Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 11.djvu/396

 332 ON THE LIFE AND DEATH OF EARL GODWINE. but by those of his rival Harold. In continuation, Florence tells us how on the final accession of Hartliaciuit, ^Elfric, Archbishop of York, accused Godwine and ]>ishop Lvfing to that king as parties to the nun-der of j^EIfred, and how Godwine cleared himself by his own oath and that of the other great men of the realm, asserting that the blinding of YElfred was not done by his will or counsel, and that what lie had done was all by the command of his loid King Harold.^ lie also describes the magnificent ship which Godwine gave Harthacnut as the price of his friendship — a gift which does not throw more doubt u]ion the purity of Godwine's acquittal than the fact that ^'Elfric got Lyting's bishopric in plurality for his pains, does upon the testimony of the jrost lleverend informer. Let us tr}' what amount of truth we can get out of tliese discrepancies between our best authorities, taking in what amount of collateral evidence we can find elsewhere. The details of the two stories in the Chronicle cannot be reconciled, and Florence is actually self- contradictory ; yet it seems impossible to doubt the historical character of the two main events, the division of the kingdom between Hari'M uiid Harthacnut, and the subsequent landing of ^Eli'red, with his blinding or death. The variations, however, in the narration of the latter event are so numerous as to destroy all confidence in the details, yet we may observe that all introduce Godwine in some shape or other. First of all, 1 think we may fairly accept the statement that, on the death of Cnut, Godwine, with the West-Saxons, assorted the claims of Harthacnut, that the kingdom was divided between him and Harold, and that the government of Wessex was carried on in llarthacmit's name by Emma and Godwine. The version of the Chronicle which states this was written during Eadward's reign, ami apparently early in it, as, on recording his election, it adds a wish for his long life. The narration is remarkably clear and straightforward, while there is something very confused in llie way in which tlio story is told in the other. JSuch a diisioii of the kingd(jm is also tin; sort of event which could not well have been invented, while, as the airangement proved only '•'" Iimti|«<'r<'t'mMi iMin Mii ci.iihilii iifcmiic luiii tuliiis fiic Aii>;liif |irinci|)ibuH t-t VdluiilAlin (uiHM) (Hind liiitcr ejim riPcaluB ininiHtrm iii(,'iiiitrilnm U% jmavit." Fl. fuinml, wmI doiiiiiiiiiii Hiitiiii Ki-f;em Wij;. «i. I(l4tl. Iluriil'liiiii illiiin fiKMTi- <|ii(| fecit juhhImkc,