[205] It does not appear necessary to discuss the previous question of the alleged “cession of Lothian” by Edgar, the evidence for which is very slender.
[206] As to this identification, see Skene, Celtic Scotland, i., 397, 405–6.
[207] Certainly not 1031, as stated in the Chronicle. Canute’s presence at Conrad’s coronation makes this date impossible. So considerable an error throws doubt on the chronological accuracy of, at any rate, this part of the Chronicle.
[208] In Scania, which then belonged to Denmark.
[209] This story of the forged letter is taken from the author of the Encomium Emmæ, who, as a contemporary, and as one who actually conversed with Queen Emma, seems to be entitled to credence, notwithstanding some strange misstatements, due, perhaps, rather to insincerity than to ignorance.
[210] Mr. Plummer (Saxon Chronicles, ii., 210–15) argues that Godwine’s hostile action towards the Etheling was taken in the interest not of Harold but of Harthacnut.
[211] Freeman, Norman Conquest, i., 489–501 and 779–87.
[212] Son of Uhtred and nephew of Eadwulf Cutel.
[213] Or Leges Mar chiarum, a digest of which was published in 1705 by William Nicolson, Bishop of Carlisle (a later edition in 1747).
[214] It is perhaps not a mere coincidence that some even of the special terms of the Leges Marchiarum are also to be found in the laws of Edgar and Ethelred. Such are foul or ful for “guilty,” and trod for the track of a stolen beast.