CHAPTER VIII

ROBERT CURTHOSE IN LEGEND[1]

Though Robert’s life had been filled with failures and had ended in a

signal disaster, his memory by no means perished with him. As a leader

in the Holy War he had earned an enviable fame, which was early enhanced

by legend; and if modern writers have been guilty of some exaggeration

in their estimates of his merit as a crusader,[2] they have merely

perpetuated unconsciously a tradition which was already well established

in the literature of the later Middle Ages. William of Malmesbury,

writing as early as 1125, declared that Robert gave proof of his valor on

the Crusade by many wonderful feats of arms, for “neither Christian nor

pagan could ever unhorse him,” and he goes on to add details about his

exploits at Antioch and the honor of the kingship which was offered him

at Jerusalem.[3] The more extended account of Wace is equally flattering:

Robert Ierusalem requist,

Bel se contint, maint bien i fist;

A Antioche prendre fu,

D’armes i a grant pries eu.

Pois fu a Ierusalem prendre,

Ne s’i porent paiens deffendre.

De l’estandart qu’il abati,

Ou Corberan se combati,

E des paiens que il ocist

E de l’enseigne qu’il conquist,

Qu’il pois a l’iglise dona

Que sa mere a Chaem funda,

Out il grant pries e grant enor,

E mult en parlerent plusor.[4]

And by Geoffrey Gaimar, writing about the middle of the twelfth century,

he is pictured as the supreme leader of the First Crusade, disposing of

the cities and lands of the conquered territory according to his pleasure:

Suz ciel nen out meillor baron.

Celui fu duc de Normendie,

Sur Normans out la seignurie.

Maint bonte e maint barnage

E maint estrange vasselage

Fist i cest duc de Normendie,

E mainte bele chevalerie.

Co fu cil ki mult bien fist,

Ierusalem sur paens prist,

Il conquist la bone cite,

Des crestiens fust alose.

Pur Curbarant kil out oscis

Entrat li duc si halt pris,

Ka rei le voleient eslire;

Esguarde ont kil seit lur sire

A Antioche la cite,

La fust tenu pur avoue.

Il la conquist com ber vaillant;

Puis la donat a Normant;

E les altres bones citez,

Si com li ducs ad divisez,

Furent parties e donees,

E les pais e les contrees.

Duc Godefrai, par son otrei,

Fust feit en Ierusalem rei;

Pur co kil ni volt remaneir,

Lui lessat; si en fist son air.[5]

The foregoing illustrations, written during the duke’s lifetime or within

a generation after his death, offer a convincing demonstration of the

extraordinary rapidity with which legend set to work to rehabilitate

the memory of the vanquished of Tinchebray; and it will not be without

interest to make at least a cursory examination of these unhistorical

traditions, in so far as they reflect the duke’s reputation among the

writers of the later Middle Ages. Gaston Paris has not hesitated to

affirm that Robert, as a crusader, became the hero of a whole poetic

cycle which has since been lost, though not without leaving traces in

the literature of after times.[6] Stated in this sweeping form, the

pronouncement of this distinguished scholar is perhaps an unwarrantable

exaggeration; at any rate, in the present state of the evidence it can

hardly be regarded as more than a bold hypothesis.[7] But if there was

not, properly speaking, a Norman cycle of the Crusade of which Robert

was the hero, there certainly were numerous legends which it seems worth

while to bring together in such order as is possible in the arrangement

of matter so scattered and fragmentary.

William of Malmesbury has sounded the keynote of Robert’s later fame as

a crusader:[8] it was his personal prowess on the field of battle which

most impressed itself upon the imagination of later generations. With one

exception of minor importance,[9] later writers tell us little or nothing

of a legendary character respecting the position and achievements of

Robert at the siege of Nicaea; but his imaginary exploits in the battle

of Dorylaeum (1 July 1097) begin to meet us in accounts which are almost

contemporary. Robert the Monk, writing before 1107, pictures him as the

saviour of the day. The Franks were all but overwhelmed and had turned

in flight, and the contest would surely have ended in disaster for them,

had not the count of Normandy quickly turned his charger and checked the

rout by waving aloft his golden banner and calling out the inspiring

battle cry, _Deus vult! Deus vult!_[10] In the _Gesta Tancredi_ of Ralph

of Caen, written but a few years later, Robert appears as a hero whose

valor surpassed even that of the great Bohemond; for in the crisis of

the battle, remembering who he was and the royal blood which flowed in

his veins, he turned upon his fleeing comrades and shouted: “O Bohemond!

why do you fly? Apulia and Otranto and the confines of the Latin world

are far away. Let us stand fast. Either the victor’s crown or a glorious

death awaits us: glory will there be in either fate, but it will be

the greater glory which makes us sooner martyrs. Therefore, strike, O

youths, and let us fall upon them and die if need be!”[11] And with that

the flight was halted. Henry of Huntingdon puts a similar speech into the

mouth of Robert, and gives an even more wonderful account of his exploits

in the battle. In Henry’s story, when Robert had finished speaking,

he charged upon a paynim king and with one mighty thrust of his lance

pierced his shield, armor, and body; then he felled a second and a third

of the infidels.[12] And from Henry of Huntingdon the account of Robert’s

prowess on the field of Dorylaeum was handed on with slight modification

from writer to writer throughout the mediaeval period.[13]

The further legendary exploits of Robert Curthose are in the main

connected with the great battles at Antioch by which the Christians drove

off the successive relief forces which the Moslems sent against them,

first the army of Ridwan of Aleppo (9 February 1098) and then the host of

Kerboga of Mosul (28 June 1098). Actually Robert seems to have taken no

part in the earlier battle;[14] but in the account of the admiring Henry

of Huntingdon, we find him leading the first division in the action, and,

with a single blow of his mighty sword, splitting head, teeth, neck, and

even the shoulders (_usque in pectora_) of a pagan warrior.[15] And while

this feat of arms, like the exploits at Dorylaeum, appears to be unknown

to the poems of the Godfrey cycle, it was taken up and passed on by

English and Norman writers to the close of the Middle Ages.[16] Indeed,

new and grotesque exaggerations were added to it. Presently we learn that

Robert not only split the paynim’s head and a portion of his body, but

his shield and his helmet also; that he slew him even as one slaughters

a sheep; and that as the body fell to earth the victor cried aloud

commending its blood-stained soul to all the minions of Tartarus![17] One

would have thought this sufficient, surely, but another version tells us

that Godfrey came to Robert’s assistance, and with a second blow cleft

the unfortunate pagan in twain, so that one half of his body fell to the

ground while his charger bore the other in among the infidels![18]

It was however in the later battle with Kerboga that, according to the

legends, Robert performed his greatest feat of arms. The trustworthy

accounts tells us merely that he led the third division in action.[19]

But William of Malmesbury has represented him as attacking the great

Kerboga himself, while the latter was rallying the Moslem forces, and

slaying him.[20] And this tradition was preserved in England and in

Normandy without elaboration throughout the twelfth century.[21] Wace

seems to mention the incident, but without any indication that Kerboga

was killed by Robert;[22] and in this he is in agreement with the

earliest extant version of the Godfrey cycle, the so-called _Chanson

d’Antioche_, which narrates the exploit in truly epic form:

The count of Normandy was of right haughty mien;

Full armed he sat upon his steed of dappled gray.

He dashed into the mêlée like a leopard;

And his doughty vassals followed him;

There was wrought great slaughter of accursed Saracens.

Kerboga was seated before his standard;

Richly was he armed, he feared neither lance nor dart;

From his neck a rich buckler was suspended;

His helmet was forged in the city of ‘Baudart’;

A carbuncle burned upon the nasal;

A strong, stiff lance he bore, and a scimitar;

Upon the shield which swung from his neck a parrot was painted.[23]

Kerboga advanced with serried ranks.

When the count saw him he too advanced upon him,

And smote him such a blow upon his buckler

That he threw him, legs in air, into the press.[24]

Now he would have cut off his head, but he was too late;

For Persians and ‘Acopars’ came to the rescue,

And bore their lord away to his standard.[25]

The _Chanson d’ Antioche_ also narrates another spectacular exploit in

which Robert overthrew and slew the great emir ‘Red Lion’ during the same

battle;[26] but this episode seems not to have been repeated in other

compilations, and it occupies a far less important place in the _Chanson

d’ Antioche_ than has been supposed by modern writers, who have sought to

trace a connection between it and the Robert medallion in Suger’s famous

stained glass window at Saint-Denis.[27] The later compilation of the

Godfrey matter, edited by Reiffenberg, contains no mention of Robert’s

combat either with Kerboga or with Red Lion; but it relates a very

similar exploit in which he overcame a ‘Saracen king of Tabarie.’ With

his lance at the thrust, and raising the triumphant war cry “Normandy!”,

he bore down upon the Saracen with such force that he pierced his shield

a full palm’s breadth and a half, and wounded him deeply “between lungs

and liver.”[28] Finally, mention must be made of Robert’s prowess in the

legendary battle on the plain of Ramleh before Jerusalem, as told in

the fantastic account of the _Chanson de Jérusalem_. This time it was a

Turkish King Atenas whom he slew, and many others besides, so that the

ground was strewn with the enemy dead. But at last he was surrounded and

all but overborne by numbers. His horse was struck down under him, and

it was only after desperate fighting against almost hopeless odds that

he was finally rescued, when bleeding from many wounds, by his fellow

princes.[29]

Thus the Robert Curthose of the legends enjoyed a marvellous repute for

warlike prowess; and when Jerusalem had at last been won, his valor was

rewarded, we are told, with an offer of the crown of the Latin Kingdom,

which he promptly rejected.[30] Resting upon no valid contemporary

authority,[31] this tradition arose very early, and lent itself to

strange distortions as it passed from author to author. It appears

first in William of Malmesbury,[32] but it is also to be found before

the middle of the twelfth century in Henry of Huntington[33] and in the

_Historia Belli Sacri_.[34] In its simplest form it long continued to be

repeated by both English and Norman writers.[35] But it also developed

strange variations. As has elsewhere been explained, the position of

ruler at Jerusalem was actually offered to Count Raymond of Toulouse

and declined by him before the election of Godfrey.[36] Perhaps we have

here the historical basis of the tradition that the crown was offered to

Robert. It seems possible to trace the growth of the legend. By Albert of

Aix it is said that when the honor had been declined by Raymond it was

offered in turn to each of the other chiefs, and that the humble Godfrey

was prevailed upon to accept it only when all the others had refused.[37]

In the _Chanson de Jérusalem_ the matter has gone much further. According

to this version, Godfrey was first elected by general acclamation of

the people, but modestly declined the honor and responsibility. Then

the crown was offered to the count of Flanders, to Robert Curthose, to

Bohemond, and so in turn to the other leaders, until all had declined;

whereupon it was decided to seek divine guidance through the ancient

miracle of the holy fire which was accustomed to descend at Jerusalem

each year at Easter tide. Accordingly the barons assembled in the church

of the Holy Sepulchre, each with an unlighted taper. In the darkness of

the night a single candle burned within the great basilica. At midnight a

fierce storm arose with lightning, wind, and thunder. The sole light was

extinguished. The whole edifice was plunged in darkness. The barons were

filled with fear. Suddenly there was another flash from heaven, and it

was observed that Godfrey’s taper was burning brightly. The divine will

had expressed itself, and the good duke of Bouillon bowed before it.[38]

Clearly it was in Godfrey’s honor that this legend of a miraculous

designation first arose. Yet in the late twelfth or early thirteenth

century it was said by Ralph Niger that it was Robert’s candle which was

lighted by the miraculous flame.[39] And once so told, the legend in

this form was handed on from writer to writer to the close of the Middle

Ages.[40] Langtoft, indeed, declares that Robert was thrice designated by

the holy fire.[41]

The miracle as told in Robert’s favor, however, involved a logical

difficulty which met with a characteristically mediaeval solution.

According to early tradition Robert had refused to accept the crown of

Jerusalem. The explanation offered by the _Historia Belli Sacri_ is

natural and reasonable. Said Robert: “Although I have come hither in

God’s service, yet have I not abandoned my county altogether, in order

to remain here. And now that I have fulfilled my vow, if God permits, I

desire to return to my own dominions.”[42] But if Robert had been chosen

for the kingship of Jerusalem by divine will and favor, as was almost

universally believed, how was it possible that he should reject such a

token of heavenly grace without committing a sin and incurring divine

displeasure? Did not the disasters which so quickly overtook him make

it abundantly clear that the divine favor had departed from him? This,

indeed, was the mediaeval explanation. In refusing the Latin crown,

Robert had contemned and spurned the gift of God. Hence his defeat at

Tinchebray and wellnigh thirty years of incarceration. No feature of the

Robert legends was more persistent or more universally accepted than

this. Appearing first in Henry of Huntingdon, it is repeated again and

again to the close of the mediaeval period.[43]

It remains to notice the legends of pathetic interest which concern

themselves not with Robert’s prowess as a crusader but with the tragedy

of his long imprisonment. It seems clear that Henry I began by keeping

his fallen brother in free custody and treating him with remarkable

liberality.[44] Indeed, one tradition has preserved a not unattractive

picture of the easy conditions under which Robert was allowed to live,

his food and clothing and daily exercise and amusements all bounteously

and richly provided for him.[45] Yet, strange to say, the official

historian of the reign of Henry II makes the statement—if indeed it is to

be found no earlier than this—that the king had his brother blinded;[46]

and this ugly tale soon spread far and wide and came to be very generally

accepted.[47] But how account for such cruel and inhuman treatment from

a king of such eminent justice and virtue as Henry I? Another legend

soon supplied the needed explanation. Geoffrey de Vigeois, writing

before 1184, informs us that Henry had released Robert upon certain

conditions, and that the latter, violating the agreement, had levied a

force against the king and had been captured a second time; and he adds

the significant statement that he did not need to be captured a third

time (_et tertio opus non fuit_).[48] In the versions of Matthew Paris

and in the related _Flores Historiarum_ this legend has been elaborated

into an episode which is not without its ludicrous as well as its tragic

aspects. Friends of Robert, weighty men, had early protested to the king

against the duke’s imprisonment. It would disgrace the king and the realm

of England throughout the world, they said, if a brother should hold a

brother in long incarceration. And so they prevailed upon the king to

grant Robert’s release, upon condition that the latter renounce all claim

to both Normandy and England and depart from the realm within a period of

forty days. But instead of going, Robert took advantage of his liberty

to conspire with the earl of Chester and others, with intent to raise an

army and drive Henry from the throne. But the plot was discovered, and

the king sent messengers to summon Robert before him. When the duke saw

them approaching, he turned and fled, but his palfrey ran into the mire

and stuck fast, and so the unfortunate fugitive was taken. And when the

king learned what had happened, he ordered his brother to be placed in

close and perpetual confinement without any hope of release, and had him

deprived of his sight.[49]

Nevertheless, Henry continued to provide Robert with the best of daily

food and with royal vestments.[50] And this brings us to the tale of the

scarlet robe, with which our account of the Robert legends may fittingly

end. “It so happened that on a feast day, when the king was getting

himself a new scarlet robe, and according to his custom was sending

one of the same stuff to his brother, he tried to put on the hood, and

finding the neck so small that he ripped one of the seams, he said,

‘Take this hood to my brother, for his head is smaller than mine.’ And

when it was brought to Robert, he put it on, and immediately discovered

the rent, which the tailor had carelessly neglected to mend, for it was

very small; and he said, ‘Whence comes this rent which I feel?’ And the

king’s messenger laughingly told him all that had happened. Then the

duke cried aloud, as if he had been deeply wounded, and said, ‘Alas!

alas! now have I lived too long. Why do I still continue to draw out

my unhappy days? Behold my brother, even my betrayer and supplanter,

now treats me with contempt, and holds me so cheap that he sends me for

alms as his dependant his old and torn clothes.’ And weeping bitterly he

vowed thenceforth to take no more food, nor would he drink; but he raged

against himself, and wasted away. And so he died, cursing the day of his

birth.”[51]

FOOTNOTES

[1] This chapter makes no pretence of being based upon an exhaustive

examination of all the sources. Scattered as these are through the

historical and romantic literature of several centuries, it is not

unlikely that important printed materials have been overlooked, while

many manuscripts of the poetic cycle of the Crusade still lie unprinted.

It is hoped, however, that enough material has been found and used to

give an adequate view of the legendary accretions which gathered about

Robert’s name, and to throw an interesting light upon the repute in which

he was held in after times.

[2] See _supra_, p. 118, and n. 156.

[3] _G. R._, ii, pp. 460-461; cf. the superlatives of William of

Newburgh, writing at the end of the twelfth century: “Qui tamen armis

tantus fuit, ut in ilia magna et famosa expeditione Ierosolymitana in

fortissimos totius orbis procres clarissimae militiae titulis fulserit.”

_Historia Rerum Anglicarum_, ed. H. C. Hamilton (London, 1856), i, p. 15.

[4] _Roman de Rou_, ii, pp. 415-416.

[5] _Lestorie des Engles_, ed. T. D. Hardy and C. T. Martin (London,

1888-89), i, pp. 244-245.

[6] “Le duc de Normandie a été, en tant que croisé, le héros de tout

un cycle poétique qui s’est perdu, mais non sans laisser des traces.”

“Robert Court-Heuse à la première croisade,” in _Comptes rendus des

séances de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres_, 1890, 4th

series, xviii, p. 208.

[7] Gaston Paris (_op. cit._, p. 211, n. 3) believes that the Robert

legend was extinguished first by Robert’s disastrous and inglorious end,

and second by the growing popularity of the Godfrey cycle. He thinks that

the “lutte des deux traditions poétiques, de provenances différentes,

dont l’une avait pour héros Robert et l’autre Godefroi” can be seen in

an episode of the _Chanson d’Antioche_ which may be briefly paraphrased

as follows. Godfrey, “because he is _preux_ and courageous and of the

lineage of Charlemagne,” has just been chosen to represent the Christian

army in a proposed single combat with a champion from Kerboga’s host; on

hearing which Robert is so incensed at being himself passed over that he

prepares to withdraw with his forces from the crusading army. Compared

with his own splendid lineage, the ancestors of Godfrey, he declares, are

not worth a button. Thereupon the descent of Godfrey from the Chevalier

au Cygne is explained to him. And then Godfrey himself comes and humbles

himself before Robert and expresses his willingness to yield the honor

to him. At that Robert is mollified and consents to remain. _La Chanson

d’ Antioche_, ed. Paulin Paris (Paris, 1848), ii, pp. 177-183. It is

difficult to see where support for Paris’s theory can be found in the

matter thus summarized. All that concerns Robert, it seems clear, exists

not for itself at all, but as a mere literary foil for setting off the

merits of Godfrey and his descent from the Chevalier au Cygne. The

evidence of the Saint-Denis window which Gaston Paris cites must be ruled

out. See Appendix G.

The _Chanson d’ Antioche_, in the form in which we now have it, is held

to have been composed early in the reign of Philip Augustus by Grandor of

Douai, a Flemish _trouvère_, upon the basis of an earlier poem, now lost,

by Richard le Pèlerin, a minstrel who actually took part in the First

Crusade. _Histoire littéraire de la France_, xxii (1852), pp. 355-356;

Auguste Molinier, _Les sources de l’histoire de France_ (Paris, 1901-06),

no. 2154.

[8] _Supra_, p. 190.

[9] _Li estoire de Jérusalem et d’ Antioche_, in _H. C. Oc._, v, pp.

629-630. This chronicle, in old French prose of the second half of the

thirteenth century, is based ultimately upon Fulcher of Chartres, but

it is filled with matter of a purely imaginary character. It seems to

contain almost no points of contact with the other sources from which

the Robert legends are to be drawn. It represents Robert as taking part

in the battle with Kilij Arslan at Nicaea—actually Robert had not yet

arrived at Nicaea—and overthrowing him and taking his horse. It also

portrays Robert as the principal leader at Nicaea, and the one to whom

Kilij Arslan sent the messenger Amendelis to open negotiations.

[10] _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 761; cf. the fifteenth century _Anonymi Rhenani

Historia et Gesta Ducis Gotfredi_, _ibid._, v, p. 454.

[11] _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 622. Ralph’s whole account of the battle is

almost epic in character; cf. the poems (pp. 625-629) devoted to the

exploits of individual heroes, and especially the two lines on p. 627:

Rollandum dicas Oliveriumque renatos,

Si comitum spectes hunc hasta, hunc ense, furentes.

[12] P. 221.

[13] _Chronique de Robert de Torigni_, i, pp. 82-83; Ralph de Diceto,

_Opera Historica_, ed. William Stubbs (London, 1876), i, p. 222; Roger of

Wendover, _Flores Historiarum_, ed. H. O. Coxe (London, 1841-44), ii, p.

87; Matthew Paris, _Chronica Maiora_, ed. H. R. Luard (London, 1872-83),

ii, p. 64; idem, _Historia Minor_, ed. Frederick Madden (London,

1866-69), i, pp. 85-86; _Flores Historiarum_, ed. H. R. Luard (London,

1890), ii, p. 29; _Le livere de reis de Brittanie e le livere de reis de

Engletere_, ed. John Glover (London, 1865), p. 166; Robert of Gloucester,

_Metrical Chronicle_, ed. W. A. Wright (London, 1887), ii, pp. 585-586;

Thomas Walsingham, _Y podigma Neustriae_, ed. H. T. Riley (London, 1876),

p. 79.

[14] _Supra_, p. 106.

[15] P. 224.

[16] _Chronique de Robert de Torigni_, i, p. 84; Ralph de Diceto, i, p.

223; Matthew Paris, _Chronica Maiora_, ii, p. 74; _Flores Historiarum_,

ii, p. 29; Robert of Gloucester, ii, p. 591; Walsingham, _Y podigma_, p.

80. See also the references given in nn. 17 and 18 _infra_.

[17] Roger of Wendover, ii, p. 103; Matthew Paris, _Historia Minor_, i,

p. 102.

[18] _Le livere de reis_, p. 168.

[19] _Supra_, pp. 107-108.

[20] _G. R._, ii, p. 460.

[21] Geoffrey Gaimar, in the extract quoted on p. 191, _supra_; _Gesta

Regis Henrici Secundi_, ed. William Stubbs (London, 1867), i, p. 329; cf.

Roger of Hoveden, i, p. 274.

[22] _Roman de Rou_, as quoted on p. 191, _supra_.

[23] The reading and the meaning are here uncertain. I follow the

conjecture of the editor.

[24] “Le trebuche el begart.” According to Godefroy (_Dictionnaire de

l’ancienne langue française_) the meaning of _begart_ is undetermined.

Again I follow the conjecture of the editor.

[25] _Chanson d’ Antioche_, ii, pp. 245-246.

[26] _Ibid._, p. 261. Red Lion is perhaps to be identified with Kilij

Arslan, sultan of Iconium.

[27] Paul Riant and Ferdinand de Mély, in _Revue de l’art chrétien_,

1890, pp. 299-300. Their view has been rightly rejected by Gaston Paris

in _Comptes rendus de l’Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres_,

1890, p. 208. See Appendix G. In _Le Chevalier au Cygne et Godefroid de

Bouillon_, ed. F. A. F. T. le Baron de Reiffenburg (Brussels, 1846-59),

ii, pp. 231-232, Red Lion is killed by Count Baldwin.

This version of the Godfrey matter has been assigned to the fourteenth

century both by Paulin Paris (_Histoire littéraire_, xxv, p. 508) and by

Célestin Hippeau (_La conquête de Jérusalem_, p. ix), but A.-G. Krüger,

in a more recent discussion, has placed it as late as the first half of

the fifteenth century. “Les manuscrits de la Chanson du Chevalier au

Cygne et de Godefroi de Bouillon,” in _Romania_, xxviii (1899), p. 426.

[28] _Le Chevalier au Cygne et Godefroid de Bouillon_, ii, p. 212-213.

[29] _La conquête de Jérusalem_, ed. Célestin Hippeau (Paris, 1868),

pp. 308-311. There is as yet no edition of this poem worthy of the

name. Much difference of opinion has been expressed as to the date of

its composition. It has been ascribed by its editor to the thirteenth

century. _Ibid._, pp. xviii, xix, xxv. But Paulin Paris held it to

be a part of the work of Grandor of Douai, compiler of the _Chanson

d’Antioche_, and thought it, too, like the latter, was based upon the

lost work of Richard le Pèlerin. _Histoire littéraire_, xxii, p. 370,

and cf. p. 384. And Molinier has somewhat carelessly assigned it to

_circa_ 1130. _Sources de l’histoire de France_, no. 2154. On the other

hand Henri Pigeonneau, while he would ascribe it to the late twelfth

century, still holds that it certainly is not by the author of the

_Chanson d’Antioche_, and that it is a later composition than the latter.

_Le cycle de la croisade et de la famille de Bouillon_ (Saint Cloud,

1877), pp. 42-55. Certainly one works over the poem with a growing

conviction that it is late rather than early. It is almost wholly a work

of imagination, in which traditions of events centring around Antioch are

hopelessly mingled with others pertaining to the region of Jerusalem. One

can hardly say whether the imaginary battle of Ramleh contains more of

the battle of Ascalon or of the battle against Kerboga.

It may be noted in passing that in the battle of Ascalon Robert performed

an actual feat of arms (cf. _supra_, pp. 115-116) which may perhaps form

the basis of all the legendary exploits which we have been passing in

review. The references to the enemy’s ‘standard’ in Wace (_supra_, p.

190) and in the _Chanson d’Antioche_ (_supra_, p. 195) would seem to

lend some color to this view. But it should be borne in mind that such

exploits of knightly valor are a commonplace of the _chansons de geste_,

and are attributed to Godfrey and to other chiefs as well as to Robert.

[30] Gaimar is specific in his statement that the election of Robert was

due to his reputation for valor (_supra_, p. 191), as is also the author

of an anonymous Norman chronicle of the thirteenth century, excerpted

by Paul Meyer from a Cambridge manuscript in _Notices et extraits des

manuscrits_, xxxii, 2, p. 65: “Li quens Rob., por les granz proesces

que il feseit e qu’il avoit fetes, e por sa grant valor e son grant

hardement, fu eslit a estre roi de Sulie.”

[31] _Supra_, p. 114.

[32] _G. R._, ii, p. 461.

[33] Pp. 229, 236.

[34] _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 225.

[35] _Chronique de Robert de Torigni_, i, p. 87; _Annales de Waverleia_,

in _Annales Monastici_, ii, p. 207; _Gesta Henrici Secundi_, i, p. 329;

Gervase of Tilbury, _Otia Imperialia_, in _H. F._, xiv, p. 13; _Chronique

de Normandie_, _ibid._, xiii, p. 247; Matthew Paris, _Chronica Maiora_,

v, p. 602; _Flores Historiarum_, ii, p. 32; Robert of Gloucester, ii,

pp. 607-608; John Capgrave, _Chronicle of England_, ed. F. C. Hingeston

(London, 1858), p. 133; idem, _Liber de Illustribus Henricis_, ed. F. C.

Hingeston (London, 1858), p. 55.

[36] _Supra_, p. 114.

[37] _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 485.

[38] _La conquête de Jérusalem_, pp. 183-191. The legend is repeated in

substantially the same form in _Le Chevalier au Cygne et Godefroid de

Bouillon_, iii, pp. 81-88.

[39] _Chronica Universalis_, in _M. G. H._, Scriptores, xxvii, p. 334.

[40] An inedited Flemish chronicle of uncertain date, cited by

Pigeonneau, _Le cycle de la croisade_, p. 76; Roger of Wendover, ii, p.

146; Matthew Paris, _Historia Minor_, i, pp. 149-150; Ranulf Higden,

_Polychronicon_, ed. J. R. Lumby (London, 1865-86), vii, p. 424;

_Eulogium Historiarum_, ed. F. C. Haydon (London, 1858-63), iii, p. 64.

Roger of Wendover and Matthew Paris make the explanation that when his

candle had been lighted, Robert secretly extinguished it, meaning to

refuse the crown.

[41] Peter Langtoft, _Chronicle_, ed. Thomas Wright (London, 1866-68), i,

p. 460.

[42] _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 225. The account of the election given in _Li

estoire de Jérusalem et d’Antioche_ appears to have no connection with

any of our other sources. _Ibid._, v, p. 639.

[43] Henry of Huntingdon, pp. 229-230, 236; _Chronique de Robert de

Torigni_, i, pp. 87, 128-129; _Annales de Waverleia_, in _Annales

Monastici_, ii, p. 207; _Gesta Henrici Secundi_, i, pp. 329-330; Roger of

Wendover, ii, p. 146; Matthew Paris, _Chronica Maiora_, ii, pp. 106-107,

132; v, p. 602; idem, _Historia Minor_, i, p. 205; _Flores Historiarum_,

ii, p. 32; Robert of Gloucester, ii, pp. 607-608, 628-629; Capgrave,

_Chronicle of England_, p. 133; idem, _De Illustribus Henricis_, pp. 55,

57.

[44] _Supra_, p. 179.

[45] “Rex autem, memor fraternitatis, eundem comitem Robertum in

libera carceris custodia, sine ciborum penuria vel luminis beneficio

vel preciosarum vestium ornatu, salvo tamen fecit reservari. Liceret

etiam ei ad scaccos et aleas ludere. Robas etiam regis, sicut ipse rex,

accipiebat; pomeria vicina et saltus et loca delectabilia perambulando,

ex regis licentia, visitavit.” _Flores Historiarum_, ii, p. 39.

[46] _Gesta Henrici Secundi_, i, p. 330.

[47] _Annales de Wintonia_, in _Annales Monastici_, ii, p. 50; _Chronicon

Thomae Wykes_, _ibid._, iv, p. 15; _Annales de Wigornia_, _ibid._, iv,

p. 378; Matthew Paris, _Chronica Maiora_, ii, p. 133; idem, _Historia

Minor_, i, pp. 30, 213; _Flores Historiarum_, ii, p. 39; Henry Knighton,

_Chronicon_, ed. J. R. Lumby (London, 1889-95), i, p. 113; _Eulogium

Historiarum_, iii, p. 58; Capgrave, _De Illustribus Henricis_, p. 65.

[48] _H. F._, xii, p. 432.

[49] Matthew Paris, _Historia Minor_, i, pp. 212-213; idem, _Chronica

Maiora_, ii, p. 133; _Flores Historiarum_, ii, p. 39.

[50] Matthew Paris, _Historia Minor_, i, p. 213.

[51] Matthew Paris, _Historia Minor_, i, p. 248. The translation is a

free and somewhat condensed rendering of the original. Cf. the same,

_Chronica Maiora_, ii, pp. 160-161; Capgrave, _De Illustribus Henricis_,

p. 65.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

NOTE ON THE SOURCES

In a field already so well explored as that of Normandy and England in

the eleventh and twelfth centuries, there is little need to enter into a

detailed discussion of primary materials. A brief review, however, of the

sources upon which the present volume is based may be a convenience and

serve a useful purpose.

Among the narrative sources for the life of Robert Curthose, the

_Historia Ecclesiastica_[1] of Ordericus Vitalis is, of course, by far

the most important. One of the greatest historical writers of the twelfth

century, the monk of Saint-Évroul has treated of Robert’s character and

career at great length and with much vivacity and insight. And while one

may admit with Gaston Le Hardy[2] that he was no friend of the duke,

indeed, that as a churchman and as a lover of peace and of strong and

orderly government he was strongly prejudiced against him and sometimes

treated him unfairly, still it must be confessed that in the main his

strictures are confirmed by other evidence and are presumably justified.

Unfortunately, Ordericus Vitalis stands almost alone among early Norman

writers in paying attention to the career of Robert Curthose. Some

assistance, however, has been gained from William of Poitiers[3] and from

the _Gesta Normannorum Ducum_, a composite work once solely attributed to

William of Jumièges, but now at last made available in a critical edition

which distinguishes the parts actually written by William of Jumièges,

Ordericus Vitalis, Robert of Torigny, and others.[4] The _Roman de Rou_

of Wace[5] has also been drawn upon, sometimes rather freely, but it is

hoped always with due caution and discretion, for much picturesque detail

concerning events in western Normandy, about which the author clearly

possessed special information. For Robert’s relations with Maine, the

contemporary _Actus Pontificum Cenomannis in Urbe degentium_[6] have

been an almost constant guide, often confirming and even supplementing

the more extensive but less precise narrative of Ordericus Vitalis.

Matter of much importance has also from time to time been gleaned from

the works of French and Flemish writers, such as the famous _Vie de Louis

le Gros_ by Abbot Suger of Saint-Denis,[7] the anonymous _Chronique de

Morigny_,[8] and the _Histoire du Meurtre de Charles le Bon_ by Galbert

of Bruges.[9]

The English writers of the period have naturally proved invaluable.

Of these, William of Malmesbury,[10] as we should expect, possesses

the keenest insight into Robert’s character; but the _Anglo-Saxon

Chronicle_ treats[11] of the events of Robert’s life with greater fulness

and in more coherent and trustworthy chronological order. Florence

of Worcester[12] is in general dependent upon the _Chronicle_, but

occasionally he presents a different view or supplementary matter of

independent value; and the same may be said of the _Historia Regum_,

which is commonly attributed to Simeon of Durham,[13] in its relation

to Florence of Worcester. Henry of Huntingdon,[14] who is also largely

dependent upon the _Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_, professes himself a

first-hand authority from the accession of Robert Curthose and William

Rufus to the ducal and royal thrones in 1087;[15] and his narrative

becomes increasingly valuable as it advances, though he cannot be

considered a really independent writer before 1126, i.e., a score of

years after the close of Duke Robert’s active career at the battle of

Tinchebray. For all the facts bearing upon Robert’s life with which it

deals, the _Historia Novorum in Anglia_ of Eadmer,[16] the companion and

confidential adviser of Archbishop Anselm, is a strictly contemporary

narrative of the highest value, though its specialized character

considerably restricts its usefulness for the purposes of the present

study. The brief chronicle of Hyde abbey,[17] which was compiled during

the reign of Henry I, has often proved helpful, as have also other minor

monastic narratives such as the chronicle of Abingdon[18] and the annals

of Winchester,[19] of Waverley,[20] etc.

The documentary sources for the life of Robert Curthose are very meagre;

but, such as they are, they are now all conveniently accessible. As a

result of prolonged researches in the archives and libraries of Normandy

and in the Bibliothèque Nationale, and after a careful sifting of all the

printed materials, Professor Charles H. Haskins has been able to give

us, in another volume of the _Harvard Historical Studies_, a definitive

edition of seven hitherto unpublished ducal charters, together with a

complete and annotated list of all the charters of the reign.[21] The

best guides to the remainder of the documentary material bearing upon

Robert’s life are the _Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum_ by H. W. C.

Davis[22] and the _Calendar of Documents preserved in France illustrative

of the History of Great Britain and Ireland_ by J. H. Round.[23] While

both these works leave something to be desired, they have proved

invaluable in the preparation of the present study; and it is earnestly

to be hoped that the publication of the second volume of Davis’s work,

containing the charters of Henry I, will not be long delayed.[24] For

the full texts of documents, and for other scattered materials not

calendared by either Round or Davis, it has been necessary to consult

many special collections, e.g., the _Livre noir_ of Bayeux cathedral,[25]

the _Chartes de Saint-Julien de Tours_,[26] the _Cartulaire de l’abbaye

de Saint-Vincent du Mans_,[27] the letters of Pascal II,[28] of Ivo of

Chartres,[29] and of St. Anselm,[30] which are too numerous to be listed

here in detail, and which have been fully cited in their proper places in

footnotes.

The Crusade forms a special chapter in the record of Robert’s life for

which it is necessary to draw upon a different group of sources. Of works

by contemporary or early writers on the Crusade, the anonymous _Gesta

Francorum_[31] is, of course, invaluable for all the facts with which

it deals; but the _Historia Hierosolymitana_ of Fulcher of Chartres[32]

has proved of even greater service in the present study, because of the

author’s close association with Robert Curthose on the Crusade from

the time when the expedition left Normandy until it reached Marash

in Armenia; concerning later events also Fulcher was by no means ill

informed. The _Historia Francorum qui ceperunt Iherusalem_ of Raymond of

Aguilers[33] is also a first-hand narrative by an eyewitness; and, while

the author is at times rather hostile to Duke Robert and the Normans,

he is nevertheless invaluable as representing the point of view of the

Provençaux. Inferior to any of the foregoing, but still by a writer who

was in the East and who was well informed, the _Gesta Tancredi_ of Ralph

of Caen[34] has proved of great assistance, as has also the voluminous,

but less trustworthy, work of Albert of Aix,[35] which, when it has

been possible to check it with other evidence, has contributed valuable

information. Of western writers on the Crusade who did not actually make

the pilgrimage to the Holy Land, apart from Ordericus Vitalis,[36] who

has already been mentioned, Guibert of Nogent[37] and Baldric, archbishop

of Dol,[38] have been most helpful. The English writers, except William

of Malmesbury,[39]—whose account is based almost wholly upon Fulcher of

Chartres, and, apart from an occasional detail, is of little value—have

not treated the Crusade with any fulness, and are of little service

except for the beginnings of the movement. Of the Greek sources only

the _Alexiad_ of Anna Comnena[40] has been of much assistance. The

Oriental writers are in general too late to be of great importance for

the First Crusade, and they had, of course, no particular interest

in Robert Curthose; but their writings have not been overlooked, and

Matthew of Edessa,[41] Ibn el-Athir,[42] Kemal ed-Din,[43] and Usama ibn

Munkidh[44] have been of service. The contemporary letters bearing upon

the Crusade have been admirably edited, with exhaustive critical notes,

by Heinrich Hagenmeyer.[45] Of charters, or documents in the strict sense

of the word, there are almost none relating to the Crusade; but such as

there are, they have been rendered easily accessible by the painstaking

calendar of documents dealing with the history of the Latin Kingdom of

Jerusalem by Reinhold Röhricht.[46] It would be going too far afield to

describe at this point the scattered materials from which the attempt

has been made to draw up a list of the known associates and followers of

Robert on the Crusade. They are fully cited in Appendix D.

For the chapter on Robert Curthose in legend, with which the narrative

part of the present volume ends, it has been necessary to depart from

the narrow chronological limits within which the rest of our researches

have been conducted, and to explore a wide range of literature extending

to the close of the Middle Ages. Most of the Robert legends make their

appearance early, and can be traced to a certain extent in William of

Malmesbury and Henry of Huntingdon and in Robert the Monk and Ralph of

Caen. But their elaboration was in the main the work of chroniclers and

romancers of a later period. Among Norman and English sources, the works

of Geoffrey Gaimar, Wace, William of Newburgh, Ralph de Diceto, and

Ralph Niger have proved most helpful for the twelfth century; of Roger

of Wendover, Matthew Paris, and Robert of Gloucester, together with the

anonymous _Flores Historiarum_ and _Livere de reis de Engletere_, for

the thirteenth; of Peter Langtoft, Ranulf Higden, and Henry Knighton,

together with the anonymous _Eulogium Historiarum_, for the fourteenth;

while Thomas Walsingham in the fifteenth century has occasionally been

of service. Much material of a legendary character relating to Robert’s

exploits in the Holy War has also been gleaned from the various versions

of the poetic cycle of the Crusade, the most notable of which are the

_Chanson d’Antioche_ of the late twelfth century, the _Chanson de

Jérusalem_, which probably dates from the thirteenth century, and the

_Chevalier au Cygne et Godefroid de Bouillon_, edited by the Baron de

Reiffenberg, which belongs to the fourteenth or fifteenth century. Such

detailed criticism as it has seemed necessary to make of these widely

scattered materials bearing upon Robert Curthose in legend has been

placed in the footnotes of Chapter VIII, where the editions used have

also been fully cited.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Ed. Auguste Le Prévost. 5 vols. Paris, 1838-55. The critical

introduction (i, pp. i-cvi) by Léopold Delisle is definitive.

[2] Cf. _supra_, pp. vii-viii.

[3] _Gesta Willelmi Ducis Normannorum et Regis Anglorum_, in _H. F._, xi,

pp. 75-104.

[4] Ed. Jean Marx. Paris, 1914. Most of the material of value for the

present study comes from the interpolations of Robert of Torigny.

[5] Ed. Hugo Andresen. 2 vols. Heilbronn, 1877-79.

[6] Ed. G. Busson and A. Ledru. Le Mans, 1901 (_Archives historiques du

Maine_, ii).

[7] Ed. Auguste Molinier. Paris, 1887.

[8] Ed. Léon Mirot. Paris, 1909.

[9] Ed. Henri Pirenne. Paris, 1891.

[10] _De Gestis Regum Anglorum_, ed. William Stubbs. 2 vols. London,

1889. _De Gestis Pontificum Anglorum_, ed. N. E. S. A. Hamilton. London,

1870.

[11] _Two of the Saxon Chronicles Parallel_, ed. Charles Plummer. 2 vols.

Oxford, 1892-99.

[12] _Chronicon ex Chronicis_, ed. Benjamin Thorpe. 2 vols. London,

1848-49.

[13] Simeon of Durham, _Opera Omnia_, ed. Thomas Arnold, ii. London,

1885. Cf. _infra_, p. 216.

[14] _Historia Anglorum_, ed. Thomas Arnold. London, 1879.

[15] “Hactenus de his quae vel in libris veterum legendo repperimus, vel

fama vulgante percepimus, tractatum est. Nunc autem de his quae vel ipsi

vidimus, vel ab his qui viderant audivimus, pertractandum est.” _Ibid._,

pp. 213-214.

[16] Ed. Martin Rule. London, 1884.

[17] _Chronicon Monasterii de Hyda_, in _Liber de Hyda_, ed. Edward

Edwards, pp. 283-321. London, 1866.

[18] _Chronicon Monasterii de Abingdon_, ed. Joseph Stevenson. 2 vols.

London, 1858.

[19] _Annales Monasterii de Wintonia_, in _Annales Monastici_, ed. H. R.

Luard, ii, pp. 1-125. London, 1865.

[20] _Annales Monasterii de Waverleia_, _ibid._, pp. 127-411.

[21] _Norman Institutions_ (Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1918) pp. 285-292,

66-70.

[22] Vol. i. Oxford, 1913.

[23] Vol. i. London, 1899 (_Calendars of State Papers_).

[24] “An Outline Itinerary of King Henry the First,” by W. Farrer, in _E.

H. R._, xxxiv, pp. 303-382, 505-579 (July, October, 1919), came to hand

just as the present volume was going to press. I am indebted to it for

the location of certain charters which until then had escaped my notice.

[25] _Antiquus Cartularius Ecclesiae Baiocensis_, ed. V. Bourrienne. 2

vols. Paris, 1902-03.

[26] Ed. L.-J. Denis. Le Mans, 1912 (_Archives historiques du Maine_,

xii).

[27] Ed. R. Charles and S. Menjot d’Elbenne, i. Le Mans, 1886.

[28] Migne, clxiii.

[29] _H. F._, xv.

[30] Migne, clix.

[31] Ed. Heinrich Hagemneyer. Heidelberg, 1890.

[32] Ed. idem. Heidelberg, 1913.

[33] _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 235-309.

[34] _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 587-601.

[35] _Liber Christianae Expeditionis pro Ereptione, Emundatione,

Restitutione Sanctae Hierosolymitanae Ecclesiae_, _ibid._, iv, pp.

265-713.

[36] Bk. ix of the _Historia Ecclesiastica_ is devoted to the history of

the First Crusade.

[37] _Gesta Dei per Francos_, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 115-263.

[38] _Historia Hierosolymitana_, _ibid._, pp. 1-111.

[39] _G. R._, ii.

[40] _H. C. G._, i, 2, pp. 1-204.

[41] _Chronique_, in _H. C. A._, i, pp. 1-150.

[42] _Histoire des Atabecs de Mosul_, in _H. C. Or._, ii, 2, pp. 1-375;

_Kamel-Altevarykh_, _ibid._, i.

[43] _Chronique d’Alep_, _ibid._, iii.

[44] _Autobiographie_, French translation by Hartwig Derenbourg. Paris,

1895.

[45] _Die Kreuzzugsbriefe aus den Jahren 1088-1100: eine Quellensammlung

zur Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges._ Innsbruck, 1901.

[46] _Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani._ Innsbruck, 1893. _Additamentum._

Innsbruck, 1904.

APPENDIX B

_DE INIUSTA VEXATIONE WILLELMI EPISCOPI PRIMI_[1]

The anonymous tract _De Iniusta Vexatione Willelmi Episcopi Primi_[2] is

worthy of more attention and of a more critical study than it has yet

received.[3] Since it gives the only detailed account which we possess

of the dispute between William Rufus and William of Saint-Calais, bishop

of Durham, and of the trial of the latter before the _curia regis_ at

Salisbury upon a charge of treason in connection with the rebellion

of 1088, final judgment as to the bishop’s guilt or innocence must in

large measure depend upon a just estimate of its value. Freeman was very

reluctant to recognize its high authority as compared with his favorite

‘southern writers,’ the Anglo-Saxon chronicler, Florence of Worcester,

and William of Malmesbury;[4] but his distrust appears to be unwarranted.

The tract is manifestly made up of two distinct parts: (1) the main

body of an original _libellus_, concerned exclusively with the bishop’s

‘vexation,’ and beginning (p. 171), “Rex Willelmus iunior dissaisivit

Dunelmensem episcopum,” and ending (p. 194), “rex permisit episcopo

transitum”; and (2) introductory and concluding chapters, which contain

a brief sketch of the bishop’s career before and after his unfortunate

quarrel with the king and his expulsion from the realm. The joints at

which the separate narratives are pieced together are apparent upon

the most cursory examination. Not only is there a striking contrast

between the detailed and documentary treatment found in the body of

the _libellus_ and the bare summaries which make up the introductory

and concluding paragraphs, but the reader is actually warned of the

transition in the last sentence of the introduction by the phrase (p.

171), “quam rem _sequens libellus_ manifestat ex ordine.” The two parts

of the tract are evidently derived from different sources and written at

different times by different authors.

The _libellus_ properly so called, i.e., the central portion of

the tract, is a narrative well supplied with documents; it has all

the appearance of being contemporary and by an eyewitness, and is

manifestly a source of the greatest value for the facts with which it

deals. Liebermann, with his unrivalled knowledge of mediaeval English

legal materials, has declared that there is no ground for doubting its

authenticity;[5] and Professor G. B. Adams, who also finds abundant

internal evidence of its genuineness, points out, as an indication that

it was written by an eyewitness in the company of Bishop William, the

fact that no attempt is made to tell what went on within the _curia_

while the bishop and his supporters were outside; and further, he

considers it more “objective and impartial” than Eadmer’s better known

account of the trial of Anselm before the council of Rockingham.[6] The

author, it may be conjectured, was a monk of Durham who stood in somewhat

the same favored position among the intimates of Bishop William as that

occupied by Eadmer with regard to Anselm; and while we know nothing of

his personality, it is perhaps worth remarking in passing that he may

very well be the ‘certain monk’ (_quendam suum monachum_) who acts on

at least two occasions as the bishop’s messenger (pp. 172, 175). The

account in the earlier instance is so intimate and personal as strongly

to support this hypothesis: “Ipsum quoque monachum episcopi, qui de rege

redibat, accepit et equum suum ei occidit; postea peditem abire permisit.”

The introduction and the conclusion of the tract, on the other hand, are

not a first-hand narrative; and fortunately we possess the source from

which they are derived. The introduction (pp. 170 f.), dealing with the

bishop’s career prior to 1088, contains nothing which is not told with

much greater fulness in the opening chapters of the fourth book of the

_Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae_ of Simeon of Durham.[7] It is in fact

a mere summary of those chapters; and while the author is no servile

copyist, he evidently had no other source of information. It seems safe

to conclude, therefore, that he was not identical with the author of the

original _libellus_. Judged by style and method, the conclusion of the

tract (pp. 194 f.) appears to be by the same author as the introduction.

It, too, is clearly an abridgment of certain chapters of the _Historia

Dunelmensis Ecclesiae_,[8] though with this notable difference from

the introduction, that it contains some matter not to be found in the

_Historia_, e.g., the statement that the exiled bishop was intrusted by

the duke with the administration of all Normandy, and the notices of

the expedition of William Rufus against King Malcolm in 1091, and of

the presence of the Scottish king at the laying of the first stones in

the foundation of the new cathedral at Durham in 1093. Apparently, for

these more recent events, the writer was drawing upon his own first-hand

knowledge. The date at which the introductory and concluding chapters

were appended to the original Durham _libellus_ cannot be fixed with

exactness. The reference to Anselm as “sanctae memoriae” (p. 195) shows

that they were written after his death in 1109;[9] and since, as will

appear below, they in turn were used in the _Historia Regum_, which is

commonly attributed to Simeon of Durham, the _terminus ad quem_ cannot be

placed much later than 1129.[10]

The relationship between the above mentioned additions to the Durham

_libellus_ and the _Historia Regum_ may be displayed by the following

quotations.

The introduction to the Durham tract closes with the following sentence

(p. 171):

… sed orta inter regem et primates Angliae magna dissensione,

episcopus [i.e., William of Durham] ab invidis circumventus

usque ad expulsionem iram regis pertulit, _quam rem sequens

libellus manifestat ex ordine_;

and the conclusion opens as follows (pp. 194 f.):

_Anno sui episcopatus octavo expulsus est ab Anglia, sed

a Roberto fratre regis, comite Normannorum, honorifice

susceptus, totius Normanniae curam suscepit. Tertio autem

anno, repacificatus regi, recepit episcopatum suum_, ipso rege

cum fratre suo totoque Angliae exercitu, cum Scotiam contra

Malcolmum tenderent, _eum in sedem suam restituentibus, ipsa

videlicet die qua inde pulsus fuerat. Tertio Idus Septembris_,

secundo anno suae reversionis, ecclesiam veterem, quam Aldunus

quondam episcopus construxerat, a fundamentis destruxit.

The account of the rebellion of 1088 in the _Historia Regum_—at this

point almost wholly independent of Florence of Worcester—ends with the

expulsion, not of Bishop William of Durham, but of Bishop Odo of Bayeux:

… et ita episcopus [i.e., Odo] qui fere fuit secundus rex

Angliae, honorem amisit irrecuperabiliter. _Sed episcopus

veniens Normanniam statim a Rodberto comite totius provinciae

curam suscepit; cuius ordinem causae libellus in hoc descriptus

aperte ostendit. Etiam Dunholmensis episcopus Willelmus, viii.

anno episcopatus, et multi alii, de Anglia exierunt._[11]

And in a later passage the king’s restoration of Bishop William to his

see is thus recorded:

_Veniens Dunelmum, episcopum Willelmum restituit in sedem suam,

ipso post annos tres die quo eam reliquit, scilicet iii. idus

Septembris._[12]

Thomas Arnold, the editor of Simeon’s _Opera_, remarks upon the clause

“cuius ordinem causae libellus in hoc descriptus aperte ostendit” of

the _Historia Regum_, “This ‘libellus,’ describing Odo’s administration

in Normandy, appears to be lost.”[13] Taken by itself the passage is

obscure, and it is perhaps not surprising that the editor wholly mistook

its meaning. But a comparison of it with the clause “quam rem sequens

libellus manifestat ex ordine” of the Durham tract at once reveals

dependence and resolves the difficulty. The verbal similarities are

striking, and the author of course uses the puzzling “causae” because the

source from which he drew was in fact the account of a _causa_, viz., the

trial of William of Saint-Calais before the _curia regis_. It is clear,

therefore, that the _libellus_ to which the author of the _Historia

Regum_ refers his readers is not a lost treatise on the administration of

Bishop Odo in Normandy—as Arnold supposed—but in fact the Durham tract on

the ‘unjust vexation’ of Bishop William, which Arnold had himself already

published in the first volume of Simeon’s works. A further comparison of

all the passages which have been indicated by italics in the foregoing

excerpts fully confirms this conclusion and reveals the extent of the

debt of the _Historia Regum_ to the Durham tract. Not only the verbal

agreements but the close similarities in thought are so marked as to

preclude every possibility of independence.

We are now in a position to see how the author of the _Historia Regum_

worked. Having before him the chronicle of Florence of Worcester—which he

regularly followed—with its dark picture of Bishop William’s treason,

and the elaborate Durham tract in his defence, he chose to suppress all

reference to the bishop of Durham in connection with the rebellion, and

substituted for him Odo of Bayeux as a scapegoat. Then at the end of his

chapter he added, apparently as an afterthought, and borrowing directly

from the Durham tract, that Bishop William ‘departed’ from England in the

eighth year of his episcopate. The statement of the _Historia Regum_,

therefore, that Odo of Bayeux upon his expulsion from England after the

fall of Rochester went to Normandy and had the ‘care’ of the whole duchy

committed to his charge, is valueless. If that honor belongs to any one,

it is to William of Saint-Calais, bishop of Durham, as set forth in the

conclusion of the tract _De Iniusta Vexatione_.[14]

But the author of the _Historia Regum_ was a clumsy borrower, and we have

not yet reached the end of the confusion which has arisen as the result

of his easy way of juggling with his sources. In a later passage in which

he deals with the return of Bishop William to his see at the time of the

expedition of William Rufus against King Malcolm in 1091, he explains

that the restoration of the bishop took place on the third anniversary

of his retirement, “that is, on the 3d before the Ides of September.”

Freeman, relying upon this text, but apparently mistaking Ides for Nones,

states that the arrival of the king in Durham and the reinstatement of

the bishop took place on 3 September.[15] Comparison with the parallel

text of the Durham tract, however, makes it clear that the author of the

_Historia Regum_ has here again made an unintelligent and altogether

misleading use of his source, copying almost verbatim, but detaching the

phrase “iii. idus Septembris” from the next sentence, where it properly

refers to an event of the year 1093. It is necessary, therefore, to

get back to the evidence of the _De Iniusta Vexatione_, which not only

says that Bishop William was reinstated on the third anniversary of his

expulsion, but fixes that earlier date with exactness: “Acceperunt ergo

Ivo Taillesboci et Ernesius de Burone castellum Dunelmense in manus

regis, et dissaisiverunt episcopum de ecclesia et de castello, et de

omni terra sua xviii. kal. Decembr.” (p. 192). The bishop’s restoration,

accordingly, should be dated 14 November 1091. If it cause surprise that

William Rufus should have undertaken a campaign in the northern country

so late in the season, it may be noted that he previously had his hands

full with an expedition against the Welsh,[16] and that Florence of

Worcester in describing the campaign makes the significant statement,

“multique de equestri exercitus eius fame et frigore perierunt.”[17]

It remains to raise a question as to the authorship of the _Historia

Regum_. As is well known, the evidence on which both it and the

_Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae_ are attributed to Simeon of Durham is

not contemporary and not conclusive,[18] though a better case can be

made out for the latter than for the former. Without discussing this

evidence anew, and without entering at this time upon the more extended

inquiry as to whether it is credible that two works of such different

character and of such unequal merit can be by a single author, it is

still pertinent here to remark their striking difference in point of

view with regard to the controversy between William Rufus and the

bishop of Durham. The _Historia Dunelmensis Ecclesiae_ speaks of the

quarrel and of the bishop’s expulsion and exile without any reserve;

and, moreover, it contains remarkably full information concerning his

fortunes while in exile.[19] In all this it is freely reproduced in

the additions to the Durham _libellus_ (pp. 171, 194 f.). And they in

turn are used by the author of the _Historia Regum_.[20] Yet with these

additions and the original _libellus_ and Florence of Worcester all

before him, he suppresses every reference to the alleged treason of

Bishop William, persistently declines to use such words as expulsion

and exile in connection with him, and steadily ignores the quarrel. For

him the bishop ‘went out’ of England, although he unconsciously slips

into an inconsistency in a later passage when he notes that the bishop

was ‘restored’ to the see which he had ‘left.’[21] If the _Historia

Dunelmensis Ecclesiae_ and the _Historia Regum_ are by one and the same

author, then assuredly he had a bad memory for what he had himself

previously written, and his point of view had curiously shifted during

the intervening years.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Reprinted with slight revision from _E. H. R._, xxxii (1917), pp.

382-387.

[2] Published in William Dugdale’s _Monasticon Anglicanum_, new ed.

(London, 1817-30), i, pp. 244-250, and in Simeon of Durham, _Opera

Omnia_, ed. Thomas Arnold (London, 1882-85), i, pp. 170-195. References

are to the latter edition.

[3] Professor G. B. Adams has recently made it the basis of an admirable

article entitled “Procedure in the Feudal Curia Regis” (_Columbia Law

Review_, xiii, pp. 277-293); but he has confined his attention in the

main to forms of procedure, and has dealt only incidentally with the

critical problems involved.

[4] _William Rufus_, i, pp. 28 ff.; ii, pp. 469-474.

[5] _Historische Aufsätze dem Andenken an Georg Waitz gewidmet_ (Hanover,

1886), p. 159, n. 10.

[6] _Columbia Law Review_, xiii, pp. 277 f., 287, 291.

[7] Simeon, _H. D. E._, pp. 119-122, 127 f.

[8] Simeon, _H. D. E._, pp. 128 f., 133-135.

[9] Cf. Arnold’s introduction, p. xxv. The _Historia Dunelmensis

Ecclesiae_ which they abridge was composed between 1104 and 1109.

_Ibid._, p. xix.

[10] On the date of the composition of the _Historia Regum_ see Simeon,

_H. R._, pp. xx-xxi; cf. Simeon, _H. D. E._, p. xv.

[11] Simeon, _H. R._, pp. 216-217.

[12] _Ibid._, p. 218.

[13] _Ibid._, p. 217, n. _a_.

[14] Cf. Simeon, _H. D. E._, p. 128: “quem comes Normannorum non ut

exulem, sed ut patrem suscipiens, in magno honore per tres annos, quibus

ibi moratus est, habuit.” The charters also bear evidence of the honored

position which he enjoyed in Normandy during his exile. See Haskins, p.

76.

[15] _William Rufus_, i, p. 300.

[16] William of Malmesbury, _G. R._, ii, p. 365.

[17] Vol. ii, p. 28. It is also clear from Florence that the king did not

arrive in Durham until after the destruction of the English fleet, which

took place a few days before Michaelmas; cf. _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1091. A

reference to these events in the _miracula_ of St. Cuthbert makes mention

of the summer heat (_tempus aestatis fervidum_), but this evidently is to

be connected with Malcolm’s raid of the previous summer and not with the

later expedition of William Rufus against him. Simeon, _H. R._, p. 340.

[18] For the evidence see Arnold’s introductions, i, pp. xv-xxiii; ii,

pp. x-xi, xx-xxi.

[19] Simeon, _H. D. E._, p. 128.

[20] Simeon, _H. R._, pp. 216 f.

[21] _Ibid._, pp. 217 f.

APPENDIX C

ARNULF OF CHOCQUES, CHAPLAIN OF ROBERT CURTHOSE

Arnulf of Chocques, who went on the First Crusade with Robert Curthose

and ended his dramatic career in 1118 as patriarch of Jerusalem, is a

character of more than ordinary interest, and his provenance and early

career are worthy of more careful investigation than they have yet

received.[1] The foundation for such a study was laid in 1904, when, by

the publication in a new and scholarly edition of a little-known text of

the early twelfth century, entitled _Versus de Viris Illustribus Diocesis

Tarvanensis_, the Belgian scholar Charles Moeller identified Arnulf’s

birthplace as the village of Chocques in the diocese of Thérouanne on

the river Clarence, an affluent of the Lys.[2] Thus Moeller returns to

the view of the Flemish annalists Meyer and Malbrancq,[3] who manifestly

knew and used this text; though modern writers upon the Crusades,

overlooking it and relying mainly upon Albert of Aix,[4] have said that

Arnulf was ‘of Rohes, a castle of Flanders,’ which no one has ever been

able to identify.[5] If further evidence were needed to establish the

correctness of Moeller’s conclusion, it is found in a charter of 15

August 1095 by Robert Curthose in favor of Rouen cathedral, among the

witnesses to which appears “Ernulfo de Cioches capellano meo.”[6] This

document is also important as confirming and supplementing the meagre

notices of the chroniclers, on which one is compelled to rely almost

entirely for all that is known about Arnulf of Chocques before he went on

the Crusade and came into prominence and controversy.

As to Arnulf’s family, practically nothing is known; though one may

safely infer that he was of lowly origin from the speech which his friend

and former pupil, Ralph of Caen, puts into his mouth when he makes him

say to the princely leaders of the Crusade, “You have promoted me from

a humble station, and from one unknown you have made me famous, and,

as it were, one of yourselves.”[7] His enemies openly charged that he

was the son of a priest;[8] and that their accusations were not without

foundation is evidenced by a letter of Pope Pascal II, replying in

1116 to complaints which had been made against Arnulf, and reinstating

him in the patriarchal office from which he had been suspended by the

papal legate. While clearing him entirely from two of the charges

which had been brought against him, the pope announced that the third

complaint, viz., the general belief as to a stain upon his birth, was to

be overlooked, ‘by apostolic dispensation,’ in view of Arnulf’s great

services and of the needs of the church.[9] The statement sometimes made

that Arnulf had a niece named Emma, or Emelota,[10] who figures in the

charters of the Latin Kingdom,[11] and who was the wife, first of Eustace

Gamier, lord of Caesarea, and then of Hugh II, count of Jaffa, appears to

rest upon the sole authority of William of Tyre.[12]

Considering the age in which he lived, Arnulf doubtless received an

excellent education,[13] though where it is impossible to say; and while

still a young man he appeared in Normandy as a teacher, presumably at

Caen. Ralph of Caen, who later became the distinguished historian of the

First Crusade, was among his pupils; and upon the completion of his great

work, the _Gesta Tancredi_, dedicated it in grateful remembrance to his

old master.[14]

Far more important for Arnulf’s future, however, was the connection which

he early established with the Anglo-Norman ruling family when he was

made tutor in grammar and dialectic to the oldest daughter of William

the Conqueror, Cecilia, the pious nun of La Trinité at Caen, who later

became the second abbess of her mother’s great foundation.[15] It was

probably through the friendship thus established with the royal princess

that the Flemish schoolmaster succeeded in rising to higher things;

for Cecilia is said to have obtained from her indulgent brother, Duke

Robert, the promise of episcopal honors for Arnulf, in case any of the

Norman bishoprics should fall vacant;[16] and while he never gained that

preferment, it can hardly be doubted that it was through her influence

that he entered the service of the duke as chaplain. The charter to which

attention has been called above furnishes proof that Arnulf already held

that position in August 1096 (_supra_, n. 6). But his official connection

with the ducal court undoubtedly began at least a year earlier, for the

contemporary biographer of Abbot William of Bec states very specifically

that on, or shortly after, 10 August 1094 he went on an important

official errand for the duke in the capacity of ‘chancellor.’[17]

One other fact remains to be noticed as indicating Arnulf’s intimate

relationship with another member of the Conqueror’s family. Although he

was chaplain of the duke before and during the Crusade, he is said to

have set out for the Holy War in the company of Robert’s uncle, Bishop

Odo of Bayeux, who upon his death at Palermo, early in 1097, left him the

greater part of his splendid outfit.[18]

FOOTNOTES

[1] New light has been thrown upon Arnulf’s career in Normandy by the

publication of Professor Haskins’s _Norman Institutions_ (pp. 74-75)

since this Appendix was originally written; but it seems worth while

to let it stand with slight modifications, since it may still serve to

bring together in convenient form all the known facts concerning Arnulf’s

early history. For the fullest treatment of Arnulf’s career as a whole

see Eduard Franz, _Das Patriarchat von Jerusalem im Jahre 1099_ (Sagen,

1885), pp. 8-16. See also the critical and bibliographical notes in

Ekkehard, _Hierosolymita_, ed. Heinrich Hagenmeyer (Tübingen, 1877), p.

264, n. 8; _G. F._, p. 481, n. 14; _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 409, n. 15;

Fulcher of Chartres, _Historia Hierosolymitana (1095-1127)_, ed. Heinrich

Hagenmeyer (Heidelberg, 1913), p. 590, n. 24.

[2] “Les Flamands du Ternois au royaume latin de Jérusalem,” in _Mélanges

Paul Fredericq_ (Brussels, 1904), pp. 189-202. The decisive lines are (p.

191):

Primus Evremarus sedit patriarcha Sepulchri;

Post hunc Arnulfus: oriundus uterque Cyokes.

[3] Jacques de Meyer, _Commentarii sive Annales Rerum Flandricarum_

(Antwerp, 1561), _a._ 1099, fol. 34 v; Jacques Malbrancq, _De Morinis et

Morinorum Rebus_ (Tournay, 1639-54), ii, p. 684.

[4] _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 470: “Arnolfus de Zokes castello Flandriae.”

[5] E.g., Riant, Hagenmeyer, and Röhricht at various places in their

well known works. Hagenmeyer in his recent edition (1913) of Fulcher

of Chartres (p. 590, n. 24) accepts Moeller’s conclusion; but Bréhier,

writing in 1907 (_L’église et l’Orient au moyen âge_, p. 83), still says

“Arnoul de Rohez.”

[6] Haskins, p. 70, no. 31; p. 74, n. 28. It is true that the text as

printed from an original now lost has “Emulpho de Croches,” but this

is probably a misreading for Cyoches or Cioches. G. A. de La Roque,

_Histoire généalogique de la maison de Harcourt_ (Paris, 1662), iii,

preuves, p. 34.

[7] _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 699.

[8] Raymond of Aguilers, _ibid._, iii, p. 302; Guibert of Nogent,

_ibid._, iv, p. 233; William of Tyre, _ibid._, i, p. 365.

[9] _Cartulaire de l’église du Saint Sépulchre_, ed. Eugène de Rozière

(Paris, 1849), no. 11.

[10] Du Cange, _Les familles d’outre-mer_, ed. E.-G. Rey (Paris, 1869),

pp. 274-275, 339, 431; T. W. Archer and C. L. Kingsford, _The Crusades_

(London, 1894), pp. 118,193.

[11] Reinhold Röhricht, _Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani_, and

_Additamentum_ (Innsbruck, 1893 and 1904), nos. 104, 112, 147, 102 a, 114

b.

[12] _H. C. Oc._, i, p. 628.

[13] Guibert of Nogent, _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 232: “in dialecticae

eruditione non hebes, quum minime haberetur ad grammaticae documenta

rudis”; Ralph of Caen, _ibid._, iii, p. 604: “nullius etenim liberalis

scientiae te cognovimus exsortem”; cf. the interesting passage (_ibid._,

iii, p. 665) where Arnulf is represented while on the Crusade as

learning astrology from a ‘didascalus.’ The other sources, while not

particularizing, bear unanimous testimony to Arnulf’s learning. Cf. _G.

F._, pp. 479-480; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 281;

Ekkehard, _Hierosolymita_, p. 264.

[14] _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 604: “Praesertim mellita mihi erit quaecumque

erit correctio tua, si, quem sortitus sum praeceptorem puer iuvenem, nunc

quoque correctorem te impetravero vir senem.”

[15] Guibert of Nogent, _ibid._, iv, p. 232: “regis Anglorum filiam

monacham ea … diu disciplina docuerat.” Ordericus Vitalis (ii, p. 303),

without mentioning any particular teacher, remarks upon Cecilia’s unusual

education: “Quae cum grandi diligentia in coenobio Cadomensi educata est

et multipliciter erudita.”

[16] Guibert of Nogent, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 232.

[17] Milo Crispin, _Vita Venerabilis Willelmi Beccensis Tertii Abbatis_,

in Migne, cl, col. 718.

[18] Guibert of Nogent, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 233: “Cuius comitatui

idem Arnulfus sese indidit; et quum huic ipsi episcopo citra, nisi

fallor, Romaniae fines finis obtigisset, ex illo maximo censu quem post

se reliquerat, hunc legatarium, pene ante omnes, suppellectilis suae

preciosae effecit.”

APPENDIX D

ROBERT’S COMPANIONS ON THE CRUSADE

It cannot be said with certainty that every one who appears in the

ensuing list actually went on the First Crusade with Robert Curthose.

Since it was desired to make the list as complete as possible, doubtful

names have been included and marked with an asterisk (*). The evidence is

fully set forth in each case, so that no confusion can arise.

1. ALAN, “dapifer sacrae ecclesiae Dolensis archiepiscopi.” Baldric of

Dol, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 33; Ordericus, iii, p. 507.

2. ALAN FERGANT, duke of Brittany. His presence is recorded at the siege

of Nicaea (Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 316) and at the siege

of Antioch (Baldric of Dol, _ibid._, p. 50, n. 9, being the variant from

MS. G). His absence from Brittany during the Crusade is indicated by his

disappearance from the charters of the period. The latest document which

I have noted in which he appears before his departure is dated 27 July

1096. _Cartulaire de l’ abbaye de Sainte-Croix de Quimperlé_, ed. Léon

Maître and Paul de Berthou, 2d ed. (Paris, 1904), no. 82, pp. 234-235.

He was back again in Brittany 9 October 1101, when he made grants in

favor of the abbey of Marmoutier. P. H. Morice, _Mémoires pour servir

de preuves à l’histoire ecclésiastique et civile de Bretagne_ (Paris,

1742-46), i, cols. 505, 507; cf. col. 504.

3. ALAN, son of Ralph de Gael. He was present with Robert at Nicaea, and

advanced with him from there. Baldric of Dol, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 33;

Ordericus, iii, p. 507.

4. ALBERIC OF GRANDMESNIL. Ordericus, iii, p. 484; cf. _supra_, p. 107,

n. 88.

5. ANONYMOUS, engineer of Robert of Bellême: “ingeniosissimum artificem,

… cuius ingeniosa sagacitas ad capiendam Ierusalem Christianis profecit.”

Ordericus, iii, p. 415.

6. *ANONYMOUS, wife of Thurstin, _prévôt_ of Luc. See no. 44 _infra_.

7. *ANONYMOUS, son of Thurstin, _prévôt_ of Luc. See no. 44 _infra_.

8. ARNULF OF CHOCQUES, chaplain of Robert Curthose. Raymond of Aguilers,

in _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 281, 302. Cf. Appendix C.

9. ARNULF OF HESDIN: “Ernulfus de Hednith,” who was accused of complicity

in Robert Mowbray’s conspiracy, and cleared himself by a judicial

duel; but “tanto dolore et ira est commotus, ut abdicatis omnibus quae

regis erant in Anglia, ipso rege invito et contradicente, discederet;

associatus autem Christianorum exercitui, Antiochiam usque devenit,

ibique extremum diem clausit. Cumque ei infirmanti principes medicorum

curam adhibere vellent, respondisse fertur, ‘Vincit Dominus quare

medicus me non continget, nisi ille pro cuius amore hanc peregrinationem

suscepi.’” _Chronicon_, in _Liber de Hyda_, pp. 301-302. Arnulf ceases to

appear in charters from about the period of the First Crusade. Cf. Davis,

_Regesta_, nos. 315, 319; Round, _C. D. F._, no. 1326.

10. *AUBRÉE LA GROSSE. See no. 20 _infra_.

11. BERNARD OF SAINT-VALERY. Baldric of Dol, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 33;

Ordericus, iii, p. 507. Ralph of Caen credits him with having been the

first to scale the wall of Jerusalem. _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 693.

12. CONAN DE LAMBALLE, second son of Geoffrey I, called Boterel, count

of Lamballe. He was present with Robert at Nicaea and advanced with him

from there. Baldric of Dol, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 28, 33; Albert of

Aix, _ibid._, p. 316; Ordericus, iii, pp. 503, 507. He was killed by the

Turks at Antioch 9 February 1098. Ralph of Caen saw his tomb there years

afterwards. _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 648.

13. EDITH, wife of Gerard of Gournay and sister of William of Warenne.

Her husband died on the Crusade, and she returned and became the wife of

Dreux de Monchy. _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of

Jumièges, pp. 277-278.

14. EMMA, wife of Ralph de Gael and daughter of William Fitz Osbern.

She accompanied her husband on the Crusade. Ordericus, ii, p. 264;

_Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, p. 287.

15. ENGUERRAND, son of Count Hugh of Saint-Pol. He died at Marra in

Syria. Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 372, 451; Raymond of

Aguilers, _ibid._, iii, p. 276.

16. *EUSTACE III, count of Boulogne. It seems impossible to determine the

route taken by Eustace of Boulogne on the First Crusade. According to the

_Anglo-Saxon Chronicle_ (_a._ 1096), Henry of Huntingdon (p. 219), and

Albert of Aix (_H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 314), he went with Robert Curthose;

Baldric of Dol (_ibid._, p. 20), Ordericus Vitalis (iii, pp. 484-485),

and Robert the Monk (_H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 732), on the other hand, all

say that he went with his brother Godfrey of Bouillon. Cf. _G. F._, p.

465, n. 17.

17. FULCHER OF CHARTRES, historian of the Crusade. See the introduction

to Hagenmeyer’s edition of the _Historia Hierosolymitana_.

18. GEOFFREY CHOTARD, one of the barons (_proceres_) of Ancenis: “anno

dedicationis Maioris Monast. ab Urbano papa facte statim post Pascha, cum

dominus abbas noster tunc temporis Bernardus rediret a Nanneto civitate

per Ligerim, anno scilicet ordinationis sue .xiii. venit ad portum

Ancenisi,” and Geoffrey Chotard, “post parum temporis iturus in Ierusalem

cum exercitu Christianorum super paganos euntium,” came to him and

granted to Saint-Martin freedom from customs on the Loire. P. H. Morice,

_Preuves_, i, col. 488.

19. GERARD OF GOURNAY. Ordericus, iii, pp. 484, 507; Albert of Aix,

in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 316; Baldric of Dol, _ibid._, p. 33. He was

accompanied by his wife Edith, and died on the Crusade. _Interpolations

de Robert de Torigny_, in William of Jumièges, pp. 277-278. Cf. no. 13

_supra_.

20. *GILBERT, an architect (?). “Tunc Gislebertus, quidam laicus, de

Ierusalem Rotomagum venit, et a praefato patre [i.e., Abbot Hilgot of

Saint-Ouen, 1092-1112] ad monachatum susceptus, ecclesiae suae digniter

profecit. Opus enim basilicae, quod iamdudum admiranda magnitudine

intermissum fuerat, assumpsit; ibique pecuniam Alberadae Grossae, dominae

suae, quae, in via Dei moriens, thesaurum ei suum commendaverat, largiter

distraxit, et inde, aliorum quoque fidelium subsidiis adiutus, insigne

opus perficere sategit.” Ordericus, iii, pp. 432-433.

21. GILBERT, bishop of Évreux. He was present at the council of Clermont

as _legatus_ of his fellow bishops. Ordericus, iii, p. 470. He was with

Bishop Odo of Bayeux at the time of the latter’s death at Palermo early

in 1097. _Ibid._, iv, pp. 17-18; iii, p. 266. Cf. no. 29 _infra_. If

Gilbert completed the Crusade, he must have returned from Jerusalem far

more quickly than most of his comrades, for he was back in Normandy

by the middle of November 1099. Ordericus, iv, p. 65; cf. v, pp. 159,

195-196.

22. *GUY, eldest son of Gerard le Duc. He received five _solidi_ from

Saint-Vincent of Le Mans “cum pergeret ad Ierusalem cum Pagano de Monte

Dublelli.” _Cartulaire de S.-Vincent_, no. 666. The editors, without good

reason, date the document “circa 1096.” Cf. no. 30 _infra_.

23. *GUY DE SARCÉ, a knight of Saint-Vincent of Le Mans. He surrendered

his fief to the abbot and monks of Saint-Vincent, and received from them

20 _livres manceaux_ and 300 _solidi_. This was done in the chapter on

22 June 1096, “eo videlicet anno quo Urbanus papa adventu suo occiduas

illustravit partes, quoque etiam innumerabiles turbas populorum

admonitione sua, immo vero Dei suffragante auxilio, Ierosolimitanum

iter super paganos adire monuit.” It is not improbable that Guy’s

brothers, Nicholas and Pain, accompanied him on the Crusade. _Cartulaire

de S.-Vincent_, no. 317. This charter was witnessed, among others, by

William de Braitel, who is no. 47 of our list _infra_.

24. *HAMO DE HUNA. He made a grant to Saint-Vincent of Le Mans on 29 July

1096; and “post non multum vero temporis … antequam Ierusalem iret quo

tendere volebat,” he added another gift, and received from the monks 20

_solidi_. “Hoc actum fuit in domo monachorum apud Bazogers, in adventu

Domini iv die ante natale Domini.” _Cartulaire de S.-Vincent_, no. 460.

This was 22 December, presumably of the year 1096. Hamo, therefore, did

not accompany the other crusaders in the autumn, but he may very well

have overtaken them in Italy the following spring.

25. HERVÉ, son of Dodeman. He is named among those who advanced with

Robert after the capture of Nicaea. Baldric of Dol, in _H. C. Oc._,

iv, p. 33; Ordericus, iii, p. 507; cf. n. 6, _ibid._, where Le Prévost

remarks that ‘Breton chronicles’ name Hervé, son of Guyomark, count of

Léon, in place of Hervé, son of Dodeman.

26. HUGH II, count of Saint-Pol. He set out from Normandy with Robert

in 1096. Ordericus, iii, p. 484. He was present at the siege of Nicaea,

and advanced with Robert from there. _Ibid._, pp. 502-503, 507; Baldric

of Dol, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 28, 33. He was present at the siege of

Antioch. Albert of Aix, _ibid._, p. 372.

27. *INGELBAUDUS: “Ego Ingelbaudus illud Sepulchrum volo petere.” In view

of the proposed journey he made various grants to Saint-Vincent of Le

Mans. _Cartulaire de S.-Vincent_, no. 101. The editors date the document

“circa 1096,” but there are no chronological data. Most of the documents

among which this appears are of the late eleventh century.

28. IVO OF GRANDMESNIL. Ordericus, iii, p. 484. Cf. _supra_, p. 107, n.

88.

29. ODO, bishop of Bayeux. He was present at the council of Clermont as

_legatus_ of his fellow bishops. Ordericus, iii, p. 470. He was in touch

with Abbot Gerento of Saint-Bénigne of Dijon, the Pope’s special agent,

who was promoting the Crusade in Normandy during the summer of 1096.

Haskins, pp. 75-76. But it seems probable that he undertook the Crusade

rather to escape the wrath of William Rufus than from any religious

zeal. Ordericus, iv, pp. 16-17. He died at Palermo, in February 1097

according to Ordericus Vitalis (_ibid._), though his obit was celebrated

in Bayeux cathedral on Epiphany (6 January). Ulysse Chevalier, _Ordinaire

et coutumier de l’église cathédrale de Bayeux_ (Paris, 1902), p. 410.

He was buried by his fellow bishop, Gilbert of Évreux, in the cathedral

church of St. Mary at Palermo, and Count Roger reared a splendid monument

over his grave. Ordericus, iv, pp. 17-18; iii, p. 266; cf. Guibert of

Nogent, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 233. Odo’s epitaph is published, from a

late seventeenth century MS., by V. Bourrienne, in _Revue catholique de

Normandie_, x, p. 276.

30. *PAIN DE MONDOUBLEAU. See the quotation from _Cartulaire de

S.-Vincent_, no. 666, in no. 22 _supra_. The editors accept this as

convincing evidence that Pain de Mondoubleau went on the First Crusade,

but in the absence of any definite date there is no proof. And indeed

it seems hardly likely that we have to do here with the First Crusade,

since in 1098, according to Ordericus Vitalis—who, however, is a very

untrustworthy guide in matters of chronology—Pain was in Maine and

handed over the castle of Ballon to William Rufus. Ordericus, iv, p.

47; cf. Latouche, _Maine_, p. 47; Auguste de Trémault, “Recherches sur

les premiers seigneurs de Mondoubleau,” in _Bulletin de la Société

archéologique du Vendômois_, xxv (1886), pp. 301-302. The latter mentions

no evidence of Pain’s having gone on any crusade.

31. PAIN PEVEREL. The distinguished Norman knight who acted as Robert’s

standard-bearer on the Crusade, and who upon his return was granted a

barony in England by Henry I, and became the patron of Barnwell priory.

He is described as “egregio militi, armis insigni, milicia pollenti,

viribus potenti, et super omnes regni proceres bellico usu laudabili.”

He endowed the church of Barnwell with notable relics which he brought

back from the Holy Land: “reliquias verissimas super aurum et topazion

preciosas, quas in expedicione Antiochena adquisierat cum Roberto

Curthose, dum signiferi vicem gereret, necnon quas a patriarcha et rege

et magnatibus illius terre impetraverat.” _Liber Memorandorum Ecclesie

de Barnewelle_, ed. J. W. Clark (Cambridge, 1907), pp. 54, 55, 41, 46.

According to the editor this anonymous work was written in its present

form in 1295-96; the author had access to documents, and probably based

his narrative on the work of an earlier writer (introduction, pp. ix-x,

xiv). The part dealing with our period contains notable chronological

inaccuracies, but for the fundamental facts of the life of Pain Peverel

it may probably be relied upon.

32. PHILIP OF BELLÊME, called the Clerk, fifth son of Roger of

Montgomery. He set out with Robert from Normandy in 1096, and died at

Antioch. Ordericus, iii, pp. 483, 426.

33. *RAINERIUS DE POMERA. “Ista quae narravimus [i.e., the details of a

miracle wrought by St. Nicholas of Bari] a quodam bono et fideli homine,

nomine Rainerio, de villa quae dicitur Pomera, didicimus, qui haec

vidit et audivit et iis omnibus praesens affuit, dum rediret de itinere

Ierusalem.” _Miracula S. Nicolai conscripta a Monacho Beccensi_, in

_Catalogus Codicum Hagiographicorum Latinorum in Bibliotheca Nationali

Parisiensi_, ed. the Bollandists (Brussels, 1889-93), ii, p. 427.

34. RALPH DE GAEL. Baldric of Dol, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 28, 38;

Ordericus, iii, pp. 484, 503, 507; _Interpolations de Robert de Torigny_,

in William of Jumièges, p. 287. Emma, his wife, and Alan, his son, went

with him. Cf. nos. 14 and 3 _supra_.

35. RICHARD, son of Fulk, of Aunou-le-Faucon: “quidam miles, genere

Normannicus, vocabulo Ricardus, filius Fulconis senioris de Alnou.” After

the capture of Jerusalem he was saved from shipwreck off the Syrian coast

through the miraculous interposition of St. Nicholas of Bari; and upon

his return to Normandy he became a monk of Bec. _Miracula S. Nicolai

conscripta a Monacho Beccensi_, in _Catalogus Codicum Hagiographicorum

Latinorum in Bibliotheca Nationali Parisiensi_, ed. the Bollandists, ii,

p. 429. On Fulk of Aunou, see Ordericus, ii, p. 75.

36. RIOU DE LOHÉAC. He died while on the Crusade, but sent back to Lohéac

a casket of precious relics, among them a portion of the true Cross and

a fragment of the Sepulchre: “Notum sit … quod Waulterius, Iudicaelis

filius de Lohoac, quidam miles nobilissimus et illius castri princeps

et dominus… Sancto Salvatori suisque monachis quoddam venerandum et

honorabile sanctuarium, quod frater suus, videlicet Riocus, dum iret

Hierosolyman, adquisierat, et post mortem suam, nam in itinere ipso

obiit, per manum Simonis de Ludron sibi transmiserat, scilicet quandam

particulam Dominicę; Crucis et de Sepulchro Domini et de cęteris Domini

sanctuariis, cum maximis donariis quę subter scribentur, honorificę

dedit et in perpetuum habere concessit.” These relics were placed in the

church of Saint-Sauveur at Lohéac in the presence of a great concourse

of clergy and people, among them being the famous Robert of Arbrissel,

“quidam sanctissimus homo.” The document was attested, among others, by

Walter and William, Riou’s brothers, and by Geoffrey his son, Gonnor his

wife, and Simon de Ludron. “Hoc factum est in castello de Lohoac, iuxta

ipsam aecclesiam monachorum, .iii. kal. Iul., in natali apostolorum Petri

et Pauli, anno ab incarnatione Domini millesimo centesimo .i., luna

.xxix., epacte .xviii., Alano comite existente, Iudicahele episcopatum

Sancti Maclovii obtinente, et hoc donum cum suo archidiacono Rivallono

annuente, data .vi. non. Iulii.” _Cartulaire de l’abbaye de Redon_,

ed. Aurélien de Courson (Paris, 1863: _Documents inédits_), nos. 366,

367. Baldric of Dol names him among those who advanced with Robert from

Nicaea. _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 33.

37. ROBERT OF JERUSALEM, count of Flanders. One of the well known

leaders, who was closely associated with Robert Curthose during most of

the Crusade and who returned with him at least as far as southern Italy.

See Chapter IV, _passim_.

38. *ROBERT THE VICAR (_vicarius_). Before he went to Jerusalem

(_priusquam Ierusalem pergeret_) he made donations to Saint-Vincent of

Le Mans—his wife, son, and brothers consenting—and received from Abbot

Ranulf and the monks four _livres manceaux_. _Cartulaire de S.-Vincent_,

no. 522. The document is undated, but the mention of Abbot Ranulf places

it between 1080 and 1106. The editors date it “circa 1096.”

39. ROGER OF BARNEVILLE. _G. F._, p. 185; Ordericus, iii, p. 503. He was

captured and beheaded by the Turks at Antioch early in June 1098; and was

buried amid great sorrow by his fellow crusaders in the church of St.

Peter. _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 159; Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._,

iii, p. 252; Ordericus, iii, pp. 549, 538; Robert the Monk, in _H. C.

Oc._, iii, pp. 808-809; Albert of Aix, _ibid._, iv, pp. 407-408.

40. ROTROU OF MORTAGNE II, son of Geoffrey II, count of Perche. His

father died during his absence, having made provision for Rotrou to

succeed him in the countship upon his return from the Crusade. Ordericus,

iii, p. 483; v, p. 1.

41. SIMON DE LUDRON. It was he who brought back the relics which had been

obtained by Riou de Lohéac while on the Crusade. See the extract from the

Redon cartulary quoted in no. 36 _supra_.

42. STEPHEN, count of Aumale. He was one of the Norman rebels who had

previously sided with William Rufus against Robert Curthose. Ordericus,

iii, p. 475. But he was on friendly terms with the duke by 14 July

1096—doubtless as a result of the pacification which had been brought

about by the Pope—since Robert attested a charter by Stephen on that

date. _Gallia Christiana_, xi, instr., col. 20; cf. Haskins, p. 67, no.

5. Stephen also attested a charter by the duke in 1096. Archives de la

Seine-Inférieure, G 4069 (_Inventaire sommaire_, iii, p. 255). Albert of

Aix records his presence at Nicaea; and Ralph of Caen names him among

those who at Antioch were obligated to Robert Curthose by gifts or

homage. _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 316; iii, p. 642.

43. STEPHEN, count of Blois and Chartres. One of the well known leaders

of the Crusade. He was closely associated with Robert Curthose at least

as far as Nicaea. He became faint-hearted and turned back home after the

expedition had reached Antioch. See Chapter IV, _passim_.

44. *THURSTIN, son of Turgis, _prévot_ of Luc-sur-Mer. In 1096 he

pledged his allod (_alodium_) of forty acres at Luc for four marks and a

mount (_equitatura_): “si ipse Turstinus aut uxor eius vel filius post

vi annos rediret, redderet Sancto Stephano ad finem vi annorum iiiiᵒʳ

argenti marcas.” Probably the Crusade was in contemplation, though it

is not specifically mentioned. R. Génestal, _Rôle des monastères comme

établissements de crédit_ (Paris, 1901), p. 215; cf. pp. 29-30.

45. WALTER OF SAINT-VALERY. Ordericus, iii, pp. 483, 507; Baldric of Dol,

in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 33.

46. WIGO DE MARRA, a crusader from Perche. “Rediens a Ierosolimitano

itinere, tempore profectionis communis Aquilonensium et Occidentalium,”

he passed through Tours; and while he rested there with the monks of

Saint-Julien, he gave them his church at Bellou-sur-Huîne, a gift which

he afterwards confirmed upon reaching home. _Chartes de S.-Julien de

Tours_, no. 51. The document is dated 1099, “regnante Willelmo rege

Anglorum et duce Normannorum,” and is of special interest as indicating

the early date at which some of the crusaders got back to western Europe.

47. *WILLIAM DE BRAITEL (en Lombron), son of Geoffrey the _vicomte_.

With the consent of his brothers he made a donation to Saint-Vincent

of Le Mans in 1096, “eo videlicet anno quo papa Urbanus occidentales

partes presentia sua illustravit.” _Cartulaire de S.-Vincent_, no. 738.

The similarity of dating between this charter and no. 317 of the same

cartulary (cf. no. 23 _supra_), as well as the fact that many of the

witnesses are identical in both, makes it seem not improbable that they

were drawn up on the same occasion. If William actually went on the First

Crusade, his return appears to have been delayed until 1116. In that year

a precious relic which he brought back from Jerusalem for Adam, a Manceau

who had become a canon of the church of the Holy Sepulchre, was presented

to the cathedral church of Le Mans. _Actus Pontificum_, p. 407. Cf.

Samuel Menjot d’Elbenne, _Les sires de Braitel au Maine du XIᵉ au XIIIᵉ

siècle_ (Mamers, 1876), p. 38.

48. WILLIAM, son of Ranulf de Briquessart, _vicomte_ of Bayeux. He is

named among those who advanced with Robert from Nicaea. Baldric of Dol,

in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 33; Ordericus, iii, p. 507.

49. *WILLIAM DE COLOMBIÈRES. On 7 June 1103 Henry de Colombières granted

to Saint-Martin of Troarn “all that his father William had given and

granted before he went on crusade (_Ierosolimam pergeret_).” Round, _C.

D. F._, no. 471.

50. WILLIAM DE FERRIÈRES. He is named among those who advanced with

Robert from Nicaea. Baldric of Dol, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 33; Ordericus,

iii, p. 507.

51. WILLIAM DE PERCY, benefactor of Whitby abbey. He died while on the

Crusade. “Denique nobilissimus Willielmus de Perci Ierosolimam petens,

apud locum qui vocatur Mons Gaudii, qui est in provincia Ierosolimitana,

migravit ad Dominum, ibique honorifice sepultus est.” _Cartularium

Abbathiae de Whiteby_, ed. J. C. Atkinson (Durham, 1879-81), i, p. 2. The

quotation is from the “Memorial of Benefactions,” which, according to the

editor, was written in the second half of the twelfth century, certainly

before 1180. It is probably only a legend that William’s heart was

brought back and buried at Whitby abbey. His son had evidently succeeded

him by 6 January 1100. Davis, _Regesta_, no. 427.

52. WILLIAM DU VAST. On 9 September 1096, “vadens in Ierusalem,” he

pledged his land to the abbey of Fécamp for a loan of three marks until

his return. Léopold Delisle, _Littérature latine et histoire du moyen

âge_ (Paris, 1890), pp. 28-29.

APPENDIX E

LAODICEA AND THE FIRST CRUSADE

Laodicea, as a commodious port on the Syrian coast directly opposite the

fertile island of Cyprus, was a maritime base of the utmost importance

to the crusaders, and it has a special interest for the life of Robert

Curthose. Its history during the period of the First Crusade is obscure,

and it may be admitted at the outset that it will not be possible to

elucidate it entirely from such meagre and contradictory materials as

have survived. Nevertheless, the problems are by no means hopeless; and

the sources, such as they are, are worthy of a more careful and critical

examination than they have yet received.[1]

From the oriental sources it seems reasonably certain that during the

period immediately preceding the arrival of the crusaders in Syria

Laodicea was in the hands of the Turks. Previous to 1086 it had belonged

to the Munkidhites of Shaizar;[2] but it passed from their hands into

the possession of Malik-Shah when in that year he established himself at

Aleppo.[3] Malik-Shah granted it to Kasim ed-daula Aksonkor, who held it

until his death in 1094.[4] There is no evidence that it passed out of

Turkish control between this date and the arrival of the crusaders and

their associates from the West in 1097; and, in view of the precarious

situation of the Eastern Empire and the preoccupation of the Greek

Emperor with other problems during this period, there seems to be no

ground for such a supposition. According to Kemal ed-Din—who wrote

towards the middle of the thirteenth century, and whose statement would

perhaps deserve little consideration were it not so specific—a fleet of

twenty-two ships came from Cyprus on the 8th of the month of Ramadan

in the year 490 of the Hegira (19 August 1097), entered the port of

Laodicea, pillaged the town, and carried off all the merchandise.[5]

The western sources dealing with Laodicea in 1097-98 are numerous; but

at some points they are contradictory, and at best they yield but scanty

information. It will be well to analyze them separately with some care:—

(1) The letter of Anselm de Ribemont to Archbishop Manasses of Rheims,

written from Antioch near the end of November 1097, states definitely

that Laodicea had been taken—evidently by some one acting in the interest

of the crusaders, and pretty clearly before the arrival of the land

forces at Antioch on 21 October 1097.[6]

This statement is confirmed by the anonymous _Florinensis Brevis Narratio

Belli Sacri_,[7] as it is also by the account of Raymond of Aguilers.

(2) Raymond of Aguilers, who, because of his actual presence in Syria

and his close association with the count of Toulouse, is by all odds

the best and most reliable chronicler dealing with the events now under

consideration, seems to have received but little attention from modern

scholars in this connection. According to his account, which is quite

full, English mariners, who were fired with enthusiasm for the Crusade,

sailed via Gibraltar to the eastern Mediterranean, and with much labor

obtained possession of the port of Antioch (evidently Port St. Simeon

is meant) and of Laodicea before the arrival of the land forces. And

during the siege of Antioch, together with the Genoese, they rendered

important services to the crusaders by means of their fleet, keeping open

commercial intercourse with Cyprus and other islands, and in particular

protecting the ships of the Greeks from attack by the Saracens. Finally,

when the crusaders were about to advance from Syria upon Jerusalem, the

English, finding that their ships had been reduced by wear and tear from

thirty to nine or ten, abandoned them or burned them, and joined the land

forces on the southward march.[8]

Now, of the actual presence of English mariners on the Syrian coast

acting in coöperation with the crusaders, there can be no doubt. Apart

from the foregoing narrative, the fact is proved beyond question (_a_)

by the well known letter of the clergy and people of Lucca in which

they state that their citizen Bruno had journeyed from Italy to Antioch

“with English ships,” had taken part in the siege, and had stayed on for

three weeks after the victory;[9] and (_b_) by the letter of Patriarch

Dagobert, written from Jerusalem in the spring of 1100, which mentions

the presence of English ships, apparently at Jaffa.[10] While the English

ships referred to in these letters are not necessarily, or even probably,

identical with those mentioned by Raymond of Aguilers, the letters are

still of great importance as demonstrating the general fact of the

presence and activity of English mariners at this period in these distant

waters.

As will appear below, Raymond’s account receives some further

confirmation from Ordericus Vitalis and from Ralph of Caen.

(3) The narrative of Ordericus differs widely from that of Raymond

of Aguilers. According to him, at the time when the Christians were

themselves being besieged at Antioch (6-28 June 1098), a great number of

pilgrims from England and other islands of the ocean landed at Laodicea

and were joyfully welcomed by the inhabitants, who accepted their

protection against the Turks. The chief among these pilgrims was Edgar

Atheling.[11] Taking Laodicea under his protection, Edgar afterwards

handed it over to Robert Curthose, whom he loved as a brother. Thus

Robert gained possession of Laodicea, and came and dwelt there for some

time with Normans, English, and Bretons. Then, leaving his own garrison

in the fortresses, Robert pursued his way to Jerusalem. But meanwhile

Ravendinos, protospatharius of Emperor Alexius, and other Greek officers

came with an expedition by sea, and laid siege to Laodicea; and the

citizens, sympathizing with the Greeks, their compatriots, expelled the

men from beyond the Alps and admitted imperial governors.[12]

William of Malmesbury is the only other writer who mentions a journey of

Edgar Atheling to the Holy Land, and his account is very different from

that of Ordericus Vitalis. He makes no mention of English mariners, and

he places Edgar’s arrival in the East, in company with a certain Robert,

son of Godwin, at the time of the siege of Ramleh by the Saracens (May

1102).[13]

(4) Raymond of Aguilers is authority for the statement that Robert was

absent from Antioch in the third month of the siege, apparently about

Christmas 1097.[14]

A fuller explanation of this absence seems to be supplied by Ralph of

Caen, who says that Robert, disgusted with the tedium of the siege,

withdrew to Laodicea in the hope of ruling there; for the English at that

time were holding it for the Emperor, and being menaced by a wandering

band, had called in Robert as their protector. Robert accordingly went

to Laodicea and gave himself up to idleness and sleep. Yet he was

not altogether useless, for, having come upon opulence, he shared it

generously with his needy comrades at the siege. Laodicea was then the

only city on the Syrian coast which was Christian and which obeyed the

Emperor; and Cyprus had filled it with an abundance of wine, grain, and

cattle. Robert was very loath to turn his back upon such ease and plenty;

and it was only after he had been thrice summoned, and even threatened

with excommunication, that he reluctantly yielded to the entreaties of

his comrades and returned to the hardships of the siege.[15]

From the place which this incident occupies in Ralph’s general narrative

one would judge that it belongs to the spring of 1098; but he does not

date it exactly, and his chronology at best is confused and by no means

trustworthy. It may be conjectured that this account is to be connected

with the above mentioned briefer but more trustworthy statement of

Raymond of Aguilers, thus placing the episode in the winter of 1097-98.

Ralph’s chronology is not to be regarded as impossible, however, since

there is no record of Robert’s presence at Antioch between 9 February

and the end of May, or even the first of June, and he may very well have

enjoyed more than one sojourn in Laodicea.

Further evidence of the duke’s connection with Laodicea is found in a

curious statement of Guibert of Nogent that Robert had once held it, but

that when the citizens were unable to bear his excessive exactions, they

drove his garrison from the fortresses and threw off his domination, and

out of hatred abjured the use of the money of Rouen.[16]

Finally, the twelfth-century poet Gilo remarks that English victors gave

Laodicea to the Norman count.[17]

(5) The problem of Laodicea in its relation to the First Crusade is still

further complicated by a statement of Anna Comnena that the Emperor

wrote—she gives no date—to Raymond of Toulouse, directing him to hand

over the city to Andronicus Tzintzilucas, and that Raymond obeyed.[18]

Both Riant[19] and Chalandon[20] accept this statement and assign the

Emperor’s letter to the first half of 1099. Their reason for so doing

appears to be found in the strange narrative of Albert of Aix, which is

unique among the sources.

(6) According to Albert of Aix, while Baldwin and Tancred were at Tarsus

on the way to Antioch (_circa_ September 1097) a strange fleet approached

the Cilician coast. It proved to be made up of ‘Christian pirates’ from

“Flanders, Antwerp, Frisia, and other parts of Gaul [_sic_],” who under

their commander, a certain Guinemer of Boulogne, had been pursuing their

calling for the past eight years. But when they learned of the Crusade,

they concluded a treaty with Baldwin, and, landing, joined forces with

him and advanced as far as Mamistra. But here they turned back, and,

reëmbarking, sailed away to Laodicea, which they besieged and took. Then

resting there in the enjoyment of ease and plenty, they sent no aid to

their Christian brothers at Antioch. But presently they were attacked and

cut to pieces by ‘Turcopoles’[21] and men of the Emperor, who recovered

the citadel and threw Guinemer into prison, Godfrey and the other chiefs

at Antioch being ignorant of the whole affair. Later Guinemer was

released at the request of Godfrey.[22]

Elsewhere Albert sets forth another version of these curious events.

Guinemer and his pirates, he tells us, had assembled their fleet in

conjunction with the Provençaux of the land of Saint-Gilles under the

dominion of Count Raymond.[23] Then, sailing to Laodicea, they had taken

it and driven out the Turks and Saracens whom they found there. Then,

after the siege of Antioch, they had handed their prize over to Count

Raymond. Still later, Guinemer, the master of the pirates, had been

captured by the Greeks, and after long imprisonment had been released

through the intervention of Duke Godfrey. Then, when the advance to

Jerusalem had been decided upon, Raymond had restored Laodicea to the

Emperor, and so kept his faith inviolably.[24]

Thus, if we could rely upon Albert of Aix, Laodicea came into the hands

of the count of Toulouse after the siege of Antioch, and Alexius might

naturally be expected to write him demanding its restoration to the

Empire, as Riant and Chalandon suppose in accepting the above mentioned

statement of Anna Comnena regarding the Emperor’s letter. It should be

noted, however, that from Albert’s statement that Raymond handed over

Laodicea to Alexius when the advance to Jerusalem had been decided

upon,[25] it follows that the transfer could not have taken place later

than 16 January 1099, the date on which Raymond moved southward from

Kafartab;[26] whereas Chalandon has shown that the letter of which Anna

speaks cannot be earlier than March 1099.[27] Albert of Aix and Anna

Comnena, therefore, are not mutually confirmatory.

(7) Finally, note should be taken of the statement of Cafaro of Genoa—who

passed the winter of 1100-01 at Laodicea, but who wrote as an old man

years afterwards—that, at the time of the capture of Antioch by the

crusaders, Laodicea with its fortresses was held by the Emperor, and was

under the immediate command of Eumathios Philocales, duke of Cyprus.[28]

So much for an analysis of the sources. It remains to consider what

conclusions may reasonably be drawn from them. And since the efforts

which have been made to accept them all as of equal validity and to bring

them into reconciliation have plainly not been successful, it will be

well to begin with a consideration of some things which must probably be

eliminated.

And first, it seems clear that the account of Ordericus Vitalis, which

represents Edgar Atheling as landing at Laodicea between 6 and 28 June

1098 at the head of a great body of English pilgrims, cannot be accepted

without serious modification; for we know from reliable English sources

that towards the end of 1097 Edgar was engaged in Scotland, assisting his

kinsman, another Edgar,[29] to obtain the Scottish throne;[30] and it

would, it seems, have been impossible for him to have made the necessary

preparations for a crusade and to have journeyed from Scotland to

Laodicea within the limitations of time which our sources impose. It is

perhaps conceivable that he should have made a hurried trip to Italy in

the winter of 1097-98 with a small band of attendants, and sailing from

there, have reached the Syrian coast by June. But according to Ordericus

he arrived at the head of “almost 20,000 pilgrims … from England and

other islands of the ocean.” Further, if the account of Ordericus were to

be brought into chronological accord with the other sources which deal

with Robert’s sojourn at Laodicea, the arrival of Edgar Atheling would

probably have to be placed several months earlier, indeed, in the early

winter of 1097-98, almost at the very time he is known to have been in

Scotland. The chronology of Ordericus, therefore—which in general is

notoriously unreliable—seems at this point unacceptable; and William of

Malmesbury, who places Edgar’s arrival in the East in May 1102, appears

to give the necessary correction. In view of the testimony of both

Ordericus Vitalis and William of Malmesbury, it can hardly be doubted

that Edgar Atheling actually went to the Holy Land; but that he reached

Laodicea in time to have anything to do with the calling in of Robert

Curthose seems highly improbable, if not impossible.

The tale of Guinemer of Boulogne and his fleet of Christian pirates, as

told by Albert of Aix, must also meet with rougher handling than it has

yet received, and for the following reasons: (1) The description of this

fleet with its “masts of wondrous height, covered with purest gold, and

refulgent in the sunlight”[31] is not such as to inspire confidence,

particularly in such a writer as Albert of Aix, where one expects at any

time to meet with the use of untrustworthy poetical materials. (2) As

the narrative proceeds it becomes self-contradictory. At one point we

are told that Guinemer was captured by the Greeks during the siege of

Antioch, whereas at another he seems to have held Laodicea throughout

the siege—since he turned it over to Count Raymond after the siege—;

and his capture and imprisonment by the Greeks are placed still later.

(3) Albert of Aix is in direct contradiction with Raymond of Aguilers,

the best of all our authorities, who tells us that the English held

Laodicea during the whole of the siege of Antioch and rendered important

services to the crusaders; whereas, according to Albert’s account,

Guinemer and his pirates held it and refused to aid the crusaders. (4)

Not a scrap of evidence concerning Guinemer and his pirates has come

to light in any source except Albert of Aix—unless perchance their

fleet is to be identified with the ships which, according to Kemal

ed-Din, came from Cyprus 19 August 1097, pillaged Laodicea, and sailed

away;[32] and this seems unlikely. (5) In any case, outside the pages

of Albert of Aix, evidence is lacking that such a piratical fleet held

Laodicea for any considerable period; and apparently the only reason

why Riant and Chalandon have accepted this fantastical tale of Guinemer

and the Christian pirates is the fancied possibility of connecting it

with the letter which, according to Anna Comnena, the Emperor wrote

at an undetermined date to Raymond of Toulouse, directing him to hand

over Laodicea to Andronicus Tzintzilucas. But Riant and Chalandon have

somewhat arbitrarily assigned this letter to the first half of 1099.

If Raymond was directed to hand Laodicea over, he must have possessed

it. Therefore, so the argument seems to run, the Guinemer episode

should be accepted as explaining how Raymond came into possession

of Laodicea. But, as has already been pointed out, this explanation

involves a serious chronological inconsistency. Further, the evidence

is not conclusive that the letter ever existed—it rests upon the sole

statement of Anna Comnena—and, if it did exist, it may with more reason,

and with less violence to Anna’s chronology, be assigned to the period

between September 1099 and June 1100, when Raymond is known to have been

in possession of Laodicea and on terms of close understanding with the

Emperor.[33]

The foregoing considerations are not, it may be conceded, sufficient to

prove that there is no shadow of truth in the tale of Guinemer and the

pirates; but they do constitute a strong case against the narrative as it

stands, and suggest the probability that it is one of the strange pieces

of fiction occasionally to be met with in the pages of Albert of Aix.

Having now somewhat cleared the ground, it is possible to set forth the

probable course of events at Laodicea on the basis of the more reliable

sources.

There can be little doubt that Laodicea had already been taken from the

Turks when the crusaders arrived at Antioch, 21 October 1097;[34] and we

may accept without question the statement of Raymond of Aguilers—which

Riant and Chalandon appear to ignore without reason—that it was taken by

the English, who had come by sea, and who held it during the siege of

Antioch and assisted the land forces by protecting commerce and keeping

communications open with Cyprus and the other islands. These English

mariners were unquestionably acting in coöperation with the Emperor,[35]

who at this time, as Chalandon has shown, was supporting the crusaders in

accordance with his treaty obligations.[36]

At some time during the siege of Antioch by the Christians Robert

Curthose was called to Laodicea by the English—probably because

of dangers on the landward side which made their situation there

precarious—and he remained there for a time, in the enjoyment of ease

and plenty, until he was obliged by repeated summonses and by a threat

of ecclesiastical censure to return to Antioch.[37] The date of Robert’s

sojourn at Laodicea cannot be determined with certainty, but it may

probably be assigned to December-January 1097-98,[38] 8 February being

the extreme limit for his return to the siege.[39] Yet there is no record

of his presence at Antioch between 9 February and the beginning of June,

or between the end of June and 11 September; and the possibility of his

having paid more than one visit to Laodicea must be recognized. The

accounts of Ralph of Caen and of Ordericus Vitalis, interpreted strictly,

point to sojourns in the spring and in the summer of 1098; but the

chronology of these authors is not trustworthy, and it is not unlikely

that they have fallen into inaccuracies here, and that they really refer

to Robert’s earlier sojourn at Laodicea, for which we have the indirect

but more reliable evidence of Raymond of Aguilers.

The arrangements which were made at Laodicea upon Robert’s final

departure before his advance to Jerusalem must remain a matter of

doubt. According to Ordericus Vitalis and Guibert of Nogent he left

a garrison, which was later driven out by the citizens. Guibert is

curiously circumstantial. He says that the citizens, unable to bear the

duke’s excessive exactions, drove his men from the citadel, threw off his

domination, and abjured the use of the money of Rouen. But this incident

is confirmed by none of the early writers who were in the East; and in

the absence of any other evidence of Robert’s having attempted to secure

for himself a private possession in Syria, we may well wonder whether

Guibert and Ordericus have not blundered through a misunderstanding

of the actual situation in the East and of the spirit in which Robert

undertook the Crusade.

Finally, what is to be said of the statement of Cafaro of Genoa that,

at the time of the capture of Antioch by the crusaders, Laodicea was

under the rule of Eumathios Philocales, duke of Cyprus? It would not be

surprising if Cafaro, writing long after the event, should be mistaken

on a point of this kind; yet he is by no means to be ignored, and on the

whole his account does not seem inconsistent with established facts.

The sojourn of Robert Curthose at Laodicea was apparently a passing

episode rather than a lasting occupation. But throughout the period under

consideration the Syrian port was clearly in the hands of crusaders,

mainly English mariners, who were acting in coöperation with the Greeks.

Under existing treaty obligations the place might fairly be regarded as

a Greek possession from the moment the Turks were expelled[40]—unless

there were a Bohemond or some other like-minded chief to seize and hold

it in defiance of imperial rights. And the Emperor would most naturally

delegate authority over Laodicea to the head of his administration in

Cyprus. From the Greek standpoint, therefore, it might well be regarded

as subject to Eumathios Philocales, though actually held by the Emperor’s

allies, the crusaders.

Between the departure of the crusaders from northern Syria early in 1099

and their return in September after the capture of Jerusalem, Laodicea

seems to have become definitely a Greek possession; but whether there was

any violent expulsion of the garrison of a crusading chief, as Ordericus

and Guibert suppose, or any formal transfer,[41] must remain uncertain.

When the crusaders moved southward from northern Syria to Jerusalem,

their influence at Laodicea must, it seems, inevitably have declined,

while that of the Greeks increased; and without any formal transfer it

is conceivable that the place might gradually and almost imperceptibly

have passed under full Greek control.

But for this later period there are some further scattered notices in

the chronicles of Albert of Aix and of Raymond of Aguilers and in the

anonymous _Gesta Francorum_, which must now be considered, and which

make it clear that at this time Laodicea was still in Christian hands

and served as a most important base for the further prosecution of the

Crusade.

Albert of Aix, who is the fullest and most specific, explains that the

crusaders still remaining in Syria gathered in council at Antioch on 2

February 1099, and, determining upon an advance to Jerusalem, fixed 1

March as the date for a general rendezvous of all the forces at Laodicea,

a city which was then under Christian dominion.[42] Pursuant to this

decision, Godfrey, Robert of Flanders, and Bohemond assembled their

forces at Laodicea on the appointed day. And from Laodicea Godfrey and

Robert moved on southward to the siege of Jebeleh; but Bohemond, ever

suspicious and anxious lest through some fraud he should lose a city

which was ‘impregnable by human strength,’ returned to Antioch.[43] This

very specific account of Albert of Aix is confirmed by the much briefer

statements of the _Gesta Francorum_, which record the meeting of the

leaders at Laodicea, the advance of Godfrey and the count of Flanders

to the siege of Jebeleh, and the return of Bohemond to Antioch.[44] It

is also clear from Raymond of Aguilers that in the spring and summer of

1099—at least until June—the port of Laodicea was open to the ships of

the Greeks, Venetians, and Genoese who were engaged in provisioning the

crusaders at Arka and at Jerusalem.[45]

There can be little doubt, therefore, that until June 1099, Laodicea

was held in the interest of the crusaders, and that its harbor was

open to the ships of Greeks and Italians without distinction. Albert

of Aix nowhere explains what he means when he says that Laodicea was

“under Christian dominion”; but, in the absence of valid evidence of its

retention by any of the crusading chiefs, or by the fleet of any Italian

city, the most reasonable hypothesis appears to be that it was held by

the Greeks in the interest of the common enterprise.

We get our next information concerning Laodicea when, in September 1099,

Robert Curthose, Robert of Flanders, and Raymond of Toulouse, upon their

return from Jerusalem, found the place undergoing a prolonged siege at

the hands of Bohemond, who was assisted in his nefarious enterprise by a

fleet of Pisans and Genoese.[46] Since the early summer, when ships of

Genoese, Venetians, and Greeks had all enjoyed free entry to the port,

a complete change had come over the situation at Laodicea.[47] What had

happened to produce this? As is well known, it was the fixed policy of

the Emperor to turn the Crusade to his own advantage, and to utilize

the efforts of the Franks for the recovery of the lost provinces which

had formerly belonged to the Greek Empire in Asia. To this end, he had

been on the whole successful in coöperating with the crusaders. But in

Bohemond of Taranto he had encountered opposition from the beginning;

and, since the capture of Antioch by the crusaders, it had been the

little disguised policy of this crafty and ambitious leader to hold it

for himself, and to make it the capital and centre around which he hoped

to build up a Norman state in Syria. It was, of course, inevitable that

the Emperor should set himself to thwart such plans by every means at his

disposal; and when the departure of the main body of the crusaders for

Jerusalem left Bohemond with a free hand in the north, open hostilities

became imminent. Undoubtedly foreseeing what was to come, Bohemond had

separated from Godfrey and Robert of Flanders at Laodicea in March, and

had returned to Antioch to mature his plans.[48] A few weeks later,

ambassadors from the Emperor arrived in the crusaders’ camp at Arka

and lodged a complaint against Bohemond.[49] But the Emperor was in no

position to take vigorous measures at that time. Such a course might

even have endangered his friendly relations with the other leaders. But

neither was Bohemond in a position to resort to an overt act against

Laodicea so long as he was powerless to meet the imperial fleet at sea.

In the late summer of 1099, however, all this was changed by the arrival

of a Pisan fleet under the command of Dagobert, archbishop of Pisa;

for Bohemond, with true Norman adaptability and shrewdness, came to an

understanding with the Pisans and secured their aid for an attack upon

Laodicea.[50] And with this, the slight naval supremacy which the Greek

Emperor had been vainly striving to maintain in the eastern Mediterranean

came to an end.[51]

Such was the situation at Laodicea when in September 1099 Robert Curthose

and the counts of Flanders and Toulouse arrived at Jebeleh on their

way home from the Crusade. The siege had already been going on for

some time and was making progress. The place seemed to be on the point

of falling.[52] But never were the plans of Bohemond to end in more

egregious failure. His unprovoked attack upon a friendly city which had

rendered important services to the crusaders roused the indignation

and jealousy of the returning leaders. The archbishop of Pisa suddenly

discovered that he had been led into a false position by the crafty

Norman, and, deserting Bohemond, he threw his powerful influence on the

side of Raymond, Robert Curthose, and Robert of Flanders. The Greeks

too, who, though hard pressed, were still holding out, well understood

that Bohemond was their real enemy and that it behooved them to make

terms quickly with the leaders who had kept faith with the Emperor.

Accordingly, an agreement was promptly reached among the Pisans, the

Laodiceans, and the returning leaders. An ultimatum was despatched

to Bohemond demanding that he withdraw forthwith; and thus suddenly

confronted with superior force, he had no choice but to yield. Wrathfully

he retired under the cover of darkness; and next morning Robert Curthose

and the counts of Flanders and Toulouse entered Laodicea with their

forces, and were enthusiastically welcomed by the inhabitants.[53]

Count Raymond placed a strong garrison in the citadel, and raising his

banner over the highest tower, took possession of the city[54]—in the

Emperor’s name, it may be supposed, since by this time he clearly had an

understanding with Alexius.[55] A few days later he met Bohemond outside

the city and concluded peace.[56]

After a fortnight’s sojourn at Laodicea the two Roberts and a large

number of humbler crusaders took ship and proceeded on their homeward

way. But Raymond, still suspicious of the prince of Antioch, remained to

keep a close guard upon Laodicea and Tortosa until the following summer,

when he went to Constantinople and entered the Emperor’s service.[57]

FOOTNOTES

[1] In general on Laodicea and the First Crusade see Riant, _Scandinaves

en Terre Sainte_, pp. 132 ff.; Chalandon, _Alexis Iᵉʳ_, pp. 210 ff.;

Röhricht, _Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzuges_, pp. 205-207.

[2] Usama ibn Munkidh, _Autobiographie_, French translation by Hartwig

Derenbourg (Paris, 1895), p. 107.

[3] Ibn el-Athir, _Histoire des Atabecs de Mosul_, in _H. C. Or._, ii, 2,

p. 17.

[4] _Ibid._

[5] _Chronique d’Alep_, _ibid._, iii, p. 578. There is possibly some

confirmation of this in the following statement of Cafaro of Genoa: “In

tempore enim captionis Antiochiae arma manebat [Laodicea], nisi ecclesia

episcopalis ubi clerici morabantur.” _Annales Genuenses_, in _H. C. Oc._,

v, p. 66.

[6] “XII Kalendas Novembris Antiochiam obsedimus, iamque vicinas

civitates Tharsum et Laodiciam multasque alias vi cepimus.”

_Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 145.

[7] _H. C. Oc._, v, p. 371.

[8] “Sed antequam ad reliqua perveniamus, de his praetermittere non

debemus qui, pro amore sanctissimae expeditionis, per ignota et

longissima aequora Mediterranei et Oceani navigare non dubitaverunt.

Etenim Angli, audito nomine ultionis Domini in eos qui terram Nativitatis

Iesu Christi et apostolorum eius indigne occupaverant, ingressi mare

Anglicum, et circinata Hispania, transfretantes per mare Oceanum, atque

sic Mediterraneum mare sulcantes, portum Antiochiae atque civitatem

Laodiciae, antequam exercitus noster per terram illuc veniret, laboriose

obtinuerunt. Profuerunt nobis eo tempore tam istorum naves, quam et

Genuensium. Habebamus enim ad obsidionem, per istas naves et per

securitatem eorum, commercia a Cypro insula et a reliquis insulis.

Quippe hae naves quotidie discurrebant per mare, et ob ea Graecorum

naves securae erant, quia Sarraceni eis incurrere formidabant. Quum vero

Angli illi vidissent exercitum proficisci in Iherusalem, et robor suarum

navium a longinquitate temporis imminutum, quippe quum usque ad triginta

in principio naves habuissent, modo vix decem vel novem habere poterant,

alii dimissis navibus suis et expositis, alii autem incensis, nobiscum

iter acceleraverunt.” _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 290-291.

[9] “Civis quidam noster, Brunus nomine, … cum Anglorum navibus ad

ipsam usque pervenit Antiochiam.” _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 165. The letter

contains a number of chronological data, from which it is clear that

Bruno set out from Italy in 1097 and that he arrived in Syria shortly

before 5 March 1098. Hagenmeyer reasons plausibly that he landed at Port

St. Simeon on 4 March 1098.

[10] _Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 177.

[11] Grandson of Edmund Ironside, and claimant to the English throne upon

the death of Harold in 1066.

[12] Ordericus, iv, pp. 70-71.

[13] _G. R._, ii, p. 310; cf. p. 449. Davis—who by a slip of the pen

names him Baldwin—places this Robert among the native Englishmen who

joined Robert Curthose at Laodicea. _Normans and Angevins_, p. 100. But

William of Malmesbury, who is the sole authority, makes no mention of him

before the siege of Ramleh. Freeman is more careful. _William Rufus_, ii,

p. 122.

[14] “Normanniae comes ea tempore [i.e., in tertio mense obsidionis]

aberat.” _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 243.

[15] “Abscesserant interea ex castris, exosi taedia, comites, Blesensis

in Cyliciam, Laodiciam Normannus; Blesensis Tharsum ob remedium

egestatis, Normannus ad Anglos spe dominationis. Angli ea tempestate

Laodiciam tenebant, missi ab imperatore tutela; cuius fines vagus

populabatur exercitus, ipsam quoque cum violentia irrumpere tentantes.

In hac formidine Angli assertorem vocant praescriptum comitem, consilium

fidele ac prudens. Fidei fuit fidelem domino suo virum, cui se

manciparent, asciscere; iugo Normannico se subtraxerant, denuo subdunt,

hoc prudentiae: gentis illius fidem experti et munera, facile redeunt

unde exierant. Igitur Normannus comes, ingressus Laodiciam, somno vacabat

et otio; nec inutilis tamen, dum opulentiam nactus, aliis indigentibus

large erogabat: quoniam conserva Cyprus baccho, cerere, et multo pecore

abundans Laodiciam repleverat, quippe indigentem, vicinam, Christicolam

et quasi collacteam: ipsa namque una in littore Syro et Christum colebat,

et Alexio serviebat. Sed nec sic excusato otio, praedictus comes frustra

semel atque iterum ad castra revocatur; tertio, sub anathemate accitus,

redit invitus: difficilem enim habebat transitum commeatio, quam comiti

ministrare Laodicia veniens debebat.” _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 649.

[16] _Ibid._, iv, p. 254.

[17] _Ibid._, v, p. 742.

[18] _H. C. G._, i, p. 66.

[19] “Inventaire critique des lettres historiques des croisades,” in

_Archives de l’Orient latin_, i, pp. 189-191.

[20] _Alexis Iᵉʳ_, pp. 208-212.

[21] Turcopoles are defined by Albert as “gens impia et dicta Christiana

nomine, non opere, qui ex Turco patre et Graeca matre procreati [sunt].”

_H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 434.

[22] _Ibid._, pp. 348-349, 380, 447.

[23] “Hi collectione navium a diversis terris et regnis contracta,

videlicet ab Antwerpia, Tila, Fresia, Flandria, per mare Provincialibus

in terra Sancti Aegidii, de potestate comitis Reimundo, associati.”

[24] _H. C. Oc._, iv, pp. 500-501.

[25] “Post captionem Antiochiae, decreto itinere suo cum ceteris in

Iherusalem.” _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 501.

[26] Cf. Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 341.

[27] _Alexis Iᵉʳ_, p. 212.

[28] _Annales Genuenses_, in _H. C. Oc._, v, p. 66.

[29] Son of Malcolm Canmore.

[30] _A.-S. C._, _a._ 1097; Henry of Huntingdon, p. 230. The former

places Edgar’s expedition to Scotland after Michaelmas (29 September),

the latter after Martinmas (11 November). Cf. Florence of Worcester, ii,

p. 41.

[31] “Navium diversi generis et operis multitudinem … quarum mali mirae

altitudinis, auro purissimo operti, in radiis solis refulgebant.” _H. C.

Oc._, iv, p. 348.

[32] _Supra_, p. 230.

[33] Chalandon, _Alexis Iᵉʳ_, pp. 212-214, 217.

[34] _Supra_, p. 231.

[35] This is clear from the accounts of both Raymond of Aguilers and

Ralph of Caen. Cf. _supra_, pp. 231, 233.

[36] _Alexis Iᵉʳ_, ch. vii.

[37] Ralph of Caen, _supra_, pp. 233-234.

[38] Raymond of Aguilers, _supra_, p. 233.

[39] Tudebode, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 43.

[40] On the treaty relations between Alexius and the crusaders see

Chalandon, _Alexis Iᵉʳ_, ch. vi.

[41] Albert of Aix says that it was handed over to the Emperor by Count

Raymond, but, as has been pointed out above, his account is hardly

trustworthy. There is a statement in Raymond of Aguilers to the effect

that during the siege of Arka (spring of 1099) Count Raymond sent Hugh de

Monteil to Laodicea to fetch the cross of the late Bishop Adhemar: “Misit

itaque comes Guillelmum Ugonem de Montilio, fratrem episcopi Podiensis,

Laodiciam, ubi crux dimissa fuerat cum capella ipsius episcopi.” _H.

C. Oc._, iii, p. 287. It is possible that this indicates some closer

Provençal connection with Laodicea at this period than I have allowed.

[42] “Quae Christianae erat potestatis.” _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 450.

[43] _Ibid._, p. 453.

[44] _G. F._, pp. 428-429.

[45] _H. C. Oc._, iii, pp. 276, 295. In the former passage Raymond,

writing from the standpoint of Arka, mentions the arrival of Greek,

Venetian, and Genoese (?) provision ships, which, in the absence of a

port directly opposite Arka, were obliged to turn back northward and

put in at Tortosa and Laodicea; in the latter, recording the disaster

which overtook the Genoese ships at Jaffa in June, he notes that one

escaped and returned to Laodicea, “ibique sociis et amicis nostris, de

nobis qui eramus Iherosolymis, sicuti erat, denuntiavit.” For the date

cf. Hagenmeyer, _Chronologie_, no. 394. For the identification of _naves

nostrae_ or _naves de nostris_ with the ships of the Genoese, cf. _H. C.

Oc._, iii, pp. 294, 298.

[46] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 500; Ordericus, iv, pp.

70, 71; letter of Dagobert, Godfrey, and Raymond, to the Pope, in

_Kreuzzugsbriefe_, p. 173.

[47] Cf. Chalandon, _Alexis Iᵉʳ_, chs. vi, vii.

[48] _Supra_, p. 241.

[49] Raymond of Aguilers, in _H. C. Oc._, iii, p. 286.

[50] _Gesta Triumphalia Pisanorum_, _H. C. Oc._, v, p. 368.

[51] On the decline of the Byzantine fleet in the eleventh century see

Carl Neumann, “Die byzantinische Marine,” in _Historische Zeitschrift_,

lxxxi (1898), pp. 1-23.

[52] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 500.

[53] _Ibid._, pp. 500-503; Ordericus, iv, pp. 70-72; _Kreuzzugsbriefe_,

p. 173.

[54] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 503.

[55] Chalandon, _Alexis Iᵉʳ_, pp. 207 ff.

[56] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 504; cf. Ordericus, iv, p. 72.

[57] Albert of Aix, in _H. C. Oc._, iv, p. 504; Ordericus, iv, pp. 72-75;

Fulcher, pp. 320-321, 342-343; _Translatio S. Nicolai Venetiam_, in _H.

C. Oc._, v, p. 271.

APPENDIX F

THE BATTLE OF TINCHEBRAY[1]

The tactics of the battle of Tinchebray have been the subject of much

discussion among recent writers, including the specialists in military

history. There is general agreement as to the strategical stroke by which

the victory was won, viz., a surprise attack upon the flank of the ducal

forces by a band of mounted knights from Maine and Brittany. But as to

the disposition of the troops in the two main armies, widely different

views are held upon two points.

(1) Oman thinks that the battle formation on each side was an extended

line made up of a right, centre, and left.[2] Ramsay, on the other hand,

holds that the opposing forces were “marshalled in column, in successive

divisions”;[3] and this view is accepted by Drummond,[4] by Delbrück,[5]

and by Davis,[6] the two latter conjecturing a formation in échelon.

Ramsay’s view is pretty clearly supported by the sources. Ordericus

Vitalis (iv, p. 229) designates a first, second, and third _acies_, or

division, on the side of the king, and a first and last (_extrema_)

_acies_ on the side of the duke; and, according to his account, only the

first _acies_, i.e., the leading elements, of the two opposing forces

engaged in the fighting. The contemporary letter of a priest of Fécamp,

which is discussed below, is also specific with regard to the royal

forces, describing a first and a second _acies_.[7]

(2) The larger question in debate between the specialists, however,

turns upon the relative importance of cavalry and infantry in the battle

of Tinchebray. Oman, relying upon a very specific passage in Henry of

Huntingdon (p. 235), and placing a strained interpretation upon Ordericus

Vitalis (iv, p. 229), holds that the battle was almost wholly an affair

of infantry, and therefore almost without precedent in the tactics of the

period.[8] For Ramsay, on the other hand, it was mainly an engagement

of cavalry, the foot soldiers playing but a minor part.[9] Drummond has

gone even further and taken great pains to demonstrate that it was a

“ganze normale Schlacht des XII. Jahrhunderts,” i.e., a battle between

mounted knights, the foot soldiery that happened to be present being held

entirely in reserve;[10] and Drummond’s conclusions have been accepted

without question by Delbrück.[11]