INDEPENDENT RULE, 1087-95
While William Rufus was hurrying to England to claim the royal crown,
and the young Prince Henry was piously attending his father’s funeral
at Caen, Robert Curthose, hearing the news of the Conqueror’s death,
hastily returned from his long exile, and upon arriving at Rouen took
possession of his inheritance without encountering any opposition.[1]
At last the duchy of Normandy and the county of Maine, so long denied
him by his imperious father, were within his grasp. No doubt the news
of the king’s death was very welcome to the incorrigible exile; yet it
is pleasant to learn that Robert, upon entering into his inheritance,
was not neglectful of filial duty toward his father’s memory or of those
charitable acts which were regarded as necessary for the weal of the
departed soul. The Conqueror upon his deathbed had made provision for
the distribution of his treasures[2] and for the release of prisoners
from his gaols.[3] These dispositions the duke was careful to carry out,
making bounteous distribution of such treasure as he found to monasteries
and churches and to the poor; while two captives of royal descent—Wulf,
son of King Harold, and Duncan, son of King Malcolm—he not only allowed
to go their way in peace, but honored with the arms of knighthood.[4]
Filial piety and the chivalrous impulses of Robert Curthose were never
more happily united. Some of the rare charters of the duke’s early reign
are also indicative of a similar spirit. Thus we find him confirming to
Saint-Étienne of Caen a grant of the manor of Vains which the Conqueror
had made during his last illness.[5] Perhaps not quite the same motive,
though assuredly no spirit of rancor, led him on 7 July 1088 to restore
to La Trinité of Fécamp the lands which his father had taken away in his
wrath.[6]
The news of the Conqueror’s death spread with incredible swiftness,[7]
and the new duke can hardly have reached Rouen before a new era (_nimia
rerum mutatio_) had dawned in Normandy.[8] The days of stern government,
of enforced peace, of castles garrisoned and controlled by the duke had
passed—at least until Normandy should again be brought under the heavy
hand of an English king. Robert of Bellême was on his way to the royal
bedside, and had got as far as Brionne, when the news of the king’s
death reached him. Instantly he wheeled his horse, and, galloping back
to Alençon, he took the royal garrison by surprise, drove it out, and
established his own retainers in the castle. Then, pressing on, he
repeated this performance at Bellême and at other of his strongholds.
He also turned upon his weaker neighbors, and either expelled their
garrisons and installed his own troops in their stead, or razed their
castles to the ground in order that none might stand against him. So,
too, William of Évreux, William of Breteuil, Ralph of Conches, and
other lords—most of them old friends and supporters of Robert Curthose
in rebellious days—expelled the garrisons of King William from their
fortresses and took them into their own hands.[9] Already the stage was
set for the private warfare, the pillage, and the harrying that were to
reduce Normandy to the verge of chaos. The monk of Saint-Évroul, whose
house was unfortunately located amid the very worst dens of iniquity,
sends up a wail of lamentation. Robert was duke of Normandy and prince of
the Manceaux in name, indeed; but so sunk was he in sloth and idleness
that his government knew neither virtue nor justice.[10] But to these
things it will be necessary to recur in another connection. It was, in
any event, clear from the beginning that the barons were to enjoy a
position of influence, independence, and power under the new régime such
as had been denied them by the Conqueror.
For some four years before the death of the late king, Bishop Odo of
Bayeux had been held a royal prisoner in the castle of Rouen. Very
reluctantly had the Conqueror, as he lay upon his deathbed, been
prevailed upon to release him.[11] But under the new duke the fortunes
of the bishop again rose rapidly. Not only did he enjoy freedom, but all
his former possessions and honors in Normandy were restored to him, and
he took his place among the duke’s chief counsellors.[12] Soon afterwards
he crossed over to England, and was reëstablished in his former earldom
of Kent.[13] And then, with vaulting ambition, he began to plot the
overthrow of William Rufus and the reuniting of England and Normandy
under the rule of Robert Curthose.
The position of Odo of Bayeux, with his broad holdings and honors on both
sides of the Channel, was typical of that of many of the Anglo-Norman
barons. They had been held by William the Conqueror under a tight
rein, but at least they had had a single master. Now, however, the
two realms were divided, and the service of two lords presented grave
inconveniences. “If we do our duty to Robert, the duke of Normandy,”
they said, “we shall offend his brother William, and so lose our great
revenues and high honors in England. On the other hand, if we keep our
fealty to King William, Duke Robert will take from us our patrimonial
estates in Normandy.”[14] Further, the accession of two young and
inexperienced princes, after the stern rule and rigorous repression
of the preceding reign, offered a peculiarly tempting opportunity for
rebellion. And as between the two princes, there could be little doubt
on which side the support of most of the barons would be thrown. Robert
was affable, mild, and pliable—for the turbulent nobles of the eleventh
century such a ruler as they most desired. William, on the other hand,
was arrogant and terrible and likely to be a harsh, unbending master.
Moreover, Robert, as the eldest son, was deemed to have the better
right.[15] William Rufus had gained the kingdom largely by virtue of
his own decisive action and the support of Archbishop Lanfranc. Though
publicly acknowledged, his tenure of the English crown was by no means
unreservedly accepted by the baronage in England.[16] Accordingly, late
in 1087, or more probably early in the spring of 1088,[17] a conspiracy
with wide ramifications was formed for his overthrow and for the transfer
of the kingdom to Robert Curthose. “In this year,” says the Chronicler,
“this land was much disturbed and filled with great treason, so that the
most powerful Frenchmen that were in this land would betray their lord
the king, and would have for king his brother Robert who was count of
Normandy.”[18]
The beginnings of this treasonable enterprise are obscure, and it is
impossible to say with certainty on which side of the Channel the plot
was hatched.[19] Bishop Odo of Bayeux was unquestionably its prime
mover, and of his activities we have some knowledge. Having risen to
honor and power in Normandy, he had crossed over to England before the
end of 1087 and was in attendance at the king’s Christmas court,[20]
apparently in the full enjoyment of his English earldom.[21] But he may
even then have been contemplating treason. Certainly the inception of the
great conspiracy both in England and in Normandy can hardly have been
delayed long afterwards. During the early spring secret negotiations were
active, and frequent messages must have been exchanged between England
and the Continent.[22] One after another the great nobles and prelates
were won over. Even William of Saint-Calais, bishop of Durham, who had
been raised by William Rufus to the position of chief trust in the
kingdom, was widely believed to have joined the conspiracy.[23] Before
the close of Lent[24] the greater part of the Anglo-Norman baronage
had strengthened the defences of their castles and broken into open
revolt. The rebellion extended from the south coast to Northumberland
and from East Anglia to the Welsh border.[25] But the centre and heart
of the movement, so far, at any rate, as it concerns the life of Robert
Curthose, lay in the southeast of England, where Bishop Odo and his
immediate supporters had established themselves in strategic positions in
the strongholds of Rochester[26] and Pevensey.[27]
Duke Robert’s connection with the great rebellion of 1088 in its early
stages is by no means clear. According to one of the later writers, upon
learning that his brother had gone to England to claim the royal crown,
Robert had sworn a great oath by the angels of God, declaring that though
he were in distant Alexandria, the English would await his coming and
make him king.[28] Actually, however, he seems to have reconciled himself
to the accomplished fact,[29] and not to have contemplated an attack upon
England until the barons, taking the initiative, informed him of their
plan for the overthrow of William Rufus.[30] Upon hearing this good news,
however, he promptly approved the project and promised the conspirators
every possible aid and support.[31] As an earnest of his intention, he
sent Eustace of Boulogne and Robert of Bellême with their retainers on in
advance to England, where they were installed by Bishop Odo in the great
fortress of Rochester. Meanwhile, he undertook to collect a fleet and to
prepare for an invasion in force.[32]
But the levy and equipment of an expedition for a second Norman conquest
of England was an undertaking for which the resources of the duke were
little able to provide. Careless, prodigal, incurably fond of good
living, Robert was by nature impecunious. The unsettling transformation
that had come over the duchy upon his accession was little likely to
recruit his financial resources. The sudden increase in the power and
independence of the nobility, the disturbed state of the country, the
lavish grant of emoluments to all who asked, the charitable distribution
of the Conqueror’s treasure to religious houses, all these things
inevitably depleted the ducal resources. And further, under the terms of
the late king’s will, 5000 livres had been paid out to make provision for
Prince Henry.[33]
As compared with Robert, who had squandered his treasure in reckless
extravagance, Prince Henry enjoyed a certain opulence. Pious attendance
at the Conqueror’s obsequies had not prevented his having his treasure
weighed out to the last farthing, “in order that nothing should be
lacking,” and putting it in a place of security among friends upon whom
he could rely.[34] Without land which he could call his own, and placed
in a somewhat difficult position between the rival interests of his
brothers, he had stood carefully upon his guard, frugally husbanding his
resources, and holding himself in readiness to take sides with either of
his brothers, or with neither, as his own interests should decide.[35]
He was more drawn to Robert, however, because of his mildness and good
nature,[36] and for a time he remained with him in Normandy.[37] To
Henry, accordingly, Robert appealed in 1088 for funds to be used in
the invasion of England. But gifts without reward Henry would not give.
Soon, however, fresh messengers from the duke brought the welcome news
that Robert was willing to sell him a part of his lands; whereupon Henry
became more pliable, and a bargain was soon struck. For 3000 livres
the duke handed over to him the whole of the Cotentin, Avranches, and
Mont-Saint-Michel, together with the great Norman lordship of Earl Hugh
of Chester.[38] Thus Robert obtained a supply of ready cash to equip his
forces for the invasion of England, though at the expense of alienating
a part of his birthright. This was but the beginning of a policy of
short-sighted expedients in lieu of effective government, which in the
end was to prove fatal to his rule.
Meanwhile, the rebellion had taken a course which was disastrous for
Robert’s cause in England. William Rufus, finding that the greater part
of the Anglo-Norman baronage had deserted him, turned for support to
his native English subjects, and his appeal to them was not made in
vain.[39] Gathering together such forces as he could, he marched straight
upon Tunbridge and took the place by storm. Then he pushed on towards
Rochester, expecting to find Odo of Bayeux and the main body of the rebel
forces. But the bishop had learned of his coming and had slipped out of
Rochester and gone to Pevensey, where he joined Robert of Mortain in the
defence of the castle, while they awaited the arrival of Robert Curthose
with the expedition from Normandy. But the king was informed of the
bishop’s movement, and, abandoning his proposed attack upon Rochester,
he marched southward upon Pevensey and began a protracted siege of the
castle.[40]
Meanwhile, the long expected fleet from Normandy did not appear. One
writer complains that the duke dallied away his time with amusements ill
befitting a man.[41] Indeed, so widespread was the English rebellion
that the kingdom appeared to be almost within his grasp, if only he
had bestirred himself to seize it.[42] Yet with William Rufus loyally
supported by an English army and pushing his campaign with the utmost
vigor, everything depended upon the promptness with which the duke could
land troops in England to support the rebels. It was doubtless the
knowledge of this pressing need which induced Robert to send forward a
part of his forces in advance, while he himself remained in Normandy to
make more extended preparations.[43] But the vanguard of the ducal fleet
met with a disaster which proved fatal to the whole insurrectionary
movement. While William Rufus himself maintained a close investment of
Pevensey, he had sent his ships to sea to ward off the threatened attack.
And as the Norman fleet approached the English coast, the rival forces
joined in battle, and the invaders were overwhelmingly defeated. To add
to the catastrophe, a sudden calm cut off every possibility of escape to
the Norman forces. According to contemporary writers the multitude that
perished was beyond all reckoning.[44]
Disaster followed hard upon disaster. Bishop Odo, the count of Mortain,
and the garrison of Pevensey were reduced by starvation and obliged to
surrender after a six weeks’ resistance.[45] The bishop gave himself up,
and solemnly promised upon oath to procure the surrender of Rochester
and then depart the kingdom forever. Upon this understanding the king,
suspecting no ruse or bad faith, sent him off with a small force to
receive the submission of Rochester. But the great fortress, the chief
stronghold of the rebels in southeastern England, was held by a strong
garrison and able leaders whom the duke had sent from Normandy,[46]
such warriors as Eustace of Boulogne and Robert of Bellême and two of
his brothers, men of intrepid courage, who were unwilling to admit the
hopelessness of their cause. And when Odo appeared before the castle with
the royal troops and summoned them to surrender, they suddenly sallied
forth, seized both the bishop and his captors, and carried the whole
party within the walls.[47] Outwitted by this clever ruse, the king was
again obliged to summon his English supporters[48] and lay siege to
Rochester. But still no reënforcements arrived from Normandy, and again
the royal arms enjoyed a triumph. The defenders of Rochester were obliged
to surrender;[49] and the traitor bishop was now at last deprived of
all his revenues and honors in England and driven over sea forever.[50]
Doubtless other rebels were sent into exile with him.[51] But William
Rufus with politic foresight tempered his animosity against many and
admitted them to reconciliation.[52]
With the destruction of Duke Robert’s fleet, the reduction of Pevensey
and Rochester, and the expulsion of Odo of Bayeux from England, the force
of the rebellion had been broken. Whatever plans the duke may have had
to follow with a greater fleet were perforce abandoned. Through his own
weakness and procrastination, coupled with the vigor and resourcefulness
of William Rufus and the loyalty of the native English, the attempt
to place Robert Curthose upon the throne of England, at one time so
promising, had ended in utter failure.
But Robert’s failure did not end the hostility between the two brothers.
No peace negotiations intervened. William Rufus continued to nurse his
indignation and to thirst for vengeance. He professed to fear some
further mischief from the duke.[53] Robert, too, remained suspicious
and apprehensive. Prince Henry, learning of the fall of Rochester, and
eager to conciliate the victor, had hastened across the Channel to visit
the king and crave from him “the lands of his mother” to which he laid
claim.[54] The duke regarded this move with little favor; and when,
soon after,[55] Henry had accomplished his mission and was returning to
Normandy in company with Robert of Bellême, who had also been reconciled
with William Rufus, the duke had him seized at the landing and placed in
custody. Malicious enemies, we are told, had poisoned the duke’s mind
with the belief that Henry and Robert of Bellême had not only made
their peace with the king, but had entered into a sworn agreement to
his own hurt.[56] Henry was released from prison some six months later,
at the solicitation of the Norman barons,[57] and the incident is not,
perhaps, of great importance—for, if Henry and the king had arrived at
any understanding, it must have been of short duration—yet it serves to
illustrate the strained relations which continued to exist between Robert
Curthose and William Rufus.
Meanwhile, the king, at last secure in his possession of the English
throne, began to develop plans for taking vengeance upon the duke. If
we can rely upon the unsupported statement of Ordericus Vitalis in
such a matter, he held a formal assembly of his barons at Winchester,
apparently in 1089,[58] and laid before them proposals for an attack upon
Normandy. He harangued the assembled magnates upon the faithless conduct
of his brother and upon the state of unchecked anarchy into which he had
allowed his duchy to fall. The whole country, he declared, had become
a prey to thieves and robbers, and the lamentations of the clergy had
reached him from beyond the sea. It behooved him, therefore, as the son
of his father, to send to Normandy for the succor of holy church, for
the protection of widows and orphans, and for the just punishment of
plunderers and assassins. Upon being asked their advice, the assembled
nobles promptly approved the king’s project.[59] Perhaps some of the
quondam rebels reasoned that, since the two realms could not be reunited
under the weak and pliable Robert, it would still be worth their while
to attempt to bring about the desired union under his more masterful
brother.[60]
The king’s plan evidently did not involve immediate open war upon Robert
Curthose. It was not the way of William Rufus to attempt upon the field
of battle that which might more expeditiously be accomplished through
diplomacy. This was a form of attack which the impoverished duke was
little qualified to combat. Choosing as the field of his activities the
Norman lands lying north and east of the Seine, William Rufus began by
winning over by bribery the garrison of Saint-Valery at the mouth of
the Somme, thus gaining a strong castle and a commodious seaport in a
position most advantageously located for the further prosecution of
his design. It must have been at about the same time that Stephen of
Aumale yielded to the same golden argument, and opened the gates of his
stronghold to the soldiers of King William. From these convenient bases
plundering raids were then carried into the surrounding country.[61]
Soon the contagion spread farther. Gerard of Gournay placed his castles
of Gournay, La Ferté-en-Bray, and Gaillefontaine at the disposal of the
king, and actively devoted himself to the promotion of the English cause
among his neighbors. His example was promptly followed by Robert of Eu
and Walter Giffard, lord of Longueville, and by Ralph of Mortemer. In
short, by an effective blending of bribery and diplomacy, William Rufus
had succeeded in detaching the greater part of the Norman nobles dwelling
upon the right bank of the Seine from their allegiance to the duke.[62]
The single notable exception appears to have been Helias of Saint-Saëns,
to whom Robert had given his illegitimate daughter, and with her the
castles of Arques and Bures and their appurtenant lands as a marriage
portion. Firmly establishing his son-in-law at Saint-Saëns, Arques,
and Bures, the duke intended that he should stand as a counterpoise to
the rapidly growing English influence east of the Seine.[63] And his
expectations were not disappointed. Through every adversity, Helias of
Saint-Saëns remained staunchly loyal to the cause of Robert Curthose and
of his son, long after the final triumph of Henry I at Tinchebray.
Of other measures taken by the duke to combat the insidious aggression of
his more resourceful rival, we have only the most fragmentary knowledge.
From one of Robert’s charters, it appears that he besieged and captured
the castle of Eu in 1089.[64] This, it seems not improbable, was one
of his early and successful efforts against the Norman traitors and
their English ally. We know, too, that in his extreme need he appealed
to his overlord, the king of France. Yet here again our information is
discouragingly fragmentary. Of the relations between the duke and his
overlord after the death of William the Conqueror we know nothing except
that on 24 April 1089 Robert was at Vernon on the Seine frontier, engaged
in some sort of hostile enterprise against France.[65] Certain it is,
however, that before the close of this year he had sought and obtained
the aid of King Philip against his Anglo-Norman enemies in the lands east
of the Seine.[66] Together they laid siege to La Ferté-en-Bray,[67] the
castle of Gerard of Gournay. But again the golden diplomacy of William
Rufus proved more than a match for the vanishing resources of the duke.
“No small quantity of money having been transmitted secretly to King
Philip,” he was readily induced to abandon the siege and return home.[68]
In 1090 difficulties continued to multiply around Duke Robert. In the
city of Rouen itself William Rufus had contrived through bribery to gain
a following, and had set himself to promote civic discord as a means
of undermining the duke’s authority.[69] In November 1090 a factional
conflict broke out in Rouen between two parties of the burghers, the
_Pilatenses_ and _Calloenses_. Of the latter we know no more than that
they were the supporters of the duke and that they were the weaker of the
two factions.[70] The _Pilatenses_ were ably led by a certain Conan, son
of Gilbert Pilatus, described as the wealthiest citizen of Rouen. His
great riches enabled him to maintain a large household of retainers in
opposition to the duke and to draw into his faction the greater part of
the citizens. As a further resource, Conan had covenanted with William
Rufus to deliver up to him the city. An insurrection was planned to take
place on 3 November; and at the appointed hour the king’s hirelings were
to come from Gournay and other neighboring fortresses to support the
rising. Some of the king’s adherents had already secretly been brought
within the walls, ready to join the rebels at the appointed moment.[71]
The duke learned late of the events that were impending and had barely
time to call up reënforcements. Hasty summonses were sent to William of
Évreux, Robert of Bellême, William of Breteuil, and Gilbert of Laigle.
More important still, Prince Henry was induced to forget past wrongs
and come to the duke’s assistance in this hour of need. These measures
were taken barely in time to avert a disaster. Henry, apparently, was
already within the city before the outbreak; but as Gilbert of Laigle
with a troop of horse galloped across the bridge over the Seine and
entered Rouen from the south, Reginald of Warenne with three hundred
supporters of William Rufus was already battering at the western gate.
Meanwhile, within the city the insurrection had broken out amid scenes
of wild confusion. Robert and Henry issued from the citadel and began to
attack the rebels upon front and rear. Robert was personally brave and
a sturdy fighter, and on later occasions he proved himself an excellent
leader in emergencies. But in the wild confusion and uncertainties of
the Rouen insurrection, his friends became alarmed lest some serious
mishap should befall him, and persuaded him to retire to a place of
safety and not expose himself to such grave perils until the issue of the
conflict should be decided. Accordingly, he withdrew by the eastern gate
into the Faubourg Malpalu, and, there taking a boat across the Seine to
Émendreville, he found shelter in the priory of Notre-Dame-du-Pré.[72]
Meanwhile, within the city, Henry and Gilbert of Laigle and their
supporters put down the insurrection with a great slaughter of the
inhabitants. Conan and many other rebels were captured, and the hirelings
of William Rufus were obliged to withdraw in confusion and seek the
shelter of a neighboring wood, until under the cover of darkness they
were able to make good their escape. With the triumph of his forces,
the duke returned to the city, and, with his habitual mildness, was
for throwing Conan into a dungeon and showing clemency to the rest of
the rebels. But his barons had other views, and insisted upon taking a
savage vengeance upon the burghers who had been involved in the treason.
William, son of Ansger, one of the richest men in the city, was led away
into captivity by William of Breteuil and held for a ransom of 3000
livres. As for Conan, the archtraitor, Prince Henry craved leave of the
duke to dispose of him in his own way. Taking him up to the upper story
of the tower of Rouen, where a window commanded a view of the surrounding
country, he called upon the wretch to view the beauties of the landscape
as it stretched away across the Seine; and then, swearing by the soul of
his mother that a traitor should not be admitted to ransom, he thrust him
backwards through the window. The place, says Ordericus Vitalis, is known
as Conan’s Leap “unto this day.”[73]
The failure of William Rufus to overthrow the authority of Robert
Curthose in Rouen by stirring up an insurrection did not put a check upon
his ambitious projects elsewhere. In this same month of November 1090
private war broke out between William of Évreux and Ralph of Conches. The
latter appealed to the duke for aid, but got no encouragement; whereupon
he turned to William Rufus, and found him altogether too alert to let
slip so good an opportunity of extending his influence. The king promptly
directed his Norman allies, Stephen of Aumale and Gerard of Gournay,
to send reinforcements to Conches.[74] And so the English sphere of
influence was extended to the left bank of the Seine. But William Rufus
was now preparing for more direct action against the waning power of the
duke. By long and patient diplomacy, coupled with a liberal expenditure
of English treasure, he had succeeded in undermining his authority in a
large portion of the duchy. At the close of January, or early in February
1091[75] he himself crossed to Normandy with a considerable fleet and
established his headquarters at Eu.[76]
The news of the king’s landing came like a thunderclap to the duke,
who at the moment was engaged with Robert of Bellême in the siege of
Courcy. The siege was immediately abandoned, but the barons, instead
of standing with their own ruler against the invader, departed each to
his own castle; and presently “almost all the great lords of Normandy”
began paying their court to William Rufus, who received them with great
cordiality and gave them handsome presents. But the movement in support
of the English king was not confined to the barons of Normandy alone.
Adventurers from Brittany, France, and Flanders also gathered at Eu to
swell the royal forces.[77] Again, as in 1089, Robert in his extreme
need appealed to his overlord, the king of France. And again King Philip
responded to his call; and together they marched against the invaders at
Eu.[78] But apparently there was no serious fighting. Whether William
Rufus again contrived to weaken the king’s determination, as he had
done on a similar occasion at La Ferté, with a fresh supply of English
gold, we have no knowledge. In any case, a peace[79] was soon negotiated
between the brothers, apparently at Rouen[80] during the month of
February.[81]
The sources are not in complete accord as to the terms of this
pacification; but they seem to be mutually supplementary rather than
contradictory. Apparently William Rufus smoothed the way for the
negotiations with _ingentia dona_[82]—it always seems to have been
beyond the power of Robert Curthose to resist the temptation of such
ephemeral advantages—but it was the duke who made the fatal concessions.
He gave up the abbey of Fécamp,[83] the counties of Eu and Aumale,[84]
and the lands of Gerard of Gournay and Ralph of Conches, together with
their strongholds (_municipia_) and the strongholds of their vassals
(_subjecti_)[85]—in a word, all the lands which the king had won from
the duke and had occupied with his adherents on both banks of the Seine
in eastern Normandy.[86] Further, in the west the king was to have
the important seaport of Cherbourg and the great abbey stronghold of
Mont-Saint-Michel,[87] concessions which looked ominous for Henry, count
of the Cotentin. On his side, William Rufus pledged himself to help
Robert recover the county of Maine,[88] then in revolt against Norman
rule, and all Norman lands which the Conqueror had ever held and whose
lords were then resisting the duke’s authority, except, of course, the
lands just noted which by the terms of the present treaty were ceded
to the king.[89] For the benefit of the barons on both sides who had
treasonably supported the king or the duke in their recent quarrels, a
general amnesty was added. The Norman barons whose defection had brought
about the duke’s downfall and whose allegiance was now being transferred
to the king, were to occupy their Norman fiefs in peace and to be held
guiltless. And all the nobles who had been deprived of their English
lands for supporting the duke were now to receive them back.[90] Further,
an attempt was made to forestall a possible succession controversy by
providing that if either of the brothers should die without a son born
in lawful wedlock, the survivor should become sole heir of all his
dominions.[91] And finally, in order to give the treaty the most solemn
and binding character, it was formally confirmed by the oaths of twelve
great barons on behalf of the king and of an equal number on behalf of
the duke.[92]
It may, perhaps, be doubted whether William Rufus seriously intended to
exert himself to carry out the provisions of this treaty, except in so
far as his own interests dictated; although William of Malmesbury affirms
that the king and the duke in pursuance of their agreement immediately
took in hand the preparation of an expedition against Maine, and were
only turned back from it by the disconcerting action of their younger
brother, Prince Henry.[93] The details of Henry’s movements after the
death of the Conqueror are obscure and uncertain, though the main lines
of his policy and conduct seem clear enough. His relations had not been
uniformly harmonious with either of his brothers. As has already been
pointed out, his early friendship with the duke and his acquisition
of the Cotentin had been followed by a period of imprisonment.[94]
Apparently, too, Duke Robert, after he had squandered the money which
he had obtained from Henry in exchange for the Cotentin, had endeavored
to dispossess the young prince of the lands he had granted him, and had
only been prevented from so doing by a show of force.[95] It was only
a temporary reconciliation which had gained for the duke the important
services of Henry during the insurrection at Rouen in November 1090.
Fresh misunderstandings soon followed, and Henry was again obliged
to retire to his lands in the Cotentin,[96] where he gained the warm
friendship of his father’s old vassals, Hugh of Avranches and Richard
de Redvers, and devoted himself with energy to the strengthening of his
castles at Avranches, Cherbourg, Coutances, and Gavray.[97] With William
Rufus, too, he had a quarrel of long standing. The early hopes raised
by his visit to the king after the fall of Rochester in 1088[98] had
not been fulfilled. The English lands of Matilda to which he laid claim
had been granted to Robert Fitz Hamon, and he had been able to obtain
no redress.[99] It was even said that he had assisted the duke at Rouen
out of a desire for vengeance upon the king.[100] Finally, the treaty of
peace which William and Robert had recently concluded was manifestly
aimed directly against him. They had planned between themselves for
an exclusive partition of all the Conqueror’s dominions, and for a
recovery of ducal authority at all points where it was being defied.
That obviously meant, among other places, in the Cotentin; and the
clauses ceding Mont-Saint-Michel and Cherbourg to William Rufus were not
likely to remain a dead letter. Henry realized the menace and protested
vigorously against the injustice of a plan to deprive him of all share in
the dominions of his glorious father.[101] He collected troops wherever
he could find them in Brittany or Normandy, reënforced the defences of
Coutances and Avranches with feverish energy, and prepared for war.[102]
Whatever the original destination of the expedition which the duke and
the king had prepared, they suddenly turned it against their obstreperous
brother who was presuming to resist them, and soon drove him to the
last extremity.[103] Henry’s resistance was a forlorn hope from the
beginning. Hugh of Avranches and other nobles who had previously been his
enthusiastic supporters against the duke, but who had important holdings
across the Channel, now prudently reflected that it would be unwise
to incur the wrath of William Rufus, and in view of the meagreness of
Henry’s resources they discreetly surrendered their strongholds.[104]
Thus deserted and overwhelmed on every side, Henry was driven from the
mainland; but by favor of some of the monks[105] he gained entrance
to the monastery of Mont-Saint-Michel, and there in the famous abbey
fortress he determined to make a last stand.
For two weeks, about the middle of Lent,[106] William Rufus and Robert
Curthose besieged him.[107] Stretching their forces about the bay of
Mont-Saint-Michel from Genêts on the north past Ardevon to the Couesnon
on the south, they completely invested the Mount upon the landward
side, and, as Henry was without naval resources, this constituted an
effective blockade. The duke had his headquarters at Genêts, while the
king established himself at Avranches.[108] The scene was enlivened
from day to day by the knightly joustings of the opposing forces upon
the sandy beach.[109] William Rufus himself was once engaged in these
feats of arms to his grave humiliation, being unhorsed by a simple
knight.[110] Meanwhile, the besieged garrison was rapidly being reduced
to desperate straits. Though the food supply was adequate, there was
great lack of water. Manifestly a close maintenance of the blockade
would quickly have forced a surrender. But Robert Curthose had too
chivalrous a heart to let his brother suffer from thirst. He directed
the guards to keep their watch a little carelessly in order that
Henry’s servants might occasionally pass through the lines and fetch
water.[111] Wace affirms that he even sent Henry a tun of wine.[112]
Such chivalrous and impractical generosity was beyond the comprehension
of William Rufus, who upbraided the duke and came near disrupting their
alliance and withdrawing from the siege.[113] But Henry soon saw the
hopelessness of his plight, and, “reflecting upon the changing fortunes
of mortals, determined to save himself for better times.” He offered
to capitulate upon honorable terms, and William and Robert readily
agreed to his proposals, and allowed him to march out with his garrison
under arms.[114] Henry’s subsequent fortunes are obscure. Ordericus
Vitalis recounts some heroic details of his wanderings and vicissitudes
in exile.[115] But it is clear that some definite reconciliation was
arranged with his brothers before the end of summer, for early in August
we find him crossing with them to England to join in an expedition
against the king of Scotland.[116]
Meanwhile, having disposed of the factious opposition of the would-be
count of the Cotentin, the allied brothers turned their attention to
other problems within the duchy. Ordericus Vitalis affirms that for
almost two years after the siege of Mont-Saint-Michel Normandy was free
from wars,[117] though it must be confessed that his own more detailed
record on other pages does not bear him out in this general assertion.
The mere fact, however, that William Rufus had changed from an insidious
enemy into an active ally, present in the duchy, was in itself a
guarantee of more vigorous government. But more convincing evidence that
William and Robert had determined upon a programme of greater rigor in
the enforcement of ducal rights, and upon a systematic recovery of the
ducal prerogatives which had been usurped by the baronage during the
recent disorders, has been preserved in a unique document which records
the Norman _Consuetudines et Iusticie_ as they existed under William the
Conqueror. On 18 July 1091, the allied brothers assembled the bishops and
lay barons at Caen and held a formal inquest into the ducal rights and
customs which had prevailed in their father’s lifetime. The prohibition
upon the building of adulterine castles, the ducal right to garrison
private strongholds and take hostages of their holders, the limitations
upon private warfare, all these things and much besides, which had been
firm custom in the Conqueror’s time, were now revived and carefully
reduced to writing.[118] If these measures were not in exact pursuance of
the provisions of the treaty of the previous spring, they certainly were
in accord with its spirit. Manifestly a new régime was in contemplation.
Quite unexpectedly, however, these plans for a restoration of public
order in Normandy were interrupted by the arrival of news from across
the Channel which demanded the immediate presence of the king and his
ally in England.[119] Serious disturbances had broken out on the Welsh
border, and King Malcolm of Scotland had made a destructive raid into
the north of England. The inquest at Caen had been held on 18 July.
Early in August, or perhaps even before the end of July,[120] William
and Robert, accompanied by Prince Henry,[121] departed for England. So
unexpectedly had these changes of plan been made as to provoke general
consternation.[122]
Of the king’s campaign against the Welsh we know nothing save that he
met with small success,[123] and there is no evidence that Duke Robert
played any part in it. It was the Scotch expedition, coming after it,
which claimed the interest of contemporary writers. Large preparations
were made for a northern war both by land and by sea.[124] But the fleet
which was sent northward in September was wrecked a few days before
Michaelmas;[125] and the land forces led by the king and the duke were
evidently still later in advancing. If we can trust our dating, they did
not reach Durham till 14 November.[126] On that day the king formally
reinstated William of Saint-Calais in the bishopric of Durham.[127]
Then pushing on northward into Lothian,[128] he found that Malcolm had
come to meet him with a formidable army. The situation was strikingly
like that of eleven years earlier when Robert Curthose at the head of
the Conqueror’s forces had crossed the Tweed to avenge King Malcolm’s
raid of 1079.[129] The hostile armies stood facing each other, but again
there was no battle. And again, as formerly, it was Robert Curthose who
procured a peaceful renewal of the Scotch king’s homage. Supported by
Edgar Atheling, scion of the old English royal line, who was then with
Malcolm’s forces, he undertook negotiations.[130] Malcolm, we are told,
was not unmindful of his old friendship for the duke, and even admitted
that, at the Conqueror’s bidding, he had done homage to Robert as his
eldest son and heir.[131] This obligation he would fully recognize;
but to William Rufus, he declared, he owed nothing. This was shrewd
diplomacy, but Robert, unmoved by it, tactfully explained that the
times had changed; and after some further parley, Malcolm consented to
an interview with the English king and to the conclusion of a peace[132]
upon the basis of the old agreement which had bound him to the Conqueror.
To William Rufus he renewed his homage and received from him a regrant of
all his English lands. Florence of Worcester adds that the English king
undertook to pay him an annual pension of twelve marks of gold.[133] It
was never the way of William Rufus to hazard in battle what he could more
surely gain through a politic expenditure of English treasure.
From the meeting with Malcolm in Lothian the allied brothers moved back
southward into Wessex.[134] Robert remained in England almost until
Christmas. He had rendered important services in the negotiations with
Malcolm, and he might justly look to William Rufus for continued friendly
coöperation under the terms of the treaty which they had concluded in
Normandy the previous spring. But he now discovered that the king’s
friendship was “more feigned than real.”[135] William Rufus was no longer
minded to abide by the terms of their alliance—probably, that is, he was
not willing again to cross the Channel with Robert and assist him in
the work of reëstablishing his authority in the lands of Normandy and
Maine which had fallen away from their obedience. Accordingly, the duke
withdrew in dudgeon, and, taking ship from the Isle of Wight, returned to
Normandy, 23 December 1091.[136]
During the four years of Robert’s reign which we have so far passed in
review, his attention had been in the main absorbed by his relations
with William Rufus, first in an effort to overthrow him and obtain the
English crown, then in a struggle to preserve his own duchy from English
conquest, and finally in an effort to coöperate with his brother in a
friendly alliance which, after drawing him away on distant enterprises,
had proved a hollow mockery. During this same period other problems had
pressed upon the duke, in the solution of which he had met with little
better success. Indeed, the county of Maine had already slipped entirely
from his grasp.
The historian of the bishops of Le Mans records that the death of William
the Conqueror produced a ferment throughout the whole of Maine;[137] and
there is some reason for believing that very early in his reign Robert
Curthose had led a Norman army against the Manceaux and had suppressed
an incipient rebellion.[138] In the absence of convincing evidence,
however, it seems more probable that Maine was not disturbed during the
first year of Robert’s rule by more than local disorders, and that his
first expedition into the county did not take place until the late summer
of 1088. Upon the fall of Rochester and the failure of his attempted
invasion of England, the duke—acting, it is said, upon the advice of Odo
of Bayeux,[139] who had now returned to Normandy to pursue his restless
ambition[140]—assembled an army and determined to march into Maine and
assert his authority. Probably the expedition was intended primarily as
a formal progress for receiving the homage of the lords of Maine, for
the county was disturbed by no general revolt at that time. Robert’s
garrison still held the castle of Le Mans securely, and Bishop Hoël and
the clergy and people of the city were loyal.[141] Placing Bishop Odo,
William of Évreux, Ralph of Conches, and William of Breteuil at the head
of his forces, the duke moved southward, apparently in August 1088, and,
encountering no opposition, entered Le Mans, where he was received by
the clergy and people with demonstrations of loyalty.[142] The great
barons, Geoffrey of Mayenne, Robert the Burgundian, and Helias, son of
John of La Flèche, whatever their secret feelings, came forward promptly
with offers of loyal service.[143] Only Pain de Mondoubleau, collecting
his retainers in the castle of Ballon, dared to offer resistance; and
early in September[144] he was reduced to submission. Everywhere Robert’s
authority appeared to be firmly established;[145] and as he returned to
Normandy to wage war against the rebellious house of Talvas, he was able
to recruit his army from the Manceaux as well as from the Normans.[146]
Yet the following year there appear to have been fresh disturbances in
Maine. By this time Robert had his hands full with the hostile activity
of William Rufus and with the growing defection of the Norman barons in
the lands east of the Seine; and as he appealed to his overlord, King
Philip, for aid in Normandy,[147] so he turned to his other overlord,
Fulk le Réchin, for assistance against the Manceaux.[148] If we could
accept the hardly credible account of Ordericus Vitalis,[149] Fulk came
to visit Robert in Normandy, where he found him convalescing after
a serious illness, and revealed to him his passion for Bertrada de
Montfort, niece and ward of Robert’s vassal, William of Évreux. If the
duke would only gain for him the hand of the beautiful Bertrada, he,
Fulk, would keep the Manceaux in obedience. Accordingly, so runs the
account, Robert undertook the delicate negotiations for this famous
amour. But William of Évreux was far from pliable, and not until the duke
had made him enormous concessions[150] did he agree to the marriage of
his ward to the notorious count of Anjou. But with such sacrifices the
hand of Bertrada was won, and, true to his undertaking, Fulk prevented a
revolt of the Manceaux for a year, “rather by prayers and promises than
by force.”
In the year 1090, Robert by this time having become still more deeply
involved in his struggle with William Rufus, new and far more serious
troubles broke out in Maine.[151] Helias of La Flèche, grandson of
Herbert Éveille-Chien through his daughter Paula, set up a claim to the
county, and in furtherance of his ambition seized the castle of Ballon,
which Duke Robert had besieged and taken two years before. Within the
city of Le Mans, however, the cause of Helias made little progress,
thanks mainly to Bishop Hoël, who remained staunchly loyal to Robert
Curthose and used his great influence to keep the citizens true to their
allegiance.[152] But when Helias perceived that the bishop was the chief
obstacle to his plan of throwing off the Norman yoke, he did not scruple
to seize him and hold him in captivity at La Flèche amid circumstances of
great indignity. He could hardly have made a greater mistake. So great
was Hoël’s popularity that the persecution provoked a remarkable popular
demonstration in his favor. Within the city and the suburbs of Le Mans
holy images and crosses were laid flat upon the ground, church doors were
blockaded with brambles in sign of mourning, bells ceased to ring, and
all the customary religious services and solemnities were suspended.
Before such a demonstration Helias yielded and set the bishop free.[153]
Meanwhile, Geoffrey of Mayenne and other revolutionaries had brought
from Italy a third claimant to the county of Maine in the person of Hugh
of Este, another grandson of Herbert Éveille-Chien.[154] And with his
arrival, the rebellion made more rapid progress. Helias of La Flèche,
forgetful for the moment of his own claims, joined with Geoffrey of
Mayenne and other prominent Manceaux in welcoming the new count. Oaths of
fealty to Robert Curthose weighed for nothing.[155]
But Bishop Hoël stood firmly against the revolution. His loyalty could
not be shaken. Withdrawing from Le Mans, he hastened to Normandy and
laid the whole state of affairs before the duke. But Robert was “sunk
in sloth and given over to the pursuit of pleasure,” and showed himself
little worthy of the bishop’s loyalty and devotion. The rebellion in
Maine disturbed him little; and he showed no disposition to act with
vigor for its suppression. It was enough, he thought, if he could
preserve his right of patronage over the bishopric. He directed the
bishop at all costs to avoid making any concessions to the rebels in the
matter of patronage, and with no better satisfaction sent him away.[156]
Returning to Le Mans, Hoël found Hugh in possession of the city and
occupying the episcopal palace. Hugh opened negotiations and tried to
persuade the bishop to receive the temporalities of his office as a grant
from himself; but Hoël remained true to Duke Robert, and would make no
concessions. An agreement proved impossible. Meanwhile Hugh had succeeded
in stirring up a formidable faction against the bishop among the clergy.
Soon the disorders became so aggravated that Hoël was obliged to retire
from his diocese and seek asylum in England, where he received a cordial
welcome from William Rufus and remained for some four months.[157] But
in the spring of the following year (1091) he returned to his diocese,
and, after further controversy, was finally reconciled with Hugh and his
enemies among the clergy, and welcomed back to Le Mans amid much ceremony
and rejoicing (29-30 June).[158] Apparently he had at last come to regard
Duke Robert and his rights with complete indifference.
But by this time the popularity of Count Hugh had vanished among the
Manceaux, who had found him to be “without wealth, sense, or valor.”[159]
And when the soft Italian learned that Robert Curthose and William
Rufus had composed their difficulties and, as allies, were planning the
reëstablishment of Norman rule in Maine,[160] he had no stomach for
remaining longer to cope with the difficulties that were gathering around
him. A few days after he had made peace with Bishop Hoël, he sold all his
rights in Maine to Helias of La Flèche for 10,000 _sous manceaux_, and
departed for Italy.[161] Count Helias now quickly gained the recognition
and support of Hoël and of Fulk le Réchin,[162] and became henceforth the
sole opponent of Norman rights in Maine. Hard fighting was yet in store
for him against William Rufus, and only in the time of Henry I was he to
obtain universal recognition; but for the time being his trials were at
an end. The plans which William and Robert were maturing for a combined
invasion of the county were, as has been seen,[163] suspended by their
sudden departure for England in August 1091. And when Robert returned
to the Continent, he made, so far as is known, no effort to recover
his authority in Maine. Through weakness and inertia he had allowed a
splendid territory, which the Conqueror had been at much pains to win, to
slip from his hands without striking a blow. Indeed, without any formal
abrogation of his rights he seems to have dropped all pretension to
ruling in Maine. In four extant charters he bears the title of count or
prince of the Manceaux.[164] But they all belong to the early period of
his reign (1087-91), and, so far as their evidence goes, it is not clear
that he used the title after 1089.
It was not only in his dealings with William Rufus and in his government
of Maine that Robert’s reign was one long record of weakness and
failure. He showed himself equally incompetent to curb and control the
feudal baronage within the duchy. We have already remarked the general
expulsion of royal garrisons from baronial castles upon the death of the
Conqueror.[165] It is not recorded that Robert made any protest against
this, and his own reckless grants of castles to the barons aggravated
a situation which had been dangerous from the first. He gave Ivry to
William of Breteuil; and for recompense to Roger of Beaumont, who had
previously had castle guard at Ivry, he gave Brionne, “a most powerful
fortress in the very heart of his duchy.”[166] To William of Breteuil,
he also gave Pont-Saint-Pierre, and to William of Évreux, Bavent, Noyon,
Gacé, and Gravençon, apparently for no better reason than to gratify
Fulk le Réchin in the matter of Bertrada de Montfort and gain his
friendly support in Maine.[167] When Robert had reduced Saint-Céneri by a
successful siege, he immediately gave it away to Robert Géré,[168] upon
whom he later had to make war to compel the destruction of an adulterine
castle.[169] He established Gilbert of Laigle at Exmes,[170] and to
Helias of Saint-Saëns he granted several strongholds on the east bank of
the Seine.[171] The almost independent establishment of Prince Henry in
the Cotentin and the Avranchin has been noted elsewhere. Some of these
favored barons, it is true, remained faithful to their trusts; but such
reckless prodigality meant exhaustion of resources, and too often it
meant license for private war, plunder of the unarmed populace, and an
open defiance of ducal authority.
Against rebellious barons, the duke could on occasion act with great
vigor. In 1088 he threw Robert of Bellême into prison,[172] and accepted
the challenge of Roger of Montgomery to a decisive contest. He laid siege
to the impregnable stronghold of Saint-Céneri, and when he had reduced
it by starvation, he blinded Robert Quarrel, the castellan, and had
other members of the garrison condemned to mutilation by judgment of his
_curia_.[173] He also imprisoned Robert of Meulan for factious opposition
to the grant of Ivry to William of Breteuil; and, in the sequel of this
controversy, between three in the afternoon and sunset, he took Brionne
by assault, a great fortress which it had taken the Conqueror three years
to reduce with the aid of the king of France.[174]
But with all this fitful energy, the duke’s love of ease and his desire
‘to sleep under a roof’ called him home too often in mid-campaign.[175]
He lacked the resolution to carry a difficult and laborious enterprise
through to the end. Seeking mere temporary advantages, he was prone to
adopt the easy but fatal expedient of allying himself with the turbulent
barons whose lawlessness it should have been his first concern to curb.
Upon the fall of Saint-Céneri he seemed to be in mid-course of victory
over the notorious house of Talvas. The shocking punishment visited upon
the surrendered garrison had caused fear and consternation to spread
among the supporters of Roger of Montgomery. The garrisons of Bellême and
Alençon are said to have been ready to surrender at the mere approach of
the ducal forces. Yet to the general amazement the war went no further.
The duke suddenly made peace with Roger and released Robert of Bellême
from captivity.[176]
And the peace then made with the rebel was a lasting one. Not again,
until after his return from the Crusade, did the duke fight against
Robert of Bellême. Evidently he had decided that in his future
difficulties it would be better to have the house of Talvas for him
rather than against him. Not a check was placed hereafter by the duke
upon this most notorious tyrant of the age. Robert of Bellême was “a
subtle genius, crafty and deceitful.” His ability challenged admiration.
But his cruelty, avarice, and lawlessness knew no bounds. Plundering
and oppressing all over whom he had power, he came to be regarded by
contemporaries as the veritable incarnation of Satan.[177] He built a
castle in a dominating position at Fourches, and forcibly transferred
the inhabitants of Vignats thither. He also erected Château-Gontier in a
strong position on the Orne, and thus placed his yoke upon the district
of Le Houlme.[178] Against Geoffrey of Mortagne he waged a war for the
possession of Domfront.[179] He did not hesitate to besiege Gilbert of
Laigle, the duke’s loyal vassal, at Exmes.[180] His intolerable violence
drew down upon him a concerted attack by his neighbors in the Hiémois.
But he was able to bring the duke to his aid and to besiege his enemies
at Courcy, in January 1091.[181] Later he waged a successful war against
Robert Géré of Saint-Céneri and a formidable combination of the lords of
Maine. Again on this occasion he gained the assistance of the duke, and
so compelled the destruction of a castle which Géré was attempting to
fortify at Montaigu.[182] He was said to be the possessor of thirty-four
strong castles,[183] and he was, perhaps, more powerful than the duke
himself. Indeed, in his dealings with the duke the relation of lord
and vassal seems at times almost to have been inverted, as when Robert
Curthose acted as his ally in private warfare.
One might perhaps suppose that considerations of policy led the duke
to adopt a conciliatory attitude towards Robert of Bellême, his most
powerful subject. But in his dealings with other barons Robert showed
himself equally weak and vacillating. He made no effort to check the long
and desperate war by which William of Breteuil was seeking to bring his
rebellious vassal, Ascelin Goël, back to his allegiance.[184] Indeed, he
sought rather to gain some temporary financial advantage from it. When
Ascelin, in defiance of feudal right and honor, seized Ivry, the castle
of his lord, Robert did not scruple to take it from him and to compel
William of Breteuil to redeem it by a payment of 1500 livres.[185] And
a little later he took the other side in the struggle, and, in exchange
for ‘large sums’ joined with Robert of Bellême, King Philip of France,
and other hirelings whom William of Breteuil was gathering from every
quarter, in the overthrow of Ascelin at the siege of Bréval.[186] When
a bitter feud broke out between William of Évreux and Ralph of Conches,
Robert sought to avoid becoming involved in the struggle. But his failure
to respond to the appeal of the lord of Conches merely drove the latter
into the arms of William Rufus.[187]
The expulsion of Prince Henry from the Cotentin and the Avranchin after
the siege of Mont-Saint-Michel had been no lasting victory for the
duke. In 1092 Henry suddenly reappeared in western Normandy in secure
possession of the town and castle of Domfront. The inhabitants had
revolted against the intolerable oppression of Robert of Bellême, and,
recalling Henry from exile, had accepted him as their lord.[188] Secure
in the possession of this impregnable stronghold, Henry set himself
to recover the lands from which he had been expelled and to establish
himself in an independent position in the southwest. He defied Robert of
Bellême,[189] and made war upon the duke with much burning, pillage, and
violence.[190] With the aid of Earl Hugh of Chester, to whom he gave the
castle of Saint-James, and of Richard de Redvers, Roger de Mandeville,
and others, he gradually won back the greater part of the Cotentin.[191]
The pages of Ordericus Vitalis are filled with lamentations over the evil
times that had fallen upon the duchy. Through the indolence of a soft and
careless duke all that the Conqueror had created by his vigor and ability
was allowed to fall into decay and confusion. The whole province was in a
state of dissolution. Bands of freebooters overran villages and country,
and plundered the unarmed peasantry. The church’s possessions were wrung
from her by force. Monasteries were filled with desolation, and the
monks and nuns were reduced to penury. Adulterine castles arose on every
hand to become the dens of robbers who ravaged the countryside with fire
and sword. A depopulated country remained for years afterwards a silent
witness to the evil day.[192]
That the indignant outbursts of Ordericus Vitalis are not mere rhetoric,
is amply proved by a more prosaic narrative of the nuns of La Trinité of
Caen.[193] In the cartulary of their abbey they have tersely recorded
the long list of their injuries and losses in men and revenues and lands
and cattle. “After the death of King William,” they say, “William, count
of Évreux, took from Holy Trinity and from the abbess and the nuns seven
arpents of vineyard and two horses and twenty sous of the coinage of
Rouen and the salt pans at Écrammeville and twenty livres annually from
Gacé and from Bavent. Richard, son of Herluin, took the two manors of
Tassilly and Montbouin. William the chamberlain, son of Roger de Candos,
took the tithe of Hainovilla. William Baivel took twenty oxen which he
had seized at Auberville. Robert de Bonebos plundered the same manor
…;” and so the complaint continues through a long list of some thirty
offenders, among them such well known names as Richard de Courcy, William
Bertran, and Robert Mowbray. Even Prince Henry takes his place in this
remarkable catalogue of sinners. It is a little startling to learn that
in his government of the Cotentin he was not altogether worthy of the
polite compliments which have been paid him by the chroniclers. The nuns
complain that he “took toll (_pedagium_) from Quettehou and from all
the Cotentin, and forced the men of Holy Trinity in the said vill and
county to work upon the castles of his men.” It is significant that in
this extraordinary entry in the Caen cartulary the record of violations
of right stands alone. We hear nothing of suits for the recovery of
the alienated lands and goods. The distressed nuns appear to have been
patiently preserving the record of their grievances against the day when
there should be a government and courts to which they could appeal with
some prospect of obtaining redress.
Indeed, orderly government and the regular operation of courts of law
seem to have been suspended almost entirely during Robert’s reign.
With the exception of a fragment of a charter of donation in favor of
Saint-Vincent of Le Mans,[194] no single record of an administrative or
judicial act by the duke for Maine has been preserved. And for Normandy
we have nothing but a few scattered references to the _curia ducis_[195]
and one imperfect record of a suit before that court in 1093.[196] The
study of Robert’s charters, which have now at last been collected and set
in order,[197] reveals a state of disorder and of irregularity hardly
conceivable so soon after the reign of the Conqueror. The duke had a
chancellor and evidently some semblance of a centralized administration.
Yet the chancery seems hardly ever to have performed the most common
functions of such an office, viz., the issuing of ducal charters. Most
of Robert’s acts were drawn up locally and according to the prevailing
forms of the religious houses in whose favor they were issued. Evidence
of any systematic taxation is wholly lacking; and the extent to which
Robert was neglectful of ducal customs and rights of justice stands
patently revealed by the inquest of Caen, held when, for a moment,
with the assistance of William Rufus, a more vigorous régime was in
contemplation.[198] Rare occasions when the duke asserted himself to
compel the destruction of an adulterine castle[199] or the submission
of a refractory noble stand out as wholly exceptional in a reign of
weakness, indifference, and indecision.[200]
It was, of course, the clergy who suffered most from this reign of
lawlessness and who were at the same time able to make their woes
articulate. The lamentful narrative of Ordericus Vitalis and the bare
record of the nuns of Caen have already been sufficiently dwelt upon.
Yet it should in justice be noted that Robert Curthose was not a wilful
oppressor of the church. He was no impious tyrant such as William Rufus
or Ranulf Flambard. His offences against the clergy were rather the sins
of weakness than of malice. His sale of lay rights over the sees of
Coutances and Avranches to Prince Henry[201] when he was preparing for
the invasion of England was doubtless dictated by the sudden needs of
the moment. So, too, in 1089 he granted the manor of Gisors, a property
of the church of St. Mary of Rouen, to his overlord, King Philip, “non
habens de proprio quod posset dare.”[202] On the other hand, the duke
often acted in a perfectly just and cordial coöperation with the clergy.
There is every indication of harmony in the relations between Robert
and the bishops and abbots at the synod held at Rouen in June 1091,
for the election of Serlo as bishop of Séez.[203] So, too, soon after,
he gave his willing assent to the election of Roger du Sap as abbot of
Saint-Évroul, and “committed to him by the pastoral staff the care of
the monastery in worldly affairs.”[204] So, also, upon the election of
Anselm, abbot of Bec, as archbishop of Canterbury, he gladly consented to
his resignation of the abbey,[205] and afterwards entirely accommodated
himself to Anselm’s wishes with regard to his successor at Bec. There
is a note of real affection in the words with which Anselm in a letter
to the prior and monks of Bec refers to Robert on this occasion: “By
the grace of God, our lord the prince of the Normans has sent me a most
kindly letter asking pardon if his love of me and his sorrow at my loss
have caused him to think or say of me anything unseemly because of my
election to the archiepiscopate. In the same letter he has graciously
sought my counsel concerning the appointment of an abbot for you, and has
promised to accept it gladly not only in this matter but in other things
as well.”[206]
Of the duke’s relations with the papacy in this period we know almost
nothing, except that his attitude, on the whole, was one of obedience
and accommodation. The violence which Robert had done to the property
of St. Mary of Rouen in granting the manor of Gisors to King Philip
caused Archbishop William to lay the whole province under an interdict.
This, in turn, brought on a controversy between the archbishop and the
abbey of Fécamp, and in the sequel the Pope suspended the metropolitan
from the use of his pallium for having exceeded his authority. At this
point the duke intervened, and at the expense of acknowledging himself
subject to the jurisdiction of the apostolic see, “saving only the
privileges of his ancestors,” he obtained for the archbishop at least
a temporary restoration of his pallium, while further investigations
were pending.[207] The church and clergy often suffered from Robert’s
weakness, or his sudden temptation to gain some temporary advantage, but
rarely, if ever, from his ill will.
Inexcusable weakness and the steady disintegration of ducal authority,
either through his own rash grants, or through the usurpations of his
turbulent subjects, or through the insidious aggressions of William
Rufus, these are the outstanding features of Duke Robert’s unfortunate
reign.
Two days before Christmas, 1091, Robert had departed from England and
returned to Normandy, feeling much vexed because the Red King would not
abide by the terms of their alliance.[208] Yet an open breach between the
brothers was long delayed. William Rufus had his hands full with domestic
affairs in 1092 and 1093, and he had little opportunity either for
advancing his own interests in Normandy or for aiding the duke against
his enemies as he had agreed to do. Robert, on his part, so far as can be
seen, did not fail in his obligations under the provisions of the treaty.
In the reservation which he attached to a grant to the abbey of Bec in
February 1092 he was careful to guard the rights of William Rufus as well
as of himself.[209] The readiness with which he accommodated himself to
the king’s wishes in releasing Anselm, abbot of Bec, to become archbishop
of Canterbury in 1093 is indicative of a similar spirit of coöperation.
But it appears that he sought in vain the king’s promised assistance
in Normandy until his patience was exhausted; and when, finally, the
rupture came between them, it was the duke who took the initiative in
terminating an agreement from which he could no longer hope to derive
any good. Towards the close of 1093, he addressed to William Rufus a
formal defiance. “This year at Christmas,” says the Chronicler, “King
William held his court at Gloucester; and there came messengers to him
out of Normandy, from his brother Robert, and they said that his brother
renounced all peace and compact if the king would not perform all that
they had stipulated in the treaty; moreover they called him perjured and
faithless unless he would perform the conditions, or would go to the
place where the treaty had been concluded and sworn to, and there clear
himself.”[210]
In the spring of 1094, William Rufus took up this challenge and prepared
for an invasion of Normandy. It is characteristic of the Red King that
we hear more of the vast quantities of money which he gathered in from
all sides than of the men whom he brought together for the expedition.
The barons were called upon to contribute heavily to the expenses of the
campaign, and strong pressure was put upon them in order to insure that
their offerings should not be too sparing. Archbishop Anselm thought
to make a contribution of five hundred pounds of silver, but the king
rejected his offer as being too small.[211] On 2 February the forces were
assembled at Hastings for the crossing.[212] But the winds were contrary
and the expedition was delayed for more than a month,[213] and it did not
succeed in sailing till Midlent.[214]
After the landing in Normandy, active hostilities were still further
delayed by negotiations. William and Robert met in a conference, but a
reconciliation proved impossible between them. Then a more formal meeting
was held at an unidentified place called _Campus Martius_, and the
dispute was laid before the great nobles who had confirmed the earlier
treaty with their oaths. Unanimously they gave their decision in favor of
the duke and laid the whole responsibility for the present discord upon
the king. But William Rufus, ‘a fierce king,’ would have none of their
condemnation. He would not accept responsibility for the breach, neither
would he abide by the terms of the treaty. The conference was accordingly
broken off, and the brothers separated in wrath, the king going to his
headquarters at Eu, the duke to Rouen.[215]
Then, or more likely even before this, William Rufus turned to that
brand of diplomacy in which he was so eminently skilful and which had
gained him such successes in his earlier Norman policy. With the treasure
which he had brought from England, he began to collect great numbers of
mercenaries; and also, by lavish expenditure of gold and silver, and by
grants and promises of Norman lands, he succeeded in corrupting more of
the Norman baronage and in winning them away from their allegiance to
the duke. And as rapidly as he gained possession of their strongholds
he filled them with garrisons upon whom he could rely.[216] But he was
not content with mere diplomacy and bribery. He also took the field, and
laying siege to Bures, a castle of Helias of Saint-Saëns, he reduced it,
and took many of the duke’s men captive.[217]
But meanwhile, Robert had not been idle, and the success of his
operations suggests that he had not ventured to defy William Rufus
without making greater preparations than have been recorded by the
contemporary writers. As he had done previously when confronted with an
English invasion, he brought in his overlord, King Philip, and a French
army.[218] Philip and Robert appear to have opened their campaign in
the south and west of Normandy with two remarkable victories. Philip
invested Argentan,[219] and, on the very first day of the siege, Roger le
Poitevin and an enormous garrison of seven hundred knights and fourteen
hundred esquires surrendered without any blood being shed, and were held
by the king to ransom. Soon after, the duke won a victory of almost
equal importance by the reduction of Le Homme and the capture of William
Peverel and a garrison of eight hundred knights.[220]
These reverses came as a staggering surprise to William Rufus.
Immediately he sent off to England and ordered the assembling of a great
army of English foot soldiers—some twenty thousand, it is said—for the
invasion of Normandy. But when they came to Hastings for the crossing,
Ranulf Flambard, at the king’s order, took from each of them the ten
shillings that he had brought for maintenance during the campaign; and
then sent them back home, while he forwarded the money to William Rufus
in Normandy.[221] The king had need of this fresh supply of English
treasure. For by this time Philip and Robert, after their double victory
in the south and west, were advancing on William’s headquarters at
Eu,[222] in the very heart of the district which he had controlled since
1089 or 1090. But at Longueville King Philip halted.[223] William Rufus
had found a way to repeat the measure which had turned the French king
back from La Ferté in 1089, if not from Eu in 1091. “There was the king
of France turned back by craft, and all the expedition was afterwards
dispersed.”[224] Again the resources of Duke Robert had proved unequal
to the greater stores of English treasure which the Red King was able to
command.[225]
Yet the strength of Robert’s resistance was by no means broken. William
Rufus sent to Domfront to call Prince Henry to his aid, and such was
Robert’s strength that it proved impossible for Henry to make his way
by land to Eu. The king sent ships to fetch him.[226] But instead of
proceeding to Eu, he crossed the Channel, and, landing at Southampton
at the end of October, he went to London for Christmas, evidently with
a view to meeting the king upon his return from the Continent.[227]
Meanwhile, William Rufus remained in Normandy almost to the end of the
year. But clearly he met with no great success in his projects. He had
spent vast sums of money, yet little or nothing had come of it—so ran
the contemporary judgment: “Infecto itaque negotio, in Angliam reversus
est.”[228] On 29 December he crossed from Wissant to Dover.[229]
The progress of the Norman war in 1095 is obscure in the extreme. The
king’s whole attention was absorbed by pressing affairs within the
limits of his own realm; and he seems to have committed his continental
interests almost wholly to Prince Henry. Henry remained in England until
Lent, and then crossed over to Normandy ‘with great treasure’; and during
the months which followed, he waged war against Duke Robert.[230] But
in what part of the duchy, or how, or with what success, we have no
information.
The close of the year 1095 saw Robert Curthose in a difficult situation,
but the issue of the contest had not yet been decided. Meanwhile, the
famous sermon of Pope Urban II before the council of Clermont had
thrilled all Europe with a new impulse and turned the course of Robert’s
life into a new and unexpected channel.
FOOTNOTES
[1] _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges,
p. 268: “Cum igitur in Pontivo apud Abbatisvillam, cum sui similibus
iuvenibus … moraretur … audito nuntio excessus patris, confestim veniens
Rotomagum, ipsam civitatem et totum ducatum sine ulla contradictione
suscepit”; _Chronicon_, in _Liber de Hyda_, p. 298; cf. Ordericus, ii, p.
374; iii, p. 256; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1086.
[2] “Omnesque thesauros suos ecclesiis et pauperibus Deique ministris
distribui praecepit. Quantum vero singulis dari voluit, callide taxavit,
et coram se describi a notariis imperavit.” Ordericus, iii, p. 228.
[3] _Ibid._, p. 245.
[4] “Rotbertus in Normanniam reversus, thesauros quos invenerat
monasteriis, ecclesiis, pauperibus, pro anima patris sui, largiter
divisit; et Ulfum, Haroldi quondam regis Anglorum filium,
Duneschaldumque, regis Scottorum Malcolmi filium, a custodia laxatos, et
armis militaribus honoratos, abire permisit.” Florence of Worcester, ii,
p. 21.
[5] “Donum de manerio de Vain quod idem pater meus in infirmitate qua
defunctus est eidem ecclesie fecit.” Haskins, p. 285, no. 1.
[6] _Ibid._, pp. 287-288, no. 4 _a_.
[7] “Mors Guillelmi regis ipso eodem die, quo Rotomagi defunctus est, in
urbe Roma et in Calabria quibusdam exheredatis nunciata est, ut ab ipsis
postmodum veraciter in Normannia relatum est.” Ordericus, iii, p. 249.
[8] _Ibid._, p. 261.
[9] _Ibid._, pp. 261-262.
[10] Ordericus, iii, p. 256; cf. pp. 262-263.
[11] _Ibid._, pp. 245-248.
[12] “Postquam de carcere liber egressus est, totum in Normannia
pristinum honorem adeptus est, et consiliarius ducis, videlicet nepotis
sui, factus est.” _Ibid._, p. 263; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p.
360.
[13] _Ibid._; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 21; Henry of Huntingdon,
p. 211.
[14] Ordericus, iii, pp. 268-269. The speech is doubtless imaginary, but
the argument must surely be contemporary.
[15] _Ibid._, p. 269; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 360.
[16] Cf. E. A. Freeman, _The Reign of William Rufus_ (London, 1882), i,
pp. 9 ff.
[17] Ordericus (iii, pp. 268-270) speaks as though the conspiracy was
started late in 1087, but his account lacks convincing precision and
definiteness; and the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_a._ 1087 for 1088) which
is followed by Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 22), makes the positive
statement that the plot was formed during Lent. Further, we know from
Henry of Huntingdon (p. 211) that the bishop of Bayeux was present at the
king’s Christmas court in 1087.
[18] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087.
[19] Ordericus Vitalis (iii, pp. 268-270) seems to indicate that it was
begun in Normandy at some sort of a secret gathering of the barons; but
the English writers convey the impression that it originated in England.
Cf. William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 360; Florence of Worcester,
ii, p. 21; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 214. It may, of course, have had a
double origin.
[20] Henry of Huntingdon, p. 211.
[21] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 360; cf. Florence of
Worcester, ii, p. 21; Ordericus, iii, p. 270; Freeman, _William Rufus_,
ii, pp. 466-467.
[22] William of Malmesbury _G. R._, ii, p. 360.
[23] The early writers are sharply divided in their account of William
of Saint-Calais in connection with the rebellion of 1088. The southern
English writers believed him guilty of treason. _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087;
Florence of Worcester, ii, pp. 21-22; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 214;
William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 360. But a contemporary narrative
by a Durham writer, who was an eyewitness of the bishop’s trial,
represents him as the persecuted victim of malicious enemies who had
poisoned the king’s mind against him. _De Iniusta Vexatione Willelmi
Episcopi Primi_, in Simeon of Durham, _Opera Omnia_, ed. Thomas Arnold
(London, 1882-85), i, pp. 170-195. And it should be remembered that his
condemnation by the _curia regis_ was not for the treason with which he
was charged, but for his refusal to acknowledge the jurisdiction of the
court. On the treatise _De Iniusta Vexatione_ see Appendix B.
[24] The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_a._ 1087) and Florence of Worcester
(ii, p. 22) make the positive statement that the revolt broke out after
Easter (16 April); but we know from a more reliable source that William
Rufus took the first active measures against the bishop of Durham on 12
March, and it is clear that the rebellion was already under way at this
time. _De Iniusta Vexatione_, in Simeon, _Opera_, i, p. 171; cf. p. 189.
[25] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 21: “pars etenim nobiliorum
Normannorum favebat regi Willelmo, sed minima; pars vero altera favebat
Rotberto comiti Normannorum, et maxima”; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Henry
of Huntingdon, p. 214. In general on the rebellion of 1088 and all the
problems connected with it see Freeman, _William Rufus_, i, pp. 22 ff.;
ii, appendices b, c, d, e.
[26] Ordericus, iii, p. 272.
[27] Pevensey, of course, was fundamental because on the coast where
Robert’s fleet was expected to make land.
[28] “Per angelos Dei, si ego essem in Alexandria, expectarent me Angli,
nec ante adventum meum regem sibi facere auderent. Ipse etiam Willelmus
frater meus, quod eum presumpsisse dicitis, pro capite suo sine mea
permissione minime attentaret.” _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in
William of Jumièges, p. 268.
[29] “Haec primo dicebat, sed, postquam rei gestae ordinem rescivit, non
minima discordia inter se et fratrem suum Willelmum emersit.” _Ibid._
[30] This is the plain inference from both the Norman and the English
writers. E.g., Ordericus, iii, pp. 269-270; Florence of Worcester, ii, p.
22.
[31] Ordericus, iii, pp. 269-270.
[32] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 22; Henry
of Huntingdon p. 215; cf. William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, pp.
362, 468; Ordericus, iii, pp. 272-273; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 216; _Des
miracles advenus en l’église de Fécamp_, ed. R. N. Sauvage, in Société de
l’Histoire de Normandie, _Mélanges_, 2d series (Rouen, 1893), p. 29.
[33] Ordericus, iii, p. 244; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in
William of Jumièges, pp. 268-269; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1086; cf. William
of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, pp. 468, 337, where it is said that the
Conqueror bequeathed to Henry “maternas possessiones.”
[34] Ordericus, iii, p. 244.
[35] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 468.
[36] _Ibid._
[37] _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p.
268. His presence is further proved by his attestation of charters,
e.g., 30 March 1088, charter by Ralph Fitz Anseré in favor of Jumièges
(Haskins, pp. 290-291, no. 6; also in _Chartes de l’abbaye de Jumièges_,
ed. J.-J. Vernier, Paris, 1916, i, no. 37); 7 July 1088, charter by
the duke in favor of the abbey of Fécamp (Haskins, pp. 287-289, no. 4
_a_); shortly after September 1087, charter by the duke in favor of
Saint-Étienne of Caen (_ibid._, p. 285, no. 1).
[38] Ordericus, iii, p. 267; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 211. Robert of
Torigny raises a question as to whether Robert conveyed the Cotentin to
Henry outright or whether he only pledged it to him as surety for a loan.
_Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 269.
[39] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 23; Simeon, _H.
R._, p. 215; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, pp. 361, 362; Ordericus,
iii, pp. 273, 277-278.
[40] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, pp. 22, 23;
William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 362; Henry of Huntingdon, pp.
214-215; Simeon, _H. R._, pp. 215-216.
[41] “Tunc temporis ultra quam virum deceat in Normannia deliciabatur.”
_Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 270.
[42] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 22; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 216;
_Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, pp.
269-270.
[43] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 23; Simeon, _H.
R._, p. 216; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215.
[44] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 216; Henry of Huntingdon,
p. 215; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, pp. 362-363.
[45] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 216; Henry of Huntingdon,
p. 215; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 362.
[46] _Supra_, p. 47.
[47] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 216; William of
Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 362; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215; _De Iniusta
Vexatione_, in Simeon, _Opera_, i, p. 191. At the trial of William
of Saint-Calais the king says: “Bene scias, episcope, quod nunquam
transfretabis, donec castellum tuum habeam. Episcopus enim Baiocensis
inde me castigavit…”
[48] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 362.
[49] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 216; William of
Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 362; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215. Ordericus
Vitalis (iii, pp. 273-278) gives a highly embroidered account of the
siege of Rochester and of its surrender, making it the outstanding event
of the period—he knows nothing of the six weeks’ siege of Pevensey—but
Simeon of Durham says that Rochester surrendered “parvo peracto spatio.”
[50] He returned to Normandy and to his see at Bayeux. Ordericus, iii,
p. 278; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p.
362; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 215. According to Simeon of Durham (_H. R._,
p. 216) he was intrusted by Duke Robert with the administration of the
duchy, but this is an error. See Appendix B, _infra_, pp. 214-215.
[51] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1087; Simeon, _H. R._, p. 116.
[52] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 362: “Ceteri omnes in fidem
recepti”; Ordericus, iii, pp. 279-280; cf. pp. 276, 291. We are without
specific information as to the date of the surrender of Rochester.
According to Ordericus (iii, p. 279), it took place “in initio aestatis.”
A charter by Duke Robert in favor of La Trinité of Fécamp is dated 7 July
1088, “quando in Angliam transire debui.” Haskins, p. 288.
[53] At the trial of Bishop William of Durham before the _curia regis_
at Salisbury, 2 November 1088, the king refused to allow the bishop to
depart from the kingdom unless he gave pledges “quod naves meas, quas
sibi inveniam, non detinebit frater meus, vel aliquis suorum, ad dampnum
meum.” _De Iniusta Vexatione_, in Simeon, _Opera_, i, p. 190. Some color
seems to be given to the king’s fears by a statement in _Des miracles
advenus en l’église de Fécamp_: “Adhibuit etiam mari custodes, quos illi
_piratas_ vocant, qui naves ab Anglia venientes caperent, captos si
redderent, capturam suis usibus manciparent.” Société de l’Histoire de
Normandie, _Mélanges_, 2d series, p. 29.
[54] Ordericus, iii, p. 291. William of Malmesbury (_G. R._, ii, 468) is
not in agreement, but the statement of Ordericus seems fully confirmed
by the fact that Henry attested a charter by William Rufus in favor of
the church of St. Andrew at Rochester: “This grant was made to repair the
damage which the king did to the church of St. Andrew, when he obtained
a victory over his enemies who had unjustly gathered against him in the
city of Rochester.” Davis, _Regesta_, no. 301.
[55] “In autumno,” according to Ordericus, iii, p. 291.
[56] Ordericus, iii, pp. 291-292; cf. William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii,
p. 468; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges,
p. 269. According to Ordericus, Henry’s place of confinement was Bayeux,
under the custody of Bishop Odo; according to William of Malmesbury and
Robert of Torigny it was Rouen.
[57] Ordericus, iii, p. 305; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 468.
Ordericus Vitalis recounts the event as if it came just after the death
of Abbot Durand of Troarn, 11 February 1088. Cf. Ordericus, iii, p. 303;
R. N. Sauvage, _L’abbaye de Saint-Martin de Troarn_ (Caen, 1911), p. 288.
But Ordericus has already spoken of Henry’s captivity as beginning “in
autumno,” 1088. _Supra_, n. 55. According to William of Malmesbury, he
was released after a half-year’s detention. If we could rely upon this
statement, and couple it with the earlier statement of Ordericus that the
imprisonment began in the autumn of 1088, we could assign Henry’s release
to the late winter or spring following (1089).
[58] _Infra_, n. 62.
[59] Ordericus, iii, p. 316. The English writers make no mention of the
Winchester council. Ordericus indicates that appeals had been coming to
William Rufus from the Norman church: “Ecce lacrymabilem querimoniam
sancta ecclesia de transmarinis partibus ad me dirigit, quia valde
moesta quotidianis fletibus madescit, quod iusto defensore et patrono
carens, inter malignantes quasi ovis inter lupos consistit.” And in a
later connection (iii, p. 421) he says specifically that Abbot Roger of
Saint-Évroul sought aid from William Rufus.
[60] Freeman, _William Rufus_, i, pp. 225-226.
[61] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1090; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 26; William of
Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 363; Ordericus, iii, p. 319.
[62] _Ibid._, pp. 319-320; _De Controversia Guillelmi Rotomagensis
Archiepiscopi_, in _H. F._, xiv, p. 68, and in _Gallia Christiana_, xi,
instr., col. 18. The work of corrupting the Norman baronage and winning
them away from their allegiance to the duke was accomplished in 1089-90.
Freeman assumes the Winchester assembly above mentioned to have been
the Easter Gemot of 1090. _William Rufus_, i, pp. 222, and n. 1. But
Ordericus seems to assign it to 1089—he records the death of William of
Warenne, 24 June 1089, immediately after it—and we know from the _De
Controversia Guillelmi_ that the struggle had already begun in Normandy
in 1089, when Robert Curthose and King Philip besieged La Ferté-en-Bray.
Further, the siege of Eu by Duke Robert in 1089 is probably to be
connected in some way with the activities of William Rufus against him.
Davis, _Regesta_, no. 310.
[63] Ordericus, iii, p. 320.
[64] Davis, _Regesta_, no. 310, a charter of confirmation by Duke Robert
for Bishop Odo of Bayeux, dated 1089, “secundo anno principatus Roberti
Guillelmi regis filii ac Normanniae comitis, dum idem Robertus esset ad
obsidionem Auci ea die qua idem castrum sibi redditum est.” This would
necessarily be not later than September.
[65] _Ibid._, no. 308, a confirmation by Duke Robert in favor of Bayeux
cathedral, dated 24 April 1089, “dum esset idem Robertus comes apud
Vernonem … iturus in expeditionem in Franciam.”
[66] The _De Controversia Guillelmi_ gives the specific date 1089. _H.
F._, xiv, p. 68. William of Malmesbury, though vague, is in agreement.
_G. R._, ii, p. 363. The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_a._ 1090) and Florence
of Worcester (ii, p. 26) assign King Philip’s intervention vaguely to
1090.
[67] We learn the name of the castle from the _De Controversia
Guillelmi_, in _H. F._, xiv, p. 68. The _Chronicle_ (_a._ 1090) and
Florence (ii, p. 26) both refer to it without name.
[68] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1090; cf. William
of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 363.
[69] Ordericus, iii, p. 351; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 469.
[70] The name is found in the record of a suit before the court of
Henry I in 1111: “in urbe Rothomagensi gravis dissensio inter partes
Pilatensium scilicet et Calloensium exorta est que multa civitatem strage
vexavit et multos nobilium utriusque partis gladio prostravit.” Haskins,
pp. 91-92. Ordericus (iii, p. 252) indicates that the loyalists were
clearly outnumbered by the rebels.
[71] Ordericus, iii, pp. 351-353.
[72] This, at any rate, is the account given by Ordericus Vitalis, who
seems, however, at this point to feel rather more than his usual rancor
towards the duke.
[73] Ordericus, iii, pp. 352-357; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p.
469.
[74] Ordericus, iii, pp. 344-346.
[75] According to Ordericus (iii, pp. 365, 377) the crossing was made in
the week of 19-25 January 1091; the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_a._ 1091)
dates it 2 February, while Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 27) more vaguely
says “mense Februario.” William Rufus dated a charter at Dover 27 January
1091, probably soon before sailing for Normandy. Davis, _Regesta_, no.
315. The dating clause of this charter, “anno Dominicae incarnationis
mill. xc, regni vero mei iiii, indictione xiii, vi kal. Feb., luna iii,”
is not consistent throughout; but the year of the reign and of the
lunation both compel us to assign it to 1091. Moreover, Ralph, bishop of
Chichester, and Herbert, bishop of Thetford, both of whom attest, were
not raised to their sees till 1091. Cf. Freeman, _William Rufus_, ii, pp.
484-485. Ralph appears to have been consecrated 6 January 1091. Stubbs,
_Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum_.
[76] Ordericus, iii, pp. 365-366, 377; _Interpolations de Robert de
Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 270; cf. _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091;
Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p.
363.
[77] Ordericus, iii, pp. 365-366, 377.
[78] _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p.
270.
[79] According to Robert of Torigny (_loc. cit._), “adminiculante
Philippo rege Francorum.” It is a plausible hypothesis that William of
Saint-Calais, the exiled bishop of Durham, played a part in these peace
negotiations. Upon his expulsion from England, between 27 November 1088
and 3 January 1089, he went to Normandy and was received by Duke Robert
“rather as a father than as an exile” (Simeon, _H. D. E._, p. 128) and
had the administration of the duchy committed to his charge (_De Iniusta
Vexatione_, in Simeon, _Opera_, i, p. 194); and he remained in Normandy
and enjoyed a position of honor for three years. In 1089 he attested two
of Duke Robert’s charters (Davis, _Regesta_, nos. 308, 310), and he also
attested with the duke a charter by Hugh Painel [1089-91] (Haskins, p.
69, no. 16). Then in the third year of his expulsion, when the king’s men
were being besieged in a ‘certain castle in Normandy’ and were on the
point of being taken, he saved them from their peril, and by his counsel
the siege was raised (Simeon, _H. D. E._, p. 128. Can this refer to the
siege of Eu and to the pacification of February (?) 1091?) See Appendix
B, _infra_, p. 215 and n. 14.
[80] Ordericus, iii, p. 366. Robert of Torigny gives Caen as the meeting
place. _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p.
270. But may he not have confused the peace negotiations with the general
inquest into ducal rights and customs which the brothers held at Caen on
18 July of the same year? For this inquest see Haskins, pp. 277-278.
[81] The date of the treaty is not given specifically, but according to
Ordericus Vitalis (iii, p. 378) William and Robert, after they had made
peace, besieged Henry at Mont-Saint-Michel for two weeks in the middle of
Lent—according to Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 27), during the whole of
Lent. The treaty, therefore, could hardly have been concluded later than
the end of February.
[82] Ordericus, iii, p. 366.
[83] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; William of
Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 363; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_,
in William of Jumièges, p. 270.
[84] Ordericus, iii, p. 366; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_,
in William of Jumièges, p. 270; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of
Worcester, ii, p. 27.
[85] Ordericus, iii, p. 366.
[86] Specific mention of all the lordships which we know to have been won
over by the king is not made in our accounts of the treaty, but they are
all covered by general statements. Henry of Huntingdon, pp. 215-216; and
the references given in nn. 83, 84, _supra_.
[87] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091.
[88] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; William of
Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 363.
[89] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; Henry of
Huntingdon, pp. 215-216.
[90] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27. Florence
and the _Chronicle_ both add here a puzzling provision which seems to
indicate that the king undertook to compensate Robert for his losses
in Normandy with lands in England: “et tantum terrae in Anglia quantum
conventionis inter eos fuerat comiti daret.”
[91] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; Henry of
Huntingdon, p. 216.
[92] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; William of
Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 363; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 216.
[93] _G. R._, ii, pp. 363-364; _Annales de Wintonia_, in _Annales
Monastici_, ii, p. 36.
[94] _Supra_, p. 52.
[95] Henry of Huntingdon, p. 211; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_,
in William of Jumièges, p. 269; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p.
468; cf. Ordericus, iii, p. 350.
[96] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 468.
[97] “Comes Henricus pedagium accepit de Chetelhulmo et de omni
Constantino et super hoc facit operari homines Sancte Trinitatis de eadem
villa et patria ad castella suorum hominum.” Cartulary of La Trinité of
Caen, extract, in Haskins, p. 63.
[98] Ordericus, iii, pp. 350-351, 378.
[99] _Ibid._, p. 350; cf. pp. 318, 378; cf. also William of Malmesbury,
_G. R._, ii, p. 468.
[100] _Ibid._
[101] Ordericus, iii, p. 378; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p.
363-364; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; _Interpolations de Robert de
Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 270.
[102] Ordericus, iii, p. 378.
[103] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 364; Ordericus, iii, p. 378;
Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27.
[104] Ordericus, iii, p. 378.
[105] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27.
[106] Ordericus, iii, p. 378. Lent in 1091 extended from 26 February
to 13 April. According to Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 27) the siege
continued through the whole of Lent.
[107] Ordericus, iii, p. 378; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in
William of Jumièges, pp. 270-271; _Annales de Mont-Saint-Michel_, in
_Chronique de Robert de Torigni_, ed. Léopold Delisle (Rouen, 1872-73),
ii, pp. 222, 232; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, pp. 364, 469-470;
Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27; _Annales de Wintonia_, in _Annales
Monastici_, ii, p. 36; Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ed. Andresen, ii, p. 409.
[108] _Ibid._ Freeman remarks, “We may trust the topography of the
Jerseyman.” _William Rufus_, i, p. 286, n. 1.
[109] Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 409; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p.
27.
[110] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 364; Wace, _Roman de Rou_,
ii, p. 410.
[111] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 365; Wace, _Roman de Rou_,
ii, p. 411.
[112] _Ibid._
[113] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 365; Wace, _Roman de
Rou_, ii, p. 412; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of
Jumièges, p. 271; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 27. These sources
do indeed indicate an abandonment of the siege before its object was
accomplished; but against them stands the very positive statement of
Ordericus Vitalis, which is confirmed by the Annals of Winchester
(_infra_, n. 114). Robert and William evidently did not enjoy a very
complete triumph. Still there seems no doubt of Henry’s expulsion from
the Cotentin.
[114] Ordericus, iii, pp. 378-379; _Annales de Wintonia_, in _Annales
Monastici_, ii, p. 36; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William
of Jumièges, p. 271.
[115] Ordericus, iii, p. 379.
[116] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 365. He attests a charter of
confirmation by William Rufus for the bishop of Durham, evidently while
on the Scottish expedition late in 1091. Davis, _Regesta_, no. 318.
[117] “Fereque duobus annis a bellis Normannia quievit.” Ordericus, iii,
p. 379.
[118] Haskins, pp. 277-284.
[119] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 365; Ordericus, iii, pp.
381,394; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28; Henry
of Huntingdon, p. 216.
[120] Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 28) gives the date of the crossing as
“mense Augusto”; and Ordericus Vitalis (iii, pp. 366, 377) indicates that
1 August was the date. Roger du Sap was elected abbot of Saint-Évroul on
21 July. Apparently he went immediately to the duke to seek investiture
and found that the latter had already departed. _Ibid._, p. 381. The
_Rotulus Primus Monasterii Sancti Ebrulfi_ dates the crossing of William
and Robert in 1090. _Ibid._, v, p. 189. But this is evidently the error
of a copyist.
[121] _Supra_, p. 65, and n. 116.
[122] “Ambo fratres de Neustria in Angliam ex insperato tranfretaverant,
mirantibus cunctis.” Ordericus, iii, p. 381.
[123] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 365. Freeman rejects
the testimony of William of Malmesbury regarding this Welsh campaign
of 1091. _William Rufus_, ii, pp. 78-79. But I see no reason for so
doing—especially since the statements coupled with it regarding Henry
and the Scottish expedition are demonstrably accurate—; and how else
explain the lateness of the Scottish campaign? William of Malmesbury
says specifically: “Statimque primo contra Walenses, post in Scottos
expeditionem movens.”
[124] Ordericus, iii, p. 394; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28; _A.-S.
C._, _a._ 1091.
[125] _Ibid._
[126] See Appendix B, _infra_, pp. 215-216.
[127] _De Iniusta Vexatione_, in Simeon, _Opera_, i, p. 195. The bishop
was believed to have regained the king’s favor through services which he
rendered him in Normandy. Simeon, _H. D. E._, p. 128. In any case, under
the amnesty provision of the treaty between Robert Curthose and William
Rufus he was entitled to a restoration of his estates and honors in
England.
[128] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28. For the
reading ‘Lothian,’ instead of Leeds, see Freeman, _William Rufus_, ii,
p. 541. Ordericus (iii, p. 394), in an obviously embroidered account,
represents the two kings as facing one another from opposite sides of the
Firth of Forth. But the English writers say specifically that Malcolm had
advanced into Lothian to meet the English forces.
[129] _Supra_, p. 31.
[130] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28; William of
Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 366; Ordericus, iii, pp. 394-395.
[131] We have no other record of this homage. Can it have taken place in
1080, when Malcolm made his submission to Robert, who was then leading
the Conqueror’s army against him?
[132] Ordericus, iii, pp. 394-396.
[133] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 28; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091.
[134] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 29; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091. At
some point on the homeward march the three brothers joined with a
distinguished company of nobles and prelates in the attestation of
a charter of the lately restored Bishop William of Durham. Davis,
_Regesta_, no. 318; cf. Freeman, _William Rufus_, i, p. 305; ii, p. 535.
[135] Henry of Huntingdon, p. 216.
[136] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 29.
[137] “In illis namque diebus, Willelmus, Anglorum rex strenuus,
mortuus est, eiusque morte tota Cenomannorum regio perturbata.” _Actus
Pontificum_, p. 385.
[138] _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges,
p. 273: “Unde factum est, ut paulo post mortem ipsius regis idem dux
Robertus, de quo nunc sermo est, in principio sui ducatus, iam tunc
rebellionis contumaciam attentantes in ipsis suis finibus ducto exercitu
Normannorum, eos compescuit”; Ordericus, iii, p. 327: “ipso [i.e.,
the Conqueror] mortuo statim de rebellione machinari coeperunt.” The
statement of the _Actus Pontificum_ (_supra_, n. 137) is not convincing
because the next sentence opens with the rebellion of 1090. Robert of
Torigny shows himself poorly informed in these matters. The statement
of Ordericus is vague, and his record elsewhere does not point to any
serious disturbances till later in the reign.
[139] Ordericus, iii, pp. 293, 296.
[140] _Ibid._, pp. 289, 292.
[141] _Ibid._, p. 293.
[142] Ordericus, iii, p. 296. The fragment of a charter by Robert
“Normannie princeps et Cenomannorum comes,” granting the tithe of his
customs and rents at Fresnay to Saint-Vincent of Le Mans, should probably
be assigned to this visit. _Cartulaire de S.-Vincent_, no. 532.
[143] Ordericus, iii, p. 269.
[144] Osmond de Gaprée was killed at the siege on 1 September. Ordericus,
iii, p. 297: Ordericus was probably well informed, since Osmond was
buried at Saint-Évroul. This date makes it possible to say definitely
that this expedition into Maine did not take place in 1087, for William
the Conqueror did not die till 9 September of that year. It is not so
clear that it did not take place after 1088; yet between this and the
successful rebellion of 1090 there were the threatened disturbances which
Fulk is said to have repressed for a year. Cf. Latouche, _Maine_, p. 40,
n. 2.
[145] Ordericus, iii, pp. 296-297.
[146] _Ibid._, iii, p. 297.
[147] _Supra_, p. 55.
[148] Ordericus, iii, p. 320.
[149] _Ibid._, pp. 320-323.
[150] He granted Bavent, Noyon-sur-Andelle, Gacé, and Gravençon to
William of Évreux, and Pont-Saint-Pierre to William of Breteuil, his
nephew. Ordericus, iii, pp. 321-322.
[151] Ordericus, iii, pp. 327-332; _Actus Pontificum_, pp. 385 ff.;
_Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, pp.
272-273.
[152] _Actus Pontificum_, p. 385.
[153] Ordericus, iii, pp. 328-329; _Actus Pontificum_, pp. 385-386.
[154] He was the son of Azzo II, marquis of Este, and Gersent, eldest
daughter of Herbert Éveille-Chien.
[155] _Actus Pontificum_, p. 386; Ordericus, iii, pp. 327-328.
[156] “Ipse autem Rotbertus, ultra modum inertie et voluptati deditus,
nichil dignum ratione respondens, que Cenomannenses fecerant, pro eo quod
inepto homini nimis honerosi viderentur, non multum sibi displicuisse
monstravit.” _Actus Pontificum_, p. 386. This is a remarkable
corroboration of Ordericus Vitalis in his view of Robert’s character.
[157] _Actus Pontificum_, pp. 387-390. Hoël’s presence in England early
in 1091 is proved by his attestation of two charters by William Rufus,
at Dover (27 January) and at Hastings. Davis, _Regesta_, nos. 315, 319.
It is not unlikely that Hoël returned to Normandy with the king, who was
evidently about to sail at the time the Dover charter was issued.
[158] _Actus Pontificum_, pp. 391-392. He celebrated Easter (13 April)
and Pentecost (1 June) at Solesmes; and arriving at La Couture 28 June,
he observed the day of the Apostles on the 29th; and the ceremony
in the cathedral church took place the day following. _Chartularium
Insignis Ecclesiae Cenomanensis quod dicitur Liber Albus Capituli_ (Le
Mans, 1869), no. 178; cf. _Cartulaire de S.-Vincent_, no. 117. The
year in which these events occurred requires some further discussion.
Latouche, though admitting with Ordericus Vitalis (iii, p. 327) that
the revolt began in 1090, still believes that Hugh did not arrive in
Maine until after Easter 1091, that Hoël was in England from November
to March 1091-92, and that his return and reconciliation with Hugh took
place at the end of June 1092. _Maine_, pp. 41-44. Latouche bases his
chronological deductions upon a charter by Hugh in favor of Marmoutier,
given at Tours, according to Latouche, on 13 April 1091. Bibliothèque
Nationale MSS., Collection Baluze, 76, fol. 14. Since Hugh does not bear
the title of count in this document, Latouche argues that he had not
yet arrived in Maine, and, therefore, that the subsequent events of the
revolution must be carried forward through 1091 into 1092. The dating
clause of the charter in question, as kindly furnished me by M. Henri
Omont, is as follows: “Factum hoc mᵒ anno et lxxxxi. ab incarnatione
Domini, indictione xiiii. anno xxxiiii. Philippi regis, primo anno
R. archiepiscopatus, secundi Aurelianensis. Aderbal scolae minister
secundarius scriptsit.” Granting that this is a document of the year
1091—which is by no means likely, in view of the year of the reign
and of Ralph, archbishop of Tours—there still appears to be no reason
why Latouche should assign it to the Easter date (13 April); and upon
other evidence it is clear that Hugh arrived in Maine at a much earlier
period: (1) It is not clear from the _Actus Pontificum_ (pp. 386-387),
as Latouche supposes (p. 42, n. 6), that Hoël was already in Normandy
upon Hugh’s arrival in Maine, but quite the contrary. (2) Ordericus
Vitalis (iii, pp. 328, 330) indicates that Hugh was induced to come to
Maine because Robert Curthose and William Rufus were at war, and that a
strong argument in favor of his return to Italy was the fact that they
had recently made peace and were meditating an attack upon Maine. This
we know to have been in the spring and summer of 1091, and not in 1092
after William Rufus had returned to England. (3) A charter by William
Rufus proves the presence of Hoël in England 27 January 1091, and not
November-March 1091-92, as Latouche supposes. Davis, _Regesta_, no. 315.
(4) Finally, two charters in favor of Saint-Julien of Tours, dated 11
November 1091, prove that Helias was already at that time count of Maine
with Hoël’s approval, and incidentally show that Hoël was not then in
England. _Charles de S.-Julien de Tours_, nos. 43, 44.
[159] Ordericus, iii, pp. 329-330; cf _Actus Pontificum_, p. 393.
[160] Ordericus, iii, p. 330. This gives an important synchronism for
dating.
[161] _Ibid._, iii, pp. 331-332; _Actus Pontificum_, p. 393; _Cartulaire
de S.-Vincent_, no. 117.
[162] Bishop Hoël and Count Helias join in confirming a charter by
Alberic de la Milesse, 11 November 1091. _Chartes de S.-Julien de Tours_,
nos. 43, 44. Count Helias attests a confirmation by Fulk le Réchin, 27
July 1092. Halphen, _Anjou_, p. 320, no. 262.
[163] _Supra_, pp. 66-67.
[164] Davis, _Regesta_, nos. 308, 310, 324; Haskins, p. 285, no. 1.
[165] _Supra_, p. 43.
[166] Ordericus, iii, p. 263; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in
William of Jumièges, p. 288.
[167] Ordericus, iii, pp. 321-322.
[168] _Ibid._, pp. 297-298.
[169] Castle of Montaigu. _Ibid._, p. 420.
[170] _Ibid._, p. 333.
[171] Castles of Saint-Saëns, Arques, and Bures. _Ibid._, p. 320. These
grants to Helias proved to be a source of strength rather than of
weakness.
[172] Ordericus, iii, pp. 291-296.
[173] “Verum deficiente alimonia castrum captum est, et praefatus
municeps iussu irati ducis protinus oculis privatus est. Aliis quoque
pluribus, qui contumaciter ibidem restiterant principi Normanniae,
debilitatio membrorum inflicta est ex sententia curiae.” _Ibid._, p. 297.
This is the only instance I have met with where Robert might be charged
with cruelty. The distinction between the blinding of Robert Quarrel
by the duke’s command and the mutilation of others by sentence of the
_curia_ is curious.
[174] _Ibid._, pp. 337-342.
[175] See, e.g., Ordericus, iii, p. 299.
[176] Ordericus, iii, p. 299.
[177] _Ibid._, pp. 299-300.
[178] _Ibid._, p. 358.
[179] _Ibid._, pp. 301-302.
[180] _Ibid._, pp. 333-334.
[181] _Ibid._, pp. 361-366.
[182] _Ibid._, pp. 417-420.
[183] _Ibid._, v, p. 4.
[184] Ordericus, ii, p. 469; iii, pp. 332-333, 335-336, 412-416.
[185] _Ibid._, iii, pp. 332-333, 412.
[186] _Ibid._, pp. 415-416. Robert of Torigny calls this “quamdam rem
dignam memoria.” _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of
Jumièges, p. 290.
[187] Ordericus, iii, pp. 344-348; _supra_, p. 58.
[188] Ordericus, iii, pp. 384-385; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_,
in William of Jumièges, p. 271; Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 413.
[189] _Ibid._, p. 414; Ordericus, iii, p. 418.
[190] “Ille vero contra Rodbertum, Normanniae comitem, viriliter arma
sumpsit, incendiis et rapinis expulsionis suae iniuriam vindicavit,
multosque cepit et carceri mancipavit.” Ordericus, iii, p. 385.
[191] _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, pp.
271-272.
[192] Ordericus, iii, pp. 289, 303, 332, 357.
[193] Haskins, pp. 63-64.
[194] _Cartulaire de S.-Vincent_, no. 532.
[195] Ordericus, iii, pp. 297, 303, 381; Milo Crispin, _Vita Willelmi
Abbatis Beccensis Tertii_, in Migne, cl, col. 717.
[196] Round, _C. D. F._, no. 1115; Davis, _Regesta_, no. 342; Haskins, p.
70, no. 36.
[197] Haskins, pp. 66-70.
[198] _Supra_, p. 65.
[199] Ordericus, iii, p. 420; Charter by Duke Robert in favor of La
Trinité of Fécamp, in Haskins, p. 289, no. 4 _c._
[200] For a full discussion of Robert’s government, see Haskins, pp.
62-78.
[201] _Gallia Christiana_, xi, instr., col. 221.
[202] _H. F._, xiv, p. 68.
[203] Ordericus, iii, p. 379.
[204] _Ibid._, p. 381.
[205] Eadmer, _Historia Novorum in Anglia_, ed. Martin Rule (London,
1884), p. 37; _Epistolae Anselmi_, bk. iii, no. 10, in Migne, clix, col.
31.
[206] _Epistolae Anselmi_, bk. iii, no. 15, in Migne, clix, col. 39; cf.
_ibid._, nos. 8, 14; Milo Crispin, _Vita Willelmi Abbatis_, in Migne, cl,
col. 717.
[207] _De Controversia Guillelmi_, in _H. F._, xiv, pp. 68-69; Heinrich
Böhmer, _Kirche und Staat in England und in der Normandie im xi. und xii.
Jahrhundert_ (Leipsic, 1899), p. 146. According to Böhmer, the suspension
of Archbishop William took place towards the end of 1093. There is an
unpublished tract by the ‘Anonymous of York’ upon the exemption of the
monastery of Fécamp in Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, MS. 415, pp.
264-265. Cf. Karl Hampe, in _Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere
deutsche Geschichtskunde_, xxii (1897), pp. 669-672; Böhmer, _op. cit._,
pp. 177, 180.
[208] _Supra_, p. 68.
[209] “This power he reserves for his brother, King William, as well as
for himself.” Davis, _Regesta_, no. 327.
[210] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 33, MS. C,
in note; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217.
[211] Eadmer, p. 43.
[212] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 33, MS. C, in
note; cf. Eadmer, p. 47.
[213] _Ibid._, cf. Davis, _Regesta_, nos. 347, 348.
[214] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 33, MS. C, in
note. In 1094 Lent extended from 22 February to 9 April. If by ‘Midlent’
an exact day is designated, it was probably Sunday, 19 March.
[215] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 33, and MS.
C, in note; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217. Florence of Worcester is the
sole authority for ‘Campus Martius’ and for the fact that after the
conferences Robert went to Rouen and William Rufus to Eu. Henry of
Huntingdon mentions only the final meeting. A phrase in a letter of
Bishop Ivo of Chartres makes it not improbable that King Philip was
present at this conference: “iturus vobiscum ad placitum quod futurum est
inter regem Anglorum et comitem Normannorum.” _H. F._, xv, p. 82, no. 28;
cf. Fliche, _Philippe Iᵉʳ_, p. 299. But the letter is undated, and proof
is lacking that it refers to the conference of 1094. There is no basis
for Fliche’s assumption that the meeting between William and Robert took
place at Pontoise or at Chaumont-en-Vexin. Ivo’s letter contains no such
evidence. The above mentioned places are named only as a rendezvous for
Philip and Ivo preparatory to proceeding to the meeting between Robert
and William.
[216] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 34.
[217] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 34; Henry of
Huntingdon, p. 217.
[218] References as in n. 217, _supra_.
[219] Argentan is pretty clearly, though not certainly, the place
designated. Florence of Worcester (ii, p. 34), who seems generally best
informed on these events, has “Argentinum,” about which there can be no
question. The readings of the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_a._ 1094) and of
Henry of Huntingdon (p. 217) are “castel aet Argentses” and “Argentes,”
which might refer to Argentan or Argences. Thomas Stapleton says that the
place in question was Argentan. _Magni Rotuli Scaccarii Normaniae sub
Regibus Angliae_ (London, 1840-44), ii, p. xxx. I cannot discover that
there was any castle at Argences in the eleventh century.
[220] Florence of Worcester, ii, pp. 34-35; _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; Henry
of Huntingdon, p. 217.
[221] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 35; Henry of
Huntingdon, p. 217.
[222] According to Henry of Huntingdon (p. 217), they actually besieged
Eu.
[223] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094.
[224] _Ibid._, _a._ 1094; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 217.
[225] Fliche sets forth the extraordinary hypothesis that there was
no war between William Rufus and Robert Curthose in 1094, though he
admits the meeting between them and the unsuccessful attempt at a
reconciliation. He bases his hypothesis upon the fact that Ordericus
Vitalis makes no mention of the war of 1094, and that the account of
the campaign of 1094 as set forth in the English sources bears certain
resemblances to that of 1091. He argues that the English writers in
their confusion have assigned events to 1094 which really belong to
1091—in brief, that there was only one campaign, that of 1091: “Et alors
ne faudrait-il pas reporter toute la campagne racontée ici à l’année
1090-1091?” _Philippe Iᵉʳ_, pp. 298-300. In point of fact there is far
less duplication between the events of 1090-91 and 1094 than Fliche
supposes, and such resemblances as exist are readily accounted for by
the fact that William Rufus had his headquarters at Eu on both occasions
and pursued the same general policy throughout his dealings with Robert
Curthose and King Philip. It may be admitted as extraordinary that the
events of 1094 have escaped the attention of Ordericus Vitalis; but to
reject the highly circumstantial accounts of the English writers is to
betray a strange lack of appreciation of the range and accuracy of their
information.
[226] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1094.
[227] _Ibid._ According to Henry of Huntingdon (p. 218), the king’s
original order had been to proceed to London.
[228] Eadmer, p. 52.
[229] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1095; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 35.
[230] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1095; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 218.