^{page 88 note a} Archaelog. Vol. XVIII. p. 359.

^{page 89 note a} Ferunt quidam ipsum Haroldum a Rege in hoc Normanniam missum, p. 93, edit. Francof. 1601.

^{page 89 note b} Henry of Huntingdon assigns no motive for the Voyage, as he only says “Haroldus vero transiens in Flandriam, tempestate compulsus est in Ponticam provinciam,” p. 366, edit. 1601.

^{page 89 note c} P. 1, edit. 1640, a Wats. Milton has made a distinction between the statements given by Malmsbury and Matthew Paris, but they will appear on comparison to be the same in effect.

^{page 89 note d} P. 426, edit. 1570.

^{page 89 note e} P. 4, edit, Selden, 1623.

^{page 89 note f} Twysden. Script, x. col. 195.

^{page 90 note a} P. 125, edit. 1716, a Hearne. Eadmer, Simeon, and Alfred were contemporary writers. The first appears to have died in 1124, the second about 1130, and the last, according to Bale and Pits, in 1136, but according to Vossius, about ten years earlier. On a comparison of these three writers, I think no doubt can be entertained of the priority of Eadmer's account of this transaction. It should be observed too that Eadmer was the companion and biographer of Archbishop Anselm, who at the time of the conquest was Abbot of Caen in Normandy, and was likely to be well acquainted with the transactions of that period, his knowledge of which he probably communicated to his friend and follower.

^{page 90 note b} Script, post Bedam. p. 449, edit. 1601.

^{page 90 note c} P. 122.

^{page 90 note d} Twysd. x. Script, col. 947. Brompton places Harold's voyage as early as 1056. I am not aware of his authority for this date. Other writers fix the period at about 1064.

^{page 90 note e} Twysd. col. 481.

^{page 90 note f} Twysd. col. 2337.

^{page 90 note g} Gale, tom. iii. p. 283.

^{page 90 note h} Gale, tom. ii. p. 456.

^{page 90 note i} Appendix to Ducarel's Anglo-Norman Antiquities, p. 3.

^{page 90 note k} Gale, tom. i. p. 68. It is to be observed, however, that Mr. Turner has cited lngulphus in support of the Norman story. History of the Anglo-Saxons, vol. i. p. 466, 4to. edit.

^{page 91 note a} Duchesne Hist. Norman, p. 191.

^{page 91 note b} Ibid. p. 285.

^{page 91 note c} Ibid. p. 492.

^{page 91 note d} The authority of the chronicler and poet Wace, though a Norman, does not confirm the statement above referred to. In his History of the Dukes of Normandy in the British Museum, (Bibl. Reg. 4 C. xi. 9) he leaves the question undecided. Perhaps a short extract or two from this very curious manuscript may not be wholly unacceptable. He begins the story by a panegyrical description of Harold:

En la terre out un Senescal

Heraut out nō noble vassal

Por son pries & por sa bonte

Out el regne grant poeste—

Li plus fort hoem fu del pais

Fort fu domes, fort fu damis—

Engleterre out en sa baillie

Com hoem q'a Senechaucie, &c.

After tracing his pedigree he goes on to relate that Harold

En Normandie volt passer

Por les hostages delivrer,

which the king endeavoured to dissuade him from attempting. But Wace adds,

Issi lai io trove escrit,

Et uns altres livres me dit

Q'li Reis le roua aler

Por le realme asseurer

Al' duc Guill' son cosin

Q'il leust empres la fin,

Helai mie certe achaison

Mais l'un & l'autre escrit trovon, &c.

He then proceeds to give the story of the shipwreck and the oath, nearly in the manner in which it is related by Eadmer.

In the MS. chronicle called “Le Brut,’ also in the British Museum, (Lib. Cott. Vitellius A.X.) which has been shewn by the Abbé de la Rue to have been versified by Wace, who was also probably the author of the continuation of it, the story is related in a manner somewhat differing from all the other accounts. It is there represented that Harold applied to Edward for leave to pass over to Normandy, in order to speak to William, without assigning any other purpose for his voyage; that, without mention of the remarkable incident of the shipwreck, he was graciously received by William; and that after a visit of a month, William, on his application for leave to depart, imposed on him his oath of allegiance. The conversations are given in French verse, varying but little from Eadmer's report of them.

^{page 93 note a} The real value of the tapestry appears to me to consist, not so much in its importance as an historical document, as in the delineations which it contains of our ancient costume. Some interesting memorials, however, it has undoubtedly preserved of various minute particulars connected with the battle of Hastings, and which may be fairly admitted as correct, wherever national or party feelings are not interested in their truth or falsehood. I will take this opportunity of noticing, that among other forgotten fables of the times, Giraldus Cambrensis in his Itinerary (edit. Francf. 1603, p. 874,) asserts that it was believed that Harold escaped from the battle of Hastings, pierced with wounds, and with the loss of his left eye, and that he ended his days holily and virtuously as an anchoret at Chester. This story was afterwards quoted by Brompton, Knighton, snd some other writers. It will be recollected that a similar fable has since been related, and partially believed, of the escape of James the 4th of Scotland from Flodden Field. King Arthur, Charles of Burgundy, and Don Sebastian of Portugal, have also been made the heroes of popular tales of this description.

^{page 93 note b} I am aware that some of the English Historians of the middle ages adopted the Norman account, particularly Robert of Gloucester, Wykes, and Walsingham. But the two former of these did not write till towards the end of the 13th century, nor the latter till a much later period. Walsingham too in the Ypodigma Neustriæ was writing a Norman History and naturally following the Norman authors. It is proper to add that Mr. Carte, to whose great merits as a historian justice has at length been rendered, has made choice of the Norman statement as the true one. But this learned writer is perhaps more to be commended for his great diligence and integrity, and for his clear and copious narration, than for the general solidity of his judgment.

^{page 94 note a} The obscurity in which this important event appears to be involved, is the more extraordinary, when it is considered that the period at which it took place abounded more than any subsequent one for many centuries in historians of talent and character. Besides the valuable records preserved to us by the Saxon Chronicle and Florence of Worcester, the names of Malmsbury and Eadmer, Henry of Huntingdon and Simeon of Durham, Ingulphus and Ordericus Vitalis, would have done honour to a far more polished period. These were not, generally speaking, obscure monks immured in cloisters, but were, on the contrary, men of a certain rank and importance in society, possessing ample and undoubted means of information. The excellence of our early historians has been strongly insisted on by two of the most celebrated ones of modern times, Dr. Henry and Mr. Gibbon. Among the posthumous works of the latter, will be found an eloquent and masterly essay, strongly recommending the publication of our Corpus Historicum, with English notes. This plan, however, in the execution of which Mr. Gibbon had himself consented to assist, was relinquished, probably from its being found that the republications of these ancient writers would necessarily bear a larger price than even the old editions of them could still be procured for. The late learned and excellent Dr. Sayers of Norwich (whom the writer of this paper cannot name without the strongest emotions of personal regard and regret) has, in his “ Disquisitions,” (2d edit. 1808, p. 244) earnestly recommended the translation of portions of our early historians. Mr. Sharpe has laudably commenced that task, by translating William of Malmsbury; and the English reader will soon, it is understood, be in possession of the Saxon Chronicle. Except the old translations of Gildas, Bede, and Jeffery of Monmouth, I am not aware that any others of our ancient chroniclers have yet appeared in an English dress, though in the British Museum a MS. translation of Florence of Worcester, by Holinshed, will be found among Stow's collections. I have only to add, that whoever will take the trouble to peruse the venerable Fathers of our English history, will not fail to regret, that they should have hitherto remained

” Like unregarded Age in corners thrown,” and will find them abound in interesting delineations of early manners and character, more than sufficient to compensate for the barbarism of their style, and the errors of their superstition.