returned it. and, if in existence at all, it is probably in some foreign library. It
seems William of Poitiers was born at Preaux 1020 ; he became Chaplain to King
William, and finally Archdeacon of Lisieux. Appendix A, § 79. William of
Jumieges (who is said to have died 1090, though his history is continued 10 1137)
has a passage similar in some respects, and probably based upon it, if both are not
b.-ised on some common original, and the divergences due to the inventive powers of
the two historians. Appendix A, § 80.
2 William of Poitiers, /(^/(/. p. 208. Appendix A, § 81. At the same place
and apparently at the same time he recounts that many other nobles made peace.
3 And yet this being the Chronicle supposed to have been compiled at Peter-
borough, it was to have been expected that if he went to Berkhamstead, the cir-
cumstance would have found some record in it.
190 THE EARLY HISTORY OF OXFORD.
London, that the Londoners met hhn, and that he drove them back ;
and that he afterwards crossed the Thames partly by bridge and partly
by ford to a place on the other side, to which the chronicler has given
the name of Garengford. After the coronation he makes the king go to
Barking \ which is unknown to all the others, and which has a dan-
gerous likeness to Berkhamstead, or at least to ' Beorcham.'
The variations, however, which make the stories still more inconsistent
are the names of the chief Englishmen who met Duke William at the
respective places. In the continuation of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
we read of the Archbishop of York, Eadgar ^theling (the chosen king),
Earls Eadwine and Morkere, and all the best men of London, meeting
William. Florence of Worcester recites these names and adds (either
because he thought they ought to be there, or else because his copy of
the Chronicle contained the names), Wulstan, Bishop of Worcester,
and Walter, Bishop of Hereford, being Bishops from his own part of
the country. He alters ' all the best men of London ' into ' several
nobles from London.' William of Malmesbury makes, besides the
Archbishop of York, also the Archbishop of Canterbury come out and
meet him; while as to Eadwine and Morkere, he says that they
had previously departed for Northumbria. William of Poitiers makes
no Archbishop of York meet him; but when he had gained the
Mercian side of the Thames, he makes only Stigand, Archbishop of
Canterbury come to the place of meeting : he makes the chief persons
come out to welcome William when he is close to London ; while
some time after the coronation he makes Eadvvin and Morkere submit
at Barking.
It is useless to search for facts amongst later writers. Orderic Vital,
who was writing this part of his history about the year 11 24-1 126,
does not help us. He quotes by name Florence of Worcester ^, but for
tlie march of Duke William after the battle, he follows only William of
Poitiers, whom he evidently looks upon as the chief authority ^ He
' The reference to Barking would have had a greater appearance of probability had
it been named in connection with William's fleet, which could scarcely have remained
all this while at Pevensey. One would have expected it would have come up the
Thames before his coronation rather than after ; since a fleet on the river would
have been of great assistance towards his taking London. After his coronation,
however, he might have visited Barking, if his fleet had been harboured in the
' creek ' near this place.
- He calls him John of Worcester (bk. iii. cap. 21). And this arises probably
from the fact that one of the continuators of Florence's work was named John.
The MS. in C.C.C. Library, 0.\ford, has the name John as one of the writers, and
as it was written at Worcester, it is probably the copy Orderic Vital saw.
^ Orderic Vital, bk. iii. cap. 21 (15), for the meeting at Wallingford; bk. iv,
OXFORD AFTER THE NORAfAA CONQUEST. 191
also refers to the poem by Guy of Amiens, which he had seen'. On
the whole, however, for the events of the close of 1066, he seems to
have had no other material than what we possess ourselves.
This material, as has been seen, is far from satisfactory, and though
by leaving out here and there the discrepancies, the residue may be
worked up into a consecutive and consistent series of events, such a
process amounts to making history, not writing it. Amidst a mass of
contradictory evidence it is impossible to arrive at any sure con-
clusion. \^'e have no means of cross-examining the witnesses, and
if we had, we should probably be surprised to find upon what slight
evidence they based their assertions. William of Poitiers, where he can
be tested, seems to possess little idea of strict chronological sequence
of events. That the Conqueror should, after the battle, march for
London, is but natural, but whether he was welcomed or not is a
question which seems to be made a matter of political opinion rather
than a matter of fact. William of Poitiers implies that he was met, at
first, with hostility, and that this obliged him to go up the Thames
to a ford ^, in order to cross over, and that Stigand met him there. It
must be remembered that it is on this fact, and this alone, that all
the evidence for William's march to Wallingford is based. It is,
however, highly improbable that Stigand should journey all the way
to Wallingford to meet the Conqueror ; while it is certain that the
jilace being on the Wessex side, William could not have crossed over
to the place of meeting. Yet the circumstance of the meeting is less
likely to be a fabrication than that the name of the place where they
met is an error.
It is, however, comparatively easy to piece together such details as
will fit out of the various stories ; and more easy still to discover
reasons for the results which such mosaic work produces. It is easy,
for instance, to make Wallingford, Berkhamstead, Westminster, and
Barking the scenes of successive stages in the acknowledgment of
\\'illiam as King of England: at the first the Archbishop of Canter-
cap. I , for the meeting at Barking. Duchesne's Historia Normannorum Scriptores,
p. 506.
' It has not been thought necessary to quote the poem attributed to Guy of Amiens,
De Bella Hastingcnsi Carmen. Though he was attached to the court, as Orderic
Vital mentions, bk. iv. cap. 5 (4), he does not in his poem, as regards the events
treated of, throw any new light upon them. It will be found printed, Mon. Hist.
Brit. p. 856.
^ It is quite possible that in writing of the Conqueror fording the Thames,
William of Poitiers added the only name of a ford with which he was acquainted.
It may be remembered that it was Wallingford which King Alfred introduced
into his edition of Orosius when he referred to Julius Caesar crossing the Thames,
simply because this ford was known to him (see ante, p. 72, note i).
192 THE EARLY HISTORY OF OXFORD.
bury ; at the second the Archbishop of York and certain nobles ; at
the coronation, the people of London ; and lastly at Barking, the
Northern Earls, Eadwine and Morkere.'
It is also easy to imagine that William, anticipating opposition from
Eadwine and Morkere, should, without waiting to subdue London, have
marched into Mercian territory to meet them before they could gather
their forces together, and from considerations of a military nature he
might be thought not to have crossed the Thames until he reached
Wallingford ; here he would find the Icknield way, which, running
beneath the Western slopes of the Chiltern Hills, owed its creation to
the Britons, but had been trodden by Roman, Saxon, and Danish in-
vaders alike. Instead, however, of continuing along this ancient track
till he reached Dunstable, where it joined the Wsetling Street, by which
he would have a direct road into London, he might have turned
off by Tring, and passing through the opening which occurs here in
the line of the Chiltern Hills, and following the course now followed
both by a canal and railway, as well as by an important road, he
might have passed Berkhamstead on his way^; here, on account of the
importance of the situation, a mediaeval castle was afterwards erected,
here he might have halted, and here ambassadors might have been sent
to meet him. Still so much of this rests on supposition, or at most on
the chance mention of the two names, that it cannot be reasonably
regarded as real history. The method by which the results are
obtained bears too near a resemblance to that by which some of the
myths referred to in the second chapter of this treatise have obtained
a definite shape, so as to be looked upon as facts, or by which the
^ The name of Beorh-hamstcde, it will be remembered, occurs but in a single MS.,
and therefore we have no corroborative evidence that it is rightly given or correctly
written. The Chronicle too which contains it is that which is supposed to
have been compiled at Worcester ; that which was compiled at Peterborough
knows nothing of it. It may perhaps be only a coincidence, but there is a story
told in one of the St. Alban's Chronicles, viz. that of Thomas Walsingham {Gesta
Abbatum, Rolls Series, vol. i. p. 47), in which King William and the Archbishop
of Canterbury on a certain occasion, are present at Berkhamstead, and the King
'pro bono pads' swears upon the relics of St. Alban to obey the laws which King
Eadward had appointed. But then Lanfranc is given as the name of the Archbishop,
and he did not become so till 1070 : still the consideration suggests itself, whether
the compiler of Chronicle D, having a note of this, may not have put Berkhamstead
as the place of meeting in 1066. On the other hand, there may have been
another name in some Chronicle for Florence of Worcester to have copied it Beor-
cham ; at least it does not look as if he used the Worcester Chronicle D, which we
now possess. Possibly the compiler of the Chronicle meant it for Berkhamstead
in Hertfordshire, though that is spelt Bercha'sted and Bercheh'asted in the two or
three entries in the Domesday Survey. The Berkamystede and Bcrhamstede of the
Charters (K.C.D. 39, 1005) are Berstead, near Maidstone in Kent, while Beorgan-
stede (^K. CD. 18, 663) can only be Bersted, near Chichester in Sussex.
OXFORD AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST. 193
legends described in the fifth chapter have come to be accepted as
historical narratives. The whole evidence which a witness brings for-
ward must be weighed, not that part only which can be reconciled
with that of other witnesses ; in this respect it is considered that the
evidence for the march round by Wallingford and Berkhamstead fails,
and therefore that there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the
theory that Duke William, previous to his coronation, marched
through the Oxford district; and consequently there is no reason to
suppose that at this time Oxford was besieged by him, or in any
special manner surrendered to him ^,
In considering the next occasion suggested for the siege of Oxford,
and the evidence which we have of the same, there is one important
fact to be remembered, on which all historians agree, and which, in
a way is connected with Oxford, namely, that Eadwine and Morkere
yielded without striking a blow, Harold, at the Gemot of Oxford in
1065, had surrendered to these two earls the whole of the north and
centre of England ; he had supported them in the condemnation of
his own brother as an outlaw, who as Earl of Northumbria would
have prevented their supremacy over the north ; he had trusted them
then as patriots ; afterwards he had helped them in their distress when
Tostig and the Norwegian invader had appeared within the estuaries
and rivers of Mercia and Northumbria ; and now these showed them-
selves once again traitors. This is clear from the results, and results
are surer guides than the imaginary motives suggested by historians.
However well intentioned Harold may have been, however much he
may have been led by popular clamour, or instigated by those who were
to gain by it, the mistake was not the less fatal. At the first, as already
pointed out, it much accelerated William's progress on his landing, if
indeed it may not be said to have been the cause of his being able to effect
a landing at all ; and now, later on, the two earls seem to have looked on
either as cowards or as traitors, while Duke William was on his way to
be crowned King of England at Westminster Abbey. If he marched
thither direct from Sussex it was bad enough ; if there is truth in
the Berkhampstead story it was worse. One Chronicler^ represents
their fleeing to the north with the hopes of being able to save a part of
1 Prof. Freeman writes, No7'man Conquest, vol. iv. (1871) p. 778 : 'The date
of the submission of Oxford to William is very doubtful. One would have been
inclined to place it in 1066, when William was so near as Wallingford, and the
influence of Wigod and his position as sheriff of the shire would also make an early
date likely.'
' William of Malmesbury. Ste ante, p. 188.
194 THE EARLY HISTORY OF OXFORD.
their more northern shires from Duke WilHam's invasion, recking little
what became of the rest of their country. This is, however, hardly
consistent with what we next hear of them, for their names appear
amidst the court retinue visiting Normandy, mixing with the nobles, and
in all probability receiving honours and welcome from the Conqueror's
countrymen ; although they may have been prisoners in the eyes of the
shrewd King William, their choice must have had something to do with
their accompanying his train in the manner they did. The circum-
stance of their submission without striking a blow, and their acceptance
of the honours and hospitality offered them, are quite consistent with one
another, and afford still further evidences, if such were at all needed,
that the policy of entrusting the whole of the northern and middle
portion of the kingdom to the sons of vElfgar, which was adopted at
the Oxford Gemot of 1065, was the one great mistake which, more than
any other, led to the country being subjected to the Norman rule.
Taking the above circumstance into account — namely, that the Earl
of Mercia yielded himself to William in such a way as to suggest that
he hoped to be allowed to retain his honours and estate— there would be
no reason whatever for a siege of Oxford to take place at all. In fact, so
far as any argument may be adduced from the silence of the Chronicles,
it would appear that this part of the kingdom was absolutely paralysed.
After William was crowned, and when the work began of subduing
those parts of the country which rose in rebellion, we have no record
whatever that Oxfordshire was amongst those which withstood him.
Indeed, it may be said that all the details which we gather from the
various historians who record in one way or another William's cam-
paign, rather point to the submission of Oxfordshire and Berkshire
from the very first, at the same time as the other southern counties of
Kent, Surrey, Sussex, and Hampshire. Whether this arose from
Oxfordshire having been exhausted of its fighting men, hke the others;
or whether from being joined to the kingdom of Wessex, as has already
been pointed out as possible, it yielded with the rest of that kingdom
when Harold was conquered ; or whether, as suggested from one con-
sideration, it was under the rule of Earl Gyrth, who had just been
slain in the great battle, fighting by the side of Harold ; or lastly,
whether, still being in the Mercian kingdom (and this from some
circumstances seems perhaps to be the most probable), it came beneath
the influence of Eadwine and Morkere — it may certainly be said
to have given no sign worthy of any mention of having offered
resistance to Duke William before his coronation, or to King William
afterwards.
OXFORD AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST. 195
The siege of Oxford, however, finds a place not only in all the
histories of Oxford ^ but, even in historical works of such pretensions
as Thierry's His hire de la Conqucle de l' A7igleterre, Lappenbcrg's
History, and in many other histories of England'^.
In most cases it is implied that the siege took place at the end of
1067 or early in 1068. On William's return from Normandy^ it is
clear he had at once to hasten to Devonshire and Cornwall to quell the
rebellion which had broken out there, but there is no conceivable
reason for supposing that he took Oxford on his way. Soon after,
and while he was spending the Easter of 1068 at Winchester, he
heard that the North was in rebellion. He marched to York. We
have several details preserved of the campaign, and the total silence of
all the chronicles as to the siege of Oxford renders it highly improbable
that such took place.
On the other hand, the origin of the general acceptance of the
statement that Oxford was besieged is not far to seek. It is simply an
error, caused by a single transcriber, of Oxonia for Exonia, which has
been multiplied by successive transcribers ; and since it is so important
* Antony Wood, whom most of the other historians of Oxford have copied, con-
cludes his paragraph on this year by, ' All that I shall add shall be this quaere,
whether William the Conqueror who is said by several (not ancient) authors
(particularly Rich. Grafton) to be so much offended with the Scholars of Oxford
that he withdrew their maintenance from them for a time, may not arise from their
opposition to him when he besieged it ?' Annals, ed. 1792, vol. i. p. 127.
^ Thierr}-, in his Histoire de la Coitqncte de V Angleterre par les Normands (3rd
ed., Paris, 1830, vol. ii. p. 65), has the following expansion of the reference to the
siege, ' La nouvelle de I'alliance formee entre les Saxons, et le Roi d'Ecosse et des
rassemblements hostiles qui se faisaient an nord de 1' Angleterre determina Guil-
laume a ne pas attendre une attaque, et a prendre vivement I'offensive. Son
premier fait d'armes, dans cette nouvelle expedition, fut le siege de la ville d'Oxford."
He then applies the notes which William of Malmesbury has given of the siege of
Exeter to the siege of Oxford, and adds, ' Sur sept cent maisons pres de quatre
cents furent detruites.' He then adds (and the combination affords a good illus-
tration of how, it is much to be feared, many of the older chroniclers on whom we
rely so much, compiled their histories), 'Les religieux du Convent de Sainte Frides-
wide, suivant Texemple des moines de Hida et de Winchecombe, prirent les armes
pour defendre leur monastere et en furent tous expulses apres la victoire des Nor-
mands.' The authority he gives for this is a line in the Chartulary of S. Frides-
wide's, quoted in Dugdale, ' spoliati bonis suis et sedibiis appulsi sunt,' but separated
absolutely from its context, as will be seen. See ante, p. 166, and Appendix A,
§ 61. It will be observed, however, that the event is definitely stated to have
happened before the Norman Conquest, and further that the monks, instead of
being driven out, were introduced in the place of the seculars. Lappenberg, in his
History of England, ed. 1837, "^ol. ii. p. 82 (Geschichte der Europaischen Staaten,
vol. xiii.), keeps Oxford in his text, though he gives in his note reasons for
believing that it is written in error for Exeter.
2 King William's visit to his dominions in Normandy may be said to have ex-
tended from March to December, 1067.
o a
196 THE EARLY HISTORY OF OXFORD.
an event, if it did happen, in the history of Oxford, it is thought well to
examine closely the authorities in regard to this part of the story.
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D, which provides the basis on which
the later historians build up their narrative, runs as follows : —
' 1067. In this year the king came again to England on S. Nicholas'
mass-day (Dec. 6th) . , . And in this year the king set a heavy tax
on the poor people ; and nevertheless caused to be harried all that
they passed over. And then he went to Defenascire, and besieged the
town of Execeaster for eighteen days, and there many of his own
army perished, and he promised them well, and ill-performed ... At
this Easter (March 23rd) the king came to Winchester, . . . and
Archbishop Ealdred hallowed [Matilda] queen at Westminster on
Whitsunday (May nth). It was then announced to the king that the
people in the north had gathered themselves together and would stand
against him if he came. He then went to Nottingham, and there
wrought a castle ; and so went to York, and there wrought two castles,
and in Lincoln and everywhere in that part^.'
Florence of Worcester, writing before 11 18, summarized this, but
distinctly says : —
' Then having gone with a hostile force into Devonshire {in Dom-
noniam), he besieged and quickly reduced Exeter {ExeceJtram), which
the citizens and some EngHsh Thanes held against him'-.'
He is followed verbatim by Simeon of Durham and Roger of
Hoveden. But William of Malmesbury makes his own paraphrase, head-
ing the chapter, ' Summary of the Battles of WilHam of England' : —
' Of all the battles ^ then which he waged this is the summary. He
early subdued the city of Exeter {urbem Exoniam), which was in
rebellion, being supported by Divine aid, because, the outer portion
of the wall fahing down, it gave an opening for him, and he attacked it
all the more fiercely as he declared that men so irreverent would be
deprived of God's favour He almost devastated York, the only
refuge left for the rebels, destroying its citizens by famine and by the
sword *.'
He affords no evidence of having any information of any kind other
than that contained in the Chronicle, and it may be assumed he has
gratuitously inserted an anecdote in reference to the impudence of
the defenders, by way of giving point to his remark. Next he describes
^ Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D, szib aimo. Chronicle E is so meagre for this year
(only a few lines) that it omits all about Exeter and the journey to York. Appendix
A, § 82.
^ Florence of Worcester Chronicon: sub anno. Eng. Hist. Soc. ed. 1849, vol.
ii. p. I. Appendix A, § 83.
^ Perhaps ' military expeditions ' would be the better translation of bella here.
* William of Malmesbury, Gcsta Regain. Eng. Hist. Soc. 1840, vol. ii. p. 421.
Appendix A, § 84.
OXFORD AFTER THE NORMAN CONQUEST. 197
the siege of York, which took place the following year. It must be
here remarked that allihe. known MSS. of William of IMalmcsbury have
Esojiiam distinctly ; yet when Savile printed his edition of William of
IMalmesbury, he altered it to Oxom'am, and hence, only, it has been
supposed that there was MS. authority for the reading \
Passing over Henry of Huntingdon, who does not mention any
siege at all till that of York, we come to Orderic Vital, who gives
a much fuller account of the siege of Exeter, and, writing circum-
stantially, as if he had it from some good source^ he notes that Exeter
was the first to contend for freedom ; and, from the context, there
cannot be a shadow of foundation for supposing that there is here in
the IMS. any error for Oxford. His narrative of William's movements
is tolerably full, as he makes him then march into Cornwall, and
back to Winchester in time for Easter; then follows the account
of Eadwine and IMorkere's rebellion in the north, and though several
places are mentioned, there is an absolute silence as to Oxford. Inci-
dentally, however, it is noted that William gave Warwick to Henry, son
of Roger de Beaumont (who was afterwards created Earl of Warwick),
and that he built at some time or other the castle there ; and that is
the nearest place to Oxford mentioned.
W^e now come to the most important MS. in the course of the
' Rerutn Anglicarum Scriptores post Bedani (Preface signed 'Henricus Savile')
Francofurti, 1601, folio 102. 'Urbem Oxoniam rebellantem leviter subegit.'
There can, however, be no conceivable reason for assuming that Savile used a MS.
which no one else had ever seen. It is true he does not say what MS. he used, but
as there is no other important various reading, one must assume he used one of the
five or six known MSS., all of which have distinctly Exoniam, and altered it on
his awa. responsibility to make it coincide with certain MSS. of Matthew Paris.
Besides, it is very clear, from what precedes and what follows, that William of
Malmesbury is paraphrasing the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle D, viz. ' he went to
Defenascire and besieged the town of Exeter.' And, further, it must be remembered
that Savile is the reputed author of the forged passage which Camden made use of
in order to enhance the antiquity and historical importance of Oxford. See anfcj
p. 43 ; also the note, respecting his supposed interpolation of the passage about