[170] Sim. Dun. de Gestis, Chron. Sax., and Flor. Wig., ad an. 1091. Orderic also gives an account of this expedition—as usual a gossiping mixture of truth and absurdity. Malmsbury (l. 4, sec. 311) says that “William performed nothing worthy of his greatness, whilst he lost many of his men and baggage-horses.” Wendover, from his frequent literal transcriptions of Malmsbury, must have had this passage before him when he wrote “venientes igitur rex et frater ejus Robertus in Angliam, acies duxerunt in Scotiam, unde Malcolmus nimio terrore percussus homagium regi fecit Anglorum, et fidelitatem juravit,” (vol. ii., p. 37). In a similar manner “that most authentic and valuable volume, the Book of Abingdon,” (?) expands the short sentence in which Simeon describes the abortive invasion of Scotland by Robert in 1080—“Cum pervenisset ad Egglesbreth nullo confecto negotio reversus, etc.”—into the following inflated narrative:—“Verum rex illi Lodoniis occurrens cum suis, pacisci potius quam præliari delegit. Perinde ut regno Angliæ principatus Scotiæ subactus foret, obsides tribuit. Quo pacto inito Regis filius cum exercitu ad patrem hilaris repedavit” (Vide Appendix Q). When the comparative failures of Robert and William in 1080 and 1091 are thus misrepresented—failures which were notorious, and admitted to be so by the contemporary English chroniclers—what degree of confidence can be attached to the inflated descriptions of the successes of the earlier English kings, which are to be found in the same authorities? We can only judge by results.
[171] Sim. Dun. de Gestis and Chron. Sax. 1092.
[172] Sim. Dun. de Gestis and Chron. Sax. ad an. 1093.
[173] Malcolm was evidently taken by surprise. “He sent and demanded the fulfilment of the treaty that was promised him. And the king, William, cited him to Gloucester, and sent him hostages to Scotland, and Edgar Atheling afterwards and the men returned that brought him with dignity to the king. But when he came to the king he could not be considered worthy either of our king’s speech or of the conditions that were formerly promised him.” Such are the words of the Saxon Chronicler, yet Malmesbury says (sec. 311), “Malcolm came of his own accord to Gloucester, an earnest suitor for peace on equitable conditions, but he obtained nothing, though he was permitted to return in safety, as the king disdained to capture by fraud one whom he had subdued by valour.” The safe conduct and the hostages detract something from this much vaunted magnanimity, but Malmesbury would sacrifice a good deal for the sake of a well turned period. The assertion which Simeon and Florence have placed in the mouth of Malcolm conveys a valuable piece of historical information, though it does not follow that the king spoke feudal Latin because they have written it. The presence and intervention of the leading nobles of both kingdoms at meetings on the frontier implies the independence of both kings; for if the king of Scotland had been the vassal of England for his kingdom, he and all his followers would have been liable to have been cited to the court of their suzerain at the will of the latter, as actually happened in the reign of William the Lion. In the convention between Rufus and Robert, twelve barons on each side confirmed the agreement in token of the independence of both parties (Flor. Wig. 1091). In the treaty between Richard and William the Lion four barons appear in the same way on either side (Fœd. vol. i., pt. 1, p. 50); and both Scottish and English nobles invariably affix their names to the conventions between their kings, recorded so often in the Fœdera. In attempting to force Malcolm to submit to the judgment of the English barons when he had come to Gloucester on an errand of a totally different description, William appears to have been actuated principally by overweening arrogance, though he may also have endeavoured to found a precedent injurious to Scotland; and it is singular to mark how nearly all the English authorities accuse Malcolm of “a breach of faith” because he resented the conduct of William, whilst they pass over without notice the glaring “breach of faith” on the part of their own king.
[174] Morel was king Malcolm’s “Godsib,” or, in other words, they had stood Godfathers together. This bond of spiritual relationship appears to have been thought a very sacred tie in those days, and to be unfaithful to the Godsib was considered a heinous sin, at any rate amongst the Gael; for the four Masters describe the state of the country as peculiarly wretched when “there was no protection for Church or Fortress, Gossipred or mutual oath.” An. F. M. 1050, O’Donovan.
[175] Sim. Dun. de Gestis and Chron. Sax. 1093. Fordun, l. 5, c. 25. Malm. Gesta Regum, l. 4, sec. 311. Both Malmesbury and the Saxon Chronicler imply that Malcolm lost his life by treachery, and the account of Orderic, as usual a strange mixture of truth and error, goes far to prove the existence of a tradition to this effect. He is next said to have been slain at the siege of Alnwick Castle, though it is more than doubtful if a castle then existed on the banks of the Alne. From Alnwick Castle the step was easy to the family so long connected with that border fortress, and the Scottish king was at length said to have been slain by a knight, who, issuing from the castle gate with the keys on the point of his lance in token of surrender, suddenly pierced the eye of Malcolm, acquiring from this feat the name of Pierce eye or Percy! About two centuries after the fall of Malcolm an improbable story was circulated at Tynemouth, that the body of a peasant had been palmed off upon Alexander for that of his father, Mat. Paris Addit, p. 129. The writer adds that Malcolm was conquered “by order of Henry the First,” and winds up his account of the deceit with these quaint words “ita delusa est Scottorum improbitas.” The keen relish with which he enjoys the idea of overreaching “the Scotch rogues” is amusing. Pleasures of rare occurrence are sometimes supposed to be the sweetest.
[176] Life of Margaret, ascribed to Turgot, and contained in the “Acta Sanctorum, June 10.” Malcolm was obliged to put up with his losses, but to every one else she restored twofold what she borrowed for charity.
[177] Twysden, p. 367. Ailred heard this anecdote from Malcolm’s son David. It has been transferred by some later writers to the Saxon Edgar, the Scottish Kenneth playing the part of the guilty nobleman. The hunt was conducted “secundum legem venandi quam vulgus tristam vocat.” An open plain, encircled by a belt of wood, was the scene of the sport; a flowery hillock in the centre the place of rendezvous for the sportsmen; whom Malcolm placed in different commanding positions, ready to let slip their dogs upon the game as it was driven by the beaters from covert.
[178] The principal point which Margaret succeeded in carrying out was connected with Lent, which the Gaelic Church kept from Quadrigesima Sunday instead of from Ash Wednesday. The Gaelic practice was long the universal custom, and it is still doubtful who added the four days. Pope Gregory the Great speaks of the thirty-six days of abstinence, though some maintain that he was the first to begin Lent from Ash Wednesday, whilst others refer the change to the time of Gregory the Second (Bingham, bk. 21, c. 1), in which they are probably correct, as the custom would otherwise have penetrated into the Gaelic Church when it conformed to the Roman practice in the days of Nectan and Ceolfrith. The other practices which Margaret endeavoured to reform were—1. A reluctance to communicate on Easter Sunday. 2. Labour on Sundays. 3. Marriage with the widow of a father or brother. 4. The celebration of the service with barbarous rites, or, in other words, in a manner to which she was unaccustomed. In the latter point she seems to have been unsuccessful, for the Culdees still continued to celebrate their office more suo in the days of Alexander and David (Vide Margaret’s Life by Turgot, c. 2). It is worthy of remark that Margaret seems to have made no attempt to separate the Culdees from their wives; and as numbers of the Anglo-Saxon clergy were married men at that time, particularly in the provinces beyond the Humber, where the customs of the Northmen were little interfered with, it is probable that she did not consider their manner of life contrary to ecclesiastical discipline. The system of Hildebrand did not penetrate into England until after the Norman Conquest. In one of his Charters (Ancient Laws, etc., of England, vol. i., p. 495) William says, “Sciatis ... quod episcopates leges, quæ non bene nec secundum sanctorum canonum precepta usque ad mea tempora in regno Anglorum fuerunt ... emendandas judicavi.”
[179] “At least,” says the honest historian, “the dishes and vessels were gilt or silvered over.”—Hailes, vol. 1, p. 44.