^{page 194 note a} The most amusing is that which is related by Eadmer (p. 47), who says, that the king: undertook for the sum of 60 marks to reconvert a Jew's son from Christianity to Judaism; but failing in his attempt, he insisted on his right to receive from the old Jew half this douceur. as a reward for his having used his endeavours to accomplish the object required. The Jew reluctantly consents, and “the devil and the king divide the prize.” The anecdote has been often referred to, but it is worth while to turn to it in the original author, who has given it a dramatic effect.

^{page 195 note a} It seems not improbable that there is a source left from which some valuable information might still be gained, respecting the cathedral of Bayeux and its treasures, including perhaps the Tapestry itself. From the preface to Neustria Pia (Rothomag. 1663, fol.) it appears that Father Du Monstier, the author of that posthumous work, left four other volumes in manuscript, one of which is stated by the editor, M. Gallemand, to treat, “de sex Ecclesiis Metropolitanæ in Neustria suffraganeis; de suorum Episcoporum adventu; successione; synodis; epistolis; muniis, et præclaribus gestis.” This MS. the editor says, was deposited with the others in the convent of the Recollects at Rouen. If it should have survived the storm of the revolution, I cannot help inferring, from the diligence which the author has displayed in his published volume, that it would repay the trouble of a search.

^{page 195 note b} Ducarel's Anglo-Norman Antiquities, p. 77.

^{page 195 note c} That the church was not totally destroyed, and that repairs were soon afterwards bestowed upon it, will be found on consulting William of Malmsbury, who, after mentioning the conflagration, adds, “detrimenta Ecclesiae Rex mirificè resarcivit,” (edit. Francf. p. 157.) It appears too from Robert De Monte that Philip, Bishop of Bayeux, contributed to restore the church. His words are, “Ecclesiâ Bajocensi igne combusâ, Philippus Episcopus in ejus Testauratione iterum viriliter laborat.” (Recueil des Historiens des Gaules, torn. 13, p. 305.). If then the church was not irreparably damaged, there is no difficulty in conceiving that a favourite ornament like the Tapestry might have been saved from destruction, as well as the relicks mentioned by the Abbé de la Rue.

^{page 197 note a} See “Observations on the Bayeux Tapestry, by Hudson Gurney, Esq.M.P. F.S.A.” in Archaeologia, Vol. XVIII. p. 361.

^{page 198 note a} In the Abbé de la Rue's excellent account of Gaimar (Archaeol. Vol. XII. p. 308) he supposes that poet to have been anterior to Wace, and to have written before 1150, many years preceding the date which he has assigned to the Tapestry. It should be observed that, in support of the story of Taillefer and his exploits in the battle of Hastings, there is a respectable prose authority, at least as old as the poetical ones, Wace and Gaimar. It is Henry of Huntingdon, who says, “Quidam vero nomine Taillefer diu antequam coirent bellatores, ensibus jactatis ludens coram gente Anglorum, dum in eum omnes stuperent, quendam vexilliferum Anglorum interficit. Secundo similiter egit. Tertio idem agens, et ipse interfectus est.” (p. 368, edit. Francof. 1601.) A free translation of the verses of Wace and Gaimar, describing this incident, will be found in the Appendix to this communication, see p. 206.

^{page 199 note a} L'Art de Verifier les Dates, Vol. II. p. 842. But I ought to observe, that on referring to the Chronicle of Tours, as published in the 12th volume of the justly praised Benedictine Collection of French Historians, I do not find this date marked, though it occurs in the index to that volume. Some authors fix the marriage in 1053.

^{page 200 note a} The history and even the name of this rejected princess are left in inexplicable confusion. The Norman writers, who might have been presumed to be the best informed, are completely at variance with each other. William of Jumieges calls her Adeliza (i. e. Alice,) and Ordericus Vitalis, Agatha; while in the Chronicle of Normandy she is named Alle, answering to Adela; thus confounding three daughters of William, who are generally described elsewhere as distinct personages. Some of the English writers have called her Adeliza, and others Adela, while Malmsbury honestly confesses that her name has escaped him. Even Matilda is among her aliases, but I am not aware that she was ever called Ælfgiva. Next, as to her fate, Malmsbury has cut it short by asserting that she died before the Norman invasion, without having attained a marriageable age. William of Jumieges says, that she lived to maturity, but died unmarried. Eadmer represents her to have been living at the time of the invasion, for he says, that Harold being called on by William to complete his contract, attempted to justify his refusal by alleging the impropriety of his placing, inconsultis principibus, a female foreigner on the throne of England. This phrase, inconsultis principibus, seems to involve rather a curious question as to the authorities whose opinions it might have been necessary to solicit. It would be tedious to burthen this note with references to subsequent writers who have transcribed their accounts from one or other of these original sources. But I cannot help remarking, that Ordericus Vitalis, as if this poor princess had not already experienced sufficiently mortification, has related a pathetic tale of her being betrothed against her inclination to Alphonso, King of Gallicia. Having seen and loved the Englishman who had abandoned her, she, with feelings equally perverse and disinterested, hated the Spaniard whom she had not seen, but who was willing to receive her. With tears, therefore, she implored Heaven to relieve her by death from this bondage. Her prayer was heard. She died on her voyage towards Spain, and was carried back to be buried at Bayeux. This story appears to be in part true, though not fixed by this author on the right person. Maimsbury refers it to another nameless daughter of William, with this whimsical addition, that from the frequency of her prayers, it was found, after her death, that her knees had grown callous, translated by Sandford brawned, and by others horny. Baron Maseres, thinking such an extraordinary proof of piety would best accord with the character of an abbess, has conjectured that the person meant to be described was Cecilia, William's eldest daughter, who presided over her mother's abbey at Caen. But this reverend abbess was devoted by her parents to a religious life from her infancy; and so far from dying through love or vexation, it appears in the Neustria Pia that she reigned in her monastery 47 years, and lived to a good old age. On the whole, it seems that the name and adventures of Harold's betrothed princess must remain an impenetrable secret, not indeed much worth knowing, but serving as an addition to the very numerous instances of contradictory testimony to be found in writers ef general veracity, and apparently possessing means of information on the subjects of which they treat.

^{page 201 note a} It is remarkable, that the wedded as well as the betrothed wife of Harold should have been left by the historians of the day in uncertainty and obscurity. This supposed queen of Harold is represented by a Norman writer, William of Jumieges, (Duchesne Script. Normann. p. 285) to have been the daughter of the renowned Earl Algar, and widow of Griffin, King of Wales, whom Harold had overthrown during the reign of the Confessor. His account is followed by Ordericus Vitalis, (Duchesne, p. 492). No notice, however, appears to be taken of her either in the Welsh or the Saxon Chronicle, nor are the histories of Malmsbury, Eadmer, and William of Poitiers more communicative. There is, besides, a passage in Ingulphus (already cited by Lord Lyttelton) which tends to negative Algitha's existence, by asserting that Earl Algar, who died some years before Harold's accession, left but one daughter, named Lucia, who is known to have married three husbands, the last of whom was Ranulph, Earl of Chester. In support of Ingulphus's authority, it should be observed, that he was not only contemporary with the fact related, being nearly thirty years old at Algar's death, but that he was afterwards Abbot of Croyland, a monastery to which that nobleman was a munificent benefactor. On the other hand, Florence of Worcester (on whose authority very great reliance is placed as to the events of this period) has certainly described this queen as the sister of Earls Morcar and Edwin, the sons of Algar, and has related that, on receiving the intelligence of Harold's death, she was removed by her brothers to Chester (p. 430, edit. 1592). This passage, the best authority perhaps in support of Algitha's existence and claim to royalty, is not noticed by Lord Lyttelton. It appears verbatim in the almost contemporary history of Simeon of Durham, and has been generally copied by subsequent historians; but Brompton, I observe, has understood it to apply, not to Harold's queen, but to his sister Editha, the widow of the Confessor (Twysden, Script. X. col. 961). In his construction of the words “sororem suam Algitham Reginam,” he appears to have considered suam as having reference to Harold, who is named in the preceding sentence. But besides that this construction is not the obvious one, it seems improbable that Florence, by whom Edward's queen is repeatedly named Eadgitha, should on this solitary occasion have given her the appellation of Algitha;—and that this is not a mistake in the printed copy, I have ascertained by referring to two MSS. (Harl. 1757, and Cot. Vitellius, E. XIII. 1.) in the British Museum. Nor does any reason appear why King Edward's widow should have been under the special protection of Edwin and Morcar. It may be remarked, perhaps, that among Harold's excuses for the non-performance of his contract with William's daughter, he does not allege as an impediment his marriage with another. But in an age when wives were easily repudiated, this would not have been admitted as imposing any difficulty; more especially as the former contract might have been held to invalidate the marriage. Yet, on the whole, though Algitha's name has generally been found in the pages of later historians, and though Speed and Rapin have called her the mother of Wolf, the son of Harold, who was afterwards knighted by William Rufiis, I am disposed to admit that some doubt may reasonably be entertained how far the testimony of one English and one Norman historian (for the rest are mere transcribers) ought to weigh against the counter evidence of Ingulphus, and the silence of the other chroniclers of the times.

The question, after all,, is one of very slight importance. A Saxon queen more or less will not much enrich or impoverish our Royal Tables, especially so transitory a queen as Algitha, who may be said, like the crowned progeny of Banquo, to “come like shadow, so depart.” The best apology I can offer for this minute and perhaps tedious discussion is, that the subject has before engaged the attention of so able a writer as Lord Lyttelton, and that many of the points above referred to appear to have escaped his observation.

^{page 202 note a} Wadard's name will be found as tenant to Odo in the following pages of the first volume of Domesday, viz. Kent, fol. 6, 7 b, 10; Surrey, fol. 32; Wilts, fol. 66; Oxfordshire, fol. 155 b, 156,156 b; Warwickshire, fol. 238 b; Lindesay (in Lincolnshire) fol. 342, 342 b, 343 b. That he was a person of some importance is apparent from the number and extent of his possessions. In Oxfordshire alone he was under-tenant in different places for no less than forty hides and a half, making, according to the usual computation, 4860 acres.

^{page 203 note a} Archaeol. Vol. XVIII. p. 368.

^{page 203 note b} This conjecture is rendered very probable by the account which is given by Ordericus Vitalis (Duchesne, p. 664) of the great munificence of Odo towards the churches in his diocese, and particularly towards the cathedral, which he built from its foundation. As he makes a prominent figure in the Tapestry, he may here be briefly noticed. He was the son of William's mother by her husband Herluinus, and he appears to have possessed many of William's brilliant and commanding qualities. Ordericus in strong terms extols his eloquence and vigour, but in another place admits that he had vices mixed with his virtues, and that his character was more worldly than spiritual. Malmsbury charges him with turbulence, dissimulation, and rapacity. Upon his seal (engraved in Duearel's Anglo-Norman Antiquities) he is represented on one side in the habit of an ecclesiastic, and on the other as a warrior mounted and armed for action. An anecdote furnished by Malmsbury seems to illustrate this description. When he revolted from the authority of his brother (who had created him Earl of Kent, and granted him very large possessions in various parts of England), Archbishop Lanfranc advised the king to imprison him. To this William objected that he was a clergyman; when Lanfranc replied, “It is not the Bishop of Bayeux, but the Earl of Kent, whom you will imprison.” This brings to recollection a story somewhere told of a German episcopal sovereign who, when reproached with having committed a flagrant action, attempted to justify himself by alleging that he had done it as a prince, not as a bishop. “But,” said his monitor, “if the prince should go to the devil for it, what would become of the bishop ? ”

Robert, Earl of Moriton, or Moritol (more properly Morteuil) another conspicuous person in the Tapestry, was the brother of Odo, and half brother of William. He is described by Malmsbury as dull and indolent crassi et hebetis ingenii hominem.

Eustace, Earl of Boulogne, whom Mr. Stothard has discovered to have a place in the Tapestry, was a nobleman of great influence, which, though he had fought under William's banners at Hastings, he shortly afterwards exerted against him. He deserves notice as the father of the illustrious Godfrey of Boulogne, immortalized by Tasso's Poem.

^{page 204 note a} A tenant named Vitalis, probably the person described under the appellation of Vital in the Tapestry, appears, in Domesday, to have held lands under Odo in Kent; and the son of a person named Turold is found among the undertenants of that prelate in Essex. If these explanations be admitted, Wadard, Vital, and Turold, three obscure personages, whose appearance in the Tapestry is otherwise unaccounted for, appear to have owed that distinction to their having been followers of Odo; and thus the connection of the Tapestry with Odo ascertains its age.

^{page 205 note a} These remarks do not apply to the admirable use which Mr. Turner, in his Anglo-Saxon and Norman Histories, has made of documents of the description alluded to, in illustrating the manners, customs, genius, and literature of the times.