In looking through the pages of _Ordericus Vitalis_, vol. ii. (Bohn's
edition), I have noticed some trifling inaccuracies, to one or more of
which you will perhaps suffer me to call the editor's attention through the
medium of "N. & Q.," in case he be not already aware of them.
At p. 70. King William is described as offering the bishopric of Mans to
"Samson, _Bishop_ of Bayeux, his chaplain." So in the index to _Histor.
Anglic. circa tempus Conquestûs, &c., a Francisco Maseres_, I find this
passage of Vitalis referred to under the title of "Sanson Baiocensis
_episcopus_."
But yet Odo was Bishop of Bayeux at this time; and notwithstanding what
Marbode _afterwards_ said of Bayeux, when he invited his old pupil to meet
him there, viz. "Sedes præsulibus sufficit illa tribus," yet Samson, even
then, was not Bishop of Bayeux, but of Worcester.
The original words of Vitalis are, "Sansoni _Baiocensi_," Samson being
(temp. Will. I.) Canon and Treasurer of Bayeux, as well as Baron of Dover,
and Canon of St. Martin's there, Dean of Wolverhampton, and chaplain to
William. He was a married man, and apparently at the time in question only
in deacon's orders. One of his sons, at a later period, became Bishop of
Bayeux, as did also a grandson, whose mother (according to Beziers) was
"Isabelle de Dovre, maîtresse de Robert Conte de Glocester, bâtard de Henri
I., Roi d'Angleterre." Upon which I would found a Query, viz., Was this
grandson of Samson, whose name was Richard, an _uterine_ or a _half_
brother of Roger, Bishop of Worcester? Both are described as sons of
Robert, Earl of Gloucester.
At p. 261. Alberede is described in the text of the translation to be a
daughter of "Hugh, Bishop of Evreux," whereas in the original she is said
to be "Hugonis Bajocensis episcopi filia."
In a note to this passage we are informed that Hugh, Bishop of Lisieux,
died at the Council of Rheims (Oct. 1049), and that he was eldest son of
Ralph, Count d'Ivri &c. On the contrary, we are told at p. 428, note 2,
that it was Odo's predecessor (_i. e._ Hugh d'Ivri) in the see of Bayeux,
who died at the Council of Rheims, Oct. 1049. Again, in a note at p. 118,
we learn that Hugh d'Eu, who succeeded Herbert as Bishop of Lisieux in
1050, or the year following the Council in question, did not vacate that
see until 1077.
Before I close this Note, I should be glad to inquire what grounds the
editor has for asserting (p. 32, n. 1.) that Thomas, Archbishop of York,
"was not a chaplain to the king" before his promotion. Thierry, _Histoire
de la Conquête, &c._ (Par. 1825, tome ii. p. 18.), says: "Thomas, l'un des
chapelains du roi, fut nommé archevêque d'York." And by Godwin (_De Præsul.
Angl._, tom. ii. p. 244.) we are told that Odo--
"Eum (Thomam) Thesaurarium Baiocensem constituit, et postea _Regi
fratri commendavit, ut illi esset a sacras_."