Ord. Vit. 566 D. Michael was, when Orderic wrote, an old man in great
honour with Henry the First. He was “probus miles et legitimus.” Wace
(9707) gives him several children, and seems to make them born after
his deposition. Michael is “hom mult énorez, Michiel de Baines [al.
Bayeux] apelez.”
Footnote 219
Will. Pict. 116. “Sæpenumero monitus atque castigatus privatim atque
publicè domini sui, juvenis et laici, sapiente diligentia.” So Will.
Malms. iii. 267; “Crebrò conventus, expostulante nepote patruelis
[patrui?] offensas.”
Footnote 220
Ib. “Sequuntur multoties largitionem rapinæ. Præterea molestus
infamiæ ejus odor diffundebatur ob alia crimina. Sed a ratione
alienum ducimus in vitiis publicandis immorari,” etc.
Footnote 221
Ib. “Pallio numquam est insignitus quod ... manus Romani Pontificis,
mittere [?] solita, ei denegavit ut minus idoneo.” So Will. Malms. u.
s.
Footnote 222
Ib. 117. “Apostolici mandato sæpiùs ad Romanum concilium accitus,
renuit ire.” William is just now very zealous for the Holy See, quite
unlike the Gallicanism of Rudolf Glaber. See vol. ii. p. 275.
Footnote 223
Ib. “Sane pigebat Rotomagum, pigebat cunctam Normanniam,
archipræsulis.”
Footnote 224
Will. Malms. iii. 267. “Quum iræ adolescentis uxoriæ querelæ
accederent, excogitatas occasiones quibus persequutor peccati sede
pelleretur.” It is clear that Malger had partizans.
Footnote 225
William of Poitiers (117) does not name the Legate. He says only
“Princeps ... deposuit patruum in publico sanctæ synodi, Apostolici
vicario cunctisque Normanniæ episcopis, juxta canonum auctoritatem,
sententiam dantibus unanimi consensus.” The List in Mabillon
(Analecta, ii. 439) names Ermenfred (see vol. ii. p. 461), and
mentions the place, Lisieux. William of Jumièges (vii. 24) makes
Malger resign his see; “Eo tempore Malgerius Archipræsul Rotomagensis
desipere cœpit, et insipientiâ ductus Archipræsulatum Duci reddidit.”
The strong _regale_, or rather _ducale_, of all our accounts should
be noticed. See vol. ii. p. 209.
Footnote 226
William of Poitiers does not mention the banishment of Malger, but it
is spoken of by most of our other authorities. Will. Gem. vii. 24.
“Dux autem Malgerium in insulâ quæ dicitur Ghernervia retrusit.” The
list in Mabillon (ii. 439) says, “Dedit postea illi quamdam insulam
in Constantiniensi pago in mari sitam.” Roman de Rou, 9703;
“Es isles vint de Costentin,
Là fu è vist tresqu’ è la fin.”
On the “Isles of the Côtentin” see vol. i. p. 211 et seqq.
Footnote 227
Mabillon, u. s. “In quâ [insulâ] pluribus annis, non quidem ut
decuit, vixit.” Wace, as a Jersey man, is much fuller on this part of
the story.
Footnote 228
Roman de Rou, 9714 et seqq. He has “un deable privé” called Toret or
Toreit, who was always at his beck and call. What is Toret? Pluquet
makes it a diminutive from Thor. Sir F. Palgrave (iii. 276, 277)
speaks of French antiquaries “who discover in the name Thoreit the
exclamation Thor-aie, an invocation of Thor the Hammerer.” Pluquet
at least does not. (On Thor-aie see vol. ii. p. 257.) Sir Francis
goes on, “But the vocable is pure _hoch deutsch_, and however gained
or bestowed, simply signifies Folly.” Of two improbable explanations
Pluquet’s seems to me the less improbable. See Mr. Thorpe’s amazing
note to Lappenberg, Norman Kings, p. 86, where he mixes up Malger’s
familiar spirit with Ralph of Tesson’s war-cry. See vol. ii. p. 257,
and Taylor’s Wace, p. 20.
Footnote 229
Histoire des Archevesques de Rouen (Rouen, 1667), p. 253. The author,
a Benedictine father, is disposed to let Malger off more easily than
most people.
Footnote 230
Mabillon, ii. 439. “Postea verò, quo autem divino judicio ignoratur,
in mari submersus est.” Wace tells the story at length, 9727 et
seqq. But there must, as Prevost says, be some mistake in the name
Winçant, which suggests the Picard Witsand rather than any haven of
the Côtentin.
Footnote 231
See vol. i. p. 170. Will. Malms. iii. 246. “Omnium gentium
benignissimi advenas æquali secum honore colunt.”
Footnote 232
Mabillon, ii. 439. “Nobili prosapiâ ex Remensi pago exortus, et in
ejusdem civitatis ecclesiâ educatus, inde in Leodicensi ecclesiâ omni
liberalium artium peritiâ imbutus.” Orderic (567 C) calls him “genere
Maguntinus.” He must have confounded the birthplace of Maurilius with
the place of his preferment, Halberstadt being, at all events, in the
province of Mainz.
Footnote 233
Mabillon, ii. 440. “Halverstatensis [mark the Low-Dutch form]
ecclesiæ Scholasticus effectus est, qui locus in Saxoniâ ditissimus
habetur.” On the office of the Scholasticus, compare Adelard at
Waltham, vol. ii. p. 443.
Footnote 234
This first profession at Fécamp rests on the authority of the list in
Mabillon. Orderic (u. s.) mentions only his second sojourn there. But
does not a profession at Fécamp under the Italian Abbot William form
a kind of transition between Halberstadt and the Italian hermitage?
Footnote 235
I reserve some notice of the history of Fécamp (see vol. i. p. 218),
and of the connexion of the monastery with England, for a more
appropriate place in the fourth volume.
Footnote 236
The profession of Maurilius at Fécamp would naturally come within
the time of Abbot William, 1001–1031. After so varied a career, we
can hardly fancy him less than fifty at the time of his appointment
to the Archbishoprick, and we want several years for each of his
metamorphoses between Halberstadt and Rouen. His first sojourn at
Fécamp, his hermit life, his Abbacy at Florence, his second sojourn
at Fécamp, might well take up twenty-four years among them.
Footnote 237
See vol. ii. p. 226.
Footnote 238
Mabillon, ii. 440. “Eremi cultor solitariam vitam ducens opere manuum
vixit.”
Footnote 239
Mabillon, u. s. So Ord. Vit. 567 C, who adds a characteristic Italian
trait; “In urbe Florentiâ monachili cœnobio Abbatis jure præfuit, et
exosus transgressoribus pro rigore disciplinæ venenum in potu sibi
propinato deprehendit.”
Footnote 240
Ord. Vit. u. s. “Tempore Johannis Abbatis _compatriotæ sui_ Fiscannum
venit.” But the local accounts make John a Lombard. Orderic might
have assumed that an Abbot at Florence must be an Italian, but
how could this be reconciled with his description of Maurilius as
“Maguntinus”? Cf. Neustria Pia, 223.
Footnote 241
Bessin, 47–49. Pommeraye, 71. Mabillon, ii. 441. “Adstante
Willelmo Normannorum Duce, postea Anglorum Rege, cum omnibus
suffraganeis suis, concilium in Rothomagensi ecclesiâ de castitate
conservandâ et cæteris sanctorum patrum institutionibus, pastorum
incuriâ negligenter postpositis, viriliter restituendis religiose
celebravit.” Everything bears witness alike to the ecclesiastical
supremacy of the Norman Dukes and of the personal zeal of William in
all ecclesiastical matters.
Footnote 242
See vol. ii. p. 181.
Footnote 243
See vol. ii. pp. 213, 214.
Footnote 244
Vit. Lanfr. ap. Giles, i. 287. “Ad administranda quoque totius
patriæ negotia summus ab ipso Normannorum Duce Willelmo consiliarius
assumitur.” Allowing for the natural exaggeration of a panegyrist,
there seems enough to imply a very close relation between William and
Lanfranc. See vol. ii. p. 227.
Footnote 245
Vit. Lanfr. i. 288. “Hujus tam improvidæ jussionis caussam agunt,
quod idem Lanfrancus contradicebat nuptiis filiæ Comitis Flandriæ,
quam ipse sibi Dux copulaverat in matrimonio, quia proximâ carnis
consanguinitate jungebatur.” So Chron. Becc. 198.
Footnote 246
Ib. “Unde auctoritate Romani Papæ tota Neustria fuerat ab officio
Christianitatis suspensa et interdicta.” So Chron. Becc. u. s. Wace
(9659) makes Malger pronounce the interdict;
“Maugier ki tint l’Arceveskie
Mist Normendie tute en uie
Sor Willame è sor sa moillier.
Andui les fist escumengier.”
Footnote 247
See vol. ii. p. 169.
Footnote 248
See vol. ii. p. 287.
Footnote 249
Vit. Lanfr. 287. “Quorumdam etiam accusationibus delatorum Dux in eo
vehementer amaricatus.”
Footnote 250
See vol. ii. pp. 218, 236.
Footnote 251
Vit. Lanfr. 287. “Mandat ut monasterio exturbetur, patriâ discedat,
Lanfrancus. Nec motus animi sui hâc vindictâ sedare valens, mandavit
juris monasterii villam, quæ Parcus dicitur, flammis excidi.” On the
word _Park_, see Earle, Parallel Chronicles, p. 323.
Footnote 252
In the story in Lanfranc’s Life (287 Giles), the banished Prior sets
out on a horse which went on three legs, because the house had none
that was better (“quia melior non habebatur, tripes equus quarto
pede inutili illi tribuitur”), and accompanied by one servant. He
meets the Duke; “Protinus quà ille discedebat Duci obvius venienti
appropinquans.” The meeting may have been accidental, or Lanfranc may
have gone by a way where he was likely to meet William, but I cannot
think, with Dr. Hook (ii. 93), that “Lanfranc directed his steps
to Rouen, where he probably had been summoned to appear before the
duke.” The lame horse—the narrator quite enters into the joke—bows
its head, and his rider salutes the Prince; “Equo per singulos passus
caput ad terram submittente, dominum salutat.” William at first turns
away, but presently listens. Lanfranc begins with a joke; he is
obeying William by going out of his dominions as fast as he could; he
would go faster, if the Duke would give him a better horse. William
laughs, and asks whether any criminal before had ever ventured to ask
a present of his judge. The Duke is fairly won over, Lanfranc makes
his speech, and all is soon settled.
Footnote 253
Vit. Lanfr. 287. “Gratissimi mox succedunt amplexus et oscula.”
Footnote 254
Vit. Lanfr. 287. “Multo etiam cum augmento restituenda promittuntur
quæ Dux nuperrimè devastari jusserat.”
Footnote 255
See this point discussed by Dr. Hook, ii. 94. A quite different
account of the reconciliation of Lanfranc to the Duke, or rather of
his first introduction to him, is given in two passages of William
of Malmesbury, De Gest. Pont. 116 _b_ and 136, one in the Life of
Lanfranc himself, the other in that of Herfast, afterwards Bishop of
Thetford. William’s Chaplains excite him against Lanfranc, because
he had mocked the ignorance of one of their number. The Duke orders
him to leave Normandy, but he goes to Court, obtains an interview
with the Duke, and speedily wins his favour. In the second account
it appears that the Chaplain mocked at was Herfast himself, who came
to Lanfranc’s school with great pomp. Lanfranc then makes a mock of
his ignorance; “Ex primâ colloquutione intelligens quàm prope nihil
sciret, abecedarium ipsi expediendum apposuit, ferociam hominis
Italicâ facetiâ illudens.” The order for banishment then follows.
Lanfranc, somewhat oddly, goes to court to ask for provisions for his
journey (“Quum ad curiam commeatum petiturus venisset”). Then comes
the story of the lame horse, and the Duke is won over to Lanfranc,
mainly through the intercession of William Fitz-Osbern. There is no
mention of Lanfranc’s opposition to the marriage.
This story about the Chaplain may be true; but it can hardly be
doubted, first that Lanfranc was already known to the Duke, secondly
that the main ground of offence was the opposition to the marriage.
Footnote 256
Vit. Lanfr. 289. “Lanfrancus ... Romam venerat ... ut ageret pro Duce
Normannorum et uxore ejus apud Apostolicum.”
Footnote 257
See vol. ii. p. 458.
Footnote 258
Ib. 431.
Footnote 259
Ib. 116.
Footnote 260
He however retracted back again. Vit. Lanfr. 289. See Milman, iii. 51.
Footnote 261
See vol. ii. pp. 116, 227.
Footnote 262
Vit. Lanfr. 289. “Nam Dux puellam [Gerbod is, as usual, forgotten]
quam acceperat nullo pacto dimittere vellet.”
Footnote 263
Ib. “Loquutus cum Papâ Nicolao ostendit quia ejus sententia illos
tantùm gravabat, qui eos nec conjunxerant nec separare poterant.”
Footnote 264
Will. Gem. vii. 26. “Willelmus Dux, dum à quibusdam religiosis
[no mention of Lanfranc personally] sæpiùs redargueretur, eò quod
cognatam suam sibi in matrimonium copulâsset, missis legatis, Romanum
Papam super hâc re consuluit. At ille sagaciter considerans quòd,
si divortium fieri juberet, fortè inter Flandrenses et Normannos
grave bellum exsurgeret, maritum et conjugem à reatu absolvit.” Vit.
Lanfr. 289. “Hoc audiens et verum esse advertens summus Pontifex,
dispensatione habitâ, conjugium concessit.”
Footnote 265
Will. Gem. u.s. “Eis pœnitentiam injunxit. Mandavit enim, ut ab eis
duo cœnobia conderentur, in quibus pro ipsis ab utroque sexu Deo
sedulò preces offerentur.” Vit. Lanfr. 289. “Eo tamen modo quatenùs
Dux et uxor ejus duo monasteria construerent, in quibus singulas
congregationes virorum ac mulierum coadunarent, qui ibi sub normâ
sanctæ relligionis, die noctuque Deo deservirent et pro salute
eorum supplicarent.” William of Malmesbury (iii. 267) would almost
seem to have looked on the foundations as a voluntary expiation,
like the pilgrimage of Swegen; “Postmodùm, provectioribus annis,
pro expiatione sceleris, illum sancto Stephano Cadomis monasterium
ædificâsse, illam beatæ Trinitati in eodem vico idem fecisse, utroque
pro sexu suo personas habitantium eligente.”
On the history of Saint Stephen’s, I must refer to two excellent
local works, “L’Abbaye de Saint-Etienne de Caen, par C. Hippeau,”
Caen, 1855 (M. Hippeau is also known as the editor of the first
complete edition of Garnier’s Life of Saint Thomas), and “Analyse
Architecturale de l’Abbaye de Saint-Etienne de Caen, par G. Bouet,”
Caen, 1867, a book distinguished by the writer’s characteristic
caution and minute accuracy.
Footnote 266
Roman de Rou, 9665;
“Li Dus por satisfacion,
Ke Deus l’en face veir pardon,
E ke l’Apostoile cunsente
Ke tenir poisse sa parente,
Fist cent provendes establir
A cent povres paistre è vestir,
As meshaigniez, as non poanz,
As langoros, as non véanz,
A Chiéresborc et à Roem,
A Baieues et à Caem;
Encore i sunt et encor durent
Issi come establies furent.”
On the blind hospital at Caen, see Hippeau, p. 4. Were persons
admissible whose eyes had been put out by the Duke’s own authority?
Footnote 267
In William’s charter of 1066 (Gallia Christiana, xi. 59–61. I have
to thank M. Châtel, the Archivist of the Department of Calvados,
for the reference), he distinctly says that “honestissima conjux
mea Mathildis, nobilissimi Ducis Flandrensis Balduini filiam ...
construxit basilicam,” and goes on to record its consecration on June
18th. The charter in Neustria Pia, 658–661, is of 1082. He there says
“ecclesiam ... coædificavimus.” Either it was still unfinished, or
the nave has been rebuilt. It is only the eastern part which can be
Matilda’s work.
Footnote 268
This was the great year of consecrations in Normandy. See vol. ii.
pp. 212, 222. The consecration of Saint Stephen’s is distinctly
placed in this year by Orderic, 548 D. At Bec Lanfranc himself
officiated (Will. Gem. vi. 9), but at Caen the ceremony was performed
by the Metropolitan John. I gather from what goes before in Orderic
that William was present at Caen, though he was not at Bec. But
the Chronicle of Saint Stephen itself (Duchèsne, 1018) places the
ceremony in 1073. Other dates given are 1081 and 1086 (see Neustria
Pia, 625, Bouet, 15, 16). One cannot doubt that 1077 is right date
for the main consecration, and that the other dates, if correct,
refer to some smaller ceremony. The western towers (of course not
the upper portions) must have been added soon after the church was
finished. Their style is that of the church, and the masonry shows
that they were designed from the first, though not built at the same
time as the nave. This would quite agree with the date of 1086. For
the consecration of a steeple see vol. ii. p. 437.
Footnote 269
See vol. ii. p. 222, and the verse of Abbot Baldwin in Duchèsne, Rer.
Franc. ii. 257; “Qui Dux Normannis, qui Cæsar præfuit Anglis.”
Footnote 270
Allowing, of course, for the reconstruction of the clerestory and the
addition of the vault.
Footnote 271
See vol. ii. p. 442.
Footnote 272
Will. Gem. vi 9. “Tam domini quam Normanniæ primatum supplicatione
coactus.” I accept Orderic’s date, but the Chronicle of Bec (Giles,
197) places the appointment in 1062.
Footnote 273
Chron. Bec, 197 Giles.
Footnote 274
Will. Malms. iii. 273. “Tulit ex Matilde liberos multos, quæ, et
marito morigera et prole fecunda, nobilis viri animum in sui amoris
incitabat aculeum.” He then goes on with the story of the bridle (see
Appendix N) and the account of the difference about Robert and of
William’s grief at her death.
Footnote 275
On William’s children see Appendix O.
Footnote 276
Chron. Petrib. 1135.
Footnote 277
See Appendix O.
Footnote 278
Monstrelet, i. 324 _b_ (ed. Paris 1595). “Vous charge,” says Henry
the Fifth, “sur tant que vous povez mesprendre, que tant que vous
vivrez, ne souffrez à faire traicté avecques nostre adversaire
Charles de Vallois, ne autres pour chose qu’il advienne, que la Duché
de Normandie ne luy [to his son] demeure franchement.”
Footnote 279
Phil. Comines, i. 15 (vol. i. p. 71, ed. Godefroy 1723). “La chose du
monde qu’il desiroit le plus, c’estoit de voir un Duc en Normandie;
car par ce moyen il luy sembloit le Roy estre affoibly de la tierce
partié.” See the whole history of the grant and reconquest of
Normandy, cap. xii-xv, and Kirk, Charles the Bold, ii. 338 et seqq.
Footnote 280
Ib. i. 13 (vol. i. p. 64). “Et a tousjours bien semblé aux Normands,
et fait encores, que si grand’ Duché, comme la leur, requiert bien
un Duc; et, à dire la verité, elle est de grand’ estime, et s’y leve
de grands deniers.” So, in the same chapter, Lewis says, “que de son
conseulement n’eust jamais baillé tel partage à son frère, mais puis
que d’eux mesmes les Normands en avoient fait cette nouvelleté, il en
estoit content.”
Footnote 281
Phil. Comines, ii. 9, 15 (vol. i. pp. 116, 137). Kirk, i. 272, 334,
525.
Footnote 282
Arist. Rhet. iii. 10. Καὶ Περικλῆς τῆν Αἴγιναν ἀφελεῖν ἐκέλευσε, τὴν
λήμην τοῦ Πειραιέως.
Footnote 283
See Hist. Fed. Gov. i. 621.
Footnote 284
See Appendix P.
Footnote 285
See vol. ii. p. 290.
Footnote 286
See vol. i. p. 198.
Footnote 287
See the charter in Neustria Pia, 694.
Footnote 288
See above, p. 92.
Footnote 289
Will. Gem. vii. 22. Neustria Pia, 496.
Footnote 290
Will. Gem. vii. 22. “Monasterium Sancti Michaelis Ulterioris Portûs
ædificavit.” See the charter in Neustria Pia, 587.
Footnote 291
Will. Pict. 118. The Archdeacon of Lisieux is longer and louder in
the praise of his own diocesan than in the praise of any one except
the Duke himself.
Footnote 292
Ib. 119. “Ipse profectò, quum deponeretur Archipræsul Malgerius, vox
justitiæ sonora fuit, constanter permanens in parte Dei, propter Deum
damnans filium patrui.”
Footnote 293
Will. Gem. vii. 20. “Ducatum sibi volens vendicare, cœpit contra
Ducem minis et infestationibus cervicem erigere.”
Footnote 294
Ib. “Fortis Princeps, nolens ei cedere, exercitum congregarit, et
castrum Oucis, donec illud caperet, obsedit.”
Footnote 295
Ib. “At ille Henricum Regem Francorum expetiit, cui quid sibi
contigisset flebiliter retexit. Rex verò ipsum, utpote nobilem genere
et formâ militem, benignè suscepit, et infortunio ejus condolens
Comitatum Suessionis ei cum quâdam nobili conjuge tribuit.” The
Vermandois family was descended from King Bernard of Italy, son of
Pippin, son of Charles. See Art de Vérifier les Dates, ii. 700,
727. The supposed treason of Bernard seems to have shut out his
descendants from the Imperial and royal succession.
Footnote 296
See Appendix P.
Footnote 297
See vol. ii. pp. 243, 244.
Footnote 298
See vol. ii. p. 181.
Footnote 299
See vol. ii. pp. 242, 243.
Footnote 300
Ord. Vit. 657 B (in the death-bed speech). “Patrui mei Malgerius
Rothomagensis Archepiscopus, et Guillelmus frater ejus, cui Archas et
comitatum Calogii gratis dederam, me velut nothum contempserunt.” So
Roman de Rou, 8565;
“Ki clamout dreit en l’éritage;
Pur ke il esteit nez de muillier.”
And 8583;
“Jamez li Dus ne servireit;
Normendie à grant tort teneit,
Bastart esteit, n’i aveit dreit.”
Footnote 301
Orderic (657 B) adds, after the words last quoted about Malger and
William of Arques; “Henricus Regem et Engelrannum Comitem Pontivi
contra me accerserunt.”
Footnote 302
Will. Pict. 91. “Is ab ineunte pueri principatu infidus ei et
adversus, quamquam fidelitatem juratus et obsequium, hostilia
agitabat, modò temeritate non latente resistens, clandestinis
interdum dolis.”
Footnote 303
Ib. 92. “In supradicti Danfronti oppugnatione quasi desertoris
furtivo more discessit, nequaquam petitâ missione; satellitii
debitum, cujus antea nomine hostilitatem utcumque velabat, jam omne
detrectans.” This can hardly mean that he openly renounced his
allegiance so early as the siege of Domfront.
Footnote 304
Ib. “Ob hæc et alia tot ejus et tanta ausa, Dux uti res monuit,
suspiciens plura et majora ausurum, receptaculi, quo plurimum
confidebat, editius firmamentum occupavit, custodiam immittens, in
nullo ampliùs tamen jus ejus imminuens.”
Footnote 305
On the history of Arques and Talou, see M. Deville’s Histoire du
Chateau d’Arques, Rouen 1829; Stapleton, i. cxxiii.
Footnote 306
See vol. i. p. 240 et seqq.; Flodoard, 944; Richer, ii. 42.
Footnote 307
See above, p. 117.
Footnote 308
Will. Gem. viii. 36. “Haud procul ab oppido Arcarum, villâ quæ
dicitur Schechevilla (Equiqueville).” See vol. i. p. 279.
Footnote 309
On the Viscounts of Arques, see Deville, pp. 9, 13, 19, 87;
Stapleton, i. cxxiii.; Will. Gem. viii. 36. See the lands of
Willelmus de Arcis in Suffolk, Domesday, 431 _b_. An Osbern de Arcis
also occurs in Lincolnshire and Yorkshire.
Footnote 310
Ord. Vit. 657 B (see last page). So Roman de Rou, 8568;
“Pur honur de sun parenté,
E pur aveir sa féelté
Li ad li Dus en fieu duné
Arches è Taillou li cunté.”
Footnote 311
Will. Pict. 92. “Nempe eas latebras, id munimentum initæ elationis
atque dementiæ ipse primus fundavit, et quam operossissimè extruxit
in præalti montis Arcarum cacumine.” Will. Gem. vii. 7. “Nobilitate
verò generis elatus, castrum Archarum in cacumine ipsius montis
condidit.” So the Chronicle of Saint Wandrille in D’Achery, ii. 288.
“Willelmus videlicet qui postea Arcas castrum in pago Tellau primus
statuit.” The building was clearly something novel, and it struck
people in Normandy almost as the building of Richard’s Castle (see
vol. ii. pp. 138–143) struck people in England. I see no reason to
doubt that the ruined keep is part of the original work. As to the
gate, and the other parts assigned to the same date by M. Deville, I
am not quite so certain.
Footnote 312
See vol. ii. p. 191.
Footnote 313
See vol. ii. pp. 176, 177.
Footnote 314
His admirers however need not have carved him in bas-relief over a
gate which may belong to the days of William, and which is at any
rate much older than the days of Henry.
Footnote 315
All these points are gone into minutely by M. Deville. I went over
the castle minutely in May, 1868, with M. Deville’s book in hand,
and I can bear witness to the accuracy of his description, though I
cannot always accept his inferences.
Footnote 316
Both William of Poitiers (92) and Orderic (657 B) place William “in
Constantino pago.” The special mention of Valognes (see vol. ii. p.
247) comes from the Roman de Rou, 8698 et seqq.
Footnote 317
Will. Pict. u.s. “Malefidi custodes non multo post castri potestatem
conditori reddunt, munerum pollicitatione, et impensiùs imminente
variâ sollicitatione fatigati subactique.”
Footnote 318
On the order of events in this revolt, see Appendix Q.
Footnote 319
Will. Pict. 92. “Nam festinantem ut contrairet injuriæ suæ ampliùs
incitaverunt audita mala provinciæ suæ. Ecclesiarum bona, agrestium
labores, negotiatorum lucra militum prædam injustè fieri dolebat.
Miserando planctu imbellis vulgi, _qui multus tempore belli aut
seditionum oriri solet_, advocari se cogitabat.” The mention of
merchants as a numerous and important class marks the growing
civilization of Normandy under its great ruler.
Footnote 320
See vol. ii. p. 249.
Footnote 321
Odo could not have been now above seventeen years old (see vol. ii.
p. 210), nor William himself above twenty-six.
Footnote 322
See vol. ii. p. 240.
Footnote 323
Caudebec = Cold Beck. The arms of the town are appropriately three
fish.
Footnote 324
See Appendix Q.
Footnote 325
I here follow the narrative of William of Poitiers (93), trying
to make it intelligible by borrowing some hints from William of
Malmesbury.
Footnote 326
Will. Pict. 93. “Nihil quidem rebelles in se, quum præsentem
conspexerint, ausuros.”
Footnote 327
See the spirited illustration in Deville, p. 282.
Footnote 328
Will. Pict. 93. “Dein potiri volens munitione, jussu propere
contracto exercitu circumsedit. Fuit difficillimum quos ea natura
loci maximè defensabat expugnare. Sanè more suo illo optimo, rem
optans absque cruore confectum iri, efferatos et contumaces obice
castelli ad montis pedem exstructi ciausit.”
Footnote 329
See vol. ii. p. 264.
Footnote 330
Roman de Rou, 8610;
“Li mielx de la chevalerie
I mist de tute Normendie.”
Footnote 331
The presence of Walter Giffard comes only from a late Chronicle
(Bouquet, xi. 330), where he is prematurely called Count. But, as his
lordship of Longueville lay hard by, nothing is more likely than that
he should be there. He was the son of Osbern of Bolbec—a little town
at the foot of a hill on the way to the more famous Lillebonne—by
Avelina, one of the sisters of Gunnor (Will. Gem. viii. 37). A
brother of Osbern was Godfrey, “pater Willelmi de Archis,” that is,
of the Viscount. See Deville, p. 19. On Walter Giffard, afterwards
Earl of Buckingham, see Ellis, i. 424, and Taylor, Wace, 169.
Footnote 332
This tower, doubtless of wood, is described as a “munitio” in the
extract from William of Poitiers given above. So Will. Gem. vii. 7;
“Erectis aggeribus ad radicem montis castrum stabilivit, quod fortium
virorum robore inexpugnabile reddidit, et sic inde abiens vallatum
alimoniis reliquit.” So Will. Malms. iii. 232; “Obfirmato contra
Archas castello.” Wace (Roman de Rou, 8600) says that the Duke
“De fossez è de heriçun
E de pel fist un chasteillun,
El pié del teltre en la vallée,
Ki garde tute la cuntrée;
Ne pristrent paiz cels del chastel
Ne bués ne vache ne véel;
Li Dus tel chastelet i fist,
Tant chevaliers è tel i mist,
Ki bien le porreient desfendre
Ke Reis ne Quens ne porreit prendre.”
Cf. vol. ii. pp. 139, 264.
Footnote 333
Will. Pict. 94. “Præsidio imposito, aliis postea negotiis
invitantibus, ipse recessit; ut, dum ferro parceret, fame vinceret.”
So Wace, 8612;
“Le Dus s’en est parti atant,
Sez busuignes ailleurs quérant.”
This is by no means clear. William of Malmesbury (u. s.) is rather
more definite; “Obfirmato contra Archas castello, ad alia quæ magis
urgebant bella conversus est.” It was therefore a military operation
in another direction which called William off. We shall see directly
why he avoided personally conducting the blockade.
Footnote 334
This feudal scruple, which really seems the only intelligible
explanation of William’s conduct in leaving the most important
operations to others, comes from William of Malmesbury (u. s.);
“Simul quia sciebat Regem Francorum, jampridem, nescio quâ simultate,
sibi infensum, ad opem obsesso ferendam adventare; namque prædicandi
moderaminis consilio, quamvis justiorem caussam habere videretur, cum
eo decernere ferro cavebat, cui et pro sacramento et pro suffragio
obnoxius erat.” Henry the Second felt the like scruple at the
siege of Toulouse in 1159, but Thomas of London, then the worldly
Chancellor, thought otherwise; “Vanâ superstitione et reverentiâ Rex
tentus consilio aliorum, super urbem, in quâ esset dominus suus Rex
Franciæ, irruere noluit; dicente in contrarium Cancellario, quod
personam domini Rex Francorum ibi deposuisset, cò quod supra pacta
conventa hostem se ei opposuisset.” (Will. Fil. Steph. p. 200, ed.
Giles.)
Footnote 335
We learn the spot of the combat from Wace, Roman de Rou, 8622 et
seqq.;
“Jà ert li Rei à Saint-Albin,” &c.
And this agrees with the description of Richard of Hugleville given
by Orderic (606 B), where he sets forth the pedigree of the family;
“Tempore Guillelmi juvenis filii Rodberti Ducis, Guillelmus de Archis
contra Ducem rebellavit, et penè omnium Calogiensium parilis defectus
nothum principem deseruit; solus Ricardus contra rebelles in castello
suo secus ecclesiam Sancti Albini perstitit, et pro fidelitate Ducis
contra discursus Archacensium provinciam circumjacentem defensare
curavit.”
Footnote 336
See Ord. Vit. 606 D. It is with a thrill of sympathy alike for the
hero and for his chronicler that an Englishman reads the passage,
which I shall have to refer to again.
Footnote 337
Ord. Vit. 606 C. “Hugonem cum omnibus suis Archacenses apud
Moriummontem repente circumdederunt, seseque viriliter defendentem
interemerunt.”
Footnote 338
See vol. ii. p. 246.
Footnote 339
Ord. Vit. u. s.
Footnote 340
Roman de Rou, 8620;
“La sur d’Arches voleit garnir,
Kar li blé lur debvait faillir,
Jà ert li Rei à Saint-Albin,
Asez portout è blé è vin;
Là les fist li Rei arester,
E lur garnisun aprester
Sumiers ki lur herneis portassent,
E chevaliers k’il convéiassent.”
So Will. Gem. vii. 7. “Exercitum castra metari apud Sanctum Albinum
jussit.”
Footnote 341
See Appendix Q.
Footnote 342
Roman de Rou, 8628;
“Cil del chastel oïrent tost
La garnisun è li grant ost.”
The “tur” is the castle of Arques; the “chastel” is the wooden castle
of the besiegers.
Footnote 343
Will. Gem. vii. 7. “Cujus [Regis] adventum milites Ducis
comperientes, de suis miserunt, si quos fortè hostium à regio cœtu
abstraherent, quos illi in latibulis degentes incautos exciperent.
Quò dum venissent, non minimam exercitûs partem inde protraxerunt, et
fugientes in insidias induxerunt. Statim verò qui videbantur fugere,
versâ facie cœperunt eos acriter cædere.” So Roman de Rou, 8632 et
seqq. Less fully Will. Pict. 94; “Adducti in spem memorandi facinoris
quidam ex eo numero qui in præsidio Ducis relicti custodiunt,
Francorum adventantium itinera explorata insidunt. Et ecce numerosa
pars minus cauti excipiuntur.”
Footnote 344
Will. Malms, iii. 232. “Quorum astutiâ insidiis exceptus, Isembardum
Pontivi comitem coram se obtruncari, Hugonem Bardulfum capi, meritò
ingemuit.”
Footnote 345
All our accounts speak of the capture of Hugh Bardulf as of an event
of at least equal importance with the death of the Count of Ponthieu.
William of Poitiers (u. s.) says, “Hugo Bardulfus ipse item, vir
magnus, capitur.”
Footnote 346
“In the roll of Norman fees in the red book of the Exchequer, we
find Doon Bardulf returned as one of those ‘qui non venerunt, nec
miserunt, nec aliquid dixerunt.’” I copy this from Taylor’s Wace,
p. 44. The name of Bardulf, including several Doun Bardulfs, occurs
constantly in the Exchequer Records both of Normandy and of England
(see the Indexes to Madox and Stapleton), but I have not lighted on
the particular story referred to by Mr. Taylor.
Footnote 347
See vol. i. p. 227 et pass.
Footnote 348
Chron. Centul. iv. 21 (ap. D’Achery, ii. 343). “Attamen huic numquam
Comitis nomen accessit, sed erat illi insigne quod Sancti Richarii
vocabatur Advocatus.” On Saint Riquier see vol. ii. p. 535.
Footnote 349
Ib. “Ablatis monasterio Centulo tribus oppidis, Abbatis-villâ, Sancto
Medardo, et Incrâ, et his castellis effectis, in eorumque stippendia
multis aliis Sancti Richarii villis et reditibus ab Hugone Rege
prærogatis.” Cf. iv. 12.
Footnote 350
See Chron. Centul. ii. 7. Sir Francis Palgrave (iii. 226), by one
of the slips so natural in a chapter not revised by the author,
confounds father and son.
Footnote 351
I find that in my second volume I have written this name Ingelram
in the text (p. 217) and Enguerrand in the Appendix (p. 587). Such
accidents will happen, especially with foreign names. Ingelram
(whence Ingram) is certainly the English form, though the name was
never common in England; I therefore prefer it, as does Sir F.
Palgrave.
Footnote 352
Hariulf (Chron. Cent. iv. 21) calls the elder Hugh “Hugo Abbatensis,”
and the Ingelram slain at Saint Aubin is by William of Jumièges (vii.
7) called “Abbatis-villæ Comes.” Ingelram, according to Hariulf, took
the title of Count (“Dei gratia Comes”) on slaying Baldwin Count of
Boulogne and marrying his widow Adelaide. Chron. Cent. iv. 12.
Footnote 353
See vol. ii. p. 217.
Footnote 354
William of Jumièges (vii. 7) calls the wife of William of Arques
“soror Widonis Comitis Pontivi.” That is a daughter of Hugh. Why
is Ingelram called “Comes Abbatisvillæ,” and his brother “Comes
Pontivi,” in the same chapter?
Footnote 355
See vol. ii. p. 587.
Footnote 356
The death of Ingelram is mentioned in all our accounts, like the
capture of Hugh Bardulf.
Footnote 357
This is Guy who imprisoned Harold. His uncle, another Guy, son of
Ingelram the First, was Bishop of Amiens (see Chron. Cent. iv. 36.
p. 355), and wrote the famous poem “De Bello Hastingensi.” See Will.
Gem. vii. 44.
Footnote 358
The other daughter married Odo of Champagne. See vol. ii. p. 588, and
below, p. 142.
Footnote 359
William of Poitiers (94) calls him “nobilitate notus ac fortudine,”
and William (or Orderic) in the death-bed speech (657 B) says
“præcursores mei præoccupaverunt Engelrannum Comitem in castrum
intrare festinantem, ipsumque fortiter pugnantem, quia miles erat
asperrimus, occiderunt, et agmina ejus fugaverunt.” Hariulf, in the
Chronicle of Saint Riquier (iv. 21), calls him “homo formæ mirabilis.”
Footnote 360
Will. Pict. (u. s.) “Perveniens tamen quo ire intenderat, Rex
exacerbatissimis animis summâ vi præsidium attentavit: Willelmum
ab ærumnis uti eriperet, pariter decrementum sui, stragem suorum
vindicaret. Sed ubi negotium difficile animadvertit, quippe inimicos
impetus facilè toleraverunt castelli munimenta et militum virtus æque
validæ ... abire maturavit.”
Footnote 361
So I understand the not very clear statement of William of Poitiers
that the King went away.
Footnote 362
Will. Pict. 96. “In ipsâ morâ obsidionali Normannorum aliquanti
potentiores ab Duce ad Regem defecerunt, quos jam antea
conspirationis rebellantium occultique fuisse adjutores opinabile
erat. Malevolentiam, quâ olim contra infantem fuerant inflati nondum
evomuere totam. Eorum eo consortio Guimundus præsidens munitioni quam
Molendinas appellant in manus Regis eam dedit.” William of Malmesbury
seems to make the movement a popular one; “Hujusce obsidionis
intervallo populus castri quod Molendinis dicitur, exolescens, ad
partes Regis incentore quodam Galterio transiit.” Is this Walter the
same as the Wimund of the other William?
Footnote 363
See Stapleton, i. cxxxiii. et al.
Footnote 364
Will. Pict. 96. “Guido frater Comitis Pictavensis Willelmi atque
Romanæ Imperatricis.” So Will. Malms. This Guy (see Art de Vérifier
les Dates, ii. 356) is the same as the Geoffrey whom Geoffrey Martel
established in Gascony. See vol. ii. p. 595.
Footnote 365
Chron. Maxent. 1058 (Labbé, ii. 210). “Willermus, qui et Petrus
cognomento Acer.”
Footnote 366
See vol. ii. p. 373.
Footnote 367
In the Chronicle of Saint Maxentius he is called Geoffrey in 1044,
1058, 1060, 1061, 1062, Guy and Geoffrey in 1068, William in 1071,
lastly in 1086, “Guido qui et Goffredus.” This is certainly the way
to confuse genealogists.
Footnote 368
Will. Pict. 95. “Rex denuò accitus multo et miserè supplici nuncio
venire abnuit.” The Archdeacon now gets very eloquent, and gives
us all the inner workings of the mind of one whom he calls “Papiæ
partus.” It takes a minute or two to see that by this odd description
he means the Count of Arques.
Footnote 369
This ceremony was gone through by the Count-Bishop Hugh (see vol.
i. p. 514) to Richard the Good; “Equestrem sellam ferens humeris,
provolutus genibus Richardi,” &c. Will. Gem. v. 16. Palgrave,
iii. 133. Cf. Will. Malms. iii. 235. So we now read in William of
Poitiers; “Pars ocreis et calcaribus ornati [why?], insolito comitatu
incedentes, et eorum plerique sellam equestrem incurvo languidoque
dorso, nonnulli solum se nutabundi vix eportantes.”
Footnote 370
Will. Pict. 95. “Erat item cernere calamitatem levis armatura
egredientis fœdam ac variam.”
Footnote 371
Ib. 96. “Verum et ii, et quiqui aliàs relicti sunt a Francis, quum
deditas esse comperissent Archarum latebras, sese nostris fugâ furati
sunt.”
Footnote 372
Ib. 95. “Noluit extorrem et inopem casu magis pudendo cruciari;
sed cum gratiâ et possessionibus quibusdam amplis atque multorum
redituum, patriam ei concessit.”
Footnote 373
Will. Gem. vii. 7. See Deville, p. 78 et seqq. I see no difficulty in
reconciling the two accounts.
Footnote 374
See Deville, p. 89.
Footnote 375
See above, p. 92.
Footnote 376
See above, pp. 93, 101.
Footnote 377
See above, p. 94.
Footnote 378
See vol. i. p. 189; vol. ii. p. 202.
Footnote 379
Will. Pict. 96. “Normanniam, quæ sub Regibus Francorum egit ex
antiquo, prope in regnum evectam.” What would our old friend Dudo
(see vol. i. pp. 193, 209, 247) have said to the “prope”?
Footnote 380
Ib. “Quum Imperatorem Romanum, quo majus potentiæ sive dignitatis
nomen in orbe terrarum aliud non est, amicum et socium haberet.”
Footnote 381
Ib. “Quum provinciis multis præsideret potentibus, quarum domini aut
rectores militiæ suæ essent administri, Comitem Willelmum suum nec
amicum nec militem, sed hostem esse.”
Footnote 382
See above, p. 116.
Footnote 383
Art de Vérifier les Dates, ii. 614.
Footnote 384
Ib. But it must be borne in mind that the kinswoman of William’s whom
Odo married was not Adelaide, the Duke’s sister, but the younger
Adelaide, her daughter by Ingelram of Ponthieu. See vol. ii. p. 588.
Footnote 385
Will. Pict. 97. “Condolentes in eâdem Theobaldus, Pictavorum Comes,
Gaufredus, item reliqui summates, quâdam insuper indignatione privatâ
intolerandum ducebant sese Regis, quocumque prævia vocarent, signis
parere; Willelmum Normannorum nequaquam pro Rege, sed confidenter
atque indesinenter ad ejus magnitudinem, quam aliquantùm attrivit,
ulteriùs atterendam, vel si quâ viâ valeant, conterendam, in armis
agitare.”
Footnote 386
Will. Pict. 97. “Præterea concupiebant Normanniam, aut ejus partem,
quidam Regis proximi.”
Footnote 387
Ib. “Julium Cæsarem, vel bellandi peritiorem aliquem, si fuerit
peritior, exercitûs Romani ducem (ex mille nationibus coacti olim,
dum Roma florentissima mille provinciis imperitâsset) hujus agminis
immanitate terreri potuisse affirmares.”
Footnote 388
Ib. “Burgundiam, Arverniam, atque Wasconiam properare videres
horribiles ferro: imo vires tanti regni, quantùm in climata mundi
quatuor patent, cunctas, Franciam tamen et Britanniam, quantò nobis
viciniores, tantò ardentius infestas.” As he speaks of the “regnum,”
he clearly means by Burgundy only the Duchy which held of the French
Crown. His use of “Francia” along with the rest, as the name of one
part of Gaul, should be noticed. Compare the use of the word by
Flodoard; see vol. i. p. 199.
Footnote 389
Will. Pict. 98. “Guido, Pontivi Comes, ad vindicandum fratrem
Ingelrannum nimis avidus.” Will. Malms. iii. 233. “Guido Pontivi
Comes studiosiùs ultionis fratris intendit.”
Footnote 390
I find no mention of Geoffrey as present, except in William of
Jumièges (vii. 24), who makes him accompany the King. This account is
followed by Benoît of Saint More, 35245;
“Li quens d’Anjou Gefrei Martel,
Qui del ovraigne esteit mult bel,
I vint od riche compaignie
E od ses archers de valie.”
But it is strange that William of Poitiers and the other writers
should have left out so important a person, had he really been there,
and his absence, hard as it is to account for it, agrees better with
what follows.
Footnote 391
Ord. Vit. 657 D (cf. 638 D). “Aliam [phalangem] Odoni fratri suo
ac Rainaldo de Claro Monte, et duobus Consulibus, Radulfo de
Monte-Desiderii atque Widoni de Pontivo, commendavit.” William of
Poitiers, like Richer of old (see vol. i. p. 223, note 3, cf. 237,
note 2), is strong in his antiquated geography. He tells us (98)
about “Quantus miles inter Sequanam et Garonnam fluvios colligeretur
(quas gentes multas uno nomine Celtigallos appellant);” then about
those who were “inter flumen Rhenum [Henry the Frank’s notions about
the Rhine frontier were doubtless different] et Sequanam collecti,
quæ Gallia Belgica nuncupatur.” Lastly, “Regem insuper comitabatur
Aquitania pars Galliæ tertia.” Reginald of Clermont is “Rainaldus
familiarissimus.” Was he commissioned to supply the incapacity of
Odo? See vol. i. p. 520.
Footnote 392
Roman de Rou, 9919;
“La gent de dous parz a mandée
Si come Saine l’a devisée.”
Footnote 393
Ord. Vit. 657 D. “Ut per vada Eptæ Neustriam citò introirent, Braium
et Calcegium totumque Rothomagensem pagum invaderent ferro et flammâ,
nec ne rapinis usque ad mare penitus devastarent.”
Footnote 394
See above, p. 119.
Footnote 395
Hugh Capet was crowned at Noyon. Richer, iv. 12. See vol. i. p. 268.
Footnote 396
Roman de Rou, 9923. “Cels de Melant è de Vermendeiz.” See above, p.
120. The reigning Count was Herbert the Fourth.
Footnote 397
Guy, Bishop of Amiens, the author of the poem “De Bello Hastingensi”
(see Will. Gem. vii. 44), was a son of Ingelram the First and uncle
of Guy and of Ingelram the Second. He succeeded to the see about 1058.
Footnote 398
See above, pp. 136, 139.
Footnote 399
Wace, 9925, says “Cels de _Flandres_ è de Belmont,” and Benoît
(35255) “La furent _Flamenc_ e Poher.” But the presence of subjects
of Baldwin is exceedingly unlikely, and Benoît in some sort confutes
himself by adding “E Braibençon e Hainuer,” thus getting beyond the
borders of the Western realm within which the others strictly confine
themselves. He was most likely misled, as others have been since, by
the grand talk about the Rhine.
Footnote 400
That is, if Provins roses, brought from the East by pilgrims or
Crusaders, had reached Europe so soon.
Footnote 401
Isaiah xlvii. 7.
Footnote 402
Roman de Rou, 9943. “De Bourges è de Berri.” As usual, the names of
the city and of the district are both slightly varying forms of the
old Gaulish name; but it is curious to see them distinguished in such
a marked way, which seems not to be done in any other part of the
catalogue.
Footnote 403
Livy, v. 34. “Celtarum quæ pars Galliæ tertia est penes Bituriges
summa imperii fuit; ii Regem Celtico dabant, Ambigatus is fuit,” etc.
Then follows the account of his sending forth the Colonies under his
sister’s sons Bellovesus and Sigovesus. Did the special sanctity of a
sister’s son (see vol. ii. p. 368) extend to the Celts?
Footnote 404
Cæsar, B. G. vii. 18, 19. Merivale, Roman Empire, ii. 14.
Footnote 405
Livy, v. 35. “Senones recentissimi advenarum.” They alone seem to
have been concerned in the taking of Rome.
Footnote 406
Roman de Rou, 9941;
“Cels de Perche è del Chartrain,
Cels del boscage è cels del plain.”
Footnote 407
See vol. i. p. 189.
Footnote 408
See vol. i. p. 260.
Footnote 409
See Ord. Vit. 655 C. He gives Fulk Bishop of Amiens, the predecessor
of Guy, as a third son of Drogo and Godgifu besides Walter and Ralph.
Footnote 410
Roman de Rou, 9948;
“Normanz manace, mult se vante
K’il destruireit Evrecin,
Rosmeis destruira è Lievin
Tres k’à la mer chevalchera,
E par Auge s’en reveindra.”
Footnote 411
Ord. Vit. 657 D. “Ego è contra non segnis processi, contra Regis
mapalia per litus Sequanæ cum meis me semper opposui.” So Roman de
Rou, 9965;
“L’altre ont li Dus od sei,
Ki remaindrant cuntre li Rei.”
He then goes on with the catalogue.
Footnote 412
See vol. ii. p. 257.
Footnote 413
Ib. p. 260.
Footnote 414
Ib. p. 268.
Footnote 415
Roman de Rou, 9967;
“Venir fist cels de Beessin
E li Barunz de Costentin.”
Footnote 416
See vol. ii. p. 258.
Footnote 417
See vol. ii. p. 290 et seqq.
Footnote 418
Roman de Rou, 9968;
“E cels del val de Moretoing
E d’Avrenches ki est plus loing.”
Footnote 419
Ib. 9975;
“Mult prez sereit, ço dist, del Rei,
Prez del Rei se herbergereit,
E des forriers garde prendreit:
N’ireient mie luing en forage,
K’il ni’aient, s’il poet, damage.
La viande fist tresturner
De la ù li Reis dut passer:
Li bestes fist as bois mener
Et as vilains les fist garder.”
Footnote 420
Will. Malms. iii. 233. “Juxta Regis castra sensim obambulans, ... ut
nec cominùs pugnandi copiam faceret, nec provinciam coram se vastari
sineret.”
Footnote 421
Roman de Rou, 9960. “Et de Gornai li viel Huon.” Old indeed, as Mr.
Taylor (Wace, 217) truly says, if he had found his bride at the court
of King Pippin. Yet he lived to fight at Senlac. The name survives at
Barrow Gurney in Somersetshire and elsewhere.
Footnote 422
See Taylor’s Wace, 171. De Crisp. Gen. Giles 342.
Footnote 423
See above, p. 129. To these four William of Poitiers adds Hugh of
Montfort.
Footnote 424
Roman de Rou, 9983–9989. Cf. Benoît, 35325. William of Poitiers
rather slurs this part over, in order to bring in the carnage of
Mortemer at once.
Footnote 425
Benoît, 35339;
“Si ce fuissent genz Sarrazine,
Ne fiessent teu descepline.”
Footnote 426
Roman de Rou, 10007. “Vilains pernent, fames porgiesent.” Benoît goes
more into detail.
Footnote 427
Benoît, 35341;
“N’i espairnent à riens vivanz,
N’as vielles genz ne as enfanz.”
Footnote 428
Roman de Rou, 9990;
“A Mortemer se herbergierent;
Par l’aesement des ostelz.”
And again, 10010;
“Asez truverent biax ostelz.”
So Benoît, 35353;
“Mais la nuit aiment les deliz
Des bons mangers e les bons liz.”
Footnote 429
Will. Gem. vii. 24. “In incendiis et mulierum ludibriis occupati.”
Footnote 430
Roman de Rou, 10031 (cf. Benoît, 35394 et seqq.);
“Tel kuide son cheval munter,
Ki el frein ne poet assener,
Tel kuide de l’ostel issir
Ki à l’us ne poet avenir.”
Footnote 431
Roman de Rou, 10035;
“Normanz gardouent les iessues,
E li trepas as chiefs des rues.”
So Benoît, 35404. He tells us (35399);
“E li mortel brait sunt si grant
Que l’om n’i oïst Deu tonant.”
Compare Giovanni Villani’s (xii. 66. Murat. xiii. 948) description of
the bombards at Crecy; “Che facieno si grande tremuoto e romore, che
parea che Iddio tonasse.”
Footnote 432
Will. Gem. vii. 24. “Mane commissum bellum in continuâ cæde
occumbentium ad usque nonam ab utrisque est protractis.” So Roman de
Rou, 10039;
“Dez li matin soleil levant
Tresk’a none del jur passant.”
The war “in hieme ante Quadragesimam” (Ord. Vit. 658 A).
Footnote 433
Roman de Rou, 10051;
“N’i out gaires si vil garçon
Ki n’enmenast Franceiz prison,
E bels destriers n’out dous u treis,
Od tut l’altre menu herneis.
N’out chartre en tute Normendie,
Ki de Franceiz ne fust emplie.”
Footnote 434
“Equorum velocitate saluti consulunt,” says William of Poitiers (98),
whose account is confused, and who seems anxious to pass off the
surprise as a regular battle. Orderic (658 A) says “velocitate pedum
viguerunt.” He also calls it “terribile prœlium,” &c., but I do not
see that this contradicts Wace’s account, grounded on William of
Jumièges.
Footnote 435
Roman de Rou, 10049, after recording the captivity of Guy;
“Maiz Valeran, sun frere, unt mort,
Chevalier mult vaillant è fort.”
Footnote 436
Ord. Vit. 658 A. “Post duos annos hominium ab eo tali tenore recepi,
ut exinde mihi semper fidelis exsisteret, et militare servitium, ubi
jussissem, cum centum militibus mihi singulis annis exhiberet.”
Footnote 437
Ib. “Hominium enim jamdudum illi fecerat.”
Footnote 438
Ib. “In tali ergo necessitate pulcrum illi et competens servitium
impendit, dum in castro suo illum triduo protexit et postea salvum ad
sua perduxit.”
Footnote 439
Ord. Vit. 658 A. “Castrum tamen Mortui-maris, in quo inimicum meum
salvavit, illi _jure, ut reor_ [it is curious to see the Conqueror on
his defence], abstuli, sed Guillelmo de Guarennâ, consanguineo ejus,
tironi legitimo, dedi.” All about William of Warren and his family
will be found in Mr. Stapleton’s paper in the Archæological Journal,
iii. 8, 14.
Footnote 440
Stapleton, Arch. Journal, p. 6.
Footnote 441
William of Warren and Roger of Mortemer were both descended from
Herfast, a brother of the Duchess Gunnor. Will. Gem. viii. 37.
Footnote 442
See above, p. 86.
Footnote 443
For the famous answer of John Earl of Warren (a descendant of William
in the female line) to the Commissioners “Quo Warranto” in Edward the
First’s time, see Walter of Hemingburgh, ii. 6.
Footnote 444
Roman de Rou, 10063;
“Cele nuit méisme asez tost
Vint la novele al Duc en l’ost.”
Footnote 445
Benoît gets eloquent on this head, and gives us (35469 et seqq.) a
picture of William at his devotions; “ses mains jointes,” “od lermes
de pieté.”
Footnote 446
Benoît, 35493;
“Logée fu en teu maniere
Par son l’eve d’une riviere:
E sor eus fu grant la faleise.”
Footnote 447
See vol. i. p. 514; ii. p. 199. That the messenger was Ralph of
Toesny is affirmed by William of Jumièges (vii. 24), Orderic (658
B, where of course it is put into William’s own mouth), and Benoît
(35479). William of Poitiers (99) says only “cautè instructum
quemdam,” and Wace (10074) says expressly,
“Fist un home tost envéier,
Ne sai varlet u esquier.”
Footnote 448
See Roman de Rou, 12718.
Footnote 449
See Orderic, 576 B, 687 D. On this Elizabeth or Isabel, see Palgrave,
iv. 249, 259.
Footnote 450
Will. Gem. vii. 25.
Footnote 451
Ord. Vit. 813 D.
Footnote 452
William of Poitiers (99) and Wace (10077), who do not call the
messenger Ralph of Toesny, make him mount a tree. Orderic does not
mention his position, and William of Jumièges (vii. 24) and Benoît
(35406) make him climb the high rock—“in quodam proximo monte,”
according to William—already spoken of. To climb a tree was seemingly
below the dignity of a descendant of Malahulc.
Footnote 453
William of Jumièges, followed by Benoît, makes Ralph say who he is,
and describe the event of the battle at some length—at greater length
of course in Benoît than in William. This, I think, quite takes away
from the startling and spectral effect of the scene in Wace, 10077;
“En un arbre le fist munter,
E tute nuit en haut crier:
‘Franceiz, Franceiz, levez, levez,
Tenez vos veies, trop dormez;
Alez vos amis enterrer,
Ki sunt occiz à Mortemer.’
Li Reis oï ke cil cria
Merveilla sei, mult s’esmaia.”
William of Poitiers says only, “Dux Willelmus nocte intempestâ cautè
instructum quemdam direxit, qui tristem Regi victoriam propiùs castra
ipsius ab alto arboris per singula inclamavit.” Orderic (658 B) is
still shorter; “Per Radulfum de Toëniâ quæ trans Sequanam contigerant
Regi Francorum mandavi.”
Footnote 454
So I understand Wace (10089);
“Endementres k’al Rei parloent,
E de noveles demandoent,
Eis vus la novele venue
E par tute terre espandue,
Ke tut li mielx de lor amiz
Esteit à Mortemer occiz.”
He had just before said (10067);
“C’est une chose, ke novele,
Ki mult est errant et isnele,
E ki bone novele porte
Séurement bute à la porte.”
So Will. Pict. 100. “Famâ referente, quæ tam falsi quam veri nuntia
volat.” Compare Mr. Grote’s remarks and quotations on the φήμη. Hist.
of Greece, v. 260.
Footnote 455
Will. Pict. 99. “Rex attonitus inopinato nuntio, procul omni
cunctatione signo antelucano suos in fugam excitavit; summè
necessarium ratus quàm maximâ celeritate Normanniæ finibus discedere.”
Footnote 456
Plutarch, Moralia, ii. 51 (ed. Tauchnitz) “Πρὸς δὲ τοὺς φέγοντας
αὐτὸν ἐπὶ τῷ δι’ ἀπάτης πολλὰ πράσσειν, ὡς ἀνάξιον τοῦ Ἡρακλέους,
ἔλεγεν [ὁ Λύσανδρος], Ὅπου μὴ ἐφικνεῖται ἡ λεοντῆ, προςραπτέον ἐκεῖ
τὴν ἀλωπεκῆν.”
Footnote 457
See vol. ii. p. 261.
Footnote 458
Ib. p. 279.
Footnote 459
See above, p. 126.
Footnote 460
Will. Pict. 99. “Multa dehinc hostilia utrimque acta sunt, qualia
præter belli conflictum inter tantos hostes fieri solent.”
Footnote 461
See vol. ii. pp. 203–205.
Footnote 462
Will. Gem. vii. 25. “Postea Dux contra Tegulense castrum, quod Rex
illi dudum abstulerat, aliud oppidum non deterius, quod Bretolium
usque hodie vocatur, instaurat.”
Footnote 463
Will. Gem. vii. 25. So Benoît, 35553, who takes the opportunity to
give the life of William Fitz-Osbern at length.
Footnote 464
Roman de Rou, 10133;
“Maiz li herneiz unt tut lessié
A cels ki l’orent gaaingnié.”
Footnote 465
Will. Pict. 99. “Ejus [Regis] vero assensu et quasi dono quodam Dux
jure perpetuo retineret quod Gaufrido Andegavorum Comiti abstulerat,
quodque valeret auferre.” Will. Malms. iii. 233. “Conventum ut ...
Comes erepta vel eripienda Martello jure vendicaret legitimo.”
Footnote 466
See vol. ii. pp. 281–289.
Footnote 467
I see no reason to doubt that the present ruined tower is that taken
by William in 1049.
Footnote 468
See vol. ii. p. 289. The fortification of Ambrières in 1049 is
distinctly asserted in the passage of William of Jumièges there
referred to; but William of Poitiers certainly speaks now as if the
castle had to be built rather than merely to be strengthened.
Footnote 469
Will. Pict. 99. “In ipso conventu principes militiæ suæ jussu
commonuit Dux _intra terminos Martelli Andegavensis_ ad Ambreras
_construendas_ maturè adesse paratos.”
Footnote 470
Ib. “Et quem hujus incœpti diem eis ipse, eumdem Martello per legatos
præfinivit.” The Archdeacon here bursts into a torrent of admiration.
Compare William’s earlier challenge to Geoffrey. See vol. ii. p. 285.
Footnote 471
See below, p. 208 et seqq.
Footnote 472
Will. Pict. 99. “Cui tyrannus Martellus, ut erat elatus animo,
grandia præsumere et loqui solitus, ‘Meum,’ inquit, ‘sicut vilis et
pudendi domini, omninò abnuas dominium, si, patiente me, patrari
videas quod metuis.’”
Footnote 473
Ib. 100. “Die præfinito, Cenomannicum solum ingressus, Normannorum
rector, dum castrum, quod minatus est, erigit.”
Footnote 474
Cf. vol. i. p. 326; vol. ii. p. 398.
Footnote 475
Will. Pict. 100. “Quem [Gaufredum] ubi ampliùs opinione morari
videt, et jam de cibariorum penuriâ plebeii pariter ac proceres
conqueruntur, ne milite minùs prompto in futurum utatur, modò
dimittere statuit, castro viris et alimoniis munito, jubens tamen
ut, quum nuntium ejus acceperint, quantociùs eodem redeant cuncti.”
Compare Harold’s orders in the Welsh war at about the same time, vol.
ii. p. 394.
Footnote 476
Will. Pict. 100. “Exercitûs nostri mox divulgato discessu.”
Footnote 477
Ib. “Willelmo, Pictavorum Comite, Domino suo.” See vol. ii. p. 594.
Footnote 478
See above, p. 138.
Footnote 479
See above, p. 139.
Footnote 480
Will. Pict. 100. “Eudone, Britannorum Comite.” He was however rather
Regent for his nephew. See Art de Vérifier les Dates, ii. 896.
Footnote 481
Will. Pict. u. s. “Missilia, saxa, libriles sudes, item lanceæ
desuper feriunt. Iis plerique interemti cadunt, alii repelluntur.
Sic, audaci molimine cassato, aliud incipiunt. Tentant murum ariete,
qui percussus in virgâ castellanorum frangitur.”
Footnote 482
Ib. “Willelmus, omnis moræ impatiens, evocat exercitum, subventum ire
quam maximè properat.”
Footnote 483
Will. Pict. 100. “Quem postquam inimici, tres adeò nominati Comites,
adequitare percipiunt mirâ celeritate, ne dicam trepidâ fugâ, cum
immanibus exercitibus dilabuntur.”
Footnote 484
Ib. “Victor Gaufredum Meduanensem ... intra exiguum tempus eousque
compulit, ut in remotissimis Normanniæ partibus sibi manus perdomitas
daret, fidelitatem quam satelles domino debet jurans.” William of
Jumièges (vii. 27), followed by Wace (10189) and Benoît (35627),
places here the conquest of Le Mans and the taking of Mayenne. The
source of the confusion is obvious.
Footnote 485
See above, p. 164.
Footnote 486
See vol. ii. p. 286.
Footnote 487
On Roca Mabiliæ or Roche Mabille, see Stapleton, i. lxxiii.
Footnote 488
See above, p. 96.
Footnote 489
See above, p. 104.
Footnote 490
Will. Pict. 101. “Martellus Andegavensis, nondum tot sinistris
casibus fractus, minimè defuit, quantum ullatenùs virium colligere
potuit adducens. Vix enim hujus inimici odium et rabiem Normanniæ
tellus penitus contusa vel excisa satiaret.” So Roman de Rou, 10271;
“Par li cunseil Giffrei Martel.” So Benoît, 35855.
Footnote 491
Roman de Rou, 10272;
“Encuntre aost, el blé novel.”
Footnote 492
Will. Pict. 101. “Per Oximensem comitatum ad fluvium Divam
pervenere.” So Will. Gem. vii. 28; Roman de Rou, 10278; Benoît, 35866.
Footnote 493
Roman de Rou, 10303;
“Li Roiz son ovre apareilla,
Vers Baieues, ço dist, ira,
Béessin tot essillera,
E quant d’iluec repairera,
Par Varaville passera,
Auge è Lievin vastera.”
Footnote 494
Ib. 10289;
“Li Dus out sa gent à Faleise;
Noveles out dont mult li peise,
Tort li fet li Reis, ço li semble,
Ses chevaliers mande et asemble,
Ses castiaz fist tost enforcier,
Fossez parer, murs redrecier.
Li plain païs laira gaster,
S’il ses castiax puet bien garder.
Bien porra, ço dit, recovrer,
Et as plaines terres amender.”
Footnote 495
See above, p. 117.
Footnote 496
Roman de Rou, 10313;
“Encore ert Caem sanz chastel,
N’i aveit fet mur ne quesnel.”
Footnote 497
See vol. i. p. 243.
Footnote 498
Wace alone (Roman de Rou, 10319 et al.) speaks, throughout his
narrative, of a bridge. All the other writers (Will. Pict. 101; Will.
Gem. vii. 28; Will. Malms. iii. 234; Benoît, 35899) speak only of a
ford—“vadum Divæ”—or, as Benoît calls it,
“As guez où la grant mer parfonde
C’estent e espant e sorunde.”
This is plainly one of Benoît’s exaggerations. The spot is perfectly
well marked by the causeway mentioned by Wace (10351), which is still
in use, and leads to the present bridge over the tidal stream. The
two accounts may be easily reconciled, if we suppose that a bridge
was first thrown across between the time of the battle and the time
of Wace, and that Wace naturally described the place as it was in
his own time. Benoît is therefore, for once, more accurate in his
narrative than Wace; but his accuracy is quite accidental; Benoît
simply dressed up the tale as he found it in the Latin writers; Wace,
as ever, used his own powers of local observation.
Footnote 499
Roman de Rou, 10405;
“Munté fu de suz Basteborc,
Vit Varavile è vit Caborc,
Vit les marez, vit les valées
De plusors païs lunges è lées.”
Wace alone mentions the names Varaville and Bastebourg. I visited
the battle-field in May 1868 in company with my friend M. Le Gost of
Caen, and I can, as at Val-ès-Dunes and everywhere else, bear witness
to the accuracy of Wace’s local description.
Footnote 500
Will. Pict. 101. “Nam, dum ad vadum Divæ morarentur, supervenit ipse
alacer cum exiguâ manu virorum felici horâ.”
Footnote 501
Will. Gem. vii. 28. “Quod [vadum] Rege transeunte, media exercitûs
pars substitit, mare eructuante, ob redundationem fluminis non valens
transmeare.” So Benoit, 35904. This explains the “morarentur” of
William of Poitiers, who himself says afterwards (102), “Ne vero jure
sæviens [Willelmi] gladius in adversam ripam insequeretur, rheuma
maris obstabat alveum Divæ insuperabili mole occupantis.”
Footnote 502
Roman de Rou, 10345;
“La véissiez fiere medlée,
Mainte colp de lance è maint d’espée;
Des lances fierent chevaliers,
_Et o les ars traient archiers_.”
Footnote 503
Ib. 10357;
“Mult lor anuie la cauchie,
K’il truvent lunge et empirie.”
Footnote 504
Roman de Rou, 10377;
“Mult véssiez herneiz floter,
Homes plungier et affondrer.”
Cf. Virg. Æn. i. 100;
“Ubi tot Simoeis correpta sub undis
Scuta virôm galeasque et fortia corpora volvit.”
Wace, it must be remembered, conceiving the bridge to have been
there, attributes to its breaking what was really owing to the coming
in of the tide.
Footnote 505
Roman de Rou, 10410;
“Vit sa grant gent ki a duil vait,
Prendre vit les uns è loier,
Li altres vit en mer néier;
Ciax ki neient ne pot secorre,
Ne les prisons ne puet rescorre.”
Footnote 506
Roman de Rou, 10415;
“De mautalent soufle è suspire,
De pesance ne set ke dire;
Mult véissiez sun cors desfrire;
E sun viaire taindre d’ire.
Volentiers, ço dist, retornast
S’il arière passer kuidast,
Si les barnages li loast,
Maiz nus ne loe k’il i past.”
Footnote 507
Will. Gem. vii. 28. “Amicitiam quoque Ducis, consideratâ ejus
probitate, requisivit, et Tegulense castrum, quod dudum abstulerat,
illi tradidit.”
Footnote 508
Ib. “Caussâ corporeæ salutis a Johanne medicorum peritissimo potionem
accepit. Sed, veneno nimiam sitim inferente, jussum archiatri
sprevit et a cubiculario potum accipiens dum medicus abesset, ante
purgationem bibit. Unde nimis infirmatus, eodem die post perceptionem
sacræ eucharistiæ obiit.”
Footnote 509
See vol. i. p. 507.
Footnote 510
Will. Gem. vii. 28. “Mathildem, Juliusclodii Regis Rugorum filiam,
in matrimonio habuit.” So the fragment in Duchèsne, iv. 150. But her
name was Anne, and William of Jumièges has confounded her with a
former wife Matilda. See Duchèsne, iv. 153. Chron. S. Maxent. 1050
(Labbé, ii. 209). “Ainricus Rex Francorum duxit uxorem Scythicam et
Rusam.” On this marriage see more at length Karamsin, Histoire de
Russie, ii. 38. 404.
Footnote 511
Anne, daughter of Rômanos and Theophanô and sister of Basil the
Second, married Vladimir of Russia. See Ducange, Hist. Byz. 144.
Footnote 512
Const. Porph. de Cerem. i. 96, and the commentary of Reiske, vol. ii.
p. 450, ed. Bonn. Finlay, Byz. Emp. i. 238, 272.
Footnote 513
He was crowned at Pentecost 1059. Chron. Rem. ap. Labbé, i. 360, and
the fragment in Duchèsne, iv. 150.
Footnote 514
See above, p. 82.
Footnote 515
Will. Pict. 90. “Monarchia post Franciæ, cum puero monarchâ, ipsius,
consiliosissimi viri, tutelæ, _dictaturæ_, atque administrationi
cessit.” Ord. Vit. 480 D. “Balduino Flandrensium Duci puerum cum
regno ad tutandum commendavit.” Will. Gem. vii. 28. “Philippum
filium suum in regimine Francorum hæredem constituit, et tutelæ
Balduini Flandrensis Satrapæ commendavit.” Will. Malms. ii. 188.
“Defuncto Rege Henrico, qui Philippum parvum reliquerat filium,
regnum Francorum nobiliter aliquantis annis rexit, fideliterque
adulto (nam ejus amitam uxorem habebat) restituit.” Ann. Elnonenses
Minores (Pertz, v. 20), 1061. “Henricus Rex obiit, et Balduinus
Comes Flandriæ, quasi _Interrex_ in regno judicat, salvâ fidelitate
Philippi pueri Regis. Huic verò magnum decus intervenit gloriæ. Nam
Comes Tietbaldus, Andegavensis Comes, et omnes Galliæ optimates,
salvâ fide Philippi Regis, juraverunt fidelitatem et honorem regni.
Quod autem regni erat, sapienter et honestè disponebat.” The
Chronicle of the Counts of Flanders (Corp. Chron. Flandr. i. 86)
adds, to nearly the same account, that it was done “salvâ tamen
fidelitate Philippi pueri, si viveret. Si autem non, ipse Balduinus
Comes Rex existeret, ut pote justus hæres per Athelam uxorem Regis
Henrici sororem.” Ann. Blandinienses (Pertz, v. 26), 1061. “Baldwinus
Marchisus regni Francorum _magistratus_ efficitur.” The variety of
words used to express Baldwin’s functions is remarkable. A regency
was something new.
Footnote 516
Chron. S. Maxent. 1057. “Eodem anno civitas Namnetica Gaufredo Comiti
ab Hoel Comite reddita est, qui non bonâ usus fide auferre eam illi
tentavit.”
Footnote 517
Chron. S. Maxent. 1058. “Willermus, qui et Petrus, cognomento Acer,
adunato exercitu vallavit castrum Salmurum simul et Gaufredum
Martellum inclusit in eo.”
Footnote 518
Ib. “Ubi inhiando dum aptaret ad bellum exercitum, dolore dysenteriæ
morbis percussus reversus est infirmus. Ex quâ infirmitate mortuus
est relinquens terrenum _regnum_.” Directly after we read, “Successit
in _regno_ Gosfredus.” So that “regnum” in the former entry is not a
mere figure of speech, strange as is the application of the word to
the dominions of a Duke of Aquitaine.
Footnote 519
Ib. 1060. “Monachali habitu priùs suscepto ab Airaudo abbate Sancti
Nicolai.” So Chron. And. ap. Labbé, i. 287. Fulk. ap. D’Achery, ii.
233.
Footnote 520
Ord. Vit. 532 B. Chron. S. Maxent. 1060. Gest. Cons. 258.
Footnote 521
See vol. ii. pp. 40, 430, 635–637.
Footnote 522
See vol. ii. pp. 636, 637.
Footnote 523
See above, p. 139.
Footnote 524
Chron. S. Maxent. 1061–1062 (Labbé, ii. 210). The war with Anjou
rose out of the old question about Saintogne. The Spanish expedition
is thus described; “Inde [from Saintes after its surrender by the
Angevins] abiens in Hispaniam cum multis Normannis, Barbastam
civitatem nomini Christiano, cunctis qui in eâ erant priùs perditis,
adquisivit.”
Footnote 525
Gest. Cons. c. 10 (ap. D’Achery, iii. 258). The abbey had hitherto
remained in the patronage of the King, a position quite different
from that of the Norman and Aquitanian Prelates. See vol. ii. p. 209.
This illustrates the inferior position of the Counts of Anjou, as
originally holders under the Duchy of France.
Footnote 526
Gest. Cons. c. 11. p. 259, and Fulk’s own story in p. 238.
Footnote 527
William of Poitiers (102) says of him, as compared with his uncle;
“Nomine proprio idem, probitate absimilis ei, cœlestem regem timere,
et pro comparando externo honore bona actitare cœpit.” Ord. Vit. 532
C. “Goisfredus, qui simplex et tractabilis moribus erat.”
Footnote 528
See vol. ii. p. 169.
Footnote 529
See vol. ii. p. 413.
Footnote 530
Will. Gem. vii. 29. “Tunc quibusdam maledicis vicinos comparesque
suos accusantibus ex invidiâ, Dux Willelmus exasperatus ingenti
furiâ Barones suos, scilicet Rodulfum de Toeniâ, Hugonem de
Grentemaisnilio, et Ernaldum Willelmi Geroiani filium ejecit
de Normanniâ.” Ord. Vit. 481 A. He tells us how the chief men
“cupiditate furente unus alium supplantare conabatur.” He specially
mentions the agency of Roger and Mabel, who “exortâ simultate
gaudebant et blandis adulationibus sibi Ducem alliciebant.” He goes
on to say that “animosus Dux plus æquo iræ frena relaxans præcipuos
milites ... sine probabilibus culpis diu exsulare coegit.”
Footnote 531
See above, p. 159.
Footnote 532
See vol. ii. p. 232.
Footnote 533
Orderic tells this story twice with slight differences. The first
time (464 D) he makes Robert’s death happen while he is besieged by
the Duke; “Pomo venenato, quod conjugi suæ vi rapuerat, comesto post
quinque dies mortuus est.” The second time (478 C) he tells the story
as I have given it in the text, but without any mention of the siege,
and with the important addition “uxore contradicente comedit.” The
important point of course is how far Adelaide, and how far through
her her kinsman the Duke, contemplated the death of Robert or of any
one else.
Footnote 534
Ord. Vit. 481 D.
Footnote 535
Ib. 485 A.
Footnote 536
Orderic tells the tale at length, 488, 489.
Footnote 537
See vol. ii. p. 234. See Will. Gem. vii. 29. Orderic has much to say
about the matter. Some readers may perhaps think that the story, as
told by him in p. 479, hardly bears out his own statement in p. 481
B, that he was “falsò accusatus.” The Duke is said to have designed
his mutilation in some way (“damna membrorum inferre”), on which, at
the advice of Hugh Bishop of Lisieux, he took to flight. I confess to
putting more confidence in the Duke than in the Abbot.
Footnote 538
Will. Gem. vii. 29. “Sine reatu et judicio synodi de Normanniâ
expulit.”
Footnote 539
Ib. “Quia de audaci Geroicorum prosapiâ prodierat.”
Footnote 540
Bessin. Conc. Rot. Prov. 48. Pommeraye, 72. “Ut quotidie serò signi
pulsu ad preces Deo fundendas quisque invitaretur, atque occlusis
foribus domorum ultra vagari ampliùs vetitum admoneretur.” Cf.
Palgrave, iii. 274. The reason given by the commentator is “ut furtis
nocturnis caveretur.” The Fathers of this Synod are overflowing in
their loyalty to their Duke, “qui quantâlibet locorum intercapedine
a se invicem dissiti essent, quasi urbis unius concives sub Principe
suo, non secus ac sub amantissimo patre-familias victuros invicem
spoponderunt.”
Footnote 541
As usual, the Gaulish name of the tribe appears in slightly different
forms in the present names of the city and of the county. The
original name of the city, which does not appear in Cæsar, was
Subdinnum. See Dict. Geog. art. Cenomani.
Footnote 542
Livy, v. 35. Polyb. ii. 17, 32. The Greek form is Γονομάνοι.
Footnote 543
Polyb. ii. 23–24.
Footnote 544
Cæs. Bell. Gall. vii. 75. They appear as “Aulerci Cenomani.” The name
Aulerci is common to them with several other tribes.
Footnote 545
The legend of Saint Julian is given at length in the Acts of the
Bishops of Le Mans, in Mabillon’s Vetera Analecta, iii. 50–59. On
this, and on Cenomannian legend generally, I would refer to “Les
Cenomans Anciens et Modernes” by the Abbé Voisin (Paris and Le Mans
1852). But the good Abbé’s faith is strong and his criticism is weak.
Footnote 546
On the Defensores Civitatum see the legislation in the Code, lib.
i. tit. 55. (From Valentinian and Valens in 365 to Theodosius and
Valentinian in 441.) But a more remarkable mention of the Defensor
occurs in the Veteres Formulæ Andegavenses in Mabillon, Vet. An. iv.
234. I leave the passage in the Latin of King Childebert; “Cum juxta
consuetudinem Andicavis civetate, curia puplica resederet in foro,
ibique vir magnificus illi prosecutor dixit: Rogo te, vir laudabilis
illi Defensor, illi Curator, illi Magister militum, vel reliquum
curia puplica, utique obticis puplicis patere jobeatis, quia habeo
quid apud acta prosevere debiam. Defensor principalis simul et omnis
Curia puplica dixerunt: Patent tibi cotecis puplici, prosequere quæ
optas.” What was law at Angers was not unlikely to be law at Le Mans.
Footnote 547
We shall come in my next volume to the “Conspiratio quam communionem
vocabant” in the days of Bishop Arnold. Vet. Ann. iii. *315.
Footnote 548
See the “Dissertation sur les Incursions Normandes dans Le Maine,” by
M. Lestang (Le Mans 1855).
Footnote 549
Local tradition places no less a person than the famous Roland
among the local heroes. See Voisin, i. 271. This falls in with
his description in Eginhard, Vita Car. c. ix., as “Hruodlandus
Brittannici limitis præfectus.”
Footnote 550
See vol. i. pp. 199, 200.
Footnote 551
Flod. 924. “Nortmanni cum Francis pacem ineunt sacramentis per
Hugonem et Heribertum Comites, Seulfum quoque Archiepiscopum; absente
Rege Rodulfo, ejus tamen consensu, terra illis aucta, Cinomannis et
Baiocæ pacto pacis eis concessæ.” This grant is doubtless alluded to
by William of Poitiers when he says (p. 104), “Nam et olim egit sub
Normannorum Ducum ditione regio Cenomanica.”
Footnote 552
Flod. 924. “Rex [Rodulfus] ... Heriberto denique Peronam, et Hugoni
filio Rotberti Cinomannis dedit.”
Footnote 553
See the note of Pertz, iii. 623, on Richer, iii. 77. The invasion
of Otto (see vol. i. p. 265) and the exploits of Geoffrey (see vol.
ii. pp. 274, 591) are transferred to the reign of Robert, “Robertus
filius Ducis”—a confusion, one would almost think, between Robert the
son of Hugh Capet and the elder Robert the son of Robert the Strong.
Footnote 554
M. Voisin (i. 332 et seq.) makes his Hugh-David reign from 922 to
970, when he is succeeded by Hugh the Second, father of Herbert
Wake-the-Dog. The Art de Vérifier les Dates (ii. 830) seems to know
only one Hugh, who begins to reign 955 “ou environ.” Hugh the father
of Herbert is perfectly well ascertained, the only question is
whether he is the same as the Hugh and the Hugh-David whose charters
are printed by M. Voisin (i. 341). A Count David appears in Robert de
Monte (Pertz, vi. 518) as a rebel against King Robert, in punishment
for which rebellion, “dedit Rex Gaufrido Grisagonella homagium illus,
et ipsam civitatem, et quidquid habebat in episcopatu Cenomannensi.”
This is of course the same story that we have just had before. As the
Counts of the tenth century do not immediately concern my subject,
I do not feel called on to decide between the disagreeing doctors,
ancient or modern.
Footnote 555
He was probably married; at least there was a personage in his
house whom the Biographer of the Bishops (Vet. An. iii. *298),
sarcastically perhaps rather than reverentially, speaks of as
“Episcopissa.” He is also charged with fraudulently suppressing
a college of Canons, in order to enrich his children with their
possessions.
Footnote 556
Vet. An. iii. *297. “Venit ad Burgardum Vindocinensem Comitem,” then
follows the list of the property alienated to the Count, but I do not
find any account of this matter in the life of Burchard in Duchèsne,
iv. 116.
Footnote 557
Ord. Vit. 532 B. Herbert is introduced “post mortem Hugonis patris
sui quem Fulko senior sibi violenter subjugârat.”
Footnote 558
See the story in Will. Gem. v. 10.
Footnote 559
Vet. An. iii. *299. “Sepulto Segenfrido ... domnus Avesgaudus nepos
ipsius sedem episcopalem suscepit.” The elder William of Belesme was
his brother. Like Archbishop Malger (see above, p. 94), he was fond
of hunting, and, as a punishment for his breach of canonical rule, he
had a fall from his horse, which damaged his nose for life. We have
however heard something (see vol. ii. p. 139) of his good works in
the way of building.
Footnote 560
See vol. ii. pp. 230, 231.
Footnote 561
Vet. An. iii. *300. “Constituit castellum, nomine Firmitatem, super
fluvium Idoneæ ut esset ibi in refugium.”
Footnote 562
Ib. “Habuit [comes] Alanum fortissimum Comitem Britannorum sibi in
adjutorium, et venit ad castellum, et obsedit illud. Ex unâ enim
parte vallaverunt illud Britanni, ex alterâ Cenomannici.”
Footnote 563
Fulbert, we are told (Vet. An. u. s.; see vol. i. p. 488), “tunc
temporis sapientiâ et sanctitate inter Galliarum Episcopos, velut
Lucifer inter cetera astra cœli, resplendebat.” Fulbert is to
excommunicate him “auctoritate divinâ, nisi resipisceret.” Fulbert’s
divine authority seems to have reached beyond his own diocese. He
wrote a letter “sale satis conditam,” and afterwards sat in judgement
in person between the Count and the Bishop in the city of Le Mans.
Mabillon seems to identify the letter with the one which is printed
in Duchèsne, iv. 173, denouncing the crimes of “Præcursor Antichristi
Herbertus Comes Cenomanis” and denouncing excommunication against
him. But this letter is addressed to Ebalus, who, in p. 181, appears
as Archbishop, not, as one would have expected, of Tours, but of
Rheims.
Footnote 564
See vol. ii. p. 280. Orderic (532 A) thinks it necessary to apologize
for the name; “Vulgò, sed parum Latine, cognominari _Evigilans-Canem_
pro ingenti probitate promeruit.” Geoffrey’s title of Martel seems
to be the only name of the kind in this generation which is used
familiarly and without scruple.
Footnote 565
Ord. Vit. 532 A. “In eumdem [Fulconem] arma levans nocturnas
expeditiones crebrò agebat, et Andegavenses homines et canes in ipsâ
urbe, vel in munitioribus oppidis terrebat, et horrendis assultibus
pavidos vigilare cogebat.” Yet elsewhere (487 C) he tells us, “Vulgò
_Evigilans-canem_ cognominabatur, propter gravissimas infestationes,
quas à perfidis affinibus suis Andegavensibus incessanter patiebatur.”
Footnote 566
See vol. ii. p. 274.
Footnote 567
See Count Fulk in D’Achery, iii. 233, and Gest. Cons. ib. 353.
Herbert is “miles acerrimus,” and his Cenomannian soldiers deal
“ferocissimos ictus.”
Footnote 568
See vol. ii. pp. 276, 278.
Footnote 569
Will. Pict. 103. “Ut enim alia plurima omittam, novissimè nostrâ
memoriâ Fulco Andegavensis Herbertum Cenomannicum majorem Santonas
illexit, sponsione urbis ipsius. Ibi, vinctum in medio colloquio, ad
pactiones, quas avarè concupierat, carcere ac tormentis coëgit.” So
William of Malmesbury (iii. 235), who seems to think this act the
only stain on the otherwise perfect character of Fulk; “Unum omnino
est quo eum notari audierim, Sanctonas sponsione urbis illectum,
in medio colloquio ab apparitoribus arctari, et quibus placuit
conditionibus irretiri fecit. Cætera sanctus et integer,” &c. The
length of the imprisonment comes from the fragment in Duchèsne, iv.
81; “Tunc Comes Fulco supradictus dolo accersitum secum adduxit
Sanctonas Arbertum nobilissimum Comitem Cenomannis, et primâ
quadragesimæ dominicâ post cœnam nocte intempestâ eum traditione
cepit, et in vinculis secum duxit, tenuitque in carcere biennio. Unde
eripere eum Dominus dignatus est. Sequenti anno propter ipsum scelus
combusta est ipsa civitas [Saintes?] cum sede episcopali, et dein
mansit deserta basilica.”
Footnote 570
Ord. Vit. 487 D, 655 C. See vol. i. p. 584; ii. p. 130.
Footnote 571
Vet. An. iii. *304. “Herbertus Comes, cognomine Bacco, avunculus
Herberti, qui fuit temporibus Avesgaudi episcopi.”
Footnote 572
Ib. “Sedem Avesgaudi avunculi sui gaudenter suscepit.” The succession
to the see of Le Mans had come to follow much the same law as the
succession to the see of Czetinje.
Footnote 573
Herbert Bacco kept him out of the Bishoprick for two years. Vet. An.
u. s.
Footnote 574
Compare the relations of Normandy to the Capetian Kings, vol. i. p.
272.
Footnote 575
See vol. ii. p. 209.
Footnote 576
Vet. An. iii. 305*. “Videns vero Præsul suum episcopatum nec per
Regem nec per seipsum à Baccone posse defendi, petivit quiddam
à, Rege Henrico, quod utinam non petiisset, scilicet ut daret
episcopatum Gaufrido Andegavorum Comiti, solummodò dum viveret, ut
liberiùs à, Comite Cenomannico illum defenderet, illo etenim mortuo
in regiam manum rediret.” The somewhat startling phrase of the grant
of the Bishoprick to the Count of Anjou (even though the Count of
Anjou was an hereditary Canon of Saint Martin’s at Tours) can only
mean the grant of the lay rights and duties of _Advocatio_.
Footnote 577
Ib. 306*. “Consilium iniit cum parochianis et heroibus terræ.”
“Heros” was a favourite word with Orderic, but this biographer seems
to use it as if it were a sort of standing title of the citizens of
Le Mans. Several Spanish cities, I believe,are officially styled
“heroic,” like “fidelis civitas” and the like among ourselves.
Footnote 578
Ord. Vit. 532 B.
Footnote 579
See vol. ii. p. 195. The writer in Vet. An. iii. 306 calls her
“nobilissima femina” and “uxor fortissima.”
Footnote 580
Vet. An. iii. 306*. “Sperans se pro hoc castrum Lit habiturum. Sed
nihil ei profecit, quia illud bene custodierunt milites castellani.”
Yet we had just before read how “Gaufridus castellum Lit igne
cremavit.”
Footnote 581
Labbé and Cossart, Conc. ix. 1042.
Footnote 582
Vet. An. iii. 307*. “Cives verò Cenomannici uxorem Hugonis cum
infantibus plorantem per unam portam projecerunt, et Gaufridum
Comitem gaudentem intrare fecerunt.”
Footnote 583
Ib. “Quum autem audiisset præsul Gervasius in vinculis quæ fecissent
_heroes Cenomannici_ [see last page; it can hardly be satire] vitæ
diffidens, non habuit aliquam spem ultra vivendi; venit Annolit,
castellum Lit reddidit. Dum hæc agerentur, Comes Gaufridus Gervasium
de carcere exire permisit, tali videlicet sacramento, ut quamdiu
ipse Gaufridus adviveret, intra civitatem Cenomannicam Gervasius non
intraret.”
Footnote 584
Ib. “Quum verò videret præsul quod neque in urbem neque in castellum
suum posset intrare, abiit ad Willelmum Normanniæ Comitem, ac
quidquid ei Gaufridus fecit vel quomodò eum tradidit, illi mœrens
rettulit.”
Footnote 585
Chron. Rem. 1059. Labbé, i. 360. See above, p. 178.
Footnote 586
I am here following the Norman accounts; the Angevin version in the
Gesta Consulum is very different. We there read (D’Achery, iii. 258),
“In diebus illis Willelmus Dux Normannorum Herbertum Cenomannicum
Consulem nimis impugnabat, cui Martellus auxiliator et tutor fuit,
et idcirco Willelmus Dux, qui postea Angliâ acquisitâ Rex Anglorum
exstitit, multa à Martello mala perpessus est.”
Footnote 587
This German sojourn is mentioned incidentally by William of Poitiers
(105), where Herbert’s sister, afterwards to be spoken of, is brought
“ex partibus Teutonum.”
Footnote 588
Vet. An. iii. *315. “Erat autem uxor ejusdem Marchisii Gersendis
nomine, filia Herberti Cenomannorum illustrissimi Comitis, qui
vocatus est Evigila-canem: quæ primò quidem Theobaldo Duci Campaniæ
in matrimonium tradita, sed ab eo, repudio interveniente, discedens,
præfati Athonis postmodum fuerat copulata conjugio.” See also Ord.
Vit. 532 B.
Footnote 589
See above, p. 89. Yet a fairer ground of consanguinity than usual
might have been alleged.
Footnote 590
See the life of Albert Azo in Gibbon’s Miscellaneous Works, iii. 409.
We shall hear of him again at Le Mans.
Footnote 591
Ord. Vit. 532 B. “Tertia vero Johanni Domino castri quod Flecchia
dicitur nupsit, quæ marito suo tres liberos, Goisbertum, Heliam et
Enoch peperit.” Helias will hardly come within the limits of my
central history, but he was a memorable man in the days of William
Rufus.
Footnote 592
William of Poitiers calls Margaret the daughter of Herbert (103), but
he afterwards (105) corrects the mistake and calls her “germana.”
It is plain from Orderic (u. s.) that she was the daughter of Hugh
and sister of Herbert. Benoît (35790) erroneously makes her only his
half-sister;
“Herbert aveit une soror
Devers sa mere; esteit Tieise.”
The “Tieise” comes from some misunderstanding of the “Teutonum
partes” in William of Poitiers. William has much to say about her
virtues and early death; “Hæc generosa virgo, nomine Margarita,
insigni specie, decentior fuit omni margaritâ.” This seems to be an
earlier use of the name than I had thought in vol. i. p. 522, as this
Margaret could hardly have been called after the daughter of the
Ætheling Eadward.
Footnote 593
See above, p. 169.
Footnote 594
See vol. ii. p. 180.
Footnote 595
Will. Pict. 103. “Hugo ... Gaufredi tyrannide metuens omnino deleri,
Normanniæ Ducem Willelmum, sub quo tutus foret, supplex adiit,
manibus ei sese dedit, cuncta sua ab eo, ut miles a domino, recepit.”
Ord. Vit. 487 C. “Præfatus nimirum juvenis, post obitum Herberti
senioris patris [it should of course be Hugh] ... consilio matris suæ
se suumque patrimonium fortissimo Duci Normannorum commendaverat.”
This is an excellent example of the process of _commendation_
described in vol. i. p. 129.
Footnote 596
See above, p. 188.
Footnote 597
Will. Pict. 103. “Cunctorum singulariter eum statuens heredem si non
gigneret alium.”
Footnote 598