ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.
VOL. II.
p. 19, [note 3]. This picture of the two natives, most likely churls, carrying the King’s body on the cart, is singularly like the story of Rufus’ own end to which we shall come presently.
[p. 27, l. 5]. I should not have said “a relic,” as I find that the black cross of Scotland is a relic of great fame, as indeed is almost implied in the story.
p. 27, [note 5]. See vol. i. p. 167.
p. 28, [note 5]. Munch (Det Norske Folks Historie, ii. 471–475, for an introduction to which I have to thank Professor Fiske of Cornell University) connects this entry with the account of Magnus’ dealings with Man, spoken of in [p. 138], and with every likelihood supposes an earlier expedition of Magnus in 1093, in which he appeared in both Scotland and Man, and which the writers of the Sagas have confounded with his expedition in 1098. We can thus understand the mention of Godred, who was certainly alive in 1093, and certainly dead in 1098. See also Anderson, Preface to Orkneyinga Saga, pp. xxxiii-xxxiv.
[p. 31, l. 14.] Not “the Breton Count Alan,” at least not the Count of the Bretons, but Alan of Richmond. See [p. 602.]
[p. 49, l. 22], for “south-western” read “north-western.”
p. 62, [note 5]. Mr. Fowler writes to me that “what is left of William of Saint-Calais is under the floor in the part of the chapter-house still used. W. G. has one of his shoes. They began at the west end in burying the bishops in the chapter-house, and gradually worked eastward, ending with Kellow before the bishop’s seat at the east end. Rites of Durham (Surtees Society ed. p. 47) gives the names as they were ‘ingraven upon stone with the figure of the crosse + annexed to every of their said names,’ i.e. on the chapter-house floor, and between ‘Walcherus’ and ‘Ranulphus comes’.
‘Willielmus Episcopus.’
We found further east ‘Will. Secundus Episcopus’ [that is William of Saint Barbara, bishop from 1143–1152]. Wyatt smashed them all more or less.”
p. 81, [note 1]. See [p. 614.]
[p. 88, l. 17.] See below, [p. 103].
p. 93, [note 2]. I presume this is the same king of whom we shall hear a great deal from [p. 137] onwards.
[p. 97, l. 2 from bottom]. I have been unable to fix the exact site of Rhyd-y-gors; but I believe it is to be looked for in Caermarthenshire.
[p. 101, l. 13]. I am also unable to fix the exact site of Yspwys.
[p. 134, l. 7 from bottom], for “Ulf” read “Wulf,” as in vol. i. p. 14. The English spelling is the better, but I suppose I was carried away by Scandinavian associations.
[p. 134, l. 11]. Munch (Det Norske Folks Historie, ii. 511) oddly refers to William of Malmesbury as making the companion of Magnus Barefoot, not a younger Harold, but the Magnus whom we have already heard of as our Harold’s son, as I suppose, by Eadgyth Swanneshals. But William of Malmesbury distinctly says Harold, and I can see nothing about it in the places in the Saga of Magnus and the Orkneyinga Saga to which he refers.
p. 136, l. 4 from bottom, for “Cronan” read [“Crouan.”]
p. 138, [note 1]. This is placed in the year 1098.
[p. 144, l. 1]. I know not by what carelessness I contrived, after referring (see [p. 131]) to Giraldus’ account of the earlier doings of the two Earls in Anglesey, to leave out all mention of his account of Hugh of Shrewsbury’s death, which follows immediately (It. Kamb. ii. 7, vol. vi. p. 129) on the story of the desecration of the church of Llantryfrydog. It agrees on most points very minutely with the narrative of Orderic; but it does not seem to be borrowed from it;
“Accesserant ad insulæ portum ab Orchadum insulis piratæ in navibus longis; quorum adventum ubi comes audivit, statim eis usque in ipsum mare, forti residens equo, animose nimis occurrit. Et ecce navium princeps, cui nomen Magnus, primæ navis in prora cum arcu prostans sagittam direxit. Et quanquam comes a vertice capitis usque ad talum pedis, præter oculos solum, ferro fideliter esset indutus, tamen dextro percussus in lumine, perforato cerebro, in mare corruit moribundus. Quem cum sic corruentem victor ab alto despiceret, superbe in victum et insolenter invectus, dixisse memoratur lingua Danica, ‘Leit loupe,’ quod Latine sonat Sine salire. Et ab hac in posterum hora potestas Anglorum in Monia cessavit.”
The only difference between this story and Orderic’s is that, while Orderic makes Magnus mourn when he learns whom he has slain, Giraldus puts into his mouth two good Teutonic words of triumph, which sound a great deal more natural. On the other hand we cannot accept Giraldus’ account of the immediate result of the encounter as regards Anglesey, which quite contradicts the witness of the Welsh writers. His statement however is true in the long run, as Anglesey was delivered again the next year. See [p. 146].
In the Orkneyinga Saga, c. xxix. (p. 55, Anderson), Magnus “takes a psalter and sings during the battle.” Then, by his order, he and the man from Hálogoland shoot at the same time, and hit “Hugh the Proud,” much as in the other versions. He and “Hugh the Proud” are oddly spoken of as “British chiefs.”
[p. 146, l. 17]. See below, pp. [442], [623]; but the words “and of other parts of North Wales” had better be left out.
p. 153, [note 1], for “muentione” read “inuentione.”
[p. 174, l. 4], for “from” read “for.”
[p. 175, l. 3]. I think we must accept this distinct statement as more trustworthy than the flourish of Orderic a few pages later, which I have quoted in p. 178, [note 1]. The present passage, besides its more distinct character, has the force of a correction.
p. 178, [note 3]. Suger is a discreet writer, or one might suspect him of exaggeration in his figures both ways. If we take “milites” in the strict sense of knights, the French numbers seem strangely small, and the English strangely large. But any other sense of “miles” would make the French numbers quite incredible.
p. 181, [note 1]. And by the Loir too; see below, [p. 276].
[p. 190, l. 9 from bottom], “superinducta” is the favourite epithet for her.
p. 201, [note 2]. “Fraterculus” is an odd word; but it most likely points to Geoffrey as being one of the “canonici pueri” of whom we hear sometimes (see below,[ p. 521]). “Frater” did not get its special meaning till the rise of the Friars, and we have seen the word “fratres” applied to the canons of Waltham. One might for a moment think that Geoffrey was a brother of the Bishop’s own, but this is forbidden by the account of his kindred which directly follows.
p. 207, [note 1]. This time, when William and Robert were together at Rouen, can only have been about September, 1096, just after the conference between the brothers spoken of in vol. i. p. 559, and just before Robert set forth on the crusade.
[p. 230, last line], for “he” read “we.”
p. 243, [note 1]. It is rather odd that exactly this same phrase of “callidus senex,” here applied to Robert of Meulan, should be also applied to the old Roger of Beaumont in the story told in vol. i. p. 194. We must remember that our present “callidus senex” had been married, seemingly for the first time, only two years before (see vol. i. p. 551), and that he lived till 1118.
[p. 250, l. 8]. This is doubtless true, but the specially strange guise, described in the passage of William of Malmesbury referred to in the note, was not put on till William of Aquitaine had come back from the crusade. See above, [p. 113].
p. 252, [note 2]. See above, [p. 178], and the correction just above, [p. 175.]
p. 260, [note 3]. See at the end of the chapter, [p. 302], and [note 1].
[p. 290, l. 2 from bottom]. Yet see the piece of Angevin scandal quoted in [p. 609].
[p. 312, l. 10], for “both Rogers, the Duke of Apulia and the young Count of Sicily, to be one day the first and all but the most famous of Sicilian kings,” read “both Rogers, the Duke of Apulia and the Count of Sicily, now drawing near to the end of his stirring life.” The elder Roger was still alive, though he did not live long after.
[p. 343, l. 1]. The abbey of Saint Alban’s was not vacant at this time, see [p. 666]; and for “thirteen” and “twelve” read “twelve” and “eleven,” see [note].
p. 347, [note 2]. Orderic is rather full on the circumstances of the election than on the election itself; see [p. 680].
[p. 359, l. 11], for “thirteen” read “eleven.”
p. 360, [note 1]. It must have been at the same time that Abbot Odo of Chertsey was restored to his abbey. See vol. i. p. 350.
p. 380, [note 4]. We have had one or two other cases of a church tenant like this Eadric or Godric, giving back his lease by way of a benefaction.
[p. 389, l. 18]. The imperial dignity of Matilda is greatly enlarged on by the poet of Draco Normannicus, i. 4. Two lines are,
“Suscipit Henricus sponsam, statimque coronat,
Hoc insigne decus maxima Roma dedit.”
[p. 396, l. 4]. See vol. i. p. 184.
[p. 413, l. 6] from bottom, for “in a neighbour” read “a neighbour in.”
[p. 416, l. 1]. I cannot admit the statement of Flambard’s Durham biographer, who puts his restoration at this point. It is not so much that he had no claim to restoration by the general terms of the treaty, for he might have been specially included in it. But his restoration at this time is quite inconsistent with Orderic’s account of his dealings with the bishopric of Lisieux, which cannot be mere confusion or invention.
[p. 450, l. 3]. After the words “give thanks to the Lord God,” insert “for thou hast now begun to be a free king.”
[p. 454, l. 13 from bottom], for “his” read “the King’s.”
[p. 472, l. 1]. This grant of Northallerton must be the same as the grant mentioned in the charter which I have quoted in p. [535]; cf. pp. [299], [508].
[p. 487, ll. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.] It does not appear that any of the regular assemblies of the year 1101 was held at Windsor. The Whitsun assembly (see [p. 399]) may have been held there, but it is hardly likely. But the mere confirmation of an earlier grant need not have been made in a regular gemót.
[p. 503, l. 13]. For “hanc terram” read “hac terra.”
[p. 508]. Several gifts of Rufus to the Abbey of Gloucester are recorded in the Gloucester Cartulary, i. 68, i. 102, i. 115. This last, which appears again in ii. 293, is a grant to the abbey of the right of catching sturgeons. This cannot have been one of the grants made during his sickness at Gloucester (see vol. i. p. 395), as it is dated from Huntingdon; but in the grant in i. 102, it is expressly said that it was made when the King was “apud Gloucestriam morbo gravi vexatus.” In i. 238, 239, 240, Henry and Stephen confirm gifts of their brother and uncle. The document in ii. 107, which in the index is referred to William Rufus, clearly belongs to the Conqueror, and to the earlier part of his reign, before the death of William Fitz-Osbern in 1071; it refers to the lands of the church of Gloucester which were held by Archbishop Thomas. See N. C. vol. ii. p. 690.
In the Register of Malmesbury (p. 330) there is a singular charter in favour of the Abbey of Malmesbury granted during his stay at Hastings in 1094. It brings in several familiar names great and small, and illustrates the relations between landowners of any kind and the King and his huntsmen;
“Willelmus rex Angliæ O. episcopo et W. Hosato, et C. venatori, et A. falconario, salutem. Sciatis me abbati Godefrido silvas suas ad custodiendum commendasse. Nolo ergo ut aliquis forestarius meus de eis se intromittat. Et Croco venatori præcipio ut de ix. sol. quos super homines suos placitaverat eum et suos clamet quietos. Teste Willelmo episcopo, et F. filio Hamonis, R. capellano, apud Hastinge.”
p. 569, heading, for “Losinga” read “Herbert.”
[p. 585, l. 1]. It is odd that William of Malmesbury should speak of the all-powerful Roger of Salisbury as “alius quidam episcopus;” for we see from the Chronicle (see [p. 587]) that it was no other.
[p. 592, l. 10], for “þaes” read “þæs.”
[p. 600, l. 6 from bottom]. I seem in [p. 30] to have taken “puellæ nostræ” to mean the nuns; but it would rather seem, both here and in the next page, to mean, other girls sent merely for education, like Eadgyth herself.
[p. 605, l. 8 from bottom]. I cannot get rid of a lurking notion that this “Aldredi” should be “Alberici.” But I do not know how Alberic could appear with the title of earl in the time of Waltheof.
[p. 611, l. 9 from bottom]. See M. Paris, ed. Wats, Additamenta, p. 199.