Chron. Wig. 1052. “Þæt mycel unræd wære þæt hy togedere comon [see

vol. i. p. 435], forþam þær wæs mæst þæt rotoste þæt was on Ænglalande

on þam twam gefylcum; and leton þæt hi urum feondum rymdon to lande,

and betwyx us sylfum to mycclum forwyrde.”

Footnote 441:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “Ða gerædden þa witan on ægðer halfe, þæt man ða

ælces yfeles geswác, and geaf se cyng godes grið and his fulne

freondscipe on ægðre healfe.”

Footnote 442:

See Appendix L.

Footnote 443:

Ib.

Footnote 444:

So I infer from the Peterborough Chronicle, 1048; “Ða cwæð man Swegen

eorl útlah, and stefnode man Godwine eorle and Harolde eorle to þon

gemote.” The Worcester Chronicle puts it a little later, along with

the demand for the hostages.

Footnote 445:

See above, p. 108.

Footnote 446:

Vita Eadw. 402. “Elaborante Stigando ... qui etiam tunc medius ibat,

procrastinata est judicii dies, dum Rex suorum uteretur consiliou.”

Footnote 447:

Vita Eadw. 402.

Footnote 448:

Such on the whole I take to be the meaning of the very difficult

expressions of the two Chroniclers, which I have discussed at length

in Appendix L.

Footnote 449:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “And his wered wanode æfre þe leng þe swiðor.”

Footnote 450:

Vita Eadw. 402. “Eo [Rodberto] agente tandem a Rege prolata est in

Ducem hæc indissolubilis caussæ quæ agebatur diffinitio; Illum

scilicet à Rege tunc primùm posse sperare pacem, ubi ei reddidit vivum

suum fratrem cum suis omnibus et quæ eis viventibus vel interfectis

ablata sunt cum integritate eorum.”

Footnote 451:

Chron. Petrib. “Ða geornde se eorl eft griðes and gisla, þæt he moste

hine betellan æt ælc þæra þinga þe him man onlede.”

Footnote 452:

William of Malmesbury (ii. 199), from whom I get the materials of

Godwine’s answer, makes them call the Assembly “conventiculum

factiosorum.”

Footnote 453:

Will. Malms. u. s. “Si veniant inermes, vitæ timeri dispendium; si

paucos stipatores habeant, gloriæ fore opprobrium.”

Footnote 454:

Kemble, ii. 231. “They very properly declined, under such

circumstances, to appear.”

Footnote 455:

Vita Eadw. p. 402. “Flente nimium episcopo Stigando, qui hujus

legationis mœrens bajulus erat, _reppulit à se mensam quæ adstabat_,

equis ascensis, viam ad Bosanham maritimam celeriùs tetendit.” This

little touch, coming from a contemporary and friendly writer,

increases our confidence in the story of the Biographer, difficult, as

it is, at first sight to reconcile with the Chronicles.

Footnote 456:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “For ða on niht awæg; and se cyng hæfde þæs on

morgen witenagemot.”

Footnote 457:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “Se cyng ... cwæd hine utlage, and _eall here_.” See

above, p. 104.

Footnote 458:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. “And sceawede him mann v. nihta grið út of lande

to farenne.” See vol. i. p. 561.

Footnote 459:

To “Bosenham,” according to the Peterborough Chronicler and the

Biographer; to “Thornege,” according to the Worcester Chronicler and

Florence. As it is of course the South-Saxon Thorney near Chichester

(see Lappenberg, 509) which is meant, the two accounts no doubt merely

refer to different stages of the same journey.

Footnote 460:

Vita Eadw. 404. “Tum pro antiquæ fœderationis jure, tum pro multorum

ipsius Ducis beneficiorum vicissitudine.” One would like to know more

of this connexion between Godwine and Baldwin. It is odd, when we

think of the war of 1049, that the Biographer (p. 403) calls Baldwin

“antiquum Anglicæ gentis amicum.”

Footnote 461:

See above, p. 134.

Footnote 462:

Chron. Wig. “Mid swa miclum gærsuman swa hi mihton þær on mæst

gelogian to ælcum mannum.” Cf. Florence and the Biographer, 402. “Cum

conjuge et liberis et omnibus quæ illius erant ad manum.”

Footnote 463:

“Cum magno honore.” Vita Eadw. 404.

Footnote 464:

Chron. Petrib. “And gesohton Baldewines grið, and wunodon þær ealne

þone winter.” Vita Eadw. 404. “Hiemati sunt à Comite Baldwino in

Flandriam.”

Footnote 465:

The younger members of the family, Wulfnoth, Ælfgifu, Gunhild, and

Hakon the son of Swegen, are not mentioned. They doubtless accompanied

Godwine and are included among the “liberi” of the Biographer.

Footnote 466:

See above, p. 100.

Footnote 467:

“Harold eorl and Leofwine,” says the Worcester Chronicle; the

Biographer has “Haroldus et Leof_ricus_.” See Appendix F. The

Peterborough Chronicle mentions Harold only.

Footnote 468:

Vita Eadw. 404. “Transfretaverant in Hiberniam, ut, inde adductâ

militari copiâ, patris ulciscerentur injuriam.”

Footnote 469:

See vol. i. p. 365. Compare also the passage about Bristol with which

William of Malmesbury winds up his panegyric on Gloucestershire (Gest.

Pont, in Scriptt. p. Bed. 161). “In eâdem valle est vicus celeberrimus

Bristow nomine, in quo est navium portus ab Hiberniâ et Noregiâ et

cæteris transmarinis terris venientium receptaculum, ne scilicet

genitalibus divitiis tam fortunata regio peregrinarum opum fraudaretur

commercio.”

Footnote 470:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “Harold eorl and Leofwine foran to Brycgstowe, on

þæt scip þe Swegen eorl hæfde him silfum ær gegearcod and gemetsod.”

Footnote 471:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “And se cining sende Ealdred biscop of Lundene mid

genge, and sceoldon hine ofridan ær he to scipe come. Ac hi ne mihton

oððe hi noldon.” Compare the unwillingness of the Earls under

Harthacnut to act against Worcester, vol. i. p. 581. According to the

Biographer (403), Godwine was also pursued, through the devices of

Archbishop Robert.

Footnote 472:

Chron. Wig. u. s.

Footnote 473:

Vita Eadw. 404. “Hiemati sunt à Rege Dermodo in Hiberniam.” These

words at once explain the whole matter, and give us the true

explanation of the otherwise difficult expression in the Peterborough

Chronicle, “Harold eorl gewende west to Yrlande, and wæs þær ealne

þone winter, _on þes cynges griðe_.” Sir Francis Palgrave (Hist. Ang.

Sax. 342) takes this King to be Eadward, and says, “Harold crossed to

Ireland, and he was so far favoured as to be allowed to remain in that

country under the king’s protection. This fact should be noticed,

because it seems to show that he was not considered as being out of

the king’s dominions; or, in other words, that the opposité coast of

Ireland was part of Eadward’s realm.” This is rather slight evidence,

even with the further support of a spurious charter (see vol. i. p.

66), to prove that Ireland, or its eastern coast, was part of the

English Empire. Lappenberg (510; Mr. Thorpe’s version, ii. 250, again

does not represent the original) saw that, odd as the expression is,

an Irish King must be meant, and now the Life of Eadward puts the

matter beyond doubt. The “grið” of Diarmid answers to the “grið” of

Baldwin.

Footnote 474:

Diarmid conquered the Fine-gall or Danish district in 1052, according

to the Four Masters (ii. 860) and Dr. Todd (Wars of Gaedhil and Gaill,

291); in 1050, according to the Chronica Scotorum, 280. The incidental

evidence of the Biographer shows the earlier date to be the right one.

Footnote 475:

Will. Malms. ii. 199. “Ne scilicet omnibus suis parentibus patriam

suspirantibus sola _sterteret_ in plumâ.” This odd phrase sounds like

a real sneer of some contemporary Frenchman.

Footnote 476:

Vita Eadw. 403. See above, p. 47. Florence says “repudiavit.”

Footnote 477:

The Worcester Chronicle, Florence, and the Biographer do not mention

the seizure of the Lady’s property. The Peterborough Chronicle says,

“þa forlet se cyng þa hlæfdian, seo wæs gehalgod him to cwene, and let

niman of hire eall þæt heo ahte on lande and on golde and on seolfre.”

So William of Malmesbury; “Omnis reginæ substantia ad unum nummum

emuncta.”

Footnote 478:

Both the Chronicles are quite colourless on this head; it is simply

“man gebrohte,” “betæhte.” So William of Malmesbury. But Florence says

“cum unâ pedissequâ ad Hwereweallam eam sine honore misit.” In the

Life of Eadward (403), on the other hand, we read, “Cum regio honore

et imperiali comitatu, mœrens tamen perducitur.” The narrative,

addressed to Eadgyth herself, is here the better authority.

Footnote 479:

Wherwell, according to all our authorities, except the Biographer. He

says Wilton. As he could hardly be mistaken on such a point, and as

the evidence for Wherwell seems conclusive, we must set down Wilton as

a clerical error.

Footnote 480:

The Worcester Chronicle, Florence, and the Biographer do not mention

the kindred of the Abbess with the King; it is assumed by the

Peterborough Chronicle and by William of Malmesbury.

Footnote 481:

On the daughters of Æthelred see vol. i. pp. 358, 363, 378, 458.

Footnote 482:

See vol. i. p. 341.

Footnote 483:

Vita Eadw. 397. See Appendix F.

Footnote 484:

Vita Eadw. 403. Twenty hexameters are devoted to the comparison.

Footnote 485:

Chron. Wig. 1052. “Þæt wolde ðyncan wundorlic ælcum men þe on

Englalande wæs, gif ænig man ær þam sæde þæt hit swa gewurþan sceolde.

Forðam þe he wæs ær to þam swyce up ahafen, swyðe he weolde þæs cynges

and ealles Englalandes, and his sunan wæron eorlas and þæs cynges

dyrlingas, and his dohtor þæm cynge bewedded and beawnod.”

Footnote 486:

See vol. i. pp. 448.

Footnote 487:

See Appendix G.

Footnote 488:

See Appendix G.

Footnote 489:

See vol. i. p. 338.

Footnote 490:

Chron. Wig. 1056. “Se wæs to munece gehadod ær his ende. god man and

clæne and swiðe æðele.” Cf. Chron. Ab. and Fl. Wig. in anno. Florence

seems to translate “clæne” by “virginitatis custos.” He built the

present church of Deerhurst (see vol. i. p. 387), as an offering for

the soul of his brother Ælfric. See Earle, p. 345.

Footnote 491:

Chron. Petrib. 1048. Will. Malms. ii. 199. “Comitatus ejus [Haroldi]

attributus Elgaro, Leofrici filio, viro industrio; quem ille

suscipiens tunc rexit nobiliter, reverso restituit libenter.”

Footnote 492:

The Biographer (401, 2) mentions his coming to Gloucester along with

his father and Siward.

Footnote 493:

See above, p. 122.

Footnote 494:

Chron. Wig. 1052. Petrib. 1048. Flor. Wig. 1051.

Footnote 495:

Flor. Wig. 1052.

Footnote 496:

Chron. Wig. 1052. Flor. Wig. 1051.

Footnote 497:

In this Chapter I have had of course mainly to depend on the Norman

writers as my authorities. The Latin writers are to be found in the

great collection of Duchèsne. The first place is of course due to

William of Poitiers. His _Gesta Guillelmi_ has every advantage which

can belong to the writings of a well-informed contemporary. But the

work is disfigured by his constant spirit of violent partizanship (see

above, p. 4). He must therefore be always followed with great caution,

and in all purely English matters he is utterly untrustworthy. The

beginning of his work is lost, so that we have no account from him of

his hero’s birth and childhood. William Calculus, a monk of Jumièges,

according to Orderic (Prol. ad Lib. iii. p. 458), abridged Dudo, and

continued the History of Normandy, through the reigns of Richard the

Good, Richard the Third, Robert, and of William himself down to the

Battle of Senlac (Ord. Vit. 618 D), presenting his work to William

himself. This portion of the existing work ends at lib. vii. c. 42. He

seems afterwards to have added the account of William’s death (vii.

44), in which William of Poitiers and Guy of Amiens are spoken of. An

eighth book, together with many interpolations in the earlier books,

were added by a later hand, apparently by Robert of Torigny, Abbot of

Saint Michael’s Mount, commonly called Robert de Monte (see Pertz, vi.

475). William of Jumièges begins to be a contemporary writer in

William’s reign; with perhaps smaller opportunities of information

than William of Poitiers, he is less violently prejudiced, and his

work is of great value. His narrative forms the groundwork of the

poetical history in the Roman de Rou. Its author, Robert Wace, Canon

of Bayeux in the time of Henry the Second, seems to have been a really

honest and painstaking inquirer, and I do not look on his work as

being any the less trustworthy on account of its poetical shape. But

of course, whenever he departs from contemporary authority, and merely

sets down floating traditions nearly a hundred years after the latest

events which he records, his statements need to be very carefully

weighed. I have used M. Pluquet’s edition (Rouen, 1827) and the

English Translation of part of the work by Mr. Edgar Taylor, whose

genealogical and topographical notes are of great value. The other

rhyming chronicler, Benoît de Sainte-More, is of a far more romantic

turn than Robert Wace, and is therefore of much smaller historical

authority. Still he also preserves many curious traditions. Orderic

Vital, whose work becomes afterwards of such preeminent importance, is

just now beginning to be of use, but as yet his main value is for

information about Norman families and Norman monasteries. But his

constant repetitions and utter lack of arrangement make him still more

difficult to read or consult than William of Malmesbury himself.

Footnote 498:

Chron. Petrib. 1087. “Gif hwa gewilnigeð to gewitane hu gedon mann he

wæs, oððe hwilcne wurðscipe he hæfde, oððe hu fela lande he wære

hlaford, þonne wille we be him awritan swa swa we hine ageaton, _þe

him on locodan and oðre hwile on his hirede wunedon_.”

Footnote 499:

See the article “Lucius Cornelius Sulla” in the National Review,

January, 1862.

Footnote 500:

Chron. Petrib. 1087. “He wæs milde þam godum mannum þe God lufedon,

and ofer eall gemett stearc þam mannum þe wiðcwædon his willan.” The

former clause is rather oddly altered in the version of Robert of

Gloucester (p. 374);

“To hem þat wolde his wylle do, debonere he was and mylde,

And to hem þat hym wyþ seyde strong tyrant and wylde.”

Footnote 501:

Chron. Petrib. 1087. “Betwyx oðrum þingum nis na to forgytane þæt gode

frið þe he macode on þisan lande, swa þæt án man þe himsylf aht wære

mihte faran ofer his rice mid his bosum full goldes ungederad.” This

last is of course the same traditional formula which is used to set

forth the good government of Eadwine, Ælfred, and others. The writer

carries out the panegyric on William’s strict police at some length.

All this is of course praise of exactly the same kind as that bestowed

on Godwine and Harold. See above, pp. 34, 40, and the passages there

referred to.

Footnote 502:

I conceive that this idea owes its prevalence mainly to the false

Ingulf; still we have to account for the notion presenting itself to

the mind of the forger.

Footnote 503:

See Palgrave, iii. 522.

Footnote 504:

On the surnames of William, see Appendix M.

Footnote 505:

Rod. Glab. iv. 6. “Fuit enim usui a primo adventu ipsius gentis in

Gallias, ut superiùs pernotavimus, ex hujusmodi concubinarum

commixtione illorum Principes exstitisse.” He goes on, if not to

justify, at least to palliate, the practice, by the examples of the

patriarch Jacob and the Emperor Constantius. British patriotism would

perhaps not have endured that the mother of Constantine should be

dragged down to the level of the mother of William.

Footnote 506:

See vol. i. p. 203.

Footnote 507:

See vol. i. p. 232.

Footnote 508:

For the sieges of Falaise in 1417 and 1450, see Monstrelet, i. 263 and

iii. 30 _b_ (ed. Paris 1595). Talbot was not actually present during

the defence against the French King.

Footnote 509:

More probably, I think, of the twelfth than of the eleventh. Not that

I at all think the building of such a castle to have been impossible

in the eleventh century, but because it seems likely that Falaise was

one of the castles which were destroyed and rebuilt in the wars of

William and his successors. This point is well put by M.

Ruprich-Robert, the architect employed by the powers which at present

bear rule over Falaise and all Normandy in the “restoration”—that is,

of course, the destruction—of this venerable keep. See his “Rapport,”

1864, p. 27.

Footnote 510:

Will. Brit. Philipp. lib. viii. Duchèsne, Hist. Franc. Scriptt. v.

183;

“Vicus erat scabrâ circumdatus undique rupe,

Ipsius asperitate loci Falesa vocatus,

Normannæ in medio regionis, cujus in altâ

Turres rupe sedent et mœnia, sic ut ad illam

Jactus nemo putet aliquos contingere posse.”

Footnote 511:

Stapleton, Roll of the Norman Exchequer, i. xcvi.; ii. cix.

Footnote 512:

See Appendix N. On the Birth of William.

Footnote 513:

Herod. iii. 2.

Footnote 514:

Malcolm’s History of Persia, i. 70.

Footnote 515:

Will. Malms. iii. 229. R. Wend. i. 469. Cf. Chron. Alberici, 1035 (ap.

Leibnitz, Accessiones, ii. 66), and Appendix N.

Footnote 516:

Benoît de Ste. More, 31216 et seqq. (vol. ii. p. 555), who becomes

rapturous in his description of her beauty. He makes Robert see her on

his return from hunting. Local tradition, endowing Robert with a

singular power of discerning beauty at a distance, makes him see her

from a window of the castle.

Footnote 517:

Benoît, 31276.

Footnote 518:

Roman de Rou, 7998. Bromton, 910. Benoît, 31441 et seqq.

Footnote 519:

See Appendix N.

Footnote 520:

Will. Gem. vii. 3. “Willelmus ex concubinâ Roberti Ducis, nomine

Herlevâ, _Fulberti cubicularii Ducis_ filiâ, natus.”

Footnote 521:

Ord. Vit. 656 D.

Footnote 522:

Will. Gem. vii. 3. See Appendix N.

Footnote 523:

See Appendix N.

Footnote 524:

Roman de Rou, 8021. Will. Malms. iii. 229.

Footnote 525:

Ib. 8037. Will. Malms. iii. 229.

Footnote 526:

See Appendix N.

Footnote 527:

See vol. i. p. 479.

Footnote 528:

Will. Gem. viii. 36.

Footnote 529:

Ord. Vit. 566 B. “Conjugem nomine Herlevam _ut Comes_ habuit, ex quâ

tres filios Ricardum, Radulfum, et Guillelmum genuit, quibus

Ebroicensem comitatum et alios honores amplissimos secundum jus sæculi

distribuit.”

Footnote 530:

Ord. Vit. 566 C. This church was finished by Maurilius in 1063. Ib.

568 B. See Pommeraye, Concilia Ecclesiæ Rotomagensis, p. 73. Bessin,

Concilia, p. 49. No part of the building remains. The account of the

Archbishops of Rouen in Mabillon (Vet. Anal. ii. 438), written while

Robert’s church was standing (“Ecclesiam _præsentem_ miro opere et

magnitudine ædificare cœpit”), gives him much the same character.

“Ante obitum suum, gratiâ Dei præveniente, vitam suam correxit.

Feminam enim reliquit, et de hoc ceterisque pravis actibus suis

pœnitentiam egit, et sic bono fine, in quantum humana fragilitas

capere potest, quievit.”

Footnote 531:

See vol. i. p. 514.

Footnote 532:

See vol. i. p. 508.

Footnote 533:

Will. Gem. vii. 7.

Footnote 534:

Will. Gem. u. s. Will. Malms. iii. 232. William of Malmesbury says

“patruus ejus, sed nothus,” but William of Jumièges distinctly calls

Papia the wife of Richard; “aliam uxorem nomine Papiam duxit.” So

Chron. Fontanellense, ap. D’Achery, iii. 289; “Papia matrimonio

Richardi potita.”

Footnote 535:

See vol. i. p. 518.

Footnote 536:

See vol. i. p. 518.

Footnote 537:

See Palgrave, ii. 536.

Footnote 538:

“Willame Talevaz,” according to the Roman de Rou, 8061. “Willelmus

Talvacius,” Will. Gem. vi. 7.

Footnote 539:

Roman de Rou, 8062. “Ki tint Sez, Belesme, è Vinaz.”

Footnote 540:

Ivo, son of the elder William, a Prelate of whom Orderic draws a very

favourable picture (469 D), did not scruple to attack and burn his own

church, when it had been turned into a fortress by certain turbulent

nobles. He tried to repair it, and reconsecrated it; but the walls,

being damaged by the fire, fell down. He was then charged with

sacrilege at the Council of Rheims, and defended himself by the

necessity of the case. He was bidden by Pope Leo, as a penance, to

rebuild the church. He went as far as Apulia, and even as

Constantinople, collecting contributions and relics, and he began the

work on such a scale that, forty years later, the efforts of his three

successors had not enabled them to finish it. Will. Gem. vii. 13–15.

No part of his building now remains.

Footnote 541:

Will. Gem. viii. 35. See Palgrave, ii. 313, 536.

Footnote 542:

Will. Gem. vi. 4. See vol. i. p. 518.

Footnote 543:

Will. Gem. vi. 7. “Ipse cunctis fratribus suis in omnibus flagitiis

deterior fuit, et in ejus seminis hæredibus immoderata nequitia usque

hodie viguit.” So vii. 10. “Hic à parentum suorum perfidiâ nequaquam

sua retorsit vestigia.”

Footnote 544:

Ib. vii. 10.

Footnote 545:

Ib. Orderic (460 D) adds, “amputatis genitalibus.” These stories of

the extreme wickedness of the house of Belesme are doubtless not

without foundation, but one cannot help suspecting exaggeration,

especially when we remember that Orderic writes in the interest of the

hostile house of Geroy. This particular outrage of William Talvas can

hardly be an invention; but it must surely have had some motive which

does not appear in our authorities.

Footnote 546:

Ib. 12. The tale is that he one day went out with his followers

(clientes) to rob, and seized on the pig of a certain nun (“inter

reliqua porcum cujusdam sanctimonialis rapuit”). The holy woman

pleaded earnestly for the restoration of her favourite (“gemens eum

insecuta est, ac, ut porcellus quem nutrierat, sibi pro Deo

redderetur, obnixè deprecata est”), but all was in vain; the oppressor

killed the pig and ate him for supper. The same night he was strangled

in his bed. In those times no alternative was thought of except a

supernatural intervention, and an assassination by Arnulf’s brother

Oliver. But our historian altogether rejects this last view, as

inconsistent with the high character of Oliver, who passed many years

as a brave and honourable knight, and at last died in the odour of

sanctity as a monk of Bec.

This story contains nothing absolutely incredible; yet one is tempted

to see in it a slightly ludicrous version of Nathan’s parable,

assuming a form impossible under the elder dispensation. Arnulf too

does not seem to have had even the poor excuse of the presence of a

wayfaring man.

Footnote 547:

Roman de Rou, 8059 et seqq. Palgrave, iii. 149.

Footnote 548:

Will. Gem. vi. 12. “Robertum ergo archiepiscopum cum optimatibus sui

Ducatûs accersivit.” This looks as if Robert were the only churchman

present. See vol. i. p. 197. Wace (8081) gathers together Bishops,

Abbots, and Barons, but perhaps only in conformity with the custom of

his own time.

Footnote 549:

Roman de Rou. 8091 et seqq.

Footnote 550:

Roman de Rou, 8107 et seqq.

“Il est peti, mais il creistra,

E se Deu plaist amendera.

· · · · ·

Cil est de vostre norreture.”

Footnote 551:

Ib. 8105.

“Par li cunseil el Rei de France,

Ki l’maintiendra o sa poessance.”

Footnote 552:

Will. Gem. vi. 12. “Exponens autem eis Willelmum filium suum, quem

unicum apud Falesiam genuerat, ab eis attentissime _exigebat, ut hunc

sibi loco sui dominum eligerent_, et militiæ suæ principem

præficerent.” A good precedent for the _congé d’élire_ and letter

missive.

Footnote 553:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Juxta decretum Ducis protinùs eum promptâ vivacitate

suum collaudavere principem ac dominum, pangentes illi fidelitatem non

violandis sacramentis.” Cf. Roman de Rou, 8117 et seqq. The events

which followed make one doubt as to the genuineness of the “prompta

vivacitas.”

Footnote 554:

Roman de Rou, 8125.

“Li Dus por la chose afermer,

E por fere lunges durer,

Al Rei de France l’ad mené,

E par li puing li a livré;

Sun home le fist devenir

E de Normendie seisir.”

There is nothing however to imply that William stayed longer at Paris

than was needed for the ceremony. It is an exaggeration when we read

in the Winchester Annals (p. 19 Luard), “Willelmo filio Roberti Ducis

juvenculo morante cum Rege Francorum in Galliis.” Rudolf Glaber (iv.

6) describes the accession of William in much the same way as the

national writers; “Cui [Willelmo] antequam proficisceretur, universos

sui ducaminis principes militaribus adstrinxit sacramentis, qualiter

illum in Principem pro se, si non rediret, eligerent. Quod etiam

statim ex consensu Regis Francorum Henrici unanimiter postmodùm

firmaverunt.” Does the phrase “militaribus sacramentis” mean “on their

knightly honour,” or is it merely a pedantic reference to the Roman

military oath?

Footnote 555:

See vol. i. p. 529.

Footnote 556:

Will. Malms. iii. 230. “Clarissima olim patria, intestinis

dissensionibus exulcerata, pro latronum libito dividebatur, ut merito

posset querimoniam facere, ‘Væ terræ cujus Rex puer est.’” See

Ecclesiastes x. 16. The same text is used by R. Glaber, iv. 5, with a

more general application.

Footnote 557:

William of Jumièges (vii. 1) distinctly makes the building of these

castles one of the main signs and causes of the general disorder of

the country. “Sub ejus ineunte ætate, Normannorum plurimi aberrantes

ab ejus fidelitate, plura per loca aggeres erexerunt, et tutissimas

sibi munitiones construxerunt. Quarum dum auderent fisi munimine,

protinùs inter eos diversi motus exoriuntur, seditiones concitantur,

ac sæva patriæ incendia ubique perpetrantur,” &c. So William of

Malmesbury (iii. 230); “Mox quisque sua munire oppida, turres agere,

frumenta comportare, caussas aucupari quibus quamprimùm à puero

dissidia meditarentur.” The “agger” is the “mote” or mound on which

the Norman castles were so often built. The word came almost to be

used for the castle itself. In the Roman de Rou, 8847, a knight is

described as standing at his gate “Entre li mostier è _sa mote_,” that

is, between the church and his own castle. According to Mr. Clark, the

“agger” or “mote” was commonly an earlier earthwork made use of by the

builders of the eleventh and twelfth centuries (Old London, p. 16).

Yet the rebellious nobles are here clearly described as throwing up

“aggeres” for the express purpose of building their castles, and we

can hardly believe that the “tutissimæ munitiones” were of wood.

Footnote 558:

See above, p. 138.

Footnote 559:

Chron. Wig. 1066. “And Oda biscop and Wyllelm eorl belifen her æfter,

and worhton castelas wide geond þas þeode, and earm folc swencte, and

á syððan hit yflade swiðe.” Chron. Petrib. 1087. “Castelas he lét

wyrcean, and earme men swiðe swencean.” The famous description of the

castle-building in the year 1137 is familiar to readers even of the

commonest English histories.

Footnote 560:

See above, p. 140.

Footnote 561:

See the story quoted in p. 185.

Footnote 562:

See vol. i. p. 526.

Footnote 563:

Roman de Rou, 8131;

“A Alain qui esteit sis huem,

Par l’Archeveske de Ruem,

Livra sa terre à cumandise,

Cum à senescal è justise.”

Footnote 564:

The “Turoldus” of William of Jumièges (vii. 2), and the “Turchetillus”

of Orderic (656 C), certainly seem to be the same person.

Footnote 565:

See vol. i. p. 284.

Footnote 566:

Will. Gem. viii. 37. “Gislebertus fuerat filius Godefridi Comitis

Aucensis, naturalis videlicet filii primi Richardi Ducis Normannorum.”

See vol. i. p. 279.

Footnote 567:

See vol. i. p. 198. Gilbert is called “Comes Ocensis” by William of

Jumièges (vii. 2), and the same writer (iv. 18) also says, “Licet

Comes Gislebertus filius Godefridi Comitis ipsum comitatum parumper

tenuerit, antequam occideretur.” But see Stapleton, i. lvi.

Footnote 568:

Will. Gem. vii. 33. “Alanum patrem meum apud Winmusterium in Normanniâ

veneno peremisti.” But the Breton Chronicle in Morice (Memoires pour

servir de Preuves à l’histoire de Bretagne) says only, “1039. Obiit

Alanus Dux Britanniæ filius Gauffredi. 3 Kal. Oct.” Cf. Roman de Rou,

8139;

“Murut Alains a Normandie;

A Fescamp jut en l’Abéie.”

See Prevost’s note, i. 403.

Footnote 569:

Roman de Rou, 8136.

Footnote 570:

Orderic (567 A) says distinctly, “Alannum Comitem Britonum suique

Ducis tutorem Normanni veneno perimere.”

Footnote 571:

Will. Gem. vii. 2. Will. Malms. iii. 230. “Interfecto Gisleberto a

Radulpho patruele suo, ubique cædes, ubique ignes versabantur.”

Footnote 572:

This seems the meaning of the context of the passage from William of

Jumièges quoted just above.

Footnote 573:

Ord. Vit. 686 D.

Footnote 574:

Will. Gem. vii. 2.

Footnote 575:

Ib. “In Normanniâ summoperè inserviebant diris facinoribus.”

Footnote 576:

Ib. viii. 37.

Footnote 577:

Ib. viii. 35.

Footnote 578:

Ib. vii. 16. See above, p. 185. William gives the daughters of Roger

and Mabel a good character. Of the sons he says, “Illi ferales et

cupidi, et inopum rabidi oppressores exstiterunt. Quam callidi, vel

militares, seu perfidi fuerint, aut quantùm super vicinos paresque

suos excreverint, iterumque sub eis pro facinoribus suis decederint,

non est nostrum in hoc loco enarrare.”

Footnote 579:

Ib. “Præfata mulier erat corpore parva, multùmque loquax, ad malum

satis prompta, et sagax atque faceta, nimiùmque crudelis et audax,”

Above, vii. 10, she is “Mabilia, crudelissimæ sobolis mater.” So Ord.

Vit. 470 A; “Præfata Mabilia multùm erat potens et sæcularis, callida

et loquax, nimiumque crudelis.”

Footnote 580:

Ord. Vit. 667 B. “Rogerius Merciorum Comes.”

Footnote 581:

Will. Gem. vii. 2. See Palgrave, iii. 198. Stapleton, i. cxxvi.

Footnote 582:

Will. Gem. ib. “Deinde [after the death of Gilbert] Turoldus teneri

Ducis pædagogus perimitur à perfidis patriæ desertoribus.”

Footnote 583:

This is the way in which I read the story in William of Jumièges (vii.

2), compared with that put into Duke William’s own mouth by Orderic

(656 C). Sir Francis Palgrave seems to make Thorold and Osbern be

murdered at once (199). But William of Jumièges seems to make these

murders two distinct events. After the passage just quoted he goes on,

“Osbernus quoque ... quâdam nocte, dum in cubiculo Ducis cum ipso in

Valle Rodoili securus soporatur, repente in stratu suo à Willelmo

Rogerii de Monte-gumeri filio jugulatus.” Orderic puts the murders of

Gilbert, Thorold (or Thurcytel), and Osbern together in general terms;

“Turchetillum nutricium meum et Osbernum Herfasti filium, Normanniæ

dapiferum, Comitemque Gislebertum patrem patriæ, cum multis aliis

reipublicæ necessariis fraudulenter interfecerunt.” The murder of

Osbern can hardly fail to have been one of the occasions so

pathetically referred to in Orderic; “Noctibus multotiens cognatorum

timore meorum à Gualterio avunculo meo de camerâ principali furtim

exportatus sum, ac ad domicilia latebrasque pauperum, ne à perfidis,

qui ad mortem me quærebant, invenirer, translatus sum.”

Footnote 584:

Will. Gem. vii. 2. “Barno quippe de Glotis, præpositus Osberni,

injustam necem domini sui cupiens ulcisci, nocte quadam expeditos

pugiles congregavit, et domum, ubi Willelmus et complices sui

dormiebant, adiit, ac omnes simul, sicut meruerant, statim

trucidavit.”

Footnote 585:

See vol. i. p. 514.

Footnote 586:

Will. Gem. vii. 3. “Comperiens autem quod Willelmus puer in Ducatu

patri successerit, vehementer indignatus est, et tumidè despexit illi

servire, dicens quod nothus non deberet sibi aliisque Normannis

imperare.”

Footnote 587:

See Will. Gem. vii. 3; viii. 37. Ord. Vit. 460 C.

Footnote 588:

Garnier, Vie de S. Thomas, 1830 (p. 66 ed. Hippeau); “E cil [quens] de

Leicestre, ke mut par est senez.” So William Fitz-Stephen (i. 235

Giles); “Comes Legecestriæ Robertus, qui maturitate ætatis et morum

aliis prominebat;” and Herbert of Bosham (i. 147 Giles); “Nobilis vir

Robertus, tunc Leicestræ Comes, inter honoratos honoratior.”

Footnote 589:

Amicia, daughter of Robert, third Earl of Leicester, married Simon the

Third, Lord of Montfort. She was the mother of Simon the leader of the

Crusade against the Albigenses, and the grandmother of our own Simon

the Righteous. See Pauli, Simon von Montfort, 19, 20.

Footnote 590:

Will. Gem. vii. 4. “Rodulphum de Wacceio ex consultu majorum sibi

tutorem eligit, et principem militiæ Normannorum constituit.”

Footnote 591:

See above, p. 195.

Footnote 592:

The expressions of William of Jumièges (vii. 4) are remarkable;

“Henricum igitur Regem Francorum adeunt, et titiones ejus per

Normannicos limites hac illacque spargunt. Quos nominatim litteris

exprimerem, si inexorabilia eorum odia declinare nollem. Attamen non

alii exstiterunt, vobis in aure loquor circumstantibus, quam hi qui

fideliores se profitentur et quos nunc majoribus Dux cumulavit

honoribus.”

Footnote 593:

See vol. i. p. 247.

Footnote 594:

Vol. i. p. 272.

Footnote 595:

Vol. i. pp. 250, 269.

Footnote 596:

Vol. i. p. 519.

Footnote 597:

See above, p. 189.

Footnote 598:

See vol. i. pp. 187, 216.

Footnote 599:

Roman de Rou, 9907 et seqq. The great offence was calling the Normans

“bigoz è draschiers.” The first name has given cause to much

controversy; the second is said to mean drinkers of ale, a wholesome

witness of their Teutonic descent. But cf. Æsch. Suppl. 930;

ἀλλ’ ἄρσενάς τοι τῆσδε γῆς οἰκήτορας

εὑρήσετ’, οὐ πίνοντας ἐκ κριθῶν μέθυ.

Footnote 600:

See vol. i. p. 189. The whole feeling between France and Normandy is

best summed up in the passage from Wace referred to in p. 201,

especially the lines,

“Sovent les unt medlé al Rei,

Sovent dient: Sire, por kei

Ne tollez la terre as bigoz?

A vos ancessors e as nos

La tolirent lor ancessor,

Ki par mer vindrent robéor.”

The feeling is thus represented as mainly a popular one.

Footnote 601:

See vol. i. pp. 509–511.

Footnote 602:

Art de verifier les Dates, ii. 670.

Footnote 603:

Will. Gem. vii. 5. “Duxit se placabilem ei nullo modo fore, quamdiu

Tegulense castrum videret in pristino statu persistere.”

Footnote 604:

Will. Gem. vii. 5. “Cujus fraudes animi ob salutem pueri vitare

cupientes, in fide stantes Normanni decreverunt fieri quod egisse

postmodum pœnituit.”

Footnote 605:

On the family of Crispin or of Tillières see Stapleton, i. cxx.; ii.

xliv. There is a special treatise, “De nobili Crispinorum Genere,”

which will be found in Giles’ Lanfranc, i. 340. This Gilbert must not

be confounded with Count Gilbert of Brionne, who seems also to be

called Crispin. See Prevost, note on Roman de Rou, ii. 5.

Footnote 606:

Will. Gem. vii. 5. “Mox ut molestissimum agnovit decretum.”

Footnote 607:

Ib. “Exercitibus tam Francorum quam Normannorum contractis.”

Footnote 608:

Ib. “Gislebertus tandem, precibus Ducis victus, mœrens castrum

reddidit.”

Footnote 609:

Ib. “Quod [castrum] sub oculis omnium sub maximo dolore cordis

confestim igne concremari perspexit.” The speedy restoration of the

fortress, of which we shall hear directly, shows what is really meant

by this burning. That the castle was wholly of wood is inconceivable.

But all the wooden appendages, all the roofs, floors, and fittings of

the main building, were burned. The principal tower would thus remain

dismantled, blackened, perhaps a little damaged in its masonry, but

quite fit to be made available again in a short time.

Footnote 610:

Will. Gem. vii. 5. “Sacramenta quæ Duci juraverat ne à quoquam suo in

quatuor annis reficerentur, irrita fecit.”

Footnote 611:

Ib.

Footnote 612:

Ib. vii. 6. “Turstenus cognomento Goz, Ansfridi Dani filius, qui tunc

præses Oximensis erat.”

Footnote 613:

See vol. i. pp. 211, 216, 243, 262. Without trusting all Dudo’s

details, there can be no doubt as to the general fact of these later

settlements.

Footnote 614:

Will. Gem. vii. 6. “Zelo succensus infidelitatis, regales milites

stippendiis conduxit, quos complices ad muniendum Falesiæ castellum,

ne inde Duci serviret, sibi adscivit.” The presence of the French

soldiers is thus plain enough, and their presence seems to imply the

complicity of the French King; but there seems to be no sufficient

authority for bringing in a second devastating invasion of the County

of Hiesmes by Henry in person, as we find described in the Roman de

Rou, 8526, where I do not understand Prevost’s note.

Footnote 615:

Will. Gem. vii. 6. He founded St. Gabriel’s Priory near Bayeux, the

small remains of which are among the finest Romanesque work in

Normandy. See De Caumont, Statistique Monumental du Calvados, i. 306.

Footnote 616:

See Will. Gem. viii. 38. Ord. Vit. 488 B, 522 A, B.

Footnote 617:

Will. Malms. iii. 240. “At ille, ubi primùm per ætatem potuit, militiæ

insignia à Rege Francorum accipiens, provinciales in spem quietis

erexit.”

Footnote 618:

See above, p. 172. William of Poitiers (Giles, Scriptt. Will. Conq.

80; Duchèsne, 179 B) gives him, as might be expected, a splendid

panegyric. Among other virtues we read, “Summo studio cœpit ecclesiis

Dei patrocinari, caussas impotentium tutari, jura imponere quæ non

gravarent, judicia facere quæ nequaquam ab æquitate vel temperantiâ

deviarent. Imprimis prohibere cædes, incendia, rapinas. Rebus enim

illicitis nimia ubique, ut suprà docuimus, licentia fuit.” See also

the later panegyrics on his administration of justice, p. 88, and on

his piety in 113, to which I shall have again to refer.

Footnote 619:

See vol. i. p. 220.

Footnote 620:

Ord. Vit. 566, B, C. See above, p. 180.

Footnote 621:

Robert was succeeded at Evreux by his son Richard and his grandson

William. On the death of William his inheritance passed to his sister

Agnes, wife of Simon the Second of Montfort, ancestor of the great

Simon. See the pedigrees in Duchèsne, pp. 1084, 1092, and Pauli, 19.

Footnote 622:

Will. Gem. vii. 7. Ord. Vit. 566 D. The verses on him in the series of

Archbishops are,

“Malgerius juvenis sedem suscepit honoris,

Natali clarus, sed nullo nobilis actu.”

See, for a fearful description of his misdeeds, Will. Pict. 116 ed.

Giles. Amongst other things, he never received the pallium. The list

of Archbishops in Mabillon (Vet. An. ii. 439) says, “Non electione

meriti, sed carnali parentum [_parents_ in the French sense] amore et

adulatorum suffragio in pueritiâ sedem adeptus est pontificalem; omni

destitutus tutelâ, potiùs adquievit carni et sanguini quam divinis

mandatis.”

Footnote 623:

Will. Pict. 118 Giles. Will. Gem. vii. 3, 17. Ord. Vit. 660 B. See

Appendix N.

Footnote 624:

See vol. i. p. 230.

Footnote 625:

A son of Herlwin and Herleva could not be born before 1036; Odo

therefore, at the time of his appointment, could not have been above

twelve years old.

Footnote 626:

Will. Gem. vii. 17. Ord. Vit. 664 D.

Footnote 627:

See especially the portrait of him in Orderic, u. s. William of

Poitiers (118 Giles) ventures to say, “Odonem ab annis puerilibus

optimorum numero consona præconia optimorum inseruerunt. Fertur hic in

longinquas regiones celeberrima fama; sed ipsius liberalissimi atque

_humillimi_ multa et industria et bonitas amplius meretur.”

Footnote 628:

Ord. Vit. 646 D. Here Odo is “præsumptor episcopus, cui principatus

Albionis et Neustriæ non sufficiebat.”

Footnote 629:

Ib. 665 A. Up to this time scriptural names seem to have been hardly

more usual in Normandy than in England. The sons of Archbishop Robert

bore names of the usual Teutonic cast, but his successor Malger called

his son Michael. Ib. 566 D.

Footnote 630:

On these works of Odo see Will. Gem. vii. 17. Ord. Vit. 665 A.

Orderic’s words might seem to assert a more complete rebuilding of the

cathedral than those of William. Orderic says, “Ecclesiam sanctæ Dei

genitricis Mariæ à fundamentis cœpit, eleganter consummavit.” William

has only, “Pontificalem ecclesiam in honorem sanctæ Dei genitricis

Mariæ _novam auxit_.” Perhaps this means that he rebuilt it on a

larger scale. It was consecrated, like many other Norman Churches, in

1077. Ord. Vit. 548 D. Compare the many dedications of English

churches in 1258. See Matt. Paris, 449, 481, Wats.

Footnote 631:

Ord. Vit. 765 C.

Footnote 632:

Ord. Vit. 460 A. “Quisque potentum se derisione dignum judicabat, si

clericos aut monachos in suâ possessione ad Dei militiam rebus

necessariis non sustentabat.” So also Will. Gem. vii. 22. “Unusquisque

optimatum certabat in prædio suo ecclesias fabricare, et monachos qui

pro se Deum rogarent rebus suis locupletare.” Each adds a long list of

the foundations of the time. The expressions “clerici” and “ecclesias

fabricare” would seem to apply to parish churches also. But few parish

churches of so early a date exist in Normandy. The great mass seem to

have been built or rebuilt in the next century.

Footnote 633:

This seems recognized by William of Jumièges (vii. 22). Roger of

Montgomery founded monasteries, “indignans videri in aliquo inferior

suis comparibus.”

Footnote 634:

Ord. Vit. 547 C. “Ego de extremis Merciorum finibus decennis Angligena

huc advectus, barbarusque et ignotus advena callentibus indigenis

admixtus, inspirante Deo Normannorum gesta et eventus Normannis

promere scripto sum conatus.” So 548 A; “De Angliâ in Normanniam

tenellus exsul, ut æterno Regi militarem, destinatus sum.” See also

pp. 579–581. His father Odelerius was a priest of Orleans. Of the

importance of these passages I shall have to speak again.

Footnote 635:

See Orderic 492 B, and Appendix D.

Footnote 636:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. “A Danis igitur qui Normanniam primi obtinuere pater

ejus originem duxit.” So Milo Crispin, Vitæ Abb. Becc. (Giles,

Lanfranc, i. 261), who copies William. Both give the name Ansgotus. I

know not why pedigree-makers (see one quoted by Taylor, Wace 209, and

another in Sir A. Malet’s Wace 269) identify this Ansgod with

“Crispinus of Bec.”

Footnote 637:

See above, p. 205.

Footnote 638:

See vol. i. pp. 191, 192.

Footnote 639:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. “Mater proximam Ducum Morinorum, quos moderni

Flandros cognominant, consanguinitatem attigit.” Milo is satisfied

with the description of “Ducum Flandriæ,” without the flourish about

the Morini. Herlwin may thus have been, in the female line, a

descendant of our Ælfred.

Footnote 640:

Milo, ap. Giles, i. 262. Orderic, 460 B. Herlwin, hard pressed in the

battle, vows that, if he survives, he will serve God only—“nulli

ulteriùs nisi soli Deo militaret.”

Footnote 641:

Milo, i. 264. The Count was seeking the destruction of some neighbour;

“de cujusdam compatriotæ sui damno agens, quod in illius vergebat

perniciem.”

Footnote 642:

Ib. “Continuò abripiuntur omnia sua, nec curat, vastantur quoque

pauperes sui, unde non parvâ sollicitatur curâ.”

Footnote 643:

See the description in Orderic, 574 D et seqq. His words are

remarkable. After describing the marriage or concubinage of the clergy

and even of the Bishops, he goes on (575 A); “Hujusmodi mos inolevit

tempore neophytorum, qui cum Rollone baptizati sunt, et desolatam

regionem non litteris sed armis instructi violenter invaserunt. Deinde

presbyteri de stirpe Dacorum litteris tenuiter edocti parochias

tenebant, et arma ferentes laicalem feudum militari famulatu

defendebant.”

Footnote 644:

Milo, i. 266. “Quidam monachus monachum pugno repercussum avertit, ac

impulsum supinis dentibus demisit ad solum; adhuc enim, ut dictum est,

omnes omnium per Normanniam mores barbari erant.”

Footnote 645:

Milo, i. 266, 267.

Footnote 646:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. Ord. Vit. 549 A. Herbert was Bishop of Lisieux from

1026 to 1050. He began to rebuild the Cathedral, which was finished by

his successor Hugh. No part of their work remains.

Footnote 647:

Milo, i. 264, 265. The release of the lands seems implied in the

foundation of the monastery.

Footnote 648:

Will. Gem. u. s. Milo, i. 265.

Footnote 649:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Ipse non solum operi præsidebat, sed opus ipsum

efficiebat, terram fodiens, fossam efferens, lapides, sabulum,

calcemque humeris comportans, ac ea in parietem ipsemet componens.”

The church of Burneville then, like Cnut’s church on Assandun (see

vol. i. p. 472), was clearly a minster of stone and lime. For a like

example of humility, take Saint Hugh of Lincoln, who worked at the

building of his own cathedral church. (Metrical Life of St. Hugh, ed.

Dimock, p. 32.) Compare the penance imposed on Duke Godfrey for his

sacrilege at Verdun; see above, p. 98. In somewhat the same spirit

Edward the First worked personally in making the ditch at Berwick in

1296. Rishanger, ed. Riley, p. 375.

Footnote 650:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Ab eodem præsule sacerdos ordinatus atque Abbas

constitutus est.” Cf. Milo, i. 267. The last writer seems to make

Herlwin delay his monastic profession till the consecration of the

church, but it seems from William of Jumièges and Orderic (549 A) that

an interval of three years passed between his first profession and his

ordination and benediction as Abbot. Milo himself, though in a

confused way, recognizes an interval of three years.

Footnote 651:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. Milo, i. 265.

Footnote 652:

Milo, i. 268. “Simili se inibi propter Deum servituti nobilis mater

ejus addixit, et concessis Deo prædiis, quæ habebat, ancillæ

fungebatur officio.”

Footnote 653:

Chron. Becc. ap. Giles, i. 194. “Quia campestris et inaquosus est

locus.” On the necessity of wood and water for monks, we have the

witness of Orderic (461 A) in the case of his own house. “Locus iste,”

says William the son of Geroy, “ubi cœpistis ædificare, habitationi

monachorum aptus non est, quia ibi aqua deest et nemus longè est.

Certum est quod absque his duobus elementis monachi esse non possunt.”

The description of Bec in William of Jumièges enlarges on the

advantages of the spot. It is “omni opportunitate humano usui

commodus. Propter densitatem ac rivi recreationem, ferarum illic

multus erat accursus.”

Footnote 654:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Locus, qui à rivo illic mananti Beccus appellatur.”

So Chron. Becc. ap. Giles, i. 194; “Locus qui dicitur Beccus, et ita

vocitatus à rivulo ibi decurrente, qui adhuc hodiernis temporibus

decurrit juxta muros prati.”

Footnote 655:

It must be remembered that Herlwin’s _first_ church at Bec was on a

different site from the existing remains, which represent his _second_

building.

Footnote 656:

Milo, i. 268. “Comes Gilbertus nil usquam eo saltu pretiosius

possidebat.” The only human habitations in the valley were three

mills, in two of which Herlwin had the right of a third part. Partly

by gift, partly by purchase, he obtained possession of the whole

valley. For his own gifts at Burneville and elsewhere, see his Charter

in Neustria Pia, 437.

Footnote 657:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. Milo, i. 269. “Consecratâ, paucis exstructâ annis,

non parvâ ecclesiâ, columnis ex ligneis claustrum construxit.” The

church then was of stone.

Footnote 658:

Milo, i. 270. “Abbas peritus erat in dirimendis caussarum sæcularium

controversiis, prudens in iis quæ ad exteriora pertinent, ... legum

patriæ scientissimus.”

Footnote 659:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. Ord. Vit. 549 A.

Footnote 660:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Gentium transmarinarum summus Pontifex.” Milo, i.

275. “Gentium transmarinarum Apostolicus.” Ib. 272. “Summus antistes

et in ecclesiis transmarinis vices apostolicas gerens.” See vol. i.

pp. 146, 627.

Footnote 661:

Will. Malms. iii. 246. “Omnium gentium benignissimi advenas æquali

secum honore colunt.”

Footnote 662:

Chron. Fontanellense (Saint Wandrille), ap. D’Achery, iii. 286.

Footnote 663:

Orderic’s description of him (519 A) begins, “Hic ex nobili parentelâ

ortus, Papiæ urbis Italiæ civibus, ab annis infantiæ in scholis

liberalium artium studuit, et secularium legum peritiam ad patriæ suæ

morem intentione laicâ fervidus edidicit.” Gervase (X Scriptt. 1652),

from whom we get the names of his parents, says, “natus in urbe

Papiensi civibus egregiis et honestâ conditione; pater ipsius

Hanbaldus, mater Roza vocabatur.” William of Malmesbury (Gest. Pont.

116 _b_) says only, “non adeò abjectâ et obscurâ progenie oriundus

erat.” Milo’s description (i. 281) points to a sort of nobility of the

robe; “Parentes illius, ejusdem urbis cives, magni et honorabiles

habebantur inter suos concives. Nam, ut fertur, pater ejus de ordine

illorum qui jura et leges civitatis asservabant fuit.” Dr. Hook

(Archbishops, ii. 74) refers to his letter to Queen Margaret of

Scotland (Giles, i. 59), in which he calls himself “hominem extraneum,

vilem, ignobilem.” A sort of civic nobility seems to reconcile the

different descriptions.

Footnote 664:

I suppose that a knowledge of Greek is implied in the description

given by William of Jumièges (vi. 9); “Ortus Italiâ quidam vir erat,

quem Latinitas, in antiquum ab eo restituta scientiæ statum, tota

supremum debito cum amore et honore agnoscit, nomine Lanfrancus. Ipsa

quoque in liberalibus studiis gentium magistra Græcia discipulos

illius libenter audiebat, et admirabatur.” The odd expression of

“Latinitas” occurs also in the passage in the Saint Wandrille

Chronicle just referred to. “Potestas secundi Richardi, velut amore

diluculi, in toto Latinitatis orbe serena refulsit.” I suppose it

takes in all nations of Romance speech.

Footnote 665:

See the quotation from Orderic just above, and Dr. Hook’s (ii. 75)

discussion as to his exact position.

Footnote 666:

Ord. Vit. 519 A. “Adolescentulus orator veteranos adversantes in

actionibus caussarum frequenter præcipitavit, torrente facundiâ

appositè dicendo senes superavit. In ipsâ ætate sententias promere

statuit quas gratanter juris periti aut judices aut prætores civitatis

acceptabant.”

Footnote 667:

Milo, i. 282. “In primævâ ætate patre orbatus, quum ei in honorem et

dignitatem succedere _deberet_.” Was Hanbald’s post, whatever it was,

hereditary?

Footnote 668:

Dr. Hook (ii. 76, 80) discusses the question at length. I cannot infer

from the use of the word “exsilium” by Orderic (519 A), that Lanfranc

was driven from Pavia by any political revolution, any more than

Orderic himself, when “tenellus exsul” in Normandy. See above, p. 216.

Footnote 669:

Chron. Becc. i. 195. Hook, ii. 77.

Footnote 670:

The sojourn at Avranches comes from Milo, i. 282. The other accounts

seem to bring him to Bec at once.

Footnote 671:

The Bishoprick of Avranches is now merged in that of Coutances, and

the cathedral is destroyed; Lisieux is also merged in Bayeux, but the

cathedral remains.

Footnote 672:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. “Beccum itaque adiit, quo nullum usquam pauperius

æstimabatur vel abjectius cœnobium.” Ord. Vit. 519 B. “Cœnobiolum

Beccense loci situ et paupertate elegit.” Milo, i. 282, 283. “Locum

adire nolebat, ubi litterati qui eum honori ac reverentiæ haberent....

Rogavit sanè ut vilius et pauperius cœnobium quod in regione nossent

sibi demonstrarent.” Will. Malm. Gest. Pont. 116 _b_. “Multis diu

locis circumspectis, ex omni abbatiarum copiâ Beccum apud Normanniam

potissimùm elegit, paupertate loci et monachorum religione captus.”

Footnote 673:

The legend is found in a simpler form in Milo, i. 282, 283, and in a

fuller shape in the Chronicon Beccense, i. 195, 196, followed by Hook,

i. 81, 82. I do not see the chronological difference spoken of by the

Dean, except that the Chronicler, like most of the other writers,

leaves out the sojourn at Avranches. The two versions are worth

comparing, as illustrating the growth of a legend, which is not the

less plainly a legend because it contains nothing miraculous. The

earlier form is the more consistent with the general story, as it

represents Lanfranc as ignorant of Scripture and divine things. The

meeting between Lanfranc and Herlwin is well conceived and well told.

Footnote 674:

Milo, i. 285.

Footnote 675:

Milo, i. 286. “Lanfrancum Priorem constituit, et quidquid ditioni

monasterii subjacebat, interiùs et exteriùs ipsius curæ commisit.”

Footnote 676:

Ib. 284. “Vir sapiens sciens magis obedientiam Christo debere quam

Donato, dimisit quod bene pronunciaverat, et dixit quod non rectè

dicere jubebatur. Nam producere brevem vel longam corripere syllabam

non capitale noverat crimen; verùm jubenti ex parte Dei non parere

culpam non levem esse sciebat.”

Footnote 677:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. “Accurrunt clerici, Ducum filii [one would like to

know their names], nominatissimi scholarum Latinitatis magistri, laici

potentes, altâ nobilitate viri. Multi pro ipsius amore multas eidem

ecclesiæ terras contulere.”

Footnote 678:

Will. Gem. vi. 9. “Adunatam etenim illic fratrum multitudinem quia

domorum spaciositas jam capere non valebat, et quia situs loci

degentium incolumitati contrarius exsistebat.”

Footnote 679:

William of Jumièges (u. s.) describes the work, and says that “post

triennii completionem, solâ necdum completâ basilicâ,” Lanfranc became

Abbot of Saint Stephen’s. This last appointment did not happen till

1066 (Ord. Vit. 494 B). Did the rebuilding not begin till 1063?

Footnote 680:

I reserve the account of Lanfranc’s connexion with William till I come

to the history of the Duke’s marriage.

Footnote 681:

See above, p. 116.

Footnote 682:

See Hook, ii. 89.

Footnote 683:

Orderic (519 D) describes the work of Lanfranc against Berengar as

“dilucido venustoque stilo libellum, sacris auctoritatibus ponderosum,

et indissolubiliter constantem consequentiis rationum, veræ

intelligentiæ adstructione de Eucharistiâ copiosum, facundo sermone

luculentum, _nec prolixitate tædiosum_.” One could wish that the

excellent Orderic had, in this last respect, imitated the work which

he so much admired.

Footnote 684:

The whole early history of his house is given by Orderic at great

length, 609 et seqq. So also Will. Gem. vii. 23.

Footnote 685:

Ord. 609 C. “Degens adhuc sub laicali habitu vitam instituerat ut

nihil ab his discrepare videretur, quos imperium regulare coercebat.”

His piety however was not wholly after the type of Eadward the

Confessor, for we read (609 D), “conjugem, ut patris nomen haberet,

acceperat.”

Footnote 686:

One legend of Saint Ebrulf (611 C) is the same as the well known story

of Ælfred and his last loaf.

Footnote 687:

Ord. Vit. 623 C. “Olim dum Daci, qui adhuc pagani erant, cum Hastingo

Neustriam vastaverunt, et rursus Rollone cum suis sæviente, plures

ecclesiæ cum urbibus et oppidis desolatæ sunt; nos, suffragante Deo,

in silvestri sterilique rure latuimus, et debacchantium gladios, licèt

in timore nimio et egestate, sospites evasimus.” This must have been

forgotten when it is said in Neustria Pia, p. 90, that Saint Evroul

was ravaged by the Danes.

Footnote 688:

See vol. i. pp. 237, 238. Orderic gives his version of these events in

p. 619. He calls Hugh “Hugo Magnus _Aurelianorum_ Dux,” and Lewis

receives his surname of “Ultramarinus,” which we do not find in

contemporary writers. Most names of the kind were doubtless used in

common discourse during the lifetime of the princes designated by

them, but they did not find their way into written history till later.

Footnote 689:

Ord. Vit. 619 D, 622 D.

Footnote 690:

Ib. 621 B. “Rusticorum pecudes sive supellectilem non curaverunt; sed

_Uticensis hospitii memores_, illuc reversi sunt, et ex insperato cum

suis in cœnobium irruerunt.” Then follow the details of the plunder.

Footnote 691:

Ord Vit. 622 D.

Footnote 692:

Ib. 624 C. This holy man, like Orderic’s own father, was married.

“Uticum perrexit, ibique cum conjuge et Ilberto filio suo primus

habitavit.” (625 A.) He afterwards had a companion named Ingram. (461

A.)

Footnote 693:

Ib. 625 C, D.

Footnote 694:

He is described as “Ernaldi Grossi de Corte Sedaldi Abonii Britonis

filii filius.” (Ord. Vit. 463 A.) He goes on to say that he “ex magnâ

nobilitate Francorum et Britonum processit, mirâque probitate et

audaciâ temporibus Hugonis Magni [clearly a mistake for Hugh Capet] et

Roberti Regum Francorum nobiliter viguit.”

Footnote 695:

Ib. 463 A.

Footnote 696:

Orderic (464 A, B) tells a curious story about these lordships. When

they were granted to Geroy, they were, by what accident does not

appear, not included in the diocese of any Bishop. Geroy’s conscience

was troubled at a state of things so contrary to all ecclesiastical

rule. He accordingly inquired which of the neighbouring Bishops was

the most worthy, and, hearing much of the virtues of Roger, Bishop of

Lisieux (990–1024), he annexed his lands to that diocese. He procured

however certain privileges for the clergy of his lordships, especially

an exemption from the oppressive jurisdiction of the Archdeacons; “Ut

clerici terræ suæ non irent ad placitandum extra potestatem eorum, nec

opprimerentur injustis circumventionibus Archidiaconorum.” He might

well make this stipulation, if the Archdeacons of his time were like

those described by John of Salisbury some generations later (Ep.

clxvi. ap. Giles, i. 260).

In Mr. Stapleton’s map Escalfoy is marked in the diocese of Lisieux,

but Montreuil in that of Seez.

Footnote 697:

William of Jumièges (vii. 11.) makes him receive these lordships from

Duke Richard, “Richardi Ducis, cujus dono in Normanniâ duo municipia

obtinuit,” but it seems from Orderic (463 B) that the ducal grant was

only a confirmation of the will of Helgo; “Liberalis Dux agnitâ

virtute ejus honoravit, eique totam terram Helgonis hæreditario jure

concessit.”

Footnote 698:

Will. Gem. u. s. “Ex his filiorum et nepotum militaris turma propagata

est, quæ barbaris in Angliâ vel Apuliâ seu Trachiâ vel Syriâ nimio

terrori visa est.”

Footnote 699:

Ib. vi. 7.

Footnote 700:

Compare his dealings with Herlwin, above, pp. 217, 218.

Footnote 701:

He held lands of Count Geoffrey of Mantes, who was taken prisoner by

William Talvas, who required the destruction of the castle of

Montacute as his ransom. This castle belonged to William the son of

Geroy, who at once destroyed it to bring about the liberation of his

lord. Ord. Vit.

Footnote 702:

Ord. Vit. 464 A. “Episcopales consuetudines Monasterioli et Escalfoii

fundo habebat, nec ullus Archidiaconorum ibidem presbyteros ejusdem

honoris circumvenire audebat.”

Footnote 703:

See above, p. 185.

Footnote 704:

578 A.

Footnote 705:

According to William of Jumièges (vii. 23), he died at Gaeta on his

return from a mission of some sort (pro quibusdam rationalibus

caussis) to Apulia.

Footnote 706:

Ord. Vit. 461 A. Chron. Becc. i. 195. This is doubtless the grange

which Lanfranc found greatly troubled by rats. His biographer (i. 284,

285) cites it as a proof of his humility that he personally carried a

cat to make war upon them.

Footnote 707:

They were the sons of Robert of Grantmesnil (see above, p. 199) and

Hadwisa, daughter of Geroy (Orderic, 465 B). After Robert’s death

Hadwisa married William, son of Archbishop Robert. Their daughter

Judith, having taken the veil, afterwards married Roger, Count of

Sicily (484 B), but, as a punishment for her sacrilege, remained

childless.

Footnote 708:

See above, p. 220.

Footnote 709:

William of Jumièges (vii. 23) puts into his mouth a long historical

discourse, in which, I am sorry to say, he speaks of Charles the

Simple as “filius Ludovici cognomine Nihil-fecit.”

Footnote 710:

Ord. Vit. 461 C et seqq., 625 D. Will. Gem. vii. 23. He was the only

monk for whom the cruel Mabel had any reverence. Ord. Vit. 470 A.

Footnote 711:

See his character, Ord. Vit. 467 D; his intrigues, 474 C et seqq.; his

election, 477 A. He began a new church, but did not finish it, 480 C.

He also gave to the house (468 B) an illuminated psalter—doubtless of

English work—which the Lady Emma had given to her brother Archbishop

Robert. His son William seemingly stole it from his father, and gave

it to his wife Hadwisa, mother of Robert of Grantmesnil; “de camerâ

patris sui familiariter sustulerat, dilectæque suæ conjugi Hadwisæ

omnimodis placere volens detulerat.” On Abbot Robert see also Will.

Gem. vii. 26.

Footnote 712:

Ord. Vit. 481 B.

Footnote 713:

The whole story is given at some length in Neustria Pia, pp. 104–110.

But remark the expression of William of Jumièges (vii. 23), “multos

labores postea in procuratione servorum Dei perpessus est.” There were

probably two sides to his story, as to most others.

Footnote 714:

Was the Truce of God ever preached, or ever needed, in England? I am

not aware of any mention of it, unless the so-called Laws of Eadward,

c. 2 (Schmid, 492), at all refer to it. See below, p. 238.

Footnote 715:

See above, p. 218.

Footnote 716:

See History of Federal Government, i. 128.

Footnote 717:

The account is in R. Glaber, iv. 5. “Tunc ergo primitùs cœpere in

Aquitaniæ partibus ab Episcopis et Abbatibus, ceterisque viris sacræ

religionis devotis ex universâ plebe, coadunati conciliorum

conventus.” He goes on to give a summary of their legislation; “In

quibus potissimum erat de inviolabili pace conservandâ, ut scilicet

viri utriusque conditionis, cujuscumque antea fuissent rei obnoxii,

absque formidine procederent armis vacui. Prædo namque aut invasor

alterius facultatis, legum districtione arctatus, vel donis facultatum

seu pœnis corporis acerrimè mulctaretur. Locis nihilominùs sacris

omnium ecclesiarum honor et reverentia talis exhiberetur, ut si quis

ad ea cujuscumque culpæ obnoxius confugium faceret, illæsus evaderet,

nisi solummodò ille qui pactum prædictæ pacis violâsset, hic tamen

captus ab altare præstitutam vindictam lueret. Clericis similiter

omnibus, monachis, et sanctimonialibus, ut si quis cum eis per

regionem pergeret nullam vim ab aliquo pateretur.” He adds some more

purely religious provisions about fasting and the like.

Footnote 718:

R. Glaber, iv. 5. “Quibus universi, tanto ardore accensi ut per manus

Episcoporum baculum ad cœlum elevarent, ipsique palmis extensis ad

Deum, Pax, pax, pax, unanimiter clamarent. Ut esset videlicet signum

perpetui pacti de hoc, quod spoponderant inter se et Deum.”

Footnote 719:

R. Glaber, iv. 5. “In hâc tamen ratione ut evoluto quinquennio

confirmandæ pacis gratiâ id ipsum ab universis in orbe fieret mirum in

modum.”

Footnote 720:

Ib. “Dehinc per Arelatensem provinciam atque Lugdunensem, sicque per

universam Burgundiam usque in ultimas Franciæ partes, per universos

episcopatus indictum est qualiter certis in locis à præsulibus

magnatisque totius patriæ de reformandâ pace et sacræ fidei

institutione celebrarentur concilia.” In Martène and Durand’s

Thesaurus, i. 159, is a circular letter on the subject from Ragenbald,

Archbishop of Arles, and other Burgundian Prelates.

Footnote 721:

Rudolf, under the year 1041 (v. 1, Duchèsne, Rer. Franc. Scriptt. iv.

55 A), recurs to the subject; “Contigit verò ipso in tempore,

inspirante divinâ gratiâ, primitùs in partibus Aquitanicis, deinde

paullatim per universum Galliarum territorium firmari pactum propter

timorem Dei pariter et amorem. Taliter ut nemo mortalium, à feriæ

quartæ vespere usque ad secundam feriam incipiente luce, ausu

temerario præsumeret quippiam alicui hominum per vim auferre, neque

ultionis vindictam à quocumque inimico exigere, nec etiam à

fideijussore vadimonium sumere. Quod si ab aliquo fieri contigisset

contra hoc decretum publicum, aut de vitâ componeret aut à

Christianorum consortio expulsus patriâ pelleretur. Hoc insuper

placuit universis, veluti vulgò dicitur, ut Treuga Domini vocaretur.”

I conceive this relaxation to mark a change from the _Pax Dei_ to the

_Treuga Dei_. See Ducange in _Treuga_, and Palgrave, iii. 201.

Something must be allowed to the inherent confusion of Rudolf’s way of

expressing himself.

Footnote 722:

Hugo Flav. Chron. ap. Pertz, viii. 403.

Footnote 723:

Gest. Epp. Cam. ap. Pertz, vii. 474, 485. Gerard’s objections are

given at great length, and are well worth studying, as a setting forth

of the _Regale_ and _Pontificale_. Some of the French Bishops seemed

to have ventured on a pious fraud; “Unus eorum cœlitùs sibi delatas

dixit esse literas, quæ pacem monerent renovandam in terra.” The

chronicler of Cambray quite approves the opposition of the local

Prelate; “Alia quoque importabilia quamplurima dederunt mandata, quæ

oneri visa sunt replicare. Hâc novitate pulsatus mandati præsul

noster, infirmitatique peccantium condescendens, secundùm decreta

sanctorum patrum ad singula suum formavit eloquium.”

Footnote 724:

Hugo Flav. ap. Pertz, viii. 403. “Quam quum noluisset recipere gens

Neustriæ, viro Dei Richardo prædicante, et ut eam susciperent, quia

voluntas Domini erat, et à Deo non ab homine decretum, hoc

processerat, admonente divino judicio cœpit in eos desævire ignis qui

eos torquebat; eo anno ferè totus orbis [was the whole world plagued

for the sins of Normandy?] penuriam passus est pro raritate vini et

tritici. Sequuta est è vestigio mortalitas hominibus præmaxima ab inc.

Dom. 1042.” This passage is made up out of R. Glaber (u. s.), where

however Richard is not mentioned.

Footnote 725:

Hugo Flav. u. s.

Footnote 726:

The decree of the synod of Caen is given at length in the Concilia

Rotomagensis Provinciæ, p. 39. The Fathers are stringent against

“caballicationes et hostilitates.” The main decree runs, “In pace quæ

vulgò dicitur Trevia Dei, et quæ die Mercurii sole occidente incipit,

et die Lunæ sole nascente finit, hæc quæ dicam vobis promptissimâ

mente dehinc inantea debetis observare. Nullus homo nec femina hominem

aut feminam usquam assaliat, nec vulneret, nec occidat, nec castellum,

nec burgum, nec villam in hoc spatio quatuor dierum et quinque noctium

assaliat nec deprædetur nec capiat, nec ardeat ullo ingenio aut

violentiâ aut aliquâ fraude.” See Roman de Rou, 10485 et seqq. The

church of Sainte Paix at Caen was built to commemorate the event, but

Prevost (note to Roman de Rou, ii. 99) places its building in 1061.

Footnote 727:

Will. Pict. 113 (Giles). “Sanctissimè in Normanniâ observabatur

sacramentum pacis quam Treviam vocant, quod effrænis regionum aliarum

iniquitas frequenter temerat.”

Footnote 728:

Ord. Vit. 552 A. It was confirmed again for Christendom generally at

the Council of Clermont in 1095. Will. Malms. iii. 345.

Footnote 729:

Will. Pict. 80 (Giles). “Hujus vesaniæ signifer prosiluit Guido.”

Will. Malms. iii. 230. “Sator discordiarum erat Guido quidam.”

Footnote 730:

Will. Pict. u. s. “A puerilibus annis cum ipso familiariter nutritus.”

Will. Gem. vii. 17. “Crudelem convivam ... qui cum eo à puerilibus

annis educatus fuerat.” Will. Malms. u. s. “Convictus familiaritatem,

familiaritas amicitias, paraverat.” So Roman de Rou, 8758 et seqq.

Footnote 731:

See above, p. 194

Footnote 732:

See vol. i. p. 404.

Footnote 733:

William, in his autobiography in Orderic (657 A), is made to say,

“Ille [Guido] verò verbis et actibus mihi derogavit, me nothum

degeneremque et principatu indignum detestatus judicavit et hostiliter

diffamavit.” Roman de Rou, 8770;

“De Willeame aveit grant envie,

Ki sor li aveit seignorie,

Cumenca sei à corucier,

Et Normendie à chalengier;

Reprovout li sa batardie.”

So again, 8782;

“N’i a, dist il, plus proçain eir,

Ki Normendie deie aveir:

Pere sa mere fu Richart,

D’espuse esteit, n’ert pas bastart.”

Footnote 734:

Roman de Rou, 8786;

“E ki li voldreit fere dreit,

Normendie li apendreit,

E se meintenir le voleient

Ensemle od li le partireient.”

So Will. Pict. 80. “Sed aut principatum aut maximam portionem

Normanniæ ambiebat.”

Footnote 735:

Roman de Rou, 8896 et seqq.

Footnote 736:

See vol. i. p. 199.

Footnote 737:

See vol. i. p. 216.

Footnote 738:

Both Neals bear the title of Viscount of the Côtentin, but others also

bore it in their lifetime. See Delisle, Histoire du Château et des

Sires de Saint-Sauveur-le-Vicomte (Valognes, 1867), p. 23. The

collection of Charters in this work is most valuable.

Footnote 739:

See vol. i. p. 330. The three chief conspirators, Neal, Randolf, and

Hamon, are mentioned in various accounts. Will. Pict. 80. Will. Malms.

iii. 230. Roman de Rou, 8748, 8778. William of Jumièges (vii. 17)

speaks of Guy and Neal (“Nigellus Constantiensis præses”) only.

Footnote 740:

In 1040 or 1042. Delisle, p. 3.

Footnote 741:

The Abbey was founded by Neal himself in the next year, 1048,

according to Neustria Pia, 540. Cotman, Antiquities of Normandy, i. 9.

But what seems to be Neal’s foundation charter in Delisle (Preuves, p.

42; cf. 55, 59) is placed by him in 1080.

Footnote 742:

See vol. i. p. 243, for Harold Blaatand’s occupation of Cherbourg. I

cannot however believe that _Cherbourg_ is really “Cæsaris burgus.” Is

it not rather the same word as _Scarborough_?

Footnote 743:

This very curious fact comes out in a Charter of the Abbey of the Holy

Trinity at Caen, printed by Mr. Stapleton in the Archæologia, xxvi.

355. “Adeliza, Ricardi Comitis filia, Ricardi Comitis soror, contra

eumdem prædictum fratrem suum, scilicet Robertum Comitem, castrum quid

dicitur Hulme in Constantino situm cum omnibus ibidem pertinentibus

mercata est. Quod postea Guido filius suus, injustè sibi auferens,

dedit illud Nigello Vice-comiti.” See also Stapleton, Roll of

Exchequer, ii. xxix. The charter bears date in 1075, when Adeliza was

still living.

Footnote 744:

Roman de Rou, 8938.

Footnote 745:

Ib. 9182;

“Dan As Dens esteit un Normant

De fié è d’homes bien poissant,

Sire esteit de Thorignie

E de Mezi è de Croillie.”

On Creuilly church and castle, see Cotman, ii. 91. De Caumont, i. 320.

Footnote 746:

William of Malmesbury introduces him (ii. 230) as “Haimo Dentatus [Dan

As Dens], avus Roberti quo nostro tempore in Angliâ multarum

possessionum incubator exstitit.” Robert died of a wound received at

Tinchebrai, 1106 (Will. Malms. v. 398), and his daughter Mabel married

the famous Robert Earl of Gloucester (Hist. Nov. i. 3).

Footnote 747:

Benoît, 32, 742;

“Per cel Rannol de Beiesin,

E par Neel de Costentin,

E par Hamun _uns Antecriz_.”

The expression is very strange, but it is so taken by M. Le Cointe

(see Appendix O), and I see not what else it can mean.

Footnote 748:

Taylor’s Wace, 11. Castle Rising is eminently the castle of dowager

Queens, the earlier parts having been built for Adeliza, and the later

for Isabella, mother of Edward the Third.

Footnote 749:

Roman de Rou, 8796;

“Issi unt lur chastels garniz

Fossez parcéz, dreciéz paliz.”

Footnote 750:

See above, p. 197.

Footnote 751:

See Roman de Rou, 9347 et seqq. For the present story see vv.

8800–8895, and Palgrave, iii. 212.

Footnote 752:

Roman de Rou, 8803. “Par li boiz chacié et bersé.” “Berser” is

explained (Roquefort, Glossaire de la Langue Romaine) by “tirer de

l’arc.” On William’s skill with the bow, see Will. Malms. iii. 279.

Footnote 753:

See above, p. 197.

Footnote 754:

On the church of Rye, parts of which may be as old as this time, see

De Caumont, iii. 572.

Footnote 755:

Roman de Rou, 8846;

“Hubert de Rie ert à sa porte,

Entre li mostier et sa mote,

Guillame vit désaturné

E sun cheval tuit tressué.”

Hubert seems to have been an early riser and a good church-goer. The

“mote” is the mound or “agger” (see above, p. 191), whence the name is

sometimes transferred to the castle itself. Thus we find in the Gesta

Com. Andeg. (D’Achery, iii. 257), “Domum munitissimam quæ usque hodie

‘Mota Fulcoii’ a vulgo vocatur.”

Footnote 756:

Ib. 8860 et seqq. I see no reason to doubt the general truth of the

story, but there is a passage in the sequel which sounds mythical.

William’s pursuers presently ask Hubert which way the Bastard is gone,

and he puts them on a wrong scent (vv. 8874). This story is as old as

the babyhood of Hermês.

Footnote 757:

On Eudes see Ellis, Introduction to Domesday, i. 415. Orderic (489 C)

calls him “Normannici Ducis dapiferum, qui in pago Constantino

divitiis et potestate inter Normanniæ proceres eminebat.” The good

character of Eudes comes from the Colchester History of the

Monasticon, iv. 607, which I shall have to refer to again. He married

Roberia, daughter of Richard son of Count Gilbert (Ib. 608).

Footnote 758:

We learn the place of meeting from Orderic (372 A); “Unde coactus

juvenis Dux Pexeium convolavit, ibique pronus ad pedes Henrici Regis

corruit, et ab eo contra malefidos proceres et cognatos auxilium

petivit.” So Roman de Rou, 8942;

“Par pleintes ke Willame fist,

E par paroles ke il dist,

Fist li Reis asembler son ost.”

Other writers are less eager to set forth William’s humiliation.

William of Jumièges (vii. 17) says, “Necessitate coactus Henricum

Francorum Regem expetiit pro subveniendi obtentu.” The Brevis Relatio

(ap. Giles, Scriptt. 3) says simply, “Contulit se ad Regem Franciæ.”

William of Poitiers (81) slurs over William’s application to the King,

and takes no further notice of Henry’s share in the campaign, beyond

adding, after his account of the battle, “Interfuit huic prœlio

Franciæ Rex Henricus, victrici caussæ auxilians.”

Footnote 759:

The original writers of course do not greatly trouble themselves about

the seeming inconsistency of Henry’s conduct. There is perhaps a

slight touch of sarcasm in the words of William of Jumièges (vii. 17),

“_Tunc tandem Rex memor beneficii_ quod a patre ejus sibi quondam

impensum fuerat, vires Francorum simul coëgit.” So William of

Malmesbury knows no motive but pure gratitude (iii. 230); “Necessitas

Regem tutorem excivit ut desperatis partibus pupilli succurreret.

Itaque paternæ benevolentiæ recordatus, quod eum favore suo in regnum

sublimaverat, apud Walesdunas in defectores irruit.” We then find

ourselves in the thick of the battle. Orderic (372 A) seems to make it

an act of simple magnanimity on the King’s part; “At ille [Henricus],

ut erat clemens, desolato adolescenti compatiens, robur exercitûs

Francorum excivit, et in Neustriam Duci auxiliaturus perrexit.”

William, or Orderic, in the death-bed summary (657 E), leaves out the

French aid altogether; “Tunc auxiliante Deo, qui justus judex est,

inter Cadomum et Argentias hostes vici.”

Footnote 760:

Roman de Rou, 8997. “La s’asemblerent li cumunes.” For the list of the

districts which helped William see vv. 8946 et seqq.

Footnote 761:

See Appendix O.

Footnote 762:

My account of the field and battle of Val-ès-dunes is drawn from an

examination made on the spot in May, 1867. In company with Mr. J. R.

Green, I went over the whole ground, Wace in hand. No modern

description can do more than amplify Wace’s few topographical touches

(Roman de Rou, 8978 et seqq.), and his minute and spirited account of

the battle. Every detail shows in how thoroughly honest and careful a

spirit he set to work. On the topography, see De Caumont, Statistique

Monumental du Calvados, ii. 84 et seqq., and Appendix O.

Footnote 763:

I should greatly like to come across some explanation of this puzzling

name (see De Caumont, i. 53). Nothing is more likely than a Teutonic

colony anywhere in these parts, but such a colony would hardly be

called Allemannia. The name is ancient, as it occurs in William’s

foundation charter of Saint Stephen’s. See Neustria Pia, 626. The copy

there is not very accurate, as I can witness from having (for once)

examined an original manuscript.

Footnote 764:

Roman de Rou, 8986;

“Maiz encuntre soleil levant

Se funt la terre en avalant.”

Footnote 765:

Ib. 8982;

“Li plaines sunt lunges è lées,

N’i a granz monz ne granz vallées.”

Footnote 766:

Ib. 8988:

“Une riviere l’avirone,

Deverz midi è devers none.”

Footnote 767:

Roman de Rou, 8990;

“A Saint-Briçun de Valmerei

Fu la messe chanteé el Rei,

Li jor ke la bataille fu;

Grant poor i unt li cler éu.”

Footnote 768:

Ib. 9001.

Footnote 769:

Ib. 9004;

“La gent Willame fu à destre,

E Franceiz furent à senestre;

Verz ocident tornent lor vis,

Quer là sourent les anemis.”

Footnote 770:

Benoît, 33490;

“Or fait son estandart drecier,

La fu l’eigle d’or qui resplent.”

Footnote 771:

Roman de Rou, 9020;

“En sa main chescun un baston.”

Footnote 772:

Roman de Rou, 9012;

“Set vingz chevaliers out od sei

Tant dut aveir en sun cunrei,

Tuit aloent lances levées,

Et en totes guimples fermeés.”

Footnote 773:

Ib. 9042;

“Cil lor aveit ainz asseuré,

Et à Baex sor sainz juré,

Ke Guillame sempres ferreit

En kel lieu il le trovereit.”

One might wish that another oath on the saints at Bayeux could have

found as easy and convenient fulfilment.

Footnote 774:

Ib. 9050;

“Guillame est son natural sire,

Et il sis homs ne puet desdire,

Pensa ke il li fist homage

Véant sun pere et sun barnage;

N’a dreit el fié ne à l’onor,

Ki se cumbat à son seignor.”

The feudal scruple is stronger in the minds of the inferior tenants, a

point worth noticing, whether the tale be trustworthy in detail or

not. This agrees with Wace’s former statement that, even in the

revolted provinces, the popular feeling was on William’s side. The

poor gentleman might need the protection of the common sovereign no

less than the peasant.

Footnote 775:

I wish I could believe, with Thierry (i. 150) and Pluquet (Wace, ii.

32, 528), that this war-cry was an invocation of Thor, “Thor aie,” as

opposed to the “Dex aie” of the French Normans. But I fear we must see

in it nothing more profound or venerable than the lordship of Thury.

See Prevost, Wace, p. 528, and Taylor, 21. Palgrave, iii. 216.

Footnote 776:

Examples of entrapping men to destruction by the literal fulfilment of

an oath are common enough. This opposite case may be compared with

Aurelian’s way of discharging his oath when besieging Thyana; “Canem

in hoc oppido non relinquam.” The city was taken, and the Emperor slew

all the dogs. Vopiscus, Aurelian, 22, 23 (Hist. Aug. ii. 472).

Footnote 777:

Arrian, vi. 11. 9. Ἀλλὰ πρὸς Γρανίκῳ μὲν ξυνέβη μαχὴ ἱππική. iv. 8.

11. ἡ ἱππομαχία ἡ ἐπὶ Γρανίκῳ.

Footnote 778:

Roman de Rou, 9074;

“Willame va par la campaigne;

Des Normanz meine grant compaigne,

Li dui Viscuntes vait quérant,

E li perjures demandant.”

Footnote 779:

Ib. 9094;

“Cil de France crient, _Montjoie_;

Ceo lor est bel ke l’en les oie;

Willame cri, _Dex aie_;

C’est l’enseigne de Normendie.”

Footnote 780:

See Taylor, 22.

Footnote 781:

See vol. i. p. 244. Wace seems rather to delight in opposing his own

province to the French. 9108;

“El Rei de France et as Franceiz

Si vint ensemb Costentineiz.”

So 9128;

“Constentineiz è Franceiz sunt

Li uns as altres contrestunt.”

Footnote 782:

Roman de Rou, 9144;

“De ço distrent li païsant,

E dient encore en gabant:

_De Costentin iessi la lance

Ki abati le Rei de France_.”

I have found the rhyme remembered in a Norman cottage, close by the

field of Val-ès-dunes.

Footnote 783:

See vol. i. p. 425. But William’s overthrow was real, though his death

was imaginary; in the case of Eadmund all was an invention of Eadric.

But the effect on the army would be the same in all three cases.

Footnote 784:

The narrative in the Roman de Rou (9134–9207) clearly implies that

Henry was overthrown twice, first by a nameless knight of the

Côtentin, secondly by Hamon himself. At the same time there certainly

is, as Mr. Taylor (p. 25) says, a certain confusion in the way of

telling the story, and one might be tempted to believe that the one

overthrow was a mere repetition of the other. But each story seems to

receive a certain amount of corroborative evidence. The first

overthrow is supported by the Côtentin rhyme, the second by the

independent testimony of William of Malmesbury (iii. 230); “Haimo in

acie cæsus, cujus insignis violentia laudatur, quod ipsum Regem equo

dejecerit; quare a concurrentibus stipatoribus interemtus.”

Footnote 785:

Roman de Rou, 9199. “Mez sor l’escu fu mort levé.”

Footnote 786:

Will. Malms. u. s. “Pro fortitudinis miraculo Regis jussu tumulatus

est egregiè.” Wace (9200) mentions the place. He is buried “devant

l’iglise,” seemingly not _in_ the church.

Footnote 787:

Roman de Rou, 9258;

“Néel se cumbati cum pros;

Si tiex les trovast li Reis tos,

Mar i fussent Franceiz venuz,

Descunfiz fussent è veincuz.”

So again, 9280;

“Mais ço sai ke li Reis veinki.”

Footnote 788:

Ib. 9173;

“E Franceiz Normanz envaïr,

E Normanz torner è guenchir.

So 9266;

“Franceiz de tutes parz espeissent,

Normanz décheient è décreissent.”

We must remember that all the local feelings of Wace, a native of

Jersey and Canon of Bayeux, would be on the side of the rebels,

however much they might be balanced by loyalty to the memory of the

great William.

Footnote 789:

Benoît, 33, 660;

“Hardrez uns chevalier hardiz,

De Baiues nez e norriz,

Preissiez d’armes e concuz.”

Footnote 790:

The anatomical precision of Wace (9222) is quite in the style of the

Iliad;

“Willame verz li s’eslessa,

Un glaive tint, bien l’avisa;

Parmi li cors lez le menton,

Entre la gorge et le gotron,

Li fist passer le fer trenchant;

Ne li pout rien aveir garant,

Willame empoint è cil chaï,

Li cors envers, l’alme en issi.”

These are spirited lines; so is the whole description of the battle;

yet how feebly does the Romance of Gaul, even in this its earliest and

most vigorous shape, sound beside the native ring of the Ludwigslied

and the Song of Maldon.

Footnote 791:

Roman de Rou, 9249. “La bataille mult li desplait.”

I suppose this means something more than mere sorrow at ill success;

it seems to imply the loss of the “certaminis gaudia,” which he had

doubtless enjoyed in the opening charge of the battle. Through the

whole of this paragraph I do little more than translate the life-like

description of Wace.

Footnote 792:

Roman de Rou, 9254;

“Lessa la lance è puiz l’escu,

Fuiant s’en vait, _col estendu_.”

Footnote 793:

Ib. 9288. “En Béessin volent torner.”

Footnote 794:

Roman de Rou, 9295–8. The Orne plays an important part in the

destruction of the rebels in most of the accounts. Will. Pict. 81.

“Absorbuit non paucos fluvius Olna equites cum equis.” Will. Gem. vii.

17. “Rex cum Duce ... tantâ eos illicò strage delevit, ut quos gladius

non extinxit, Deo formidinem inferente, fugientes fluvius Olnæ

absorberet.” Will. Malms. iii. 230. “Multi fluminis Olnæ rapacitate

intercepti, quod, in arcto locati, equos ad transvadandos vortices

instimularent.”

Footnote 795:

Ord. Vit. 657 B. “Guidonem vulneratum et de bello fugâ elapsum.”

Footnote 796:

The only writer, I think, who introduces Guy personally in his account

of the war is William of Malmesbury (u. s.); “Cum his per totam

Normanniam grassabatur prædo improbissimus, inani spe ad comitatum

illectus.”