Res petit, et par est, quaecumque per otia summa
Nacti pace sumus, belli ditione mereri.”
The same amusing author tells us[[299]] how on some occasion, in consequence of there being no queen in a court, the comites were ill supplied with clothes, a difficulty which they could only provide against by inducing their king to marry: “Igitur contubernales Frothonis circa indumentorum usum feminea admodum ope defecti, quum non haberent unde nova assuere, aut lacera reficere possent, regem celebrandi coniugii monitis adhortantur.” There seems no reason to doubt the fact thus recorded, however we may judge respecting its occurrence in the time of Frotho. Similarly when Siegfried set out upon his fatal marriage expedition into Burgundy, he and his twelve comrades were clothed by the care of the royal Síglint[[300]]. From this relation between the prince and the comites, are derived the names appropriated to the former in the epopoea, of hláford, lord, literally bread-giver: sinces brytta, beága brytta, distributor of treasure, rings; sincgifa, treasure-giver, and the like. It is clear also that a right to any share in the booty could not be claimed by the gesíð, as it undoubtedly could by the free soldier in the Hereban, but depended entirely upon the will of the chief, and his notions of policy: a right could not have been described as the result of his liberality. In the historical time of Charlemagne we have evidence of this[[301]]: “Quo accepto ... idem vir prudentissimus idque largissimus et Dei dispensator magnam inde partem Romam ad limina Apostolorum misit per Angilbertum dilectum abbatem suum; porro reliquam partem obtimatibus, clericis sive laicis, caeterisque fidelibus suis largitus est:” or, as it is still more clearly expressed in the annals of Eginhart[[302]], “reliquum vero inter optimates et aulicos, caeterosque in palatio suo militantes, liberali manu distribuit.” And similarly we are told of Æðelstán: “Praeda quae in castro reperta fuerat, et ea quidem amplissima, magnifice et viritim divisa. Hoc enim vir ille animo imperaverat suo, ut nihil opum ad crumenas corraderet; sed omnia conquisita, vel monasteriis, vel fidelibus suis, munificus expenderet[[303]].” The share of the freeman who served under his geréfa, and not under a lord, was his own by lot, and neither by largitio nor liberalitas,—a most important distinction, seeing that where all was left to the arbitrary disposition of the chief, the subservience of the follower would very naturally become the measure of his liberality.
The relation of the Comites was one of fealty: it was undertaken in the most solemn manner, and with appropriate, symbolic ceremonies, out of which, in later times, sprung homage and the other incidents of feudality. All history proves that it was of the most intimate nature; that even life itself was to be sacrificed without hesitation if the safety of the prince demanded it: the gesíðas of Beówulf expose themselves with him to the attack of the fiendish Grendel[[304]]; Wígláf risks his own life to assist his lord and relative in his fatal contest with the firedrake[[305]]; and the solemn denunciation which he pronounces against the remaining comites who neglected this duty, recalls the words of Tacitus, and the infamy that attached to the survivors of their chief[[306]]:
| Hú sceal sincþego and swyrdgyfu, eall éðelwyn, eówrum cynne lufen álicgean: londrihtes mót ðǽre mǽgburge monna ǽghwilc ídel hweorfan, siððan æðelingas feorran gefricgean fleám eówerne, dómleásan dǽd. Deáð bið sella eorla gehwylcum ðonne edwitlif. | How shall the service of treasure and the gift of swords, all joy of a paternal inheritance, [all] support fail your kin: of the rights of citizenship must of your family every one go about deprived, when once the nobles far and wide shall hear of your flight, your dishonourable deed. Death is better for every warrior than a life of shame. |
But we are not compelled to draw upon the stores of poetry and imaginative tradition alone: the sober records of our earlier annalists supply ample evidence in corroboration of the philosophical historian. When Cwichelm of Wessex sent an assassin to cut off Eáduuini of Northumberland, that prince was saved by the devotion of his thane Lilia, who threw himself between, and received the blow that was destined for his master; in the words of Beda[[307]]: “Quod cum videret Lilla minister regis amicissimus, non habens scutum ad manum quo regem a nece defenderet, mox interposuit corpus suum ante ictum pungentis; sed tanta vi hostis ferrum infixit, ut per corpus militis occisi etiam regem vulneraret.” Again we learn that in the year 786, Cyneheard, an ætheling of Wessex, who had pretensions to the crown, surprised the king Cynewulf at the house of a paramour at Merton, and there slew him. He proffered wealth and honours to the comites of the king, which they refused, and with small numbers manfully held out till every one had fallen. On the following morning a superior force of the king’s thanes came up: to them again the ætheling offered land and gold, but in vain: he was slain on the spot with all his own comites, who refused to desert him in his extremity. This is the account given of these facts in the words of the Saxon Chronicle itself[[308]]:
| And ðá gebeád he him heora ágenne dóm feos and londes, gif hie him ðæs ríces úðon, and him cýðde, ðæt heora mǽgas him mid wǽron, ða ðe him from noldon. And ðá cwǽdon hie, ðæt him nǽnig mǽg leófra nǽre ðonne heora hláford, and hie næfre his banan folgian noldon. And ðá budon hie heora mǽgum ðæt hie him gesunde from eódon. And hie cwǽdon, ðæt ðæt ilce heora geferum geboden wǽre ðe ǽr mid ðám cyninge wǽron; ðæt hie hie ðæs ne onmunden, ðon má ðe eówre geferan ðe mid ðám cyninge ofslægene wǽron. | And then he offered them their own desire of money and land, if they would grant him the kingdom, and he told them that their own relatives were with him, who would not desert him. Then said they, that no relative was dearer to them than their lord, and that they never would follow his murderer. And then they offered their relatives that they should leave him, with safety for themselves: but they said, that the same offer had been made to their own comrades who at first were with the king: that they paid no more attention to it, than your comrades who were slaughtered with the king. |
Æthelweard, Florence of Worcester, and Henry of Huntingdon all follow the chronicle, which in some details they apparently translate. William of Malmesbury seems to adopt the same account, but adds a few words which have especial reference to this portion of the argument[[309]]: “quorum (i. e. comitum) qui maximus aevo et prudentia Osricus, caeteros cohortatus ne necem domini sui in insignem et perpetuam suam ignominiam inultam dimitterent, districtis gladiis coniuratos irruit.”
It is obvious that from this intimate relation between the prince and the gesíð must arise certain reciprocal rights and duties, sanctioned by custom, which would gradually form themselves into a code of positive law, and ultimately affect the state and condition of the freemen. In the earliest development of the Comitatus, it is clear that the idea of freedom is entirely lost; it is replaced by the much more questionable motive of honour, or to speak more strictly, of rank and station. The comes may indeed have become the possessor of land, even of very large tracts[[310]], by gift from his prince; but he could not be the possessor of a free Hide, and consequently bound to service in the general fyrd, or to suit in the folcmót: he might have wealth, and rank and honour, be powerful and splendid, dignified and influential, but he could not be free: and if even the freeman so far forgot the inherent dignity of his station as to carry himself (for his éðel I think he could not carry) into the service of the prince,—an individual man, although a prince, and not as yet the state, or the representative of the state,—can it be doubted that the remunerative service of the chief would outweigh the barren possession of the farmer, or that the festive board and adventurous life of the castle would soon supply excuses for neglecting the humbler duties of the popular court and judicature? Even if the markmen razed him from their roll, and committed his éðel to a worthier holder, what should he care, whom the liberality of his conquering leader could endow with fifty times its worth; and whose total divorce from the vulgar community would probably be looked upon with no disfavour by him who had already marked that community for his prey? Nor could those whom the gesíð in turn settled upon lands which were not within the general mark-jurisdiction, be free markmen, but must have stood towards him in somewhat the same relation as he stood to his own chief. Upon the plan of the larger household, the smaller would also be formed: the same or similar conditions of tenure would prevail; and the services of his dependants he was no doubt bound to hold at the disposal of his own lord, and to maintain for his advantage. We have thus, even in the earliest times, the nucleus of a standing army, the means and instruments of aggrandizement both for the King and the praetorian cohorts themselves; practised and delighting in battle, ever ready to join in expeditions which promised adventure, honour or plunder, feasted in time of peace, enriched in time of war; holding the bond that united them to their chief as more sacred or stringent than even that of blood[[311]], and consequently ready for his sake to turn their arms against the free settlers in the district, whenever his caprice, his passion or his ambition called upon their services. In proportion as his power and dignity increased by their efforts and assistance, so their power and dignity increased; his rank and splendour were reflected upon all that surrounded him, till at length it became not only more honourable to be the unfree chattel of a prince, than the poor free cultivator of the soil, but even security for possession and property could only be attained within the compass of their body. As early as the period when the Frankish Law was compiled, we find the great advantage enjoyed by the Comes over the Free Salian or Ripuarian, in the large proportion borne by his wergyld, in comparison with that of the latter[[312]].
The advantage derived by the community from the presence and protection of an armed force such as the gesíðas constituted, must have gradually produced a disposition to secure their favour even at the expense of the free nobles and settlers: and a Mark that wished to entrust its security and its interests to a powerful soldier, would probably soon acquiesce in his assuming a direction and leadership in their affairs, hardly more consistent with their original liberty, than the influence which a modern nobleman may establish by watching, as it is called, over the interests of the Registration. Even the old nobles by blood, who gradually beheld themselves forced down into a station of comparative poverty and obscurity, must have early hastened to give in their adhesion to a new order of things which held out peculiar prospects of advantage to themselves; and thus, the communities deserted by their natural leaders, soon sunk into a very subordinate situation, became portions of larger unities under the protection, and ultimately the rule, of successful adventurers, and consented without a struggle to receive their comites into those offices of power and distinction which were once conferred by popular election.