Page:Archaeological Journal, Volume 11.djvu/278

212 ON THE LIFE AND DEATH OF EAKL GODWINE. the same, wouKl lie not, Avliile describing Brihtric as the brother of Eadric, have also described Wulfnoth as the lu■l•llC^Y both of Brihtrif and Eadric 1 I think any one Avould argue in this ^vay, if the doubtful passage of the Chronicle had not been held to foreclose the question. To me it seems clear that we have no sufficient ground for identifying Child Wulfnoth, the South-Saxon, Avitli the father of Godwine. Putting then this identity aside, we have two statements, that of Florence, who makes AVulfnoth the father of Godwine to be the nephew of Eadric, and that of the authorities followed by Turner and Thierr3%who make him to be a herdsman in Gloucestershire or Wilts, ]Ir. Turner, we have seen, does not look upon the two statements as irreconcilable. Formally indeed they certainly are not, as Wulfnoth ?/iaj/ have remained in obscurity, while other members of his family rose to greatness. But if this be thought too improbable, we have two contradictory state- ments, each of which has something to be said in its behalf. For the one we have the high authority of a direct statement from one of our best early historians, a the'^woncc.°'^ statcmcnt perfectly clear and intelligible, and affected, I believe, by no doubt as to the text. l-'or the other, we have the fact that Florence stands alone in his statement in a rather remarkable manner ; we have the direct testimony of some inferior authorities; we have also, as appears to me, on the whole, the probability of the case. First of all, what is always of no small consequence in these questions, if we grant the truth of the Saga story, there is no difficulty in understandmg how^ the contrary version arose, wliile the reverse process is by no means so easy. For if the tale of Godwinc's peasant origin be a fiction, it must be a pure invention without motive. One does not see how any confusion or misconception can have led to it; and as the tale ol' liis lowly bii'th does not seem at all introduced with any notion of depri-ciating (uxlwino, there appears no rcOvSon for any one to go out of the way to invent it. Ihit if, as is ])rol)able enough, there were several contemporary Wulfnoths, especially if the one really in (|uestion wei-e an oljscure person, meic luisconceplion nii^liL lead l^'loi-eiice or his informants to fasten the |)aternity ujtoii tlu; wrong WulliioLli. Again, vai-ious motives mii;ht easily lead to a lalsification. 'J'o cDnnecl, (Joilwine with 1'la'liic, would suit