IX. THE SEQUEL.

“ ... Asten once distained with native English blood;Whose soil, when wet with any little rain,Doth blush, as put in mind of those there sadly slain.”

The truth is “the redness of the water here, and at many other places in the neighbourhood, is caused by the oxydation of the iron which abounds in the soil of the Weald of Sussex.”[103]

To return to the battle, “Loud was now the clamour, and great the slaughter; many a soul then quitted the body which it inhabited. The living marched over the heaps of dead, and each side was weary of striking. He charged on who could, and he who could no longer strike still pushed forward. The strong struggled with the strong; some failed, others triumphed; the cowards fell back, the brave pressed on; and sad was his fate who fell in the midst, for he had little chance of rising again; and many in truth fell who never rose at all, being crushed under the throng. And now the Normans pressed on so far that at last they reached the English standard.” The Tapestry represents the eager advance of a body of horsemen. The compartment is inscribed,HIC FRANCI PUGNANT ET CECIDERUNT QUI ERANT CUM HAROLDO—Here the French are fighting, and have slain the men who were with Harold. “There Harold had remained, defending himself to the utmost; but he was sorely wounded in the eye by the arrow, and suffered grievous pain by the blow. An armed man came in the throng of the battle, and struck him on theventailleof his helmet and beat him to the ground; and as he sought to recover himself, a knight beat him down again, striking him on the thick of his thigh, down to the bone.” This is shown in the Tapestry (Plate XVI.) Harold first of all appears standing by his standard, contending with a horseman who is making a rush at him; then he is shown pulling the arrow out of his eye; and lastly he is seen, falling—

“With his back to the field, and his feet to the foe,”

—his battle axe has dropped from his nerveless grasp, and a Norman,

Image unavailable: PLATE XVI.PLATE XVI.

stooping from his horse, inflicts a wound upon his thigh. The group is superscribed,HIC HAROLD REX INTERFECTUS EST—Here Harold the King is slain.[104]

“The English were in great trouble at having lost their King, and at the Duke’s having conquered and beat down the standard; but they still fought on, and defended themselves long, and in fact till the day drew to a close. Then it clearly appeared to all that the standard was lost, and the news had spread throughout the army that Harold for certain was dead; and all saw now that there was no longer any hope, so they left the field and those fled who could.” Ingulph tells us that all the nobles that were in Harold’s army were slain;[105]we are hence led to infer that it was the untrained peasantry only who betook themselves to flight. The Tapestry is in consistency with this. The last compartment represents a group of men unprotected by body armour, and supplied only with a mace or club, retreating before a party of fully equipped horsemen. The inscription is,ET FUGA VERTERUNT ANGLI—And the English betake themselves to flight.

Happily the exact spot on which the final struggle of the day took place is clearly ascertained. The writer of theBattle AbbeyChronicletells us, that the King having resolved to commemorate his victory by the erection of a Christian temple, the high altar was placed upon the precise spot where the standard was observed to fall.[106]Long after all traces of the Abbey Church had been obliterated, the finger of tradition faithfully pointed to the spot so interesting to all Englishmen. In the year 1817, the proprietor of the soil, anxious to test the truth of the popular belief, made the necessary excavations, and in the very place indicated, at the depth of several feet below the surface, found the remains of an altar in the easternmost recess of the crypt of the church.[107]

William on that day fought well—as well he might, for he had engaged in a desperate venture—“many a blow did he give, and many receive, and many fell dead under his hand.” Two horses were killed under him. After the English had been exterminated, or had forsaken the field, the Duke returned thanks to God, and ordered his gonfanon to be erected where Harold’s standard had stood. Here, too, he raised his tent. Amidst the dying and the dead he partook of his evening meal and passed the night.

The next morning which dawned upon that sad battle field was the Sabbath. On that first day of the week no heavenly choir sang of peace on earth and good will toward men. The human familywas exhibited in its most painful aspect, “hateful and hating one another”—that field but recently covered over with the golden sheaves of harvest, now bore upon its surface the gory fruits of man’s ambition.

“When William called over the muster-roll, which he had prepared before he left the opposite coast, many a knight, who on the day when he sailed, had proudly answered to his name, was then numbered with the dead. The land which he had done homage for was useless to him now.”[108]He had come to win large domains and baronial honours—six feet of common earth was all he got. “The Conqueror had lost more than one-fourth of his army.”[109]Both parties spent the day in burying the dead. “The noble ladies of the land also came, some to seek their husbands, and others their fathers, sons, or brothers.”

The account given by Ordericus of the disposal of Harold’s body is the following: “Harold could not be discovered by his features, but was recognized by other tokens, and his corpse being borne to the Duke’s camp, was, by order of the Conqueror, delivered to William Mallet for interment near the sea-shore, which had long been guarded by his arms.”[110]William of Poictiers gives a similar statement. Later writers say that his body was interred with regal honours in Waltham Abbey. This tradition, which probably had its origin in the wish of the monks to attract visitors to the shrine at Waltham, cannot be entertained, in opposition to the expressstatements of contemporaries. Some venture, too, to assert that, though sorely wounded at Hastings, he was not killed, and that, on escaping from the field, he first fled to the continent, and afterwards led the life of a recluse at Chester. This is a statement which may at once be rejected.

The difficulty in discovering the body to which Ordericus refers was, it is generally believed, overcome by Edith, surnamed, from her beauty, the Fair. The keen eye of affection discerned his mangled form amidst heaps of dead, which appeared to common observers an undistinguishable mass. What will not woman’s love accomplish!

Many writers have done great dishonour to this lady by stating that she was the mistress of Harold. Sir Henry Ellis, in hisIntroduction to Domesday Book, has proved that she was his Queen; “Aldith, Algiva or Eddeva, being names which are all synonymous.” Unhappy Elfgyva, how different her feelings now from what they were when the clerk announced to her, in his own familiar way, the rescue of Harold from the capture of Guy!

“From seeming evil still educing good.”Thomson.

TheSaxons lost the battle of Hastings. Here, however, they left no blot on their name. The old historian Daniel justly, as well as forcibly, remarks, “Thus was tried, by the great assize of God’s judgment in battle, the right of power between the English and Norman nations; a battle the most memorable of all others; and, however miserably lost, yet most nobly fought on the part of England.” The death of Harold, and the absence of any other competitor, opened the way for William to the throne. Presenting himself to the nobles of the land, assembled in London, he was in due form elected to the vacant throne, and was crowned by Aldred Archbishop of York, on Mid-winter’s day. William never claimed the English crown by right of conquest. His quarrel was with Harold, not with the English people, and he denounced him as interfering with his just claims. TheSaxon Chronicleexpressly asserts that “Before the Archbishop would set the crown upon his head, he required of him a pledge upon Christ’s book, and also swore him, that he would govern this nation as well as any king before him had at the best done, if they would be faithful to him.” He never claimed to be the Conqueror of England in the ordinarysense of the word. In his first charter to Westminster Abbey, he founds his right to the crown upon the grant of his relative Edward the Confessor. TheDomesday Bookwas not compiled until near the close of William’s reign (about the year 1086), yet in it he is not spoken of as a conqueror. “Throughout theSurvey,” says Sir Henry Ellis, “Harold is constantly spoken of as the usurper of the realm: ‘quando regnuminvasit.’ Once only is it said ‘quandoregnabat.’ Of William it is as constantly said, ‘postquamvenitin Angliam,’ after he came to England. Once only does the expression occur, ‘W. rexconquisivitAngliam,’ when he conquered or acquired England.”[111]But whatever were William’s rights and original intentions, it was impossible that he could long reign over England as a constitutional monarch. It was not likely that the great chiefs who survived the battle of Hastings would long submit to the rule of a stranger—hosts of foreigners would necessarily be introduced into the court, and this, as in the reign of the Confessor, would be a continual source of heartburning and jealousy—and, above all, the followers of the King were to be rewarded, and this could only be done by depriving the Saxon noblemen of their patrimonies. When William won the battle of Hastings, he bid farewell to peace for ever. His subsequent history was a continued series of entanglements and broils. One chieftain after another, one district and then another, became restless under his rule; eachhe crushed in succession. At length he became in the strict sense of the word the Conqueror. He ruled by the sword alone. His own Norman barons, and even his brother Odo, felt the weight of his iron hand; but it fell with peculiar force upon his native-born subjects. The writer in theSaxon Chronicle, speaking from his own knowledge, says of William, “He was a very wise and a great man, and more honoured and more powerful than any of his predecessors. He was mild to those good men who loved God, but severe beyond measure towards those who withstood his will.... He was a very stern and wrathful man, so that none durst do anything against his will, and he kept in prison those earls who acted against his pleasure.... Truly there was much trouble in these times, and very great distress; he caused castles to be built, and oppressed the poor.... He made large forests for the deer, and enacted laws therewith, so that whoever killed a hart or a hind should be blinded. He loved the tall stags as if he had been their father. The rich complained and the poor murmured, but he was so sturdy that he recked nought of them; they must will all that the king willed, if they would live; or would keep their lands; or would hold their possessions; or would be maintained in their rights. Alas! that any man should so exalt himself, and carry himself in his pride over all!”[112]Ingulph speaks of the entire subjugation of the English people, and of their systematic exclusion from offices of honour. “Many of the chief men of the land, for some time, offered resistance to William, the newking, but, being afterwards crushed by his might and overcome, they at last submitted to the sway of the Normans.... So inveterately did the Normans at this period detest the English, that, whatever the amount of their merits might be, they were excluded from all dignities; and foreigners who were far less fitted, be they of any other nation whatever under heaven, would have been gladly chosen instead of them.”[113]Henry of Huntingdon uses language which the English of the present day, accustomed as they are to rear their heads proudly among the nations, can hardly understand. “In the twenty-first year of the reign of King William, when the Normans had accomplished the righteous will of God on the English Nation, and there was now no prince of the ancient regal race living in England, and all the English were brought to a reluctant submission, so thatit was a disgrace even to be called an Englishman, the instrument of Providence in fulfilling its designs was removed from the world.”[114]“Many of the people,” as Holinshed tells us, “utterly refusing such an intolerable yoke of thraldom as was daily laid upon them, chose rather to leave all, both goods and lands, and after the manner of outlaws, got them to the woods with their wives, children, and servants, meaning from henceforth to live upon the spoils of the country adjoining, and to take whatsoever came next to hand.”

Notwithstanding the heavy pressure of these evils good ensued. The political tempest resulted in the increased purity, health, and peace, of the national atmosphere.

William established a strong government. Had Harold been unopposed from without, he would have had rivals from within the nation. The opposition of his own brother Tostig was but a prelude of what the general result of his reign would have been. Ambitious men, such as Edwin and Morcar, the Earls of Mercia and Northumbria, would on the least provocation have espoused the cause of Edgar Atheling, and by rendering the land a scene of internal discord, have made it an easy prey to new bands of adventurers from Denmark, Norway, Flanders, and France. William, by the vigour, and even harshness of his rule, quelled internal dissension, and bid defiance to foreign rivalry.

The Norman invasion hastened and perfected the establishment of the feudal system in England. This system had one great defect, which renders it unfit for the present condition of England—it altogether overlooked the claims of the lower classes, who always form the great bulk of the population; still, it produced most beneficial results in the eleventh and twelfth centuries. It brought all the great barons of the empire into subjection to the sovereign, and by defining the corresponding duties of the mesne lords and inferior tenants, knit the whole kingdom into one. By this unity the realm was prepared to put down intestine broils, and to resist foreign aggression. A way too was prepared for the elevation of the lower classes. The system had but to be extended in order to define the duties, and to confer corresponding privileges, upon every member of the community.

Learning and civilization were greatly advanced by the NormanConquest. Italy at this time was the focus of the knowledge and refinement of the world. The light kindled by the genius of Attica, and nurtured by the philosophy and poetry of the Augustan era, still irradiated the seven-hilled city. Britain, severed from the main-land by a stormy channel, had less intercourse with Rome than the nations of the continent. Though William of Malmesbury may have somewhat overdrawn the statement, still there is much truth in the picture which he gives of the social condition of the Saxons at the time of the Conquest. “In process of time the desire after literature and religion had decayed, for several years before the arrival of the Normans. The clergy, contented with a very slight degree of learning, could scarcely stammer out the words of the sacraments; and a person who understood grammar was an object of wonder and astonishment. The nobility were given up to luxury and wantonness. The commonalty, left unprotected, became a prey to the most powerful, who amassed fortunes, by either seizing on their property, or by selling their persons into foreign countries; although it be an innate quality of this people to be more inclined to revelling, than to the accumulation of wealth. Drinking was a universal practice, in which they passed entire nights as well as days. They consumed their whole substance in mean and despicable houses; unlike Normans and French, who, in noble and splendid mansions, lived with frugality.”[115]There cannot be a doubt that by the introduction of the refinements of life the condition of the people was improved,and that a check was given to the grosser sensualities of our nature. Certain it is that learning received a powerful stimulus by the conquest. At the period of the Norman invasion, a great intellectual movement had commenced in the schools on the continent. Normandy had beyond most other parts profited by it. William brought with him to England some of the most distinguished ornaments of the schools of his native duchy; the consequence of this was that England henceforward took a higher walk in literature than she had ever done before.[116]

Another important advantage resulting from the Conquest was the emancipation of the lower classes. At the period of the invasion the great bulk of the population were in a servile condition. One class of the people, the churls, were attached to the land, and were transferred with it from one master to another without the power of choosing their employer, or taking any steps to improve their condition—another large class, the thews, were the absolute property of their owners. The attempts which Alfred and some of the clergy made to remedy this gigantic evil were attended with but partial success. The Conquest gave it its death blow. The convulsions which ensued afforded great numbers the wished-for opportunity of escaping from thraldom. Many of the landowners, seeing the shipwreck of their fortunes inevitable, made a virtue of necessity, and manumitted their serfs. One of William’s regulations had a tendency quietly to complete what was thus auspiciously begun. He passed a law declaring that every slave whohad resided unchallenged a year and a day in any city or walled town in the kingdom, should be free for ever.[117]This law became a door of hope to many, and in due time not one slave was left in England. It had another very beneficial effect. Men were led to congregate in towns; knowledge was promoted; a stimulus was given to the cultivation of the refinements of social life; and the commoners, strong in their numbers, were induced to assert and maintain their common rights.

Even the despotic measures of the king had a beneficial influence upon the lower grades of society. The thanes and aldermen of the Confessor’s days being deprived of their lands, were glad to hold a small portion of them as the inferior tenants of the great Norman barons. Hence sprung the yeomanry of England, who, in days of difficulty and danger, have often proved themselves the mainstay of the country. The Saxon noblemen, in descending from their high estate, brought with them their independence of feeling and high spirit. They were chastened but not crushed. They not only maintained their own freedom of thought, but infused a portion of their energy into the newly emancipated class below them. Formerly the difference in social position between the landed proprietor and the tiller of the soil was so great, that there could be little friendly intercourse between them, and no unity of interest; but now, by the formation of a middle class, the two extremes of society were linked together, and all classes placed in a position to benefit the rest, as well as to be benefited by them.The hope of rising in the social scale now dawned upon the lower orders.

Another signal benefit resulted from the Conquest. It brought to our English soil a host of men renowned in their own persons and those of their descendants for all that is great in art and arms, for all that is noble in knightly enterprise and chivalric feeling. Strike out from the page of history the deeds of the Montfords, the Marmions, the Warrens, the Nevilles, the Percys, the Beauchamps, the Bruces, the Balliols, the Talbots, the Cliffords, and a host of others who fought with William at Hastings, or followed in his wake, what a blank would be left. True, they were not always found contending on the side of liberty and truth; but, on the whole, they contributed to the developement of England’s liberties and enlightenment and power, and left an example of indomitable energy and manly bearing which mankind to the latest ages will do well to copy.

One other view of the subject we must take. England required chastisement, but shall the oppressor on that account go free? The chroniclers most favourable to William do not conceal the harshness and covetousness which disfigured the latter part of his reign. They tell us, too, of the evils which afflicted his age, and pursued him beyond the tomb. His eldest son rose in rebellion against him. Many of his own nobles joined the undutiful youth; even his beloved wife Matilda favoured him. In the New Forest, which he had wrongfully appropriated to his own pleasures, his son Richard was slain, during his lifetime. His son William,who succeeded him, came to a violent end in the same place. A grandson also is said to have perished in it. Whilst ravaging Mantes, in revenge for an idle jest, he met with his own death stroke. No sooner had he ceased to breathe than his lifeless body was forsaken by his family and domestics. When all that remained of the once potent William was about to be committed to the tomb, the man from whom he had wrested the site forbade his burial; some of the bystanders ‘of their charity’ satisfied the claim, and the Conqueror was laid in an eleemosynary grave. At a subsequent period that grave was violated, and his bones dispersed.

His followers, bent upon enriching themselves at the expense of justice, did not escape. Many of them rose in rebellion, and were crushed. Others suffered in the troubles which ensued upon his death. In the struggle between Stephen and Matilda, dreadful was the havoc committed upon the followers of William and their children. During the Wars of the Roses, nearly all the great families founded at the Conquest suffered calamities differing little in kind or degree from those which the victors of Hastings inflicted upon the old nobility of the land. History gives emphasis to the divine injunction, “Fret not thyself because of evil doers, neither be thou envious against the workers of iniquity: for they shall soon be cut down like the grass, and wither as the green herb.”

The authority for the odd story of the Duke of Normandy’s courtship is the following passage in theChronicle of Tours, quoted in theEncyclopædia Metropolitana, Vol. xi., p. 527,n.

“Tunc Guillelmus, Dux Normanniæ, Mathildam, filiam Balduini Comitis Flandriæ duxit in uxorem in hunc modum. Cum ipsa a Patre suo de sponso recipiendo sæpius rogaretur, eique Guillelmus Normannicus a Patro, qui eum longo tempore nutrierat, præ aliis laudaretur, respondit, nunquam Nothum recipere se maritum. Quo audito, Guillelmus Dux elam apud Brugis, ubi puella morabatur, cum paucis accelerat, eamque, regredientem ab Ecclesiâ pugnis, calcibus, atque calcaribus verberet atque castigat, sicque ascenso equo in patriam remeat. Quo facto, puella dolens ad lectum decubat; ad quam Pater veniens illam de sponso recipiendo interrogat et requirit; quæ respondens dixit se nunquam habere maritum nisi Guillelinum Ducem Normanaiæ; quod et factum est.”

As the following letter of M. Thierry’s is less accessible to the English reader than most of the documents connected with the Bayeux Tapestry it is here given in full. It is addressed to M. de la Fontenelle de Vandoré:—

“Monsieur,—Pardonnez-moi de répondre bien tard à une demande qui, venant de vous, m’honore infiniment. Vous désirez savoir ce que je pense desRecherches et conjecturesde M. Bolton Corneysur la tapisserie de Bayeux; je vais vous le dire, en aussi peu de mots et aussi nettement que je le pourrai. L’opinion soutenue par M. Bolton Corney comprend deux thèses principales: 1º que la tapisserie de Bayeux n’est pas un don de la reine Mathilde, ni même un don fait au chapitre de cette ville par un autre personne; qu’elle a été fabriqué pour l’église cathédrale de Bayeux, sur l’ordre et aux frais du chapitre; 2º que ce vénérable monument n’est pas contemporain de la conquête de l’Angleterre par les Normands, mais qu’il date dutemps où la Normandie se trouvait réunie à la France. De ces deux thèses, la première me semble vraie de toute évidence, la seconde est inadmissible.“La tradition qui attribuait à la reine Mathilde la pièce de tapisserie conservée à Bayeux, tradition, du reste, assez récente, et que l’abbé de La Rue a réfutée, n’est plus soutenue par personne. Quant à la seconde question, celle de savoir si cette tapisserie fut ou non un présent fait à l’église de Bayeux, M. Bolton Corney la résout négativement, et d’une façon qui me semble péremptoire. Au silence des anciens inventaires de l’église il joint des preuves tirées du monument lui-même, et démontre avec évidence que ses détails portent une empreinte très-marquée de localité, que la conquête de l’Angleterre par les Normands y a été considérée en quelque sorte au point de vue de la ville et de l’église de Bayeux. Un seul évêque y figure, et c’est celui de Bayeux, très-souvent en scène et quelquefois désigné par son seul titre:episcopus. De plus, parmi les personnages laïques qui figurent à côté du duc Guillaume, pas un ne porte un nom historique. Les noms qui reviennent sans cesse sont ceux de Turold, Wadard et Vital, probablement connus et chéris à Bayeux, car les deux derniers, Wadard et Vital, sont inscrits sur le Domesday-Book, au nombre des feudataires de l’église de Bayeux, dans les comtés de Kent, d’Oxford, et de Lincoln. Si l’on joint à ces raisons celles que M. Bolton Corney déduit de la forme et de l’usage particuliers du monument, il est impossible de ne pas croire avec lui que la tapisserie fut commandée par le chapitre de Bayeux et exécutée pour lui.“Je passe à la seconde proposition, savoir que la tapisserie de Bayeux fut exécutée après la réunion de la Normandie à la France. Cette hypothèse n’exige pas une longue réfutation, car l’auteur du mémoire la fonde sur une seule preuve, l’emploi du motFrancipour désigner l’armée normande. ‘Guillaume de Poitiers, dit-il, appelle ceux qui faisaient partie de l’arméeNormanni, des Normands; la tapisserie les nomme toujoursFranci, des Français. Je considère cela comme une bévue indicative du temps où le monument a été exécute.’ Il n’y a là aucune bévue, ni rien qui puisse faire présumer que la tapisserie de Bayeux n’est pas contemporaine de la conquète de l’Angleterre par les Normands. En effet, les Anglo-Saxons avaient coutume de désigner par le nom de Français (Frencan, Frencisce men) tous les habitants de la Gaule, sans distinction de province ou d’origine. La Chronique saxonne, dans les mille endroits où elle parle des chefs et des soldats de l’armée normande, les appelle Français. Ce nom servait en Angleterre à distinguer les conquérants de la population indigène, non-seulement dans le langage usuel, mais encore dans celui des acts légaux. On lit dans les lois de Guillaume-le-Conquérant, à l’article du meurtre, ces mots:Ki Franceis occist, et, dans la version latine de ces lois:Si Francigena interfectus fuerit. L’emploi du motFranciau lieu deNormanni, ne prouve donc point que la tapisserie de Bayeux date d’un temps posterieur à la conquête. S’il prouve quelque chose, c’est que la tapisserie a été exécutée non en Normandie, mais en Angleterre, et que c’est à des ouvriers ou ouvrières de ce dernier pays que le chapitre de Bayeux a fait sa commande.“Cette opinion, que je soumets au jugement des archéologues, est confirmée d’ailleurs par l’orthographe de certains mots et par l’emploi de certaines lettres dans les légendes du monument. On y trouve, jusque dans le nom du duc Guilluame et dans celui de la ville de Bayeux, des traces de prononciation anglo-saxonne:Hic Wido adduxit Haroldum ad Wilgelmum normannorum ducem; Willem venit Bagias; c’est legsaxon qui figure ici avec sa consonancehié.WilgelmpourWilielm,BagiaspourBayeux. La dipthongueea, l’une des particularités de l’orthographe anglo-saxon, se rencontre dans les légendes qui offrent le nom du roi Edward:Hic portatur corpusEadwardi. Une autre légende présente cette indication de lieu, correctement saxonne:Ut foderetur castellum atHestenca castra. Enfin le nom deGurth(prononcezGheurth), frère du roi Harold, est orthographié avec trois lettres saxonnes; leg, ayant le son deghél’y, ayant le son d’eu, et led barré, exprimant l’une des deux consonnances que les Anglais figurent aujourd’hui parth.“Ainsi, je crois, avec la majorité des savants qui ont écrit sur la tapisserie de Bayeux, que cette tapisserie est contemporaine du grand événement qu’elle représente; je pense, avec M. Bolton Corney, qu’elle a été exécutée sur l’ordre et aux frais du chapitre de Bayeux; j’ajoute, pour ma part de conjectures, qu’elle fut ouvrée en Angleterre et par des mains anglaises, d’après un plan venu de Bayeux.“Agréez, Monsieur, l’assurance de ma considération la plus distinguée.“AUG. THIERRY.“Le 25 juin 1843.”

“La tradition qui attribuait à la reine Mathilde la pièce de tapisserie conservée à Bayeux, tradition, du reste, assez récente, et que l’abbé de La Rue a réfutée, n’est plus soutenue par personne. Quant à la seconde question, celle de savoir si cette tapisserie fut ou non un présent fait à l’église de Bayeux, M. Bolton Corney la résout négativement, et d’une façon qui me semble péremptoire. Au silence des anciens inventaires de l’église il joint des preuves tirées du monument lui-même, et démontre avec évidence que ses détails portent une empreinte très-marquée de localité, que la conquête de l’Angleterre par les Normands y a été considérée en quelque sorte au point de vue de la ville et de l’église de Bayeux. Un seul évêque y figure, et c’est celui de Bayeux, très-souvent en scène et quelquefois désigné par son seul titre:episcopus. De plus, parmi les personnages laïques qui figurent à côté du duc Guillaume, pas un ne porte un nom historique. Les noms qui reviennent sans cesse sont ceux de Turold, Wadard et Vital, probablement connus et chéris à Bayeux, car les deux derniers, Wadard et Vital, sont inscrits sur le Domesday-Book, au nombre des feudataires de l’église de Bayeux, dans les comtés de Kent, d’Oxford, et de Lincoln. Si l’on joint à ces raisons celles que M. Bolton Corney déduit de la forme et de l’usage particuliers du monument, il est impossible de ne pas croire avec lui que la tapisserie fut commandée par le chapitre de Bayeux et exécutée pour lui.

“Je passe à la seconde proposition, savoir que la tapisserie de Bayeux fut exécutée après la réunion de la Normandie à la France. Cette hypothèse n’exige pas une longue réfutation, car l’auteur du mémoire la fonde sur une seule preuve, l’emploi du motFrancipour désigner l’armée normande. ‘Guillaume de Poitiers, dit-il, appelle ceux qui faisaient partie de l’arméeNormanni, des Normands; la tapisserie les nomme toujoursFranci, des Français. Je considère cela comme une bévue indicative du temps où le monument a été exécute.’ Il n’y a là aucune bévue, ni rien qui puisse faire présumer que la tapisserie de Bayeux n’est pas contemporaine de la conquète de l’Angleterre par les Normands. En effet, les Anglo-Saxons avaient coutume de désigner par le nom de Français (Frencan, Frencisce men) tous les habitants de la Gaule, sans distinction de province ou d’origine. La Chronique saxonne, dans les mille endroits où elle parle des chefs et des soldats de l’armée normande, les appelle Français. Ce nom servait en Angleterre à distinguer les conquérants de la population indigène, non-seulement dans le langage usuel, mais encore dans celui des acts légaux. On lit dans les lois de Guillaume-le-Conquérant, à l’article du meurtre, ces mots:Ki Franceis occist, et, dans la version latine de ces lois:Si Francigena interfectus fuerit. L’emploi du motFranciau lieu deNormanni, ne prouve donc point que la tapisserie de Bayeux date d’un temps posterieur à la conquête. S’il prouve quelque chose, c’est que la tapisserie a été exécutée non en Normandie, mais en Angleterre, et que c’est à des ouvriers ou ouvrières de ce dernier pays que le chapitre de Bayeux a fait sa commande.

“Cette opinion, que je soumets au jugement des archéologues, est confirmée d’ailleurs par l’orthographe de certains mots et par l’emploi de certaines lettres dans les légendes du monument. On y trouve, jusque dans le nom du duc Guilluame et dans celui de la ville de Bayeux, des traces de prononciation anglo-saxonne:Hic Wido adduxit Haroldum ad Wilgelmum normannorum ducem; Willem venit Bagias; c’est legsaxon qui figure ici avec sa consonancehié.WilgelmpourWilielm,BagiaspourBayeux. La dipthongueea, l’une des particularités de l’orthographe anglo-saxon, se rencontre dans les légendes qui offrent le nom du roi Edward:Hic portatur corpusEadwardi. Une autre légende présente cette indication de lieu, correctement saxonne:Ut foderetur castellum atHestenca castra. Enfin le nom deGurth(prononcezGheurth), frère du roi Harold, est orthographié avec trois lettres saxonnes; leg, ayant le son deghél’y, ayant le son d’eu, et led barré, exprimant l’une des deux consonnances que les Anglais figurent aujourd’hui parth.

“Ainsi, je crois, avec la majorité des savants qui ont écrit sur la tapisserie de Bayeux, que cette tapisserie est contemporaine du grand événement qu’elle représente; je pense, avec M. Bolton Corney, qu’elle a été exécutée sur l’ordre et aux frais du chapitre de Bayeux; j’ajoute, pour ma part de conjectures, qu’elle fut ouvrée en Angleterre et par des mains anglaises, d’après un plan venu de Bayeux.

“Agréez, Monsieur, l’assurance de ma considération la plus distinguée.

“AUG. THIERRY.

“Le 25 juin 1843.”

In theNorthumberland Pipe Rolls,[118]we have an interesting trace of Edgar Atheling.—He had been owing the crown 20 marks of silver, probably for the right to institute some law proceeding. Of this sum he paid 10 marks to the Sheriff of Northumberland in 1157 or 1158, and the remainder in the following year. Ten years later he paid 2 marks to the crown for the right to bring some plea. At this time he must have been about 120 years of age. He came with his father to England in 1057, as a child; supposing him to have been 10 years of age at this period,he would be of the great age already mentioned at the time the last payment was made. How much longer he lived there is no evidence to show. The exact place of his residence, at this time, is not known. Edlingham Castle, situated about six miles to the south-west of Alnwick, has, upon the supposition that the neighbouring village of Edlingham takes its name from him (Ætheling’s ham), been by some considered to be the spot.

The appearances presented on the examination of the remains of St. Cuthbert in Durham Cathedral are in consistency with the opinion that the mitre was not in vogue in Saxon times. Before the body of the saint was put in the shrine in 1104, it was inspected. Reginald, who gives us an account of this circumstance, says, “Upon the forehead of the holy bishop there is a fillet of gold, not woven work, and of gold only externally, which sparkles with most precious stones of different kinds, scattered all over its surface.”[119]In 1827, when the remains were again examined, Mr. Raine tells us. “The scull of the saint was easily moved from its place; and when this was done, we observed on the forehead, and apparently constituting a part of the bone itself, a distinct tinge of gold of the breadth of an ordinary fillet.” It would thus seem that a gilded fillet was the only mitre, if such it can be called, which St. Cuthbert wore.

FINIS.NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE:PRINTED BY J. G. FORSTER AND CO., CLAYTON STREET.

Image unavailable: the book's back cover

FOOTNOTES:[1]Taylor’s Wace, p. xv.[2]Ibid. p. 3.[3]Archæologia, vol. xvii., p. 105.[4]Ordericus Vitalis, bk. IV., ch. ii.[5]Roscoe’s Life of the Conqueror, p. 92.SeeNote A. at the end of the volume.[6]SeeNote B. at the end of the volume.[7]Taylor’s Wace, p. xxviii.[8]Archæologia, vol. xix., p. 186.[9]Strutt thus disposes of a difficulty which may occur to some minds.—“If any one should say, by way of objection to this established rule, that though the illuminator has not given us the customs, habits, &c., of those people he designed to picture out, yet is it not most likely that such dresses as are given should be fictitious, agreeable rather to his own wild fancy than to the real customs and habits of his own times? To answer their objection, (and that because the chief materials of the present work are collected from the ancient MSS.) the reader must be informed, that many of these MSS. (especially such as are illuminated) were done as presents, or at the command of kings and noblemen, who are generally represented in the frontispiece in their proper habits receiving the particular MS. done for them from the author, and they are generally pictured attended by their court, or retinue. That these figures should be habited in the true dress of the times will not be doubted; and then, as far as the anonymous illuminations which may chance to follow in the MS. shall agree with those figures in the frontispiece, so far they may be allowed as authentic; other MSS. were done for particular abbeys and monasteries, in the embellishments of which no pains were spared. But a still greater proof of the authenticity of these delineations is, that on examining all the illuminated MSS. of the same century together, which, tho’ various, every one written and ornamented by different hands, yet on comparing the several delineations with each other, they will be found to agree in every particular of dress, customs, &c., even in the minutiæ, which perfect similitude it would have been impossible to have preserved, had not some sure standard been regularly taken for the whole; therefore the fancy of the painter will be found to have little share in these valuable delineations. Besides, these pictures constantly agree with the description of the habits and customs of the same period, collected from the old historians.”—Strutt’s Manners, Customs, &c., of the Inhabitants of England, vol. i, p. 3.[10]Taylor’s Wace, p. 162.[11]Ibid. p. 163. n.[12]“All have hitherto treated the Bayeux Tapestry as a ‘Monument of the Conquest of England,’ following therein M. Lancelot, and speaking of it as an unfinished work: whereas it is an apologetical history of the claims of William to the crown of England, and of the breach of faith, and fall of Harold; and is a perfect and finished action.”—Mr. Hudson Gurney, Archæologia, vol. xvii., p. 361.[13]The Abbé de la Rue, in an elaborate paper in theArchæologia(vol. xvii, p. 85-109), supports the opinion that the Tapestry was prepared at the command of Matilda, daughter of Henry I. and wife of Henry V. Emperor of Germany. Lord Lyttleton (History of Henry II., vol. i, p. 353) and Hume (History of England, vol. i,noteF.) entertain similar views.[14]Vol. i., p. 328, 8vo. edition.[15]Archæologia, vol. xvii., p. 105.[16]Some idea of the labour involved in the work may be learned from the number of figures represented in it. It contains 623 men, 202 horses, 55 dogs, 505 animals of various kinds not already enumerated, 37 buildings, 41 ships and boats, and 49 trees—in all 1512 figures.[17]SeePlate III.[18]Queens of England, vol. i., p. 66, edition 1851. I have been unable to meet with any authority for this statement.[19]In a short visit which I made to Italy in the winter of 1853-4, I paid some attention to this subject. I have seen avettorino, when protesting that his exorbitant charge was a most reasonable one, throw himself into all the contortions exhibited in the Tapestry.[20]Lives of the Queens of England, edition 1853, p. 65.n.[21]His words are “L’opinion commune à Bayeux est que ce fut la reine Mathilde, femme de Guillaume-le-Conquérant, qui la fit faire. Cette opinion, qui passe pour une tradition dans le pays, n’a rien que de fort vraisemblable.”—Jubinal’s Tapisserie de Bayeux, p. 1.[22]Letters from Normandy, vol. i. p. 241.[23]Ducarel, Appendix I., p. 3.[24]William of Malmesbury’s English Chronicle (Bohn’s edition), p. 196.[25]SeeNote C., at the end of the Volume.[26]Bohn’s edition, p. 253.[27]Taylor’s Wace, p. 76.[28]General Introduction to Domesday, vol. i., p. 312.[29]Ducarel’s Antiquities of Normandy, Appendix, p. 4.[30]The first account of the hood is in a book written in Latin by the Emperor Frederic II.SeeHistory of Inventions and Discoveries by John Beckmann, translated by William Johnston, vol. i. p. 330.[31]Introduction to Domesday, vol. i, p. 295.[32]SeeArchæologia, vol. xxiv.[33]Rich’s Companion to the Latin Dictionary, art.Adoratio.[34]Quoted in Taylor’s Wace, p. 156.[35]SeeSir J. Gardner Wilkinson’s Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. i, p. 235; and Bonomi’s Nineveh, p. 136.[36]Archæologia, vol. 24, plateLV.[37]Illustrations of Cædmon’s Paraphrase, Archæologia, vol. xxiv., p. 339, plateLXXV. Hudson Turner’s Domestic Architecture of England, vol. i., p. 4.[38]Pictorial History of England, vol. i. p. 637.[39]Taylor’s Wace, page 7.[40]This observation, together with some others which may not in every case require to be specially noted, has been taken from a clever series of papers on the Bayeux Tapestry, which were published in theLadies’ Newspaperfor 1851-2.[41]Akerman on Celtic and Teutonic Weapons.—Archæ., vol. xxxiv.[42]Mr. Charles Stothard in the Archæologia, vol. xix, p. 189.[43]Taylor’s Wace, p. 11.[44]Introduction to Domesday, vol. ii. p. 404.[45]The Song of Roland, London, 1854.[46]William of Malmesbury, (Bohn’s edition) p. 279.[47]Thierry’s Norman Conquest (London, 1841), p. 41.[48]The following passages from theChronicle of Florence of Worcesterfurnish distinct evidence as to the marriage of Harold with Algitha:—“Regnavit autem Haraldus mensibus IX. et diebus totidem. Cujus morte audita, comites Eadwinus et Morcarus, qui se cum suis certamini subtraxere, Lundoniam venere, et sororem suamAlgitham reginamsumptam ad civitatem Legionum misere.” “Anno regni XXIII. rex Anglorum Eadwardus decessit. Cui ex ipsius concessione comes Haroldus, filius Godwini West-Saxonum ducis ... successit; qui deregina Aldgitha, comitis Alfgari filia, habuit filium Haroldum; eodemque anno a Normanorum comite Willelmo peremptus est in bello.”—Monumenta Historica, pp. 614, 642.[49]Planche’s Strutt, vol. i., p. 14.[50]Pict. Eng., vol. i., p. 637.[51]Thierry’s History of the Normans, p. 36.[52]It is often asserted that the house of Percy derived its name from one of the family having slain Malcolm, King of Scotland, by thrusting the spear into his eye when he came forward to demand the keys of Alnwick Castle. That historic name occurs in the Battle Abbey Roll, and is derived from the cradle of the family, the hamlet of Perci, in Normandy.[53]The walls of Tintagel Castle “were evidently constructed in a framework of wood; the square holes which pierce the walls at regular intervals, from the foundations upwards, show the places once occupied by bond pieces, by which the wooden frames were held together.”—Notes by Rev. W. Haslam, in Report of Royal Inst. Cornwall, 1850.[54]Ingulph’s Chronicle (Bohn), p. 14.[55]Taylor’s Wace, p. 83.[56]The Normans seem to have been particularly addicted to the worship of relics. They carried them about their persons, and had them enclosed in the handles of their swords. In theSong of Rolandthat hero is represented, when dying, as addressing his sword thus:—“Ah, Saint Durandal! in thy golden pommel what precious relics lie hid! A tooth of Saint Peter!—Blood of Saint Basil!—Hair of Monseigneur Saint Denis!—Vesture of the Virgin Mary! And shall a pagan possess thee?” Being thus at all times provided with relics, they were never at a loss as to the administration of an oath. In the Song already referred to we have a case in point:—‘Be it as thou wilt,’ answered Ganelon, and upon the relics of his sword he swore to the treason and consummated his crime.[57]Wace, p. 138.[58]Wace, p. 20, 21.[59]William of Malmesbury, p. 249.[60]Malmesbury, p. 252.[61]Vol. i. p. 322.[62]“Having first washed the corpse, it was clothed in a straight linen garment, or put into a bag or sack of linen, and then wrapped closely round from head to foot with a strong cloth wrapper.”—Strutt, vol. i., p. 66.[63]The custom of carrying the dead in some slight envelope to the sarcophagus which was to be its last resting place, accounts for the mischance which occurred at the burial of William the Conqueror, force being required to thrust the body into its too narrow cell. Bede tells us (Ecc. Hist.b. iv. c. xi.) how the stone coffin for Sebba, King of the East Saxons, was too small, and when the attendants were for bending the knees of the corpse a miracle ensued, and the coffin elongated of itself.[64]Wace, p. 89.[65]Annals of Roger de Hoveden, vol. i. p. 130.[66]Thepaludamentum, or official dress of a Roman general, to which the episcopalpalliumis probably to be traced, was either of a brilliant white, scarlet, or purple colour.[67]Seenote D, at the end of the volume.[68]Hinde on Comets, p. 52.[69]Thierry, p. 60.[70]Taylor’s Wace.[71]Sir N. Harris Nicolas’ Hist. Royal Navy, vol. i., p. 24.[72]Wace, p. 123.[73]Vol. i., p. 464.[74]“This mode of steering was retained till a comparatively late period. In a bass-relief over the doorway of the leaning tower of Pisa, built in the twelfth century, ships are represented with paddle rudders, as those in the Bayeux Tapestry representing the Norman Invasion. They must have been in use till after the middle of the thirteenth century; for in the contracts to supply Louis IX. with ships, the contractors are bound to furnish them with two rudders. By the middle of the following century we find the hinged rudders on the gold noble of Edward III. The change in the mode of steering must, therefore, have taken place about the end of the thirteenth, or early in the fourteenth, century.”—Smith’s Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul.[75]They are engraved in Smith’s Collectanea Antiqua, vol. ii., p. 238.[76]Wace, p. 210.[77]Crit. Inquiry into Ancient Armour, vol. i., p. 8.[78]When Harold, in 1063, conducted an expedition against the Welch, he found the heavy armour of his troops unsuitable to the service on which they were engaged, and immediately changed it. Ingulf says, “Seeing that the activity of the Welch, proved remarkably effective against the more cumbrous movements of the English and that, after making an attack, they retreated into the woods, while our soldiers, being weighed down with their arms, were unable to follow them, he ordered all his soldiers to accustom themselves to wear armour made of boiled leather, and to use lighter arms. Upon this the Welch were greatly alarmed, and submitted.”[79]Archæologia, vol. xxiv., p. 270.[80]SeeFenwick’s Introduction to theSlogans of the North of England, and the Notes to the Introduction.[81]“And all had their cognizances, so that each might know his fellow, and Norman might not strike Norman, nor Frenchman kill his countryman, by mistake.”Taylor’s Wace, p. 172.[82]The Saxons as well as the Normans paid great attention to the opinions of the ladies, even upon martial subjects. Strutt says, they “would not go to battle or undertake any great expedition without consulting their wives, to whose advice they paid the greatest regard.” This excellent antiquary pays more regard to truth than gallantry when in the same sentence he adds, “They also superstitiously placed great faith in the neighing of horses.”—Manners of the English, vol i., p. 17.[83]“This standard ... was sumptuously embroidered with gold and precious stones, in the form of a man fighting.” Can Malmesbury have had in view here the description which Æschylus gives us of the shield of Polynices?“His well-orb’d shield he holds,New-wrought, and with double impress charged:A warrior blazing all in golden arms,. . . . . . . . . .Such their devices.”[84]Florence of Worcester distinctly states that it was “contrary to the custom of the English to fight on horseback.”—Bohn’s Ed.p. 157.[85]Meyrick, vol. i., p. 27.[86]Akerman, in the Archæologia, vol. xxxiv.[87]A stream which enters the sea a few miles to the east of the river Orne, upon which the city of Caen is situated.[88]Roger de Hoveden, vol. i., 134. Ordericus Vitalis, vol. i., p. 464.[89]Perhaps this is an elipsis forad litus Pevensæ; more probably, however, these irregularities of construction are to be ascribed to the low state of Latinity at the period.[90]A stroke has probably been over the lastAinHastinga, so as to make itHastingam, which the construction requires.Raperenturseems to have been used as a deponent verb, contrary to classical usage.[91]This was not the first occasion on which a similar occurrence took place. The following passage bearing upon the subject may interest the reader:—“Thou sayest well Sancho (quoth Don Quixote), but I must tell thee that times are wont to vary and change their course; and what are commonly accounted omens by the vulgar, though not within the scope of reason, the wise will nevertheless regard as incidents of lucky aspect. Your watcher of omens rises betimes, and going abroad, meets a Franciscan friar, whereupon he hurries back again, as if a furious dragon had crossed his way. Another happens to spill the salt upon the table, and straightway his soul is overcast with the dread of coming evil: as if nature had willed that such trivial accidents should give notice of ensuing mischances. The wise man and good christian will not, however, pry too curiously into the counsels of heaven. Scipio, on arriving in Africa, stumbled as he leapt on shore; his soldiers took it for an ill omen, but he, embracing the ground, said, ‘Africa, thou canst not escape me—I have thee fast.’”—Don Quixote, Part II. chap. lviii.[92]It has been argued from the occurrence ofATinstead ofAD, and ofCEASTRAforCASTRA, in these inscriptions, that the clerk who wrote them was an Englishman. It must, however, be borne in mind that the original Norman language, which had a common origin with the Saxon, was at the period of the Conquest spoken in comparative purity at Bayeux. In other parts of the duchy French prevailed.[93]It was my privilege when wandering over the ground rendered memorable by the battle of Hastings to enjoy the companionship of Mr. Lower, of Lewes. To his local knowledge, his extensive acquaintance with antiquarian science, and his friendly attention, I am largely indebted.[94]Lower on the Battle of Hastings, ‘Sussex Arch. Col.,’ vi. 18.[95]During the middle ages the English were much given to the irreverent use of this great name; so much so was this the case, thatGodamitesbecame, in France, synonymous with English. Joan of Arc usually designates her enemies by this term.[96]Vol. xix., p. 206. Mr. Amyot does not profess to adhere strictly to the text of Gaimar, but has introduced into his translation some incidents mentioned by other writers.[97]On accompanying Mr. Lower to the spot, in January, 1853, I was satisfied of the correctness of his views.[98]Sussex Archæological Collections, vol. vi., p. 27.[99]There has been a discussion respecting the wordpueros, some supposing that the parties thus addressed were young soldiers, inexperienced recruits. It is probable, however, that the word is equivalent to the phrase, “lads” among us, or the word “boys” in the lines which carried so much terror to the heart of James the Second, after he had seen a specimen of the stalwart youth which Cornwall produces—“And must Trelawney die, and must Trelawney die?Then twenty thousand Cornishboyswill ask the reason why.”[100]Benoit de Saint-More. Taylor’s Wace, 193.[101]The special correspondent ofThe Times, writing from the Heights of Alma, Sep. 21st, 1854, says, “The attitudes of some of the dead were awful. One man might be seen resting on one knee, with the arms extended in the form of taking aim, the brow compressed, the lips clinched—the very expression of firing at an enemy stamped on the face and fixed there by death; a ball had struck this man in the neck. Physiologists or anatomists must settle the rest. Another was lying on his back with the same expression, and his arms raised in a similar attitude, the Minié musket still grasped in his hands undischarged.Another lay in a perfect arch, his head resting on one part of the ground and his feet on the other, but his back raised high above it.—The Times, Oct. 11th, 1854.Seealso Sir Charles Bell’sAnatomy of Expression, 3rd edition, p. 160.[102]M. A. Lower’s Battle Abbey Chronicle, p. 7.[103]Ibid.[104]The Tapestry represents the death of Harold as rapidly succeeding the infliction of the wound in his eye. The impression left by a perusal of Wace is, that at least an hour or two elapsed between the one event and the other. The diversity of statement between these authorities is probably more apparent than real. After Harold was wounded in so important an organ as the eye, it was impossible that he could long withstand the onset of William’s troops; his defeat, or, in other words, his death, was certain. However manfully Harold may have borne up under the inconvenience and pain of his wound, the artist of the Tapestry is logically correct in at once bringing us to the conclusion of the scene.[105]Ingulph’s Chronicle, p. 139.[106]Lower’s Chronicle of Battle Abbey, p. 11.[107]Sussex Archæological Collections, vol. 1., page 33.—For some years the public have been admitted to the Abbey grounds only on one day of the week, and that the day (Monday) most inconvenient to those who reside at a distance from Battle. Let us hope that henceforth no one respectfully requesting permission to muse upon the spot where the deed was done on which the modern history of the world has turned, will meet with a denial.[108]History of the Anglo-Saxons (European Library), p. 337.[109]Lingard’s Hist. Eng., vol. i., p. 313.[110]Vol. i., p. 487.[111]General Introduction to Domesday, vol. i. p. 311. In all probability William obtained the title of Conqueror from the Latin wordconquiro, which in its legal acceptation signified to acquire. It is still used in this sense by the Scottish lawyers.[112]Saxon Chronicle, Bohn’s edition, p. 462.[113]Ingulph’s Chronicle, p. 140.[114]Henry of Huntingdon, vol. i. p. 216.[115]William of Malmesbury, p. 279.[116]SeeWright’s Biographia Britannica, vol. ii., p. 10.[117]Would not the United States of America do well to notice this?[118]Hodgson’s Northumberland, Vol. III., Part iii., pp. 3, 11.[119]Raine’s St. Cuthbert, p. 88.

FOOTNOTES:

[1]Taylor’s Wace, p. xv.

[2]Ibid. p. 3.

[3]Archæologia, vol. xvii., p. 105.

[4]Ordericus Vitalis, bk. IV., ch. ii.

[5]Roscoe’s Life of the Conqueror, p. 92.SeeNote A. at the end of the volume.

[6]SeeNote B. at the end of the volume.

[7]Taylor’s Wace, p. xxviii.

[8]Archæologia, vol. xix., p. 186.

[9]Strutt thus disposes of a difficulty which may occur to some minds.—“If any one should say, by way of objection to this established rule, that though the illuminator has not given us the customs, habits, &c., of those people he designed to picture out, yet is it not most likely that such dresses as are given should be fictitious, agreeable rather to his own wild fancy than to the real customs and habits of his own times? To answer their objection, (and that because the chief materials of the present work are collected from the ancient MSS.) the reader must be informed, that many of these MSS. (especially such as are illuminated) were done as presents, or at the command of kings and noblemen, who are generally represented in the frontispiece in their proper habits receiving the particular MS. done for them from the author, and they are generally pictured attended by their court, or retinue. That these figures should be habited in the true dress of the times will not be doubted; and then, as far as the anonymous illuminations which may chance to follow in the MS. shall agree with those figures in the frontispiece, so far they may be allowed as authentic; other MSS. were done for particular abbeys and monasteries, in the embellishments of which no pains were spared. But a still greater proof of the authenticity of these delineations is, that on examining all the illuminated MSS. of the same century together, which, tho’ various, every one written and ornamented by different hands, yet on comparing the several delineations with each other, they will be found to agree in every particular of dress, customs, &c., even in the minutiæ, which perfect similitude it would have been impossible to have preserved, had not some sure standard been regularly taken for the whole; therefore the fancy of the painter will be found to have little share in these valuable delineations. Besides, these pictures constantly agree with the description of the habits and customs of the same period, collected from the old historians.”—Strutt’s Manners, Customs, &c., of the Inhabitants of England, vol. i, p. 3.

[10]Taylor’s Wace, p. 162.

[11]Ibid. p. 163. n.

[12]“All have hitherto treated the Bayeux Tapestry as a ‘Monument of the Conquest of England,’ following therein M. Lancelot, and speaking of it as an unfinished work: whereas it is an apologetical history of the claims of William to the crown of England, and of the breach of faith, and fall of Harold; and is a perfect and finished action.”—Mr. Hudson Gurney, Archæologia, vol. xvii., p. 361.

[13]The Abbé de la Rue, in an elaborate paper in theArchæologia(vol. xvii, p. 85-109), supports the opinion that the Tapestry was prepared at the command of Matilda, daughter of Henry I. and wife of Henry V. Emperor of Germany. Lord Lyttleton (History of Henry II., vol. i, p. 353) and Hume (History of England, vol. i,noteF.) entertain similar views.

[14]Vol. i., p. 328, 8vo. edition.

[15]Archæologia, vol. xvii., p. 105.

[16]Some idea of the labour involved in the work may be learned from the number of figures represented in it. It contains 623 men, 202 horses, 55 dogs, 505 animals of various kinds not already enumerated, 37 buildings, 41 ships and boats, and 49 trees—in all 1512 figures.

[17]SeePlate III.

[18]Queens of England, vol. i., p. 66, edition 1851. I have been unable to meet with any authority for this statement.

[19]In a short visit which I made to Italy in the winter of 1853-4, I paid some attention to this subject. I have seen avettorino, when protesting that his exorbitant charge was a most reasonable one, throw himself into all the contortions exhibited in the Tapestry.

[20]Lives of the Queens of England, edition 1853, p. 65.n.

[21]His words are “L’opinion commune à Bayeux est que ce fut la reine Mathilde, femme de Guillaume-le-Conquérant, qui la fit faire. Cette opinion, qui passe pour une tradition dans le pays, n’a rien que de fort vraisemblable.”—Jubinal’s Tapisserie de Bayeux, p. 1.

[22]Letters from Normandy, vol. i. p. 241.

[23]Ducarel, Appendix I., p. 3.

[24]William of Malmesbury’s English Chronicle (Bohn’s edition), p. 196.

[25]SeeNote C., at the end of the Volume.

[26]Bohn’s edition, p. 253.

[27]Taylor’s Wace, p. 76.

[28]General Introduction to Domesday, vol. i., p. 312.

[29]Ducarel’s Antiquities of Normandy, Appendix, p. 4.

[30]The first account of the hood is in a book written in Latin by the Emperor Frederic II.SeeHistory of Inventions and Discoveries by John Beckmann, translated by William Johnston, vol. i. p. 330.

[31]Introduction to Domesday, vol. i, p. 295.

[32]SeeArchæologia, vol. xxiv.

[33]Rich’s Companion to the Latin Dictionary, art.Adoratio.

[34]Quoted in Taylor’s Wace, p. 156.

[35]SeeSir J. Gardner Wilkinson’s Popular Account of the Ancient Egyptians, vol. i, p. 235; and Bonomi’s Nineveh, p. 136.

[36]Archæologia, vol. 24, plateLV.

[37]Illustrations of Cædmon’s Paraphrase, Archæologia, vol. xxiv., p. 339, plateLXXV. Hudson Turner’s Domestic Architecture of England, vol. i., p. 4.

[38]Pictorial History of England, vol. i. p. 637.

[39]Taylor’s Wace, page 7.

[40]This observation, together with some others which may not in every case require to be specially noted, has been taken from a clever series of papers on the Bayeux Tapestry, which were published in theLadies’ Newspaperfor 1851-2.

[41]Akerman on Celtic and Teutonic Weapons.—Archæ., vol. xxxiv.

[42]Mr. Charles Stothard in the Archæologia, vol. xix, p. 189.

[43]Taylor’s Wace, p. 11.

[44]Introduction to Domesday, vol. ii. p. 404.

[45]The Song of Roland, London, 1854.

[46]William of Malmesbury, (Bohn’s edition) p. 279.

[47]Thierry’s Norman Conquest (London, 1841), p. 41.

[48]The following passages from theChronicle of Florence of Worcesterfurnish distinct evidence as to the marriage of Harold with Algitha:—“Regnavit autem Haraldus mensibus IX. et diebus totidem. Cujus morte audita, comites Eadwinus et Morcarus, qui se cum suis certamini subtraxere, Lundoniam venere, et sororem suamAlgitham reginamsumptam ad civitatem Legionum misere.” “Anno regni XXIII. rex Anglorum Eadwardus decessit. Cui ex ipsius concessione comes Haroldus, filius Godwini West-Saxonum ducis ... successit; qui deregina Aldgitha, comitis Alfgari filia, habuit filium Haroldum; eodemque anno a Normanorum comite Willelmo peremptus est in bello.”—Monumenta Historica, pp. 614, 642.

[49]Planche’s Strutt, vol. i., p. 14.

[50]Pict. Eng., vol. i., p. 637.

[51]Thierry’s History of the Normans, p. 36.

[52]It is often asserted that the house of Percy derived its name from one of the family having slain Malcolm, King of Scotland, by thrusting the spear into his eye when he came forward to demand the keys of Alnwick Castle. That historic name occurs in the Battle Abbey Roll, and is derived from the cradle of the family, the hamlet of Perci, in Normandy.

[53]The walls of Tintagel Castle “were evidently constructed in a framework of wood; the square holes which pierce the walls at regular intervals, from the foundations upwards, show the places once occupied by bond pieces, by which the wooden frames were held together.”—Notes by Rev. W. Haslam, in Report of Royal Inst. Cornwall, 1850.

[54]Ingulph’s Chronicle (Bohn), p. 14.

[55]Taylor’s Wace, p. 83.

[56]The Normans seem to have been particularly addicted to the worship of relics. They carried them about their persons, and had them enclosed in the handles of their swords. In theSong of Rolandthat hero is represented, when dying, as addressing his sword thus:—“Ah, Saint Durandal! in thy golden pommel what precious relics lie hid! A tooth of Saint Peter!—Blood of Saint Basil!—Hair of Monseigneur Saint Denis!—Vesture of the Virgin Mary! And shall a pagan possess thee?” Being thus at all times provided with relics, they were never at a loss as to the administration of an oath. In the Song already referred to we have a case in point:—‘Be it as thou wilt,’ answered Ganelon, and upon the relics of his sword he swore to the treason and consummated his crime.

[57]Wace, p. 138.

[58]Wace, p. 20, 21.

[59]William of Malmesbury, p. 249.

[60]Malmesbury, p. 252.

[61]Vol. i. p. 322.

[62]“Having first washed the corpse, it was clothed in a straight linen garment, or put into a bag or sack of linen, and then wrapped closely round from head to foot with a strong cloth wrapper.”—Strutt, vol. i., p. 66.

[63]The custom of carrying the dead in some slight envelope to the sarcophagus which was to be its last resting place, accounts for the mischance which occurred at the burial of William the Conqueror, force being required to thrust the body into its too narrow cell. Bede tells us (Ecc. Hist.b. iv. c. xi.) how the stone coffin for Sebba, King of the East Saxons, was too small, and when the attendants were for bending the knees of the corpse a miracle ensued, and the coffin elongated of itself.

[64]Wace, p. 89.

[65]Annals of Roger de Hoveden, vol. i. p. 130.

[66]Thepaludamentum, or official dress of a Roman general, to which the episcopalpalliumis probably to be traced, was either of a brilliant white, scarlet, or purple colour.

[67]Seenote D, at the end of the volume.

[68]Hinde on Comets, p. 52.

[69]Thierry, p. 60.

[70]Taylor’s Wace.

[71]Sir N. Harris Nicolas’ Hist. Royal Navy, vol. i., p. 24.

[72]Wace, p. 123.

[73]Vol. i., p. 464.

[74]“This mode of steering was retained till a comparatively late period. In a bass-relief over the doorway of the leaning tower of Pisa, built in the twelfth century, ships are represented with paddle rudders, as those in the Bayeux Tapestry representing the Norman Invasion. They must have been in use till after the middle of the thirteenth century; for in the contracts to supply Louis IX. with ships, the contractors are bound to furnish them with two rudders. By the middle of the following century we find the hinged rudders on the gold noble of Edward III. The change in the mode of steering must, therefore, have taken place about the end of the thirteenth, or early in the fourteenth, century.”—Smith’s Voyage and Shipwreck of St. Paul.

[75]They are engraved in Smith’s Collectanea Antiqua, vol. ii., p. 238.

[76]Wace, p. 210.

[77]Crit. Inquiry into Ancient Armour, vol. i., p. 8.

[78]When Harold, in 1063, conducted an expedition against the Welch, he found the heavy armour of his troops unsuitable to the service on which they were engaged, and immediately changed it. Ingulf says, “Seeing that the activity of the Welch, proved remarkably effective against the more cumbrous movements of the English and that, after making an attack, they retreated into the woods, while our soldiers, being weighed down with their arms, were unable to follow them, he ordered all his soldiers to accustom themselves to wear armour made of boiled leather, and to use lighter arms. Upon this the Welch were greatly alarmed, and submitted.”

[79]Archæologia, vol. xxiv., p. 270.

[80]SeeFenwick’s Introduction to theSlogans of the North of England, and the Notes to the Introduction.

[81]“And all had their cognizances, so that each might know his fellow, and Norman might not strike Norman, nor Frenchman kill his countryman, by mistake.”Taylor’s Wace, p. 172.

[81]“And all had their cognizances, so that each might know his fellow, and Norman might not strike Norman, nor Frenchman kill his countryman, by mistake.”

Taylor’s Wace, p. 172.

[82]The Saxons as well as the Normans paid great attention to the opinions of the ladies, even upon martial subjects. Strutt says, they “would not go to battle or undertake any great expedition without consulting their wives, to whose advice they paid the greatest regard.” This excellent antiquary pays more regard to truth than gallantry when in the same sentence he adds, “They also superstitiously placed great faith in the neighing of horses.”—Manners of the English, vol i., p. 17.

[83]“This standard ... was sumptuously embroidered with gold and precious stones, in the form of a man fighting.” Can Malmesbury have had in view here the description which Æschylus gives us of the shield of Polynices?“His well-orb’d shield he holds,New-wrought, and with double impress charged:A warrior blazing all in golden arms,. . . . . . . . . .Such their devices.”[84]Florence of Worcester distinctly states that it was “contrary to the custom of the English to fight on horseback.”—Bohn’s Ed.p. 157.[85]Meyrick, vol. i., p. 27.[86]Akerman, in the Archæologia, vol. xxxiv.[87]A stream which enters the sea a few miles to the east of the river Orne, upon which the city of Caen is situated.[88]Roger de Hoveden, vol. i., 134. Ordericus Vitalis, vol. i., p. 464.[89]Perhaps this is an elipsis forad litus Pevensæ; more probably, however, these irregularities of construction are to be ascribed to the low state of Latinity at the period.[90]A stroke has probably been over the lastAinHastinga, so as to make itHastingam, which the construction requires.Raperenturseems to have been used as a deponent verb, contrary to classical usage.[91]This was not the first occasion on which a similar occurrence took place. The following passage bearing upon the subject may interest the reader:—“Thou sayest well Sancho (quoth Don Quixote), but I must tell thee that times are wont to vary and change their course; and what are commonly accounted omens by the vulgar, though not within the scope of reason, the wise will nevertheless regard as incidents of lucky aspect. Your watcher of omens rises betimes, and going abroad, meets a Franciscan friar, whereupon he hurries back again, as if a furious dragon had crossed his way. Another happens to spill the salt upon the table, and straightway his soul is overcast with the dread of coming evil: as if nature had willed that such trivial accidents should give notice of ensuing mischances. The wise man and good christian will not, however, pry too curiously into the counsels of heaven. Scipio, on arriving in Africa, stumbled as he leapt on shore; his soldiers took it for an ill omen, but he, embracing the ground, said, ‘Africa, thou canst not escape me—I have thee fast.’”—Don Quixote, Part II. chap. lviii.[92]It has been argued from the occurrence ofATinstead ofAD, and ofCEASTRAforCASTRA, in these inscriptions, that the clerk who wrote them was an Englishman. It must, however, be borne in mind that the original Norman language, which had a common origin with the Saxon, was at the period of the Conquest spoken in comparative purity at Bayeux. In other parts of the duchy French prevailed.[93]It was my privilege when wandering over the ground rendered memorable by the battle of Hastings to enjoy the companionship of Mr. Lower, of Lewes. To his local knowledge, his extensive acquaintance with antiquarian science, and his friendly attention, I am largely indebted.[94]Lower on the Battle of Hastings, ‘Sussex Arch. Col.,’ vi. 18.[95]During the middle ages the English were much given to the irreverent use of this great name; so much so was this the case, thatGodamitesbecame, in France, synonymous with English. Joan of Arc usually designates her enemies by this term.[96]Vol. xix., p. 206. Mr. Amyot does not profess to adhere strictly to the text of Gaimar, but has introduced into his translation some incidents mentioned by other writers.[97]On accompanying Mr. Lower to the spot, in January, 1853, I was satisfied of the correctness of his views.[98]Sussex Archæological Collections, vol. vi., p. 27.[99]There has been a discussion respecting the wordpueros, some supposing that the parties thus addressed were young soldiers, inexperienced recruits. It is probable, however, that the word is equivalent to the phrase, “lads” among us, or the word “boys” in the lines which carried so much terror to the heart of James the Second, after he had seen a specimen of the stalwart youth which Cornwall produces—“And must Trelawney die, and must Trelawney die?Then twenty thousand Cornishboyswill ask the reason why.”[100]Benoit de Saint-More. Taylor’s Wace, 193.[101]The special correspondent ofThe Times, writing from the Heights of Alma, Sep. 21st, 1854, says, “The attitudes of some of the dead were awful. One man might be seen resting on one knee, with the arms extended in the form of taking aim, the brow compressed, the lips clinched—the very expression of firing at an enemy stamped on the face and fixed there by death; a ball had struck this man in the neck. Physiologists or anatomists must settle the rest. Another was lying on his back with the same expression, and his arms raised in a similar attitude, the Minié musket still grasped in his hands undischarged.Another lay in a perfect arch, his head resting on one part of the ground and his feet on the other, but his back raised high above it.—The Times, Oct. 11th, 1854.Seealso Sir Charles Bell’sAnatomy of Expression, 3rd edition, p. 160.[102]M. A. Lower’s Battle Abbey Chronicle, p. 7.[103]Ibid.[104]The Tapestry represents the death of Harold as rapidly succeeding the infliction of the wound in his eye. The impression left by a perusal of Wace is, that at least an hour or two elapsed between the one event and the other. The diversity of statement between these authorities is probably more apparent than real. After Harold was wounded in so important an organ as the eye, it was impossible that he could long withstand the onset of William’s troops; his defeat, or, in other words, his death, was certain. However manfully Harold may have borne up under the inconvenience and pain of his wound, the artist of the Tapestry is logically correct in at once bringing us to the conclusion of the scene.[105]Ingulph’s Chronicle, p. 139.[106]Lower’s Chronicle of Battle Abbey, p. 11.[107]Sussex Archæological Collections, vol. 1., page 33.—For some years the public have been admitted to the Abbey grounds only on one day of the week, and that the day (Monday) most inconvenient to those who reside at a distance from Battle. Let us hope that henceforth no one respectfully requesting permission to muse upon the spot where the deed was done on which the modern history of the world has turned, will meet with a denial.[108]History of the Anglo-Saxons (European Library), p. 337.[109]Lingard’s Hist. Eng., vol. i., p. 313.[110]Vol. i., p. 487.[111]General Introduction to Domesday, vol. i. p. 311. In all probability William obtained the title of Conqueror from the Latin wordconquiro, which in its legal acceptation signified to acquire. It is still used in this sense by the Scottish lawyers.[112]Saxon Chronicle, Bohn’s edition, p. 462.[113]Ingulph’s Chronicle, p. 140.[114]Henry of Huntingdon, vol. i. p. 216.[115]William of Malmesbury, p. 279.[116]SeeWright’s Biographia Britannica, vol. ii., p. 10.[117]Would not the United States of America do well to notice this?[118]Hodgson’s Northumberland, Vol. III., Part iii., pp. 3, 11.[119]Raine’s St. Cuthbert, p. 88.

“His well-orb’d shield he holds,New-wrought, and with double impress charged:A warrior blazing all in golden arms,. . . . . . . . . .Such their devices.”

[84]Florence of Worcester distinctly states that it was “contrary to the custom of the English to fight on horseback.”—Bohn’s Ed.p. 157.

[85]Meyrick, vol. i., p. 27.

[86]Akerman, in the Archæologia, vol. xxxiv.

[87]A stream which enters the sea a few miles to the east of the river Orne, upon which the city of Caen is situated.

[88]Roger de Hoveden, vol. i., 134. Ordericus Vitalis, vol. i., p. 464.

[89]Perhaps this is an elipsis forad litus Pevensæ; more probably, however, these irregularities of construction are to be ascribed to the low state of Latinity at the period.

[90]A stroke has probably been over the lastAinHastinga, so as to make itHastingam, which the construction requires.Raperenturseems to have been used as a deponent verb, contrary to classical usage.

[91]This was not the first occasion on which a similar occurrence took place. The following passage bearing upon the subject may interest the reader:—“Thou sayest well Sancho (quoth Don Quixote), but I must tell thee that times are wont to vary and change their course; and what are commonly accounted omens by the vulgar, though not within the scope of reason, the wise will nevertheless regard as incidents of lucky aspect. Your watcher of omens rises betimes, and going abroad, meets a Franciscan friar, whereupon he hurries back again, as if a furious dragon had crossed his way. Another happens to spill the salt upon the table, and straightway his soul is overcast with the dread of coming evil: as if nature had willed that such trivial accidents should give notice of ensuing mischances. The wise man and good christian will not, however, pry too curiously into the counsels of heaven. Scipio, on arriving in Africa, stumbled as he leapt on shore; his soldiers took it for an ill omen, but he, embracing the ground, said, ‘Africa, thou canst not escape me—I have thee fast.’”—Don Quixote, Part II. chap. lviii.

[92]It has been argued from the occurrence ofATinstead ofAD, and ofCEASTRAforCASTRA, in these inscriptions, that the clerk who wrote them was an Englishman. It must, however, be borne in mind that the original Norman language, which had a common origin with the Saxon, was at the period of the Conquest spoken in comparative purity at Bayeux. In other parts of the duchy French prevailed.

[93]It was my privilege when wandering over the ground rendered memorable by the battle of Hastings to enjoy the companionship of Mr. Lower, of Lewes. To his local knowledge, his extensive acquaintance with antiquarian science, and his friendly attention, I am largely indebted.

[94]Lower on the Battle of Hastings, ‘Sussex Arch. Col.,’ vi. 18.

[95]During the middle ages the English were much given to the irreverent use of this great name; so much so was this the case, thatGodamitesbecame, in France, synonymous with English. Joan of Arc usually designates her enemies by this term.

[96]Vol. xix., p. 206. Mr. Amyot does not profess to adhere strictly to the text of Gaimar, but has introduced into his translation some incidents mentioned by other writers.

[97]On accompanying Mr. Lower to the spot, in January, 1853, I was satisfied of the correctness of his views.

[98]Sussex Archæological Collections, vol. vi., p. 27.

[99]There has been a discussion respecting the wordpueros, some supposing that the parties thus addressed were young soldiers, inexperienced recruits. It is probable, however, that the word is equivalent to the phrase, “lads” among us, or the word “boys” in the lines which carried so much terror to the heart of James the Second, after he had seen a specimen of the stalwart youth which Cornwall produces—“And must Trelawney die, and must Trelawney die?Then twenty thousand Cornishboyswill ask the reason why.”

“And must Trelawney die, and must Trelawney die?Then twenty thousand Cornishboyswill ask the reason why.”

[100]Benoit de Saint-More. Taylor’s Wace, 193.

[101]The special correspondent ofThe Times, writing from the Heights of Alma, Sep. 21st, 1854, says, “The attitudes of some of the dead were awful. One man might be seen resting on one knee, with the arms extended in the form of taking aim, the brow compressed, the lips clinched—the very expression of firing at an enemy stamped on the face and fixed there by death; a ball had struck this man in the neck. Physiologists or anatomists must settle the rest. Another was lying on his back with the same expression, and his arms raised in a similar attitude, the Minié musket still grasped in his hands undischarged.Another lay in a perfect arch, his head resting on one part of the ground and his feet on the other, but his back raised high above it.—The Times, Oct. 11th, 1854.Seealso Sir Charles Bell’sAnatomy of Expression, 3rd edition, p. 160.

[102]M. A. Lower’s Battle Abbey Chronicle, p. 7.

[103]Ibid.

[104]The Tapestry represents the death of Harold as rapidly succeeding the infliction of the wound in his eye. The impression left by a perusal of Wace is, that at least an hour or two elapsed between the one event and the other. The diversity of statement between these authorities is probably more apparent than real. After Harold was wounded in so important an organ as the eye, it was impossible that he could long withstand the onset of William’s troops; his defeat, or, in other words, his death, was certain. However manfully Harold may have borne up under the inconvenience and pain of his wound, the artist of the Tapestry is logically correct in at once bringing us to the conclusion of the scene.

[105]Ingulph’s Chronicle, p. 139.

[106]Lower’s Chronicle of Battle Abbey, p. 11.

[107]Sussex Archæological Collections, vol. 1., page 33.—For some years the public have been admitted to the Abbey grounds only on one day of the week, and that the day (Monday) most inconvenient to those who reside at a distance from Battle. Let us hope that henceforth no one respectfully requesting permission to muse upon the spot where the deed was done on which the modern history of the world has turned, will meet with a denial.

[108]History of the Anglo-Saxons (European Library), p. 337.

[109]Lingard’s Hist. Eng., vol. i., p. 313.

[110]Vol. i., p. 487.

[111]General Introduction to Domesday, vol. i. p. 311. In all probability William obtained the title of Conqueror from the Latin wordconquiro, which in its legal acceptation signified to acquire. It is still used in this sense by the Scottish lawyers.

[112]Saxon Chronicle, Bohn’s edition, p. 462.

[113]Ingulph’s Chronicle, p. 140.

[114]Henry of Huntingdon, vol. i. p. 216.

[115]William of Malmesbury, p. 279.

[116]SeeWright’s Biographia Britannica, vol. ii., p. 10.

[117]Would not the United States of America do well to notice this?

[118]Hodgson’s Northumberland, Vol. III., Part iii., pp. 3, 11.

[119]Raine’s St. Cuthbert, p. 88.

Back to Index Next