ON THE LIFE AND DEATH OF EARL GODWINE. 333 temporary, it might easily have been passed by in other accounts. Now this must be reconciled with the other fact that iElfred came into England, and was blinded or murdered. I will not enter into the controverted details, whether iElfred came alone or accompanied by Eadward, or whether the latter preceded him ; whether he was induced to come by a genuine letter from his mother, or by a forgery of Harold's ; or, finally, how long he survived his blinding. The great difficulty, as I said before, is the fact that this event is placed before the election of Harold as king over all England ; if it happened afterwards, all would be plain, and it is probably on this account, that some of the later writers, as we shall soon see, do actually place it at a later period. But the Chronicle and Florence are distinct ; ^Elfred is blinded before the expulsion of Emma and the election of Harold over Wessex. Now we must take in two considerations ; first that a popular rumour, if nothing better, accused Emma herself,^ either alone or in conjunction with her son Hartha- cnut, of complicity in the deed ; secondl}', that Eadward, in a charter, attributes the death of iElfred to Harold and Harthacnut together."* Now, as Dr. Lingard truly says, the accusation must allude not to Harthacnut personally, but rather to some of those who governed in his name during his absence, that is either Emma or Godwine ; but as Harold the son of Godwine signed the charter, and would not be likely to subscribe his father's disgrace, it must be taken of Emma only. Now Emma was always said to have had little regard to her sons b}^ iEthelred, having trans- ferred all her affection to her second husband and children. We know also how severely Emma was treated on that ground by her son Eadward. Again, the panegyrist of Emma does not accuse Godwine, but represents him as receiving iElfred with all friendliness, and Harold's satellites as seizing him in Godwinc's absence, and without his know- ledge. Our facts then seem to be that Jii^lfred was received by Godwine — this much is allowed, whether treacherously or not is the question — that his murder was the work of Harold, ^ Bromton. " Quidani tanien dicuiit contra dictum Godwinum magua ira ijisam ill necem filii sui Alfredo consen- ortaest." sisse et veneiiuin Edwardo jirocunisse ... ■• Cod. Dipl., iv. 171, lul. In one lie undo dicunt quod propter uecem Altredi accuses the Danes in general, in another contra Uegein Hardelcnoutum, cujus con- Harold and HiU'thacuut by name, niventia hoc processisse dicebatur, et
