Produced by MWS and the Online Distributed Proofreading
Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from
images generously made available by The Internet
Archive/Canadian Libraries)
HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES
PUBLISHED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY
FROM THE INCOME OF THE HENRY WARREN TORREY FUND
VOLUME XXV
HARVARD HISTORICAL STUDIES
I. The Suppression of the African Slave-Trade to the United States of
America, 1638-1870. By W. E. B. DuBois, Ph.D., Editor of “The Crisis.”
8vo.
$2.00 net.
II. The Contest over the Ratification of the Federal Constitution in
Massachusetts. By S. B. Harding, Ph.D., sometime Professor of European
History in Indiana University. 8vo.
$1.75 net.
III. A Critical Study of Nullification in South Carolina. By D. F.
Houston, A.M., LL.D., Secretary of the Treasury. 8vo.
$1.75 net.
IV. Nominations for Elective Office in the United States. By Frederick W.
Dallinger, A.M., LL.B., Member of Congress from Massachusetts. 8vo.
$2.00 net.
V. A Bibliography of British Municipal History, including Gilds and
Parliamentary Representation. By Charles Gross, Ph.D., LL.D., late Gurney
Professor of History and Political Science in Harvard University. 8vo.
$3.00 net.
VI. The Liberty and Free Soil Parties in the Northwest. By Theodore
Clarke Smith, Ph.D., Professor of History in Williams College. 8vo.
$2.25 net.
VII. The Provincial Governor in the English Colonies of North America. By
Evarts Boutell Greene, Ph.D., Professor of History in the University of
Illinois. 8vo.
$2.00 net.
VIII. The County Palatine of Durham. A Study in Constitutional History.
By G. T. Lapsley, Ph.D., Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. 8vo.
$2.50 net.
IX. The Anglican Episcopate and the American Colonies. By Arthur Lyon
Cross, Ph.D., Professor of English History in the University of Michigan.
8vo.
$3.00 net.
X. The Administration of the American Revolutionary Army. By Louis
Clinton Hatch, Ph.D. 8vo.
$2.00 net.
XI. The Civil Service and the Patronage. By Carl Russell Fish, Ph.D.,
Professor of History in the University of Wisconsin. 8vo.
$2.50 net.
XII. The Development of Freedom of the Press in Massachusetts. By C. A.
Duniway, Ph.D., President of Colorado College. 8vo.
$2.00 net.
XIII. The Seigniorial System in Canada. By W. B. Munro, Ph.D., LL.D.,
Professor of Municipal Government in Harvard University. 8vo.
$2.50 net.
XIV. The Frankpledge System. By William Alfred Morris, Ph.D., Associate
Professor of English History in the University of California. 8vo.
$2.00 net.
XV. The Public Life of Joseph Dudley. By Everett Kimball, Ph.D.,
Professor of Government in Smith College. 8vo.
$2.50 net.
XVI. Mémoire de Marie Caroline, Reine de Naples. Edited by Robert
Matteson Johnston, A.M., late Professor of Modern History in Harvard
University. 8vo.
$2.50 net.
XVII. The Barrington-Bernard Correspondence. Edited by Edward Channing,
Ph.D., McLean Professor of Ancient and Modern History in Harvard
University. 8vo.
$2.50 net.
XVIII. The Government of the Ottoman Empire in the Time of Suleiman the
Magnificent. By Albert Howe Lybyer, Ph.D., Professor of History in the
University of Illinois. 8vo.
$2.50 net.
XIX. The Granger Movement. By S. J. Buck, Ph.D., Associate Professor of
History in the University of Minnesota. 8vo.
$2.50 net.
XX. Burgage Tenure in Mediaeval England. By Morley de Wolf Hemmeon, Ph.D.
8vo.
$2.50 net.
XXI. An Abridgment of the Indian Affairs transacted in the colony of New
York from 1678 to 1751. By Peter Wraxall. Edited with an introduction by
Charles Howard McIlwain, Ph.D., Professor of History and Government in
Harvard University. 8vo.
$2.50 net.
XXII. English Field Systems. By Howard Levi Gray, Ph.D., Professor of
History in Bryn Mawr College. 8vo.
$3.25 net.
XXIII. The Second Partition of Poland. By Robert Howard Lord, Ph.D.,
Assistant Professor of History in Harvard University. 8vo.
$2.75 net.
XXIV. Norman Institutions. By Charles Homer Haskins, Ph.D., Litt.D.,
LL.D., Gurney Professor of History and Political Science in Harvard
University. 8vo.
$3.50 net.
XXV. Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy. By Charles Wendell David, Ph.D.,
Associate Professor of European History in Bryn Mawr College. 8vo.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U. S. A.
[Illustration: ROBERTUS DUX NORMANNORUM PARTUM PROSTERNIT
Robert Curthose in the act of unhorsing a pagan warrior, the oldest
graphic representation of the duke now extant. From an eighteenth century
engraving of a medallion in a stained-glass window at Saint-Denis, which
was executed at the order of Abbot Suger. The church was dedicated 11
June 1144, and the window must date from about that period.]
ROBERT CURTHOSE
DUKE OF NORMANDY
BY
CHARLES WENDELL DAVID
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF EUROPEAN HISTORY
IN BRYN MAWR COLLEGE
[Illustration]
CAMBRIDGE
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
LONDON: HUMPHREY MILFORD
OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
1920
COPYRIGHT, 1920
HARVARD UNIVERSITY PRESS
TO MY WIFE
PREFACE
Robert Curthose, eldest son of William the Conqueror, had been dead but
a few years when Abbot Suger set about rebuilding the great abbey church
of Saint-Denis, which was dedicated with such pomp and ceremony in 1144.
Among the scenes from the First Crusade which filled one of its famous
stained-glass windows, there was one which portrayed Robert, mounted
upon his charger, in the act of overthrowing a pagan warrior—“Robertus
dux Normannorum Partum prosternit,” ran the inscription beneath it.[1]
It was thus, as a hero of the Crusade, that the great Abbot Suger chose
to recall him, and it was as such that his fame survived in after times.
Robert was not a masterful character, and it cannot be said that as a
ruler he made a deep impression upon his generation. Overshadowed by
his great father, cheated of a kingdom by his more aggressive brothers,
and finally defeated in battle, deprived of his duchy, and condemned to
perpetual imprisonment, his misdirected life offers a melancholy contrast
to the more brilliant careers of the abler members of his family. Yet,
if he was himself lacking in greatness, he was closely associated
with great names and great events; and his unmeasured generosity and
irrepressible bonhomie gained him many friends in his lifetime, and made
him a personality which is not without its attractions to the modern. It
is hoped that a study of his career which attempts to set him in his true
relation to the history of Normandy and England and of the Crusade may be
of interest not only to the specialist but to the general reader.
It is now more than a generation since Gaston Le Hardy published _Le
dernier des ducs normands: étude de critique historique sur Robert
Courte-Heuse_ (1882), the only monograph upon Robert which has hitherto
appeared. In spite of its age, if this were the critical study which its
title implies, the present essay need hardly have been undertaken. But
it makes no use of documentary materials, and is unfortunately a work
of violent _parti pris_, quite lacking in criticism according to modern
standards. “J’ ai entrepris,” says the author in his preface, “à l’aide
de quelques autres chroniqueurs, une lutte contre notre vieil Orderic
Vital, essayant de lui arracher par lambeaux la vérité vraie sur un
personnage dont il ne nous a donné que la caricature.” It may be granted
that Ordericus Vitalis was a hostile critic, who sometimes did Robert
scanty justice; but assuredly there is no occasion for polemics or for
an _apologia_ such as Le Hardy has given us, and I have no intention of
following in his footsteps. My purpose is a more modest one, namely to
set forth a full and true account of the life and character of Robert
Curthose upon the basis of an independent and critical examination of
all the sources. To any one acquainted with the state of the materials
on which the investigator must perforce depend for any study of the late
eleventh and early twelfth centuries, it will not be surprising that
there are many gaps in our information concerning Robert’s life and many
problems which must remain unsolved. I have tried at all times to make my
own researches and to draw my own conclusions directly from the sources
when the evidence permitted, and to refrain from drawing conclusions
when it seemed inadequate. But my indebtedness to the secondary writers
who have preceded me in the field is abundantly apparent in the index
and in the footnotes, where full acknowledgments are made. The works of
E. A. Freeman upon the Norman Conquest and upon the reign of William
Rufus have proved especially helpful for Robert’s life as a whole, as
have also various more recent monographs which bear upon his career at
certain points. Among these are the works of Louis Halphen upon the
county of Anjou, of Robert Latouche upon Maine, and of Augustin Fliche
upon the reign of Philip I of France. For the chapter on the Crusade much
use has been made of the detailed chronology of Heinrich Hagenmeyer and
of the exhaustive notes in his well known editions of the sources for
the First Crusade, as well as of the admirable monograph by Ferdinand
Chalandon upon the reign of the Emperor Alexius I. The appendix _De
Iniusta Vexatione Willelmi Episcopi Primi_ has already been published
in the _English Historical Review_, and is here reproduced by the kind
permission of the editor.
It is more than a pleasure to acknowledge my obligations to those
whose counsel and assistance have been constantly at my disposal in
the preparation of this volume. By the librarians and their staffs in
the libraries of Harvard University, the University of California, the
University of Pennsylvania, and Bryn Mawr College I have been treated
with a courtesy and helpfulness which are beyond praise. Mr. George
W. Robinson, Secretary of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of
Harvard University, has given me much valuable assistance in preparing
the manuscript for the press and in the correction of the proof. Finally,
I have to acknowledge a debt of gratitude which is deeper than can
well be expressed in writing, that which I owe to my teachers. It was
Professor Dana C. Munro, now of Princeton University, who first taught
me to care greatly for the Middle Ages and awakened my interest in
the Crusades. He has followed this volume with kindly interest while
it has been in the making, and has given me much helpful criticism
upon that part which relates to the First Crusade. But above all I am
indebted to Professor Charles H. Haskins of Harvard University, at
whose suggestion this work was first undertaken and without whose help
and counsel it could hardly have been brought to completion. While
the author must accept full responsibility for the statements and
conclusions herein contained, it is proper to say that the documentary
materials which Professor Haskins had collected, as well as the results
of his own researches, were placed at my disposal in manuscript before
their publication in his recent volume entitled _Norman Institutions_,
that separate chapters as they have been prepared have passed through
his hands for detailed criticism, and that his unfailing patience has
extended even to the reading of the proof sheets.
CHARLES WENDELL DAVID.
BRYN MAWR, PENNSYLVANIA, September, 1919.
FOOTNOTES
[1] See Frontispiece and Appendix G.
CONTENTS
PAGE
CHAPTER I
YOUTH 3-16
Parentage and birth 4
Tutors and education 6
Initiation into politics 7
Official position under the Conqueror 10
Bright promise of Robert’s youth 15
CHAPTER II
REBELLION AND EXILE 17-41
Robert’s character and personal appearance 17
First rebellion and exile 18
Gerberoy 25
Robert in the active service of the king 31
Second rebellion and exile 36
Death of the Conqueror 39
CHAPTER III
INDEPENDENT RULE, 1087-95 42-88
Robert’s accession to the duchy 42
Unsuccessful attempt to gain the English crown 44
William Rufus against Robert Curthose 53
Robert and William as allies 60
The loss of Maine 69
Weakness and failure of Robert’s government 75
Renewed war with William Rufus 83
CHAPTER IV
THE CRUSADE 89-119
Introduction 89
The Crusade launched in Normandy 90
Preparations for the Crusade 92
From Normandy to Nicaea 96
From Nicaea to Antioch 102
Antioch, 1097-98 104
The advance upon Jerusalem 108
The capture of Jerusalem 112
The battle of Ascalon 115
Robert’s return from Jerusalem to Italy 117
Estimate of Robert as a crusader 118
CHAPTER V
FAILURE TO GAIN THE ENGLISH CROWN 120-137
Death of William Rufus and accession of Henry I 120
Robert’s return from the Crusade 123
The end of Norman rule in Maine 125
Conspiracy to gain the English crown 127
Norman invasion of England 130
The treaty of Alton, 1101 134
CHAPTER VI
THE LOSS OF NORMANDY 138-176
Sequel to the treaty of Alton 138
Robert Curthose and Robert of Bellême 141
Private war in Normandy and intervention of Henry I 144
Robert and the church 150
Preparations of Henry I for the conquest of Normandy 155
English invasion of Normandy, 1105 161
The campaign of Tinchebray, 1106 171
CHAPTER VII
LAST YEARS AND DEATH 177-189
Settlement of Normandy after Tinchebray 177
Disposal of the captives 179
William Clito, last hope of a lost cause 180
Robert’s vicissitudes in captivity 186
Death of Robert Curthose 189
CHAPTER VIII
ROBERT CURTHOSE IN LEGEND 190-202
Early growth of legends concerning Robert 190
His legendary exploits on the Crusade 193
His refusal of the crown of Jerusalem 197
Legends connected with his long imprisonment 200
The tale of the scarlet robe 201
APPENDICES
A. NOTE ON THE SOURCES 205-210
B. _DE INIUSTA VEXATIONE WILLELMI EPISCOPI PRIMI_ 211-216
C. ARNULF OF CHOCQUES, CHAPLAIN OF ROBERT CURTHOSE 217-220
D. ROBERT’S COMPANIONS ON THE CRUSADE 221-229
E. LAODICEA AND THE FIRST CRUSADE 230-244
F. THE BATTLE OF TINCHEBRAY 245-248
G. THE ROBERT MEDALLION IN SUGER’S STAINED-GLASS WINDOW AT
SAINT-DENIS 249-252
INDEX 253-271
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
_Actus Pontificum_ _Actus Pontificum Cenomannis in Urbe
degentium_, ed. G. Busson and A.
Ledru. Le Mans, 1902.
_A.-S. C._ _The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, ed. Charles
Plummer, under the title _Two of the
Saxon Chronicles Parallel_. 2 vols.
Oxford, 1892-99.
Davis, _Regesta_ H. W. C. Davis, _Regesta Regum
Anglo-Normannorum_, i (1066-1100).
Oxford, 1913.
_E. H. R._ _English Historical Review._ London,
1886-.
_G. F._ _Anonymi Gesta Francorum et Aliorum
Hierosolymitanorum_, ed. Heinrich
Hagenmeyer. Heidelberg, 1890.
Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_ Heinrich Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie de la
première croisade (1094-1100)_.
Paris, 1902. Also in _Revue de
l’Orient latin_, vi-viii (1898-1901).
Haskins Charles H. Haskins, _Norman
Institutions_. Cambridge,
Massachusetts, 1918. _Harvard
Historical Studies_, xxiv.
_H. C. A._ _Recueil des historiens des croisades._
Publié pas les soins de l’Académie
des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres.
_Documents arméniens._ 2 vols. Paris,
1869-1906.
_H. C. G._ _The same._ _Historiens grecs._ 2 vols.
Paris, 1875-81.
_H. C. Oc._ _The same._ _Historiens occidentaux._
5 vols. Paris, 1841-95.
_H. C. Or._ _The same._ _Historiens orientaux._ 5
vols. Paris, 1872-1906.
_H. F._ _Recueil des historiens des Gaules et
de la France_, ed. Martin Bouquet and
others. 24 vols. Paris, 1738-1904.
_Kreuzzugsbriefe_ _Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren
1088-1100: Eine Quellensammlung zur
Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges_,
ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer. Innsbruck,
1901.
Le Hardy Gaston Le Hardy, _Le dernier des ducs
normands: Étude de critique
historique sur Robert Courte-Heuse_,
in _Bulletin de la Société des
Antiquaires de Normandie_, x (Caen,
1882), pp. 3-184.
_M. G. H._ _Monumenta Germaniae Historica._ Hanover,
etc., 1826-.
Migne _Patrologiae Cursus Completus_, ed. J. P.
Migne. Series Latina. 221 vols.
Paris, 1844-64.
Ordericus Ordericus Vitalis, _Historiae
Ecclesiasticae Libri Tredecim_, ed.
Auguste Le Prévost. 5 vols. Paris,
1838-55.
Round, _C. D. F._ J. H. Round, _Calendar of Documents
preserved in France illustrative of
the History of Great Britain and
Ireland_, i (918-1206). London, 1899
(_Calendars of State Papers_).
Simeon, _H. D. E._ Simeon of Durham, _Historia Dunelmensis
Ecclesiae_, in his _Opera Omnia_, ed.
Thomas Arnold, i. London, 1882.
Simeon, _H. R._ Idem, _Historia Regum_, _ibid._, ii.
London, 1885.
William of Jumièges William of Jumièges, _Gesta Normannorum
Ducum_, ed. Jean Marx. Paris, 1914.
William of Malmesbury, _G. P._ William of Malmesbury, _De Gestis
Pontificum Anglorum Libri Quinque_,
ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton. London,
1870.
William of Malmesbury, _G. R._ Idem, _De Gestis Regum Anglorum Libri
Quinque_, ed. William Stubbs. 2 vols.
London, 1887-89.
[Illustration: Northwestern France and southern England with principal
places referred to in text]
ROBERT CURTHOSE
CHAPTER I
YOUTH
William of Malmesbury, in his well known sketch of the life and character
of Robert Curthose,[1] relates an interesting episode. He tells us that
Robert, in the heat of youth, and spurred on by the fatuous counsels
of his companions, went to his father, William the Conqueror, and
demanded that the rule of Normandy be forthwith given over into his
hands. William not only refused the rash request, but drove the lad
away with the thunders of his terrific voice; whereupon Robert withdrew
in a rage and began to pillage the countryside. At first the Conqueror
was only convulsed with laughter at these youthful escapades, and said,
emphasizing his words with a favorite oath: “By the resurrection of God!
This little Robert Curthose will be a brave fellow.”[2]
Robert Curthose or ‘Short-Boots’ (_Curta Ocrea_), this was the curious
nickname which his father had given him on account of his diminutive
stature.[3] The name seemed appropriate and was taken up by the
people. In time, however, William of Malmesbury goes on to explain,
Robert’s acts of insubordination became far more serious, and ended by
provoking the Conqueror to a truly Norman burst of wrath, a curse, and
disinheritance.[4] But all this is a matter which must be deferred for
later consideration.
Whether the episode just recounted be fact or legend,[5] the chronicler
in his hurried sketch has, in any event, drawn the picture of an
undutiful, graceless son, often harassing his father with wild acts of
insubordination. This, too, is the impression which is to be gathered
from a cursory reading of Ordericus Vitalis, by far the most voluminous
contemporary writer upon the life and character of Robert Curthose, and
it is the impression which has been preserved in the histories of later
times.[6] A more careful reading of the sources may, however, lead to a
somewhat different view of the character of the Norman duke who forms the
subject of the present essay. It must be owned at the outset, however,
that the sources, especially for Robert’s youth, are exceedingly meagre
and fragmentary, and only a few details can be pieced together.
The date of Robert’s birth is nowhere stated by contemporary writers.
We know that he was the firstborn child of William the Bastard, duke
of Normandy, and of his wife Matilda, daughter of Count Baldwin V of
Flanders.[7] But the date of the marriage of William and Matilda is
also a matter of much uncertainty. It has been generally assigned by
modern writers, but without any early authority, to the year 1053.[8]
It certainly took place after October 1049, for in that year we find
Pope Leo IX and the council of Rheims forbidding it as an act then
in contemplation.[9] It certainly had been performed in defiance of
ecclesiastical authority by 1053, the year in which Countess Matilda
first appears beside her husband among the witnesses of extant legal
documents.[10] So, too, Robert’s birth has been assigned by modern
writers to _circa_ 1054,[11] but this again is conjectural and rests upon
no early authority. Our knowledge of Robert’s later career makes it seem
improbable that he was born later than 1054 and suggests the possibility
that he may have been born a little earlier.[12]
Though the evidence is meagre and fragmentary, it is clear that William
and Matilda were by no means careless about the education of their eldest
son and prospective heir. In an early charter we meet with a certain
“Raherius consiliarius infantis” and a “Tetboldus gramaticus.”[13] And
among the witnesses of a charter by the youthful Robert himself—the
earliest that we have of his—dated at Rouen in 1066, appears one
“Hilgerius pedagogus Roberti filii comitis.”[14] Not improbably this is
the same Ilger who, in April of the following year, attested a charter by
William the Conqueror at Vaudreuil.[15] Robert, therefore, had tutors,
or ‘counsellors’, who were charged with his education, and who formed
part of the ducal entourage and made their way into the documents of the
period.
That these educational efforts were not wholly vain, there is some reason
to believe. Robert has not, like his youngest brother, Henry, received
the flattering title of Beauclerc, and there is no direct evidence that
he knew Latin. Yet some notable accomplishments he did have. Not to
mention his affable manners, he was famed for his fluency of speech, or
‘eloquence’, especially in his native tongue.[16] And if towards the
close of his unfortunate life he became the author, as has been supposed,
of an extant poem in the Welsh language,[17] it may perhaps be allowed
that in his youth he had acquired at least a taste and capacity for
things literary.[18]
The hopes of William and Matilda were early centred upon their oldest
son, and his initiation into the politics of his ambitious father was
not long delayed. As the result of a revolution at Le Mans, the youthful
Count Herbert II with his mother and his sister Margaret had been driven
into exile, and the direct rule of Geoffrey Martel, count of Anjou,
had been established in Maine.[19] William of Normandy, ever jealous
of Angevin expansion, was not slow to realize what his policy should
be in the light of these events. By giving support to the exiles he
might hope to curb the ambition of Geoffrey Martel and to extend Norman
influence, conceivably Norman domination, over Maine. Accordingly, at
an undetermined date between 1055 and 1060—probably between 1058 and
1060[20]—he entered into a treaty of far-reaching significance with
the exiled count. Herbert formally became Duke William’s vassal for
the county of Maine, and agreed that, if he should die childless, the
duke should succeed him in all his rights and possessions. And further,
a double marriage alliance was arranged, according to which William
promised the count one of his infant daughters, and Robert Curthose was
affianced to Herbert’s sister, Margaret of Maine.[21] Thus Robert, while
still a mere child, was made a pawn in the ambitious game which his
father was playing for the possession of a coveted county. Margaret, too,
was young; but the duke brought her to Normandy, and, placing her in the
ward of Stigand de Mézidon, made due provision for her honorable rearing
until the children should arrive at an age suitable for marriage.[22]
Meanwhile, fortune set strongly in Duke William’s favor in Maine.
Charters indicate that Herbert had made at least a partial recovery
of his authority in the county[23]—through the assistance, it may be
presumed, of his powerful Norman overlord. On 9 March 1062[24] Count
Herbert died childless, and under the terms of the recent treaty the
county should have passed immediately into the hands of Duke William.
But the Manceaux, or at least an Angevin or anti-Norman party among
them, had no disposition to submit themselves to the ‘Norman yoke’; and
within a year after Count Herbert’s death they rose in revolt.[25] They
chose as Count Herbert’s successor Walter of Mantes, count of the Vexin,
a bitter enemy of the Normans, who had a claim upon Maine through his
wife Biota, a daughter of Herbert Éveille-Chien.[26] They also obtained
the aid of Geoffrey le Barbu, who had succeeded to the county of Anjou
upon the death of Geoffrey Martel in 1060.[27] Thus they were able to
offer formidable opposition to Norman aggression. But Duke William was
determined not to let slip so good an opportunity of extending his
dominion over Maine, and he took up the challenge with his accustomed
vigor. A single campaign sufficed to accomplish his purpose. Walter of
the Vexin and Biota, his wife, were taken and imprisoned at Falaise; and
soon after they died—it is reported, as the result of poisoning.[28]
The Manceaux were quickly defeated and reduced to submission, and Duke
William entered Le Mans in triumph.[29]
With Geoffrey le Barbu, however, William decided to make terms. The
provisions of the treaty which was concluded between them have not been
preserved; but, in any case, it is clear that Duke William recognized
the Angevin suzerainty over Maine.[30] Doubtless this seemed to him the
most effective way of consolidating his conquest and throwing over it
the mantle of legality by which he always set such great store.[31] At a
formal ceremony in the duke’s presence at Alençon, Robert Curthose and
Margaret of Maine, his fiancée, were made to do homage and swear fealty
to Geoffrey le Barbu for the inheritance of Count Herbert.[32]
This feudal ceremony at Alençon gave formal legal sanction to Robert’s
position as count of Maine. Yet he was still a mere child, and Duke
William clearly had no intention of actually setting him to rule the
newly acquired territory. He could have had no hand in the warfare by
which it had been won, and to impose a foreign yoke upon the Manceaux in
the face of the ardent spirit of local patriotism was a task for stronger
hands than his. Robert’s countship, for the time being at any rate,
remained a purely formal one, and Duke William with the assistance of
Norman administrators and a Norman garrison kept the government of the
county in his own hands.[33] Nevertheless, the new legal status to which
the young prince had been raised found at least occasional recognition
in the documents of the period. In several early charters we meet with
his attestation as count of Maine,[34] and one document of the year 1076
indicates that at that time he was regarded as an independent ruler of
the county.[35]
Meanwhile, if he had grown to feel any affection for his prospective
bride, the beautiful Countess Margaret,[36] his hopes were doomed to
early disappointment; for, before either of the children had reached
a marriageable age, Margaret died at Fécamp, and was buried there in
the monastery of La Trinité.[37] This, however, did not mean that the
Norman plans with regard to Maine had seriously miscarried. Duke William
continued to maintain his hold upon the county; and Robert continued
to be called count[38] and to be designated as his father’s heir and
successor in the government.
Indeed, the assigning of the countship of Maine to Robert was but part
of a general plan which embraced all of Duke William’s dominions, and
under which Robert was early marked out as his successor designate for
the whole. In a charter of 29 June 1063—contemporary, therefore, with the
Norman conquest of Maine[39]—the young prince appears after his parents
with the following significant designation: “Roberti, eorum filii, quem
elegerant ad gubernandum regnum post suum obitum.”[40] Clearly at this
early date Robert had already been definitely chosen as the successor to
his father’s rule.
With Duke William still in the prime vigor of manhood, and menaced by no
particular dangers, such a provision seemed to have no great immediate
importance. But with the death of Edward the Confessor and the inception
of the ambitious plan for the Norman conquest of England, Duke William’s
future took on a far more uncertain aspect. Great and careful though the
preparations were, almost anything might happen in such an enterprise. It
was a grave moment for men with Norman interests as the duke stood upon
the threshold of his great adventure. The prudent abbot of Marmoutier
hastened to obtain from the youthful Robert a confirmation of all the
gifts which his father had made to the abbey.[41] Duke William, too,
felt the uncertainties of the hour and made careful provision against
all eventualities. Summoning the great nobles around him, he solemnly
proclaimed Robert his heir and successor, and had the barons do homage
and swear fealty to him as their lord.[42] Unless the sources are
misleading, King Philip of France, Duke William’s overlord, was present
and gave his consent to the action.[43]
Robert, however, was evidently still too young and inexperienced to be
entrusted with the actual administration of the duchy at such a critical
moment; and the government during the duke’s absence on the Conquest was
placed in the hands of Countess Matilda and a council of regents.[44]
But when in December 1067, after the successful launching of his great
enterprise, the Conqueror found it necessary to go a second time to
England, Robert was called to higher honors and responsibilities, and
was definitely associated with his mother in the regency.[45] From
this same year he begins to appear in occasional charters as ‘count of
the Normans’;[46] and when in the following year Matilda was called to
England for her coronation, there is some reason to believe that he was
charged with full responsibility for the administration of Normandy.[47]
Whether this implied a like responsibility for the government of Maine
is not clear. If it did, Robert certainly proved unequal to the task
of maintaining Norman dominion in that turbulent county. Norman rule
had from the beginning been unpopular in Maine. The citizens of Le
Mans were alert and rebellious, and Duke William’s preoccupation with
the conquest of England offered them a unique opportunity to strike a
blow for independence. Accordingly, in 1069, they rose in revolt[48]
and overthrew the Norman domination more quickly even than it had been
established by Duke William in 1063. During the following three years
Maine passed through a turbulent era, which—interesting as it is for both
local and general history—hardly concerns the life of Robert Curthose;
since, so far as can be discovered, no effort was made during that period
to reëstablish Norman authority in the county. The collapse of the Norman
rule had been as complete as it was sudden.
By the spring of 1073, however, King William had returned to the
Continent and was in a position to turn his attention to the reconquest
of Maine. Assembling a great army composed of both Normans and English,
he marched into the county, reduced Fresnay, Beaumont, and Sillé in
quick succession, and arrived before Le Mans, which surrendered without
a siege.[49] The authority of the Conqueror, perhaps we may even say the
authority of Robert Curthose,[50] was fully reëstablished. The sources
are silent as to the part which Robert played in these events or in the
struggles of the succeeding years by which the Conqueror maintained
the Norman domination in the face of the jealous opposition of Fulk
le Réchin, count of Anjou.[51] Robert certainly continued to enjoy the
formal dignity of count of Maine.[52] Indeed, a charter of 25 August 1076
seems to indicate that he was at that time regarded as an independent
ruler at Le Mans.[53]
Meanwhile, the Conqueror took occasion to reaffirm his intentions
regarding the succession to his dominions. At some time after the
conquest of England but before the outbreak of his unfortunate quarrels
with his eldest son, he fell dangerously sick at Bonneville; and,
fearing for his life, he summoned the barons around him, as he had done
previously upon the eve of the Norman Conquest, and had them renew
their homage and pledge of fealty to Robert as their lord.[54] Again
Robert Curthose was formally designated as the heir of all his father’s
dominions.
If, therefore, one looks back upon Robert’s life from about the year
1077, far from feeling surprise at the slowness of his development or at
the lateness of his initiation into political and government affairs,
one must rather wonder at the early age at which he became a pawn in
the great game of politics, war, and diplomacy which his father was
playing so shrewdly, and at the rapidity with which at least minor
responsibilities were thrust upon him. Affianced to the prospective
heiress of the county of Maine when little more than an infant, he was
designated as his father’s heir and successor while still a mere child,
and began to give his formal attestation to legal documents at about the
same period. At the age of twelve, or thereabouts, he received the homage
of the Norman barons as their lord and prospective ruler, and soon after
was associated with his mother in the regency during the king’s absence
from the duchy.
Down to the year 1077, there is no evidence of quarrels or disagreement
between the Conqueror and his eldest son.[55] Indeed, the proof seems
almost conclusive that there were no such quarrels until a relatively
late date. Not only do the narrative sources upon careful analysis
yield no evidence of disobedience or rebellion upon Robert’s part, but
positive documentary evidence points strongly in the opposite direction.
A series of charters scattered from 1063 to 1077 reveals Robert on
repeated occasions in close association with his parents and his
brothers, occupying an honored position, and attesting legal acts[56]
almost as frequently as the queen, more frequently than his brothers.
That the family harmony was not disturbed by domestic discord as late as
the autumn of 1077 there is good reason to believe. For, in that year,
Robert joined with his parents and his younger brother William in the
imposing dedication ceremonies of Bishop Odo’s great cathedral church
at Bayeux,[57] and again, 13 September, in the dedication of the abbey
church of the Conqueror’s foundation in honor of St. Stephen at Caen.[58]
FOOTNOTES
[1] _G. R._, ii, pp. 459-463.
[2] “Per resurrectionem Dei! probus erit Robelinus Curta Ocrea.” _Ibid._,
pp. 459-460.
[3] _Ibid._, p. 460; Ordericus, iii, p. 262: “corpore autem brevis et
grossus, ideoque Brevis Ocrea a patre est cognominatus”; _ibid._, iv, p.
16: “Curta Ocrea iocose cognominatus est.” In another passage (ii, p.
295) Ordericus mentions _Gambaron_ (from _jambes_ or _gambes rondes_) as
another popular nickname: “corpore pingui, brevique statura, unde vulgo
Gambaron cognominatus est, et Brevis Ocrea.” In still another place
he calls him ‘Robertus Ignavus.’ _Interpolations d’Orderic Vital_, in
William of Jumièges, p. 193.
[4] _G. R._, ii, p. 460.
[5] It seems to be a sort of an epitome, moved forward somewhat in
Robert’s career, of his rebellious course between 1078 and the death of
the Conqueror.
[6] Cf. Auguste Le Prévost, in Ordericus, ii, p. 377, n. 1; E. A.
Freeman, _History of the Norman Conquest_ (2d ed., Oxford, 1870-76), iv,
pp. 638-646 _et passim_. The defence of Robert by Le Hardy is rather
zealous than critical, and has not achieved its purpose.
[7] Ordericus, ii, p. 294: “Robertum primogenitam sobolem suam.” In
the numerous lists of William and Matilda’s children Robert always
appears first: see, e.g., Ordericus, ii, pp. 93, 188; iii, p. 159;
_Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 251.
[8] E.g., Thomas Stapleton, in _The Archaeological Journal_, iii (1846),
pp. 20-21; Le Prévost, in Ordericus, v, p. 18, n. 1; Freeman, in _E. H.
R._, iii (1888), pp. 680-681, and _Norman Conquest_, iii, pp. 660-661.
Stapleton, Le Prévost, and Freeman all cite the Tours chronicle (_H. F._,
xi, p. 348) as authority for the date. But in point of fact the Tours
chronicle gives no such date; and so far as it may be said to give any
date at all, it seems to assign the marriage to 1056. Stapleton suggests
in favor of 1053 that the imprisonment of Leo IX by the Normans in that
year may have emboldened the interested parties to a defiance of the
ecclesiastical prohibition.
[9] “Interdixit et Balduino comiti Flandrensi, ne filiam suam Wilielmo
Nortmanno nuptui daret; et illi, ne earn acciperet.” _Sacrorum
Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio_, ed. G. D. Mansi and others
(Venice, etc., 1759-), xix, col. 742.
[10] _Cartulaire de l’abbaye de la Sainte-Trinité du Mont de Rouen_,
ed. Achille Deville, no. 37, in _Collection de cartulaires de France_
(Paris, 1840: _Documents Inédits_), iii, p. 441; _Chartes de Saint-Julien
de Tours_, ed. J.-L. Denis (Le Mans, 1912), no. 24. Both these charters
are dated 1053, and the attestations of Matilda seem incontestably
contemporary. The Tours charter in addition to the incarnation has
“regnante Henrico rege anno xxviii.” This is unusual and might raise
a doubt, but it pretty clearly refers to the year 1053. No. 26 of the
same collection similarly gives 1059 as the thirty-fourth year of King
Henry. Both evidently reckon the reign as beginning from 1026, when Henry
was probably designated heir to the throne a year before his actual
coronation in 1027. Christian Pfister, _Études sur le règne de Robert le
Pieux_ (Paris, 1885), pp. 76-77. This conclusion seems to be confirmed
by a charter of 26 May in the thirtieth year of Robert the Pious (1026?)
which Henry attests as king, according to Pfister, ‘by anticipation.’
_Ibid._, p. lxxxii, no. 78. But Frédéric Soehnée does not accept
Pfister’s conclusion. _Catalogue des actes d’Henri Iᵉʳ, roi de France,
1031-1060_ (Paris, 1907), no. 10. The original is not extant.
Ferdinand Lot has published two charters—both from originals—dated 1051,
which bear attestations of Countess Matilda and of Robert ‘iuvenis
comitis.’ The attestation of Robert Curthose will save one from any
temptation to carry the marriage of William and Matilda back to 1051 on
the evidence of these documents, for even though the marriage had taken
place as early as 1049, it would clearly be impossible for Robert to
attest a document in 1051. Lot explains, “Les souscriptions de Matilde
… et de son fils aîné Robert ont été apposées après coup, et semblent
autographes.” _Études critiques sur l’abbaye de Saint-Wandrille_ (Paris,
1913), nos. 30, 31, pp. 74-77.
[11] Le Prévost, in Ordericus, v, p. 18, n. 1; Le Hardy, p. 9; Freeman,
_Norman Conquest_, iv, p. 123, n. 3.
[12] William of Malmesbury says of him in 1066 that “spectatae iam
virtutis habebatur adolescens.” _G. R._, ii, p. 459. In a charter of
confirmation by Robert dated 1066 he is described as old enough to give
a voluntary confirmation: “quia scilicet maioris iam ille aetatis ad
praebendum spontaneum auctoramentum idoneus esset.” _Cartulaire de Laval
et de Vitré_, no. 30, in Arthur Bertrand de Broussillon, _La maison de
Laval_ (Paris, 1895-1903), i, p. 45; cf. Davis, _Regesta_, no. 2.
[13] _Cartulaire de la Trinité du Mont_, no. 60. According to Le Prévost
it is of about the year 1060. Ordericus, v, p. 18, n. 1.
[14] Round, _C. D. F._, no. 1173; Davis, _Regesta_, no. 2. Le Prévost
(Ordericus, v, p. 18, n. 1) refers to an early charter by Duke William
in favor of Saint-Ouen of Rouen, in which appears “Hilgerius magister
pueri.” This is probably Cartulary of Saint-Ouen (28 _bis_), MS., p. 280,
no. 345, and p. 233, no. 278, a charter of doubtful authenticity.
[15] Davis, _Regesta_, no. 6a.
[16] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 460: “nec infaceti eloquii
… nec enervis erat consilii”; _ibid._, p. 463: “patria lingua facundus,
ut sit iocundior nullus”, Ordericus Vitalis, who is less flattering,
calls him ‘loquax,’ but he adds, “voce clara et libera, lingua diserta.”
Ordericus, ii, p. 295. Cf. Ralph of Caen, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 666.
[17] _Infra_, pp. 187-188.
[18] If we could attach any importance to a speech which Ordericus
puts into the mouth of Robert apropos of his quarrel with his father,
the young prince would seem to have shared the opinion of many another
headstrong youth about grammarians: “Huc, domine mi rex, non accessi pro
sermonibus audiendis, quorum copia frequenter usque ad nauseam imbutus
sum a grammaticis.” Ordericus, ii, p. 379.
[19] On these events and their sequel see Robert Latouche, _Histoire du
comté du Maine pendant le Xᵉ et le XIᵉ siècle_ (Paris, 1910), pp. 29 ff.;
Louis Halphen, _Le comté d’Anjou au XIᵉ siècle_ (Paris, 1906), pp. 74-80,
178 ff.
[20] Latouche shows that the treaty must be later than the election of
Vougrin, bishop of Le Mans, 31 August 1055, and earlier than the death
of Geoffrey Martel, 1060. He thinks it probably later than the battle of
Varaville, 1058. _Maine_, p. 32, n. 5.
[21] William of Poitiers, in _H. F._, xi, pp. 85, 86; Ordericus, ii, pp.
102, 252. The two sources are not in complete accord. Except at one point
I have preferred the former as being the more strictly contemporary.
William of Poitiers represents the betrothal of William and Margaret
not as a part of the original treaty, but as a later arrangement made
by Duke William after Herbert’s death in order to forestall a possible
controversy as to Norman rights in Maine. But this marriage alliance
looms so large in the narrative of Ordericus Vitalis that it seems hardly
likely that it was a mere afterthought on Duke William’s part. Ordericus
represents it as the fundamental provision of the treaty. According to
his view it was through Margaret that Norman rights in Maine arose.
He does not seem to realize that upon such reasoning they would also
terminate with her death. For William of Poitiers, on the other hand, the
fundamental provision of the treaty was the agreement that Duke William
should be Count Herbert’s heir. This would give the duke permanent
rights after Herbert’s death. It seems not unlikely that both provisions
were included in the treaty and that Duke William regarded them both as
important. At times he dealt with Maine as if of his own absolute right;
at other times he put forward his son as bearer of the Norman rights.
[22] Ordericus, ii, p. 104; William of Poitiers, in _H. F._, xi, p. 86.
[23] Latouche, _Maine_, p. 146, nos. 32, 33.
[24] _Ibid._, p. 33.
[25] Latouche has shown that the date of the revolt falls between 9 March
1062 and 14 March 1063. _Maine_, p. 33, n. 4. The account of Ordericus
Vitalis is confused, and the date (1064) which he gives is impossible.
Ordericus, ii, pp. 101-103. The suit held before the ducal curia at
Domfront, “cum Guillelmus, Normanniae comes, Cenomannicam urbem haberet
adquisitam,” should probably be assigned to 1063 rather than to 1064.
Bertrand de Broussillon, _Maison de Laval_, i, p. 41, no. 28.
[26] Herbert Éveille-Chien was grandfather of Herbert II. Biota,
therefore, was aunt of Margaret, Robert Curthose’s fiancée. The
genealogy of the counts of Maine in the eleventh century has at last
been disentangled by Latouche. _Maine_, pp. 113-115, appendix iii. F.
M. Stenton, _William the Conqueror_ (New York, 1908), pp. 129 ff., and
appendix, table d, is inaccurate.
[27] Halphen, _Anjou_, pp. 137, 293-294, no. 171. Cf. Latouche, _Maine_,
pp. 33-34.
[28] Ordericus, ii, pp. 103, 259. William of Poitiers makes no mention of
the poisoning. Halphen (_Anjou_, p. 179) and Latouche (_Maine_, p. 34,
and n. 6) accept the account of Ordericus as true, the latter explaining
that William of Poitiers, as a panegyrist, naturally passes over such
an act in silence. Freeman, on the other hand, holds the story to be an
unsubstantiated rumor, inconsistent with the character of William the
Conqueror. _Norman Conquest_, iii, p. 208.
[29] Cf. Latouche, _Maine_, pp. 34-35. The primary authorities are
William of Poitiers, in _H. F._, xi, pp. 85-86, and Ordericus, ii, pp.
101-104.
[30] It is the thesis of Latouche that “pendant tout le cours du XIᵉ
[siècle] le comte du Maine s’était trouvé vis-à-vis de celui d’Anjou
dans un état de vassalité,” and he points out that it was the policy of
William the Conqueror and Robert Curthose to respect “le principe de la
suzeraineté angevine.” _Maine_, pp. 54-56.
[31] _Ibid._, p. 35.
[32] Ordericus, ii, p. 253: “Guillelmus autem Normannorum princeps
post mortem Herberti iuvenis haereditatem eius obtinuit, et Goisfredus
comes Rodberto iuveni cum filia Herberti totum honorem concessit, et
hominium debitamque fidelitatem ab illo in praesentia patris apud
Alencionem recepit.” Ordericus is the sole authority for this homage;
and his account of it is incidental to a brief resumé of the lives
of the counts of Maine, and forms no part of his general narrative
of William’s conquest of the county in 1063. The date of the homage,
therefore, is conjectural. The revolt of the Manceaux took place soon
after the death of Count Herbert; and since Geoffrey le Barbu supported
the revolt, it seems natural to regard the homage as a final act in the
general pacification, and to assign it to 1063. This is the view taken
by Latouche (_Maine_, p. 35) as against Kate Norgate (_England under the
Angevin Kings_, London, 1887, i, p. 217), who places the homage before
the revolt.
[33] Latouche, _Maine_, p. 34.
[34] E.g., [before 1066] charter by Duke William establishing collegiate
canons at Cherbourg (_Revue catholique de Normandie_, x, pp. 46-50);
[before 1066] charter by Duke William in favor of Coutances cathedral
(Round, _C. D. F._, no. 957); 1068 (indiction xiii by error for vi),
confirmation by King William and by Robert of a charter in favor of La
Couture, Le Mans (_Cartulaier des abbayes de Saint-Pierre de la Couture
et de Saint-Pierre de Solesmes_, ed. the Benedictines of Solesmes, Le
Mans, 1881, no. 15; cf. Latouche, _Maine_, p. 147, no. 35); 1074, charter
by King William in favor of Bayeux cathedral (Davis, _Regesta_, no. 76).
[35] A donation by Gradulf, a canon of Saint-Vincent of Le Mans, is dated
as follows: “Igitur hec omnia facta sunt in Bellimensi Castro viiiᵒ
kal. Septembris, currente xivᵃ indictione, et Philippo rege Francorum
regnante Robertoque, Willelmi regis Anglorum filio, Cenomannicam urbem
gubernante.” _Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Saint-Vincent du Mans_, ed. R.
Charles and S. Menjot d’Elbenne (Le Mans, 1886), i, no. 589.
[36] Ordericus Vitalis (ii, p. 104) describes her as “speciosam
virginem”; William of Poitiers (_H. F._, xi, p. 86) is more lavish of
praise: “Haec generosa virgo, nomine Margarita, insigni specie decentior
fuit omni margarita.”
[37] _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p.
268; William of Poitiers, in _H. F._, xi, p. 86; Ordericus, ii, p. 104.
According to _Gallia Christiana_ (ed. the Benedictines of Saint-Maur and
others, Paris, 1715-75, xi, col. 205) Margaret died 13 December 1060; but
this is clearly an error, since after the death of Count Herbert II (9
March 1062) she joined with Robert Curthose in doing homage to Geoffrey
le Barbu, and this act took place apparently in the year 1063. Ordericus,
ii, p. 253; and cf. _supra_, n. 32. Latouche suggests that the editors of
_Gallia Christiana_ have probably taken the day and the month from some
obituary and are in error, therefore, only as to the year. _Maine_, p.
32, n. 6. It is probably only a desire for literary effect which leads
William of Poitiers to say that Margaret was snatched away by death
shortly before her proposed marriage: “Sed ipsam non longe ante diem quo
mortali sponso iungeretur hominibus abstulit Virginis Filius.” Apparently
at the time of her death Margaret had become a nun. Robert of Torigny
states that she died a ‘virgo Christo devota’, and William of Poitiers
says that she died practising great austerities and wearing a hair shirt.
[38] _Supra_, n. 34.
[39] _Supra_, n. 25.
[40] Charter of Stigand de Mézidon, the same to whom Duke William had
committed the wardship of Margaret of Maine, in favor of Saint-Ouen
of Rouen. _Mémoires et notes de M. Auguste Le Prévost pour servir à
l’histoire du département de l’Eure_, ed. Léopold Delisle and Louis Passy
(Évreux, 1862-69), i, p. 562.
[41] Round, _C. D. F._, no. 1173; Davis, _Regesta_, no. 2. The charter is
dated at Rouen, 1066.
[42] The date of the ceremony is uncertain. It can hardly have been as
early as the charter of 1063 which is cited in n. 40 _supra._ It seems
more likely to have been a measure taken in 1066 when the attack upon
England was in contemplation. Thus Ordericus Vitalis (ii, p. 294) speaks
of it somewhat vaguely as a measure taken “ante Senlacium,” and in
another place (ii, p. 378) he makes Robert say to his father: “Normanniam
… quam dudum, antequam contra Heraldum in Angliam transfretares, mihi
concessisti”; and again (iii, p. 242) he makes the Conqueror on his
deathbed use language of similar import: “Ducatum Normanniae, antequam
in epitumo Senlac contra Heraldum certassem, Roberto filio meo concessi,
quia primogenitus est. Hominium pene omnium huius patriae baronum iam
recepit.” Florence of Worcester, _Chronicon ex Chronicis_, ed. Benjamin
Thorpe (London, 1848-49), ii, p. 12: “Normanniam quam sibi ante adventum
ipsius in Angliam, coram Philippo rege Francorum dederat.” Cf. _A.-S.
C._, _a._ 1079; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of
Jumièges, p. 268.
[43] The question as to the period and manner of this homage is
complicated by the fact that the ceremony was repeated at an undetermined
date after the Norman Conquest on the occasion of the king’s serious
illness at Bonneville. The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_a._ 1079) and
Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 12) are the only sources which mention
the assent of King Philip. From Florence it seems to be clear that this
assent was given on the earlier occasion.
[44] William of Poitiers, in _H. F._, xi, p. 103; Ordericus, ii, p. 178.
According to the former the council was headed by Roger of Beaumont,
according to the latter by Roger of Montgomery.
[45] Ordericus, ii, pp. 177, 178. William of Jumièges (p. 139) makes no
mention of Matilda or of the council of regents, but says that the duchy
was committed to Robert: “Rodberto filio suo iuvenili flore vernanti
Normannici ducatus dominium tradidit.”
[46] E.g., 1067, April, Vaudreuil, charter by William I in favor of
the monks of Saint-Benoît-sur-Loire (Davis, _Regesta_, no. 6a); 1082,
June 24, Oissel, two confirmations by William I of grants in favor
of Saint-Martin of Marmoutier (_ibid._, nos. 145, 146); [1079-82],
confirmation by William I of a grant in favor of the abbey of Troarn
(_ibid._, no. 172). Lot publishes two charters of 1051, in which Robert’s
attestation as the ‘young count’ has been interpolated at some later
date. See _supra_, n. 10. He also publishes a charter, “vers 1071,” in
which appears “presente Rotberto comite.” _Saint-Wandrille_, no. 43, pp.
99-100. Lot supposes that this is Count Robert of Eu, but it is more
probably Robert Curthose. See Haskins, p. 66, n. 18.
There is no regular practice with regard to Robert’s title in documents
during the Conqueror’s lifetime. Occasionally, as above noted, he is
called ‘count of the Normans’; occasionally, as has been pointed out in
an earlier note (_supra_, n. 34), he bears the title ‘count of Maine.’
Often he appears without title as ‘Robert the king’s son’ (Davis,
_Regesta_, nos. 73, 92a, 126, 140, 165, 168, 171, 255); but generally he
is called count (_ibid._, nos. 2, 30, 74, 75, 76, 96, 105, 114, 125, 127,
135, 145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 158, 169, 170, 172, 173, 175, 182, 183a,
199); and very frequently his designation is ‘Count Robert the king’s
son’ (_ibid._, nos. 30, 74, 75, 105, 114, 125, 147, 149, 150, 158, 169,
170).
[47] This appears to be the implication of Ordericus, ii, p. 188.
[48] On the date see Latouche, _Maine_, p. 36, n. 1. On the revolt
generally and its sequel see _ibid._, pp. 35-38; Halphen, _Anjou_, pp.
180-181; _Actus Pontificum_, pp. 376-381; Ordericus, ii, pp. 253-254.
[49] _Actus Pontificum_, pp. 380-381; Ordericus, ii, pp. 254-255;
Latouche, _Maine_, p. 38; Halphen, _Anjou_, p. 181. The campaign took
place in 1073 (_A.-S. C., a._ 1073) before 30 March, as is shown by a
confirmation by King William in favor of the monks of La Couture: “Anno
Domini millesimo septuagesimo tercio iii kalendas Aprilis, roboratum est
hoc preceptum a rege Anglorum Guillelmo apud Bonam Villam.” _Cartulaire
de la Couture_, no. 9. Cf. Latouche, _Maine_, p. 38, n. 7, and p. 147,
no. 38.
[50] In a charter by Arnold, bishop of Le Mans, we read: “Acta autem
fuit hec auctorizatio in urbe Cenomannica, in capitulo beati Iuliani,
iiiº kalendas Aprilis … eo videlicet anno quo Robertus, Willelmi regis
Anglorum filius, comitatum Cenomannensem recuperavit.” _Cartulaire de
Saint-Vincent_, no. 175. This charter cannot be certainly dated more
closely than 1066-81. But it seems not unlikely that it belongs to
the spring of 1073, when, as we know, Norman authority had just been
reëstablished at Le Mans by force of arms.
[51] On these events see Augustin Fliche, _Le règne de Philippe Iᵉʳ, roi
de France_ (Paris, 1912), pp. 270-274; Halphen, _Anjou_, p. 182.
[52] He is so styled in 1074 in his attestation of a charter by King
William in favor of Bayeux cathedral. Davis, _Regesta_, no. 76.
[53] “Roberto … Cenomannicam urbem gubernante.” _Supra_, n. 35.
[54] Ordericus, ii, pp. 294, 390; cf. _A.-S. C., a._ 1079; Florence of
Worcester, ii, p. 12. That this ceremony took place twice, once before
and once after the Conquest, seems to be made certain by the specific
phrase of Ordericus, “ante Senlacium bellum et post in quadam sua
aegritudine.” Cf. _supra_, n. 43.
[55] Unless one so regard a speech which Ordericus (ii, p. 259) puts into
the mouths of the rebel earls Roger of Hereford and Ralph of Norfolk in
1074: “Transmarinis conflictibus undique circumdatur, et non solum ab
externis, sed etiam a sua prole impugnatur, et a propriis alumnis inter
discrimina deseritur.” But this speech is probably a work of imagination
on the part of Ordericus, and he seems here to have fallen into an
anachronism. Cf. Le Prévost, in Ordericus, ii, p. 377, n. 1.
[56] Davis, _Regesta_, nos. 2, 4, 6a, 30, 73, 75, 76, 92a, 96, 105, 114;
Round, _C. D. F._, nos. 713, 957, 1165; Le Prévost, _Eure_, i, p. 562;
_Antiquus Cartularius Ecclesiae Baiocensis (Livre noir)_, ed. l’abbé V.
Bourrienne (Paris, 1902), no. 5; _Revue catholique de Normandie_, x, pp.
46-50; _Cartulaire de la Couture_, no. 15; Lot, _Saint-Wandrille_, nos.
30, 31, 38; Bertrand de Broussillon, _Maison de Laval_, i, p. 37, no.
20. Though the authenticity of this last document has been questioned,
Broussillon regards it as “parfaitement authentique.” The attestation
“Rotberti comiti regis Anglorum filii” is inconsistent with the evident
date of the charter (1055), and must be, in part at least, a later
interpolation.
[57] Ordericus, ii, pp. 304-305.
[58] Davis, _Regesta_, no. 96; Round, _C. D. F._, no. 449.