He distinctly says that he does not know who shot the arrow, but that

it was commonly said to be Walter Tirel, with some of the variations

in detail which we have already seen, as for instance whether the

arrow glanced from a tree or not;

“Ne sai qui traist ne qui laissa,

Ne qui feri, ne qui bersa,

Mais co dist l’en, ne sai sel fist,

Que Tirel traist, le rei ocist.

Plusors dient qu’il trebucha,

En sa cote s’empeecha,

E sa saete trestorna

E al chaeir el rei cola.

Alquanz dient que Tirel uolt

Ferir un cerf qui trespassout.

Entre lui e le rei coreit:

Cil traist qui entese aueit;

Mais la saete glaceia,

La fleche a un arbre freia,

E la saete trauersa,

Le rei feri, mort le rua.

E Gauter Tirel fost corut

La ou li reis chai e iut.”

The other French rimers are this time, though certainly less

trustworthy than Wace, of more importance in one way, as showing that

there was in some quarters, as there well might be in Normandy, a more

charitable feeling towards the Red King than we find in the English

writers. I have given in the text the substance of the accounts of

Geoffrey Gaimar and Benoît de Sainte-More. The version of Geoffrey

Gaimar (Chroniques Anglo-Normandes, i. 54) I do not remember to have

ever seen referred to, except in M. Michel’s note to Benoît. It is so

curious in its details that it is worth giving at length. It is

absolutely impossible to believe it in the teeth of opposite

statements of so much higher authority, yet it is strange if all its

graphic touches are a mere play of fancy;

“En la foreste estoit li rois,

En l’espesse, juste un maroi.

Talent li prist d’un cerf berser

Qu’en une herde vist aler,

Dejuste une arbre est descendu,

Il méisme ad son arc tendu.

Partut descendent li baron,

Li autre ensement d’environ.

Wauter Tirel est descenduz;

Trop près de roi, lez un sambuz,

Après un tremble s’adossa.

Si cum la herde trespassa

Et le grant cerf a mes li vint,

Entesa l’arc qu’en sa main tint,

Une seete barbelée

Ad tret par male destinée.

Jà avint si qu’au cerf faillit

De ci qu’au queor le roi férit.

Une seete au queor li vint

Mès ne savom qi l’arc sustint;

Mès ceo distrent li autre archer

Qu’ele eissi del arc Wauter.

Semblant en fut, car tost fuit;

Il eschapa. Li rois chéit,

Par iij. foiz s’est escriez,

Le corps diũ a demandez;

Mès n’i fut qui le li donast,

Loingnz fut del mouster en un wast;

Et nequedent un venéour

Prist des herbes od tut la flour,

Un poi en fist au roi manger,

Issi le quida acomunier.

En Dieu est ço et estre doit:

Il avoit pris pain bénoit

Le dimenge de devant:

Ceo li deit estre bon garant.”

Geoffrey, it should be noticed, has nothing to say about dreams and

warnings; the _gab_ between the King and Walter Tirel seems in his

version to take their place (see p. 322). But in the other account

which deals kindly with Rufus, that of Benoît de Sainte-More (see p.

332), the warning dream, in this case assigned to the King himself,

plays an important part. So also does Gundulf, the expounder of the

dream. His presence is thus explained (40523);

“Veirs est e chose coneue

C’une haors avoit eue

Od l’evesque de Rovecestre,

Qui chapelains est e deit estre

L’arcevesque de Cantorbire:

E por c’ert vers le rei en ire

Que _Saint Anseaume_ aveit chacié

E fors de la terre essilié.

Cil evesque de Rovecestre

Ert à lui venuz à Wincestre

Por pais requerre e demander,

Mais ne la poeit pas trover;

E li bons hom plein de pitié

Out mult Nostre-Seignor preié

Que de cele grant mesestance

Eust e cure e remembrance.”

We may note that Anselm, not yet canonized, is already called _saint_

in a formal way.

The King is to hunt the next day in the New Forest; in the night he

has the dream, which is told with a singular variation. He first sees

the dead body of a stag on the altar; then it changes into that of a

man (40560);

“Quant il regardout sor l’autel,

Si i veeit, ce li ert vis,

Un mult grant cerf qui ert ocis,

Por eschiver le grant renei

Que il voleit faire de sei,

Alout e si ’n voleit manger;

Kar c’erent tuit si desirer.

La où il i tendeit la main,

Si li ert vis s’ert bien certain,

Que c’ert cors d’ome apertement

Ocis e nafré et sanglent.”

Gundulf, “li evesques, li sainz hom,” then preaches a sermon of some

length, which the King listens to with unexpected docility; he

promises amendment of life, and receives absolution;

“Simple e od bone volunté

Out li reis en pais esculté,

Bien sont e conut la raison

De cele interpretation,

Assez pramist amendement

Donc de sa vie doucement

Al saint evesque a pardoné

Tote sa male volonté

Quant sa grace out e son congé.

Mult s’en torna joios e lié.”

In this version there is no special mention of Anselm and the synod;

the exhortation of Gundulf is quite general. In the account given by

Giraldus (De Inst. Prin. p. 174)――who, it must be borne in mind, has

two dreams, one dreamed by the King, and another by a premature canon

of Dunstable――this is strongly brought out. The bishop, whose name is

not given, exhorts the King at much less length than Gundulf does in

the rimes of Benoît, and the promise of reformation stands thus;

“Cum episcopus consilium ei daret quatenus, convocatis

illico episcopis regni sui et clero universo, eorundem

consilio se Domino per omnia conciliaret, missisque statim

nuntiis venerabilem sanctumque virum Anselmum Cantuariensem

archiepiscopum, quem ea tempestate, quod libertates ecclesiæ

tueri volebat, exulare compulerat, ab exilio revocaret,

respondens rex se cum regni sui proceribus consilium inde in

brevi habiturum.”

In Benoît’s version the King’s companions now urge him to go out to

hunt. The description is very graphic;

“E si vaslet furent hoesé

E en lor chaceors munté,

Les arcs ès mains, gamiz e presz,

E detrès eus lor bons brachez;

Abaient chens e sonent corns,

Monté atendent le rei fors.”

He refuses for a while, and sets forth his troubled mind with some

pathos;

“Avoi! fait-il, seignors, avoi!

Uncor sui-je plus maus assez

E plus cent tant que vos ne quidez;

Mais c’est la fin, remis m’en sui,

Que je n’irai mais en bois ui.

Ne voil por rien qu’alé i seie

Ne que jamais la forest veie.”

He goes forth, and, as I have said in the text (p. 332), is shot by

the arrow glancing from a tree. Benoît knew through what agency;

“Mais tant li mostre li reis Ros

Que c’il r’a d’aïr entesée

Une sajette barbelée,

E deiables tant l’a conveié[e]

Qu’à un gros raim fiert e glaceie.

Le rei feri delez le quor.”

His speech to his accidental slayer is most pious;

“Va-t’en, fui-tei senz demorer,

Kar mort m’as par ma grant enfance.

Ci a Deus pris de mei venjance:

Or li cri merci e soplei

Qu’il ait oi merci de mei

Par sa sainte chere douçor,

Kar mult sui vers lui peccheor.”

In the earlier of Giraldus’ two stories, one which has much in common

with this of Benoît, the arrow strikes the King accidentally, but

there is nothing about its glancing from a tree. As he looks on

William Rufus as the maker of the New Forest, he describes his going

forth to hunt there with some solemnity;

“Protinus contra dissuasionem in prædictam forestam, ubi tot

ecclesias destituerat, totosque fideles qui glebæ ibidem ab

antiquo ascripti fuerant immisericorditer exheredaverat,

venatum ivit. Nec mora, soluta per interemptionem

contentione ubi deliquit, casuali cujusdam suorum ictu

sagittæ letaliter percussus decubuit; miles enim directo in

feram telo, nutu divino cælum pariter et telum regente, non

feram eo sed ferum et absque modo ferocem, transpenetravit.”

(Cf. the extracts in p. 337.)

Having got thus far, pretty nearly in Benoît’s company, Giraldus goes

on to tell his other story which brings in the Prior of Dunstable. But

Dunstable, in its own Annals, did not claim an earlier founder than

Henry the First. We are therefore left to guess as to the origin of a

story which speaks of the priory of Dunstable as already existing in

the time of Rufus, and even as enjoying exceptional favour at his

hands. The “miles quidam” of the former story here becomes Ralph of

Aix, who is brought in after much the same fashion in which Walter

Tirel is in those versions of the story which mention him.

* * * * *

These are the chief varieties in the story of the death of Rufus; but

the tale is so famous, it has taken such a hold on popular imagination

from that day to our own, that it may be well to do as we have done in

some earlier cases, and to trace some of the forms which the story

took in the hands of writers of later times.

The Hyde writer (302), who always has notions of his own about all

matters, has nothing special to tell us about the death of

Rufus――“Norman-Anglorum rex Willelmus,” in his odd style――but the

story of the dream takes a new shape. A monk in Normandy, in extreme

sickness, sees the usual vision of the Lord and the suppliant woman,

here called less reverentially “puella vultu sole speciosior,” who

complains of the evil doings of Rufus and asks for vengeance

(“celerrimam de eo expetiit vindictam, asserens se a canibus ejus et

lupis potius quam ministris diu esse laniatam”). He has a further

dream about the sins of his own abbot, whom he rebukes, and causes a

letter to be sent to the King. The King mocks, but less pithily and

characteristically than he does in Orderic (“Quicumque sorti vel

somniis crediderit, sicut semper vivet suspiciosus et inquietus, ita

semper revertitur”). On this manifestation of unbelief follows the

judgement (“Deus Omnipotens telum quod diu vibraverat misericorditer,

tandem super regem projecit terribiliter”). He is shot casually in his

hunting (“venatum pergens, _venatus est_, et ex improviso sagitta

percussus;”――where surely “venatus est” is meant to be passive). He

dies without confession or communion; he is buried, and Henry reigns

in his stead. Then, as a kind of after-thought, comes in the mention

of Walter Tirel;

“Fertur autem quod eodem die venatum pergenti obtulit munus

sagittarum quidam adveniens, quarum unam Waltero Tirello

viro Ponteiensi in munere dedit secumque venire coegit.

Denique silvam ingressi, dum gregem bestiarum accingunt et

invicem trahunt, eadem sagitta, idem Walterus regem vicinus,

ut aiunt, percussit et subito extinxit.”

The author of the “Brevis Relatio” (Giles, 11) cuts the actual death

of Rufus very short, and mentions no particular actor, but he connects

it in a somewhat singular way with the presence of Henry;

“Contigit vero postea ut Robertus comes Normanniæ

Hierosolymam iret, totamque Normanniam fratri suo Willelmo

regi Anglorum invadiaret, et tunc Henricus fratri suo omnino

se conferret atque cum eo ex toto remaneret. Dum itaque cum

eo esset post aliquantum temporis contigit ut quadam die rex

Willelmus venatum iret, ibique, nescio quo judicio Dei, a

quodam milite sagitta percussus occumberet. Quem statim

frater suus Henricus Wintoniam referri fecit, ibique in

ecclesia Sancti Petri ante majus altare sepulturæ tradidit.”

The introduction of Henry in the former part of the extract is the

more remarkable, because the writer has either copied the account

given by Robert of Torigny in the Continuation of William of Jumièges

(viii. 9), or else he has borrowed from the same source. Robert’s

words are;

“Igitur, sicut supra diximus, cum Robertus dux Normannorum

anno ab incarnatione Domini mxcvi, Hierusalem perrexisset,

et ducatum Normanniæ Willelmo fratri suo regi Anglorum

invadiasset: contigit post aliquantum temporis, ut idem rex

quadam die venatum iret in Novam forestam, ubi iv. nonas

Augusti missa sagitta incaute a quodam suo familiari in

corde percussus, mortuus est anno ab incarnatione Domini mc.

regni autem sui xiii…. Occiso itaque Willelmo rege, ut

præmisimus, statim frater suus Henricus corpus ejus

Wintoniam deferri fecit ibique in ecclesia sancti Petri ante

majus altare sepulturæ tradidit.”

The words which I have left out record the death of the elder Richard,

the son of the Conqueror, in the New Forest――the younger Richard, the

son of Robert, is not mentioned――and the belief that the deaths of the

two brothers were the punishment of the destruction of houses and

churches done by their father. One phrase is remarkable; “Multas

villas et ecclesias _propter eandem forestam amplificandam_ in

circuitu ipsius destruxerat.” Here is nothing about Walter Tirel or

any one else by name, and this is the more to be noticed, because in

his own Chronicle, where he seems to have had before him the account

of Henry of Huntingdon, who mentions Walter Tirel, he leaves out the

name. Henry’s words are; “Ivit venatum in Novo foresto in crastino

kalendas Augusti, ubi Walterus Tyrel cum sagitta cervo intendens,

regem percussit inscius. Rex corde ictus corruit, nec verbum edidit.”

This in Robert’s version becomes “Willelmus rex Anglorum in Nova

Foresta, sibi multum dilecta, cum sagitta incaute cervo intenderetur,

in corde percussus interiit, nec verbum edidit.” He then goes on to

copy part of Henry of Huntingdon’s description of the doings of Rufus

somewhat further on.

Among the monastic chroniclers and annalists, the History of Abingdon

(ii. 43) seems to see in the Red King’s death a judgement on him for

some dealings connected with the lands of that abbey. A man described

as Hugo de Dun had, by the help of the Count of Meulan (“Comitis

Mellentis Rotberti senioris ope adjutus”), got into his hands some

lands of the abbey at Leckhampsted, as had also the better known Hugh

of Buckland, Sheriff of Berkshire (“eo quod et Berchescire vicecomes

et publicarum justiciarius compellationum a rege constitutus

existeret”). The writer then goes on;

“Quadam itaque die rex Willelmus dum cibatus venatum

exerceret, suorum unus militum, quasi ad cervum sagittam

emittens, regem e contra stantem sibique non caventem eadem

sagitta in corde percussit. Qui mox ad terram corruens

exspiravit.”

The legend received at Saint Alban’s (Gesta Abbatum, i. 65) seems to

have rolled together the dream of the monk at Gloucester and the

revelation of William’s death to the abbot of Clugny (see p. 343).

Anselm at Clugny has a vision in which many of the saints of England

bring their complaints against King William before the tribunal of

God. Then the story takes a local turn;

“Iratus Altissimus respondit,――Accede, Anglorum protomartyr.

Et accedente Albano, tradidit Deus sagittam ardentem,

dicens; vindica te, et omnes sanctos Angliæ, læsos a

tyranno. Accipiens autem Albanus sagittam de manu Domini,

projecit eam in terram, quasi faculam, dicens; Accipe,

Satan, potestatem in ipsum Willelmum tyrannum. Et eadem die,

mane, obiit rex transverberatus per medium pectoris sagitta.

Dixit autem arcitenenti, Trahe, diabole. Erat tunc temporis,

episcopo Wolstano defuncto, episcopatus Wygorniæ nimis

afflictus sub manu regis, et multæ aliæ ecclesiæ, sedente

tunc Paschali papa.”

I do not know why the Saint Alban’s writer should have specially

mentioned the church of Worcester, which certainly had a Bishop (see

vol. i. p. 542) at the time of William’s death. But neither should I

at p. 43 of this volume have mentioned Saint Alban’s among the

churches vacant at that time. For the four years’ vacancy which

followed the death of Paul was ended in 1097 by the election of

Richard. “Determinata lite quæ in conventu exorta fuerat inter

Normannos, qui jam multiplicati invaluerunt, et Anglos, qui, jam

senescentes et imminuti, occubuerant” (Gest. Abb. i. 66). Here is a

glimpse of the internal state of the convent which would be most

precious if it came from a writer of the year 1097, but which must be

taken for what it may be worth in the mouth of Matthew Paris or one

whom he followed. This abbot Richard was on good terms with Rufus as

well as with his successor (“Willelmi Secundi et Henrici Primi regum,

amicitia familiari fultus, multos honores et possessiones adeptus est,

et adeptas viriliter tuebatur”). Presently we get a second shorter

entry of the Red King’s death;

“Tempore quoque hujus abbatis Ricardi, Willelmus rex――immo

tyrannus――ultione divina, obiit sagittatus.”

The Winchester Annals which really should, just as much as the Hyde

writer, have given us something original at such a moment, have

nothing more to tell us than that “hoc anno rex a sagitta perforates

est in Nova Foresta a Waltero Tirel et sepultus in ecclesia Sancti

Swithuni Wintoniæ.” The Margam Annals merely mark that “hoc anno

interfectus est rex Angliæ Willelmus junior, rex Rufus vulgo vocatus,

non. Augusti, anno regni sui xiii. cum esset annorum plus xl.” This

reckoning falls in with what I said in vol. i. p. 141, and N. C. vol.

iii. p. 111. Dunstable, which is so strangely dragged into the tale by

Giraldus, and Bermondsey, which has some special things to record

during the reign, have nothing fresh to tell us, only Dunstable

mentions Walter Tirel and Bermondsey does not. Osney and Worcester

merely copy the usual story. Thomas Wykes has been quoted already.

Roger of Hoveden simply copies Florence. Ralph the Black and Roger of

Wendover at least give a little variety by copying the account in

William of Malmesbury. It is not till we get to the English and French

rimers, Robert of Gloucester and Peter Langtoft, that we come to

anything worthy of much notice or anything showing any imagination.

Robert of Gloucester tells the story of the dream, attributing it to a

monk, but not saying of what monastery. The appearance on the altar

loses perhaps somewhat of its awfulness when it is made into the

ordinary rood of the church.

“Þat þe kẏng eode into a chẏrche, as fers man and wod,

And wel hokerlẏche bẏ held þe folc þat þere stod.

To þe rode he sturte, and bẏgan to frete and gnawe

Þe armes vaste, and þẏes mẏd hẏs teþ to drawe.

Þe rode ẏt þolede long, ac suþþe atte laste

He pulte hẏm wẏt vot, and adoun vp rẏgt hẏm caste.”

This is surely no improvement on the older version of the story.

Robert does not forget the bodily appearances of the devil recorded by

Florence, but at his distance of time he does not draw the national

distinction which the earlier writer drew;

“Vor þe Deuel was þer byuore þer aboute ẏseẏe

In fourme of bodẏ, and spec al so mẏd men of þe countreẏe.”

He then goes on to tell the story, clearly after William of

Malmesbury, but everywhere with touches of his own. They have the

interest of being in any case the earliest detailed account, true or

false, of the story in our own tongue. Thus the account of the King’s

not going to hunt before dinner takes this shape;

“So þat þe kẏng was adrad and bẏleuede vor such cas

To wende er non an honteþ, þe wule he vastyng was.

Ac after mete, þo he adde ẏete and ẏdronke wel,

He nom on of hẏs priues, þat het Water Tẏrel,

And a uewe oþere of hẏs men, and nolde non lenger abẏde,

Þat he nolde to hẏs game, tẏde wat so bẏtẏde.”

The actual account of his death stands thus;

“He prẏkede after vaste ẏnou toward þe West rẏgt.

Hẏs honden he huld byuore hẏs eẏn vor þe sonne lẏgt.

So þat þẏs Water Tẏrel, þat þer bysẏde was neẏ,

Wolde ssete anoþer hert, þat, as he sede, he seẏ.

He sset þe kẏng in atte breste, þat neuer eft he ne speke,

Bote þe ssaft, þat was wẏþoute, grẏslẏch he to brec,

And anowarde hẏs wombe vel adoun, and deẏde without spech,

Wẏþoute ssrẏft and hosel, anon þer was Gode’s wreche.

Þo Water Tẏrel ẏseẏ, þat he was ded, anon

He atornde, as vaste as he mẏgte, þat was hẏs best won.”

Peter of Langtoft (i. 446) has some touches of his own. Among other

things, the days of the week have got wrong, in order to bring in a

precept as to the proper observance of the weekly fast-day. We also

get a purely imaginary Bishop of Winchester;

“Par un Jovedy à vespre le ray ala cocher

En la Nove Forest, où devayt veneyer.

Si tost fu endormy, comença sounger

K’il fust en sa chapele, soul saunz esquyer,

Les us furent fermés k’yl ne pout passer;

Si graunt faym avayt, ke l’estout manger,

Ou mourir de faym, ou tost arager.

Il n’ad payn ne char, ne pessoun de mer;

Il prent et devoure le ymage sur le auter,

La Marye et le fiz, saunz rens là lesser.

Al matyn, kaunt il leve, le eveske fet maunder,

Ode de Wyncestre, et ly va counter

Tut cum ly avynt en sun somoyller.

Le eveske ly dist, ‘Sir rays, Deus est rays saunz per;

Tu l’as coroucez, te covent amender

Par penaunce, et desore plus sovent amer.

Par Vendredy en boys ne devez mes chacer,

Ne à la ryvere of faucoun chuvaucher;

Tel est ta penaunce, et tu le days garder.’

Le eveske ad pris congé, et vait à sun maner;

Après la messe oye, ala le rays juer,

Sa penaunce oblye, fet maunder ly archer,

Walter Tirel i fust, ke set del mister,

Ad sun tristre vayt, la beste va wayter,

Un cerf hors de l’herd comença launcer;

Et ly Frauncays Tyrel se pressayt à seter,

Quide ferir la beste, et fert le rays al quer

Kaunt le eveske l’oyt dire, fist trop mourne cher.

Le cors à, Wyncestre fist le eveske porter,

Et mettre en toumbe al mouster saynt Per.

[Prioms qe sire Dieu pardoun li voile doner.]”

This last line, fittingly according to the belief of William’s own

time, is wanting in some manuscripts.

From the writer known as Bromton we might have looked for some new

form of the legend, but he gives us (X Scriptt. 996) only the usual

story about Walter Tirel, with a rhetorical character of William and

an account of his evil doings. One or two expressions however are

remarkable;

“In quodam loco ubi priscis temporibus ecclesia fuerat

constructa, et tempore patris sui cum multis aliis

ecclesiis, et quatuor domibus religiosis, et tota illa

patria in solitudinem redacta, vitam crudelem fine miserrimo

terminavit. Jure autem in medio injustitiæ suæ inter feras

occiditur, qui ultra modum inter homines ferus erat. Nam

stabilitis contra malefactores silvarum, forestarum, et

venationis, legibus duris, zelotepia sua agente, custos

boscorum et ferarum pastor communiter vocabatur.”

To Knighton’s curious account I have referred already (see p. 333).

But he tells the story twice. His first version (X Scriptt. 2372)

contains nothing remarkable; the second (2373) is quite worth notice.

He attributes to Rufus the making of the New Forest, which he

describes in words which are not, as far as one can see, copied from

any of the usual sources. He enforced the forest laws with great

harshness, “quod pro dama hominem suspenderet, pro lepore xx._s._

plecteretur, pro cuniculo x._s._ daret.” Then the last scene is

brought in with some solemnity; but the age which he assigns to the

Red King is quite impossible;

“Igitur, ut ante dictum est, iii. nonarum Augusti, per

Cistrensem [sic] anno gratiæ MC. regni sui xiii. ætatis

liii. venit in novum herbarium suum, scilicet novam

forestam, cum multa familia stipatus, venandi gratia set

sibi gratia dura. Cum arcubus et canibus stetit in loco suo,

et quidam miles sibi nimis familiaris Walterus Tyrel nomine,

prope eum ex opposito loco, ut moris est venantium,

cæterique sparsim unusquisque cum arcu et sagitta in manu

expecteoli [sic] pro præda capienda. Interea accidit miræ

magnitudinis cervum præ cæteris præstantiorem regi

appropinquare, videlicet inter regem et dictum militem, at

rex tetendit arcum volens emittere sagittam, credens se

interficere cervum, set, fracta corda in arcu regis, cervus,

de sonitu quasi attonitus, restitit circumcirca respiciens,

et inde rex aliqualiter motus dixit militi ut cervum

sagittaret. Miles vero se sustinuit. At rex objurganter cum

magno impetu præcepit ei, dicens, ‘Trahe, trahe, arcum ex

parte diaboli, et extendas sagittam, alias te pœnitebit,’ At

ille emisit sagittam, volens interficere cervum, percussit

regem per medium cordis, et occidit eum, ibidemque

expiravit. Walterus evasit, nemine insequente. Rex vero

vehitur apud Wyntoniam super redam caballariam impositus. In

cujus sepultura luctus defuit. Omnes gaudium de ejus morte

arripiunt, adeo quod vix erat quispiam qui lacrimam

emiserit, sed omnes de morte ejus lætati sunt.”

This is well told; but how much more men knew about the matter at the

end of the fourteenth century than they did in the last year of the

eleventh.

* * * * *

To turn to foreign writers, the Annales Cambriæ say simply that

“Willelmus rex Angliæ, a quodam milite suo cervum petente sagitta

percussus, interiit”――or, in another manuscript, “Willelmus rex

Anglorum, _improviso ictu_ sagittæ a quodam milite in venatu

occubuit.” The difference is to be noted. The Brut records the death

of William the Red, King of the Saxons (Gẃilim Goch, brenhin y

Saeson), and says that “as he was on a certain day hunting, along with

Henry, his youngest brother, accompanied by some of his knights, he

was wounded with an arrow by Walter Tyrell, a knight of his own, who,

unwittingly, as he was shooting at a stag, hit the king and killed

him.”

The Annales Blandinienses in Pertz, v. 27, record how “secundus

Willelmus rex Anglorum in venatione ab uno milite suo ex improvisu

sagitta vulneratus obiit; cui successit Henricus frater suus.” The

Saint Denis History (Pertz, ix. 405) has a further touch; “Willelmus

Rufus, rex Anglorum, venationi intentus sagitta incaute emissa

occiditur. Cui Henricus frater ejus _velocissime successit_, ne

impediretur a Roberto fratre suo, jam de Hierosolimitana expeditione

reverso.” Another writer in the same volume (ix. 392), Hugh of Fleury,

has a remarkable account, quite in the spirit of the English writers,

but seemingly not directly copied from any of them;

“Rex Anglorum Guillelmus, magnifici regis Guillelmi

successor et filius, dum venationem exercet in silva quæ

adjacet Vindoniæ urbi, a quodam milite sagitta percussus

interiit. Ille tamen miles qui sagittam jecit illum

inscientem percussit. Cervam quippe sagittare parabat, sed

sagitta retrorsum acta regem insperate percussit, et illum

inopinabiliter interemit. Quod divino nutu contigisse non

dubium est. Erat enim rex ille armis quidem strenuus atque

munificus, sed nimis lasciviens et flagitiosus. Verum

antequam interiret, magnis sibi signis præostensis, si

voluisset, corrigi debuisset. Nam dum sibi subitus, peccatis

suis exigentibus, immineret interitus, in eadem insula in

qua manebat sanguinis unda fœtida per spatium unius diei

emanavit, _ipso præsente_, quod dicebatur ejus portendere

mortem. Ipso etiam tempore apparuerunt alia signa stupenda

in eadem insula, quibus, sicut jam dictum est, terreri et

vitam suam corrigere debuisset. Quæ juventa stolidus et

honore superbus contempsit, et semper incorrigibilis mansit.

Unde Dei justo judicio subite et intempestiva morte

preventus occubuit. Cui successit frater ejus junior

Henricus, vir sapiens atque modestus.”

Hugh of Flavigny, whom we have already had often to quote, adds

(Pertz, viii. 495) one detail which I do not think appears elsewhere.

The King goes to see the well which sent up blood (the event is

wrongly put under 1099);

“Anno inc. dom. 1099 obiit Urbanus papa, successit

Paschalis. Obiit etiam Willelmus junior rex Anglorum. Quo

etiam anno in Anglia fons verum sanguinem olidum et putentem

manare visus est. Ad quod spectaculum cum fere tota insula

cucurrisset, insolita rei novitate stupefacta, rex præfatus

advenit et vidit, nec tamen ei profuit vidisse. Autumabat

vulgus promiscuum portentum istud mortem regis portendere,

quod etiam ei dicebatur a referentibus; sed homo secularis

et in quem timor Dei non ceciderat, voluptatibus carnis et

superbiæ deditus, divinorum præceptorum contemptor et

adversarius, qui tamen satis regii fuisset animi, si non

Deum postposuisset fastu regni inflatus, nec cogitabat se

moriturum.”

He carries on this vein a little further, and then gives the account

of his death;

“Quia Deum deseruit, sanctam ecclesiam opprimens et eam sibi

ancillari constituens, a Deo quoque derelictus est; in silva

quæ adjacet Wintoniæ civitati, dum venationem exercet,

sagitta a quodam percussus, quo lethali vulnere decidit et

exanimatus est, pœnitentia et communione carens, et apud

eamdem urbem sepultus.”

The Angevin chroniclers record the death of Rufus without comment or

detail. The Biographer of the Bishops of Le Mans (Vet. An. 309), who

looks at the matter chiefly with reference to Bishop Hildebert,

moralizes at some length; but his statement of fact is no more than

this;

“Dum quadam die in silvam venandi gratia perrexisset, ab uno

ex militibus qui secum ierant sagitta percussus, interiit.”

This is really hardly more than the few words of the English

Chronicler. Alberic of Trois Fontaines, from whom we might have looked

for something, merely copies William of Malmesbury and others. Gervase

of Tilbury (ii. 20, Leibnitz, i. 945) mentions another agent in the

death-blow;

“Defuncto patre successit Guillelmus _primogenius_ in

regnum, vir impius, ecclesiarum persecutor, immisericors

circa imbelles, qui archiepiscopum Cantuariensem plurimum

persecutus, _ab angelo percutiente peremtus_, Guintoniæ

sepultus est, sub infamiæ perpetuo monumento.”

* * * * *

As for Walter Tirel, he has his place in ordinary memory so thoroughly

as the slayer of William Rufus and as nothing else, that it is rather

hard to take in that his position as the slayer of William Rufus is

very doubtful, while there are undoubted, though meagre, notices of

him in other characters. We have already seen him entertaining Anselm

in one of his Picard dwellings. The fullest account of his family

comes from Orderic, who, when he is commenting on the laxity of the

Norman clergy and bishops in his time, gives us the story of Walter’s

father (574 D). Dean Fulk was a pupil of Bishop Ivo of Chartres, and

inherited a knight’s fee from his father. Then we read how “illius

temporis ritu, nobilem sociam nomine Orieldem habuit, ex qua copiosam

prolem generavit.” Walter was one of a family of ten, seemingly the

youngest of eight sons. He was “cognomento Tirellus,” clearly a

personal and not a hereditary or local surname.

If the Dean of Evreux kept proper residence, his son would be Norman

_natione_, whatever he was _genere_; but most accounts of Walter

connect him with France rather than with Normandy. Abbot Suger, who

knew him personally, speaks of him (Duchèsne, iv. 283 C) as

“nobilissimus vir Galterius Tirellus.” In Florence (1100) he is simply

“quidam Francus, Walterus cognomento Tirellus.” William of Malmesbury

(iv. 333) says that, on the day of the King’s death, he was “paucis

comitatus, quorum familiarissimus erat Walterius cognomento Tirel, qui

de Francia, liberalitate regis adductus, venerat.” His possession of

Poix appears from Orderic, 782 A, where he is described as “de Francia

miles generosus, Picis et Pontisariæ dives oppidanus, potens inter

optimates et in armis acerrimus; ideo regi familiaris conviva et

ubique comes assiduus.” Walter Map (De Nugis Cur. 222) calls him

“miles Achaza juxta Pontissaram Franciæ,” which I suppose means

Achères. (But in Orderic, 723 B, we have another Walter and also a

Peter brought into connexion with Achères.) Walter’s connexion with

that district suggests that the King had bought him over to his side,

or had taken him prisoner during the campaign in the Vexin. Geoffrey

Gaimar (Chron. Anglo-Norm. i. 51) dwells on his possession of Poix;

“Wauter estoit un riches hom,

De France ert per del région.

Piez estoit soen un fort chastel,

Assez avoir de son avel.

Au roi estoit venu servir

Douns et soudées recoverir,

Per grant cherté ert recuilliz,

Assez ert bien del roi chériz.

_Pur ceo q’estranges homs estoit,

Le gentil roi le chérissoit._”

His marriage comes from Orderic (783 A); “Adelidam filiam Ricardi de

sublimi prosapia Gifardorum conjugem habuit, quæ Hugonem de Pice,

strenuissimum militem, marito suo peperit.”

The question now comes whether Walter Tirel appears in Domesday. There

is in Essex (41) an entry, “Laingaham tenet Walterus Tirelde. R. quod

tenuit Phin dacus pro ii. hidis et dimidia et pro uno manerio.” This

comes among the estates of Richard of Clare, and I suppose that “R.”

in the entry should be “de R.” as in several others. If this be our

Walter Tirel, his estate was not very great, and he did not hold as a

tenant-in-chief. One cannot make much out of the extract from an

East-Saxon county history in Ellis, ii. 394. Lappenberg (ii. 207) has

more to say about this entry and other bearers of the name of Tirel.

It cannot much matter that “der Name Tirrel ist in der Liste der

Krieger zu Battle Abbey.” It is of more importance when he refers to

the Pipe Roll of Henry (56), where we read, “Adeliz uxor Walteri

Tirelli reddit compotum de x. marcis argenti de eisdem placitis de La

Wingeham.” This comes in Essex, and I suppose that the “Laingaham” of

Domesday and the “La Wingeham” of the Pipe Roll are the same place. If

so, the two entries, combined with the notice in Orderic, look very

much as if they all belong to one Walter and one Adelaide. If this be

so, Walter Tirel was a landowner in England, though on no great scale;

and whatever was his own case, his wife or widow was living and

holding his land in 1131.

Walter’s denial of any share in the King’s death comes from the

personal knowledge of Abbot Suger (Duchèsne, iv. 283); “Imponebatur a

quibusdam cuidam nobilissimo viro Galterio Tirello, quod eum sagitta

perfoderat. Quem cum nec timeret, nec speraret, jurejurando sæpius

audivimus, et quasi sacrosanctum asserere, quod ea die nec in eam

partem silvæ in qua rex venabatur, venerit, nec eum in silva omnino

viderit.”

John of Salisbury in his Life of Anselm, c. xii (Giles, v. 341),

refers to this denial on the part of Walter. He speaks of the fate of

Julian, likening Anselm to Basil, and goes on; “Quis alterutrum

miserit telum, adhuc incertum est quidem. Nam Walterus Tyrrellus ille,

qui regiæ necis reus a plurimis dictus est, eo quod illi familiaris

erat et tunc in indagine ferarum vicinus, et fere singulariter

adhærebat, etiam quum ageret in extremis, se a cæde illius immunem

esse, invocato in animam suam Dei judicio, protestatus est. Fuerunt

plurimi, _qui ipsum regem jaculum quo interemptus est misisse

asserunt_; et hoc Walterus ille, etsi non crederetur ei, constanter

asserebat.” He adds a comment which might be taken in two senses; “Et

profecto quisquis hoc fecerit, Dei ecclesiæ suæ calamitatibus

compatientis dispositioni fideliter obedivit.”

The very confused story which makes William Rufus the maker of the New

Forest, and Walter Tirel the adviser of the deed, comes from Walter

Map’s account (De Nugis, 222) of the death of William Rufus, where a

good many things are brought close together; “Willielmus secundus, rex

Angliæ, regum pessimus, Anselmo pulso a sede Cantiæ, justo Dei judicio

a sagitta volante pulsus, quia dæmonio meridiano deditus, cujus ad

nutum vixerat, onere pessimo levavit orbem. Notandum autem quod _in

silva Novæ Forestæ_ [cf. N. C. vol. iv. p. 841], quam ipse Deo et

hominibus abstulerat, ut eam dicaret feris et canum lusibus, a qua

triginta sex matrices ecclesias extirpaverat, et populum earum dederat

_exterminio_. Consiliarius autem hujus ineptiæ Walterus Tyrell, miles

Achaza juxta Pontissaram Franciæ, qui, non sponte sua sed Domini, de

medio fecit eum ictu sagittæ, quæ feram penetrans cecidit in belluam

Deo odibilem.” “Exterminium” must of course be taken, not of a

massacre, but of a mere driving out. Giraldus too (De Inst. Princ.

173) attributes the making of the New Forest and the driving out of

the people to William Rufus;

“Hic Novam in australibus Angliæ partibus Forestam, quæ

usque hodie durat, primus instituit; multis ibidem

ecclesiis, in quibus divina ab antiquo celebrari obsequia et

ipsius præconia sublimari, desertis omnino et destitutis

multisque ruricolis et glebæ ascriptis a paternis laribus et

agris avitis miserabiliter profugatis et proscriptis.”

We have seen already (see p. 337) how this confusion was further

improved in the thirteenth century at the hands of Thomas Wykes, and

what rhetorical use of it was made later still by Henry Knighton.

* * * * *

As usual, so-called local tradition knows a vast deal about the

matter. The exact place where Rufus fell is known, and is marked by a

stone. The tree from which, in some versions, the arrow is said to

have glanced, is also known, and its site, or a successor, may be

seen. It is of course impossible to say that these things are not so;

but one knows too much of the utter worthlessness of the modern

guesses which commonly pass for local tradition to attach much value

to such stories. I have been on the spot; but, when there is no real

evidence to fix the event to one spot rather than another of a large

district, it is another matter from tracing out the signs of real

history at Le Mans and at Rochester, at Bamburgh and at Saint Cenery.

There is also a wild story about a payment made by some neighbouring

manor as a penalty, because some one shod Walter’s horse instead of

stopping him. The payment is doubtless real enough; the alleged cause

for it shows a knowledge of details beyond that of Knighton or

Geoffrey Gaimar. The critical historian, after making his way through

all these tales, can only come back to the safe statement of the

English Chronicler with which he set out.

APPENDIX TT. Vol. ii. p. 338.

THE BURIAL OF WILLIAM RUFUS.

Some of the accounts of William’s burial have been already mentioned

in the text, or in the last Note. It may have been noticed that some

of them seem anxious to claim for Henry a share in the burial of his

brother. The singular narrative of Geoffrey Gaimar (i. 56), where he

follows up his attempt to make out a late repentance for Rufus by

giving him a specially solemn and Christian burial, has been given in

brief in the text. The barons and the rest are mourning, when Gilbert

of Laigle bids them stop (“Taisez, seigneurs, pur Jhésu Xpist”) and

turn to burying their master. Then the story goes on;

“Donc véissez valez descendre

Et venéours lur haches tendre.

Tost furent trenche li fussel

De quai firent li mainel.

Deus blertrons troevent trenchez;

Bien sont léger et ensechez,

Ne sont trop gros, mès longs estoient;

Tut à mesure les conreient,

De lur ceintures e de peitrels

Lient estreit les mainels,

Puis firent lit en la bière.

De beles flours et de feugère,

Ij palefreis ont amenez,

Od riches freinz, bien enseelez;

Sur ceus ij. couchent la bière;

N’ert pas pesante mès légère;

Puis i estendent un mantel

Qui ert de paille tut novel.

Le fiz Aimon le défoubla,

Robert, qi son seignur ama,

Sur la bière cuchent le roi,

Qe portoient le palefroi.

Enséveli fu en un tiret,

Dont Willam de Montfichet.

Le jour devant ert adubbé,

N’avoit esté k’un jor porté,

Le mantel gris donc il osta.”

After some more lamentations, they set out on their journey and reach

Winchester;

“Tresque Wincestre n’ont finé,

Iloeques ont le roi posé

Enz el mouster Seint-Swithun.

Là s’assemblèrent li baron.

Et la clergié de la cité

Et li évesque et li abbé.

Li bons évesques Walkelin

Gaita le roi tresq’au matin.

O lui, moigne, clerc et abbé,

Bien ont léu et bien chanté

Leudemain font cele départie.

Tiele ne vit homme de vie,

Ne tant messes ne tiel servise

N’ert fet tresq’au jour de juise

Pur un roi, come pur li firent.

Tut autrement l’ensévelirent

Qe li baron n’avoient fet.

Là où Wauter out à lui tret.

Qui ceo ne creit aut à Wincestre,

Oïr porra si voir pœt estre.”

This is a pretty story enough; but we may be sure that all its other

details are as mythical as the part assigned to the dead Bishop

Walkelin. The only question of any importance is whether there is any

contradiction between the two more important narratives, that of

Orderic and that of William of Malmesbury in the place where he is

directly telling the story. The Chronicler and Florence simply mention

the burial without detail or comment. The account of William of

Malmesbury is the shorter of the two. The King has been shot, and

Walter Tirel has fled. Then the story goes on (iv. 333);

“Nec vero fuit qui persequeretur, illis conniventibus, istis

miserantibus, omnibus postremo alia molientibus; pars

receptacula sua munire, pars furtivas prædas agere, pars

regem novum jamjamque circumspicere. Pauci rusticanorum

cadaver, in rheda caballaria compositum, Wintoniam in

episcopatum devexere, cruore undatim per totam viam

stillante. Ibi infra ambitum turris, multorum procerum

conventu, paucorum planctu, terræ traditum.”

Orderic (782 D) tells very much the same story;

“Mortuo rege, plures optimatum ad lares suos de saltu

manicaverunt, et contra futuras motiones quas timebant res

suas ordinaverunt. Clientuli quidem cruentatum regem vilibus

utcunque pannis operuerunt, et veluti ferocem aprum,

venabulis confossum, de saltu ad urbem Guentanam detulerunt.

Clerici autem et monachi atque cives, duntaxat egeni, cum

viduis et mendicis, obviam processerunt, et pro reverentia

regiæ dignitatis in veteri monasterio Sancti Petri celeriter

tumulaverunt.”

The words of William of Malmesbury, it will be noticed, are quite

general. They do not assert the usual religious ceremony, but neither

do they exclude it. It is Orderic who in a marked way asserts the

popular excommunication. His words are;

“Porro ecclesiastici doctores et prælati, sordidam ejus

vitam et tetrum finem considerantes, tunc judicare ausi

sunt, et ecclesiastica, veluti biothanatum, absolutione

indignum censuerunt, quem vitales auras carpentem salubriter

a nequitiis castigare nequiverunt. Signa etiam pro illo in

quibusdam ecclesiis non sonuerunt, quæ pro infimis

pauperibus et mulierculis crebro diutissime pulsata sunt. De

ingenti ærario, ubi plures nummorum acervi de laboribus

miserorum congesti sunt, eleemosynæ pro anima cupidi quondam

possessoris nullæ inopibus erogatæ sunt.”

Here is no contradiction; only Orderic asserts a very remarkable

feature in the case of which William takes no notice. To me it seems

more likely that William of Malmesbury, whose business it clearly was

(see above, p. 491) to make out as good a case for William Rufus as he

could without asserting anything positively false, should leave out a

circumstance which told so much against the King, than that Orderic,

or those from whom he heard the story, should invent or imagine it. On

the other hand, the very fact that the story of the popular

excommunication is so very striking and solemn and in every way

befitting does make us tremble the least bit in admitting it as a

piece of authentic history.

We must not however forget that William of Malmesbury in a later

passage (v. 393) does seem to imply that the burial of Rufus was

accompanied by the ordinary ceremonies. In recording the election of

Henry, he says that it happened “post justa funeri regio persoluta.”

But it may fairly be doubted whether an _obiter dictum_ of this kind

is entitled to the same weight which would undoubtedly have belonged

to a direct statement in his regular narrative. The words are, after

all, somewhat vague, and if we compare this passage in William of

Malmesbury with the entry in the Chronicle, it sounds very much as if

it were merely a translation in a grander style of the simple words

“syðþan he bebyrged wæs.” The same feeling as that which is expressed

in Orderic’s account comes out in a singular passage of the Saxon

Annalist (Pertz, vi. 733); “Willehelmus rex de Anglia sagitta

interfectus est. Heinricus vero frater ejus in eodem loco pro remedio

animi sui volens monasterium constituere, prohibitus est. Apparuit

enim ei, et duo dracones ferentes eum, dicens, nichil sibi prodesse,

eo quod suis temporibus omnia destructa essent, quæ antecessores sui

in honorem Domini construxerant.”

I suppose that there need be no difficulty about the “clientuli” of

Orderic as compared with the “rusticani” of William, though the word

“clientuli” by itself might rather have suggested some of the King’s

inferior followers. But one is amazed to find Sir Francis Palgrave

(iv. 686, 687) telling us the name of the churl who brought in the

body, “a neighbouring charcoal-burner, Purkis.” And he goes on to say;

“We are not told that Purkis received any reward or thanks

for his care. His family still subsists in the

neighbourhood, nor have they risen above their original

station, poor craftsmen or cottagers. They followed the

calling of coal-burners until a recent period; and they tell

us that the wheel of the Cart which conveyed the neglected

corpse was shown by them until the last century.”

I have often heard of this local legend about Purkis, but really so

palpable a fiction ought not to have found its way into the pages of a

scholar like Sir Francis Palgrave. There are some stories which need

no argument against them, but which the evidence of nomenclature at

once upsets. Purkis is on the face of him as mythical as Crocker and

Crewis and Copleston――I am not sure whether I have remembered the

first two names right, and it is not worth turning to any book to see.

By the way in which the story is told, one would fancy that Purkis is

meant for a surname, and it may be that those who believe in him think

that he was baptized John or Thomas. In inventing legends it is at

least better to invent legends which are possible. If any one chooses

to say that the cart was driven by Godwine or Æthelstan, we cannot say

that it was not.

* * * * *

It is after this that Orderic goes on to speak of the classes of

people who did mourn for the Red King, and how gladly they would have

done summary vengeance on his slayer, if he had not been far out of

their reach;

“Stipendiarii milites et nebulones ac vulgaria scorta

quæstus suos in occasu mœchi principis perdiderunt, ejusque

miserabilem obitum, non tam pro pietate quam pro detestabili

flagitiorum cupiditate, planxerunt, Gualteriumque Tirellum,

ut pro lapsu sui defensoris membratim discerperent,

summopere quæsierunt. Porro ille, perpetrato facinore, ad

pontum propere confugit, pelagoque transito, munitiones quas

in Gallia possidebat expetiit, ibique minas et maledictiones

malevolentium tutus irrisit.”

NOTE UU. Vol. ii. p. 347.

THE ELECTION OF HENRY THE FIRST.

The details of the accession of Henry come chiefly from Orderic (782

D), though, oddly enough, he does not record the election in so many

words. But there can be no doubt as to the fact of a regular, though

necessarily a very hasty, election. The words of the Chronicle are

distinct; “And syðþan he bebyrged wæs þa witan þe þa neh handa wæron,

his broðer Heanrig to cynge gecuran.” So Henry of Huntingdon;

“Henricus, ibidem in regem electus.” Florence strangely slurs over the

election, saying only, “successit junior frater suus Heinricus.”

William of Malmesbury (v. 393) is quite distinct;

“In regem electus est, aliquantis tamen ante controversiis

inter proceres agitatis atque sopitis, annitente maxime

comite Warwicensi Henrico, viro integro et sancto, cujus

familiari jamdudum usus fuerat contubernio.”

Here we hear only of “proceres;” but we get the important facts of the

division among the electors, and of the special agency of the Earl of

Warwick, which falls in with the notice of Orderic (783 B) that the

Count of Meulan accompanied the King-elect to London. The Beaumont

brothers act together. But Orderic, in his zeal to describe the

picturesque scene between Henry and William of Breteuil, leaves out

any distinct record of the election. It is however implied in the

words which follow the passage quoted in p. 347;

“Tandem, convenientibus amicis et sapientibus consiliariis,

hinc et inde lis mitigata est, et saniori consultu, ne pejor

scissura fieret, arx cum regalibus gazis filio regis Henrico

reddita est.”

The assembly which settled the matter, and which gave up the royal

treasury to Henry, was beyond all doubt the assembly which, according

to William of Malmesbury, elected Henry king. It was only to a king or

king-elect that they would decree the surrender of the treasure.

Indeed one might be tempted to make a slight change in the order of

events as told by Orderic. One is tempted to suspect that the assembly

voted the election of Henry, that he went, armed with this vote, to

demand the treasure, and that it was then that William of Breteuil

withstood him. This however is simply conjecture. But there can be no

doubt as to the election of Henry by such an assembly as could be got

together at the moment. Nor do I see any reason to doubt Orderic’s

story as to the scene between Henry and William of Breteuil. At all

events, Orderic has made it the occasion of putting forward some very

sound constitutional doctrine, which is just as valuable, even if any

severe critic should reject the story as a fact.

* * * * *

I have spoken elsewhere (see N. C. vol. v. p. 845) of two tales in

Matthew Paris with regard to Henry’s accession, of which Thierry made

a characteristic use. I have nothing to add to what I said then.

* * * * *

There can, I think, be no doubt that the celebrant at Henry’s

coronation was Maurice Bishop of London. The Chronicler, Florence,

Orderic, and Henry of Huntingdon, all mention Maurice and no other

prelate, though of course some other bishops would take a secondary

part in the ceremony. The Archbishop of York would have been the

regular celebrant during the vacancy of Canterbury; but, as Thomas

died so soon afterwards, the natural inference is that he was too sick

to come. And indeed, if he was in his own province, he could not, even

if he had been in the best of health, have come to Westminster at such

short notice. Even Thomas Stubbs does not claim the consecration of

Henry for his namesake, unless indeed he means (X Scriptt. 1707) to

insinuate it in a very dark way. He mentions the vacancy of Canterbury

after the death of Lanfranc, and adds;

“Ex antiquo tamen extitit consuetudo inter duos Angliæ

metropolitanos, ut altero defuncto alter in provincia

defuncti archiepiscopalia faceret, utpote episcopos

consecrare, regem coronare, coronato rege natalis domini,

paschæ et pentecostes majorem missam cantare. Hæc interim

fecit Thomas archiepiscopus, nec quisquam episcoporum erat

qui hæc in sua ipsius diocesi præsente archiepiscopo præsumeret.”

He then mentions the bishops whom Thomas consecrated, Hervey of

Norwich――that is, Herbert of Thetford――Ralph of Chichester, and Hervey

of Bangor. If he had really thought that Thomas had crowned a king, he

would surely have said so distinctly. I can therefore attach no

importance to the strange statement of the two Ely writers (Anglia

Sacra, i. 613; Stewart, Liber Eliensis, 284) that Henry was

consecrated by Maurice, but crowned by Thomas (“a Mauritio Lundoniensi

episcopo in regem est consecratus, sed a Thoma Eboracensi coronatus”).

But the distinction between consecration and coronation may be worth

the attention of ritual students.

* * * * *

It was an easy mistake of a Welsh writer (see the Brut, 1098, that is

1100) to transfer the election from Winchester to London; “From thence

[Winchester] he went to London, and took possession of it, which is

the chiefest and crown of the whole kingdom of England [Lloeger]. Then

the French and Saxons [Ffreinc a Saeson] all flocked together to him,

and by royal council appointed him king in England [vrenhin yn

Lloeger].”

APPENDIX WW. Vol. ii. p. 384.

THE OBJECTIONS TO THE MARRIAGE OF HENRY AND MATILDA.

Our two fullest accounts of this matter are those of Eadmer and of

Hermann of Tournay (D’Achery, ii. 894, see above, p. 600). Eadmer’s is

the account, not only of a contemporary, but, we cannot doubt, of an

eye-witness. Hermann wrote in another land, long afterwards, when the

wars of Stephen and Matilda and the pleadings in the papal court (see

N. C. vol. v. p. 857) had called men’s minds back to the story of the

marriage of Matilda’s parents. His memory, as we see, failed him as to

details. He did not remember either of the names of Eadgyth-Matilda;

he mistakes her brother David for her father; he makes her (D’Achery,

ii. 894) the mother of both the sons of Henry who were drowned in the

White Ship. It is quite plain that his remembrance of what he had

heard from Anselm forty or fifty years before was coloured by later

ways of looking at things.

It is quite plain from Eadmer’s account that Eadgyth herself had not

the slightest feeling against the marriage, but that she was eager for

it; she disliked neither King Henry nor his crown. Nor has Anselm any

objection, as soon as the evidence shows that no rule of the Church

would be broken by the marriage. That he was strict in requiring such

evidence was only natural and right; “Affirmabat nulla se unquam

ratione in hoc declinandum ut suam Deo sponsam tollat et eam terreno

homini in matrimonium jungat” (Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 56). But when the

evidence shows that Eadgyth was not “Dei sponsa,” he makes no further

objection. Nothing is proved by his use of a negative form, “judicium

vestrum non abjicio” (Hist. Nov. 58). The sentimental objection which

Hermann puts into his mouth seems quite out of character. Anselm takes

the common-sense view; If she is a nun, she must not marry; if she is

not a nun, she may. One can believe that Anselm would in his heart

have preferred that any virgin should abide in the state which he

deemed the higher. But he would hardly have stooped to say; “This

marriage is perfectly lawful; but the veil has touched her head; so

you had better marry somebody else.” In this and in the prophecy we

surely see the beginning of the growth of a legend. Some legends of

Anselm seem to have arisen in his life-time. This one could not, as no

ill-luck happened to the children of the marriage till after Anselm

was dead.

I am not sure that a very slight touch in the same direction may not

be seen in the account of William of Malmesbury, v. 418; the words

follow the passage quoted above, p. 603; “Cum rex suscipere vellet eam

thalamo, res in disceptationem venit; nec nisi legitimis productis

testibus, qui eam jurarent sine professione causa procorum velum

gessisse, archiepiscopus adduci potuit ad consentiendum.”

William, it is to be noticed, does not repeat the English pedigree, on

which in his former notice (v. 393) he was less emphatic than Eadmer.

I do not know what can be meant by “ignobiles nuptiæ.” Hardly Count

Alan; hardly Earl William of Warren or Surrey, who is also spoken of.

* * * * *

Thierry (ii. 152) has an elaborate romance, in which the father of

Western theology comes in casually as “un moine du Bec, nommé

Anselme.” Here Eadgyth dislikes the marriage, but sacrifices herself

for the good of her people. All this comes from Matthew Paris, who has

two amazing stories. In one (Hist. Angl. i. 188), though Malcolm and

Margaret have been killed off at the proper time, they appear again in

full life when King Henry seeks their daughter――“filia elegantissimæ

speciei, et, quod pluris erat, vitæ sanctissimæ.” She was brought up

in a monastery, perhaps as a nun (“in sanctimonialium claustro propter

honestatem educata, et, ut dicitur, velo sacro Deo dicato ac jam

professa”). King Henry woos her with much fervour of passion (“ipsam

propter ipsius mores et faciei venustatem sitienter adoptavit, et

instanter petiit in uxorem”). The parents dare not withstand such a

lover; they go to ask their daughter’s own wishes. She rebukes them in

fearful and mysterious words for speaking of any such matter

(“increpans patrem et matrem de zelotipiæ præsumptione, nec ipsos

debere de corpore suo fructum mortalitatis exposcere, vel fructum

posteritatis infructuosum”). At this the father is sad; the mother is

pleased by the decision of her daughter (“matri propositum puellare

complacuit”). The King’s passion only waxes warmer; like Balak, he

sends more honourable messengers; he commands, prays, promises, till

he stumbles into a hexameter “missis sollemnioribus nuntiis, urgentius

adolescentulam in reginam expostulans, imperium, promissa, preces,

confudit in unum”). Malcolm, knowing that his wife will never agree to

the marriage, turns, without her knowledge, to the abbess by whom his

daughter had been brought up. The reverend mother is prevailed on to

argue the point at length, and to set forth every possible argument,

personal and political, on behalf of the marriage;

“Proponens utilitatem inde proventuram, scilicet regnorum

fœdera, regum mutuam dilectionem, pacis tranquillitatem,

propagationis posteritatem, reginalem dignitatem, honoris

magnificentiam, divitiarum affluentiam, amoris desiderium,

amatoris pulcritudinem.”

Father and abbess together are too much for the “beata virgo Matilda.”

She yields, but only “maledicens fructui sui ventris affuturo.” Anselm

marries them, “nuptiis sollemniter, ut decuit, celebratis;” but a

contemporary note in the margin is added, “Nota nuptias illicitas.”

And we are told that the disturbances which presently followed, the

invasion of Robert and anything else, were all judgements on this

unlawful marriage;

“Facta est commotio magna in regno, quasi Deo irato, quoniam

rex Henricus zelotipaverat, et, sicut fratrem Robertum de

regno supplantando alienaverat, sic Christum de sponsa sua

defraudaverat.”

It is to be noticed that the writer who brings in all this action of

Malcolm under the year 1101 had long before (i. 43) recorded his death

in its proper place, or rather before its proper place, as he puts it

in 1092 instead of 1093.

The other account comes in the Chronica Majora, ii. 121. It is chiefly

remarkable for two speeches, the second of which is put into the mouth

of Matilda herself. Matthew had just copied a business-like bit from

Roger of Wendover (ii. 169), recording the marriage without comment;

he then goes on to say that Matilda was married against her will,

being won over by the importunity of kinsfolk and friends. The words

are, “parentum et amicorum consiliis vix adquiescens; tandem tædio

affecta, adquievit.” (“Parentes” may be taken by the charitably

disposed in the wider French sense, but it must be remembered that in

the other version Malcolm and Margaret are brought in as living in the

year 1100.) This version is quite certain that Matilda had made a vow,

but leaves it open whether she had actually taken the veil (“Cum

Christiana matertera sancta sanctissime in claustro religionis educata

fuerat, et votum virginitatis Deo spoponderat, et, ut multi perhibent,

velum susceperat professæ religionis”). The kinsfolk and friends make

a solemn appeal on patriotic grounds;

“O mulierum generosissima ac gratissima, per te reparabitur

Anglorum genialis nobilitas, quæ diu degeneravit, et fœdus

magnorum principum redintegrabitur, si matrimonio prælocuto

consentias. Quod si non feceris, causa eris perennis

inimicitiæ gentium diversarum, et sanguinis humani

effusionis irrestaurabilis.”

Matilda, “virgo clementissima,” gets angry, and, in the bitterness of

her soul, uses yet stronger language than she does in the other

version;

“Ex quo sic oportet fieri, utcunque consentio, sed fructum

ventris mei, quod est horribile dictu, diabolo commendo. Me

enim Deo vovi, quod non sinistis, immo sponsum meum, quem

elegi, ausu temerario, immemores causæ sancti Matthæi

apostoli, zelotipatis.”

We are then told of the vehement love of the King for the wife whom he

had thus wrongfully married;

“Sic igitur nuptiæ magnifice, ut decuit, celebrabantur, et

tanto ardentius exarsit rex in ipsius amorem, quanto

scelestius adamavit. Secundum illud poeticum

“Nitimur in vetitum semper.”

Peccato igitur exigente, facta est commotio subito in regno.”

From this point Matthew goes on copying Roger of Wendover’s account of

Robert’s invasion, but putting in bits of colouring of his own. When

Henry sends his fleet to meet that of Robert, we are told that he does

it “conscientiam habens multipliciter cauteriatam.” And when some of

the sailors (see p. 404)――who are enlarged by Robert of Wendover into

“pars major exercitus”――go over to Robert, the reason for their so

doing is said to be “quia rex jam tyrannizaverat.”

There is something very strange in this echo at so late a time of

objections which one would have thought that both common sense and the

authority of Anselm would have set aside for ever. Was there any

lurking wish in the thirteenth century to weaken the title of the

Angevin kings, even on so stale a ground as the doubtful validity of

the marriage of so distant an ancestress? We must remember that

something of the kind really happened in Scotland long after. The

right of the Stewarts was murmured against at a very late time on the

ground of the doubtful marriage of Robert the Second. And we have seen

that in an intermediate time, during the reign of Stephen, the

validity of the elder Matilda’s marriage, and the consequent

legitimacy of the younger Matilda, were called in question by

Stephen’s supporters in arguments before the papal court. See N. C.

vol. v. p. 857.

* * * * *

There is something singular in the way in which the marriage is

entered in the Winchester Annals (1100), among a crowd of other facts

not put in exact chronological order; “Matildis, Malcolmi regis filia

Scotiæ, de monacha Wiltoniæ non tamen professa, regina Angliæ facta

est.” One almost thinks of the wild story about Eadgyth of Wilton

which I have spoken of in N. C. vol. i. p. 267. But the words have a

parallel in the language of the Brut (1098, that is 1110), which,

after the account of Henry’s election, adds,

“And immediately he took for his wife Mahalt, daughter of

Malcolm, king of Prydyn, by Queen Margaret her mother

[‘Vahalt uerch y Moel Cólóm, brenhin Prydein’――another

manuscript more reasonably has ‘y Pictieit’――‘o Vargaret

urenhines y mam’]. And she, by his marrying her, was raised

to the rank of queen; for William Rufus [Gúilim Goch] his

brother, in his lifetime, had consorted with concubines, and

on that account had died without an heir.” Cf. p. 503.

* * * * *

I have said, what is perfectly true, that Orderic is the only writer

who directly mentions that Matilda had once borne the name of Eadgyth.

But I think that I have lighted on a most curious trace of the fact in

a later writer. Peter Langtoft (i. 448) mentions the return of Robert,

and adds;

“La femme le duk Robert fu en proteccioun

Le counte de Cornewaylle, fillye [fu] Charloun

Seygnur de Cecylle, Egyth la dame ad noun;

Robert la prent e mene à sa possessioun.”

The name appears in various spellings in different manuscripts,

Edgith, Egdith, and what not. It was perhaps not very wonderful that,

in Peter Langtoft’s day, a Count of Conversana should grow into a lord

of Sicily, and that a lord of Sicily should be thought to be of

necessity called Charles. But why should Sibyl be turned into Edith? I

can think of no reason except that the next lines are;

“Cel houre en Escoce un damoysele estait,

Fillye al ray Malcolme, de ky maynt hom parlayt.

Taunt fu bone et bele, ke Henry le esposayt,

Ray de Engleterre, Malde home l’appelayt.”

Surely the poet had read somewhere that Matilda had been called Edith,

and then mixed up her and Sibyl together. But why Sibyl should be in

the protection of the “Count of Cornwall”――meaning, if anybody,

William of Mortain――it is not easy to see. Had he read in Orderic (784

B, C) that Robert and Sibyl went together to “mons sancti Michaelis

archangeli de periculo maris,” and took it for the Cornish mount?

Robert of Brunne (i. 95, Hearne) translates;

“Noþeles þe erle of Cornwaile kept his wife þat while

Charles douhter scho lord of Cezile,

_Dame Edith bright as glas_: Roberd þouht no gile,

Bot com on gode manere tille his broþer Henry,

He wife þat soiorned here he led to Normundie.”

NOTE XX. Vol. ii. p. 412.

THE TREATY OF 1101.

I do not know that there is any necessary contradiction between the

detailed narrative of Orderic (788), who alone speaks of the personal

interview between the brothers, and the shorter accounts of the other

writers, who have more to say about the action of the wise men on each

side. Nothing is more likely than that the terms of the treaty should

be discussed by commissioners on both sides, and then finally agreed

on in a personal meeting of the two princes. The only point of

difficulty is that Orderic seems to imply that nobody on either side

could be trusted, except the princes themselves. He begins with

Henry’s message to ask why Robert had entered his kingdom (“cur Angliæ

fines cum armato exercitu intrare præsumpserit”). Robert’s answer

reminds one of the answer of Edward son of Henry the Sixth to Edward

the Fourth (Hall, 301; Lingard, iv. 189). His words are; “Regnum

patris mei cum proceribus meis ingressus sum, et illud reposco debitum

mihi jure primogenitorum.”

The armies are now face to face, and the negotiations begin. In the

Chronicle the reconcilation clearly seems to be the work of the head

men; “Ac þa heafod men heom betwenan foran and þa broðra gesehtodan.”

So Florence; “Sapientiores utriusque partis, habito inter se salubri

consilio, pacem inter fratres composuere.” William of Malmesbury (v.

395) adds a special reason for peace; “Satagentibus sanioris consilii

hominibus, qui dicerent pietatis jus violandum si fraterna necessitudo

prælio concurreret, paci animos accommodavere; reputantes quod, si

alter occumberet, alter infirmior remaneret, cum nullus fratrum præter

ipsos superesset.” There is here nothing to throw any doubt on the

good faith of anybody, and no negotiators are mentioned by name. It is

Wace (15508 Pluquet, 10423 Andresen) who mentions negotiators on

Robert’s side whom we certainly should not have looked for;

“Conseillie out comunement

Qu’il le feront tot altrement;

Les dous freres acorderont,

Ia por els ne se combatront.

Robert, qui Belesme teneit

E qui del duc s’entremeteit,

E cil qui Moretoig aueit,

Qui a s’enor aparteneit

――Will, co dient, out non――

E Robert, qui fu filz Haimon,

Ouoc altres riches barons,

Donc io ne sai dire les nons,

Qui del rei e del duc teneient

E amedous seruir deueient,

De l’accorder s’entremeteient,

Por la bataille qu’il cremeient.

Del rei al duc souent aloent

E la parole entre els portoent;

La pais aloent porchacant

E la concorde porparlant.”

It is Orderic alone who implies that Henry asked for a personal

interview, and gives his reason;

“Seditiosi proditores magis bellum quam pacem optabant. Et

quia plus privatæ quam publicæ commoditati insistebant,

versipelles veredarii verba pervertebant, et magis jurgia

quam concordiam inter fratres serebant. Porro sagax Henricus

istud advertit, unde fratris colloquium ore ad os petiit; et

convenientes fraterni amoris dulcedo ambos implevit.”

He then goes on to describe the meeting of the brothers;

“Soli duo germani spectantis in medio populi collocuti sunt,

et ore quod corde ruminabant sine dolo protulerunt. Denique

post pauca verba mutuo amplexati sunt, datisque dulcibus

basiis, sine sequestro concordes effecti sunt. Verba quidem

hujus colloquii nequeo hic inserere, quia non interfui, sed

opus, quod de tantorum consilio fratrum processit, auditu

didici.”

He then gives the terms of the treaty, and adds;

“Remotis omnibus arbitris soli fratres scita sua sanxerunt,

et, cunctis in circumitu eos cum admiratione spectantibus,

decreverunt quod sese, ut decet fratres, invicem adjuvarent,

et omnia patris sui dominia resumerent, scelestosque litium

satores pariter utrinque punirent.”

The colouring of Orderic in these passages can hardly be reconciled

with the other accounts. They clearly speak of the terms as agreed

upon between the chief men of both sides, while Orderic implies that,

on account of their untrustworthiness, the princes met and settled

matters for themselves. But it is possible to accept Orderic’s fact

without accepting his colouring. Or we may suppose that there were

among the negotiators some who wished to hinder peace, but that those

who laboured for it got the better in the end. Then, we may suppose,

they agreed upon terms, and the King and the Duke met to ratify the

treaty. As for the terms of the treaty, they are, as usual, given in

the best and most formal way in the Chronicle. The brothers agree,

“On þa gerád þet se cyng forlet eall þæt he mid streangðe innan

Normandig togeanes þam eorle heold, and þæt ealle þa on Englelande

heora land ongean heafdon, þe hit ær þurh þone eorl forluron, and

Eustaties eorl eac eall his fæderland her on lande, and þet se eorl

Rotbert ælce geare sceolde of Englalande þreo þusend marc seolfres

habban, and loc hweðer þæra gebroðra oðerne oferbide wære yrfeweard

ealles Englalandes and eac Normandiges, buton se forðfarena yrfenuman

heafde be rihtre æwe.”

Florence says nothing about the mutual succession of the two brothers,

nor does he mention Eustace by name. He also leaves out the cession of

Henry’s Norman dominions;

“Pacem inter fratres ea ratione composuere ut iii. mille

marcas, id est MM. libras argenti, singulis annis rex

persolveret comiti, et omnibus suos pristinos honores quos

in Anglia pro comitis fidelitate perdiderant, restitueret

gratuito, et cunctis quibus honores in Normannia causa regis

fuerant ablati, comes redderet absque pretio.”

Nothing in the treaty seems to have struck William of Malmesbury,

except the yearly payment of three thousand marks by the King to the

Duke. And even that he brings in quite incidentally, as if to account

for its being very shortly given up;

“Sed et trium millium marcarum promissio lenem comitis

fallebat credulitatem, ut, procinctu soluto, de tanta

pecunia menti blandiretur suæ, quam ille posteriori statim

anno voluntati reginæ libens, quod illa peteret,

condonavit.”

One is reminded of the story which William elsewhere (iii. 251) tells,

without any date, of Robert’s friend Eadgar; “Quantula simplicitas ut

libram argenti, quam quotidie in stipendio accipiebat, regi pro uno

equo perdonaret.” No doubt in both cases the horse and the gift to the

Queen were mere decent pretences for stopping the payment; but the

gift to Matilda is quite of a piece with Robert’s conduct to her at

Winchester (see p. 406). The Chronicler two years later (1103) records

Robert’s surrender of his pension;

“Ðises geares eac com se eorl Rotbert of Normandig to

sprecene wið þone cyng [the common Domesday form in English]

her on lande, and ær he heonne ferde he forgeaf þa þreo

þusend marc þe him _seo cyng_ Heanrig be foreweard ælce

geare gifan sceolde.”

Here we have no mention of Matilda, unless she anyhow lurks in the

feminine article so oddly assigned to her husband.

Orderic helps us to the more distinct resignation by Robert of his

claims on the English crown, which is however implied in all the other

accounts――to the release of Henry from his homage to Robert――and to

the stipulation about Domfront, which was naturally more interesting

to him than it was to those who wrote in England. He does not mention

the mutual heirship of the brothers. He also confounds marks and

pounds;

“In primis Rodbertus dux calumniam quam in regno Angliæ

ingesserat fratri dimisit, ipsumque de homagio, quod sibi

jamdudum fecerat, pro regali dignitate absolvit. Henricus

autem rex tria milia librarum sterilensium sese duci

redditurum per singulos annos spopondit, totumque

Constantinum pagum et quidquid in Neustria possidebat,

præter Danfrontem, reliquit. Solum Danfrontem castrum sibi

retinuit, quia Danfrontanis, quando illum intromiserunt,

jurejurando pepigerat quod nunquam eos de manu sua

projiceret, nec leges eorum vel consuetudines mutaret.”

* * * * *

I am glad to end with the mention of one of the noblest spots of which

I have had to speak in my story, and with one of the most honourable

features in the history of King Henry.

[1] In this chapter we have to make more use than usual of the

Scottish, British, and Northumbrian writers. I do not

undertake to go very deeply into any purely literary questions

about them. I have simply used them for facts, and have dealt

with their statements according to the usual rules of

criticism. The Scottish and Northumbrian writers will be found

in Mr. Skene’s edition of Fordun and in the Surtees Society’s

edition of Simeon. This last contains, among other things,

Turgot’s Life of Saint Margaret and the passages from Fordun

which profess to be extracts from Turgot. The Surtees’ text

and Mr. Skene’s text do not always agree, but their

differences are not often of much importance for my purposes.

It is certainly strange if some of these passages really come

from a contemporary writer. For Welsh matters we are, to my

mind, better off. Unhappily I do not know enough of the Welsh

tongue really to make use of the originals, though I am not

utterly at the mercy of the translator as to proper names and

technical terms. In the Chronicles and Memorials are two

volumes of most valuable matter which need a fresh editor. It

is not my business to enter into any questions as to their

authorship, how far it is due to Caradoc of Llancarfan or

anybody else. In any case the Latin _Annales Cambriæ_, meagre

as they are, form a thoroughly good and trustworthy record,

but the Editor seems in many places to have been unable either

to read his manuscript or to construe his Latin. Many of the

readings too which are most valuable historically are thrust

into notes. The Welsh _Brut y Tywysogion_, published in the

same series by the same Editor, is a fuller version of the

Annals, and also I believe essentially trustworthy. I have

been obliged to quote this in the translation, though often

with some doubts as to its accuracy. In the preface a good

deal of matter by the late Mr. Aneurin Owen is reprinted

without acknowledgement. There is also another _Brut y

Tywysogion_, otherwise “The Gwentian Chronicles of Caradoc of

Llancarvan,” translated by Mr. Owen and published by the

Cambrian Archæological Association. Here we have the

translating and editing of a really eminent Welsh scholar, but

the book, as a historical authority, is very inferior to

either the Latin Annals or the other Brut. A great deal of

legendary matter, some of which must be of quite a late date,

has been thrust in. I quote the more trustworthy Brut in the

Chronicles and Memorials as the _elder_, and that published by

the Cambrian Archæological Association as the _later_ Brut.

[2] Chron. Petrib. 1093. See Appendix BB.

[3] See vol. i. p. 304.

[4] Chron. Petrib. 1093. See Appendix BB.

[5] See vol. i. p. 307.

[6] See vol. i. p. 298.

[7] See vol. i. p. 410.

[8] See vol. i. p. 421.

[9] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 259.

[10] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 355.

[11] See vol. i. p. 417.

[12] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 237.

[13] See N. C. vol. v. p. 629.

[14] So says the Northern interpolator of Florence whom we

are used to call Simeon, 1093; “Ecclesia nova Dunelmi est

incepta tertio idus Augusti feria quinta, episcopo Willelmo

et Malcholmo rege Scottorum et Turgoto priore ponentibus

primos in fundamento lapides.” Fordun (v. 20) says the same

in a passage which purports to come from Turgot, and of

which we shall have to speak again. It is certainly

remarkable, as Mr. Hinde remarks in his note on the passage

in the Gesta Regum (i. 104), that in the History of the

Church of Durham (iv. 8) Simeon makes no mention of Malcolm.

“Eo die episcopus, et qui post eum secundus erat in ecclesia

prior Turgotus, cum cæteris fratribus primos in fundamento

lapides posuerunt. Nam paulo ante, id est, iiii. Kal.

Augusti feria vi. idem episcopus et prior, facta cum

fratribus oratione, ac data benedictione, fundamenta

cœperant fodere.”

[15] Chron. Petrib. 1093. See Appendix BB.

[16] Ib.

[17] This is from Florence. See Appendix BB.

[18] See Appendix BB.

[19] See N. C. vol. i. pp. 58, 119, 576, 579.

[20] Chron. Petrib. 1093. See Appendix BB.

[21] See Appendix CC.

[22] See vol. i. p. 297.

[23] See Appendix CC.

[24] See N. C. vol. i. pp. 315, 648.

[25] See Appendix CC.

[26] Chron. Petrib. 1091. “Hine sloh Moræl of Bæbbaburh se

wæs þæs eorles stiward and Melcolmes cinges godsib.” See N.

C. vol. iii. pp. 456, 777.

[27] On the history of Tynemouth, see Appendix FF.

[28] Will. Malms. iii. 250. “Humatus multis annis apud

Tinemuthe, nuper ab Alexandro filio Scotiam ad Dunfermlin

portatus est.”

[29] Sim. Dun. Gesta Regum, 1093. “In cujus morte justitia

judicantis Dei aperte consideratur, ut videlicet in illa

provincia cum suis interiret, quam sæpe ipse vastare

avaritia stimulante consuevit, quinquies namque illam atroci

depopulatione attrivit, et miseros indigenas in servitutem

redigendos abduxit captivos.”

[30] Ib. “Exercitus illius vel gladiis confoditur, vel qui

gladios fugerunt inundatione fluminum, quæ tunc pluviis

hiemalibus plus solito excreverant, absorti sunt.”

[31] Ib. “Corpus regis, cum suorum nullus remaneret qui

terra illud cooperiret, duo ex indigenis carro impositum in

Tynemuthe sepelierunt.”

[32] Sim. Dun. Gesta Regum, 1093. “Sic factum est ut, ubi

multos vita et rebus et libertate privaverat, ibidem ipse

Dei judicio vitam simul cum rebus amitteret.”

[33] I am sorry that Mr. Burton (Hist. Scotland, i. 416)

should have thought it necessary to tell the story of

Margaret and her biographer in somewhat mocking tones. I can

see nothing but what is exquisitely beautiful and touching

in her life as written by Turgot, for Turgot I suppose it

really is.

[34] Turgot, Vit. Marg. vi. (Surtees Simeon, p. 241),

enlarges on this head; “Fateor, magnum misericordiæ Dei

mirabar miraculum, cum viderem interdum tantam orandi regis

intentionem, tantam inter orandum in pectore viri sæcularis

compunctionem.” He adds, “Quæ ipsa respuerat eadem et ipse

respuere, et quæ amaverat, amore amoris illius amare.”

William of Malmesbury (iv. 311) speaks to the same effect;

Malcolm and Margaret were “ambo cultu pietatis insignes,

illa præcipue.”

[35] So witnesses Turgot in the chapter just quoted; “Libros

in quibus ipsa vel orare consueverat vel legere, ille,

ignarus licet literarum, sæpe manu versare solebat et

inspicere: et dum ab ea quis illorum esset ei carior

audisset, hunc et ipse cariorem habere, deosculari, sæpius

contrectare.” Then follows about the bindings.

[36] Turgot is of course full on this head throughout, and

we have a further witness from our own Florence (1093) and

Orderic (701 D). From the last we get her bounty to

Iona――that barbarous name is more intelligible than any

other. In his words it is “Huense cœnobium quod servus

Christi Columba, tempore Brudei, regis Pictorum, filii

Meilocon, construxerat.”

[37] Turgot, in his fourth chapter, enlarges on the strict

order which Margaret kept in her household, especially among

her own attendant ladies. “Inerat enim reginæ tanta cum

jocunditate severitas, tanta cum severitate jocunditas, ut

omnes qui erant in ejus obsequio, viri et feminæ, illam et

timendo diligerent et diligendo timerent. Quare in præsentia

ejus non solum nihil execrandum facere, sed ne turpe quidem

verbum quisquam ausus fuerat proferre. Ipsa enim universa in

se reprimens vitia, cum magna gravitate lætabatur, cum magna

honestate irascebatur.”

[38] Orderic (703 B, C) has his panegyric on the three

brothers, and specially on David; but it is William of

Malmesbury (v. 400) who is especially emphatic on the

unparalleled purity of life of all three. “Neque vero unquam

in acta historiarum relatum est tantæ sanctitatis tres

fuisse pariter reges et fratres, maternæ pietatis nectar

redolentes; namque præter victus parcitatem, eleemosynarum

copiam, orationum assiduitatem, ita domesticum regibus

vitium evicerunt, ut nunquam feratur in eorum thalamos nisi

legitimas uxores isse, nec eorum quenquam pellicatu aliquo

pudicitiam contristasse.”

[39] Will. Malms, ib. “Solus fuit Edmundus Margaritæ filius

a bono degener.” We shall hear of him and his doings

presently.

[40] Turgot, viii. p. 243. “Scottorum quidam, contra totius

ecclesiæ consuetudinem, nescio quo ritu barbaro missam

celebrare consueverunt.”

[41] Ib. viii. (Surtees Simeon, p. 243). “Qui [Malcolmus]

quoniam perfecte Anglorum linguam æque ac propriam noverat,

vigilantissimus in hoc concilio utriusque partis interpres

extiterat.”

[42] Ib. vii. (p. 242). “Obsequia regis sublimiora

constituit, ut eum procedentem sive equitantem multa cum

grandi honore agmina constiparent, et hoc cum tanta censura,

ut quocumque devenissent, nulli eorum cuiquam aliquid

liceret rapere, nec rusticos aut pauperes quoslibet quolibet

modo quisquam illorum opprimere auderet vel lædere.” He

describes at some length the new-fashioned splendour which

she brought into the Scottish court, and adds; “Et hæc

quidem illa fecerat, non quia mundi honore delectabatur,

sed, quod regia dignitas ab ea exigebat, persolvere

cogebatur.”

[43] Take for instance our own Chronicle, 1093; “Da þa seo

gode cwen Margarita þis gehyrde, hyre þa leofstan hlaford

and sunu þus beswikene, heo wearð oð deað on mode

geancsumed, and mid hire prestan to cyrcean eode, and hire

gerihtan underfeng, and æt Gode abæd þæt heo hire gast

ageaf.” Florence and Orderic are much to the same effect.

[44] These details come from Turgot, chap. xii, xiii. He was

not himself present, having seen her for the last time some

while before her death, but late enough to bear witness

(chap. xii.) to her expectation of death. The story of her

last moments was told to Turgot by a priest who was

specially in the Queen’s favour, who was present at her

death, and who afterwards became a monk at Durham as an

offering for her soul. “Post mortem reginæ, pro ipsius anima

perpetuo se Christi servitio tradidit; et ad sepulchrum

incorrupti corporis sanctissimi patris Cuthberti suscipiens

habitum monachi, seipsum pro ea hostiam obtulit.”

[45] Turgot, ib. “Ipsa quoque illam, quam Nigram Crucem

nominare, quamque in maxima semper veneratione habere

consuevit, sibi afferri præcepit.” Another manuscript has

“Crucem Scotiæ nigram.”

[46] “Quinquagesimum psalmum ex ordine decantans;” that is

the fifty-first in our reckoning.

[47] “Ille quod verum erat dicere noluit, ne audita morte

illorum continuo et ipsa moreretur; nam respondebat, eos

benevalere.”

[48] “Sed in omnibus his non peccavit labiis suis, neque

stultum quid contra Deum locuta est.” We must always

remember the common habit of reviling God and the saints

which it was thought rather a special virtue to be free

from. See N. C. vol. ii. p. 24, note.

[49] “In laudem et gratiarum actionem prorupit, dicens:

‘Laudes et gratias tibi, omnipotens Deus, refero, qui me

tantas in meo exitu angustias tolerare, hasque tolerantem ab

aliquibus peccati maculis, ut spero, voluisti mundare.’”

[50] The place is not mentioned by Turgot in the Life.

According to Fordun (v. 21), who professes to copy Turgot,

Margaret died “in castro puellarum;” see the Surtees Simeon,

p. 262.

[51] “Quod mirum est, faciem ejus, quæ more morientium tota

in morte palluerat, ita post mortem rubor cum candore

permixtus perfuderat, ut non mortua sed dormiens credi

potuisset,” Cf. the picture of her uncle Eadward. See N. C.

vol. iii. p. 15.

[52] See Appendix DD.

[53] See Appendix AA.

[54] Three parties are clearly described by Mr. E. W.

Robertson, i. 155. There were the remnants of the partisans

of the house of Moray, the house of Macbeth, the party of

the North, and the partisans of the reigning house, divided

into a strictly Scottish and an English party. The success

of Donald must have been owing to a momentary union of the

first two of these parties. I hardly know what to make of

the statement in the Turgot extracts (Simeon, p. 262) that

Donald arose “auxilio regis Norwegiæ.”

[55] He appears in Fordun (v. 21) as “Donaldus Rufus vel

Bane, frater regis.” One cannot too often remind oneself of

the true position of Macbeth. I was perhaps a little hard on

him in N. C. vol. ii. p. 55.

[56] Chron. Petrib. 1093. “Þa Scottas þa Dufenal to cynge

gecuron, Melcolmes broðer, and ealle þa Englisce út

adræfdon, þe ǽr mid þam cynge Melcolme wæron.” So

Florence; “Omnes Anglos qui de curia regia extiterunt de

Scottia expulerunt.”

[57] See N. C. vol. i. p. 315. And compare the alleged

design for a massacre of Normans, N. C. vol. v. p. 281.

[58] In the passages just quoted only English are mentioned.

We hear of English and French directly afterwards, when the

strangers are driven out in Duncan’s time. This difference

may be accidental, or it may be meant to mark a specially

Norman element under Duncan which had not shown itself under

Malcolm.

[59] Fordun, v. 21. “Filios et filias regis et reginæ

sororis suæ congregatos in Angliam secum secretius traduxit,

et eos per cognatos et cognitos, non manifeste sed quasi in

occulto nutriendos, destinavit. Timuit enim, ne Normanni,

qui tunc temporis Angliam invaserant, sibi vel suis malum

molirentur, eo quod Angliæ regnum eis hereditario jure

debebatur.”

[60] See Appendix EE.

[61] See N. C. vol. v. pp. 244, 294-309.

[62] See N. C. vol. v. p. 169.

[63] See Appendix EE.

[64] See Appendix EE.

[65] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 57. “Quem pannum in ipsius quidem

præsentia gemens ac tremebunda ferebam, sed mox ut me

conspectui ejus subtrahere poteram, arreptum in humum

jacere, pedibus proterere, et ita quo in odio fervebam,

quamvis insipienter, consueveram desævire. Isto, non alio

modo, teste conscientia mea, velata fui.”

[66] See Appendix EE.

[67] See vol. i. p. 435.

[68] See vol. i. p. 438.

[69] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 517; vol. v. p. 121. Will. Malms.

v. 400; “Ille [Willelmus] Duncanum, filium Malcolmi nothum,

militem fecit.” So Fordun, v. 24; “Duncanus, Malcolmi regis

filius nothus, cum obses erat in Anglia cum rege Willelmo

Rufo, armis militaribus ab eo insignitus.” See N. C. vol.

iv. p. 785.

[70] See vol. i. pp. 13, 305.

[71] Chron. Petrib. 1093. “Da þa Dunecan Melcolmes cynges

sunu þis eall gehyrde þus gefaren, se on þæs cynges hyrede

W. wæs, swa swa his fæder hine ures cynges fæder ær to gisle

geseald hæfde, and her swa syððan belaf, he to þam cynge

com, and swilce getrywða dyde, swa se cyng æt him habban

wolde.” So Florence; “Quibus auditis, filius regis Malcolmi,

Dunechan, regem Willelmum, cui tunc militavit, ut ei regnum

sui patris concederet petiit, et impetravit, illique

fidelitatem juravit.” William of Malmesbury (v. 400) perhaps

goes a step too far in saying that William “Duncanum … regem

Scottorum mortuo patre constituit.” Fordun (v. 24) takes

care to leave out the homage; Duncan is “ejus [Willelmi]

auxilio suffultus;” that is all.

[72] Chron. Petrib. 1093. “And swa mid his unne to Scotlande

fór, mid þam fultume þe he begytan mihte, _Engliscra and

Frenciscra_ [see note, vol. i. p. 30], and his mæge Dufenal

þes rices benam, and to cynge wærð underfangen.” So

Florence; “Ad Scottiam cum multitudine Anglorum ac

Normannorum properavit.”

[73] “Ac þa Scottas hi eft sume gegaderoden, and forneah

ealle his mænu ofslogan, and he sylf mid feawum ætbærst.” So

Florence.

[74] “Syððan hi wurdon sehte on þa gerád, þæt he næfre eft

_Englisce ne Frencisce_ into þam lande ne gelogige.” So

Florence; “Post hæc illum regnare permiserunt, ea ratione ut

amplius in Scottiam nec Anglos nec Normannos introduceret,

sibique militare permitteret.” Mr. Robertson (i. 158) fixes

the date of this revolution to May, 1094, which is very

likely in itself. But it seems to come from the confused

statement of Fordun (v. 24) that Donald reigned six months

(November 1093-May 1094), and then Duncan a year and six

months, which is a year wrong anyhow.

[75] See Robertson, i. 158, without whose help I might not

have recognized a Mormaor in the person described by Fordun

(u. s.) as “comes de Mesnys, nomine Malpei, Scottice

Malpedir.” William of Malmesbury (v. 400) witnesses to the

share of Eadmund, “qui Duvenaldi patrui nequitiæ particeps,

fraternæ non inscius necis fuerit, pactus scilicet regni

dimidium.” See above, p. 22.

[76] Chron. Petrib. 1094. “Ðises geares eac þa Scottas heora

cyng Dunecan besyredon and ofslogan, and heom syððan eft

oðre syðe his fæderan Dufenal to cynge genamon, þurh þes

lare and totihtinge he wearð to deaðe beswicen.” So

Florence; “Interim Scotti regem suum Dunechan, et cum eo

nonnullos, suasu et hortatu Dufenaldi per insidias

peremerunt, et illum sibi regem rursus constituerunt.”

Fordun adds the place of his death and burial; “Apud

Monthechin [Monachedin on the banks of the Bervie, says Mr.

Robertson] cæsus interiit et insula Iona sepultus.”

[77] See vol. i. p. 474.

[78] Orderic (703 A, B) brings in his account of the

rebellion of Earl Robert with a general remark on the pride

and greediness of the Normans who had received large estates

in England. He then describes their dissatisfaction with the

rule of William Rufus in words which are not altogether

discreditable to the King; “Invidebant quippe et dolebant

quod Guillelmus Rufus audacia et probitate præcipue vigeret,

nullumque timens subjectis omnibus rigide imperaret.” That

is to say, such justice and such injustice as he did――and in

the case of Robert of Mowbray we shall find him doing

justice――were both dealt out without respect of persons.

Orderic does not specially mention the hunting-laws; but

William of Malmesbury (iv. 319) speaks of their harshness,

and adds, “Quapropter multa severitate quam nulla condiebat

dulcedo, factum est ut sæpe contra ejus salutem a ducibus

conjuraretur.” He then goes on to speak of Robert of

Mowbray. I hardly see the ground for the word “sæpe.”

[79] Hen. Hunt. vii. 4. “Robertus consul Nordhymbra, in

superbiam elatus, quia regem Scottorum straverat.”

[80] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 654.

[81] See vol. i. pp. 249, 256.

[82] See above, p. 16.

[83] See the extract from the Chronicles in p. 55, note 2.

[84] He is on the list in Florence, 1096.

[85] Ord. Vit. 704 C. See vol. i. p. 33.

[86] So says Florence, 1095. “Northymbrensis comes Rotbertus

de Mulbrei et Willelmus de Owe, cum multis aliis, regem

Willelmum regno vitaque privare, et filium amitæ illius,

Stephanum de Albamarno, conati sunt regem constituere, sed

frustra.” On the pedigree, see N. C. vol. ii. p. 632.

[87] See vol. i. p. 279.

[88] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 576.

[89] Ord. Vit. 703 C. “Primus cum complicibus suis futile

consilium iniit, et manifestam rebellionem sic inchoavit.

Quatuor naves magnæ quas canardos vocant, de Northwegia in

Angliam appulsæ sunt. Quibus Rodbertus et Morellus nepos

ejus ac satellites eorum occurrerunt, et pacificis

mercatoribus quidquid habebant violenter abstulerunt.”

[90] Ib. “Illi autem, amissis rebus suis, ad regem

accesserunt, duramque sui querimoniam lacrimabiliter

deprompserunt.”

[91] Ord. Vit. 703 C. “Qui mox imperiose mandavit Rodberto

ut mercatoribus ablata restitueret continuo. Sed omnino

contempta est hujusmodi jussio, magnanimus autem rex

quantitatem rerum quas amiserant inquisivit, et omnia de suo

eis ærario restituit.”

[92] Chron. Petrib. 1095. “And þa to Eastran heold se cyng

his hired on Winceastre, and se eorl Rodbeard of Norðhymbran

nolde to hirede cuman, and se cyng forðan wearð wið hine

swiðe astyrod, and him to sænde, and heardlice bead, gif he

griðes weorðe beon wolde, þæt he to Pentecosten to hired

come.”

[93] Ib. “On þisum geare wæron Eastron on viii. kal. Ap[~r].

and þa uppon Eastron, on S[~c]e Ambrosius mæsse night, þæt

is ii. noñ Ap[~r]. wæs gesewen forneah ofer eall þis land,

swilce forneah ealle þa niht, swiðe mænifealdlice steorran

of heofenan feollan, naht be anan oððe twam, ac swa þiclice

þæt hit nan mann ateallan ne mihte.”

[94] See vol. i. p. 478.

[95] See vol. i. pp. 527 et seqq.

[96] See N. C. vol. ii. pp. 149, 621.

[97] See vol. i. p. 530.

[98] Chron. Petrib. 1095. “Hereæfter to Pentecosten wæs se

cyng on Windlesoran, and ealle his witan mid him, butan þam

eorle of Norðhymbran, forðam se cyng him naðer nolde ne

gislas syllan ne uppon trywðan geunnon, þæt he mid griðe

cumon moste and faran.”

[99] Ib. “And se cyng forði his fyrde bead, and uppon þone

eorl to Norðhymbran fór.” Orderic (703 D) seems also to mark

the presence both of the national force and of mercenaries;

“Tunc rex, nequitiam viri ferocis intelligens, exercitum

aggregavit et super eum validam militiæ virtutem conduxit.”

[100] See vol. i. p. 32.

[101] See the extract in note 1, p. 38. The same seems to be

the idea of the Hyde writer, p. 301; “Malcolmum … bellando

cum toto pene exercitu interfecit, dum bellare contra regem

Willelmum temptat fortuito, ab eo est captus et carceri

mancipatus.”

[102] See vol. i. p. 537. This fact comes out only in the

two letters from Anselm to Walter of Albano; Epp. Ans. iii.

35, 36. In the first he says “quotidie expectamus ut hostes

de ultra mare in Angliam per illos portus, qui Cantuarberiæ

vicini sunt, irruant.” He speaks to the same effect in the

next letter. They were “in periculo vastandi vel perdendi

terram.”

[103] The presence of the Archbishop of York and the

Cardinal comes from the second letter. There the Cardinal

and Anselm part from the King and Thomas. From the former

letter we see that the place was Nottingham.

[104] Ep. iii. 35. “Dominus meus rex ore suo mihi præcepit,

antequam ab illo apud Notingeham discederem, et postquam

Cantuarberiam redii, mihi mandavit per litteras proprio

sigillo signatas, ut Cantuarberiam custodiam, et semper

paratus sim ut quacunque hora nuntium eorum qui littora

maris ob hoc ipsum custodiunt audiero, undique convocari

jubeam equites et pedites, qui accurrentes violentiæ hostium

obsistant.” So in Ep. 36; “Rex mihi præcepit ut illam partem

regni sui in qua maxime irruptionem hostium quotidie

timemus, diligenter custodirem, et quotidie paratus essem

hostibus resistere si irruerent.”

[105] Ord. Vit. 703 D. “Ut rex finibus Rodberti

appropinquavit.”

[106] See vol. i. p. 68.

[107] Ord. Vit. u. s. “Gislebertus de Tonnebrugia, miles

potens et dives, regem seorsum vocavit, et pronus ad pedes

ejus corruit, eique nimis obstupescenti ait,” &c.

[108] See N. C. vol. i. p. 327.

[109] Ord. Vit. 703 D. “Præfato barone indicante, quot et

qui fuerant proditores, agnovit.”

[110] Ib. 704 A. “Delusis itaque sicariis, qui regem

occidere moliti sunt, armatæ phalanges prospere loca

insidiarum pertransierunt.”

[111] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 672.

[112] Ib. p. 667.

[113] Wallsend is often mentioned in the Durham charters,

beginning with the grants of Bishop William to his own

monks; Scriptores Tres, iv. _Wallcar_――that is, in local

language, the meadow by the wall――has got sadly degraded

into _Walker_. See Appendix CC.

[114] On Bamburgh, see Appendix FF.

[115] The Farn Islands, close off Bamburgh, must not be

confounded with Lindisfarn, some way to the north. Bæda

(Vit. Cuthb. 17) carefully distinguishes them; “Farne

dicitur insula medio in mari posita, quæ non, sicut

Lindisfarnensium incolarum regio, bis quotidie accedente

æstu oceani, quem rheuma vocant Græci, fit insula, bis

renudatis abeunte rheumate littoribus contigua terræ

redditur, sed aliquot millibus passuum ab hac semi-insula ad

eurum secreta, et hinc altissimo et inde infinito clauditur

oceano.” See Hist. Eccl. iii. 16, iv. 27, 29, v. 1. It is

spoken of as “insula Farne, quæ duobus ferme millibus

passuum ab urbe [Bamburgh] procul abest.”

[116] See vol. i. p. 291.

[117] Will. Gem. viii. 8. See vol. i. p. 552.

[118] Florence says only, “Moreal vero factæ traditionis

causam regi detexit.” The Chronicler is fuller; “Moreal

wearð þa on þes cynges hirede, and þurh hine wurdon manege,

ægðer ge gehadode and eac læwede, geypte þe mid heora ræde

on þes cynges unheldan wæron.”

[119] Chron. Petrib. 1095. “Þa se cyng sume ær þære tíde hét

on hæftneðe gebringan.”

[120] Ib. “Syððan swiðe gemahlice ofer eall þis land beodan,

þæt ealle þa þe of þam cynge land heoldan, eallswa hi friðes

weorðe beon woldan, þæt hi on hirede to tide wæron.”

[121] The change of place seems clear from the Chronicle.

The entry for 1096 begins; “On þison geare heold se cyng

Willelm his hired to X[~p]es mæssan on Windlesoran, and

Willelm biscop of Dunholme þær forðferde to geares dæge. And

on Octab’ Epyphañ wæs se cyng and ealle his witan on

Searbyrig.” Florence is to the same effect. See vol. i. p.

542.

[122] See N. C. vol. v. pp. 394, 406.

[123] Ib. vol. i. p. 102; vol. v. p. 415.

[124] Ib. vol. v. p. 420.

[125] See N. C. vol. v. p. 408.

[126] The vision of Boso fills the ninth chapter of the

fourth book of Simeon’s Durham history. He sees first, “Per

campum latissimum totius hujus provinciæ indigenas

congregatos, qui equis admodum pinguibus sedentes, et

longas, sicut soliti sunt, hastas portantes, earumque

collisione magnum facientes strepitum, multa ferebantur

superbia.” One might have taken these mounted spearmen for

Normans; but we read, “Multo majori quam priores superbia

secuti sunt Francigenæ, qui et ipsi frementibus equis

subvecti et universo armorum genere induti, equorum

frementium sonitu et armorum collisione immanem late

faciebant tumultum.” Lastly came the worst class of all;

“Deinde per extensum aliquot miliariis campum innumeram

feminarum multitudinem intueor, quarum tantam turbam dum

admirarer, eas presbyterorum uxores esse a ductore meo

didici. Has, inquit, miserabiles et illos qui ad

sacrificandum Deo consecrati sunt, nec tamen illecebris

carnalibus involvi metuerunt, væ sempiternum et gehennalium

flammarum atrocissimus expectat cruciatus.” But how vast

must have been the number of priests in the bishopric, if

their wives, seemingly not on horseback, filled up so much

room. The monks of Durham, on the other hand, were seen in a

beautiful flowery plain, all except two sinners, whose names

are not given, but who were to be reported to the Prior in

order that they might repent.

[127] The nature of the omen does not seem very clear; “In

loco vastæ ac tetræ solitudinis, magna altitudine domum

totam ex ferro fabrifactam aspexi, cujus janua dum sæpius

aperiretur sæpiusque clauderetur, ecce subito episcopus

Willelmus efferens caput, ubinam Gosfridus monachus esset a

me quæsivit.” This monk Geoffrey must surely be the same as

the one we heard of before as concerned in Bishop William’s

former troubles (see vol. i. p. 116). This gives the

confirmation of an undesigned coincidence to that story.

[128] See N. C. vol. iv. p 674.

[129] Ib. vol. v. p. 631.

[130] It is curious that, while the Durham writer implies

the summons by the use of the word “placitum” in the account

of Boso’s vision, he gives no account of the summons in his

own narrative. The gap is filled up by William of

Malmesbury, Gest. Pont. 273; “Non multo post orto inter

ipsum et regem discidio, ægritudine procubuit apud

Gloecestram. Ibi tunc erat curia, et jussus est episcopus

exhiberi, ut causam suam defensaret.” The place of King

William’s sickness in 1093 is here confounded with the place

of Bishop William’s sickness in 1096. But Gloucester was the

right place for holding the Gemót, though it was held at

Windsor.

[131] Will. Malms. u. s. “Cui cum responsum esset

infirmitate detineri quo minus veniret: ‘Per vultum de Luca

fingit se,’ inquit. Enimvero ille vera valitudine correptus

morti propinquabat.”

[132] Sim. Dun. Hist. Eccl. Dun. iv. 10. We have already had

the date of his death in the Chronicle. He died “instante

hora gallicantus.”

[133] See Simeon, u. s., and Will. Malms. Gest. Pont. 273.

The names of the bishops come from Simeon.

[134] Simeon, u. s. “Placuit ergo illis, ut in capitulo

tumulari deberet, quatenus in loco quo fratres cotidie

congregarentur, viso ejus sepulchro, carissimi patris

memoria in eorum cordibus cotidie renovaretur.” William of

Malmesbury speaks to the same effect. But no amount of good

works could save him from being crushed by Wyatt and the

Durham Chapter.

[135] Simeon is eloquent on the grief at his death; “Nullus

enim, ut reor, tunc inter illos erat, qui non illius vitam,

si fieri posset, sua morte redimere vellet.” The puzzling

contradictions as to the character of this bishop follow him

to the grave.

[136] Orderic (704 D) speaks of the “consules et consulares

viri,” who were known to have had a share in the conspiracy,

and were now ashamed of themselves; “Porro hæc subtiliter

rex comperiit, et _consultu sapientum_ hujusmodi viris

pepercit. Nec eos ad judicium palam provocavit, ne furor in

pejus augmentaretur,” &c.

[137] See vol. i. p. 61.

[138] Ord. Vit. 704 C. “Hugonem, Scrobesburensium comitem,

privatim affatus corripuit, et acceptis ab eo tribus

millibus libris, in amicitiam callide recepit.”

[139] Chron. Petrib. 1096. “Þær beteah Gosfrei Bainard

Willelm of Ou þes cynges mæg, þæt he heafde gebeon on þes

cynges swicdome.” So Florence. Stephen’s name is not here

mentioned; but we have already seen (see p. 39) what the

exact charge was, and Odo, Stephen’s father, is

significantly mentioned just after.

[140] The Chronicle seems to make the accuser the

challenger; “And hit him ongefeaht, and hine on orreste

ofercom, and syððan he ofercumen wæs, him het se cyng þa

eagan ut adón, and syþðan belisnian.” But perhaps the

meaning is really the same as in the account of William of

Malmesbury (iv. 319); “Willelmus de Ou, proditionis apud

regem accusatus delatoremque ad duellum provocans, dum se

segniter expurgat, cæcatus et extesticulatus est.” Orderic

says merely, “palam de nequitia convictus fuit,” without

saying how.

[141] Unless anything special was done, or meant to be done,

to Grimbald after the siege of Brionne. See N. C. vol. ii.

pp. 270-273.

[142] See N. C. vol. i. pp. 490, 491, 496.

[143] Ord. Vit. 704 C. “Hoc nimirum Hugone Cestrensium

comite pertulit instigante, cujus sororem habebat, sed

congruam fidem ei non servaverat.”

[144] See his character in N. C. vol. iv. p. 490.

[145] See N. C. vol. v. p. 159.

[146] All the accounts agree as to the punishment. Florence

says specially, “oculos _eruere_ et testiculos abscidere;”

so it was the worst form of blinding. The Hyde writer (301)

employs an euphemism; “Rex oculis privavit et per omnia

inutilem reddidit.”

[147] Chron. Petrib. 1093. “And sume man to Lundene lædde,

and þær spilde.” This last word seems to imply mutilation of

any kind, whether blinding or any other.

[148] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 30.

[149] Their names come over and over again in the Gloucester

Cartulary. See the Index.

[150] Liber de Hyda, 301. “Ernulfus de Hednith [sic],

statura procerus, industria summus, possessionibus

suffultus, apud regem tam injuste quam invidiose est

accusatus.”

[151] Ib. “Denique cum se bello legitimo per unum ex suis

contra unum ex hominibus regis facto defendisset atque

vicisset.”

[152] Liber de Hyda, 301. “Tanto dolore et ira est commotus

ut, abdicatis omnibus quæ regis erant in Anglia, ipso rege

invito et contradicente, discederet.”

[153] Ib. 302. “Vincit Dominus, quare medicus me non

continget, nisi ille pro cujus amore hanc peregrinationem

suscepi.”

[154] Chron. Petrib. 1096. “Ðær wearð eac Eoda eorl of

Campaine, þæs cynges aðum, and manege oðre, belende.”

Florence says; “Comitem Odonem de Campania, prædicti

scilicet Stephani patrem, Philippum Rogeri Scrobbesbyriensis

comitis filium, et quosdam alios traditionis participes, in

custodiam posuit.”

[155] Ib. “And his stiward Willelm hætte se wæs his modrian

sunu, het se cyng on rode ahón.”

[156] Flor. Wig. 1097. “Dapiferum illius Willelmum de

Alderi, filium amitæ illius, traditionis conscium, jussit

rex suspendi.”

[157] Will. Malms. iv. 319. “Plures illa delatio involvit,

innocentes plane et probos viros. Ex his fuit Willelmus de

Alderia, speciosæ personæ homo et compater regis.” So the

Hyde writer (301); “Willelmum etiam de Aldriato, ejusdem

Willelmi dapiferum, de eadem conjuratione injuste, ut aiunt,

accusatum patibulo suspendi præcepit.”

[158] Liber de Hyda, 302. “Erat enim idem corpore et animo

et genere præclarus.”

[159] Ib. “Cum principes dolore permoti … de ejus vita regem

rogassent, volentes eum ter auro et argento ponderare, rex

nullis precibus, nullis muneribus, ab ejus morte potuit

averti.”

[160] Will. Malms. iv. 319. “Is patibulo affigi jussus,

Osmundo episcopo Salesbiriæ confessus, et per omnes

ecclesias oppidi flagellatus est.” The account in the Hyde

Writer is to the same effect as that of William, but

shorter, and without any verbal agreement.

[161] Ib. “Dispersis ad inopes vestibus, ad suspendium nudus

ibat, delicatam carnem frequentibus super lapides

genuflectionibus cruentans.”

[162] Ib. “Tunc dicta commendatione animæ, et aspersa aqua

benedicta, episcopus discessit.”

[163] Ib. “Ille appensus est admirando fortitudinis

spectaculo, ut nec moriturus gemitum, nec moriens produceret

suspirium.”

[164] Will. Gem. viii. 34; Ord. Vit. 814 A.

[165] Ord. Vit. 704 C. “Morellus, domino suo vinculis

indissolubiter injecto, de Anglia mœstus aufugit, multasque

regiones pervagatus pauper et exosus in exsilio consenuit.”

[166] See very emphatically in the Chronicle, 1097.

[167] Will. Malms. iv. 311. “Contra Walenses … expeditionem

movens, nihil magnificentia sua dignum exhibuit, militibus

multis desideratis, jumentis interceptis. Nec tum solum, sed

multotiens, parva illi in Walenses fortuna fuit, quod cuivis

mirum videatur, cum ei alias semper alea bellorum

felicissime arriserit.” This last is hardly true of his

French and Cenomannian campaigns. The writer goes on to

attribute the failure of Rufus in Wales mainly to the nature

of the country, and to say that Henry the First found out

the right way of dealing with the Welsh, by planting the

Flemings in their country.

[168] Chron. Petrib. 1097. “Ac þa ða se cyng geseah þæt he

nan þingc his wiiles þær geforðian ne mihte, he ongean into

þison lande fór, and hraðe æfter þam, he be þam gemæron

castelas let gemakian.”

[169] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 478.

[170] Ib. p. 481.

[171] Ib. p. 479.

[172] Ib. p. 396.

[173] See N. C. vol. ii. pp. 483, 707.

[174] Ib. p. 483.

[175] See vol. i. p. 164.

[176] “That stubborn British tongue which has survived _two_

conquests,” is, I think, a phrase of Hallam’s.

[177] See vol. i. p. 122, and N. C. vol. iv. p. 489.

[178] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 501.

[179] Ib. p. 676.

[180] Ib. vol. iv. p. 489; v. p. 109.

[181] Ib. vol. ii. p. 708; v. p. 777.

[182] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 501.

[183] See vol. iv. pp. 676, 777.

[184] See vol. i. p. 121.

[185] Ann. Camb. 1088, 1089 [1089-1091]. “Menevia fracta est

a gentilibus insulanis.” The Brut is to the same effect, and

has a warm panegyric on the bishop. The dates in the Welsh

Chronicles are here wrong, but only by the fault of the

editor. The entries are made quite regularly year by year,

and they agree with those in the English writers.

[186] Brut y Tywysogion, 1089; it should be 1092.

[187] Will. Malms. iv. 310. “Quod eum Scottorum et Walensium

tumultus vocabant, in regnum se cum ambobus fratribus

recepit.” See vol. i. p. 295.

[188] See Appendix GG.

[189] See Appendix GG.

[190] The descendants of Jestin appear very clearly in

Giraldus, It. Camb. i. 6 (vol. vi. p. 69); “Quatuor Caradoci

filii Jestini filiis, et Resi principis ex sorore nepotibus,

his in finibus herili portione, sicut Gualensibus mos est,

pro patre dominantibus, Morgano videlicet, et Mereducio,

Oeneo, Cadwallano.” Morgan appears soon after (p. 69) as

guiding Archbishop Baldwin and his companion Giraldus over

the dangerous quicksands of his Avon.

[191] See Appendix GG.

[192] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 186.

[193] See vol. i. p. 62.

[194] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 250.

[195] He has an entry to himself in Essex (Domesday, ii. 54

_b_). He appears again in 100 _b_, and in the town of

Colchester (106) he holds “i. domum, et i. curiam, et i.

hidam terræ, et xv. burgenses.” A building with some trace

of Romanesque work used to be shown as “Hamo’s Saxon hall or

curia.” Why more “Saxon” than everything else in that Saxon

land it was not easy to guess. In Ellis he is made to be the

same as “Haimo vicecomes” who appears in Kent and Surrey

(Domesday, 14, 36). This last witnesses a letter of Anselm’s

(Epp. iii. 71) to the monks of Canterbury, along with

another Haimo, “filius Vitalis,” “Wimundus homo

vicecomitis,” and a mysterious “Robertus filius

Watsonis”――what name is meant? In Epp. iv. 57 a letter is

addressed to him by Anselm, complaining of damage done by

his men to the Archbishop’s property at Canterbury and

Sandwich. Or is this “vicecomes” in Kent the same as Haimer

or Haimo――he is written both ways――the “vicecomes” (in

another sense) of Thouars, who plays an important part

before and after the great battle? See N. C. vol. iii. pp.

315, 457, 551.

[196] See vol. i. p. 197.

[197] In this way we may put a meaning on the account in the

Tewkesbury History quoted in N. C. vol. iv. p. 762. Brihtric

had not any honour of Gloucester.

[198] See Ord. Vit. 578 D; William of Malmesbury, Hist. Nov.

i. 3. She was “spectabilis et excellens fœmina, domina tunc

viro morigera, tunc etiam fœcunditate numerosæ et

pulcherrimæ prolis beata.” She was the mother-in-law of his

patron.

[199] See Mr. Clark, Archæological Journal, vol. xxxv. p. 3

(March, 1878).

[200] Will. Malms. v. 398. “Monasterium Theochesbiriæ suo

favore non facile memoratu quantum exaltavit, ubi et

ædificiorum decor, et monachorum charitas, adventantium

rapit oculos et allicit animos.”

[201] See the Gloucester History, i. 93, 122, 223, 226, 334,

349; ii. 125. The gift of the church of Saint Cadoc at

Llancarfan is mentioned over and over again. At i. 334 there

is an alleged confirmation of this gift by William the

Conqueror in 1086. Can this be trusted so far as to make us

carry back the conquest of Glamorgan into his day, or are we

to suppose that a wrong date has crept in? In the

Monasticon, ii. 67, is a charter of Nicolas Bishop of

Llandaff (1148-1153) confirming the grants of a crowd of

churches in Glamorgan to the abbey of Tewkesbury. Among them

is “ecclesia de Landiltwit,” that is Llaniltyd or Llantwit

Major.

[202] See Mr. Clark, Archæological Journal, xxxiv. 17.

[203] See Mr. Clark. Archæological Journal, xxxiv. 25.

[204] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 676.

[205] In the second Brut he appears as Wiliam de _Lwndwn_ in

1088 (p. 72), Wiliam de _Lwndrys_ in 1094 (p. 78).

[206] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 782.

[207] See Mr. Clark, Archæological Journal, xxxiv. pp. 22,

30.

[208] See N. C. vol. v. pp. 854, xxxix.

[209] See the Margam Annals, 1130 (Ann. Mon. i. 13), and

Mon. Angl. v. 258.

[210] Margam Annals, 1147; Ann. Mon. i. 14.

[211] See vol. i. p. 34.

[212] See the wonderful story in Giraldus, It. Camb. i. 2

(vol. vi. p. 32).

[213] Ib. p. 36. The wonders of the lake, now known as

Llangorse pool, fill up more than two pages.

[214] Chron. de Bello, 34. He is described as “vir

magnificus Bernardus cognomento de Novo Mercato.” His gift

is “ecclesia … sancti Johannis Evangelistæ extra munitionem

castri sui de Brecchennio sita.” But the gift was made only

“ejusdem prædictæ ecclesiæ Belli monachi, nomine Rogerii,

apud eum aliquamdiu forte commanentis, importuna

suggestione.”

[215] We have seen (see vol. i. p. 34) Bernard spoken of as

son-in law of the old enemy Osbern of Herefordshire. Could

Osbern have married the elder Nest, perhaps as a second

wife? Or was the younger Nest a second wife of Bernard?

[216] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 679; vol. iii. pp. 710, 777.

[217] See the story in Giraldus, It. Camb. ii. 2 (vol. vi.

p. 29). The son was disinherited, and the honour of

Brecknock passed to the husband of the daughter, whom her

mother allowed to be Bernard’s child. He speaks of her as

“Nesta nomine, quam Angli vertendo _Anneis_ vocavere.” In

the Battle Chronicle (35) she appears as a benefactress by

the name of _Agnes_. She gave to Battle “de propria

hereditate quamdam villulam extra Walliam in Anglia sitam

[in Herefordshire], quæ Berinton vocatur.” She gave it

“forte invalitudine tacta.”

[218] See above, p. 78.

[219] Brut y Tywysogion, 1091 (1093). “And then fell the

kingdom of the Britons.” (Teyrnas y Brytanyeit.) Florence,

recording the same event, adds; “Ab illo die regnare in

Walonia reges desiere;” but he himself in 1116 says, “Owinus

rex Walanorum occiditur.” Cf. Ann. Camb. in anno, where the

royal title is not given to Owen. Indeed in the present

entry the Annals call Rhys only “rector dextralis partis;”

that is, of South Wales.

[220] See vol. i. p. 121.

[221] Ann. Camb. 1091 (1093). “Post cujus obitum Cadugaun

filius Bledint prædatus est Demetiam pridie kalendarum

Maii.”

[222] Brut y Tywysogion. So Ann. Camb. “Circiter Kalendas

Julii Franci primitus Demetiam et Keredigean tenuerunt, et

castella in eis locaverunt, et abinde totam terram Britonum

occupaverunt.”

[223] On the beavers in the Teif, see a long account in

Giraldus, It. Camb. ii. 3. Cp. Top. Hib. i. 26. He discusses

the lawfulness of eating the beaver’s tail on fast-days,

without coming to so decided a conclusion as when he rules

(Top. Hib. i. 15) that the barnacle might not be eaten.

[224] It is very hard to put Irish kings in their right

places; but there is no doubt that this Murtagh――I take the

shortest way of spelling his name――is the same as the

Murtagh of Connaught, head King of Ireland, though Giraldus

calls him King of Leinster, of whom we shall hear a good

deal before long.

[225] It. Camb. ii. 1 (vi. 109). “Rex Rufus … Kambriam suo

in tempore animose penetrans et circumdans, cum a rupibus

istis Hiberniam forte prospiceret, dixisse memoratur: Ad

terram istam expugnandam, ex navibus regni mei huc

convocatis, pontem adhuc faciam.” The Irish king, when he

hears, “cum aliquamdiu propensius inde cogitasset, fertur

respondisse: Numquid tantæ comminationis verbo rex ille ‘Si

Deo placuerit’ adjecit?”

[226] See vol. i. p. 166.

[227] It. Camb. u. s. “Tanquam prognostico gaudens

certissimo, Quoniam, inquit, homo iste de humana tantum

confidit potentia, non divina, ejus adventum non formido.”

[228] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 676.

[229] Ib. p. 526.

[230] On Bishop Wilfrith, see N. C. vol. v. p. 209, and vol.

i. p. 534. We shall hear of him again.

[231] I refer to such names as Hasgard and Freystrop. The

_fords_ in this district are of course _fiords_. The names

of Hereford and Haverfordwest have sometimes been

confounded, but the _ford_ comes from a different quarter in

the two names.

[232] See N. C. vol. v. p. 75.

[233] He does justice to his birthplace in It. Camb. i. 12

(vol. vi. p. 92), and proves by a _sorites_ “ut Kambriæ

totius locus sit hic amœnissimus.” “Pembrochia” here appears

as part of Demetia.

[234] Sir Rhys ap Thomas, the hero of Carew (Caerau) in

Henry the Seventh’s time, is chiefly of local fame. But his

name has made its way into general history. See Hall’s

Chronicle, p. 410, and several other places.

[235] It. Camb. i. 12 (vol. vi. p. 89). “Provincia

Pembrochiensis principale municipium, totiusque provinciæ

Demeticæ caput, in saxosa quadam et oblonga rupis eminentia

situm, lingua marina de Milverdico portu prosiliens in

capite bifurco complectitur. Unde et Pembrochia _caput

maritimæ_ sonat. Primus hoc castrum Arnulfus de Mungumeri,

sub Anglorum rege Henrico primo, ex virgis et cespite, tenue

satis et exile construxit.” The date is of course wrong, as

the castle of Pembroke appears both in the Annales Cambriæ

and in the Brut in 1094, and as Giraldus himself describes

the castle as in being soon after the death of Rhys ap

Tewdwr. He perhaps confounds Arnulf’s first rude work with

the stronger castle built by Gerald on the same site in

1105. This, according to the Brut, was fortified with a

ditch and wall and a gateway with a lock on it.

[236] Giraldus describes his namesake, the husband of his

grandmother, as “vir probus prudensque, Giraldus de

Windesora, constabularius suus [Arnulfi] et primipilus.”

[237] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 482.

[238] I have discussed this matter at length in Appendix BB.

(p. 851) of the fifth volume of the Norman Conquest. Miss

Williams (History of Wales, p. 209), like Sir Francis

Palgrave, knows more about Nest than I can find in any book.

But the tale in the Brut of her being carried off by Owen in

1106 (see N. C. vol. v. p. 210) is very graphic.

[239] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 501.

[240] So says the Brut, 1094 (1096). Is this William the son

of that Baldwin from whom Montgomery took its Welsh name?

[241] See vol. i. p. 464.

[242] Chron. Petrib. 1094. “Eac on þisum ylcan geare þa

Wylisce men hi gegaderodon, and wið þa Frencisce þe on Walon

oððe on þære neawiste wæron and hi ǽr belandedon, gewinn

úp ahofon, and manige festena and castelas abræcon, and men

ofslogon, and syððan heora gefylce weox, hí hí on ma

todældon. Wið sum þæra dæle gefeaht Hugo eorl of Scrobscire,

and hi aflymde. Ac þeah hweðer þa oðre ealles þæs geares

nanes yfeles ne geswicon þe hi dón mihton.”

[243] Brut y Tywysogion, 1092 (1094). The translation runs;

“Whilst William remained in Normandy, the Britons resisted

the domination of the French, not being able to bear their

cruelty, and demolished their castles in Gwynedd, and

_iterated_ their depredations and slaughters among them.”

The Latin annalist says only; “Britanni jugum Francorum

respuerunt. Wenedociam, Cereticam et Demetiam ab iis et

eorum castellis _emundaverunt_.” Both these writers have

oddly mistaken the state of things in Normandy. One

manuscript of the Annales says that William went into

Normandy, and that the revolt happened, “ibi morante et

fratrem suum expugnante,” while the Brut says more wildly

that “King William Rufus [Gwilim Goch], who first by a most

glorious war prevailed over the Saxons, went to Normandy to

keep and defend the kingdom [teyrnas] of Robert his brother,

who had gone to Jerusalem [Kærcesalem] to fight against the

Saracens and other barbarous nations and to protect the

Christians, and to acquire greater fame.”

[244] Flor. Wig. 1094. “Ad hæc etiam primitus North-Walani,

deinceps West-Walani et Suth-Walani, servitutis jugo, quo

diu premebantur, excusso, et cervice erecta, libertatem sibi

vindicare laborabant. Unde collecta multitudine, castella

quæ in West-Walonia firmata erant frangebant et in

Cestrensi, Scrobbesbyriensi, et Herefordensi provincia

frequenter villas cremabant, prædas agebant, et multos ex

Anglis et Normannis interficiebant.” The names of Gruffydd

and Cadwgan come from the later Brut, which copies Florence

or comes from the same source.

[245] Flor. Wig. 1094. “Fregerunt et castellum in Mevania

insula, eamque suæ ditioni subjiciebant.” This confirms the

statement of the later Brut about the building of the castle

of Aberlleiniog (see p. 97); but he says nothing about

Anglesey here.