At this stage we again meet a personal spokesman on the other side;

Bishop Walkelin of Winchester speaks where doubtless William of

Saint-Calais would have spoken, had he still lived. Walkelin’s

argument was one hardly suited to the mind of Anselm. The King and his

lords knew the Archbishop’s ways; they knew that he was a man not

easily turned from his purpose; but it was not easy to believe that he

would be firm in his purpose of casting aside the honour and wealth of

the great office which he held, merely for the sake of going to

Rome.[1588] Anselm’s face lighted up, and he fixed his keen eyes on

Walkelin, with the words, “Truly I shall be firm.” This answer was

taken to the King, and was debated for a long while in the inner

council. At last Anselm bethinks him that his suffragans ought rather

to be advising him than advising the King; he sends and bids them to

come to him. Three of them come at the summons, Walkelin, the

ritualist Osmund, the cunning leech John of Bath. They sat down on

each side of their metropolitan. Anselm called on them, as bishops and

prelates in the Church of God. If they were really willing to guard

the right and the justice of God as they were ready to guard the laws

and usages of a mortal man,[1589] they will let him tell them in full

his reason for the course which he is taking, and they will then give

him their counsel in God’s name.[1590] The three bishops chose first

to confer with their brethren; Walkelin and Robert were then sent in

to the King, and the whole body of bishops came once more to Anselm.

We now see the portrait of the prelates of the Red King’s day, as it

is drawn by their own spokesman. Anselm they knew to be a devout and

holy man who had his conversation in heaven. But they were hindered by

the kinsfolk whom they sustained, by the manifold affairs of the world

which they loved; they could not rise to the loftiness of Anselm’s

life or trample on this world as he did.[1591] But if he would come

down to them, and would walk in their way,[1592] then they would

consult for him as they would consult for themselves, and would help

him in his affairs as if they were their own. If he would persist in

standing alone and referring everything to God,[1593] they would not

go beyond the fealty which they owed to the King. This was plain

speaking enough; the doctrine of interest against right has seldom,

even in these later times, been more openly set forth. One would think

that the bishops simply meant to strengthen Anselm’s fixed purpose;

they could not hope to move him with arguments which certainly did not

do justice to their own case. Anselm’s scholastic training always

enabled him to seize an advantage in argument. “You have spoken well,”

he answered; “go to your lord; I will cleave to God.”[1594] They did

as he bade them; they went, and Anselm was left almost alone; the few

friends who clave to him sat apart at his bidding, and prayed to God

to bring the matter to a good ending.[1595]

[Sidenote: Part of the lay lords.]

[Sidenote: Anselm’s promise to obey the customs.]

[Sidenote: He is charged with breach of promise.]

[Sidenote: Alternative given to him.]

In all these debates it is the bishops who play the worst part. They

seem to say in calm earnest the same kind of things which the King

said in wrath or in jest. After a short delay, they come back,

accompanied by some lay barons, and the tone of their discourse is at

once raised. Anselm has no longer the laity on his side, as he had at

Rockingham; nor can we wonder at the change. The speech which is now

made is harsh, perhaps captious; but at all events the stand is now

taken on direct legal grounds, no longer on the base motives confessed

to by the bishops. The King sent word that Anselm had troubled him,

embittered him, tortured him, by his complaints.[1596] The Archbishop

is reminded that, after the suit at Rockingham and the reconciliation

which followed at Windsor――a reconciliation which is now attributed to

the earnest prayers of Anselm’s friends[1597]――he had sworn to obey

the laws and customs of the realm, and to defend them against all

men.[1598] After this promise the King had believed that Anselm would

give him no more trouble.[1599] But he had already broken his

oath――the charge is delicately worded――when he threatened to go to

Rome without the King’s leave.[1600] For any of the great men of the

realm so to do was utterly unheard of; for him most of all. Anselm’s

enemies had now the advantage of him; he certainly had uttered words

which might be not unfairly construed as an intended breach of the

law. They therefore called on him to make oath that he would never

appeal to the Holy See in any shape in any matter which the King might

lay upon him; otherwise he must leave the kingdom with all speed, on

what conditions he already knew. And if he chose to stay and take the

oath, he must submit to be fined at the judgement of the court for

having troubled the King so much about a matter in which he had after

all not stuck firm to his own purpose.[1601] This last condition seems

hard measure; there was surely no treason in making a request to the

King which it rested with the King to grant or to refuse. With regard

to the alleged breach of promise they undoubtedly stood on firmer

ground.

[Sidenote: Anselm and the King.]

[Sidenote: Qualifications and distinctions.]

[Sidenote: Anselm’s discourse; duty to God always excepted.]

The King’s messengers did not wait for an answer. Anselm therefore

rose; followed by his companions, he went in to the King, and,

according to custom, sat down beside him.[1602] He asked whether the

message which he had just heard had really come from the King, and he

received for answer that it had. Anselm then said that he had

undoubtedly made the promise to observe the laws, but that he made it

only in God’s name, and so far as the laws were according to right,

and could be obeyed in God’s name.[1603] The King and his lords

answered that in the promise there had been no mention of God or of

right.[1604] We should be well pleased to have the actual words of the

promise; but we need not suppose any direct misstatement of fact on

either side; the forms of oaths and promises are commonly capable of

more than one interpretation. Words which one side looks on as

surplusage another side looks on as the root of the whole matter. But

the form of the answer gave Anselm, if not a logical, at least a

rhetorical, advantage. If there was no mention of God or right, what

was there mention of? No Christian man could be bound to observe laws

which were contrary to God and right. We have here reached the

beginning of those distinctions and qualifications which play so great

a part in the debates of the next century; but with Anselm the appeal

is simply to God and right; there is not a word about the privileges

of his order. His hearers murmured and wagged their heads, but said

nothing openly.[1605] So the Primate went on to lay down at some

length the doctrine that every promise of earthly duty involved in its

own nature a saving of duty to God. Faith was pledged in earthly

matters according to the faith due to God; faith to God was therefore

excepted by the very terms of the promise.[1606] The argument is

doubtless sound, as regards the individual conscience; it leaves out

of sight, and any argument of that age would probably have left out of

sight, the truth that men may differ as to what is duty towards God,

and that no lawgiver or administrator of the law can possibly listen

to every scruple which may be urged on such grounds in favour of

disobedience. To Anselm’s mind the case was clear. A custom which

hindered him from going to consult the Vicar of Saint Peter for his

own soul’s health and for the good of the Church was a custom contrary

to God and right, a custom which ought to be cast aside and disobeyed.

No man who feared God would hinder him from going to the head of

Christendom on God’s service. He ended with a parable. The King would

not think himself well served if any powerful vassal of his should by

terrors and threatenings hinder any other of his subjects from doing

his duty and service to him.

[Sidenote: Answer of Count Robert.]

[Sidenote: The barons against Anselm.]

[Sidenote: He ends his discourse.]

It was perhaps not wholly in enmity that the Count of Meulan, who at

Rockingham had frankly professed his admiration of Anselm, joined the

King at this stage in trying to turn off the matter with a jest. The

Primate, he said, was preaching them a sermon; but prudent people

could not admit his line of argument.[1607] And certainly Anselm’s

present line of argument, the assertion of individual conscience

against established law, could not be admitted by any legislative or

judicial assembly. A disturbance followed; the barons who had stood by

the Archbishop when he lay under a manifestly unjust charge joined in

the clamour against him when he declared that the law of the land was

something to be despised and disobeyed. But Anselm’s conscience was

not disturbed; he sat quiet and silent, with his face towards the

ground, till the clamour wore itself out.[1608] He then finished his

sermon, as Count Robert called it. No Christian man ought to demand of

him that he would never appeal to the blessed Peter or his Vicar. So

to swear would be to abjure Peter, and to abjure Peter would be to

abjure Christ who had set Peter as the chief over his Church. He then

turned to the King with a kind of gentle defiance; “When I deny

Christ, O King, for your sake, then will I not be slow to pay a fine

at the judgement of your court for my sin in asking your leave.” Half

in anger, half in mockery, Count Robert said, “You will present

yourself to Peter and the Pope; but no Pope shall get the better of

us, to our knowledge.”[1609] “God knows,” answered Anselm, “what may

be in store for you; He will be able, if He thinks good, to guide me

to the threshold of his apostles.” With these words the Archbishop

rose, and went again into the outer chamber.

[Sidenote: Anselm to be allowed to go, but the archbishopric to be

seized if he went.]

[Sidenote: Anselm allowed to go, but the archbishopric to be seized.]

[Sidenote: Anselm’s last interview with the King.]

[Sidenote: He blesses Rufus.]

The King and his counsellors seem to have been moved by the calm

resolution of Anselm, even when the letter of the law was on their own

side. Either Rufus was not in his most savage mood, or his wily

Achitophel contrived to keep him in some restraint. Nothing could be

gained by keeping Anselm in the kingdom. He had already had the choice

set before him. He might go; but, if he went, the archbishopric would

be seized into the King’s hands. He had made his choice, and he should

be allowed to carry it out without hindrance; only he knew on what

conditions. The decision was on the whole not altogether unfair; but

the inherent pettiness of the magnanimous King could not help throwing

in an insult or two by the way. If Anselm chose to go, all that he

had, in Rufus’ version of the law, at once passed to the King. He was

therefore told, in the message which was sent out to him, that he

might go, but that he might take nothing with him which belonged to

the King.[1610] Anselm did not, like William of Saint-Calais, bargain

for the means of crossing in state with dogs, hawks, and

servants.[1611] He seems tacitly to raise a point of law. The lands of

the archbishopric might pass to the King; but that could not take from

him his mere personal goods. “I have,” he said, “horses, clothes,

furniture, which perhaps somebody may say are the King’s. But I will

go naked and on foot, rather than give up my purpose.” When these

words were reported to Rufus, for a moment he felt a slight sense of

shame.[1612] He did not wish the Archbishop to go naked and barefoot.

But within eleven days he must be ready at the haven to cross the sea,

and a messenger from the King would be there to tell him what he and

his companions would be allowed to take with them. The King’s bidding

was announced to the Archbishop, and Anselm’s companions wished, now

the matter seemed to be settled, to go at once to their own quarters.

But Anselm would not leave the man who was his earthly lord, who had

once been, in form at least, his friend, to whom he held himself to

stand in so close an official and personal relation, without one word

face to face. He entered the presence-chamber, and once more the saint

sat down side by side with the foulest of sinners. “My lord,” said

Anselm, “I am going. If I could have gone with your good will, it

would have better become you, and it would have been more pleasing to

every good man. But since things are turned another way, though it

grieves me as regards you, as regards myself I will, according to my

power, bear it with a calm mind. And not even for this will I, by the

Lord’s help, withdraw myself from the love of your soul’s health. Now

therefore, not knowing when I may again see you, I commend you to God,

and, as a ghostly father speaking to a beloved son, as an Archbishop

of Canterbury speaking to a King of England, I would, before I go,

give you my blessing, if you do not refuse it.” For a moment Rufus was

touched; his good angel perhaps spoke to him then for the last time.

“I refuse not your blessing,” was his answer. The man of God arose;

the King bowed his head, and Anselm made the sign of the cross over

it. He then went forth, leaving the King and all that were with him

wondering at the ready cheerfulness with which he spoke and

went.[1613]

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Anselm at Canterbury.]

[Sidenote: He takes the pilgrim’s staff.]

[Sidenote: William of Warelwast at Dover.]

[Sidenote: Anselm crosses to Whitsand.]

Rufus and Anselm never met again. From Winchester the Archbishop went

to his own home at Canterbury.[1614] The day after he came there, he

gathered together his monks, and addressed them in a farewell

discourse.[1615] Then, in the sight of a crowd of monks, clerks, and

lay folk, he took the staff and scrip of a pilgrim before the altar.

He commended all present to Christ, and set forth amidst their tears

and wailings. The same day he and his comrades reached Dover. There he

found that the passing current of better feeling which had touched the

King’s heart as he bowed his head for Anselm’s blessing had been but

for a moment. Rufus had gone back to his old mind, to the spirit of

petty insult and petty gain. The King’s obedient clerk, William of

Warelwast, one day to be the builder of the twin towers of Exeter, was

there already. For fifteen days Anselm and his companions were kept at

Dover, waiting for a favourable wind. Meanwhile William of Warelwast

went in and out with Anselm; he ate at his table, and said not a word

of the purpose which had brought him.[1616] On the fifteenth day the

wind changed, and the sailors urged the Archbishop’s party to cross at

once. When they were on the shore ready to start, William stopped the

Archbishop as if he had been a runaway slave or a criminal escaping

from justice,[1617] and in the King’s name forbade him to cross, till

he had declared everything that he had in his baggage. In hope of

finding money, all Anselm’s bags and trunks were opened and ransacked,

in the sight of a vast crowd that stood by wondering at so unheard of

a deed, and cursing those who did it.[1618] The bags were opened and

ransacked in vain. Nothing was found that the King’s faithful clerk

thought worth his master’s taking. The Archbishop, with Baldwin and

Eadmer, was then allowed to set sail, and they landed safely at

Whitsand.

[Sidenote: The archbishopric seized by the King.]

[Sidenote: Anselm’s acts declared null.]

[Sidenote: The monks keep Peckham.]

[Sidenote: Rebuilding of the choir of Christ Church.]

[Sidenote: Ernulf Prior 1096? Abbot of Peterborough, 1107; Bishop of

Rochester, 1115.]

As soon as the King heard that Anselm was out of the kingdom, he did

as he had said that he would do; he again seized all the estates of

the archbishopric into his own hands. This was only what was to be

looked for; it was fully in accordance with the doctrines of Flambard,

and better kings than William Rufus would have done the like in the

like case. But Rufus or his agents went much further. Our guide

implies that he acted as if Anselm had been an intruder in the

archbishopric. All the acts and orders of Anselm during his four

years’ primacy――that is, we must suppose, all leases, grants, and

legal transactions of every kind――were declared null and void.[1619]

Much loss and wrong must have been thus caused to many persons. A man

who had, in the old phrase, bought land of the archbishopric for a

term or for lives[1620] would lose his land, and, we may be sure,

would not get back his money. A clerk collated by the Archbishop might

be turned out of his living to make room for a nominee of the King. It

is no wonder then that the wrongs which were done now were said to be

greater than the wrongs which had been done when the archiepiscopal

estates had before been seized after the death of Lanfranc.[1621] For

at any rate the acts of Lanfranc were not reversed. One feels a

certain desire to know what became of the Archbishop’s knights whose

array had so displeased the King earlier in the year. But we hear

nothing of them or of any particular class; all is quite general. In

one case indeed it is quite certain that the rule that all Anselm’s

acts should be treated as invalid was not carried out. The monks of

Christ Church clearly kept their temporary possession of the manor of

Peckham. For they spent the whole income of it on great architectural

works which Anselm himself had begun. The metropolitan church, so

lately rebuilt by Lanfranc, had already become small in the eyes of a

younger generation, as indeed it was smaller than many minsters of the

same date. The church of Lanfranc had followed the usual Norman plan;

the short eastern limb, the monks’ choir, was under the tower.[1622]

The arrangements of the minster were now recast after a new pattern

which did not commonly prevail till many years later. The eastern limb

was rebuilt on a far greater scale, itself forming as it were a

cruciform church, with its own transepts, its own towers, one of which

in after days received the name of Anselm. This work, begun by Anselm

before his banishment, was carried on in his absence by the prior of

his appointment, Ernulf――Earnwulf――a monk of his old house of Bec, but

perhaps of English birth, who rose afterwards to be Abbot of

Peterborough and Bishop of Rochester.[1623] In marked contrast to the

speed with which Lanfranc had carried through his work, the choir

begun by Ernulf and carried on by his successor Prior Conrad was not

consecrated till late in the days of Henry.[1624]

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Comparison of the trials of William of Saint-Calais,

Anselm, and Thomas.]

[Sidenote: Comparison of the men.]

[Sidenote: Position of Thomas;]

[Sidenote: of William of Saint-Calais.]

[Sidenote: Anselm does not strictly appeal to the Pope.]

After reading the accounts of these two great debates or trials, at

Rockingham and at Winchester, it is impossible to avoid looking both

backwards and forwards. The story of these proceedings must be told,

as I have throughout tried to tell it, with an eye to the earlier

proceedings against William of Saint-Calais, to the later proceedings

against Thomas of London. The three stories supply an instructive

contrast. In each case a bishop is arraigned before a civil tribunal;

in each case the bishop appeals to the Pope; but beyond that the three

men have little in common. William and Thomas were both of them,

though in widely different senses, playing a part; it is Anselm alone

who is throughout perfectly simple and unconscious. Through the whole

of Anselm’s life, we feel that he never could have acted otherwise

than as he did act. He never stopped to think what was the right thing

for a saintly archbishop to do; he simply did at all times what his

conscience told him that he ought to do. Thomas, perfectly sincere,

thoroughly bent on doing his duty, was still following a conscious

ideal of duty; he was always thinking what a saintly archbishop ought

to do; above all things, we may be sure, he was thinking what Anselm,

in the like case, would have done. Thus, while Anselm acts quite

singly, Thomas is, consciously though sincerely, playing a part.

William of Saint-Calais is playing a part in a far baser sense; he

appeals to the Pope, he appeals to ecclesiastical privileges in

general, simply to serve his own personal ends. He appealed to those

privileges more loudly than anybody else, when he thought that by that

appeal he might himself escape condemnation. He trampled them under

foot more scornfully than anybody else, when he thought that by so

doing he might bring about the condemnation of Anselm and his own

promotion. But it is curious to see how in some points the sincere

acting of Thomas and the insincere acting of William agree as

distinguished from the pure single-mindedness of Anselm. Both William

and Thomas distinctly appeal to the Pope from the sentence of the

highest court in their own land. We cannot say that Anselm did this;

he does not refuse the sentence of the King’s court; he does not ask

the Pope to set aside the sentence of the King’s court; the utmost

that he does is to say that it is his duty to obey God rather than

man, and that his duty to God obliges him to go to the Pope. To the

Pope therefore he will go, even though the King forbids him; but he is

ready at the same time to bear patiently the spoiling of his goods as

the penalty of going. This is assuredly not an appeal to the Pope in

the same sense as the appeals made by William and Thomas.

[Sidenote: Anselm does not assert clerical privileges.]

[Sidenote: Question of observing the customs.]

Among the marks of difference in the cases is that both William and

Thomas strongly assert the privileges of their order; none but the

Pope may judge a bishop. Anselm never once, during his whole dispute

with William Rufus, makes the slightest claim to any such privilege;

he never breathes a word about the rights of the clerical order. The

doctrine that none but the Pope may judge the Archbishop of

Canterbury――nothing is said about other priests or other bishops――is

heard of only once during the whole story.[1625] And then it is not

put forth by Anselm; it is not openly put forth by anybody; it is

merely mentioned by Eadmer as something which came into the minds of

the undutiful bishops as a kind of after-thought. This most likely

means that it was not really thought of at the time, either by the

bishops or by anybody else, but that Eadmer, writing by fresh lights

learned at Rome and at Bari, could no longer understand a state of

things in which it was not thought of by somebody. The truth doubtless

is that in Anselm’s day the doctrine of clerical exemption from

temporal jurisdiction was a novelty which was creeping in. It was well

known enough for Odo and William of Saint-Calais to catch at it to

serve their own ends; it was not so fully established that it was at

all a matter of conscience with Anselm to assert it. By the time of

Thomas every doctrine of the kind had so grown that its assertion had

become a point of conscience with every strict churchman. But there is

another point in which the case of Anselm and the case of Thomas agree

as distinguished from the case of William of Saint-Calais. In this

last case nothing turned on any promise of the Bishop to obey the

customs of the realm. Much in the case of Anselm, much more in the

case of Thomas, turned on such a promise. In each case the Archbishop

pleads a certain reservation expressed or understood; but there is a

wide difference between the reservation made by Anselm and the

reservation made by Thomas. The favourite formula with Thomas, the

formula which he proposes, the formula which he is at Clarendon with

difficulty persuaded to withdraw and on which he again falls

back,[1626] is “saving my order.” Anselm has nothing to say about his

order; he is not fighting for the privileges of any special body of

men; he is simply a righteous man clothed with a certain office, the

duties of which office he must discharge. It is not his order that he

reserves; he reserves only the higher and more abiding names of God

and right.

[Sidenote: Nature of our reports of the trials.]

[Sidenote: Comparison of the proceedings in each case.]

[Sidenote: William and Thomas summoned to answer a charge.]

[Sidenote: Anselm seeks advice on a point of law.]

[Sidenote: Proceedings in the case of William of Saint-Calais.]

[Sidenote: Architectural arrangements.]

[Sidenote: Constitution of the several assemblies.]

[Sidenote: The Witenagemót;]

[Sidenote: its constitution becomes gradually less popular.]

[Sidenote: Lessened freedom of speech.]

As for the cases themselves and the tribunals before which they were

heard, we must always remember that our reports, though very full, are

not official. Their authors therefore use technical or non-technical

language at pleasure. They assume familiarity with the nature of the

court and its mode of procedure; they do not stop to explain many

things which we should be very glad if they had stopped to explain.

But it is clear that the nature of the proceedings was not exactly the

same in the three cases. And it is singular that, in point of mere

procedure, there seems more likeness between the case of Anselm and

the case of Thomas than there is between either and the case of

William of Saint-Calais. William of Saint-Calais and Thomas were both

of them, in the strictest sense, summoned before a court to answer a

charge. The charges were indeed of quite different kinds in the two

cases. William of Saint-Calais was charged with high treason. Thomas,

besides a number of demands about money, was charged only with failing

to appear in the King’s court in answer to an earlier summons. Anselm,

on the other hand, cannot be said to have been really charged with

anything, though the King and his party tried to treat him as though

he had been. The assembly at Rockingham was gathered at Anselm’s own

request, to inform him on a point of law. The King and his bishops

tried to treat Anselm as a criminal; but they found that the general

feeling of the assembly would not allow them to do so. At Winchester

again, Anselm was not summoned to answer any charge, for the charge

about the troops in the Welsh war had been dropped at Windsor. The

charges, such as they are, which are brought against him turn up as it

were casually in the course of the proceedings. Yet the order of

things seems much the same in the case of Anselm and in the case of

Thomas, while in the case of William of Saint-Calais it seems to be

different. In the case of William of Saint-Calais everything is done

in the King’s presence. The Bishop himself has more than once to leave

the place of meeting, while particular points are discussed; but there

is not that endless going to and fro which there is in the other two

cases. In the case of Thomas, as in the case of Anselm, we see plainly

the inner room where the King sits with his immediate counsellors,

while the Archbishop waits in an outer place with the general body of

the assembly. At Northampton we see the architectural arrangement more

clearly than either at Rockingham or at Winchester. Thomas enters the

great hall, and goes no further, while the King’s inner council is

held in the solar.[1627] It is possible, as indeed I have already

hinted,[1628] that there was a difference in the nature of the

assembly in the case of William of Saint-Calais and in the two cases

of Anselm and Thomas. We must remember that in the reign of William

Rufus the judicial and administrative system was still only forming

itself, and that many things were then vague and irregular, both in

fact and in name, which had taken a definite shape in the time of

Henry the Second. Between the case of Anselm and the case of Thomas

came the justiciarship of Roger of Salisbury and the chancellorship of

Thomas himself. I am inclined to think that, at Rockingham, at

Winchester, at Northampton, the assembly was strictly the great

assembly of the nation, the ancient Witenagemót, with such changes in

its working as had taken place between the days of the Confessor and

the days of William Rufus, and again between the days of William Rufus

and the days of Henry the Second. Each of these periods of change

would of course do something towards taking away from the old popular

character of the assembly. At Rockingham that popular character is by

no means lost. We are not told where the line, if any, was drawn; but

a multitude of monks, clerks, and laymen were there.[1629] At

Northampton we hear of no class below the lesser barons; and they,

with the sheriffs, wait in the outer hall, till they are specially

summoned to the King’s presence. At Rockingham too and at Winchester

there seems much greater freedom of speech than there is at

Northampton. The whole assembly shouts and cheers as it pleases, and a

simple knight steps forth to speak and to speak boldly.[1630] At

Northampton, as at Rockingham and at Winchester, the Archbishop is

allowed the company of his personal followers. William Fitz-Stephen

and Herbert of Bosham sit at the feet of Thomas, as Eadmer and Baldwin

sit at the feet of Anselm. But at Northampton the disciples are

roughly checked in speaking to their master, in a way of which there

is no sign in the earlier assemblies. At Rockingham and Winchester

again, though the Archbishop stays for the most part outside in the

hall, yet he more than once goes unbidden into the presence-chamber,

and is even followed thither by his faithful monks. At Northampton

Thomas is never admitted to the King’s presence, and no one seems to

go into the inner room who is not specially summoned. This may be

merely because, as is likely enough, strictness of rule, form, and

etiquette had greatly advanced between William Rufus and Henry the

Second. Or it may have been because Thomas was strictly summoned to

answer a charge, while Anselm was really under no charge at all, but

came as a member of the assembly.

[Sidenote: The inner and outer council;]

[Sidenote: foreshadowing of lords and commons.]

[Sidenote: Thomas tried before the Witan;]

[Sidenote: William before the _Theningmannagemót_.]

Another point here arises. I cannot but think that in these great

assemblies, consisting of an inner and an outer body, we must see the

same kind of distinction which we saw on the great day of Salisbury

between the Witan and the landsitting men. That is, I see in the inner

and outer bodies the foreshadowing of Lords and Commons. To this day

there is one chamber in which the King’s throne is set; there is

another chamber whose occupants do not enter the presence of that

throne, except by special summons. I am inclined therefore to see,

both in the case of Anselm and in the case of Thomas, a true gathering

of the Witan of the realm. Thomas comes, like Strafford or Hastings,

to answer a charge before the Court of our Lord the King in

Parliament,[1631] that court, which from an assembly of the whole

nation, gradually shrank up into an assembly of the present peerage.

In the case of Anselm I see the same body acting, not strictly as a

court, but rather as the great inquest of the nation, but at the same

time fluctuating somewhat, as was but natural in that age, between its

judicial and its legislative functions. But in the tribunal which sat

on William of Saint-Calais I am, as I have already said, inclined to

see, not the _Mickle Gemót_ of the whole nation, but rather the King’s

court in a narrower sense, the representative of the ancient

_Theningmannagemót_, the more strictly official body.[1632] Here we

have no division of chambers; the proceedings are strictly those of a

court trying a charge, and the King, as chief judge, is present

throughout.

[Sidenote: Estimate of the three cases.]

[Sidenote: Behaviour of Rufus;]

[Sidenote: of Henry the Second.]

[Sidenote: Comparison with Henry the First.]

As for the matter of the three cases, the trial of William of

Saint-Calais was in itself the perfectly fair trial of a rebel who, in

the end, after the custom of the age, came off very lightly for his

rebellion. There really seems nothing to blame William Rufus for in

that matter――William Rufus, that is, still largely guided by

Lanfranc――except some characteristic pettinesses just towards the end

of the story.[1633] Towards Anselm William appears――save under one or

two momentary touches of better feeling――simply as the power of evil

striving, by whatever means, to crush the power of good. He seems none

the less so, even when on particular points his own case is

technically right. Henry the Second, acting honestly for the good of

his kingdom, both technically and morally right in his main quarrel,

stoops to the base and foolish course of trying to crush his adversary

by a crowd of charges in which the King seems to have been both

morally and technically wrong, and which certainly would never have

been brought if the Archbishop had not given offence on other grounds.

William Rufus again, and Henry the Second also, each forsook his own

position by calling in, when it suited their momentary purposes, the

very power which their main position bade them to control and to keep

out of their kingdom. Not so the great king who came between them. The

Lion of Justice knew, and he alone in those days seems to have known,

how to carry on a controversy of principle, without ever forsaking his

own position, without ever losing his temper or lowering his dignity,

without any breach of personal respect and friendship towards the holy

man whom his kingly office made it his duty to withstand.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Effect on Anselm of his foreign sojourn.]

[Sidenote: Change in him.]

The three years of Anselm’s first sojourn beyond sea concern us for

the most part only indirectly. Of their most important aspect, as

concerns us, I have spoken elsewhere,[1634] and we shall again see

their fruit before the present work is ended. In his journeyings to

Lyons, to Rome, to Bari, Anselm learned a new doctrine which he had

never found out either at Bec or at Canterbury. It was not for his

good that he, who had, like the Primates who had gone before him,

received his staff from the King’s hands, and placed his own hands in

homage between them, should hear the anathema pronounced against the

prince who should bestow or the clerk who should receive any

ecclesiastical benefice in such sort as no prince had scrupled to give

them, as no clerk had scrupled to receive them, in the days of King

Eadward and in the days of King William.[1635] When Anselm came back

to England, he came, as we shall see, the same Anselm as of old in

every personal quality, in every personal virtue. But in all things

which touched the relations of popes, kings, and bishops, he came back

another man.

[Sidenote: His journey.]

[Sidenote: Alleged scheme of Odo Duke of Burgundy [1078-1102] against

Anselm.]

[Sidenote: Anselm at Rome.]

[Sidenote: Council of Lateran.]

But in the course of Anselm’s adventures, in his foreign journeys,

there are details here and there which no Englishman can read without

interest. We come across constant signs of the place which England and

her Primate held in the minds of men of other lands. We read how no

less a prince than Odo Duke of Burgundy, already a crusader in Spain

and afterwards a crusader in Palestine, was tempted by the report of

the wealth of the great English see to sink into a common robber, and

to set forth for the purpose of plundering the Primate as he passed

through his land. We read how he was turned from his purpose, when he

saw the white hair, the gentle and venerable look, of the Archbishop,

the look which won all hearts. Instead of harming him, Odo received

his kiss and sought his blessing, and sent him under a safe guard to

the borders of his duchy.[1636] We read how the likeness of that

venerable face had been painted by cunning limners in the interest of

Clement, that the robbers who were sent to seize the faithful follower

of Urban might better know their intended victim. We read with some

national pride how, at his first interview with Urban, when Anselm

bowed himself at the Pontiff’s feet, he was raised, received to his

kiss, and seated by him as one of equal rank, the Pope and Patriarch

of another world. We read how, in the great gathering in the head

church of the city and of the world, when no man knew what was the

fitting place in a Roman council for a guest such as none had ever

seen before, the English Archbishop was placed at the papal bidding in

a seat of special honour. Anselm took his seat in that apse which was

spared when papal barbarism defaced the long arcades of Constantine,

when the patriarchal throne of the world was cast forth as an useless

thing,[1637] but which the more relentless havoc of our own day,

eager, it would seem, to get rid of all that is older than the dogmas

of modern Rome, has ruthlessly swept away. We read how visitors and

pilgrims from England bowed to kiss the feet of Anselm, as they would

have kissed those of Urban himself, and how the humble saint ever

refused such unbecoming worship.[1638] And we are most touched of all

to hear how, among all these honours, Anselm was commonly spoken of in

Rome, not by his name, not by the titles of his office, but simply as

“the holy man.”[1639] At Rome, that name might have a special meaning.

It was well deserved by the one suitor at the Roman throne who

abstained from the use of Rome’s most convincing argument.

[Sidenote: Council of Bari.]

[Sidenote: Anselm pleads for Rufus.]

[Sidenote: The cope of Beneventum.]

[Sidenote: Dealings between Canterbury and Beneventum.]

[Sidenote: Emma buys the arm of Saint Bartholomew.]

[Sidenote: Æthelnoth’s gift of the cope.]

[Sidenote: Eadmer recognises the cope.]

But in the record of Anselm’s wanderings there is one tale which comes

home more than any other to the hearts of Englishmen, a tale which

carries us back, if not strictly to the days of English freedom, at

least to the days when we had a conqueror whom we had made our own.

The fathers are gathered at Bari, in the great minster of the Lykian

Nicolas, where the arts of northern and southern Christendom, the

massiveness of the Norman, the finer grace of the Greek, are so

strangely blended in the pile which was then fresh from the

craftsman’s hand. There, in his humility, the pilgrim from Canterbury

takes to himself a modest place amongst the other bishops, with the

faithful Eadmer sitting at his feet.[1640] The Pope calls on his

father and master, Anselm Archbishop of the English, to arise and

speak. There, in the city so lately torn away from Eastern

Christendom, Anselm is bidden to justify the change which Latin

theology had made in that creed of the East which changeth not. The

Pope harangues on the sufferings of the Church in various lands, and,

above all, on the evil deeds of the tyrant of England. The assembled

fathers agree with one voice that the sword of Peter must be drawn,

and that such a sinner must be smitten in the face of the whole world.

Then Anselm kneels at the feet of Urban, and craves that no such blow

may be dealt on the man who had so deeply wronged him.[1641] But,

while these high debates were going on, the curious eye of Eadmer had

lighted on an object which spoke straight to his heart as an

Englishman and a monk of Christ Church. Among the assembled prelates

the Archbishop of Beneventum appeared clad in a cope of surpassing

richness. Eadmer knew at once whence it came; he knew that it had once

been one of the glories of Canterbury, worn by Primates of England

before England had bowed either to the Norman or to the Dane. Eadmer,

brought up from his childhood in the cloister of Christ Church, had

been taught as a boy by aged monks who could remember the days of Cnut

and Emma. Those elders of the house, Eadwig and Blæcman and Farman,

had told him how in those days there had been a mighty famine in the

land of Apulia, how the then Archbishop of Beneventum had travelled

through foreign lands to seek help for his starving flock, how he

brought with him a precious relic, the arm of the apostle Bartholomew,

and how, having passed through Italy and Gaul, he was led to cross the

sea by the fame of the wealth of England and of the piety and bounty

of Emma its Lady. She gave him plenteous gifts for his people, and he

asked whether she would not give yet more as the price of the precious

relic. The genuineness of the treasure was solemnly sworn to;[1642] a

great price was paid for it by the Lady, and, by the special order of

King Cnut, it was added as a precious gift to the treasures of the

metropolitan church. For in those days, says Eadmer, it was the manner

of the English to set the patronage of the saints before all the

wealth of this world. The Archbishop of Beneventum went back, loaded

with the alms of England, and bearing with him, among other gifts from

his brother Primate Æthelnoth, this very cope richly embroidered with

gold with all the skill of English hands. Eadmer, taught by the

tradition of his elders, knew the vestment as he saw it in that far

land on the shoulders of the successor of the prelate who had come to

our island for help in his day of need. He saw it with joy; he pointed

it out to Father Anselm, and, feigning ignorance, he asked the

Beneventan Archbishop the history of the splendid cope which he wore.

He was pleased to find that the tradition of Beneventum was the same

as the tradition of Canterbury.[1643] Now that we have made our way

into other times and other lands, it is pleasing to look back for a

moment, with our faithful Eadmer, to days when England still was

England, even though she had already learned to bow to a foreign King

and a foreign Lady.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Position of Rufus.]

[Sidenote: Possible effect of excommunication on him.]

[Sidenote: Papal excommunications not yet despised.]

[Sidenote: The Emperor Henry.]

[Sidenote: Philip of France.]

[Sidenote: Boleslaus of Poland. 1079.]

[Sidenote: The case of Harold.]

[Sidenote: Probable effect of an excommunication on the people.]

More important in a general view than the details of Anselm’s journey

are the negotiations which went on during this time between William,

Urban, and Anselm. The Red King’s day of grace was now over. The last

touch of feeling recorded of him is when he bowed his head to receive

Anselm’s blessing. Henceforth he stands out, in a more marked way than

ever, in the character which distinguishes him from other kings and

from other men. We have had evil kings before and after him; but we

have had none other who openly chose evil to be his good, none other

who declared himself in plain words to be the personal enemy of the

Almighty. Yet, as we have already noticed, the bolts of the Church

never lighted on the head of this worst of royal sinners. We have just

seen how once at least he was spared by the merciful intercession of

his own victim. We are tempted to stop and think how a formal

excommunication would have worked on such an one as William Rufus had

now become. We must remember that the weight of papal excommunications

of princes had not yet been lowered, as it came to be lowered

afterwards, either by their frequency or by their manifest injustice.

The cases which were then fresh in men’s minds were all striking and

weighty. The excommunication of the Emperor was, from the papal point

of view, a natural stage of the great struggle which was still raging.

Philip of France had been excommunicated for a moral offence which

seemed the darker because it involved the mockery of an ecclesiastical

sacrament. And no man could wonder or blame when, in the days of

Hildebrand, Boleslaus of Poland was put out of the communion of the

faithful for slaying with his own hands before the altar the bishop

who had rebuked him for his sins.[1644] The case most akin to the

wanton excommunications of later times had been when Alexander the

Second in form, when Hildebrand in truth, had denounced Harold without

a hearing for no crime but that of accepting the crown which his

people gave him. But men are so apt to judge by results that the fall

of Harold and of England may by this time, even among Englishmen, have

begun to be looked on as a witness to the power of the Church’s

thunders. In the days of Rufus a papal excommunication was still a

real and fearful thing at which men stood aghast. It might not have

turned the heart of Rufus; it might even have hardened his heart yet

further. But among his people, even among his own courtiers, the

effect would doubtless have been such that he must in the end, like

Philip, have formally given way. As it was, the bolt never fell; the

hand of Anselm stopped it once; other causes, as we shall soon see,

stopped it afterwards. And, instead of the formal excommunication of

Rome, there came that more striking excommunication by the voice of

the English people, when, by a common instinct, they declared William

the Red to have no true part in that communion of the faithful from

which he had never been formally cut off.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Anselm writes to the Pope from Lyons.]

[Sidenote: His new tone.]

[Sidenote: Anselm at Rome.]

[Sidenote: Letters to the King.]

[Sidenote: His reception of the letters.]

The negotiations, if we may so call them, which followed the departure

of Anselm may be looked on as beginning with a letter written by

Anselm to the Pope from Lyons.[1645] The Archbishop, once out of

England, seems to take up a new tone. His language with regard to the

King’s doings is still singularly mild;[1646] but he now begins to

speak, not only of God and right, but of the canons of the Church and

the authority of the Pope, as something to which the arbitrary customs

of England must give way.[1647] To those customs he cannot agree

without perilling his own soul and the souls of his successors. He

comes to the Apostolic See for help and counsel.[1648] When he had

reached Rome, he again set forth his case more fully, as it had been

set forth in the letter from Lyons. Letters both from Anselm and from

the Pope were sent to the King by the same messenger, letters which

unluckily are not preserved. The summary of the papal letter seems to

point to a lofty tone on the part of the Pontiff. He moves, he

exhorts, he at last commands, King William, to leave the goods of the

Archbishop free, and to restore everything to him.[1649] Anselm’s own

letter was doubtless in a milder strain. The messenger came back, to

find both Urban and Anselm again at Rome after the synod at Bari. The

letter from Urban had been received, though ungraciously; the letter

from Anselm was sent back. As soon as the King knew that the bearer

was a man of the Archbishop’s, he had sworn by the face of Lucca that,

unless the messenger speedily got him away out of his lands, he would

have his eyes torn out without fail.[1650]

[Sidenote: Mission of William of Warelwast.]

[Sidenote: William on the continent. November, 1097-April, 1099.]

[Sidenote: Affairs of Southern Italy.]

[Sidenote: Siege of Capua.]

[Sidenote: Anselm at Schiavia.]

[Sidenote: He writes “Cur Deus Homo.”]

[Sidenote: Anselm and Urban before Capua.]

[Sidenote: Anselm and the Saracens.]

[Sidenote: Count Roger forbids conversions.]

The Pope however could hardly be left wholly without some answer,

however scornfully William might deal with the letter of his own

subject. But the answer was not speedy in coming. Its bearer was the

trusty clerk William of Warelwast, of whom we have already heard more

than once. The King’s business did not now call for the same haste as

it had done when the same man was sent to find out who was the true

Pope.[1651] Much happened before he came. Amongst other things, not a

few travellers came from England and Normandy, bringing with them

fresh and fresh reports of the evil doings of the King, some of which

we have already heard of. William was now in Normandy. He crossed at

Martinmas,[1652] and spent the whole of the next year in the wars of

France and Maine. He did not come back to England till the Easter of

the year following that.[1653] It was now that he played at Rouen the

part of a missionary of the creed of Moses.[1654] But he kept his eye

upon England also; for to this time is assigned the story of the fifty

Englishmen who so enraged the blaspheming King by proving their

innocence by the ordeal.[1655] Nor was it merely rumours of William’s

doings at home which found their way into Italy from Normandy and

England. While the King was devising his answer to the Pope, his

emissaries were busy in other parts of the peninsula. The affairs of

the Normans in their two great settlements are always joining in one

stream. While Bohemund and Tancred were on their Eastern march, the

reigning princes of their house, Roger of Apulia and Roger of Sicily,

were carrying on their schemes of advancement west of Hadria. Their

armies now lay before Capua. Meanwhile Anselm had withdrawn with John

Abbot of Telesia to seek quiet in a town of the Abbot’s on the upper

Vulturnus, whose name of Schiavia may suggest some ethnological

questions.[1656] Our guide specially marks that this journey was a

journey into Samnium; he may not have fully taken in how truly Telesia

was the heart of Samnium, alike in the days of the Pontius of the

Caudine Forks and in the days of the Pontius of the Colline

Gate.[1657] Here, in his Samnite retreat, Anselm was moulding the

theology of all later times by his treatise which told why God became

Man.[1658] Meanwhile William of England, at war with righteousness in

all its forms, held Helias in his prison at Bayeux,[1659] and plotted

against Anselm in his hermitage at Schiavia. When Duke Roger’s army

was so near, the master of Normandy deemed that something might be

done for his purpose by Norman arms or Norman craft. He sent

letters――his letters could go speedily when speed was needed――to stir

up Duke Roger to do some mischief to the man whom he hated.[1660] The

plot was in vain. Anselm was invited to the Duke’s camp; he was

received there with all honour during a sojourn of some time, as he

was at every other point of the Duke’s dominions to which he

went.[1661] The Pope and Anselm, patriarchs of two worlds, were Duke

Roger’s guests at the same time. But only the rich dared to present

themselves in the presence of the Pope of the mainland, while the

shepherd of the nations beyond the sea welcomed men of all kinds

lovingly.[1662] The very Saracens whom Count Roger had brought from

Sicily to the help of his nephew pressed to visit the holy man of

another faith, to be received and fed at his cost, to kiss his hands,

and to cover him with prayers and blessings. Not a few of them were

even ready to embrace Anselm’s creed;[1663] but proselytism among his

soldiers formed no part of the policy of the conqueror of Sicily.

Count Roger was ready enough to extend the territorial bounds of

Christendom by his sword; but he found, as his great-grandson found

after him, that in war no followers were to be trusted like the

misbelievers. Once enlisted in his service, they had no motive to

forsake him for any other Christian leader, while they had no hope of

restoring the supremacy of their own faith. With them too neither

Clement nor Urban, nor any votary of Clement or Urban, had any weight.

So useful a class of warriors was not to be lessened in number.

Whatever might be his missionary zeal at Palermo or Syracuse, Count

Roger allowed no conversions in the camp before Capua. The men who

were ready to hearken to Anselm’s teaching had to turn away at the

bidding of their temporal lord, and the father of Christian theology

was forbidden the rare glory of winning willing proselytes to the

Christian faith among the votaries of Islam.[1664]

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Anselm wishes to resign the archbishopric.]

[Sidenote: Urban forbids him.]

Meanwhile the tales of William’s misdoings in Normandy and England

were brought in day by day. The heart of Anselm was moved ever more

and more; he saw that, come what might, he and such a king could never

agree; the only course for him was to cast aside the grievous burthen

and responsibility of his archbishopric. He earnestly craved the

Pontiff’s leave to resign it into his hands.[1665] Urban was far too

wary for this. He enjoined Anselm, by virtue of holy obedience, to do

no such thing. The King, in his tyranny, might seize his temporalities

and might keep him out of the land; but in the eye of the Church he

remained none the less the Archbishop of the English kingdom, with his

power of binding and loosing as strong as ever.[1666] Anselm was not

only not to give up his office; he was to make a point of always

appearing with the full badges of his office.[1667] Even now Anselm

seems to have been in some difficulties how to reconcile his two

duties to God and to Cæsar, difficulties which he would doubtless have

got rid of altogether by resigning the archbishopric.[1668] But he

submits to the Pontiff’s will, and he is bidden to meet him again at

Bari, where judgement will be given in the matter of the King of the

English and of all others who interfere with the liberties of the

Church.[1669]

[Sidenote: Council of Bari. October 1, 1098.]

[Sidenote: Anselm at Rome.]

[Sidenote: William of Warelwast and Urban.]

[Sidenote: Urban’s answer.]

[Sidenote: Excommunication threatened.]

[Sidenote: April 12, 1099.]

Then came the meeting at Bari, the disputation against the Greeks, the

excommunication of Rufus stopped by Anselm’s intercession.[1670] That

Anselm was playing an arranged part we cannot believe for a moment;

but we may believe, without breach of charity, that Urban threatened

the excommunication of Rufus in the full belief that Anselm would

intercede for him. Urban and Anselm then went back to Rome; and

thither presently came the messenger from Normandy, who had to tell of

the King’s frightful threats towards himself. Soon after came William

of Warelwast, with a message from the King to the Pope. The diplomacy

of the future bishop of Exeter was at least straightforward. “My lord

the King sends you word that he wonders not a little how it can have

come into your mind to address him for the restitution of the goods of

Anselm.” He added, “If you ask the reason, here it is. When Anselm

wished to depart from his land, the King openly threatened him that,

if he went, he should take the whole archbishopric into his demesne.

Since Anselm then would not, even when thus threatened, give up his

purpose of going, the King deems that his own acts were right, and

that he is now wrongfully blamed.”[1671] The Pope asked whether the

King had any other charge against Anselm. “None,” answered the envoy.

Urban had gained an advantage. He poured forth his wonder at a thing

so unheard of in all time as that a king should spoil the primate of

his kingdom of all his goods merely because he would not refrain from

visiting the Roman Church, the mother of all churches.[1672] William

of Warelwast might go back to his master, and might tell him that the

Pope meant to hold a council at Rome in the Easter-week next to come,

and that, if by that time Anselm was not restored to all that he had

lost, the sentence of excommunication should go forth.[1673]

[Sidenote: William of Warelwast’s secret dealings with Urban.]

[Sidenote: The excommunication respited.]

[Sidenote: April-September, 1099.]

Brave words were these of Pope Urban, but William the Red knew how to

deal with mere bravery of words, even in the Pope whom he had

acknowledged. Walter of Albano had once outwitted William and his

counsellors; but Walter of Albano had in the end yielded to William’s

most powerful argument. William of Warelwast was not the least likely

to outwit Urban; but he had it in commission from his master to

overcome the Pope by the same logic by which his Legate had been

overcome. We may copy the words of our own Chronicler four-and-twenty

years later; “That overcame Rome that overcometh all the world, that

is gold and silver.”[1674] To Urban’s well conceived speech the answer

of William of Warelwast was pithy and practical; “Before I go away, I

will have some dealings with you more in private.”[1675] He went to

work prudently, as the Red King’s clerks knew how to do; he made

friends here and there; the Pope’s advisers were blinded; the Pope

himself was blinded; a respite from Easter to Michaelmas was granted

to King William of England.[1676]

[Sidenote: Position of Anselm.]

[Sidenote: Urban’s treatment of Anselm.]

[Sidenote: Anselm made to stay for the Council of Lateran, April 12,

1099.]

[Sidenote: Protest of Reingar of Lucca.]

This adjournment was a heavy blow for Anselm. He had in no way stirred

up the Pope to any action against the prince whom he still

acknowledged as his sovereign. At Bari, when no answer had as yet been

received from the King, Anselm had pleaded for him; it was indeed only

common justice to give him that one more chance. But, when the answer

had come, and had proved to be of such a kind as we have seen, Anselm

most likely thought that the time for action had come. He might indeed

fairly deem that the excommunication would in truth be an act of

kindness towards William. All other means of reclaiming the sinner had

failed; that final and most awful means might at last succeed. At all

events, Anselm’s soul was grieved to the quick at the thought that the

Pope’s sentence, whatever it might be, could be changed or delayed by

the power of filthy lucre. He had borne every kind of grief, he had

borne insults and banishment and the spoiling of his goods, for the

sake of Rome and the Pope, and he had now found out what Rome and the

Pope were. He had found that the master was no better than his

servants. He had found Rome to be what Rome was ever found to be by

every English bishop, by every Englishman by birth or adoption, who

ever trusted in her. Urban proved the same broken reed to Anselm which

Alexander in after days proved to Thomas. Anselm had gone through much

in order to have the counsel and help of the Pope. But no counsel or

help had he found in him.[1677] He craved leave to depart from Rome,

and again to tarry at Lyons with a friend in whom he could better

trust, the Primate of all the Gauls.[1678] The request was refused.

Urban had still to make use of Anselm for his own purposes. He had to

show his guest and the Church’s confessor――the guest and confessor

whom he had sold for William’s gold――to the whole world in his Lateran

Council. The special honours which were there paid to Anselm must have

been felt by him as little more than a mockery. It may have been a

preconcerted scene, it may have been a burst of honest indignation,

when Reingar, Bishop of Lucca, bore an emphatic witness on Anselm’s

side. Reingar, chosen on account of his lofty stature and sounding

voice to announce the decrees of the Council, broke forth in words of

his own declaring the holiness and the wrongs of the Archbishop of the

English, and thrice smote his staff on the floor with quivering lips

and teeth gnashed together.[1679] The Pope checked him; Reingar

protested, and renewed his protest. Anselm simply wondered; he had

never said a word to the Bishop of Lucca on any such matter, nor did

he believe that any of his faithful followers had done so

either.[1680]

[Sidenote: End of the Council.]

[Sidenote: Anselm goes to Lyons.]

[Sidenote: Death of Urban. July. 29, 1099.]

[Sidenote: William’s words on his death.]

[Sidenote: Battle of Ascalon. August 12, 1099.]

[Sidenote: Paschal the Second, Pope. August 13, 1099-January 21,

1118.]

[Sidenote: William’s words on Paschal’s election.]

The council broke up. The great general anathema was pronounced which

would take in William along with the other princes of the earth;[1681]

but nothing was said or done directly for Anselm or his cause.[1682]

Anselm now at last left Rome for Lyons. He there heard of the deaths

both of him who was to issue the excommunication and of him against

whom it was to be issued. Urban did not live to hear how his preaching

at Clermont was crowned by the deliverance of the Holy City. Yet the

work was done while he still lived. Fourteen days after the storm of

Jerusalem, seven days after the election of King Godfrey, Pope Urban

died. The news of his death was brought to William while he was in the

midst of his last warfare for Le Mans. Let God’s hate, he answered, be

upon him who cares whether he be dead or alive.[1683] Fourteen days

after Urban’s death, the hosts of Egypt were smitten at Ascalon; and

the city which had just been won was again made safe. The next day a

fresh Pope was chosen, Paschal, who, in the course of a long reign,

had to strive alike with a Henry of Germany and with a Henry of

England. The news of his election was brought to William, and he asked

what manner of man the new Pope might be. He was told that he was a

man in many things like Archbishop Anselm. “Then by God’s face,” said

the Red King, “if he be such an one, he is no good.” But William felt

that his wished for time was now come. Now at least there should be no

trouble about acknowledging Popes against his will. “Let the Pope be

what he will, he and his popedom shall not this time come over me by

little and little. I have got my freedom again, and I will use

it.”[1684] The time fixed for the excommunication passed unmarked over

the head of the living Rufus. But before a full year had passed from

Paschal’s election, the dead Rufus was excommunicated by the voice of

his own kingdom.

* * * * *

We leave Anselm at Lyons; we shall meet him again when he comes back

in all honour to crown and to marry a king and a queen who filled the

English throne by the free call of the English people. Meanwhile we

must take up the thread of our story, and see more fully what has been

happening in the other lands which come within the Red King’s world,

while Anselm was so long and so wearily striving for righteousness.

The tale of Normandy, the tale of Jerusalem, so far as it concerned us

to tell it, could hardly be kept apart from the tale of Anselm. But we

have still to tell the tale of Scotland, of Northumberland, of Wales,

of France, above all the tale of Maine and its noble Count, during the

years through which we have tracked the history of Anselm. We have to

go back to the beginning of the story through which we have just

passed, and to begin afresh while Rufus in his short day of penitence

lies on his sick-bed at Gloucester.

[1] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 692.

[2] Will. Malms. iv. 306.

[3] Tac. Hist. iv. 59.

[4] There is not much to say about the authorities for this

chapter. The main sources are those with which we have long

been familiar, the Peterborough Chronicle, Orderic,

Florence, William of Malmesbury. The last three of these

increase in value at every step, as they become more and

more strictly contemporary. So Henry of Huntingdon,

beginning his seventh book in the second year of Rufus,

formally puts on the character of a contemporary writer.

Hitherto he had written from his reading or from common

fame; “nunc autem de his quæ vel ipsi vidimus, vel ab his

qui viderant audivimus, pertractandum est.” But he still

wisely kept the Chronicle before him. He is himself largely

followed by Robert of Torigny (or _De Monte_――that is Abbot

of Saint Michael’s Mount) in his chronicle. From Robert we

have also the so-called eighth book of William of Jumièges,

which may pass as a History of Henry the First. He is not

strictly contemporary for any part of our immediate story.

Eadmer, so precious a few years later, gives us as yet only

a few touches and general pictures. The French riming

chroniclers are of some value later in the reign of Rufus;

but we have hardly anything to do with them as yet. A crowd

of accessory, occasional, and local writings have to be

turned to as usual.

[5] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 583.

[6] See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 228, 795. So Will. Neub. i. 3;

“Filiorum quidem Willelmi Magni ordine nativitatis

novissimus, sed prærogativa primus. Quippe, aliis in ducatu

patris natis, solus ipse ex eodem jam rege est ortus.” This

is noteworthy in a writer in whom (see Appendix A) we see

the first sign of a notion of Robert’s hereditary right. The

author of the Brevis Relatio (9) goes yet further, and seems

to assert that a party at least was for Henry’s immediate

succession; “Sicut postea multi dixerunt, justum fuit ut

ipse rex Angliæ post patrem suum esset qui de patre rege et

matre regina genitus extitisset.”

[7] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 706, note 3.

[8] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 706, note 3.

[9] See Appendix A.

[10] See Appendix A.

[11] Will. Malms. iv. 305. “Eum nutrierat et militem

fecerat.” So Matthew Paris, Hist. Ang. i. 35.

[12] Orderic has two statements as to the port from which

William set sail. In his account of the Conqueror’s death

(659 D), he makes him sail from Witsand. But afterwards (763

D), when speaking of Robert Bloet, he says, “Senioris

Guillelmi capellanus fuerat, eoque defuncto de portu Tolochæ

cum juniore Guillelmo mare transfretaverat, et epistolam

regis de coronanda prole Lanfranco archiepiscopo detulerat.”

This latter is to be preferred, as the more circumstantial

account. Touques moreover is at once the more likely haven

to be chosen by one setting out from Rouen, and the one less

likely to come into the head of a careless narrator. Robert

of Torigny also (Cont. Will. Gem. viii. 2) makes the place

Touques.

[13] Ord. Vit. 659 D. “Ibi jam patrem audivit obiisse.”

[14] Fl. Wig. 1087. “Willelmus … Angliam festinato adiit,

ducens secum Wlnothum et Morkarum.”

[15] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 517.

[16] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 315.

[17] Fl. Wig. 1087. “Robertus … Ulfum, Haroldi quondam regis

Anglorum filium, Dunechaldumque regis Scottorum Malcolmi

filium a custodia laxatos et armis militaribus honoratos,

abire permisit.”

[18] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 76.

[19] Flor. Wig. 1087. “Mox ut Wintoniam venit, illos, ut

prius fuerant, custodiæ mancipavit.”

[20] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 855. The Winchester Annals (1087;

Ann. Mon. ii. 35) give him, like Prior Godfrey, the title of

Earl, and say that he was not released at all. The Conqueror

releases all his prisoners in England and Normandy “exceptis

duobus comitibus Rogero et Wlnodo.” These three captives are

joined together in the signatures to an alleged charter of

Bishop William of Saint-Calais in the Monasticon, i. 237,

and in the Surtees volume, Hist. Dun. Scriptt. Tres, v, of

which I may have to speak again; “Morkaro et Rogerio

[clearly meant for Roger of Hereford] et Siwardo cognomento

Bran et Wlnoto Haraldi regis germano.” They are made to

sign, along with Abbot Æthelwig, who died in 1077, in a

Council in London in 1082. The whole thing is clearly

spurious; but what put the signatures of the captives into

anybody’s head?

[21] See Appendix A.

[22] Eadmer, Hist. Nov. 13 Selden. “Quantus autem mœror

Lanfrancum ex morte ejus perculerit quis dicere possit,

quando nos qui circa illum nuncia morte illius eramus,

statim eum præ cordis angustia mori timeremus?” This seems

to imply that the news reached Lanfranc when he had his

monks about him, that is at Canterbury.

[23] William of Malmesbury (iv. 305) marks the coronation as

being done “die sanctorum Cosmæ et Damiani.” In the

Chronicle it is “þreom dagum ǽr Michaeles mæssedæg;” while

Florence simply gives the day of the month. Wace (14482)

says inaccurately “Li jor de feste saint Michiel;” and the

Chronicon de Bello (40) still more inaccurately, “in

nativitate Christi, intrante anno incarnationis ejusdem

Verbi Dei mlxxxviii.”

[24] See Appendix A.

[25] Chron. Petrib. 1087. “Ealle þa men on Englalande him to

abugon, and him aðas sworon.”

[26] Chron. Petrib. 1087. “Ðisum þus gedone, se cyng ferde

to Winceastre, and sceawode þæt madmehus, and þa gersuman þe

his fæder ǽr gegaderode, þa wæron unasecgendlice ænie man hu

mycel þær wæs gegaderod, on golde and on seolfre and on

faton and on pællan and on gimman and on manige oðre

deorwurðe þingon þe earfoðe sindon to ateallene.” Yet Henry

of Huntingdon (p. 211) knew the exact amount of the silver,

sixty thousand pounds, one doubtless for each knight’s fee.

[27] Florence brings in the books in a list of gifts which

is longer than that of the Chronicler; “Cruces, altaria,

scrinia, _textos_, candelabra, situlas, fistulas, ac

ornamenta varia gemmis, auro, argento, lapidibusque

pretiosis, redimita, per ecclesias digniores ac monasteria

jussit dividi.”

[28] Chron. de Bello, 40. “Regni diadema suscepit. Quod

adeptus, paterni mandati non immemor, patris pallium regale

et feretrum unde supra meminimus, cum cccᵗⁱˢ philacteriis,

sanctorum pignorum excellentia gloriosis, ecclesiæ beati

Martini quantocius delegavit, quæ simul apud Bellum viii

Kalendas Novembris suscepta sunt.”

[29] The Chronicler says, “to ælcen cyrcean uppe land lx.

pæǹ.” But Florence limits it; “ecclesiis in civitatibus vel

villis suis per singulas denarios lx. dari.”

[30] Chron. Petrib. 1087. “Into ælcere scire man seonde

hundred punda feos, to dælanne earme mannan for his saule.”

[31] Flor. Wig. 1087. “Ejus quoque germanus Rotbertus in

Normanniam reversus, thesauros quos invenerat monasteriis,

ecclesiis, pauperibus, pro anima patris sui largiter

divisit.”

[32] Chron Petrib. 1087. “Se cyng wæs on þam midewintre on

Lundene.” So Henry of Huntingdon (211); “Rex novus curiam

suam ad Natale tenuit apud Lundoniam.” He adds a list of

bishops who were present. There were the two Archbishops,

Maurice of London, Walkelin of Winchester, Geoffrey [it

should be Osbern] of Exeter, William of Thetford, Robert of

Chester, William of Durham, as also “Wlnod [sic] episcopus

sanctus Wirecestriæ.” On the presence of Odo, see Appendix

B. Robert of Torigny (1087) writes “Vulnof.” I cannot see

much in his editor’s suggestion that the Geoffrey spoken of

is the Bishop of Coutances, because the so-called Bromton,

of all people, has made a blunder about him; X Scriptt. 984.

[33] N. C. vol. iv. p. 708.

[34] Ord. Vit. 664 D. “Totum in Normannia pristinum honorem

adeptus est, et consiliarius ducis, videlicet nepotis sui,

factus est.”

[35] Will. Malms, iv. 305. “Claves thesaurorum nactus est;

quibus fretus totam Angliam animo subjecit suo.”

[36] Ib. “Reliquo hiemis quiete et favorabiliter vixit.”

[37] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “On þisum geare wæs þis land swiðe

astirad, and mid mycele swicdome afylled; swa þæt þa riceste

Frencisce men þe weron innan þrisan lande wolden swican

heore hlaforde þam cynge, and woldon habban his broðer to

cynge, Rodbeard, þe wæs eorl on Normandige.” The duty of

faithfulness to the lord, whoever he may be, is always

strongly felt; still William Rufus is only “heora hlaford se

cyng,” not “heora cynehlaford.” But the notion that Robert

had any special right as the eldest son seems not to have

come into any purely English mind of that age.

[38] He appears in the list given by Henry of Huntingdon

(see above, p. 19) as “justiciarius et princeps totius

Angliæ.” Simeon of Durham (1088) calls him “secundus rex.”

[39] See Florence, 1081; Sim. Dun. Hist. Eccl. Dun. iv. 1.

[40] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 674.

[41] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Swa wæll dyde se cyng be þam

bisceop þæt eall Englaland færde æfter his ræde and swa swa

he wolde.” So Florence; “Ea tempestate rex prædictus illius,

ut veri consiliarii, fruebatur prudentia; bene enim

sapiebat, ejusque consiliis totius Angliæ tractabatur

respublica.” Cf. Ann. Wint. 1088. “Episcopus Willelmus

Dunelmensis, qui paulo ante quasi cor regis erat.”

[42] Will. Malms, iv. 306. “Immortale in eum [Lanfrancum]

odium anhelans, quod ejus consilio a fratre se in vincula

conjectum asserebat.”

[43] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 680.

[44] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “And þæs unræd wearð gewesen innan

þam Lengtene.” So Florence; “Pars nobiliorum Normannorum

favebat regi Willelmo, sed minima; pars vero altera favebat

Roberto comiti Normannorum, et maxima; cupiens hunc sibi

adsciscere in regnum, fratrem vero aut fratri tradere vivum

aut regno privare peremptum.” Here is the end of a

hexameter.

[45] See Appendix B.

[46] Ord. Vit. 665 D. “Optimates utriusque _regni_

conveniunt, et de duobus _regnis_ nunc divisis, quæ manus

una pridem tenuerat, tractare satagunt.” Cf. the language

used at an earlier time about Normandy, N. C. vol. i. p.

221.

[47] Ib. 666 A. “Labor nobis ingens subito crevit, et maxima

diminutio potentiæ nostræ opumque nobis incumbuit…. Violenta

nobis orta est mutatio et nostræ sublimitatis repentina

dejectio.” It is now that he makes the flourish about

“Saxones Angli” (see N. C. vol. i. p. 542); there is also a

good deal about Jeroboam and Polyneikês.

[48] Ib. “Quomodo duobus dominis tam diversis, et tam longe

ab invicem remotis competenter servire poterimus?”

[49] Ib. B, C. “Inviolabile fœdus firmiter ineamus, et

Guillelmo rege dejecto vel interfecto, qui junior est et

protervus, et cui nihil debemus, Robertum ducem, qui major

natu est et tractabilior moribus, et cui jamdudum vivente

patre amborum fidelitatem juravimus, principem Angliæ ac

Neustriæ ad servandam unitatem utriusque regni

constituamus.”

[50] Ib. C. “Decretum suum Roberto duci detexuit. Ille vero,

utpote levis et inconsideratus, valde gavisus est promissis

inutilibus, seseque spopondit eis, si inchoarent, affaturum

in omnibus, et collaturum mox efficax auxilium ad

perpetrandum tam clarum fecimus.”

[51] See Appendix B.

[52] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 710.

[53] Will. Malms. iv. 306. “Multos eodem susurro infecit

[Odo]; Roberto regnum competere, qui sit et remissioris

animi, et juveniles stultitias multis jam laboribus

decoxerit; hunc delicate nutritum, animi ferocia (quam

vultus ipse demonstret), prætumidum, omnia contra fas et jus

ausurum; brevi futurum ut honores jamdudum plurimis

sudoribus partos amittant; _nihil actum morte patris_, si

quos ille vinxerit iste trucidet.” (Again the ending of a

hexameter.) A good deal of this seems to come from later

experience of Rufus.

[54] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “þæs unræd wærð geræd.”

[55] See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 276, 580, 673.

[56] See Appendix C.

[57] “He þohte to donne be him eall swa Iudas Scarioð dide

be ure Drihtene.”

[58] “Se bisceop of Dunholme dyde to hearme þæt he mihte

ofer eall be norðan.”

[59] See Appendix C.

[60] Mon. Angl. i. 248. “Monstrabo quod Dorobernium et

Hastingas, quæ jam pene perdiderat, in sua fidelitate

detinui, Londoniam quoque quæ jam rebellaverat, in ejus

fidelitate sedavi, meliores etiam duodecim ejusdem urbis

cives ad eum mecum duxi, ut per illos melius ceteros

animaret.”

[61] Mon. Angl. i. 247. “Ipse [rex] te summonuit ut cum eo

equitares; tu vero respondisti ei, te cum septem militibus

quos ibi habebas libenter iturum, et pro pluribus ad

castellum tuum sub festinatione missurum, et postea fugisti

de curia sua sine ejus licentia, et quosdam de familia sua

tecum adduxisti, et ita in necessitate sua sibi defecisti.”

[62] See Appendix C.

[63] Mon. Angl. i. 245. “Præsto sum in curia vestra vobis

justitiam facere convenienti termino, securitate veniendi

accepta.” Cf. N. C. vol. ii. pp. 149, 150.

[64] Mon. Angl. i. 245. “Non est enim omnium hominum

episcopos judicare, et ego vobis secundum ordinem meum omnem

justitiam offero; et si ad præsens vultis habere servitium

meum vel hominum meorum, illud idem secundum placere vestrum

vobis offero.”

[65] Ib. “Rex acceptis et auditis istis litteris episcopi,

dedit baronibus suis terras episcopi, vidente legato quem

sibi miserat episcopus.” I suppose that these barons are no

other than the Counts Alan and Odo, of whose share in the

matter we shall hear much more as we go on.

[66] See Ellis, i. 464. It is there remarked that Ralph’s

lands in Devonshire had largely been Merleswegen’s. This is

equally true in Yorkshire. He must have succeeded Hugh the

son of Baldric as sheriff. See N. C. vol. iv. p. 801.

[67] See the foundation charter in the Monasticon, iv. 682;

though it is hard to understand how Pope Alexander could

have confirmed anything in 1089. According to the charter,

the church had once been held by a body of canons, which had

come to nothing. Ralph now restored it as a Benedictine

monastery, a cell to Marmoutiers.

[68] “Præcepit omnibus regis fidelibus de parte regis ut

malum facerent episcopo ubicumque et quomodo cumque possent.

Cumque episcopus per se vel per legatos suos regem non

posset requirere, et terras suas destrui et vastari absque

ulla ultione per vii. septimanas et amplius sustineret,”

etc.

[69] Their absence from the assembly comes from Florence;

“Execrabile hoc factum clam tractaverunt in quadragesima,

quod cito in palam prorumpi posset post pascha; nam a regali

se subtrahentes curia, munierunt castella, ferrum, flammam,

prædas, necem, excitaverunt in patriam.” Cf. Orderic, 666 C;

“Munitiones suas fossis et hominibus, atque alimentis

hominum et equorum, abundanter instruebant.”

[70] On Count Robert, see N. C. vol. ii. p. 296; iv. pp. 78,

168, 170. His name does not now occur in the Chronicles, nor

in Orderic, who does not mention the siege of his castle of

Pevensey. But his action comes out strongly in Florence, who

classes him with Odo as a leader, though in his narrative he

appears merely as his tool. The Hyde writer (297) also

dwells fully on his share in the work, but he has no special

facts or legends.

[71] See N. C. vol. iii. pp. 117, 672; iv. pp. 39, 562, 825.

[72] In Orderic, 667 B, he appears as “Rogerius Merciorum

comes.”

[73] Flor. Wig. 1088. “Rogerius de Laceio, qui jam super

regem invaserat Herefordam.” He appears in Domesday in

Berkshire, Gloucestershire, Worcestershire, Shropshire, but

most largely in Herefordshire. See Ellis, i. 442.

[74] See N. C. vol. ii. pp. 138, 352.

[75] Ib. vol. iii. p. 132; iv. p. 448.

[76] Ib. vol. iii. p. 737.

[77] Ib. vol. iii. p. 233.

[78] Ord. Vit. 666 D. See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 74, 489.

[79] See below, p. 36.

[80] See his picture in Orderic, 703 B. “Præfatus præsul

nobilitate cluebat, magisque peritia militari quam clericali

vigebat. Ideoque loricatos milites ad bellandum quam

revestitos clericos ad psallendum magis erudire noverat.”

[81] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 672. Orderic gives his portrait

along with that of his uncle; “Robertus Rogerii de Molbraio

filius potentia divitiisque admodum pollebat, audacia et

militari feritate superbus pares despiciebat, et

superbioribus obtemperare, vana ventositate turgidus,

indignum autumabat. Erat erim corpore magnus, fortis, niger

et hispidus, audax et dolosus, vultu tristis et severus.

Plus meditari quam loqui studebat, et vix in confabulatione

ridebat.”

[82] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Swiðe mycel folc mid heom, ealle

Frencisce men.” He must mean that all the leaders were

French. We shall see (see below, p. 47) that there were both

Englishmen and Britons in the rebel army.

[83] Flor. Wig. 1088.

[84] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Roger hét an of heom se hleop

into þam castele æt Norðwic, and dyde git eallra wærst ofer

eall þæt land.” He is “Rogerius Bigot” in William of

Malmesbury. We shall find him behaving better later in our

story.

[85] See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 68, 590.

[86] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Hugo eac an þe hit ne gebette nan

þing, ne innan Lægreceastrescire ne innan Norðamtune.” He is

“Hugo de Grentemesnil” in William of Malmesbury. See N. C.

vol. iv. pp. 74, 232.

[87] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 226.

[88] Ib. p. 382.

[89] Gesta Stephani, 41. “Totius Angliæ noverca Bristoa.”

[90] Simeon of Durham (1088) speaks of the “castellum

fortissimum” at this time.

[91] Gesta Steph. 36. “Est Bristoa civitas … ipso situ loci

omnium civitatum Angliæ munitissima. Sicut enim de Brundusio

legimus, quædam provinciæ Glaornensis pars ad formam linguæ

restricta, et in longum protensa, duobus fluviis gemina ejus

latera proluentibus, inque inferiori parte, ubi ipsa terra

defectum patitur, in unam aquarum abundantiam coeuntibus,

efficit civitatem.”

[92] One might quote nearer instances in the streams which

flow out of Mendip; only they have their _katabothra_ at the

beginning.

[93] Gesta Steph. u. s. “Viva quoque et fortis maris

exæstuatio, noctibus et diebus abundanter exundans, ex

ambabus civitatis partibus fluvios ipsos in latum et

profundum pelagus regurgitare in seipsos cogit, portumque

mille carinis habillimum et tutissimum efficiens, ambitum

illius adeo prope et conjuncte constringit ut tota civitas

aquis innatare, tota super ripas considere videatur.”

[94] In what was the castle green is a very pretty

undercroft of early thirteenth century work, most likely the

support of a chapel.

[95] The course of the stream and the line of the walls have

been altered more than once; but the description in the

Gesta Stephani of the peninsula, as long and tongue-shaped,

shows that the Frome cannot, when that was written, have

taken the line of the present Baldwin Street. The town was

on the peninsula, but it covered only the north-east part of

it.

[96] Gesta Steph. “Ex una tamen ejus regione ubi ad

obsidendum opportunior magisque pervia habetur, castellum

plurimo aggere exaltatum, muro et propugnaculis, turribus,

et diversis machinis firmatum, impugnantium coercet

accessus.” This is doubtless equally true in its measure of

the state of things in 1088; but there is not now much sign

of the “plurimus agger.” The old prints of Bristol show Earl

Robert’s keep, a square tower of the best class.

[97] The description of the later occupation of Bristol

(Gesta Steph. p. 37) will serve equally for this earlier

one. “E diversis siquidem provinciis et regionibus emersi,

tanto illic abundantius et gratulantius affuerunt, quanto

sub divite domino ex munitissimo castello, quicquid

libentium animo occurreret, in uberrima committere Anglia

fuit eis permissum.”

[98] His estates in Somerset are very large. See Domesday,

87 _a_ et seqq. In Gloucestershire (165) he appears as

“Episcopus de Sancto Laudo”――the older seat of the bishopric

of Coutances.

[99] Domesday, 163. Under “Bertune apud Bristou,” now Barton

Regis, we read, “Hoc manerium et Bristou reddit regi c. et

x. markas argenti. Burgenses dicunt quod episcopus G. habet

xxxiii. markas argenti et unam markam auri propter firmam

regis.” This looks like the Earl’s third penny; but Geoffrey

certainly had no formal earldom in Gloucestershire.

[100] This is Camden’s conjecture; it does not greatly

matter for my purpose.

[101] See above, p. 33.

[102] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Gosfrid bisceop and Rodbeard a

Mundbræg ferdon to Bricgstowe and hergodon, and brohton to

þam castele þa hergunge.” So Florence; “Gosfridus episcopus

Constantiensis, in castello Brycstowa, socium conjurationis

et perfidiæ habebat secum nepotem suum Rotbertum de

Mulbraio, virum gnarum militiæ.”

[103] In the song in the Chronicles, 973, Eadgar is crowned

“On þaere ealdan byrig,

Acemannes ceastre,

Eac hie egbuend.

Oþre worde

Beornas Baðan nemnað.”

In the prose entries in Worcester and Peterborough this is

done “at Hatabaðum.”

[104] See Richard of the Devizes, 62. “Bathonia, in imis

vallium, in crasso nimis aere et vapore sulphureo posita,

imo deposita, est ad portas inferi.”

[105] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 385.

[106] Mr. Earle has, I think, made it morally certain that

the Old-English poem on a ruined city in the Codex

Exoniensis refers to Bath. It is a pity that his account is

hidden in the Proceedings of the Bath Natural History and

Antiquarian Field Club, vol. ii. no. 3, 1872.

[107] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 310.

[108] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “And syððon foron út of þam

castele and hergodon Baðon, and eall þæt land þær abutan.”

Florence adds the burning; “Rotbertus … congregato exercitu

invasit Bathoniam, civitatem regiam, eamque igne succendit.”

[109] Flor. Wig. 1088. “Illa [Bathonia] deprædata, transivit

in Wiltusciram, villasque depopulans, multorumque hominum

strage facta, tandem adiit Givelceastram, obsedit, et

expugnare disposuit.”

[110] Geveltone, now Yeovilton, was held by one Ralph under

William of Eu (Domesday, 96 _b_). Givele, now Yeovil, was

held by Count Robert (Domesday, 93). All these names come in

various corruptions from the river Givel or Ivel, also

called Yeo. Only in _Yeovil_ we may trace a bit of false

etymology, which has also set the pattern to Yeovilton.

[111] I took with me to Ilchester a book by the Rev. W.

Buckler, “Ilchester Almshouse Deeds” (Yeovil, 1866), which

contains the accounts of Ilchester from Leland, Camden, and

Stukeley, together with Stukeley’s map. The last-named

writer may have drawn somewhat on his imagination; but I

could trace the line of the walls, represented in a great

part of their course by modern buildings. Under the

circumstances of the site, the usual _carfax_ is not to be

found at Ilchester, any more than at Godmanchester.

[112] Domesday, 86 _a_. “In Givelcestre sunt 107 burgenses,

reddentes xx. solidos. Mercatum cum suis appendiciis reddit

xi. libras.”

[113] Flor. Wig. 1088. “Pugnant exterius spe capti prædæ et

amore victoriæ, repugnant intrinsecus acriter pro se

suorumque salute. Tandem inter utrumque necessitatis vicit

causa; repulsus et tristis recedit Rotbertus privatus

victoria.” The Chronicle and William of Malmesbury do not

speak of Ilchester. William thus sums up the campaign;

“Gaufridus episcopus, cum nepote, Bathoniam et Bercheleiam

partemque pagi Wiltensis depopulans, manubias apud Bristou

collocabat.”

[114] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 144.

[115] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “And eall Beorclea hyrnesse hi

awæston.” Florence more fully; “Willelmus de Owe

Glawornensem invadit comitatum, regiam villam deprædatur

Beorchelaum, per totam ferro et flamma grande perpetrat

malum.”

[116] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 557.

[117] See Domesday, 164. But it had already given a name to

Roger and Ralph of Berkeley; Domesday, 168. From Roger’s

descendants it passed by marriage to Robert the son of

Harding. See N. C. vol. iv. p. 758.

[118] Domesday, 163. “In Nesse [Sharpness] sunt v. hidæ

pertinentes ad Berchelai quos W. comes misit extra ad

faciendum unum castellulum.”

[119] Since I wrote the fourth volume of the Norman

Conquest, there has been much controversy about the origin

of Robert Fitz-Harding. (See Notes and Queries, Jan. 3rd,

1880.) I am confirmed on the whole in my old belief that he

was the son of Harding the son of Eadnoth.

[120] See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 590, 855.

[121] See above, p. 33.

[122] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Þa men þe yldest wæron of

Hereforde, and eall þeo scír forþmid, and þa men of

Scrobscyre mid mycele folce of Brytlande.”

[123] See above, p. 33.

[124] Flor. Wig. 1088. “Cum hominibus comitis Rogerii de

Scrobbesbyria.” Yet the Chronicler says distinctly, “And

Rogere eorl wæs eac æt þam unræde.” That is, he joined in

the conspiracy, but did not take a personal share in the

war.

[125] See above, p. 35, note 3.

[126] Flor. Wig. 1088. “Congregato magno Anglorum,

Normannorum, et Walensium exercitu.”

[127] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 395.

[128] Ib. vol. i. p. 520.

[129] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Þa men … comon and hergodon and

þærndon on Wiðreceastrescire forð, and hi comon to þam porte

sylfan, and woldon þa þæne port bærnen, and þæt mynster

reafian, and þæs cynges castel gewinnan heom to handa.”

Florence adds, “grandem de regis incolis fidelibus sumpturos

vindictam.” On the deliverance of Worcester, see Appendix D.

[130] Florence brings in his own Bishop with a panegyric;

“Vir magnæ pietatis et columbinæ simplicitatis, Deo

populoque quern regebat in omnibus amabilis, regi, ut

terreno domino, per omnia fidelis, pater reverendus

Wlstanus.” In the Chronicle he is simply “se arwurða bisceop

Wlfstan.” He goes on to make his exhortation after the

manner of Moses.

[131] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 61.

[132] Ib. vol. iv. p. 579.

[133] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 174.

[134] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 379.

[135] Ib.

[136] Flor. Wig. 1088. “Normanni interim, ineuntes

consilium, rogant ipsum episcopum ut ab ecclesia transiret

in castellam, tutiores se affirmantes de ejus præsentia, si

majus incumberet periculum; diligebant enim eum valde. Ipse

enim, ut erat miræ mansuetudinis, et pro regis fidelitate,

_et pro eorum dilectione_, petitioni eorum adquievit.”

[137] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 174.

[138] Flor. Wig. u. s. “Interea audenter in arma se parat

episcopalis familia.” On the nature of this “familia,” see

N. C. vol. v. p. 496.

[139] Ib. “Inter quos [hostes] magna belli jam fervebat

insania; contumaciter enim episcopi contemnentes mandata, in

terram ipsius posuerunt incendia.” On the order of events,

see Appendix D.

[140] Ib. “Conveniunt castellani et omnis civium turma,

occurrere se affirmant hostibus ex altera parte Sabrinæ

fluminis, si hoc eis pontificis annueret licentia. Parati

igitur et armis instructi, ipsum ad castellum euntem habent

obviam, quam optabant requirunt licentiam; quibus libentur

annuens, ‘Ite,’ inquit, ‘filii, ite in pace, ite securi, cum

Dei et nostra benedictione.’ Confidens ego in Domino,

spondeo vobis, non hodie nocebit vobis gladius, non quicquam

infortunii, non quisquam adversarius. State in regis

fidelitate, viriliter agentes pro populi urbisque salute.”

[141] Ib. “Episcopus ingenti concutitur dolore, videns

debilitari res ecclesiæ, acceptoque inde consilio, gravi

eos, ab omnibus qui circumaderant coactus, percussit

anathemate.” See Appendix D.

[142] Ib. “Alacres pontem reparatum transeunt, hostes de

longinquo accelerantes conspiciunt.”

[143] See Appendix D.

[144] Flor. Wig. u. s. “Cæduntur pedites, capiuntur milites,

cum Normannis tam Angli quam Walenses, cæteris vero vix

debili elapsis fuga [were the ‘milites’ spared for the sake

of ransom?] regis fideles cum pontificis familia, exultantes

in gaudio, sine ulla diminutione suorum, redeunt ad propria;

gratias Deo referunt de rerum ecclesiæ incolumitate, gratias

episcopo referunt de consilii ejus salubritate.”

[145] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 386.

[146] Chron. Petrib, 1088. “Þe wæs ærur heafod to þam

unræde.”

[147] See above, p. 29.

[148] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Ðe bisceop Odo, þe þas cyng of

awocan, ferde into Cent to his earldome and fordyde hit

swyðe, and þæs cynges land and þæs arcebisceopes mid ealle

aweston, and brohte eall þæt gód into his castele on

Hrofeceastre.” This follows at once on the accounts of Roger

the Bigod and Hugh of Grantmesnil. So William of Malmesbury,

who here brings in the story of Lanfranc’s share in Odo’s

imprisonment in 1082, in order to account for Odo’s special

hatred towards the Archbishop.

[149] See N. C. vol. i. pp. 267, 296. On the early history

of Rochester generally, see Mr. Hartshorne’s paper in the

Archæological Journal, September, 1863.

[150] This is brought out by Orderic, 667 B; “Oppidum igitur

Rovecestræ sollicita elegerunt provisione, quoniam, si rex

eos non obsedisset in urbe, in medio positi laxis habenis

Lundoniam et Cantuariam devastarent, et per mare, quod

proximum est, insulasque vicinas, pro auxiliis conducendis

nuntios cito dirigerent.” The islands must be Sheppey and

Thanet.

[151] See the siege of Rochester in 1215 and his defence by

William of Albini in Roger of Wendover, iii. 333.

[152] For the siege of 1264 see W. Rishanger, Chron. p. 25

(Camd. Soc.). On Simon’s military engines he remarks that

the Earl “exemplum relinquens Anglicis qualiter circa

castrorum assultationes agendum sit, qui penitus hujusmodi

diebus illis fuerant ignari.” A forerunner of Kanarês, he

had a fire-ship in the river; he also used mines, as the

Conqueror had done at Exeter.

[153] Mr. Hartshorne showed distinctly that the present

tower of Rochester was not built by Gundulf, but by William

of Corbeuil. See the passages which he quotes from Gervase,

X Scriptt. 1664, and the continuator of Florence, 1126. But

we have seen (see N. C. vol. iv. p. 366) that Gundulf did

build a stone castle at Rochester for William Rufus

(“castrum Hrofense lapidum”), and we should most naturally

look for it on the site of the later one. On the other hand,

there is a tower, seemingly of Gundulf’s building and of a

military rather than an ecclesiastical look, which is now

almost swallowed up between the transepts of the cathedral.

But it would be strange if a tower built for the King stood

in the middle of the monastic precinct.

[154] The odd position of the cloister at Rochester suggests

the notion that Gundulf’s church occupied only the site of

the present eastern limb, and that the later Norman nave was

an enlargement rather than a rebuilding.

[155] Domesday, 2 _b_. “Episcopus de Rouecestre pro excambio

terræ in qua castellum sedet, tantum de hac terra tenet quod

xvii.s. et iv.d. valet.” This is said of land at Aylesford;

but the castle spoken of must surely be that of Rochester.

The Domesday phrase “sedet” seems beautifully to describe

either the massive square donjon or the shell-keep on the

mound; yet it may be doubted whether Rochester had either in

the Conqueror’s day.

[156] This ditch is said to have been traced right across

the middle of the cathedral, with the twelfth-century nave

to the west of it. I can say nothing either way from my own

observation; but such an extension of the church to the west

would exactly answer to the extension of the churches of Le

Mans and Lincoln to the east. In both those cases the Roman

wall had to give way.

[157] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 367.

[158] Ord. Vit. 667 A. “Tunc Odo Bajocensis cum quingentis

militibus intra Rofensem urbem se conclusit, ibique Robertum

ducem cum suis auxiliaribus secundum statuta quæ pepigerant

præstolari proposuit.” The last clause of course implies the

supposed earlier agreement with Duke Robert, on which see

above, p. 25, and Appendix B.

[159] Flor. Wig. 1088. “Rumore autem percussus insolito,

comes exultat, amicis nunciat, quasi jam de victoria securus

triumphat, plures ad prædam incitat; Odoni episcopo, patruo

suo, auxiliarios in Angliam legat, se quantocius, congregato

majori exercitu, secuturum affirmat.”

[160] Ib. “Prædictus episcopus Baiocensis, munita

Roveceastra, misit Normanniam, exhortans comitem Rotbertum

cito venire in Angliam, nuntians ei rem gestam, affirmans

paratum sibi regnum, et si sibi non desisteret, paratam et

coronam.”

[161] Ib. “Missi a comite Rotberto venerunt in Angliam, ab

Odone episcopo ad custodiendum receperunt Roveceastram; et

horum ut primates Eustatius junior, comes Bononiæ, et

Rotbertus de Beleasmo gerebant curam.” Here we have (see

Appendix B) the true moment of their coming. From this point

we may accept the account in Orderic (667 B); “Prædictum

oppidum Odo præsul et Eustachius comes atque Robertus

Bellesmensis, cum multis nobilibus viris et mediocribus,

tenebant, auxiliumque Roberti ducis, qui desidia mollitieque

detinebatur, frustra exspectabant.” We meet them again in

765 B.

[162] “Eustatius junior,” “Eustatius þe iunga.” See N. C.

vol. iv. p. 745.

[163] They are mentioned in the Chronicle along with the

incidental mention of Eustace; “Innan þam castele wæron

swiðe gode cnihtas, Eustatius þe iunga, and Rogeres eorles

þreo sunan, and ealle þa betstboren men þe wæron innan þisan

lande oððe on Normandige.” This is followed by William of

Malmesbury (iv. 306); “Erat tunc apud Roveceastram omnis

pene juventutis ex Anglia et Normannia nobilitas; tres filii

Rogerii comitis, et Eustachius Bononiæ junior, _multique

alii quos infra curam nostram existimo_.”

[164] The three sons of Earl Roger can hardly fail to be his

three eldest sons (see Will. Gem. vii. 16; Ord. Vit. 708 D),

Robert, Hugh, and Roger, all of whom figure in our story.

Arnulf does not appear in English history till later, and

Philip the clerk does not appear at all. Geoffrey Gaimar

(Chron. Ang. Norm. i. 35), after setting forth the

possessions of Robert of Bellême, mentions the other three;

but one does not exactly see why he says,

“Le conte Ernulf ert le quarte frère,

Par cors valeit un emperère.”

Cf. Ord. Vit. 708 D, 808 C.

[165] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 488.

[166] See above, p. 33.

[167] Flor. Wig. 1088. “Rogerus fautor Rotberti erat in

castello suo Arundello, comitis prædicti opperiens

adventum.”

[168] See N. C. iv. 66, v. 808.

[169] See Tierney’s History of Arundel, i. 43.

[170] Domesday, 23 “Modo inter burgum et portum aquæ et

consuetudinem navium reddit xii. libras et tamen valet xiii.

libras. De his habet S Nicolaus xxiiii. solidos.” “Clerici

sancti Nicolai” are mentioned again in the next column. The

church then was secular in 1086; but the clerks must have

soon given way to the priory of Saint Nicolas, founded by

Earl Roger himself as a cell to his abbey at Seez; in 1386

it gave way to the college of Arundel.

[171] See N. C. iv. p. 501.

[172] Domesday, 23. “Modo est ipsa civitas in manu comitis

Rogerii.” Here he had one quarter of a Roman _chester_,

while the Bishop had another; yet there were sixty houses

more than there had been T. R. E.

[173] See the customs of Lewes and the rights of William of

Warren in Domesday, 26. The toll on selling a man was

threepence. The two mounds of the castle, the smaller known

as Brack Mount, are rare, perhaps unique. The inner gateway

seems to be of Earl William’s building.

[174] I suspect that the original title of the Earls of

Arundel was Earl of Sussex, and that the name of the castle

came to be used, much as the successors of William of

Warren, strictly Earls of Surrey, are more commonly called

Earls Warren. See more in Tierney’s History of Arundel.

[175] Lucan, iv. 819.

[176] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 161.

[177] Ord. Vit. 666 D. “Rex Guillelmus, ut vidit suos in

terra sua contra se pessima cogitare, et per singula

crebrescentibus malis ad pejora procedere; non meditatus est

ut timida vulpes ad tenebrosas cavernas fugere, sed ut leo

fortis et audax rebellium conatus terribiliter comprimere.”

[178] Will. Malms. iv. 306. “Nec minori astutia Rogerium de

Monte Gomerico, secum dissimulata perfidia equitantem,

circumvenit.”

[179] Ib. “Seorsum enim ducto magnam ingessit invidiam;

dicens, Libenter se imperio cessurum, si illi et aliis

videatur quos pater tutores reliquerat. Non se intelligere

quid ita effrænes sint: si velint, pecunias accipiant pro

libito; si augmentum patrimoniorum, eodem modo; prorsus, quæ

velint, habeant. Tantum videant ne judicium genitoris

periclitetur: quod si de se putaverint aspernandum, de se

ipsis caveant exemplum; idem enim se regem, qui illos duces

fecerit. His verbis comes et pollicitationibus incensus, qui

primus factionis post Odonem signifer fuit, primus defecit.”

Roger of Wendover (ii. 33) adds the words “pœnitentia

ductus.”

[180] Orderic a little later (667 B) says, “Rogerus

Merciorum comes, multique Normannorum, qui cum rege foris

obsidebant, clam adminiculari quantum poterant inclusis

satagebant.”

[181] Orderic (680 C) puts the creation of this earldom

somewhat later, at the Gemót held just before the invasion

of Normandy in 1090. He adds that the new earl died soon

after (“quem paulo post mors nulli parcens e medio rapuit”),

and records his burial at Lewes, and adds his epitaph. There

is no better authority than that of the Hyde writer (298)

for placing the creation at this time or for placing the

Earl’s death a little later (see below, p. 76). But his

narrative is so minute that one would think that he must

have had some kind of ground for it. His words are; “Rex

Willelmus … videns igitur principes regni nutantes et

exercitum a se dilabi, sapienti usus consilio, Willelmum de

Warennia, virum bellicosum, animo ferum et corpore strenuum

famaque præclarum, _in amicitia Asarum_ [what this may mean

I have no notion, but the editor vouches that such is the

reading of the MS.] comitis honore sublimat, multa impendit

multaque promittit.”

[182] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 251.

[183] Ord. Vit. 667 C. “Omnes episcopi Angliæ _cum Anglis_

sine dolo regem juvabant, et pro serena patriæ pace, quæ

bonis semper amabiles est, laborabant.”

[184] The appeal to the English is strongly marked in the

Chronicle; “Ða þe cyng undergeat ealle þas þing and hwilcne

swicdom hi dydon toweard his, þa wearð he on his mode swiðe

gedrefed. Sende þa æfter Englisce mannan, and heom fore sæde

his neode and gyrnde heora fultumes.” Simeon of Durham gives

a free translation quite independent of Florence; “Hoc

audito, rex fecit convocare Anglos, et ostendit eis

traditionem Normannorum, et rogavit ut sibi auxilio essent.”

But the appeal comes out no less strongly in Orderic (666

D); “Lanfrancum archiepiscopum cum suffraganeis præsulibus,

et comites, Anglosque naturales convocavit, et conatus

adversariorum, ac velle suum expugnandi eos indicavit.” The

writ comes from William of Malmesbury, iv. 306; “Ille,

videns Normannos pene omnes in una rabie conspiratos, Anglos

probos et fortes viros, qui adhuc residui erant,

invitatoriis scriptis accersiit.” It is singular that

Florence mentions the English only in an incidental way a

little later; “Congregato quantum ad præsens poterat

Normannorum, sed tamen maxime Anglorum, equestri et

pedestri, licet mediocri, exercitu.” Does the precious

document spoken of by William of Malmesbury still lurk in

any manuscript store?

[185] Chron. Petrib. “And behet heom þa betsta laga þe æfre

ær wæs on þisan lande, and ælc unriht geold he forbead, and

geatte mannan heora wudas and slǽtinge.” William of

Malmesbury (iv. 306) translates, “Bonas leges et tributorum

levamen, liberasque venationes pollicens.” Florence is less

literal; “Statuens leges, promittens fautoribus omnia bona.”

Simeon gives another version; “Eo tenore, ut si in hac

necessitate sibi fideles existerent, meliorem legem quam

vellent eligere eis concederet, et omnem injustum scottum

interdixit, et concessit omnibus silvas suas et venationem.

Sed quicquid promisit, parvo tempore custodivit. Angli tamen

fideliter eum juvabant.”

[186] Flor. Wig. 1088. “Jure regio, militari, ut impiger,

fretus audacia, mittit legatos, vocat quos sibi credit

fidos, vadit Lundoniam, belli tractaturus negotia,

expeditionis provisum, necessaria.”

[187] See above, p. 29.

[188] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Ac Englisce men swa þeah fengon

to þam cynge heora hlaforde on fultume.” The numbers come

from Orderic (667A); “Anglorum triginta millia tunc ad

servitium regis sponte sua convenerunt.”

[189] Ord. Vit. 667 A. “Passim per totum Albionem _impera_,

omnesque rebelles deice regali justitia.”

[190] Ib. “Viriliter age, ut regis filius et legitime ad

regnum assumptus; securus in hoc regno dominare omnibus.”

[191] Ord. Vit. 667 A. “Solerter Anglorum rimare historias,

inveniesque semper fidos principibus suis Angligenas.” Fancy

William Rufus sitting down to study the Chronicles, as his

brother Henry may likely enough have done.

[192] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Ferdon þa toweard Hrofeceastre

and woldon þone bisceop Odan begytan, þohtan gif hi hæfdon

hine, þe wæs ærur heafod to þam unræde, þæt hi mihton þe bet

begytan ealla þa oðre.”

[193] It is somewhat singular that, though Richard appears

in Domesday as “Ricardus de Tonebrige” as well as “Ricardus

filius Gisleberti comitis” (14 et al.), and though his

“leva” or “lowy” (see Ellis, i. 212) is often spoken of, yet

Tunbridge castle itself is not entered. See on Richard of

Bienfaite, Clare, or Tunbridge, N. C. vol. ii. p. 196; iv.

579. A singular story is told in the Continuation of William

of Jumièges (viii. 15), how Tunbridge was granted in

exchange for Brionne, and measured by the rope. See Appendix

S.

[194] At Tunbridge the mound and the gateway stand side by

side, as indeed they do, though less conspicuously, at

Arundel and Lewes. A wall is built from the gateway to the

keep on the mound, losing itself, as it were, in the side of

the mound. The mound thus stands half within and half

without the enclosure formed by the gateway.

[195] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Þa Englisce men ferdon and

tobræcon þone castel, and þa men þe þærinne wæron griðodon

wið þone cyng,” So Simeon of Durham; “Sed viriliter Angli

insilientes in illud, destruxerunt totum castrum, et qui

intus erant in manus regi dederunt.” Florence gives some

further details; “Tunebrycgiam cui præerat Gilebertus filius

Ricardi, contrarium sibi invenit: obsedit, in biduo

expugnavit, vulneratum Gilebertum cum castello ad deditionem

coegit.” Is it possible that, according to Orderic’s second

account of the rebellion (765 A, B), we are still only in

the Easter week?

[196] See N. C. vol. iv. p. 366. While I am revising my

text, an account of this tower by Mr. Clark has appeared in

the Builder, November 27, 1880.

[197] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Se cyng mid his here ferde

toweard Hrofeceastre, and wendon þæt se bisceop wære

þærinne, ac hit wearð þam cynge cuð þæt se bisceop wæs

afaren to þam castele on Pefenesea.” Florence helps us to an

hexameter in the middle of his prose; “Relatum erat ei ibi

esse episcopum Odonem cum omnibus suis et cohortem

ultramarinam….

Fama volans dicti pervenit Odonis ad aures,

et cum sociis inito consilio, relinquens Roveceastram, cum

paucis adiit castrum fratris sui Roberti Moritanensis

comitis quod Pevenessa dicitur.” Are the “cohors

ultramarina” those who had come with Eustace and Robert of

Bellême?

[198] Flor. Wig. 1088. “Fratrem reperiens, cum ut se teneat

hortatur, pollicens se securos ibi posse esse, et dum rex ad

expugnandam Roveceastram intenderet, comitem Normanniæ cum

magno exercitu venturum, seque suosque liberaturum et magna

fautoribus suis dando præmia regnum accepturum.”

[199] Ord. Vit. 666 D. “Statuerat præcursores suos vere

redeunte sequi cum multis legionibus militum.”

[200] Cont. Will. Gem. viii. 2. “Quum sui fideles eum

exhortarentur ut regnum Angliæ sibi a fratre præreptum

velocius armis sibimet restitueret, simplicitate solita et,

ut ita dicam, imprudentiæ proxima, respondisse fertur, ‘Per

angelos Dei [Gregory’s pun in another form], si essem in

Alexandria, exspectarent me Angli, nec ante adventum meum

Regem sibi facere auderent. Ipse etiam Willelmus frater

meus, quod eum præsumpsisse dicitur, pro capite suo sine mea

permissione minime attentaret.’”

[201] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Betwyx þissum se eorl of

Normandige Rodbeard, þes cynges broðer, gaderode swiðe mycel

folc, and þohte to gewinnane Englelande mid þæra manna

fultume þe wæron innan þisan lande ongean þone cyng, and he

sende of his mannan to þisum lande, and wolde cuman himsylf

æfter.”

[202] Florence seems here to translate what the Chronicler

had said a little before (see above, p. 67); “Inito itaque

salubri consilio, illum eo usque cum exercitu persequitur,

sperans se belli citius finem assequuturum, si ante

triumphare posset de principibus malorum prædictorum.”

[203] So I find it called in several papers in the Sussex

Archæological Collections. But the local antiquaries seem

hardly to have fully grasped the fact that there is a town

in Normandy called _Laigle_, and that the family with which

we are concerned took its name from it.

[204] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “And se cyng mid his here ferde

æfter, and besætt þone castel abutan mid swiðe mycele here

fulle six wucan.” The artillery comes from Florence;

“Accelerat, machinas parat, patruum utrumque obsidet; locus

erat munitissimus; ad expugnationem indies laborat.” William

of Malmesbury cuts the siege of Pevensey short, and Orderic

leaves it out altogether.

[205] See Appendix E.

[206] See N. C. vol. iii. p. 395.

[207] Liber de Hyda, 299. “Willelmus de Warennia apud

obsidionem Peveneselli sagitta in crure valde vulneratus,

Leuwias cum omnium mœrore deportatus est.” The writer goes

on to describe Earl William’s last testament and death. It

will be remembered (see above, p. 62) that Orderic makes

William of Warren die quietly at a later time; but, small as

is the authority of the Hyde writer, it is strange if he

altogether invented or dreamed this minute account.

[208] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Syððan heom ateorede mete

wiðinnan þam castele, þa gyrndon hi griðas, and agefan hine

þam cynge, and se bisceop swór þæt he wolde út of Englelande

faran, and ná mare cuman on þisan lande butan se cyng him

æfter sende, and þæt he wolde agyfan þone castel on

Hrofeceastre.” So William of Malmesbury (iv. 306); “Captum

ad quod libuit jusjurandum impulit, ut Anglia decederet et

Rovecestram traderet.”

[209] Chron. u. s. “Ealswa se bisceop ferde and sceolde

agifan þone castel and se cyng sende his men mid him.” So

Will. Malms. “Ad quod implendum eum cum fidelibus suis

præmisit, lento pede præeuntes subsecutus…. Regii cum

episcopo pauci et inermes (quis enim eo præsente insidias

timeret?) circa muros desiliunt, clamantes oppidanis ut

portas aperiant; hoc episcopum præsentem velle, hoc regem

absentem jubere.”

[210] Will. Malms. u. s. “At illi, de muro conspicati quod

vultus episcopi cum verbis oratorum non conveniret, raptim

apertis portis ruunt, equos involant, omnesque cum episcopo

vinctos abducunt.” This explains the shorter account in the

Chronicle; “þa arisan þa men þe wæron innan þam castele, and

namon þone bisceop and þes cynges men, and dydon hi on

hæftmenge.” It is now that both the Chronicle and William

give the names of the chief nobles who were in the castle.

Henry of Huntingdon (1088, p. 215) strongly marks Odo’s

treachery; “Eustachius consul et cæteri proceres qui urbi

inerant, fallacia ipsius, episcopum regisque ministros

ceperunt et in carcerem retruserunt.”

[211] See N. C. vol. ii. p. 104.

[212] Will. Malms, iv. 306. “Ille [rex]…. Anglos suos

appellat; jubet ut compatriotas advocent ad obsidionem

venire, nisi si qui velint sub nomine Niðing, quod nequam

sonat, remanere. Angli, qui nihil miserius putarent quam

hujusce vocabuli dedecore aduri, catervatim ad regem

confluunt, et invincibilem exercitum faciunt.” This leaves

out the fact that the proclamation was addressed both to

French and English. The words of the Chronicle are express;

“Ða se cyng undergeat þat þing, þa ferde he æfter mid þam

here þe he þær hæfde, and sende ofer eall Englalande, and

bead þæt _ælc man þe wære unniðing_ sceolde cuman to him,

_Frencisce and Englisce_, of porte and of uppelande.” We can

hardly doubt that we have here the actual words of the

proclamation. It must not be forgotten that, by the law of

the Conqueror, Frenchmen who had settled in King Eadward’s

day were counted as English. See N. C. vol. iv. p. 620.

[213] Ord. Vit. 667 B. “Animosus rex … oppidum Maio mense

cum grandi exercitu potenter obsedit, firmatisque duobus

castellis omnem exeundi facultatem hostibus abstulit.” It

must have been late in May, as six weeks had been spent

before Pevensey. Indeed, if the siege did begin in the

Easter week, it must have been June.

[214] See Mr. Clark in the Archæological Journal, vol.

xxxii. p. 205.

[215] This appears from the words of Florence; “Hrofenses

Cantwariensibus et Lundoniensibus cædes inferunt et

incendia. Landfrancus enim archiepiscopus et pene omnes

optimates ejusdem provinciæ erant cum rege.” Orderic too (u.

s.) points out the advantageous position of Rochester for

such purposes; “In medio positi laxis habenis Lundoniam et

Cantuariam devastarent.”

[216] See N. C. vol. v. p. 748.

[217] Ord. Vit. 667 C. “In oppido Rofensi plaga similis

Ægyptiorum plagæ apparuit, qua Deus, qui semper res humanas

curat et juste disponit, antiqua miracula nostris etiam

temporibus recentia ostendit.” Nobody could eat, unless his

neighbour drove away the flies; so they wielded the flapper

by turns.

[218] See above, p. 62.

[219] Will. Malms. iv. 306. “Nec diutius potuere pati

oppidani quin se traderent, experti quamlibet nobilem,

quamlibet consertam manum, nihil adversus regem Angliæ posse

proficere.”

[220] Ord. Vit. 667 D. “Guillermum regem nuntiis petierunt

ut pacem cum eis faceret, ac oppidum ab eis reciperet, tali

tenore ut terras, fundos, et omnia quæ hactenus habuerant,

ab ipso reciperent, et ipsi eidem ut naturali domino

[cynehlaford] fideliter amodo servirent.”

[221] Ord. Vit. 667 D. “His auditis rex iratus est, et valde

rigidus intumuit, et in nullo flexus legatorum

postulationibus non acquievit; sed perfidos traditores in

oppido virtute potenti capiendos juravit, et mox patibulis

suspendendos, et aliis mortium diversis generibus de terra

delendos asseruit.”

[222] Ib. “Ecce turgidi juvenes et cupiditate cæcati senes

jam satis edocti sunt quod regiæ vires in hac insula nondum

defecerunt. Nam qui de Normannia, tamquam milvi ad prædam,

super nos cum impetu advolarunt, et in Anglia regiam stirpem

defecisse arbitrati sunt, jam Guillelmum juvenem Guillelmo

sene non debiliorem, cohibente Deo, experti sunt.”

[223] Ord. Vit. 668 B. “Quid sceleratis peccavi? quid illis

nocui? quid mortem meam totis nisibus procuraverunt, et

omnes pro posse suo contra me populos cum detrimento

multorum erexerunt?”

[224] Ib. “Quisquis parcit perjuris et latronibus,

plagiariis et execratis proditoribus, aufert pacem et

quietem innocentibus, innumerasque cædes et damna serit

bonis et inermibus.” We seem to be reading the cover of the

Edinburgh Review.

[225] Ord. Vit. 668 C. “Baiocensis Odo patruus tuus est et

_pontificali sanctificatione_ præditus est.” “Cum patre tuo

Anglos subjugavit”――a merit which would hardly be pleaded in

the hearing of the King’s army. He is “antistes Domini,” and

so forth. “Omnes precamur ut illi benevolentiam tuam

concedas et illæsum in Normanniam ad diocesim suam abire

permittas.”

[226] Ib. “Comes Boloniensis patri tuo satis fuit fidelis,

et in rebus arduis strenuus adjutor et contubernalis.” There

must be some confusion between father and son.

[227] Ib. “Magnam Normanniæ partem possidet, fortissimisque

castellis corroboratus pene omnibus vicinis suis et Neustriæ

proceribus præeminet.”

[228] Here (ib. D) a hexameter peeps out;

“Idem qui lædit, fors post ut amicus obedit.”

It is the doctrine of Aias in Sophoklês (659);

ἐγὼ δ’ ἐπίσταμαι γὰρ ἀρτίως, ὅτι

ὅ τ’ ἐχθρὸς ἡμῖν ἐς τοσόνδ’ ἐχθαρτέος,

ὡς καὶ φιλήσων αὖθις.

[egô d’ epistamai gar artiôs, hoti

ho t’ echthros hêmin es tosond’ echtharteos,

hôs kai philêsôn authis.]

The balancing clause was not called for.

[229] They were (ib.) “eximii tirones”――“swiðe gode

cnihtas”――“quorum servitutem, inclite rex, parvi pendere non

debes.”

[230] Ib. “Igitur, quos jam superasti potestate, divitiis,

et ingenti probitate, subjuga tibi magnificentia et

pietate.” On the sense of “magnificentia,” cf. N. C. vol. i.

p. 261.

[231] Ord. Vit. 668 D. “Omnem spem habendi hæreditates et

terras in regno ejus, quamdiu ipse regnaret, funditus

abscidit.”

[232] Ord. Vit. 668 D. “Tunc Odo pontifex a rege Rufo

impetrare temptavit, ne tubicines in eorum egressu tubis

canerent, sicut moris est dum hostes vincuntur et parvum

oppidum capitur.” Why “parvum”?

[233] Ib. “Nec se concessurum etiam propter mille auri

marcos palam asseruit.”

[234] Ib. “Oppidanis cum mœrore et verecundia egredientibus,

et regalibus tubis cum gratulatione clangentibus.”

[235] Ord. Vit. 669 A. “Multitudo Anglorum quæ regi

adhærebat cunctis audientibus, vociferabatur, et dicebat;

Torques, torques afferte, traditorem episcopum cum suis

complicibus patibulis suspendite. Magne rex Anglorum, cur

sospitem pateris abire incentorem malorum? Non debet vivere

perjurus homicida, qui dolis et crudelitatibus peremit

hominum multa milia.”

[236] Ib. “Hæc et alia probra mœstus antistes cum suis

audivit.”

[237] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Se bisceop Odo mid þam mannum þe

innan þam castele wæron ofer sæ ferdon, and se bisceop swa

forlet þone wurðscipe þe he on þis land hæfde.” Orderic (669

A)――in his character of “Angligena”――moralizes; “Sic

irreligiosus præsul de Anglia expulsus est, et amplissimis

possessionibus spoliatus est. Tunc maximos quæstus, quos cum

facinore obtinuit, justo Dei judicio cum ingenti dedecore

perdidit, et confusus Baiocas rediit, nec in Angliam

postmodum repedavit.”

[238] Ord. Vit. 669 A. “Anno primo Guillelmi Rufi regis, in

initio æstatis, Rofensis urbs ei redita est, omniumque qui

contra pacem enses acceperant, nequam commotio compressa

est.” We shall see by the story of Robert of Rhuddlan, to

which we shall presently come, that some of the King’s

followers were at home again by the end of June.

[239] See above, p. 74.

[240] Chron. Petrib. 1088. “Eac manige Frencisce men

forleton heora land and ferdon ofer sæ, and se cyng geaf

heora land þam mannum þe him holde wæron.”

[241] Ord. Vit. 669 B. “Quorumdam factiones sævissimis

legibus puniit, aliquorum vero reatus ex industria

dissimulavit. Antiquis baronibus, quos ab ipso aliquantum

desciverat nequitia, versute pepercit, _pro amore patris

sui_ cui diu fideliter inhæserant, et pro senectutis

reverentia, sciens profecto quod non eos diu vigere sinerent

morbi et mors propria. Porro quidam, quanto gravius se

errasse in regiam majestatem noverunt, tanto ferventius omni

tempore postmodum ei famulati sunt, et tam muneribus quam

servitiis ac adulationibus multis modis placere studuerunt.”

[242] See above, p. 32.

[243] See above, p. 28.

[244] See above, p. 88.

[245] See N. C. vol. iv. pp. 409, 825, and below, p. 139.

[246] Mon. Ang. i. 245. “Tandem misi sibi rex abbatem sancti

Augustini, mandans ei ut, sicut prius mandaverat sibi, ad

curiam suam cum abbate veniret. Episcopus autem, inimicorum

suorum insidias cum regis ira metuens, sine bono conductu se

non posse venire respondet et legatos suos per abbatis

conductum cum subscriptis litteris regi misit.”

[247] Ib. “Homines meos et terras et pecuniam quam

vicecomites vestri ubicumque poterant, mihi abstulerunt,

scilicet Offedene et Welletune quas diviserunt Odoni et

Alano comitibus, cum cæteris terris in Ewerwickschire.” See

above, p. 31. On Count Alan, see N. C. vol. iv. p. 294, and

on Odo, vol. iv. pp. 301, 805.

[248] Ib. “Quod breve cum mississem Radulfo Paganello non

solum mihi pacem negavit sed et de parte vestra me

diffidavit.” On _diffidatio_ see Ducange _in voce_. In N. C.

vol. v. p. 270 we have a case of the man _defying_ his lord.

Here the lord _defies_ his man. In either case there is the

withdrawal of one side of the mutual duty of lord and man.

[249] Ib. “Hominum vero quosdam vendidit, quosdam redimi

permisit.”

[250] Mon. Ang. i. 245. “Hoc in veritate vobis mando quod

libenter cum hoc abbate venissem, nisi plus inimicos meos et

_indoctam populi multitudinem_ timuissem quod de vestro

brevi et baronum vestrorum fiducia dubitassem.”

[251] Ib. “Rex visis his litteris misit conductum episcopo

et bene affidavit eum per litteras suas quod per eum vel per

suos homines nullum ei damnum eveniret usque quo de rege

rediens Dunelmum intraret. Perrexit ergo episcopus ad

regem.”

[252] Mon. Ang. i. 245. “Episcopus … deprecatus est eum ut

rectitudinem sibi consentiret sicut episcopo suo. Rex autem

respondit ei, Quod si laicaliter placitare vellet, et extra

pacem quam rex ei dederat se mitteret, hoc modo rectitudinem

sibi consentiret, et, si hoc modo placitare recusaret,

Dunelmum faceret eum reconduci.”

[253] Ib. “Dunelmum rediit episcopus, cui rex interim plus

quam septingentos homines cum multa præda abstulerat.”

[254] They were to have (Mon. Ang. i. 246) the “securitas et

conductus regis” till they had crossed――“donec ultra mare ad

terram siccam cum rebus suis essent.” The catalogue of the

“res suæ” is curious; “Et liceret eos per conductum regis

secum ducere et portare [ἄγειν καὶ φέρειν] [agein kai

pherein] aurum et argentum, equos et pannos et arma et canes

et accipitres, et sua prorsus omnia quæ de terra portari

debent.” The hawks and hounds remind us of Harold setting

sail from Bosham in the Tapestry. See N. C. vol. iii. p.

222.

[255] Mon. Ang. i. 246. “Episcopus dedit fidem suam Rogero

Pictavensi, quod si ipse per præscriptam condicionem

castellum reduceretur, et major fortitudo in castello missa

vel facta esset in hominibus vel in munitione vel in

castelli fortitudine quam eadem die ibi erat, episcopus

totum illud destrui faceret, ita quod episcopus inde nullum

proficuum haberet nec rex damnum.”