The history of the Norman conquest of England, its causes and its results, Volume 1 (of 6)

PREFACE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

This third English edition of these two volumes has been again thoroughly revised throughout. I have not however thought it needful to recast or enlarge the earlier chapters, as I still cling to the hopes with regard to my first and fifth volumes which I expressed in the Preface to the fifth volume. But I have added and corrected in detail, wherever I have found any fresh matter or any fresh light on old matters. And I found also, in revising what I wrote twelve years back, that I could improve a good deal in point of mere style. I have often put a good English word where I had at first allowed a stranger to creep in. In the first volume I have seen reason to alter my narrative on one point of some local and personal interest, though not greatly affecting the general history. I have been convinced by the arguments of Mr. James Parker that the murder of Sigeferth and Morkere at Oxford has been confounded with the massacre of Saint Brice, and that some details which belong to the earlier event have been transferred to the later. In the Norman chapter in the second volume, I have once or twice worked in, in the form of new or enlarged local description, the results of later journeys in Normandy and Maine. And I have also made some improvements in the maps.

The author of a work on this scale always does wisely in not reviewing his reviewers, and I shall certainly not spend any great time reviewing mine. I, and doubtless others, have been amused at many pieces of criticism, perhaps not the least at the amazement with which some people have seen Old-English names written in Old-English fashion. As this seems to be commonly looked on as some special device of my own, we thus become aware of the singular fact that there are people who think themselves fit to write about early English history without having looked at Kemble or Lappenberg. But, without strictly reviewing my reviewers, I have had some doubts whether I ought not to examine in detail an article headed “Earl Godwin and Earl Harold,” which appeared in the North British Review for April 1870, and which bears the signature of Mr. C. H. Pearson. In earlier revisions I have made a few references to Mr. Pearson’s views as set forth in his other works, and I believe that there are one or two to this article itself. But in my present revision I thought it was better on the whole not to go into any long controversy—for a long controversy it could hardly fail to be—with regard to my general views either of Godwine or of his son. When I read Mr. Pearson’s arguments, I find that his notions of historical evidence, and his general way of looking at everything, are so different from mine that it is really better to leave the question to the judgement of the few scholars who may think it worth while to make a minute comparison between Mr. Pearson’s statements and my own. I say a minute comparison, because it would not be safe to accept either my views or the statements of the original writers on Mr. Pearson’s showing. I must decline to have my judgement of Godwine measured by the report which Mr. Pearson has thought fit to give of it. I do not know where Mr. Pearson found that “Godwin is the spotless being of Mr. Freeman’s imagination, the saint and hero of an impure and unheroic age.” He certainly did not find that picture any where in the History of the Norman Conquest, least of all where my notions of Godwine are most formally put forth, namely in the seventh chapter, the first in the second volume. I must further protest against Mr. Pearson’s statement that I “believe in” a “settlement of the Witan in 1051” in favour of William. Of this belief no trace will be found in my writings; indeed it is expressly denied at p. 430 of my second volume (p. 421 of the first edition). Nor do I admit that I have “started from the conception that history for eight hundred years has been in a conspiracy against truth.” I simply go back from legend to history, from the slanders of later times to the witness of the men who eight hundred years back wrote real history. Mr. Pearson goes on to say that “my style throughout is that of a pleader who tries to demolish the character of witnesses by detecting them in trivial inconsistencies, and who delights in accumulating the absurd stories of late and obscure chroniclers in order to throw doubts on a general verdict.” I can only infer that Mr. Pearson is not a student of comparative mythology. I can only infer that he does not see the importance of tracing how a story grew, and what shapes it took in different hands, according to times, places, and changes of feeling. When Mr. Pearson utterly misunderstands my plainest words, when I can find no common ground with him from which to examine historical evidence, I must leave it to others to judge between him and me on the general question.

At the same time, in case any one should make it his business to compare Mr. Pearson and me in detail, I must ask him to accept nothing on Mr. Pearson’s showing—as I ask no one to accept anything on my showing—without minutely testing it by the authorities. I think that any one who does so will not fail to see how much of Mr. Pearson’s genealogical argument is upset by his constant confusion between Wulfnoth the son of Godwine and Æthelnoth the thegn of Kent. Even a Domesday copyist, in his wildest departures from the true forms of English names, would not write Alnod and Ulnod indiscriminately. I have gone thoroughly into this matter in Appendix N., vol. iv, where I see that I have referred to an earlier work of Mr. Pearson’s. So again, when Mr. Pearson rakes up the real or supposed evil deeds (among which he seems to reckon the marriages) of several English Bishops of the eleventh century, he makes his list longer by bringing in a tale, true or false, about Walter of Hereford, who was not an Englishman. And I must lastly beg that no one will accept Mr. Pearson’s summary of any part of the Encomium Emmæ, without reading every word of the Encomiast’s text for himself.

As Mr. Pearson is an historical writer of some reputation, I have thought it right not to let his distinctly controversial article pass by altogether unnoticed. I do not know that there is any other writer of position with whom I need to enter into any controversy. If I were to examine any anonymous criticism, it would be an article signed “H. A.” in the North American Review, in which I am blamed for maintaining the innocence of Godwine, though his guilt is asserted in “the Saxon Chronicle.” It would almost seem as if “H. A.” had written this without either looking at the Chronicles themselves or at the examination of their witness in my Appendix. Indeed it would seem that, even in such respectable quarters as the North American Review, the idea still lingers that there is a single book called “The Saxon Chronicle.” I need hardly say that strange havoc would be made of the history, as strange havoc often has been made, by any one who did not stop to compare the wide difference in statement and feeling between Abingdon and Peterborough.

The Index to the whole five volumes, which will include the index to the present edition of these two, is in preparation.

SOMERLEAZE, WELLS, April 14th, 1877.

PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION.

In revising these volumes for the present edition, I have made many improvements for which I feel that I must in some sort throw myself on the indulgence of the buyers and readers of the first edition. The publication of a large work of this kind in distinct volumes is, I believe, on the whole, the most satisfactory way for the reader, as it certainly is for the author. But it has its disadvantages. If no part of a work is printed till the last page of the last volume is written, a final revision may give the earlier parts the advantage of the author’s researches up to the last moment. But if volumes are published separately, the researches which are needful for the composition of the later volumes continually bring to light matter which would have been highly useful during the composition of the earlier volumes. This is especially the case with a subject like mine, where information has to be sought for in so many quarters, and where a great deal of information is drawn from purely incidental notices in quarters where it might hardly have been looked for. Take for instance one of our primary authorities for a great part of my subject, the Norman Survey. None but a professed editor or commentator on Domesday would sit down to read it through, word for word; but, in searching in it for facts bearing on one subject, one is sure to light by the way on facts bearing on half-a-dozen other subjects as well. In these ways I have, in the course of writing the later parts of my work, come across much matter which enables me to correct and improve what I had already written in the earlier parts. All these improvements in detail I have thought it right to make in preparing a second edition. And I have also in many places improved the arrangement of the matter, by throwing some portions of the text and a considerable portion of the notes into the form of Appendices. These portions were chiefly passages which consisted of dissertation rather than narrative, and which therefore seemed better suited to the form of detached essays. This change will, I hope, be found to make the narrative hang better together; but, as the passages removed to the Appendix have shown a tendency to grow on the road, it has somewhat increased the size of the volumes.

I have also done my best to improve the maps. I have added a map of Gaul in the tenth century, which seemed needful for the better understanding of the fourth Chapter. I have also recast the map of Britain in 597, which, as it stood in the first edition, was a failure, owing to the attempt, which can never be thoroughly successful, to represent the state of things at two different periods at once. As it is, it is designed to show, as far as evidence or probable conjecture makes it possible to show, how things stood at the exact time of the mission of Augustine. In this difficult task I have been much helped by Archdeacon Jones, my former colleague in writing the History of Saint David’s, by Mr. J. R. Green, and yet more by Mr. Haddan, whose knowledge of Celtic matters is really amazing. But, after all, there are many points on which it is impossible to get beyond conjecture.

As the changes in the text and notes have disturbed the order of paging, I have added a special Index to this edition of these two volumes. When the whole work is complete, a general Index to the whole five volumes will be given.

It will be at once seen that these improvements are in some sort made at the cost of the purchasers of the first edition, for it is impossible for them to be thrown into the form of a separate supplement for their benefit. I can only ask again for their indulgence towards a course which could not be helped, if the book was to be brought as near perfection as might be.