FAILURE TO GAIN THE ENGLISH CROWN
While Robert Curthose was loitering in southern Italy, enjoying the
hospitality of Norman friends and kinsmen, events of immense importance
for him were taking place beyond the Alps. On 2 August 1100 William
Rufus was slain while hunting in the New Forest.[1] News of the tragedy
quickly reached the ears of Henry Beauclerc, his younger brother, who
was a member of the royal party; and without a moment’s delay he put
spurs to his horse and galloped away to Winchester, the seat of the royal
treasury, and as lawful heir (_genuinus haeres_) imperiously demanded
the keys of the keepers. But the interests and the superior claims of
Robert Curthose did not go undefended in that hour. William of Breteuil,
son of William Fitz Osbern, had also been a member of the king’s hunting
party; and foreseeing Henry’s design, he had ridden hard upon his heels
to Winchester. Arriving upon the scene before Henry had gained possession
of the treasure, he protested that Robert’s rights should be respected.
Robert, he declared, was beyond a doubt the Conqueror’s eldest son; Henry
had done him homage and sworn fealty to him as his lord; Robert had long
labored in the Lord’s service on the Crusade; and now God was restoring
to him, as if by miracle, the duchy which he had relinquished for the
love of Heaven. But Henry was not to be balked in his purpose by any such
scruples. The crowd which had gathered to witness the altercation clearly
favored “the present heir who was claiming his right”; and with such
encouragement, Henry drew his sword and exclaimed that he would never
permit a “foreigner,” through “frivolous delays,” to anticipate him in
grasping the sceptre of his father. Then friends and prudent counsellors
intervened to allay the dissensions, and, without any serious rupture,
the supporters of the duke gave way, and the castle and the royal hoard
were handed over to Henry.[2] In that moment Robert Curthose lost a
kingdom.
The rapidity with which events now moved forward, and the intelligence
and sureness of judgment which were introduced into the direction of
affairs, are highly indicative of the character and determination of
the man who had grasped the helm. “On Thursday he [William Rufus] was
slain, and on the morning after buried; and after he was buried, those
of the council who were nigh at hand chose his brother Henry for king;
and he straightways gave the bishopric of Winchester to William Giffard,
and then went to London; and on the Sunday after, before the altar at
Westminster, promised to God and all the people to put down all the
injustices that were in his brother’s time; and to maintain the best laws
that stood in any king’s day before him. And then, after that, the bishop
of London, Maurice, hallowed him king; and all in this land submitted to
him and swore oaths and became his men.”[3] “And that nothing might be
wanting to the aggregate of happiness, Ranulf, the dregs of iniquity, was
cast into the gloom of a prison, and speedy messengers were despatched to
recall Anselm.”[4] The news of the king’s death had, it may be supposed,
taken Henry entirely unawares. Yet within less than four days he had
surmounted all the difficulties connected with the seizure of the kingdom
and had sketched out the programme of a reign. To Robert’s claim of
primogeniture he had opposed the fact that he alone had been born within
the realm of England and the son of a king and queen.[5] The very real
argument that Robert was still far away, and that his return could not be
awaited without grave peril to the nation, was also doubtless used with
telling effect.[6] The appointment of William Giffard to the vacant see
of Winchester, the recall of Anselm, and the imprisonment of the infamous
Ranulf Flambard, the chief oppressor of the late reign, were all measures
calculated to announce in unmistakable terms to church and clergy that
the evils from which they had suffered under William Rufus were at an
end.[7] And the issue of the famous Charter of Liberties, in direct
connection with the coronation, was a proclamation to the nation that
better days were at hand.[8] Its publication in the counties must in some
cases have brought almost the first news of the tyrant’s death and of
the inauguration of the new reign. But not content with these measures,
Henry took another step well calculated to strengthen his hold upon the
affections of his English subjects. Giving up ‘meretricious pleasures,’
he married Matilda, “daughter of Malcolm, king of Scotland, and of the
good queen Margaret, King Edward’s kinswoman, of the true royal line of
England.”[9] The marriage was solemnized on Martinmas (11 November). At
Christmas, Henry gained the tacit recognition of his royal title among
the crowned heads of Europe. With King Philip’s full permission, Louis,
the king designate of France, paid him a state visit with a distinguished
suite, and was received with fitting honors at Westminster.[10] But
this was not only an indication that Henry had been received into the
society of kings, it was an earnest of the cordial relations which were
to prevail between the French and English courts until the critical years
of the new reign had passed. The triumph of Henry’s clear-cut, far-seeing
policy could hardly have been more complete. There were rocks ahead, but
at least he had made the vessel seaworthy, and with firm and careful
steering he might hope to avoid all perils.
Henry I had good reason for acting with precipitate haste in making
sure his hold upon the English crown, for the rumor ran that his elder
brother was returning from Italy, and was already close at hand. The
king had well grounded fears that unless he made his position absolutely
secure the English barons might repent of their decision and withdraw
their allegiance.[11]
Robert Curthose was probably already on his way home from southern Italy
when William Rufus came to his tragic end in the New Forest. Late in
August, or early in September,[12] he arrived in Normandy with his newly
won bride, the beautiful Sibyl of Conversano, and was joyfully welcomed
by his subjects.[13] Without encountering any opposition, he entered into
full possession of his duchy,[14] “except the castles which were occupied
by King Henry’s men, against which he had many onsets and contests.”[15]
There were many reasons for the cordial welcome which Normandy extended
her duke upon his return from the Crusade. The old evils and abuses of
his earlier reign had doubtless largely been forgotten, while the rule of
William Rufus, who had “trampled Normandy under his feet”[16] by reason
of his warlike undertakings and the extreme rigor of his justice,[17]
had prepared men’s minds for a milder régime. Robert’s long labors in
the Holy War had brought him much prestige and made him a European
figure. The charms of his fair Italian bride[18] struck the imagination
of the people. Moreover, the death of the late king had been followed
by a fresh outburst of private war in Normandy;[19] and the return of
the legitimate duke, ‘as if by miracle,’ offered at least a hope of the
restoration of peace and order. But most important of all, the critical
state of English affairs left Henry I no time or resources to turn his
attention to the Continent; and, except in so far as his garrisons might
still hold out at Domfront and in the Cotentin, he was powerless to
prevent the restoration.
If Robert’s absence during the critical days of early August had been
fatal to his cause in England, the unexpected death of the late king
had nevertheless been his rare good fortune, so far as the recovery of
Normandy was concerned. Men saw in it the hand of God exercised on behalf
of the crusader.[20] Probably William Rufus had never intended to restore
the Norman duchy upon Robert’s return from the Crusade.[21] In any case,
Robert could not have hoped to recover it except by repayment of the loan
for which it had been pledged. Indeed, we know that while in Italy, by
means of his wife’s dowry and through the gifts of friends, he had taken
pains to provide himself with funds for the redemption of the duchy.[22]
But the tragedy in the New Forest had obviated this unpleasant necessity.
Joyfully welcomed home, the weary crusader entered into possession of his
dominions without the repayment of a single penny.
Robert’s first acts upon his return to Normandy are eminently
characteristic, and they contrast strangely with the unparallelled
energy and decision with which Henry was pressing forward to his goal
in England. Far from giving his undivided attention to the grave
problems of his distracted state, he went with his wife on pilgrimage to
Mont-Saint-Michel to render thanks to God and the archangel for his safe
return from the Crusade.[23] Then, if Wace may be trusted, he went to
Caen to visit his sister, Abbess Cecilia of La Trinité, and presented her
church with a splendid Saracen banner which he had captured in the Holy
War.[24]
While Robert was indulging in devotions and ceremonial and Henry was
absorbed in the affairs of his kingdom, events in Maine were rapidly
approaching a crisis which was to prove fatal to Norman dominion in
the county. During Robert’s absence on the Crusade, William Rufus had
reasserted with the utmost vigor, but with questionable success, the
Norman claim to rule in Maine. Against him Helias of La Flèche had
maintained a stubborn resistance. And although towards the end of the
Red King’s reign he had been forced to retire beyond the frontier into
his own strongholds farther south, no sooner did he receive word of the
king’s death than he pushed forward again and recovered Le Mans. But
the citadel with its Norman garrison still held out against him, and,
obtaining reënforcements from Fulk le Réchin, his Angevin overlord,
Helias began to besiege it.
The events which followed are a perfect illustration of the prevailing
ideas of the feudal age. The commanders of the Norman garrison had been
set to guard the castle of Le Mans by their lord, William Rufus, who
was now dead. And there was a question as to who was his legitimate
successor, and, therefore, as to whom they now owed allegiance. Obtaining
a truce from Helias, they sent to both Robert and Henry to seek aid or
instructions. Going first to Robert, their messenger found him “broken
by the hardships of his long pilgrimage, and preferring the quiet of the
couch to warlike exertions.” The plight of the Norman garrison at Le Mans
and the prospective loss of a county moved him little. “I am wearied
with long labor,” he is reported to have said, “and my duchy of Normandy
is enough for me. Moreover, the barons of England are inviting me to
cross the sea and are prepared to receive me as their king.” Robert,
therefore, advised the commanders of the garrison to make an honorable
peace. Getting no satisfaction from the duke, the envoy hastened to
England to ask aid of the king. But Henry was engrossed in the affairs of
his realm—which Robert’s return had rendered critical—and he prudently
decided not to embark upon a hazardous foreign enterprise at that time.
He thanked the Norman commanders at Le Mans for their loyalty and
consideration, but sent their messenger away empty. And when they had
thus “laudably proved their fidelity,” they surrendered the citadel to
Helias of La Flèche, late in October, and marched out with the honors of
war.[25]
So ended the Norman domination in Maine. Helias of La Flèche was now
completely master of the county; and the betrothal of Eremburg, his only
daughter, to the oldest son of Fulk le Réchin paved the way for its later
union with Anjou. Not until an Angevin count should succeed to the Norman
duchy were the two territories again to be brought under a single ruler.
It has been suggested that Henry I, while declining to aid the Norman
garrison at Le Mans, was already secretly negotiating with Helias of La
Flèche with a view to obtaining his aid against Robert Curthose.[26] But
there is no evidence of any such negotiations; and since it is not until
several years later that Maine and Anjou appear as active supporters of
the king against the duke, this hypothesis seems unwarrantable. In the
autumn of 1100, Henry was in no position to interfere in continental
affairs. He showed his wisdom and his sense of proportion in allowing
Maine to go its way, while he dealt with the more pressing problem of
the investiture controversy with Anselm and the papacy and prepared to
frustrate the projects of disaffected subjects who were already plotting
his overthrow. The interests of Robert Curthose in Maine, on the other
hand, were more immediate, and Ordericus Vitalis charges his inaction to
his habitual indolence. But the real cause of his indifference, it seems,
was the fact that visions of a second Norman conquest of England were
already floating before his unstable mind. Within a few months he was
fairly launched in preparations for an invasion of the island kingdom and
an attempt to gain the English crown.
As soon as Robert’s return from the Crusade became known in England,
“almost all the magnates of the land violated the fealty which they had
sworn”[27] and entered into secret negotiations for his elevation to
the English throne.[28] Robert of Bellême and his two brothers Roger
and Arnulf, William of Warenne, Walter Giffard, Ivo of Grandmesnil, and
Robert, son of Ilbert de Lacy, were the chief conspirators.[29] Accepting
their proposals with alacrity, Robert Curthose promptly relapsed into all
the old extravagant practices which had impoverished him and stripped
him of his inherited dominions during his earlier reign. To Robert of
Bellême he granted the castle of Argentan, the forest of Gouffern, and
lucrative rights attaching to the bishopric of Séez.[30] Upon others he
squandered the treasure which he had brought back with him from Italy,
while to others still he made extravagant promises to be fulfilled out
of the spoils of England.[31] Yet it is doubtless an exaggeration which
pictures the king as deserted by ‘almost all the magnates of the land.’
Some of the ablest and most powerful of the barons remained loyal, among
them Count Robert of Meulan and his brother Henry of Beaumont, earl of
Warwick, Robert Fitz Hamon, Richard de Redvers, Roger Bigot,[32] and
probably many others of less note.
During the autumn and winter the conspiracy smouldered, causing the
king no small concern. In his letter to Anselm immediately after his
coronation, Henry directed him in returning to England to avoid Normandy
and travel by way of Wissant and Dover.[33] And in his negotiations with
Anselm after his arrival in England (23 September 1100), he showed great
anxiety lest the archbishop should go over to the support of Robert, from
whom at that time it would have been easy to get full assurances on the
question of investitures.[34] Clearly the king regarded the situation as
critical; yet an invasion was hardly to be feared before the following
spring or summer.
It was in the spring that an untoward incident occurred, which
contributed not a little to bring the conspiracy to a head and to
precipitate the invasion. On 2 February 1101, Ranulf Flambard, ‘the dregs
of iniquity,’ escaped from the Tower of London and fled to Normandy.[35]
Going straight to the duke, he was received with favor, and, if we may
rely upon Ordericus Vitalis, he was charged with the administration
of the duchy.[36] Henceforth, the sources picture him as the chief
instigator of the attack upon England. Doubtless his well known talents
were turned to good account in the equipment of a fleet and in the
assembling of the “no small multitude of knights, archers, and foot
soldiers” which was gathered at Tréport ready for the crossing.[37]
Meanwhile, in England, the Pentecostal court (9 June) was thrown into
consternation by the news of an imminent invasion.[38] The _curia_ was
honeycombed with treason, and king and magnates regarded one another
with mutual suspicion. Not knowing how far the conspiracy had spread,
Henry was in terror of a general desertion by the barons. They, on the
other hand, feared an increase of royal power and the summary vengeance
that would fall upon them as traitors after the restoration of peace.
At this juncture, all discussion of the investiture controversy was set
aside, and king and barons alike turned to Archbishop Anselm as the
one man whose character commanded universal confidence and who, by his
position as primate of England, was constitutionally qualified to act as
mediator in such a crisis. Apparently the nobles and people renewed their
allegiance by a general oath; and the king, on his part, extending his
hand to the archbishop as the representative of his subjects, “promised
that so long as he lived he would govern the realm with just and holy
laws.”[39]
When this mutual exchange of assurances had somewhat cleared the air,
already thick with treason, the king proceeded with his accustomed vigor
to take measures to thwart the impending attack. He sent ships to sea to
head off the hostile fleet. He gathered an army from all parts of the
realm, and, marching to Pevensey “at midsummer,” he pitched a permanent
camp there and awaited the invasion.[40] Anselm joined the levy with the
knights due from his fief;[41] but the archbishop’s services were mainly
moral rather than military.
As the duke’s forces for the invasion were being assembled at Tréport,
not far from Saint-Valery—the port from which the Conqueror’s fleet
had sailed in 1066—it was but natural to expect that a landing would
again be attempted at Pevensey. A different plan, however, was adopted.
Buscarls whom Henry had sent to sea to head off the invasion were
corrupted—through the contrivance of Ranulf Flambard, it is said[42]—and,
deserting the royal cause, accepted service with the duke as pilots of
his fleet.[43] With such guides the invaders easily avoided the ships
which the king had sent out against them, and sailing past Pevensey,
where the royal forces were awaiting them, they landed safely at
Portsmouth (21 July),[44] and were welcomed by their confederates
within the kingdom.[45] Sending a defiance to the king,[46] Robert
advanced upon Winchester, the seat of the royal treasury and the chief
administrative centre of the realm, and pitched his camp in a strong
position. Apparently he meant to attack the city;[47] but such a plan, if
entertained, was quickly abandoned, and Robert turned towards London and
advanced as far as the forest of Alton.[48]
It was a trying moment for the king, and the chroniclers describe in
moving terms the terrors which he suffered.[49] Almost despairing of his
kingdom, they declare, he feared even for his life.[50] The successful
landing of the invaders had given the signal for further desertions among
the disaffected barons.[51] Many who until this moment had maintained
the appearance of loyalty now openly aligned themselves with the
duke, seeking to cloak their infamous conduct by demanding unjust and
impossible concessions from the king. To this number belong Robert of
Bellême and William of Warenne,[52] who clearly had been among the chief
conspirators from the beginning, and probably also William of Mortain,
earl of Cornwall.[53] Robert of Meulan, who on every occasion remained
faithful to the king, was for paying these base traitors in their own
coin. He urged the king to conciliate them, “to indulge them as a
father indulges his children,” to grant all their requests, even though
they demanded London and York. When the storm had been weathered, he
insinuated, the king might visit condign punishment upon them and reclaim
the domains which they had wrung from him in his hour of need.[54]
But in this dire hour Henry found a more powerful supporter in Anselm.
As treason thickened around the king, he placed his trust in almost no
one except the archbishop.[55] Their quarrel over investitures was no
longer allowed to stand between them. Eadmer affirms that Henry gave up
his whole contention in that matter, and promised henceforth to obey the
decrees and commands of the apostolic see.[56] And with such assurances
Anselm threw himself heart and soul into the royal cause. Privately he
undertook to inspire the disloyal barons whom the king brought before
him with a holy fear of violating their plighted faith.[57] But he went
further. Mounting a pulpit in the midst of the host, he harangued the
forces upon their obligation to abide by their sworn allegiance. His
voice was like the blast of a trumpet calling the multitude to arms.
Raising their voices, they pledged their goods and their loyalty to the
king, upon condition that he put away the evil customs which had come in
with William Rufus and that he keep good laws.[58]
Thus the church and the English people stood firmly behind the king,[59]
and many of the barons who at first had contemplated desertion seem to
have been held back by the strong personal influence of the archbishop.
And, with such support, Henry moved forward to intercept the
invaders,[60] and came face to face with them at Alton.[61] Yet no battle
ensued:
Dote li reis, dote li dus,
Mais io ne sai qui dota plus.[62]
In this happy couplet Wace has described the situation exactly. In
spite of a very fortunate beginning, resolution failed the duke and
his supporters when it came to pressing their advantage home.[63] The
king, too, notwithstanding the disaffection among his barons, had been
able to muster a formidable army. Probably the desertions from the
royal cause had been less numerous than Robert and his supporters had
anticipated.[64] The battle, if joined, would certainly be a bloody one.
And, on his side, the king was in no position to force the issue: the
loyalty of a considerable portion of his army was too doubtful. Moreover,
it was no part of Henry’s character to seek by arms what he could achieve
by diplomacy, a sphere in which he enjoyed a far greater superiority.
The chief supporters of both sides also hesitated. A fratricidal war
was as little attractive to the barons, whose families were divided
between the two opposing forces, as it was to the two brothers who were
the principals in the contest.[65] And so saner counsels prevailed, and
leading barons from each side opened negotiations for peace.[66]
The text of the treaty which resulted has not come down to us in
documentary form, but it is possible to reconstruct its terms with some
fulness from the narrative sources. Robert gave up all claim to the
English crown, released Henry from the homage which he had done him on an
earlier occasion—probably upon the receipt of the Cotentin in 1088—and
recognized his royal title and dignity.[67] It was not considered fitting
that an English king should remain the vassal of a Norman duke. On his
side, the king undertook to pay Robert an annual subsidy of 3000 marks
of silver[68] and to surrender all his holdings in Normandy except the
great stronghold of Domfront.[69] Long years before, when Henry had been
a wandering exile, his fortunes at their lowest, the men of Domfront
had voluntarily called him in and made him their lord; and on taking
possession of their town and castle he had solemnly sworn never to
abandon them. The binding force of this oath was now invoked as a pretext
for the king’s retention of a solitary outpost in Robert’s dominions. An
amnesty provision was added for the benefit of the barons with holdings
on both sides of the Channel who by supporting one of the brothers had
jeopardized their interests with the other. Robert undertook to restore
all Norman honors which he had taken from the king’s supporters;[70]
and Henry promised the restoration of all English lands which he had
seized from partisans of the duke.[71] A special clause, of which we
would gladly know the full significance, provided that Count Eustace of
Boulogne should have “his paternal lands in England.”[72] Further, it
was agreed that, if either of the brothers should die before the other
and leave no lawful heir, the survivor should succeed to his dominions
whether in England or in Normandy.[73]
So far the provisions of the treaty seem reasonably certain. The
remainder are more doubtful. Ordericus Vitalis asserts—and his whole
defence of Henry’s dealings with Robert down to the latter’s overthrow
at Tinchebray, and after, is founded upon the assertion—that Robert
and Henry entered into a sworn agreement to recover all of the
Conqueror’s domains which had been lost since his death and to visit
condign punishment upon the wicked men who had fomented discord between
them.[74] Wace adds that each undertook, in case the other should be
at war, to furnish him with one hundred knights so long as the war
lasted.[75] According to the Annals of Winchester, Ranulf Flambard gave
up his bishopric of Durham.[76]
The treaty, as finally agreed upon, was duly confirmed in accordance
with a custom of the period by the oaths of twelve great barons on each
side.[77]
Thus ended Robert’s last and greatest effort to gain the English throne.
The royal army was disbanded and sent home. A part of the ducal forces
were sent back to Normandy.[78] But with the rest, Robert remained in
England for several months upon terms of peace and friendship with his
brother.[79] May he possibly have been awaiting the first instalment
of the English subsidy? The Chronicler does not fail to raise a
characteristic lament, though he makes no reference to oppressive gelds:
“and his men incessantly did much harm as they went, the while that the
count continued here in the country.” About Michaelmas Duke Robert
returned to Normandy.[80]
The treaty of Alton has been described as “the most ill considered step
in the whole of Robert’s long career of folly.”[81] It can hardly prove a
surprise, however, to one who has followed Robert’s course through that
long career. The real folly lay not so much in the making of the treaty
as in the whole project of overthrowing Henry I., once he had got fairly
seated on the English throne. It is hard to believe that the crown was
within the duke’s grasp as the two armies stood facing each other at
Alton. Henry had the support of the church and of the mass of his English
subjects. Only a faction of the nobles was against him. And a single
victory gained by the ducal forces would, it seems, hardly have resulted
in disaster for the royal cause. Robert had undertaken a task which was
beyond his power and his resources, a fact which the king’s momentary
weakness cannot disguise.
FOOTNOTES
[1] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1100; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 44; William of
Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 378; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 232; Ordericus,
iv, pp. 86-87.
[2] Ordericus, iv, pp. 87-88; William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 470;
cf. _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 279.
[3] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1100, Thorpe’s translation.
[4] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 470.
[5] Ordericus, iv, p. 88; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in
William of Jumièges, p. 279.
[6] Suger, _Vie de Louis le Gros_, ed. Auguste Molinier (Paris, 1887), p.
8; Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 432:
E al realme rei estoet,
Kar sainz rei pas estre ne poet.
But Wace becomes quite incredible when he asserts that the bishops and
barons forced the crown upon Henry, who desired to await Robert’s return.
[7] Cf. _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1100; Florence of Worcester, ii, pp. 46-47;
William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 470; Henry of Huntingdon, pp.
232-233.
[8] See the text in Stubbs, _Select Charters_, 9th ed. (Oxford, 1913),
pp. 117-119.
[9] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1100; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 47; William
of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 470; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 233.
[10] Simeon, _H. R._, p. 232; _Annales de Wintonia_, in _Annales
Monastici_, ii, p. 41; Ordericus, iv, pp. 195, 196.
[11] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 470.
[12] September, according to Ordericus Vitalis (iv, p. 98). Henry of
Huntingdon (p. 233) gives August, which is his usual rendering of the ‘in
autumn’ of the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (cf. _a._ 1100). The sources agree
that Robert returned soon after Henry’s accession. Cf. _Interpolations de
Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 282.
[13] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1100; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 233; Wace, _Roman de
Rou_, ii, pp. 438-439; cf. Ordericus, v. p. 2.
[14] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 471; _Interpolations de
Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 283; Ordericus, iv, pp.
98-99; Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 439.
[15] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1100. Henry had held Domfront since 1092; the
Cotentin had been granted him by William Rufus in 1096.
[16] Ordericus, iv, p. 16.
[17] _Ibid._, p. 98; Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 416.
[18] _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p.
285; Ordericus, iv, p. 78; Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 438.
[19] Ordericus, iv, p. 98.
[20] Cf. Ordericus, iv, p. 88.
[21] This is the view of Freeman. _William Rufus_, i, p. 556.
[22] Ordericus, iv, pp. 78-79; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in
William of Jumièges, p. 282.
[23] Ordericus, iv, p. 98.
[24] _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 415. Wace is the only authority to mention
this incident. The trophy in question cannot be the one already mentioned
(_supra_, p. 116), which was taken in the battle of Ascalon and presented
by Robert to the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. But Robert
may very well have captured more than one such trophy, and Wace’s
personal connection with Caen adds more than the usual weight to his
authority on a point of this kind.
There is in the _Miracula_ of St. Thomas Becket a record of a topaz which
was reputed to have been brought back from Jerusalem by Robert, and which
was later presented to the shrine of the martyr at Canterbury by Ralph
Fitz Bernard in gratitude for his healing. _Materials for the History of
Thomas Becket_, ed. J. C. Robertson (London, 1875-85), i, pp. 482-483.
[25] The whole episode is related with much detail by Ordericus Vitalis
in one of his most pleasing chapters. Ordericus, iv, pp. 99-102. His
whole account is in general confirmed by the _Actus Pontificum_ (p. 404),
which, however, make no mention of the envoy sent to Robert, and merely
record that the besieged garrison waited in vain for aid from the king.
The date of the surrender of the garrison can be placed definitely before
1 November 1100 on the evidence of a donation in favor of Saint-Aubin
of Angers. Archives départementales de la Sarthe, H 290 (_Inventaire
sommaire_, iii, p. 127). The document is dated in the year of King
William’s death “et recuperationis Helie comitis Cenomanorum,” 1100,
indiction viii, kalends of November. According to the _Actus Pontificum_,
the garrison held out for more than three months, but this is evidently
an exaggeration, as it would carry us beyond November. The surrender
must, it seems safe to conclude, have taken place on or very shortly
before that date.
[26] Latouche, _Maine_, pp. 51-52.
[27] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 471.
[28] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1101; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 48; cf.
_Annales de Wintonia_, in _Annales Monastici_, ii, p. 40.
[29] Ordericus, iv, pp. 103-104.
[30] “Tunc Rodberto de Belismo Sagiensem episcopatum et Argentomum
castrum silvamque Golferni donavit.” _Ibid._, p. 104. The meaning of
“Sagiensem episcopatum” is not clear. Le Prévost says: “Nous pensons
que par _episcopatus Sagiensis_ il faut entendre, non pas les revenus
ecclésiastiques de l’évêché de Séez, mais la possession et les revenus
féodaux du pays qui en dépendait et qui est plus connu sous le nom
d’Hiémois.” _Ibid._, p. 104, n. 2. Freeman understands the phrase to mean
the “ducal right of advowson over the bishopric of Séez”—“a claim very
dear to the house of Belesme.” _William Rufus_, ii, p. 396. Ordericus
Vitalis (iv, pp. 104, 162-163, 192) mentions this grant in practically
identical language on three separate occasions.
[31] Ordericus, iv, pp. 104-105.
[32] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 471.
[33] “Laudo ergo et mando ne per Northmanniam venias, sed per Guitsand,
et ego Doveram obviam habebo tibi barones meos.” _Epistolae Anselmi_, bk.
iii, no. 41, in Migne, clix, col. 76.
[34] Eadmer, p. 120.
[35] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1101; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 48; William of
Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 471; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 234; Ordericus,
iv, p. 109.
[36] Ordericus, iv, p. 110.
[37] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 48.
[38] Eadmer, p. 126; cf. _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1101; Henry of Huntingdon, p.
233.
[39] Eadmer, p. 126: “ … actum ex consulto est, ut certitudo talis
hinc inde fieret, quae utrinque quod verebatur excluderet. Sed ubi ad
sponsionem fidei regis ventum est, tota regni nobilitas cum populi
numerositate Anselmum inter se et regem medium facerunt, quatinus ei
vice sui, manu in manum porrecta, promitteret iustis et sanctis legibus
se totum regnum quoad viveret in cunctis administraturum”; William of
Malmesbury, _G. P._, pp. 105-106.
It is probable that the king’s promise to abide by his coronation charter
and the exaction of an oath of obedience from his subjects were extended
to the whole realm by means of writs addressed to the counties. One of
these writs, that addressed to the shire-moot of Lincolnshire, has been
preserved. It reads in part as follows: “Sciatis quod ego vobis concedo
tales lagas et rectitudines et consuetudines, quales ego vobis dedi et
concessi, quando imprimis coronam recepi. Quare volo ut assecuretis michi
sacramento terram meam Anglie, ad tenendum et ad defendendum contra omnes
homines et nominatim contra Rotbertum comitem Normannie fratrem meum
usque ad natale domini; et vobis predictis precipio ut hanc securitatem
recipiatis de meis dominicis hominibus francigenis et anglis, et barones
mei faciant vobis habere hanc eandem securitatem de omnibus suis
hominibus sicut michi concesserunt.” _E. H. R._, xxi, p. 506; facsimile,
_ibid._, xxvi, p. 488.
[40] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1101; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 48; Henry of
Huntingdon, p. 233; cf. _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William
of Jumièges, p. 282; Eadmer, pp. 126-127.
[41] _Ibid._, p. 127.
[42] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 48.
[43] _A-S. C._, _a._ 1101; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 48; Henry of
Huntingdon, p. 233; cf. Ordericus, iv, p. 110.
[44] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1101: “twelve nights before Lammas”; Henry of
Huntingdon, p. 233: “ante kalendas Augusti”; Florence of Worcester,
ii, pp. 48-49: “circa ad Vincula S. Petri”; Ordericus, iv, p. 110: “in
autumno.” The sources agree that the expedition landed at Portsmouth,
though Wace gives the landing place as Porchester. _Roman de Rou_, ii,
p. 439. Freeman explains that Portsmouth is a “vaguer name” referring
to the “whole haven,” and that Wace, wishing to be more specific, names
Porchester as the exact point within the harbor where the landing took
place. _William Rufus_, ii, p. 406, n. 1. But it seems more likely that
Wace’s choice of the word was due to the exigencies of his verse:
Passa mer e vint a Porcestre,
D’iloc ala prendre Wincestre.
The _Annales de Wintonia_ places the number of ships in the invading
fleet at two hundred, and record the presence of Ranulf Flambard:
“Dux Robertus venit in Angliam cum cc. navibus, et cum eo Radulfus
Passeflambere.” _Annales Monastici_, ii, p. 41.
[45] Ordericus, iv, p. 110.
[46] _Ibid._
[47] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 49; Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 440.
[48] _Ibid._, ii, pp. 440-441. For the identification of Alton, see
Freeman, _William Rufus_, ii, p. 408, n. 2. According to Ordericus (iv,
p. 113) the armies met “in quadam planicie.”
Wace, with his fondness for chivalrous detail, relates that Robert
abandoned his proposed attack upon Winchester because he learned that
the queen was then lying there in childbed. Only a villain, he declared,
would attack a woman in such plight:
Mais l’on li dist que la reigne,
Sa serorge, esteit en gesine,
Et il dist que vilains sereit,
Qui dame en gesine assaldreit.
_Roman de Rou_, ii. p. 440. J. H. Ramsay remarks, “but Matilda did
not give birth to her child till January or February following.” _The
Foundations of England_ (London, 1898), ii, p. 238, n. 9. He gives no
reference. Henry and Matilda were married 11 November 1100.
[49] Henry of Huntingdon, pp. 311-312 (_Epistola de Contemptu Mundi_).
[50] Eadmer, p. 127; William of Malmesbury, _G. P._, p. 105.
[51] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 49; Eadmer, p. 127; William of
Malmesbury, _G. P._, p. 106.
[52] Ordericus, iv, p. 110.
[53] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 473.
[54] Ordericus, iv, pp. 112-113.
[55] Eadmer, p. 127.
[56] “Ipse igitur Anselmo iura totius Christianitatis in Anglia
exercendae se relicturum, atque decretis et iussionibus apostolicae sedis
se perpetuo oboediturum, summo opere promittebat.” _Ibid._
[57] William of Malmesbury, _G. P._, pp. 105-106.
[58] Eadmer, p. 127; William of Malmesbury, _G. P._, p. 106; cf. _G. R._,
ii, pp. 471-472.
[59] “Omnes quoque Angli, alterius principis iura nescientes, in sui
regis fidelitate perstiterunt, pro qua certamen inire satis optaverunt.”
Ordericus, iv, pp. 110-111; cf. Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 49.
[60] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1101; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 233; _Chronicon_,
in _Liber de Hyda_, p. 305; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in
William of Jumièges, p. 282.
[61] Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 440; cf. _supra_, n. 48.
[62] Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 441.
[63] “Rotbertus qui magis aliorum perfidia quam sua fidens industria
venerat, destitit praelio, descivit a negotio.” William of Malmesbury,
_G. P._, p. 106.
[64] Eadmer, pp. 127-128. Eadmer adds that Robert was also deterred by a
threat of excommunication which Anselm held over him: “non levem deputans
excommunicationem Anselmi, quam sibi ut invasori nisi coepto desisteret
invehi certo sciebat, paci adquievit.”
[65] _Chronicon_, in _Liber de Hyda_, p. 306; Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii,
pp. 441-442.
[66] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 472; _A.-S. C._, _a._
1101; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 49; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 233;
_Chronicon_, in _Liber de Hyda_, p. 306.
The account of the peace negotiations given by Ordericus (iv, pp.
113-114) differs fundamentally from that of the English sources.
According to him, it was Henry and Robert personally, rather than
their supporters, who came together and made peace: “remotis omnibus
arbitris, soli fratres scita sua sanxerunt.” The noble envoys through
whom they at first attempted to exchange messages turned out to be
base traitors, who desired war rather than peace, and who acted for
their own private advantage rather than for the public good. This led
Henry to seek a personal interview with Robert. Meeting in a great
circle, around which “terribilis decor Normannorum et Anglorum in armis
effulsit,” their hearts were filled with “the sweetness of fraternal
love,” and, talking together for a little while, they made peace and
exchanged “sweet kisses.” Freeman has attempted, without success as it
seems to me, to reconcile this account with that of the English writers.
_William Rufus_, ii, appendix xx: pp. 688-691. I have rejected it as
being essentially untrustworthy for the following reasons: (1) It is in
fundamental disagreement with the English sources, which appear to be
better informed. (2) It has all the appearance of being a fancy picture,
drawn from the author’s notion of what ought to have happened under the
circumstances. (3) It tends greatly to eulogize the king. This last
consideration suggests the need of caution in dealing with Ordericus’s
statement of the terms of the treaty.
Wace says that the mediators between the king and the duke were Robert of
Bellême, William of Mortain, Robert Fitz Hamon, and others whose names he
has not learned. _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 442.
[67] Ordericus, iv, p. 114.
[68] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1101; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 49; William
of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 472; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 233;
Wace, _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 444; _Annales de Wintonia_, in _Annales
Monastici_, ii, p. 41. Robert of Torigny places the amount of the subsidy
at 4000 marks (_Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of
Jumièges, p. 282); so also does the _Liber Memorandorum Ecclesie de
Barnewelle_ (p. 55); Ordericus Vitalis (iv, p. 114) gives it as 3000
pounds.
[69] Ordericus, iv, p. 114. The _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_a._ 1101)
says that the king agreed to relinquish “all that he held by force in
Normandy against the count.” It is possible that the duke had tacitly, if
not actually, recognized Henry’s claim to Domfront as legitimate—he had
held it since 1092—and, therefore, that the statement quoted refers only
to Henry’s possessions in the Cotentin. In that case there would be no
disagreement between Ordericus and the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_. Wace must
surely be mistaken in his statement that Henry retained the Cotentin as
well as Domfront. _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 444.
[70] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 49.
[71] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1101; Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 49.
[72] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1101. This is the only mention of Eustace of
Boulogne in connection with these events, and it is not clear what part
he had played in them.
[73] _Ibid._; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 233.
[74] Ordericus, iv, p. 115. The phrase “omnia patris sui dominia” might
refer, as in the treaty of 1091, to the recovery of Maine; or it might
refer more locally to parts of the ducal demesne in Normandy which Robert
had squandered upon favorites. If it refers to Maine, it must have been
a purely formal provision—perhaps proposed by Henry for the diplomatic
needs of the moment—for there is no evidence that an attack upon Maine
was contemplated. Ordericus (iv, pp. 162-163, 192) in recounting a later
stage of the quarrel between Henry and Robert, applies it to recent
grants which the duke had made to Robert of Bellême in Normandy. The
provision for coöperation in the punishment of traitors, if not actually
inconsistent with the amnesty clause, is, at any rate, of a piece with
Ordericus’s conception of the treaty as made by the brothers in spite
of their followers. It ought, therefore, to be accepted with caution.
Ordericus makes frequent use of it on later occasions to justify Henry’s
course of action toward Robert.
[75] _Roman de Rou_, ii, p. 444.
[76] _Annales Monastici_, ii, p. 41.
[77] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1101; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 233.
[78] Florence of Worcester, ii, p. 49.
[79] We have some definite evidence concerning Robert’s coöperation
with King Henry during his sojourn in England. Soon after the treaty of
Alton had been concluded Anselm was summoned to appear before the _curia
regis_, and we are told that it was by the advice of Duke Robert and his
friends, who hated the archbishop because he had frustrated their plans,
that Henry demanded of Anselm that he become his man and consecrate
bishops and abbots whom the king had invested, or else quit the realm.
Eadmer, pp. 128, 131. On 3 September at Windsor Robert confirmed two
charters of donation by King Henry, the one in favor of Herbert, bishop
of Norwich, and the other in favor of John, bishop of Bath. W. Farrer,
“An Outline Itinerary of King Henry the First,” in _E. H. R._, xxxiv, pp.
312, 313.
At some time before the battle of Tinchebray (29 September 1106) Bishop
John of Bath obtained a separate charter from Robert confirming donations
of William Rufus and Henry I. _Two Chartularies of the Priory of St.
Peter at Bath_, ed. William Hunt (London, 1893), i, p. 47, no. 44. The
document is undated. It may have been issued during Robert’s sojourn
in England in 1101 or during one of his two later visits, late in 1103
(cf. _infra_, pp. 148-149), or early in 1106 (cf. _infra_, p. 169); or,
indeed, it may have been issued at some other time in Normandy.
[80] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1101: “after St. Michael’s mass”; Henry of
Huntingdon, p. 234: “Usque ad festum Sancti Michaelis.” Ordericus Vitalis
(iv, p. 116) is more indefinite: “appropinquante hieme, in Neustriam
rediit.”
[81] Davis, _Normans and Angevins_, p. 124.