, when A Duchesne included the Encomium in his collection Historiae Normannorum Scriptores Antiqui (pp. 161-78), published at Pans Duchesne states m his preface th at manuscripts of the Enoomium and William of Poitiers were transmitted to him b y William Camden through Nicolaus Fabricius de Petrisco, and that both manuscripts weie from the library of Robert Cotton, H e says that the manuscript of William of Poitiers was very old, but concerning that of the Encomium he offers no Hamiltonian manuscripts 1

1 On the paper fly-leaf bound m with the manuscript there is a note of its present number, and it is stated that it was purchased 2 April 1887 from Dr Lippmann (who, no doubt, represented the German authorities). 2 P Xll. 8 See Textual Notes to III, 1, 2 ; III, 4, 15. It may also be observed that V frequently reproduces marks of punctuation added to L by L'. 4 On this active antiquary, see D.N B t, xix 337 6 From L, not merely from an early copy of L, for V gives the emendations of I/, and it follows that Talbot’s copy, the source of V, was made from an exemplar, which had the notes of L/. Talbot copied, therefore, from a manuscript which was ancient, but had the sixteenthcentury notes of L/, and this could only be L itself. Comparison of the annotations on L with Talbot’s autograph shows that he was not himself responsible for them 6 Printed m the Cambrian Register, 111 278 £f. 7 Archseologia Cambrensis, 1869, p 363, 8 Transactions of the Cymmrodonon, 11. 4 (1843), p, 409 ®Report on Manuscripts in the Welsh Language, 1, 1099

XIV

INTRODUCTION

information. Perte apparently assumed th a t the m anuscript sent to D uchesne was L, and though H a rd y suspected th at this w as not the case, G ertz formed the sam e opinion as Perte.1 D uchesne's te x t is obviously derived u ltim a tely from L , for it accepts the three m arginal emendations of L/ already referred to. I t also, like V, frequen tly repro­ duces m arks of pu nctu ation added to L b y L '. B u t both V and Duchesne ad d a t th e end ■ the four verses attribu ted to Rudbourne, and th e y h ave m a n y common errors.® It is ' therefore evident th a t th e y are derived from L through an in term ediate com m on source. Since T a lb o t copied directly from L, an d since V is derived from T a lb o t's copy, it follows th a t D uchesne is also derived directly o r .in d irectly from T a lb o t's copy, G w enogvryn Evans, dates 'V abou t 1 624,a and, since, his au th o rity in such a m atter is v e r y great, it appears lik ely th a t V au ghan copied a m anuscript other th a n th a t s e n t.to France, for Duchesne'seems never to have returned th e m anuscripts sent to him : a t least th e ancient manuscript of W illiam of Poitiers has n ot been heard of; since, . T h e innum erable errors in' D uchesne's text, w hich are not found in V , suggest th a t w h at Cam den sent to Fran ce was a v e r y bad transcript derived directly or in directly from th a t of T alb o t, and th a t Vaughan used either T alb o t's co p y or a good transcript derived from it* It is, a t least, certain' that the texts of V aughan and Duchesne are derived from T a lb o t's transcript of L, and, accordingly, I use T to denote the agreem ent of V and C ( « D uchesne's printed te x t).1*45 A comparison of T and L shows th a t a leaf has been lost in L betw een th e present fos. 47 and 48. The passage lost in L occurs in II, 16, and it is present in P a s w ell as in C and V.® P is, as usual,6* full of errors in this passage, and the t e x t of C and V m ust be adopted, though P is of valu e in confirming certain readings. T h e chief valu e of V is th a t it confirms the te x t of C in this passage, for, as has alread y been pointed out, C is in general a m uch worse t e x t than V* C and V agree e x a c tly in this passage apart from details of spelling, and, when P diverges from them , its readings are m anifestly inferior. r .

S is a. paper manuscript containing transcripts in the hand of the Rev, John Haddon Hindley (176 5 -18 27), 7 including on fos. 10 5 -14 the first book of the Encom ium . Bindley claims to have copied from a manuscript, but this can only have been a transcript derived ultim ately from Talbot's. B has both the independent errors of G, and those which are common to V and C 8 ; like C, it accepts the three emendations of I/ into the text ; 1 Pertz's words are, that he found the Hamiltonian manuscript to be the identical codex ‘ cuius apographum Chesnius typis expressit \ These words do not imply that Duchesne used a copy ot L, though Gertz so interprets them with disapproval {Scriptores Minores, ii. 384), Cf. Hardy, Descriptive Catalogue, iii. 5. ®Examples of such common errors of V and C are : puerili fór pueruli, I, 1, 8 ; baculis for batulis, II, 5, 6 ; habet for habes, II, ï ç , 15. 4 I t is impossible that C is derived from V or V from C. C has innumerable independent errors in places where V agrees with L. On the other hand, V has some errors which are not in C, and sometimes writes in thé first place errors which are also in C, but afterwards corrects them . (e.g., in II, i, 10, C has vitam for in tæm, V uitam altered to in tam). I have not considered it worth the space to exemplify the independent errors of C and V. 5 The loss of a leaf after fo. 47 in L is certain, as fo. 47V ends in the middle of a word {regio\ne). The lost leaf contained the supposed allegation of Queen Emma's virginity at the time of her marriage to Knútr, and this was perhaps too much for the patience of some reader, who accordingly

81 again spare space by not exemplifying the errors of B, for which I refer to Gertz’s apparatus.

INTRODUCTION

XV

like C, it has a marginal note contingere against contingi, I, i, 2. I t is therefore evident, either th at B is derived from C, or th at B and C are derived independently from a copy which formed a link between Talbot's transcript and C H m dley heads his text of the first book of the Encomium w ith the words ‘ Narratio de Sweyno Rege \ He makes a number of independent errors m copying, and his te x t can be dismissed as worthless B was presented to the British Museum together with a number of other volumes of H indley’s collections (Additional MSS. 69x3-7057) b y Mrs. M B. Williamson m 1829. Attention was drawn to its text of the Encomium b y Gertz, who, however, believed it to be an early seventeenth-century manuscript, and to have been used b y Duchesne.1 I t appears, from what has now been said, that V, C, and B, although their inter­ relations may not be entirely clear, are all derived ultimately from a transcript of L made m 1566 by Thomas Talbot Accordingly, B is useless to an editor of the Encom­ ium , and V and C are of use to him only m the passage now missing in L Almost the only other interest of these descendants of Talbot's transcript is that they show that the three emendations of I/, which they all know, were already written on L m 1566« P is a manuscript on vellum, probably of the sixteenth century 8 A note on fo. 1 shows that the manuscript was at one time m the possession of William Cecil, Lord Burghley (1520-98) • its previous history is unknown I t is well known to contain a copy of W illiam of Malmesbury’s Gesta Pontificum . The portion which concerns the present inquiry (fos. 7-14) is in a hand not found elsewhere m the manuscript, and was evidently originally m no way connected with the material with which it is now bound up, On fo. 7r and the upper half of fo j v there are a number of sentences from Gildas, headed * Excerpta ex Gilda \ and these are followed on fos 7V-14 b y a text of the Encomium headed * E x eodem Gilda in Historia de Sueyno et Knuctone, quam m gratiam scripsit ad reginam Emmam ’ 4 The Prologue and Argument are not given, and the first book is severely abridged, but the second and third books are given fairly fully, although several passages are omitted and others are shortened 6 These passages are all of a rhetorical nature, and it is evident that the scribe of P was interested m the Encomium only as an historical document H ard y 6 appears to suggest that the passages missing in P are less authentic than the rest of the Encomium this is most unlikely for P professes only to be ‘ excerpta \ It m ay be noted that the reading of P ’s text of the Encomium shows that the scribe knew the Prologue, if not the Arguinent, for otherwise he would not have known that the work was written ' m gratiam ad regmam Emiham P differs from L m the conclusion of the final chapter the description of the unanimity of Emma and her sons (‘ H ic fides . . . Amen ’) is replaced b y a brief account of the death of Horthaknútr and

1 Scriptores Minores, 11 382, 384.

8L'

proposes a good many other emendations

some of these (e g , ignari for incogniti,

II, 10, 26) T evidently did not accept, as they are not found in V and C , others are found m V and C, but are mere corrections of an obvious nature, and prove nothing concerning the

relationships of the manuscripts 8 Practically all writers who refer to the MS. P date it m the fifteenth century. An exception is Stubbs (William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum, Rolls Series, p xxn), who places the manu- k script m the sixteenth century, and this appears to be correct at least of the leaves containing the

Encomium 4 Occasional similarities of phrase and vocabulary probably explain why the scnbe of P thought that the Historia Gildae and the Encomium were by the same writer. s See Textual Notes on I, 1, 14 , I, 2, 1 ; I, 5, 1 , II, 4, 5 ; III, 6, 19 , III, 7, 1 ; III, 9, 5 ; III, 10, 2 , III, II, 2

6Descriptive Catalogue, 1. 628.

XVI

IN T R O D U C T IO N

the accession of Eadweard, followed b y an eloquent testim ony to the merits of the latter.1 This ending has clearly been substituted foi th at preserved m L after the death of Horthaknútr. The text of P is abnormally bad it is full of errors, accidental omissions (varying m length from one to about a dozen words) and foolish alterations 12 I t is very difficult to determine the relationship of L and P. The question which most concerns an editor is whether P is denved from L or whether it is descended fiom the author's autograph through a chain m which L is not a lmk If the lattei were the case, P would be of some value, for it has a number of unusual forms m common w ith L, and could be regarded as confirming these, 01, a t least, pi ovmg th at they were already present m the Encomium at an oldci stage than L in its transmission If, on the other hand, it were decided that P was derived fiom L, it would be of no value except m the passage now lost m L ,3 and m its own veision of the final sentences. I t m ay be noted th a t L and P have a number of common eirois 4 , this might suggest eithei th at P is d enved fiom L, or that L and P are independently denved from a m anusciipt m which these errors were already present. B u t m a few cases P has errors which L had at first, but which the scribes have themselves corrected 5 This suggests that L and P are independently denved from a manuscript which had these errors, and th at the scribes of L corrected them after inadvertently copying them, while th ey were retained m another copy made from the same exemplar and from which P is ultim ately derived. P is so full of independent errors th at certainly cannot be reached in this matter, bu t I have considered it likely that P is independent of L, and that it preserves an occasional glimpse of an older stage than L m the transmission of the Encomium , b y showing th at certain doubtful forms found in both L and P go back to a manuscript older than L 6 Furthermore, P seems to give an occasional hint as to how L is to be corrected7 In II I, i, 2, it preserves a place-name erased m L. I t offers, however, practically no readings which are better than those of L 8 The date of the revised version of the ending found in P is uncertain* This passage, w ith its rhetorical style and Virgilian reminiscence,® is certainly not the work of the scribe of P, whose Latin, as exhibited m his summaries of parts of the text, is singularly bald I t probably dates back to the reign of Eadweard the Confessor, for the spiritual merits of th at monarch would be more strongly emphasised b y a late eulogiser Its author has caught the style of the Encomium admirably I t is, of course, not impossible th at the Encomiast himself revised his work m a copy retained m Flanders, while the copy sent to England remained unrevised. T t will appear below (p, xl) that III, 7, was probably revised at the same time as the ending. T he existence of a te x t of the Encomium m P is pointed out neither m the catalogue 1 See Textual Note on III, 14, for P ’s version of the ending. 2 I refer the reader to the editions of Pertz and Gertz for the errors of P : both these editors give an excellent selection of them, and it would be mere waste of space to do this again ®In this passage P has a definite value, even if it be regarded as derived from L, for, while its text is very inferior to that of T, it confirms the anomalous form tusmrando and the readings 'temporum and tUi (cf Linguistic Note on II, x6, 7). 4 See Textual Notes on II, a, x ; II, 7, 13 , II, xo, 22 ; II, 13, 10 ; III, x, 19 ; III, 5, 12 , cf III, 13, 4. 5 See Textual Notes on II, 18, 2 ; II, 20, 1. ! » See Textual Notes on II, 3,6 ; II, 7, xx ; II, 8,9 ; II, 9f 7 î II, 9,14 ; II,« , 8 ;III, 1, 24 ; III, 3, 8 ; III, 5,3 ; III, 5 ,16 ; III, 6,16 ; III, 9 ,16 ; cf. also below, p. xxxvi, on forms in which L and P have inorganic h. 7 See Textual Notes on II, 11, 4 ; II, 13, 18 ; III, 6 ,1 1 (postquam), III, 9, 2 ; III, xo, xi. 8 For possible exceptions, see Textual Notes on II, 2, 12 ; II, 16, 21. 8 Vttakbus auns ; cf. A en, L 387-8.

INTRODUCTION

xvü

of the French royal manuscripts noi m the catalogue of the Burghley sale, although many of its other contents are recoided m those works,1 but was first brought to the attention of scholars m Hardy's Descriptive Catalogue (i. 627-9), where most of P's summary of Book 1 and its peculiar ending are printed In their editions of the Encomium, Perte and Gertz follow P m the passage missing m L Since these editors have also given a good iliustiative selection of P ’s errors in their footnotes, I have thought it necessary to include in my Textual Notes only its major variants and such readings as are of interest fox the reasons outlined above. Duchesne's text of the Encomium is reprinted m the following collections of texts. (1) Jacobus Langebek, Scriptores rerum Damcamm medn aevi, ii (1773), pp. 472-502 The editor adds copious historical notes. (2) Francis Maseres, Historice Anghcanm dre à tempüs conquestus Anghæ a Gulielmo Notho, Normannorum duce, Selecta Monumenta (London, 1807), pp. 3-36 The editor gives a marginal summary in Latin and a few notes m English. The first paît of this work, containing the Encomium and William of Poitiers, was set long before 1807, and some copies of this part were printed and issued privately without the editor's name m 1783. (3) Migne's Patrologia, cxli (1853), cols. 1373-98. The editor notes a few of the verbal parallels with classical authors and quotes by way of introduction a passage fiom the Histoire Littéraire de la France, vii (1746), pp. 573-4* in which the Encomiast's good latmily and poetical style are commented upon. (4) Short extracts from Duchesne's text of the Encomium are printed m the Recueil des historiens des Gaules et de la France, xi (1767), pp. 5-8, with a few introductory 1 emarks of an obvious nature. Modem work on the Encomium began in September 1862, when G. H. Pei ta, having observed the notice of L in Clarke's Repertorium, went to Scotland and copied the manu­ script, He also knew of the existence of P (probably from Hardy's Descriptive Catalogue) and he published an edition of the Encomium, in which the text follows L and copious variants are given from P. Pertz removed most of the errors of Duchesne, but he intro­ duced a few new ones,8 and the variants which he gives from P are not always accurate. Pertz’s edition was published in Monumenta Germaniae Historica, Scriptores, xix (1866), pp. 508-25, and also separately at Hanover m 1865 in the series of texts from the Monu­ menta re-issued in usum scholarum Both issues of Pertz's edition are entitled * Cnutoms Regis Gesta sive Encomium Emmae Reginae auctore monacho Sancti Bertim ' • it has a brief introduction, describing L, P, and C An extremely careful edition of the Encomium was published by M. Cl. Gertz in vol. ii (pp. 376-426) of his Scriptores minores histonm Dantcæ medii sevi (2 vols,, Copenhagen, 1917-20). He worked on L in London m June 1906, and on P m Copenhagen, whither it was sent for his use, in January 1914. In London he also presumably discovered and collated B, His edition follows L, and all the variants of P, C, and B winch are of any interest are given in the apparatus. The existence of V seems to have escaped him (as it had previously escaped Pertz), In his introduction, Gertz gives excellent descriptions of L, P, and B, though, as has already been observed, he dates B incorrectly. Gertz's 1 See Catalogus codicum manusenptorum bibliotbem regiæ, iv (1744), p. 2x8; Bibliotheca Illustris (London, 1687), p. 85, no. 98. 8 Since the errors of Pertz are carefully pointed out by Gertz m his apparatus, I have not thought it necessary to record them again, but it is desirable that attention should be drawn to the fact that Pertz wrongly alleges an agreement of P and C against L m a number of places. The readings concerned are posthabitu, If, 9, 4, iniquo III, 2, 4, reuchitur, Ilf, 8, 6, where Pertz incorrectly states that L has postpositis, mahgno, reuertitur* Pertz states that P and C have omnis, II, X , 3, against L ’s omneà, but L actually has omnos altered from omnis, and Talbot no doubt misread it as omms (cf. above, p. xvi, n, 5). Pertz is correct in giving GeldejorMa* III, 4, 18, as L ’s reading against Gildefordta, P, C, but this is a special case, see p, xvm, n, x.

xviii

INTRODUCTION

edition is a decided im provem ent upon th a t of Pertz, although, while rem oving m ost of P e rtz ’s errors, it introduces a few new ones G ertz, furthermore, failed to see th a t C and B are u ltim a tely derived from L only, and form ed the cuu ou s opinion th a t C is an eclectic te x t based on L, P, and B I t is of course im possible th a t Duchesne used B, there is not th e least reason to thin k he used P ,1 and it has been shown above th a t he did not use L a t first hand. G ertz also proposes m a n y em endations of which the average merit is rem arkably low. A p a it fiom slight and obvious corrections (m m ost of w hich he was an ticip ated b y Pertz, T albot, 01 I/), I h a ve adopted on ly three of G e r tz ’s emendations m th e t e x t of the present edition, and m one of these he was an ticipated b y Maseies 12 I h a ve considered tw o others worth m ention m the T e x tu a l N otes,3 and a few others are discussed m the Linguistic N otes.4* G e r tz ’à explan atory notes consist practically exclu sively of references to passages in th e Classics and the V u lgate, w hich have verbal correspondences w ith the Encomium * th e y are derived largely from th e notes to his translation T h e m ethod m which the te x t of the Encom ium is presented m the present edition is described sufficiently m the note prefixed to it .6 W ith regard to the divisions of the text, it m a y here be obseived th a t L states where th e second book begins an d where the A rgum ent ends (thus im plyin g where th e first book begins). The p oin t where the Prologue ends and the Argum ent begins is to be m feried w ith certain ty from th e subjectm atter T h e beginning of the third book, how ever, is indicated on ly b y a space and an ornamented initial, and hence it is not recognised as a separate book m th e early editions or m V . Pertz and G ertz, however, divide th e t e x t into three books, and, since nothing would be gained b y departing from this ve r y n a tu ia l arrangem ent, I do the same Chapter divisions were first introduced b y Pertz G ertz som ew hat modified th e divisions of Pertz Since references to the Encomium have p ractica lly alw ays been m ade m modern times b y the divisions of P ertz, I have retained these, thou gh those of G ertz are som ew hat better 6 T h e t e x t had originally no title m L . T h e one u su ally used is due to Duchesne, who headed his t e x t ‘ E m m æ Anglorum regm æ R ichard! I ducis N orm annorum filiæ encomium The title adopted b y P ertz 7 w as suggested b y the la te inscription on L , fo. ir, and this inscription was followed s tr ictly b y Gertz, who entitles th e t e x t 1 Gesta Cnutonis R egis ' T h e title ' Encom ium E m m a e (Reginae) ' has become th e one generally used m England, and I adopt it m the present edition, feeling t h a t it is, after all, th e m ost suitable for a work which is not a biography o f K n ú tr, b u t w hich is devoted, a t least m the author’s expressed intention, ‘ per om m a reginae E m m ae laudibus ’ T h e on ly translation of the Encomium know n to me is th a t b y G ertz into Danish entitled 1 K o n g K n u ts liv og gerninger eller æ reskn ft for dronning E m m a oversat af M. CL G ertz ' (Copenhagen, 1896). I t has a brief introduction, m an y citations of verbal 1 No sound evidence that C used P can be advanced. P makes in the text, and C m the margin, the very obvious emendations contingere, I, 1, 2, and oculos utrosque, III, 6, 10, but they would occur to any reader, though they may not be correct. Similarly L's Geldefordia, III, 4 ,18, may have been altered to Gildefordia (so T) b y P and Talbot independently ; but the name m L has been rewritten b y an early corrector, and it is possible that Gil - was the original form used by the Encomiast, and that P has preserved it, while Talbot reverted to it, as being the better known m his time Both forms are found early, see Ekwall, Diet, of Eng . Place-names, p 197. 2 See Textual Notes on II, 4, 6 ; II, 7, 1 3 , II, 10, 22, •i, L 2 9, io. 4 See Linguistic Notes on P ro !, 14 ; Arg., 9 and 12 ; II, 7, 2 1 , II, 9, 7 ; II, 10, 6 ; II, i6, 6 and 7 , II, 18, 10 , III, 5, 16 , III, 6, 10 ; III, 10, 5. On Gertz’s emendation in III, 12, 2, see below, p. xxxii, n I. 6 See below, p 3. 6 In one case Gertz’s arrangement is much b e tte r . see Linguistic Note on I, 1, 27. 7 Quoted above, p. xvu.

; in,

INTRODUCTION

xíx

parallels, and a few historical notes professedly derived from those of Langebek. I have quoted from it occasionally m the Linguistic Notes as representing the best which can be made of difficult passages The only discussion of the Encomium of any value is th at of J C H R Steenstrup, Normandiets Histone under de syv første Hertuger (Copenhagen, 1925), pp. 2 1-4 The Histoire Littéraire de la France, vu 573-4, limits itself to an appieciation of the writer’s style. M. Mamtius, Geschichte der lateimschen Literatur des Mittelàlters, u (Munich, 1923), pp. 329 f f , has a rather perfunctory account of the Encomium, which is not always accurate or intelligent1 Innumerable allusions to the Encomium (often rather impatient) occur m the pages of most writers on the English and Scandinavian history of the eleventh century 8

B.

The Encom iast

Concernmg the life of the author of the Encomium we know nothing except four facts which he himself tells us The first is that he was commanded to write his work b y Queen E m m a , the second, that he obeyed her, at least partly out of personal g ratitu d e, the third, that he was an inmate either of St. Bertm 's or of St Omer’s ; the fourth, that he personally saw Knútr on the occasion of his visit to these foundations on his w ay to Rome 8 W e m ay reasonably conjecturé that his association with the queen originated during her exile m Flanders (1037-40), but we cannot assume that he was still an inmate of St Bertm ’s or St Omer’s at that time. His latinity, as will appear below, shows that he was possessed of considerable learning,12 4 and his selection b y the queen to write a work 3 m praise of herself and her fam ily suggests th at he enjoyed some reputation as a man of letters Our knowledge of the history of the two associated foundations at St. Omer m the early eleventh century is unfortunately poor. T h ey were originally little more than branches of one foundation and were under one abbot According to Folqmn, the historian of St Bertm’s, this state of affairs persisted until the time of Abbot Fridogis (820-34), who substituted canons for monks at St Omer’s.56 * This was apparently con­ sidered equivalent to a separation of the two foundations,® and henceforth there was always much jealousy between them as to which was the superior. Folqmn quotes a charter m two forms, which purports to define certain rights of supervision granted to 1 Cf above, p. xn, n 7, and below, p xxxvi 2 Milton already uses the Encomium freely in, his History of England, and points out its value as a contemporary source for the murder of Ælfred. He gives a translation of the forged letter (Enc III, 3) 3 These facts are all recorded in the Prologue and II, 20-1 The assumption (which is as old as Duchesne) that the Encomiast was a monk of St Bertm’s is quite unjustified He regarded the two foundations at St Omer as being a unity (see below, p xx), and gives no indication as to which he was the more closely attached The word uernula does not necessarily mean ' monk * m the Latin of the period it often is simply ‘ servant ’ We know of at least one canon of St Omer’s who engaged m historical studies, see below, note 6 On the evidence of the drawing on fo IV of MS. L, see Preface * See Introduction, § C. 6 See Cartulaire de Vabbaye de S amt-JBertin, edited by M Guérard (Pans, 1840), pp. 74-5. 6 Ib id , 84 ‘ Hugo abbas condolens íníelicissimæ et miserrimae divisioni et discissioni venerabilis Sitiuensis coenobii ab infando Fridogiso factæ . .’ Similarly Lambert, a canon of St Omer’s, who compiled lists of the heads of both foundations about 1120, says * ‘ iste Fredegisus a consortio monachorum Sancti Audomari segregavit aecclesiam anno Domini 830 ’. Lambert, however, regards Hugo of St Quentin, Fndogis’s successor, as being actually the last abbot to preside over both houses See M G H ,S , xm 390-1

XX

INTRODUCTION

S t B ertm 's o ver S t O m er's xn the tim e of A b b o t H ugo, the successor ot Fridogis, b y Folqum , B ish o p of Thérouanne 1 T his charter is su spect,12 b u t there is no lea son to doubt th a t some connection betw een the houses su rvived th e activities of Fridogis In A lardus T assart's version of th e Cartulanum Sithiense ,3 a few docum ents are g iven to fill th e gap betw een 962, w hen F o lq u m ’s history ends, and 10 2 1, where th a t of Simon begins O ne of these 4 is dated 1015 and states th a t S t B e r tm ’s and S t O m er's ow ned com m on property a t th a t d ate W h atever the date of th e su rvivin g form of the docum ent m a y be, a version of it w as alread y current m the tim e of John of Y p re s (d 1383), who sum m arizes i t 5 T h e E n co m iast certain ly speaks as if th e tw o foundations were m some sense a u n ity m describing K n ú tr 's v is it to them T h e E n co m iast refeis to S t B ertm 's and S t O m er's as monasteria (II, 2 1, 1 an d 11) an d caenobia (ibid , 1 5 ) . S t Om er's w as s tr ictly a collegiate church m his tim e . if m onks had ever returned theie, so im p o rta n t an even t w ould n ot h a ve escaped the chroniclers T h e words monasterium and caenobium are, however, bo th freely used m m ed ieval L a tin m the sense ‘ collegiate church ' T h e state of scholarship seems to h a ve been good a t S t. B e r tm ’s m th e eleventh c e n tu iy ; concerning the affairs of S t O m er's w e h a ve no inform ation m th is pen od In 1042 or 1043, B o vo becam e ab b o t of S t B ertm 's O u r know ledge of his ca ieer is derived from th e Gesta Abbatum Sancti Bertini Sithiensium of Simon (written 10 9 5 -112 3 ) 6 W e do not know if B o vo w as educated a t St. B ertm 's or cam e there from elsewhere 7 Simon speaks h igh ly of him as a scholar, and Folcard addresses him w ith respect as his teacher and dedicates his life of S t B erlin to him 8* B o v o 's own e x ta n t tra ct on tho Inventio of S t B ertm 's bones is w ritten m ad m irably clear L a tin , and this m a y also be said of a few other works w ritten a t St. B ertm ’s m the sam e period.0 O f B o vo 's predecessor R odencus, who w as ab bo t from 1021, we know on ly th a t he h ad a reputation as a disciplinarian, and th a t he w as originally a m onk of Arras I f th e E n com iast belonged to S t. Bertm 's, a large p art of his career there m ust h ave been spent under th e a b b a cy of R oden cu s I t m igh t be tem pin g to id en tify the E n com iast w ith B o vo , for th e la tter states m his above-m entioned tra ct th a t he had p ie v io u sly w ritten an historical w ork, w hich dealt p a r tly w ith events of w hich he had been a w itn e s s 10 B o v o 's s ty le is, how ever, m arkedly different from th a t of the E ncom iast, and correspondences in vo cab u la ry an d phrase are 1 Cartulaire de . Saml-Bertm, 85-8 2 Neues Archtv, vi 421-2, footnote 2 St Omer MS 750 (written about 1512). 4 Cartulaire de . . Saint-Ber tin, p xeix. 6 Martône and Durand, Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, m 571 • Ed m Cartuïatre de . . Saint-Ber tin, and in. M G H .S , xm. 600 ff 7 It has sometimes been stated that Bovo was educated at St. Bei tin’s, but this isfonly derived from John of Ypres, who interpreted the statement of Simon, that Bovo imitated the virtues of his predecessor, as implying that he modelled himsolf on Rodeiicus, while the latter still presided over St. Bertm's. Simon’s statement that Bovo was the egregius imitator of Rodcricus m ay mean no more than that he discharged his office m same admirable manner as the latter. Simon also saýs that Bovo was reared from his youth under monastic discipline, but we cannot infer that this means at St Bertm's 8 Acta Sanctorum Septembris, 11. 604 A t least as the teacher of this eminent biographer of Englishmen, Bovo deserves to be remembered m this country. 0 The works in question are a few eleventh-century additions to the Libellus Miraculorum S Bertmi, Er embold’s Libellus de Miraculo S Bertim (see M .G M S., xv. 516 ff.), and a poem printed m Neues Archiv, 11. 228-30. . 10 * Curp nonnullas rerum convenientias scribendis gestis antehac pervenisse meminerim, quorum plura ego ipse viderim, quaedam maiorum haud spernendorum virorum relatu didicerim . . (M .G JY .S , xv. 526) >

INTRODUCTION

XXI

not greater than one would expect between two authois of the same period, who both employ rhymed prose Nevertheless, the two works are different m subject and' spirit, and this might account for the difference m style The most th at can be said is, that it is not totally impossible that Bovo was the writer of the Encomium The hand of the Encomiast is not to be traced with certainty m the other St. Berlin's writings of the period, though he somewhat resembles Erembold m s ty le 1 The -Encomium was clearly written during the reign of Horthaknútr (1040-2), when Queen Emma was at the height of her influence She no doubt instigated the writing of a laudatory work on the history of the Danish dynasty m England during the last months of her stay in Flanders, after Horthakhútr had been offered the English crown She must then have felt a considerable degree of confidence m the future, and it is not surprising that she considered, that the'tim e was opportune for making a record of her trials and their fortunate outcome, set m a background of the feats of her husband The Encomium is, accordingly, written purely for the personal glorification of Em m a and her relatives. I t is not m any sense a piece of political propaganda defending the Danish occupation of England, which is depicted as purely aggressive The strength of the English resistance is not under-estimated, the peace of 1016 is regarded as due to the exhaustion of both sides, not to the superiority of Danish arms,12 and it is hinted th at Eadmund intended to renew the struggle 3 Furthermore, the Encomiast regarded the hostility of the English to the Danes as justified, and their resistance as natural, if perhaps unwise 45 The first two books of the Encomium provide, m short, a confused but unprejudiced account of the Danish conquest of England, and, as will appear below, they are studiously modest concerning K nútr’s personal prowess,6 and are generous to Eadmund,6 while proper indignation at the treachery of Eadric for working m the Danish interest is expressed 7 The third book is written entirely from Em m a’s point of view, and this was not exclusively either Danish pr English In fact, the one link between the two mam subjects of the Encomium, the wars of the English with the Danes and the story of Emma, is that Em m a’s marriage is stated to have caused a racial reconciliation m England after the death of Eadmund 8 T h at English and Danish statesmen continued to look askance at each other after 1016 we need not doubt, but the Encomiast’s ýtory is that there was no racial friction after his heroine’s marriage, and he maintains this position with considerable consistency, although owing to his suppression of Em m a’s connection with the W est-Saxon house, he would leave the uninformed reader wondering m what w ay the marriage of their conqueror to a Norman lady could possibly placate the English. W e m ay suspect that the object of Knútr’s marriage was a reconciliation with Normandy rather than with the English (cf. below, p. xlv), and we m ay doubt if the English regarded Em m a with sufficient affection to feel any enthusiasm for her astonishing recovery of her former position m 1017, much less to change their feelings towards their conqueror on her account, but she evidently wished it to be thought that they did so, and instructed her Encomiast accordingly, for such 1 See below, p xl 2 II, 13 , note also II, 16, where the war is said to have been one of ' pares paribus ui corporis uirtuteque ammi * 3 II, 14 * ne forte si uterque superuiueret neuter regnaret secure, et regnum diatim adnihila[re]tur renouata contentione * 4 II, i * * Angli siquidem memores, quod pater eius miuste suos muasisset fines . . / 5 See below, p lx. 6 Note especially the description of his gallantry at Ashmgdon (II, 9) and his determination to renew resistence afterwards (II, 10).

7 II,

15.

8 This is clearly placed before the reader by the Encomiast m his Argument he explains that he begins a work m praise of Emma with an account of Svemn, because the war begun by that monarch might have had no end but for his son’s marriage to Emma , cf II, x6 (at end).

XXll

INTRODUCTION

a surprising view of the course of con tem poraiy E n glish politics can h a id ly h a ve been the u n pio m ptcd concoction of a Flem ish ecclesiastic.1 T h e En com iast, h a vin g com m itted himself to th e view th a t racial antagonism subsided w ith E m m a 's re-appearance m E n gland , opens his third book w ith an account of th e succession of H araldr, m w hich th a t even t is depicted as due to an ill-advised m ovem en t am ong th e E n glish ,12 and m which there is no suggestion th a t the new km g w ould be more welcom e to his Scandinavian than to his E n glish subjects S till less is it suggested th a t E m m a 's interests coincided w ith those of a D an ish p a r ty The wrong com m itted b y H a ia ld r 's supporters is n o t regarded as especially directed against the d y n a s ty of K n ú tr, b u t aga in st H orthakn ú tr as a son of E m m a, and, failing him, against E m m a 's other sons 3 E m m a was, evid en tly , quite w illing to accept a reversion of the crown to th e W cst-S a xo n house, rather th a n to Danish rulers w ith whom she had no connection. E ad w eard appears as lackin g legal standing rather th a n a reasonable claim to succeed . th e w itan had sworn him no oath 4* An E n glish prelate appears as a supporter of th e claim s of E m m a ’s sons 8* O ne forms the impression th at, if E m m a really supported the claim s of M agnús of N o rw a y after th e death of H órthakn ú tr,6 she did so m a w ild a tte m p t to av o id personal eclipse la th er th a n m an y preference for the continuance of Scandinavian rule as such T h e ie can be little doubt th at, m com m anding a h istory of th e D anish conquest and its afterm ath to be w ritten, E m m a was influenced b y th e exam ple of her father, R ichard th e Fearless, who caused a history of him self and his piedecessors to be w ritten b y Dudo of St. Quentin I t is v e r y probable th a t she recom m ended D u d o 's w ork as a m odel to the author of the Encom ium . A lth ou gh I am n o t of opinion th a t it can be m echanically dem onstrated th a t th e E n com iast knew D u d o ’s book, it is n o t to be denied t h a t the tw o w i iters are m arkedly similar m sty le and m ethod 7 T h e s ty le of the Encomiast» w ill be com paied w ith th a t of D u do below,8 b u t one exam ple of their sim ilarity of trea tm en t m ay be given here . th e m ethod m which th e E n com iast leads th e ignorant reader to assume th a t all E m m a ’s fam ily were all th e children of K n ú tr, b u t avoid s m aking a d u e c t state­ m ent on th e m atter w ith w hich th e better-inform ed reader could quarrel,® is v e r y similar to th a t m w hich D udo, seizing upon the fa c t th a t th e French chroniclers had often failed to distinguish th e Northm en of the Loire from thoge of th e Seme, claim ed th e deeds of the former for the la tter and so created for future ages th e problem of th e mouvance de

Bretagne,10 A lthou gh th e Encomium is not w ithou t its valu e for pure history,11 it is for th e illum ina­ tion of character and m otive th a t it deserves th e greatest attention . I t is n ot its least merit, m. view of the late date of th e Norse Sagas, th a t i t provides a n early contem porary view of th e characters of several of the heroes of Scandinavian history. K n ú tr appears as a politician rather than as a warrior, and S vem n as a warrior k in g of the later v ik in g age, who accepted Christian ity as a belief, b u t n o t as an influence T h e political w averin g of Thorkell is covered, b u t n ot concealed,12 while E irikr appears as a m ig h ty warrior the 1 f t has been argued on insufficient grounds th at the Encomiast was English (see below, p xxxvi) * if this were the case, he would be even less likely to have personally over-estimated Emma’s capacity to cause a sudden wave of contentment with Danish domination among the English. 2 III, % ‘ ut quidam Anglorum . . . mallent regnum suum dedecorare quam ornare 3 III, i * relinquentes nobiles filios insignis regmae Emmae \ 4 III, 8, 8 III, X. « See below, p. x h x 7 Steenstrup first pointed this out (Normandiets Historie, p 21), 8 Pp. xxxiv ff. 9 Ch below, pp. xivi fl. 10 See A. le Moyne de la Bordene, Histoire de Bretagne, u 355-98 and especially 496-504. 11 See below, pp. lxviii fl. 12 Cf, below, pp. liv fl.

INTRODUCTION

XXlll

romantic and knightly qualities which he displays m the Sagas do not appear, and are perhaps to be regarded as added to his character with little foundation by later tradition O f the English characters, the persistent bravery of Eadmund and the treachery and insidiousness of E adn c appear as clearly as m the native records Above all, the Encomium enables us to get behind the dry notices m which the Old English Chronicle records the political crisis which followed the death of K nútr to the feelings and view­ points of the protagonists I t shows us Haraldr eagerly canvassmg possible supporters,1 and Emma alarmed but full of schemes 23 We see Emma unwilling to absolve Godwme for his part in the murder of Ælfred, but disinclined to blame him for it directly, owing to his satisfactory attitude m Horthaknútr's reign8 W e feel Em m a’s repugnance for her rival, Ælfgifu of Northampton, m the favourable mention of the scandal concerning the birth of Haraldr, and the suppression of the fact that Æ lfgifu was an active worker in her son's cause 4* We are made to feel Emma's vanity she did not desire posterity to know that she was m any w ay connected with the English house which had failed to stem the Danish onset, although the suppiession of this fact makes her claim to have been the cause of an Anglo-Damsh reconciliation little less than absurd Her withdrawal to Flanders, reasonable as it was, has to be excused at length with Scriptural and Sallustian quotations 6 Her ambition also appears plainly the rejection of her sons is the rejection of Emma,6 her son's obedience to her counsels is specially extolled 7 Eadweard appears very conscious of his weak legal position and disinclined to undertake a dangerous enter­ prise, Æthelnoth as loyally determined to fulfil what he had promised to Knútr, Godwme as the willing tool if not the accomplice of Haraldr m a brutal murder,8 and Haraldr as a brutal and completely unscrupulous usurper Whatever the precise justice of these last four judgments may be, they show us exactly how the persons m question appeared to Emma and her party. A work which throws so much light on the characters of eleventh-century English and Scandinavian history, and upon how they appeared to each other, is one of the most important documents preserved from the period.

C.

The Learning and Latmity of the Encomiast

The only non-Biblical works mentioned m the Encomium are the Aeneid9 and a pseudo-Virgilian epigram, from which two lines are quoted 10 It is pointed out that the Aeneid is devoted to the praise of Octavian, because the praise given to his family glorifies him, though he is scarcely mentioned b y name, and this suggests that the Encomiast knew some such account of Virgil's life and work as that b y Junius Philar1 See below, n 6, and p lxiv 2 See note 6 below 3 See below, p lxv 4 See below, p lxiv 8 III, 7 6 See the curious letter (III, 3) alleged to have been forged by Haraldr m the Queen’s name While this document shows us Haraldr canvassing support as he appeared to Emma’s party, its picture of Emma shows her as she knew she must have appeared to her opponents, enraged to be tantum nomme regina and revolving all manner of schemes to secure a change on the throne This view of the Queen is put skilfully by her Encomiast into a composition attributed to the villainous Haraldr this is equivalent to saying that it was prevalent m some quarters, but was mere scandal The Encomiast is careful to say that Emma actually passed the time m sorrowful expectation and daily prayer (III, 2)'. See further on the story of the letter below, p. lxvn 7 Arg., ‘ maternis per omnia parens consiliis ’ 8 See below, p lxv 3 A r g , 7. 10 II, 19, cf Poetae L a tim M in o res , ed. A. Baehrens, iv 156, and V itae Vergthanae, ed. I, Brummer, p. 31.

xxiv

INTRODUCTION

gyrms 1 There are also allusions to the classical m yths about contains, and to the well-known story of the decimation of the Theban legion 12* In view of the poverty of the information thus directly obtained, it is evident that, if an y idea of the extent and direction of the Encom iast’s reading is to be formed, this must be done b y the close stu d y of his language Although m uch of the present section of the Introduction will be concerned with the influence of classical authois on the Encom iast, it cannot be emphasised too strongly that this influence is a veneer upon his language, which remains of a basically medieval type, exhibiting th at deep influence of late L a tin syn tax which characterizes practically all m edieval narrative Latin Most of the constructions which distinguish this language from classical L atin can be íead ily exemplified from the Vulgate, w hich is the greatest single influence upon medieval L atm prose In the following paiagraphs, attention will be drawn to a number of constructions, the fiee use of which shows the m edieval character of the Encom iast’s language, though m any of them are occasionally found m the classical period.8 The Encom iast is particularly fond of the use of the ablative of the gerund w ith a force practically equivalent to th at of a present participle active e.g., Prol., precipientem neghgendo conticessere, * to be silent, disregarding thee, who com mandest (me to write) ’ , II, i, non quod asperos euentus belh metuendo fugeret, * not because he was fleeing, fear­ ing . When the mam verb and this participial gerund have the same object, this is expressed once only : e . g , Arg., dim tns ampliando regnum . . optmmt , * he held the kingdom, enriching it \ Other examples are I, i, preparando , fingendo , I, 5, tangendo, festinando ; remittendo , reddendo, II, i, despiciendo , II, 2, relinquendo , II, 7, tnuadendo ; II I, 6, narrando ; parcendo. The Encom iast makes very free use of the present participle active w ith the force of a past p a r tic ip le . e.g., I l l , 4, ascendens in statione . . parabat, * havin g landed, he was preparing ’ ; III, 13, ut uemens secum optmeret regnum, * th a t having come, he should . .’ Other examples are II, 2, audiens ; perpendens , II, 4, ualeåicens ; II, 6, diripientes ; II, 7, educens ; II, 9, requirens , dicens ; II, 10, uertentes ; I I , x i, redeuntes , repetentes ; II I, 6, rapientes. Conversely, he sometimes uses the past participle passive w ith the force of a present participle * e.g. Prol., si neglecta uenustate dictamims multiplici narratione usus fuero , * if, disregarding elegance of form, I adopt a prolix method of narration * ; I, 4, primo prelio usus * . . muadit, 4tak in g advantage of (the result of) the first battle, he invades ’. The Encom iast frequency uses the ablative absolute where the subject or the object is the same as th a t of the mam verb * e g , II, 2, quibus u ix extmetis . . refocillantur, 4which having scarcely been extinguished are rekindled ’ ; II, 7, quo reuerso rex . . . prohibuit, * whom, after his return, the king forbade ’ ; II, 13, electisque internuntiis , p r emittit, 'a n d he sends elected m essengers’ ; I I I , 4, hac fraude . . . . composita . . . est directa, 4this forgery having been composed, it was directed H e also sometimes places the ablative absolute after the main verb, to express an action subsequent to that 1 See Brummer, op. a t , p. 43 * ' (Virgilms) nonissime scripsit Aeneida in honorem Caesans, ut uirtutes Aeneae, ex cuius genere cupiebat esse, suo carmine ornaret ’ The Encomiast perhaps had a manuscript of Virgil with introductory matter, including a life of the poet. 2 III, 5 , cl below, p. xxxiv. 8 Ample Biblical example of most of these constructions are given by F. Kaulen, Handbuch mr Vulgata (Mainz, 1870 ; 2nd ed., Freiburg-m-Breisgau, 1904) ; H. Roensch, Itala.und Vulgata (Marburg and Leipzig, 1869 ; 2nd ed.t Marburg, 1875) ; W E. Plater and H. J. White, A Grammar of the Vulgate (Oxford, 1926) In the present work, I use the term Classical Latin to include all writers later than Terence and earlier than Apuleius, and, when it is necessary to distinguish Late Latin from Medieval Latin, the line between them is regarded as falling about a .d . 600.

INTRODUCTION

xxv

of the m am verb, and thus continue the narrative * e g,, I, 4, adiacentem regionem inuadtt, fu sts fugattsque hostibus, ' he invades the ad jacen t region, and scatters the en em y and p u ts them to flight ' 1 The E ncom iast makes free use of th e infinite of purpose 2 e g , A r g , successorem esse constituit, II I , i , missam audire subintrarent The E ncom iast is frequently content to construct lon g sentences out of a succession of mam clauses joined b y copulae e g , I, 1, pater . . fugit, et . . . . obiit et S u em . . . tenuit ; I I I , 4, est obuius factus , et eum . . . suscepit . eiusque fit . miles The E ncom iast is often in exact both in his use of th e reflexive pronoun and its possessive ad jective and his failure to use th em 3 e g , I, 3, quod ipsi ( = sibt) . . . in mentem uenerat ; I, 3, quid sibi ( = till) super hoc negotn mderetur, orsus est inquirere , II , 16, sponsa . omnium eius ( = suorum) temporum m ulierum prsestantissim a , II , 16,

sed abnegat illa, se unquam Cnutonts sponsam fieri , nisi illi ( — sibi) . . affirmaret

.

I t should be observed th a t, although th e En com iast uses th e ab lativ e w ithou t preposition to express point of tim e, he also uses it to express duration, as is so frequent m the Vulgate e g , I, 5, pauco superutxit tempore (cf. E x o d . x x i 21) , II, 2, aliquanto tempore , II, 9, tota quadragesima , I I I , 12, toto ex iln tempore. A s is usual in tex ts which use the ab lativ e to express duration, w e sometimes find a preposition added to it to in d icate‘ point of t im e , e g ., II, 11, m nocte The E n com iast sometimes uses the ab lative w ith m after verbs of m otion to indicate place w hither e g., II, 7, m ea confugerant ; I I I , 4, mdupsit eum in u i lla , I I I , 5, adducuntur . . in medio , I I I , 6, eductusque in in s u la , I I I , 7, fugite m aha (cf. T e x tu a l N ote).1*4* A lthou gh the Encom iast uses the accusative and infinitive construction freely, especially after verbs of command an d im plied com mand (e g., II, 20, o ro , II, 2 1, impetro), he also has a ve r y large number of noun clauses introduced b y quod, quia and quoniam . e g., I, 1, affirmare ualeam , quod , II , 8, dicentes q u od , II , 3, ut . . patefaceret, quia , A r g , nosti, quoniam ; I, 1, liquet procul dubio, quoniam H e also has th e Vulgate use of quontam to introduce direct quotations * e g , I I I, 7, tali responsione censeo utendum , quoniam , insinuat, quoniam st persequuti vos The following points should be noticed concerning the use of conjunctions introducing subordinate clauses. T he tem poral conjunctions dum and ubi are used w ith th e sub­ ju n ctive or the indicative, w ithout the difference of mood im plyin g a difference of m ean­ ing 6* eg , I, 5, dum . . . hortaretur,II, 2, dum . . . . inquireret ; I I I , i, , . . . subintrarent , II I, 10, dum . . . . contemplaretur ; II, 10, dum ardehan intuentur , II, 16, dum . . * transuehitur, I I I , 3, dum . . . . plangim us , I I I , 12, dum . . * . . apparatur ; I, 3, ubi . . msum esset, II, 2, u b i p atefaceret, II, 10, ubi . . adessent , II, 3, ubi concessum est T h e histon e present is rarely used after dum unless the m am verb is historic present : an exception is II, 10, ceperunt . dum intuentur . B u m is also used w ith the subjun ctive to mean * seeing th a t * 6 e.g., II , 12, dum , . scirem necesse esse me fugere, quid satius fm t, 1 seeing th a t I knew I m ust flee, which w as the better . . . ? *, I I I , 3, dum sciatis In II, 9, dum esset, the con1 This seems the most natural way to take the passage, rather than to regard the absolute clause as referring to the flight of the enemy m the battle described m the previous sentence ; cf. V ulg , Num xm 1, * profectusqne est populus de Haseroth, fixis tentoriis in deserto Pharan ' 1 2 The construction is, of course, frequent in verse in the classical period. 8 Cf Kaulen, op a t , is t e d , p* 141. 4 Cf S u e t, Claud 40 inducta teste in senatu. 8 On the common late use of ubt with the subjunctive, see Stolz-Schmalz, p 767. * 8 Recorded by Baxter m the eighth century, but only with the perfect indicative , this sense of dum is, however, found with the subjunctive from Tertulhan onwards, see Stolz-Schmalz, p. 744.

xxvi

INTRODUCTION

junction hah a definitely concessive force, the point being that, although the banner was made of plain material, a iiguie appealed on it m naculously m tim e of war In II, io, dum . ehgercnt, the conjunction is causal m force,1 the sense being th at there was a severe b a ttle because the Danes piefeired death to flight There is nothing requiring comment m the use of cum. Postquam is used w ith the pluperfect indicative, III, 5, postquam manducauemnt, a use which is moi e fiequen t m late than m classical prose (e g , Vulg., Gen x x x i. 10 , Exod. 11 11 , etc ) Quamquam , licet, and tametsi are used w ith the subjunctive (II, 13 , II I, 9), and this is the invariable constiuction of concessive clauses m the Vulgate after quamquam, licet,12* and qttamms, though tametsi takes the indicative In II, 7, quousque . . conglobarent, the late use of quousque for quoad appears see Stolz-Schm alz, p. 769, and cf Vulg., T ob v i 6 A late usage, which does not occur m the Vulgate, is th a t of quatinus foi final ut m I, 1, quatinus . facilius sit, and II, 10, in hoc conspiratos, quatinus,z T h e E ncom iast is paiticularly fond of the adverb utpotc. H e uses it m the usual classical construction befoie a íelative, II, 1, utpotc qm luuenis erat,4*8and also directly before the verb, m a sense practically equivalent to th a t of ut e g , A rg , utpote decebat (cf. II, 2) H e uses it, however, most freely m the sense * seeing that ‘ being m truth \ 4inasmuch as \ befoie adjectives and nouns e g , II, 6, ad bellandum, utpote tuuenem, feruentissimum, ' very anxious to fight, inasmuch as he is a you th *, II, 9, utpote formido­ losi , II, 18, utpote futurum heredem regm , II I, 5, utpote fessi There can accordingly be little doubt th at II, 16, utpote regina famosa, means ‘ inasmuch as she was a famous queen ’ e The Encom iast twice uses ac si as an equivalent of quasi II, 9, ac si intextus , II, 15, a esi . . . , fecisset This usage is not common and is p iactically confined to late texts, although occasional e a ily examples are found (sec T h e s , s v atque, cols 1083-4, and Stolz-Schmalz, pp 658 and 784) B ax ter records this use of ac si m insular Latin m the Seventh and ninth centuries, and examples are to be found m writers of the Encom iast's period, as Syrus, Vita S M aioh, 11 22, imperatnx . . aesi ancillarum u ltim a , Folqum, Vita Folqm ni, ProL, uestrum . successum aesi m eu m , M iracula S. Bauoms, 1 3, aesi funditus infecta . The Encom iast also uses adeo tw ice in the sense of ideo, * therefore ' * II, 6, si . . cecidero . . non A n g h sgloriae erit adeo, quia ; 1 1 ,1 3 , quamquamperplunm i interficerentur, numerus eorum non adeo minuebatur , quia . This use of adeo is late and exceptionally rare * see Thes., s v adeo, coi 616, lines 29-34, and Stolz-Schm alz, p 497. M edieval instances are Miracula S Bertini, 3, sed mirum dictu . adeo nullam Usionem passus ; Regino of Pium , Chromcon , 836, 881 non adeo preualmt The E ncom iast’s use of denique w ith a force practically equal to th a t of namque should be observed ®* e g , I, 1, hic demque . . . . duxit originem , II, 9, hoc demqm testatur The three following verbal constructions m a y be observed. (1) T h e Encom iast uses 1 Concessive and causal dum with the subjunctive is again a late Latin construction, not found before Tertullian, see Stolz-Schmalz, loc at a Except in 2 Cor. îv 16, where licet takes the indic m the best manuscripts, though not m the received text. 8 Examples in Lewis and Short, and Kaulen, op cit,, 1st ed , p. 2 1 1 , history of the usage in Stolz-Schmalz, p 770 ; see also Baxter for occurrences in insular Latin ; the usage is also frequent in medieval continental Latin. * Note the indicative for classical subjunctive, cf. Stolz-Schmalz, p 713. 8 Cf. below, p. xlvi. The Encomiast’s use of utpote before verbs is unusual, but his use of it before nouns and adjectives is to be paralleled from the works of most of his contemporaries, and, t of the classical writers, instances are frequent in Horace (see Lewis and Short). Some medieval writers (e.g., Ruotget and Folqum) use utputa m the same way. * See E, Skard, Målet 1 Hutona Norwegiae (Oslo, 1930), p. 11.

INTRODUCTION

xxvii

th e ty p ic a l Vulgate construction of facere w ith th e accu sative and infinitive m a causal sense e g , I I I, 5, tortores mnctos . sedere feceru n t , I I , 3, nauim . fecit p ara n ; and w ith the subject of the infinitive unexpressed I I , 7, eam coangustare f e c i t , II I , 2, fecit epistolam , . componere 1 (2) T he E n com iast u su ally expresses th e idea of g iv in g orders th at som ething be done to something, or som ebody, when the actu a l recipient o f the instructions is not named, w ith lubeo and an accu sative and active infinitive e g , II , 15, multos . occidere . . . luberet , II, 16, quam . . lussit inquirere 2 (3) In II , 13, media m ihi Ubere en t regio, we h ave th e use of esse an d an adverb as predicate, w hich is so frequent m the Vulgate (e g , Psa. cx l 10, singulariter s u m , see K aulen, op a t , 1st ed., p 241) I t will be convenient to present m alphabetical order the chief verbs which exh ibit peculiarities of rection m the Encomium . accelero 4- m f , II, 3 (rare classically, e . g , S t a t , Theb 1 5 1 6 , late L a t and Vulg frequent) , accuro 4- m f , II, 6 , aduehor 4- acc of place whither, I I I, 14 (rare, e g , V al F l 111 485 , S o l , 53, 8 , hard ly A en v m 136, where Teucros = Troiam) , apto 4 * acc. and mf., II , 9 , attineo -f d a t , Prol ; circum­ fero + acc an d d a t , I, 4 (cf V eil 11 92, 2, circumferens orbi . . . bona), continuo , 1 join 4- ad , A r g . , dispono 4- acc and m f , II I , 1 (late Am m ., etc ) , egredior 4 - acc of place whence, II, 7 (fairly common m classical writers, b u t later increasingly frequent, see Forcellim, s v egredior, 6, and Thes , s v egredior, cols 2 8 5 -6 ), elabor a , II , 10 and 12 (not before Oros ) , ehgo m 4- acc , I I I , 1 (late, e g., V u lg , 1 Par. îx 22 , con­ struction extended b y Encom iast to benedico m and laudo m , I I I , 1 , c f Adalbold, Vita H em nci, 15, corono in) , ehgo 4- m f , II, 7 (late, frequent from U lpian on w ard s), experior si, II, 7 (rare, e g , V a l F l v. 561 , cf V u lg , Iu d ith vin 3 1 , 1 lo a n îv 1, probo si) , ferueo ad 4* g e r , II, 6 , gaudeo de, II I , 6 (rare classically, frequent from T ertu ll onwards) ; indignor 4- d a t of person, II, 21, and 4- de, II , 22 (both late constructions, e g., V u lg , lo a n v u 23 , M a tt x x 24) , intendo m 4- a b l , I, 3 (rare, e g , C a e s , B .G . m 22) , intueor 4- acc and m f , II, 6 and 7 , mando, * announce ', 4- acc and m f , II , 3 , patior , * allow \ -1- d a t of person, I, 1 ; piget 4 - d at an d mf., I l l , 2 prestolor 4- a c c , II , 8, II I , 4 (ante- and post-classical), preualeo m 4- a c c , I I , 1 0 , rebello 4- d a t , II , 5 , redarguo 4- a b l of cause, I, 3, and 4- de, Prol , sentio contra, A rg (senho 4- adverbial contra is occasionally found, see T h e s , s v. contra, col 741) In I, 2, onustas de bellatoribus prim is, w e h ave a telescoped expression, ' loaded (with men) from am ong the b est warriors ', rather th an a construction of onustus w ith de , m I I , 8, where sequuntur, obtemperant and fauent h ave the same object (eum), this is m the acc , thou gh this is proper o n ly to th e first of the three v e r b s , m I I I, 4, suscipio in fide is used for th e classical recipio m fidem (it m a y be noticed th a t fide is m rhym e).8 Since th e Encom iast adopted a deliberately poetical style, carefully enriched w ith Virgilian borrowings, all ordinary poetical construðtions are to be regarded as norm al m his work, and, accordm gly, con­ structions peculiar on ly m th a t th e y are n ot found m classical prose are excluded from the ab ove list I t is clear from the above paragraphs th a t the s y n ta x of the Encomium is characterised b y a v e r y large number of late L atin peculiarities, m ost of w hich are to be found m profusion in other m edieval L atin works. Sim ilarly, m choice of phrase, the E n com iast’s language is deeply influenced b y late Latin, particu larly b y th a t of the Vulgate. This 12 * 1 This construction is very frequent m the Vulgate It is not unknown m the classical period e g , Aen 11 538-9, natt . . . cernere letum fecisti , cf Stolz-Schmalz, p 584 2 This construction is not common m the Vulgate * cf , however, 2 Mach xiv 27, inhere . Machdbaeum . . . mittere Anttocham. In such sentences, the Encomiast also uses the con­ struction, usual in the Vulgate, of tubeo with acc. and inf. pass . e g., I, 3, lussit suam patefieri uoluntatem, III, 4, mssit naues . . . repelli 9 William of Jumièges, vu. i i , ' m sua fide suscepit \

xxvin

INTRODUCTION

is a feature w hich it shares w ith p ractica lly a ll th e L a tin of the M iddle Ages, and in consequence it is im possible, m the case of m a n y correspondences of phrase between the Vulgate and th e Encom ium, to say if th e y are due to direct influence, or to th e phiases m question h a v in g becom e p a it of the fabric of m ed ieval L a tin I t is, of course, possible m the case of m a n y S crip tu ial phiases to sa y th a t th e y are an integral part of medieval L atin , an d th a t their use b y a writer is no sign of direct S cu p tu ra l influence on his style, bu t, m th e present state of L a tin lexicography, it is n ot possible to do the contrary, and defin itely affirm th a t a given Scriptural phrase h ad not becom e m an y sense a cliché and th a t its use b y a writer proves peisonal know ledge on his part of the book of the Bible from w hich it is u ltim a tely derived.1 Accordin gly, I present the follow ing list of corre­ spondences betw een the language of th e Vulgate and th a t of the Encom ium , not to show th a t th e E n co m iast was a careful stu den t of the Scriptures, b u t to illustrate, as one of the m ed ieval peculiarities of the Encomium, the e x ten t of th e S ciiptu ral element m its language. M a n y of th e S cu ptural phrases found m th e Encom ium occur m other west E uropean L a tin woxks of its period I lim it the list to the more striking correspondences, and do n o t a tte m p t to give com plete references to the Scriptural occurrences of the phrases . E n e , A r g , suo submgamt im peno — lu d ith 1. i, subiugauerat . . im peno suo , E m 3, i, form idine mortis— Psa. liv 5, formido mortis , E ne I, 2, pnneeps mihciae — Vulg., fxequent expiession , Ene I, 2, hbtque motor lam asenbi — 2 R eg x n 28, nommimeo ascribatur metor i a , E ue I, 3, armis bellicis — Vulg., frequent collocation , Ene. I, 3, pro muro — X R eg x x v 16 , E ne I, 5, etc , Deo gratias— Vulg , fiequ en t expression , Ene I, 5, natmitatis . . terram— Vulg , frequent collocation , E ne II, x, terra quod esset opima— G en xlix. 15, terram quod (esset) optim a, Ene. II , 2, non preualebit — V u lg , favourite expression , Ene II , 3, aromatibus condito — Gen 1 2, aromatibus condirent (both of a corpse) ; Ene, II , 6, in pnm a fronte — »3 R e g x x 17 , E ne II , 6, periculosa sit desperatio— 2 R eg. 11. 2 6 , Enc. II, 8, utrum fortem fieri suadent— i R eg. x v m 17, esto m r fortis \ Ene. II, 9, innumerabili multitudine — lu d ith 11 8, multitudine innumerabilium , Ene. II, 9, u ifi cordati— lo b x x x iv . xo ; E n e . II, 10, uera suspihone — cf N u m v . 14, falsa suspicione , Ene. I I , 13, premittit . . * . qui dextras . . dent et accipiant — 2 M ach x iv . 19, praemisit ............. ut darent dextras atque acciperent ; E ne II , 13, pacifice salutato— 1 R e g x x x 21, salutamt , . pacifice ; Ene. II, 13, meridianae plagae— Vulg , such expressions w ith plaga frequently ; E n e. II , 16, placuit . . . uerbum — lu d ith x i 18, placuerunt . . uerba ; E n e . II , 17, rei postmoåum probauit exitus ; I I I , 9, postmodum rei probamt euentus— Gen. xli. 13, postea rei probauit euentus (cf R u th lii. i8 , quem res exitum habeat) , Ene. II, 18, Saluatoris . . gratia— Txt li. 11, gratia . . S a lu a to n s, E n e I I I , 1, morte amara— i R eg. x v . 32, amara mors ; Ene. I I I , 2, exitum ret expectabat— R u th m 18, expecta . . . . quem res exitum habeat (cf. Ene. II , 7, euentum rei expectamt, and quotations above relating to II , 1 7 ) , E nc. I l l , 2, tn peccatis uiucns-*~~Vulg., frequent com binations w ith verb + in peccatis ; Enc. I l l , 4, prestotabantur eius aduentum — Iudic. ix 25, illiu s praestolabantur aduentum ; E n c . I l l , 5, mane autem facto — M att, x x v ii. i ; E nc. I l l , 6, ocuI[qs] . . . . erui— Iudic. x v i. 2 1, eruerunt oculos ; Enc. I l l , 7, cum . . gratiarum actione— V u lg , frequent expiession , E nc. I l l , 8, ne . . . pigritaretur uenire— A c t. ix . 38, ne pigritens uemre ; E nc. I l l , 9, cuncta disponentis — Sap. x v 1, disponens omnia ; E n c . I l l , 9, forti mbet esse animo — T ob. v . 13, forti ammo esto ; Enc. I l l , 10, gaudio magno gaudebat^ M a tt, ii 10, gauisi sunt gaudio magno ; E n c . I l l , 10, uiscera diuinae misericordiae— Luc. i. 78, uiscera mtsencordiae D ei. I t m a y be observed th a t th e E n com iast knew th e expression uniuersae carnis uiam ingredi (I, 5),2 x This unsound method is applied b y Skard to the Historia Norvegiae {op. a t , p, 67). * 3 See N É .D ., s.v may, sb.1, p. 201, col. 1 ; it m ay be observed that the expression is of quite remarkable frequence m the Encomiast’s period ; see, e.g., Odxlo, Epitaphium Adalheidae, 6 ; Sig. Gem., Vita Deoderici, 3 ; Adalbert, Vita Heinrict, 3 ; Adalbold, Vita Hemnci, 29.

• INTRODUCTION

xxix

and th a t he has (III, 7) the phrase secreta cordis, which, m its E n glish form, ' secrets o f th e heart *, was introduced into P sa xlm . 22, b y Coverdale.1 In Enc. I l l , 14, qm unanimes in domo habitare facit, we seem to have a reminiscence of Psa. c x x x u 1, quam bonum . . . . habitare fratres in unum , influenced in expression b y Psa. lxvn . 7, qui inhabitare

fa cit unius mons in domo. T he Encom iast alludes directly to four passages of Scripture * II , 7, Deus itaque, qui omnes homines unit magis saluare quam perdere (cf Luc. îx. 56) ; II, 14, D eus memor suae antiquae doctrinae, scilicet omne regnum m se ipsum diuisum diu permanere non posse (cf Mare. m. 2 4 ), II, 21, largitor hilaris monitu apostoheo (cf. 2 Cor. îx. 7) ; I I I , 7, illud autenticum dommeae exortationis p receptu m ............. quo . . electis insinuat , quoniam s% persequuti uos fuerint m una cimtate fugite in aha (cf M att. x . 23). 2 Cor. ix. 7, is also echoed m Enc. II, 21, hilariter largitus est. In II, 22, the reference to th e king's in ab ility to tak e his property w ith him in death recalls lo b x x v u . 19 , th e story of H orthaknútr's vision in E nc . I l l , 9, appeared to Plummer 2 to be influenced b y A c t x x v u , but the parallel is not particularly close N o reader can fail to be struck b y the considerable influence of the L atin poets and historians on the Encom iast's language, for there is not a page of the Encomium upon w hich verbal correspondences w ith their works cannot be found. Considerable caution, however, m ust be exercised 111 drawing conclusions concerning the Encom iast's reading from these correspondences. M any of them are phrases found m a va riety of classical authors, others had become clichés in the Middle Ages, and do not prove direct knowledge of the Classics m authors using them. (Examples of phrases of both these kinds, which occur m the Encomium , will be given m the Linguistic Notes.) A knowledge of a classical author on the part of the Encom iast can be proved only b y the presence m his work of such a large number of veib a l correspondences w ith the author m question th a t th e y cannot be accidental, or b y the presence of a smaller number of correspondences, which are shown b y their striking nature or their length to be derived directly from the author concerned. In the case of V irgil and Sallust, the first of these conditions prevails, and m th a t of L u can the second. Accordingly, it can be definitely affirmed th a t the Encom iast knew these three authors. I t can be suggested w ith probability that, of the L atm poets, he knew Horace, Ovid, and Juvenal and, of the historians, Caesar. I t would, however, be hazardous to affirm definitely th a t he knew these four last-named authors. T h e Encom iast's borrowings from Sallust are remarkable m th at their number and their frequent length makes it certain th a t he made a close first-hand stu d y of both the Catilina and th e lugurtha T he following are the m ost remarkable parallels between the E ncom iast and S a llu s t. Enc , P r o l, memoriam rerum gestarum— lug. îv. 6, memoria rerum gestarum , E n c , P r o l , mecum . me reputante— Cat lu. 2, mecum reputo , E nc , Prol., sese humana consuetudo habeat— Iug. lui. 8, res humanae ita sese habent, E nc I, 1, mhilque ....................patiebatur remissi— Iug lm 6, nihil . . . remissi patiebatur ; Enc. I, 1, sibi fecerat obnoxios et fideles — Cat x iv . 6, obnoxios fidosque sibi faceret ; E n c I, 4, melius est ut sileam ,* quam . . . . pauca dicam— Iu g . xix. 2, silere melius puto quam parum dicere , E nc I, 4, fu sis fugatisque— Iug lu. 4, fu si fugaticfue (cf. lx x ix 4) , Enc II, 1, si id parum processisset— Iu g . x lv i 4, sm id parum procedat ; Enc. II, 6, memoresque mrtutis — Iug xev ii 5, mrtutis memores ; Enc. II, 9, pro libertate et patria — Cat. Ivin 11, pro patna pro libertate (both m a general's exhortation to troop s), Enc. I l l , 4, diem et tempus et locum — lu g . cvm . 2, diem locum tempus ; Enc. I l l , 7, scelens nomtate— Cat. îv. 4, sceleris . . . 1 See N E.D , s v secret, a and sb , p 357, col 3 , the phrase occurs in the Vita S Bertmi metnea pnma, 360-1, m the Vita Oswaldi (Same, Historians of the Church of York, 1, 405), and frequently m the early Christian poets ; cf Erembold, m cordis mei secreto * Two of the Saxon Chronicles, n. 217

XXX

INTRODUCTION

noaitatc ; E n c I I I , 7, quid facto . opus sit— Cat x lv i. 2, quid facto opus esset , E n e . I l l , 7> em on forturns . honestus exitus — xi v 24 (both 1x1 excusing a flight) , E m . I l l , 7, pro suo casu spes satis honestas rehquae dignitatis consemandae exequitur — Cat XXXV 4, satis honestas pro meo casu spes rcliquae dignitatis conseruandae sum secutus , Eue, I I I , 7, frequentia negotiatorum— lu g x lv ii 2, frequentiam negotiatorum , Em; II I, 7, quae prima mortales ducunt— Tug xli. i , E u e . I l l , 8, uenire maturet— lu g x x n 1, maturantes nem m it, Enc II I, 8, ardebat , animo— lu g , x x x ix 5, ammo ardebat, Ene I I I , 8, m tun as ultimi ire— lu g lx v m . 1, ultmn ire im urias , Ewe. I I I , 9, maximas þotest , parat copias— lu g xlvin . 2, quam maxumas potest copias , p a r a t, E nc. II I , 9, copia pugnandi — Jug. In. 3, etc., copiam p u g n a n d i, Enc I I I , 9, quod in tam atroci negotio solet fieri— Cat . x x ix , 2, quod plerumque in atroci negotio s o le t , E n c . I l l , 10, . . . consulere— Cat, x x x v ii. 8, m xta . . co n su lu isse , Ewe. I l l , 1 1, cuncta . . . luctu compleri— Cat. li 9, luctu omnia com pleri, E nc. I I I , 11, si pro singulis . . parem disserere, prius me tempus quam rem credo deserere— Iu g x lu 5, st smgiUatim . . ' parem disserere, tempus quam res maturius me deserat, E n c I I I , 13, optimum factu rati— Cat lv i , optumum factu ratus T h e above list could have been considerably m cicased b y the inclusion of collocations, which, although th e y are used b y Sallust, appear in too m an y other writers to have any d istin ctive flavour ( e .g , I, 2, cessissent prospere, II , i, euentus b elli; II, 14, dm multumque) A number of expressions are also excluded, w hich are common to the Encom iast and Sallust, b u t m ight arise in depen dently in an y tw o writers ( e g , II, 1, m uasissetfines , II, 9, in medios , hostes ; II, 18, supra repetam), w hile animus rapitur and pro muro, though found in Sallust (lu g x x v . 7 , Cat Ivin 17) are omitted, as th e y are included in respectively the V irgilían and th e B iblical lists (see pp, x x x i and xxvm ) T h e ie are also a num ber of passages m the Encom ium, where th ou ght or treatm ent have been influenced b y Sallust m a more general w a y we m ay, for exam ple, com pare parts of th e E n com iast's Prologue w ith Cat. 111. 1 -2 , th e rem ark on th e b a d effect of leisure on soldiers m E nc. I, 1, w ith Cat. xi 3, and the E n com iast's description of th e flight after Asbm gdon w ith lu g . lii. 4 and xevu . 3. In style, S allu st cannot be said to influence the Encom iast, who even removes the ty p ica l asynd eton of some of th e Sallustian phrases w hich he borrows (see the instances quoted above from II, 9 , I I I , 4) O n th e other hand, in II I, i (sceptrum, coronam ), an isolated adoption of Sallustian asyndeton occurs A tten tio n m a y also be drawn to the ty p ic a lly Sallustian use of parare for conan eg , II, i, parat retinere sceptrum; II, 9, deturbare parauit; I I I , 4, parabat adire (cf Cat. xviii. 5 , Iug x m 2 , etc.). T h e E n com iast's knowledge of the language of L atin history was b y no means all provided b y Sallust, b u t there is an absence of correspondences betw een his language and th a t of an y particular L a tin historian sufficiently close to prove direct influence of the one writer on the other H e ha? a few conespondences of phrase w ith Caesar ( e .g , Enc. I l l , 7, pro re atque tempore— B .G . v. 8, pro tempore et pro re) and some of his know ledge of Latm historical phraseology m a y be due to a stu d y of th a t writer. Gertz, however, is certainly unwise to suggest th a t the E n com iast’s remarks on th e d iversity of the nations who sub­ m itted to K n ú tr (II, 17) echoes the opening of the L e Bello Galhco, for similar passages occur m D u do and elsewhere. T h e d ebt of a m edieval author to V irgil is alw ays difficult to assess, because some Virgilian phrases, like armato milite, becam e part of the textu re of th e L a tin tongue as it was w ritten m the M iddle Ages, and are not to be regarded as evidence th a t a writer who em ploys them studied V irgil a t first hand. In the case of the Encom ium , however, so m an y parallels w ith V irgil are to be found, th a t there is no room for doubt th a t its author had a good know ledge of the Aeneid, and some fam iliarity w ith the Eclogues and Georgies T h e following list o f collocations common to the E n com iast and V irgil -Will illustrate the

INTRODUCTION

xxxi

d ebt of the former to the L atm poet Enc , P r o l, morti occumberem— A en 11 62, occumbere morti ; Enc I, 2, compositae pacis— A en vu 339, compositam pacem ; E n c . I, 3, ammo sederat, and II, 12, sederet animis— Aen î v 15, animo . sederet and 11. 660, sedet . a m m o , Enc I, 3, mstructique armis— Aen vu i 80, instruit a rm is , E nc I, 4, armato milite— Aen 11 2 0 , E nc I, 4, turritas puppes and II, 7, turritis pupibus — Aen. vm 693, turntis puppibus ; Enc. I, 4, erat cernere— A en , vi. 596, viu. 676, cernere erat ; Enc I, 4, uenientes austros— Ecl. v 82, uementis . a u stri, Enc. I, 4, aspera signis — Aen. v 267, lx 263 , Enc I, 4, equatls . rostns— A en v 2 32 , Enc I, 4, spumare cerula— Aen vm 672, spumabant caerula , Isrøc I, 4, pedestri pugnae . . . accingunt— xi, 707, pugnaeque accinge pedestri , Enc II, 2, difigunt oscula and II, 21, infixit oscula , dulcia oscula infigeret— Aen 1 687, oscula dulcia fig e t , E nc II, 4, curui liio n s — Aen 111 16, etc , htore curuo , Enc II, 5, solutis . . funibus— A en v 773, soluique . . funem , Enc II, 6, queque obma metebat— A en x. 513, proxima quaeque metit ; Enc. II, 14, faedere firmato— Aen xi 330, foedera firment (cf xn 212) , Enc. II , 15, aetate florens— E cl v u 4, florentes aetatibus , E nc II, 21, defixus lumina — Aen. vi, 156 , Enc. II, 2 i, cumulare altaria— Aen xi 50, cumulatque altaria , E n c I I I , 1, saltus canibus . cinxit— Aen îv 121, saltusque indagine cingunt , E cl x 57, canibus circumdare sa ltu s , Enc I I I, 2, insidias moliebatur— Geor 1 271, insidias m o lir i , E nc I I I, 5, umctisque post tergum manibus— Aen 11 57, manus . post terga remnctum , Enc III, 5, tanto discrimine— A en 111 629, discrimine tanto , Enc II I, 5, ruptis . . obicibus— Geor 11 480, obicibus ruptis , Enc III, 6, effossis . . luminibus— Aen 111 663, luminis effossi , Enc II I, 7, animus . diuersus huc illucque rapitur— Aen. îv 285-6, vm 20—1, animum nunc huc . nunc illuc rapit perque omnia uersat , Enc I I I, 8, equ[u]m conscendit— Aen xu 736, conscendebat equos , Enc II I , 9, spumas salis aere ruebant— Aen. 1. 35 , Enc III, 9, maris facies— A en v 768 ; Enc II I, 9 , faeda tempestas uentorum nubiumque glomeratur— Georg 1 323-4, foedam glomerant tempestatem . . . nubes , Enc III, 9, anchorae de proris laetae— Aen m 277, vi. 901, ancora de prora la citu r , Enc III, 9, incepto desisteret— Aen. 1 37, incepto desistere, Enc. II I, 10, %n medium consulere— Aen xi 335, consulite in medium , Enc. III, 11, impulit aures— Georg iv 349 t Aen xu 6 18 , Enc III, 12, umcit amor patriae— Aen v i 823t uincet amor patriae Some collocations occur m the above list which are found m other classical writers besides Virgil, though ones like nec mora (I, 4) and tergum dedero (II, 6), which, although th e y occur m Virgil, are so frequent as to be part of the common stock of the language, are excluded, as are also ones which occur m Virgil, bu t m a different sense from th at m which th ey are used b y the Encomiast e g , dolo reperto (III, 2 , A en iv. 128) , cupidine capti (III, 5 , Aen. iv. 194) I have not attem pted to collect even the distinctively Virgilian collocation? exhaustively, and, even if a complete list of them were made, it would still not indicate the extent of the Virgilian influence upon the Encomium , because, in addition to these identical collocations, there are m any others in the Encomium which are undoubtedly echoes of Virgilian ones, m which the phraseology is somewhat modified E xam ples are Enc I, 4, armorum seges— Aen. m 46, telorum seges , Enc. I, 4, eratis rostns — Aen. ix. 121, aeratae . . . prorae (m ix 119, rostris occurs, and cf vm . 675) , E nc. II, 2, uohtans fama— Aen vn. 392, etc , fama u o la t , Enc. II, 5, mirat pelagus— A en. vi. 59, maria mtraui ; E nc II, 5, uernt . . fluctus — Aen. v. 778, aequora uerruni (m v . q jô , fluctus occurs) , E nc II, 5, p u p p ib u s ................... rudentibus— A e n .m 5 6 1-2 , rudentem . . . proram ; Enc. II, 6, rumpens morulas— Aen. iv. 569, rumpe m oras , E nc. II, 7, respirare copia— Aen. ix. 813, respirare potestas ; Enc. I l l , 8, copia data est . loquendi— A en 1. 520, data copia fandi (cf ix 484), Enc. I l l , 9, membris . . placidae quieti . . cedentibus 1— Aen. v 836, placida laxabant membra quiete (cf. 1. 691). There 1 The influence of Virgil and Lucan are here mingled, see below, p xxxn

XXXll

INTRODUCTION

are also m an y d ecidedly Virgilian ta in s o i expression m the Encomium, such as the formula potior optata . (II, 6 and 14 , A en i 172), the m an y similarities to the descrip­ tion of the shield m A e n . vu i which are found m the description of the ships m Ene, I, 4, th e use of accingo w ith an accusative of the indirect object (II, 6 , A e n . lv 493), and the absolute certum facio, * d u ly inform * (III, 13 , A en in. 179) T h e reader w ill also observe m an y instances of the use of single w oids w ith a strong V irgilian flavour b y th e Encom iast. A fte r V irgil, the E ncom iast shows more definite signs of a knowledge of Lucan th an of a n y other L a tin poet. In paiticu lar, p ractically th e whole of th e description of E m m a 's departure from Flanders m III, 12, is derived from L u can 's account of a sim ilar even t (vm. 147-58). T h e E n com iast has m this case derived so m uch of his th o u gh t as well as so m any phrases from Lucan, th a t it is desirable to quote the whole passage, to enable the reader to m ake a com parison Cunctos mutare putaies Tellurem patnaeque solum . sic htore toto Plangitur, infestae 1 tenduntur m aethera dextrae Pompeiumque minus, cuius fortuna dolorem Mouerat, ast illam, quam toto tempore belli U t ciuem uidere suam, discedere cernens Ingemuit populus, quam uix, si castra manti Uictons peteret, siccis dimittere matres Iam poterant oculis • tanto deumxit amore Hos pudor, hos probitas castique modestia uoltus, Quod submissa nimis, nulli grauis hospita turbae, Stantis adhuc fati uixit quasi comuge uicto T h e E ncom iast opens I I , 7 w ith a slightly modified citation of L u can iii, 762, primus Caesareis pelagi decus addidit armis In Enc. I l l , 14, hic fides habetur regni sociis, there is a distinct reminiscence of L u c. 1 92, nulla fides regni soens O theiw isc, th e Encom iast does n ot draw so freely on Lu can 's rich store of poetical language as m igh t be expected, b u t the following parallels m ay be noticed : E n c I I I , 9, m ans . . amfractu— Luc. v 416, maris anfractus ; E n c . I l l , 9, suppara uelorum — Luc. v. 429. E n c I I I , 9, membns . . placidae quieti somni cedentibus, is a m ixture of L u ca n ’s somno cedentia membra (v. 5 1 1 , cf. iii. 8) and the V irgilian passage quoted above, p. x x x i. T h e H oratian phrase metuensque fu tu n is borrowed b y Lucan (11 233), b u t since the Encom iast shows traces of a knowledge of H orace (see below), he m a y be assumed to have borrowed it directly. T h e traces of a knowledge of other L atin poets are less definite in the Encomium T h e question whether the Encom iast knew the comedians is a difficult one, for, as is well known, there are m any elements m their language w hich are n ot classical b u t re-appear m late Latm , and the Encom iast n aturally has a number of such words.® Furthermore, his favourite, Sallust, was an archaist and there are points of con tact between his language and th a t of th e comedians. One m ay, however, perhaps draw attention to th e parallel of E nc,, Prol., erga me . . . mentam and Plautus, Amph. i i o i , erga me m enta , and to the expression, Enc, I I I , 3, quid captetis consilii, w hich is a favourite w ith th e comedians (Plaut., A ss, 35 8 ; Ter., And. 170, 404), L ucretius w as scarcely known m the E n com iast’s period, but, whether b y accident, or b y direct or indirect influence, it m ay be noted th a t three distinctive Lucretian colloca­ tions occur in th e Encomium : Enc. I I , 11, membns abradunt— Luer, îv. 1103, abradere membns ; Enc. I l l , 7, sagaci ratione— Luer. i. 130 and 368, ratione sagaci ; E nc. I l l , 14, inuiolabtle uiget— Luer. v . 305, in u io la b ilia ............. mgere. 1 Enc. has infensae, which we may retain or emend to agree with Lucan. alters to intensae. * See below, p. xxxix.

Gertz foolishly

INTRODUCTION

xxxiii

It seems piobable that the Encomiast had some knowledge of Ovid, for I, i, armatis . manibus medis . occurreret, appears to be an echo of A A m 5, armatis concurrere nudas, and II, 24, caeli palatio, is a famous Ovidian collocation (Met 1 176). The follow­ ing parallels m ay also be observed . Ene II, r, uentis . . . commisit carbasa— Her. vu. 171, praebebis carbasa uentis; Ene II, 1, resumptis m nbus — Met. îx 59 and 193, resumere uires 1 ; Ene II, 4, radiantibus auro— A .A 111 451 ; Ene. II, 12, resisteretis armis — Met, lx. 201, resisti . . . arm is, Ene III, 7, mente . . tacita— Met v. 427 ; Enc. III, 13, correptus amore— Fast m 681 I exclude from this list III, 5, ceca cupidine, because the collocation caeca cupido, although found m O vid (Met in 620), occurs m m any other poets, including Lucretius and Juvenal, and also II, 9, brumah tempore, II, 5, flatu secundo (cf. I l l , 9, secundis flatibus), and III, 6, ocul[os] . erm because, though these collocations are Ovidian (Am in 6, 95 , M et xin 418 ; xn. 269), the first two are extremely common elsewhere, and the third is also Biblical (see above, p xxvni). The influence of Horace upon the language of the Encomium is not great, bu t the author appears to have known his writings H e has the famous Horatian phrase metuensque fu tu n (III, 1 , Sat. 11 2, n o ) and imitates it in I, 1 , periculi . . . . metuens, and II, 2, metuens bellorum, while II, 4, spetiosa spectacula, is probably an echo of A ,P. 144, speciosa . miracula Other parallels are * Enc. II, 10, nescii cedere— Od 1. 6, 6, cedere n escii, Enc II, 16, esse . m uotis— Sat u 6, 1, erat tn uotis. Enc. I, 1, duxit originem, is a frequent expression in Latin authors, not to be regarded as distinctively Horatian, though it occurs m Od m. 17, 5 (duas ongtnem). In Enc. II, 22, the passage on Knútr's unwillingness to amass riches for a prodigal heir seems influenced m thought, though not in language, b y Od 111, 24, 61-2 123 * I t m ay be observed that adchms is used m a transferred sense by the Encomiast (II, 7) and Horace (Sat 11 2, 6), a usage which is otherwise exceptionally rare (see Thes , s v ) . The striking collocation errons . . nebula (Arg ) occurs m Juvenal (x 4), but is not sufficient in itself to enable it to be affirmed that the Encomiast knew Juvenal, for there are otherwise few correspondences m phrase between them The expression sinus pandit uelorum (III, 10) recalls Juvenal (1. 149-50, utere uehs, totos pande sinus), but Virgil has pandentemque sinus (A en vm 712), although sinus there does not mean * sails The collocation agere pacem occurs m both Juvenal (xv 163, agit . . . pacem) and the Encomiast (I, 1, pacem . . ageret), but it is a very common one (see Thes., s v. ‘ ago col 1384). I t cannot be affirmed that the Encomiast knew Juvenal, although there is no reason why he should not have done so Dudo shows clear traces of a knowledge of Juvenal, and Folqum quotes him directly in the prologue to his Vita Folqumi. I t is difficult to assess the extent of the Encomiast's knowledge of the vast Latm literature of the later Empire and the Middle Ages. This literature has received very inadequate lexicographical treatment, and accordingly any statement concerning its language must be made with the greatest caution. The language of the Encomium is full of phrases relating to matters concerning religion and the Church, all of which are to be found 111 an identical or similar form m other works, but this technical language is a part of the fabric of ecclesiastical Latin, and nothing can be learned from it of the influence of one author or another8 A certain number of striking and unusual collocations are 1 This expression is, however, much used m Medieval Latin, e g , Dudo, ed. Duchesne, p 80 ; Odilo, Epitaphium Adalheidae, 2 1, John of Wallingford, ed. Gale, p. 548. 2 The thought in the Encomium is not quite clear, why should Knútr fear that his hear would be angry, if he were parsimonious (de eius parcitate indignaretur) ? Did the Encomiast take the Horatian mdtgnoque . heredi as ' for an angry heir ’ ? 3 Examples of such phrases are I, 1, secundum Deum et seculum, II, 7, lunxit quieti sempiternae , II, 7, educens e corpore (cf, II, 14) ; II, 14, %n celesti solio (also m Dudo, ed Duchesne, p 91), II, 17, diurna dispensatione , II, 21, sanctorum . . . suffragia, II, 21, superna clementia;

c

XXXIV

INTRODUCTION

com m on to the Encom ium and to cailier C lm stia n L a tin works, and some examples of these will be found m th e Linguistic N otes, b u t th e ie are not sufficient correspondences w ith a n y one writer to prove th a t the E n com iast studied his works Furthermore, we h ave seen fio m th e E n com iast's use of V n g il and S allust th a t he usually borrows a phrase from his m odels when he needs it, bu t does n ot tak e m solid blocks of material, or mould his su bject-m atter to enable it to be treated m a succession of sentences derived from one source T h e on ly departu ic fiom his usual m eth od is th e h e a v y bon owing from one passage m L u can m the descnption of E m m a's departure from Flanders, and here he has pro bably not modified his thoughts in order to use L u c a n ’s words there happened to be a quite tem arkable sm uharity betw een w h a t Lucan said ab ou t Cornelia and w hat th e E n co m iast would m an y event have said ab ou t E m m a, th a t is to say, th a t the Flemings w eie so iry to see her go, even though she w as le tu im n g m trium ph, both because of her m en ts, and because she was not a bm den some guest (In fact, he had alread y said th at she w as able m part a t least to p a y her w ay, I I I , 7 ) T h e En com iast, therefore, clothed thoughts, w hich he already had, m words con ven ien tly p io vid cd b y Lucan O bviously, such an agreement between his ideas and those of anothei writer would seldom occur, and, since he did not shape his m aterial m cid er to pillage his models, his boirow ings would norm ally be limited to phrases and occasional clauses. Accoiclm gly, influence of an author upon him can u sually be traced b y linguistic means on ly when such influence is v e r y consideiable and is exeited b y an author w ith a sty le so individual th a t small fragm ents fio m his works can be recognised w ith ce ita m ty. T he Encomium is clearly influenced m form b y th e An ton ian form of b iograp h y,*1 m w hich the writer begins b y declaring th a t he is undertaking a ta s k for which he is im perfectly fitted, n o t from choice, b u t a t the com m and of a superior, and m which the account of the acts of the subject of the biography is declared to be abbreviated for lack of tim e, or some similar cause, rather than for la ck of m aterial (cf En'c , Prol ; I, 4 , II, 20, I I I, xi). T h is form of biography is excep tion ally com m on m th e M iddle Ages, b u t the expression, E n c . I l l , 10, nulla . explicabit pagina, seems to echo the nulla explicabit oratio of Sulpicius Sevcrus's Vita M artini, 26, th e w ord pagina being su bstitu ted for oratio for th e sake of rhym e, and accordingly w e m a y assum e th a t th e E n com iast was familiar w ith th a t fam ous specim en of an A ntonian life. T h e E n co m iast alludes (III, 5) to th e decim ation of th e T h eban legion, contrasting w ith it the more cruel murder of th e com panions of th e ætheling Æ lfred I t was a w idely held belief, perhaps founded on fact, th a t Æ lfred 's m en were decim ated, as w ill appear m th e discussion of th e crime below (see p. lxvn ), and this n atu rally turned th e Encom iast's th o u gh ts to th e m ost fam ous story of decim ation in all th e literature availab le m the M iddle A ges. H e has n ot enough to s a y ab ou t th e massacre of th e T hebans to enable one to determ ine m w h a t form he w as m ost fam iliar w ith the story H e on ly mentions th a t the massacre to o k place on an open plain, a feature to be found m various versions (see, e.g., Acta Sanctorum Septembris, v i 342, 345), and th a t th e victim s were not bound. T h e la tter statem ent is a reasonable inference from th e w illing acceptance of death b y the m artyrs, w hich is a standing element m th e legend I t has been suggested above (Introduction, § B) th a t the E n com iast knew D udo's history of th e N orm an dukes I t would, m fact, be v e ry surprising if E m m a 's elected II, 23, transiit ad Dominum , II, 23, coronandus tn parte dextera (also twicè m Vita Oswaldi, in Kame, Historians of the Church of York, i 412, 443) ; II, 23, Domino auctore omnium ; II, 23, dimnae dispositioni, II, 24, m aeterna veqme , III, 1, apostohea autontate , III, 4, Dei m im icis, III, 5, divina miseratio ; III, 7, gratia superni respectus (also Folquin, Vita Folquim, 4) ; III, 9, Dei n u tu , III, 11, renascentibus tn Christo ; III, 13, diuim munens gratia* Here may also be mentioned the common expressions, I, 5, naturae persolmt debita, and II, 24, requiescat in pace 1 See Two Lives of Samt Cuthbert, ed. B Colgrave (Cambridge, 1940), p 310

INTRODUCTION

xxxv

apologist had failed to be acquainted with D udo’s work I t is not possible, however, to advance definite proof of influence of Dudo on the Encomiast. The resemblance of their works is great, but it is largely due to the following four causes (i) T hey both employ rhymed prose. This, however, is a medium much used m their period 1 (2) T h ey both have a preface explaining their reasons for reluctantly obeying an order to write This is due to their both being influenced b y the Antonian form of biography. (3) T h ey are strikingly similar m their methods of handling their material (cf. above, p xxn) This is, however, due to a deeper cause than mere influence Freeman 12 called Dudo one of 1 a very bad class of writers, those who were employed, on account of their supposed eloquence, to write histones which were intended only as panegyrics of their patrons/ The Encomiast belongs undeniably to this class of writers, who have to find a middle w ay between obvious lies and truths unpalatable to their employers, and it is not to be wondered at that his methods a t times remind us of D udo’s (4) They both use the typical Latin of the period, w ith its great Biblical element, but adorn it with fragments from the Classics, and it is accordingly not remarkable th at a good m any phrases, especially Scnptural and Virgilian ones, are common to them both I t is m fact surprising th a t such coincidences m choice of phrase are not more numerous than th ey are.3 Although Dudo has not influenced the Encom iast m a w ay which can be proved, I am strongly inclined to the view th at the Encom iast knew his work. Decision in this matter can only be subjective, but I do not hesitate to suggest that an y reader who will, for example, compare the Encomiast's accounts of the battle of Ashmgdon (II, 10 -11), of the excellencies of Emma (II, 16), and of the mourning for Knútr (II, 24), with almost an y of Dudo’s descriptions of battles, high-born maidens, and princely funerals,4 will have little doubt that the Encomiast was familiar w ith D udo’s work If the influence of Dudo’s language is not striking m the Encomium , this can be sufficiently explamed b y the fact th at the Encomiast had nothing to learn from D udo as a Latinist. In variety of con­ struction and phrase he is greatly superior to Dudo, whose periods are heavy and weighed down b y an excessive use of the ablative absolute, and who repeats his favourite formulae w ith wearisome regularity. I am inclined to think that the Encomiast was familiar w ith Asser’s Res Gestae Ælfreâi He has two glosses on English place-names, equating Scepei w ith insula ouium (II, 8) and Aescenedun w ith mons fraxinorum (II, 9). Although these glosses are of an obvious nature, it is unlikely that the Encomiast fabricated them himself, because they are the only ones he attempts He offers no explanations, for example, of Sandmch, Scorastan, Heh, or Geldefordta, so it seems reasonable to conclude th at he drew his glosses from a source which had the two glosses quoted above, but none for an y other place-name which he had to mention Asser would be just such a source, for he has the glosses Sceapieg, insula omum (ed Stevenson, p 5) and Æscesdun, mons fraxini (p 28), and does not gloss any of the other place-names which occur m the Encomium I t m ay here be remarked that if the Encomiast had heard the name of the site of the great battle of 1016 1 See below, p xxxix 2 N C., i 148. 8 The following similarities of expression between the Encomiast and Dudo may be men­ tioned (I quote Dudo by Duchesne’s pagination owing to the rarity of Lair’s edition in England ) Mnc, I, I, uendica . . relatione— Dudo, p 129, uertdicae relationis (but the expression is not unusual see, eg., Vita S Cunegundis, 6), Ene. I, 1, cogitationum aestus — Dudo, p 71, cogitatione aestuans , Ene. Ill* 5, satis supraque— Dudo, p 121, supraque satis A selection of phrases which are common to Dudo and the Encomiast, but which occur frequently in their con­ temporaries also, will be mentioned m the Linguistic Notes 4 E g , the battles m Dudo, pp. 70 and 94 (the leaving of the fallen enemy unbuned is a frequent element in Dudo’s battles), the description of Gunnor, pp 152-3 ; the obsequies of Richard the Fearless, pp 157-8

XXXVl

INTRODUCTION

as Assandun (its form m th e Old English Chronicle ), he certain ly w ould not have glossed it in th e w a y he does, w hether he kn ew A ssei or n o t I t is evid en t th a t he heard the nam e m th e fo im Æscendun, and th a t he assum ed th e h is t elem ent of this to be a plural of the first elem ent of Æsccsdun, and ad opted A sser’s gloss, m od ifyin g it m accordance w ith this assum ption T h e fact th a t th e E n c o m ia s t’s inform ants called the site of the b a ttle Æ scendun im plies, either th a t th e y believed th a t th e place in question was Ashdon (O .E . Æ scendun ), n o t Ashm gdon (O E Assandun), or t h a t th e confusion of Assan- w ith M scen -, w h ich g a v e u se to the m od em fo im of th e la tter nam e, had already taken place m th e m iddle of th e eleventh cen tury 1 T h e first elem ent of th e nam e as written b y the E n com iast, Aescene-, is shown b y th e gloss fraxinorum , to be intended for a genitive plural S uch genitives are n ot pioper to strong m asculine nouns m eithei O E or O. Flem ish, b u t, if the E n com iast m ade up his m ind th a t the elem ent Æ scen- was a geni­ tiv e plural, he m igh t v e r y p io b a b ly w n te it w ith a d issyllab ic term ination coiiespondm g to O .E . -ena, O Flem ish -ona, w ith th e vow els w eakened to -e, as m igh t occur m either language b y his period 12 Since th e E n co m iast v e r y p robably derived these tw o glosses from Asser, the view th a t th e y suggest th a t he w as an E n glish m an 3 can n ot be for a m om ent supported E ven if he fabricated them himself, th e y w ould on ly show th a t he had a know ledge of some Germ anic tongue, an d the same applies to his glosses of th e first elem ent of Hardecnuto as uelox m l fortis , and of Athala as nobilissima (II, i8 , I I I , 7). T h e forms of th e names of E n glish and Scandinavian persons and of E n glish place-nam es m his work throw little ligh t on the question. T h e form A lfn d u s is Flem ish, not E n glish ,4 b u t the other English names retain their n ative form T h e elem ent Ead- is w iitte n Aed~ or E d-, reflecting the late O .E . pronunciation w ith m onophthongization 5 Aelnotus reflects an O E . pro­ nunciation o f Æ pelnop w ith loss of th e in tervocalic dental, w hich is often found m the eleventh cen tu ry.6 H ell/H aeh represents O .E . E h g (on th e initial H see below, p x x x v m ) . T h e forms Godumus, Sanduick , Scepei, Scorastan represent th e norm al O .E . forms On Geldefordia, cf. above, p. x v u i. Londom a an d W yntom a (P) are norm al latinised forms. (It m a y b e n oted th a t, of the various L atin forms of W inchester, Asser uses Wmtoma ) T w o forms of Scandinavian nam es su ggest th a t th e E n co m iast heard th em from an E n glish w itness : these are Norduuega , which represents an O E . N orpw eg7 (cf O. D anish Norweg alread y on th e greater Jelling stone, a b o u t 980), and T hu rkil , w ith -u-, for which 1 The confusion referred to is certainly early, for it underlies Nesenduna, the form found m Domesday Book for Ashmgdon see the various early forms of the name collected by P H Reaney, in The Place-names of Essex, pp. 176 -7 , cf the early forms for Ashdon, id., pp 502-3 , on the question at which of the two places the battle was fought, see M Ashdown, English and Norse Documents, pp. 298-9. a Luick, Histonsche Grammatik der enghschen Sprache, p 489 ; J. Mansion, Oud-Gentsche Naamkunde (' s-Gravenhage, 1924), pp 220 and 282. MS. P has, for L 's Aesceneduno, the corrupt form Kescesdume. The medial - es- of this form is to be regarded as a purely scribal error, due to the presence of -es- m the preceding syllable In view of the gloss fraxinorum, the form of P cannot be regarded as suggesting that the original form of the Encomium was Aescesduno 3.Maintins takes this v ie w . reference above, p xix. 4 See various names m A lf- m Mansion, op. a t , p, 298 * Cf, Mansion, op. cit * p. 255. 8 See Napier and Stevenson, Crawford Collection, p. 150, n. 2. 7 Although the forms used for Norway both in O E. and early Anglo-Latm are usually without the dental, the form Norpweg(as) occurs m the Cottonian MS. of the O .E Orosius (ed. H. Sweet, E .E T.S., p. 19), and again in MS. F of the Chronicle, entry for 1028, so the evidence for both the existence of the form and its late survival is reasonably good. It is, of course, possible that the Encomiast heard a form with no dental, and that his -a- is due to the same interest m etymology which appears in his glosses

INTRODUCTION

XXXVll

0 Norse had -0- b y a prim itive change. Eric is a form found on Northumbrian coins, though Y n c was the form m usual use m England m the eleventh century 1 The forms Cnuto and Suetn are derived from names the accented syllables of which did not differ i n O E and O Norse pronunciation m the eleventh century The forms Hardecnut (with weakening of the medial vow el to -e~), and Haroldus (with medial -o~) are developments from the Scandinavian forms, which are equally possible i n O E and O. Flemish m the eleventh century.12 W ith the form Danomarchia, Florence of W orcester and W illiam of Malmesbury's Danemarchta m ay be compared the -0- is a mere fanciful spelling, for the genitive plural m O Flemish was m -0, as m O E . and O Norse, m the eleventh century 3 (cf Hardocnuto, II, 18) The form Dam , though the unm utated vow el is O. Norse, not O .E , occurs frequently in An glo-Latm (e g , in Æ thelweard and Florence) Continental names (including the adverb Theutomce, II, 18) appear m forms quite usual in contem­ porary documents and do not m an y w ay suggest th a t an Englishm an wrote them. In matters of pure spelling there is nothing to enable us to decide the nationality of the Encomiast. The use of sc for Germanic sk is equally Flemish and English, and th a t of ae is not significant m a Latm text, for e and ae are equivalent graphs m the Latin spelling of the period Similarly the interchange of t and th (Aelnotus, Thurkil/Turkil, Athala, Scothia, Theutomce) and of ch and k (TurchilJTurkil) is usual m the L atm spelling of proper names (cf. H enry of H untingdon's Turchetel/Turcetil , R olls Senes, pp. 156, 178), and so is the use of d for p (Hardecnut, Norduuega). The use of g for a spirantal sound (Norduuega), and that o f / for a voiced spirant (Alfndus), were usual m English m the eleventh century, and frequent m Flemish 45 T he most th at can be said concerning the Encom iast’s nationality is th at the use of the form A lfn d u s suggests a Flemish writer, and th at the other English names and the Scandinavian ones m ight equally well have been written b y an Englishman or b y a Fleming I f he was a Fleming, one or two forms suggest that his informants were English rather than Scandinavian. H is correct spelling of continental names would not be surprising, even were he English, if he resided m Flanders from the time when he saw K nútr there till th at of Em m a's exile. If the Encomiast— as seems probable— knew Asser's work, it is a most remarkable fact that, m describing the magic banner of the Danes (II, 9), he agrees exactly w ith the account believed to have been interpolated into Asser b y Parker from the Annals of St Ne o f s with regard to the nature of the magical properties attributed to the banner 6 The Encom iast is, as one would expect of him, the more poetical m his language, but the facts stated b y the two writers are exactly the same. The passage given b y Parker is clearly stated m W ise’s edition of Asser riot to have been present m the lost Cottonian MS , but 1 am inclined to think th at the Annals of S t Neof s and the Encom iast used manuscripts of Asser m which the passage m question occurred T h at there is a literary connection between the Encomium and the passage m the Annals o f St Neo f s seems to me certain. There is little that is noteworthy m the grammatical forms found m the Encomium , or m their use. The following points m ay be observed : 1 See Napier and Stevenson, op c it , p 143 2 The -a- of the first syllable of Hardecnut is not necessarily Norse or Flemish this name usually retains -a- m O E. documents, though the native -ea~ is sometimes substituted for it see the forms m Plummer's index, Two of the Saxon Chronicles, 11 391 While Harold is a normal O E form, it would also be the form which the Scandinavian name would take m Flemish of the period see Mansion, op c it , p 154 8 Mansion, op cit, pp 282 and 292 4 Ib id , pp 136 and 138 5 See Stevenson's edition of Asser, p 44 I quote the relevant words from Asser, for com­ parison with the Encomiast’s account * Dicunt etiam, quod in omni bello ubi praecederet idem signum, si victoriam adeptun essent, appareret in medio sigm quasi corvus vivens volitans. sm vero vincendi in futuro fuissent, penderet directe nihil movens*.

xxxviii

INTRODUCTION

1 E xam p les ol late transferences from one declension to another occur consultus follows th e fourth declension (I, 3 , II , 12), a late usage of w hich the first genuine occurrence is m Isid oie of Sevile (íx 4, 9) , note also th e neuter forms, P r o l , blasphemium (see Glossary) and, II, 3, tumulum (very rare, see Lew is and Short). 2 T h e follow ing forms m ay be ob seived II , 16 (twice), ab l s lusiurando cf the regular form m I I I , 1 , II, xo, uoluntanus, com p from uoluntane, see Linguistic N o t e , II , 21, mirificentior, comp ù o m m inficus, cf su p eil mirificentissimus, A u g , De Civ D ei , x v iii 42 , II, 14, misertus, late form for miseritus , II I, 3, pnuate for pnuatim , III, 1, perf odiuit, a form ation found already m a direct quotation m C i c , P h il xm 19, 42, and used m th e Vulgate (Psa. x x x v . 5, and frequently). 3. I, X, nullus is used for nemo, a v e r y frequent use m late L a tin (see Stolz-Schmalz, p. 489) ; I I I , 8, uersus is used as a pi ©position, a late usage {ibid , p. 518) , II, 4, a longe is a com pound adverb of late ty p e (ibid , p 524) N otice the com pound demonstrative pronoun, II, 18, istum hunc (cf classical hic iste) 4 A confusion of the verbal suffixes -csco and -esso is 1 effected b y P i o l , conticessere, and II , 4, capes cerent B axter records capesco 111 the thirteenth cen tury 5 On the use of fueram foi f in or eram (e g , i l l , 1, non fas fuerat) and in the pluperfect passive, II , 6, fuerat congregatus, see Stolz-Schm alz, pp 5 6 1-2 O n the use of the future perfect form as a simple future (e g , II, 6, si motor fuero, regi ipsi triumphabo , si autem cecidero sme tergum dedero) and 011 future perfect tenses of the ty p e seen m P r o l , usus fuero , see i b i d , 563-4. 6. L ate obscuring of classical distinctions of voice occurs m a few verbs and verbal forms Exosus, ‘ h a t e d I , 5 , frequent m late and B iblical L a tin Incognitus, * ignorant ’ , II , 10 , to be found occasionally m m edieval writers, e g , incognita uiarum, Eulogius of Cordova (d 859), Memoriale Sanctorum, m. 10 (Pairologia, c x v . 810 ; Acta Sanctorum Septembris, v 625) Perscrutatus, f h a vin g been exam ined A r g , late and m edieval usage (Am m x v n 4, 6 , Vita S Vulgann, Acta Sanctorum Novembris, 1 572), b u t note perscruto for perscrutor is found 111 P la u tu s Suspectus, ‘ suspecting ', II, 8 , so already Am m ianus (xxix. 4, 5), and often in m edieval writers, e.g., Guidas, H istona, 25 See also Linguistic N ote on contingi, I, 1 7. N ote (a) the use of deuio as a transitive verb, II I , 4 ; this is an exception ally rare usage : it occurs m Conppus, I oh. îv . 774, chpeo . demat hastam, and is recoided b y D ucange as occurring c. 1000 , (b) the transitive use of giro, A r g , cf Glossary 8 Credo is used w ith the infinitive in a sense practically equivalent to * expect ' or * hope ' in P r o l , si m rem tibi prouemre crederem, on th is late construction, see E L ofstedt, Beitrage zur Kenntm s der spateren Latim tat (Stockholm, 1907, pp. 59 -61), and cf. V iet. V it., i, 30, credidit . , . sociare . T h e spelling of MS. L is the n o im a l spelling of the eleventh cen tu ry There is p ractica lly nothing w hich requires com m ent w ith regard to it. T h e use of inorganic in itial h should be observed * II, 4, habundantissime , II, 7, h i s , I I I , 4, habundanter, I I I , 6, H eli, E a c h ; I I I , 11, horas. I t is n otew orthy th a t all these words excep t those m II, 4, and I I I , 4, h a ve initial h in P also Accordin gly, unless P is derived from L , it is probable th a t some of these instances of inorganic initial h go b a ck to an older stage m th e transmission of th e t e x t of th e Encom ium th an L , if n ot to th e author. T h e E n co m iast has v e r y few peculiarities of vocab u lary . all words and meamhgs w hich are unusual w ill be found in th e G lossary, where it w ill be seen th a t I h a ve been able to parallel practically all of them , and th e further lexicographical exploration of m edieval L a tin w ill doubtless do the same for th e m inute lesidue. I t should be noticed th a t the Glossary and the Linguistic N otes are strictly supplem entary to th e present section of the Introduction, and information w hich has been given here is n ot repeated. The vocabulary of the Encomiast resembles his syntax and his phraseology in that

INTRODUCTION

xxxix

it avails itself of the resources of the classical poets and historians without abandoning those of late and ecclesiastical Latin Accordingly, we find a very considerable number of non-classical words and meanings Firstly, there are m any words which express ideas peculiar to religion and the Church, and m any special ecclesiastical senses of ordinary words e g,, agones, ‘ pains of martyrs III, 6 ; fam ulus , II, 2 1 , intercessor, II I, 6 , martynzo, III, 6 , missa, III, 1 , pascalis, II, 9 , religio, 4religion II I, 7 Secondly, there are many words and meanings, which are not specifically ecclesiastical but merely non-classical Some of these are found m early Latin, and disappear m classical times to reappear later e g , animatus, 'en couraged ', III, 1 1 , condignus, II, 1 5 , repedo, II, i , mctonosus, II, 7 M any others are found only m late writers e g , humilio, II, 22 , incurro, 4incur *, I, 3 , insinuo, 4make known ’, III, 7 , obnzum, I, 4 ; persisto, 4remain ’, II, 11 , pompatice, II, 8 , presumo, 4 dare III, 1 , uilla, 4 town ', III, 4. It has been remarked m several places above th at the fencomiast uses not pure prose but rhymed prose This medium had not been consistently used in an y insular work at the time when the Encomium was written, bu t on the Continent it was m its period of maximum popularity The subject of medieval rhymed prose has been treated b y K Polheim m his admirable work, Die latemische Reimprosa (Berlin, 1925), so it is not necessary to dwell at length here upon the technique of the writers who use it, but it m ay be remarked that its mam principle is to end successive groups of words w ith the same termination, as, for example, m the opening of the Encomium, Book II, sceptrum . fidelium memores . fines uires . . comperto reperto . consilio lu b et . . fu geret . . consuleret The greatest freedom is allowed as to the length of the word-groups and the number of times a rhyme is repeated The language tends to be poetically coloured. Like his contemporaries, the Encomiast writes rhymed prose without the attention to the cursus, which complicates it m the twelfth century The writers of this medium are as a rule little influenced b y the peculiar latim ty called b y W . H. Stevenson 4Hespenc ',1 with its involved style and strange vocabulary, which is so well known to students of insular Latin, and this is certainly true of the Encomiast, who has few peculiarities of syntax or vocabulary Indeed, though many of the familiar figures of rhetoric could be exemplified from his work, th ey are of a kind into which any scholar with a tenth of his classical learning would fall naturally, and it is not necessary to assume that he gave any conscious attention to rhetorical studies of any kind In the extensive rhyme-prose literature of the tenth and eleventh centuries, the Encomium is b y no means an isolated example of a panegyric on a royal person. In particular, the later Vita Mahthildis and Odilo's Epitaphium Adalheidae are eulogistic accounts of royal ladies which recall the Encomium m matter, tone, and style. Readers of the rhyme prose of the period will have no difficulty m observing how closely the writer of the Encomium adheres to its traditional style and choice of word and phrase, though this is only imperfectly shown b y the parallels quoted m the present edition from such writers as Dudo, Odilo, Ruotger, and the biographers of the German emperors His method of handling his subject-matter is also very much 111 the tradition of rhymed prose biography. The manner m which he anticipates criticism m his prologue, in which hje changes his subject (I, 5, ad aha festinando stilum adphcabo ad Suemi obitum), recalls himself to his mam theme (II, 18, ne longius a proposito exorbitem, supra repetam histoneque sequar ordinem), inserts a document (III, 2, cuius etiam exemplar non piget nobis subnectere), and excuses himself from detailing the chanties of Knútr (II, 20, quae enim ecclesia adhuc eius non letatur doms ?), will recall similar passages m the biographical 1 In his edition of Asser, p xcii ; Stevenson is, however, misleading when he says that Dudo is imbued with Hesperic influence The prose of Dudo is neither obscure m syntax nor affected m vocabulary.

xl

INTRODUCTION

litera tui e of th e period to all who are even m od erately fam iliar w ith it T h e Encom iast's remarks on th e duties ol a hrstoi ían m his preface also h ave a gen eial sin n lau ty to passages m othex w iiters of th e period, as for exam ple th e prologue to A d albold 's Vita H etn n ci . I t m a y be observed th a t both his Sitluensian contemporaries, B o vo an d Eiem bold, use rhym ed p i ose, b u t it cannot be said th a t th e E n com iast lesem blcs th em particularly closely m vo cab u lary, phrasing, or sty le 1 T h e altern ative conclusion to the Encom ium p ie se iv c d m the P a n s M S is also m rhym ed prose, and is, therefore, to be attrib u ted to an e a ily date. I t is obviously unlikely t h a t th e scribe of P w io tc it, adopting îh ym ed p i ose in im itation of th e Encom iast, for he does n ot use îh ym e m his sum m ary of the first book O n th e othei hand, the sum m aiy in P of th e bu lk of JII, 7, is m rhym ed prose and is therefore not lik ely to be the work of th e senbe of P , b u t is ve r y probably from th e hand responsible for the alternative con­ clusion I t is, theieforc, likely th at, w hen th e Encom ium w as provided w ith a revised ending, it w as decided th a t it would be b etter p o licy to pass rap id ly over E m m a 's flight th an to dw ell on it w ith excuses a P also reduces a lon g passage m I I I , 10, to a sentence, b u t this m a y be due to the scribe, and th e fa c t th a t the sentence contains a rhym e m ay be an accident F or vigour, facility, and v a iie ty of sty le, th e E n com iast com pares v e i y favourably w ith m ost of those w ho used rhym ed prose m his period Fuitherm ore, although it is dangerous as y e t to expiess an opinion on th e m atter, it seems lik ely th a t th e fuither s tu d y of these writers w ill show t h a t th e E n co m iast holds a pie-em m en t place am ong them both for the exten t of his classical learning and his c a p a c ity to use it to good advantage,

D.

Q ueen E m m a

In the course o f its e n tiy for 1002, th e Old English Chronicle 12 3 interrupts its record of th e wars of K m g Æ thelred and th e D anes to insert th e follow ing sentence * A n d then, the sam e spring, th e Queen, R ich ard 's daughter, cam e to this c o u n tiy / A lth o u gh the precise date of Æ th elred ’s m arriage w ith th e la d y w ho m akes this ab rupt en try into th e annals of his cou n try is n ot known, we can be sure th a t it took place soon after her arrival m En gland , foi m the follow ing year (1003) we find her possessed of sufficient property in D evonshire to appoint a French reeve nam ed H u gh to look after it. T h e Old English Chronicle , perhaps n ot uninfluenced b y insular prejudice, 1 égards the fall of E x e te r m 1003 as due to the shortcom ings of this m an T h e new queen bore a name w hich th e E n glish wrote Imme or Im m a ,4* I t w as known to be equ ivalen t to Em m a , and L a tin writers, from her own En com iast onwards, nearly a lw a y s used th e la tter form .6*8 In conform ity w ith th e usual practice of modern historians, I propose henceforth to use th e nam e-form Emm a m referring to Imme, daughter o f R ichard. E m m a w as a daughter of R ichard I of N o r m a n d y 6 b y a w om an nam ed Gunnor, who is said to h a ve been a t first his mistress, b u t w hom he subsequently married, and b y whom 1 Erembold, like the Encomiast, explains the etymology of the name A thata. 2 Cf. above, p. xxm ®When the Old English Chronicle is quoted without the mention of a manuscript, this implies that MSS. C, D and E , the main authorities for the annals dealing with the eleventh century, are in substantial agreement. 41The variation of Y and I , which occurs m the first syllable, is of no significance m the eleventh century. The Queen’s name is fully discussed below, Appendix I 8 Florence of Worcester is the only exception : he uses Mlfgifu (in various modified forms) and Emma indifferently (cf below, p 56) * He ruled 943-96, having succeeded as a child.

INTRODUCTION

xli

he had a numerous fam ily.1 W e have the authority of W illiam of Jumièges 12 3 th a t Richard II, who succeeded his father as duke of N orm andy m 996, and Em m a, wife of Æthelred, were among the children of Richard and Gunnor, and did not belong to their father's illegitimate fam ily 8 Nothing is known of E m m a's life before she came to England, but, since she bore a child at least as late as 1019, she cannot have been very far advanced m years when she became Æ thelred's bride I t is evident that Emma, soon after her arrival m England, took the name Æ lfgifu, which she afterwards used on all official occasions N o account of this proceeding is extan t Florence of Worcester, m reproducing the Chronicle's account of the queen's arrival m England, says th at she was called Em m a, but m English Æ lfgifu, and both MS F of the Chronicle (entry for 1017) and the Chromcon Abbatiae Rameseiensis (Rolls Senes, p 151) have similar remarks. The date of the change of name cannot be d eteimined. Her signatures begin with a grant dated 1004 (K, 709), b u t this document is spurious K 714 and 1301, both from 1005, aie better documents, and, since the queen signs them both as Ælfgifu, her change of name is to be safely dated m or before 1005. The object of the change was, no doubt, to give the queen a name m closer conformity than Imme w ith the traditional nomenclature of the fam ily into which she had married, for the name Æ lfgifu appears more than once m their genealogical tree, and, m particular, had been borne b y Æ thelred's grandmother, the sainted wife of Eadm und I I t appears, however, th at the name Imme was still used privately b y the queen, and th a t reference was popularly made to her b y i t 4 I t will appear below (Appendix I) that, m witnessing documents w ith the title Regina, Em m a was following the English custom of the period. The positions m which her signatures appear m lists of witnesses suggest th at her status as Æ thelred’s queen was rather lower than that which his mother Æ lfth ryth had enjoyed during the earlier part of his reig n 5 Æ thelred's marriage w ith Em m a undoubtedly marked a departure m English foreign policy. Although some historians have built too much upon evidence at once scanty and unsound m endeavouring to depict Eadweard the Elder and his sons as following a conscious and consistent anti-Norman policy,6* it is undoubtedly the case th at we look m vam for an y signs of cordiality between England and Norm andy before Em m a's marriage. On the other hand, it is certain that the English and Norman courts were on 1 See Dudo (ed Duchesne, pp 152-3), 2 lv. 18 B y a curious oversight, J -M Toll, Englands Beziehungen zu den Niederlanden bis 1 154 (Historische Studien, 145), p 41, makes Emma a child of her father’s first wife, Emma, daughter of Hugh of Pans 3 To whom Dudo, loc c it , alludes, saying that Richard genuit duos filios, totidem et filtas, ex concubinis. 4 See further on Emma’s names, Appendix I 5 See Appendix II 6 Freeman (N C , I, chap 4) and Green (Conquest of England, chaps 5 and 6) are the chief offenders The evidence which they advance for the assumption, that England and Normandy were antagonistic m the tenth century, is mainly the cordial attitude of England towards the Bretons, but it is now generally recognised that the Normans against whom the Bretons were then struggling were those of the Loire, not those of the Seme (see Stenton, p 344, and detailed discus­ sion by De la Bordene, referred to above, p xxn, n 10) Green also attempts in a most hazardous manner to see an anti-Norman policy m some of the English royal mamages of the tenth century. It is also unwise to regard the English support of Louis d’Outremer as inspired by an anti-Norman tendency m English policy, or to place undue weight on the fact that, when m 938 Arnuli of Flanders captured the wife and children of Herlwm of Montreuil, who appears to have been at the time m the same group as the Normans among the ever-changmg French political combinations, they were sent to England for custody, The only recorded instance of direct contact between

xlll

INTRODUCTION

very uneasy terms tn 990, bu t th a t a 1 cconcihation was airanged m 991 1 I t is reasonable to assume th a t relationships between the tw o courts were tolerably coid ial a t the time when E m m a ’s m airiage was «mangccl, and, since Æ thelred was able to claim N oim an h ospitality m 1013, it appears likely th a t no serious friction developed between him and his brother-in-law aftex the m arnage N ow W illiam of Jumieges *2 has a s to iy that Æ th clied , a t some tim e subsequent to his m a m a g e w ith Em m a, sent an unsuccessful expeditionary force against N orm andy I t is v e r y unlikely th a t this is a confused m em ory of th e quarrel of 990-1, w hich a p p a ien tly did not pass out of the diplomatic sphere O n the other hand, it seems im probable th a t Æ thelred, a t a n y time after his m an iage, sent forces against lus biothei-m -law , the man to whom he turned for refuge m 1013 Therefore it would appear p iobable th a t th e clash referred to b y W illiam of Jumieges, a writer whose chronology is notoriously vague, is to be placed before, rather th an after, E m m a ’s m arnage, and th a t the latter even t w as a sign of a d e a lin g of the air between E ngland and N oim and y, even if it were not a part of a formal settlem ent This chronological re-airangement has tw o fu ither points in its favour I t places the English a tta c k on N orm andy m a period when Æ thelred was possessed b y a fit of íestless energy (his C um bnan expedition belongs to 1000), and when it is known th a t the Scandinavian invaders of E ngland w eie m aking use of Norm an harbouis (see Old English Chronicle, 1000), a piacticc which would sufficiently explain Æ th elred ’s action in sending forces against the N oim ans 3 Accordingly, while certainty cannot be reached m this matter, it is not too much to say th a t it is highly probable th a t the marriage of E m m a inaugurated a period of good relationships between the governments of tw o countries which had not long pieviously been at open war 4* T he Old English Chronicle provides no information concerning E m m a ’s activities after her ai rival in E ngland m 1002, until it records her w ithdraw al to N orm andy m the serious emergency of 1013 In a docum ent (K 1311) obviously modified in its extan t form, she is associated w ith her husband in confirming grants previously made to S t P a u l’s She bore th iee children to Æ thelred, the future Eadw eard the Confessor, the ill-fated Æ lfred, and a daughter, Godgifu. There can be no doubt th a t Eadw eard was the elder of the brothers, m view not on ly of the direct statem ent of the Encom iast,6 b u t also of the fact th a t his father selected him rather than his brother to accom pany an em bassy to th e w itan m 1014 ® I t is reasonable to assume th a t Eadw eard was born soon after E m m a’s marriage, if even a theoretical responsibility was laid on his shoulders m England and Normandy before Æthelred's reign is a letter written by an abbot of St Ouen’s and addiessed apparently to Kmg Eadgar : it is a request for help with restorations (Memorials of St Dunstan, Rolls Series, pp 363-4) In Æthelred’s time, commerce between London and Nor­ mandy was apparently regular, for the dues to be paid by Norman merchants at London are mentioned m a legal code, which also shows that merchants from Rouen were especially privileged (Liebermann, Gesetze, 1, 232) „ 1 See Stenton, pp. 370-x It is, however, only a theory, though a reasonable one, that the cause of the fnotion was that the Normans allowed the Scandinavian invaders of England to use their ports

* v . 4. * So, m essentials, N C , i 302-3, and Steenstrup, Normandiets Histone , p, 162, 4 See N C., 1. 304 and note, on Gaimar’s story that Æthelred crossed to Normandy m person to fetch his bride Henry of Huntingdon (Rolls Series, p. 174) and Æthelred of Rievaulx (Jpatrologia, cxcv, 730) say that messengers were sent to Normandy Æthelred’s brother-in-law did not hesitate to conclude a treaty with Sveinn, permitting him to sell m Normandy the plunder won m one of his invasions of England (N.C., 1, 342), but this was at least not an act of open hostility Henry of Huntingdon (Rolls Series, p. 176) says that Æthelred asked Richard for help and advice in X009, when an attempt to improve the English resistance to the Danes was being made* 6 See below, p bsiv, m 3 . e See Old English Chronicle.

INTRODUCTION

xlm

1014. Concerning Godgifu, th e Old English Chronicle is curiously silent, but, since Ordericus V italis 1 tells us th a t she was an exile m N eustria during K n ú tr's invasion, it is evident th a t she m ust have withdrawn from England, when the Danish invaders triumphed. In a ll probability she accompanied either her mother, her brothers, or her father, when the royal fam ily, one after the other, sought N orm an hospitality m 1013 2 Em m a is com monly assumed to have regarded her first husband and her fam ily b y him w ithout affection 3 T h e evidence for this is W illiam of M alm esbury's statem ent th a t she transferred to Eadw eard the dislike which she had previously felt for Æ thelred, and th at she gave the greater part of her love to K n ú tr during his life, and the greater part of her praise subsequently 4 I t is much to be doubted if these words of W illiam 's are more than a rhetorical expansion of the statem ent of th e Old English Chronicle th a t Eadweard w as ungenerously treated b y his mother 5 W illiam 's statem ent finds no confii mation m the Encomium In order to prepare for his well-known im plication th a t K n útr was Em m a's first husband, the Encom iast omits Æ thelred from his narrative alm ost entirely. There is no mention of an English king m his account of the invasion of Svemn, and, m his description of K n ú tr's siege of London, he gives the impression th at some local chief— eum pnncipem , qui intenus ciuitati presidehat— rather than the km g of England died m the city. Again, m dealing w ith Eadm und's succession to the throne, the Encom iast says th a t the people said th a t th ey would choose Eadm und rather than the prince (pnnceps) of the Danes, bu t he carefully avoids calling Eadm und rex, or closely defining his status, and does not give a hint th a t the fa c t th a t the pnnceps who had died a t London was Eadm und's father gave the latter a hereditary claim to the throne O n the other hand, he has not a word to say against either the pnnceps or Eadm und, and his peculiar manner of dealing w ith them is due simply to his desire to suppress the fa ct th a t E m m a was the widow of Æ thelred when she married K n ú tr he felt, th a t the less he said about Æ thelred, the better for his purpose I t w ill appear below th a t the suppression of E m m a's first marriage was an artistic necessity to th e Encomiast, and therefore nothing can be inferred from it as to the ligh t m which E m m a regarded her first husband Similarly, there is no im plication m the Encomium th a t Em m a disliked Eadweard, who is depicted, perhaps unjustly,6 as a somewhat unenterprising youth, bu t as nothing worse I t w ill appear below th a t Em m a's agreement w ith K nútr, whereby Eadw eard was excluded from the succession, was the best arrangement th a t she could make a t the time, and th at it certainly does not show a n y lack of affection towards him on his mother's p a r t 7 Similarly, m supporting H orthaknútr’s claims after K n ú tr's death, Em m a did the best she could for her fam ily there was then no p arty for Eadw eard, and she could theiefore have done nothing to further his claims, even had she so desired. T he m ost th at can be said on this question is th a t Em m a's lack of generosity towards Eadweard, which is vouched for b y the Chronicle, m ay be taken to suggest th a t her attitu de towards him was rather luke-warm, b u t th a t we have no knowledge w hatever concerning her feelings towards Æ thelred,8 Æ lfred and Godgifu 1 E d Duchesne, p. 655 2 See below, pp x h v -v . 3 Examples are numerous * e g , N C,, i 736 ; Oman, England before the Norman Conquest, p 613 , Bugge, Smaa bidrag til Norges histone paa 1000-tallet (Christiania, 1914), p 10 4 Gesta Regum, 11 196 6 Entry for 1043, C and D, mis-dated 1042, E. 6 See below, p lxvu 7 See below, p xlv 8 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, 11 165, has an unsupported theory that Æthelred alienated the affections of Emma by his infidelity There is no need to be surprised that William, who tells so many stories of the moral imperfections of the kings of the West-Saxon house, desires to put Æthelred on a level with the rest, but it is noteworthy that he has no anecdotes of his usual kind to support his view. Palgrave (Normandy and England, in h i ) seems to derive from a

xliv

INTRODUCTION

G ai mai says th a t E m m a received W inchester, R ockingham , and R u tlan d from her husband a t th e tim e ot her m an lage 1 I t is evid en t th a t he w as n ot w ell informed con­ cerning th e pro p erty th a t E m m a then leceived, for it ite certain th a t this included an estate neai E x e te r 2 H e probably mentions W m chestei m this connection sim p ly because of E m m a 's w ell-know n later association w ith th a t c ity, and R u tla n d because it was adminis­ tered later for th e benefit of van ou s q u e e n s 3 R ockin gham m a y be a mere line-filler In a charter d ated 1012 (K 720), Æ th elred gran ts his w ife land near W inchester, and her association w ith its neighbourhood cann ot be show n to h a ve begun before th a t tim e W hen Æ th elred 's fortunes were a t a ve r y low ebb m th e winter of 1013, the Queen w ithdrew to N orm andy, accom panied b y Æ lfsige, ab b ot of Peterborough,4 and the king ab o u t th e sam e tim e sent E ad w ea id and Æ lfred abroad m charge of Æ lfhu n, bishop of Lon don Soon after Christmas, Æ thelred also w ithdrew to N orm andy. N o doubt the tw o princes also w en t to N orm andy, for E ad w eard was th eic, and accom panied his father's messengers from thence, a few m onths later, after th e death of Svem n T h e m ovem ents of E m m a after her flight m 1013 are difficult to determine She is n o t mentioned again 111 the Old English Chronicle u ntil 1017, when, it is stated, K n ú tr had her fetched and married her, before th e beginning of A u g u st T h e com pilers of the Chronicle m ust have known th a t these words could on ly im p ly th a t she w as fetched from N orm andy, for, when la st m entioned (1013), th e queen w as there H ow ever, we know th a t her son E adw eard returned to E n gla n d ju s t before his fathei m 1014, and also th a t he w as m N orm and y during K n ú tr's reign 6 I t is therefoie evid en t th a t he w as able to w ithdraw again to N orm and y after th e w ar once more turned again st the E n glish There is no íeason w h y E m m a, w ith or w ith ou t Æ lfred and G odgifu, should n ot also have returned to E n gla n d w ith Æ th elred m 10x4, and h a ve w ithdraw n agam m 1015 or 1016 Therefore, there m a y be some tru th u n d eilyin g T h ietm ar's story, th a t E m m a w as m London when it w as besieged b y K n ú ti, and entered into com m unication w ith the D anes a t th a t tim e.3 T he clear im plication of the Old English Chronide and th e direct statem ent of her own E n com iast are together sufficient to place it beyon d d ou bt th a t E m m a was in N orm andy when K n ú tr * had her fetched ' in 10x7.7 I t is u n likely th a t he had ever previou sly seen her, though it is ju s t possible th a t he did so m 1016, if the sto ry th a t she opened negotiaconfused memory of William’s words a belief that Emma fled back to Normandy soon after her marriage, Roger of Wendover (ed Coxe, 1. 427) misunderstands William so far as to explain Æthelred's quarrel with Richard 1, who was six years dead when Emma came to England, as due to the Duke's disgust at the treatment meted out to his daughter 1 Lestone des Engles, 4138 fif 2 See above, p. xl 3 Gaimar says that Æ lfthryth had held the same property previously 4 MS. E of the Chronicle adds to the annal for 1013 that, while abroad, Ælfsige visited Bonneval, where he purchased the body of St Florentine, which he afterwards brought back to England. Roger of Wendover (ed. Coxe, 1. 448) has an unsupported story that Eadric Streona went abroad with Emma, and remained with her two years. 6 See below, p xlv, n 3. 6 M G H S , in 849, The details of Thietmar’s account are very discreditable to Emma, for the Danish terms, to which she is said to have agreed, include the delivery of her stepsons Eadmund and Æthelstan for execution ; they need not, however, be taken seriously 7 William of Jumièges, v 9, believed, like Thietmar’s informant, that Emma was m London during Knútr’s siege of the c i t y , he assumes, however, that Knútr m some w ay got her out of the city and married her as soon as Æthelred died Gaimar, Lestone des Engles, 4207, says that Emma was at Winchester when Æthelred died, but he does not make it clear what he thought her subsequent movements were. William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, 11. 180, says that Richard of Normandy gave his sister in marnage to Knútr, thus showing that he believed Emma was m Normandy when the marriage was arranged.

INTRODUCTION

xlv

tions w ith the Danes m th a t year is true. I t is, however, unlikely th at the politic K n ú tr would be greatly sw ayed b y personal preferences m selecting a bride we m a y be sure th a t reasons of prudence guided his choice. I t has been shown above 1 th at the Encom iast depicts the marriage of K n ú tr and Em m a as occasioning a reconciliation of the En glish and the Danes, bu t it is extrem ely unlikely th a t the restoration of their Norman queen could m the least placate the English W illiam of M alm esbury offers a better reason, for, while he also suggests th a t the marriage would placate th e English, he adds th at K n ú tr had another reason for it he hoped to reduce an y enthusiasm which Richard of N orm andy m ight have for the cause of Eadweard and Æ lfred b y givin g him new nephews 12* There can be little doubt th a t here is an explanation of a t least part of w hat K n ú tr had m his mind. The tw o young princes were probably beyond his reach m Normandy, bu t even if that were not the case, to have dealt w ith them as he did w ith Eadm und's sons and w ith the ætheling, Eadw ig, would have earned the hatred of a m ost formidable neighbour.® I t would, therefore, seem to him a good bargain to m arry their mother under an agree­ ment, th at an y son bom of the m arnage should succeed to the English throne, to the exclusion both of his own sons b y his mistress, and of Em m a's sons b y Æ thelred Such a bargain would also appeal to Em m a she would recover her position m England, if she bore a son he would succeed his father, and her older sons would be no worse off than if she declined the bargain. The agreement, which the Encom iast says K n ú tr made w ith Em m a, is essentially th at which I suggest m the foregoing sentences would probably have appealed to them both, but, since the Encom iast suppresses Em m a's first marriage, it does not appear m his work th a t both sides had to make concessions There can be no doubt that Em m a did an excellent thing for herself m accepting this bargain, and it m ay be observed, that, when her son b y Knútr ultim ately secured the throne, he a t once invited Eadweard, his surviving half-brother, to make his home m England. Accordingly, it cannot be reasonably argued th a t Em m a's children b y Æ thelred lost b y their mother's second marriage 4 K nútr achieved his probable object, a reconciliation w ith Norm andy, a t least till the death of Richard I I 5 I t m ay be remarked th a t his choice of E m m a as a bride was masterly Freeman 6 suggested th a t th e young conqueror m ight have been expected to wed a young Norman princess, if he aimed at forming a link w ith Normandy. On the contrary, this would have been a quite different method of procedure, involving 1 P. XXI. J Gesta Regum, h i 8 i Raoul Glaber, n, 2, also suggests that Knútr’s object was to improve relationships with Normandy ®The Encomiast (n i8) says that the young princes were sent to Normandy after Hörthaknútr’s birth It is possible, therefore, that Ælfred returned, like Eadweard, m 1014, and that they both remained m England till after their mother married Knútr Ordencus Vitalis (ed Duchesne, p 655) says, however, that they fled when Knútr invaded England, so perhaps they escaped m 1015 or 1016, returned with their mother m 1017, and were sent back later (On a deed supposed to be enacted by Eadweard m Flanders m 1016, see below, p lxiv ) Ordencus (loc *cit ) adds that Godgifu was m Neustna with her brother (he fails to indicate which) during Knútr’s invasion of England It is fairly certain that she would withdraw m 1013 (cf above, p xhv), and the words of Ordencus imply that, if she returned in 1014, she was able to escape m 1015 or 1016 It would be possible to take the word fihos m Ene. II, 18, to mean ‘ children and assume that Godgifu again returned to England with her mother m 1017, and was later sent away with her brothers William of Jumièges (vi 10) obviously much over-simplifies the movements of Ælfred and Eadweard, when he says that they left England with their father during Svemn's invasion, and were left behind by him on his return A t least m the case of Eadweard, we know that this is untrue * Emma has been much blamed for her treatment of her older children by modern historians examples occur m most treatments of the history of the period, so I do not give references. 6 See below, p. xlvm. 4 N C , 1 410

xlvi

INTRODUCTION

first negotiations for a settlement w ith Richard, which, if successful, m ight have been sealed b y a royal marnage Knútr, b y marrying a Norm an princess who m ust have been herself eager, for the reasons suggested above, to become his bride, m ade a m arnage which would cause a reconciliation, instead of first negotiating a reconciliation and then sealing it w ith a marriage x A word m ay here be said on the suppression of all reference to E m m a ’s first marriage b y the Encomiast. Though he would hardly have implied th a t K n ú tr was her first husband without her approval, it would certainly appeal to him strongly to do so on artistic grounds alone His book is intended to be entirely devoted directly or indirectly to Em m a’s praise . he emphasises this m his A rgument N ow a woman who married a m an who had been her late husband’s relentless foe, and who had driven her children from their country, could not be made to appear an entirely pleasing character 12 , it w as obviously best for the Encomiast’s purpose to say as little as possible about Æ thelred, so, as has been shown above, he reduces him to an unnamed and shadow y pnneeps W hen he comes to describe Em m a’s marriage, the Encom iast says that, after K n ú tr had settled the affairs of his new kingdom, he lacked nothing bu t a noble wife, and had a search made for one A suitable bride was found m Norm andy, distinguished b y w ealth, descent, beauty and wisdom . she was m fact a famous queen (utpote regina famosa, cf above, p xxvi) The story of the bargain w ith K n útr follows, and concludes w ith the sentence Placuit ergo regi uerbum uirgmis et . . mrgim placmt uoluntas regis These words achieve the affect that the Encomiast wishes T h e y contain no syllable of untruth, y e t what reader, ignorant of the facts, could fail to forget th at mrgo need m ean no more than ‘ woman ’,3 and th at the Encom iast has already said th at Em m a was a famous queen when Knútr wooed her ? Indeed, he would probably assume, even if he remembered the latter remark, th at regzm had its well-attested sense of ‘ princess ’ m th e passage 4* When the Encomiast has mentioned th at the birth of H orthaknútr occurred soon after Em m a’s marriage, he goes on to say th a t his parents kept ham w ith them as heir to the kingdom, bu t th at they sent their other sons to Norm andy to be brought up Here again he avoids direct untruth T o one ignorant of the facts, he would give the impression that these other sons were younger children of K nútr and Em m a, while a better-informed reader could hardly quarrel w ith the passage, b u t would assume th a t K n ú tr had practically adopted his wife's children the case would be very different if the En com iast has said th at the royal pair sent their younger sons to Norm andy, bu t this he carefully avoids doing, both in this passage and m III, i , where, m explaining where E m m a ’s sons were when Knútr died, he calls Hörthaknútr, not natu maximus , b u t sim ply unus eorum . The latter passage is illuminating, for the Encom iast is usually particular about relative ages, and emphasises that Knútr was Svem n’s elder son (I, 3), and th at Æ lfred was younger than Eadweard (III, 4). A t first E m m a’s status as Knútr's wife seems to have been a little lower than it had been as Æ thelred’s,6*but this soon altered, and from 1020 onwards she alw ays witnessed 1 It is very noticeable that the Encomiast, m his account of the wooing of Emma, has no word about her relatives, the lady herself is approached directly and exclusively, a This is the aspect of the marriage which disgusts William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, n, 180, who does not know whether the match was more disgraceful to Richard of Normandy, or to a woman * quae consenserit ut thalamo illius caleret qui uirum infestauerit, filios effugauent ’ 8 Excellent examples of this sense will be found in Lewis and Short, s v * virgo II a 4 Steenstrup (reference above, p. xix) sees that the Encomiast’s words are perfectly defensible, but fails to recognise his obvious intention to deceive Similarly Langebek, in his note on the passage, suggests that Emma is called mrgo m view of her chastity Most historians have, however, emphasised the mendacity of the Encomiast, but have not noticed the skill with which he has reframed from verbal untruth. 8 See Appendix II.

INTRODUCTION

xlvii

documents immediately after her husband, before the archbishops Her public appear­ ance at the translation of St Æ lfheah’s bones m 1023 was one of the remembered features of th at occasion (see Old English Chronicle, MS. D) 1 She bore two children to Knútr, Horthaknútr and Gunnhildr Horthaknútr was born before 1023, when he appeared m public with his mother on the occasion just mentioned I t is probable th at he was born soon after E m m a’s marriage, for the Encomiast states th at this was the case, and already about 1023 the young prince was sent to Denmark, apparently to be initiated into state­ craft b y Thorkell H á v i 12 The precise age of Gunnhildr, E m m a’s daughter, is not to be determined, nor is it known with certainty whether she was older or younger than her brother it is, however, clear from the German authorities th a t she was very young when she married the future Emperor H enry I I I m 1036 , and since we know th at on one occasion Knútr and Em m a recommended themselves and their son to the prayers of the monks of Bremen, without mentioning their daughter (see below, p 57), it seems likely th at this took place before her birth, and th at she was the younger child Charters do not add anything very interesting or valuable to w hat we know of E m m a’s activities during K n ú tr’s reign She had some interest, the exact nature of which is not known, m the abbey of Evesham (see R 81, with note, p 405), and hence it is not surpris­ ing to find her associated with her husband m making a grant to th at foundation b y the fabricator of the clumsy forgery, K 1316 (cf below, p 60). Stowe Charter 39, dated 1018, m which the queen is said to have requested her husband to make a grant to Æ lfstan (or Lyfing), the archbishop of Canterbury, appears to be a genuine document Similarly, there is nothing suspicious about R 86, m which it is recorded th a t K nútr and Em m a gave their priest Eadsige leave to dispose as he saw fit of certain property, when he became a monk In a forged charter (K. 735), Knútr is alleged to have made a grant to St. Edm und’s for the benefit of the souls of himself, Em m a and their children Lastly, tw o documents m writ form are addressed join tly to K nútr and Em m a (W 23, a fo rg ery , Earle, p 232, Thorpe, p 313) Em m a seems to have joined Knútr heartily m his generous ecclesiastical policy 3 W illiam of Malmesbury 4 mentions both her generosity to Winchester and her activity in spurring Knútr to display his liberality there W e have already seen th at when Æ lfheah’s bones were translated m 1023, she graced the ceremony with her presence A brief document drawn up m Eadweard the Confessor’s reign records th at K nútr gave an estate m Oxfordshire to Christ Church, Canterbury, on her behalf (R 96), a forged document (K 697, dated 997, when she was not y e t in England) refers to the same grant During Horthaknútr’s reign, Em m a and the king granted an estate m Huntingdon to Ram sey (K. 1330 , cf on the later history of the land, K 906), and the Chromcon Abbatiae Rameseiensis (Rolls Senes, pp 151-2) praises the generosity she showed to the Church, and the example she thereby set to Horthaknútr On her alleged generosity to the minster of S t H ilary at Poitiers, see N C , 1 442, and note 4. E m m a’s name is entered 1 Raoul Glaber, 11 2, states that Richard of Normandy and Emma persuaded Knútr to make peace with the king of Scots It is impossible to say if a memory of some actual part played by Emma m Scottish affairs underlies this Roger of Wendover (ed Coxe, 1 463) cunously connects Knútr’s marnage with his dismissal of his Danish fleet the next year, and attnbutes the latter action to Emma’s persuasion This can hardly have any foundation such false inferences are frequent m second-hand chronicles 2 See below, p 75 3 Prior Godfrey of Winchester dwells on Emma’s generosity to the church and the poor m his epigram on her (Wright’s Satirical Poets, Rolls Senes, 11 148) Godfrey’s first line, Splendidior gemma menti splendoribus Emma, may echo some popular verse known to Henry of Huntmgdon, who calls the Queen Emma, Normannorum gemma (Rolls Senes, p 174) 4 Gesta Regum, u 181 and 196

xlviii

INTRODUCTION

m the Liber Vitae of both Thorney and H y d e , the drawing m the latter, d epictin g E m m a and K n ú tr presenting a golden cross to the N ew Minster, is w ell know n 1 A forged charter of S t E dm und's claims her as a benefactor of th a t com m u nity (K 761 , cf K . 735, referred to above), and a S t Ed m u nd 's insertion m MS. B o d le y 297 of Florence of W orcester states th at she urged K n ú tr to restore the m on astery 123 E m m a seems to have been an enthusiastic collector of saints' relics. Eadm er 8 states th at, m K n ú tr’s time, she purchased and g a ve to C anterbury an arm of S t Bartholomew, and MS. F of the Old English Chronicle mentions th a t, on the death of Horthaknútr, she gave the head of St. V alen tin e to th e N ew Mmster, W inchester, for the benefit of her son's soul,4 Am ong the treasures of w hich she w as deprived b y Eadw eard m 1043 was the head of St. Ouen she had purchased his b o d y when she w as m N orm andy after Æ thelred's death, and had previously given th e tru n k to C a n te r b u r y 5 Em m a's career from the death of K n ú tr till th a t of H orthakn ú tr w ill be fu lly discussed m the n ext section of this Introduction. I t need o n ly be pointed out here th a t her choice of Flanders rather than N orm andy as a place of exile from 1037 to 1040 w as no doubt occasioned b y the fact th at her nephew R obert, who seems to h ave been favourable to the cause of her sons,6 had died m 1035, and N orm and y was m the disorders of a m inority rule This must also have been an added inducem ent to Eadw eard to leave N orm andy, when Horthaknútr invited him to return to E n glan d m 1041. B aldw in V of Flanders, according to both the Old English Chronicle and th e Encom iast, received E m m a kindly, though his feelings towards het fam ily m ust have been som ewhat m ixed, as, when he succeeded about 1030 in displacing his father, the older ruler had been restored b y R obert of Normandy, who seems to have acted w ith some ba rbarity on this occasion 7 I t has already been mentioned th a t E m m a had property a t E x e te r alread y m 1003, th at Æ thelred granted her land near W inchester m 1012, th a t K n ú tr granted her an estate in Oxfordshire for immediate transference to Christ Church, an d th a t Gaim ar alleges th a t Æ thelred gave her W inchester, R utland , and R ockin gham as a marriage gift. T o this it m ay be added, th a t one w n t of Eadw eard th e Confessor (K. 876) approves th a t she should have the benefit of an E ast-A n glian estate, w hich one of her followers had previously enjoyed,8 and th a t a number of others (K. 874, 883-4, 905) deal w ith the history of an estate a t B u ry S t Edm unds, upon w hich she had had rights of jurisdiction, which were discharged for her b y the well-know n landowner, Æ lfn c, son of W ihtgar, apparently w ith the help of one, Ordger (see R ., p. 426). T w o forged docum ents (R. 114, 1 18) allege th a t E m m a granted estates a t H ay lin g Island and W argrave to the O ld Minster, W inchester, but it is very doubtful if a n y tru th underlies their statements.® A fter her return to England m 1040, E m m a seems to h ave tak en up residence a t 1 See the Viking Society’s Saga-Book, xn 1 3 1 , and Birch’s ed of Hyde Liber Vitae, frontis­ piece and p 57 2 Memorials of St Edmund's Abbey (Rolls Senes, 1 341) 3 Histona , Novorum (Rolls Series, pp 107 ff ). 4 F ’s Latin version (contradicting the English) says the Old Minster, but the sacred object seems to have been preserved at the New Mmster (see Plummer, Two of the Saxon Chronicles, li 222) 6 William of Malmesbury, Gesta Pontificum (Rolls Series, pp. 419-20). • See N .C , i. 473 ff. 7 William of Jumièges, vi 6 Toll, Englands Beziehungen zu den Niederlanden, p. 29, regards Baldwin V ’s mother as a sister of Emma this is a double error Baldwin t V ’s second wife was a niece of Emma (William of Jumièges, v 13), but she was not the mother of Baldwin V , who was a son of his father’s first wife, Otgiva of Luxemburg 8 This w nt is addressed to Earl Ælfgar since he was not an earl before the exile of Godwine m 1051, the document must belong to the last year of Emma’s life 8 See Miss Robertson's notes on the documents.

INTRODUCTION

xlíx

Winchester 1 A t least, she was there when Eadw eard m 1043 descended upon her and deprived her of her lands and loose property.12 She was allow ed to reside in the tow n. T h e possible reasons for Ead w ard ’s action have been discussed a t length b y Freem an,3 b u t it cannot y e t be said th a t th e y are entirely clear. T h e o n ly reason offered b y the Chronicle is resentment on Eadw eard’s part that his mother had been ungenerous towards him, and MS. D adds th a t this was before and after he became km g. The L atin chroniclers follow this account, W illiam of Malmesbury (Gesta Regum , ii. 196) adding a good deal of embroidery, while Florence of Worcester and R oger of W endover adhere closely to the Chronicle. Nevertheless, the facts th a t the great earls supported the long m his action against his mother, and th a t Stigand was at the same tim e deposed from his bishopric, because he had been an influence on the queen, m ake it certain th a t the k in g ’s action was prompted b y something more im portant than bad feeling w ithin the royal fam ily.4 Em m a signed a few documents dated after the reduction of her status m 1043 : K 771, 773, 774, 775, 779 A ll these are dated 1044, except the last, w hich is spurious. The English document R . 101, dated 1044 b y a late endorsement, seems rather to belong to 1045 (see Miss Robertson’s notes), and, if so, it is the la st occurrence of Em m a's signature.56 E m m a’s death occurred 6 March 1052, and she was buried at W inchester beside K nútr m the* Old Minster 8 I t is not possible tod ay to point to the place where she lies, for the bones m early W inchester tombs have been much disturbed a t various times and are now so. confused th at those of individuals cannot be identified 7 I t is well known th at E m m a’s three sons Eadweard, Æ lfred, and Horthaknútr, were all childless. Through her daughter Gunnhildr, who married the future Em peror H enry III, she had one granddaughter, Beatrix, abbess of Quedhnburg Her daughter Godgifu, whose movements during the Danish invasions h a ve been discussed above (pp xlm and xlv), married Drogo of Mantes. Ordericus V itah s (ed. Duchesne, p. 655) gives as her children b y him W alter of Mantes, the opponent of the Conqueror, Ralph, earl of Hereford, so famous m the history of the Confessor’s reign, and Fu lk, bishop of Amiens T o these, modem authorities have added their contemporary, A m au n of Pontoise. A lthough his existence is proved b y a t least one charter, his claim to be a son of Drogo is negligible, resting only on a statem ent m a romance.8 R alp h is stated m the Chromcon 1 Her residence at Winchester was still known as domus Emmae reginae in William ¥s> reign, see N C , îv 59, n. 2. 2 Old English Chrónicle , MS C and E describe the incident m identical words, but D has another version, the only one which mentions the part played by the great earls. C adds a notice of Stigand’s deposition and its cause. 8 N .C., n. 60 ff. 4 A Bugge, reference as above, p. xlm, n 3, attempts to defend as serious history the story of the Translatio S Mildrethae, that Emma’s fall was due to her having urged Magnús of Norway to invade England, offering him her hand and wealth It is not impossible that Emma dreamed m her dotage of repeating her recovery of her position in 1017 by similar means I think it very unlikely that she had any strong preference for one dynasty as such against another, though this view is advanced, Stenton, pp 420-1 cf. above, p xxii 5 She signs K 788, which is dated 1049 by a late endorsement, but the signatures show that it belongs to an earlier period Ælweard signs as bishop of London, and he died m 1044, and, as Stigand signs as a priest, the document presumably belongs to 1043-4, during the period of his deposition from the bishopnc of Elmham. 6 Dated 1051 by MS C of the Chronicle, which starts the year at Easter or at the Annunciation m some annals m this period (see E R R , xvi. 719-21), cf. MSS D and E. C is the only manu­ script to mention the Queen’s place of burial. 7 See Victoria History of Hampshire, v 56 8 See F Lot, V élément historique de Gann le Lorrain, in Études . . . dédiées a Gabriel Monod (Paris, 1896), p. 205

d

INTRODUCTION Abbatiae Rameseiensis 1 to have come to E n glan d w ith his uncle Eadw eard in 1041, and this m ay v ery reasonably be accepted Drogo died when accom panying R obert of N orm andy on his pilgrimage m 1035,2 and Godgifu subsequently married E u stace of Boulogne T h e Old English Chronicle, M S D (1052 = 1051), mentions th a t E u stace was married to the kin g’s sister Florence of W orcester 3 and W illiam of M alm esbury 4 add to this her name m the form Goda, and know th a t R alp h was her son, b u t W illiam says th a t she had been the wife of W alter of Mantes, thus confusing her husband w ith her son G odgifu’s second marriage appears to have been childless this w ould explain w h y it is not mentioned m the Genealogia Comitum Buloniensium 5 L ’art de vérifier les dates 6 suggests th a t tw o sons of Eustace, who were not sons of his second wife Ida, were children of Godgifu, b u t their existence is v ery uncertain Godgifu m ust have died soon after 1051, when the Chronicle speaks of her as if she were alive, for E u stace began th e wooing of his second wife m 1056 7 M any estates are stated in Domesday Book to have been a t one time m Godgifu’s possession 8 O rdencus calls her Godioua, all other authorities Goda {Domesday Book uses this form both for her and for Godgifu, w ife of L eo fn c of Mercia ) She seems to have followed her m other’s exam ple m ta k in g a nam e familiar m her husband’s country, though it is n ot v e r y clear w h at this was T h e evidence, for w hat it is worth, is her signature as Ehtde comitissae (gen ) to a charter published m the Cartulaire de Vabbaye de Saint-Père de Chartres,9 and a reference to her b y her husband Drogo as Etiae vel Emmae (dat ) m another charter printed m D u can ge’s Histoire de l ’état de la ville d’Amiens et de ses comtes 10 In a t e x t of the latter docum ent m Mabillon, Acta Sanctorum , 111 2, 624-5, the reading, however, is Evæ {vel Emmæ) Godgifu’s sons were all childless except R alph, concerning whose son an d descendants see iV C , 11 683 if These were Queen E m m a ’s on ly descendants more remote than grandchildren I have excluded from the above account of Queen E m m a mere foolish stories like th a t of the ploughshares (see N C , n 585 fi ), th a t of Gaim ar {Lestoire des Engles , 4493 if ) th a t she incited K m itr against the sons of Eadm und, and th a t of various late authorities (see N C., 1, 786) th at she was m volved m the murder of her son Æ lfred.

E.

T h e H istorical Content o f the * E ncom ium ’

The Encom iast opens his first book w ith a brief account of the yo u th of Svem n, who is said to have been a young pnnce who enjoyed such popularity th a t his father became jealous and wished to expel him from the kingdom (the reader has already gathered from the Argument th at this kingdom is Denmark) and deprive him of the succession. The army, however, took the side of Svemn a battle followed, and the kin g fled wounded to the Slavs, and died soon after, leaving Svem n m peaceful possession of th e throne This account of Svem n’s clash with his father, H araldr Blátonn, is of very considerable interest, for it agrees very closely with th at of A d am of Bremen (11. 25-6). According to Adam , Svemn schemed to deprive his father of the kingdom, when he saw him to be advanced in years, and his supporters were persons whom Haraldr had forced to becom e Christians. The upshot, however, is the same in A d a m ’s account, as m th a t of the Encom iast Haraldr is defeated in battle and flees wounded ad cimtatem Sclauom m , quae Iumne 1 Rolls Series, p. 171 3 Ed. Thorpe, 1. 204-5. 6 ii. 762. * Ed. Guérard, i. (Pans, 1840),

10 Amienp, 1840, p 160

2 Ord V it , ed. Duchesne, p 487 4 Gesta Regum, 11 199. 8 M G H $ , îx 301 7 Ibid, 8 N .C , ly. 743 173. /

INTRODUCTION

li

dicitur, where he dies within a few days 1 This close agreement between the tw o oldest accounts of the war of Haraldr and Svemn leaves little room for doubt th at it is sub­ stantially correct and to be preferred to the various other versions.12 The Encom iast's confirmation of Adam 's account is of very great value, for, although Adam had the advantage of discussing Svem n’s career with the latter’s grandson, Svemn Úlfsson, his information concerning the early part of it is b y no means alw ays reliable 3 T he Encomiast now depicts Svemn as ruling m peace, while givin g every attention to the defences of his country, till his warriors rouse him to an invasion of England, a project which he had himself been silently considering , This invasion will be shown below to be Sveinn’s final and successful attack on England in 1013-14, and the Encom iast shows singularly little regard to historical accuracy, when he depicts the period of Svem n’s reign between the fall of Haraldr Blátonn and 1013 as one of continuous peace In the interval Svemn had conducted two vigorous campaigns m En gland,4 and had been the central figure m the combination which defeated Óláfr Tryggvason and made N orw ay m a great degree subject to Denmark,5 Some time m 994, perhaps before his English campaign of the same year, which began m the autumn, he ravaged the Isle of Man 6 A t some time m this period he probably challenged the encroaching power of the German empire in Sleswick, but this m ay possibly have been before his father’s fall.7 Furthermore, although A d am ’s story of his war w ith Sweden is no longer credited,8 he seems to have had various troubles of which we no longer know the precise nature, except th at he was a t some tim e seized b y his enemies and held to ransom 9 The Encom iast m ay not have known of all these events, but, since he was so well informed about the circumstances under which Svemn became king, it would be absurd to assume th a t he was ignorant of them all. Since he was aware of Thorkell H á v i’s activities m England, as will appear below, he can ' hardly have failed to know something of those of Svemn Also, since he was aware th a t 1 These events are placed by Adam at the very end of Archbishop Adaldag's hie (nomssimis The year of Haraldr’s death cannot, therefore, be exactly determined , Adam gives 1 November as the day 2 Other accounts are given by Sven Aggesøn (En ny text af Sven Aggesøns værker, ed M Cl Gertz [Copenhagen, 1916], pp 78 ff , also m Langebek, Scnptores, 1 51 if ), whose story is quite different, by Saxo Grammaticus (ed Holder, p 331), whose version has points of contact with Adam and Sven, and with the Icelandic story also , by the five extant versions of the Icelandic Saga of the Jömsvíkings, by Heimsknngla m its version of the Jömsvíkmg story, and by Oddr m his Saga of Óláfr Tryggvason (pp 109 ff m ed referred to below, p 68, n 1), with differences of detail, but agreement m substance When Fagrskmna (p 80), makes Haraldr die of sickness, this implies a rejection of the usual Icelandic story of his death as improbable by the compiler, rather than the existence of a divergent tradition (see G Indrebø, Fagrskmna [Christiania, 1917], pp 152-3) 3 For example, Adam, expressly claiming Svemn Úlfsson as his informant, alleges that a conquest of Denmark by the Swedes took place just after Haraldr BlátomTs death This story is rejected today by all scholars see especially L Weibull, Kntiska undersökmngar %Nordens historia (Copenhagen, 1911), pp 90 fi 4 In 994 and 1003-5 5 See below, p 68 6 This event is noticed m the Welsh Latin annals on the fly-leaves of the Breviate of Domesday Book m the Record Office, and m the Welsh vernacular chronicles 7 The best introduction to the intricate problems connected with the history of Sleswick m the tenth and eleventh centuries is Vilh la Cour, ‘ Kong Haraids tre storværker m A arbøger for nordisk oldkynchghed og histone, 1934, pp 55-87. 8 See above, n 3 9 Stones of this sort, differing widely m detail," are found m Thietmar (M G H , S $ , 111 848), Adam of Bremen (11 27), Saxo Grammaticus (ed Holder, p 333), Sven Aggesøn (foe cit ), and the Icelandic Sagas about the Jðmsvíkmgs. Some element of truth must lie under such a widely spread tradition

archiepiscopi temporibus), and Adaldag died 29 April 988

Hi

INTRODUCTION

Eiríkr ruled N orw ay in the Danish interest (II, 7), he m ust have known som ething of how N orw ay came to be in some degree under D an ish rule In a w ork d evoted to th e praise of Svemn and his fam ily, it would, of course, be natural to suppress a n y undertakings m which th e y did not meet w ith success, and accordingly it is not surprising th a t the Encom iast does not mention the undignified episode of S vem n 's capture, w id ely known as it appears to have been On the other hand, th e tw o E n glish expeditions were reason­ a b ly successful, and the Encomiast, if he had wished to m ention them , could easily have implied th a t th e y were even more so T h e omission of them is, therefore, to be a ttu b u te d to dramatic m otives : the Encom iast th ou gh t it better to depict Svem n as attack in g E n gland once w ith immediate and com plete success, than as going there rep eated ly w ith ultim ate success The omission of the brilliant success against N o rw a y m 1000 is to be attributed to the severely selective m ethod of the E n com iast H e lim its his accou nt of th e victories of both Svemn and K n ú tr to their conquests of E n glan d , neglectin g b o th the former's success m battle against Óláfr T ryggvason , an d th a t gam ed b y th e la tter b y more insidious means over Óláfr Haraldsson. Accordingly, even if he kn ew som ething of affairs in Sleswick, we would not expect him to m ention either the m ilitary successes of Svemn, or the diplomatic ones of K n ú tr,1 m th a t region. The Encomiast sets out m the form of a speech th e reasons m favou r of an invasion of England urged on Svemn b y his warriors T h e y remind the kin g th a t Thorkeli, whom they call his general (pnnceps mihciae tuae), form erly w en t to E n glan d , w ith S vem n 's permission, to avenge his brother, who had been killed there H e to o k a large p a rt of the arm y with him and conquered th e south of th e country. H e m ade peace w ith the English, and remained m their country, glorying m his success, instead of returning an d ascribing his victory to the royal support. H e thus deprived th e D anish forces of fo r ty ships manned w ith the finest warriors. The warriors urged Svem n to set ou t and bring him to heel. T h ey consider th a t Thorkeli and his supporters, E n glish and Danish, w ill be deserted b y their Danish troops. T h e y recommend th at, if T horkeli an d his D an ish supporters submit, th e y should be treated generously. I t is, of course, well known th a t Thorkeli H á v i conducted a vigorous cam paign m England just before Svem n's final invasion, and th a t he concluded peace w ith Æ th elred m 1012, and entered his service w ith forty-five ships.2 I t is also confirmed b y an early Icelandic tradition th a t he avenged a brother m E n glan d some tim e before th e death of Svemn, although, since the brother m question seems not to h a ve arrived in E n gla n d till ju st after Thorkeli, the Encom iast is not correct in statin g th a t vengeance w as th e original object of Thorkell's invasion 3 I t is high ly improbable th a t Thorkeli w as ever m Svem n's service, or took an y forces w ith him to En gland w hich could be considered p art of S vem n ’s army, but, on the other hand, it is more than lik ely th a t his progress w a s regarded b y Svemn w ith disquiet, for the latter had him self long cherished designs upon En gland . The Encom iast lavishes his rhetoric on Svem n’s preparations and v o y a g e 4 w ith ou t much concrete information, beyond statin g th a t he took his elder son, K n ú tr, w ith him, b u t left the younger one m charge of his kingdom, w ith a m ilitary force and a few selected councillors I t is, of course, true th at K n ú tr accom panied his father m 1013, and it w ill appear below th a t he seems to have had a brother who remained behind. I t w ill be necessary to return to th e Encom iast's statem ent th a t K n ú tr w as th e elder son. The Encom iast professes only to touch ligh tly upon Svem n's conquest of E n glan d , and he certainly adds nothing to our knowledge of it. H e states th a t th e fleet touched a t an unnamed point and th at a landing w as made. T he local resistance w as overcom e 1 See Adam of Bremen, n 54. * See below, pp 73-4. 2 See below, p. 73. 4 On the elaborate description of Svemn’s fleet, and the similar one of Knútr’s fleet in II, 4, see Appendix V.

INTRODUCTION

liií

and the adjacent region invaded w ith success This procedure was applied a t a number of ports m succession, until, a t the cost of much labour, th e whole country was subdued and Svemn became king Resistance had practically ceased when, very shortly after­ wards, Svemn died, having previously committed the sceptre to Knútr, a t the same tim e admonishing him concerning statecraft and due attention to the practice of Christianity. H e had also asked his son, if the opportunity arose, to take his b o d y to Denmark, for he knew th at the English hated him as the invader of their country The Danes received the new king gladly, and rejoiced th a t he had been made king while his father still lived. Brief as it is, the Encom iast's account of Svemn's conquest of England is misleading. Svemn did not sail from point to point, conquering a little a t a tim e His fleet appeared a t Sandwich before the beginning of August 1013, bu t the Old English Chronicle does not suggest th at there was an y fighting there, b u t rather emphasises the rapidity w ith which Svem n proceeded thence to the Humber and up the Trent to Gainsborough There his ships la y during a campaign which laid Northumbria, the E a s t Midlands and W essex a t his feet m the course of a few months, and at the end of which all held him for full king, while London, which had just before resisted him successfully, surrendered to him In fact, the fleet was still a t Gainsborough when K nútr decided to leave England after his father's death Accordingly the Encom iast’s account of Svem n's conquest is very imperfect. I t will appear below that his account of th a t of K n ú tr is almost as bad On the other hand, his definition of Svemn's position a t the end of his campaign deserves attention He does not say th at resistance ceased entirely, but th at hardly anyone continued to resist Now, this is perfectly true we know th a t Thorkell's fleet, a t least, remained unsubdued and loyal W ith regard to the position Anally reached b y Svemn m England, he says that he was tota Anglomm patna , mtromzatus Although Freeman was wrong m considering the last word vague m sense (see Glossary), it is not necessary to press it unduly, and to regard it as im plying a legal English coronation The Encom iast's words can be regarded as precisely equivalent to those of the Old English Chronicle, which states that the whole people considered Svem n ' full king ', a phrase which regularly implies km gly power without perfect constitutional sta n d in g 1 The manner m which the Encomiast makes Sveinn personally name his successor as king shows th at he did not consider th at he had attained a royal position in England b y the constitutional processes of an elective monarchy In fact, he carefully says th at the Danes rejoiced when Knútr was made their king W e have no means of telling if there is any truth m the story th a t Svemn nominated K n ú tr as his successor, bu t we know from the Chronicle th a t the latter was chosen king b y the Danish fleet as soon as his father died, and this m ay w ell have been a ratification of Svemn's choice. I t will appear below th at Svemn's bod y was ultim ately removed to Denmark, and this m ay have been in accordance w ith his expressed wish I t m ay also be remarked th at there is nothing absurd in the advice concerning Christian observances placed b y the Encomiast on the lips of the dying king T h e story of Svemn’s baptism on the occasion of a legendary invasion of Denmark b y the Emperor O tto I, which has found its w ay from Adam of Bremen (n. 3) into the Icelandic Sagas, is without foundation, bu t there is no doubt th at a son of Haraldr Blátonn would be baptised in infancy. B oth A dam of Bremen and Saxo Grammaticus attribute the fall of Haraldr Blátónn a t least m part to a heathen reaction, but it does not follow th a t Sveinn himself turned his back on Christianity, because he m ay have secured his throne w ith heathen support. Adam 's story is th a t he did so, and m et w ith many misfortunes m consequence, being expelled from his kingdom b y the Swedes (see above, p, li, n. 9), b u t this is a wild legend w ith no foundation. E ven Adam (n. 37, 39) has to adm it th a t Svemn, after his period of 1 Cf below, p. lxm, n 3

liv

INTRODUCTION

apostasy, became a vigorous supporter of the faith, and furthered it to th e best of his ability m D enm ark and, after 1000, m N orw ay 1 A d am mentions on ly one intervention on Svem n’s part m ecclesiastical affairs H e says (n 39, and Schol 27) th a t he was responsible for appointing a Bishop of Skáney 12 S kán ey had not previou sly been a bishopric. T he Encom iast believed th a t the minster of Roskilde, w hich a c tu a lly was founded b y Svem n’s father, was built b y Svem n 3 Svem n m ay, however, have extended the buildings, as Jørgensen su ggests4 The second book of the Encomium begins w ith K n ú tr ’s return to D enm ark after his father’ s death. The English had mustered, hoping to be able to expel him since he was as y e t bu t a youth, and, feeling his forces to be unequal to holding the country, he w ith ­ drew to discuss the position with his brother. This, of course, is v e ry m uch w h at actu ally happened after the death of Svemn. W hen Æ thelred returned and advan ced against him, K nútr fled, leaving such of the English as had joined him to th e m ercy of his enemies W e need not be surprised th a t the Encom iast omits this aspect of K n ú tr ’s w ithdrawal, and also his barbarous treatment of the hostages m his hands. T he E n com iast says th at Thorkell did not return with Knútr, b u t remained behind, h avin g concluded peace w ith the English, and adds that it was the opinion of some th a t his m otive m so doing was to be able to assist Knútr on the return of the latter from England, either b y persuading the English to surrender or b y attacking them unexpectedly from behind. T h e Encom iast considers that this is proved to be the correct view of Thorkell’s m otives for remaining m England b y the fact th a t the bulk of the D anish forces remained w ith him, the king permitting only s ix ty ships to accom pany himself. T his is equivalent to declaring that Thorkell must have had an understanding w ith K nútr, since it would not h a ve been possible for him to retain such large forces as he did, except w ith the k in g ’s a p p r o v a l5 Now, in the rhetorical speech attributed to Svem n’s warriors m I, 2, th e y im p ly th a t th ey consider it likely th a t Thorkell and his supporters w ill rally to Svem n ’s cause when he appears m England, b y urging Svemn to be merciful to them if th e y should do so 6 This passage and the one at present under discussion, in which it is implied th a t T horkell made peace w ith the E nglish after Svem n’s death, and th a t he had an understanding w ith

1 See below, p 71 2 Adam states that Sveinn, after the fall of Óláfr Tryggvason, appointed a certain Gotebald, who had just come from England, Bishop of Skáney, and adds that Gotebald is said to have preached sometimes m Sweden and often m Norway Gotebald was commemorated at Lund on 21 August, together with his successors Bernard and Henry (see Necrologium Lundense, m Langebek, Scriptores, m 454) Jørgensen, Dennordiske kirkes grundlæggelse, p 249, speaks of an English tradition that Gotebald died m 1004, quoting* Alford, F ides Regia Britannica (111 = F ides Regia Anghcana, p 437) Alford, however, took this date from a highly imaginative account of Gotebald m an anonymous work, The English Martyrologe (1st ed , 1608), p 88, where it is merely offered as an approximation A number of other erroneous or unfounded statements concerning Gotebald have found their way from the Martyrologe into various works Saxo (ed Holder, pp 338-9) and the Annals of Roskilde credit Sveinn with the making of various ecclesiastical appointments, some of which Adam, no doubt more correctly, refers to Knútr (see N C , 1 680-1), while others belong to a period long before the beginning of Svemn’s reign. 3 See below, p lvn 4 Op, c it , p 407. 5 The Encomiast is vague about the size of Thorkell's forces. In I, 2, Sveinn’s warriors say that Thorkell has forty ships with h im , m II, 1, the Encomiast says that all the forces brought to England by Sveinn and Knútr did not return with the latter, and clearly implies that they joined Thorkell, and in II, 2, Knútr complains that Thorkell has retained a large part of his fleet ; yet m II, 3, Thorkell brings nine ships to Denmark, and says that he has left only thirty m England. * I, 2, end.

INTRODUCTION

lv

K nútr at the time of the latter’s withdrawal,1 work n eatly together to give the impression th a t the expectations of Svem n’s warriors were, m fact, fulfilled and th at Thorkell joined Svemn and concluded peace w ith the English (while having a tacit understanding w ith Knútr) after his death. W e, of course, know th at Thorkell fought for the English against Svemn,12 and the Encomiast, w hatever his motives, is plainly anxious to deceive when he implies the contrary 3 (Intention to deceive m the Encom iast is generally to be recog­ nised b y his care to avoid verbal untruth the supreme exam ple of this is discussed above, p x lv i When he falls into error through fau lty or incomplete information, as m his bad descriptions of the m ilitary course of the Danish conquests of England, he tells his story m a manner which leaves no doubt as to w hat his words mean ) Since the Encomiast has been detected as handhng the story of Thorkell m a dishonest manner, it will be necessary to use great circumspection m considering all his further references to him The Encomiast proceeds to describe the arrival of K nútr m Denmark and his con­ sultation with his brother Haraldr, king of the Danes K n ú tr regards his brother, who, it is emphasised, was the younger,4 as holding a kingdom belonging to Knútr himself b y right of heritage, bu t he nevertheless proposes that th e y should provisionally divide it and attem pt the re-conquest of England jointly. If th ey should succeed, then let Haraldr take England or Denmark, and K n ú tr will be content w ith the other H e ends his speech w ith a complaint that Thorkell has deserted him, as he had previously deserted Svemn, and expresses the expectation th at he will oppose the Danes m the event of another invasion of England, while adding an expression of confidence th at he will not meet w ith success Haraldr rejects K n ú tr’s proposals, and K nútr does not press the matter, bu t spends some time with his brother, while his fleet is undergoing repairs and his arm y restored to efficiency The brothers visit * Slavia ' together, and bring their mother home from there After noting th at at this time an English matron brought the bones of Svem n to Denmark, where his sons laid them to rest m a tomb prepared b y himself m the minster which he had built to the honour of the H o ly Trinity, the Encom iast goes on to describe how Knútr prepared to invade England as summer drew near W hile he was thus occupied, Thorkell suddenly appeared w ith nine ships. H e remembered his behaviour to Svemn, and how he had remained m England without Knútr's permission, and he was anxious to assure the latter of his good intentions H e placates K nútr w ith difficulty, stays with him a month, and urges an invasion of England, saying th at he has left thirty ships there, and that their crews will join the invading forces K nútr says fare­ well to his brother and his mother and departs with a fleet of two hundred sail,56which is described with some elaboration The composition of the crews is also touched upon 8 There is much that is interesting and important m this account of K nútr’s visit to 1 The Encomiast is careful not to make a plain statement on either point The words pace confecta might be taken to refer to the peace originally made by Thorkell before Svemn arrived, but no reader not conversant with the history of the time would fail to infer from them that Thorkell again concluded peace after Svemn’s death, and hence that he had fought for Svemn Similarly, it is not declared that Knútr and Thorkell had an agreement, but it is clearly hinted 2 See below, p 74 3 The Encomiast’s probable motives for depicting Thorkell as a loyal supporter of Svemn and Knútr are discussed below, p 84 4 See Linguistic Note on II, 2, 12 5 This is a much more reasonable estimate of Knútr’s fleet than the thousand ships of Adam of Bremen (II, 50) An early interpolater of the Old English Chronicle estimated that Knútr had one hundred and sixty ships, but it is not clear if this is meant to include the forty ships seduced by Eadnc m 1015 from the English service (see Plummer, Two of the Saxon Chronicles, 11 195). 6 See Appendix V.

lvi

INTRODUCTION

Denmark The la et of the visit itself is am ply established b y the Old English Chronicle and Adam of Bremen (11 50) K n ú tr’s brother H aialdr, however, is know n practically only from the Encomium and from T hietm ar.1 T h e latter states th a t after the death of Svemn, Æ thelred, whom he had expelled, returned to England, and purposed to desecrate the corpse of his enemy, but an English matron disinterred it and to o k it to the North, where his sons received it and buried it T h e y prepared to avenge the disgrace proposed against their father Thietmar then says th a t he will report their proceedings on the authority of a certain person, who, it emerges later, was one Sewald H arald i and K n útr (the names are given m th at order) attack ed London m J u ly 1016, after the death of Æ thelred. The queen and her sons, Æ th elstan and Eadm und, were m th e c ity The queen opens negotiations with the enem y (see above, p xliv), b u t the princes conti ive to leave the city In a subsequent brush E adm u n d and T hurgut, a supporter of Svem n ’s sons, is killed. (This unknown T hurgut is certainly not Thorkell, whom Thietm ar mentions b y his right name ju st below ) Æ th elsta n succeeds m forcing the Danes to raise the siege. Thietmar then goes back to tell, still on the au th ority of Sewald, how Thorkell’s men had previously m artyred Æ lfheah, whom b y an extraordinary error he calls Dunstan I t has been suggested th a t Thietm ar or his inform ant has confused the two English punces, and th a t Eadm und’s brother Æ th elstan took part m the fighting round London in 1016, and was killed 12*4 5 In a n y event, it is clear that, w hile these passages of Thietmar contain a considerable am ount of truth, th e y are so full of confusion th at nothing can be built upon their unsupported statem ents, and we cannot prefer their story, that Haraldr came to England, to th a t of the Encom iast. On the other hand, the Encomiast would have a good motive for suppressing a n y active part w hich H araldr m ay have taken m the expedition, for he would wish to give K n ú tr as much credit as possible. Accordingly, he cannot be regarded as being necessarily a reliable source on this matter. The question must be left open, whether Haraldr came to En gland, or m erely allowed his kingdom to be used as the base for the expedition P ractica lly nothing is to be learned about Haraldr from other sources In mentioning Svem n’s marriage to a P olish princess, various Icelandic sources state th a t he had tw o sons b y her, and, m contradiction to the Encomium, K n útr is said to have been the younger.8 I t has been noted th a t Thietm ar places Haraldr’s name before K nútr's, which perhaps suggests the same th in g I t would, on the whole, appear more likely th a t Svem n entrusted his estabhshed kingdom to his elder son, and took the younger one w ith him to England. T h e otheiw ise worthless account of Haraldr m the Danish Chromcon Evict 4 suggests th a t he w as th e elder, and therefore succeeded his father 6* The Knythnga Saga, chap 8, assumes th a t he died before Svemn and th at K n ú tr therefore succeeded his father. T h e Chromcon E n c t and the Encomium can be regarded as providing sufficient evidence th a t H araldr succeeded Svemn 1 The passage of Thietmar now to be discussed will be found in M G H , S S „ 111. 849 ff. 2 So Freeman, N .C , 1 700 , a rather different view, W , p. 168 8 The two sons are named by Oddr in his Saga of Óláfr Tryggvason (p. 148 m ed referred to below, p. 68, n. 1), by Fagrskmna (p 83, derived from Oddr), Heimskringla (Öláfs Saga Tryggvasonar, chap. 34, derived from Oddr), Knythnga Saga (chap 5* derived from Heimskringla). All these sources derive the statement ultimately from Oddr* Fagrskmna adds that Haraldr was the eldest, and it is possible that this is from the text of Oddr which it uses The relevant passage of Oddr is extant only in two manuscripts of the Icelandic translation of his (lost) Latm , Saga, and the names of Svemn’s two sons are given b y the one in the opposite order to the other. Heimskringla states that Knútr ruled Denmark three years longer than England, so Snorri clearly did not know of Haraldr’s reign in Denmark {Magnüs Saga Gââa, chap. 5), 4 In Langebek, Scriptores, 1. 159. 5 On the absurd account of Haraldr m the Chromcon Erici, see Steenstrup, Normannerne, hi. 435 f t This text is the source of all the many references to Haraldr m later Danish chronicles : see, e g., Gammeldanske Krøniker, ed. by M* Lorenzen (Copenhagen, 1887-1913), passim,

INTRODUCTION

Ivii

as king of Denmark Harâldr disappears after this entirely from history I t has been reasonably conjectured th a t he died soon afterwards, and th a t the journey of K n ú tr to Denmark in 1019 (Old English Chronicle) was made to claim the vacant throne I t is noticed m a copy of the Gospels belonging to Christ Church, Canterbury, th at Haraldr and K nútr both entered into the brotherhood of that foundation This, however, does not im ply that Haraldr was ever m England : his brother probably gave his name to the monks 1 The statement th at Haraldr and K nútr visited ' S lavia ’ and fetched their mother thence is of considerable interest, for we are able to infer from other sources th at she was a Pohsh prmcess, and had been the wife of Eirikr of Sweden before her marriage to Svemn 12 The story of the removal of SveimTs body to England is practically identical m the Encomium and m Thietmar,3 and is, no doubt, to be accepted, especially as Icelandic, Danish, Norman and English tradition knew of the removal, though not of the matron 4 There can be no doubt that the mmster, which the Encom iast believed to have been built b y Svemn to the honour of the H oly Trinity, was th at of Roskilde, the dedication of which was to the H oly Trinity 5 The Icelandic and Danish accounts, though th ey are both late and poor, confirm th at Svemn was buried a t Roskilde 8 I t is scarcely necessary to point out the suspicious nature of the allusions to Thorkell which occur m the Encom iast’s account of K n ú tr’s visit to Denm ark In II, 1, the Encomiast has been at pains to suggest that Thorkell acted m agreement w ith K n ú tr in remaining m England, yet, when K nútr arrives m Denmark, he expresses an xiety concern­ ing the probable behaviour of Thorkell m the event of a Danish invasion of England. Then the Encomiast suddenly makes Thorkell rush to Denm ark to placate Knútr, and only succeed m doing so w ith difficulty The glaring inconsistency between the suggestion of II, i, that Thorkell was working m agreement w ith Knútr, and the two passages m question is the greatest artistic failure m the Encomium , but it a t least makes it obvious th at the Encomiast was not honest m his account of Thorkell The Encom iast’s account of K n ú tr’s conquest of England m ay be summarised as follows After the Danes touch a t Sandwich, and ascertain th at the English are preparing to resist, Thorkell proposes to take an advance p arty against the enemy, and K nútr and his chiefs agree. Thorkell takes the crews of more than forty ships, and wins a victory 1 See Steenstrup, op a t , p 309 2 See Adam of Bremen, 11 37, and Schol 25 , Thietmar, M G H , SS ,m 848-9 , and, on the question of Svemn’s marriages, see Bjarm AÖalbjarnson’s ed of Heimsknnglai (Reykjavik, 1941, pp cxxiv ff ), where further references are given To judge from Saxo Grammaticus (ed. Holder, p. 343), Knútr’s peaceful expedition to visit his mother grew m Damsh tradition into two military k campaigns 3 When the Encomiast (I 5) makes the dying Svemn anxious not to be buried in England, because the people hated him, he is undoubtedly hinting at the possibility of desecration of the corpse , Thietmar openly declares that the motive of the matron was to save the corpse from desecration Remembering how Hörthaknútr treated his half-brother’s corpse m 1040, we cannot doubt that such fears were justified 4 See the Icelandic text printed m Appendix I V , Chromcon Enet (Langebek, Scriptores, I 159) > William of Jumièges, v 8 , Heremannus (in Memorials of St Edmund's Abbey, Rolls Series, 1 39) , Gaimar, Lestone des Engles, 4163. The Encomiast, William, and Heremannus all stress the care taken to preserve the body m transit Svemn’s temporary grave m England was at Y o r k , so Gaimar, and also the northern editor of Florence of Worcester, who would certainly be well-informed on such a poinÿ (Symeon of Durham, Rolls Series, 11 146) Gaimar places the removal of the bones ten years or more after Svemn’s death Langebek (Scriptores, II 480) suggests that Knútr instructed the matron before he left England, Freeman (N C , 1, 682) wonders if she was Sveinn’s mistress 8 See above, p. liv ; and, on the foundation of Roskilde by Sveinn’s father, Adam of Bremen, n. 26. 6*See Appendix IV, and Chromcon Enci, l.c.

lviii

INTRODUCTION

over supenor English forces a t Sherston 1 T h e y rejoin the mam b od y again I t is stated th at Thorkell afterwards received a large part of the country as a reward for his services on this occasion Fired b y his example, Eirikr, the ruler of N orw ay m the D an ish interest, undertakes a similar expedition, and on his return is entrusted w ith the siege of London It need hardly be said th at the b a ttle of Sherston belongs to a much later stage m the campaign, and th at it is ridiculous to depict it as a sort of trial of the en em y’s strength at the very beginning Furthermore, there is no reason to believe th a t Thorkell com­ manded the Danes a t Sherston, even if it be assumed, w hich is quite uncertain, th a t he fought on the Danish side during the 10 15 -1 6 cam paign or part of it One would infer from the Old English Chronicle th a t K n ú tr com manded a t Sherston m person, and his panegyrist Óttarr Svarti alleges th a t he did so *2 There is again no satisfa cto iy evidence th at Eirikr undertook independent raids m E n glan d early m the cam paign 3 T h e state­ ment that Eirikr was m charge of the siege of London is interesting, for there is an Icelandic tradition of fair an tiquity,4 th a t Eirikr was present when K n ú tr besieged the city. A Norse verse is also extant, which is believed to refei to Eirikr and to allege th a t he fought Úlfkell m the London neighbourhood m the course of K n ú tr’s co n q u e st5 Therefore, it seems probable th a t the Encom iast is right, and th a t E irikr continued to accompany Knútr's arm y after his appointm ent as earl of Northumbria, w hich to o k place before the siege of London began There is, therefore, no reason w h y th e Encom iast should not be right when he says that Eirikr w as m charge of the siege T h e Encom iast shows himself to be well informed on political matters, when he says th a t Eirikr was ruler of Norway under Danish suzerainty, and th a t Thorkell u ltim ately received a large part of England from Knútr. In place of an account of the extensive operations of the earlier p art of K n ú tr ’s campaign (up to April 1016), we have seen th a t the Encom iast offers us on ly a description of some apocryphal independent raids b y Thorkell and Eirikr W ith the opening of the siege of London, however, he begins to be reasonably correct m describing th e course of the campaign H e states th a t Eirikr invested the c ity closely, and he m entions the operation of circumvallation to which the Old English Chronicle also refers Soon after the siege began, the princeps m charge of the c it y died , this evid en tly refers to Æ thelred, as ju st below Eadmund is said to be a son of the princeps m question 6 T h e citizens bury him 7 and then submit K nútr enters the c ity in triumph, and sits m th e throne of the kingdom 8 B u t on the previous night the son of the deceased pnneeps had left th e city, and had begun to organise resistance again K n ú tr does not tru st the citizens of London sufficiently to n sk being besieged m th e city, so he decides to w inter m Sheppey and to repair his fe e t Eadmund— his name is now given— reoccupies London and winters there The Encom iast mentions a report th a t Eadm und made K n ú tr an offer of single combat at this time, which was refused T he fact th a t the treacherous E a d n c Streona was w ith Eadm und is also mentioned a The Encomiast seems quite unaware of the position of Sherston. In warning his men of the impossibility of flight, Thorkell tells them, not that they are far from their ships, but that their ships are far from die shore. If this is not mere loose writing (not a usual fault m the Encomium ), it can only mean that the shore was near, but that the ships were not at it, and hence that Sherston was reached b y going along the coast from Sandwich * M Ashdown, English and Norse Documents, p. 138, * 3 See below, p 71, 4 See below, p 71 5 See below, p 70 • See above, p xlrn. 7 The buna! of Æthelred in London is not mentioned by the Chronicle, but it was a wellknown fact : Florence of Worcester (ed Thorpe, i 173), William of Malmesbury (Gesta Regum, u. 180) and Gaimar (Lestone des Engles, 4199) all, say he was buried in St Paul’s 8 No doubt a mere rhetorical flourish : the Encomiast can hardly have thought such an action without due election could have any significance.

INTRODUCTION

lix

This account of the fighting at London is fairly near to the truth A c tu a lly Æ thelred died just before, not just after, the arrival of the Danish forces a t London. The departure of Eadm und to gather forces outside the city is a well-known fact, and it is also the case th at the Danes abandoned the siege of London soon afterwards 1 The Encom iast, however, diverges slightly from the truth m order to give K n ú tr the credit of entering the city, and abandoning it for reasons of caution, instead of being dislodged from his siege-lmes b y force The Encom iast is correct m saying th a t E a d n c was with Eadm und a t the time when K n ú tr was m Sheppey,12 and that there w as a story th at K n ú tr was challenged to single combat b y Eadmund, though no other writer places this incident so early as the retreat to S h e p p e y 34 The Encom iast’s chronology of these operations will be discussed below,Æbut it m ay be observed here that he omits a long campaign, including two further sieges of London, between the raising of the first siege and the Danish retreat to Sheppey. The Encomiast goes on to describe how Eadmund, who had been collecting forces all Lent, advanced m the spring to attem pt to drive the Danes from England T he Danes leave their retreat and give action at Ashmgdon The battle and the treachery of E a d n c are described at length, and a common belief th at the latter was m league w ith the Danes is mentioned Thorkell is said to have been present at the battle (or, a t least, ju st before it) on the Danish side The completeness of the Danish victory is emphasised In this account of the end of the campaign the Encom iast again over-simplifies events, for a great Danish raid into Mercia intervened between K n ú tr’s leaving his retreat at Sheppey and the battle of Ashmgdon In depicting Ashmgdon as a great Danish victory and the culmination of the campaign, the Encomiast is undoubtedly justified. I t is, however, doubtful how far the details of his description of the battle are not merely im aginative,5*except that the Old English Chronicle confirms his story that E a d n c played an unworthy p a r t 8 As for Thorkell’s alleged presence, we have seen th at the Encom iast’s statements concerning that chief are always suspect, and this is particularly the case w ith the one under consideration, for Thorkell is introduced at this point as a vehicle for comments on a magic banner The Encomiast, like the Old English Chronicle, attributes the opening of negotiations after Ashmgdon to E ad n c Streona H e gives practically the same teim s for the terri­ torial settlement as does MS D of the Chronicle,7 and also mentions the paym ent made 1 Stenton describes these operations clearly, pp 385-6 2 He had deserted Knútr for Eadmund when the former was dnven to Sheppey on Eadric’s movements at this time, and errors m some sources concerning them, see Plummer, Two of the S a x o n C h r o n ic le s , 11 197 3 A single combat or an offer of one is well known to occur m many stories of the war of Knútr and Eadmund, though it is usually placed after Ashmgdon (N C , 1 705 ff ) The Encomiast is not at all explicit about the election of Eadmund as king his followers encourage him, dicentes quod eum magis quam principem Danorum eligerent But below (11 12 and 13), Eadnc and Knútr call him rex The Chronicle is definite that Eadmund was duly elected by such of the witan as were at hand when his father died (N.C., 1 689) 4 See below, p lxi 6 Freeman accepts them largely into his text, N C , i 394 8 The Encomiast mentions a report that Eadric’s treachery at Ashmgdon was prearranged with the Danes, cf Florence of Worcester (ed Thorpe, 1 177) 7 The English delegates offer Knútr a kingdom in australi parte, and Eadmund is to remain with the bounds meridianae plagae There can be little doubt that australi is an error for boreali (cf Textual Note on II, 13, 10), and that the Encomiast here descnbed the division very much as the Chronicle, MS D, which gives Wessex to Eadmund, the nor ådsel to Knútr But just below, Knútr, m accepting their terms, says that, as they have suggested, he will take the media regia We find precisely the same inconsistency of language m the Chronicle, where all the other manu­ scripts give Knútr Mercia, instead of the norddsel of D. Cf. N.C., 1. 708

lx

INTRODUCTION

to the D anish forces 1 H e does not m ention the personal m eeting o f th e kings, and since he incorrectly m akes the victorious D anes retire to London after A shm gdon, he creates the impression th a t K nútr was at London during th e peace negotiations *2 T h e Encom iast now mentions th a t the death of E adm u n d follow ed soon after the peace, and states th at Knútr was chosen kin g b y th e whole cou n try U nfortu nately, the Encom iast throws no light on the vexed question w hether K n ú tr had a righ t to succeed au to m atically under his treaty w ith E ad m u n d 3 I t m a y be noted th a t th e w id ely spread story th a t Eadm und died b y treachery is n ot m entioned b y th e E n c o m ia s t4 T his practically proves that it was not y e t current m his tim e m a form in w hich E a d n c was th e culprit O f course, the Encom iast w ould au to m atically suppress i t if he knew it m a form which blamed Knútr I t will be seen from the above paragraphs th a t th e En com iast m akes th e siege of London the centre of the war of 1 0 15 -1 6 5 th e alleged raids of Thorkell an d E irikr are a prelude, the retreat to Sheppey and the b a ttle of Ashm gdon an epilogue I t is evident th a t the Encom iast had no informant w ith more th a n a vagu e m em ory of th e course of the war. Whoever supplied his information remembered th e siege of London, th e retreat to Sheppey, and the culmination of the w ar a t Ashm gdon T h e b a ttle of Sherston was a name to him he had not the vagu est idea of its place m the cam paign. O f th e siege of London itself he remembered the outstanding incidents th e d eath of th e kin g m the city (which, however, he placed after instead of ju s t before th e siege began), E ad m u n d ’s withdrawal to raise forces elsewhere, and K n ú tr ’s w ithdraw al from London. H e knew something of the activities of E ad n c, and of th e term s and circum stances of th e peace From these inadequate materials, the E n com iast has had to p a tch up his sto ry The Encom iast’s account of the war of 1 0 1 5 -1 6 is b y no means d evoid of valu e It can add practically nothing to the facts we learn from other sources,6 b u t it is valuable to have its confirmation of the Old English Chronicle on one or tw o m atters m which prejudice m ight have affected th e compilers of th a t w ork A ccordin gly, it is interestm g to notice th at the treacherous E a d n c and the gallan t E ad m u n d bear m uch th e same character m both the Chronicle and the Encomium , and th a t b o th sources agree in suggest­ ing th at Eadm und received ready support from th e English, w hen he le ft Lon don to collect forces L astly, the impression of K n ú tr ’s character given b y th e En com iast is interesting In his whole account of the cam paign he never once gives a h in t t h a t his hero displayed the least sign of personal courage, and tw ice he speaks as if his caution w as so great as to call for a word of explanation.7 Since he would assuredly h ave been delighted to attribute some personal prowess to his hero, if there were th e least ground for doing so, one can hardly fail to conclude th a t K n ú tr le ft behind him no trace of fam e for strength 1 II, 13, last words, cf N.C , 1 709 2 The mistake is no doubt due to the fact that Knútr wintered m London after the settlement ; Henry of Huntingdon has a similar error he makes Knútr take London between Ashmgdon and the peace of Olney (Rolls Series, pp 184-5). 8 See N C , i 709-10. 4 On the many stones of this nature, see N.C., i 711 ff 8 Foreign wnters tend to do this, for the siege made a great impression at the time, and London was, in fact, * the key-pomt in the struggle ’ (Stenton, p 386) accordingly, the accounts of the war given by Thietmar and William of Jumxèges (v 8-9) are concerned almost exclusively with the siege. 6 It does show us that the Norse tradition that Eirikr took part in the fighting round London is sound ; and that the story that Eadmund offered single combat to Knútr is early 7 II, i, non quod . . metuendo fugeret, the Encomiast carefully insists ; II, 7—8, it is carefully emphasised that Knfitr was prudens and sapiens m withdrawing to Sheppey, and declining single combat. In II, 6, Thorkell says his king is very eager to fight, but this is no doubt courtesy . m fact, the king appears very willing Jo let Thorkell test the strength of the resistance for him.

INTRODUCTION

hri

or courage in battle* T h e Encom iast does not even place a rhetorical speech on his lips a t Ashingdon to offset th at of Eadmund. Eirikr and Thorkell quite overshadow their king m the Encom iast's account of the conquest The Encom iast supplies an artificial chronology of the campaign to suit his own purposes* H e evidently knew th a t it ended m the year following the one m which K n ú tr landed m England H e does not seem, however, to be aware how late K n ú tr began th e campaign of 1015 : he says (II, 4) th at K n ú tr was b u sy w ith his preparations as the summer drew near, and th a t Thorkell then appeared and stayed more than a month w ith the k in g , he then proceeds to describe the invasion. Therefore, he can hardly have thought of the landmg a t Sandwich as takin g place later than midsummer. (It actu ally took place about 8 September ) T h e Encomiast, therefore, has to fill up a great deal of time, and his difficulty m so doing is considerable, because he did not know m a n y of th e incidents of the war H e therefore places the supposed raids of Thorkell and Eirikr, the siege of London, the death of Æthelred, the relief of London, and K n útr's retreat to Sheppey before the beginning of the winter of the year in which K n ú tr landed A ctu a lly Æ thelred did not die until 23 April 1016, and the siege of London had not then begun. The Encomiast gets himself out of his difficulty b y taking a hint from the Latin historians and sending his heroes into winter quarters. Knútr's sta y m Sheppey, a mere brief incident m the campaign of the summer and autumn of 1016, is magnified to include the whole winter 1015-16, and Eadm und is made to remam m London a t the same tim e Since the Encomiast has put all the fighting th at he knew about into the year of the invasion except the battle of Ashingdon, he has to place th at action soon after Easter of the following year (II, 9) for, even if he knew th a t it did not tak e place till the autumn, he obviously had no knowledge to enable him to describe another summer campaign. T h e Encom iast proceeds to state th at his hero ruled England m peace till his death (fine tenus), thus confirming that absence of domestic incident which we infer from th e silence of the Chronicle on home affairs during Knútr's reign. The Encom iast is perhaps pointed m saying th at K nútr held England in peace : his hero's Northern adventures are purposely excluded from his story (cf p, I11 above). T he words et nobiliter duces et comites suos disposuit no doubt refer, among other things, to the fourfold division of England m 1017 H e mentions th at Knútr commenced his reign w ith a number of executions, which he attributes to the monarch's distaste for those who had been false to Eadmund, and it m ay be observed th at Florence of Worcester 1 gives a similar reason for certam executions w ith which he credits Knútr. T he Encom iast gives only one example of these executions, th at of E ad n c Streona, and, m so doing, he offers the earliest of the m any embroideries of the undoubted fact that Knútr had E ad n c executed 12 W e now come to the Encom iast's account of the marriage of his hero and heroine, the birth of their son, and the dispatch of Eadweard and Æ lfred to Normandy. 1 This has been discussed elsewhere m some detail.3 The Encom iast goes on to say that when Horthaknútr grew up (adulto demque puero, an expression which need not be pressed, for he was only a child m 1023), his father gave his entire dominion to him b y oath, and sent him to hold the kingdom of Denmark. I t is an undoubted fact th a t K n ú tr sent his son to Denm ark about 1023,4 and Norse tradition confirms the statem ent of the Encomiast, th a t he was permitted a position of sub-kingship there.® W e have no means of telling if K nútr really promised him ultim ate succession to England at the same time, but, if we 1 Ed.» Thorpe, i 179. 2 On the many stones of Eadnc's end, see C E. Wright, The Cultivation of Saga m AngloSaxon England, pp. 206 fif, 8 See above, pp xliv fi * See below, p 75 6 See Fagrskmna, p 185

lxii

INTRODUCTION

accept the probable story of the bargain of Knútr and Emma,1 there is no reason against assuming that he did so (He had not acquired Norway at this time, and it would there­ fore be outside anything he promised to Horthaknútr , hence the fact that he afterwards gave it to one of his illegitimate sons is not inconsistent with the Encomiast's statement that he made Horthaknútr heir to his entire dominions when he sent him to Denmark ) The Encomiast goes on to say that, when once Knútr became king of Denmark, he found himself king of five realms, Denmark, England, Wales, Scotland and Norway. Knútr’s claims on Wales and Scotland were vague, but it is certainly true that Malcolm of Scotland and certain lesser northern kings submitted to him (Chronicle, MS E, 1031) m some measure In any event, the Encomiast's estimate of the extent of his dominions compares very favourably with some others for truth and modesty 12* I t would perhaps be unwise to press the statement of the Encomiast that Knútr had five realms when once he had acquired Denmark He knew, however, that Knútr became km g of England before the death of his brother, and he may have regarded the de jure sovereignty of Norway as going with that of Denmark, despite Óláfr Helgi’s de facto kingship of the former country On the date of Knútr's becoming m some sense km g of Wales and Scotland he was probably quite vague The Encomiast now passes on to praise Knútr’s generosity to the Church and his other good works, including his suppression of unjust laws, a point which would have come more fittingly m the course of his preceding remarks on the king's secular affairs He does not detail the king's generosity m his own land, but tells how Gaul, Italy and especially Flanders, through which countries he went to Rome,8 have cause to pray for his soul He exemplifies this by his famous account of Knútr's visit to St Omer's and St Bertm’s, when he was an eye witness of the monarch's liberality and exuberant penitence There is no reason to doubt the substantial truth of his description of Knútr's behaviour, upon which Sir Charles Oman's comments require neither addition nor improvement4 The Encomiast says that Knútr lived only a short time after his return from Rome The date of Knútr’s pilgrimage is an old and difficult problem, but it m ay be said that the Old English Chronicle (MS. E, 1031), the Encomium , Adam of Bremen,5 and the Norse Sagas,6 agree m placing it late m his life Accordingly, the customary modern view that this pilgrimage is to be identified with the visit to Rome made b y Knútr m 1027, when he attended the coronation of the Emperor Conrad, is not to be accepted w ith any con­ fidence, It would seem that Knútr was 111 Rome twice Florence of Worcester already confuses the two visits, when he says that Lyfing accompanied Kniitr on the later one and became a bishop just afterwards, for Lyfing's appointment more probably belongs to 1027 (ci below, p. 59, n 5) The well-known letter which Knútr wrote from Rome to his people is quoted b y Florence under 1031, but this is obviously also a confusion . the letter clearly belongs to the visit of 1027 (cf. below, p 82, n. 4). Freeman correctly emphasises that it is of no chronological significance that the Encomiast mentions the pilgrimage after his statement that Knútr finally became king of five realms, including Scotland 7 This is due, not to a belief on the part of the Encomiast that the pilgrimage followed the 1 See above, p. xlv 2 gee jy.c., 1 766. S a g a , chap 17, mentions that Knútr went to Rome, passing through Flanders, and it is, of course, well known that St. Bertm’s lay on the normal route from England to Rome.

3 K n y tlm g a 4 E n g la n d

before the N o rm a n Con quest,

p 592.

5 H, 63 , he places the visit m the time of Archbishop Libentius, 1029-32. 6 Both F a g r s k m n a (m the insertion dealing with Knútr, see below, p. S3) and K n y t lm g a S a g a , chaps. 17-18 Although the latter work is largely derivative m its account of Knutr (cf below, p 91), it has some scraps of independent information.

» N.C., i 751.

INTRODUCTION

lxiii

submission of the Scottish kings m 1031, but to his treatment of Knutr's affairs m two divisions, the secular and the ecclesiastical The third book of the Encomium opens by mentioning that Knútr was buried at Winchester,1 and points out that Emma was alone m England, Horthaknútr being m Denmark and her other two sons m Normandy All these princes were rejected b y the English, who made Haraldr king, although his claim to be Knútr's son was very uncertain All these statements are fully confirmed by the Old English Chronicle All manu­ scripts notice the burial of Kirátr at Winchester. MSS C and D add that Emma was m the city and that Haraldr, who claimed falsely to be a son of Knútr, had her deprived of all Knútr’s best treasures She remained, however, m the city as long as she could, that is, till her exile two years later MS. E does not mention the robbery of Emma, but it defines the political position more exactly The witan met at Oxford after Knútr's death, and Leofric of Mercia, supported by practically all the thanes from north of the Thames, and by the representatives of the seafanng population of London, chose Haraldr as guardian of all England on behalf of himself and his brother Horthaknútr Godwme and the Wessex representatives opposed this m vam It was, however, agreed that Emma should hold Wessex on behalf of her son, and should have her seat m Winchester, and retain about her the royal bodyguard Godwme was her most faithful supporter This arrangement did not prejudice the general regency granted to Haraldr over the whole country it is said expressly that Godwme and his party might not m the least prevail against the proposal that Haraldr should have such a regency. It is also plain that Emma's position m Wessex was, m actual fact, ineffective MSS C and D show that she was unable to resist when Haraldr's men came to carry off her treasures 12 MS E, m fact, concludes its notice of these events by saying that Haraldr was now full king over all England,3 even though his claim to be a son of Knútr was considered by many to be poor Again, m noticing Haraldr's death m 1040, it remarks that he controlled England for four years and sixteen weeks, practically the whole period from the death of Knútr 4 There can, accordingly, be no doubt that the Encomiast describes the de facto position correctly when he says that Haraldr was made king after Knútr's death On the other hand, he has two passages further on which show that he was alive to the de jure position 56 * The Encomiast now tells his well-known story of how Haraldr asked Archbishop Æthelnoth to crown him and, upon being refused, attempted to avenge himself on the Church by neglecting his religious observances It is difficult to say if there is any truth m this story. Obviously, if Haraldr ever made such a request, he would be refused, since the archbishop could not crown as king one who had not been duly elected 8 (The

1 See Textual Note on III, 1 2 MS C distinctly says that Harold had the treasures taken p e heo ofhealdan ne m ihte Stenton, p 414, interprets the evidence on Emma’s position similarly I disagree strongly with Plummer (Two o f the S a x on C h ron icles , 11 209) when he takes the words of the C hronicle to mean that Emma attempted to rule Wessex by force in defiance of the witan’s election of Haraldr as regent 3 F u l l cyng ofer eall E n g la la n d cf the C h ron icle's use of the phrase f u l l cynm g of Svemn’s standing late m 1013, and cf above, p lm 4 See Plummer, op c it,} p 218 It should be observed that no C h ron icle manuscript implies that Haraldr became a constitutional king m 1035 It is true that MS D, after noticing the death of Knútr, adds the words ond H a ro ld h is sun u fen g to rice» but these words are shown to be a clumsy interpolation by the fact that the pronouns m the following sentences still refer to Knútr The original form of the entry may be seen m MS C 5 See below, pp lxiv and lxvm 6 It is beside the point that Haraldr does seem to have been crowned ultimately this would be after he was elected King m 1037 (see for evidence of his coronation, N C , 1 778). On the course of events m Haraldr's period, see Stenton, p 414 (where the evidence is admirably inter-

hav

INTRODUCTION

Encomiast rhetorically makes the archbishop refuse out of loyalty to the sons of Emma, but there is not the least reason to think that he would have refused to crown Haraldr if he had been elected ) Furthermore, it will appear below that Haraldr and his party were quite aware that what they must do was to canvass support and thus secuie election b y the witan, not try to persuade an unwilling chuichman to perform an em pty ceremony. Accordmgly, the whole story is to be rejected, and with it goes the allegation that Haraldr was childish enough to neglect his religious observances (especially b y indulging m Sunday sport) out of pique 1 W e now come to the Encomiast's much-discussed account of the murder of Emma's son Ælfred He says that after Haraldr's usurpation Emma awaited the upshot of events quietly Haraldr was not permitted to injure her, so he plotted with his supporters to secure his position by killing her sons. He had a letter forged, purporting to be from the queen to the two princes m Normandy In this letter— which is quoted m full— he made Emma complain that she is queen m name o n ly , her sons were daily being more and more deprived of the kingdom, which was their heritage, the usurper was perpetually going round seeking the support of the magnates of the kingdom b y gifts, threats and prayers ; they, however, would prefer Ælfred or Eadweard as k in g , let one of the princes come to discuss with the queen how the matter can best be managed , let them send a reply by the present messenger The interest of this document hardly requires emphasis. It describes the activities of Haraldr as they would appear to Emma and her friends, and it shows that, although the Encomiast states that Haraldr was chosen king after the death of Knútr, he was perfectly well aware that he had not yet secured legal kingship, but was working for it with increasing success. Incidentally, a picture of Haraldr’s party going about to canvass support has reached us from another and totally independent source.*12 The letter was sent to the princes, who fell into the trap T hey replied that one of them would come, and gave a day, a time and a place Ælfred 3 set out with his brother's approval He was accompanied by an unspecified number of troops, and, as he passed through Flanders, he added a few men of Boulogne to these, refusmg Baldwin's offer of larger forces. He did not land m England at the first point at which he touched, for he preted), and Plummer (op cit , pp 208-11, where the statements of the different manuscripts of the Chronicle are carefully considered) Older treatments (especially Freeman's) are hopelessly confused by assuming that Haraldr was elected king of part of the country m 1035 , but the statement that his supporters wished to choose him as warden of all England on behalf of himself and his brother, and that his opponents could not m the least prevent them from doing so, implies that a division was contemplated when Hörthaknútr returned Haraldr’s party (especially his mother, see reference m note 2, below) canvassed support vigorously, and, as Hórthaknútr did not appear, Haraldr secured constitutional election to the throne m 1037. 1 Such evidence as there is does not suggest that Haraldr was particularly irreligious or even anticlerical : see N C., 1. 504-5. 2 See E H M , xxvui 115-16. * He is stated to be the younger of the two- The Encomiast is the only writer early enough to be of any value who pronounces on this point, but it has been suggested above (p xlu) that Eadweard's selection to lead his father’s delegation to the witan m 1014 confirms the Encomiast, P. Grierson, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, xxiu 95, quotes as throwing light on this point a Ghent charter dated 25 December 1016, m which Eadweard promises to restore the English possessions of St. Peter’s if he should become king. This document does not prove Eadweard to be older than Ælfred if he chose to anticipate his election over the heads of his half-brother Eadwig and any other of Ætheked's elder family who may have been alive, and of the sons of Eadmund Ironside, he might also have imagined circumstances under which he would become king, even if he were younger than Ælfred. Eadweard was so remote from any likelihood of becoming king in 1016, that I greatly doubt if the charter m question is anything more than an imaginative forgery, drawn np after Eadward became king. (A facsimile of the document may be seen in Messager des sciences historiques de Belgique, 1842, facing p. 238.)

INTRODUCTION

hev

observed that he was being awaited, and would be attacked if he went ashore Landing elsewhere, he attempted to go to his mother. When, however, he was near her, Godwme met him, and swore loyalty to him, but diverted him from London (the Encomiast was apparently unaware that Emma resided at Winchester) to Guildford, where he arranged a night's lodging for him and his men. Godwme departed, promising to return m the morning As soon as Ælfred and his men had retired to bed, Haraldr’s men appeared, seized their weapons, and bound them In the morning they mocked them and butchered nine out of every ten , of the residue, they sold some, reserving others for further mockery or to be their own slaves Nevertheless, the Encomiast himself had seen some who escaped Ælfred himself was taken to Ely, and was there mocked, tried, blinded, tortured and killed. The monks buried him, and some say that they have seen miracles at his tomb There are three independent early accounts of the murder of Ælfred One is that of the Encomiast, another is the ballad inserted with a brief prose introduction m MSS C and D of the O ld E n g li s h C h r o n ic le under 1036, a third is the Norman version, which is given most fully and clearly by William of Poitiers.1 The story of the ballad 12 3 and its introduction is that Ælfred came to England, and said he was going to his mother, who was at Winchester Godwme and other powerful men were unwilling to permit this, because feeling was running m Haraldr’s favour, and Godwme, accordingly, intercepted the æthelmg (This is equivalent to an admission that the æthelmg’s visit was regarded as being not without political significance ) Godwme killed some of Ælfred’s companions, and ill-treated others m various ways The æthelmg himself was removed to E ly he was blinded on board ship on the way He remained with the monks till he died. He was buried at Ely The closeness of this account to that of the Encomiast m outline and in many details is obvious The mam difference is that, m the Encomiast’s account, Godwme merely intercepts the æthelmg, while Haraldr’s men commit the crime. The Encomiast clearly knew a version of the story in which Godwme intercepted Ælfred and guided him to a convenient place for Haraldr’s men to do the rest. He has told this story, but he has let Godwme’s motives appear from the events without comment he leaves it open to anyone foolish enough to do so to fail to infer that Godwine was acting m agreement with Haraldr m guiding Ælfied’s party to Guildford The Encomiast’s reason for this was, no doubt, that he was writing at a time when Godwine was officially assumed to be comparatively innocent 8 and was making himself useful to Horthaknútr 4 The Encomiast also adds two major details to the ballad he makes it clear that Ælfred had a political object, and he names the place of interception as Guildford. On this latter point a number of later versions confirm him 5*

1 William of Poitiers and William of Jumièges (vu ii), as frequently elsewhere, are in very close agreement in their accounts of the murder, and it is disputed whether one of them is derived from the other, or whether they have a common source see William of Jumièges, Gesta N o rm a n n o ru m D u c u m , ed J Marx (Rouen and Paris, 1914), pp xvii fí , for a discussion of this problem and further references Practically the same story appears m the later Norman chronicles Wace, R o m a n de R o u (ed Andresen, 11 218 ff.), Benoît de Sainte-Maure, C h ron iqu e des ducs de N o rm a n d ie (ed Michel, m 74 ff ) 2 Plummer, T w o o f the S a x o n C h ron icles , 11. 212 ff , has conclusively shown that the text of the ballad and introduction m MS C of the Ch ron icle is the original version, while that m MS D, which omits all reference to Godwine, has been tampered with Accordingly, I use the C text of this source only. 8 His trial and acquittal for the murder m Hörthaknútr’s time is well known. 4 See Plorence of Worcester (ed Thorpe, 1 194-5) 5 See below Wace and Benoît drag a mention of Guildford into the Norman version of the Story, though they do not make it the point of interception.

e

lxvi

INTRODUCTION

The version of William of Poitiers 1 makes Æ lfred sail from Wissant (a port on the Flemish coast) to Dover, apparently with considerable forces,2 and lay claim to the throne He advances inland, and is met by Godwme, who swears fealty, and enteis into discussions of an unspecified nature with him over a meal A t night, however, Godwme makes the æthelmg captive, and sends him to Haraldr m London, who blinds him and sends him by sea to E ly, where he soon dies of his injuries Outrages against his companions are committed b y both Godwme and Haraldr Here there are many correspondences of detail with the other versions the æthelmg comes through Flanders as m the Encomium, his landing at Dover agrees with the versions which make Guildford the point of inter­ ception, he is captured at night as m the Encomium , and he is sent to E ly b y sea as m the Chronicle The Encomiast makes Ælfred come to discuss with his mother how to get nd of H araldr, William makes him come to claim the throne, the Chronicle makes his coming alarm the chief men, for feeling was strongly m Haraldr’s favour, and this is equivalent to an admission that ÆlfredJs proposed visit to his mother was not to be a mere act of filial affection. All three sources also agree that Godwme intercepted the æthelmg The Chronicle attributes the subsequent outrages to Godwme, William to the king, to whom Godwme delivers the captive æthelmg The Encomiast has not accused Godwme m words of acting for Haraldr, but he has left it open to the reader to assume that he intercepted the æthelmg m order to give Haraldr’s men an opportunity to seize him The Encomiast is a master of the art of giving the impression he desired without words he must have been perfectly aware that his reader would assume Godwme’s guilt from his narrative, and, accordingly, he must have been willing to let Godwme be thought guilty, or else he would have made it clear that he was innocent Therefore, it m ay be said that all three sources point to Godwme as involved m the murder The Encomiast and William, however, regard Haraldr (or at least his men) as even more deeply involved than Godwme The Chronicle puts the entire blame on Godwme, while making it clear that he was acting m the interests of the political party which supported Haraldr. If this version be preferred to the agreement of the other two, it is possible to absolve Haraldr of personal complicity, but all three versions agree m convicting Godwme, and im plying that he was now on Haraldr’s side Therefore this view of his political position and of his guilt must be accepted. A failure to appreciate the political circumstances of the time has reduced the value of many discussions of Ælfred’s murder. I t has been assumed th at Emma, supported b y Godwme, was ruling Wessex m Horthaknútr’s interest at the time, and hence that Godwme was probably not involved m the murder of Emma's son (so Freeman), or was involved m it, but was acting not in Haraldr’s interest, but, m some mysterious way, m that of Horthaknútr (so Plummer) It cannot be too clearly emphasised th at the only source which tells the story of Em m a’s supervision of Wessex, and of Godwme’s support of her, emphasises that Haraldr, in spite of this arrangement) was ‘ full king ’ over all England already m 1035, and was officially regent of the whole cou n try3 Em m a’s regency of Wessex was intended to be limited from the outset, and was never sufficiently effective to enable her to prevent the robbery of her personal property This being the case, it is unlikely that the astute Godwme would remain long faithful to her cause, or would fail to make his peace with Haraldr’s party W e have seen that, of the three mam accounts of Ælfred’s murder, two place Godwme on the king’s side openly, and the * 1 Duchesne, H is to r ia e N o rm a n n o ru m S c r ip to r e s , pp 178-9 , a On this point William of Jumièges is definite ; William of Poitier§ says that Ælfred was accuratius quam frater antea aduersus mm praeparatus The Norman chiomclers place an attempt on England by Eadweard with a fleet of forty ships just before that of Ælfred (see below), so presumably William of Poitiers means to imply that Ælfred had more than forty ships. * See above, p lxm

' INTRODUCTION

lxvii

third by implication Therefore, one must assume (with Stenton, p. 415) that Godwme had joined Haraldr’s party by 1036 Florence of Worcester (ed Thorpe, 1 195) gives what purports to be the form of oath with which Godwme excused himself at his trial for the murder during Horthakniitr’s reign According to this, Godwme did not deny complicity, but claimed that he did what he did on the orders of his lord and king This is m perfect agreement with what has already been concluded The later versions of the story are of little value, except that they repeat a few of the details given by the earlier versions, and hence suggest that these are of an historical nature The versions of Henry of Huntingdon, William of Malmesbury and Gaimar are historically of little value, because they place the murder at the wrong time, after the death of Haraldr, but all three blame Godwme, which is significant They confirm the detail given by the Encomiast that Ælfred's men were decimated, and they all take this to mean that one m ten was spared, not that one m ten was executed. Henry and Gaimar place the interception at Guildford, William at Gillingham The biographer of Eadweard blames Haraldr exclusively, but he is prejudiced, and even he has to take notice of the fact that Godwme was suspected (He removes the accusation of Godwme from the reign of Horthaknútr into that of Eadweard, a curious confusion ) The version of Florence of Worcester is a curious piece of work Its basis is the ballad and its prose introduction m the uncorrupted form m which Godwme is blamed. It attempts to combine with this a corrupted version of the Norman story In William of Poitiers and the Norman chroniclers, Ælfred’s expedition is preceded by a definitely military one undertaken by Eadweard, which has to be abandoned 1 Florence evidently knew a version of the Norman story m which Eadweard’s expedition was combined with Ælfred’s, but which followed the same general lines as the version as we know it m William of Poitiers Hence, m Florence, Eadweard and Ælfred come to England at the same time, with strong forces. Eadweard succeeds m joining Emma, but Ælfred’s adventures proceed as m the Chvomch, with touches from the Norman story After Ælfred’s death, Eadweard withdraws A final word must be said on the Encomiast’s curious story about the forged letter It is obviously not to be taken seriously A Norse source shows that some tale was current m which Emma was concerned with a forged letter 12 Probably the Encomiast saw fit to tell this story m a form completely creditable to his patroness m the hope that his version would supersede others less favourable to her The Encomiast tells the rest of his story briefly He describes how Emma withdrew to Flanders after Ælfred’s death, and her kindly reception there 3 No doubt he was influenced by respect for the queen’s feelings m saying that she withdrew on her own initiative, we know from the Chromcle that she was exiled m 1037 He depicts the queen as being not entirely without friends to accompany her, and as having sufficient means to pay her way at least m part and even to implement her sympathy for the poor by almsgiving She summoned Eadweard from Normandy to consult with her, but he declined to act, on the ground that the English chiefs had sworn him no oaths, and that therefore it would be more fitting to look to Horthaknútr He himself returned to Normandy Although Eadweard’s visit to Flanders may be apocryphal, the reason, which the Encomiast makes him offer for his unwillingness to act, shows a sound grasp of the 1 II there is anything m this story, it explains why Ælfred— apparently the younger brother— made the journey of 1036 alone Eadweard had failed m one attempt and was discouraged Gaimar {Lestowe des Engles, 4785-90) is so surprised that Ælfred, whom he believed to be "the younger, came to England, that he invents a fantastic explanation 2 See below, p 83 8 P Grierson (p 97 m article referred to above, p lxiv, n 3) suggests that the castellum near Bruges, wheie Emma landed, was Oudenbourg

Ixvui

INTRODUCTION

political situation. Although the E n com iast m I I I , i, says the E n glish m ade H araldr king, he w as evid en tly aware th at some de ju re position had been officially accorded to H orthaknútr 1 E m m a now sends messengers to H orthaknútr, who com es to Flanders w ith ten ships, having left a powerful fleet mobilised, apparently m Denm ark, w hich could come to his assistance if need arose A lthou gh E m m a 's message to D enm ark is not mentioned b y the Chronicle, it is evident th a t some word m ust h a ve been sent to H orthaknútr, or he would not have known th a t his mother w as m Flanders. H e certainly sailed to Flanders to join her m 1039 (Chronicle , M S C) In Flanders, E m m a and her son hear of the death of Haraldr, and th a t th e E n glish are anxious to m ake H orthaknútr king. T h ey are preparing to depart for En gland, when a more formal em bassy th an the messengers who brought the news arrives to offer the allegiance of E n glan d H orthaknútr crosses to England m triumph This account of the events im m ediately before and after the death of H araldr agrees very closely with the Old English Chronicle T he one addition is th e pow erful fleet mobilised b y Horthaknútr, and here the En com iast has the confirmation o f A d am of Bremen, though th at authority makes him congregate his ships m Flanders (11, 71) 2 The Chronicle merely says th a t H orthaknútr was sent for after H araldr's death, but, when the Encomiast declares th a t a deputation of im portant men crossed to Flanders, he has the support of the Chronicon Abbatiae Rameseiensis 8 The only event of H orthaknútr’s reign mentioned b y the E n com iast is th a t he invited ms orother Eadweard to En gland to hold the kingdom w ith him In th e Argument he is more explicit he says th a t H araldr divided th e glory and w ealth of th e kingdom w ith his brother The Chronicle says th a t Eadw eard had long been an exile, b u t w as never­ theless sworn into the kingship (to cinge gesworen, M SS C and D) T h e precise position taken up b y Eadweard m England is difficult to decide, bu t it m a y b e said th a t the Encomium and the Chronicle agree th a t it was of a royal nature O ne m a y reasonably conjecture th a t it was th at of acknowledged heir to an ailing monarch, w ho kn ew his days were numbered 4 W e know from W illiam of Poitiers th a t H orthaknútr's d eath w as n ot unexpected b y himself, and, if the Sagas are to be believed, th is w as n ot th e first tim e he had received a less fortunate brother w ith kindness and generosity.6 T h e return of Eadweard is attributed to a direct in vitation from his brother b oth b y th e E n com iast and b y W illiam of Jumièges (vu. i i ) and it is obviously probable th a t such an in vitation was sent, m view of the warm reception the exile clearly received The value of th e Encomium as a historical document m a y now be briefly assessed. I t is evident th a t its author had some ve r y good informant on Scandinavian affairs This is shown b y his knowledge of the circumstances of the death of H araldr Blátonn, of the connection of Knútr's mother w ith * S lavia \ of E irikr’s position in N orw ay, and participation in K n ú tr’s wars, of Svem n's interest m the minster of R oskilde an d burial there, and of the appointment of H orthaknútr as king of D enm ark b y his father. T hou gh all these matters are known to us from other sources, the En com iast is b y far th e earliest authority for them, except m a few points, where he is confirmed b y T h ietm ar or b y

x Cf above, pp lxui-iv 2 I t would appear certam that the fleet mobilised b y Hörthaknútr ultimately joined him m Flanders, for the Chronicle, MSS C and D, notices that he came from there to England with sixty ships. ®Rolls Series, pp 149-50 4 Saxo (ed. Holder, p 361) suggests less disinterested motives for Hörthaknútr’s generosity 6 Svemn, Knútr’s illegitimate son, filed to Denmark on the return of Magnus Öláfsson to Norway, and was well received : according to Heimsknngla (though the older versions of the Saga of Magnús and the Norwegian compendia do not mention this), Hórthaknútr associated Svemn with himself m the government

*

INTRODUCTION

Ixix

skaldic verse In view of his general reliability on Scandinavian affairs, it is probably advisable to accept the Encomiast's account of the reign of Haraldr Svemsson m Denmark m preference to those of Thietmar and the Chromcon E n ci, except th a t we m ay suspect that Knútr was younger than his brother On the Danish invasion of England, the Encomiast is less good H e confirms a Scandinavian tradition that Thorkell avenged a brother m England, bu t he had no good source of information on the campaigns of Sveinn and Knútr, and he makes matters worse by giving a dishonest account of the behaviour of Thorkell However, even here, his work is of some value, for its view of the characters of Eadmund and Eadric confirms the impression of them given m the Chronicle, and so removes any suspicion of bias m the latter work The Encomiast's account of Knútr's reign is meagre. H e mentions the executions of 1017, the king's good rule, generosity and piety, and the extent of his dominions For the rest, he reserves his space for accounts of the marriage of Knútr and Emma, and of Knútr’s visit to St Omer In dealing with the former matter he wrote to orders, and told a strange tale while avoiding verbal untruth In dealmg with the St. Omer visit, he gives us a picture of Knútr b y an eyewitness for which we must be grateful, even if we suspect it of some exaggeration of detail Concerning events after the death of Knútr the Encomiast is well informed Although he does not add anything essential to the Chronicle, he is here very valuable as a confirmatory source, m view of the meagre and desultory nature of the entries m all manuscripts of the Chronicle m this period Finally, three points concerning the Encomiast's methods may be emphasised. Firstly, if he decides to tell an untruth, he generally contrives to do so b y implication only His handling of Emma's marriage is the supreme example of this, but there are others m his version of the story of Thorkell1 Secondly, he delights to decorate his narrative with anecdotes the chief examples are Eadmund's challenge to Knútr, the magic banner of the Danes, the execution of Eadnc b y Eirikr, Haraldr and the arch­ bishop, the forged letter, and Horthaknútr's dream m III, 9. Some or all of these tales m ay have had a foundation m popular report, but they are to be regarded as ornamental additions to the narrative Thirdly, the Encomiast is so severely selective a writer that nothing can ever be argued from his silence. 1 See above, pp liv-v A different use of implication occurs m the story of Ælfred’s murder there the complicity of Godwme is implied without definite statement, because, though it was universally believed that Godwme was involved, the Encomiast evidently thought it better not to emphasise this.

ENCOMI UM

E MM A E

REGINAE

ON THE TEXT AND TEXTUAL NOTES L L' P V C T B

= = = = = = =

British. Museum, MS. Add 33241 matter m L not m the hands of the original scribes Bibliothèque Nationale, MS Fonds L at 6235 National Library of Wales, MS Hengwrt 158 (== Pemarth 281) Htstonae Normannomm Scnptores Anhqm, edited b y A Duchesne, Pans, 1619. the agreement of V and C British Museum, MS Add 6920.

The text follows L, save for minor grammatical corrections which are signalised m the Textual Notes All matter not present or erroneously cancelled m L is enclosed m square brackets, with the exception of marks of punctuation and expansions of contrac­ tions of an obvious character Initial p is expanded as fire-, since L prefers that form to prae-, when the prefix is written out ae and § are regarded as equivalent symbols, and ae is printed for them both Letters added m the margins or above the lines b y the original scribes of L are enclosed m parentheses ( ), except when a correction has been made b y one of these scribes by writing above a cancelled letter or letters Letters printed m caret brackets < > are present m L, but are to be neglected m reading A modern system of punctuation, capitalisation and word-division is substituted for that of the manuscript. The passage m II, 16, which is now lost m L, is given according to T, m the spelling of C, but with the substitution of u for the initial v of C. Pertz’s division into three books is retained, although the beginning of the third book is not indicated in L b y a heading there is, however, a blank space and an ornamented initial The division of the books into chapters is also that of Pertz In the Textual Notes, the self-corrections of the original scnbes of L are recorded, but corrections m late hands (L') are not noticed (even when the same correction is made m the present text), except when they have rendered the original reading obscure. The comments and conjectures of L ' are excluded, with one exception {see on III, 1, 2) From P only the major variants are given, together with a few readings which support doubtful readings of L, suggest how L is to be corrected, or throw light on the relationship of L and P Readings of V and C are given only m a few cases, where they are of special interest, and B is neglected entirely

INCIPIT PROLOGUS Salus tibi sit a Domino Iesu Chnsto, o regina, que omnibus m hoc sexu positis prestas moram eligantia. Ego seruus tuus nobilitati tuae digna factis meis exhibere nequeo, quoque pacto uerbis saltem illi placere possim nescio Quod enim cuiuslibet peritiae loquentis de 5 te uirtus tua premmet, omnibus a quibus cognosceris ipso solis mbare clarius lucet. Te igitur erga me adeo bene mentam magmfacio, ut morti intrepidus occumberem, si in rem tibi prouenire crederem. Qua ex re, mihi etiam ut precipis, memoriam rerum gestarum, rerum mquam tuo tuorumque honori attinentium, httens meis posteritati mandare gestio, sed ad hoc faciendum me' mihi sufficere posse dubito o Hoc enim m historia proprium exigitur, ut nullo erroris diuerticulo 1 a recto uentatis tramite 12 decimetur, quoniam, cum quis alicuius gesta scribens uentati falsa quaedam seu errando, siue ut sepe fit ornatus gratia, interserit, profecto unius tantum comperta admixtione mendatii auditor facta uelut infecta ducit. Unde historicis magnopere cauendum esse censeo, ne ueritati quibusdam falso interpositis contraeundo nomen 3 5 etiam perdat, quod uidetur habere ex offitio. Res enim uentati,4 uentas quoque fidem facit rei Hec mecum aliaque huiusmodi me reputante rubor animum uehementer excruciat, cum pariter considero, quam pessime in talibus sese humana consuetudo habeat. Uldens enim aliquis quempiam pro exprimenda rei ueritate uerbis indulgentem, uanae loquacitatis eum mordaciter redarguit,05 alium uero, ) quem d m blasphemium fugientem et aequo modestiorem m narratione, cum operta denudare debeat, aperta oc[c]uluisse dicit. Tali itaque angustia circum septus0 ab inuidentibus loquax dici timeo, si neglecta uenustate dictamnus historiam scripturus multiplici narratione usus fuero. Quoniam uero, qum scripturus sim, euadere me non posse uideo, unum horum quae proponam eligendum esse autumo, scilicet aut 5uariis iudicus hominum subiacere, aut de his, quae mihi a te, domina regina, precepta sunt, precipientem neghgendo conticessere. Malo itaque a quibusdam de loquacitate redargui, quam ueritatem maxime memorabilis rei per me omnibus occultari. Quocirca, quandoquidem lubentem dominam magni pendens hanc mihi elegi uiam, excusabiles 5 deinceps occasiones posthabens hinc narrationis contextionem 6*8faciam. ° redarguit Ta erased after t h u w ord, doubtless because the s c n b e w as a b o u t to o m it th e w ords ahum dicit, but observed M s error after w ritin g the fir s t two letters o f the n e x t sen ten ce, L 6 circumseptus * circumceptus, L, corrected by I S 1 err o n s d iu erticu lo * the expression is found elsewhere, as Paul N o l, Ep , Appendix, 2, n , and Boeth, P o r p h y r (Vienna Corpus, xlvm, p io) 2 a recto u e n ta tis tram ite practically the same phrase occurs Am m , xxii io, 2, but similar expressions are frequent in the Encomiast's period 3 n o m e n . that is, presumably, the name of ‘ historian ' (scrip tor reru m gestaru m ) Gertz emends h i s t o n a s to historico, which improves both the grammatical smoothness of the sentence and the rhyme 4 R e s em m u e n ta ti, etc Gertz explains rather than translates • * Er det nemlig saa, at Kendsgerningen selv skaffer den sanddru Fremstilling Tiltro, saa er det ogsaa omvendt saa, at den sanddru Fremstilling skaffer Kendsgerningen Anerkendelse som Kendsgerning. * Cf Ruotger, V ita B r u n o m s , 9 : 4euentus rei non multo post dictis fidem fecit ' 8excu sa b iles . . occasiones . probably ‘ affairs from which one can excuse oneself ' , the Encomiast proposes to neglect all non-essential business m order to attend to his undertaking.

4

PROLOGUE May our Lord Jesus Christ preserve you, 0 Queen, who excel all those of your sex m the admirability of your w ay of life. I, your servant, am unable to show you, noble lady, anything worthy in m y deeds, and I do not know how I can be acceptable to you even m words That your excel­ lence transcends the skill of any one speaking about you is apparent to all to whom you are known, more clearly than the very radiance of the sun. You, then, I esteem as one who has deserved of me to such a degree, that I would sink to death unafraid, if I believed that my action would lead to your advantage. For this reason, and, furthermore, m accordance with your injunction, I long to transmit to posterity through my literary work a record of deeds, which, I declare, touch upon the honour of you and your connections, but I am m doubt concerning my adequacy for doing this This qualify, indeed, is required m history, that one should not deviate from the straight path of truth b y any divergent straying, for when m writing the deeds of any man one inserts a fictitious element, either m error, or, as is often the case, for the sake of ornament, the hearer assuredly regards facts as fictions, when he has ascertained the introduction of so much as one he. And so I consider that the historian should greatly beware, lest, going against truth by falsely introducing matter, he lose the very name which he is held to have from his office. The fact itself, to be sure, wins belief for the veracious presentation, and the veracious presentation does the same for the fact. Having reflected upon these and similar matters, shame powerfully afflicts my spirit, when I likewise consider how very imperfect the cus­ tomary behaviour of mankind is m such matters. In fact, when a man sees somebody giving the rein to words to express the truth of a matter, he blames him bitterly for loquacity, but another, whom I describe as one avoiding reproach, and too restrained m his account, he declares, indeed, to hide what was open, when he ought to uncover what was concealed. And so, hedged m by such difficulty, I fear to be called loquacious by the envious, if neglecting elegance of form, I adopt a prolix method of narration when addressing myself to writmg history. Smce, indeed, I see that I cannot avoid writing, I aver that I must choose one of the alternatives which I am about to enunciate, that is either to submit to a variety of criticisms from men, or to be silent concerning the things enjoined upon me by you, Lady Queen, and to disregard you, who enjoin me. I prefer, accordingly, to be blamed by some for loquacity, than that the truth of so very memorable a story should be hidden from all through me. Therefore, smce I have chosen this way for myself, greatly esteeming the lady who commands me, I will set aside one after the other affairs from which I can excuse myself, and proceed to the composition of m y narrative.

This explanation involves the assumption that occasio had already m the eleventh century developed the sense ‘ affair m which its English derivative occasion is first used m the sixteenth century (see N E D , s v occasion, sb1 , sense 6) I cannot parallel this usage, but the only other explanation possible of the phrase is to take it as ‘ pretexts which excuse one giving to excusa bilis an active force of extreme rarity, of which T h é s , s v , col 1297, quotes only one example, Claud. Don, A m Prooem , p. 3, 10, c f , however, A S. Napier, O ld E n g lish Glosses, L 2793. 6 narrationis contextionem . the expression occurs also m Macr, Som n S a p i 2, 11.

5

6

ENCOMIUM EMMAE REGINAE

[ARGUMENTUM] Fortasse, o lector, ambiges, meque scriptorem errons ° aut inscitiae redargues, cur in Euius libelli capite actus laudesque S u em i b strenuissimi regis promulgauerim, cum in suprascnpta epistola ipsum codicellum laudi huius dominae me spoponderim facturum . Quod ita esse ipse fatebere, meque ab eius laudibus nusquam accipies 5 deuiare, si pnm a mediis, atque si extim a sagaci more conferas pnm is. A tqu e ut ad Eoe intuendum nulla erroris impediaris nebula, a similibus atque a penitus ueris hoc tib i habeas theorema. Aeneida conscnptam a Uirgilio quis poterit infitiari ubique laudibus respondere Octouiani ,** cum pene nihil aut plane parum eius m entio uideatur nominatim intersen ? Anim aduerte 2 igitur laudem suo generi asscnptam ipsius o decon clantudims claritatisque m omnibus nobilitare gloriam. Quis autem h o c c neget, laudibus reginae hunc per omnia respondere codicem, cum non m odo ad eius gloriam scnbatur, uerum etiam eius m axim am 3 uideatur optm ere partem ? Id tibi si probabile non uidetur, eu iden ti d alterius rei m d itio e 4 approbetur. N o sti, quoniam, ubicumque giraueris5 circulum, primo omnium procul dubio principium 5 facies esse punctum, sicque rotato continuatim orbe reducetur circulus, quo reductu ad suum pnncipium eius figurae continuetur am bitus Sim ili igitu r continuatione laus reginae claret (in p n m is f), in medus uiget, in ultim is m uem tur, omnemque prorsus codicis summam complectitur. Quod esse m ecum sentiens sic collige. Suemus, rex Danorum, uirtute armis quoque pollens et consilio A nghcum regnum ui o suo subiugauit imperio, monensque eiusdem regni Cnutonem filium successorem esse constituit. H ic postmodum eisdem Anglis contra se sentientibus atque acriter uim inferenti ui quoque repugnantibus m ulta confecit b e lla 6 ; et fortasse u ix aut numquam bellandi adesset finis, nisi tandem huius nobilissimae reginae íugali copula 7 potiretur, fauente gratia Saluatons. U iu en s3 adhuc de hac eadem regina suscepto 5 filio, Hardecnut scilicet, quicquid suae parebat ditioni tradidit. Qui defuncto patre Anglicis absens erat, regnum siquidem Danorum procuraturus ierat ; quae absentia imperii sui fines inuadendi miusto peruason locum dedit, qui accepto regno fratrem regis nefandissima proditione interem it ; sed drama ultio subsecuta im pium que percutiens, regnum cui debebatur restituit ; quod totum in te x tu planius liq uebit. ,o Hardecnut itaque recepto regno, m aternis per omnia parens consiliis, diuitus * errons

corrected from terroris, L &Suemi : corrected from Surini, L . * « h o c . hic, L 4 euidenti. altered to uidenti by superpunctuation of e, owing to following corruption inditium, I/. * mditio . mditium, L * in prions added in margin, L. 8 uiuens : aduc erased after this word, L. 1 Octouiani. a genuine medieval spelling, e g , William of Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, ii. 170 2 Animaduerte, etc. ; Gertz tampers with the sentence unnecessarily, though the construction sius decon, * to his honour \ is somewhat forced ; cf. II, 2, quae meae repetam gloriae, 1 which will seek again to my glory * * eius maximam 4 the thought is clear ; Gertz clarifies the syntax b y adding menho after eius, but perhaps eius goes with partem (‘ part of it i.e., of the book), and gloria is to be understood from the previous clause as the subject.

f

ENCOMIUM EMMAE REGINAE

1

ARGUMENT Perchance, O Reader, you will wonder, and will accuse me of error or incom­ petence because at the beginning of this book I bring to attention the deeds and glory of Svemn, that most active kmg, since in the above epistle, I pledge myself to devote this book to the praise of the Queen. But you will admit that this is the case, and allow that I nowhere deviate from her praises, if you wisely compare the beginning with the middle, and the end with the beginning. And that no cloud of error may hinder your understanding of this, you may take the following as an illustration from similar and entirely true matters. Who can deny that the Aeneid, written by Virgil, is everywhere devoted to the praises of Octavian, although practically no mention of him by name, or clearly very little, is seen to be introduced ? Note, therefore, that the praise accorded to his family everywhere celebrates the glory of their fame and renown to his own honour. Who can deny that this book is entirely devoted to the praise of the Queen, since it is not only written to her glory, but since that subject occupies the greatest part of it ? If that does not seem satisfactory to you, let it be established by the clear proof afforded by another matter. You are aware that wherever you draw a circle, first of all you certainly establish a point to be the begin­ ning, and so the circle is made to return by continuously wheeling its orb, and by this return the circumference of the circle is made to connect itself to its own beginning. B y a similar connection, therefore, the praise of the Queen is evident at the beginning, thrives m the middle, is present at the end, and embraces absolutely all of what the book amounts to. Agreeing with me that this is the case, consider what follows Sveinn, kmg of the Danes, mighty alike m courage and arms and also in counsel, brought the English kingdom under his rule by force, and, dying, appomted his son Knútr to be his successor m the same kingdom. The latter, when he was opposed by the English, and vigorously usmg force was resisted by force, afterwards won many wars , and perhaps there would scarcely or never have been an end of the fighting if he had not at length secured by the Saviour's favouring grace a matrimonial link with this most noble queen He had a son, Horthaknútr by this same queen, and, while still living, he gave him all that was under his control He was absent from England at his father’s death, for he had gone to secure the kingdom of the Danes. This absence gave an unjust invader a ,chance to enter the bounds of his empire, and this man, having secured the kingdom, killed the king’s brother under circumstances of most disgraceful treachery But divine vengeance followed, smote the impious one, and restored the kingdom to him to whom it belonged. All this will become more dearly evident m the narrative. And so H'orthaknútr, having recovered the kingdom, and being in all things obedient to the counsels of his mother, held the kingdom4 *7 4 ret tn d tito expression found m various writers, as Nep., AU 16. 6gtrauens, etc the writer has m mind some such description of a circle as that of Boeth , Anth. n 30 ‘ Est enim circulus posito quodam puncto et alio emmus defixo, illius puncti qui eminus fixus est aequaliter distans a pnmo puncto circumductio, et ad eundem locum reuersio unde moueri coeperat ’ 0confecti bella a fairly common collocation, see Thés , s.v conficto, col 196, and add Lucan lx 658, to the references there given 7 tugalt copula more usual is comugahs copula, as Aug., De Civ. Dei, xiv 22, etc C f , however, A en îv 16, mnclo . . tugalt, and many similar phrases

8

ENCOMIUM EMMAE REGINAE

ampliando regnum împenaliter o p tm u it, usus 1 qum etiam egregia liber[ali]tate, fratn , utpote decebat, secum regni decus atque diuitias impertiuit His enim anunaduersis, o lector, uigilique, immo etiam perspicaci, oculo mentis 12 perscrutato textu, intellige, huius libelli seriem per omnia reginae Emmae laudibus respondere. E X P L IC IT A R G U M E N T U M

[i] [i] Regem a Danorum Sueinum, inquam 34 *, uendica compen relatione omnium sui temporis regum ferme fortunatissimum extitisse, adeo ut, quod raro co n tin g i b 4 solet, pnncipus felicibus secundum Deum et seculum multo felicior responderet exitus Hic denique a nobilissimis, quod pnm um est inter homines, duxit originem, 5magnumque sibi decus secundum seculum pepent im peni quod ammim strabat regimen Tantam deinde illi gratiam diuina concessit uirtus, ut etiam puerulus intimo affectu diligeretur ab omnibus, tantum patri propno inuisus, nulla hoc promerente pueruli culpa, sed sola turbante muidia. Qui factus muems 5 in amore cotidie crescebat populi ; unde magis magisque muidia augebatur patri, adeo ut eum o a patna non ïam clanculum sed palam uellet expellere, mrando asserens6 eum post se regnaturum non esse Unde dolens exercitus relicto patre herebat filio, et eum defensabat sedulo. Huius rei gratia congrediuntur m p raelio , m quo uulneratus fugatusque pater ad Sclauos fugit, et non multo post ibi obiit, et Suem eius solium quiete tenuit. Quam strenue0 uero prudenterque interim seculana disposuerit ; negotia, paucis libet ad memoriam reducere, quatinus his interpositis facilius sit gradatim per haec ad subsequentia descendere. Denique cum nullo hostium incursu trepidus pacem m securitate ageret, periculi semper ac uelut instantis metuens in castris m uniebat7, quod hostibus si adessent nullatenus fortasse resisteret, nihilque suis quae bello necessaria forent preparando patiebatur remissi, scilicet ne per otium, ) ut assolet, uiriles emolhrentur an im i8. Nullum tamen adeo difficile muemre poterat negotium, ad quod muitos mpulisset milites, quos m ulta liberali munificentia sibi a Regem P begins here under the following title, Ex eodem Gilda m Historia de Sueyno et Knuctone, quam m gratiam scripsit ad reginam Emmam b contingi contingere, P , conmngi conjectures Gertz with hesitation (cf Introduction, p xviii, and Linguistic Note below) ° Quam strenue . positi (31) regnum prudenter et strenue m rebus omnibus gubernans et suos m armis ad quoscunque euentus exercens et clementia liberalitateque artissime sibi deumciens, P 1 usus , egregia hber[ali\tate cf Odilo, Epitaphium Adelheidae, 12, ‘ usa . perfecta liberalitate ' 33oculo mentis this expression, which is as old as Cioero, is a favourite m the Encomiast's period e g , Undo (ed Duchesne, p 53), Sig Gemblac, Vita Deoderict, 22 ; Folquin, Vita Folqmni, 8 8 inquam . . compen. the Encomiast generally makes his own observations m the 1st person sing, but sometimes in the 1st plur. (cf III, 6) , cf Stevenson's Asser, pp 199-200. * uendica compen relatione ’ . cf Miracula S Bertini, 44 . * uendicornm uirorum . sedula compertum est relatione '. 4 contingi¥ MS. P has contingere, which Duchesne also suggests in the margin Obvious as this proposal is, it is wiser to retain the reading of L, and to assume that contingi is used with deponent force ; cf E Löfstedt,, Philologischer Kommentar zur Peregrinatio Aetheriae (Uppsala and Leipzig, 1911), p. 215. See Textual Note for porposalby Gertz.

ENCOMIUM EMMAE REGINAE

g

imperially and increased it with riches Y e a and furthermore, exercising admirable liberality, he shared, as was fitting, the honour and wealth of the kingdom between his brother and himself Noticing these matters, O Reader, and having scanned the narrative with a watchful, nay more, with a penetrating eye, understand that the course of this book is devoted entirely to the praise of Queen Emma.

BOOK I I. Sveinn, king of the Danes, was, I declare, as I have ascertained from truthful report, practically the most fortunate of all the kings of his time, so that, as seldom occurs, his happy beginning was followed by an end much happier from both the spiritual and the worldly point of view He, then, derived his descent from a most noble source, a thing of foremost importance among men, and the government of the empire which he administered brought him great worldly honour. The divine power granted him such great favour, that even as a boy he was held b y all in close affection, and was hated only b y his own father. No fault of the boy deserved this : it was due only to envy. When he grew to be a young man, he increased daily in the love of his people, and, accordingly, his father's en vy mcreased more and more, so that he wished, not m secret, but openly, to cast him out, affirming b y oath that he should not rule after him. The army, grieved b y this, deserted the father, adhered to the son, and afforded him active protection. As a result they met in a battle, in which the father was wounded, and fled to the Slavs, where he died shortly afterwards Sveinn held his throne undisturbed I wish to indicate briefly how truly actively and wisely he conducted his worldly affairs in the meanwhile, m order that, after this digression, it m ay be easier to pass on m succession from these matters to what followed. When Svemn was at peace, and m no fear of any attack b y his foes, acting always as if m fear of danger, and indeed of pressing danger, he attended to the strengthening of any positions m his fortresses, which might not have resisted hostile forces, should they have appeared, and, preparing everything necessary for war, he permitted no remissness m his men, lest their manly spirit should, as often happens, be softened b y inactivity Nevertheless, he could have found no activity so irksome, that his soldiers would have been unwilling, if he impelled them to it, for he had rendered them submissive and faithful to himself b y manifold and generous munificence. So that you m ay realise how highly he was regarded b y his men, I can strongly affirm that not one of them would have recoiled from danger owing to fear of

5 lu u e m s a very vague term m Medieval L atin , cf A Hofmeister m P a p sttu m tm d K a isertu m (Munich, 1926), p 316 6 luran do asserens we should perhaps read sub m reiura nd o asserens , a phrase used below, III, I, 16, with which V ita Osw aidi (Rame, H isto ria n s o f the Ch urch o f Y o r k , 1 468), ‘ sub mreiurando promiserunt * may be compared , turando, however, is used m similar phrases, e g , Wipo, V ita C huonradi 4, *íurando subiciebantur * 7 in castris m um ebat, etc * he fortified whatever there was among the defensive positions, which would perhaps not have withstood an enemy ’ Gertz reads id for m , but this is unneces­ sary, for quod — (id) quod The Encomiast frequently omits the antecedent of a relative, even though it is not m the same case as the relative, as m the clause following that under discussion, quae bello necessaria foren t preparanâo , ‘ preparing the things which would be necessary m the event of war * 8 em ollirentur a n im i the collocation anim os em ollire occurs Greg M ag, M o ra l m 20, Monk of St Gall, Gesta K a r o h , 1 4.

IO

ENCOMIUM EMMAE REGINAE

fecerat obnoxios et fideles A tque u t scias, quantus suorum fuerit m precordiis, prc certo affirmare ualeam, quod nullus formidine m ortis periculum refugeret, eiusque pro fidelitate hostibus innumeris solus, arm atis etiam m anibus nudis, m pertem tus 25 occurreret, si euntibus tantum regale prem onstraretur signum A t ne m e credal aliquis hec falsa fingendo alicuius amoris gratia com pilare : recte am m aduertenti ir subsequentibus patebit, utrum uera dixerim an minime. Om nibus enim 1 liquel procul dubio, quoniam humanitatis ita sese habeat consuetudo, u t plerum que es rebus prospere cedentibus mentes quorum dam plus equo exagitet cogitationum 30 aestus, atque ex nimia m ocio licentia aggrediuntur aliqui, quod u ix cogitare nedum facere audent m aduersitate positi. [2] Ita etiam 0 prelibati regis m ilitibus, cum m com positae pacis diuturnitati cuncta cessissent prospere, firma sm pro benefactis domini fretis stab ilitate eadem ipsi agitanti placuit suadere, terram A nglicam m uadendo sorte bellica im perii su: fimbus adicere “ Turchil ” , inquiunt, “ princeps m iliciae tuae, dom ine rex, licentis 5 a te accepta 2 abiit, ut fratrem suum m ibi interfectum ulcisceretur, e t magnam partem exercitus tui abducens uicisse se gaudet, et nunc m eridianam partem prouinciae metor obtinet, ac m auult ibi exui degens am icusque factu s A nglorum quos tua manu uicit, gloriari, quam exercitum reducens tib i subdi tib iqu e uictoriam ascribi. E t nunc fraudam ur sociis et quadraginta puppibus, quas secum duxil 10 onustas de Danorum bellatoribus primis. Non* tam graue dominus noster patiatm dispendium, sed abiens cupientem ducat exercitum , et illi Turchil contumacem adqmremus cum suis satellitibus, eis quoque federatos A nglos cum om nibus eorum possessionibus. Scimus enim diu eos non posse resistere, quia nostrates u in ad noi transibunt facile. Quod si eos uelle contigerit, rex duci suo D am sque parcens eos 15 honoribus ampliabit. Si autem noluerint, quem despexere sentient ; hac filaqu« patria priuati inter primos hostes regis paenas luent ” [3] Huius rei adhortationem rex ubi audiit, primum secum m irari non m edio­ criter caepit, quia, quod ipsi diu dissim ulanti celantique m m entem uenerat, itidem m ilitibus cogitationem eius ignorantibus animo sederat. Accersito itaqu e Cim tone filio suo maiore, quid sibi super hoc negotii uideretur, orsus est inquirere. Inquisitus 5 autem ille a patre, m etuens ne redargueretur, si placito contrairet, tegn a socordiae non tantum terram adeundam esse approbabat, uerum etiam instigat hortaturque ne m ora ulla inceptum detineat. Ergo rex consultu optim atum firm atus militumqu« beniuolentia fisus classem numerosam iussit parari et um uersam m ilitiam D anorun undique moneri, u t statuto die arm ata adesset, et regis sententiam audiens quaequ« 10 imperarentur deuotissime expleret. Cursores m ox prouintiae ex iussu domini su cunctam pergirant regionem, quietam quoque commonefaciunt gentem , ne quis e? 0 Ita etiam . finibus {4, 30) * Tandem suadentibus amicis et proceribus statuit ualidun , exercitum in Angliam traucere, maxime quod pridem illuc precesserat Turchil princeps milieu cum ualxda manu, de cuius fide dubitabat, quod nihil de suis mibi gestis renunciasset Instruitu: igitur preualida et ornatissima classis Ipse interim regm custodie prefecit filium natu minorem cui nomen Haraldns, maiorem uero Knutnm sme Canutum secum ducens Omnibus igitur paratu , et cum exercitu conscensis nauibus dextera nelificatione tandem ad oras Britannicas appulit, 3? 1 Omnibus emm, etc , Gertz begins the second chapter here, and with reason, for these genera observations axe intended to introduce and explain the actions of Sveinn’s warriors described u chapter 2. w

ENCOMIUM EMMAE REGINAE

ii

death, but, unafraid, would have gone out of loyalty to him against innumerable enemies alone, and even with bare hands against armed men, if only the royal signal should be given to them as they went. And lest any man think that I am lying, and concocting what I say from regard for any person's favour, m what is to follow, it will be plain to any one paying due attention, whether I am telling the truth or not. For it is abundantly plain to all, that it is the habit of human nature that fervour of mental activity, arising from favourable circumstances, unduly stimulates the spirits of some, and that some will undertake matters owing to the excessive liberty which they enjoy m time of leisure, which they would hardly contemplate, much less perform, if placed in unfavourable circumstances. 2. And so when m the continuity of a settled peace all matters were turning out favourably, the soldiers of the above-mentioned king, confident that they would profit by the firm steadfastness of their lord, decided to persuade him, who was already meditating the same plan, to invade England, and add it to the bounds of his empire b y the decision of war. “ Thorkell,” said they, “ your m ilitary com­ mander, Lord King, having been granted licence by you, has gone to avenge his brother, who was killed there, and leading away a large part of your army, exults that he has conquered. Now, as a victor, he has acquired the south of the country, and living there as an exile, and having become an ally of the English, whom he has conquered through your power, he prefers the enjoyment of his glory to leading his army back, and m submission giving you the credit of his victory. And we are cheated of our companions and forty ships, which he led with him, manned from among the best Danish warriors. Let not our lord suffer so grave a loss, but go forth leading his willing army, and we will subdue for him the contumacious Thorkell, together with his companions, and also the English who are leagued with them, and all their possessions. We are certain that they cannot resist long, because our country­ men will come over to us readily. If they are willing to do so, the king, sparing his commander and the Danes shall advance them with honours ; but if they are un­ willing, they shall know whom it is that they have despised Deprived of country both here and there, they shall pay the penalty among the foremost enemies of the king.” 3. When the king heard their exhortation m this matter, he began to wonder not a little, that what had long before entered his mind, though he had dissimulated and concealed, had been present in the hearts of his soldiers, who did not know his thoughts. And so having summoned Knútr, his elder son, he began to inquire what were his views concerning this matter. He, questioned by his father, fearing to be accused, if he opposed the proposal, of wily sloth, not only approved of attacking the country, but urged and exhorted that no delay should hold back the undertaking. Therefore, the king, supported by the counsel of his chief men, and relying upon the goodwill of his soldiers, ordered that a numerous fleet should be prepared, and that warning should be given on all sides to the entire m ilitary power of the Danes to be present under arms at a fixed date, and in obedience to the king's wish, to perform with the utmost devotion whatever they were commanded. Messengers soon traversed the whole country at the command of their king, and admonished the tranquil people, m order that no member of so great an army should escape the choice 2 accepta . . . licentia a frequent expression in Medieval Latin, e g , the * Astronomer Vita Hludowtci, 4 and 49, Miracula S Bertim, 42 A

12

ENCOMIUM EMMAE REGINAE

tanto exercitu deesset, quin omms bellator terrae aut iram regis incurreret, aut lussioni eius aduolaret. Quid ergo ? Absque contradictione adunantur, m structique armis bellicis gregatim regi suo presentantur, ostentantes se paratos ad periculum 15 et ad mortem, si tantum domini sui queant perficere uoluntatem. R e x autem uidens populum innumerabilem uoce preconaria lussit suam patefieri uoluntatem , se uelle scilicet classem aduersum Anglos armare ditionique suae omnem hanc patriam ferro dolisue 1 subicere. Quod ubi omnibus uisum esset laudabile, elegit primum qui regnum suum deberent custodire, ne °, dum alienum incaute appeteret, illud quod 20 securus tenebat amitteret, et intentus in utroque neutri imperaret. H abebat enim filios duos bonae indolis2, ex quibus primogenitum suo m nxit com itatui, n a tu buero minorem prefecit uniuersi regni dominatui, adm ncta ei copia militari paucisque primatum, qui puerulum sagaciter instituerent, et qui huic consiliis arm isque pro muro essent [4] Omnibus ergo rite d ispositis3 recensuit comites expeditionis, rehctoque minore filio s u a c m sede adnt nauigium uallatus arm ato m ilite. N ec m o r a . con­ curritur undique ad littora, circumfertur passim armorum seges m ultigena. A ggregati tandem turritas ascendunt puppes, eratis rostris duces singulos indentibus dis5 criminantes. Hinc emm erat cernere leones auro fusiles m puppibus, hm c autem uolucres m summis malis uenientes austros suis 4 signantes uersibus aut dracones uanos minantes incendia de naribus, illinc homines de solido auro argentoue rutilos uiuis quodammodo non mpares, atque dime tauros erectis sursum collis protensisque cruribus mugitus cursusque umentium simulantes. Uideres quoque delphinos 10 electro fusos, ueteremque remémorantes fabulam de eodem m etallo centauros. Eiusdem preterea celaturae m ulta tibi dicerem insignia, si non monstrorum quae sculpta inerant me laterent nomina. Sed quid nunc tibi latera carinarum memorem, non modo om atitiis depicta coloribus, uerum etiam aureis argenteisque aspera signis ? Regia quoque puppis tanto pulcntudm e sui ceteris prestabat, quanto rex 15 suae dignitatis honore milites a n teced eb at, de qua mekus est u t sileam, quam pro magnitudine sui pauca dicam. Tali itaque freti classe dato signo repente gaudentes abeunt, atque uti lussi erant, pars ante, pars retro, equatis tam en rostris, regiae puppi se circum ferunt. Hic uideres crebris tonsis uerberata late spumare cerula, metallique repercussum fulgore solem duplices radios extendere m aera. Quid 20 plura ? Tandem quo intendebant animi appropiabant finibus, cum finitimos mari patrienses eius rei sinister commouit nuntius. Nec mora : quo regia classis anchoras fixit, mcolae eius loci concurrunt ad portum, potention se frustra parati defendere intrandi aditum # Denique relictis nauibus regn milites ad terram exeunt, et pedestn pugnae intrepidi sese accmgunt. Hostes pnm o dunter contra resistentes dim icant, postea 25 uero periculi form(id)ine uersi m fugam sauciandi occidendique copiam persequentibus 0 ne c sua

corrected from nec, L. corrected from suo, b or L '

6 natu

corrected from natum, L.

1 ferro dolisue cf Sali, Iug 25, 9, aut m aut doits , for the rare antithesis dolus-ferrum 01 Amm„ xyli 13, 3, S en , Here. Oet 438. * bonae indolis this old expression is a favourite in the period * e g , Dudo (ed Duchesne, p. 113) ; Sig. Gemblac, Vita Deodenci, passim, Ruotger, Vita Brunonts, 4 , Wipo, Vita Chuonradt, 23. * Omnibus . rite dispositis - again below, II, 16, 1 ; cf. S ta t , Theb vu 390-1

ENCOMIUM EMMAE REGINAE

*3

by which every warrior of the land must either incur the king's anger or hasten to obey his command W hat then ? They mustered without any objection, and, having been provided with the arms of war, were presented troop b y troop to the king and showed themselves prepared for danger or death if only they could perform the will of their lord. The king, seeing this innumerable host, ordered his wishes to be made known b y means of heralds, that is to say, that he desired to arm a fleet against the English, and to bring all their country under his rule by force or stratagem* When this had appealed to all, he first selected persons to take charge of his own kingdom, lest while he was incautiously seeking a foreign one, he should lose the one which he held securely, and intent upon both, should rule neither. He had two sons of excellent qualities, and he took the elder m his own company, placing the younger at the head of the government of his whole kingdom, and attaching to him a military force and a few of his chief men, to instruct the boy wisely, and be a wall to him b y their counsel and arms 4. And so, everything being duly arranged, he reviewed the comrades of his expedition, and leaving his younger son m his place, went to his ship surrounded by armed soldiery. There was no delay on all sides men were proceeding to the shore, and a variety of armed men were on every side When at length they were all gathered, they went on board the towered ships, having picked out by observation each man his own leader on the brazen prows. On one side bons moulded in gpld were to be seen on the ships, on the other birds on the tops of the masts indicated by their movements the winds as they blew, or dragons of various lands poured fire from their nostrils Here there were glittering men of solid gold or silver nearly comparable to live ones, there bulls with necks raised high and legs outstretched were fashioned leaping and roaring like live ones One might see dolphins moulded in electrum, and centaurs m the same metal, recalling the ancient fable. In addition, I might describe to you many examples of the same celature, if the names of the monsters which were there fashioned were known to me. B u t why should I now dwell upon the sides of the ships, which were not only painted with ornate colours, but were covered wifh gold and silver figures ? The royal vessel excelled the others m beauty as much as the long preceded the soldiers m the honour of his proper dignity, concern­ ing which it is better that I be silent than that I speak inadequately. Placing their confidence m such a fleet, when the signal was suddenly given, they set out gladly, and, as they had been ordered, placed themselves round about the royal vessel with level prows, some in front and some behind. The blue water, smitten b y many oars, might be seen foaming far and wide, and the sunlight, cast back m the gleam of metal, spread a double radiance in the air What more ? A t length they approached the territories whither they were bound, and an ill-omened rumour of the matter disturbed the natives who dwelt nearest the sea. There was no delay : where the royal fleet cast anchor, the inhabitants of the place flocked to the port, prepared m vain to refuse access to a force stronger than themselves. Then, leaving their ships, the royal soldiers landed, and boldly made ready for an encounter on foot. A t first the enemy gave battle, and put up a severe resistance, afterwards, * austros sms, etc . it appears to be beyond doubt that the meaning is that the vanes indicated the way from which the wind was coming by their movements, cf Glossary, s v uersus.

14

ENCOMIUM EMMAE REGINAE

praestant. Ita rex ex a ffe c tu 1 pruno prelio usus adiacentem regionem inuadit, fusis fugatisque hostibus Tunc tali successu factus audentior ad naues redit, et reliquos portus, qui plures eam terram cingunt, eadem ratione inuadit Postremo uniuersam patriam tanto labore perdomuit, ut, si quis omnem historiam eius ad plenum per30 currere uelit, non modicum auditores fatigabit, et sibimet miurius erit, dum ut uoluit omnia perstringere minime ualebit. [5] A t ego a hec alteri narranda relinquens tangendo transire percupio, et ad alia festinando stilum adplicabo ad Suemi obitum, ut festiui regis Cnutonis regni elucidare queam exordium Namque, ubi ïam sepedictus rex tota Anglorum patria est intronizatus, et ubi lam pene illi nemo restitit, pauco superuixit tempore, sed tam en 5 illud tantillum gloriose. Presciens igitur dissolutionem sui co rp oris12 imminere filium suum Cnutonem quem secum habuit aduocat, sese uiam 3 uniuersae cam is ingrediendum 0 indicat. Cui 4*dum m ulta de regni gubernaculo m ultaque hortaretur de Christianitatis studio, Deo gratias illi uirorum dignissimo sceptrum commisit regale. Huius rei facto maxime Dani quibus legitim e preesse debuit fauent, eumque 10 patre adhuc uiuente regem super se constitui gaudent. Hoc ita facto pater orat filium, ut, si quando natiuitatis suae rediret ad terram , corpus paternum reportaret secum, neue pateretur se ah