Page:Sussex Archaeological Collections, volume 6.djvu/60

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been validated.
36
ON THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS.

Pictavensis also says, that he was buried by the seashore, and Ordericus agrees with the Carmen in asserting that the duke peremptorily denied the request of the Countess Ghitha for the remains of her son. "I have lost," was the sorrowing mother's plea, "three of my sons in this war; will you deny a bereaved widow's heart the consolation of possessing the bones of one of them? Give me but those beloved remains and I will pay you for them weight by weight in pure gold."[1] The duke, with characteristic sternness, replied, that he despised such traffic as that, and that he considered it unjust that one should receive burial at the hands of a mother, whose cupidity had caused so many mothers' sons to lie unburied.[2] William of Malmesbury, however, tells the story in a manner more creditable to William's humanity. "He sent the body of Harold to his mother, who begged it, unransomed; though she proffered large sums by her messengers. She buried it at Waltham, a church which he had built at his own expense in honour of the Holy Cross." It is added by some minor authorities that Ghitha's request was seconded by two monks, Osgod and Ailric, who had been dispatched by the abbot of Waltham for that purpose. The popular belief, encouraged for their own purposes by the fraternity at Waltham, was, that Harold had found honourable sepulture among them; though it may deserve a place among historic doubts whether his real grave is not upon the cliffs of the Sussex shore.

The number of the slain is variously stated. The Carmen, with admirable latitude of expression, says, that William killed "two thousands, besides innumerable other thousands!" Ordericus tells us, from the information of eye-witnesses, that the Normans lost 15,000 men. "How great think you," asks the monk of Battle, "must have been the slaughter of the conquered, when that of the conquerors is reported, upon the lowest computation, to have exceeded ten thousand?" All things considered, we should probably not greatly err in fixing 30,000 as the number who perished on this memorable field.

  1. Carmen, v. 579, &c.
  2. Ordericus Vit., iii, 152.