BOOKS.

THE NORMAN CONQUEST OF ENGLAND.*

MR. FREEMAN has now reached the central point in his history, the actual Conquest of England. The means by which William settled himself firmly on his throne will be related in a future volume, but we have here the narrative of his audacious enterprise, and of the success by which he gained the title of King. The historian rises with his subject, and this instalment of the work is superior in execution to those which have preceded it. We are tempted to complain of excessive length when we see that almost the whole of this volume is devoted to the events of a single year. But that year is the most important in the annals of our country,

• The History of the Norman Conquest in England: its Causes and Results. By Edward A. Freeman, MA. Oxford: Macmillan. Is69.

and we must bear in mind the method which Mr. Freeman pursues. Ile is not content to give us what he believes to be the nearest approach to the truth, and leave to chance whether his readers will accept his statements or search out the authority for them. He insists on taking us into his counsels, and making us assist at the formation of his judgment. Every debated or debatable point is discussed, either in the text or the appendix, with a careful comparison of the various authorities, and a full statement of the grounds for his ultimate decision. This method has its disadvan- tages. It is apt to take the life and movement out of history.

You cannot well be carried away by the interest of the story, when at every step you have to stop and decide which of the stories is true. " It is what ho wisely leaves unsaid," says Schiller, " that shows us the master of style," and Mr. Freeman tries to say everything. Still we have uo doubt that ho follows the way best suited to his own qualities. Not that he cannot tell a story ; he shows here, as in his previous volume, that he can. But there are many who can do this as well as he, while we may look far before we find another possessing the wide knowledge, histori- cal and antiquarian, and the passionate love of accuracy which make the book before us, if not a perfect history, a perfect model of historical study. We must add that in spite of all these merits it is not dull. The chapter on Norman affairs is overloaded with detail, but those on the Norwegian invasion and the campaign of Hastings are clear and spirited. Few readers who have once begun them will willingly lay them aside unfinished.

The story is, indeed, one which it is almost impossible to spoil. Even if we could rid ourselves of our prejudices as Englishmen, we could not deny our sympathies to the cause of a brave people fighting vainly in defence of its freedom. Nor does the drama want a fitting hero in whom all the action centres. For this year the history of England and of llarold are one. The will of the people was expressed in his coronation, their cause and his were alike gained in the victory of Stamford Bridge, and their liberty fell with him on the field of Senlac.

Nothing of this personal interest is lost in the bands of Mr. Freeman. lie is careful to bring into prominence every act that can do Harold credit, every tie that connects his destiny with that of his country. It is scarcely too much to say that be is as much an apologist as an historian, and from his own point of view the characters can hardly be separated :-

" I need not tell any reader of mine that I hold that King Harold was a king as lawful as any king—I might almost say more lawful than any other king—that ever reigned over England. No other King in our history ever reigned so distinctly by the national will. But there is no king, there is hardly any man, in our history, who has been made the abject of such ceaseless calumny, from his own time to ours. The hos- tile faction triumphed, not only in tho field of battle, but in the pages of pretended history, and, for 800 years, the name of Harold has been con- stantly branded with the appellation of ' perjurer' and usurper.' My object is to do what I can to undo this great wrong, to bring hack the true history of a great man and a great time, and to set forth Harold and his acts as they appeared to his countrymen in his own days."

In these words there is a trick of the advocate exaggerating the prejudices with which he has to contend, and Mr. Freeman's de-

fence goes much further than to repel the charges mentioned with so much indignation. Ile dscribes Harold as one whose first aim, both as minister and King, was the good of his country, whose commanding abilities made him the worthy rival of William the Conqueror.

Mr. Freeman seems to us perfectly successful in his vindication of Harold's political action. The most difficult charge to meet is that of perjury. That Ilarold broke hie oath to William, Mr. Freeman admits, but he pleads that we do not know what its terms were ; that the versions given us by the Norman annalists are untrustworthy ; that it was taken under compulsion, and that in any case it could not bind him to shirk the duties laid upon him by the Witan. Mr. Freeman supposes that Harold swore to marry William's daughter, and that at the same time he did homage to William. We find it hard to believe that a mere promise of marriage to a child was the subject of the solemn and formal oath which we see figured in the tapestry. In any case, the oath was broken, and Mr. Freeman frankly admits that it is " a page which he would gladly blot out from the history of Harold ;" but he says truly that the fault lay not in breaking the oath, but in taking it :—

" As to the bearing of the transaction on Harold's character, the morality of the question is easily summed up. Whatever was the engagement which Harold broke, whether it was a promise to betray England to the stranger or simply to contract a marriage of absurd disparity in point of years, his sin lay wholly in taking the oath, not in breaking it. He yielded to threats or to blandishments, to a vague sense of danger, to a vague impulse of gratitude, or to a momentary inclination, when in strict morality he ought to have stood firm against every temptation and every throat. Through one or other of these motives he allowed himself to be cajoled into making a promise which he had no serious intention of fulfilling. He incurred whatever amount of guilt is incurred by thus trifling with what ought to be solemn engagements." With regard to the charge of usurpation, there can be no doubt that the defence is complete. The election of Harold was in some points exceptional, but it was legal and fully justified by the needs of the time. England had suffered too much from incompetent rulers not to desire one who had proved his capacity, and Harold had been tried and had not been found wanting. Skilful and strenuous in war, merciful in victory, just and liberal in peace, it might well be thought that under such a ruler the English people had a reasonable hope of prosperity and happiness. His first acts were such as to confirm the belief. Mr. Freeman has, for the first time, brought out clearly the significance of Harold's journey to the North immediately after his coronation. The Northum- brians, nominally subject to Edward, had felt little of his power, and now, though perhaps technically bound by the vote of the Witan, they refused obedience to Harold. Mr. Freeman shall tell how he won their allegiance :— " Harold sot off for Northumberland to win over the disaffected pro- vince, not by arms, but by the power of speech and the magic of royal courtesy. But he went not alone. The companion whom he chose seems to show how important a part of Harold'a policy it was at this moment to show himself as the choice and the friend of the national Church. With the King went the best and holiest prelate in England, his old and tried friend, the saintly Bishop of Worcester. On the example and the eloquence of Wulfstan, Harold relied to win over those in whose ears he might himself charm in vain.

"Harold and Wulfstan then set forth on their journey northward. They would probably take with them Housecarls enough for their per- sonal protection, but it is plain that they took with them no force capable of controlling or overawing the country. The power of speech and of reason, the example of the brightest light of the national priest- hood, were the arms to which Harold trusted. Our narrative tells us only the result, and not the process. The proud Danes, unconquerable by steel, bowed their necks to the gentle yoke of Harold and Wulfstan, and the authority of the new King was acknowledged throughout Northumberland."

Thus far we have no difficulty in following Mr. Freeman. That Harold would have ruled well, we do not doubt, and he proved himself a brave and energetic soldier. He had all the qualities whick can win sympathy for the vanquished. But when he is placed beside his great adversary the disproportion is evident. It may be seen, in spite of the author, in the volume before us. We will not insist upon the contrast between William's motley force, pro- visioned and kept under discipline through the unforeseen difficulty of a Month's contrary winds, and Harold's great army, which lay out all the summer and the autumn, and then dispersed for want of provisions. It was easier to hold together professional soldiers attracted from all parts of France by the hope of booty, than a militia composed of men who were longing to get back to their harvest-fields. But, had William been in Harold's place, the Norman fleet would not have been built and equipped without interference from the strong sea force of England, which seems to have been cruising idly in the Channel, when it should have been assailing the enemy.

Again, when 1Villiam had landed in England, Harold's in- feriority as a general was manifest. His army was weakened by a fierce struggle iu Yorkshire, the northern levies had not arrived, and he had to deal with an enemy whose base was upon the sea- coast. 1Ve know what William would have done in such a case ; we know what lie did when the King of France invaded his duchy with. an army too strong to be met in the open field :— " The plan of the Duke was to stand wholly on the defensive. All provisions of every kind were to be moved out of the King's line of march ; the cattle were to be driven to the woods, and the peasants to be sent to take care of them there. He would himself with his division follow the King's steps ; he would encamp near hint, and be sure to cut off every man who strayed from the royal camp for _forage or plunder.

Till the whole force of the land could be got together, the Barons of Eastern Normandy were bidden to watch the foe, to skulk in the woods, and to give the invader no opportunity for an attack."

A similar line of conduct was Harold's true policy at the Norman invasion, and it was recommended to him by his brother Gyrth

:- "All who heard the counsel of Gyrth cried out that it was good, and prayed the King to follow it. But Harold answered that he would never play the coward's part, that he would never let his friends go forth to face danger on his behalf, while he himself, from whatever cause, drew back from facing it. And he added words which show how the wise and experienced ruler, the chosen and anointed King, had cast aside whatever needed to be cast aside in the fiery exile who had once harried the coast at Porlock. ' Never,' said Harold, will I burn an English village or an English house ; never will I burn the lands or the goods of any Englishman. How can I do hurt to the folk who are put under me to govern ? How can I plunder and harass those whom I would fain see thrive under my rule.' Truly, when we read words like these, we feel that it is something to be of the blood and of the speech of the men who chose Harold for their King, and who died around his standard."

We cannot refuse our sympathy, but our sober judgment tells us that Harold was wanting in the first duty of a king. It is hard for a ruler who loves his people to see his land wasted, but he is bound not to let his pity for a part overcome his duty to the whole. We cannot attempt to criticize the battle in detail, and Mr. Freeman is probably right in ascribing tactical skill to his hero. But of strategy there is no trace, and the simple fact is that with the whole might of England at his command, he hurried on with inferior forces in order that he might fight just where his opponent would have him.

It is worth while to notice how different was William's action after &Mac. Had he attempted at once to march upon London and besiege it, he might have been held at bay till a national resistance had been organized :—

" Bat ho still did not march straight upon London. His plan evidently was to surround the city with a wide circle of conquered and desolated country, till sheer isolation should compel its defenders to submit. South and west of London he was master from Dover to Wallingford ; his course was now to march on, keeping at some distance from the city, till the lands north and east of London should be as thoroughly wasted and subdued as the lands south of the Thames. He followed out this plan till he reached Berkhampstead, in Hertfordshire. By this time the spirit of London itself had failed. The blow which had been dealt at Santee had at last reached the heart of England. At Berkhamp- stead the second act of William's great work was played out. The Conquest there received the formal ratification of the conquered."

William's strategy in England was in substance the .same as that which three centuries and a half later Henry V. carried out against Normandy, and in both cases it met with signal success.

We have said nothing of the story of Stamford Bridge, here told truly for the first time in history, and there are numberless other matters which we are obliged to pass over. We can do this with the less regret, since the book is one which no student of English history can leave unread.