The history of the Norman conquest of England, its causes and its results, Volume 2 (of 6)

ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS.

p. 14, note 4, for “manude” read “monude.”

p. 46, note 1, for “men” read “man.”

p. 50, side-note, for “Earldom” read “Earldoms.”

p. 52, l. 7. There is another writ which, though neither Northumberland nor any Northumbrian Earl is distinctly mentioned, is clearly meant to run in Northumberland more than anywhere else. This is the writ in Cod. Dipl. iv. 230, addressed, according to a form found elsewhere, to the Bishops, Earls, and Thegns of all those shires in which Archbishop Ealdred had any lands “Eadward cyngc grét míne biscopas and míne eorlas and ealle mýne þegenas on ðam scýran ðær Ealdred ærcebisceop hæfeð land inne freóndlíce”). Among these shires Gloucestershire is doubtless included, but Yorkshire must have stood foremost.

p. 70, note 1. See p. 438.

p. 82, l. 5. There is an odd notice of Lyfing’s plurality of Bishopricks in a deed in Cod. Dipl. vi. 195. It is a conveyance of lands to Sherborne made in a Scirgemót of Devonshire held at Exeter under the presidency of Earl Godwine. Lyfing is one of the witnesses, and he is described as “Lyfing bisceop be norðan,” as if a Devonshire man’s notions of Worcester were not very clear. Worcester was clearly the see which Lyfing loved best.

p. 89, note 3. I ought here to have added another entry in the same folio of Domesday, which I knew perfectly well, but which did not catch my eye when I wrote this note. In the second column of fol. 180 are the words “Abbatissa tenet Fencote, et ipsa tenuit T. R. E.” This, and the entry about “victus monialium,” are the whole account of the monastery. This entry however may well agree with my view of the case. Fencote is but a small dependency of Leominster, and it was probably a portion set aside for Eadgifu’s personal maintenance. If so, she survived her error forty years.

p. 108, l. 14. Perhaps more accurately, in the Earldom of Ralph, under the superior authority of Leofric. See p. 563.

p. 115, note 5. On seeming anachronisms of this kind see p. 634. Cf. p. 111, note 1.

p. 134, note 2. On the bare possibility that Tostig may have held some subordinate government as early as this time, see p. 567.

p. 165, l. 3. To prevent misconception, it may be needful to explain to some readers that there was a Napoleon Buonaparte, who was crowned at Paris (see vol. i. p. 268) and who died at Saint Helena, and who slew more men in unjust wars than probably any one man in Europe since Caius Julius Cæsar.

p. 180, l. 11, for “so perilous an enterprise” read “the same perilous enterprise.”

p. 209, l. 2, for “Princes” read “Prince.”

p. 248, l. 15, after “half dressed” read “himself.”

p. 249, note 3, for “of the Monasticon” read “in the Monasticon.”

p. 278, note 1, for “contigerât” read “contigerat.”

p. 284, note 2. I have to thank my friend Mr. Dimock for the explanation that “accipiter” is the goshawk, while the sparrow-hawk is “nisus.” From the point of view of the small birds the difference is perhaps not very important.

p. 287, note 2, for “than that at Alençon” read “than he was at Alençon.”

p. 322, l. 24, after “from Kent” read “from Surrey.”

P· 337, l. 17. See p. 602.

p. 342, note 2, for “_filli_” read “_filii_.”

p. 347, note 3. Of Ralph the Staller I shall have to speak more at large in my next volume. I suspect him to be the Ralph mentioned in the Chronicles under the year 1075.

p. 349, note 2. On Leofric’s plurality of abbeys see also the Peterborough Chronicle, 1066.

p. 359, note 1. “Bundinus,” that is Bondig, was an Englishman. I shall have to speak of him again.

p. 368, l. 8, for “around” read “beneath.”

p. 373, l. 3, for “West-Frankish” read “East-Frankish.”

p. 418, l. 4 from bottom, for “whenever” read “wherever.”

p. 423, l. 8 from bottom, dele “indeed.”

p. 433, l. 15, for “fell vacant in the course of the year” read “were now vacant.” It seems uncertain whether Heaca died in 1057 or in 1058 (see p. 414): if the former year is right, the see of Selsey must have remained vacant a year. As this is not likely, the expression in the text is probably true, but it is better to leave the matter uncertain.

Ib. note 1, for “disposition” read “disposal.”

p. 436, l. 10. The three Wulfstans—Wulfstan, Bishop of Worcester, Archbishop of York, and founder of Gloucester Abbey—Wulfstan, monk of Worcester and Abbot of Gloucester—and Saint Wulfstan, Prior and Bishop of Worcester,—must be carefully distinguished from each other. All were alive at once, and the last two were strictly contemporary, and all had more or less to do with Worcester and Gloucester.

p. 441, l. 8. I shall discuss in my third volume the possibility of this Esegar being the “Ansgardus” of Guy of Amiens. The idea had not occurred to me when I wrote this part of the text.

p. 448, l. 18, for “two” read “four” = 1056–1060.

p. 451, note 6. On this Azor and others of the name, see p. 642.

p. 461, note 5, for “436” read “438.”

p. 465, note 5, for “1262” read “1062.”

p. 467, note 3. This charge against Ealdred is confirmed by the entries in Domesday, 164 b. “Eldred archiepiscopus tenuit Stanedis. De dominio Sancti Petri de Glouuecestre fuit.” “Sanctus Petrus de Glouuecestre tenuit Lecce, et Eldred archiepiscopus tenuit cum abbatiâ.” Both these are lordships in Gloucestershire, which were still held by the see of York at the time of the Survey. It is not so clear when we read of a third lordship in the same list; “Eldredus archiepiscopus tenuit Otintune.... Thomas archiepiscopus tenet. Sanctus Petrus de Glouuecestre habuit in dominio donec Rex Willelmus in Angliam venit.” Does this mean that Ealdred, who was, for some time at least, in William’s favour, continued his spoliations of the monks of Gloucester after his accession?

p. 479, l. 12, for “seem well” read “well seem.” See p. 651.

p. 487, l. 9, and 497, l. 19. See p. 651.