Æthelweard, Florence of Worcester, and Henry of Huntingdon all follow the chronicle, which in some details they apparently translate. William of Malmesbury seems to adopt the same account, but adds a few words which have especial reference to this portion of the argument[309]: “quorum (_i. e._ comitum) qui maximus aevo et prudentia Osricus, caeteros cohortatus ne necem domini sui in insignem et perpetuam suam ignominiam inultam dimitterent, districtis gladiis coniuratos irruit.” ----- Footnote 304: Beówulf, l. 1582 _seq._ Footnote 305: Ibid. l. 5262 _seq._, 5384 _seq._ Footnote 306: Ibid. l. 5763. Footnote 307: Hist. Ecc. ii. 9. Footnote 308: Chron. Sax. an. 755. ----- Footnote 309: Gest. Reg. i. § 42. ----- It is obvious that from this intimate relation between the prince and the gesíð must arise certain reciprocal rights and duties, sanctioned by custom, which would gradually form themselves into a code of positive law, and ultimately affect the state and condition of the freemen. In the earliest development of the Comitatus, it is clear that the idea of freedom is entirely lost; it is replaced by the much more questionable motive of _honour_, or to speak more strictly, of rank and station. The comes may indeed have become the possessor of land, even of very large tracts[310], by gift from his prince; but he could not be the possessor of a free Hide, and consequently bound to service in the general _fyrd_, or to suit in the folcmót: he might have wealth, and rank and honour, be powerful and splendid, dignified and influential, but he could not be free: and if even the freeman so far forgot the inherent dignity of his station as to carry himself (for his éðel I think he could not carry) into the service of the prince,—an individual man, although a prince, and not as yet the state, or the representative of the state,—can it be doubted that the remunerative service of the chief would outweigh the barren possession of the farmer, or that the festive board and adventurous life of the castle would soon supply excuses for neglecting the humbler duties of the popular court and judicature? Even if the markmen razed him from their roll, and committed his éðel to a worthier holder, what should he care, whom the liberality of his conquering leader could endow with fifty times its worth; and whose total divorce from the vulgar community would probably be looked upon with no disfavour by him who had already marked that community for his prey? Nor could those whom the gesíð in turn settled upon lands which were not within the general mark-jurisdiction, be free markmen, but must have stood towards him in somewhat the same relation as he stood to his own chief. Upon the plan of the larger household, the smaller would also be formed: the same or similar conditions of tenure would prevail; and the services of his dependants he was no doubt bound to hold at the disposal of his own lord, and to maintain for his advantage.